salamangkero

Ahahaha! My mistake, mea maxima culpa! Again, I failed to foresee this. Anyway, the point of the discussion/argument is who gets the credit. Just suspend your beliefs and imagine it to be a piece of very artistically crumpled paper. You and shadowx are both of the same opinion. Now, allow me to expand this analogy, suppose we do have a real artists, say, a sculptor (Person A) of native/indigenous crafts. Now, he and his tribespeople carved these objects by the hundreds every month but it is not for profit. Suffice to say that they just do it for fun and they couldn't care less what happens to the finished product. As a matter of fact, when I (Person B ) discovered their tribe, they all but showered me with several wooden and stone sculptures they have made over the years. I then left the encampment and promised to regularly ship them blocks of wood and stone to satisfy their insatiable thirst to carve something. On the other hand, they just let me scoop up as much of their "garbage" as I can. If your opinions were to be followed, does that mean I can open a shop and claim those wood and stone sculptures as my own? In other words, isn't it also the same as exploiting the "gullibility" of the tribespeople? Also, the example I gave must've been too simple. Suppose I (Person A) have been crumpling that paper for a week before I finally decided to chuck it in the dustbin. You (Person B ) on the other hand, took all of a mere 12 hours to pick it up, enter the contest and win awards. Should Person B take the credit simply because he/she knew the potential of an object while Person A was "too dumb to know the difference between a masterpiece and a pile of garbage"? Simply put, if Person B took the credit, don't you think Person A had been "cheated" out of glory by Person B?

Hello! Pleasant day, people of the world! Allow me to confound your daily life once more and present another of my musings. (Actually, this question was already posed earlier by a local comic strip so it's not really entirely my thoughts) Suppose I, hereafter referred to as Person A, crumpled a piece of paper and threw it away. Simple enough, 'no? Suppose too that you, hereafter referred to as Person B, picked up that piece of crumpled paper and entered it in an art contest. There, it won loads of prizes for having been crumpled "in a way that gives insight to the inner depths of the subconscious mind", having a special meaning or just generally being nice and surreal. Now, the question is, to whom does the credit go to? Should you credit Person A who has no knowledge of the great work he has done and thrown away? Or should it go to Person B who was aware of the potentials of a work that is not his to begin with? (or hers) Actually, I already have an answer I am satisfied with but I'd like to see what other people think of

True, true, the media do tend to focus on terrible things. After all, they have the news hour filled with horrible accidents, crime and nasty showbiz backbiting. However, that is why I initially said you are the president of the nation. A position of power will (hopefully) give you a more free reins. You could, for all we know, conspire with the media to deny coverage of any post-accident events.Also, I've received lots of feedback implying that the annual sacrifice will, somehow, be the fault, or direct responsibility, of the president, that is, the one who accepted the offer. I am thinking if that is such a wise thing to think, I mean, why can't people blame the mage? Or the driver of the vehicles? Does the death of a person grant them immunity from blame? I mean, c'mon, just because someone died does not mean the government has to go easy on you. If it's your friend's fault, then don't blame us, I mean, the government :lol:How about it? Do you have what it takes to sacrifice a handful of people for the sake of your entire nation?

Oh, the art of misrepresentation and subterfuge... what a great topic!In truth (pun not intended), you already answered your own question. Some people lie because they have this need to impress others. Some do so to cover their insecurities. This girl you mentioned, had a lot of friends; I'd like to point out that some of these... companions may have been "ensnared" by her lies. Well, in any case, her plight is of no significance to me.Now, while it may be readily apparent that some people don't need to lie, they sometimes do so because they fail to see that they don't need to not do so. Another thing is that some people revel in the apparent power they have in misleading others. For example, I, for one, enjoy pulling pranks that involve lying. These are harmless, rest assured. I'd ask them, "Have you prepared for the exam?" They'd ask, "What exam?" Well, it all goes metaphorically downhill from there. Really, it's not all as simple as that but the point is that, in good fun, lying can be enjoyable. Understandably, prank lies don't often last long; any longer and it's no longer a prank.There is much more to lying than what black-and-white media, like religion, for instance, claim. I, for one, think that lying people make the world a much more exciting and interesting place. True, the world right now is hazardous because of us "vile-low-down-slithering-snakes" but, hey, you gotta admit, it's a very interesting world out there.Oh, and lastly, without liars, there'd be no theatre, thespians, drama, movies or even advertisements

