pretty much everyone seems to forget that men are also physically abused (including beaten up) by their wives/girlfriends.
That's a pet peeve of mine. We teach our sons "never hit a woman" when we should be teaching our sons and daughters "never hit ANYONE".
I do know a woman who went to jail for domestic violence. I say hooray to her boyfriend for doing the right thing! The stupid bitch who kneed you in the groin should have been suspended the first time, and expelled the second.
My #1 and #2 drugs of choice are coffee and beer, both of which are addictive substances, neither of which is illegal.
My #3 drug of choice is neither addictive (I've gone years without a pot-free day, only to stop without problem when I couldn't afford it) nor harmful; nobody ever died of reefer, yet it is a felony.
It's completely unreasonable. Where's your logic?
Just as you have seatbelt laws to protect people from themselves
I've worn my seat belt since long before it was mandatory, but that's the difference between you and me. You believe that men are children who need a nanny state government to protect them from themselves (big brother is watching) while I believe a man is an adult who should be free to ruin his life any way he pleases. Where was your nanny state when I foolishly let myself be married to Evil-X? My God, that woman was worse than any drug imaginable! Where was your nanny-state when I became addictied to cigarettes? Why are those deadly things not a felony?
If you give me universal health care you might have a point about the seat belts. But I pay for my own insurance and medical care, if I break my back it's my problem, not yours. MY business, not yours or your nanny state government's.
Perhaps your [sic] too stoned to care about someone doing permanent brain damage on themselves and swimming through the world like they have MS until they reach a point where they are non functional and a burden on they rest of society.
Then you had better outlaw skiing, rock climbiung, motorcycles, bicycles, construction work, and a host of other activities that are far more likely cause anyone to "become a burden to society". My cousin broke his neck diving into a stream at age 16, he's in his sixties now and has been a quadraplegic since his injury. Where was your nanny state then?
My oldest daughter is a "burden to society", you heartless, brainless, insensitive clod. She is on SSI, developmentally disabled; the doctors say it was from the umbilical cord tied around her neck when she was born, and that my then-wife shouldn't have been working (thanks, Disney) while she was pregnant. I say it was from the MMR shot, because that's when it started. At any rate, there were no drugs or any other illegal activity involved. Why did your nanny state government not force Disney to let her out of work while she was pregnant?
Government can't even protect me from you, how in the hell can it protect you from yourself? Your argument is illogical, irrational, and based entirely on emotion.
That said, tell me: marijuana is non-addictive and has no known lethal dose. Tobacco is possibly the most addictive drug on the planet and it kills almost 100% of its users. Yet marijuana is illegal while tobacco is sold legally everywhere. Where's your nanny-state to protect me from tobacco? I smoked the deadly stuff for thirty years, when I quit it would have been a lot easier had I not been forced to watch everyone openly consume the drug I was additcted to.
More people die from alcohol overdose than all illegal drugs combined, yet it is legal.
Moreover, no one is going to make people with good vision wear glasses so competition can be 'equal'.
Baseball players with normal 20/20 vision who do NOT need or wear glasses are getting LASIK to give themselves better than normal vision to get an edge. It is unneeded surgery; at least, surgery that would be unneeded if they didn't need an unnatural edge.
It isn't a matter of a ball player with 20/50 vision getting LASIK to do away with glasses; it's a matter of a player with 20/20 vision getting surgery to make his vision 20/15 (which is what the vision in my eye with the artificial lens is).
but i know its not a real sport, its just a one act play starring roid heads
So it bears no resemblance. It isn't the steroids that make it a non-sport, it's the fact that it's scripted.
buyt i also enjoy watching professional drug-free baseball
Ok, I get that you like drug-free sports, but you still haven't explained WHY.
if you can't understand there is a difference between drinking a glass of water and taking methamphetamine, you are simply out of touch with the real issue here
What's the difference between methamphetamine and adrenaline? Trap a three year old under a car and his drug-free grandmother will lift that car off the ground. The adrenaline that the body naturally produces itself is stronger than meth.
