ColdINK Forums

Shounen Shinigami

DranoK — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:50:27 GMT

I don't post much of my art here since most of it's intended for a different audience. Still, it's been slow, so may as well ;)

The outfit is somewhat inspired by Maka from Soul Eater. I didn't intend his face to look so Death Note-ish, but it seems to suit him. ^.^

Another victim to religion

Onionpaste — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:38:19 GMT

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...oore-gun-range

Quote:

Newly released notes and audio recordings left behind by a woman who shot her son and then took her own life leave little doubt that she planned the attack.

In rambling messages to family, friends, police and the owners of Shoot Straight, the Casselberry gun range she chose for Sunday's fatal shooting, Marie Moore said the murder-suicide was the only way to save her son Mitchell Moore, her family and the world from violence and eternal damnation.

"I'm so sorry," Marie Moore, 44, wrote in one note. "I had to send my son to heaven and myself to Hell."

This is tragic, not to mention idiotic in the extreme.

Lance's computer..

Onionpaste — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:42:05 GMT

Crapped out on him. He needs a new graphics card. So let's talk about him while he isn't here to respond or defend himself.

Go.

Google Street View

LiQUiD_X — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:55:14 GMT

It was an accident I'm sure muhahaha

Direct Link / Full Size

Poor Gore.. Still chasing ManBearPig

DranoK — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:40:37 GMT

I do feel sorry for the guy. I shouldn't, but I do. Oh well.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11411

Quote:

Gore says, "The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere � thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States."

It's an interesting theory, but where are the facts?

According to "State of the Climate" from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Global precipitation in 2009 was near the 1961-1990 average." And there was certainly no pattern of increasing rain and snow on America's East Coast during the post-1976 years, when NOAA says the globe began to heat up.

So what was it, exactly, that Gore's nameless scientists "have long pointed out"? A 2008 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate Change and Water," says climate models "project precipitation increases in high latitudes and part of the tropics." In other areas, the IPCC reports only "substantial uncertainty in precipitation forecasts."

Link Soup for February 2010

ColdINK — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:08:24 GMT

This is the Link Soup for February 2010

Think Muslims are the only ones who view women as slave creatures?

DranoK — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:42:45 GMT

So do we. At least, some of us.

http://jezebel.com/5479032/the-next-...et-miscarriage

Quote:

A new Utah law could charge women with homicide if they miscarry, making women's rights advocates concerned that women will be brought up on murder charges for drinking, failing to wear a seatbelt, or falling down the stairs.

Read the article... This has already passed the legislature and could soon become law. It really is as backward and scary as it sounds.

Women are objects, after all. Right?

*sigh*

Wait, wat?

DranoK — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:38:23 GMT

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._WSJ_US_News_5

Quote:

The bill's centerpiece is a tax credit for employers who hire new workers�a measure Democrats hope will motivate business owners to hire.

Employers wouldn't have to pay their 6.25% share of federal payroll taxes for the rest of 2010 for any new workers that have been unemployed for at least 60 days. If that employee was still on the books in a year, the business owner would receive an additional $1,000 tax credit.

(Emphasis mine)

Seriously? Seriously?

Interviewer: How long have you been out of work?
Candidate: Oh, I'm not. I'm pretty good at my job. Just looking to progress my career, ya know. I see a great future with your company and think I'd be a valuable asset.
Interviewer: Oh, sorry. We're looking for someone who's been un-hirable for at least 60 days.

Later that day...

Interviewer: So, how long have you been out of work?
Candidate: Beaver Monkey Dishwasher! Purple!
Interviewer: Longer than 60 days?
Candidate: I engineer! ENGINEER! I make things go BING! BADA! PURPLE! MONKEY!
Interviewer: You sound perfect. You can start today!

*sigh*

Or how about the companies who decide to lay off workers for 60 days, re-hire them, then lay off a different set of workers for 60 days?

Is there any logic left in our congress critters? Any at all? Has there ever been any?

For the love of Snarf, stop meddling with the fucking economy you damned dirty apes. It will do just fine without you :/

Canadian politicians won't even use Canada's health care institution

DranoK — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:07:01 GMT

Why? Because it sucks. That's what you get with socialized medicine--the poor get better care, yes; but the affluent population suffers. Unless they leave their socialized "paradise," of course. :)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...Yz_6_b-gsGGDxA

Quote:

The 60-year-old Williams said doctors detected a heart murmur last spring and told him that one of his heart valves wasn't closing properly, creating a leakage.

He said he was told at the time that the problem was "moderate" and that he should come back for a checkup in six months.

