A rigid airship the size of the old Akropn would be the most effective firefighting ariel platform one could buy. With a cargo-lift capacity of 100 TONS, you could easily deliver the retardant in a single super-storm, or you could use a couple high-velocity turrets underneath the thing. It can stay stationery for a long period of time, improving accuracy, and most important, it's fireproof (assuming you fill it with helium and not hydrogen).
He's been pulling in money from rich/stupid investors for 30+ years now. The M400 gets dragged out to just about every tech show in the hopes of pulling in more money. The fact is, he is no further now than he was 20 years ago when he had a saucer that could hover 20 feet off the ground. The M400 was supposed to be operational n 2001! Then, it was 2002, then 03, then 04, and now it's 05. Great LOOKING car, but it is the ultimate vaporware scam.
I hope the guy succeeds some day, but he'll have to do it with someone else's money, because I would NEVER invest in a guy with a track record as shaky as his.
Just a hypothesis, but perhaps BayStar's job is to get SCO to liquidate all employees and make it easy for M$oft to buy out the rights if they hold up against Novell. BayStar does all the dirty work, and then M$oft gets to buy the IP and put it's big lawyers against IBM's big lawyers.
If the IP doesn't work, BayStar has probably been assured that M$oft will reimburse them for any losses through a lucrative investment deal down the road. They DO have over a billion in the bank after all. $50 mill is pocket change.
Look at what British special forces are carrying. Look at the offerings from SAS and a slew of other manufacturers. The M-16 is a good weapon, but there are better, more reliable combat-assault weapons available. The fact the author is trying to make is that the military hasn't put any serious cash into developing a successor in 40 years, and with a 10-15 year development cycle, they need to start now.
You can have all the fancy weapons you want, but areas are still occupied and patrolled by the most basic weapon...a soldier and his firearm. Have the best-trained foot sildier, and the rest of the technology is 10x more effective. Have a poor soldier, and no technology is going to help you win the battle. Look at Vietnam, great weapons far advanced compared to the enemy, but crippled by poorly trained, non-motivated soldiers. They didn't have a chance.
By nature Religion is territorial. Religion was one of the evolutionary factors of early society. It provided a better chance of survival by setting and reiterating societal rules. Unfortunately, as successful tribes expand and become civilizations, nations, super-powers, their vestigal religion comes along like an appendix.
If people learn to live without religion, and take personal responsibility for their lives (don't be good to get into heaven, be good because it's smart for survival) the need for religion and the rules it evolved with go away.
Unfortunately, people don't want to deal with death, and the message that one will continue moving on in an immortal fashion is far more seductive than accepting you are going to die and rot in a box till the Sun explodes.
As for the harm religion can do, it is immense. Islam, Christian Crusades, Witch hunts, Jewish conquests, Hindu Thugee, terrrorism, and expansionism can all be traced back to religion. These competing religious ideas are just like competing species. They all want maximum expansion room and few competitors. Religion is a virus. If you want to believe in God, Yaweh, Vishnu, Allah, or Hecate, by all means do so. There is no need to be part of an organized group to do it. Religious heirarchy is an old concept that was once important to our survival, but now is as useless as a stone axe.
They still get better mileage than the SUV's. Further, EPA mileage is never "real-world" mileage. Hummer's don't get anything near the 12/15 rating they have on their EPA estimate either. Basic math still favors the hybrid. I don't see why people are getting their panties in a wad over the fantasy EPA sticker (which they ignore anyway).
A hybrid getting 35-40mpg is still way more efficent than an SUV getting 8.
It already IS working. Where did I say it wouldn't work? All I am saying is that these systems are built to defend against a ballistic trajectory (where targeting is much easier) and that it won't take long for hostile nations to find ways around it.
A spaced-based system would be equally ineffective against ground-hugging systems because they still have to punch through the atmosphere if you keep your missles in the atmosphere. One other issue, a space based platofrm would be almost impossible to maintain. The fuel for the laser they are using is in a cryogenic one-shot tube. A new tube must be put in the chamber for each shot (like a bullet). This means there will be a limited number of shots from any satellite. Further, the power required for one of these systems would be astronomical from space. Not only are you still trying to hit from range, but you now have a 380mi elevation. Gravity does not help a laserr beam. You have just increased the needed range by putting this system in space.