There was a quote from a book, The Burning Man, that goes, Now, I know that, taken to the extreme, this is dangerous, we'd have people playing blind to the harsh realities of society. People will be apathetic to poverty, hunger and war, simply claiming that they don't exist. However, I do believe that with moderation, this could lead to inner peace. See, the reason "Let it be" is "one of the weakest most unsatisfying and easiest answer possible" is that some humans have a greater drive to know the truth, a more ardent desire for determinism and a dire thirst for absolute knowledge. Others, on the other hand, like me, are quite content to know that some things are beyond our knowledge. For example, we don't need to know whether a God exists or not to operate our toasters. We can live through a day or a week without knowledge whether God's sex is male or female. True, whether we like it or not, facts are hardly changeable. A vase is a vase is a vase. If it's there, it will be there, no matter what we believe in. However, God, or any omnipotent being for that matter, is hardly a fact; it is a belief. I, for one, do not have to prove my beliefs, least of all, to you people whom I hardly know. Why? Because it is, within my life, so far, inherently impossible to prove. Therefore, I can safely say that, "Let it be," is a very satisfying answer. You guys also do not need to prove your beliefs, much less preach about or force them to other people. If you don't believe there are agnostics, then don't. If you don't believe in things depending on individual beliefs, then don't. If you believe your God will make it rain tomorrow, then do bring an umbrella. Just don't force me to bring one as well. No, I'm not preaching too. Just sharing my opinions. Alright, I'm just racking up credits, haha

My username means, in our native tongue, "sorcerer". No, not mage, we don't have mages here. Not wizard, we don't have those too. We do have witches but I'm not a witch so there

In that case, the stupidity lies not in "cheating" or "the excuse to cheat" but in engaging in unsafe sexual practice. Truthfully, having multiple sex partners is, itself, already unsafe. That is reality. However, from a moral and philosophical standpoint, I do think that this "list" is beneficial only if there is mutual consent. Otherwise, it's cheating. Really cheating.

I like tigers. I am born under the year of the Fire Tiger, that may factor in a lot in my preferences :lol:In any case, I like the way a tiger's stripes makes it nearly invisible among the dancing blades of dried grass.

Your last statement will probably be what my psych-teacher called self-fulfilling prophecy. If you start out thinking it won't work, then it will not work at all! I've seen some relationships that have been strengthened, not broken, by mutually consensual sexual contact with third parties. Oh well, what works for some may be the demise of others. As they say, one man's meat is another woman's meat. Oh wait, I think that was one man's meat is another man's poison. And, to be politically correct, one person's nutrition is another person's poison. Ah, there we go

I might use strong language. This is very much similar to someone stamping on my foot. A very hasty generalization, but that's just my observation. I am honest with myself. Books do not always accurately define people, especially those of other cultures. In my opinion, it's not all about proof but about belief. After all, a lot of devotees do not need proof to believe. A lot of Atheists, on the other hand, stubbornly refuse to accept proofs, often attempting to disprove them in far-fetched ways. Agnostics, on the other hand, believe in the existence of a god, but not in the same way theists do. You could say that an agnostic's god is "malleable" in that the agnostic can accept valid proofs and dis-proofs as they come by. The god (or non-god) of theists and atheists, on the other hand, is immutable. He/she/it/they are just there. It is they who shape the environment, the world does not define them; they define the world. One should not foolishly confuse caution with fear. I would be first to admit that I am only human, far from immutable. As such, my philosophies could change. Right now, I could very well believe in a silent, invisible green god in my closet. Moments later, after puncturing the closet with millions of searing lead, I could say, "Oh dear. There is no god here. There may some elsewhere, they could be green, I have no idea but I'm not discounting the possibility." We, agnostics, do not fear being called Atheists. Hell, we've been called a lot worse, sinner, heretic, satan-lover and such. We are just being cautious in misrepresenting ourselves. Suppose we, indeed, accepted the label "atheist", we'd be bombarded by questions like, "So why do you kneel down every morning? Why are you entering that church? Why do you mumble a silent prayer before the exam?" Suppose, on the other hand, we said we're theists. Things would only get complicated. "So you do believe in the Trinity? No? Allah? Buddha? Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva? No? You are an atheist, you know?" Really, I don't see why it should even matter. They are just labels. Words, mere words. So maybe explaining the concept of agnosticism to some people is as futile as explaining the concept of sadness to the old Tahitians. (Tahitians have no word for sadness, as well as some tribes in Africa) I think I'll leave with an analogy. Suppose there is this guy named John Smith who had and enjoyed sexual contact with other guys. He also had a fair share of sexual contact with women, which he also enjoyed. Now, he was asked about his sexuality. Here, Smith says, "I am bisexual." "Eeeh?" the inquirer makes a face. "Have you had sex with a guy before?" "Yeah." "Ah, you're gay then. There's no such thing as bisexuality." "But I had had sex with women too." "It doesn't matter. You've had sex with a guy. You're gay. You're just scared to admit it, that's why you're calling yourself bi." See where the problem is? Lastly, a friend told me this in a phone call: "When I graduated high school (we studied in a private Catholic school), I thought the world was black and white. Now that I met a lot of different people in college, I see that the world exists in shades of gray."

