Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2012 -> 09:19 AM) False. Though their numbers are low, there are indigenous non-Hispanic populations in Mexico and throughout the rest of the Americas. You can also contrast the silly idea that it's not racial profiling because "it's just one Hispanic dude ragging on Mexicans, fellow Hispanics!" with the treatment of those potato-eating Mc's stealing all the good protestant man's jobs. You're purposefully being overly technical and while that may be correct (on that technical but not universally accepted basis), you are also ignoring the fact that over the years that the word Hispanic has become a very generalized term, much like "Latino", often used to avoid mistaking a Mexican for a puerto rican, etc...which they tend to get REALLY offended by. Definition of Hispanic: Adjective: Of or relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, esp. those of Latin America. Noun: A Spanish-speaking person living in the US, esp. one of Latin American descent. Mexicans speak a dialect of Spanish. Also note that the word "Latin American" is used, also known as "Latino", which is also a generalized term. I maintain that while I don't agree with it, what I said IS widely accepted by society, whether it's right or not. It IS accepted that if a Hispanic rags on Mexicans, it's okay. There are numerous examples of very popular stand up acts that show it. I'd love to see you go on stage and perform Chris Rock's "n****s vs Black People" routine. Meanwhile, Chris Rock did it and people laughed. Also of note, calling a "Police Wagon" a "Paddy Wagon" is a racist, but universally accepted term that nobody cares about...but it IS racist nonetheless. So, if you've ever said it...congratulations, you're a racist pig. ---- * The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race". * The U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race." * This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses. In addition, both the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Conference include representatives of both Spanish and Portuguese descent.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 3, 2012 -> 03:23 AM) Seriously? That's, I dunno, common sense. That's like a caucasian in New York saying "Southern hicks are a bunch of racist s***s" Then saying that it's cool guys, he's only talking about his fellow white people. First, posting a image that calls someone ignorant is the same as just calling them ignorant. Second, whether you realize it or not, it *IS* widely accepted that people of a specific race are "allowed" to do exactly what you just said. Is it right that they do it? Not in my opinion, but regardless of what you may think, it IS accepted by society at large. Hence why a black comedian can stand on stage and toss the N word around but a white comedian cannot. Lastly, to answer someone elses question, not all Hispanics are Mexican, but all Mexicans are Hispanics. Maybe you should PM that image to yourself next time.

QUOTE (Stocking @ May 3, 2012 -> 04:57 AM) No excitement for the samsung announcement today? SIII cant wait. It's hard to get excited about Android releases when a newer/better model is released once every few month. The S2 just came out in the US like 6 months ago. They need to release them here at the same time they release them overseas. The HTC X One just came out, and it's being called the best Android device ever made. And I have to say, the X one actually does look really great.

I am allowed to telecommute that entire week.

Again, gun laws and restrictions only affect law abiding citizens...they do not prevent people that want guns from getting them one way or another, and more often than not, it's those people that use guns incorrectly or illegally. Now, carry laws are a different thing altogether, and that's a different argument than the more simplistic "more restrictions", which has been proven to not work. Just take Chicago, for instance, one of the most restrictive cities in one of the most restrictive states in the Union, and gun violence is mostly contained in Chicago itself...by people that acquired them illegally and use them illegally. It could also be argued that a person as paranoid as Zimmerman appears to be would also acquire a firearm illegally if the restrictions in place prevented him from getting it legally. Guns/firearms cannot be uninvented...banning them would simply create another black market akin to the war on drugs.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) I actually have a copy of the bill and it consists of one sentence. It reads: "Violence against women should be illegal." If only bills were written that plain and simple that everyone could easily understand what was being voted on...if only.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 03:46 PM) The question is what's actually in the bill, as the title of the bill means nothing but a cheap/easy headline for sensationalistic purposes. Such as this. I don't actually know the details of the bill in question...but what this does, on the surface, is attempt to make it look like those that didn't vote for it "want violence against women", when that may not be the actual case, and probably isn't the case. Edit: This is a little additional information on this http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/politics/sen...buse/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/us/polit...n-act.html?_r=1 Doesn't appear they voted against it because they are pro-violence toward women...but that's exactly what that Think Progress info-graphic attempted to portray.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:29 PM) Yes, geologist, and maybe, depends on if JPL decides to hire me or not. I know this does not belong in this thread, but I've no where else to ask it that makes sense...as a Geologist, what exactly do you do? Do you like configure chemical compounds to make better concrete and stuff like that? I'm honestly wondering, it sounds like a very cool job -- I took Geology in college and really liked it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) Hydrofluoric acid. If you get a drop of that on your skin, you won't feel it. Until 3 hours later when you're in ungodly pain because the stuff has leached down to your bones and begun to dissolve them, pulling the calcium out towards your skin. It's an industrial chemical we use constantly in sample preparation. What exactly do you do? Are you a geologist? If an asteroid is ever hurtling toward earth, will you be the one to save us?