salamangkero

Please be forewarned, the general tone of this reaction post is a bit negative. Dear friend, nowhere did I say that anyone should not be treated as a human. I beg to differ. These drugs should help alleviate a patient's condition and, in that respect, everyone has the right to it. However, when the aforementioned drugs also carry a risk of side-effects, I should think prisoners are more deserving of this chance. I don't think being poor ever makes anyone more deserving of an adverse medical reaction. This is something I would also beg to differ on. In my point of view, human rights should be applied equally. Why should you test on prisoners of someone else's countries when you have prisoners available in your own? When you talk of how a government respects its own people, should that entail disrespecting everyone else? No drug is "perfect", heck, even paracetamol can have side effects. I think the question is rather meaningless, after all, that IS the point of testing: finding out whether a drug has other side effects that have not been observed from animal testing. And I think it's pretty racist to say something along the lines of "I think <<procedure>> is dangerous so I will not recommend it to my countrymen but it's okay if they do it to other countries" Really, I'm sorry if anyone gets offended but I think that's a pretty backward manner of thinking. Thank you for your insight; I'm pretty sure you would make an impeccable forecaster or fortuneteller. For the life of me, I have no idea how you are absolutely sure that any prisoner testing a drug WILL get sick. I am amazed at how you perceived that there is absolutely no chance that the drug will work with no or minimal adverse effects. And even when I said pharmaceutical testing on animals is a completely different issue altogether, I really do appreciate that you still persisted in bringing it up. Yeah... well, you see, my idea was trying to save lives while yours was focused on inflicting unnecessary pain and prolonging the agony of the process of dying. Thanks for the notion, though. Thank you for keeping an open mind. I'm quite positive we have very few murderers, arsonists, prostitutes, rapists, drug lords and terrorists here. Yeah... the criminal underground here is a thieving guild like that... yeah... You raised a good point and I agree. I must admit, I have never thought of it in that respect. I do suppose reducing their sentence is rather unfair to their victims. (Sorry, just for this line, I do genuinely agree with the quoted text; I'm not being sarcastic) Yes, I know it's beside the point too, which makes me wonder why it was brought up in the first place.

While I would have loved to post this in the "My Ideas, Theories, Possibilities, Innovations" section but I'm well aware that what may be obvious and logical to me may not be so apparent to others.My idea is already concisely presented in the title but, for the sake of further information, allow me to describe the situation which had led to the formulation of such a notion.In our country, the crime rate is rather moderately high and our prisons are quite full. A cell which includes two bunk beds would be made capable of holding up to fifteen persons. In some jails, there do exist a rather gentlemanly system where older prisoners, on account of their age and frailty, would get the best possible accommodations. On the other hand, there also exist systems where the strongest rule from a rather comfortable metaphorical throne, at least, as comfy as anyone in prison could afford. Meanwhile, all around them, overcrowding remains a problem. Lack of water and hygienic supplies like soap, shampoo and toothpaste introduce several dermatological and dental problems like boils, scabs, measles outbreaks and a host of other diseases and illnesses, prison brawls and rape notwithstanding.Now I just figured that, perhaps, it might be worthwhile to do testing using human subjects. I mean, AFTER testing has been done on other animals, and that, methinks, is a whole new issue that, at the moment, I have to beg you to ignore it and just stay focused on the primary question: should prisoners be subject to pharmaceutical testing?They could probably use the chance that it works. I mean, almost any health care they'd receive from drug companies would undoubtedly be much better than the conditions they are enduring right now. Perhaps a system could be instituted that those who undergo or participate in such testing might have more comfortable accommodations, or maybe have some years lopped off their sentences.Although, I would be first to admit, this has been mostly idle and speculative thinking; this idea has not been fully-thought out and while it feels like a good one, perhaps others might offer much more concrete and convincing opinions than what my addled brain had laid out before you, whether supporting or contradicting the original idea.What do you guys think?

Wow, I wonder about that... I seriously wonder why this does not work for some people, I mean, the concept is pretty straightforward enough, in my opinion. In our house, we always put the remote control on a specific table, that way, we don't have to search for it in other tables. And we keep our tables neat and inanimate, I mean, our furniture do not "mysteriously" take objects on top of them and put it underneath. Now, I don't know if some cultures simply enjoy the thrill of the scavenger hunt or the mystery of haunted furniture but, really now, I think the main issue is not how to find an object when it is lost but how to stop it from getting lost. And if I may humbly suggest so, the following instructions seem simple enough: Allot a specific spot for your remote control. On top of the TV, a coffee table, a side table, whatever. Do not assign ALL tables, chairs or surfaces in your house. Allot exactly one table for your remote control Retrieve remote control from its spot. Turn on the TV. Enjoy. Turn off TV. Put remote control back in its rightful place. Keep the spot, no, keep your house free of clutter. In case remote control's resting place is disturbed and the remote control falls down, do not ignore this event. Put it back. See, not so difficult, is it? Then again, maybe some people do need to hoard their precious calories and would rather live with the problem than solve it so... I dunno.

