iNow

Seconded.

Thanks for the input, softix. I did clear my temporary files, but cannot upgrade my software. This is a company system. Also, the bigger point was that it used to work, then stopped working. It wasn't as if it never worked or my software level was not high enough. Either way, the problem went away on it's own. It looks more like the pages were not loading completely, and got "hung up" after the headers of the page loaded. No worries. It's working fine now! Thanks again.

While I appreciate your conviction and passion, I think that changing things and boycotting products themselves may be harder than you think. Last July there was a good story on NPR Morning Edition. An author and her family went an entire year without purchasing anything made in China, or anything which contained ingredients from China. Check it out: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12056295 The 3 or 4 minute story is also worth a listen: http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/popup.php?id=12056298&type=1&date=18-Jul-2007&au=1&pid=52444122&random=2444375527&guid=00020AFB3404064A22C1C64B61626364&uaType=WM,RM&aaType=RM,WM&upf=Win32&topicName=Business&subtopicName=Economy&prgCode=ME&hubId=-1&thingId=12056295&ssid=&tableModifier=&mtype=WM Here's the book itself, which may open your eyes: http://www.amazon.com/Year-Without-Made-China-Adventure/dp/0470116137/

Or, he could just keep putting random words in bold.

Now THAT's funny, Matt.

And, since sound waves are, by definition, pressure waves, the answer to coregazer's question is that any sound will create pressure on objects (and/or other sound waves). Put a song with a fair amount of bass into your player, and get a tower speaker... hold a piece of paper in front of it, play the song. You will see the paper move as if being held in the wind.

I see you are making much the same point as I did above. It's a bit harsh in the short-term, but it makes the most sense. However, just to argue the counter-point... Letting these loans fail will have significant trickle effects, and the problems will cascade unecessarily. When people cannot pay their mortages, they will be evicted and will be forced to find family or friends to strain and help support them. Not all people will have family or friends, and many will wind up on the streets. We will have an increase in homelessness with a parellel increase in vacant houses, which makes terribly little sense. Also, the predatory point are those loans which raised payments 300% after the first year. I think most of us would be unable to pay if our mortgages changed so drastically so quickly. Some banks wrote loans with these terms as everyone had the intention of refinancing with a different bank within 1 or 2 years. They accepted the "temporary" lower rate knowing that the next year they could negotiate a lower interest rate with a different bank and keep their payments the same. However, when the value of the homes decreased so quickly, people could not get the new/refinanced loan with other banks because their houses were worth so much less than they originally paid. No other banks would take on the original loan amount, and people were forced to stick with the original "temporary" loans and pay the grossly inflated payments. That's why people want the government to step in and help with this. All that said, though, the government stepping in will only extend the issue, and while it's not very humane to just let everyone suffer, it's the most economically sensible position to take. John, you're beautiful baby! That got me there! I should have guessed I saw it on THIS WEEK. Here's the quote from their site, as well as a video link: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4008041&page=1 VIDEO (the housing issue starts about 9.5 minutes in) --> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4007604

