A Great Collection of audio clips from the movies.

« February 8, 2004 - February 14, 2004 | Main | February 22, 2004 - February 28, 2004 »
A Great Collection of audio clips from the movies.
02/20/2004 in Film | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
02/20/2004 in Music | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (2)
But only in Texas!
02/20/2004 in Humor | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
From Human Events:
What would the Massachusetts high court do?Declare Romney in contempt? Order Romney's arrest? Tell state employees to start accepting requests from homosexuals for marriage licenses? Romney could tell the employees to politely reject such requests.
How, then, would the court enforce its decision?
Answer: It would have to tell the legislature to impeach Romney. But by then, Romney would be a hero to traditionalists of all parties, and impeachment would only make him a martyr.
Should Romney take such a stand, it would be a blow for freedom in America. For we Americans today live under a judicial dictatorship that our Founding Fathers never intended and would never have tolerated. Yet, we need not resort to muskets to be rid of it. We only have to consult our Constitution.
In Article III, Congress is empowered to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As University of South Carolina legal scholar William Quirk argues in a new paper, "The Fourth Choice," all Congress has to do is pass the Defense of Marriage Act again, and add a one-line amendment that denies to the Supreme Court any right to review cases brought under this act. That would send the issue of homosexual marriage back to the states where it belongs.
There, legislatures and governors should decide it. And they can do so by ignoring court orders to alter state law to conform to the prejudices of judges. Thus the people, through their elected representatives, can decide these social issues that so divide us all.
02/20/2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
. . . it seems to me that Mel Gibson is a marketing genius. All the buzz around The Passion of the Christ is really Guerilla Marketing at its best, eh?
02/19/2004 in Business, Film | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
02/19/2004 in Art/Design | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Forty years and I never knew these! Here are the lyrics to Dominique from “The Singing Nun” (Movie lyrics) sung by Debbie Reynolds:
02/19/2004 in Film, Music | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Gives you accurate info on all the chain letters circulating via e-mail on the internet.
02/19/2004 in Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Q: Hi Danica, my advanced calculus prof asked us to prove that the square root of 2 is not a rational number. Any suggestions about where to start? Also, I really loved your Wonder Years show, and I’ve seen you on West Wing, too. Thanks a bunch.
Danica Answers: Thanks! Okay- as with most “disprove this” proofs, start by writing down the hypothesis (as if the thing you are trying to disprove were true) and then work with the equation until you get a contradiction. Here the hypothesis is that the square root of 2 is a rational number, and we’re going to show that it’s a faulty hypothesis. In “math language” this is equivalent to saying that you can write the square root of 2 as a fraction of whole numbers. We can assume that this fraction looks like p/q where p and q do not divide each other; that is, they share no common factors. In other words, we are assuming the fraction is written in reduced form. This is an important detail, which is used very often in “proofs by contradiction.” ALWAYS assume that your variable fractions are written in reduced form.
Now it’s time to work with the expression and hope for a contradiction to appear. So, let’s square both sides of the equation:Sqrt(2) = p/q and we get: 2=p2/q2.
But if q does not divide evenly into p, then q is not a factor of p. (the fraction was already reduced). Then q2 cannot be a factor of p2, either. Then p2/q2 cannot be a whole number, so it can’t be equal to 2! There’s the contradiction we needed, which tells us that our original hypothesis was false. We proved it!
02/19/2004 in Favorites, Film, Science, Television | Permalink | Comments (1)
From Wham-O:
02/19/2004 in Gadgets/Toys | Permalink | Comments (3)