You corrected the name of the meal, but not the incorrect choice of "there", "their" or "they're"?
It's priorities like these that are the cause of the downfall of our civilization into some sort of hedonistic anti-jesus communist totalitarian utopia!
Back before I had said "I do" (or whatever it is they say in here Japan), I brought up this very discussion with my bride to be. What followed I can only assume was some sort of ninja mysticism that resulted in me buying an even more expensive set of wedding bands.
I'm sorry but carbs in general are not the enemy people make them out to be, nor is eliminating them from your diet a cure for type 2. There also are multiple factors that are linked as possible causes of type 2. In terms of type 2 caused by obesity (I have a family member dealing with this right now), the main goal is to increase exercise, improve diet and reduce weight. This does not require the elimination of carbs as a whole from the diet. Reducing or elimination of foods high in sugar content (especially soda) can greatly help, but there is no need to eliminate carbs sourced from grain. Additionally, there is the whole concept of thermodynamics in which consuming less than you use regardless of source will cause weight loss. Drinking soda is a good way to push your intake above your expenditure without even realizing it.
No seriously dude, what the fuck are you smoking and can I have some?
Did you even RTFA? I'm assuming no, since you're quoting the link and not the article being linked to (and yes, the entire summary does appear in the article, but also a whole lot more).
Or maybe this is just a troll that got modded insightful because it's always cool to bash the right wing, regardless of context (hey, I can sympathize, I have a tendency to do that too sometimes).
I really don't like the word postnatural. The word "Natural" itself is confusing enough, why reinforce it even more?
(I'm referring to the fact that from a pedantic standpoint, there is nothing that exists that isn't natural - humans are natural. The products of humans are natural. I understand that many people like to somehow separate humanity from nature and therefore imply that "natural" means without those dirty humans getting their dirty hands on it.)
The point isn't always to ensure you "know" something, but rather that you understand it. You may not need Avogadro's Number or the Ideal Gas Law on a daily basis, you may not even remember them, but if you know the concepts behind them, you can apply that to your everyday life, often times in unexpected ways. Sure, you can survive without ever learning about calculus, people did for thousands of years, but once you know it, you can find all sorts of ways to apply it, even if only from a conceptual standpoint. Oh and hey, pretty much any science/math class reinforces logic.
I'm not saying that statistics isn't important, in fact it's one of the best classes I've ever taken, however I wouldn't say it's any more important than calculus, chemistry, physics, biology etc.
I'm of the opinion that algebra, geomtery, trig, calculus, and statistics should be mandatory courses for high school (in many places, my own high school (new york state) for example, only basic algebra and geometry are required (at least in the 90's)). Additionally I feel that physics, chemistry, biology, and economics (both macro and micro) should also be mandatory at the high school level. As an example again, my HS only required 2 science courses, typically "earth science" and biology.
Even if you wont use the concepts often in a practical sense in your daily life, you will understand the world around you more which you know, may a(e)ffect your participation in the democratic process.
I can see your points. Unfortunately, where I am at (Japan) many cyclists aren't too careful, most of the near misses I've had were from me jumping out of the way when I expected them to stop (our paths were perpendicular, I had the right of way and several other cyclists stopped, and I would have been hit if I hadn't moved). Also, I do occasionally see cyclists here attempting to ride while carrying an open umbrella in the rain and heavy winds. Not fun.
Granted, even as a pedestrian I can't stand the pedestrians who can't be bothered to walk in a straight line. Even worse are when a small group of people (2-3) feel the need to take up the entire damn sidewalk. I'm sure that has to drive cyclists mad as well.
I'm primarily a pedestrian. I chose your particular post more or less at random in this particular subthread because pedestrians were only very briefly mentioned in most of the subthread.
I'm fucking terrified of most cyclists. In fact, I worry more about cyclists than I do about cars. Cars may have much more mass, and therefore more energy, momentum and all those other fun physics concepts, however from my perspective, they tend to stop when they don't have the right of way and I do. They tend to stay in their designated area of travel (ie the road).
