taks

i should add, can you guys believe it, 5 years almost. february 2004. wow. taks

actually, no. their cultural beliefs are too deeply held, and not exactly universal enough to be force fed on everyone. they probably would have had to exterminate everyone to colonize the world. just an opinion, however, as i really don't know. i think, too, back in the days when colonization was going on, we of the caucasian ilk were much more expansionist than the rest, i.e., we were the only ones that really wanted to colonize the world. not so much because we were caucasian, just because that's how our cultures evolved, by taking over everyone else. as has great britain, australia and numerous other countries. we know this. we aren't stupid. accusing the likes of GD and i of not knowing this, acting as if we have blinders on thinking "the rest of the world is against the US" is disingenuous at best. i shouldn't have to define Eurosnobs every time i use it (that's part of the reason i put the little trademark notation in there to point out that i'm making a generalization in order to avoid having to type out a lengthy explanation every freaking time). context, rosbjerg, context. certainly it is understandable when someone new drops in, that they won't get the context... but c'mon, i've been posting with this crew for probably 9 years now, nearly 5 in this forum alone. taks

well, saddam did technically get tried by his own people. if you lose a war badly enough that you have to surrender to the other guy, you're going to have to suffer the consequences dictated by the other guy. if the they likewise did morally reprehensible things as the nazis did (hardly anything can equate), you can expect those consequences to ultimately be bad for the people that made the decisions. taks

we actually have some peanut butter/chocolate chip things going on at the house right now. oddly enough, they are little caesar's (you know, "pizza pizza!") pre made cookies. all ya gotta do is bake 'em. taste quite good, too. taks

candied yams. my favorite, but like turkey, not something i eat much of except during holidays. my aunt gave me a killer recipe for a sort of casserole that probably packs a few thousand calories per square inch. taks

oh give me a break. i've made my positions regarding the "rest of the world" beyond clear. i've always couched them in terms relating to those that are hypocritically condemning the US telling us how to live. you either haven't been paying attention or just don't care, but that is the truth. it is akin to a strawman to think i really mean every single person that does not live in the US... rather than calling my positions "ignorant outbursts, childish accusations and obvious hostility" why don't you take a long hard look at whom i reply to and why. do yourself a favor and search for the intellectually honest approach. exactly, everyone, including me, is entitled to his own opinion yet here YOU sit in judgment calling me childish. not one of my opinions, btw, calls for my or any government forcing an opinion or behavior on its people. i am, apparently you can't see it or don't understand it. and those that aren't are the ones GD and i speak out against. taks

well, that would be solved if we got rid of government services, at least at the national level. the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses are the two most abused historically. did you mean to say it is easier to escape scrutiny at the local level, i.e., it's easier for corrupt officials to get away with things locally than nationally? taks

actually, i think mainstream public opinion would be in favor of abiding by the Constitution more than we do. mainstream media opinion, however... well, congress did sort of give away its mandated powers through the war powers act. a travesty indeed. however, in the case of iraq, whether they want to admit it or not, the excuse of "i didn't really think he'd go in" is hardly legitimate. they gave their approval. morons in hindsight, obviously, but what we know now ain't what we knew then, either. taks

borderline treasonous, but what can i say coming from a US citizen that fled to Kanada. oh well. i think it's safe to say that you completely miss the point with this strawman. our citizens commit crimes in another country, they are subject to that country's laws. "international law" is a different situation. then get the hypocritical rest of the world to stop pretending we are. taks

there's a difference between questioning/changing our government and changing the Constitution. much of what our government does, domestically and abroad, is not Constitutional anyway. perhaps we simply need to abide by the document rather than paying it lip service? taks

my point, actually. and treaties are US law, not international law. personally, i favor this version of hypocrisy to the one in which countries sign up, but ultimately refuse to follow such authority. the US hardly has a bad human rights record compared to the rest of the world, either. misguided, but so was the rest of the world. the difference is that the rest of the world wanted us to continue to appease. ultimately, i think we would have been better off just telling the rest of the world to deal with iraq. suffer the consequences. taks

nonsense. complete and utter nonsense. we do exactly what we need to do to protect our interests. the world cries to us whenever they perceive their interests as being slighted, then in an about face, refuses to acknowledge when our interests are being slighted. the world is complicit with US actions, yet gets to sit by with their noses in the air condemning us for doing what we do. that's about the best definition of hypocrisy one can ever hope to offer. taks

