Messages

What if. . . my Kool-Aid tastes a little bit . . . off?

This application's very handy.  I keep all kinds of .txt files around with information referenced that I may need later.  Though I probably won't use it for coding, it could certainly be used for . . . er. . . pr0n.

Not to divert the thread too much, but that Communist quote could've been quite applicable depending upon the circumstances.  Much of America's people know little or nothing about it, and Communist has used in the same sense as Nazi or Fascist has been for some time now. 

The image, back on topic, is almost hyperbolic enough to be a Somethingawful picture.  Agreeing with most of the posters, it's neither offensive nor amusing.  I voted Kerry in the last election - not as an "anybody but Bush" vote, nor because I think Kerry would be much better, more for their cabinet and in an attempt to bring some balance to the government by putting a Democrat somewhere in the decision-making process.  Although, had he won, he'd essentially be crippled by the Republican-dominated legislature.

Ah, my Federalist Republic, you give me two choices and they both blow. 

First site listed, google search +composition +earth +crust displays percentage of chemical composition for all layers, but every link on the page has some information about it. 

Procrastination is not your friend.

Another link you might find useful.

Unless he's specifically aimed for irritation and controversy, I can only imagine that the time-killing image took more time than he'd care to admit.  I, myself, am guilty of making comments about my own work to conserve pride.  Many of us have made similar statements: Whipped this out real quick; didn't have time; screwed up but was too far into it to correct; don't like it much; didn't care about it.  They all beg the same question: Why did you post it for critique then. 

Maybe I'm only actually speaking for myself, but it takes me a great deal of time to end up with a mediocre image and it's embarrassing.  It's much easier on the ego to state that I was rushed or place the blame on something beyond my control, particularly when I see drawings and their corresponding fixes posted by the likes of Pessi, Dan Clarke, and Loominus. 

If this is the case for you, Fluke (assuming you bother to read the replies to the thread), you might try something along the lines of:

"This didn't take me that long, but I don't really know how I could improve it by spending more time on it.  I don't want to take up too much of your time, but a couple pointers and especially diagrams, would help me improve quite a lot.  Thank you in advance for whatever advice you might have, and I'll be sure to use what I'm able to in this or future illustrations." 

I refuse to believe you wouldn't get a more supportive response from everyone if this were your attitude.  It can take years to make a movie, 2 hours to watch it, and 30 minutes to write a lengthy review of it.  It can take years (even a decade) to write a long novel, yet I read it in a couple of days.  By this measurement, if you truly spent only a matter of minutes on this, I don't see how it merits more than 5 seconds of reply.  For those that can make an excellent background, illustration, or sprite in mere moments, they've undoubtedly invested many hours, days, or years honing their technique.  I'd suggest you be willing to do the same if you'd like them to give it their full attention.

Definitely name it Pustulio.

An alternate suggestion is to use astringents like anti-acne topical medications or witch-hazel. 

Awesome.  I dug the artwork on this when it was in Critic's Lounge..  being only Spanish will just force me to remember my teachings thereof.

Ooooh, exotic names? 

How 'about Quetzalcoatl? 

As an alternate, I nominate Fasadeculo.

Where is this wonderful land of Porn and how do I apply for citizenship?

You mentioned both a favorite flavor and being open to something like "Custard."  So, I'd suggest you give it a food-ish name...  Supper rolls quite nicely off the tongue. 

Perhaps if you'd made it a case of, "I have this hypothetical friend who wants to know. . ." instead of, "Hey, if I married you, would you . . . "

It seems like a poor idea.  As much as I think the father should know and that the woman should tell him that she's having the procedure, there are too many problems with it. 

First, as mentioned - Government regulation seldom tends to be the best way to go about ensuring something is done properly. 

Second - I don't think the male should have 100% veto capability in the matter,  and putting this decision into effect would cause just that.  If the law requires notification, how is verification of this made?  Is there a call the father has to make?  Paper to sign?  Summons to answer?  If verification is required, the father simply needs to avoid it to effectively give a veto to an abortion decision.  If no verification is needed, then the law's unenforceable and has no bearing.

I still find the idea that the media more readily jumps into familiar waters - that of public scandal in celebrity circles - appalling.  Specifically, questions asked during the Clinton scandal were far more critical and pointed.  Discounting my personal belief that the whole thing was basically none of the public's concern and made far too essential an issue of non-relative events, the press still managed to sharpen its edge on the uttered falsehoods.  Clinton lied over and over while the press, smelling equal amounts of bullshit and blood, cut away the fat to expost the meat of the story.  Its skills were still being practiced at that point, if poorly aimed. 

The difference between the press of yesterday and today is the zealot factor introduced by 9/11.  Public opinion and the elections were essentially as divided as they were during the previous elections.  The segment of the country that thought we were being mislead and wanted different leadership was met by an equal amount that dubbed them unpatriotic and showed up at the polls to declare their support for "moral" leadership.   

This administration has made no secret of its hand-picking of supportive journalists and discrediting of its critics.  It must be a terrifying thing to know that your career could be ended if you broke a decent story that showed the government in a poor light.  It's little wonder that on-line journals have been carrying the bulk of weighty editorials, they've got less to lose and a phenomenal amount to gain if their post grabs the public's attention. 

