Kale is one of thise things that somehow become popular via advertisement, Once upon a time, it was mostly used as decorations around salad bars, mostly because it looked kind of cool, but tasted like old socks. But fads is fads.
"So when policy, not science dictates what is healthy for you, "
But since the medical profession is supposed to be "science," why did they promulgate the same bullshit? It seems they should have blown the whistle on low-fat at least a decade ago.
Because that isn't how we operate in America. The long green buys plenty of air time, and many people don't think very critically.
The data has been out there, and is easy to find. I've known that the food pyramid adopted in the 1990's was complete bullshit. I've known that the data considered in adopting it was bullshit, and I've known that the results of the eat more processed carbs were exactly what was going to happen. And you or I can pull up the science to show it. Way back from the early 1950s.
I think the problem is much deeper. The institutions of science are themselves corrupted when political outcomes hinge on their conclusions, and when the direction of scientific research is consequently influenced by past findings.
There is something that your reply tells me, and that is that you seem to think that scientists have the same clout as politicians. And that you believe that the corrupt element is not the politicians, but the scientists who advise them.
How this can be when the politics is based on flawed data that was known as flawed data, that was denounced as flawed data, that was fought against as flawed data, and that the flawed data that was accepted and promoted just happened to make for a profitable venture for industries that send money to the politicians is very interesting to me. It's the scientists who are corrupt. Sounds legit.
You need science, if only to have a group to blame for your politician's failures.
And what was wrong with the Wonderwoman movie? Post-Nolan, it's the best of the new batch of DC films, and in general I thoroughly enjoyed the film. Have you ever just tried to watch a movie?
I didn't say there was anything wrong with the movie. I've been a minor fan of Wonder Woman from the days of Lynda Carter. I merely comment on what some people have tried to impress upon the film, as if it was some kind of first. It isn't. Not even remotely. Riply in the Alien movies is just one perfect example of a capable female lead. And there were many before. This whole WW thing was just social agenda. So you'll have to forgive me if I find something that is a lie just a little bit irritating. And why lie about it? As I noted before, many of the same people who are at one time promoting this strong independent movie woman abandoned it after Gal Gadot showed no armpit hair. But hey, I'm the problem, yesno?
As for just watching a movie - I do that all the time. I watch TCM a lot. I watch HBO (though mostly for Bill Maher) And there are even strong women in many of the old films. I do tend to look for the entertainment value more than social agendas however.
Looking forward to the next Wonder Woman movie starring Roseanne Barr.
The problem with Wonder Woman as a feminist movie is that Wonder Woman is not human. Although the intentions of the original creators of the comic book character were feminist, she's a demigod in the movie.
The character solves problems in the male hero fashion by using superior strength and speed.
So her feats of strength are not interesting.
That's an interesting analysis. There has also been some suggestions that this sort of thig is not good in a social context. Where some young ladies have become emboldened to attempt physical violence on men - not the sort of minor stuff like slapping, but where the male has to use his strength to defend himself. I'm not so certain if that is plausible or not, but these movies where females are acting like violent males give one pause as to how that affects the viewers.
I listened to a lot of Sports talk radio like ESPN. As time has gone on, the level of advertisement is now just about 50 percent. Coupled with boring hosts who all talk abtout the same thing, with the exception of goofball Dan LeBetard, there is about ten minutes of content per day.
I stopped going to movies because all you see anymore are superhero movies. When's the last time a movie came out in the ballpark of Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, or even Ferris Bueller? I honestly have no idea and I couldn't even tell you the names of two movies in theatres right now.
In addition, therre is this weird trend toward the 90 pound woman who kills every man that gets in her way, and is somehow stronger than the incredible hulk. And the even stranger one of the Wonderwoman movie, which for some reason was promoted as some sort of breakthrough, a never before seen strong capable woman in a movie. What? Aliens, Terminator, and lots of others have had that in the current era. Even then, they missed the boat as feminists were angry because Gal Gadot shaved her armpit hair, which is apparently submission to the patriarchy. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2...
