Games industry have been doing that a lot, too.  Great thing about social media is that context is whatever you want it to be, which makes for great advertising.  lol

If I were younger, I probably would invent a fake persona to play around with.  Just no time these days, though. =/

Funny you mention Camaro... my neighbor has what appears to be a 2014 Camaro and he's completely OBSESSED with the thing. Washes it at least once a week, if he drives it in the rain he will rinse it off before putting it back in the garage, and I'm convinced he's put straight pipes on it even though it's a V6... that's dedication if you ask me.

Sadly, I got into the German performance side of things, so I'm thinking him and I are rivals (which is probably why he hasn't said a word to me yet after a month!). I'm currently rocking an S6 as my daily, and an M6 for weekends and general "fun".

It's tough to market my tech skills because I don't have anything to really show for it. I really didn't think it though. Had I at least landed one or two tech jobs and THEN switched majors I could have potentially made it work. But instead I worked in the fast food industry for way too long (13 years!) and then jumped ship and worked in software sales for 2 years and then jumped that ship and am again doing software sales. Ugh... what I would do to go back!

Well, I did drive a Alfa Romeo the other day and Misty's not been subtle in suggesting I trade up.  lol  I might go Italian eventually.

Yeah, it can be really tough overcoming occupational inertia, that's for sure.  What you need is something like the Geekdom we have in San Antonio.  It's sort of a cross between being a nerd hangout, a shared workspace, and a startup incubator/assistance hub.  If you were here, I'd send you down there to network and get involved with some startups.  Volunteer some time at a place like that and join a couple meetups.  Given time counts more than paid time in building contacts and experience, so you'd get some momentum change that way.

Life, like matter and energy, is a zero-sum game, though.  There's always a way, but sometimes the investment isn't worth the cost to the individual.  I have no kids, and what's do-able to me may not work for others.  I'm super aware of that, so I say all the above knowing it may not really be workable for you.  Were it me, that's the way I'd start adjusting course, though.  =)

Managed IT, managed voice, managed print services, managed AV (boardroom, security, telepresence), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Desktop as a Service (DaaS), and we're working on Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS) as an offering very soon.

Right now our footprint is only in the upper midwest.  We're in MN, ND, SD, IA, NE, WI, IL, MT, and MO.

Ah, that's cool.  I met with a State Department guy a couple weeks ago who did disaster recovery for them.  He's looking to move to SA, so I'm hoping to find a way to plug him into our open data thing.  I never thought about it as a service, before.  I guess that's kind of what those remote backup applications are doing, so it's got to be a pretty effective model for enterprise-level, as well.

Well, if you guys ever move this direction, let me know.  I'm in the Chamber of Commerce, and I can make sure you start off with some great contacts.  San Antonio's tech community is really surging, and the city is actively recruiting new business in that industry.

If anyone else on the forum is a fan of Jonathan Coulton and didn't know about it, he puts on a cruise every year ( https://jococruise.com/ ).  Misty and I have gone several years in a row, and it's a blast.

This year it leaves out of San Diego, and there are still cabins available.  In the past, we made up about 25-30% of the passenger list, but this year the entire ship is ours.  Lots of nerd entertainment, board games, and general geekery.

We have an incredibly good time every year, and come back super relaxed.  Misty likes it because my cellphone doesn't work for large portions of the time we're on the cruise, so she finally gets my undivided attention.  =)

Glad to hear things sorted out for you.

Transition is one of most unexpectedly hard things in life.  =)

lol   ...anyway, to answer:

I didn't feel like performing the work to quote multiple posts, so this serves as a soapbox/clarification (for me) from a bunch of other posts.

1. OK, I did some digging, and I'm clarifying my earlier question about the (biblical) fine for causing a woman to miscarry.  Rico, you suggested that this could be a fine as a result of an accident, or working a woman too hard, etc.  The passage is in Exodus (the same book where the 10 commandments are laid out), right before the "eye for an eye" section.  If a man pushes a pregnant woman and she miscarries, but is not otherwise hurt, then the offender pays only a fine to the victim's husband.  Now, in addition to the 10 commandments, Exodus also lays out the crimes and punishments that form the basis of a legal system.  Causing (intentionally or otherwise) a woman to miscarry is treated essentially the same as myriad other "property crimes".

