iThink

I'm cutting off my daughter's cell phone because she refuses to get a job. However, I still want to be able to get ahold of her, so we are considering Safelink Wireless. The only problem is, she's turning up her nose at the cheap phones they make you use. Bad parenting and entitlement aside, does anyone know if it's possible to use a Safelink sim card in the phone she already has?

I will be reporting any answers like "amg mayk hur gt a JOBBBB" or any other answers that attack me or my daughter personally or just do not answer the question. If you can't answer the question, DON'T POST.

I read that you can control Chromecast from Android phones or tablets (version 2.3 or above), iOS devices (6.0 or higher), and computers with Chrome for Mac (Mac OS 10.7+) or Chrome for Windows (Windows 7+), as well as the Chromebook Pixel. If I don't own any of these things, will I be able to control Chromecast? I have a Windows Phone, but I don't consider it particularly "smart." Is it possible that they will develop a Windows Phone app or maybe just make a remote available for it eventually?

I know it's only $35, but I don't want to get it and find out I have to go back and forth from my living room (where my computer is) to the bedroom (where my TV is) just to control it--if that would even work since I'm still running Windows XP on my computer.

If you don't have an actual answer to my question, please don't post.

I bought two Orion 24" LED-LCD HDTVs. Directly out of the box, I tried to plug one of them into my PC using a VGA connection, (my graphics adapter does not have an HDMI port.) But when I changed the TV's input mode to "PC", it said "Not Supported." I think it might just be a matter of settings, but my graphics adapter's "control center" thingy won't open--when I try to open it, it says it has encountered a problem and needs to close. Whatever. I was going to update my display drivers but the most recent driver I could find was released before I bought my computer and the guy I bought it from said all of the drivers were current, so I just didn't bother. Someone suggested to me that I should reinstall the driver, but I don't know how to do that and I'm not convinced it would do any good.

The manual for the TV says that it is capable of being used as a computer monitor, so either the manual is lying or something's wrong with my computer. I called the Orion tech support number and it was no help. If anyone can help me, I'm running Windows XP Professional, Service pack 3 with a Radeon X1600 display adapter.

I'm an admirer Russell's Teapot and am a total carb addict. Just reading the word "spaghetti" makes me want to go make some.

Am I alone in the universe?

I love my state, but why can't we be recognized for all of the great things our citizens have accomplished? Most of us CAN point out Arizona on the map. Many of us have even bothered to learn INTERNATIONAL geography. I've lived in Wisconsin almost my whole life and I can find the United Kingdom on a map after just a few moments of searching. HOW COME THAT'S NOT ON THE NEWS??

Wisconsin really is a great place. We have more then just people who get fat on cheese then get drunk on beer then shoot up the place and then ride off on their Harleys. We have cannibals too! I kid, I kid, we have a quite a few lovely tourist traps, I mean, vacation destinations that AREN'T Native American Casinos/Gift Shops filled with overpriced "authentic" Indian crap.

In all seriousness, I think Wisconsin gets a bad rap in the media. The little bit of coverage we do get is limited to fat jokes, jokes about serial killers and cheese and/or beer jokes. Everywhere in America has fat people, why put it on Wisconsin?? And California actually produces more cheese then we do now, they have been for a few years. Give them the cheese jokes!

I know this is turning into a rant, but honestly, don't judge all of Wisconsin by Peggy West, especially the people who live outside of her district and didn't vote for her.

I noticed this when I was listening to it really loud in my car. And its only autotuned a little bit, like when artists just to clean up pitch and whatnot. Did Michael really need this?

Here is a link to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIhJViO8Bwk (I recommend headphones if you can't turn it up really loud.)

This song is from "Invincible" which came out in 2001 ... back when using autotune was still kept secret, unless you did it to sound "cool," like Cher. I'd really like to believe that this was just meant to be a subtle effect, but in all of the articles I've read about autotuning, Micheal Jackson is never mentioned among the lists of artists who use the technique ... asking this question almost seems like a musical blasphemy as it is.

Have you ever noticed it before? If not, listen to the song again. Does it sound like he was using it for corrective reasons or for effect?

Many people say that Prince Charles' divorce shouldn't be a barrier from his being crowned king because church rules are outdated and it "doesn't matter." I believe it's also been said that being king or queen doesn't mean the same thing as it did hundreds of years ago and it's just not as difficult ... or whatever.

