iNow

Is that why his last kid was a girl?

Just having a little fun. It's my way of mocking those who are like, "oh, smoking is SO bad for you," or rambling about how bad drinking is. No kidding. Thanks for the tip, Sherlock. I still enjoy doing it, so bugger off. Also, it may help remind people that there are other habits out there that are not healthy (like flirting with your bosses daughter or tickling strangers beside you at the post office), but really, I was just being an ass.

What else does your crystal ball tell you? This depends entirely on how you define "good." I would say the exact opposite, that this choice has helped him to energize a previously apathetic base, but that it undercuts his desire to improve the lives of americans and move our country forward. Just opinions for both of us, so no need to argue much there. This, however, is flat out wrong, and I can show facts to prove it. When you say it has done "nothing but improve" McCain's poll numbers, you arbitrarily ignore the fire storm it has set off in more intelligent circles. You arbitrarily ignore the fact that he's done more to galvanize the democrats than the republicans, and how he's caused Obama's donation numbers to soar. It also shows how McCain is more interested in choosing someone for partisan reasons than he is choosing someone ready to lead and take over should something happen to him. You know what else is funny? There's nutjobs out there already asking people to pray that McCain/Palin win the election, then asking god to promptly kill McCain so Palin can take over and "make our nation a christian one." line[/hr] In the meantime, more facts. That whole "I sold my airplane on eBay" story was false. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503722.html?referrer=digg In fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the plane -- shy of the $2.7 million purchase price -- according to news reports at the time. Reynolds contributed to Palin's campaign in 2006. It appears that, as she promised during her bid for governor, Palin did try to sell the plane on eBay, but there was only one serious bid, in December of 2006, and it fell through. The Westwind II was sold about eight months later, achieving her goal of ridding the state of a luxury item. But that hasn't stopped Palin, or John McCain, from implying -- or asserting outright -- that Palin sold the jet on the Internet. She also seems to have no regard for what science says, and instead chooses to ignore it, and make decisions explicitly counter to it. http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_wolves/index.html The controversy over Palin's promotion of predator control goes beyond animal rights activists recoiling at the thought of picking off wolves from airplanes. A raft of scientists has argued that Palin has provided little evidence that the current program of systematically killing wolves, estimated at a population of 7,000 to 11,000, will result in more moose for hunters. State estimates of moose populations have come under scrutiny. Some wildlife biologists say predator control advocates don't even understand what wolves eat. "Across the board, Sarah Palin puts on a masquerade, claiming she is using sound management and science," says Nick Jans, an Alaskan writer who co-sponsored the initiative. "In reality she uses ideology and ignores science when it is in her way." The initiative was defeated last month. Gordon Haber is a wildlife scientist who has studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years. "On wildlife-related issues, whether it is polar bears or predator controls, she has shown no inclination to be objective," he says of Palin. "I cannot find credible scientific data to support their arguments," he adds about the state's rational for gunning down wolves. "In most cases, there is evidence to the contrary." But yeah! Go Palin! She's here doing God's work!

I haven't yet decided for myself where I stand on this issue, but this is flat out wrong (and also an appeal to ridicule and derision against Bascule):

I also like to skydive without a parachute, drive my car with the brakes disconnected, and walk through traffic.

They've upgraded, and the new offerings include, "I debated "J.Edgar" iNow over at SFN and all I have to show for it are these scars and this stupid t-shirt."

