No, they're not. You're either an idiot, or you're just old and enough old people still think of online dating as "taboo" enough that they think they have to pay money for it to be socially acceptable.

If your primary requirement for a dating website is that it be a website you have to pay to use, then obviously your primary requirement for a partner is that they have extra money to spend on stupid bullshit like pay-to-date websites. Congratulations, you're a moron who dates morons. Now go make an OkCupid profile like the rest of the kids.

Your analysis is too simplistic, just like anyone who would blame corporations for all the world's problems.

Why are the poor stupid and lazy? Why are the people who work for corporations good at something? Could it have anything to do with differences in access to education, nutrition, and a safe, positive environment?

What can we do to improve access to those things in order to prevent more people from becoming stupid and lazy? Could we improve spending on welfare and social services, or take steps to curb the overpopulation trend? If we did that, would it also lower the crime rate in addition to reducing scarcity?

How much does it really cost to feed the poor? You're worried about the expense, but have you done a full cost/benefit analysis? We spend a majority of our federal budget on our military and the Iraq war was financed with hundreds of billions of dollars, would you be opposed to taking a few billion dollars that we are currently spending to kill people on other continents and using it to feed the poor instead? Do you think that would be a better use of our resources?

If you haven't asked yourself questions like these and you're not willing to, then your analysis of social problems will always be stupid and lazy, and you will continue to be part of the problem.

That is by far the most insightful statement regarding the Wikileaks fiasco that I have read so far.

It doesn't have to be using radio waves or even any kind of wireless communication at all. What if the gun measures the distance to the target before launching the grenade and then configures it through a direct interface? I read in other comments that the distance is calculated when the shot is fired using a laser.

Just because hunting and being outside is more effective at developing military patrol skills than video games are, it doesn't necessarily follow that video games are not effective. They could simply be less effective. Plus, the example quoted in the summary was fighter jet pilots. That sort of task is highly visual in a very different way and I would imagine that at times, modern HUDs resemble video games. Not to mention that, as I have heard, there are several flight simulation games that actually require you to know how to operate all of the equipment in the cockpit for the plane you are flying. I'd like to see a study that specifically controlled for experience at THOSE types of games, not just "Halo" or something stupid. I don't know of any FPS, even amongst the more realistic ones than Halo, that require you to know how to actually operate an M-16, AK-47, Colt .45, or whatever else they put in the hands of the player.

Being in the Air Force and piloting an F-16 is a very different task than being in the Army and patrolling the latrines.

I realize that the Army doesn't just patrol the latrines but it rhymes so I couldn't help myself ;-)

Also don't forget that the skills mentioned in the summary aren't just useful in the military. Enhanced visual attention could be useful to someone who performed robotic open-heart surgery, or a designer who uses AutoCAD to engineer low-cost hydroponic farm equipment. The world doesn't ALWAYS have to be about war, death and destruction, you know ;-)

Everyone indoctrinates their children; you sound like that if you had children (which you apparently don't) you would indoctrinate them to believe strongly in personal liberty, freedom of speech and individual thinking. Many people indoctrinate their children into getting an education, finding a job, and learning how to budget money. The only way you can raise a child without indoctrinating them with your own attitudes and beliefs is to simply abandon them and not raise them at all.

It's also perfectly reasonable to keep kids of a younger age from watching certain kinds of media. While I kind of agree with what you're saying, and I don't think that most people allow their children to grow up and become adults nearly as fast as they should, there is absolutely no reason for an 8-year-old boy to watch the movie Hostel and then play the video game Manhunt. Both of those "art" pieces are gratuitously violent, perhaps traumatically so, and offer nothing to enrich the mind. It is also true that violent media does at least something to model the behavior of those who are exposed to it, for better or for worse, and while I don't think that aggressive behavior can be caused solely by violent media there is certainly a relationship between the two. Denying this outright is not helpful to the collective debate and furthermore, it makes us seem ignorant as a group when we are attempting to argue for the right of adults to create and admire violent artworks and video games.

Outright denying the possibility of someone's illicit involvement in the tragedy isn't remaining rooted in reality, it's sticking your head in the sand and telling yourself that everything is O.K.

WOOHOO FIRST

Thanks for contributing nothing to the discussion.

You've got to admit that the circumstances of the 9/11 incident were fairly suspicious. A few days prior to the attack they had an evacuation drill in the towers that was out of the ordinary, the attack occurred during a time of day when most of the people who worked in the towers were not in the building, another building that was not struck by a plane collapsed, and the buildings collapsed in a way that was consistent with the way that buildings collapsed during controlled demolitions when there are explosives planted on each floor at key structural points.

I would seriously not be surprised if the Bush family helped the terrorists co-ordinate their attack in order to create a pretense for war that would allow them to tighten the federal government's hold on national security and drive oil prices through the roof.

Mod Point. That was brilliantly argued and said, friend. If I happen to get mod points soon, I'll come back and mod you up.

Roads/Schools/Libraries are classified as public goods, which the free market does not allocate very efficiently. That's why we use taxes to pay for them and provide them for everyone. I think the parent understands that they aren't "free" in the sense that you mean.

Go take an introductory macroeconomics class and then get back to us when you're slightly more educated. We really don't have the time or patience to deal with you until then.

Yeah, but Israel is smart enough not to just accept information from any jackass who comes along out of the blue to offer it to them. What if the person approaching them with information was sent by the CIA as a double-agent in order to assess whether or not Israel really is spying on us? Better to play it safe with such an individual and turn them in to U.S. authorities, gather whatever intelligence they can from legitimate sources, and if they plant any agents, make sure they're people groomed by Israel's intelligence forces, not just some random jackass who comes along offering some intel who could just be a CIA plant.

Way to make a bunch of idiotic assumptions based on the article summary. The technology allows the local admin to configure the banned words; they aren't configured by Canon.

I just felt like dropping by to remind you that you're a total moron. There are lots of reasons that you're a moron, but I don't really feel like enumerating all of them, as it is rather late in the evening.