If that's the case, I'm interested to see how facebook receives (or doesn't, or manipulates) stories that show a strong connection between heavy facebook usage and mental illness.
Although I have a facebook account, I rarely use it. In fact, facebook recently kept sending me an email every day bugging me to send them all of my email contacts so that I could find more friends on facebook...so, I unsubscribed from facebook emails. I only keep my account on there because people I actually know IRL ask me to. And even though I'm part of those 1.04 billion who "use facebook", I certainly don't get my news, share political views, or interact with politicians on it.
In fact, I specifically go out of my way to avoid it. Every now and then somebody starts blabbering about a "hot topic" they found on it, and when they show it to me, my first instinct is to quickly dismiss it and remind them to only take that stuff with a pinch of salt and to make sure they fact check it against reliable sources, because facebook is definitely not reliable.
You know what, I have to second that notion. They're the reason I don't bother to vote for political offices anymore. I'll vote for the referendum issues, i.e. legalize cannabis, the signal to noise on the political offices is polluted by low information voters so bad, it's just not worth bothering.
An example of low information: Most of the anti-Trump crusade thinks he makes racist statements all the time. I don't know whether or not the man is racist, but I personally haven't seen him make any comments that come off to me as racist.
Most commonly cited is stopping Muslims from entering the country; not only do I like Scott Adam's take on it (see this for reference) but Islam isn't a race, and talking down or otherwise disparaging their religious views isn't anymore racist than doing the same thing to a Scientologist or a Christian (something that seems PC to do, in spite of being decidedly un-PC when done to a Muslim.) The exception I take to that is it goes directly against the first amendment, which is unacceptable, but it's not in any way shape or form racist.
Second most common is stopping illegal immigration. Mexico not being a race notwithstanding (hell, as far as I know I'm pure Caucasian, yet half of the Mexicans I know have lighter skin than I do) there have been many a politician who have called for the same thing and haven't been accused of being racist.
You have to have a somewhat low or at least loose standard for what qualifies as "racist" in order to say that (think PC Principal on South Park.)
Now that doesn't mean I endorse Trump; I think his economic ideas are boneheaded and he'll make a terrible chief diplomat. And to be honest, I'm also not particularly interested in a single person that is running for president.
You are overconfident and arrogant, exactly like one would expect from a religious true believer.
Or his talking points are used and overused to the point that they have been thoroughly debunked by people much smarter than myself, hence I've seen them before. It's very much comparable to somebody telling you that being exposed to cold air puts will cause you to catch a cold, or a homeopathic doctor telling you why he's right and you're wrong. At some point when you've heard it so many times, you begin to respond in a way that others will perceive as arrogance. It's not, it's just frustration.
After all, I rightly pointed out a blatant factual error he was making, and he was making it based entirely off of an urban myth.
While I have no personal objection to GMO, it is sheer folly to claim that "you know what you will get", and no competent scientist would make that claim. We're centuries away from having that kind of knowledge.
This is true if you're making a new alteration to a genome for the first time, because nucleotides tend to express themselves in more than one way (a classic example is the gene for cystic fibrosis affecting numerous bodily systems.) However that's where your argument ends, as I'll explain below.
We don't fully understand any of the plants we've been using for thousands of years, in any environment they grow in, let alone all of them. There is an enormous difference between experiments in the laboratory and how things behave in the real world, with all of its enormous variation and complexity, and all kinds of unexpected things can and do happen.
You were doing so well up until here. The reason I say you know what you're going to get is because prior to selling these plants, they're field tested numerous times, which means they've been grown and regrown and experimented on over and over in an actual crop in a real world setting. Nobody would risk marketing a product like that without doing extensive testing to make sure that it does what it's supposed to do. Common sense should tell you that would be like making big changes to the Linux kernel and marking it stable without even compiling it yet. But, you seem to have made a similar bad assumption to the ones that GP made.
Now as for the entire plant genome, sure, we don't know what *every* nucleotide does. However we know more than enough about the specific ones that are being constructed.
I've run into one of those before. My dad and I were having a conversation during the FUCKING PREVIEWS and some little shit derp tells us to be quiet and watch the movie. What movie? It's just shitty advertisements, in this case what was showing was a preview for some moronic crap teenie bopper flick.
No, no you don't, especially when you insert genes from another organism, let alone kingdom (which is actually being done.) You know what you're expecting, not what you're actually going to get, especially once subjected to random mutation afterwards.
