Jenksismyhero

What's this catfight reference? Is that a movie? Some youtube video of a chick fight?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 09:46 AM) Besides the burn in, and dying pixels? Actually I don't think this is a problem anymore. It was when plasmas first came out, but the technology has changed and the problem can be reversed. And really, who leaves their tv on pause for 24 hours (no one, because anyone who can pause a tv has a dvr that has a screen saver that automatically kicks in)? Here's a study that was done a little while ago about burn-in. The short summary is they left a video game paused for 48 hours and found that there was burn-in. But then they played a movie over and over again for 24 hours and it was gone. http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pio/pe/i...20-%20FINAL.pdf But again, no one will leave their stuff on that long anyway. If you need to pause your game and leave for the weekend just remember to turn the tv off. And dying pixels can happen on any tv. Also, the myth about tv lifetime cracks me up too (if you had worried about this). Unless you plan on keeping your plasma for 10 years, it will last you just fine. If you're my dad who still has a tv from 1975, then yeah, you'd prolly expect it to. But in the next decade there will be bigger and better tv's and plasma technology of today will be like 3 comb filter technology of a decade ago. They practically hand those tv's out now and they'll do the same with plasmas in a decade.

I'd go with neither. The best tv's on the market are made by Samsung. If you're willing to drop 13-1400, and not opposed to Wal-Mart, you can get a Samsung 42inch plasma from SamsClub. We just bought the 27inch LCD for the bedroom for $700. Excellent picture quality, very bright, and it has two hdmi inputs. The plasma would be even better. http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate....&pCatg=6150 If you can spend $1800 they have a 50in plasma too. Obviously this is different from your Best Buy hookup, but ask about their Samsungs. Also remember that they jack up all the settings in the store to make them look as bright as possible (while keeping all of the lights off in the TV area). If you're looking at rear-projection they have great picture quality but you need a dark room and you need seating that's directly in front of the tv. If you trust your Best Buy buddy though i'm sure he's told you all of this.

Did I read that right? Did the author pay respects to the fast and the furious. He just lost all credibility...

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 02:26 PM) I wasn't a fan of Sin City either, but most people did love it. Count me in the group that didn't care for Sin City. I actually fell asleep both times I tried to wach it. Hellboy I liked though. I'm most looking forward to 300 (though that's coming out like Friday), Bourne, Pirates, and anything with Steve Carroll. Evan Almighty looks hilarious.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 12:34 PM) Makes two of us. After knowing someone who as a mom at 13 (and then again at 15 ad then 18), I am just not sure what to think. I mean this in the most respectful way possible but... why couldn't she keep her legs closed!?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 10:21 AM) http://youtube.com/results?search_query=ha...p;search=Search It's stiff, stale, and poorly-written. They just make stuff up instead of making fun of what's going on. And that canned laugh track is terrible. That said, I don't remember what TDS was like when it started, so maybe this can improve too. Really, though, this just affirms John Stewart's rant on CNN's Crossfire a year or two ago -- Fox NEWS Channel is making a COMEDY program to compete with COMEDY CENTRAL'S fake news show. Yeah, looks pretty lame. Of course I think the Daily Show has gotten lame too. I used to be a fan but 6+ years of the same jokes over and over again...I just couldn't take it anymore. It's old, John Stewart is old, the whole schtick is old.

That my friend, is why I love this show. No one has a clue what will happen next and it's been that way for 2.5 seasons. When Desmond said Charlie was the one he was saving I'm pretty sure my jaw hit the floor. I did not see that coming at all. And I still have no way to explain his flashbacks. At first I thought maybe he was just unconscious and reliving the events that lead him to the island. But that doesn't explain his ability to see things AFTER the hatch explosion (saving Charlie).

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 06:38 PM) yea, but i'm still suing you for that post. Damn!

