Re:Amount of water in urine
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 1
I was just discussing hydration with my doctor about two weeks ago. He told me they were taught in med school that your urine should be about the color of Mellow Yellow (common American soda, especially in the southeast). We both agreed that it looks a bit lighter than that if you drink 'enough' water, but he swore that was the standard given by his professors.
Good point. Don't wanna set up a whole Forbidden Fruit thing. That's why I like to ridicule them about dick size instead. (I drive a 240sx; you do the math.)
As a general principle, there is no good reason for life to be unfair.
I'll either skip that or come back to it later, I see it as being way out of the scope of leftist/rightist politics. [on preview: I just don't have time to tackle this one, as I'm expected at work 6:30 Monday morning]
It is the government's responsibility to correct unfair life situations to the maximum extent possible, utilizing public funds for the purpose without consideration for economic effect. In other words, if there is an itch, the government should scratch it - with cash.
When those situations fall within government's turf, yeah. But when they don't, no.
Authority in general exists to oppress us.
Authority exists because we (meaning homo sapien, the 'social animal') see the need to form governing bodies. The whole opression thing happens when a system of government is badly designed or out of whack.
There's no reason for gross income disparity.
That depends on how you define "no reason" and "gross." I expect to be rewarded better if I produce better, and of course the converse is true. For certain definitions of "gross" however, widespread disparty is an indication that the system is imblanced in some way.
The rich are enemies of the working class with disparate goals.
Enemies? Not necessarily, no. Disparate goals? Some of the goals will align, some won't, priorities can be expected to differ greatly.
The money that the rich receive is a net loss to the common worker.
Well, in the sense that many aspects of the economy tend to behave as a closed system, then of course. If I get the $4K raise I hope for next year, that's $4,000 that the company I work for will not distribute into the economy in various other ways. Of course, it's then $4,000 that I will decide how to distribute into the economy. However, if I then sock that extra money away with the other nine lifetimes' worth, then we've got $4,000 that has been removed from the short term cash flow.
So do I see that money as a net loss, as in violating the Second Law of Thermoeconomics? No. But the excess money given to 'the rich' does have a strong tendency to be removed from circulation in the near term, and that is not a bad thing in every sense, although it's not a trend we should strive for, in the grand scheme of things.
Progressive taxation is good because the government can do better things with the money than rich people will.
Because of the vastly different ratio of short term to long term income between the rich and the poor, I do feel that progressive taxation is inherently more fair. A fourth of my income is not really a burden at all to someone who makes ten times what I do.
Corporations are even more evil than the rich.
Hmm. An evil corporation could do much more evil than an evil rich person. I suppose a good corporation could therefore do much more good than a good rich person.
That said, I think I'm gonna have to disagree with your assertion that corporations and rich people are evil. A good number of them are, of course, and when one has more cash than one knows what to do with (and quite often no daily work to keep one otherwise occupied), then one can be quite obnoxiously evil. But you just can't generalize like that.
Corporations on the other hand are, at least by law, amoral. The larger ones of course tend to be run by rich people who, like the rest of us, are comprised mostly of 'ehh' people, some truly good ones, and some truly evil ones. Certain configurations of the corporate form do perform better or worse than others in various ways, at least under some circumstances. Take the tendency toward sweat shop or slave labor as one exa
I used to work as a developer creating CBT in Authorware. Our lead developer (Hi, KevRob!) created a script that, when given some basic layout specs (region, type size, etc.) and a string of text, would create a very engaging bit of clickety-beepety one-character-at-a-time 'computer' text, cursor and all. It's sad to say, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this 'feature' sold more copies of our software than all the ultra detailed photo-realistic animated cutaway renders put together.
Just because someone says you don't *need* a six ton jacked up station wagon, doesn't mean they feel you should be forbidden to buy one. Granted, many people do feel exactly that way, but a lot of us anti-SUV folks do value freedom more than anything else, even our own safety.
I was wondering how long it'd be before somebody figured it out (and didn't just keep it to themselves). Google don't answer that question, I already checked.
I couldn't remember if it was from the Was Not Was or the P-Funk version, so thanks for that!
