If you have anchors using items with prominent logos, you aren't doing the news, you are doing advertising. Get out of the news business and become an advertiser. I go to watch the news to find out whats going on in the world, not to find out whats going on in the world while being subjected to branding. That's called shilling, and people wonder why the media is trusted less these days.
You're basically asking CNN to go off the air. I'd love it, too, but I know it's not going to happen.
Yes, but doing so puts the snake's health at risk. A snake regurgitating a meal could injure itself and so only does it in an emergency situation. This person is putting the snake's life at risk. This isn't for scientific advances or to somehow help other snakes around the world. This is just a publicity stunt. What's next? Holding a shark still while a guy climbs inside its mouth and videos the way down? I'm sure Discovery could play this next Shark Week alongside their latest "documentary" featuring CGI footage being passed off as real proof that a long-extinct species of shark is swimming around our oceans.
If you watch the youtube video for this special, you'll see that a few years ago Discovery already did the "eaten alive" bit with a shark. Allegedly it was a real incident, but I'm not going to watch it to find out.
Discovery has been pure shit for over a decade. The only nugget of gold in that pile was Dirty Jobs. (Hint: Mythbusters is trash, and no, it didn't encourage interest in science.)
Read the article (it lies) and look at the picture. The Surface isn't being used as a stand. Both anchors have devices in their hands that aren't Surfaces, and nothing is touching the Surfaces.
The vast amount of apps out there are not tablet optimized however, and the majority would actually be hard to use without a keyboard and mouse.
The vast amount of "apps" on the iPad would be vastly improved with keyboard and mouse. The Surface has a great keyboard accessory. You can buy one without it, but it's really a core feature of the device. It also supports wireless mice. You can also use a real keyboard and a real mouse.
Even ignoring that, the programs available for the Windows platform that work great with only the touch screen still VASTLY outnumber the "apps" available for the iPad that work great with only the touch screen.
Right now, you can buy the IOS development kit, which compiles objective-C code to run on the iPad. Objective-C is a Turing-complete language, and can therefore only be implemented in a language that is also Turing complete. the LLVM compiler that ships with the IOS developement kit compiles Objective-c to the instruction set on the iPad. Therefore, the instruction set of the iPad is Turing complete.
QED.
Fail. Compiling from a turing-completele language to an instruction set doesn't mean that the instruction set is turing-complete. It just means the instruction set handles everything the particular compiled program does - it doesn't guarantee full coverage of the source language.
Further, an instruction set being turing-complete doesn't mean the machine implementing it is.
Because they have a paid advertising agreement with microsoft and microsoft is pissed and they're now in damage control mode
Yup. I was particularly amused that their giant touch screen had 2 prominent Microsoft logos - one on the bezel of the screen and one on the giant stand it was on. CNN has an advertising deal with MS to prominently display and use their products. That's fine - their giant touch screen works, the Surface is a great device, and they're actually using these things in ways that make sense. It's far better product placement than the fucking shit MS and Ford shove into sitcoms.
The problem comes about when you let stubborn anchors use their iPads (because they refuse to try/learn anything else) on a 24/7 live feed. There's no fucking way that the iPads are going to remain hidden, and trying to hide them only makes it more glaring once their seen since the Surfaces are featured so prominently.
If you made an agreement with MS to exclusively feature their products, don't let your anchors take iPads with them when they sit in front of the camera. If you have anchors who don't know how to use a Surface, show them how before they're about to go on air with their iPad. If you have irreplaceable anchors who absolutely refuse to switch to a Surface, don't agree to such terms with MS.
King Kong was what it was, and it knew it. Despite being too fucking long it didn't try to outdo the original, and it didn't insult me by pretending that there was more substance to it. I consider it good and decently faithful, but certainly not great. It was an action movie with slight adventure.
LotR may be a decent adaptation, but I consider the source to be extremely overwrought and drawn out, so you're right - there's basically a built-in limit to how much I could possible like the films. Fellowship was easily the least offensive of the 3 movies in that regard, and it certainly wasn't bad enough to put me off of seeing the sequel in the theater (and by the time the third rolled around, I was already invested so I saw that one in the theater too). For the Hobbit, I waited for the fucking BluRays to hit Redbox, and I honestly regret wasting my time with them.
