Datasets:

webis

/

tldr-17

like 36

DejaBoo

Just came from a 3 week visit there. A good read, thanks for sharing, OP. For anyone reading, let it be known I am philosophically a fiscal conservative and the family member who hosted me is an active warden (sitting government official) of the DA party. I found the article an interesting take in that it seems overly simplistic and even optimistic. However, South Africa's natural resources and history in achievement (e.g., medicine, technology, etc.) is still keeping them afloat in the global market. On the homefront it is decreasing and they do need to change. The shift of power has led to an attitude of "now that's ours" and decades of decimating the wealth that did exist to the poor. This, without a doubt is a great intention, but has come with two great costs -- corruption and economic destruction. I was told how 10 white farms had been given to black families by the government which today these farms produce a tenth of what they used to. I feel this is the best of all the examples I could share as how policy of good public intent has been implemented with long-term disaster for the public as whole. Another example is how a visit to the local fire department where now there is mandate to have 40% of all fire fighters be women. It is real struggle because even those women who do pass the physical fitness tests just desire a job and have no interest in a career in "fire fighting." Upon acquiring the job the lieutenants are faced with resistance and the women complaining and even pleading with questions, "why can't I just stay here and clean? I don't want to fight fires." (their words, not mine). The biggest areas the article isn't addressing is the vast corrumption in the government and the overwhelming culture of the Blacks now dominating the political landscape. I sadly cannot tell you eloquently how powerful the latter is, but the culture **is not** capitalism but of socialism. Not political mind you but culturally -- what is yours is mine too. And as long as whites are perceived as whealthier, imo, then the culture will tend to simply blame whites and vote for the ANC -- a free card to be corrupt. I will end with a story shared with me with my brother-in-law told me. At the end of aparthied a man discovered 3 blacks looting a vehicle. He, a the pasteur at the church where it was happening, tried to intervened but the men persisisted saying, "having you heard we are free now!" Confused, he insisted they elaborate and they finally got the message across to him that, "by being free, now everything was free for them to take and have as their own now." TL;DR To SA Blacks Freedom is not the same thing to you and me, and the Economist would certainly done well to inform the reader of this huge difference in culture perspective.

Just came from a 3 week visit there. A good read, thanks for sharing, OP. For anyone reading, let it be known I am philosophically a fiscal conservative and the family member who hosted me is an active warden (sitting government official) of the DA party. I found the article an interesting take in that it seems overly simplistic and even optimistic. However, South Africa's natural resources and history in achievement (e.g., medicine, technology, etc.) is still keeping them afloat in the global market. On the homefront it is decreasing and they do need to change. The shift of power has led to an attitude of "now that's ours" and decades of decimating the wealth that did exist to the poor. This, without a doubt is a great intention, but has come with two great costs -- corruption and economic destruction. I was told how 10 white farms had been given to black families by the government which today these farms produce a tenth of what they used to. I feel this is the best of all the examples I could share as how policy of good public intent has been implemented with long-term disaster for the public as whole. Another example is how a visit to the local fire department where now there is mandate to have 40% of all fire fighters be women. It is real struggle because even those women who do pass the physical fitness tests just desire a job and have no interest in a career in "fire fighting." Upon acquiring the job the lieutenants are faced with resistance and the women complaining and even pleading with questions, "why can't I just stay here and clean? I don't want to fight fires." (their words, not mine). The biggest areas the article isn't addressing is the vast corrumption in the government and the overwhelming culture of the Blacks now dominating the political landscape. I sadly cannot tell you eloquently how powerful the latter is, but the culture is not capitalism but of socialism. Not political mind you but culturally -- what is yours is mine too. And as long as whites are perceived as whealthier, imo, then the culture will tend to simply blame whites and vote for the ANC -- a free card to be corrupt. I will end with a story shared with me with my brother-in-law told me. At the end of aparthied a man discovered 3 blacks looting a vehicle. He, a the pasteur at the church where it was happening, tried to intervened but the men persisisted saying, "having you heard we are free now!" Confused, he insisted they elaborate and they finally got the message across to him that, "by being free, now everything was free for them to take and have as their own now." TL;DR To SA Blacks Freedom is not the same thing to you and me, and the Economist would certainly done well to inform the reader of this huge difference in culture perspective.

worldevents

t5_2riv9

c6svhc9

Just came from a 3 week visit there. A good read, thanks for sharing, OP. For anyone reading, let it be known I am philosophically a fiscal conservative and the family member who hosted me is an active warden (sitting government official) of the DA party. I found the article an interesting take in that it seems overly simplistic and even optimistic. However, South Africa's natural resources and history in achievement (e.g., medicine, technology, etc.) is still keeping them afloat in the global market. On the homefront it is decreasing and they do need to change. The shift of power has led to an attitude of "now that's ours" and decades of decimating the wealth that did exist to the poor. This, without a doubt is a great intention, but has come with two great costs -- corruption and economic destruction. I was told how 10 white farms had been given to black families by the government which today these farms produce a tenth of what they used to. I feel this is the best of all the examples I could share as how policy of good public intent has been implemented with long-term disaster for the public as whole. Another example is how a visit to the local fire department where now there is mandate to have 40% of all fire fighters be women. It is real struggle because even those women who do pass the physical fitness tests just desire a job and have no interest in a career in "fire fighting." Upon acquiring the job the lieutenants are faced with resistance and the women complaining and even pleading with questions, "why can't I just stay here and clean? I don't want to fight fires." (their words, not mine). The biggest areas the article isn't addressing is the vast corrumption in the government and the overwhelming culture of the Blacks now dominating the political landscape. I sadly cannot tell you eloquently how powerful the latter is, but the culture is not capitalism but of socialism. Not political mind you but culturally -- what is yours is mine too. And as long as whites are perceived as whealthier, imo, then the culture will tend to simply blame whites and vote for the ANC -- a free card to be corrupt. I will end with a story shared with me with my brother-in-law told me. At the end of aparthied a man discovered 3 blacks looting a vehicle. He, a the pasteur at the church where it was happening, tried to intervened but the men persisisted saying, "having you heard we are free now!" Confused, he insisted they elaborate and they finally got the message across to him that, "by being free, now everything was free for them to take and have as their own now."

To SA Blacks Freedom is not the same thing to you and me, and the Economist would certainly done well to inform the reader of this huge difference in culture perspective.

EveningCrickets

I voted for Obama in 2008 because I believed in "Hope and Change". I believed that he would change the tone of government. That he would involve ordinary citizens in the decision making process. That there would be spirited discussions on new laws. However, for the most part that hasn't happened. Remember the new petition system? That would have been a great start. But it's obvious that Obama doesn't take is seriously. I didn't expect him to change his positions based on a petition, but it would have been nice to see personalized, heartfelt explanations rather than the canned responses that we got. Obama turned out to be just another politician. As a result, I feel rather used. If that was Obama's only fault, I might still vote for him again. After all, that makes him no worse than any other politician. The more serious problem is that lack of accomplishments. Gitmo is still open. The economy is in a rut. The new healthcare law is a mess. Etc. These problems aren't entirely Obama's fault, but he seems more interested in blaming his opponents than in fixing the problems. Moreover, I don't buy the "Republicans wouldn't cooperate with us" excuse. He had a super-majority in Congress for the first year he was in office. That meant that the *Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote to pass a law*. If Bush and Clinton and Reagan can get stuff done when their opponents control Congress, Obama should be able to get stuff done with a super-majority. I'll be voting for Romney this year. It was a hard decision, and I didn't support Romney until seeing him in the first debate. Throughout the debates Romney came across as confident, intelligent, conciliatory, and knowledgeable; whereas Obama came across as petty, weak, and shallow. Throughout the debates, I felt that Romney presented a plan and a vision (albeit an incomplete one). Whereas Obama never presented his own plans and instead focused on finding holes in Romney's. Moreover, the holes Obama found were shallow. (Obama said something to the effect of "The only Government spending Romney is going to cut is Planned Parenthood and Big Bird." That's a really disingenuous attack.) I have some concerns about Romney's views, but I agree with Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) when he said that Romney is a pragmatic chameleon and will likely adapt his views to the situation at hand. In other words, I don't think Romney is going to push hard-right social policies in a Senate that is split roughly 50/50. **TL;DR:** 2008 my vote was primarily a vote *for* Obama. This year, my vote is primarily a vote *against* Obama, rather than for Romney. However, there is one aspect of Romney that I do quite like: I think Romney will do much better at handling the economy.

I voted for Obama in 2008 because I believed in "Hope and Change". I believed that he would change the tone of government. That he would involve ordinary citizens in the decision making process. That there would be spirited discussions on new laws. However, for the most part that hasn't happened. Remember the new petition system? That would have been a great start. But it's obvious that Obama doesn't take is seriously. I didn't expect him to change his positions based on a petition, but it would have been nice to see personalized, heartfelt explanations rather than the canned responses that we got. Obama turned out to be just another politician. As a result, I feel rather used. If that was Obama's only fault, I might still vote for him again. After all, that makes him no worse than any other politician. The more serious problem is that lack of accomplishments. Gitmo is still open. The economy is in a rut. The new healthcare law is a mess. Etc. These problems aren't entirely Obama's fault, but he seems more interested in blaming his opponents than in fixing the problems. Moreover, I don't buy the "Republicans wouldn't cooperate with us" excuse. He had a super-majority in Congress for the first year he was in office. That meant that the Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote to pass a law . If Bush and Clinton and Reagan can get stuff done when their opponents control Congress, Obama should be able to get stuff done with a super-majority. I'll be voting for Romney this year. It was a hard decision, and I didn't support Romney until seeing him in the first debate. Throughout the debates Romney came across as confident, intelligent, conciliatory, and knowledgeable; whereas Obama came across as petty, weak, and shallow. Throughout the debates, I felt that Romney presented a plan and a vision (albeit an incomplete one). Whereas Obama never presented his own plans and instead focused on finding holes in Romney's. Moreover, the holes Obama found were shallow. (Obama said something to the effect of "The only Government spending Romney is going to cut is Planned Parenthood and Big Bird." That's a really disingenuous attack.) I have some concerns about Romney's views, but I agree with Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) when he said that Romney is a pragmatic chameleon and will likely adapt his views to the situation at hand. In other words, I don't think Romney is going to push hard-right social policies in a Senate that is split roughly 50/50. TL;DR: 2008 my vote was primarily a vote for Obama. This year, my vote is primarily a vote against Obama, rather than for Romney. However, there is one aspect of Romney that I do quite like: I think Romney will do much better at handling the economy.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c6st5gy

I voted for Obama in 2008 because I believed in "Hope and Change". I believed that he would change the tone of government. That he would involve ordinary citizens in the decision making process. That there would be spirited discussions on new laws. However, for the most part that hasn't happened. Remember the new petition system? That would have been a great start. But it's obvious that Obama doesn't take is seriously. I didn't expect him to change his positions based on a petition, but it would have been nice to see personalized, heartfelt explanations rather than the canned responses that we got. Obama turned out to be just another politician. As a result, I feel rather used. If that was Obama's only fault, I might still vote for him again. After all, that makes him no worse than any other politician. The more serious problem is that lack of accomplishments. Gitmo is still open. The economy is in a rut. The new healthcare law is a mess. Etc. These problems aren't entirely Obama's fault, but he seems more interested in blaming his opponents than in fixing the problems. Moreover, I don't buy the "Republicans wouldn't cooperate with us" excuse. He had a super-majority in Congress for the first year he was in office. That meant that the Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote to pass a law . If Bush and Clinton and Reagan can get stuff done when their opponents control Congress, Obama should be able to get stuff done with a super-majority. I'll be voting for Romney this year. It was a hard decision, and I didn't support Romney until seeing him in the first debate. Throughout the debates Romney came across as confident, intelligent, conciliatory, and knowledgeable; whereas Obama came across as petty, weak, and shallow. Throughout the debates, I felt that Romney presented a plan and a vision (albeit an incomplete one). Whereas Obama never presented his own plans and instead focused on finding holes in Romney's. Moreover, the holes Obama found were shallow. (Obama said something to the effect of "The only Government spending Romney is going to cut is Planned Parenthood and Big Bird." That's a really disingenuous attack.) I have some concerns about Romney's views, but I agree with Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) when he said that Romney is a pragmatic chameleon and will likely adapt his views to the situation at hand. In other words, I don't think Romney is going to push hard-right social policies in a Senate that is split roughly 50/50.

2008 my vote was primarily a vote for Obama. This year, my vote is primarily a vote against Obama, rather than for Romney. However, there is one aspect of Romney that I do quite like: I think Romney will do much better at handling the economy.

glowingbubbles

My boyfriend got me interested in football this year, after my family had been trying to get me interested in the Bears my entire life. The difference was that he drew me a diagram of the positions, starting with offense, then a seperate diagram for defense. He explained what each position was for, and then i understood what was going on. It's not fun to watch football if you dont get what the players do, then its just a bunch of guys throwing the ball around. Trying to explain it during the game is a pain and i just didnt have the patience for it. Seriously try the diagram and then repeatedly teach her who the main players are. Once i knew who people were and what they did, it mattered if they won. TL;DR: draw her a diagram of the offensive and defensive lineup, teach the names of main players

My boyfriend got me interested in football this year, after my family had been trying to get me interested in the Bears my entire life. The difference was that he drew me a diagram of the positions, starting with offense, then a seperate diagram for defense. He explained what each position was for, and then i understood what was going on. It's not fun to watch football if you dont get what the players do, then its just a bunch of guys throwing the ball around. Trying to explain it during the game is a pain and i just didnt have the patience for it. Seriously try the diagram and then repeatedly teach her who the main players are. Once i knew who people were and what they did, it mattered if they won. TL;DR: draw her a diagram of the offensive and defensive lineup, teach the names of main players

CHIBears

t5_2s0u3

c6t6ug4

My boyfriend got me interested in football this year, after my family had been trying to get me interested in the Bears my entire life. The difference was that he drew me a diagram of the positions, starting with offense, then a seperate diagram for defense. He explained what each position was for, and then i understood what was going on. It's not fun to watch football if you dont get what the players do, then its just a bunch of guys throwing the ball around. Trying to explain it during the game is a pain and i just didnt have the patience for it. Seriously try the diagram and then repeatedly teach her who the main players are. Once i knew who people were and what they did, it mattered if they won.

draw her a diagram of the offensive and defensive lineup, teach the names of main players

JojoScotia

Nothing happened in my life to bring me round. I've had a slow burn on a lot of different issues. Until I was 12 I genuinely believed that men should be treated like women were in Victorian times. after that, the more I got into politics and issues, the more I cared about all sorts of issues, like proper feminism, the environment, charities, wars, gender and sexuality etc. It's been increasingly creeping me out this last decade the growing distrust of men and the alarmist stuff about rape and pedophilia (the latter culminating when a (female) pediatrician in England was hounded from her house by a bunch of illiterate locals). I have a father and a stepdad, neither of whom were much cop at being dads, and my mum always did the job enough for both of them, so I actually really have the archetypal angry feminist (I was also once in an abusive relationship with a man and was raped more than once - something I blame him for, not his gender). The one area that does make sense is that I've never been very good at gender roles - I am female and while I object to all the unspoken rules about appearance and behavior that are pressed on me, I have always identified as female - but I've often followed the male unspoken rules without really realising it - buying little presents for my husband, being uncomfortable around children because of how it might look if I make eye contact, holding doors open and all that stuff. I'm baffled by this preferential treatment women supposedly get online - that idea that you prove you're a woman with a picture and suddenly a goddess or something, because in my experience putting a picture of myself in most places means I'll be ridiculed. This was way longer than expected. TL;DR: Not who you'd expect to be into MR, never have a conversion moment, don;t really understand it myself.

Nothing happened in my life to bring me round. I've had a slow burn on a lot of different issues. Until I was 12 I genuinely believed that men should be treated like women were in Victorian times. after that, the more I got into politics and issues, the more I cared about all sorts of issues, like proper feminism, the environment, charities, wars, gender and sexuality etc. It's been increasingly creeping me out this last decade the growing distrust of men and the alarmist stuff about rape and pedophilia (the latter culminating when a (female) pediatrician in England was hounded from her house by a bunch of illiterate locals). I have a father and a stepdad, neither of whom were much cop at being dads, and my mum always did the job enough for both of them, so I actually really have the archetypal angry feminist (I was also once in an abusive relationship with a man and was raped more than once - something I blame him for, not his gender). The one area that does make sense is that I've never been very good at gender roles - I am female and while I object to all the unspoken rules about appearance and behavior that are pressed on me, I have always identified as female - but I've often followed the male unspoken rules without really realising it - buying little presents for my husband, being uncomfortable around children because of how it might look if I make eye contact, holding doors open and all that stuff. I'm baffled by this preferential treatment women supposedly get online - that idea that you prove you're a woman with a picture and suddenly a goddess or something, because in my experience putting a picture of myself in most places means I'll be ridiculed. This was way longer than expected. TL;DR: Not who you'd expect to be into MR, never have a conversion moment, don;t really understand it myself.

LadyMRAs

t5_2tzrt

c6tb4zw

Nothing happened in my life to bring me round. I've had a slow burn on a lot of different issues. Until I was 12 I genuinely believed that men should be treated like women were in Victorian times. after that, the more I got into politics and issues, the more I cared about all sorts of issues, like proper feminism, the environment, charities, wars, gender and sexuality etc. It's been increasingly creeping me out this last decade the growing distrust of men and the alarmist stuff about rape and pedophilia (the latter culminating when a (female) pediatrician in England was hounded from her house by a bunch of illiterate locals). I have a father and a stepdad, neither of whom were much cop at being dads, and my mum always did the job enough for both of them, so I actually really have the archetypal angry feminist (I was also once in an abusive relationship with a man and was raped more than once - something I blame him for, not his gender). The one area that does make sense is that I've never been very good at gender roles - I am female and while I object to all the unspoken rules about appearance and behavior that are pressed on me, I have always identified as female - but I've often followed the male unspoken rules without really realising it - buying little presents for my husband, being uncomfortable around children because of how it might look if I make eye contact, holding doors open and all that stuff. I'm baffled by this preferential treatment women supposedly get online - that idea that you prove you're a woman with a picture and suddenly a goddess or something, because in my experience putting a picture of myself in most places means I'll be ridiculed. This was way longer than expected.

Not who you'd expect to be into MR, never have a conversion moment, don;t really understand it myself.

themountaingoat

I don't agree with your general assertion that men are more likely to support female entitlement, or legislation that makes such entitlement possible. Sure men are more in power, but those men are not free to act in opposition to feminism, because they may lose their jobs, or not get voted for and so on. My point about the math comment is two fold. I am using that example to show that men in power are not free to oppose many forms of female entitlement, and therefore it is not predominantly men who support female entitlement. People are also less likely to accuse women of misogyny, and so the women in power do have more of an ability to speak out against feminism. TL:DR Men are not predominantly to blame for the system that allows women to behave badly, because they cannot speak out against such a system because of primary female lobby groups and public opinion.

I don't agree with your general assertion that men are more likely to support female entitlement, or legislation that makes such entitlement possible. Sure men are more in power, but those men are not free to act in opposition to feminism, because they may lose their jobs, or not get voted for and so on. My point about the math comment is two fold. I am using that example to show that men in power are not free to oppose many forms of female entitlement, and therefore it is not predominantly men who support female entitlement. People are also less likely to accuse women of misogyny, and so the women in power do have more of an ability to speak out against feminism. TL:DR Men are not predominantly to blame for the system that allows women to behave badly, because they cannot speak out against such a system because of primary female lobby groups and public opinion.

LadyMRAs

t5_2tzrt

c703rah

I don't agree with your general assertion that men are more likely to support female entitlement, or legislation that makes such entitlement possible. Sure men are more in power, but those men are not free to act in opposition to feminism, because they may lose their jobs, or not get voted for and so on. My point about the math comment is two fold. I am using that example to show that men in power are not free to oppose many forms of female entitlement, and therefore it is not predominantly men who support female entitlement. People are also less likely to accuse women of misogyny, and so the women in power do have more of an ability to speak out against feminism.

Men are not predominantly to blame for the system that allows women to behave badly, because they cannot speak out against such a system because of primary female lobby groups and public opinion.

Shewzz

Maybe the woman just didn't want to see shit get completely out of control? If I saw a guy on the ground getting slapped around and not showing any signs of fighting back I would've told Bruce to chill out too. For the sake of context, say all this mulletman did was run his mouth. Why care about it that much to kick his ass when he's already down? The anti-fight mentality is only for safety and doesn't make us pansy-asses. Not everyone has the same restraint that you might have. That other someone might just kill a man while seeing red without careful discretion of why. Nipping this behavior in the bud stops what could be an unnecessary issue (like death, or something, maybe. I dunno). I do commend your reasoning about getting someone to see the error of their ways, but your methods might not work out in your best interest one day. However, if you were protecting yourself from a physical assault, then you gotta do what you have to. Yet if some jackass is spitting shit, why bother? They probably wont change just because they got floored. Most assholes that like nothing more than to talk will just be pissed off that they got floored, but will never think as to WHY it happened. This isn't the wild west frontier anymore, and walking away from this situation would've best way to handle it. If people truly understood their own mortality, this ridiculous aggression wouldn't happen on either end. I hope you didn't take any offense to this, as none was intended. Also in the very least you can *understand* why fighting isn't *usually* the best answer, and that shouldn't make America a pansy-ass nation. TLDR **Fighting sometimes gets people killed over stupid shit. Death isn't normally a good thing for an individual. Breaking up a fiight or walking away doesn't make you a pansy-ass.** EDIT: Derped a word & fixed into paragraphs.

