Nope, no NPR. That's all I want -- digital NPR. Easier to record, move around, time shift, etc.
I don't listen to radio except for NPR, and I suspect that a lot of money people who would buy such gizmos are similar to me. I have an IPOD for music -- why would I want to hear the same 40 songs of any genre over and over and over, when I can hear a few thousand?
I suggest that the makers of the broadcast equipment give it away to NPR stations. Then I'll shell out for smart digital boxes.
'Why don't they go and tell the oil companies what they should charge for their damn gas?'
Because, you worm, the oil companies are not (individualy) a MONOPOLY. Cable providers usually are. I have no choice at ALL what cable provider I go with. It's about wires: You can argue up and down that there's competition in the marketplace for phone and cable, but there's only one owner of the wires. And that owner is a monopoly feeding off the goodwill of the city that allows him to use our public space and our right of ways, specifically our underground piping, our telephone poles, etc.
We should dump the lot of you, let our contracts with you lapse and put you incompetent morons out of business. You can't just squeeze your customers like aphids unless they have an alternative -- for cable TV, they generally don't. They'd have to go to a whole different technology.
Dish people could pull this kind of crap and have somewhere to stand, because customers could leave them for another dish system. You have nothing. You're trying to milk more profits by specifically damaging the service your customers who have no choice.
We should be regulating the crap out of these people. They clearly have way too much money for press agents and business plans.
I know: Howsabout we let these jerks own the wires and do whatever they want, but force them, ala Baby Bells, to allow ANYONE to deliver content and connectivity on those coaxial wires? Then, all of a sudden, they'd give a sh-t about their customers, cause those customers could LEAVE.
We didn't do it in the first place because it's an administrative nightmare -- we trusted these jerks to behave. Well that trust was ill-founded, and now we should rip their business out from under them.
Yep, stop playing games, and get right with your keyboard. That means GET A GOOD CHAIR. A good steno chair, which will set you back $200. No arms. Back support.
Mouse as little as possible.
Anti-inflamatories are your friend. Much of what's happening to your hands is your own body's doing.
You need to be able to heal over night as much as you do damage during the day. Do.01% more damage each day than you heal, and someday you simply won't have hands. So heal as much or more each night, and slowly you'll get better.
Eat a little more amino acids or protein or whatever your doctor says gives you easy access to building blocks for healing.
One deal here is that you're scared. You're in danger of losing your job/life's vocation etc. Fear causes stress, and stress SLOWS DOWN THE HEALING PROCESS.
So relax, and have confidence that things will get better. Take a LOT of ibuprofen, and have a liver function test if you wind up doing that for months (under the supervision of a doctor).
Yoga, meditation and other pleasant things will reduce your stress level. Embrace them.
The first thing to realize is that you're going to be OK. You're going to do what's necessary, and it'll be less than you imagine. It's just going to take some time. After all, if your healing process was VASTLY (say 5%) worse than your damaging process, you'd have been laid up after a few weeks of typing. So you don't have to make many changes for the good to eliminate this probelm in a few months.
I sent something like this to MicorCenter. Other places should be altered as well. If their buyers mention it, it will have more impact that our direct emails to D-Link.
---------------
Please forward this email to your manager.
You sell D-Link equipment. D-Link is currently destroying a computing resource in Denmark, and has made no real restitution or attempt to fix the problem. They are bad Internet citizens.
And they make ROUTERS.
Please tell D-Link that they have an opportunity to get some free press by simply solving this problem and apologizing for the issue.
Your current stock of D-Link products will sell less well in the coming weeks and months, because many of us will refuse to buy them, and will tell your other customers of D-Link's incompetence.
I wouldn't phrase it the same way, but we need to remember who are good corporate citizens and who are not. If we just blythely ignore the nasty behavior of corporations, there's no reason for them to behave.
A better statement would be something like "That's too bad. I won't be buying anything from them, of course, until they make some restitution on the GIF crap they pulled." It would be nice to put that on any email you send to them. Any public comment site. Any survey, letter to editor, review, etc.
They need to know that bad behavior effects their bottom line and that we DO remember.
The nice thing about a law like this is not that we'll be informed, but rather that companies will be more cautious with the data, knowing that they'll HAVE to inform us if they screw up.
Less laptops flying coach with 20,000 credit card numbers in an excel spreadsheet on it. (My next door neighbor got a nice paper-mail note from an company that let a laptop get snatched just last week.)
