To call this a scam is hyperbole. These eBay sellers make it quite clear that they are selling coupons, they make no effort to hide the fact. Indeed they seem to spell it out, and put coupon in bold.
If a buyer is stupid enough to bid hundreds of dollars without reading an item's description, well, let that be a lesson to them.
"Toy" implied nothing about a countries worth (GDP, social or moral) it was an expression of size and relative cultural homogenity.
If that's so, and I'll have to take your word for it, then fair enough. Where I come from, calling something a "toy" is like calling it "mickey mouse". It does say something about it's worth (i.e. not significant). But if that's not what you meant I will revise my assessment of you accordingly!
I understand exactly what you are saying about the size of the US, nowadays I think of the States as different countries rather than parts of one huge country. As time goes on I suppose you can regard Europe in the same way, so you'll eventually have another big, real grown-up country to compare yourselves with!
Could you really get fired for that? There are no genitalia or nipples in those pictures. I mean, you can buy newspapers with sexy nipple-exposing ladies in them and take them to work without being fired. Actually, there are real girls in my work place who are more exciting to look at than those pictures. You know, stockings and stuff. Or maybe I imagined that...
how willing I used to be to feel shitty constantly and tell myself that it was "normal."
It's insane, isn't it? There have been times I have sat chain-smoking until I could hardly breath. Those times I have always felt like I was trying to achieve some kind of satisfaction that never comes, but the chain smoking gave me a sense of progress!
Drinking always makes it worse too, because it dulls the pain in your lungs and makes it easier to smoke more.
I find drink and cigarettes form a really vicious circle when combined. I would drink because it made smoking more bearable. Therefore I smoked more. Therefore I needed to smoke more. So I drank more.
I'm clean for a week now and I feel much better already, though I have loads more goodness to come. In that same time I've only had a couple of alcoholic drinks.
All the best in staying off the weed. I find Allen Carr's book "EasyWay to Stop Smoking" a godsend. I stopped for one year immediately after reading it over a weekend. I started again when my best friend died (idiot (me not him)) and I've been on and off since then. I only had to read two pages of that book a week ago on Sunday and I quit on the Monday morning. No cravings, no irritability, no regrets.
get lung cancer just because they go out to a smoky bar a couple of times a week for about 2-3 hours at a time. Has there ever been a documented case of this?
Please explain how this could reasonably be documented.
Sometimes you have to forget empirical evidence - because the cost of gathering it would be prohibitive - and use deductive reasoning: the chemicals in cigarette smoke are harmful at some high concentration; the smoke reaches high concentrations in closed rooms; therefore it's unhealthy to be in a closed room with lots of cigarette smoke.
Determining the precise concentration at which damage occurs is prohibitive given the timescales and suffering involved. It's more reasonable to simply assume that second-hand smoke in closed areas is harmful.
I don't understand your denial. It's the chemicals in cigarette smoke that cause health problems, not whether or not it's first or second hand. Now, I can imagine that perhaps there's a threshold concentration required to cause problems, but the same is true for cyanide.
Take a copy of your post and read it again in 7 more years time when you spend the first five minutes after waking coughing up sputum. Then tell us how good it feels.
Having started and stopped smoking several times over 15 years, I can tell you this: nothing feels better than not smoking.
Nicotine is an addictive drug. It works by creating a need in your body. Every time you smoke, you fill the need created by the last does of nicotine. This is not pleasure, it is drug dependence. Don't kid yourself.
The "buzz" created by nicotine is actually very similar to that created by hyperventilating. Why don't you give that a try instead if it's that feeling your after? By the way, the buzz has nothing to do with the addiction. The addiction is simply the relief of that "I need a smoke" itch.
I know you will scoff at my post. I would too, if I was still smoking, but as an ex-smoker I KNOW I'm right! I am in a position to know the truth, because I have experienced it first hand!
Take classical physics. The 20th century has brought knowledge to supercede the outdated ideas of earlier generations. But that doesn't mean we throw away Newton's laws, does it? Even though we know they're not generally applicable. They are useful, even though we know they are wrong!
So we can be skeptical of the rule whilst using it's apparent results.
I favour the evolution-by-natural-selection theory for biological diversity, but I still hold it to be a theory.
Gould claims that facts are the world's data.
How can long-term evolution be the world's data, when we are not in a position to witness any more than a tiny fraction of the occurence of the event? We rely on interpretation and probability when we perceive evolution, so it's not a fact, it's a conclusion. A good one, but still a conclusion.
And I'm not confusing evolution with natural selection. Evolution explains biodiversity, and natural selection explains evolution.
I think Gould is just dumbing down his science to make a point.
But I might be wrong, I have been known to be a fuckwit.
