Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: No thank you blizzard. (Score 1) 156

by Kodack (#45391123) Attached to: Next <em>World of Warcraft</em> Expansion: <em>Warlords of Draenor</em>

They could have given people this as the last expansion and maybe the game wouldn't have started hemoraghing players in record numbers. Maybe it would have been fun to play a little longer, if only for nostalgias sake.

Instead they gave us kung fu pandas...........

Nothing at all about the gaming experience has changed. You will quickly level up to the new cap by questing. You will then hit a brick wall you need gear to get over and that gear will take you months of grinding to get it. You will feel a sense of accomplishment for a month or two and then a new dungeon will be released that lets everybody else get gear that's better for a trivial amount of effort. Everybody will get new abilities that look and act different, but still make every class the same and good luck finding a place on your spell bar to place them because every character has several dozen abilities all left over from vanilla and countless expansions.

You WILL
grind for gold
grind for rep
grind for points

Same game, slightly different graphics, exact same play style.

Comment: Blockbusters floating rental fees... (Score 1) 419

by Kodack (#45356041) Attached to: Blockbuster To Close Remaining US Locations

I have no sympathy for Blockbuster Videos.

It was little known that they charged different rental rates depending upon the competition in the area. For instance if the Blockbuster were close to another video rental store they would charge the usual amount for a rental. But in areas where Blockbuster was the only rental store around they would charge up to a dollar more per rental. That is inexcusable for a national chain to price gouge like that. When confronted about it, the store charging the higher amount basically said they charge more when there is no competition nearbye.

I'm glad they went under, they got their just desserts.

Comment: Re:The vegan angle here (Score 1) 699

by Kodack (#45128061) Attached to: UK Court Orders Two Sisters Must Receive MMR Vaccine

you make no valid point at all.

"things which eveyone uses", no not everyone uses commercial versions of those products, and there are plenty that brag about "not using animal testing". and that contain no animal products whatsoever. You've been brainwashed by big corporations is all.

you list products like beer and inks which not everyone uses, or people can easily make their own without animal products or buy those which do not contain animal products

clothes can be made without animals, easily bought.

You really have no clue.

Animal derived products work their way into many other products you wouldn't think to ask about, and they won't tell you, contain animal products. Again, the color black.....Do you use a checkbook? Black ink in it... Do you have ANYTHING in your home that is black plastic or colored black?

And I said that beer was just one of MANY products in which fish bladders are used as a settling agent. You think beer is the only thing?

Anyway you have really missed the point here. The point is that products you dont associate with food or animals, often either has animal derived ingredients, or was developed with animal testing.

Do you really think the FDA will let something designed for human use or conception be released without being tested? What do you think they're testing it on.

Look it's one thing to say you don't want to wear leather and animal skins and you don't want to eat meat, eggs, fish, or milk products. But complaining about a LIFE SAVING vaccine because it's animal derived (please lookup how vaccines are made if you think there are any other kind) strikes me as being incredibly stupid not to mention naive considering the many other things they already use that has animal products in it.

If you take one thing away from this conversation let it be this. You do not live by yourself in a sterile world and everything you eat, wear, use, see, came from something else. Every bit of your body came from eating other living things because thats what life does, it re-cycles, and if you think you can re-cycle without animals you're sorely mistaken.

Comment: The vegan angle here (Score 0) 699

by Kodack (#45121169) Attached to: UK Court Orders Two Sisters Must Receive MMR Vaccine

So once again we have a story with a vegan angle which seems to be popping up more and more anytime people act stupidly. One of the girls was concerned about 'animal products' in the vaccines.

Let me just leave this little chestnut there for you all. No matter how much you try to avoid using products with animal derived ingredients, or animal tested products, you will have to use them unless you make every single thing that goes in or on your body by hand and never buy a single thing.

Some things which contain animal products:
The color black, used in inks, toners, plastics, is often made from burning animal bones.
Beer and many other products use ground fish swim bladders as a settling agent, which is later filtered back out.
Many pills and capsules are coated in gelatin as well as many food products, beauty products, and it's made from ground animal collagen.
The color red in many products is carmine red, and it's made from ground insects.

