The C should go: the khurkh's wouldn't have khapels and we could buy everything real kheep?
Not hardly, if the c is removed, what about the q? kwik, I have an idea on this kwiz?
No thanks. The additional letters and strange exceptions to spelling rules help when writing. It helps clarify meanings when you have homonyms and homographs. If we could get rid of those two phenomena, then I would be happy with the idea of simplified spelling, but then you would also not be speaking English or any other language I know of.
Is there a language without homonyms or homographs?
Gay "marriage" is not marriage at all. I understand what the legal issues are, so lets get rid of those stupid laws by allowing civil unions that have all the benefits of what is called marriage by the state and reserve marriage as a religious ordinance that is private in nature. Thus two persons could be married by definitions of their personal religious beliefs (and marriage is essentially a religious construct between a man and a (or in a few cases multiple) woman.
As another poster stated: "what does the government have to do with marriage?"
I suppose that the only clear way out of this issue is to make religious marriage have no meaning to the law and allow civil unions to have the full legal meaning that marriage now does. This would clear up several other legal issues as well I think, and I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. It also strengthens the concept that family and marriage are a deeply personal decision and ultimately a matter of commitment between man, woman and their concept of deity. If they care nothing for deity, then a civil union should be sufficient. If not, then I am sure that a church of atheism will gladly perform marriages that look and feel like a traditional wedding without the references to any deity at all-and with the good reason of making a public commitment.
The legal side of it all has been rather shallow and short-sighted, and for the most part angers me greatly, since both homosexuals and heterosexuals are making a political war out of an issue that could have been intelligently resolved.
I have to confess, however, that I am very much a "right-wing" Christian in the sense that I strongly believe that homosexuality is morally objectionable. The few folks I know that are gay (and I don't ask, so there may be others) who know me know that I feel this way and that I still like them as a person and a decent human being. I see no moral quandary there: it is perfectly possible to like a person without liking everything they do. In fact, I think it is very naive to claim that this can ever be anything but the actual situation. If anyone claims that they like everything that all of their friends do, I will say that they have no friends, not even themself. Let me put it this way: I have a moral code by which I try to live. I constantly fail, but I keep trying. If I cannot like everything that I do, then why should anyone expect me to like everything someone else does? This is true whether the person is homosexual or a liar or whatever. I can still like a person despite feeling that they could become a better person according to what I believe is right and good. I can also recognize that the beliefs and ideals of others, though different, are just as valuable and sacred as my own. I respect that right, and thus, cannot see why anyone should be discriminated against because of their beliefs (and that goes for the atheists as well, for what many of them have is as much a belief that there is no God and my assertion that there is).
Okay, I am officially off-topic. So I will talk about what is happening in this situation: WU is being stupid. This is their right, as it is our right to not use their services because of it. If you object to this practice you should a)stop using WU and b) tell them why. This, not Congress, will be a much more effective way to get them to change or to get rid of them.
I have an excellent reason for upgrading, and it is a feature which has not, from what I can tell, gotten much press: the extended size of MS Excel spreadsheets (hint: over 100,000 columns & 1,000,000 rows). I could have used this feature a while back, and would certainly love to have it for the future.
At clemson there is a driving simulator. I don't know the results, but we've done the same studies with the same results. Guess what: Don't drive with your cell phone. Hands free is just as bad. Don't do it. It's stupid. I do it anyway (erm..that is, when I don't think my advisor, who runs the simulator, will find out), but I try not to, and if things get even slightly dicey on the road I hang up immediately, unlike some people.
Don't do it, it isn't smart. It could cost you your life, and unlike driving drunk, where you tend to be unhurt due to being relaxed, you are actually more likely to be hurt.
That would only work if they also had a clear idea of any obstacles in their way: this way they only have to be able to remember turns and steps, which is pretty simple.
"41 steps south, then turn right 43 degrees, then 814 steps, then turn left 7 degrees, and go 128 steps". I could do it! (okay, probably not).
You're right, of course. I wasn't really thinking, but it does require more information.
Question though: does it require manipulation of time or simply recording. Does the controllor measure how fast (or distance over time)? That would be a fourth dimension, no?
Ah, but hiring in itself is a tricky thing (trust me, I study this): it is very highly studied, highly optimizable, and can be made VERY formal.
Interviews are great--as long as they get at standard information. Otherwise you end up asking applicant a one thing and applicant b another and then you have no clear way to determine which is better. Under this method you end up with 'good enough', rather than 'the best we can find at our budget', which is not really the same thing at all.
