"You mean during the heyday of Bell Labs, when they were dumping money into R&D, and inventing things like a little language named C, a little operating system named Unix, the electret microphone, the CO2 LASER, and the first 32-bit microprocessor? Yeah, who would want to work there? "
No, he means the phone company. Why are you bringing up a research laboratory?
"In my opinion, telling fat people to "just eat less" makes about as much sense as talking v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y to people who don't understand your language. "
Yeah, well in your opinion fat people can't "control their weight merely by exerting a reasonably amount of conscious control over their diets" an they stay that way because they "have to" so we can see just what your opinion is worth.
And please don't claim that was taken out of context, you made the claims exactly as I presented them.
"I just thought it was stupid to ask for A source, then bitch about the guy provding only one source."
Of course you did, because as I said, you're ignorant of the discussion.
In case you weren't aware (you weren't), op and I had addressed the source already, you just didn't read it and so replied for no reason. As to my 'bitching about one source", you appear to be genuinely retarded.
I bitched FIRST because he had NO source. I then complained about a totally separate problem with his reasoning, that being he only provided ONE source and was presenting it as definitive (again, you appear to be ignorant of this discussion, if you weren't ignorant you'd know that).
TWO SEPARATE ISSUES, both relating to sources, both valid.
"My post had nothing to do with the disscussion as a whole, just my rampant ignorance of the depth of the discussion I was replying to"
FYP to make it accurately reflect reality.
As to your claim of no account on slashdot, you're a liar.
"If fat people could control their weight merely by exerting a reasonably amount of conscious control over their diets (i.e., will power), they would"
Yet they can do exactly that and choose not to. Why are you saying "they would" when it's obvious to everyone that they don't?
"Being fat is a miserable fucking experience, and no one would put up with it if they didn't have to."
And yet THEY DO PUT UP WITH IT, despite your vacuous assertion otherwise. Why are you claiming "no one would put up with it" when it's obvious to everyone that they do, in total opposition to your point.
You seem to be claiming fat people can't control their weight through dietary choices and exercise and that were someone fat, they wouldn't choose to remain that way if they didn't have to.
To quote YOU "do you realize how incredibly fucking stupid that steaming pile you splattered on my screen sounds"?
I can see why you posted AC, thinking doesn't sem to be your sring suit.
I asked for A source, fine. Please explain why that in any way moots my criticism that this guy is acting like A source is case closed?
There is further discussion elsewhere in this thread, maybe read it next time before you write up such an imbecilic reply, that way it won't be so obvious that you're ignorant of the discussion and the elements that comprise it.
"For someone who makes snide comments about citing sources, your posts sure are empty of anything beyond ad hominem attacks. "
I'm not the one making assertions, and could you please find said "ad hominem" attack, I didn't make one so I have no idea what you're talking about. It appears you have no idea what an ad hominem attack is.
"Got anything useful to contribute, or are you just wasting peoples time?"
Of course, my contribution is to call out people like YOU who make assertions that aren't backed up by research. The fact that you discount the importance of this says a lot about how important you think citing your claims is.
Care to reply with something other than your own attacks, like maybe another source? Ont that doesn't cite the same Dutch study you keep hammering away with pretending it proves something?
That's not a big enough difference to expect our waist sizes to be so much larger (all else being equal).
This is wrong. Not just "oops you goofed" wrong, but "you forgot several fundamental issues that make your assertion nonsensical" wrong.
First, why are you assuming waist size scales with height?
Second, why aren't you considering the vast ethnic iversity that the US has vs. Japan?
Third, why do you say "That's not a big enough difference to expect our waist sizes to be so much larger (all else being equal)." when you give no indication why it's "not big enough", and why are you saying "all else being equal" when all else is not in any way equal?
Your post is essentially a basic ratio problem, and I fail to see how anyone intelligent enough to discuss this topic could conclude that such a ratio could be applied with any accuracy.
They all cite the same article, and three of them are blogs opining about the implications of said article. NOt what I'd call quality sources (but I'm not trying to force my opinion down people's throats, so my standards for sources are higher).