I seriously can't believe I am engaging in this kind of conversation but I'll try my best to be understanding. Alright, so maybe you guys are right. Maybe remote control units do get lost from time to time. Maybe it's a ploy by television companies so you can keep on buying remote controls like every other consumable product. Maybe pressing a button on your TV to make your remote control "beep" its presence represents an immense scientific breakthrough in the frontier of weight gain technology, I don't know. I'm just speculating. Then again, I think I've heard a quote before that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure so, like, I don't know how you guys do it but I reckon this one kinda hits it spot-on. Then again, I'm not really all that familiar with couch potato culture so if you'll please excuse my ignorance

I am not sure if it is appropriate for me to post a response since I happen to be a non-American non-teenager who, like linekill, happens to live in the (self-proclaimed) texting capital of the world but this seems like a free forum so allow me to share my opinions on the subject. For one, I have observed that a lot of posts have rather vilified SMS technology, even associating it to Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres without basis. Text messaging has been blamed for the deterioration of grammar skills and some have painted a grim slippery slope scenario where humans will no longer be capable of face-to-face interaction. There were even a few wild speculations that there are absolutely no substance to these SMS messages. I think, however, that things are not as bad as they seem. For instance, texting is a cheaper form of communication than phone calls or email. I really believe that, in some instances, instead of the morbid breakdown of social relationships conveniently floated in the above posts, text messaging helps bring people together. Families here who have parents or siblings working in faraway areas (such as different provinces) find it very convenient to be able to message their loved ones for a very inexpensive amount. Students, who have no stable source of income, find it easier to budget their allowances when they communicate with their friends via text messaging. Also, it's not as if all text messages are like typical Budweiser "Whazzuuu~p?!?" commercials. Some have also (without basis) pointed out that students who texted a lot usually don't do well in school. I beg to differ; without SMS messages, I would NOT have graduated college. Ever thought of the convenience of broadcasting to your classmates the location of the next play rehearsal? How about asking one of your team members to please, please, please stop by a convenience store to buy isotonic water for your chemistry project because you found out that the guy who was supposed to bring it took a sick leave? In a large university, where classmates are not necessarily friends, haven't you texted your friends to borrow bus fare when your wallet got swiped at the cafeteria? Didn't you find it convenient when your professor texted you the next venue for your outdoor class? Or when the instructor thoughtfully messaged you that your exams have been postponed? Or the announcement that classes are cancelled due to a storm or political rally? Imagine the time you would have needlessly wasted without SMS messages! A lot of people blame texting for the fact that other people have terrible spelling, punctuation and grammar skills. I find this to be a wild exaggeration because, in our country, all our professionals have been exposed to lots of text messages. Oh, of course, we still have our share of idiots who tYp3 LyK d!s but we usually attribute these faults on the person, not on the technology. That would be as foolish as claiming lighter fluids give rise to arsonists and kitchen knives inspire a spate of murders. I sincerely exhort us all to think more on the matter before recklessly blaming a useful technology for problems that may, after all, be human in nature

I sincerely believe the question is rather too broad. It is not a question of whether homeless people should be allowed cellphones (implicitly stating that homeless people may or may not have their phones confiscated from them) I perceive it more like, "Is it right for homeless people to own luxury phones?" If it's some beat-up old Nokia model that can only text or call (no offense to Nokia, I actually prefer your phones), there is no point to the question at all. After all, the poor guy (or gal) most probably NEEDS it. Does your homeless man need a CAMERA phone?However, what if it was a postpaid iPhone? Or Blackberry? Or Android? Is it right that they own a phone with a variety of features they don't need instead of selling it and buying a cheaper model? Oh sure, they bought the phone, it is theirs! However, is this correct behaviour, given that they are aware of their situation? I am no American, but I am from a country that has seen lots of poor people (squatters, we call them; they live in shanties built on land that is not their own) so kindly allow me to pose a few similar questions:Is it right for a poor man to pay for hair coloring (bleach, highlights, what-have-yous) when his family could only eat rice and salt everyday?Is it allowable for a beggar to buy cigarettes even as he himself is begging for food?Should a woman buy a new cellphone model if her daughter is already wearing tattered rags from day to day?By the virtue of trading, anything anyone buys, without cheating or resorting to any trickery, is rightfully his. I will not dispute that one's property should not be confiscated if it harms no one. Do not mistake this, however, for approval of such reckless actions. For one in dire straits, it is only prudent to attempt to recover by ridding one's self of luxuries and sticking to one's needs. To do so communicates a genuine desire to save one's self and should not a nation attempt to save those worth saving? No, a nation should try to save as much of its populace as it can, whether they help themselves or not. Yet the question still lingers, are you willing to save those who would not help themselves?(Remember, this is, for me, about luxury phones. I do acknowledge the (almost vital) need for a basic cellphone)