I have seen The Frighteners and I enjoyed it (particularly Fox's performance). It's a unique title and there's certainly more to it than King Kong. I didn't mention it because it's not very well known and I don't consider it enough if a standout piece of Jackson's work to give him a "great". If this had been a week ago I would have grabbed a copy for a viewing on Halloween to show others, though.
Eyes Wide Shut is like a drug-induced fever dream where you take all the sexual tension between Maverick and Goose and use it to try and convince people that Tom Cruise is straight.
And this is where I'll tell you that Stanley Kubrick had one half of a great movie - the first half of Full Metal Jacket.
2001 is the most overrated movie of all time, and yes, the book is fucking shit too (and the sequels are even worse). It's got some great cinematography - great visuals and got a lot of the space scenes right. But the movie itself is a fucking bore with no payoff, regardless of how hard you try to convince yourself that there's some "meaning" to get and that you actually get it. With an editor (for both Kubrick and Clarke) we could have had a decent story. We got some nice visuals, though.
The Shining was good despite the terrible resolution, but I wouldn't consider it great. (The same can be said for most of Stephen King's successful works.)
Spartacus is a fairly shallow action movie that takes itself too seriously. You'll notice I said True Lies was good. This is because True Lies knows what it is and executes the satire, action, and comedy perfectly. It's the Sean of the Dead / Hot Fuzz of 80s early 90s action movies. A Clockwork Orange would have been panned as ridiculous and over-the-top if Kubrick's name wasn't on it. Lolita is the definition of both terrible pacing and tacked-on endings. I don't care much for the source material, so I won't comment on the story itself, but James Mason is really the only reason to even look at this movie. Eyes Wide Shut is like a drug-induced fever dream where you take all the sexual tension between Maverick and Goose and use it to try and convince people that Tom Cruise.
And by the way, we're getting a sequel to Top Gun, whether we like it or not. Tom Cruise's last good movie was Collateral. Nobody fucking asked for Oblivion or Jack Reacher, and nobody gave a shit when they came out. Because they were shit. His bit part in Tropic Thunder was hilarious, and Edge of Tomorrow was better than I expected (I expected pure shit), but it was ultimately a tired, generic "sci-fi" action movie with a time travel presence that was handled better by Bill Murray. Everything Else Tom has touched since Collateral has been a fucking turd.
I was going to use this space to tear into Quentin Tarantino, but I think most people have realized by now that his work is pretty much him engaging in juvenile fantasy. His best works were From Dusk Till Dawn and, surprisingly, Django Unchained (Django got everything right that Inglorious Basterds got wrong). Ultimately, I think people have realized that the only thing bigger than Tarantino's ego is his forehead, and that his works are almost universally fantasy trips for himself, so I don't feel the need to shit on the individual films.
Instead I'll spend the extra bit of time saying that Joss Whedon sucks shit and all of his work sucks shit. Firefly was bad. Get over it. You liked the idea of a decent sci-fi tv series more than you liked Firefly - Firefly was simply the only thing you could pin your hopes on at the time. Whedon's "universe building" was nothing more than vague allusions to a back story that simply didn't exist (reavers, hands of blue, the brown coat shit, the preacher who wasn't a preacher, etc.). This became painfully evident in the "I'm taking my ball and going home" movie - hurr durr, the government is bad, the government did 9/11^w reavers, this young girl has ninja super powers for some reason, and I'm killing off characters in fit of adolescent "they'll be sorry when I'm gone" anger over my show's cancellation. Buffy should have ended at the movie, Dollhouse rightfully flopped, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is rightfully flopping, and The Avengers was... actually decent. I fucking hate Marvel, but The Avengers managed to pull off the amalgam comic book action movie. The sequel will be pure shit, though, as all Marvel comics sequels are. ("But Spiderman 2!", I hear you say - Spiderman 3 was so bad it traveled back in time and made the entire trilogy suck. After 3, you can go back and see how 2 was the bridge that allowed that shit to follow, and you'll
Star Wars has been dead for 30 years. Lucas had ONE great film in his entire career (Star Wars). The 2 worthy sequels were handled primarily by other people, and everything else he's involved himself in has been utter trash.
The same is true of Ridley Scott. Responsible for 1 great film (Alien) and attached to 1 (Blade Runner) that was great despite him fumbling about repeatedly and causing it to be a commercial failure and canonical mess.
