This revives in me an idea a buddy of mine and I had about creating a massively multiplayer online version of joust, after playing it for several hours on xbox live one night in the early 2000's, the game is so simple it should be easy to pile on thousands of players, and would be a fucking blast...unlimited board, unlimited players, would be great. Of course, like any cool idea I wouldn't be surprised if this has already been done by someone.
I included idealistic because I think some of these people have such a shallow understanding of their party's ideals that *any hint* of government involvement in anything falls into their shallow understanding of - gasp - socialism!!
Totally agree, we posted nearly the same thought at the same time. They all take this tack, and they can't all be idiots, so they must be lying. Even "Dr. Paul" completely misrepresents this issue. They're so damned careful with their wording to not reveal the actual consequences of losing neutrality it should be criminal. In fact, I argue that if someone with no background on net neutrality read Romney's response they would come away with a 180 degree misunderstanding of the issue.
I can't get over how blatantly misleading and disingenuous republicans are about this issue. If you didn't know any better and you read Romney's response alone you would likely come away with a completely reversed view of the issue. They *must* realize that if they came out and said what the consequences of letting net neutrality fail are there would be massive public outcry - which you would think, as public representatives, would lead them to support it!
3500 calories a day of non-carbohydrates with no exercise, huh? Had your cholesterol checked lately? How can this be healthy - and why the hell would you do it? 5 hours of cardio is a good idea for many reasons that have nothing to do with weight loss. Maybe you should take up smoking too, go for the gusto.
You cannot argue that going from a 4000 calorie/day diet to a 2000 calorie/day diet will not have an effect on your weight. The point you are missing is that when you actually make an effort to go from 4000 to 2000 you will find that the best way to keep calories low while maximizing the amount of food you can eat is to eat fresh, unprocessed food and prepare it yourself, and you don't really need to worry too much about carbohydrates/fats/sugar/etc. it just kind of takes care of itself. Your post sounds like a well informed Atkins Diet pitch, which I have always been wary of due to reasons cited in the wikipedia article.
I went from ~3500 calories a day to ~2300 calories a day a year ago and added in ~3 hours of exercise a week and I have maintained a weight 50 lbs. lower than when I began for over year, got myself off of blood pressure medication, and in general feel fantastic both physically and mentally. It bothers me when I see people discounting calorie awareness as valuable, because there really is no downside if it's done responsibly.
Christopher Hitchens differentiated "atheism" (rejection of belief in deities) and "anti-theism" (active opposition to theism), which I think is relevant to your experience. That said, this:
It's quite possible for atheists to hate the religion, even if they don't hate the God.
The big bang theory can't be compared to "let there be light" - the big bang theory was born of evidence that we have observed, that the universe is uniformly expanding and therefore must have originated from a single point. It does not attempt to give some kind of purpose to this event, it simply says that at one point in time this must have been the state of the universe at some time in the past. Expand your horizons! This theory is just the birth of a new question - how did the universe come to be in this state? To say this is all too mind boggling and that the only explanation left is a divine creator is a short sell of the potential of our species to discover more about our existence.
Is it not the rejection of a "magical" explanation that leads to the greatest realizations?
Magical explanations are a statement of a problem - one builds on known factual statements to eventually eliminate the magical one, and thus new known factual statements are born.
I seriously think that. I wish calorie information was on all foods, everywhere. I believe this simple act would get a huge number of people to wake up and realize what they are doing to themselves. I used to weight 248 lbs. - way too close to the psychological 250 barrier, so I started counting calories and limiting them to a certain number daily. I was blindly consuming anywhere from 3000-4000 calories a day without realizing or caring, and cut it down to ~2000. No fad diet, didn't cut out candy or cheeseburgers, just counted calories. I lost 36 lbs. in 3 months and now a year since starting I have weighed 205 consistently for 9 months. I'm off blood pressure medication, feel fantastic. I still eat and drink what I want I just do it in moderation, and now in a way that maximizes the amount of actual food I can eat while minimizing caloric intake, which ends up steering you to good food that is high in protein and low in fats and sugars. Absolutely no down side to making people aware of what they are eating.
