Actually I'm going to have to strongly disagree with the content, though the idea is on the right track. You do need to stick to it, get over the initial 'oh this hurts/sucks', and not make excuses why you're too tired/busy/etc.
That said... Cardio is the WORST way to work out - especially in this situation. Cardio trains your body to efficiently use calories (how else can a person run 20+ miles or 4-5 hours straight). In this situation you do NOT want that. You get the short-term benefits while you're running than then nothing else. In the end it actually works against you. To use an extreme example - take someone an anorexic that eats less than 1000 calories a day yet runs on a treadmill for 2 hours a day. The raw math seems impossible but yet there are people who do this for years. (unhealthy, extreme example but it does make a point).
*however* 30-40 minutes a few times a week *IS* all you need. Replace that job with weight training every 2-3 days. You don't have to compete with the bench-pressing muscle heads but if you do the math, lifting 100lbs from floor to above your head takes a LOT of energy. And your body can build muscle to make it easier, but all the muscle in the world does not lessen the amount of work it takes to lift that weight. PLUS (and this is HUGE for sedentary people) your body needs to recover from lifting those weights. It needs to rebuild the micro-tears in your muscle (which, btw, is how you build more muscle too) and that takes MORE energy over the next 1-2 days. So if you have a good muscle training session you're metabolism is elevated for a DAY OR TWO AFTER your work-out. Cardio? Meh. Hardly a few hours later and your metabolism is back to where you started. In addition, you don't need a big set of weights. A couple dumbells, a step, and a yoga ball (while kinda gay) can give you a shockingly difficult workout.
If you're the type who likes to run then skip jogging. Alternate sprints (as fast as you can for 15-60 seconds) with walking to recover (easy pace to partially recover heart rate for 30-60 sec). This will, of course, vary greatly from person to person but it helps avoid training your body to use minimal calories over long-term but low impact work.
An equal body weight that's mostly muscle mass will burn significantly more calories than one that's largely fat.
Oh, and yes - drink water not soda. Avoid junk food as much as you can and go for protein over sugar. A bag of peanuts is WAY better than a pack of MnM's even if the calories say differently.
Still, would you block 40% of your target demographic? how about 20%? 5%? You will have plenty of new gamers that were not playing when SC1 came out. Plenty of older gamers that are no longer interested.
It's a veiled attempt to combat piracy that's likely to work against them in the end. Just because it worked for WoW I think someone got it in his or her head that this is the greatest idea evar. Piracy of Wow is, essentially, zero. Sure, there are rouge servers, but if you look at the total number of players on legitimate (that is, account/key/subscription enforced) realms vs. other the 'loss' is negligible.
It's unfortunate that bliz is treating a much smaller, simpler, less involved game the same way they do WoW. Hopefully they'll add LAN support back in at some point...or someone will hack it in and P2P it.
"They probably won't without re-using the engine for other games..."
And that's important to keep in mind. 3D engines are very often re-used (well, usually the good ones).
One bigger point you miss - much more time and money goes into artwork, cut-scenes, and so on (i.e. the pretty stuff) than actually coding the engine. Some of this work is done by graphic artists, some by people with mixed creative skills (someone had to create all the data points for the world map in fallout 3).
It's probably very similar to the 'lost revenue' theory that's thrown at piracy I think. They're probably looking at the used video game market and counting every sale as a 'loss'. By forcing activations they eliminate that sale/market. So therefore 'of course' every used-game sale (where the creator gets $0 additional profits) would actually be a new, retail unit sale (thus generating profit).
Software/game makers are really getting out of hand. They're right behind the MAFIAA in scumbag-ness. Trying to eek out a few more sales by taking away what few things aren't yet 'illegal' in the software market.
off topic - some of the used game resellers really are getting obnoxious with their pricing. On a newly released game you're lucky to get 50% back and then they sell it for $55 instead of $60. $25 net profit on a $60 item is awfully high. I have zero sympathy for these companies and their retarded profit margins but kids (people) still should be able to borrow or sell games.
