"The world's seventh-biggest gold producer has lost more than nine drones because of eagle attacks."
So... ten drones, then?
Actually, no. It's more retarded than that. In this case, "more than nine" means exactly nine: One crashed as a result of human error, while nine have been taken down by wedge-tailed eagles
Fucking humans keep breeding more and more cows, not to mention all the other ways they're polluting the environment. I say we kill and eat those fuckers instead!
Sure. The color and flavor will be a bit weird to them, but who knows... they may like it.
Note, however, that this just reduces methane and doesn't eliminate the actual fart. The paper also doesn't say whether it has any effect on the amount of methyl mercaptan, which is what actually makes your elderly uncles' farts smell so bad, so the only benefit may be fewer uncles lighting their farts at the table.
Compared to terra cotta and slate? Asphalt shingles are lighter, more compact, cheaper and far less likely to be damaged during shipping and installation.
Just because something is in popular uses doesn't mean it's actually good.
I didn't say asphalt shingles were good. They're more easily damaged, more easily torn off by high winds, and wear out faster than other roofing materials. They're used because they're the cheapest roofing material and they're easy to install and the building contractors who default to them don't really give a shit about what happens ten years down the road.
They couldn't provide any evidence to support their claim when challenged
That sounds more like laziness. Martin Shkreli and the price of Daraprim would be an easy example and I think that stayed in the news long enough for everyone who wasn't being held prisoner in a cave for the past year to have heard about it.
Note that I'm not saying that all pharmaceutical companies behave that way. I'm just pointing out that it's not hard to find examples where one has behaved in the most evil, greedy way possible.
While I don't think there's any actual chance of her ever being revived and cured, I'd be willing to bet that the thought that there was a chance (however slim) helped the girl accept her situation and made her last days a lot less hellish than they might have otherwise been.
That's obvious. If you had, you'd have noticed that they're comparing the price to terra cotta and slate roofs, not "impermeable sheats of $SOMETHING", and those materials are bulky, heavy, fragile and expensive.
And $400k/year is in no way comparable to the top end of the 1%, but you missed my obvious point so I'm guessing you won't understand why that matters.
I was responding to a blanket statement about private flight being out of reach to people making $400k/year and a low end plane is the appropriate thing to be looking at when talking about private flight for the low-end of the 1%.
You're trying to understand it from the wrong point of view. Think of it from a marketing executive's POV...
Gamers push back against obvious ads in games, so we've come up with a more subtle and effective method of advertising by allowing gamers to connect the game to the smart devices in their homes.
Let's say we want to make a deal with PepsiCo to push the Game Fuel flavor of Mountain Dew. If a gamer has connected to a smart fridge, the game can detect how many bottles of Game Fuel are in the fridge. Based on that number, we give them a boost in energy in the game. More bottles, more energy. PepsiCo gets a sales boost and we get advertising dollars above and beyond the profit we make on the game.
In other words, it's another crass attempt to take consumers' information and make money from it, privacy be damned.
The idea of someone (technically a household, most 1% households are two income) earning only 400K and flying private is ridiculous.
You're thinking "private luxury jet", but that is not the only way to fly privately, so it's not as ridiculous as you think. The numbers on that page are for a low-end plane (an older Cessna), but $400k/year is the low end of the 1% so it seems appropriate. The highest number on that page, $32k/year, is well within the reach of someone making $400k/year if they want it.
You might not quite grasp the fact that you've gotten older, but the 70s (when the conjecture of global cooling gained brief popularity before being disproven) were 40 years ago. 40 is not a few.
Yes. I was, in fact, talking about strawman arguments. I made a ridiculous one to mock how ridiculous the one I was responding to was. The word for that is "sarcasm".
Considering that my very next sentence brought up the strawman nature of the argument, it should have been painfully obvious that it was sarcasm. And yet here you are, completely missing the point.
Are you going to argue that the southeast shouldn't have rain and claim that becoming a lifeless desert is preferable to the possibility of more frequent/severe tornadoes?
Or are you just going continue to make up more ridiculous strawman arguments that you wish climate activists would make because it would make them easier to dismiss?
No. The intention here is to make a profit by fulfilling a consumer demand that is currently unfulfilled. There are men who would like a form of birth control like this (preferably without side effects, of course).
Thanks to modern science, it is entirely possible for a woman who to be impregnated by a man she has never met, much less had sex with.
A quick search says that there were over 60,000 children conceived through in vitro fertilization in 2012, so it's likely that some of those pregnancies were in women who weren't having sex with anyone. Who knows, there may have been a few virgins in the bunch. Maybe we should start a religion!
I'm sad to channel my abstinence only parents (who were right), but the only effective way of preventing pregnancy is abstinence..
