Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Some info for those who'd like to take a look at.. (Score 1) 531

by 3seas (#43763481) Attached to: Of 1000 Americans Polled, Most Would Ban Home Printing of Guns

... the beginning of the printable weaponry. The Liberator.zip http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/8458218/

The files are in stl format http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STL_(file_format)

Can be converted to other cad formats via Accutrans @ http://www.micromouse.ca/

Of course the applicable legal warning in printing this gun is in order here: It may be a federal crime to bear such arms. Though the founders of this country would tell you its a crime to violate the second amendment.

What choice are people making? Support the unknown and changeable laws on the fly of current democracy government or Support the written in stone, honored, well published and unchangeable papers written by the founders of this Republic for which it stands. The guns they used then were made by who? And what technology existed then to match round with barrel?

Let me suggest. For those who have a problem with the Second Amendment they need to be one upped and given a problem with their use of the First Amendment until they accept the Bill of Rights in whole, not as a pick and chose what parts they want!

Comment: Re:wi-fi is not good (Score 1) 316

That is an interesting article. But it bothers me that qPCR is the only assay they used. I'd really like to see those microarrays they talked about, it's been over 5 years and they already had the RNA from the qPCR. Either someone didn't think it was worth funding, or they didn't find anything worth publishing. Also, calmodulin is involved. There are techniques to measure and visualize calmodulin activity. Showing that calmodulin-Ca++ binding actually increases in those timeframes would be much stronger evidence for their claim.

So, no I'm not quite going to fuck myself yet. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there's nothing extraordinary here.

Comment: Re:ITT: (Score 1) 470

by Black Parrot (#43757609) Attached to: Review: <em>Star Trek: Into Darkness</em>

News flash: Star Trek was never as good as you remember. It was never about "ideas," it was never "sci fi" in the narrow definition presented above, it was never NOT a caricature, and the reason it was never "cool" is because it was a plodding, meandering mess with shitty dialogue and poor production values.

Not that I disagree with you, but since there is a very widespread ideal notion of what Star Trek was, it seems like someone would have the vision to try to make that ideal real.

But no, let's just take some generic Hollywood pablum, stick some names from a popular franchise on it so it will sell, and leave the thinking for someone else.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 470

by Black Parrot (#43757401) Attached to: Review: <em>Star Trek: Into Darkness</em>

You're trying to claim that the original StarTrek wasn't a chauvinistic, womanising series in which Uhura was portrayed as an independant woman?

If you're concerned with chauvinism, you should have noticed that ToS was a parable about an international crew under the benevolent command of an American captain, who occasionally had to yank the Russian's chain to keep him under control.

Beam me up, Scotty!

Working...