In my town we've got four choices of grocery store, and one of them's the Great Wall Mart (which, being an idealistic sort, is right out). That leaves three choices, all three of which require tracking cards to pay the real price. Pretty much everybody around here (yeah, my sample size is large enough and my methodology is valid, so fuck off!) has a little plastic tag on their ear, err I mean keychain, from each of the three stores.
I will admit that I have at least once (just this summer) broken down and bought some meat that was tracking card encumbered, as my choices at the time were that or not have steak for dinner (a payday tradition). I did pay the inflated price, however. So while I wasn't, at that moment, 100% true to my conviction, I didn't take the carrot either.
Speaking of which, I notice that most of the outrageously good deals on meat with the tracking cards are on the less than fresh stuff that's pushing up against its sell-by date. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though.
I miss Hannaford grocery stores... they were bought out in this area by Lowe's Foods a few years ago, which instituted a tracking card system and then (wait for it) raised all the prices. And maybe I've just been unlucky, but it seems their house brand stuff is of much lower quality than Hannaford's.
The second law of thermodynamics applies equally well to business transactions as well (at least if the business intends to remain corporeal). You don't get something for nothing. Never have, never will. You paid for that DVD player, and you paid for those suitcases. The only differences between paying cash up front and the way you did it are that with cash up front you get to choose which DVD player and suitcases you want, and with the tracking card system, you also paid the costs and profits of the company providing the back end for the tracking card. So it would have been cheaper in the long run to buy what you needed outright and shop somewhere that doesn't play such games.
Municipalities no doubt *hate* to have to redo an election. So I'm sure the result of this snafu will be to ensure that either, A) This sort of fuckup of our votes never happens again, or 2) They can't be compelled to redo an election the next time this sort of fuckup of our votes happens.
Anybody wanna take a guess at which of these outcomes is vastly more likely than the other?
That doesn't explain why they need to know *who* bought what. What you've just described is something any store can't help but know: even without tracking cards, they'd know that they moved 638 bags of Purina Kiddy Chow® last week.
They'll do that at the stores I shop at, too. But, funny thing, it doesn't change the total. If the item on the shelf requires a tracking card to get the real price, I either buy a different item, or go across the street to their competitor. It's rare that they both have what I want locked into their tracking program simultaneously. I've gotten in the habit of hitting both of the large stores nearby every time I do a full grocery run. That practice has actually turned out to be beneficial to me as a consumer, so thanks data miners!
The stores in my area have a huge price differential between tracked and untracked. A 5-15% difference I could conceivably be convinced is a discount. But I simply cannot imagine that a 50%+ "discount" is anything other than a jacking up of the undiscounted price. I won't claim to speak for the stores you shop at, but around here it's quite obviously more a matter of punishing the untracked than rewarding the tracked.
I envy you. We have no small mom-n-pop grocery stores left where I live; just the typical chain stores (Lowe's Food, Harris Teeter, Food Lion), and of course the Great Wall Mart.
Yeah, some true choice would be nice. Maybe one of these days I'll find a nice, peaceful genuinely capitalistic society to emigrate to...
I'll bet slashdot is about the only place where us Supermarket Refuseniks are in the majority. I won't use one (even one with fake info) and I won't buy a single item that requires the card to get the real price.
When the cashier asks if I have a $NAME_OF_STORE Card, I answer with a strong, cheerful "Nope!" and it's been years since anybody pressed the issue any further. I assume based on their reactions that they get a fair number of customers declining (and probably with varying levels of politeness), yet I don't ever notice another customer not handing over their keychain for verification of eligibility to pay only full retail.
It's an odd thing... all these millions (are they into the billions yet?) of dollars spent to administer these programs, and I've yet to hear a single believable* justification for it.
* 'because we want to save you money!' is NOT believable. If that was their goal, they'd lower the prices and be done with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I was just discussing hydration with my doctor about two weeks ago. He told me they were taught in med school that your urine should be about the color of Mellow Yellow (common American soda, especially in the southeast). We both agreed that it looks a bit lighter than that if you drink 'enough' water, but he swore that was the standard given by his professors.
Good point. Don't wanna set up a whole Forbidden Fruit thing. That's why I like to ridicule them about dick size instead. (I drive a 240sx; you do the math.)
