I don't know how you took "A government has a responsibility to the citizens of its country" and took that as my endorsement of nationalism, facism, and contempt for international human rights. That's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction on your part.
I get your point, but I'm willing to take that classification. A government has a responsibility to the citizens of its country. What grates my nerves is being referred to as a taxpayer, as if that is my sole purpose in my nation: funding.
Most of the people complaining about polarized glasses have been traumatized by glasses that have linear polarization. You have to be "just so" in order for it to work without scrambling your brain. This generation of glasses are circularly polarized, in opposite directions, so that you can tilt whichever way without disrupting the picture, or your eyeballs.
Well, number one is that this is a backup in case the satellites are unavailable.
Number two is that in the case of absolute failure, they're no worse off than they are today.
Let me see if I have the core elements of this experiment right:
1. Make unfounded assumptions about strangers 2. Pay special attention to their color and sex
The hypothesis: The experimenter has hidden bigotry because they make unfounded assumptions about strangers, while paying special attention to their color and sex.
You know, I was just explaining this last night to a group. It's along the same fallacy of everybody having the same ideal weight. It tries to improve by introducing a single variable: height. How tall are you? Here's how much you should weigh. Are you a 20 year old pencil neck? Are you a 60 year old 3 foot wide bodybuilder? If you're the same height, then you should weight the same! According to the BMI, I'm obese for my height. I really need to cut down on my excessive 19% body fat!
It's one of those situations where the BMI is only good for people who are obviously not fit. The closer you are to the "ideal" weight, the less accurate it is. It's redundant in a way, because if you know the BMI chart might be useful to you, it's because you already know you have to lose (or gain) weight.
For people close to fit, I try to use a chart that at least takes into account their frame size, and gives a proportionate category. If I have a ruler around, and the chance to pinch people, then I calculate their body fat % and use it along with their current weight and age to help them figure out what they need to lose, and the furthest that they should go.
But you're absolutely right, it comes down to eating less and exercising more. People need to ease into exercising. I don't know how many people I've seen sitting on their groove in the couch, deciding that they're going to do 50 push-ups every day and run 5 miles. Guess how long before they're back on the couch because "it's too hard!"?
My usual advice is that you find something that makes you breathe hard, but not so hard that you run out of breath. Do it for as long as you can. If that means jumping rope 5 times, then fine. If that means jogging for 100 feet, then fine. Eventually, it will be 500 feet, then maybe even a mile or two in the future.
I think another problem is that people expect instant results. It doesn't help that going from sedentary to active will see some pretty big results right away, but then it slows down as you reach a new equilibrium. Then it's time to eat less and exercise more, again. It think a lot of people expect to shed their fat like they're a snake shedding it's skin.
Sorry, it looks like the BMI put me in rant mode...
Actually, the law should handle this quite well.
In my state at least, paternity is established if the child shares 99% of particular markers with the potential father. In this case, one child would have 50% of Suzie's DNA and 50% of Steve's, while the other would have 50% of Suzie's and 50% of Joe's. The testing would clearly indicate which child corresponded to which father, and the law is based on that testing.
Certainly some of them will do that, but a good portion of them will just go find an older brother or an irresponsible parent to buy it for them.
While I wouldn't purchase this particular title for my child, what would make a parent irresponsible if they did for theirs? After all, isn't the point that a parent should weigh the content of the game against the maturity of their child? That it should be the parents' call?
They don't mention it on the site, but one would hope the Xbox Live servers are taking metrics on this activity, to be used in calculating the player's reputation. The more you mouth off, the worse you look to future players.
Sounds all well and good, until some jackass decides to start muting everybody else just for the fun of bringing their points down.
It's my understanding that the original point of corporate personage was solely to make corporations liable for their actions. Previously, most businesses were owned by one or two people; if that business did something wrong, you would sue the owner. Once corporations became a popular model, it was difficult to find the right person to hold responsible for any wrongdoing. Corporations then became "people" because that was the only way you could sue anyone. It's only recently (in the scope of incorporation) that personage was taken to mean rights and benefits as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Netcraft confirms it!
I think there's room enough for both. :)
I don't know how you took "A government has a responsibility to the citizens of its country" and took that as my endorsement of nationalism, facism, and contempt for international human rights. That's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction on your part.
These are not mutually exclusive principles.
Visitors: Pull lever to alert guard to unlock bathroom.