I think this is a very touchy issue and there are bound to be a lot of sentiments regarding how people approach this. For one, allow me to clarify that I do sincerely believe that there are those of us who sincerely want to help and, no matter if their methodology is either sound or foolish, they have done whatever they did with the best of intentions. So much for the good part. For some, if not most, I dare suppose, Haiti is a very convenient feel-good mechanism. Oh, a lot may not acknowledge harboring such negative thoughts and, probably, few would even realize what they are doing. There are those who, consciously or otherwise, donate to Haiti relief efforts in order to feel good (or, heaven help us, smug) about themselves. There would be bragging veiled under "sad" conversations in hushed tones about Haiti's plight: "I mean, I saw those starving people there and it just broke my heart. I mean, girl, I've donated my clothes and <insert a sizeable amount here> <insert currency here> but it still doesn't seem enough. Oh, those poor, poor people." Clearly not an example of subtlety, that, but a rather realistic example of human nature. Far worse, some could be exploiting Haiti. I personally cannot bear witness to any actual exploitation but allow me to tell you a little about my home country. On September 25, we were visited by a rather moderate typhoon. There was not much respectable wind as we usually get during the stormy season. However, it did bring us the worst rainfall ever recorded by our weather agency, dumping immense amounts of rainfall over our mainland. Areas that were not at all flood-prone submerged, main thoroughfares were rendered impassable and thousands were stranded on offices, malls and other commercial establishments. Worse, thousands more were stranded right in their very homes as rapidly rising waters forced people to their rooftops. These are no shanties we are talking about here (a lot of them have been swept away by swelling rivers or sheer floodwater), no, these are concrete two-story houses of middle-class to high-class people. It has been said that damage has been suffered by everyone from all walks of life. Enter the aftermath. There was an outpour of support from people, also from all walks of life. Celebrities reached out to the peons, the masses helped rescue TV stars stranded on their rooftops. There suddenly was a lot of food to go around, curiously including some food in styrofoam packages, bearing a small political logo and a short note: "A little help from Senator XXX" A quick look at several plastic bags of relief goods turned up a rather familiar name. Unofficially, the campaign period for the 2010 presidential elections has begun. Worse, there turned up some shirts that had the words, "Where I'm from, everybody is a hero," proudly emblazoned across the chest. Generally speaking, not just for the Haiti earthquake but for a lot of tragic disasters, people usually extend a helping hand. A few of these hands bear food, clothing, basic needs, money or any assistance its owner can provide. Some of these hands are coated in honey; the moment one poor soul brushes against it, it swiftly grabs a sticky hold on its victim's arm all while its owner hollers, "Behold! I AM HELPING PEOPLE!" A substantial part of these hands were forced to give by other hands. I mean, everyone's giving, it is only right that I should give too, right? WRONG! As negative as it sounds, I'm going to have to agree (a bit, but not entirely) with princeofvegas. Think of your own! Put yourself first! Can you really afford to give? More importantly, do you really want to give? Oh, sure, go ahead and put on a front in the name of "ethics" or "what's right"... in the end, what it all boils down to is not how many people you have saved but whether you can live with the convenient lie you keep telling yourself. So what if your friends are giving? Do not sully the name of charity by simply treating it as a fad. Pragmatists will disagree with me, explaining how, in times of need, it matters not where help comes from, so long as there is help. I say, nay! We have evolved and risen above animals because of our intelligence but also, of equal importance, because of kindness. It is our ability to care for another being, regardless whether it is from our bloodline or not, that we are able, as a species, to protect each other and mature into who we are now. Where kindness disappears, we degenerate into nothing more than machines, following a set of social rules against our will. Will giving deprive you of anything? Will it reduce your financial capability as a person? Will it put you in a situation not too far from those you are rescuing? If so, don't give! What use is it to rescue one man from poverty if it reduces another into begging? How different is it from the relationship between predator and prey where one dies so that the other may live? Leave charity to those who are actually able to part with their resources. Martyrdom is only for those who are either stupid or have a strong faith in their principles. I personally know a lot of stupid people but I don't know too many principled ones; most of their profound, astounding and charitable philosophies unhesitatingly wilt at the mere thought of their credit card companies. Remember that even before the earthquake, Haiti is in a terrible, impoverished condition. To answer the original question, I sincerely doubt ALL of the relief efforts actually reach Haiti, given its corrupted state. Forgive me this impudent analogy, but I am seeing a street urchin, eating from dumpsters and, generally, ignored by everyone. On an otherwise ordinary day, he stubs his toe and, all of a sudden, everyone is all over him, throwing him their money. "Oh dear, help the poor kid!" they say. "Give! Give! Give! It is only right to give," blared the media. "He needs medical assistance!" cry the doctors. "His toe needs immediate treatment... eh? Pneumonia, you say? I'll get right on it as soon as I fix this toe right!" Hypocrites. I admit, I did nothing for Haiti. I have my own reasons, which I will not bother explaining. After all, I do not think I have done anything wrong that will require any sort of justification from me. No, I'm not poor (I'm not rich either) and I have a steady job. I play bowling or badminton every week. I also sleep soundly at night. Don't get me wrong. I bear no hatred towards Haiti and, personally, I will not wish any such devastating earthquake upon anyone. I am just not inclined to help them.