You see those idiot runners that jog into the path of your car as if they're stoned? Well, they ARE stoned. They're fucked up out of their minds on endorphins, the substance your body produces in response to pain. It's called a "runner's high". Opiates like morphine and heroin only work because the opiates fit in your brain's endorphin receptors. Your marathin runners are endorphin junkies; they get the same high as a heroin addict, only it's probably more intense, and their "sport" is as addictive as heroin or more so.
A yogi can produce those naturally occurring drugs at will. They're still drugs; the only difference is one lab has glass tubes and the other lab is your body.
I doubt he was drinking during the games (or he wouldn't have broken records), although it's possible that he needed a beer to calm his nerves in front of those big crowds.
Don't worry, he will. Something like this is going to happen:
Man went to jail last night for a bar fight. He paid his hundred dollars bail and gets out. He's pissed at whoever he got in a fight with, he's pissed at whoever called the cops, he's pissed at the cops, he's pissed at the bar. He comes home and finds an email threatening his life.
Whatever dimwit is sending these likely won'y be alive this time next year.
He's probaby posting at slashdot, probably somebody on my "freaks" list. I hope it's the AC who keeps posting the goatse trolls, they're getting tiresome.
there is a difference between the chemical processes that genetics and training gave you and the one you injected this morning
Genetics doesn't give you chemicals, and neither does training - you are what you eat. The chemicals I "injected" this morning were the chemicals that make up McDonald's buscuits and gravy, coffee, peanut butter and crackers. All life is chemical - I know you already know that.
I just don't see why you think drugs will kill interest in any sport. Letting baseball players have LASIK surgery to improve their already 20/20 eyesight to better than normal didn't kill baseball, even though Babe Ruth didn't have the advantage of performance enhansing surgery. Should we put asterisks on the records of players who have had LASIK? I have a CrystaLens eye implant (the new kind that lets you focus) that gives me 20/16 vision (better than 20/20) at distance and 20/12 vision (almost twice as good as 20/20) close up, should I be disqualified from playing sports?
He didn't have the benefits of LASIK, but he could have been snorting coke. Nobody would have been able to tell - there was no drug testing back then.
Again, WHY would legalizing drugs ruin the sport?
Would you be against a schitzophrenic baseball player taling haldol? Or a bipolar player taking Prozac? Seems without those drugs, the people with those illnesses would be unable to play at all.
I'm at work on break, and TFA is firewalled off so if this post is crap please downmod me, but marijuana isn't the only thing one gets soned on. "Baked" usually refers to someone on crack, cocaine, amphetamines, or methamphetamines whoch would increase your reaction time.
because now it is not a display of human mastery, now it is a display of biochemical mastery
Humans are chemical machines. Thought itself is a chemical process. Muscle movement is a chemical process. Emotions are a chemical process. A human being is a complex chemical reaction, and nothing more.
of course there will always be cheating
If it's not against the rules it's not cheating. Make drugs legal and they're no longer a cheat.
this is simply the price you pay to retain interest in the sport
They say "Babe Ruth did it on beer and hot dogs." First, beer is a drug. Second, there was no drug testing back then, how do we know he wasn't snorting coke? But no drug in the world will turn me into Ruth or McWire. I say the better the performance, the MORE the interest, no matter if that performance is enhansed by chemicals or not.
I always played Road Rash while drinking, and when I had a good beer buzz on I played better. But beer is legal. TFS talks of illegal drugs, WTF does "legal" have to do with it? What if I was prescribed a performance enhansing drug for a medical condition? The "illegal" drug would then be legal.
I have a CrystaLens implant that allows my old left eye to focus, unlike unmodified eyes in people my age. Before the implant my vision was incredibly bad; I wore "coke bottle" glasses all my life. Now my vision is vastly better than the normal 20/20. If I were in these games I would need no eyeglasses, unlike most nerds young and old, and unlike almost all geezers.
Sweat dripping down your glasses is a definite minus in any game.
Would my implant disqualify me? If not, I say let 'em ruin their lives with cocaine or amphetamines.
