Another tech example: WebTV to internet is only on computers to "App Enabled" blue ray players / GoogleTV(and others).

Some tech comes out, slowly is found to have limitations, is replaced by another tech that is completely radical in it's approach, eventually it has limitations too, is replaced by a reimagining of the first tech with some parts of the 2nd tech... it's a standard cycle alright.

Another (non-tech) example: Father is a taskmaster, strict, and prudish. Son is rebellious and becomes loose, overindulging, and 'free spirited'. Grandson reacts to Dad's overindulgence and lack of structure with a desire to "do better for my son", becomes strict and prudish... rinse, wash, repeat. It's not a "forgone conclusion" that things will go this way, but if you look, it seems the norm that a person will react to their parents' behaviors and do the opposite.

You'll also find our culture swings like this too... the puritan years of ~ 1890 - 1900, the "roaring 20's", the "good old days" of the 40s and 50s, the 60s (enough said), though in each swing, the overall move is to less prudish it seems, and the swings appear to be less of a violent black/white swing.

I guess the pendulum swing is just a part of human nature, but perhaps there is an equilibrium that can be reached that is best for all...

You're doing it wrong then...

So he loses $2 mil to taxes (I'm over exaggerating this to make a point)

$2,000,000 @ even a very modest 3% annual return = $60,000 per year.

With a decent, relatively safe mutual fund, you can get 6-8% return ($120,000 - $160,000 per year).

If you can't live off of that, you are seriously doing it wrong.

Feel free to stop by my church and try to find that hate. It's simply not there. Nor is the greed you assume we all have.
 
http://hopegilbertsville.org

In response to your sig:

"If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman."

This is a non sequitur. If you're going to bash religion, at least learn logic enough to put up a solid, intelligent, well reasoned and logical argument so that others may have a chance to discuss things reasonably. This statement is a logical fallacy, and proves nothing.

Additionally, it assumes that the intent of the Superman comics was to convey truth. It also assumes that the comics themselves contain even a shred of factual information. The argument also assumes that the factual value of one piece of literature has direct correlative influence on the factual value of another piece of literature (fallacy of assuming the consequent).

Um, there is this feature called "view only" in Google Docs.... I'm pretty sure they used it.

Well, if it's the last piece of the pie, it's not much of a 'slippery slope' argument, now is it? In quite a real sense, we'd be giving the power to decrypt general internet communications to people who have a LOT to gain by using it against their political opponents.

Seriously, this has little use except to spy on the general public, while proposing encryption law that has been suggested and shot down in the past (think Clipper Chips?). It makes corporate/private encryption weaker, the entirety of our internet communications more vulnerable to attack, and could quite possibly restrict our ability, in the future, (yes, slippery slope) to encrypt our own data, as has already been done in the UK. This essentially serves all internet communications providers with the same order as the UK served their entire citizenry: you encrypt something, you have to give us the keys to decrypt it.

Hope that satisfied you logically.

Yes.

Wish I could mod you up. This kind of infraction by the government on its own people is inexcusable. Write your congressman, let them know how you feel, and vote!

FTF (NYT) A:

What hey're trying to legalize is rather heinous on the part of our government. Just because it's been made legal doesn't mean it's right or good. Seriously, between the ability to declare even American citizens terrorists because of what they've said (not necessarily what they've done), the ability to try anyone classified as a terrorist outside a civilian court, and now the "needed" capability to decrypt encrypted messages over the internet...what's to stop whoever is in the White House from 'disappearing' outspoken people they disagree with, without breaking the law?

I'm an American, and I value my freedom over a false sense of security. If you aren't comfortable with that, perhaps America isn't for you.

FTFA:

Awesome. I'm glad our government is striving to protect our liberties. Seriously, between the ability to declare even American citizens terrorists because of what they've said (not necessarily what they've done), the ability to try anyone classified as a terrorist outside a civilian court, and now the "needed" capability to decrypt encrypted messages over the internet...what's to stop whoever is in the White House from 'disappearing' outspoken people they disagree with, without breaking the law?

I'm an American, and I value my freedom over a false sense of security. If you aren't comfortable with that, perhaps America isn't for you.

 
This is your opinion, and I beg to differ. Marriage, and sex within that marriage, is an experience so amazing to me that I gladly choose to live my life in such a way that it only ever happens with one person. Since my wife is my one and only, that is a special gift I have given her and her alone. This makes the gift that much more special.
 
If I were a painter, and I paint one painting, is it not worth more than if I take that painting and have it mass produced? Is not the act of duplicating the masterpiece diminishing that masterpiece?
 
I see my marriage as my masterpiece, and I intend to have one and only one marriage to keep that marriage as special, unique, and a true treasure.
 
I pray that you find your masterpiece and cherish its uniqueness the rest of your days.

Wow... problems much? I had a sentence starting with "Sex..." I then changed it to start with the phrase "I am so glad that there is another Christian that understands that". I missed correcting the upper case S to s. And you use a typo to attach my character? This is why I can't take people like you seriously.

Can you imagine giving a piece of your heart and mind to another and then expecting to be able to give 100% of yourself to the next person and the next person and the one after that? I can, because dating is just that. Sex, on the other hand, brings a whole new level of connection. It's hard enough having the baggage of previous 'loves' coming into a marriage, but previous sexual partners?
 
By giving myself to my wife only, I can completely give myself to her, and because I only gave myself to my wife alone, she has nothing to fear because she knows my personal stance on marital fidelity, one I kept strong from before I got married, and have no intention of breaking (and she knows it!). Because of this, the baggage of previous relationships is minimal, and the building of a solid marriage has less to burden it down.
 
Yes, perhaps if I had "shopped" around sexually, I could have found a better sexually gratifying experience, but would it be worth it?
 
If I found the "perfect" sex, but it wasn't with a woman who was the best match for me overall, I would spend the rest of my life with that "perfect" sex as a memory, and it would be very tempting to seek it again, and that would make me less than the faithful husband I desire to be to one woman.
 
You are right, sex isn't everything, and I believe that anyone willing to make it work can make the sex good... period.