Jenksismyhero

Few weeks ago I finished Devin in the White City. I missed the boat when it was really popular, but I'm glad I eventually read it. I think I finished it in about 4 days. Awesome read. Currently I'm about 3/4 of the way through David McCulloughs biography of John Adams. I recommend it to anyone interested in the 1770-1820 period. McCullough is always a good read because of his narrative style. I find it amazing that Adams was essentially the key figure behind independence (not Jefferson) and he become our best diplomat (not Franklin) to the French, the Dutch and the British. He's someone who you never really learn about in school. Washington, Jefferson, Frankling, Hamilton, Madison...they all seem to come before Adams.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 02:02 PM) I don't know. We did get to see Brit's "window of love" and that was a little nauseating, to put it nicely. There's just something anti-sexual about that creature. That's what having a few kids and sleeping with the biggest white trash in the world will get you. She was so f'n hot when I was in college (4-5 years ago). I would have paid a lot to see that window of love back then.

weird, weird, weird:

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 11:54 AM) Yes, you can question the science. But this is not how you question the science. You don't question the science by just asserting that because science has been wrong before in one particular case you don't like, the science must be wrong again. That's why I use those sort of lines about throwing away your computer; because the logic is exactly the same. If you don't trust the science in one case which you don't like for political reasons on the grounds that science has been wrong in the past, then by the same logic, you should trust nothing that science has ever given you because it could be proven wrong. You should not trust quantum mechanics because physicists once didn't believe in it, you shouldn't trust medicine because some cures have been wrong before, and you shouldn't trust chemistry because it hasn't yet figured out how to turn lead into gold. That is the exact same logic you're trying to apply here, and it is simply faulty. If you want to question anthropogenic climate change, the way to do that is simple. Show me the data, good solid data, which undermines the theory. Show me where we have evidence that atmospheric CO2 has not tracked and driven climate change in the past, show me a theory which explains some mechanism whereby increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will not increase themperatures, or give me some other sort of important data. My point wasn't towards questioning science. There's a difference between scientific reporting and journalistic reporting. Scientific reporting doesn't hit the public daily and bombard the citizenry with hyped up bullsh*t. That's what I get out of this guys article; that global catastrophe is a popular story and in the last century alone we've been told the end is near four times. Take all the science studies and throw them together and at this point we still don't know the extent of the human element and what will happen because of it. Yet if you read every story about global warming, you're not told this, you're not given theories, you're mainly given three answers: humans did it, humans can fix it, and if they don't the world will end.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 11:21 AM) Max Planck was once told by a professor that he shouldn't go into Physics as a discipline, because "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes." Because science never, ever, ever learns new things with time, therefore, you should throw away your computer, because it is actually run by evil magic and you can never trust that it's not going to sprout arms and come after you. I don't understand why this guys point has to be taken to this extreme, especially when his context isn't "We all know God rules all and science is crap so don't believe anything you hear about global warming," but instead it's about journalists and how they cover stories. You can trust in science AND question it. You can believe the Goracle if you wish and still follow these:

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 19, 2007 -> 09:38 PM) http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep.../fireandice.asp Much more at link... Blasphemy! The Goracle tells us that the end is near. The Goracle is not the media. We are all doomed.

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Jul 18, 2007 -> 03:08 PM) The figures at the bottom are hard to read. I think one of the numbers growing at exponential rates is: Runs given up by White Sox Bullpen. But I could be wrong. Zing!

QUOTE(SnB @ Jul 17, 2007 -> 10:16 PM) NCAA 08 is great. The new legend mode is absolutely fantastic. They improved on the race for the heisman mode in a huge way. You create a guy and take him through his HS playoffs, then try and work your way up the depth chart at whatever school you go to. You also only control your one guy. IE: if you're a qb and the coach calls a handoff, you just hike the ball and hand it off and don't control the runner. It's different, but I love it. Yeah I agree the new legend mode is nice. It's cool to be able to skip to plays until you're involved. I played the entire HS playoff, killing everyone we played. My guy is a QB and had 4 and 5 star and I ended up getting scholarships to play anywhere I wanted, but only a few places would let me start right away. Did you think the response for menus and play calling were slow? I heard that was a gripe from people before I got it and I understand what they're talking about. Still though, I've always enjoyed this series and look forward to the new recruiting system once I start up my dynasty.

It's still a profession in which you analyze data, throw it into a computer and create models. It might not be as complex as climitalogy, but it's the same principle. You're ultimately trying to predict future events and no matter how good your data is or how good your model is, things don't always turn out the way it's predicted. Sure, it's more complex than that, but it's still a crapshoot. There are far too many variables that could happen to be able to predict half the stuff they try to predict. Again, i'm not arguing global warming doesn't exist. In fact I think it does. I do, however, question (a) the human involvement in it (not that if we have caused it but to what degree) and (B) whats the effect going to be. But this point of contention is rarely discussed because the minute you question it people are all over you saying you don't believe in global warming and that you're ignoring science. Ill try to dig up the articles i read about the hurricanes. I remember seeing them on drudge (*ducks out of the way). I know there were two or three articles about it.