Oh, I see you bought the whole "frankenfood" urban myth, hook, line, and sinker. I'd tell you that genes such as the one for glyphosate resistance (the most common GMO) are constructed genes, but you'd refuse to believe anything that hasn't been divined from food religion "bible" sites like naturalnews.com or mercola.com, because God damnit, they MUST come from another organism! So sayeth the long ago discredited principle of vitalism. Of course, I'm sure those same sources have told you about terminator genes, and if so, I'd like to ask, what organism do you think those genes came from, and why isn't it extinct already? (Oops, somebody found a contradiction in your religious texts.)
So just to be clear, you acknowledge that what you eat is important to your condition, and then you don't believe that what you eat might be important to your condition? You're pretty hilarious.
Obviously you read a different parent post than the one I read. Because if you notice, the post I replied to used a lot of very non-specific (in other words, bullshit charlatan language) qualifiers for why his ideological food is superior, without going anywhere close to giving a specific reason for why. In fact, he even went in a very naively wrong direction, calling out blood sugar regulation, which has all of zero to do with my condition. Meanwhile, the foods I mentioned are ruled out from renal diets (google that term) specifically due to their very precisely measured electrolyte content.
I also played a trick on the first hapless food religion follower that would reply to my post, which you fell for, because those foods don't actually harm your kidneys, even if you're renal impaired. However if you are, those foods can lead to a condition called hyperkalemia and hyperphosphotamia, respectively, both of which are very dangerous, hence those foods must be eaten in controlled quantities. I actually eat a banana every other day. Why? Because I read my own blood lab results, and based on those I know how to correctly control my own potassium levels.
I keep my Nephrologist in the loop on what I eat as well, and he says I'm doing very good, which is something that he doesn't get to say for most of his patients. And, much to the chagrin of food religion devotees everywhere, I didn't need to buy overpriced and ultimately wasteful organic food to get where I am. In fact, quite the opposite as I typically shop at walmart.
I say stupid because it's taking a nosedive into the deep end of conspiracy theory territory. Physics is complicated, and I don't know it that well, but that doesn't mean I'm about to trust the assertions made in the loose change 9/11 video.
Google is becoming more and more abusive, and more and more incompetent. Want to download the Google Chrome Browser? The download file name does not give the version number.
If you pay attention, that's probably because it doesn't actually have a version number associated with it. When you download chrome, you're just downloading a shim that downloads the latest copy of Chrome from Google's servers and then installs it.
The only way you can download a specific version of Chrome is if you get the MSI based installer, which is most often used for enterprise environments (because it can be deployed via group policy) but otherwise works the same.
An earlier version of the Google Chrome browser installs 3 system services.
That had to have been quite some time ago. Chrome has, for a very LONG time now, installed entirely into user space (unless you use the MSI installer) which is a deliberate design choice meant to accommodate users that don't have admin access to their PC. You can't even download such an older release with the shim that they issue now.
The browser situation is very, very ugly. Firefox is now, basically, owned by Microsoft
Ok now you're just getting stupid. Sorry, I can't fix you.
If you give someone the key to your neighbor's house (which you have as a trustworthy neighbor) and the guy you give the key to goes inside and takes a shit on their carpet, I don't think you'd be looking at 2 years in prison.
I think two years sounds about right to being complicit (in other words, an accessory) to what most states would call a home invasion of the third degree, which is a felony. Being complicit carries the same sentence as if you had committed the crime yourself. That could even count as a first degree home invasion since in some states, taking a shit in somebody's house is considered a crime of a sexual nature (in other words, a felony, hence upgrading the charge to first degree) and you'd be looking at much more than two years...probably somewhere closer to 10 to 20.
Look, if he was harassing you - then you had a legitimate reason to complain
I didn't complain to anybody, essentially how it played out is I just ignored him. I think the social justice warriors grossly misinterpreted the narrative I painted in that post. The message was to say that they aren't inherently dangerous, rather the worst they can do is be very annoying. I'm sure you've probably seen Richard Simmons on TV before -- That's basically as bad as it gets. Most of the time though, you won't even know they're there.
But, of course, social justice warriors can't have that. If I did anything less than go all Craig X Tweek on this guy, then it's because I'm obviously homophobic and I should not have been allowed to graduate because I'm just not PC enough.