Cyclists on the other hand? I'm very nearly hit by one at least once a week (I live in an area where cycling to and from work is very common). If there is a designated lane for them (aside from just being on the road as vehicular traffic), some use it, most don't. If they do use it, chances are they will not stop when I have the right of way. The ones that don't use it, ride where ever the hell they damn please. Sidewalk full of pedestrians? sure. Center of the crosswalk (with a clearly marked bike lane on the side) sure.
I'm not going to say you're an asshole, in face you sound quite reasonable, though I would consider a bicycle to be vehicular traffic and should fall under a portion of the rules of the road, to include staying off of narrow sidewalks.
I would also like to add that I am a former cyclist, and can sympathize a bit in regards to riding on the road versus the sidewalk. Riding with automobiles on the road is just as terrifying to me as walking down a sidewalk with cyclists. Unfortunately, my issues with cycling from both a pedestrian perspective and a cyclist perspective are really really difficult to solve without a solid urban planning effort. Culturally shifting peoples attitudes can be difficult enough. Convincing local bureaucrats that designated bike lanes need to be made available at least on all major commuting routes is probably just as difficult, if not moreso.
Apologies if this isn't quite coherent. I had a nice 17 hour work day today =/ (I'm also a former driver, but my brain is shutting down and I can't write anymore;) )
So after doing some digging, I found something that seems interesting to me (btw, I'm the above AC with the slightly obnoxious comment;) ). I referenced the article on wikipedia that you mentioned, and from there went to the original report. There are a couple charts in there that assess drinking habits by country as opposed to total consumption per capita. For one, they assigned a score for risky drinking patterns and Japan was even with the US and higher than western Europe (granted that kind of scale does seem a bit arbitrary to me). The next one was the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking among males, in this category Japan was actually higher than the US and western Europe (prevelance amongst women follows, however it is very low for almost all regions). I would imagine that this could possibly account for the difference in our observations (I also have been living and working in Japan for several years, though my Japanese skills are limited to basic conversation and roughly 300 kanji).
Additionally, I totally agree about the South Koreans;)
ok, so my first paragraph was an unjustified generalization? Really? You're the one who made the claim that implied everyone in the military was part of an unlawful invasion and therefore criminal, which is a generalization. Perhaps I should have stated more clearly that not everyone in the military was involved in that particular debacle, and that many of them have done good, as evidenced by current events.
Again, second comment is making broad generalizations assuming that everyone in the military is a sociopath. I'm sure there were some complete assholes out there helping to feed those families. Pretty much every population has it's narcissists, sociopaths and general criminals, that doesn't mean everyone is. The military recruits people every day, and those individuals join for various reasons, some believe that they are doing right even in light of past transgressions by the government and others are simply doing it as a means to survive and get by in rough economic times. You're equating all of them with serial killers? Sure there are assholes who pissed on some corpses. They should be doing time for war crimes. We have assholes who have tortured, humiliated, and murdered civilians, they should also be doing time. We have members of our government who used deceit to push us into what is essentially an unlawful war, they should also be doing time. Ideally, it would be great if we could just do away with war permanently. I doubt if we were to move into an era of total world peace that we could stand down the military, however the focus of the military could shift drastically. As I stated, the military is involved in operations other than blowing people up. By their very nature, the military is fairly well equipped to respond to natural disasters and other similar events and provide aid fairly quickly. In the event of complete world peace the military would still have a place, they would just need to put away the guns.