What I'm mostly wondering is, when a particular person has been shown to be lacking the ability to uphold a vow they have made to just one person, their marriage vow, how can they be expected to upload a vow made to an entire nation of people, their coronation vow?

From what I know about Prince Charles, he sounds like he would make a good king given the chance, but his track record in the vow department doesn't really hold up.

If I were British (and it really mattered to me,) I'd probably have a hard time trusting him in this respect.

My mom is 57 years old and in the 70s worked as a dancer of the, erm ... exotic variety. Yeah, I don't like to think about it either. But anyway, she attracted a lot of male attention and dated this one guy for a few weeks who turned out to be kind of a psycho. According to my mom, he called her CONSTANTLY, wanted her to give up stripping, and even drove a car through the window of the club where she worked. This was the last straw for her, but he visited and called my grandma for years after him and my mom broke up.

Wacko.

So, to the point, my mom was on Facebook recently and searched this guy up. Not only does he have a page, but he's got pictures of my mom on it! This guy isn't a photographer and he hasn't seen my mom in 35 YEARS.

"Welcome to my Facebook page. Here's a picture of a stripper I dated for a few weeks back in the 70s. I still stalk her mom sometimes."

Is it just weird to me because it's my mom or is this genuinely effed up?

My daughter had macaroni and cheese at a friend's house that had cream of mushroom soup in it. I want to try to make this at home, but I don't know how much to put in. All of the recipes I can find online are for "home made" style mac. I'm just using the box stuff.

If I'm using two 7.25 oz boxes of mac and cheese, should I use a full can (10 3/4 oz) of cream of mushroom soup or will that be too much ... or not enough?

I have a 2002 Saturn LS with 120k miles on it. I bought it 3 years ago and it no longer has a lien. My boyfriend's parents just gave him an extremely reliable (but older) car and with the upcoming enforcement of mandatory auto insurance laws in our state, I'm not sure we can afford to insure two cars. I don't work, so having a second car would just be a luxury and a fail safe, basically.

I was considering giving it to my daughter when she goes off to college in a couple of years, but I have doubts about how well she would take care of it.

I am also concerned that I won't be able to get a decent price for it. My sister's boyfriend said he might be able to sell it for around $1800-2200, but we don't know for sure. I basically just want to unload it before the transmission goes out or some other expensive thing goes wrong.

Should I just keep it or what?

I've got a theory that adults are more badly behaved then teenagers are, just from my experience here and other social websites and a few different MMOs. It seems to me that if there is a problem, it was usually caused by someone my age or older (I'm 33.)

I would say about 60-70% of the time, I am a total jackass to people online. How well do you behave?

Knowing how old you are will help with my theory, so please post your age.

Like, if you deserve something (anything,) is that the same thing as "demanding" it?

If not, what's the difference?

I'm not talking about polygamists here. I'm talking about people who leave one spouse but never get legally divorced, then marry another person.

Since county clerks have computerized records now, wouldn't they be able to look up this information whenever someone files for a marriage license and see that they are already married?

Bonus Question: Can someone get a credit card or utilities in a name that is not legally theirs? Like, if my sister is using her boyfriend's last name, but *claiming* they are not married (because she's still married to her ex--the ex says so) can she actually do it on legal agreements like credit cards and utilities?

It's been a very long time since political/social correctness allowed a mentally disabled person to be referred to as "retarded." Who exactly are people sticking up for by being offended?

I get that many people have loved ones that are mentally disabled, but the word "retarded" doesn't apply to them anymore. By getting offended they are, essentially, labeling their mentally disabled loved ones as retards, albeit unintentionally.

Modern usage of this word doesn't pertain to mentally disabled people. In fact, it more closely fits its original definition: to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.

If my retarded browser won't load, it is hindering my ability to access the internet. If the retard in the car in front of me is texting while driving, it could impede my survival. If there is a retarded mob of people standing in the street, they are hindering my progress through said street.

If there is no set group of people left for this word to pertain to, why is it so offensive?

Does it ever bother you when straight people say things like "I don't care what gays do as long as I don't have to see it." Or "I don't mind gays as long as they don't hit on me." These kinds of statements have always bothered me because they seem disingenuous, like people are just don't want to be seen as homophobic. Basically, these statements put the focus of a homosexual's sexuality first, their humanity second.