I still think the wii is a fad and will soon fade. It's fun, I grant you that, but everyone I know who owns a wii is back to xbox or sony. It's a secondary system at this point with a schtick to catch people to buy it. But really the games look terrible graphically and it's only going to get worse. I'm not a Nintendo hater either. I thought re 4 was pretty fun, as are mario party 8 and wario world. But thats me playing for an hour, not an entire night. Who knows, I might be suprised.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 09:13 AM) I am just amazed that people can still think that, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence otherwise, which you even mention earlier in the same post. You know what? I have seen much more believable evidence that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government, than I have for the idea that global warming is not at least partially related to human activity. Up until now though, of course, I didn't believe either of those things because both sets of evidence are laughably weak. But, maybe I'll take the current conservative way of thinking - pick the reality of a situation that I wish were true, believe it is, and then dismiss any sort of logic or science in favor of gut feelings, god's will or some talking head on the radio/TV to back up my point of view. 9/11 was a conspiracy - my cat told me so. There's a difference between not believing science and ignoring science. I don't ignore the fact that the Earth has hire C02 levels, lower levels of natural resources, and, depending on the time frame you're given, higher than normal temperatures. I do, however, question whether we caused that (temp change) or more precisely, how much of it we caused, and the effect that it will have on the world. Because these are all unknown and unquantifiable facts, and especially the effect part, which is a random ass guessing game of the future, you can't sit here and tell me that people questioning them are ignorant and choosing not to believe what's in front of their faces. For the last two years since Katrina we were lead to believe by the overwhelming majority of scientists that global warming will cause not only an increase in hurricanes (or forces that cause them) but also an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. They forecasted the biggest number of hurricanes on record for each of the last two years. They used every piece of available data, every scientific model/program/whathaveyou, and spit out this grand theory that we were going to get pummeled by storm after storm. And you know what happened? Jack diddly f*ckin squat. For two years hurricanes have been a non-story. I say bs. I say learn to get out of the pompous attitude that science is ALWAYS right and learn to be a little more open minded, ESPECIALLY when you try to project what will happen in the future. I find it hilarious that people are ok with Gore spouting about the end times because of global warming. How many billions have gone into the research of meteorology? How many meteorologists are working right now? They can't get a f*cking forecast correct 24 hours from now. And you want me to believe some government report about the end times in 10 years based on temperature levels from 1750? And my point about liberals creating global warming was meant more to convey that liberals politicized it. They took it out of science and threw it on cable tv news so people would think about an issue, get scared about it, and then equate liberals as their saviors to this impending disaster.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 12, 2007 -> 07:46 PM) You can't PROVE beyond 100% shadow of a doubt that "gravity" exists. So what's your point? Really? You can't? So if you drop an apple a million times it might not fall once or twice? How has gravity NOT been proven? Here's the distinction (which I've been harping on for about the past year on this board): I agree 'global warming,' however you want to define that, does indeed exist. And I agree that 99% of the sane science world also agrees with that. However, the number drops significantly when you start talking about the cause of global warming and the effect that it has/will have. This is a distinction that gets glossed over by the likes of Al "im serial" Gore. You don't have the same kind of debate with gravity and its existence. Thus, if the surgeon general or any other scientific research group with 'government' in its title starts spouting that global warming exists and its a 'fact' that its caused by humans and will kill us all, that's when I have zero problem with the White House, or any government oversight committee, editing that crap to shreds. That's what I mean by the influx of opinion writing versus fact writing that does indeed persist through most of the professional world these days. And blame the evil-doers Bush Co all you want, but the fact is global warming is a liberal issue that moronic liberals think will buy them a ticket to the White House (*cough Al Gore *cough). So of course the Repubs are going to try to downplay it while liberals try to play it up like the greatest human disaster in the history of the world...hmm shocker, An Inconvenient Truth. I guess I just don't see the big deal, so long as he's not editing reports so that they all end with "and God created..." or something ridiculous like that.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 08:27 AM) The MGS4 trailer looked absolutely badass. I heard there's a new music sort of game in the mould of Guitar Hero, but it also comes with a drum kit and something, and you can basically play the whole song with all of the instruments, although it was going to cost in the $300 range. Yep, it's called Rock Band. http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/puzzle/rockban...=result;title;1 I heard it was $200, but still. That's damn near enough for an entire console.

A gut feeling perhaps? I have no problem with it so long as they are editing unsubstantiated opinion and not fact. Much like journalism these days, the scientific community has been spouting opinion, and not theory based on fact.