As for James Cameron, he had 3 great films (Terminator, Terminator 2, and The Abyss), with a couple good films (Aliens and True Lies). He went full retard with Titanic and it, along with everything has has since or will put out, is shit shit shit.
While we're at it I'll say that Peter Jackson had 0 great movies. His Lord of the Rings adaptations are long and fucking boring (just like the books, but that's beside the point). While I enjoyed the first film the first time through (none of this uber-extended horseshit), the second 2 were simply unbearable. I tries again with the 2 Hobbit films and shit was worse. At least LotR had a mildly interesting plot and actors were acting with each other present. The Hobbit films are just showpieces for shitty 3D, and shitty 48 fps first, to the point where Ian McKellan broke down crying, wanting to quit the films because he was acting in a green box staring a postage stamp sized picture of the other actors eyes. (For the framerate, he should have gone with 60 so it could display on TVs properly, be reduced to 30 for BluRay and be displayed on TVs properly, etc. - all major theaters capably of 48 fps digital projection would have handled 60.) And of course, Avatar was shit shit shit. And we're getting 3 more of them! King Kong was good. Too long, as usual, but good (not great). Surprisingly, Jack Black did his role justice and wasn't a complete clown, as I expected.
Seems if needleless vaccination is your goal, this would be the way to go. Speaking as someone who got a flu shot from one of these it's a pretty painless experience.
Uh, those things aren't supposed to be used for vaccines. Read your own link. There's a risk of transmission from patient to patient.
Surprise, surprise, trashdot retards modded me troll. Shit like the "many worlds" "theory", the fucking "everything is actually a hologram" "theory", and pretty much all of string theory prove my point. It's mathematical wankery based on exactly NOTHING.
The prohibitions in this chapter shall be limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.
That's the big one, but plenty of other examples exist (though I doubt you'd bother to look them up or read them). They're almost all designed protect old people only.
With OTP and related two-factor authentication technology becoming so widely available, one would have hoped that credit cards would implement some type of solution either using OTPs instead of cards, or augmenting them with OTPs. Millions of dollars in fraud prevention, "credit monitoring" and other such services would be saved by simply using solid cryptographic systems for the payment networks.
PCI compliance would probably be a lot less of a headache as well...
What are you saying? Do you even know? A one-time pad isn't going to help SHIT - you have to somehow securely distribute the pads before hand and expect the users to keep them secure. Strong crypto isn't going to help SHIT - the problem isn't securing the connection from the POS to the creditor, it's verifying the authenticity of the transaction itself, be it online or offline. "Two-factor" schemes like a code sent to a phone, an RSA clock, some dongle, whatever are effective against non-realtime attacks. (They're not actually two-factor, though, since you're using a single communication pipe and no one verifies the presence of the actual phone, RSA clock, dongle, or whatever, so it's just another part of "something you know".) Chip-and-pin style transactions cover the same bases at physical POS and is trivial to implement online. We had
Verified by VISA and similar programs for online shit that did everything we needed but there was one critical flaw - no one used it because they didn't have to. The only site I've ever used that actually implemented it was Newegg. And when I accidentally closed the Verified by VISA popup (I assumed it was a shitty 3rd party offer popup and closed it before it loaded), I discovered that failing the Verified by VISA challenge still let my transaction go through because the merchant never wants to miss out on the sale.
PCI compliance will be more of a headache with your OTP fantasy because you have to securely manage the OTPs.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have anchors using items with prominent logos, you aren't doing the news, you are doing advertising. Get out of the news business and become an advertiser. I go to watch the news to find out whats going on in the world, not to find out whats going on in the world while being subjected to branding. That's called shilling, and people wonder why the media is trusted less these days.
You're basically asking CNN to go off the air. I'd love it, too, but I know it's not going to happen.
It's not NSFW - it's a video of a baby arctic fox (I'm not sure if it actually is one or not) nibbling and pawing at some guys toes.
Yes, but doing so puts the snake's health at risk. A snake regurgitating a meal could injure itself and so only does it in an emergency situation. This person is putting the snake's life at risk. This isn't for scientific advances or to somehow help other snakes around the world. This is just a publicity stunt. What's next? Holding a shark still while a guy climbs inside its mouth and videos the way down? I'm sure Discovery could play this next Shark Week alongside their latest "documentary" featuring CGI footage being passed off as real proof that a long-extinct species of shark is swimming around our oceans.