So between endless and now boring reboots, Comic book grade school level, and socially annoying movies, I'll just watch TCM for my cinemafix, than you very much.
there will be a large and growing class of surplus population that do not produce.
Perhaps it will also lead to more people that do not REPRODUCE....and hence lest people in the world at a time that need jobs?
Well, unless we spay them, they will have a lot of free time on their hands..... ermmm hands isn't quite the right word. Even then if we are going to have a huge problem until most of humanity dies off. I suspect governmental help in that area.
Folks have been whining about how automation will destroy our civilization tomorrow . . . since about when it started, back in the 1700's. That tomorrow never seems to come.
You are kinda whining too, but let's take this elsewhere.
How about some prognostication or even discussion of what might follow? It is bottome tier of the food chain easy to say Everyone will have jobs, world without end, amen. But that's ending up sounding like Malthus detractors who say he will always be wrong, and that means that you argue for an infinite number of people being able to exist on earth because "Malthus is always wrong".
In other words, it is folly to declare that everyone will get better jobs after all the jobs are gone, based on the fact that the industrial revolution created jobs in industry. The goal of the automation is not to make factories that make stuff. The goal is to get rid of humans in all money generating processes in order to lessen expenses and increase profits for shareholders. Humans extracting money from the process by employment will be marked for elimination when possible.
So what do you think? After almost all menial work is gone, what will people do? What happens as this process moves up the food chain?
So far, the answers I've received to this question - when I've received one - are along the lines of "I don't know, but I do know more jobs will be created" Which isn't an answer - its an expression of faith.
So I'll start......
As success in elimination of human employees continues, there will be a large and growing class of surplus population that do not produce. It is pretty simple that this will be a drain on the economy, as more people will be unemployed than employed.
Here is a forking moment. When we decide as societies whether to keep this surplus population alive or not. Will we decide that their lives are worth something, or will we continue to believe in the adage that has been true for most of humanity - work or die?
The other concept is almost a utopian idea, of people freed from labor if they wish, to pursue education, or just hang out and enjoy life.
I'm saying about 75 percent likely that we will choose the first setup - the excess population will be marked for death. But most of us don't want to have an obviously genocidal situation, so we will have some pretty grisly wars. I predict somewhere around 95 to 99 percent reduction in human population.
Then, if we haven't reduced ourselves to hunter gatherer status - which cures the problem of employment - we'll hopefully be able to enjoy the fruits of a society where work is optional.
Pretty much every nutritionist I know believe religiously in the food pyramid.
By an enormous factor they have bought in to the far terrible, meat bad, grains good cute of the world.
They are also hardly ever scientists. In fact most nutritionist qualifications involve exactly zero science or medical training.. Because it is not a damn science, it is a job title, more closely related to marketig, and not unlike economics.
Go talk to a research human biologist some time. Suggest a nutritionist is a scientist to them, then listen.. You may learn something.
So no. You are talking bullshit. They are very involved in this, and have made a ton of money out of people's misery.
I see. Well, you need take it up with Luise Light, a nutritional expert, who made recommendations based upon valid food science from the 1980's and who was overruled in the 1992 to make the 1992 pyramid conform to the demands of the Secretary of Agriculture and the food industry. Here is her text "A Fatally Flawed Food Guide". http://www.whale.to/a/light.ht... [whale.to]
> Nutritionists, the real scientists in this field, have not wavered from the idea of the balanced diet. While adjustments have been made, the basics of what makes for good nutrition have not.
So Mulligan's Stew being replaced with that obviously and highly unbalanced "food pyramid" must have just been my imagination then.
Watch where this goes.
