Respect? hmm, civility, courtesy, maybe, not sure why I'd _respect_ him as a public figure although I'm sure that being that he's an ass as a private person, I'm quite sure I'd have nothing but contempt for him in person. Moreover, I'm not being an ass to this potentially dying man, I'm sure the sycophants (and loved ones, he must have some) surrounding him are quite enough in number to overcome the strong indifference that I feel regarding his circumstances.
and you're afraid that SJ is going to what? cry? Get depressed about it? Shit! The guy has a god complex, his main concern is probably what will happen to his people after he is gone. Will they continue to thrive? Will they suffer? Should he take them all with him (fanboys included)?
That's the best you've got? Are you claiming that these corporations don't benefit from putting people on maintenance drug programs? That doctors don't benefit from people being chronically sick? I see my doctor once every couple of years, at most. I am sure he's much happier and profits more from the cheetos eating masses that are in to see him more than once a year. Yeah, I should go in for check-ups, but really, what would my doctor do? Ask me if I feel ok, check my heart rate and blood pressure, then what? $40 co-pay plus whatever he gets from my insurance. Hang that!
What's your angle Rakarra? What drug(s) are you pushing? Or, is your dad/mom/boyfriend a doctor?
Actually no, 'Real' medicine works if the corporation presenting the results of its findings can be selective enough in the data it presents to the FDA to convince some overworked and underpaid government worker that approving such a medicine will help their chances of employment at a future time with the company submitting the data. Either that or the former VP of the drug manufacturer will strongarm his underlings into approving what his former colleagues are submitting... Drug companies nowadays exist primarily as profit making machines, there is no altruism and no thoughts of what is better for humanity, just what is good for the corporation and its stockholders.
you're going to pick on sea salt? C'mon, it's not like I was pushing Himalayan Iceberg salt, just regular old sea salt. The reason I only use sea salt is because it has no additives like other table salt does. It also has higher mineral contents which is relevant if getting minerals is important to you. Did I really at any point say that I chose sea salt because of its intense/subtle/exotic flavor? No, so not sure why you took that detour.
Overpaying? Do I really care that much about paying $4 vs $2 for an item that is going to last about 3-4 months? Not really, not an issue at this particular juncture in my life. If I should hit the rocks, maybe I'll fall back to Springfield or Morton salt, until then, I'll choose what I prefer.
well,there is the part I mentioned where studies were done on men and the thirst sensation decreases with increasing age. However, my point was, and is, you have similar proof of people not being dehydrated as I do of people being dehydrated. So lets drop the you said it first, you prove it games. Also, the important claim is not "most people are dehydrated", the important claim is, "people very often get better (heal) from drinking more water." Most drugs don't cure, there's no money in curing people, and very importantly, the drugs don't address the root cause of the problem, because they don't know what it is. Antibiotics and antivirals of course do work and fantastically so, so don't trot those out. I object to the bullshit "modern" medicines for things like ADD, acid reflux "disease", etc.
and yet people are sicker and sicker and suffer from diseases of unknown origin. You can continue to cling to your corporately instituted beliefs that drugs which cause more harm than good (read the contra-indications?) are the end-all be-all of healing. I'll stick to water (and adequate amounts of sea salt), it's contra-indications are: might make you piss more.
The claim that most people are not dehydrated has never been proven in any credible manner, why do you believe it to be true. It has been proven that as men age (no women in the study) they lose their thirst sensation even when clinically dehydrated. I don't know that "most people are dehydrated" but Dr. Batman's claims were that many of the diseases which just "pop-up" are caused by localized drought conditions precipitated by a unique individual's metabolic adaptations chronic water shortage. That is, certain bodies decide to short different parts of the system those that get the short shrift with water, go bad => disease. I'm not sure I buy that all diseases are caused by water shortage as I think a lot of them are caused by the nutrient-poor diet of those that eat "food" produced by the agro-chemi-industrial complex, however, drinking purified water can't hurt.
I will, of course, keep drinking my water, thanks for permission to continue doing so; why, I don't know what I'd do if Abcd1234 had not given me permission to do so. Imagine the mental anguish torn between Abcd1234's admonition and the clear benefit that my body receives from drinking water, oh the agony!
