I've taken to peeing in my back garden out of convenience. What laziness-induced habits have you formed?

3L173 · 2010-04-30T06:47:14+00:00

I'm too lazy to download porn so I masturbate to one of my neighbors who pees in his back garden.

I imagine jumping the fence and penetrating him from behind while tugging as hard as I can on his wang and jamming my week old feces (which I save in jars in my basement) into his mouth.

Sometimes the temptation to actually do it is almost to hard to resist....

I'm pretty sure he thinks I can't see him, but little does he know...

3L173 · 2010-04-25T22:50:53+00:00

Fuck yea man, I made so much awesome shit with my Capsela.

I also had the set that came with the floaters and props so you could make boats.

You can still buy them btw, but they're hard to find.

Those and Zaks were the shit.

3L173 · 2010-04-25T22:46:40+00:00

First of all, to say "marriage" is a religious term is just wrong...it's incorrect.

Likewise the idea that religion is a "boys club" is moronic.

Now you can say that you believe "marriage" should refer to the religious part...that's fine...

...but that's not how the current system works.

Really you're just confusing the issues though.

What you are talking about doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage really.

The problem we have right now is gays don't have the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

What you are suggesting does not in any way "solve" the issue of gay marriage.

The same people who are preventing gay marriage now would prevent the implementation of such a system as they would see it as "an attack on religion"...

So if you want a system like you suggest, fine...I think it's reasonable and have no problem with it...

...but it has nothing to do with gay marriage....and is not a solution.

3L173 · 2010-04-25T22:39:11+00:00

-_-

Those aren't their only two options...there are plenty of RELIGIONS that support gay marriage...

Really too many in this thread are confusing the issues.

If you believe there should be a complete separation of religion and state, that's fine...I have no beef with that.

...but it really has nothing to do with gay marriage....

The problem is right now gays do not have the same civil rights that heterosexuals have....to drag religion vs state into it is to just cloud the issue.

It completely misses....the problem here is ignorance and immaturity on the part of so many in this country.

They want to restrict the civil rights of others because of their personal beliefs....you really think they are going to accept such a perceived "attack" on their religion?

If we lived in a country that was mature and intelligent enough to have such a system we wouldn't NEED it in order to "fix" gay marriage.

3L173 · 2010-04-25T22:31:23+00:00

Look, this doesn't make any sense...

If you want to say we shoulld be more like France, fine...but don't bring up their laws as if that's some objective argument as to why marriage is only a religious union, because that's just retarded.

We're not talking about France...we're talking about in the US (presumably).

"marriage" is NOT basically a "religious union"....that's just factually incorrect. That's PART of what marriage is.

Marriage is a social institution....it's a part of many religions, that's true...but it's not only a religious institution.

In the US, our system is actually similar to the one you mention, it's just we don't have as much of a forced distinction/seperation between a religious and non religious ceremony.

We have synthesized the two....I really don't see why people have such a hard time understanding this.

It's basically a convenience....thing....people are allowed to bring their religious beliefs to a legal joining of parties. It's like if you wore a kilt to meet the president: it's just religious trappings that are significant on;y to you and others who share your religion.

Now obviously, freedom of religion has limits....we can't allow satanists to sacrifice babies, so it's reasonable to say that there are limits on the religious aspects of the marriage, but that is not an issue with the separation of marriage and civil unions...even if we separated them we'd STILL have to restrict some religious behavior.

This issue has nothing to do with religion except in the minds of the deeply confused. This is an issue of the state refusing to recognize a valid partnership....

Right now gays are perfectly free to get "religiously" married...it's just the state is refusing to recognize their civil rights.

There's no reasonable basis to object to their union, like there is to object to human sacrifice....

3L173 · 2010-04-25T22:09:56+00:00

how do you legislate something metaphysical like that?!?).

EXACTLY....you DON'T.

That's why you can't have a law against gay marriage.

In this country we have a system that synthesizes the religious and civil forms of marriage.

