"“No-one told us there would be fish in the water. The children were scared.”
Capt. Cook's reply:

"Yeah, we should have mentioned those pesky ocean patrons as they also fuck and shit in our pristine seas as well. Please accept our invitation for you and your spineless children to fuck off somewhere else on holiday next year."

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

Going from 16 bits, to 24 bits will lower the noise floor which, if you have the audio turned up enough, you can hear it ever so slightly. It's not a huge difference and you're not going to hear it in a typical song. It's definitely there, but it's already insanely quiet at 16 bits. An "Audiophile" on pristine gear may notice the slight change in hiss in a moment of silence, with the speakers cranked up - but that's about it.

As for pushing up the sampling rate, when you get beyond 44.1kHz, you're not really dealing with anything musical anymore. All you're hearing, if you're hearing it at all, is "shimmer". or "air". It sounds "different" and you might be able to tell which is which, but it's one of those differences that doesn't really matter in effect. A 44.1khz track can still make ear-piercingly high frequencies - the added headroom just makes it glisten in a really inconsequential way.

This is coming from 17 years of music production. I've gone through all of this, over and over again, testing myself, trying to figure out what is and isn't important.

At the end of it all, I work on everything in 16bit 48kHz - I record audio files in 24 bit 48 kHz - then export as 16 bit 44.1kHz. I don't enable dither anymore. I don't buy pro-audio sound cards anymore. I don't use "studio monitors" anymore. I just take good care of my ears and make music now.

Thanks bookface. I needed another reminder of why -- oh, I'm sorry, HUMANS are crazy. But I don't challenge your inductive assessment (of other people's opinions) that Americans, being human, are also crazy. I grew up there, I know. I deal with these personalities and it warps my own personality DAILY.

It's true, but it's not everyone. Mainly a lot of fucks in charge of various institutions who have maintained their grip on our society because they're shits like this sorority bitch. Though, I'm sure my redundant and filth ridden comments don't help either -- to you overly sensitive.. here's to your fuck you fucks. lol

This letter describes most of the women in my family. They don't care about helping out with the image of our family or the dysfunction, they just gossip (PRAYER CIRCLE AT CHURCH) and then go out on the attack, hitting below the belt.

The kinds of people that mess with your head until you question your manhood -- all of the O.C. girls that I grew up with in the church youth group; sluttin' their shit on the DL, maintaining their pristine image in the light of everyone's faces, and then crying when they don't get their way. "But that's the way mommy told me things work."

I did get a lot of handjobs from slut Christian girls, so I suppose I shouldn't complain. They loooooove to impress you with stories of parties and alcohol. teehee

*eia So much for the pristine lawn =o/

I've lived in Thailand for almost 6 years now, and I was a poor college student/graduate prior to that. So, I hadn't had any dental treatment whatsoever for about 10 years. At that time in the US in my small hometown, I figured that a cleaning with nothing else done would cost $100. Plus the dentists wanted to do x-rays every year that would be another $50-$100. So, basically $150-200 yearly assuming that I didn't get anything other than a simple cleaning.

So far I've been lucky to have teeth that stay in pretty good condition. I hadn't had any cavities in adult teeth, but 10 years without a trip to the dentist was pushing it. So, I figured it was time to bite the bullet and visit a dentist here in (upcountry) Thailand. I walked in and they said that I had 3 cavities and 2 small weak spots that could turn into cavities.

They asked me if I would like old-style metal colored fillings or new tooth-colored stuff (I didn't even know that existed). I opted for the old style since it was slightly cheaper, but the doc was upset about the prospect of putting the first visible fillings in my otherwise pristine teeth so she said she would give me the tooth-colored ones for the same price as the other type.

In and out, far less pain and discomfort than I remember being standard at my dental visits in the US (to be fair I had a lot of cavities and problems with my baby teeth when I was a kid, plus braces and lots of orthodontic work). Total cost -- about $40 USD. For yearly cleanings, I think the local clinic here will charge about $15 USD. So, I'm well pleased with the results.

That mammoth is in pristine shape though, most impressive.

*ban anyway

>> ^radx:

Would the future owner be capable of distinguishing the original from a pristine copy, made for a fracture of the price?


Maybe not, but that's what Sothebys are there for, to authenticate it

Would the future owner be capable of distinguishing the original from a pristine copy, made for a fracture of the price?

somewhere there is always the bladerunner fifth element undercity portion of a society .... are we to believe it is in spite of the pristine surface or because of it... i don't think people choose to live this way, herman cain.. some situations put you through the wringer without respite

You're welcome.

In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
Thanks for the quality promote.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote

Thanks for the quality promote.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote

>> ^marinara:

Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.
If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.


One column?

Do you really believe that the professionals at NIST are suggesting that in WTC7 one column was compromised to the point of failure by the fire, but the other 19 were in pristine normal condition?

