author
stringlengths 3
20
| body
stringlengths 12
18.4k
| normalizedBody
stringlengths 13
17.9k
| subreddit
stringlengths 2
24
| subreddit_id
stringlengths 4
8
| id
stringlengths 3
7
| content
stringlengths 3
17.9k
| summary
stringlengths 1
7.54k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
blancacasa | Ok. A couple of guys have answered below, but I will add my observations too.
a. All people need 7-8 hours of sleep, daily, no matter what(unless you have seriously changed the pattern over a few months by taking naps in between).
Right now you have indicated that your sleep pattern is highly variable. Some days you sleep at 12, others 10, wake up at 5.30 or sometimes 7.30 or sometimes later. I think that's the problem right there.
How am I guessing? I've observed a lot of friends(you know, the guys who skip classes playing WoW all night) and they had similar sleeping hours. Sometimes they would spend the entire night playing. Sometimes they would sleep at night while others are playing.
Som my recommendation is that you sleep and get up at the same time every night, with deviation ONLY once or twice a week. This means bed at 10 and getting up at 5.30 no matter what(excepting your weekend smashes, which, are too long). You do mention that you take naps, so it is possible to get little sleep using a concept called 'Power naps' where you sleep 20 mins every 5 hours or something.
I don't think you want to do that, so try not to nap during the entire day, and you should fall asleep when you're tired.
I'm trying to say: Awake all day + no naps = tired body = sleep at night.
A few have suggested cutting down on suppplements, well I don't know much about them, but yeah, they might be keeping you awake, so as one guy says try taking them in the morning.
As for diet, you mention that you eat regularly, so I don't think that is a problem. Eating too little also can cause sleep deprivation.
tl;dr Everyone needs 7 hours of sleep and will sleep 7 hours. If you are not, things like caffeine affect you. Try to get up at same time and sleep at same time everyday. | Ok. A couple of guys have answered below, but I will add my observations too.
a. All people need 7-8 hours of sleep, daily, no matter what(unless you have seriously changed the pattern over a few months by taking naps in between).
Right now you have indicated that your sleep pattern is highly variable. Some days you sleep at 12, others 10, wake up at 5.30 or sometimes 7.30 or sometimes later. I think that's the problem right there.
How am I guessing? I've observed a lot of friends(you know, the guys who skip classes playing WoW all night) and they had similar sleeping hours. Sometimes they would spend the entire night playing. Sometimes they would sleep at night while others are playing.
Som my recommendation is that you sleep and get up at the same time every night, with deviation ONLY once or twice a week. This means bed at 10 and getting up at 5.30 no matter what(excepting your weekend smashes, which, are too long). You do mention that you take naps, so it is possible to get little sleep using a concept called 'Power naps' where you sleep 20 mins every 5 hours or something.
I don't think you want to do that, so try not to nap during the entire day, and you should fall asleep when you're tired.
I'm trying to say: Awake all day + no naps = tired body = sleep at night.
A few have suggested cutting down on suppplements, well I don't know much about them, but yeah, they might be keeping you awake, so as one guy says try taking them in the morning.
As for diet, you mention that you eat regularly, so I don't think that is a problem. Eating too little also can cause sleep deprivation.
tl;dr Everyone needs 7 hours of sleep and will sleep 7 hours. If you are not, things like caffeine affect you. Try to get up at same time and sleep at same time everyday.
| self | t5_2qh96 | c0j5w1i | Ok. A couple of guys have answered below, but I will add my observations too.
a. All people need 7-8 hours of sleep, daily, no matter what(unless you have seriously changed the pattern over a few months by taking naps in between).
Right now you have indicated that your sleep pattern is highly variable. Some days you sleep at 12, others 10, wake up at 5.30 or sometimes 7.30 or sometimes later. I think that's the problem right there.
How am I guessing? I've observed a lot of friends(you know, the guys who skip classes playing WoW all night) and they had similar sleeping hours. Sometimes they would spend the entire night playing. Sometimes they would sleep at night while others are playing.
Som my recommendation is that you sleep and get up at the same time every night, with deviation ONLY once or twice a week. This means bed at 10 and getting up at 5.30 no matter what(excepting your weekend smashes, which, are too long). You do mention that you take naps, so it is possible to get little sleep using a concept called 'Power naps' where you sleep 20 mins every 5 hours or something.
I don't think you want to do that, so try not to nap during the entire day, and you should fall asleep when you're tired.
I'm trying to say: Awake all day + no naps = tired body = sleep at night.
A few have suggested cutting down on suppplements, well I don't know much about them, but yeah, they might be keeping you awake, so as one guy says try taking them in the morning.
As for diet, you mention that you eat regularly, so I don't think that is a problem. Eating too little also can cause sleep deprivation. | Everyone needs 7 hours of sleep and will sleep 7 hours. If you are not, things like caffeine affect you. Try to get up at same time and sleep at same time everyday. |
EvilGargamel | I hope that he realized he was becoming ubiquitous of reddit, or a reddit-celebrity if you will, and he decided the best thing for reddit was to destroy himself, to save us. We all know power-users are a thing to avoid, and it was hard to not know his name if one frequents this site. I believe he still peruses reddit, under another account of which he will not get instant karma regardless of whatever he said, and without the pressure of living up to the 'bozarking' standard.
>TL;DR Bozarking is Jesus and he died to preserve our integrity. | I hope that he realized he was becoming ubiquitous of reddit, or a reddit-celebrity if you will, and he decided the best thing for reddit was to destroy himself, to save us. We all know power-users are a thing to avoid, and it was hard to not know his name if one frequents this site. I believe he still peruses reddit, under another account of which he will not get instant karma regardless of whatever he said, and without the pressure of living up to the 'bozarking' standard.
>TL;DR Bozarking is Jesus and he died to preserve our integrity.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0jfjzo | I hope that he realized he was becoming ubiquitous of reddit, or a reddit-celebrity if you will, and he decided the best thing for reddit was to destroy himself, to save us. We all know power-users are a thing to avoid, and it was hard to not know his name if one frequents this site. I believe he still peruses reddit, under another account of which he will not get instant karma regardless of whatever he said, and without the pressure of living up to the 'bozarking' standard.
> | Bozarking is Jesus and he died to preserve our integrity. |
RiotingPacifist | I wonder if anybody else thought of that
>[On 7 March 2007, Members of the House of Commons voted ten times on a variety of alternative compositions for the upper chamber. Outright abolition, a wholly appointed house, a 20%,40%,50%,60% elected house were all defeated in turn. Finally the vote for an 80% elected chamber was won by 305 votes to 267, and the vote for a wholly elected chamber was won by an even greater margin: 337 to 224. Significantly this last vote represented an overall majority of MPs, giving it huge political authority. Furthermore, examination of the names of MPs voting at each division shows that, of the 305 who voted for the 80% elected option, 211 went on to vote for the 100% elected option. Given that this vote took place after the vote on 80% this shows a clear preference for a fully elected upper house among those who voted for the only other option that passed. But this was nevertheless only an indicative vote and many political and legislative hurdles remained to be overcome for supporters of an elected second chamber. The House of Lords, soon after, rejected this proposal and voted for an entirely appointed House of Lords. In July 2008 Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, introduced a white paper to the House of Commons proposing to replace the House of Lords with an 80-100% elected chamber, with one third being elected at each general election, for a term of approximately 12–15 years. The white paper states that as the peerage would be totally separated from membership of the upper house, the name "House of Lords" would no longer be appropriate: It goes on to explain that there is cross-party consensus for the new chamber to be titled the Senate, however in order to ensure the debate remains on the role of the upper house rather than its title, the white paper is neutral on the title of the new house.](
tl;dr there is a move to try and get 12-15 year elected lords (IMO it's a bit short, 20years as you suggest is better), with a 3rd at every general election.
>1. All Lords sit for a single term. No re-election pressure.
This is a ridiculous American principle, IMHO the people should get whoever they want, kicking out elected people because they have been around too long is downright undemocratic
>Potentially I would also elect Lords as a college rather than direct democracy.
Another excessive complication inherited from American politics, that would make election less clear and further [rewieght of the value of individual vote]( (i'm not suggesting about prop-rep for the house of lords, but the current system is unfair enough, increasing the unfairness isn't a good idea, perhaps 2nd choice voting would help, but tbh i'd be happy with the house of lords elected under the same system as the current general elections) | I wonder if anybody else thought of that
>[On 7 March 2007, Members of the House of Commons voted ten times on a variety of alternative compositions for the upper chamber. Outright abolition, a wholly appointed house, a 20%,40%,50%,60% elected house were all defeated in turn. Finally the vote for an 80% elected chamber was won by 305 votes to 267, and the vote for a wholly elected chamber was won by an even greater margin: 337 to 224. Significantly this last vote represented an overall majority of MPs, giving it huge political authority. Furthermore, examination of the names of MPs voting at each division shows that, of the 305 who voted for the 80% elected option, 211 went on to vote for the 100% elected option. Given that this vote took place after the vote on 80% this shows a clear preference for a fully elected upper house among those who voted for the only other option that passed. But this was nevertheless only an indicative vote and many political and legislative hurdles remained to be overcome for supporters of an elected second chamber. The House of Lords, soon after, rejected this proposal and voted for an entirely appointed House of Lords. In July 2008 Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, introduced a white paper to the House of Commons proposing to replace the House of Lords with an 80-100% elected chamber, with one third being elected at each general election, for a term of approximately 12–15 years. The white paper states that as the peerage would be totally separated from membership of the upper house, the name "House of Lords" would no longer be appropriate: It goes on to explain that there is cross-party consensus for the new chamber to be titled the Senate, however in order to ensure the debate remains on the role of the upper house rather than its title, the white paper is neutral on the title of the new house.](
tl;dr there is a move to try and get 12-15 year elected lords (IMO it's a bit short, 20years as you suggest is better), with a 3rd at every general election.
>1. All Lords sit for a single term. No re-election pressure.
This is a ridiculous American principle, IMHO the people should get whoever they want, kicking out elected people because they have been around too long is downright undemocratic
>Potentially I would also elect Lords as a college rather than direct democracy.
Another excessive complication inherited from American politics, that would make election less clear and further rewieght of the value of individual vote
| ukpolitics | t5_2qhcv | c0jgzds | I wonder if anybody else thought of that
>[On 7 March 2007, Members of the House of Commons voted ten times on a variety of alternative compositions for the upper chamber. Outright abolition, a wholly appointed house, a 20%,40%,50%,60% elected house were all defeated in turn. Finally the vote for an 80% elected chamber was won by 305 votes to 267, and the vote for a wholly elected chamber was won by an even greater margin: 337 to 224. Significantly this last vote represented an overall majority of MPs, giving it huge political authority. Furthermore, examination of the names of MPs voting at each division shows that, of the 305 who voted for the 80% elected option, 211 went on to vote for the 100% elected option. Given that this vote took place after the vote on 80% this shows a clear preference for a fully elected upper house among those who voted for the only other option that passed. But this was nevertheless only an indicative vote and many political and legislative hurdles remained to be overcome for supporters of an elected second chamber. The House of Lords, soon after, rejected this proposal and voted for an entirely appointed House of Lords. In July 2008 Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, introduced a white paper to the House of Commons proposing to replace the House of Lords with an 80-100% elected chamber, with one third being elected at each general election, for a term of approximately 12–15 years. The white paper states that as the peerage would be totally separated from membership of the upper house, the name "House of Lords" would no longer be appropriate: It goes on to explain that there is cross-party consensus for the new chamber to be titled the Senate, however in order to ensure the debate remains on the role of the upper house rather than its title, the white paper is neutral on the title of the new house.]( | there is a move to try and get 12-15 year elected lords (IMO it's a bit short, 20years as you suggest is better), with a 3rd at every general election.
>1. All Lords sit for a single term. No re-election pressure.
This is a ridiculous American principle, IMHO the people should get whoever they want, kicking out elected people because they have been around too long is downright undemocratic
>Potentially I would also elect Lords as a college rather than direct democracy.
Another excessive complication inherited from American politics, that would make election less clear and further rewieght of the value of individual vote |
2scoops | Engineer here, not mechanic, but I can assist with your question. In large part, due to [this guy]( Deming assisted Japan in its recovery after WWII. He introduced the idea of statistical process control (SPC) to Japanese manufacturers, and they took to it with a vengance. He became a bit of a national hero to the Japanese. They essentially got a 30+ year head start on the use of SPC to control manufacturing operations. Using SPC results in much greater uniformity between parts, and thus, tighter tolerances. These tighter tolerances lend themselves to greater reliability of the engines/transmissions/etc. assembled from them.
It wasn't until the 80's that Deming's ideas started getting traction with the US auto manufacturers.
tl;dr: Japanese applied statistics to manufacturing processing before the US. | Engineer here, not mechanic, but I can assist with your question. In large part, due to this guy to Japanese manufacturers, and they took to it with a vengance. He became a bit of a national hero to the Japanese. They essentially got a 30+ year head start on the use of SPC to control manufacturing operations. Using SPC results in much greater uniformity between parts, and thus, tighter tolerances. These tighter tolerances lend themselves to greater reliability of the engines/transmissions/etc. assembled from them.
It wasn't until the 80's that Deming's ideas started getting traction with the US auto manufacturers.
tl;dr: Japanese applied statistics to manufacturing processing before the US.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0jtkxb | Engineer here, not mechanic, but I can assist with your question. In large part, due to this guy to Japanese manufacturers, and they took to it with a vengance. He became a bit of a national hero to the Japanese. They essentially got a 30+ year head start on the use of SPC to control manufacturing operations. Using SPC results in much greater uniformity between parts, and thus, tighter tolerances. These tighter tolerances lend themselves to greater reliability of the engines/transmissions/etc. assembled from them.
It wasn't until the 80's that Deming's ideas started getting traction with the US auto manufacturers. | Japanese applied statistics to manufacturing processing before the US. |
abbrevia | I'm a GM fanboy who can't stop messing with cars. I bought a Ford because I know zero about them, my logic being that I won't want to mess with it or spend money on it.
So far it seems to be working, although I have done some small jobs on it and I'm very impressed with the build quality, the interior is very nice and it's very smooth and quiet at speed.
TL;DR: GM fanboy bought a Ford. Not too shabby. Everything went better than expected. | I'm a GM fanboy who can't stop messing with cars. I bought a Ford because I know zero about them, my logic being that I won't want to mess with it or spend money on it.
So far it seems to be working, although I have done some small jobs on it and I'm very impressed with the build quality, the interior is very nice and it's very smooth and quiet at speed.
TL;DR: GM fanboy bought a Ford. Not too shabby. Everything went better than expected.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0judlp | I'm a GM fanboy who can't stop messing with cars. I bought a Ford because I know zero about them, my logic being that I won't want to mess with it or spend money on it.
So far it seems to be working, although I have done some small jobs on it and I'm very impressed with the build quality, the interior is very nice and it's very smooth and quiet at speed. | GM fanboy bought a Ford. Not too shabby. Everything went better than expected. |
one_little_bird | Well, sounds like you're trying to convince yourself to stay in this relationship for the comforts it offers, not necessarily because you want to be with that person. I've been there before. Sprinkle that with a liberal amount of guilt, maybe a little fear of commitment, and viola! you have this situation.
> I just don't enjoy spending time with her anymore. And really, right now, I'm not sure why I ever did. Don't get me wrong: She's still a great person. She'd always help me out when I'm stuck in trouble, totally going out of her way to do so. She's incredibly good-hearted. ... She does the best cooking and she does it for me....
You ask, 'is this normal.' Well, yes and no: Yes if you're in a relationship and you're unhappy (for any variety of reasons--big life changes, the person themselves, etc.). No if you're in a relationship and you ARE happy. In fact, that won't even happen if you're truly happy in a relationship. So..yeah, no.
Maybe you should consider taking a break (if you don't want to end things). The time you spend away from her may either make you realize 1) that you DO want to hang out with her, no obligations needed or 2) that actually, you prefer flying solo.
tl;dr-- 'it's easier to stay than to go' is not a good way of looking at a relationship | Well, sounds like you're trying to convince yourself to stay in this relationship for the comforts it offers, not necessarily because you want to be with that person. I've been there before. Sprinkle that with a liberal amount of guilt, maybe a little fear of commitment, and viola! you have this situation.
> I just don't enjoy spending time with her anymore. And really, right now, I'm not sure why I ever did. Don't get me wrong: She's still a great person. She'd always help me out when I'm stuck in trouble, totally going out of her way to do so. She's incredibly good-hearted. ... She does the best cooking and she does it for me....
You ask, 'is this normal.' Well, yes and no: Yes if you're in a relationship and you're unhappy (for any variety of reasons--big life changes, the person themselves, etc.). No if you're in a relationship and you ARE happy. In fact, that won't even happen if you're truly happy in a relationship. So..yeah, no.
Maybe you should consider taking a break (if you don't want to end things). The time you spend away from her may either make you realize 1) that you DO want to hang out with her, no obligations needed or 2) that actually, you prefer flying solo.
tl;dr-- 'it's easier to stay than to go' is not a good way of looking at a relationship
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0jv0t3 | Well, sounds like you're trying to convince yourself to stay in this relationship for the comforts it offers, not necessarily because you want to be with that person. I've been there before. Sprinkle that with a liberal amount of guilt, maybe a little fear of commitment, and viola! you have this situation.
> I just don't enjoy spending time with her anymore. And really, right now, I'm not sure why I ever did. Don't get me wrong: She's still a great person. She'd always help me out when I'm stuck in trouble, totally going out of her way to do so. She's incredibly good-hearted. ... She does the best cooking and she does it for me....
You ask, 'is this normal.' Well, yes and no: Yes if you're in a relationship and you're unhappy (for any variety of reasons--big life changes, the person themselves, etc.). No if you're in a relationship and you ARE happy. In fact, that won't even happen if you're truly happy in a relationship. So..yeah, no.
Maybe you should consider taking a break (if you don't want to end things). The time you spend away from her may either make you realize 1) that you DO want to hang out with her, no obligations needed or 2) that actually, you prefer flying solo. | it's easier to stay than to go' is not a good way of looking at a relationship |
caleeky | Man, you're 19. Being a virgin is not only fairly normal, it doesn't say anything about your sex-worthyness of worth as a person otherwise. Your best bet is to work on social skills; push yourself to get out there, attend events and places you wouldn't normally and force yourself to talk with people, even if you don't think you have much interesting to say. Otherwise, relationships tend to just-happen - it's very difficult to engineer the discovery of one, but you can increase your odds.
When you get older, you look back at the freedom and discovery of being young and wish you took better advantage of that. That goes for everything, not just sex. Make use of your time - you only gain more responsibility while your body rots as you age. That said, the best sex can come with trust and intimacy which are fairly scarce in a drunken college sex context.
tl;dr; don't sweat it | Man, you're 19. Being a virgin is not only fairly normal, it doesn't say anything about your sex-worthyness of worth as a person otherwise. Your best bet is to work on social skills; push yourself to get out there, attend events and places you wouldn't normally and force yourself to talk with people, even if you don't think you have much interesting to say. Otherwise, relationships tend to just-happen - it's very difficult to engineer the discovery of one, but you can increase your odds.
When you get older, you look back at the freedom and discovery of being young and wish you took better advantage of that. That goes for everything, not just sex. Make use of your time - you only gain more responsibility while your body rots as you age. That said, the best sex can come with trust and intimacy which are fairly scarce in a drunken college sex context.
tl;dr; don't sweat it
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0k2czc | Man, you're 19. Being a virgin is not only fairly normal, it doesn't say anything about your sex-worthyness of worth as a person otherwise. Your best bet is to work on social skills; push yourself to get out there, attend events and places you wouldn't normally and force yourself to talk with people, even if you don't think you have much interesting to say. Otherwise, relationships tend to just-happen - it's very difficult to engineer the discovery of one, but you can increase your odds.
When you get older, you look back at the freedom and discovery of being young and wish you took better advantage of that. That goes for everything, not just sex. Make use of your time - you only gain more responsibility while your body rots as you age. That said, the best sex can come with trust and intimacy which are fairly scarce in a drunken college sex context. | don't sweat it |
LadyStardust | 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. (I love this one!) 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. (Bonus, because I like those panties...)
Sorry for the flood of images, but I hope you enjoy them. I tried to have a bit of a progression or story line, so if they start off tame, that why. I picked this set because 1. someone requested fishnets 2. Bowie title, duh and 3. I have ALWAYS wanted to smear my lipstick like that. I don't know why.
Edit: TLDR: Ass: Nipple: |
(I love this one!) 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. (Bonus, because I like those panties...)
Sorry for the flood of images, but I hope you enjoy them. I tried to have a bit of a progression or story line, so if they start off tame, that why. I picked this set because 1. someone requested fishnets 2. Bowie title, duh and 3. I have ALWAYS wanted to smear my lipstick like that. I don't know why.
Edit: TLDR: Ass: Nipple:
| gonewild | t5_2qq5c | c0k3m2q | I love this one!) 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. (Bonus, because I like those panties...)
Sorry for the flood of images, but I hope you enjoy them. I tried to have a bit of a progression or story line, so if they start off tame, that why. I picked this set because 1. someone requested fishnets 2. Bowie title, duh and 3. I have ALWAYS wanted to smear my lipstick like that. I don't know why.
Edit: | Ass: Nipple: |
valarmorghulis | I'm not so sure about this one. They state that he was talking about going out to shoot illegal firearms. Oregon is pretty liberal with their gun laws (even more so that Washington State where I live). Provided you have the proper documentation and permits (from the BATFE) it is perfectly legal to own and operate a machine-gun in Oregon (as well as suppressors, SBRs and AOEs but I'm not sure about DDs). As an avid shooter, I know that there are people who are generally uncomfortable around guns, or even discussing them. I could understand their unwillingness to confront somebody directly about such an issue (especially when that person has a concealed carry permit [as the article alludes to] and carries). I think going to a trusted figure who was in some way responsible for the setting they were made uncomfortable in (the party). What I cannot understand is that the professor would actually think that a public naming and shaming was the appropriate way to go about this. Especially ending it with a threat of harassment. This is of course, predicated upon the student having not actually threatened anybody or group. The proper way to have handled this would have been to speak with the individual privately and inform them that what they are doing is making others uncomfortable and disrupting the learning process.
tl;dr - The prof went straight for a first-strike nuclear option, rather than a graduated, appropriate response. That is fucked up. | I'm not so sure about this one. They state that he was talking about going out to shoot illegal firearms. Oregon is pretty liberal with their gun laws (even more so that Washington State where I live). Provided you have the proper documentation and permits (from the BATFE) it is perfectly legal to own and operate a machine-gun in Oregon (as well as suppressors, SBRs and AOEs but I'm not sure about DDs). As an avid shooter, I know that there are people who are generally uncomfortable around guns, or even discussing them. I could understand their unwillingness to confront somebody directly about such an issue (especially when that person has a concealed carry permit [as the article alludes to] and carries). I think going to a trusted figure who was in some way responsible for the setting they were made uncomfortable in (the party). What I cannot understand is that the professor would actually think that a public naming and shaming was the appropriate way to go about this. Especially ending it with a threat of harassment. This is of course, predicated upon the student having not actually threatened anybody or group. The proper way to have handled this would have been to speak with the individual privately and inform them that what they are doing is making others uncomfortable and disrupting the learning process.
tl;dr - The prof went straight for a first-strike nuclear option, rather than a graduated, appropriate response. That is fucked up.
| reddit.com | t5_6 | c0k4st2 | I'm not so sure about this one. They state that he was talking about going out to shoot illegal firearms. Oregon is pretty liberal with their gun laws (even more so that Washington State where I live). Provided you have the proper documentation and permits (from the BATFE) it is perfectly legal to own and operate a machine-gun in Oregon (as well as suppressors, SBRs and AOEs but I'm not sure about DDs). As an avid shooter, I know that there are people who are generally uncomfortable around guns, or even discussing them. I could understand their unwillingness to confront somebody directly about such an issue (especially when that person has a concealed carry permit [as the article alludes to] and carries). I think going to a trusted figure who was in some way responsible for the setting they were made uncomfortable in (the party). What I cannot understand is that the professor would actually think that a public naming and shaming was the appropriate way to go about this. Especially ending it with a threat of harassment. This is of course, predicated upon the student having not actually threatened anybody or group. The proper way to have handled this would have been to speak with the individual privately and inform them that what they are doing is making others uncomfortable and disrupting the learning process. | The prof went straight for a first-strike nuclear option, rather than a graduated, appropriate response. That is fucked up. |
akahige | Before the campaign, I had a kind of grudging respect for John McCain. By the end, I came to the realization that he was as vain, petty, mean-spirited, shallow, thin-skinned, and two-faced as a politician can be. In many ways he's the embodiment of the power-hungry-yet-hollow politician cliche.
tl;dr--McCain is a fucking asshole, and we should all thank our lucky stars he isn't the president. | Before the campaign, I had a kind of grudging respect for John McCain. By the end, I came to the realization that he was as vain, petty, mean-spirited, shallow, thin-skinned, and two-faced as a politician can be. In many ways he's the embodiment of the power-hungry-yet-hollow politician cliche.
tl;dr--McCain is a fucking asshole, and we should all thank our lucky stars he isn't the president.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c0k5r4z | Before the campaign, I had a kind of grudging respect for John McCain. By the end, I came to the realization that he was as vain, petty, mean-spirited, shallow, thin-skinned, and two-faced as a politician can be. In many ways he's the embodiment of the power-hungry-yet-hollow politician cliche. | McCain is a fucking asshole, and we should all thank our lucky stars he isn't the president. |
creedit | I think it would help but it will never happen because there is a profit motive. Alcohol offenses have become a surefire and safe way to generate revenue for local government. The more people are responsible about driving drunk the less revenue the community makes and the lower the legal blood alcohol will go.
The less offenders there are the less money MADD will generate. They all ready know this and are turning the focus towards making it illegal to drink on trains. Maybe planes next?
If the community builds public transportation they get double-whammied. Once with the cost of the public transportation. Again with lost revenue from fewer offenders.
And keep in mind you can also be arrested for riding a bike while intoxicated. You can be arrested for walking home intoxicated. The system is set up for profit, not to actually address the problem.
That said -- Please don't drive drunk.
tl;dr -- as long as there is a profit to be made arresting people coming up with solutions to help prevent drunk driving will never happen. | I think it would help but it will never happen because there is a profit motive. Alcohol offenses have become a surefire and safe way to generate revenue for local government. The more people are responsible about driving drunk the less revenue the community makes and the lower the legal blood alcohol will go.
The less offenders there are the less money MADD will generate. They all ready know this and are turning the focus towards making it illegal to drink on trains. Maybe planes next?
If the community builds public transportation they get double-whammied. Once with the cost of the public transportation. Again with lost revenue from fewer offenders.
And keep in mind you can also be arrested for riding a bike while intoxicated. You can be arrested for walking home intoxicated. The system is set up for profit, not to actually address the problem.
That said -- Please don't drive drunk.
tl;dr -- as long as there is a profit to be made arresting people coming up with solutions to help prevent drunk driving will never happen.
| reddit.com | t5_6 | c0k7hyt | I think it would help but it will never happen because there is a profit motive. Alcohol offenses have become a surefire and safe way to generate revenue for local government. The more people are responsible about driving drunk the less revenue the community makes and the lower the legal blood alcohol will go.
The less offenders there are the less money MADD will generate. They all ready know this and are turning the focus towards making it illegal to drink on trains. Maybe planes next?
If the community builds public transportation they get double-whammied. Once with the cost of the public transportation. Again with lost revenue from fewer offenders.
And keep in mind you can also be arrested for riding a bike while intoxicated. You can be arrested for walking home intoxicated. The system is set up for profit, not to actually address the problem.
That said -- Please don't drive drunk. | as long as there is a profit to be made arresting people coming up with solutions to help prevent drunk driving will never happen. |
RogerMexico | Maple is really the closest wood to Aspen but you might also consider Cherry, Teak or Pine. They all have similar color and material properties so it is really up to you which one you like best.
Cherry is a little grainier than Aspen or Maple but is very light in color. It will also darken with age but won't ever get as dark as the cherry furniture you see in stores unless you stain it. It's also quite a bit pricier but is still one of my favorite woods.
Teak is great because it is the most weatherproof wood there is. A longboard made of teak and mahogany could last a decade without ever being lacquered. Just make sure to apply teak oil when it starts to look gray.
Pine is the cheapest option and if you find a good lumberyard, you can get pine with very few knots that will look a lot like Aspen. Not my favorite wood in the world but it is very pliable (perhaps too pliable depending on how green it is) which will make for a nice smooth ride.
I also found some of the [material properties of wood]( (PDF). The take-away from this PDF is that most hardwoods have similar material properties so it really becomes a matter of aesthetics.
**tl:dr** I recommend Maple, Cherry, Teak or Pine (in that order).
EDIT: typo | Maple is really the closest wood to Aspen but you might also consider Cherry, Teak or Pine. They all have similar color and material properties so it is really up to you which one you like best.
Cherry is a little grainier than Aspen or Maple but is very light in color. It will also darken with age but won't ever get as dark as the cherry furniture you see in stores unless you stain it. It's also quite a bit pricier but is still one of my favorite woods.
Teak is great because it is the most weatherproof wood there is. A longboard made of teak and mahogany could last a decade without ever being lacquered. Just make sure to apply teak oil when it starts to look gray.
Pine is the cheapest option and if you find a good lumberyard, you can get pine with very few knots that will look a lot like Aspen. Not my favorite wood in the world but it is very pliable (perhaps too pliable depending on how green it is) which will make for a nice smooth ride.
I also found some of the material properties of wood . The take-away from this PDF is that most hardwoods have similar material properties so it really becomes a matter of aesthetics.
tl:dr I recommend Maple, Cherry, Teak or Pine (in that order).
EDIT: typo
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0kamhg | Maple is really the closest wood to Aspen but you might also consider Cherry, Teak or Pine. They all have similar color and material properties so it is really up to you which one you like best.
Cherry is a little grainier than Aspen or Maple but is very light in color. It will also darken with age but won't ever get as dark as the cherry furniture you see in stores unless you stain it. It's also quite a bit pricier but is still one of my favorite woods.
Teak is great because it is the most weatherproof wood there is. A longboard made of teak and mahogany could last a decade without ever being lacquered. Just make sure to apply teak oil when it starts to look gray.
Pine is the cheapest option and if you find a good lumberyard, you can get pine with very few knots that will look a lot like Aspen. Not my favorite wood in the world but it is very pliable (perhaps too pliable depending on how green it is) which will make for a nice smooth ride.
I also found some of the material properties of wood . The take-away from this PDF is that most hardwoods have similar material properties so it really becomes a matter of aesthetics. | I recommend Maple, Cherry, Teak or Pine (in that order).
EDIT: typo |
zem | When, halfway down the article, I read
"Dear visitors from google...", thought "how daft
Can people be?", then saw the comment thread,
I must admit, I laughed and laughed and laughed
[tldrverse]( | When, halfway down the article, I read
"Dear visitors from google...", thought "how daft
Can people be?", then saw the comment thread,
I must admit, I laughed and laughed and laughed
[tldrverse](
| technology | t5_2qh16 | c0keodh | When, halfway down the article, I read
"Dear visitors from google...", thought "how daft
Can people be?", then saw the comment thread,
I must admit, I laughed and laughed and laughed
[ | verse]( |
I_just_wanna_candy | believe it or not, deaf people do hear to music and I do like to read the lyrics and watch music videos. Also music do have a part of deaf culture.
tl:dr music is awesome | believe it or not, deaf people do hear to music and I do like to read the lyrics and watch music videos. Also music do have a part of deaf culture.
tl:dr music is awesome
| IAmA | t5_2qzb6 | c0kn6bd | believe it or not, deaf people do hear to music and I do like to read the lyrics and watch music videos. Also music do have a part of deaf culture. | music is awesome |
JeepTheBeep | Maybe it isn't the best example. I don't see how it is relevant whether the person can be rehabilitated or not. Also, I don't see how a victim's rights hold any weight when considering if the criminal should live. These aren't grey areas. The latter actually seems black and white, not to mention immature. If I understand what you're saying it's more or less revenge killing.
I can see how a person's positions might change if they switch from an idealistic point of view to a practical point of view. However, I don't think this switch is a result of getting older. I think it has more to do with the time spent thinking about the topic and the desire to promote change in that topic. The cynicism you speak of is a result of the realization that the idealistic approach is not effective in the real world, that no perfect system can exist. Additionally, I don't see this change to be towards conservatism, but rather towards a more moderate position. Idealistic conservatives and idealistic liberals must both become more moderate if they wish to get anything done.
Unfortunately, as you can probably see, not many people spend much time thinking and not many people have a strong desire to promote change. Instead, these people (both young and old) are close-minded, carrying underdeveloped opinions. They watch the news only to satisfy their already made up minds, and they don't really want things to change because then they wouldn't have anything to complain about. What they really want is a free ride through life. These same types of politicians are only looking to get re-elected. They stick to their immature, idealistic viewpoints and play point-the-finger against the opposing party in some ignorant attempt to take full control of the country. If only they would do a little more thinking, a little more cooperating, and have a little more desire to change the world, then things might actually get done.
tl;dr
You don't get more conservative when you get older, you become more practical and less idealistic the longer (and more seriously) you think about something. And a little ranting thrown in for good measure. | Maybe it isn't the best example. I don't see how it is relevant whether the person can be rehabilitated or not. Also, I don't see how a victim's rights hold any weight when considering if the criminal should live. These aren't grey areas. The latter actually seems black and white, not to mention immature. If I understand what you're saying it's more or less revenge killing.
I can see how a person's positions might change if they switch from an idealistic point of view to a practical point of view. However, I don't think this switch is a result of getting older. I think it has more to do with the time spent thinking about the topic and the desire to promote change in that topic. The cynicism you speak of is a result of the realization that the idealistic approach is not effective in the real world, that no perfect system can exist. Additionally, I don't see this change to be towards conservatism, but rather towards a more moderate position. Idealistic conservatives and idealistic liberals must both become more moderate if they wish to get anything done.
Unfortunately, as you can probably see, not many people spend much time thinking and not many people have a strong desire to promote change. Instead, these people (both young and old) are close-minded, carrying underdeveloped opinions. They watch the news only to satisfy their already made up minds, and they don't really want things to change because then they wouldn't have anything to complain about. What they really want is a free ride through life. These same types of politicians are only looking to get re-elected. They stick to their immature, idealistic viewpoints and play point-the-finger against the opposing party in some ignorant attempt to take full control of the country. If only they would do a little more thinking, a little more cooperating, and have a little more desire to change the world, then things might actually get done.
tl;dr
You don't get more conservative when you get older, you become more practical and less idealistic the longer (and more seriously) you think about something. And a little ranting thrown in for good measure.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0kty5w | Maybe it isn't the best example. I don't see how it is relevant whether the person can be rehabilitated or not. Also, I don't see how a victim's rights hold any weight when considering if the criminal should live. These aren't grey areas. The latter actually seems black and white, not to mention immature. If I understand what you're saying it's more or less revenge killing.
I can see how a person's positions might change if they switch from an idealistic point of view to a practical point of view. However, I don't think this switch is a result of getting older. I think it has more to do with the time spent thinking about the topic and the desire to promote change in that topic. The cynicism you speak of is a result of the realization that the idealistic approach is not effective in the real world, that no perfect system can exist. Additionally, I don't see this change to be towards conservatism, but rather towards a more moderate position. Idealistic conservatives and idealistic liberals must both become more moderate if they wish to get anything done.
