One of the older magicshines I've had for a while. 900 lumens is closer to a regular headlight than highbeams, which can be into the thousands of lumens over a much larger area. As for bothering people... it's a headlight, it's SUPPOSED to be that bright. That's why you angle them down a bit.
For all the marketspeak and fancy looks they're still asking $140 for a 200 lumen light. That's about a half step above terrible. The light I use, which is pretty much the minimum brightness I would consider safe as a "see" and not a "be seen" light, is 900 lumens.
If they increased the price of something from 1 penny to 2 pennies that'd be a whole TWO HUNDRED PERCENT ZOMG. Nice use of percentages on a sub-dollar increase to try and make your argument sound scarier though.
You're demonstrably full of shit. McDonalds could DOUBLE their wages and completely pay for it by raising the price of a big mac less than 75 cents. There's also the issue of, yknow, literally every single other first world country on the face of the earth objectively disproving your bullshit claims.
A) We've already tried it your way for 100 years until the Great Depression, and again recently, both times resulting in abject failure and B) Minimum wage USED to be over $10 an hour in today's money and we did just fine, along with having a ~91% top marginal tax rate for the rich.
Awww, how cute, you're trying to turn the very act of disagreeing with you into proof that you're right AND subtly include some ad hominem while you're at it.
Tell you what. I'll give you one chance to try again without axiomatically taking your claims as correct, without the ad hominem, and without the kafka trap that someone disagreeing with you is proof you're right. One try. Let's see if you can come up with a valid non-circular theory.
And just to make it more interesting here's a top female executive already calling out your argument as bullshit: http://www.forbes.com/sites/fo...
The numbers aren't perplexing at all if you actually care about facts and evidence enough to realise that google is already less white than everybody else, and that the people crying foul over this are dishonestly counting asians as "white" just for the sake of inventing oppression where there is none.
Why? Why do we need to "draw" women to IT? Why does everything need to change to suit women, instead of women changing to suit the field? If men drop out of an IT field people say they weren't cut out for the job. If women do it... suddenly we blame the job and not the women.
You "think" wrongly then. Republicans are pro-corporate welfare and anti-union. They're only talking big about being anti-bailout these days because it's just one more reactionary way to oppose the president on absolutely everything.
I think the original latin name and it's english translation are a lot simpler and logically clear. Petitio Principii translates as "Assuming the Premise/Initial Point" which is exactly what kind of circular reasoning fallacy is being committed.
the word "let" originally meant "hinder, obstruct, or delay". Do you also throw a pissy fit whenever somebody uses it to mean "permit or allow"? If you don't you're a hypocrite and a troll.
Let me ask you a really simple question: Why is it that when anyone else intends to join a new group they are expected to assimilate to that group's culture UNLESS they are a woman? Why do we expect men to alter their behavioral norms and culture to whatever women deem acceptable rather than the other way around? Why are women so infantilized and robbed of personal agency that they're not expected to be actors at all, but merely static pawns for everything else to rotate around?
In short, why do we blame men when women don't enter engineering, but completely ignore the fact that women staggeringly outweigh men in terms of overall college graduates? Why do we blame men for women being a small percentage of engineers, but not blame women for men being as little as less than 1/3rd of college graduates in the first place?
You're making the common mistake of thinking the current hipster driven fad for some of the superficial aspects of nerd culture is the same as the real deal being actually appealing.
It's not. Nerd culture is no more popular today than it ever has been, the difference is instead of openly harassing/bullying nerds just for being nerds people are inventing a straw boogeyman that lets them pretend to be a victim in order to justify their abuse. The only difference between today and twenty years ago is the slur used. Twenty years ago it was "nerd" itself. Today it's neckbeard.
First off you're wording is dishonest. BOTH parties get "most of their donations" from big business, but most of big businesses money goes to the republicans. Second just because republicans are good at convincing people to pay to get screwed doesn't mean they're not screwing them.
