bbk

Spoilers below. (Highlight the below text.) It's interesting because both theories are present in the graphic novel that the show is based on. It is proven later on in the series that the bites are not the source of the cause for reanimation as a zombie... And yes, Lori is pregnant, most likely with Shane's kid, which is found out in like one of the first few issues of the graphic novel (before the above is discovered). I doubt what was said has to do with everybody being infected otherwise the doctor and the whole CDC thing would have been a monumental waste of story and setting. Think about it, the doctor knows that everybody is infected, but pointlessly takes everybody's blood prior to welcoming them to make sure they're not infected, and then jabbers on about not knowing anything about curing the disease? Yea, the writing was very weak in the first season, but I doubt it was that bad-- even if that whole CDC/doctor thing was never even in the original story. But taking someone's blood, and seeing a discrepancy that points to someone being pregnant makes more sense. Plus the whole affair between Lori and Shane and it's massive impact in the original story (not that I think Rick knows that it was Shane that most likely impregnated Lori... yet. Some of the teasers for the rest of the season kind of pointed that he might find out). Of course the show has already deviated, and most likely will continue too, from the source material... so, we'll see.

I would guess that Jeremy's comment/theory has more to do with the original source material...

The AK division is at least being competitive, with three teams, potentially, being 4-2 after this week. On a personal note, glad that my team is finally coming alive after a terrible start.

I too am glad that Kirkman and Darabount made the move to fire the writers (even if Darabount is no longer involved IIRC). Writing was pretty weak throughout, with the fanboys (myself included) and the strong characters really pulling the show through. I have high hopes for season 2, and am very, very much looking forward to it's start in less then two hours now. ETA: If you look on the official show's website under the schedule tab, it lists the upcoming episode titles, as well as a short description. While it is not much to go on, definitely piques the interest moving forward!

Premieres tonight @ 9PM EST on AMC! 90 minutes of goodness! ETA: AMC will do a marathon for those who want to catch up (and don't have Netflix - as they have the whole season streaming) starting at 2:30PM EST according to what their schedule says.

We definitely don't disagree. The status quo approach by the military and intelligence communities (IC) are not effective with the shift in the threat paradigm. I think we're starting to see this as the military and intelligence community make their changes. The problem that both face sometimes is convincing the budget committee with what is important moving forward. Should the DOD invest in 155 CH-47s, or should we consider adding more capabilities for the IC? Should we concern ourselves with countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, or do we already have the capabilities for achieving certain missions related to those area (let's face it, those two are a political thing, and not a national security/military issue at this point, which is sad because of the investment of human lives that goes into funding them-- as well as our tax dollars). The budget committees find that it is sometimes easier convincing themselves and the sheeple about external threats that are more concrete and "sexier" than theoretical possibilities (some that have not even yet occurred). But there are changes being made like I said. In cases like this, I don't mind the down-sizing of the military, given it becomes a lean, mean machine compared to it's current composition (bloated as a means of filling in the gaps). I don't mind chipping away at the brigade combat teams, and reallocating those resources to components within the IC and other related agencies, or even the national budget. However, to a certain degree, maintaining the geopolitical situations around the world is for the best benefit of national security. Political shenanigans aside, I wouldn't want to see Pakistan become a failed state or have a military coup-- have certain parties acquire 15-20KT nuclear weapons and other related materials. I wouldn't want to see DPRK become a large-scale arms trafficker. Iran, in it's current state, does not pose a threat, but with emerging technologies, both on their part and others, could change that. Plus, if Iraq fails, Iran could always come in and save the day with political savvy/land grab-- something that they have been wanting since before there was even a thought of an America. So, then the question becomes, does the status quo help keep things in perspective moving forward, affording a decent amount of security, as we make the shift in the threat paradigm. Or is the status quo in fact detrimental to realizing the emerging threats? While there are smarter people than me figuring this out, I think the country is realizing that we need to change with the emerging threats, and are doing it very slowly, on the down-low. Related, I think people will start to realize that PATRIOT Act is a moot point in the next decade or so, and maybe it will be discarded in favor of a more specific policy (or I hope).

Unless something has changed from when I was there last a few weeks ago, it is still $3

Just came in, and I haven't had the chance to walk around with it yet over an extended amount of the time, but from what I can tell it won't be bothersome in any way. Has a good balance, and the ergonomics seem pretty darn solid. The weak point seems like it'll be the clip, but I'll have to find out. What I really dig though is that it's made out in Golden, CO, which is a great town, and I'm always glad to support the cause that Spyderco has promised (in giving back a percentage of their profit from the Native to the Native American tribes in the area).