It does seem somewhat contradictory and unethical, however, to accept only part of what science verifies when it suits your needs.
I'm an atheist liberal but I fail to arrive at your conclusion.
Remember that science does not provide facts, it provides theories. It's perfectly reasonable (indeed commendable) to be skeptical about some (even all) theories whilst utilising their apparent results for your own needs.
No, Darwin says that marginal advantages become survival determinants over time.
And your analogy is bollocks. There is a competitive advantage in having a useful trait no-one else has. It's like saying that humans are bad at mind-reading, but thankfully so is everyone else so it doesn't matter. If baboons were able to read our minds I'd happily bet my Christmas bonus on the baboons if it weren't for the fact that the baboons would probably be in league with the bookmaker.
The point is, infiltrate and subvert. You can't do that wearing flares and round-rimmed spectacles, you need a sharp suit.
A lot of the hippies from the 60s became the rich bankers, accountants and lawyers of the 80s. Fortunately, the goodness of Free Software is enshrined in the licenses.
I was going to say something rude there about BSD versus GPL but that would have been inflammatory.
A little plain?? Logos are supposed to be plain. Take a moment and look at some memorablelogos. They're generally very, very, simple. This makes them easy to associate with the product. It helps build the brand.
If only moreFreeSoftwareprojects would follow the lead of NetBSD. There are a lot of decent logos out there too but by and large Free Software logos constitute strong evidence that Graphic Design is indeed a valuable skill. Not as valuable as coding, but still valuable.
Specifically, it's not about technical prowess in using your favourite graphics program, it's about being able to come up with strong ideas and express them strikingly, visually.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux hasn't changed? Troll.
I doubt it, there's already been "Works" from Claris, Apple and WordPerfect, probably more.
To call this a scam is hyperbole. These eBay sellers make it quite clear that they are selling coupons, they make no effort to hide the fact. Indeed they seem to spell it out, and put coupon in bold.
If a buyer is stupid enough to bid hundreds of dollars without reading an item's description, well, let that be a lesson to them.
The Sinclair flat CRT was like a walking dog, we did not ask that it was done well, we simply marvelled that it was done at all.
How do dogs get from A to B in your strange world?
The two are not mutually exclusive. Mutual exclusion exists only between the pontificating and the burger-flipping.
Now, flip!
If you're $14,000 in debt you know full well you should be out flipping burgers, not posting to slashdot and pontificating about browsers.
You young people.
"Toy" implied nothing about a countries worth (GDP, social or moral) it was an expression of size and relative cultural homogenity.
If that's so, and I'll have to take your word for it, then fair enough. Where I come from, calling something a "toy" is like calling it "mickey mouse". It does say something about it's worth (i.e. not significant). But if that's not what you meant I will revise my assessment of you accordingly!
I understand exactly what you are saying about the size of the US, nowadays I think of the States as different countries rather than parts of one huge country. As time goes on I suppose you can regard Europe in the same way, so you'll eventually have another big, real grown-up country to compare yourselves with!
Why do you insist on comparing European countries with toys?
People will come to that part of your post and stop crediting you with any intelligence. At least, that's what I did.
Could you really get fired for that? There are no genitalia or nipples in those pictures. I mean, you can buy newspapers with sexy nipple-exposing ladies in them and take them to work without being fired. Actually, there are real girls in my work place who are more exciting to look at than those pictures. You know, stockings and stuff. Or maybe I imagined that...
Must be a Merkin thing.
how willing I used to be to feel shitty constantly and tell myself that it was "normal."
It's insane, isn't it? There have been times I have sat chain-smoking until I could hardly breath. Those times I have always felt like I was trying to achieve some kind of satisfaction that never comes, but the chain smoking gave me a sense of progress!
Drinking always makes it worse too, because it dulls the pain in your lungs and makes it easier to smoke more.
I find drink and cigarettes form a really vicious circle when combined. I would drink because it made smoking more bearable. Therefore I smoked more. Therefore I needed to smoke more. So I drank more.
I'm clean for a week now and I feel much better already, though I have loads more goodness to come. In that same time I've only had a couple of alcoholic drinks.
All the best in staying off the weed. I find Allen Carr's book "EasyWay to Stop Smoking" a godsend. I stopped for one year immediately after reading it over a weekend. I started again when my best friend died (idiot (me not him)) and I've been on and off since then. I only had to read two pages of that book a week ago on Sunday and I quit on the Monday morning. No cravings, no irritability, no regrets.
get lung cancer just because they go out to a smoky bar a couple of times a week for about 2-3 hours at a time. Has there ever been a documented case of this?
Please explain how this could reasonably be documented.
