561 Forum Posts by "Gario"
At 1/26/14 11:50 PM, NightmareWitch wrote:At 1/9/14 01:48 PM, Saen wrote: Evolution isn't a deity and it's not something that involves faith in the slightest sense.It does if you believe one cell can turn into a fish since no one has actually seen that happen.
So you need to actually watch something happen in order to believe it's true? I suppose really big numbers like Moser's Number or a googleplex needs faith in order to believe in its existence, too, because it would take more space than is known to be available in the universe in order to physically write these numbers down so you'll never see it. I mean, I can show you the process one needs to take in order to achieve a googleplex (10^[10^100]), but since that isn't the physical number itself one would need to have faith that it will give us a googleplex if we followed that formula.
Perhaps numbers are a little too concrete. How about the flow of electricity? Electric engineers have theorized that electricity is the result of electrons moving from nucleus to nucleus in a directed manner, but this is undoubtedly impossible to see (as of yet). Regardless of the fact that this best explains the phenomena that is electricity, and despite the fact that people can use this model in order to predict the electricity flow and utilize it, because we cannot physically see the electricity flow people must have some sort of faith in order to believe that this is the way it is, right?
No, I'm sure you'd think my argument about these things above are completely stupid (at least, I hope you would). The argument that we can never see it unfold and therefore it must have unknown faith in it is ludicrous, as we do that with plenty of other scientific fields. What makes evolution special from, say, ideas on electricity and relativity? Your argument that evolution is faith based because one cannot see it unfold is precisely as stupid as the things I stated above - there is absolutely no difference in what you're saying. Seriously, no evidence that hasn't already been debunked by evolution scientists exists, I just spent a bunch of time looking for some to be sure, and it isn't out there. Why would you blindly say one must have the same kind of faith as one does for creationism in order to "believe in evolution" when there is absolutely, positively nothing to merit that idea other than you simply don't want to believe it to be credible?
Seriously, someone please come out with something credible against the theory (that is, evidence against it that hasn't already been trashed) - I want to see if there's even a glimmer of intelligence in the crowd against it.
At 1/10/14 01:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/9/14 06:57 PM, Entice wrote: Are you kidding me? Good luck explaining the fossil record without "macro-evolution".Ugh, you people. Did I ever say there was NO EVIDENCE? Jesus Christ. I said that until we can trace ourselves back directly (i.e. every generation) to a different species we will NOT have definitive empirical proof the we evolved from another species. That said, we have tons of EVIDENCE of it.
'Tons of evidence' for something, in combination with a complete lack of explanation that opposes the view, actually is as difinitive as you can get, in a scientific point of view. All we have for our theory of electromagnetism and gravity is a bunch of evidence for it without any other reasonable counterargument - would call someone foolish for claiming that it's definitively true, at that point? Evolution (there is no such thing as 'micro' amd 'macro' evolution unless you don't underand.d it conceptually) is as definitive as you get, in a scientific manner. You can say it's possible that it isn't correct, but unless you can propose an alternative (a viable one - Creationism has no evidence to support it and plenty that contradicts it, so it isn't viable) you're merely restricting yourself needlessly.
Quick question about his interview (since the other source doesn't detail this at all and I have no convenient computer to vheck this on) - was he asked to give his opinion on homosexuality, or did he bring it up himself? If the latter, then I can understand thehomosexual community's response - just randomly blurting something like that is pretty offensive. If he was asked to express his opinion, however (which is something I initially assumed, not sure if it's correct) then the response is very much unwarrented - he readily admits to being a bible-belt Christiam, so what other response is expected other than he doesn't like it? If it's aboit tact... well, he has.a show all about how tactless he is, so that really shouldn't be treated.in any special way here.
Sorry for spelling, this is on a phone, atm.
At 12/18/13 10:46 PM, Korriken wrote:
As many have probably read by now A&E tossed Phil Robertson off the air over this supposedly "anti gay comments" during an interview with GQ magazine. apparently GLAAD got all pissy about it, made some huge deal over it and now he's off the air. This man, according to his own beliefs, makes an honest comment, and suddenly the "you have to be tolerant" crowd shows up and tries to browbeat him into silence, which is precisely what these crowds are supposedly against. Phil doesn't go around town seeking out homosexuals to assault, or shoot, or even demean. No one has a documented instance of this man ever giving an actual homosexual any trouble.