People with pecuniary interests have long held sway over things that are purported as science. And sometimes people step outside their boundaries when presumably conducting science Ancel Keys was the main perpetrator of the idea that eating fat was bad for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... He for lack of a better term, fudged data. Keys had gained some credit with one of his first books, The Biology of Human Starvation, published in 1950. It was pretty creepy, but based on the idea that the post World War 2 global situation was going to have a lot of people starving, and finding the best way to rehabilitate them.
Then we move onto Key's Seven Countries Experiment. This turned out to be a flawed study, in which Keys "found" a correlation between fat intake and coronary disease.
But there were problems. Keys had 21 countries with data too look at. He selected 6. When all of the different countries data was analyzed any correlation was much less clear.
While you might find this confirms your dislike of science, hold on a moment.
How does this conclusion turn into some sort of food pyramid dogma? Enter politicians, the pecuniary interests that are own the politicians and some other odd bedfellows that show up.
Luise Light who was a nutritional expert, made recommendations based upon valid food science from the 1980's and who was overruled in the 1992 to make the 1992 pyramid conform to the demands of the Secretary of Agriculture and the food industry. Here is her text "A fatally Fflawed Food Guide". http://www.whale.to/a/light.ht...
So when policy, not science dictates what is healthy for you, you can hate the scientists all you like. But when the Scientists are not making the decisions, and politicians and their owners are cherry picking what they decide is allowable based on profit, well you can kill every scientist, create a national "No more Scientists holiday", and the problem will still exist. You'll just have to find another group to blame.
Regardless, we should just have a vote on what is healthy or not. That will fix the problem. It won't be easy though - Congress tried to repeal Ohm's law, but it was met with some resistance.
This is a good example of why average people, who maybe only have a rudimentary background in science, no longer trust it or what scientists are claiming.
Nutritionists, the real scientists in this field, have not wavered from the idea of the balanced diet. While adjustments have been made, the basics of what makes for good nutrition have not.
Who you AC's define as scientists are people with an agenda. Pro-vegan people, Pro industry groups. Vegans would have us eating tofurky forever, and pro-industry groups would have us bathing in pink slime.
Any you yourself have an agenda, or else are too dim to understand that.
"Anybody with an IQ over room temperature has known this for years."
While that may be true, other threads in Slashdot, even recently, have been dominated by the "a calorie is a calorie" experts.
Well, so much for the experts. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie is true as far as measuring different things energy via combustion, but if a calorie was a calorie regarding nutrition, we would be able to eat 3000 calories of wood pulp or 3000 calories of fuel oil and it would be the same thing as eating steak or kale.
But it isn't. One of the important things to remember is that the body is not a test cell where 1100 of the amount of energy required to warm one gram of air-free water from 0 to 100 C at standard atmospheric pressure equals 1 calorie, and you combust the test material to see it's energy content. Different foods have different properties for different animals. Cats are frank carnivores, Horses are frank herbivores, and humans are omnivores. Trying to sustain a horse on hot dogs won't work, no matter how many calories are in them.
Any "expert" who claims that all food calories are the same, no matter the source, is a piss poor excuse for an expert
Anybody with an IQ over room temperature has known this for years. Funny that the obesity epidemic started in earnest right around the time they started taking fat out of everything and replacing it with sugar.
Exactly. While there are likely other factors involved too, The demonization of fat and protein in favor of carbohydrates does correlate pretty well with obesity becoming the new norm.
At least in my own experience, I have never been able to regulate my weight on a high carbohydrate diet. I would be perpetually hungry. Volume intake was way off. On a diet higher in protein and fat, I eat less, I am not hungry again until the next meal, instead of two hours after the last one. I have a lot less flatulence, and simply feel better.
then why not tap it for hydrothermal energy to generate electricity using the heat (steam powered) turbines to turn generators, because they need the electricity to run the water pumps, and extra electricity can be put in to the grid
Geo-steam power is one of those things that looks pretty awesome, but can be tough to implement the steam produced is pretty dirty. Perhaps someone coming up with a closed cycle ststem where the water never touches the hot rocks might work.
