>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?

Because they are not the same thing. The legal definition of marriage carries with it certain tangible rights and responsibilities that a civil union does not.
Are are you seriously implying that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is in a name or that same-sex couples are merely quibbling over superficial differences for the sake of tooting their own horn?
You are very wrong.
Note the part where it says, "These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman." It would be disingenuous to say they want a complete overhaul of the definition of marriage; an addendum to an existing definition for further inclusiveness is not a redefinition but a modification. It's simply adding to the definition, nothing is being taken away. I'm talking legal definition, just to be clear.
Definitions morph and evolve all the time, I really can't think of one good reason why the legal definition of marriage shouldn't be modified to reflect the social progress that has been made since its inception.


I never suggested that civil unions have the same rights as marriages now do. I suggested that is what should be fought for by those wanting the same rights given to same-sex unions as are given currently to marriages. I argued for that over fighting to have marriage redefined, once again for the reason that redefining marriage implies that sexual orientation is a trait like race and not a choice.

Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?


Because they are not the same thing. The legal definition of marriage carries with it certain tangible rights and responsibilities that a civil union does not.

Are are you seriously implying that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is in a name or that same-sex couples are merely quibbling over superficial differences for the sake of tooting their own horn?

You are very wrong.

Note the part where it says, "These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman." It would be disingenuous to say they want a complete overhaul of the definition of marriage; an addendum to an existing definition for further inclusiveness is not a redefinition but a modification. It's simply adding to the definition, nothing is being taken away. I'm talking legal definition, just to be clear.

Definitions morph and evolve all the time, I really can't think of one good reason why the legal definition of marriage shouldn't be modified to reflect the social progress that has been made since its inception.

>> ^blankfist:

Let me try my top 21 predictions for the next decade! A lot of this will be US centric.
1. HDTV dimensions will increased from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160.
2. Screens will be increased to print pixel depths. 300dpi is only the beginning.
3. An affordable, flexible LCD material will change the tech and advertising world. Maybe the material can be cut to fit any size?
4. The war in Iraq will be over. But the occupation will last for decades. Other wars in the Middle East will continue.
5. Sarah Palin will never be President.
6. The US Deficit will grow to a historical high. As the Dollar and the Renminbi compete for world currency a new Cold War will be declared.
7. Top 40 music will suck.
8. The browser will be integrated as part of the OS and no longer treated as just software. Your work software (IDEs, Microsoft Word, Excel, etc.) will be treated as online plug-ins, savable (with versioning) in the cloud.
9. Electricity will be wireless.
10. Reality Shows will be the new sitcom. Again.
11. China's working class will stage small worker union revolts, but the scale and number will be dramatically inflated by the media.
12. Tommy Lee Jones, Adam Ant, Joel Coen, Matt Groening, Bill Clinton, Lorne Michaels, Sam Elliot, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Steve Jobs and Roy Scheider. One of them will probably pass away.
13. Google will acquire Facebook.
14. Apple's stock will drop if Jobs passes away. They'll try to embody the innovate spirit of Jobs, but they'll miss the mark and stick to just updating the current products like iPod, iPhone, Macbooks, etc.
15. There will be an assassination attempt on a Congressman. Congress will pass into law the Vigilant Act that declares DC to "be at war". As a result no civilians except current residents are permitted to enter. Under the Act any type of search and seizure in DC is legal. To counteract the bad press, the America Museum is opened in Virginia.
16. GM will file for bankruptcy.
17. Like the huge increase in gas prices as become part of day for the US, the people will grow accustomed to the high rate of unemployment. Politicians will no longer talk about gas prices or unemployment.
18. Marijuana is legalized in three states. It's legalized for medicinal use in seventeen states.
19. Autism is linked to the artificial sweetener, Aspartame.
20. Most internet enabled TVs and projectors become equipped with a'la carte system of channel ordering. So you only buy what channels you want streamed to your tv.
21. A new phone technology is developed that works a lot like bit torrent. The phone's signal piggy backs off other phones in the area, and the more phones in an area the better the signal. Most people, however, turn this feature off because it's rumored to be a security weakness.


To answer a select few points:

1. I thought 4k displays would be up next? (4096×3072; as a coder I hate widescreens. I need horizontal screen real estate).
3. This will happen sooner than we'd like
7. When did it not?
9. See 3.
Addendum to 21: We will see a surge of private networks, linked by VPNs and shared by friends; mostly done by people trying to run away from all the crass advertisements and data gathering schemes in the net today.

Can't see this but here is an unblocked version of the same (I think).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwH0HfbYHlM

addendum:
Oh yeah, it's 2011 isn't it. The unblocked link above is from last year...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sorry all.

*kill

SUBJECT: INFRINGEMENT OF FOX RIGHTS - Black Swan sex scenes clips

Notice of Infringement via Email

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
P.O. Box 900
Los Angeles, CA 90035
WebEnforcement@fox.com <mailto:webenforcement@fox.com>

01/14/2011
videosift.com http://www.videosift.com

Dear videosift.com:

I, the undersigned, confirm that I am an authorized agent of Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corporation and/or its subsidiaries and affiliated
companies ("Fox") and am authorized to act on Fox's behalf in this
matter.

I am writing to notify you of the infringement of Fox's intellectual
property rights on your site as identified below and demand that you
take immediate action to permanently stop the infringing conduct.

