Depends. More fit to pull a lever/fill in a box? Probably not.
More fit to make a responsible choice than somebody who believes in clearly imaginary things? More fit to make a rational choice of leader than people who donate money to an organization that institutionalized the sexual molestation of children so that said organization can tell them how to live their lives? Absolutely.
Why wouldn't you have an issue with this? It's fucking insane.
There is no need, absolutely none, to promote the creation of music. Human beings have made music since there were human beings. You could attach a death penalty to making music instead of a paycheck for your great-grandkids, and people would still make music. Everybody who has ever made a song has made that song based off of every song they ever heard. I challenge you tell me how having superstars instead of the multitude of bands that would replace them benefits society in a way that's worth all the shit we put up with to protect their millions.
It's crazy, and you're stupid for even considering accepting it.
So can you, you just have to lower your standards to levels you're not willing to do. Just like them.
The difference is, you think your standards are appropriate (because your frame of reference is your own standards) and theirs are insane (because their standards exclude you). The reality is, it's the same everywhere: People have a hard time finding others who meet their standards, particularly because for most people, if it's easy, your standards rise.
Oh yeah, forward-thinking. Like, they were forward-thinking enough to realize, "hey, we're not letting women participate in these 'discussions', but let's be nice patriarchs and set up viewing parties so they can passively observe as their masters decide how the inferior little creatures are going to live their lives."
Me too, but hey, it's their mod points. But, to the point, you don't have to be good with money to be able to pick a winner. You just have to be good with money to capitalize on that pick.
I'll make more as they occur to me--the idea of publicly recording them to keep myself honest just came up, and trying to force an intuitive process seems... counter-intuitive.
As for savings, I've spent the last two years making up for the last ten years being incredibly stupid with credit and delinquent bills. I just, today, made the payment that brought the total money I owe to anyone in the world to $0. Like I said, I'm bad with money. Anyway, I'll be doing all of that soon. I'm taking two weeks to breathe... I owe nothing! Holy shit! And yeah, the thought of "forced" savings did come to mind. It's hard to be honest enough with yourself to realize that you're bad at something without seeing how to mitigate it, although if I'm completely honest a large part was just increasing my earnings. But, as somebody with an admittedly poor record and no experience saving, I'll be looking for advice, so the advice is, while something I'm already going to do, appreciated.
Actually, the combat in the game is one of the most fun action-RPG combat systems I've ever played. The story was also fairly interesting, and more mature than most.
I ended up clicking past the dialog like I usually do, because good for a videogame means "absolutely fucking terrible" by literary standards, so I lost the story, and the extremely limited enemy variety (there were about 10 monsters total when you discount reskinnings) meant that the combat, while really, really good, also lost its charm, so I never ended up finishing it, but it was far from a "serious bullet".
All in all though, if you're a videogame person, I'd say it's worth $20 easy just to try out the really neat combat system that they should totally tack onto one of the oodles of games that needs a fun one.
I'm terrible with money (poor impulse control, I don't think it's because I'm credulous, stupid, or have poor instincts although I guess I wouldn't know), so I don't have the cash to invest in this, just like I didn't with Google or Apple, when people were poo-poohing that stuff too. I realize there's confirmation bias and all, but I haven't made a prediction that turned out wrong yet (I thought people were crazy for buying MS stock in early 2000, that's the only other thing I've been willing to predict), so I'm posting this to give me an opportunity to be wrong:
Buying Facebook stock now will result in making a bunch of money.
If I'm wrong in 5 years, feel free to rub my nose in this post.
No, it's not. I've made the exact same case--an exploit that is trivially discoverable is a big exploit.
I'm not saying people who aren't network administrator-turned developer or security guys would do it this way, but I am one, and there's a bunch of us out there. If I wanted to steal a baby, or do anything illegal in a place with computers, plugging into a network jack and running nmap would be the first thing I'd do. Run the scan with paranoid timings, fingerprint every service, pipe the software name + version number through google along with things like "exploit", "default password", "root", "escalation", etc. (5 minutes with sed + wget/curl), and unless your place has exceptional security or very few computers, I'm in. I have yet to see the network running without vulnerabilities, and I've seen what security audit companies miss (they miss practically everything).
Since people think security by obscurity is okay, they justify not fixing these problems. Since nobody fixes these problems, you can be nearly certain they'll exist in whatever you're trying to attack. The very ease of the attack guarantees that anyone in the know will go for it first. Unless there was an even easier way, I'd probably follow the exact path the GP posted.
You're muddying the argument, and by making it complex, allowing people to continue to delude themselves into counter-productive behavior.
It ain't the ratio. You can't drop carbs and replace them with equal calories of protein and lose weight. Unless you are seriously diseased (go to the doctor, get diagnosed, get treated) your body mass is determined by the sum of your calories eaten minus calories you expend.