To each their own, though.
I'll either skip that or come back to it later, I see it as being way out of the scope of leftist/rightist politics. [on preview: I just don't have time to tackle this one, as I'm expected at work 6:30 Monday morning]
When those situations fall within government's turf, yeah. But when they don't, no.
Authority exists because we (meaning homo sapien, the 'social animal') see the need to form governing bodies. The whole opression thing happens when a system of government is badly designed or out of whack.
That depends on how you define "no reason" and "gross." I expect to be rewarded better if I produce better, and of course the converse is true. For certain definitions of "gross" however, widespread disparty is an indication that the system is imblanced in some way.
Enemies? Not necessarily, no. Disparate goals? Some of the goals will align, some won't, priorities can be expected to differ greatly.
Well, in the sense that many aspects of the economy tend to behave as a closed system, then of course. If I get the $4K raise I hope for next year, that's $4,000 that the company I work for will not distribute into the economy in various other ways. Of course, it's then $4,000 that I will decide how to distribute into the economy. However, if I then sock that extra money away with the other nine lifetimes' worth, then we've got $4,000 that has been removed from the short term cash flow.
So do I see that money as a net loss, as in violating the Second Law of Thermoeconomics? No. But the excess money given to 'the rich' does have a strong tendency to be removed from circulation in the near term, and that is not a bad thing in every sense, although it's not a trend we should strive for, in the grand scheme of things.
Because of the vastly different ratio of short term to long term income between the rich and the poor, I do feel that progressive taxation is inherently more fair. A fourth of my income is not really a burden at all to someone who makes ten times what I do.
Hmm. An evil corporation could do much more evil than an evil rich person. I suppose a good corporation could therefore do much more good than a good rich person.
That said, I think I'm gonna have to disagree with your assertion that corporations and rich people are evil. A good number of them are, of course, and when one has more cash than one knows what to do with (and quite often no daily work to keep one otherwise occupied), then one can be quite obnoxiously evil. But you just can't generalize like that.
Corporations on the other hand are, at least by law, amoral. The larger ones of course tend to be run by rich people who, like the rest of us, are comprised mostly of 'ehh' people, some truly good ones, and some truly evil ones. Certain configurations of the corporate form do perform better or worse than others in various ways, at least under some circumstances. Take the tendency toward sweat shop or slave labor as one exa
I suppose that all depends on what your definition of 'leftist' is.
Actually, seeing as how you're a fairly vocal 'rightist,' I am genuinely curious. Wht *do* you folks think 'we' believe?
Ya know, it's funny... when I read your posts, it's just like looking down while I'm taking a piss. I think to myself, "My god, WHAT A DICK!"
...sometimes decides to SPONTANEOUSLY terminate...
It's more like 99.99% of all conceptions that are aborted (or fail to continue dividing, whatever) well before the first period is missed.
I used to work as a developer creating CBT in Authorware. Our lead developer (Hi, KevRob!) created a script that, when given some basic layout specs (region, type size, etc.) and a string of text, would create a very engaging bit of clickety-beepety one-character-at-a-time 'computer' text, cursor and all. It's sad to say, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this 'feature' sold more copies of our software than all the ultra detailed photo-realistic animated cutaway renders put together.
Just because someone says you don't *need* a six ton jacked up station wagon, doesn't mean they feel you should be forbidden to buy one. Granted, many people do feel exactly that way, but a lot of us anti-SUV folks do value freedom more than anything else, even our own safety.
I can speak for nobody other than myself, but that's not my primary objection.
My favorite is Swiss, but I also like New York Extra Sharp Cheddar, both of which I usually buy the store brand of.
I was wondering how long it'd be before somebody figured it out (and didn't just keep it to themselves). Google don't answer that question, I already checked.
I couldn't remember if it was from the Was Not Was or the P-Funk version, so thanks for that!
In my town we've got four choices of grocery store, and one of them's the Great Wall Mart (which, being an idealistic sort, is right out). That leaves three choices, all three of which require tracking cards to pay the real price. Pretty much everybody around here (yeah, my sample size is large enough and my methodology is valid, so fuck off!) has a little plastic tag on their ear, err I mean keychain, from each of the three stores.
