Y2HH

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 07:58 AM) and white bread adds lots of fun bleach-like chemicals! gimme the wheat bread PB+J. My insides need a good bleaching from time to time anyway.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 8, 2012 -> 09:48 AM) to be fair, though, that's hardly the only issue at play. new technologies that allow food to be produced CHEAPER are primarily to blame for the poor quality the average american has access to. end of the day, it's all about that bottom line - whether we die at 50 or not. You aren't going to get an argument from me on this.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 12:31 AM) You never did tell us about this. I'm curious myself. I was close when I said he probably had 88, then.

PB&J requires white bread. This countries newfound infatuation with wheat and whole grain breads sickens me...its too dense and adds flavor that doesn't belong in a PB&J. Damn bread hippies.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 01:07 AM) Ya, they came up with solution a long time ago. It's called Google Chrome. Chrome lacks a real alternative to NoScript. NotScript and ScriptNo are garbage riding a gimped API...Google has no intention if allowing people to block them from tracking, their entire business relies on it. Other than that, I love Chrome...just can't trust the Internet without NoScript...even legit sites connect you to a scary number of third parties. Like one visit to chicagotribune.com connects you to about 12 other companies, and that's not even bad compared to others.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 12:52 AM) Anybody else having trouble with Firefox crashing a lot lately? Nope.

QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 8, 2012 -> 08:33 PM) God, I wish I could block texts on my iPhone from certain numbers. You can. Call AT&T or Verizon and ask them to block it

The screen is what's new...it's higher resolution than bluray and 1080p tv...without a loss of battery power. There isn't much new you can do when it comes to modern tech tablets, or phones for that matter...at least not until some sort of transparent and flexible screen is invented. Otherwise it's baby steps at this point. The technology to make a huge leap is unknown at this time, as I see it the next step is transparent glass screens that are flexible...which don't exist yet. Otherwise it's spec bumps like speed or graphics, or perhaps a super advanced voice control, but even that's just evolution of current voice control...baby steps toward something like Star Trek voice control... On a side note, I just sold my ipad2 for 450$...and bought an iPad 3!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 8, 2012 -> 12:42 AM) I know it's significantly more powerful but so far I've never looked down at my iPad 2 and thought "gee, I wish this thing was brighter, sharper, and clearer" I mean it's what, a 7" screen? I barely even notice that kind of thing until the screen is at least about 20 inches I felt the same until I got an iPhone4/4s. After that, that's the only thought I had when looking at my iPAD2 (wishing it was sharper/clearer). So much so that I rarely use it anymore because of how much more clear my iPhone4 is. My wife is the only person that really uses the iPAD2 now. I'm not saying it's bad...but I work on computers/technology for a living, so I like having super high resolutions, etc... My desktop runs at 2560x1440, for example. I've long felt that the iPAD pixel density was too low.

The new iPAD looks awesome. 2048x1536 resolution, 264ppi, quad core graphics/processor and somehow they maintained the same battery life as the iPAD2. For those who want mobile connectivity rather than just WiFi, it's also 4G LTE. Same pricing as the iPAD2.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 7, 2012 -> 11:04 AM) Compared to a couple of decades ago, maybe. Compared to before massive industrialization in the mid 20th century, no. You can't compare pre-industrilized versus post-industrialized in any fair way...the sheer population difference would invalidate any methods they used back then to raise cattle/animals from working now...or even coming close to working now.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 7, 2012 -> 09:49 AM) I was reading a book review about Carlos Escobar and it talked about the millions and millions of dollars he had stored in a warehouse and how rats hade eaten about 10% of his money. Which if estimates are correct that would have been close to three hundred billion dollars. How does large quantities of U.S. greenbacks landing aboard, outside of banks, some being lost, affect our economy here? Something like only 5-10% of US Currency is actually in printed money. I think there is currently about 1 trillion dollars in actual printed bills out there total...including money in bank vaults, etc...most currency is digital. Edit: According to the federal reserve, I was close: http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 6, 2012 -> 09:25 PM) at the end of the day, moderation moderation moderation. we've always known that, and it will always be true. This. ...and then there's this, too. ----- Article quoted from The Daily Meal, link: (http://www.thedailymeal.com/iceman-suffered-clogged-arteries) "Scientists have been working on analyzing a 5,300-year-old mummy, found in 1991 in Italy’s Ötztal Alps, and surprise surprise, they've discovered that the iceman had clogged arteries. The mummy, known as Ötzi, was apparently lactose intolerant, dealt with parasites and cavities, and was at risk for arteriosclerosis (although a head injury killed him). While the lactose intolerance isn't surprising (humans were just beginning to domesticate animals and eat dairy products when he was alive), the fact that Ötzi had clogged arteries means the Paleo diet might be useless when facing heart disease. "[Arterioscelrosis] is typically thought to be a modern, so-called 'civilization disease,'" project leader Albert Zink wrote. "With Ötzi we now know that the mutations already occurred more than 5,000 years ago." Since coronary heart disease seems to predate potato chips and couch potatoes, heart health may be based more on genetics than diet, making heart disease more difficult to prevent. Bad news all around, we fear." ----- I eat meat, but I only do so in moderation. I don't even eat it every day. I don't push my lifestyle down your throats, I expect demand the same in return. I'm not about to get into the politics of how the animals are treated, I wish everything were perfect in that regard, but it's not. This is part of our culture growing and refining itself. I'm positive they're treated better and better in this country, especially when compared to the past, or other countries.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 3, 2012 -> 06:58 PM) Not really an apology, still completely missing the issue at hand to boot, still doesn't understand how contraception works. edit: I'm sure he does, and if he or anyone else doesn't, a simple Google/Bing/Yahoo search will shed light on the situation in about 2 seconds. This story has simply spun out of control at this point. Rush was stupid to the Nth for taking a rather simple issue and turning into a personal attack. It's just another story in an endless string of stories about Rush Limbaugh and the stupid/crazy s*** he does/says. I wish he'd go away, but he won't so long as people keep bringing him into the spotlight. Sure, he'll lose a few advertisers for this, and I'm sure he will gain others...if anything, this will galvanize his bat s*** rabid fan base...a fan base that happens to buy s***...thus a fan base some advertisers will still advertise too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 06:54 PM) Didn't Maher basically not only lose advertisers but quite quickly lost his show? (and wound up on HBO where he didn't have to worry about that). In this case, he kind of got "rewarded" for being a douche. That show is STILL running...I used to watch it, but the last few years I feel Maher has really jumped off the deep end.

