If they were, they wouldn't be creepy. That whole sentence about how the brain knows the difference... doesn't that make them not-so-realistic? I mean, I understand that realism is what they're going for, but the tech isn't there yet. I think we all knew that already.
It's not about replicating Swedish, you bafoon. It's the Swedish Chef from dialectizer... You know, as in the FUCKING MUPPET, which did say 'und'?
Yes, I know. He was wrong too.
What kind of Swedish Chef impersonation would it be if he went around correcting the flaws the original had? Then, you're just impersonating some random actual Swedish guy, and that's no fun. That's like correcting grammar mistakes in movie quotes. It's not the same thing if you 'fix' it. Therefore, it logically follows that if the Swedish Chef had some errors as part of his character (and yes, he had a ton of them...that's part of what made him funny) then anyone wishing to imitate him would neccessarily imitate them as well. As an aside, Huuurdy vuuurdy hooooo.
Hey, this is/. What you're expecting quality journalism?
Yeah! It's not like this is the New York Ti..hmm, er...the Tampa Bay Tribune...hrm. I think you could replace/. in your first statement with just about any media outlet these days. Sensationalism sells! Fuck truth, fuck checking facts and sources, that shit takes too long. Let's make sure that no matter how bad our media outlet is that it's first with stories about stupid Germans that don't know how to have sex.
"A Computerworld Article reports a pair of vulnerabilities to Internet Explorer that allow Windows machines to be 0wned by a single click on a malicious web page."
This isn't the only occurance of such an exploit. Windows machines can also be easily owned by a single click on Dell.com. I believe it is the "Buy it now" button.
Yes...and if a college student is buying it, chances are that machine will soon be pwned for beer money.
Don't blame me for setting your house on fire, I'm a habitual smoker and can't stand a[sic] hour without a smoke.
What do the two phrases in this sentence have to do with each other? Are all house fires caused by smokers, or do all smokers cause house fires? The correlation here is weak.
This is actually a problem. Speaking as someone who organises sporting events for young people, it would save us literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance costs if there were some way of getting parents to waive their rights to sue in the event of injury.
As it is, if their kid gets hurt they can and will sue us, regardless of any waivers they sign - and every time someone wins a case like that, the insurance costs go up another 10% or so... basically, unless someone comes up with a solution soon, amateur sports will probably die out within ten or twenty years.
We need a way to waive rights which someone might reasonably waive, while protecting people from unreasonable contracts. I just wish I could imagine it happening soon...
As an alternative I would recommend tort reform. That would help far more than waiving rights. If a judge would just say 'Oh, I see here you were injured playing sportX, your suit is thrown out,' it would help with that. Of course, the lawyers would come back with some stuff about 'The event wasn't safe' or whatever, but reasonable judges should see through that. There are major obstacles to tort reform here in the US though, not the least of which are the liti-gators. I call them that because once they have an advantage seized in their jaws, they will not let it go without a massive struggle. While there are lawyers whose sole purpose isn't to make as much money as possible (at least so I've heard), there are also lawyers who put themselves and their interests so far above the clients that they may not even remember that clients are more than just walking dollar signs.
You would think 'they' wouldn't know who it was wouldn't you....
Hmmm. Lets see. Cell sites contained in a seemingly ordinary brief case - handy at airports, or your least favorite politicians place of residence...
Voice recognition is not rocket science when you already have the 'prints'
You're absolutely correct. I forgot to add in the part about home-made voice scramblers. Thank you for pointing that out. Paranoiacs: Please don't forget your home-brew voice scrambler.
I wouldn't have my son without one. He is to leave it on at all times and answer all calls. If he doesn't he's grounded. A great way to keep your children on their toes and out of trouble.
