Let me give you my little narrative. I knew my ex-wife for 11 years before marriage. Of those years, we dated for six. We were married for three (and a bit).
When I decided to divorce her (not saying why - I still refuse to divulge details of that final argument we had), her response was immediate and total:
1. I was arrested 15 minutes later for assault.
2. I was served a protection order the next morning (while still in jail) forbidding me from contact with her or my son (wrt son, contact was stipulated "after family advocates investigation).
3. FA Investigation took 3 months, during which I had no access to my son.
4. I was arrested a further 3 times on a variety of different charges (more assault, violation of protection order, etc).
5. She twice got men to (attempt) to beat me up.
6. She repeatedly threatened to have me killed.
7. She phoned my employer (a large-ish research institution) twice to inform them that I'm a criminal. (I'm not, btw - two years of fighting in court got me 4 acquittals).
8. She taught my son to call me "Uncle", and strikes him (in my presence) when he calls me daddy.
The point is, I never knew that she was like this, even though I knew her for so long. Sometimes the crazy is inside, just waiting for a chance to come out - you never can tell. It's now 3 years later, and I'm back in court again! And with this constant harrasment from her side, I'm done even trying to find a g/friend now - they all get scared off (the first women I dated was about 8 months after my separation: and that did not last).
I suppose that the "exchanged for cash" bit of my post was missed, right? What I'm curious about is this: There is a site that lets you play a game and win/lose in credits (which you pay money for). If these credits can be exchanged for cash directly, then the site is no different from online casinos. If, otoh, these credits only have value on the site (say, 1000 credits gets you a teddy bear + postage, or something similar), then they bypass laws and licenses which govern actual casinos.
YMMV - ItWorksForMe; what do they say when you introduce yourself? Do they giggle or even smile at the tiny attempt at humour you made in the first 30 seconds of meeting them? Because, if you can't make it past the first minute, they never get to hear that your property-owning ass is gainfully employed with a B degree. Some things are an indicator - non-cheap clothing, non-cheap car, non-cheap deodorant, etc - that the man is gainfully employed.
Anyway, it's moot; of course there are statistical outliers in every population (sucks, man, sorry), but that doesn't invalidate my point (in that I'd rather be attractive to the majority of women, than look in the minority for "true love" (*spits), and that I'm certainly well-within the norms when I decide not to date someone based on looks).
Well, forgive me for not wanting to date an obese woman.[sarcasm]it's not like woman refuse to date a habitually unemployed man[/sarcasm].
Face it - women have certain requirements, and I take care to fulfill them as best I can (remaining employed, getting a degree, owning my own free-standing property *and* remaining in shape) in order to attract and retain a mate. I don't want a woman who can't fulfill my requirements (basic hygiene, BMI of over 21 and under 23, no psychotic tendencies, things like that).
The most important requirement for the majority of women (who are searching for a partner) is that the partner can provide food, clothing and shelter. The most important requirement for the majority of men is that the partner is physically attractive. No amount of stupid people trumpeting PC crap is going to change that.
Something tells me you are one of those who only wants to date a supermodel and every other woman is "too fat"
Actually, no. I want to date a woman who's not obese. I find obese woman physically unattractive. Should this now be my fault? I take great pains to keep in shape; I'm not dating someone who doesn't take equally great pains to keep in shape.
Again you put in a catch that if somebody makes 10 gains one week, and 400 gains the next that there is a cheat.
And your assumption is that that is the evidence MS has? I figure they may have evidence of the form "Hey, the checksum in his game doesn't match any legitimate copies - it was modified!".
The 2011 APC rate will be US$1350/GB£890/ EURO1046 per accepted manuscript*. Authors will have a choice of two non-commercial Creative Commons (CC) licenses. NPG will make an annual donation to Creative Commons equivalent to $20 per APC paid for publication in Scientific Reports
So, I'll pay (roughly) my net income for a single month to publish, of which $20 goes to CC? This is ridiculous!
Why would you want to buy this? I'll tell you why: Because that first week or so the sheep will cause the price to shoot like a rocket
They cannot sell before 2013. These sheep *are* the suckers; whats amazing to my horribly uncomplicated mind is how anyone can think this is a good deal (what with the excessive 4.5% fee's, and cropping an profit (but not the losses) to 95%).
But in softer non-falsifiable sciences, it's mostly about politics, and saying the right things. There are a whole bunch of suspect sciences that I could list,
I'll start -
Information Systems / Information Technology - it's simply ridiculous how few actual metrics are used to propagate "best practices" to the industry.
They actually, literally deleted or blacked out their statement (redacted) as opposed to issuing a new statement that counters their first statement (retract)? This is certainly news to me.
I pay 19 ZAR/gig in SA (not counting fixed cost of line). That's about 2.7 USD/gig. I'm fine with it, as it *is* PAYG, and the gig has to be paid for before you can use it (and payment is simple when you run out and need to buy more). The months that I am home and watching all the monty python sketches that exist on youtube, I buy more gigs. The months that I am away from home, I pay nothing.
Perhaps its more to do with the powerful emotions that the "damsel in distress" figure invokes. Both men and women are genetically wired to react very very strongly to a damsel in distress.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me give you my little narrative. I knew my ex-wife for 11 years before marriage. Of those years, we dated for six. We were married for three (and a bit).
When I decided to divorce her (not saying why - I still refuse to divulge details of that final argument we had), her response was immediate and total:
1. I was arrested 15 minutes later for assault.
2. I was served a protection order the next morning (while still in jail) forbidding me from contact with her or my son (wrt son, contact was stipulated "after family advocates investigation).