I'm not against these systems, nor am I saying they won't work. All I am saying is that they don't provide a long term solution. Frankly, I think the money would be better spent on our international intelligence. If you never want to be attacked by suprise, have a damn good intelligence agency. You can always respond if you have enough warning via spys. You can't do squat if they overcome your missle defense. There's no backup, and no time.
Phalanx only works if you are in range of the target. In other words, they are great if you want to stop 4-5 missles and you know the target (like a ship). They don't work on large area targets. If you want to defend a building or ship, they work fine. If you want to protect a city (say Los Angeles) you would need to place one Phalanx every 3-4 miles along the coast. Further, the system can track a maximum of 64 targets for each turret, so numbers would win again.
The cheap, plentiful cruise missle is the most effective non-developed vehicle out there, it is only a matter or time till some smart government figures that out.
Actually, lasers are really an "old" technology now. There is very little room for minaturization. Lasers require a LOT of power to do the damage this current breed does, and they require one-use fuel canisters of exotic gasses for each shot. The energy required to make a laser an offensive weapon is unbelieveably high. You can't sweep one of these across a battlefield because the fuel charge will last only a few seconds as it lases. The power comes from a storage device like a capacitor, and there is a recharge period for re-use.
The arms escalation that would result will likely be better missles, smaller missles, smarter missles. Reflective coatings and decoys are a better investment. You will probably see more types of terrain-hugging missles with longer ranges and cheaper production costs. The only way to defeat an anti-ballistic system like this is to be able to send an overwhelming number of cheap, hard-to-hit cruise-type missles. A crude $5000 cruise missle is the best weapon. For a million dollars you can send 200 at your enemy en-masse. Try shooting down 200 targets that are only 3-400 feet off the ground and moving erratically. If all you need are 10 to get through, you have a very good chance of success.
You are correct that this will lead to an arms race, but I think you are wrong in the direction it will take. These types of defense systems will be passe' in 10 years because it is too easy to counter them with non-ballistic alternatives.
They made this announcement after trading hours on Friday, and they already closed below $6 today. If you have a stock tracker, set it to watch SCOX on Monday morning when the market opens. They will easily lose another $.50 by the end of next week. Also, it will be interesting to see how many of the board members quietly dump stock in after hours trading this weekend. Half of them notified the FTC that they would be cashing in stock in small increments. I am betting those increments add up to 150,000 common shares this weekend.
My friend (the evil capitalist) has said that this has always been a race between winning the legal cases, and the stock hitting the magic $4.50 share price when the market figired out the scam. At $4.50, there would likely be a removal of The Darl and his cronies and a cancellation of all court cases and a demand for a new CEO to turn SCO around by INNOVATING instead of LITIGATING. I am watching to see if he's right. See you Monday!
I went with the higher priced iTunes over Wal-Mart because iTunes seemed to be a better quality selection. Their interface was better. If Apple goes to 1.25, I'll send them a polite note explaining the concept of supply and demand, and then promptly move to Wal-Mart and their.88 price. If enough people do it, it won't take long for iTunes to return to.99.
They asked us to buy music legally, we did. They have an infinite supply and a small but growing demand. They son't want to fu@k this up.
SCO has only sold $20,000 in Linux licenses the last quarter. That's a little over 25 licenses. Guess there really isn't much of a line to buy a printed piece of paper that gets you nothing.
I'm not fear mongering, nor am I demanding we stop researching the technology. Read my post again. I am saying that having this conversation NOW, and beginning the long process of educating the public about "good" and "bad" nanotechnology will PREVENT the type of fear/ignorance that we saw with bioengineered food.
As for self-replication, we are talking about an article discussing nanotechnology 20 years from now, and you projecting it in 12 years. It is a possiblity, and it should be discussed. Protocols and controls are what good scientists/engineers use for testing and development. The sooner they are in place, the better.
Nanos require such a small amount of energy to accomplish their tasks, I can think of a number of interesting alternatives. A small bit of silicon and they can be solar powered. The right composition, and they could use heat as a thermocouple or have a single atom of plutonium. Better yet, you could combine the weapon and power source. a few thousand particles of plutonium attached to your skin, or delivered just below the skin would be more than enough to kill you within 12 hours of exposure. The only requirement is that the power source be small. There are plenty of options.
Why have this conversation now? Mod UP please
on
Diamond Age Approaching?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The right nanotechnology could be self replicating, and lethal. Imagine a biological or chemical weapon that is 100% lethal and can identify and target it's victims. Then you have the right idea.