Only in the US do you have this insanity. I'm returning from a trip to Stockholm and you can get unlimited 7.2MB broadband for about 40 bucks a month including taxes. 25 if you already have a phone plan. My swedish is lacking, but poking around with google translator I didn't find anything about bandwidth caps.
Again: $25-40US for UNLIMITED 7.2Mb broadband. Including taxes.
Off the top of my head, not a single major WIRED provider in the US even matches that price... and many are talking about implementing bandwidth caps. Wireless? Bah. No big provider is unlimited and you're coughing up at least $60 + taxes and good luck actually getting 7.2Mb.
And with personal freedom comes personal responsibility. Many people don't really understand what this means. You CAN starve to death for simple lack of money to buy food. You don't get an automatic safety net.
I'm all for it personally but realize that many other things taken for granted do not exist in other 'free' places.
"The 9.2 percent figure for 2009 doubles the scale of contraction predicted only three months ago in the institute's previous quarterly commentary"
Of course, if they're off by 100% (or 50% looking backwards) from 3 months ago how exactly can they claim to predict 18 months out without a margin of error greater than their predicted change?
87.63% of statistics are misleading or simply incorrect.:)
Still... if you live a paycheck based life it's probably not a good time to head over. If you like to invest, it's time to start looking around.
Or instead let's find a way to get companies to focus on paying their employees instead of their shareholders and executive management so people actually can afford health care and/or a day off.
Oh, and... almost all social workers have financial difficulties. It's not like they're paid more than a few peanuts a day. You don't become a social workers for the money.
So either you love civil lawsuits or you're a licensed MD with some interesting employment contracts.
Because if you're going to fire someone for refusing to take an unpaid day off due to your believe that they're 'sick'... you're might as well just hand them a 6-7 figure check on the way out.
See now, I was totally with you until... "Anyone who works with people knows that the best way to avoid sickness is to wash your hands, keep them away from your face at all times and simply avoid people showing signs of illness to the best of your ability to do so"
If you ask me that falls under the germ paranoia that everyone seems to be infected (ouch, pun!) with these days. It's amazing that people go on about how over-using antibiotics is going to create some new super-bug so of course they can't be made over-the-counter yet slather themselves in anti-bacterial 20 times a day.
So back to your statement - I'd argue the best way to avoid sickness is to have a healthy immune system. Building up immunity requires exposure to the germs that can make you sick. Anti-bacterial nonsense everywhere works against that goal. Don't get me wrong, there's a time and a place - i'd never suggest an ER tell doctors not to scrub it for surgery. I'm all for proper protection against highly infectious disease, immunization shots, and the like. H1N1 is nothing more than a flu strain. People are wigging out about ~150 deaths this year from it. I suggest a bit of research in the worldwide annual fatality count from influenza. Hint - it's several orders of magnitude greater.
But still. I'd argue that we've already stopped evolution. (or at least reversed it) We no longer have survival of the fittest. If a below-average intelligence, addiction prone, unhealthy individual living on welfare can pop out half a dozen kids or more instead of failing at life how are we moving forward? Are we evolving into......
Given that our society has halted nature's progress with us as a species perhaps it's IMPERATIVE that we look into genetic manipulation as a way to continue improvement of our race. Newsflash - not everyone would want the same exact thing and even if we had the ability (which drastically different from what we have now) to manipulate every single genetic trait two people could not conceivably decide all those variables and have a child before they turned old and died.
Ignoring the fact that genetic screening would have detected neither of those cases...
You can play 'what-if' endlessly. It works BOTH ways, except the inverse examples are not as obvious. "What if" genetic screening and IVF allowed a couple to have a normal healthy baby and then, with a cozy happy life were able to devote their resources to curing aids? Cancer? bad driving?