Only if you ignore anal, oral, fingering, hand jobs, toy play, gay sex and innumerable other iterations of two people getting each other off. There are a LOT ways to have sex with no chance of pregnancy. Your parents were just hung up on the archaic idea that sex = penis in vagina.
All of the commercially-available (and female-targeted) contraceptives have at least 3-nines effectiveness, and the popular ones have 7-nines effectiveness.
Well, there's some BS. Absolutely no company makes claims of 99.99999% effectiveness of their product and there has never been a study large enough to provide that level of accuracy. There's plenty of real evidence that female birth control pills are more effective than this without you spewing ridiculous numbers.
Unless i'm mistaken in my interpretation of statistics, this is a complete failure
You are mistaken.
A complete failure would be either no change to or an increase in the chance of pregnancy over no protection at all. This treatment reduced the risk of pregnancy from 15-30% to 4%.
This may not be the most effective birth control method ever tested, but it is by no means a complete failure (and it's still in the R&D stage, so the final product may be more effective).
instead of jumping right to pressing felony charges against the guy - whatever happened to making stupid kids perform lots of community service time as payback for doing stupid things?
I think your memory may be impaired. Allowing kids to be arbitrarily sentenced by authorities without giving them the benefit of a trial would be quite unconstitutional and would almost certainly wind up being abused. It's never been a thing that we did in the past and it's not something that should be done now.
The only horse shit here is your implication that I argued that people want commercials. I did nothing of the sort.
People have said for years that they wanted to be able to buy cable channels a la carte rather than as a bundle and those channels have commercials. This is basically what those people asked for and about a million of those people have subscribed.
You aren't one of those people because you hate commercials, but that doesn't change the facts that I presented. Believe it or not, you do not speak for everyone and you especially don't speak for the million or so people who are paying money for the service, commercials and all.
CBS All Access"... is a network TV channel's obscure streaming site
It's not really obscure. They already have about a million subscribers and it may already profitable, though they don't seem to have released individual numbers for the HBO and CBS streaming services so it's impossible to tell. The new content will almost certainly help increase those numbers.
For decades there have been people saying that wanted cable TV to let them buy individual channels instead of a bundle because the increased cost for the handful of channels they want would still be cheaper than the bundled price for 300 channels that they don't want. This gives them what they asked for and it turns out that about a million people weren't just talking out of their ass.
Slashdot Mirror
"The world's seventh-biggest gold producer has lost more than nine drones because of eagle attacks."
So... ten drones, then?
Actually, no. It's more retarded than that. In this case, "more than nine" means exactly nine:
One crashed as a result of human error, while nine have been taken down by wedge-tailed eagles
Fucking humans keep breeding more and more cows, not to mention all the other ways they're polluting the environment. I say we kill and eat those fuckers instead!
Sure. The color and flavor will be a bit weird to them, but who knows... they may like it.
Note, however, that this just reduces methane and doesn't eliminate the actual fart. The paper also doesn't say whether it has any effect on the amount of methyl mercaptan, which is what actually makes your elderly uncles' farts smell so bad, so the only benefit may be fewer uncles lighting their farts at the table.
And asphalt shingles aren't?
Compared to terra cotta and slate? Asphalt shingles are lighter, more compact, cheaper and far less likely to be damaged during shipping and installation.
Just because something is in popular uses doesn't mean it's actually good.
I didn't say asphalt shingles were good. They're more easily damaged, more easily torn off by high winds, and wear out faster than other roofing materials. They're used because they're the cheapest roofing material and they're easy to install and the building contractors who default to them don't really give a shit about what happens ten years down the road.
They couldn't provide any evidence to support their claim when challenged
That sounds more like laziness. Martin Shkreli and the price of Daraprim would be an easy example and I think that stayed in the news long enough for everyone who wasn't being held prisoner in a cave for the past year to have heard about it.
Note that I'm not saying that all pharmaceutical companies behave that way. I'm just pointing out that it's not hard to find examples where one has behaved in the most evil, greedy way possible.
While I don't think there's any actual chance of her ever being revived and cured, I'd be willing to bet that the thought that there was a chance (however slim) helped the girl accept her situation and made her last days a lot less hellish than they might have otherwise been.
"Tiny pieces of frozen head sprayed around the room."
There's a sentence I didn't think I'd ever see in a non-fiction story.
I didn't read TFA
That's obvious. If you had, you'd have noticed that they're comparing the price to terra cotta and slate roofs, not "impermeable sheats of $SOMETHING", and those materials are bulky, heavy, fragile and expensive.
And $400k/year is in no way comparable to the top end of the 1%, but you missed my obvious point so I'm guessing you won't understand why that matters.
I was responding to a blanket statement about private flight being out of reach to people making $400k/year and a low end plane is the appropriate thing to be looking at when talking about private flight for the low-end of the 1%.
You're trying to understand it from the wrong point of view. Think of it from a marketing executive's POV...