I'm glad you agreed with my final paragraph. I don't think I made any broad generalizations. My original post was addressing a broad generalization made by an AC. My response to you was an attempt to show specific evidence against that broad generalization. For many, the military is a job, just like working at Microsoft, McDonalds, or the LHC. It's a means to an end and it's not always pretty. It'd be nice if every member of the military stood up to an order we deem unlawful, but not everyone agrees on that, and even among those who do, they also may have other obligations, such as obligations to family that necessitate they choose their job over their moral hang ups in order to support that family. It may be admirable to go to jail for your beliefs, or even be executed for them, but some people may place the well being of their family over those beliefs. Many of the career decisions I've made in my life have been with my families best interests in mind and I'm sure it's the same for many members of the military.
Humans and computers each have areas in which they excel, though neither is perfect in those areas. A good process should try and take into account the strengths of the judge for any given criteria. In the past we relied solely on human judgement because we had no other choice. Now we can put together a system that relies on both human and computer based judgement and exploit the areas in which they each excel.
So when the earthquake and tsunami struck Japan last year, it was nothing but criminals out there risking their lives to bring aid to those who lost their homes, their families, and pretty much every comfort most people take for granted?
I happen to live in Japan. The area I live in was fortunate enough to be far enough away that we avoided the worst of the tsunami (only some minor damage limited mostly to the waterfront itself), though that was probably the 15 scariest minutes of my life (yes, it shook that long). I know quite a few people who were directly affected by these events, and I also know quite a few people who were out there, in their military uniforms, flying through radiation clouds, looking for survivors and bringing food and water to people left stranded.
Not everyone in the military participated in Iraq, not everyone is a nationalist fanatic, and they are not all gullible. There are some people in the military who've never held a weapon aside from bootcamp. There are doctors and musicians, lawyers and scientists. They provide a service to the government and the people. Unfortunately, sometimes those in the government abuse that service. We as the people should be holding our government accountable for those actions, and if an action is deemed illegal, then the officers at the top who didn't stand up to the government should be held accountable.
According to an earlier comment, the actual message stated (in french) that he would be in new york on the 25th and that they would explode the ACN.
While there is quite a bit about this whole thing that does worry me, such as the apparent eavesdropping and the fact this wasn't dropped within a short period of time, at least we know the government can act quickly in regards to intel when it needs to (which for an actual threat would be a good thing).
If the comment above with the actual message is factually correct, given the timeframe and the ambiguity of translation (without any other context I would have interpreted it in the same manner), then I'm not surprised they swept in quickly. If they had more time, an in depth investigation could have been conducted, having only 4 days, the default went to "knee-jerk" (keep in mind, I'm assuming they would conduct a proper investigation). That said I don't think the fact that he has to sue to get his life back is just. I can live with the occasional knee-jerk reaction, everyone has them from time to time, but this seriously should have been over and done with in a couple hours.
I would agree that there was no reason for the Iraq war, and while there are a few individuals within the US military who are scum, to call the entire US military and its members scum and criminal is an insult to the ones who have put themselves at risk and/or sacrificed their own lives for the sake of others. The military is involved in other activities besides blowing people up, you do know that right?
As it is, Australia tends to serve quite a large variety of meats compared to most of the other countries I've been to.
Granted, in some of those countries I don't necessarily ask (This has nothing to do with not wanting to know, I have no bias as to which animal I am eating*), I just assume the label is correct. I've also had plenty of things that accoridng to the menu (at least the english menu) just contained "meat". At least the Australians advertise what they are serving.
Slashdot Mirror
Through a hole in the sheet.
You corrected the name of the meal, but not the incorrect choice of "there", "their" or "they're"?
It's priorities like these that are the cause of the downfall of our civilization into some sort of hedonistic anti-jesus communist totalitarian utopia!
Which means you are either homosexual or part of the 1%, either way, someone around here doesn't like you. ;)
Back before I had said "I do" (or whatever it is they say in here Japan), I brought up this very discussion with my bride to be. What followed I can only assume was some sort of ninja mysticism that resulted in me buying an even more expensive set of wedding bands.