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 05:30 PM) you can't sure yourself, but you can sue the microwave company! some loser will hit his thumb with a hammer while putting a nail in the wall, sue the hammer company, idiot jury will award $15,000,000,000 in damages No they don't. People don't realize lawsuits like the McDonalds case happen .000001% of the time. Most just become highly publicized. The majority of the rare cases are settled.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 09:57 AM) I actually missed the Ryan/Kelly bit, so I'll have to catch it when my sister gets the dvds. I loved Karen singing at the end. I really like her. And, I might be the only girl in the world who thinks this, but I'm glad Pam and Roy got back together. I think he kind of deserved a second chance. Check NBC.com, I think you can watch the episode online for free. I thought the episode was a little slow. I like Michael getting himself into embarrassing situations, but come on...no one is that stupid to steal the line from the priest like that. That's the one thing that keeps bothering me about the show, even though I really like it. There are embarassing, stupid moments, and then there are completely unbelievable and unrealistic ones that go too far. That was the case last night.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 8, 2007 -> 04:22 PM) OK. I didn't like it. My right. You did it. Your right. Move on. Waste... what an ironic word. last word winner! last word winner!

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Feb 8, 2007 -> 03:38 PM) Okey dokey. She was till pretty hot in the early days. Feel bad for the kid. But at the same time, if every cloud has a silver lining, maybe the kid will have a chance at a normal life? Not saying Anna's death is a good thing, not by any means. But...ya know what I mean? Pssh, I'll say it. It's a good thing for the kid she's gone. Sounds harsh, but I'm willing to bet that 30 years from now her kid is gonna look back at her crack-head mom and go 'Damn, I'm glad she didn't raise me.' Seriously, did anyone watch/see clips of her show on E! It's not much of a surprise that her son was on drugs and OD'd..... The kid will have a ton of money and a chance at a normal life.

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 8, 2007 -> 10:33 AM) i personally think that ben is not actually her father, she is just told that since she was taken away at birth. Agreed. Alex is Roussaeu's kid (who is coming back soon btw in a couple episodes) and I'm betting Ben (or even Jacob) has adopted her. I thought last nights episode was everything I love and hate about Lost. I loved being on the edge of my seat and being surprised/wow'd (that guy being hit by the bus was awesome...thought he'd be killed, but didn't expect it in that way and at that time). But I hate the long ass commercials and I'm growing tired of the Jack/Kate/Sawyer story. At least next week we'll see the more interesting characters. All and all a great episode that didn't let me down.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Feb 6, 2007 -> 07:53 PM) typical "Lost" bulls***... I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand I'd like to get more answers, but on the other hand if we start getting answers I'll lose interest in the show. There's a fine line there between giving away too much and creating more questions to keep you interested. Personally, the thing I hate most about the show is that they a) killed Mr. Eko and B) the kate/sawyer/jack story is lame. I don't mind their individual characters, but throwing them into a love triangle was lame. throwing kate/sawyer together was lame. All three of those characters are getting too much tv time. I want to know about desmond and locke before we continue the kate/sawyer/jack fiasco.

