Caffeine is not highly addictive, it causes physical dependency. The two are not the same thing. You can be under the influence of one, the other, or both.
Some may become psychologically addicted to it, but not all. In my personal experience, the number is relatively small (even then it's debatable whether it's addiction rather than habit). Almost everyone who consumes it regularly will become physically dependent on it, however.
I'd almost guarantee you'd feel differently if "saving your ass" meant living a few more days/weeks/months in almost unbearable pain or a state in which your mind was either not there or locked inside a completely non-functional body.
"Heroic measures" are not about saving someone who can actually be saved in any meaningful sense. It's about prolonging a life for a short time when they body and/or mind are unable to function in anything resembling a normal manner.
Re:I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my Da
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 1
I have cancer. I have faced situations where my death was nearly a certainty. I have lost people both slowly and quickly.
That said, I disagree. I found it terribly amusing. Facing death requires humor in order to make it tolerable.
I do know, and have faced the situation. And I vehemently disagree with the "going out kicking and screaming with every bionic body part science has to offer."
Facing death lying in a hospital bed on massive amounts of narcotics is not how I want to die. It is absolutely terrifying to consider being in that position again.
Dave's emails were all civil and reasonable. Even though the aggravation was clear in what he wrote, he was very polite for someone not only being jerked around, but openly insulted by Christoforo.
As for Mike, he is neither customer nor PR in the exchange. His response was solely because Christoforo dragged his company and expo into the conversation to use as a weapon, and he had every reason to be uncivil (while still remaining far more civil than Christoforo).
Third world-level health-care system Only if you're in the middle class: Make too much to qualify for subsidized care and not enough to be able to pay for it outright. Even then, it's certainly above any third-world country. It's just at the bottom of first-world care on average.
Ultra-paranoid dudes can buy assault rifles Only if you have a Federal Firearms License. Otherwise, you can only buy a rifle that looks like an assault rifle but functions like an ordinary rifle.
Horrible coffee in Styrofoam cups Maybe in the middle of the country (I can't speak from experience there), but not on the East or West coasts. Yes, coffee served in a styrofoam cup is probably going to be sub-par. That said, I haven't seen a styrofoam cup served by a business in years. That's not to say they don't exist, but they certainly aren't the norm.
In the US, the only way to do this is via ACH transfers. That gives the company unlimited access to your bank account. The onus is on the customer to deal with the fallout of mistaken transactions, even if it's the fault of the company accessing the account.
Credit cards are much safer to use in the US than bank transfers are. They have many more legal protections.
It's not being disease- and famine-free that keeps population growth in developed countries small, it's social pressure. Even if you eliminate hunger and disease, the poorest groups still have birthrates far in excess of the surrounding populations. This is true of Western countries as much as any other. The only difference is that there is less abject poverty in Western countries per capita. As a result, it's easier to overlook the root cause by averaging, since averaging can hide a myriad of things that are apparent via other forms of inquiry. Just as one can miss the forest for the trees, one can also miss the trees for the forest.
Chronic famine, disease, and high birth rates are all symptoms of the same problem for the most part. The causal link is not between them; it supersedes them.
It's unlikely to be a famine of epic proportion, but I'm a fan of cyclical famine. It has the great upside of limiting population potential. So no, sane people can disagree that this is a problem that needs to be "fixed" permanently.
Micro scale, yeah, famine sucks. Macro? Not so much.
I wouldn't. Disease is about the only thing still left keeping the population in check. What we absolutely don't need is fewer stressors on the human population.
Skype is not a "telephone" call, as understood by the definition of regulators. It's meaningless semantics, but most exploitation of the patent system relies entirely on such nonsense.
Ah, the filing date does precede the BlackBerry when used with a touchscreen. So, since the method of selecting the app is the only difference, someone needs to file a patent on a method of switching to an app via spoken word, wireless neural net, holographic interface, etc.
A patent being differentiated by flipping a switch with your finger versus flipping the switch with a stick is not a significant enough difference to warrant a patent. The USPTO needs to be burned to the ground, the ground salted, and the patent reviewers driven underground to live forevermore as the troglodytes they really are*.
Decentralization is anathema to any sort of big business interest in the US, unfortunately. It would also require a complete re-work of how the FCC operates that spectrum band, from nationally-licensed to being licensed more like FM radio spectrum is. Too many post-FCC brib^H^H^H^Hemployment opportunities at stake to do something like that.