What if you genetically screened out brain defects and got more, smarter people who...bla bla bla
It's so easy to play 'what if' and only look at one side of the coin.
Heck, what if couples in china could ensure they had a boy and no more newborn girls were quietly murdered?
If a parent decide a while will be a certain religion, circumcised, vaccinated, get or be denied medical treatments...why can't they decide the hair color? Or how about screening to eliminate baldness? Who are you to draw the line on what's "bad enough" to screen for?
I've already got 'Books purchased from us can be downloaded any time, multiple times, all in multiple non-proprietary AND proprietary formats, with support for future formats free of charge, and AND *AND* we welcome you to freely share these books with your friends*.
*(you knew there was a catch, right?) - You may distribute these copyrighted works freely provided you do not charge for them. (See, killed it for yo...wait. what? Really...that's it?)
www.baen.com
www.webscription.net
Yes, it's a limited selection. Strangely though I buy books from them instead of finding them on P2P even though it would be *legal* to get them from there. Even more strangely, no one rushes to take the new books off there and put them on P2P.
I would buy far more e-books if other companies had the same policy. It's nice being able to hit the website from work and grab the RTF or HTML version of a book i'm reading if i forget my reader at home that day.
My CPU has more level 2 cache than the first hard-drive based computer I owned. 12MB vs. 10MB Heck, level 1 cache is near/at the system RAM of my first computer - C64.
Yes, we've come multiple orders of magnitude from back then. Sadly things aren't really much faster. The quality may have gone up (1080p streaming is NICE) but not nearly to the same degree as the hardware. 320x240 video vs. 1980x1080 is roughly a 50-fold increase. CPU and disk have seen easily a 1000-fold increase. Sad how inefficient everything else has gotten.
The company that sold you the taxed item pays taxes on the profit they made over wholesale.
That company also pays taxes on their payroll...
which brings us back to the paycheck... that's taxed:)
Another one I like: I buy a car. I pay sales tax on it. I sell the car later. If i make a profit, i pay income tax on that profit. If i take a loss, i'm SOL. The poor schmuch who bought it now ALSO pays sales tax on that car. Rinse and repeat.
As for software, music, etc. I had a thought. No one ever "BUYS" a copy of windows. You *license* a copy of it. The MAFIAA fights for similar limitations. Food for thought...
The answer is incredibly simple - charge a small, non-refundable fee for 'tasting' that can be applied to the actual purchase of the domain. Swapping 10, 20, 50k domain names every month or so between companies to avoid paying for them becomes a lot less interesting when it's 25c per name.
But that requires work.
Or...just disallow 'tasting'. I have no idea how it even started or where it came from but it seems like a universally bad idea.
I might disagree that 'very few' people type URLs. But then i realized i'm 'special'.
Then i remembered all the times i watched people google things like 't-mobile' or 'applebees' to get to the website. I still cringe every time someone does that. I guess that comes from learning my way around the net when the closest thing to broadband was a $1/minute ISDN or multi-thousand dollar T1.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars for small claims court? Be realistic.
Besides that, do you honestly thing sprint/nextel would actually go to court over that tiny amount? They would settle. Even though they have lawyers on payroll it still costs them time to fight you in court. Their lawyers don't sit idle waiting for cases.
Oh, and your apartment nonsense? You clearly don't understand how credit reporting works. You can request the mark be removed. If the company no long exists as you claim, it will be removed and not put back since they're not there to dispute your claim that it's inaccurate.
You need to take some time to understand how the credit reporting system actually works...or your whole post is fabricated.
Actually I have Optimum Boost == 30Mbit. In theory 750MB could be as quick as 3 minutes.
A 700MB "file" with good seeding will get 1MB/s or about 12 minutes to download. Even if you double that - 25 minutes - it's still roughly as long as a drive to the store.
Sure, some obscure and poorly seeded files can take forever. Torrents in the 10GB+ range take a while too but...almost anything remotely popular can be downloaded faster than buying physical media with 'overnight shipping'.
