taks

while i don't share the same adoration for shia lebouf (what the heck kind of name is that???) i did rather enjoy disturbia. some silliness, IMO, but overall it was a good suspense flick. mind, i do like shia, he's just not one of my favs. taks

it's on USA Network... so if you get monk, psych and the closer, then yes. if not, then probably not. the new episode last night was quite good, IMO. both my wife and i could swear we knew the voice of "carla," and were both totally amazed at what she looked like, i.e., she wasn't who we thought she would be. taks

that would be ga-ame and da-ay, right? taks

i would defend both my beer and my wench, too. well, the wench only if i had been experiencing the "drought" referred to earlier. taks

depends upon a variety of factors. however, in general, if married, yes, nearly always. if single, only when there is a drought between dates. taks

the sister on the show is hot, to boot. taks

btw, the new show in plain sight is pretty good, too. taks

i can't wait. that show is awesome. taks

i can't wait to see them myself. apparently there is one picture of me escaping the rio grande, though he didn't catch me actually falling. my feet were numb by the time i got out, then i had to go back across, and re-thaw a second time. took 20 minutes or so to recover. the interesting thing was that the solution to the wounds on my feet (i tore a chunk out of my left heel and got a blood blister on my right big toe) was duct tape. yup, the silver stuff. cover the wounds with a bandage or gauze first, then duct tape over the whole thing with enough that it won't bunch up while hiking. prevents any further damage from existing wounds and it's also useful to prevent hot-spots from turning into blisters. oddly, hiking with wet boots was not an issue. once i got going, i didn't even notice (i was wearing wool socks, btw). oh, many of the trails in that region were closed off to horse traffic due to high levels of snow. there was at least some snow all the way down to about 10000 feet. we almost witnessed a few horses bite it on a creek crossing that was covered with enough snow that the horses had to go around and walk a real narrow trail. it was raining (plus lightning) and they were spooked. once a horse gets spooked it's difficult to calm it, and the likelihood of a crippling accident increases dramatically. the biggest let-down of the whole trip was that there was very little in the way of wild-life running around. almost nothing, in fact, save a single elk off in the distance once. this in spite of the fact that the area was devoid of other campers. taks

this past weekend i hiked nearly 30 miles through the san juan mountains near the rio grande resevoir. 4 days, climbing up the ute creek trail, across the continental divide trail, down rincon la vaca, through weminuche pass and back down to the rio grande. i began the trip (on the 4th) by falling into the rio grande above the resevoir nearly drowning in the process. we had to cross it to begin the trip and the water was over 3 feet high and raging. next time i bring trek poles. we finished the trip monday and i was exhausted. one of the highlights was camping at over 12000 feet (above the treeline) on the divide saturday night in a lightning storm. the next morning we had an 800 foot climb up to what is known as "the window" next to the rio grande pyramid. i'll post pictures when they arrive (the guy with the camera is still at 30-mile campground with his family). taks

28 since makeup, actually. i got to be a farmer's wife once for halloween when i was 11, hehe. my buddy was the farmer. i towered over him, too. taks

heck, i can't even remember the last time i wore cologne. not even for my wedding. not surprisingly, that was also the last (and only) time i recall my wife wearing makeup. 9 years ago in september for her, probably 20 years or more for me. i do shower daily and wear deodorant, however. i haven't done it yet but i get to get the oil in my car changed tonight and buy a bunch of backpacking food for this weekend. the yearly 4th of july trip to 30-mile campground commences tomorrow morning. friday morning we head up lost trail into weminuche pass. over the course of the past few months i've been slowly acquiring gear, including a new backpack, tent, and assorted miscellaneous stuff. good thing i got rain gear, too, since it's supposed to be a bit rainy this weekend. well, at least in creede it was supposed to rain, and we'll be in the mountains 30 miles from creede. oh, btw, i should mention... it has been nearly 6 weeks (friday will be 6 weeks) since i smoked a cigarette. not too difficult to do when taking anti-depressants for anxiety. cravings are quite minimal. i'm not gaining weight as far as i can tell, either. taks

it's gonna have to for me. i just don't care to use guns and there's no way i can hunt. air rifles are fun, however. a friend of mine just got back from a dove hunting trip in bolivia. he fired his gun over 10000 times just in 4 days. taks

never fired a gun in my life, nor do i ever expect to. taks

yup... i'm already thinking about OFDM, btw, to adapt the work i did on my dissertation (which was all CDMA). the high-speed wireless thing is probably the key to getting to the "singularity" that kurzweil and others are thinking is on the horizon. taks