So much for the whole 'loyalty' thing, then.
You are, unfortunately, quite correct.
I will admit that I have at least once (just this summer) broken down and bought some meat that was tracking card encumbered, as my choices at the time were that or not have steak for dinner (a payday tradition). I did pay the inflated price, however. So while I wasn't, at that moment, 100% true to my conviction, I didn't take the carrot either.
Speaking of which, I notice that most of the outrageously good deals on meat with the tracking cards are on the less than fresh stuff that's pushing up against its sell-by date. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though.
I miss Hannaford grocery stores... they were bought out in this area by Lowe's Foods a few years ago, which instituted a tracking card system and then (wait for it) raised all the prices. And maybe I've just been unlucky, but it seems their house brand stuff is of much lower quality than Hannaford's.
And there's no cash cost.
Yep, some things in life really are free.
NOT!
The second law of thermodynamics applies equally well to business transactions as well (at least if the business intends to remain corporeal). You don't get something for nothing. Never have, never will. You paid for that DVD player, and you paid for those suitcases. The only differences between paying cash up front and the way you did it are that with cash up front you get to choose which DVD player and suitcases you want, and with the tracking card system, you also paid the costs and profits of the company providing the back end for the tracking card. So it would have been cheaper in the long run to buy what you needed outright and shop somewhere that doesn't play such games.
Municipalities no doubt *hate* to have to redo an election. So I'm sure the result of this snafu will be to ensure that either, A) This sort of fuckup of our votes never happens again, or 2) They can't be compelled to redo an election the next time this sort of fuckup of our votes happens.
Anybody wanna take a guess at which of these outcomes is vastly more likely than the other?
That doesn't explain why they need to know *who* bought what. What you've just described is something any store can't help but know: even without tracking cards, they'd know that they moved 638 bags of Purina Kiddy Chow® last week.
No need to track the GUID across sessions in that scheme. Competitive coupons could be handed out for what's purchased in that isolated transaction.
Relative to the girl, yes.
But in an absolute sense? Not so much.
Cool, thanks for the info Andy!
Hmm, he seems to have an exemplary credit rating... I guess you really *can* get free iPods off the internets!
Thanks, Dan!
They'll do that at the stores I shop at, too. But, funny thing, it doesn't change the total. If the item on the shelf requires a tracking card to get the real price, I either buy a different item, or go across the street to their competitor. It's rare that they both have what I want locked into their tracking program simultaneously. I've gotten in the habit of hitting both of the large stores nearby every time I do a full grocery run. That practice has actually turned out to be beneficial to me as a consumer, so thanks data miners!
Wow, looks like I pissed someone off; two comments on the subject modded down within five minutes of posting.
Here, ya missed one.
Impressive.
Wilmington.
The stores in my area have a huge price differential between tracked and untracked. A 5-15% difference I could conceivably be convinced is a discount. But I simply cannot imagine that a 50%+ "discount" is anything other than a jacking up of the undiscounted price. I won't claim to speak for the stores you shop at, but around here it's quite obviously more a matter of punishing the untracked than rewarding the tracked.
I envy you. We have no small mom-n-pop grocery stores left where I live; just the typical chain stores (Lowe's Food, Harris Teeter, Food Lion), and of course the Great Wall Mart.
Yeah, some true choice would be nice. Maybe one of these days I'll find a nice, peaceful genuinely capitalistic society to emigrate to...
I'll bet slashdot is about the only place where us Supermarket Refuseniks are in the majority. I won't use one (even one with fake info) and I won't buy a single item that requires the card to get the real price.
When the cashier asks if I have a $NAME_OF_STORE Card, I answer with a strong, cheerful "Nope!" and it's been years since anybody pressed the issue any further. I assume based on their reactions that they get a fair number of customers declining (and probably with varying levels of politeness), yet I don't ever notice another customer not handing over their keychain for verification of eligibility to pay only full retail.
It's an odd thing... all these millions (are they into the billions yet?) of dollars spent to administer these programs, and I've yet to hear a single believable* justification for it.
* 'because we want to save you money!' is NOT believable. If that was their goal, they'd lower the prices and be done with it.