Oh... Come on, Pangloss! We all know it's not a secret! <sorry, I couldn't resist. You made me laugh with the black panther reference. funny indeed.>. I wouldn't blame it on any one group, but it's definitely a type of politics which is getting in the way of our progress and I am really very tired of it. I was ranting about the same thing 4 years ago, and 4 years before that, and I'll keep ranting until it improves. I see your point. I suppose what I'm missing is the personal first-hand experience of church, and how the words from some dude in a robe can impact my approach to life. To me, I make my own decisions. I read my own information and explore my own thoughts. I am not some sheep that is told what to do and how to believe. I tend to extrapolate that approach to others, and I should like the think that Obama is his own man, who makes his own decisions, and that he is where he is today even with this pastor and church as part of his background. I don't see how his running for president suddenly changes the impact the speaker before his church may have on him. Hmmm... that was a bit of a word jumble there. Basically, Obama's been going to this church for 20 years. He has been doing great things in the community, and great things in Senate... all still being part of this church. The only thing that's changed is that the paparazzi are now video taping the church since Obama is seeking higher office. I'm not bemoaning the spotlight itself, but where it is aimed. As noted earlier in this thread, I totally suck at analogies, but it's like going on a job interview to be a process engineer at a solar fabrication plant and your getting the job depending on whether you prefer Snickers or KitKat. See... I really suck at analogies. I'll have to take your word for it. My bigger point was that, IMO, people attend church more for the social cohesion aspect than spiritual guidance. I could be wrong, but I've always seen church as more communal than spiritual. I understand. This is why I would never have voted Huckabee... the moment I saw him raise his hand saying he didn't believe in evolution, I knew that his priorities were not in the right place. I knew this about Bush, but it wasn't his faith. It was my experience with him as our governor, where I learned that he was very fake and would say whatever it took, true or false, to gain more power. But Obama's background IS different. His daddy didn't hand him a baseball team, and his version of "slumming it" didn't entail Dom Perignon instead of Crystal... I think he's a bright human being with the mindset we need right now. Further, what his pastor said is actually true, regardless of the tone he used to express it, so I cannot really say that I am very concerned if it informs Obama's position... which remains to be seen anyway. Again, out of all of the things the reverend said, this "outrageous" stuff is the true part. He talks also about people rising from the dead and angels warring and all kinds of other ludicrous nonsense, but it's the true part that we attack? I can't even find the words to tell you how assinine I find that. This country, as one of it's founding principles, guarentees free speech. As I mentioned above, regardless of the tone Reverend Wright chose, his words were true. I am 99% confident that Obama would support his reverend as a man and as a friend. I believe the statement he made (for which I shared a Youtube link) was also true, and had to be done to appease the angry mob. He needed to remind people that, while he has attended this man's church for years and shared his faith and community with this man, that there are things about which they disagree. He needed to remind people that he does not get spoon fed from Reverend Wright how to feel and to see the world, and that he does think that Wright's rhetoric went too far. Ecoli has raised the point that Obama is supposed to be a different kind of politician, and that his trying to calm the masses makes him look like a regular politician. I see that point, but he is ultimately a politician. He can still be a different type AND try to put out fires like this which keep getting lit. I don't expect him to be absolutely seperate from the political process, I just expect him to do it better and for the right reasons. Absolutely! What kind of cookie do you want me to give you? Cheers.

I believe "40" refers to the number acres a slave who was freed after the civil war would receive. The number you're searching for is "72" virgins. Or, perhaps you are thinking of a Steve Correll movie about a 40 Year Old virgin? Who wants a virgin anyway? I've found that girls who know what they're doing tend to be a lot more fun.

Of course... So, it's metric then. Thanks!

Probably for very much the same reason that news outlets in Australia are. Our economies are hardly siloed, and the negative economic impacts here have negative economic impacts there. I think we need to see many or most of them fail, as as much more than a simple warning against future stupidity. The market must first bottom out if it's ever truly going to correct itself. The same was said by Alan Greenspan himself when this first all came up. I'll see if I can find the quote... EDIT: I haven't been successful finding where I came across that information. I just remember his comments suggesting that anything we do to step in and change things will simply delay the inevitible and make the situation last longer than it needs to. But, alas... I could not find the source, so for all I know I was hallucinating and a leprechaun told me this after too many Guiness.

It also likely depends on the culture, region, and/or setting. I do not believe there is any hard and fast rule as to what is and what is not appropriate. It is a matter of context and circumstance. The first-hand comments and experience shared above, I believe, bear out this point.

