YA know, the only thing that scares me, and I in no way mean this as being anti-gay, or anti-black/white/blue/purple, BUT, your comments make me somewhat worry about what WILL be socially acceptable down the road. I understand that Marriage should be defined as Two Consenting adults, however that definition opens the door for Incestous Marriage, and yes I know that has been used as a stop gap to allay the whole hearted bigotry of the whole Anti-Gay marriage crowd, however, 50 years ago, a SIGNIFICANT percent of America's population thought that homosexuality was "morally wrong, and disgusting" (I do NOT agree with that, merely using it as a stepping stone to my next point). So here we are now, 50 years later, saying, not only is being a homosexual not a personal PREFERENCE but actually a Genetic predisposition, but also, that even if it wasn't who am I to tell YOU who you can't marry. Well that's all well and good, but you are giving rise to the "Slippery Slope" effect. I whole heartedly beleive that homosexuals should have every right that anyone else has, and I'd be the first person in line to stand up with them as a straight man and fight for that right, HOWEVER it's a scary thought to have when you see just how far we've slid the Societal norms and Values, and while I do agree with how things are TODAY, I fear that 50 years from now, people will feel that as long as they are consenting and in LOVE, then who am I to tell YOU that you can't marry your blood-sister, or who am I to tell NAMBLA they are wrong.
Please don't misunderstand my opinion and my concerns. I understand I'll still be pianted with the hatred and bigotry brush, but I merely am trying to point out that at some point, we have things much worse to fear than simple Homosexual marriage, and we are laying the framework today, for tomorrow's freak shows. Marriage should be completely out of the realm of politics, but we do need to (as someone above said) draw a line in the sand that will make this issue JUST about THIS issue, and not lay a foundation for people who are truly Morally wrong (and yes I mean you NAMBLA! I hope one of you sick f$#% is reading this and I hope you DO hate me for what I say) to build their evil intent on.
I think any legislation passed to allow same sex marriage should have language put in that truly defines marriage as an institution, and makes absolutely NO allowance for any further (mis)interpretation of it's definition.
Then along that same vein, why is it ok for people to be told they can't do drugs, or what form of medication they can and can't buy over the counter. What's to stop two consenting Siblings from marrying, or for that matter, what right, in anyway, does the government have, to dictate ANY action I take on my own property or put into my own body, or do to my own family?
There's the slippery slope for you, when people start screaming about the GOVERNMENT prohibiting them from doing something that only impacts THEM, you open the gates to allow ANYTHING personal, that is prohibited by the Governemtn, to be repealed (which I agree with) BUT I wonder, how many people who use that point, really wanna see Heroin or Cocaine sold in Pharmacy's and convenience stores, And I know we all chuckle when we see the Crack vending machines on Futurama, but when it's real life, will you be soooo quick to say that Government should or shouldn't have some say? I am willing to bet a LOT of people who thump on this ideal would very quickly shy away from repealing Drug laws.
That both people, speaking to the lack of diversity in Poland, felt they had to post those comments as ACs, I understand this is based on speculation, but it's sad.
Our PC world, or at least America's PC world, is killing thought...period
And I bet your the same person that would piss and moan that someone had the audacity to collect welfare. Those "scumbags" have at one point had my lovely wife amongst their ranks (not debt collection but telemarketing) and I tell you what you frickin asshat, that job paid the bills, and that was ALL it did. Those people need to feed and care for the ones they love just as much as you do douchebag, so try putting three seconds of thought into the assinine comments you spew before you mentally vomit on my monitor again.
I understand that, my point is that our bodies have some tendency to have organs perform functions that in today's world are overkill, i.e the fact that you can survive with only ONE kidney.
I wasn't implying I didn't understand their function, or that I thought I could EASILY live without one of my kidneys, however I was commenting on how I find it interesting, that due in large part to modern medicine, and our diets, we can function, in some cases thrive, while missing entire ORGANS, I think that is "neat" and also makes me curious on how contaminated things like our blood and urine must have been to require 2 kidneys and other "non-essential" organs
Anyone ever wonder why the human body seems to have organs that we don't "need". I wonder if studies had ever been done to correlate any other "useless" organs, to early death/higher risk of disease.
