Ships Crew
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BKY1701

  1. I won't be getting any bluray drives, not a big fan of Sony...


    Actually we got an HDDVD player, after it had become apparent it 'lost', mainly because it was only 70$, came with 2 movies on HDDVD and can play regular DVDs better. The prices came down a lot. You know, due to this fact, theres still a chance of HDDVD coming back from the grave. One can hope.

  2. As far as i am concerned, this movie is a fake. The dog was not trying to run in the air, as it would do if it were thrown. Also, the dog doesn't move at all through the whole movie. and if you look after he throws it, as it is flying threw the air, it moves wrong. it goes end over end, instead of flying sideways, upways, downways, anyways... a real dog would move itself around quite a bit, not just stay still, especially if it was a puppy. Also, i can't see its eyes... to me, i think its fake.


    Just how do you know how dogs move when they're flying through the air?


    Dogs move a lot. I am not an animal person, but even I know this first hand. The dog does not move once in the whole video. That screams "fake" to me.


    Maybe if I could see a higher res version of it, but youtube quality is just too low to tell anything.

  3. It's a waste of taxpayer money (which IMO is criminal) if it lacks any legal basis.


    Sounds like they would be right, then. How many billions has Bush wasted in Iraq? Oh wait, you don't agree Iraq was a waste of money? It's all in the eyes of the beholder.


    But to waste the taxpayers time and money to make a "personal" statement that lacks legal authority is not one of those options.


    There are quite a many stupid laws that are not enforceable, for many reasons, including being unconstitutional, impossible to enforce and pointless. How is this any more worthy of having federal funding cut off? Oh right, because it's a statement against Bush. And any statement against Bush should be countered as strongly as the law allows- if not more so.


    Heres what's funny: doing so would most likely not be legal. By what legal reasoning would said funding be cut off? "You made me mad"? "You wasted some money"?

  4. Barack Obama - 21%

    Hillary Clinton - 20%

    Ron Paul - 18%

    Mike Gravel - 15%

    John McCain - 15%

    Mitt Romney - 10%

    Mike Huckabee - 7%


    20% for Hillary? Excuse me while I throw up...


    Other than that, it's fairly accurate. Obama and Paul are my 2 favored choices and I don't really like anyone other than them... I wouldn't touch Huckabee with a 10 foot pole, so I don't know where that came form.


    They also didn't ask about a few things I care about - namely the internet, patents/copyright and nuclear power, all 3 I care very strongly about.

  5. I've actually thought to myself a few years ago that smoke detectors could be turned into a small bomb type thing, could be used for terrorists.


    Not all isotopes are equal. Any terrorist trying to build a nuclear weapon out of Americium-241 will experience the exact same results as this guy- looking like an idiot. Acquiring a useful amount would probably be more difficult than getting the Plutonium normally used- there isn't much of the stuff in smoke detectors. Even then, I never heard of a nuke using Americium. Given it's name, it may be quite ironic if it in fact WERE used by terrorists someday...