I pretty much can't think of a situation where a little "conversation lubrication" doesn't help a lot!!
"I think that there are plenty of self-identified geeks who are uncomfortable with the whole booze+mingling thing, so give everyone some options."
Well, if there are there and booze is present...no one holds a gun to anyone's head to drink. Heck, sometimes that IS a good thing to do, let the chicks get liquored up, and then make your moves.
"Quite honestly, yes, Tiger probably should not have married. It was a mistake (although, probably more of a mistake for his wife), especially considering how many women he apparently wanted to sleep with. However, it is a decision that he made. Nobody marched him down the aisle at gunpoint. He chose to do it. And, once he did that, then his whole life changed which set him up for many other mistakes (so far, 5 of them, if the news/rumors are all true)."
Well, my thoughts are, really...unless you want to have kids, there is really NO reason to ever get married. Why risk losing half your shit over a piece of ass?
I thought I'd heard he had a deal with his wife, that she'd be taken care of, etc....to have his kids, but, the understanding was, he was gonna sleep with who he wanted to. Sounds like SHE backed out on the deal, if that is true.
I dunno, I can see him getting married so his kids wouldn't be bastards, but, if he was going to be catting around, he should have been VERY up front about it, and have all the proper paperwork in place to guarantee himself and her on who gets what in case things don't work out.
But really...a guy in his shoes turning down all the finest ass in the world that gets thrown at him? Geez...why would he set himself up not to be able to take advantage of that. I mean, hell...that's the main reason people become rock stars...you can't blame the guy, except that if he wasn't upfront with the wife about his intentions, well...he should have been.
I stopped at the new name...."JooJoo" I'm guessing this guy doesn't have much of an understanding at least of how naming should be done for the US. JooJoo sounds too...well, foofoo/gay.....
I mean Crunchpad, ok, I could buy something like that, but, something named 'joojoo' just isn't that interesting sounding. Hell, that is about as bad as that company "Wang" a couple of decades ago. Did they not have any idea of the connotations of "wang" in the US?
"And the telcos will make a large amount of money from a streaming service to the iPhones. And especially for people who forgets about it and streams music while roaming. Can cause a phone bill the size of a new car."
Err...wouldn't my 'unlimited' data plan cover my streaming music anywhere I traveled in the US? Doesn't roaming only apply to voice....and I thought the TOS said I didn't get charged any extra for roaming either.
Now, if you meant I left the country and was roaming internationally (not something easy to do accidentally really, I mean you KNOW when you're leaving the country) that's another deal, but, I wouldn't think it all that common as that I'd guess the vast majority of people here don't travel internationally.
"wait, what? who said anything about saving us anything on health care? I though the goal was just to get everyone health care. "
Hmm...well, ok, let's go with your assumption. The current bills in the senate and house ratched up the national debt like there is no tomorrow, and STILL will not result in getting everyone healthcare. Millions will still not have health care/insurance according to these plans and reviews by the CBO.
Why could they not try something that would require FAR fewer pages and govt. control?
1. Actually use one power of the federal govt...interstate commerce regulation, and make it to where health insurance could be sold across state lines. That will lower the cost drastically due to competition.
2. Tort reform....if you can give doctors a break from having to run every test under the sun just to CYA, medical costs will go down, again making it more affordable to everyone.
3. Finally, open up medicare as the 'insurance of last resort'...if you cannot afford regular insurance, you get medicare...if you have pre-existing conditions and are rejected by commercial insurance, you can get on the medicare roles. Oh yes, and why not actually renogotiate medicare/medicaid's deals with big pharma, and let them negotiate for drug prices like the VA system does...saving money and again, making medical care affordable to most everyone.
"And the one that is accounted for is still funded at an extremely high rate. Cut it in half. The states can then have more money with which to do the other two, and the overall tax burden goes down."
If I recall correctly, the majority of current expenditures of the US govt. are in the form of entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc)...things which they really are not mandated to be doing.
If you took those monies out of the pot, the states could have much more money to deal with on their own for their own citizens. "The overall tax burden goes down".
The US govt. does way too many things that it was never empowered to do...and it sucks up money like there is no tomorrow doing it.