The American public has been lied to consistently, regardless of the leading political party, for too long to recount.  The difference now is that the lies can be overlooked, forgotten or even believed by those with faith - religious, political, moral or otherwise.

Back on topic, I can't really say I have any idea how to deal with the Iran situation.   The pacifist in me wants to just ignore them until they go away, but the kid in me likes them for their sweet crispy crunch.   It would obviously be a bad thing if they were to establish a threat-worthy nuclear arsenal.  However, to be frank, I don't trust the current administration to deal with it in the correct fashion (whatever that might be) and doubt we'd get the truth about what we were doing anyway.  Thank you media, for being hypocritical cowards that've betrayed every ideal you ever claimed to have stood for.

Freedom of the press . . .  having unused freedoms is like earning a paycheck paid in monopoly money.   

[Oh, yeah, and welcome back DG]

I understand what you're saying about the American public at large being culpable while the media was pigeon-holed due to the extreme emotion evoked by the era of terror, but I still belive that you're letting them off the hook too easily. 

The media as a whole was roadblocked by evasive political interviewees and the "anti-patriotic" accusations being ping-ponged about.  However, they were only cripplied due to their reliance on a capitalist media model.   The detailed accuracy and unbiased reporting abilities of any press are inversely proportional to their income level.   We've seen more poignant questions from bloggers and more and more mainstream news programs echoing online journals.   Ultimately, viewers are shocked to discover that some Americans have opinions and some of them are even *gasp* controversial.   The media (I'm pointing in the general direction, though TV attracts the focus of the finger-pointing) had a choice: They could stand by the ethics of journalism and serve their purpose with integrity, or they could cynically use the disaster to further their influence and fatten their wallets.   

Within two weeks of 9/11, I heard about people at Ground Zero selling T-Shirts and souveneirs.  Granted, they were superficially respectful, bearing such deep contemplatives as, "Never Forget" with some mandatory, arbitrarily-chosen image such as an image of the Iwo Jima monument backgrounded by twin towers.  That same amount of callous profiteering was practiced by the media at large.  The only difference between previous front page eye-grabbing news previously and post-9/11 is that now it's practiced with bowed heads and a too-shocked-to-speak delivery.   It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they're in it for the money and not to serve the people.  Thinking of them as reliable sources of information with which to make an informed decision is laughable.  News programs are now what they've always been: Entertainment with occasional bits of information to be gleaned.  It's actually a bit like the Daily Show in that respect, just that the Daily Show makes no attempt to disguise itself as respectable.

I don't understand the irritation.  The people, as a whole, want religious freedom and also want the government to abide by the doctrine of separation of church and state.   So are we going to arbitrarily protest the Christian holidays while allowing other holidays?  That's not exactly religious freedom.  What if we allow the standard Americanized Christian holidays in our schools but disallow other religious festivities? 

It's got to be allowing all holidays to be celebrated in our public schools or none.  Which sounds more scholastic and which the more disruptive? 

As for the cons of Halloween:
1) Juvenile delinquents roaming the street
2) Frequent and randomly aimed gunfire within blocks of where I work.

Pros:
1) Juvenile delinquents roaming the street may be hit by passing vehicles.
2) I don't work Halloween so won't encounter gunfire, but "get" to dress in a mandated costume in order to attend a party and avoid con #1.
3) Another good reason to imbibe.

They all sound remarkably similar to experiences I've had when dealing with financial institutions, aside from the utility bill.  I'd have to sign up for Power & Gas before I ever received them so they'd, of course, have my name and address.

There is an horrible plague of arbitrary security running rampant.  I've had to provide 2 forms of picture ID (which I don't normally even have), a thumb-print, and parents contact information in order to start a bank account before, yet I've approved transactions with little evidence that I was who I said I was.  I seldom give ID for large transactions and they go through okay.  I had a $620 US transaction once where all I did was give a credit card number/ expiration /name over the phone.  The bank let that go through just fine, however the next day, I pumped $11 US in petrol only to have the transaction declined.  My account was locked down and I had to contact the bank security personnel.  I thought I might've reached a grand total of some sort, but they said it was because I had 4 different petrol fuel-ups in a week at different locations.  (It wouldn't have anything to do with driving 84 miles a day would it?)

From sundry discussions I've had on the subject, that specific state can result from a variety of things.  Occasionally, high- progesterone levels can  result in a semi-accidental state of dampness.  Likewise, fluctuations in the menses cycle can cause apparently random discharge, particularly during the adolescent cycle (similar to male adolescents particular embarassing public arousals).  There are also times that physical manipulation of a certain nerve-cluster housing by inanimate objects (such as a crease of denim) has had that effect.  Women are rather unique in that they can have pre-climax and climax due to emotional or verbal stimuli, whereas most men require more manipulation of said naughty bits.

Edit: editing to express my amusement at the thread title following this one - "Suggestion - Release Something!"

Useful linkage, though that particular descriptive is getting a bit repetitive at this point.

Absolutely.  It was more an example than anything but if you're so inclined, go for it. 

Even if you can't duplicate the sound you wanted, just recording nothing would help in cleaning it up using Audacity or Cooledit for noise reduction (same method).

From what I hear, the US versions are the only ones without the interactive sex-scene.  Some of what you have to do in the game is banal and silly enough, I don't think I would've kept playing if I'd had to DDR my way through the hanky-panky.