While I have no doubt that there are people with obesity caused by untreated medical conditions, I have about as much doubt as it's possible to have that those people are the majority of cases. That assertion is simply ridiculous.
You know what I feel like when I diet? I feel like I'm starving. Because I'm starving. It's not a pleasant feeling, but the thing that people who have never truly tried don't understand is that it gets better after a couple weeks. Speaking from experience, reducing my caloric intake from 2600 to 1400 was second only to quitting smoking in terms of difficulty, and felt even worse.
Most people are fat because they have poor self control, eating a lot feels good, and they lie to themselves to justify away the shame. You're enabling that right now. Take a good look, do you actually have any idea what you're talking about, medically? Or are you just cherry-picking half facts and spouting mumbo-jumbo? Stop typing that argumentative reply and seriously, actually, honestly think about that.
1.) My post was refuting the claim that junk food is cheaper than good food. Wegman's is a grocery store that also makes food cafeteria style, and my bloodwork after changing my diet to go to lunch there will attest to the healthiness of the food. I know McDonald's is terrible food. I was saying there's no economic reason to go there.
2.) The 510 calorie count for a quarter-pounder includes two slices of cheese, which you didn't include in your home-cooked version. There are 70 calories in a slice of cheese. You don't have 146 calories to make up, you have 6. There is no extra crap, there is exactly the correct amount of crap. You don't have to resort to either magic sauce or Hollywood accounting of cheese to make the argument that fast food is awful for you.
Yeah that's flat-out horseshit. I eat a prepared lunch at Wegman's every weekday, for about $5.00. Buying the ingredients would be even cheaper.
You know what makes you fat? As the article says, input vs. output. It's not "oh god sugar" or "oh god fat" or "oh god carbs". You're eating more than you're expending. More than you need. That's it. So when you see that poor bastard that weighs 350 lbs? That poor bastard is spending way more money than he needs to. And if it's on fast food, it's more expensive than it would be to get decent stuff at the grocery store.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends. More fit to pull a lever/fill in a box? Probably not.
More fit to make a responsible choice than somebody who believes in clearly imaginary things? More fit to make a rational choice of leader than people who donate money to an organization that institutionalized the sexual molestation of children so that said organization can tell them how to live their lives? Absolutely.
Nah, just seal their head in a clamshell package.
Why wouldn't you have an issue with this? It's fucking insane.
There is no need, absolutely none, to promote the creation of music. Human beings have made music since there were human beings. You could attach a death penalty to making music instead of a paycheck for your great-grandkids, and people would still make music. Everybody who has ever made a song has made that song based off of every song they ever heard. I challenge you tell me how having superstars instead of the multitude of bands that would replace them benefits society in a way that's worth all the shit we put up with to protect their millions.
It's crazy, and you're stupid for even considering accepting it.
My Morgellons always acts up when there's a chemtrail overhead.
Okay well this is the cops, but they'll only use it in pursuit of criminals.
Promise.
So can you, you just have to lower your standards to levels you're not willing to do. Just like them.
The difference is, you think your standards are appropriate (because your frame of reference is your own standards) and theirs are insane (because their standards exclude you). The reality is, it's the same everywhere: People have a hard time finding others who meet their standards, particularly because for most people, if it's easy, your standards rise.
That may be because "all be it" isn't the root of albeit.
Yup!
Oh yeah, forward-thinking. Like, they were forward-thinking enough to realize, "hey, we're not letting women participate in these 'discussions', but let's be nice patriarchs and set up viewing parties so they can passively observe as their masters decide how the inferior little creatures are going to live their lives."
Man, those guys are so cool.
Not anymore it doesn't!
(the link is a 404)
Me too, but hey, it's their mod points. But, to the point, you don't have to be good with money to be able to pick a winner. You just have to be good with money to capitalize on that pick.
Thus, a record of a prediction that I have no power to edit.
I'll make more as they occur to me--the idea of publicly recording them to keep myself honest just came up, and trying to force an intuitive process seems ... counter-intuitive.
As for savings, I've spent the last two years making up for the last ten years being incredibly stupid with credit and delinquent bills. I just, today, made the payment that brought the total money I owe to anyone in the world to $0. Like I said, I'm bad with money. Anyway, I'll be doing all of that soon. I'm taking two weeks to breathe... I owe nothing! Holy shit! And yeah, the thought of "forced" savings did come to mind. It's hard to be honest enough with yourself to realize that you're bad at something without seeing how to mitigate it, although if I'm completely honest a large part was just increasing my earnings. But, as somebody with an admittedly poor record and no experience saving, I'll be looking for advice, so the advice is, while something I'm already going to do, appreciated.