If you want more information on hiring good people drop me an email or go talk to a professional.
and yet you felt the need to post as AC. Frankly, let's be honest here: the second amendment is not about the right to protect yourself from criminals, although it does have that effect. Rather it is about the right to protect yourself from the government should the government become repressive.
That was one of the basic tenets of the founding fathers: that we had the right to overthrow a repressive and oppressive regime and take control of the government. They viewed this as a inalienable right; that is, passing a law to the contrary doesn't mean that you no longer have that right, it just proves that the government has become repressive.
Sedition is, and should be, a crime. We certainly don't want people to overthrow a good government to replace it with a dictatorship. On the other hand, in a good government this will rarely be the case.
Get rid of weapons (not just guns) that equalize the citizenry with the military, and you have made impossible for people to exercise their rights.
Call me paranoid, but this is exactly why I oppose ANY gun law. If you register the weapon, then the government, should it become repressive, knows who to tartet first. If you can't own a weapon equal to what the military has, then you can't fight them as effectively (you then have to spend resources, which will be scarce, in figuring out how to neutralize the military's weapons). Let me say this again: I do not support any gun laws. The idea of controlling weapons is based on poor reasoning (protection laws) or totalitarianism. Neither one fits with my ideas of a good society.
In a responsible society (where we do not live), everyone would be required to take gun safety classes, but after that there would be absolutely no tracking of ownership. I would be happy with this: it arms the citizens (and an armed citizenry is less likely to be victimized), and it prevents tracking.
Finally, the specious argument that we can reduce violent crime by making it illegal to own a gun has been thoroughly debunked: criminals, by definition, break laws. If you make it illegal to own a gun, they will still buy and own one--illegally. It may not be the same one, and it will definitely be harder to trace. No, gun laws are bad. Firearm safety laws requiring education (and nothing else) on gun use are good. [FWIW, I would support one gun ban: children under 12 could not own a gun].
Taking both sides of a debate (which is not what you demonstrate with that example from what I can tell) is not necessarily objective. And yes, they are objectionable--I am not necessarily referring to their take on different religions or anything like that, but I am more referring to the language and whatnot. I know this comes as a shock to many people, but there are a good number or intelligent adults that don't really like to hear crude language. I tend to ignore it, but I don't really like to hear it. One of the main reasons I don't watch South Park.
OTOH, I do understand that they make sometimes valid points about interesting hot button issues. I just don't always care about those issues.
FWIW, I fully agree that the Bible or anything else, is easily distorted. I wasn't trying to do this with South Park or anything else. Just saying that the way it was worded didn't seem right. I'm still not convinced that it is.
I happen to like serif fonts. The serif provides just enough extra information to allow for slightly faster processing speed--until you drop down to rather small font sizes. Then you NEED to go to sans.
I also happen to like mono. Would please someone give me a decent mono serif font (just tell me the name, and whether or not it is free)?
FWIW, one of the biggest weaknesses in webdesign is user-font dependence. It should be easy to fix with CSS--allow specification of a font directory, and then have the browser auto download and install the font. The font would need to go through virus scan, of course, but the method would by default prevent any executable binary from being downloaded. THis could be done seamlessly and transparently, but I have to admit to some ignorance about what security holes this would open. Anyone care to address this?
Of course you're right about the first part and likely wrong about the second.
Statistics don't lie, but they can be very misleading when you only have a part of the data. Remember, you never have all the data. There is always error.
South park is funny because they're highly objective and use hyperbole.
Don't you mean objectionable? They are different. South Park is NOT objective, whatever it would mean when applied to a cartoon. They very opinionated, rude and crass. Somee people like it, some don't. I don't. Others do. Big deal, but objective it is not.
OTOH, Futurama was a great show, and I'm glad they are bringing it back. Now, if they would only bring back other good shows.
Speaking of, why did they have to ruin Alias for the last season? It was like, "Oh, this is our last season, let's make sure that everyone is glad its over so they aren't being tortured by bad writing, poor plots, obvious devices, terrible scripting, and unbearable directing. Oh, and to top it all off, let's get rid of all the original cast as much as we can, so that by the time the show is over we'll only have two or three left. Then we can forget to close major plot lines, like with Vaughn, and nobody will care because they'll be so glad its over!" At least they won't be bringing that back (I hope).
FWIW, I would love to see Firefly again, even without Wash and Shep, although I never felt like they really cleared up Shep's past the way I would have liked. The movie rocked though, and I wish there were more.