You can lose a kidney, gall bladder, tonsils, etc. and they MUST have either had a use at one point or are meant for a very specific, yet seldom used task, i.e the Spleen being a repository for big white blood cells
You honestly propose that the FDIC would have had the FUNDS available to cover that substantial of a collapse?
You think we'll be paying for the BAILOUT for years? Imagine if we had tried to compensate EVERY bank in America through the FDIC (which also, in terms of individuals, only protects (now) up to $250,000 and not everyone worth that was a pig)
You "avoid" the bailouts, and you drown the 98% with the upper 2%'s greed.
They did the right thing, the government prevented large companies from destroying Main St. and they also opened EVERYONE's eyes to the fact that corporations nearly took everything from everyone.
All money "lost" to pirating or used games was never theirs to begin with. You can't relate actual monetary value to a "potential" customer.
In other words If I sell 10 Games but 50 people play it I did not lose 40 sales Because I was only accounting the original 10 games, I technically shouldn't even be aware of the "stolen" 40 let alone basing any accounting on it.
While I agree with what you're saying to an extent, I think you are failing to figure in not only the fact that some people's imagination is so limited that they are truly impressed by a theatrical version of a book they've read, and also I think your average person enjoys watching a movie based on a book just to see if they shared an image of a charachter or scene with others, and also to see the awesome parts of the stories visualized for them (Like when the Fellowship is floating down the river to Rohan, I thought a lot of those scenes were very visually appealing) I am glad I saw the movies, though I do agree that they don't compare to the books
Have your child read them first, then after a time, allow them to see the movies. IMO
Or put a bit more simply, there is no profit, because the "real profit" is distributed out as a calculated expense, so basically, they factor in their "net income" prior to the distribution of the film, and factor it as a "cost of creation" expense, because they guarantee a set figure as a "return of investment" expense, thus it zeros out the bottom line.
I concur, an artist's royalties should be considered an expense just like any other "cost" associated with making a movie. After all, they are purchasing the rights of an idea someone else created to base their film on, thus they are taking what they make (gross income) and subtracting expenses (paying actors,directors,producers, AND WRITERS) however for some reason, authors are allowing themselves to be put at the end of the equation, instead of in step one.........kinda sad, but also foolish on the Author's part.
and also may be a good lesson to impart on current creators of art, don't assume that your vision won't be accurately portrayed in the future, simply because current technology is incapable of doing so......
Also, my utter lack of faith in humanity says that particularly unscrupulous individuals would "arrange" things so that an author who didn't want to sell the rights to their work would have the creator killed and poof! Public domain now for me to create my crappy movie and destroy the work.
If you EVER see a bank error "in your favor" or if your payroll check is off and you are over paid.......DO NOT SPEND THE MONEY
You will be charged for what you owe, and in some circumstances you can be prosecuted for using money that "was reasonably evident that you did not earn"
Yes, but how do you then verify the authenticity of someone's claim when they come in to claim their missing card? If there is no biometric data, is the card holder supposed to in some way memorize this extremely long, random #?
I would say you use a 24 digit "random" number, and THEN have it coupled with un-forgeable biometrics (i.e fingerprint+blood type, or some combination thereof) so that not only do you have authentic one time cards, but they are also able to verify who the cardholder is based on a system not dependant on the card system itself. Part of any problem with a system like this is if the system itself fails, what do you have to fall back on?
Look at the United States, we are dependant primarily on our SS#'s and now they have found that the algorithm used to create those #'s is easily forged, and any person with a minute amount of time on their hands can learn how the numbering system for Social Security cards work, since it is listed on the IRS.gov website.
What happens in the US once the government realizes the SS # system has failed and is being forged hand over fist?
