It seems to me that grown-ups do not work for other people, but perhaps I am being too arrogant.
Hmmmrppphhh..:)
Well, yes...and, no.
I've had my own business. I built it from scratch in a town with a horseshit economy; and while I wasn't by any means successful, I did manage to pay the bills for more than half a decade.
Right now I work for someone who gives absolute trust to his employees. He's been burned before - he and I talk about that, because I moved here from somewhere where trust was a joke; but it's here, now, as it is.
He knows that I have the ability to move on; after a year, I haven't - I make the excuse to myself that I'm still learning the people here after moving cold; but that's not all it is. He knows that I will move on. He inherited his business, and also paid for it, in learning and busting his ass. I don't feel that I'm any less an adult for giving loyalty to someone who gives his loyalty to those who work for him, and who puts in more hours than any of us do. Neither do I feel that one needs to be, or should be considered, not 'grownup' for doing so.
As much as I loved having my own business, I can't say that I could make my own life around it - 25/8, as you know. Owning/operating your own leaves, often, too little time for the kind of life that this thread was talking about. Living with it sucks, and living without it sucks. As with everything else when it comes to making a living, there is no middle ground, no place that doesn't have it's drawbacks.
One thing that I've enjoyed in the last year, is not being On Call 24/7, as it was when I had my own biz. Maybe I'm burnt out, maybe not. As you sort of pointed out (and I wonder whether or not you really understand it, but then we don't know each other) there are other things in life that are just as, or more important.
(to which I wonder why you did not talk about the subject of the original article; to wit, having a family; but hey:) that's another subject entirely:)
Being happy with your own life is the most important thing; if you aren't happy with who, what, and where you are, it's damned difficult to bring happiness to the people you love.
Not impossible, just difficult (and sometimes damned difficult).
Cheers, Bruce. You don't know me from Adam, but you are one of the wisest people of my generation I've met WRT to the computer field.
Just keep on keepin' on. Nobody else decides what we think. To quote Sagan/Ellie/Foster; "It's MY LIFE". Be as it may, be what may, be what comes.
You do whatever you want, whenever you want, and if he/she doesn't like it, tough, you'll do what you want anyway. Report back later and tell us how it goes.
Assuming he survives:) Given his attitude, I'm willing to take bets.
True; but if you are with someone for more than just the sex or mutual friends, there are things you have in common, also.
The real key is a balance between the self-times and the shared times. Not that it's easy - the real problem there is that seldom do both of you feel the same way at the same time.
Sometimes it can help to simply set up times - inviolate ones - where you each can do what you want to, your own time to yourself - then set up times which you spend together. Of course it can take some time to establish that pattern (and if you succeed in doing so, tell me how/unquote:)
The neat thing about finding that balance is the times when you both say "F-It" and go do something spontaneous...
If the FCC didn't shut him down, ASCAP/BMI would have chased after him for mechanical royalty fees for the music he played.
The right to free speech doesn't mean everybody's entitled to a soap box to stand on, and the freedom of the press belongs to the people who own a printing press.
That's a horrid analogy. I'll agree that ASCAP wwould have been within their (legal) rights to shut him down, but comparing that to a printing press is absurd.
I own a "printing press" right here. It's a HP Office printer that can turn out 20 pages+ per minute; and as long as I'm not reproducing copyrighted material, I have the right to print my own speech on that and distribute as I like - and the constitution and the law protects my right to do so. Hell, I own another "printing press" - and I'm "printing" on it right now in posting this - and it sees worldwide distribution, even.
Oh, and free speech rights *do* (or _should_) mean that everyone is entitled to their own soap box - the rest of us are just as entitled not to listen to it, but taking away people's right to get on their soap box makes a mockery of what free speech was intended for - the WHOLE POINT OF FREE SPEECH WAS THAT *EVERYONE* IS ENTITLED TO SPEAK, WHETHER THEY ARE RIGHT OR WRONG, OR WHETHER THEY PISS SOMEONE ELSE OFF, whether or not it's individuals, corporations, or whomever. )
No offense, but that analogy is just ridiculous and wrong, and trying to say that not everyone is entitled to their "soap box" flies in the face of reality (slashdot, for example).
Sheese, LostCluster. I've followed your posts for a while, I simply can't see that you actually meant what you said. Did you?
Sorry for the late response, it's been a long weekend...
