BlueLancer

Its endangering soldiers and other innocent peoples lives right? And this, is why I'm not debating it. But it's not. The Government comes out with the same BS every time about it risking lives and it's absolute crap. Of ALL the times Wikileaks have released 'life-risking' documents, how many people have died from it? None. They're not bloody advertising troop movements and pointing a big neon sign saying 'HERE'S A WEAK SPOT GO KILL THEM'. It's exposing the hypocrisies and corruption of their regime. This doesn't equate to 'blood on Julian Assange's hands'. I'd like to quote the CBS article above. (And I have that set of documents on my computer) They probably wont be alive for very long. General information and diplomatic cables should be leaked, but names and locations should be censored. People will as a direct consequence of leaking some of the secret documents, be (or already are) murdered, tortured or kidnapped if they contain identifiable people and civilian names. Assange has blood on his hands. What he is doing is a favor to transparency and democracy. But he has no business exposing individual people who were collaborating with foreign forces to catch other insurgents, criminals, terrorists etc. Comparable to leaking out press sources. Without anonymous press sources you could never interview anyone in undemocratic countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter's_privilege The only reason protection of sources exists (in the case of individuals) is to guarantee their untouchability and physical safety. If they gave out sensitive enough information & you take anonymity away from them you are signing their death warrant

Musicians, software engineers and game developers get their living with future commissions and royalties. Depriving them entirely of income is suicidal if considering future productions. These people have to either earn money from their work in the long term or face unemployment. Inspiration alone is not going to pay for their massive development costs, studio time, tools, physical equipment, office rent etc. http://economics.uchicago.edu/download/musicindustryoct12.pdf Is piracy something you need to demonize? No. Perhaps it sends a good message to these companies that product prices should be more reasonable to make them affordable to a wider base of consumers (including poor students). Piracy is a symptom and a reaction to high prices or bad availability (and semi-malware such as DRM and rootkits) However, refusing to absolutely pay *anything* for work other people have put forward is a form of theft. In the case of software, for example, the copyright holder/licensee is selling a digital copy of a program for a determined price per consumer that the company has deemed appropriate for recouping development losses. The product being a digital good instead of a tangible, touchable physical object doesn't make it's illegal usage any less financially damaging to developers. By entirely refusing to purchase the artist's product, you would not be hurting the 'greedy record companies or publishers', but the artist who directly depends on people buying the products to earn a living. No, one download does not equal one sale, ever. There are people who wouldn't pay for a product either way even if no pirated equivalent was available. But it always equals some form of loss to the developer. Should all consumers simply choose the pirated option instead of the commercial copy, the company would not attract investors for a second game/software/etc. (which is happening to PC games due to abnormally high piracy rates) http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/53357 I don't believe it's fair to say all the developers are just lying or shifting blame. They are really abandoning the PC as a gaming platform because the games simply don't sell over the pirated equivalent. Console platforms which are hard or impossible to pirate on such as PS3 and the 360 sell the same games at exponentially higher rates compared to the PC even though they cost the same (or more).

Capitalist enterprises and property-driven societies, even quasi-anarchic ones like Russia, need protection and facilities by default. They can't only rely on private security companies for security, or on community collections for enormous projects such as sewage maintenance, building of oil pipes, heating routes, electric grids, etc.. The only way to finance these facilities is through taxing every participating and non-participating member of that society for a set amount of money regularly. Though, there are many ways to go about with it. The current model used in Europe and the US guarantees a certain minimum level of services even for non-contributing citizens on grounds of humanity, but it's not particularly 'effective' and it significantly drains economical resources from people aspiring to rise out of the lower or middle social classes by labour. For example, in tax havens such as Panama, the vast majority of tax revenue comes from VAT and import tariffs, which do not have much direct impact on a consumer at all. Salaries are taxed at 0%, companies pay some tax, but there are numerous loopholes in the legislation that effectively allow 0% taxation for corporations as well (especially if split in multiple shell entities). In return, the government only maintains the basic functions of society, such as waste management, military defence, rudimentary public schooling and some transportation duties. Advanced features such as social security or healthcare are not available, so if you fall poor or jobless suddenly, you are in big trouble (screwed) in a country of low taxation. Especially if you have loans or try to upkeep your previous lifestyle. If it were not for the relatively heavy taxes levied on everything you do in society, you probably would not have your current standard of living, assuming you are middle class in a western country.