Slashdot Mirror
YA know, the only thing that scares me, and I in no way mean this as being anti-gay, or anti-black/white/blue/purple, BUT, your comments make me somewhat worry about what WILL be socially acceptable down the road. I understand that Marriage should be defined as Two Consenting adults, however that definition opens the door for Incestous Marriage, and yes I know that has been used as a stop gap to allay the whole hearted bigotry of the whole Anti-Gay marriage crowd, however, 50 years ago, a SIGNIFICANT percent of America's population thought that homosexuality was "morally wrong, and disgusting" (I do NOT agree with that, merely using it as a stepping stone to my next point). So here we are now, 50 years later, saying, not only is being a homosexual not a personal PREFERENCE but actually a Genetic predisposition, but also, that even if it wasn't who am I to tell YOU who you can't marry. Well that's all well and good, but you are giving rise to the "Slippery Slope" effect. I whole heartedly beleive that homosexuals should have every right that anyone else has, and I'd be the first person in line to stand up with them as a straight man and fight for that right, HOWEVER it's a scary thought to have when you see just how far we've slid the Societal norms and Values, and while I do agree with how things are TODAY, I fear that 50 years from now, people will feel that as long as they are consenting and in LOVE, then who am I to tell YOU that you can't marry your blood-sister, or who am I to tell NAMBLA they are wrong.
Please don't misunderstand my opinion and my concerns. I understand I'll still be pianted with the hatred and bigotry brush, but I merely am trying to point out that at some point, we have things much worse to fear than simple Homosexual marriage, and we are laying the framework today, for tomorrow's freak shows. Marriage should be completely out of the realm of politics, but we do need to (as someone above said) draw a line in the sand that will make this issue JUST about THIS issue, and not lay a foundation for people who are truly Morally wrong (and yes I mean you NAMBLA! I hope one of you sick f$#% is reading this and I hope you DO hate me for what I say) to build their evil intent on.
I think any legislation passed to allow same sex marriage should have language put in that truly defines marriage as an institution, and makes absolutely NO allowance for any further (mis)interpretation of it's definition.
Then along that same vein, why is it ok for people to be told they can't do drugs, or what form of medication they can and can't buy over the counter. What's to stop two consenting Siblings from marrying, or for that matter, what right, in anyway, does the government have, to dictate ANY action I take on my own property or put into my own body, or do to my own family?
There's the slippery slope for you, when people start screaming about the GOVERNMENT prohibiting them from doing something that only impacts THEM, you open the gates to allow ANYTHING personal, that is prohibited by the Governemtn, to be repealed (which I agree with) BUT I wonder, how many people who use that point, really wanna see Heroin or Cocaine sold in Pharmacy's and convenience stores, And I know we all chuckle when we see the Crack vending machines on Futurama, but when it's real life, will you be soooo quick to say that Government should or shouldn't have some say? I am willing to bet a LOT of people who thump on this ideal would very quickly shy away from repealing Drug laws.
"Funny"?!?
This should be modded INSIGHTFUL!
That both people, speaking to the lack of diversity in Poland, felt they had to post those comments as ACs, I understand this is based on speculation, but it's sad.
Our PC world, or at least America's PC world, is killing thought...period
And I bet your the same person that would piss and moan that someone had the audacity to collect welfare. Those "scumbags" have at one point had my lovely wife amongst their ranks (not debt collection but telemarketing) and I tell you what you frickin asshat, that job paid the bills, and that was ALL it did. Those people need to feed and care for the ones they love just as much as you do douchebag, so try putting three seconds of thought into the assinine comments you spew before you mentally vomit on my monitor again.
You can get an answer to all your questions by simply visiting the Social Security Administration website
Yes they do have a regional based numbering system
BTW
Dude,
You do understand that the Mississippi is a rather LARGE river, right?
I understand that, my point is that our bodies have some tendency to have organs perform functions that in today's world are overkill, i.e the fact that you can survive with only ONE kidney.
I wasn't implying I didn't understand their function, or that I thought I could EASILY live without one of my kidneys, however I was commenting on how I find it interesting, that due in large part to modern medicine, and our diets, we can function, in some cases thrive, while missing entire ORGANS, I think that is "neat" and also makes me curious on how contaminated things like our blood and urine must have been to require 2 kidneys and other "non-essential" organs
Anyone ever wonder why the human body seems to have organs that we don't "need". I wonder if studies had ever been done to correlate any other "useless" organs, to early death/higher risk of disease.
You can lose a kidney, gall bladder, tonsils, etc. and they MUST have either had a use at one point or are meant for a very specific, yet seldom used task, i.e the Spleen being a repository for big white blood cells
This is quite interesting!
