JayB

Favorite Roman Saying: "Offenses against the gods are the business of the gods."

If you're looking for a cheap and easy helmet-cam, the Oregon Scientific ATC-2000 isn't a bad deal. Waterproof, records to a tiny memory card, runs about $100, and is about 2/3 the size of a can of Red Bull. Shot this video with it this fall: [gvideo]-5244840309835524923[/gvideo]

Yes, and that second point it debatable. He's managed to steal two elections, build his dream fort in southern Iraq, and allow all his friends to loot the Federal treasury while the "opposition party" watches his ass and it doesn't look like his henchmen are going to jail even though everybody knows they are serial felons. The head dufous may actually look pretty smart when we look back on all of this in hindsite. Who needs facism. Why don't they name Bush man of the year, huh? He sure made Putin look dumb in that clip just above. Remember to triple-deadbolt the door on the compound before you turn in tonight...

I assure you that these are my own questions based on what I've learned in the primary literature. I'm not an expert on the topic, but I've read a couple of reviews from scientific journals, and a few more focused papers - and find the topic fascinating even though it's not really something that I work with on a day-to-day basis. It seems to me that if you are relying on a magical cause that you believe accounts for all phenomena in the universe, and I point out empirically verifiable data rooted in observable phenomena that are perfectly explicable in terms of what we have proven about how energy and matter interact with one another - but can't be explained with the said magic - this is a fatal blow to the magical explanation in question. I'm out of time today, but send me a question via PM and I will try to answer it as well as possible at some point in the future.

That's a very good question, but making up something all powerful, calling it God, and claiming you've answered it seems like cheating on the test, don't you think? I prefer the "we don't know yet, and we might never know, but we're trying to find out" answer. Just a little more honest. And BTW, how do you know there was nothing before there was something? Seems like a pretty unsubstantiated claim to me. So making something up like evolution and shaking in a few million years to create life is better?? Come on, it just as much if not more of a farce. The more honest answer is that something can't come from nothing. I think real science can prove the beginning of everything. Evolutionist say it came from nothing. Boom and it was. Science says that that impossible to create something form nothing. The bible say boom, God made it so. That may be hard to beleive if you think there isn't a god but it make sense. Hawks, I gave a small tidbit of modern biology that addresses evolutionary questions a few pages back. How do you account for the presence of retroelements in the genome, as well as their distribution in a manner that supports the notion of common ancestry and and evolution over a timescale that spans millions of years? Are these parasitic, self-replicating elements and their abundance within our genome consistent with your notion of a perfect designer? How about contagious viruses that use similar mechanisms to cause untold suffering, agony, and disease? How about the tumors that some of them give rise to?

The $250K is a rhetorical gimmick that means nothing. All you'd have to do to deny the prize to anyone forever would be to include the term "proven without any doubt". No scientific theory has been or will ever be "proven without any doubt". Theories are forever subject to testing and re-testing...as any honest, open idea should be. For the fourth time, just in case the Mongoloid actually has the capacity to learn: Facts are small things. "I've got a fossil in my hand". That's a fact. What that fact means with regards to a theory is what's important. Does it refute it? Support it? Theories are the big thing; the biggEST thing in science. That's all science is; theories tested by factual evidence. There is nothing absolutely certain about theories, and that's a good thing, because that's what has produced the amazing expansion of human knowledge. Enter the Biblical literalists: "Stop with all this science crap (crud?)! We've got all the answers right here, see? A, B, C. 4,000 years. 7 days. Adam and Eve. OK, let's hit the rummage sale". No thanks. The other point worth mentioning in the context of this debate is that people are countering empirically verifiable data that's been demonstrated to rely upon known physico-chemical mechanisms that are completely consistent with everything that we know about the laws that govern the behavior of matter and energy with - magical phenomena. It would be one thing if creationists or ID people had an alternative explanations that were consistent with the factual evidence and the laws of physics, but we're not, which makes the creationist critiques of evolution which are based on an absence of observable phenomena staggeringly ironic. I can't help but wonder how people who posit magical explanations for natural phenomena that are inconsistent with their particular creation myth would behave if other people in their lives gave magical explanations for things that occur in their day to day lives. If you are a creationist that's been away for six months, and return to find, say, your wife three months pregnant - and she claims virgin birth, will you salute the heavens and give thanks for the miracle that's transpired or start casting suspicious glances at the UPS delivery guy? Etc, etc, etc. Makes me wonder how much the average televangelist's database which contains the names and addresses of all of its donors sells for on the open market....

