Not that I buy bottled water, but I could understand an argument based on taste. Some water definitely tastes better than others (in Vermont, for example, I think the tap water tastes HORRIBLE), and so buying "standard" water instead of local water could be a valid argument.
Is the ability to turn it off. For a shared computer (like a family computer, or a lab computer) there should be an option to turn "machine learning" off. I don't know that much about it, but from what I've read (ex: automatically creating bookmarks for oft-visited webpages) some people would really, REALLY hate it for obvious reasons.
And if he only ran as fast as OTHER PEOPLE WERE RUNNING ALREADY then he would be fine. They aren't tearing their muscles, neither would he. (Assuming proper conditioning, of course).
I'm skeptical. He should have World Records in just about every event in every sport that involves endurance. Think every event over 800m in running for a start. The Olympic class runners can't even run flat out for 800m (I mean, they run way faster than most people throughout the race, but they definitely slow down as they get further into the race).
If he was really scared of hurting himself in races such as those he would just need to shadow the lead runner and then pass him right at the end-- because he wouldn't be tired right?
But hey, maybe he didn't capitalize on his unique condition for some reason I'm not aware of.
How can the way you pronounce the name of an author POSSIBLY indicate that you read the book rather than just hearing about it? I expect most people who've read a book can pronounce the author's name correctly, especially if the author is famous.
I'd say how you pronounce a name (and your reason for doing so) indicates how smart you think you are.
I guess the people who go "Ok! I'm converted!" have never used the Google Toolbar. It blocks pop-ups very well plus gives you all the other Google functions right at the top of your screen.
First off, I think it said he only supersized things like 9 times over the course of the month. They don't always ask you to supersize (maybe they're supposed to, but if they think you know what you want they usually don't bother). Also, he had to eat everything on the menu at least once, so there was a limit to how much he could "stack" the meals he ate over the course of the month.
My problem with the movie was the amount of exercise he got. He walked the amount the "Average American" walks a day. I don't know how he got that number, but I remember him stating one time that he used up most of his steps (he kept track of the distance by number of steps) on the way out of his apartment building.
The place he got that data was the editor of some sort of "walking" magazine (guess they have magazines for everything now). He obviously wants to bring attention to how little people walk so the statistic may be skewed.
Ummm... no. Not selling a console is a loss of X. Selling a console is a loss of X- $150 (or whatever they sell for now). They're losing money on every console they make, but losing less each time they sell one.
Good Samaritan laws don't require you to stop, they keep you from getting in legal trouble if you DO stop. If you're doing the best you can to save someone's life and you mess up (you only had 8 hours of training) you can't be held legally responsible for that person's death. If you did something blatantly wrong/stupid that goes out the window (like kicking them instead of giving CPR or something) you're no longer protected.
Different laws might force you to stop and help if you have the right training (not in my state) but those aren't the Good Samaritan laws:)
7 thugs surround you? The one behind you stabs you in the back. (AGAIN: HOW LIKELY IS THIS???)
The police may have no obligation, but I bet it depends on certain factors (probably concerning the policeman's safety. I'm a volunteer EMT and while I have a responsibility to save your life--if I'm on duty, random people don't have that-- if my safety would be threatened I should NOT help you for a variety of reasons I won't go into now).
Anyway, I'm talking more about burglary, etc. Not a mugging. That's going to be over so fast unless a police officer is right there nothing could be done, but that's life. And you don't have to stay on the phone, call and hang-up if you have to. Then hide and wait for the cops.
Finally, you could "just take a second or two to shoot [your] attacker", but I doubt that would happen:
1) What if he attacks from behind? 2) What if you can't get to your gun quick enough?
There's more of those logistical problems, but finally:
What if you can't do it? I mean, you talk very easily about ending someone's life (and you would be aiming for their chest, not a great place for even one bullet to hit) but when push came to shove could you actually shoot someone? I doubt it. I'm not talking to you in specific, but let's look at soldiers, for example. Many (most?) soldiers when in war don't fire their weapon when under attack. This is a well documented phenomenon. Now, these are trained soldiers heading into combat where they KNOW they might have to shoot and kill the enemy. You are a civilian, no (specific) training in killing people, no knowledge before the situation that you might have to kill someone that day. All I'm saying is even having a gun AND the opportunity to use it may not help in any situation.
"If you are unarmed and surrounded, a gun and a knife are equally deadly. If you are armed and can defend yourself, you stand a much better chance of surviving if YOU have a gun."
First of all, how often does that happen? Very rarely (except in movies, heh). Even if that DID happen the ONLY smart thing to do would be to drop the gun and give up.