Maybe I'm confused, but I thought "music" referred to a sequence of images? ;)
I don't know... I think even the worst J-pop and K-pop is much better than that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2EQm6WPMHs&feature=related
sure it's poppy as hell, but the music has a bit more depth and a much more solid hook.
I've never been able to sit comfortably on a flight regardless of whether or not I've had a prostate exam first.
I'm sorry but carbs in general are not the enemy people make them out to be, nor is eliminating them from your diet a cure for type 2. There also are multiple factors that are linked as possible causes of type 2. In terms of type 2 caused by obesity (I have a family member dealing with this right now), the main goal is to increase exercise, improve diet and reduce weight. This does not require the elimination of carbs as a whole from the diet. Reducing or elimination of foods high in sugar content (especially soda) can greatly help, but there is no need to eliminate carbs sourced from grain. Additionally, there is the whole concept of thermodynamics in which consuming less than you use regardless of source will cause weight loss. Drinking soda is a good way to push your intake above your expenditure without even realizing it.
What. The. Fuck?
No seriously dude, what the fuck are you smoking and can I have some?
Did you even RTFA? I'm assuming no, since you're quoting the link and not the article being linked to (and yes, the entire summary does appear in the article, but also a whole lot more).
Or maybe this is just a troll that got modded insightful because it's always cool to bash the right wing, regardless of context (hey, I can sympathize, I have a tendency to do that too sometimes).
Fuck man. Holy Fuck.
Yes, it was Saipan. I've actually stood at the top of that particular cliff. There is a ton of history on that island.
I really don't like the word postnatural. The word "Natural" itself is confusing enough, why reinforce it even more?
(I'm referring to the fact that from a pedantic standpoint, there is nothing that exists that isn't natural - humans are natural. The products of humans are natural. I understand that many people like to somehow separate humanity from nature and therefore imply that "natural" means without those dirty humans getting their dirty hands on it.)
The point isn't always to ensure you "know" something, but rather that you understand it. You may not need Avogadro's Number or the Ideal Gas Law on a daily basis, you may not even remember them, but if you know the concepts behind them, you can apply that to your everyday life, often times in unexpected ways. Sure, you can survive without ever learning about calculus, people did for thousands of years, but once you know it, you can find all sorts of ways to apply it, even if only from a conceptual standpoint. Oh and hey, pretty much any science/math class reinforces logic.
I'm not saying that statistics isn't important, in fact it's one of the best classes I've ever taken, however I wouldn't say it's any more important than calculus, chemistry, physics, biology etc.
I'm of the opinion that algebra, geomtery, trig, calculus, and statistics should be mandatory courses for high school (in many places, my own high school (new york state) for example, only basic algebra and geometry are required (at least in the 90's)). Additionally I feel that physics, chemistry, biology, and economics (both macro and micro) should also be mandatory at the high school level. As an example again, my HS only required 2 science courses, typically "earth science" and biology.
Even if you wont use the concepts often in a practical sense in your daily life, you will understand the world around you more which you know, may a(e)ffect your participation in the democratic process.
I can see your points. Unfortunately, where I am at (Japan) many cyclists aren't too careful, most of the near misses I've had were from me jumping out of the way when I expected them to stop (our paths were perpendicular, I had the right of way and several other cyclists stopped, and I would have been hit if I hadn't moved). Also, I do occasionally see cyclists here attempting to ride while carrying an open umbrella in the rain and heavy winds. Not fun.
Granted, even as a pedestrian I can't stand the pedestrians who can't be bothered to walk in a straight line. Even worse are when a small group of people (2-3) feel the need to take up the entire damn sidewalk. I'm sure that has to drive cyclists mad as well.
Hi.
I'm primarily a pedestrian. I chose your particular post more or less at random in this particular subthread because pedestrians were only very briefly mentioned in most of the subthread.
I'm fucking terrified of most cyclists. In fact, I worry more about cyclists than I do about cars. Cars may have much more mass, and therefore more energy, momentum and all those other fun physics concepts, however from my perspective, they tend to stop when they don't have the right of way and I do. They tend to stay in their designated area of travel (ie the road).