Some thing which everyone uses that are tested on animals.
Shampoo
toothpaste
mouth rinse
soap
skin cream
the perfumes in soaps and shampoos and creams

Some things we all benefit from that are based on vivisection, killing lab animals, etc
Most of modern medicine
vaccines
insulin (did you know the head of PETA is a diabetic?)
almost any healthcare you get, medications, treatments, even things like cat scans, are derived from testing and knowledge gained from using animals as human surrogates.

If you want to live a life that does not benefit from animal products or animal testing, you're talking about walking into the wilderness by yourself with no clothes and no tools and not making use of anything from society, no technology, no products, no knowledge.

LIFE MEANS KILLING OTHER THINGS EITHER BY DIRECT ACT OR FOR COMMUNAL BENEFIT. THESE ARE LAWS OF NATURE AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. GET USED TO IT IF YOU WISH TO LIVE.

Comment: Peer review??? (Score 1) 194

by Kodack (#45035057) Attached to: Science Magazine "Sting Operation" Catches Predatory Journals In the Act

The last time I checked, the editorial staff at a journal wasn't expected to vouch for or ascertain the scientific merit of a paper. Journals are the realm of proof reading for spelling errors etc etc, not doing peer review.

The way it's supposed to work is

1. A paper is written
2. A paper is submitted to a journal
3. The journal ascertains the subject of the paper
4. Journal sends copies of that paper to other experts on the subject of the paper
5. Those peers then vouch for or criticize the paper
6. Journal either rejects or accepts the paper for publication.

Comment: Thats assuming all the power comes from the phaser (Score 1) 272

by Kodack (#44856633) Attached to: It Takes 2.99 Gigajoules To Vaporize a Human Body

That's assuming all the power comes from the phaser. The chemical bonds inside the human body contain quite a bit of fuel themselves. One need only kick start a chain reaction. One need only dehydrate the subject body to trigger an exothermic reaction resulting in a body that could burn as well as coal, poof no more body, just carbon dioxide and a little ash. For instance if you dehydrate sugar in sulphuric acid it is an exothermic reaction that make the carbon rich byproducts easily combustable.

Another way this might be done is if the phaser array doesn't destroy anything, if it merely re-arranged some of the molecules say converting the water in your body to sulpuric, hydrochloric, or nitric acid. It certainly doesn't take gigajoules of energy for acid to disintegrate a body.

Now thinking outside the box, the most important thing this article should hold for a Trekkie is that it takes gigajoules of energy to disintegrate a body but they don't say how many it would take to re-integrate it. That's right, if you can take a body apart molecule by molecule that is the basis of the outbound loop of a teleporter, The idea being that the information about where those molecules were is transmitted to another location where a matter re-integrator either re-assembles the stream of molecules, or creates new ones.

Comment: As an amateur musician I find this misleading (Score 1) 617

by Kodack (#44856557) Attached to: How Amateurs Destroyed the Professional Music Business

If a band were to be so bad as to not make a single note in tune, but so good with pro-tools they could make themselves sound professional, then they may be a terrible band but if they are THAT good at pro-tools they are as good as anybody in the business and would make excellent studio console jockies.

This is like arguing that photoshop is destroying professional photography when terrible photographers can simply 'fix' it in photoshop. We know that not to be true. Likewise no amateurs making youtube videos in Vegas is serious competition to hollywoods dollars.

Yes there is a lot more music out there but that is simply a side effect of having the tools to create music become much more accessible. Instead of a music company A&R man deciding what people want to hear, people actually decide directly. If they like an artist they listen to and hopefully buy from that artist. If they don't like an artist they turn a blind eye. The unfortunate bit for the music industry is often times the bad music that is being ignored is their professionally produced shovelware crap.

I would also like to point out that the main determinator as to an artists pay scale is not the quality of their music, it is their fame and it has always been so. Remember the Funk brothers making all of those great Motown songs, shaping an entire decade of american musical culture, yet a lot of them could barely hang on as studio musicians and that was back in the 'golden days' before home recording.

Yet if you get fame and manage your finances you can make tons of money with little to no talent. You need look no further than any of the 'solo' artists who don't write their songs, don't play an instrument, don't even decide what the music will be about, and couldn't sing it without autotune. Hell, Milli Vanilli proved back in the 90's that to become famous and make money and win awards you didn't have to sing at all, just lip sync and look like a model.

So while there are many problems as the ancient music industry adopts to modern innovations in home recording and the ability of artists to speak directly to their fan base and sell their albums directly to their fans without the music industry middlemen, better access for aspiring musicians to be able to make professional sounding music in their bedroom, is not one of those problems.

