taks

yup. birthing a squirt qualifies, too. i have one of those high deductible insurance plans, $5000 per person, but it's real cheap ($130/mo for my son and i). my company does not provide insurance but does a lump reimbursement at the end of the year. we'll just say i got burned this year and now the insurance is paying for everything (yes, all $10k for the two of us has been spent). i've been lucky on the tooth front. i've never had a cavity and i'll be 40 in 3 weeks. no dental for me (and it doesn't make sense for a 5-year old anyway). taks

quite frankly i never understood the pre-nup concept for those other than the rich. generally speaking, as i recall, you get caught cheating, you won't get nuttin anyway. but marriage laws have seemingly changed drastically over the years (isn't even alimony now sort of passe?), so maybe that's not always true anymore. good luck either way, enoch. oh well. should my wife kick me to the curb, i'm doomed. we're going through a period of happiness right now, but that can change quite quickly. we're "volatile," to say the least. btw, on topic, i had a cup or so of coffee today without problem. this is a big deal since i gave it up 2 months ago due to the anxiety thing. zoloft is working well enough now that it doesn't cause any issues to get a little caffeine buzz going. i forgot how much i love coffee (and it was the good stuff, too). yay! taks

btw, mkreku, i never said "i know more because i have a background in statistics." quite the contrary. you have simply constructed a strawman, though i will admit you did it unknowingly due to a failure to get the original point. you completely misunderstood the context of the argument that i had made, which noted that i was dismayed at how little people know about things statistical in nature, which was evidenced by the fact that the guy with a background (me) was the only one that knew why xard's comments were nonsensical. they don't teach such things in school, not even college, unless you choose certain fields. xard follows it up with another comment in this thread furthering the notion that he does not understand. that you continue to defend such things is evidence of your inability to grasp the concept (and you keep harping on something i never said anyway). laozi kicks it up a notch with yet another example. such things should be taught, but they aren't. it is partly because of this lack of education on simple statistical (and logical) concepts that politicians are able to run roughshod over our liberties because we don't know that correlation and causation are not one in the same. study A shows this therefore we need this law. 20 years later study B shows study A was flawed, so now we need this new law. it is maddening. the simpsons had a really good episode on it once... i don't recall the details but lisa told homer something about a correlation between something and a lack of alligators in springfield, and homer said "see, it's working." she rolled her eyes in dismay. taks

btw, speaking of correlations, it should be noted that the US also has an alarmingly high rate of serial killers compared to other nations. why? nobody knows. they aren't necessarily gun related, either. could it be that there is something about US culture that breeds such things, including violent crime? perhaps. perhaps it's just that these things are reported more here than in other countries (next to impossible to prove one way or another). lots of unknowns with the crime/gun thing. another correlation is an extremely high drug conviction record. i recall reading that 60% of all convicts are there for drug-related crimes. it would not be surprising to also look at violent crime/drug connections and see they are often connected. would relaxing/modifying drug laws also reduce violent crime? i'm pretty sure we've had some heated debates on this issue in here as well. taks

nor can you base policy on simple correlations, which is ultimately my point. even if you are correct that the number of guns on the street will go down, there's no way to definitively state that such a response will result in fewer gun-related crimes. not all guns, illegal or otherwise, get used in crime, for that matter. i'd be willing to bet (guessing here) that demand from criminals, those willing to actually use a gun, is rather inelastic either way. illegal guns are extremely expensive already. these are people that have no qualms stealing. they thus have no problem stealing to get enough to fund the higher price of an illegal (and banned) weapon. automatic weapons are all but banned in the US but still we see them on the street, involved in violent crime as well. taks

which is immaterial. they're still going to make guns, for law enforcement or whatever, including in countries that don't have any gun laws. those will still end up on the street. simple econ after that, a reduction in supply will not change demand, and the only outcome is that it will cost more to get an illegal gun, or they will go to further extremes to acquire them. i don't disagree with this. taks

you still don't get it, do you. these sorts of "studies" are statistical in nature. statistics cannot show causation, only correlation. therefore, NO STATISTICAL STUDY CAN SHOW ONE THING CAUSES ANOTHER, only that they are correlated. in other words, if you had reworded thusly, your comment would have been just as ill-informed and nonsensical. the best any such thing could show would be that two things are correlated, which is contrary to either of your moronic positions. and mkreku, the mere fact that i'm the only one (of you, xard and krezack) that understands this extremely simple concept is proof enough of my point. stats 101. mkreku, you must have attended the same school, too. taks

there ya go, make the company responsible for the actions of other people. so, what happens when someone commits a crime with a butter knife? taks

i'm not sure where you got that. criminals are not legally allowed to own handguns (well, felons are not). and, check around, crime isn't typically committed using legally licensed and registered guns. duh. **** hoc ergo propter hoc. with this therefore because of this. yet again someone confuses correlation and causation, and you don't even have the correlation part correct. you and mkreku xard go to the same school? taks edit: oops, reference to xards food "statistics," not mkreku.

