Well, I'm confused about why you sound so surprised that your friend sent his body into starvation mode.
Any surprise you sensed wasn't because I implied it, but because you inferred it. I simply pointed out the fact that less food doesn't mean weight loss, and the people quoting thermodynamics are wrong.
The chemical reactions obey thermodynamics, but on a macro scale, it's more complicated than that. More calories can lead to weight loss while fewer calories leads to weight gain.
And anyway, do you really want to arrive at a business and be told "sorry, we aren't open yet - Mrs. Employee's kids had different hours today"? I sure don't.
Ah, you are deliberately being an ass. I thought you were just confused. How often do you turn up at the corporate offices of Proctor and Gamble looking for the marketing manager or something and show up at 8 a.m. unannounced and without an appointment?
Ah yes, your problem would happen never. Yes, you managed to troll me, I thought you were discussing the issue, not leading me on with the intention of wasting both of our time.
It's no more impossible than today's system. Might help push businesses to more flexible hours, something that's better for the environment by reducing the rush hour.
Not a valid motion. Much of the evidence against mobsters is often public domain. 90% of the evidence against Al Capone was. If your joke of a motion was legit, I think someone smarter than you would have used it before.
You haven't defined "the system" but will change that definition whenever it suits you to prove your point.
And sure, think of me as some wacko, it helps you hold your wrong opinions as fact in your fragile little self-image. Ooh, you proved me wrong and insulted me. You win the Internets. You are obviously deliberately ignorant, and enough people have proven your wrong statements wrong, no need for me to bother.
And yes, in the 14 years I've had a credit card, I've had 2 legit chargebacks - 1 was for a product they never shipped, and another was a product that never arrived. In the past 3 years, I've changed my credit card about 5 times already. Total loss to me? Maybe about $200 in cash that I had to run to the bank to pay off a bill because the replacement card didn't arrive in time to be billed to the card. (and likewise, a $200 less charged to my credit card. Since I pay it off every month, it washes out).
I had two chargebacks. Once I bought something off eBay, using PayPal (via credit card, never a bank account). The item didn't show up, I worked with the seller for a bit, but just did a chargeback. I paid and never got it. The seller told me I need to pay insurance to be able to do that. That's wrong. The "insurance" pays him, not me. That's his responsibility. His responsibility is to deliver the item in agreed condition. I don't care if he wants me to pay insurance, consumer law is clear, if I never got it, I don't have to pay. He argued. I charged back. Problem solved.
The other was a DOA product from a store that the return failed. So I left the item there, kept my receipt and performed a chargeback.
Lost a credit card in a foreign country once. Canceled that day, no loss, no problem. Declined to get a replacement (for a fee) and used a backup for the remainder of the trip. Credit cards are great. Lose $10,000 cash, big problem. Lose a card with $20k limit? Max $0 liability.
Sounds more like an explosion of life pre-cambian, but that the life that came about was evolutionary dead-ends, and died out under pressure from future life forms.
It wasn't until the Cambrian Explosion when the evolutionary branches were viable.
The problem with The Magic Soup theory is that over time, all closed systems tend to disorder, and the longer the time, the greater the disorder.
So is NYC more or less disordered than 1600? Yes, I know you'll go back to "closed system" but the point is, once life forms are involved, the disorder is thermodynamic, not complexity and structural. A beach, left for 10,000,000 years seems less disorderly than the rocky shore it replaced. Greater order over time. Sort-of.
Why, because I'll have given them the cheat codes for life?
Better to lie to them "be good to yourself, it's better to be miserably poor, than successfully rich." Or what message would you like me to give to my already-born children?
Unless you're tortured to get a plea bargain, a plea bargain is not torture.
Define "torture". Threat of pain/punishment to extract a confession was the original definition of it (from the Inquisition), and that's what a plea bargain is. "You will be anally raped if you don't confess" is not an uncommon torture statement. That in the Inquisition their threats of pain were immediately replaced by actual pain doesn't change the meaning of the word, just the context.
Alaska Airlines didn't win because of regulation or deregulation, but because they were the sole winner of the mail delivery contracts for the US Post Office. Nobody else could compete with a subsidized carrier.