I'm glad I'm not your kid. My provider is horrible in certain spots, and I'd be getting grounded constantly through no fault of my own. I've had missed calls show up 3 days later. I would switch to another carrier, but that means getting a new phone and honestly, they're all about the same where I live. Also, what happened to actually watching your kids? Doesn't anyone do that anymore, or have the twin gods of money and selfishness relegated kids to an 'oh I monitor them and always make sure to punish them every now and then' status? Please don't post me any bullshit about how it's too expensive and both parents have to work and what about single-parent households and all that. I grew up in a single parent household where my mom knew what I was doing, where, and when at all times and when I tried to test that, she always busted me. This was before cellular phones even existed. She made time for me while working 3 jobs until I was old enough and responsible enough to watch out for myself. She had no life and no social time and very little spending money. She never got a vacation and had to deal with my brother and I all the time. Yet she did not give in to the selfish lure of neglecting us, letting the TV raise us, or sending us off into the world with a phone, just in case she felt like checking on us. Having children is not supposed to be something you can do in your spare time, it is not supposed to be something two extremely career-oriented or money-gathering-oriented people should do, and it's not something you prefer to have done by one person. If you want to work 60 hour weeks to raise your own status, er I mean to 'give your children better lives' then do it before you have them. Once that child is born, until that child is 18 years old, nothing should be more important to you, not even your car, your house, or work.
Incorrect. One of the most pernicious fallacies I see here on/. is this: Something is in a legal contract that was signed, therefore it is inherently legal.
This is not true. A quick search will repudiate this myth quickly. You are free to waive any rights you wish whenever you want, but anyone acting on your words will not find themselves immune to prosecution. Example: You sign a contract stating that if you fail to meet your deadline for completion of a project, you agree to waive your right to life, allowing the company to kill you. You can sign that contract, but if you fail to meet your deadline and your company kills you, they will not be immune to prosecution just because you signed that contract. Please note that I have taken this example to an extreme, to illustrate my point. However it still applies to smaller things.
"What's in those messages could help determine whether the sex was consensual or whether Bryant is guilty of rape as charged."
The text messages will determine whether his is guilty of rape? How about, they'll determine whether or not he's FOUND guilty of rape.
His guilt is completely separate from those stupid messages. The idea that the courts determine whether or not someone ACTUALLY IS GUILTY is a stupid and common American fallacy. (I don't know what it's like elsewhere.)
How could you possibly know the relevance of them without seeing them? What if she msgd a friend with 'LOL im gonna waste kobe in court he's so dumb lol time 2 get PAID!1!!!1!11!! I would think that would be relevant. Also, if the msg was 'OMG Kobe Bryant just raped me!' that would be relevant too. Is it proof either way, nope. But then many cases are decided by circumstantial evidence such as this. Without a high-quality tamper-proof videotape or other bit of mostly never-existing proof, you have to work with what you have. When it's a case of 'he said, she said' like this one, anything can potentially help. Just because something isn't indisputable proof does NOT mean that it isn't evidence.
And don't forget that just by having your phone turned on they can track you anyway, so the only safe option is to take out the battery (in case they remotely activate it), *then* wrap it in tinfoil.
You don't actually believe that the battery powers the secret tracking device, do you? No, the best option is to buy prepaid phones from convenience stores, paying only in cash and renewing your minutes at automated machines. Then you can talk all you want and even if they're listening, they don't know who they're listening to, and you can toss the phone and get another one anytime. That's why you should also live in residence motels that accept cash and don't make you show ID and you should only drive pre-1984 vehicles or bicycles. Also, never trust anyone, because they've reached even the school crossing guards. Watch out, people, it's a scary world out there when you're paranoid.
Maybe he did his PhD in a proper subject instead of English?
Perhaps. And yet, I find it amusing that so many of the people who wish to comment on America's educational system commit so many glaring errors. It's ironic, and not in an Alanis way.
Yes but as most people who believe in weird/faith based shit argue to me: "Can you prove it's NOT?"
Actually, my money's on exactly that. Someone will prove it's not atlantis. I don't really think a city that may or may not have existed is all that weird. It's certainly not faith-based; either it was a city or it was not, and either it was atlantis or it was not. These are things we *can* prove. Just depends on whether anyone does.
Since we are totally off topic anyway, which is better? this or this?
Well, I'm pretty much against the party system entirely, but if forced to choose I'll go with the Libertarian Party. It's kind of weird, the concept of Libertarians joined into a political party, but their platform is closest to my personal beliefs. I just wish they'd stop voting Republican. Of *course* no Libertarian is ever going to get elected if the people in his own damn party aren't voting for him.
