Texsox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) But this isn't public funding we are talking about. These are PRIVATE donations to a university. Correct, so perhaps that is not the area to look to if it is decided that Universities need to increase their contribution to the tax base. But what portion of their income would not be considered private?

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ May 5, 2008 -> 01:37 PM) I see, you like to keep your candles up the other end, eh? I'm not judging, mind you. I know when I get to be as old as you, I'll probably take whatever I can get too. The gerbil is scared of the dark . . .

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 5, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) As opposed to quickly shot down and slow, or gradually shot down and fast? I saw that after I posted but was too lazy to go back and edit. I figured who reads my posts anyways, half the board has me on ignore.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ May 5, 2008 -> 02:15 PM) No, but right after thinking, I'd like to chew on a candle, I'm sure it would be just the thing. B) Having never chewed on a candle, I did not notice an analogy. Sometime you will have to tell us your candle chewing story

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2008 -> 01:05 PM) Why does something have to be done about it? Who is it hurting? In theory, it is the same debate that circles when public funding for sports stadiums, entertainment venues, etc. comes up. What are they costing the local communities versus what are they paying. Since we really have no objective evidence it is all a theoretical converstion at this point. I think if a local town or county could show that the University is costing this and is contributing this, and, there is a significant delta between the two, some dialogue should take place. Just like a business may negotiate for tax breaks, and some businesses accept additional taxes, dialogue isn't bad.

So a company has problems with a certain category of items. They decide to not cover those items in case they are lost/stolen/damaged. They add that to their terms of service. Someone ships those items and has a problem. They then follow their rules. Sorry, I find it hard to fault them. They should not have to be liable for any item someone decides to ship, especially if they took steps to protect themselves and notified their customers. You still may have a couple of avenues. I forget the original post. Did you ship this or was someone shipping it to you? I'd ask where you would have seen that information prior to shipping. It would seem unfair if it isn't posted somewhere easy to see. Here are prohibited items. If someone else shipped it to you, why are they not liable? Do they have any proof they really shipped it to you?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) So then, what is the alternative? Is it simply to allow these endowments to continue growing and locking up funds (in no small part thanks to their tax-advantaged status as it is) that they never spend? Well the purpose of an endowment is to spend the interest not the principle. Trust me, my employer was hurting for funds and more than a few people wanted to "borrow" from the endowment instead of the bank. That was quickly shot down and fast. Perhaps a tax on any retained interest income would be the sane thing to do. Encourage them to spend all of the interest each year, and offer some incentive to support local projects in the community that the local tax base otehrwise would have had to pay. I know my campus also patrols the neighborhoods around the campus. Parking violations are the #1 priority to keep the neighbors happy, but they do have the authority to arrest, write traffic tickets, etc.

First of all, if one kid plays violent video games 8 hours a day and the other reads Ginsberg, these kids are going to be influenced. If a parent tells a kid all day he's stupid, it will have an affect. To say that these games do not have an influence is ignoring decades of scientific research. Humans become desensitized to things. EMTs become accustomed to the smells and sounds of accidents. Soldiers become accustomed to violence and death.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 5, 2008 -> 12:40 PM) I work in the video bizness and I notice things that others might not...at the same time, that doesn't mean that it makes that much of a difference. It's a digital signal, and unless, like many others have said, the cable is too long (15ft is the average, but it depends on who makes it and how well it's made, some can make it up to 30 or 60 ft, if made correctly), the difference is going to be in your eye, not the cable. It is also an appreciation thing. I will buy a state of the art TV when my current set goes out. Until then, I am perfectly happy with my 27" Philips and my standard DVD player. I have friends with the latest, they are nice, but I'd rather have the cash right now.

