frissonic

rentable for $4.00. just a thought. and it's well worth the $4.00. well, actually it'd be well worth the $20 to outright buy it. it's an awesome movie.

Good catch. ;)

Per http://sabres.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=36588, they employ 138 staff. not including players, concessions staff, etc. 300 may be a bit of a stretch, but still. there are a *lot* of people out of work other than just the players.

No. just ... no. One wife handing me a "honey do" list every Saturday is *plenty*, thank you. :)

the next time i even consider picking up the CI package will be the 2014/2015 season: the rest of the truncated season, and one full season. minimum. i'll pirate the games if i have to, but no--i will not pay the NHL ANYthing. tragically, my wife could not be happier about this whole thing. she's not the biggest hockey fan, and the loss of a season or 2 doesn't faze her in the least. utah women. 'nuff said. :)

1. hang in there man. you'll find something. 2. it could be a limitation of your browser implemented by IT. i have similar issues, in that i can't use various normal functions of firefox on ANY web page-- not just this one. frustrating, to be sure, but nothing you can do about it either. sucks.

actually, that's sadly true. some of the kids who tried this were actually little kids, whose parents were standing right there. since they didn't say anything, i just took their kids hand, moved it out of the bowl with a smile, and said, "can you say, 'trick or treat'? THEN i'll GIVE you some candy!!" and invariably, the young ones were fine. the older, snotty kids just looked pissed as hell when i moved the bowl out of their reach. i'm telling ya ... entitlement mentality *can* be stomped out, but you're right--it has to start with the parents teaching very basic, fundamental life concepts, like "something isn't yours unless you earn it," or "don't just take without asking ..." simple concepts, right? alas ... it's becoming a lost ideal. and as for you having to bury young kids for recklessness, that's gotta be hard, man. i feel for ya. there also won't be a buffalo @ phoenix GDT on 10 november, which pisses me off since i had excellent tix for that game. my girls were gonna get to go to their first NHL game, and i was going to get them on the path to rabid fandom. instead, we're spending that saturday and sunday in moab. great trade-off, but still sucks that there's no hockey.

good for you, man. words cannot adequately express how sh**ty one can feel when his or her job is just that unbearable. i made the jump 4 years ago from my old company to a company 40 miles away, and i *LOVED* it. i was excited to get up, go to work, come home, sometimes keep working after i got home ... it was huge. so much so that the gray spot i had on the back of my head went from the size of a small orange down to the size of a dime in a matter of weeks. i kid you not. happy hunting, man. i hope you find something that will make you happy and keep you gainfully employed. as for my halloween-related complaint, y'all know i live in utah. we wouldn't be utah if we didn't feel like we have to do things differently. halloween is no exception. someone came up with the brilliant idea years ago that holding a "trunk or treat" instead of traditional door-to-door candy collecting is much safer. it caught on like wildfire, and ... yah. so my wife got swept up in the idea. initially, i hated it. it robs me of the ability to take my kids around. it denys me the opportunity to stay home and pass out candy. on our morgue of a street, we already get precious few kids as it is. throw this trunk or treat concept into the mix, and we get literally 2 halloween door knocks a year. last night, we decided to participate in one of the local trunk or treats. my job was to man the back of the van, play halloween-themed music, and hand out candy. in the interest of full disclosure, it really was fun. lots of cute costumes; parents peddling their 6-month old in a ladybug costume, desperately attempting to get free candy (and i obliged ...); lots of neighborhood friends out and about ... so yah. it was fun. with the very notable exception of the jack-a** kids who tried to just take the candy out of my bowl instead of speaking the magic phrase and the giving of the candy. no--these tweens decided that it was already their candy, and tried grabbing handfuls. "hey, umm ... what are you doing?" "taking my candy." "i'm sorry ... your *what*?" "my candy ..." "son, it's not YOUR candy until *i* dump it in your bag. until then, it's in my bowl, and it's my candy." honest to God, this entitlement mentality is getting out of hand.

what stealth fighter do we have in the wings? the F-117 is permanently mothballed as of October 2008, to the point where some are on static displays in various AF museums. they're not combat capable. the F-22 *has* to be a success. This isn't some Joint Mission Planning System failure; this is a viable aircraft, already being supported and sustained. that right there is an *excellent* way to cut SOME budget--kill the JMPS program. concept: aircraft from all 3 branches share the sames mission planning software. i won't bore you with minutae of budget, but i will tell you this: it hasn't yet fielded. and it's been "in development" for WELL over 10 years. the 3 branches CANNOT settle on a core set of requirements, let alone single-branch add-ons that really make the whole "same software" concept obsolete.

You know, I just love how people throw that around. "It was all about oil." No. It was about finishing the job his father started in 1991. If Bush Sr. had taken him out then, Iraq wouldn't have happened. And even if it were about oil, do you think prices would be where they are? Gas prices went through the roof AFTER the war started. If oil were the main cause, then that flopped on its @ss. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2012_fotw741.html Which is why it took us 10 years to get bin Laden ...?

ummm ... from that "one front" stemmed 20 years of wars--10 each in Iraq and Afghanistan. and I would hardly call 9/11 a "small tactical strike," especially given that the original plan was for 10 planes--not 4.

I'm hearing more in a Cartman voice ... "Those aren't the words, Eric ..." Also, your avatar is giving me a seizure ...

