tvashtarkatena

San Fran-cisco COCK SUCKAH!

On the civil liberties front, Obama did end torture, is closing Gitmo, and is trying some of the detainees there in civilian court, but not all. Other than that, he has continued Bush's policies of extraordinary rendition, military commissions, and extra-constitutional spying on Americans. He has also not lifted a finger to uphold the rule of law regarding the Bush administrations many human rights violations. All in all, his record in this area has been lackluster, to say the least. Still, the alternative...un-fucking-thinkable, really.

The KKK-inator: a) You're a Marxist b) You're a racist c) Lick sack (presumed to mean 'You're gay') d) I'm here for you, Minx

It's gettin a bit Lord of the Fly-ish in here. What goes around comes around, I guess.

Here's a simpleton's version for you, since it's likely that you had never heard of this concept before yesterday. Leave it to TTK to turn a tongue-in-cheek critique of a sci-fi movie into a quest for ego gratification. http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/solsys_planets.php As for your chart, well, there is an explanation that isn't quite settled. Let's see if you can figure it out on your own--if you're not too busy with those ridiculous light bulb sculptures. Here's a hint for you: magnetic field.

Waste of time. The guy can't even interpret a simple, unambiguous table of data. Just not gonna happen here. Conservative Brain Syndrome . There's medication for it: lots and lots of painkillers to render the removal of the broom handle from one's ass less painful.

It's worth the $25 to do something your wife really wants to do, ya cheapskate. If I weren't so broke now, the $ would not be an issue. Less about the $ as it is wasting 3 hours on a crappy movie. Most of us are in the same $$$ boat right about now, but look at it this way: an acid trip in a tropical rain forest would be more expensive. Plus, is there a better way to blow money than on a woman?

Cut your spray time in half and apply yourself to helping fix the "quote thing". It's not just for grownups anymore. Shit. We would probably be able to view Avatar in 3D in spray if you did that for one year. Sorry. just redid the website, now redoing the home office and fucking around with a new iPhone. Tech team, as sorry as it is, is fully booked.

It's worth the $25 to do something your wife really wants to do, ya cheapskate.

Awww...poor baby. Very first star on the list: Type G1, 1.25 solar masses, with a 1.3 jupiter mass planet in a just over 1 AU orbit. Probably got big blue chicks running around on one of its moons as I'm typing.

HOT JUPITERS BITCH!!!!

Is anyone ever going to fix the fucking quote thing on this POS?

Yeah, that totally blew the plausibility for me too. The opening scene spaceship's control console clearly indicated that the gas giant was well within the frost line DUH. JAMES CAMERON DOES NOT FUCK AROUND!!!!!!! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND GAS GIANTS DON'T ORBIT MAIN SEQUENCE STARS INSIDE THE FROST LINE THEIR HYDROGEN COMPOUNDS ARE BLOWN OUT INTO SPACE JAMES CAMERON IS THE SAME MUTHERFUCKER WHO FORCED ME TO SIT THROUGH 3 HOURS OF KATE WINSLETT AND LEONARDS DECAPRICO!!! FUCK AVATAR AND LIKE THOSE ISLANDS COULD REALLY DEFY GRAVITY I MEAN WHAT WAS UP WITH THAT WAS IT EM, STRONG FORCE, WEAK FORCE OR WHAT HE NEVER FUCKING EXPLAINS IT EXCEPT IT IS SOME MYTHICAL VORTEX GIMME A FUCKING BREAK AND THIS IS THE 23RD CENTURY AREN'T THEY SUPPOSED TO BE USING LAZER BEAMS AND SHIT THEY'RE STILL USING BULLETS FOR GOD'S SAKE!!! DOOD, stick to bravery and leave the science to grownups: Extrasolar Planets Almost all of these are gas giants, many within the frost line, and most orbit main sequence stars. Why: big planets orbiting close to stars are easier to detect, and surveys have concentrated on main sequence stars.

done with comments

Yeah, that totally blew the plausibility for me too. The opening scene spaceship's control console clearly indicated that the gas giant was well within the frost line DUH. JAMES CAMERON DOES NOT FUCK AROUND!!!!!!!

You'd think that after, like, the first 100 years they'd at least be talking about a time out.

500 years of human heartache... ...that fuckin bitch deserves to die.

