scribbles

Seems like merb is the same situation.

I find feed quality can be pretty variable. Usually it's 720p or so, but I can't seem to get the 1080p sources to work well. I also haven't figured out how to stream live TV, which I would love to be able to do.

I have to side with Phaedrus here in that I think, as poorly articulated as the discussion was begun, there is nothing inherently wrong with discussing rates. Discussion isn't negotiation. Understanding the economics of this industry can be informative for those who haven't stopped to think about it, or haven't considered all aspects of the topic. Asking why rates are what they are does not *have* to imply that you are suggesting those rates should change. But, articulating the question crudely can do just that. Clients DO have the right to question what they are paying for. They are not guaranteed to be entitled to an answer, and that needs to be accepted. That's because the ladies DO have the right to charge as they see fit; anybody who doesn't think it's understandable that a woman is in charge of defining the price tag she places on sharing her most intimate self with someone else needs to reevaluate more than just what they are doing asking these questions. Simply put, anybody can charge whatever they want for whatever they want, whether it's an intimate encounter, a car, a cauliflower or a cup of pens. That doesn't mean that they should feel entitled to everyone accepting those prices either. If people do, then, by definition, the market has tolerated the price of their commodity. It's been said again and again, choose the provider that fits your budget. It sounds trite, but it's still the most direct answer you'll ever get. The rest is all details that won't change a single thing.

Wholeheartedly agree with everything that's already been said about this fine lady, and would add that the time passed far too quickly. Great conversation and great time spent.

Not sure what Web resources you've used, but if I have some names I can take a look for you, if you like. Feel free to PM.

I am disappointed by all of the anti-immigration and anti-refugee talk. Put it this way: if someone from Paris wanted to immigrate to Canada, claiming they felt unsafe in France, would we let them? We wouldn't be having this discussion, it would just happen. The only reason the Syrian refugees are looked at differently is because they are Muslim. It's racism, and that's not a claim I throw around lightly or often. I'm not saying everyone is a bigot, I'm just saying that when we're afraid of something we let our emotional lizard brain run with it's categorization and labelling, and in this case we are (admit it) looking at every Muslim as a potential terrorist until proven otherwise. It's disheartening. And, inevitable. But, we can choose to let our rational minds rule the day and override those emotional leanings. If we don't, we've let terrorism push the humanity out of our hearts that much more, and become more like them.

Why do we have a government? I'd argue it's to manage the needs, security and benefits of the many, which should mean that my needs, security and benefits are usually met as well. So, in principle, legislation should ensure that public safety is considered as more important than personal recreation. Otherwise, we live in a society where I do whatever the hell I want, and too bad if it screws you or anyone else over. Where that line is drawn is important. If I want to eat myself to death, that isn't directly putting your life in danger. It's costing the public more in terms of money and resources for our health care system to try and keep my indulgent ass alive, but that's several steps removed from someone getting high, jumping in the car and killing a family of 4 on the highway. Call it Big Brother, but we expect government to be there to keep us safe and prosperous. We just don't like it when, in seeking to do so, they stop us from doing things we like to do. And, to be clear, I stated that I am rationally in favor of legalization (not decriminalization). I may think it's retarded for people to feel the need to use drugs (let's not be so evasive as to call it an herb, or let's call cocaine an herb as well) or think it's not dangerous, but I also know that harm reduction starts with removing a system of punitive enforcement. I don't like heroin, either, but believe safe injection sites are logically a good thing. I just think legalization is a lot harder to accomplish than simple age limits and taxation. Flat out decriminalization would be irresponsible.