Point is gay vs non gay has nothing to do with it and maybe you should have been more assertive, god known I have told people to shut their fucking pie hole and never talk to me.
Why? I prefer to have an easy going attitude towards anybody I meet in person, that way when they cross the line there's no question who is at fault. I used to do things your way, and it doesn't do you any long term favors.
But those are stupid things to say. Yes, everything you eat is made of chemicals (I hope that's what you meant) but we are capable of introducing them in quantities and concentrations which are harmful.
That doesn't come anywhere close to what I'm talking about. I'm specifically talking about people who advocate not eating something with any ingredient that a third grader can't pronounce. THAT is what they identify as "chemicals". Take for example acetic acid, or ascorbic acid, which are colloquially called vinegar and vitamin c, respectively. Other names like phenylalinine and lisine are vital to your health, yet I can guarantee you that a member of a food religion will be afraid to eat anything containing anything that I just mentioned.
And even selective breeding can produce unsafe results; GMO can produce results that selective breeding can't, and therefore it is at least as unsafe.
Without realizing it, you just made an argument against non-GMO plants. With GMO, you know exactly what you're getting, thanks to the knowledge gained from proteomics. With natural reproduction however, there are invariably going to be hundreds or even thousands of mutations that are entirely unknown.
People should be upset when you say those things, because you're wasting their time.
I'm wasting THEIR time? They're the ones who give me this shit when they notice I've got a chronic condition. Tell THEM to not proselytize their religion. That's like a Jehovah Witness knocking on your door, giving you their pitch, and complaining that you're wasting their time when you tell them that you don't see it their way. Seriously it's really boneheaded of you to say that.
The food you eat probably does at minimum exacerbate your condition, especially if you're this defensive about it; you probably know better.
Absolutely false. IgA nephropathy causes loss of nephrons due to inflammation, which eventually progresses into fibrosis. I'm actually one of the ones who has had a complete halt in albuminuria, which is VERY RARE for somebody who has already progressed to stage 4. You probably don't have any idea what that means, but basically this: My disease is no longer in a progressive state, meaning that I can last this way for a very long time. And yet, what I eat is exacerbating it? I'm curious what you base this statement on, because it sounds like a big pile of ideological horse shit.
You can go ask any board certified Nephrologist by the way, they'll confirm what I just told you. In fact, the advice they'll give will go completely against what anybody of the food religion will tell you, because they'll advise somebody in my condition to stay away from food like spinach, tomatoes, potatoes, prunes, any kind of lentils, beans, or nuts, any kind of melon, bananas, oranges, pumpkins, and squash.
If you don't already know why its best to avoid these things before you searched for it on google, then please refrain from giving people dietary advice when you obviously don't know shit about the disease, thank you.
This isn't really a copyright thing so much as it is somebody using their influence to control distribution.
Think like how you have to buy a car through a dealership, or how in certain regions and industries you can't buy labor without paying the local mafia^H^H^H^H^H union.
I don't care so much as whether the science is settled so much as dogmatic people that have a certain viewpoint on eating habits that they're hell bent on getting people to follow. Take for example militant vegans who proclaim "there's no reason to eat animal products", or for example, a group calling itself the "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" who aren't actually physicians, and are in fact just another PETA (with very close ties to PETA) who just sued the FDA because they no longer recommend a daily limit on cholesterol, which was a huge setback to the anti-egg movement.
And while vegans can be militant food activists, they aren't alone. The other group is what I term the "food religion", which is pretty hostile towards anybody who dares tell them that they aren't going to bother (read: waste time and money) with organic food, and are even more hostile against anybody who says heretical things such as "everything you eat is a chemical" or "GMO is safe". Or worse yet, outright trying to get laws passed to ban anything that doesn't fit a vague definition of "natural" under the mistaken belief that "natural is better".
This same group does another very annoying thing to those of us with chronic conditions: Insist that the food you eat causes whatever you might have, insist that they never get sick (and otherwise talk as if they'll live forever,) and all chronic diseases will just go away if you simply switch to organic (and one even suggested homeopathic medicine would fix it in my case.) My way of getting back at them though is that these same people are often fans of a work based on cherry picked data called The China Study, talk about how wonderful Eastern medicine (such as acupuncture) is, and so I just mention that my particular disease (stage 4 chronic kidney disease caused by IgA nephropathy) has a MUCH higher prevalence in Asian countries.
Wait a minute, did you just cite your own comment? That takes a fair amount of panache, almost flamboyance.
