unreal...

all your presidents are belong to us

There was an article a while back that talked about how groups of people track down someone... http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/05/0253253/Chinas-Human-Flesh-Search-Engine?from=rss

I wonder how long till Intel starts marketing Petri dishes!

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/17/tsa-defends-new-screening-procedures/ The TSA administrator declined to provide some details about the nature of the pat-downs, citing security concerns. But he tried to allay fears stoked by the media rumor-mill. Children under 12 are exempted from the pat-down process, he said. (A viral tale about a three-year old bursting into tears after being prodded by an officer is, in fact, from two-year-old footage of a three-year old crying after her teddy bear was taken from her at a security checkpoint. And that viral snapshot of the nun-frisking--which the Drudge Report headlined, in typically restrained fashion, "THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON"--is actually at least three years old.) Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/17/tsa-defends-new-screening-procedures/#ixzz15a9QfLOw

Still poor coverage out by me...

The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ,it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ's. -G.K. Chesterton

I feel that Christianity provides a better framework for research than does big bang theory, if only from the standpoint that Christianity posits a Creator and thereby a structure to be understood. Big Bang relies on randomness (time+chance) to such a degree, it seems as though having fixed "laws" of physics would be difficult to come by.

I think these guys would disagree: Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Isaac Newton (1642-1727) Robert Boyle (1791-1867) Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Max Planck (1858-1947)

What I find particularly interesting is that people are often willing to concede a god, but then somehow think creating the universe quickly would be a problem....

Am I the only person who read that on October 26th, 2000 - the sun went down, and hasn't come up since? Not that the population is 2000?

Google doesn't destroy the books, they've got a patent on "unbending" the pages. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10232931-76.html

I think it's odd that more and more we treat younger kids like adults, but then let them live in mom's basement until they are 40.