Unfortunately, as you can probably see, not many people spend much time thinking and not many people have a strong desire to promote change. Instead, these people (both young and old) are close-minded, carrying underdeveloped opinions. They watch the news only to satisfy their already made up minds, and they don't really want things to change because then they wouldn't have anything to complain about. What they really want is a free ride through life. These same types of politicians are only looking to get re-elected. They stick to their immature, idealistic viewpoints and play point-the-finger against the opposing party in some ignorant attempt to take full control of the country. If only they would do a little more thinking, a little more cooperating, and have a little more desire to change the world, then things might actually get done. | You don't get more conservative when you get older, you become more practical and less idealistic the longer (and more seriously) you think about something. And a little ranting thrown in for good measure. |
SearchAtlantis | In a technical sense, he's right. Assuming the economy (gdp) grows quickly enough, our debt level shrinks - as a percentage of gdp. That said, our current debt, along with increasing entitlements are going to be like a pair of concrete shoes - unless we magically hit double digit growth rates like China.
tl;dr - You pay 50 a month on debt. When you're making 1,000 a month that's 5%. If you're paying 55 and making 5000 your percentage is 1.1%. | In a technical sense, he's right. Assuming the economy (gdp) grows quickly enough, our debt level shrinks - as a percentage of gdp. That said, our current debt, along with increasing entitlements are going to be like a pair of concrete shoes - unless we magically hit double digit growth rates like China.
tl;dr - You pay 50 a month on debt. When you're making 1,000 a month that's 5%. If you're paying 55 and making 5000 your percentage is 1.1%.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0ktzp5 | In a technical sense, he's right. Assuming the economy (gdp) grows quickly enough, our debt level shrinks - as a percentage of gdp. That said, our current debt, along with increasing entitlements are going to be like a pair of concrete shoes - unless we magically hit double digit growth rates like China. | You pay 50 a month on debt. When you're making 1,000 a month that's 5%. If you're paying 55 and making 5000 your percentage is 1.1%. |
sirkah | Was at one of my friend's parties. . and after a night of drinking, my girlfriend and I decide to go out to a park behind his house. Started making out and all that classy stuff, we got heated pretty fast and started trying to figure out the best positions for a park bench. We decided on doggy-style since it's the easiest and my favourite.. Anyways after awhile of banging away I noticed a biker coming down the path(mind you this is like 1:00ish) from a far, I had really good momentum and didn't want to give up on my girl when she was close to "O'ing" .. so I continue.. In my drunkeness I forgot the park pathway did a loop around the park and came right up beside the bench I was currently abusing. The biker (man in his 40's ) comes up behind us, slows down and tells me something about how its rare to see young love or something and fist bumps me and bikes off .. oh and also later that night, ended up banging her against my friends house before she went to sleep at her house .. man i miss summer!
tl;dr: banged my girlfriend on a park bench, got props for it | Was at one of my friend's parties. . and after a night of drinking, my girlfriend and I decide to go out to a park behind his house. Started making out and all that classy stuff, we got heated pretty fast and started trying to figure out the best positions for a park bench. We decided on doggy-style since it's the easiest and my favourite.. Anyways after awhile of banging away I noticed a biker coming down the path(mind you this is like 1:00ish) from a far, I had really good momentum and didn't want to give up on my girl when she was close to "O'ing" .. so I continue.. In my drunkeness I forgot the park pathway did a loop around the park and came right up beside the bench I was currently abusing. The biker (man in his 40's ) comes up behind us, slows down and tells me something about how its rare to see young love or something and fist bumps me and bikes off .. oh and also later that night, ended up banging her against my friends house before she went to sleep at her house .. man i miss summer!
tl;dr: banged my girlfriend on a park bench, got props for it
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0ku63p | Was at one of my friend's parties. . and after a night of drinking, my girlfriend and I decide to go out to a park behind his house. Started making out and all that classy stuff, we got heated pretty fast and started trying to figure out the best positions for a park bench. We decided on doggy-style since it's the easiest and my favourite.. Anyways after awhile of banging away I noticed a biker coming down the path(mind you this is like 1:00ish) from a far, I had really good momentum and didn't want to give up on my girl when she was close to "O'ing" .. so I continue.. In my drunkeness I forgot the park pathway did a loop around the park and came right up beside the bench I was currently abusing. The biker (man in his 40's ) comes up behind us, slows down and tells me something about how its rare to see young love or something and fist bumps me and bikes off .. oh and also later that night, ended up banging her against my friends house before she went to sleep at her house .. man i miss summer! | banged my girlfriend on a park bench, got props for it |
Paradoxataur | >Actually being legal has a lot to do with if it is right or wrong.
I didn't say anything contradictory to this.
The intent is for laws to be ethical. So they have a *lot* to do with right and wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't always work out. I just pointed out that in this situation their actions were not wrong. So the cop deserves no recognition for being nice. I didn't even say he was an asshole.
To illustrate my point here are some examples of laws failing to properly differentiate between right and wrong: The comment that started this. Teens who take photos of themselves naked and are registered as sex offenders for life. A $1.92 million dollar fine for file sharing 24 songs. Obscene pornography laws when everyone involved is a consenting adult and fully cognizant of what they are doing. The issue of Blackwater's immunity to questions regarding murder and rape. The Patriot Act.
I'm sure that just barely begins to cover the things that law gets wrong.
tl;dr: I think your reply is not relevant to mine; and some examples of laws doing a shitty job of getting the difference between right and wrong. | >Actually being legal has a lot to do with if it is right or wrong.
I didn't say anything contradictory to this.
The intent is for laws to be ethical. So they have a lot to do with right and wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't always work out. I just pointed out that in this situation their actions were not wrong. So the cop deserves no recognition for being nice. I didn't even say he was an asshole.
To illustrate my point here are some examples of laws failing to properly differentiate between right and wrong: The comment that started this. Teens who take photos of themselves naked and are registered as sex offenders for life. A $1.92 million dollar fine for file sharing 24 songs. Obscene pornography laws when everyone involved is a consenting adult and fully cognizant of what they are doing. The issue of Blackwater's immunity to questions regarding murder and rape. The Patriot Act.
I'm sure that just barely begins to cover the things that law gets wrong.
tl;dr: I think your reply is not relevant to mine; and some examples of laws doing a shitty job of getting the difference between right and wrong.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0kvb4a | Actually being legal has a lot to do with if it is right or wrong.
I didn't say anything contradictory to this.
The intent is for laws to be ethical. So they have a lot to do with right and wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't always work out. I just pointed out that in this situation their actions were not wrong. So the cop deserves no recognition for being nice. I didn't even say he was an asshole.
To illustrate my point here are some examples of laws failing to properly differentiate between right and wrong: The comment that started this. Teens who take photos of themselves naked and are registered as sex offenders for life. A $1.92 million dollar fine for file sharing 24 songs. Obscene pornography laws when everyone involved is a consenting adult and fully cognizant of what they are doing. The issue of Blackwater's immunity to questions regarding murder and rape. The Patriot Act.
I'm sure that just barely begins to cover the things that law gets wrong. | I think your reply is not relevant to mine; and some examples of laws doing a shitty job of getting the difference between right and wrong. |
kops | Why should there have to be a God for me to act morally? I think that's a fair question as well.
A more direct answer that I'm surprised nobody else has brought up is that it results from a combination of empathy and consequences. If I do something that I know hurts somebody else, even if there are no external consequences, I can't stop it from bothering me for a long time after. The consequences half should be self-explanatory.
tl;dr: empathy and consequences | Why should there have to be a God for me to act morally? I think that's a fair question as well.
A more direct answer that I'm surprised nobody else has brought up is that it results from a combination of empathy and consequences. If I do something that I know hurts somebody else, even if there are no external consequences, I can't stop it from bothering me for a long time after. The consequences half should be self-explanatory.
tl;dr: empathy and consequences
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0l8ctr | Why should there have to be a God for me to act morally? I think that's a fair question as well.
A more direct answer that I'm surprised nobody else has brought up is that it results from a combination of empathy and consequences. If I do something that I know hurts somebody else, even if there are no external consequences, I can't stop it from bothering me for a long time after. The consequences half should be self-explanatory. | empathy and consequences |
workbob | First: Thanks for asking. This is a really good question.
I'm gonna get academic on you, so hang in there.
1. Gradual change over time in individuals cause variation.
2. Variations create diversity.
3. As individuals compete for resources, they develop methodologies to promote maximum survivability.
4. Over long periods of time, groups of individuals develop mechanisms that promote the survivability of the group. Prides of lions, ants, tribes of people - if the group is thriving, so does the individuals belonging to the group.
Humans are complex and have developed a series of values allowing an individual to participate in multiple groups:
e.g. You are a redditor, a Christian, a (making it up here out) Democrat, Vegetarian, and a Strip Club enthusiast.
You have an affinity for those who are like you - thus your are more often than not, friendlier to those who are
redditors, Christians, Democrats... etc. And, in turn,less friendly to those who are Diggers (Farkers/Slashdotters/4channer),
non-Christian (Atheist, Islamic, JuJu of the Mountainneers...) - you've seen this behavior, and if you're human enough to
have demonstrated yourself, no matter how "good" you are.
With the advent of religion, humans have created a "group" that spans generations and creates diversity where
there was none before: Are you Catholic or Protestant? What kind of Protestant? And so forth. Using set theory, you have more
in common with other Christians sects than you do a Jewish person. However, you have more in common with a Jewish person than you do
a Hindu. And you have more in common with a Hindu than you do an Atheist. Thus, you are likely to be kinder to a fellow Christian
who attends your church than you are an Athiest whom you never met before. However, if you find that you and the Atheist are both Redditors,
that would incline you to like him/her more.
Each set holds a value of "likeness" for your identity - some call this a social or political identity - which you place values on, and *being kind to those who are like you, is deemed a morally good act.*
This gets crazier when you talk about Heresy ("Sure we're both Catholics, but I'm Orthodox and your Catharist, so die") and the definition of "being kind."
If a group values adherence to tradition, giving someone a gift during religious observance is a morally good act. Excellent example:
Christmas or Witnessing.
If a group values knowledge, criticizing someone and showing them a better way is a morally good act. Excellent examples: telling someone to RTFM or learn how to reason.
This boils down to we're moral because:
* we belong to cultures that value one sort of behavior over another, and as individuals, we get positive reinforcement exhibiting the behavior. We, being creatures of memory, internalize the behavior and reward ourselves (e.g. we make ourselves happy)
* because it helps our culture
* because it helps us individually and expands our "group" to more people
TLDR: An intersection between Darwinism, memetics, behavioral ethics and culture
| First: Thanks for asking. This is a really good question.
I'm gonna get academic on you, so hang in there.
Gradual change over time in individuals cause variation.
Variations create diversity.
As individuals compete for resources, they develop methodologies to promote maximum survivability.
Over long periods of time, groups of individuals develop mechanisms that promote the survivability of the group. Prides of lions, ants, tribes of people - if the group is thriving, so does the individuals belonging to the group.
Humans are complex and have developed a series of values allowing an individual to participate in multiple groups:
e.g. You are a redditor, a Christian, a (making it up here out) Democrat, Vegetarian, and a Strip Club enthusiast.
You have an affinity for those who are like you - thus your are more often than not, friendlier to those who are
redditors, Christians, Democrats... etc. And, in turn,less friendly to those who are Diggers (Farkers/Slashdotters/4channer),
non-Christian (Atheist, Islamic, JuJu of the Mountainneers...) - you've seen this behavior, and if you're human enough to
have demonstrated yourself, no matter how "good" you are.
With the advent of religion, humans have created a "group" that spans generations and creates diversity where
there was none before: Are you Catholic or Protestant? What kind of Protestant? And so forth. Using set theory, you have more
in common with other Christians sects than you do a Jewish person. However, you have more in common with a Jewish person than you do
a Hindu. And you have more in common with a Hindu than you do an Atheist. Thus, you are likely to be kinder to a fellow Christian
who attends your church than you are an Athiest whom you never met before. However, if you find that you and the Atheist are both Redditors,
that would incline you to like him/her more.
Each set holds a value of "likeness" for your identity - some call this a social or political identity - which you place values on, and being kind to those who are like you, is deemed a morally good act.
This gets crazier when you talk about Heresy ("Sure we're both Catholics, but I'm Orthodox and your Catharist, so die") and the definition of "being kind."
If a group values adherence to tradition, giving someone a gift during religious observance is a morally good act. Excellent example:
Christmas or Witnessing.
If a group values knowledge, criticizing someone and showing them a better way is a morally good act. Excellent examples: telling someone to RTFM or learn how to reason.
This boils down to we're moral because:
we belong to cultures that value one sort of behavior over another, and as individuals, we get positive reinforcement exhibiting the behavior. We, being creatures of memory, internalize the behavior and reward ourselves (e.g. we make ourselves happy)
because it helps our culture
because it helps us individually and expands our "group" to more people
TLDR: An intersection between Darwinism, memetics, behavioral ethics and culture
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0l8zx3 | First: Thanks for asking. This is a really good question.
I'm gonna get academic on you, so hang in there.
Gradual change over time in individuals cause variation.
Variations create diversity.
As individuals compete for resources, they develop methodologies to promote maximum survivability.
Over long periods of time, groups of individuals develop mechanisms that promote the survivability of the group. Prides of lions, ants, tribes of people - if the group is thriving, so does the individuals belonging to the group.
Humans are complex and have developed a series of values allowing an individual to participate in multiple groups:
e.g. You are a redditor, a Christian, a (making it up here out) Democrat, Vegetarian, and a Strip Club enthusiast.
You have an affinity for those who are like you - thus your are more often than not, friendlier to those who are
redditors, Christians, Democrats... etc. And, in turn,less friendly to those who are Diggers (Farkers/Slashdotters/4channer),
non-Christian (Atheist, Islamic, JuJu of the Mountainneers...) - you've seen this behavior, and if you're human enough to
have demonstrated yourself, no matter how "good" you are.
With the advent of religion, humans have created a "group" that spans generations and creates diversity where
there was none before: Are you Catholic or Protestant? What kind of Protestant? And so forth. Using set theory, you have more
in common with other Christians sects than you do a Jewish person. However, you have more in common with a Jewish person than you do
a Hindu. And you have more in common with a Hindu than you do an Atheist. Thus, you are likely to be kinder to a fellow Christian
who attends your church than you are an Athiest whom you never met before. However, if you find that you and the Atheist are both Redditors,
that would incline you to like him/her more.
Each set holds a value of "likeness" for your identity - some call this a social or political identity - which you place values on, and being kind to those who are like you, is deemed a morally good act.
This gets crazier when you talk about Heresy ("Sure we're both Catholics, but I'm Orthodox and your Catharist, so die") and the definition of "being kind."
If a group values adherence to tradition, giving someone a gift during religious observance is a morally good act. Excellent example:
Christmas or Witnessing.
If a group values knowledge, criticizing someone and showing them a better way is a morally good act. Excellent examples: telling someone to RTFM or learn how to reason.
This boils down to we're moral because:
we belong to cultures that value one sort of behavior over another, and as individuals, we get positive reinforcement exhibiting the behavior. We, being creatures of memory, internalize the behavior and reward ourselves (e.g. we make ourselves happy)
because it helps our culture
because it helps us individually and expands our "group" to more people | An intersection between Darwinism, memetics, behavioral ethics and culture |
oinyo | having my cat of 22 years put down because as much as she cuddled me she would be in pain all the time. One day she could not get up and laid down there licking my hand as I picked her up and hugged her for 45 min crying. I knew what i had to do but it was the hardest most disgusting day of my life.
It had been about a year now and I still have rows of nights where I remember me in the waiting room listning to her cries as they put her down.
Directly after the cries stopped i walked into the room and saw her blinking slowly, Kissed her on the forehead and said goodbye my sweety.
I am 28 and have had this cat since I was 6. I do not rememer life before her and life is not the same without her. It feels like i lost a sister.
Tldr: I lost my cat I had all my life through college and my work life about a year ago and feel a massive hole inside of me.
Edit. Here is one of the last pictures I have of me with her.
I think this was 8 months before she passed on | having my cat of 22 years put down because as much as she cuddled me she would be in pain all the time. One day she could not get up and laid down there licking my hand as I picked her up and hugged her for 45 min crying. I knew what i had to do but it was the hardest most disgusting day of my life.
It had been about a year now and I still have rows of nights where I remember me in the waiting room listning to her cries as they put her down.
Directly after the cries stopped i walked into the room and saw her blinking slowly, Kissed her on the forehead and said goodbye my sweety.
I am 28 and have had this cat since I was 6. I do not rememer life before her and life is not the same without her. It feels like i lost a sister.
Tldr: I lost my cat I had all my life through college and my work life about a year ago and feel a massive hole inside of me.
Edit. Here is one of the last pictures I have of me with her.
I think this was 8 months before she passed on
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0l8ozq | having my cat of 22 years put down because as much as she cuddled me she would be in pain all the time. One day she could not get up and laid down there licking my hand as I picked her up and hugged her for 45 min crying. I knew what i had to do but it was the hardest most disgusting day of my life.
It had been about a year now and I still have rows of nights where I remember me in the waiting room listning to her cries as they put her down.
Directly after the cries stopped i walked into the room and saw her blinking slowly, Kissed her on the forehead and said goodbye my sweety.
I am 28 and have had this cat since I was 6. I do not rememer life before her and life is not the same without her. It feels like i lost a sister. | I lost my cat I had all my life through college and my work life about a year ago and feel a massive hole inside of me.
Edit. Here is one of the last pictures I have of me with her.
I think this was 8 months before she passed on |
StarsAndStuff | When I was 12 years old, I was stuck alone in the car with my parents as they drove around in a torrential downpour. There was an absolutely insane amount of tension between the two of them. I didn't know what was going on, but I remember just feeling this thick uneasiness in the air.
Out of no where, my dad pulls into a parking lot of a local community college - I think because the rain had gotten to be so bad that he couldn't really see the road anymore. As the three of us sit there in the car and wait for the storm to pass, my parents decide to tell me that my mom is pregnant.
They then proceed to tell me that my dad wants my mom to get an abortion and that my mom doesn't want to. My dad starts talking about how little he sees his family and how a third child will mean he sees us even less. He starts to cry, and I'd never seen him cry before. My mom starts crying about how she's always wanted a daughter and feels like this is her last chance.
Then they turned to me, at age 12, and asked me to be the tie breaking vote. I had to make the decision of whether or not my mom would get an abortion.
I cried. They argued. In the end, I sided with my dad. I missed my dad. He worked a lot. I didn't want to see him less than I already did. My siding with my dad made my mom cry like crazy. Everyone in the car was devastated. Everyone yelled and cried for a while. Eventually the storm passed and we drove home in silence. A few days later, my parents pulled me aside and told me that they'd decided to keep the baby. I was so emotionally torn. I felt guilty, angry, etc. They assured me that everything was going to be okay. Nine months later, my sister was born. I've only ever told my wife this story. No one else knows.
**tl;dr** My parents made me at the age of 12 the tie-breaking vote as to whether my mom would abort my sister or not. | When I was 12 years old, I was stuck alone in the car with my parents as they drove around in a torrential downpour. There was an absolutely insane amount of tension between the two of them. I didn't know what was going on, but I remember just feeling this thick uneasiness in the air.
Out of no where, my dad pulls into a parking lot of a local community college - I think because the rain had gotten to be so bad that he couldn't really see the road anymore. As the three of us sit there in the car and wait for the storm to pass, my parents decide to tell me that my mom is pregnant.
They then proceed to tell me that my dad wants my mom to get an abortion and that my mom doesn't want to. My dad starts talking about how little he sees his family and how a third child will mean he sees us even less. He starts to cry, and I'd never seen him cry before. My mom starts crying about how she's always wanted a daughter and feels like this is her last chance.
Then they turned to me, at age 12, and asked me to be the tie breaking vote. I had to make the decision of whether or not my mom would get an abortion.
I cried. They argued. In the end, I sided with my dad. I missed my dad. He worked a lot. I didn't want to see him less than I already did. My siding with my dad made my mom cry like crazy. Everyone in the car was devastated. Everyone yelled and cried for a while. Eventually the storm passed and we drove home in silence. A few days later, my parents pulled me aside and told me that they'd decided to keep the baby. I was so emotionally torn. I felt guilty, angry, etc. They assured me that everything was going to be okay. Nine months later, my sister was born. I've only ever told my wife this story. No one else knows.
tl;dr My parents made me at the age of 12 the tie-breaking vote as to whether my mom would abort my sister or not.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0l9x5j | When I was 12 years old, I was stuck alone in the car with my parents as they drove around in a torrential downpour. There was an absolutely insane amount of tension between the two of them. I didn't know what was going on, but I remember just feeling this thick uneasiness in the air.
Out of no where, my dad pulls into a parking lot of a local community college - I think because the rain had gotten to be so bad that he couldn't really see the road anymore. As the three of us sit there in the car and wait for the storm to pass, my parents decide to tell me that my mom is pregnant.
They then proceed to tell me that my dad wants my mom to get an abortion and that my mom doesn't want to. My dad starts talking about how little he sees his family and how a third child will mean he sees us even less. He starts to cry, and I'd never seen him cry before. My mom starts crying about how she's always wanted a daughter and feels like this is her last chance.
Then they turned to me, at age 12, and asked me to be the tie breaking vote. I had to make the decision of whether or not my mom would get an abortion.
I cried. They argued. In the end, I sided with my dad. I missed my dad. He worked a lot. I didn't want to see him less than I already did. My siding with my dad made my mom cry like crazy. Everyone in the car was devastated. Everyone yelled and cried for a while. Eventually the storm passed and we drove home in silence. A few days later, my parents pulled me aside and told me that they'd decided to keep the baby. I was so emotionally torn. I felt guilty, angry, etc. They assured me that everything was going to be okay. Nine months later, my sister was born. I've only ever told my wife this story. No one else knows. | My parents made me at the age of 12 the tie-breaking vote as to whether my mom would abort my sister or not. |
Ewalk | To go to Moscow to be with my dying fiancee or not. She was visiting her father when she collapsed, and an MRI discovered a tumor that they had to operate on. While they were operating, someone nicked a blood vessel that caused her to bleed out in about ~30hrs. I was informed a few hours into this, and given the option to fly out there. This was the first day of my dream job at a little startup here in Memphis. After talking to my new boss, and informing him of the situation, he told me to go, but that I might not have a job there anymore. After talking to her parents, who didn't like me, I decided to take the job and fly over on the weekend for memorial services. They decided to have the memorial on weds (I started on a monday) and not tell me. The business decided that they hired too many network engineers, and I had to go about a month later. I still regret not taking the flight. 3 years have passed.
TL;DR - Girlfriend had surgery on other side of the world, decided to work. Parents fucked me over, then job did. | To go to Moscow to be with my dying fiancee or not. She was visiting her father when she collapsed, and an MRI discovered a tumor that they had to operate on. While they were operating, someone nicked a blood vessel that caused her to bleed out in about ~30hrs. I was informed a few hours into this, and given the option to fly out there. This was the first day of my dream job at a little startup here in Memphis. After talking to my new boss, and informing him of the situation, he told me to go, but that I might not have a job there anymore. After talking to her parents, who didn't like me, I decided to take the job and fly over on the weekend for memorial services. They decided to have the memorial on weds (I started on a monday) and not tell me. The business decided that they hired too many network engineers, and I had to go about a month later. I still regret not taking the flight. 3 years have passed.
TL;DR - Girlfriend had surgery on other side of the world, decided to work. Parents fucked me over, then job did.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0l9xop | To go to Moscow to be with my dying fiancee or not. She was visiting her father when she collapsed, and an MRI discovered a tumor that they had to operate on. While they were operating, someone nicked a blood vessel that caused her to bleed out in about ~30hrs. I was informed a few hours into this, and given the option to fly out there. This was the first day of my dream job at a little startup here in Memphis. After talking to my new boss, and informing him of the situation, he told me to go, but that I might not have a job there anymore. After talking to her parents, who didn't like me, I decided to take the job and fly over on the weekend for memorial services. They decided to have the memorial on weds (I started on a monday) and not tell me. The business decided that they hired too many network engineers, and I had to go about a month later. I still regret not taking the flight. 3 years have passed. | Girlfriend had surgery on other side of the world, decided to work. Parents fucked me over, then job did. |
rumpledforeskin | It was one of the most vivid dreams I ever recall having. I was strapped to a bed with thorny vines, I could hear screams from other rooms and the heat was unbearable. I struggled against the restraints but they just dug in deeper. Thats when the pain and hopelessness finally got to me and I, for lack of a better word "prayed" for help. And this whisper of a voice said very gently "Get up" and the vines were gone. I walked out of the room and found myself in a hosptial ward. I could see other people in their own personal hells but I just got the heck out of there and soon found myself on a mountain road and the coolness of the stones beneath my feet felt so good. Each step away from the hosptial made me feel better. When I woke up I felt great as if I had experienced something divine. I have mulled over what happened that night many times. Did it make me believe in a Zeusified sky god? no...it didnt. Thats too simple for a Universe so complex. I'm content to still stand in awe of how little I am compared to what happens across the cosmos and know that the Universe ultimately shapes my reality and not the other way around
TL;DR- im an agnostic who had a dream where God spoke to me-what did that do to me? made me even more confused but I am content to be mystified. | It was one of the most vivid dreams I ever recall having. I was strapped to a bed with thorny vines, I could hear screams from other rooms and the heat was unbearable. I struggled against the restraints but they just dug in deeper. Thats when the pain and hopelessness finally got to me and I, for lack of a better word "prayed" for help. And this whisper of a voice said very gently "Get up" and the vines were gone. I walked out of the room and found myself in a hosptial ward. I could see other people in their own personal hells but I just got the heck out of there and soon found myself on a mountain road and the coolness of the stones beneath my feet felt so good. Each step away from the hosptial made me feel better. When I woke up I felt great as if I had experienced something divine. I have mulled over what happened that night many times. Did it make me believe in a Zeusified sky god? no...it didnt. Thats too simple for a Universe so complex. I'm content to still stand in awe of how little I am compared to what happens across the cosmos and know that the Universe ultimately shapes my reality and not the other way around
TL;DR- im an agnostic who had a dream where God spoke to me-what did that do to me? made me even more confused but I am content to be mystified.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0l969o | It was one of the most vivid dreams I ever recall having. I was strapped to a bed with thorny vines, I could hear screams from other rooms and the heat was unbearable. I struggled against the restraints but they just dug in deeper. Thats when the pain and hopelessness finally got to me and I, for lack of a better word "prayed" for help. And this whisper of a voice said very gently "Get up" and the vines were gone. I walked out of the room and found myself in a hosptial ward. I could see other people in their own personal hells but I just got the heck out of there and soon found myself on a mountain road and the coolness of the stones beneath my feet felt so good. Each step away from the hosptial made me feel better. When I woke up I felt great as if I had experienced something divine. I have mulled over what happened that night many times. Did it make me believe in a Zeusified sky god? no...it didnt. Thats too simple for a Universe so complex. I'm content to still stand in awe of how little I am compared to what happens across the cosmos and know that the Universe ultimately shapes my reality and not the other way around | im an agnostic who had a dream where God spoke to me-what did that do to me? made me even more confused but I am content to be mystified. |
darwin2500 | Man, I've been loving this particular strawman for over a decade now. Thanks for breaking out the classics.
The reality is that Reddit is a business. The owners get paid because the users keep coming back to the site. Having users bitch and moan is not a problem for the admins - this isn't their personal blog, they're not mopy teenagers who are gonna cut themselves when they see how mean people are being to them on the interwebs.
The problem for the admins is when users stop visiting Reddit altogether because of constant technical problems, or fishy administrative decisions about deleting threads, or too many spammers, or etc. They would much rather have us bitch about these things on the front page, create giant threads about them that keep thousands of posters and tens of thousands of readers engaged and on the site, and provide catharsis and a public forum to address the issues.
tl;dr: Reddit is a business, they'd rather have us complain than have us leave. | Man, I've been loving this particular strawman for over a decade now. Thanks for breaking out the classics.
The reality is that Reddit is a business. The owners get paid because the users keep coming back to the site. Having users bitch and moan is not a problem for the admins - this isn't their personal blog, they're not mopy teenagers who are gonna cut themselves when they see how mean people are being to them on the interwebs.
The problem for the admins is when users stop visiting Reddit altogether because of constant technical problems, or fishy administrative decisions about deleting threads, or too many spammers, or etc. They would much rather have us bitch about these things on the front page, create giant threads about them that keep thousands of posters and tens of thousands of readers engaged and on the site, and provide catharsis and a public forum to address the issues.
tl;dr: Reddit is a business, they'd rather have us complain than have us leave.
| reddit.com | t5_6 | c0lcp4k | Man, I've been loving this particular strawman for over a decade now. Thanks for breaking out the classics.
The reality is that Reddit is a business. The owners get paid because the users keep coming back to the site. Having users bitch and moan is not a problem for the admins - this isn't their personal blog, they're not mopy teenagers who are gonna cut themselves when they see how mean people are being to them on the interwebs.
The problem for the admins is when users stop visiting Reddit altogether because of constant technical problems, or fishy administrative decisions about deleting threads, or too many spammers, or etc. They would much rather have us bitch about these things on the front page, create giant threads about them that keep thousands of posters and tens of thousands of readers engaged and on the site, and provide catharsis and a public forum to address the issues. | Reddit is a business, they'd rather have us complain than have us leave. |
Shaper_pmp | Like Apple, Sony are a company who frequently have ideas and products revolutionary enough to create and dominate entirely new markets which never before existed... only - again like Apple - they can't let go of their paranoid, white-knuckled death-grip on them enough to see them flourish.
Time and again they're like a parent who gives birth to a beautiful baby, but who keeps such a tight grip on them that they end up strangling them in the crib (or at least, the kids end up as stunted dwarfs from the lack of space to grow).
The only difference is that Apple is *happiest* being a luxury/niche player - it's aiming to fulfil the "dead baby/dwarf niche" in technology. Sony thinks it's a market leader - it's churning out dwarfs and dead babies, but it's *trying* to produce basketball players. Dwarfs have no trouble finding work in dwarf-friendly niches, but rarely get jobs as professional basketball players.
Increasingly people are learning that "vendor-lockin" is a dirty word, and proprietary systems and formats are going the way of the dinosaur in favouer of open, interoperable systems, protocols and formats.
Increasingly the way to be successful these days is to exercise soft control and influence over an open platform - look at Microsoft/Windows, Google/Android, Philips/CDs and the like.
TL;DR: Sony and Apple can't relax their death-grip enough to let other kids play in their sand-box, so they're limited to producing the technological equivalent of dwarfs and dead babies.
Apple's happy with that and all their business activity is based around it. Sony wants their systems and formats to be mainstream or de-facto standards, but they're incapable of letting go enough for it to happen. | Like Apple, Sony are a company who frequently have ideas and products revolutionary enough to create and dominate entirely new markets which never before existed... only - again like Apple - they can't let go of their paranoid, white-knuckled death-grip on them enough to see them flourish.
Time and again they're like a parent who gives birth to a beautiful baby, but who keeps such a tight grip on them that they end up strangling them in the crib (or at least, the kids end up as stunted dwarfs from the lack of space to grow).
The only difference is that Apple is happiest being a luxury/niche player - it's aiming to fulfil the "dead baby/dwarf niche" in technology. Sony thinks it's a market leader - it's churning out dwarfs and dead babies, but it's trying to produce basketball players. Dwarfs have no trouble finding work in dwarf-friendly niches, but rarely get jobs as professional basketball players.
Increasingly people are learning that "vendor-lockin" is a dirty word, and proprietary systems and formats are going the way of the dinosaur in favouer of open, interoperable systems, protocols and formats.
Increasingly the way to be successful these days is to exercise soft control and influence over an open platform - look at Microsoft/Windows, Google/Android, Philips/CDs and the like.
TL;DR: Sony and Apple can't relax their death-grip enough to let other kids play in their sand-box, so they're limited to producing the technological equivalent of dwarfs and dead babies.
Apple's happy with that and all their business activity is based around it. Sony wants their systems and formats to be mainstream or de-facto standards, but they're incapable of letting go enough for it to happen.
| geek | t5_2qh17 | c0lkthg | Like Apple, Sony are a company who frequently have ideas and products revolutionary enough to create and dominate entirely new markets which never before existed... only - again like Apple - they can't let go of their paranoid, white-knuckled death-grip on them enough to see them flourish.
Time and again they're like a parent who gives birth to a beautiful baby, but who keeps such a tight grip on them that they end up strangling them in the crib (or at least, the kids end up as stunted dwarfs from the lack of space to grow).
The only difference is that Apple is happiest being a luxury/niche player - it's aiming to fulfil the "dead baby/dwarf niche" in technology. Sony thinks it's a market leader - it's churning out dwarfs and dead babies, but it's trying to produce basketball players. Dwarfs have no trouble finding work in dwarf-friendly niches, but rarely get jobs as professional basketball players.
Increasingly people are learning that "vendor-lockin" is a dirty word, and proprietary systems and formats are going the way of the dinosaur in favouer of open, interoperable systems, protocols and formats.
Increasingly the way to be successful these days is to exercise soft control and influence over an open platform - look at Microsoft/Windows, Google/Android, Philips/CDs and the like. | Sony and Apple can't relax their death-grip enough to let other kids play in their sand-box, so they're limited to producing the technological equivalent of dwarfs and dead babies.
Apple's happy with that and all their business activity is based around it. Sony wants their systems and formats to be mainstream or de-facto standards, but they're incapable of letting go enough for it to happen. |
Wo1ke | My dad had an old eReader from them, one of the first, non-touch screen products that just worked. It was brilliant. Small, light, solid. My mom got one of their newer ones, a touch screen one. She could barely see the text. Contrast was pathetic, and the touch screen added a lot of glare.
tl;dr New Sony eReaders suck. | My dad had an old eReader from them, one of the first, non-touch screen products that just worked. It was brilliant. Small, light, solid. My mom got one of their newer ones, a touch screen one. She could barely see the text. Contrast was pathetic, and the touch screen added a lot of glare.
tl;dr New Sony eReaders suck.
| geek | t5_2qh17 | c0ll1zp | My dad had an old eReader from them, one of the first, non-touch screen products that just worked. It was brilliant. Small, light, solid. My mom got one of their newer ones, a touch screen one. She could barely see the text. Contrast was pathetic, and the touch screen added a lot of glare. | New Sony eReaders suck. |
moozilla | >[mock](
>1. An imitation, usually with the connotation that it's one of lesser quality.
I'm not sure you intended the word mock this way, but I'm not sure there is really any other way you could intend it. I'll forget about the connotation of lower quality and assume you are just ridiculing them.
Mockery or ridicule is basically asserting your correctness with a superiority complex. Someone who isn't emotionally invested in being superior would simply politely tell the other person that they are incorrect and explain their reasoning. There is absolutely no reason to be rude (for that's exactly what mockery is) other than to inflate your own ego.
And don't even try to rationalize this by saying "well they are rude to us;" that is the same "eye-for-an-eye" archaic morality that atheists claim to condemn.
A parallel might be how one talks to women. It isn't intolerant to recognize the fact that women are overall physically weaker than men, but if you mocked every woman you saw for being weak you would be called an intolerant asshole.
**tl;dr**: I'm not sure that mocking is "intolerance," but it is definitely rude and brings you down to the same level of hypocritical blabbering that you claim to be better than.
(Also, disclaimer: I am not religious, please do not take this as an us vs. them argument) | >[mock](
>1. An imitation, usually with the connotation that it's one of lesser quality.
I'm not sure you intended the word mock this way, but I'm not sure there is really any other way you could intend it. I'll forget about the connotation of lower quality and assume you are just ridiculing them.
Mockery or ridicule is basically asserting your correctness with a superiority complex. Someone who isn't emotionally invested in being superior would simply politely tell the other person that they are incorrect and explain their reasoning. There is absolutely no reason to be rude (for that's exactly what mockery is) other than to inflate your own ego.
And don't even try to rationalize this by saying "well they are rude to us;" that is the same "eye-for-an-eye" archaic morality that atheists claim to condemn.
A parallel might be how one talks to women. It isn't intolerant to recognize the fact that women are overall physically weaker than men, but if you mocked every woman you saw for being weak you would be called an intolerant asshole.
tl;dr : I'm not sure that mocking is "intolerance," but it is definitely rude and brings you down to the same level of hypocritical blabbering that you claim to be better than.