Again, it's not talking about abortion.  I'm not a Biblical Historian or anything, but I'm as sure as a layman can be that's not the case.  Back then it was perfectly acceptable to beat women under certain situations(which is still is in some countries, I believe).  If a man beats or even accidently harms another man's wife and kills the unborn child, he HAS damaged property...  or would it be had?   Whatever.  The point is that in those days men wanted to have lots of children because children were free labor.  Same reason my grandfather had 13 other brothers and sisters.  They were needed to help run the ranch.  Of course, there's the whole commandment to be fruitful and multiply too.  Again though, it's not talking about beating the woman inorder to abort the child, it's talking about the child's death as a result of another action.  I think a better arguement for you on this point would be:  If an unborn child is a life, and killing is wrong, and the punishment for killing is death, why would the punishment in this case not also be death.  And to that, I really don't have an answer.  I will try to find some one more educated than me and ask, though.

2. There's been a lot of discussion about the fact that the Bible contradicts itself (OT vs. NT).  My observations suggest that there are massive contradictions within the OT itself.  Did you know that there are two versions of the creation story in the OT?  One of them presents man and woman as equal, and the other is the one we all know about?  In Exodus, we get the 10 commandments.  Thou shalt not kill.  In the same book (as mentioned above), the basis of the legal system is laid out.  Punishment for intentional killing is death.  Punishment for kidnapping is death.  Punishment for striking a parent is death.  Punishment for insulting a parent is death.  Punishment for bestiality is death.  BUT, all of these death sentences are right along side the exhortation that THOU SHALT NOT KILL.  Seems like a glaring contradiction to me.

One problem is that the OT was written to a specific audience, and there were a lot of things that were thought to just be "understood."  So, there are some cases that might seem to be contradictory until you look at it in that historical perspective.  You're right, though.  There ARE some parts of the Bible that really might seem to be going back on something else, even with that historical perspective.  In your example above, it's one of those things many Christians don't like to talk about...  the translation of the original text.  Rather than "Thou shalt not kill," it should really read, "Thou shalt not do murder."  The Bible is very specific in that there are times killing is right.  The story of David and Goliath, for example.  Hell, nearly any story of David in general!  The guy killed a lot of people.  If we were commanded to simply not kill we couldn't engage in war, or even medicine.  I'll even go you one more than that, since it doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill people," we could take it to mean that we shouldn't kill animals or plants.  I know, that's ad absurdum, but it's really also the point.  That's one of the reasons I really hate that arguement for the Bible(and by implication, Christians), being inconsistant.  I understand people may not agree with it, but I really don't see how an intelligent person couldn't see how it's not contradictory.

3. Someone made mention of Jesus and his "clarification" on the laws in the OT.  I believe the statement was something to the effect that "there were misinterpretations of the law that Jesus intended to 'clear up'".  If you're a believer, than you believe that the OT is the word of God.  There's no room for misinterpretation there.  Either God laid out the crimes and punishments (inclusive of the 10 commandments), or he didn't.

Oh wow.  That's a REALLY hard one to answer shortly and simply.  Basically Christ did not clear anything up, nor did he invalidate rules of the Old Testament.  He was the fulfillment of those Old Laws.  For instance, you know how they made all sorts of sacrifices in the OT and that was what was required to make up for sins?  Well, Christ was the ultimate sacrifice, ultimately pure, ultimately perfect, and there-by ultimately fulfilled that need.  I guess it'd be like the insurance law in Texas.  If you have a car you have to have insurance, and make monthly payments.  If you have a million dollars, you can cover any damage, insure yourself by putting a chunk of it in the bank once, and then you're done.  No more periodic payments.  I know there are fellow Christians out there who'll read this and have a heart attack for my comparing of Christ's death to car insurance, but I thought the analogy might help.  Other than that, this really is more of a theological debate, and probably not all that important to some one that doesn't believe in the religion.  I just know the exact explination of the NT's relation to the OT is something debated among Christians since around AD 33, or so.

4. As relates to number 3, I've never known a religious (of the Christan faith) person who believed that the OT was something of a historical record.  The ones I've known believe that the OT is the word of God, and is a factual accounting of the beginning of time.  Why else would so many people believe that the world is approximately 6,000 years old?  These are the same people who love to throw out Leviticus whenever the topic of homosexuality comes up.  Thus proving that their thought process includes this book being the factual, authoritative, word of God, not merely a perspective of ancient civilizations.

