Yes, I am because that's exactly what's happening. Sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. I don't need to see 50 god damned options so you can personally identify the exact brand/amount of penis/vagina/other you like or don't like to me.
Sexual orientation != gender != physical sex (and certainly != some fetish).
And frankly, it's isn't about you. Or me. Or anyone else but the person trying to deal with their own identity. I'm lucky to be part of the majority, but I've known people who didn't fit into the simple M/F boxes, and if it helps them find a place, then I'm all for it.
Please stop being so inclusive. You're destroying his sense of traditional gender. And I use the male pronoun because, in my experience, men are much more hung up about this sort of thing.
If all of them are going to become mainstream, LGBTQ is going to need a whole lot more letters. I think it'd be best if we picked a handful of definitions and allowed for ranges within them. Vegetarianism has done this - sure, there's various names like octo-lacto-vegetarian for different degrees of it, but most of the time getting that specific only matters in the context of certain situations. I have no problem with recognizing different genders, but the more you try to granularize it, the more trouble you're going to run into defining them until every person on Earth uses a slightly different definition.
Vegetarian - doesn't consume animal products.
Vegan - doesn't consume or use animal products.
Hypocrite - claims to be a vegetarian but eats dairy, or fish, etc.
Moron - claims to be vegan but has a leather satchel.
"Vegetarians" who eat dairy or fish are absolutely not vegetarians and would never have called themselves vegetarians a few decades ago. But LA and New York hipster shits decided it was in vogue, then idiots who weren't vegetarians wanted to claim to be one, so they did, and now the word has been ruined.
Wrong. I have been a vegetarian for 34 years (long before the advent of hipsters). My definition is "does not eat anything that takes a shit." Yes, I eat cheese and eggs - you do not kill an animal to get these products (the proper term is lacto-ovo vegetarian, or just plain vegetarian). No, eggs are not animals - they arent' even fertilized in commercial production (and neither are my backyard variety).
Vegans do not eat any animal products, including eggs and cheese. Some do not eat honey (bee-vomit) and some go so far as to wear filters in their noses to prevent breathing in insects (I am not kidding).
And you forgot one label:
Asshole - likes to mock vegetarians because of their own guilt over killing animals.
OK, so your friend is a one in a million. Why support Facebook's forcing of this crap down our throats? There's two sexes. Trying to redefine the English language and insulting the entire English-speaking population is just ridiculous. Attacking their users like this is going to backfire.
Forcing it down your throat? You mean forcing you to see someone else's own identity selection? They aren't forcing you to change your selection. If someone else's selection is so abhorrent to you, you can always unfriend them. That's what someone like you would probably do IRL anyway.
There's simpler example: bottled water, sold at gasoline prices.
I always tell people that I have one of those new-fangled houses where water comes out of a hole in the wall. But someday, we humans will likely have destroyed all the good water (frakking, polution), that we'll need to buy bottled.
Your using the wrong mechanic. I've had free labour, and even free parts from my regular mechanic after he's realised he misdiagnosed a problem originally.
The problem is that, often, the customer doesn't have enough knowledge to prove the mechanic failed in his diagnosis. Most mechanics will claim that you now have a new problem that was masked by the old one. It is sometimes difficult to tell the BS from the true under these conditions. And even harder to prove. I have had both kinds of mechanics over the years.
I've noticed that Slashdot admins have been using their unlimited mod points to deep-six anti-Beta posts into moderation oblivion, as well, not to mention all the anti-Beta "Anon Cowards" that they simply delete...
Tinfoil hat, much? I mod down all the Fuck Beta comments as off-topic, because they are fucking off-topic. All the stupid Fuck Beta topics are ruining slashdot much more than Beta.
Yes, multiple shows are taped in a day. I don't think it is linked to winners - it is likely to be X games per day. I doubt anyone intentionally loses because they can't play more than one day - I'm sure just about anyone could make the right arrangements in the face of winning thousands of dollars.
While some play "bet it all if you're trailing," that strategy is often sub-optimal. If you can only win by the leader getting it wrong, it is pointless to bet more than what would get you past where they are going into final (except to outreach 3rd place). And if you both get it wrong, you can end up winning if they bet enough to beat your farthest reach.
Example: Leader has $10K; 2nd place has $9K; 3rd place has $5K
Leader bets $8001 to outreach others; 2nd place should bet $1001 to outreach 3rd place; 3rd place should bet $3K.
