You put three words in your profile, and one of them is the kiss of death. Never, never describe yourself as nice.

Maybe it is the backlash from another board, but people just don't like the description. Why? Because it tells us nothing about yourself. "Hey, I'm nice!" Bleech. Everyone thinks that they are nice.

Now I'm not saying that being nice is bad. It is just that it is one of those things that has to be proven by action, not noted by words.

And the picture that you have for your profile looks like you took it on the sun. After viewing it, the picture gives me a migraine. Is that what you were meaning to convey?

So, yeah, I'll give your profile a 3 out of 10 ... for filling out most of the rest of the fields.

This is *part* of the reason why I went to my diet - however, I always wanted to go back to being vegetarian, and this was as good a reason as any. I don't need cholesterol medicine any longer, and my blood pressure is much lower. It works.

If they take away the Oscars, then he'll take back the internet, and then what am I going to do ...

Seriously, only two voters?!!!

Next!!!

The last I checked, they can't even do this for Social Security. Currently, the Social Security fund holds $2.4 trillion in government bonds.

Oh well ... this is as good of an excuse as any to increase the general fund and unload government bonds onto another trust ...

The first (successful) weather satellite was launched in 1960, and the Nimbus program (used for meteorological research and development) began launches in the mid 1960's.

What?!!! We put a man on the moon when I was two years old, and when I was a kid we were using this thing called the Space Shuttle. Carl Sagan used science to predict the high surface temperatures on Venus in the early 1960's. It isn't like the 1970'ws were some sort of dark ages for science or humanities.


I'm not certain. Why? Because as much as people are saying that the data is telling us that we are going into global warming, back then the data was saying that we were heading into the next ice age.

Here is the global temperature anomality from 1880 to present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Yeah, the data on face value is saying things are getting warmer, but back then the temperatures were saying it was getting cooler. It has nothing to do with the "bad being wrong due to inaccuracies" - it is that there is just a shift. Models are questionable at best because they're all based on assumptions that are programmed into them and the variation to them. I design components for cars, and if we had to use the accuracy from climate models, I'm not sure people would want to drive a car. And the causes for ice ages could be continental shifts, solar output, changes in the orbital path of our planet, and volcanoes - I saw today an article where humans were almost eradicated by a effects of a volcanic incident.

Also, though the focus has been on manipulations of small sets of data, the disturbing trend is the discrediting of scientists that pose alternative views. If it is disproving the theory, that is one thing. However, this got to the level of destroying careers for offering their view. Why? Part of the problem may be (a) professional jealousy and (b) frankly, follow the money. And note that there have been 4 set that we know ... maybe there are more - who knows.

That's the problem with what has happened here. At the very least, I have come to the conclusion of one of the climate warming supporters that has noted that at the very least the data will have to be reviewed and reanalyzed.

Now I agree that just making more pollution because you can probably isn't the best. But one of my problems with the conclusion is that it seems awfully simplistic for execution. We're just going to force China to stop polluting? The world can't even get Iran to stop developing nuclear technology. And what are you going to do if a country just doesn't want to listen? Are you going to invade them?

And this doesn't even touch the subject that we are in the middle of a global recession, so very few countries have the stomach to address the issue due to effects on economy. Everyone keeps promising more "green jobs," but it doesn't help that the UN shreaded the documentation that showed how much it really cost for them to go green. Many European countries has promised to meet certain environmental targets in the past but have not met them. I guess the US could go to Coperhagen, promise, and then not meet them so we can fit in.

You see where I'm coming from here? The thing is that I want to believe, but (a) there seems to be mercurial to non-existant disclosure being put forward and (b) no one has really explained how it is going to happen and be enforced. Thus I become skeptical.

That's interesting, figuring that Ohio St. won the Big 10 title. Thus, they should be going to the Rose Bowl.

If I recall correctly, I think Iowa is going to the Fiesta Bowl, or at least that is what the projections are saying.

Freaks and Geeks

OP, as you noted, the above helps drag down the issue. The thing about science is that you have an audience until you're shown that you can't be trusted - then unfortunately you get a skeptic. Why? Because people can't be experts on everything, and thus they depend on faith. It is much like dating - people trust you until you're found cheating with the secretary at work.

And to expand on this further, I remember being around 10 years old at Corpus Christi State University hanging around campus while my mother was taking courses to get her Computer Science degree. While waiting, I remember watching all sorts of films in the library records based on science. One of them dealt with a new climate theory that they had: that we were heading into an ice age and mankind could not stop it! It freaked me out and kept me awake for several nights. Funny now it is that the Earth is becoming too hot ...

Even though I'm not a girl, I play one on TV ... (WAIT! ... that didn't come out right ...)

Seriously, I agree with the below - after all, you already are living the results to the answer "no", so do some actions so you have a chance.

Juno was from 2007, but I agree ... it was a good movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0467406/

I have to go with "Star Trek", but I didn't see too many movies this year to be honest about it.

Hmmm ... I always thought that the Imperial Admiralty got shafted in a punk-a$$ way ...

Alo? Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc

Oh goodie - a thread I can participate in!

OP, my experience is that I'm 6'3" - two years ago I weighted 240 lbs and now I weight 160 lbs. And relax ... I don't look like a skeleton ... LOL ...

What I found worked for me was:

1) Pick a low calorie diet that you know you can eat for the rest of your life. The trick in the last sentence is that latter part - most people do a diet that the "force" themselves to do in order to lose weight, and (surprise!) it never works. People fall off the wagon because it is so hard to stay on. What I found was that I have always liked breakfasts and fruit - thus that is my diet; during the day I eat pretzels and fruit (usually tangerines, apples, and bananas), and at night I eat a mushroom and cheese omelet (using no fat no stick spray) and eat low fat wheat toast with no fat spray.

2) Keep in mind that this is a lifestyle change. If you only do something to lose weight, guess what happens when you stop? Yep, you gain the weight back.

Personally, I don't exercise that much, but I hear that helps with weight loss. I used to enjoy riding my bicycle to work, but an off-duty cop driving a mini-van with the attention span of a worm cured me of that. (And yes it hurt quite a bit ...)

I wish for you the best.

Any of the stormtroopers that were killing ewoks in the third movie. No ewoks should have survived ...

Hello one and all ... greetings and salutations!

*Says "the magic word" ...*

Oh, and hi back atcha OP ... :-)