(I grew up in Oak Ridge and can vouch that this is actually a very on-topic post).
For those not in the know, Big Ed's Pizza is probably the biggest attraction in Oak Ridge outside of the Oak Ridge National Labs and Y-12/K-25 complexes. Many of my friends have been walking around various cities around the world while wearing a Big Ed's t-shirt and had people come up to them asking if they were from Oak Ridge and then relating their own stories of eating at Big Ed's. I was driving through Alabama a few years ago and met someone who was in the Marines with Big Ed. (Big Ed was, quite appropriately, a World War II veteran. He was also quite large of heart, supporting the local Boys' and Girls' Club, various clubs at Oak Ridge High School, and providing employment for many teenagers in Oak Ridge.)
Big Ed's Pizza is indeed still there. Big Ed himself, unfortunately, is not (he passed away in 1998). But there are still massive crowds there most of the time, especially after football games at Blankenship Field. I usually have dinner or lunch there with some of my high school friends when I'm in town.
And, having used both Google Scholar and Web of Science, I can say that they're roughly equal in terms of quality. WoS is definitely not a great program. I've had situations where I was able to provide an author's exact name, the name of the journal, and a relatively narrow time period, and it was unable to find an article that I *knew* my school has access to. Of all of the various tools that I've used, none of them are really where they ought to be, and most of them are much more expensive than they should be, given the quality of the product.
After much thinking, I've decided that The Hunt for Red October is pretty much at the top of my favorite movies list. It's a serious film, although it has some funny parts. There is little-to-no objectionable language. There is no sexuality or nudity. It exemplifies the tension that was felt on both sides during the Cold War. It also shows the humanity that existed on both sides of the Cold War. The movie is full of action and suspense, even when watching it for the hundredth time. The acting is good, and there is no reliance on special effects to keep the audience interested or to drive the plot. On the whole, I think it is a very solid movie, a very good movie, and a very enjoyable movie. And because of the content if the movie, or more specifically, the lack of objectionable content, it's a movie that you can see with the whole family. I was 9 when it came out, and if I recall correctly, I saw it with my parents. I'm sure that someone can come up with dozens of things that they don't like about it, and that's fine. But it's one of my favorites.
Thanks! That's pretty much exactly what I was going for! Although, I wasn't expecting the salute.:)
Wouldn't it be nice if there actually was a "+1 Gentlemanly" option? Perhaps then people might think about being more civil around here. It's always much easier to consider a point of view that is contradictory to your own if it is presented in a polite manner, rather than in a bellicose manner.
Yeah, sorry. Spelling has never really been my thing. As for the Voyager != satellite thing, you're right, but in my mind I was kind of lumping Voyager in with all of the various space probes (Voyager 1, 2), satellites (Skylab, Hubble), landers (Apollo 11+), etc. (Apollo 10-, Spirit & Opportunity) and the term that came to mind initially was satellite. I was much more worried about conveying my sentiment than the accuracy of my terms. Unfortunately I forgot that you can't get away with that on slashdot. But if the only complaints against my post are technicalities, then I guess I can consider it a good post. Anyway, thanks for the corrections. I'll try to do better next time. (And, just to cover my bases this time, so that I don't negate my previous post, I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. The corrections don't appear to have been made maliciously, so I'm trying to accept them in kind.)
On behalf of my fellow Americans, whether they like it or not, I'd just like to say thanks for your comment. Not that I had anything to do with Voyager or any other sattelites up there. In spite of some of the bad things we've done, I'm proud of my country (as I'm sure you are of yours), and I'm glad to see someone who doesn't judge all Americans based on a subset of our population.
Just like all countries, we do good things and we do bad things. We have good politicians and we have bad politicians. We have good people and we have bad people. So, thanks again for your levelheadedness, in all seriousness, I really do appreciate it.