If you watch the youtube video for this special, you'll see that a few years ago Discovery already did the "eaten alive" bit with a shark. Allegedly it was a real incident, but I'm not going to watch it to find out.
Discovery has been pure shit for over a decade. The only nugget of gold in that pile was Dirty Jobs. (Hint: Mythbusters is trash, and no, it didn't encourage interest in science.)
Now I can literally watch another formerly decent channel turn to shit.
"Literally." I don't think that word means what you think it does.
I guess you didn't hear about their new reality show. "Little people swamp loggers taking a big shit in a pawn shop.
Not enough Alaska or gold.
Read the article (it lies) and look at the picture. The Surface isn't being used as a stand. Both anchors have devices in their hands that aren't Surfaces, and nothing is touching the Surfaces.
http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item31550/CNN_Using-Surface3-As-iPad-Stands.jpg
You're a fucking moron. It was being used as a stand by several anchors.
Proof: https://twitter.com/adamUCF/st...
The vast amount of apps out there are not tablet optimized however, and the majority would actually be hard to use without a keyboard and mouse.
The vast amount of "apps" on the iPad would be vastly improved with keyboard and mouse.
The Surface has a great keyboard accessory. You can buy one without it, but it's really a core feature of the device.
It also supports wireless mice.
You can also use a real keyboard and a real mouse.
Even ignoring that, the programs available for the Windows platform that work great with only the touch screen still VASTLY outnumber the "apps" available for the iPad that work great with only the touch screen.
I absolutely can prove it.
Right now, you can buy the IOS development kit, which compiles objective-C code to run on the iPad. Objective-C is a Turing-complete language, and can therefore only be implemented in a language that is also Turing complete. the LLVM compiler that ships with the IOS developement kit compiles Objective-c to the instruction set on the iPad. Therefore, the instruction set of the iPad is Turing complete.
QED.
Fail.
Compiling from a turing-completele language to an instruction set doesn't mean that the instruction set is turing-complete.
It just means the instruction set handles everything the particular compiled program does - it doesn't guarantee full coverage of the source language.
Further, an instruction set being turing-complete doesn't mean the machine implementing it is.
Because they have a paid advertising agreement with microsoft and microsoft is pissed and they're now in damage control mode
Yup. I was particularly amused that their giant touch screen had 2 prominent Microsoft logos - one on the bezel of the screen and one on the giant stand it was on.
CNN has an advertising deal with MS to prominently display and use their products. That's fine - their giant touch screen works, the Surface is a great device, and they're actually using these things in ways that make sense. It's far better product placement than the fucking shit MS and Ford shove into sitcoms.
The problem comes about when you let stubborn anchors use their iPads (because they refuse to try/learn anything else) on a 24/7 live feed. There's no fucking way that the iPads are going to remain hidden, and trying to hide them only makes it more glaring once their seen since the Surfaces are featured so prominently.
If you made an agreement with MS to exclusively feature their products, don't let your anchors take iPads with them when they sit in front of the camera.
If you have anchors who don't know how to use a Surface, show them how before they're about to go on air with their iPad.
If you have irreplaceable anchors who absolutely refuse to switch to a Surface, don't agree to such terms with MS.
CNN clowning around, as usual.
King Kong was what it was, and it knew it. Despite being too fucking long it didn't try to outdo the original, and it didn't insult me by pretending that there was more substance to it. I consider it good and decently faithful, but certainly not great. It was an action movie with slight adventure.
LotR may be a decent adaptation, but I consider the source to be extremely overwrought and drawn out, so you're right - there's basically a built-in limit to how much I could possible like the films. Fellowship was easily the least offensive of the 3 movies in that regard, and it certainly wasn't bad enough to put me off of seeing the sequel in the theater (and by the time the third rolled around, I was already invested so I saw that one in the theater too). For the Hobbit, I waited for the fucking BluRays to hit Redbox, and I honestly regret wasting my time with them.
I have seen The Frighteners and I enjoyed it (particularly Fox's performance). It's a unique title and there's certainly more to it than King Kong. I didn't mention it because it's not very well known and I don't consider it enough if a standout piece of Jackson's work to give him a "great". If this had been a week ago I would have grabbed a copy for a viewing on Halloween to show others, though.