This sort of thing is the only reason I haven't really dug into the fanedits yet, even their own forums are a mess with no real chronological pruning so it's impossible to tell what the latest versions of everything are or if there's a clear consensus as to what's the "best".
You also need to live somewhere with access to those ingredients, have a high enough income that you can afford the ingredients, and a high enough income that you can afford to be not-working long enough to cook and eat them. There are thousands upon thousands of people too poor for all three. They don't live anywhere with access to fresh food ("food deserts"), can't afford to travel to where they could buy fresh food, couldn't afford the food itself even if they could get there, can't afford to take the time out of their multiple jobs to go even if they could afford it, and can't afford to to take the time off to cook or eat it.
That's sophistry. It sounds like a legitimate argument on the surface but it's really just high minded sounding bullshit. If someone tries to present you with "facts" that vaccines cause autism or shaking water in six directions and thinking hard can cure cancer they're full of shit from start to finish.
Democracy or even Debate does not mean that someone else's ignorance is as good as my facts. There are some things there just isn't any intelligent debate ABOUT, and even pretending to listen offers a veneer of legitimacy they simply do not deserve. Like vaccines and autism. Vaccines do not cause autism, they have not, and never will cause autism. There is no possible legitimate thing anyone could ever say that supports the idea vaccines cause autism, and merely by listening you're legitimising their bullshit more than they deserve.
Sometimes the proper response is to just tell people to sit down, shut the fuck up, and LISTEN to the facts.
"Further testing showed that the rodents exposed to male odors were actually feeling less pain, rather than simply hiding the pain they were in. The male aroma ramped up their stress levels, which deadened the hurt. “It’s really astounding that such a robust effect could have been missed for so many years,” Mogil says."
Slashdot Mirror
One of the older magicshines I've had for a while. 900 lumens is closer to a regular headlight than highbeams, which can be into the thousands of lumens over a much larger area. As for bothering people... it's a headlight, it's SUPPOSED to be that bright. That's why you angle them down a bit.
For all the marketspeak and fancy looks they're still asking $140 for a 200 lumen light. That's about a half step above terrible. The light I use, which is pretty much the minimum brightness I would consider safe as a "see" and not a "be seen" light, is 900 lumens.
If they increased the price of something from 1 penny to 2 pennies that'd be a whole TWO HUNDRED PERCENT ZOMG. Nice use of percentages on a sub-dollar increase to try and make your argument sound scarier though.
You're demonstrably full of shit. McDonalds could DOUBLE their wages and completely pay for it by raising the price of a big mac less than 75 cents. There's also the issue of, yknow, literally every single other first world country on the face of the earth objectively disproving your bullshit claims.
You realise costco pays employees so well wallstreet analysts accuse them of "excessive benevolence" right?
Except for two things:
A) We've already tried it your way for 100 years until the Great Depression, and again recently, both times resulting in abject failure
and
B) Minimum wage USED to be over $10 an hour in today's money and we did just fine, along with having a ~91% top marginal tax rate for the rich.
Awww, how cute, you're trying to turn the very act of disagreeing with you into proof that you're right AND subtly include some ad hominem while you're at it.
Tell you what. I'll give you one chance to try again without axiomatically taking your claims as correct, without the ad hominem, and without the kafka trap that someone disagreeing with you is proof you're right. One try. Let's see if you can come up with a valid non-circular theory.
And just to make it more interesting here's a top female executive already calling out your argument as bullshit: http://www.forbes.com/sites/fo...
The numbers aren't perplexing at all if you actually care about facts and evidence enough to realise that google is already less white than everybody else, and that the people crying foul over this are dishonestly counting asians as "white" just for the sake of inventing oppression where there is none.
Why? Why do we need to "draw" women to IT? Why does everything need to change to suit women, instead of women changing to suit the field? If men drop out of an IT field people say they weren't cut out for the job. If women do it... suddenly we blame the job and not the women.
If you thought 4k was that impressive then you'll piss yourself when you see what my 12 year old CRT can do at an even higher resolution...