I'm not "from" AK. I lived there 10 years before leaving the US for greener pastures. My mother, sister, and other family still live there, and it's as much "home" as anywhere else in the US. Anchorage based, but I've been almost everywhere in Alaska, though the South East less than most areas. Ketchikan, Sitka and others I've never been to, but Juneau a few times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... I've missed 5 of the top 25, only those in the South East, and glancing down further on the list, that seems to hold true for most of the rest on the list. St. Lawrence Island is the largest population center outside the South East I haven't been, though the in-laws are from there, so I claim a pass on Savoonga and Gambell. I didn't realize how many sub-100 pop towns I've been to until reading down that list.
If you were take all the essay's and documents produced by any given educator, politician, or other professional, and had it analyzed, I would bet my last dollar you would find some evidence of plagiarism.
Depends on your definitions. It was, at times, considered acceptable to plagiarize from the encyclopedia. In fact, what was encouraged as a elementary school student is "banned" at the university level. So, was adopting the standards for the place and time of the paper wrong? Judging all works now for all past works would likely find some problems, but would they be indicative of problems at the time?
Can anyone in Slashdot claim they have never cheated during their education? Are you not relieved that your materials were not analyzed by cheat detection algorithms? I know I am. I was only interested in mathematics and computers and didn't care about all the mandatory classes I had to take. I admit I took a few shortcuts with those mandatory courses, and I mean a few, but I didn't totally abuse the system either.
I just took the low grade. I was never externally motivated. Still am not now, but manage to convince myself that some external measures link to the internal (make money so I can get things I want, rather than being a good employee to make my boss feel better, and hope that correlates with money). Those that put grades as important were more likely to cheat. Those of us who don't care about grades (rare, I know) were less likely to cheat. Grades don't matter. Though it took most many years to believe that, and many still don't get it.
My High School grades were looked at only once in my life, getting into college. My college grades were never looked at (other than verification of my degree, on a pass/fail scale). Even getting into graduate school (10+ years after graduating college), having 99% GRE scores going into a non-competitive graduate program, they didn't care about grades. So 3 university degrees, and my grades were *never* looked at. My high school grades looked at once (by a place that didn't accept me). Had I not applied for universities above my station, my grades would *never* have been looked at, ever, by anyone, for any reason. And I'm not that unusual. Well, I may be, but my situation wasn't.
if everyone cheats including the rich how is it going to offset any advantage?
What do grades measure? In the US, the presumption is that they measure ability and/or dedication. Elsewhere they measure other things. If you can buy an A for money, they don't measure ability. Unless the system "allows" cheating. In which case the grade is a measure of dedication, but not ability. Whether you are dedicated enough to buy the grade or cheat for it, but working for it doesn't matter. So why do you hate the people that are too poor to buy a grade? Regardless of cheating, the system doesn't measure what you want anyway. So why not at least make it a little more fair?
Nope. Cheating to turn a "respectable" 80% into a 95% won't result in a graduate being incapable of doing anything. The "trick" is that the rich buy a 95% with no work, so they can get in to better post-grad spots. If you don't cheat, you'll never get a chance to demonstrate your abilities.
You are assuming the culture of cheating will extend beyond academia. That's incorrect, but fits with your biases.
In practice it's more like cheating to get in the race, not cheating once the race has started.
When I was a sophomore in college, we had a honors physics class that was really hard. There were only three people in the class to get one of the questions right. Me and two others. One of the two others cheated off me. I was given a 0 on the question because I didn't show my work well, and he thought I was the cheater. But in reality, I solved the question 3 ways (two wrong, the same as everyone else) and one right. The work was messy and not linear, so he thought I just threw out stuff to hide I cheated the answer.
The real problem was that the prof gave the same test to someone who took it late. He came to the after-test study session, and we explained the answers. The joke was that the TAs (all grad students) couldn't even get the question right. I got up and explained it, and everyone said it had to be wrong because the correct answer was too easy. The problem was that the prof gave bad instructions in class. Anyone who read the book, and ignored the lectures should have done what I did. But in the end, of the two others who got it right, one cheated off me.