I have a good faith belief that the links / files identified in the
attached addendum are not authorized by Fox, any of its agents or the
law, and therefore infringe Fox's rights. On behalf of Fox, I demand
that you immediately remove and disable these links / files.

This email is not a complete statement of Fox's rights in connection
with this matter, and nothing contained herein constitutes an express
or implied waiver of any rights, remedies, or defenses of Fox in
connection with this matter, all of which are expressly reserved.

I may be contacted at:
Email: antipiracy@dtecnet.com

Sincerely,
DtecNet

As a follow up to my previous comment, let met link to a new article with more details on the case (the rape case, not the wikileaks case):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

The reason for my addendum; I summarized the case in my previous comment as 'consensual sex followed by sort of sort of non-consensual sex'. While sort of matching up with the guardian article, it seems a better description (for the woman I was summarizing for) would be: Woman did not want to have unprotected sex, then they have unprotected sex, woman regrets this very much after the fact, question is how much she objected to having unprotected sex.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Galaxy collision.


That is not a fair selection as it's already going to happen. Everybody scream!!!

OK, so there are some minor addendums to it, but, it is COMING!!!

@gwiz665 i think you've completely missed the point with the "get on their knees" nonsense. It was plucked straight out of the comment that started the whole thing. It was someone else's rediculous metaphor turned around and half your post is trying to take that apart. I didn't think it needed an addendum, i had hoped it was obvious.

As for the first half, i'd just like to mention that sales figures in today's world are always going to be weighted due to the proliferation of PCs and the HUGE boom in internet access across the whole world. A million subscribers in, say, 1999 is 10 million less than in 2009, but it's a bit like saying black and white tv's were rubbish because colour tv's outsold them 10:1 - the factors that affect the sales figures have exponentially increased in the time period - it's not just the proliferation of PC's (which is huge in itself), but the speed of internet connections, the accessibility of the internet, the medium through which the game can be released, advertisements (which increase as other media popularity increases - more tvs = more people seeing adverts, etc.) - i won't continue, you can imagine for yourself.

I think the reason wow has blown all other mmo's out of the water is that, at the time, there was no competition - the market and timing was perfect for (at minimum) a playable mmo with acceptable graphics and wow was there. It was made with a decent level of competency and released with few bugs. It pandered to people's immediate wants from the game (ie. i want loot right this instant) and diluted the feeling of achievement by doing so. I never said wow wasn't very skillfully made - the methods it uses to keep people playing are brilliant. However i subscribe to the view that people don't know what is best for them, and getting their desires in the short term turned out to make a less fulfilling long term.

And finally, i've been to the hardest hardest parts of wow, and even the most disgustingly difficult parts of it are only as tricky as some of the moderate encounters in (hate to use this as an example again, but it's really the only one i have) everquest. I would even go further as to say that a HUGE part of the difficulty in wow lies around random numbers - sometimes you will get hit for a huge amount, or 2 abilities will trigger at the same time, or 2 aoe effects land in the same spot, or 2 of your priests/whatever are targetted with an ability, etc. Those are my experiences with wow, and i was at the forefront of freshly released content up until the one after they recycled naxxramas and charged me for it. And every time we ploughed through the content, i'd cancel my account again and go back into hibernation.

Anyhow. If your only point is "vote with your wallet", i think you can skip that. As i've said - i did, but i see no harm in mentioning what i prefer in an mmo as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Jeez Israel, can't even decimate a country without sexually abusing children. ^Im on the fuck Israel bandwagon too, weeeeeeee

addendum: Geo321 maybe that should be nuclear non-proliferation free zone. Also while we're on the fuck Israel thing it's should also be fuck America since the same criticisms leveled at Israel can be applied to America. Multiplied by the fact Israel commits it's crimes with the full backing of the US we really should be saying ass-fuck America with a 12 inch black rubber cock with AIDS.

If there are any Americans reading this, I'm sorry. I'm not sorry if you're offended, I'm sorry you're an American. Lol, Hicks. Just kidding, I know you have no control over your democracy like most of us 1st world plebians

^I bumped into some pretty angry Lost fans at my gig today. The writers should open up a Q&A forum online and answer all the unanswered questions. They owe it to the die-hard fans. Maybe they could even make some kind of video addendum to tack on to the series. I'm sure people would tune in.

I realize this isn't snuff, but I didn't want to post the original video if I'm just going to take a bunch of flak for it being snuff. If the consensus is that it wouldn't be snuff then I will * return this one and post the original as an addendum.

Na, I prefer countries that the Spanish had once taken over and impregnated with surnames and Catholic guilt.

addendum: EXCEPT for Italy>> ^Throbbin:

I couldn't help but think of Jersey Shore. Are you Italian?>> ^rottenseed:
Anybody that knows me knows I only date brown people.

>> ^mentality:
This is also the guy who predicted in 1999 that by 2009, we'd have hundreds of 3d computer chips in our house, wearable computers embedded into our clothing, keyboards replaced by speech recognition software, glasses that projected HUDs directly onto our retina, and all our wars will be fought with robots.
Keep that in mind when listening to his prophecies. I feel that reverse-engineering of the human brain by 2029 is like HAL and manned missions to Jupiter by 2001.


A worthy addendum.

Thanks very much for the promote!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
this is the guy from zeitgeist addendum!
awesome..
*PROMOTE!

this is the guy from zeitgeist addendum!
awesome..
*PROMOTE!