Well, before this I thought, based on the fact that students in the States do WORSE when they have computers than when they don't, that this was a bad idea.
Ok, you, sir or madame, are the problem. You. Look in the mirror, you're it.
I was willing to juggle what you were saying around and look for the value until you said, "The Haunting". The Haunting, directed by RObert Wise, the same guy who made the Sound of Music (which is a movie that I find annoying, but that the example shows that man was experienced, talented) had pacing, timing, acting, cenimatography, and real impact, the remake was a complete piece of crap.
It lacked pacing, story, and climax. All, and I repeat ALL, that it had going for it was special effects. I say this even though it had some OK actors, because the terrible script and directing nullified their efforts.
So what you saw and liked in the movie were the effects. The original Haunting had exactly two special effects. A moving door and a see-your-breath bit (probaly animated). It cost a TINY fraction of the remake's budget and was a much better film.
"Craptacular" is a great word. I like it. But you're reading books by the font, here. When you watch a movie, look for things that actually matter -- human relationships, story meaning, acting and dialogue. If you want special effects in every movie you'll get Terminator 3 over and over again.
There were definitely bad films in the 60's and 70's -- huge numbers of them. But if we spent what we now spend on movies on movies like the ones from the 60's and 70's, first, we'd have TEN TIMES the number of movies we now have, and second, ther'd be less inherient risk in making films, so that we wouldn't be forced to have all scripts written by committee, as we now have, and the target audience would not ALWAYS have to be young males, who like special effects films heavy on the violence.
Big costs mean all films must be lowest common denomonator. That means, aparently, you.
So you'll lose if things get cheaper. And the rest of us will win. We put up with the increase in crap (we don't have to watch all that), and we get some real, solid, good films -- somethign we see darn little of now, thanks to Lucas, the industry, and you.
If you want to be a programmer, you can read some books, solve some problems, have some successes, get a job, and do what everyone else does.
And that's a perfectly understandable end for some people.
But if you want to be a good programmer, some studies in comparative anatomy is in order. Learn VB (many that puts a bad taste in my mouth as I write it) if that's where you want to start, but then learn C, and yeah, some assembly. Figure out what happens in assembly and C, and you'll understand what's going on under the hood in VB.
(So you can then reject it in favor of perl.)
The key is that, while a good programmer doesn't always know what's going on all the way down his program, he has a good idea of the way it's working at any point in the code.
He was a big part of the start of the expensive movie model. I hope he's right that we're goin back to things before Star Wars.
The effect would be story-driven movies, with more actors and writing, and less special effects and production value costs. That means more movies, and more ideas.
(And a lot more crap, but the massive information flow of the Internet helps filter out stinkers.)
Compared to the Nano, this is just not attractive.
So I'm not buying THAT for the wife.
And for me, it would need to offer something new, something I really want -- playing ogg vorbis, but limiting me to windows, giveth and then taketh away any reason to buy this over the Nano.
Ghandi's right about the pattern. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Seems like we've moved to fighting them or even apologizing for our free speech which sounds a lot like the winning part. (Which as a non-muslim, I'd like to avoid.) Can we just go back to step two, here?
The Islamic world should (and the majority of them probably do) find this whole insanity on the part of a small number of people truely EMBARASSING.
The rest of the world puts up with commentary, no matter how bad, how rude, how poorly drawn. Only within their own country do even dictators squelch the media. These acts of violence, and even the peacable protests are strong evidence that aspects of the Islamic world have a lot of growing up to do.
Step one, ignoring them, doesn't seem helpful, but step two seems like the way to go. Getting upset, taking them seriously, vilifying them, being worried about their abilty to boycott, burn, blow up, etc. is step three territory, and begs condition four. We hear and see all these news organizations puffing up a few bozos into a huge crowd of angry Muslims. Can we please step back and notice that these are a few spoiled children?
Denmark should respond with some more cartoons. Hey, this time, do you think they might make them actually funny?
b) anyone with two neurons to rub together should have figured this out before the shooting started
I have to agree. And yet, congress voted for it and the unwashed public thought it was on the level. By what this guy says, Colin Powell thought it was on the level. What happened? Does the average American actaully not have the two neuron minimum?
The fact that everyone in congress voted for it, and that many of those guys were not stupid enough to believe it wasn't a hoax, suggests that there would be plenty of recriminations to go around. The legislative branch will actively squelch this.
c) the public at large isn't going to get outraged about this (or anything else) unless gas prices go back up to $3/gal
No, $2.50 was enough. The speed that this sort of thing will move depends exactly on the price of gas, but $3 ain't the tipping point, $3's just the acceleration point. But you're right, at $3 it would move fast. As is, it'll be a big part of the eventual pullout shenanigans.