Maybe the woman just didn't want to see shit get completely out of control? If I saw a guy on the ground getting slapped around and not showing any signs of fighting back I would've told Bruce to chill out too. For the sake of context, say all this mulletman did was run his mouth. Why care about it that much to kick his ass when he's already down? The anti-fight mentality is only for safety and doesn't make us pansy-asses. Not everyone has the same restraint that you might have. That other someone might just kill a man while seeing red without careful discretion of why. Nipping this behavior in the bud stops what could be an unnecessary issue (like death, or something, maybe. I dunno). I do commend your reasoning about getting someone to see the error of their ways, but your methods might not work out in your best interest one day. However, if you were protecting yourself from a physical assault, then you gotta do what you have to. Yet if some jackass is spitting shit, why bother? They probably wont change just because they got floored. Most assholes that like nothing more than to talk will just be pissed off that they got floored, but will never think as to WHY it happened. This isn't the wild west frontier anymore, and walking away from this situation would've best way to handle it. If people truly understood their own mortality, this ridiculous aggression wouldn't happen on either end. I hope you didn't take any offense to this, as none was intended. Also in the very least you can understand why fighting isn't usually the best answer, and that shouldn't make America a pansy-ass nation. TLDR Fighting sometimes gets people killed over stupid shit. Death isn't normally a good thing for an individual. Breaking up a fiight or walking away doesn't make you a pansy-ass. EDIT: Derped a word & fixed into paragraphs.

videos

t5_2qh1e

c6t7fqt

Maybe the woman just didn't want to see shit get completely out of control? If I saw a guy on the ground getting slapped around and not showing any signs of fighting back I would've told Bruce to chill out too. For the sake of context, say all this mulletman did was run his mouth. Why care about it that much to kick his ass when he's already down? The anti-fight mentality is only for safety and doesn't make us pansy-asses. Not everyone has the same restraint that you might have. That other someone might just kill a man while seeing red without careful discretion of why. Nipping this behavior in the bud stops what could be an unnecessary issue (like death, or something, maybe. I dunno). I do commend your reasoning about getting someone to see the error of their ways, but your methods might not work out in your best interest one day. However, if you were protecting yourself from a physical assault, then you gotta do what you have to. Yet if some jackass is spitting shit, why bother? They probably wont change just because they got floored. Most assholes that like nothing more than to talk will just be pissed off that they got floored, but will never think as to WHY it happened. This isn't the wild west frontier anymore, and walking away from this situation would've best way to handle it. If people truly understood their own mortality, this ridiculous aggression wouldn't happen on either end. I hope you didn't take any offense to this, as none was intended. Also in the very least you can understand why fighting isn't usually the best answer, and that shouldn't make America a pansy-ass nation.

Fighting sometimes gets people killed over stupid shit. Death isn't normally a good thing for an individual. Breaking up a fiight or walking away doesn't make you a pansy-ass. EDIT: Derped a word & fixed into paragraphs.

thetasigma1355

Highly educated Americans were sold the belief that their "higher education" would get them a well-paying job so that they would be able to pay off the debt. When that didn't materialize it only makes sense that there would be a higher percentage of them with debt. It's not like banks were lending money and giving mortgages to impoverished people. They were targeting recent graduates and convincing them that the American Dream is to own their own home. And once you own that home you as well make that loan a bit bigger so that you can properly furnish the house. tl;dr It was a scam that targeted "highly educated" Americans so it only makes sense that "highly educated" Americans fell for it.

Highly educated Americans were sold the belief that their "higher education" would get them a well-paying job so that they would be able to pay off the debt. When that didn't materialize it only makes sense that there would be a higher percentage of them with debt. It's not like banks were lending money and giving mortgages to impoverished people. They were targeting recent graduates and convincing them that the American Dream is to own their own home. And once you own that home you as well make that loan a bit bigger so that you can properly furnish the house. tl;dr It was a scam that targeted "highly educated" Americans so it only makes sense that "highly educated" Americans fell for it.

TrueReddit

t5_2qyt6

c6thkch

Highly educated Americans were sold the belief that their "higher education" would get them a well-paying job so that they would be able to pay off the debt. When that didn't materialize it only makes sense that there would be a higher percentage of them with debt. It's not like banks were lending money and giving mortgages to impoverished people. They were targeting recent graduates and convincing them that the American Dream is to own their own home. And once you own that home you as well make that loan a bit bigger so that you can properly furnish the house.

It was a scam that targeted "highly educated" Americans so it only makes sense that "highly educated" Americans fell for it.

himynameisjaked

i think that was one of the main issues of contention about reach and how it didn't sync up at all with "first strike" and "ghosts of onyx." something i was kind of bummed about be cause both of those are tremendous books, with gox being one of my favorites. as far as i understood it bungie kinda went out on their own on this one and decided to tell their own story. thus starting fun arguments like which is more canonical. i know the going word before was that the games trump the books. so let the debate rage on. tl;dr no easy answer, books and reach don't really match up.

i think that was one of the main issues of contention about reach and how it didn't sync up at all with "first strike" and "ghosts of onyx." something i was kind of bummed about be cause both of those are tremendous books, with gox being one of my favorites. as far as i understood it bungie kinda went out on their own on this one and decided to tell their own story. thus starting fun arguments like which is more canonical. i know the going word before was that the games trump the books. so let the debate rage on. tl;dr no easy answer, books and reach don't really match up.

halo

t5_2qixk

c6toqu3

i think that was one of the main issues of contention about reach and how it didn't sync up at all with "first strike" and "ghosts of onyx." something i was kind of bummed about be cause both of those are tremendous books, with gox being one of my favorites. as far as i understood it bungie kinda went out on their own on this one and decided to tell their own story. thus starting fun arguments like which is more canonical. i know the going word before was that the games trump the books. so let the debate rage on.

no easy answer, books and reach don't really match up.

Java_Beans

Yes it's noticeable, but here are my two cents: 1. Many people are brainwashed by media and don't want to admit it. You do this experiment yourself, try reading news from one biased source all the time, try it for 2-3 months in row and see how your views will start to change. Now think about those people who have been hearing the same biased media their whole life. 2. Honestly, we (Muslims) aren't much better. Example, there are many clips on youtube now for the Sandy storm, Arabic comments are full of hate and wish all Americans die in the storm, not all comments but most of them though. This isn't what Islam teaches us. TL;DR: uneducated/ignorant/stereotypical people who don't think about other humans, exist on both sides of the fence but you are looking only at the Americans side.

Yes it's noticeable, but here are my two cents: Many people are brainwashed by media and don't want to admit it. You do this experiment yourself, try reading news from one biased source all the time, try it for 2-3 months in row and see how your views will start to change. Now think about those people who have been hearing the same biased media their whole life. Honestly, we (Muslims) aren't much better. Example, there are many clips on youtube now for the Sandy storm, Arabic comments are full of hate and wish all Americans die in the storm, not all comments but most of them though. This isn't what Islam teaches us. TL;DR: uneducated/ignorant/stereotypical people who don't think about other humans, exist on both sides of the fence but you are looking only at the Americans side.

islam

t5_2qhbp

c6tsuap

Yes it's noticeable, but here are my two cents: Many people are brainwashed by media and don't want to admit it. You do this experiment yourself, try reading news from one biased source all the time, try it for 2-3 months in row and see how your views will start to change. Now think about those people who have been hearing the same biased media their whole life. Honestly, we (Muslims) aren't much better. Example, there are many clips on youtube now for the Sandy storm, Arabic comments are full of hate and wish all Americans die in the storm, not all comments but most of them though. This isn't what Islam teaches us.

uneducated/ignorant/stereotypical people who don't think about other humans, exist on both sides of the fence but you are looking only at the Americans side.

GabeDeGrasseDawkins

That dude didn't beat the Running Man. That dude edited the text of the ROM to make it look like he did. This method is simply fake, and you don't have to take my word for it. You can download [a v1.0 ROM of Zelda 64]( download [a hex editor]( and run a CTRL+F search for the text string "speechless." You'll find nothing. [Neither was this changed for later versions of OoT]( It's not in the hex, it's not in the text, and so it's not in the game. Even were we to make an excuse such as that unlike the rest of the game text this text is encrypted, it would still fall flat because the byte in which the race seconds are stored is unsigned. It can't hold a negative value. That's probably why the Running Man abandons the race after the 4 minute mark — because 4 minutes is a rounded down 4:15, 4:15 corresponds to (4 * 60 + 15) = (240 + 15) = 255, and 255 is the maximum capacity of an unsigned byte. After 4:15, the seconds value rolls back over to 0. For a more linguistic and less computational analysis, RustySporks further edits in the text, "Farewell, then!" yet the localization staff for OoT seem to consistently translate farewells as "good-bye[s]." You see this in these quotes: * "Good-bye... Great Deku Tree..." * "I can't wait to say good-bye to this place! Two of my buddies are still being held prisoner." * "Just train harder. Good-bye, then!" * "Huff...huff... Good-bye, then!" * "Link... Good-bye...." * "It will be time for us to say good-bye..." * "That's an unpleasant mask... Good-bye." "Farewell" doesn't appear at all within the OoT script and, what is more, in the real game the Running Man himself says, "Good-bye, then!" Even notwithstanding the ROM-based proof, it'd be strange indeed for Nintendo to change his "Good-bye, then!" into a "Farewell, then!" when "good-bye" is the standard parting remark. The OoT localization team translated five different goodbyes into "good-bye," including the following: * "さよなら" (hiragana "sayonara") * "さようなら" (hiragana "sayōnara" or "sayounara") * "サヨナラ" (katakana "sayonara") * "さらば" (hiragana "saraba") * "別れ" (kanji and hiragana "wakare") This is the method he wrote that he claims leads to the outcome shown in his video: * *1) Challenge the running man to a race as older Link.* * *2) Return back 7 years and become younger Link.* * *3) Wait at the bridge for nearly 7 IN-GAME years (about 1 week in real life [...]).* * *4) ???* * *5) Profit.* This might not even be serious for two reasons. First, the "???, Profit" meme is oft-used lingo in the lexicon of trolls and the sarcastic. Second, the third step sounds like one of those silly requirements you'd read in a "How to Get the Triforce" rumor on a late 90s Angelfire / Geocities Web page. That he sets the bar for this step so unreasonably high indicates to me that he wants to either 1) see how many people will waste their time or 2) attack falsifiability and hypothesis testing from the angle of personal motivation. Step 3 is further flawed since later he defines in-game time where "[o]ne in-game day from dawn to the next dawn is 4 minutes," yet claims you should "[w]ait at the bridge" connecting Kokiri Forest to Hyrule Field. You can feel free to wait there until the cows come home, but no in-game time passes at the bridge. Even if we ignore the particular method in the video and maintain the Running Man is defeatable, numerous people have hacked the game, either through the GameShark cheat device, MIPS assembly, RAM editors, emulator tools, or other means. They've changed the times, they've run the race, and they've still been outpaced by the Running Man. [Here]( is an example of me being beaten by the Running Man after hacking the game to finish the race in 0 seconds. In the second video, he just fades out to the bombable grotto in the Sacred Forest Meadow, an area you can access in unglitched OoT gameplay. The area beneath the Zora's Domain ice sheet doesn't even lead there anyway, as you can see in [this YouTube video]( where YouTuber [TheJoeKid17]( swims up against the wall in question. Even if it was a beta room (it's not), the title would still be sensationalist nonsense as the video is not that of a Sky Temple. The reason RustySporks' video comments seem to be a mass consensus of lemmings riding a bandwagon into the echo chamber of confirmation is because 1) most YouTubers have tubers for brains and 2) the comments on his video are enqueued until he approves them. He thus only lets through those who agree with him. **tl;dr - [He's a phony! A big, fat phony!](

That dude didn't beat the Running Man. That dude edited the text of the ROM to make it look like he did. This method is simply fake, and you don't have to take my word for it. You can download [a v1.0 ROM of Zelda 64]( download [a hex editor]( and run a CTRL+F search for the text string "speechless." You'll find nothing. [Neither was this changed for later versions of OoT]( It's not in the hex, it's not in the text, and so it's not in the game. Even were we to make an excuse such as that unlike the rest of the game text this text is encrypted, it would still fall flat because the byte in which the race seconds are stored is unsigned. It can't hold a negative value. That's probably why the Running Man abandons the race after the 4 minute mark — because 4 minutes is a rounded down 4:15, 4:15 corresponds to (4 * 60 + 15) = (240 + 15) = 255, and 255 is the maximum capacity of an unsigned byte. After 4:15, the seconds value rolls back over to 0. For a more linguistic and less computational analysis, RustySporks further edits in the text, "Farewell, then!" yet the localization staff for OoT seem to consistently translate farewells as "good-bye[s]." You see this in these quotes: "Good-bye... Great Deku Tree..." "I can't wait to say good-bye to this place! Two of my buddies are still being held prisoner." "Just train harder. Good-bye, then!" "Huff...huff... Good-bye, then!" "Link... Good-bye...." "It will be time for us to say good-bye..." "That's an unpleasant mask... Good-bye." "Farewell" doesn't appear at all within the OoT script and, what is more, in the real game the Running Man himself says, "Good-bye, then!" Even notwithstanding the ROM-based proof, it'd be strange indeed for Nintendo to change his "Good-bye, then!" into a "Farewell, then!" when "good-bye" is the standard parting remark. The OoT localization team translated five different goodbyes into "good-bye," including the following: "さよなら" (hiragana "sayonara") "さようなら" (hiragana "sayōnara" or "sayounara") "サヨナラ" (katakana "sayonara") "さらば" (hiragana "saraba") "別れ" (kanji and hiragana "wakare") This is the method he wrote that he claims leads to the outcome shown in his video: 1) Challenge the running man to a race as older Link. 2) Return back 7 years and become younger Link. 3) Wait at the bridge for nearly 7 IN-GAME years (about 1 week in real life [...]). 4) ??? 5) Profit. This might not even be serious for two reasons. First, the "???, Profit" meme is oft-used lingo in the lexicon of trolls and the sarcastic. Second, the third step sounds like one of those silly requirements you'd read in a "How to Get the Triforce" rumor on a late 90s Angelfire / Geocities Web page. That he sets the bar for this step so unreasonably high indicates to me that he wants to either 1) see how many people will waste their time or 2) attack falsifiability and hypothesis testing from the angle of personal motivation. Step 3 is further flawed since later he defines in-game time where "[o]ne in-game day from dawn to the next dawn is 4 minutes," yet claims you should "[w]ait at the bridge" connecting Kokiri Forest to Hyrule Field. You can feel free to wait there until the cows come home, but no in-game time passes at the bridge. Even if we ignore the particular method in the video and maintain the Running Man is defeatable, numerous people have hacked the game, either through the GameShark cheat device, MIPS assembly, RAM editors, emulator tools, or other means. They've changed the times, they've run the race, and they've still been outpaced by the Running Man. [Here]( is an example of me being beaten by the Running Man after hacking the game to finish the race in 0 seconds. In the second video, he just fades out to the bombable grotto in the Sacred Forest Meadow, an area you can access in unglitched OoT gameplay. The area beneath the Zora's Domain ice sheet doesn't even lead there anyway, as you can see in this YouTube video , the title would still be sensationalist nonsense as the video is not that of a Sky Temple. The reason RustySporks' video comments seem to be a mass consensus of lemmings riding a bandwagon into the echo chamber of confirmation is because 1) most YouTubers have tubers for brains and 2) the comments on his video are enqueued until he approves them. He thus only lets through those who agree with him. **tl;dr - [He's a phony! A big, fat phony!](

truezelda

t5_2tfzp

c6trfe8

That dude didn't beat the Running Man. That dude edited the text of the ROM to make it look like he did. This method is simply fake, and you don't have to take my word for it. You can download [a v1.0 ROM of Zelda 64]( download [a hex editor]( and run a CTRL+F search for the text string "speechless." You'll find nothing. [Neither was this changed for later versions of OoT]( It's not in the hex, it's not in the text, and so it's not in the game. Even were we to make an excuse such as that unlike the rest of the game text this text is encrypted, it would still fall flat because the byte in which the race seconds are stored is unsigned. It can't hold a negative value. That's probably why the Running Man abandons the race after the 4 minute mark — because 4 minutes is a rounded down 4:15, 4:15 corresponds to (4 * 60 + 15) = (240 + 15) = 255, and 255 is the maximum capacity of an unsigned byte. After 4:15, the seconds value rolls back over to 0. For a more linguistic and less computational analysis, RustySporks further edits in the text, "Farewell, then!" yet the localization staff for OoT seem to consistently translate farewells as "good-bye[s]." You see this in these quotes: "Good-bye... Great Deku Tree..." "I can't wait to say good-bye to this place! Two of my buddies are still being held prisoner." "Just train harder. Good-bye, then!" "Huff...huff... Good-bye, then!" "Link... Good-bye...." "It will be time for us to say good-bye..." "That's an unpleasant mask... Good-bye." "Farewell" doesn't appear at all within the OoT script and, what is more, in the real game the Running Man himself says, "Good-bye, then!" Even notwithstanding the ROM-based proof, it'd be strange indeed for Nintendo to change his "Good-bye, then!" into a "Farewell, then!" when "good-bye" is the standard parting remark. The OoT localization team translated five different goodbyes into "good-bye," including the following: "さよなら" (hiragana "sayonara") "さようなら" (hiragana "sayōnara" or "sayounara") "サヨナラ" (katakana "sayonara") "さらば" (hiragana "saraba") "別れ" (kanji and hiragana "wakare") This is the method he wrote that he claims leads to the outcome shown in his video: 1) Challenge the running man to a race as older Link. 2) Return back 7 years and become younger Link. 3) Wait at the bridge for nearly 7 IN-GAME years (about 1 week in real life [...]). 4) ??? 5) Profit. This might not even be serious for two reasons. First, the "???, Profit" meme is oft-used lingo in the lexicon of trolls and the sarcastic. Second, the third step sounds like one of those silly requirements you'd read in a "How to Get the Triforce" rumor on a late 90s Angelfire / Geocities Web page. That he sets the bar for this step so unreasonably high indicates to me that he wants to either 1) see how many people will waste their time or 2) attack falsifiability and hypothesis testing from the angle of personal motivation. Step 3 is further flawed since later he defines in-game time where "[o]ne in-game day from dawn to the next dawn is 4 minutes," yet claims you should "[w]ait at the bridge" connecting Kokiri Forest to Hyrule Field. You can feel free to wait there until the cows come home, but no in-game time passes at the bridge. Even if we ignore the particular method in the video and maintain the Running Man is defeatable, numerous people have hacked the game, either through the GameShark cheat device, MIPS assembly, RAM editors, emulator tools, or other means. They've changed the times, they've run the race, and they've still been outpaced by the Running Man. [Here]( is an example of me being beaten by the Running Man after hacking the game to finish the race in 0 seconds. In the second video, he just fades out to the bombable grotto in the Sacred Forest Meadow, an area you can access in unglitched OoT gameplay. The area beneath the Zora's Domain ice sheet doesn't even lead there anyway, as you can see in this YouTube video , the title would still be sensationalist nonsense as the video is not that of a Sky Temple. The reason RustySporks' video comments seem to be a mass consensus of lemmings riding a bandwagon into the echo chamber of confirmation is because 1) most YouTubers have tubers for brains and 2) the comments on his video are enqueued until he approves them. He thus only lets through those who agree with him. **

He's a phony! A big, fat phony!](

millej

According to [what they've said]( Verizon plans on integrating VoLTE(Voice over LTE) beginning next year, so that will remove the requirement for manufacturers to support both CDMA and LTE in one phone if they want to make a phone that will work with Verizon. Because of this, I don't think that Verizon's going to be shut out, especially considering their size and clout with manufacturers. Despite this, I still wouldn't recommend Verizon. They might have the largest network, but their policies are incredibly anti-consumer. After being a Verizon customer for 11 years, I'll be dropping them to get a Nexus phone once my contract is up. My last two phones have been smartphones, and they've both been crippled at Verizon's request. The first was the HTC Vogue (XV6900 on Verizon), which had its GPS chip locked down so that only Verizon-signed apps could access it (read: VZ Navigator). Fortunately the community was able to get around it and I was able to run Google Maps on their, but not well. My current phone is a Droid X, which had its bootloader locked down to prevent the user from running custom versions of Android. That wouldn't be a huge deal if not for the fact that the stock software on it is terrible and Verizon loads their phones with garbage. On top of all this, Verizon has made it so updates take forever to their Nexus device (Galaxy Nexus) and has forced Google to block Google Wallet from being installed on the GNex. Verizon shows a clear history of decisions that actively work against the consumer's interest and are entirely greed motivated. tl;dr Verizon isn't going to be left out in the cold based on technology, but screw them anyway, they're a terrible company.