Eight months later, in December, his doctors told him the problem had become severe and urged him to get his valve repaired immediately or risk heart failure, he said.

His doctors in Canada presented him with two options - a full or partial sternotomy, both of which would've required breaking bones, he said.

He said he spoke with and provided his medical information to a leading cardiac surgeon in New Jersey who is also from Newfoundland and Labrador. He advised him to seek treatment at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami.

That's where he was treated by Dr. Joseph Lamelas, a cardiac surgeon who has performed more than 8,000 open-heart surgeries.

Williams said Lamelas made an incision under his arm that didn't require any bone breakage.

"I wanted to get in, get out fast, get back to work in a short period of time," the premier said.

F�r Noggin

DeathCharms — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:14:31 GMT

And you thought train crossings were bad..

DranoK — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:20:02 GMT

Direct Link / Full Size

Bonus pic of another terrifying air port ^.^

Direct Link / Full Size

SC2 Beta

Onionpaste — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:52:50 GMT

I got it. Sux2bugaiz. I'll post videos online (yes, it's legal) when I get some good ones.

I would so live here, XVII

DranoK — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:51:12 GMT

Direct Link / Full Size

C'mon; it looks like a giant fucking airship!

Hiking Journal - Big Basin - 2/13/10 and 2/15/10

DranoK — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:44:32 GMT

Sorry for the lack of pictures in this journal; due to the rain on Saturday we decided to forgo the camera pack and enjoy relatively unladen shoulders. Liquid developed some fairly nasty blisters on this hike (damn you, steel toe boots!) so we opted to go packless again on Monday to save some weight. Hopefully we will have new pictures from next weeks' hike ;)

On Saturday we considered doing Shadowbrook backward, however in the end decided to follow last week's path instead. It was wet and muddy; Slippery Rock lived up to it's name as being quite slippery. The falls poured strongly from all the rain we've been getting.

In a vain attempt to find the old trail (vs. the new bridge that has been built) we walked up and down paved camp roads for just over a mile. That's what the odd Y-shaped path is at the south-east end of the trail ;) This camp is actually open and there were a handful of campers setup with tents. Why anyone would want to camp in mud is beyond me, but whatever.

Monday's hike was much more interesting. Once we reached Slippery Rock (we took a short break to hike down to the falls again, of course) we went up instead of across. Yes, that's right--the path goes up the slippery face of the rock. Some parts receive enough sun to dry off and there's a nice bed of moss on either side of the rock. As you can see by the GPS trail we hugged the left-hand side of the rock as closely as possible. We stopped near the top to get a nice view of the valley. Sadly a couple of other groups started climbing the rock, which completely dashed our plans to smoke a relaxing bowl up there.

Past the rock is a bit more of a climb. The trail then passes over an old escape road and starts winding down the other side of the mountain. This was probably my favorite part of the hike. I'm slightly acrophobic (and the trail a wee bit on the goat-insane narrow side) but the views were absolutely stunning. The trail winded around the peak; directly to the left was a steep drop (500 feet at least?) to the base. The redwoods are so massive they grow from that base, to the trail level, and past it into the sky. It's dizzying to follow one from its roots to its tip--especially when you're standing on a narrow mound of dirt serving as the path.

Sadly this part of the journey ended entirely too quick. We came to a road and a bridge--the turnaround point. It wasn't that late at this point, however, and neither of us felt too tired. After a brief consideration, we decided to tackle Meteor Trail.

This trail--a 600 foot climb from its base--is fairly exhausting. It's a little over a mile of uphill with few flat stretches for rest. As with most mountains, it gets steeper the closer you get to the peak. The creek runs along the right-hand side as you climb and is accented with frequent small waterfalls.

The trail climbs away from the creek near the end and eventually comes to a road. It's unfortunate we hadn't researched the area enough in advance (we thought we'd just turn back at the bridge) and thus were not aware Ocean View Summit was so near to the road we stopped at. We weren't sure what, if anything, we were supposed to be looking for up there. Instead we toked a bowl on the peak and started the return trek.

Direct Link / Full Size

Welcome to the United States of America�!

DeathCharms — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:26:20 GMT

This is disgusting.

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-c...y-noam-chomsky

Quote:

The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Democracy
By Noam Chomsky

Source: ITT
Friday, February 05, 2010

Jan. 21, 2010, will go down as a dark day in the history of U.S. democracy, and its decline.

On that day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban corporations from political spending on elections—a decision that profoundly affects government policy, both domestic and international.

