StrangeSox

I'm sorry that he was getting poor treatment before. I hope the new treatment at UoC works out for him. Stomach cancer is a tough one. Doctors and medical researchers are people, too. People who have dedicated their life to studying various cancers and trying to find treatments and cures for them. People who probably had or will have friends or family who get some form of cancer. As others have said, there's no single cure for cancer because it's not a single disease. It's like asking for a cure for infection--there's many different types, many different pathologies, different treatment options and concerns.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2010 -> 04:44 PM) They let it go?

QUOTE (hitlesswonder @ Dec 4, 2010 -> 04:37 PM) OK, I deleted my post because I decided it was overly political. But I will say that BP is "the people" as well. The courts can settle the disputes between BP and plaintiffs. The executive branch of the government should not decide a priori that it needs to aid plaintiffs against BP. That's just anti-corporate bias in my opinion. This is the political forum. That said, BP is a large, multinational-but-foreign company who created a huge environmental and economic disaster. Why shouldn't they be demonized? Why should they be protected? I'm sick and tired of people excusing gross corporate negligence and a select few enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else, such as the gulf coast community. I dread the day the people who want no accountability and no oversight over corporations take back over the government. eta: there's a good reason for the anti-corporate bias here; it's pro-people, pro-environment bias. BP, a foreign company, caused significant harm to US resources and citizens. Do I need to provide links to dozens of similar reports of how badly this has impacted gulf coast communities, areas that aren't high on the economic food chain to begin with?

I'm going to assume that now-deleted post was meant to be in green.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Dec 4, 2010 -> 02:17 PM) Get it done South Carolina. Don't let that POS win. lol that was a quick TD.

True enough. Illinois' new Senator Mark Kirk said Democrats needed to listen to the voter's message last month and "not raise taxes and risk another recession.'' Yeah, the voter's message was "don't tax the rich at a slightly higher rate, equivalent to when the economy did really, really well!"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2010 -> 12:09 PM) Hell, I'm not sure that the failure of all of these would be a hugely bad thing, given the weak multiplier effect of tax increases, especially if they're directed upwards. It's just about as damaging over the next 6 months as failing to extend unemployment benefits. And I'm still annoyed at the fact that "The Republicans are willing to have everyone's taxes go up if it means wall street millionaires don't get a tax cut" hasn't become a talking point. [the mainstream media is owned, run and reported on by millionaires]

Regardless of whether it gives the desired outcome, the 60 vote hurdle to get anything done in the Senate is clearly breaking the legislative process.

Hooray for our broken system of government! If only the wealthiest Americans had some more money, then they'd create some jobs! Jobs to produce things there's currently no demand for, but hey, "if you build it, they will come!" For some reason, the fact that the Republicans' claims are largely viewed as baseless and incoherent by the people who study this stuff doesn't get much play. Buried in the NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/us/politics/05cong.html

Ur skillz are no match for my google-fu

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2010 -> 09:57 PM) Well, there are anecdotes out there of a lot of bizarre methods that the military "Found out", like people who are seen anywhere else in public acting homosexual, like the line at a grocery store, or, I can't find it, but there's a case I vaguely recall of the military finding out by reading people's private letters/emails. Mike Almy was discharged from the Air Force after his private emails were read. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/m...y_n_734726.html

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 3, 2010 -> 08:40 PM) On the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association's Facebook page today they put up a message saying they stood with Secretary Gates/Admiral Mullen on DADT. A s***fit/temper tantrum from a bunch of people ensued. I don't think they should've made a statement on a political issue like that but really people in the military are such crybabies. Don't ever let someone qualify their opinion on DADT by saying "I was in the military" to try and overrule yours. Their opinion means s***, and they follow orders from civilian leadership. Period, end of story. You wouldn't ask them "what's your opinion on going to war in Iran?" and then if they say they're against it to decide not to go... they will do what they're told. Secondly, they are fully entitled to their opinion as a citizen but you don't use your opinion as a service member to endorse a political position (it says in so many words in the UCMJ). You can't even say what you really think about the President in public. Also I see a lot of people, mostly combat arms types, talking about how they don't want to share living quarters or showers with gays. I always tell them "YOU ALREADY DO, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW IT OR IGNORED IT ON PURPOSE." I haven't heard about a bunch of people getting raped or molested in the shower, maybe I just wasn't paying attention. Maybe it's still inappropriate for the stereotypical flaming homo to be in an infantry unit, but at the very least let's not chapter someone out because someone found out they were gay... that's just unfair, and spiteful. I don't know how many flaming homosexuals are itching to join the Marines or Army. Really this whole issue is just ridiculous and embarrassing for our country and makes me hate McCain.