You are totally delusional! There is not one credible scientist in the world who does not believe that evolution is a good theory and there is little chance of that ever changing. I'd love to write a long diatribe arguing the point but I know it will fall on deaf ears. I actually had some sympathy for you in the first 9 pages I read but I had to skip to the end and see that you are insulting what I hold dear and that is scientific research. I thought "Hey, maybe he does just want to find some climbing buddies interested in Christ." but arguing Intelligent Design in your own thread removes whatever credibility you had when JosephH launched the first attack. You want facts about evolution? Here is a website devoted entirely to those who think just like yourself. http://www.talkorigins.org/ in particular http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html There are many Christians that think that evolution is a good theory and that literal interpretations of the Bible are foolish. How can one selectively declare what is literal and what isn't in the Bible? It's all or nothing because otherwise it isn't the true word of god, it's an interpretation by man. There I go. I said I wouldn't argue but I just couldn't help myself. You are correct. There are some people who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and they are usually labeled liberals, but you are incorrect to say many Christians believe in Evolution, there is a group that believes the possibility of seven million year earth, as opposed to 7 day earth, but I have to say, it doesn't matter, nor was anybody there to watch. God did it. That's what matters. I believe in 7 day, not just because it's says in Genesis "Day", and not just that the context there supports it by saying "there was a morning and and an evening, and there was the next day," but the fact that Jesus in the new testament refers to it as a 7-day period (and since He is God in flesh,) that pretty much to me affirms that it was 7-days literally. But again, I wasn't there, so I don't truly know, nor do Scientist because they can't test it. They weren't there. Science used to date the earth by carbon dating, but that only works up to something like 50,000 years (and since water taints the testing, speeds up the life) that version of dating the earth is ill-equipped to measure the age of the earth. Bottom line, we're all going to find out later what happens. Even though some people believe differently, that is perfectly fine for me. We can differ and still be good friends. I had to chime in here with a minor point about the testability of scientific theories. There some theories that you can test by observation, others that you can't. Those theories that can't be tested by direct observation and measurement can still be tested by the extent to which they make useful, verifiable predictions. One of the many predictions of evolutionary theory was that evolutionary relationships should persist at the molecular level. For instance - the hemoglobin molecules generated by humans should more closely resemble the hemoglobin molecules of lemurs than, say - lampreys. These predictions were made several decades before scientists had the technology necessary to test them directly, and well before DNA had been identified as the agent of heredity. The fact that this prediction was borne out by empirical evidence several decades later provides one of many strong lines of evidence in support of the original theory. The case is even stronger when one considers the evidence provided by DNA sequencing. Speaking of DNA - were you aware of the fact that nearly one-half of the human genome is composed of ancient retroviruses (or similar self-repicating elements) that integrated into our genetic material millions of years before the arrival of modern humans? That they splice themselves into a new locale in the genome something like every 30-250 live births? That when these endogenous retroviruses replicate and insert themselves into the genome, they quite often damage the hosts by cripling and turning off necessary genes, or activating quiescent genes in a way that can give rise to cancer and other disorders? That the reason that primates can't synthesize their own vitamin C is because one of these retroelements spliced itself into the middle of a gene that encodes an enzyme required for the biosynthesis of this vitamin? Is any of this consistent with the notion of intelligent design? "The eukaryotic genome has undergone a series of epidemics of amplification of mobile elements that have resulted in most eukaryotic genomes containing much more of this `junk' DNA than actual coding DNA. The majority of these elements utilize an RNA intermediate and are termed retroelements. Most of these retroelements appear to amplify in evolutionary waves that insert in the genome and then gradually diverge. In humans, almost half of the genome is recognizably derived from retroelements, with the two elements that are currently actively amplifying, L1 and Alu, making up about 25% of the genome and contributing extensively to disease. The mechanisms of this amplification process are beginning to be understood, although there are still more questions than answers. Insertion of new retroelements may directly damage the genome, and the presence of multiple copies of these elements throughout the genome has longer-term influences on recombination events in the genome and more subtle influences on gene expression." Read the whole thing. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/10/1455 yes, I understand most of what you said, although, I know that style of writing, you didn't necessarily need to show off in order to prove yourself, though it did sound cool. You bring this before a jury, and they won't buy into it, not enough evidence. You had me for a while until you said retroelements and millions of years. That's the problem. Scientists cannot put together a theory like this and with a non-empirical interpretation throw in millions of years ago, when there are too many problems and questions with this research, since there's so much still to discover about the human body, and the viruses are so unpredictable on how it will treat the body, how the body will react. I'll research that more though. VH: In case you are still reading, if not necessarily responding, to this thread, I thought that I'd respond briefly. Even though the theory of evolution was formulated long before people understood the biochemical basis by which genetic information is passed from one generation to the next, and roughly 130 years before we had the capacity to sequence DNA and begin to glimpse at the structure of the genome - their discovery in the genome and data that they provide are completely consistent with the theory of evolution, and provide a more complete picture of how it works. More specifically, you can compare the number, type, and location of retroelement insertion sites and determine important information about when species diverged from one another. The fact that all primates, but no other mammals, have the same retroelement in the middle of the gene that encodes an enzyme required for biosynthesis of vitamin C tells us that this modification of the genome occured sometime after our common ancestor diverged from mammals, but before all modern primates diverged from one another. Since this retroelement DNA doesn't encode for useful genes, it's not subject to the same selective pressures as genes that species need to survive. Therefore it can accumulate mutations with a much lower probability that the mutations will affect the individual organism's survival. Consequently, mutations accumulate in retroelement DNA at a fairly constant rate over time, and we can examine the number of mutations in a given section of retroelement DNA in order to determine roughly how long it's been in the genome. Since these retroelements are so potentially destructive, primates (and some other species) have evolved an elaborate set of mechanisms to disrupt the processes by which retroelements make additional copies of themselves and splice themselves into our DNA. These have only been discovered in the past few years, because of their activity against contagious retroviruses like HIV. The same proteins that protect the genome against the viruses that spliced themselves into our genome long ago are also active against viruses in the environment that use similar mechanisms to splice into our DNA and hijack the cell to make many more copies of themselves. In this single piece of biology you have a set of empirically verifiable biochemical and genetic data and phenomena that simply can't be rationally be accounted for by any other mechanism other than evolution. Even if you are tempted to believe in say, intelligent design, it's difficult to conceive of someone accounting for these phenomena - a genome racked with parasitic, destructive, self-replicating elements that hijack the mechanisms cells normally use to survive to reproduce themselves, which result in defects that are passed down from one generation to the next for all of eternity - by recourse to an intelligent design with a strait face. You seem like a nice guy, I appreciate the way you've borne the onslaught here, and I hope that you will continue to read in an effort to understand as much modern biology as you have time for, so that you're thinking about these questions will be informed by the most accurate information we have about the natural world. I'd suggest reading the paper that I linked, and then getting yourself a copy of "The Cell" and devoting a year to reading it, then returning to these questions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