The 'tolerance' crowd can be amazingly intolerant of opinions and beliefs that differ from their own. What does it say about a group that can't even handle the thought of someone disagreeing with them? Given that this man doesn't actively do any harm to gays or their community, he simply disagrees with them, they have no reason to bring harm to this man. the gay community needs to tolerate the beliefs and lifestyles of others or else they should not expect others to tolerate them. It's a 2 way street.
I do agree with this sentiment, though I completely understand why a network would shut down someone for making a controversial statement. Basically, the network saw his point of view as something that would tear their ratings right down due to the sensitivity of the people watching. I unfortunately can't blame the network for protecting their interests, but I do find it a shame when people are shut down for expressing their views (even if they're views that I don't agree with), but let's face it - freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of the natural consequences of that speech.
He said what he believed in, and I commend his honesty, at least. In the climate that we're in, though, people will react negatively for such opinions. Such is the way of life - as long as people have the right to express an opinion, people will have the right to react to the opinion as they please... and if such a reaction will affect the ratings then a network would be crazy not to respond in kind.
I certainly would be for setting our corpses in geostationary orbit over this planet. It would be a work of art.
At 12/5/13 01:31 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: There are about 4-5 jobs the government needs to do,
Defense
Lawyer salaries
Courts
The patent office
I cant think of much else that you or I can't do on our own. The individual is extraordinary in that he or she can fill almost any void, short of military and law (and the odd exception of the patent office)
In order to have a functioning government, yes. In the case of a healthy government, though, there are other responsibilities that would benefit the country greatly if the government contributed to them (without the worry of other conflict of interest parties getting input in its direction), such as:
Infrastructure
Education
Scientific Research in non-profit areas
Population health
Public sector regulation
International relations
Public media outlet
Does a country need most of these things, in the strictest sense of the word? No, a government can survive without these things, if barely. A healthy country and government benefits a great deal by investing in these non-essentials, with returns very often oitweighing the investment, in some form or another, that one would not experience if these things were handled by parties with other vested interests involved (like profit, for example).
At 11/30/13 06:45 PM, T3XT wrote:
It's not my dislike for the programs that prompts my dislike for the spending - in fact, my childhood was spent watching many PBS programs. I'm saying something more philosophical: I don't think it's necessary.
I understand what your point was. I also happen to disagree with it, as the programming does have considerable value as educational entertainment for children, and informative television for adults. This has considerable value - more than worth it at this price point, imo. To each his/her own, though.
Imagine what that 400+ million dollars could be used for. A few billion health care checks. Benefits for billions of our troops. Rehabilitation for billions of criminals. That's a lot more significant than making sure our kids have something to watch after school.
Billions of checks/bills/reformed criminals? These things don't cost pennies a piece, man. No, more like benefits for ~20,000 troops ($500M / $25,000... and that's a very conservative estimate of benefits to troops), Perhaps 50,000 hospital bills payed ($500M / $10,000... seems like a lot until you factor in roughly 112M visits to the ER are made a year), and enough money to detain ~4,200 criminals indefinitely (500M / 120K) or execute a mere ~42 criminals (500M / 12M). I can't say the annual cost of rehabilitation, but I doubt it's cheap. All of these assume that you dedicate all of the money toward any one of these things - numbers drop dramatically when you spread them out.
A decent form of edutainment benefits far more people than this (~5% of America a year, from the numbers I could find), and the benefit isn't really trivial, either.
At 11/28/13 06:42 PM, T3XT wrote: So I was sitting in the waiting room of the dentists' yesterday with a big TV at the front. As my ears were filled with the endless mediocrity being spewed from whatever children's programming being shown, a curiosity inside me forced my eyes to take a peek. When I saw the screen, the logo for the channel in the bottom-right caught my eye:
"PBS"
REALLY!? We have debts, deficits, subsidiaries, and criminal justice to pay for, and my tax dollars are paying for Clifford the Big Red Dog?
I don't think roughly $1.50 from every American in the country in tax dollars is a big deal. It gives people who can't afford cable or satellite something of worth to watch on television (Clifford is a children show - not the best, but it's not completely morally devoid, either - most stations have them, if you watch at the right time). Often, the station has some very good programs on there (NOVA, Masterpiece theater, Keeping Up Appearances, etc... and that last one is hilarious, btw).