That being said, messing with YellowStone would have to be approached with great caution. As in old risk-taker me wouldn't touch it.
You needed Snowden to point out the obvious, and you demand that nothing be known about you - you probably need to sell everything you own, tear up your credit cards, Social Security card, get rid of the car, then move to Idaho, on a horse and wagon, then become a subsistence farmer.
The intertoobz and computers on it are inherently not secure. By nature and purpose, they are not secure. Security is the opposite of the internet's basic design. If you demand security, this ain't the place to get it.
He can't prove the problems were caused by Showtime. Most likely they were caused by his internet provider.
Unlikely to the extreme: these problems were reported so widely, Showtime even moved the main event to mitigate the problems caused by the unresponsive servers.
If he actually goes ahead with the suit, he's likely to be counter sued; and he'll probably lose.
Countersued? For what? At this point I think you must be trolling.
It was one of those educational and cultural moments that lift all humans to a more enlightened plane.
The company said they'll give refunds so can't see how this complaint has any legs.
I'm not sure why anyone pays for this shit anyway. Go to your local bar and spend the $hundred on beer and snacks support your local business and watch the show for free. The atmosphere is usually much better than at home or the actual event.
Exactly this! As a card carrying introvert, the bar environment is the perfect place to watch boxing bar none..
And I don't have the wife telling me that boxing is brutal (duh) or thinking I'm watching gay porn if I have an MMA fight on.
Slashdot Mirror
Not me.
Kale is one of thise things that somehow become popular via advertisement, Once upon a time, it was mostly used as decorations around salad bars, mostly because it looked kind of cool, but tasted like old socks. But fads is fads.
"So when policy, not science dictates what is healthy for you, "
But since the medical profession is supposed to be "science," why did they promulgate the same bullshit? It seems they should have blown the whistle on low-fat at least a decade ago.
Because that isn't how we operate in America. The long green buys plenty of air time, and many people don't think very critically.
The data has been out there, and is easy to find. I've known that the food pyramid adopted in the 1990's was complete bullshit. I've known that the data considered in adopting it was bullshit, and I've known that the results of the eat more processed carbs were exactly what was going to happen. And you or I can pull up the science to show it. Way back from the early 1950s.
I think the problem is much deeper. The institutions of science are themselves corrupted when political outcomes hinge on their conclusions, and when the direction of scientific research is consequently influenced by past findings.
There is something that your reply tells me, and that is that you seem to think that scientists have the same clout as politicians. And that you believe that the corrupt element is not the politicians, but the scientists who advise them.
How this can be when the politics is based on flawed data that was known as flawed data, that was denounced as flawed data, that was fought against as flawed data, and that the flawed data that was accepted and promoted just happened to make for a profitable venture for industries that send money to the politicians is very interesting to me. It's the scientists who are corrupt. Sounds legit.
You need science, if only to have a group to blame for your politician's failures.
And what was wrong with the Wonderwoman movie? Post-Nolan, it's the best of the new batch of DC films, and in general I thoroughly enjoyed the film. Have you ever just tried to watch a movie?
I didn't say there was anything wrong with the movie. I've been a minor fan of Wonder Woman from the days of Lynda Carter. I merely comment on what some people have tried to impress upon the film, as if it was some kind of first. It isn't. Not even remotely. Riply in the Alien movies is just one perfect example of a capable female lead. And there were many before. This whole WW thing was just social agenda. So you'll have to forgive me if I find something that is a lie just a little bit irritating. And why lie about it? As I noted before, many of the same people who are at one time promoting this strong independent movie woman abandoned it after Gal Gadot showed no armpit hair. But hey, I'm the problem, yesno?
As for just watching a movie - I do that all the time. I watch TCM a lot. I watch HBO (though mostly for Bill Maher) And there are even strong women in many of the old films. I do tend to look for the entertainment value more than social agendas however.