I call bullshit on your bullshit. I also call bullshit on snopes.com
I read the books, he based his findings on research (not reading as snopes.com claims). Clinical research on people who got better following his regiment. I myself have been diagnosed at various times with asthma, post-nasal drip (cough) which would require surgery to fix... After finding out about "The Water Cure" and drinking the requisite 8+ glasses of (purified/filtered) water per day, the cough (which was the primary manifestation of my dehydration) has stayed away for now about 3 years. I had a lapse not too long ago where I stopped taking water for a while (too busy) and the damn cough came back. So, believe what you want to believe but just know that most of what you believe about healing and your health is based on the claims of corporations and doctors (who learned what they know from the same corporations) who benefit from your poor health. I think the placebos would work great if the patients were advised to take them 3 times a day with a full glass of water in between meals. That's how the water is best absorbed and metabolized by your system.
why not train them within their allotted union-agreed time? It is your fault that the workstations weren't properly set up for the level of training the user had received etc as AC has posted. Why wouldn't they hinder progress unless it benefits them? Isn't that how a company makes decisions as well? Do they move from cotton baler A (100 bales/hr) to cotton baler B (90 bales/hr) just because it can better protect an employee? No. They'll move to B when it becomes C, can do 120 bales/hr and if it happens to have the safety features too, fine, whatever. The whole point of unions is, someone looking out for something other than the company's bottom line, the balance reached between two closely balanced factions should result in adequate decisions being made.
the complaint, as I understand it is that baboons with zero training in the skills required for the job (the ones willing to work at the employer's preferred labor rates) are more likely to cause more injuries due to being completely incompetent to operate the equipment that runs at the plant, or handle the materials used in said plan.
... especially when logic dictates it is fucking ludacris.
When exactly did Ludacris become involved? Do you have proof that he did it? Why if your proof is so solid is Ludacris still a free man? Nothing here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludacris indicates involvement with terrorist organizations.
P.S. I believe he prefers that you capitalize his name, even if it is a stage name and even if you think he's a terrorist.
hmm, you really believe this? You should go back to church and pray about it.
They could give a rats ass what you do within the borders of your country. If we weren't the meddlesome assholes that we are (as a country not individually, except perhaps for yourself) they would leave us well enough alone the same way they do Korea, China, Japan, Mexico, etc. It is the meddlesomeness they resent not our idiotic religious beliefs (again, as a country not individually, except perhaps for yourself) such as "streets paved with gold"(that absurdity boggles the mind on many levels).
you had to pick that particular brand though for your argument to have any chance at being credible. Most brands are not Apple. Most computers are as interchangeable as tube socks, so are TVs, Computer Monitors, floaties, rebar, screws, etc. Thus many chinese manufacturers are entering the US market with their little known brands and very sophisticated products, its easy when you're already producing something to slap your own brand on it. What informed consumer wouldn't choose the identical product which is much cheaper due to not being burdened by R&D, advertising, stockholders...? I say screw these stupid multinationals, let their products get copied and sold in the western markets, they didn't care about our jobs, why should we care about their IP?
these are self-labeled anarchists? The only anarchists I'm familiar wear Doc's and mohawks and enjoy elbowing friends to loud music.
Anarchists really? I want to decimate the military, actually more, I'd like to cut it to 1/10th it's size at most and I think I'm not an anarchist. I think there are a lot of people who don't consider themselves anarchists who would like to see a smaller military.
Again, what makes them anarchists? The fact that they want a smaller military, or the fact that they are libertarians?
I would have thought the anarchists would not belong to any party, sort of by definition, knowhatImean?;-)
what I question at root is how does: dismantling military = anarchy? Can you read ACs mind and answer or maybe you can explain how you equate the two?
sorry to ramble I wanted to really get clear what I am asking to be explained as I find such strident opinions fascinating and wish to understand their roots.
(I hope to, one day, be rich, and I'd like to keep my money after all that hard work and not be labeled a 'fat cat', thanks).
Try this, put all your hope in one hand, shit into the other, check which one fills up first.
Don't lump me in with either of these idiotic parties, please.
Will just chalk you up as a teabagger then, happy?
It is your irrational hope of one day being rich that makes you vote alongside those whose peer you wish you could one day be, never realizing that it will never ever happen. They (the rich) are happy to string you along since your vote counts as much as any other idiot's vote who votes against his own economic interests.
are you then stating that the US is a police (military) controlled state and thus dismantling the military would result in or is equivalent to anarchy? Help me here, cause I don't see the tie-in between dismantling the military and anarchy. If the military is the only thing preventing anarchy, then the country has fallen further than I am aware of and our basic liberties nothing more than talking points.