"The purpose of any government is to support the public good."
But ONLY to the extent of the powers it has granted to it by the Constitution. The Federal govt is actually supposed to have VERY little power and limited enumerated rights (granted to it by the US constitution).
The majority of power...and majority of the support of the public good is to reside with the States and local governments.
Remember, in the US, you are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States second.
"If you plot the number of sexual partners, you'll find men have a curve that rises, peaks at around four (if I remember right), and then descends... a smaller number have had 8 partners, a still smaller 12, etc. It's a pretty normal distribution."
Wow...that low is the average? Hell, I didn't do nearly as well as my friends, but, I lost count easily over the 35-40+ different chicks I slept with mark. Is this maybe how many they can still name by name...or in total period?
I know a few guys in triple digits, but, I've not known hardly anyone that isn't in at least double digits on number of women slept with, and I'm a bit old. I understood that todays kids sleep with each other much more easily that my generation did...I'd expect that # of different partners average to be MUCH higher for today's kids.
"You make the same mistake as those who equate Glenn Beck's or Sean Hannity's views with the views of Fox."
I get a little troubled with so many people of late, throwing Glenn Beck in the same crowd as Hannity and O'Reilly. The latter two, are just really blowhards that do nothing but shoutdown anyone they talk with, and very rarely have insightful things to say. Hannity is just so far on the neo-con side, it hurts.
Beck, on the other hand, I see as someone that is thought provoking, and more on the libertarian side of things. He has some interesting guests, he digs in (like an old school journalist used to do) on stories. While I'll admit he acts like a 'goob' at times, I do often like many things he has to say about the US, where it started, where it is going, where it is good, and where it has strayed. He often puts forth views I see often espoused on some of these/. topics...etc.
I know he has become a hot target because he has gotten so popular recently, but I saw him back when he was on the CNN Headline news station during the Bush years, and he was talking the same way against the all Rep. regime that we previously had, so, I don't think of him as really either a Republocrat.
Such a large company in charge of the content AND the delivery channel? What happens when this all consolidates into just a couple of companies with content and channels owned...and then the government has to bail them out, and take control of.....oh wait....
"True. But something that bothers me is that there is now a whole generation that has no idea what their music is supposed to sound like. A friend brought his 21-year-old son round to my place just recently, and the boy was apparently blown away by the detail he could hear in the music from my OK-ish stereo setup. He had been so used to the cruddy MP3 or AAC files he gets from iTunes, he had never heard the real thing."
I've had the same thing happen with me. I have a decent stereo setup, with a pair these K-horns in the mix. It blows people away, especially when I tell them my little tube amp I run them off of, only puts out approx. 2+ watts per channel (it is loud too).
A good rig will bring out great detail in music, especially if the music was well recorded, and well mastered. I think it is a shame that so many have not only forgotten, but, have really never known what good sound reproduction can be, and how much joy it can bring a person. I'm not talking about buying the typical 'super audophile' crap people make fun of here (often deservedly so), but, good solid equipment set up to reproduce sound. If you are a music fan, I'd think that good reproduction would be important to you.
Then again, I've heard from some of the younger crowd today, that their music is really almost a 'throw away' item. They listen a few times then forget about it...maybe much of the music today just isn't enough quality for them to justify wanting it forever, and prizing hearing it in a great way.
Me? Hell, I still love to listen to the music I grew up on, and even music before my 'time'....nothing I've bought for audio, is throw away stuff.
"I think the bottleneck for quality in the iPod generation is mostly still present at the live experience."
Funny, I've been thinking the bottleneck for the iPod generation, is the level of musicianship their generation currently has to give back to them. Kinda bad when so many of the newer groups have to depend on technology to make their live performances even close to what the studio stuff is...even to the point of lip synch'ing.
"Not to mention that the.WAV files on a CD contain audio not detectable by the human ear. MP3s are lossy formats, but most of what is lost the human ear can't hear."
Well, personally, I'll take the full version, and let my own ears decide what they can and cannot hear.
:)
Why settle for less when you don't have to?
When they start selling music online, in lossless format, DRM free....then I'll consider buying content online.