Looking forward to the next Wonder Woman movie starring Roseanne Barr.
The problem with Wonder Woman as a feminist movie is that Wonder Woman is not human. Although the intentions of the original creators of the comic book character were feminist, she's a demigod in the movie.
The character solves problems in the male hero fashion by using superior strength and speed. So her feats of strength are not interesting.
That's an interesting analysis. There has also been some suggestions that this sort of thig is not good in a social context. Where some young ladies have become emboldened to attempt physical violence on men - not the sort of minor stuff like slapping, but where the male has to use his strength to defend himself. I'm not so certain if that is plausible or not, but these movies where females are acting like violent males give one pause as to how that affects the viewers.
And the even stranger one of the Wonderwoman movie,
At this point we really, really, badly need a Wonderwoman movie where the hero is a big beefy man as Wonderwoman.
John Goodman? And don't dare assume his gender!! 8^)
I listened to a lot of Sports talk radio like ESPN. As time has gone on, the level of advertisement is now just about 50 percent. Coupled with boring hosts who all talk abtout the same thing, with the exception of goofball Dan LeBetard, there is about ten minutes of content per day.
I stopped going to movies because all you see anymore are superhero movies. When's the last time a movie came out in the ballpark of Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, or even Ferris Bueller? I honestly have no idea and I couldn't even tell you the names of two movies in theatres right now.
In addition, therre is this weird trend toward the 90 pound woman who kills every man that gets in her way, and is somehow stronger than the incredible hulk. And the even stranger one of the Wonderwoman movie, which for some reason was promoted as some sort of breakthrough, a never before seen strong capable woman in a movie. What? Aliens, Terminator, and lots of others have had that in the current era. Even then, they missed the boat as feminists were angry because Gal Gadot shaved her armpit hair, which is apparently submission to the patriarchy. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2...
So between endless and now boring reboots, Comic book grade school level, and socially annoying movies, I'll just watch TCM for my cinemafix, than you very much.
People will go to see movies if they don't stink like smegma.
Useless eaters are not useless. They are needed as consumers. This is why welfare and food-stamps exist.
But there are limits. When only one person who is working has to support 99 who are not - the system breaks down. Actually long before that.
Perhaps it will also lead to more people that do not REPRODUCE....and hence lest people in the world at a time that need jobs?
Well, unless we spay them, they will have a lot of free time on their hands..... ermmm hands isn't quite the right word. Even then if we are going to have a huge problem until most of humanity dies off. I suspect governmental help in that area.
Folks have been whining about how automation will destroy our civilization tomorrow . . . since about when it started, back in the 1700's. That tomorrow never seems to come.
You are kinda whining too, but let's take this elsewhere.
How about some prognostication or even discussion of what might follow? It is bottome tier of the food chain easy to say Everyone will have jobs, world without end, amen. But that's ending up sounding like Malthus detractors who say he will always be wrong, and that means that you argue for an infinite number of people being able to exist on earth because "Malthus is always wrong".
In other words, it is folly to declare that everyone will get better jobs after all the jobs are gone, based on the fact that the industrial revolution created jobs in industry. The goal of the automation is not to make factories that make stuff. The goal is to get rid of humans in all money generating processes in order to lessen expenses and increase profits for shareholders. Humans extracting money from the process by employment will be marked for elimination when possible.
So what do you think? After almost all menial work is gone, what will people do? What happens as this process moves up the food chain?
So far, the answers I've received to this question - when I've received one - are along the lines of "I don't know, but I do know more jobs will be created" Which isn't an answer - its an expression of faith.
So I'll start......
As success in elimination of human employees continues, there will be a large and growing class of surplus population that do not produce. It is pretty simple that this will be a drain on the economy, as more people will be unemployed than employed.
Here is a forking moment. When we decide as societies whether to keep this surplus population alive or not. Will we decide that their lives are worth something, or will we continue to believe in the adage that has been true for most of humanity - work or die?