I get your point, but I'm willing to take that classification. A government has a responsibility to the citizens of its country. What grates my nerves is being referred to as a taxpayer, as if that is my sole purpose in my nation: funding.
It's a crackpot theory.
-mazarin5, physicist
I claim self defense!
Most of the people complaining about polarized glasses have been traumatized by glasses that have linear polarization. You have to be "just so" in order for it to work without scrambling your brain. This generation of glasses are circularly polarized, in opposite directions, so that you can tilt whichever way without disrupting the picture, or your eyeballs.
Lex Lutheran?
Well, number one is that this is a backup in case the satellites are unavailable.
Number two is that in the case of absolute failure, they're no worse off than they are today.
Let me see if I have the core elements of this experiment right:
1. Make unfounded assumptions about strangers
2. Pay special attention to their color and sex
The hypothesis:
The experimenter has hidden bigotry because they make unfounded assumptions about strangers, while paying special attention to their color and sex.
Pork Barrel
Hey pal, do you have a problem with the way me talk?
+5, Flamebait :)
Prove it. :)
Which is precisely why I've learned to write problems like that as
4.0x10^0 x 1.2x10^3 = 4 x 1.2x10^3 = 4.8x10^3
whereas 4x10^0 x 1.2x10^3 = 5x10^3
You know, I was just explaining this last night to a group. It's along the same fallacy of everybody having the same ideal weight. It tries to improve by introducing a single variable: height. How tall are you? Here's how much you should weigh. Are you a 20 year old pencil neck? Are you a 60 year old 3 foot wide bodybuilder? If you're the same height, then you should weight the same! According to the BMI, I'm obese for my height. I really need to cut down on my excessive 19% body fat! It's one of those situations where the BMI is only good for people who are obviously not fit. The closer you are to the "ideal" weight, the less accurate it is. It's redundant in a way, because if you know the BMI chart might be useful to you, it's because you already know you have to lose (or gain) weight. For people close to fit, I try to use a chart that at least takes into account their frame size, and gives a proportionate category. If I have a ruler around, and the chance to pinch people, then I calculate their body fat % and use it along with their current weight and age to help them figure out what they need to lose, and the furthest that they should go. But you're absolutely right, it comes down to eating less and exercising more. People need to ease into exercising. I don't know how many people I've seen sitting on their groove in the couch, deciding that they're going to do 50 push-ups every day and run 5 miles. Guess how long before they're back on the couch because "it's too hard!"? My usual advice is that you find something that makes you breathe hard, but not so hard that you run out of breath. Do it for as long as you can. If that means jumping rope 5 times, then fine. If that means jogging for 100 feet, then fine. Eventually, it will be 500 feet, then maybe even a mile or two in the future. I think another problem is that people expect instant results. It doesn't help that going from sedentary to active will see some pretty big results right away, but then it slows down as you reach a new equilibrium. Then it's time to eat less and exercise more, again. It think a lot of people expect to shed their fat like they're a snake shedding it's skin. Sorry, it looks like the BMI put me in rant mode...
Note to self: clicking the link does not count as reading the article. :)
Actually, the law should handle this quite well. In my state at least, paternity is established if the child shares 99% of particular markers with the potential father. In this case, one child would have 50% of Suzie's DNA and 50% of Steve's, while the other would have 50% of Suzie's and 50% of Joe's. The testing would clearly indicate which child corresponded to which father, and the law is based on that testing.
But TiVo has been employed by the forces of evil for years now: OOTS
What's the point of posting this here when you should be taking it up with suso? Wait... nevermind.
I read that the other way around; that google isn't liable, but they're removing any ambiguity about it.
While I wouldn't purchase this particular title for my child, what would make a parent irresponsible if they did for theirs? After all, isn't the point that a parent should weigh the content of the game against the maturity of their child? That it should be the parents' call?
Sounds all well and good, until some jackass decides to start muting everybody else just for the fun of bringing their points down.
It's my understanding that the original point of corporate personage was solely to make corporations liable for their actions. Previously, most businesses were owned by one or two people; if that business did something wrong, you would sue the owner. Once corporations became a popular model, it was difficult to find the right person to hold responsible for any wrongdoing. Corporations then became "people" because that was the only way you could sue anyone. It's only recently (in the scope of incorporation) that personage was taken to mean rights and benefits as well.