FlaSoxxJim

It's not the years, it's the milage. Happy Birthday, Kap!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 28, 2005 -> 04:08 PM) (unfair swipe, but give me one good reason to not allow communion, besides taking yet another swipe at the parents.) Maybe she has celiac disease and they are protecting her. Not to threadjack, but it's unusual for the Catholic sacrament of Communion to make national news twice in the same day and I thought I'd share.

Hope it's a good one, Cali!

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 26, 2005 -> 10:58 PM) I need my hand held in AppleWorks paint.... Apple key + 'z'... that's all you really need to know.

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 26, 2005 -> 06:09 PM) There are stem cells in the roots of your teeth as well. The thing is that none of the stem cells so far derived from non-embryonic tissue have shown nearly the degree of totipotency (the ability to differentiate into any type of human cell) as the embryonic lines. I would absolutely love for some non-embryonic lines to be established that approach true totipotence, because the places this research can lead are way more important than the societal debates keeping the science from progressing.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Mar 26, 2005 -> 08:46 PM) I use Auto CAD every day of my life. Recently I have been trying to do some stuff with Photoshop. I'm deciding to stick with ACAD. I have never run into such a confusing program in my life!!! Photoshop is a hard program to jump into at this stage of the game, but it's seriouslythe most amazing single piece of software ever created. I've used it since V2, and used it fairly seriouslsly since V4, so I've been able to take the add-ons in more slowly. The same is true of the multimedia authoring environment I spend a good deal of my time in (Director). If I tried to jump in from scratch now I'd shoot myself. But since I've grown up with the program for a dozen years or so it doesn't seem as bewildering. The think about both of those programs is you can jump in from scratch and do OK as long as you don't try to do more than you need to do right off the bat. There are Photoshop tools and tricks I've never used in my life, but it's good to know they're there if i need to learn them. Better yet, the resident office Photoshop Demigod works 20 feet away from me, so I have him do the tricky stuff.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Mar 26, 2005 -> 04:33 AM) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a.../tv_fox_blocker Dang, this is the techno geek I needed to find a few years when I was involved with trying to put out a G-Chip as a competitor to the V-Chip, that would have filtered out all relogious programming (100% blocked, so not favoring any one over others). There was decent interect in te idea but an engineer convinced us it couldn' tbe done for the small amount of money we had to invest.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Mar 25, 2005 -> 02:13 PM) If you want to post porn, go elsewhere. Post Porn... is that some new cereal I haven't heard of before?

My favorite part in that story: Gee, y'think?? :rolly

And wouldn't you know it, Mrs. FlaSox is out of town on the very night of this breakthrough discovery.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 25, 2005 -> 05:12 AM) No real revelations here, Satanic or otherwise. Backmasking Link That's not what my neighbor's dog told me.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Mar 25, 2005 -> 09:06 AM) I think you're misinterpreting, YAS. What I believe Jim's saying is that there can be no true intertwining of religion and science, because the basis for one field is inherently irrelevant in the other. I wouldn't even go so far as to to say totally irrelevant, in that religion is a big part of the life of many prominent scientists. But otherwise you are correct, I'm just trying to point out the apples and oranges nature of religion and science and the necessity to approach them in very different ways. I've posted this before, but there are some absolutely brilliant scientists - like Townes - that are deeply spiritual. It is genually intriguing that many of them are physicists, who apparently take the equations describing what goes on under the hood of the universe as far as they can and still have questions that remain unanswered. And as I have also always suggested, even thought science does not equal religion and religion does not equal science. They need not be mutually exclusive in the lives of ondividuals. Despite my own lack of spirituality, I really am an avid supporter of spiritual pursuits and religion - excepting of curse the caveat (and a dealbreaker in some cases) that one person practicing their faith should not negatively impact others' ability to equally freely practice their religion... or lack thereof).

QUOTE(mreye @ Mar 24, 2005 -> 05:19 PM) Can I be your editor? Well, the problem is that I had not yet started drinking, hence not so smart.

Hope it was a good one!