Yes, I saw those quotes. But those are statements by third parties, not support per se. There are better links, like this one for support purposes (and see below )
That said, I have some problems with Melosh (and Kring/Durda)'s models. For one thing (as can be clearly seen in the gif on the link I provided) they postulated wildfires from impact debris in an area that at the time included very little land; and we have no way of verifying the computer model that they used for impact debris distribution from geological data.
Hence, my reaction to it; and sorry, I didn't mean to berate the messenger.:)
In any case, I've read about Melosh's work before, and I find the mathematical models he used somewhat suspect - but I'll withhold further judgement on that until I can obtain a copy of his paper (which a friend of mine is mailing me this week, got interested enough to request it rather than reading the thirdparty-etc abstracts.) Like I said, the math is tortuous; and a lot of the effects of those impact energies are not as well understood as we'd like.
I am not saying that it won't All I am saying is that debris will fall at the antipode in a grearter concentration than other distant locales. Are you saying that none of it will reach the anitpode? Are you also saying that none will reach orbit?
Um, no to either question. As to whether debris in an earth impact would have a concentration at the antipode is still pretty much conjecture backed by a couple of computer models. Personally, I disagree with it; at least I don't think (not having seen his paper yet I can't make a stronger case than that) that he's modeled all the factors correctly, such as impact obliquity, high-altitude wind factors, gravitational variations effecting debris suborbit trajectory, suborbital atmospheric variations, etc, blah blah blah:).
Of *course* some of it will reach the antipode. Whether there is a relevant concentration there is what I debate; it's not proven to my satisfaction, not yet, anyway. Orbital mechanics postulates that a portion of the debris may land there, but I think I've already dealt with that.
As to whether it will reach orbit, it's pretty easy to show that a fair amount (10% or so according to the models) will not only reach orbit but be ejected from the Earth-Moon system entirely (and that 10% figure of course depends a great deal on the impact obliquity and whether or not it impacts deep water or land, and also on the impact energies - a 10-20 km body is borderline in that respect, additionally, impact velocity is a lot more important; KE=mv^2, and we don't have *any* even semisolid figures as to either.)
I guess what got me about your post was that you linked to a couple of sites that merely mentioned the antipodal debris effect, and not to one that was from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
The reason I talked about the shockwave effect a lot is because extremely good evidence for it has been found on other planets (and possibly even here, the Permian event and the Deccan trap eruptions are a good example), and I feel that shockwave concentration in the K-T event probably accounts for a lot more geophysical effects than debris concentration - and yes, I'm aware that some circumstantial evidence has been found for debris concentration effects on the moon (fascinating reading in itself, scroll about halfway down), but impact debris distribution on the earth is going to be entirely different than it will be on a smaller body with no atmosphere.
It was also late, and I was tired, and probably not thinking clearly:)
Nah, that's the Class A (Destructive To Memo Believability *NOT* ) typo test. Generally it only applies to secretaries:) It's a translation thing, really, it is...
At this remove in time, it's nearly impossible to date with any precision any charcoal layers to within a year (or even a few decades) time. Neither could we rely on charcoal layers above iridium deposits - those deposits which would be thickest would have occurred over areas that did not have a solid base to deposit them on - such as forest burn areas - there's an awful lot of debris in such areas that could distribute the iridium thru regrowth and sedimentation processes. So basically (and if IIRC correctly, the error band for dating at the K-T boundary is currently about 300k years) any deposits that we would see would be ambiguous at best in associating them with the impact time, so we can't say one way or another.
However, we can and have dated the Chix crater pretty accurately...and we do know that such an impact could and likely would have global consequences. Considering the distribution in time of asteroid impacts of that size, and the proximity of the Chix impact to the K-T boundary (and the other evidence of distribution of impact material) I'd say it's unlikely that the impact *didn't* make a huge contribution to the extinction.
And there were many aquatic animals that also became extinct, that supposedly would have been safe according to this "study leader".
Food chains. Plankton, aquatic herbivores, carnivores. 6 months+ global sunlight reduction, massive death in the surface plants, starvation in the aquatic herbivores, starvation in the aquatic carnivores. Massive dieoffs.
That's where he's wrong - but it doesn't falsify the impact theory. It's just that the effects were a lot more complex than he's hypothesizing. That's one thing that too many specialists fail to recognize - that while your theory might be valid, it's vanishingly unlikely that it's the end-all-be-all that explains everything that happened in a phenomenon as complex as the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Now, the KT impact may or may not have been the killing stroke - but I find it unlikely, after some tens of millions of years of a climate stable enough to support dinosaurs (and the existence and evolution of), that the impact wasn't a major contributor. Otherwise it's damned hard to explain the timing, eh?
