Mal: If anyone gets nosy, just, you know... shoot 'em. Zoe: Shoot 'em? Mal: Politely.

'Serenity'


Natter 34: Freak With No Name  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


Narrator - Apr 18, 2005 4:51:46 pm PDT #6722 of 10001
The evil is this way?

24 -- I realize that we must suspend some belief here, but:

1. When were there mountains on the Illinois-Iowa border?

2. No friggin' way would a lawyer from "Amnesty Global" get that kind of immediate access to a detainee. Nor would he be able to get a court order or shut down the interrogation like that. The country does not need to become a fascist state to fight terrorism. It's a shame the show wrote this so poorly as some half-assed plot device to get Jack to do something lone-wolfish. (The torture of the Secretary of Defense's son was much better handled, including addressing the security v. rights issue.)'


Emily - Apr 18, 2005 4:53:34 pm PDT #6723 of 10001
"In the equation E = mc⬧, c⬧ is a pretty big honking number." - Scola

Interesting piece about the "vampirism-porphyria connection" or lack of one: The Straight Dope.


Betsy HP - Apr 18, 2005 4:55:28 pm PDT #6724 of 10001
If I only had a brain...

But Lizzie Borden being acquitted is the bestest part. It's like Madeleine Smith -- you know damned well she did it. Both ladies got off because girls just didn't DO things like that. Hooray for the double standard.


Emily - Apr 18, 2005 5:03:24 pm PDT #6725 of 10001
"In the equation E = mc⬧, c⬧ is a pretty big honking number." - Scola

Huh. Never heard of Madeleine Smith. Sounds a lot like Strong Poison, though, doesn't it?


Fred Pete - Apr 18, 2005 5:04:54 pm PDT #6726 of 10001
Ann, that's a ferret.

((((Ouise and family))))


JenP - Apr 18, 2005 5:09:16 pm PDT #6727 of 10001

Because of Emily, I'm reading (off-and-on while doing other things) transcripts from Lizzie Borden's trial. And, no, I didn't know she was acquitted. Or about E.E. Cummings.


Steph L. - Apr 18, 2005 5:19:04 pm PDT #6728 of 10001
this mess was yours / now your mess is mine

Thing is, 2-5 really is impossible in the set of natural numbers (the set is closed under addition and multiplication, but not under subtraction or division).

This SO makes my head hurt.


Steph L. - Apr 18, 2005 5:25:11 pm PDT #6729 of 10001
this mess was yours / now your mess is mine

This shouldn't amuse me, but it does: Kasparov hit over head with chessboard.


tommyrot - Apr 18, 2005 5:25:40 pm PDT #6730 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

Thing is, 2-5 really is impossible in the set of natural numbers (the set is closed under addition and multiplication, but not under subtraction or division).

Ooh. I know what that means! My mathematical education hasn't completely disappeared.


Emily - Apr 18, 2005 5:28:56 pm PDT #6731 of 10001
"In the equation E = mc⬧, c⬧ is a pretty big honking number." - Scola

Ahem.

puts on math hat, which is strangely turban-like

There are several... aw hell, it just means that while you can add a natural number (1 and up, or in some definitions 0 and up, whole numbers only) to another and the result will be another natural number, and the same is true about multiplication, the same is not true for subtraction or division.

Um... here for definitions of the different sets, here for an explanation of the whole "closed under addition" thing.