(Also, disclaimer: I am not religious, please do not take this as an us vs. them argument)
| atheism | t5_2qh2p | c0m7hzc | mock](
>1. An imitation, usually with the connotation that it's one of lesser quality.
I'm not sure you intended the word mock this way, but I'm not sure there is really any other way you could intend it. I'll forget about the connotation of lower quality and assume you are just ridiculing them.
Mockery or ridicule is basically asserting your correctness with a superiority complex. Someone who isn't emotionally invested in being superior would simply politely tell the other person that they are incorrect and explain their reasoning. There is absolutely no reason to be rude (for that's exactly what mockery is) other than to inflate your own ego.
And don't even try to rationalize this by saying "well they are rude to us;" that is the same "eye-for-an-eye" archaic morality that atheists claim to condemn.
A parallel might be how one talks to women. It isn't intolerant to recognize the fact that women are overall physically weaker than men, but if you mocked every woman you saw for being weak you would be called an intolerant asshole. | I'm not sure that mocking is "intolerance," but it is definitely rude and brings you down to the same level of hypocritical blabbering that you claim to be better than.
(Also, disclaimer: I am not religious, please do not take this as an us vs. them argument) |
greendude | Like kevingoodsell, I disagree.
To be honest, I don't think we should be sending away "noobs" and asking people to always rely on Google. The very point of social sites such as this is to get discussions going and ask questions of this type. You often want to hear other ppl's specific opinions rather than feature lists off Google.
I'm also getting pretty tired of some Linuxers' treatment of beginners. It's becoming more and more like "Hey noob, don't bother us with your dumb questions, go learn to use google."
As an at least intermediate Linuxer, I think we should be encouraging and helping new ppl (everyone is a noob at one point). Questions like what distro should I use are fair questions anyone would have for the first time (and probably again) and should have as well IMO, so I think we should not shun them.
tl;dr: We have to stop treating "noobs" so poorly. The community is here to help, not to forward you to Google. And besides, only noobs do not ask such questions.
EDIT: Multiple typos | Like kevingoodsell, I disagree.
To be honest, I don't think we should be sending away "noobs" and asking people to always rely on Google. The very point of social sites such as this is to get discussions going and ask questions of this type. You often want to hear other ppl's specific opinions rather than feature lists off Google.
I'm also getting pretty tired of some Linuxers' treatment of beginners. It's becoming more and more like "Hey noob, don't bother us with your dumb questions, go learn to use google."
As an at least intermediate Linuxer, I think we should be encouraging and helping new ppl (everyone is a noob at one point). Questions like what distro should I use are fair questions anyone would have for the first time (and probably again) and should have as well IMO, so I think we should not shun them.
tl;dr: We have to stop treating "noobs" so poorly. The community is here to help, not to forward you to Google. And besides, only noobs do not ask such questions.
EDIT: Multiple typos
| linux | t5_2qh1a | c0mkrxr | Like kevingoodsell, I disagree.
To be honest, I don't think we should be sending away "noobs" and asking people to always rely on Google. The very point of social sites such as this is to get discussions going and ask questions of this type. You often want to hear other ppl's specific opinions rather than feature lists off Google.
I'm also getting pretty tired of some Linuxers' treatment of beginners. It's becoming more and more like "Hey noob, don't bother us with your dumb questions, go learn to use google."
As an at least intermediate Linuxer, I think we should be encouraging and helping new ppl (everyone is a noob at one point). Questions like what distro should I use are fair questions anyone would have for the first time (and probably again) and should have as well IMO, so I think we should not shun them. | We have to stop treating "noobs" so poorly. The community is here to help, not to forward you to Google. And besides, only noobs do not ask such questions.
EDIT: Multiple typos |
Not_Joking | OK MrLOL87, I'll bite. I do believe you are trolling, but for the sake of argument I'll go with it and respond to your plea,
>HELP ME REDDIT
>PLEASE!
>I FEEL LIKE I'M ABOUT TO FLIP AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL EVER BE ABLE TO COME BACK!
I also paid Compuserve. My 1200 baud modem was an upgrade. I'm sorry you haven't got the low-down sooner. Here it is, a quick fix for your existential malaise...
1. Buy a nice piece. I like the Glock model 22, .40. Buy the most comfortable carry system you can find, get permits in all the states you care to travel in. Carry spare clips. Take lessons. Practice.
2. Maintain your long-held belief that labels do not universally apply. A black man mugged you. So what. All black men are not thieves. All white men are not banksters. All cops are not thugs. All doctors are not golfers. Every individual person deserves a chance to be an individual person.
3. Never again forget rules one and two. Anyone can rob you, in a multitude of ways. Don't relax your guard for a black man, white man, cop, banker, doctor or golfer. IMHO, a great failing of "liberalism" (to use your self applied terminology) is the failure to address immediate animal reality.
**TLDR : **Your wish for vengeance will be best served if you hold on to your ideals, but be ready to deal out a devastating blow the next time anyone tries to force a compromise.
*Addendum :* If your thirst for vengeance is not slaked by constant training and vigilance, try actual vengeance. It's unlikely that you will ever find that particular guy, but the world is full of screwheads. Shouldn't be hard to find one. | OK MrLOL87, I'll bite. I do believe you are trolling, but for the sake of argument I'll go with it and respond to your plea,
>HELP ME REDDIT
>PLEASE!
>I FEEL LIKE I'M ABOUT TO FLIP AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL EVER BE ABLE TO COME BACK!
I also paid Compuserve. My 1200 baud modem was an upgrade. I'm sorry you haven't got the low-down sooner. Here it is, a quick fix for your existential malaise...
Buy a nice piece. I like the Glock model 22, .40. Buy the most comfortable carry system you can find, get permits in all the states you care to travel in. Carry spare clips. Take lessons. Practice.
Maintain your long-held belief that labels do not universally apply. A black man mugged you. So what. All black men are not thieves. All white men are not banksters. All cops are not thugs. All doctors are not golfers. Every individual person deserves a chance to be an individual person.
Never again forget rules one and two. Anyone can rob you, in a multitude of ways. Don't relax your guard for a black man, white man, cop, banker, doctor or golfer. IMHO, a great failing of "liberalism" (to use your self applied terminology) is the failure to address immediate animal reality.
TLDR : Your wish for vengeance will be best served if you hold on to your ideals, but be ready to deal out a devastating blow the next time anyone tries to force a compromise.
Addendum : If your thirst for vengeance is not slaked by constant training and vigilance, try actual vengeance. It's unlikely that you will ever find that particular guy, but the world is full of screwheads. Shouldn't be hard to find one.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0mpm7m | OK MrLOL87, I'll bite. I do believe you are trolling, but for the sake of argument I'll go with it and respond to your plea,
>HELP ME REDDIT
>PLEASE!
>I FEEL LIKE I'M ABOUT TO FLIP AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL EVER BE ABLE TO COME BACK!
I also paid Compuserve. My 1200 baud modem was an upgrade. I'm sorry you haven't got the low-down sooner. Here it is, a quick fix for your existential malaise...
Buy a nice piece. I like the Glock model 22, .40. Buy the most comfortable carry system you can find, get permits in all the states you care to travel in. Carry spare clips. Take lessons. Practice.
Maintain your long-held belief that labels do not universally apply. A black man mugged you. So what. All black men are not thieves. All white men are not banksters. All cops are not thugs. All doctors are not golfers. Every individual person deserves a chance to be an individual person.
Never again forget rules one and two. Anyone can rob you, in a multitude of ways. Don't relax your guard for a black man, white man, cop, banker, doctor or golfer. IMHO, a great failing of "liberalism" (to use your self applied terminology) is the failure to address immediate animal reality. | Your wish for vengeance will be best served if you hold on to your ideals, but be ready to deal out a devastating blow the next time anyone tries to force a compromise.
Addendum : If your thirst for vengeance is not slaked by constant training and vigilance, try actual vengeance. It's unlikely that you will ever find that particular guy, but the world is full of screwheads. Shouldn't be hard to find one. |
tropicalpizza | A while back and friend and I made a slightly more elaborate one out of a coffee thermos and it turned out to be one of the most rewarding highs, plus it was cheap. I still remember the schematics so i'll lay it out for you:
First we took a trip around the corner to the 99 cent store and bought all the supplies costing around of total of 7 bucks. These included a thermos, two bags of small marbles, a soldering iron, a small glass cup (somewhere between the size of a normal cup and a shot class) to fit snug over the top of the thermos, a small piece of metal that will be the bowl, and some rubber tubing (you wont need more than half a foot).
Now on to the assembly. We took the thermos and cut two holes in the removable top. One in the center to fit the soldering iron and another more to the side to fit the the tubing. Next we drilled two holes in the side of the thermos, one at the bottom to fit the wire of the soldering iron and the other closer to the top for the tubing to fit through as well. We then cut the wire separating the iron from the plug and fed it through the hole. With a separate soldering iron we reattached the wire to the plug. Now the soldering iron was sitting upright in the center of the thermos. We then placed the tubing through the second hole in the side and this is where the marbles came in. We poured them around the iron in order to hold it upright and proceeded to place the top back on. The tip of the iron and the other end of the tube were now sticking through the two holes in the top that we made before. This is where is got a little tricky for us. We didn't have a good metal bowl that could be screwed into the top of the iron so we had to make do with a piece of a soda can. Hopefully you will be able to do better. The easiest thing to do to attach this piece is use the screw that comes with the soldering iron because it should fit snug in the hole in the top once you remove the iron tip itself. We were also missing this screw for reasons I cannot remember so we searched around the house for one that fit. We then unscrewed the iron tip and screwed in our hand shaped tin bowl to the top of the iron. Once this is done all you need to do is pack a bowl of your favorite indica, sativa, or hybrid thereof (I happen to be a fan of quality kushes and hazes), place the glass over the top, plug it in, and enjoy.
The important thing to remember is that once you see the foggy vapors start to fill the glass immediately unplug it so that you don't end up burning the bud all too quickly. Once it is nice a full with a thin white smoke put your mouth of the exposed end of the tube and pull away.
tl;dr: don't be a dick and just read it. :) its worth it (homemade quality vape for under 10 dollars) | A while back and friend and I made a slightly more elaborate one out of a coffee thermos and it turned out to be one of the most rewarding highs, plus it was cheap. I still remember the schematics so i'll lay it out for you:
First we took a trip around the corner to the 99 cent store and bought all the supplies costing around of total of 7 bucks. These included a thermos, two bags of small marbles, a soldering iron, a small glass cup (somewhere between the size of a normal cup and a shot class) to fit snug over the top of the thermos, a small piece of metal that will be the bowl, and some rubber tubing (you wont need more than half a foot).
Now on to the assembly. We took the thermos and cut two holes in the removable top. One in the center to fit the soldering iron and another more to the side to fit the the tubing. Next we drilled two holes in the side of the thermos, one at the bottom to fit the wire of the soldering iron and the other closer to the top for the tubing to fit through as well. We then cut the wire separating the iron from the plug and fed it through the hole. With a separate soldering iron we reattached the wire to the plug. Now the soldering iron was sitting upright in the center of the thermos. We then placed the tubing through the second hole in the side and this is where the marbles came in. We poured them around the iron in order to hold it upright and proceeded to place the top back on. The tip of the iron and the other end of the tube were now sticking through the two holes in the top that we made before. This is where is got a little tricky for us. We didn't have a good metal bowl that could be screwed into the top of the iron so we had to make do with a piece of a soda can. Hopefully you will be able to do better. The easiest thing to do to attach this piece is use the screw that comes with the soldering iron because it should fit snug in the hole in the top once you remove the iron tip itself. We were also missing this screw for reasons I cannot remember so we searched around the house for one that fit. We then unscrewed the iron tip and screwed in our hand shaped tin bowl to the top of the iron. Once this is done all you need to do is pack a bowl of your favorite indica, sativa, or hybrid thereof (I happen to be a fan of quality kushes and hazes), place the glass over the top, plug it in, and enjoy.
The important thing to remember is that once you see the foggy vapors start to fill the glass immediately unplug it so that you don't end up burning the bud all too quickly. Once it is nice a full with a thin white smoke put your mouth of the exposed end of the tube and pull away.
tl;dr: don't be a dick and just read it. :) its worth it (homemade quality vape for under 10 dollars)
| trees | t5_2r9vp | c0mzd06 | A while back and friend and I made a slightly more elaborate one out of a coffee thermos and it turned out to be one of the most rewarding highs, plus it was cheap. I still remember the schematics so i'll lay it out for you:
First we took a trip around the corner to the 99 cent store and bought all the supplies costing around of total of 7 bucks. These included a thermos, two bags of small marbles, a soldering iron, a small glass cup (somewhere between the size of a normal cup and a shot class) to fit snug over the top of the thermos, a small piece of metal that will be the bowl, and some rubber tubing (you wont need more than half a foot).
Now on to the assembly. We took the thermos and cut two holes in the removable top. One in the center to fit the soldering iron and another more to the side to fit the the tubing. Next we drilled two holes in the side of the thermos, one at the bottom to fit the wire of the soldering iron and the other closer to the top for the tubing to fit through as well. We then cut the wire separating the iron from the plug and fed it through the hole. With a separate soldering iron we reattached the wire to the plug. Now the soldering iron was sitting upright in the center of the thermos. We then placed the tubing through the second hole in the side and this is where the marbles came in. We poured them around the iron in order to hold it upright and proceeded to place the top back on. The tip of the iron and the other end of the tube were now sticking through the two holes in the top that we made before. This is where is got a little tricky for us. We didn't have a good metal bowl that could be screwed into the top of the iron so we had to make do with a piece of a soda can. Hopefully you will be able to do better. The easiest thing to do to attach this piece is use the screw that comes with the soldering iron because it should fit snug in the hole in the top once you remove the iron tip itself. We were also missing this screw for reasons I cannot remember so we searched around the house for one that fit. We then unscrewed the iron tip and screwed in our hand shaped tin bowl to the top of the iron. Once this is done all you need to do is pack a bowl of your favorite indica, sativa, or hybrid thereof (I happen to be a fan of quality kushes and hazes), place the glass over the top, plug it in, and enjoy.
The important thing to remember is that once you see the foggy vapors start to fill the glass immediately unplug it so that you don't end up burning the bud all too quickly. Once it is nice a full with a thin white smoke put your mouth of the exposed end of the tube and pull away. | don't be a dick and just read it. :) its worth it (homemade quality vape for under 10 dollars) |
Qeraeth | HolidayBlues is something of a troll who believes feminism is hate speech and that women should beautify themselves for the same reason wealthy neighbourhoods should have uniform architecture and trimmed hedges- public beautification. So, he sees us as objects. Literally. That's where he and the links he posts are coming from.
As to that "Myth#2" let me break it down for you:
>Fact: The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant **factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.)** When economists do the proper controls, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.
Emphasis mine.
The part I bolded is the critical bit. This is often used as an excuse for the wage gap. However, people who deploy that standard line tend not to ask *why* women work fewer hours, *why* there is a glaring experience gap among older workers, and so on and so on.
The main "myth" about the wage gap is that *all* women make 75 cents on comparable men's dollar across the board. This obviously is not true. The gap emerges because society makes it harder for women to work, basically. Social standards surrounding motherhood, for example, stigmatise women who work long hours or who work hard after having a baby. Many women (as some recent high profile lawsuits against big firms are showing) are actually *forced* to reduce hours or are even made redundant after having kids, in a way fathers rarely experience just because they suddenly became dads.
If you are expected to take five to ten years off of work, or work only part time during that period, that causes an experience gap that is very hard for women to overcome.
As to education, as groups in the US men and women tend to have similar levels thereof, to the point where it cannot be said to appreciably affect the wage gap.
But there is an interesting point to be made about that. Blue collar jobs that men could get on high school diplomas (which remain male dominated) are often unionised and pay well.
So called pink-collar jobs, which are jobs that are predominantly or even almost exclusively female, tend to pay a lot less. Some, like waitressing, are part of an income bracket that is legally allowed to pay less than minimum wage (because tips are supposed to make up the difference). The devaluing of so called "women's work" is part of the problem.
Even in high class fields like academia, male dominated math and physics pays more than gender-equal biology.
This is part of the reason women are cramming into colleges because many of us know that if we want decent incomes we really cannot afford *not* to. The corollary to this, which is a developing story in modern politics, is that men are going to feel the burn of this too very soon. Those blue collar jobs I mentioned are rapidly disappearing, and men who could get by on HS diplomas are beginning to find they no longer can.
At any rate, the causes of the wage gap are myriad. It does not arise from every single boss saying "I'm going to pay you a quarter less because you're a woman." It's a slow, social process that is often unconscious (although overt and direct sexism occurs as it did in the Lily Ledbetter case).
I'm already going on too long but another part of the problem is that because assertiveness tends to be rewarded in men but seen as a sign of ill-temperament among women, men tend to *ask* for raises more often than women do.
Misogyny plays a huge role in all of this, but it's not direct person-to-person sexism in many cases. In some, it takes the form of, say, firing a pregnant mum. In others it's something that gradually happens as women enter a profession.
The uber TL;DR? The link is bogus. | HolidayBlues is something of a troll who believes feminism is hate speech and that women should beautify themselves for the same reason wealthy neighbourhoods should have uniform architecture and trimmed hedges- public beautification. So, he sees us as objects. Literally. That's where he and the links he posts are coming from.
As to that "Myth#2" let me break it down for you:
>Fact: The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.) When economists do the proper controls, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.
Emphasis mine.
The part I bolded is the critical bit. This is often used as an excuse for the wage gap. However, people who deploy that standard line tend not to ask why women work fewer hours, why there is a glaring experience gap among older workers, and so on and so on.
The main "myth" about the wage gap is that all women make 75 cents on comparable men's dollar across the board. This obviously is not true. The gap emerges because society makes it harder for women to work, basically. Social standards surrounding motherhood, for example, stigmatise women who work long hours or who work hard after having a baby. Many women (as some recent high profile lawsuits against big firms are showing) are actually forced to reduce hours or are even made redundant after having kids, in a way fathers rarely experience just because they suddenly became dads.
If you are expected to take five to ten years off of work, or work only part time during that period, that causes an experience gap that is very hard for women to overcome.
As to education, as groups in the US men and women tend to have similar levels thereof, to the point where it cannot be said to appreciably affect the wage gap.
But there is an interesting point to be made about that. Blue collar jobs that men could get on high school diplomas (which remain male dominated) are often unionised and pay well.
So called pink-collar jobs, which are jobs that are predominantly or even almost exclusively female, tend to pay a lot less. Some, like waitressing, are part of an income bracket that is legally allowed to pay less than minimum wage (because tips are supposed to make up the difference). The devaluing of so called "women's work" is part of the problem.
Even in high class fields like academia, male dominated math and physics pays more than gender-equal biology.
This is part of the reason women are cramming into colleges because many of us know that if we want decent incomes we really cannot afford not to. The corollary to this, which is a developing story in modern politics, is that men are going to feel the burn of this too very soon. Those blue collar jobs I mentioned are rapidly disappearing, and men who could get by on HS diplomas are beginning to find they no longer can.
At any rate, the causes of the wage gap are myriad. It does not arise from every single boss saying "I'm going to pay you a quarter less because you're a woman." It's a slow, social process that is often unconscious (although overt and direct sexism occurs as it did in the Lily Ledbetter case).
I'm already going on too long but another part of the problem is that because assertiveness tends to be rewarded in men but seen as a sign of ill-temperament among women, men tend to ask for raises more often than women do.
Misogyny plays a huge role in all of this, but it's not direct person-to-person sexism in many cases. In some, it takes the form of, say, firing a pregnant mum. In others it's something that gradually happens as women enter a profession.
The uber TL;DR? The link is bogus.
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | c0n59r5 | HolidayBlues is something of a troll who believes feminism is hate speech and that women should beautify themselves for the same reason wealthy neighbourhoods should have uniform architecture and trimmed hedges- public beautification. So, he sees us as objects. Literally. That's where he and the links he posts are coming from.
As to that "Myth#2" let me break it down for you:
>Fact: The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.) When economists do the proper controls, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.
Emphasis mine.
The part I bolded is the critical bit. This is often used as an excuse for the wage gap. However, people who deploy that standard line tend not to ask why women work fewer hours, why there is a glaring experience gap among older workers, and so on and so on.
The main "myth" about the wage gap is that all women make 75 cents on comparable men's dollar across the board. This obviously is not true. The gap emerges because society makes it harder for women to work, basically. Social standards surrounding motherhood, for example, stigmatise women who work long hours or who work hard after having a baby. Many women (as some recent high profile lawsuits against big firms are showing) are actually forced to reduce hours or are even made redundant after having kids, in a way fathers rarely experience just because they suddenly became dads.
If you are expected to take five to ten years off of work, or work only part time during that period, that causes an experience gap that is very hard for women to overcome.
As to education, as groups in the US men and women tend to have similar levels thereof, to the point where it cannot be said to appreciably affect the wage gap.
But there is an interesting point to be made about that. Blue collar jobs that men could get on high school diplomas (which remain male dominated) are often unionised and pay well.
So called pink-collar jobs, which are jobs that are predominantly or even almost exclusively female, tend to pay a lot less. Some, like waitressing, are part of an income bracket that is legally allowed to pay less than minimum wage (because tips are supposed to make up the difference). The devaluing of so called "women's work" is part of the problem.
Even in high class fields like academia, male dominated math and physics pays more than gender-equal biology.
This is part of the reason women are cramming into colleges because many of us know that if we want decent incomes we really cannot afford not to. The corollary to this, which is a developing story in modern politics, is that men are going to feel the burn of this too very soon. Those blue collar jobs I mentioned are rapidly disappearing, and men who could get by on HS diplomas are beginning to find they no longer can.
At any rate, the causes of the wage gap are myriad. It does not arise from every single boss saying "I'm going to pay you a quarter less because you're a woman." It's a slow, social process that is often unconscious (although overt and direct sexism occurs as it did in the Lily Ledbetter case).
I'm already going on too long but another part of the problem is that because assertiveness tends to be rewarded in men but seen as a sign of ill-temperament among women, men tend to ask for raises more often than women do.
Misogyny plays a huge role in all of this, but it's not direct person-to-person sexism in many cases. In some, it takes the form of, say, firing a pregnant mum. In others it's something that gradually happens as women enter a profession.
The uber | The link is bogus. |
yiddish_policeman | I told this story recently but I love it so I'm telling it again.
A few years ago I was in Boston visiting some friends and went outside to smoke a cigarette. I'm standing on the sidewalk, enjoying the autumn chill, and two cars screech to a halt in front of me. Neither moved for a minute and so I didn't think anything of it, just odd. Then, from seemingly out of nowhere, two cops come running at the cars with their guns drawn.
The cops were screaming, "Motherfucker let me see your hands, don't move you fuck," all kinds of deliciously profane things to shout in the middle of the day in the middle of a city. They slapped the hood of the first car and yelled at the driver to take off and then stood on opposite sides of the rear car, their guns aimed through the windows and still screaming. A few moments later about ten cop cars pull up, lights and sirens, and cops start piling out with their guns drawn, a couple with shotguns that they racked and then leveled at the car. I was about twenty feet away but none of them seemed to even notice, I wasn't told to back away or anything. As this is happening, a small crowd began to gather.
So, since I'm on the passenger side, I can't see the driver. The cops open the door on my side and pull out the passenger. He was a normal looking guy, white guy in t-shirt and jeans, and they lay him down on the road, cuff him, and take him off to the squad car. So far, pretty interesting.
Then they take the driver out and lay him on the ground, but since he's on the other side of the car, I still can't see him. Cops then start pulling things out of the car and putting them on the hood, bottles of pills, a backpack, and then a gun. This is getting more interesting. Then, as we are all watching in rapt attention, this huge cop, black, probably 6'5 and about 300 pounds, reaches down to pick up the driver. He does so with one hand and we all stand in amazement as we realize the driver is a midget and is dangling from the hands of this gigantic cop. The midget is screaming at the top of his lungs, "Fuck you cops, blah blah blah" and the cop pretty much carries him one-handed to a squad car and throws him in the back.
When the cruiser takes off there was a moment of silence and then everyone, probably thirty bystanders, a dozen cops, everyone starts laughing hysterically at the same time. I called every single person I knew, just so that I would not be accused of making it up. It was hands down the funniest thing I have seen.
tl;dr: I saw a midget get arrested at gunpoint. There was much communal laughter. | I told this story recently but I love it so I'm telling it again.
A few years ago I was in Boston visiting some friends and went outside to smoke a cigarette. I'm standing on the sidewalk, enjoying the autumn chill, and two cars screech to a halt in front of me. Neither moved for a minute and so I didn't think anything of it, just odd. Then, from seemingly out of nowhere, two cops come running at the cars with their guns drawn.
The cops were screaming, "Motherfucker let me see your hands, don't move you fuck," all kinds of deliciously profane things to shout in the middle of the day in the middle of a city. They slapped the hood of the first car and yelled at the driver to take off and then stood on opposite sides of the rear car, their guns aimed through the windows and still screaming. A few moments later about ten cop cars pull up, lights and sirens, and cops start piling out with their guns drawn, a couple with shotguns that they racked and then leveled at the car. I was about twenty feet away but none of them seemed to even notice, I wasn't told to back away or anything. As this is happening, a small crowd began to gather.
So, since I'm on the passenger side, I can't see the driver. The cops open the door on my side and pull out the passenger. He was a normal looking guy, white guy in t-shirt and jeans, and they lay him down on the road, cuff him, and take him off to the squad car. So far, pretty interesting.
Then they take the driver out and lay him on the ground, but since he's on the other side of the car, I still can't see him. Cops then start pulling things out of the car and putting them on the hood, bottles of pills, a backpack, and then a gun. This is getting more interesting. Then, as we are all watching in rapt attention, this huge cop, black, probably 6'5 and about 300 pounds, reaches down to pick up the driver. He does so with one hand and we all stand in amazement as we realize the driver is a midget and is dangling from the hands of this gigantic cop. The midget is screaming at the top of his lungs, "Fuck you cops, blah blah blah" and the cop pretty much carries him one-handed to a squad car and throws him in the back.
When the cruiser takes off there was a moment of silence and then everyone, probably thirty bystanders, a dozen cops, everyone starts laughing hysterically at the same time. I called every single person I knew, just so that I would not be accused of making it up. It was hands down the funniest thing I have seen.
tl;dr: I saw a midget get arrested at gunpoint. There was much communal laughter.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0n6x3f | I told this story recently but I love it so I'm telling it again.
A few years ago I was in Boston visiting some friends and went outside to smoke a cigarette. I'm standing on the sidewalk, enjoying the autumn chill, and two cars screech to a halt in front of me. Neither moved for a minute and so I didn't think anything of it, just odd. Then, from seemingly out of nowhere, two cops come running at the cars with their guns drawn.
The cops were screaming, "Motherfucker let me see your hands, don't move you fuck," all kinds of deliciously profane things to shout in the middle of the day in the middle of a city. They slapped the hood of the first car and yelled at the driver to take off and then stood on opposite sides of the rear car, their guns aimed through the windows and still screaming. A few moments later about ten cop cars pull up, lights and sirens, and cops start piling out with their guns drawn, a couple with shotguns that they racked and then leveled at the car. I was about twenty feet away but none of them seemed to even notice, I wasn't told to back away or anything. As this is happening, a small crowd began to gather.
So, since I'm on the passenger side, I can't see the driver. The cops open the door on my side and pull out the passenger. He was a normal looking guy, white guy in t-shirt and jeans, and they lay him down on the road, cuff him, and take him off to the squad car. So far, pretty interesting.
Then they take the driver out and lay him on the ground, but since he's on the other side of the car, I still can't see him. Cops then start pulling things out of the car and putting them on the hood, bottles of pills, a backpack, and then a gun. This is getting more interesting. Then, as we are all watching in rapt attention, this huge cop, black, probably 6'5 and about 300 pounds, reaches down to pick up the driver. He does so with one hand and we all stand in amazement as we realize the driver is a midget and is dangling from the hands of this gigantic cop. The midget is screaming at the top of his lungs, "Fuck you cops, blah blah blah" and the cop pretty much carries him one-handed to a squad car and throws him in the back.
When the cruiser takes off there was a moment of silence and then everyone, probably thirty bystanders, a dozen cops, everyone starts laughing hysterically at the same time. I called every single person I knew, just so that I would not be accused of making it up. It was hands down the funniest thing I have seen. | I saw a midget get arrested at gunpoint. There was much communal laughter. |
MyDrunkenPonderings | I'm new and have never posted before so If I messed it up, you know what to do. But, is hunting at the pet store such a bad thing? I mean, who has ever shopped for a goldfish for the long term. Has anyone ever returned from a vacation and thought to themselves, "huh, I never expected that thing to make it"? (Moment of self-realization; I think/talk to much; and I have no concept of the proper use of punctuation)
tl;dr: You could be genetically related to the pope (today's date) | I'm new and have never posted before so If I messed it up, you know what to do. But, is hunting at the pet store such a bad thing? I mean, who has ever shopped for a goldfish for the long term. Has anyone ever returned from a vacation and thought to themselves, "huh, I never expected that thing to make it"? (Moment of self-realization; I think/talk to much; and I have no concept of the proper use of punctuation)
tl;dr: You could be genetically related to the pope (today's date)
| reddit.com | t5_6 | c0nclk5 | I'm new and have never posted before so If I messed it up, you know what to do. But, is hunting at the pet store such a bad thing? I mean, who has ever shopped for a goldfish for the long term. Has anyone ever returned from a vacation and thought to themselves, "huh, I never expected that thing to make it"? (Moment of self-realization; I think/talk to much; and I have no concept of the proper use of punctuation) | You could be genetically related to the pope (today's date) |
ninimo | As artists, we both use our hands, a lot. Our core plan was to leave the courthouse to get proper tattoos to mark our deed, but the night before we eloped 14 years ago, my traditionalist husband decided we *needed* rings for the standard ritual (the 'with this ring' part. . .), so we dropped by the African Princess Gift Shop and bought those ubiquitous braided copper, steel and brass rings. Two bucks each (or they would have been, if the lovely shopgirl had not comped them after hearing why we needed them.)
In any event-- the rings finally fell apart just last year, and we replaced them with rosewood and metal rings from Etsy; for our 20th, we plan to melt together our grandparents rings with our African Princess rings, and create something new to pass on.
tl;dr: tats last longer and you can't take them off; our base-metal "junk" rings have a place in our story, and getting 'ruined with time' is part of it. | As artists, we both use our hands, a lot. Our core plan was to leave the courthouse to get proper tattoos to mark our deed, but the night before we eloped 14 years ago, my traditionalist husband decided we needed rings for the standard ritual (the 'with this ring' part. . .), so we dropped by the African Princess Gift Shop and bought those ubiquitous braided copper, steel and brass rings. Two bucks each (or they would have been, if the lovely shopgirl had not comped them after hearing why we needed them.)
In any event-- the rings finally fell apart just last year, and we replaced them with rosewood and metal rings from Etsy; for our 20th, we plan to melt together our grandparents rings with our African Princess rings, and create something new to pass on.
tl;dr: tats last longer and you can't take them off; our base-metal "junk" rings have a place in our story, and getting 'ruined with time' is part of it.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0nmoys | As artists, we both use our hands, a lot. Our core plan was to leave the courthouse to get proper tattoos to mark our deed, but the night before we eloped 14 years ago, my traditionalist husband decided we needed rings for the standard ritual (the 'with this ring' part. . .), so we dropped by the African Princess Gift Shop and bought those ubiquitous braided copper, steel and brass rings. Two bucks each (or they would have been, if the lovely shopgirl had not comped them after hearing why we needed them.)
In any event-- the rings finally fell apart just last year, and we replaced them with rosewood and metal rings from Etsy; for our 20th, we plan to melt together our grandparents rings with our African Princess rings, and create something new to pass on. | tats last longer and you can't take them off; our base-metal "junk" rings have a place in our story, and getting 'ruined with time' is part of it. |
Blackflag421 | But what if he's been tested regularly and knows he's clean? Should it still be as heavy a punishment? What if he's also had a vasectomy and just didn't tell her? What if the condom breaks and he doesn't notice the second it happens?
On the flip side, why is it completely ok for a woman to trick a man to get pregnant (even having sex with someone who is unconscious and never consented)? Shouldn't deliberately deceiving someone to have a child regardless of gender be fraud?
I do agree that it should be punishable to pull shit like that, but I'd consider it fraud, since it was deliberate misrepresentation. It's still not rape, since the sex was consented to and there was no force or coercion used. Not assault either IMO.
tl;dr - Should be a form of fraud, much like lying about birth control should be fraud. You're deceiving someone for your own personal gain. | But what if he's been tested regularly and knows he's clean? Should it still be as heavy a punishment? What if he's also had a vasectomy and just didn't tell her? What if the condom breaks and he doesn't notice the second it happens?
On the flip side, why is it completely ok for a woman to trick a man to get pregnant (even having sex with someone who is unconscious and never consented)? Shouldn't deliberately deceiving someone to have a child regardless of gender be fraud?
I do agree that it should be punishable to pull shit like that, but I'd consider it fraud, since it was deliberate misrepresentation. It's still not rape, since the sex was consented to and there was no force or coercion used. Not assault either IMO.
tl;dr - Should be a form of fraud, much like lying about birth control should be fraud. You're deceiving someone for your own personal gain.
| MensRights | t5_2qhk3 | c0nm5rj | But what if he's been tested regularly and knows he's clean? Should it still be as heavy a punishment? What if he's also had a vasectomy and just didn't tell her? What if the condom breaks and he doesn't notice the second it happens?
On the flip side, why is it completely ok for a woman to trick a man to get pregnant (even having sex with someone who is unconscious and never consented)? Shouldn't deliberately deceiving someone to have a child regardless of gender be fraud?
I do agree that it should be punishable to pull shit like that, but I'd consider it fraud, since it was deliberate misrepresentation. It's still not rape, since the sex was consented to and there was no force or coercion used. Not assault either IMO. | Should be a form of fraud, much like lying about birth control should be fraud. You're deceiving someone for your own personal gain. |
cryptogirl | As a law student, the best I can tell you about "where it falls on the legal spectrum" is a function of where you live, as rape laws vary somewhat widely across different jurisdictions.
As a human being, I offer my hugs and support (*warning guys --2XC moment*). Something very similar happened to me also, with the added caveat that I was almost blackout drunk (but still more than willing to engage in what I believed was protected sex). Regardless of the legal issues, I can't say I *feel* I've been raped, even though I've been in more than one situation that would fall under the definition of "gray rape." I've definitely felt violated -- in the situation I mentioned, when I realized what was happening I stopped it immediately, and gave the guy a good dose of my anger -- but I didn't call the cops, or pursue any kind of legal action. We were both drunk, we both wanted basically the same thing (sex), and we both made some pretty stupid decisions.
In all candor, it's possible that some of my thoughts on this are defense mechanisms; I don't want to have been raped, and so it's easier for me maybe if I conceptualize what happened to me in different terms. What happened has definitely taken an emotional toll on me, but on the other hand, I don't really feel that the guy deserves the punishments our society specially reserves for rapists.
TLDR: It's complicated, and I'm still working through it.
To all the guys out there: always carry condoms (plural!), *use them*, and if you ever are in a situation where unprotected sex seems imminent, make damn sure your partner is consenting to *unprotected* sex. | As a law student, the best I can tell you about "where it falls on the legal spectrum" is a function of where you live, as rape laws vary somewhat widely across different jurisdictions.
As a human being, I offer my hugs and support ( warning guys --2XC moment ). Something very similar happened to me also, with the added caveat that I was almost blackout drunk (but still more than willing to engage in what I believed was protected sex). Regardless of the legal issues, I can't say I feel I've been raped, even though I've been in more than one situation that would fall under the definition of "gray rape." I've definitely felt violated -- in the situation I mentioned, when I realized what was happening I stopped it immediately, and gave the guy a good dose of my anger -- but I didn't call the cops, or pursue any kind of legal action. We were both drunk, we both wanted basically the same thing (sex), and we both made some pretty stupid decisions.