According to what they've said beginning next year, so that will remove the requirement for manufacturers to support both CDMA and LTE in one phone if they want to make a phone that will work with Verizon. Because of this, I don't think that Verizon's going to be shut out, especially considering their size and clout with manufacturers. Despite this, I still wouldn't recommend Verizon. They might have the largest network, but their policies are incredibly anti-consumer. After being a Verizon customer for 11 years, I'll be dropping them to get a Nexus phone once my contract is up. My last two phones have been smartphones, and they've both been crippled at Verizon's request. The first was the HTC Vogue (XV6900 on Verizon), which had its GPS chip locked down so that only Verizon-signed apps could access it (read: VZ Navigator). Fortunately the community was able to get around it and I was able to run Google Maps on their, but not well. My current phone is a Droid X, which had its bootloader locked down to prevent the user from running custom versions of Android. That wouldn't be a huge deal if not for the fact that the stock software on it is terrible and Verizon loads their phones with garbage. On top of all this, Verizon has made it so updates take forever to their Nexus device (Galaxy Nexus) and has forced Google to block Google Wallet from being installed on the GNex. Verizon shows a clear history of decisions that actively work against the consumer's interest and are entirely greed motivated. tl;dr Verizon isn't going to be left out in the cold based on technology, but screw them anyway, they're a terrible company.

orlando

t5_2qh7s

c6tynj0

According to what they've said beginning next year, so that will remove the requirement for manufacturers to support both CDMA and LTE in one phone if they want to make a phone that will work with Verizon. Because of this, I don't think that Verizon's going to be shut out, especially considering their size and clout with manufacturers. Despite this, I still wouldn't recommend Verizon. They might have the largest network, but their policies are incredibly anti-consumer. After being a Verizon customer for 11 years, I'll be dropping them to get a Nexus phone once my contract is up. My last two phones have been smartphones, and they've both been crippled at Verizon's request. The first was the HTC Vogue (XV6900 on Verizon), which had its GPS chip locked down so that only Verizon-signed apps could access it (read: VZ Navigator). Fortunately the community was able to get around it and I was able to run Google Maps on their, but not well. My current phone is a Droid X, which had its bootloader locked down to prevent the user from running custom versions of Android. That wouldn't be a huge deal if not for the fact that the stock software on it is terrible and Verizon loads their phones with garbage. On top of all this, Verizon has made it so updates take forever to their Nexus device (Galaxy Nexus) and has forced Google to block Google Wallet from being installed on the GNex. Verizon shows a clear history of decisions that actively work against the consumer's interest and are entirely greed motivated.

Verizon isn't going to be left out in the cold based on technology, but screw them anyway, they're a terrible company.

Vague_Intentions

I've played every character at least to 18, and they're all lots of fun in their own way. Axton and Gaige are generally regarded as the easiest to play (though not necessarily the best), and most feel that Zer0 is the most difficult. I have not personally had any issues using him though, and I've completed PT1 and part of PT2 with him. His cunning tree is very powerful and fun to use while playing through the game. Sniping is good too, but melee is pretty difficult to use unless you want to farm for good melee gear. Melee is extremely powerful with the right gear though. tl;dr pick whichever one you want. They're all fun and powerful.

I've played every character at least to 18, and they're all lots of fun in their own way. Axton and Gaige are generally regarded as the easiest to play (though not necessarily the best), and most feel that Zer0 is the most difficult. I have not personally had any issues using him though, and I've completed PT1 and part of PT2 with him. His cunning tree is very powerful and fun to use while playing through the game. Sniping is good too, but melee is pretty difficult to use unless you want to farm for good melee gear. Melee is extremely powerful with the right gear though. tl;dr pick whichever one you want. They're all fun and powerful.

Borderlands

t5_2r8cd

c6u5xeq

I've played every character at least to 18, and they're all lots of fun in their own way. Axton and Gaige are generally regarded as the easiest to play (though not necessarily the best), and most feel that Zer0 is the most difficult. I have not personally had any issues using him though, and I've completed PT1 and part of PT2 with him. His cunning tree is very powerful and fun to use while playing through the game. Sniping is good too, but melee is pretty difficult to use unless you want to farm for good melee gear. Melee is extremely powerful with the right gear though.

pick whichever one you want. They're all fun and powerful.

gmorales87

I speak english, and live in america. 7-9, and 11 don't matter much. 13 who cares? 12: if the handful of apps are what I want thats better than 250,000 i need to sort through to find what I want (more likely in apples favor but quantity < quality). 5: would never use either as a phone (I'm not that much of a jackass). 6: Screen size (more a personal preference, get whichever fits your needs. So, we have again the issue of resolution (kindle), speakers (possibly kindle), wifi (I don't know enough, give it to apple), and video compatibility (Its better that apple is compatible, but maybe it doesn't matter, depends on what you want to watch or whether you'd put up with converting the video yourself). TL;DR - Most of the points probably don't matter that much. Get want better suites your needs.

I speak english, and live in america. 7-9, and 11 don't matter much. 13 who cares? 12: if the handful of apps are what I want thats better than 250,000 i need to sort through to find what I want (more likely in apples favor but quantity < quality). 5: would never use either as a phone (I'm not that much of a jackass). 6: Screen size (more a personal preference, get whichever fits your needs. So, we have again the issue of resolution (kindle), speakers (possibly kindle), wifi (I don't know enough, give it to apple), and video compatibility (Its better that apple is compatible, but maybe it doesn't matter, depends on what you want to watch or whether you'd put up with converting the video yourself). TL;DR - Most of the points probably don't matter that much. Get want better suites your needs.

funny

t5_2qh33

c6u9c7p

I speak english, and live in america. 7-9, and 11 don't matter much. 13 who cares? 12: if the handful of apps are what I want thats better than 250,000 i need to sort through to find what I want (more likely in apples favor but quantity < quality). 5: would never use either as a phone (I'm not that much of a jackass). 6: Screen size (more a personal preference, get whichever fits your needs. So, we have again the issue of resolution (kindle), speakers (possibly kindle), wifi (I don't know enough, give it to apple), and video compatibility (Its better that apple is compatible, but maybe it doesn't matter, depends on what you want to watch or whether you'd put up with converting the video yourself).

Most of the points probably don't matter that much. Get want better suites your needs.

MisterWonka

It's just so easy though! If you plug something in, why would you want to have to go through like 5 steps to get to it? TL;DR: You'd think.

It's just so easy though! If you plug something in, why would you want to have to go through like 5 steps to get to it? TL;DR: You'd think.

funny

t5_2qh33

c6ua08o

It's just so easy though! If you plug something in, why would you want to have to go through like 5 steps to get to it?

You'd think.

League_of_Nickelodeo

Apples touchscreens are actually very sub-par. You ever try scrolling horizontally with them? Good fucking luck. You ever try using them with gloves on? Good fucking luck. Android screens can do all the functions above, at higher resolutions, less input lag, with less freezing. tl;dr if you think apple's touchscreens are better quality, you might be new to computing.

Apples touchscreens are actually very sub-par. You ever try scrolling horizontally with them? Good fucking luck. You ever try using them with gloves on? Good fucking luck. Android screens can do all the functions above, at higher resolutions, less input lag, with less freezing. tl;dr if you think apple's touchscreens are better quality, you might be new to computing.

funny

t5_2qh33

c6uaxqh

Apples touchscreens are actually very sub-par. You ever try scrolling horizontally with them? Good fucking luck. You ever try using them with gloves on? Good fucking luck. Android screens can do all the functions above, at higher resolutions, less input lag, with less freezing.

if you think apple's touchscreens are better quality, you might be new to computing.

Adirael

Because they are different markets, assembling and engineering cost money and people are not buying noisy grey boxes anymore. You can't assemble an iMac with parts, you can have more power for the same money but there's a tradeoff in space, noise, cables and energy consumption. TL;DR: The casing is VERY important for most people. Also, a crappy TN LCD doesn't cut it anymore, the screen iMac's have is not a cheap TN.

Because they are different markets, assembling and engineering cost money and people are not buying noisy grey boxes anymore. You can't assemble an iMac with parts, you can have more power for the same money but there's a tradeoff in space, noise, cables and energy consumption. TL;DR: The casing is VERY important for most people. Also, a crappy TN LCD doesn't cut it anymore, the screen iMac's have is not a cheap TN.

funny

t5_2qh33

c6uhzga

Because they are different markets, assembling and engineering cost money and people are not buying noisy grey boxes anymore. You can't assemble an iMac with parts, you can have more power for the same money but there's a tradeoff in space, noise, cables and energy consumption.

The casing is VERY important for most people. Also, a crappy TN LCD doesn't cut it anymore, the screen iMac's have is not a cheap TN.

atheistjubu

Humorous edits like this are quickly reverted, especially on high-profile pages. The system of checks, which is essentially nerds competing to define reality, works remarkably well. That said, in my editing experience, I've seen a few pages with egregious unintentional slips and deliberate distortions of their sources that make it anyone's responsibility who uses wikipedia as a source to actually check wikipedia's sources. These sorts of errors can go for months and possibly years unnoticed while every major news source is citing the article and they can occasionally take a pretty hefty discussion on the talk page to get the article cleared up properly. **TL;DR: It's not the frivolous surface vandals like this that make wikipedia's content less than trustworthy; it's the people who edit seriously and do so with either careless or disingenuous source usage.**

Humorous edits like this are quickly reverted, especially on high-profile pages. The system of checks, which is essentially nerds competing to define reality, works remarkably well. That said, in my editing experience, I've seen a few pages with egregious unintentional slips and deliberate distortions of their sources that make it anyone's responsibility who uses wikipedia as a source to actually check wikipedia's sources. These sorts of errors can go for months and possibly years unnoticed while every major news source is citing the article and they can occasionally take a pretty hefty discussion on the talk page to get the article cleared up properly. TL;DR: It's not the frivolous surface vandals like this that make wikipedia's content less than trustworthy; it's the people who edit seriously and do so with either careless or disingenuous source usage.

funny

t5_2qh33

c6udeh4

Humorous edits like this are quickly reverted, especially on high-profile pages. The system of checks, which is essentially nerds competing to define reality, works remarkably well. That said, in my editing experience, I've seen a few pages with egregious unintentional slips and deliberate distortions of their sources that make it anyone's responsibility who uses wikipedia as a source to actually check wikipedia's sources. These sorts of errors can go for months and possibly years unnoticed while every major news source is citing the article and they can occasionally take a pretty hefty discussion on the talk page to get the article cleared up properly.

It's not the frivolous surface vandals like this that make wikipedia's content less than trustworthy; it's the people who edit seriously and do so with either careless or disingenuous source usage.

tom_riddler

From everything I've read on here, the Community community seems fairly split between the two nights. On one hand, friday is generally called the "the death slot" because it's where shows have classically gone to die. That said, recently there have been a few shows to pull two or three more seasons out of a friday night slot (see: Chuck, Grimm, Fringe). On the other hand, thursday night is NBC's classic big "night" (ER, Friends, and Seinfeld were all on NBC thursday nights at one time or another). Recently, however, it hasn't been doing too well (I blame the fact that NBC keeps moving their shows around) and NBC has stated that for at least the first half of this season, they're focusing their marketing on strong Monday-Wednesday numbers. On top of that mess, Big Bang Theory (heavy hitter from CBS, brings in great ratings*) is on at 8PM on Thursday nights as well. Community has gone up against BBT before and come out looking pretty good compared to other NBC comedies but not so great overall. In a perfect world, NBC would have gone back to their old stack of 30 Rock, Community, The Office, and Parks and Rec at the beginning of this season. That was winner of a lineup back in the day. Sadly they didn't and 30 Rock is ending in December. I think the best lineup we can hope for is NBC throwing The Office, Parks and Rec, and Up All Night (*shudders*) just after Community and with any luck rope in some new fans and greater numbers from people tuning in early. *Viewers not critics. /essay TL:DR - They both suck.

From everything I've read on here, the Community community seems fairly split between the two nights. On one hand, friday is generally called the "the death slot" because it's where shows have classically gone to die. That said, recently there have been a few shows to pull two or three more seasons out of a friday night slot (see: Chuck, Grimm, Fringe). On the other hand, thursday night is NBC's classic big "night" (ER, Friends, and Seinfeld were all on NBC thursday nights at one time or another). Recently, however, it hasn't been doing too well (I blame the fact that NBC keeps moving their shows around) and NBC has stated that for at least the first half of this season, they're focusing their marketing on strong Monday-Wednesday numbers. On top of that mess, Big Bang Theory (heavy hitter from CBS, brings in great ratings*) is on at 8PM on Thursday nights as well. Community has gone up against BBT before and come out looking pretty good compared to other NBC comedies but not so great overall. In a perfect world, NBC would have gone back to their old stack of 30 Rock, Community, The Office, and Parks and Rec at the beginning of this season. That was winner of a lineup back in the day. Sadly they didn't and 30 Rock is ending in December. I think the best lineup we can hope for is NBC throwing The Office, Parks and Rec, and Up All Night ( shudders ) just after Community and with any luck rope in some new fans and greater numbers from people tuning in early. *Viewers not critics. /essay TL:DR - They both suck.

community

t5_2qu49

c6ubg4t

From everything I've read on here, the Community community seems fairly split between the two nights. On one hand, friday is generally called the "the death slot" because it's where shows have classically gone to die. That said, recently there have been a few shows to pull two or three more seasons out of a friday night slot (see: Chuck, Grimm, Fringe). On the other hand, thursday night is NBC's classic big "night" (ER, Friends, and Seinfeld were all on NBC thursday nights at one time or another). Recently, however, it hasn't been doing too well (I blame the fact that NBC keeps moving their shows around) and NBC has stated that for at least the first half of this season, they're focusing their marketing on strong Monday-Wednesday numbers. On top of that mess, Big Bang Theory (heavy hitter from CBS, brings in great ratings*) is on at 8PM on Thursday nights as well. Community has gone up against BBT before and come out looking pretty good compared to other NBC comedies but not so great overall. In a perfect world, NBC would have gone back to their old stack of 30 Rock, Community, The Office, and Parks and Rec at the beginning of this season. That was winner of a lineup back in the day. Sadly they didn't and 30 Rock is ending in December. I think the best lineup we can hope for is NBC throwing The Office, Parks and Rec, and Up All Night ( shudders ) just after Community and with any luck rope in some new fans and greater numbers from people tuning in early. *Viewers not critics. /essay

They both suck.

mauxly

I'm so confused. I really am. On one hand I think, "Well fuck that ACORN shit, those dicks made a mountain out of a molehill." And I think, "I'm glad that I support a party that doesn't play like that." And then I see all of the ELECTION fraud wierdness, all of the turdplay that the other side that puts our entire system at risk and I wonder, "Are Democrats simply lazy? Or that fearful of confrontation?" And..I honestly don't know if I want us to become more like them. Sometimes I'm glad that Obama has Biden as his pitbull. Sometimes I wish he had a pack of them. And then, I worry that if he did, we'd become a party of dirty tricks. And that would gross me out. TLDR; Circular ramblings of an incoherent mind. Yay Ambien. I should go night night now.

I'm so confused. I really am. On one hand I think, "Well fuck that ACORN shit, those dicks made a mountain out of a molehill." And I think, "I'm glad that I support a party that doesn't play like that." And then I see all of the ELECTION fraud wierdness, all of the turdplay that the other side that puts our entire system at risk and I wonder, "Are Democrats simply lazy? Or that fearful of confrontation?" And..I honestly don't know if I want us to become more like them. Sometimes I'm glad that Obama has Biden as his pitbull. Sometimes I wish he had a pack of them. And then, I worry that if he did, we'd become a party of dirty tricks. And that would gross me out. TLDR; Circular ramblings of an incoherent mind. Yay Ambien. I should go night night now.

politics

t5_2cneq

c6upphz

I'm so confused. I really am. On one hand I think, "Well fuck that ACORN shit, those dicks made a mountain out of a molehill." And I think, "I'm glad that I support a party that doesn't play like that." And then I see all of the ELECTION fraud wierdness, all of the turdplay that the other side that puts our entire system at risk and I wonder, "Are Democrats simply lazy? Or that fearful of confrontation?" And..I honestly don't know if I want us to become more like them. Sometimes I'm glad that Obama has Biden as his pitbull. Sometimes I wish he had a pack of them. And then, I worry that if he did, we'd become a party of dirty tricks. And that would gross me out.

Circular ramblings of an incoherent mind. Yay Ambien. I should go night night now.

88MilesPrower

Everyone always brings up the "the remakes only happened so you could complete the pokedex" crap argument, but if you had XD: Gale of Darkness and Emerald, you could complete the National Dex. Because you can move those Pokemon up into Gen IV, the HGSS games where pointless under that line of logic. Hell, FRLG was pointless in that case. The Pokemon series is one of the most signifigant in all of gaming. Not bragging, just reporting. The fact that the games get updated versions after a year (y'know, Blue, Crystal, Emerald, Plat) is a good system because it helps keep the games alive in the long run with the short amount of post-release hindsight. The fact that Black and White didn't get their third version, in my mind, suggests that Gamefreak, if they do make remakes into a fixed tradition, is replacing third versions with remakes. I think it's a better move on their part. You have a *lot* more hindsight and you know just how the game aged and can go back and tweak the things that age like milk. Remakes are just better third versions. Gaming is very young, and this release system seems very weird because there really is only one release system for games that is widely adopted right now: releasing the game, possibly on several platforms, and then aside from DLC, being done with it. Pokemon already invented the whole dual version thing. I like the fact that Gamefreak is trailblazing. Pokemon has the freedom to try and do weird stuff in the non-game because even if it's the worst idea in the world, the constant refinement of the core Pokemon gameplay makes up for it and more. **tl;dr:** We're getting RSE remakes because Gamefreak can do weird things safely because Pokemon.

Everyone always brings up the "the remakes only happened so you could complete the pokedex" crap argument, but if you had XD: Gale of Darkness and Emerald, you could complete the National Dex. Because you can move those Pokemon up into Gen IV, the HGSS games where pointless under that line of logic. Hell, FRLG was pointless in that case. The Pokemon series is one of the most signifigant in all of gaming. Not bragging, just reporting. The fact that the games get updated versions after a year (y'know, Blue, Crystal, Emerald, Plat) is a good system because it helps keep the games alive in the long run with the short amount of post-release hindsight. The fact that Black and White didn't get their third version, in my mind, suggests that Gamefreak, if they do make remakes into a fixed tradition, is replacing third versions with remakes. I think it's a better move on their part. You have a lot more hindsight and you know just how the game aged and can go back and tweak the things that age like milk. Remakes are just better third versions. Gaming is very young, and this release system seems very weird because there really is only one release system for games that is widely adopted right now: releasing the game, possibly on several platforms, and then aside from DLC, being done with it. Pokemon already invented the whole dual version thing. I like the fact that Gamefreak is trailblazing. Pokemon has the freedom to try and do weird stuff in the non-game because even if it's the worst idea in the world, the constant refinement of the core Pokemon gameplay makes up for it and more. tl;dr: We're getting RSE remakes because Gamefreak can do weird things safely because Pokemon.

pokemon

t5_2qmeb

c6w08do

Everyone always brings up the "the remakes only happened so you could complete the pokedex" crap argument, but if you had XD: Gale of Darkness and Emerald, you could complete the National Dex. Because you can move those Pokemon up into Gen IV, the HGSS games where pointless under that line of logic. Hell, FRLG was pointless in that case. The Pokemon series is one of the most signifigant in all of gaming. Not bragging, just reporting. The fact that the games get updated versions after a year (y'know, Blue, Crystal, Emerald, Plat) is a good system because it helps keep the games alive in the long run with the short amount of post-release hindsight. The fact that Black and White didn't get their third version, in my mind, suggests that Gamefreak, if they do make remakes into a fixed tradition, is replacing third versions with remakes. I think it's a better move on their part. You have a lot more hindsight and you know just how the game aged and can go back and tweak the things that age like milk. Remakes are just better third versions. Gaming is very young, and this release system seems very weird because there really is only one release system for games that is widely adopted right now: releasing the game, possibly on several platforms, and then aside from DLC, being done with it. Pokemon already invented the whole dual version thing. I like the fact that Gamefreak is trailblazing. Pokemon has the freedom to try and do weird stuff in the non-game because even if it's the worst idea in the world, the constant refinement of the core Pokemon gameplay makes up for it and more.