You honestly propose that the FDIC would have had the FUNDS available to cover that substantial of a collapse?
You think we'll be paying for the BAILOUT for years? Imagine if we had tried to compensate EVERY bank in America through the FDIC (which also, in terms of individuals, only protects (now) up to $250,000 and not everyone worth that was a pig)
This activity does not generate wealth
I didn't even bother reading the rest..........
NO
You "avoid" the bailouts, and you drown the 98% with the upper 2%'s greed.
They did the right thing, the government prevented large companies from destroying Main St. and they also opened EVERYONE's eyes to the fact that corporations nearly took everything from everyone.
Now correlate that to the actual "VALUE" of a company like Google...........
Wrong.
All money "lost" to pirating or used games was never theirs to begin with. You can't relate actual monetary value to a "potential" customer.
In other words
If I sell 10 Games
but 50 people play it
I did not lose 40 sales
Because I was only accounting the original 10 games, I technically shouldn't even be aware of the "stolen" 40 let alone basing any accounting on it.
While I agree with what you're saying to an extent, I think you are failing to figure in not only the fact that some people's imagination is so limited that they are truly impressed by a theatrical version of a book they've read, and also I think your average person enjoys watching a movie based on a book just to see if they shared an image of a charachter or scene with others, and also to see the awesome parts of the stories visualized for them (Like when the Fellowship is floating down the river to Rohan, I thought a lot of those scenes were very visually appealing) I am glad I saw the movies, though I do agree that they don't compare to the books
Have your child read them first, then after a time, allow them to see the movies. IMO
Or put a bit more simply, there is no profit, because the "real profit" is distributed out as a calculated expense, so basically, they factor in their "net income" prior to the distribution of the film, and factor it as a "cost of creation" expense, because they guarantee a set figure as a "return of investment" expense, thus it zeros out the bottom line.
I concur, an artist's royalties should be considered an expense just like any other "cost" associated with making a movie. After all, they are purchasing the rights of an idea someone else created to base their film on, thus they are taking what they make (gross income) and subtracting expenses (paying actors,directors,producers, AND WRITERS) however for some reason, authors are allowing themselves to be put at the end of the equation, instead of in step one.........kinda sad, but also foolish on the Author's part.
I mean think of how "creatively" those accountants are cooking those books, it should be considered art.
Well said sir,
and also may be a good lesson to impart on current creators of art, don't assume that your vision won't be accurately portrayed in the future, simply because current technology is incapable of doing so......
I'd Mod you +100 Insightful if I could.
Also, my utter lack of faith in humanity says that particularly unscrupulous individuals would "arrange" things so that an author who didn't want to sell the rights to their work would have the creator killed and poof! Public domain now for me to create my crappy movie and destroy the work.
Kurt Cobain?
wow, then I am not only sorry for the flame, but also sorry that India sucks that bad man...you have my condolences......
Lemme debunk a myth real quick for you folks.
If you EVER see a bank error "in your favor" or if your payroll check is off and you are over paid.......DO NOT SPEND THE MONEY
You will be charged for what you owe, and in some circumstances you can be prosecuted for using money that "was reasonably evident that you did not earn"
Yes, but how do you then verify the authenticity of someone's claim when they come in to claim their missing card? If there is no biometric data, is the card holder supposed to in some way memorize this extremely long, random #?
I would say you use a 24 digit "random" number, and THEN have it coupled with un-forgeable biometrics (i.e fingerprint+blood type, or some combination thereof) so that not only do you have authentic one time cards, but they are also able to verify who the cardholder is based on a system not dependant on the card system itself. Part of any problem with a system like this is if the system itself fails, what do you have to fall back on?
Look at the United States, we are dependant primarily on our SS#'s and now they have found that the algorithm used to create those #'s is easily forged, and any person with a minute amount of time on their hands can learn how the numbering system for Social Security cards work, since it is listed on the IRS.gov website.
What happens in the US once the government realizes the SS # system has failed and is being forged hand over fist?
Unique Identification Authority
Huh. Did they have a contest to come up with the most Orwellian sounding name? Are they a section of the Department Of Bureaus? :)
I think they're part of the Department of Redundancy Department Department.
There, fixed that for ya
You've heard of the REAL ID Act right?