Re-reading it, you're probably right. On the first reading, it sounded kind of like "Oh, they're trying to cover their asses because they know they can't deliver."
In "modern" food, you simply cannot eat too little of it, no matter what you do.
I would definitely have to argue with this. In the 90s, when Low Fat was the craze instead of Low Carb, there were plenty of women who were not getting enough fat in their diets. You could get fat-free versions of just about everything, just like you can get low-carb versions now.
The difference is, in most low-carb breads, pastas, etc, the starches and sugars are replaced by fiber or protein, both of which are at least useful to have in your diet and both of which are things that most people could do with more rather than less of. But in a lot of low-fat/fat-free foods, the fats are replaced with sugars, which nobody needs more of. So plenty of women were eating not enough fat in an attempt to lose weight, but also not enough good stuff to support their body during the weight loss.
Plus, in women much more than men, low good cholesterol is as dangerous if not more so than high bad cholesterol. You need a certain amount of unsaturated fats (particularly monounsaturated) to keep your good cholesterol up.
Now, if someone eats fast food 5x a week and frozen dinners the rest of the time, you're right, what they need is less fat (and salt, and cholesterol, etc). But for those of us who cook our own meals every night, it's really not that hard to keep from overdoing it if you pay any attention to what you're buying. True, many people don't pay enough attention, but if you are, it's probably more useful to pick "good" fat sources than to try and eliminate fat entirely.
You don't sound like a PeTA activist at all. You sound like someone concerned about animal welfare - a movement totally separate from the animal rights philosophies that PeTA et al are espousing. Animal rights activists say humans have no right to use other animals in any way, shape, or form (including food, research, fur, pets) - animal welfare activists say we have the right to use animals, but that right comes with the responsibility to minimize their suffering whenever possible.
In other words, welcome to the sane version of "animal rights".:)
WTF? You do realize I was just using the previous poster's example, seeing as how that's what I was replying to, right? I couldn't care less what exact form the.us domain names would take in this theoretical scenario.
So, wait - if slashdot were at slashdot.co.us, it wouldn't be in.safe. So your employees wouldn't be allowed there. Which may be something you'd want, but not all employers would feel the same. Maybe some don't mind their employees reading tech news on their breaks. They couldn't use the.safe for filtering.
What about sites detailing human anatomy and sexual function in a purely academic manner? Some parents wouldn't want their kids to run across that, some would be ok with it. Would it go in.safe or not? Would a news site like cnn.com, even though some of the stories and video might be violent or disturbing?
That about sums it up for me. While this may be a neat experiment that will happen with a few similar games in the same genre now and then, I don't think I'll be playing my Animal Crossing character in a Star Wars universe anytime soon.
What this shows is there is a certain level of comercial viability in 2D games (in particular formerly popular 2D games) which isn't really being capatalized upon by anyone.
Yes, thank goodness those of us who hate 3D are going to get what we want! I was so excited to hear that a new 2D mario game is in the works. I find 3D games confusing to navigate, annoying to use weapons in, and in some cases downright nauseating to watch. I realize the companies want to show off what they can do with 3D, but it is entirely possible to make a 2D game with beautiful graphics.
I thought I was going to see several different genres, from the summary - instead, it's five sports games, a driving game (which could be called sports), a fighting game (or two fighting games if you move boxing to that genre, or you could move the karate game back into sports for a total of 7 sports games), one RPG and one military shooter.
No platformers, no puzzle games, no simulations (SimCity vs The Sims?). What other genres have been totally ignored here?
The title should be "Sports games look much better than they did 20 years ago!"
My husband and I do this all the time. One of us will play some Zelda or Mario Bros title or whatever, and the other will watch, make suggestions, help out with the puzzles, etc. We'll usually take turns, when one has tried something several times or finds a particular stretch annoying or stressful, the other will take over. We don't have that many two-player games right now, so this is what we do most of the time.