I think the grandparent post got it right. Matlab is designed for quick calculations, rather than final production code. If you're not sure that your method will work, it's much quicker to write a Matlab script to test things than it is to write a full blown C/C++/Fortran code. Additionally, I don't think that you're the target audience for the program. At best, the program is targeted to people who are applied mathematicians first, but it is often used by people who have no applied math background at all. Some of these people look at Fortran code, go glassy-eyed, give up, and delegate the problem (no matter how trivial) to a real computer science or applied math person. I've even heard (very intelligent) people complain about how hard it is to write Matlab code. Believe it or not, some scientists don't know how to write HTML, let alone Fortran; and sometimes these scientists need to get quick, reliable answers. Matlab is a great program for this type of application.
In most of my applied math classes (BA Computational & Applied Math, Rice U.) we had people from a variety of backgrounds who knew a variety of languages. Rather than force the Fortran people to learn C++ or force the C++ people to learn Fortran, we forced *everyone* to learn Matlab, which is a rather trivial task if you know anything at all about programming. But the main result of using Matlab was that programs that would take hundreds of lines could fit on a page or two. Instead of keeping track of pointers and variable types, etc. you could write concise, easy-to-read code. This saves a huge amount of time for the students doing the problem sets and for the graders. It also allows you to focus on the mathematical concepts rather than the mathematical or programming nitty-gritty.
Naturally, if you wanted to learn how to program in more depth, we had computer science courses available. And in the applied math classes where writing production-level, optimized code was more important, we usually used things other than Matlab. Although, often times Matlab would still be used for pseudocode or as a way of checking your answers.
If you're doing symbolic work, then Mathematica is the program to go with. But if you're doing numerical linear algebra and either don't need the speed of C/C++/Fortran or don't want to deal with those languages, it's kind of hard to beat Matlab. One nice combo is Maple/Matlab. Maple can call Matlab for numerical linear algebra work, and Matlab can call Maple for symbolic work.
Despite all of the people who complain about Matlab being unstable and using up resources, I've always found that running the command-line version of Matlab is fast and stable. The GUI version has some nice features, but they usually aren't essential to the work that I do.
The most harmful emission produced by burning of any fossil fuel these days is our not-so-good friend CO2. Unless this magic filter turns the CO2 back into oil, it falls way short of 100% removal of emissions. Why is CO2 a bad thing to be putting into the air? Because it's a greenhouse gas. Whether or not you believe in global warming right now, continued emissions of CO2 will result in climate shift in the future.
By contrast, the waste from fission power plants, while not the safest thing in the world, is relatively easily contained and dealt with.
As for the "other options" than fission and coal, every single one has significant drawbacks:
* Wind - Local climate change; can't be used everywhere; damage to wildlife; (and for those of us who care about such things) they destroy natural landscapes and take up large areas of land
* Solar - Inefficient; expensive to produce in large quantities; can't be used everywhere
* Geothermal - Can't be used everywhere; doesn't produce large enough amounts of power
* Tidal - Heaven only knows how much ecological damage this could result in
What am I leaving out? I'd like to include Fusion, but it isn't ready for prime time yet. If it was, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because it'd be the hands-down winner.
Something that I didn't realize until a few years ago is that most fruit drinks have as many calories per serving as most soft drinks, due to all of the added sugar, I assume. As a result, I usually drink water... or beer.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. Do X, XI, and XII where Han, Luke, and Leia are already gone. Then, when CG technology is up to snuff, do VII, VIII, and IX with completely CG Han, Luke, and Leia, so that we don't have to use replacement actors.
Something to keep in mind is that *if* this program works, the cost of the iPod/XBox will easily be offset by the health benefits. And I'm not talking about the "Yay, people are healthier!" type of health benefits. I'm talking about the "Yay, people are healthier and thus my insurance costs are lower and the government has to spend less of my tax money on keeping our overweight population alive" type of health benefits. I agree that schools should provide healthier foods, but that won't always be enough. An active incentive like this program would have certainly gotten me to eat healthier as a kid. Forcing me to eat healthy food would probably just have resulted in me eating unhealthy food later on. However, making it *my choice* to eat healthy teaches me something that I can continue to do throughout life. Of course, multiple approaches to the problem is probably the best way to go.
I can't take credit for this one, and it's from a while ago:
If GM made cars like Microsoft makes software...
"1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five per cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.
12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine."
