Actually, I would posit that "crazy-out-of-control-in-a-hurry-drivers" and the self-appointed vigilante traffic cops that feel obligated to thwart them are merely two different species of asshole drivers. If you think that you have a right to endanger public safety because you can't manage to allot enough travel time because you always assume perfect traffic conditions, you're an asshole. And if the person who thinks you are driving like an asshole thinks they have the right to endanger public safety by being an obstacle to you, that person is an asshole too.
I do agree that the latter behavior is not criticized enough, and it should be explicitly stated in driving instruction that retaliatory obstructionism is as dangerous as the drivers they are trying to thwart. But make no mistake, if you believe that you "have to take dangerous maneuvers to pass these fools", you shouldn't be driving, period.
Well, as for the bulk of the your post, all I'll say is that the 5 beers are showing.
As for calculating your total calories, it all depends on the pizza. The beer is pretty much 750 kcal (a little less if light beer, but potentially much more if say a nice malty craft brew), but depending on the size of pizza and toppings, it could be 700-800 kcal, it could be 2000 or even much much more.
So there's a well-regarded scientific study (and there have been many others) showing the opposite of what you claim, yet you stick to it without offering any evidence to the contrary.
Plenty of people may *claim* to eat diets that low in calories, but we also know that people both fat and thin tend to greatly underestimate their intake. Clinical studies like these make clear such a diet will generally make most people miserable, and likely the main reason such diets virtually always fail in the long term.
My point was with the statement "A normal person can live on 1300 - 1700 kcal just fine."
So note: "During the 6-month semi-starvation period, each subject's dietary intake was cut to approximately 1,560 calories per day."
...and...
"Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression. There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally). Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation."
That doesn't sound like most people will "live on 1300 - 1700 kcal just fine".
It is also well observed that lean people are just as prone to underestimate the amount of calories they consume as do the overweight/obese, so it's quite possible that all the people who claim to only eat circa 1500 kcal/day are eating significantly more. Remember that if you are not fat, no one will ever call you out on it.
And you could also realize that the first law of thermodynamics says nothing about causation. After all, thermodynamics are exactly as applicable to normal human growth as they are to obesity, but no one attributes the *cause* of growth in a child or abnormalities of growth like gigantism or dwarfism to caloric balance. Biology matters.
The average user isn't going to have (or be able to write) a secure random word selector. He's going to look at the "new password" field and think up 4 words, and they're almost certain to be related somehow.
The Diceware method can be done with a downloaded word list file and some dice. If, as the article suggests, one is only using memorizable passwords where absolutely necessary, this method is neither burdensome nor difficult for even the most 'average' of users.
Just because the author asserts that the password system is broken doesn't make Randall Munroe's point about passwords incorrect. "At least one security researcher rejects that theory." What theory does he reject? It's simple math that shows that Munroe's method is better for creating stronger passwords (at least for the average user), but that has nothing to do with relying on password managers...
In addition, he seems to miss a rather key point about the xkcd method. He goes on about "users should not be choosing passwords" (which is correct), but note that the xkcd comic says 'four random common words'. In other words, in order to follow this method, the user would not be arbitrarily choosing a password but having it generated instead, by for instance using the Diceware method. The core idea is that a human being can much more easily memorize a randomly generated 4-5 word passphrase, as evidenced by the fact that we all seem to remember 'correct horse battery staple'.
Yes, password managers are a great tool to handle the ever-growing array of passwords we must manage in our digital lives, but that doesn't preclude the idea that for those 5% of passwords he concedes must be memorized that Munroe's method is not a superior method in those cases, especially since he seems to fundamentally misunderstand it.
Good point. Another thing that muddies the stats is that many of the people who actually do time for MJ are people who had previously served time for some other offense, and the MJ offense winds them up in jail as a probation/parole/3 strikes violation, which depending on the jurisdiction may or may not get counted as "being imprisoned for marijuana".
For some numbers not pulled rectally, according to an ACLU analysis: "Of the 8.2 million marijuana arrests between 2001 and 2010, 88% were for simply having marijuana." Remember that arrest means you were charged and it goes on your record. That alone should be enough misery to end this stupidity.
... or do you think a man with no name just hands the president a picture of JFK's head getting blown off from the perspective of the grassy knoll and says "here's your new talking points?"
Nope. Google 'spelt beer'...there are a few commercial ones and many homebrew recipes.
There are even einkorn beers out there. Outside of experimental GMO grains or truly extinct species, I'd guess that...no, there's no grain known to man that someone has not tried to add in some quantity to their mash.
