You're still missing the point. The U.S. throws itself into these situations, tries to finesse the outcome so people we like end up in power (usually despotic assholes), and makes it worse.
As Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef said recently when asked what he thinks the U.S. should do in the latest situation, "how about nothing?" He suggested we try fucking off, and letting the people in the region handle it.
I agree - making a list of all the countries who are *not* in the region but happy to participate in bombing it, I think we should try fucking off for once.
I'd like to see the average income for a Tesla owner, I imagine it is relatively high. I also imagine most would have bought a Tesla regardless of the tax break, so I agree we should not be subsidizing the sales of cars for higher income individuals.
I'm still in favor of the professionals making laws and public policy, rather than leaving decisions to *your* imagination.
But still... let me give it a try - "I imagine that Assad and the Syrian rebels would come to some accord if the U.S. threatened to nuke the entire country, so let's start with one of their smaller cities, and see if they take the hint."
The point is there's a bully. There's a need for someone that can help to help. I don't see why it's an issue that the world wants to help.
When 80% of bombing missions against ISIS are lead by the U.S., it's not "the world wants to help" it's the U.S. continuing to do what has failed for a hundred years, and almost certainly making it worse.
For a change, instead of killing lots of people in a fight halfway around the world, it would be heartening to see the U.S. let the regional countries decide how to respond.
I know you will continue not to understand, so feel free to have the last word. You're not showing comprehension of the point.
You can say, "oh no you dint" all you like, but you are literally part of the campaign. Which tickles me, because you think you're not subject to the same shit that's used on all of us.
The name had washed over me completely when I read TFS. Not only the name, but the fact that we were talking about a Dell device. This thread has now set the name in my head.
There you go, and you can thank the folks I responded to for helping to set the hook.
So what you are saying is that if say, the thing had awful battery life, and we commented on it, we'd be doing Dell a favor? The marketing guys and gals would bask in the glow of knowing they had done their jobs, and give the battery design team all raises because they generated buzz?
Names are not functions, or the awfully named iPad would never have caught on. Try to tell the difference between one thing and another - it will really help you exist in this world.
I am gratified that this so tweaks you that you felt you had to respond to three of my posts.
Now *you* are participating in Dell's marketing. Whether you like or will remember the name yourself is irrelevant, I'm pointing out that the GGP is participating in spreading the name. Why is it so hard for people to understand more than one point about an issue?
So if I see you being attacked I should just assume its your own business and walk away?
No, because in that case the attack is happening, as the GP said, in your location. He explicitly stated that the people in the area where the attacks are occurring should respond.
Why are you pretending you don't understand the point?
... and you are figuratively moving the goalposts. "Advancing their cause" is not the same thing as "working for". If you literally work for someone, that means you take direction from them, and are paid for your efforts.
I disagree. I can literally work for a political candidate, without either taking direction from him, or getting paid. Also, you did say, "and are paid for your efforts", which would mean you think unpaid interns don't work for the companies who give them internships.
The real culprit here is the English language, which is not very precise. I think you're counting on a certainty that's not present.
I disagree. By continuing the discussion (both you and I are doing it with these very posts), he does participate in the marketing of the name. And so are we. The only way to avoid that is to not comment. But feel free to continue supporting their marketing of the PC.
You missed my point, which was the GP's post was an absolute statement which was absurd on its face, because of obvious alternative possibilities, one of which I mentioned.
You can argue the specifics of this woman's case all you like and it doesn't affect the point I was making.
The whole point is many skinny people violate this law but do not get obese.
No, they don't. If they did somehow take in more calories then they put out without gaining weight they would be destroying matter and energy, which is physically impossible in our universe. Our bodies are not some magical boxes where the laws of physics suddenly stop applying.
Um, no, you're wrong. One possibility is that their bodies excrete a higher percentage of the food they take in without metabolizing it. No magic involved.
I think you have a too simplistic view of human bodies. They are not machines that perfectly process whatever is put into them.
kill all gut bacteria from fat people and see if they thin in some cases.
and since in the usa almost everyone takes massive doses of antibiotics for even bad hair day, i think this is debunked with readily available data already.
Slashdot Mirror
...Jonathon Coulton's "I'm Your Moon", Pluto is not a planet.
Plutophiles need to get over it.
My point was obviously that I was tweaking you for throwing in a casual edict based on whatever bias is dangling in front of your nose at the moment.
My conclusion was also obviously that I'm glad you don't get a say in public policy. Sorry to put your knickers in a twist.
You're still missing the point. The U.S. throws itself into these situations, tries to finesse the outcome so people we like end up in power (usually despotic assholes), and makes it worse.
As Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef said recently when asked what he thinks the U.S. should do in the latest situation, "how about nothing?" He suggested we try fucking off, and letting the people in the region handle it.
I agree - making a list of all the countries who are *not* in the region but happy to participate in bombing it, I think we should try fucking off for once.