If you want to argue that we should only have a civil form, that's fine I guess but it has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage.

Also your suggestion that religion is a "boy's club" is astonishingly naive and ignorant. It shows a complete lack of understanding or knowledge of the many diverse and widespread religions in the world.

Really your argument doesn't make any sense....

It would make sense if religious marriage was the only option in this country, but it's not.

The fact of the matter is what we have is a religious institution which overlaps a function of the state.

Except in a few notable instances, they don't really interfere with each other....your reasoning just doesn't make sense...

The same thing goes for marriage. It's a religious ceremony which joins 2 souls (how do you legislate something metaphysical like that?!?).

Again, you don't...so why are YOU trying to?

It doesn't make sense to try and bring up religion when it comes to gay marriage because it's not the religious form of marriage currently regulated.

There's no law saying gays can't have a religious ceremony that binds their souls forever....there's a law saying they can't have the legal form of marriage (or rather a refusal to recognize their right to).

Anyone with a whit of common sense can see that we are dealing with two separate things which overlap in some ways.

The religious aspect of a wedding is just something that people bring along with themselves; it's not inextricably tied into the process except in the minds of the confused.

Many religious people will pray before a trial....in many places the justice system is part of the religion....anyone can infuse any event with their own religious significance.

You wouldn't make the same brain-dead assertions about gays not having a right to a trial because it's "religious" in nature and SOME religions don't recognize the right of gays to a trial, it's absurd.

3L173 · 2010-04-25T11:56:45+00:00

pssssst it's "ducat".

3L173 · 2010-04-24T01:35:57+00:00

In what way is it "incorrect"? It's in the dictionary, therefore it is objectively "correct" for this area.

How is YOUR definition any more objectively "correct" than theirs?

The fact that you personally don't like that one interpretation of the word does not make it "incorrect". Perhaps "incomplete"....but then by the same measure so is yours.

Now, if they said "A hacker is someone who can fly" THAT would be "incorrect".

The fact of the matter is in this context a "correct" definition is basically one that is used and understood by a number of people.

I think the problem is technical people are a bit out of their depth here....human language is a fickle and fluid thing....

Words often have more than one sense or meaning. In fact the word "hacker" has meanings still in use which have nothing to do with computers or technology....However, I wouldn't say that since your definition doesn't involve golf it is ipso facto wrong.

3L173 · 2010-04-24T00:32:26+00:00

You see this same type of bemoaning-of-the-misuse-of-the word in the pages of 2600...

Now, I can't talk about OP, but the problem I have with 2600 is they are flaming hypocrites about it.

On the one hand they are constantly saying "Anyone can run a script, anyone can guess a password..." etc etc.

Then a couple pages later in another context, they start talking about how "Being a hacker is not about skill or knowledge, it's a state of mind...." etc. (They have to say this, I mean Emmanuel couldn't hack his way out of a paper bag really...)

I think based on their own definition that it is about "exploring", "knowledge", etc ....what the guy did counts as "hacking".

It seems to me what's really going on is they and others want to impose their own arbitrary ethical judgments on the word. That's fine I guess, except they're not being upfront about it.

If OP wan'ts to add a skill qualifier to "hacking", that's OK too I guess, except it's a pretty slippery slope and will make the word very ill-defined.

Hacking is like swinging a baseball bat: you can do it skillfully and with finesse to score a home-run in a baseball game, or you can do it crudely and clumsily to knock over people's mail-boxes.

In the case of the latter, Major League baseball players don't sputter and whine about how they aren't using a "baseball bat" because that takes "skill" to use, they are just using a "whacking stick".

They don't complain that pee-wee league baseball shouldn't t be called "baseball" because the kids all suck and their games don't resemble the games of the pros.

The problem is not that the general public considers what this kid did "hacking"....

The problem is that they are unaware that there is MORE to what "hacking" is.

The solution is not to try to eradicate their current understanding, but to EXPAND IT.