Increasing kill ratios without having to commit troops to a battlefield is extremely seductive to those in power. Creating a weapons delivery system that can be dropped in an enemy area and begin sending out millions of tiny assasins within hours is indeed frightening. Assign a few thousand nanotodes to each victim. Their job is to simply inject a molecular amount of Ricin, just one molecule each. The amount of product the factory/delivery system needs to carry is minimal because every molecule reaches it's target. No area-wide spraying is needed. The system could devestate an entire army or city within hours. There would be no residual radiation, no explosion to announce it's arrival, and the nanos could simply be switched off after the slaughter is done.
Imagine two nations fighting with these weapons. Or imagine a self-replicating version that gets out of control. If you thought the A-Bomb was bad, imagine what these could do. From an ethical point of view, I think this is a good conversation to be having now. In 20 years, we have no idea where this technology could be, or what DARPA will make it capable of.
The right nanotechnology could be self replicating, and lethal. Imagine a biological or chemical weapon that is 100% lethal and can identify and target it's victims. Then you have the right idea.
Increasing kill ratios without having to commit troops to a battlefield is extremely seductive to those in power. Creating a weapons delivery system that can be dropped in an enemy area and begin sending out millions of tiny assasins within hours is indeed frightening. Assign a few thousand nanotodes to each victim. Their job is to simply inject a molecular abount of Ricin. Just one molecule each. The amount of product the factory/delivery system needs to carry is minimal because every molecule reaches it's target. No area-wide spraying is needed. The system could devestate an entire army or city within hours. There would be no residual radiation, no explosion to announce it's arrival, and the nanos could simply be switched off after the slaughter is done.
Imagine two nations fighting with these weapons. Or imagine a self-replicating version that gets out of control. If you thought the A-Bomb was bad, imagine what these could do. From an ethical point of view, I think this is a good conversation to be having now. In 20 years, we have no idea where this technology could be, or what DARPA will make it capable of.
Yes, and 180 people still died, and that was with 65,000 hours of combined flight experience in a four-man cockpit and another 120,000 hours of experience consulting them from on the ground. 12 pilots were conferenced-in, consulting on that flight, and they still couldn't bring it in with all those resources. Trust me, you don't want to ever loose hydraulics or control surfaces in any type of plane.
There are plenty of jobs, but they are no longer in Boston, or the Bay Area. Those places are wastelands, where there are 50 coders for every job. Get on a few job boards, and look in places you normally wouldn't go; Tennessee, Lousiana, Nebraska, Carolina, Arkansas, New Mexico, Iowa, Idaho, Montana, etc. They all have medium to big cities, but no one pays attention. Move somewhere cheap, get a decent paying job, and live like a king. If you miss the pax humana of the big city, buy a plane ticket and go there for a weekend each month. You can afford it with your new disposable income. Good Luck!
From the look of the model, tension is applied through strings or cables. As a pilot, I don't think I am ready to trust that till they start using a solid linkage. I had a rudder cable on a C172 snap once, and I really never want to try and land like that again. I can't imagine trusting my wings to that, especially my ailerons. No ailerons, no getting home. Rudder and elevators won't steer a plane.
The problem is that I STILL have to stock Koolio. What's worse is that I STILL have to go to the store and buy the cases of beverages to LOAD in Koolio. Finally, Koolio can not take a crap or urinate FOR me. I am really dissappointed. Where has good ol' American innovation gone? Why am I still required to wear clothing, bathe, and work? Koolio simply doesn't fit in to my busy sloth-like lifestyle yet. Back to the drawing boards guys.
The guy did a decent job on a suit. He had the balls to wear it and win a prize. Half the guys bagging on his size here are probably the same size, and have never done or accomplished anything. Good for him, bad for you.
I for one, welcome our new Wooly Mammoth masters
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
Bring on the Ice Age! The idea of living in a cave, with a bearskin enconsed Darryl Hannah or Barbara Bach is right up my alley. Zug-Zug anyone?No more shaving, no more coding, and no more traffic. I have the knowledge to make charcoal and iron. I learned how to hunt with bow and arrow at the age of 12. I intend to adopt the Mayan tradition of human sacrifice in my religion. In the land of blind men, the one-eyed man is king!
