It's called a blaster, Will, a word that tends to discourage experimentation. Now, if it were called the Orgasmater, I'd be the first to try your basic button press approach.

Xander ,'Get It Done'


The Crying of Natter 49  

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.


Allyson - Jan 24, 2007 12:50:20 pm PST #5604 of 10001
Wait, is this real-world child support, where the money goes to buy food for the kids, or MRA fantasyland child support where the women just buy Ferraris and cocaine? -Jessica

I wonder if my agency is supposed to give me a 1090.

Hm.

Tax refund. Yum.


§ ita § - Jan 24, 2007 12:51:27 pm PST #5605 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

You'd think that you'd find some residue.

I'm mostly of the mind that it's hard to prove it wasn't a spaceship, since we really have no idea what one would look like. Which is very different (for me) from believing it was a spaceship. I'm generously Schrödingery about the whole thing.

Thanks for the insent, Kalshane. Somehow I managed to misplace my phone. At least it wasn't until after I left one message and talked to the other person of the unsettling calls. This one will be a cakewalk in comparison.

Once the hardware manifests itself, that is.


tommyrot - Jan 24, 2007 12:53:30 pm PST #5606 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.

My favorite theory is that Tesla set it off:

Ooh! Maybe Tesla and Edison each built giant flying robots, and the explosion was the result of the two robots battling it out in space!

The large amount of energy required to cause such an event could easily be achieved by the process of electrical resonance in which power could be built up over a period of days. Electrical resonance was a process well known at that time. This power build up over a period of time corresponds to the "bright nights" reported over Europe days prior to the explosion.

WTF is electrical resonance? Sounds like something someone made up for The X Files.


Miracleman - Jan 24, 2007 12:55:02 pm PST #5607 of 10001
No, I don't think I will - me, quoting Captain Steve Rogers, to all of 2020

You have been a participant in the biggest interdimensional cross rip since the Tunguska blast of 1909!

Disappointed me no end when I learned the blast actually happened in 1908. Damn you, Dr. Stantz, and damn me for believing in you!!


Nilly - Jan 24, 2007 12:55:21 pm PST #5608 of 10001
Swouncing

I'm going to go home before I fall asleep sitting and the other students find me here like this in the morning. Bye! Have fun storming the Natter!

I hope I'll get to post with y'all soon again.


Hayden - Jan 24, 2007 12:55:55 pm PST #5609 of 10001
aka "The artist formerly known as Corwood Industries."

Bye!


beth b - Jan 24, 2007 12:57:25 pm PST #5610 of 10001
oh joy! Oh Rapture ! I have a brain!

Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus ( this is from the headline)

[link]


DavidS - Jan 24, 2007 12:57:41 pm PST #5611 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

Electrical resonance - I'm realizing that while there's plenty of science behind electrical engineering, it's still pretty fucking magical in a way.


DavidS - Jan 24, 2007 12:58:19 pm PST #5612 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus

Well, they already suspended it so that's kind of moot.


Burrell - Jan 24, 2007 1:06:51 pm PST #5613 of 10001
Why did Darth Vader cross the road? To get to the Dark Side!

From what I understand, they only suspended habeas corpus for non-citizens who are considered enemy combatants. But still, if the Constitution doesn't, in their reading, guarantee habeas corpus, there's nothing to stop them from drafting a law that suspends it for, say, citizens charged with treason or some such.

But we have a lot of smart lawyers here. Is there solid legal support for the claim that a Constitutional prohibition against suspending or abridging a right is not, in fact, a Constitutional guarantee of such a right?