Quote:

The decision heralds even further corporate takeover of the U.S. political system.

To the editors of The New York Times, the ruling “strikes at the heart of democracy” by having “paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.”

The court was split, 5-4, with the four reactionary judges (misleadingly called “conservative”) joined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. selected a case that could easily have been settled on narrow grounds and maneuvered the court into using it to push through a far-reaching decision that overturns a century of precedents restricting corporate contributions to federal campaigns.

Now corporate managers can in effect buy elections directly, bypassing more complex indirect means. It is well-known that corporate contributions, sometimes packaged in complex ways, can tip the balance in elections, hence driving policy. The court has just handed much more power to the small sector of the population that dominates the economy.

Political economist Thomas Ferguson’s “investment theory of politics” is a very successful predictor of government policy over a long period. The theory interprets elections as occasions on which segments of private sector power coalesce to invest to control the state.

The Jan. 21 decision only reinforces the means to undermine functioning democracy.

The background is enlightening. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens acknowledged that “we have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment”—the constitutional guarantee of free speech, which would include support for political candidates.

In the early 20th century, legal theorists and courts implemented the court’s 1886 decision that corporations—these “collectivist legal entities”—have the same rights as persons of flesh and blood.

This attack on classical liberalism was sharply condemned by the vanishing breed of conservatives. Christopher G. Tiedeman described the principle as “a menace to the liberty of the individual, and to the stability of the American states as popular governments.

Morton Horwitz writes in his standard legal history that the concept of corporate personhood evolved alongside the shift of power from shareholders to managers, and finally to the doctrine that “the powers of the board of directors “are identical with the powers of the corporation.” In later years, corporate rights were expanded far beyond those of persons, notably by the mislabeled “free trade agreements.” Under these agreements, for example, if General Motors establishes a plant in Mexico, it can demand to be treated just like a Mexican business (“national treatment”)—quite unlike a Mexican of flesh and blood who might seek “national treatment” in New York, or even minimal human rights.

A century ago, Woodrow Wilson, then an academic, described an America in which “comparatively small groups of men,” corporate managers, “wield a power and control over the wealth and the business operations of the country,” becoming “rivals of the government itself.”

In reality, these “small groups” increasingly have become government’s masters. The Roberts court gives them even greater scope.

The Jan. 21 decision came three days after another victory for wealth and power: the election of Republican candidate Scott Brown to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the “liberal lion” of Massachusetts. Brown’s election was depicted as a “populist upsurge” against the liberal elitists who run the government.

The voting data reveal a rather different story.

High turnouts in the wealthy suburbs, and low ones in largely Democratic urban areas, helped elect Brown. “Fifty-five percent of Republican voters said they were `very interested’ in the election,” The Wall St. Journal/NBC poll reported, “compared with 38 percent of Democrats.”

So the results were indeed an uprising against President Obama’s policies: For the wealthy, he was not doing enough to enrich them further, while for the poorer sectors, he was doing too much to achieve that end.

The popular anger is quite understandable, given that the banks are thriving, thanks to bailouts, while unemployment has risen to 10 percent.

In manufacturing, one in six is out of work—unemployment at the level of the Great Depression. With the increasing financialization of the economy and the hollowing out of productive industry, prospects are bleak for recovering the kinds of jobs that were lost.

Brown presented himself as the 41st vote against healthcare—that is, the vote that could undermine majority rule in the U.S. Senate.

It is true that Obama’s healthcare program was a factor in the Massachusetts election. The headlines are correct when they report that the public is turning against the program.

The poll figures explain why: The bill does not go far enough. The Wall St. Journal/NBC poll found that a majority of voters disapprove of the handling of healthcare both by the Republicans and by Obama.

These figures align with recent nationwide polls. The public option was favored by 56 percent of those polled, and the Medicare buy-in at age 55 by 64 percent; both programs were abandoned.

Eighty-five percent believe that the government should have the right to negotiate drug prices, as in other countries; Obama guaranteed Big Pharma that he would not pursue that option.

Large majorities favor cost-cutting, which makes good sense: U.S. per capita costs for healthcare are about twice those of other industrial countries, and health outcomes are at the low end.

But cost-cutting cannot be seriously undertaken when largesse is showered on the drug companies, and healthcare is in the hands of virtually unregulated private insurers—a costly system peculiar to the U.S.

The Jan. 21 decision raises significant new barriers to overcoming the serious crisis of healthcare, or to addressing such critical issues as the looming environmental and energy crises. The gap between public opinion and public policy looms larger. And the damage to American democracy can hardly be overestimated.