Yea, screw Shakespeare. Somebody else woulda been Shakespeare right? Even Ben Jonson got, "O Rare Ben Johnson." I suppose you'da put it: "O w/e Ben Jonson...."

$6 million is pocket change to a company that has $5.2 billion in annual revenue.

Right, but any money spent on IT is a waste to the stuffed shirts, until something blows up, which, inevitably, gets them off the fence. Telling the COs in a meeting, "our worst possible downtime with the current allotted budget might be as bad as 3 days," makes them all look at each other with satisfaction and approval, seemingly, ok with being down 3 days in theory. Then, after 3 hours of downtime, they are talking about outsourcing all of IT for 10 times the amount of budget they barely allowed that caused the downtime....

Short of it:
Pre-disaster: IT should be cheap if not free.
Post-disaster: IT will get all the money it needs, but a new crew.

Godwin's! No Quirk's Exception!

--Bentsen

Good point. The challenge is to not let an enemy define you.

Hannibal largely defined Rome, but then Rome beat Carthage, to then lose its republic in time....

What about taxing politicians for anxiety and mental issues as they tend to cause them (via attack ads, talks, false information, revocation or imposing of various laws, wars, etc...), i.e. perhaps even as far as heart attacks and of course PTSD, as their bills squabble over ever piece of minutiae that they have a personal issue with... What about bad drivers? The clergy down the street that rile up citizenry depending on your religion or lack of? What about people that hold a fireworks show; should they cover a "scare" charge for children? Politicians that are dismissive and get rid of collective bargaining, cancel school funds, close liquor stores, live in a "Governor Mansion" and claim they're struggling, or start wars that they never need fight themselves? What about politicians that steal, arguably, money that could be used for the workforce, but are instead used for lobbying fees?

How far should this be taken? If there is one profession that deserves a "medical" tax it's politicians and anyone that has any dealings with them whether that be clergy or lobbyists. They constantly hold society hostage to their causes and yet this is considered fine. If the Wisconsin or Bush era dealings taught us anything is that they are petty and laws like what they suggest here are exactly that, petty. They enact more harm that a Big Mac ever could.

They are responsible for a fair share of hurt and pain both mentally and physically and I'm hard pressed to find a reason to tax fatty rather than them. As they have created the majority of our mess. Why not find ways to help first and punish later? If politicians contributed money from their lobbying endeavors (hahahaha) I'm willing to bet that Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security might be standing on firmer ground.

Fat people equalize themselves as they will die due to issues related to their weight at an earlier age; to me it seems tax payer wise to be equal. This is just another divisive issue to bring up that goes nowhere, but makes people think that something useful has been done and gets that politician re-elected by being in the limelight (in fact it does almost nothing other than make sure fat people die without insurance or support). If you grow old and healthy you'll use a lot yourself even though you're healthy, but eventually you will get sick and die making many of these costs equalize. You use a lot unless you die in your sleep or have a heart attack without any help (or die of anything where help is not available). But, if this happens when you're 100 then you use a fair amount no matter what.

There will be exceptions, but these "point the finger" and "blame games" are simplistic war drum machinations... (I didn't look for grammar, a little too tired; so overlook any spelling, word misuse, issues...)

As others have already said, this type of "announcement" seems to come out every console cycle, major gaming push, or "insert some technological/software advancement that John C. Dvorak commented on".

He only sees his world through the eyes of a/(his) iPad, IPhone, iPod, and cellphone user. He is only noticing and paying attention to a microcosm of what is actually available. Now if he talked about the saturation of military shooters I might agree--although I would still think these games will sell; as they have always done well. He sees exactly what he wishes to see. While I do have to agree that it is nice to pay a different price for games, apparently he hasn't tried Steam yet, or he would realize that every point he is making falls flat as this has been happening FOR YEARS on the PC and XBox 360 and their arcade and more importantly their user-made games.

Steam, XBox 360's arcade and independent games, the same for the Playstation, and Nintendo's re-releases of classics all do well. Then there is the little Behemoth called the DS. I think his "The PC is dead..." equivalent comment will pan out to show that it's utter crap. As these same points have been brought up hundreds of times before, with all of them falling flat on their face.

