Huh, well, at least that fits my experiences. If I drink tea as part of my morning routine, I usually hit the washroom two or three times before lunch, whereas coffee doesn't have that effect on my whatsoever. I'd always wondered why that is... now I know!
Both, actually. Dehydration from alcohol consumption, combined metabolic byproducts from alcohol breakdown in the liver, is the primary cause of hangover headaches.
If anything, caffeine is a diuretic, so dehydrates you even more when you take it
No, it doesn't. The total water volume in coffee more than offsets any diuretic effects.
Depends greatly on your taste. I happen to think "And Maggie Makes Three", which is wonderfully touching, is one of the best episodes ever aired. "Bart Be Not Proud" is also excellent for similar reasons, and shows a whole other side to Bart.
On the flipside, you have classic satirical episodes like "Marge vs The Monorail", "Homer the Great", and "Last Exit to Springfield". And then there's the utterly brilliant Treehouse of Horrors II, III, and IV (the sweet spot for the Treehouse episodes, IMHO).
I never stated an opinion. I stated a simple fact: that saying "the USSR is not an example of communism" is *not* an invocation of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
The rest you seem to have invented out of whole cloth so you could have something to argue with.
While technically true, that sort of argument is at least similar to a No True Scotsman fallacy.
No, it's not at all the same. Period.
The fact is the USSR never instituted communism. It instituted *something*, but that something wasn't communism. There's no room for argument, here, as the definition of "communism" is well defined, and it's Marx's definition (since he invented it). You may not like that, but those are the facts, plain and simple.
Is actual communism achievable? Probably not, no. Which is probably why it's never actually existed anywhere.
Simultaneously, at least during the golden years of the series, Homer, while not very bright, was portrayed as being a loving father who wanted to do the right by his family, even if he didn't always know how to. "And Maggie Makes Three" is the absolute perfect example of this (and is one of my favorite episodes of the series as a consequence), but there are a many others.
As such, we can related to him on multiple levels, as he exemplifies both the best and the worst of people.
No, how about this: Rather than being a jackass, you simply admit you're wrong (ie, that it's *not* an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy), instead of trying to change the subject.
But the dictatorial power is an inherent flaw in any attempt to implement Marxism.
I don't care. I never addressed any flaws in Marxism, and they're entirely beside the point of the current discussion. Nice attempt to derail it, though.
The claim was that saying "that ain't communism because it doesn't match Marx's definition" is an invocation of the No True Scotsman fallacy. I'm stating that's an incorrect application of that fallacy. That's all.
Debate Marx's vision all you want. Enjoy your wanking. But flawed or not, the simply fact is the USSR, China, and other nations *never implemented communism*. Period.
It has a faint ring of no true Scotsman [wikipedia.org] to it.
Except it's not, so... nice try.
If someone says "some triangles have four sides" and then point to a square, and I say "that's not a triangle, you fucking idiot", that's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Similarly, communism is *defined* by the works of Marx. He invented it, ffs! So if someone goes and claims the USSR was an example of communism, and I say "no, that's not communism", that's a valid argument because we *have* a complete definition of what communism is, and the USSR never fit that definition, despite what the red scare mongers would have you believe.
Your mind has been caught by a false dichotomy with your suggestion that the only possibles choices are completely unfettered relationships between various book content items and absolutely fixed relationships between every content item within a book.
No, I'm not. How can I be, when I'm sitting in front of a piece of software which understands the concept of structured, but reflowable text?
But that doesn't change the fact that any medium which *relies* on fixed presentation (such as graphic novels) will *never* fit into a reflowable display mold, as that's fundamentally antithetical to the nature of a reflowable format.
From a publisher's perspective, why would they want a different file format for their graphic novels than their text-only books?
"But why invent HTML when I could just use PDF for everything?"
Creating a singular format that tries to encompass every kind of media is a perfect route to format hell. The needs of traditional, reflowing text files are *far* different from that of fixed layout, image-based media. Hell, you probably wouldn't even use the same reader software for the two, as the experiences would be so vastly different. So why needlessly convolve the two?
It seems to me that the main complaint about ePub is that it is text-centric, and doesn't do well with any book that requires a particular formatting
That's what PDF is for. An ebook format should explicitly *not* allow for fixed layouts, as it interferes with reflow on mixed display sizes.
