Bungee Jumper

The Cascade range. Same snowfall mechanism as around the Great Lakes: arctic air coming over a relatively warm body of water (same thing happens in Hokkaido, for that matter.) Mt. Baker holds the current record at 1140 inches (95 feet). Mt. Rainer is second at about 1100, I believe.

It's truly amazing. I don't even have to read your posts. I just know the correct response is: you still don't know what you're talking about.

Never claimed to know much about economics. Doesn't change the fact that I know more than you about it.

No, a perfectly intelligent and legitimate contribution to a discussion of regression toward the mean would involve a discussion of variance. Which I did. Specifically, and clearly, with my startlingly clear dice example. You, on the other hand, limited your argument to "Stanford says so! I'm special, I'm special!" Because you're too stupid to understand variance, or any other mathematical concept. You see, it's the difference between discussing math, as I was, and discussing a pile of bull sh-- that just happens to bear a passing resemblance to math to people who don't even begin to understand math, as you were doing. But gosh darn it, you're so damned cute when you're doing it!

OJ was there...a blonde dies suddenly and prematurely there today...hmmm....

I think you missed the point: no one cares. No one cared the first eight times you pointed it out. No one cares now. No one will care the next eight times you point it out.

Fine, have it your way. And then there's the part where Fezmid stated that everyone agreed with his distinction between copyright infringement and theft, when in fact no one really gave a sh-- either way. And shouldn't this thread be in the consumer forum, anyway?

Looks like she checked out a day early. Ba-dum bum.

There was a debate? I didn't see a debate, I saw a bunch of people agreeing that RIAA is a reactionary organization with no grasp of their present market, I saw you overreacting to an idiotic statement from RIAA, I saw a bunch of people factually calling you a thief, and I saw you prove you're stupid enough to believe you know more about the applicable case law than a practicing intellectual property attorney because you steal music online. There's no debate. There's you forgetting to take your Ritalin, and a bunch of people laughing at you for it.

Can we just call that the "Holcomb's Arm Gambit" from now on?

More big news! Dick Jauron says he might be back as coach next season...

What's the over/under on the number of threads started on this topic by people too lazy to find the first thread? I've got 6.

Supposedly, some of the sightings in the southern US in the '60s were Cuban recon planes. As the military wouldn't want to admit the radar net was that leaky, it does make a certain amount of sense...if you accept the assumption that the Cubans were flying MiG-21s up the Mississippi valley in the mid-60's for some reason.

This really doesn't deserve two threads. It really doesn't deserve one, frankly. Well...okay, maybe it deserves one, just so I can make the obligatory "Silicone poisoning?" joke...

Yeah, your "I'm not a thief, I just steal songs over the internet" argument really showed him.

The only problem with that in practice is that it will not make alternative sources of energy more affordable. Just more marketable. Raising the prices of cheaper alternatives (i.e. fossil fuels) does not necessarily encourage innovation in alternative fuels, just consumption of them. It's not necessarily environmentally sound, either. People tend to underestimate the environmental footprint of alternative sources of energy. I've seen compelling analysis (from hard-core environmentalists) that suggest that the process of farming, harvesting, and processing bio-diesel might be more environmentally damaging than fossil fuels are now.

How very Islamic of you...

Don't need new fuels; the Prius is ULEV. You just need to convince people it's in their interest to buy them. And the way Maryland plans to do that is...force the retailers to sell them. Dumb.

Well...yeah, sure. But I'm talking about reasonable, rational people. Not politicians.

Actually, I was joking. Along the same lines that a pollution tax to consumers on cars would encourage manufactures to build cleaner cars - either that, or it's going to encourage consumers to pay more taxes. History says the latter, as most people don't factor in the cost of taxes to the cost of their operation or purchase of a car. A gas tax, though...you're right, it would work differently. A gas tax would, in most people's minds, be considered an operational cost directly related to the car. Or, you can just do it the Maryland way: the Clean Car Act requires that 2% of all cars sold next year be ultra-low emission. No one's yet been able to explain to me how the state is going to force retailers to sell specific types of cars.

Wouldn't that encourage oil companies to produce cleaner gas?

You know, I'd feel better about all of this if they stopped calling it "the Speaker's plane". Better just to do it as your link above suggested: transportation is available to members of Congress on an as-needed emergency basis. Otherwise, fly Southwest like the rest of us have to. And by "emergency basis", I mean sh-- like "An earthquake just levelled my congressional district" or "My spouse was just rushed to the ER after a freak bowling accident". A press conference related to the Foley idiocy does not constitute an emergency.

There's that, too. Although I was too busy focusing on how taxing the consumer would force the manufacturers to build cleaner cars. And that's just two of the fallacies I found in his post.

You mean those other stupid things I've written like...the mathematical concept of variance? Again, we keep running up against your bullheaded refusal to discuss or even understand the actual concepts at issue. Your stubborn insistence on repeating the same incorrect nonsense doesn't begin to make it correct, whether it's math or genetics or economics or psychology or football or just about anything else you've ever discussed on the boards. The only reason we indulge it is because...frankly, it's just so damned funny. Like watching a four-year old try to play basketball with adults.

No, it demonstrated your inability to understand math. Your conceptual explanation showed that you didn't understand the concepts, else you wouldn't have needed to parrot other people's colloquial explanations to justify your own ignorance. Which is a common theme in your posts, come to think of it. When is the last time you had an original thought?