Anyone see the Killzone video? I gotta say I was pretty 'meh' about it. I was impressed two years ago when it first came out. But now it doesn't seem all that cool. At this point both Gears and Resistance have established the next gen FPS. I saw a ton of similarities with Killzone: dark, stormy, rubble-filled setting, cool death sequences, and some updated graphics. But really I have yet to be wow'd by anything next gen. It looks nice and some of the features (media wise) are cool, but I expected so much more. The jump from n64 to ps1 or from ps1 to ps2 was so much bigger IMO.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jul 11, 2007 -> 03:23 PM) What did Nintendo announce? I only saw the Microsoft and Sony 'conferences'. Also, is Resident Evil 5 going to be exclusive to PS3? I don't know about the Nintendo conference, but I'm pretty sure RE 5 is going to be multi-platform. Both Microsoft and Sony played intros for them at their conferences.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jul 11, 2007 -> 09:23 AM) Detectives who have a hunch about something don't bring it to the national media--instead they go out and investigate to see if their feeling is credible. Once they have evidence of a credible lead, they bring it to the DA or public or whatever. What this guy should have done was taken his feeling talked to the CIA, FBI or other countries intelligence services and see if there is a credible threat. I think we all know there's a possibility of a terrorist attack, we're not morons. The recent attacks on Glasgow and attempts on London reminded us of that--but damn gina, support your claims. You're a lawyer--would you accept a case because the police had a gut feeling about something? I guess that's my point though. Obviously we're all thinking it's a possibility we'll be attacked. Obviously it wasn't the smartest move to say something like that to the media. But it's not THAT big of a deal. He said something that's obvious. He said he's got a feeling about something. Who cares? Do we really need this sort of reaction: I just hope this negative criticism of every thing these people ever do (oh my god he's riding in a car! he's wasting gas! he's the devil!) goes away in 08.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 10, 2007 -> 07:06 PM) This has zero to do with too much or too little. Its just plain idiocy. Because the guy feels like something is going to happen? Don't detectives often just get a hunch about things? Isn't there enough crap going around the world right now that would lead top security officials to say 'hmm, perhaps we will be attacked?' Maybe it's not a 'too much, too little' thing. What I was trying to convey was that no matter what these people do, they'll never be right. He's connected to Bush so you automatically deem him a moron. It's gotten ridiculous.

*sigh Don't do enough, do too much, don't do enough, do too much. You people are hard to please.

QUOTE(chimpy2121 @ Jul 10, 2007 -> 01:03 PM) There's rumor of a xbox360 price drop now. Elite: 399.99 Premium: 349.99 Pro: 299.99 (same price) I have also heard rumors of the Pro going to 249.99, but who knows. What are the differences? I have been thinking about picking up the 360. I just played Gears of War and was pretty impressed. Dropping 3-350 for a game seems kinda ridiculous though

My gf and I saw Ratatoutille Saturday night. Pixar wins again. Great movie, even for two 25 year olds.

Wow, did anyone check out the new recruiting system for NCAA 08? http://www.easports.com/ncaa08/ check out the media page and then view 'next gen recruiting.'

I think you can watch most of the E3 stuff at gamespot. You might have to be a member, but from a quick glance it looked like they were going to stream the video. Also, for anyone considering a PS3, i've had one since launch and I still think it was worth it. The game selection has been pretty weak, but in the next 6 months it's all going to even out. I have to say though, I just tried Gears of War for the first time the other day...that looks like a pretty sick game. I love the camera angle when you run for cover. I thought about buying a 360, but with all the problems I dunno if it's worth it. And for anyone with a Wii (something I'm also looking to buy but can't find anywhere), Resident Evil 4 is probably a must get.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 08:11 AM) All in all, it is the best justice system in the world. Flawed indeed, but better than any of the alternatives I know of. I hear in Canada and France the entire system is free. Oops, wrong thread.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 07:49 PM) OK, you're not far off here. It's decades of state sponsored brain-washing mixed with stupid US policy that created this beast. Yes. However, all out war against extremist Islamics without increasing trade and cultural ties that seem respectful and not imperialist is just continuing stupid US policy. It seems to me, you need to take the Yasser Arafat two pronged approach here. Gun in one hand, olive branch in the other. Feed the people, attack the enemy. You CAN do both. We just don't. Or we don't do it very well. There's not much that we can do with the "true believers" and there is some of that in the middle and upper classes of Islamist societies other than neutralize the threat. But you can also extinguish the oxygen that feeds the terror beast by working to bring people out of poverty in the middle east. By bringing them a better way of life in a way that doesn't seem paternalistic or disrespectful of their culture. It's a tough balance to acheive - but its one that we CAN do, as long as we're ambitious enough to achieve it. Sadly, I don't think our society is. We'd rather react in anger. Or ignore it. I would agree this would be the best approach in theory, but will it work? It certainly didn't work all that well with Arafat. And aren't we trying to do this in Iraq? We're trying to set up a democracy for the people there. We're trying to set up their infrastructure (obviously we could be doing a better job at it). The people there want that stuff. They have no beef with us. But the terrorist groups resist it, just like they would in every country. And it's not like the people can revolt on their own to overthrow their governments, they don't have the man power nor the weapons to do so. For this approach to work we would need to start a broad campaign to reclaim our image, then take military action to oust any militant regime in charge. But would this ever work with the 24/7 bashing on the US and the rest of the West that these countries spout out to their people?