I wouldn't go as far as to say that there aren't threats with faces in the world. The US and its allies are just very good at what they do, and have revamped their tactics, and, in some cases, have overstepped their authority to do so (like the UBL raid, not that I disagree with the outcome). Iran is definitely not a joke, nor is Russia-- if it went down the YBR. Same goes with countries like Pakistan and North Korea. All have the capabilities and potential of doing enough pushing on the see-saw that is geopolitics that their actions could indeed trigger a domino effect. Most countries, who could be potentially involved, realize, like the mob, that you don't make money when you're fighting (unless you're the US, and everybody pays you for the technology/resources to fight wars). The biggest threat though is still asymmetric warfare. The two prominent include terrorism and cyberwarfare.With all of the changes made in counter-terrorism, there is still the large threat of a multitude of small-scale yet surgical strikes that could, again, cause domino effects. It's the "Easter Egg" story; terrorists detonate a small-scale dirty bomb, or some type of WMD, that maybe causes casualties of around a few hundred. Enough to scare, but not be absolutely catastrophic (relatively speaking; any loss of life is of course catastrophic). They then say that they have five more that they'll detonate in succession over the next five weeks. The government kicks things into overdrive, and find all five. The government makes a press announcement that they've saved the day, and people should go about their business. Then a few weeks later, maybe a month, an identical bomb is detonated, and an announcement is made from the group saying that they have more UXOs planted. In short, this would cause a massive amount of panic, even if the terrorists were bluffing. Civilians wouldn't go to work, business would suffer, and people would be living, again, in a heightened state of fear. There would also be a breakdown in public trust (more so) between the masses and the government. The same results could occur if there were an incident involve cyberwarfare-- which seems even more likely as the US is seemingly a bit behind the curve. Would there ever be a conventional invasion? No, I don't think so. I don't think it would even be possible unless someone found a way to cripple the EW capabilities of the US (which is next to impossible). The above two threats of course bypass our EW simply because we don't necessarily have a dependable, 100% effective EW. Further, would someone even have to invade the US to truly ruin it? If someone were able to throw this country into chaos, I think the people within this country could tear each other up plenty without having a single round fired from a foreign, enemy combatant.

I had an incident of ear-pro failing when I, and at least ten others, were simultaneously firing at a high rate. I haven't forgotten the importance since then, to include activities beyond the range-- including working with any type of work shop machinery or even mowing the lawn.

No issues here. The whole process took awhile, but didn't run into any issues.

Ha, that progress was regarding other topics, and not something as murky as politics and their shenanigans. But I'm more surprised you remembered that conversation.

Wait, so, people who have been authorized by physicians for medical marijuana are disqualified, but politicians with felony charges aren't (and can get a conceal permit)?

Your posts were never deleted, just Unapproved until I could further see what sh-t you were stirring up, creeper. My advice is that if you have personal issues with a person, contact them personally. If you want to air your dirty laundry everywhere, I'm sure most people don't want to deal with it-- and, in most cases, it will be dealt with. As a member of this forum, I have seen people like you come and go. Unfortunately, in that same process many of the longstanding members, who do not hold any sway over how things are run here, have left. I say unfortunately because while no special favors were done for these members, they contributed in a positive manner, and the void left by their choice to not contribute anymore is a loss for everyone. As a member, and not a moderator, I respect what you're trying to discuss. I respect it because I choose to take that mentality that you might have something to possibly contribute. I do not hold anything against you because I think your perspective and mannerisms and first impressions are ridiculous because maybe there is hope. Maybe you can salvage what it is that annoys me as a reading member of this forum. As a moderator, yes, I again respect your opinion and perspectives that you had shared. I respect them even if I do not agree because it is just fine to not share opinions, but it is not fine to insult and berate someone because you do not agree with them. As a moderator, I see that your actions have indeed fallen into berating. This is unacceptable, and, in turn, I, as a moderator, Unapproved your posts until I could get a better picture of what was going on so that the inciting and petty squabbles amongst people on a public forum (both figuratively and literally) would be squashed. This action of squashing has nothing to do with your opinion or your perceived opinion of moderators protecting certain members. The squashing has to do with your lack of tact and, well, overt use of cursing to attack someone personally. As both a member and moderator, I won't add to any discussion because what has been said has been said. I only have to add that if you want to make a show out of yourself, do it in a better way. There are plenty of positive things you can do, and still maintain that spotlight you so crave. If you have any personal questions regarding this matter, please contact me. And, again for good measure, if you have concerns or questions, please contact me by personal message. (Yes, I wrote it twice because everybody always seems to fail to read this line, and then continues their discourse publicly, which is, in fact, counter-productive.)