Hey Balta- You seem to be the guy in the know with this (thanks for the earlier post btw, very informative). What causes natural rises in C02, like in the graphs posted above? Natural disasters (specifically volcanoes I'm thinking) or meteors or something?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm I'm beginning to realize more and more the political machine that is behind the global warming debate. I find it fascinating that large governmental bodies like the UN are behind the global warming theories, but major independent scientists are still skeptical of the human element involved. Who's to believe? Is there an agenda? Could the liberals be using fear as a means to get control of the country again (something they accused Bush of doing with terrorism)? Is Al Gore REALLY being considered for a Nobel Prize? I'm very confused by this issue. I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing of the science behind the debate, other than the basics. I just don't understand how the Earth can actually cool down for a period of time (30 years ago) when the Earth is supposedly getting hotter and hotter. How does southern Texas or California get snow for the first time in 15-20 years while glaciers are melting in front of our eyes? I know we've discussed global warming ad nauseam here, but I dunno, this guy brings up a point. Is there a public backlash for people who question the level of human effect on global warming? Is it already hard scientific fact that we're causing our own demise? Is it even debatable anymore?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2007 -> 10:57 AM) Giuliani hasn't said a word? He was probably the first out of anyone to form an exploratory committee...did so all the way back in November. And on top of th at, his entire early campaign strategy was leaked in a document someone left in a hotel room a few weeks back. And I hope to g*d that Rudy can't ride his 9/11 experience, because his 9/11 experience was overall pretty poor. It's not exactly great planning to put your city's emergency management office in the world trade center (which was already a target once), nor is it great management to not spend the money to have your firefighters have working radios, nor is it great management to wind up with ungodly corrupt people standing next to you on SNL the month after the attacks when at the same time that guy is using a city-rented apartment overlooking ground zero as a love nest, etc. If Rudy's campaign is a success and is based on his response to 9/11, it's because people are letting what they want to remember about 9/11 cover up their judgement, since aside from rhetoric, his work in NY responding to and preparing for 9/11 has an awful lot of holes. If he's elected based solely on policy issues, I'd be a lot happier than if he was elected campaigning based on his 9/11 actions. As far as I can tell he hasn't said a word to anyone about anything. Meanwhile, Barrack, Clinton, Edwards, even McCain (though more for his current role) have been on nearly every television show, competing for face-time on national TV. I just can't fault anyone for their 'poor preparation.' If that's the case the entire country is at fault for living in denial that it could happen again (after 93). Nor am I someone to blame the top guy for every failure that could ever happen within a city under their control. There were probably 15 people more directly responsible for issues such as adequate equipment for firefighters. I highly doubt he supported policy to keep his cities firefighters from having radios. And as far as corruption/shady dealings, they're politicians; each one of them has done something bad at some point. That's the nature of the beast. To me his actions after 9/11 were exceptional. He rallied his city together to do as much as possible, as soon as possible. He worked with local, state and federal officials to ensure that things were being done in a timely fashion. Obviously there were mistakes, but there are bound to be mistakes in every situation that people are thrown into for the first time. I have more trust in him to do the right things again and change the wrong versus getting some greenie in there like Obama who hasn't managed anything more complicated than a PTA meeting. I think you also vastly underestimate how pivotal it was for him to be able to rally every governmental agency together in that city. They are ALWAYS squabbling and fighting with each other and rarely get things done. And yes, even in the midst of a national tragedy I think it would still be difficult to manage so many people doing so many different things.

QUOTE(soxwon @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 05:10 PM) Right now ill rank the contenders 1 Obama 2 Hillary 3 Edwards 4 Biden GOP 1 Mccain 2 guliani 3 romney 4 huckabee 5 brownback just my opinion, who differs? Obama is way too clean to be #1 (atta boy Biden, way to kill your campaign before you start). Seriously though, I'd agree with those lists except flip-flop Guiliani and McCain. Considering Guiliani hasn't said a word about his interest in the presidency and hasn't really been 'public' since the last election, I'm shocked he's still so high in the polls. That's major name power. Out of any candidate he has the most experience leading a government in tough times. He can ride his 9/11 experience all the way to the white house I think. Interesting side note though, anyone catch on Drudge this morning that Guiliani won't be running as a Repub? Edit: Drudge's headline changed to "hasn't filed as a Republican....yet."