I have never understood these complaints. If a story generates a lot of comments and discussion, then whether or not you or some other people feel that it "belongs" on slashdot is irrelevant - it has been found interesting by enough people in the slashdot community to warrant further discussion. Stories about some really niche piece of technology that you would probably say are the heart and soul of slashdot are the ones that generate ~30 comments and quickly fade into oblivion. Interestingly you can usually spot these stories because they have a lot of acronyms in the title. I'm not saying that those stories shouldn't be posted at all, I'm just saying your criteria for what *belongs* or doesn't belong on slashdot is off base. Let the market decide.
For the record I think a story about a 3,500 year old living organism dying is incredibly interesting!
I will say one thing about Mormons... of all the people I've met of different religions, Mormons were by far the nicest and most genuine people. They actually try and live the tenants of their religion.
The problem is that one of those tenets is to really aggressively recruit. I was on the same sports team in high school with some mormon guys and my initial impression was the same as yours, very genuine all around nice guys. I too am an athiest, though I was raised quaker, and never felt judged or pressured by any of them. Slowly though, as they got to know me better, they started inviting me to all kinds of church functions all the while insisting that they weren't recruitment events or anything - these were just fun things that they did through their church, and wanted to know if I'd like to hang out. Skeptical but curious, I attended one and sure enough it was really creepily angled towards getting people to join the church. Veeery subtle, but it was there. I kind of kept those guys at arms length after that experience.
Sadly, with any mormons I meet now I can't help but assume that any interaction I have with them is just part of their recruitment process, fairly or not.
Now you've done it - you'll never fly again with that post etched into your online history. I started this as a joke, but shit - the tweets in question were posted weeks before they actually flew, and clearly context didn't matter, so maybe you are actually screwed!
The clouds, the rivers, the mountains, the coastlines, you name it - you can see fractals in any frame of that image, it's beautiful. Start at the tip of Florida and go ESE in full zoom, the cloud patterns almost look like they were generated in FRACTINT.
I would argue that "...several outbreaks in at least one country, and to have spread to other countries,..." is a definition of "global scale". What else would it mean?
National scale: multiple outbreaks in a single nation Global scale: multiple outbreaks spanning multiple nations
This isn't really that huge, and we are clearly on the road to this already, but I think our children will struggle to imagine a time when you could only have a wi-fi connection in your house or at a business.
I think the huge breakthrough will be cheap renewable energy, but it will be some unforeseen insight/technology that brings it, and not anything that we are likely to predict today...like no grid, but everyone has with them at all times a near endless source of energy that powers their surroundings. Energy could kind of follow the same path that computing has, from large, expensive, centralized to tiny, cheap, and distributed.
It's interesting, it was never really put before me in that way - to be honest it's hard to trace back to how I ended up in this position. People leave, there are big shakeups, massive layoffs - all of which lead to frantic phone calls with you, your boss, and your boss's boss "asking you" to pick up some of the slack "until we can backfill those positions". Next thing you know, you're a manager. Or a developer with a large cylindrical shaft suddenly where it shouldn't be, depending how you look at it.
There are some aspects of it I really do enjoy (not the shaft part, heh) - running a small development team (with good, motivated people on it) is a real joy most of the time, but for whatever reason that is not a stable situation at my company - once you're there they just start throwing more crap at you.
Sage advice, thank you. Your assumption with respect to management training is correct, in spite of me continually asking for it for the past two years.
Slashdot Mirror
This revives in me an idea a buddy of mine and I had about creating a massively multiplayer online version of joust, after playing it for several hours on xbox live one night in the early 2000's, the game is so simple it should be easy to pile on thousands of players, and would be a fucking blast...unlimited board, unlimited players, would be great. Of course, like any cool idea I wouldn't be surprised if this has already been done by someone.