I explained my work to him later, and got full credit. I essentially re-took the test, verbally in his office. He didn't catch the cheater, as he understood the shortcut after I explained it, and would have been able to explain it to anyone else after that. It was the ability to find the area under the curve with algebra rather than calculus that made the difference. Once you explain it, it's easy to re-explain it, but figuring it out was apparently hard.
Ah, RINO, the Scotsman of the USA. The Official Republican party let them in, approved their platform and stance. They are Republican in name only only if *all* Republicans are in name only.
Yes, carrying around cash is lower risk than a credit card with $0 liability limits. Or not. I'll stick to credit cards. Safer for me. Worse for the retailer. They are likely hoping this legislation will lower liability for the retailer, and push it on the banks or customers.
Minimum standard laws usually come with liability limits. "If you put a disclaimer in your ToS, your liability is limited to $3." So the retailers want the rules so they can determine (and limit) liability and guard against it, rather than having unbounded liability, as currently exists.
You pretty much just asserted that vegans are an enigmatic mystery not understood by man.
You are grouping people who grouped themselves, but in a way unrelated to their grouping. You might as well be asserting that all people on public transport are Black or poor or something. Yes, they all self-selected for that group, but that doesn't mean their reason for doing so are all the same.
I'm asserting that individuals are individuals. You are arguing with that premise.
As a sixth grader, I was absolutely certain I knew better than the adults surrounding me. I haven't been convinced otherwise yet.
Took me to the 2nd grade for me to understand the same. I was smarter than my teacher. She assigned "draw a man with two orange heads" for a Halloween assignment. I was the only person in the class to draw a (normal) man holding two orange heads, one in each hand. Everyone else drew a two-headed man. I was sent to the principal's office and beat for insubordination for following her directions in a manner she didn't expect. It was at that point that I realized that I, at 7 was smarter than her at 30-something. I never looked at adults the same after, though I associated with my teachers better than the other students.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm confused about why you sound so surprised that your friend sent his body into starvation mode.
Any surprise you sensed wasn't because I implied it, but because you inferred it. I simply pointed out the fact that less food doesn't mean weight loss, and the people quoting thermodynamics are wrong.
The chemical reactions obey thermodynamics, but on a macro scale, it's more complicated than that. More calories can lead to weight loss while fewer calories leads to weight gain.
And anyway, do you really want to arrive at a business and be told "sorry, we aren't open yet - Mrs. Employee's kids had different hours today"? I sure don't.
Ah, you are deliberately being an ass. I thought you were just confused. How often do you turn up at the corporate offices of Proctor and Gamble looking for the marketing manager or something and show up at 8 a.m. unannounced and without an appointment?
Ah yes, your problem would happen never. Yes, you managed to troll me, I thought you were discussing the issue, not leading me on with the intention of wasting both of our time.
It's no more impossible than today's system. Might help push businesses to more flexible hours, something that's better for the environment by reducing the rush hour.
Not a valid motion. Much of the evidence against mobsters is often public domain. 90% of the evidence against Al Capone was. If your joke of a motion was legit, I think someone smarter than you would have used it before.
You haven't defined "the system" but will change that definition whenever it suits you to prove your point.
And sure, think of me as some wacko, it helps you hold your wrong opinions as fact in your fragile little self-image. Ooh, you proved me wrong and insulted me. You win the Internets. You are obviously deliberately ignorant, and enough people have proven your wrong statements wrong, no need for me to bother.
And yes, in the 14 years I've had a credit card, I've had 2 legit chargebacks - 1 was for a product they never shipped, and another was a product that never arrived. In the past 3 years, I've changed my credit card about 5 times already. Total loss to me? Maybe about $200 in cash that I had to run to the bank to pay off a bill because the replacement card didn't arrive in time to be billed to the card. (and likewise, a $200 less charged to my credit card. Since I pay it off every month, it washes out).
I had two chargebacks. Once I bought something off eBay, using PayPal (via credit card, never a bank account). The item didn't show up, I worked with the seller for a bit, but just did a chargeback. I paid and never got it. The seller told me I need to pay insurance to be able to do that. That's wrong. The "insurance" pays him, not me. That's his responsibility. His responsibility is to deliver the item in agreed condition. I don't care if he wants me to pay insurance, consumer law is clear, if I never got it, I don't have to pay. He argued. I charged back. Problem solved.