I also took a look at the MSDS (the one available on the company webpage) and I'm still a little bit skeptical. (FYI, IAAC (I am a chemist))
From the MSDS:
"Special hints concerning hazards for the human and environment: So far as the usual regulations of industrial hygiene are adhered to, the product handling does not involve any appreciable risk."
It seems like this is being marketed outside of the usual industrial hygiene settings.
Also from the MSDS:
"Instruction for the physician: Any specific measures to be taken are not known. Carry out a symptomatic therapy."
It seems to me that they don't entirely know *what* this stuff will do in a biological setting. It appears that metallic Ga, In, and Sn (that's Gallium, Indium, and Tin... the components of Galinstan... geeze, what an uninventive name) aren't particularly toxic. But when ingested and exposed to digestive acids, I don't know that all of these metals will remain in their metallic states.
Basically, although ingesting this may be safer than drinking a thermometer's worth of mercury, I don't think I'd call it "safe". For things that are used around my kids, "not ver toxic at all" isn't so reassuring.
Don't forget about the time that some caltech students reworked the famous "HOLLYWOOD" sign to read "CALTECH". There was another prank at the Rose Bowl where the scoreboard was hacked, causing it to list the teams as Caltech and MIT. There are a couple of books in the Caltech bookstore that catalog the numerous (and hilarious) different pranks done by Caltech students. Here's a link to a few of the pranks. These are by no means the best ones.
Houston, Actually. Although I spent some time in Austin and Dallas as well. But I knew people from all over the state, and most of them were quite nice. As for the rednecks, I'd be willing to bet that a healthy portion of the US is constituted by rednecks who banter about something or another, much to the annoyance of educated, more travelled people.
Oh, and the beautiful countryside I was referring to includes central, eastern, southern, and a good portion of western Texas.
Anyway, my point was that I get annoyed when people make judgements of Texas based on insufficient, second-hand information. I would imagine that it's much the same for people who live in the nicer parts of New Jersey who have to deal with people making ignorant assumptions that the whole state must be like Newark. I didn't mean for it to come off as so much of a rant. Just an expression of annoyance.
I always get annoyed when people say bad things about Texas and Texans. Having lived in TX for four years during college, I can say that Texans are generally very nice people. Sure, you have a handful that are nuts, but there are fewer screwballs in Texas than there are in California (where I currently live). Besides, there are lots of perks to living in Texas. As mentioned by the grandparent, no state taxes, lots of BBQ, lots of *real* Tex Mex, and some of the most beautiful countryside that I've ever seen. Now, if you've got some *personal* reason to dislike Texas, then that's fine. But I find that most people who say bad things about Texas have never been there and have only met a couple of Texans (or even worse, judge Texas by a couple of politicians from Texas).
I dunno. I lived in Houston for 4 years, and during that time my car went from being somewhat rusty to requiring a tetanus shot to drive. The air in Houston is so humid that I could probably leave my car in the ocean for a year and have it accumulate less rust.
Of course, now I'm out here in southern california where the humidity is around -10% every day and my car is covered in dust that I'm afraid to wash off. I'm worried that washing off the dust will also wash off the rust and the whole thing will fall apart.
Even someone from A&M has to admit that the University of Texas plays good football. I'm not saying that you have to *like* the team, just that there is good football to watch in Austin. Heck, being a Rice Owl, I hate UT and A&M equally, but I'd much rather watch a UT football game than a Rice football game.
- Rice U. Class of 2003
I spent four years in Houston (Rice U) and have lots of friends who have migrated to Austin. While I like Houston, I have to say that Austin is the coolest city I've ever been to. The only things that Austin is lacking are quick access to beaches or skiing. It has everything else: any type of music you care to listen to, active night life, good football (UTexas), plenty of outdoor activities for those of us that venture into the sunlight, and food that I would be willing to KILL for. I'm living in Pasadena (CA) now, but would move to Austin in a heartbeat if I could.
