LessBread

Members
  • Content count

    23921
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1415 Excellent

About LessBread

  • Rank
    Contributor
  1. Debate me about the bible

    [quote name='RedPin' timestamp='1306648564' post='4816999'] A. God didn't create Adam and Steve, it was Adam and Eve. People think sexual attraction is genetic? LMAO, but if it was then you simply would not be able to like Baseball if you were genetically born to like Football. People learn to like things by thinking, yes thoughts count. Add emotional attachment and confusion to it and you get homosexuals. [/quote] God didn't create Steve? Really? You can laugh at the idea that sexual [i]orientation[/i] is genetic if you want, but your sports preference analogy is the really laughable idea. Do you realize the implications of your reasoning? You're saying that the only reason you're not gay is because you didn't grow up around gay people, just as you don't like cricket because you didn't grow up in Pakistan or India or in a place where people play cricket. Beyond that, your reasoning that people learn their sexual orientation by thinking about it suggests that maybe you're covering up for some [i]religiously incorrect[/i] thoughts of your own and had to think yourself straight for fear of hell fire and damnation (or more likely fear of extreme social stigma and isolation). So when did you think yourself straight? Was it during puberty when your hormones raged? [quote name='RedPin' timestamp='1306648564' post='4816999'] B. They found Noah's Ark, The Ark of the Covenant, The parting place for the Red Sea, they found Mount Sinai where God gave the 10 Commandments, and they also found a lot of artifacts for ancient Jewish battles and communities. You need to do some research bro since your still a baby Christian. [/quote] They found Noah's Ark? Really? They found the Ark of the Covenant? [i]I saw that movie too! Back when I was 13. I sat through it twice, it was so good![/i] A baby Christian? Seriously. Christianity doesn't deserve your arrogance. Heckuva sales job! [quote name='RedPin' timestamp='1306648564' post='4816999'] If you think I'm closed minded, well then you're the one with your head jammed into your butt. [/quote] I think you're close minded, no matter how much time you spend studying. Your silly sports preference reasoning exposes you. For all the studying you do, you should have been able to come up with a better argument than that.
  2. Osama Bin Laden is Dead.

    [quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1304322022' post='4805311'] [quote name='cowsarenotevil' timestamp='1304319738' post='4805305']What makes you think he's been dead for years?[/quote]French, Australian, Saudi and Pakistani intelligence said so. Afghan President Hamid Karzai said so. Pakistani presidents Asif Ali Zardari and Pervez Musharraf said so. Boston University and the Australian National University said so. FBI Counterterrorism chief Dale Watson said so. The CIA disbanded it's Bin Laden unit five years ago.[quote name='Smeagol' timestamp='1304320533' post='4805306']I doubt that he's been dead for a while, AQ or some similar organization would've done something like step up attack against coalition forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan in revenge and would've made it well known why they were doing it.[/quote]He reportedly died peacefully of disease + natural causes, not coalition bombs. [/quote] Karzai, Zardari and Musharraf have zero credibility. The CIA disbanded it's bin Laden unit because Bush said he wasn't concerned about bin Laden. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/bush-bin-laden/">[url="http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/bush-bin-laden/"]FLASHBACK: Bush On Bin Laden: ‘I Really Just Don’t Spend That Much Time On Him’[/url]</a> If the assault was staged, why didn't the Bush administration stage one of their own so as to take credit for his death? Already Bush supporters are trying to steal credit from Obama, some members of Congress have even gone as far as issuing statements vindicating the use of torture, claiming that torture provided the intelligence that lead to the successful assault (even though it would be more accurate to say that torture delayed getting the intelligence)... <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/right-reax-bin-laden/">[url="http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/right-reax-bin-laden/"]Right Rushes To Praise Bush For Obama’s Order To Kill Bin Laden</a>[/url]
  3. Are Republicans really serious about reducing the deficit