If your insurance company was aware that you RACED,/b> motorcycles, they will generally refuse to insure you.
I suspect you haven't told them, or at least haven't been completely honest about the extent of your activities.
I was refused coverage from several major carriers for just that reason, until I simply deigned not to tell them. If they can den my coverage for something petty, I can "forget" that I "occasionally" have a track day.
"The question was, does the revenue from the federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon cover all federal expenses related to roads?"
that's funny, I DID NOT ask that question, and as the originator of the question, I would say I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
I like how you limit the parameters to make your opinion fit the question that was never asked, very disingenuous of you and more than a little pathetic.
And I recall asking for your source. I'll assume that your failure to produce one, and your follow on discussion with someone else on this subject while ignoring my request for your source, indicates you know you're lying.
That, coupled with your lie about what "The question was" makes it clear you know you're full of shit.
"Laura at War & Piece has two good question for Pelosi that get to the gist of the issue:"
Uh, I was making a joke at Mr. Spun. I don't think your "Laura"'s commentary has anything to do with that...
Thanks for the fun link though, I enjoyed ignoring it.
One thing though
"Answers: Yes and yes."
Um, that's wrong.
Reworded, Answers: No because you shouldn't try to pretend the President's assurance of legality means a fucking thing, he's not the arbiter of legality, and never has been, and claiming otherwise is historically ignorant and legally indefensible, and no, because that point is just idiotic.
If that's the point your link tries to make I'm glad I know your posting history well enough to ignore it.
"Yes, government job is to control the behavior of the population when it is relevant. "
No, it IS NOT.
"Here, it is relevant to limit the liberty to burn any amount of fuel a 4x4 owner would like, as it cause a pollution."
Yeah, so does breathing. Chew on that while they ban you from exhaling. Then look at the cars that burn gas but have exhaust that is cleaner than the air they are burning and get back to me.
"Anyway, I still think high fuel tax in europe has a good overall effect."
And I think you're a brainwashed fool who thinks it's ok to use the government to bully people you disagree with. You've admitted as much in your post, so it seems you and I are in agreement about the quality of your character at least.
"Well, having a poor economy and a worthless currency are behaviors I find unpleasant."
What does that have to do with anything? You seem to think that the inevitable outcome of non-taxation is "a poor economy and a worthless currency" despite said assumption being impossible for an intelligent individual to make.
"Probably you've forgotten that the government *is* of the people, since America has somewhat squandered that fortunate situation."
Probably you're too egotistical to admit its not like that now, has never been like that, and never will be like that regardless of your claims to the contrary.
You can blather about idealism (children do that until they grow up, and stupid people do it forever, I hope you're just a child) but REALITY moots your points.
"What will it take for you to look around and realize that what America is doing isn't sustainable, and isn't working?"
Seems to be working fine for us here, what will it take to get YOU to realize all the wishful thinking in the world doesn't make your observations accurate or true?
Slashdot Mirror
"Oh, and add "dishonest asshole" to the list"
You just want his list to be the same as yours.
"You mean during the heyday of Bell Labs, when they were dumping money into R&D, and inventing things like a little language named C, a little operating system named Unix, the electret microphone, the CO2 LASER, and the first 32-bit microprocessor? Yeah, who would want to work there? "
No, he means the phone company. Why are you bringing up a research laboratory?
"In my opinion, telling fat people to "just eat less" makes about as much sense as talking v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y to people who don't understand your language. "
Yeah, well in your opinion fat people can't "control their weight merely by exerting a reasonably amount of conscious control over their diets" an they stay that way because they "have to" so we can see just what your opinion is worth.
And please don't claim that was taken out of context, you made the claims exactly as I presented them.
"I just thought it was stupid to ask for A source, then bitch about the guy provding only one source."
Of course you did, because as I said, you're ignorant of the discussion.
In case you weren't aware (you weren't), op and I had addressed the source already, you just didn't read it and so replied for no reason. As to my 'bitching about one source", you appear to be genuinely retarded.