Now that I've had the clarity of mind to think better (I've had my mind waterlogged with stuff I had to cram for a recent exam), I'd like to point out that girls do it all the time Whenever they meet, they'd get all high and squeal in high-pitched voices and hug each other and, basically, just flatten each others' b00b$ out. Then when they walk, they'd hold hands and prance around and all. Lastly, when they finally part, it'd take them 30 minutes to say good-bye, promise phone calls (which probably run longer than 30 minutes ), hug, embrace, flatten the living daylights out of each other's, uhm, "bumpers" and even kiss, mwah, mwah. Is that cheating at all? I doubt it On a side note, I did see an interesting scene recently. A guy and two girls were eating at our school cafeteria. Apparently, the guy had his classes so he stood up to leave, stooped down to kiss one girl (on the lips, not the cheek, mind you), then he stooped down to kiss the other girl (on the lips too) Strange, huh?

Oooh, touchy topic. I, for one, don't have any such list but that could be because I don't have my own boyfriend yet. I don't think the point of that is cheating one's partner. After all, we all have certain needs or fetishes that our partner(s) simply cannot fulfill. For example, if I'm "married" to a sexy but timid geek, I cannot expect to fulfill my bondage fetishes with him. I'd find a dominant guy he would also approve of and go for it. Why is that alright? Sex and love are two entirely different things. Times are changing. Where before, man and wife will sustain the illusion that their partner is perfect, people today are now more honest. "Hon, what do you think of my b00b$?" Before, the guy would lie, "It's fine," but now, "They're alright... What are your thoughts on breast enhancement?" Okay, so maybe that was an exaggerated example but the point is, couples nowadays will tell their partners if they have spinach between their teeth. If they can do that, they could also just as easily say, "Your penis is small and doesn't satisfy me. I love you more than anyone else but I think I'm looking for sexual pleasure elsewhere." I also once met a homosexual couple who were both "tops" (dominant, in err, sex lingo) They both love each other but neither would submit to the other (Doing so is a physically painful process) What do they do? They get "tricks" (no-strings attached third parties) to "bottom" (play submissive) for them. It does not cause discord but rather keeps their relationship intact. It's not exclusively for homosexual couples. For example, it could also work for a "top" guy and his dominatrix wife. On your point about celebrities, I do agree. There are a lot of better looking-people on the planet. The only difference is that celebrities are "known" to the world while the others are, well, just undiscovered attractive gemstones in the rough. It's not about beauty but more on fame. Some last few lines, a joke I've read somewhere else: Son: Dad? What's the difference between theory and reality? Dad: Hmmn, tough question. Go ask your mom if she'd sleep with <insert male celebrity here> for a million dollars. (after a while) Son: Mom said, "Oh, I know it's cheating but I suppose the money couldn't hurt." Dad: Now, ask your sister the same thing. (after a while) Son: Sis said she'd do it too. Dad: See here, in theory, we're sitting on top of two million dollars. In reality, we're just living with a pair of whores