The definition of net neutrality that I accept is here, with examples of problems abound.
I included idealistic because I think some of these people have such a shallow understanding of their party's ideals that *any hint* of government involvement in anything falls into their shallow understanding of - gasp - socialism!!
Totally agree, we posted nearly the same thought at the same time. They all take this tack, and they can't all be idiots, so they must be lying. Even "Dr. Paul" completely misrepresents this issue. They're so damned careful with their wording to not reveal the actual consequences of losing neutrality it should be criminal. In fact, I argue that if someone with no background on net neutrality read Romney's response they would come away with a 180 degree misunderstanding of the issue.
I can't get over how blatantly misleading and disingenuous republicans are about this issue. If you didn't know any better and you read Romney's response alone you would likely come away with a completely reversed view of the issue. They *must* realize that if they came out and said what the consequences of letting net neutrality fail are there would be massive public outcry - which you would think, as public representatives, would lead them to support it!
Corrupt, idealistic motherfuckers.
Happy viewing! Fingers crossed!
:)
p.s. watching the simulation while listening to the beautiful blue danube is kind of fun
Makes me wish I'd been alive to watch live coverage of people LANDING ON THE FREAKING MOON.
...,but with the man walking backwards:
Thought for sure that was a goatse link :)
3500 calories a day of non-carbohydrates with no exercise, huh? Had your cholesterol checked lately? How can this be healthy - and why the hell would you do it? 5 hours of cardio is a good idea for many reasons that have nothing to do with weight loss. Maybe you should take up smoking too, go for the gusto.
You cannot argue that going from a 4000 calorie/day diet to a 2000 calorie/day diet will not have an effect on your weight. The point you are missing is that when you actually make an effort to go from 4000 to 2000 you will find that the best way to keep calories low while maximizing the amount of food you can eat is to eat fresh, unprocessed food and prepare it yourself, and you don't really need to worry too much about carbohydrates/fats/sugar/etc. it just kind of takes care of itself. Your post sounds like a well informed Atkins Diet pitch, which I have always been wary of due to reasons cited in the wikipedia article.
I went from ~3500 calories a day to ~2300 calories a day a year ago and added in ~3 hours of exercise a week and I have maintained a weight 50 lbs. lower than when I began for over year, got myself off of blood pressure medication, and in general feel fantastic both physically and mentally. It bothers me when I see people discounting calorie awareness as valuable, because there really is no downside if it's done responsibly.
It's quite possible for atheists to hate the religion, even if they don't hate the God.
...don't make no sense.
The big bang theory can't be compared to "let there be light" - the big bang theory was born of evidence that we have observed, that the universe is uniformly expanding and therefore must have originated from a single point. It does not attempt to give some kind of purpose to this event, it simply says that at one point in time this must have been the state of the universe at some time in the past. Expand your horizons! This theory is just the birth of a new question - how did the universe come to be in this state? To say this is all too mind boggling and that the only explanation left is a divine creator is a short sell of the potential of our species to discover more about our existence.
Is it not the rejection of a "magical" explanation that leads to the greatest realizations?
Magical explanations are a statement of a problem - one builds on known factual statements to eventually eliminate the magical one, and thus new known factual statements are born.
I seriously think that. I wish calorie information was on all foods, everywhere. I believe this simple act would get a huge number of people to wake up and realize what they are doing to themselves. I used to weight 248 lbs. - way too close to the psychological 250 barrier, so I started counting calories and limiting them to a certain number daily. I was blindly consuming anywhere from 3000-4000 calories a day without realizing or caring, and cut it down to ~2000. No fad diet, didn't cut out candy or cheeseburgers, just counted calories. I lost 36 lbs. in 3 months and now a year since starting I have weighed 205 consistently for 9 months. I'm off blood pressure medication, feel fantastic. I still eat and drink what I want I just do it in moderation, and now in a way that maximizes the amount of actual food I can eat while minimizing caloric intake, which ends up steering you to good food that is high in protein and low in fats and sugars. Absolutely no down side to making people aware of what they are eating.