Is it worth noting that As and P are the same valence number?

Several blogs on the discovery: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocke...t-about-aliens/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/201...nic-and-aliens/ And the paper, for anyone with access to Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/20...science.1197258

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 3, 2010 -> 10:54 AM) 1. I've heard it said by some in the scientific community as an absolute - which was what I'd call ignorant. 2. Its not a Black Swan in the broad scope - only on Earth, where we have a decent handle on life forms. If you are talking about truly universal here, then there can be no black swan because we don't know the data set. Black Swan in the scope of the historical black swan story--Europeans knew nothing of black swans before the 18th century, so it was a safe assumption that all swans were white. We haven't seen life with arsenic instead of phosphate until recently, so this arsenic substitution is a "black swan".

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 3, 2010 -> 11:00 AM) Wasn't that the vehicle used by the government to say "you have a bunch of s***ty assets that you negligently purchased/held onto, so now we're going to pay you for them so that you don't go out of business?" If so, that's f***ed. "You're a crack addict that's self destructing? Here's more crack so you don't have to go through withdrawal." Well, you don't just cut off a heroin addict cold-turkey. You ween them off and use things like methadone, otherwise you might kill them.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 10:22 PM) Yeah, you said it was more expensive right after saying something about buying pop at a gas station, so I was confused. No problem. I dunno if it'd be worth it to split these posts off into another thread, but here's a few papers on water resources some might be interested in: http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees101/PDFs/1068.pdf http://atmo.tamu.edu/class/atmo629/Summer_...sims.Sci.07.pdf

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 3, 2010 -> 10:09 AM) I always thought it was a world-is-flat sort of belief in the scientific community that all life must be carbon-based. Just because that is what we know, that doesn't mean a damn thing about what other things could exist somewhere else. It may make those things probable, but to write off anything else entirely just seemed ignorant to me. I don't know if it was/is so much "all life MUST be carbon-based" or more "all known life IS carbon-based." This is a classic Black Swan example.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 07:38 PM) I've said this about 47546464 times over the last two years. MLB Network is your very best baseball friend. There is no reason to watch ESPN anymore. Unless you don't get MLB or NFL Networks.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 07:57 PM) The message here is quite funny. WHO's RAISING TAXES? After promising he wouldn't on the middle class? Oh, this just can't be. NO ONE. IT'S A TAX CUT THAT WAS SET TO EXPIRE.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 03:33 PM) Ouch. Those are painful. Yeah, it's amazing how many things you use your ribs for without realizing.

Went to the doctor today, confirmed a broke a rib playing football on Thanksgiving.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 09:14 AM) What are your issues? I only subscribe to the U-Verse internet. It's been about 8 months and I've never had a slow down, cap or a random outage. My router went bad one night, they were there at 9am the next morning to replace it. Maybe I'm just in a good area though. On a slightly different topic, anyone else a Hulu Plus subscriber? Basically my wife and I ditched cable when we moved to our new house in the spring. Decided to get a decent internet package (12mb) and rely on Netflix and over-the-air stuff. While I miss the occasional Food network porn, I really can't say that I've missed anything big. All of our favorite shows we either watch on Hulu, the network's website, or we buy through my PS3. 90% of my sporting events are on major networks or espn3.com. I do have to rely on the radio for most Bulls/Sox games, but at least WGN and WCIU carries them occasionally. Bt anyways we just signed up for Hulu Plus so we don't have to keep connecting the laptop to the TV. So far so good, especially for 7.99 a month. Anyone else have opinions on it? The idea that i'm paying for the content WITH ads kind of annoys me. I'd love to do what you are doing. That's why Comcast wants to charge more for certain content. They're primarily a cable company still, and Netflix, Hulu and other online video sites are a very real threat to their business model. If they have their way, it will be significantly more expensive to rely on Netflix, Hulu, etc.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 08:58 AM) It's a s***ty practice, but I don't see why this should be illegal. They're providing the service, they can charge what they want for it. That just means other companies (AT&T U-Verse for example, which I have and which is great) can give you unlimited/unrestricted plans. Comcast sucks anyway. Why anyone uses them is beyond me. The service they are providing is "last mile access to the internet," not content. I pay Comcast to connect to the internet, regardless of what content I want.