Gay hasn't meant homosexual for at least a decade."
Wow, where do you live where this isn't true?
I've always heard the word gay used as a direct synonym for homosexual (usually male and lesbian for females).
Heck, you hear it all the time on the news and read about it in major publications...the "Gay Agenda" this...etc. Isn't there a group for homosexuals specifically with the words Gay and Lesbian in their name/acronym?
Heck, I'd say it is the MOST common term I've heard used for homo men.
Now, the one that got me...I found out a short while back, that the Brits refer to cigarettes as "fags". I'd always knows a fag to me a gay male. I always wondered if England had a higher percentage of gay people because I was always reading about them sucking or smoking 'fags'...which gave me an impression there was much more of this going on in the open over there than here in the US.
I remember reading about people complaining about too many people smoking fags in the pubs over there, and I thought "YIKES", you have to go to 'special' bars over here for that....then I found out about the cigarette meaning...whew.
"[gay/queer].. both could be taken as a homosexual reference, but could also just mean strange, unusual, or odd from the conventional viewpoint "
Well, I think you're repeating yourself here, I'd say most people in the past, and frankly, probably even a majority of people today consider homosexuality to be "strange, unusual, or odd from the conventional", hence using the term 'gay' to not only mean homosexual, but, also as a bit of a derogatory term to describe something, meaning it to be strange, odd or bad.
I'd dare say the work 'queer' has double meanings for much of the same reasons.
z"FYI State constitutions cannot violate the US constitution. They (states) can pass laws (and have additional rights in a state constitution) even if they violate federal laws (hence the money only big hand of fed government), but not the US constitution. The constitution doesn't regulate individuals acts, only government acts. But state governments are governments regulated by the constitution."
That's not too tough, since the US constitution not only sets out the limited enumerated powers the Federal govt. has, it pretty much states that everyone is born with inherit rights, that are regulated by the states. There are only a few 'no-no's that states have come up with that have eventually been put down as unconstitutional, such as slavery....and that was taken care of by a federal constitutional amendment. The federal constitution is quite limited in it's scope, and is there to dictate what the feds can do, but it is also there to ensure most power resides with the states and the people.
"Well, it's not like they would lower the costs without piracy, so really, we're just donating to africa. what's new?"
Why not keep the money it our own respective countries?
Why not start up a business of employing ex-military snipers, the quality of those that navy shooters that rescued that kidnapped US captain awhile back with 3 simultaneous head shots?? I mean, those guys needs jobs after they get out...
The shipping companies could do a co-opt much like the pirates are doing, pool a bit of money that would go for higher insurance, into a fund to keep these guys employed.
They pick off this little pirate ships as they come close...after awhile there will be signifcantly less pirates attempting this as a career.
And as for those that bring up some countries won't let armed ships come in? Why not just lock up the arms before coming into port...and then open them back up, arm your guard snipers for the voyage, etc.
"
Well, despite that I'm personally not very fond of guns, I can't let go of the thought that all the restriction of firearms does here, is to guarantee that only authorities and bad guys have guns.
While I trust the police and military here very much, I don't trust that bad guys will only shoot after bad guys or the police. I would like more liberal laws around defense weapons here, not even pepper spray is legal. "
My main reasoning (besides the fact that I like target shooting handguns) for being very pro-gun is that, I realize that the police are not there to protect you from crimes, they are there to gather evidence after the fact and try to apprehend the perpetrator.
Unless you are VERY lucky to have a cop happen to be in the area when someone breaks into your house while you are there, it is up to YOU to protect your home and family. Personally, I like having guns for purposes of defense. I like having multiple guns, stashed throughout the house so that at least one, with backup ammo, is close at hand at all time, no matter when I might need one.
I hope I'll never have to use one on another person, but, before becoming a gun owner, I settled that in my mind that if I pull one, I will shoot to kill and with no qualms, will keep shooting till the intruder is out on the floor, likely dead. I like to think it won't bother me, but it may....and I'm ok with the fact I may have to get over it, but, my life is the one worth the most IMHO, and if that bastard hadn't broken in, he'd still be using oxygen and be above room temperature.