Whoa! I never expected this XDIn truth, I was only expecting responses like, "Yes, I'd accept. What is the wreckage of two vehicles compared to the safety of millions others?" or, "Hell no! Think of the annual sacrifice/victim's family. They'd find some way to pin it as your fault."I guess you all have a point. I mean, if everybody found out about this safety net (with a hole on one part), driving could very well become a hobby. Now that I think of it, what's worse is that people will blame the accident on you (the president/monarch) instead of the victim's own carelessness.Now, about having more cars on the road, I do think the government could always implement rules to limit the number of vehicles out on the streets. For example, over here, we have a color-coding scheme, which really sounds stupid when you come to think of it because it is actually a number-coding scheme. Anyway, vehicles whose plate numbers end with 0 or 1 are prohibited from going out on Mondays. Tuesdays will see every vehicle except those whose plate numbers end with 2 or 3. And so on, for the rest for the week.However, we forget one thing. I don't really see a sudden surge in the number of cars on the road. See, accidents are not the primary reason why some people keep off the streets. The price of oil and gas is. So even if we had safer highways, not everyone would suddenly up and drive down the lane 'coz not everyone has unlimited gold in their pockets to sustain driving as a hobby. There will be an increase in volume, yes, but I don't think there'd be a "surge" of cars on the street.Demand for cars would still pretty much remain the same, methinks. Just because you could drive a car and not get hurt does not necessarily mean you can already afford one no matter what. That's it, I guess, for the mining industry.Lastly, it still pays to be careful. Like I said, people have ways to make it appears as though, "this horrible accident is the fault of our leader. Had he/she not accepted the offer, this would never have happened." Wrong! In truth, if those idiots behind the wheel only paid closer attention to the road, they'd probably be alive right now and the accident would have happened to some other poor hapless soul who wasn't driving carefully enough.All in all, I see a lot of valid points. For me, I'd accept the offer. I know that more people will take to the streets but I could implement limiting measures. Right after the spell, I'd also warn/broadcast to everyone not to forget safe driving because I bear no responsibility for any accident.Oh, did you know, a lot of accidents are caused by the "human factor"? There is a saying, "to err is human" :PWhat do you guys think?

I've been asking this to a lot of my friends for some time now and one of them suggested that I post it here. Anyway, here goes. Suppose you were a president of a nation (or monarch of a kingdom, or emperor/empress of an empire, wherever you live) Now, suppose, too, that a mage (I prefer sorcerers but "mage" was the first word that popped into my mind back then) approached you and offered you the following: 1. He will cast a spell that will affect your entire nation. 2. The effect of the spell is that it will prevent all vehicular accidents from ever occurring. 3. For an entire year's absence of accidents, there will be exactly one vehicular accident each year involving at most two vehicles. 4. In exchange for a "peaceful" year (motor accident-wise), the aforementioned annual accident will always result in the most morbid gruesome deaths for the people unfortunate enough to be involved in it. (Limbs thrown around, head, shoulders, knees and toes, you get the picture) The question is, will you accept the offer? (Oh please, suspend your beliefs for the moment, the point is not the existence of actual mages or the effectiveness of spells) And as a side note, will it make any difference if your entire nation knew of your decision or not? So far, almost everyone I knew refused the offer. There was one inclined to accept the offer but, upon finding out that her decision will be broadcasted to the nation, she backed out and said never mind. How about you guys? Oh, by the way, the spell is only applicable to land vehicles.

I'm currently reading The Exquisite Thing, an erotic novel by Joyce Maciver. )@mn, I'd like to write like her! Erotic, hot, yet at the same time subtle and non-vulgar :POh, and while I'm at it, I'd also like her heroine's power of seduction

Oh, good lord. The last one... eeyw? But dang, those condom boxes sneaked into people's trolleys was terribly funny.I do remember the movie, "Hot Chick," where she (the hot chick) sneaked an item into a rival's shopping bag. When she (the rival) exited through the sensors... beep, beep, beep