You don't like a program on that station, so all of a sudden it's "Wasting tax dollars". I don't like how much military spending this country does, but I understand that others in this country feel safer with this spending, and while I don't think it's the best place for the money to go I understand that this is a country that's not all about me. It's not all about you, either, and the sooner you realize that the sooner you'll be comfortable with most small government expenditures like PBS and NASA.
But in all seriousness, to keep with the thread's theme, military spending. I know it's a nice thing to have the strongest military power in the world, but a lot of that spending could certainly be cut with some improvement in management. I've seen how the military spends on contractors - it's just wasteful. If any other business ran like that they'd be out of business in a year.
Hey everyone!
There's a kickstarter that's currently up that I think many of you VG peeps would be interested in - the ability to request video game music to be arranged by a variety of composers for orchestra, then it'll all have a live (streamed) performance in DC. Are any of you guys interested in hearing some of your favorite (and underappreciated) VG music get the royal orchestral treatment? Check out the kickstarter and, possibly, share your support for the endeavor!
Alright, looking forward to some awesome support from the NG community!
At 11/7/13 03:05 PM, Korriken wrote:At 11/7/13 02:18 PM, Proteas wrote:Thoughts?Looks like a stepping stone to me. Get this passed, get the punishment made legal through the court challenge(s), then begin apply it to other areas.
first it's terrorism, then murder, and before you know it, people can be punished for anything a relative did. "I'm sorry Mr. Boris but your uncle killed a man while driving drunk so we're going to confiscate your home and car along with the contents of both, then put your family on the streets. knowing how corrupt Russia is, the family of the man that was hit won't see a penny of it.
That's a slippery slope, if I've ever heard one.
Not sure if I can agree with any law that punishes people that weren't involved in the crime. I understand the reasoning behind the opinion of the OP, but honestly, how could relatives or family prevent such a crime from occuring? It essentially punishes others for crimes they didn't commit - if the offending party doesn't care for their family/relatives then this just arbitrarily ruins their lives for nothing that they've done.
At 10/31/13 12:07 PM, SoTJake wrote: Reviewed: http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/554720
Would appreciate a review on one of my two latest works.
Gave some love to this track.
-
Space Invaders Prelude by SoTJakeSpace Ambiente
- Score
- 4.61 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Ambient
- Popularity
- 69 Views
Would love some reviewing action for this track.
-
Castlevania - Satanic Spire by GarioA Vampire Variations Vol. II track, haunting arrangement of Bloodlines - Discolored Wall
- Score
- 0 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Video Game
- Popularity
- 8 Views
Also, happy halloween! :)
In an adult relationship you talk about issues that either of you may be having, make sure it's out in the open rather than keeping it to yourself and hoping the problem will resolve itself (it won't). Talk to her about where the two of you stand in the relationship; you can't ignore the problem if you even want a small chance that the two of you will pull through. If you can't bring yourself to resolve issues in your relationship by talking to your significant other then you should consider breaking it off (especially considering the cold shoulder you're getting). As far as housing issues, that is tough; pending on where you live, you might want to start scouting for a room for rent, or a smaller apartment, if at all possible - if you break up, of course.
As far as sticking with the first person you ever get romantically involved with forever... shatter that mindset immediately, it's actually unhealthy, and leads to desperate actions to cling to a relationship. Unless the two of you are mutually connecting with one another (Which by the sound of it, you aren't), a long term relationship is a waste of both your and her time, and sticking with that idea above will only cloud your judgement further.
i agree i am very clingy its kind of embarrassing but i don't really have a choice
Why don't you have a choice? If you're clingy, it shows that you have trust issues with others, and it shows. Clingy people will never have a happy, lasting relationship, so you need to learn to trust others in a relationship. If you've been clingy with your significant other for a period of time, it's likely already a dead relationship if the woman has any wit about her. If your trust is broken (or you seriously break the other persons trust) then I can't see a healthy relationship forming from that. Learn to control your clinginess, and learn to be honest with women that you're looking to date - it'll benefit you in the long run, if you're dating in order to start a relationship.
You're eighteen, you're young and still pretty fresh in the world scene. I know it's hard to hear now, but there are other women out there, likely women that will reciprocate intimate feelings toward you, if you take the step to look. Reading what you've wrote so far I would recommend finding a way to live on your own, then breaking it off - it just sounds like there's too much baggage piled against the two of you to save this relationship. That's my advice - do what you like with it.