Fortunately this does not apply to humans--not directly.
I can easily train people that are smarter than myself, if the conditions are right. For instance, I know a fair bit about statistics and data analysis, and would be perfectly comfortable training certain folks in the field, as long as they didn't know more than I do. Even then, it perfectly possible for me to come up with a unique idea that someone smarter than myself hasn't (note that I didn't say couldn't) considered.
In the public schools there are frequent cases of a teacher training a student more intelligent than themself. It is unavoidable, although it could be reduced by making sure only the smartest teachers were highered.
Smarter? Not a requirement. More experienced? Having unique knowledge? Yes, that is required, but maybe not irreducibly.
regarding your sig: Following your logic, the way to rule an innocent man is to make him into a criminal. Vis-a-vis, certain laws in the USA right now.
That would be fine, except that try using his sight with a screen reader: it would suck!
He has far too many links of the main page.
In addition, I see the following as problems: Easy to get lost below the fold (no indicators of what each column means; lack of organization of links (no indicators of organization); lack of information explaining page; lack of actual content.
Not all of these may be agreed on by those who visit, but I think you get the point: it's not a very usable site.
bacon doesn't come from the head--learn your basic butchering!
Re:Why is CSS such a good idea but a pain to use?
on
Ask Håkon About CSS or...?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Not only does that only center horizontally, it doesn't even work in all browsers!
Vertical centering is just as important. I want to be able to (without tables) place a 500x500 box center of the window without resorting to some wierd javascript to do it. You give me a div (or p) that does this in all browsers with zero javascript and I will be impressed.
Browser support is the other issue, and it is a killer.
That said, I love the concept and most of methods, I just hate the browser wierdness.
It actually fits, you know--geek, with very little real appeal, but has super powers and is incredibly smart. Too bad that he turned evil at some point....
Although, what would make a better cover--a company that does very little real harm, causes just enough frustration to make everyone hate the founder--this would make the hidden identity virtually impossible to crack.
I like this theory, and I'm sure that it will turn up as a conspiracy on the net in a month or two. We'll see.
Strangely enough, that sounds fun. What if they threw in the ability to drive wherever (and even crash races!) and go find additional parts for your machine (need Calthian Ion Boosters to power your machine? Yeah you can pay for it at $BIGNUM, or you can go search for one in some of the junk yards, steal one from a shop, or go scrounging next to a race course.), or even do deep space/hyperspace races where you are going so fast that dodging the stars and planets is REALLY hard. Perhaps doing quests/messenger duties to earn extra cash or sponsorships would be fun.
There are human-form replicators in the Asgard galaxy. Time travel has happened in SG-1, but not extensively, for obvious reasons.
Here's something to consider, however: the replicator story line has gotten quite old--no one really likes it because the things are just too hard to kill for anything that doesn't use kinetic energy. Additionally, I think that you'll also notice that the Asgard are less and less prominent as the folks to call when everything else is seriously screwed. Now, there are Asgard on each of the Earth ships.
So the current question in my mind is what will happen when the Ori meet each of the following groups: wraith (from atlantis, who now have our coordinates) replicators (from the asgard galaxy, who have our coordinates BUT are stuck (IIRC, AFAIK) in a time distortion field) asgard remaining go'auld ancients (yeah, like they'll really do anything!)
Just a few thoughts, and BTW, we really need to get off this rock. True space exploration by humans is a necessary step at some point. We can't avoid it forever, and if the USA doesn't do it, then China or India will (the two other nations with the resources, the drive and the sheer manpower--some other countries have two of those three, but very few have all of that--right now the USA is lacking drive, although that's largely a political funding issue). If there is no other reason to get off the planet, think about this: what kind of natural resources are out there floating in space waiting for us to build an elevator and go get it? I'd say that with proper planning, and a space elevator, we could do it quite nicely. Just make sure that every payload that descends is heavier than the ascending payload and you can generate enough energy to do quite a bit of stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
The C should go: the khurkh's wouldn't have khapels and we could buy everything real kheep?
Not hardly, if the c is removed, what about the q? kwik, I have an idea on this kwiz?
No thanks. The additional letters and strange exceptions to spelling rules help when writing. It helps clarify meanings when you have homonyms and homographs. If we could get rid of those two phenomena, then I would be happy with the idea of simplified spelling, but then you would also not be speaking English or any other language I know of.
Is there a language without homonyms or homographs?
This is position I have held for a while.
