Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 23, 2011 -> 01:55 PM) Know of any good books about him? Because that is definitely something I could fly through. I once heard that Tesla was the closest thing the world has ever known to a true "mad scientist", and it really is about as close as you'll ever get. Drunk History vol. 6 w/ John C. Reilly & Crispin Glover from John C Reilly

QUOTE (Soxy @ Aug 22, 2011 -> 10:46 AM) I think the problem I have with this is that your biology is a bit off--at 6 weeks you have neural cells that seem to be functioning. I will grant you that. However, in general they are just that undifferentiated neural cells. To say we have a functioning brain at 6 weeks post conception is overly simplistic and borderline wrong. Good point, "function" isn't the right word. "Activity" is probably a better term. I still think that brain activity, a heartbeat, movement, etc. are evidence of "life" even if the fetus is not yet "viable." That stuff begins way before the 24-28 week period Roe set.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 19, 2011 -> 05:06 PM) If your perspective is that life begins at conception, than your view makes perfect sense. If you feel that life begins when a fetus is able to be born and survive (say, 4-5 months), then there is nothing at all conflicting about the views you say are inconsistent. I'm not sure i'd agree that life begins at conception, but I also think allowing abortion up through 28 weeks is wrong. As of now I'd say that it's acceptable up through 5-6 weeks probably. I dunno how having a heartbeat and having brain function doesn't make you "alive." "Life" is obviously an incredibly difficult word to define, but let's compare it to its opposite - death. "Death" is when you have no heartbeat and you have no brain function. So if you have both... Under my definition of being alive or of "life" (which is obviously the sticking point here), he's still emphasizing "innocent life" in believing that capital punishment is wrong. IMO abortion is doing the same thing.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 19, 2011 -> 05:05 PM) I have done the research, which is why my first post says at X months. Meaning whatever the scientific community agrees on. You've done the research but don't know when certain organs begin to form and at what week the earliest pregnancy was successful. Right. So are you suggesting a being with a heartbeat and brain activity is not alive? That unless you can live 100% independent you're not alive? Seriously? I take it we you don't think a person in a vegetative state is "alive?" Did she miscarry air? What do you mean "it never existed?"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 19, 2011 -> 04:56 PM) Anyway there's simply a different definition that other people hold of when something becomes human and when a woman loses dominion over her body to the fetus living inside of her. That doesn't make opposition to capital punishment bizarre or nonsensical. When his anti-capital punishment view is based on the the sanctity and finality of life, I think it does. In both instances you're making a judgment call about whether something is worth keeping alive.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 19, 2011 -> 04:36 PM) I dont see how its laughable as your own post supported my statement. IE Can not live on its own. I can make a robot that has arms, fingers, feet and hands, that looks really cute and cuddly, but its not a human, its not alive. Once again, complex development= not able to survive on its own. I get that people are emotional about cute little babies and no one wants to imagine their child being ripped apart by a vacuum cleaner. But until the fetus can survive on its own, there is (imo) no good reason to protect it. Potential life is not the same as actual life. If it was it would be a crime to masturbate because youd be killing billions of potential life forms. Yeah, see this is the ignorance thing i'm talking about. Go research how/when babies or "bags of cells" as you probably think of them, begin forming different body parts and organs. By week 3 the brain, heart and spinal cord are formed. By week 6 the brain and heart are functioning. Are they not "alive" at that point? Edit: I should add too that even under your theory that life = capable of living outside of the womb, it's rare but babies as early as 22 weeks have survived. Under Roe v Wade you can abort legally up through 28 weeks. So....that's "humans" under your definition being aborted.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 19, 2011 -> 03:10 PM) Jenks, Its nothing more than science. A fetus prior to X months is not a human, therefore it is entitled to no more rights than my sperm are. If the fetus can not survive on its own, its entirely up to the host whether or not it wants to allow the fetus to survive and thus the mother has final say. Once the fetus is viable outside of the womb, I absolutely would be against abortion (except in cases of rape, incest or mothers health). If science was to advance and allow a fetus at 1 second to be able to be taken out of a womb and survive on its own, that would entirely change the discussion. The bolded is kinda laughable, especially your use of the word "human." But regardless, by the end of the 1st trimester a baby is basically fully formed except for the development of some internal organs. Arms, hands, legs, feet, etc etc are formed and moving. It's about 3-4 inches in size. That's what people are allowed to abort right now. I'm for it in cases of incest/rape/health. "Mistake" is not one I accept. I was kinda wishy-washy with this issue for a long time. But my wife and I are starting to get ramped up to start a family, and reading more about it, more about what actually happens during pregnancy (something I think the vast majority are ignorant of) has really changed my mind. It's not just some cell you're flushing out. There's complex development going on, especially in the third month.

I don't understand how you can on the one hand not support anyone who believes abortion should be abolished, and at the same time be so strongly opposed to capital punishment. I mean, I get that people are against the anti-abortion 100% of the time people (even in the case of rape/incest/health risk). I don't see how your two views jive together.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...upersizing.html