Right, anything to hang on to your internal belief system.

The body of professionals across the globe are convinced that the devastation of the lower floors of WTC7 and resulting fires were easily enough to cause the collapse. This was so evident that emergency workers were ordered to abandon the burning building in advance, and news crews were reporting about it's probable collapse before it went down.

Your 'theories' are stupid.

Please, keep parroting things like how house fires can't reach 1000 degrees, it helps people see how stupid your ideas are more quickly. Early steel makers regularly made do with wood fires for their forges, and somehow managed to get the steel to melt. A google scholar search will also quickly show that temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees can be reached by house fires within minutes.

I always feel like the best way to try to process these sorts of situations is to try to turn it into an opportunity to learn something.

So, when I watched the video, I got why the video was posted. I knew some people would think it was funny, some would think it was crass, and some would think it was creepily misogynist. I felt a mix of all three watching it myself.

What I don't get is the humorlessness of the people who insist on saying it's only funny, and that some grand injustice has been done when people voice the idea that it's crass or misogynistic.

It's not like it's the worst video in the world, but it's not like its comedic qualities are beyond reproach, so what's wrong with people saying they don't like it?

I just found that comment from LarsaruS just fucking weird. I single that one out because it's essentially a pristine example of the behavior I don't understand. Ignore the text for a moment, and just click on link #1. "Stop liking what I don't like." I'm sure that's meant to be words stuffed into the mouths of the "White Knights," but it's actually a perfect description of the comment the link is contained in. It's essentially saying "Stop not liking what I like."

Link #2 reads "Seems like you have a case of being a little bitch. I'm prescribing you a heavy dose of man the fuck up." Again, that's a perfectly valid critique of the comment it's embedded in. People don't like what you like, why does that bother you? Why not do as link #3 suggests and try not giving a fuck?

I get tons of crap thrown at me for, well, pretty much everything I say or post anymore. I expect to though, and while sometimes it frustrates me (and even on occasion actually upsets me), I don't let it get me bent out of shape because that's just one of the things that happens when you put yourself out there. I'm an opinionated loudmouth, I should expect other opinionated loudmouths to respond in kind.

The people who were offended just wanted to express themselves. Why lash out at them? Are you so insecure about your own actions? Do you think the world will end if not everyone shares your taste in humor? More to the point, if you think it's okay browbeat them into shutting up, aren't you guilty of doing the thing you inaccurately think is being done to you?

Should no one be permitted to ever say they're offended by anything, at any time, for any reason...because their doing so offends you?

I don't know if could work or not but I like the idea.

And here is a little something from wiki that I read about earlier on yahoo.



Gorilla™ Glass

Corning’s Gorilla™ Glass is a high-strength alkali-aluminosilicate thin sheet glass used as a protective cover glass for high-end display devices such as notebook PCs, televisions, and mobile phones.[2] Originally invented in 1962, it did not find commercial applications until 2008.[3]
In October 2009, Motion’s C5 and F5 line of Rugged Tablet PCs became the first to feature the Gorilla™ Glass.[4] Later in March 2010, Corning announced that Gorilla™ Glass' use in the Japanese cell phone market.[5] Corning's next leap was a few days later, March 15, 2010 was incorporating the Gorilla Glass into the LG x300 Ultra-thin Mobile PC; which unveiled at the 2010 CES Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada [6][7]
Corning attributes the choice of Gorilla™ Glass superiority not only for "unparalleled damage resistance and protection" but:
"Thinner form factor: Gorilla™ Glass retains its performance advantage over standard chemically strengthened substrates even when used in thin form factors. Currently, Gorilla™ Glass is available as-drawn in thicknesses ranging from .5 mm – 2.0 mm.
Pristine surface quality: Because it is formed using Corning’s proprietary fusion process, Gorilla™ Glass offers the same high-quality pristine surface available with all of our high-technology display substrates. This feature offers the ability to use the glass “as drawn,” eliminating lapping and polishing processes which can introduce surface damage.
Compliance with environmental standards: Gorilla™ Glass is compliant with the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS). It contains no heavy metals, making it an ideal component for devices engineered to meet environmental standards.
Compatibility with touch screen devices: Gorilla™ Glass can be used as a protective cover sheet for touch screen devices without impeding the functionality of the device. Reliable strength is important for these types of devices that function in response to pressure being applied to the glass.
Available with an easy-to-clean, wear-resistant coating: Customers can specify a version of Gorilla™ Glass with a special coating, making it easier to clean than other cover glasses. This is especially useful for devices that function by touch."[8]
In addition to its uses for mobile phones such as the Motorola Droidx[9], Corning expect increasing usage in television screens starting in 2011, with a projected market of $1 billion in 2011.[10][11]