'scuse me? sorry, but as soon as saddam violated treaty he signed, he gave up his right to sovereignty. sorry, but it was written as a timeless document, rightfully so. you sir, are a disgrace if you think something "more with the times" is a good idea. shame on you. ^morgoth: i'm not sure what the geneva convention or human rights has to do with bush. perhaps you meant something else, or do you just not understand the argument? either way, those are signed treaties, but in no way offer up the ability of any court outside of the US to deal with our own people. i couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks about us, either. they can suck on their **** envy all they want, ain't gonna change things. taks

oh for god's sake (expression) rosbjerg, please don't try to argue that stevethaibinh's ideology (edit: regarding bush) is not held by at least a majority of the world's population. c'mon man. even in here you got US natives that think that way. taks

um, killian, you of all people should understand the Constitution of the US and a little thing known as sovereignty. we, including our government, cannot give away our authority over ourselves without changing that little document. that you would make such a comment is a shameful slap in the face of education in the US. that the Eurosnobs and others think otherwise: boohoo. go cry on someone's should that gives a damn. we don't answer to you or anyone else, nor will we as long as the US Constitution rules our land. your envy becomes pathetically obvious every time you think one of our people should be subject to your ideological beliefs. ^kelverin: agreed. what on earth was his security detail doing while this joker was taking off his shoes? taks

good thing we don't have to listen to your ideological nonsense, nor the whines of the rest of the world that thinks we are subject to international law. taks

untraceable with diane lane. unremarkable though a good idea. deep evil, i think, was the name of the flick i watched saturday. some stupid movie on tmcwhd. gawdawful bad. sci-fi channel movies are better than this was. not sure why we stuck it out to the end other than being too lazy to lean over and get the remove. almost watched that stupid dungeon siege movie last night but realized after one stupid scene that although being chock full of stars including jason statham (whom i otherwise like), it was obviously directed by uwe boll. sorry, not my cup of stupid tea. i credit my quick revelation to saving a few hours of my life that i would have otherwise lost forever. phew! taks

nick thinks therefore llyr am? taks

someone once said nick is the saner of the two. if they are indeed the same person, such a statement doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. taks

a bigger problem with the media, IMO, is not lying but lack of qualification. most journalists do not have the requisite background to follow-up on the areas they cover. btw, it is easy to find circumstantial links between just about anybody with power. the pool of powerful people in this country is small, very small. john kerry, for example, is also a bonesman. if one wanted to find a link between him and JFK, it probably wouldn't be too difficult. the kennedy family is hardly devoid of shady dealings, either. taks

-4 F when i dropped my son off at school this morning. it wasn't even this cold on the mountain yesterday (powdery goodness at copper mountain). well, it was probably this cold, if not colder, at the top of the lifts up around 12,000 feet. taks

nick still posts on occasion. the connection between nick and llyranor, however, has become even stranger in my mind. happy bday nick. taks

i've been around when people were getting laid off, but never when "the end is nigh, find another job" as you are going through. the first company (uh, that experienced layoffs), a dot-com, went through 3 rounds before it got to me. they did it professionally and sent us ALL home while the people getting laid off were being informed, and we were off for the day. the second company, run by a bunch of retards, did the layoffs one by one so everyone was walking by and saying goodbye. it was sickening and horribly wrong. one guy, a good friend, was hiding in the building trying to delay the inevitable, just to be a pain. we that did not get the axe helped him for spite (to the company). not a surprise that this classless operations is now no longer (not in CO at least). part of the reason i have all these advanced degrees. got the masters because nobody was hiring in 1990/1991. got the phd because it put me into an extremely rare labor pool that consists of more jobs than people to fill them, and probably always will. taks

my opinion would be BOTH! hadn't thought about the transistor state saving idea. inter-meshed cache with the processing logic would be killer by itself, wouldn't you think? yes, they are much more inefficient. however, they are also much more general purpose. FPGAs are somewhat rigid in that there are blocks of processing resources, such as a lookup table, multiplier (18 bits by 18 bits), accumulator and all associated logic, aligned in an array. you can connect these things to do specific functions, lots of them on lots of data all at once rather efficiently. however, they are not easily changed to do other things, without implementing things in an inefficient manner (and you'd then lose the benefit). the chip i'm using is generally a 20 W part at most and probably capable of burning several hundred GFLOPS within that limit. actually, that's one of the beauties of this idea. the article simply says that the read voltage is tiny and doesn't effect the state. however, my take is that the "read" voltage only needs to be smaller than the voltage to set it to prevent it from changing states. this does bring up a really good question: how do you adjust the state up and down? i'll have to dig into it. maybe you just reset and reprogram? if it's fast enough, who cares, right? obviously there's more to the story than is apparent right now. taks

i took it to mean The Doctor from Dr. Who. i should add that i have the first 2 direct2dvd movies (bender's big score, the beast with a billion backs) and the third (bender's game) is on its way from amazon. we won't watch it till xmas night, however, as it is part of john's big movie/ps3 game package gift. i first saw the guy that plays michael westen from burn notice on the last or next to last season of crossing jordan. not a bad show with some fair characters. we mostly watched it because of the independent, empowered woman aspect for my wife. anyway, he was good in that role, too. taks