These services are built around the idea of a normalized distribution of usage. If one user uses a million times the average of the rest of the users, then "unlimited" offers can't be economically sustained.
You don't have to agree that it's "abuse". It just makes "unlimited" service models impossible -- one user can ruin it for everyone else. I'm sure you and some others think he has a "right" to do that. Maybe he does. It's still sad for everyone else who has to worry about usage caps as a result.
Because a corporation could totally have a monopoly on food sales. You'd have to be truly paranoid to believe something that ridiculous.
Press a libertarian and they always reconsider. They realise that actually they DO need government.
Strawman defeated. Congrats.
Smart people can have a conversation about how much government to have. Apparently you can't because the only answers you can imagine are "maximum government, always, in all things" vs. "none at all".
You have no choice where there's a monopoly or a cartel.
I could still choose to keep my money in my pocket and do without whatever they're selling.
When a guy chooses not to pay for what government is "offering", the government sends armed men to his house to violently force him to pay.
Which is the ultimate endpoint if there's not a government to stop it.
That's an argument for a very small, very limited government -- just big enough to prevent total monopolies. Much, much less government that we currently have.
What if "evidence" showed that we'd be better off? Should people be made into serfs or subjects if "evidence" showed it was helpful? Or shouldn't they?
What you don't realise is that libertarianism is a philosophy intended to help the corporations oppress you.
Oh no! What can I possibly do to protect myself from them? Wait... I can just choose not to buy their products.
Hmm. Should I choose for myself or elect a government overlord to choose for me in return for my money and my obedience? It's hard to decide. Can you tell me more about these corporate bogeymen?
Respect isn't about "evidence". People have a right to make their own choices, even if "evidence" says they'd be better off as serfs or slaves or obedient subjects or whatever other plan you have for them.
Yeah, yeah. Something bad happened to someone once, and therefore you should be suspicious of people who are not like you and hire us to bully them and protect you from them. If you don't, something bad will happen to you.
You're on the right side, aren't you? You're one of us, aren't you? If you're not with us, you're with them.
Someone who respects the public (or individuals among the public, if you like that better) would let us live our lives as we choose. They wouldn't support the government meddling in every choice we might make. The wouldn't support the government bullying us. They wouldn't hype and fear-monger about tiny risks to try to scare us into funding their studies.
I don't know about Canada, but in the US, Scientists and the media don't respect the public. Why should we respect people who disrespect us?
It's not unique to scientists. US culture is very politicized, with organizers at the top trying to make sure everyone is fighting all the time, so the organizers can gain power by leading one group against another. Scientists seem happy to take sides and support these organizers. That's not worthy of any respect.
The real answer is that Apple has never focused on games and gamers. There's no secret technical issue. They're making half-efforts. If they someday decide to care, then maybe they'll release a competitive solution.
When most people (myself included) feel hungry and there is food around, the answer is to eat the food, whatever it is. Most people lack the willpower--over the long run--to say, "I'm starving, there is food right here that will take away my pain, but I know that it will make me fat so I'm just not going to eat it." They can deny themselves once. They can deny themselves twice. But sooner or later, they will give in. Some people have above-average willpower, and it sounds like you might be one of those people.
Not having ready-to-eat food around is the best way to avoid this. I can't avoid eating snacks, so I don't buy any snacks I don't intend to eat right away. Willpower can fail, so I don't set myself up to fail.
Stocking up on lots of "healthy" snacks is counterproductive in my case.
Also, calories aren't really "empty". And when you have low blood sugar because you're hungry, a small amount of "empty" calories are good for you. Gatorade is mostly "empty" calories, for example.
I'm sure you getting to be 100+ pounds overweight had nothing to do with the food you ate, right?
I ate too much. Then I lost the weight by eating less.
Note the difference between this approach and declaring specific foods taboo or "unhealthy".
...Anyway, the point is, when you are feeling this anger at people who advocate healthy food, you are really just trying to avoid feeling the shame at failing to have the willpower to control what you consumed. To avoid feeling that shame, you are basically getting worked up at people who advocate eating healthy food...
Also, you know some people just don't want to join your food religion, right? It's not a willpower or shame issue. Some of us don't want to obey the food taboos you believe in. I know you're sure you have "the one true answer", but try to understand that belief systems vary. We all didn't read that article in The Atlanic or wherever that you got your food-epiphany from. Or we read it and we don't care.
I don't know you, but you seem to get really angry that someone would suggest that it is obvious that you can get healthy food, and that pre-packaged food isn't healthy.
Not angry. Just don't like people being assholes to each other.
So I am totally with you, if you exercise, you can eat food that is not good for you and lose weight.
I didn't really exercise that much either. I walked 1 hour per day. The thing that mattered was eating less. Not eating "healthy", eating less.
I mean look at soldiers in basic training, or swimmers, or cyclists, or rock climbers, or anyone who engages in intense physical activity regularly. You'll never find someone who is fat, and lots of people in those groups eat a whole lot of junk food.
Look at those pictures of the famine in Ethiopia in the 80s. They lost weight. It wasn't because they got too much exercise or ate too "healthy".
