Murder is a difficult thing to get away with most of the time, and there's a level of sophisticated social engineering required before you can really rack up a count, otherwise you'll get caught around the 2 to 10 mark, like most people serving prison sentences that aren't drug or theft related.

But in all honesty, murder is not lucrative unless you're commander and chief to an army. The real money maker is hacking -- why doesn't EVERYONE hack? People on the internet are just slinging their credit card info and personal information around willy-nilly.

If you're a homeless person, here's what you do: (this is assuming you are so poor you have no money and little education beyond your street smart observation)

1. Steal someone's smartphone.
NOTE: If you are unsure what a "smartphone" is, just look for the people that are walking around, seemingly lost, looking at their phone the whole time. If you feel in control, ask them if they're lost. If they reply with a fragmented sentence about "GPS" or "Google maps", you have found your mark. If you're proficient with this style of conversation, find a way to lead them down an alleyway -- you know what to do after that. Example: They say they know that their destination is "somewhere around here, they just can't find the entrance", tell them that's because "the place is using a side entrance down this convenient alley."
2. Steal a second person's smartphone.
NOTE: Hopefully at least one of them isn't password locked. If both are, keep stealing until you have one that isn't.
3. Setup a free email account at Gmail and then go to Craigslist and sell the first device.
NOTE: Or Hotmail or Yahoo or Mailinator or whatever.
4. On the second device, find someone on Craigslist who will help you reset the first device so that no one can trace it back to you.
5. Use Google to learn how to hack, or better yet, just learn how to create phishing emails.
6. NOW HACK (or phish)!
7. You probably gave up on life a long time ago, so if you've figured out a foolproof way to steal smartphones, keep doing that, because people with smartphones are pretty dumb and hacking is actually kind of hard.

Special thanks to Google, Craigslist, smartphones, and the blind entitlement of your victims.

Are they paying that lady to say "nuh uh" baselessly? Couldn't Krystal just add "oh, and by the way some people don't agree with me." at the end of her comment and you get it without paying a second person to say it?

Maybe they actually are paying for the legs.

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.

How can god be a person and a god at the same time? How does a person exist as a god and a human at the same time? Removing the possibility of god being three identical clones and using your model. Logic and physics state that:
1)God is three persons
2)These three people are god
3)They are not duplicates of each other
4)Therefore: There are three separate gods
This all would have been summed up better had someone used better grammar.


Here is a dictionary definition of person

per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).

As you can see, Christianity has its own definition. It is referring to, essentially, that everyone in the Godhead shares the same nature or essence, but that they have their own individual personalities. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father but they are both equally God in nature. Not separate Gods, but one God made of three persons. Just like a human father and son are both equally human because they both share that human nature.

A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.

It's impossible for us to say how God perceives His Creation (beyond what He told us). What we do know is that the second person of the Trinity entered time and became a man, and lived 33 years here on Earth. The Father was certainly capable of loving His Son while He was a man, and interacting with Him in this temporal reality. Therefore God is certainly capable of having meaningful relationships with His creatures as well. It says that in Him we live and move and have our being, meaning, that we are intimately connected to God at all times. I would further say that we have no actual idea of what time is, or how it relates to eternal things. What we do know is that it is always 'now'. I have a feeling that the 'now' moment and eternity relate in some way.

Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.

God had perfect love before He Created anything, so He did not create from a lack; He created it out of the abundence of His love.

It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything

His immutability relates to His essential nature, His perfect goodness. His character doesn't change. He is Holy and Just and always will be. This doesn't mean that God cannot have a novel thought or feel anything. Jesus wept, for instance. If you took this bizzare idea of immutability to its logical conclusion, God would be frozen in place and could not do anything at all. Clearly an omnipotent being is essentially unrestricted in His actions. The problem here is we are limited temporal beings trying to imagine what an unlimited eternal being is like. The distance between us and God is far greater than the distance between us and bacteria. This isn't to pass it off as "God is mysterious", because as I've pointed out, your definitions are inconsistant with what we do know. But you have to admit that there is an essential barrier to understanding what it is like to be God, simply because of our finite and subjective nature. How does a being who was born understand eternity? He can't, at least, not without an eternal being explaining it to him.

First you say, "Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle".

Then you say, "Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws".

Which is it? Is being gay against the bible, or is it not against the bible?

It was not just a prohibition for israel, it is also for Christians, as detailed in Romans 1:18-32


>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.
Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.
It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything.
So, can you explain how God can be perfect, yet be unfulfilled and have desires?