You "think" wrongly then. Republicans are pro-corporate welfare and anti-union. They're only talking big about being anti-bailout these days because it's just one more reactionary way to oppose the president on absolutely everything.
Socrates didn't actually say that, it was part of an ancient greek play spoofing him however.
I think the original latin name and it's english translation are a lot simpler and logically clear. Petitio Principii translates as "Assuming the Premise/Initial Point" which is exactly what kind of circular reasoning fallacy is being committed.
the word "let" originally meant "hinder, obstruct, or delay". Do you also throw a pissy fit whenever somebody uses it to mean "permit or allow"? If you don't you're a hypocrite and a troll.
They've got to choose between the "free market" and corporate profits and their aspirations to be big brother.
Let me ask you a really simple question: Why is it that when anyone else intends to join a new group they are expected to assimilate to that group's culture UNLESS they are a woman? Why do we expect men to alter their behavioral norms and culture to whatever women deem acceptable rather than the other way around? Why are women so infantilized and robbed of personal agency that they're not expected to be actors at all, but merely static pawns for everything else to rotate around?
In short, why do we blame men when women don't enter engineering, but completely ignore the fact that women staggeringly outweigh men in terms of overall college graduates? Why do we blame men for women being a small percentage of engineers, but not blame women for men being as little as less than 1/3rd of college graduates in the first place?
You're making the common mistake of thinking the current hipster driven fad for some of the superficial aspects of nerd culture is the same as the real deal being actually appealing.
It's not. Nerd culture is no more popular today than it ever has been, the difference is instead of openly harassing/bullying nerds just for being nerds people are inventing a straw boogeyman that lets them pretend to be a victim in order to justify their abuse. The only difference between today and twenty years ago is the slur used. Twenty years ago it was "nerd" itself. Today it's neckbeard.
First off you're wording is dishonest. BOTH parties get "most of their donations" from big business, but most of big businesses money goes to the republicans. Second just because republicans are good at convincing people to pay to get screwed doesn't mean they're not screwing them.
Learn how parentheses work. He clarified his position. Republicans are anti-small-business and anti-entrepreneur, they're pro-oligarch.
This sort of thing is the only reason I haven't really dug into the fanedits yet, even their own forums are a mess with no real chronological pruning so it's impossible to tell what the latest versions of everything are or if there's a clear consensus as to what's the "best".
You also need to live somewhere with access to those ingredients, have a high enough income that you can afford the ingredients, and a high enough income that you can afford to be not-working long enough to cook and eat them. There are thousands upon thousands of people too poor for all three. They don't live anywhere with access to fresh food ("food deserts"), can't afford to travel to where they could buy fresh food, couldn't afford the food itself even if they could get there, can't afford to take the time out of their multiple jobs to go even if they could afford it, and can't afford to to take the time off to cook or eat it.
That's sophistry. It sounds like a legitimate argument on the surface but it's really just high minded sounding bullshit. If someone tries to present you with "facts" that vaccines cause autism or shaking water in six directions and thinking hard can cure cancer they're full of shit from start to finish.
Pray tell how in the actual fuck sanitizing the *cooler* helped with people getting sick from their *bottles*?
Democracy or even Debate does not mean that someone else's ignorance is as good as my facts. There are some things there just isn't any intelligent debate ABOUT, and even pretending to listen offers a veneer of legitimacy they simply do not deserve. Like vaccines and autism. Vaccines do not cause autism, they have not, and never will cause autism. There is no possible legitimate thing anyone could ever say that supports the idea vaccines cause autism, and merely by listening you're legitimising their bullshit more than they deserve.
Sometimes the proper response is to just tell people to sit down, shut the fuck up, and LISTEN to the facts.
"Further testing showed that the rodents exposed to male odors were actually feeling less pain, rather than simply hiding the pain they were in. The male aroma ramped up their stress levels, which deadened the hurt. “It’s really astounding that such a robust effect could have been missed for so many years,” Mogil says."
RTFA.