QUOTE (shipps @ May 5, 2008 -> 12:34 PM) My grandfather has the same exact TV setup as I do but he has the cheaper cables,and I swear my picture is better than his on some of the HD channels. Swap cables and see if you notice a difference. People do vary in their sensory abilities. I have a pretty lousy ear, but make up for it by enjoying what is played on commercial radio. I can understand some people having sharper eye sight and noticing a difference.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ May 5, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) Tastes like someone put candlewax into a beer to me. It's all a mater of personal taste, but honey remains the one ingredient that I've never been a big fan of in my beers. Again, it isn't one I would think of right after thinking, I'd like a beer.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2008 -> 01:04 PM) And the alternative minimum tax was originally created to tax less than 100 families. The Illinois toll road was supposed to become a freeway after the original bonds financing it were retired. The income tax itself was supposed to only tax the richest of the rich. Taxes do not go away, nor do they ever stay only taxing the people they are intended to tax at the time they are instituted. Sorry, I don't buy it. History tells me different. That is the biggest glaring scare in all this. Even a good idea can grow into a problem. I see the danger if we begin chiseling away at the requirements. If, for example the law is written on endowments over $5,000,000,000, we may have only a handful today, but it will undoubtedly grow, or create a lot of endowments that plateau at $4,999,999,999. The chiseling would come in if they start reducing the endowment threshold or increasing the tax. Both are very real possibilities, as SS points out.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 5, 2008 -> 12:54 PM) I don't think he thought out his response. Just wanted to point out that GTA IV has no children in it's world... even though I know you've reached a much broader subject. I just think games should be policed the same way as movies. Perhaps. But maybe not. He was asking who draws the line and where. I'm trying to go step by step. Each one of us will probably hit a line where we know the game went too far. Today, it may be only a small percentage of our society, tomorrow maybe more. But at some point society will draw the line. And some people standing on the other side of the line will call the other group scum. But a line will be drawn.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 5, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) No. I don't think there can be. Really? Killing babies with graphic blood? Flying planes into towers? Animated sex with animals? Animated sex with kids? Torture of children, animals? None of those would be banned in your world?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 5, 2008 -> 12:38 PM) No, it's not. Child porn involves the video taping of sexual acts with a minor. GTA IV involves pushing buttons and watching a television. The comparison could not be further off and is ridiculous. Using child porn as an argument in any way against GTA IV is a goddamned joke. Do you believe there could be a video game created that should be banned?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 5, 2008 -> 11:25 AM) So are you comparing video games to child porn? No. You asked who should decide and where the line should be drawn. I was offering some obvious areas that most people agree should be banned, where we do censor. You don't want to go there, and that's fine. Again, we elect people who also appoint people, and we do go there. We draw lines and declare things illegal. I think there could be games that push the boundaries to a point where they should not be available to adults as well. I doubt anyone would argue that any and all games, no matter the topic, should be allowed. So you too would agree there is a line. It's just who draws the line, and where.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 5, 2008 -> 10:01 AM) It's the parents job to make sure kids aren't playing the game. Jack Thompson isn't saying that though. He's saying that these games should be banned from the country. Saying that the makers of the game are responsible for murder. He wants everyone to follow his conservative Christian moral code. He's scum. Interesting no mention of tactics in this post.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 5, 2008 -> 11:02 AM) Where do you stop and who's to judge? Maybe if this game wasn't here, maybe if this record wasn't made, maybe if this book wasn't written. It's opening a door to a place I don't wanna go. We decide that children porn isn't healthy, so it is banned. Who judged that? We decided that nudity during after school viewing isn't good, so we banned that. You might not want to go there, but fortunately we elect people and appoint people to go there.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 5, 2008 -> 10:01 AM) It's the parents job to make sure kids aren't playing the game. Jack Thompson isn't saying that though. He's saying that these games should be banned from the country. Saying that the makers of the game are responsible for murder. He wants everyone to follow his conservative Christian moral code. He's scum. A system of beliefs, add whatever label you want, is the basis for laws. Why is it illegal to kill your neighbors cat, but not a mouse in your house? Why is it illegal for a 30 year old to have sex with a 16 year old? These are all about morality and someone wants others to follow this moral code. Your comment is insulting to over a billion humans on this planet.

Like many things in our society, this does not benefit society, or the people who play the game. Nobody will say, I owe this promotion, or I'm a better person, because I play GTA. But, we tolerate it because we are a reasonably free society. At best, we try our best to limit the exposure to certain segments of society. And a very slight defense for parents, As a society we bombard our kids with positive messages about negative things, then blame the parents when kids are drawn to them. You cannot leave your kids locked up and blind from TV, radio, etc. You also cannot watch them 24/7. When will parents get a little help from society? I dislike using this as an example, because we will end up debating the merits of the game, but if this game was never produced, then parents would not need to try and make certain their kids never play it. Imagine the parent that asks does Johnny have GTA? Does his parents lock it up when they are not home? Sorry, you can no longer go to his house. Does that really seem plausable?

I have not posted early in a game thread, so I'm going to break with tradition and offer a hearty good luck, cause Noobie, sometimes that's the difference between having the patient that lives and having the patient who dies.

QUOTE (rangercal @ May 5, 2008 -> 09:49 AM) when did they change the schedule to 191 games? We're going all the way baby

QUOTE (Felix @ May 5, 2008 -> 09:16 AM) 14 posts too late, sir. Another beer based beverage that fits that category. My gf enjoyed it, but I was disappointed because I was expecting more of a straight up weiss beer. I drank it later, and found it to be an enjoyable beverage.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 4, 2008 -> 08:50 PM) I'm not quite sure I follow what you are saying in the first part. Come on, I slept since I wrote that. I believe my point was, just because they "help" doesn't mean we should automatically give them a pass. For the most part, everyone "helps" in a community. When we start using that criteria, number of employees, service to the community, we become resource rich and cash poor. I firmly believe we should all pay a fair share, and we should have balanced budgets.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ May 5, 2008 -> 09:10 AM) A dedicated and knowledgeable beer purist would not agree that "tastes like beer" is even an appropriate phrase, given the vast array of global arrays styles, subcategories and flavors. Then again, I have a hard time believing that a squirt of lime juice would turn Bud Light into anything I'd go out of my way to try. Thinking this Cinco de Mayo is going to be dominated by Negro Modelo and a margarita here and there. Damn, is it 5:00 yet? More than a squirt of lime. And all natural lime juice, which surprised me. The full story. He is a beer snob in the worst way. Likes to closely guard any secrets and show off his knowledge. We stopped at our favorite beach side bar before hitting the surf at the jetties so they could take a couple beers out of the cooler, because too much chillin' destroys the beer flavor. I of course asked them to bury a BL Lime on ice because after surfing I would be too tired to actually squirt the lime in myself. Now he goes into convulsions, making funny faces, gagging noises, the who works. I figure I can choke down one of those before moving up. I was actually planning on a Land Shark. Which would still produce gasps of pain from him, but something I could at least enjoy. I was very surprised that the lime was dominate without being nasty. Much different then squirting a fresh lime into the beer. Very crisp without being too sharp. No aftertaste. If you are in the mood for a beer, probably stay away, you will be disappointed. As far as mainline Mexico beers, Sol tops my list for general quaffing.