We're getting RSE remakes because Gamefreak can do weird things safely because Pokemon.

wisty

It's not particularly humane, but ... Boat people have made a choice. Go to a refugee camp (crappy choice), stay home and risk getting shot (crappy and dangerous choice), go on a boat to Australia (less crappy but dangerous and expensive choice). Unless Australia is the logical destination (Indonesian ethnic minorities?) then they shouldn't be encouraged to take a dangerous voyage to Australia. If they go to a refugee camp, there's a good chance they will end up in a country that treats refugees like shit. Australia puts refugees (once they are processed) on a path to PR and citizenship, so they are almost as well-off as citizens. Places like Germany will treat them as second-class people indefinitely, unless they get deported. If we want to really help people, we should accept more refugees from refugee camps (we do pretty well at this) or make refugee camps better. We could also push for better treatment of resettled refugees in other countries. Permanent resettlement is not seen as an option by many countries. "You can come here for a few years, but should go home once you're no longer in danger". Many countries say it's better off if refugees just wait for the war to end, so they can go home. It's bullshit, and inhumane, but many countries take that stance. That's what we should be fighting, because Australia (and the other countries which treat resettled refugees like real people) can't fix all the worlds problems. tl;dr - Australia does a good job permanently resettling 80,000 refugees a year (mostly from refugee camps, boat people are the worst choice because of the risk they die in a boat accident). Other countries should step up their game.

It's not particularly humane, but ... Boat people have made a choice. Go to a refugee camp (crappy choice), stay home and risk getting shot (crappy and dangerous choice), go on a boat to Australia (less crappy but dangerous and expensive choice). Unless Australia is the logical destination (Indonesian ethnic minorities?) then they shouldn't be encouraged to take a dangerous voyage to Australia. If they go to a refugee camp, there's a good chance they will end up in a country that treats refugees like shit. Australia puts refugees (once they are processed) on a path to PR and citizenship, so they are almost as well-off as citizens. Places like Germany will treat them as second-class people indefinitely, unless they get deported. If we want to really help people, we should accept more refugees from refugee camps (we do pretty well at this) or make refugee camps better. We could also push for better treatment of resettled refugees in other countries. Permanent resettlement is not seen as an option by many countries. "You can come here for a few years, but should go home once you're no longer in danger". Many countries say it's better off if refugees just wait for the war to end, so they can go home. It's bullshit, and inhumane, but many countries take that stance. That's what we should be fighting, because Australia (and the other countries which treat resettled refugees like real people) can't fix all the worlds problems. tl;dr - Australia does a good job permanently resettling 80,000 refugees a year (mostly from refugee camps, boat people are the worst choice because of the risk they die in a boat accident). Other countries should step up their game.

australia

t5_2qh8e

c6uqif2

It's not particularly humane, but ... Boat people have made a choice. Go to a refugee camp (crappy choice), stay home and risk getting shot (crappy and dangerous choice), go on a boat to Australia (less crappy but dangerous and expensive choice). Unless Australia is the logical destination (Indonesian ethnic minorities?) then they shouldn't be encouraged to take a dangerous voyage to Australia. If they go to a refugee camp, there's a good chance they will end up in a country that treats refugees like shit. Australia puts refugees (once they are processed) on a path to PR and citizenship, so they are almost as well-off as citizens. Places like Germany will treat them as second-class people indefinitely, unless they get deported. If we want to really help people, we should accept more refugees from refugee camps (we do pretty well at this) or make refugee camps better. We could also push for better treatment of resettled refugees in other countries. Permanent resettlement is not seen as an option by many countries. "You can come here for a few years, but should go home once you're no longer in danger". Many countries say it's better off if refugees just wait for the war to end, so they can go home. It's bullshit, and inhumane, but many countries take that stance. That's what we should be fighting, because Australia (and the other countries which treat resettled refugees like real people) can't fix all the worlds problems.

Australia does a good job permanently resettling 80,000 refugees a year (mostly from refugee camps, boat people are the worst choice because of the risk they die in a boat accident). Other countries should step up their game.

Seafor_c4

It is okay to date multiple guys at a time, absolutely. I'm 28 and male. I date regularly. I'm cycling through women pretty much constantly. I'm not a player. I'm actually seeking a relationship. I just haven't found the right girl. Until the girl I'm dating and I sit down and decide that we want to exclusively date each other and evolve our dating into a relationship boyfriend/girlfriend thing I will date as many people as I feel like. This being said I generally know after about 4-6 dates whether it is going to work or not, so I'm not exactly leading them on either. tl;dr: Date as many people as you want till you find the one you want to settle down with.

It is okay to date multiple guys at a time, absolutely. I'm 28 and male. I date regularly. I'm cycling through women pretty much constantly. I'm not a player. I'm actually seeking a relationship. I just haven't found the right girl. Until the girl I'm dating and I sit down and decide that we want to exclusively date each other and evolve our dating into a relationship boyfriend/girlfriend thing I will date as many people as I feel like. This being said I generally know after about 4-6 dates whether it is going to work or not, so I'm not exactly leading them on either. tl;dr: Date as many people as you want till you find the one you want to settle down with.

dating_advice

t5_2s4kl

c6uuk2y

It is okay to date multiple guys at a time, absolutely. I'm 28 and male. I date regularly. I'm cycling through women pretty much constantly. I'm not a player. I'm actually seeking a relationship. I just haven't found the right girl. Until the girl I'm dating and I sit down and decide that we want to exclusively date each other and evolve our dating into a relationship boyfriend/girlfriend thing I will date as many people as I feel like. This being said I generally know after about 4-6 dates whether it is going to work or not, so I'm not exactly leading them on either.

Date as many people as you want till you find the one you want to settle down with.

OriginalKaveman

I'm just about to register for my license in Real Estate. If you are really considering this jump the first thing you need to do is not to quit your 9-5 immediately, at least not until you have some sort of savings. This business isn't as many would like to think where you jump in, get your license and start selling or representing buyers, it's a serious game to be playing. Most people end up quitting within 2 years because they can't handle the attention this profession deserves or because they just can't make any sales. Depending on your location you could be spending upwards of $3000 for registration and insurance after spending money going through the phases (classes) in preregistration, and $1500 or more on brokerage fees depending which one you pick to work for. And keep in mind you may not make any sales within your first few months working, maybe you won't make your first sale until after 6 months. So before registering think about saving $10 000 so you have something to live on in case you make no sales and earn 0 commission. It also helps to be living at home with your parents (i.e no rent), if you're young this shouldn't be a problem. This business can be very rewarding, despite the hardships and struggles one might face in the beginning, but it's good. The level of success you achieve in this business is only limited to how much you work which means the economic pay offs can be limitless as long as you study a lot and work hard. The more you learn about this business the more fascinating it becomes and the wider your eyes get to the opportunities waiting for you. The key thing is to learn as much as you can, stay educated and work hard. TL;DR: If you are really serious about getting in real estate as a salesperson, have a savings of at least $10 000 in case you struggle in your first year. Study a lot, stay educated and work hard and you'll do just fine. And don't be afraid to grab the bull by the horns, nothing extraordinary in life happened by people who played it safe.

I'm just about to register for my license in Real Estate. If you are really considering this jump the first thing you need to do is not to quit your 9-5 immediately, at least not until you have some sort of savings. This business isn't as many would like to think where you jump in, get your license and start selling or representing buyers, it's a serious game to be playing. Most people end up quitting within 2 years because they can't handle the attention this profession deserves or because they just can't make any sales. Depending on your location you could be spending upwards of $3000 for registration and insurance after spending money going through the phases (classes) in preregistration, and $1500 or more on brokerage fees depending which one you pick to work for. And keep in mind you may not make any sales within your first few months working, maybe you won't make your first sale until after 6 months. So before registering think about saving $10 000 so you have something to live on in case you make no sales and earn 0 commission. It also helps to be living at home with your parents (i.e no rent), if you're young this shouldn't be a problem. This business can be very rewarding, despite the hardships and struggles one might face in the beginning, but it's good. The level of success you achieve in this business is only limited to how much you work which means the economic pay offs can be limitless as long as you study a lot and work hard. The more you learn about this business the more fascinating it becomes and the wider your eyes get to the opportunities waiting for you. The key thing is to learn as much as you can, stay educated and work hard. TL;DR: If you are really serious about getting in real estate as a salesperson, have a savings of at least $10 000 in case you struggle in your first year. Study a lot, stay educated and work hard and you'll do just fine. And don't be afraid to grab the bull by the horns, nothing extraordinary in life happened by people who played it safe.

IAmA

t5_2qzb6

c6v7i4f

I'm just about to register for my license in Real Estate. If you are really considering this jump the first thing you need to do is not to quit your 9-5 immediately, at least not until you have some sort of savings. This business isn't as many would like to think where you jump in, get your license and start selling or representing buyers, it's a serious game to be playing. Most people end up quitting within 2 years because they can't handle the attention this profession deserves or because they just can't make any sales. Depending on your location you could be spending upwards of $3000 for registration and insurance after spending money going through the phases (classes) in preregistration, and $1500 or more on brokerage fees depending which one you pick to work for. And keep in mind you may not make any sales within your first few months working, maybe you won't make your first sale until after 6 months. So before registering think about saving $10 000 so you have something to live on in case you make no sales and earn 0 commission. It also helps to be living at home with your parents (i.e no rent), if you're young this shouldn't be a problem. This business can be very rewarding, despite the hardships and struggles one might face in the beginning, but it's good. The level of success you achieve in this business is only limited to how much you work which means the economic pay offs can be limitless as long as you study a lot and work hard. The more you learn about this business the more fascinating it becomes and the wider your eyes get to the opportunities waiting for you. The key thing is to learn as much as you can, stay educated and work hard.

If you are really serious about getting in real estate as a salesperson, have a savings of at least $10 000 in case you struggle in your first year. Study a lot, stay educated and work hard and you'll do just fine. And don't be afraid to grab the bull by the horns, nothing extraordinary in life happened by people who played it safe.

mrreliable

Kevin was the only one douchey (or smart?) enough to turn his Dragon's Den/Shark Tank personality into a business model. If he acts like an ass hat on TV, claiming to only care about money and makes a show of everything, people will watch him. He has turned this personality into 3 shows as well as thousands of people thinking he is one of the best business minds Canada has to offer. I think he tries too hard to make a show and not hard enough on treating would-be entrepreneurs with respect. TL;DR - Kevin is a douche because we pay him to be one.

Kevin was the only one douchey (or smart?) enough to turn his Dragon's Den/Shark Tank personality into a business model. If he acts like an ass hat on TV, claiming to only care about money and makes a show of everything, people will watch him. He has turned this personality into 3 shows as well as thousands of people thinking he is one of the best business minds Canada has to offer. I think he tries too hard to make a show and not hard enough on treating would-be entrepreneurs with respect. TL;DR - Kevin is a douche because we pay him to be one.

IAmA

t5_2qzb6

c6vdp5n

Kevin was the only one douchey (or smart?) enough to turn his Dragon's Den/Shark Tank personality into a business model. If he acts like an ass hat on TV, claiming to only care about money and makes a show of everything, people will watch him. He has turned this personality into 3 shows as well as thousands of people thinking he is one of the best business minds Canada has to offer. I think he tries too hard to make a show and not hard enough on treating would-be entrepreneurs with respect.

Kevin is a douche because we pay him to be one.

walkingsnake

Nah, seems like a good reason to me. You're asking these people for money, you show them respect. These are businessmen, not your buddy yet. Walking in to a meeting, job interview, business pitch, pretty much anywhere and calling the person you're trying to impress by a nickname is one of the most disrespectful (and stupidest) things you can do. TL;DR - never assume someone's cool with a nickname. ;)

Nah, seems like a good reason to me. You're asking these people for money, you show them respect. These are businessmen, not your buddy yet. Walking in to a meeting, job interview, business pitch, pretty much anywhere and calling the person you're trying to impress by a nickname is one of the most disrespectful (and stupidest) things you can do. TL;DR - never assume someone's cool with a nickname. ;)

IAmA

t5_2qzb6

c6vfa1p

Nah, seems like a good reason to me. You're asking these people for money, you show them respect. These are businessmen, not your buddy yet. Walking in to a meeting, job interview, business pitch, pretty much anywhere and calling the person you're trying to impress by a nickname is one of the most disrespectful (and stupidest) things you can do.

never assume someone's cool with a nickname. ;)

achilles_123

Lori, you make this show so much more enjoyable to watch when you are on. You are incredibly attractive, and on top of it incredibly brilliant. TLDR, I love you :)

Lori, you make this show so much more enjoyable to watch when you are on. You are incredibly attractive, and on top of it incredibly brilliant. TLDR, I love you :)

IAmA

t5_2qzb6

c6wwxg2

Lori, you make this show so much more enjoyable to watch when you are on. You are incredibly attractive, and on top of it incredibly brilliant.

I love you :)

champyonfiyah

I'll take a crack at this. Starting with: this is a list of all the products made by Arduino (an Italian company). There are multitudes of spin-offs of the open source design, but they popularized it. Almost all of the Arduinos us an ATmega chip of some sort except the new "Due" this uses an ARM cortex processor. The data sheets for each of the products can be seen on the product's page towards the bottom, as well as listing the pin capabilities. I'd also just download the software, it's free: . There are tons of examples to look at that come packaged with the software, including examples for 802.11, ethernet, zigbee, servos and solenoids as well as others. OK, so you want to buy one now? Well I'm going to plug a favorite site of mine: this is run by good folks. If you want to go super cheap and don't mind waiting for something to ship from China that is of a cheaper construction, DealExtreme has some knockoffs for cheap. this looks like what you describe kind of. So to use networking capabilities you'll need a "shield" that essentially just connects to the pin headers on the arduino and uses either SPI or I2C depending on which shield you go with. tl;dr Yes you can do that with an arduino.

I'll take a crack at this. Starting with: this is a list of all the products made by Arduino (an Italian company). There are multitudes of spin-offs of the open source design, but they popularized it. Almost all of the Arduinos us an ATmega chip of some sort except the new "Due" this uses an ARM cortex processor. The data sheets for each of the products can be seen on the product's page towards the bottom, as well as listing the pin capabilities. I'd also just download the software, it's free: . There are tons of examples to look at that come packaged with the software, including examples for 802.11, ethernet, zigbee, servos and solenoids as well as others. OK, so you want to buy one now? Well I'm going to plug a favorite site of mine: this is run by good folks. If you want to go super cheap and don't mind waiting for something to ship from China that is of a cheaper construction, DealExtreme has some knockoffs for cheap. this looks like what you describe kind of. So to use networking capabilities you'll need a "shield" that essentially just connects to the pin headers on the arduino and uses either SPI or I2C depending on which shield you go with. tl;dr Yes you can do that with an arduino.

arduino

t5_2qknj

c6v4cup

I'll take a crack at this. Starting with: this is a list of all the products made by Arduino (an Italian company). There are multitudes of spin-offs of the open source design, but they popularized it. Almost all of the Arduinos us an ATmega chip of some sort except the new "Due" this uses an ARM cortex processor. The data sheets for each of the products can be seen on the product's page towards the bottom, as well as listing the pin capabilities. I'd also just download the software, it's free: . There are tons of examples to look at that come packaged with the software, including examples for 802.11, ethernet, zigbee, servos and solenoids as well as others. OK, so you want to buy one now? Well I'm going to plug a favorite site of mine: this is run by good folks. If you want to go super cheap and don't mind waiting for something to ship from China that is of a cheaper construction, DealExtreme has some knockoffs for cheap. this looks like what you describe kind of. So to use networking capabilities you'll need a "shield" that essentially just connects to the pin headers on the arduino and uses either SPI or I2C depending on which shield you go with.

Yes you can do that with an arduino.

HardcoreHorst

i know that feel bro but once in a while u will get such offers and u can actually take it... u just have to make silly-sounding offers to the peoples where they think they will win... I once had a guy that had no clue of the game and flamed me like hell and i told him that he simply doesnt have the mindset nor the skillset to call me a bad player and i simply told him that i could crash him even if i play soraka against any champ he wants. Since i was pretty sure he isnt good enogh to know about counters and stuff. SO he agreed to soraka and picked xin in his 1v1 and i smashed his face to the ground over and over again and at the end of the game he came and said: "Okay, gg, you are a good player and i am just too bad to notice it. exactly what u said earlier on" I was crying to see such awesome behaviour even if the most stupid players would rage and say it was luck. tl;Dr: I got my 1v1 once as Soraka vs Xin and owned him. Afterwards he said: u were right

i know that feel bro but once in a while u will get such offers and u can actually take it... u just have to make silly-sounding offers to the peoples where they think they will win... I once had a guy that had no clue of the game and flamed me like hell and i told him that he simply doesnt have the mindset nor the skillset to call me a bad player and i simply told him that i could crash him even if i play soraka against any champ he wants. Since i was pretty sure he isnt good enogh to know about counters and stuff. SO he agreed to soraka and picked xin in his 1v1 and i smashed his face to the ground over and over again and at the end of the game he came and said: "Okay, gg, you are a good player and i am just too bad to notice it. exactly what u said earlier on" I was crying to see such awesome behaviour even if the most stupid players would rage and say it was luck. tl;Dr: I got my 1v1 once as Soraka vs Xin and owned him. Afterwards he said: u were right

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c6v1guy

i know that feel bro but once in a while u will get such offers and u can actually take it... u just have to make silly-sounding offers to the peoples where they think they will win... I once had a guy that had no clue of the game and flamed me like hell and i told him that he simply doesnt have the mindset nor the skillset to call me a bad player and i simply told him that i could crash him even if i play soraka against any champ he wants. Since i was pretty sure he isnt good enogh to know about counters and stuff. SO he agreed to soraka and picked xin in his 1v1 and i smashed his face to the ground over and over again and at the end of the game he came and said: "Okay, gg, you are a good player and i am just too bad to notice it. exactly what u said earlier on" I was crying to see such awesome behaviour even if the most stupid players would rage and say it was luck.

I got my 1v1 once as Soraka vs Xin and owned him. Afterwards he said: u were right

Clint_Swift

Honestly im tired of the norv turner and aj smith bullshit. Sure norv calls some questionable plays, so a bit of the poor performances can be placed on him, but when the team gets to the other half of the field and players are droppin passses or throwin picks, how is that his fault? Also, almost everyone i talked to at the beginning of the season was excited about all of the talent the charers had, and how this might be our year. 3 losses in a row and now everyone thinks AJ fucked up on something, even though everyone was with him 2 months ago. TL;DR "Norv and AJ should be fired"

Honestly im tired of the norv turner and aj smith bullshit. Sure norv calls some questionable plays, so a bit of the poor performances can be placed on him, but when the team gets to the other half of the field and players are droppin passses or throwin picks, how is that his fault? Also, almost everyone i talked to at the beginning of the season was excited about all of the talent the charers had, and how this might be our year. 3 losses in a row and now everyone thinks AJ fucked up on something, even though everyone was with him 2 months ago. TL;DR "Norv and AJ should be fired"

nfl

t5_2qmg3

c6v87s1

Honestly im tired of the norv turner and aj smith bullshit. Sure norv calls some questionable plays, so a bit of the poor performances can be placed on him, but when the team gets to the other half of the field and players are droppin passses or throwin picks, how is that his fault? Also, almost everyone i talked to at the beginning of the season was excited about all of the talent the charers had, and how this might be our year. 3 losses in a row and now everyone thinks AJ fucked up on something, even though everyone was with him 2 months ago.

Norv and AJ should be fired"

JohnySkarr

I'm not good at creating stories, and even worse at writing them, but here it is: Freya Black-Steel is a Nord woman, born in Morrowind. Her ancestor, Wulfgar Black-Steel, was exiled to Morrowind, and later discovered he was the Nerevarine. After dealing with Dagoth Ur, he settled down, and started a family with a Dunmer huntress. Years passed, and the Black-Steel clan, now composed of both Nords and Dunmers, became one of the most wealthy and influential families in Morrowind, but they lost it all when the Red Mountain erupted, and moved to Solstheim. Freya's father, a Dunmer blacksmith, taught her the arts of smithing, and her mother, a Nord warrior, taught her how to use an ax, but Freya's real passion was reading. Freya loved books, and was especially fascinated with the history of Skyrim. When she reached adulthood, she traveled to Skyrim, to explore and learn about her homeland, and to hone her warrior skills. One little detail about her: everyone knows how... promiscuous... are the Dunmer ladies, and being born and raised among them influenced Freya a lot. She's very promiscuous, and she has a thing for Dunmers. I used the [Live Another Life]( mod, so I could make her get to Skyrim by ship. Her main skill are Light Armor, Smithing, Enchanting, One-Handed and Two-Handed. She only uses War Axes and Battleaxes, and never uses a shield. She's also fascinated with magic, but never could learn more than basic spells (Flames and Healing), but she is a talented enchanter. Since her family has a mix of Nords and Dunmers, she has characteristics of both. Her skin is slightly grey, her eyes are red, and she has a small resistance to fire. TL;DR: Freya Black-Steel is a Nord woman, born in Morrowind, her ancestor is my character from TES III. She traveled to Skyrim to learn its history and culture, and to train her fighting skills. She uses axes and light armor, and is a talented enchanter.