Yeah, that about sums it up. It's obviously no surprise to you. I'm sorry you think of my treatment of you as my displaying wit...it must be difficult for you, having to take so many pauses to sound out the big words. I can understand how you'd make that mistake.
or they are being untrue to their (proclaimed) ideals.
It's not the math. They absolutely ARE being untrue to their stated ideals. However it is not unique to Republicrats. I can tell your bias, and I'm not saying you're wrong, because it's a bias...I'm just biased against Demopublicans just as much. They're all the same, with the repubs increasing taxes (which is against their stated ideals) and the dems approving gov't help for people who don't need it (no means testing for welfare benefits for old people) which is against their stated ideals. No one really has the country's best interests at heart; it is impossible to make it to the national stage if you do. The 'party' system is inherently flawed and favors a certain type of candidate, which is not compatible with the 'best' type of person to run the country (one who cares only and totally about the people and what is in their best interest rather than what is in party/self-interest)
I wasn't bashing on you (i hope it didn't seem that way) but on America's political system in general.
Have you raised many kids lately? No, just one. Not 'many'
It's easy to say it harder to do it.
This is true with many things that nevertheless must be done. Paying bills, going to work, etc.
My parents did a fair job with my little brother but he still whines and moans.
Few children do not whine and moan. As a parent, it's your responsibility to resist your kid's wishes when they are against that kid's best interests.
Even though we rarely give in.
Rarely is okay. It is the people who give up and give in to everything or a large portion of things because they 'don't want to fight' or 'don't want to hear it' that are failing as parents.
However due to time contraints of having to work more then full time my parents have given in once in a whiel and also feel bad soemtiems when they don't.
Which feels worse: having to listen to your kid cry (which yes it breaks your heart) or having to watch your kids grow up to be thoughtless, impulsive, fat morons?
It's not so easy.
No, it isn't easy. These are LIVES we're talking about, why does everyone assume it should be easy? It's a lot of responsibility and hard work to raise a child. If you aren't prepared for that, if you want the benefits without the work, you are not ready for the responsibility.
You can only be a parent part time due to the economic realities that this society enforces.
Bullshit. If you can't afford to have kids, DON'T HAVE KIDS. If you can't make it on one income, either one of you needs to get a better job, you need to re-prioritize your spending, or you don't need a kid right now. If you're irresponsible enough to conceive a kid when you're not prepared for one, then I guess I can't expect you to be responsible enough to raise that kid. Just don't tell me it's impossible because that's easy to disprove.
We all must be dual income households. We all must work 40+ hours a week.
Blatantly not true.
Some work more to better the lfie of their children.
That's a good excuse. Work a ton BEFORE you have kids, if you must both work. Save up, THEN have the kid. Don't tell yourself that letting TV or nannies or the government raise your kids so YOU can make more money and get a higher score in life is really for the kids. Kids don't care about money and society unless they are trained to. Kids do care about time spent with parents. That's what makes a kid's life better, not a bank balance.
I disagree completely.......Sure parents give in and take the kids there, but it's the kid insisting they want to go there in the first place.
How can you say you disagree completely? Your last sentance says that the parents give in and take the kids there. I said the parents are to blame. You agree with me. Of *course* it's the kids who want to go there in the first place. Kids are not expected to know better, they want what they want when they want it, and marketeers are very good at thinking up ways to make kids want things. However, it is the parents who are responsible for what the kids actually get. As you said, it is the parents who take the kids to McDonald's. Also, it's the parents who are at fault when their child knows more about Ronald McDonald than George Washington. If your child isn't receiving the education that you want them to, do something about it. Of course most people are selfish and put their needs/convenience ahead of the needs of their children, but that's another topic. Anyway, you can't disagree completely with me while agreeing with something I said. It isn't logically possible.
Not to mention all the parents that are drug to McDonalds by their kids.