This means no night and no shadows (as the heat sources were distributed across the sky compared with the single-source solar IR radiation). This means there was nowhere to hide unless you were underground.
My thought on that is that it's much more likely that the global forest fires ignited by the impact (and at that time, there were dense forests north of 60deg) would probably contribute more to the demise of the larger animals, especially when one considers the food chain. No herbivores, no carnivores; the dinosaur food chain was pretty dependent on prolific *existing* plant life.
I just can't see that there would have been enough debris reentering globally to increase the IR as much in local terms as widespread fires would (with respect to Melosh, but then I've not had the opportunity to read his paper, only some of the commentary on it).
I suspect there won't be any fossil evidence that can prove the dino's died out in a short time span - there is simply too much irregularity in the record, given our current dating techniques, to reduce the error bands to less than 300k years or so.
Hopefully someday somebody will find another way to approach the problem - or dating technology will improve.
Damned interesting stuff tho, and great post! and this will be really fun to follow...
Cheers! SB ( an interested semi-amateur who occasionally lives in Univ libraries, kudos to those who are willing to let an fanatical ex-student study:)
Um, sorry, but no; and neither of those articles support your hypothesis of antipodal debris concentrations, either (as a matter of fact the first one notes that the majority of the high-energy debris would fall within a couple thousands km in a pattern distributed to the *west* of the impact, due to the Earth's rotation)
Debris concentrations would have a circular modified to oval distribution around and to the west of the impact crater that would somewhat resemble an interference pattern. There would be no antipodal concentration because most of the really high energy debris is thrown almost straight up, not to the much more acute angle to the Earth's surface that would result in the concentrations you describe. Actually it's likely that little debris would reach the antipode, as debris that was that energetic would either go into a highly elliptical orbit (randomizing the fall distribution) or escape Earth entirely (as the first article notes)
However, the shockwaves that would travel along the Earth's surface would experience peak(s) at or near the antipode; not anywhere near as much of one as would happen on, say, Mercury (which is more near a perfect sphere and doesn't have anywhere the variations in surface/mantle density that the Earth does). This phenomena has been theorized to have resulted in some formations on Mercury -and to a lesser extent, the Moon - but those formations have nothing to do with debris distribution, rather shockwave intensity peaks). To what extent shockwave concentration at the antipode would occur on Earth is yet unknown - it's bloody difficult to model.
I could probably find all kinds of links to support what I'm saying here, but it would take a lot more time than I have right now. I'd suggest doing some further reading; there are some really good books/articles/papers out there on the subject - if you can handle the math, which is tortuous.
In any case what I posted is still pretty much a simplification...
I'm not posting this to flame you, but you are visualizing it wrong. Trust me - I've studied this stuff both in school and as a hobby for nearly a quarter century. Guess I just hate seeing an obviously smart and imaginative person misreading something:)
To the ignorant moderator(s) who modded this post flamebait, you might want to read one Marine General's take on our strategies in the Iraq war.
Pay special attention to his comments about who agrees with him among our military officers; and note that this viewpoint is also shared by quite a few Republicans.
OT: Why is database maintenance always taking place on my night off? What, is "Hump Day" a legit target? Grrrrrr;-)
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that grown-ups do not work for other people, but perhaps I am being too arrogant.
:)
:) that's another subject entirely :)
Hmmmrppphhh..
Well, yes...and, no.
I've had my own business. I built it from scratch in a town with a horseshit economy; and while I wasn't by any means successful, I did manage to pay the bills for more than half a decade.
Right now I work for someone who gives absolute trust to his employees. He's been burned before - he and I talk about that, because I moved here from somewhere where trust was a joke; but it's here, now, as it is.
He knows that I have the ability to move on; after a year, I haven't - I make the excuse to myself that I'm still learning the people here after moving cold; but that's not all it is. He knows that I will move on. He inherited his business, and also paid for it, in learning and busting his ass. I don't feel that I'm any less an adult for giving loyalty to someone who gives his loyalty to those who work for him, and who puts in more hours than any of us do. Neither do I feel that one needs to be, or should be considered, not 'grownup' for doing so.