If leader and 3rd are wrong, 2nd place wins whether wrong or right. If leader and 2nd are wrong, 3rd place wins if right. If 2nd bets it all, he can only win if right. The reason 3rd should not bet it all is that if 2nd bets it all and everybody gets it wrong, 3rd can win.
While you present a reason to finish with ties, I myself would not use that strategy for a different reason. I believe that having played once gives one and edge on the second game. If you tie instead of win, you allow one contestant in the next round to be experienced, instead of two newbies. Of course, if all contestants play a lot of practice rounds in some sort of playoff to be on the show, perhaps the newbie effect isn't as pronounced.
Daily Doubles are the real wildcard here. They're worth the most money (based on your own wager) and you are given time to think it over, instead of rushing to beat out the competition. "He who controls the spi- err, Daily Doubles, controls the game."
Just make the Daily Doubles appear anywhere on the board then, not predominantly in the bottom. Assign all of them the same difficulty level (regardless of if it's a $200 question or a $1000 question).
As you say, the Daily Doubles are the wildcards. But instead of distributing the wildcards randomly to spice up the game, they've distributed them systematically, giving someone who picks questions based on that system an advantage (better chance to get wildcards). It's the game's design that's flawed, not the player's strategy.
While I agree that distributing the DD more randomly would punch holes in his strategy, I think making them the "same as difficult" no matter where they appear would be a mistake. Part of deciding how much to bet on one is where in the column it sits - an indicator of how hard the clue is.
I've made it to the in-person interview round for Jeopardy. The producers are emphatic that merely being good at answering questions is not enough to get you on the show.
Yes. But once you're on the show, they're not going to kick you off for not being entertaining without some major blowback from the viewing audience. I suppose they could rig your button so it doesn't work right, but do you really think they'd risk the consequences of cheating?
I had a friend go for a local version of "who wants to be a Millionaire.
They had all sorts of out clauses in that the show was pre-recorded well in advance. One of the major ones was that unless they aired an episode featuring you, they did not have to pay you, and no payment would be coming until after airing.
I am sure that this was incase of dispute or a question - or other reason, but just by agreeing to their terms,if the show deemed because you weren't entertaining enough - No matter how much you won, you could end up with nothing.
While that may be the case for shows with only one contestant at a time, it would be highly impractical in shows with multiple contestants. Say, an unentertaining player won. Would the network just toss him and allow a new contestant and new game? How would second place player feel if he'd beaten the re-crowned old champ? Etc. If Jeopardy ran that way, we'd have it heard it by now from disgruntled players.
He's getting booed because he's taking all the fun out of the game for the viewers. It's not the freaking Olympics. It's a tv show, meant to entertain. He's not being entertaining.
It may be the the network's goal to entertain the people, but it is his goal to win money.
The Dyson cleaner I bought has lasted over 14 years, which is longer than any previous vacuum cleaner anybody I grew up knowing managed to keep one running. In that time it's caused no problems and lost no suction power.
On a dollar per suck ratio it's cheaper than your mum, let alone her archaic bag filling hoover.
I have a handheld Hoover from the fifties that still sucks great. It is "bagless" in the sense that the bag is removed and emptied. So my anecdote beats yours. Oh, and I bought it for $1.50 at a yard sale.
I cannot comment on your particular model, but the bagless I've encountered are a wonder in nonuseability. The HEPA filter is clogged beyond use in no time.
no matter if it were a republican (low tax, low spend)
Ha, you're funny. As this article demonstrates, Republicans can spend (and/or waste) just as much, if not more than, Democrats. They just don't want to spend any of it on poor people or minorities.
If you're interested in balancing the budget, always vote for Tax-and-Spend instead of Don't-Tax-but-Spend.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I am because that's exactly what's happening. Sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. I don't need to see 50 god damned options so you can personally identify the exact brand/amount of penis/vagina/other you like or don't like to me.
Sexual orientation != gender != physical sex (and certainly != some fetish).
And frankly, it's isn't about you. Or me. Or anyone else but the person trying to deal with their own identity. I'm lucky to be part of the majority, but I've known people who didn't fit into the simple M/F boxes, and if it helps them find a place, then I'm all for it.
Please stop being so inclusive. You're destroying his sense of traditional gender. And I use the male pronoun because, in my experience, men are much more hung up about this sort of thing.