Yes it does. And if someone points a gun in my face I certainly will say anything at all with zero argument. Luckily, even stupid cops are smart enough not to point a gun at you over answering a question. Why? Because, if nothing else, they then might have to explain why someone was shot in a non-life-threatening situation.
A knowledgeable person would never ask a cop what his miranda rights are. First off, you just engaged the cop in conversation. This could imply you're forfeiting your miranda rights! Second, your miranda rights do NOT need to be read to you in order to be in effect. The cop, by all means, could defer or not answer this question. Third, you asked what your miranda rights are. You did NOT say you were invoking your right to remain silent.
So..."Am i free to go" "I do not consent to any searches" "i decline this encounter" "I chose to remain silent and wish to speak with a lawyer" are your best tools.
Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree. Allowing a police office (or anyone) to detain you when they have no legal right to do so is a very bad practice to get into. You have rights. Use them. Failure to do so makes it harder next time.
In addition, and i believe there is case law backing this up, using physical presence to detain someone nullifies a verbal statement that they are not detaining you. My solution to this is to simply turn around walk the other way. If that means leaving your car parked somewhere and walking down the street to get a slice of pizza and wait things out...so be it. If they continuously block your movement ask the question again. If you are still free to leave and they continue their actions - it is minimally harassment and possibly illegally detaining you.
I seriously don't understand why people think it's acceptable or a good idea to forfeit fundamental rights simply on the premise that it's "safer" or "easier" or less likely to "cause trouble". It's none of these things.... but then the same people cry about 'abuse of power' and 'corruption'. Ironic, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I'm going to have to strongly disagree with the content, though the idea is on the right track. You do need to stick to it, get over the initial 'oh this hurts/sucks', and not make excuses why you're too tired/busy/etc.
That said...
Cardio is the WORST way to work out - especially in this situation. Cardio trains your body to efficiently use calories (how else can a person run 20+ miles or 4-5 hours straight). In this situation you do NOT want that. You get the short-term benefits while you're running than then nothing else. In the end it actually works against you. To use an extreme example - take someone an anorexic that eats less than 1000 calories a day yet runs on a treadmill for 2 hours a day. The raw math seems impossible but yet there are people who do this for years. (unhealthy, extreme example but it does make a point).
*however* 30-40 minutes a few times a week *IS* all you need. Replace that job with weight training every 2-3 days. You don't have to compete with the bench-pressing muscle heads but if you do the math, lifting 100lbs from floor to above your head takes a LOT of energy. And your body can build muscle to make it easier, but all the muscle in the world does not lessen the amount of work it takes to lift that weight. PLUS (and this is HUGE for sedentary people) your body needs to recover from lifting those weights. It needs to rebuild the micro-tears in your muscle (which, btw, is how you build more muscle too) and that takes MORE energy over the next 1-2 days. So if you have a good muscle training session you're metabolism is elevated for a DAY OR TWO AFTER your work-out. Cardio? Meh. Hardly a few hours later and your metabolism is back to where you started. In addition, you don't need a big set of weights. A couple dumbells, a step, and a yoga ball (while kinda gay) can give you a shockingly difficult workout.
If you're the type who likes to run then skip jogging. Alternate sprints (as fast as you can for 15-60 seconds) with walking to recover (easy pace to partially recover heart rate for 30-60 sec). This will, of course, vary greatly from person to person but it helps avoid training your body to use minimal calories over long-term but low impact work.
An equal body weight that's mostly muscle mass will burn significantly more calories than one that's largely fat.
Oh, and yes - drink water not soda. Avoid junk food as much as you can and go for protein over sugar. A bag of peanuts is WAY better than a pack of MnM's even if the calories say differently.
try swallowing the crap you get from ex-wives-to-be and you'll understand how that becomes a necessity.
Still, would you block 40% of your target demographic? how about 20%? 5%? You will have plenty of new gamers that were not playing when SC1 came out. Plenty of older gamers that are no longer interested.
