chuck kottke

Bump! For some reason, I was just listening to 'give a little bit' on YouTube. Exceptional musicians! Wow, really wish I had had the chance to see them in concert years back..

Anyhow, back to 42. 420 nm is a good color! Ideal for growing coral reefs, photosynthesis - plants love it, and if an object absorbs 420 nm light, the color that often remains appears as Yellow, another hit!! :>

General and special relativity: one wonders how the world see us, if we see the world! Random Coldplay Thought: What is the color at 420 nm wavelength??

Welcome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

Obama has taken influence money, but hasn't totally slid off the deep end. I'm not pleased with his connections with some of the Wall street Financiers that are unethical and responsible for the housing market scam and the credit scam "industries", but the breakdown for his contributions goes as follows: 50% from donations of $200 or less; 29% from donations of $2300 or less; and 8% from donations of $4,600... Even Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney take from the upper bracket range (1% and 5% respectively), albeit much less so. Ralph Nader gets 9% from the $4,600 bracket, but looking at the list, it's not the usual suspects, so I'll cut him some slack. Compare that to John McCain's jewel-encrusted platter of donors: 32% from donations of $200 or less; 54% from donations of $2,300, and 17% from donations of $4,600.. Heavy on the mining industries, light on unions, and ties to Bush's old "pioneers" are probably a likelihood. Obama may have wealthy donors, but McCain is even more so by the percentages; And I think there are two paths to reform - one can be through party activity, and the other can be through grass-roots organizations that are non-partisan in nature. You might choose the party path, but I'm choosing the non-partisan route.

One way of looking at the money trail (a truer indication of how a candidate will vote than any news flash will ever be) is to look at who's donating what, and at what level. Call me biased if you will, but I think $200 US should be the cap; and looking at opensecrets.org breaks down the donations for candidates as follows: Bob Barr - 54% from contributions of $200 or less Ralph Nader - 51% from contributions of $200 or less Barack Obama - 50% from Contributions of $200 or less Cynthia McKinney - 59% from Contributions of $200 or less John McCain - 32% from Contributions of $200 or less So, looking at it this way, Cynthia and Bob are tops, Barack and Ralph are still pretty good, and McCain looks like the candidate of the wealthy. Check it out for yourself at: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008

Like I said, I am voting for a Third Party Candidate if the race is not close. None of the election reforms will happen if we don't make them happen, and maybe most unfortunate of all is the fact that it could take a bigger shock to the system to make the average citizen really wake up, regardless of what we think or do. Obviously, the third-party candidates are a long-shot at winning, and yet it could be one way - a source for change in the political landscape. But then what happens in the meantime? Going from bad to worse as we vote our conscience?? Sure, I can see your points, and that would be great if every issue were a referendum on the ballot, so all the elected officials could do would be to do the will of the people by creating legislation based on our will. Unfortunately, sometimes to be pragmatic is practical even if not anywhere near ideal, and there are other ways to push reform measures aside from the political party method. Common Cause is one non-partisan group dedicated to this effort.

Welcome Aboard fmbm!!

A fool is blind; I am not blind. I make the choice I feel is necessary to prevent something worse from happening; not the choice I would prefer to make, but a pragmatic choice. However, I am committed to campaign and election reform, which will be essential to restoring our Republic to it's rightful place as a bastion of individual liberty and justice in the world. Sure, I could vote for a third party clearly in favor of reform and running more honest candidates, and I will if the race is not close. But, if the race is close, then I would rather choose the better of the two in the lead, as unfortunate a choice as that may be. Why call me a fool for this? Is that not rational?? I am as appalled at the corruption in the whole system as anyone, and I'm aware of it's influence in both candidates; but they are not the same, and hence it does make a difference, even if the change is not as substantial as anyone aware of the issues would like it to be.