Spiders do, of course. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-spider-silk-so-str

Ho hum, indeed. Challenge away. You are a weak opponent, more of a gnat, really. Leaving aside your appeal to ridicule for the moment, there's the fact that she discounts human impact on climate, thinks that intelligent design is actually a theory which can compete with evolution, thinks the war in Iraq is an errand from god (again, how is that different from Osama bin Laden who thinks war against America is an errand from god?), she is against abortion EVEN in the case of rape and incest, she thinks more oil drilling will solve our problems, and misframes the problem itself in purely economic terms, she lies about her history on earmarks, all of the other questionable issues ALREADY discussed in this thread, and also those we haven't yet even found out about or discovered. And... yeah... she asked the librarian about banning books as soon as she took power. I have a hard time understanding how you can dismiss ALL of that and then still go on to suggest that I am the one who is "further gone than previously thought" because I consider these questions and concerns worthy of attention and focus from all of us in the electorate. "We are a fact-gathering organization only. We don't clear anybody. We don't condemn anybody. "

...

I find it absolutely hilarious that you are still going on about what I, moi, 我, mí, ich, انا, me, personally had an issue with. Any even reasonably intelligent person would not ever even consider banning a book. Such an action evidences vast ignorance and abundant blindness and speaks volumes about a persons character. But, whatever. All I said was that I had a problem with that, and it was only one entry among many of her stances with which I vehemently disagree. You're grasping at straws going on and on and on about "she never mentioned a specific title" or "she was not able to get any books banned" and it's a lot of fun to watch. Thanks for the show! I think it was the part where you were blathering on about how the evironment is better than ever because you went and bought a Brita filter and pay for the garbage truck to come every week, and expected all of us to use this as evidence that there is nothing wrong with Palin's postion that there is no man-made impact on global climate.

I think far fewer people believe in this than you might assume, hence the hoax really hasn't been all that successful. That is true whether the hoaxers brag about their actions or not. Also, since the video has been debunked and is (by no means) clear, calling it evidence is rather questionable. I eagerly await the evidence in your next response, and hope it will not simply be another post such as, "Yeah, but...!!"

Evidence?

I like how Biden was well read enough to have brought up St Thomas Aquinas and how even he wrestled with this "when does the soul enter the body" question during his interview with Brokaw this morning on MTP. Bright man, that Joe is. line[/hr] Reminds me of the Saddleback Forum: WARREN: How about the issue of evil. I asked this of your rival, in the previous debate. Does evil exist and, if so, should ignore it, negotiate it with it, contain it or defeat it? <... McCAIN: <pounds fist on table> Defeat it! <...> OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God’s task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it. Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil. line[/hr] The transcript from this mornings MTP on this abortion issue: MR. BROKAW: Two weeks ago I interviewed Senator Nancy Pelosi--she's the speaker of the House, obviously--when she was in Denver. When Barack Obama appeared before Rick Warren, he was asked a simple question: When does life begin? And he said at that time that it was above his pay grade. That was the essence of his question. When I asked the speaker what advice she would give him about when life began, she said the church has struggled with this issue for a long time, especially in the last 50 years or so. Her archbishop and others across the country had a very strong refutation to her views on all this; I guess the strongest probably came from Edward Cardinal Egan, who's the Archbishop of New York. He said, "Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being `chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name." Those are very strong words. If Senator Obama comes to you and says, "When does life begin? Help me out here, Joe," as a Roman Catholic, what would you say to him? SEN. BIDEN: I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths--Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others--who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life--I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea. MR. BROKAW: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you've also voted for abortion rights... SEN. BIDEN: No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia," he said there was no--it didn't occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that's the reason I haven't. But then again, I also don't support a lot of other things. I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person's God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a--and what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children. VIDEO: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26591154#26591154

You may check out this "interesting facts about bromine" page: http://www.facts-about.org.uk/science-element-bromine.htm Then, there's also this: http://www.google.com/search?gbv=2&hl=en&q=uses+of+bromine