For actual two-player, I repeat the recommendations of things like Mario Kart and fighting games with a handicap. There's also this SNES game called Tetris Attack that I recommend at every chance, it has awesome one and two-player modes - but, y'know, it's SNES. (I've heard there's a Pokemon-themed version for N64, but haven't played it.) Animal Crossing can also be interesting - you can both have characters in the same villiage, or start your own villiages on different memory cards. You can't play simultaneously (they really should have a split-screen mode for that), but you can trade back and forth like above, except that you're each controlling your own character, picking your own goals.
And if you don't think they count as games, then Tetris shouldn't count as a game either. Not just jigsaw puzzles, but word puzzles (crosswords, etc), verbal and spatial logic puzzles, those things you buy at souvenir shops where you have to pull two pieces of metal apart, peg games where you try to only have X pegs standing, the list goes on and on.
For millenia, people have found plenty of ways to pass the time outsmarting someone (the puzzle/game writer/constructor/programmer) when there's no one else around.
If all goes as planned, I'm planning on starting to have kids in about 4-5 years. One of my biggest fears is the maybe 1% chance of getting leukemia in 5-10 years, due to radiation. The idea of dealing with the treatment while having small children is bad enough, but I certainly don't want to leave my husband raising them alone, barely remembering their mother.
So what do you think I should do? Do you think I should put off having kids for an extra 5 years or so, until the threat of leukemia has mostly passed? Or maybe have them now, whether or not we're ready for it financially and career-wise, so that if anything happens at least they'll be older by then?
Are you starting to see how silly it is to plan one's life around the small possibility of illness? I am far more likely than most of the population to get leukemia, but it is still only a remote possibility. Most people would think it crazy to change my life plans, especially something as major as when I have kids, based on this tiny 1% chance.
Personally, I am still planning to start having kids in 4-5 years. Yes, there is a tiny chance that something bad will happen. But there's a 99% chance that it won't, and that having the kids sooner or later would be a worse idea. If something bad does happen (whether it's leukemia or something totally unrelated to my cancer that no one could have foreseen), I'll deal with it then.
But would you plan your life differently knowing that it would in 10-15 years?
Right now? Not at all. If the experience confirmed one thing for me, it's that I'm on the right path in my life.
I'm well-aware that more could happen. The Hodgkin's could come back, I could get leukemia in 5-10 years from the radiation, I could get breast cancer or heart disease from the radiation, etc etc.
Yes, the unlikely does happen. But I don't think people should put their life on hold because of the possibility that *something* could happen - otherwise, no one would ever live their life.
You and the other poster seem to think that I (and my husband) should have quit our jobs and moved 1,000 miles away because there was a 5-10% chance of something happening. Well, at what point would it be "safe" for me to finally resume my life? After treatment? Two years after treatment, when the possibility of recurrence drops significantly? Five years after, when I'll be "cured"? Or should I stay within ten miles of my parents for the rest of my life, just on the off chance that some other health problem strikes? What about my husband? His family lives 12 hours from mine, how can we keep him near them all the time? No, he doesn't have cancer, but there are plenty of other unexpected problems that could arise.
Sorry, but I think it's completely unreasonable to plan one's life around remote possibilities of bad things happening. If the possibility gets less remote, that's one thing. But that should be dealt with when and if it happens.
The "subscription" title is a bit misleading . . . It's more like a magazine subscription than a music service subscription
So in other words, the word "subscription" is actually misleading when it comes to music service "subscriptions," seeing as how the magazine subscription model was around for much longer and is what most consumers are used to.
I mean, look at Wal-Mart. . . . margin-kissing low prices
Of course, in Wal-Mart's case, it's not always their own margin they're always kissing. They have a solid history of forcing their suppliers to sell to them at a loss, or risk losing all shelf space in the country's largest retailer. Vlasic pickles is the most famous case, but they're not the only ones.
So while I admit that too many doctors are pill pushers and don't listen to patients, part of that is that people have too much faith in doctors.
