Honestly, this is not a big deal - assuming he paid a reasonably high amount for the blood.
If he is smart, he'd do it like this, twice a day. (morning and night).
1) Donate a pint of his own blood to a normal blood bank. 2) Accept a pint of replacement young blood, paying someone a hundred bucks or so for it. That person would only get paid if their blood tested as clean - no drugs, no diseases.
Note, the process does not reduce the amount of blood going to the blood banks, in fact it increases it (as he pays for it).
He gets most of his blood replaced every 5 days.
It would tremendously reduce the strain on his kidneys, liver and similar aging organs.
Not true, and hasn't been true for 40 years. Worldwide, population growth has flattened out. Many of the developed countries, such as Japan, have negative population growth.
Moreover, technological innovation is continuing to create efficiencies that allow us to have more people live using fewer resources.
Your premises, while historically accurate, are out dated.
I loved how he explained the seduction of good designers into doing evil work.
I must say I found Ryanair to be particularly evil.
In order to NOT buy insurance, you have to go to the drop down box labeled "Select your Country", and find "No Insurance Required", which is in the middle of the L's (not even in the "N" s).
Frankly, they should be sued. That's nothing less than outright fraud in my book.
Watch the video - the entire thing is worth it, not just the six examples. Well, it's about 2/3 worth it. It probably could have been cut down to 25 or even 20 minutes.
The iPhone is not a product, it's a brand. As in there are multiple different models.
When they compare it to cars, they compared it to specific models - the VW Beetle, the Lord of the Rings. They didn't compare it to all VW cars, or all Tolkien books.
First, you can tell jokes, but you can not make that the entirety or even the majority of your statements.
Second, certain jokes are off limits. Basically any joke that is based on prejudice is out the window. Similarly, you should also never do the "ha ha not serious" bit. You know what I mean - when you tell your girlfriend "I would love to sleep with your younger sister, ha ha not serious". Trump seems to do this ALL THE TIME. Ha ha , not serious about that wall, that Muslim ban, etc. etc.
Trump uses a very simple strategy - make no comments that CAN NOT be claimed to be an obvious joke. Then get all upset when people take you seriously. Whether he is talking about immigrants, women, Muslims, disabled, or pretty much anything.
The fact that you think this is a valid political strategy reflects poorly on YOU as much as it reflects poorly on
Anyone running for president has NO BUSINESS making jokes about other countries engaging in acts of War against this country. That's the equivalent of making a joke about having a bomb while in line at the TSA. When they take you seriously, you deserve NO sympathy.
But I do agree that Gawker is crap, and poor crap at that. At the very least we need should insist on a higher quality crap being spoon fed to the masses.
Your own failure to track an issue reflects poorly on you, not on the candidate. No matter how much you think it makes for a snide insult to them.
In real life, intelligent people start out wanting something when they hear about it, but after investigating it (say after the treaty is finalized) they may decided that they didn't get what they wanted.
In that case only an arrogant person would refuse to admit they were wrong.
Oh, wait a second - the GOP has in fact chosen an arrogant person that refuses to admit he was wrong. So the fact that you think it is someone how an insult to change your mind about a treaty after it was finalized kind of makes sense.
Go ahead and vote for Trump. You clearly are not capable of seeing his many flaws - and so bamboozled by political rhetoric that you think Hillary's good judgment is some kind of flaw.
First of all, the situation in Russia has changed over the past 4 years. Russia has gotten worse.
But that's irrelevant. There is a huge difference between not worrying about Russia and inviting them to attack us. If you can't tell the difference, then you are a fool.
I don't have to worry about my neighbor, but I am not going to dare them to break into my house and check my daughter's diary.
Seriously - why do things like Twitter need a password? It's not an email account, it's not that hard to hack and no body is going to lose anything important if someone else takes their twitter account.
If he really believes that is the intent, now is the time to sue them, claiming they are abusing their monopoly position. That is the heart of his claim.
Yes, most likely he will lose the lawsuit - now.
But in doing so, he will force Microsoft to make an argument about how what they are doing 'now' is not abusive. This will limit their possible actions in the future, as they won't be able to stop doing that without incriminating themselves.
What country do you live in? Because there has NEVER been a law 'forbidding opinion as news" in America.