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 19, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) Not sure if it has been posted around here, but a stage collapse during a violent storm at a music festival in Belgium killed 5 more people yesterday. This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm curious how many people have to needlessly die before the weather is taken more seriously at outdoor musical events. There have been several other stage collapses this year as well, but fortunately those were not fatal. While it's a tragedy, I caution people not to go overboard here. This has all the symptoms of a complete overreaction from a legislative perspective, much like the new law governing soccer goals because one kid out of the hundreds of thousands of games played over the years died in a freak accident. It sucks, but it's still a rare occurrence that might not have been the fault of anyone but nature.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 19, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) I just saw something really strange.... I'm working at home today. I look out the front window of our house, and I see this Metra truck with three dudes in it, drive up and park in front of our house. We're a couple blocks from the train, so, I figure they're just waiting for something, no big deal. Then, one of the three gets out of the truck, grabs a bucket, and starts wandering around our front lawn. After some wandering, he starts picking up the black walnuts off our lawn (we have two very large, mature black walnut trees in our front yard). He proceeds to fill an entire bucket with these things, with his buddies watching, and I'm sitting here in the window watching the whole thing, but apparently they don't see me. After his bucket is full, he gets back in the truck, and they drive off. I wasn't going to use those anyway - I know they can be eaten but they are a big pain to deal with, so I was just going to rake or pick them up and throw them out. So I don't really care if they go away, in fact it makes life easier for me. But there is something disturbing about the idea that these guys apparently scoped out my house, and then grabbed some things off my lawn, when they thought no one was home. Just kind of creepy. That's pretty weird. Why didn't you go outside and just say "hey i don't have a problem with you taking these, but why not ask first?" We had a similar situation with the JULIE people that mark utilities. My next door neighbor is doing a gut rehab of his house. For some reason the JULIE guy went about 25 feet into my property (on the side connected to my neighbor) to mark some stuff. But he didn't just mark it, he put stakes in the ground too. Do I really care about them doing that? No. But I was a little upset that I wasn't consulted first. Especially since the marks had absolutely nothing to do with the renovation work (not even in the same vicinity really).

I've been pretty happy with Scottrade since I opened up a Roth and my own portfolio a few months back. A lot of no fee/no load funds, they have promos for 10+ free trades (and cheap thereafter), and I like the research/screener section of their site. And they don't really bug you. I've gotten two calls, basically saying "hey thanks for opening an account" and a few months later "hey any questions?"

QUOTE (SoxFanForever @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) Very tempted to close my mutual fund and roth IRA accounts with the way things have been going with this market lately. Yeah, just remember people did this 3 years ago and lost out on the rebound. Plus your Roth IRA is gonna take a tax hit if you take it out unless you're 59+

My wife uses shutterfly and has made a bunch of those things. Looks like they help you a lot with making it look nice (pick a style, add pictures, add text, done)

From the sounds of the officiating I think I would have just left before the brawl started.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 12:06 PM) Most of the states that have these large expanses of wilderness already allow for that. But most people still don't carry out there, for a variety of reasons. I've had people in our groups carry, on occasion, but it is rare. Furthermore, in some of those areas (particularly national parks), firearms are specifically prohibited. If this random crime is a concern, then change the law. I just don't see this as being a viable crime though. Seems to me these wacko's would want to hit a lot of people in a public place. Not an occasional hiker or two out in the middle of nowhere.

concealed carry!

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 11:37 AM) I'm not sure that I agree with your theory that the Walking Dead is a show you only watch once. Hell, I've already re-watched the episodes when I saw them on. And I think the fact that the show gave them their highest numbers lends to the theory that they will be watchable again and again. I don't see much replayability there. You watch the show to see what happens next, but there's not a ton of character development or set up that you might have missed earlier. They go from crazy situation A to crazy situation B. I guess I just see a show like MM or BB having extended runs on other networks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 11:06 AM) First, while at the Youtubes, hit the "Share" button, then the "Embed" button, and copy the embed code. Paste the embed code into the post box in the "Full reply" window (can't do it in quick reply). Then, at the bottom, where there is a pulldown menu next to "Post options" - select "HTML on - Auto Linebreak mode". thanks!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 06:22 AM) I'm in Woodridge and there's a ton of trees around my house. I wouldn't think that you'd need more antenna if you can still get the other over-the-air channels based downtown. But maybe CBS has a weaker signal.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 10:44 AM) Yeah that's a good point.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 10:40 AM) Ugh, that's disheartening. It certainly makes you feel like the guy running things at AMC is a douche. The one ray of hope was that they mentioned that other stations have the money to pick up a good show, which would hopefully happen if AMC bungles this thing. Glad that writer has all of his money riding on a "losing money" venture like HBO. I mean, yeah it sucks they fired him, and yeah it sucks they cut the budget and want to continue the show "on the cheap," the fact is they paid an assload to keep Mad Men, the series that put AMC on the map, and they just struck a deal for one more season of Breaking Bad, another huge hit. I'm with AMC on this one. The Walking Dead was fine, but it was 6 episodes. 6 episodes of see it once, that's all you need programming. Mad Men and Breaking Bad will continue making AMC money long after they end. More important to keep those shows going 100% than The Walking Dead IMO. And really I think the audience for Walking Dead is easier to please than Mad Men. I'm still going to watch even if I don't see 60 extra zombies in the background.

re Breaking Bad. Finally got around to seeing last Sunday's episode.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 09:01 AM) Of course you can control some aspects of it. Stronger dollar is good, though we are going to be running deficits for so long that it won't appreciate much anyway, so that's pennies. More drilling and extracting domestically? Pennies again, and not until after Obama and the next President have left office. Taxes? Lower taxes is lower effective pricing, but federal tax on gas is only 18 cents per gallon, and that money is used for road projects. So even if you do ALL of that, maybe in 10 years you shave off 50 cents - and in the meantime let the interstates go to s***. All else beyond that is NOT in government control, it is global demand and supply. The best way to shield the US from gas price issues is to get off gas as much as possible. She must have been playing to this audience: (thanks Balta)

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 06:34 AM) Liberal as in political liberal? You are kidding. No, not really. Liberals believe that separation of church and state means that no public official should have anything to do with religion. We just debated this in the Buster a couple of weeks ago when Perry posted something on his website. Read BigSwerts post a page or two ago. It's not enough that government doesn't promote or sponsor religion, they shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with it. That's not in the constitution, but that's where we're at now in how we view it.