That means no comic books, obviously
Comics belong in a completely different format. They should be stored as pages of panels plus page-level layout with graphics, with the user having the option to view the original, full page layout (to appreciate the art of the original composition), or individual/groups of panels for reading on smaller-screen devices. It makes absolutely no sense to cram them into an ebook format.
They believe the same (it's in the Qur'an after all)
This very statement illustrates your ignorance regarding Islam.
Those who subscribe to the Shi'a branch of Islam have absolute no problem at all with depictions of Muhammad. Why? Because the only outright proscription of such depictions is in a few hadith, and not in the Qur'an itself.
Furthermore, even among those hadith, the proscription is against *Muslims* creating depictions of the prophet. Only the fundies believe it applies to non-Muslims.
Pretending the real issue is with extremists is to deliberately ignore what Muslim societies are really like
Bullshit, buddy. It's trivial to cite progressive societies that are primarily muslim. Turkey, Iran, and Egypt immediately come to mind.
And what, pray tell, is the difference between these nations and their more fundamentalist brethren? Wealth. It's trivial to build support for fundamentalist ideology among people who are desperately poor. Increase their standard of living, and suddenly they no longer feel the need to turn to religious fanatics.
Agreed. And yet South Park showing a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding out of her ass is tolerated. Gotta love hypocrisy...
the fact is that there's a lot of bigots out there to get their lulz by insulting Islam.
Yeah, unfortunately that's true. The sad fact is, there are many who choose to attack Islam as a whole, without realizing that the real issue is with the extremists. Unfortunately, that makes the battle against the extremists rather tricky, as inevitably, the fucktard racists/bigots end up jumping onto the bandwagon.
More than that it's hardly an effective way of bringing the extremists into check.
Yeah, but you'll *never* bring the extremists into check. They've *already* decided that the western way of life must be stopped. The best you can do is paint them as the ridiculous zealots that they are, and hope that the rest of the world realizes that bowing to their demands is tantamount to surrendering to their beliefs.
The real problem is that the moderates aren't out there attacking the zealots with equivalent force. IMHO, moderate Islam needs to start actively working to cut the cancer of fundamentalism out of their ranks, as it's the only way these people will finally be marginalized.
And now, because we understand the mechanism of action upon which acupuncture is based, scientists may be able to develop more effective treatments, either by optimizing acupuncture treatment, or creating new treatments that make use of the same mechanism.
You should be thanking science, here. We now understand more about the world than we did before, and the result may be improved medicine for people such as yourself.
Chiropractic care for asthma when your asthma is caused by pressure and irritation to the lungs based on your crooked ass posture: Fact.
No, it's not. It's bullshit. Show me a single study that proves chiropractic care treats asthma, and I'll show you a flawed study.
And as an aside, anyone who believes "asthma is caused by pressure and irritation to the lungs based on your crooked ass posture" has no fucking clue what asthma actually is.
Not that I ever had asthma officially
Ah. I see. So you feel you can make concrete statements about asthma treatment when you've never actually been diagnosed with it. Well, I'll definitely take your opinions seriously...
Ah! You think Yoga has no basis in fact? There's some very toned and flexible hotties out there proving you wrong.
Well, ridiculous health claims (eg, treating autoimmune disorders, etc) associated with yoga are pseudo-science.
Similarly:
Chiropractic care for the treatment of back issues? Fact. Chiropractic care for the treatment of asthma? Pseudo-science. Homeopathic treatment of dehydration? Fact. Homeopathic treatment of basically anything else? Pseudo-science.
Essentially, their idea is that god's ULTIMATE truth is, of course, immutable and unchangeable. However, as imperfect beings, we are not capable of understanding that ultimate truth.
Or, to put it another, less charitable way:
I believe X... well, until science demonstrates that belief to be ridiculous. Then I believe Y instead.
And that's a pretty weak form of religion, if you ask me. Ultimately, all that means is you're willing to bend and contort your religion so it's convenient. But, again, I repeat, at that point, what *do* you believe in? If all you believe is that "there's a god, humans are born sinful, his son died for my sins, and being nice is good", what the hell is the point, exactly?
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, well, at least that fits my experiences. If I drink tea as part of my morning routine, I usually hit the washroom two or three times before lunch, whereas coffee doesn't have that effect on my whatsoever. I'd always wondered why that is... now I know!
I thought that was for alcohol.
Both, actually. Dehydration from alcohol consumption, combined metabolic byproducts from alcohol breakdown in the liver, is the primary cause of hangover headaches.
If anything, caffeine is a diuretic, so dehydrates you even more when you take it
No, it doesn't. The total water volume in coffee more than offsets any diuretic effects.
I'd been hemming and hawing about shelling out a few bucks for an AeroPress, but it looks like my mind has been made up for me... :)
Doh! It's "Marge Be Not Proud". How sad... :)
Depends greatly on your taste. I happen to think "And Maggie Makes Three", which is wonderfully touching, is one of the best episodes ever aired. "Bart Be Not Proud" is also excellent for similar reasons, and shows a whole other side to Bart.
On the flipside, you have classic satirical episodes like "Marge vs The Monorail", "Homer the Great", and "Last Exit to Springfield". And then there's the utterly brilliant Treehouse of Horrors II, III, and IV (the sweet spot for the Treehouse episodes, IMHO).
No, they'll be just as easy. The content can be URL-blocked just like anything else.
I never stated an opinion. I stated a simple fact: that saying "the USSR is not an example of communism" is *not* an invocation of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
The rest you seem to have invented out of whole cloth so you could have something to argue with.
While technically true, that sort of argument is at least similar to a No True Scotsman fallacy.
No, it's not at all the same. Period.
The fact is the USSR never instituted communism. It instituted *something*, but that something wasn't communism. There's no room for argument, here, as the definition of "communism" is well defined, and it's Marx's definition (since he invented it). You may not like that, but those are the facts, plain and simple.
Is actual communism achievable? Probably not, no. Which is probably why it's never actually existed anywhere.
Simultaneously, at least during the golden years of the series, Homer, while not very bright, was portrayed as being a loving father who wanted to do the right by his family, even if he didn't always know how to. "And Maggie Makes Three" is the absolute perfect example of this (and is one of my favorite episodes of the series as a consequence), but there are a many others.
As such, we can related to him on multiple levels, as he exemplifies both the best and the worst of people.
How about this then...
No, how about this: Rather than being a jackass, you simply admit you're wrong (ie, that it's *not* an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy), instead of trying to change the subject.
But I suppose that's asking too much...
But the dictatorial power is an inherent flaw in any attempt to implement Marxism.
I don't care. I never addressed any flaws in Marxism, and they're entirely beside the point of the current discussion. Nice attempt to derail it, though.
The claim was that saying "that ain't communism because it doesn't match Marx's definition" is an invocation of the No True Scotsman fallacy. I'm stating that's an incorrect application of that fallacy. That's all.
Debate Marx's vision all you want. Enjoy your wanking. But flawed or not, the simply fact is the USSR, China, and other nations *never implemented communism*. Period.
It has a faint ring of no true Scotsman [wikipedia.org] to it.
Except it's not, so... nice try.
If someone says "some triangles have four sides" and then point to a square, and I say "that's not a triangle, you fucking idiot", that's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Similarly, communism is *defined* by the works of Marx. He invented it, ffs! So if someone goes and claims the USSR was an example of communism, and I say "no, that's not communism", that's a valid argument because we *have* a complete definition of what communism is, and the USSR never fit that definition, despite what the red scare mongers would have you believe.
Your mind has been caught by a false dichotomy with your suggestion that the only possibles choices are completely unfettered relationships between various book content items and absolutely fixed relationships between every content item within a book.
No, I'm not. How can I be, when I'm sitting in front of a piece of software which understands the concept of structured, but reflowable text?
But that doesn't change the fact that any medium which *relies* on fixed presentation (such as graphic novels) will *never* fit into a reflowable display mold, as that's fundamentally antithetical to the nature of a reflowable format.
From a publisher's perspective, why would they want a different file format for their graphic novels than their text-only books?
"But why invent HTML when I could just use PDF for everything?"
Creating a singular format that tries to encompass every kind of media is a perfect route to format hell. The needs of traditional, reflowing text files are *far* different from that of fixed layout, image-based media. Hell, you probably wouldn't even use the same reader software for the two, as the experiences would be so vastly different. So why needlessly convolve the two?
Wow, way to completely miss why ebook formats exist in the first place.
Let me guess... you don't actually read ebooks, do you?
It seems to me that the main complaint about ePub is that it is text-centric, and doesn't do well with any book that requires a particular formatting
That's what PDF is for. An ebook format should explicitly *not* allow for fixed layouts, as it interferes with reflow on mixed display sizes.