There was a tradition that journalists followed avoiding opinion, but that's it. Fox came along and discovered that if they broke that tradition, people would flock to hear their biased news.
The US does have laws (first amendment to the constitution) that prevent censorship, particularly censuring political opinions. Your proposed law (that never previously existed) would most like fall on the wrong side of the first amendment.
Works better if you put a false flag photo in there. Something that you can legitimately claim is the reason why you had the security in the first place.
A picture of a naked woman that is not your wife works well. Just bad enough to hide, not bad enough to get you in real legal trouble.
They are scared the courts will outlaw them completely. Or simply wait until they have a long list of cases done without a warrant, and then the court says "no warrant, no conviction".
So the politicians decide they would set up a bunch of rules pre-empting a judicial censure of the police.
Have you not seen "Not for Resale" on items before?
Generally you can't stop individuals from reselling used items, but you can refuse to sell in bulk, insisting on only selling things in lots of 5 or fewer. Effectively this makes large scale resale operations impossible.
Or you can set it up so that you sell in large lots only via contracts that specify not for resale less than a set price. This means you can sue if someone sets up a large scale resale operation.
Often these techniques are used to grant people exclusivity in a region - you throw in a contract paragraph that says you can only sell in a specific region and no one else can.
It can't do that unless it knows precisely where you are. The general location from cell towers is not good enough to keep the fake picture in the same real location.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, this is not a big deal - assuming he paid a reasonably high amount for the blood.
If he is smart, he'd do it like this, twice a day. (morning and night).
1) Donate a pint of his own blood to a normal blood bank.
2) Accept a pint of replacement young blood, paying someone a hundred bucks or so for it. That person would only get paid if their blood tested as clean - no drugs, no diseases.
Note, the process does not reduce the amount of blood going to the blood banks, in fact it increases it (as he pays for it).
He gets most of his blood replaced every 5 days.
It would tremendously reduce the strain on his kidneys, liver and similar aging organs.
Not true, and hasn't been true for 40 years. Worldwide, population growth has flattened out. Many of the developed countries, such as Japan, have negative population growth.
Moreover, technological innovation is continuing to create efficiencies that allow us to have more people live using fewer resources.
Your premises, while historically accurate, are out dated.
And playing Dungeons and dragons.
They already are banned from going to church.
Is there any other way we can prevent them from living a normal life, and push them to re-offend?
Oh, oh, how about we ban them from drinking alcohol!
I loved how he explained the seduction of good designers into doing evil work.
I must say I found Ryanair to be particularly evil.
In order to NOT buy insurance, you have to go to the drop down box labeled "Select your Country", and find "No Insurance Required", which is in the middle of the L's (not even in the "N" s).
Frankly, they should be sued. That's nothing less than outright fraud in my book.
Watch the video - the entire thing is worth it, not just the six examples. Well, it's about 2/3 worth it. It probably could have been cut down to 25 or even 20 minutes.
The iPhone is not a product, it's a brand. As in there are multiple different models.
When they compare it to cars, they compared it to specific models - the VW Beetle, the Lord of the Rings. They didn't compare it to all VW cars, or all Tolkien books.
That would have been a fair comparison.
Glad to hear he thinks we don't need privacy.
Now I have a long list of police files and videos I would like to see.
Wait, you mean you don't want us to see those? But thousands of accusations against police are going unsolved without access to them!
First, you can tell jokes, but you can not make that the entirety or even the majority of your statements.
Second, certain jokes are off limits. Basically any joke that is based on prejudice is out the window. Similarly, you should also never do the "ha ha not serious" bit. You know what I mean - when you tell your girlfriend "I would love to sleep with your younger sister, ha ha not serious". Trump seems to do this ALL THE TIME. Ha ha , not serious about that wall, that Muslim ban, etc. etc.
Trump uses a very simple strategy - make no comments that CAN NOT be claimed to be an obvious joke. Then get all upset when people take you seriously. Whether he is talking about immigrants, women, Muslims, disabled, or pretty much anything.
The fact that you think this is a valid political strategy reflects poorly on YOU as much as it reflects poorly on
Anyone running for president has NO BUSINESS making jokes about other countries engaging in acts of War against this country. That's the equivalent of making a joke about having a bomb while in line at the TSA. When they take you seriously, you deserve NO sympathy.