Social justice warriors such as yourself have a way of projecting their own insecurities upon everybody around them as if they are the only normal one in a given conversation, hence why politicians make a career out of canned responses. While I don't have any canned responses, my first response is valid, even towards your rather vivid sexual fantasies about me. And, since you obviously keep pushing the issue in spite of my obvious lack of interest, let me make it clear: I have no interest in you, please go away, Richard Simmons.
Probably because harassment wouldn't apply in either case...which I thought I made clear enough in my original post, but I guess not, so I went into more detail in this post:
To be fair, you gave him the wrong idea when you kept sucking his dick. I mean, the first couple of times, I get it. Mistakes can be made. But the teabagging incident was definitely leading him on a bit.
It wasn't like that. It was just this guy that kept saying and doing some weird ass shit, and at first I didn't even know he was gay. I kind of guessed because of his lisp, but some other people I hung out with at the time told me afterwards, in addition to pointing to the fact that he was flirting which I hadn't picked up on. For example he kept telling me he was in the Air Force, and my response was to the effect of "ok...that's nice...I guess?" One of his friends told me that was total bullshit, and he just said it because I was obviously fresh off of active duty at the time, that he was hoping to find common ground to chat with.
To be honest, I don't pick up very well when girls flirt with me either; it usually takes somebody else to point it out to me. This guy was basically just some dude that was really annoying, hence I mentioned the name Richard Simmons.
At the worst they're not exactly dangerous...but...Imagine if one day you met Richard Simmons, and he kept trying to find excuses to start a conversation with you and wouldn't ever leave you alone. This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you. Or at least, that was my particular experience.
How about you don't drive distracted and endanger other human beings. Your moral compass says it is okay for you to break the law, injure someone else and then hide evidence of said crime?
Uh no, it's the fact that I don't want my phone taken out of my possession.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's the case, I'm interested to see how facebook receives (or doesn't, or manipulates) stories that show a strong connection between heavy facebook usage and mental illness.
Although I have a facebook account, I rarely use it. In fact, facebook recently kept sending me an email every day bugging me to send them all of my email contacts so that I could find more friends on facebook...so, I unsubscribed from facebook emails. I only keep my account on there because people I actually know IRL ask me to. And even though I'm part of those 1.04 billion who "use facebook", I certainly don't get my news, share political views, or interact with politicians on it.
In fact, I specifically go out of my way to avoid it. Every now and then somebody starts blabbering about a "hot topic" they found on it, and when they show it to me, my first instinct is to quickly dismiss it and remind them to only take that stuff with a pinch of salt and to make sure they fact check it against reliable sources, because facebook is definitely not reliable.
You know what, I have to second that notion. They're the reason I don't bother to vote for political offices anymore. I'll vote for the referendum issues, i.e. legalize cannabis, the signal to noise on the political offices is polluted by low information voters so bad, it's just not worth bothering.
An example of low information: Most of the anti-Trump crusade thinks he makes racist statements all the time. I don't know whether or not the man is racist, but I personally haven't seen him make any comments that come off to me as racist.
Most commonly cited is stopping Muslims from entering the country; not only do I like Scott Adam's take on it (see this for reference) but Islam isn't a race, and talking down or otherwise disparaging their religious views isn't anymore racist than doing the same thing to a Scientologist or a Christian (something that seems PC to do, in spite of being decidedly un-PC when done to a Muslim.) The exception I take to that is it goes directly against the first amendment, which is unacceptable, but it's not in any way shape or form racist.
Second most common is stopping illegal immigration. Mexico not being a race notwithstanding (hell, as far as I know I'm pure Caucasian, yet half of the Mexicans I know have lighter skin than I do) there have been many a politician who have called for the same thing and haven't been accused of being racist.
You have to have a somewhat low or at least loose standard for what qualifies as "racist" in order to say that (think PC Principal on South Park.)
Now that doesn't mean I endorse Trump; I think his economic ideas are boneheaded and he'll make a terrible chief diplomat. And to be honest, I'm also not particularly interested in a single person that is running for president.
You are overconfident and arrogant, exactly like one would expect from a religious true believer.
Or his talking points are used and overused to the point that they have been thoroughly debunked by people much smarter than myself, hence I've seen them before. It's very much comparable to somebody telling you that being exposed to cold air puts will cause you to catch a cold, or a homeopathic doctor telling you why he's right and you're wrong. At some point when you've heard it so many times, you begin to respond in a way that others will perceive as arrogance. It's not, it's just frustration.