I have a friend like you.

Me and the rest of his buddies decided to learn Russian with an accent. Haven't had any issues for a long time. My troll.

Do you read dreams. Strangely enough when you dream very little changes in the mind. You are still *thinking* even though your asleep (usually at a faster rate 6-8x faster than normal). Your entire mind is at work. It only rests at certain cycles at sleep and even then it's hard at work most likely saving memory chemically, tying it together with neural connections (or neuron to neuron connections), etc...

What about emotions or feelings. Does that transfer. They're triggered in the same and usual manner. Is it worse during a storm? Have you ever thought, maybe you should: make some scientific tests to (double blind) test the ability, query a psychology department--I'm very serious about this option (it offers tests and if inconclusive it offers advice if not solutions--believe it or not using fMRI or PET scans they would find out A HUGE amount if you had even a minor event), if you have it-why are you so scared of seeing it through to a conclusion. Make sure they know everything that you may've EVER experienced (talking, visions, auditory, feelings, etc...).

Also, go into this WITH an open mind, as it may be possible you have a mental illness; like a second personality. In effect it would circumvent you from knowing any information straight off the bat, but then sending it to you in two ways. First, it would send you information out of the blue, unexpectedly as it is not sent in the typical fashion. Second, then it would give you the full information which we all get. If this type of situation occurred it might seem like prescience abilities, but it is merely a perception based delusion caused by the pseudo-personality monkeying with your input from the world. Keep your mind open. Let go of the notion that you can read minds. Balance yourself and be extremely critical, especially with a doctor (or doctors). You can even try a second opinion (unless you get James Randi, I wouldn't bother if he takes you up as he'll have the best there).

You sound like a "nice story bro" troll. But, hey, if you got the goods, there are people that will help you. Talk to James Randi, he'll want to disprove you, but if you find anything it'll mean something (plus you get one million dollars; another reason why none of us believe this crap--no-one is willing to get tested , EVEN though they'd be rich instantly...). fMRI and PET are the way to go. BTW, those machines are good enough with a trained technician to give a yea or nay if your lying or being truthful. That part I'm most defiantly making up.

So are you going to hide what could possibly be one of the biggest breakthroughs evolutionary wise, if not just for the medical and physics data that would be provided for the world to use. Make sure you approach a public figure like Randi, and get more people to follow your events. Otherwise, you'll end up a section 8 in some basement complex in Nevada.

BTW, if your not willing to test it, fervently (as I doubt you would want to stop it if a psychologist just told you it's in your head; or just outright called you insane), I really would wager that you're full of crap. Plus if it is true and they can track the genetic marker responsible we might be able to use it one day. But, if that gene is recessive it;'s more than likely it'll show up in your family for a few generations and go *poof*. (Nobody has the gene anymore as it was replaced by a dominant one.)

I'm giving you the benefit of *feeding a troll*(or doubt). Enjoy your lulz.

/This post is a tropical blended mix of satire/sarcasm/and truth.
//Enjoy your empanadas and tip your waitress.
///Why do we use torture to get truth when we have PET and fMRI scanners?

The bible is a large, complex book, used for every purpose under the sun -- good and bad.

But we are now discussing upwards of 3 things as I see: religion, morals/ethics and the existence of god. I would like to focus on the last point, as that seems to be the focus of this entire story on /., and in the main thread. The fact that it quickly ... _quickly_ ... degenerates into the greater issue of how humanity fucks up religion (as it does all else), serves no purpose to this point.

The simple fact of whether or not there was a causer who caused causation (i.e., the cosmos), is an extremely simple question. I am not claiming to have the answer. Others here seem to know 'devoutly' what that answer is.

I'm a senior analyst by trade, and I work with younger guys who come to me with problems all day, seeking advice and answers. I have a set of principles that I provide them with when dealing with a problem, among which are:

-If it is now broke, when it was not before, then it is impossible to say, "nothing changed."