The other concept is almost a utopian idea, of people freed from labor if they wish, to pursue education, or just hang out and enjoy life.
I'm saying about 75 percent likely that we will choose the first setup - the excess population will be marked for death. But most of us don't want to have an obviously genocidal situation, so we will have some pretty grisly wars. I predict somewhere around 95 to 99 percent reduction in human population.
Then, if we haven't reduced ourselves to hunter gatherer status - which cures the problem of employment - we'll hopefully be able to enjoy the fruits of a society where work is optional.
Pretty much every nutritionist I know believe religiously in the food pyramid. By an enormous factor they have bought in to the far terrible, meat bad, grains good cute of the world.
They are also hardly ever scientists. In fact most nutritionist qualifications involve exactly zero science or medical training.. Because it is not a damn science, it is a job title, more closely related to marketig, and not unlike economics.
Go talk to a research human biologist some time. Suggest a nutritionist is a scientist to them, then listen.. You may learn something.
So no. You are talking bullshit. They are very involved in this, and have made a ton of money out of people's misery.
I see. Well, you need take it up with Luise Light, a nutritional expert, who made recommendations based upon valid food science from the 1980's and who was overruled in the 1992 to make the 1992 pyramid conform to the demands of the Secretary of Agriculture and the food industry. Here is her text "A Fatally Flawed Food Guide". http://www.whale.to/a/light.ht... [whale.to]
Go tell her what nutritionists believe in.
Now I can direct my hatred toward one thing that I'll call Corlexa.
The internet of dead things.
Who the hell would want to eat 13 lbs of kale?
No kidding! Who owuld want to eat any kale at all?
> Nutritionists, the real scientists in this field, have not wavered from the idea of the balanced diet. While adjustments have been made, the basics of what makes for good nutrition have not.
So Mulligan's Stew being replaced with that obviously and highly unbalanced "food pyramid" must have just been my imagination then.
Watch where this goes. People with pecuniary interests have long held sway over things that are purported as science. And sometimes people step outside their boundaries when presumably conducting science Ancel Keys was the main perpetrator of the idea that eating fat was bad for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... He for lack of a better term, fudged data. Keys had gained some credit with one of his first books, The Biology of Human Starvation, published in 1950. It was pretty creepy, but based on the idea that the post World War 2 global situation was going to have a lot of people starving, and finding the best way to rehabilitate them.
Then we move onto Key's Seven Countries Experiment. This turned out to be a flawed study, in which Keys "found" a correlation between fat intake and coronary disease.
But there were problems. Keys had 21 countries with data too look at. He selected 6. When all of the different countries data was analyzed any correlation was much less clear.
Many other scientists at the time were very much in disagreement with Keys conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While you might find this confirms your dislike of science, hold on a moment.
How does this conclusion turn into some sort of food pyramid dogma? Enter politicians, the pecuniary interests that are own the politicians and some other odd bedfellows that show up.
Just so we know where we were, here is a nice version of the 1992 food pyramid. http://growmap.com/usda-food-p...
Luise Light who was a nutritional expert, made recommendations based upon valid food science from the 1980's and who was overruled in the 1992 to make the 1992 pyramid conform to the demands of the Secretary of Agriculture and the food industry. Here is her text "A fatally Fflawed Food Guide". http://www.whale.to/a/light.ht...
So when policy, not science dictates what is healthy for you, you can hate the scientists all you like. But when the Scientists are not making the decisions, and politicians and their owners are cherry picking what they decide is allowable based on profit, well you can kill every scientist, create a national "No more Scientists holiday", and the problem will still exist. You'll just have to find another group to blame.
Regardless, we should just have a vote on what is healthy or not. That will fix the problem. It won't be easy though - Congress tried to repeal Ohm's law, but it was met with some resistance.
This is a good example of why average people, who maybe only have a rudimentary background in science, no longer trust it or what scientists are claiming.