At 10/20/13 06:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Is there a third party angle on this story?
No, but he did provide the evidence to show that he is in the right (points to forum posts contradicting the claim that he didn't have permission to use the footage, for example). It's not large enough of a case where you could possibly have a third party to have an informed, objective opinion on it (since it only affected TotalBiscuit), so I don't think you'll find what you're looking for, here, unless you ask TotalBiscuit for a copy of the permission letter that was granted to him by WildGamesStudio, which isn't too likely.
Of course he believes what he did was fair use...
Oddly enough, he specifically doesn't use fair use claims on his video - he's saying that he had explicit and implicit permission to use the footage from the game creators, then the creators claimed that he didn't have any right to use the footage after he posted a poor review of the game, followed by a takedown and a wrongful copyright strike against his account.
I understand where you're shooting from ("Fair Use" is shaky grounds, when used against copyright claims), but given what he provides in the video I think it's pretty clear that he isn't whining about a dubious "fair use" claim, but more upset that a company could abuse Youtubes DMCA to take down material that could hurt them when the poster had every legal right to provide such videos.
"It's all over. We'll take Senate deal." -GOP aide
It'll be nice if after I get home from classes this statement is actually legitimate. I'm hopeful on this one.
Oh yeah, the President really couldn't help anyway. Eh, I was tired when I made that post, I suppose.
Thanks for the clarification, Feoric.
So apparently on October 1st, the house decided to change the rule of the house so that the only people that can allow a bill to pass to the floor are two people, the majority or its designee, which to my knowledge means that the Republicans have 100% control over what happens in the house (in terms of whether or not the house can vote on opening the government or not). Did I hear that part correctly?
This whole situation is worse than I thought - not only is there a shutdown, and not only is neither side allowing any ground to the other to my knowledge, but now the only person who has the power to stop it is Boehner, due to a rule that was created after the shut down began by the house (I assume people can't pass these things without the houses' knowledge or consent, anyway). Even if the house wanted to look at a resolution, now they have no legal ability to do so without Boehner's permission.
Please, anyone, correct me if my assessment of that video was wrong, as I really, really hope it is, since I just don't see any hope of our congress staying functional if I'm right. It also means that the President can't do jack shit, even if he wanted to (and no, revoking one's primary piece of legislation is not an option - no president should be forced into that like this when the public is less than 50% against it, +/- 5%).
At 10/11/13 03:02 AM, Feoric wrote:
It's true guys. Me, Feoric, shut down the federal government in order to blame it on my rivals. How long of a ban does that give me?
We can't ban you - if the mods banned you now, who would agree to fix the problem that you started? Fix the government and I'm sure they'll send the ban hammer on you.
At 10/3/13 09:44 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
1. You'll insist that the only way to expand access to medical care is to increase coverage for expensive health insurance paying for expensive medical procedures. This in turn requires compelling the purchase of insurance that is too expensive for other people's tastes, and to have the Authorities fully or partially subsidize the exorbitance if the costs are too severe for the consumer.
2. Conversely, The only way to control costs total costs. [Costs borne by both gvt/taxpayers and by private citizens] is to RESTRICT access to health care.
But yes, go on with your moral posturing. We'll all be better off for it I'm sure.
Mathematically, since insurance companies base their prices off of the average expenditure per person involved in their insurance, the case is quite the opposite. The more people that are paying into the insurance coverage, the better the distribution will be overall, since the people that don't want to have coverage now are people that don't need to use it in the first place.
That means that the people that will now be getting health insurance are the low-risk people, which will create an average that is significantly cheaper than it is now, meaning that if more low-risk people have insurance, insurance for everyone will drop. Seeing that it's all going to be in effect soon, we can wait and see if the math proves correct.
While all the talk about Obamacre/Affordable Care Act is fascinating, it doesn't really tackle the core of this shutdown, which is why did the house think it was a good idea to pull brinkmanship tactics on an issue that they have literally no legal ground to negotiate (the 40 failed repeal attempts attest to this fact)? Agree with ACA or not, that's not what this whole shutdown crisis is about - it's about the fact that the house is using the economic future of our nation as a playing card for getting something that they want when every possible legal route has been exhausted. Virtually any other hot topic could fill it's place (Abortion? Sam-sex marriage? NCGLB in education?), and the parties could be reversed and the issue would be the same - one group in the house/senate is using the USA economy as a bargaining chip for something that they want when there is no other legal way to do so. That should never, ever be an option to people who run this government, as it's literally (not figuratively, but literally) taking our country hostage until we give into some sort of demand.