Should alcohol be prohibited? I enjoy my scotch, but, really, yes it should. Tobacco? I like my cigars, but, again, it should. Where I would actually argue, philosophically, that one vice is less deserving of prohibition than another is probably in that vice's likelihood of endangering the health and safety of others. From that perspective, tobacco is possibly less of a concern, since the biggest risk (outside of second hand smoke) is to the user. Alcohol and drugs, on the other hand, alter behavior, perception, and cognitive capacity. There are just too many ways where hat can lead to a risk of harm to people other than the user. The notion that people should be allowed their vices is fine in concept, but when those vices, practiced irresponsibly, endanger other people, the equation changes. And, time and again it's proven that expecting people to act responsibly is like trying to catch unicorn farts. :)

I'm actually well aware of how widespread pot use is. And, while your ability to use pot recreationally hasn't, by your estimation, impeded you in any way, I don't think the personal testimony of one person establishes the rule for everyone else. I've known just as many people who regularly used pot who literally couldn't remember the specifics of the beginning of a conversation in order to be able to participate in it 5 minutes later. As you say, not everyone should use it. My point was simply that defining who should, when, and why, is a pretty important aspect of this discussion that should be explored well before laws are erased from the books.

Personally, I'm a little torn. I don't use the stuff, never have, and never will. I value my cognitive abilities and don't feel the need to muddy my brain with drugs. By that token, I don't like the idea of a drug being made legally legitimate for recreational use. There is no good reason to recreationally use pot, and certainly none that make up for the actual harms and risks it presents. "Just cause I like to" isn't a valid reason. Rationally, I think there is more *potential* for risk management if pot is decriminalized, but this is dependent on how it will (and it should) be regulated. For all those people spouting about how weed is perfectly safe and non-addictive and innocent, there are reams of studies and neuroscientific investigations that show otherwise. Nobody should go to jail for smoking a joint, but that doesn't mean its use shouldn't be regulated. Not the least of the worries, there are no reliable and practical ways to establish intoxication from pot use at roadside, which means there is an immediate problem with people getting high and driving. Or, how about professions where being high could lead to personal liability or risk the safety of others? This isn't a simple nut to crack, and I really hope we don't simply wipe out all criminal law without consideration for these things.

I believe I saw her at the Fax.

I agree the F35 was never the machine we needed, but suggesting the 150 will be made up for in "savings" from going with a less expensive alternative isn't quite right either. You don't save money by purchasing something less expensive. You just avoid spending as much. It's cost avoidance, not savings. The reality is the 150 million needs to be tacked on to the ticket price of whatever option we choose to go with, as part of the total cost of equipment obsolescence. That still might not be cheap, but I'd like to think it will leave us with a fighter better suited to our purposes.

Oh , Marty Klein... That amused me. There is no consensus on diagnostic criteria, nor is there consensus on nosology (what to call it). Correct. However, to claim there are *no* diagnostic criteria is incorrect. There are lots, many of them overlapping or similar, and differing in complexity and actual measurable practicality. Check out Kenneth Blum's Reward Deficiency Syndrome. It isn't hard to find a few papers by him on it, though the 2000 paper is detailed, if epically long. Rather than approach the subject from a pithy and purely cultural perspective, Blum gives a good and exhaustive analysis of the neuroscience behind addiction. By demonstrating the changes that occur in the dopamine system, specifically the mesolimbic structures, and by demonstrating the effect of the Taq A1 allele genetic variant to regulation of this system, you can start to see that addiction is real. And, yes, behavior can be addictive if it activated the mesolimbic system. Sex definitely does, as this is one of the ways we are built, to have sex reinforced neurobiologically, to ensure that we want to continue the species. Is everyone who *says* they are a sex addict addicted? No. But, saying *nobody* is because of the ones who aren't is pretty short sighted. Certainly, just saying they're all immature and narcissistic is useless and wrong.

The key difference you are looking for, Brad, is the *object* of the activity; hunting for food makes the food the object of the activity, where in sport hunting the object is simply enjoyment of taking a life. That's why I have no problem saying that sport hunting is barbaric and disgusting, and absolutely should be banned. As an apex predator, humans have an ethical responsibility to exercise judgment and care for those lower on the food chain than us. As for this asshat, he has been caught breaking hunting regulations before, so his claims of ignorance are pretty weak. Besides, however you slice it, he paid a ton of money to kill something simply for whatever sick enjoyment he got from taking a life, and whatever boost to his ego it gave him. That's pretty pathetic, in my books.

And here I was looking forward to meeting her!