A lot have been said about this topic, including a few obscenities. There are, however, a few key points I'd like to explore: Unless we are talking about porn films here, where rape scenes would hardly be an issue amidst other perversions, I think this statement would be an injustice to a lot of films that don't really focus solely on rape, or sex, for that matter. I would be first to admit that rape is actually a very powerful driving force in the plot of any story, it is almost certain to be a reason for revenge, an explanation for a character's aloofness, an explanation for a character's existence or a manifestation of an antagonist's perversity... or a combination of those. Then again, there are those soft porn flicks masquerading as "indie" movies. I've watched a few of these... uh, art films and while I must admit that some of them offer superb acting performance, tackle profound issues (other than sex)and generally, present a viewer with a reality that is so far removed from the altruistic perfection of the silver screen, there are also a few abrupt side scenes featuring nudity (and sometimes, rape) that contribute nothing at all to the plot. In this issue, I would suppose, much thought should be given not to whether rape was the entire point of the film (I mean, we have films that hinge on very singular concepts too) but on whether rape was all there is to the film. Ignoring the rather hasty, judgemental statement about having no relative or friend who had been victim to rape, would this statement mean that anything that could possibly offend a fraction of the population should NOT be shown on visual media? Say I have a friend who has been fired from her job. It had been a very traumatic experience for her to be fired by a company she was loyal to. Now we go to a movie and, guess what? We see a guy getting fired on screen. Should tears well up in her eyes and sobs escape her lips? Should I be outraged and mutter, "People who are okay with job termination scenes have NEVER EVER had anyone close to them get fired. That scene was so totally unnecessary!" Sad as it may be and non-ideal as the world is, rape is very much a reality people should face and be wary of. It is, at the moment, very much a part of life as dinner and beggars and airlines and lunatics and elevators. You may not encounter them everyday but you know they're there. To deny the reality of rape, to blanket it with a plain text or narration or to sugar-coat it with uber-subtle "hints" (such as groans, moans and screams accompanying a blurry silhouette) would be to insult the intelligence of the audience. It would be as horrible as implying that you are showing a movie to a bunch of idiots with the mind of six-year old children incapable of separating make-believe from their own bubble of reality. Though, of course, if you were actually showing it to actual six year old kids, then, that's a different issue, one that involves parental guidance, which brings me to... The blame here, methinks, lies on the parents, not on the film. I mean, if the movie was properly labelled as R-18, NC-17 or even PG-13, they should have taken the cue and watched it, y'know, somewhere private. Or after the kids have gone to sleep. (Unless, of course, the DVD has a Spongebob Squarepants cover, I mean, wouldn't that be a, rather unpleasant, surprise for the entire family now? ) Also, am I also wrong in inferring that this statement presumes kids to be idiots? I mean, look, they're watching Taken, do they think, "Oh no, I'm gonna get kidnapped?" They're watching the Ring, do they think, "I'm not gonna watch cartoons anymore on the off-chance the image turns to static and then?" They're watching Resident Evil, do they think, "I'm gonna shut myself inside the house?" Rape, in and of itself, is an entertainment to certain sectors of the society I would not admit to being part of. Aside from that, however, (meaning for average people) rape in and of itself does not consist entertainment. It's in how the victim overcame her... trauma. It's in the hero guy who avenged his daughter. It's in the orphan who struggles to be accepted by a world that frowns on parentless children. I'm not sure about the culture there but... I don't know, seriously, how many of you guys had "the talk"? I got my basic sex ed from school, a few more advanced stuff online and morals from the news. At first, it was like, "If someone rapes anyone, he or she will rot in jail," which was just fine, since kids don't have firm morality yet so, for the moment, fear of punishment would do. When I grew up and learned to put myself on other people's shoes, well, I knew why rape is wrong. I'm not presuming to actually understand rape victims, simply that I can think of the issue and decide for myself why it's right or wrong... but I digress, I suppose. In any case, I think this one depends on one's parenting style. (Don't ask me, I don't plan on having any kids) If you guys can actually make it work without being too awkward, then fine, go ahead, talk to your kids. If not, well, regulate what media they are exposed to, at least, until they can do some thinking for themselves. Still, I think kids nowadays are pretty smart, if you actually give them credit. Still, one thing I agree with is that you should NEVER park your kids in front of the TV for education. Not even if it's an educational show, much less a crime drama with rape scenes or, heaven forbid, a hardcore porn flick. Be a parent; kids learn more through human-to-human interaction. Human-to-media learning should only be supplementary, NEVER the main means of education. Even for topics like rape and sex. ESPECIALLY for topics like rape and sex.

Well I'll be! I never thought I'd see the day when something has already been achieved and people just up and say, "No, it's impossible." And I think the point of teleportation is to transport one object from one place to another WITHOUT MOVING IT or any of the particles it's been broken down to. That's a lot like saying you can teleport a pair of pants by ripping it up and mailing it to the other side of the world, where it will be sewn back together again. So I'll have to disagree with evilsmiley25

A few thoughts occurred to me over this issue, some related to each other, and some, disjoint.For instance, the future depicted by a lot of visual media, like the Jetsons, or, heaven help us, Futurama, is rather... too imaginative. Sure, it'd be nice for all of us to live on top of tall structures but I find it highly impractical. For one, if everyone wants to live up there, who's going to occupy the other floors? Or, supposing that we have saucer-shaped living areas on top of solid concrete steeples, what reason, aside from the half-baked projections of cartoon makers, would humanity have that would prompt them to leave behind the safe, stable ground and decide to live up there, buffeted by winds and at the cruel mercy of earthquakes?Okay, so let's just assume that rising water levels due to global warming made us live in the sky, where the ground level has long since been submerged into the ocean. Of course, we'd have our garages up there and our cars retrofitted to fly in 3d instead of navigating roads in 2d. A few more questions pop up: how do you manage traffic in three dimensions? What sort of protection or anchorage do you have against storms or occasional gusts of wind when you have no roads or wheels for traction? Without fences, how are citizens to protect themselves from some maniac who decides to ram his car against every structure in sight? Who is to save the poor soul who ran out of gas?How handy it is to stand in the present and view the hallway into the past! And, pretty much like picture frames along a hallway, things back there seem so much closer to each other, don't they? There sure are a lot of discoveries in the past, like fire and wheels and steam engines and circuit boards, mostly because we NEED them. Travelling to the country by a horse-drawn sled is an inconvenience. Waiting for mail by the Pony Express could very well be a matter of life and death. Dozens have died in pain and disease that could very well have been prevented. That's why have cars and choppers, email and SMS messages, medicine and vaccine.However, what daily inconveniences would be solved by a jetpack? A floating car? Laser blasters? Tall buildings? Uhm... sex robots?I think, sometimes, we need to think outside the box to progress. Other times, though, we have to get our heads off the silver screen... or the boob tube

