iamshack

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) is that the siri app? yep

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) Theorizing is equivalent with unsupported assertions in his case. We can come up with all sorts of fantastical stories for things we don't understand, but they don't have any actual explanatory power without supporting evidence. And that's fair enough...the proof is really in the eyes of the beholder...and the actual physical presence of the remains and artifacts left behind. Ultimately, a lot of history and archaeology is simply theorizing based on interpretations of the evidence available. Plenty of times, throughout history, the truth has lied in some of the least-expected places.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 01:31 PM) Hancock's books aren't exactly well-sourced pieces of scholarly writing. These theories don't exactly allow something to be "well-sourced," that is the whole point. He is theorizing how some of the most inexplicable (even by your "well-sourced scholars") archaeological remains might have been created/left here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) Well, first of all...there is a lot of stuff that can break or fracture just about any large scale rock, including a "Diorite". Rocks are very weak in tension...they can be broken fairly accurately using wedges if you know what you're doing, and although we might use diamond-impregnated stuff today, that's because it's fastest to do so. Secondly, "Heat-fusing" rocks together on a short timespan would leave signatures in the rocks that people like me could pick up in a matter of hours. I know a guy who can tell you whether a rock was heated past 50 degrees C any time since it was formed...actually changing the crystal structure would take >800 degrees C and a fair amount of time. I can't necessarily explain how it was done...but the assumptions there can be checked. I am just explaining what technology would come to mind from our perspective. We have absolutely no idea how it was actually done. And I'm not talking about breaking rocks with "wedges." I'm talking about rocks in the hundreds of tons cut with perfectly clean lines and then fit together so perfectly that a piece of paper can't be slid between them.

I just don't understand all the evidence of machining. There are formations of rock (I believe diorite or something) that can only be cut by diamond or whatever and are absolutely perfectly cut and then placed together so that not even a human hair can fit in between the cut rocks. Almost as if they were levitated in some way and then heat-fused together. We have absolutely no explanation for how this could have been done.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 11:56 AM) The book made the case for a long gone pre-culture, culture. Not aliens, not Atlantis, but something that experienced the last ice age 10,000+ years ago and was devastated by it. Much like other historical cultures that made big advancements and discoveries, only to have them be lost to history eventually, only to be rediscovered again later. I've seen that guy on tv...I'm assuming you've seen the show Ancient Aliens? I know there are quite a few quacks on there, but I honestly believe their general theory....that aliens visited the earth in the past in order to manipulate our development over time, to achieve their long-term goals. I know it sounds insane, but honestly, if you take all the evidence in question, it is one of the only logical explanations.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) I just finished reading a book about just that. It is also amazing exactly how many of completely different cultures earliest legends are practically the same as well. Aliens, I tell you.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 08:42 AM) You are correct about writings inside the pyramid itself, but they are within burial/temple complexes which do contain writings and they clearly contain burial chambers, even if the contents of them have been looted. Honestly, who are the alternative builders? What I'm wondering is how the pyramids in Mexico and SA are almost identical in construction and layout, etc to those in Egypt.

I really want this Siri thing, especially now that they're passing all the hands-free cell phone laws for drivers. I really didn't see this coming...didn't think there would be anything that could make me want to pick up the new iPhone, but this is truly a feature that sets it apart.

The Breaking Bad discussion will tail off now that the season is over. No need to create another thread, unless you want to do it next Summer.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 12:55 AM) I never said "If A, then B". I just said "B will happen", and then "B did happen". Doesn't matter what A was like, or how to got to B, but if B was the only thing I said, and it happens, then the mode in which it got there is irrelevant. Again, if I make the prediction of saying "Walt Jr. will be addicted to meth", does it even matter that at this point he doesn't even do meth, let alone currently have the possibility of being addicted to it if he has never tried it? No. All it means is that I think he will get addicted to it. Whether he gets addicted by force, because he wants to be, or for any other reason, if the result is the same, then my prediction would be correct. No. You predicted Hector would "get his," based on Gus visiting the old folks' home and the flashbacks of Hector killing Gus' boy toy. What happened is Hector actually made sure Gus "got his," by killing him. It's not difficult to ascertain what your implication was from your prediction. Your point is further weakened by the fact that your prediction was not even correct.