Slashdot Mirror
(I grew up in Oak Ridge and can vouch that this is actually a very on-topic post). For those not in the know, Big Ed's Pizza is probably the biggest attraction in Oak Ridge outside of the Oak Ridge National Labs and Y-12/K-25 complexes. Many of my friends have been walking around various cities around the world while wearing a Big Ed's t-shirt and had people come up to them asking if they were from Oak Ridge and then relating their own stories of eating at Big Ed's. I was driving through Alabama a few years ago and met someone who was in the Marines with Big Ed. (Big Ed was, quite appropriately, a World War II veteran. He was also quite large of heart, supporting the local Boys' and Girls' Club, various clubs at Oak Ridge High School, and providing employment for many teenagers in Oak Ridge.) Big Ed's Pizza is indeed still there. Big Ed himself, unfortunately, is not (he passed away in 1998). But there are still massive crowds there most of the time, especially after football games at Blankenship Field. I usually have dinner or lunch there with some of my high school friends when I'm in town.
And, having used both Google Scholar and Web of Science, I can say that they're roughly equal in terms of quality. WoS is definitely not a great program. I've had situations where I was able to provide an author's exact name, the name of the journal, and a relatively narrow time period, and it was unable to find an article that I *knew* my school has access to. Of all of the various tools that I've used, none of them are really where they ought to be, and most of them are much more expensive than they should be, given the quality of the product.
Actually, not all of the Novas in the world are in junk yards. My dad still drives his '68 Nova regularly. It looks like crap, but still runs fine.
After much thinking, I've decided that The Hunt for Red October is pretty much at the top of my favorite movies list. It's a serious film, although it has some funny parts. There is little-to-no objectionable language. There is no sexuality or nudity. It exemplifies the tension that was felt on both sides during the Cold War. It also shows the humanity that existed on both sides of the Cold War. The movie is full of action and suspense, even when watching it for the hundredth time. The acting is good, and there is no reliance on special effects to keep the audience interested or to drive the plot. On the whole, I think it is a very solid movie, a very good movie, and a very enjoyable movie. And because of the content if the movie, or more specifically, the lack of objectionable content, it's a movie that you can see with the whole family. I was 9 when it came out, and if I recall correctly, I saw it with my parents. I'm sure that someone can come up with dozens of things that they don't like about it, and that's fine. But it's one of my favorites.
Thanks! That's pretty much exactly what I was going for! Although, I wasn't expecting the salute. :)
Wouldn't it be nice if there actually was a "+1 Gentlemanly" option? Perhaps then people might think about being more civil around here. It's always much easier to consider a point of view that is contradictory to your own if it is presented in a polite manner, rather than in a bellicose manner.
Yeah, sorry. Spelling has never really been my thing. As for the Voyager != satellite thing, you're right, but in my mind I was kind of lumping Voyager in with all of the various space probes (Voyager 1, 2), satellites (Skylab, Hubble), landers (Apollo 11+), etc. (Apollo 10-, Spirit & Opportunity) and the term that came to mind initially was satellite. I was much more worried about conveying my sentiment than the accuracy of my terms. Unfortunately I forgot that you can't get away with that on slashdot. But if the only complaints against my post are technicalities, then I guess I can consider it a good post. Anyway, thanks for the corrections. I'll try to do better next time. (And, just to cover my bases this time, so that I don't negate my previous post, I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. The corrections don't appear to have been made maliciously, so I'm trying to accept them in kind.)
On behalf of my fellow Americans, whether they like it or not, I'd just like to say thanks for your comment. Not that I had anything to do with Voyager or any other sattelites up there. In spite of some of the bad things we've done, I'm proud of my country (as I'm sure you are of yours), and I'm glad to see someone who doesn't judge all Americans based on a subset of our population.
Just like all countries, we do good things and we do bad things. We have good politicians and we have bad politicians. We have good people and we have bad people. So, thanks again for your levelheadedness, in all seriousness, I really do appreciate it.