Bleh, don't want to log my phone in, but I did want to say it seems like you're making the issue way more complicated than necessary. There will be plenty of edge cases and caveats, and lots of people with perspectives which run the gamut from similar to completely alien. I was expressing an opinion in general, the basis of which which has much more to do with how people approach the issue than what they ultimately decide to do about it.
Advertisers can have no certainty (hence expectation) their ads are looked at. They only have the expectation that the platform they pay serves them according to the agreement between the platform and the advertiser.
The user has no agreement of any kind with the advertiser. There can be no fraud between the user and the advertiser as a result.
Not viewing an ad is only dishonest when you've expressly agreed to do so. There may be other circumstances which bring moral questions to bear, but I don't see dishonesty being one of them. Blocking ads you wouldn't click on doesn't make you honest any more than blacking out ads in a newspaper for places you wouldn't patronize would.
There's also nothing fraudulent about pulling selective content from a platform (putting aside scraping and such, which is an entirely different topic) for end use. The practice is a moral decision up to the end user. I believe I was fairly clear on where my opinion sits in regard to that moral decision, but I am well aware it will be different for other people. There is no objective "right" or "wrong" in this regard. It seems a number of people wanted to turn a disagreement on opinion into some sort of test for an objective "truth."
I do not believe a default deny on all advertisement serves the greater good of content creation and presentation on the Internet. I do believe in being able to balance usability by consumers and the fiscal needs of content producers. I'd rather not see paywalls go up on the majority of non-niche high quality content, which is what would almost certainly happen if default deny became universal (as evangelized by some).
I'd use a more complete newspaper analogy, but I'm afraid it would be written off as an anachronism.
Slashdot Mirror
You just made me spray my monitor with today's 5 gallon bucket of coffee, you insensitive clod!
Multiplication is just addition in groups. You can overcome your problems with multiplication, I know you can!
Caffeine is not highly addictive, it causes physical dependency. The two are not the same thing. You can be under the influence of one, the other, or both.
Some may become psychologically addicted to it, but not all. In my personal experience, the number is relatively small (even then it's debatable whether it's addiction rather than habit). Almost everyone who consumes it regularly will become physically dependent on it, however.
I'd almost guarantee you'd feel differently if "saving your ass" meant living a few more days/weeks/months in almost unbearable pain or a state in which your mind was either not there or locked inside a completely non-functional body.
"Heroic measures" are not about saving someone who can actually be saved in any meaningful sense. It's about prolonging a life for a short time when they body and/or mind are unable to function in anything resembling a normal manner.
I have cancer. I have faced situations where my death was nearly a certainty. I have lost people both slowly and quickly.
That said, I disagree. I found it terribly amusing. Facing death requires humor in order to make it tolerable.
I do know, and have faced the situation. And I vehemently disagree with the "going out kicking and screaming with every bionic body part science has to offer."
Facing death lying in a hospital bed on massive amounts of narcotics is not how I want to die. It is absolutely terrifying to consider being in that position again.
Dave's emails were all civil and reasonable. Even though the aggravation was clear in what he wrote, he was very polite for someone not only being jerked around, but openly insulted by Christoforo.
As for Mike, he is neither customer nor PR in the exchange. His response was solely because Christoforo dragged his company and expo into the conversation to use as a weapon, and he had every reason to be uncivil (while still remaining far more civil than Christoforo).
Third world-level health-care system
Only if you're in the middle class: Make too much to qualify for subsidized care and not enough to be able to pay for it outright. Even then, it's certainly above any third-world country. It's just at the bottom of first-world care on average.
Ultra-paranoid dudes can buy assault rifles
Only if you have a Federal Firearms License. Otherwise, you can only buy a rifle that looks like an assault rifle but functions like an ordinary rifle.
Horrible coffee in Styrofoam cups
Maybe in the middle of the country (I can't speak from experience there), but not on the East or West coasts. Yes, coffee served in a styrofoam cup is probably going to be sub-par. That said, I haven't seen a styrofoam cup served by a business in years. That's not to say they don't exist, but they certainly aren't the norm.
I'll give you the rest of it.
In the US, the only way to do this is via ACH transfers. That gives the company unlimited access to your bank account. The onus is on the customer to deal with the fallout of mistaken transactions, even if it's the fault of the company accessing the account.
Credit cards are much safer to use in the US than bank transfers are. They have many more legal protections.
Africa is a relatively minor piece of the puzzle.