True, not a one of them are saints. Someone once said that if you want the biggest return on your investment, invest the way a Senator does (for they all do this to some extent, outside of maybe Feingold..) Yes, this is a huge part of the problem!! We, who are aware of the facts, could all vote for third party candidates who are more honest, but the remainder of America will probably select the candidate who runs the most effective campaign, and that usually boils down to who pumps the most money into ads, and where that money comes from. So, unless the race isn't close, I'm voting for Obama. And, I'm advocating for election and campaign reform, which must happen to restore our Democratic process and protect our precious & essential Liberties. For a complete rundown of the investments and returns, see http://www.votesmart.org BTW - how about putting something up about McCain's corruption, seeing as you think they are both equally culpable? ;-)

Hello Helena! I'm glad you could join in here - while I'm not from Brazil, I do know something about your country, and I do like Brazil nuts (sustainably harvested, of course!). Enjoy the zaniness, and hang on to those rain forests, as we try and keep what's left of ours!!

??? Here Comes the Sun...:sunny:

:rolleyes:Apparently a particle - antiparticle pair by Tnspieler!:laugh3: "ESTIMATED PRODUCTION RATES of intermediate vector bosons and Higgs bosons by various collision processes vary as a function of the total energy of the colliding beams. See also: Production rate of charged Lepton-Antilepton Pairs.:inquisitive:

Welcome!!:)

visual of what is light.. Ian, what exactly does 2600 Hz sound like?? Is that the "bell" in the old Bell System??:P Do we get to talk to Lilly Tomlin if we send the 2600 Hz signal down the line?? My wave - matter idea wasn't far off; I used to think of basic particles as stationary waves, like a ripple from a pebble that keeps bouncing back in upon itself, or a super-imposing ball of energy.. But a wave must have a medium to travel through, so the strings do make sense. And yet if light is a wavicle, then if the electrical particle part is swishing back and forth through space as a point particle, does it have an opposite "ghost" particle that it keeps attracted to, so as to accelerate towards, never touch, and then fly past along a central line through space?? And is there a complimentary magnetic particle with it's "ghost" particle working at 90 degrees to the light particle?? I keep recalling all the ways light can be polarized, and how it can be in phase - it almost seems to have the shape of the Maltese cross, but then is this simply the Universes strings being "tugged" as it were.. Einstein preferred the particle approach to light, and I'm wondering if by doing so, he could see a side to light's character that we now lack by looking through the quantum lens..

Fix Supertramp: Give a Little Bit.:daisy:

:rolleyes:Sounds like a good start! (I got to snack on watermelon fresh from the garden..:))

Wow!:) Quite a few computer accomplishments!! :sunny: Glad you could join in with us regular zoo animals, Rachel!..:joker:..

Hello Boston!:)

And I'm in favor of a fair system of taxation so we have a functioning government, and for a process of ensuring fair elections and fair races for office. When bad characters advance due to unscrupulous tactics involving big-money contributors in their campaigns, then our government becomes hijacked as it has, and the results are unjustified illegal wars, and those who condone torture in places outside the law. If we are to get our rights back, and end the corruption that leads to illegal wars, we first must assert our right to fair elections and to a fair campaign process, or at least this seems essential to me.

You know, I've wondered about that some time ago - what happens when a vehicle catches on fire down in there?? So, now I know!:shocked2: Wow, that must be a mess - all the smoke stuck in the tunnel, and the air must get awfully fowled up.. What exactly caught fire??

And here nary a drop! It's just overcast and a little misting.. I suppose the eye flew over Michigan?? Bummer - that's no fun! I've got an old hand-operated sump pump, if you need it..

A friend of mine garnered 38% of the vote in the primary. Though he didn't win, he ran with a minimum of funds, and enough of the voters could see the value in an honest candidate, that they were willing to vote for someone based on sound reason and honesty, not just who could run flashy TV ads.:) Now if we could open up the airwaves, we could level the playing field, and get better government..

As a reference, I wish all interested parties would examine http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Post how you feel about the Libertarian philosophy, party, its defenders, and its protractors here. Since we critique both major parties and their philosophies, I think that it's only fitting to provide a lively debate on Libertarianism as well.:smug: