Very good point. My girlfriend is left-handed (as opposed to me) but the only time it EVER comes up is when we are playing thumb wars, buying new scissors/clippers or doing high-fives. Which is never.
The advantages of a lefty in individual competion comes from the righty's inability to quickly and properly react to the lefty's moves, having mostly had experience with competing against other righties. The lefty however, has also had most experience competing with righties, and will therefore not have the same drawback. Saying handedness would affect the outcome in golf is like saying it would affect the outcome of chess, or any other non-reactive type of competition.
Well, it's true that the "gear shifter" goes in the middle, and depending on wether you drive on the left or the right side will indeed decide on which side of the stick you will be sitting. However, the reason for driving on the left side can be traced back to the old sword-smacking-days. You would normally pass oncoming riders on the left so that you could either hail them or strike them down with your favourite right hand, so indirectly, gear shifters ARE handedness.
I heard somewhere that the reason why some countries switched to the right side had to do with their king being left-handed, but I can't (or won't, pick one) verify that.
I've got to hand it to TF2. I've been playing it for a very long time and I've never had any problems not buying anything. They really are doing a great job with the trade-off system. If we were to start talking unfair advantages, it would be in the scale where your mouse (or hell, even your chair!) would need to be taken into account.
With all that moolah, it wouldn't kill them to roll out some new official maps and gamemodes though... and maybe Meet the Pyro?
What kind of nut job politician would even attempt to cram the Pirate Party into the left/right-scale?
I admit to being quite ingorant of their over-all agenda but from what I have gathered they are a "single-point-party" (don't know the real word in english) and their stance could be placed anywhere from "robin hood-leftism" via "anarchism" to "right wing liberalism". It's comprised of everything from commies to right wing extremists. They are SOLELY interested in fixing the IP/Patent and Privacy laws and nothing else.
Yes, that I'm aboard with.
It's just that the point he's making is not strictly legal and therefore I thought it sounded overly PC in the context.
But I guess it's a lot more responsible to use the term one too many times as opposed to the other way around though, so yeah. Good point.
Judging by your spelling/grammar and your views on gender related topics you should cool the fuck down when it comes to comparing people to three year olds.
"But I from itali/swedenn/bolgaria/american school system, i no know english!!1"
Well, as long as you treat women the way you appearently do based on your own retarded observations, I see no foul in treating you like an idiot based on what ever reason I feel like.
The reason why people (such as myself) are so quick to let everybody know that they do not care very much for Twitter or Facebook etc. is not that they feel a need to exhibit their "unique" standpoints or what ever (I personally feel it's the other way around: "Hey! Look at me! I'm hip! I use twitter and facebook! I'm with it!").
I spend a lot of time bashing Facebook, Twitter and even the concept of Blogging, is because I'm so god damned tired of everyone talking about it as if it's something new! I mean come on people! There were communities and messaging clients before. Blogging? Please. It's called WRITING ABOUT STUFF and it has been done for ages, believe it or not.
Of course, I can only speak for myself but this is why my blood starts boiling every time some asshat starts going "Ooh! the internet was used in a more efficient manner than it was ten years ago! This had an impact on stuff like elections or petitions!"
Those are two very good points that I will definetely take into account from now on.
What I'm really getting at is that the larger the number of people in developed countries, the larger the demand for products cheaply produced by poor humans. It sucks enough that they're poor, don't make them work for chickenfeed on top of that. If we would pay them reasonable salaries for non-dangerous jobs, then sure, but good luck getting some kind of union going, let alone the reasonable payments.
I guess you're right in some sense that an extremely low salary is better than no salary, but I somehow feel that both are just as bad. I'd rather see the kid pretty much as poor as now (I mean it's not like he or she can actually afford stuff any way on the current pay) but not risking his or hers health mining/manufacturing stuff 20 hours a day. I agree that our not having babies wouldn't stop exploitation of cheap labour, but it would most likely simplify making changes that would eventually lead to grown-ups doing their job for a fair pay, and the kids being educated in schools instead.
To be honest I am highly uninfiormed regarding the actual replacement-rates etc.
Thank you for enlightening me, and godspeed on your recreational endeavors!
I'm the guy whose entire species will die out like a virus in a petri-dish because of egoic thoughts like yours. I'm the guy who has to explain to his girlfriend how I personally want kids, but I feel I don't want to add more resource-munching, polluting egoistic creatures to the already crowded world.
Who are you to raise a small army of piss-ants whose only possible way of life is getting goods cheap from countries in abject poverty? Who are you to put your instictive biological clock ahead of the interest of the entire world?
"But I don't have any kids!"
No, but you are most definately defending peoples right to give birth like machineguns, and that's almost just as bad.
