Yantelope V2

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2012/02/14/camera_that_removes_people_from_background63/ Hmmm, gotta be a fake demo but I could see how the tech could work by merging several photos.

Well but not everything seems like it's a joke. He carries his lawyer badge around. Do lawyers have badges in Japan? It's not really amusing though.

Well, the fact that actual reporting gets low ratings speaks to the fact that the public just wants to hear news that backs up their already formed opinions.

First off, I'm very excited these games are coming to the droid. Second, I have a few legal questions in relation to the game. Clearly its a japanese game and also, I know it's just a game but I'm wondering if anyone knows whether it's actually how cases operate in Japan. I'm surprised by a few things. No full disclosure. The procecutors are always hiding evidence from you which I think is illegal in the US. No jurys, the judge provides the verdict. I find this strange. The defendants themselves don't testify. Why can't anyone tell me themselves what happened? Anywho, just wondering if you can chalk that up to the game being a game or if that's how the courts work in Japan.

my first instinct was "tell me more!"

Wow, that story is kind of shocking. I can't believe we have child lunch inspectors. Another example of why all the money we dump into education never actually improves test scores.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/14/media-matters-memo-reportedly-detailed-plan-to-target-fox-news-staff/

Admit it, you like being right.

Bingo! Dino-DNA! Seriously though, that would be crazy.

So, as I heard it explained, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, the big swing politically is that marriages have tax benefits that civil unions do not. The government wants to sponsor marriage and families as they are beneficial to society. You hear about that sort of thing a lot when you discuss education. The single biggest factor affecting grades, drop out rates, etc, is family. The governement acknowledges this and trys to encourage families through tax breaks and stuff. It's not all that different than encouraging home ownership by letting you deduct the interest you pay on your mortgage. The question that is yet to be answered is whether you see those same sorts of benefits with same sex couples. Clearly you can't bring forth children but then you could go into adoption. Anyway, it's not really a question that I personally care enough to try to answer but that's the reason why it's not as simple as "mind your own business". WE ALREADY OPERATE IN A MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS SOCIETY. IF YOU WANT TO GET MARRIED TO YOUR SAME SEX PARTNER YOU CAN. NOBODY WILL STOP YOU. The issue is over government endorsement of marriage and stuff like that. If you guys want to go on about that then have at it.

Mostly I just see the fish logos in Texas or people put the soccer or footballs on their windshield with the kid's name and number from school.

Whatever man, fire trucks are awesome.

Then again, life may be like the SAT. Your first instinct is usually correct but you can easily talk yourself out of the right answer.

Apparently Nolan Ryan was a snow monkey ambassador at some point. This is one of the most bizarre pieces of audio I've heard in quite some time. Apparently they're even going to have a snow monkey night and give away stuffed snow monkeys at a ball game this summer as a result of this audio.

Holy crap, that MMX collection is like $10 today with free prime shipping. I bought that so fast. Thanks for the tip.

I was very confused when I saw you were the creator of this thread.

@Johnny, my statement is simply that the two relationships are not simply the same. It's impossible to prove that they are equal. You said "I do not think there are any noteworthy differences in the emotional connection between a homosexual and heterosexual couple". You can't really back that up with any objective data either. I think both you and TN have already agreed that the relationships are inherently different though. You simply say that the differences aren't noteworthy. I think that's where you transition to opinion. I'm not sure what kind of objective data I could provide though. Human psychology is a notoriously muddy branch of science anyway because there are always far too many variables to attempt to isolate. If you want me to provide basis for opinions I'd gladly admit that they're largely rooted in my religious beliefs. Those beliefs are rooted in evidence elsewhere. Anywho, my only point was the relationships are different. I'm glad we all agree on that. I don't agree that because all relationships involve different people that we can't classify homosexual and heterosexual relationships as being different. If you want to call a homosexual relationship marriage then you're redefining the original term. That is something that people object to. Anyway, it's all words too so you can call it whatever you want but that doesn't make it the same.

Sorry I skipped over this. Nobody claimed that homosexuals cannot foster deep emotional connections. You can find examples of people fostering deep emotional connections to anything including inanimate objects. What I claimed is that homosexual relationships are not necessarily the same as heterosexual ones.

Well, maybe I'm using the wrong medical terms. Maybe physiological may be more correct. There are significant measurable differences in the way that women's brains work and think and such vs. men. I'm not sure you can say the same about a black guy vs a white guy or a rich guy vs a poor guy. Disclaimer: don't misconstrue this to mean that I'm demeaning men or women or anything like that. I'm just saying men and women are different.

Well the most obvious difference is the psychological differences between men and women. Clearly that would have some sort of psychological differences in a relationship if you did not have those differences. That is of course if you're going to throw out the psychological effects of sex completely but I'm not sure that you can.

#3 is a leap of faith is what I'm saying.

FWIW the political argument is over definition of marriage and state endorsement. I'm fairly certain that nobody is "controlling everybody's personal choices". There used to be sodomy laws but those were struck down by the supreme court and I don't see anyone fighting to get them reinstated. They weren't even really being enforced, the case was really a setup just to get the ruling overturned on the books.

Clearly it's different if for no other reason than genders involved. We have two separate names for the relationships which indicates the difference, homosexual and hetrosexual. There are differences. You could propose that the relational aspects are the same, I think that is what she's trying to do but she's using her experience in a hetrosexual relationship as basis and that's faulty.

It's just such a bizarre statement. If you want to actually get on the boat, she says her hetrosexual marriage was so wonderful that she wouldn't want to deprive anyone else of that but the argument is flawed because hetrosexual and homosexual relationships are inherently different.