Gay "marriage" is not marriage at all. I understand what the legal issues are, so lets get rid of those stupid laws by allowing civil unions that have all the benefits of what is called marriage by the state and reserve marriage as a religious ordinance that is private in nature. Thus two persons could be married by definitions of their personal religious beliefs (and marriage is essentially a religious construct between a man and a (or in a few cases multiple) woman.
As another poster stated: "what does the government have to do with marriage?"
I suppose that the only clear way out of this issue is to make religious marriage have no meaning to the law and allow civil unions to have the full legal meaning that marriage now does. This would clear up several other legal issues as well I think, and I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. It also strengthens the concept that family and marriage are a deeply personal decision and ultimately a matter of commitment between man, woman and their concept of deity. If they care nothing for deity, then a civil union should be sufficient. If not, then I am sure that a church of atheism will gladly perform marriages that look and feel like a traditional wedding without the references to any deity at all-and with the good reason of making a public commitment.
The legal side of it all has been rather shallow and short-sighted, and for the most part angers me greatly, since both homosexuals and heterosexuals are making a political war out of an issue that could have been intelligently resolved.
I have to confess, however, that I am very much a "right-wing" Christian in the sense that I strongly believe that homosexuality is morally objectionable. The few folks I know that are gay (and I don't ask, so there may be others) who know me know that I feel this way and that I still like them as a person and a decent human being. I see no moral quandary there: it is perfectly possible to like a person without liking everything they do. In fact, I think it is very naive to claim that this can ever be anything but the actual situation. If anyone claims that they like everything that all of their friends do, I will say that they have no friends, not even themself. Let me put it this way: I have a moral code by which I try to live. I constantly fail, but I keep trying. If I cannot like everything that I do, then why should anyone expect me to like everything someone else does? This is true whether the person is homosexual or a liar or whatever. I can still like a person despite feeling that they could become a better person according to what I believe is right and good. I can also recognize that the beliefs and ideals of others, though different, are just as valuable and sacred as my own. I respect that right, and thus, cannot see why anyone should be discriminated against because of their beliefs (and that goes for the atheists as well, for what many of them have is as much a belief that there is no God and my assertion that there is).
Okay, I am officially off-topic. So I will talk about what is happening in this situation: WU is being stupid. This is their right, as it is our right to not use their services because of it. If you object to this practice you should a)stop using WU and b) tell them why. This, not Congress, will be a much more effective way to get them to change or to get rid of them.
I have an excellent reason for upgrading, and it is a feature which has not, from what I can tell, gotten much press: the extended size of MS Excel spreadsheets (hint: over 100,000 columns & 1,000,000 rows). I could have used this feature a while back, and would certainly love to have it for the future.
At clemson there is a driving simulator. I don't know the results, but we've done the same studies with the same results. Guess what: Don't drive with your cell phone. Hands free is just as bad. Don't do it. It's stupid. I do it anyway (erm..that is, when I don't think my advisor, who runs the simulator, will find out), but I try not to, and if things get even slightly dicey on the road I hang up immediately, unlike some people.
Don't do it, it isn't smart. It could cost you your life, and unlike driving drunk, where you tend to be unhurt due to being relaxed, you are actually more likely to be hurt.
That would only work if they also had a clear idea of any obstacles in their way: this way they only have to be able to remember turns and steps, which is pretty simple.
"41 steps south, then turn right 43 degrees, then 814 steps, then turn left 7 degrees, and go 128 steps". I could do it! (okay, probably not).
You're right, of course. I wasn't really thinking, but it does require more information.
Question though: does it require manipulation of time or simply recording. Does the controllor measure how fast (or distance over time)? That would be a fourth dimension, no?
Ah, but hiring in itself is a tricky thing (trust me, I study this): it is very highly studied, highly optimizable, and can be made VERY formal.
Interviews are great--as long as they get at standard information. Otherwise you end up asking applicant a one thing and applicant b another and then you have no clear way to determine which is better. Under this method you end up with 'good enough', rather than 'the best we can find at our budget', which is not really the same thing at all.
If you want more information on hiring good people drop me an email or go talk to a professional.
Thank you. Very elegant.
mnnmnmrnmrnmrnmrnmnrnmrnmrnmrnmrnrmnrmnrmn
vwvwvwvwvwvvwvwvwv
IlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIl1
and yet you felt the need to post as AC. Frankly, let's be honest here: the second amendment is not about the right to protect yourself from criminals, although it does have that effect. Rather it is about the right to protect yourself from the government should the government become repressive.