um, it involves illegal pistols and firearms. banning the legal ones won't do a whole lot of good for those. taks

yes, and how much have you spent on graphics cards since then? bastage. taks

motive for having the weapons is immaterial. if you are prevented from carrying a gun, it's a bit difficult to do either. besides, i quite believe that the framers came from a time when it was often necessary to defend oneself from other citizens (as well as other predators) and the thought of this was on their minds when the 2nd was written. taks

the one issue with the constitution i've always had is that rights are lumped together in one sentence. granted, related rights are lumped together, but it offers the chance for loophole interpretations. in this case, the opposition position is that since the right to bear arms is listed along with a well regulated militia, then it means you aren't guaranteed the right to bear arms unless you're in a militia. i agree the framers should have put the AND in there, i.e., a well regulated militia AND (OR would have worked, too) the right to bear arms. IMO, these are the two rights guaranteed in this clause. taks

the point i'm trying to make, thank you. the food itself isn't really "bad" so to speak, it's just that it crams too much of everything into too little volume, and people just eat what's in front of them. couple that with a sedentary lifestyle (couch potatoes) and you get fat. eat only 1 big mac and 1 large fries a day, and i guarantee that all but the smallest of us will lose weight. excess is what is bad, and the silly media reports and stupid "super size me" movie don't spend enough time acknowledging such simple concepts. taks

personally, i prefer carl's junior (uh, hardee's on the east coast) to mickey dees. i don't eat fast food, other than donuts, very often simply because i don't eat lunch very often (there's a close subway, however). the problem with fast food is that people eating it don't realize what they're taking in. this goes for eating out in general. if you eat a large fries and a cheeseburger for lunch, plus a soda, you've already clipped over 50% of your calories and much of your other RDA for things like fat and cholesterol. if you're eating fast food 3 times a day, you go over. that's the point the morons that mis-interpret the media hype don't get. excess is the problem. you don't need a degree to figure that out. you just need half a brain, which is apparently hard to come by these days. taks

Oh yeah, please keep telling us more about health issues and healthy food. Please. If you knew more than anyone else in this thread (because you have the background) i'm referring to his statistical comments and my background in statistics... man you can't read. i made that pretty clear. hmmm, fries, your particular sticking point, have: carbohydrates (starch and dietary fiber), fat (from the oil and the potatoes themselves), protein, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, vitamin C, calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium... soo, what in that list does the body NOT need. do you ever research anything, or do you live in the media? yeah, i got a degree, but that's not why i can read and follow context. how about you? xard is making specific claims about statistics, which is directly what i'm referring to. duh. it seems even the hoi palloi don't understand how to connect one comment to another. taks

part of the reason i never played through dtotsc. i kept reading rave reviews about how great it was and they couldn't even get grade-school level grammar correct. not my cup 'o tea, quite frankly. i've found it to be a mixed bag with other mods, including modules for NWN. there was one NWN module that used single digit numbers all the time (which you are supposed to spell out), which did not seem an issue at first. however, as i played it became more and more annoying. it just felt... wrong. taks

nonsense. are you going to point out how statistics can show causation, too? they really should require statistics classes for everyone in high school. it's really painful to see statements like xard's and i'm the only one that has the background to know why it's sooooo wrong. sigh... i think you got it backwards, buddy. you choose to eat too much and get fat (most of the time, but not always). homosexuality is largely thought to be something beyond choice (otherwise, why choose it?). hence obesity is typically a lifestyle choice whereas homosexuality is not. it's got nothing to do with what is and isn't "healthy" since that term is pointless. what is healthy? what your body needs. what is unhealthy? things your body does not need, which includes too much of what it needs. junk food, for all of its perils, has what your body needs. it's not a problem to eat junk food, it's a problem to eat too much "junk food," just like it's a problem to eat too many calories. pick any food, deemed "healthy" or otherwise, and eat more of it (calories) than you expend in a day and guess what, you're gonna gain weight. oh, and mkreku, i'd go to a different mcdonalds if your fries are oozing oil. there should be some, but when you cook something in oil, the internal pressure from steam keeps oil out while cooking the food. if the fries are oozing oil, they are being over-cooked, past the point at which steam pressure can keep oil out. taks