I dislike math, therefore I now dislike most of you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 06:39 PM) Possibly, but there could be backlash when people find out. Beck and Maher have both lost shows over controversial statements. Beck doesn't surprise me, the guy was the quintessential flash in the pan when he got really popular. Maher surprises me as he's been a long running television personality, but then again, I'm sure Maher got quick and easy replacements for any lost ads, just as I'm sure Rush will. The guy has too strong/rabid of a following for some advertisers to ignore. As for BS, the thought of you advertising on Rush Limbaugh's show...is...well...just...no. You would cause a chain reaction in the space time continuum that would undoubtedly destroy our universe, inadvertently causing Jet Li's power to grow on all other universes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 05:50 PM) Rush isn't backing down (and doesn't seem to understand how oral contraceptives even work), and many in the right wing blogosphere are standing by him. Fox News (and Drudge) is, of course, ignoring the story. But now several Republicans, including Boehner, Fiorini and Santorum(!) among others, are calling for Rush to apologize. This is a refreshing change, but it's still sad that they haven't condemned equally terrible things he has said in the past. Edit: quicken loans and sleep number have both pulled ads. Until it blows over and they silently reinstate their ads.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) Apparently there's a growing conspiracy at foot that someone (OBAMA!!!) murdered Breitbart. I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Actually, the real story is Obama called Bush, asked him how he pulled off 9/11, and Bush gave him pointers on how to get Breitbart. I don't see why you don't understand this is fact.