Slashdot Mirror
Respect? hmm, civility, courtesy, maybe, not sure why I'd _respect_ him as a public figure although I'm sure that being that he's an ass as a private person, I'm quite sure I'd have nothing but contempt for him in person. Moreover, I'm not being an ass to this potentially dying man, I'm sure the sycophants (and loved ones, he must have some) surrounding him are quite enough in number to overcome the strong indifference that I feel regarding his circumstances.
and you're afraid that SJ is going to what? cry? Get depressed about it? Shit! The guy has a god complex, his main concern is probably what will happen to his people after he is gone. Will they continue to thrive? Will they suffer? Should he take them all with him (fanboys included)?
citation please. I do agree and want to believe but laziness prevent me googling and filtering
meant he let his bot take over after the first paragraph.
seems more like maybe he let his bot take over after the last paragraph. I say his bot did not pass the Turing test.
That's the best you've got? Are you claiming that these corporations don't benefit from putting people on maintenance drug programs? That doctors don't benefit from people being chronically sick? I see my doctor once every couple of years, at most. I am sure he's much happier and profits more from the cheetos eating masses that are in to see him more than once a year. Yeah, I should go in for check-ups, but really, what would my doctor do? Ask me if I feel ok, check my heart rate and blood pressure, then what? $40 co-pay plus whatever he gets from my insurance. Hang that!
What's your angle Rakarra? What drug(s) are you pushing? Or, is your dad/mom/boyfriend a doctor?
Actually no, 'Real' medicine works if the corporation presenting the results of its findings can be selective enough in the data it presents to the FDA to convince some overworked and underpaid government worker that approving such a medicine will help their chances of employment at a future time with the company submitting the data. Either that or the former VP of the drug manufacturer will strongarm his underlings into approving what his former colleagues are submitting... Drug companies nowadays exist primarily as profit making machines, there is no altruism and no thoughts of what is better for humanity, just what is good for the corporation and its stockholders.
you're going to pick on sea salt? C'mon, it's not like I was pushing Himalayan Iceberg salt, just regular old sea salt. The reason I only use sea salt is because it has no additives like other table salt does. It also has higher mineral contents which is relevant if getting minerals is important to you. Did I really at any point say that I chose sea salt because of its intense/subtle/exotic flavor? No, so not sure why you took that detour.
Overpaying? Do I really care that much about paying $4 vs $2 for an item that is going to last about 3-4 months? Not really, not an issue at this particular juncture in my life. If I should hit the rocks, maybe I'll fall back to Springfield or Morton salt, until then, I'll choose what I prefer.
well,there is the part I mentioned where studies were done on men and the thirst sensation decreases with increasing age. However, my point was, and is, you have similar proof of people not being dehydrated as I do of people being dehydrated. So lets drop the you said it first, you prove it games. Also, the important claim is not "most people are dehydrated", the important claim is, "people very often get better (heal) from drinking more water."
Most drugs don't cure, there's no money in curing people, and very importantly, the drugs don't address the root cause of the problem, because they don't know what it is. Antibiotics and antivirals of course do work and fantastically so, so don't trot those out. I object to the bullshit "modern" medicines for things like ADD, acid reflux "disease", etc.
good one! Meant regimen of course, but, nice catch.
and yet people are sicker and sicker and suffer from diseases of unknown origin. You can continue to cling to your corporately instituted beliefs that drugs which cause more harm than good (read the contra-indications?) are the end-all be-all of healing. I'll stick to water (and adequate amounts of sea salt), it's contra-indications are: might make you piss more.
The claim that most people are not dehydrated has never been proven in any credible manner, why do you believe it to be true. It has been proven that as men age (no women in the study) they lose their thirst sensation even when clinically dehydrated. I don't know that "most people are dehydrated" but Dr. Batman's claims were that many of the diseases which just "pop-up" are caused by localized drought conditions precipitated by a unique individual's metabolic adaptations chronic water shortage. That is, certain bodies decide to short different parts of the system those that get the short shrift with water, go bad => disease. I'm not sure I buy that all diseases are caused by water shortage as I think a lot of them are caused by the nutrient-poor diet of those that eat "food" produced by the agro-chemi-industrial complex, however, drinking purified water can't hurt.
I will, of course, keep drinking my water, thanks for permission to continue doing so; why, I don't know what I'd do if Abcd1234 had not given me permission to do so. Imagine the mental anguish torn between Abcd1234's admonition and the clear benefit that my body receives from drinking water, oh the agony!
I call bullshit on your bullshit. I also call bullshit on snopes.com
I read the books, he based his findings on research (not reading as snopes.com claims). Clinical research on people who got better following his regiment.
I myself have been diagnosed at various times with asthma, post-nasal drip (cough) which would require surgery to fix...
