Oh, bullshit. Women do want a man who is self-confident. Being self-confident is not the same as not being "nice". Grow a sack, learn how to communicate directly irl, learn how to not be doormat for women, and maybe you'll be taken seriously by one.
Wow. Third grade insult and making fun of the mentally challenged. You are a real winner.
Bottom line is yes, it is a simple world. Company X offers a service. I decide if I want to buy at the price they are offering. As long as they are required to be honest about the service they are providing, everything else is irrelevant.
The only caveat is the existing customer base. There should be protections beyond what exists today. In essence, most companies can change terms at will which is wrong. There should be some type of guarantee for folks who sign up for a services.
Who cares if you trust their numbers? They don't need to justify the breakdown to you or me or anyone. They only need to explain their pricing structure, then you and I can decide if we want the service.
Good luck with that. So, if I am in public I should expect that anything I do not be recorded, talked about or written about? I do not know how you expect to enforce that.
I have mod points but thought I would comment instead.
To you and the clueless fucks who modded you up to +5 Insightful: Yes, you must think you are brilliant. Of course the archeologists have no idea that cave drawings represent reality. This is an absolutely new concept to them.
It could have nothing to do with verifying that, yes indeed, this animal did go extinct in the time period they thing it did. It has nothing to do with showing the relationships the people had with the bird (was it food? was it considered to be good luck?) or how accurately the drawings represented the actual bird (based on fossilized remains). Or probably a dozen other insights that I would never think of.
But yes, you oh brilliant 13 year old on Slashdot because Mom won't let you go out and play in the rain have skewered their efforts completely.
Frankly, it is the +5 Insightful that set me off. How stupid can you be?
Oh please, 90% of the posts arguing against the studies haven't even read the article. The reality is people, regardless of ideological bent, choose to believe what they choose to believe.
Post an article on Slashdot showing a relationship between violent video games and violence, and watch the Slashdot crowd foam at the mouth. And I doubt it is the fundies who are doing the posting...
I don't have TV, so have never seen the show. Yet, friends and coworkers talk about in incessantly. All I hear is how awful it is because it never explains anything. My response "why the hell do you watch it then."
Also, living in Ohio, I wonder the same thing about Cleveland sports. You know it is going to end in a disaster... why waste your time watching it?
Why is it that when I have mod points that I want to use on a thread I always end up commenting instead?
Anyhow, you may not find it important, but others do. This is the equivalent of saying "we fucked up big time and we are reversing ourselves". Large organizations show real remorse differently than individuals. So, this is a very large positive step.
Now, why it took 500 years to figure this out is another story altogether.
Any time a study comes out, twelvity million Slashdotters start chanting "Correlation!=Causation". None actually read the article. In fact, most have their rant typed out long before the story hits slashdot, and simply cut and paste into the comment box.
So, in the interest of keeping up this fine tradition, I offer the following:
1) Ugly people are more likely to actually commit the crime. Makes sense. Pretty people are less likely to need to do a crime as they are more likely to get good employement. 2) Committing a crime MAKES you ugly. Far fetched? Maybe. But I am sure those stupid researchers who only get by on grant money never thought of such a thing.
Clearly, I a faceless Slashdotter am more capable of analyzing the situation without actually reading the article, or giving it more than 20 seconds of thought.
Can the rest of my Slashdot bretheren help support my contentions?
I've been reading a little about oil dispersants. I understand that basically they help to break down oil so that microorganisms can do their thing and use the oil as food. Maybe an oversimplification, but that is what I got out of it.
So now if you use oil dispersants, do you end up exacerbating the oxygen problem? If the microorganisms go nuts on the food supply, does this kill off even more of the ecosystem?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, bullshit. Women do want a man who is self-confident. Being self-confident is not the same as not being "nice". Grow a sack, learn how to communicate directly irl, learn how to not be doormat for women, and maybe you'll be taken seriously by one.
Slashdot help you? Go to Idle, look at the CSS "design" and tell me that Slashdot is capable of helping anyone with coding...
What school are you attending? I googled the terms and didn't come up with much?
Hi, you must be new to the internet. One of our rules here is "don't feed the trolls".
and I predict this will be FIRST POST!!!!
(yes, I did get a D- average... how did you know?)
Wow. Third grade insult and making fun of the mentally challenged. You are a real winner.