I'm not good at creating stories, and even worse at writing them, but here it is: Freya Black-Steel is a Nord woman, born in Morrowind. Her ancestor, Wulfgar Black-Steel, was exiled to Morrowind, and later discovered he was the Nerevarine. After dealing with Dagoth Ur, he settled down, and started a family with a Dunmer huntress. Years passed, and the Black-Steel clan, now composed of both Nords and Dunmers, became one of the most wealthy and influential families in Morrowind, but they lost it all when the Red Mountain erupted, and moved to Solstheim. Freya's father, a Dunmer blacksmith, taught her the arts of smithing, and her mother, a Nord warrior, taught her how to use an ax, but Freya's real passion was reading. Freya loved books, and was especially fascinated with the history of Skyrim. When she reached adulthood, she traveled to Skyrim, to explore and learn about her homeland, and to hone her warrior skills. One little detail about her: everyone knows how... promiscuous... are the Dunmer ladies, and being born and raised among them influenced Freya a lot. She's very promiscuous, and she has a thing for Dunmers. I used the Live Another Life , but she is a talented enchanter. Since her family has a mix of Nords and Dunmers, she has characteristics of both. Her skin is slightly grey, her eyes are red, and she has a small resistance to fire. TL;DR: Freya Black-Steel is a Nord woman, born in Morrowind, her ancestor is my character from TES III. She traveled to Skyrim to learn its history and culture, and to train her fighting skills. She uses axes and light armor, and is a talented enchanter.

skyrim

t5_2s837

c6vglht

I'm not good at creating stories, and even worse at writing them, but here it is: Freya Black-Steel is a Nord woman, born in Morrowind. Her ancestor, Wulfgar Black-Steel, was exiled to Morrowind, and later discovered he was the Nerevarine. After dealing with Dagoth Ur, he settled down, and started a family with a Dunmer huntress. Years passed, and the Black-Steel clan, now composed of both Nords and Dunmers, became one of the most wealthy and influential families in Morrowind, but they lost it all when the Red Mountain erupted, and moved to Solstheim. Freya's father, a Dunmer blacksmith, taught her the arts of smithing, and her mother, a Nord warrior, taught her how to use an ax, but Freya's real passion was reading. Freya loved books, and was especially fascinated with the history of Skyrim. When she reached adulthood, she traveled to Skyrim, to explore and learn about her homeland, and to hone her warrior skills. One little detail about her: everyone knows how... promiscuous... are the Dunmer ladies, and being born and raised among them influenced Freya a lot. She's very promiscuous, and she has a thing for Dunmers. I used the Live Another Life , but she is a talented enchanter. Since her family has a mix of Nords and Dunmers, she has characteristics of both. Her skin is slightly grey, her eyes are red, and she has a small resistance to fire.

Freya Black-Steel is a Nord woman, born in Morrowind, her ancestor is my character from TES III. She traveled to Skyrim to learn its history and culture, and to train her fighting skills. She uses axes and light armor, and is a talented enchanter.

dubbya

When I was in high school, I had a buddy whose dad "didn't burn" but knew we were toking up in the basement most nights and didn't care because we weren't out getting into "real trouble" but rather getting baked and playing AD&amp;D with Zeppelin records on. Turns out the guy who "didn't smoke" had a half lb of the sweetest trees quite possibly in existence in his gun safe at all times. He admitted this to us when he "accidentally" came down stairs and caught a "contact" which we all knew was a horse shit story because he was high as balls the minute he got to the bottom of the stairs. TLDR: my buddy's dad didn't want us to know he blazed but we found out he burned the dankest of the dank. Much fun ensued.

When I was in high school, I had a buddy whose dad "didn't burn" but knew we were toking up in the basement most nights and didn't care because we weren't out getting into "real trouble" but rather getting baked and playing AD&D with Zeppelin records on. Turns out the guy who "didn't smoke" had a half lb of the sweetest trees quite possibly in existence in his gun safe at all times. He admitted this to us when he "accidentally" came down stairs and caught a "contact" which we all knew was a horse shit story because he was high as balls the minute he got to the bottom of the stairs. TLDR: my buddy's dad didn't want us to know he blazed but we found out he burned the dankest of the dank. Much fun ensued.

trees

t5_2r9vp

c6vlozl

When I was in high school, I had a buddy whose dad "didn't burn" but knew we were toking up in the basement most nights and didn't care because we weren't out getting into "real trouble" but rather getting baked and playing AD&D with Zeppelin records on. Turns out the guy who "didn't smoke" had a half lb of the sweetest trees quite possibly in existence in his gun safe at all times. He admitted this to us when he "accidentally" came down stairs and caught a "contact" which we all knew was a horse shit story because he was high as balls the minute he got to the bottom of the stairs.

my buddy's dad didn't want us to know he blazed but we found out he burned the dankest of the dank. Much fun ensued.

psion1369

I networked with some start-ups in my area. One needed a whole rewrite to their site, so I offered to do it. The start-up had investments from a rather large company with a huge IT presence, so I had a phone call from this large company. After talking with me, the start-up was told that if they didn't take me, the large company would. I took on both jobs for a short amount of time, but eventually moved to the larger company. tl;dr Network with small companies. Even if they don't need you, you can develop other connections.

I networked with some start-ups in my area. One needed a whole rewrite to their site, so I offered to do it. The start-up had investments from a rather large company with a huge IT presence, so I had a phone call from this large company. After talking with me, the start-up was told that if they didn't take me, the large company would. I took on both jobs for a short amount of time, but eventually moved to the larger company. tl;dr Network with small companies. Even if they don't need you, you can develop other connections.

PHP

t5_2qh38

c6vgu4t

I networked with some start-ups in my area. One needed a whole rewrite to their site, so I offered to do it. The start-up had investments from a rather large company with a huge IT presence, so I had a phone call from this large company. After talking with me, the start-up was told that if they didn't take me, the large company would. I took on both jobs for a short amount of time, but eventually moved to the larger company.

Network with small companies. Even if they don't need you, you can develop other connections.

fomorian

You sound like you need to read this: "Not fun isn't the same as anti-fun - it's an interesting distinction actually. Think of it in positive, negative and zero terms. Fun is clearly positive. Not fun is Zero. Anti-fun is negative on that scale. Skills that fail the fun vs. anti-fun test is when one player's fun isn't really counterbalanced by the negative on the other player - And the important thing is this isn't zero-sum, suprisingly. The subjectivity of this comes where you set your zero-point for things. However, there are lots of things that simply aren't fun from a player perspective that is negative fun for the opponent - If for example, I made a button that lets you physically beat someone with a chair on the other side of the screen - that's not enjoyable for me - and it's very very negative for you. That's an example of a non zero-sum scenario. As to the concern that 'anti-fun principles are hindering creativity' - well.. I'm not sure about that - you may want to ask yourself whether or not creative uniqueness is a priority for designs or not - Solid gameplay, for example, is a great goal to strive for, even if it's unoriginal. Even though I tinker with crazy stuff all the time, I would always trade something that is solid to play rather than original/unique and mediocre." "*Do you not understand that the people doing the stunlocking and bursting are also having fun?* That statement kind of leads to the thought that having an infinite combo in a game is good design because it supposedly lets one player have an infinite amount of gratification. Again, the measure is fun vs. anti-fun a lot of the time - Anivia's wall creates many more awesome moments than bad ones for your team - It's about ratios - And like I said before, it's a subjective point on where your zero point is. Anti-fun is typically embodied by lock-down, shut down, or obscure-counter mechanics - They almost universally restrict and control the opponent's range of options - leading to less play overall simply because your opponent reacts less. Yes, while there will always be people who find pleasure in fighting helpless opponents who simply sit there and do *nothing* at all (see above, for the infinite case), I don't think this is gameplay we should encourage. *Chair-Beating* You're telling me that you would willingly play a game, where every so often, the opponent gets to beat you senseless with a chair? That's kind of a scary thought." TL;DR: Giving one player the absolute most fun possible isn't the design goal for good game designers.

You sound like you need to read this: "Not fun isn't the same as anti-fun - it's an interesting distinction actually. Think of it in positive, negative and zero terms. Fun is clearly positive. Not fun is Zero. Anti-fun is negative on that scale. Skills that fail the fun vs. anti-fun test is when one player's fun isn't really counterbalanced by the negative on the other player - And the important thing is this isn't zero-sum, suprisingly. The subjectivity of this comes where you set your zero-point for things. However, there are lots of things that simply aren't fun from a player perspective that is negative fun for the opponent - If for example, I made a button that lets you physically beat someone with a chair on the other side of the screen - that's not enjoyable for me - and it's very very negative for you. That's an example of a non zero-sum scenario. As to the concern that 'anti-fun principles are hindering creativity' - well.. I'm not sure about that - you may want to ask yourself whether or not creative uniqueness is a priority for designs or not - Solid gameplay, for example, is a great goal to strive for, even if it's unoriginal. Even though I tinker with crazy stuff all the time, I would always trade something that is solid to play rather than original/unique and mediocre." " Do you not understand that the people doing the stunlocking and bursting are also having fun? That statement kind of leads to the thought that having an infinite combo in a game is good design because it supposedly lets one player have an infinite amount of gratification. Again, the measure is fun vs. anti-fun a lot of the time - Anivia's wall creates many more awesome moments than bad ones for your team - It's about ratios - And like I said before, it's a subjective point on where your zero point is. Anti-fun is typically embodied by lock-down, shut down, or obscure-counter mechanics - They almost universally restrict and control the opponent's range of options - leading to less play overall simply because your opponent reacts less. Yes, while there will always be people who find pleasure in fighting helpless opponents who simply sit there and do nothing at all (see above, for the infinite case), I don't think this is gameplay we should encourage. Chair-Beating You're telling me that you would willingly play a game, where every so often, the opponent gets to beat you senseless with a chair? That's kind of a scary thought." TL;DR: Giving one player the absolute most fun possible isn't the design goal for good game designers.

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c6yovuw

You sound like you need to read this: "Not fun isn't the same as anti-fun - it's an interesting distinction actually. Think of it in positive, negative and zero terms. Fun is clearly positive. Not fun is Zero. Anti-fun is negative on that scale. Skills that fail the fun vs. anti-fun test is when one player's fun isn't really counterbalanced by the negative on the other player - And the important thing is this isn't zero-sum, suprisingly. The subjectivity of this comes where you set your zero-point for things. However, there are lots of things that simply aren't fun from a player perspective that is negative fun for the opponent - If for example, I made a button that lets you physically beat someone with a chair on the other side of the screen - that's not enjoyable for me - and it's very very negative for you. That's an example of a non zero-sum scenario. As to the concern that 'anti-fun principles are hindering creativity' - well.. I'm not sure about that - you may want to ask yourself whether or not creative uniqueness is a priority for designs or not - Solid gameplay, for example, is a great goal to strive for, even if it's unoriginal. Even though I tinker with crazy stuff all the time, I would always trade something that is solid to play rather than original/unique and mediocre." " Do you not understand that the people doing the stunlocking and bursting are also having fun? That statement kind of leads to the thought that having an infinite combo in a game is good design because it supposedly lets one player have an infinite amount of gratification. Again, the measure is fun vs. anti-fun a lot of the time - Anivia's wall creates many more awesome moments than bad ones for your team - It's about ratios - And like I said before, it's a subjective point on where your zero point is. Anti-fun is typically embodied by lock-down, shut down, or obscure-counter mechanics - They almost universally restrict and control the opponent's range of options - leading to less play overall simply because your opponent reacts less. Yes, while there will always be people who find pleasure in fighting helpless opponents who simply sit there and do nothing at all (see above, for the infinite case), I don't think this is gameplay we should encourage. Chair-Beating You're telling me that you would willingly play a game, where every so often, the opponent gets to beat you senseless with a chair? That's kind of a scary thought."

Giving one player the absolute most fun possible isn't the design goal for good game designers.

notscrubsjd

You're probably a troll, but whatever. I'll bite. &gt;Ya!! Since we went to college we should just be handed jobs and money. It's fucked up that the economy is bad right now and we will have to work through hard times to make things work in the end. It's just fucked up, not fair for us. Just not fair! First of all, our generation isn't the one that fucked up the economy or created the "college = job" system, or drove up tuition, or created the student loan system. But we *are* the ones who are stuck dealing with it. Sorry if we want to vent just a little. Second, most of the people that I know don't expect to "be handed jobs and money." (And those that do - well, we didn't teach ourselves to expect that, did we?) I realize that's anecdotal and a gross generalization, but whatever. Most of us are actually willing to work hard and work our way up. Most of us just want a decent job that has reasonable benefits and pays fairly. Most of us don't want success handed to us, we just want the *opportunity* to be successful. But fuck us, right? I mean, for myself I just want a decent apartment in a safe area of town - nothing fancy, nothing huge, just something comfortable. I want a job with decent benefits so that if I get sick I can get treated instead of having to hope that it goes away. I want an income that covers my bills and taxes, with enough left over for some savings, and also for the occasional entertainment. Not a $200+ bar tab every weekend. I just don't want to feel guilty or worried when I go out for dinner and/or drinks with my friends on occasion. In other words, I just want a decent standard of living; I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation. The problem is, those first couple *minor* things - you know, decent housing, health insurance, *bills* - have gotten so retardedly expensive that it's hard to meet them with a single income, especially when you're a recent grad working at some shitty starter job (if you're lucky enough to be employed). So yeah, we're asking for, hoping for, larger salaries because we need the money just to get up to that decent standard of living. That's hardly our fault. &gt;Instead of doing anything to better myself or the economy I'm just going to sit around and bitch and wait for someone else to fix things. What are we supposed to do? Most of us are probably going to vote, but that's not really going to fix much regardless of which parties win. Those of us who have found jobs are working. Those of us who are unemployed are trying to find work. We're trying to work our way up. We're trying to be consumers. We're trying to pay our debts. But it's damn hard at the moment. &gt;That way when it's all better I can get a cozy desk job to pay the bills with my college degree. What's wrong with a "cozy desk job"? Not all of us want to be superstar rich uberprofessionals. Like I said above, most of us just want decent jobs that pay the bills and let us live. My dad is a health care professional (not a doctor). He's excellent at his job - he has the highest patient satisfaction rating in his department. Yet he constantly gets in trouble with his supervisors for not having his paperwork done. Not because he's lazy - it's because he doesn't have time. Between actually treating patients, waiting for late patients to show up, making phone calls, dealing with prescriptions, helping coworkers, dealing with miscellaneous issues, and then actually trying to keep with the stupidly huge amounts of paperwork that health care demands (ever trying billing Medicare?) he winds up working a 16+ hour day on an eight-hour salary. It's destroyed his health, his ability to enjoy his job, and my parents' marriage. Meanwhile his supervisors sit in their offices working on useless advanced degrees. They don't offer any support. Hell, they probably don't even know how to treat a patient. All they do is send out bullshit emails about "professionalism" and "integrity" and "it's a team effort" and "we need more productivity." Meanwhile my dad and his coworkers have all had to get remote access credentials so that they can work from home at night. And the supervisors continue to demand more. So yeah, I'm okay with a "cozy desk job." Maybe that makes me lazy, but I really don't care. I come in at 8. I leave at 5. I'm willing to work damn hard while I'm there, but when it's 5 I'm gone and my work stays on my desk. It's just a job, a thing I do for money. I'm not going to make myself a slave just to please somebody else, based on the ephemeral promise of intangible rewards. tl;dr - Go fuck yourself.

You're probably a troll, but whatever. I'll bite. >Ya!! Since we went to college we should just be handed jobs and money. It's fucked up that the economy is bad right now and we will have to work through hard times to make things work in the end. It's just fucked up, not fair for us. Just not fair! First of all, our generation isn't the one that fucked up the economy or created the "college = job" system, or drove up tuition, or created the student loan system. But we are the ones who are stuck dealing with it. Sorry if we want to vent just a little. Second, most of the people that I know don't expect to "be handed jobs and money." (And those that do - well, we didn't teach ourselves to expect that, did we?) I realize that's anecdotal and a gross generalization, but whatever. Most of us are actually willing to work hard and work our way up. Most of us just want a decent job that has reasonable benefits and pays fairly. Most of us don't want success handed to us, we just want the opportunity to be successful. But fuck us, right? I mean, for myself I just want a decent apartment in a safe area of town - nothing fancy, nothing huge, just something comfortable. I want a job with decent benefits so that if I get sick I can get treated instead of having to hope that it goes away. I want an income that covers my bills and taxes, with enough left over for some savings, and also for the occasional entertainment. Not a $200+ bar tab every weekend. I just don't want to feel guilty or worried when I go out for dinner and/or drinks with my friends on occasion. In other words, I just want a decent standard of living; I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation. The problem is, those first couple minor things - you know, decent housing, health insurance, bills - have gotten so retardedly expensive that it's hard to meet them with a single income, especially when you're a recent grad working at some shitty starter job (if you're lucky enough to be employed). So yeah, we're asking for, hoping for, larger salaries because we need the money just to get up to that decent standard of living. That's hardly our fault. >Instead of doing anything to better myself or the economy I'm just going to sit around and bitch and wait for someone else to fix things. What are we supposed to do? Most of us are probably going to vote, but that's not really going to fix much regardless of which parties win. Those of us who have found jobs are working. Those of us who are unemployed are trying to find work. We're trying to work our way up. We're trying to be consumers. We're trying to pay our debts. But it's damn hard at the moment. >That way when it's all better I can get a cozy desk job to pay the bills with my college degree. What's wrong with a "cozy desk job"? Not all of us want to be superstar rich uberprofessionals. Like I said above, most of us just want decent jobs that pay the bills and let us live. My dad is a health care professional (not a doctor). He's excellent at his job - he has the highest patient satisfaction rating in his department. Yet he constantly gets in trouble with his supervisors for not having his paperwork done. Not because he's lazy - it's because he doesn't have time. Between actually treating patients, waiting for late patients to show up, making phone calls, dealing with prescriptions, helping coworkers, dealing with miscellaneous issues, and then actually trying to keep with the stupidly huge amounts of paperwork that health care demands (ever trying billing Medicare?) he winds up working a 16+ hour day on an eight-hour salary. It's destroyed his health, his ability to enjoy his job, and my parents' marriage. Meanwhile his supervisors sit in their offices working on useless advanced degrees. They don't offer any support. Hell, they probably don't even know how to treat a patient. All they do is send out bullshit emails about "professionalism" and "integrity" and "it's a team effort" and "we need more productivity." Meanwhile my dad and his coworkers have all had to get remote access credentials so that they can work from home at night. And the supervisors continue to demand more. So yeah, I'm okay with a "cozy desk job." Maybe that makes me lazy, but I really don't care. I come in at 8. I leave at 5. I'm willing to work damn hard while I'm there, but when it's 5 I'm gone and my work stays on my desk. It's just a job, a thing I do for money. I'm not going to make myself a slave just to please somebody else, based on the ephemeral promise of intangible rewards. tl;dr - Go fuck yourself.

lostgeneration

t5_2r40j

c6w61mn

You're probably a troll, but whatever. I'll bite. >Ya!! Since we went to college we should just be handed jobs and money. It's fucked up that the economy is bad right now and we will have to work through hard times to make things work in the end. It's just fucked up, not fair for us. Just not fair! First of all, our generation isn't the one that fucked up the economy or created the "college = job" system, or drove up tuition, or created the student loan system. But we are the ones who are stuck dealing with it. Sorry if we want to vent just a little. Second, most of the people that I know don't expect to "be handed jobs and money." (And those that do - well, we didn't teach ourselves to expect that, did we?) I realize that's anecdotal and a gross generalization, but whatever. Most of us are actually willing to work hard and work our way up. Most of us just want a decent job that has reasonable benefits and pays fairly. Most of us don't want success handed to us, we just want the opportunity to be successful. But fuck us, right? I mean, for myself I just want a decent apartment in a safe area of town - nothing fancy, nothing huge, just something comfortable. I want a job with decent benefits so that if I get sick I can get treated instead of having to hope that it goes away. I want an income that covers my bills and taxes, with enough left over for some savings, and also for the occasional entertainment. Not a $200+ bar tab every weekend. I just don't want to feel guilty or worried when I go out for dinner and/or drinks with my friends on occasion. In other words, I just want a decent standard of living; I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation. The problem is, those first couple minor things - you know, decent housing, health insurance, bills - have gotten so retardedly expensive that it's hard to meet them with a single income, especially when you're a recent grad working at some shitty starter job (if you're lucky enough to be employed). So yeah, we're asking for, hoping for, larger salaries because we need the money just to get up to that decent standard of living. That's hardly our fault. >Instead of doing anything to better myself or the economy I'm just going to sit around and bitch and wait for someone else to fix things. What are we supposed to do? Most of us are probably going to vote, but that's not really going to fix much regardless of which parties win. Those of us who have found jobs are working. Those of us who are unemployed are trying to find work. We're trying to work our way up. We're trying to be consumers. We're trying to pay our debts. But it's damn hard at the moment. >That way when it's all better I can get a cozy desk job to pay the bills with my college degree. What's wrong with a "cozy desk job"? Not all of us want to be superstar rich uberprofessionals. Like I said above, most of us just want decent jobs that pay the bills and let us live. My dad is a health care professional (not a doctor). He's excellent at his job - he has the highest patient satisfaction rating in his department. Yet he constantly gets in trouble with his supervisors for not having his paperwork done. Not because he's lazy - it's because he doesn't have time. Between actually treating patients, waiting for late patients to show up, making phone calls, dealing with prescriptions, helping coworkers, dealing with miscellaneous issues, and then actually trying to keep with the stupidly huge amounts of paperwork that health care demands (ever trying billing Medicare?) he winds up working a 16+ hour day on an eight-hour salary. It's destroyed his health, his ability to enjoy his job, and my parents' marriage. Meanwhile his supervisors sit in their offices working on useless advanced degrees. They don't offer any support. Hell, they probably don't even know how to treat a patient. All they do is send out bullshit emails about "professionalism" and "integrity" and "it's a team effort" and "we need more productivity." Meanwhile my dad and his coworkers have all had to get remote access credentials so that they can work from home at night. And the supervisors continue to demand more. So yeah, I'm okay with a "cozy desk job." Maybe that makes me lazy, but I really don't care. I come in at 8. I leave at 5. I'm willing to work damn hard while I'm there, but when it's 5 I'm gone and my work stays on my desk. It's just a job, a thing I do for money. I'm not going to make myself a slave just to please somebody else, based on the ephemeral promise of intangible rewards.