I am just over thinking it? Or is the pretense good enough for you?

Bonus question: Do you think the government (Democrat OR Republican) sees the repealing of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as a slippery slope? Like, if it's ok for gays to serve in the military, shouldn't it be ok for them to get married too?

First off, I don't mean this as an attack. I understand that there are situations and issues unique to the military that those of us who have never served will be unaware of. This is why I'm asking this question. Does allowing homosexuals to serve openly create more problems then it solves or is it just a matter of discrimination?

Bonus question: Do you think the government (Democrat OR Republican) sees the repealing of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as a slippery slope? Like, if it's ok for gays to serve in the military, shouldn't it be ok for them to get married too?

Sorry if this is in the wrong category. I wanted more people with military experience to respond.

Ok now, I'm not really a wrestling fan, but I will watch a few matches here and there when my boyfriend has it on. Even though I know the competitions are fake, I can still appreciate the skill displayed by the athletes. However, the biggest thing that keeps me from sitting down and just watching it is the obnoxious, soap opera-like banter between the performers. I just don't see how anyone can sit through it.

All this aside, there is one performer that I find particularly disturbing: CM Punk. If you've never seen him, his antics include preaching a "straight-edge" lifestyle and making disparaging remarks toward anyone who smokes, drinks, uses illicit or even prescription drugs. Now, this would be fine if he weren't an obnoxious, condescending, "bad-guy" wrestler.

What he's doing here is essentially reverse psychology: a villainous character tells you to do something good, but he's a villain, so you don't do it. If I were an alcohol or tobacco executive, this would be exactly the type of plan I'd come up with to target my primary demographic: people who are mostly poor and uneducated and their kids.

I am way off base here or what?

Honestly, how many of you haven't been screaming "Why doesn't Peter just TAKE his mother's power?!" since season one? I assumed that the writers were smart enough to think that Peter was respectful (or fearful) enough of either his mother or her ability to have never done this before. Seriously, Peter and his family have faced threats a bajillion times worse then scary, dirt-throwing, Irish carny. Why would he choose now of all times to become a prophet??

As if Peter wasn't a big enough douchebag and a pain in the @ss for the writers with his variable ability (when he's not being an obvious plot device) now he has to be even more tortured then he already was with dreams of the future.

I didn't think it was possible to hate him even more then I already did ... and then I saw him smash a deaf woman's cello as if that would help him convince her that dirt-throwing carny is trying to use her for evil and he, Peter, is not just a cello-smashing @sshole. Oh, and she can't just go to any of the hundreds of music stores in NYC and BUY another god damn cello!

I say its about time for Peter to finally realize how much evil there is in the world and just how powerless he really is to stop it and TURN EVIL himself. Heroes is only one more amnesia and/or demon possession storyline away from being "Days of our Lives" with super powers, all they have to do is bring Nathan or anyone else who has died back from the dead and it will be official!

The question, in case you missed it, is: What are the writers of Heroes smoking???

For the purpose of this discussion, assume the following for just a moment:

God is omnipotent

God "wrote" the Bible using man as his somewhat faulty "pen"

God may or may not work "in mysterious ways"

If an omnipotent God wanted people that he knew were self destructive, self-centered, greedy and sometimes even foolish in nature to all agree, wouldn't he have written the Bible in a language we could all understand and agree with? (Even people in the future, because remember, he's omnipotent.)

I'm not trying to say that God fails here, I'm just trying to say that isn't it possible that God knew that one day there would be so many people that it would be fundamentally impossible for them all, with so many different cultures and personalities, to ever agree so he put something in the Bible for everyone?

Isn't it possible that the entire Bible isn't meant for one single person? What if what works for you may not work for somebody else? What if what one verse says for you may say something for another person ... or nation? Is it possible to accept that it might have been done this way on purpose?

I don't even know for sure if God exists, but we're stuck with this book that claims to be written by him and I won't deny that it has some merit. However, there are many things in it that are causing people undue pain and suffering. If you can't even take a minute to think about that pain and suffering (or you think it's due) by all means, ignore this question and go back to battling the evil fundies and atheists.

But if you can just take a minute to consider all of the damage that is being caused by overly literal interpretations of a text that those of us without faith have no way of "knowing" the origins of, please answer my question.