Slashdot Mirror
A rigid airship the size of the old Akropn would be the most effective firefighting ariel platform one could buy. With a cargo-lift capacity of 100 TONS, you could easily deliver the retardant in a single super-storm, or you could use a couple high-velocity turrets underneath the thing. It can stay stationery for a long period of time, improving accuracy, and most important, it's fireproof (assuming you fill it with helium and not hydrogen).
He's been pulling in money from rich/stupid investors for 30+ years now. The M400 gets dragged out to just about every tech show in the hopes of pulling in more money. The fact is, he is no further now than he was 20 years ago when he had a saucer that could hover 20 feet off the ground. The M400 was supposed to be operational n 2001! Then, it was 2002, then 03, then 04, and now it's 05. Great LOOKING car, but it is the ultimate vaporware scam.
I hope the guy succeeds some day, but he'll have to do it with someone else's money, because I would NEVER invest in a guy with a track record as shaky as his.
Just a hypothesis, but perhaps BayStar's job is to get SCO to liquidate all employees and make it easy for M$oft to buy out the rights if they hold up against Novell. BayStar does all the dirty work, and then M$oft gets to buy the IP and put it's big lawyers against IBM's big lawyers.
If the IP doesn't work, BayStar has probably been assured that M$oft will reimburse them for any losses through a lucrative investment deal down the road. They DO have over a billion in the bank after all. $50 mill is pocket change.
If you want outdated weapons, buy a pallet of AK-47s. You can get 4 for the price of a pallet of m-16s
Look at what British special forces are carrying. Look at the offerings from SAS and a slew of other manufacturers. The M-16 is a good weapon, but there are better, more reliable combat-assault weapons available. The fact the author is trying to make is that the military hasn't put any serious cash into developing a successor in 40 years, and with a 10-15 year development cycle, they need to start now.
You can have all the fancy weapons you want, but areas are still occupied and patrolled by the most basic weapon...a soldier and his firearm. Have the best-trained foot sildier, and the rest of the technology is 10x more effective. Have a poor soldier, and no technology is going to help you win the battle. Look at Vietnam, great weapons
far advanced compared to the enemy, but crippled by poorly trained, non-motivated soldiers. They didn't have a chance.
By nature Religion is territorial. Religion was one of the evolutionary factors of early society. It provided a better chance of survival by setting and reiterating societal rules. Unfortunately, as successful tribes expand and become civilizations, nations, super-powers, their vestigal religion comes along like an appendix.
If people learn to live without religion, and take personal responsibility for their lives (don't be good to get into heaven, be good because it's smart for survival) the need for religion and the rules it evolved with go away.
Unfortunately, people don't want to deal with death, and the message that one will continue moving on in an immortal fashion is far more seductive than accepting you are going to die and rot in a box till the Sun explodes.
As for the harm religion can do, it is immense. Islam, Christian Crusades, Witch hunts, Jewish conquests, Hindu Thugee, terrrorism, and expansionism can all be traced back to religion. These competing religious ideas are just like competing species. They all want maximum expansion room and few competitors. Religion is a virus. If you want to believe in God, Yaweh, Vishnu, Allah, or Hecate, by all means do so. There is no need to be part of an organized group to do it. Religious heirarchy is an old concept that was once important to our survival, but now is as useless as a stone axe.
They still get better mileage than the SUV's. Further, EPA mileage is never "real-world" mileage. Hummer's don't get anything near the 12/15 rating they have on their EPA estimate either. Basic math still favors the hybrid. I don't see why people are getting their panties in a wad over the fantasy EPA sticker (which they ignore anyway).
A hybrid getting 35-40mpg is still way more efficent than an SUV getting 8.
It already IS working. Where did I say it wouldn't work? All I am saying is that these systems are built to defend against a ballistic trajectory (where targeting is much easier) and that it won't take long for hostile nations to find ways around it.
A spaced-based system would be equally ineffective against ground-hugging systems because they still have to punch through the atmosphere if you keep your missles in the atmosphere. One other issue, a space based platofrm would be almost impossible to maintain. The fuel for the laser they are using is in a cryogenic one-shot tube. A new tube must be put in the chamber for each shot (like a bullet). This means there will be a limited number of shots from any satellite. Further, the power required for one of these systems would be astronomical from space. Not only are you still trying to hit from range, but you now have a 380mi elevation. Gravity does not help a laserr beam. You have just increased the needed range by putting this system in space.