As much as I loved having my own business, I can't say that I could make my own life around it - 25/8, as you know. Owning/operating your own leaves, often, too little time for the kind of life that this thread was talking about. Living with it sucks, and living without it sucks. As with everything else when it comes to making a living, there is no middle ground, no place that doesn't have it's drawbacks.
One thing that I've enjoyed in the last year, is not being On Call 24/7, as it was when I had my own biz. Maybe I'm burnt out, maybe not. As you sort of pointed out (and I wonder whether or not you really understand it, but then we don't know each other) there are other things in life that are just as, or more important.
(to which I wonder why you did not talk about the subject of the original article; to wit, having a family; but hey
Cheers!
SB
Being happy with your own life is the most important thing; if you aren't happy with who, what, and where you are, it's damned difficult to bring happiness to the people you love.
Not impossible, just difficult (and sometimes damned difficult).
Cheers, Bruce. You don't know me from Adam, but you are one of the wisest people of my generation I've met WRT to the computer field.
Just keep on keepin' on. Nobody else decides what we think. To quote Sagan/Ellie/Foster; "It's MY LIFE". Be as it may, be what may, be what comes.
SB
You do whatever you want, whenever you want, and if he/she doesn't like it, tough, you'll do what you want anyway. Report back later and tell us how it goes.
:) Given his attitude, I'm willing to take bets.
Assuming he survives
SB
Best of all, it gives me another use for the ;p emoticon. ;)
:-D~>-8(-: emoticon...
Bah, that's the
SB
Mod parent up!
It's all just tonguework, after all...
SB
No, fool, it's attempting to score another Frag, with the bot AI settings at max
SB
True; but if you are with someone for more than just the sex or mutual friends, there are things you have in common, also.
/unquote :)
The real key is a balance between the self-times and the shared times. Not that it's easy - the real problem there is that seldom do both of you feel the same way at the same time.
Sometimes it can help to simply set up times - inviolate ones - where you each can do what you want to, your own time to yourself - then set up times which you spend together. Of course it can take some time to establish that pattern (and if you succeed in doing so, tell me how
The neat thing about finding that balance is the times when you both say "F-It" and go do something spontaneous...
SB
Indeed, the other day I got flamed by a vicious 133t gal named Hunter.
Her only comment was "Ha HAH!" as she grav-boarded into the distance...
I shall seek her out again.
SB
Oy, yes. Mycroft, is that you?
---But then... if we kill off the old jokes, new (and worse) ones will arise to take their place
I for one lament the death of the Nixon jokes...
SB
If the FCC didn't shut him down, ASCAP/BMI would have chased after him for mechanical royalty fees for the music he played.
The right to free speech doesn't mean everybody's entitled to a soap box to stand on, and the freedom of the press belongs to the people who own a printing press.
That's a horrid analogy. I'll agree that ASCAP wwould have been within their (legal) rights to shut him down, but comparing that to a printing press is absurd.
I own a "printing press" right here. It's a HP Office printer that can turn out 20 pages+ per minute; and as long as I'm not reproducing copyrighted material, I have the right to print my own speech on that and distribute as I like - and the constitution and the law protects my right to do so. Hell, I own another "printing press" - and I'm "printing" on it right now in posting this - and it sees worldwide distribution, even.
Oh, and free speech rights *do* (or _should_) mean that everyone is entitled to their own soap box - the rest of us are just as entitled not to listen to it, but taking away people's right to get on their soap box makes a mockery of what free speech was intended for - the WHOLE POINT OF FREE SPEECH WAS THAT *EVERYONE* IS ENTITLED TO SPEAK, WHETHER THEY ARE RIGHT OR WRONG, OR WHETHER THEY PISS SOMEONE ELSE OFF, whether or not it's individuals, corporations, or whomever. )
No offense, but that analogy is just ridiculous and wrong, and trying to say that not everyone is entitled to their "soap box" flies in the face of reality (slashdot, for example).
Sheese, LostCluster. I've followed your posts for a while, I simply can't see that you actually meant what you said. Did you?
SB
Replace the first word with Usenet, and you have metaphorical time travel.
:)
(I know what I'm trying to say, dammit, quit being pedantic already. The language sucks
SB
I'll second that Wow, and add a holy shit.
:)
;-)
Kinda makes the CGI from the movie 2010 (which was amazing back then) look pathetic, doesn't it?
I have a new wallpaper...now if I could persuade someone to print a wall-sized poster of that, well
SB
ROFL! Well done, nice filk!
and the images from Cassini will no doubt induce shock and awe among us pointy-headed types
SB
Sorry for the late response, it's been a long weekend...
:)
:).
:)
Yes, I saw those quotes. But those are statements by third parties, not support per se. There are better links, like this one for support purposes (and see below )
That said, I have some problems with Melosh (and Kring/Durda)'s models. For one thing (as can be clearly seen in the gif on the link I provided) they postulated wildfires from impact debris in an area that at the time included very little land; and we have no way of verifying the computer model that they used for impact debris distribution from geological data.
Hence, my reaction to it; and sorry, I didn't mean to berate the messenger.
In any case, I've read about Melosh's work before, and I find the mathematical models he used somewhat suspect - but I'll withhold further judgement on that until I can obtain a copy of his paper (which a friend of mine is mailing me this week, got interested enough to request it rather than reading the thirdparty-etc abstracts.) Like I said, the math is tortuous; and a lot of the effects of those impact energies are not as well understood as we'd like.
I am not saying that it won't All I am saying is that debris will fall at the antipode in a grearter concentration than other distant locales. Are you saying that none of it will reach the anitpode? Are you also saying that none will reach orbit?
Um, no to either question. As to whether debris in an earth impact would have a concentration at the antipode is still pretty much conjecture backed by a couple of computer models. Personally, I disagree with it; at least I don't think (not having seen his paper yet I can't make a stronger case than that) that he's modeled all the factors correctly, such as impact obliquity, high-altitude wind factors, gravitational variations effecting debris suborbit trajectory, suborbital atmospheric variations, etc, blah blah blah
Of *course* some of it will reach the antipode. Whether there is a relevant concentration there is what I debate; it's not proven to my satisfaction, not yet, anyway. Orbital mechanics postulates that a portion of the debris may land there, but I think I've already dealt with that.
As to whether it will reach orbit, it's pretty easy to show that a fair amount (10% or so according to the models) will not only reach orbit but be ejected from the Earth-Moon system entirely (and that 10% figure of course depends a great deal on the impact obliquity and whether or not it impacts deep water or land, and also on the impact energies - a 10-20 km body is borderline in that respect, additionally, impact velocity is a lot more important; KE=mv^2, and we don't have *any* even semisolid figures as to either.)
I guess what got me about your post was that you linked to a couple of sites that merely mentioned the antipodal debris effect, and not to one that was from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
The reason I talked about the shockwave effect a lot is because extremely good evidence for it has been found on other planets (and possibly even here, the Permian event and the Deccan trap eruptions are a good example), and I feel that shockwave concentration in the K-T event probably accounts for a lot more geophysical effects than debris concentration - and yes, I'm aware that some circumstantial evidence has been found for debris concentration effects on the moon (fascinating reading in itself, scroll about halfway down), but impact debris distribution on the earth is going to be entirely different than it will be on a smaller body with no atmosphere.
It was also late, and I was tired, and probably not thinking clearly
Anyway, having googled it a bit, I'd sugges
Nah, that's the Class A (Destructive To Memo Believability *NOT* ) typo test. Generally it only applies to secretaries :) It's a translation thing, really, it is...
SB
you have only made slashdot a more trite place.
:)
Score +1, Redundant
SB
Not necessarily.
At this remove in time, it's nearly impossible to date with any precision any charcoal layers to within a year (or even a few decades) time. Neither could we rely on charcoal layers above iridium deposits - those deposits which would be thickest would have occurred over areas that did not have a solid base to deposit them on - such as forest burn areas - there's an awful lot of debris in such areas that could distribute the iridium thru regrowth and sedimentation processes. So basically (and if IIRC correctly, the error band for dating at the K-T boundary is currently about 300k years) any deposits that we would see would be ambiguous at best in associating them with the impact time, so we can't say one way or another.
However, we can and have dated the Chix crater pretty accurately...and we do know that such an impact could and likely would have global consequences. Considering the distribution in time of asteroid impacts of that size, and the proximity of the Chix impact to the K-T boundary (and the other evidence of distribution of impact material) I'd say it's unlikely that the impact *didn't* make a huge contribution to the extinction.
IANAGP...
SB
And there were many aquatic animals that also became extinct, that supposedly would have been safe according to this "study leader".
Food chains. Plankton, aquatic herbivores, carnivores. 6 months+ global sunlight reduction, massive death in the surface plants, starvation in the aquatic herbivores, starvation in the aquatic carnivores. Massive dieoffs.