You are totally delusional! There is not one credible scientist in the world who does not believe that evolution is a good theory and there is little chance of that ever changing. I'd love to write a long diatribe arguing the point but I know it will fall on deaf ears. I actually had some sympathy for you in the first 9 pages I read but I had to skip to the end and see that you are insulting what I hold dear and that is scientific research. I thought "Hey, maybe he does just want to find some climbing buddies interested in Christ." but arguing Intelligent Design in your own thread removes whatever credibility you had when JosephH launched the first attack. You want facts about evolution? Here is a website devoted entirely to those who think just like yourself. http://www.talkorigins.org/ in particular http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html There are many Christians that think that evolution is a good theory and that literal interpretations of the Bible are foolish. How can one selectively declare what is literal and what isn't in the Bible? It's all or nothing because otherwise it isn't the true word of god, it's an interpretation by man. There I go. I said I wouldn't argue but I just couldn't help myself. You are correct. There are some people who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and they are usually labeled liberals, but you are incorrect to say many Christians believe in Evolution, there is a group that believes the possibility of seven million year earth, as opposed to 7 day earth, but I have to say, it doesn't matter, nor was anybody there to watch. God did it. That's what matters. I believe in 7 day, not just because it's says in Genesis "Day", and not just that the context there supports it by saying "there was a morning and and an evening, and there was the next day," but the fact that Jesus in the new testament refers to it as a 7-day period (and since He is God in flesh,) that pretty much to me affirms that it was 7-days literally. But again, I wasn't there, so I don't truly know, nor do Scientist because they can't test it. They weren't there. Science used to date the earth by carbon dating, but that only works up to something like 50,000 years (and since water taints the testing, speeds up the life) that version of dating the earth is ill-equipped to measure the age of the earth. Bottom line, we're all going to find out later what happens. Even though some people believe differently, that is perfectly fine for me. We can differ and still be good friends. I had to chime in here with a minor point about the testability of scientific theories. There some theories that you can test by observation, others that you can't. Those theories that can't be tested by direct observation and measurement can still be tested by the extent to which they make useful, verifiable predictions. One of the many predictions of evolutionary theory was that evolutionary relationships should persist at the molecular level. For instance - the hemoglobin molecules generated by humans should more closely resemble the hemoglobin molecules of lemurs than, say - lampreys. These predictions were made several decades before scientists had the technology necessary to test them directly, and well before DNA had been identified as the agent of heredity. The fact that this prediction was borne out by empirical evidence several decades later provides one of many strong lines of evidence in support of the original theory. The case is even stronger when one considers the evidence provided by DNA sequencing. Speaking of DNA - were you aware of the fact that nearly one-half of the human genome is composed of ancient retroviruses (or similar self-repicating elements) that integrated into our genetic material millions of years before the arrival of modern humans? That they splice themselves into a new locale in the genome something like every 30-250 live births? That when these endogenous retroviruses replicate and insert themselves into the genome, they quite often damage the hosts by cripling and turning off necessary genes, or activating quiescent genes in a way that can give rise to cancer and other disorders? That the reason that primates can't synthesize their own vitamin C is because one of these retroelements spliced itself into the middle of a gene that encodes an enzyme required for the biosynthesis of this vitamin? Is any of this consistent with the notion of intelligent design? "The eukaryotic genome has undergone a series of epidemics of amplification of mobile elements that have resulted in most eukaryotic genomes containing much more of this `junk' DNA than actual coding DNA. The majority of these elements utilize an RNA intermediate and are termed retroelements. Most of these retroelements appear to amplify in evolutionary waves that insert in the genome and then gradually diverge. In humans, almost half of the genome is recognizably derived from retroelements, with the two elements that are currently actively amplifying, L1 and Alu, making up about 25% of the genome and contributing extensively to disease. The mechanisms of this amplification process are beginning to be understood, although there are still more questions than answers. Insertion of new retroelements may directly damage the genome, and the presence of multiple copies of these elements throughout the genome has longer-term influences on recombination events in the genome and more subtle influences on gene expression." Read the whole thing. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/10/1455