Go fuck yourself.

areich

This is the Perry Mason part of the thread where **you prove my point**. :) If you have *no emotion* about the topic, why would you use language (swearing) I clearly didn't use? If you have *no feelings* about this sub, why trail off (...)? If you have *no insecurities* about veganism, why would you respond at all? There's a *reason* why RomComs always have the male and female protagonists *hate* each other during the 1st act, because we know the *romance* will bloom coming up. There's a reason why so many GLBT haters end up having a secret GLBT personal agenda themselves. Strong emotion in either direction shows an affinity for something which often begins as fear and ends as love. TL;DR: If you really didn't care (i.e. was a strong carni/omnivore), you would have left it alone. Congratulations, TruthWillSetUsFree, you've just started your journey towards veganism! By spending all this time trolling this sub, you've shown a *real interest*! Once you get over your own self doubt, you'll make a fine vegan!

This is the Perry Mason part of the thread where you prove my point . :) If you have no emotion about the topic, why would you use language (swearing) I clearly didn't use? If you have no feelings about this sub, why trail off (...)? If you have no insecurities about veganism, why would you respond at all? There's a reason why RomComs always have the male and female protagonists hate each other during the 1st act, because we know the romance will bloom coming up. There's a reason why so many GLBT haters end up having a secret GLBT personal agenda themselves. Strong emotion in either direction shows an affinity for something which often begins as fear and ends as love. TL;DR: If you really didn't care (i.e. was a strong carni/omnivore), you would have left it alone. Congratulations, TruthWillSetUsFree, you've just started your journey towards veganism! By spending all this time trolling this sub, you've shown a real interest ! Once you get over your own self doubt, you'll make a fine vegan!

vegan

t5_2qhpm

c6w4wwn

This is the Perry Mason part of the thread where you prove my point . :) If you have no emotion about the topic, why would you use language (swearing) I clearly didn't use? If you have no feelings about this sub, why trail off (...)? If you have no insecurities about veganism, why would you respond at all? There's a reason why RomComs always have the male and female protagonists hate each other during the 1st act, because we know the romance will bloom coming up. There's a reason why so many GLBT haters end up having a secret GLBT personal agenda themselves. Strong emotion in either direction shows an affinity for something which often begins as fear and ends as love.

If you really didn't care (i.e. was a strong carni/omnivore), you would have left it alone. Congratulations, TruthWillSetUsFree, you've just started your journey towards veganism! By spending all this time trolling this sub, you've shown a real interest ! Once you get over your own self doubt, you'll make a fine vegan!

GreenCardMe

its pretty much the perfect TL;DR for nofap

its pretty much the perfect TL;DR for nofap

NoFap

t5_2skrn

c6w1327

its pretty much the perfect

for nofap

yanarchy

This story's pretty anticlimactic, thankfully. When I was living in Lebanon (I was 20, this was in '09), I hitchhiked from northern Lebanon to Beirut (about an hour and a half-ish) at night because I had missed all the buses and I really needed a ride. I'm a single, Asian female and I'm in a skirt on the side of the highway. I stand out quite a bit. Looking back, I think most people thought I was a prostitute because a lot of cars stopped a few feet away from me and when I wouldn't approach them, they sped off. Long story short, this really non-threatening looking guy pulls up in a small red car. I think it was roughly 8 or 9 pm. My Arabic isn't terribly good and he barely speaks English. Everything's going along just fine. He asks me about where I'm from and what I'm doing in Lebanon. Very basic. Then he asks me if I have any male friends in Lebanon (words are gendered). I'm kind of confused but I say that yes, I have lots of male friends, not only in Lebanon. A few more minutes into the trip and he suddenly touches my exposed knee. I freak out and ask him what he's doing. He apologizes and we sit in awkward silence. Ten minutes later, he does it again. I freak out and call my guy friend in Beirut who speaks Arabic and I'm telling him what happened. He speaks to the guy driving me and basically explains to him in Arabic the situation. My friend then tells me that the guy giving me a ride seems to be an absolute idiot. Thankfully, nothing bad happened. I was able to make it to my destination without any more issues. Though looking back, this could've easily gone REALLY bad REALLY easily. I later realized that I had forgotten that the Arabic word for male friend can also imply boyfriend or husband depending on context. Whoops. TL; DR: Single female hitchhiked in Middle East country; came across horny, ignorant male driver who kept touching her knee.

This story's pretty anticlimactic, thankfully. When I was living in Lebanon (I was 20, this was in '09), I hitchhiked from northern Lebanon to Beirut (about an hour and a half-ish) at night because I had missed all the buses and I really needed a ride. I'm a single, Asian female and I'm in a skirt on the side of the highway. I stand out quite a bit. Looking back, I think most people thought I was a prostitute because a lot of cars stopped a few feet away from me and when I wouldn't approach them, they sped off. Long story short, this really non-threatening looking guy pulls up in a small red car. I think it was roughly 8 or 9 pm. My Arabic isn't terribly good and he barely speaks English. Everything's going along just fine. He asks me about where I'm from and what I'm doing in Lebanon. Very basic. Then he asks me if I have any male friends in Lebanon (words are gendered). I'm kind of confused but I say that yes, I have lots of male friends, not only in Lebanon. A few more minutes into the trip and he suddenly touches my exposed knee. I freak out and ask him what he's doing. He apologizes and we sit in awkward silence. Ten minutes later, he does it again. I freak out and call my guy friend in Beirut who speaks Arabic and I'm telling him what happened. He speaks to the guy driving me and basically explains to him in Arabic the situation. My friend then tells me that the guy giving me a ride seems to be an absolute idiot. Thankfully, nothing bad happened. I was able to make it to my destination without any more issues. Though looking back, this could've easily gone REALLY bad REALLY easily. I later realized that I had forgotten that the Arabic word for male friend can also imply boyfriend or husband depending on context. Whoops. TL; DR: Single female hitchhiked in Middle East country; came across horny, ignorant male driver who kept touching her knee.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c6w569w

This story's pretty anticlimactic, thankfully. When I was living in Lebanon (I was 20, this was in '09), I hitchhiked from northern Lebanon to Beirut (about an hour and a half-ish) at night because I had missed all the buses and I really needed a ride. I'm a single, Asian female and I'm in a skirt on the side of the highway. I stand out quite a bit. Looking back, I think most people thought I was a prostitute because a lot of cars stopped a few feet away from me and when I wouldn't approach them, they sped off. Long story short, this really non-threatening looking guy pulls up in a small red car. I think it was roughly 8 or 9 pm. My Arabic isn't terribly good and he barely speaks English. Everything's going along just fine. He asks me about where I'm from and what I'm doing in Lebanon. Very basic. Then he asks me if I have any male friends in Lebanon (words are gendered). I'm kind of confused but I say that yes, I have lots of male friends, not only in Lebanon. A few more minutes into the trip and he suddenly touches my exposed knee. I freak out and ask him what he's doing. He apologizes and we sit in awkward silence. Ten minutes later, he does it again. I freak out and call my guy friend in Beirut who speaks Arabic and I'm telling him what happened. He speaks to the guy driving me and basically explains to him in Arabic the situation. My friend then tells me that the guy giving me a ride seems to be an absolute idiot. Thankfully, nothing bad happened. I was able to make it to my destination without any more issues. Though looking back, this could've easily gone REALLY bad REALLY easily. I later realized that I had forgotten that the Arabic word for male friend can also imply boyfriend or husband depending on context. Whoops.

Single female hitchhiked in Middle East country; came across horny, ignorant male driver who kept touching her knee.

robotevil

BTW,I had one of our disinfo agents go ahead and take the bait. Here's what he's adding people too: drumrolll: **edit: Made a new thread for more updates: That's right, "Monsanto Employees" (ROFL), he's adding people as moderators and approved submitters to those that "applied". My theory is this kid was hoping that a bunch of us would jump on this (because we're obviously shills) then he could screenshot the usernames of the approved submitters and moderators as "proof" we're all paid shills. BTW, really nicely done boys, [the style sheet looks excellent]( I especially like the attention to detail on the moderators: Really great. Now in one of the screenshots there was a whole thread of "HR contacts" and other important contacts. All pretty much using the same phone number. Which I thought was odd. For a couple of different reasons: 1. Monsanto would have to fill out your W2s. You would already have a contact number of HR 2. Even Evil Monsanto is going to do a background check before hiring. They are going to want to make sure they are not hiring fellons. 3. All the numbers lead to one VOIP line. Why would Monsanto HR being using a Skype number? Wouldn't they just use many of the freely available lines at their corporate headquarters, or maybe actually use the corporate headquarters HR phone number: ? Now I will applaude you for removing any personal identifying information from Google tied to the main number you listed, you even removed your name from your Amazon store. You really made sure that if anyone googled the phone number you had listed in the forum there, that no-one would be able to find anything through Google that tied back to your real name. So sad. Here's the issue, you didn't think to check Bing. And your name is definitely *not* Rick. It rhymes with "Noahs Ark" ;-) and you appear to be in High School. Oh, and you enjoy soccer. Now, that's not the only problem. Your other problem is you didn't take two seconds to google who's *actually* in charge of Monsanto's social media. I do like how you went Jews all the way down, all the names are jews (LOL). However, a quick trip to google reveals that the Director of Social Media is not a Jewish man, but an blond Italian looking middle-aged woman: you didn't even get the sex right (ROFL). BTW, the actual head Monsanto's "Internet Relations" is not a Jewish woman, it's actually this guy: (ROFL X 2!). That's who's *actually* in charge. In fact, searching LinkedIN (which 99% of professionals now-a-days have a LinkedIn profile) finds no reference to a "Rick Bergmann" working for Mansanto anywhere. In fact **none** of the people you have listed, actually seem to work for Mansanto. Also, feel free to search LinkedIn, but there's not one social media personal named "Rick Bergmann" in social media listed on LinkedIn. This scenario is highly unlikely. Considering most people hired to be a Social Media Director, have profiles everywhere. TL;DR: You might want to actually take two seconds and check to see at least if your story has *some* facts before trying to bait a bunch of Skeptics. So much time spent on the style sheet, so much time setting up your profile to build "cred" with /r/conspiratard, and you couldn't be bothered with checking to see if the people you listed, actually work for Mansanto? /facepalm.

BTW,I had one of our disinfo agents go ahead and take the bait. Here's what he's adding people too: drumrolll: **edit: Made a new thread for more updates: That's right, "Monsanto Employees" (ROFL), he's adding people as moderators and approved submitters to those that "applied". My theory is this kid was hoping that a bunch of us would jump on this (because we're obviously shills) then he could screenshot the usernames of the approved submitters and moderators as "proof" we're all paid shills. BTW, really nicely done boys, [the style sheet looks excellent]( I especially like the attention to detail on the moderators: Really great. Now in one of the screenshots there was a whole thread of "HR contacts" and other important contacts. All pretty much using the same phone number. Which I thought was odd. For a couple of different reasons: Monsanto would have to fill out your W2s. You would already have a contact number of HR Even Evil Monsanto is going to do a background check before hiring. They are going to want to make sure they are not hiring fellons. All the numbers lead to one VOIP line. Why would Monsanto HR being using a Skype number? Wouldn't they just use many of the freely available lines at their corporate headquarters, or maybe actually use the corporate headquarters HR phone number: ? Now I will applaude you for removing any personal identifying information from Google tied to the main number you listed, you even removed your name from your Amazon store. You really made sure that if anyone googled the phone number you had listed in the forum there, that no-one would be able to find anything through Google that tied back to your real name. So sad. Here's the issue, you didn't think to check Bing. And your name is definitely not Rick. It rhymes with "Noahs Ark" ;-) and you appear to be in High School. Oh, and you enjoy soccer. Now, that's not the only problem. Your other problem is you didn't take two seconds to google who's actually in charge of Monsanto's social media. I do like how you went Jews all the way down, all the names are jews (LOL). However, a quick trip to google reveals that the Director of Social Media is not a Jewish man, but an blond Italian looking middle-aged woman: you didn't even get the sex right (ROFL). BTW, the actual head Monsanto's "Internet Relations" is not a Jewish woman, it's actually this guy: (ROFL X 2!). That's who's actually in charge. In fact, searching LinkedIN (which 99% of professionals now-a-days have a LinkedIn profile) finds no reference to a "Rick Bergmann" working for Mansanto anywhere. In fact none of the people you have listed, actually seem to work for Mansanto. Also, feel free to search LinkedIn, but there's not one social media personal named "Rick Bergmann" in social media listed on LinkedIn. This scenario is highly unlikely. Considering most people hired to be a Social Media Director, have profiles everywhere. TL;DR: You might want to actually take two seconds and check to see at least if your story has some facts before trying to bait a bunch of Skeptics. So much time spent on the style sheet, so much time setting up your profile to build "cred" with /r/conspiratard, and you couldn't be bothered with checking to see if the people you listed, actually work for Mansanto? /facepalm.

conspiratard

t5_2r2dd

c6wk0eo

BTW,I had one of our disinfo agents go ahead and take the bait. Here's what he's adding people too: drumrolll: **edit: Made a new thread for more updates: That's right, "Monsanto Employees" (ROFL), he's adding people as moderators and approved submitters to those that "applied". My theory is this kid was hoping that a bunch of us would jump on this (because we're obviously shills) then he could screenshot the usernames of the approved submitters and moderators as "proof" we're all paid shills. BTW, really nicely done boys, [the style sheet looks excellent]( I especially like the attention to detail on the moderators: Really great. Now in one of the screenshots there was a whole thread of "HR contacts" and other important contacts. All pretty much using the same phone number. Which I thought was odd. For a couple of different reasons: Monsanto would have to fill out your W2s. You would already have a contact number of HR Even Evil Monsanto is going to do a background check before hiring. They are going to want to make sure they are not hiring fellons. All the numbers lead to one VOIP line. Why would Monsanto HR being using a Skype number? Wouldn't they just use many of the freely available lines at their corporate headquarters, or maybe actually use the corporate headquarters HR phone number: ? Now I will applaude you for removing any personal identifying information from Google tied to the main number you listed, you even removed your name from your Amazon store. You really made sure that if anyone googled the phone number you had listed in the forum there, that no-one would be able to find anything through Google that tied back to your real name. So sad. Here's the issue, you didn't think to check Bing. And your name is definitely not Rick. It rhymes with "Noahs Ark" ;-) and you appear to be in High School. Oh, and you enjoy soccer. Now, that's not the only problem. Your other problem is you didn't take two seconds to google who's actually in charge of Monsanto's social media. I do like how you went Jews all the way down, all the names are jews (LOL). However, a quick trip to google reveals that the Director of Social Media is not a Jewish man, but an blond Italian looking middle-aged woman: you didn't even get the sex right (ROFL). BTW, the actual head Monsanto's "Internet Relations" is not a Jewish woman, it's actually this guy: (ROFL X 2!). That's who's actually in charge. In fact, searching LinkedIN (which 99% of professionals now-a-days have a LinkedIn profile) finds no reference to a "Rick Bergmann" working for Mansanto anywhere. In fact none of the people you have listed, actually seem to work for Mansanto. Also, feel free to search LinkedIn, but there's not one social media personal named "Rick Bergmann" in social media listed on LinkedIn. This scenario is highly unlikely. Considering most people hired to be a Social Media Director, have profiles everywhere.

You might want to actually take two seconds and check to see at least if your story has some facts before trying to bait a bunch of Skeptics. So much time spent on the style sheet, so much time setting up your profile to build "cred" with /r/conspiratard, and you couldn't be bothered with checking to see if the people you listed, actually work for Mansanto? /facepalm.

CCCPVitaliy

Mine is a really weird one. My first job that I had was pretty crappy. What made it okay was that I was working with my cousin. It made it SO MUCH better. The job was manufacturing. So whenever the machines didn't run, we would sweep the floors and I remember cleaning the cracks on the floor, while talking to him, or having lunch outside in the other huge manufacturing floor. One day he stops getting hours and for two weeks, he doesn't work. He finds a job and quits. I remembered the time when I was by myself and was sweeping the floor, and you get this nostalgia how the work used to be at least more fun when he was there. Now it is crappy and I hated it. Even though I didn't cuss, but it got me so badly that I cussed. You can see how much I didn't like the job. Same thing happened when I went to have lunch outside or go to the other manufacturing floor where I worked with him a lot. I have ever since, quit the job, but still this is my *really weird* example of having nostalgia at work. TL;DR -(weird) surprisingly got nostalgic after my cousin left the boring job, and every time I remembered how it was more fun when at least he was there, I cussed.

Mine is a really weird one. My first job that I had was pretty crappy. What made it okay was that I was working with my cousin. It made it SO MUCH better. The job was manufacturing. So whenever the machines didn't run, we would sweep the floors and I remember cleaning the cracks on the floor, while talking to him, or having lunch outside in the other huge manufacturing floor. One day he stops getting hours and for two weeks, he doesn't work. He finds a job and quits. I remembered the time when I was by myself and was sweeping the floor, and you get this nostalgia how the work used to be at least more fun when he was there. Now it is crappy and I hated it. Even though I didn't cuss, but it got me so badly that I cussed. You can see how much I didn't like the job. Same thing happened when I went to have lunch outside or go to the other manufacturing floor where I worked with him a lot. I have ever since, quit the job, but still this is my really weird example of having nostalgia at work. TL;DR -(weird) surprisingly got nostalgic after my cousin left the boring job, and every time I remembered how it was more fun when at least he was there, I cussed.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c6w61sr

Mine is a really weird one. My first job that I had was pretty crappy. What made it okay was that I was working with my cousin. It made it SO MUCH better. The job was manufacturing. So whenever the machines didn't run, we would sweep the floors and I remember cleaning the cracks on the floor, while talking to him, or having lunch outside in the other huge manufacturing floor. One day he stops getting hours and for two weeks, he doesn't work. He finds a job and quits. I remembered the time when I was by myself and was sweeping the floor, and you get this nostalgia how the work used to be at least more fun when he was there. Now it is crappy and I hated it. Even though I didn't cuss, but it got me so badly that I cussed. You can see how much I didn't like the job. Same thing happened when I went to have lunch outside or go to the other manufacturing floor where I worked with him a lot. I have ever since, quit the job, but still this is my really weird example of having nostalgia at work.

weird) surprisingly got nostalgic after my cousin left the boring job, and every time I remembered how it was more fun when at least he was there, I cussed.

mavrixwk

This is a current issue that may see no end (also closures such as corks/fake corks/[zorks]( **First some background:** "High end" wine, which is defined by anything over $25 strangely enough, will almost never be in a box. The biggest reasoning is that some gas exchange is good. A well made bottle of wine (of the right varietals) needs a good cork to cellar and age. When stored properly the cork will allow a very minute amount of gases to go back and forth. This aids in the chemical changes that take place in a good bottle over time. When an artificial closure or a bag is used, it is too air tight for long term storage and maturation. All the hard work that went into making a wine of high enough quality to age will be lost. As for mid-tier wines, the story is different. These wines can have some age, maybe up to 5 years, but isn't required. A lot of wine these days is being made to be drunk immediately, and not age, which makes it perfectly suitable for other packing and closures. **So about the boxes:** If there is such a large percentage of wine that falls into the mid-tier category, that doesn't require aging, then why isn't it in boxes? Some are. [Clif]( actually puts some decent stuff into a pouch. [Big House]( stuff (especially their "red blend" [most wines are blended with a small percentage of something else, but that's a soap box for another day]) can be found in a box, and are quite good for the price. There are also some eco-minded small producers (both old and new world) that use [tetra packs]( For the most part, most still aren't because of the stigma surrounding it. People see a box, they think of Fred Franzia's swill in-o-box, and turn their nose up to it. Wine is *incredibly* psychological to sell, and a bad package can turn people off to it regardless of the quality of what's in it. TL;DR - Despite it's usefulness, boxed wine has a stigma that vineyards/companies won't invest in to break.