Just watched Inside Job. If you ever need something to get your blood boiling...just watch this.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 10:56 PM) Sigh..... So what you're saying is that I, or anyone else for that matter, can make an argument based on a certain premise, i.e., if A happens then B will result, and regardless of whether A actually ever happens, as long as B results, I am therefore correct? Do you understand how ridiculous and illogical that is?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 11, 2011 -> 10:02 AM) I believe that's how most people got it, as did I. Joe, I'm gonna give up. Anyone could see that Gus had no plans to kill him. If you can't even get that, perhaps you should watch something a little more ham-fisted. It couldn't be more OBVIOUS that Gus would never have killed Hector, if not for Walt intervening. That was the entire point of the elaborate setup. Walt even said 'What am I supposed to do, hide out at the old folk's home for 6 months and wait for Gus to pay him a visit'? So Milk was absolutely correct, and a character in the show even interpreted it the same way, and thus devised a plan to change this, causing Gus to indeed seek to kill Hector. Half the damn final episode was devoted to changing this course of events in order to kill one of the main characters! And I'm sorry, but as soon as you heard Jesse say some obscure plant was the cause of Brock's poisoning, it was like the writer's FLASHING HUGE NEON BLINKING LIGHTS saying WALT IS RESPONSIBLE. The only reason they showed the damn shot of the plant at the end would be to quell the conspiracy theorists from coming up with some nonsensical bs about how it was not Walt, and then the writers having to ultimately admit at some later point that it was indeed Walt who did it. Such a great season, and such a good show. They even made Jesse and Skyler more likable characters for me, which was a source of major frustration for me during the first three seasons.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 05:35 PM) Actually...there are more recent studies which suggest that the presence of slavery was a moderate economic negative for most of the areas in the South where it was prevalent. Well a negative for society as a whole, right? The key was placing wealth in the hands of just a few, and being able to keep as many as what, 65-80% of the rest of the people in abject poverty?