I withhold support for any of the issues that I've listed, and I have my issues with ACA, but none of that is relevant as this sort of response should never have been considered by any governing official in the first place. The democrats and the President are doing nothing wrong by refusing to give an inch on this - it's not how a government should work, and giving in only encourages this sort of behavior in the future.
Section 3 in the 14th amendment addresses the very things that is happening in the house right now - insurrection and rebellion against not only the president, but the rest of the institution (and therefore, the country) that has upheld the law as constitutional against their will. This should seriously be considered as an option, at this point (given the proper due process that would be involved, of course).
At 9/27/13 11:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 9/27/13 04:49 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: Your welcome.What about the Jesus who gave the poor bread and fish? He was an impostor, right?
I think MonochromeMonitor was trolling with that statement, though the fact that I believed it was true for a few seconds doesn't bode well for my opinion of the Tea Party, right now.
At 9/9/13 01:18 PM, poxpower wrote:
It is BAD when it comes to many large groups coexisting together.
If the groups are coexisting together, why is that a bad thing?
Ultimately, one culture would be more efficient. It's also impossible without either some form of assimilation or genocide, so I don't see why you're upset at the idea of people being forced to intermingle. Different cultures developed over time due to geographical differences and the inability to communicate with one another over vast spaces. Now that we can, we'll inevitably converge and EVENTUALLY share one culture together. Being accepting of other's cultures is like the band aid that helps ease the tensions that result from this, so I don't see why you'd be upset at this.
If the idea of integration is what bothers you, understand that isolation makes the problems of more than one culture worse. People used to be able to get away with having different cultures because they really just didn't know of others existences, or they had easily defined barriers that allowed easy separation. Nowadays, isolation only means that your self-imposed barriers or borders will get crossed eventually (like the Theo Van Gogh incident), and due to that person's cultural inability to coexist with others the person will lash out more aggressively, causing the very problems that you're getting upset about. What is your alternative, do the impossible and eradicate culture on the spot, or do the unthinkable and rid the world of global communications?
Integration is a step toward getting rid of multiple cultures, while isolation encourages mankind to separate from one another for arbitrary reasons. I don't see how you can hold the opinion of making culture irrelevant on the one hand and yet discourage various forms of integration on the other.
For fifty dollars?
Cubase 6 for fifty dollars?
I will purchase it for that price, just let me know how to make the purchase safely via PM.
At 8/31/13 09:36 PM, Bspendlove wrote:
I actually stopped learning Chorales for a tiny bit and focused on composition more (Although I did try a lot to apply Bach Chorales to my compositions)... I started to learn them again because it was one of the most interesting thing I have ever researched.
I also heard its good to print of Bach Chorales and actually play them and of course! Analysis them! So I am back to studying Chorales!
Bach Chorals are the single best place to learn about voice leading - it doesn't get too much better outside of them, and they're designed in a way where you can easily see the motion from chord to chord. Most music by the great masters of the Renaissance through the Romantic era use great voice leading: Look at music from Dufay, Josquin, Palestrina, J.S. & C.P.E. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Bethoveen, Brahms, Wagner & Mahler - while there are more, these are a great people to look at voice leading in action. Bach Chorals are excellent to see it at it's basest form, though - learn them well.
Understanding good voice leading will make you a better composer overall, so focusing on composition and learning the chorals and their voice leading techniques go hand in hand.
Ooo, Bach Choral analysis - haven't seen that in ages! Let's see if I can add my two cents on it.
A few points that I saw omitted: the doubling of the leading tone (3rd in V in major, 3rd in V# in minor, Root in viio). Never do it, because the leading tone must always resolve to the root. Anti-parallel movement is also forbidden, as it's really inverted parallel motion (moving from a 5th in contrary motion to a different 12th between two voices, like the Soprano and the Bass is an example of this).
Also, while it's a minor point since it's rare & the rules for octaves imply this, when voices come together for a beat never EVER move in parallel unison - it IS the worst forbidden motion, as the voice literally disappears for a beat.