If all of them are going to become mainstream, LGBTQ is going to need a whole lot more letters. I think it'd be best if we picked a handful of definitions and allowed for ranges within them. Vegetarianism has done this - sure, there's various names like octo-lacto-vegetarian for different degrees of it, but most of the time getting that specific only matters in the context of certain situations. I have no problem with recognizing different genders, but the more you try to granularize it, the more trouble you're going to run into defining them until every person on Earth uses a slightly different definition.
Vegetarian - doesn't consume animal products. Vegan - doesn't consume or use animal products. Hypocrite - claims to be a vegetarian but eats dairy, or fish, etc. Moron - claims to be vegan but has a leather satchel.
"Vegetarians" who eat dairy or fish are absolutely not vegetarians and would never have called themselves vegetarians a few decades ago. But LA and New York hipster shits decided it was in vogue, then idiots who weren't vegetarians wanted to claim to be one, so they did, and now the word has been ruined.
Wrong. I have been a vegetarian for 34 years (long before the advent of hipsters). My definition is "does not eat anything that takes a shit." Yes, I eat cheese and eggs - you do not kill an animal to get these products (the proper term is lacto-ovo vegetarian, or just plain vegetarian). No, eggs are not animals - they arent' even fertilized in commercial production (and neither are my backyard variety).
Vegans do not eat any animal products, including eggs and cheese. Some do not eat honey (bee-vomit) and some go so far as to wear filters in their noses to prevent breathing in insects (I am not kidding).
And you forgot one label: Asshole - likes to mock vegetarians because of their own guilt over killing animals.
> I have a friend that is a true chimera
OK, so your friend is a one in a million. Why support Facebook's forcing of this crap down our throats? There's two sexes. Trying to redefine the English language and insulting the entire English-speaking population is just ridiculous. Attacking their users like this is going to backfire.
Forcing it down your throat? You mean forcing you to see someone else's own identity selection? They aren't forcing you to change your selection. If someone else's selection is so abhorrent to you, you can always unfriend them. That's what someone like you would probably do IRL anyway.
There's simpler example: bottled water, sold at gasoline prices.
I always tell people that I have one of those new-fangled houses where water comes out of a hole in the wall. But someday, we humans will likely have destroyed all the good water (frakking, polution), that we'll need to buy bottled.
That must be why I see all the ads for Christian Mingle - I am neither Christian nor single.
Your using the wrong mechanic. I've had free labour, and even free parts from my regular mechanic after he's realised he misdiagnosed a problem originally.
The problem is that, often, the customer doesn't have enough knowledge to prove the mechanic failed in his diagnosis. Most mechanics will claim that you now have a new problem that was masked by the old one. It is sometimes difficult to tell the BS from the true under these conditions. And even harder to prove. I have had both kinds of mechanics over the years.
I don't get it. If it so old it should be an ember by now, or does it still radiate ? If its only 6k ly from here then it still radiates right ?
We won't know if it still radiates in 2014 until the year 8014.
It isn't a matter of supporting Beta. It's a matter of not supporting people who can't stop shouting just because they don't get their way.
I've noticed that Slashdot admins have been using their unlimited mod points to deep-six anti-Beta posts into moderation oblivion, as well, not to mention all the anti-Beta "Anon Cowards" that they simply delete...
Tinfoil hat, much? I mod down all the Fuck Beta comments as off-topic, because they are fucking off-topic. All the stupid Fuck Beta topics are ruining slashdot much more than Beta.
I'll get one if it includes weapons for deployment on stupid drivers. Or even Kamikaze mode.
...if they catch you running an illegal operation using Bitcoins, the necessary bribe to the authorities just got bigger.
And be sure to pay it with bitcoin.
Yes, multiple shows are taped in a day. I don't think it is linked to winners - it is likely to be X games per day. I doubt anyone intentionally loses because they can't play more than one day - I'm sure just about anyone could make the right arrangements in the face of winning thousands of dollars.
While some play "bet it all if you're trailing," that strategy is often sub-optimal. If you can only win by the leader getting it wrong, it is pointless to bet more than what would get you past where they are going into final (except to outreach 3rd place). And if you both get it wrong, you can end up winning if they bet enough to beat your farthest reach.