In all candor, it's possible that some of my thoughts on this are defense mechanisms; I don't want to have been raped, and so it's easier for me maybe if I conceptualize what happened to me in different terms. What happened has definitely taken an emotional toll on me, but on the other hand, I don't really feel that the guy deserves the punishments our society specially reserves for rapists.
TLDR: It's complicated, and I'm still working through it.
To all the guys out there: always carry condoms (plural!), use them , and if you ever are in a situation where unprotected sex seems imminent, make damn sure your partner is consenting to unprotected sex.
| MensRights | t5_2qhk3 | c0nocem | As a law student, the best I can tell you about "where it falls on the legal spectrum" is a function of where you live, as rape laws vary somewhat widely across different jurisdictions.
As a human being, I offer my hugs and support ( warning guys --2XC moment ). Something very similar happened to me also, with the added caveat that I was almost blackout drunk (but still more than willing to engage in what I believed was protected sex). Regardless of the legal issues, I can't say I feel I've been raped, even though I've been in more than one situation that would fall under the definition of "gray rape." I've definitely felt violated -- in the situation I mentioned, when I realized what was happening I stopped it immediately, and gave the guy a good dose of my anger -- but I didn't call the cops, or pursue any kind of legal action. We were both drunk, we both wanted basically the same thing (sex), and we both made some pretty stupid decisions.
In all candor, it's possible that some of my thoughts on this are defense mechanisms; I don't want to have been raped, and so it's easier for me maybe if I conceptualize what happened to me in different terms. What happened has definitely taken an emotional toll on me, but on the other hand, I don't really feel that the guy deserves the punishments our society specially reserves for rapists. | It's complicated, and I'm still working through it.
To all the guys out there: always carry condoms (plural!), use them , and if you ever are in a situation where unprotected sex seems imminent, make damn sure your partner is consenting to unprotected sex. |
laforge | Yea we need to hurry up and get to Mars to find those ruins. Then we can use Mass Relays and get FTL drives! It's going to be awesome. | Yea we need to hurry up and get to Mars to find those ruins. Then we can use Mass Relays and get FTL drives! It's going to be awesome.
| science | t5_mouw | c0nos2t | Yea we need to hurry up and get to Mars to find those ruins. Then we can use Mass Relays and get F | ives! It's going to be awesome. |
MinervaDreaming | I used to live in Delaware. I was living in the dorms at the university and was hanging out one night with a girl that lived just a few blocks away from those dorms. We were drinking straight rum all night, we were wasted. This girl was very attractive, I was...not. At the time I was around 280 lbs of not-muscle.
Anyway, back to the story - we were quite drunk and she wanted to walk me home because it was "dangerous." We got into an argument about it, because how would it then be safer for her to walk back alone? (looking back on this moment, I realize that I am a fucking idiot and can't read signals to save my life) Eventually, I gave in when she said that she'd just take her bike so she could get back quickly. GREAT IDEA, right?
So, we're on our way to my dorm and we decide to cut through the campus security parking lot. She's not riding the bike very well, obviously, and ends up falling off and into the bushes that lined the security building.
Of course the cop car has to pull into the lot as I'm leaning over her trying to help her out of the bushes.
They threw on the lights, and yelled at me to get away from her. It definitely looked like I was trying to rape her. Thankfully we were able to get that cleared up right away.
Next up came the inevitable question about whether we'd been drinking or not. Of course we said that no, no sir we had certainly not been drinking, because, you know, we're underage!
While they were giving her the breathalyzer, the young cop that was there chatted with me. He asked if we'd been drinking, and I said "You know, even if we were, I'm sober now!" And he found it funny. She blew over a .2 (!), then it was my turn. They had the young cop that I'd been chatting with give me the test - I saw that I blew over a .1 but he said "He's clean!" and they let me go.
She ended up getting a $350 fine and a few weeks of community service for DUI.
**tl; dr** A girl I was with rode her bike drunk, fell into the bushes next to campus security, got a DUI. | I used to live in Delaware. I was living in the dorms at the university and was hanging out one night with a girl that lived just a few blocks away from those dorms. We were drinking straight rum all night, we were wasted. This girl was very attractive, I was...not. At the time I was around 280 lbs of not-muscle.
Anyway, back to the story - we were quite drunk and she wanted to walk me home because it was "dangerous." We got into an argument about it, because how would it then be safer for her to walk back alone? (looking back on this moment, I realize that I am a fucking idiot and can't read signals to save my life) Eventually, I gave in when she said that she'd just take her bike so she could get back quickly. GREAT IDEA, right?
So, we're on our way to my dorm and we decide to cut through the campus security parking lot. She's not riding the bike very well, obviously, and ends up falling off and into the bushes that lined the security building.
Of course the cop car has to pull into the lot as I'm leaning over her trying to help her out of the bushes.
They threw on the lights, and yelled at me to get away from her. It definitely looked like I was trying to rape her. Thankfully we were able to get that cleared up right away.
Next up came the inevitable question about whether we'd been drinking or not. Of course we said that no, no sir we had certainly not been drinking, because, you know, we're underage!
While they were giving her the breathalyzer, the young cop that was there chatted with me. He asked if we'd been drinking, and I said "You know, even if we were, I'm sober now!" And he found it funny. She blew over a .2 (!), then it was my turn. They had the young cop that I'd been chatting with give me the test - I saw that I blew over a .1 but he said "He's clean!" and they let me go.
She ended up getting a $350 fine and a few weeks of community service for DUI.
tl; dr A girl I was with rode her bike drunk, fell into the bushes next to campus security, got a DUI.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0ntlnu | I used to live in Delaware. I was living in the dorms at the university and was hanging out one night with a girl that lived just a few blocks away from those dorms. We were drinking straight rum all night, we were wasted. This girl was very attractive, I was...not. At the time I was around 280 lbs of not-muscle.
Anyway, back to the story - we were quite drunk and she wanted to walk me home because it was "dangerous." We got into an argument about it, because how would it then be safer for her to walk back alone? (looking back on this moment, I realize that I am a fucking idiot and can't read signals to save my life) Eventually, I gave in when she said that she'd just take her bike so she could get back quickly. GREAT IDEA, right?
So, we're on our way to my dorm and we decide to cut through the campus security parking lot. She's not riding the bike very well, obviously, and ends up falling off and into the bushes that lined the security building.
Of course the cop car has to pull into the lot as I'm leaning over her trying to help her out of the bushes.
They threw on the lights, and yelled at me to get away from her. It definitely looked like I was trying to rape her. Thankfully we were able to get that cleared up right away.
Next up came the inevitable question about whether we'd been drinking or not. Of course we said that no, no sir we had certainly not been drinking, because, you know, we're underage!
While they were giving her the breathalyzer, the young cop that was there chatted with me. He asked if we'd been drinking, and I said "You know, even if we were, I'm sober now!" And he found it funny. She blew over a .2 (!), then it was my turn. They had the young cop that I'd been chatting with give me the test - I saw that I blew over a .1 but he said "He's clean!" and they let me go.
She ended up getting a $350 fine and a few weeks of community service for DUI. | A girl I was with rode her bike drunk, fell into the bushes next to campus security, got a DUI. |
Naedlus | Not really scary. It's more that I'm worried about being wrong when I admit to my beliefs. The core of my understanding comes from things that I have heard. Now, I don't mind being proven wrong. I welcome proof. But, I fear the results of others when they hear that I so wholeheartedly desire belief that I dig through so many sources, as well, some of the sources being more common to their understanding, they will be more likely to criticize.
The basic explanation that I had heard in regards to the Sumers, for example sounded along these lines.
"Aliens come down and find human ancestors. Aliens find ancestors interesting and play with their DNA." missing link explanation given here. "Aliens come back down and are amazed at the results, and start to help, while maintaining their interest in genetic manipulation, birthing strange beasts, while assisting their earlier progeny." So, we have a basic example of their 'gods' walking amongst them, and with that coming the space-ship descriptions, as well, they mention details of creatures of myth, specifically along the titans line, which, were mentioned within Judaeism, Greek, and probably more.
It's the cross-overs within the different religious sects, even when you space out their existances upon the world that give me hope. There are other devices I had mentioned, but, they have no place within the common mindset. My amazement at these possibilities mean nothing to those that I mention them to. If they hold no value, they are of no consequence.
Of mild consequence, however, were two things that I recall being out of place in their discoveries, or in details related to themselves in question. I recall there being an aluminum chunk discovered amongst fossil remain aged material, no specific details other than it was aluminum, and contained angles that were too specific to be naturally formed by coincidence. The second artifact was smaller, said to be taken from a UFO and also aluminum. The detail that made it interesting was when they were talking about it's qualities. That it's density was like nothing that mankind had created thus far, and it's capabilities in terms of tolerances suggested that could only have been created under special circumstances, but was still aluminum.
Now, those both sound like BS. I know it. I want to believe, so I dig further. Artifact two's creation, has been placed into the super-atom theories that are being mentioned on occasion within reddit (see articles refering to the periodic table acquiring potential 3D aspect, or how the electron trade theories within the metallics allow for potential shifts unknown to mankind at this time. Digging a step further, if you go into fields such as anti-gravity, materials are mentioned as being required, one being a magnetic superfluid (I would think that a diamagnetic superfluid would be sufficient, but, whatever, I can't think of any of those anyways) and mentionings about supposed UFO crashes, and people finding a mercury like substance within a closed loop (the toroid is a common form for force manipulation devices. Interesting note. Mercury is diamagnetic, however, I could not find any information that would allow for mercury to be in a superfluid state. However, I would surmise that since it's natural state is as a freely flowing fluid (at room-temperature, at least.) that it may be possible for the states of mercury to be shifted possibly to the required density/flow rates/flow directions) under the right pressures/conditions......................
arrgh. Sorry. Look, sorry TL;DR, would be along the lines of I am scared because while I see minor evidence surrounding us within medias that are just barely hidden from the surface of the public, I can not see others making some of the connections, and being ridiculed, while I just desire to have some other intelligent life form known within the universe, rather than looking for all the reasons that there shouldn't be. | Not really scary. It's more that I'm worried about being wrong when I admit to my beliefs. The core of my understanding comes from things that I have heard. Now, I don't mind being proven wrong. I welcome proof. But, I fear the results of others when they hear that I so wholeheartedly desire belief that I dig through so many sources, as well, some of the sources being more common to their understanding, they will be more likely to criticize.
The basic explanation that I had heard in regards to the Sumers, for example sounded along these lines.
"Aliens come down and find human ancestors. Aliens find ancestors interesting and play with their DNA." missing link explanation given here. "Aliens come back down and are amazed at the results, and start to help, while maintaining their interest in genetic manipulation, birthing strange beasts, while assisting their earlier progeny." So, we have a basic example of their 'gods' walking amongst them, and with that coming the space-ship descriptions, as well, they mention details of creatures of myth, specifically along the titans line, which, were mentioned within Judaeism, Greek, and probably more.
It's the cross-overs within the different religious sects, even when you space out their existances upon the world that give me hope. There are other devices I had mentioned, but, they have no place within the common mindset. My amazement at these possibilities mean nothing to those that I mention them to. If they hold no value, they are of no consequence.
Of mild consequence, however, were two things that I recall being out of place in their discoveries, or in details related to themselves in question. I recall there being an aluminum chunk discovered amongst fossil remain aged material, no specific details other than it was aluminum, and contained angles that were too specific to be naturally formed by coincidence. The second artifact was smaller, said to be taken from a UFO and also aluminum. The detail that made it interesting was when they were talking about it's qualities. That it's density was like nothing that mankind had created thus far, and it's capabilities in terms of tolerances suggested that could only have been created under special circumstances, but was still aluminum.
Now, those both sound like BS. I know it. I want to believe, so I dig further. Artifact two's creation, has been placed into the super-atom theories that are being mentioned on occasion within reddit (see articles refering to the periodic table acquiring potential 3D aspect, or how the electron trade theories within the metallics allow for potential shifts unknown to mankind at this time. Digging a step further, if you go into fields such as anti-gravity, materials are mentioned as being required, one being a magnetic superfluid (I would think that a diamagnetic superfluid would be sufficient, but, whatever, I can't think of any of those anyways) and mentionings about supposed UFO crashes, and people finding a mercury like substance within a closed loop (the toroid is a common form for force manipulation devices. Interesting note. Mercury is diamagnetic, however, I could not find any information that would allow for mercury to be in a superfluid state. However, I would surmise that since it's natural state is as a freely flowing fluid (at room-temperature, at least.) that it may be possible for the states of mercury to be shifted possibly to the required density/flow rates/flow directions) under the right pressures/conditions......................
arrgh. Sorry. Look, sorry TL;DR, would be along the lines of I am scared because while I see minor evidence surrounding us within medias that are just barely hidden from the surface of the public, I can not see others making some of the connections, and being ridiculed, while I just desire to have some other intelligent life form known within the universe, rather than looking for all the reasons that there shouldn't be.
| wikipedia | t5_2qh3b | c0oezb9 | Not really scary. It's more that I'm worried about being wrong when I admit to my beliefs. The core of my understanding comes from things that I have heard. Now, I don't mind being proven wrong. I welcome proof. But, I fear the results of others when they hear that I so wholeheartedly desire belief that I dig through so many sources, as well, some of the sources being more common to their understanding, they will be more likely to criticize.
The basic explanation that I had heard in regards to the Sumers, for example sounded along these lines.
"Aliens come down and find human ancestors. Aliens find ancestors interesting and play with their DNA." missing link explanation given here. "Aliens come back down and are amazed at the results, and start to help, while maintaining their interest in genetic manipulation, birthing strange beasts, while assisting their earlier progeny." So, we have a basic example of their 'gods' walking amongst them, and with that coming the space-ship descriptions, as well, they mention details of creatures of myth, specifically along the titans line, which, were mentioned within Judaeism, Greek, and probably more.
It's the cross-overs within the different religious sects, even when you space out their existances upon the world that give me hope. There are other devices I had mentioned, but, they have no place within the common mindset. My amazement at these possibilities mean nothing to those that I mention them to. If they hold no value, they are of no consequence.
Of mild consequence, however, were two things that I recall being out of place in their discoveries, or in details related to themselves in question. I recall there being an aluminum chunk discovered amongst fossil remain aged material, no specific details other than it was aluminum, and contained angles that were too specific to be naturally formed by coincidence. The second artifact was smaller, said to be taken from a UFO and also aluminum. The detail that made it interesting was when they were talking about it's qualities. That it's density was like nothing that mankind had created thus far, and it's capabilities in terms of tolerances suggested that could only have been created under special circumstances, but was still aluminum.
Now, those both sound like BS. I know it. I want to believe, so I dig further. Artifact two's creation, has been placed into the super-atom theories that are being mentioned on occasion within reddit (see articles refering to the periodic table acquiring potential 3D aspect, or how the electron trade theories within the metallics allow for potential shifts unknown to mankind at this time. Digging a step further, if you go into fields such as anti-gravity, materials are mentioned as being required, one being a magnetic superfluid (I would think that a diamagnetic superfluid would be sufficient, but, whatever, I can't think of any of those anyways) and mentionings about supposed UFO crashes, and people finding a mercury like substance within a closed loop (the toroid is a common form for force manipulation devices. Interesting note. Mercury is diamagnetic, however, I could not find any information that would allow for mercury to be in a superfluid state. However, I would surmise that since it's natural state is as a freely flowing fluid (at room-temperature, at least.) that it may be possible for the states of mercury to be shifted possibly to the required density/flow rates/flow directions) under the right pressures/conditions......................
arrgh. Sorry. Look, sorry | would be along the lines of I am scared because while I see minor evidence surrounding us within medias that are just barely hidden from the surface of the public, I can not see others making some of the connections, and being ridiculed, while I just desire to have some other intelligent life form known within the universe, rather than looking for all the reasons that there shouldn't be. |
Naedlus | In basic, yes. In complex, well, I guess still yes, as my meandering thoughts pretty much traveled that path.
I'm fairly defensive, but, in the end, I guess that Raelism is an aspect of potential that I hold onto, as I do not wish to hold onto a series of beliefs that are potentially wrong, though the evidence I see seems as strong to myself as the miracles of god would hold through christianity/catholicism/any other number of beliefs.
Personally, I identify as atheistic, but, well, yeah. I believe that the paths that have been passed down have been from ETs and that we can find moral values throughout the religious spectrum that were implanted early on in the human psyche, with the stories told behind as methods to assist others to understand why. I've heard that the stories told through religion has shifted as humanity has looked for alternative goals within it's story telling, adapting in truths, and substituting out others.
I do believe in aliens. I do believe that we don't have a bloody clue as to what the actual reality of the situation is. I do not wish to be proven wrong by minor evidence, as there is so much out there, and we compose so tiny a quantity of matter within the visualized universe, that I am worried. But, yes, I do agree with ancient astronaut theory.
I am troubled a little bit by some details by theory, as the Sumers stated that there were 10 planets, with the 10 being the home of their 'gods.'" This used to be easily palatable, with considering Pluto to be planet #9, but with the creation of the dwarf planet class, and discovering multiple other dwarf planets within our solar system, it's hard to hold onto it as a local (galaxy wide) possibility of a belief.
(ultimate belief) There is more to the galaxy than we understand. There is more to the evolution of mankind, and the influences of outside sources then we can understand. Final truth will be revealed only to the sceptics, and to those who desire understanding to what is going on.
TL;DR: Yes. | In basic, yes. In complex, well, I guess still yes, as my meandering thoughts pretty much traveled that path.
I'm fairly defensive, but, in the end, I guess that Raelism is an aspect of potential that I hold onto, as I do not wish to hold onto a series of beliefs that are potentially wrong, though the evidence I see seems as strong to myself as the miracles of god would hold through christianity/catholicism/any other number of beliefs.
Personally, I identify as atheistic, but, well, yeah. I believe that the paths that have been passed down have been from ETs and that we can find moral values throughout the religious spectrum that were implanted early on in the human psyche, with the stories told behind as methods to assist others to understand why. I've heard that the stories told through religion has shifted as humanity has looked for alternative goals within it's story telling, adapting in truths, and substituting out others.
I do believe in aliens. I do believe that we don't have a bloody clue as to what the actual reality of the situation is. I do not wish to be proven wrong by minor evidence, as there is so much out there, and we compose so tiny a quantity of matter within the visualized universe, that I am worried. But, yes, I do agree with ancient astronaut theory.
I am troubled a little bit by some details by theory, as the Sumers stated that there were 10 planets, with the 10 being the home of their 'gods.'" This used to be easily palatable, with considering Pluto to be planet #9, but with the creation of the dwarf planet class, and discovering multiple other dwarf planets within our solar system, it's hard to hold onto it as a local (galaxy wide) possibility of a belief.
(ultimate belief) There is more to the galaxy than we understand. There is more to the evolution of mankind, and the influences of outside sources then we can understand. Final truth will be revealed only to the sceptics, and to those who desire understanding to what is going on.
TL;DR: Yes.
| wikipedia | t5_2qh3b | c0of1qn | In basic, yes. In complex, well, I guess still yes, as my meandering thoughts pretty much traveled that path.
I'm fairly defensive, but, in the end, I guess that Raelism is an aspect of potential that I hold onto, as I do not wish to hold onto a series of beliefs that are potentially wrong, though the evidence I see seems as strong to myself as the miracles of god would hold through christianity/catholicism/any other number of beliefs.
Personally, I identify as atheistic, but, well, yeah. I believe that the paths that have been passed down have been from ETs and that we can find moral values throughout the religious spectrum that were implanted early on in the human psyche, with the stories told behind as methods to assist others to understand why. I've heard that the stories told through religion has shifted as humanity has looked for alternative goals within it's story telling, adapting in truths, and substituting out others.
I do believe in aliens. I do believe that we don't have a bloody clue as to what the actual reality of the situation is. I do not wish to be proven wrong by minor evidence, as there is so much out there, and we compose so tiny a quantity of matter within the visualized universe, that I am worried. But, yes, I do agree with ancient astronaut theory.
I am troubled a little bit by some details by theory, as the Sumers stated that there were 10 planets, with the 10 being the home of their 'gods.'" This used to be easily palatable, with considering Pluto to be planet #9, but with the creation of the dwarf planet class, and discovering multiple other dwarf planets within our solar system, it's hard to hold onto it as a local (galaxy wide) possibility of a belief.
(ultimate belief) There is more to the galaxy than we understand. There is more to the evolution of mankind, and the influences of outside sources then we can understand. Final truth will be revealed only to the sceptics, and to those who desire understanding to what is going on. | Yes. |
syuk | I kind of agree, but with some businesses, offline word of mouth is incredibly important. If the 'leader' of one group of friends (customers) saw only the bad reviews on Yelp then they would go somewhere else (maybe a business that paid the extortion fee) and tell all their friends what a great time they had.
This would trickle down until lots of people in the area decided to try the 'someplace else'.
I have seen this happen first hand in the restaurant business, but not via reviews.
**tl;dr** - Once a customer changes their habits, their friends do too. If the thing that made them change the habit was Yelp, then it carries some of the blame, esp in smaller towns.
| I kind of agree, but with some businesses, offline word of mouth is incredibly important. If the 'leader' of one group of friends (customers) saw only the bad reviews on Yelp then they would go somewhere else (maybe a business that paid the extortion fee) and tell all their friends what a great time they had.
This would trickle down until lots of people in the area decided to try the 'someplace else'.
I have seen this happen first hand in the restaurant business, but not via reviews.
tl;dr - Once a customer changes their habits, their friends do too. If the thing that made them change the habit was Yelp, then it carries some of the blame, esp in smaller towns.
| business | t5_2qgzg | c0oovvq | I kind of agree, but with some businesses, offline word of mouth is incredibly important. If the 'leader' of one group of friends (customers) saw only the bad reviews on Yelp then they would go somewhere else (maybe a business that paid the extortion fee) and tell all their friends what a great time they had.
This would trickle down until lots of people in the area decided to try the 'someplace else'.
I have seen this happen first hand in the restaurant business, but not via reviews. | Once a customer changes their habits, their friends do too. If the thing that made them change the habit was Yelp, then it carries some of the blame, esp in smaller towns. |
arkmtech | I wouldn't ever call myself an expert, but I've worked as a *NIX admin & web developer for roughly 13 years, working with various host services in both mom-'n-pop and corporate environments, and feel I have a reasonable grasp of what a provider should be.
Up until about 6 months ago, I was highly skeptical of Host Gator. When a provider says "Unlimited", it usually translates to...
* Slow, oversold servers
* Low CPU & memory ceilings
* Poor support & management
* No shell access
* PHP "safe mode" on, or old PHP version, or missing libraries, or...
Even after reading many a review praising HostGator's services, I still couldn't be convinced, until a client of ours needed somewhere to host her organization's video files of indeterminate quantity & size.
We decided to give HostGator a go, and haven't turned back since. I am now hosting all of my development projects with them, and have referred client after client their way - I have yet to disappointed with the servers' performance, reliability & flexibility for the meager $9.95 a month we pay.
I haven't yet had much opportunity to work with the support staff (which isn't at all a bad thing), but my clients who have are very much pleased. Last month I had a sneaky client mess up some work I'd done on a sub-domain for her site, and Host Gator figured out the issue and got her back in action within about 10 minutes.
**tl;dr :** After many years of working with web servers, HostGator is beyond expectation for the price. You can't go wrong. | I wouldn't ever call myself an expert, but I've worked as a *NIX admin & web developer for roughly 13 years, working with various host services in both mom-'n-pop and corporate environments, and feel I have a reasonable grasp of what a provider should be.
Up until about 6 months ago, I was highly skeptical of Host Gator. When a provider says "Unlimited", it usually translates to...
Slow, oversold servers
Low CPU & memory ceilings
Poor support & management
No shell access
PHP "safe mode" on, or old PHP version, or missing libraries, or...
Even after reading many a review praising HostGator's services, I still couldn't be convinced, until a client of ours needed somewhere to host her organization's video files of indeterminate quantity & size.
We decided to give HostGator a go, and haven't turned back since. I am now hosting all of my development projects with them, and have referred client after client their way - I have yet to disappointed with the servers' performance, reliability & flexibility for the meager $9.95 a month we pay.
I haven't yet had much opportunity to work with the support staff (which isn't at all a bad thing), but my clients who have are very much pleased. Last month I had a sneaky client mess up some work I'd done on a sub-domain for her site, and Host Gator figured out the issue and got her back in action within about 10 minutes.
tl;dr : After many years of working with web servers, HostGator is beyond expectation for the price. You can't go wrong.
| promos | t5_2r4w1 | c0oz73w | I wouldn't ever call myself an expert, but I've worked as a *NIX admin & web developer for roughly 13 years, working with various host services in both mom-'n-pop and corporate environments, and feel I have a reasonable grasp of what a provider should be.
Up until about 6 months ago, I was highly skeptical of Host Gator. When a provider says "Unlimited", it usually translates to...
Slow, oversold servers
Low CPU & memory ceilings
Poor support & management
No shell access
PHP "safe mode" on, or old PHP version, or missing libraries, or...
Even after reading many a review praising HostGator's services, I still couldn't be convinced, until a client of ours needed somewhere to host her organization's video files of indeterminate quantity & size.
We decided to give HostGator a go, and haven't turned back since. I am now hosting all of my development projects with them, and have referred client after client their way - I have yet to disappointed with the servers' performance, reliability & flexibility for the meager $9.95 a month we pay.
I haven't yet had much opportunity to work with the support staff (which isn't at all a bad thing), but my clients who have are very much pleased. Last month I had a sneaky client mess up some work I'd done on a sub-domain for her site, and Host Gator figured out the issue and got her back in action within about 10 minutes. | After many years of working with web servers, HostGator is beyond expectation for the price. You can't go wrong. |
BeardMagic | The other side:
So... people are sick of getting parking tickets, so they elect a mayor who pledges to stop issuing parking citations.
10 parking officers get laid off.
(insert steps four through seven from your example)
People leave their cars parked in previously metered spots for weeks at a time, diminishing the flow of customers to area shops and restaurants. These shops and restaurants go out of business.
(insert steps four through seven from your example.)
Citizens get fed up and impeach the mayor on an unrelated technicality.
(insert steps four through seven from your example.)
TL;DR Just pay your parking tickets or move out of the city. | The other side:
So... people are sick of getting parking tickets, so they elect a mayor who pledges to stop issuing parking citations.
10 parking officers get laid off.
(insert steps four through seven from your example)
People leave their cars parked in previously metered spots for weeks at a time, diminishing the flow of customers to area shops and restaurants. These shops and restaurants go out of business.
(insert steps four through seven from your example.)
Citizens get fed up and impeach the mayor on an unrelated technicality.
(insert steps four through seven from your example.)
TL;DR Just pay your parking tickets or move out of the city.
| reddit.com | t5_6 | c0oqxpa | The other side:
So... people are sick of getting parking tickets, so they elect a mayor who pledges to stop issuing parking citations.
10 parking officers get laid off.
(insert steps four through seven from your example)
People leave their cars parked in previously metered spots for weeks at a time, diminishing the flow of customers to area shops and restaurants. These shops and restaurants go out of business.
(insert steps four through seven from your example.)
Citizens get fed up and impeach the mayor on an unrelated technicality.
(insert steps four through seven from your example.) | Just pay your parking tickets or move out of the city. |
bw1870 | I think maybe sticking to the TLDR would be safer for you. | I think maybe sticking to the TLDR would be safer for you.
| pics | t5_2qh0u | c0orf59 | I think maybe sticking to the | would be safer for you. |
mullet85 | I have a story. I told my girlfriend what you just said, and she thought it was interesting. But I'm an idiot, and told her again, the next time we saw this book. She said I already told her, and long story short, it became a running joke. Now, whenever we see this book, I say "Hey wanna hear-" and she cuts me off and says 'shut up'. True story.
TLDR: I like this book. | I have a story. I told my girlfriend what you just said, and she thought it was interesting. But I'm an idiot, and told her again, the next time we saw this book. She said I already told her, and long story short, it became a running joke. Now, whenever we see this book, I say "Hey wanna hear-" and she cuts me off and says 'shut up'. True story.
TLDR: I like this book.
| pics | t5_2qh0u | c0ore0g | I have a story. I told my girlfriend what you just said, and she thought it was interesting. But I'm an idiot, and told her again, the next time we saw this book. She said I already told her, and long story short, it became a running joke. Now, whenever we see this book, I say "Hey wanna hear-" and she cuts me off and says 'shut up'. True story. | I like this book. |
fishhand420 | Use Raw brand papers, either the organic hemp papers or the roll -- so I can make a joint of any size. I really prefer un-gummed papers but they are hard to find outside of head shops. I cut off a small strip from an index card, usually prefer orange.
Cut the paper down so its only about an inch wide, no reason to smoke unneeded paper. Put some bud through the grinder. Roll a straight joint, no tobacco, no cone -- unless I'm rolling for a bunch of people with more than just my weed.
And then I like to burn around the edges of the tip of the cone and pluck off the "cap" so you can see the greens, and people is all like "dayumn, you nasty twin."
tldr no tobacco; bud through grinder; super thin, natural papers, trimmed narrower; index card filter
I'll put up some pictures if I ever get a camera. | Use Raw brand papers, either the organic hemp papers or the roll -- so I can make a joint of any size. I really prefer un-gummed papers but they are hard to find outside of head shops. I cut off a small strip from an index card, usually prefer orange.
Cut the paper down so its only about an inch wide, no reason to smoke unneeded paper. Put some bud through the grinder. Roll a straight joint, no tobacco, no cone -- unless I'm rolling for a bunch of people with more than just my weed.
And then I like to burn around the edges of the tip of the cone and pluck off the "cap" so you can see the greens, and people is all like "dayumn, you nasty twin."
tldr no tobacco; bud through grinder; super thin, natural papers, trimmed narrower; index card filter
I'll put up some pictures if I ever get a camera.
| trees | t5_2r9vp | c0ou6ke | Use Raw brand papers, either the organic hemp papers or the roll -- so I can make a joint of any size. I really prefer un-gummed papers but they are hard to find outside of head shops. I cut off a small strip from an index card, usually prefer orange.
Cut the paper down so its only about an inch wide, no reason to smoke unneeded paper. Put some bud through the grinder. Roll a straight joint, no tobacco, no cone -- unless I'm rolling for a bunch of people with more than just my weed.
And then I like to burn around the edges of the tip of the cone and pluck off the "cap" so you can see the greens, and people is all like "dayumn, you nasty twin." | no tobacco; bud through grinder; super thin, natural papers, trimmed narrower; index card filter
I'll put up some pictures if I ever get a camera. |
Xanthorraceae | Sorry to all the conspiracy nuts out there, but GMO in and of itself is not evil, dangerous, or unnecessary. The wrong edits in an organism's genome can cause anything from nonviability, to great growth, to virulence, and a million other traits in between.
It would be like saying everyone has to stop using the internal combustion engine because gas is flammable and can blow up. At least come up with a salient argument rather than showing that one soya plant over time may have effect on hamsters. Soya has "phytoestrogens" which can affect sex hormones in the body, GMo or not.
tl;dr Any technology has the potential for harm in the wrong hands, but GMO is a good thing and necessary to feed the world. | Sorry to all the conspiracy nuts out there, but GMO in and of itself is not evil, dangerous, or unnecessary. The wrong edits in an organism's genome can cause anything from nonviability, to great growth, to virulence, and a million other traits in between.
It would be like saying everyone has to stop using the internal combustion engine because gas is flammable and can blow up. At least come up with a salient argument rather than showing that one soya plant over time may have effect on hamsters. Soya has "phytoestrogens" which can affect sex hormones in the body, GMo or not.
tl;dr Any technology has the potential for harm in the wrong hands, but GMO is a good thing and necessary to feed the world.
| science | t5_mouw | c0ox9ke | Sorry to all the conspiracy nuts out there, but GMO in and of itself is not evil, dangerous, or unnecessary. The wrong edits in an organism's genome can cause anything from nonviability, to great growth, to virulence, and a million other traits in between.
It would be like saying everyone has to stop using the internal combustion engine because gas is flammable and can blow up. At least come up with a salient argument rather than showing that one soya plant over time may have effect on hamsters. Soya has "phytoestrogens" which can affect sex hormones in the body, GMo or not. | Any technology has the potential for harm in the wrong hands, but GMO is a good thing and necessary to feed the world. |
countingchickens | My boyfriend is an immigration lawyer and I've learned a lot about the immigration process from him. The long waiting periods mentioned by others are part of the problem, but we also regulate how many visas are available annually, and only give so many per country. I don't know the numbers for Mexico but probably fairly low - as you might expect (fear?) wealthier whiter countries have higher numbers in general. The main ways that I know about to get visas (other than for students) are: investor (basically you're rich, and we let you buy a visa because you'll be "good for the economy); hardship or asylum (very difficult to obtain); extraordinary ability (as someone mentioned - being able to do a job most Americans can't, like being an internationally renowned neurosurgeon or something); and various employment visas (having your employer sponsor you). And obviously marriage to a citizen, but even that takes a long time and can be complicated.
One obvious problem is the kids of undocumented residents - they may have been brought over when they were very young, thus growing up essentially American in every way but having no papers - they get totally screwed because they basically get treated as if they chose to cross over illegally.
This is already too long and still doesn't begin to answer your question... [This]( might help a little. And it doesn't help at all that our immigration laws are inconsistent and often impossible to enforce, and that the various agents of the various bureaus are even more inconsistent in their application of those laws. I personally know someone who got deported because of an INS mistake, and my boyfriend rages about their incompetence all the time.
tl;dr holy hell our immigration laws are complicated and confusing, and irregularly applied. Good question. | My boyfriend is an immigration lawyer and I've learned a lot about the immigration process from him. The long waiting periods mentioned by others are part of the problem, but we also regulate how many visas are available annually, and only give so many per country. I don't know the numbers for Mexico but probably fairly low - as you might expect (fear?) wealthier whiter countries have higher numbers in general. The main ways that I know about to get visas (other than for students) are: investor (basically you're rich, and we let you buy a visa because you'll be "good for the economy); hardship or asylum (very difficult to obtain); extraordinary ability (as someone mentioned - being able to do a job most Americans can't, like being an internationally renowned neurosurgeon or something); and various employment visas (having your employer sponsor you). And obviously marriage to a citizen, but even that takes a long time and can be complicated.
One obvious problem is the kids of undocumented residents - they may have been brought over when they were very young, thus growing up essentially American in every way but having no papers - they get totally screwed because they basically get treated as if they chose to cross over illegally.
This is already too long and still doesn't begin to answer your question... [This]( might help a little. And it doesn't help at all that our immigration laws are inconsistent and often impossible to enforce, and that the various agents of the various bureaus are even more inconsistent in their application of those laws. I personally know someone who got deported because of an INS mistake, and my boyfriend rages about their incompetence all the time.
tl;dr holy hell our immigration laws are complicated and confusing, and irregularly applied. Good question.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c0oydn2 | My boyfriend is an immigration lawyer and I've learned a lot about the immigration process from him. The long waiting periods mentioned by others are part of the problem, but we also regulate how many visas are available annually, and only give so many per country. I don't know the numbers for Mexico but probably fairly low - as you might expect (fear?) wealthier whiter countries have higher numbers in general. The main ways that I know about to get visas (other than for students) are: investor (basically you're rich, and we let you buy a visa because you'll be "good for the economy); hardship or asylum (very difficult to obtain); extraordinary ability (as someone mentioned - being able to do a job most Americans can't, like being an internationally renowned neurosurgeon or something); and various employment visas (having your employer sponsor you). And obviously marriage to a citizen, but even that takes a long time and can be complicated.
One obvious problem is the kids of undocumented residents - they may have been brought over when they were very young, thus growing up essentially American in every way but having no papers - they get totally screwed because they basically get treated as if they chose to cross over illegally.