Maybe the RIAA know something we all know as a rule of thumb. But maybe they've figured out that it's actually, literally true.
"Everyone downloads music. Everyone is guilty."
Once you realize that that statement is actually TRUE, then it doesn't matter whom you sue. Sue names out of the phonebook, and then listen as they protest, pulling a John Edwards based on their excuses with a high degree of accuracy, because THEY ARE GUILTY. EVERYONE ACTUALLY IS.
And exceptions like this woman are so rare it just doesn't matter.
Now for a second, imagine that that they screwed up on this woman. We don't know what their screw-up rate is, but they may be utterly wrong 10% of the time. They may get the wrong person one time out of 10, but nobody realizes because since everyone REALY IS GUILTY, the wrong people think "Oops. Ya got me." and fork over some cash.
Is anyone reading this completely innocent? Anyone?
A lot of good, intelligent things have been said already, so I'll just add a sentiment.
I once heard Bill Gates interviewed (this was years ago, when he'd just started giving money) and the interviewer asked him why he'd given the money -- what benefit did the gift have for Microsoft? Bill Gates told him. Bill wasn't surprised or insulted by the question, and had already talked about how he gave money and machines and software only to benefit Microsoft.
I know that now he's giving real money to real causes and aims to give lots away, and the effect is commendable. But he's doing it because he smells brimstone. Whether that brimstone is connected to his place in history, or from the DOJ, or due to some religious tickle, I don't know, but it's way too late to keep him from being a bastard.
If there were indulgences on sale, he'd be buying them buy the bushel.
I've got a salesforce here that uses ACT. If I can get them off of that one application, and one other canned dingus, I can get them crappy laptops with Linux and non-root passwords. I can hand them an entire mobile office that they won't be able to completely screw up with ad-ware and games and other crap. If if dies, I can hand them one exactly like it with just a few minutes of human labor.
In short, I'll be able to drag them into actual automated salesforce world.
I don't have the clout to do it, now, when it would mean the loss of these Windows-only apps on the machines, nor do I have the man-hours available to can something under Windows.
Ok, due to two previous posts, I guess I need to clarify: Caffeine, as a diuretic, means you'd pump more water through yer innards. Alcohol might do the same, but if taken in amounts in excess of what your stomach can process has destructive results which would counteract that effect.
Now, as to stress, that'd be VERY interesting, but it can't be the superficial way the average Joe user thinks about it. The effects of caffeine go away after two weeks of taking it -- by then you're dependant on it, you no longer get a boost, from baseline. All you're seeing when you take your daily doses is the effect of shoving yourself back up to baseline, so I don't think it's caffeine's effect on stress. Now, it might be the daily ritual of sitting and drinking the stuff. Maybe that's such a stress reducer that any such respit would help -- so smoker's might benefit.
A wacky idea -- you're dependant on caffeine. Without it, you cannot think. Your neurons are producing excessive amounts of inhibitory neurotransmitters in the expectation that caffeine will come along and block the receptors. Maybe it's this DEPENDANT, DEPRESSED STATE which causes the effect. Maybe it's the painful urge for coffee that causes the beneficial stress bump you're talking about.
All this debate requires semantic agreement to be useful in the first place, and so that's got to be AVOIDED so we can mock each other. Realize that the concept of science changes over time. Bacon's concept of science is different from Popper's. The concept of a hypotheses is new to science. It's modern science we're talking about, a so, for a fun debate, we drag in what we now think of as theories which come from pre-modern science.
Slashdot Mirror
TTWO is only up 1.5%. I'm kind of surprised.
..."people who think that human reproduction is worse than murder... who would think like that?"
The people we've been breeding/educting/indoctrinating all these years to vote for corporate stooges.
Get with the program, here, buster. This is a new, better America.
Lessee... IL, no. WI, no. IN, no.
Nope, no NPR. That's all I want -- digital NPR. Easier to record, move around, time shift, etc.
I don't listen to radio except for NPR, and I suspect that a lot of money people who would buy such gizmos are similar to me. I have an IPOD for music -- why would I want to hear the same 40 songs of any genre over and over and over, when I can hear a few thousand?
I suggest that the makers of the broadcast equipment give it away to NPR stations. Then I'll shell out for smart digital boxes.
