Soul of Wit

As a writer, Shatner makes a fine singer. Ouch my brainz!

Just when I thought the thread was going to drift to politics/world view... ...dark humor. On topic, the internet has certainly made long-distance relationships more likely. They're easier to start and they're easier to maintain with video chat and other technology. I would assume that most hook-up sites are geared towards reasonable proximity for any matches. Would some people actively choose to match with someone farther away, perhaps out of fear of intimacy or a subconscious desire to undermine any potential relationship?

Originally Posted By: Jerakeen I agree about the difficulty. The problem is that the designer has no way to predict in what order you'll do the later quests. The game is significantly easier, once you level up to a minimum level. The order of quests is almost irrelevant from that point on. Bear in mind, this game is essentially a modernized version of the first RPG created by Jeff. Thankfully, one can always replay at a harder level (or create artificial roleplaying challenges to make the game more challenging at any difficulty level.)

Originally Posted By: Randomizer I had to mention the latest multitasking while driving mentioned in today's Arizona Republic. A woman was observed smoking, talking on the phone, and breast feeding an infant while waiting for the traffic light to change. None of that is technically illegal in Arizona since there isn't any restrictions on driving while using cell phones here. My sister-in-law used to nap at red lights. Apparently, she could maintain the pressure on the brake pedal. Her young children would wake her when the light changed. What shocks me most about this is that I can only nap if two prerequisites are met: 1. near exhaustion, and 2. lying down.

Originally Posted By: Twice the cost, 2x the work! Dying is cheap, but gruesome injuries are expensive. I'd rather not have people thrown clear from a cost perspective. —Alorael, who is fairly okay with regulating something if society might be picking up the costs. And with America's widespread lack of health insurance, it often is. This. Even with health insurance (or auto insurance paying for injuries) the people sharing your insurance are paying for your closed-head injuries. We don't want to.

Originally Posted By: Master1 Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit I would prefer a law which puts the judgment in the traffic cop's lap. The officer can pull you over if they believe that a distraction is interfering with your driving. I was talking with some older guys at work earlier tonight about police and their authority. While most cops are responsible and reasonable, there will always be those with inferiority/superiority issues and the like. Those cops would then be able to use "judgement crimes" like your idea to harass people they don't like, or just to let off some steam on a bad day. ... I see police as a necessary evil. The job has far too high a correlation with abuse of power. The bad apples exist, regardless of the laws they are called upon to enforce. Taking discretion away from police doesn't make the bad apples magically disappear.

Originally Posted By: Great Inferior Media —Alorael, who honestly thinks that Israel taking out Iran's program would be the best outcome for him, personally. He could feel morally superior; he supported no such military action! And yet he's more comfortable in a world with fewer nuclear powers, especially anti-American, anti-Western powers with potentially unstable regimes. At least he's willing to face up to it. Have you considered what comes after an Israeli strike on Iran? I see no scenario where the US is not dragged into it. [/double negative for dramatic effect]

Impressive topic drift here. I'm surprisingly libertarian on the issue of distracted driving. If we're going to limit liberties then I would prefer a law which puts the judgment in the traffic cop's lap. The officer can pull you over if they believe that a distraction is interfering with your driving. Maybe these laws already exist in most (all) states? Basically, I'm against primary enforcement without evidence of distraction. This is tougher on the police and the courts, but so be it. On the other hand, I favor both seatbelt laws and mandatory helmets for motorcyclists. In my state, medical coverage via auto insurance is unlimited. That is marvelous when you are injured, but we have to reduce the most expensive injuries. Hence, my stance on seatbelts and helmets.

Originally Posted By: Frozen Feet ... Or well, it would be down to three, if one of my long-distance acquitances hadn't expressed the desire to see me in romantic circumstances. Life is being weird to me right now. If I'm reading that correctly, starting a long-distance relationship--from a distance--would be odd. Most people carry the pre-existing short to the long.

Originally Posted By: Excalibur Humans may be intelligent, but we still express a wide range of animalistic behaviors and many of our interactions boil down to instinct. One way humans establish dominance is through arguments, and like other animals, "winning" might just mean being able to yell louder or get the other person to back off. Presenting facts as a form of reasoning is a very recent development, so using logic against someone trying to establish dominance is like using logic against an enraged grizzly bear. Agreed. When someone starts screaming during an argument, I back away, while slowly saying o-k-a-y. That is the only logical response. To the original poster: Your mistake was engaging a political discussion on facebook. The broader the demographic, the more likely that the demographic will include the lack of reason.