This is already too long and still doesn't begin to answer your question... [This]( might help a little. And it doesn't help at all that our immigration laws are inconsistent and often impossible to enforce, and that the various agents of the various bureaus are even more inconsistent in their application of those laws. I personally know someone who got deported because of an INS mistake, and my boyfriend rages about their incompetence all the time. | holy hell our immigration laws are complicated and confusing, and irregularly applied. Good question. |
hella_bro | I posted this on the original thread, and I will re-post it here because it is VERY important:
This is called nuchal rigidity. In medical practice this is called a "specific" test, meaning the presence of this sign is highly suggestive of meningitis. BUT it is NOT a "sensitive" test, which means the absence of this does NOT preclude the possibility of meningitis.
So just because your neck is not stiff does not mean you don't have meningitis. This is extremely important to keep in mind for little kids especially because they almost never present with stiff necks and instead with very diffuse complains like irritability, vomiting, fever, crying. That is why whenever a child comes in with these complains one of the first things that is done is a lumbar puncture which is much more diagnostic than these signs (i.e nuchal rigidity, Kernig sign, Brudzinksy sign).
TLDR: Don't put too much trust on this test, especially if it is a child | I posted this on the original thread, and I will re-post it here because it is VERY important:
This is called nuchal rigidity. In medical practice this is called a "specific" test, meaning the presence of this sign is highly suggestive of meningitis. BUT it is NOT a "sensitive" test, which means the absence of this does NOT preclude the possibility of meningitis.
So just because your neck is not stiff does not mean you don't have meningitis. This is extremely important to keep in mind for little kids especially because they almost never present with stiff necks and instead with very diffuse complains like irritability, vomiting, fever, crying. That is why whenever a child comes in with these complains one of the first things that is done is a lumbar puncture which is much more diagnostic than these signs (i.e nuchal rigidity, Kernig sign, Brudzinksy sign).
TLDR: Don't put too much trust on this test, especially if it is a child
| todayilearned | t5_2qqjc | c0p2sca | I posted this on the original thread, and I will re-post it here because it is VERY important:
This is called nuchal rigidity. In medical practice this is called a "specific" test, meaning the presence of this sign is highly suggestive of meningitis. BUT it is NOT a "sensitive" test, which means the absence of this does NOT preclude the possibility of meningitis.
So just because your neck is not stiff does not mean you don't have meningitis. This is extremely important to keep in mind for little kids especially because they almost never present with stiff necks and instead with very diffuse complains like irritability, vomiting, fever, crying. That is why whenever a child comes in with these complains one of the first things that is done is a lumbar puncture which is much more diagnostic than these signs (i.e nuchal rigidity, Kernig sign, Brudzinksy sign). | Don't put too much trust on this test, especially if it is a child |
Dark_Crystal | You have an opinion. You have taken a side. By your own logic, your opinion is no longer valid. If your opinion is not valid, then taking a side does not invalidate opinions. If that is the case, your opinion is valid, and we start all over again.
tl;dr: What you have stated is a logical paradox, please try to unfuck your shit, and try again. | You have an opinion. You have taken a side. By your own logic, your opinion is no longer valid. If your opinion is not valid, then taking a side does not invalidate opinions. If that is the case, your opinion is valid, and we start all over again.
tl;dr: What you have stated is a logical paradox, please try to unfuck your shit, and try again.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | c0p4n0o | You have an opinion. You have taken a side. By your own logic, your opinion is no longer valid. If your opinion is not valid, then taking a side does not invalidate opinions. If that is the case, your opinion is valid, and we start all over again. | What you have stated is a logical paradox, please try to unfuck your shit, and try again. |
Dark_Crystal | No, I was trying to point out the logical issues with your statement, as worded. Nothing having to do with me, logically what you said is impossible as stated. Let me give you a more clear example:
The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.
tl;dr again: I was trying to point out that what you said was logically flawed, and being very snarky while doing it. | No, I was trying to point out the logical issues with your statement, as worded. Nothing having to do with me, logically what you said is impossible as stated. Let me give you a more clear example:
The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.
tl;dr again: I was trying to point out that what you said was logically flawed, and being very snarky while doing it.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | c0p4pxb | No, I was trying to point out the logical issues with your statement, as worded. Nothing having to do with me, logically what you said is impossible as stated. Let me give you a more clear example:
The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false. | again: I was trying to point out that what you said was logically flawed, and being very snarky while doing it. |
ironicname | My Dad joined the Navy out of high school because he had no idea what he wanted to do with his life. He says he would have flunked out of college if he tried to go right away. He ended up spending 5 years on active duty during which he started taking night classes. He switched over to the Reserves, went to school full time and finished his BS which allowed him to get a pretty good civil service job. In a few years he'll be drawing two pensions from our tax money - one from the Navy and one as a Federal employee. Oh, and all that schooling was on their dime too.
I would argue though, that types of jobs most people in the Air Force have tend to set you up better for a future career if you don't plan to make the military a career or if school just isn't for you.
tl;dr: Navy can get you started going somewhere in life especially if you have no work ethic. | My Dad joined the Navy out of high school because he had no idea what he wanted to do with his life. He says he would have flunked out of college if he tried to go right away. He ended up spending 5 years on active duty during which he started taking night classes. He switched over to the Reserves, went to school full time and finished his BS which allowed him to get a pretty good civil service job. In a few years he'll be drawing two pensions from our tax money - one from the Navy and one as a Federal employee. Oh, and all that schooling was on their dime too.
I would argue though, that types of jobs most people in the Air Force have tend to set you up better for a future career if you don't plan to make the military a career or if school just isn't for you.
tl;dr: Navy can get you started going somewhere in life especially if you have no work ethic.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0p673y | My Dad joined the Navy out of high school because he had no idea what he wanted to do with his life. He says he would have flunked out of college if he tried to go right away. He ended up spending 5 years on active duty during which he started taking night classes. He switched over to the Reserves, went to school full time and finished his BS which allowed him to get a pretty good civil service job. In a few years he'll be drawing two pensions from our tax money - one from the Navy and one as a Federal employee. Oh, and all that schooling was on their dime too.
I would argue though, that types of jobs most people in the Air Force have tend to set you up better for a future career if you don't plan to make the military a career or if school just isn't for you. | Navy can get you started going somewhere in life especially if you have no work ethic. |
newliberty | > The Credit, Housing, Health Care and Wall Street Bubbles were created by deregulation.
That is a myth - there was no relevant deregulation (a real deregulation would be a separation of economy and state, except protecting property rights and contracts) - regulatory budgets, housing policy intervention, and federal reserve intervention only increased in the years leading up to the bust. The government has a monopoly on the supply of money - something that is used in 1/2 of most transactions - and hence we have a state-controlled market and, in particular, an extremely state-controlled financial market - as it is perhaps the highest regulated industry.
Federal reserve policy was at the heart of this business cycle:
Now, Tom Dilorenzo makes this case:
> Most recently, the current economic crisis is said to be caused by the "excesses" of economic freedom and "too little regulation" of the economy, especially financial markets. This is said by the president and numerous other politicians, with straight faces, despite the facts that there are a dozen executive-branch cabinet departments, **over 100 federal agencies** , **more than 85,000 pages in the Federal Register**, and **dozens of state and local government agencies** that regulate, regiment, tax, and control every aspect of every business in America, and have been doing so for decades.
> Laissez-faire run amok in financial markets is said to be a cause of the current crisis. But the Fed alone — a secret government organization that is accountable to no one and which has never been audited — performs hundreds of regulatory functions, in addition to recklessly manipulating the money supply. And it is just one of numerous financial regulatory agencies (the SEC, Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, FDIC, and numerous state regulators also exist). In a Fed publication entitled "The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions," it is explained that "The Federal Reserve has supervisory and regulatory authority over a wide range of financial institutions and activities." That's the understatement of the century. Among the Fed's functions are the regulation of
> Bank holding companies, State-chartered banks, Foreign branches of member banks, Edge and agreement corporations, US state-licensed branches, agencies, and representative offices of foreign banks, Nonbanking activities of foreign banks, National banks (with the Comptroller of the Currency), Savings banks (with the Office of Thrift Supervision), Nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies, Thrift holding companies, Financial reporting, Accounting policies of banks, Business "continuity" in case of an economic emergency, Consumer-protection laws, Securities dealings of banks, Information technology used by banks, Foreign investments of banks, Foreign lending by banks, Branch banking, Bank mergers and acquisitions, Who may own a bank, Capital "adequacy standards", Extensions of credit for the purchase of securities, Equal-opportunity lending, Mortgage disclosure information, Reserve requirements, Electronic-funds transfers, Interbank liabilities, Community Reinvestment Act subprime lending requirements, All international banking operations, Consumer leasing, Privacy of consumer financial information, Payments on demand deposits, "Fair credit" reporting, Transactions, between member banks and their affiliates, Truth in lending, and truth in savings.
> That's a pretty comprehensive list, the result of 96 years of bureaucratic empire building by Fed bureaucrats. It gives the lie to the notion that there has been "too little regulation" of financial markets. Anyone who makes such an argument is either ignorant of the truth or is lying.
Now, again [regarding regulatory budgets](
> In a Mercatus Center study, Veronique de Rugy and Melinda Warren found that outlays for banking and **financial regulation increased from only $190 million in 1960 to $1.9 billion in 2000 and to more than $2.3 billion in 2008 (in constant 2000 dollars)**.
Focusing specifically on the Securities and Exchange Commission—the agency at the center of Wall Street regulation—budget outlays under President George W. Bush increased in real terms by more than 76 percent, from **$357 million to $629 million (2000 dollars)**.
And the Glass-Steagall repeal wasn't a full deregulation, and indeed the act was largely a red herring, as Cato explains:
> Gramm-Leach-Bliley
> Central to any claim that deregulation caused the crisis is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The core of Gramm-Leach-Bliley is a repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act's prohibition on the mixing of investment and commercial banking. Investment banks assist corporations and governments by underwriting, marketing, and advising on debt and equity issued. They often also have large trading operations where they buy and sell financial securities both on behalf of their clients and on their own account. Commercial banks accept insured deposits and make loans to households and businesses. The deregulation critique posits that once Congress cleared the way for investment and commercial banks to merge, the investment banks were given the incentive to take greater risks, while reducing the amount of equity they are required to hold against any given dollar of assets.
> But there are questions about how much impact the law had on the financial markets and whether it had any influence on the current financial crisis. Even before its passage, investment banks were already allowed to trade and hold the very financial assets at the center of the financial crisis: mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, credit-default swaps, collateralized debt obligations. The shift of investment banks into holding substantial trading portfolios resulted from their increased capital base as a result of most investment banks becoming publicly held companies, a structure allowed under Glass-Steagall.
> Second, very few financial holding companies decided to combine investment and commercial banking activities. The two investment banks whose failures have come to symbolize the financial crisis, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, were not affiliated with any depository institutions. Rather, had either Bear or Lehman possessed a large source of insured deposits, they would likely have survived their short-term liquidity problems. As former president Bill Clinton told BusinessWeek in 2008, "I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill."
> Gramm-Leach-Bliley has been presented by both its supporters and detractors as a revolution in financial services. However, the act itself had little impact on the trading activities of investment banks. The off-balancesheet activities of Bear and Lehman were allowable prior to the act's passage. Nor did these trading activities undermine any affiliated commercial banks, as Bear and Lehman did not have affiliated commercial banks. Additionally, those large banks that did combine investment and commercial banking have survived the crisis in better shape than those that did not.
**tl;dr** - The bottom line is that there should be no reason that two people (or two members of different companies) shouldn't be able to make a financial contract with each other. The government should enforce contracts and protect property rights. But if people are to claim that allowing freedom of transaction contributes to an unstable market - it is only because the current financial system rests of the shaky foundations of fractional-reserve banks propped up by a cartelizing Fed. Any regulation or phony deregulation that doesn't address those foundations will miss the point. | > The Credit, Housing, Health Care and Wall Street Bubbles were created by deregulation.
That is a myth - there was no relevant deregulation (a real deregulation would be a separation of economy and state, except protecting property rights and contracts) - regulatory budgets, housing policy intervention, and federal reserve intervention only increased in the years leading up to the bust. The government has a monopoly on the supply of money - something that is used in 1/2 of most transactions - and hence we have a state-controlled market and, in particular, an extremely state-controlled financial market - as it is perhaps the highest regulated industry.
Federal reserve policy was at the heart of this business cycle:
Now, Tom Dilorenzo makes this case:
> Most recently, the current economic crisis is said to be caused by the "excesses" of economic freedom and "too little regulation" of the economy, especially financial markets. This is said by the president and numerous other politicians, with straight faces, despite the facts that there are a dozen executive-branch cabinet departments, over 100 federal agencies , more than 85,000 pages in the Federal Register , and dozens of state and local government agencies that regulate, regiment, tax, and control every aspect of every business in America, and have been doing so for decades.
> Laissez-faire run amok in financial markets is said to be a cause of the current crisis. But the Fed alone — a secret government organization that is accountable to no one and which has never been audited — performs hundreds of regulatory functions, in addition to recklessly manipulating the money supply. And it is just one of numerous financial regulatory agencies (the SEC, Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, FDIC, and numerous state regulators also exist). In a Fed publication entitled "The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions," it is explained that "The Federal Reserve has supervisory and regulatory authority over a wide range of financial institutions and activities." That's the understatement of the century. Among the Fed's functions are the regulation of
> Bank holding companies, State-chartered banks, Foreign branches of member banks, Edge and agreement corporations, US state-licensed branches, agencies, and representative offices of foreign banks, Nonbanking activities of foreign banks, National banks (with the Comptroller of the Currency), Savings banks (with the Office of Thrift Supervision), Nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies, Thrift holding companies, Financial reporting, Accounting policies of banks, Business "continuity" in case of an economic emergency, Consumer-protection laws, Securities dealings of banks, Information technology used by banks, Foreign investments of banks, Foreign lending by banks, Branch banking, Bank mergers and acquisitions, Who may own a bank, Capital "adequacy standards", Extensions of credit for the purchase of securities, Equal-opportunity lending, Mortgage disclosure information, Reserve requirements, Electronic-funds transfers, Interbank liabilities, Community Reinvestment Act subprime lending requirements, All international banking operations, Consumer leasing, Privacy of consumer financial information, Payments on demand deposits, "Fair credit" reporting, Transactions, between member banks and their affiliates, Truth in lending, and truth in savings.
> That's a pretty comprehensive list, the result of 96 years of bureaucratic empire building by Fed bureaucrats. It gives the lie to the notion that there has been "too little regulation" of financial markets. Anyone who makes such an argument is either ignorant of the truth or is lying.
Now, again [regarding regulatory budgets](
> In a Mercatus Center study, Veronique de Rugy and Melinda Warren found that outlays for banking and financial regulation increased from only $190 million in 1960 to $1.9 billion in 2000 and to more than $2.3 billion in 2008 (in constant 2000 dollars) .
Focusing specifically on the Securities and Exchange Commission—the agency at the center of Wall Street regulation—budget outlays under President George W. Bush increased in real terms by more than 76 percent, from $357 million to $629 million (2000 dollars) .
And the Glass-Steagall repeal wasn't a full deregulation, and indeed the act was largely a red herring, as Cato explains:
> Gramm-Leach-Bliley
> Central to any claim that deregulation caused the crisis is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The core of Gramm-Leach-Bliley is a repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act's prohibition on the mixing of investment and commercial banking. Investment banks assist corporations and governments by underwriting, marketing, and advising on debt and equity issued. They often also have large trading operations where they buy and sell financial securities both on behalf of their clients and on their own account. Commercial banks accept insured deposits and make loans to households and businesses. The deregulation critique posits that once Congress cleared the way for investment and commercial banks to merge, the investment banks were given the incentive to take greater risks, while reducing the amount of equity they are required to hold against any given dollar of assets.
> But there are questions about how much impact the law had on the financial markets and whether it had any influence on the current financial crisis. Even before its passage, investment banks were already allowed to trade and hold the very financial assets at the center of the financial crisis: mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, credit-default swaps, collateralized debt obligations. The shift of investment banks into holding substantial trading portfolios resulted from their increased capital base as a result of most investment banks becoming publicly held companies, a structure allowed under Glass-Steagall.
> Second, very few financial holding companies decided to combine investment and commercial banking activities. The two investment banks whose failures have come to symbolize the financial crisis, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, were not affiliated with any depository institutions. Rather, had either Bear or Lehman possessed a large source of insured deposits, they would likely have survived their short-term liquidity problems. As former president Bill Clinton told BusinessWeek in 2008, "I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill."
> Gramm-Leach-Bliley has been presented by both its supporters and detractors as a revolution in financial services. However, the act itself had little impact on the trading activities of investment banks. The off-balancesheet activities of Bear and Lehman were allowable prior to the act's passage. Nor did these trading activities undermine any affiliated commercial banks, as Bear and Lehman did not have affiliated commercial banks. Additionally, those large banks that did combine investment and commercial banking have survived the crisis in better shape than those that did not.
tl;dr - The bottom line is that there should be no reason that two people (or two members of different companies) shouldn't be able to make a financial contract with each other. The government should enforce contracts and protect property rights. But if people are to claim that allowing freedom of transaction contributes to an unstable market - it is only because the current financial system rests of the shaky foundations of fractional-reserve banks propped up by a cartelizing Fed. Any regulation or phony deregulation that doesn't address those foundations will miss the point.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c0pertx | The Credit, Housing, Health Care and Wall Street Bubbles were created by deregulation.
That is a myth - there was no relevant deregulation (a real deregulation would be a separation of economy and state, except protecting property rights and contracts) - regulatory budgets, housing policy intervention, and federal reserve intervention only increased in the years leading up to the bust. The government has a monopoly on the supply of money - something that is used in 1/2 of most transactions - and hence we have a state-controlled market and, in particular, an extremely state-controlled financial market - as it is perhaps the highest regulated industry.
Federal reserve policy was at the heart of this business cycle:
Now, Tom Dilorenzo makes this case:
> Most recently, the current economic crisis is said to be caused by the "excesses" of economic freedom and "too little regulation" of the economy, especially financial markets. This is said by the president and numerous other politicians, with straight faces, despite the facts that there are a dozen executive-branch cabinet departments, over 100 federal agencies , more than 85,000 pages in the Federal Register , and dozens of state and local government agencies that regulate, regiment, tax, and control every aspect of every business in America, and have been doing so for decades.
> Laissez-faire run amok in financial markets is said to be a cause of the current crisis. But the Fed alone — a secret government organization that is accountable to no one and which has never been audited — performs hundreds of regulatory functions, in addition to recklessly manipulating the money supply. And it is just one of numerous financial regulatory agencies (the SEC, Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, FDIC, and numerous state regulators also exist). In a Fed publication entitled "The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions," it is explained that "The Federal Reserve has supervisory and regulatory authority over a wide range of financial institutions and activities." That's the understatement of the century. Among the Fed's functions are the regulation of
> Bank holding companies, State-chartered banks, Foreign branches of member banks, Edge and agreement corporations, US state-licensed branches, agencies, and representative offices of foreign banks, Nonbanking activities of foreign banks, National banks (with the Comptroller of the Currency), Savings banks (with the Office of Thrift Supervision), Nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies, Thrift holding companies, Financial reporting, Accounting policies of banks, Business "continuity" in case of an economic emergency, Consumer-protection laws, Securities dealings of banks, Information technology used by banks, Foreign investments of banks, Foreign lending by banks, Branch banking, Bank mergers and acquisitions, Who may own a bank, Capital "adequacy standards", Extensions of credit for the purchase of securities, Equal-opportunity lending, Mortgage disclosure information, Reserve requirements, Electronic-funds transfers, Interbank liabilities, Community Reinvestment Act subprime lending requirements, All international banking operations, Consumer leasing, Privacy of consumer financial information, Payments on demand deposits, "Fair credit" reporting, Transactions, between member banks and their affiliates, Truth in lending, and truth in savings.
> That's a pretty comprehensive list, the result of 96 years of bureaucratic empire building by Fed bureaucrats. It gives the lie to the notion that there has been "too little regulation" of financial markets. Anyone who makes such an argument is either ignorant of the truth or is lying.
Now, again [regarding regulatory budgets](
> In a Mercatus Center study, Veronique de Rugy and Melinda Warren found that outlays for banking and financial regulation increased from only $190 million in 1960 to $1.9 billion in 2000 and to more than $2.3 billion in 2008 (in constant 2000 dollars) .
Focusing specifically on the Securities and Exchange Commission—the agency at the center of Wall Street regulation—budget outlays under President George W. Bush increased in real terms by more than 76 percent, from $357 million to $629 million (2000 dollars) .
And the Glass-Steagall repeal wasn't a full deregulation, and indeed the act was largely a red herring, as Cato explains:
> Gramm-Leach-Bliley
> Central to any claim that deregulation caused the crisis is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The core of Gramm-Leach-Bliley is a repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act's prohibition on the mixing of investment and commercial banking. Investment banks assist corporations and governments by underwriting, marketing, and advising on debt and equity issued. They often also have large trading operations where they buy and sell financial securities both on behalf of their clients and on their own account. Commercial banks accept insured deposits and make loans to households and businesses. The deregulation critique posits that once Congress cleared the way for investment and commercial banks to merge, the investment banks were given the incentive to take greater risks, while reducing the amount of equity they are required to hold against any given dollar of assets.
> But there are questions about how much impact the law had on the financial markets and whether it had any influence on the current financial crisis. Even before its passage, investment banks were already allowed to trade and hold the very financial assets at the center of the financial crisis: mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, credit-default swaps, collateralized debt obligations. The shift of investment banks into holding substantial trading portfolios resulted from their increased capital base as a result of most investment banks becoming publicly held companies, a structure allowed under Glass-Steagall.
> Second, very few financial holding companies decided to combine investment and commercial banking activities. The two investment banks whose failures have come to symbolize the financial crisis, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, were not affiliated with any depository institutions. Rather, had either Bear or Lehman possessed a large source of insured deposits, they would likely have survived their short-term liquidity problems. As former president Bill Clinton told BusinessWeek in 2008, "I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill."
> Gramm-Leach-Bliley has been presented by both its supporters and detractors as a revolution in financial services. However, the act itself had little impact on the trading activities of investment banks. The off-balancesheet activities of Bear and Lehman were allowable prior to the act's passage. Nor did these trading activities undermine any affiliated commercial banks, as Bear and Lehman did not have affiliated commercial banks. Additionally, those large banks that did combine investment and commercial banking have survived the crisis in better shape than those that did not. | The bottom line is that there should be no reason that two people (or two members of different companies) shouldn't be able to make a financial contract with each other. The government should enforce contracts and protect property rights. But if people are to claim that allowing freedom of transaction contributes to an unstable market - it is only because the current financial system rests of the shaky foundations of fractional-reserve banks propped up by a cartelizing Fed. Any regulation or phony deregulation that doesn't address those foundations will miss the point. |
RedPulse | Thank you for asking about this. I firmly believe most Tool fans do not intend to be assholes. There is a theme in the music which goes "think for yourself" and "question authority." Since Tool came around the same time as Rage Against the Machine (both lead guitarists are friends), there is a sense of rebellion written into the music. Also, this type of music belongs to a genre called "progressive rock" which entitles the listener to dissect the parts and critique the musical and deeper meanings of it. Many of the songs have double meanings and personal subject matter (censorship, father/motherless and even rape) which are touchy in and of themselves.
Tl Dr; The music purports itself to be unique and interpretive like pink floyd so it becomes sensitive subject matter. Thus resulting in an "asshole vibe" of someone who views themselves as unique. | Thank you for asking about this. I firmly believe most Tool fans do not intend to be assholes. There is a theme in the music which goes "think for yourself" and "question authority." Since Tool came around the same time as Rage Against the Machine (both lead guitarists are friends), there is a sense of rebellion written into the music. Also, this type of music belongs to a genre called "progressive rock" which entitles the listener to dissect the parts and critique the musical and deeper meanings of it. Many of the songs have double meanings and personal subject matter (censorship, father/motherless and even rape) which are touchy in and of themselves.
Tl Dr; The music purports itself to be unique and interpretive like pink floyd so it becomes sensitive subject matter. Thus resulting in an "asshole vibe" of someone who views themselves as unique.
| IAmA | t5_2qzb6 | c0pd9rs | Thank you for asking about this. I firmly believe most Tool fans do not intend to be assholes. There is a theme in the music which goes "think for yourself" and "question authority." Since Tool came around the same time as Rage Against the Machine (both lead guitarists are friends), there is a sense of rebellion written into the music. Also, this type of music belongs to a genre called "progressive rock" which entitles the listener to dissect the parts and critique the musical and deeper meanings of it. Many of the songs have double meanings and personal subject matter (censorship, father/motherless and even rape) which are touchy in and of themselves. | The music purports itself to be unique and interpretive like pink floyd so it becomes sensitive subject matter. Thus resulting in an "asshole vibe" of someone who views themselves as unique. |
Superbird42 | Yeah, like the video in Hammer2000's comment, don't play it like it's MW2. You're far more sluggish and multifunctional, and it's a game based around helping your team to win as opposed to camping and playing for yourself.
Every role has a support feature, and remembering to use that & assisting team mates is just as worthy as running to the front line and killing as many people as possible.
When you start out take it slow, try to learn the maps as fast as possible to avoid being a level 30 who can't sneak into a base because he only uses the main road.
Knife kills are slow compared to MW2; *really* slow! Use them if you need to reload but one more enemy comes through the door or if you've successfully snuck up on an enemy (But expect to miss sometimes at point blank).
Tl;dr: Help teammates and take it slow [that's as fast as your guy can run anyway]. | Yeah, like the video in Hammer2000's comment, don't play it like it's MW2. You're far more sluggish and multifunctional, and it's a game based around helping your team to win as opposed to camping and playing for yourself.
Every role has a support feature, and remembering to use that & assisting team mates is just as worthy as running to the front line and killing as many people as possible.
When you start out take it slow, try to learn the maps as fast as possible to avoid being a level 30 who can't sneak into a base because he only uses the main road.
Knife kills are slow compared to MW2; really slow! Use them if you need to reload but one more enemy comes through the door or if you've successfully snuck up on an enemy (But expect to miss sometimes at point blank).
Tl;dr: Help teammates and take it slow [that's as fast as your guy can run anyway].
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | c0phbi2 | Yeah, like the video in Hammer2000's comment, don't play it like it's MW2. You're far more sluggish and multifunctional, and it's a game based around helping your team to win as opposed to camping and playing for yourself.
Every role has a support feature, and remembering to use that & assisting team mates is just as worthy as running to the front line and killing as many people as possible.
When you start out take it slow, try to learn the maps as fast as possible to avoid being a level 30 who can't sneak into a base because he only uses the main road.
Knife kills are slow compared to MW2; really slow! Use them if you need to reload but one more enemy comes through the door or if you've successfully snuck up on an enemy (But expect to miss sometimes at point blank). | Help teammates and take it slow [that's as fast as your guy can run anyway]. |
LG03 | I'll play the part of the anonymous elitist asshole for a minute and I fully expect downvotes for it. This video demonstrates neither effectiveness nor any spectacular skill. The player quite often runs around in circles, doesn't react to getting shot, tosses a med pack out in the open and waits to die, goes minutes with half a magazine spent without reloading and passes up or ignores kills. Seems to me like the player here is one of those people that just spam rezzes anyone in sight and I fucking hate medics that do this. Quite often I'm one of the only people rushing an MCOM and dying behind the enemy line, surrounded by many men, goes with the job. The last thing I want is for some idiot medic to come screaming in there and reviving me just so I can die again but that's just me ranting.
TLDR this player is mediocre at BEST and there's no reason to spend 20 minutes watching this.
Also as I watch part 2 he's one of those idiots that types team warnings/information in All chat. I just hate those people. | I'll play the part of the anonymous elitist asshole for a minute and I fully expect downvotes for it. This video demonstrates neither effectiveness nor any spectacular skill. The player quite often runs around in circles, doesn't react to getting shot, tosses a med pack out in the open and waits to die, goes minutes with half a magazine spent without reloading and passes up or ignores kills. Seems to me like the player here is one of those people that just spam rezzes anyone in sight and I fucking hate medics that do this. Quite often I'm one of the only people rushing an MCOM and dying behind the enemy line, surrounded by many men, goes with the job. The last thing I want is for some idiot medic to come screaming in there and reviving me just so I can die again but that's just me ranting.
TLDR this player is mediocre at BEST and there's no reason to spend 20 minutes watching this.
Also as I watch part 2 he's one of those idiots that types team warnings/information in All chat. I just hate those people.
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | c0phh3a | I'll play the part of the anonymous elitist asshole for a minute and I fully expect downvotes for it. This video demonstrates neither effectiveness nor any spectacular skill. The player quite often runs around in circles, doesn't react to getting shot, tosses a med pack out in the open and waits to die, goes minutes with half a magazine spent without reloading and passes up or ignores kills. Seems to me like the player here is one of those people that just spam rezzes anyone in sight and I fucking hate medics that do this. Quite often I'm one of the only people rushing an MCOM and dying behind the enemy line, surrounded by many men, goes with the job. The last thing I want is for some idiot medic to come screaming in there and reviving me just so I can die again but that's just me ranting. | this player is mediocre at BEST and there's no reason to spend 20 minutes watching this.
Also as I watch part 2 he's one of those idiots that types team warnings/information in All chat. I just hate those people. |
JudgeHolden | Through years of working in the construction industry I am good friends with several guys who did 10+ years and am acquainted with many more. The guys who get fucked with are almost always sex offenders (especially if minors were involved), snitches, or young and scared dudes who are not physically or mentally strong. Also, never accept any favors from anyone unless they're in your car. Finally, and this seems like something I shouldn't have to say but that people --especially on Reddit-- seem to always forget, most convicts are liars and it's often very hard to tell if you're getting a straight story out of them.
One friend who did 11 years at OSP tells me that they could almost always tell, as soon as a fish (new guy) walked on the yard, if he was going to make it or not. According to him, and other sources as well, if you're a smart and reasonably strong dude and can keep your wits about you and follow basic prison rules, you'll be fine. This particular guy I'm talking about should know too. When he first went down he was in his early twenties, was 5'6", white and had a "Blood Killer" tattoo on his back because he was an 18th St. Crip. At that time, in the early 90s, white guys in traditionally black or latino gangs were a brand new phenomenon and it wasn't something that was accepted. It's much more accepted now, but for the first two-three years of his 11 year sentence, he had to fight every time he left his cell. The white guys would beat him for being in a black gang, and the black guys would beat him for being in a black gang and if he wasn't a tough-as-nails little bastard, he would have been somebody's victim. (The white guys told him to cut the tattoo off. He never did, still has it today though he doesn't run with the Crips anymore) Fortunately for him he went down in Oregon and not California where he probably wouldn't have made it. Anyhow after a few years other white Crips started to filter into the system and they eventually became a well-established car at OSP. He told me another story about a new kid who came in, seemed alright, so they took him into their car, but someone else publicly disrespected him and he didn't "take care of business," so they straight up traded him to a giant black dude who was known rapist and who did in fact rape the crap out of him. Another time they sold a guy who they found out was a snitch. It's very very hard, but that's the way you have to be if you want to maintain respect and not get victimized yourself. If someone disrespects you, you don't have a choice, you have to fight.
TLDR: I know a lot of convicts who've done serious time. Bottom line; it's very very rare that everyone doesn't know exactly who is at risk of ending up a bitch when they walk out on the yard for the first time. What that should tell you is that there really are a pretty obvious set of characteristics that lead to victimization, whether the victims realize it themselves or not.
| Through years of working in the construction industry I am good friends with several guys who did 10+ years and am acquainted with many more. The guys who get fucked with are almost always sex offenders (especially if minors were involved), snitches, or young and scared dudes who are not physically or mentally strong. Also, never accept any favors from anyone unless they're in your car. Finally, and this seems like something I shouldn't have to say but that people --especially on Reddit-- seem to always forget, most convicts are liars and it's often very hard to tell if you're getting a straight story out of them.
One friend who did 11 years at OSP tells me that they could almost always tell, as soon as a fish (new guy) walked on the yard, if he was going to make it or not. According to him, and other sources as well, if you're a smart and reasonably strong dude and can keep your wits about you and follow basic prison rules, you'll be fine. This particular guy I'm talking about should know too. When he first went down he was in his early twenties, was 5'6", white and had a "Blood Killer" tattoo on his back because he was an 18th St. Crip. At that time, in the early 90s, white guys in traditionally black or latino gangs were a brand new phenomenon and it wasn't something that was accepted. It's much more accepted now, but for the first two-three years of his 11 year sentence, he had to fight every time he left his cell. The white guys would beat him for being in a black gang, and the black guys would beat him for being in a black gang and if he wasn't a tough-as-nails little bastard, he would have been somebody's victim. (The white guys told him to cut the tattoo off. He never did, still has it today though he doesn't run with the Crips anymore) Fortunately for him he went down in Oregon and not California where he probably wouldn't have made it. Anyhow after a few years other white Crips started to filter into the system and they eventually became a well-established car at OSP. He told me another story about a new kid who came in, seemed alright, so they took him into their car, but someone else publicly disrespected him and he didn't "take care of business," so they straight up traded him to a giant black dude who was known rapist and who did in fact rape the crap out of him. Another time they sold a guy who they found out was a snitch. It's very very hard, but that's the way you have to be if you want to maintain respect and not get victimized yourself. If someone disrespects you, you don't have a choice, you have to fight.
TLDR: I know a lot of convicts who've done serious time. Bottom line; it's very very rare that everyone doesn't know exactly who is at risk of ending up a bitch when they walk out on the yard for the first time. What that should tell you is that there really are a pretty obvious set of characteristics that lead to victimization, whether the victims realize it themselves or not.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c0pmnlg | Through years of working in the construction industry I am good friends with several guys who did 10+ years and am acquainted with many more. The guys who get fucked with are almost always sex offenders (especially if minors were involved), snitches, or young and scared dudes who are not physically or mentally strong. Also, never accept any favors from anyone unless they're in your car. Finally, and this seems like something I shouldn't have to say but that people --especially on Reddit-- seem to always forget, most convicts are liars and it's often very hard to tell if you're getting a straight story out of them.
One friend who did 11 years at OSP tells me that they could almost always tell, as soon as a fish (new guy) walked on the yard, if he was going to make it or not. According to him, and other sources as well, if you're a smart and reasonably strong dude and can keep your wits about you and follow basic prison rules, you'll be fine. This particular guy I'm talking about should know too. When he first went down he was in his early twenties, was 5'6", white and had a "Blood Killer" tattoo on his back because he was an 18th St. Crip. At that time, in the early 90s, white guys in traditionally black or latino gangs were a brand new phenomenon and it wasn't something that was accepted. It's much more accepted now, but for the first two-three years of his 11 year sentence, he had to fight every time he left his cell. The white guys would beat him for being in a black gang, and the black guys would beat him for being in a black gang and if he wasn't a tough-as-nails little bastard, he would have been somebody's victim. (The white guys told him to cut the tattoo off. He never did, still has it today though he doesn't run with the Crips anymore) Fortunately for him he went down in Oregon and not California where he probably wouldn't have made it. Anyhow after a few years other white Crips started to filter into the system and they eventually became a well-established car at OSP. He told me another story about a new kid who came in, seemed alright, so they took him into their car, but someone else publicly disrespected him and he didn't "take care of business," so they straight up traded him to a giant black dude who was known rapist and who did in fact rape the crap out of him. Another time they sold a guy who they found out was a snitch. It's very very hard, but that's the way you have to be if you want to maintain respect and not get victimized yourself. If someone disrespects you, you don't have a choice, you have to fight. | I know a lot of convicts who've done serious time. Bottom line; it's very very rare that everyone doesn't know exactly who is at risk of ending up a bitch when they walk out on the yard for the first time. What that should tell you is that there really are a pretty obvious set of characteristics that lead to victimization, whether the victims realize it themselves or not. |
xeromem | To be fair, I was treated with the same attitude by Canadian customs and immigration a few years ago. I was told by my customer (a U.S. Company with Canadian offices) that this was common, so I came prepared with documentation from the company who was my customer as well as the on-site Canadian contact. Even then I was told to sit and wait until everyone else was processed, and it still took over an hour for them to let me go. It wasn't really fair to give me such grief, but they were just doing their job.