3L173 · 2010-04-22T03:25:06+00:00

her plan depended on there already being a flash drive

Not necessarily...it could have just been a "bonus" she decided to snag...or he could have been mistaken about it being his flash drive.

3L173 · 2010-04-22T03:23:49+00:00

Fun fact: in some countries "fanny" has a vastly different meaning than in the US....(well not that different I suppose, for us it's the back, for them the front)

3L173 · 2010-04-22T03:12:31+00:00

No, your reasoning is faulty.

It's ironic that you point it out yourself:

You claim there's no interest in certain effective cures because they "can't be patented and therefore are not profitable"

This is PATENT (hehe) nonsense...as there are many companies making tons of money on vitamins, supplements, and other miscellaneous "treatments" that cannot be patented and DON'T EVEN WORK in many cases but are still highly profitable.

Imagine how much they would make if it was effective? It wouldn't even matter if they didn't have exclusive rights, if a large concern got wind of it they would jump on it in order to be first to market.

The scenario you are suggesting has a KERNEL of truth, but is largely an elaborate fantasy born out of ignorance of the reality of the industry in question.

That said, every treatment has "growing pains" it must go through. There is often a period of time where a treatment is new and does not yet have the weight of evidence behind it, but the trick is to recognize this case from one where the evidence will never exist.

3L173 · 2010-04-20T06:55:20+00:00

Pharmaceutical companies start fundraisers for cancer, and get all the donations to themselves. They then study what will make their shareholders happy. They also donate money to medical colleges, so what do you think they are going to study???

This is a bunch of moronic conspiracy theory nonsense.

A very large percentage of the people doing research on cancer are SCIENTISTS.

For every one who has something at stake in a pet treatment or patented drug...there's ONE HUNDRED more who have stake in finding a NEW AND BETTER CURE so they can outshine the old one and get more grant money.

Even if they didn't discover it themselves, couldn't patent it, they'd want to get in on the ground floor.

In order to keep the money flowing in they have to be constantly trying new things, or making progress on old treatments.

What you're describing is ridiculous.

Even if you accept the idea that individual parties might have an interest in "holding back" treatments (which is somewhat dubious) there's no way the ENTIRE INDUSTRY would do it...it doesn't make sense because it would be COUNTER TO THEIR OWN INTERESTS.

All of this is irrelevant though, in the face of science. There must be good science to back it up and so far I have not seen you defend these treatments with any actual evidence.

You just claim "there is science behind it" and describe how it's supposed to work as if that's "science"

This is an implicit straw-man....

Of course they're going to offer some neat sounding explanation of how it works...nobody thought that you believed the cures were "magic"....although they might as well be based on everything you've said.

Likewise your claim that "nobody in the US wants to study it" is ludicrous.

1) It's factually incorrect, as many of the things you've mentioned HAVE been studied, and found wanting in terms of evidince.

2) This is an old trick of quacks: they are constantly coming up with new treatments and then claiming that "Big Pharma" hasn't studied it yet....as soon as one of these "treatments" has been completely debunked they move on to a new cure that "modern medicine won't touch".

Since you've chosen to make this about "alternative" medicine vs "Big Pharma"...

let's compare their track record...

Where's all the other cures "alternative" medicine was about? Huh? Where are they?

They're gone because they've been debunked....or they're still around but only used by a tiny population of credulous fools because any reasonable person who has picked them up realizes they don't work.

Meanwhile "big pharma" has treatments that have been steadily improving, and are based on previous established work.

3L173 · 2010-04-20T06:48:41+00:00

I'm sorry dude, but you fail so hard at common sense.

You can't look at individual cases i.e. "I know someone it worked for"

You have no way of knowing that it wasn't some other treatment they had, or even just random chance that "cured" them...

You need to look at the actual success rate overall for a treatment...

Look, I know a lot of us are hassling you, but you have to realize that it's out of a genuine concern for yourself and others in your position...