We have been porting money into Haiti for years and where has it gone? France and the US ultimately made Haiti into what it is today (or was, before the earthquake - a poor, crime infested drug harbor) during colonial times. Think of it like the guilt-responsibility relationship between Germany and Israel. It is bad PR for the US if they didn't keep helping them after using the land for enormous coffee, spice, cotton, manual slave labor etc. profits, and leaving the local population all alone with a corrupt hierarchy after they had collected worthwhile profits & deemed the exploitation to be no longer politically viable due to the negative response in their respective countries. You are not responsible for what happened in the past, just as today's young Germans are not responsible for what happened in WW2 to jews, but the political and moral ground for continuing aid and 'reparation' money exists, and has been paid to Haiti ever since they gained independence. As a result of the earthquake it will probably continue almost indefinitely.

Don't see how it can be invalid only based on a single personal experience, statistically more expensive headphones (especially coiled cable) are percieved as much superior when comparing to cheaper ones. For example Pioneer ON headphones get about 100% approval rating and 5/5 on most sites, while costing roughly $100, and lower-end headphones from Sennheiser (of which I own a couple of products) consistently get horrible 1/5 reviews from most users due to poor construct and lack of suitability for anything else than light use, while only costing a fraction of the higher end models. Of course it's possible you just ran into an exceptionally well-manufactured patch of hp's, and they will never break, or will not wear due to only light gaming use/some mp3's. But a great number of people experience difficulties especially with lower-end models. There was a thread just like this one on bit-tech last year. http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=151282

Sounds so familiar. :D Found a simple solution... Stopped buying cheap stuff like $5 sony headphones. Money equals quality in this issue. Spent $60 on some earbuds, still using them (Sennheiser) worked great for 2+ years and no degradation whatsoever, no need to mess with the wires, etc

Which is the problem behind many divorces in western countries. There is freedom of choice, and there are biological urges which are not controllable. Well, I wouldn't entirely blame it on women, but men as well. Just as men usually prefer a woman who is healthy and at least not very obese, women usually prefer physical men (though everybody is an individual, so you can't generalize 'men' and 'women'). The issue boils down largely to the fact that men neglect themselves. This frustrates some women, just as some husbands can become dissatisfied when their ex-beautiful wife turns into a lazy slob. There are also numerous studies and proof about monogamy being unnatural[1]. Up to over a half of people in 'committed' relationships eventually cheat, even those in decades-long marriages. So if you want to stick with your woman/man for a long time, you must know how to be his/her best friend, what needs the person has, how to entertain them, etc... If some of these needs go unmet, especially the physical ones, the relationship has no ground to stand on. The man/woman will meet those needs with someone else behind your back, they don't disappear just because you're in a "relationship". And it's not just the older people who cheat. Even people 18-25 who profess eternal love to their partner often cheat 1-2 years down the road when they become 'bored' (at younger than 18 it's even worse with the 2 week romances which are nothing but lust). I've been in 1 long term relationship and some shorter ones, imo living with one person for extended periods of time (besides family members) creates tension and frustration, becoming 'bored' of the other, etc.. But, again, everyone has their preferences. For some people it works great for years. Also, having a child occassionally does wonders for relationships, though this isn't a minute issue for most tip.it'ers (albeit there are plenty of parents here too). Children truly can bind a family together and couples usually find it very meaningful to bring and raise a new life in the world, and nurture him/her.