This is a current issue that may see no end (also closures such as corks/fake corks/[zorks]( First some background: "High end" wine, which is defined by anything over $25 strangely enough, will almost never be in a box. The biggest reasoning is that some gas exchange is good. A well made bottle of wine (of the right varietals) needs a good cork to cellar and age. When stored properly the cork will allow a very minute amount of gases to go back and forth. This aids in the chemical changes that take place in a good bottle over time. When an artificial closure or a bag is used, it is too air tight for long term storage and maturation. All the hard work that went into making a wine of high enough quality to age will be lost. As for mid-tier wines, the story is different. These wines can have some age, maybe up to 5 years, but isn't required. A lot of wine these days is being made to be drunk immediately, and not age, which makes it perfectly suitable for other packing and closures. So about the boxes: If there is such a large percentage of wine that falls into the mid-tier category, that doesn't require aging, then why isn't it in boxes? Some are. Clif can be found in a box, and are quite good for the price. There are also some eco-minded small producers (both old and new world) that use [tetra packs]( For the most part, most still aren't because of the stigma surrounding it. People see a box, they think of Fred Franzia's swill in-o-box, and turn their nose up to it. Wine is incredibly psychological to sell, and a bad package can turn people off to it regardless of the quality of what's in it. TL;DR - Despite it's usefulness, boxed wine has a stigma that vineyards/companies won't invest in to break.

shutupandtakemymoney

t5_2sge2

c6wqose

This is a current issue that may see no end (also closures such as corks/fake corks/[zorks]( First some background: "High end" wine, which is defined by anything over $25 strangely enough, will almost never be in a box. The biggest reasoning is that some gas exchange is good. A well made bottle of wine (of the right varietals) needs a good cork to cellar and age. When stored properly the cork will allow a very minute amount of gases to go back and forth. This aids in the chemical changes that take place in a good bottle over time. When an artificial closure or a bag is used, it is too air tight for long term storage and maturation. All the hard work that went into making a wine of high enough quality to age will be lost. As for mid-tier wines, the story is different. These wines can have some age, maybe up to 5 years, but isn't required. A lot of wine these days is being made to be drunk immediately, and not age, which makes it perfectly suitable for other packing and closures. So about the boxes: If there is such a large percentage of wine that falls into the mid-tier category, that doesn't require aging, then why isn't it in boxes? Some are. Clif can be found in a box, and are quite good for the price. There are also some eco-minded small producers (both old and new world) that use [tetra packs]( For the most part, most still aren't because of the stigma surrounding it. People see a box, they think of Fred Franzia's swill in-o-box, and turn their nose up to it. Wine is incredibly psychological to sell, and a bad package can turn people off to it regardless of the quality of what's in it.

Despite it's usefulness, boxed wine has a stigma that vineyards/companies won't invest in to break.

mavrixwk

Regardless of if it's a wine I represent or not, I will still point someone to good wine. I don't get people who don't do that. It would help break the pretentious stigma. Anyway: this could take a bit of explaining. A lot of wine is aged in barrels (others in stainless steel or cement tanks). Quality wines always are if they desire that kind of treatment (some types of wine taste better unoaked [barrels are various types of oak]). One a side note, cheaper wines typically don't use barrels, but instead use staves, chips, or even essence to add the flavor and effect. Good wine that is meant to be aged, needs proper conditions and a real cork for proper gas exchange through the bottle. I'm giving you this background so you can fully understand why you both can and can't. Yes you can, because a lot of wine is already. At the same time you can't (or won't), because if you are investing the money into aging a wine in a nice french oak barrel, you're not going to want to package it in something that won't let it age more. The barrel will add and change the wine, and then the process will continue in a neutral glass bottle (but without the oak adding to it). As the wine ages, it chemically changes, and proper barrel aging is one of the many parts that lets you do that. If you took that wine, put it in a bag (bladder), and then drank it down the road, it would be rough, tannic, and for lack of a better word, tight. TL;DR - You can, but it would be a waste.

Regardless of if it's a wine I represent or not, I will still point someone to good wine. I don't get people who don't do that. It would help break the pretentious stigma. Anyway: this could take a bit of explaining. A lot of wine is aged in barrels (others in stainless steel or cement tanks). Quality wines always are if they desire that kind of treatment (some types of wine taste better unoaked [barrels are various types of oak]). One a side note, cheaper wines typically don't use barrels, but instead use staves, chips, or even essence to add the flavor and effect. Good wine that is meant to be aged, needs proper conditions and a real cork for proper gas exchange through the bottle. I'm giving you this background so you can fully understand why you both can and can't. Yes you can, because a lot of wine is already. At the same time you can't (or won't), because if you are investing the money into aging a wine in a nice french oak barrel, you're not going to want to package it in something that won't let it age more. The barrel will add and change the wine, and then the process will continue in a neutral glass bottle (but without the oak adding to it). As the wine ages, it chemically changes, and proper barrel aging is one of the many parts that lets you do that. If you took that wine, put it in a bag (bladder), and then drank it down the road, it would be rough, tannic, and for lack of a better word, tight. TL;DR - You can, but it would be a waste.

shutupandtakemymoney

t5_2sge2

c6wsvz5

Regardless of if it's a wine I represent or not, I will still point someone to good wine. I don't get people who don't do that. It would help break the pretentious stigma. Anyway: this could take a bit of explaining. A lot of wine is aged in barrels (others in stainless steel or cement tanks). Quality wines always are if they desire that kind of treatment (some types of wine taste better unoaked [barrels are various types of oak]). One a side note, cheaper wines typically don't use barrels, but instead use staves, chips, or even essence to add the flavor and effect. Good wine that is meant to be aged, needs proper conditions and a real cork for proper gas exchange through the bottle. I'm giving you this background so you can fully understand why you both can and can't. Yes you can, because a lot of wine is already. At the same time you can't (or won't), because if you are investing the money into aging a wine in a nice french oak barrel, you're not going to want to package it in something that won't let it age more. The barrel will add and change the wine, and then the process will continue in a neutral glass bottle (but without the oak adding to it). As the wine ages, it chemically changes, and proper barrel aging is one of the many parts that lets you do that. If you took that wine, put it in a bag (bladder), and then drank it down the road, it would be rough, tannic, and for lack of a better word, tight.

You can, but it would be a waste.

SleepingOnMoonshine

I haven't been suicidal in three years. It wasn't Christ that led me from that time, although He has also significantly improved my life, it was finding a purpose. I didn't have time to be depressed. I took no anti-depressants. I worked hard at something I loved, tried to achieve my dreams, and even though things were tough, I wasn't sad. I wasn't jovial. I was content. TL;DR: Things will get better. You may not be able to get the job of your choice in these times, but get a hobby. Connect deeply with your family, even if you hate them. And find a few people to be your friends. True friends. That's how I did it, anyways.

I haven't been suicidal in three years. It wasn't Christ that led me from that time, although He has also significantly improved my life, it was finding a purpose. I didn't have time to be depressed. I took no anti-depressants. I worked hard at something I loved, tried to achieve my dreams, and even though things were tough, I wasn't sad. I wasn't jovial. I was content. TL;DR: Things will get better. You may not be able to get the job of your choice in these times, but get a hobby. Connect deeply with your family, even if you hate them. And find a few people to be your friends. True friends. That's how I did it, anyways.

Christianity

t5_2qh6c

c6wm2v4

I haven't been suicidal in three years. It wasn't Christ that led me from that time, although He has also significantly improved my life, it was finding a purpose. I didn't have time to be depressed. I took no anti-depressants. I worked hard at something I loved, tried to achieve my dreams, and even though things were tough, I wasn't sad. I wasn't jovial. I was content.

Things will get better. You may not be able to get the job of your choice in these times, but get a hobby. Connect deeply with your family, even if you hate them. And find a few people to be your friends. True friends. That's how I did it, anyways.

terribletreble

This post hit me hard. I've been surrounded by suicides and every couple of years I am reminded of how far I've come. I was raised Christian but for me I felt a void for a very long time. I entertained thoughts of suicide a few times and the worst part about it was the apathy. I didn't feel anything, couldn't feel anything. Things would happen that I should have felt something about and I didn't. I'll come back to this in a second. Not only have I wanted to do that myself in the past, I have an aunt who has tried committing suicide on 3 occasions. We don't talk about it but my whole family aren't sure if/when we'll be getting a call about her. We've been devastated every time we've received a call saying she tried committing suicide. Her reasons are because of a chemical imbalance. Its been almost a decade since her last attempt and were so happy she's still around. Also I have a close friend who's father committed suicide. Every time I see or talk to her I see the effects of it. Shes a different person; don't get me wrong she's moved on and is living a happy life. But you can see the trauma sitting there, just under the surface. She fights depression now herself on the anniversary of his death every year. Her father sent her a final note in an email and she slept in that morning, she still blames herself. Finally back to me. Getting back from that ledge is a battle, and one I didn't want to fight most days. I'd lost sight of God so prayer was out of the question; and why would he even want someone like me anyway? My life wasn't so terrible but I still wanted to take it. I felt whiny and hated myself all the more for it. I didn't have health insurance either so seeing a doctor about if it was a chemical balance wasn't an option so I took it day by day to see i I could get better. I was a lucky one, I didn't tell anyone other than my mom. I found reasons to be happy with myself. I started reading Scripture. I found Gods love and mercy. I became happy. Its not an easy fight but it's a worthwhile one. I'm here if you need someone to talk to. Tl;Dr life is worthwhile even though it may not seem like it. I battled depression/suicide and have family and friends that have gone through it too. Contact me if you need help. I'm not a licensed therapist but I have an ear to hear.

This post hit me hard. I've been surrounded by suicides and every couple of years I am reminded of how far I've come. I was raised Christian but for me I felt a void for a very long time. I entertained thoughts of suicide a few times and the worst part about it was the apathy. I didn't feel anything, couldn't feel anything. Things would happen that I should have felt something about and I didn't. I'll come back to this in a second. Not only have I wanted to do that myself in the past, I have an aunt who has tried committing suicide on 3 occasions. We don't talk about it but my whole family aren't sure if/when we'll be getting a call about her. We've been devastated every time we've received a call saying she tried committing suicide. Her reasons are because of a chemical imbalance. Its been almost a decade since her last attempt and were so happy she's still around. Also I have a close friend who's father committed suicide. Every time I see or talk to her I see the effects of it. Shes a different person; don't get me wrong she's moved on and is living a happy life. But you can see the trauma sitting there, just under the surface. She fights depression now herself on the anniversary of his death every year. Her father sent her a final note in an email and she slept in that morning, she still blames herself. Finally back to me. Getting back from that ledge is a battle, and one I didn't want to fight most days. I'd lost sight of God so prayer was out of the question; and why would he even want someone like me anyway? My life wasn't so terrible but I still wanted to take it. I felt whiny and hated myself all the more for it. I didn't have health insurance either so seeing a doctor about if it was a chemical balance wasn't an option so I took it day by day to see i I could get better. I was a lucky one, I didn't tell anyone other than my mom. I found reasons to be happy with myself. I started reading Scripture. I found Gods love and mercy. I became happy. Its not an easy fight but it's a worthwhile one. I'm here if you need someone to talk to. Tl;Dr life is worthwhile even though it may not seem like it. I battled depression/suicide and have family and friends that have gone through it too. Contact me if you need help. I'm not a licensed therapist but I have an ear to hear.

Christianity

t5_2qh6c

c6wantk

This post hit me hard. I've been surrounded by suicides and every couple of years I am reminded of how far I've come. I was raised Christian but for me I felt a void for a very long time. I entertained thoughts of suicide a few times and the worst part about it was the apathy. I didn't feel anything, couldn't feel anything. Things would happen that I should have felt something about and I didn't. I'll come back to this in a second. Not only have I wanted to do that myself in the past, I have an aunt who has tried committing suicide on 3 occasions. We don't talk about it but my whole family aren't sure if/when we'll be getting a call about her. We've been devastated every time we've received a call saying she tried committing suicide. Her reasons are because of a chemical imbalance. Its been almost a decade since her last attempt and were so happy she's still around. Also I have a close friend who's father committed suicide. Every time I see or talk to her I see the effects of it. Shes a different person; don't get me wrong she's moved on and is living a happy life. But you can see the trauma sitting there, just under the surface. She fights depression now herself on the anniversary of his death every year. Her father sent her a final note in an email and she slept in that morning, she still blames herself. Finally back to me. Getting back from that ledge is a battle, and one I didn't want to fight most days. I'd lost sight of God so prayer was out of the question; and why would he even want someone like me anyway? My life wasn't so terrible but I still wanted to take it. I felt whiny and hated myself all the more for it. I didn't have health insurance either so seeing a doctor about if it was a chemical balance wasn't an option so I took it day by day to see i I could get better. I was a lucky one, I didn't tell anyone other than my mom. I found reasons to be happy with myself. I started reading Scripture. I found Gods love and mercy. I became happy. Its not an easy fight but it's a worthwhile one. I'm here if you need someone to talk to.

life is worthwhile even though it may not seem like it. I battled depression/suicide and have family and friends that have gone through it too. Contact me if you need help. I'm not a licensed therapist but I have an ear to hear.

Pogren

This has been happening a lot to me recently. People dismiss whatever you say and sometimes pretend you don't even have a voice, no matter how useful your little tidbit of information may be. I suggest you surround yourself with people who respect you and will take your opinion or advice into account and not just brush it off like your some pretentious asshole. **TL;DR: People are cunts**

This has been happening a lot to me recently. People dismiss whatever you say and sometimes pretend you don't even have a voice, no matter how useful your little tidbit of information may be. I suggest you surround yourself with people who respect you and will take your opinion or advice into account and not just brush it off like your some pretentious asshole. TL;DR: People are cunts

trees

t5_2r9vp

c6wc8ys

This has been happening a lot to me recently. People dismiss whatever you say and sometimes pretend you don't even have a voice, no matter how useful your little tidbit of information may be. I suggest you surround yourself with people who respect you and will take your opinion or advice into account and not just brush it off like your some pretentious asshole.

People are cunts

senatorskeletor

"Redistribution" is short for "redistribution of wealth" and means that the government forcibly changes the amount of money everyone has. In other words, money is taken from people, in different amounts from each person, and is redistributed among the people. Taxation is by necessity redistribution, because it's essentially impossible for everyone to receive the exact same in benefits that he/she pays out in taxes. That said, some forms of taxation can redistribute more dramatically than others. A more progressive tax system, in which high-income individuals pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than low-income individuals, will redistribute more wealth from high-income folks to low-income folks than a tax system where everyone pays the same rate. (You can also argue that some aspects of the tax system redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich; for example, Social Security taxes are only taken out of your paycheck up to a certain point, which I believe is around $112,500 a year. So for people who make more than that, the percentage of their income going to Social Security tax is less than it is for people who make less.) So what does this have to do with Obama? Traditionally, Democrats have tended to prefer a progressive tax rate, on the idea that taking money primarily from the rich to pay for government programs that generally help the poor makes for a better society. (Programs like Social Security and Medicare would fall into this category.) Republicans have tended to prefer a less progressive tax rate, on the idea that people should take responsibility for themselves and that higher tax rates on the rich punish them for their success. Republicans often use the term "redistribution" because it suggests an unfairness in taking money from one person and giving it to another. And since the big question in American politics these days is whether we should reelect President Obama, Republicans have said that Obama's policies seek to redistribute wealth. tl;dr: 1) using the tax system to take money from the rich to pay for programs that help the poor; 2) Obama and his party tend to prefer it more than the opposition.

"Redistribution" is short for "redistribution of wealth" and means that the government forcibly changes the amount of money everyone has. In other words, money is taken from people, in different amounts from each person, and is redistributed among the people. Taxation is by necessity redistribution, because it's essentially impossible for everyone to receive the exact same in benefits that he/she pays out in taxes. That said, some forms of taxation can redistribute more dramatically than others. A more progressive tax system, in which high-income individuals pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than low-income individuals, will redistribute more wealth from high-income folks to low-income folks than a tax system where everyone pays the same rate. (You can also argue that some aspects of the tax system redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich; for example, Social Security taxes are only taken out of your paycheck up to a certain point, which I believe is around $112,500 a year. So for people who make more than that, the percentage of their income going to Social Security tax is less than it is for people who make less.) So what does this have to do with Obama? Traditionally, Democrats have tended to prefer a progressive tax rate, on the idea that taking money primarily from the rich to pay for government programs that generally help the poor makes for a better society. (Programs like Social Security and Medicare would fall into this category.) Republicans have tended to prefer a less progressive tax rate, on the idea that people should take responsibility for themselves and that higher tax rates on the rich punish them for their success. Republicans often use the term "redistribution" because it suggests an unfairness in taking money from one person and giving it to another. And since the big question in American politics these days is whether we should reelect President Obama, Republicans have said that Obama's policies seek to redistribute wealth. tl;dr: 1) using the tax system to take money from the rich to pay for programs that help the poor; 2) Obama and his party tend to prefer it more than the opposition.

explainlikeimfive

t5_2sokd

c6whsmv

Redistribution" is short for "redistribution of wealth" and means that the government forcibly changes the amount of money everyone has. In other words, money is taken from people, in different amounts from each person, and is redistributed among the people. Taxation is by necessity redistribution, because it's essentially impossible for everyone to receive the exact same in benefits that he/she pays out in taxes. That said, some forms of taxation can redistribute more dramatically than others. A more progressive tax system, in which high-income individuals pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than low-income individuals, will redistribute more wealth from high-income folks to low-income folks than a tax system where everyone pays the same rate. (You can also argue that some aspects of the tax system redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich; for example, Social Security taxes are only taken out of your paycheck up to a certain point, which I believe is around $112,500 a year. So for people who make more than that, the percentage of their income going to Social Security tax is less than it is for people who make less.) So what does this have to do with Obama? Traditionally, Democrats have tended to prefer a progressive tax rate, on the idea that taking money primarily from the rich to pay for government programs that generally help the poor makes for a better society. (Programs like Social Security and Medicare would fall into this category.) Republicans have tended to prefer a less progressive tax rate, on the idea that people should take responsibility for themselves and that higher tax rates on the rich punish them for their success. Republicans often use the term "redistribution" because it suggests an unfairness in taking money from one person and giving it to another. And since the big question in American politics these days is whether we should reelect President Obama, Republicans have said that Obama's policies seek to redistribute wealth.

1) using the tax system to take money from the rich to pay for programs that help the poor; 2) Obama and his party tend to prefer it more than the opposition.

SwingingAKettlebell

Not even this, there's just a huge difference between saying you're silly and being silly. Go to any online dating site and read the profiles: how many people describe themselves as being "funny" or having a great sense of humour, yet the profile doesn't contain a single joke or amusing anecdote/remark? At least some of these people will be funny in real life; they just fail to communicate it in written form. It's the difference between showing and telling. The net effect is coming across weird (or more likely, boring) even if this isn't the case in real life. tl;dr Show, don't tell.

Not even this, there's just a huge difference between saying you're silly and being silly. Go to any online dating site and read the profiles: how many people describe themselves as being "funny" or having a great sense of humour, yet the profile doesn't contain a single joke or amusing anecdote/remark? At least some of these people will be funny in real life; they just fail to communicate it in written form. It's the difference between showing and telling. The net effect is coming across weird (or more likely, boring) even if this isn't the case in real life. tl;dr Show, don't tell.

running

t5_2qlit

c6wp84o

Not even this, there's just a huge difference between saying you're silly and being silly. Go to any online dating site and read the profiles: how many people describe themselves as being "funny" or having a great sense of humour, yet the profile doesn't contain a single joke or amusing anecdote/remark? At least some of these people will be funny in real life; they just fail to communicate it in written form. It's the difference between showing and telling. The net effect is coming across weird (or more likely, boring) even if this isn't the case in real life.

Show, don't tell.

megatom0

Bad writing. In all honesty though, Anakin is portrayed as a self absorbed, dim witted, man child. He is incredibly immature and lacks any kind of foresight. Also he is incredibly subject to his emotions and has little control over them. Essentially he's a big baby. Papa Palpatine realizes all of this and sees a great opportunity to control his emotions, albeit through manipulation or the force. Yes that's right I would actually consider Anakin among the weak minded fools who can be controlled by the force mind trick. While, regular Jedi are able to manipulate people with a single thought, it could be very possible for Sith to extend this ability to actually control people's emotions, especially those who are very weak willed and overly emotional. Anakin becomes fueled by fear and anger. This is probably why Yoda warns of bringing an over emotional child into the Jedi Order. This is also why Yoda said that he was "too old". Likely this merely meant that he had too much emotional baggage. While, Luke is much older when Yoda trains him, he actually has more control of his emotions than Anakin ever had, and this is even after he had his family bar-be-qued in from of him. TL;DR: Anakin was a weak will man child, the Sith were able to prey on this weakness with relative ease. I believe this is similar to how Jedi are able to manipulate weak minded people into following their will.

Bad writing. In all honesty though, Anakin is portrayed as a self absorbed, dim witted, man child. He is incredibly immature and lacks any kind of foresight. Also he is incredibly subject to his emotions and has little control over them. Essentially he's a big baby. Papa Palpatine realizes all of this and sees a great opportunity to control his emotions, albeit through manipulation or the force. Yes that's right I would actually consider Anakin among the weak minded fools who can be controlled by the force mind trick. While, regular Jedi are able to manipulate people with a single thought, it could be very possible for Sith to extend this ability to actually control people's emotions, especially those who are very weak willed and overly emotional. Anakin becomes fueled by fear and anger. This is probably why Yoda warns of bringing an over emotional child into the Jedi Order. This is also why Yoda said that he was "too old". Likely this merely meant that he had too much emotional baggage. While, Luke is much older when Yoda trains him, he actually has more control of his emotions than Anakin ever had, and this is even after he had his family bar-be-qued in from of him. TL;DR: Anakin was a weak will man child, the Sith were able to prey on this weakness with relative ease. I believe this is similar to how Jedi are able to manipulate weak minded people into following their will.

