I was actually trying to get across it is really arrogant to assume because WE radio all over the place, that makes it the intelligent way to go. Also, the fact that there doesn't seem to be any civilizations populating the cosmos might be because, like us, it would take too much resources for everyone else as much as us. Maybe there really isn't any way to get around faster than light, and therefore not even close to it.

...so a belated "Ya! Lots faster now!"

Hey, finally had some time to bugger with this computer. My hosts file already had 2 entries, sending me to the old VS. No clue how that came about...

Hey, about the mini quadcopter, here's a thumb.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51693497/crazflie.png

HA! Betcha didn't think I had a gift ready!

I'm so smug.

Merry Christmas!

>> ^PalmliX:

How do you know so much about the hazards of space exploration? I'm looking for an expert of sorts to consult for a short film about Voyager, drop me a line if your interested.


Mostly from reading "hard science" fiction. I kinda dislike the stuff that plays fast and lose with the various accepted physical laws. The cynical part of my brain is wondering if you're teasing, but I'll let the warm fuzzy part respectfully say I ain't anywhere near "expert".

Wasn't angry. Capitals and other formatting just used for effect. I apologize if I came off that way.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
You lost me completely. I understand the difference between legal and illegal. There is no meaningful distinction between something that has been decriminalized and legal. People use "decriminalized" to still place the moral bad sign on something while advocating it's non-criminal status; a way of labeling something bad and yet having it be legal. The phrase is all about having your moral cake, and eating it too. Didn't mean to excite your anger there, was just asking what you saw as a difference, if any, between something that is decriminalized, and something that is legal, because for me, it is semantically the same.

Hey, here's a better embed for your movie stunt wrecking ball into van post.



It's for the movie "The Other Guys". in this you can see the hydraulic flipper arm under the van.

About the maps on your Bold.

That's really weird. I have almost 1MB cached at the moment, seems permanently.

Are you running stock storage? I have a 2 GB card. Maybe that has something to do with it, or at least where you store your cache.

Oh shit, I just noticed we're talking apples and oranges. I'm using Blackberry maps. Sorry.

Check your settings, my Curve 8900 caches. Yes, you have to have downloaded the info at some point, but it chaches the map just to avoid excess downloading fees.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^shole:
If I fire up gmaps in a deadzone on my blackberry, it tells me there's no service and does nothing. It ought to cache the road map if not the satellite imagery.

Always upvote double entendre.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Peonage sounds a lot like pwnage.

In Soviet Russia, sky copyrights YOU!

Ok, that sounded better in my head...

In reply to this comment by arvana:
Apparently the sky is copyrighted in Russia.  Anyway, it's fixed.

In reply to this comment by Payback:
It is *dead, terms of use violation. Like huh?

In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^Payback:
>> Sorry. J/K. I have not a predjudiced bone in my body, but in context, I channeled one of the fucktards in the video. Honestly, I have no problem whatsoever with you and wish you well. I think I've said it elsewhere in here, I have several friends I think are gay, never asked, don't care. Well, two of them are married to each other, so it's a bit obvious, but oh well.

You didn't need the disclaimer, I knew you were joking.

Yeah, I pretty much assumed that. Others on the Sift might take offense by proxy.

Jerk. You have a problem with someone using the word "irony" correctly?

In reply to this comment by jwray:
According to the moron at 2:30, suing to get "in god we trust" removed from the currency is "millitant"? What fucking planet is he from? That's just enforcing the establishment clause of the first amendment through the courts. That's about as millitant as Gandhi.

You can't expect people to always tell the truth when they get a random phone call under the pretense of a survey. Especially on such a topic that could expose them to more bigotry than any other minority. People lie to the opinion polls. There aren't enough churches in the country to hold all the people who say they go to church every sunday.

"The 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million U.S. Americans (14.1%) describe themselves as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism."

Everyone is somewhere along the spectrum "theism...agnosticism...atheism". Of course that depends on which version of god you're talking about. But "without religion" can't be theism, so these people simply aren't accurately describing themselves.

Dawkins is not militant. Don't be ridiculous. He has no inclination towards violence or coercion.

Stalin and Mao did not suppress religions for atheism's sake, they did it to eliminate competitors of the state -- organizations that might lead to an uprising against the tyrant. Their actions have nothing to do with atheism. They have much more to do with Machiavelli. Their beliefs were rooted in Marxism, and Marx wouldn't know the scientific method if it slapped him in the face. Marx simply up shit and treated it as fact, like any religious prophet (it would be a bit redundant to say false prophet). None of this is connected to the atheistic beliefs of modern scientists.