Dudde

...did we just compare indecent exposure to manslaughter? Hardly on the same debate grounds - personally I REALLY don't see what harm would have come of this child for seeing some guy in his house naked. Maybe that kid thinks he wants to grow up to walk around his own house nekked - SO DO I I can see like a fine or something if he habitually exposes himself to children at a bus stop, but I wouldn't offer jack for compensation to people affected, especially some lady walking through his yard to begin with - 8:30 or not, he doesn't pay rent to have to wear clothing just so people can convenience themselves with his property Syntho-sis, sir, I see where you're coming from, I just don't see the actual harm in kids seeing a naked guy. or girl. would be. Can you elaborate?

I would find it unwise for Obama to ignore fox outright and let them continue, taking into account the ridiculous things they make up and how many people actually believe what they're told... I must disagree sir. I thought we had this discussion somewhere else. Didn't fox themselves state they were like reading the opinion section of a newspaper? They're definitely not in any league close to the next worst org., unfortunately they're loud and annoying, so a lot of people like to believe them

I'm glad the police found a noble cause to dedicate themselves to all places I check online say this was at 5:30 AM... hopefully that police department is hit hard for wasting time and money, frivolous legal suits in this country are getting out of hand

bascule is right, there can be some ginormous file extensions depending on how your settings are input - sorry, from his examples I went straight to commercial applications. And while feasible to be used in the business world, any R&D person or IT guy would faint at a 500GB single file

I used to chew on pens and stuff all the time too, not just gum helps most of the time - for the people I know anyway. Something about distracting yourself physically so your mind can concentrate without fidgeting and losing focus. Wrigley's is probably much more scientific about it, I just thought I'd throw it out there.

You have to remember that while storage spaces are getting larger, software developers are constantly trying to minimize the space in which their software takes up. It would certainly be cost efficient to keep doing so too, because as you witnessed on ebay, storage space can become quite a feat to purchase (though why anyone would keep that much data on one disk is ridiculous) So while Bungie is developing a better 3D engine for Halo games in the future, they're still trying to find a way to make the new program take the same, or less, space as the original. This means it hopefully won't come out with 2-3 disc games in the future, thus saving an extra $.30 or so per game from the extra disc it would consume (in reality the number is a bit higher) 30 cents translated into 500 million copies can get a bit expensive. of course storage space will continue to get bigger if companies continue to grow, 1 million employee profiles are hard to store on the same disk space you use for 500,000 employees.

I vote for linking Bascules thread here Also, the fact that they're egging on protests without caring to educate their own party And they don't seem to care that they've been called on it, they seem to vote no to anything pushed forward by the democratic legislature edit: I'll post links later when I get a chance

Agreed. That really is ridiculous, I was pretty ticked when I first heard about that too...you think Canada would accept me to her huge freezing country?

USnews, cleveland.com and tpmdc all seem to agree kind of with my earlier referenced post, as well as some controversy over whether the healthcare plan only affects spending and taxes on the federal level. Apparently reconciliation has a rule about that. Wiki EDIT: and because I was posting when bascule was I'm completely in agreement with his last hypothesis, it's a pretty weak sales tactic because it's cheap, but it works well and pretty consistently if you know how to manipulate

I can't remember where I heard it, but I'm pretty sure I've heard a republican along the lines say that it better be a partisan agreed bill, or they were promising to dismantle once they get in office or something stupid like that. I'll look for a link. Beside that, I've heard Obama say a few times they wanted to come to a mutually agreed conclusion in order to prolong the affects and keep it in motion once he was out of office.

I find it pretty distasteful that conservatives are being so predictable and don't care about it. Really the only defense that I've heard against a public option is because the conservatives thing the government is trying to take over the country - and while sounding stupid coming from the guys who've made pretty significant steps in that direction, it also limits the number of choices we have to try to fix something that the entire world knows is broken. Maybe I wouldn't be annoyed as much if they'd use some thought and come up with a feasible plan for everyone, but I haven't seen that effort yet. Edit: that video was pretty hilarious, and I can't help but partially agree with the guy. Maybe one of the mods could rename the thread to

I do agree, as stated earlier I'm not really for this approach. The only reason I'm against it, however, is because if something does happen in this respect, that the people involved will expect the government to do something about it, whether federally or judicially. Otherwise, I'm up for the way that teaches the most people the best lesson. And it seems the U.S needs a huge lecture on fiscal responsibility

I use epsom salt everytime I get a bee sting (mild to mean allergy), there's no danger to it whatsoever to my experience. But I don't see it helping you lose fat in any parts of your body

I've also seen on several occasions, including the above video, a bunch of conservatives sitting around with signs that are a little more hostile than I like to be when using my brain to solve problems. Things like 'not armed...yet' or 'it's time for another revolution' This is a good summary

I'm kinda leaning with Mr. Skeptic on this one. Even if the church were accepting all funds and funneling some under for a new wing on the church or something, the people paying into the fund are accountable for knowing what goes on. If I understand, is it just a group of people in the same faith who think they're helping each other out? If so, they may be better or worse than an insurance company but the people it's affecting seem to be happy with it. I agree that they should be more informed on the books to make sure unforunate incidences don't occur, but it's really on them as a private group to make sure that's what happens. It kinda looks like an insurance company without the company. Doesn't seem so bad.