It's a veiled attempt to combat piracy that's likely to work against them in the end. Just because it worked for WoW I think someone got it in his or her head that this is the greatest idea evar. Piracy of Wow is, essentially, zero. Sure, there are rouge servers, but if you look at the total number of players on legitimate (that is, account/key/subscription enforced) realms vs. other the 'loss' is negligible.
It's unfortunate that bliz is treating a much smaller, simpler, less involved game the same way they do WoW. Hopefully they'll add LAN support back in at some point...or someone will hack it in and P2P it.
"They probably won't without re-using the engine for other games..."
And that's important to keep in mind. 3D engines are very often re-used (well, usually the good ones).
One bigger point you miss - much more time and money goes into artwork, cut-scenes, and so on (i.e. the pretty stuff) than actually coding the engine. Some of this work is done by graphic artists, some by people with mixed creative skills (someone had to create all the data points for the world map in fallout 3).
It's probably very similar to the 'lost revenue' theory that's thrown at piracy I think. They're probably looking at the used video game market and counting every sale as a 'loss'. By forcing activations they eliminate that sale/market. So therefore 'of course' every used-game sale (where the creator gets $0 additional profits) would actually be a new, retail unit sale (thus generating profit).
Software/game makers are really getting out of hand. They're right behind the MAFIAA in scumbag-ness. Trying to eek out a few more sales by taking away what few things aren't yet 'illegal' in the software market.
off topic - some of the used game resellers really are getting obnoxious with their pricing. On a newly released game you're lucky to get 50% back and then they sell it for $55 instead of $60. $25 net profit on a $60 item is awfully high. I have zero sympathy for these companies and their retarded profit margins but kids (people) still should be able to borrow or sell games.
Only in the US do you have this insanity. I'm returning from a trip to Stockholm and you can get unlimited 7.2MB broadband for about 40 bucks a month including taxes. 25 if you already have a phone plan. My swedish is lacking, but poking around with google translator I didn't find anything about bandwidth caps.
Again: $25-40US for UNLIMITED 7.2Mb broadband. Including taxes.
Off the top of my head, not a single major WIRED provider in the US even matches that price ... and many are talking about implementing bandwidth caps. Wireless? Bah. No big provider is unlimited and you're coughing up at least $60 + taxes and good luck actually getting 7.2Mb.
And with personal freedom comes personal responsibility. Many people don't really understand what this means. You CAN starve to death for simple lack of money to buy food. You don't get an automatic safety net.
I'm all for it personally but realize that many other things taken for granted do not exist in other 'free' places.
"The 9.2 percent figure for 2009 doubles the scale of contraction predicted only three months ago in the institute's previous quarterly commentary"
Of course, if they're off by 100% (or 50% looking backwards) from 3 months ago how exactly can they claim to predict 18 months out without a margin of error greater than their predicted change?
87.63% of statistics are misleading or simply incorrect. :)
Still ... if you live a paycheck based life it's probably not a good time to head over. If you like to invest, it's time to start looking around.
Or instead let's find a way to get companies to focus on paying their employees instead of their shareholders and executive management so people actually can afford health care and/or a day off.
Oh, and ... almost all social workers have financial difficulties. It's not like they're paid more than a few peanuts a day. You don't become a social workers for the money.
Really, eh?
So either you love civil lawsuits or you're a licensed MD with some interesting employment contracts.
Because if you're going to fire someone for refusing to take an unpaid day off due to your believe that they're 'sick' ... you're might as well just hand them a 6-7 figure check on the way out.
See now, I was totally with you until... "Anyone who works with people knows that the best way to avoid sickness is to wash your hands, keep them away from your face at all times and simply avoid people showing signs of illness to the best of your ability to do so"
If you ask me that falls under the germ paranoia that everyone seems to be infected (ouch, pun!) with these days. It's amazing that people go on about how over-using antibiotics is going to create some new super-bug so of course they can't be made over-the-counter yet slather themselves in anti-bacterial 20 times a day.