Bad news. I'm crossing my fingers for Kirk, but it doesn't sound good. There's a small ridge about 100 meters to the climber's right of standard route to pan-point that significantly reduces exposure to avalanches.

I really, really doubt that Gazprombank can issue ADRs, unless they have a US subsidiary that handles this form them. Inasmuch as Gazprombank is involved in ADRs for shares in Gazprom, they are probably serving as a local custodian bank for the (American) depository bank(s) that issue the ADRs that trade on US markets. Issuing common stock in an foreign country is one thing, serving as a custodian bank for US banks that issue securities that are priced in dollars and trade on US markets is another - neither of which have anything to do with who actually owns the shares, much less who has a controlling interest in the company, Comrade Financier. Yes - If I have an ADR, that is real property that I own. The extent to which I excercise effective control of the company that I have an ownership stake in is proportional to the number of shares that I own relative to the total shares outstanding. If I own enough shares to determine who sits on the board to represent my interests, then I have effective control over that company. Ergo - if the Russian state, or one of its proxies owns the controlling interest in the company - then the state has effective control over the company. Why you would expend all of this energy to dispute what is a plain fact is beyond me. However, all of this assumes that the country has an independent judiciary, a security apparatus that doesn't intervene in civilian affairs, that anyone who opposes the state in their capacity won't end up jailed on spurious charges like, say, Khodorkovsky, etc. In a country where anyone who is in a position to challenge the Kremlin and avails themselves of the opportunity to do so winds up either jailed, dead, or fearful of either - the names on the shares aren't nearly as consequential. Your nominal argument: "Because we argue that state control of a company does not inherently reduce political liberty I'm arguing that liberty can't exist without it?" Your real argument: "Because we argue that state control of a company the economy does not inherently reduce political liberty..."

ok let's get this straight: i hold no neg-ams. i would only get a neg-am if i was certain to be in a position to sell property quickly (why would i pay any extra if i didn't have to, since my aim wouldn't be to hold and build equity?). i understand also that i am in a position to refi anything i would buy with a neg am, because of various factors we don't need to go into (i'd hate to leverage myself into a tenuous position with no outs). you wouldn't advise anyone to delve into derivatives without a complete position from which to play, right? and you wouldn't curse derivatives outright simply because of the risk, right? it's a bad comparison in many ways, but the point is it depends on what you do and why you do it. jeez. dumbass. The lady doth protest too much, me thinks. Thanks for the soliloquy - but I was just trying to get a rise out of you. Hopefully if you aren't in a position where you will be cashflow positive after the rate resets hit, you will be able to sell for a net-profit, or have enough cash to ride things out until you can. The second lump of resets, which is composed primarily of Alt-A, Agency, and Prime ARM resets corresponds to roughly 2010-2012.

Controlling interest vs. Owner. A shareholder is an owner. No, we aren't. That's the strawman you continue to erect each time this issue comes up. 1.Exchange tradeable does not equal private. Were it otherwise, the platinum bullion held in the Russain state's vaults would be considered private asset, just like the Gazprom ADR's held in accounts controlled by the Russian state. State owned enterprises that issue exchange-tradeable shares are still....drumroll...state owned enterprises. Controlling interest = appoints board of directors = hires and fires CEO. If the state holds a controlling interest in the shares, the state controls the company. Pretend that there's a meaningful difference in the control that an entity like the KGB exerts when it has a controlling interest in the outstanding shares, versus any other form of ownership that grants it an equal amount of control over the corporation if you wish - but don't expect others to participate in the delusion. 2. Looking forward to the clarification.

OGZPY is a tradable ADR - ergo, I'd consider it a private asset. I'm not sure when "corporation" became synonymous with "freemarket capitalism". The two are not one in the same. If the state or its proxies own a controlling stake in the outstanding shares, then the state is as much the owner of Gazprom as the Ford Family is of the Ford Motor Company. You, Crux, et al seem to be arguing that political liberty increases in direct proportion to the state's control of property - whatever form that may take. To summarize your position: The more the state confines its activity to laws, and the the less it involves itself in the ownership or control over property and productive enterprises - the more likely fascism is to emerge. I'm arguing the contrary point. Fascism and various other forms of totalitarianism are *only* possible when the state secures enough control over private property - be that farms, factories, corporations, or what have you - to render the population incapable of resisting.

