Obligatory keep-this-thread-alive-until-it-burns-a-hole-in-Matthew-Leverton's-server post.

I seen an image about Democrats and I just had to whip up something similar about Liberals here in Canada (and any worldwide for that matter).

Warning, if you are easily offended, don't look at this (Edgar, I am looking in your direction )

On a more positive note, I just had some wine with the wife.

{"name":"611370","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/9\/e954a3059fa427f3ee67bfc8790eaac5.jpg","w":512,"h":411,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/9\/e954a3059fa427f3ee67bfc8790eaac5"}

I am pretty much the same, except I was more liberal voting until around 2004 or 2005ish when I gave it much more thought. I tend to be more conservative and vote in that direction these days, but I am not a blind follower. There was one election I didn't vote in because I didn't like the policies of anyone.

We have an upcoming one here in Ontario where I have had run-ins with both sides, but I still tend to be conservative, though some of the supporters in the PC party here felt cuts to save money should be done to welfare, which REALLY angered me as I am against kicking the poor to the curb to fatten your own wallet. But conversely, I am against the Liberal party and NDP party (ulta-socialists) reckless spending as well. I still have memories of when we had Bob Rae in Ontario which was the NDP running things. They are far left wing and our debt went from about 12% of our GDP to a whopping 30% in just one term! We have never seen a debt increase like that before or since, and now both liberals and NDP are promising more deficit spending when our debt is over 40% GDP I think at the moment. I understand their social aspects and looking after the poor, but it has to be done in a sustainable way, like encouraging job creation which gets people off of assistance, increases tax revenue as a result and reduces spending due to fewer people needing assistance.

So... yeah, both sides have some good points. Don't kick the poor to the curb, but neither should we drown in debt. There's a happy in between and nobody seems to be there, so I pick the ones that are closer to what I see as the better way.

And please God don't let this devolve into a huge political debate!!!

Well he couldn't do worse.

I think Trump was right.

What actually happened is that the law as it was written said penetration was illegal, but it didn't consider other things. Keep in mind, it was probably written 50 or 100 years ago. When I was like 15 I somehow got into a debate about rape with my mother, and I made a point about how men could be raped just like women, and she literally could not comprehend the idea. It was like saying I was going to make apple sauce with an orange. We don't always comprehend the full idea from the start. We usually start with a fragment of the idea and over time develop the full idea.

It's good that the courts upheld the wording of the law. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where the courts could just ignore the way the law was written and criminalize you despite no law saying what you did was illegal. It's fair for the courts to refuse to uphold laws that they don't believe are just, but to invent laws is just anarchy. I'm not familiar with the case. I had to Google at all to figure out what you guys were talking about. It sounds like the courts' hands were tied because of the way the laws were written. And that's OK. There's an opportunity to refine the law.

You sort of have to consider the consequences: is it worse for a guilty person to go free or an innocent person to be convicted? I'm not sure what the answer is. Neither of them is just. Neither of them is fair, or right. You might argue that they're both equally bad. I think most people, including me, would lean towards it being worse for an innocent person to be convicted than for a guilty person to go free.

In any case, courts have to try to determine guilt and innocence without omnipotence. The only way to do so is to have laws written down to judge from, and to consider the facts and evidence. It's not a perfect process. It can't be. That media outlets would spin it to suggest that Canada had legalized beastiality just emphasizes how much of the "news" is complete bullshit just to sell ads and papers. It's all garbage.

Apparently in 2016 a new bill was submitted to clarify the laws.

On a side note, just today or yesterday a thought popped into my head. Humans can and will attempt to justify any act they find themselves committing. Whether it's a business person exploiting people for profit, a rapist exploiting a person for sexual gratification, or an angry mob assaulting a person accused of sexual abuse. We're a very irrational being most of the time. It's kind of amusing to consider that most of us value "justice", and yet most or all of us have serious bugs when it comes to determining what is and isn't just.

That's too bad. The gist of the video is that when the Titanic sailed, it had a fire that had been burning out of control in one of it's massive coal bunkers (three stories tall!) which had been burning for several weeks before they even discovered it. The only way to put out the fire was to actually shovel the several TONS of coal out of the bunker, so they decided to set sail anyhow, with the fire still burning. One man discovered something odd in an old photo of the Titanic in dock which sparked his investigation, an odd colour on the side of the ship, right around where the iceberg hit as well later on which indicated that the fire which had been burning for weeks at that time had physically effected the metal. Add to that the fact that they found out the steel used in the construction of the ship was not the quality it should have been. Well, the ship sailed, fire still burning. The reason why the Titanic travelled at full throttle was because they were shovelling in coal as fast as they could to try and deal with this fire. A few days into the trip the fire was finally out and the ship then HAD to travel at full speed or it would have run out of coal which had been used up due to this fire and the company couldn't afford to buy much more coal because there was a coal workers strike going on at that time making it very expensive to replenish.

Anyhow, the coal fire burned so hot it was stated that one of the metal barriers that protected the ship from flooding was red hot and had a huge dent in it where the heat deformed and weakened it. Well, when the titanic hit the iceberg, going as fast as it was it started to flood, but it was still NOT in danger of sinking due to how it was designed. It could withstand being flooded and still sail because of these watertight compartments BUT... because this one key barrier had been weakened by the fire, there was an eye witness that seen it burst, where it had been deformed by the heat and that was the ONLY thing that kept it from sinking.

This wasn't some sort of conspiracy theory or anything, they went through the official documents and trial records as well as had experts analyze the data.

I guess the most coal workers who shovelled it into the furnace and knew about the fire before it sailed refused to sail on the ship when it left port! There were over 100 of them that worked the furnace and when the ship was ready to sail only 8 of those remained, the rest refused to sail with the ship and they had to replace that crew with a new one who didn't know about the fire and when they learned about it, they were ordered to keep silent about it.

Amazing anyhow.

That's really cool, but can I use C++ easily from D? Or D easily from C++?

Okay, I just thought of something that would be interesting to see. You know how there are those games that are in the $4.99 $5.99 range? What if they went on sale on April Fools for $4.01 (At least in the areas of the world that uses mm-dd formatting). Or a game more than $41 be $41.YY with YY being the two-digit year (so $41.19 would be the cheapest in our lifetime if they started doing this next year)

Considering what April Fools is, that might be the only date it won't matter. It would only work if the price is not that much higher than the normal price from a business sense. Assuming the discount you might offer at any other time would actually be more. Like if your game is known for going for a 40% discount (like during one of the Steam sales) and the $4.01 or $41.YY would be less, why not.

Another trick a store could use (not sure if there are any laws that would actually disallow this) is to have the price on the normal page say 10% off, but the actual price is 20% once in the cart. Never the other way though.

Would this example be a gray area in the eye of the law? The best would be to have the normal discount, and right on the same page (and/or on the cart screen) have a promo code that gives the rest. Which I don't think Steam has a promo code in their checkout.

This thread has been going since like 1999. Just nobody knew it until 2015.

Not sure if I'm drunk or that makes sense. Or both. Nevermind, I know I'm drunk. I don't know if that makes sense.

On a side note, it just reinforces that I'm old. Time has been going faster since I turned ~18, but these days it zips by. It won't be long before I'm nearing my final years and wondering why I wasted all my time on the things I chose to waste it on.

Then Jesus is going to use a whistle to warp me to the Heaven level where it will feel like time has stopped and voyeurism will be a socially acceptable pastime..