Cyclists on the other hand? I'm very nearly hit by one at least once a week (I live in an area where cycling to and from work is very common). If there is a designated lane for them (aside from just being on the road as vehicular traffic), some use it, most don't. If they do use it, chances are they will not stop when I have the right of way. The ones that don't use it, ride where ever the hell they damn please. Sidewalk full of pedestrians? sure. Center of the crosswalk (with a clearly marked bike lane on the side) sure.
I'm not going to say you're an asshole, in face you sound quite reasonable, though I would consider a bicycle to be vehicular traffic and should fall under a portion of the rules of the road, to include staying off of narrow sidewalks.
I would also like to add that I am a former cyclist, and can sympathize a bit in regards to riding on the road versus the sidewalk. Riding with automobiles on the road is just as terrifying to me as walking down a sidewalk with cyclists. Unfortunately, my issues with cycling from both a pedestrian perspective and a cyclist perspective are really really difficult to solve without a solid urban planning effort. Culturally shifting peoples attitudes can be difficult enough. Convincing local bureaucrats that designated bike lanes need to be made available at least on all major commuting routes is probably just as difficult, if not moreso.
Apologies if this isn't quite coherent. I had a nice 17 hour work day today =/ (I'm also a former driver, but my brain is shutting down and I can't write anymore ;) )
So after doing some digging, I found something that seems interesting to me (btw, I'm the above AC with the slightly obnoxious comment ;) ). I referenced the article on wikipedia that you mentioned, and from there went to the original report. There are a couple charts in there that assess drinking habits by country as opposed to total consumption per capita. For one, they assigned a score for risky drinking patterns and Japan was even with the US and higher than western Europe (granted that kind of scale does seem a bit arbitrary to me). The next one was the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking among males, in this category Japan was actually higher than the US and western Europe (prevelance amongst women follows, however it is very low for almost all regions). I would imagine that this could possibly account for the difference in our observations (I also have been living and working in Japan for several years, though my Japanese skills are limited to basic conversation and roughly 300 kanji).
Additionally, I totally agree about the South Koreans ;)
Eh?
ok, so my first paragraph was an unjustified generalization? Really? You're the one who made the claim that implied everyone in the military was part of an unlawful invasion and therefore criminal, which is a generalization. Perhaps I should have stated more clearly that not everyone in the military was involved in that particular debacle, and that many of them have done good, as evidenced by current events.
Again, second comment is making broad generalizations assuming that everyone in the military is a sociopath. I'm sure there were some complete assholes out there helping to feed those families. Pretty much every population has it's narcissists, sociopaths and general criminals, that doesn't mean everyone is. The military recruits people every day, and those individuals join for various reasons, some believe that they are doing right even in light of past transgressions by the government and others are simply doing it as a means to survive and get by in rough economic times. You're equating all of them with serial killers? Sure there are assholes who pissed on some corpses. They should be doing time for war crimes. We have assholes who have tortured, humiliated, and murdered civilians, they should also be doing time. We have members of our government who used deceit to push us into what is essentially an unlawful war, they should also be doing time. Ideally, it would be great if we could just do away with war permanently. I doubt if we were to move into an era of total world peace that we could stand down the military, however the focus of the military could shift drastically. As I stated, the military is involved in operations other than blowing people up. By their very nature, the military is fairly well equipped to respond to natural disasters and other similar events and provide aid fairly quickly. In the event of complete world peace the military would still have a place, they would just need to put away the guns.