When Obama spoke at the DNC in 2004, my first thought was, "If this guy ever runs for president, he'll be the greatest president ever." Charismatic, a visionary, "no blue or red--just people" ... it was a great, stirring speech. The thought of a country united under one president, working across the aisles and lions and lambs lying down together, real end of the world sh**. Then he ran. He ran left. Not middle. And the wool came off. I wanted to believe. I kept watching his campaign, hoping to see the 2004 Obama. He never showed up. I voted McCain. You can imagine who I'll vote for this time around.

You're assuming that there will be 0 conflicts in those 32 years. With "El Queso" (that's for sizzle), Iran and whatever other crisis evolves in the middle east, do you *really* think that a) there will be NO conflicts/wars in those 32 years? b) cutting our military to being battle-ready for one theater of operation is going to help us? our entire military premise is that we ARE capable of fighting to fronts at the same time--not one.

dumb a** ... that would be "El Queso." Sheesh ...

Okay, my mistake then. Yes--he was referring to the current Al Queda. But see, that's my argument with Obama. He says terrorism is the number one threat to the country, but then wants to slash the budget by over $500 billion? on the hope of a) making a dent in a hole that's 16 TRILLION, and b) that we are rid of Al Queda, when there's NO WAY we're rid of them! I think it's boldly two-faced of him.

Oh I believe you. It makes me sad that a relative handful, who have such a sweeping disregard for the tenets of their own religion, taint the rest of the Islamic community based upon sheer hatred for western civilization.

My thinking is all wrong. Really? And upon what astute observation would that assessment be based? Please. I'm up for discussing.

It's not fear mongering if it's fact. Economically crippling a county doesn't even begin to touch their over-arching goal, which you either blissfully missed or are intentionally ignoring. Not to mention that cutting the military is probably the worst way to try to stabilize the budget. There are SO many better ways to do that. Umm ... are you serious? I don't even know how to begin responding to this. "What exactly are you referring to?"? Is that seriously your question?

probably, but that doesn't change the truth of it either. burying our heads in the sand is definitely one way to get our ###### kicked again.

In 2006, I attended a conference in Las Vegas. General William Looney (ironically unfortunate last name, but whatever) presented a disturbing yet detailed report of what Al-Queda's vision is for the future. As nfreeman said, I will alsp preface that I mean no malice towards SFINC; I'm just telling you what was presented. Al Queda's goal is not just the destruction of America. They *hate* us, yes. They loathe western civilization, with all of our trappings, naked women, and "godlessness." They want us gone. That isn't even the tip of the iceberg though. They have a 50 year plan. They have a 100 year plan. Their goal, by the end of this century, is complete world domination of radical Islam. They are planning to overtake every single government. They have strongholds all over the place: Pakistan (yes, they do. LOTS of them), India (fringes, but working towards the interior. Again, 100 year plan), Egypt is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Syria, the Philippines ... they have outposts all over Europe. They *still* have sleeper cells everywhere. Lackawanna 7? That's nothing. Some things you don't need to be told, like they have no regard for human life--only to please Allah. There is no mission but this one singular goal--the extinction of every other religion and government. Sharia law for all. Now ... again, that conference was over 6 years ago. We've made great strides in taking down core Al Queda leadership, sure ... but this isn't some "boss" at the end of Diablo 4 or whatever where you kill the big monster and it's all over. This is a network of ridiculously large proportions that have leaders everywhere. Osama bin Laden is dead. Great. We just cut off one leg from a millipede. You think this terrorist stuff is over or we'll never see another September 11? Maybe we won't. Counter-terrorism intelligence gathering has been beefed up exponentially in the last 11 years--moreso in just the last 5. Sadly, as we just experienced with Libya and Benghazi, we know that intelligence gathering isn't an exact science and sometimes fails. The terrorists aren't gone. They're biding their time. Which brings us to Obama and Romney. Do we need a smarter, more advanced military? Absolutely. We can fight more efficiently with drones, faster aircraft, and heavier artillery (e.g. JDAMs, GBUs, EGBUs,WCMDs, JSOWs, MOPs, AIMs etc) ... but cutting defense spending necessarily cripples funding to something that's mission critical. Want a leaner, more advanced military? Great. Cut the costs of those exact munitions and their delivery systems (B-2, B-52, F-35, F-16, F-22, et al). Cut the costs of those, and you're left with something like a U-2 or a Predator scouting out locations of enemy deployment ... but what are you going to use to get to them? OHHHH ... that's right! We just lost funding to ... what?! I get the idea. Cut military spending. It's a huge budget. We do that, though, and we're going to be in deep sh**.

Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead ...

and to d4rksabre, congrats! getting back in the saddle is always a great feeling. :)

it's hilarious, made moreso by the fact that the guy is still conscious, and he's laughing his own @$$ off at the whole thing. i've watched it a few times. their laughter is infectious.

well, you don't, so the void has to be filled somehow ... :bag: EDIT: guess i should throw my own bit of fantastic-ness out there: long story short, cutting 60+ mile commute down to 6. got a phone call several months back regarding a position way closer to my house. given the environment, long, drawn-out hiring process is not at all uncommon. so i interviewed over the phone with a few of the execs, and they said they'd get back to me. that was in june. last week, i got the request to send and updated resume, highlighting key points from the revamped job description. read over the position details, tailored my resume, sent it back to them, and in return, they sent a "letter of commitment" for me to sign, should the company move forward with a contract they're attempting to win. according to them, they're on a *very* short list of competing organizations for this contract. they expect to know by the end of next week if they win the contract. so while it's not a lock, it's pretty F'N fantastic if it does go through. and even if it doesn't, i still work for a great company, and that's really great in and of itself.