Source: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/10/ap-dogs-greet-returning-soldiers-100911/ --- To abbreviate the above article, there is a program being conducted at some Army posts where canines are being allowed to interact with returning Soldiers. Studies, not necessarily related to the military, show that interacting with pets, dogs in this case, help relieve stress and a myriad of other physical stress-related ailments. For Soldiers returning from deployments, de-briefing, going through courses sometimes, worrying about things on the home front (bills, mortgages, missing family and their own pets), etc., the return is definitely as stressful as leaving. As a lover of dogs and a veteran, I can definitely appreciate this somewhat unorthodox approach to helping Soldiers re-assimilate from the battlefield. I see this growing and becoming even bigger. As an academic, I'm really intrigued because the study of interaction between humans and pets, specifically canines, has really gained ground in the past decade or so. Recent evidence shows that unlike what researchers and scientists first had assumed, canines most likely adapted to become pets, and were not forced to become pets. (Similar to the interaction between Kevin Costner's character and the wolf in 'Dances with Wolves'.) This theory, with evidence, has paved the way to maybe prove why the bond between humans and canines is so innately strong-- with Soldiers in this case benefiting. Any returning troops experience this first-hand? It would be interesting to hear about that.

CLP. Tried grease, wasn't a fan. If I could find a bottle of SLIP, I'd give it a try... always out of stock when I want to get it

I was typing the same thing, Tony, and then decided that the rhetoric question was probably not worth it. But since I'm already here, if you, tblant, have to worry about it this much, you're either over-thinking things, or living in a bad, bad place. And if you're serious about OPSEC, the last thing you should do is tell your plan on a public forum.

The current iteration of iTunes is so... well, ancient. Apple knows this, as does the rest of the market. The trend, in regards to most all tech, is streaming-- something like Spotify, which is the company making waves these days. Streaming music, movies, TV shows, games, etc. My advice is to consider the possibilities moving forward instead of looking at what is in the market today.

iOS 5 is going to change how iPhones sync. The new software will allow for iPhones to sync remotely without plugging it in (which is a huge PITA, agreed), though there will be a maximum distance I believe. iOS 5 is really going to improve and upgrade the software, utilizing more of the hardware. This is, from what I've read, the most comprehensive update to the iOS yet, and the added features and streamlining of current features seems pretty awesome. Also, coming with the new software will be iCloud... finally. So, then the real question is when does iOS5 come out? Hopefully "soon" means soon.

Ordered a Spyderco Native for EDC. I'm looking forward to it's arrival.

It's alright. I was hoping it would do better, but it seems that it is possibly headed towards a mid-season cancellation. Maria Bello is no Helen Mirren, but it seems a bit unfair to hold the weight of the original show against this new one. Which really gets me thinking about how the US is doing so many remakes of UK shows... hmm. Yea, I would recommend it too-- especially if it doesn't go beyond 12-13 episodes.

Eh, a true SHTF moment in NJ, I'm going to rely more on my wits and a good pair of shoes than any firearm. Whether you lock down the house, become a criminal and try to overtake another property, etc., good luck fending off the other 8 million people.

RIP to one of the last true innovators of the last few decades.

Eh, I wouldn't treat Anon like a joke. While they have their roots in places like 4chan (where the term "Anonymous" has it's supposed origins... anybody who is familiar with 4chan would understand), Reddit, etc, Anon has become a multi-tier threat capable of quite a bit. While DDOS is their calling card, there have been other (unverified) claims of attacks coming from people affiliated with Anon. I said it a few years ago when Anon started making waves (when I was still in the service and involved in the IC, when CYBERCOM was first being created) that they were delving into the deep end... and that I didn't think they would be ridiculous and stupid enough... and then they started attacking Visa, Amazon, BOA, Chase, public CIA sites, etc. While they have claimed, officially, that they were not involved with some of those attacks, its not like Anonymous is a collective group with some council members or something. It's like the Guy Fawkes mask (hence a symbol for them), where anybody uses the name as a means to an end. So, while Anon has officially said that they are not behind the threat to Wall St, I don't think it is a threat to be taken lightly as other members or people just masquerading as Anon, who are more than capable, might still pull this off come next Monday. This is just my opinion, but I doubt that they will be massively successful. It's one thing to attack a company that caters to the masses... it's another thing to attack an institution propped up by the wealthiest people in the world. As it has been said, if they do decide to go through with it, they'll find themselves up against the FBI's cyberwarfare team, NSA, plus the military's CYBERCOM (and probably other specialists being hired out by firms). Following that would be a kick at the door.