Unless the kid is driving with a gun to the parent's head, blame the parent. Any parent who does whatever their kids want just to keep them quiet is a bad parent. Kids do not KNOW what is good for them, because they are kids and don't have the experience or the rational thinking skills. That's why parents make their kids' decisions for them. Allowing kids to do whatever they want just to keep them quiet is a recipe for disaster. The stereotypical kid you see on commercials, wild and rowdy and only calm when they get product x, just feeds into this mindset that kids should get a say and it matters what kids think. You should always listen to your kids, and let them make choices that are appropriate for them to make, but you shouldn't let them dictate to you what and where they eat. Do this thing called 'parenting' and you won't end up with 400lb tv-addicted ignorant kids. Or, foist that responsibility off on everyone else, and stop bitching about how your kids turned out.
NT. Please note that *all* politicians, not just republicrats, claim that a decrease in growth is a loss. Demopublicans do it too. "We're only increasing taxes by 5% this year, which means we're really lowering taxes as last year we raised them 7%"
Have you reached the chapter in Fast Food Nation where the author visits an abattoir? It prompted me to start buying organic beef. In fact a local Burger joint here has started offering organic beef burgers (for a $2.39CDN premium). But hey - someone's got to create a demand. If people started buying more organic meats, the price would probably drop.
I only buy organic meats too. I can't seem to digest any other kind. I tried silicon-based, but it didn't work. Then I tried tin and lead-based, still no go. So it was back to plain ol' carbon-based for me.
Pesticides make things non-carbon based? I didn't realize alchemy was so successful and cheap. I mean, they could think up a different word. Organic already means something. It's like saying that over here I have 'Vegetable carrots' while over here I have just regular carrots which are somehow different. I know what 'organically grown' means and all, the word choice just irritates me. Also, GM is fine. Any time you cross-pollinate or use Gregor Mendel's process, you're genetically modifying plants. We've been doing it for quite a long time and nature has been doing it even longer. New methods are just faster. Yellow rice is an example of a GM food that is helping people right this moment.
Slashdot Mirror
If they were, they wouldn't be creepy. That whole sentence about how the brain knows the difference... doesn't that make them not-so-realistic? I mean, I understand that realism is what they're going for, but the tech isn't there yet. I think we all knew that already.
It's not about replicating Swedish, you bafoon. It's the Swedish Chef from dialectizer... You know, as in the FUCKING MUPPET, which did say 'und'?
Yes, I know. He was wrong too.
What kind of Swedish Chef impersonation would it be if he went around correcting the flaws the original had? Then, you're just impersonating some random actual Swedish guy, and that's no fun. That's like correcting grammar mistakes in movie quotes. It's not the same thing if you 'fix' it. Therefore, it logically follows that if the Swedish Chef had some errors as part of his character (and yes, he had a ton of them...that's part of what made him funny) then anyone wishing to imitate him would neccessarily imitate them as well. As an aside, Huuurdy vuuurdy hooooo.
Hey, this is /.
/. in your first statement with just about any media outlet these days. Sensationalism sells! Fuck truth, fuck checking facts and sources, that shit takes too long. Let's make sure that no matter how bad our media outlet is that it's first with stories about stupid Germans that don't know how to have sex.
What you're expecting quality journalism?
Yeah! It's not like this is the New York Ti..hmm, er...the Tampa Bay Tribune...hrm. I think you could replace
"A Computerworld Article reports a pair of vulnerabilities to Internet Explorer that allow Windows machines to be 0wned by a single click on a malicious web page."
This isn't the only occurance of such an exploit. Windows machines can also be easily owned by a single click on Dell.com. I believe it is the "Buy it now" button.
Yes...and if a college student is buying it, chances are that machine will soon be pwned for beer money.
Don't blame me for setting your house on fire, I'm a habitual smoker and can't stand a[sic] hour without a smoke.
What do the two phrases in this sentence have to do with each other? Are all house fires caused by smokers, or do all smokers cause house fires? The correlation here is weak.
This is actually a problem. Speaking as someone who organises sporting events for young people, it would save us literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance costs if there were some way of getting parents to waive their rights to sue in the event of injury.
As it is, if their kid gets hurt they can and will sue us, regardless of any waivers they sign - and every time someone wins a case like that, the insurance costs go up another 10% or so... basically, unless someone comes up with a solution soon, amateur sports will probably die out within ten or twenty years.