I'm not against these systems, nor am I saying they won't work. All I am saying is that they don't provide a long term solution. Frankly, I think the money would be better spent on our international intelligence. If you never want to be attacked by suprise, have a damn good intelligence agency. You can always respond if you have enough warning via spys. You can't do squat if they overcome your missle defense. There's no backup, and no time.
Phalanx only works if you are in range of the target. In other words, they are great if you want to stop 4-5 missles and you know the target (like a ship). They don't work on large area targets. If you want to defend a building or ship, they work fine. If you want to protect a city (say Los Angeles) you would need to place one Phalanx every 3-4 miles along the coast. Further, the system can track a maximum of 64 targets for each turret, so numbers would win again.
The cheap, plentiful cruise missle is the most effective non-developed vehicle out there, it is only a matter or time till some smart government figures that out.
Actually, lasers are really an "old" technology now. There is very little room for minaturization. Lasers require a LOT of power to do the damage this current breed does, and they require one-use fuel canisters of exotic gasses for each shot. The energy required to make a laser an offensive weapon is unbelieveably high. You can't sweep one of these across a battlefield because the fuel charge will last only a few seconds as it lases. The power comes from a storage device like a capacitor, and there is a recharge period for re-use.
The arms escalation that would result will likely be better missles, smaller missles, smarter missles. Reflective coatings and decoys are a better investment. You will probably see more types of terrain-hugging missles with longer ranges and cheaper production costs. The only way to defeat an anti-ballistic system like this is to be able to send an overwhelming number of cheap, hard-to-hit cruise-type missles. A crude $5000 cruise missle is the best weapon. For a million dollars you can send 200 at your enemy en-masse. Try shooting down 200 targets that are only 3-400 feet off the ground and moving erratically. If all you need are 10 to get through, you have a very good chance of success.
You are correct that this will lead to an arms race, but I think you are wrong in the direction it will take. These types of defense systems will be passe' in 10 years because it is too easy to counter them with non-ballistic alternatives.
They made this announcement after trading hours on Friday, and they already closed below $6 today. If you have a stock tracker, set it to watch SCOX on Monday morning when the market opens. They will easily lose another $.50 by the end of next week. Also, it will be interesting to see how many of the board members quietly dump stock in after hours trading this weekend. Half of them notified the FTC that they would be cashing in stock in small increments. I am betting those increments add up to 150,000 common shares this weekend.
My friend (the evil capitalist) has said that this has always been a race between winning the legal cases, and the stock hitting the magic $4.50 share price when the market figired out the scam. At $4.50, there would likely be a removal of The Darl and his cronies and a cancellation of all court cases and a demand for a new CEO to turn SCO around by INNOVATING instead of LITIGATING. I am watching to see if he's right. See you Monday!
I went with the higher priced iTunes over Wal-Mart because iTunes seemed to be a better quality selection. Their interface was better. If Apple goes to 1.25, I'll send them a polite note explaining the concept of supply and demand, and then promptly move to Wal-Mart and their .88 price. If enough people do it, it won't take long for iTunes to return to .99.
They asked us to buy music legally, we did. They have an infinite supply and a small but growing demand. They son't want to fu@k this up.
SCO has only sold $20,000 in Linux licenses the last quarter. That's a little over 25 licenses. Guess there really isn't much of a line to buy a printed piece of paper that gets you nothing.
I'm not fear mongering, nor am I demanding we stop researching the technology. Read my post again. I am saying that having this conversation NOW, and beginning the long process of educating the public about "good" and "bad" nanotechnology will PREVENT the type of fear/ignorance that we saw with bioengineered food.
As for self-replication, we are talking about an article discussing nanotechnology 20 years from now, and you projecting it in 12 years. It is a possiblity, and it should be discussed. Protocols and controls are what good scientists/engineers use for testing and development. The sooner they are in place, the better.
Nanos require such a small amount of energy to accomplish their tasks, I can think of a number of interesting alternatives. A small bit of silicon and they can be solar powered. The right composition, and they could use heat as a thermocouple or have a single atom of plutonium. Better yet, you could combine the weapon and power source. a few thousand particles of plutonium attached to your skin, or delivered just below the skin would be more than enough to kill you within 12 hours of exposure. The only requirement is that the power source be small. There are plenty of options.
The right nanotechnology could be self replicating, and lethal. Imagine a biological or chemical weapon that is 100% lethal and can identify and target it's victims. Then you have the right idea.