The other was a DOA product from a store that the return failed. So I left the item there, kept my receipt and performed a chargeback.
Lost a credit card in a foreign country once. Canceled that day, no loss, no problem. Declined to get a replacement (for a fee) and used a backup for the remainder of the trip. Credit cards are great. Lose $10,000 cash, big problem. Lose a card with $20k limit? Max $0 liability.
Sounds more like an explosion of life pre-cambian, but that the life that came about was evolutionary dead-ends, and died out under pressure from future life forms.
It wasn't until the Cambrian Explosion when the evolutionary branches were viable.
The problem with The Magic Soup theory is that over time, all closed systems tend to disorder, and the longer the time, the greater the disorder.
So is NYC more or less disordered than 1600? Yes, I know you'll go back to "closed system" but the point is, once life forms are involved, the disorder is thermodynamic, not complexity and structural. A beach, left for 10,000,000 years seems less disorderly than the rocky shore it replaced. Greater order over time. Sort-of.
. cheaters will be exposed for the frauds they are. maybe not now, but eventually.
Nope, they are promoted to CEO, and are never caught. That you don't like reality doesn't make reality "wrong".
Why, because I'll have given them the cheat codes for life?
Better to lie to them "be good to yourself, it's better to be miserably poor, than successfully rich." Or what message would you like me to give to my already-born children?
The story is "cheating is done by so many, if you aren't cheating, you are cheating yourself".
Unless you're tortured to get a plea bargain, a plea bargain is not torture.
Define "torture". Threat of pain/punishment to extract a confession was the original definition of it (from the Inquisition), and that's what a plea bargain is. "You will be anally raped if you don't confess" is not an uncommon torture statement. That in the Inquisition their threats of pain were immediately replaced by actual pain doesn't change the meaning of the word, just the context.
Alaska Airlines didn't win because of regulation or deregulation, but because they were the sole winner of the mail delivery contracts for the US Post Office. Nobody else could compete with a subsidized carrier.
I'm not "from" AK. I lived there 10 years before leaving the US for greener pastures. My mother, sister, and other family still live there, and it's as much "home" as anywhere else in the US. Anchorage based, but I've been almost everywhere in Alaska, though the South East less than most areas. Ketchikan, Sitka and others I've never been to, but Juneau a few times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... I've missed 5 of the top 25, only those in the South East, and glancing down further on the list, that seems to hold true for most of the rest on the list. St. Lawrence Island is the largest population center outside the South East I haven't been, though the in-laws are from there, so I claim a pass on Savoonga and Gambell. I didn't realize how many sub-100 pop towns I've been to until reading down that list.
If you were take all the essay's and documents produced by any given educator, politician, or other professional, and had it analyzed, I would bet my last dollar you would find some evidence of plagiarism.
Depends on your definitions. It was, at times, considered acceptable to plagiarize from the encyclopedia. In fact, what was encouraged as a elementary school student is "banned" at the university level. So, was adopting the standards for the place and time of the paper wrong? Judging all works now for all past works would likely find some problems, but would they be indicative of problems at the time?
Can anyone in Slashdot claim they have never cheated during their education? Are you not relieved that your materials were not analyzed by cheat detection algorithms? I know I am. I was only interested in mathematics and computers and didn't care about all the mandatory classes I had to take. I admit I took a few shortcuts with those mandatory courses, and I mean a few, but I didn't totally abuse the system either.
I just took the low grade. I was never externally motivated. Still am not now, but manage to convince myself that some external measures link to the internal (make money so I can get things I want, rather than being a good employee to make my boss feel better, and hope that correlates with money). Those that put grades as important were more likely to cheat. Those of us who don't care about grades (rare, I know) were less likely to cheat. Grades don't matter. Though it took most many years to believe that, and many still don't get it.
My High School grades were looked at only once in my life, getting into college. My college grades were never looked at (other than verification of my degree, on a pass/fail scale). Even getting into graduate school (10+ years after graduating college), having 99% GRE scores going into a non-competitive graduate program, they didn't care about grades. So 3 university degrees, and my grades were *never* looked at. My high school grades looked at once (by a place that didn't accept me). Had I not applied for universities above my station, my grades would *never* have been looked at, ever, by anyone, for any reason. And I'm not that unusual. Well, I may be, but my situation wasn't.