ya had me up till here... and lost me. but then ya got me back. taks

btw, when someone makes the correlation equals causation argument, it is an effective counter-argument to state that correlation is not equal to causation, something else you don't understand. the onus is on the original poster, or you in this case since you're defending such things, to prove said correlation is equal to causation. granted, doing so is difficult since it is not really testable other than through observation of various cultures. however, in this case, a simple counter example suffices to disprove the original argument, e.g., canada. oops. taks

i agree that if a manufacturer is selling guns to a dealer he knows is doing something criminal, said manufacturer has assumed at least some culpability. same goes for the dealer committing such crimes. taks

i never made any such argument, actually. again with the strawman. i simply bemoaned the fact that simple concepts such as correlation are not taught to everyone. uh, i've said what the flaw is several times, you you cannot comprehend. correlation is not equal to causation, don't you get it? in the food thread, xard's "studies" cannot show that junk food causes obesity. in this thread, the mere fact that the US has more guns cannot show that this is the cause of higher crime. this is a simple concept, and i've repeated it. the fact that you claim i never actually mention such flaws is yet another strawman, as i have pointed these out multiple times. your additional strawman is claiming that i somehow said i know more about statistics than everyone else. i did not. i did, however, say that it seems i'm the only one that has a background to understand why the correlation/causation argument is so thin, which is based on the simple FACT that nobody else seemed to catch it. i'm quite certain there are others that have taken a statistics class, or even a first semester logic class, but they probably don't spend every waking hour studying such things, either, and hence don't pick up on things as readily (there are several i know do, but none had commented in the thread that that point). again, you just don't get it. you certainly don't. another strawman. not what i said. plenty of others do, most don't. my defense has been quite clear, that you cannot understand is not my fault. i never denied the correlation exists. it does. read back through the thread if you're so smart. i made it quite clear that i understand this point. others have also pointed out that canada has lots of guns per capita, too, yet not nearly as high a violent crime rate. hence, the correlation is not causation is proven by example, as i have stated many, many, many times. you still don't get it after i've plainly defined it. no, my argument is the same now as it has always been, correlation is not causation. in this case, there are other causes, though it is difficult to pin it down to one factor alone, rather a multitude of related and unrelated factors. debating you is, for sure, because you simply don't get it. taks

different scenario because someone has implied responsibility for the child in this case. i.e., a parent or guardian is supposed to be watching what the child is up to, and therefore assumes responsibility for what the child does. if the child shoots someone, it is thus the fault of the parent/guardian since children are generally assumed not mature enough to fully understand the consequences for their actions. same goes for mental patients (somebody is a responsible guardian), etc. taks

the whole concept of "justice" is based on responsibility for ones own actions. what would be next? old school justice in which the sins of the father pass on to his children? taks

as far as i can tell, nobody does, since they didn't catch the problem as i did. i keep hearing correlation equals causation from the likes of you, xard and krezack, and nobody but me manages to see why such statements are nonsense. got nothing to do with university credits. as i noted, multiple times during the discussion of your strawman, it's because nobody catches such things. you top the list for the nonsense. my argument was never that i know more, just that i'm the only one that seems to see these idiotic statements for what they are. if you knew so much, why do you continue to defend ridiculous arguments? if there are so many others with such a background, why do they never notice the obvious? one of the most, one of highest, yet not "the most" or "the highest." you really don't understand much. i dismiss you as not understanding anything because you simply never make an argument that has either a) any basis in reason or fact or b) demonstrates any understanding of what reason or fact is. taks

interesting. i did not know this. of course, this isn't something you're going to hear in standard channels since it makes the whole correlation thing with guns and crime look bad. ooops. i think this may be some of it. however, i do think the drug thing has a huge impact on the violent crime rate. our laws are so strict and that stupid failure known as the "war on drugs" (what was nancy thinking?) really did turn into a war. drugs gave rise to the huge gang population in the US, which is the source of much of our violent crime. these folks are killing each other, mostly, which doesn't show up in statistics very well, either. i think that's a myth. i know very few people that actually own a gun, let alone have this mentality (though one of my friends does indeed). keep in mind, in colorado springs, nearly everyone is considered "conservative," at least by euro standards, i.e., i don't have a whole lot of friends that would otherwise be against the 2nd amendment ruling, which means i do have a whole lot of friends that should have the "GUNS! whooo-ra"-mentality but don't. taks

THAT WAS IT!!! thanks, enoch. made my day. i loved the simpsons back then... tired of it now. futurama is my gig these days. taks

man i loved that cartoon. the airplanes and hot shot movies were fairly well done, too. this looks to be garbagio. taks