Ironic headline on the "Bend Business Review": "Breaking Point Is Powdr Corp killing bill Healy's dream for Mt. Bachelor?" Interesting to note in the same article Bachy visits are up just 3% over 2001 and have actually fallen .77% on the 10 year time scale. Compared to a 14% increase over 2001 and 44% increase over 10 years for Meadows. Seems like Bachy was seen as the premiere "destination" mountain in the PNW up until the mid-80's, but it's status as such seems to have declined progressively ever since. Pretty much the only reason I'd bother with Bachelor is if I have some other reason to be there. I'd never travel to the area for the skiing at Bachy if I lived in Portland/Washington.

Hey: Thanks for the updates and suggestions. Looks like we'll be able to hook-up the two-for-one deal via Shell for the 26th. Now if only I could figure out whether or not Whistler will revive last year's deal, I could start planning our vacation. Might have to head for Utah instead if deets don't emerge soon.

Edited for improved clarity: "What has characterized the economic aspects of Putin's regime has been the seizure of private assets by the state or it's direct proxies, not an increasing limitations on the state's capacity to do so, or to direct the economy by other methods." When we are talking about formerly private assets that have been seized by the state, which are presently controlled by the state, and are being used to further the state's ends - then they are part of the state, not autonomous corporations owned and governed by private citizens. Pretend that this is "placement of power into the corporations," and not the state eliminating actors that have the capacity to check the state's power if you wish. Fascism, yes. Free-market capitalism, no.

How do you define tolerance? For me it means acknowledging and respecting the legal rights of people with opinions that differ from my own. That's it. IMO so long as you abide by the strictures defined above, you can extend tolerance to persons that you actively despise. yes yes we all know you're a law and order type of guy, blah blah blah heard it before. So what's your working definition? my working definition is you're a dumbass, just like pink. Thus spake the man with the multiple neg-AM I/O arms...

How do you define tolerance? For me it means acknowledging and respecting the legal rights of people with opinions that differ from my own. That's it. IMO so long as you abide by the strictures defined above, you can extend tolerance to persons that you actively despise. yes yes we all know you're a law and order type of guy, blah blah blah heard it before. So what's your working definition? IMO my version is more likely to hold when the chips are down than the lefto-PC "Celebrate Diversity" version.

How do you define tolerance? For me it means acknowledging and respecting the legal rights of people with opinions that differ from my own. That's it. IMO so long as you abide by the strictures defined above, you can still be defined as tolerant towards a group of people that you openly, actively despise.

Jesus Christ. "...his perception depends upon your definition of fascism, but if fascism is seen as fundamentally a process whereby the corporations merge with the state to the end that all political restraint on capitalism is forcibly removed, then yes, Putin (and Russia) may be going in the direction that Hitler followed." It was National *Socialism*. Hitler and Mussolini both emerged from socialist movements, and the movements overseen by both required *more* state control over their respective economies in order to effectively consolidate power and deprive private citizens of the means that they'd need to resist coercion by the state. Trotsky understood this well. "In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat." What has characterized the economic aspects of Putin's regime hasn't the seizure of private assets by the state or it's direct proxies, not an increasing limitations on the state's capacity to do so, or to direct the economy by other methods.

On my commuter route, fixie season ended as soon as the first snow fell...

For Your Wife: -WRSI or WRSI with detachable face-bar if you are on a budget ($100 or less). -Sweet Rocker Full cut or Rocker Full-Face if money is no object.(~$300) -EJ's Rolling and Bracing (DVD)to spend less time upside down.($~35) Pound-a-Thon at the Beaverator Hole (real name) on the Taylorville Section of the Beaver River (NY). [gvideo]9174804086329722776[/gvideo]

I just need to know what kind of beer the volcano produces, how hot the strippers are, and how interested they'll be in chain-doinking me for all of eternity before I sign on the dotted line...

The canonical beliefs of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism are set forth by Henderson in the Open Letter,[4] the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and on Henderson's web site,[19] where he is described as a prophet. The central belief is that there is an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster, which created the entire universe "after drinking heavily."[2] All evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith; a form of the Omphalos hypothesis. When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating, are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."[4] The Pastafarian belief of heaven stresses that it contains beer volcanoes and a stripper factory.[20] Hell is similar, except that the beer is stale, and the strippers have VD.[21]" I'm on the verge of converting...