That is the most disingenuous statement I've ever heard, unless your difinitions are as twisted as your logic, or you have never met any working class black people or seen movies with black people in it.
Under the same logic, "men" beat "women".
First, I didn't say I was ok with that word, as you can see from the statement you quoted. Second, your "logic" is quite twisted. "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me." Words do not equal physical attacks.
No, with flash (light source coming from the camera) shows the colors without shadows; i.e. without color perspective. Without flash (light source at an angle to the model/subject) shows the deeper parts in shadow (known to us former art students as "color perspective").
You could actually fo this with two flashes, provided one was on the camera and one to the side. The fact that it flashes has nothing to do with it, it has to do with the angle of the light sources.
One thing I wish I had control over was the "Did you mean:" function. I'd like to be able to answer the question yes or no, rather than having to go into the query and putting quote marks where I want to search for a word it thinks is spelled wrong.
You already can. For instance, say you are looking for "FUBAR". For "no", you just use the results it gives you on the page where it asks "did you mean FOOBAR?" as if it didn't ask. For "yes", click the word "FOOBAR" and it will give you listings of "FOOBAR" with the search term changed to "FOOBAR".
Well, I don't know about the legal stuff, but I do know that as far back as when it was called "Mandrake", an installation where you told it to install XMMS installed XMMS and it would play MP3s, OGGs, and I don't remember what else. If Mandriva can do it Ubantu should be able to as well.
Slashdot Mirror
pretty much everyone seems to forget that men are also physically abused (including beaten up) by their wives/girlfriends.
That's a pet peeve of mine. We teach our sons "never hit a woman" when we should be teaching our sons and daughters "never hit ANYONE".
I do know a woman who went to jail for domestic violence. I say hooray to her boyfriend for doing the right thing! The stupid bitch who kneed you in the groin should have been suspended the first time, and expelled the second.
My #1 and #2 drugs of choice are coffee and beer, both of which are addictive substances, neither of which is illegal.
My #3 drug of choice is neither addictive (I've gone years without a pot-free day, only to stop without problem when I couldn't afford it) nor harmful; nobody ever died of reefer, yet it is a felony.
It's completely unreasonable. Where's your logic?
Just as you have seatbelt laws to protect people from themselves
I've worn my seat belt since long before it was mandatory, but that's the difference between you and me. You believe that men are children who need a nanny state government to protect them from themselves (big brother is watching) while I believe a man is an adult who should be free to ruin his life any way he pleases. Where was your nanny state when I foolishly let myself be married to Evil-X? My God, that woman was worse than any drug imaginable! Where was your nanny-state when I became addictied to cigarettes? Why are those deadly things not a felony?
If you give me universal health care you might have a point about the seat belts. But I pay for my own insurance and medical care, if I break my back it's my problem, not yours. MY business, not yours or your nanny state government's.
Perhaps your [sic] too stoned to care about someone doing permanent brain damage on themselves and swimming through the world like they have MS until they reach a point where they are non functional and a burden on they rest of society.
Then you had better outlaw skiing, rock climbiung, motorcycles, bicycles, construction work, and a host of other activities that are far more likely cause anyone to "become a burden to society". My cousin broke his neck diving into a stream at age 16, he's in his sixties now and has been a quadraplegic since his injury. Where was your nanny state then?
My oldest daughter is a "burden to society", you heartless, brainless, insensitive clod. She is on SSI, developmentally disabled; the doctors say it was from the umbilical cord tied around her neck when she was born, and that my then-wife shouldn't have been working (thanks, Disney) while she was pregnant. I say it was from the MMR shot, because that's when it started. At any rate, there were no drugs or any other illegal activity involved. Why did your nanny state government not force Disney to let her out of work while she was pregnant?
Government can't even protect me from you, how in the hell can it protect you from yourself? Your argument is illogical, irrational, and based entirely on emotion.