Maybe so, but back then the earth wasn't quite as over-populated, right? Some of those kids would likely die, right? They didn't need assloads of cheaply manufactured, yet expensive shit, right?
According to my extremely uninformed calculations, bringing up one kid in a wealthy country automaticly fucks atleast three other third-world babies in their proverbial colons (meaning they'll be making clothes, food, electronics etc. for a salary that you can indirectly afford).
Also, if every couple has more than two babies, and all of them lead healthy lives, the eventual overpopulation is un-a-fucking-voidable by very simple math. How hard is this for people to understand!? Reproducing is not a god-damned right. Well it might be a right, but that doesn't make it ethically or morally correct.
I'd very much like to have babies one day, but I don't feel I really have the right to, given the current state of mankind. Why am I the only one ready to keep my boys in my balls?
Because that choice is extremely likely to be based on faulty perceptions and psychological issues, and is very likely to be a choice you would regret if you'd been able to (of course, there are always exceptions that cannot be decided upon beforehand). In other words: in this case you would be the wildly selfish one (again, to deflect bitching: in approximately 99% of the times).
However, I think suicide should be prevented by all reasonable means possible. Euthanasia on the other hand is not for anyone but the terminally ill patient to decide, regardless of what relatives and professionals believe the chances of survival to be. People rarely argue that preventing euthanasia is in fact a wildly selfish act.
That's exactly how I don't feel I should have to live my life. This whole "If you've got nothing to hide..."-crap is getting on my nerves. I should not be assumed to be a criminal unless proven otherwise! Your "solution" is not a solution at all, but a stepping around the problem and in the end an assistance for the continuation of said problem.
I agree that I should not PUBLICLY voice my opinion in matters that I don't want people to know about, but everything else is my goddamned business
Slashdot Mirror
Very good point. My girlfriend is left-handed (as opposed to me) but the only time it EVER comes up is when we are playing thumb wars, buying new scissors/clippers or doing high-fives. Which is never.
Golf is turn based, your point is moot.
The advantages of a lefty in individual competion comes from the righty's inability to quickly and properly react to the lefty's moves, having mostly had experience with competing against other righties. The lefty however, has also had most experience competing with righties, and will therefore not have the same drawback. Saying handedness would affect the outcome in golf is like saying it would affect the outcome of chess, or any other non-reactive type of competition.
Well, it's true that the "gear shifter" goes in the middle, and depending on wether you drive on the left or the right side will indeed decide on which side of the stick you will be sitting. However, the reason for driving on the left side can be traced back to the old sword-smacking-days. You would normally pass oncoming riders on the left so that you could either hail them or strike them down with your favourite right hand, so indirectly, gear shifters ARE handedness.
I heard somewhere that the reason why some countries switched to the right side had to do with their king being left-handed, but I can't (or won't, pick one) verify that.
And you "know" this how?
I've got to hand it to TF2. I've been playing it for a very long time and I've never had any problems not buying anything. They really are doing a great job with the trade-off system. If we were to start talking unfair advantages, it would be in the scale where your mouse (or hell, even your chair!) would need to be taken into account.
...AN' WHAR DID ME CROTCHY-SMILEY GO!?
With all that moolah, it wouldn't kill them to roll out some new official maps and gamemodes though... and maybe Meet the Pyro?
Thank you, good Sir or Madame!
What kind of nut job politician would even attempt to cram the Pirate Party into the left/right-scale?
I admit to being quite ingorant of their over-all agenda but from what I have gathered they are a "single-point-party" (don't know the real word in english) and their stance could be placed anywhere from "robin hood-leftism" via "anarchism" to "right wing liberalism". It's comprised of everything from commies to right wing extremists. They are SOLELY interested in fixing the IP/Patent and Privacy laws and nothing else.
Yes, that I'm aboard with.
It's just that the point he's making is not strictly legal and therefore I thought it sounded overly PC in the context.
But I guess it's a lot more responsible to use the term one too many times as opposed to the other way around though, so yeah. Good point.
Excuse me, but "alleged"? In what fucking sense of the word is he ALLEGEDLY the perpetrator?
Judging by your spelling/grammar and your views on gender related topics you should cool the fuck down when it comes to comparing people to three year olds.
"But I from itali/swedenn/bolgaria/american school system, i no know english!!1"
Well, as long as you treat women the way you appearently do based on your own retarded observations, I see no foul in treating you like an idiot based on what ever reason I feel like.
A tad annoyed, yes. But not so annoyed that it'd carry with my genes for thousands of years.
MANHACKS!!!!
It's not Twitter or Facebook we hate. I'm sure they are perfectly useful services.