I do have heard of some of those. I'm not sure myself, though, how much of those are urban legends and how much are real. I've once read on this certain site about an individual who sold phony cures for cancer called "Pheno-Isolin" I've also heard of the urban legend about the invention of a water-to-gasoline transmutation pill. It has long been debunked but I'm surprised there are still some people who use the legend as fuel for their conspiracy theories. I've also watched a TV documentary about this machine a fellow countryman has invented. You're supposed to step on these metal blocks and sing for a while in front of a videoke machine and, miraculously, you'd be cured of cancer, diabetes, rheumatism, migraine, high blood pressure and a plethora of other ailments. Those who have used it claimed to feel "better, uplifted and quite healthy" Interestingly, the "inventor" did not want to get a patent for fear of his invention being reverse-engineered. (Yes, I know, we people are adept at that) Oh god, I just sound like I've just killed my theories. Anyway, I'm not gonna claim the veracity of those theories since, after all, they're just theories. Really, the world isn't that bad a place to live. We liars, err, we people are just like you guys, sharing the planet co-existing peacefully. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it's healthy to be suspicious of some things, just don't suspect everything. I mean, if there is an easier way, there's a high chance it would already have been used. Otherwise, it is not as easy as it sounds. Oh, I heard they have found a cure for AIDS? I wonder how true it might be? And if it were true, I wonder if it'd one of those suppressed technologies?

Oh if it were only that simple. First off, how would mute people use it? What about those who suffer voice-changing illnesses like the common cold or tonsilitis? Also, there's this thing about accents, dialects and languages. I might say, "TV On," while some other guy might say, "Tvee Auhn." One might say, "Six," some guy might say, "Seiz," others might say, "Roku" and I might say, "Anim." At the moment, there's also a big deal about background noises. I'm sure you all know that an, "Ah," spoken in a silent household sounds different from an, "Ah," accompanied by a choir also saying "Ah". Oh yeah, I've read of a similar problem in an Archie comic strip. He was looking for a lost cordless phone so Jughead came up with the solution: attach a cord to it Personally, though, I don't see the big deal. I mean, if slobs worked on their sloppy habits, maybe they'd find it easier to look for the remote control. While far from being an obsessive-compulsive neat-freak, I suppose it does make me proud (yeah right ) that we never lose the remote control at home

True, true. I remember my psych teacher once told us about this woman who's been having problems or pains during sexual intercourse with her husband. They went to a doctor and, to cut the long story short, he found out "she" had XY chromosomes. It appeared "her" body was extremely and severely underdeveloped so, while being far from male, she's also not quite female. Our teacher ranted on about the doctor's dilemma: keep quiet about it or say, "Hey, guess what, you're a guy!" Anyway, I digress but that... err, man, has lived his entire life thinking he was a woman. I was just wondering... is that considered being transgendered? Indeed. Sometimes, I wonder why people bother with labels like "gay", "bi", "transsexual" or "transgendered." While it may be a mental disorder, note that not all mental disorders can or should be "corrected". After all, ain't it rude to say, "Oh, he's autistic, there's something definitely wrong with him." More than "correction", what everyone needs is understanding. I think I remember my professor defining mental disorder, according to some thick book that served as the standard for psychiatrists, psychologists and psychoanalysts worldwide, to be a condition borne of the workings of the mind that causes distress to one's self and to others. It also disrupts a person's day-to-day life. From what I see, a transgendered kid does not cause distress to itself or to its supportive parents. Now, I know a lot of people are gonna find problems with that poor child, claiming he has "mental disorder", is "not normal" and wearing the "wrong" clothes. Others may claim that the kid might need "correction", "rehabilitation" or a "cure", otherwise he/she will have nothing in store for him/her but doomsday, fire and brimstone. It appears, though, that what the world needs is not a "cure" but a dose of tolerance. And to those who love sticking their noses into other people's gender and even sexual orientation (yes, cangor, I definitely may or may not mean you!), perhaps a wiser choice would be to stick their noses elsewhere. Ahh, the controversial gender re-assignment operation. Allow me to share what a fellow homosexual had to say about that: "Of course he'd feel depressed! He just had his thing cut off, now where is he gonna find pleasure? He's gonna be in heat for the rest of his life but never find release, poor guy!" While I do not agree that it is all about sex, the more I think about it, the more it does make sense. Poor guy! Hmmn... I know you meant, "Leave well enough alone (stop fiddling with your gender!)" but it could also mean, "Leave well enough alone (stop fiddling with our gender!)" Just a side note, though No, I'm just gay. I'm not transgendered; I'm still a guy (a gentleman, some girlfriends say) who politely yields his bus seat to women

I've had quite some experience using Java, from Swing, JDBC, IO and Socket programming. I'd be first to admit I was once in love with Java but now that I've come across PHP, I was suddenly made aware of the fact that Java is slow and too nitpicky. I do concede that I can still do more stuff with Java than with any other programming language but it really does bother me deeply now that after all these years, Java still is slow. Oh well, c'est la vie