Of course, the Old Testament is a historical work.  It'd just be a fable otherwise.  I firmly believe that every story in the OT has it's basis in historical fact.  As I've said before, I don't think belief in God rules out a belief in science.  We have fossils of dinosaurs, yet the Bible never mentioned them.  Does that mean they didn't exist?  Of course not.  I know I'll be branded heretical for saying it, but I don't think there's any reason not to accept that stories in the Bible are from the perspective of the teller, and often even not even then, but handed down orally for hundreds of years!  I know my mother has a heart attack everytime I suggest that the story of Moses involves crossing the Reed Sea, not the RED Sea.  Yet, there is plenty of historical evidence that at least one early Egyptian army seemed to make a psychotic, and obviously failed, attempt at crossing a certain marshy area in norther Egypt.  There is also thought that a massive volcanic eruption at about the same period caused a tsunami that drained the marsh for a time and then sent a tidal wave crashing back over it.  If that were what happened, it would explain the account in Exodus, and yet it would be no less miraculous that it occured just in time for events to transpire as they did.  The Bible IS an historic account of ancient civilizations, and any Christian should acknowledge that, but those civlizations had an intimate relationship with God, and it's THAT which makes the account important.

And on a slightly side note.  Christians that make a big to-do about homosexuality can go get bent.  Yeah, it's a sin.  It's a sin like any other, though.  I had sex out side of marriage and that's sexual immorality as well.  What those Bible-toting retards don't seem to understand is that we've all sinned.  St. John himself said "we've all fallen short of the mark."  Which by the way, did you know that's where the word came from?  The rings around the center of an archer's mark were called siouns(or scions), and to miss the mark was to sioun.  That's where the word "sin" came from.  Personally, I've shot the target all to hell and the only thing left is the middle.  So, I'm not holding any sin against anyone until I can stop committing them myself.

5. Finally (and also as relates to numbers 3 and 4), why do so many Christans claim to have the "ace in the hole" when it comes to God?  This OT, which many Christians believe to be the word of God, very clearly designates the Jews as God's chosen people.  God's one and only chosen people.  How do they make the leap to "Jews are out and Christians are now God's chosen people"?

That's an ignorant stance.  Even in Revelations, which is the NT's prophecy of the end of times, the Jewish people are refrenced as being important to God.  They ARE God's chosen people, and nothing has changed that.  As I said before, Christ didn't invalidate the OT, he fulfilled it.  It should also be understood that the Chosen people are not "out."  I'm not versed enough to tell you exactly how it works, but apparently as they still follow the Old Law, they're still good.  As in the above example, if you have plenty of cash but take insurance anyway, you're still insured.  I know that's a horrible example, and I should come up with something better, but I'm lazy and tired.  In any case, it's through Christ that the rest of us can get in on the action.  Not that we're edging the others out.  lol  I have this irreverant picture of two petulant children competing for Father's favour.  I guess that'd make us the suck-up of the two. 

I hope that answers somewhat.  Sorry it took so long, but the past couple weeks have been a little rough.  Also, it wasn't my intention to be preachy, but to just answer questions.  I figure if I can do my job as a Christian, people will just think me a good person and choose to follow the same path.  I've never really been one for brow-beating anyone other than children into line.

Whoa... dude.

Edit: OK, I just skimmed the thread again, and I still can't find where anyone flamed you.

Who flamed you?

No, sorry.  That's not what I meant.  I just woke up, so it might have come out wrong.  It was meant to be in general and not really specific.  I think it was comments like:

Also, you dont have to go any further than the Bible to find those glaring contradictions. It is a sin to kill someone; but it's ok to put them to death for, say, adultery.

That set me off.  Sorry, 12.  That may not have been meant to be snide, but it was read that way by a freshly 'wakened mind, so I may have taken it wrong.

What I meant to say was that so many people continue to poke fun of and tease the Christian population.  I'll try to read it when I get home and rephrase, or after I wake up at least.

First, you have to understand that to a Christian it's not a fetus.  It's a child and to abort would be to commit murder.  To use science to increase the chances of having a child is quite abit more acceptable than using science to kill one.  I guess it'd be sort of like having six people trapped in a cave-in.  Experts are pretty sure there's enough air for two of them, but the chances of all six making it are not good.  You get to choose which four to kill.  Could you do it?  At that point, a Christian would refuse to kill any of them, and pray that God's will be that they all live.