It's the disproportionate, misinformed hype that never seems to go away that makes me want to punch twits in the face.
The reason why people (such as myself) are so quick to let everybody know that they do not care very much for Twitter or Facebook etc. is not that they feel a need to exhibit their "unique" standpoints or what ever (I personally feel it's the other way around: "Hey! Look at me! I'm hip! I use twitter and facebook! I'm with it!").
I spend a lot of time bashing Facebook, Twitter and even the concept of Blogging, is because I'm so god damned tired of everyone talking about it as if it's something new! I mean come on people! There were communities and messaging clients before. Blogging? Please. It's called WRITING ABOUT STUFF and it has been done for ages, believe it or not.
Of course, I can only speak for myself but this is why my blood starts boiling every time some asshat starts going "Ooh! the internet was used in a more efficient manner than it was ten years ago! This had an impact on stuff like elections or petitions!"
No shit? good, NOW LET'S MOVE ON!
"It will be interesting to see what happens when the inevitable wave of Android tablets hits over the next six months."
No.. Not really.
Those are two very good points that I will definetely take into account from now on.
What I'm really getting at is that the larger the number of people in developed countries, the larger the demand for products cheaply produced by poor humans. It sucks enough that they're poor, don't make them work for chickenfeed on top of that. If we would pay them reasonable salaries for non-dangerous jobs, then sure, but good luck getting some kind of union going, let alone the reasonable payments.
I guess you're right in some sense that an extremely low salary is better than no salary, but I somehow feel that both are just as bad. I'd rather see the kid pretty much as poor as now (I mean it's not like he or she can actually afford stuff any way on the current pay) but not risking his or hers health mining/manufacturing stuff 20 hours a day. I agree that our not having babies wouldn't stop exploitation of cheap labour, but it would most likely simplify making changes that would eventually lead to grown-ups doing their job for a fair pay, and the kids being educated in schools instead.
Well ok. That makes a lot more sense.
To be honest I am highly uninfiormed regarding the actual replacement-rates etc.
Thank you for enlightening me, and godspeed on your recreational endeavors!
Who am I to judge?
I'm the guy whose entire species will die out like a virus in a petri-dish because of egoic thoughts like yours. I'm the guy who has to explain to his girlfriend how I personally want kids, but I feel I don't want to add more resource-munching, polluting egoistic creatures to the already crowded world.
Who are you to raise a small army of piss-ants whose only possible way of life is getting goods cheap from countries in abject poverty? Who are you to put your instictive biological clock ahead of the interest of the entire world?
"But I don't have any kids!"
No, but you are most definately defending peoples right to give birth like machineguns, and that's almost just as bad.
Maybe so, but back then the earth wasn't quite as over-populated, right? Some of those kids would likely die, right? They didn't need assloads of cheaply manufactured, yet expensive shit, right?
According to my extremely uninformed calculations, bringing up one kid in a wealthy country automaticly fucks atleast three other third-world babies in their proverbial colons (meaning they'll be making clothes, food, electronics etc. for a salary that you can indirectly afford).
Also, if every couple has more than two babies, and all of them lead healthy lives, the eventual overpopulation is un-a-fucking-voidable by very simple math. How hard is this for people to understand!? Reproducing is not a god-damned right. Well it might be a right, but that doesn't make it ethically or morally correct.
I'd very much like to have babies one day, but I don't feel I really have the right to, given the current state of mankind. Why am I the only one ready to keep my boys in my balls?
I am app has been approved?
Does not compute.
No, sir. I did not.
Thank you.
Now that I have a choice, I don't interpret it that way either.
*shudder*
Because that choice is extremely likely to be based on faulty perceptions and psychological issues, and is very likely to be a choice you would regret if you'd been able to (of course, there are always exceptions that cannot be decided upon beforehand). In other words: in this case you would be the wildly selfish one (again, to deflect bitching: in approximately 99% of the times).
This again? Really?
Have you divided the size of the earth with the number of people alive today lately?
You nailed it, my friend!
However, I think suicide should be prevented by all reasonable means possible. Euthanasia on the other hand is not for anyone but the terminally ill patient to decide, regardless of what relatives and professionals believe the chances of survival to be. People rarely argue that preventing euthanasia is in fact a wildly selfish act.
That's exactly how I don't feel I should have to live my life. This whole "If you've got nothing to hide..."-crap is getting on my nerves. I should not be assumed to be a criminal unless proven otherwise! Your "solution" is not a solution at all, but a stepping around the problem and in the end an assistance for the continuation of said problem.
I agree that I should not PUBLICLY voice my opinion in matters that I don't want people to know about, but everything else is my goddamned business