I think the grandparent post got it right. Matlab is designed for quick calculations, rather than final production code. If you're not sure that your method will work, it's much quicker to write a Matlab script to test things than it is to write a full blown C/C++/Fortran code. Additionally, I don't think that you're the target audience for the program. At best, the program is targeted to people who are applied mathematicians first, but it is often used by people who have no applied math background at all. Some of these people look at Fortran code, go glassy-eyed, give up, and delegate the problem (no matter how trivial) to a real computer science or applied math person. I've even heard (very intelligent) people complain about how hard it is to write Matlab code. Believe it or not, some scientists don't know how to write HTML, let alone Fortran; and sometimes these scientists need to get quick, reliable answers. Matlab is a great program for this type of application.
In most of my applied math classes (BA Computational & Applied Math, Rice U.) we had people from a variety of backgrounds who knew a variety of languages. Rather than force the Fortran people to learn C++ or force the C++ people to learn Fortran, we forced *everyone* to learn Matlab, which is a rather trivial task if you know anything at all about programming. But the main result of using Matlab was that programs that would take hundreds of lines could fit on a page or two. Instead of keeping track of pointers and variable types, etc. you could write concise, easy-to-read code. This saves a huge amount of time for the students doing the problem sets and for the graders. It also allows you to focus on the mathematical concepts rather than the mathematical or programming nitty-gritty.
Naturally, if you wanted to learn how to program in more depth, we had computer science courses available. And in the applied math classes where writing production-level, optimized code was more important, we usually used things other than Matlab. Although, often times Matlab would still be used for pseudocode or as a way of checking your answers.
If you're doing symbolic work, then Mathematica is the program to go with. But if you're doing numerical linear algebra and either don't need the speed of C/C++/Fortran or don't want to deal with those languages, it's kind of hard to beat Matlab. One nice combo is Maple/Matlab. Maple can call Matlab for numerical linear algebra work, and Matlab can call Maple for symbolic work.
Despite all of the people who complain about Matlab being unstable and using up resources, I've always found that running the command-line version of Matlab is fast and stable. The GUI version has some nice features, but they usually aren't essential to the work that I do.
The most harmful emission produced by burning of any fossil fuel these days is our not-so-good friend CO2. Unless this magic filter turns the CO2 back into oil, it falls way short of 100% removal of emissions. Why is CO2 a bad thing to be putting into the air? Because it's a greenhouse gas. Whether or not you believe in global warming right now, continued emissions of CO2 will result in climate shift in the future.
By contrast, the waste from fission power plants, while not the safest thing in the world, is relatively easily contained and dealt with.
As for the "other options" than fission and coal, every single one has significant drawbacks:
* Wind - Local climate change; can't be used everywhere; damage to wildlife; (and for those of us who care about such things) they destroy natural landscapes and take up large areas of land
* Solar - Inefficient; expensive to produce in large quantities; can't be used everywhere
* Geothermal - Can't be used everywhere; doesn't produce large enough amounts of power
* Hydroelectric (dams) - Ecological damage; requires rivers
* Tidal - Heaven only knows how much ecological damage this could result in
What am I leaving out? I'd like to include Fusion, but it isn't ready for prime time yet. If it was, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because it'd be the hands-down winner.
Something that I didn't realize until a few years ago is that most fruit drinks have as many calories per serving as most soft drinks, due to all of the added sugar, I assume. As a result, I usually drink water... or beer.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. Do X, XI, and XII where Han, Luke, and Leia are already gone. Then, when CG technology is up to snuff, do VII, VIII, and IX with completely CG Han, Luke, and Leia, so that we don't have to use replacement actors.
Something to keep in mind is that *if* this program works, the cost of the iPod/XBox will easily be offset by the health benefits. And I'm not talking about the "Yay, people are healthier!" type of health benefits. I'm talking about the "Yay, people are healthier and thus my insurance costs are lower and the government has to spend less of my tax money on keeping our overweight population alive" type of health benefits. I agree that schools should provide healthier foods, but that won't always be enough. An active incentive like this program would have certainly gotten me to eat healthier as a kid. Forcing me to eat healthy food would probably just have resulted in me eating unhealthy food later on. However, making it *my choice* to eat healthy teaches me something that I can continue to do throughout life. Of course, multiple approaches to the problem is probably the best way to go.
Happy Fun Ball?
Wait a minute? We were supposed to get a toaster?