I'm glad you agreed with my final paragraph. I don't think I made any broad generalizations. My original post was addressing a broad generalization made by an AC. My response to you was an attempt to show specific evidence against that broad generalization. For many, the military is a job, just like working at Microsoft, McDonalds, or the LHC. It's a means to an end and it's not always pretty. It'd be nice if every member of the military stood up to an order we deem unlawful, but not everyone agrees on that, and even among those who do, they also may have other obligations, such as obligations to family that necessitate they choose their job over their moral hang ups in order to support that family. It may be admirable to go to jail for your beliefs, or even be executed for them, but some people may place the well being of their family over those beliefs. Many of the career decisions I've made in my life have been with my families best interests in mind and I'm sure it's the same for many members of the military.
Humans and computers each have areas in which they excel, though neither is perfect in those areas. A good process should try and take into account the strengths of the judge for any given criteria. In the past we relied solely on human judgement because we had no other choice. Now we can put together a system that relies on both human and computer based judgement and exploit the areas in which they each excel.
Fortunately for me, I'm an expert at porting "hello world" across multiple platforms.
Ask me to code anything else, and you're probably SOL.
So when the earthquake and tsunami struck Japan last year, it was nothing but criminals out there risking their lives to bring aid to those who lost their homes, their families, and pretty much every comfort most people take for granted?
I happen to live in Japan. The area I live in was fortunate enough to be far enough away that we avoided the worst of the tsunami (only some minor damage limited mostly to the waterfront itself), though that was probably the 15 scariest minutes of my life (yes, it shook that long). I know quite a few people who were directly affected by these events, and I also know quite a few people who were out there, in their military uniforms, flying through radiation clouds, looking for survivors and bringing food and water to people left stranded.
Not everyone in the military participated in Iraq, not everyone is a nationalist fanatic, and they are not all gullible. There are some people in the military who've never held a weapon aside from bootcamp. There are doctors and musicians, lawyers and scientists. They provide a service to the government and the people. Unfortunately, sometimes those in the government abuse that service. We as the people should be holding our government accountable for those actions, and if an action is deemed illegal, then the officers at the top who didn't stand up to the government should be held accountable.
According to an earlier comment, the actual message stated (in french) that he would be in new york on the 25th and that they would explode the ACN.
While there is quite a bit about this whole thing that does worry me, such as the apparent eavesdropping and the fact this wasn't dropped within a short period of time, at least we know the government can act quickly in regards to intel when it needs to (which for an actual threat would be a good thing).
If the comment above with the actual message is factually correct, given the timeframe and the ambiguity of translation (without any other context I would have interpreted it in the same manner), then I'm not surprised they swept in quickly. If they had more time, an in depth investigation could have been conducted, having only 4 days, the default went to "knee-jerk" (keep in mind, I'm assuming they would conduct a proper investigation). That said I don't think the fact that he has to sue to get his life back is just. I can live with the occasional knee-jerk reaction, everyone has them from time to time, but this seriously should have been over and done with in a couple hours.
This crap gets modded insightful? Seriously?
I would agree that there was no reason for the Iraq war, and while there are a few individuals within the US military who are scum, to call the entire US military and its members scum and criminal is an insult to the ones who have put themselves at risk and/or sacrificed their own lives for the sake of others. The military is involved in other activities besides blowing people up, you do know that right?
I will, or at least I will try it once.
As it is, Australia tends to serve quite a large variety of meats compared to most of the other countries I've been to.
Granted, in some of those countries I don't necessarily ask (This has nothing to do with not wanting to know, I have no bias as to which animal I am eating*), I just assume the label is correct. I've also had plenty of things that accoridng to the menu (at least the english menu) just contained "meat". At least the Australians advertise what they are serving.
*With the exception of homo sapiens
As a former teenager, let me assure you, they most certainly give a fuck. They give a fuck that you're still talking and wish you would stop.
Also, they would prefer if you dropped them off at least 2 blocks away from the school in the morning.
Your logic means we can't have knives in our homes because your SO might get angry and stab you.
I worry about this every day.
If my SO could read my thoughts, I think we would be moving past the 'worry' stage ;)
So what you really mean is that it's a present to themselves veiled as a present to their husbands. ;)