really, and you showed these where? that's my point, xard. you haven't provided ANY basis or reason, just your word, which is flawed based on a lack of understanding of the material you're discussing (for that matter, none of us in here are nutritionists, last i checked). here's where your lack of understanding of what literature is published comes into play. anything in excess is unhealthy. pretty simple. balance is the only "healthy" way to eat. it's not about what you eat, but the proportions of the things you eat. yes, potato chips are healthy in moderation. they contain soluble fiber, complex carbohydrates, sodium and a host of other "healthy" things (vitamins, etc.), all of which are required for your body to function. duh. get a clue. taks

it was certainly the implication. recall that most of the people in the world only saw the advertisements for the movie, which made a very clear "mcdonalds makes you fat" implication. i did not state that it was strictly defamation, either, only that i wish they could have sued for defamation. it's this kind of "science" that is destroying the reputation of science. i love xard's "statistics," too. keep it up. btw, "junk food" is an odd misnomer. qualify the term, somebody? let's see... big macs have: beef, lettuce, pickles, bread, hitting the major food groups... french fries, contrary to popular belief, are not very fatty (this takes an understanding of what happens when you drop water soaked potatoes into boiling vegetable oil) and they are a very good source of complex carbohydrates. taks

i always thought the super-size me story was moronic. you can't consume 5000 calories a day without exercise and not expect to gain weight, even if all 5000 of those calories are "healthy." i really wish mickey dee's could have sued that idiot for defamation. taks

the hard part of a phd dissertation is that you have to "advance the theory" in some meaningful way. what that means for each field of research, however, is fairly arbitrary. my MS thesis was very high on analysis of existing tools (though i did write a lot of software to do the analysis), but no real invention to speak of. my dissertation OTOH, was two separate "inventions," plus all the requisite analysis and software required to do said analysis. one of the inventions actually has real practical use, and an adaptation i'm using at the office will be submitted for a patent at some point. the other piece is... meh. writing didn't really bug me, either. i pulled off about 110 pages in 2 weeks or so. of course, i probably wrote 500 pages of reports and documentation over the course of the last year between work and school. that's never been an issue... so when i said "actually writing the dissertation" i was more referring to generating the material itself, not really the physical task of putting pen to paper. taks

i would HIGHLY recommend an MS, but a PhD is a bit of a different story. the MS says to potential employers "this guy is willing to work hard and he's proved the ability to tackle difficult problems" which makes you very marketable, while still maintaining a bit of a broad scope. the PhD, however, is a mixed bag. it says the same thing (to a greater level, obviously), but it also has a tendency to pigeon-hole you into niche areas which may limit opportunities (depends upon a lot of factors, however). the PhD as well is monumentally more difficult in some ways. from a classwork standpoint, it's no different than an MS - just more classes. the hardest parts are 1) picking a dissertation topic, 2) getting a higher score on the qualifier exam than an MS qualifier (which requires, oddly enough, rather broad knowledge) 3) maintaining a higher GPA (often easy since classwork is more focused into your area of interest) and 4) actually writing the dissertation. #s 1 and 4 are the big meat. #4 is the reason i'm on daily zoloft and twice a day prilosec (coupled with what a friend referred to as "the perfect storm of stress" in the past 6 months). the problem with #1 is that as you begin to research, you quickly discover that other people have already done "it," which means you have to adjust your topic. this is an eternal hell while you're writing, too, since you always have the fear of starting over and losing everything you've done. i had two close calls while doing unrelated patent searches that almost scrapped everything. not fun. anyway, hope that helps. if you need any other thoughts, let me know. did 'em both, while working full time to boot. taks

just keep telling yourself that... taks

i said that after my first degree... then i got another and said it again... then i took a few extension classes, finished, and said it yet again. then i got another degree. i swear i'm done this time... really, i swear it. of course, given my occupation, i'll be studying forever. taks