We need a way to waive rights which someone might reasonably waive, while protecting people from unreasonable contracts. I just wish I could imagine it happening soon...
As an alternative I would recommend tort reform. That would help far more than waiving rights. If a judge would just say 'Oh, I see here you were injured playing sportX, your suit is thrown out,' it would help with that. Of course, the lawyers would come back with some stuff about 'The event wasn't safe' or whatever, but reasonable judges should see through that. There are major obstacles to tort reform here in the US though, not the least of which are the liti-gators. I call them that because once they have an advantage seized in their jaws, they will not let it go without a massive struggle. While there are lawyers whose sole purpose isn't to make as much money as possible (at least so I've heard), there are also lawyers who put themselves and their interests so far above the clients that they may not even remember that clients are more than just walking dollar signs.
You would think 'they' wouldn't know who it was wouldn't you....
Hmmm. Lets see. Cell sites contained in a seemingly ordinary brief case - handy at airports, or your least favorite politicians place of residence...
Voice recognition is not rocket science when you already have the 'prints'
You're absolutely correct. I forgot to add in the part about home-made voice scramblers. Thank you for pointing that out.
Paranoiacs: Please don't forget your home-brew voice scrambler.
I wouldn't have my son without one. He is to leave it on at all times and answer all calls. If he doesn't he's grounded. A great way to keep your children on their toes and out of trouble.
I'm glad I'm not your kid. My provider is horrible in certain spots, and I'd be getting grounded constantly through no fault of my own. I've had missed calls show up 3 days later. I would switch to another carrier, but that means getting a new phone and honestly, they're all about the same where I live. Also, what happened to actually watching your kids? Doesn't anyone do that anymore, or have the twin gods of money and selfishness relegated kids to an 'oh I monitor them and always make sure to punish them every now and then' status? Please don't post me any bullshit about how it's too expensive and both parents have to work and what about single-parent households and all that. I grew up in a single parent household where my mom knew what I was doing, where, and when at all times and when I tried to test that, she always busted me. This was before cellular phones even existed. She made time for me while working 3 jobs until I was old enough and responsible enough to watch out for myself. She had no life and no social time and very little spending money. She never got a vacation and had to deal with my brother and I all the time. Yet she did not give in to the selfish lure of neglecting us, letting the TV raise us, or sending us off into the world with a phone, just in case she felt like checking on us. Having children is not supposed to be something you can do in your spare time, it is not supposed to be something two extremely career-oriented or money-gathering-oriented people should do, and it's not something you prefer to have done by one person. If you want to work 60 hour weeks to raise your own status, er I mean to 'give your children better lives' then do it before you have them. Once that child is born, until that child is 18 years old, nothing should be more important to you, not even your car, your house, or work.
If you waive your rights, you have no rights.
/. is this: Something is in a legal contract that was signed, therefore it is inherently legal.
Incorrect. One of the most pernicious fallacies I see here on
This is not true. A quick search will repudiate this myth quickly. You are free to waive any rights you wish whenever you want, but anyone acting on your words will not find themselves immune to prosecution. Example: You sign a contract stating that if you fail to meet your deadline for completion of a project, you agree to waive your right to life, allowing the company to kill you. You can sign that contract, but if you fail to meet your deadline and your company kills you, they will not be immune to prosecution just because you signed that contract. Please note that I have taken this example to an extreme, to illustrate my point. However it still applies to smaller things.
"What's in those messages could help determine whether the sex was consensual or whether Bryant is guilty of rape as charged."
The text messages will determine whether his is guilty of rape? How about, they'll determine whether or not he's FOUND guilty of rape.
His guilt is completely separate from those stupid messages. The idea that the courts determine whether or not someone ACTUALLY IS GUILTY is a stupid and common American fallacy. (I don't know what it's like elsewhere.)
How could you possibly know the relevance of them without seeing them? What if she msgd a friend with 'LOL im gonna waste kobe in court he's so dumb lol time 2 get PAID!1!!!1!11!!