Hmmm... I guess I need to go back and review the situation more closely. I thought that was EXACTLY what he did. Your conjecture... does it have any support, or is it just a conjecture? I am of the belief that if one is to be crucified by the populace that it should be (at the VERY least) for something that has hard and solid evidence backing it up. Your comments above seem to suggest that, "hmmm... maybe HE agrees!!," and I find that position as nothing more than heresay. It's not admissible in court for good reason... It's not relevant to the situation of Obama and his bid for presidency, but I think it does serve to provide some context for the sitation we are discussing. Many in the media are throwing around the idea of how "rabid" this reverend is and what a bad influence he is on someone trying to be president. I believe that's very silly. Just one week ago Obama is being attacked because pictures surfaced which made people think he was Muslim, and the next week he's being attacked because the Christian spiritual leader at the church he attended and who he had marry he and his wife and baptize his kids said some things that make white people afraid. It's just silly. Challenge his positions. Challenge his approach. Challenge the way he runs his campaign and the way he handles others. I am personally extremely tired of the weapons of mass distraction which appear during every single election cycle in this country. This situation is no different, and I find it frustrating and silly. I wouldn't really know. I don't go to church. Never been a big fan, really. I do go to work to socialize and to discuss what's on my mind and share ideas with my co-workers. I have the option of working completely remotely, anywhere. The company even pays for internet and phone at your house, but I still choose to go into the office and work from my desk. Why? Because my coworkers and I share stories, and help each other and hang out together outside of work... we are a social community that is close nit and share common desires and goals. We help each other when we're in need and we come together to get things done. I do get a paycheck, but is it really that different from church? Why, though? What on Thor's green Earth does that have to do with running our nation, creating jobs, improving relationships with the inhabitants of our planet, curbing environmental impact, and motivating people enough that they get off of their asses and help you to accomplish these goals and get things done? I will concede right now that I am nearly certain that Obama has been encouraged and guided by his spirtual relationship with his church, his reverend, and his peers. What I question is how the comments from his reverend which cast light on the vast socioeconomic chasm this nation has experienced for the last several centuries and the frustrations people are experiencing is somehow supposed to stain how we see him as a human being or potential candidate. And that was the primary point I intended to make, so I thank you for letting me know that my post wasn't a complete failure. Two things. One, your comments imply that people will leave a social group, walk away from friends, neighbors, and family because the person who speaks before that group does not always do so perfectly. Two, your comments imply Reverend Wright has consistently and habitually engaged in such inflammatory rhetoric and has some track record of these types of things. I do not believe the facts of the situation support either of those positions, and will again say that is not much more than heresay on your part. Yes. Let's get the torches ready. It's time fer a hangin'! I don't live that far from Jasper, where James Byrd was chained to the back of a pickup truck and dragged down the road, and I'm perhaps overly sensitive to this mentality because I've experienced it so frequently first hand during my life. I am, by no means whatsoever, suggesting that you are a racist or that your are bigoted. I am pretty confident you are not. What I am suggesting is that it is precisely this mindset... ... this burning of witches mentality... that leads to such atrocities, and we do it far too often in today's culture. Also, to be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone in this thread is attacking him. What I am saying is that this has already begun across the news outlets, and in the blogosphere, and it is being discussed for some strange reason in other contexts as evidenced by your starting of the thread here... and it will likely continue because of how we do things in modern politics. Today our venom toward people in the spotlight is analogous to modern gladiator matches where everyone tunes in to see the big guy get eaten by the lion are slayed by the sword. My greater point is simply this. Can we all finally get past the blood lust, please? The reverend of his church said some things that scare white people. He denounced the comments. I don't see where the benefit lies in making this story anything more than that, other than to tear down a potential candidate using the old and outdated venomous politics which have hurt our country so much already.

First, Wright is far from radical when compared to most reverends in predominantly black areas. His words may be harsh, but they express a very real and underlying resentment and frustration in this country, no matter how much it causes discomfort in many of us. The roaring "Amen!"s in his audience are a clear sign that he is speaking to a sense which is very real and common. I also suggest that he is probably a much better man than those three soundbites seem to imply to those of us who have never met him. Either way, to suggest this somehow should reflect negatively on Obama is akin to suggesting that because you were sitting in the audience when the CEO of your company made comment which reflected poorly on a group that you are somehow complicit in that comment. Obama has completely and unequivocally renounced the remarks, and IMO it is not exactly an intelligent approach for any of us to attack him as if he made these comments himself. What more exactly do people want him to do? It was addressed and discussed on Meet the Press this morning, video available here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23659238#23659238

I'm no expert on this, so take my comments with a grain of salt. You might start keeping a dream journal beside your bed. Then, as soon as you wake up each day, grab a pen/pencil and write down as much detail about your dreams as you are capable. Continue doing this, and soon it will become easier to recall and place the details. Then, it will slowly translate to activity while you're actually in the dream itself, and you start thinking more consciously... "Oh, that looks odd," or, "Hmmm, I'll have to remember to write that bit down when I wake up." Then, sooner or later, you start dreaming lucidly. In sum, it will likely become easier if you practice, and writing your dreams in a journal is like training wheels when learning to ride a bike. Just keep the journal in a safe place.

Correction: Relative to the observer, spacetime itself is contracted for the traveller.

It's an interestingly unsourced, uncredited, personally uploaded image with vague labels. The graphic was uploaded here: http://img29.picoodle.com/ He also used the same graphic in this thread at post #59, and wrote the words "Source Data" but failed to provide any, or any links. Following the rabbit hole of his other posts, it appears that his source data is this: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly Drilling backward from that table, I arrive at the following actual source data page, which shares the exact same graphic I did in post #58 of this thread, to which ttowntom responded, The link I shared with his source data explicitly states this: His own source also explicitly cites the IPCC report against which ttowntom has been railing so consistently. Their citation specifically shares the following quote: As has been shown in this thread, and others in which ttowntom has participated, one model with a deviation of roughly 1C hardly disqualifies the abundance of other data, and also local variations do nothing to negate the increase in global yearly averages.