After all, I rightly pointed out a blatant factual error he was making, and he was making it based entirely off of an urban myth.
While I have no personal objection to GMO, it is sheer folly to claim that "you know what you will get", and no competent scientist would make that claim. We're centuries away from having that kind of knowledge.
This is true if you're making a new alteration to a genome for the first time, because nucleotides tend to express themselves in more than one way (a classic example is the gene for cystic fibrosis affecting numerous bodily systems.) However that's where your argument ends, as I'll explain below.
We don't fully understand any of the plants we've been using for thousands of years, in any environment they grow in, let alone all of them. There is an enormous difference between experiments in the laboratory and how things behave in the real world, with all of its enormous variation and complexity, and all kinds of unexpected things can and do happen.
You were doing so well up until here. The reason I say you know what you're going to get is because prior to selling these plants, they're field tested numerous times, which means they've been grown and regrown and experimented on over and over in an actual crop in a real world setting. Nobody would risk marketing a product like that without doing extensive testing to make sure that it does what it's supposed to do. Common sense should tell you that would be like making big changes to the Linux kernel and marking it stable without even compiling it yet. But, you seem to have made a similar bad assumption to the ones that GP made.
Now as for the entire plant genome, sure, we don't know what *every* nucleotide does. However we know more than enough about the specific ones that are being constructed.
I've run into one of those before. My dad and I were having a conversation during the FUCKING PREVIEWS and some little shit derp tells us to be quiet and watch the movie. What movie? It's just shitty advertisements, in this case what was showing was a preview for some moronic crap teenie bopper flick.
No, no you don't, especially when you insert genes from another organism, let alone kingdom (which is actually being done.) You know what you're expecting, not what you're actually going to get, especially once subjected to random mutation afterwards.
Oh, I see you bought the whole "frankenfood" urban myth, hook, line, and sinker. I'd tell you that genes such as the one for glyphosate resistance (the most common GMO) are constructed genes, but you'd refuse to believe anything that hasn't been divined from food religion "bible" sites like naturalnews.com or mercola.com, because God damnit, they MUST come from another organism! So sayeth the long ago discredited principle of vitalism. Of course, I'm sure those same sources have told you about terminator genes, and if so, I'd like to ask, what organism do you think those genes came from, and why isn't it extinct already? (Oops, somebody found a contradiction in your religious texts.)
So just to be clear, you acknowledge that what you eat is important to your condition, and then you don't believe that what you eat might be important to your condition? You're pretty hilarious.
Obviously you read a different parent post than the one I read. Because if you notice, the post I replied to used a lot of very non-specific (in other words, bullshit charlatan language) qualifiers for why his ideological food is superior, without going anywhere close to giving a specific reason for why. In fact, he even went in a very naively wrong direction, calling out blood sugar regulation, which has all of zero to do with my condition. Meanwhile, the foods I mentioned are ruled out from renal diets (google that term) specifically due to their very precisely measured electrolyte content.
I also played a trick on the first hapless food religion follower that would reply to my post, which you fell for, because those foods don't actually harm your kidneys, even if you're renal impaired. However if you are, those foods can lead to a condition called hyperkalemia and hyperphosphotamia, respectively, both of which are very dangerous, hence those foods must be eaten in controlled quantities. I actually eat a banana every other day. Why? Because I read my own blood lab results, and based on those I know how to correctly control my own potassium levels.
I keep my Nephrologist in the loop on what I eat as well, and he says I'm doing very good, which is something that he doesn't get to say for most of his patients. And, much to the chagrin of food religion devotees everywhere, I didn't need to buy overpriced and ultimately wasteful organic food to get where I am. In fact, quite the opposite as I typically shop at walmart.
I say stupid because it's taking a nosedive into the deep end of conspiracy theory territory. Physics is complicated, and I don't know it that well, but that doesn't mean I'm about to trust the assertions made in the loose change 9/11 video.
I think the question at this point is either:
Will Obama finally get a new phone?
Or
Will Obama be the good citizen that he wants everybody else to be and forever hold on to a phone that is backdoored?
A simple bug in Apple's software is much different than a trojanized payload.
Google is becoming more and more abusive, and more and more incompetent. Want to download the Google Chrome Browser? The download file name does not give the version number.
