I don't mind actual attack ads, but this one is soooo flimsy. It's like McCain saying sex ed fund = kindergarten pornography. It's just stupid.

How can you extrapolate the existance of abortion clinic shooters in the 90s to McCain's two votes. What else is in that bill? Was it going to pass anyways? Would a stupid bill that probably restricted freedoms prevent someone from shooting a doctor?

We already have laws. Probably federal laws. WTF does passing more laws ABOUT SHOOTING PEOPLE matter? Just enforce existing laws. So McCain voting NO was a butterfly effect that rippled through extremist groups and caused the shooting... huh? If you actually think there is any validity to this ad, please, please take a long look in the Hope mirror and ask yourself what the ponies and unicorn dreams have done to you. Imagine McCain put out this ad. And if you are a proponent of The Big Lie then fine. If you think this is part of a lie strategy that Obama will repeat often enough until it becomes true than fine. As it is, it's a lame sad lie.

Anyways Jed Lewison is the lowest dirty tricks arm of the Obama 527 web coalition. We have enough Rove's and don't need another wannabe who was ex-Hill staffer.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner
Sounds good to me, but I think we're in a problem more complex than that. Since these are banks, we'll see some pretty disastrous effects ripple through the economy as businesses and people's ability to get credit disappears.

What do you think about what happened to Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, they both collapsed and the government didn't intervene, yet both were successfully bought and the bad assets were dissolved. Didn't crash the market, in fact it barely caused a blip.

>> ^imstellar28:
Theres really a much simpler, and more effective regulation to specify, how about the government makes this a law:
1. All businesses which take a greater risk than their their diversified portfolio or their % of overall investment allows, and subsequently suffer unrecoverable losses, shall be sold off in an elegant and undramatic fashion to its competitors, who did manage their risk, at a price determined mutually beneficial. Said company, who properly managed risk, shall be rewarded with a greater market share than before.


Sounds good to me, but I think we're in a problem more complex than that. Since these are banks, we'll see some pretty disastrous effects ripple through the economy as businesses and people's ability to get credit disappears.

I want the losers to lose, but I don't want innocent bystanders to lose too.

As far as regulation, I think the main regulations needed have to do with making the risks more transparent, and getting people to stop misrepresenting risk on a large scale.

I've been looking for some sort of consensus amongst economists on the topic, and the only consensus I'm seeing is that something should be done -- only non-economist ideologues (like Paul, and House Republicans) are saying the right action is to more vigorously pursue inaction.

I don't think a $700bn taxpayer funded gift basket to the fuckwads that screwed up the global economy is fair, but it might avert a wider disaster. I think it shouldn't be a gift basket, it should be like bankruptcy -- that the government nationalizes these organizations, brings in new leadership, cleans house, and sells the thing back to the shareholders, like what Sweeden did in a similar situation. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

I'm watching and waiting to see how it'll really shake down, because the politics on this are intense, and complex, and mostly in the hands of an increasingly unpredictable Republican party.

The only question now is whether the Democrats will fold to these shenanigans, or try to lead on the issue and give us a real rescue bill. Guess we'll have to wait until Thursday to find out.

*asia
*nature
*books
*art
*music

Lively shadows dance among green arbors on a long summer's day
Dragonflies and Koi play joyously and gay
The water ripples and the lotus sways
Evoking an endless fragrance, reminding us of Summer's way
http://www.renderaid.com

imagine space-time as a thin and flexible sheet of rubber, and Earth makes a deep depression into that sheet.
Any movement on that sheet creates ripples in the fabric of space-time.

First of all, let me say that I'm not a parent so you can go ahead and take what I say with a grain of salt.

Spoco2 I agree with you on a & c, but disagree on b & d. I wouldn't consider their laughter poor sportsmanship, just finding amusement in the kid's ability at the game - the whole point of the game is to shoot other people. Poor sportsmanship I think would be more along the lines of taunting them through the mic or in chat. Also, I don't think we can make assumptions about someone's personality by their laugh.

However, I do agree that this is poor parenting. Just because a parent claims to know that this violence has no affect on the child doesn't mean it is true. Desensitization at an early age has a rippling effect. Furthermore, most children at this age still have great difficulty discerning the difference between reality and fantasy and try to act out the things they enjoy (remember how children have imaginations?). How many of us broke our arms acting out ninja turtles? Guns are not toys and this easily puts that thought into kids.

This is also bad parenting because it's not exploratory or any kind of creative outlet, the kinds of things needed in the developmental stages. He says it helps develop hand-eye coordination? Bullshit. Yes, I know it helps that, but the parent is trying to justify that as some kind of reason to promote it. What this kind of entertainment really is is a quick solution. Instead of investing yourself, you can just plop the kid down and let something else keep the little squirt occupied - that's why they call TV the boob-tube.

When this kid acts out something he sees, it can't be blamed on video games. It can be blamed on shitty parenting. I have no beef with violent video games. Violent movies and books have been out forever. I just have a problem with parents buying mature material for young children and then blaming the medium when their kids do what kids do, which is act out what they see.

belive it or not, sand acts a lot like a liquid quite often, it can flow, ripple, wave and all sorts of things what a liquid can do.

This sand looks extremely liquid. I suspect that it's sand in suspension of some liquid. Look at the ripples at the end.

Wow. I was about to say that I understood why Disney deleted this scene, because the animation didn't come close to doing this song justice, but then the video got to the whole ripples distorting moonlight part and I was hooked. This is very beautiful.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'waves, ripples, boom' to 'waves, ripples, boom, Cannikin, nuclear testing, hydrogen bomb' - edited by fissionchips

Yo! And I ask - does anyone else suddenly realize that they can ALSO move in this way? Moving! Moving! rippling. Anyone? INCREDIBLE!!!

Mythbusters proved this impossible. Grant even created a paddling robot on a surfboard, but the waves were more like baby ripples.

Not to mention the shockwave would kill essentially all life in the water.

I don't know anything about physics, but here's a stab in the dark. What about the stars own gravity. What if the matter is being dragged along by the stars gravity, only at a slower rate than the star is traveling? We are so far away it just appears that the matter is not moving. When in fact the star is draggin it keeping the discarded matter really hot.

Also from the pic it looks like it is traveling through something, disrupting some field or gas we cannot see. Kind of like a rock passing through water or thick smoke. If you look closely at the pic you can see some distinct rippling affects and even a spiral affect close to the tail of the star. Something is distrupting the flow of that matter. Another gravity field produced nearby perhaps? Maybe not.

So the rate of decay would be slow as the star drags along the matter keeping it hot and whatever it is passing through providing the constant fuel to maintain the burn. Over time the matter slowly decelerates, cools and fades from our vision.

All in all it is still a guess.

I wish people would realize the absolute truth of conectedness. Reality can not have parts or "steps" or particles. If that was the case there would not be motion. Only a reality made up of waves can be the true ultimate reality because at some poit you have to consider that which has always been and always will be. Anything less than that has to start and come from somewhere.
Steps or particles or matter means that you have friction and an eventual stop. Only waves / curves can exist forever.
Even if we are living in the Matrix or in a dream, ultimate reality is still wave based.
Waves don't end. They may get weaker or interfered with but they will reach the edge of the universe in some scale. Everything affects everything else to some degree. Waves mean infinite smoothness and infinite divisibility. No matter how weak a wave gets it will never stop completely. When I type this on my keyboard I move waves of energy around and the ripples of my motion will have at least a tiny effect on galaxies far away accross the universe at some future time.
-Karl

But look at the amazing rag doll physics! And the ripples in the wine glass when his head smacks the table! Now that's what I call realism.