Ok, I'm throwing a book at whoever completes 50 games this year.     But for consistency sake, that's what I named it.

I want to defeat less than 3 games.  Because I really have better things to do.

Right now:  Avernum

Pretty much the same thing as that old Exile game I used to play, but this version is more updated.  I've completed two of the three game winning quests.  Now I just have to assasinate Emperor Hawthorne.


Anyone else beating any games this year?

Ok, America, get your act together. You're getting way too fat. Is this what we've really become as a nation? I'm all for freedom of choice and being able to eat what you want, but COME ON. At least make some kind of effort to balance your diet out. What the hell is wrong with our country? Gah, it irritates me to no end.

Now imagine having to pay for her health care.     I don't fucking want to!!

I found this on the internets..

http://www.aboutus.org/HackerNetwork.com

Currently off line and has been off line for a long time. Likely gone for good. It was a good community site that had nothing to do with hacking what so ever. The members would tease and prod wanna be hackers that would come in asking for hacking help. It was actually quite amusing. These wanna be hackers would be convinced to create M$ paint drawings of the Lizard Queen to gain access to their secrets. In the 2000 elections, the community elected a rod of plutonium to lead as the rod of plutonium had shown more leadership capabilities than any other candidate. This is just a small example of the amount of satire that filled the boards. Those that didn't get it, just didn't. In other pieces of history there was a minor battle with a spammer who would come on and post the word spoon, to which we responded with like force to his board, a terrible publicity stunt by the offender. We learned about the tales of bob, GSI's squatting spider who turned out to be quite deadly and the size of a small dog. Most members have migrated to http://gotthegeek.com , also known as The Geekery.

I don't know who wrote this but I loled.

The elections weren't in 2000 though.  I ran for President against Ergo and I think Biz.  I didn't get to HN till 2002.  And I was winning until Flipside voted for the stoner to tie it up.  No one would break the tie so Lacerda declared rod the President.  I should remind Flipside of that every Christmas when I text him.  Do you think Ergo texts him every Christmas??  I don't think he does!!!

And didn't Kryzek or CyberSniper have to deal with that giant spider?  Not Si.  That thing was huge.

Detta:  Now with Added Value!!


Detta:  Knox0red uP


Detta:  Her eggo is prego


Detta:  Teh sp3rm1Es h4X0r3d 1nt0 teh 41gg!!1!!!
(//////~~PH34R ENR1QU3S L33T SP3RM13S!!1!!!~~\\\\\\\)

I uploaded my first video ever onto youtube.  It's a montage of video clips from my wedding and reception that the videographer put together with the song that we had our first dance to in the background.

Of course...youtube cut out the audio because we don't have permission from Juanes and Nellie Furtado to dance to upload their damn song.

Anyone know how to get around this?

Those posts go here.

Just like the book thread.  Every time you watch a movie, add it to your list.  Put your list in a quote box and add to the bottom each time.  Tell us what you thought of the movie. 

I think I'll actually make the goal of 50 movies.

(By the way, every new post I make, I go to the last one and click "modify".  Then I copy it all and paste it into my new post and make the updates.  That way I don't have to redo the codes every time.)

50?  Ok, I probably won't make that.  My actual goal is 30 for this year.  So make your goal and list your books here as you finish them.

By the way, every new post I make, I go to the last one and click "modify".  Then I copy it all and paste it into my new post and make the updates.  That way I don't have to redo the codes every time.

Found this in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal:


From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology on Jan. 17, 2003:

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two-week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses -- just so we're clear -- are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

The Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. . . .

The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage -- similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example -- meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks. . . .

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . .

To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world -- increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.

This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

Puzzle of the Week.

I say that as if I'm going to post one every week.  We all know that I won't.  But here goes.  PM me your answer and how you got it by next week and I'll dole out the bonus points.  It's high school math.  Shouldn't be too hard.






The Chicken Farmer

I don't remember the specifics of the original puzzle and I just got cranky cause my computer is acting up so let's just say that there's some reason that the world government needed to put a cable wire around the circumference of the earth.  Well then there's Farmer Pete.  He's cranky too because this wire is set to go across his farm and he knows that the chickens just won't step over this thing.  They're askeered of it.

So he appeals to the world government.  It's a pretty peaceful government because Obama is running it.  And they decide to raise every point on the cable one foot off the ground so that the chickens can go underneath the wire.  Obama says he'll pay for all of the supports (well..."he" meaning "us" haha) if Farmer Pete pays for the extra cable.  The cable costs $1.00/foot. 

How much does Farmer Pete have to pay?

Does anyone object to a new format for the what are you reading thread?

I'm thinking of one where we would have a list of books we've read this year.  In each new book post, we'd quote our previous list and add our newest book at the bottom so that we can see all of our books for the year.  You wouldn't have to list all of the books you've read this year, you can just start a new list, if you want.

Yes?  No?  Who cares?

Dear So-and-So,

Unless you're actually reading this, you'll never know that after you parked it and went into the supermarket, your red Honda started rolling across the parking lot.  Some lady hopped out of her car and opened your door (I guess if you're stupid enough to leave the car in neutral without the parking break on, you're stupid enough to also leave your doors unlocked) and stopped it before it hit anything.  Two store employees pushed it back into the spot while she steered.  You really should be more careful.

Love,
Detta