3. FA Investigation took 3 months, during which I had no access to my son.
4. I was arrested a further 3 times on a variety of different charges (more assault, violation of protection order, etc).
5. She twice got men to (attempt) to beat me up.
6. She repeatedly threatened to have me killed.
7. She phoned my employer (a large-ish research institution) twice to inform them that I'm a criminal. (I'm not, btw - two years of fighting in court got me 4 acquittals).
8. She taught my son to call me "Uncle", and strikes him (in my presence) when he calls me daddy.
The point is, I never knew that she was like this, even though I knew her for so long. Sometimes the crazy is inside, just waiting for a chance to come out - you never can tell. It's now 3 years later, and I'm back in court again! And with this constant harrasment from her side, I'm done even trying to find a g/friend now - they all get scared off (the first women I dated was about 8 months after my separation: and that did not last).
I suppose that the "exchanged for cash" bit of my post was missed, right? What I'm curious about is this: There is a site that lets you play a game and win/lose in credits (which you pay money for). If these credits can be exchanged for cash directly, then the site is no different from online casinos. If, otoh, these credits only have value on the site (say, 1000 credits gets you a teddy bear + postage, or something similar), then they bypass laws and licenses which govern actual casinos.
Perhaps my original question was badly phrased ...
What exactly can one do with Zynga Poker chips, even if you won them legitimately? Can they be exchanged for cash and/or prizes?
netcat ;-)
When I started driving, the only experience I had of racing video games was "Test Drive II: The Duel". Sadly, it was nothing like a real car.
YMMV - ItWorksForMe; what do they say when you introduce yourself? Do they giggle or even smile at the tiny attempt at humour you made in the first 30 seconds of meeting them? Because, if you can't make it past the first minute, they never get to hear that your property-owning ass is gainfully employed with a B degree. Some things are an indicator - non-cheap clothing, non-cheap car, non-cheap deodorant, etc - that the man is gainfully employed.
Anyway, it's moot; of course there are statistical outliers in every population (sucks, man, sorry), but that doesn't invalidate my point (in that I'd rather be attractive to the majority of women, than look in the minority for "true love" (*spits), and that I'm certainly well-within the norms when I decide not to date someone based on looks).
Face it - women have certain requirements, and I take care to fulfill them as best I can (remaining employed, getting a degree, owning my own free-standing property *and* remaining in shape) in order to attract and retain a mate. I don't want a woman who can't fulfill my requirements (basic hygiene, BMI of over 21 and under 23, no psychotic tendencies, things like that).
The most important requirement for the majority of women (who are searching for a partner) is that the partner can provide food, clothing and shelter. The most important requirement for the majority of men is that the partner is physically attractive. No amount of stupid people trumpeting PC crap is going to change that.
Something tells me you are one of those who only wants to date a supermodel and every other woman is "too fat"
Actually, no. I want to date a woman who's not obese. I find obese woman physically unattractive. Should this now be my fault? I take great pains to keep in shape; I'm not dating someone who doesn't take equally great pains to keep in shape.
I resemble that comment
Again you put in a catch that if somebody makes 10 gains one week, and 400 gains the next that there is a cheat.
And your assumption is that that is the evidence MS has? I figure they may have evidence of the form "Hey, the checksum in his game doesn't match any legitimate copies - it was modified!".
over here - whats the odds that their data matches mine? :-)
THats not even FTA, but FTS (perhaps the summary changed after you posted, but I doubt it), but I'm still willing to bet you're right :-)
The 2011 APC rate will be US$1350/GB£890/ EURO1046 per accepted manuscript*. Authors will have a choice of two non-commercial Creative Commons (CC) licenses. NPG will make an annual donation to Creative Commons equivalent to $20 per APC paid for publication in Scientific Reports
So, I'll pay (roughly) my net income for a single month to publish, of which $20 goes to CC? This is ridiculous!
Yeah? Call me when mythbusters does this :-)
You too? It's certainly something when I view an evening of reading tvtropes to be much more entertaining and informative than wikipedia.
Why would you want to buy this? I'll tell you why: Because that first week or so the sheep will cause the price to shoot like a rocket
They cannot sell before 2013. These sheep *are* the suckers; whats amazing to my horribly uncomplicated mind is how anyone can think this is a good deal (what with the excessive 4.5% fee's, and cropping an profit (but not the losses) to 95%).
I'm surprised they didn't see this coming.
But in softer non-falsifiable sciences, it's mostly about politics, and saying the right things. There are a whole bunch of suspect sciences that I could list,
I'll start -
Information Systems / Information Technology - it's simply ridiculous how few actual metrics are used to propagate "best practices" to the industry.
Wait, what?
They actually, literally deleted or blacked out their statement (redacted) as opposed to issuing a new statement that counters their first statement (retract)? This is certainly news to me.
They redacted that statement later...
You mean retracted, don't you?
I pay 19 ZAR/gig in SA (not counting fixed cost of line). That's about 2.7 USD/gig. I'm fine with it, as it *is* PAYG, and the gig has to be paid for before you can use it (and payment is simple when you run out and need to buy more). The months that I am home and watching all the monty python sketches that exist on youtube, I buy more gigs. The months that I am away from home, I pay nothing.
It works very well - I pay for what I use.
Not as relocation, no.
Perhaps its more to do with the powerful emotions that the "damsel in distress" figure invokes. Both men and women are genetically wired to react very very strongly to a damsel in distress.
How the hell do they prove something like that? "He said" + "She said" == Acquittal (proof beyond *reasonable* doubt!)
sarcasm aside, new rims of a different size/profile/weight actually do void the warranty on the wheel bearings.