That means no comic books, obviously
Comics belong in a completely different format. They should be stored as pages of panels plus page-level layout with graphics, with the user having the option to view the original, full page layout (to appreciate the art of the original composition), or individual/groups of panels for reading on smaller-screen devices. It makes absolutely no sense to cram them into an ebook format.
I'll tell you where the moderates are, they're shit scared of Taliban as well.
Muslims exist outside Taliban/fundie-controlled territory, and they have no excuse not to speak out if they disagree with these crazies.
They believe the same (it's in the Qur'an after all)
This very statement illustrates your ignorance regarding Islam.
Those who subscribe to the Shi'a branch of Islam have absolute no problem at all with depictions of Muhammad. Why? Because the only outright proscription of such depictions is in a few hadith, and not in the Qur'an itself.
Furthermore, even among those hadith, the proscription is against *Muslims* creating depictions of the prophet. Only the fundies believe it applies to non-Muslims.
Source.
Pretending the real issue is with extremists is to deliberately ignore what Muslim societies are really like
Bullshit, buddy. It's trivial to cite progressive societies that are primarily muslim. Turkey, Iran, and Egypt immediately come to mind.
And what, pray tell, is the difference between these nations and their more fundamentalist brethren? Wealth. It's trivial to build support for fundamentalist ideology among people who are desperately poor. Increase their standard of living, and suddenly they no longer feel the need to turn to religious fanatics.
Ultimately is is both derogatory and hateful.
Agreed. And yet South Park showing a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding out of her ass is tolerated. Gotta love hypocrisy...
the fact is that there's a lot of bigots out there to get their lulz by insulting Islam.
Yeah, unfortunately that's true. The sad fact is, there are many who choose to attack Islam as a whole, without realizing that the real issue is with the extremists. Unfortunately, that makes the battle against the extremists rather tricky, as inevitably, the fucktard racists/bigots end up jumping onto the bandwagon.
More than that it's hardly an effective way of bringing the extremists into check.
Yeah, but you'll *never* bring the extremists into check. They've *already* decided that the western way of life must be stopped. The best you can do is paint them as the ridiculous zealots that they are, and hope that the rest of the world realizes that bowing to their demands is tantamount to surrendering to their beliefs.
The real problem is that the moderates aren't out there attacking the zealots with equivalent force. IMHO, moderate Islam needs to start actively working to cut the cancer of fundamentalism out of their ranks, as it's the only way these people will finally be marginalized.
Yes, because Pakistan is, I'm sure, a major source of ad conversions...
And now, because we understand the mechanism of action upon which acupuncture is based, scientists may be able to develop more effective treatments, either by optimizing acupuncture treatment, or creating new treatments that make use of the same mechanism.
You should be thanking science, here. We now understand more about the world than we did before, and the result may be improved medicine for people such as yourself.
Chiropractic care for asthma when your asthma is caused by pressure and irritation to the lungs based on your crooked ass posture: Fact.
No, it's not. It's bullshit. Show me a single study that proves chiropractic care treats asthma, and I'll show you a flawed study.
And as an aside, anyone who believes "asthma is caused by pressure and irritation to the lungs based on your crooked ass posture" has no fucking clue what asthma actually is.
Not that I ever had asthma officially
Ah. I see. So you feel you can make concrete statements about asthma treatment when you've never actually been diagnosed with it. Well, I'll definitely take your opinions seriously...
Ah! You think Yoga has no basis in fact? There's some very toned and flexible hotties out there proving you wrong.
Well, ridiculous health claims (eg, treating autoimmune disorders, etc) associated with yoga are pseudo-science.
Similarly:
Chiropractic care for the treatment of back issues? Fact. Chiropractic care for the treatment of asthma? Pseudo-science.
Homeopathic treatment of dehydration? Fact. Homeopathic treatment of basically anything else? Pseudo-science.
Essentially, their idea is that god's ULTIMATE truth is, of course, immutable and unchangeable. However, as imperfect beings, we are not capable of understanding that ultimate truth.
Or, to put it another, less charitable way:
I believe X... well, until science demonstrates that belief to be ridiculous. Then I believe Y instead.
And that's a pretty weak form of religion, if you ask me. Ultimately, all that means is you're willing to bend and contort your religion so it's convenient. But, again, I repeat, at that point, what *do* you believe in? If all you believe is that "there's a god, humans are born sinful, his son died for my sins, and being nice is good", what the hell is the point, exactly?