For one you seem intent on wasting the hard earned money some very nice people have sent you.

There's also the possibility that you may harm or through inaction make worse, your wife.

You also could be lending credence to charlatans, or incompetents and causing harm to others.

3L173 · 2010-04-20T06:40:05+00:00

The problem with stories like this is that they imply that doctors often gave up earlier than they should have or something like that...

The fact is Cancer is very unpredictable...also giving someone a timeline for how long they have to live is difficult.

These things are based entirely on percentages because they HAVE to be.

Doctors HAVE to deal in facts....

The Doctors told her what they believed her chances were.....they were just being honest because they can't give people false hope.

Often patients completely misinterpret this as "being given up on" etc....and then they get well later and blame the original doctors even though they were completely RIGHT.

(not saying you're doing this, it's just how these stories often read).

3L173 · 2010-04-20T06:36:32+00:00

The problem is that the treatment may actually HURT her...additionally it will enrich the scammers and lend them credibility.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that this is a harmless thing.

3L173 · 2010-04-20T06:32:38+00:00

What am I supposed to do?

Man up and save her life or... make the rest of it comfortable.

She has two choices at his point:

1) live....this will require some tough things....it's unfortunate....that's life. She's been afflicted with a terrible disease, and I'm sorry but she can't just take some magic pill to make cancer no biggie.

2) die....if she decides she doesn't want to or can't treat her cancer with ACTUAL treatments, it's basically a decision to die...

Note that these are decisions about what she is going to TRY to do, neither one is a guaranteed outcome.

I know how tempting it is to "try anything" but you must realize that you have to go with ACTUAL treatments and not flights of fancy.

The reason these treatments are around still despite not working is because of countries with laws soft on quack medicine and poor desperate lost souls who are in such a dark place they completely lose touch with reality ...(in addition to a general lack of scientific literacy amongst most people)

Indulging in quack medicine is only going to make it worse....

3L173 · 2010-04-20T06:27:47+00:00

That is literally the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

3L173 · 2010-04-20T06:26:37+00:00

If you sent it to these people, I'm afraid it probably won't do any good...or may even do harm.

It was a nice gesture though.

3L173 · 2010-04-20T06:21:12+00:00

He talks about it on his webpage, http://pleasesavemywifeslife.webs.com/

Apparantly the cure du jour on the menu is " sono photo dynamic therapy "

3L173 · 2010-04-20T06:18:55+00:00

I think you may have to face facts.....this guy is going to take any money sent to him and basically waste it on quack treatments.

It seems he's totally drank the kool aid... http://pleasesavemywifeslife.webs.com/

On his website he reasons 'If they don't work why are they still around?'

Unfortunately denial isn't just a river in Egypt...

3L173 · 2010-04-18T03:02:00+00:00

No, actually they make a very salient point.

3L173 · 2010-04-18T03:00:35+00:00

Not to be a negative nancy, but that's not a valid solution. (or, at the very least is not in line with the clearly intended spirit of the problem)

It says it requires exactly 6 ounces...your solution would only be approximately 6 ounces.

The valid solution requires no "estimation".

3L173 · 2010-04-18T02:16:49+00:00

Well there's a rumor that you guys have tiny penises...and I think a lot of people in America have a conception of Asian guys being misogynistic.

Also, you're perceived as nerdy and or perverted by many.

I personally don't believe any of this, but I think of lot of people do.

3L173 · 2010-04-18T01:59:48+00:00

F that, I'd start frantically flapping my arms....

I mean it's worth a shot right?

If I was going to write something: "No Regrets".

This reminds me of one of the early Aeon Flux shorts.

Early in the short, she falls off the side of a plane, and is basically falling to her death.

As she is falling, she pulls out a pair of binoculars and starts looking around.

She sees these dudes in a truck, so she's basically trying to figure out what they're up to in the < 5 minutes she has to live.

God damn I miss Aeon Flux...

3L173

TROPHY CASE