I would think that would be relevant. Also, if the msg was 'OMG Kobe Bryant just raped me!' that would be relevant too. Is it proof either way, nope. But then many cases are decided by circumstantial evidence such as this. Without a high-quality tamper-proof videotape or other bit of mostly never-existing proof, you have to work with what you have. When it's a case of 'he said, she said' like this one, anything can potentially help. Just because something isn't indisputable proof does NOT mean that it isn't evidence.
And don't forget that just by having your phone turned on they can track you anyway, so the only safe option is to take out the battery (in case they remotely activate it), *then* wrap it in tinfoil.
You don't actually believe that the battery powers the secret tracking device, do you? No, the best option is to buy prepaid phones from convenience stores, paying only in cash and renewing your minutes at automated machines. Then you can talk all you want and even if they're listening, they don't know who they're listening to, and you can toss the phone and get another one anytime. That's why you should also live in residence motels that accept cash and don't make you show ID and you should only drive pre-1984 vehicles or bicycles. Also, never trust anyone, because they've reached even the school crossing guards. Watch out, people, it's a scary world out there when you're paranoid.
Maybe he did his PhD in a proper subject instead of English?
Perhaps. And yet, I find it amusing that so many of the people who wish to comment on America's educational system commit so many glaring errors. It's ironic, and not in an Alanis way.
wow. all that time in school and you never learned the difference between weald and wield? How, exactly, would one 'forest or wooded area' a PhD?
Is it really that hard to use some HTML and make that an actual link, fucktard?
Ohh...poor AC doesn't know how to get there if you don't make a nice linky-linky for him.
Yes but as most people who believe in weird/faith based shit argue to me: "Can you prove it's NOT?"
Actually, my money's on exactly that. Someone will prove it's not atlantis. I don't really think a city that may or may not have existed is all that weird. It's certainly not faith-based; either it was a city or it was not, and either it was atlantis or it was not. These are things we *can* prove. Just depends on whether anyone does.
Since we are totally off topic anyway, which is better? this or this?
Well, I'm pretty much against the party system entirely, but if forced to choose I'll go with the Libertarian Party. It's kind of weird, the concept of Libertarians joined into a political party, but their platform is closest to my personal beliefs. I just wish they'd stop voting Republican. Of *course* no Libertarian is ever going to get elected if the people in his own damn party aren't voting for him.
Yeah, that about sums it up. It's obviously no surprise to you. I'm sorry you think of my treatment of you as my displaying wit...it must be difficult for you, having to take so many pauses to sound out the big words. I can understand how you'd make that mistake.
or they are being untrue to their (proclaimed) ideals.
It's not the math. They absolutely ARE being untrue to their stated ideals. However it is not unique to Republicrats. I can tell your bias, and I'm not saying you're wrong, because it's a bias...I'm just biased against Demopublicans just as much. They're all the same, with the repubs increasing taxes (which is against their stated ideals) and the dems approving gov't help for people who don't need it (no means testing for welfare benefits for old people) which is against their stated ideals. No one really has the country's best interests at heart; it is impossible to make it to the national stage if you do. The 'party' system is inherently flawed and favors a certain type of candidate, which is not compatible with the 'best' type of person to run the country (one who cares only and totally about the people and what is in their best interest rather than what is in party/self-interest)
I wasn't bashing on you (i hope it didn't seem that way) but on America's political system in general.
Have you raised many kids lately? No, just one. Not 'many'
It's easy to say it harder to do it.
This is true with many things that nevertheless must be done. Paying bills, going to work, etc.
My parents did a fair job with my little brother but he still whines and moans.
Few children do not whine and moan. As a parent, it's your responsibility to resist your kid's wishes when they are against that kid's best interests.
Even though we rarely give in.
Rarely is okay. It is the people who give up and give in to everything or a large portion of things because they 'don't want to fight' or 'don't want to hear it' that are failing as parents.
However due to time contraints of having to work more then full time my parents have given in once in a whiel and also feel bad soemtiems when they don't.
Which feels worse: having to listen to your kid cry (which yes it breaks your heart) or having to watch your kids grow up to be thoughtless, impulsive, fat morons?
It's not so easy.