Gamers push back against obvious ads in games, so we've come up with a more subtle and effective method of advertising by allowing gamers to connect the game to the smart devices in their homes.
Let's say we want to make a deal with PepsiCo to push the Game Fuel flavor of Mountain Dew. If a gamer has connected to a smart fridge, the game can detect how many bottles of Game Fuel are in the fridge. Based on that number, we give them a boost in energy in the game. More bottles, more energy. PepsiCo gets a sales boost and we get advertising dollars above and beyond the profit we make on the game.
In other words, it's another crass attempt to take consumers' information and make money from it, privacy be damned.
The idea of someone (technically a household, most 1% households are two income) earning only 400K and flying private is ridiculous.
You're thinking "private luxury jet", but that is not the only way to fly privately, so it's not as ridiculous as you think. The numbers on that page are for a low-end plane (an older Cessna), but $400k/year is the low end of the 1% so it seems appropriate. The highest number on that page, $32k/year, is well within the reach of someone making $400k/year if they want it.
[citation provided]
You might not quite grasp the fact that you've gotten older, but the 70s (when the conjecture of global cooling gained brief popularity before being disproven) were 40 years ago. 40 is not a few.
Yes. I was, in fact, talking about strawman arguments. I made a ridiculous one to mock how ridiculous the one I was responding to was. The word for that is "sarcasm".
Considering that my very next sentence brought up the strawman nature of the argument, it should have been painfully obvious that it was sarcasm. And yet here you are, completely missing the point.
Are you going to argue that the southeast shouldn't have rain and claim that becoming a lifeless desert is preferable to the possibility of more frequent/severe tornadoes?
Or are you just going continue to make up more ridiculous strawman arguments that you wish climate activists would make because it would make them easier to dismiss?
You are greatly underestimating the power of idiots to dispute reality.
"naberhood"? Really? And half a dozen punctuation/capitalization errors, too.
No. The intention here is to make a profit by fulfilling a consumer demand that is currently unfulfilled. There are men who would like a form of birth control like this (preferably without side effects, of course).
Thanks to modern science, it is entirely possible for a woman who to be impregnated by a man she has never met, much less had sex with.
A quick search says that there were over 60,000 children conceived through in vitro fertilization in 2012, so it's likely that some of those pregnancies were in women who weren't having sex with anyone. Who knows, there may have been a few virgins in the bunch. Maybe we should start a religion!
I'm sad to channel my abstinence only parents (who were right), but the only effective way of preventing pregnancy is abstinence..
Only if you ignore anal, oral, fingering, hand jobs, toy play, gay sex and innumerable other iterations of two people getting each other off. There are a LOT ways to have sex with no chance of pregnancy. Your parents were just hung up on the archaic idea that sex = penis in vagina.
All of the commercially-available (and female-targeted) contraceptives have at least 3-nines effectiveness, and the popular ones have 7-nines effectiveness.
Well, there's some BS. Absolutely no company makes claims of 99.99999% effectiveness of their product and there has never been a study large enough to provide that level of accuracy. There's plenty of real evidence that female birth control pills are more effective than this without you spewing ridiculous numbers.
Unless i'm mistaken in my interpretation of statistics, this is a complete failure
You are mistaken.
A complete failure would be either no change to or an increase in the chance of pregnancy over no protection at all. This treatment reduced the risk of pregnancy from 15-30% to 4%.
This may not be the most effective birth control method ever tested, but it is by no means a complete failure (and it's still in the R&D stage, so the final product may be more effective).
instead of jumping right to pressing felony charges against the guy - whatever happened to making stupid kids perform lots of community service time as payback for doing stupid things?
I think your memory may be impaired. Allowing kids to be arbitrarily sentenced by authorities without giving them the benefit of a trial would be quite unconstitutional and would almost certainly wind up being abused. It's never been a thing that we did in the past and it's not something that should be done now.
The only horse shit here is your implication that I argued that people want commercials. I did nothing of the sort.
People have said for years that they wanted to be able to buy cable channels a la carte rather than as a bundle and those channels have commercials. This is basically what those people asked for and about a million of those people have subscribed.
You aren't one of those people because you hate commercials, but that doesn't change the facts that I presented. Believe it or not, you do not speak for everyone and you especially don't speak for the million or so people who are paying money for the service, commercials and all.
CBS All Access" ... is a network TV channel's obscure streaming site
It's not really obscure. They already have about a million subscribers and it may already profitable, though they don't seem to have released individual numbers for the HBO and CBS streaming services so it's impossible to tell. The new content will almost certainly help increase those numbers.
For decades there have been people saying that wanted cable TV to let them buy individual channels instead of a bundle because the increased cost for the handful of channels they want would still be cheaper than the bundled price for 300 channels that they don't want. This gives them what they asked for and it turns out that about a million people weren't just talking out of their ass.