Hastert is the only one that matters, as he wouldn't be impeached, but your point is extremely good.
On the other hand, if the house turns over as Democrat, he wouldn't be speaker any more, and would not be next in line.
There are a number of reasons why people aren't talking impeachment, these days, but the most obvious one is: "President Cheney"
I suspect I know the answer to this already, but I'll ask it anyhow, just in case a legal person can respond and we'll learn something about it:
Can we begin impeachment proceedings on BOTH of them and try them as a pair, impeach or not, hang together or serve together?
The constitution doesn't begin to cover it, but what about legal lore? Can congress make that move?
'Why don't they go and tell the oil companies what they should charge for their damn gas?'
Because, you worm, the oil companies are not (individualy) a MONOPOLY. Cable providers usually are. I have no choice at ALL what cable provider I go with. It's about wires: You can argue up and down that there's competition in the marketplace for phone and cable, but there's only one owner of the wires. And that owner is a monopoly feeding off the goodwill of the city that allows him to use our public space and our right of ways, specifically our underground piping, our telephone poles, etc.
We should dump the lot of you, let our contracts with you lapse and put you incompetent morons out of business. You can't just squeeze your customers like aphids unless they have an alternative -- for cable TV, they generally don't. They'd have to go to a whole different technology.
Dish people could pull this kind of crap and have somewhere to stand, because customers could leave them for another dish system. You have nothing. You're trying to milk more profits by specifically damaging the service your customers who have no choice.
We should be regulating the crap out of these people. They clearly have way too much money for press agents and business plans.
I know: Howsabout we let these jerks own the wires and do whatever they want, but force them, ala Baby Bells, to allow ANYONE to deliver content and connectivity on those coaxial wires? Then, all of a sudden, they'd give a sh-t about their customers, cause those customers could LEAVE.
We didn't do it in the first place because it's an administrative nightmare -- we trusted these jerks to behave. Well that trust was ill-founded, and now we should rip their business out from under them.
Yep, stop playing games, and get right with your keyboard. That means GET A GOOD CHAIR. A good steno chair, which will set you back $200. No arms. Back support.
.01% more damage each day than you heal, and someday you simply won't have hands. So heal as much or more each night, and slowly you'll get better.
Mouse as little as possible.
Anti-inflamatories are your friend. Much of what's happening to your hands is your own body's doing.
You need to be able to heal over night as much as you do damage during the day. Do
Eat a little more amino acids or protein or whatever your doctor says gives you easy access to building blocks for healing.
One deal here is that you're scared. You're in danger of losing your job/life's vocation etc. Fear causes stress, and stress SLOWS DOWN THE HEALING PROCESS.
So relax, and have confidence that things will get better. Take a LOT of ibuprofen, and have a liver function test if you wind up doing that for months (under the supervision of a doctor).
Yoga, meditation and other pleasant things will reduce your stress level. Embrace them.
The first thing to realize is that you're going to be OK. You're going to do what's necessary, and it'll be less than you imagine. It's just going to take some time. After all, if your healing process was VASTLY (say 5%) worse than your damaging process, you'd have been laid up after a few weeks of typing. So you don't have to make many changes for the good to eliminate this probelm in a few months.
I sent something like this to MicorCenter. Other places should be altered as well. If their buyers mention it, it will have more impact that our direct emails to D-Link.
---------------
Please forward this email to your manager.
You sell D-Link equipment. D-Link is currently destroying a computing resource in Denmark, and has made no real restitution or attempt to fix the problem. They are bad Internet citizens.
And they make ROUTERS.
Please tell D-Link that they have an opportunity to get some free press by simply solving this problem and apologizing for the issue.
Your current stock of D-Link products will sell less well in the coming weeks and months, because many of us will refuse to buy them, and will tell your other customers of D-Link's incompetence.
This is why: http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/dlink/
customerservice@dlink.com
webmaster@dlink.com
analysts@dlink.com
sale@dlink.com
broadband@dlink.com
bdm@dlink.com
oem@dlink.com
productinfo@dlink.com
hr@dlink.com
edusales@dlink.com
si@dlink.com
I wouldn't phrase it the same way, but we need to remember who are good corporate citizens and who are not. If we just blythely ignore the nasty behavior of corporations, there's no reason for them to behave.
A better statement would be something like "That's too bad. I won't be buying anything from them, of course, until they make some restitution on the GIF crap they pulled." It would be nice to put that on any email you send to them. Any public comment site. Any survey, letter to editor, review, etc.