Well, okay. That is exactly what I intended to suggest, but looking back I can see that this point could easily have been lost in the shorthand I chose. Stupid red wine. Thanks for clarifying, for both me and others.

Have you looked into existential philosphy? Sartre, Kierkegaard, Tillich, deBeuvoir... You might enjoy it if you're considering such ideas.

Thanks, ecoli. I agree that boycotting the olympics is a bit like putting a band-aid on your ankle to treat a heart attack... There are some serious issues to be resolved. In addition to the trouble in Tibet where Chinese officials are forcably trying to regain control, Tibetan exiles in Tel Aviv are protesting, Tibetans in New York are protesting and being arrested by NYPD, and similar outbursts appear to be cropping up in Great Britain. Clearly, to solve this problem is going to take more than a boycott of the olympics (which would only hurt the athletes anyway)... So, what can we do? Norman, you opened the thread... any ideas?

I thought you were Captain Obvious, the Antidisestablishmentarian? Cheers.

It's not an illusion. He really is length contracted, but only relative to an observer. Relative to himself, everything about him is length contracted, including the molecules and atoms which compose him and his body. So, since the ratios are the same (the space between all of those atoms is ALSO length contracted), then they notice no difference. Compression is not really the correct term, as it implies making something denser and decreasing the amount/ratio of space between each molecule and atom. However, since the molecules and atoms are also being length contracted, the ratio of space between them remains the same. This is why it's called length contraction, not compression. I used this example in another thread recently. If you have a stick which expands from 1 meter to 10 meters, but the ruler you are using to measure that stick also expands by 10x at the same time, then the measurement is not effected because the ratio is unchanged.

Human imagination + Knowledge sharing through story telling + patial and incomplete data regarding dinosaurs, fossils, and birds = Widespread dragon myths. Hmmm... I sure hope I didn't forget to carry the one.

You're moving the goal posts. You previously said it was wrong because it mispredicted temperature increase. You are now saying it's wrong because it assumed incorrect global emissions.

Not quite. You have neither a) defined special, b) put parameters on "enough," nor c) proven conclusively that other non-humans do not think of time. While it's a commonly believed meme that non-humans do not think of astract thoughts like time, any evidence of such a position is abundantly lacking, and conclusions such as yours do not hold up since they are grounded in premises with no empirical support. Again. You have asserted that statement as true without providing any support of it's validity, then you've gone on to extrapolate other conclusions from this unsupported premise. I caution you to avoid a response such as, "Oh, come on, iNow, are you telling me that fish think about time just like humans!" That would still do nothing to support the assertion you've made and would be a logical fallacy complete with appeals. Ed's point was more that neither is right. Both are interpretations of the actual truth, a truth which has passed through filters and been biased by the observer... They are not the truth itself. I'm not sure using the word "truth" above was my best choice, but the issue is one of an "objective reality" versus a filtered/interpretted/biased "subjective reality." The consistent kernel across observers is the objective, so that is why we instead focus on that. Indeed, and I suggest philosophy can help with this, but does not even (IMO) begin to match science in it's rigor, detail, or replicability. That's just false. I read a post just the other day where swansont responded to Eric5 exactly like that. It's the frequency of oscillations. You seem to be defining time in a special way, and it is your special definition which is causing you to get caught up and decide that we don't understand it. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not implying that it's a bad thing to philosophize about time. I do it all of ti__... ermm... I do it frequently. However, there is time as defined by science, and time in some metaphysical subjective sense. If studied in the subjective sense, then it is no longer time you are chasing, but instead you are seeking an understanding of the observer themselves. The opening premise is ontological, and cascades infinitely to other things. It's akin to saying that "everything is manmade" because "everything" is a concept used by humans when they communicate, not some property of the universe itself. It is an emergent property of our language, not anything fundamental. This approach fails to recognize the critical difference between "the thing itself" and "our personal representation of the thing." I'll stick with science myself. Philosophy gave us the flat earth and the geocentric model. Science gave us a closer representation of the actual truth... and continues to give us a better understanding of "the thing itself." ;-)