Yep, that's pretty much my take. My first clue was that he does not use the word "hypothesis" once in the entire article. And though I can't say I can quote Francis Bacon chapter and verse, isn't "abstract reasoning about the ultimate causes of things" (based on initial observations) the very definition of formulating hypotheses, which are then subject to the rigors of experimentation and further observation?
It almost seems as if this guy read Feynman's famous quote...
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
...and took from it that experiment is the *only* aspect of science that matters.
That's about as "botched" an understanding of science as any.
What did you load it on? An iPhone 1? A 4? An Osborne Executive?
Funny...I had to google "Osborne Executive", and by whatever coincidence, the picture of it on the WP page has an iPhone next to it. I presume it's for size comparison, but I couldn't help but chuckle at the idea that it was taken by someone trying to get the iOS image running on it.
If Republicans had their way, the government would have no power whatsoever to confiscate anything from you without first convicting you of a crime.
Utter and complete bullshit. The asset forfeiture regime was introduced under the Presidentâ(TM)s Commission on Organized Crime in 1986, at which time the President was Republican Saint Ronald Reagan, and was ramped up through the GHW Bush administration.
Not that I absolve the Democrats in any way of their part is this travesty, but make no mistake...when Republicans have their way, this is *exactly* the sort of corrupt power grab they are famous for.
The cops have a tough job and the vast majority are not predators and have our best interests at heart. As long as I know they're keeping us safe, what's a little shakedown here and there? Just make sure you don't like someone who deserves it and take heart that they can only steal what's in the car or on your person. Just be *reasonable* about it, that's all.
And please, stop the nonsense about being in a police state. In a police state, they stick the plunger handle all the way up your ass, here they stop at 2/3 the way. Clearly *not* a police state....yet.
I do have some vague feeling that I heard it used in the way you describe once several decades ago, but I'd hardly say that such a meaning is "well recognized".
If you check the Urban Dictionary page for "Nimrod", I'd say that it appears to be pretty well recognized. According to one entry, the usage dates to a Bugs Bunny cartoon where Elmer Fudd is referred to as such.
I can't say it's universally common among the entire English-speaking world, but where I grew up (East Coast US in the 70s/80s) it was a common synonym for 'dimwit'.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's a triple negative (don't, disagree, aren't).
Seconded. I had no idea about his background. He was just downgraded from 'windbag' to 'shitbag' in my book.
Actually, I would posit that "crazy-out-of-control-in-a-hurry-drivers" and the self-appointed vigilante traffic cops that feel obligated to thwart them are merely two different species of asshole drivers. If you think that you have a right to endanger public safety because you can't manage to allot enough travel time because you always assume perfect traffic conditions, you're an asshole. And if the person who thinks you are driving like an asshole thinks they have the right to endanger public safety by being an obstacle to you, that person is an asshole too.
I do agree that the latter behavior is not criticized enough, and it should be explicitly stated in driving instruction that retaliatory obstructionism is as dangerous as the drivers they are trying to thwart. But make no mistake, if you believe that you "have to take dangerous maneuvers to pass these fools", you shouldn't be driving, period.
Well, as for the bulk of the your post, all I'll say is that the 5 beers are showing.
As for calculating your total calories, it all depends on the pizza. The beer is pretty much 750 kcal (a little less if light beer, but potentially much more if say a nice malty craft brew), but depending on the size of pizza and toppings, it could be 700-800 kcal, it could be 2000 or even much much more.
So there's a well-regarded scientific study (and there have been many others) showing the opposite of what you claim, yet you stick to it without offering any evidence to the contrary.
Plenty of people may *claim* to eat diets that low in calories, but we also know that people both fat and thin tend to greatly underestimate their intake. Clinical studies like these make clear such a diet will generally make most people miserable, and likely the main reason such diets virtually always fail in the long term.
My point was with the statement "A normal person can live on 1300 - 1700 kcal just fine."
So note: "During the 6-month semi-starvation period, each subject's dietary intake was cut to approximately 1,560 calories per day."
...and...
"Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression. There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally). Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation."
That doesn't sound like most people will "live on 1300 - 1700 kcal just fine".
The Minnesota Starvation Experiment disagrees with you.
It is also well observed that lean people are just as prone to underestimate the amount of calories they consume as do the overweight/obese, so it's quite possible that all the people who claim to only eat circa 1500 kcal/day are eating significantly more. Remember that if you are not fat, no one will ever call you out on it.