Also, people in bad neighborhoods are going to be at risk for crime whether or not guns are legal. And they can protect themselves much more safely by just calling the police. Incidents involving guns owned by either party are much more likely to result in somebody dying, which I would argue is always a bad thing.
Yes, a knife murder and gun murder are equally bad.
BUT, and this is a big BUT (you fucking moron) a robbery with A KNIFE involved is much less likely to result in somebody dying than a robbery with A GUN involved. Get it? Or maybe you just don't care.
And since you started calling names... "crime skyrockets while the working class suffers" what are you? A fucking commie pinko leftist bastard? (Who still holds a very right-wing view of gun control?) Since when does "the working class" have anything to do with gun control? Only working people buy guns? Rich people don't get robbed?
First, the BoJ statistics end in 1996. The gun ban was passed in 1997. Ummm... let's ignore that link.
Second, compare things the gun ban will actually AFFECT. I'm talking about murder by handguns, etc. The UK rate is way lower, as I said. Burglary and what not (how most people are affected) probably won't change as most burglars aren't going to rob a house when anybody's home to actually use the gun.
It's really easy to throw around misleading statistics (as you did) but when you look at the statistics that are affected by the gun ban you'll see an entirely different picture.
"guys and girls are about equally strong after the age of 25 or so (guys are lucky to have a short period in their young adult lives where their strength-to-weight ratio has a bit of a boost)"
Ummm... what? Maybe pound for pound, but equally strong? Not a chance. 125 lb. woman vs. 175 lb. man the man is definitely stronger.
You do know that violent crime is WAY LOWER in England than in America? Maybe you don't have a gun to defend yourself, but the mugger (or burglar, whatever) doesn't have a gun to ROB you with.
Going after FOIA requests about subjects that could be stepping stones to terrorism. I don't know about you, but I don't want a terrorist having detailed plans to the structure of a building I'm living/working/going to school in, etc.
Also, securing a MULTI-THOUSAND mile border is a much tougher task than checking on strange FOIA requests. Maybe our government can take care of the easy stuff while working on the hard stuff... makes sense to me. (Oh yeah, the FBI doesn't do border patrol, so why their resources would ever be spent on that I don't know).
Standardized testing is big business in America now, so let me clue you in.
1) The test has to start in a 30 minute time frame so that the East Coast is still in the testing room when the West Coast goes in (no emailing/ IMing/ text messaging answers across timezones).
2) Multiple choice answers are released like 5 to 7 years after the test was administered. Free Response questions are given to the teachers (tests are administered at your school) the day of the exam as they aren't reused.
3) What can happen to people who don't play by their rules? Try getting into college without taking the SATs (same people). None of your APs will count. Maybe you'll be sued, I don't know, but I DO know that your school's right to administer ANY AP EVER can and has been revoked.
So as much as you'd like to think "that's crap" it isn't-- at least not legally.
Most people who follow the directions (at least on processed food) are doing it because they're looking for a quick/dirty approach to eating (or whatever). If they had wanted to start getting creative with it they probably would just cook something!
Also, directions are, generally speaking, the best way to do the given task. The product won't last long if it's directions suck. You can see that when you first try to build something without the directions and then, after giving up and grabbing the instructions, putting it together quickly.
While reading an article on this I think I saw that the theory has been proved by other methods already, just not to such a precise degree. They thought about scrapping it, but why spend 650 million or something and have nothing?
It was invented to keep the team in the field from getting two outs whenever the bases were loaded or there were men on 1st and 2nd and the batter popped up in the infield (or shallow outfield, umpire's disgression).
The reasoning was: the runners had no chance to get out of a double play. The fielder could choose to catch the ball (and double up the runner) or drop the ball (and make an easy double play). The runner was damned if he ran to break up the DP or damned if stayed on base to keep from getting doubled up. Now the team in the field just gets one (automatic) out.
Just FYI, if you think about it the infield fly rule makes perfect sense... it was developed because before it was institued EVERY pop fly in the infield resulted in a double play (in the situations in which it applies). This is because the base runners never knew if the infielders would catch the ball or let it drop. No matter what happened-- whether the ball was caught and a runner doubled up or the ball wasn't caught and there would be an easy double play-- there WOULD BE a double play. Now you only get one (automatic) out unless the runners are incredibly stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I buy bottled water, but I could understand an argument based on taste. Some water definitely tastes better than others (in Vermont, for example, I think the tap water tastes HORRIBLE), and so buying "standard" water instead of local water could be a valid argument.