It is quite an interesting idea. While I do not dispute that matters of grave importance (such as significant secrets, messages of love, money and, well, estate) cannot simply be entrusted to something as simple as a web service, I must admit that there are also matters of personal importance which one cannot simply entrust to a lawyer for one of the following reasons: a) one is a student, unemployed or, basically, does not have the money to hire a lawyer, the item(s) in question are not significant enough to qualify for an "estate" such as journals, novel drafts, baseball cards, lego sets, etc In any case, what I do think is that this should be useful to younger people. Many times, I have wondered on my own mortality and I am pretty sure that the thought of death comes to all sane-minded people after, if not before, the age of twenty. While I do not have much to pass on to others should I pass away, I do have things that are of certain importance to me. Should I leave this world, I would be most anxious to see that they should not fall "in the wrong hands" so to speak. However, I must admit, I have not, at the moment, the money for a lawyer nor the trust for my friends (there are rather embarrassing secrets, again, of personal importance, I am loathe to share to anyone so long as I am alive) Though, of course, I'd trust these web services even less than my friends, only, I am under the assumption that none of the people behind these web services know me personally and, therefore, would have absolutely nothing to gain from selling out on me Mailfreezr, on the other hand, would be as useful to me as a personal diary kept under lock and key... or a time capsule, without all that digging and cement pouring and digging out again... which is to say, I don't find it to be of much personal use. After all, I am not the type of person to write letters to my future self, though I also understand that other people do. This grim, morbid business of delivering messages after death certainly brought to mind one such arrangement with a (offline) florist. This is a mushy tearjerker, though, so... you have been warned

I think your teacher may have been thinking of evening the odds. Whether your team was good or the other teams sucked, it still remains that, in a game of soccer, your team has a much higher probability of winning. In an academic institution, they do teach a lot of things in the books but it is also their responsibility to equip you with the social skills required to make it outside the walls of your campus. These social skills include adapting to change and learning to get along.There was once a man who thought, "My fellowmen are so good, we should tamper with evolution, that is, we should have more of our race and less of the other, weaker, impure races." Well, your history teacher would probably disagree on the accuracy of that and the pundits here would have a field day quoting history books and wikipedia but, the point still remains, that it was one of Hitler's ambitions to have a completely homogenous society.Reality, however, is not as forgiving. We live in a world where differences, especially genetic ones, cannot be resolved. There will always be people who may not seem fit for it but are actually good at soccer. There are also those who excel in mathematics or computers. I think what your teacher was aiming at, perhaps intentionally or subconsciously, was not the evolution or the development of the "ultimate" team but for you, as students and also as individuals, to learn how to impart your knowledge and skills to others, and also learn something from them.Let's say persons A and B both have 90% potential while persons C and D both have only 50%. If A, B, C and D were to tackle a problem the way your team does it, A and B would be the ones doing work while C and D would have to stay on the sidelines. Now, suppose you group A with C and partner B to D, I really don't think A and B's potential will drop now, do you? However, notice that, by teaching their partners, A and B would actually be raising C and D's potentials, giving them the skills required to take on the problem.You might argue that it's soccer but, you'll have to admit, you don't get much "training" or, simply put, your skills don't grow much when you face off against weaker opponents, right? By transferring your friend, your teacher has evened the odds by diminishing the strength of your team and transferring an asset to the other team. It does not say much about your skill if you always have "good" players on your side. However, it would be a testament to your capacity for teamwork if you are still able to win, despite the adversity.By putting your friend in the other team, the other team would have been a little bit better, giving you guys more of a challenge, thereby jump-starting once more your growth as players but also as individuals. Don't be content in prevailing over the weaker team, that's the way of cowardly bullies. Instead, look forward to the challenges of opponents that also grow stronger. This, methinks, is the way of the courageous warrior, athlete or RPG gamer

Suppose that you are subscribed to a gym, where you can exercise and use gym equipment during regular hours. Now, of course, gyms do have shower cubicles and, in these cubicles, there is a wall-mounted device comprised of two canisters with a spout each. By the labels written on each canister, it is known that one of these dispenses liquid soap while the other spurts out shampoo.Now, it so happened that you are an individual with keen senses and you have determined through scent, color, texture and consistency that the substances obtained from each canister are identical, that is, the soap and shampoo dispensers both give you the same substance. Suppose, too, that you have confirmed this notion with the gym manager who assures you that the fluids in both canisters are a special type of bath gel that can be used both as a soap and as a shampoo.Consider too that you always bring your own shampoo to the gym and, thus, have no reason to use the bath gel as a shampoo. This means that you only use the gel as a soap. Also consider the fact that people almost always use more soap than shampoo, that is, the "soap" canister empties faster than the "shampoo". Now the question is, when bathing, from which canister will you get your soap?If you take from the one labeled "soap", you deplete the "soap" faster and, depriving those without keen senses like you, ensure that they are unable to properly clean themselves, forcing them to wear a less hygienic and more odorous frame, lessening their chances of securing a mate thereby helping evolution progress through natural selection, that is, you are helping, in your own little way, to ensure that the human genetic pool has more people with keener senses.On the other hand, if you take from the one labeled "shampoo", you appease yourself in that you have followed a moral code that preaches not unnecessarily depriving others of resources. You have ensured that a lot more people will go out smelling fresher and cleaner. A lot of people would feel better, being clean and a lot more would also be a lot less pissed off since they wouldn't be assaulted with the warm, steamy smell of drying sweat.Well, yeah, I do think that way so I can't quite make up my mind. How about you guys? Any ideas?