It's not being disease- and famine-free that keeps population growth in developed countries small, it's social pressure. Even if you eliminate hunger and disease, the poorest groups still have birthrates far in excess of the surrounding populations. This is true of Western countries as much as any other. The only difference is that there is less abject poverty in Western countries per capita. As a result, it's easier to overlook the root cause by averaging, since averaging can hide a myriad of things that are apparent via other forms of inquiry. Just as one can miss the forest for the trees, one can also miss the trees for the forest.
Chronic famine, disease, and high birth rates are all symptoms of the same problem for the most part. The causal link is not between them; it supersedes them.
It's unlikely to be a famine of epic proportion, but I'm a fan of cyclical famine. It has the great upside of limiting population potential. So no, sane people can disagree that this is a problem that needs to be "fixed" permanently.
Micro scale, yeah, famine sucks. Macro? Not so much.
But then we'd be left without inane semantic arguments about how there's only one way to understand a given phrase!
I wouldn't. Disease is about the only thing still left keeping the population in check. What we absolutely don't need is fewer stressors on the human population.
Right or not, the wording of the patent is pretty specific. It seems like it would be trivial to work around it.
The simulator was for ease of recording the video, not because that's the only place it was tested.
Saying the USPTO is the root of this evil doesn't make one an Apple apologist.
Apple is just another fruit growing on the tree of evil*.
*I should probably face serious repercussions for the wrongness of that statement, but I couldn't resist.
Skype is not a "telephone" call, as understood by the definition of regulators. It's meaningless semantics, but most exploitation of the patent system relies entirely on such nonsense.
Addendum to my previous comment:
Ah, the filing date does precede the BlackBerry when used with a touchscreen. So, since the method of selecting the app is the only difference, someone needs to file a patent on a method of switching to an app via spoken word, wireless neural net, holographic interface, etc.
A patent being differentiated by flipping a switch with your finger versus flipping the switch with a stick is not a significant enough difference to warrant a patent. The USPTO needs to be burned to the ground, the ground salted, and the patent reviewers driven underground to live forevermore as the troglodytes they really are*.
*Hyperbole.
That's far older than the other obvious prior art: BlackBerry.
I guess Ireland has no concept of sovereign immunity, or is this a result of how the EU is structured?
Decentralization is anathema to any sort of big business interest in the US, unfortunately. It would also require a complete re-work of how the FCC operates that spectrum band, from nationally-licensed to being licensed more like FM radio spectrum is. Too many post-FCC brib^H^H^H^Hemployment opportunities at stake to do something like that.
Bleh, don't want to log my phone in, but I did want to say it seems like you're making the issue way more complicated than necessary. There will be plenty of edge cases and caveats, and lots of people with perspectives which run the gamut from similar to completely alien. I was expressing an opinion in general, the basis of which which has much more to do with how people approach the issue than what they ultimately decide to do about it.
...conspiracy...
Strawman? At this point, really? I don't even have the words...
There's plenty of room for hypocrisy there, but there's also plenty of room for no hypocrisy.
You've captured it right there, but still don't seem to realize it.
"Self-righteous" can, but does not necessarily, imply hypocrisy. Can is not the same thing as does.
I left you a huge opening on which to mount a legitimate attack, and all I get is continued assertion of a negative. Pedestrian is not interesting.
Advertisers can have no certainty (hence expectation) their ads are looked at. They only have the expectation that the platform they pay serves them according to the agreement between the platform and the advertiser.
The user has no agreement of any kind with the advertiser. There can be no fraud between the user and the advertiser as a result.
Not viewing an ad is only dishonest when you've expressly agreed to do so. There may be other circumstances which bring moral questions to bear, but I don't see dishonesty being one of them. Blocking ads you wouldn't click on doesn't make you honest any more than blacking out ads in a newspaper for places you wouldn't patronize would.
There's also nothing fraudulent about pulling selective content from a platform (putting aside scraping and such, which is an entirely different topic) for end use. The practice is a moral decision up to the end user. I believe I was fairly clear on where my opinion sits in regard to that moral decision, but I am well aware it will be different for other people. There is no objective "right" or "wrong" in this regard. It seems a number of people wanted to turn a disagreement on opinion into some sort of test for an objective "truth."
I do not believe a default deny on all advertisement serves the greater good of content creation and presentation on the Internet. I do believe in being able to balance usability by consumers and the fiscal needs of content producers. I'd rather not see paywalls go up on the majority of non-niche high quality content, which is what would almost certainly happen if default deny became universal (as evangelized by some).
I'd use a more complete newspaper analogy, but I'm afraid it would be written off as an anachronism.
In a nutshell, yes.