Hmm...most states I know of have their own constitutions, and from the different states I've lived in, they seem to vary a great deal, for example, LA is based largely on Napoleonic law, very different than the constitutions and laws say in AZ.
The FCC licensing is one that is mandated to be followed by manufacturers, the individual using a cell phone isn't required to have any licensing to purchase and use a cell phone in the US, my point still stands on that. That and even if that point bothered someone, they have a choice to buy a cell phone...they have a choice to buy and drive a car. The federal govt. isn't mandating they do either of those things or be fined, like the proposed healthcare bills seem to want to include for those that don't want to buy insurance.
The federal govt is not supposed to be intrusive into individual citizens' lives. Anything more it wants to do should be only granted to it with a constitutional amendment, we've gotten too far away from that ideal....hell, for example, why did it take a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, and another to reinstate it...and yet none was needed to ban and outlaw pot? I still haven't reconciled that one either. IHMO, it is not the Federal govt.s place to mandate behavior of citizens, but, that's opening a much broader argument.
True, the unions served their function in the early days of their existance, but, they are an anachronism today, and serve more to hurt workers and business than they do good in this day.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm....you lost me on this one...
I pretty much can't think of a situation where a little "conversation lubrication" doesn't help a lot!!
"I think that there are plenty of self-identified geeks who are uncomfortable with the whole booze+mingling thing, so give everyone some options."
Well, if there are there and booze is present...no one holds a gun to anyone's head to drink. Heck, sometimes that IS a good thing to do, let the chicks get liquored up, and then make your moves.
Well, my thoughts are, really...unless you want to have kids, there is really NO reason to ever get married. Why risk losing half your shit over a piece of ass?
I thought I'd heard he had a deal with his wife, that she'd be taken care of, etc....to have his kids, but, the understanding was, he was gonna sleep with who he wanted to. Sounds like SHE backed out on the deal, if that is true.
I dunno, I can see him getting married so his kids wouldn't be bastards, but, if he was going to be catting around, he should have been VERY up front about it, and have all the proper paperwork in place to guarantee himself and her on who gets what in case things don't work out.
But really...a guy in his shoes turning down all the finest ass in the world that gets thrown at him? Geez...why would he set himself up not to be able to take advantage of that. I mean, hell...that's the main reason people become rock stars...you can't blame the guy, except that if he wasn't upfront with the wife about his intentions, well...he should have been.
With blackjack...
And Hookers...
In fact, screw the conference."
You forgot to add blow.
I mean Crunchpad, ok, I could buy something like that, but, something named 'joojoo' just isn't that interesting sounding. Hell, that is about as bad as that company "Wang" a couple of decades ago. Did they not have any idea of the connotations of "wang" in the US?
Err...wouldn't my 'unlimited' data plan cover my streaming music anywhere I traveled in the US? Doesn't roaming only apply to voice....and I thought the TOS said I didn't get charged any extra for roaming either.
Now, if you meant I left the country and was roaming internationally (not something easy to do accidentally really, I mean you KNOW when you're leaving the country) that's another deal, but, I wouldn't think it all that common as that I'd guess the vast majority of people here don't travel internationally.
Hmm...well, ok, let's go with your assumption. The current bills in the senate and house ratched up the national debt like there is no tomorrow, and STILL will not result in getting everyone healthcare. Millions will still not have health care/insurance according to these plans and reviews by the CBO.
Why could they not try something that would require FAR fewer pages and govt. control?
1. Actually use one power of the federal govt...interstate commerce regulation, and make it to where health insurance could be sold across state lines. That will lower the cost drastically due to competition.
2. Tort reform....if you can give doctors a break from having to run every test under the sun just to CYA, medical costs will go down, again making it more affordable to everyone.
3. Finally, open up medicare as the 'insurance of last resort'...if you cannot afford regular insurance, you get medicare...if you have pre-existing conditions and are rejected by commercial insurance, you can get on the medicare roles. Oh yes, and why not actually renogotiate medicare/medicaid's deals with big pharma, and let them negotiate for drug prices like the VA system does...saving money and again, making medical care affordable to most everyone.