So back to your statement - I'd argue the best way to avoid sickness is to have a healthy immune system. Building up immunity requires exposure to the germs that can make you sick. Anti-bacterial nonsense everywhere works against that goal. Don't get me wrong, there's a time and a place - i'd never suggest an ER tell doctors not to scrub it for surgery. I'm all for proper protection against highly infectious disease, immunization shots, and the like. H1N1 is nothing more than a flu strain. People are wigging out about ~150 deaths this year from it. I suggest a bit of research in the worldwide annual fatality count from influenza. Hint - it's several orders of magnitude greater.
Ouch, ran into that wall of text.
But still. I'd argue that we've already stopped evolution. (or at least reversed it) We no longer have survival of the fittest. If a below-average intelligence, addiction prone, unhealthy individual living on welfare can pop out half a dozen kids or more instead of failing at life how are we moving forward? Are we evolving into......
Given that our society has halted nature's progress with us as a species perhaps it's IMPERATIVE that we look into genetic manipulation as a way to continue improvement of our race. Newsflash - not everyone would want the same exact thing and even if we had the ability (which drastically different from what we have now) to manipulate every single genetic trait two people could not conceivably decide all those variables and have a child before they turned old and died.
Ignoring the fact that genetic screening would have detected neither of those cases...
You can play 'what-if' endlessly. It works BOTH ways, except the inverse examples are not as obvious. "What if" genetic screening and IVF allowed a couple to have a normal healthy baby and then, with a cozy happy life were able to devote their resources to curing aids? Cancer? bad driving?
What if you genetically screened out brain defects and got more, smarter people who...bla bla bla
It's so easy to play 'what if' and only look at one side of the coin.
Heck, what if couples in china could ensure they had a boy and no more newborn girls were quietly murdered?
If a parent decide a while will be a certain religion, circumcised, vaccinated, get or be denied medical treatments...why can't they decide the hair color? Or how about screening to eliminate baldness? Who are you to draw the line on what's "bad enough" to screen for?
Odd.
I have better. Today.
I've already got 'Books purchased from us can be downloaded any time, multiple times, all in multiple non-proprietary AND proprietary formats, with support for future formats free of charge, and AND *AND* we welcome you to freely share these books with your friends*.
*(you knew there was a catch, right?) - You may distribute these copyrighted works freely provided you do not charge for them. (See, killed it for yo...wait. what? Really...that's it?)
www.baen.com
www.webscription.net
Yes, it's a limited selection. Strangely though I buy books from them instead of finding them on P2P even though it would be *legal* to get them from there. Even more strangely, no one rushes to take the new books off there and put them on P2P.
I would buy far more e-books if other companies had the same policy. It's nice being able to hit the website from work and grab the RTF or HTML version of a book i'm reading if i forget my reader at home that day.
My CPU has more level 2 cache than the first hard-drive based computer I owned. 12MB vs. 10MB Heck, level 1 cache is near/at the system RAM of my first computer - C64.
Yes, we've come multiple orders of magnitude from back then. Sadly things aren't really much faster. The quality may have gone up (1080p streaming is NICE) but not nearly to the same degree as the hardware. 320x240 video vs. 1980x1080 is roughly a 50-fold increase. CPU and disk have seen easily a 1000-fold increase. Sad how inefficient everything else has gotten.
Really? In a thread about the iPhone?
AT&T most certainly did NOT design the iPhone. AT&T does not design Nokia's. AT&T does not design Moto's. Are you catching the theme here?
Most cell phones are not designed in-house by carriers.
Yep. I always loved that little catch.
You're taxed when you earn your money.
You're taxed when you spend what's left over.
The company that sold you the taxed item pays taxes on the profit they made over wholesale.