I'd like to see the average income for a Tesla owner, I imagine it is relatively high. I also imagine most would have bought a Tesla regardless of the tax break, so I agree we should not be subsidizing the sales of cars for higher income individuals.
I'm still in favor of the professionals making laws and public policy, rather than leaving decisions to *your* imagination.
But still... let me give it a try - "I imagine that Assad and the Syrian rebels would come to some accord if the U.S. threatened to nuke the entire country, so let's start with one of their smaller cities, and see if they take the hint."
Hey, I like this!
Oh, and... you don't know the mean of the word mythical. I'll bet there's a lot of words for which you don't know the meaning.
Stay dumb, bro.
I did notice. It's part of the funny.
But it's clear you can't admit you're just like the rest of us. I love twonking retards like you.
I continue to enjoy this proof that so many /.'ers think they are immune to the techniques employed by corporations. It. Is. ADORABLE!
The point is there's a bully. There's a need for someone that can help to help. I don't see why it's an issue that the world wants to help.
When 80% of bombing missions against ISIS are lead by the U.S., it's not "the world wants to help" it's the U.S. continuing to do what has failed for a hundred years, and almost certainly making it worse.
For a change, instead of killing lots of people in a fight halfway around the world, it would be heartening to see the U.S. let the regional countries decide how to respond.
I know you will continue not to understand, so feel free to have the last word. You're not showing comprehension of the point.
You used its name, and you STILL don't get it!
Yowza!
You can say, "oh no you dint" all you like, but you are literally part of the campaign. Which tickles me, because you think you're not subject to the same shit that's used on all of us.
Go ahead, keep denying it, this is a hoot!
The name had washed over me completely when I read TFS. Not only the name, but the fact that we were talking about a Dell device. This thread has now set the name in my head.
There you go, and you can thank the folks I responded to for helping to set the hook.
I don't make the rules, I just make fun of them.
Your post has nothing to do with mine, so I can only conclude that you responded to the wrong one.
So what you are saying is that if say, the thing had awful battery life, and we commented on it, we'd be doing Dell a favor? The marketing guys and gals would bask in the glow of knowing they had done their jobs, and give the battery design team all raises because they generated buzz?
Names are not functions, or the awfully named iPad would never have caught on. Try to tell the difference between one thing and another - it will really help you exist in this world.
I am gratified that this so tweaks you that you felt you had to respond to three of my posts.
I have no such interest in you. Fare thee well.
Now *you* are participating in Dell's marketing. Whether you like or will remember the name yourself is irrelevant, I'm pointing out that the GGP is participating in spreading the name. Why is it so hard for people to understand more than one point about an issue?
And the beat goes on...
You're continuing to pretend that you understand what you wrote. That is ADORABLE!
So if I see you being attacked I should just assume its your own business and walk away?
No, because in that case the attack is happening, as the GP said, in your location. He explicitly stated that the people in the area where the attacks are occurring should respond.
Why are you pretending you don't understand the point?
yes they are "literally" advancing their cause
... and you are figuratively moving the goalposts. "Advancing their cause" is not the same thing as "working for". If you literally work for someone, that means you take direction from them, and are paid for your efforts.
I disagree. I can literally work for a political candidate, without either taking direction from him, or getting paid. Also, you did say, "and are paid for your efforts", which would mean you think unpaid interns don't work for the companies who give them internships.
The real culprit here is the English language, which is not very precise. I think you're counting on a certainty that's not present.
I'm not sure what your post is supposed to mean, but mine just means, "hey, that reminds me of this great book!". As I said.
Oh lord, I don't think you even understand what you wrote. I'm not a grade school teacher; figure it out for yourself.
I disagree. By continuing the discussion (both you and I are doing it with these very posts), he does participate in the marketing of the name. And so are we. The only way to avoid that is to not comment. But feel free to continue supporting their marketing of the PC.
You missed my point, which was the GP's post was an absolute statement which was absurd on its face, because of obvious alternative possibilities, one of which I mentioned.
You can argue the specifics of this woman's case all you like and it doesn't affect the point I was making.
It's funny that I explained it to you, and you still didn't get it. And you're still doing it!
Obviously it isn't the whole law: wood has quite a lot of calories and burns nicely in a stove. But try getting fat from eating sawdust.
What, nobody told you what that "filler" is in all those foods imported from China?
I thought the filler was melamine. Or lead.
The whole point is many skinny people violate this law but do not get obese.
No, they don't. If they did somehow take in more calories then they put out without gaining weight they would be destroying matter and energy, which is physically impossible in our universe. Our bodies are not some magical boxes where the laws of physics suddenly stop applying.
Um, no, you're wrong. One possibility is that their bodies excrete a higher percentage of the food they take in without metabolizing it. No magic involved.
I think you have a too simplistic view of human bodies. They are not machines that perfectly process whatever is put into them.
it's easy to test this hypothesis.
kill all gut bacteria from fat people and see if they thin in some cases.
and since in the usa almost everyone takes massive doses of antibiotics for even bad hair day, i think this is debunked with readily available data already.
I volunteer you for this study.