Sometimes you have to forget empirical evidence - because the cost of gathering it would be prohibitive - and use deductive reasoning: the chemicals in cigarette smoke are harmful at some high concentration; the smoke reaches high concentrations in closed rooms; therefore it's unhealthy to be in a closed room with lots of cigarette smoke.
Determining the precise concentration at which damage occurs is prohibitive given the timescales and suffering involved. It's more reasonable to simply assume that second-hand smoke in closed areas is harmful.
I don't understand your denial. It's the chemicals in cigarette smoke that cause health problems, not whether or not it's first or second hand. Now, I can imagine that perhaps there's a threshold concentration required to cause problems, but the same is true for cyanide.
Anyway, there's cyanide in cigarette smoke.
Take a copy of your post and read it again in 7 more years time when you spend the first five minutes after waking coughing up sputum. Then tell us how good it feels.
Having started and stopped smoking several times over 15 years, I can tell you this: nothing feels better than not smoking.
Nicotine is an addictive drug. It works by creating a need in your body. Every time you smoke, you fill the need created by the last does of nicotine. This is not pleasure, it is drug dependence. Don't kid yourself.
The "buzz" created by nicotine is actually very similar to that created by hyperventilating. Why don't you give that a try instead if it's that feeling your after? By the way, the buzz has nothing to do with the addiction. The addiction is simply the relief of that "I need a smoke" itch.
I know you will scoff at my post. I would too, if I was still smoking, but as an ex-smoker I KNOW I'm right! I am in a position to know the truth, because I have experienced it first hand!
So tell us all, how are crack and ice smokers going to use this device to smoke crack and ice?
RTFWS.
We do not object to use of this slang term to describe UCE, although we do object to the use of the word "spam" as a trademark and to the use of our product image in association with that term. Also, if the term is to be used, it should be used in all lower-case letters to distinguish it from our trademark SPAM, which should be used with all uppercase letters.
Mmmkay?
That's what I said, thanks for the confirmation.
Take classical physics. The 20th century has brought knowledge to supercede the outdated ideas of earlier generations. But that doesn't mean we throw away Newton's laws, does it? Even though we know they're not generally applicable. They are useful, even though we know they are wrong!
So we can be skeptical of the rule whilst using it's apparent results.
Or is that unethical?
On the basis that a famous scientist says so?
I favour the evolution-by-natural-selection theory for biological diversity, but I still hold it to be a theory.
Gould claims that facts are the world's data.
How can long-term evolution be the world's data, when we are not in a position to witness any more than a tiny fraction of the occurence of the event? We rely on interpretation and probability when we perceive evolution, so it's not a fact, it's a conclusion. A good one, but still a conclusion.
And I'm not confusing evolution with natural selection. Evolution explains biodiversity, and natural selection explains evolution.
I think Gould is just dumbing down his science to make a point.
But I might be wrong, I have been known to be a fuckwit.
It does seem somewhat contradictory and unethical, however, to accept only part of what science verifies when it suits your needs.
I'm an atheist liberal but I fail to arrive at your conclusion.
Remember that science does not provide facts, it provides theories. It's perfectly reasonable (indeed commendable) to be skeptical about some (even all) theories whilst utilising their apparent results for your own needs.
No, Darwin says that marginal advantages become survival determinants over time.
And your analogy is bollocks. There is a competitive advantage in having a useful trait no-one else has. It's like saying that humans are bad at mind-reading, but thankfully so is everyone else so it doesn't matter. If baboons were able to read our minds I'd happily bet my Christmas bonus on the baboons if it weren't for the fact that the baboons would probably be in league with the bookmaker.
OK?
I don't know if I agree, the directed graph is fussy and asymmetrical in a way that makes it more complicated. But there are certainly fussier logos.
I won't celebrate until they've sultana the flag.
Your "one ring" rocks.
The point is, infiltrate and subvert. You can't do that wearing flares and round-rimmed spectacles, you need a sharp suit.
A lot of the hippies from the 60s became the rich bankers, accountants and lawyers of the 80s. Fortunately, the goodness of Free Software is enshrined in the licenses.
I was going to say something rude there about BSD versus GPL but that would have been inflammatory.
A little plain?? Logos are supposed to be plain. Take a moment and look at some memorable logos. They're generally very, very, simple. This makes them easy to associate with the product. It helps build the brand.
If only more Free Software projects would follow the lead of NetBSD. There are a lot of decent logos out there too but by and large Free Software logos constitute strong evidence that Graphic Design is indeed a valuable skill. Not as valuable as coding, but still valuable.
Specifically, it's not about technical prowess in using your favourite graphics program, it's about being able to come up with strong ideas and express them strikingly, visually.
Not that I'm any good at it...