They need to know that bad behavior effects their bottom line and that we DO remember.
The nice thing about a law like this is not that we'll be informed, but rather that companies will be more cautious with the data, knowing that they'll HAVE to inform us if they screw up.
Less laptops flying coach with 20,000 credit card numbers in an excel spreadsheet on it. (My next door neighbor got a nice paper-mail note from an company that let a laptop get snatched just last week.)
I'm thinking this product means two things.
1. License fees to Intel, so no Linux support.
2. DRM.
Well, before this I thought, based on the fact that students in the States do WORSE when they have computers than when they don't, that this was a bad idea.
But now that I see Bill Gates doesn't like it.
So it now has my full endorsement.
Ok, you, sir or madame, are the problem. You. Look in the mirror, you're it.
I was willing to juggle what you were saying around and look for the value until you said, "The Haunting". The Haunting, directed by RObert Wise, the same guy who made the Sound of Music (which is a movie that I find annoying, but that the example shows that man was experienced, talented) had pacing, timing, acting, cenimatography, and real impact, the remake was a complete piece of crap.
It lacked pacing, story, and climax. All, and I repeat ALL, that it had going for it was special effects. I say this even though it had some OK actors, because the terrible script and directing nullified their efforts.
So what you saw and liked in the movie were the effects. The original Haunting had exactly two special effects. A moving door and a see-your-breath bit (probaly animated). It cost a TINY fraction of the remake's budget and was a much better film.
"Craptacular" is a great word. I like it. But you're reading books by the font, here. When you watch a movie, look for things that actually matter -- human relationships, story meaning, acting and dialogue. If you want special effects in every movie you'll get Terminator 3 over and over again.
There were definitely bad films in the 60's and 70's -- huge numbers of them. But if we spent what we now spend on movies on movies like the ones from the 60's and 70's, first, we'd have TEN TIMES the number of movies we now have, and second, ther'd be less inherient risk in making films, so that we wouldn't be forced to have all scripts written by committee, as we now have, and the target audience would not ALWAYS have to be young males, who like special effects films heavy on the violence.
Big costs mean all films must be lowest common denomonator. That means, aparently, you.
So you'll lose if things get cheaper. And the rest of us will win. We put up with the increase in crap (we don't have to watch all that), and we get some real, solid, good films -- somethign we see darn little of now, thanks to Lucas, the industry, and you.
What a reactionary post! And right on the money.
If you want to be a programmer, you can read some books, solve some problems, have some successes, get a job, and do what everyone else does.
And that's a perfectly understandable end for some people.
But if you want to be a good programmer, some studies in comparative anatomy is in order. Learn VB (many that puts a bad taste in my mouth as I write it) if that's where you want to start, but then learn C, and yeah, some assembly. Figure out what happens in assembly and C, and you'll understand what's going on under the hood in VB.
(So you can then reject it in favor of perl.)
The key is that, while a good programmer doesn't always know what's going on all the way down his program, he has a good idea of the way it's working at any point in the code.
I can only say "HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!"
He was a big part of the start of the expensive movie model. I hope he's right that we're goin back to things before Star Wars.
The effect would be story-driven movies, with more actors and writing, and less special effects and production value costs. That means more movies, and more ideas.
(And a lot more crap, but the massive information flow of the Internet helps filter out stinkers.)
I'd be a happy camper.
Compared to the Nano, this is just not attractive.
So I'm not buying THAT for the wife.
And for me, it would need to offer something new, something I really want -- playing ogg vorbis, but limiting me to windows, giveth and then taketh away any reason to buy this over the Nano.
Ghandi's right about the pattern. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Seems like we've moved to fighting them or even apologizing for our free speech which sounds a lot like the winning part. (Which as a non-muslim, I'd like to avoid.) Can we just go back to step two, here?
The Islamic world should (and the majority of them probably do) find this whole insanity on the part of a small number of people truely EMBARASSING.
The rest of the world puts up with commentary, no matter how bad, how rude, how poorly drawn. Only within their own country do even dictators squelch the media. These acts of violence, and even the peacable protests are strong evidence that aspects of the Islamic world have a lot of growing up to do.
Step one, ignoring them, doesn't seem helpful, but step two seems like the way to go. Getting upset, taking them seriously, vilifying them, being worried about their abilty to boycott, burn, blow up, etc. is step three territory, and begs condition four. We hear and see all these news organizations puffing up a few bozos into a huge crowd of angry Muslims. Can we please step back and notice that these are a few spoiled children?