Actually, "cours" is here the imperative, so the phrase literally means "go on running" or "run anyways"; this phrase is an expression meaning "you can try all you want, you won't succeed/get anywhere" (an imperfect equivalent in English is "knock yourself out").

/nitpicking Frogspeaker

>> ^steroidg:

Cours is the first and second person singular of the verb courir, which means to run. The translation of the title should be: Always running.

Thank you! This is thanks to Google Translate as I don't know French.
>> ^steroidg:

Cours is the first and second person singular of the verb courir, which means to run. The translation of the title should be: Always running.

Cours is the first and second person singular of the verb courir, which means to run. The translation of the title should be: Always running.

>> ^chilaxe:
@Jinx
I hate to interrupt your anti-intellectual parade and your lack of real facts or even non-ignorant assertions, but have you heard of this great new site called Google.com?
Google search: muslim welfare rate europe OR britain


Without wanting to be the second person to invoke your wrath, any chance you could link to specific articles instead of a link to the Google home page please? Preferably From sources within the EU or the UK, thankyouverymuch

Yes, this is the second-person perspective of the asshole... sadly, the first-person perspective of the asshole's victim.

>> ^jwray:

It's not a first person perspective of the asshole driver. To do that it would have to be a dash cam inside the asshole driver's car.

@bareboards2: I'm not implying I assume a lack of human error. I'm explicitly stating you must use extreme caution when using both *dupeof and *isdupe as to mitigate your own error before you make it. If someone else after the first *dupeof just comes along and posts a comment stating "This is not a dupe," that should have the same affect of invoking *notdupe. (This is why *isdupe exists.)

If the first person is erring when they *dupeof and the second person is also erring when they *isdupe, then they'll both lose their privileges for being so overwhelmingly careless.

These powers cannot be taken so lightly as to encourage people to think, "Well, I'll just invoke without doing any research. If I'm wrong, we'll make siftbot undo it for me. Yay for ignorance!"

Sounds like there was one primary shooter on the swat team. A second person sporadically shot after a notable delay. What got me was.. there was no verbal warning given in the clip. There was no identification given. The door was knocked open, and they began shooting in a matter of seconds.

The names of these swat guys need to be released. They should immediately be put on administrative leave and the situation should be investigated by an INDEPENDENT investigator. Charges need to be filed.

Perhaps I'm not supposed to hold my view on this because of my contribution to the sift meltdown. I think that's BR's possie, anyway. I think Lann just likes to be the second person to downvote my comments...

I generally didn't care for his other movies but I liked this one. The camera was kept at just the right distance from the main actor as to seem like a second person following, it really seemed enjoyable to be following him. Also there was a nice LACK of cuts, and targets were framed up well while keeping the 3rd person view. There WASN'T a whole lot of dialauge which is a GOOD thing, it is to short for some silly plot. Instead it felt like one level in a game like portal, where you have a clear cut beginning and end, and it doesn't matter whats next until you are done with this map. Also blood was kept to a minimum, the head shot looked like something out of call of duty rather then mortal combat.

I think it is time to graduate though from basic gun fight choreography to a more advanced level though. So far what he has shown looks nothing more like your beginners level in a 3rd rate FPS.

you know that you're the second person to link that chubby little diva on my page? Something about me must scream "singing into bananas"
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Thinking of you with attitude

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

The delayed dupe is an interesting idea- I can totally see the rationale for it - but execution might be a bit tough - and it could be misused.

The other question to ask is if it's the right thing to do. When someone submits a dupe - it's an error. Not a huge one - and not one that should cause scorn to the submitter, but it should be corrected ASAP IMHO.

It's interesting, I would say that most member-curated communities don't seem to care about dupes - but I see all the complaints on sites like Reddit of people feeling robbed that their non-salaciously titled post didn't get the votes - and then I'm glad we have this rule.

>> ^Shepppard:

I actually feel there should be two types of dupes, The Regular dupe that we have now, and a delayed dupe for instances of this caliber.
A delayed dupe would allow the video to stay for 3 days and accumulate votes, after the 3 days it's then treated like a normal dupe and the original gets the votes, that way the original gets its votes and the second has a chance to do well enough to allow the video to be seen.
I know there have been instances where naming a video meant it got next to no views, no views means no votes, and then a few days later due to the bad naming and tagging someone dupes it. With a second dupe type you at least still acquire votes for the second person rather then just getting a slap on the hand.
I don't know about getting something for the original voter, because that could potentially be abused, but with the delayed dupe you can at least do something nice for the person you've duped.