After finding out about "The Water Cure" and drinking the requisite 8+ glasses of (purified/filtered) water per day, the cough (which was the primary manifestation of my dehydration) has stayed away for now about 3 years. I had a lapse not too long ago where I stopped taking water for a while (too busy) and the damn cough came back. So, believe what you want to believe but just know that most of what you believe about healing and your health is based on the claims of corporations and doctors (who learned what they know from the same corporations) who benefit from your poor health. I think the placebos would work great if the patients were advised to take them 3 times a day with a full glass of water in between meals. That's how the water is best absorbed and metabolized by your system.
why not train them within their allotted union-agreed time? It is your fault that the workstations weren't properly set up for the level of training the user had received etc as AC has posted. Why wouldn't they hinder progress unless it benefits them? Isn't that how a company makes decisions as well? Do they move from cotton baler A (100 bales/hr) to cotton baler B (90 bales/hr) just because it can better protect an employee? No. They'll move to B when it becomes C, can do 120 bales/hr and if it happens to have the safety features too, fine, whatever. The whole point of unions is, someone looking out for something other than the company's bottom line, the balance reached between two closely balanced factions should result in adequate decisions being made.
the complaint, as I understand it is that baboons with zero training in the skills required for the job (the ones willing to work at the employer's preferred labor rates) are more likely to cause more injuries due to being completely incompetent to operate the equipment that runs at the plant, or handle the materials used in said plan.
... especially when logic dictates it is fucking ludacris.
When exactly did Ludacris become involved? Do you have proof that he did it? Why if your proof is so solid is Ludacris still a free man? Nothing here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludacris indicates involvement with terrorist organizations.
P.S. I believe he prefers that you capitalize his name, even if it is a stage name and even if you think he's a terrorist.
hmm, you really believe this? You should go back to church and pray about it.
They could give a rats ass what you do within the borders of your country. If we weren't the meddlesome assholes that we are (as a country not individually, except perhaps for yourself) they would leave us well enough alone the same way they do Korea, China, Japan, Mexico, etc. It is the meddlesomeness they resent not our idiotic religious beliefs (again, as a country not individually, except perhaps for yourself) such as "streets paved with gold"(that absurdity boggles the mind on many levels).
thanks for the concise history lesson, would have modded +1 informative if I had any mod points.
Yet diplomatic action can easily be worth a thousand days' worth of troop movements.
Not for the USA based on what we've seen (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc).
I guess your 60 person shop doesn't use m$ software to help keep its secrets...
(I like your sig, I choose to honor it)
I always thought that "being political" was a synonym for "being dishonest"
you had to pick that particular brand though for your argument to have any chance at being credible. Most brands are not Apple. Most computers are as interchangeable as tube socks, so are TVs, Computer Monitors, floaties, rebar, screws, etc. Thus many chinese manufacturers are entering the US market with their little known brands and very sophisticated products, its easy when you're already producing something to slap your own brand on it. What informed consumer wouldn't choose the identical product which is much cheaper due to not being burdened by R&D, advertising, stockholders...? I say screw these stupid multinationals, let their products get copied and sold in the western markets, they didn't care about our jobs, why should we care about their IP?
actually, it does, it takes away the "umpf!" and modernity that your "in this age" gave it.
these are self-labeled anarchists? The only anarchists I'm familiar wear Doc's and mohawks and enjoy elbowing friends to loud music.
Anarchists really? I want to decimate the military, actually more, I'd like to cut it to 1/10th it's size at most and I think I'm not an anarchist. I think there are a lot of people who don't consider themselves anarchists who would like to see a smaller military.
Again, what makes them anarchists? The fact that they want a smaller military, or the fact that they are libertarians?
I would have thought the anarchists would not belong to any party, sort of by definition, knowhatImean? ;-)
what I question at root is how does: dismantling military = anarchy? Can you read ACs mind and answer or maybe you can explain how you equate the two?
sorry to ramble I wanted to really get clear what I am asking to be explained as I find such strident opinions fascinating and wish to understand their roots.
(I hope to, one day, be rich, and I'd like to keep my money after all that hard work and not be labeled a 'fat cat', thanks).
Try this, put all your hope in one hand, shit into the other, check which one fills up first.
Don't lump me in with either of these idiotic parties, please.
Will just chalk you up as a teabagger then, happy?
It is your irrational hope of one day being rich that makes you vote alongside those whose peer you wish you could one day be, never realizing that it will never ever happen. They (the rich) are happy to string you along since your vote counts as much as any other idiot's vote who votes against his own economic interests.
are you then stating that the US is a police (military) controlled state and thus dismantling the military would result in or is equivalent to anarchy? Help me here, cause I don't see the tie-in between dismantling the military and anarchy. If the military is the only thing preventing anarchy, then the country has fallen further than I am aware of and our basic liberties nothing more than talking points.