No, it isn't easy. These are LIVES we're talking about, why does everyone assume it should be easy? It's a lot of responsibility and hard work to raise a child. If you aren't prepared for that, if you want the benefits without the work, you are not ready for the responsibility.
You can only be a parent part time due to the economic realities that this society enforces.
Bullshit. If you can't afford to have kids, DON'T HAVE KIDS. If you can't make it on one income, either one of you needs to get a better job, you need to re-prioritize your spending, or you don't need a kid right now. If you're irresponsible enough to conceive a kid when you're not prepared for one, then I guess I can't expect you to be responsible enough to raise that kid. Just don't tell me it's impossible because that's easy to disprove.
We all must be dual income households. We all must work 40+ hours a week.
Blatantly not true.
Some work more to better the lfie of their children.
That's a good excuse. Work a ton BEFORE you have kids, if you must both work. Save up, THEN have the kid. Don't tell yourself that letting TV or nannies or the government raise your kids so YOU can make more money and get a higher score in life is really for the kids. Kids don't care about money and society unless they are trained to. Kids do care about time spent with parents. That's what makes a kid's life better, not a bank balance.
I disagree completely.... ...Sure parents give in and take the kids there, but it's the kid insisting they want to go there in the first place.
How can you say you disagree completely? Your last sentance says that the parents give in and take the kids there. I said the parents are to blame. You agree with me. Of *course* it's the kids who want to go there in the first place. Kids are not expected to know better, they want what they want when they want it, and marketeers are very good at thinking up ways to make kids want things. However, it is the parents who are responsible for what the kids actually get. As you said, it is the parents who take the kids to McDonald's. Also, it's the parents who are at fault when their child knows more about Ronald McDonald than George Washington. If your child isn't receiving the education that you want them to, do something about it. Of course most people are selfish and put their needs/convenience ahead of the needs of their children, but that's another topic. Anyway, you can't disagree completely with me while agreeing with something I said. It isn't logically possible.
Not to mention all the parents that are drug to McDonalds by their kids.
Unless the kid is driving with a gun to the parent's head, blame the parent. Any parent who does whatever their kids want just to keep them quiet is a bad parent. Kids do not KNOW what is good for them, because they are kids and don't have the experience or the rational thinking skills. That's why parents make their kids' decisions for them. Allowing kids to do whatever they want just to keep them quiet is a recipe for disaster. The stereotypical kid you see on commercials, wild and rowdy and only calm when they get product x, just feeds into this mindset that kids should get a say and it matters what kids think. You should always listen to your kids, and let them make choices that are appropriate for them to make, but you shouldn't let them dictate to you what and where they eat. Do this thing called 'parenting' and you won't end up with 400lb tv-addicted ignorant kids. Or, foist that responsibility off on everyone else, and stop bitching about how your kids turned out.
NT. Please note that *all* politicians, not just republicrats, claim that a decrease in growth is a loss. Demopublicans do it too. "We're only increasing taxes by 5% this year, which means we're really lowering taxes as last year we raised them 7%"
Have you reached the chapter in Fast Food Nation where the author visits an abattoir? It prompted me to start buying organic beef. In fact a local Burger joint here has started offering organic beef burgers (for a $2.39CDN premium). But hey - someone's got to create a demand. If people started buying more organic meats, the price would probably drop.
I only buy organic meats too. I can't seem to digest any other kind. I tried silicon-based, but it didn't work. Then I tried tin and lead-based, still no go. So it was back to plain ol' carbon-based for me.
Man, you are fucking hilarious... I'll have to troll you again sometime.
Your mom is hilarious. I'll have to 'troll' her again sometime. w00t! Snap!
Pesticides make things non-carbon based? I didn't realize alchemy was so successful and cheap. I mean, they could think up a different word. Organic already means something. It's like saying that over here I have 'Vegetable carrots' while over here I have just regular carrots which are somehow different. I know what 'organically grown' means and all, the word choice just irritates me. Also, GM is fine. Any time you cross-pollinate or use Gregor Mendel's process, you're genetically modifying plants. We've been doing it for quite a long time and nature has been doing it even longer. New methods are just faster. Yellow rice is an example of a GM food that is helping people right this moment.