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:13 PM) Same way I haven't killed myself by using HF. By knowing that it's inherently unsafe, acting that way, and taking every safety precaution I can think of. And even then, I'm still amazed that s*** hasn't killed me. Scares the bejeezus out of me every time. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I'm safe to use HF, because it's not. You do everything you can to avoid getting hurt by it, but it touches your skin, you're f***ed. Carrying around a loaded weapon and expecting the safety to protect you, or having weapons unlocked in a house...or having locked weapons where people can easily get to them...that's not acting like the item is inherently unsafe. I don't know what HF is.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:06 PM) Yes. And it was under very controlled circumstances, where there are multiple safety steps in the way, because I don't trust it being safe. Because it isn't. Then how are you still here to tell about it if it was so unsafe?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 01:07 PM) I think I've mentioned it here before but Kerry and Obama are the only Dem candidates I have ever voted for President. I voted: Clinton > Bush Jr. > Kerry > Abstained (essentially my vote of no confidence/none of the above) > ?? (this year) And people call me a republican around here.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) I realize you're joking here but it's sad that there are so many people out there from both ends of the spectrum that would seriously react this way. It's not even funny how true this is.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 10:59 AM) LOL. Come on now. You don't seem to be painting an accurate picture of Sanford Florida. The ends did not justify the means in this scenario. This wasn't mid 80s Cabrini Green with Zimmerman being a self appointed Batman to save the day. I wasn't painting a picture of any specific area...but there ARE areas as I've described. So again, I ask, when does it comes too 'enough is enough'?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 11:02 AM) This is one of many reasons I love it here in Seattle. Not only is recycling made extremely easy for everyone at home but it is made extremely easy anywhere you go. It is rare to go to a restaurant or place of business where at the very least there isn't a recycling bin. Most places also have compost bins as well. Sounds as if you've found your mother ship, big man!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 11:07 AM) Anyone have their own compost bins/piles at home? My wife and I were thinking about getting the big bin that you rotate. One, it provides you some good additives for the garden, but two, we can get rid of that disgusting smell from the garbage from old food (no garbage disposal). If you do the compost bin incorrectly you could end up moving the smell from your house to your yard. They have to be maintained properly, and make sure you only compost things that belong in compost. I had one my entire life growing up at my old house in Bridgeport, but it was an "in earth" version, where no bins or such were used...which can often "contain the smell" when kept improperly because they sort of "lock the juices in", where in earth varieties allow that swill/liquid to seep into the ground. They are beyond an excellent idea for people with gardens, though.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 10:01 AM) Goodwill's model is primarily about providing work opportunities and training, not being a thrift store. So it's not so much about your items being resold to needy people but the revenue those sales bring in being used to employ and train and have other community programs. For what you're talking about, the theft amounts to the same thing either way. Well, I shouldn't really say "good will", but I'm not sure if there is a difference...we give to the Salvation Army.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 09:44 AM) I debated about making this a seperate thread but I'll stick it here for now. There is a Goodwill store near our house that I drive past all the time. On the side is the door where people drop off their donations. Many times people will come after the store is closed and just drop stuff at the door. I've even done this myself a couple of times. Mostly with bags of clothes. I don't care about getting a receipt for tax purposes. I don't want to throw the stuff away because it's still usable. I just want to get it out of my house and hope that somebody else can use it eventually. I've actually seen some pretty nice things left by the door including a wooden rocker/glider chair and a big screen TV. Now the question I have is if somebody comes along and takes something that's lying by the door, should it be considered stealing? Yes, IMO, that would be stealing. Same goes for the people that work there taking stuff, and I'll explain that in a second... My family gives a LOT of cloths and toys to good will every year, I'm talking garbage bags full. I've always wondered if the people that run the good will take the good stuff instead of giving it to needy people, though. For example, I actually gave them 2 of my *official* White Sox jerseys last year (I had so many), and I just have to wonder if they ever made it into the hands of people that would really love them, or if the people that work there just took them. :/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 07:50 AM) Is there a number of kids that it's ok to kill to accomplish that goal? By that rational, is there a number of kids/people that it's okay for the criminals to kill or hold captive in their own neighborhoods like prisoners before it becomes okay to say enough is enough?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) WTF? (Fox news related). The Y2HH definition of Twitter -- the convergence of narcissism and boredom.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) I like Google Drive (basically Google Docs with added functionality). 