-To solve any problem, you _must_ start with the truth. This means, removing all the husks (the trash) of everything else currently in the way (attitudes, politics, deceptions, agendas). (This is pure existentialism).

-Lastly: I do not know the answer to that question. What you have provided so far does not contain the answer either. Claiming it is the answer, when it is not, does not mean it is. Basically: I don't know that, so you can't know that.

Once these things are generally resolved, the solution reveals itself.

Typically, on /., too much gets in the way of the real question, and the real answer is simply never addressed.

To focus on the issue of religion as a problem, when asking the question of the existence or not of god, will never get one to the answer of the original question....

As to the "brilliant post":

What if the one who believes in god does not believe he is a friend, nor dictates anything, nor will ever punish anyone for not following rules, nor does he give 2 fucking shits about anything in this universe? I am at this point frustrated over these stuff shirts. Apparently, a basic handbook on "isms" must be handed out. Thumb forward to the "Ds" in such a book, and look for the letters "eism."

"If a group of people does it, it suddenly turns into a religion."

Yes, and only religious people have ever done anything bad. No one has ever done a bad thing irreligiously. My god, gulags are as much figments of the imagination as this god guy....

/facepalm

"Each and every one of you stating facts that there's no way you can know...."

Apologies. I meant to say, "no way you can sanely believe in a god...."

We truly cannot know. Indeed, we are best to always claim unknowledge in all things, else, reality will blast us -- /queue Ringer....

Oh I entirely concur, and so does Bultmann, who called Christianity, "primitive."

God is, truly, "in the docks" as Lewis said. Modern man rightly has him (the traditional god) in the witness stand, and demands he make an account of himself. The doubt is well founded, understandable, as your post is too.

But this doesn't at all answer half or all of the questions, nor does it make the stuffed-shirt propped-up as "the religious man" any more than just that -- a stuffed shirt.

Sagan rightly extrapolates towards ET. But, logically, so does the theist towards god (now, let's make this "theist" someone well short of the "hearing the voice of god" that everyone props up here -- let's say his belief goes no further than, "I do believe there is a god."). If the journey to belief (and it is belief) that there is ET in the universe is 100 different empirical points, of which, we only have 30 available, then yes, Sagan is not mad at all to reason towards the 100th and final point (meaning, you're looking at the thing with the glowey finger). Then again, the theist who can only provide 3 of the 100 proving god is likewise no more insane. And I don't wish to argue what these points are because that leaves the boundary of what I'm talking about here, basic logic.

Folks fail in their syllogisms is all I'm saying. And, yes, belief is belief is belief, and each and every human has it/does it -- even every post in opposition to mine.

You're an atheist/agnostic/theist? You admit that's your belief? Good. You tell me that, no, that's the fact, and only those who believe against your belief are wrong. Now, now we've left reason and stepped into lunacy.

Schools failed when they quit starting with the Greeks and Romans. Schools failed when day one wasn't Socrates and the ability to go, "I have no clue, teach me."

Each and every one of you stating facts that there's no way you can know are a violation of all western thought has provided, and fuck, heh. I'll stop there, else, I say something like, "and we are doomed...."

C.S. Lewis was raised by a retired professor and avowed agnostic, who forced him to prove every thought. He said, "talking to him was like eating red meat and drinking strong beer."

I am truly on the fence/bridge with both groups. My stomach is as sickened by those with blind faith in god and those who railing against his existence.

Time for video games and alcohol....

Never heard of a drop bear. Just read the wiki. I assumed initially your dad died some how from spilling his drink....

Are you questioning the ability of /. and its community to aptly address serious issues, such as diet, the environment, existence of god, and how to meet/pickup women? Doest thou not know the power of the brain and the ability of geeks -- who can code -- to manage the rest of life?...

One should never argue by analogy as it gets tossed back as if from a jiu jitsu master, but you can't help it. And if there is a god and if religions are correct that he/she/it will hold us accountable for some reason or other, then yes, he/she/it is like a cop.

If not, then /queue Matthew Arnold....

But as one atheist scholar said of the books written by religious authors: "why must these christians be so darned good at writing?..."

You just described my entire family....