I don't think faith in God precludes faith in science, nor do I believe that the belief that abortion is wrong requires a religious reason.  Having delivered plenty of calves and colts, and some through C-section, my belief that a child is alive before birth really doesn't have much to do with being a Christian.  I can't think of anything in the Bible that specifies when life begins off-hand in any case.  But as I believe life begins at conception and I believe the destruction of human life for convenience is wrong, I'm against abortion.

Not sure if that helps any, but I don't think it's really all that big a mystery why they'd think fertility drugs are okay and abortions would be wrong.  This idea that if you're a Christian you can't believe in science and medicine is a little bit insulting.

I would agree that what we are doing in Iraq is democide.  And the last estimate I heard was over 60K killed there.  Not to mention all the Iraqui's who succumbed to famine due to the economic sanctions prior to the war.

Out of those 60k, how many were the result of defensive fire?  I haven't looked it up to see what the numbers are for casualties, but I bet a little analysis will find the highest number attributed to sucide bombings, followed by defensive fire.  That's a little different than hunting down people and killing them simply for their political beliefs, or associating with people who have those beliefs.  I'm not trying to offend, PB.  I just feel that your statement was purely inflamitory.  That's something I would expect from a politician or the media, not from some one intelligent.

She's not a Republican, she's an idiot.  I really wanted to defend her by pointing out how she wasn't calling Sen. Edwards a fag, but rather pointing out how silly the idea is that you can simply go to rehab and cure mean spiritedness  I'd also was looking forward to pointing out how I defended Sen. Kerry when he flubbed a joke about ending up in Iraq if you don't get a good education.

Fact is, where Sen. Kerry truely was poking fun of the President and said nothing off-color, Ms. Coulter obviously made crude remarks however she intended them to be taken.  She's just another complete idiot, hardly deserving of any more attention that any other racist or ignorant bigot.  Stupidity is something to be watched on Break.com, not something discussed amongst intelligent people.

Just my humble opinion, though.

rofl  Dude, in that last picture you can see them all falling from the hive.  That's hardly insulting.  I would call it GENIUS!!

[/redneck]

That was a pretty good write-up.  I think if you did most of them like that, you'd have less trouble.  Can you argue the other side?

It's good to have statistics, but make sure they say what you want.  That was a good stat from what looks like an unbiased source, but it's only for Science and Engineering fields.  My immediate question is what about other fields?  You also took this one stat and streched it to mean something it doesn't.  You can't say that because immigrants make up 1/5-1/3 of the workforce because for one the study was of foreign-born workers and doesn't say how many were just here on visas and because the fields they looked at were only S&E related fields.  A mistake like that undermines your integrity and the strength of your argument.

Also, I could argue that what is required is not more immigration, but better education and higher standards in education.  More immigrant managers and professionals means it's harder for native citizens to get into those jobs.

As far as two-year assistance program, I think I'd toss that.  That brings in a whole host of problems like funding, taxation, and oversight.  Once you've established yourself as an expert in the field, or something like that, you shouldn't really give opinions.  Certainly not give them without stats and figures with the explination of how it'll work.  We also can't just leave them to fend for themselves after the time period because they'll be qualified for welfare and stuff.  There's no way you could swing holding it back because it'd be declared inhumane.

Preventing illegal immigration is probably the rougher side of the argument.  You can use things like drug trafficing and danger to those trying to cross to bulster your argument.  Also, point out identity theft and all the problem that causes normal tax-paying and law-abiding citizens.  You'll have a TON of people telling you we should be more relaxed on "undocumented workers," so you'll want to listen to those arguements and include you counter to your initial statement.  You'll head off some arguments that way and it makes you sound better read and more intelligent.

Your point about deporting after 20 years is a good one, but what about the cost of caring for that person?  That'll cost money many won't want to pay.  On top of that, you're really kind of saying that it's okay to be illegal, just as long as you can get away with it for 20 years.  You can't prevent illegals' kids from going to school because by then they've assumed an identity and you won't know.  Plus, if you tried, you'd be slammed for racism.  Whatever ethnic group you target, even all of them, and you'll have tons of folks on you before you can blink.


It's not my intention to attack anything.  Just show you how to formulate an argument better.  What you wrote above was pretty decent and pretty well thought-out.  How long did you take researching it and formulating your approach?  Once you start thinking like that all the time, you'll notice people all around you feeding you garbage as fact.  That's when your writing shows it.  Prime example is Judge calling me out on what I said to Agent T about not having a say in our politics.  Because he reads debates on these boards all the time, and I'm sure plenty outside the forums, he noticed a glaring hole in what I said.

Immigration