The reality is there is no need to go to the game to get score information, you could easily get that same information from having a small group of people watch the game on TV. However, I was speaking of a more specific loophole, a friend buys 2 tickets and hands them over at the gate. You just show up and walk in.

Use of a ticket is not a binding contract with the NFL. If someone hands you a ticket which you did not buy and you show up at the game at no point did you agree to anything.

Go talk with someone with a PHD in neuroscience and they will call the Left Brain (logic) / Right Brain(art) divide nonsense or try and sell you something. There is some task specific specialization between the two sides, however learning takes place in ALL PARTS OF THE BRAIN. Unfortunately, there is also a market for books that perpetuate this nonsense so you can find a lot of sources for this crap, which is written by people that either don't understand what they are talking about or simply chose to misrepresent what they do understand.

PS: Language is localized to more areas than you might expect, the ability to name something is a very specific skill that is separate from understanding what is named. Basically, one part of the brain learns how to name something, another part learns how to understand names, another part learns how to decode speech, another part learns how to decode written language, another part learns how to recognize sounds... etc. (However, each of the above tasks involves several parts of the brain working together so naming something when writing and speaking uses the same areas for part of the task and different areas for other parts.)

There are only two options you can extrapolate from what you can see, or you can live in a total dream land where everything that happens is based on a fantasy. "By suspending judgment, by confining oneself to phenomena or objects as they appear, and by asserting nothing definite as to how they really are, one can escape the perplexities of life and attain an imperturbable peace of mind." Pyrrho (ca. 360 BC - ca. 270 BC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho

PS: Plenty of people chose to live their life based on a fantasy of one sort or another, but it's a dangerous path with no clear boundaries between there and true insanity.

SS spending has been cut in the past by increasing the retirement age for full benefits which helps because you pay for a shorter period and even more people die before receiving benefits. Medicare is harder to cut directly, but increasing premiums is an option and what is covered is also optional. Just because they keep calling it Medicare does not mean it's always costs the same amount.

but what is required to meet the law's requirements.

But, the government get's to change the law, so it get's to adjust how much they cost. As to eliminating the debt, all we need to do is reduce the growth of the debt to below that of inflation, or even inflation adjusted GDP. If it's growing by 1% a year that's actually a good thing and our economy can quickly outpace that growth over the long term. As to stimulus spending that's only a problem if it lasts for several years, the real question is if we can avoid stimulus spending once things improve.

PS: All government money comes from the same pool, US. Washington has many sacred cows, DoD, SS, Medicare, but they can all be sacrificed.

Tax breaks distort non governmental spending, which reduces economic efficiency so removing them can have a positive net effect on the economy while increasing revenue. SS and Medicare are just another type of spending that can be reduced like any other. However, the major cause of that 1.3 trillion $ deficit a weakening economy and two wars both of which should be short lived. It took 10 years to go from reducing the deficit to a 1.3 trillion $ one, and the trip back can be faster than you might think.

I don't think increasing taxes would increase revenue as much as you might expect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

We could remove tax breaks, or reduce spending, but long term the tax rate is about as high as is feasible.

True when you share your physical toys you can't use them. But, when you share your digital toys nobody loses anything.

Sadly, no.

IP's are given away and there is no reason to give them back so of course there is a lot of demand and we are "running out". But don't think just because IANA runs out of IP's you will be unable to get new ones. They will just come with a price tag. It's a classic land grab, and people that got large chunks of IP space are going to start selling them as soon as there is no free competition.

One of the quick and dirty ways to continuing to use IPv4 is to have some of the huge chunks of the address space given back. Do FORD, MIT, Apple, IBM, etc each need 256^3 addresses? (http://xkcd.com/195/) IPv4 has almost 256^4 or around 4 billion IP's that's almost one IP per person on the planet and plenty to last a *LONG* time.

Wait two weeks and go at an off time and their might be 3 people in the room, assuming you brought two friends.

It is a near certainty that the average person will eventually have access to nuclear-scale weapons.

Consider, for the last several years the average doctor in the US is capable of making bio weapons that could kill millions of people. Yet, more people have been killed by lighting than said bio weapons over that time period. Capability != Threat.