I agree. I do believe the topics are not simply a bag of beans upended haphazardly, rather, it is quite well organized. Quite remotely from your image of a messy teenager's room, I believe Xisto is like a Department Store. There are so many items but they are all organized in such a way that you will know where to get a clean pair of socks. Far be it from me to step down to derision, I do believe your proposed system of organizing forum threads would be more like a teenager's messy room. Everything and Nothing sounds pretty much like a large clothes hamper that accepts all items of clothing, a cop-out, if you will, as this is the place where chaos is tolerated so that the other threads may have order. I do think the organization is simple enough. I mean I don't have headache fits just trying to figure out where I might find something that is of interest to me. There is something I'd like to share, in the hopes that it might be of some help. In the left panel, there is a list of the topics most recently posted to. It is, to me, a randomizer of sorts. I can quickly scan it, click on those that I think may be of interest to me, read through those that actually interest me and post a reply where I am inclined to do so (mostly when someone needs help, when someone is, as I perceived, utterly wrong, or when I have some idea to contribute which has not yet been posted) Plus, I get the bonus of posting in a "live" topic, as I am one who hates resurrecting dried-up, dusty, decaying dead topics that haven't been posted to in months

I would suppose I have found evidence that Google does index text from flash sites. For example, a quick search of the term: "Let us explain. Kikko punch The power of the punch" returns, as its top result, a swf of the viral Fight! Kikkoman video, English version. As of the time of writing, a search without the quotes also returns the same site as its #3 result. (My apologies for the links, but I use Google Klingon Advanced Search) On the other hand, however, the search term "If this is an actual plea for help in response to a hazardous material spill" will not bring you to the Aperture Science website. A quick search on the filename of its swf file reveals that Google has cached only the text ">", which is a prompt where you can type help (and receive a message including the search terms) or login. I am rather inclined to say that Google caches only text that would appear without user-interaction, however, the Kikkoman swf requires the user to click START before coming unto the cached text. Perhaps, and I am merely hypothesizing here, Google caches only the text available to the viewer without user interaction EXCEPT a mouse click? To verify this, I tried a lyrics-based search for Shii's Song, another flash video, to see what text had been cached and it seems that, indeed, the lyrics had, indeed, been cached by Google. The same result has been observed on a lyrics-based search for the Llama Song. Then again, it might only be a rule that applies only to viral videos. I am quite sorry that, in my experiment, I know not much of other Flash-based pages

I am no longer sure which is the issue here. Initially, I thought it was between the original poster and his parents. Now, we get responses from people who judgmentally wail the insanity of the notion. We have brief notes of approval and curt dismissals though very few really bothered explaining why. Much as I hate to, I'd have to say that those who disapprove do have a point. Laws are generally universal, or at least, enforced uniformly. True, we could argue that a philosophical discourse on a case-to-case basis would yield results that will be sure to please everyone, we must note that the government as no time to debate whether any specific person is old enough to drive. I'd have to say, the government does not do it for "good" reasons, but it does enforce driving limits not because it is all for the best but because it is the best compromise between safety and convenience. I would have loved to stand in defense of the original poster in that he rarely drives on public property but laws generally do not tolerate splitting hairs. I must regretfully point out that yes, when the law says you cannot drive on public property at the age of 14, then it does mean that you cannot do so at all, meaning, even crossing a public road is illegal. Further more, some laws extend beyond public property. There are those that prohibit minors driving anywhere accessible to the public. If your ranch is not fenced or has no proper gate, it is, by definition, accessible to the public as any idiot with a mind to it can just wander aimlessly all about it. I would certainly like to argue that we are missing the spirit of the law when we nitpick but that would make me a terrible lawyer (is there any other kind, you ask? ) In any case, I am no lawyer so if your question is, "Should I be driving at the age of 14?" the answer is, "Most certainly not on public roads. For the rest, it depends. Look up the laws in your area and see the restrictions." On the other hand, if your issue is, "My dad thinks poorly 14 year old sons who drive," then it would be the same, I suppose. Look up the laws and once you're sure it is perfectly alright, you can then argue with him (I meant argue in the debating sense, not a verbal quarrel) that it is perfectly fine for you to drive. Only, again, watch the gas consumption. If you don't have to drive so often, don't. Times are most certainly getting harder. As for the point that driving keeps you calm, I'm assuming that you mean tinkering around with stuff, in your case, fixing and upgrading vehicles. I do think that you might have potential for other... stuff. I mean, don't just limit yourself to vehicles. You sound like you have rather free access to metal parts, you might wanna check out if you might not make some other cool contraptions (When I was young, I have always dreamed of converting our broken electric fans into a solar-powered hovercraft... well, I was young then. And stupid, which I think you're not, so you might go further )