You are getting really angry at people for saying to "eat healthy food".
Just don't be such a douchebag about it.
But also, eating "healthy" food is not necessary for weight loss. You can easily gain weight eating "healthy" food. And calling a particular food "unhealthy" is usually unfair and uninformed, and it misses the point that the amount and the overall pattern are what matters. Eating one cookie isn't "unhealthy".
The fact that you lost 100 pounds tells me that you struggled with being heavier than you wanted. You probably didn't lose the weight on your first try.
I had to stop listening to lots of bad diet advice. People saying the way I was doing it wasn't the "healthy" way -- as if I wasn't somehow going to be a lot healthier having lost the weight because I didn't follow their instructions. Other people saying it's impossible to lose weight that way. Nope. It's possible.
This probably made you upset and led to feelings of shame, as it would for anybody who truly wanted to do something that requires will power, but didn't succeed.
I'm not a drama queen, so no, not really.
You later lost the weight another way, and pretty much there are only two ways to lose weight, healthy diet, or exercise (or both of course).
Nope. I went with the 3rd way. When hungry, don't eat. Eat later. Then eat a small meal -- something I really like eating. (Usually something someone would call "junk food", but some douchebag somewhere will complain about any food except lettuce.) Walk an hour a day. Repeat for a long time.
Anyway, the point is, when you are feeling this anger at people who advocate healthy food, you are really just trying to avoid feeling the shame at failing to have the willpower to control what you consumed. To avoid feeling that shame, you are basically getting worked up at people who advocate eating healthy food, because they are 'stupid douchebags', and "who would want to just eat healthy food that is stupid and pointless and if I can get upset enough about someone suggesting it I can stay focused on that and not be hard on myself."
Nope, that doesn't sound like me. "Eat healthy food" didn't help. Insisting it's the only answer is incorrect, and people should stop listening to that nonsense if it's not working for them.
You don't know me. I'm a guy that lost 100+ pounds by ignoring "eat healthy food" and other diet advice. And I managed to do it without becoming a preachy know-it-all douchebag.
Slashdot Mirror
No. I'm just not a hater.
Executives and sales people of companies who lie to the public being sent to jail?
I guess that might help prison guards. Not sure why anyone else should celebrate.
Lots of angry words. How does that help anyone?
These services are built around the idea of a normalized distribution of usage. If one user uses a million times the average of the rest of the users, then "unlimited" offers can't be economically sustained.
You don't have to agree that it's "abuse". It just makes "unlimited" service models impossible -- one user can ruin it for everyone else. I'm sure you and some others think he has a "right" to do that. Maybe he does. It's still sad for everyone else who has to worry about usage caps as a result.
So starve to death or regress to hunter/gatherer.
Because a corporation could totally have a monopoly on food sales. You'd have to be truly paranoid to believe something that ridiculous.
Press a libertarian and they always reconsider. They realise that actually they DO need government.
Strawman defeated. Congrats.
Smart people can have a conversation about how much government to have. Apparently you can't because the only answers you can imagine are "maximum government, always, in all things" vs. "none at all".
Tell the tax collectors that.
You have no choice where there's a monopoly or a cartel.
I could still choose to keep my money in my pocket and do without whatever they're selling.
When a guy chooses not to pay for what government is "offering", the government sends armed men to his house to violently force him to pay.
Which is the ultimate endpoint if there's not a government to stop it.
That's an argument for a very small, very limited government -- just big enough to prevent total monopolies. Much, much less government that we currently have.
What if "evidence" showed that we'd be better off? Should people be made into serfs or subjects if "evidence" showed it was helpful? Or shouldn't they?
What you don't realise is that libertarianism is a philosophy intended to help the corporations oppress you.
Oh no! What can I possibly do to protect myself from them? Wait... I can just choose not to buy their products.
Hmm. Should I choose for myself or elect a government overlord to choose for me in return for my money and my obedience? It's hard to decide. Can you tell me more about these corporate bogeymen?
How does that justify slurring religious people?
Respect isn't about "evidence". People have a right to make their own choices, even if "evidence" says they'd be better off as serfs or slaves or obedient subjects or whatever other plan you have for them.
Yeah, yeah. Something bad happened to someone once, and therefore you should be suspicious of people who are not like you and hire us to bully them and protect you from them. If you don't, something bad will happen to you.
You're on the right side, aren't you? You're one of us, aren't you? If you're not with us, you're with them.
You like making up stories to incite people to hate their neighbors, don't you?
Sounds like something a Klan member might say. The Klan uses different slurs against different groups, but otherwise the message is about the same.
Someone who respects the public (or individuals among the public, if you like that better) would let us live our lives as we choose. They wouldn't support the government meddling in every choice we might make. The wouldn't support the government bullying us. They wouldn't hype and fear-monger about tiny risks to try to scare us into funding their studies.
It will probably be approved in the summer of 2017.
I don't know about Canada, but in the US, Scientists and the media don't respect the public. Why should we respect people who disrespect us?