If I recall correctly, the majority of current expenditures of the US govt. are in the form of entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc)...things which they really are not mandated to be doing.
If you took those monies out of the pot, the states could have much more money to deal with on their own for their own citizens. "The overall tax burden goes down".
The US govt. does way too many things that it was never empowered to do...and it sucks up money like there is no tomorrow doing it.
But ONLY to the extent of the powers it has granted to it by the Constitution. The Federal govt is actually supposed to have VERY little power and limited enumerated rights (granted to it by the US constitution).
The majority of power...and majority of the support of the public good is to reside with the States and local governments.
Remember, in the US, you are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States second.
I don't see what all the brew-haha is here. Women already have it made. They have half the money, and ALL of the pussy......
Are you sure about this [wikipedia.org]?"
Sure, I mean you can't rape the willing now, can you?
Wow...that low is the average? Hell, I didn't do nearly as well as my friends, but, I lost count easily over the 35-40+ different chicks I slept with mark. Is this maybe how many they can still name by name...or in total period?
I know a few guys in triple digits, but, I've not known hardly anyone that isn't in at least double digits on number of women slept with, and I'm a bit old. I understood that todays kids sleep with each other much more easily that my generation did...I'd expect that # of different partners average to be MUCH higher for today's kids.
I get a little troubled with so many people of late, throwing Glenn Beck in the same crowd as Hannity and O'Reilly. The latter two, are just really blowhards that do nothing but shoutdown anyone they talk with, and very rarely have insightful things to say. Hannity is just so far on the neo-con side, it hurts.
Beck, on the other hand, I see as someone that is thought provoking, and more on the libertarian side of things. He has some interesting guests, he digs in (like an old school journalist used to do) on stories. While I'll admit he acts like a 'goob' at times, I do often like many things he has to say about the US, where it started, where it is going, where it is good, and where it has strayed. He often puts forth views I see often espoused on some of these /. topics...etc.
I know he has become a hot target because he has gotten so popular recently, but I saw him back when he was on the CNN Headline news station during the Bush years, and he was talking the same way against the all Rep. regime that we previously had, so, I don't think of him as really either a Republocrat.
Such a large company in charge of the content AND the delivery channel? What happens when this all consolidates into just a couple of companies with content and channels owned...and then the government has to bail them out, and take control of.....oh wait....
I've had the same thing happen with me. I have a decent stereo setup, with a pair these K-horns in the mix. It blows people away, especially when I tell them my little tube amp I run them off of, only puts out approx. 2+ watts per channel (it is loud too).
A good rig will bring out great detail in music, especially if the music was well recorded, and well mastered. I think it is a shame that so many have not only forgotten, but, have really never known what good sound reproduction can be, and how much joy it can bring a person. I'm not talking about buying the typical 'super audophile' crap people make fun of here (often deservedly so), but, good solid equipment set up to reproduce sound. If you are a music fan, I'd think that good reproduction would be important to you.
Then again, I've heard from some of the younger crowd today, that their music is really almost a 'throw away' item. They listen a few times then forget about it...maybe much of the music today just isn't enough quality for them to justify wanting it forever, and prizing hearing it in a great way.
Me? Hell, I still love to listen to the music I grew up on, and even music before my 'time'....nothing I've bought for audio, is throw away stuff.
Funny, I've been thinking the bottleneck for the iPod generation, is the level of musicianship their generation currently has to give back to them. Kinda bad when so many of the newer groups have to depend on technology to make their live performances even close to what the studio stuff is...even to the point of lip synch'ing.
Well, personally, I'll take the full version, and let my own ears decide what they can and cannot hear.
Why settle for less when you don't have to?
When they start selling music online, in lossless format, DRM free....then I'll consider buying content online.
You talk about this like it is a bad thing...?!?!
By the way, do you have this girls number? Is she legal age now?"
Wow, tough crowd here today.
Lots of chicks with moderator points today?
Gay hasn't meant homosexual for at least a decade."
Wow, where do you live where this isn't true?
I've always heard the word gay used as a direct synonym for homosexual (usually male and lesbian for females).