It looks like this woman's only mistake was not telling US Customs that she was there as a tourist, which would not have been a lie IMHO.
tl;dr - Canadian customs were meanies and hurt my feelings. | To be fair, I was treated with the same attitude by Canadian customs and immigration a few years ago. I was told by my customer (a U.S. Company with Canadian offices) that this was common, so I came prepared with documentation from the company who was my customer as well as the on-site Canadian contact. Even then I was told to sit and wait until everyone else was processed, and it still took over an hour for them to let me go. It wasn't really fair to give me such grief, but they were just doing their job.
It looks like this woman's only mistake was not telling US Customs that she was there as a tourist, which would not have been a lie IMHO.
tl;dr - Canadian customs were meanies and hurt my feelings.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | c0pvrqm | To be fair, I was treated with the same attitude by Canadian customs and immigration a few years ago. I was told by my customer (a U.S. Company with Canadian offices) that this was common, so I came prepared with documentation from the company who was my customer as well as the on-site Canadian contact. Even then I was told to sit and wait until everyone else was processed, and it still took over an hour for them to let me go. It wasn't really fair to give me such grief, but they were just doing their job.
It looks like this woman's only mistake was not telling US Customs that she was there as a tourist, which would not have been a lie IMHO. | Canadian customs were meanies and hurt my feelings. |
buZZRd | I had a similar experience entering the U.S. for an unpaid internship. In fact, I was not receiving room and board, and had to pay those expenses out of pocket, and still had to spend several hours in U.S. Immigration trying to convince the (very nice and polite) border guard that I wasn't being paid or compensated in any way, except for a grade for completing an internship course at my Canadian university. I did try to do my research, but this situation wasn't 'volunteering' and it wasn't 'work', so I just drove to the border and sorted it out there. In the end, it was a printout of my bank balance that convinced him to let me in, something I included in my papers as an afterthought!
tl;dr - Same thing happened to me except that having money in my pocket convinced the U.S. border guards to let me in. | I had a similar experience entering the U.S. for an unpaid internship. In fact, I was not receiving room and board, and had to pay those expenses out of pocket, and still had to spend several hours in U.S. Immigration trying to convince the (very nice and polite) border guard that I wasn't being paid or compensated in any way, except for a grade for completing an internship course at my Canadian university. I did try to do my research, but this situation wasn't 'volunteering' and it wasn't 'work', so I just drove to the border and sorted it out there. In the end, it was a printout of my bank balance that convinced him to let me in, something I included in my papers as an afterthought!
tl;dr - Same thing happened to me except that having money in my pocket convinced the U.S. border guards to let me in.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | c0pxjhk | I had a similar experience entering the U.S. for an unpaid internship. In fact, I was not receiving room and board, and had to pay those expenses out of pocket, and still had to spend several hours in U.S. Immigration trying to convince the (very nice and polite) border guard that I wasn't being paid or compensated in any way, except for a grade for completing an internship course at my Canadian university. I did try to do my research, but this situation wasn't 'volunteering' and it wasn't 'work', so I just drove to the border and sorted it out there. In the end, it was a printout of my bank balance that convinced him to let me in, something I included in my papers as an afterthought! | Same thing happened to me except that having money in my pocket convinced the U.S. border guards to let me in. |
sophacles | I strongly reccommend all of Dune in one go. It should be noted that only Frank herbert Dune should be read this year. Wait a year to read the drivel that is "prequel" stuff from the son. Or wait 5 years. Or (best) just don't read it. There must be a proper amount of "stewing" to fully appreciate dune, before you ruin it.
Then any order or mixing is fine. The Dark Tower has a tendency to drag out. There are entire chapters that could be tl;dred without losing anything -- so you may want to be ready to switch it up.
Enjoy :) | I strongly reccommend all of Dune in one go. It should be noted that only Frank herbert Dune should be read this year. Wait a year to read the drivel that is "prequel" stuff from the son. Or wait 5 years. Or (best) just don't read it. There must be a proper amount of "stewing" to fully appreciate dune, before you ruin it.
Then any order or mixing is fine. The Dark Tower has a tendency to drag out. There are entire chapters that could be tl;dred without losing anything -- so you may want to be ready to switch it up.
Enjoy :)
| scifi | t5_2qh2z | c0pybb9 | I strongly reccommend all of Dune in one go. It should be noted that only Frank herbert Dune should be read this year. Wait a year to read the drivel that is "prequel" stuff from the son. Or wait 5 years. Or (best) just don't read it. There must be a proper amount of "stewing" to fully appreciate dune, before you ruin it.
Then any order or mixing is fine. The Dark Tower has a tendency to drag out. There are entire chapters that could be | ed without losing anything -- so you may want to be ready to switch it up.
Enjoy :) |
chunky_bacon | The biggest real disadvantage is that semi-autos are heavier. A smaller (negligible in most cases) disadvantage is that semi-autos cannot be quite as accurate as a bolt action rifle. Very few people shoot well enough to notice the difference and modern autos can be *very* accurate. The bolt action, being very simple is the most reliable, but again modern autos are very reliable and it may never be an issue for you. Finally, autos usually cost more than a comparable bolt gun.
TL;DR: cost, weight, reliability accuracy. Cost and weight are the ones you might actually notice. | The biggest real disadvantage is that semi-autos are heavier. A smaller (negligible in most cases) disadvantage is that semi-autos cannot be quite as accurate as a bolt action rifle. Very few people shoot well enough to notice the difference and modern autos can be very accurate. The bolt action, being very simple is the most reliable, but again modern autos are very reliable and it may never be an issue for you. Finally, autos usually cost more than a comparable bolt gun.
TL;DR: cost, weight, reliability accuracy. Cost and weight are the ones you might actually notice.
| guns | t5_2qhc8 | c0q0i36 | The biggest real disadvantage is that semi-autos are heavier. A smaller (negligible in most cases) disadvantage is that semi-autos cannot be quite as accurate as a bolt action rifle. Very few people shoot well enough to notice the difference and modern autos can be very accurate. The bolt action, being very simple is the most reliable, but again modern autos are very reliable and it may never be an issue for you. Finally, autos usually cost more than a comparable bolt gun. | cost, weight, reliability accuracy. Cost and weight are the ones you might actually notice. |
Tusularah | >It's in there. $143 Million in Tax Revenue. Did you read it?
Yeah, I did, and it looked low, so I did a very rough, very quick, most likely incredibly inaccurate guesstimate of the numbers. I figured:
(400000 illegal adults)(0.75 rate of employment)($10000/per year on consumables/adult)*(.06 sales tax) = ~180m/year from sales tax (technically a TPT)
I then looked at the numbers that FAIR provided, and they listed the revenue from sales tax at 78 million, which was within a power of ten of what I got (so we're both based in the same version of reality), but still seemed low. So, I googled FAIR, and low-and-behold, they’re not exactly a group that’s unbiased when it comes to non-whites. Heck, these crazy crackers even embrace *eugenics against minorities*. So when I said “You know that study ignores the fact that illegals buy things” I was more trying to say that, “You know that study is going to ignore every positive economic effect that might result from illegals participating in the economy.” In a sentence: FAIR will low-ball benefits from consumer purchasing power, taxes, and the revenue provided by cheap labor.
As for the AZ deficit, considering how much AZ citizens are *saving* because your state is so addicted to illegal labor, you really shouldn’t be complaining. Plus, since you lot are so crappy about actually fixing the immigration situation, but rather choose this authoritarian window-dressing bullshit, I really think you only have yourselves to blame over your budget issues.
>Illegal resident does not pay taxes
Wait, you just accused *me* of not reading the article, and you whip *this* gem out? Jesus, my condolences to the poor, disappointed parents who raised you. Illegal immigrants *do* pay income tax and Soc Sec (suspense files), and since they tend to arrive in their prime working age and are not eligible for the two big social costs (Medicaid, Medicare), they’re much less of a drain then you've been brainwashed into parroting. Add to that the fact that they’re providing cheap labor to businesses, thus inflating your state economy, you really don’t have too much to complain about.
That said, if anyone should be complaining about tax burdens here, it should be me. You see, I’m a New Yorker. For every buck I give to the federal government, my state gets $0.79 back. You meanwhile, I’m assuming are an Arizonan. For every dollar you give the federal government, your state gets $1.19 back. So I have to say, before you bitch any more about Mexicans stealing your money - while you relax on your cheaply and well-manicured law, in front of your cheaply and well-built house, with your cheaply and well-cared for children being babysat by a nice lady possibly named Consuela - where the fuck is my 44 cents?
**TL;DR**: FAIR is a crappy source of economic analysis, illegals pay taxes, your state owes my state money.
EDIT: Added summary, and because I wanted to emphasize that you think illegals don't pay taxes. | >It's in there. $143 Million in Tax Revenue. Did you read it?
Yeah, I did, and it looked low, so I did a very rough, very quick, most likely incredibly inaccurate guesstimate of the numbers. I figured:
(400000 illegal adults)(0.75 rate of employment)($10000/per year on consumables/adult)*(.06 sales tax) = ~180m/year from sales tax (technically a TPT)
I then looked at the numbers that FAIR provided, and they listed the revenue from sales tax at 78 million, which was within a power of ten of what I got (so we're both based in the same version of reality), but still seemed low. So, I googled FAIR, and low-and-behold, they’re not exactly a group that’s unbiased when it comes to non-whites. Heck, these crazy crackers even embrace eugenics against minorities . So when I said “You know that study ignores the fact that illegals buy things” I was more trying to say that, “You know that study is going to ignore every positive economic effect that might result from illegals participating in the economy.” In a sentence: FAIR will low-ball benefits from consumer purchasing power, taxes, and the revenue provided by cheap labor.
As for the AZ deficit, considering how much AZ citizens are saving because your state is so addicted to illegal labor, you really shouldn’t be complaining. Plus, since you lot are so crappy about actually fixing the immigration situation, but rather choose this authoritarian window-dressing bullshit, I really think you only have yourselves to blame over your budget issues.
>Illegal resident does not pay taxes
Wait, you just accused me of not reading the article, and you whip this gem out? Jesus, my condolences to the poor, disappointed parents who raised you. Illegal immigrants do pay income tax and Soc Sec (suspense files), and since they tend to arrive in their prime working age and are not eligible for the two big social costs (Medicaid, Medicare), they’re much less of a drain then you've been brainwashed into parroting. Add to that the fact that they’re providing cheap labor to businesses, thus inflating your state economy, you really don’t have too much to complain about.
That said, if anyone should be complaining about tax burdens here, it should be me. You see, I’m a New Yorker. For every buck I give to the federal government, my state gets $0.79 back. You meanwhile, I’m assuming are an Arizonan. For every dollar you give the federal government, your state gets $1.19 back. So I have to say, before you bitch any more about Mexicans stealing your money - while you relax on your cheaply and well-manicured law, in front of your cheaply and well-built house, with your cheaply and well-cared for children being babysat by a nice lady possibly named Consuela - where the fuck is my 44 cents?
TL;DR : FAIR is a crappy source of economic analysis, illegals pay taxes, your state owes my state money.
EDIT: Added summary, and because I wanted to emphasize that you think illegals don't pay taxes.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c0qfsmz | It's in there. $143 Million in Tax Revenue. Did you read it?
Yeah, I did, and it looked low, so I did a very rough, very quick, most likely incredibly inaccurate guesstimate of the numbers. I figured:
(400000 illegal adults)(0.75 rate of employment)($10000/per year on consumables/adult)*(.06 sales tax) = ~180m/year from sales tax (technically a TPT)
I then looked at the numbers that FAIR provided, and they listed the revenue from sales tax at 78 million, which was within a power of ten of what I got (so we're both based in the same version of reality), but still seemed low. So, I googled FAIR, and low-and-behold, they’re not exactly a group that’s unbiased when it comes to non-whites. Heck, these crazy crackers even embrace eugenics against minorities . So when I said “You know that study ignores the fact that illegals buy things” I was more trying to say that, “You know that study is going to ignore every positive economic effect that might result from illegals participating in the economy.” In a sentence: FAIR will low-ball benefits from consumer purchasing power, taxes, and the revenue provided by cheap labor.
As for the AZ deficit, considering how much AZ citizens are saving because your state is so addicted to illegal labor, you really shouldn’t be complaining. Plus, since you lot are so crappy about actually fixing the immigration situation, but rather choose this authoritarian window-dressing bullshit, I really think you only have yourselves to blame over your budget issues.
>Illegal resident does not pay taxes
Wait, you just accused me of not reading the article, and you whip this gem out? Jesus, my condolences to the poor, disappointed parents who raised you. Illegal immigrants do pay income tax and Soc Sec (suspense files), and since they tend to arrive in their prime working age and are not eligible for the two big social costs (Medicaid, Medicare), they’re much less of a drain then you've been brainwashed into parroting. Add to that the fact that they’re providing cheap labor to businesses, thus inflating your state economy, you really don’t have too much to complain about.
That said, if anyone should be complaining about tax burdens here, it should be me. You see, I’m a New Yorker. For every buck I give to the federal government, my state gets $0.79 back. You meanwhile, I’m assuming are an Arizonan. For every dollar you give the federal government, your state gets $1.19 back. So I have to say, before you bitch any more about Mexicans stealing your money - while you relax on your cheaply and well-manicured law, in front of your cheaply and well-built house, with your cheaply and well-cared for children being babysat by a nice lady possibly named Consuela - where the fuck is my 44 cents? | FAIR is a crappy source of economic analysis, illegals pay taxes, your state owes my state money.
EDIT: Added summary, and because I wanted to emphasize that you think illegals don't pay taxes. |
rasslinjd | Maybe go slow to start to get good form? However, many exercises are about explosion. Let's take a look at three of the most awesome exercises: squats, deadlifts, powercleans. For squats, you can go relatively slow on the way down, but you're gonna see better results if you explode back up. Again, maybe go slow at the beginning make sure you're using good form. Kinda the same for deadlifts. When lowering the weight, control it all the way down instead of dropping it, but then explode up. And with cleans and other power movements slow is the enemy. These are explosive exercises where you are getting that weight up as quickly and with as much power as possible.
tl;dr: Explosive movements are key and go against this slow concept. | Maybe go slow to start to get good form? However, many exercises are about explosion. Let's take a look at three of the most awesome exercises: squats, deadlifts, powercleans. For squats, you can go relatively slow on the way down, but you're gonna see better results if you explode back up. Again, maybe go slow at the beginning make sure you're using good form. Kinda the same for deadlifts. When lowering the weight, control it all the way down instead of dropping it, but then explode up. And with cleans and other power movements slow is the enemy. These are explosive exercises where you are getting that weight up as quickly and with as much power as possible.
tl;dr: Explosive movements are key and go against this slow concept.
| Fitness | t5_2qhx4 | c0qe5n3 | Maybe go slow to start to get good form? However, many exercises are about explosion. Let's take a look at three of the most awesome exercises: squats, deadlifts, powercleans. For squats, you can go relatively slow on the way down, but you're gonna see better results if you explode back up. Again, maybe go slow at the beginning make sure you're using good form. Kinda the same for deadlifts. When lowering the weight, control it all the way down instead of dropping it, but then explode up. And with cleans and other power movements slow is the enemy. These are explosive exercises where you are getting that weight up as quickly and with as much power as possible. | Explosive movements are key and go against this slow concept. |
valmont121 | > 34 Republican electoral votes every presidential election.
How idiotic is it to want to remove citizens from the Union on the basis of their political affiliation? You are basically destroying the democratic ideal.
> Violating the constitution in public schools
Because it is SO constitutional for a state to secede, right? Texas v. White anyone? Wow, you're a n00b.
> Kill more Americans per year in the prison system than any other state
The death penalty is a constitutionally protected State right. You know what the Constitution is, don't you?
> Bush lives there 0.0
Yeah, that'll solve everything. Kick a democratically elected president out. You don't think he was democratically elected? Well, take it to the Supreme Court then. Oh...
tl;dr you basically pissed on every american institution that protects your rights, liberties and representativity. May God have mercy on your soul. | > 34 Republican electoral votes every presidential election.
How idiotic is it to want to remove citizens from the Union on the basis of their political affiliation? You are basically destroying the democratic ideal.
> Violating the constitution in public schools
Because it is SO constitutional for a state to secede, right? Texas v. White anyone? Wow, you're a n00b.
> Kill more Americans per year in the prison system than any other state
The death penalty is a constitutionally protected State right. You know what the Constitution is, don't you?
> Bush lives there 0.0
Yeah, that'll solve everything. Kick a democratically elected president out. You don't think he was democratically elected? Well, take it to the Supreme Court then. Oh...
tl;dr you basically pissed on every american institution that protects your rights, liberties and representativity. May God have mercy on your soul.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c0qjpbz | 34 Republican electoral votes every presidential election.
How idiotic is it to want to remove citizens from the Union on the basis of their political affiliation? You are basically destroying the democratic ideal.
> Violating the constitution in public schools
Because it is SO constitutional for a state to secede, right? Texas v. White anyone? Wow, you're a n00b.
> Kill more Americans per year in the prison system than any other state
The death penalty is a constitutionally protected State right. You know what the Constitution is, don't you?
> Bush lives there 0.0
Yeah, that'll solve everything. Kick a democratically elected president out. You don't think he was democratically elected? Well, take it to the Supreme Court then. Oh... | you basically pissed on every american institution that protects your rights, liberties and representativity. May God have mercy on your soul. |
myrridin | It's a tough question to answer, because it has different definitions. There are many many people more educated and well read on the topic than I and my understanding of the current state of anarchy is limited at best.
I'll do my best to describe my belief succinctly, though much the same way I'm a Buddhist, I'm not sure there's many anarchists who would identify with me. I don't really know because I don't talk to people about it much.
Basically I believe that power and money both have a corrupting effect, though at different rates in different people. The one thing I'm sure of is that on a long enough time scale, no person is capable of retaining their integrity when given either or both of these things. Government necessitates that at least one person, most times many, and in a few cases almost everybody have at least power, and usually money is not far behind (and vice versa). Since government is based on the ability of people to do what's right for a group instead of themselves, they are destined to fail eventually, because no politician will be able to resist (once again, all predicated on a long enough time scale).
Some systems would seek to circumvent this by giving equal power and money to everybody, though this hasn't been shown to work out in it's fullest incarnation. My understanding of anarchy is the lack of rules on a large scale that prevent small groups from taking care of themselves. You could call it a "system" or a government, but in a small scale it's not really much more than a consensus, and as you scale it too falls apart.
At the end of a rambling day, I don't really believe that any rigid system can be sustainable, and that allowing small groups to reach collective decisions organically is the closest to a working setup you'll find. Truthfully I don't think that's ideal either, it's just the best I've come up with.
EDIT: Also wanted to say that I'm a fairly strict Pacifist, and I would not fit in at all with the "anarchists" you describe. Truthfully though I don't have much more of a perception of other anarchists than that myself. Not sure why I've kept myself from learning more about it from other people. There are certainly many who can describe it better than I. I suggest Chomsky -
**TL;DR** My political belief is a lack of politics, if painted with a broad brush. | It's a tough question to answer, because it has different definitions. There are many many people more educated and well read on the topic than I and my understanding of the current state of anarchy is limited at best.
I'll do my best to describe my belief succinctly, though much the same way I'm a Buddhist, I'm not sure there's many anarchists who would identify with me. I don't really know because I don't talk to people about it much.
Basically I believe that power and money both have a corrupting effect, though at different rates in different people. The one thing I'm sure of is that on a long enough time scale, no person is capable of retaining their integrity when given either or both of these things. Government necessitates that at least one person, most times many, and in a few cases almost everybody have at least power, and usually money is not far behind (and vice versa). Since government is based on the ability of people to do what's right for a group instead of themselves, they are destined to fail eventually, because no politician will be able to resist (once again, all predicated on a long enough time scale).
Some systems would seek to circumvent this by giving equal power and money to everybody, though this hasn't been shown to work out in it's fullest incarnation. My understanding of anarchy is the lack of rules on a large scale that prevent small groups from taking care of themselves. You could call it a "system" or a government, but in a small scale it's not really much more than a consensus, and as you scale it too falls apart.
At the end of a rambling day, I don't really believe that any rigid system can be sustainable, and that allowing small groups to reach collective decisions organically is the closest to a working setup you'll find. Truthfully I don't think that's ideal either, it's just the best I've come up with.
EDIT: Also wanted to say that I'm a fairly strict Pacifist, and I would not fit in at all with the "anarchists" you describe. Truthfully though I don't have much more of a perception of other anarchists than that myself. Not sure why I've kept myself from learning more about it from other people. There are certainly many who can describe it better than I. I suggest Chomsky -
TL;DR My political belief is a lack of politics, if painted with a broad brush.
| DoesAnybodyElse | t5_2r5vt | c0qp2ey | It's a tough question to answer, because it has different definitions. There are many many people more educated and well read on the topic than I and my understanding of the current state of anarchy is limited at best.
I'll do my best to describe my belief succinctly, though much the same way I'm a Buddhist, I'm not sure there's many anarchists who would identify with me. I don't really know because I don't talk to people about it much.
Basically I believe that power and money both have a corrupting effect, though at different rates in different people. The one thing I'm sure of is that on a long enough time scale, no person is capable of retaining their integrity when given either or both of these things. Government necessitates that at least one person, most times many, and in a few cases almost everybody have at least power, and usually money is not far behind (and vice versa). Since government is based on the ability of people to do what's right for a group instead of themselves, they are destined to fail eventually, because no politician will be able to resist (once again, all predicated on a long enough time scale).
Some systems would seek to circumvent this by giving equal power and money to everybody, though this hasn't been shown to work out in it's fullest incarnation. My understanding of anarchy is the lack of rules on a large scale that prevent small groups from taking care of themselves. You could call it a "system" or a government, but in a small scale it's not really much more than a consensus, and as you scale it too falls apart.
At the end of a rambling day, I don't really believe that any rigid system can be sustainable, and that allowing small groups to reach collective decisions organically is the closest to a working setup you'll find. Truthfully I don't think that's ideal either, it's just the best I've come up with.
EDIT: Also wanted to say that I'm a fairly strict Pacifist, and I would not fit in at all with the "anarchists" you describe. Truthfully though I don't have much more of a perception of other anarchists than that myself. Not sure why I've kept myself from learning more about it from other people. There are certainly many who can describe it better than I. I suggest Chomsky - | My political belief is a lack of politics, if painted with a broad brush. |
chaosnconfusion | Absolutely true man, no different to any of our emotions. Chemicals, drugs.
That's why only platonic thought is pure in my beleif, you can seperate the emotions and just use rational logic to come to sensible conclusions. Everything else is just part of the human animal; not to say it doesn't have value.
After all, we shouldn't shrink away from the fact we're an animal with a body that controls our responces instinctually like any other; it's something we should embrace, the flipside to our platonic rationalism and self awareness.
TL;DR We are an animal that has instinctual triggers like any other. Combined with our rational side we have a powerful balance. | Absolutely true man, no different to any of our emotions. Chemicals, drugs.
That's why only platonic thought is pure in my beleif, you can seperate the emotions and just use rational logic to come to sensible conclusions. Everything else is just part of the human animal; not to say it doesn't have value.
After all, we shouldn't shrink away from the fact we're an animal with a body that controls our responces instinctually like any other; it's something we should embrace, the flipside to our platonic rationalism and self awareness.
TL;DR We are an animal that has instinctual triggers like any other. Combined with our rational side we have a powerful balance.
| trees | t5_2r9vp | c0qsouj | Absolutely true man, no different to any of our emotions. Chemicals, drugs.
That's why only platonic thought is pure in my beleif, you can seperate the emotions and just use rational logic to come to sensible conclusions. Everything else is just part of the human animal; not to say it doesn't have value.
After all, we shouldn't shrink away from the fact we're an animal with a body that controls our responces instinctually like any other; it's something we should embrace, the flipside to our platonic rationalism and self awareness. | We are an animal that has instinctual triggers like any other. Combined with our rational side we have a powerful balance. |
freethec | [0] I am wholeheartedly an atheist. Perhaps Jodie Emery said it best in a video I saw online, that smoking spurs an individual to objectify ones perception in life, to step back from our very subjective eyes/body/brain and look at the universe in a novel context.
Julian Jaynes argues that mans consciousness is an emergent from a previous mentality he dubs "The Bicameral Mind". I highly encourage that you read some of his stuff. The best summary is located
I discovered bicameralism while browsing comments two-three years ago (something I NEVER did then, sad 2 say) and have been hooked on this budding theory ever since. Vestiges of a bicameral mind are readily apparent within Schizophrenic individuals, who hear "command" auditory hallucinations often. Jaynes proposes that the notion "Gods" or "God" of the Bible, Torah, & Koran is a remnant of a previous bicameral mentality, where individuals would hear command auditory hallucinations from within their brain in situations of novelty or stress. Other than that, Jaynes asserts that a man four thousand years ago did not possess the internal spatialization of self that is consciousness. Please read for yourself and let me know what you think of this interesting theory.
tl;dr wiki bicameralism. I don't believe in god either. I am an ent. | [0] I am wholeheartedly an atheist. Perhaps Jodie Emery said it best in a video I saw online, that smoking spurs an individual to objectify ones perception in life, to step back from our very subjective eyes/body/brain and look at the universe in a novel context.
Julian Jaynes argues that mans consciousness is an emergent from a previous mentality he dubs "The Bicameral Mind". I highly encourage that you read some of his stuff. The best summary is located
I discovered bicameralism while browsing comments two-three years ago (something I NEVER did then, sad 2 say) and have been hooked on this budding theory ever since. Vestiges of a bicameral mind are readily apparent within Schizophrenic individuals, who hear "command" auditory hallucinations often. Jaynes proposes that the notion "Gods" or "God" of the Bible, Torah, & Koran is a remnant of a previous bicameral mentality, where individuals would hear command auditory hallucinations from within their brain in situations of novelty or stress. Other than that, Jaynes asserts that a man four thousand years ago did not possess the internal spatialization of self that is consciousness. Please read for yourself and let me know what you think of this interesting theory.
tl;dr wiki bicameralism. I don't believe in god either. I am an ent.
| trees | t5_2r9vp | c0qsqb5 | 0] I am wholeheartedly an atheist. Perhaps Jodie Emery said it best in a video I saw online, that smoking spurs an individual to objectify ones perception in life, to step back from our very subjective eyes/body/brain and look at the universe in a novel context.
Julian Jaynes argues that mans consciousness is an emergent from a previous mentality he dubs "The Bicameral Mind". I highly encourage that you read some of his stuff. The best summary is located
I discovered bicameralism while browsing comments two-three years ago (something I NEVER did then, sad 2 say) and have been hooked on this budding theory ever since. Vestiges of a bicameral mind are readily apparent within Schizophrenic individuals, who hear "command" auditory hallucinations often. Jaynes proposes that the notion "Gods" or "God" of the Bible, Torah, & Koran is a remnant of a previous bicameral mentality, where individuals would hear command auditory hallucinations from within their brain in situations of novelty or stress. Other than that, Jaynes asserts that a man four thousand years ago did not possess the internal spatialization of self that is consciousness. Please read for yourself and let me know what you think of this interesting theory. | wiki bicameralism. I don't believe in god either. I am an ent. |
otoh | A fellow Christian toker here... I consider things like this a very gray area. I try to think about it similar to food. Eating 3 balanced meals a day is healthy and needed to stay alive. But is eating cake after dinner a sin? No, I don't think so. However, feasting on cake all day I would consider a sin.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
*19.* Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; *20.* you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
TL;DR It is a very gray area, but if used in moderation and for the right reasons, I don't consider smoking a sin. | A fellow Christian toker here... I consider things like this a very gray area. I try to think about it similar to food. Eating 3 balanced meals a day is healthy and needed to stay alive. But is eating cake after dinner a sin? No, I don't think so. However, feasting on cake all day I would consider a sin.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
19. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20. you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
TL;DR It is a very gray area, but if used in moderation and for the right reasons, I don't consider smoking a sin.
| trees | t5_2r9vp | c0qt0gu | A fellow Christian toker here... I consider things like this a very gray area. I try to think about it similar to food. Eating 3 balanced meals a day is healthy and needed to stay alive. But is eating cake after dinner a sin? No, I don't think so. However, feasting on cake all day I would consider a sin.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
19. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20. you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. | It is a very gray area, but if used in moderation and for the right reasons, I don't consider smoking a sin. |
Obamaforthewin | Personally i believe in God Jesus and the holy spirit I do not how ever believe the bible is word straight from God's mouth nor do i believe organized religion has any answers or redeeming qualities. I do not proselytize but if you want to hear about God i will tell you how i feel about God. Weed is from the earth and i cant see why God would place it here if he/she did not want it to be used. God has many names and is worshiped in many different ways tolerance and faith are the key.
TL;DR yes i am religious no i don't think i can call myself a christian even though i believe in Christ. | Personally i believe in God Jesus and the holy spirit I do not how ever believe the bible is word straight from God's mouth nor do i believe organized religion has any answers or redeeming qualities. I do not proselytize but if you want to hear about God i will tell you how i feel about God. Weed is from the earth and i cant see why God would place it here if he/she did not want it to be used. God has many names and is worshiped in many different ways tolerance and faith are the key.
TL;DR yes i am religious no i don't think i can call myself a christian even though i believe in Christ.
| trees | t5_2r9vp | c0qtee2 | Personally i believe in God Jesus and the holy spirit I do not how ever believe the bible is word straight from God's mouth nor do i believe organized religion has any answers or redeeming qualities. I do not proselytize but if you want to hear about God i will tell you how i feel about God. Weed is from the earth and i cant see why God would place it here if he/she did not want it to be used. God has many names and is worshiped in many different ways tolerance and faith are the key. | yes i am religious no i don't think i can call myself a christian even though i believe in Christ. |
Threekay | No, it's more like, the way I see it, we're all gods. Religion is essentially about the fight between good and evil, and these concepts come from conflicts we experience in life. Deities are a reflection of ourselves. From this I conclude that a study of all religions is relevant for someone seeking knowledge and experience. I generally consider atheism to be a religion too because it's a set of beliefs that can be reflected in a lifestyle. Also I believe in a life energy force which emanates from all living things and leaves echoes everywhere.
tldr: I'm a goddess and religion is my pick'n'mix candy store. There's probably a name for someone like me... ;) | No, it's more like, the way I see it, we're all gods. Religion is essentially about the fight between good and evil, and these concepts come from conflicts we experience in life. Deities are a reflection of ourselves. From this I conclude that a study of all religions is relevant for someone seeking knowledge and experience. I generally consider atheism to be a religion too because it's a set of beliefs that can be reflected in a lifestyle. Also I believe in a life energy force which emanates from all living things and leaves echoes everywhere.
tldr: I'm a goddess and religion is my pick'n'mix candy store. There's probably a name for someone like me... ;)
| trees | t5_2r9vp | c0qtyyk | No, it's more like, the way I see it, we're all gods. Religion is essentially about the fight between good and evil, and these concepts come from conflicts we experience in life. Deities are a reflection of ourselves. From this I conclude that a study of all religions is relevant for someone seeking knowledge and experience. I generally consider atheism to be a religion too because it's a set of beliefs that can be reflected in a lifestyle. Also I believe in a life energy force which emanates from all living things and leaves echoes everywhere. | I'm a goddess and religion is my pick'n'mix candy store. There's probably a name for someone like me... ;) |
McDeau | Your argument is retarded, Fleshlight69, as well as your username due to implying you are not only a dumb ass but a lonely one as well. The interviewer (FTFY) was doing a good job at pressing an issue that he felt was wrong, and the best I can understand, is wrong. Would you enjoy someone in your house taking your rent money and spending it on Filipino hookers? This interviewer at least knew that these guys were jerking him around and stuck to being persistent. If there were more reporters like him perhaps we would actually get some news once in awhile.
TL;DR: Fleshlight69 drinks out of the Fleshlight. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. | Your argument is retarded, Fleshlight69, as well as your username due to implying you are not only a dumb ass but a lonely one as well. The interviewer (FTFY) was doing a good job at pressing an issue that he felt was wrong, and the best I can understand, is wrong. Would you enjoy someone in your house taking your rent money and spending it on Filipino hookers? This interviewer at least knew that these guys were jerking him around and stuck to being persistent. If there were more reporters like him perhaps we would actually get some news once in awhile.
TL;DR: Fleshlight69 drinks out of the Fleshlight. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
| offbeat | t5_2qh11 | c0r0tgh | Your argument is retarded, Fleshlight69, as well as your username due to implying you are not only a dumb ass but a lonely one as well. The interviewer (FTFY) was doing a good job at pressing an issue that he felt was wrong, and the best I can understand, is wrong. Would you enjoy someone in your house taking your rent money and spending it on Filipino hookers? This interviewer at least knew that these guys were jerking him around and stuck to being persistent. If there were more reporters like him perhaps we would actually get some news once in awhile. | Fleshlight69 drinks out of the Fleshlight. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. |
mattseanbachman | I'm sorry, you might be under the illusion that we give a fuck about your delusions here. Change "pray for death" to whatever you want, it still doesn't make a sliver of a difference to the outcome. That's why you're backtracking prayer now to the realm of ephemeral things, "guidance in your life." It's fucking convenient for you that nothing like that can be tested, isn't it?
**TL;DR**: you're posting in /r/atheism, not /r/religion. Get out of the former, go to the latter. | I'm sorry, you might be under the illusion that we give a fuck about your delusions here. Change "pray for death" to whatever you want, it still doesn't make a sliver of a difference to the outcome. That's why you're backtracking prayer now to the realm of ephemeral things, "guidance in your life." It's fucking convenient for you that nothing like that can be tested, isn't it?
TL;DR : you're posting in /r/atheism, not /r/religion. Get out of the former, go to the latter.
| atheism | t5_2qh2p | c0rbwd6 | I'm sorry, you might be under the illusion that we give a fuck about your delusions here. Change "pray for death" to whatever you want, it still doesn't make a sliver of a difference to the outcome. That's why you're backtracking prayer now to the realm of ephemeral things, "guidance in your life." It's fucking convenient for you that nothing like that can be tested, isn't it? | you're posting in /r/atheism, not /r/religion. Get out of the former, go to the latter. |
rayers12 | Me too, but did you stick around for ACE and the later patches? It worked fine by 1.14. However, you will never find a PC that A2 runs well on. Its just a slightly shittier version of ArmA with improved graphics. I bought a rig built for it and it failed me.
TL:DR: OA looks pretty cool. | Me too, but did you stick around for ACE and the later patches? It worked fine by 1.14. However, you will never find a PC that A2 runs well on. Its just a slightly shittier version of ArmA with improved graphics. I bought a rig built for it and it failed me.
TL:DR: OA looks pretty cool.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0rdbgs | Me too, but did you stick around for ACE and the later patches? It worked fine by 1.14. However, you will never find a PC that A2 runs well on. Its just a slightly shittier version of ArmA with improved graphics. I bought a rig built for it and it failed me. | OA looks pretty cool. |
dirtymatt | Sales tax does not apply until the final transaction, so gift card purchases are not taxed in the US.
tl;dr true. | Sales tax does not apply until the final transaction, so gift card purchases are not taxed in the US.
tl;dr true.
| apple | t5_2qh1f | c0rkvb4 | Sales tax does not apply until the final transaction, so gift card purchases are not taxed in the US. | true. |
raisinbread | HQ in scrapyard.
HQ point is in the fuselage segment in the center of the map, and I'm pretty much the only person left on my team. As the enemy piles in to the fuselage I wait in the shed just to the side. As soon as they're all in, I n00b tube it, taking out all six just as they capture the point.
As everyone respawns, I whip out my laptop and fire a predator missile at their team, who has just respawned, taking out nearly all of them again. :)
TL;DR - I noob tubed the entire team on an HQ point, then used the resulting predator to blast them all again. | HQ in scrapyard.
