@Netruner
Since this is my first foray into sift territory, let me introduce myself. I am a conglomeration of whatever works best, be it libertarian (In a states right's kind of way,) Democrat (Probably mostly this) and Republican. I find absolutisms nerve-racking and enjoy playing a nice game of bridge with 80 year olds... Okay, that last part is a lie. Lasly, I do not value Ron Paul for all his political stands. I value Ron Paul because he is the least corporate hack I have seen in office, and that makes him rare.

Now, to the issue at hand...

Good with bad... good with bad... where have I heard that "least of two evil" argument before? Ah! I heard this in every bill that has ever existed in the House and Senate since the nation began taking baby steps! That same mentality has altered the course of our nation and usually, completely, removes the intent of laws so far from their goal they are useless. Compromise is neither a postive nor negative word. It just means that no one gets what they wanted…

“Oh, but compromise is necessary." Oh, I am married so I know "compromise is necessary..." In fact my marriage must be flawless because we both never get what we want... Yep, sounds right.

That, and say Dodd passes "his" bill and takes claim for audit the fed. Stealing is never nice. As you said, it is Pual's legacy.

Additionally, I am sure the language in Dodd's bill and Paul's is "slightly" off somewhere and that the miniscule divergence will ultimately be the factor that makes one bill effective and one bill ineffective. Honestly, I have not read Dodd's bill so I won't comment on it. However, history is a precursor so my assumption is rather safe. Sometimes, the best way to protect someone like the Federal Reserve from the people or lawmakers is to propose a “harsh law” first, that way it gives people the illusion of a problem solved. And if people think something has been done, they back off their attacks.

Lastly, Paul is against evil socialist democrats, however, he has worked with many in the past. That too, is his legacy.

This conceptualization of the baby-steps toward some form of efficiency prison of non-human makes one shudder to think of their children born into a future devoid of essence.
Second-life=no life.

good god.you ARE a lawyer!
no..you pegged me like a pin to a butterfly.
but good job sidestepping that after the initial punch.
an intelligence to be reckoned with you are.
i simply think my poetry is hack material incarnate.
it is one thing to share with people you interact with.
quite another to lie vulnerable to those who will eviscerate you.
i am a pussy.
a fearful troll who wishes to stay obscure because the light will reveal his lack of..
i bloviate and bluster but that is born from my insecurity.
i have no bite.
no defense when it comes to my work.
one word from an authority and i would be utterly and completely....destroyed.
so i pretend i dont care...
but that is the lie.
so...the sift has been my baby steps.
encouraging words have a positive affect.
i do not crave,nor seek them but i am not immune to their affects.
seeing what julie has done with my work and how it affects her..and rougy..
well...lets just say it is a good feeling.
the majority of my work nobody has seen and i dont have the first clue how to even begin the process of making my work public.
i have posted a few on my blog and on facebook but only after the insisting of friends.
but i must admit to a curious,morbid fascination with the "what if's"...
what if i COULD get published?
what if people actually would spend money to read my work?
what if they despised my work?
what if i was rejected?
what if i was accepted?
what if they liked my work?
what if..what if...
confessions of a poet was my coming out of sorts.after 30 years of secret dedication i decided to accept the mantle or title of "poet".
the sift was my choice in coming out and because of people like you and my dear friend miss julie it has not been a wholly unpleasant experience.
maybe someday soon a door will open and reveal how i can take the next step.
because honestly rasch, i have not the first clue on how to get my dumb ass published.
i cannot tell you how much your support and kind words have meant to me and my endeavors.of course there have been others:schmawy,rougy,bea,IV,throbbin,duckman,qwiz and of course the chogster and i am meeting more great people everyday here on the sift but you seemed to always be there at the right time with the right thing to say.
i thank you from the bottom of my heart rasch.
you..my friend..are an exceptional person.
thanks for being you.
namaste.

In reply to this comment by mentality:
First of all, this has only worked on 2 breast cancer cell lines, meaning that it only works for the clones of the cells derived from 2 specific individuals, in an artificial laboratory setting. Will this work in people, and can it be adapted to the myriad of different mutations that cause breast cancer, nobody knows. The paper concludes that they have "outline[d] a new therapeutic approach", which means just that: they have taken the first baby steps towards something that might work, after many, many years and billions and billions of dollars of research..... maybe.