Shit. Lost a couple words when arranging stuff.
Eyes Wide Shut is like a drug-induced fever dream where you take all the sexual tension between Maverick and Goose and use it to try and convince people that Tom Cruise is straight.
And this is where I'll tell you that Stanley Kubrick had one half of a great movie - the first half of Full Metal Jacket.
2001 is the most overrated movie of all time, and yes, the book is fucking shit too (and the sequels are even worse). It's got some great cinematography - great visuals and got a lot of the space scenes right. But the movie itself is a fucking bore with no payoff, regardless of how hard you try to convince yourself that there's some "meaning" to get and that you actually get it. With an editor (for both Kubrick and Clarke) we could have had a decent story. We got some nice visuals, though.
The Shining was good despite the terrible resolution, but I wouldn't consider it great. (The same can be said for most of Stephen King's successful works.)
Spartacus is a fairly shallow action movie that takes itself too seriously. You'll notice I said True Lies was good. This is because True Lies knows what it is and executes the satire, action, and comedy perfectly. It's the Sean of the Dead / Hot Fuzz of 80s early 90s action movies.
A Clockwork Orange would have been panned as ridiculous and over-the-top if Kubrick's name wasn't on it.
Lolita is the definition of both terrible pacing and tacked-on endings. I don't care much for the source material, so I won't comment on the story itself, but James Mason is really the only reason to even look at this movie.
Eyes Wide Shut is like a drug-induced fever dream where you take all the sexual tension between Maverick and Goose and use it to try and convince people that Tom Cruise.
And by the way, we're getting a sequel to Top Gun, whether we like it or not. Tom Cruise's last good movie was Collateral. Nobody fucking asked for Oblivion or Jack Reacher, and nobody gave a shit when they came out. Because they were shit. His bit part in Tropic Thunder was hilarious, and Edge of Tomorrow was better than I expected (I expected pure shit), but it was ultimately a tired, generic "sci-fi" action movie with a time travel presence that was handled better by Bill Murray. Everything Else Tom has touched since Collateral has been a fucking turd.
I was going to use this space to tear into Quentin Tarantino, but I think most people have realized by now that his work is pretty much him engaging in juvenile fantasy. His best works were From Dusk Till Dawn and, surprisingly, Django Unchained (Django got everything right that Inglorious Basterds got wrong). Ultimately, I think people have realized that the only thing bigger than Tarantino's ego is his forehead, and that his works are almost universally fantasy trips for himself, so I don't feel the need to shit on the individual films.
Instead I'll spend the extra bit of time saying that Joss Whedon sucks shit and all of his work sucks shit. Firefly was bad. Get over it. You liked the idea of a decent sci-fi tv series more than you liked Firefly - Firefly was simply the only thing you could pin your hopes on at the time. Whedon's "universe building" was nothing more than vague allusions to a back story that simply didn't exist (reavers, hands of blue, the brown coat shit, the preacher who wasn't a preacher, etc.). This became painfully evident in the "I'm taking my ball and going home" movie - hurr durr, the government is bad, the government did 9/11^w reavers, this young girl has ninja super powers for some reason, and I'm killing off characters in fit of adolescent "they'll be sorry when I'm gone" anger over my show's cancellation.
Buffy should have ended at the movie, Dollhouse rightfully flopped, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is rightfully flopping, and The Avengers was... actually decent. I fucking hate Marvel, but The Avengers managed to pull off the amalgam comic book action movie. The sequel will be pure shit, though, as all Marvel comics sequels are. ("But Spiderman 2!", I hear you say - Spiderman 3 was so bad it traveled back in time and made the entire trilogy suck. After 3, you can go back and see how 2 was the bridge that allowed that shit to follow, and you'll
Star Wars has been dead for 30 years.
Lucas had ONE great film in his entire career (Star Wars). The 2 worthy sequels were handled primarily by other people, and everything else he's involved himself in has been utter trash.
The same is true of Ridley Scott. Responsible for 1 great film (Alien) and attached to 1 (Blade Runner) that was great despite him fumbling about repeatedly and causing it to be a commercial failure and canonical mess.