That's where he's wrong - but it doesn't falsify the impact theory. It's just that the effects were a lot more complex than he's hypothesizing. That's one thing that too many specialists fail to recognize - that while your theory might be valid, it's vanishingly unlikely that it's the end-all-be-all that explains everything that happened in a phenomenon as complex as the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Now, the KT impact may or may not have been the killing stroke - but I find it unlikely, after some tens of millions of years of a climate stable enough to support dinosaurs (and the existence and evolution of), that the impact wasn't a major contributor. Otherwise it's damned hard to explain the timing, eh?
Cheers!
SB
This means no night and no shadows (as the heat sources were distributed across the sky compared with the single-source solar IR radiation). This means there was nowhere to hide unless you were underground.
:)
My thought on that is that it's much more likely that the global forest fires ignited by the impact (and at that time, there were dense forests north of 60deg) would probably contribute more to the demise of the larger animals, especially when one considers the food chain. No herbivores, no carnivores; the dinosaur food chain was pretty dependent on prolific *existing* plant life.
I just can't see that there would have been enough debris reentering globally to increase the IR as much in local terms as widespread fires would (with respect to Melosh, but then I've not had the opportunity to read his paper, only some of the commentary on it).
I suspect there won't be any fossil evidence that can prove the dino's died out in a short time span - there is simply too much irregularity in the record, given our current dating techniques, to reduce the error bands to less than 300k years or so.
Hopefully someday somebody will find another way to approach the problem - or dating technology will improve.
Damned interesting stuff tho, and great post! and this will be really fun to follow...
Cheers!
SB
( an interested semi-amateur who occasionally lives in Univ libraries, kudos to those who are willing to let an fanatical ex-student study
Shit, that's hilarious. Thanks for the laugh!
SB
*laugh* too true...
:) He was a good friend tho...
Or FTM, bathe one *grin*
A 25lb+ tom I was once owned by shredded my lower arms enough to cost me 20 stitches when I tried to bathe him in order to get skunk off him.
He left permanently long afterwards... must've been the tomato juice in the bathwater
SB
Um, sorry, but no; and neither of those articles support your hypothesis of antipodal debris concentrations, either (as a matter of fact the first one notes that the majority of the high-energy debris would fall within a couple thousands km in a pattern distributed to the *west* of the impact, due to the Earth's rotation)
:)
Debris concentrations would have a circular modified to oval distribution around and to the west of the impact crater that would somewhat resemble an interference pattern. There would be no antipodal concentration because most of the really high energy debris is thrown almost straight up, not to the much more acute angle to the Earth's surface that would result in the concentrations you describe. Actually it's likely that little debris would reach the antipode, as debris that was that energetic would either go into a highly elliptical orbit (randomizing the fall distribution) or escape Earth entirely (as the first article notes)
However, the shockwaves that would travel along the Earth's surface would experience peak(s) at or near the antipode; not anywhere near as much of one as would happen on, say, Mercury (which is more near a perfect sphere and doesn't have anywhere the variations in surface/mantle density that the Earth does). This phenomena has been theorized to have resulted in some formations on Mercury -and to a lesser extent, the Moon - but those formations have nothing to do with debris distribution, rather shockwave intensity peaks). To what extent shockwave concentration at the antipode would occur on Earth is yet unknown - it's bloody difficult to model.
I could probably find all kinds of links to support what I'm saying here, but it would take a lot more time than I have right now. I'd suggest doing some further reading; there are some really good books/articles/papers out there on the subject - if you can handle the math, which is tortuous.
In any case what I posted is still pretty much a simplification...
I'm not posting this to flame you, but you are visualizing it wrong. Trust me - I've studied this stuff both in school and as a hobby for nearly a quarter century. Guess I just hate seeing an obviously smart and imaginative person misreading something
Cheers,
SB
Hmmmm....perhaps we now know the real reason behind the "Freedom Fries" debacle
SB
Any suggestions as to component brands? I'd love to hear some experiences, especially with passive sinks for the AMDs.
SB
To the ignorant moderator(s) who modded this post flamebait, you might want to read one Marine General's take on our strategies in the Iraq war.
;-)
Pay special attention to his comments about who agrees with him among our military officers; and note that this viewpoint is also shared by quite a few Republicans.
OT: Why is database maintenance always taking place on my night off? What, is "Hump Day" a legit target? Grrrrrr
SB