Just a short interesting analogy I've heard fro a friend:Java and JSP are like obsessive-compulsive people who cannot seem to trust their programmers/developers. It's a lot like they're thinking, "You are a developer. You are prone to mistakes. It is my job to call attention to even the tiniest of your mistakes. I know I'm slow but that's because I'm nitpicking your work so shut up and wait for me to finish."C and PHP, on the other hand, are like totally gullible slobs. They trust their developers, sometimes a bit too much. "I know you can do it," they say. "If something goes wrong, though, it's not my problem 'coz maybe you want that something to go wrong. Maybe you aren't making mistakes but just doing that $#!+ on purpose. Go ahead I won't stop you."So in the end of our dinner, I was even more befuddled with visions of talking programs. Still, though, it all depends on your needs. For general-purpose web development, though, I think PHP is better.

Well, for one, dust is composed of a lot of minute particles ranging from minerals, pulverized organic material, ashes, lint and fungal spores. As such, dust is a very important element of decay. It is one of the means for organic matter, which once lived, from dead fleas to dead cats, to undergo the process of putrefaction or, simply put, decay. Not really that significant but if you're an necromancer, you'd better take care to shield those corpses from dust, otherwise, they might not be revive in the way you had in mind. Undead people, too, should be advised to wear dust-proof garments in order to prolong their lifetime (or death-time) Fellow fans of the undead, death and decay should not be worried, though. As I said, dust is just one of the ways to start dead matter on its way to a healthy decay It is interesting to note that Salem (Sabrina's black cat) had a most inexpensive past-time called lint-spotting. It's basically just watching the adventures of a dust particle as it floats in the air. I used to do that too, until I stepped into high school

Just between 30 minutes to an hour, unless some post with topics like death, agnosticism or homosexuality come up.When I'm fired up to reply, I usually spend about 2 hours on Xisto

A friend of mine, master_bacarra kept talking to me all about this great web hosting he has. I finally had enough and decided to see for myself. Here I am now

I do remember one time in my life when I thought I was atheist, when I thought science had all the answers. I am agnostic now.Anyway, that was not the point. I do remember, though, that a lot of people, upon discovering my "religion", instantly began preaching to me. Now, I know it is their moral duty and all but what really pissed me was that they assumed that just because I don't believe in their god, I go against all their doctrines. They keep conjuring slippery-slope propaganda, say, "You don't believe in god now, what next? You're gonna steal? Then you're gonna kill someone?" I believe I had a "What the fv(<?!?" expression on my face but thankfully, I didn't speak it then.It is kinda strange and ironic that these very people support the idea of tolerance. In the Catholic school I went to, these people were the ones who were teaching "respect for other religions", "good manners and right conduct" and even "don't force a Moslem to eat pork". Heck, they even used textbook pictures to teach us at a very young age that you shouldn't make fun of people simply because their religion is different. Now I get this?It's all in the past, though. BooZker is right, it is a lot like being gay. You get point-blank rude questions like:"So since when did you discover you're gay/atheist?" (Duh, as if those moments are so spectacularly sudden?)"You do know that's against the will of God, right?" (If I believed in your god's will, would I be gay/atheist now?)"So, what do you plan to do, knowing you'd spend the eternity in hell?" (O, gee, I'm fully booked in my afterlife, sorry)"It's not yet too late, you know? We have programs that could cure your... condition." (I need a cure?!?)"Y'know what, I think you should read this book/join this program..." *searches bag for a religious organization's book, magazine or pamphlet* "There, you'd find it really helpful." (I'd like a porn mag better, thanks)Okay, I know the sarcasm was uncalled for, I'm sorry. I am aware, though, that every side's done a very hasty generalization. Not all Atheists are so god-damned smug with an I-am-better-than-you-stupid-worshipers air just like not every religious person walks around with I-am-god-damned-holier-than-god-damned-you,-you-god-damned-heretic-pagan-harlot.I suppose it's all about tolerance. If you meet people with low tolerance like those smug atheists and preaching jerks, just don't be one of them and you'll be doing the world one favor by promoting world peace. Yeah, I know world peace is pretty much still far off but we all gotta start somewhere, right?