I'm always surprised by how unwilling people are to get a second opinion. I'm on a list for people who have or had a certain type of cancer, and so many people on the list have just taken whatever their oncologist said and assumed that that's the only answer, without doing any other research or getting any other opinions. They're amazed to find out from others that there actually *are* nausea meds that work during chemo, for example. Some people weren't even aware of some of the possible damage the chemo drugs could do - I guess their onc. went with the "only give them as much info as they ask about" route rather than a more "full disclosure" policy. I just can't imagine going into any major treatment or surgery without getting the facts from all the sources I can find.
You can use my slashdot name at gmail. Although, I don't check it often at all (I don't really like gmail much), but I'll check it sometime in the next couple days to see if you've emailed me.
Ok, I just realized that I did come across as a bit more nonchalant than was necessary on the 20% odds of dying thing.
This goes back to the fact that I did not include every detail of my life/illness in that post, and in this case it was an omission that I probably should not have made.
I was, in fact, visiting my family on a holiday when I was diagnosed. At the time of diagnosis, my odds of surviving were around 80%.
Now, in the case of my cancer (hodgkin's lymphoma), generally the chemo either works or it doesn't. If there is improvement in the first couple of treatments, there is little chance of it not eradicating the cancer. (Though there is still risk of recurrence - but that's separate and may happen two or three years later.) My family and I came to an agreement - I'd get my first two chemo treatments there, and if it was working, I'd go home for the rest. Within 24 hours of the first treatment, my visible tumor (a lump over my collarbone) had shrunk in size by half. It was working like crazy.
Given that, my odds of survival had risen dramatically. And this is not coming from me, who at 24.5 would be biologically incapable of assessing such a risk (I'm 26.5 now, just so you know, so it's all good) - this is coming from my oncologist, who was at least in his forties. I never got a hard number, but from everything I've read I would say that the odds of the chemo failing to work after that point was lower than 10%. Probably around 5%. Again, still a chance of recurrence later, but I was going to be cancer-free for a while at least.
I am glad that I was with my family at the beginning; it put their minds at ease to see the chemo working and know I would be ok. But I'm equally glad that I then went home and got on with my life, rather than restructuring my entire life around an illness that didn't require it.
So, yeah, that one omission did make me sound more cavalier about my health than I really was. The others - well, they're not really any of your business, and you're still being a presumptive asshole to think that you know what I should do without them.
Yes, actually. You might search the page for my other posts - I'm a fellow Hodgkin's survivor. Thanks for asking.
By the way, chemo for Hodgkin's has really advanced in the past 20 years. I only had to stop working/going to class for a couple weeks during treatment, when my blood counts were really low. Though I did make sure I had nothing scheduled the day or two after chemo, when I was sickest. I know it was much worse back in the MOPP days (which is probably what you had), but ABVD/Stanford V are much less harsh.
Oh, you think I should grow up because I gave a sarcastic response to someone who assumes they know what path I should take in life based on the contents of one post on slashdot?
Yeah, maybe I should. It actually wasn't worth responding to at all.
Wow, I'm glad you could do a full personality analysis on me based on one post. Because I obviously explained my situation in full, not leaving out a single detail. In fact, every detail of my entire life was in that post, so obviously you were able to fully analyze it.
I would also argue that if getting the news of cancer would make you drop your career like a hot potato, you're wasting your time on the wrong career. You should be doing something you love, whether or not you think you're going to die soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Re-reading it, you're probably right. On the first reading, it sounded kind of like "Oh, they're trying to cover their asses because they know they can't deliver."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I would definitely have to argue with this. In the 90s, when Low Fat was the craze instead of Low Carb, there were plenty of women who were not getting enough fat in their diets. You could get fat-free versions of just about everything, just like you can get low-carb versions now.
The difference is, in most low-carb breads, pastas, etc, the starches and sugars are replaced by fiber or protein, both of which are at least useful to have in your diet and both of which are things that most people could do with more rather than less of. But in a lot of low-fat/fat-free foods, the fats are replaced with sugars, which nobody needs more of. So plenty of women were eating not enough fat in an attempt to lose weight, but also not enough good stuff to support their body during the weight loss.
Plus, in women much more than men, low good cholesterol is as dangerous if not more so than high bad cholesterol. You need a certain amount of unsaturated fats (particularly monounsaturated) to keep your good cholesterol up.