That was one of the basic tenets of the founding fathers: that we had the right to overthrow a repressive and oppressive regime and take control of the government. They viewed this as a inalienable right; that is, passing a law to the contrary doesn't mean that you no longer have that right, it just proves that the government has become repressive.
Sedition is, and should be, a crime. We certainly don't want people to overthrow a good government to replace it with a dictatorship. On the other hand, in a good government this will rarely be the case.
Get rid of weapons (not just guns) that equalize the citizenry with the military, and you have made impossible for people to exercise their rights.
Call me paranoid, but this is exactly why I oppose ANY gun law. If you register the weapon, then the government, should it become repressive, knows who to tartet first. If you can't own a weapon equal to what the military has, then you can't fight them as effectively (you then have to spend resources, which will be scarce, in figuring out how to neutralize the military's weapons). Let me say this again: I do not support any gun laws. The idea of controlling weapons is based on poor reasoning (protection laws) or totalitarianism. Neither one fits with my ideas of a good society.
In a responsible society (where we do not live), everyone would be required to take gun safety classes, but after that there would be absolutely no tracking of ownership. I would be happy with this: it arms the citizens (and an armed citizenry is less likely to be victimized), and it prevents tracking.
Finally, the specious argument that we can reduce violent crime by making it illegal to own a gun has been thoroughly debunked: criminals, by definition, break laws. If you make it illegal to own a gun, they will still buy and own one--illegally. It may not be the same one, and it will definitely be harder to trace. No, gun laws are bad. Firearm safety laws requiring education (and nothing else) on gun use are good. [FWIW, I would support one gun ban: children under 12 could not own a gun].
Taking both sides of a debate (which is not what you demonstrate with that example from what I can tell) is not necessarily objective. And yes, they are objectionable--I am not necessarily referring to their take on different religions or anything like that, but I am more referring to the language and whatnot. I know this comes as a shock to many people, but there are a good number or intelligent adults that don't really like to hear crude language. I tend to ignore it, but I don't really like to hear it. One of the main reasons I don't watch South Park.
OTOH, I do understand that they make sometimes valid points about interesting hot button issues. I just don't always care about those issues.
FWIW, I fully agree that the Bible or anything else, is easily distorted. I wasn't trying to do this with South Park or anything else. Just saying that the way it was worded didn't seem right. I'm still not convinced that it is.
Give me choice or give me something else!
I happen to like serif fonts. The serif provides just enough extra information to allow for slightly faster processing speed--until you drop down to rather small font sizes. Then you NEED to go to sans.
I also happen to like mono. Would please someone give me a decent mono serif font (just tell me the name, and whether or not it is free)?
FWIW, one of the biggest weaknesses in webdesign is user-font dependence. It should be easy to fix with CSS--allow specification of a font directory, and then have the browser auto download and install the font. The font would need to go through virus scan, of course, but the method would by default prevent any executable binary from being downloaded. THis could be done seamlessly and transparently, but I have to admit to some ignorance about what security holes this would open. Anyone care to address this?
Of course you're right about the first part and likely wrong about the second.
Statistics don't lie, but they can be very misleading when you only have a part of the data. Remember, you never have all the data. There is always error.
South park is funny because they're highly objective and use hyperbole.
Don't you mean objectionable? They are different. South Park is NOT objective, whatever it would mean when applied to a cartoon. They very opinionated, rude and crass. Somee people like it, some don't. I don't. Others do. Big deal, but objective it is not.
OTOH, Futurama was a great show, and I'm glad they are bringing it back. Now, if they would only bring back other good shows.
Speaking of, why did they have to ruin Alias for the last season? It was like, "Oh, this is our last season, let's make sure that everyone is glad its over so they aren't being tortured by bad writing, poor plots, obvious devices, terrible scripting, and unbearable directing. Oh, and to top it all off, let's get rid of all the original cast as much as we can, so that by the time the show is over we'll only have two or three left. Then we can forget to close major plot lines, like with Vaughn, and nobody will care because they'll be so glad its over!" At least they won't be bringing that back (I hope).
FWIW, I would love to see Firefly again, even without Wash and Shep, although I never felt like they really cleared up Shep's past the way I would have liked. The movie rocked though, and I wish there were more.
Fortunately this does not apply to humans--not directly.
I can easily train people that are smarter than myself, if the conditions are right. For instance, I know a fair bit about statistics and data analysis, and would be perfectly comfortable training certain folks in the field, as long as they didn't know more than I do. Even then, it perfectly possible for me to come up with a unique idea that someone smarter than myself hasn't (note that I didn't say couldn't) considered.