No, YOU don't exist!

Yeah, its called Game Theory. It's a pseudo-scientific sham. http://www.rewtube.com/the-trap-episode-1/ No, it's not called Game Theory. There is an enormous body of scientific work in this field out there. You're just not aware of it, so, predictably, and like any good human, you assume it doesn't exist.

not so, as their is some actual data that can be collected and analzyed, and experiments run there is certianly plenty of historical evidence to support the general notions that humans like to hurt, steal, kill and corrupt wether that outweighs our occasional capacity to heal, feed and clothe is debatable Unless you live the slums of Tijuana, Baghdad, or Cabrini Green, there's a whole lot more healing, feeding, and clothing, teaching, trading, building, caregiving, etc. that the other things you mentioned. But again, I don't know what neighborhood you live in. Most situations where someone has to rely on "human nature" to advance their argument it's essentially political ideology masquerading as "common sense". That's probably true in Baghdad as well, but it doesn't take much of the dark side to fuck the rest of it all up. One dumbfuck faux cowboy gives an order and one society is burned to the ground while another economically collapses. Do the experiment yourself. From Mon to Sat, bring your S.O. flowers and cook a nice dinner. On Sunday, serve them parboiled, whole house cat...fur still on. Record which event they remember longer.

Human nature is just as readily studied scientifically as any other natural phenomenon. Decades of study have produced excellent, predictive models of how markets, relationships, authority, and other human nature-driven phenomena work. The assumed (and false) inscrutability of such phenomena springs forth from that most fundamental of human desires: to remain inscrutable.

That is a sad commentary, but it's not a given. There are many examples, SR71 being the most recent, where the dark side outguns the good guys in money and advertising but, through better community organizing and more honest, rational messaging, the good guys win. There tends to be popular wisdom that elections are won on the 30 second sound bite battlefield, but there are many more factors involved. Plus, TV advertising isn't necessarily the best or only way to spend money. Targeted solicitation, both for money and votes, can be a far more effective and efficient way to spend a campaign dollar, for example. Opinion surveys and public information campaigns can also be a better way to spend. In the end, an engaged, educated populace, trained in critical thinking, is the best equalizer. It's pretty obvious which party supports that goal (or at least gives lip service to it), and which party seeks to burn our education system down. That, to me, is the most telling indicator of who's in it for them versus who's in it for all of us.

Human nature is metaphysical nonsense? Good luck with that. I prefer Cupcakes.

The Vietnam era, which, from a US perspective, spanned from 48, when Ho send Truman a letter asking for his diplomatic help in establishing independence from France, to 75, involved a few more presidents than Johnson. Regarding the original issue, I just presented some considerations to think about. The ACLU, for example, doesn't endorse or contribute to any political candidates, but it does contribute to and solicit donations for referendums and other electoral campaigns, mostly recently R71. Poorly written and enacted statutory restrictions on this type of political speech could potentially hobble such efforts. In the end, campaign contributions are a band aid issue that doesn't really address the more fundamental question of why the electorate makes such poor choices in the first place. I don't know that much about the issue, and therefore remain undecided, choosing instead to focus on other issues the I think are more important, interesting, and resolvable. Plus, I'm not even sure I'm posting in the right thread.

A corporation is an common way to set up a mechanism for long term giving to any cause. The ACLU, for example, is a combination of 2 corporations: one tax exempt, one (that lobbies) not. Furthermore, many individuals incorporate, often for the primary purpose of just such giving. Political speech is a form of human speech. The debate, settled recently, has been over whether or not campaign financing constitutes political speech. It's partly a free association issue. Donating is a form of association, which should be free unless the government can show a compelling enough interest to make it otherwise. It's partly a privacy issue. Typically, the government has deferred to standard of confidentiality when it comes to political involvement, with a few notable exceptions, one recent and in our very own state. It's partly an equal protection issue. Why should one type of organization or association (corporation) be exempt from regulation while another is not? The imbalanced influence adherence to such principles produces is pretty obvious, but what if you were charged with the task of proving exactly if, how, and why that is so? What success criteria would you use? Good luck, and send us the report. Popular wisdom often doesn't translate well to proving a systemic pattern that produces tangible harms when compared to a reformed system. I guess that's what happens when basic values must be interpreted by da hairless monkey.