But I do agree that Gawker is crap, and poor crap at that. At the very least we need should insist on a higher quality crap being spoon fed to the masses.
Your own failure to track an issue reflects poorly on you, not on the candidate. No matter how much you think it makes for a snide insult to them.
In real life, intelligent people start out wanting something when they hear about it, but after investigating it (say after the treaty is finalized) they may decided that they didn't get what they wanted.
In that case only an arrogant person would refuse to admit they were wrong.
Oh, wait a second - the GOP has in fact chosen an arrogant person that refuses to admit he was wrong. So the fact that you think it is someone how an insult to change your mind about a treaty after it was finalized kind of makes sense.
Go ahead and vote for Trump. You clearly are not capable of seeing his many flaws - and so bamboozled by political rhetoric that you think Hillary's good judgment is some kind of flaw.
First of all, the situation in Russia has changed over the past 4 years. Russia has gotten worse.
But that's irrelevant. There is a huge difference between not worrying about Russia and inviting them to attack us. If you can't tell the difference, then you are a fool.
I don't have to worry about my neighbor, but I am not going to dare them to break into my house and check my daughter's diary.
That is not simply not true. You don't need to expect to win, you need a good faith belief that you have been wronged.
If you were correct than NO ONE could ever sue Microsoft because they are so rich and have such good lawyers that no one could expect to win.
Any Board of Directors that offers that good a great is by definition NOT looking out for the interests of the company.
Good managers do not overpay, bad managers do it all the time.
Seriously - why do things like Twitter need a password? It's not an email account, it's not that hard to hack and no body is going to lose anything important if someone else takes their twitter account.
If he really believes that is the intent, now is the time to sue them, claiming they are abusing their monopoly position. That is the heart of his claim.
Yes, most likely he will lose the lawsuit - now.
But in doing so, he will force Microsoft to make an argument about how what they are doing 'now' is not abusive. This will limit their possible actions in the future, as they won't be able to stop doing that without incriminating themselves.
Thank you, that was very informative.
What country do you live in? Because there has NEVER been a law 'forbidding opinion as news" in America.
There was a tradition that journalists followed avoiding opinion, but that's it. Fox came along and discovered that if they broke that tradition, people would flock to hear their biased news.
The US does have laws (first amendment to the constitution) that prevent censorship, particularly censuring political opinions. Your proposed law (that never previously existed) would most like fall on the wrong side of the first amendment.
That's all it can be, given their 140 character limit.
It's people talking without any attempt to prove assertions. So it's Gossip.
Works better if you put a false flag photo in there. Something that you can legitimately claim is the reason why you had the security in the first place.
A picture of a naked woman that is not your wife works well. Just bad enough to hide, not bad enough to get you in real legal trouble.
They are scared the courts will outlaw them completely. Or simply wait until they have a long list of cases done without a warrant, and then the court says "no warrant, no conviction".
So the politicians decide they would set up a bunch of rules pre-empting a judicial censure of the police.
About the only thing more appropriate would be if the film was financed by the actual guy the movie was written about!
It's really really simple.
Money laundering is the crime of hiding where the money came from.
Now, all the regulations may be screwed about it are screwed up and complicated. But the crime itself is simple.
Just because regulations about a crime are poorly written does not mean the crime is poorly defined.
And when they claim data hog, show them European prices - they are MUCH MUCH cheaper than American.
Have you not seen "Not for Resale" on items before?
Generally you can't stop individuals from reselling used items, but you can refuse to sell in bulk, insisting on only selling things in lots of 5 or fewer. Effectively this makes large scale resale operations impossible.
Or you can set it up so that you sell in large lots only via contracts that specify not for resale less than a set price. This means you can sue if someone sets up a large scale resale operation.
Often these techniques are used to grant people exclusivity in a region - you throw in a contract paragraph that says you can only sell in a specific region and no one else can.
Ah. I see. Your mistake is simple. You confused what your phone does and what Pokémon GO does.
Pokémon Go software uses actual, real GPS, not merely the location services. Basically it puts a fake picture of a fake pokemon at a location, as if it was invisible to the human eye, but visible to the phone camera.
It can't do that unless it knows precisely where you are. The general location from cell towers is not good enough to keep the fake picture in the same real location.