Originally Posted By: Dantius ... And re Iran's threats: Nobody takes the seriously. Everybody important in foreign affairs circles realizes that if Iran really, really wants a nuke, they can get it and nobody (not even Israel or the US) can stop them. The fact that they aren't going all-out to do so indicates that Iran's leadership is not going to carry out their when they get one. This, of course, makes sense: Iran's leadership is like that of any other autocratic regime, in that they place their survival above their ideology (Hey, remember when the USSR nuked the US because they wanted to destroy capitalism and institute communism across the globe? Or when North Korea nuked South Korea? Or Pakistan nuked India (or vice versa)? No? Exactly.). Iran's populace is very hostile to their government, and all it would take is one little mistake on the part of the regime for things to start going very badly for those in power. The whole nuke thing is a last-ditch attempt for them to try and cash in on religious extremism and anti-antisemitism for a quick infusion of support, and the people aren't buying it anymore. Although it may not be showing signs of it quite so readily as Egypt or Algeria or Syria or Libya or whatever, Iran is rapidly sliding towards Arab Spring in spite of Khomeini, Ahmadinejad, and their ilk's attempt to stop it. I would be very surprised if Iran is still an "Islamic Republic" in five years, much less ten. But of course, that's just my opinion. Take from it what you may. Your point works both ways. Iran could be "bombed back to the stone age" in an attempt to stop their nuclear program. We won't do that (in spite of the saber-rattling of Republican candidates.) Likewise, Iran has every reason to avoid the use of nuclear weapons. Iran does not represent a current threat to the US. They don't have any nuclear weapons. They don't have rockets capable of reaching the US. The same was true of Iraq, prior to the second war there. The parallels are obvious. Did we learn from (recent) history? Someone mentioned the threat of a single person in control of a nuclear weapon. I'm reminded of the power of the President of the United States. Can we expect "Imagine Rick Santorum with his finger on the button?" ads?

Originally Posted By: Distaff, Crook, and Hammer I also know a woman whose habit, as long as I've known her, has been to have overlapping monogamy. She'll be dating #1, then start dating #2, and only then break up with #1. When she meets #3, #2 has no ground to stand on when complaining, but usually also sees what's coming. That's dating efficiency! —Alorael, who can grasp the thinking that leads to perpetual monogamy. (He's always thought of serial monogamy as the practice of having a series of long, intense relationships without really doing the lower-key dating thing in between.) He just can't quite wrap his mind around the logistics. That's always being in a relationship security is what that is.

Originally Posted By: Harehunter ... 1. Home Owners Associations ... 2, They only carry Holiday Trees ... 3. Private schools ... 4. the ACLU brought suit ... 5. Political Correctness ... 6. less tolerant of Christians ... [redacted] ... 7. 22nd century equivalent of Neville Chamberlain ... 8. the media ... 9. religious intolerance Sorry, I had to shorten that to just the bits that would remind of what I was responding to. No intention of eliminating context should be construed. The full post is intact, above. 1. Your beef is with home owner's associations. As the libertarians would say, they should move if they don't like it. Personally, I despise HOAs with a passion, for many reasons. I'm glad that I have never lived with one. My neighborhood has the odd front yard, or two, but it is well kept up--without an HOA. 2. Your beef is with the commercialization of Christmas. Stores respond to their customers. Customers see store displays up early and start decorating earlier. The stores move it up earlier the following year, and the spiral continues. The customers are holiday shoppers and not really Christmas shoppers. It's just that simple. Corporate sends out a memo to address them accordingly. 3. Private schools can do as they please, regarding school prayer. By extension, the parents funding the private school get a say. It's a classic case of money talks--and this was before Citizens United. 4. The ACLU defends the constitution. It chafes a lot of people, including some who are quite liberal and religious. My left-leaning wife hates the ACLU. I just smile and nod my head. It would have been nice if someone could have come forward and had the monument moved to private property. Tradition and civic pride do not trump what would appear to be a civic endorsement of religion. I stress the word appear. 5. The phrase political correctness is used to cover a broad category of sins. People dislike change. They see change as working against them. In reality, change is inevitable. Some change is better than other change, but tilting at windmills is futile. The country is becoming ever more diverse. Anyone in Texas is well aware of that, of course. 6. The citizens of the US are slowly rejecting the idea that this is a Judeo-Christian country. I don't mean that in the literal theocratic sense, of course. There is a sense that Christianity is on trial in this country. For every anti-religious person in this country, there are scores of areligious people in this country. They check off the protestant box on the census, but it was their parents (or grandparents) who observed that religion. A country that is less religious frightens many. My personal sense of morality came mostly from my Southern-bred Father. My Southern-bred Mother taught me to read and question authority (and something about fried chicken.) Dad was not a religious man, but he brought me up to be both tolerant of differences and to observe the golden rule. It has served me well. I have a tendency towards relativism, which is the bane of those who see the world in many shades of gray. I have to fight this in situations where black and white ethics are called for. Often, wrong is just wrong. 7. Is this an Obama reference? 22nd century? Obama is wise to see war as a last resort. Saber rattling is a childish variant on the age-old pissing contest. Diplomacy is a lost art. Appeasement is an abused word, IMHO. Obama engages in far more appeasement of the other party than of any foreign power. 8. The "media" is not the problem. The problem is the lack of journalism in this country. I used to respect the press as the fourth estate. Now, there are pockets of journalism scattered here and there. It takes way too much effort to be a part of the informed electorate. Preaching to the choir has become an art form, but that does not preclude a little journalism alongside the partisanship. 9. Religious intolerance is mostly a perception. The world is different. It's not all bad; it's not all good.

Are handgun allowances a common employee benefit? I know some neighborhoods where it wouldn't be a bad idea... I have heard of some towns trying to mandate gun ownership, as an offset to the perceived evils of gun control. They didn't get very far. Apparently, there is a difference between a right and a requirement.

The Obama administration has come up with a compromise which is fine with the Catholic church: The insurance pays for the contraception. The insurance is paid for as a part of the employEE's compensation package. It's going to be real tough to argue that is the employER's money. Only a few Republicans have a problem with this. So, yes, it is ideology and not principles.

My personal favorite is the emerald in the like-named fort. It is conveniently located.

I'm areligious. Many of my loved ones are Catholic. I find the whole "war on Christmas" stuff ridiculous. I can't imagine being offended by someone wishing me well, while tacitly admitting that they have no idea what religion I practice and/or tolerate. Likewise, I can't imaging being offended by the phrase Merry Christmas. If I were a militant atheist, I would take that as an expression of good cheer during a holiday season that I ignore. To sum up my personal beliefs, as a US citizen: Religious displays belong on private property. There is no conflict in the first amendment. Public school prayer is just fine, among consenting participants (or in silence.) The addition of "Under God" to the Pledge was a response to godless communists and not a governmental endorsement of Theism. I fear no faith. __________________________ The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. --Eric Hoffer

Originally Posted By: Othar Trygvassen: Gentleman Dare I ask what the quotation marks around "Open Relationship" signify? I assumed that the OP was aware of Newt Gingrich and felt that the phrase was now ruined forever. [/dragging politics into a V-day thread]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter I do have a problem with atheist activists who do everything in their power to restrict the free expression of other people religious faith. Any examples of this spring to mind?

Originally Posted By: things that delight them —Alorael, who just doesn't see much to choose from between brands of facial tissue. There's even less among aspirins, except for dosage. Facial tissues do vary in the softness vs. tensile strength balance. Puffs are gentler on a raw nose, but Kleenex stand up better to a "manly" sneeze. The same balance is recognized for toilet tissue. --Soul, who trusts that someone will correct him if he has, indeed, abused the phrase tensile strength. [/third_person]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S Yes, because nominating a rich, high-office-holder whose brother and father were already President definitely isn't playing right into Obama's class-inequality angle. The only real hope for the Republicans is to hope the economy tanks. If the economy tanks very badly, any Republican could theoretically have a shot at winning. The economy doesn't look likely to tank before the election, but you never know. Well, I only said excitement. I didn't specify which party would be excited. As for your second paragraph, it's tough to disagree with that analysis.

Jony Ive wandered 40 years through the Apple labs... Unfortunately, it's not the coolest name (or even first to market) that becomes the lowercase-b brand name--it's the product that becomes ubiquitous. iPod is just about there. iPad might get there. Corporations do have to defend their brand names, or they will fall into the public domain. For example, aspirin is no longer recognized as a trademark--in the US. Canada still recognizes the trademark of German company Bayer. It's an interesting history, since the proximate cause was Bayer selling the trademark to an American company, due to WWI. Three years later, there was no trademark in the US. It's an amusing diversion to look for lists of trademarks. There's always one that you didn't realize was (ever) a trademark, like dumpster. Sometimes, the lowly spell checker will bring this to your attention. Many are in dispute as to their status as trademarks.

One comment on the caucuses and primaries. There are winner take all and proportional contests. There are also non-binding contests. Many of the caucuses fall into this category. That makes them little more than straw polls. The delegates can vote as they wish, come convention time. Someone asked about Biden. Yes, Obama is staying with who brung him. I know that I'm mangling that, somehow. It's about dancing, correct? If we want real excitement, the Republican convention will have to go to the back rooms and pick a dark horse candidate. I've heard Jeb Bush's name floated.

You need to do two searches: 1. Mac emulator 2. Hackintosh The latter involves an actual copy of Mac OS X. It will, of course, provide superior performance. Yes, Macs are solely used by crows, and other creatures easily impressed by shiny objects. You might be interested to know that Macs were once considered the superior gaming machines. First person shooters existed before Doom (and they were better than Doom.) The origin of Macs being derided as toys comes from this. I used to use Microsoft Word and Excel on a Mac, around 1987. Windows didn't exist yet. There are thousands of stories on the web--people who owe their livelihood to Macs. I'm pretty sure that they would consider what they do important.

Originally Posted By: Take the Word by storm. —Alorael, who is a fan of the many songs made out of Windows sounds effects. Apple doesn't provide nearly the number or variety of sounds that Windows does, so the Mac side of the default sound songs is lacking. I used to alter all of the Mac's default sounds, and add sounds where none were provided (nor needed.) I want to say that this was circa System 6 or 7, which narrows it down to the late '80s to late '90s. I must have had considerably more free time than I do now. EDIT: Definitely pre-1995. That's about when the WWW took off, along with a game series. I think it was called Exile, or something like that.