Now, if someone eats fast food 5x a week and frozen dinners the rest of the time, you're right, what they need is less fat (and salt, and cholesterol, etc). But for those of us who cook our own meals every night, it's really not that hard to keep from overdoing it if you pay any attention to what you're buying. True, many people don't pay enough attention, but if you are, it's probably more useful to pick "good" fat sources than to try and eliminate fat entirely.
In other words, welcome to the sane version of "animal rights". :)
How exactly are they acting like a record label? What artists have they signed?
WTF? You do realize I was just using the previous poster's example, seeing as how that's what I was replying to, right? I couldn't care less what exact form the .us domain names would take in this theoretical scenario.
What about sites detailing human anatomy and sexual function in a purely academic manner? Some parents wouldn't want their kids to run across that, some would be ok with it. Would it go in .safe or not? Would a news site like cnn.com, even though some of the stories and video might be violent or disturbing?
*eyeroll*
That about sums it up for me. While this may be a neat experiment that will happen with a few similar games in the same genre now and then, I don't think I'll be playing my Animal Crossing character in a Star Wars universe anytime soon.
Yes, thank goodness those of us who hate 3D are going to get what we want! I was so excited to hear that a new 2D mario game is in the works. I find 3D games confusing to navigate, annoying to use weapons in, and in some cases downright nauseating to watch. I realize the companies want to show off what they can do with 3D, but it is entirely possible to make a 2D game with beautiful graphics.
No platformers, no puzzle games, no simulations (SimCity vs The Sims?). What other genres have been totally ignored here?
The title should be "Sports games look much better than they did 20 years ago!"
For actual two-player, I repeat the recommendations of things like Mario Kart and fighting games with a handicap. There's also this SNES game called Tetris Attack that I recommend at every chance, it has awesome one and two-player modes - but, y'know, it's SNES. (I've heard there's a Pokemon-themed version for N64, but haven't played it.) Animal Crossing can also be interesting - you can both have characters in the same villiage, or start your own villiages on different memory cards. You can't play simultaneously (they really should have a split-screen mode for that), but you can trade back and forth like above, except that you're each controlling your own character, picking your own goals.
For millenia, people have found plenty of ways to pass the time outsmarting someone (the puzzle/game writer/constructor/programmer) when there's no one else around.
If all goes as planned, I'm planning on starting to have kids in about 4-5 years. One of my biggest fears is the maybe 1% chance of getting leukemia in 5-10 years, due to radiation. The idea of dealing with the treatment while having small children is bad enough, but I certainly don't want to leave my husband raising them alone, barely remembering their mother.
So what do you think I should do? Do you think I should put off having kids for an extra 5 years or so, until the threat of leukemia has mostly passed? Or maybe have them now, whether or not we're ready for it financially and career-wise, so that if anything happens at least they'll be older by then?
Are you starting to see how silly it is to plan one's life around the small possibility of illness? I am far more likely than most of the population to get leukemia, but it is still only a remote possibility. Most people would think it crazy to change my life plans, especially something as major as when I have kids, based on this tiny 1% chance.
Personally, I am still planning to start having kids in 4-5 years. Yes, there is a tiny chance that something bad will happen. But there's a 99% chance that it won't, and that having the kids sooner or later would be a worse idea. If something bad does happen (whether it's leukemia or something totally unrelated to my cancer that no one could have foreseen), I'll deal with it then.
Right now? Not at all. If the experience confirmed one thing for me, it's that I'm on the right path in my life.
I'm well-aware that more could happen. The Hodgkin's could come back, I could get leukemia in 5-10 years from the radiation, I could get breast cancer or heart disease from the radiation, etc etc.
Yes, the unlikely does happen. But I don't think people should put their life on hold because of the possibility that *something* could happen - otherwise, no one would ever live their life.