And you could also realize that the first law of thermodynamics says nothing about causation. After all, thermodynamics are exactly as applicable to normal human growth as they are to obesity, but no one attributes the *cause* of growth in a child or abnormalities of growth like gigantism or dwarfism to caloric balance. Biology matters.
The Diceware method can be done with a downloaded word list file and some dice. If, as the article suggests, one is only using memorizable passwords where absolutely necessary, this method is neither burdensome nor difficult for even the most 'average' of users.
In addition, he seems to miss a rather key point about the xkcd method. He goes on about "users should not be choosing passwords" (which is correct), but note that the xkcd comic says 'four random common words'. In other words, in order to follow this method, the user would not be arbitrarily choosing a password but having it generated instead, by for instance using the Diceware method. The core idea is that a human being can much more easily memorize a randomly generated 4-5 word passphrase, as evidenced by the fact that we all seem to remember 'correct horse battery staple'. Yes, password managers are a great tool to handle the ever-growing array of passwords we must manage in our digital lives, but that doesn't preclude the idea that for those 5% of passwords he concedes must be memorized that Munroe's method is not a superior method in those cases, especially since he seems to fundamentally misunderstand it.
The two Os represent my bad eyes, which also make me feel old.
Good point. Another thing that muddies the stats is that many of the people who actually do time for MJ are people who had previously served time for some other offense, and the MJ offense winds them up in jail as a probation/parole/3 strikes violation, which depending on the jurisdiction may or may not get counted as "being imprisoned for marijuana".
For some numbers not pulled rectally, according to an ACLU analysis: "Of the 8.2 million marijuana arrests between 2001 and 2010, 88% were for simply having marijuana." Remember that arrest means you were charged and it goes on your record. That alone should be enough misery to end this stupidity.
As someone who first tried cannabis while Cheech and Choong were still making records, that makes me feel very old.
Apologies to Bill Hicks.
Nope. Google 'spelt beer'...there are a few commercial ones and many homebrew recipes.
There are even einkorn beers out there. Outside of experimental GMO grains or truly extinct species, I'd guess that...no, there's no grain known to man that someone has not tried to add in some quantity to their mash.
Yep, that's pretty much my take. My first clue was that he does not use the word "hypothesis" once in the entire article. And though I can't say I can quote Francis Bacon chapter and verse, isn't "abstract reasoning about the ultimate causes of things" (based on initial observations) the very definition of formulating hypotheses, which are then subject to the rigors of experimentation and further observation?
It almost seems as if this guy read Feynman's famous quote...
...and took from it that experiment is the *only* aspect of science that matters.
That's about as "botched" an understanding of science as any.
The only true Scotsman I have met was much the same.
Funny...I had to google "Osborne Executive", and by whatever coincidence, the picture of it on the WP page has an iPhone next to it. I presume it's for size comparison, but I couldn't help but chuckle at the idea that it was taken by someone trying to get the iOS image running on it.
And when plants learned that lesson, one of them must have surely exclaimed: "Oh, the botany!!"
Utter and complete bullshit. The asset forfeiture regime was introduced under the Presidentâ(TM)s Commission on Organized Crime in 1986, at which time the President was Republican Saint Ronald Reagan, and was ramped up through the GHW Bush administration.
Not that I absolve the Democrats in any way of their part is this travesty, but make no mistake...when Republicans have their way, this is *exactly* the sort of corrupt power grab they are famous for.
The cops have a tough job and the vast majority are not predators and have our best interests at heart. As long as I know they're keeping us safe, what's a little shakedown here and there? Just make sure you don't like someone who deserves it and take heart that they can only steal what's in the car or on your person. Just be *reasonable* about it, that's all.
And please, stop the nonsense about being in a police state. In a police state, they stick the plunger handle all the way up your ass, here they stop at 2/3 the way. Clearly *not* a police state....yet.
/Stockholm Syndrome
I dunno, ask Paul Hogan and the Australian Tourism Commission.
Personally, I would have gone with "Put another shrimp on the barbie Streisand, mate."
If you check the Urban Dictionary page for "Nimrod", I'd say that it appears to be pretty well recognized. According to one entry, the usage dates to a Bugs Bunny cartoon where Elmer Fudd is referred to as such.
I can't say it's universally common among the entire English-speaking world, but where I grew up (East Coast US in the 70s/80s) it was a common synonym for 'dimwit'.
Academics and Code Monkeys