Nutritionists, the real scientists in this field, have not wavered from the idea of the balanced diet. While adjustments have been made, the basics of what makes for good nutrition have not.
Who you AC's define as scientists are people with an agenda. Pro-vegan people, Pro industry groups. Vegans would have us eating tofurky forever, and pro-industry groups would have us bathing in pink slime.
Any you yourself have an agenda, or else are too dim to understand that.
"Anybody with an IQ over room temperature has known this for years."
While that may be true, other threads in Slashdot, even recently, have been dominated by the "a calorie is a calorie" experts.
Well, so much for the experts. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie is true as far as measuring different things energy via combustion, but if a calorie was a calorie regarding nutrition, we would be able to eat 3000 calories of wood pulp or 3000 calories of fuel oil and it would be the same thing as eating steak or kale.
But it isn't. One of the important things to remember is that the body is not a test cell where 1100 of the amount of energy required to warm one gram of air-free water from 0 to 100 C at standard atmospheric pressure equals 1 calorie, and you combust the test material to see it's energy content. Different foods have different properties for different animals. Cats are frank carnivores, Horses are frank herbivores, and humans are omnivores. Trying to sustain a horse on hot dogs won't work, no matter how many calories are in them.
Any "expert" who claims that all food calories are the same, no matter the source, is a piss poor excuse for an expert
Anybody with an IQ over room temperature has known this for years. Funny that the obesity epidemic started in earnest right around the time they started taking fat out of everything and replacing it with sugar.
Exactly. While there are likely other factors involved too, The demonization of fat and protein in favor of carbohydrates does correlate pretty well with obesity becoming the new norm.
At least in my own experience, I have never been able to regulate my weight on a high carbohydrate diet. I would be perpetually hungry. Volume intake was way off. On a diet higher in protein and fat, I eat less, I am not hungry again until the next meal, instead of two hours after the last one. I have a lot less flatulence, and simply feel better.
then why not tap it for hydrothermal energy to generate electricity using the heat (steam powered) turbines to turn generators, because they need the electricity to run the water pumps, and extra electricity can be put in to the grid
Geo-steam power is one of those things that looks pretty awesome, but can be tough to implement the steam produced is pretty dirty. Perhaps someone coming up with a closed cycle ststem where the water never touches the hot rocks might work.
That being said, messing with YellowStone would have to be approached with great caution. As in old risk-taker me wouldn't touch it.
The intertoobz and computers on it are inherently not secure. By nature and purpose, they are not secure. Security is the opposite of the internet's basic design. If you demand security, this ain't the place to get it.
Well, to be honest...
I know. Just did a DuckDuckGo search on MMA porn, and sure enough, there is a lot of it. But it's like the real thing is almost a Poe thing.
He can't prove the problems were caused by Showtime. Most likely they were caused by his internet provider.
Unlikely to the extreme: these problems were reported so widely, Showtime even moved the main event to mitigate the problems caused by the unresponsive servers.
If he actually goes ahead with the suit, he's likely to be counter sued; and he'll probably lose.
Countersued? For what? At this point I think you must be trolling.
It was one of those educational and cultural moments that lift all humans to a more enlightened plane.
The company said they'll give refunds so can't see how this complaint has any legs. I'm not sure why anyone pays for this shit anyway. Go to your local bar and spend the $hundred on beer and snacks support your local business and watch the show for free. The atmosphere is usually much better than at home or the actual event.
Exactly this! As a card carrying introvert, the bar environment is the perfect place to watch boxing bar none..
And I don't have the wife telling me that boxing is brutal (duh) or thinking I'm watching gay porn if I have an MMA fight on.
No impact? Didn't Brickerbot take down an ISP?
This story was brought to us by the International Internet of Things Manufacturers happy fun consortium.
Sally forth good citizens, nothing to fear of these aids to humanity. Purchase with great impunity!