If you pay attention, that's probably because it doesn't actually have a version number associated with it. When you download chrome, you're just downloading a shim that downloads the latest copy of Chrome from Google's servers and then installs it.
The only way you can download a specific version of Chrome is if you get the MSI based installer, which is most often used for enterprise environments (because it can be deployed via group policy) but otherwise works the same.
An earlier version of the Google Chrome browser installs 3 system services.
That had to have been quite some time ago. Chrome has, for a very LONG time now, installed entirely into user space (unless you use the MSI installer) which is a deliberate design choice meant to accommodate users that don't have admin access to their PC. You can't even download such an older release with the shim that they issue now.
The browser situation is very, very ugly. Firefox is now, basically, owned by Microsoft
Ok now you're just getting stupid. Sorry, I can't fix you.
If you give someone the key to your neighbor's house (which you have as a trustworthy neighbor) and the guy you give the key to goes inside and takes a shit on their carpet, I don't think you'd be looking at 2 years in prison.
I think two years sounds about right to being complicit (in other words, an accessory) to what most states would call a home invasion of the third degree, which is a felony. Being complicit carries the same sentence as if you had committed the crime yourself. That could even count as a first degree home invasion since in some states, taking a shit in somebody's house is considered a crime of a sexual nature (in other words, a felony, hence upgrading the charge to first degree) and you'd be looking at much more than two years...probably somewhere closer to 10 to 20.
Look, if he was harassing you - then you had a legitimate reason to complain
I didn't complain to anybody, essentially how it played out is I just ignored him. I think the social justice warriors grossly misinterpreted the narrative I painted in that post. The message was to say that they aren't inherently dangerous, rather the worst they can do is be very annoying. I'm sure you've probably seen Richard Simmons on TV before -- That's basically as bad as it gets. Most of the time though, you won't even know they're there.
But, of course, social justice warriors can't have that. If I did anything less than go all Craig X Tweek on this guy, then it's because I'm obviously homophobic and I should not have been allowed to graduate because I'm just not PC enough.
Point is gay vs non gay has nothing to do with it and maybe you should have been more assertive, god known I have told people to shut their fucking pie hole and never talk to me.
Why? I prefer to have an easy going attitude towards anybody I meet in person, that way when they cross the line there's no question who is at fault. I used to do things your way, and it doesn't do you any long term favors.
Probably because his version of yaoi is lame and not funny like how they did it on South Park.
But those are stupid things to say. Yes, everything you eat is made of chemicals (I hope that's what you meant) but we are capable of introducing them in quantities and concentrations which are harmful.
That doesn't come anywhere close to what I'm talking about. I'm specifically talking about people who advocate not eating something with any ingredient that a third grader can't pronounce. THAT is what they identify as "chemicals". Take for example acetic acid, or ascorbic acid, which are colloquially called vinegar and vitamin c, respectively. Other names like phenylalinine and lisine are vital to your health, yet I can guarantee you that a member of a food religion will be afraid to eat anything containing anything that I just mentioned.
And even selective breeding can produce unsafe results; GMO can produce results that selective breeding can't, and therefore it is at least as unsafe.
Without realizing it, you just made an argument against non-GMO plants. With GMO, you know exactly what you're getting, thanks to the knowledge gained from proteomics. With natural reproduction however, there are invariably going to be hundreds or even thousands of mutations that are entirely unknown.
People should be upset when you say those things, because you're wasting their time.
I'm wasting THEIR time? They're the ones who give me this shit when they notice I've got a chronic condition. Tell THEM to not proselytize their religion. That's like a Jehovah Witness knocking on your door, giving you their pitch, and complaining that you're wasting their time when you tell them that you don't see it their way. Seriously it's really boneheaded of you to say that.
The food you eat probably does at minimum exacerbate your condition, especially if you're this defensive about it; you probably know better.
Absolutely false. IgA nephropathy causes loss of nephrons due to inflammation, which eventually progresses into fibrosis. I'm actually one of the ones who has had a complete halt in albuminuria, which is VERY RARE for somebody who has already progressed to stage 4. You probably don't have any idea what that means, but basically this: My disease is no longer in a progressive state, meaning that I can last this way for a very long time. And yet, what I eat is exacerbating it? I'm curious what you base this statement on, because it sounds like a big pile of ideological horse shit.