Used to have a pretty nice sports car, until I crashed it (speeding & stupidity). Posted some crash pics as a reminder to other drivers on tip.it. Would still have the money to buy a fancy car, but I realize it's b.s. Why build your ego with 'rares'? To be honest, even a $5k car is just fine. A 30k mercedes benz is more than you'll ever need. Why bother spending upwards of $100k on a sports car that guzzles gas like no tomorrow and has no real utility (and it's worth drops dramatically when you gain mileage on it compared to normal cars) Unless you have *tons* of excess money. People do spend massive cash even on 'shallow' rares like jewelry, shoes, rolex watches etc. that don't really serve any meaningful purpose. The only thing a rare is, is a status item. And believe it or not but most people don't respect unofficial status, only the other shallow ones. Normal people are indifferent or will see you as boasting

Exactly. If someone is so hellbent on categorising themselves, just ask the random opinions of 10-20 average people on the street. They will tell you your ethnicity. You would probably get very honest replies. To be honest, it's ok to be proud of your heritage. But if you are concerned about how others percieve you.. Racial (and, racist) profiling is all about how you look, not from which province your grandmother or father was from. If you look black, that's how the government profiles you. If you look white, asian or native, that. Regardless of your genetic chart. People should be proud of their life achievements, family members, etc.. Instead of trying to romanticize their roots. There is nothing inherently special, good or bad about being from any ethnic group. Ultimately it's your upbringing, attitude, decisions, environment and DNA that determine who you are as a person. The color of your skin or the structure of your face plays no role in that.

What do education levels have to do with banks making unauthorized charges :mellow: This can happen to anyone..

I am pretty sure Indians are Asians. :mellow: I guess you can say that, but India is the 2nd most populated country in the world (correct me on this if I'm wrong), so it deserves its own section. China is the most populated country in the world yet it's not a "race". (Besides the fact that China is not homogenous; There are multiple, mostly asian and tatar ethnicities in the country, and tons of different languages) Not to mention India isn't homogenous as well. It includes tamils, various people from muslim countries, south/north indians (who for a large part look completely unlike each other), pakistanis, afghans, sri lankans, etc... Ethnic profiling as done by intelligence agencies, insurance companies (yes some do it) includes only the most rudimentary races that even advanced computer programs can distinguish from a face: Caucasian, Black, Asian. Some very advanced recognition softwares can even break them down to subcategories like ethnic native american, inuit, australian aboriginal etc... Of course, the more racial mixture you have, the more difficult it becomes to just 'lump' you in a category. USA is one of (if not the only) the few countries with this 'issue', people have so diverse backgrounds not even the most sophisticated computers can say what they're supposed to 'be'. For example, people with mid-eastern complexions, but asian eyes, and white/black mixed facial features. Such a person could be found in the US but not very many other countries of the world. It would also be very hard to lump them to a racial category

Unfortunately no. I would have sympathy for the person especially if I loved them (and some people don't get to choose whether they are infected or not, for example previous rape victims, been stuck with a needle by a narc, etc), but the relationship could never work. Or, if you ever decided to have kids, you would fear to death the childbirth process could transfer the disease onto an innocent baby (which happens every day in poorer countries). I couldn't bear with that.

That's a good thing, just means you're safe in most cases. The people who would be a real threat to you don't advertise themselves or wear baggy jeans and hoodies. They will be likely russian, chinese or italian and they wear suits & are on average older than 'gang' kids. In some areas though, yes, there are lots of druggies and petty thieves etc.. Who would mug you for 10 bucks, and it's sad. The best thing to do is avoiding places they frequent, why play hero and risk death/HIV infections from needles etc. if they get pissed off?

As a general rule anything over 10 reps is cardio, not muscle mass improvement. The entire point of trying to increase the amount of muscle is causing microtears in the muscle fiber by lifting weights that are at 80 to 100% of your maximum, for 2 to 8 repetitions at the maximum. Which in turn causes proteins to be carried to that area of the body to repair it & slightly improve the mass every single time. I would definitely not recommend 'real' weight training after a serious back surgery. Cardio is a safer option until you get absolutely better with the back, because there is a possibility you can wreck it again.

99% of accelerators are adware filled junk. Contrary to what they advertise, you simply can't download faster (without hacking the config file of the modem box) than your ISP sets the dl speed roof at, or the speed the server you get the file from.. Sets it to. The remaining, working accelerators split a file similar to BitTorrent, connecting to the file via multiple connections. One of your connections downloads part 1, one downloads part 2 etc... And then combines them at the end. Which is significantly faster than just waiting for the single file to download at the capped speed. (If the server sets cap at 200kb/s and your connection can handle 1000, it's a waste of time so people use accelerators) One of the software pieces I found was Internet download manager. Has no adware or spyware, but it's a trial