    If Republicans were serious about reducing the deficit they would have allowed the Bush tax breaks for billionaires to expire. What they're serious about is cutting government to the bone to eliminate any obstacles that might stand in the way of the rule of their corporate puppet masters. They simply lack the courage to admit that's what they're about, so they create a bogus budget crisis in order to ram their desires down every one's throats (Wisconsin!). Rush Limbaugh says as much every time he prattles on about taking it in the ass and getting it shoved down his throat and all that homo-psycho-sexual talk he likes to employ to stir the loins of his most rabid fans. There are still 15 million unemployed workers in the United States. The austerity programs the Republicans are championing will swell that number. Boehner knows it and doesn't care ("So be it!"). Look at what happened in the UK. The Tory's pushed austerity and their economy shrank. Double dip recession! Yeah! The Republicans probably think that increased unemployment will make Obama's reelection difficult and stopping that from happening is all they really care about. They want power and they'll do and say anything they have to in order to get it. They don't have a clear idea of what they want to do with that power - at least not one they're willing to share with the public. Whatever their plan it probably involves destroying labor unions and the Democratic Party, privatizing social security, banning abortion, militarizing the border with Mexico and a host of other unsavory actions that they know the public would never honestly accept. Corporations to Government: Give Us More, Tax Us Less http://www.truth-out.org/corporations-government-give-us-more-tax-us-less67942 What Conservatives Really Want http://www.truth-out.org/what-conservatives-really-want67907
  4. I got beat up by a cop

    Talk to the lawyer your friends suggested. My guess is that nothing will come from it all anyway, but at least by talking to a lawyer you'll get better legal advice than what you'll get from us.
  5. Beam me up!

    I've been slacking. Spooky Vision (4/27/2009) Can you see without looking? ... "more photons in some places than there should have been and fewer in others." In some places the number of photons was actually less than zero. A stunning result using weak measurement. Demonstrates that nature is indeed real when unobserved. Confirms metaphysical realism. Metaphysical realism is the hypothesis that the universe is presumed real independently of human observers. Success teleporting information between photons over a free space distance of nearly ten miles ~ 15 km - "entanglement ensures that changing the state of one causes the other to change as well, allowing the teleportation of quantum information" ... "They found that the distant photon was still able to respond to changes in state of the photon they held onto even at this unprecedented distance." ... "able to maintain the fidelity of the long-distance teleportation at 89 percent" that is "decent enough for information" but not for matter. [Edited by - LessBread on January 7, 2011 2:53:28 AM]
  6. "Game devs should avoid forums." WHAAAA?

    Jeff Vogel (paraphrase): hope the preceding discourse "makes clearer the instincts of efficiency and self-preservation" leading me to distance myself from my fans... those who want to discuss my work even while I prefer to dispense time in ways that don't involve discussing my work... as is my right.
  7. simple WYSIWYG editor

    http://www.google.com/search?q=simple+WYSIWYG+editor See: Design and Implementation of a Win32 Text Editor
  8. Just to be clear, you looked at Waveform Audio Reference and found the recording capabilities unsatisfactory?
  9. An artificial hand connected to bone and tendons?

    Dean Kamen's "Luke Arm" Prosthesis Readies for Clinical Trials (2008)
  10. how much do you know about China?

    Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote:Original post by LessBread Congress allocates the money, the president spends it. If the president doesn't spend it, the money stays in the bank. Foreign relations is primarily a presidential power. The president would have to take to the bully pulpit to explain his policy. He could denounce the special interests as foreign agents. He could distract the media's attention with a dump of declassified documents on the issue. The executive branch knows how to harass political opponents when it wants to. Any President after the passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 cannot withhold funding for program without congressional approval. Congress has the power of the purse- this is where all the pork and earmarking problems come from. He could do those other things, but only at the price of destroying his hopes of getting anything else done. And there are a lot of things to get done. He could Harass, but he shouldn't if he wants any movement on other parts of his agenda. Given the Tea Party Congress that will soon take power, he shouldn't hold out any hope for his agenda; However, if he started talking up the "line item veto" he could probably trick the TP crowd into overturning the Impoundment Control Act. But given the general lawlessness that the executive branch operates on and is willing to turn a blind eye towards these days, he could thumb his nose at the law and do what he wanted to - just like Bush and Cheney. And if challenged in the public discourse, he could make the case, like this one: U.S. Can't Afford Military Aid to Israel. Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: Would that kind of military Keynesianism remain popular in a Tea Party Congress? A Congress where government spending to create any job is at least rhetorically anathema? Republican talking points are so predictable these days. They can always be counted on to cast anything Obama says or does in the most negative light possible. They are easily dismissed as blatantly partisan. And after the games Republican played with the 9/11 first responder bill, those sunshine patriots are in no position to attack anyone as a fair weather friend. The Right also has a solid base in evangelical Christians who intensely support Israel. And Obama still has more than enough history to continue alienating the Tea Party until the Sun dies. Casting negative light is how you win elections. Blatantly partisan is par for the course. The 9/11 Bill is not going to be remembered in 2 years... the Republicans have repeatedly shown they know how and where to spin, and what to shove under the rug. But do they support Israel more than they support the USA? Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: I guess you haven't paid attention to the details in recent news about the settlements. Obama had to offer more money to suspend (not stop just suspend) settlement building during the talks with the Palestinians. This indicates that the present funding level didn't come with strings, at least not with any strings that could be pulled, which is striking considering that some of the money dumped in the Israeli money-pit goes to support settlement building. We offered them 20 F-35's, which would entail a disruption in deliveries to other partner nations in the program. Apparently the aid is delivered in one lump sum, so the ability to shape Israeli policy is limited to the macro level at the beginning of the fiscal year. Which is yet another reason to curtail it, I agree. First he asked: Obama Pushes Israel On Settlement Issue (May 29, 2009) Then he bribed: An American bribe that stinks of appeasement (20 November 2010) Then he gave up: U.S. drops push for Israeli freeze on settlement construction (December 7, 2010) He never threatened to cut off military aid of $3 billion per year. He could probably justify that using the catch all excuse of his status as commander in chief. Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn I think it would be to our benefit to curtail our support of Israel, but I don't think anyone should be under the illusion that it's easy or wouldn't have any negative consequences. I didn't say it would be easy. You said: Quote: If Obama really wanted to get Israel to do something, all he would need to do would be to threaten to cut off the billions of dollars in foreign aide slated for Israel, then take to the bully pulpit to make the case about what he wants Israel to do. I said it would be more complicated than you thought (ergo more difficult). The difficulty is in that the President has less control over funding than you believe, and that the political cost of taking to the bully pulpit over this issue is too high to ever realistically consider. There were two components in that "all", both components are complicated. I probably should have used the word "what" instead. I suspect that such threats are often made behind closed doors. Perhaps a future wikileaks cable will confirm that. I don't think the political cost will be unpayable and as I suggested above, it could be driven down with document dumps and intelligence leaks. And turning back to the original analogy, Hu Jintao doesn't have the constraints on his actions that Obama has, so the comparison was weak to begin with. Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: I agree with most of your comment. I think it's worth pointing out that China does more business with South Korea than North Korea and that there would be much less need for US military presence after reunification. I think the symbolic ties are weak these days. Does anyone really believe that China remains a communist country? Actually, that's a really interesting issue that I don't think has really been looked into (to my knowledge). There is a strong nationalist streak linked to the government, which involves the glorification of the revolution and the Party in general. So I think the link to Communism is morphing to patriotism/nationalism more than an actual practiced ideology. We should ask frankst about that. My understanding is that Chinese communism has always relied on nationalism for it's success.
  11. The Walt Disney company created a new town from scratch in Florida around ten years ago. The town was recently in the national news for it's first murder. Ghost towns are created when the local economy dries up and the people move away. For example, ghost towns out here in the west are usually near an abandoned mine.
  12. Spilt Cola on PC

    The Pepsi Syndrome Quote: Matt: Well, the Pepsi Syndrome. If someone spills a Pepsi on the control panel of a nuclear power reactor, the panel can short-circuit, and the whole core may melt down. Brian: But, you spilled a Coke. Matt: It doesn't matter. Any cola does it. Carl: Any cola? What about RC Cola? Matt: Yeah, RC does it. Brian: Canada Dry? Matt: Sure. Carl: 7-up? Matt: It's harmless. It's an un-cola. [ smacks his hands to his forehead ] Oh, wow! I could have had a V8!
  13. Hi Need some help understanding this function :o)

    Programming Windows, 5th Edition (1998) Used copies can be had via Amazon.com for $24.90. It's not the end all be all for windows programming but coupled with the online MSDN documentation it will take you most of the way.
  14. how much do you know about China?

    Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote:Original post by LessBread The way I see it, the complications have less to do with reality and more to do with illusion management. Agnotology: "Culturally constructed ignorance, purposefully created by special interest groups working hard to create confusion and suppress the truth." Which is great, but you can pull that card on anything. Reality isn't simple, sorry. No you can't pull that card on anything. You couldn't pull it on sports or cars or shopping for example. Agnotology fits this issue better than it fits many others. Yes, reality isn't simple, and neither is the reality of agnotology. Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: If Obama really wanted to get Israel to do something, all he would need to do would be to threaten to cut off the billions of dollars in foreign aide slated for Israel, then take to the bully pulpit to make the case about what he wants Israel to do. With Americans staring down the barrel of austerity cuts, it makes no sense to continue spending billion of tax dollars to support Israeli socialism. The US government sends more money to Israel than it does to many US states. And Egypt too, but you contrasted with Israel so... Even if he could cut off funding (*cough* Congress), it would pretty much demolish his ability to make other policy decisions. Congress does not appreciate complete reversals of policy, especially policy built on decades of work by special interest groups flush with money. You think we have deadlock now? Congress allocates the money, the president spends it. If the president doesn't spend it, the money stays in the bank. Foreign relations is primarily a presidential power. The president would have to take to the bully pulpit to explain his policy. He could denounce the special interests as foreign agents. He could distract the media's attention with a dump of declassified documents on the issue. The executive branch knows how to harass political opponents when it wants to. Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn We actually get some benefit from the Israeli money-pit, since much of the money goes straight to American weapons. Which in Congress-speak directly translates to Jobs. Just another example of Obama killing jobs and playing to his Muslim friends... I can hardly imagine a better Republican bullet point. "Obama kills American jobs and turns the US into a fair-weather friend abroad" Would that kind of military Keynesianism remain popular in a Tea Party Congress? A Congress where government spending to create any job is at least rhetorically anathema? Republican talking points are so predictable these days. They can always be counted on to cast anything Obama says or does in the most negative light possible. They are easily dismissed as blatantly partisan. And after the games Republican played with the 9/11 first responder bill, those sunshine patriots are in no position to attack anyone as a fair weather friend. Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn Plus we'll lose one our big levers that we use to get the Israelis to do what we want. The money comes with strings. Without those strings, they might not run hog wild, but our ability to shape their policy will not improve. Settlements, anyone? I guess you haven't paid attention to the details in recent news about the settlements. Obama had to offer more money to suspend (not stop just suspend) settlement building during the talks with the Palestinians. This indicates that the present funding level didn't come with strings, at least not with any strings that could be pulled, which is striking considering that some of the money dumped in the Israeli money-pit goes to support settlement building. Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn I think it would be to our benefit to curtail our support of Israel, but I don't think anyone should be under the illusion that it's easy or wouldn't have any negative consequences. I didn't say it would be easy. Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn As for North Korea, there are several reasons why China is not pushing the regime very hard. Their major concern with the North is keeping in from collapsing, so they're going to keep the kid gloves on. It would be an undeniable disaster for China if the North collapsed. It would be the mother of all refugee crisis on the Yalu, costing them billions and putting other development on hold (economic development being their number one priority). It would also probably involve US and allied troops moving into the North, which is a little too close for comfort for the PRC government. The North would also be more than likely to eventually be absorbed by the South, putting a democratic government with close ties to the US on the border with the mainland. Then you have symbolic ties with the communist government. Not exactly easy to admit the system you supported was hopelessly broken and malevolent to boot. Talk about an image-management nightmare. In conclusion, there are reasons why things are the way they are and why leaders make the decisions they do. Changing things involves more than just -boom!- making a decision. Implementing policy is harder than conceiving it, since implementation in any modern government involves multiple layers of bureaucracy and competing interests. I agree with most of your comment. I think it's worth pointing out that China does more business with South Korea than North Korea and that there would be much less need for US military presence after reunification. I think the symbolic ties are weak these days. Does anyone really believe that China remains a communist country?
  15. what makes a hit song a hit song?

    It seems to me that the question "what makes a hit song a hit song?", at least in it's practical application, leads to the creation of formula based music afflicted with a lack of authenticity and spontaneity. It strikes me as the kind of question that someone interested in marketing a product asks rather than someone interested in making art asks. That doesn't mean that people who have asked that question in the past did not end up making art, but when they did make art, it was because they remembered that music isn't a widget and didn't allow marketing considerations to get in the way. For example, Motown records was so successful at one point that giving it the name "Hitsville USA" wasn't out of the question. In spite of that, it managed to give Marvin Gaye enough freedom to make "What's Going On?" even though the album broke with the Motown formula. Back in high school I heard the song "Walking on Sunshine" on the radio on the first day it came out. I knew it would become a hit and in a few weeks it was. Bouncy, poppy, happy, bright, full of horns, straight forward lyrics about love sung by a woman, simple straight forward hook that peaks during the chorus. I also knew that I would hate the song in six months due to overexposure. The first time I heard "Smells like Teen Spirit" on the radio I knew it would become a hit, but not because it fit a formula, at that time it didn't, but more importantly because the song rocked. It broke with the prevailing formula of the time, which had grown stale. I could reflect back on hearing many new releases that became hits -- "My Sharona", "Heart of Glass", "Le Freak" -- from when I was a kid - "Billie Jean", "Do you really want to hurt me?", "When Doves Cry" - from high school -- but I don't see the point when what makes a hit changes from year to year.