I must shamefully admit, I do not have a very encouraging opinion of teenagers who think too highly of themselves. However, I really have to admit, I am very much impressed that you have managed to take care of those two vehicles much better than grown-ups. I do suppose I should be more appalled that they could afford to let a perfectly good resource rust away but I'm impressed more than I am appalled Do bear with me, though, for I have absolutely no knowledge of cars, vehicles or other stereotypical "manly" stuff like that. However, consider it from this angle, do they absolutely need what you say they need? Well, I'm not that much of a klutz; I do know they do need gas but do they need it as frequent as you ask for it? If I might make an analogy, I suppose, consider a computer geek who constantly upgraded his PC, overclocking it, making mods and what not, making it water-cooled, plugging in a lot of memory and stuff, adding the latest video cards and uses it to, well, play games. I mean, it's one thing to take good care of an object, then it's another thing to be too obsessed about it. I do suppose that's what your dad must be thinking when he's had a few. (A few what? I wondered at first) Still I do believe that it is quite well that you have managed to salvage those two, otherwise rusty, vehicles. Only, just a word of advice, do not be too obsessed with driving. Personally, 14 is still too young for one to be driving out on the road. I know you might think yourself an exception but, unless you are willing to provide the cops with the same background you have given us here, I think it would be much better to err on the side of caution Oh, and something I learned back when I was the most computer-literate person in the household, if you need something, ask nicely. A little humility goes a long way and, if possible, work on your timing. I don't think your vehicles would collapse of thirst or dehydration if you put off buying gas for another day or two. Try not asking your dad when he's had a few (I'm still debating with myself whether you mean he's intoxicated, stoned or high) Most of the time, though, when I do needed something minor, like an inkjet cartridge, I do buy it with my own money. I mean, look at it from your parents' POV, they do have other priorities. Mouths to feed, heads to shelter, bodies to clothe, money to earn and houses to clean (and, in your case, ranches to maintain) Any normal person would think twice before shelling out some dough for something that brings no benefits to them in the short or long-term. Anyway, don't let me dampen your spirits (but don't let it all get to your head either) I do feel a good deal of respect for a 14-year old who has learned all that on his own

Personally, I think this is rather... shallow. I mean, how easy is it to point one's fingers at anything but one's self? How easy is it to lay the blame entirely on something that only influenced matters. I didn't have a great father figure either, but I don't say, "I'm gay because I had no excellent male role model." I flunked a few subjects back in college but I don't say, "It's all my best friend's fault; he's the one who recommended Computer Science to me," or, "It's my senpai's fault; he's the one who introduced me to network gaming."Remember, other people can influence your life only so much. Majority of the decision, however, still lies in one's self. However, I'm not posting simply to criticize what (perhaps) cannot be changed. I do have some advice.You could try abstinence. Do you have girl friends? Try going out on a road trip, girls' night out or shopping spree. Stay away (mentally, emotionally, heck, even physically!) from guys you like or guys who like you.Are you naturally beautiful? Or can you put together an ensemble in which you'd look good? If your answers are both no, you might want to evaluate your self-esteem. A makeover might bring a lot more benefits than flattery and half a man. If your answers are both yes, however, (or "yes" and "I don't need to", respectively) it might be that you are not really dependent on guys, only that you feel a strange thrill in playing the game. Have you changed dates too frequently?Personally, though, I don't think there's anything wrong with dating a different guy every now and then. I do think that your first one was the best one for you but that fish is very much out of the net now, I suppose. Dating is a very good and socially acceptable means of finding one who is most compatible with you. It does sound like you're a bit too focused on yourself, methinks. Try finding out more about the guy you're dating or the ones courting you. What are your best friend's plans? Are you focusing too much on the sexual aspect that's very well into the past? Or are you also thinking of the future? How you handle your most recent... adventure could very well show you what is wrong with... your outlook in life. No offense.Lastly, I must say, I do disapprove of your most recent encounter. I sure hope you know well enough to use protection, if you know what I mean. If not, well, like you said, shoot yourself now. Nah, just kidding but do be careful, girl. I'm seeing far too many pregnant women lately and it does disturb me greatly

Never mind the apartment, this sets my blood boiling! This is a ridiculous fire hazard, a complete disrespect for such great technology and a sign of being a slob... well, the last one, you could have inferred already Seeing is believing, so they say but for me, smelling is believing. So far, it doesn't look too bad (note the keyword look) Although I do suppose I would really puke if I get a whiff of that place. Yeah, the shanties here are in a much better state, honestly. God, how much of a slob lives there? I'll clean that place for a million dollars, though. I mean, sure, it's gonna take a lot of effort but I suppose I could clean it in a week or two. A million dollars is still a million dollars, despite what's happening right now

First, some basics. I believe it is originally ninjutsu (nin - stealth, endurance, perseverance; jutsu - technique) I think the only reason ninjitsu is somewhat acceptable in common use (not to me, it ain't) is that -jutsu sounds a lot similar to -jitsu. The Wikipedia article does offer a somewhat informative overview of Ninjutsu. I do think that the 18 disciplines of ninjutsu are mostly concerned with: 1. Personal wellness, both in mind/spirit and body 2. Stealth, tactics and military strategies 3. Technical know-how on weapons made obscure by modern weaponry Concerning Naruto, I consider that anime/manga as a prime example of a subject sensationalized by mainstream media. Don't get me wrong, though. I'm a bit of a Naruto fan too, and I've been following the series up to Kakashi's death in the last chapter. And if you, perchance, have read that spoiler, best of luck then. Anyway, what I meant to say was that I don't believe ninjas then or now, are capable of performing those techniques. They do not have flashy magic spells powered by chakra/mana/nen/chi/MP/SP or whatever stat you call it. I personally believe that most of those are myth; I call to mind Arthur Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Those poor souls who happened to be victims or collateral damage of ninja attacks could very well have seen dragon's breath techniques when it was nothing more than a small flame and a mouthful of highly combustible liquid... like gasoline. Peasants frightened out of their wits could easily claim having seen a ninja walk up a tree trunk when all it took was sharkskin gloves, footwear and really graceful agility. A poor soldier distracted by a few well-placed bombs or several pieces of flying metallic projectiles could very well have sworn that he had "magically" lost his captive as the latter reportedly melted into the shadows. Let us remember that, back then, during the times when ninjas thrived in Japan, there were two kinds of people: 1. Intelligent, agile and powerful combat specialists, and 2. Rice specialists, fish specialists, "honorable" battle specialists, bureaucrats et cetera Considering the great gap between the combat know-how of one and the other, peasants and elites alike could very well swear magic. A good modern-day analogy is a chemist smirking at people gawking at his "magic" tricks: a shirt that changes color in the sun and shade, sand that remains dry underwater and, gods have mercy on us, glow in the dark paint. Concerning martial arts, I do suppose ninjutsu dabble both in soft (wushu, taichi/qigong) and hard (taekwondo, karate, sprinting, swimming) aspects of martial arts (and sports, as you can very well see) I don't think there is any reliable school of ninjutsu out there, though. I personally am ready to give it up as a lost knowledge, though. A lot like Latin, there are very few (if any) who know and make it a way of life. And there are a lot who cannot see beyond the ominous chanting or, in the case of ninjutsu in the Naruto-verse, the hand seals

