Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score 1) 776

by tuna_wasabi (#27659297) Attached to: Do We Need Running Shoes To Run?

I would argue that she's still choosing her mate by fitness.

I think it's clear from the context that Opportunist was talking specifically about physical fitness. You're point about societal fitness is completely valid, and deserves the mod-up it's gotten. But it compliments Opportunist's comment. It doesn't offer a counterargument, as you would seem to imply by the way you phrased your post.

Comment: Re:What's that smell? (Score 1) 329

by tuna_wasabi (#27314999) Attached to: Reflected Gravitational Waves

Gravity waves are a seriously studied (though as yet undetected) phenomenon. Master... I don't understand. How can something that is not detected be seriously studied? Please explain to me the Zen of study of undetected phenomena! I await your wise reply...

It's a pretty straightforward idea. Sometimes well established theories predict phenomena we haven't seen (as is the case with General Relativity predicting gravity waves). That doesn't mean the phenomena exist, but it gives us a good reason to look for them.

General Relativity gives us enough material to form a rich hypothetical basis for gravity waves. It is the development and analysis of this basis, as well as the development and implementation of technologies to perform experimental tests of it, which constitutes the rigorous body of work that has gone into this as yet undetected phenomenon.

Comment: Re:What's that smell? (Score 1) 329

by tuna_wasabi (#27310417) Attached to: Reflected Gravitational Waves

A college level quantum physics class has nothing to do with General Relativity. Gravity waves are a seriously studied (though as yet undetected) phenomenon. We have probes in space and ground-based interferometers miles long to try and detect them.

I think TFA explained the phenomenon pretty well for an article of a few hundred words. If you want some more info, try looking at the paper that Ciao submitted.

42 happens. Get used to it.

Comment: And his sidekick. . . (Score 5, Funny) 232

by tuna_wasabi (#26766947) Attached to: Flash Mob Steals $9 Million From ATMs

Redundant Boy!

Also, since the N in PIN stands for Number, saying PIN number is redundant. TFA didn't make this mistake, but since they go together so often I though I'd point it out for completeness.

One time I heard a friend say "I want to get some cash out of the ATM Machine, but I can't remember my PIN Number."

He's dead now.

Comment: Re:Sadly, no. (Score 1, Interesting) 453

by tuna_wasabi (#26441385) Attached to: Interview With an Adware Author

I think your bus driver analogy is flawed. It would be more like giving a salesman your house key so he could deliver whatever "free gift" he had offered you. When he asks the terms under which he's allowed to enter your house, you answer "Whatever you think is reasonable." Then you come home and he's on your couch, eating your chips. You ask him to leave and, after spending a few minutes collecting all of his stuff, he does.

You trusted a stranger, and explicitly allowed him into your home on his terms. When you wanted him to leave, he did. Maybe not as swiftly as you would like, but with no lasting damage. The salesman isn't going to jail, and hopefully you'll be a little wiser next time.

Comment: Re:Good luck with that. (Score 1) 743

by tuna_wasabi (#26303687) Attached to: Volvo Introduces a Collision-Proof Car
There is no greater sin than poor grammar. Here, let me help you.

. . .but I call it what it is murder.

There should be a colon after 'is'.

The only quote I have. . .

'Quote' is a verb. What you have is a 'quotation'.

2 Chronicles 7:14 say's. . .

Unnecessary apostrophe

We are suppose to be a civilized nation but we are practicing Barbaric behavior called human sacrifice.

Here you should use 'supposed' instead of 'suppose' and there is no reason to capitalize 'Barbaric'.

It is sad that we live in a county were it is. . .

'Where', not 'were'.

. . .perfectly legal to murder an unborn child for convenience, maybe the mother. . .

You should split this into two sentences to make it more readable: ". . .for convenience. Maybe the mother. . ."

It is human sacrifice for one's own convenience.

Here you switch antecedents without being clear about it. Technically, the pronoun 'it' in this sentence refers to the daughter, as she was the last proper noun explicitly referenced.

He will not however, intervene in Roe vs. Wade which is genocide that is taking place here in America everyday disguised as planned parenthood.

You should put a comma in between 'Wade' and 'which'. Also, I believe that your are referring to the health care provider, in which case 'planned parenthood' should be capitalized.

First of all, your response is completely unrelated to any of the parent comments. Second, it is poorly organized. Is this a comment about the economy, or abortion? If it is the latter, where does all this talk about the economy and George Bush fit into things? If the former, why go off on such a rant about abortion?

Lastly, your post would be more readable if you broke it into more readable sections. You seem, like many people, to write prose as if it were a transcription of the spoken word. It is not. Divide logical ideas into paragraphs and then further into sentences. Commas are primarily to separate clauses, not necessarily to indicate points at which you would pause if you were speaking these words aloud. Overall I find your argument poorly thought out, and seems to stem more from anger and fervor than from logical reasoning. These undertones do nothing but make it more difficult to follow your points and sabotage your own credibility.

Yours,
Summer Glau

P.S. Don't forget to check out the next season of The Sarah Connor Chronicles this fall on Fox!

Comment: Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score 1) 933

by tuna_wasabi (#26259829) Attached to: The Slippery Legal Slope of Cartoon Porn

Plus as some cartoons are over the age over 18 like the Simpsons for example. They're 20 years old as a point of fact.

So I can legally masturbate furiously to a video of a 10-year old being having sex with her father that was filmed eight years ago? Awesome! No seriously, there might be a logical fallacy in what you said.

I think manip was implying that even though Bart Simpson looks like he's 11 years old, he's been a character for about 20 years. So a *new* porno featuring Bart Simpson would be featuring a 20 year old character who looked 11, and should not be considered child porn.

I would agree however, that this argument is erroneous. By this logic, *any* cartoon porn featuring original characters would be child porn, as they would not be 18 years old in the "real" world.

It's difficult to reliably tell the ages of young actors/actresses in movies anyway. It's ridiculous to try to objectively (and legally) determine the age of cartoon or computer generated characters.

Comment: Battlefield Earth - L. Ron Hubbard (Score 2, Insightful) 1419

by tuna_wasabi (#24111831) Attached to: Sci-Fi Books For Pre-Teens?
It's controversial author aside, Battlefield Earth is one of the best science fiction books ever written. It's written in a straightforward pulp-action style that is great for kids to digest (as long as they're not intimidated by the ~1k page count). There's nothing too deep or demanding, it's just sci-fi action at it's best. Make sure to buy the copy with the original cover art; leave the hammy John Travolta cover in the store.

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?

Working...