That said, tell me: marijuana is non-addictive and has no known lethal dose. Tobacco is possibly the most addictive drug on the planet and it kills almost 100% of its users. Yet marijuana is illegal while tobacco is sold legally everywhere. Where's your nanny-state to protect me from tobacco? I smoked the deadly stuff for thirty years, when I quit it would have been a lot easier had I not been forced to watch everyone openly consume the drug I was additcted to.
More people die from alcohol overdose than all illegal drugs combined, yet it is legal.
Again, your view is illogical and irrational.
Moreover, no one is going to make people with good vision wear glasses so competition can be 'equal'.
Baseball players with normal 20/20 vision who do NOT need or wear glasses are getting LASIK to give themselves better than normal vision to get an edge. It is unneeded surgery; at least, surgery that would be unneeded if they didn't need an unnatural edge.
It isn't a matter of a ball player with 20/50 vision getting LASIK to do away with glasses; it's a matter of a player with 20/20 vision getting surgery to make his vision 20/15 (which is what the vision in my eye with the artificial lens is).
but i know its not a real sport, its just a one act play starring roid heads
So it bears no resemblance. It isn't the steroids that make it a non-sport, it's the fact that it's scripted.
buyt i also enjoy watching professional drug-free baseball
Ok, I get that you like drug-free sports, but you still haven't explained WHY.
if you can't understand there is a difference between drinking a glass of water and taking methamphetamine, you are simply out of touch with the real issue here
What's the difference between methamphetamine and adrenaline? Trap a three year old under a car and his drug-free grandmother will lift that car off the ground. The adrenaline that the body naturally produces itself is stronger than meth.
You see those idiot runners that jog into the path of your car as if they're stoned? Well, they ARE stoned. They're fucked up out of their minds on endorphins, the substance your body produces in response to pain. It's called a "runner's high". Opiates like morphine and heroin only work because the opiates fit in your brain's endorphin receptors. Your marathin runners are endorphin junkies; they get the same high as a heroin addict, only it's probably more intense, and their "sport" is as addictive as heroin or more so.
A yogi can produce those naturally occurring drugs at will. They're still drugs; the only difference is one lab has glass tubes and the other lab is your body.
I doubt he was drinking during the games (or he wouldn't have broken records), although it's possible that he needed a beer to calm his nerves in front of those big crowds.
Don't worry, he will. Something like this is going to happen:
Man went to jail last night for a bar fight. He paid his hundred dollars bail and gets out. He's pissed at whoever he got in a fight with, he's pissed at whoever called the cops, he's pissed at the cops, he's pissed at the bar. He comes home and finds an email threatening his life.
Whatever dimwit is sending these likely won'y be alive this time next year.
He's probaby posting at slashdot, probably somebody on my "freaks" list. I hope it's the AC who keeps posting the goatse trolls, they're getting tiresome.
She's dead, Jim. :P
there is a difference between the chemical processes that genetics and training gave you and the one you injected this morning
Genetics doesn't give you chemicals, and neither does training - you are what you eat. The chemicals I "injected" this morning were the chemicals that make up McDonald's buscuits and gravy, coffee, peanut butter and crackers. All life is chemical - I know you already know that.
I just don't see why you think drugs will kill interest in any sport. Letting baseball players have LASIK surgery to improve their already 20/20 eyesight to better than normal didn't kill baseball, even though Babe Ruth didn't have the advantage of performance enhansing surgery. Should we put asterisks on the records of players who have had LASIK? I have a CrystaLens eye implant (the new kind that lets you focus) that gives me 20/16 vision (better than 20/20) at distance and 20/12 vision (almost twice as good as 20/20) close up, should I be disqualified from playing sports?
He didn't have the benefits of LASIK, but he could have been snorting coke. Nobody would have been able to tell - there was no drug testing back then.
Again, WHY would legalizing drugs ruin the sport?
Would you be against a schitzophrenic baseball player taling haldol? Or a bipolar player taking Prozac? Seems without those drugs, the people with those illnesses would be unable to play at all.
I'm at work on break, and TFA is firewalled off so if this post is crap please downmod me, but marijuana isn't the only thing one gets soned on. "Baked" usually refers to someone on crack, cocaine, amphetamines, or methamphetamines whoch would increase your reaction time.