In the public schools there are frequent cases of a teacher training a student more intelligent than themself. It is unavoidable, although it could be reduced by making sure only the smartest teachers were highered.
Smarter? Not a requirement. More experienced? Having unique knowledge? Yes, that is required, but maybe not irreducibly.
HAND
regarding your sig:
Following your logic, the way to rule an innocent man is to make him into a criminal. Vis-a-vis, certain laws in the USA right now.
That would be fine, except that try using his sight with a screen reader: it would suck!
He has far too many links of the main page.
In addition, I see the following as problems:
Easy to get lost below the fold (no indicators of what each column means;
lack of organization of links (no indicators of organization);
lack of information explaining page;
lack of actual content.
Not all of these may be agreed on by those who visit, but I think you get the point: it's not a very usable site.
I must be new--at the meetings I go to absence results in more work, not less.
"Oh, give that to Bob, I understand he's pretty good at CSS."
"Bob can take that too, the miserable bastard should be here."
"Yeah, give the re-write to Bob too."
At least, that's how I've seen it happen.
Is it really only 3 dimensions?
Think:
D1: Forward/Back
D2: Up/Down
D3: Left/Right
D4: Twist (around vertical axis)
D5: Rotate (around horizontal axis)
D5: Rotateb (around left/right axis)
Then there are factors like acceleration, velocity, etc.
How many of these can the wiimote sense, and how sensitive is it?
Sounds like more than 3 dimensions to me.
bacon doesn't come from the head--learn your basic butchering!
Not only does that only center horizontally, it doesn't even work in all browsers!
Vertical centering is just as important. I want to be able to (without tables) place a 500x500 box center of the window without resorting to some wierd javascript to do it. You give me a div (or p) that does this in all browsers with zero javascript and I will be impressed.
Browser support is the other issue, and it is a killer.
That said, I love the concept and most of methods, I just hate the browser wierdness.
It actually fits, you know--geek, with very little real appeal, but has super powers and is incredibly smart. Too bad that he turned evil at some point....
Although, what would make a better cover--a company that does very little real harm, causes just enough frustration to make everyone hate the founder--this would make the hidden identity virtually impossible to crack.
I like this theory, and I'm sure that it will turn up as a conspiracy on the net in a month or two. We'll see.
Strangely enough, that sounds fun. What if they threw in the ability to drive wherever (and even crash races!) and go find additional parts for your machine (need Calthian Ion Boosters to power your machine? Yeah you can pay for it at $BIGNUM, or you can go search for one in some of the junk yards, steal one from a shop, or go scrounging next to a race course.), or even do deep space/hyperspace races where you are going so fast that dodging the stars and planets is REALLY hard. Perhaps doing quests/messenger duties to earn extra cash or sponsorships would be fun.
Just a few more thoughts.
There are human-form replicators in the Asgard galaxy. Time travel has happened in SG-1, but not extensively, for obvious reasons.
Here's something to consider, however: the replicator story line has gotten quite old--no one really likes it because the things are just too hard to kill for anything that doesn't use kinetic energy. Additionally, I think that you'll also notice that the Asgard are less and less prominent as the folks to call when everything else is seriously screwed. Now, there are Asgard on each of the Earth ships.
So the current question in my mind is what will happen when the Ori meet each of the following groups:
wraith (from atlantis, who now have our coordinates)
replicators (from the asgard galaxy, who have our coordinates BUT are stuck (IIRC, AFAIK) in a time distortion field)
asgard
remaining go'auld
ancients (yeah, like they'll really do anything!)
Just a few thoughts, and BTW, we really need to get off this rock. True space exploration by humans is a necessary step at some point. We can't avoid it forever, and if the USA doesn't do it, then China or India will (the two other nations with the resources, the drive and the sheer manpower--some other countries have two of those three, but very few have all of that--right now the USA is lacking drive, although that's largely a political funding issue). If there is no other reason to get off the planet, think about this: what kind of natural resources are out there floating in space waiting for us to build an elevator and go get it? I'd say that with proper planning, and a space elevator, we could do it quite nicely. Just make sure that every payload that descends is heavier than the ascending payload and you can generate enough energy to do quite a bit of stuff.
It does?
Wow, then my scout troup has a lot to answer for. Cool trumped everything for us--especially petty things like legality.
Of course, we weren't really trying to build a nuclear reactor either.
Jason's or the last one. THe first one sucks too much space.