Heck, you hear it all the time on the news and read about it in major publications...the "Gay Agenda" this...etc. Isn't there a group for homosexuals specifically with the words Gay and Lesbian in their name/acronym?
Heck, I'd say it is the MOST common term I've heard used for homo men.
Now, the one that got me...I found out a short while back, that the Brits refer to cigarettes as "fags". I'd always knows a fag to me a gay male. I always wondered if England had a higher percentage of gay people because I was always reading about them sucking or smoking 'fags'...which gave me an impression there was much more of this going on in the open over there than here in the US.
I remember reading about people complaining about too many people smoking fags in the pubs over there, and I thought "YIKES", you have to go to 'special' bars over here for that....then I found out about the cigarette meaning...whew.
Well, I think you're repeating yourself here, I'd say most people in the past, and frankly, probably even a majority of people today consider homosexuality to be "strange, unusual, or odd from the conventional", hence using the term 'gay' to not only mean homosexual, but, also as a bit of a derogatory term to describe something, meaning it to be strange, odd or bad.
I'd dare say the work 'queer' has double meanings for much of the same reasons.
You talk about this like it is a bad thing...?!?!
By the way, do you have this girls number? Is she legal age now?
That's not too tough, since the US constitution not only sets out the limited enumerated powers the Federal govt. has, it pretty much states that everyone is born with inherit rights, that are regulated by the states. There are only a few 'no-no's that states have come up with that have eventually been put down as unconstitutional, such as slavery....and that was taken care of by a federal constitutional amendment. The federal constitution is quite limited in it's scope, and is there to dictate what the feds can do, but it is also there to ensure most power resides with the states and the people.
Why not keep the money it our own respective countries?
Why not start up a business of employing ex-military snipers, the quality of those that navy shooters that rescued that kidnapped US captain awhile back with 3 simultaneous head shots?? I mean, those guys needs jobs after they get out...
The shipping companies could do a co-opt much like the pirates are doing, pool a bit of money that would go for higher insurance, into a fund to keep these guys employed.
They pick off this little pirate ships as they come close...after awhile there will be signifcantly less pirates attempting this as a career.
And as for those that bring up some countries won't let armed ships come in? Why not just lock up the arms before coming into port...and then open them back up, arm your guard snipers for the voyage, etc.
While I trust the police and military here very much, I don't trust that bad guys will only shoot after bad guys or the police. I would like more liberal laws around defense weapons here, not even pepper spray is legal. "
My main reasoning (besides the fact that I like target shooting handguns) for being very pro-gun is that, I realize that the police are not there to protect you from crimes, they are there to gather evidence after the fact and try to apprehend the perpetrator.
Unless you are VERY lucky to have a cop happen to be in the area when someone breaks into your house while you are there, it is up to YOU to protect your home and family. Personally, I like having guns for purposes of defense. I like having multiple guns, stashed throughout the house so that at least one, with backup ammo, is close at hand at all time, no matter when I might need one.
I hope I'll never have to use one on another person, but, before becoming a gun owner, I settled that in my mind that if I pull one, I will shoot to kill and with no qualms, will keep shooting till the intruder is out on the floor, likely dead. I like to think it won't bother me, but it may....and I'm ok with the fact I may have to get over it, but, my life is the one worth the most IMHO, and if that bastard hadn't broken in, he'd still be using oxygen and be above room temperature.
The FCC licensing is one that is mandated to be followed by manufacturers, the individual using a cell phone isn't required to have any licensing to purchase and use a cell phone in the US, my point still stands on that. That and even if that point bothered someone, they have a choice to buy a cell phone...they have a choice to buy and drive a car. The federal govt. isn't mandating they do either of those things or be fined, like the proposed healthcare bills seem to want to include for those that don't want to buy insurance.
The federal govt is not supposed to be intrusive into individual citizens' lives. Anything more it wants to do should be only granted to it with a constitutional amendment, we've gotten too far away from that ideal....hell, for example, why did it take a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, and another to reinstate it...and yet none was needed to ban and outlaw pot? I still haven't reconciled that one either. IHMO, it is not the Federal govt.s place to mandate behavior of citizens, but, that's opening a much broader argument.
They are a hindrance in the 21st century USA.