Anyways, nothing to get excited about. If this was a huge Nobel winning breakthrough, it wouldn't have been published in a journal as small as Breast Cancer Research.

Look, if you can't derive happiness from even two strains of cancer cells being selectively killed off, (without proof of it not working on others) I suspect there is little to derive happiness from. Let's be enthusiastic about this eh?

First of all, this has only worked on 2 breast cancer cell lines, meaning that it only works for the clones of the cells derived from 2 specific individuals, in an artificial laboratory setting. Will this work in people, and can it be adapted to the myriad of different mutations that cause breast cancer, nobody knows. The paper concludes that they have "outline[d] a new therapeutic approach", which means just that: they have taken the first baby steps towards something that might work, after many, many years and billions and billions of dollars of research..... maybe.

Anyways, nothing to get excited about. If this was a huge Nobel winning breakthrough, it wouldn't have been published in a journal as small as Breast Cancer Research.

>> ^jiyanibi:
I'd certainly appreciate a posh British accent over an American one, as I'm guessing Mr Gyllenhall will have (and the character in the latest PoP game had...ugh).
Agreed, baby steps here on the accent. Though, it is the same as was in the first of the new games.

I'm very glad it doesn't look like they took ANY character cues from Emo Within or Two Whiners.

Obama just drives me crazy sometimes.

I'm happy that he did this, but then I see what he does with Afghanistan and wire-tapping and a slew of other things and I'm all pissed off again.

It's a baby step, but it's in the right direction for a change.

Wait, augmented reality breast implants? Where can my wife sign up?


>> ^Crake:
Awesome! But AR belongs in glasses/implants. the 'iphone as looking glass' option is a baby step in the right direction.

Awesome! But AR belongs in glasses/implants. the 'iphone as looking glass' option is a baby step in the right direction.

From Wired...

In the latest example of finding media innovation where you’d least expect it, CBS is embedding a video player in a print ad in Entertainment Weekly that will serve up a buffet of its fall TV lineup.

The CBS foray into a print-digital alliance plays full-motion video at a crisp resolution. The ad, dubbed by CBS and partner Pepsi Max “the first-ever VIP (video-in-print) promotion,” works like one of those audio greeting cards. Opening the page activates the player, which is a quarter-inch–thick screen seen through a cutaway between two pages concealing the larger circuit board underneath.

The audio quality is equally good (extremely poor video shot by this reporter notwithstanding), but beware: There are no volume controls, and in a quiet environment, it’s quite loud. This is surely a intentional design feature, aimed at getting the attention of people nearby.

Unlike the wholly unsatisfying debut of the e-ink cover in Esquire magazine last year, this works.

The video-enhancement will appear in the September issue of Entertainment Weekly, but only in what sounds like a relatively small subset of the circulation: The promo itself will be in every copy, but the video portion only in some subscriptions delivered to New York and Los Angeles. It was released Tuesday to media outlets.

Upon getting to the ad, there is a 5-second delay before anything happens — there is enough on the page to probably hold the unassuming reader’s attention for that long, if nothing else the eerie stare from Neil Patrick Harris — and then a 5-second still promo before the promo for the player’s developer, Americhip.

Next up is a pre-roll featuring a bespoke setup by three characters from the network’s hit Big Bang Theory sitcom. ”I weep for civilization,” opines Emmy-nominated Jim Parsons (Sheldon Cooper) at the end of the clip, scripted to reveal that the über nerd was tricked into appearing in an ad in Entertainment Weekly rather than “the current edition of Physics Today.”

As impressive as this step is, the true marriage of print and digital multimedia still seems quite far off, and eons away from the streaming updates in the newspapers of Minority Report fame.

Still, it is boldish, baby steps like this that bring about dramatic shifts in media. That said, the logical extreme of the current wave of tech innovation heads more toward digital reproduction of a print experience, as the Kindle DX aspires to do for newspapers, rather than to ultrathin hardware pasted to paper.

In a more-limited context, is there much of a future for this branch?

It’s an expensive undertaking, but it does seem well suited for milestone events like a new TV season or as part of a marketing blitz for a certain genre of movie — think a Watchman trailer in Entertainment Weekly.

Part of the lure of this technology as an advertising mechanism is that it adds a “medium is the message” value and thus reaps free publicity from stories like this. But when the novelty wears off, and without serendipitous newsstand sales — which Entertainment Weekly will not benefit from this time around — there’s not nearly as much upside.

