And to further that line of thought, the issue was that the second person was using the first person's photo without paying copyright. When he was sued, he went out and produced a photo as close to the original as possible to avoid paying licensing fees. So the intent has a lot to do with the ruling.

Hey, they probably built those martian pyramids that VHS tape I bought in the 80's told me about.

My way of explaining it to people is this: SOPA/PIPA is like building a Death Star to kill the three rebels hiding in the population of a small planet.

There was also the fact that originally the lightsabers were supposed to be difficult to hold/control. They were told in episode 4 specifically not to fight in a traditional fencing style because they needed both hands to control the power of the blades. Then there were the also mentioned issues with the props themselves breaking.

I am sure when Lucas gets around to re-shooting the original trilogy using obi-wan from the first one (hey, there are only 10 more years to go more or less), the lightsaber fights will be much more involved.

Yes, but the issue is. Verizon knows once you get on autopay, you are going to stop watching the bill. The 10 days will pass and the money will be gone, and you will be left with no options.

For me, autopay worked great until payroll was messed up and I was accidentally deleted instead of the person that was supposed to be terminated. Payday came with no direct deposit followed by all those wonderful autopays triggering. When the dust settled I was in the hole for over twice what I paid out. So there is no autopay in my life anymore except for my mortgage and my auto insurance, two things that I must have to function.

Isn't this what Open Source code is about. You put the code out there and allow anyone to tinker with it, as long as they give the tinkered code away? I could download Linux Mint's version and program it to deposit all proceeds into my bank account and make my own Distro called "Make me $0.50 Linux" and as long as I offer my code changes up, there is little that can be done.

Apparently cleaning out the White House of the leftovers of the previous administration counts as extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. We all know they kept a small nuclear arsenal in there for when Cheney got bored.

Well, I would argue that we are genetically coded with morals built in. But you are correct it is not a question with a simple answer. But to offer my own personal opinion.

- No, all life is sacred and all people have the chance of redemption. Whether they accept it or not is part of their free will, but I shouldn't make that choice for them.
- Yes and No. Should the government prevent the such a union between consenting adults? No. Should the government be interfering in someone's religious beliefs of marriage? No. If you want to marry, go to it. However, don't infringe on my religious freedom to believe it is wrong. And before you object, no just because I object doesn't mean that I have a right to discriminate based on that objection (outside of my religious practice). My faith teaches the most important thing is to love the creator, followed by loving all of His creation.
- Yes and No. Should you be allowed to take drugs? Yes. Should be allowed to harm others in the process? No.
- Yes. All life is sacred. To me the hardest part of this is when there is danger to the mother.
- I think the method that gets the point across with the least amount of harm to the child should be used. You can just as easily cause permanent harm mentally or emotionally as you can physically and I would argue those are much harder to fix.
- Yes. A gun is a tool, much like a hammer. Both can be used to do something horrible, but it is the person using it that makes that decision.
- That is a matter of personal choice. In the case of parents and children, as long as it provides the nutrients for the kid what is the harm?

But these are mostly dealing with societal norms, not so much with morality.

We are quickly finding ourselves in a society where we lack an absolute morality authority. Therefore what is immoral for you may or may not be immoral to others. In other words, we are reaping the fruits of a society where all ideas are given equal worth. Where we are not to condemn someone because what they do is right from their point of view.

I dual boot Ubuntu and Windows 7. Ubuntu boots so fast that if I am not paying attention it is up before I realize it and log in is just as responsive. Windows 7 on the hand takes about double the time to the log in screen, and then there is a wait at least as long for the machine to become responsive enough to use.

Granted, this on a machine with only 2 GB of RAM. But running the same applications on each OS presents a world of difference (Remote Support Client [supports both OSes], Lotus Notes 8.5 full feature, Chrome Browser, Skype, plus a RDC client). Linux responses and functions, while I generally have to wait and be patient for Windows. Needless to say, I find myself only using Windows when I must (Microsoft Access mainly, but occasionally the RDC client since it supports Windows 7 and Server 2008).

But then to be fair, I am forced to run the bloated piece of crap called Symantec Endpoint Protection on the Windows 7 side of life. However, it doesn't excuse the poor performance prior to it starting.

There is a difference between morals and mores. Legislating penalties for breaking morals is a good thing and should be encouraged as society should be moral.

Legislating mores is on the other hand is not necessarily a good thing and should be done very carefully. Otherwise, it is just forcing everyone to conform to a arbitrary standard that would otherwise naturally adjust and change to the times, and it is how we end up with absolutely retarded laws on the books such as the law in Huntington, WV that decrees "It is legal to beat your wife so long as it is done in public on Sunday, on the courthouse steps."

Amen, we have multiple companies willing to come and provide you with a trash can (your choice of size). Then you can tell them how frequently you want to have said trash can emptied. They take this information and tell you how much you will pay for them to do so. Don't like it, choose another company or just take your own trash to the recycle/trash drop-off spot.

Likewise, if you are so concerned with recycling there are companies you can hire to assist you with this, or take it to said drop-off spot. As an added bonus, you are completely free to purchase a composting bin and/or create a backyard compost pile on your private property.

Truth is, you cannot legislate people to do things they don't want to do. They will just find a way to do what they want, either legally or illegally despite any rules and penalties you may create. If you need an example, see most death penality laws and how it has been super effective (sarcasm) in stopping murder and violent crimes.

I hold the vaccines suspect because I researched the source of these supposed miracle cures. I personally take a great issue with a society that would abort/deny one person life in order to vaccinate/protect someone else from a potential threat. So you are proclaiming the greatness of science and researches ability to shift the death toll from one segment of the population to another, that which is defenseless and cannot speak out against it's mistreatment.

The plan is essentially this. The Federal Government is doing things it is not meant to do, but the States Governments were as per the constitution (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). So let's move those things back to the states, and the cost of the Federal Government will go down.

The part he doesn't mention is that the cost of State Government will go up as it reabsorbs these functions. However, as intended the voters will have more control that way.

Already there, FCC is advocating them for safety reasons.