Is the ability to turn it off. For a shared computer (like a family computer, or a lab computer) there should be an option to turn "machine learning" off. I don't know that much about it, but from what I've read (ex: automatically creating bookmarks for oft-visited webpages) some people would really, REALLY hate it for obvious reasons.
And if he only ran as fast as OTHER PEOPLE WERE RUNNING ALREADY then he would be fine. They aren't tearing their muscles, neither would he. (Assuming proper conditioning, of course).
I'm skeptical. He should have World Records in just about every event in every sport that involves endurance. Think every event over 800m in running for a start. The Olympic class runners can't even run flat out for 800m (I mean, they run way faster than most people throughout the race, but they definitely slow down as they get further into the race).
If he was really scared of hurting himself in races such as those he would just need to shadow the lead runner and then pass him right at the end-- because he wouldn't be tired right?
But hey, maybe he didn't capitalize on his unique condition for some reason I'm not aware of.
How can the way you pronounce the name of an author POSSIBLY indicate that you read the book rather than just hearing about it? I expect most people who've read a book can pronounce the author's name correctly, especially if the author is famous.
I'd say how you pronounce a name (and your reason for doing so) indicates how smart you think you are.
I guess the people who go "Ok! I'm converted!" have never used the Google Toolbar. It blocks pop-ups very well plus gives you all the other Google functions right at the top of your screen.
First off, I think it said he only supersized things like 9 times over the course of the month. They don't always ask you to supersize (maybe they're supposed to, but if they think you know what you want they usually don't bother). Also, he had to eat everything on the menu at least once, so there was a limit to how much he could "stack" the meals he ate over the course of the month.
My problem with the movie was the amount of exercise he got. He walked the amount the "Average American" walks a day. I don't know how he got that number, but I remember him stating one time that he used up most of his steps (he kept track of the distance by number of steps) on the way out of his apartment building.
The place he got that data was the editor of some sort of "walking" magazine (guess they have magazines for everything now). He obviously wants to bring attention to how little people walk so the statistic may be skewed.
I doubt the government will allow any private companies to build a rocket as large as the Saturn V... especially in the current political environment:
Pres. Bush: Just think of what the terrorists could do with a rocket that big?
"the more it sells, the more Microsoft loses"
Ummm... no. Not selling a console is a loss of X. Selling a console is a loss of X- $150 (or whatever they sell for now). They're losing money on every console they make, but losing less each time they sell one.
You can get "tatoos" that look real (mostly) but come off in about a month.
Good Samaritan laws don't require you to stop, they keep you from getting in legal trouble if you DO stop. If you're doing the best you can to save someone's life and you mess up (you only had 8 hours of training) you can't be held legally responsible for that person's death. If you did something blatantly wrong/stupid that goes out the window (like kicking them instead of giving CPR or something) you're no longer protected.
:)
Different laws might force you to stop and help if you have the right training (not in my state) but those aren't the Good Samaritan laws
7 thugs surround you? The one behind you stabs you in the back. (AGAIN: HOW LIKELY IS THIS???)
The police may have no obligation, but I bet it depends on certain factors (probably concerning the policeman's safety. I'm a volunteer EMT and while I have a responsibility to save your life--if I'm on duty, random people don't have that-- if my safety would be threatened I should NOT help you for a variety of reasons I won't go into now).
Anyway, I'm talking more about burglary, etc. Not a mugging. That's going to be over so fast unless a police officer is right there nothing could be done, but that's life. And you don't have to stay on the phone, call and hang-up if you have to. Then hide and wait for the cops.
Finally, you could "just take a second or two to shoot [your] attacker", but I doubt that would happen:
1) What if he attacks from behind?
2) What if you can't get to your gun quick enough?
There's more of those logistical problems, but finally:
What if you can't do it? I mean, you talk very easily about ending someone's life (and you would be aiming for their chest, not a great place for even one bullet to hit) but when push came to shove could you actually shoot someone? I doubt it. I'm not talking to you in specific, but let's look at soldiers, for example. Many (most?) soldiers when in war don't fire their weapon when under attack. This is a well documented phenomenon. Now, these are trained soldiers heading into combat where they KNOW they might have to shoot and kill the enemy. You are a civilian, no (specific) training in killing people, no knowledge before the situation that you might have to kill someone that day. All I'm saying is even having a gun AND the opportunity to use it may not help in any situation.
"If you are unarmed and surrounded, a gun and a knife are equally deadly. If you are armed and can defend yourself, you stand a much better chance of surviving if YOU have a gun."