5GB free is a great way to backup vacation photos until I get home! I prefer DropBox over this service because of Google's forced use of a "one size fits all" user agreement. Until Google fixes said user agreement and makes it less vague than it is, they can f*** off, as more strictly worded alternatives exist at the moment. It's purposefully written to be vague and "open to determination" in that if they make a mistake and leak private/personal data, or purposefully misuse it, there is nothing you can do about it in a legal sense. Especially since their reputation of making mistakes and saying, "oops...our bad", has become their modus operandi of late. Leak (or steal) personal info, say oops...fix, rinse repeat. See Google Buzz or their eavesdropping of WiFi data payloads for reference. Google's Written Policy: Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours. ^^ I have no issue with this, it's as it should be. But then they follow it with the follow very vaguely worded and open to determination paragraph of nonsense: When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services. ^^ This is an open license to do whatever they want with your data, and while it's understandable that they don't "mean it that way", the fact is, it's written that way. While I know this is mostly harmless, and as you can see the Google defenders are out in full force right now defending their master Google from what they call "TOS Critics" by dismissing he vagueness...I have my reservations of this considering the time in which we exist when there is little privacy law to be spoken of when it comes to the Internet. DropBox, for example, has a much more limited user agreement in place but mostly because they have a single product that it covers. Of the tons of blogger stories and trending stories about this Google TOS, this is the best and fairest one I've read: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57421406-...e-a-toxic-brew/ And to be fair, Apple's TOS for it's iCloud storage is possibly worse. I hope the government steps in sooner rather than later and lays out a solid privacy policy that all US companies must adhere too when it comes to it's citizens personal data, etc. As it stands now, it's mostly based on trust, which is my main issue with Google (and other companies writing vague privacy policies that directly favor them over the end user), but specifically with Google and their recent forced implementation of a one-size-fits-every-product user agreement/privacy policy. Certain terms and conditions simply cannot and do not fit every product, nor should they, but that's what we have right now, and until something is done at a federal level that spells out the law people need to be extra careful with everything they do online, from cloud storage to social media. Just keep in mind, everything you do -- even on Soxtalk, but especially on places like Twitter and Facebook -- will be around for a lonnnnnnng long time, and it can affect your future employment, etc. Personal disclaimer: I host my personal domains on Google's email servers (all the same rights/privlidges and access as a Gmail user, however, it uses my private domain names instead of gmail.com), and I'm also an avid user of iGoogle. That said, I have most of their tracking disabled, I do not have browsing history enabled on any of my accounts, etc.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 11:14 AM) You are wrong. Zimmerman had a choice to use a gun or not. He could have tried to fight back with just his fists and lost, or been killed. He could have chose not to try and fight back at all. When you say "NOT A CHOICE" that is just patently false. What you are saying is "In my opinion that is not a valid choice", but it is a choice none the less. There are certain people in the world who are non-violent under any circumstances. They would just let Martin beat them and hope for the best. Now I am not advocating that, or saying you have to do that, but to discount it as a choice, is just wrong. And what is the deal with people saying "as a lawyer"? The bottom line is that not every person in the world would have done what Zimmerman did. Not everyone would have chose to shoot Martin even after Martin started to bash their head in. So that means that Zimmerman definitely had a choice. /shrugs No, you are wrong, and I say this purely in the context of my direct reply to your original words. Originally, you didn't say anything about him choosing to use a gun or not...of course he had THAT choice. He had a number of *valid* choices to make during the melee confrontation that wouldn't lead to the shooting death of Travon Martin, but choosing to get beaten to death was and is NOT one of those choices, and it's the choice you originally said he could have made. This is not a sane, rational or even logical 'choice'. You can go on pretending that "getting beaten to death" is a choice, as you once said, but it's not. It's an outcome based on a series of unfortunate events, but it's not something people "choose to have done to them". The only thing patently wrong about this is that it's patently stupid to say. And people mention that you're a lawyer, because we expect lawyers to be intelligent...and this isn't it. Edit: Now, to respond to what you wrote in THIS post, I'd agree with you...he DOES have alternative choices to make on how to handle the confrontation after it begins, many of which do not lead to the use of a firearm. But I maintain that choosing to get beaten to death is not a choice. It's insanity.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 08:15 AM) Totally understand that. Expetive laced rants on message boards in reply? Yeesh. Military people swear a lot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 08:11 AM) GMAFB man. I don't know many veterans that care for her much...if at all.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Apr 25, 2012 -> 08:01 PM) Why wouldn't this forum be a mean place? Its full of people who hate each other. I'm not going to look at any of the resident statists and think kind thoughts. This sort of snark and nastiness comes with the territory. Speak for yourself on this. I don't hate anyone on this forum. Just because I disagree with people on some aspects of their social, political or religious beliefs does not mean I hate them for it. Snark and nastiness aside, while discussions may get heated or impassioned, that doesn't mean you have to hate the person for having a different opinion. So long as they back their opinion with rational thought, logic or facts, even at times backed by anecdotal evidence from their own life experience (which could help explain why a person might feel a certain way), I have no issues with them maintaining a different opinion on the subject at hand. The problem is some people do not listen to anything their "opponent" in a discussion says, so they learn and take nothing from the discussion. There have been times on this forum (and in other areas of life) where I've incorrectly backed a thought or opinion because of evidence/facts I was mislead on, and after it was pointed out and I read for myself -- conclusively -- why I was incorrect, I've changed my opinion on that thing. As far as I'm concerned, anyone that cannot do this is content being "dumb". It's okay to be wrong sometimes...it's a learning experience.