Not usually a nitpicker but COME ONE!
I have never understood these complaints. If a story generates a lot of comments and discussion, then whether or not you or some other people feel that it "belongs" on slashdot is irrelevant - it has been found interesting by enough people in the slashdot community to warrant further discussion. Stories about some really niche piece of technology that you would probably say are the heart and soul of slashdot are the ones that generate ~30 comments and quickly fade into oblivion. Interestingly you can usually spot these stories because they have a lot of acronyms in the title. I'm not saying that those stories shouldn't be posted at all, I'm just saying your criteria for what *belongs* or doesn't belong on slashdot is off base. Let the market decide.
For the record I think a story about a 3,500 year old living organism dying is incredibly interesting!
I will say one thing about Mormons... of all the people I've met of different religions, Mormons were by far the nicest and most genuine people. They actually try and live the tenants of their religion.
The problem is that one of those tenets is to really aggressively recruit. I was on the same sports team in high school with some mormon guys and my initial impression was the same as yours, very genuine all around nice guys. I too am an athiest, though I was raised quaker, and never felt judged or pressured by any of them. Slowly though, as they got to know me better, they started inviting me to all kinds of church functions all the while insisting that they weren't recruitment events or anything - these were just fun things that they did through their church, and wanted to know if I'd like to hang out. Skeptical but curious, I attended one and sure enough it was really creepily angled towards getting people to join the church. Veeery subtle, but it was there. I kind of kept those guys at arms length after that experience.
Sadly, with any mormons I meet now I can't help but assume that any interaction I have with them is just part of their recruitment process, fairly or not.
Now you've done it - you'll never fly again with that post etched into your online history. I started this as a joke, but shit - the tweets in question were posted weeks before they actually flew, and clearly context didn't matter, so maybe you are actually screwed!
The clouds, the rivers, the mountains, the coastlines, you name it - you can see fractals in any frame of that image, it's beautiful. Start at the tip of Florida and go ESE in full zoom, the cloud patterns almost look like they were generated in FRACTINT.
I would argue that "...several outbreaks in at least one country, and to have spread to other countries,..." is a definition of "global scale". What else would it mean?
National scale: multiple outbreaks in a single nation
Global scale: multiple outbreaks spanning multiple nations
No?
This isn't really that huge, and we are clearly on the road to this already, but I think our children will struggle to imagine a time when you could only have a wi-fi connection in your house or at a business.
I think the huge breakthrough will be cheap renewable energy, but it will be some unforeseen insight/technology that brings it, and not anything that we are likely to predict today...like no grid, but everyone has with them at all times a near endless source of energy that powers their surroundings. Energy could kind of follow the same path that computing has, from large, expensive, centralized to tiny, cheap, and distributed.
Good thoughts - thank you!
If I could mod you insightful I would, that all sounds about right. Never heard of the principal, but I can definitely see the truth in it.
It's interesting, it was never really put before me in that way - to be honest it's hard to trace back to how I ended up in this position. People leave, there are big shakeups, massive layoffs - all of which lead to frantic phone calls with you, your boss, and your boss's boss "asking you" to pick up some of the slack "until we can backfill those positions". Next thing you know, you're a manager. Or a developer with a large cylindrical shaft suddenly where it shouldn't be, depending how you look at it.
There are some aspects of it I really do enjoy (not the shaft part, heh) - running a small development team (with good, motivated people on it) is a real joy most of the time, but for whatever reason that is not a stable situation at my company - once you're there they just start throwing more crap at you.
Sage advice, thank you. Your assumption with respect to management training is correct, in spite of me continually asking for it for the past two years.