And therein lies the dilemma of even bothering to extend the digital experience into a bits medium: In the end, how many people will actually see this rather than just hear about it?

the internet is the most important human invention since penicillin or electricity
what we have now and for ten years from now are just baby steps
in ten to twenty years we will have a form of combined worldwide human consciousness
stuff like iran-twitter and 'the anonymous' and the unstoppable piracy are just the first signs of this
even if his points were valid, which they aren't, what is the value of a really minor annoyance to one country next to the evolution of the human mind?

Lyrics:

EH: I think this is an ignoramus statement
Umm, I was even a person who thought
You know what, power to Joe the Plumber at that point
SG: Before he went around laying his pipe all over town
EH: Well, Joe the Plumber is not invited
Anywhere around me
EG: Does baby need a tissue?
Thinking about the time the plumber kissed you
Before you caught him creeping with the shitzu
RM: As republicans, the party does seem to be in chaos
RP: They need to change their attitude, attitude
Their attitude, attitude
MG: Ay, tells us what your homeys can do
To make a change
RP: You know, they talk about personal freedoms
They have to believe in it, you know
MG/RM: We know!
RP: To believe in it, you know
MG/RM: We know!
RP: To believe in it, you know
MG/RM: We know, we know, we know you just got to believe
RP: To believe in it, you know
MG/RM: We know!
RP: To believe in it, you know
MG/RM: We know!
RP: To belieeeeeeeeeve! Lieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve!
MG: You saying Republicans on crack
Are you cozy with the Democrats?
RP: I just don't think that either party
Right now offers a whole lot
MG: You'll see some real change
From the 3rd party at my house
Poppin champagne, bacardi; gettin crunked out
Triple rhymin with Joe Biden
While we Imbibin Hennessy
Come on over--drinks on me, homey
HK: We'll be friends with you
AZ: And bff with you
Main Damies with you
HK: And colleagues with you
AZ: I'll be in your crew
HK: I'll be in yours, too
AZ: Jumpin rope with you
HK: Playin Donkey Kong with you
AZ: Hatchin plans with you
HK/AZ: invade Tajikistan with you
HC: We do not believe either Afghanistan or Pakistan
Can achieve lasting progress
Without the full participation of all of your citizens
Including women and girls
AZ: Having a barbecue
HK: Grilling a goat with you
AZ: Grilling terrorists, too
HK: Getting matching tattoos
HC: The rights of women must be respected and protect--
AZ: --Picking flowers with you
HK: Hot showers with you
AZ: Falling in love with you
HK: Nude at the zoo
AZ/HK: Making memories at the pottery wheel, rubbing clay on you all afternoon
KC: It would be one of the most dramatic
Foreign policy about faces ever
AG: To what do you refer, shawtayee?
KC: A bipartisan bill in Congress would end
The 47-year-old trade freeze with Cuba
AG: Ojalá congreso le gusta esta
KC: It has only spotty support so far
But President Obama's already taken some baby steps
Letting Cuban Americans visit family members
And send them money
But for most of us it's still a place that is
Strictly off limits
AG: Not for this G
I just went there illegally
Speaking of which, will you buy drugs from me
On national TV?
Don't fret--the people think I'm joking
But guess what (what?)?
I've never joked in my life; ooh-wee, shawtayee
KC: The trade embargo made sense a half century ago
AG: That's 50 years
KC: During the Cold War
Fidel Castro took sides with the enemy
But the Soviet Union is long gone
AG: Disbanded:
KC/AG: Long gooooone!
SG: Dick Cheney. Rush Limbaugh or Colin Powell. Who's your damie?
DC: Well, if I had to choose, uh
In terms of being a Republican I'd go with Rush Limbaugh
My take on it was Colin had already left the party
SG: I don't think that actually happened
[awkward silence]
This is an awkward silence;
I guess I'll fill it with ad libs
Oh! Shawty! Yeah
EG: Whoo! Aaaah
KC: Now it's up to Fidel and Raúl Castro
AG: Esos Castros locos. Cuidado
KC: President Obama says he wants to see Democratic reforms
Particularly on human rights and free speech
So congress will be looking for signs of change
After almost 50 years
AG: Ay, that's half a century
KC: U.S. policy will not reverse overnight
Relations remain chilly
But for the 1st time in generations
A thaw is possible
AG: A thaw, but what sort of thaw?
What exactly is thawing?
KC: Very, very, very, very
Very thin ice
AG/KC: Very thin ice, very thin ice, very thin ice

microscope
4,512,0,32768,1024,0,32,128,4,64,512,32768,0,0,1024,0
baby steps
1024,16,8192,64,1024,576,256,512,256,16384,256,0,16512,16416,320,65536
choggie
8,4,8200,32,9216,16392,16384,18,4128,2,4100,32800,65728,65544,16420,18