HQ point is in the fuselage segment in the center of the map, and I'm pretty much the only person left on my team. As the enemy piles in to the fuselage I wait in the shed just to the side. As soon as they're all in, I n00b tube it, taking out all six just as they capture the point.
As everyone respawns, I whip out my laptop and fire a predator missile at their team, who has just respawned, taking out nearly all of them again. :)
TL;DR - I noob tubed the entire team on an HQ point, then used the resulting predator to blast them all again.
| MW2 | t5_2r3qb | c0rntag | HQ in scrapyard.
HQ point is in the fuselage segment in the center of the map, and I'm pretty much the only person left on my team. As the enemy piles in to the fuselage I wait in the shed just to the side. As soon as they're all in, I n00b tube it, taking out all six just as they capture the point.
As everyone respawns, I whip out my laptop and fire a predator missile at their team, who has just respawned, taking out nearly all of them again. :) | I noob tubed the entire team on an HQ point, then used the resulting predator to blast them all again. |
saxet | > Thats the busiest ... curtains? rug? robe? I have ever seen
> Oh its a shirt... Cool if you want to blind everyone around you...
> oh someone is wearing it
> oh man thats a tie!!! With bears! Man that is a mind bending combination of colors
> Why.. Why can't I see anymore???
tl;dr Looked at shirt, am now blind.
Thanks. | > Thats the busiest ... curtains? rug? robe? I have ever seen
> Oh its a shirt... Cool if you want to blind everyone around you...
> oh someone is wearing it
> oh man thats a tie!!! With bears! Man that is a mind bending combination of colors
> Why.. Why can't I see anymore???
tl;dr Looked at shirt, am now blind.
Thanks.
| pics | t5_2qh0u | c0rxpl0 | Thats the busiest ... curtains? rug? robe? I have ever seen
> Oh its a shirt... Cool if you want to blind everyone around you...
> oh someone is wearing it
> oh man thats a tie!!! With bears! Man that is a mind bending combination of colors
> Why.. Why can't I see anymore??? | Looked at shirt, am now blind.
Thanks. |
shuuto | Wieters's numbers have declined as he moved up levels in the minors. Santana's either stayed the same or improved. The volume might be in Wieters's favor, but the trend definitely favors Santana. He's my pick for better offensive production this year *and* moving forward.
Wieters is hardly junk, of course, and if there's space to store him for later, do it. But how long will you wait? If minor league track records are all that matters, and you never move on, you end up playing Brandon Wood and Alex Gordon right now, who like Wieters were once the best hitters in the minor leagues, and everyone preached patience with them.
[Edit to add TL/DR: They're both quality, bank them both if you can. Carlos is the hot hand now, so play/choose him for now.] | Wieters's numbers have declined as he moved up levels in the minors. Santana's either stayed the same or improved. The volume might be in Wieters's favor, but the trend definitely favors Santana. He's my pick for better offensive production this year and moving forward.
Wieters is hardly junk, of course, and if there's space to store him for later, do it. But how long will you wait? If minor league track records are all that matters, and you never move on, you end up playing Brandon Wood and Alex Gordon right now, who like Wieters were once the best hitters in the minor leagues, and everyone preached patience with them.
[Edit to add TL/DR: They're both quality, bank them both if you can. Carlos is the hot hand now, so play/choose him for now.]
| fantasybaseball | t5_2quxe | c0s3f02 | Wieters's numbers have declined as he moved up levels in the minors. Santana's either stayed the same or improved. The volume might be in Wieters's favor, but the trend definitely favors Santana. He's my pick for better offensive production this year and moving forward.
Wieters is hardly junk, of course, and if there's space to store him for later, do it. But how long will you wait? If minor league track records are all that matters, and you never move on, you end up playing Brandon Wood and Alex Gordon right now, who like Wieters were once the best hitters in the minor leagues, and everyone preached patience with them.
[Edit to add | They're both quality, bank them both if you can. Carlos is the hot hand now, so play/choose him for now.] |
born2hula | Smoke slowly enough that you don't cough very often. I'd never smoked anything before I started pot at your same age just a few months ago, and my first couple of overhits resulted in coughing. But if you take it slow enough, you probably won't cough too much.
My first early mistake was trying to light the bowl for a really long time like some kind of **HUGE MAN HIT** but I learned you really only need to really lick the bowl with the flame a tiny bit to get it going, then I remove the flame and breath in as slowly as I can, sometimes mixing outside air with pipe smoke to lessen the hit while still providing negative pressure for the edge of the mouthpiece.
tl;dr If it hurts, don't do it. Get a vaporizer! I have a Magic Flight Launch Box I ordered from and it's my go-to piece when I need quiet, compact, and super smooth. | Smoke slowly enough that you don't cough very often. I'd never smoked anything before I started pot at your same age just a few months ago, and my first couple of overhits resulted in coughing. But if you take it slow enough, you probably won't cough too much.
My first early mistake was trying to light the bowl for a really long time like some kind of HUGE MAN HIT but I learned you really only need to really lick the bowl with the flame a tiny bit to get it going, then I remove the flame and breath in as slowly as I can, sometimes mixing outside air with pipe smoke to lessen the hit while still providing negative pressure for the edge of the mouthpiece.
tl;dr If it hurts, don't do it. Get a vaporizer! I have a Magic Flight Launch Box I ordered from and it's my go-to piece when I need quiet, compact, and super smooth.
| trees | t5_2r9vp | c0s71qz | Smoke slowly enough that you don't cough very often. I'd never smoked anything before I started pot at your same age just a few months ago, and my first couple of overhits resulted in coughing. But if you take it slow enough, you probably won't cough too much.
My first early mistake was trying to light the bowl for a really long time like some kind of HUGE MAN HIT but I learned you really only need to really lick the bowl with the flame a tiny bit to get it going, then I remove the flame and breath in as slowly as I can, sometimes mixing outside air with pipe smoke to lessen the hit while still providing negative pressure for the edge of the mouthpiece. | If it hurts, don't do it. Get a vaporizer! I have a Magic Flight Launch Box I ordered from and it's my go-to piece when I need quiet, compact, and super smooth. |
doody | > Do you actually have something that would specifically discount that effect when applied to Chicago, or are we going to stick to random, tangential differences between the countries that in no way affect the actual reasons the policy works?
Sure: the policy in Switzerland doesn’t work in the way you suggest because that isn’t what it sets out to do. The armed populace is to defend the Swiss from invasion, not from each other.
Switzerland’s crime isn’t driven by a sea of illicit weapons and a belief in drugs, prostitution and gangs as a route to wealth. The Swiss route to wealth is ornate little watches, legal pharmacology, banking and science. And skiing. Oh yeah, and chocolate. When rappers start banging about processing cocoa butter instead of coca leaves, then the situations may converge.
tl:dr: My $0.02 is, in Switzerland, criminals are seen mostly as losers. In Chicago, they’re folk heros. | > Do you actually have something that would specifically discount that effect when applied to Chicago, or are we going to stick to random, tangential differences between the countries that in no way affect the actual reasons the policy works?
Sure: the policy in Switzerland doesn’t work in the way you suggest because that isn’t what it sets out to do. The armed populace is to defend the Swiss from invasion, not from each other.
Switzerland’s crime isn’t driven by a sea of illicit weapons and a belief in drugs, prostitution and gangs as a route to wealth. The Swiss route to wealth is ornate little watches, legal pharmacology, banking and science. And skiing. Oh yeah, and chocolate. When rappers start banging about processing cocoa butter instead of coca leaves, then the situations may converge.
tl:dr: My $0.02 is, in Switzerland, criminals are seen mostly as losers. In Chicago, they’re folk heros.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c0s5vg4 | Do you actually have something that would specifically discount that effect when applied to Chicago, or are we going to stick to random, tangential differences between the countries that in no way affect the actual reasons the policy works?
Sure: the policy in Switzerland doesn’t work in the way you suggest because that isn’t what it sets out to do. The armed populace is to defend the Swiss from invasion, not from each other.
Switzerland’s crime isn’t driven by a sea of illicit weapons and a belief in drugs, prostitution and gangs as a route to wealth. The Swiss route to wealth is ornate little watches, legal pharmacology, banking and science. And skiing. Oh yeah, and chocolate. When rappers start banging about processing cocoa butter instead of coca leaves, then the situations may converge. | My $0.02 is, in Switzerland, criminals are seen mostly as losers. In Chicago, they’re folk heros. |
slomo68 | > In contrast, thieves would agree that people should not steal.
That reminds me of an Italo Calvino story, [Black Sheep]( strangely relevant to this conversation.
> There was a country where they were all thieves. At night everybody would leave home with skeleton keys and shaded lanterns and go and burgle a neighbour’s house. They’d get back at dawn, loaded, to find their own house had been robbed. ...
tl;dr: in the story, the system only worked if everybody was a thief. Once there was a single person who refused to steal, the system collapsed. | > In contrast, thieves would agree that people should not steal.
That reminds me of an Italo Calvino story, [Black Sheep]( strangely relevant to this conversation.
> There was a country where they were all thieves. At night everybody would leave home with skeleton keys and shaded lanterns and go and burgle a neighbour’s house. They’d get back at dawn, loaded, to find their own house had been robbed. ...
tl;dr: in the story, the system only worked if everybody was a thief. Once there was a single person who refused to steal, the system collapsed.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c0s6mha | In contrast, thieves would agree that people should not steal.
That reminds me of an Italo Calvino story, [Black Sheep]( strangely relevant to this conversation.
> There was a country where they were all thieves. At night everybody would leave home with skeleton keys and shaded lanterns and go and burgle a neighbour’s house. They’d get back at dawn, loaded, to find their own house had been robbed. ... | in the story, the system only worked if everybody was a thief. Once there was a single person who refused to steal, the system collapsed. |
pedal2000 | Alright, let's see.
I don't care about learning from you because you're an idiot who believes that eliminating non-violent criminals from jail would somehow solve the issues discussed in this thread.
Doing so would have the effects you listed, along with severely increasing the rates of shop lifting as penalties went down. For example, why wouldn't you shoplift if, as you suggested, it was a fine and community service? I would very likely be able to make money on it. You're example, being not only stupid but poorly thoughtout deserved my response.
Here's some things to think about champ. The lifestyle you enjoy, the one you live right now is indirectly related to the size of America's war budget. Let's consider a few key points. First you assume that social services and infrastructure could be built with the money saved on prisons. I think you would be very surprised to find how little money would truly 'free up' based on your plan at a state level. I'm not sure what you were thinking when you mixed state and federal finances but that's fine, we'll roll with it after all you're a major dumbshit so I mean that happens sometimes.
So let's say we cut the war budget down to a much smaller amount, enough to keep America in first, in theory, while simutaneously reallocating that money to infrastructure and social services. What social services I could ask, afterall, the few America does have (Schools, and uh... oh, Veteran's programs. Which would be cut. Because there would be less Veterans. And less budget.) likely could use the funding, albiet not all of it because well, you dump a shitload of money into fighting. Any attempts to EXPAND the social services of course would be fought tooth and nail by the Republicans. Not to mention decreasing the military means less jobs overall for poor people. So I guess realistically you could say that you'd be using them for temporary construction jobs as infrastructure went up; then paying for them on unemployment. Which would actually cost you less. But they wouldn't be working. Which means they cause more social issues. Which means it's a good thing you provided social programs for them. By cutting the jobs they currently had.
However let's move on. Realistically cutting the Militaries budget isn't a horrible idea. That said you move on from this assumption to one of "Everyone's standard of living would increase, we'd all have more productive jobs (wut?) and gross household income may increase as well."
Alright. I'm not sure where to start, so let's see. First off, the only standard of living increase that would come from say, social services, applies to old people and poor people. Which is great; but you have to understand that YOU would not benefit at all. That means "Everyone" is a lie. Your average SoL would go up, that's true. But only because the bottom was going up, not because the world was suddenly happy go lucky.
As for having more productive jobs. Yes. Clearly if we cut Government spending...suddenly there would be more productive jobs. Let's sack, (for arguments sake), half the military jobs in the USA. That means you have to replace them. With what? I assume you envision some grand construction projects across the US using up all those resources; but here is a more likely scenario. Some places would get more jobs, those without jobs in those places would get said jobs. Those who were laid off from the Military might, if the expansion happened where they live but many would be left in the dust because well, frankly, it's impossible to bring jobs to all of them across the US. The army works because they come to you. On top of this, the construction jobs are TEMPORARY; the military is at least four years after which they are left with a good financial basis to begin their lives.
Then again, I could easily also question how you think 'productive jobs' would come from an expansion in social services. If you expand social services, that means you either have an over capacity (in which case you have people sitting on their asses doing nothing, government waste.) or you have say, at capacity, which means you have even more people on social welfare and not working a productive job. Either way, game over.
So on average, I could see a standard of living increase, because yes, having welfare programs helps with that sort of thing. Then again, you'd fuck over a lot of people who I don't think you're really considering at all. But whatever, I'm sure everyone will 'prosper'.
So then you go on to say the amount of resources is obscene. I'm not really sure what you're definition of obscene is, but I doubt we share it. Obscene is half of the Government spending, similar to your current expenditures on the Military, not say, 15 billion from California. Which is an est I got from google a few seconds ago, so accuracy counts. Which is barely shit all of their budget. I suspect less than 20% since they apparently spend similar amounts on Post 2ndary Education. Which is hardly 'obscene' considering it's one of the jobs of the Government to provide. But making exaggerated claims is fun!
So let's keep rolling, since you knwo we're pretty good at this. Back to the start Champ. So let's say you cut your military. Let's presume that pulling out of Iraq (even without fixing things, which would be y'know, proper.) goes as planned. Let's assume that America stops using it's military to help secure valuable resources for itself. That means the end of cheap gas, which by extension means the end of what most of American society is currently based on. That means the cost of everything, from the condom you jerk off to while crying at night to the cost of the computer you jerk onto while crying at day is going to go up. Travel will become more costly, and some would argue that's a good thing - after all three cheers for the environment and market price signals, but others, say, the president, who has to consider the health of the Economy, might disagree. They look at that and realize that cutting the military budget would both decrease the size of the American economy, but also be a massive political battle to decrease the military, and a second one to increase the size of the social services. Hell, most of the 'leftists' in the US can't even be brought on board for Healthcare reform; little alone one of the largest expansions of Government services you'd like to see.
I might support what you aim for, but I also recognize it is...unrealistic. Moronic even. I don't need to sit there and wait for someone else to think through all the facts, if you had anything good to present you should've done so in your initial argument. Instead you just talked about releasing non-violent offenders, presumably you do pot and don't support its illegalization (Frankly I'm neutral on it all) but it isn't just drug addicts who would get out. People who threatened assault, bank robbers, shoplifters, people who go destroy their ex's car. I don't think you truly understand how broad 'non-violent' extends, because you've never really thought about it beyond the convient facts.
tl;dr even though I agree with your intentions, I understand that the facts in life are against you. I don't need to sit there and argue with you about what I already know. I definitely feel even less need when you've proven to me that you enjoy mudslinging like most right wing dumbfucks. Get over yourself. You have no brilliant nor unique ideas that I am totally unaware of.
| Alright, let's see.
I don't care about learning from you because you're an idiot who believes that eliminating non-violent criminals from jail would somehow solve the issues discussed in this thread.
Doing so would have the effects you listed, along with severely increasing the rates of shop lifting as penalties went down. For example, why wouldn't you shoplift if, as you suggested, it was a fine and community service? I would very likely be able to make money on it. You're example, being not only stupid but poorly thoughtout deserved my response.
Here's some things to think about champ. The lifestyle you enjoy, the one you live right now is indirectly related to the size of America's war budget. Let's consider a few key points. First you assume that social services and infrastructure could be built with the money saved on prisons. I think you would be very surprised to find how little money would truly 'free up' based on your plan at a state level. I'm not sure what you were thinking when you mixed state and federal finances but that's fine, we'll roll with it after all you're a major dumbshit so I mean that happens sometimes.
So let's say we cut the war budget down to a much smaller amount, enough to keep America in first, in theory, while simutaneously reallocating that money to infrastructure and social services. What social services I could ask, afterall, the few America does have (Schools, and uh... oh, Veteran's programs. Which would be cut. Because there would be less Veterans. And less budget.) likely could use the funding, albiet not all of it because well, you dump a shitload of money into fighting. Any attempts to EXPAND the social services of course would be fought tooth and nail by the Republicans. Not to mention decreasing the military means less jobs overall for poor people. So I guess realistically you could say that you'd be using them for temporary construction jobs as infrastructure went up; then paying for them on unemployment. Which would actually cost you less. But they wouldn't be working. Which means they cause more social issues. Which means it's a good thing you provided social programs for them. By cutting the jobs they currently had.
However let's move on. Realistically cutting the Militaries budget isn't a horrible idea. That said you move on from this assumption to one of "Everyone's standard of living would increase, we'd all have more productive jobs (wut?) and gross household income may increase as well."
Alright. I'm not sure where to start, so let's see. First off, the only standard of living increase that would come from say, social services, applies to old people and poor people. Which is great; but you have to understand that YOU would not benefit at all. That means "Everyone" is a lie. Your average SoL would go up, that's true. But only because the bottom was going up, not because the world was suddenly happy go lucky.
As for having more productive jobs. Yes. Clearly if we cut Government spending...suddenly there would be more productive jobs. Let's sack, (for arguments sake), half the military jobs in the USA. That means you have to replace them. With what? I assume you envision some grand construction projects across the US using up all those resources; but here is a more likely scenario. Some places would get more jobs, those without jobs in those places would get said jobs. Those who were laid off from the Military might, if the expansion happened where they live but many would be left in the dust because well, frankly, it's impossible to bring jobs to all of them across the US. The army works because they come to you. On top of this, the construction jobs are TEMPORARY; the military is at least four years after which they are left with a good financial basis to begin their lives.
Then again, I could easily also question how you think 'productive jobs' would come from an expansion in social services. If you expand social services, that means you either have an over capacity (in which case you have people sitting on their asses doing nothing, government waste.) or you have say, at capacity, which means you have even more people on social welfare and not working a productive job. Either way, game over.
So on average, I could see a standard of living increase, because yes, having welfare programs helps with that sort of thing. Then again, you'd fuck over a lot of people who I don't think you're really considering at all. But whatever, I'm sure everyone will 'prosper'.
So then you go on to say the amount of resources is obscene. I'm not really sure what you're definition of obscene is, but I doubt we share it. Obscene is half of the Government spending, similar to your current expenditures on the Military, not say, 15 billion from California. Which is an est I got from google a few seconds ago, so accuracy counts. Which is barely shit all of their budget. I suspect less than 20% since they apparently spend similar amounts on Post 2ndary Education. Which is hardly 'obscene' considering it's one of the jobs of the Government to provide. But making exaggerated claims is fun!
So let's keep rolling, since you knwo we're pretty good at this. Back to the start Champ. So let's say you cut your military. Let's presume that pulling out of Iraq (even without fixing things, which would be y'know, proper.) goes as planned. Let's assume that America stops using it's military to help secure valuable resources for itself. That means the end of cheap gas, which by extension means the end of what most of American society is currently based on. That means the cost of everything, from the condom you jerk off to while crying at night to the cost of the computer you jerk onto while crying at day is going to go up. Travel will become more costly, and some would argue that's a good thing - after all three cheers for the environment and market price signals, but others, say, the president, who has to consider the health of the Economy, might disagree. They look at that and realize that cutting the military budget would both decrease the size of the American economy, but also be a massive political battle to decrease the military, and a second one to increase the size of the social services. Hell, most of the 'leftists' in the US can't even be brought on board for Healthcare reform; little alone one of the largest expansions of Government services you'd like to see.
I might support what you aim for, but I also recognize it is...unrealistic. Moronic even. I don't need to sit there and wait for someone else to think through all the facts, if you had anything good to present you should've done so in your initial argument. Instead you just talked about releasing non-violent offenders, presumably you do pot and don't support its illegalization (Frankly I'm neutral on it all) but it isn't just drug addicts who would get out. People who threatened assault, bank robbers, shoplifters, people who go destroy their ex's car. I don't think you truly understand how broad 'non-violent' extends, because you've never really thought about it beyond the convient facts.
tl;dr even though I agree with your intentions, I understand that the facts in life are against you. I don't need to sit there and argue with you about what I already know. I definitely feel even less need when you've proven to me that you enjoy mudslinging like most right wing dumbfucks. Get over yourself. You have no brilliant nor unique ideas that I am totally unaware of.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c0sbv6d | Alright, let's see.
I don't care about learning from you because you're an idiot who believes that eliminating non-violent criminals from jail would somehow solve the issues discussed in this thread.
Doing so would have the effects you listed, along with severely increasing the rates of shop lifting as penalties went down. For example, why wouldn't you shoplift if, as you suggested, it was a fine and community service? I would very likely be able to make money on it. You're example, being not only stupid but poorly thoughtout deserved my response.
Here's some things to think about champ. The lifestyle you enjoy, the one you live right now is indirectly related to the size of America's war budget. Let's consider a few key points. First you assume that social services and infrastructure could be built with the money saved on prisons. I think you would be very surprised to find how little money would truly 'free up' based on your plan at a state level. I'm not sure what you were thinking when you mixed state and federal finances but that's fine, we'll roll with it after all you're a major dumbshit so I mean that happens sometimes.
So let's say we cut the war budget down to a much smaller amount, enough to keep America in first, in theory, while simutaneously reallocating that money to infrastructure and social services. What social services I could ask, afterall, the few America does have (Schools, and uh... oh, Veteran's programs. Which would be cut. Because there would be less Veterans. And less budget.) likely could use the funding, albiet not all of it because well, you dump a shitload of money into fighting. Any attempts to EXPAND the social services of course would be fought tooth and nail by the Republicans. Not to mention decreasing the military means less jobs overall for poor people. So I guess realistically you could say that you'd be using them for temporary construction jobs as infrastructure went up; then paying for them on unemployment. Which would actually cost you less. But they wouldn't be working. Which means they cause more social issues. Which means it's a good thing you provided social programs for them. By cutting the jobs they currently had.
However let's move on. Realistically cutting the Militaries budget isn't a horrible idea. That said you move on from this assumption to one of "Everyone's standard of living would increase, we'd all have more productive jobs (wut?) and gross household income may increase as well."
Alright. I'm not sure where to start, so let's see. First off, the only standard of living increase that would come from say, social services, applies to old people and poor people. Which is great; but you have to understand that YOU would not benefit at all. That means "Everyone" is a lie. Your average SoL would go up, that's true. But only because the bottom was going up, not because the world was suddenly happy go lucky.
As for having more productive jobs. Yes. Clearly if we cut Government spending...suddenly there would be more productive jobs. Let's sack, (for arguments sake), half the military jobs in the USA. That means you have to replace them. With what? I assume you envision some grand construction projects across the US using up all those resources; but here is a more likely scenario. Some places would get more jobs, those without jobs in those places would get said jobs. Those who were laid off from the Military might, if the expansion happened where they live but many would be left in the dust because well, frankly, it's impossible to bring jobs to all of them across the US. The army works because they come to you. On top of this, the construction jobs are TEMPORARY; the military is at least four years after which they are left with a good financial basis to begin their lives.
Then again, I could easily also question how you think 'productive jobs' would come from an expansion in social services. If you expand social services, that means you either have an over capacity (in which case you have people sitting on their asses doing nothing, government waste.) or you have say, at capacity, which means you have even more people on social welfare and not working a productive job. Either way, game over.
So on average, I could see a standard of living increase, because yes, having welfare programs helps with that sort of thing. Then again, you'd fuck over a lot of people who I don't think you're really considering at all. But whatever, I'm sure everyone will 'prosper'.
So then you go on to say the amount of resources is obscene. I'm not really sure what you're definition of obscene is, but I doubt we share it. Obscene is half of the Government spending, similar to your current expenditures on the Military, not say, 15 billion from California. Which is an est I got from google a few seconds ago, so accuracy counts. Which is barely shit all of their budget. I suspect less than 20% since they apparently spend similar amounts on Post 2ndary Education. Which is hardly 'obscene' considering it's one of the jobs of the Government to provide. But making exaggerated claims is fun!
So let's keep rolling, since you knwo we're pretty good at this. Back to the start Champ. So let's say you cut your military. Let's presume that pulling out of Iraq (even without fixing things, which would be y'know, proper.) goes as planned. Let's assume that America stops using it's military to help secure valuable resources for itself. That means the end of cheap gas, which by extension means the end of what most of American society is currently based on. That means the cost of everything, from the condom you jerk off to while crying at night to the cost of the computer you jerk onto while crying at day is going to go up. Travel will become more costly, and some would argue that's a good thing - after all three cheers for the environment and market price signals, but others, say, the president, who has to consider the health of the Economy, might disagree. They look at that and realize that cutting the military budget would both decrease the size of the American economy, but also be a massive political battle to decrease the military, and a second one to increase the size of the social services. Hell, most of the 'leftists' in the US can't even be brought on board for Healthcare reform; little alone one of the largest expansions of Government services you'd like to see.
I might support what you aim for, but I also recognize it is...unrealistic. Moronic even. I don't need to sit there and wait for someone else to think through all the facts, if you had anything good to present you should've done so in your initial argument. Instead you just talked about releasing non-violent offenders, presumably you do pot and don't support its illegalization (Frankly I'm neutral on it all) but it isn't just drug addicts who would get out. People who threatened assault, bank robbers, shoplifters, people who go destroy their ex's car. I don't think you truly understand how broad 'non-violent' extends, because you've never really thought about it beyond the convient facts. | even though I agree with your intentions, I understand that the facts in life are against you. I don't need to sit there and argue with you about what I already know. I definitely feel even less need when you've proven to me that you enjoy mudslinging like most right wing dumbfucks. Get over yourself. You have no brilliant nor unique ideas that I am totally unaware of. |
olivergringold | There's one known suppressant, and one known treatment. The suppressant is economic inter-dependence, and it can take effect in less than one generation. The cure is integration. With integration, things often get worse long before they get better, and it takes at least one generation, often two or more, to take effect.
Neither the suppressant nor the treatment are true "cures." In-group thinking is the default state for human beings and it is extremely difficult to break. Heck, people who *aren't* racists, myself included, do it inadvertently in other aspects of their lives. I'd wager you do, too, on account of the fact that you're a person.
tl;dr - Either make yourself necessary or live amongst racists openly and hope that your kids get treated better than you do. No such thing as curing every bigot; best thing to hope for is silencing most of them. | There's one known suppressant, and one known treatment. The suppressant is economic inter-dependence, and it can take effect in less than one generation. The cure is integration. With integration, things often get worse long before they get better, and it takes at least one generation, often two or more, to take effect.
Neither the suppressant nor the treatment are true "cures." In-group thinking is the default state for human beings and it is extremely difficult to break. Heck, people who aren't racists, myself included, do it inadvertently in other aspects of their lives. I'd wager you do, too, on account of the fact that you're a person.
tl;dr - Either make yourself necessary or live amongst racists openly and hope that your kids get treated better than you do. No such thing as curing every bigot; best thing to hope for is silencing most of them.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0s93iy | There's one known suppressant, and one known treatment. The suppressant is economic inter-dependence, and it can take effect in less than one generation. The cure is integration. With integration, things often get worse long before they get better, and it takes at least one generation, often two or more, to take effect.
Neither the suppressant nor the treatment are true "cures." In-group thinking is the default state for human beings and it is extremely difficult to break. Heck, people who aren't racists, myself included, do it inadvertently in other aspects of their lives. I'd wager you do, too, on account of the fact that you're a person. | Either make yourself necessary or live amongst racists openly and hope that your kids get treated better than you do. No such thing as curing every bigot; best thing to hope for is silencing most of them. |
TastyRoss | A microcell is essentially a low power transceiver which one can purchase/rent from a carrier in order to improve cellular coverage from said carrier with in a small range (i.e. a house or several apartments). The issue here is that the device does not connect directly to the carrier's network; instead it must be connected through a broadband connection provided by the user.
tl;dr: AT&T wants to charge subscribers for data usage which has already been purchased from a seperate ISP. | A microcell is essentially a low power transceiver which one can purchase/rent from a carrier in order to improve cellular coverage from said carrier with in a small range (i.e. a house or several apartments). The issue here is that the device does not connect directly to the carrier's network; instead it must be connected through a broadband connection provided by the user.
tl;dr: AT&T wants to charge subscribers for data usage which has already been purchased from a seperate ISP.
| technology | t5_2qh16 | c0sdbe9 | A microcell is essentially a low power transceiver which one can purchase/rent from a carrier in order to improve cellular coverage from said carrier with in a small range (i.e. a house or several apartments). The issue here is that the device does not connect directly to the carrier's network; instead it must be connected through a broadband connection provided by the user. | AT&T wants to charge subscribers for data usage which has already been purchased from a seperate ISP. |
Purehatred | Agreed, aside from the point that it got worse with each installment; I was still blown away by Apocalypse.
Even though it was a fundamentally different game.
I'm looking forward to the reboot, if done right, it could be one of the most engaging games to play in a long time; In interviews I have read that they still want to keep the base and the overworld map, and non-linear missions.
the twist being that instead of being management and tactical advisor, you are the guy that's in charge of the Alien response team.
Also, 50s: fuck yeah! fedoras and lots of smoking!
The alien designs they are going for are interesting too; no classical "greys", instead using strange geometry and shapeless mass to genuinely confuse and scare the player(something rarely achieved in the vidya)
To OP: Of course it is a sad state of affairs that the glorious old genre of turn based gameplay has atropied to the point of being solely produced by "scary soviet" studios(see;Jagged alliance 3) and indy devs.(frozen synapse/Flotilla).
Still try and give the game a chance though, the devs seem passionate about making the game in this format, and don't seem to just have slapped the XCOM brand on it to "milk" the easy X-Com market.
See what previews/reviews say and if you do decide to play it;
- *go in with a fresh mindset(Can't stress this enough, going in looking for fallout completely crushed the fallout3 experience for me.)*
- *enjoy the fan service easter eggs/references most likely included for hardcore X-Com fans such as yourself, but see it for what it is; simple fan service, not proof that they are milking the franchise*
TL;DR: The old XCOM is not coming back, sorry, look elsewhere; give the new game a try though, seems solid.
| Agreed, aside from the point that it got worse with each installment; I was still blown away by Apocalypse.
Even though it was a fundamentally different game.
I'm looking forward to the reboot, if done right, it could be one of the most engaging games to play in a long time; In interviews I have read that they still want to keep the base and the overworld map, and non-linear missions.
the twist being that instead of being management and tactical advisor, you are the guy that's in charge of the Alien response team.
Also, 50s: fuck yeah! fedoras and lots of smoking!
The alien designs they are going for are interesting too; no classical "greys", instead using strange geometry and shapeless mass to genuinely confuse and scare the player(something rarely achieved in the vidya)
To OP: Of course it is a sad state of affairs that the glorious old genre of turn based gameplay has atropied to the point of being solely produced by "scary soviet" studios(see;Jagged alliance 3) and indy devs.(frozen synapse/Flotilla).
Still try and give the game a chance though, the devs seem passionate about making the game in this format, and don't seem to just have slapped the XCOM brand on it to "milk" the easy X-Com market.
See what previews/reviews say and if you do decide to play it;
go in with a fresh mindset(Can't stress this enough, going in looking for fallout completely crushed the fallout3 experience for me.)
enjoy the fan service easter eggs/references most likely included for hardcore X-Com fans such as yourself, but see it for what it is; simple fan service, not proof that they are milking the franchise
TL;DR: The old XCOM is not coming back, sorry, look elsewhere; give the new game a try though, seems solid.
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | c0se89v | Agreed, aside from the point that it got worse with each installment; I was still blown away by Apocalypse.
Even though it was a fundamentally different game.
I'm looking forward to the reboot, if done right, it could be one of the most engaging games to play in a long time; In interviews I have read that they still want to keep the base and the overworld map, and non-linear missions.
the twist being that instead of being management and tactical advisor, you are the guy that's in charge of the Alien response team.
Also, 50s: fuck yeah! fedoras and lots of smoking!
The alien designs they are going for are interesting too; no classical "greys", instead using strange geometry and shapeless mass to genuinely confuse and scare the player(something rarely achieved in the vidya)
To OP: Of course it is a sad state of affairs that the glorious old genre of turn based gameplay has atropied to the point of being solely produced by "scary soviet" studios(see;Jagged alliance 3) and indy devs.(frozen synapse/Flotilla).
Still try and give the game a chance though, the devs seem passionate about making the game in this format, and don't seem to just have slapped the XCOM brand on it to "milk" the easy X-Com market.
See what previews/reviews say and if you do decide to play it;
go in with a fresh mindset(Can't stress this enough, going in looking for fallout completely crushed the fallout3 experience for me.)
enjoy the fan service easter eggs/references most likely included for hardcore X-Com fans such as yourself, but see it for what it is; simple fan service, not proof that they are milking the franchise | The old XCOM is not coming back, sorry, look elsewhere; give the new game a try though, seems solid. |
OiMooi | A few days ago, I was discussing with a surgical tech about where to put the trashcan for a bedside operation. The guy joked that it needed to be close by because, as he put it, "We make a lot of trash doing these things." Then he said something that stuck with me, "We're like the BP oil spill." It really got me thinking...
So many people are outraged by the devastation of this oil spill because it's so immediate; within weeks we have seen the wildlife it has killed as well as the economic toll it has taken on many of the Gulf states. So, why aren't people more concerned with their every day habits that are just as environmentally devastating? It's because we don't see the day to day progression of what happens when millions of people drive their cars each day or throw their trash into oceans. (I had a Ninja Turtle book about preserving the environment when I was a kid, and shit, I know for a fact that duckies get their webbed feet caught in those plastic thingies that go around 6-packs of soda.)
There are so many people in this world who live so carelessly about the world we live in, and it's not just BP wreaking havoc on the beautiful oceans and shorelines of this planet. Recognize that *everyone* causes environmental devastation and soothe yourself by making changes to your daily life to minimize the long-term damage. Small changes help! Stop buying bottled water - invest in a Brita filter and a good water bottle, take the time to recycle what you can, don't drive when you can walk or ride a bike, etc., etc.
**tl;dr** We are just as careless as BP. Something about ninja turtles. What happened with BP sucks but it's imperative that we also think about how we can change our habits to mitigate long-term effects of our own bullshit habits. | A few days ago, I was discussing with a surgical tech about where to put the trashcan for a bedside operation. The guy joked that it needed to be close by because, as he put it, "We make a lot of trash doing these things." Then he said something that stuck with me, "We're like the BP oil spill." It really got me thinking...
So many people are outraged by the devastation of this oil spill because it's so immediate; within weeks we have seen the wildlife it has killed as well as the economic toll it has taken on many of the Gulf states. So, why aren't people more concerned with their every day habits that are just as environmentally devastating? It's because we don't see the day to day progression of what happens when millions of people drive their cars each day or throw their trash into oceans. (I had a Ninja Turtle book about preserving the environment when I was a kid, and shit, I know for a fact that duckies get their webbed feet caught in those plastic thingies that go around 6-packs of soda.)
There are so many people in this world who live so carelessly about the world we live in, and it's not just BP wreaking havoc on the beautiful oceans and shorelines of this planet. Recognize that everyone causes environmental devastation and soothe yourself by making changes to your daily life to minimize the long-term damage. Small changes help! Stop buying bottled water - invest in a Brita filter and a good water bottle, take the time to recycle what you can, don't drive when you can walk or ride a bike, etc., etc.
tl;dr We are just as careless as BP. Something about ninja turtles. What happened with BP sucks but it's imperative that we also think about how we can change our habits to mitigate long-term effects of our own bullshit habits.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0smosb | A few days ago, I was discussing with a surgical tech about where to put the trashcan for a bedside operation. The guy joked that it needed to be close by because, as he put it, "We make a lot of trash doing these things." Then he said something that stuck with me, "We're like the BP oil spill." It really got me thinking...