Actually, the combat in the game is one of the most fun action-RPG combat systems I've ever played. The story was also fairly interesting, and more mature than most.
I ended up clicking past the dialog like I usually do, because good for a videogame means "absolutely fucking terrible" by literary standards, so I lost the story, and the extremely limited enemy variety (there were about 10 monsters total when you discount reskinnings) meant that the combat, while really, really good, also lost its charm, so I never ended up finishing it, but it was far from a "serious bullet".
All in all though, if you're a videogame person, I'd say it's worth $20 easy just to try out the really neat combat system that they should totally tack onto one of the oodles of games that needs a fun one.
I'm terrible with money (poor impulse control, I don't think it's because I'm credulous, stupid, or have poor instincts although I guess I wouldn't know), so I don't have the cash to invest in this, just like I didn't with Google or Apple, when people were poo-poohing that stuff too. I realize there's confirmation bias and all, but I haven't made a prediction that turned out wrong yet (I thought people were crazy for buying MS stock in early 2000, that's the only other thing I've been willing to predict), so I'm posting this to give me an opportunity to be wrong:
Buying Facebook stock now will result in making a bunch of money.
If I'm wrong in 5 years, feel free to rub my nose in this post.
Word.
The thing people seem to forget about security by obscurity is that we have computers.
No, it's not. I've made the exact same case--an exploit that is trivially discoverable is a big exploit.
I'm not saying people who aren't network administrator-turned developer or security guys would do it this way, but I am one, and there's a bunch of us out there. If I wanted to steal a baby, or do anything illegal in a place with computers, plugging into a network jack and running nmap would be the first thing I'd do. Run the scan with paranoid timings, fingerprint every service, pipe the software name + version number through google along with things like "exploit", "default password", "root", "escalation", etc. (5 minutes with sed + wget/curl), and unless your place has exceptional security or very few computers, I'm in. I have yet to see the network running without vulnerabilities, and I've seen what security audit companies miss (they miss practically everything).
Since people think security by obscurity is okay, they justify not fixing these problems. Since nobody fixes these problems, you can be nearly certain they'll exist in whatever you're trying to attack. The very ease of the attack guarantees that anyone in the know will go for it first. Unless there was an even easier way, I'd probably follow the exact path the GP posted.
You're muddying the argument, and by making it complex, allowing people to continue to delude themselves into counter-productive behavior.
It ain't the ratio. You can't drop carbs and replace them with equal calories of protein and lose weight. Unless you are seriously diseased (go to the doctor, get diagnosed, get treated) your body mass is determined by the sum of your calories eaten minus calories you expend.
If you go into testing not assuming you're doing it wrong, you're doing it wrong.
No no no, the real way to do it is i = i ^ i
Testing it on the other hand--that's the expensive part.
While I have no doubt that there are people with obesity caused by untreated medical conditions, I have about as much doubt as it's possible to have that those people are the majority of cases. That assertion is simply ridiculous.
You know what I feel like when I diet? I feel like I'm starving. Because I'm starving. It's not a pleasant feeling, but the thing that people who have never truly tried don't understand is that it gets better after a couple weeks. Speaking from experience, reducing my caloric intake from 2600 to 1400 was second only to quitting smoking in terms of difficulty, and felt even worse.
Most people are fat because they have poor self control, eating a lot feels good, and they lie to themselves to justify away the shame. You're enabling that right now. Take a good look, do you actually have any idea what you're talking about, medically? Or are you just cherry-picking half facts and spouting mumbo-jumbo? Stop typing that argumentative reply and seriously, actually, honestly think about that.
1.) My post was refuting the claim that junk food is cheaper than good food. Wegman's is a grocery store that also makes food cafeteria style, and my bloodwork after changing my diet to go to lunch there will attest to the healthiness of the food. I know McDonald's is terrible food. I was saying there's no economic reason to go there.
2.) The 510 calorie count for a quarter-pounder includes two slices of cheese, which you didn't include in your home-cooked version. There are 70 calories in a slice of cheese. You don't have 146 calories to make up, you have 6. There is no extra crap, there is exactly the correct amount of crap. You don't have to resort to either magic sauce or Hollywood accounting of cheese to make the argument that fast food is awful for you.
Yeah that's flat-out horseshit. I eat a prepared lunch at Wegman's every weekday, for about $5.00. Buying the ingredients would be even cheaper.
You know what makes you fat? As the article says, input vs. output. It's not "oh god sugar" or "oh god fat" or "oh god carbs". You're eating more than you're expending. More than you need. That's it. So when you see that poor bastard that weighs 350 lbs? That poor bastard is spending way more money than he needs to. And if it's on fast food, it's more expensive than it would be to get decent stuff at the grocery store.