Bottom line is yes, it is a simple world. Company X offers a service. I decide if I want to buy at the price they are offering. As long as they are required to be honest about the service they are providing, everything else is irrelevant.
The only caveat is the existing customer base. There should be protections beyond what exists today. In essence, most companies can change terms at will which is wrong. There should be some type of guarantee for folks who sign up for a services.
Who cares if you trust their numbers? They don't need to justify the breakdown to you or me or anyone. They only need to explain their pricing structure, then you and I can decide if we want the service.
I returned one of them (they give you a number to call) and asked why my cell was getting spammed. The "professional" got very abusive.
I immediately filed a report. I am glad something actually happens after that. Restores a smidgen of faith in government.
It will restore more if they castrate everyone involved in this scheme.
Good luck with that. So, if I am in public I should expect that anything I do not be recorded, talked about or written about? I do not know how you expect to enforce that.
It won't impress me until it can say "Check out the hooters on that chick!"
Adverse selection anyone?
How could something have mass and so weakly interact with normal matter? My understanding is that most neutrinos pass through the earth unmolested.
(insert obligatory Catholic priest joke here).
I's thought that neutrinos being massless made this possible.
I have mod points but thought I would comment instead.
To you and the clueless fucks who modded you up to +5 Insightful: Yes, you must think you are brilliant. Of course the archeologists have no idea that cave drawings represent reality. This is an absolutely new concept to them.
It could have nothing to do with verifying that, yes indeed, this animal did go extinct in the time period they thing it did. It has nothing to do with showing the relationships the people had with the bird (was it food? was it considered to be good luck?) or how accurately the drawings represented the actual bird (based on fossilized remains). Or probably a dozen other insights that I would never think of.
But yes, you oh brilliant 13 year old on Slashdot because Mom won't let you go out and play in the rain have skewered their efforts completely.
Frankly, it is the +5 Insightful that set me off. How stupid can you be?
250GB per month is the equivalent of a T-1 downloading at 51% capacity non-stop.
Oh please, 90% of the posts arguing against the studies haven't even read the article. The reality is people, regardless of ideological bent, choose to believe what they choose to believe.
Post an article on Slashdot showing a relationship between violent video games and violence, and watch the Slashdot crowd foam at the mouth. And I doubt it is the fundies who are doing the posting...
I don't have TV, so have never seen the show. Yet, friends and coworkers talk about in incessantly. All I hear is how awful it is because it never explains anything. My response "why the hell do you watch it then."
Also, living in Ohio, I wonder the same thing about Cleveland sports. You know it is going to end in a disaster... why waste your time watching it?
Why is it that when I have mod points that I want to use on a thread I always end up commenting instead?
Anyhow, you may not find it important, but others do. This is the equivalent of saying "we fucked up big time and we are reversing ourselves". Large organizations show real remorse differently than individuals. So, this is a very large positive step.
Now, why it took 500 years to figure this out is another story altogether.
Some assholes are upset because the sun shines too much.
Huh? What?
The probability of this like all past occurrences is 100%.
Well, it was more volumous. But all those sponges soaked up so much.
I pity the fool!
No crap I didn't read it. That was the whole point. And I like how you stick up for yourself as an AC. Nice touch :)
Any time a study comes out, twelvity million Slashdotters start chanting "Correlation!=Causation". None actually read the article. In fact, most have their rant typed out long before the story hits slashdot, and simply cut and paste into the comment box.
So, in the interest of keeping up this fine tradition, I offer the following:
1) Ugly people are more likely to actually commit the crime. Makes sense. Pretty people are less likely to need to do a crime as they are more likely to get good employement.
2) Committing a crime MAKES you ugly. Far fetched? Maybe. But I am sure those stupid researchers who only get by on grant money never thought of such a thing.
Clearly, I a faceless Slashdotter am more capable of analyzing the situation without actually reading the article, or giving it more than 20 seconds of thought.
Can the rest of my Slashdot bretheren help support my contentions?
I've been reading a little about oil dispersants. I understand that basically they help to break down oil so that microorganisms can do their thing and use the oil as food. Maybe an oversimplification, but that is what I got out of it.
So now if you use oil dispersants, do you end up exacerbating the oxygen problem? If the microorganisms go nuts on the food supply, does this kill off even more of the ecosystem?