So many people are outraged by the devastation of this oil spill because it's so immediate; within weeks we have seen the wildlife it has killed as well as the economic toll it has taken on many of the Gulf states. So, why aren't people more concerned with their every day habits that are just as environmentally devastating? It's because we don't see the day to day progression of what happens when millions of people drive their cars each day or throw their trash into oceans. (I had a Ninja Turtle book about preserving the environment when I was a kid, and shit, I know for a fact that duckies get their webbed feet caught in those plastic thingies that go around 6-packs of soda.)
There are so many people in this world who live so carelessly about the world we live in, and it's not just BP wreaking havoc on the beautiful oceans and shorelines of this planet. Recognize that everyone causes environmental devastation and soothe yourself by making changes to your daily life to minimize the long-term damage. Small changes help! Stop buying bottled water - invest in a Brita filter and a good water bottle, take the time to recycle what you can, don't drive when you can walk or ride a bike, etc., etc. | We are just as careless as BP. Something about ninja turtles. What happened with BP sucks but it's imperative that we also think about how we can change our habits to mitigate long-term effects of our own bullshit habits. |
17-40 | Los Angeles; rush hour. Some guy in the left turn lane waiting for a break in oncoming traffic so he can make his turn onto Franklin. He pulls fully into the intersection for maximum efficiency, as is customary in LA. There's a lot of oncoming traffic, so to take care of his discovered intersection-time, he proceeds to pull out a *massive* bong. Not a small pipe, no, easily a 2+foot bong, from which he lights, takes a sizable hit and blows the smoke conspicuously out the window. Then, with bong hit successfully taken, he hands it over to the passenger (with some difficulty, due to the weight), and calmly makes his turn during a break in the traffic.
TL;DR: guy took a huge bong hit in the middle of an intersection during rush hour. | Los Angeles; rush hour. Some guy in the left turn lane waiting for a break in oncoming traffic so he can make his turn onto Franklin. He pulls fully into the intersection for maximum efficiency, as is customary in LA. There's a lot of oncoming traffic, so to take care of his discovered intersection-time, he proceeds to pull out a massive bong. Not a small pipe, no, easily a 2+foot bong, from which he lights, takes a sizable hit and blows the smoke conspicuously out the window. Then, with bong hit successfully taken, he hands it over to the passenger (with some difficulty, due to the weight), and calmly makes his turn during a break in the traffic.
TL;DR: guy took a huge bong hit in the middle of an intersection during rush hour.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0soot6 | Los Angeles; rush hour. Some guy in the left turn lane waiting for a break in oncoming traffic so he can make his turn onto Franklin. He pulls fully into the intersection for maximum efficiency, as is customary in LA. There's a lot of oncoming traffic, so to take care of his discovered intersection-time, he proceeds to pull out a massive bong. Not a small pipe, no, easily a 2+foot bong, from which he lights, takes a sizable hit and blows the smoke conspicuously out the window. Then, with bong hit successfully taken, he hands it over to the passenger (with some difficulty, due to the weight), and calmly makes his turn during a break in the traffic. | guy took a huge bong hit in the middle of an intersection during rush hour. |
jblomberg | It's not impossible.
She's small, she has a downregulated metabolism that is accommodated by her calorie restricted lifestyle, and she seems willing and eager to accept that she's not going to be gaining any significant muscle like this, since that doesn't seem to be her goal. She wants to be skinny and small.
She's only done one 30 day stint with P90X. That's not enough time for poor nutrition to catch up with her, or for the stress of the workouts to take their toll from a stress POV. It may catch up to her over time, or it may not.
TL;DR: My grandma eats like a bird too, and she's still alive. Just not very strong. | It's not impossible.
She's small, she has a downregulated metabolism that is accommodated by her calorie restricted lifestyle, and she seems willing and eager to accept that she's not going to be gaining any significant muscle like this, since that doesn't seem to be her goal. She wants to be skinny and small.
She's only done one 30 day stint with P90X. That's not enough time for poor nutrition to catch up with her, or for the stress of the workouts to take their toll from a stress POV. It may catch up to her over time, or it may not.
TL;DR: My grandma eats like a bird too, and she's still alive. Just not very strong.
| Fitness | t5_2qhx4 | c0spilr | It's not impossible.
She's small, she has a downregulated metabolism that is accommodated by her calorie restricted lifestyle, and she seems willing and eager to accept that she's not going to be gaining any significant muscle like this, since that doesn't seem to be her goal. She wants to be skinny and small.
She's only done one 30 day stint with P90X. That's not enough time for poor nutrition to catch up with her, or for the stress of the workouts to take their toll from a stress POV. It may catch up to her over time, or it may not. | My grandma eats like a bird too, and she's still alive. Just not very strong. |
hazelk | This is also very true. The year before this high school experience, another guy had asked me out to a movie and I said something straight forward like, "I'm not really into you that way" and he immediately said I was a stuck up bitch who presumed he was asking me out on a date when he claimed he only wanted to hang out as friends. He then stopped talking to me and I heard from multiple people that I'm the type of girl who "thinks my shit don't stink" (ah, high school).
This is another topic of discussion as it has happened several times throughout my adult life (and I'm only 24) when a guy blatantly asks me out (it's obvious from his date proposal, his nervousness, the way it's phrased, etc) and when I respond with a gentle type of "No, not interested" response, he lashes back with "Oh you thought I was asking you out like a date? No no. I'm not interested in you either. I was just asking you out as a friend. God you have a lot of nerve to make such an assumption." It's a bullshit move made to preserve their male ego.
**TL/DR:** Rejection happens, deal with it. Don't lash out or try to save face. You'll be more respected for it. Who knows? It could even be a turn on. | This is also very true. The year before this high school experience, another guy had asked me out to a movie and I said something straight forward like, "I'm not really into you that way" and he immediately said I was a stuck up bitch who presumed he was asking me out on a date when he claimed he only wanted to hang out as friends. He then stopped talking to me and I heard from multiple people that I'm the type of girl who "thinks my shit don't stink" (ah, high school).
This is another topic of discussion as it has happened several times throughout my adult life (and I'm only 24) when a guy blatantly asks me out (it's obvious from his date proposal, his nervousness, the way it's phrased, etc) and when I respond with a gentle type of "No, not interested" response, he lashes back with "Oh you thought I was asking you out like a date? No no. I'm not interested in you either. I was just asking you out as a friend. God you have a lot of nerve to make such an assumption." It's a bullshit move made to preserve their male ego.
TL/DR: Rejection happens, deal with it. Don't lash out or try to save face. You'll be more respected for it. Who knows? It could even be a turn on.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0sqpre | This is also very true. The year before this high school experience, another guy had asked me out to a movie and I said something straight forward like, "I'm not really into you that way" and he immediately said I was a stuck up bitch who presumed he was asking me out on a date when he claimed he only wanted to hang out as friends. He then stopped talking to me and I heard from multiple people that I'm the type of girl who "thinks my shit don't stink" (ah, high school).
This is another topic of discussion as it has happened several times throughout my adult life (and I'm only 24) when a guy blatantly asks me out (it's obvious from his date proposal, his nervousness, the way it's phrased, etc) and when I respond with a gentle type of "No, not interested" response, he lashes back with "Oh you thought I was asking you out like a date? No no. I'm not interested in you either. I was just asking you out as a friend. God you have a lot of nerve to make such an assumption." It's a bullshit move made to preserve their male ego. | Rejection happens, deal with it. Don't lash out or try to save face. You'll be more respected for it. Who knows? It could even be a turn on. |
beckiface | My ex-boyfriend and I were really hitting it off the night we met. There were four of us hanging out, but him and I were spending a lot of time in the other room picking out music for the playlist. I kept looking in his eyes, touching his hand, lightly touching his back, touching his knee, etc. He wasn't getting it, and finally I just grabbed him, told him we needed to change the song immediately, dragged him into the other room and kissed him while listening to video game metal ([Powerglove]( "\m/")). We never changed the song; I actually love Powerglove.
Turns out on the way there, his friend (who was friends with my roomie) had explained that one of the girls was single, and the other one was engaged. My ex told me he assumed I was the engaged one because I was "the cute one" and continued to think so right up until the point that I kissed him.
Point is, I have really just given up on guys making the first move; I have made the first move with pretty much everyone I have dated since high school. Most of my guy friends have told me that they hate when girls drop "hints" because they don't understand them.
**TL;DR He didn't respond to touching or flirting, so I dragged him into the other room and kissed him while listening to video game metal. He thought I was engaged, but I wasn't. Some guys will never understand hints.** | My ex-boyfriend and I were really hitting it off the night we met. There were four of us hanging out, but him and I were spending a lot of time in the other room picking out music for the playlist. I kept looking in his eyes, touching his hand, lightly touching his back, touching his knee, etc. He wasn't getting it, and finally I just grabbed him, told him we needed to change the song immediately, dragged him into the other room and kissed him while listening to video game metal ( Powerglove ). We never changed the song; I actually love Powerglove.
Turns out on the way there, his friend (who was friends with my roomie) had explained that one of the girls was single, and the other one was engaged. My ex told me he assumed I was the engaged one because I was "the cute one" and continued to think so right up until the point that I kissed him.
Point is, I have really just given up on guys making the first move; I have made the first move with pretty much everyone I have dated since high school. Most of my guy friends have told me that they hate when girls drop "hints" because they don't understand them.
TL;DR He didn't respond to touching or flirting, so I dragged him into the other room and kissed him while listening to video game metal. He thought I was engaged, but I wasn't. Some guys will never understand hints.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0sqql9 | My ex-boyfriend and I were really hitting it off the night we met. There were four of us hanging out, but him and I were spending a lot of time in the other room picking out music for the playlist. I kept looking in his eyes, touching his hand, lightly touching his back, touching his knee, etc. He wasn't getting it, and finally I just grabbed him, told him we needed to change the song immediately, dragged him into the other room and kissed him while listening to video game metal ( Powerglove ). We never changed the song; I actually love Powerglove.
Turns out on the way there, his friend (who was friends with my roomie) had explained that one of the girls was single, and the other one was engaged. My ex told me he assumed I was the engaged one because I was "the cute one" and continued to think so right up until the point that I kissed him.
Point is, I have really just given up on guys making the first move; I have made the first move with pretty much everyone I have dated since high school. Most of my guy friends have told me that they hate when girls drop "hints" because they don't understand them. | He didn't respond to touching or flirting, so I dragged him into the other room and kissed him while listening to video game metal. He thought I was engaged, but I wasn't. Some guys will never understand hints. |
skeletor7 | This trade was absolutely brilliant. I like Byfuglien, but he doesn't produce nearly as much as a $3 million dollar player should. His value is so high at the moment, the Blackhawks were able to squeeze a 1st round, a 2nd round, and a top prospect in Jeremy Morin. We free up cap space and have opportunity to prospect with 5 picks in the first two rounds. Additionally, this frees up a power forward roster spot for Kyle Beach, who I'm sure all Hawks fans will love next year. And I don't want to hear anything about Sopel, a bruising PKer is somewhat easy to find in the NHL. The only sour part of this whole trade is Eager, who I loved on the 4th line.
tl;dr - let's talk some hockey and weed out the bandwagon fans | This trade was absolutely brilliant. I like Byfuglien, but he doesn't produce nearly as much as a $3 million dollar player should. His value is so high at the moment, the Blackhawks were able to squeeze a 1st round, a 2nd round, and a top prospect in Jeremy Morin. We free up cap space and have opportunity to prospect with 5 picks in the first two rounds. Additionally, this frees up a power forward roster spot for Kyle Beach, who I'm sure all Hawks fans will love next year. And I don't want to hear anything about Sopel, a bruising PKer is somewhat easy to find in the NHL. The only sour part of this whole trade is Eager, who I loved on the 4th line.
tl;dr - let's talk some hockey and weed out the bandwagon fans
| chicago | t5_2qh2t | c0sscrp | This trade was absolutely brilliant. I like Byfuglien, but he doesn't produce nearly as much as a $3 million dollar player should. His value is so high at the moment, the Blackhawks were able to squeeze a 1st round, a 2nd round, and a top prospect in Jeremy Morin. We free up cap space and have opportunity to prospect with 5 picks in the first two rounds. Additionally, this frees up a power forward roster spot for Kyle Beach, who I'm sure all Hawks fans will love next year. And I don't want to hear anything about Sopel, a bruising PKer is somewhat easy to find in the NHL. The only sour part of this whole trade is Eager, who I loved on the 4th line. | let's talk some hockey and weed out the bandwagon fans |
offering_imperfectly | The problem with St. John's Wort is that different varieties exist which contain different compounds. Some might potentiate the effects of another drug, while other kinds of St. John's Wort might inhibit the same drug.
It has been shown to both potentiate and inhibit the effects of benzodiazepines, monoamine oxidase inhibitors and tricyclics, all of which are classes of antidepressant drugs. If you are taking any prescription medication for depression (or for ANY other condition, for that matter), you should contact your physician before starting St. John's Wort.
While you likely won't be ingesting large enough quantities of the drug, keep in mind that potentiating the effects of benzodiazepines can lead to respiratory failure (ie: you're on benzodiazepines, you take St. John's Wort and you go out for some drinks - it can be dangerous). It can also have the reverse effect - the active compound(s) in St. John's Wort could reduce the effect of your antidepressant drug, making your depression worse.
This is similar to how its problematic effects were discovered; physicians noticed HIV+ patients rebounding with symptoms after being symptom-free for months. They were taking St. John's Wort to deal with depression, which inhibited the effects of their drug cocktail.
tl;dr: talk to your doctor. I have a B.Sc, not an M.D. - talk to someone who knows for sure. | The problem with St. John's Wort is that different varieties exist which contain different compounds. Some might potentiate the effects of another drug, while other kinds of St. John's Wort might inhibit the same drug.
It has been shown to both potentiate and inhibit the effects of benzodiazepines, monoamine oxidase inhibitors and tricyclics, all of which are classes of antidepressant drugs. If you are taking any prescription medication for depression (or for ANY other condition, for that matter), you should contact your physician before starting St. John's Wort.
While you likely won't be ingesting large enough quantities of the drug, keep in mind that potentiating the effects of benzodiazepines can lead to respiratory failure (ie: you're on benzodiazepines, you take St. John's Wort and you go out for some drinks - it can be dangerous). It can also have the reverse effect - the active compound(s) in St. John's Wort could reduce the effect of your antidepressant drug, making your depression worse.
This is similar to how its problematic effects were discovered; physicians noticed HIV+ patients rebounding with symptoms after being symptom-free for months. They were taking St. John's Wort to deal with depression, which inhibited the effects of their drug cocktail.
tl;dr: talk to your doctor. I have a B.Sc, not an M.D. - talk to someone who knows for sure.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0sy2jv | The problem with St. John's Wort is that different varieties exist which contain different compounds. Some might potentiate the effects of another drug, while other kinds of St. John's Wort might inhibit the same drug.
It has been shown to both potentiate and inhibit the effects of benzodiazepines, monoamine oxidase inhibitors and tricyclics, all of which are classes of antidepressant drugs. If you are taking any prescription medication for depression (or for ANY other condition, for that matter), you should contact your physician before starting St. John's Wort.
While you likely won't be ingesting large enough quantities of the drug, keep in mind that potentiating the effects of benzodiazepines can lead to respiratory failure (ie: you're on benzodiazepines, you take St. John's Wort and you go out for some drinks - it can be dangerous). It can also have the reverse effect - the active compound(s) in St. John's Wort could reduce the effect of your antidepressant drug, making your depression worse.
This is similar to how its problematic effects were discovered; physicians noticed HIV+ patients rebounding with symptoms after being symptom-free for months. They were taking St. John's Wort to deal with depression, which inhibited the effects of their drug cocktail. | talk to your doctor. I have a B.Sc, not an M.D. - talk to someone who knows for sure. |
IANAPUA_Yet | >How do I get this message across without making it too obvious?
Don't. Your value is inherent. You're not trying to sell yourself to her. Just answer the question with pride. It's up to her to figure out why you're proud of something that others would be ashamed of. If she's not interested in doing that, she's not interested anyways.
tl;dr - Attraction comes before rapport. If she's not into you before this comes up, she's not into you. | >How do I get this message across without making it too obvious?
Don't. Your value is inherent. You're not trying to sell yourself to her. Just answer the question with pride. It's up to her to figure out why you're proud of something that others would be ashamed of. If she's not interested in doing that, she's not interested anyways.
tl;dr - Attraction comes before rapport. If she's not into you before this comes up, she's not into you.
| seduction | t5_2qhrv | c0t9kmu | How do I get this message across without making it too obvious?
Don't. Your value is inherent. You're not trying to sell yourself to her. Just answer the question with pride. It's up to her to figure out why you're proud of something that others would be ashamed of. If she's not interested in doing that, she's not interested anyways. | Attraction comes before rapport. If she's not into you before this comes up, she's not into you. |
leavingharvard | Its for anyone who wants to be in better shape, be it fatties who dream of being Christian Bale and his up to 1000 crunches, or fittits who want to tone up / increase muscle mass.
Tldr I HATE IT, BUT I LOVVVE IT! | Its for anyone who wants to be in better shape, be it fatties who dream of being Christian Bale and his up to 1000 crunches, or fittits who want to tone up / increase muscle mass.
Tldr I HATE IT, BUT I LOVVVE IT!
| Fitness | t5_2qhx4 | c0tbes6 | Its for anyone who wants to be in better shape, be it fatties who dream of being Christian Bale and his up to 1000 crunches, or fittits who want to tone up / increase muscle mass. | I HATE IT, BUT I LOVVVE IT! |
ohmyitsmark | fucking OWNED
But really, in the sake of helping a fellow guy out, the single best thing I ever did to win attention and admiration from women around me was simply two things: be interesting and confident.
I used to be a shut in, lamenting the fact that women didn't fawn over me and come crashing down my door, when I realized I was simply just not all that interesting. I then decided to start doing all the things I've wanted to do for MYSELF (hiking, kayaking, rock climbing, longboarding, etc etc). After I started doing these things, I noticed that when I would start talking to the people around me (men and women) were FAR more interested in getting to know me since I had a lot of qualities they found cool/fun/etc outside of watching TV and sitting around. This then boosted my confidence and made me go out finding more things to do, which further helped my confidence, and this all became a kind of self-perpetuating loop. Also, taking care to look attractive helps (people like talking to pretty people). Don't fret too much about it though, a LOT of people have been in the same boat as you.
TL;DR - Start focusing on developing the you that YOU always wanted to be (not the one you think OTHER people want). The rest will come naturally afterward (but I guess you can always ask us kind, helpful redditors when it comes to that). | fucking OWNED
But really, in the sake of helping a fellow guy out, the single best thing I ever did to win attention and admiration from women around me was simply two things: be interesting and confident.
I used to be a shut in, lamenting the fact that women didn't fawn over me and come crashing down my door, when I realized I was simply just not all that interesting. I then decided to start doing all the things I've wanted to do for MYSELF (hiking, kayaking, rock climbing, longboarding, etc etc). After I started doing these things, I noticed that when I would start talking to the people around me (men and women) were FAR more interested in getting to know me since I had a lot of qualities they found cool/fun/etc outside of watching TV and sitting around. This then boosted my confidence and made me go out finding more things to do, which further helped my confidence, and this all became a kind of self-perpetuating loop. Also, taking care to look attractive helps (people like talking to pretty people). Don't fret too much about it though, a LOT of people have been in the same boat as you.
TL;DR - Start focusing on developing the you that YOU always wanted to be (not the one you think OTHER people want). The rest will come naturally afterward (but I guess you can always ask us kind, helpful redditors when it comes to that).
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | c0te3y3 | fucking OWNED
But really, in the sake of helping a fellow guy out, the single best thing I ever did to win attention and admiration from women around me was simply two things: be interesting and confident.
I used to be a shut in, lamenting the fact that women didn't fawn over me and come crashing down my door, when I realized I was simply just not all that interesting. I then decided to start doing all the things I've wanted to do for MYSELF (hiking, kayaking, rock climbing, longboarding, etc etc). After I started doing these things, I noticed that when I would start talking to the people around me (men and women) were FAR more interested in getting to know me since I had a lot of qualities they found cool/fun/etc outside of watching TV and sitting around. This then boosted my confidence and made me go out finding more things to do, which further helped my confidence, and this all became a kind of self-perpetuating loop. Also, taking care to look attractive helps (people like talking to pretty people). Don't fret too much about it though, a LOT of people have been in the same boat as you. | Start focusing on developing the you that YOU always wanted to be (not the one you think OTHER people want). The rest will come naturally afterward (but I guess you can always ask us kind, helpful redditors when it comes to that). |
ac2009100400 | I just moved and have been on an air mattress for the past 3 weeks. I'm a side/stomach sleeper and I wake up 2-3 times per night with this air mattress (double height, multichambered, queen size.) I think the problem is the built in "pillow" (airchamber) it has. The built in pillow is not comfy enough to be used as a pillow and using a real pillow on top of is too steep of an angle. So now I'm waiting around all day Monday for my 7:30am-4pm delivery window of a real mattress.
Many mattress stores have 0-1% financing for 6-12months so a mattress may be more affordable than you think since you can stretch out the payments without penalty.
tldr: air mattresses don't work for me, I suggest getting a real mattress. | I just moved and have been on an air mattress for the past 3 weeks. I'm a side/stomach sleeper and I wake up 2-3 times per night with this air mattress (double height, multichambered, queen size.) I think the problem is the built in "pillow" (airchamber) it has. The built in pillow is not comfy enough to be used as a pillow and using a real pillow on top of is too steep of an angle. So now I'm waiting around all day Monday for my 7:30am-4pm delivery window of a real mattress.
Many mattress stores have 0-1% financing for 6-12months so a mattress may be more affordable than you think since you can stretch out the payments without penalty.
tldr: air mattresses don't work for me, I suggest getting a real mattress.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0tjd6p | I just moved and have been on an air mattress for the past 3 weeks. I'm a side/stomach sleeper and I wake up 2-3 times per night with this air mattress (double height, multichambered, queen size.) I think the problem is the built in "pillow" (airchamber) it has. The built in pillow is not comfy enough to be used as a pillow and using a real pillow on top of is too steep of an angle. So now I'm waiting around all day Monday for my 7:30am-4pm delivery window of a real mattress.
Many mattress stores have 0-1% financing for 6-12months so a mattress may be more affordable than you think since you can stretch out the payments without penalty. | air mattresses don't work for me, I suggest getting a real mattress. |
biscuitbee | Fellow Rogers network user here. I've been eyeing up phones since February. My suggestion: purchase an unlocked phone online and ship it to Canada[*citation needed*]. Most of the phones offered by Rogers *seem* pretty lame when it comes to Android. Almost bought an **HTC Desire** in May but decided to wait until after the iPhone 4 release to see what great Android phones will arise to the challenge.
Now I am waiting for the end of the summer (or so) to purchase a phone because they all look so promising. I would have jumped on the **Samsung Galaxy S**, but it doesn't have a flash for the camera(REALLY Samsung?!). And the Galaxy S Pro was the version I wanted but that is for Sprint so I am assuming it is CDMA only. Unless they do make a GSM version, then I would be happy to over look the lack of camera flash.
*****
**TL;DR**
**Buy an unlocked GSM phone**
Nexus One
HTC Desire
Motorola Milestone Droid
**Wait for the not-too-distant-future or the end of summer to buy an unlocked GSM phone**
Motorola Droid X
Samsung Galaxy S (Pro?)
HTC Vision
EDIT: Why can't I get bullets working?! | Fellow Rogers network user here. I've been eyeing up phones since February. My suggestion: purchase an unlocked phone online and ship it to Canada[ citation needed ]. Most of the phones offered by Rogers seem pretty lame when it comes to Android. Almost bought an HTC Desire in May but decided to wait until after the iPhone 4 release to see what great Android phones will arise to the challenge.
Now I am waiting for the end of the summer (or so) to purchase a phone because they all look so promising. I would have jumped on the Samsung Galaxy S , but it doesn't have a flash for the camera(REALLY Samsung?!). And the Galaxy S Pro was the version I wanted but that is for Sprint so I am assuming it is CDMA only. Unless they do make a GSM version, then I would be happy to over look the lack of camera flash.
TL;DR
Buy an unlocked GSM phone
Nexus One
HTC Desire
Motorola Milestone Droid
Wait for the not-too-distant-future or the end of summer to buy an unlocked GSM phone
Motorola Droid X
Samsung Galaxy S (Pro?)
HTC Vision
EDIT: Why can't I get bullets working?!
| Android | t5_2qlqh | c0tjr49 | Fellow Rogers network user here. I've been eyeing up phones since February. My suggestion: purchase an unlocked phone online and ship it to Canada[ citation needed ]. Most of the phones offered by Rogers seem pretty lame when it comes to Android. Almost bought an HTC Desire in May but decided to wait until after the iPhone 4 release to see what great Android phones will arise to the challenge.
Now I am waiting for the end of the summer (or so) to purchase a phone because they all look so promising. I would have jumped on the Samsung Galaxy S , but it doesn't have a flash for the camera(REALLY Samsung?!). And the Galaxy S Pro was the version I wanted but that is for Sprint so I am assuming it is CDMA only. Unless they do make a GSM version, then I would be happy to over look the lack of camera flash. | Buy an unlocked GSM phone
Nexus One
HTC Desire
Motorola Milestone Droid
Wait for the not-too-distant-future or the end of summer to buy an unlocked GSM phone
Motorola Droid X
Samsung Galaxy S (Pro?)
HTC Vision
EDIT: Why can't I get bullets working?! |
sanktuaire | I was co-managing several funds with a little over 800MEUR in assets for a European investment company.
We were working in teams of two, and my partner was a 30 yr old girl with a very strong personnality, remarkable lack of technical skills (be it math, stats or IT) and passion for office politics.
She was doing her share of the work, but it really was the easy part. Most of the thinking, head scratching, idea generating work was left to me (and I liked it).
Comes the financial meltdown, credit crunch, and monstrous collapse in risky assets. Assets under management dive to 100M in a few months, despite our way-above-our-peers performance (lost 25% in an investment universe where -60% was the norm)
One month after the shit started hitting the fan at top speed, my partner got pregnant. 2 months later, she's on a long term maternity leave (pretty sure it was deliberate, her gynecologist is a long term friend of hers...). Another fund manager quits (mostly because he had a crappy portfolio and couldn't take the consequences, that bastard).
I end up doing the work of 3 people, working from 7am to 11pm incl week ends, fire saling the hell out of more than 2bn of assets on my own. This goes on during 9 months, despite my numerous complaints to our mostly incompetent management (who has never managed a crisis... and managing growth isn't difficult, you know).
Come the dire straits. Company is dying. 75% of the people are to be laid off so that the structure can be sold in a hurry.
My partner, who never was very competent and exploited the system to avoid facing the hard work kept her job. Because she's a mom, you know. And in my country firing a young mom is almost unthinkable. And because she spent lots of time crying on the phone and kissing asses while I was struggling not to drown in work.
I got the shaft, albeit with a half decent package because I had managed to save what could be saved.
Legally, there's nothing I could do. So I just told them very calmly that they were making a stupid mistake, and left. Now 18 months later, my former partner has a whooping +18% track record on a market that sky rocketed by more than 60%. I know I was right, but I still got fucked.
Taught me a very important lesson: I don't want to work for someone else anymore. I take my risks. I blame myself and fail if I'm not good enough, but at least, I don't have to watch incompetent sycophants fucking the guys who do the real work (I wasn't the only one to get fired for my good services...)
tl:dr; Was a fund manager. Got fired after 12 months of credit nightmare while my absent, pregnant partner got to keep her job because of her social status and ass kissing skills. | I was co-managing several funds with a little over 800MEUR in assets for a European investment company.
We were working in teams of two, and my partner was a 30 yr old girl with a very strong personnality, remarkable lack of technical skills (be it math, stats or IT) and passion for office politics.
She was doing her share of the work, but it really was the easy part. Most of the thinking, head scratching, idea generating work was left to me (and I liked it).
Comes the financial meltdown, credit crunch, and monstrous collapse in risky assets. Assets under management dive to 100M in a few months, despite our way-above-our-peers performance (lost 25% in an investment universe where -60% was the norm)
One month after the shit started hitting the fan at top speed, my partner got pregnant. 2 months later, she's on a long term maternity leave (pretty sure it was deliberate, her gynecologist is a long term friend of hers...). Another fund manager quits (mostly because he had a crappy portfolio and couldn't take the consequences, that bastard).
I end up doing the work of 3 people, working from 7am to 11pm incl week ends, fire saling the hell out of more than 2bn of assets on my own. This goes on during 9 months, despite my numerous complaints to our mostly incompetent management (who has never managed a crisis... and managing growth isn't difficult, you know).
Come the dire straits. Company is dying. 75% of the people are to be laid off so that the structure can be sold in a hurry.
My partner, who never was very competent and exploited the system to avoid facing the hard work kept her job. Because she's a mom, you know. And in my country firing a young mom is almost unthinkable. And because she spent lots of time crying on the phone and kissing asses while I was struggling not to drown in work.
I got the shaft, albeit with a half decent package because I had managed to save what could be saved.
Legally, there's nothing I could do. So I just told them very calmly that they were making a stupid mistake, and left. Now 18 months later, my former partner has a whooping +18% track record on a market that sky rocketed by more than 60%. I know I was right, but I still got fucked.
Taught me a very important lesson: I don't want to work for someone else anymore. I take my risks. I blame myself and fail if I'm not good enough, but at least, I don't have to watch incompetent sycophants fucking the guys who do the real work (I wasn't the only one to get fired for my good services...)
tl:dr; Was a fund manager. Got fired after 12 months of credit nightmare while my absent, pregnant partner got to keep her job because of her social status and ass kissing skills.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | c0u12cq | I was co-managing several funds with a little over 800MEUR in assets for a European investment company.
We were working in teams of two, and my partner was a 30 yr old girl with a very strong personnality, remarkable lack of technical skills (be it math, stats or IT) and passion for office politics.
She was doing her share of the work, but it really was the easy part. Most of the thinking, head scratching, idea generating work was left to me (and I liked it).
Comes the financial meltdown, credit crunch, and monstrous collapse in risky assets. Assets under management dive to 100M in a few months, despite our way-above-our-peers performance (lost 25% in an investment universe where -60% was the norm)
One month after the shit started hitting the fan at top speed, my partner got pregnant. 2 months later, she's on a long term maternity leave (pretty sure it was deliberate, her gynecologist is a long term friend of hers...). Another fund manager quits (mostly because he had a crappy portfolio and couldn't take the consequences, that bastard).
I end up doing the work of 3 people, working from 7am to 11pm incl week ends, fire saling the hell out of more than 2bn of assets on my own. This goes on during 9 months, despite my numerous complaints to our mostly incompetent management (who has never managed a crisis... and managing growth isn't difficult, you know).
Come the dire straits. Company is dying. 75% of the people are to be laid off so that the structure can be sold in a hurry.
My partner, who never was very competent and exploited the system to avoid facing the hard work kept her job. Because she's a mom, you know. And in my country firing a young mom is almost unthinkable. And because she spent lots of time crying on the phone and kissing asses while I was struggling not to drown in work.
I got the shaft, albeit with a half decent package because I had managed to save what could be saved.
Legally, there's nothing I could do. So I just told them very calmly that they were making a stupid mistake, and left. Now 18 months later, my former partner has a whooping +18% track record on a market that sky rocketed by more than 60%. I know I was right, but I still got fucked.
Taught me a very important lesson: I don't want to work for someone else anymore. I take my risks. I blame myself and fail if I'm not good enough, but at least, I don't have to watch incompetent sycophants fucking the guys who do the real work (I wasn't the only one to get fired for my good services...) | Was a fund manager. Got fired after 12 months of credit nightmare while my absent, pregnant partner got to keep her job because of her social status and ass kissing skills. |
Clumpy | "Deseret" is a word used in the Book of Mormon to mean "honeybee." The beehive is sort of a Utah Mormon symbol and a lot of church-y stuff uses it. The Deseret News is owned by the Church and I believe the Mormon Times is a weekly supplement.
The "women's wiring" stuff in the article and the ensuing analysis is really odd, though bear in mind that some stripes of LDS culture in Utah see Twilight as essentially relationship pornography - I think it's a well-believed fallacy in our modern society that women don't have sex drives, and it's easy for a culture that tiptoes around the specifics of sex and intimacy (believing them appropriate to address directly only between a couple) to say "well then, women must be turned on by something *instead* of pornography - let's say romance novels." Simplistic analysis and kneejerk thinking nobody really evaluates too closely tends to make its way into media channels.
tl;dr Deseret Book doesn't really mean anything interesting, and Utah is a little strange, but not nearly as strange as many may think. | "Deseret" is a word used in the Book of Mormon to mean "honeybee." The beehive is sort of a Utah Mormon symbol and a lot of church-y stuff uses it. The Deseret News is owned by the Church and I believe the Mormon Times is a weekly supplement.
The "women's wiring" stuff in the article and the ensuing analysis is really odd, though bear in mind that some stripes of LDS culture in Utah see Twilight as essentially relationship pornography - I think it's a well-believed fallacy in our modern society that women don't have sex drives, and it's easy for a culture that tiptoes around the specifics of sex and intimacy (believing them appropriate to address directly only between a couple) to say "well then, women must be turned on by something instead of pornography - let's say romance novels." Simplistic analysis and kneejerk thinking nobody really evaluates too closely tends to make its way into media channels.
tl;dr Deseret Book doesn't really mean anything interesting, and Utah is a little strange, but not nearly as strange as many may think.
| entertainment | t5_2qh0f | c0u0s9f | Deseret" is a word used in the Book of Mormon to mean "honeybee." The beehive is sort of a Utah Mormon symbol and a lot of church-y stuff uses it. The Deseret News is owned by the Church and I believe the Mormon Times is a weekly supplement.
The "women's wiring" stuff in the article and the ensuing analysis is really odd, though bear in mind that some stripes of LDS culture in Utah see Twilight as essentially relationship pornography - I think it's a well-believed fallacy in our modern society that women don't have sex drives, and it's easy for a culture that tiptoes around the specifics of sex and intimacy (believing them appropriate to address directly only between a couple) to say "well then, women must be turned on by something instead of pornography - let's say romance novels." Simplistic analysis and kneejerk thinking nobody really evaluates too closely tends to make its way into media channels. | Deseret Book doesn't really mean anything interesting, and Utah is a little strange, but not nearly as strange as many may think. |
ButchDeadlift | yeah, because the arguments he goes on to make are predicated on that same, false assumption that low carb is no carb and abhors fiber when in fact any well designed low carb diet will do the opposite.
The crux of the entire thing seems to be an "up and coming" supplement that, 6 years after the publishing of the article, I have never heard about. Which is based around some dubious positive energy scale. If you believe in that I know a guy with an orgone chamber you might be interested in.
tl;dr eating meat and cheese is bad for you, but no one in their right mind eats just meat and cheese. | yeah, because the arguments he goes on to make are predicated on that same, false assumption that low carb is no carb and abhors fiber when in fact any well designed low carb diet will do the opposite.
The crux of the entire thing seems to be an "up and coming" supplement that, 6 years after the publishing of the article, I have never heard about. Which is based around some dubious positive energy scale. If you believe in that I know a guy with an orgone chamber you might be interested in.
tl;dr eating meat and cheese is bad for you, but no one in their right mind eats just meat and cheese.
| AlternativeHealth | t5_2r7ki | c0u3gol | yeah, because the arguments he goes on to make are predicated on that same, false assumption that low carb is no carb and abhors fiber when in fact any well designed low carb diet will do the opposite.
The crux of the entire thing seems to be an "up and coming" supplement that, 6 years after the publishing of the article, I have never heard about. Which is based around some dubious positive energy scale. If you believe in that I know a guy with an orgone chamber you might be interested in. | eating meat and cheese is bad for you, but no one in their right mind eats just meat and cheese. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.