You guys can call be crazy, but I honestly believe in the ancient astronaut theory to explain this stuff...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) Oh man not pyramidology.... Ancient engineering and scientific discoveries are pretty amazing, though. The complexities of ancient American societies and their advanced knowledge is discussed in 1491 pretty heavily. I'm going to have to pick up this book... It's pretty clear to me, and I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person, that to write off the Native Americans, or any of the ancient cultures, for that matter, as ignorant or unsophisticated is incredibly ignorant in and of itself. All one needs to do is look at just the evidence in clear view today, after thousands of years, in order to realize that somehow, some sort of incredible intelligence was present that we cannot even replicate today. How that isn't more of a controversy amongst not only academia, but just the casual historian, is hard for me to fathom.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 03:21 PM) Lincoln had spoke out against slavery years before he became president. It is true that he was willing to allow slavery to remain in the south, but he was against any additional slave states being added to the union. I would not go so far as to say he didn't have an issue with it. I believe it would be more accurate to say that stopping the spread was probably the practical limit to what could have been done at the time. Most people incorrectly assume that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves. Actually slaves that were living in the north were not freed, only in the Confederate States. And yes it was much of a war tactic as a moral issue. It also was brilliant in that it effectively stopped any European country from coming to the help of the Confederacy. I've read some interesting papers that theorize that France or Spain may have come to the aid of the southern states. That would have been a game changer. What is interesting to me was a debate at the time whether slavery was more a legal or moral issue. Well Europe is where all the Southern cotton was going, so many European nations were watching closely and considering jumping in on the side of the likely winner. Once it became evident just how much of a war of attrition it would be, the nations seriously considering backing a side decided it would be best to stay out of the conflict. As for Lincoln, there is certainly a gray line there instead of something black or white, but there is no question that had the Jefferson Davis come to Lincoln with a truce agreement in say, 1862, which called for a cessation of hostilities premised on the Southern states keeping their slaves, Lincoln would have been hard-pressed to not sign it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) I disagree. I think this is the push to whitewash the fact that the civil war was about slavery, first and foremost. Lincoln spoke before even officially becoming president that he wasn't goign to free slaves. The south seceded anyways. BUt not all slave states seceded. So he was forced to do a political balancing act to keep them in. IF there's ever been a man to not entirely judge by all of his words it was Abe Lincoln circa 60-65. Regardless of whether Lincoln stated he just wanted to keep the union together, it just so happens that by the end of the conflict, the president nominated by the anti-slavery party 5 years later resided over a country where slavery was now illegal, and whose party was now re-writing the constitution to give rights to those former slaves. So while he may not have been perfect from a civil rights perspective, he just so happened to be the leader during a dramatic transformation from a slave society, to a non one. I guess my point is there seems to be quite a bit more interesting things happening right there in your post than in how Robert E Lee felt, at least to me, anyways.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) What are you referring to? Well, it's no revelation at this point, and I don't mean to state the obvious...but Lincoln is portrayed as this great friend to the African American people...whereas he was simply much more concerned about keeping the Union together. He didn't want slavery spreading throughout all the new territories, but he didn't really have an issue with slavery continuing in the south for the forseeable future. The Emancipation Proclamation was certainly not issued because Lincoln was concerned about freeing the slaves, either...he was just tapping another available resource to him. This is not to say that Lincoln believed in slavery or the Southern way of life, but to say that he was some great advocate for the slaves simply because it was morally unacceptable is to not exactly be clear. Again, maybe it's a bit of an issue of the age of the learning audience, as you pointed out.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 10:06 AM) We were talking about 1491 and 1493 in the Dem thread. It takes about 5 pages into either book to be floored by how much more we know about these historical periods compared to when we were kids. But a few stories I've read of just untruths TAUGHT in school have really just bothered me. The one that doesn't bother me as much: • Back then, the they thought the world was flat, until Columbus proved it was round. I learned this was an inaccurate account probably in high school. But then in 1493 you learn about just how stupid Columbus actually was. He thought the world was pear shaped, with a nipple on the very top where the divine were chosen to live. But because of it's pear shape it was closer to China then realized. And when the King and Queen of Spain brought this theory to the scientists they laughed it off. The only reason he was able to make this voyage was the desperation to trade with China's riches, and Columbus's stupidity. But what an odd lie to continue to teach? No? The one that still bothers me: Robert E Lee didn't believe in slavery bought fought with the south because he believed in their cause. I only learned this was false last year, and it really angered me. The above lie surely tried to simplify things for a younger audience. This one tried to complicate it. But it just was false. And why would it be created? Anyway...you guys have more? I think Lincoln's feelings towards slavery would be a bit more of an issue than Lee's, to be perfectly honest...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 12, 2011 -> 07:29 AM) I think your definition of "legitimately good" is about as far from reality as possible. Knox is fast, but his hands are suspect, he runs out of bounds, and he shies away from contact like Oprah avoids treadmills. He's the cream of the crop, but this crop is infected and buried in manure. Marcus Robinson, btw, was legit as hell, but that injury after his breakout season effectively ruined his career. Why the heck did we let Aromashadu go again?

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 11:37 AM) It would be a lot easier to regulate these if they were legal. Just as it would be for online sports betting, marajuana, etc. Instead, let's waste all these funds trying to prevent people from doing something they are going to find a way to do regardless. Let's also forego the massive tax funds we could be obtaining by legalizing and regulating these industries. Foolish.

So I already got sucked into buying more storage for iCloud....the 5 GB was not enough to back up all my devices, so I had to pop for an additional 10 GB at $20/yr. What a sucker I am...

All kidding aside, why does Leyland freaking announce this s***? Why even give the Rangers the comfort of knowing who is and is not available?