I can't take credit for this one, and it's from a while ago:
If GM made cars like Microsoft makes software...
"1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five per cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.
12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine."
One little clarification...
Symbol: Bi
Atomic Number: 83
German: Bismut
English: Bismuth
I also took a look at the MSDS (the one available on the company webpage) and I'm still a little bit skeptical. (FYI, IAAC (I am a chemist)) From the MSDS: "Special hints concerning hazards for the human and environment: So far as the usual regulations of industrial hygiene are adhered to, the product handling does not involve any appreciable risk." It seems like this is being marketed outside of the usual industrial hygiene settings. Also from the MSDS: "Instruction for the physician: Any specific measures to be taken are not known. Carry out a symptomatic therapy." It seems to me that they don't entirely know *what* this stuff will do in a biological setting. It appears that metallic Ga, In, and Sn (that's Gallium, Indium, and Tin... the components of Galinstan... geeze, what an uninventive name) aren't particularly toxic. But when ingested and exposed to digestive acids, I don't know that all of these metals will remain in their metallic states. Basically, although ingesting this may be safer than drinking a thermometer's worth of mercury, I don't think I'd call it "safe". For things that are used around my kids, "not ver toxic at all" isn't so reassuring.
Don't forget about the time that some caltech students reworked the famous "HOLLYWOOD" sign to read "CALTECH". There was another prank at the Rose Bowl where the scoreboard was hacked, causing it to list the teams as Caltech and MIT. There are a couple of books in the Caltech bookstore that catalog the numerous (and hilarious) different pranks done by Caltech students. Here's a link to a few of the pranks. These are by no means the best ones.
Houston, Actually. Although I spent some time in Austin and Dallas as well. But I knew people from all over the state, and most of them were quite nice. As for the rednecks, I'd be willing to bet that a healthy portion of the US is constituted by rednecks who banter about something or another, much to the annoyance of educated, more travelled people. Oh, and the beautiful countryside I was referring to includes central, eastern, southern, and a good portion of western Texas. Anyway, my point was that I get annoyed when people make judgements of Texas based on insufficient, second-hand information. I would imagine that it's much the same for people who live in the nicer parts of New Jersey who have to deal with people making ignorant assumptions that the whole state must be like Newark. I didn't mean for it to come off as so much of a rant. Just an expression of annoyance.
I always get annoyed when people say bad things about Texas and Texans. Having lived in TX for four years during college, I can say that Texans are generally very nice people. Sure, you have a handful that are nuts, but there are fewer screwballs in Texas than there are in California (where I currently live). Besides, there are lots of perks to living in Texas. As mentioned by the grandparent, no state taxes, lots of BBQ, lots of *real* Tex Mex, and some of the most beautiful countryside that I've ever seen. Now, if you've got some *personal* reason to dislike Texas, then that's fine. But I find that most people who say bad things about Texas have never been there and have only met a couple of Texans (or even worse, judge Texas by a couple of politicians from Texas).
Moonraker
I dunno. I lived in Houston for 4 years, and during that time my car went from being somewhat rusty to requiring a tetanus shot to drive. The air in Houston is so humid that I could probably leave my car in the ocean for a year and have it accumulate less rust.
Of course, now I'm out here in southern california where the humidity is around -10% every day and my car is covered in dust that I'm afraid to wash off. I'm worried that washing off the dust will also wash off the rust and the whole thing will fall apart.
Even someone from A&M has to admit that the University of Texas plays good football. I'm not saying that you have to *like* the team, just that there is good football to watch in Austin. Heck, being a Rice Owl, I hate UT and A&M equally, but I'd much rather watch a UT football game than a Rice football game. - Rice U. Class of 2003
I spent four years in Houston (Rice U) and have lots of friends who have migrated to Austin. While I like Houston, I have to say that Austin is the coolest city I've ever been to. The only things that Austin is lacking are quick access to beaches or skiing. It has everything else: any type of music you care to listen to, active night life, good football (UTexas), plenty of outdoor activities for those of us that venture into the sunlight, and food that I would be willing to KILL for. I'm living in Pasadena (CA) now, but would move to Austin in a heartbeat if I could.