I just did. Want to see it again?

Invention means you look at the world around you and try to deduce how the hell you can make this work.

Innovation means you take someone elses already documented invention and reuse it, stepwise refinement style.

It's the difference between the guy who invented the arched doorway and the guy who said "Hey, you could use this to make a window!"

Innovation != Invention. Innovation is, by definition, easy. Innovation is the blue collar work of the intellectual realm.

Or, you could just use it to do things like find topics of conversation that would get her excited and avoid doing things that would offend her, and have her enjoy her evening with you and hope to do it again sometime soon.

Perhaps finding out that the third best looking person there is an uninhibited sex freak like you who is going to say yes if you ask her is more your speed.
 
Then, a year later, you can use it to find other people who are HIV+ like yourself to approach.

The possibilities are endless!

Really, though, I don't think any of this conversation has any point... I think Orson is right, and blood will be necessary. Same as it was when Hitler rose to power, same as it was when Philip the Fair executed the Knights of the Temple, etc, etc...

It's really very predictable.

But even if you were correct, so what? If you want to encourage people having children, pay them child support or something. Don't try to blackmail them with marriage annulment or otherwise messing with them.

Ok, fine. Then, I'm in favour of completely dissolving marriage and all the benefits that go with it, because really, this is not about two people pair bonding and loving, they don't need laws for that. It's about two people and how they interact with society.

I think it's nicer to support them as they nest and prepare for their baby, rather than paying them afterwards... but at the same time, I don't think it is fair or reasonable that two people who decide to pair off get a break on their taxes while my roommate and I do not, if there is no expectation that they will be doing anything that benefits society and thus indirectly benefits me.

If marriage is about funding the children who will wipe my ass when I am old, I do not mind paying more than my fair share. If it isn't about anything at all beyond two people who "love" each other, why the hell would I want to subsidize that? Hell, why do you?

One way to end democracy is for the majority become nihilistic and self absorbed, and attempt to lead the entire culture towards decline and death. When that happens, the minority need to treat the majority as though they were an occupying force, and fight for their lives.

The measuring stick for this is not really based on empiricism... it's based on the opinion of large masses of people. If the culture is really legitimately sick but a critical mass of people don't band together and care, they'll all just die off. If the culture is not legitimately sick but a critical mass of people believe that it is, that's still enough to create a civil war.

Personally, I agree with Orson Scott Card. I think the right way to view marriage is as a bargain between a man and a woman, and their community. The couple gets support, and the community gets another generation of mankind. I don't think there's any utility in actively persecuting people for their sexual orientation, but marriage is a mechanism for the community to fund the creation of new life, not just two people making a statement of love for each other.

In order to really hammer home that this is not about prejudice, and refocus the marriage laws around the common good, which is what they should be about, I think the right course is to institute mandatory annulment of fruitless marriages after a period of time... 3 years sounds reasonable.

If you marry and collect the financial incentives, then get an annulment, you should only get one "free pass"... if you then remarry and get a second annulment, or if you get a divorce, you should be forced to repay the money.

When gay people point at these train wreck celebrities who have 6 fucked up marriages in a row and put up stupid slogans, they have a real point. When they point at marriages that don't have families and children, but just a man and a woman getting a discount on their taxes because they promised to share a bed, and say they are no different, they have a real point.

The correct response, I think, is to address these points and make marriage about funding new life. That is, after all, it's social purpose... the human need it meets that justifies its existence. Really, unless gay people look forward to living their retirement years in a culture that has no young to keep the lights on, they should DESIRE a mechanism to pay other people to take responsibility for bearing and raising children... they should not be fighting to subvert it.

Tell it, brother!

I think tracking should be mandatory, and that it should be accessible to all people. You should be able to know where I am at all times, and I should be able to know where you are at all times, and people who take steps to create obscurity around themselves should be treated as untrustworthy.

Which is nice, because what I think should happen is going to happen regardless of how much a few vocal people bitch about it. This and previous generations of man have taken their own ignorance for granted and see no loss in accepting ignorance in exchange for the competitive advantage secrecy grants them. The up and coming generation of man has the internet at their finger tips, they feel entitled to be informed, and they prefer celebrity to privacy.

Those people will think currently popular views on privacy are primitive, naive and outdated. Just like I do.

What does going to college tell you about a persons character? It tells me they're submissive to authority and lack initiative, which is great for many roles. A person who rejects the idea that he should sit at the feet of the wise old professor and learn and instead go out into the world and get to work making waves might not suck up what you give them and ask you if they're doing ok.

Mediocrity and reliability go to school. The worst and best reject it.

You deserve mod points

Capitalism most certainly does have to do with Lords. It didn't spring out of a vacuum. It came from the conflict between feudal lords and kings. And no, the Fed doesn't own the businesses. The fed is giving money from the general population to the businesses, it isn't taking ownership.

Capitalism is about owning the mechanisms of production. It's when you extend private property beyond personal possessions into the realm of land, factories, mines, farms, etc, and you exercise control over those resources without regard for the interests of your fellow man. Just like the feudal lords used to do, except with more freedom of mobility.

If America were socialist, the government would own those corporations. The fact that they are privately owned is a major factor in Capitalism. Capitalism is about individuals owning factories and mines, and having a default right to do anything with those factories and mines that isn't explicitly outlawed.

Consider a bunch of feudal lords, sitting around being well off with serfs to serve and men at arms to protect. Life's pretty good, except you can't go on vacation, and you can't move to a nicer part of the world when you get bored. If you do, some other lord(s) will come along and seize your estate while you're not paying attention.

So, you make an arrangement with the other feudal lords that recognizes each others right to be lords of their domain, you centralize the men at arms and put them in the service of protecting this arrangement, and you disenfranchise the serfs further by setting them "free", absolving yourselves of the responsibility to provide for the serfs while leaving them without the resources they need to be independently productive.
 
That's a fairly good description of Capitalism. The "freedom" of Capitalism is about freeing the Lords to enjoy life, not about freeing everyone.

Well, as far as stealing Wi-Fi? Nah... as far as that problem is concerned, I'd leave a throttled open access point, label it "guest" and call it a day.

The Evil Twin... that could be a lot more sinister. If he's engaging in identity theft against your family, then yeah, but break his fingers, not his legs. Still use social engineering on him first and learn, though.

If you find him, give him props and buy him a beer and ask him to share how he's doing what he's doing with you. Sounds like some pretty cool shit.

On the other hand, picking your nose after handling Habaneros is a painfully effective way to clear the sinuses...