You can go ask any board certified Nephrologist by the way, they'll confirm what I just told you. In fact, the advice they'll give will go completely against what anybody of the food religion will tell you, because they'll advise somebody in my condition to stay away from food like spinach, tomatoes, potatoes, prunes, any kind of lentils, beans, or nuts, any kind of melon, bananas, oranges, pumpkins, and squash.
If you don't already know why its best to avoid these things before you searched for it on google, then please refrain from giving people dietary advice when you obviously don't know shit about the disease, thank you.
This isn't really a copyright thing so much as it is somebody using their influence to control distribution.
Think like how you have to buy a car through a dealership, or how in certain regions and industries you can't buy labor without paying the local mafia^H^H^H^H^H union.
I don't care so much as whether the science is settled so much as dogmatic people that have a certain viewpoint on eating habits that they're hell bent on getting people to follow. Take for example militant vegans who proclaim "there's no reason to eat animal products", or for example, a group calling itself the "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" who aren't actually physicians, and are in fact just another PETA (with very close ties to PETA) who just sued the FDA because they no longer recommend a daily limit on cholesterol, which was a huge setback to the anti-egg movement.
And while vegans can be militant food activists, they aren't alone. The other group is what I term the "food religion", which is pretty hostile towards anybody who dares tell them that they aren't going to bother (read: waste time and money) with organic food, and are even more hostile against anybody who says heretical things such as "everything you eat is a chemical" or "GMO is safe". Or worse yet, outright trying to get laws passed to ban anything that doesn't fit a vague definition of "natural" under the mistaken belief that "natural is better".
This same group does another very annoying thing to those of us with chronic conditions: Insist that the food you eat causes whatever you might have, insist that they never get sick (and otherwise talk as if they'll live forever,) and all chronic diseases will just go away if you simply switch to organic (and one even suggested homeopathic medicine would fix it in my case.) My way of getting back at them though is that these same people are often fans of a work based on cherry picked data called The China Study, talk about how wonderful Eastern medicine (such as acupuncture) is, and so I just mention that my particular disease (stage 4 chronic kidney disease caused by IgA nephropathy) has a MUCH higher prevalence in Asian countries.
And, oddly enough, the first thing that comes to mind when I hear "Sprint" is "white trash".
What's odd about that? Sprint is NASCAR's biggest sponsor.
Wait a minute, did you just cite your own comment? That takes a fair amount of panache, almost flamboyance.
Social justice warriors such as yourself have a way of projecting their own insecurities upon everybody around them as if they are the only normal one in a given conversation, hence why politicians make a career out of canned responses. While I don't have any canned responses, my first response is valid, even towards your rather vivid sexual fantasies about me. And, since you obviously keep pushing the issue in spite of my obvious lack of interest, let me make it clear: I have no interest in you, please go away, Richard Simmons.
I didn't realize it at the time either, rather his friends (some of whom were my friends as well) had told me so.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Probably because harassment wouldn't apply in either case...which I thought I made clear enough in my original post, but I guess not, so I went into more detail in this post:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
To be fair, you gave him the wrong idea when you kept sucking his dick. I mean, the first couple of times, I get it. Mistakes can be made. But the teabagging incident was definitely leading him on a bit.
Nice fantasy you have of me I guess, but no.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
It wasn't like that. It was just this guy that kept saying and doing some weird ass shit, and at first I didn't even know he was gay. I kind of guessed because of his lisp, but some other people I hung out with at the time told me afterwards, in addition to pointing to the fact that he was flirting which I hadn't picked up on. For example he kept telling me he was in the Air Force, and my response was to the effect of "ok...that's nice...I guess?" One of his friends told me that was total bullshit, and he just said it because I was obviously fresh off of active duty at the time, that he was hoping to find common ground to chat with.
To be honest, I don't pick up very well when girls flirt with me either; it usually takes somebody else to point it out to me. This guy was basically just some dude that was really annoying, hence I mentioned the name Richard Simmons.
At the worst they're not exactly dangerous...but...Imagine if one day you met Richard Simmons, and he kept trying to find excuses to start a conversation with you and wouldn't ever leave you alone. This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you. Or at least, that was my particular experience.
How about you don't drive distracted and endanger other human beings. Your moral compass says it is okay for you to break the law, injure someone else and then hide evidence of said crime?
Uh no, it's the fact that I don't want my phone taken out of my possession.
What position does the dashcam view you from again? And why would your screen be visible from there?