Cheating doesn't make you any less equipped for life. In fact, given the realities of Corporate America, cheaters are likely more equipped for life.
if everyone cheats including the rich how is it going to offset any advantage?
What do grades measure? In the US, the presumption is that they measure ability and/or dedication. Elsewhere they measure other things. If you can buy an A for money, they don't measure ability. Unless the system "allows" cheating. In which case the grade is a measure of dedication, but not ability. Whether you are dedicated enough to buy the grade or cheat for it, but working for it doesn't matter. So why do you hate the people that are too poor to buy a grade? Regardless of cheating, the system doesn't measure what you want anyway. So why not at least make it a little more fair?
Nope. Cheating to turn a "respectable" 80% into a 95% won't result in a graduate being incapable of doing anything. The "trick" is that the rich buy a 95% with no work, so they can get in to better post-grad spots. If you don't cheat, you'll never get a chance to demonstrate your abilities.
You are assuming the culture of cheating will extend beyond academia. That's incorrect, but fits with your biases.
In practice it's more like cheating to get in the race, not cheating once the race has started.
When I was a sophomore in college, we had a honors physics class that was really hard. There were only three people in the class to get one of the questions right. Me and two others. One of the two others cheated off me. I was given a 0 on the question because I didn't show my work well, and he thought I was the cheater. But in reality, I solved the question 3 ways (two wrong, the same as everyone else) and one right. The work was messy and not linear, so he thought I just threw out stuff to hide I cheated the answer.
The real problem was that the prof gave the same test to someone who took it late. He came to the after-test study session, and we explained the answers. The joke was that the TAs (all grad students) couldn't even get the question right. I got up and explained it, and everyone said it had to be wrong because the correct answer was too easy. The problem was that the prof gave bad instructions in class. Anyone who read the book, and ignored the lectures should have done what I did. But in the end, of the two others who got it right, one cheated off me.
I explained my work to him later, and got full credit. I essentially re-took the test, verbally in his office. He didn't catch the cheater, as he understood the shortcut after I explained it, and would have been able to explain it to anyone else after that. It was the ability to find the area under the curve with algebra rather than calculus that made the difference. Once you explain it, it's easy to re-explain it, but figuring it out was apparently hard.
He's a Cuban-Canadian ineligible for Presidency.
Ah, RINO, the Scotsman of the USA. The Official Republican party let them in, approved their platform and stance. They are Republican in name only only if *all* Republicans are in name only.
Yes, carrying around cash is lower risk than a credit card with $0 liability limits. Or not. I'll stick to credit cards. Safer for me. Worse for the retailer. They are likely hoping this legislation will lower liability for the retailer, and push it on the banks or customers.
Minimum standard laws usually come with liability limits. "If you put a disclaimer in your ToS, your liability is limited to $3." So the retailers want the rules so they can determine (and limit) liability and guard against it, rather than having unbounded liability, as currently exists.
You pretty much just asserted that vegans are an enigmatic mystery not understood by man.
You are grouping people who grouped themselves, but in a way unrelated to their grouping. You might as well be asserting that all people on public transport are Black or poor or something. Yes, they all self-selected for that group, but that doesn't mean their reason for doing so are all the same.
I'm asserting that individuals are individuals. You are arguing with that premise.
As a sixth grader, I was absolutely certain I knew better than the adults surrounding me. I haven't been convinced otherwise yet.
Took me to the 2nd grade for me to understand the same. I was smarter than my teacher. She assigned "draw a man with two orange heads" for a Halloween assignment. I was the only person in the class to draw a (normal) man holding two orange heads, one in each hand. Everyone else drew a two-headed man. I was sent to the principal's office and beat for insubordination for following her directions in a manner she didn't expect. It was at that point that I realized that I, at 7 was smarter than her at 30-something. I never looked at adults the same after, though I associated with my teachers better than the other students.
You want to test someone for STD's for a job?
It's common for marriages.
That doesn't give you the right to examine someone's body fluids.
Doesn't apply to jobs only. Testing for STDs is job related in Nevada (for certain jobs).