That company also pays taxes on their payroll...
which brings us back to the paycheck ... that's taxed :)
Another one I like: I buy a car. I pay sales tax on it. I sell the car later. If i make a profit, i pay income tax on that profit. If i take a loss, i'm SOL. The poor schmuch who bought it now ALSO pays sales tax on that car. Rinse and repeat.
As for software, music, etc. I had a thought. No one ever "BUYS" a copy of windows. You *license* a copy of it. The MAFIAA fights for similar limitations. Food for thought...
The answer is incredibly simple - charge a small, non-refundable fee for 'tasting' that can be applied to the actual purchase of the domain. Swapping 10, 20, 50k domain names every month or so between companies to avoid paying for them becomes a lot less interesting when it's 25c per name.
But that requires work.
Or...just disallow 'tasting'. I have no idea how it even started or where it came from but it seems like a universally bad idea.
That's a funny thing though.
The spammers are actually using the domain. They aren't squatting this those rules wouldn't apply.
Actually since it's serving an add page that would have the oppsite effect methinks.
I might disagree that 'very few' people type URLs. But then i realized i'm 'special'.
Then i remembered all the times i watched people google things like 't-mobile' or 'applebees' to get to the website. I still cringe every time someone does that. I guess that comes from learning my way around the net when the closest thing to broadband was a $1/minute ISDN or multi-thousand dollar T1.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars for small claims court? Be realistic.
Besides that, do you honestly thing sprint/nextel would actually go to court over that tiny amount? They would settle. Even though they have lawyers on payroll it still costs them time to fight you in court. Their lawyers don't sit idle waiting for cases.
Oh, and your apartment nonsense? You clearly don't understand how credit reporting works. You can request the mark be removed. If the company no long exists as you claim, it will be removed and not put back since they're not there to dispute your claim that it's inaccurate.
You need to take some time to understand how the credit reporting system actually works...or your whole post is fabricated.
Actually I have Optimum Boost == 30Mbit. In theory 750MB could be as quick as 3 minutes.
A 700MB "file" with good seeding will get 1MB/s or about 12 minutes to download. Even if you double that - 25 minutes - it's still roughly as long as a drive to the store.
Sure, some obscure and poorly seeded files can take forever. Torrents in the 10GB+ range take a while too but...almost anything remotely popular can be downloaded faster than buying physical media with 'overnight shipping'.
"Force always trumps word"
Yes it does. And if someone points a gun in my face I certainly will say anything at all with zero argument. Luckily, even stupid cops are smart enough not to point a gun at you over answering a question. Why? Because, if nothing else, they then might have to explain why someone was shot in a non-life-threatening situation.
A knowledgeable person would never ask a cop what his miranda rights are. First off, you just engaged the cop in conversation. This could imply you're forfeiting your miranda rights! Second, your miranda rights do NOT need to be read to you in order to be in effect. The cop, by all means, could defer or not answer this question. Third, you asked what your miranda rights are. You did NOT say you were invoking your right to remain silent.
So..."Am i free to go" "I do not consent to any searches" "i decline this encounter" "I chose to remain silent and wish to speak with a lawyer" are your best tools.
Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree. Allowing a police office (or anyone) to detain you when they have no legal right to do so is a very bad practice to get into. You have rights. Use them. Failure to do so makes it harder next time.
In addition, and i believe there is case law backing this up, using physical presence to detain someone nullifies a verbal statement that they are not detaining you. My solution to this is to simply turn around walk the other way. If that means leaving your car parked somewhere and walking down the street to get a slice of pizza and wait things out...so be it. If they continuously block your movement ask the question again. If you are still free to leave and they continue their actions - it is minimally harassment and possibly illegally detaining you.
I seriously don't understand why people think it's acceptable or a good idea to forfeit fundamental rights simply on the premise that it's "safer" or "easier" or less likely to "cause trouble". It's none of these things .... but then the same people cry about 'abuse of power' and 'corruption'. Ironic, eh?