Who the f*** is Meryl Street?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 01:08 PM) There's also the opposite ie Lowes and pulling their ads from that Muslim TLC show. But public outrage can and does have an effect. Just look at Komen eventually backtracking because of the widespread backlash. I'm not saying it doesn't work in some cases...I'm merely saying that I hate it how advertisers act as if they were unaware the entire time. I call it the Google defense. This doesn't absolve Apple/Microsoft or anyone else for such practices, but Google has this down to a science. Here is how you do it: 1) You do something grey area wrong/borderline illegal and/or outright illegal. 2) You pretend you were doing it on accident and/or pretend you didn't know you were doing it at all. 3) You issue an excuse (not an apology, as that admits fault) and cease doing it immediately, while at the same time amending your customer agreements on the fly (since you reserve the right to change your policies/agreements at any time you wish). 4) You retain anything you obtained illegally or otherwise when you were still doing it but tell everyone you won't use it. 5) A year or two later when nobody remembers the incident, you pay a hefty fine to the US Govt or the EU for severe antitrust violations, and sign agreements that you won't do any such thing again. Until you do. 6) Repeat steps 1-5.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 01:00 PM) Meh, if his advertisers don't already know that they're advertising on a show where that kind of stuff happens, they're fools. This is a great point. If I had to guess, that advertiser was already planning on canceling and this just gave them an excuse to do it earlier. Rush Limbaugh has no shortage of high paying advertisers, and this won't change that. This is another instance in which the mighty dollar talks, and as they say, BS walks. I see this sort of "we suddenly have a conscious" crap throughout the advertising industry on what appears to be a weekly basis. For years they advertise with a company or person that the entire world knows is an evil POS, but until something really public/bad explodes in their faces, they have no issues advertising there...then suddenly they want their name in the paper to appear as if they had no idea this sort of thing was going on and now they're the good guys for pulling their ads. Meh.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 1, 2012 -> 08:09 PM) This is ridiculous on so many levels. Obama is not responsible for the bush tax cuts our iraq or afghanistan, which are the main deficit drivers (plus the crap economy). He is ending two of those things and taking all sorts of s*** for republicans from it. He had an unending desire for a big compromise on entitlement and tax reform, but one party has almost universally pledged never raise taxes ever. Pretending that this is an evenly two-sided problem is part of the problem. You're entire attempt at rebuttal is nothing more than a bunch of excuses for failure of leadership. The sooner you see that the better. 1) Obama is responsible for extending the Bush tax cuts...the instant he extended them they ceased being the Bush tax cuts and became the Obama tax cuts. It's now HIS name on that dotted line. Whatever excuse you have as to why he extended them is meaningless...it's now his signature on the law, therefore it's now his law. Maybe he should start being the leader the US elected him to be instead of the whipping boy he has become. He talks about having to make the tough choices...well, it would have been a tough choice to let the tax cuts expire...and IMO, he should have. Maybe he will make the right decision this time around instead of signing the dotted line and making up excuses as to how he was strong-armed into doing it. 2) The second lie you keep trying to perpetuate in his "unending desire for entitlement and tax reform" is an absolute joke. Obama had a super majority congress/senate for OVER A YEAR and could have done almost anything he wanted with the tax code, and during that time he did almost NOTHING except compromise over and over on the ACA, which is nothing like what they wanted or intended. If I had the kind of power he had when entering office and I had this "unending desire" you claim he had, I'd have f***ing done something. I also find the excuse that he was too busy working on the ACA weak, too...considering the staff they have, they can and should be working on more than one thing at a time. Their inability to multitask on legislation is just another ridiculous excuse. The fact is, these people don't actually want to do anything to the tax code...OR THEY WOULD HAVE BY NOW. They've been having this same "tax/entitlement reform" argument for 3 decades now. And what's changed regardless of who's in office? Nothing. I'm the only one here that's NOT pretending this isn't two sided, and that's a big part of the problem...it's ONLY two sided. And if anything, it's balanced in favor of the democrats and has been for upwards of 6 years now. They currently have 2 branches of government (President/Senate), and HAD all three for a while there, with huge majority numbers. So what you need to do is 1) Stop making excuses for failed leadership and 2) Stop pretending the republicans have more power than they do. The only reason they have power is because the democrats we elected are spineless non-leaders that shouldn't be...you know...leading. The worst part is most of them will get reelected by the same people...mostly because they have a *D* or an *R* next to their names on the ballot...and for no other reason. And why? Because of people like yourself who forgive their every failure by blaming the evil (insert opposite party from your own here).

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 1, 2012 -> 07:52 PM) Yeah, I don't mind some of his stuff, but he tends to rate too high on the douche-o-meter. Then enlighten me. Do you not think it's inherently mean-spirited to criticize someone immediately after their death? Because that seems to be the most basic distinction happening here. That was the only thing I was ascribing to you (while imploring you to please correct me if I was wrong); the second half of the paragraph was where I addressed the distinction I could understand, but was not ascribing that to you. That's twice now you've made conclusions that I'm secretly spewing some vitriol Breitbart's way without saying what gives you that inclination, aside from the brief bit about "the more I defend..." which leads back to my earlier question -- is it not possible to defend a view point while thinking said view point is entirely off base? Sounds like some of the conversations got crossed here, so I apologize for my previous statement. To be clear, I think it's wrong to celebrate the death of another person in a, "good, I'm glad their dead", sort of way. Especially when the reason why boils down to them having a different set of religious/political opinions than you (and in this case, this is exactly what's going on). That reason aside, justifying it by saying, "well...they did the same thing to so and so", is no justification. It makes you and the other people that partake in that sort of nonsense just as hateful/bad. Edit: Oh, and if you find yourself defending others with that same justification, it again makes you just as bad.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 1, 2012 -> 07:18 PM) I'm not a democrat, but, yes, numerical analysis of the current tax and spending structure places a substantial majority of the deficit on Bush's policies. Stop. It places just as much blame on Obama's policies for continuing where Bush left off, only at a much more rapid pace. Then, then next guy/gal after this guy can blame him, just as the previous guy blamed the one before, etc...etc... It never ends. Because people like yourself keep repeating the same nonsense you just repeated.