Denmark should respond with some more cartoons. Hey, this time, do you think they might make them actually funny?
I have to agree. And yet, congress voted for it and the unwashed public thought it was on the level. By what this guy says, Colin Powell thought it was on the level. What happened? Does the average American actaully not have the two neuron minimum?
The fact that everyone in congress voted for it, and that many of those guys were not stupid enough to believe it wasn't a hoax, suggests that there would be plenty of recriminations to go around. The legislative branch will actively squelch this.
c) the public at large isn't going to get outraged about this (or anything else) unless gas prices go back up to $3/gal
No, $2.50 was enough. The speed that this sort of thing will move depends exactly on the price of gas, but $3 ain't the tipping point, $3's just the acceleration point. But you're right, at $3 it would move fast. As is, it'll be a big part of the eventual pullout shenanigans.
Maybe the RIAA know something we all know as a rule of thumb. But maybe they've figured out that it's actually, literally true.
"Everyone downloads music. Everyone is guilty."
Once you realize that that statement is actually TRUE, then it doesn't matter whom you sue. Sue names out of the phonebook, and then listen as they protest, pulling a John Edwards based on their excuses with a high degree of accuracy, because THEY ARE GUILTY. EVERYONE ACTUALLY IS.
And exceptions like this woman are so rare it just doesn't matter.
Now for a second, imagine that that they screwed up on this woman. We don't know what their screw-up rate is, but they may be utterly wrong 10% of the time. They may get the wrong person one time out of 10, but nobody realizes because since everyone REALY IS GUILTY, the wrong people think "Oops. Ya got me." and fork over some cash.
Is anyone reading this completely innocent? Anyone?
(Except me, of course. I've never done it.)
A lot of good, intelligent things have been said already, so I'll just add a sentiment.
I once heard Bill Gates interviewed (this was years ago, when he'd just started giving money) and the interviewer asked him why he'd given the money -- what benefit did the gift have for Microsoft? Bill Gates told him. Bill wasn't surprised or insulted by the question, and had already talked about how he gave money and machines and software only to benefit Microsoft.
I know that now he's giving real money to real causes and aims to give lots away, and the effect is commendable. But he's doing it because he smells brimstone. Whether that brimstone is connected to his place in history, or from the DOJ, or due to some religious tickle, I don't know, but it's way too late to keep him from being a bastard.
If there were indulgences on sale, he'd be buying them buy the bushel.
I've got a salesforce here that uses ACT. If I can get them off of that one application, and one other canned dingus, I can get them crappy laptops with Linux and non-root passwords. I can hand them an entire mobile office that they won't be able to completely screw up with ad-ware and games and other crap. If if dies, I can hand them one exactly like it with just a few minutes of human labor.
In short, I'll be able to drag them into actual automated salesforce world.
I don't have the clout to do it, now, when it would mean the loss of these Windows-only apps on the machines, nor do I have the man-hours available to can something under Windows.
ACT would be a huge first step.
Ok, due to two previous posts, I guess I need to clarify: Caffeine, as a diuretic, means you'd pump more water through yer innards. Alcohol might do the same, but if taken in amounts in excess of what your stomach can process has destructive results which would counteract that effect.
Now, as to stress, that'd be VERY interesting, but it can't be the superficial way the average Joe user thinks about it. The effects of caffeine go away after two weeks of taking it -- by then you're dependant on it, you no longer get a boost, from baseline. All you're seeing when you take your daily doses is the effect of shoving yourself back up to baseline, so I don't think it's caffeine's effect on stress. Now, it might be the daily ritual of sitting and drinking the stuff. Maybe that's such a stress reducer that any such respit would help -- so smoker's might benefit.
A wacky idea -- you're dependant on caffeine. Without it, you cannot think. Your neurons are producing excessive amounts of inhibitory neurotransmitters in the expectation that caffeine will come along and block the receptors. Maybe it's this DEPENDANT, DEPRESSED STATE which causes the effect. Maybe it's the painful urge for coffee that causes the beneficial stress bump you're talking about.
Caffeine's a diuretic. I'll bet any diuretic will do the same.
All this debate requires semantic agreement to be useful in the first place, and so that's got to be AVOIDED so we can mock each other. Realize that the concept of science changes over time. Bacon's concept of science is different from Popper's. The concept of a hypotheses is new to science. It's modern science we're talking about, a so, for a fun debate, we drag in what we now think of as theories which come from pre-modern science.
Fun.