That particular perception is also strongly related to something called "body dismorphic disorder." It's worth learning about, as many people experience it in different forms (it's not really an on/off label, but instead a spectrum from "a little bit effected" to "oh my god I'm hideous!!") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_dismorphic_disorder AFAIK, anorexia is more the behavioral response to symptoms of BDD, itself very unhealthy and dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Hazards According to the United States Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, a US Federal standard limits microwave leakage from an oven, for the lifetime of the device, to 5 milliwatts per square centimetre when measured 5 centimetres from the surface of the oven. This is far below the exposure level currently considered to be harmful to human health. The radiation produced by a microwave oven is non-ionizing. It therefore does not have the cancer risks associated with ionizing radiation such as X-rays, ultraviolet light, and high-energy particles. Long-term rodent studies to assess cancer risk have so far failed to identify any carcinogenicity from 2.45 GHz microwave radiation even with chronic (ie, large fraction of life span) exposure levels, far larger than humans are likely to encounter from any leaking ovens. However, with the oven door open, the radiation may cause damage by heating; as with any cooking device. Nearly every microwave sold has a protective interlock so that it cannot be run when the door is open or improperly latched. So, if you somehow managed to use one with the door wide open you'd get burnt just as you would placing your hand on a hot burner, but the radiation doesn't melt organs.

I think people who believe in bigfoot are idiots who would do well to educate themselves on biology and at least come up with a scientific classification of the lifeform they think exists. I think every single piece of "evidence" ever put forth has been a hoax or completely bunk, and I have no idea why people cling to these fairy tale fantasies instead of focussing on the vast and intriguing real world all around us. Hey... you asked.

So what? She is still a person who would consider the banning of books a good thing. She is still a person who asked how she might go about banning books. She is still a person who, when told that no books would be banned, sought to have the librarian who refused her fired from her position. I don't care that she didn't mention specific books, as that is COMPLETELY and WHOLLY irrelevant to the problem here. The fact that she would EVEN CONSIDER banning ANY book is a problem on multiple levels. Now you're equivocating and changing your position. You DIDN'T say that there has been success in the environmental movement, you said EXACTLY this: You said that the environment itself has gotten better, I challenged you on it, you then changed what you were saying and misrepresented what I was saying. Anyone reading this thread knows what I mean and can see that you are more inconsistent that a toddler lying about eating paste. If people don't understand my postion accurately, then I'll be glad to clarify. Now, you can stop misrepresenting me. If you're doing your best to represent me accurately, and this is what you're coming up with, then you are moron blinded by the lies you're being fed by the propaganda machine.

That's fair. My point is that we don't so much "store" information as you would on a hard disk or DVD, where you access specific spots of specific information to retrieve specific memories. Our memories are complex interplays of various regions in the brain, multiple regions of activatoin, and the content within is generally very sparse (and we also tend to fill in the gaps and make stuff up which never happened). I trust that we don't disagree with one another on the physiology, and that I may have chosen my words poorly when expressing this point above. Enjoy.

It irks me when people think that all diabetes is from being fat. I can't tell you the number of times where I've told someone I'm diabetic and their knee-jerk response is, "but you're not fat."

Is there no longer any political risk for saying things which are demonstrably untrue about your opponent? Does debunking no longer have a place in modern politcs? I wish more news pieces were like this one:

Not necessarily. There are a lot of technologies under development (but, as I understand them, they still need to be close): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_glucose_monitoring Some new technologies to monitor blood glucose levels will not require access to blood to read the glucose level. Non-invasive technologies include near IR detection, ultrasound and dielectric spectroscopy. These will free the person with diabetes from finger sticks to supply the drop of blood for blood glucose analysis. Most of the non-invasive methods under development are continuous glucose monitoring methods and offer the advantage of providing additional information to the subject between the conventional finger stick, blood glucose measurements and over time periods where no finger stick measurements are available (i.e. while the subject is sleeping). That link also discusses bio-implants and other continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMS), with links to some of the specific systems under development.

I can agree with that, and support your point in full.

If nothing else, it can inspire new ideas. Also, a hat tip to swansont for sharing that link on his blog, as that's where I first saw it myself.

You're beautiful, baby. Thanks. I think that posts 13, 14, and 18 (as presently numbered in this new thread) still belong to the other (mccain vp) thread though.