It's not unique to scientists. US culture is very politicized, with organizers at the top trying to make sure everyone is fighting all the time, so the organizers can gain power by leading one group against another. Scientists seem happy to take sides and support these organizers. That's not worthy of any respect.
The real answer is that Apple has never focused on games and gamers. There's no secret technical issue. They're making half-efforts. If they someday decide to care, then maybe they'll release a competitive solution.
When most people (myself included) feel hungry and there is food around, the answer is to eat the food, whatever it is. Most people lack the willpower--over the long run--to say, "I'm starving, there is food right here that will take away my pain, but I know that it will make me fat so I'm just not going to eat it." They can deny themselves once. They can deny themselves twice. But sooner or later, they will give in. Some people have above-average willpower, and it sounds like you might be one of those people.
Not having ready-to-eat food around is the best way to avoid this. I can't avoid eating snacks, so I don't buy any snacks I don't intend to eat right away. Willpower can fail, so I don't set myself up to fail.
Stocking up on lots of "healthy" snacks is counterproductive in my case.
I was a fat kid. I lost weight after I grew up and started making my own decisions instead of doing what my parents told me.
Also, I did not give out "advice". But here's some advice: try to be less of a douchebag.
Any empty calories are bad for you, unless you are eating too few calories.
Yes. Calories are good for people who have too few and bad for people who have too many.
"Sugar is bad for you..."
Too much sugar is bad for you.
"Empty calories are bad for you"
Too many empty calories are bad for you.
Also, calories aren't really "empty". And when you have low blood sugar because you're hungry, a small amount of "empty" calories are good for you. Gatorade is mostly "empty" calories, for example.
I'm sure you getting to be 100+ pounds overweight had nothing to do with the food you ate, right?
I ate too much. Then I lost the weight by eating less.
Note the difference between this approach and declaring specific foods taboo or "unhealthy".
...Anyway, the point is, when you are feeling this anger at people who advocate healthy food, you are really just trying to avoid feeling the shame at failing to have the willpower to control what you consumed. To avoid feeling that shame, you are basically getting worked up at people who advocate eating healthy food...
Also, you know some people just don't want to join your food religion, right? It's not a willpower or shame issue. Some of us don't want to obey the food taboos you believe in. I know you're sure you have "the one true answer", but try to understand that belief systems vary. We all didn't read that article in The Atlanic or wherever that you got your food-epiphany from. Or we read it and we don't care.
I don't know you, but you seem to get really angry that someone would suggest that it is obvious that you can get healthy food, and that pre-packaged food isn't healthy.
Not angry. Just don't like people being assholes to each other.
So I am totally with you, if you exercise, you can eat food that is not good for you and lose weight.
I didn't really exercise that much either. I walked 1 hour per day. The thing that mattered was eating less. Not eating "healthy", eating less.
I mean look at soldiers in basic training, or swimmers, or cyclists, or rock climbers, or anyone who engages in intense physical activity regularly. You'll never find someone who is fat, and lots of people in those groups eat a whole lot of junk food.
Look at those pictures of the famine in Ethiopia in the 80s. They lost weight. It wasn't because they got too much exercise or ate too "healthy".
You are getting really angry at people for saying to "eat healthy food".
Just don't be such a douchebag about it.
But also, eating "healthy" food is not necessary for weight loss. You can easily gain weight eating "healthy" food. And calling a particular food "unhealthy" is usually unfair and uninformed, and it misses the point that the amount and the overall pattern are what matters. Eating one cookie isn't "unhealthy".
The fact that you lost 100 pounds tells me that you struggled with being heavier than you wanted. You probably didn't lose the weight on your first try.
I had to stop listening to lots of bad diet advice. People saying the way I was doing it wasn't the "healthy" way -- as if I wasn't somehow going to be a lot healthier having lost the weight because I didn't follow their instructions. Other people saying it's impossible to lose weight that way. Nope. It's possible.
This probably made you upset and led to feelings of shame, as it would for anybody who truly wanted to do something that requires will power, but didn't succeed.
I'm not a drama queen, so no, not really.
You later lost the weight another way, and pretty much there are only two ways to lose weight, healthy diet, or exercise (or both of course).
Nope. I went with the 3rd way. When hungry, don't eat. Eat later. Then eat a small meal -- something I really like eating. (Usually something someone would call "junk food", but some douchebag somewhere will complain about any food except lettuce.) Walk an hour a day. Repeat for a long time.
Anyway, the point is, when you are feeling this anger at people who advocate healthy food, you are really just trying to avoid feeling the shame at failing to have the willpower to control what you consumed. To avoid feeling that shame, you are basically getting worked up at people who advocate eating healthy food, because they are 'stupid douchebags', and "who would want to just eat healthy food that is stupid and pointless and if I can get upset enough about someone suggesting it I can stay focused on that and not be hard on myself."
Nope, that doesn't sound like me. "Eat healthy food" didn't help. Insisting it's the only answer is incorrect, and people should stop listening to that nonsense if it's not working for them.
You don't know me. I'm a guy that lost 100+ pounds by ignoring "eat healthy food" and other diet advice. And I managed to do it without becoming a preachy know-it-all douchebag.