Comment: Why the hell not. (Score 1) 588

by Kodack (#44774137) Attached to: Lowell Observatory Pushes To Name an Asteroid "Trayvon"

It's fitting in a way because if that asteroid threatens earth we are going to use our weapons to destroy it in order to defend our lives. Seriously though this makes me sick to my stomach. Trayvon was a punk with a record and he was not some innocent martyr to black people but was instead a hoodlum who assaulted the wrong guy.

Comment: Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score 1) 526

by Kodack (#44721377) Attached to: Obama Admin Says It Won't Fight Looser Marijuana Laws, With Conditions

Yes don't want you to know as in there are plenty of reports talking about pots evils that have been discredited and the DARE program outright lied to a generation of people.

It's not a conspiracy it's a simple fact that it is difficult to have a meaningful debate about marijuana policy without disinformation about it's supposed harms.

And your assertion that "you've seen it" how people drive when their stoned, I know nothing about the road worthiness of your friends or family, sober or high, but you miss the point and start doing a straw man argument. I wasn't advocating smoking pot and driving and I don't know where you decided to argue that back.

The disinformation is that marijuana kills brain cells and makes you stupid. This has never been proven but it has been proven that alcohol kills brain cells and in fact if given to children and infants it causes life long mental impairment.

I doubt you have had much experience with the real effects of Marijuana to know real dangers from disinformation.

Comment: Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score 1) 526

by Kodack (#44716133) Attached to: Obama Admin Says It Won't Fight Looser Marijuana Laws, With Conditions

You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about. Marijuana intoxication increases attention sometimes to the point of excluding everything else. It can cause a person to focus on one thing and to give it their undevided attention similar to the way someone may get caught up in a good book or movie and not notice their cat jumped up on the couch.

In any case all of these arguments about Marijuana this, Marijuana that, trying to talk about negative effects are disingenuous at best. The fact is that there are MANY legal substances that have a far greater effect and impairment on people and their development than pot. The strongest opposition to marijuana decriminalization are often the people who know the least about it's actual effects, have had no experience with it, and perpetrate the same old disproven hokey science and myths.

The human brain has receptors for THC, the active chemical in marijuana. No other plant or drug binds to these receptors, they are exclusive to thc. Now why would that be if it were something that "killed brain cells" and made people stupid?

Let me tell you a few things about Marijuana that these rabid anti pot lobbyists don't want you to know.

1. It was made illegal in El Paso at the turn of the century not as a way to control drugs but as a way to persecute Mexican immigrants.
2. One of the most detailed and comprehensive studies on marijuanas effects was commissioned by Nixon. When the report concluded that marijuana does not harm people, lower IQ, destroy braincells, is not physically addictive, is safer than alcohol or tobacco, they squashed the report. President Regan buried it when he took office and instead supported the DARE program, one of the biggest misinformation campaigns in the last 30 years.
3. Marijuana is safer than table salt. It has no known toxicity and is impossible to overdose on. Marijuana intoxication also leaves no "hangover" or any lasting effects on people other than a sense of wellbeing.
4. Most of the illegally grown marijuana is grown locally. Buying pot may be illegal but it DOES NOT send money to the Taliban.....
5. The war on drugs has been a costly failure. Hardcore drugs like Heroin, Cocaine, and Methamphetamine continue to be cheaply available throughout the US. The only thing the war on drugs has helped is funnel more money into the hands of drug cartels much the same way that prohibition did to mobsters running illegal alcohol did. Prohibition didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

The only reason it is still illegal is because of circular logic.

Marijuana is illegal because it is bad.
Marijuana is bad because it is illegal.

Comment: What was Copernicus? Chopped liver? (Score 1) 206

by Kodack (#44685169) Attached to: Galileo: Right On the Solar System, Wrong On Ice

Seriously do people who write these things even bother to read about the subject they are writing about?

When they make statements like "championing the idea" it makes a false impression that Galileo made the discovery or that it wasn't in common knowledge at the time. Not to mention his beef with the church had less to do with his scientific views and more to do with his attempt to interpret scripture to explain what he saw through his telescope.

Discovering Saturn had "ears" yes.
Heliocentricism no.

ASCII a stupid question, you get an EBCDIC answer.

Working...