You and the other poster seem to think that I (and my husband) should have quit our jobs and moved 1,000 miles away because there was a 5-10% chance of something happening. Well, at what point would it be "safe" for me to finally resume my life? After treatment? Two years after treatment, when the possibility of recurrence drops significantly? Five years after, when I'll be "cured"? Or should I stay within ten miles of my parents for the rest of my life, just on the off chance that some other health problem strikes? What about my husband? His family lives 12 hours from mine, how can we keep him near them all the time? No, he doesn't have cancer, but there are plenty of other unexpected problems that could arise.
Sorry, but I think it's completely unreasonable to plan one's life around remote possibilities of bad things happening. If the possibility gets less remote, that's one thing. But that should be dealt with when and if it happens.
*shrug* It has one on my screen.
So in other words, the word "subscription" is actually misleading when it comes to music service "subscriptions," seeing as how the magazine subscription model was around for much longer and is what most consumers are used to.
Of course, in Wal-Mart's case, it's not always their own margin they're always kissing. They have a solid history of forcing their suppliers to sell to them at a loss, or risk losing all shelf space in the country's largest retailer. Vlasic pickles is the most famous case, but they're not the only ones.
I'm always surprised by how unwilling people are to get a second opinion. I'm on a list for people who have or had a certain type of cancer, and so many people on the list have just taken whatever their oncologist said and assumed that that's the only answer, without doing any other research or getting any other opinions. They're amazed to find out from others that there actually *are* nausea meds that work during chemo, for example. Some people weren't even aware of some of the possible damage the chemo drugs could do - I guess their onc. went with the "only give them as much info as they ask about" route rather than a more "full disclosure" policy. I just can't imagine going into any major treatment or surgery without getting the facts from all the sources I can find.
You can use my slashdot name at gmail. Although, I don't check it often at all (I don't really like gmail much), but I'll check it sometime in the next couple days to see if you've emailed me.
This goes back to the fact that I did not include every detail of my life/illness in that post, and in this case it was an omission that I probably should not have made.
I was, in fact, visiting my family on a holiday when I was diagnosed. At the time of diagnosis, my odds of surviving were around 80%.
Now, in the case of my cancer (hodgkin's lymphoma), generally the chemo either works or it doesn't. If there is improvement in the first couple of treatments, there is little chance of it not eradicating the cancer. (Though there is still risk of recurrence - but that's separate and may happen two or three years later.) My family and I came to an agreement - I'd get my first two chemo treatments there, and if it was working, I'd go home for the rest. Within 24 hours of the first treatment, my visible tumor (a lump over my collarbone) had shrunk in size by half. It was working like crazy.
Given that, my odds of survival had risen dramatically. And this is not coming from me, who at 24.5 would be biologically incapable of assessing such a risk (I'm 26.5 now, just so you know, so it's all good) - this is coming from my oncologist, who was at least in his forties. I never got a hard number, but from everything I've read I would say that the odds of the chemo failing to work after that point was lower than 10%. Probably around 5%. Again, still a chance of recurrence later, but I was going to be cancer-free for a while at least.
I am glad that I was with my family at the beginning; it put their minds at ease to see the chemo working and know I would be ok. But I'm equally glad that I then went home and got on with my life, rather than restructuring my entire life around an illness that didn't require it.
So, yeah, that one omission did make me sound more cavalier about my health than I really was. The others - well, they're not really any of your business, and you're still being a presumptive asshole to think that you know what I should do without them.
By the way, chemo for Hodgkin's has really advanced in the past 20 years. I only had to stop working/going to class for a couple weeks during treatment, when my blood counts were really low. Though I did make sure I had nothing scheduled the day or two after chemo, when I was sickest. I know it was much worse back in the MOPP days (which is probably what you had), but ABVD/Stanford V are much less harsh.
Yeah, maybe I should. It actually wasn't worth responding to at all.
Wow, I'm glad you could do a full personality analysis on me based on one post. Because I obviously explained my situation in full, not leaving out a single detail. In fact, every detail of my entire life was in that post, so obviously you were able to fully analyze it.
I would also argue that if getting the news of cancer would make you drop your career like a hot potato, you're wasting your time on the wrong career. You should be doing something you love, whether or not you think you're going to die soon.