As for James Cameron, he had 3 great films (Terminator, Terminator 2, and The Abyss), with a couple good films (Aliens and True Lies). He went full retard with Titanic and it, along with everything has has since or will put out, is shit shit shit.
While we're at it I'll say that Peter Jackson had 0 great movies. His Lord of the Rings adaptations are long and fucking boring (just like the books, but that's beside the point). While I enjoyed the first film the first time through (none of this uber-extended horseshit), the second 2 were simply unbearable. I tries again with the 2 Hobbit films and shit was worse. At least LotR had a mildly interesting plot and actors were acting with each other present. The Hobbit films are just showpieces for shitty 3D, and shitty 48 fps first, to the point where Ian McKellan broke down crying, wanting to quit the films because he was acting in a green box staring a postage stamp sized picture of the other actors eyes. (For the framerate, he should have gone with 60 so it could display on TVs properly, be reduced to 30 for BluRay and be displayed on TVs properly, etc. - all major theaters capably of 48 fps digital projection would have handled 60.) And of course, Avatar was shit shit shit. And we're getting 3 more of them! King Kong was good. Too long, as usual, but good (not great). Surprisingly, Jack Black did his role justice and wasn't a complete clown, as I expected.
without a needle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
Seems if needleless vaccination is your goal, this would be the way to go. Speaking as someone who got a flu shot from one of these it's a pretty painless experience.
Uh, those things aren't supposed to be used for vaccines. Read your own link. There's a risk of transmission from patient to patient.
Space Dandy did it. Be more original.
Surprise, surprise, trashdot retards modded me troll.
Shit like the "many worlds" "theory", the fucking "everything is actually a hologram" "theory", and pretty much all of string theory prove my point.
It's mathematical wankery based on exactly NOTHING.
The people researching this shit generally have fruit loops for brains. They prefer wild, unsupported fantasies over everything else.
And T-Mobile hasn't rolled out 4.4 on the Note II. They likely never will.
All other major carriers did this months ago.
Wrong, as usual, AK Marc.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
AGE LIMITS
SEC. 631. [Section 12]
(a) Individuals of at least 40 years of age
The prohibitions in this chapter shall be limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.
That's the big one, but plenty of other examples exist (though I doubt you'd bother to look them up or read them). They're almost all designed protect old people only.
It's probably because people actually use GitHub.
Does Google+ have a Facebook page?
Nobody in the world uses "OTP" to refer to a single-use password.
LOL
Everytime my watch shows a new time, that's a one-time pad too!
With OTP and related two-factor authentication technology becoming so widely available, one would have hoped that credit cards would implement some type of solution either using OTPs instead of cards, or augmenting them with OTPs. Millions of dollars in fraud prevention, "credit monitoring" and other such services would be saved by simply using solid cryptographic systems for the payment networks.
PCI compliance would probably be a lot less of a headache as well...
What are you saying? Do you even know?
A one-time pad isn't going to help SHIT - you have to somehow securely distribute the pads before hand and expect the users to keep them secure.
Strong crypto isn't going to help SHIT - the problem isn't securing the connection from the POS to the creditor, it's verifying the authenticity of the transaction itself, be it online or offline.
"Two-factor" schemes like a code sent to a phone, an RSA clock, some dongle, whatever are effective against non-realtime attacks. (They're not actually two-factor, though, since you're using a single communication pipe and no one verifies the presence of the actual phone, RSA clock, dongle, or whatever, so it's just another part of "something you know".) Chip-and-pin style transactions cover the same bases at physical POS and is trivial to implement online. We had
Verified by VISA and similar programs for online shit that did everything we needed but there was one critical flaw - no one used it because they didn't have to. The only site I've ever used that actually implemented it was Newegg. And when I accidentally closed the Verified by VISA popup (I assumed it was a shitty 3rd party offer popup and closed it before it loaded), I discovered that failing the Verified by VISA challenge still let my transaction go through because the merchant never wants to miss out on the sale.
PCI compliance will be more of a headache with your OTP fantasy because you have to securely manage the OTPs.
Completely agree. Single sign-on is fucking retarded.
And this is why we can't have nice things.
No, it's precisely why we DO have nice things.
99% of the time the best answer is not the one you want.
The best one is the anti age discrimination shit that only applies to age discrimination against people over a certain age.