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 24, 2005 -> 02:08 PM) That supports my general assertion that religion & science go hand in hand. In general they are both devoted to saving life & searching for universal truth. Its why Catholic priests have a history of playing a role in scientifc development. You are not alone in that belief. Physicist Charles Townes, whos Nobel prizewinning research in the 1950s led to the development of the laser, has espoused that belief for the last 40 years. He just was awarded the Templeton Prize For Progress Toward Research or Discoveries About Spiritual Realitie His philosophy can basicallybe summarized by his quote: Understanding the order in the universe and understanding the purpose in the universe are not identical, but they are also not very far apart. I personally do not ascribe to the belief that there are fruitful avenues of inquiry to be found at the nexus of science and religion, as romantic and wonderfully human as such a notion might be. At the same time, I have never seen religion and science as mutually exclusive either (even though I am not religious). The problem with the two fields meshing is actually hinted at right in Townes' quote. Theories as to the order of the universe are testable and therefore fall within the realms of science. Theories as to the PURPOSE of the universe are NOT testable by definition, and so they lie outside of science as we define it, and they always will. Science can critically evaluate the 'how?' but religion ultimately needs to fall back on faith to examine the 'why?'

I can see it now... "DRINK YOURSELF SMART! The new self-help book by noted auther FlaSoxxJim..."

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 24, 2005 -> 01:51 AM) Yes. High school teens dont need to be having sex.......period and the schools shouldn't be encouraging the behaivior by passing out condoms. "They're going to do it anyway" is not an excuse either. I don't think it is intended to be an excuse so much as a simple statement of fact. Yeah, the teen sex problem has taken on epic proportions, and with it, a litany of "side effects" like HIV, STDs, pregnancy, etc. Short the lofty ambition of stopping the teen sex, is there not a benefit of at least moderating the negative consequences that we all end up paying for?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 23, 2005 -> 10:40 PM) Its the same thing as when they hand out clean needles to IV drug users here. The goal is to prevent infection but all you really end up doing is subsidizing and encouraging the behaivior. Out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about condoms being made available to high schoolers?

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Mar 23, 2005 -> 03:01 PM) I've seen California law school professor Phillip Johnson make mince meat out of evolutionary scientists in public forums. You've seen him in the wrong setting then. I've seen him twice on two different campuses and on both occassions he had his ass summarily handed to him by the scientists in attendance. Not that this is unexpected. Darwin on Trial was amusing enough when it was first published, although the revised edition with his so-called responses to critical comments we not particulartly insightful. I have not read any of his more recent works. What Johnson does do successfully is attack evolution as a philosophy, which it is not. But it is science – testable, rife with knowledge gaps, but a sound and vigorous science. And the key problem with Johnson is that he is NOT a scientist, nor does he show any understanding of how science actually works. Hence, his approach to evolution as a faulty philosophy (something he can attack with a lawyer's logic) and not an, er..., evolving scientific discipline. As such, he spends a lot of his time doing what the creationists have done before him, attacking classical Darwinian theories as if they were the sum total of evolutionary knowledge today rather than a brilliant if incomplete book published in 1859. Darwin didn't even understand the mechanisms of inheritance in 1859, chromosomes having not yet identified as the mechanism of particulate inhertitance at the time. If Johnson were to actually try to critically examine modern Neo-Darwinism without doing the creationsist sleight of hand, he would not be very effective. As it is, he is a smart many who understands the art of argument, even if he cannot understand the discipline he is arguing against.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Mar 23, 2005 -> 08:38 AM) But will they have chocolate lolly pops? Ah, the lollypops... Did you ever see a cuter cooter? There is a really good tongue twoster in there somewhere.

Unreal. Looks like I'll be getting sued by my students before too long.

So where are the free prostitutes and beer? Actually, I will be interested in seeing how this effects the rate of HIV transmission, criminal activity by addicts, etc. It may well end up like a version of our methodone clinics - but one that actually works the way it is supposed to.

Then beat the bushes and ask a couple of girls you'd like to take. At worst they say no, right? And I'm sure there are unattached girls in your class going through the same anxiety aboout not having a sate for the prom.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 09:26 AM) The official reason for including solitaire in early versions of windows was to help people learn to use a mouse. Strange but true. In the same vein, porn was first posted on the internet to give people a chance to work on their pocket mouse technique.

My 5-year old boy has simultaneously entered his superhero phase and his penis phase, and it's made for some fine entertainment. He and his older sister were playing superheroes the other day and he just out of the blue blurts out "The power of the universe is in my penis!" Needless to say, my wife assumes this is all my fault somehow...