First of all, how often does that happen? Very rarely (except in movies, heh). Even if that DID happen the ONLY smart thing to do would be to drop the gun and give up.
Also, people in bad neighborhoods are going to be at risk for crime whether or not guns are legal. And they can protect themselves much more safely by just calling the police. Incidents involving guns owned by either party are much more likely to result in somebody dying, which I would argue is always a bad thing.
Yes, a knife murder and gun murder are equally bad.
BUT, and this is a big BUT (you fucking moron) a robbery with A KNIFE involved is much less likely to result in somebody dying than a robbery with A GUN involved. Get it? Or maybe you just don't care.
And since you started calling names... "crime skyrockets while the working class suffers" what are you? A fucking commie pinko leftist bastard? (Who still holds a very right-wing view of gun control?) Since when does "the working class" have anything to do with gun control? Only working people buy guns? Rich people don't get robbed?
First, the BoJ statistics end in 1996. The gun ban was passed in 1997. Ummm... let's ignore that link.
Second, compare things the gun ban will actually AFFECT. I'm talking about murder by handguns, etc. The UK rate is way lower, as I said. Burglary and what not (how most people are affected) probably won't change as most burglars aren't going to rob a house when anybody's home to actually use the gun.
It's really easy to throw around misleading statistics (as you did) but when you look at the statistics that are affected by the gun ban you'll see an entirely different picture.
"guys and girls are about equally strong after the age of 25 or so (guys are lucky to have a short period in their young adult lives where their strength-to-weight ratio has a bit of a boost)"
Ummm... what? Maybe pound for pound, but equally strong? Not a chance. 125 lb. woman vs. 175 lb. man the man is definitely stronger.
You do know that violent crime is WAY LOWER in England than in America? Maybe you don't have a gun to defend yourself, but the mugger (or burglar, whatever) doesn't have a gun to ROB you with.
17 feet per gallon? That's nice, but modern aircraft carriers (at least all the one built by the US now) have nuclear reactors. No gas.
Going after FOIA requests about subjects that could be stepping stones to terrorism. I don't know about you, but I don't want a terrorist having detailed plans to the structure of a building I'm living/working/going to school in, etc.
Also, securing a MULTI-THOUSAND mile border is a much tougher task than checking on strange FOIA requests. Maybe our government can take care of the easy stuff while working on the hard stuff... makes sense to me. (Oh yeah, the FBI doesn't do border patrol, so why their resources would ever be spent on that I don't know).
Standardized testing is big business in America now, so let me clue you in.
1) The test has to start in a 30 minute time frame so that the East Coast is still in the testing room when the West Coast goes in (no emailing/ IMing/ text messaging answers across timezones).
2) Multiple choice answers are released like 5 to 7 years after the test was administered. Free Response questions are given to the teachers (tests are administered at your school) the day of the exam as they aren't reused.
3) What can happen to people who don't play by their rules? Try getting into college without taking the SATs (same people). None of your APs will count. Maybe you'll be sued, I don't know, but I DO know that your school's right to administer ANY AP EVER can and has been revoked.
So as much as you'd like to think "that's crap" it isn't-- at least not legally.
Most people who follow the directions (at least on processed food) are doing it because they're looking for a quick/dirty approach to eating (or whatever). If they had wanted to start getting creative with it they probably would just cook something!
Also, directions are, generally speaking, the best way to do the given task. The product won't last long if it's directions suck. You can see that when you first try to build something without the directions and then, after giving up and grabbing the instructions, putting it together quickly.
While reading an article on this I think I saw that the theory has been proved by other methods already, just not to such a precise degree. They thought about scrapping it, but why spend 650 million or something and have nothing?
It was invented to keep the team in the field from getting two outs whenever the bases were loaded or there were men on 1st and 2nd and the batter popped up in the infield (or shallow outfield, umpire's disgression).
The reasoning was: the runners had no chance to get out of a double play. The fielder could choose to catch the ball (and double up the runner) or drop the ball (and make an easy double play). The runner was damned if he ran to break up the DP or damned if stayed on base to keep from getting doubled up. Now the team in the field just gets one (automatic) out.
But I guess you probably weren't serious.
Just FYI, if you think about it the infield fly rule makes perfect sense... it was developed because before it was institued EVERY pop fly in the infield resulted in a double play (in the situations in which it applies). This is because the base runners never knew if the infielders would catch the ball or let it drop. No matter what happened-- whether the ball was caught and a runner doubled up or the ball wasn't caught and there would be an easy double play-- there WOULD BE a double play. Now you only get one (automatic) out unless the runners are incredibly stupid.
Conran is a "he". Not a "she".