Ah, no. You can configure your blog so that the interface you use is Blogger but the content is hosted on your server. Blogger does this via FTP so, yeah, you'll need to allow Blogger FTP access to your host server. Personally, though, I like Blogger. Before, I had to create my own CMS for my library but, just recently, I have moved it to Blogger. I think it's flexible enough (not as flexible as Wordpress, admittedly, but pretty work-able for me) Needless to say, my blog's in Blogger too

Before, I also thought I would die. Then I started working. And, before I knew it, I was doing big projects. When that happens, I sometimes go for weeks or two without leisure-surfing. Oh, sure, I do wiki an article or Google some important library I need. I have day-long access to the net but I would have no time to even check Xisto out. (I shouldn't be surprised at the decline of my credits from 160-ish to 110-ish but I am, somehow ) At night, I am too tired to surf. And during weekends, I am too tired to even switch on the computer. Well, not really, but I find myself strangely averse to using the computer on my precious weekends so, when the weather is fair, I play badminton. If the mood strikes me, I whip up something in the kitchen. If I'm too tired and exhausted, I get myself a massage. If I'm in the mood for a makeover, I get a facial (the one done in pristine white disinfected clinics, not in damp, musty rooms in the red-light district ) or a haircut. On rare occasions, I go shopping. At night, I read a chapter or seven before sleeping. Anything at all, just to get me away from the computer I have learned to love and, now, learned to abhor. And even on times that I do turn the computer on, I most probably just waste my time playing games. I suppose the online world has lost much of its appeal to me. I'm done with online flirting and hookups. I don't look forward to YM chats and forum debates now. I do contribute to Wikipedia, though I often do it during office hours. 4chan isn't quite as amazing as it had been, what with Anon not delivering, heheh. I haven't been blogging since January of this year and, now, for the first time, it seems, I'll miss Runescape's holiday drops So... I suppose, I will be one of those shaky survivors should a cataclysmic online doomsday occur. (It's either the by CIA, the KGB or the Digimons ) I'd probably be one of those old people telling stories to their grandchildren. My grandpa once regaled us with stories on how cheap snacks (biscuits, fruits, candies) were back then. I'd be telling my grandchildren how cheap information was back then, oh Wikipedia, I do miss that old one. And Google too! Why, kids, in less than a minute, I have access to information halfway around the globe! Hekhekhek, yeah, I'd probably wheeze like that, only, I won't have any children so I'd probably be telling stories to my sibs' grandchildren

Hmmmn... 10M sure is a lot of money... Perhaps the first thing I would do would be to disappear from public eye. I mean, c'mon, over here, if you win anywhere near that amount, your neighbors would know. Immediately. Well, it's not that I mind sharing some in celebration but... let's just say I don't have really neighborly neighbors. So I suppose you'd know by now that charity is very much out of the question... well, not really. I'll be sure to spare some part of it for those who really could use some help. The problem with some poor people here is that once you give them any help, they will come to depend on it. It would have been the same if it were them who have won, they'd have squandered it within five years too. So, anyway, the point is, I will be rather choosy in whom I'll give it to. So much for charity. I'll probably invest half of it, just to be sure. I've been eyeing the stock market for some time now and, though the stock market trends aren't too... encouraging these days, I have made it my goal to enter the stock market at the age of 25. It certainly wouldn't hurt if I entered it a few years too early... not with 10M in my purse Personally, I'd move out of the house and try my hand at living on my own. I'd get a manageable-sized house, if possible, although I find it more likely I'll get a condominium unit. No, I won't buy anything too extravagant... like paintings or a piano or porcelain jars, I'd go for a minimalist setup: whatever I won't need, I won't buy... although food might be a problem, though, since I have a rather... uncontrollable appetite. So, yeah, I guess I'd be like those people who will continue working. Only, this time, I'll quit my current job, invest in the stock market and, well, still program and write and blog and do stuff; things I am scarcely able to do with my current job eating up most of my time. Heck, who knows, I just might churn out a couple more lemon fanfics

Wow. Exactly what I need! I've been working late most nights recently and, I must say, I am rather horrified each waking morning by something atrocious on the other side of the mirror. I have always known about cucumber, I mean, it's rather common knowledge. Also, over here, it's a sign of opulence because people wouldn't normally cut open a cucumber just for two slices I've also watched an episode of some makeover reality show before. For eyebags, they recommended teabags too, only, it's black tea and not flower infusions. Also, they used water at room temperature, but it's basically the same: put one teabag over each eye and let the caffeine seep through. I think that's what improves circulation. Sad to say, though, I have never tried any of these treatments save the eye-and-cheek massage. Well, sleep works too, but I'm afraid I don't have that luxury either at the moment