I bitched FIRST because he had NO source. I then complained about a totally separate problem with his reasoning, that being he only provided ONE source and was presenting it as definitive (again, you appear to be ignorant of this discussion, if you weren't ignorant you'd know that).
TWO SEPARATE ISSUES, both relating to sources, both valid.
"My post had nothing to do with the disscussion as a whole, just my rampant ignorance of the depth of the discussion I was replying to"
FYP to make it accurately reflect reality.
As to your claim of no account on slashdot, you're a liar.
LOL
"But the OP can count on most people not worrying about facts like that and did in fact get modded up."
You are right. And if you'll notice, at least on idiot decided to hammer ME for asking for sources.
"If fat people could control their weight merely by exerting a reasonably amount of conscious control over their diets (i.e., will power), they would"
Yet they can do exactly that and choose not to. Why are you saying "they would" when it's obvious to everyone that they don't?
"Being fat is a miserable fucking experience, and no one would put up with it if they didn't have to."
And yet THEY DO PUT UP WITH IT, despite your vacuous assertion otherwise. Why are you claiming "no one would put up with it" when it's obvious to everyone that they do, in total opposition to your point.
You seem to be claiming fat people can't control their weight through dietary choices and exercise and that were someone fat, they wouldn't choose to remain that way if they didn't have to.
To quote YOU "do you realize how incredibly fucking stupid that steaming pile you splattered on my screen sounds"?
I can see why you posted AC, thinking doesn't sem to be your sring suit.
I asked for A source, fine. Please explain why that in any way moots my criticism that this guy is acting like A source is case closed?
There is further discussion elsewhere in this thread, maybe read it next time before you write up such an imbecilic reply, that way it won't be so obvious that you're ignorant of the discussion and the elements that comprise it.
LOL.
"For someone who makes snide comments about citing sources, your posts sure are empty of anything beyond ad hominem attacks. "
I'm not the one making assertions, and could you please find said "ad hominem" attack, I didn't make one so I have no idea what you're talking about. It appears you have no idea what an ad hominem attack is.
"Got anything useful to contribute, or are you just wasting peoples time?"
Of course, my contribution is to call out people like YOU who make assertions that aren't backed up by research. The fact that you discount the importance of this says a lot about how important you think citing your claims is.
Care to reply with something other than your own attacks, like maybe another source? Ont that doesn't cite the same Dutch study you keep hammering away with pretending it proves something?
"Is this because of the fact that Bill Gates has made the whole industry look nerdy? "
Of course, there were only superstuds and male Adoni working in the industry before he came along.
Bill is also responsible for making priests look like pedophiles, making Muslims look like terrorists, and making crack whores look toothless.
This is wrong. Not just "oops you goofed" wrong, but "you forgot several fundamental issues that make your assertion nonsensical" wrong.
First, why are you assuming waist size scales with height?
Second, why aren't you considering the vast ethnic iversity that the US has vs. Japan?
Third, why do you say "That's not a big enough difference to expect our waist sizes to be so much larger (all else being equal)." when you give no indication why it's "not big enough", and why are you saying "all else being equal" when all else is not in any way equal?
Your post is essentially a basic ratio problem, and I fail to see how anyone intelligent enough to discuss this topic could conclude that such a ratio could be applied with any accuracy.
You see, YOU are the one pretending ONE, yes ONE study makes the case.
If you think that, and it appears from your "citations" that you do, your opinion isn't worth the virtual text it's written on.
And that source is dubious at best.
They all cite the same article, and three of them are blogs opining about the implications of said article. NOt what I'd call quality sources (but I'm not trying to force my opinion down people's throats, so my standards for sources are higher).
"Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound?"
You mean like your straw man? Physician heal theyself.
If your insurance company was aware that you RACED,/b> motorcycles, they will generally refuse to insure you.
I suspect you haven't told them, or at least haven't been completely honest about the extent of your activities.
I was refused coverage from several major carriers for just that reason, until I simply deigned not to tell them. If they can den my coverage for something petty, I can "forget" that I "occasionally" have a track day.