Example: Leader has $10K; 2nd place has $9K; 3rd place has $5K
Leader bets $8001 to outreach others; 2nd place should bet $1001 to outreach 3rd place; 3rd place should bet $3K.
If leader and 3rd are wrong, 2nd place wins whether wrong or right. If leader and 2nd are wrong, 3rd place wins if right. If 2nd bets it all, he can only win if right. The reason 3rd should not bet it all is that if 2nd bets it all and everybody gets it wrong, 3rd can win.
the crowd disagrees and the crowd is the ultimate arbiter here. how much of his winnings can he enjoy when he doesn't have his head?
Fortunately, that is not the case, as these are modern times, and mob rule is no longer the case.
Back in the day, if you won the battle in the coliseum through underhanded tactics, the crowd would boo and Caesar would kill you anyway.
His tactics are not underhanded. They are completely within the rules.
Bingo! +100.
While you present a reason to finish with ties, I myself would not use that strategy for a different reason. I believe that having played once gives one and edge on the second game. If you tie instead of win, you allow one contestant in the next round to be experienced, instead of two newbies. Of course, if all contestants play a lot of practice rounds in some sort of playoff to be on the show, perhaps the newbie effect isn't as pronounced.
Just make the Daily Doubles appear anywhere on the board then, not predominantly in the bottom. Assign all of them the same difficulty level (regardless of if it's a $200 question or a $1000 question). As you say, the Daily Doubles are the wildcards. But instead of distributing the wildcards randomly to spice up the game, they've distributed them systematically, giving someone who picks questions based on that system an advantage (better chance to get wildcards). It's the game's design that's flawed, not the player's strategy.
While I agree that distributing the DD more randomly would punch holes in his strategy, I think making them the "same as difficult" no matter where they appear would be a mistake. Part of deciding how much to bet on one is where in the column it sits - an indicator of how hard the clue is.
I've made it to the in-person interview round for Jeopardy. The producers are emphatic that merely being good at answering questions is not enough to get you on the show.
Yes. But once you're on the show, they're not going to kick you off for not being entertaining without some major blowback from the viewing audience. I suppose they could rig your button so it doesn't work right, but do you really think they'd risk the consequences of cheating?
Kind of.
I had a friend go for a local version of "who wants to be a Millionaire.
They had all sorts of out clauses in that the show was pre-recorded well in advance. One of the major ones was that unless they aired an episode featuring you, they did not have to pay you, and no payment would be coming until after airing.
I am sure that this was incase of dispute or a question - or other reason, but just by agreeing to their terms,if the show deemed because you weren't entertaining enough - No matter how much you won, you could end up with nothing.
While that may be the case for shows with only one contestant at a time, it would be highly impractical in shows with multiple contestants. Say, an unentertaining player won. Would the network just toss him and allow a new contestant and new game? How would second place player feel if he'd beaten the re-crowned old champ? Etc. If Jeopardy ran that way, we'd have it heard it by now from disgruntled players.
He's getting booed because he's taking all the fun out of the game for the viewers. It's not the freaking Olympics. It's a tv show, meant to entertain. He's not being entertaining.
It may be the the network's goal to entertain the people, but it is his goal to win money.
The Dyson cleaner I bought has lasted over 14 years, which is longer than any previous vacuum cleaner anybody I grew up knowing managed to keep one running. In that time it's caused no problems and lost no suction power.
On a dollar per suck ratio it's cheaper than your mum, let alone her archaic bag filling hoover.
I have a handheld Hoover from the fifties that still sucks great. It is "bagless" in the sense that the bag is removed and emptied. So my anecdote beats yours. Oh, and I bought it for $1.50 at a yard sale.
I didn't mean to dump on Dyson. I am referring to the more wallet-friendly variants out there that are also bagless.
I cannot comment on your particular model, but the bagless I've encountered are a wonder in nonuseability. The HEPA filter is clogged beyond use in no time.
You're doing it wrong, apparently. I breathed in more dust changing bags than I do emptying my bagless.
My bad. I forgot to don my level-6 containment suit when I emptied the bagless.
no matter if it were a republican (low tax, low spend)
Ha, you're funny. As this article demonstrates, Republicans can spend (and/or waste) just as much, if not more than, Democrats. They just don't want to spend any of it on poor people or minorities.
If you're interested in balancing the budget, always vote for Tax-and-Spend instead of Don't-Tax-but-Spend.