As for whether or not forbidden motion is outdated or not... well, it all depends on what you're trying to do with the music in question. The entire concept behind forbidden motion is that you're trying to accomplish two things. First, you're trying to create multiple distinct lines in the music (that is why parallel unisons and octaves are forbidden). Second, you're trying to create music that flows as smoothly as possible from one place to the next (similar octaves that leap, as well as and parallel fifths, create moments of solidarity in sequence, so it disrupts the flow of the music). If neither of these things are your goal then there is no problem - if you don't want separate lines of music (like if you're doubling a single line for the texture/timbre) then awesome - P8ths & unisons are the way to go. Likewise, if you don't care if the music flows smoothly (like rhythm parts in the guitar, or music that otherwise is SUPPOSED to create disjoint from chord to chord) then parallel 5ths actually work very well for this. However, if you're trying to create harmony that is consistently rich and consistent then those rules are still in place.
I'm curious where you're going to take this Bach Choral research. Best of luck, it could be interesting.
At 8/24/13 10:30 PM, wildfire4461 wrote:
The copyright gestapo doesn't care. They would gladly strip the fair use clause out of everything themselves if they could. They don't care about people's rights, only their money. The MLP fanbase is lucky Hasbro has been pretty lenient about it. If MLP was owned by Viacunt or Disnuts there would be no fanbase .
They can't strip fair use using this bill any more than they can already - the bill has zero affect on current copyright laws, as far as what counts as copyrighted material. I'm sure they'd love to strip our rights (like when the mouse extended copyrights to 120 years for corporations - thanks fuckers), but the bill doesn't affect due process, which means that the current precedents that have been set in the past will still come into effect. Until a bill directly affects either due process or alters copyright law so the common fair use claims have no effect anymore you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Deep breaths, man. Deep breaths.
In fact, a lot of the things mentioned in this thread have to do with the fact that people arrange and remix copyrighted material on Youtube and Newgrounds, and the government specifically addresses this in a way that's favorable to us artists.
http://www.uspto.gov/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf
(Page 28)
There has been considerable discussion in recent years of the value and copyright treatment of “remixes”... Often, these works are part of a growing trend of “user-generated content” that has become a hallmark of today’s Internet, including sites like YouTube. Advances in digital technology have made remixing existing works easier and cheaper than ever before and provided greater opportunities for enhanced creativity. But because remixes typically rely on copyrighted works as source material – often using portions of multiple works – they can raise daunting licensing issues. Under current U.S. law, some remixes may qualify as a fair use of the copyrighted material they draw on... A body of precedent already exists with respect to fair use claims for quoting the works of others in new works of art. One line of cases involves parody; others deal with “appropriation art.” The results have turned in large part on the extent to which the second artist was either transforming or commenting on the source.
Considering that they're shedding light on these very things in such a favorable manner in the law, I don't think this law is a problem at all. Basically, they won't touch wan't already set in precedent, which is pretty much all the YT arrangement videos and such out there.
This isn't SOPA 3.0.
The BIG concern with SOPA wasn't whether or not the act of streaming was illegal (as many have mentioned in here, it always has been). It was the fact that the government could perform acts against the site administrators for things that they likely couldn't control, pressuring them with forced, unwarranted site shutdowns that could disable them indefinitely for minor infractions that the site may or may not catch (like, for example, someone linking to a piracy site in a thread was possibly liable to earn a government shutdown). It set things up for a "Guilty until proven innocent" rather than "Innocent until proven Guilty" scenario, which was more than questionable - it was draconian and, ultimately, very harmful to net neutrality.
I know Camarousky didn't agree with that, but that's all in the past - I just wanted to remind people why SOPA was even an issue, in the first place.
THIS law has virtually none of those issues behind it - it makes something that's already illegal more illegal. Big deal - you're still protected by the same things that protect you from copyright violation today - educational use, parody, etc.. Get a little perspective - unless torrenting a bunch of movies is your thing, don't worry about it.
Jesus would've voted for a third party. Maybe for Ross Perot.
If you fear being in this situation, then as a man you shouldn't get drunk with a woman in your sights. You have sex with a woman that doesn't want it that's rape. It means that a guy needs to take some extra responsibilities when drinking, which a guy needs to do in the first place.
At 7/31/13 09:39 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: I've heard this is true, however it's a misconception that all serial killers are white. When we were children, my sister's friend's mother was found dead and the serial killer who did it was Nathaniel White, a black man.
I would argue that the serial killer in that case was White.