This is actually a fantastic set of practices. I don't necessarily see a lot of people abusing the points from people who disagree with them - although i don't get to see the buttons pushed either...

a ha ha I said PCIx, /facepalm anyway. I recently bought a pretty high end card that was rubbish out of the box, not sure what was up with it, but then bought a lower end version of almost the exact card and my computer is in love with it. You may check out an electronic store with a return policy and just try it out - you know, testing the card out and such. If it works, probably the card, if not, probably not the card, and you can even return the card saying it doesn't work! Actually someone at best buy told me to do that, soooo...just following advice

It looks like on that motherboard there was only 1 PCIx slot, which is probably what the card is hooked into. Normally I'd try another slot, but you can always at least reseat the card in the motherboard. if you're like me and just like troubleshooting, you can also hook the video card into someone else's computer and try letting them run with it for a day to see if the result is reproducable.

Definitely wouldn't support it, but I doubt I'd oppose it from being passed into law as I really don't see this affecting me in any way, shape or form. I do hold the same reservations as expressed earlier however, it's entirely too easy to mentally coerce someone from a young age so they think they'll grow up to marry a specific someone in the family.

I do believe it creates more efficiency, but I'm assuming you had something prepared in advance to argue that? If so, please post it, if not..then I don't see why you made the point. However, now that you mention it, it does seem interesting that you think treating people equally would be detrimental to the country's efficiency - not that it's entirely on point, but how would legalizing gay marriages affect society? That's actually a question I've been asking for some time. EDIT: actually, after a little afterthought as well, I'm not sure increasing society's efficiency is the only thing we should be striving for. That can come as some pretty extreme costs. In my opinion, we should be striving for a balance between efficiency, and the people's happiness - that's what I'm going for anyway

Come on, I usually respect your posts, you can do better than that. and when was the last time the United States was considered efficient? Equality isn't exclusively a religious belief, and in fact, I don't know a whole lot of religions who practice it.

anyway, back to Severian's post While I disagree with your attempt to group logical thinking with blatant opinions by calling them tradition, I can say that the tradition of treating others with respect and learning to cope with others, and their differences, in close proximity is necessary for a species with our numbers. Thus, calling it tradition or religion is all fine if you want (though I strongly appose the calling it religious, but don't really care to argue the point) - there are no real reasons using logic (as personal interests matter little in preventing rights from being given) to prevent same sex marriages. If anybody is offended by my calling arguments against same sex marriage "blatant opinions" - good, please call me on it and prove me wrong. You mean beside the fact that they're doing the exact same thing as others and getting less for it? By denying same sex marriages, I believe many gays are getting the message that they're okay to be discriminated against - because that's essentially what we're doing. The reason I believe that is because a lot of them have expressed the same to me, so far as to keep living in fear or secrecy because of what others think. It doesn't matter how many people you're affecting - if you're causing any distress whatsoever to a group of citizens, I would hope you'd have a reason better than "because I don't believe it's right"

But the opinions and views of a certain religion/tradition can hardly be used to impose restrictions on someone who completely disagrees with or hasn't heard of that religion. Thus, I can't make anybody else celebrate or stop celebrating Christmas, and I'll probably not make a genuine run with Kwanzaa. By 'not valid,' I think Mooey is alluding to the fact that we're not (supposed to be) using these facts and opinions to make legislation. Whatever happened to the mentality: link

Perfectly valid points? I'll do a google search (when I'm not at work,) but I still havne't seen any billboards hosting sex chatlines to begin with, a practice I'm not sure I'll see change just because same sex marriage is legalized. Late night tv, yes, but I'm quite sure I'll care about the same sex ones as much as I care about the heterosexual ones.... Then we should have couples sign a contract promising to bear children. If they break it, we can charge them back taxes for everything we've wasted on a marriage that didn't bear children =0 All silliness aside, that's simply not the case, and we don't necessarily need to keep our species goin, I figure we're doing pretty well. Not to mention all the non-married couples who have kids that we don't give these same benefits to. an intolerant culture who can't accept outside beliefs is crap, and not one I'd like to be part of. I'm sure this same argument would have been used when referencing almost every part of our culture to begin with anyway - it's hardly fair to make this point when our culture depends on letting others in, at least up to this point. So which society just happened to start itself with a premise to allow same sex marriage? So far it's had to have been something debated over to my knowledge, though I could quite easily be mistaken. EDIT: I forgot also, that a lot of same sex couples are trying to adopt or have foster homes. To take care of those children where the heterosexual parents apparently had something not work out...I don't see children as any kind of legit excuse to prevent same sex marriage.

We actually haven't covered this part yet: ...but it's slightly ridiculous, I haven't seen any signs around saying 'be heterosexual' to be honest, I doubt we're going to put up billboards saying it once gay marriage is legalized. If you're seeing billboards around for sex chatlines, maybe we have a different issue to address at that point. ??? what does it matter? Specifically the part about what choice he has in the matter - kind of sounds like you're denoting that others have a say in what sexuality they choose - that part has been covered, but I thought I'd point it out anyway,