Please provide a source for your assertion. You won't, but I had to ask so we could see you were fabricating your assertion from thin air.
Well?
You've lied several times now, and you've been called on it. Back your argument up with FACTS or shut the fuck up liar.
"The question was, does the revenue from the federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon cover all federal expenses related to roads?"
that's funny, I DID NOT ask that question, and as the originator of the question, I would say I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
I like how you limit the parameters to make your opinion fit the question that was never asked, very disingenuous of you and more than a little pathetic.
And I recall asking for your source. I'll assume that your failure to produce one, and your follow on discussion with someone else on this subject while ignoring my request for your source, indicates you know you're lying.
That, coupled with your lie about what "The question was" makes it clear you know you're full of shit.
"Gosh, I love it when a guy stands up and brags about his own ignorance."
I appreciate that you love your personal pastime, but could you avoid replying to me when you plan to do it?
Thanks.
"But now they seem to be feeding you the idea that all parties should be striving for the same thing"
And the value you should see there for "same thing" is "good of the American people".
Please explain why expecting both parties to strive for the good of the American people is "bullshit".
When we expect them to be unified, it's in pursuing what is best for our country, not fucking over the other party just to gain political advantage.
Perhaps if you were smarter you'd understand that.
"Laura at War & Piece has two good question for Pelosi that get to the gist of the issue:"
Uh, I was making a joke at Mr. Spun. I don't think your "Laura"'s commentary has anything to do with that...
Thanks for the fun link though, I enjoyed ignoring it.
One thing though
"Answers: Yes and yes."
Um, that's wrong.
Reworded, Answers: No because you shouldn't try to pretend the President's assurance of legality means a fucking thing, he's not the arbiter of legality, and never has been, and claiming otherwise is historically ignorant and legally indefensible, and no, because that point is just idiotic.
If that's the point your link tries to make I'm glad I know your posting history well enough to ignore it.
"I'm gonna vote for the guy who doesn't make me feel stupid."
So you don't vote then.
"The reality is that what America's doing isn't working, nearly everyone can see that"
Support that with something more that your intelectual ejaculate please, as the fact is we have the #1 economy in the world.
"and yet you're still defending the poor collective choices we've made"
No, I'm not and have not. You're reading things that aren't there, boy. Stop assigning me positions based on your flawed reading ability.
"Those of us who recognize the problems are working on them..."
So you're considering suicide?
"And much of the road costs in the US are funded outside the gas taxes. They tax on fuel is insufficient to maintain the road structure in the US."
[Citation Needed]
"Yes, government job is to control the behavior of the population when it is relevant. "
No, it IS NOT.
"Here, it is relevant to limit the liberty to burn any amount of fuel a 4x4 owner would like, as it cause a pollution."
Yeah, so does breathing. Chew on that while they ban you from exhaling. Then look at the cars that burn gas but have exhaust that is cleaner than the air they are burning and get back to me.
"Anyway, I still think high fuel tax in europe has a good overall effect."
And I think you're a brainwashed fool who thinks it's ok to use the government to bully people you disagree with. You've admitted as much in your post, so it seems you and I are in agreement about the quality of your character at least.
"Well, having a poor economy and a worthless currency are behaviors I find unpleasant."
What does that have to do with anything? You seem to think that the inevitable outcome of non-taxation is "a poor economy and a worthless currency" despite said assumption being impossible for an intelligent individual to make.
"Probably you've forgotten that the government *is* of the people, since America has somewhat squandered that fortunate situation."
Probably you're too egotistical to admit its not like that now, has never been like that, and never will be like that regardless of your claims to the contrary.
You can blather about idealism (children do that until they grow up, and stupid people do it forever, I hope you're just a child) but REALITY moots your points.
"What will it take for you to look around and realize that what America is doing isn't sustainable, and isn't working?"
Seems to be working fine for us here, what will it take to get YOU to realize all the wishful thinking in the world doesn't make your observations accurate or true?