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 04:19 PM) Dude, by all accounts, Al Gore received more votes in 2000 than George W. Bush. In other words, the Rove plan in 2000 failed to achieve the narrow electoral majority that it was able to get in 2004. Bush was placed in office if for no other reason than the existence of the Electoral college, which as far as I can tell was not part of the Rove plan. It's been a staple of the Republican party since Reagan to focus on the south, midwest and mountain regions specifically because of the electoral college. The Dems almost always get the bigger states (New York, California, Illinois, etc) but none of the 'rural' states. Grant it, every election there are swing states, Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, but for the most part the strategy has always been to campaign hard in the smaller states (something the liberals haven't done well since Carter) to pick up the collective 'small state' electoral votes that would equal the big states. It'd be nice to have a chart of how many times Bush visited each state, I'm betting it would line up fairly well with his first election, Doles election, Bush 1's two elections, and Reagan (give or take a few states that were heavily unionized in the 80's-early 90's).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 02:03 PM) "The Center" doesn't exsist in American politics anymore. To get anywhere today you have to be in line with one party or another, or risk alienating them both, and being left out in the cold. I don't really agree with this. There is a 'center,' it's just that the voice isn't loud enough. You can be like me, an economic conservative who's more socially liberal. There's just a disconnect because both sides have labeled the opposing party as extreme as they can. You're either a hippy or a crazy christian. No politician is like that though. Look at some top names in the upcoming election. People like Guiliani (very much in line with me) and Obama (more liberal but supposedly a fan of Reganomics...supposedly is the key word, we don't really know because he hasn't done anything to prove it, but that's what he says) are much more centered than the crazies we've had to choose from the last couple elections.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 01:40 PM) I agree and would add, or for political gain. But we are getting to the point that as soon as someone can tag a flip flop label on someone, deserved or not, it is labeled as a negative, especially if you don't agree with the second decision. That's what concerns me. I think there is a difference between changing your mind based on the results of your past actions versus changing your mind to fit a political purpose, as you say. Kerry flip flopped because he was gung-ho for the war and then later said he never was for it and had always been against it. Had he pulled a Hillary and said, look I was for it but this douche messed it up and I think we need a new strategy. If he had done this we'd prolly have a moron leading our 'international pariah' of a country. I agree though, blindness to reality, or staying resolute, or whatever Bush keeps saying wasn't the best either. HOWEVER, the only positive I can say on that is we live in such a results oriented, give it to me now society that we have zero patience anymore to see how things pan out. I didn't mind him being so 'dead-set' in his strategy, until it become year 3 and year 4 and nothing had changed.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 12:59 PM) I'm amazed that this is getting sooo out of hand. Is Boston really full of this many idiots? Ya know...most bombs in this world are set out with flashing lights so everybody can see them. ^^ I was thinking the same thing. Also interesting that 7 or 8 other cities have had these laying around without a problem.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 11:07 AM) I basicaly agree with you. But, just like much of the foreign aid we dish out, these programs also keep desperate people from stealing and other socially unacceptable actions. At some point it becomes a cost/benefit analysis. Keeping them in prison is more costly, and probably more "fair", than having them on public assistance programs. It'll be interesting to see what I find out in this Housing Law course i'm taking this semester. It's readily apparent in two classes that I'm the lone (or at least most vocal) 'conservative' when it comes to the issue of welfare/public housing. While on the one hand I feel we have an obligation to do SOMETHING to help these people, I don't think giving them housing is the way to go. Making people care about school and community is going to be the most effective method of solving that problem, imo. It's obvious that throwing more money at them isn't getting them to change. We need a different tactic. If you're getting a handout, why move yourself up the income ladder when it means you'll have to stop receiving the handout? Or why work at all when the goverment will give you money? And on top of that most HUD programs are designed around family size and income. Thus, the more kids you have, the more money you get or the more money you can deduct, or the less you have to pay to live in public housing. We're basically telling these people to have more kids and get a crappy job and you won't have to pay anything. I understand public housing isn't the four seasons, but it's still something that costs ordinary folks 30% of their income (or more if you're a poor law student...like 60%) that they're getting for nothing. Much like the homelessness article I posted in a different thread, we can help the more serious cases individually instead of creating a blanket program. A very, very small percentage of people are in such dire situations that they need assistance. The rest are too lazy and expect something to be given to them. Like welfare, the system needs an overhaul. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to hire counselors/administrators to take on each case throughout the nation individually to deterimine housing need and increase funding for schools/communities versus spending billions on public housing projects that do nothing to solve the problem (evidenced by the fact that something like 92% of people in public housing stay in public housing)? Oh, and uhh, U.S. Airways sucks.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 08:20 AM) OK, I'm going to thread hijack for one second. What's the reaction of the MTV show in town? Do people feel the town comes off looking bad or are they happy the football team is getting props on a national level? lol, sorry, second thread hijack post in a row!! I know as an attorney, legal shows can drive me nuts sometimes with technical stuff, so I imagine it's same with MDs and RNs for medical shows.... I'll hijack the thread once more! SoxFan, what area do you practice in? Any need for a law clerk? 2L, graduate in December here!