Aside from the fact that you actually didn't get first post
What's that "wooshing" sound?
Captain Kirk? Is that you?
because now it is not a display of human mastery, now it is a display of biochemical mastery
Humans are chemical machines. Thought itself is a chemical process. Muscle movement is a chemical process. Emotions are a chemical process. A human being is a complex chemical reaction, and nothing more.
of course there will always be cheating
If it's not against the rules it's not cheating. Make drugs legal and they're no longer a cheat.
this is simply the price you pay to retain interest in the sport
They say "Babe Ruth did it on beer and hot dogs." First, beer is a drug. Second, there was no drug testing back then, how do we know he wasn't snorting coke? But no drug in the world will turn me into Ruth or McWire. I say the better the performance, the MORE the interest, no matter if that performance is enhansed by chemicals or not.
While I think illicit drugs should definitely be banned
Why?
I think drugs should be outlawed
Why?
I always played Road Rash while drinking, and when I had a good beer buzz on I played better. But beer is legal. TFS talks of illegal drugs, WTF does "legal" have to do with it? What if I was prescribed a performance enhansing drug for a medical condition? The "illegal" drug would then be legal.
I have a CrystaLens implant that allows my old left eye to focus, unlike unmodified eyes in people my age. Before the implant my vision was incredibly bad; I wore "coke bottle" glasses all my life. Now my vision is vastly better than the normal 20/20. If I were in these games I would need no eyeglasses, unlike most nerds young and old, and unlike almost all geezers.
Sweat dripping down your glasses is a definite minus in any game.
Would my implant disqualify me? If not, I say let 'em ruin their lives with cocaine or amphetamines.
"Black people" don't use that word.
That is the most disingenuous statement I've ever heard, unless your difinitions are as twisted as your logic, or you have never met any working class black people or seen movies with black people in it.
Under the same logic, "men" beat "women".
First, I didn't say I was ok with that word, as you can see from the statement you quoted. Second, your "logic" is quite twisted. "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me." Words do not equal physical attacks.
I think you're trolling.
In the first place, you were young. In the second place, it seems an instinctive reaction. In the third place, it was only once.
I know a few woman who are continually being physically abused by their SOs (BFs and husbands). IMO these women are idiots for staying with them.
Why would she do that? Aside from being young and stupid, I mean?
After the Sony rootkit fiasco why in the HELL would anyone name a computer product "XCP"???!!!
I'm not sure I'd want one. I don't care how quiet it is or how far I can overclock it. If they're dumb enough to screw up with its name, well...
These are the kind of articles that shouldn't be posted on slashdot's front page. It's not like his was the only submission.
No, with flash (light source coming from the camera) shows the colors without shadows; i.e. without color perspective. Without flash (light source at an angle to the model/subject) shows the deeper parts in shadow (known to us former art students as "color perspective").
You could actually fo this with two flashes, provided one was on the camera and one to the side. The fact that it flashes has nothing to do with it, it has to do with the angle of the light sources.
You forgot two
5. ?????????
6. PROFIT!
One thing I wish I had control over was the "Did you mean:" function. I'd like to be able to answer the question yes or no, rather than having to go into the query and putting quote marks where I want to search for a word it thinks is spelled wrong.
You already can. For instance, say you are looking for "FUBAR". For "no", you just use the results it gives you on the page where it asks "did you mean FOOBAR?" as if it didn't ask. For "yes", click the word "FOOBAR" and it will give you listings of "FOOBAR" with the search term changed to "FOOBAR".
Yeah, but look at how bloated your operating systemn is!
Why didn't you just link to the more informative New Scientist article that the blog you linked quoted?
Well, I don't know about the legal stuff, but I do know that as far back as when it was called "Mandrake", an installation where you told it to install XMMS installed XMMS and it would play MP3s, OGGs, and I don't remember what else. If Mandriva can do it Ubantu should be able to as well.
Perhaps there is an open source codec?