Increasing kill ratios without having to commit troops to a battlefield is extremely seductive to those in power. Creating a weapons delivery system that can be dropped in an enemy area and begin sending out millions of tiny assasins within hours is indeed frightening. Assign a few thousand nanotodes to each victim. Their job is to simply inject a molecular amount of Ricin, just one molecule each. The amount of product the factory/delivery system needs to carry is minimal because every molecule reaches it's target. No area-wide spraying is needed. The system could devestate an entire army or city within hours. There would be no residual radiation, no explosion to announce it's arrival, and the nanos could simply be switched off after the slaughter is done.
Imagine two nations fighting with these weapons. Or imagine a self-replicating version that gets out of control. If you thought the A-Bomb was bad, imagine what these could do. From an ethical point of view, I think this is a good conversation to be having now. In 20 years, we have no idea where this technology could be, or what DARPA will make it capable of.
The right nanotechnology could be self replicating, and lethal. Imagine a biological or chemical weapon that is 100% lethal and can identify and target it's victims. Then you have the right idea.
Increasing kill ratios without having to commit troops to a battlefield is extremely seductive to those in power. Creating a weapons delivery system that can be dropped in an enemy area and begin sending out millions of tiny assasins within hours is indeed frightening. Assign a few thousand nanotodes to each victim. Their job is to simply inject a molecular abount of Ricin. Just one molecule each. The amount of product the factory/delivery system needs to carry is minimal because every molecule reaches it's target. No area-wide spraying is needed. The system could devestate an entire army or city within hours. There would be no residual radiation, no explosion to announce it's arrival, and the nanos could simply be switched off after the slaughter is done.
Imagine two nations fighting with these weapons. Or imagine a self-replicating version that gets out of control. If you thought the A-Bomb was bad, imagine what these could do. From an ethical point of view, I think this is a good conversation to be having now. In 20 years, we have no idea where this technology could be, or what DARPA will make it capable of.
Yes, and 180 people still died, and that was with 65,000 hours of combined flight experience in a four-man cockpit and another 120,000 hours of experience consulting them from on the ground. 12 pilots were conferenced-in, consulting on that flight, and they still couldn't bring it in with all those resources. Trust me, you don't want to ever loose hydraulics or control surfaces in any type of plane.
There are plenty of jobs, but they are no longer in Boston, or the Bay Area. Those places are wastelands, where there are 50 coders for every job. Get on a few job boards, and look in places you normally wouldn't go; Tennessee, Lousiana, Nebraska, Carolina, Arkansas, New Mexico, Iowa, Idaho, Montana, etc. They all have medium to big cities, but no one pays attention. Move somewhere cheap, get a decent paying job, and live like a king. If you miss the pax humana of the big city, buy a plane ticket and go there for a weekend each month. You can afford it with your new disposable income. Good Luck!
From the look of the model, tension is applied through strings or cables. As a pilot, I don't think I am ready to trust that till they start using a solid linkage. I had a rudder cable on a C172 snap once, and I really never want to try and land like that again. I can't imagine trusting my wings to that, especially my ailerons.
No ailerons, no getting home. Rudder and elevators won't steer a plane.
The problem is that I STILL have to stock Koolio. What's worse is that I STILL have to go to the store and buy the cases of beverages to LOAD in Koolio. Finally, Koolio can not take a crap or urinate FOR me. I am really dissappointed. Where has good ol' American innovation gone? Why am I still required to wear clothing, bathe, and work? Koolio simply doesn't fit in to my busy sloth-like lifestyle yet. Back to the drawing boards guys.
Detailed plan for world domination:
1. Build Hard Drive Assault Cannon
2. ?????
3. World Domination!
My God! It's so simple, it's brilliant!
Why are so many looking and commenting on his genitals? Some issues perhaps?
The guy did a decent job on a suit. He had the balls to wear it and win a prize. Half the guys bagging on his size here are probably the same size, and have never done or accomplished anything. Good for him, bad for you.
Bring on the Ice Age! The idea of living in a cave, with a bearskin enconsed Darryl Hannah or Barbara Bach is right up my alley. Zug-Zug anyone?No more shaving, no more coding, and no more traffic. I have the knowledge to make charcoal and iron. I learned how to hunt with bow and arrow at the age of 12. I intend to adopt the Mayan tradition of human sacrifice in my religion. In the land of blind men, the one-eyed man is king!