"So what exactly do you plan to do about it?"

Religions will be the same in a hundred years, because they by definition can't change, but human genius will have accomplished an enormous amount with technology during that time.

The case for invisible supernaturalism will be weakened by orders of magnitude once reprogenetics, neural engineering, and regenerative medicine are beyond the baby steps they're taking now.

...Or maybe technological progress will suddenly stop tomorrow and there will be nothing left for science to figure out?

Okay, apparently this has to be baby-step explained for everyone here.

Reason 1: People are not against using objects to improve themselves, turning oil into a synthetic fibre for clothing, or taking medication to prevent pregnancy. All of these things are unnatural, yet accepted by society. Air conditioning could be considered one of them. How many of you want to give up air conditioning/central heating, or for that matter, the internet?

Reason 2: The will of God is not viewed as a valid reason to ban homosexuality. I believe if it exists, God willed it to exist, and since there are homosexuals, God willed them to exist. Anyone who quotes Leviticus at me is an idiot. Also, other religions believe in other gods who may pardon or support homosexuals. Banning what their religion deems appropriate in favor of another religion is indeed theocratic.

Reason 3: The consumation of a marriage and resulting pregnancy is no longer viewed as a requirement of matrimony. There are 2.5 million infertile couples in the United States, and are incapible of producing children. Millions more have menopausal females and are unable to produce children. The people who fit in those two categories clearly outweigh the number of gays.

Reason 4: This may occur, but it is merely an optical illusion of statistics. More people seem to be getting cancer because people are more willing to talk about themselves and others who have the often terminal disease. If gay marriage and homosexual relations were allowed in society, more gays would identify themselves as homosexual because they don't fear public torture and death. In fact, straight people will not turn gay because it is legal.

The only scientific evidince connected to homosexuality is that it is genetic. Genetic "diseases" or "abnormalities" are not contagious by external contact, or internal contact for that matter.

Reason 5: This is a paradox. Children are born to a man and a woman. This is a fact. However, gays are born to straight men and women, meaning that it is impossible for straight parents to only raise straight children, because gays have been born and are being born as we speak. Tough break.

Reason 6: The reference to interracial marriages refers to periods of time in the 50s, 60s, and earlier, when interracial couples were deemed distasteful or wrong. Parents feared their children coming home with a 'colored' significant other, or thier lovely darling baby choosing a white for a spouse. Those lines have finally begun to blur, and interracial marriages have mostly been left alone, because a new scapegoat has appeared: gay marriages.

Reason 7: I assume many of you support single working parents. They're appallingly common in the United States, with divorce rates so high. The children of such parents don't have two role models. I grew up with mostly just my mother; my father spent a lot of time away on business. I don't consider myself 'deprived' or 'poorly raised' because I didn't know what men were 'supposed to act like', which is what a role model teaches.

"What is popular is right" Let's all jump off bridges. It'll be totally cool. What? We'll all die? No biggie, at least we'll all die together. And why don't we ban gay marriage while we're at it, and drill in Tennessee, because clearly there is oil in Tennessee. Right under Graceland.

If you didn't get anything before that, you won't get the end.

Final points:
- Just because it was said before doesn't mean we can't say it again. Hearing it out loud gave it a larger impact for me.
- America has a reputation for tolerance and freedom. Our direct policy is "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". A consensual marriage is an inalienable right under those terms.
- This is the ultimate sarcastic slam. When listening to these 'reasons' to disallow gay marriage, you sit there, stop the video, and think; "something's not quite right about that logic..." and you know why. Because there is no logic.

Call me a fag, call me a prick, call me whatever string of meaningless letters pops into your head. But lay off of alien_concept. Because she's in support of gay rights, and she's absolutely right.