AskScienceFiction

t5_2slu2

c6wova1

Bad writing. In all honesty though, Anakin is portrayed as a self absorbed, dim witted, man child. He is incredibly immature and lacks any kind of foresight. Also he is incredibly subject to his emotions and has little control over them. Essentially he's a big baby. Papa Palpatine realizes all of this and sees a great opportunity to control his emotions, albeit through manipulation or the force. Yes that's right I would actually consider Anakin among the weak minded fools who can be controlled by the force mind trick. While, regular Jedi are able to manipulate people with a single thought, it could be very possible for Sith to extend this ability to actually control people's emotions, especially those who are very weak willed and overly emotional. Anakin becomes fueled by fear and anger. This is probably why Yoda warns of bringing an over emotional child into the Jedi Order. This is also why Yoda said that he was "too old". Likely this merely meant that he had too much emotional baggage. While, Luke is much older when Yoda trains him, he actually has more control of his emotions than Anakin ever had, and this is even after he had his family bar-be-qued in from of him.

Anakin was a weak will man child, the Sith were able to prey on this weakness with relative ease. I believe this is similar to how Jedi are able to manipulate weak minded people into following their will.

JCVDaaayum

This all day long, i was on with my brother last night, it was his first PVP game after learning the maps and controls and such like against AI, we told everyone before hand he was new and he went Ashe, i took Pantheon and we said we were going top lane. Soon as we start two other guys went top and we got barrated with things like "little noobs go bottom" "GG guys lost already got a noob", now i'd like to state im level 15 now, and even though these guys claimed to be on Smurf accounts and were going to boss the game, they fed and the lane collapsed and they blamed it on us for being noobs even though our lane stayed strong and i ganked mid a couple of times to help out. TL:DR People on Smurf accounts or who CLAIM to be on Smurf accounts but actually just suck....STFU P.S. be helpful to nooblets, not condescending dickshits.

This all day long, i was on with my brother last night, it was his first PVP game after learning the maps and controls and such like against AI, we told everyone before hand he was new and he went Ashe, i took Pantheon and we said we were going top lane. Soon as we start two other guys went top and we got barrated with things like "little noobs go bottom" "GG guys lost already got a noob", now i'd like to state im level 15 now, and even though these guys claimed to be on Smurf accounts and were going to boss the game, they fed and the lane collapsed and they blamed it on us for being noobs even though our lane stayed strong and i ganked mid a couple of times to help out. TL:DR People on Smurf accounts or who CLAIM to be on Smurf accounts but actually just suck....STFU P.S. be helpful to nooblets, not condescending dickshits.

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c6woqo1

This all day long, i was on with my brother last night, it was his first PVP game after learning the maps and controls and such like against AI, we told everyone before hand he was new and he went Ashe, i took Pantheon and we said we were going top lane. Soon as we start two other guys went top and we got barrated with things like "little noobs go bottom" "GG guys lost already got a noob", now i'd like to state im level 15 now, and even though these guys claimed to be on Smurf accounts and were going to boss the game, they fed and the lane collapsed and they blamed it on us for being noobs even though our lane stayed strong and i ganked mid a couple of times to help out.

People on Smurf accounts or who CLAIM to be on Smurf accounts but actually just suck....STFU P.S. be helpful to nooblets, not condescending dickshits.

Ch4zu

Www.solomid.net is currently **one** of the best sites to get trusty (is this how you say it ? :&gt; ) information. Don't go to MOBAfire, it is quite unreliable but on Solomid, Guides need to be approved by the Solomid-team + TSM (a pro team) makes guides themselves. I know that when I started playing a year ago and found out the recommended items sucked, I'd pick my champion go to a site and look up my build. You don't need to memorize it, when you need to buy something you "Alt+Tb", pick your browser screen and look what items are viable on your champion. You can follow the standard build if you don't feel confident enough yet or you can pick more Magic resists/armor/damage (depends on if you are losing/winning lane) in the items that are selected as 'good' for your chosen champion. Either way is better than following recommended and if you do just follow the standard builds, don't worry. The longer you play, the more confident you'll get in picking what items are the best in what situation. **TL;DR -** Don't follow recommended, look up your champion on www.solomid.net/guides, follow build if you don't feel confident, change build order fo what you need if you do feel confident. **PS:** Don't rush ranked when you hit 30, you'll maybe lose and people in ranked flame way harder than in normals when losing (or even winning).

Www.solomid.net is currently one of the best sites to get trusty (is this how you say it ? :> ) information. Don't go to MOBAfire, it is quite unreliable but on Solomid, Guides need to be approved by the Solomid-team + TSM (a pro team) makes guides themselves. I know that when I started playing a year ago and found out the recommended items sucked, I'd pick my champion go to a site and look up my build. You don't need to memorize it, when you need to buy something you "Alt+Tb", pick your browser screen and look what items are viable on your champion. You can follow the standard build if you don't feel confident enough yet or you can pick more Magic resists/armor/damage (depends on if you are losing/winning lane) in the items that are selected as 'good' for your chosen champion. Either way is better than following recommended and if you do just follow the standard builds, don't worry. The longer you play, the more confident you'll get in picking what items are the best in what situation. TL;DR - Don't follow recommended, look up your champion on www.solomid.net/guides, follow build if you don't feel confident, change build order fo what you need if you do feel confident. PS: Don't rush ranked when you hit 30, you'll maybe lose and people in ranked flame way harder than in normals when losing (or even winning).

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c6wp04n

Www.solomid.net is currently one of the best sites to get trusty (is this how you say it ? :> ) information. Don't go to MOBAfire, it is quite unreliable but on Solomid, Guides need to be approved by the Solomid-team + TSM (a pro team) makes guides themselves. I know that when I started playing a year ago and found out the recommended items sucked, I'd pick my champion go to a site and look up my build. You don't need to memorize it, when you need to buy something you "Alt+Tb", pick your browser screen and look what items are viable on your champion. You can follow the standard build if you don't feel confident enough yet or you can pick more Magic resists/armor/damage (depends on if you are losing/winning lane) in the items that are selected as 'good' for your chosen champion. Either way is better than following recommended and if you do just follow the standard builds, don't worry. The longer you play, the more confident you'll get in picking what items are the best in what situation.

Don't follow recommended, look up your champion on www.solomid.net/guides, follow build if you don't feel confident, change build order fo what you need if you do feel confident. PS: Don't rush ranked when you hit 30, you'll maybe lose and people in ranked flame way harder than in normals when losing (or even winning).

FredWeedMax

Dude i have a smurf as well, and I dislike those lvl 30 being rude and stuff to you real noobs (nothing offending) Theyre like OMG noob stop feeding while the guy's just got 50 games max. Hate that cause you can't learn from that. And actually I found out that most lvl 10-15 players I play with are lvl 30 smurfs, and that shocks me. Ofcourse i'm trollin people at those game, getting strange picks, AP ashe and stuff, and I still carry cause I know the mechanics, but i'm sick of people here to rape noobs, and raging flaming at their teamates. TL : DR when i play on my smurf I dont give a fuck, i troll and carry, and i dont rage at my mates. I'm having fun after maybe a lose streak or something but I dont shit on other's game

Dude i have a smurf as well, and I dislike those lvl 30 being rude and stuff to you real noobs (nothing offending) Theyre like OMG noob stop feeding while the guy's just got 50 games max. Hate that cause you can't learn from that. And actually I found out that most lvl 10-15 players I play with are lvl 30 smurfs, and that shocks me. Ofcourse i'm trollin people at those game, getting strange picks, AP ashe and stuff, and I still carry cause I know the mechanics, but i'm sick of people here to rape noobs, and raging flaming at their teamates. TL : DR when i play on my smurf I dont give a fuck, i troll and carry, and i dont rage at my mates. I'm having fun after maybe a lose streak or something but I dont shit on other's game

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c6wpj11

Dude i have a smurf as well, and I dislike those lvl 30 being rude and stuff to you real noobs (nothing offending) Theyre like OMG noob stop feeding while the guy's just got 50 games max. Hate that cause you can't learn from that. And actually I found out that most lvl 10-15 players I play with are lvl 30 smurfs, and that shocks me. Ofcourse i'm trollin people at those game, getting strange picks, AP ashe and stuff, and I still carry cause I know the mechanics, but i'm sick of people here to rape noobs, and raging flaming at their teamates.

when i play on my smurf I dont give a fuck, i troll and carry, and i dont rage at my mates. I'm having fun after maybe a lose streak or something but I dont shit on other's game

ubersaurus

I just want to say that: I just made a new smurf account so that I could get a new account to try ranked with, without tainting my main. When I chose the initial skill level, I selected the easiest one because I figured that would match me against the most people. What I have found is that 7 out of 10 people in my matches (myself included) are all smurfing. People are building double GP10, warding, using shurelya's, randuins and aegis. I must say that there are a few people that have been absofuckinglutely retarded, but most people that *aren't* smurfing seem to be picking up the game a *lot* faster than I did because of people being helpful for honor points. That being said, if you're a new player and your teammate explains last-hitting, build advice, and the point that boots are a must-have item, and you do not listen, you are going to be in for a rough time. tl;dr: My experience smurfing has been largely positive, but for a rare few

I just want to say that: I just made a new smurf account so that I could get a new account to try ranked with, without tainting my main. When I chose the initial skill level, I selected the easiest one because I figured that would match me against the most people. What I have found is that 7 out of 10 people in my matches (myself included) are all smurfing. People are building double GP10, warding, using shurelya's, randuins and aegis. I must say that there are a few people that have been absofuckinglutely retarded, but most people that aren't smurfing seem to be picking up the game a lot faster than I did because of people being helpful for honor points. That being said, if you're a new player and your teammate explains last-hitting, build advice, and the point that boots are a must-have item, and you do not listen, you are going to be in for a rough time. tl;dr: My experience smurfing has been largely positive, but for a rare few

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c6wv26f

I just want to say that: I just made a new smurf account so that I could get a new account to try ranked with, without tainting my main. When I chose the initial skill level, I selected the easiest one because I figured that would match me against the most people. What I have found is that 7 out of 10 people in my matches (myself included) are all smurfing. People are building double GP10, warding, using shurelya's, randuins and aegis. I must say that there are a few people that have been absofuckinglutely retarded, but most people that aren't smurfing seem to be picking up the game a lot faster than I did because of people being helpful for honor points. That being said, if you're a new player and your teammate explains last-hitting, build advice, and the point that boots are a must-have item, and you do not listen, you are going to be in for a rough time.

My experience smurfing has been largely positive, but for a rare few

Draoken

Yeah, but at least they are absolutely terrible. You'll catch up eventually, just ignore them. Real smurfs are only there to play with their friends, and will rarely rage at you because they actually know what they are doing and will not rely on team mates to do the same. They feel bad when they stomp too hard, and will usually apologize or try hard not to rub it in people's faces or go out of their way to steal kills from team mates Bad smurfs will get angry at every mistake you do, use terms like "meta" or "counter jungle" to try to confuse you and to make themselves look cool, and then get angry when you couldn't tryhard as hard as them. They will get angry at team mates saying "gg noob team" at end of the game. They will usually lose because they are unable to adapt to lower level playstyles and will get stomped because they try to conform to "high elo play tactics" while playing againts level 5's. tl;dr all those people calling you bad are bad. Just keep playing, and keep ignoring players. Just remember, if they get matched up with you, they are just as bad, if not worse than you, due to them getting matchmaked with you.

Yeah, but at least they are absolutely terrible. You'll catch up eventually, just ignore them. Real smurfs are only there to play with their friends, and will rarely rage at you because they actually know what they are doing and will not rely on team mates to do the same. They feel bad when they stomp too hard, and will usually apologize or try hard not to rub it in people's faces or go out of their way to steal kills from team mates Bad smurfs will get angry at every mistake you do, use terms like "meta" or "counter jungle" to try to confuse you and to make themselves look cool, and then get angry when you couldn't tryhard as hard as them. They will get angry at team mates saying "gg noob team" at end of the game. They will usually lose because they are unable to adapt to lower level playstyles and will get stomped because they try to conform to "high elo play tactics" while playing againts level 5's. tl;dr all those people calling you bad are bad. Just keep playing, and keep ignoring players. Just remember, if they get matched up with you, they are just as bad, if not worse than you, due to them getting matchmaked with you.

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c6x5lxu

Yeah, but at least they are absolutely terrible. You'll catch up eventually, just ignore them. Real smurfs are only there to play with their friends, and will rarely rage at you because they actually know what they are doing and will not rely on team mates to do the same. They feel bad when they stomp too hard, and will usually apologize or try hard not to rub it in people's faces or go out of their way to steal kills from team mates Bad smurfs will get angry at every mistake you do, use terms like "meta" or "counter jungle" to try to confuse you and to make themselves look cool, and then get angry when you couldn't tryhard as hard as them. They will get angry at team mates saying "gg noob team" at end of the game. They will usually lose because they are unable to adapt to lower level playstyles and will get stomped because they try to conform to "high elo play tactics" while playing againts level 5's.

all those people calling you bad are bad. Just keep playing, and keep ignoring players. Just remember, if they get matched up with you, they are just as bad, if not worse than you, due to them getting matchmaked with you.

superman1995

although i may be a rare case, i do get flamed at quite often for being a smurf on my level 16 account because i rage at people for not doing things that are very simple like freezing the lane and farming, although this is my main account. I do enjoy having smurfs in my team, even if they rage, because at least what they are saying holds value and they are actually helping the team win instead of simply complaining that the jungler or players nearby that doesnt save you and blame your death on them when it is your fault in the first place for running across half the map for that kill tl:dr smurfs may rage but at least they dont do or say thing that make you facepalm, although noobs that are open to suggestions are just as good

although i may be a rare case, i do get flamed at quite often for being a smurf on my level 16 account because i rage at people for not doing things that are very simple like freezing the lane and farming, although this is my main account. I do enjoy having smurfs in my team, even if they rage, because at least what they are saying holds value and they are actually helping the team win instead of simply complaining that the jungler or players nearby that doesnt save you and blame your death on them when it is your fault in the first place for running across half the map for that kill tl:dr smurfs may rage but at least they dont do or say thing that make you facepalm, although noobs that are open to suggestions are just as good

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c6wpi5j

although i may be a rare case, i do get flamed at quite often for being a smurf on my level 16 account because i rage at people for not doing things that are very simple like freezing the lane and farming, although this is my main account. I do enjoy having smurfs in my team, even if they rage, because at least what they are saying holds value and they are actually helping the team win instead of simply complaining that the jungler or players nearby that doesnt save you and blame your death on them when it is your fault in the first place for running across half the map for that kill

smurfs may rage but at least they dont do or say thing that make you facepalm, although noobs that are open to suggestions are just as good

alanispani

Don't sweat it, man. I'm a fairly decent player and recently made a new account on BR server for ping reasons. You would not believe the amount of flame I get even though I always score positive. ~~Assholes~~ People smurfing believe they're incredibly good even though they probably don't get a good grasp on the game yet. Yes, that includes me and almost every smurf, that's why I never flame and nor should anyone. Try to give constructive advice and just enjoy the game. [TL;DR: Carry team 90% of the time, still get flamed](

Don't sweat it, man. I'm a fairly decent player and recently made a new account on BR server for ping reasons. You would not believe the amount of flame I get even though I always score positive. Assholes People smurfing believe they're incredibly good even though they probably don't get a good grasp on the game yet. Yes, that includes me and almost every smurf, that's why I never flame and nor should anyone. Try to give constructive advice and just enjoy the game. [TL;DR: Carry team 90% of the time, still get flamed](

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c6wp9pn

Don't sweat it, man. I'm a fairly decent player and recently made a new account on BR server for ping reasons. You would not believe the amount of flame I get even though I always score positive. Assholes People smurfing believe they're incredibly good even though they probably don't get a good grasp on the game yet. Yes, that includes me and almost every smurf, that's why I never flame and nor should anyone. Try to give constructive advice and just enjoy the game. [

Carry team 90% of the time, still get flamed](

Carnagh

The companies are doing just fine [digital music report 2012]( What we're finally seeing is an industry that realises it has to change its business model. The pressure for this change was brought by piracy. Where the industry has changed it has done extremely well. TL;DR You're making shit up.

The companies are doing just fine [digital music report 2012]( What we're finally seeing is an industry that realises it has to change its business model. The pressure for this change was brought by piracy. Where the industry has changed it has done extremely well. TL;DR You're making shit up.

technology

t5_2qh16

c6x66u9

The companies are doing just fine [digital music report 2012]( What we're finally seeing is an industry that realises it has to change its business model. The pressure for this change was brought by piracy. Where the industry has changed it has done extremely well.

You're making shit up.

Carnagh

&gt; Overall music sales have fallen Cite your source please. As far as I'm aware profits overall are up. Physical sales are down because people now want to obtain their media online. This is a desire the media industry was fighting because they could inflate prices on physical media... Something that got them into very deep water with the EU. TL;DR I'm talking about the only part of the picture that matters any more.

> Overall music sales have fallen Cite your source please. As far as I'm aware profits overall are up. Physical sales are down because people now want to obtain their media online. This is a desire the media industry was fighting because they could inflate prices on physical media... Something that got them into very deep water with the EU. TL;DR I'm talking about the only part of the picture that matters any more.

technology

t5_2qh16

c6x6cdp

Overall music sales have fallen Cite your source please. As far as I'm aware profits overall are up. Physical sales are down because people now want to obtain their media online. This is a desire the media industry was fighting because they could inflate prices on physical media... Something that got them into very deep water with the EU.

I'm talking about the only part of the picture that matters any more.

Step1Mark

I have never been a mod before but I feel like I could bring a decent amount to the table. I am in Central Florida Florida (GMT - 5 hours). I run a small animation/film company and normally keep an /r/Android tab open throughout the day. Some days I start at 4 a.m. in the morning. I have been an Android user since the HTC G1 and have owned a few handsets and tablets throughout the years. I stay up on hardware and SoC articles from various sites out of passion for the industry. I used to design/code websites so I have experience with CSS(I still make maybe a site per year - If you want examples I can PM some). I have been a pretty big advocate for keeping this sub-reddit on track and standing up against post bashing competitors. If the time ever comes for an Sub-reddit podcast I have a professional voice over microphone and equipment. As a mod I would help direct questions and post to their proper related sub-reddits and push for less app solicitation by developers in this reddit. I believe reddit offers great moderation by it's users... I wouldn't go on a power trip like many sub-reddit mods do. So if there is a question by a newcomer I wouldn't shun them but point them in the right direction or link previously discussed topics. As a mod I wouldn't mind writing white papers and demonstration videos - should there be a need. I wouldn't mind having a rotation period and step down after an allotted time to keep this reddit more like a republic. **TL;DR** * I live on the East Coast of the USA (-5 GMT). * I am on /r/Android throughout the day. * I can code. * I am a neutral positive in the platform war. * I can help start new /r/Android content(podcast, whitepapers, video tutorials, etc). * Keep the reddit free from improper post and slander. * Help promote news here and questions to /r/AndroidQuestions.

I have never been a mod before but I feel like I could bring a decent amount to the table. I am in Central Florida Florida (GMT - 5 hours). I run a small animation/film company and normally keep an /r/Android tab open throughout the day. Some days I start at 4 a.m. in the morning. I have been an Android user since the HTC G1 and have owned a few handsets and tablets throughout the years. I stay up on hardware and SoC articles from various sites out of passion for the industry. I used to design/code websites so I have experience with CSS(I still make maybe a site per year - If you want examples I can PM some). I have been a pretty big advocate for keeping this sub-reddit on track and standing up against post bashing competitors. If the time ever comes for an Sub-reddit podcast I have a professional voice over microphone and equipment. As a mod I would help direct questions and post to their proper related sub-reddits and push for less app solicitation by developers in this reddit. I believe reddit offers great moderation by it's users... I wouldn't go on a power trip like many sub-reddit mods do. So if there is a question by a newcomer I wouldn't shun them but point them in the right direction or link previously discussed topics. As a mod I wouldn't mind writing white papers and demonstration videos - should there be a need. I wouldn't mind having a rotation period and step down after an allotted time to keep this reddit more like a republic. TL;DR I live on the East Coast of the USA (-5 GMT). I am on /r/Android throughout the day. I can code. I am a neutral positive in the platform war. I can help start new /r/Android content(podcast, whitepapers, video tutorials, etc). Keep the reddit free from improper post and slander. Help promote news here and questions to /r/AndroidQuestions.

Android

t5_2qlqh

c6x79hg

I have never been a mod before but I feel like I could bring a decent amount to the table. I am in Central Florida Florida (GMT - 5 hours). I run a small animation/film company and normally keep an /r/Android tab open throughout the day. Some days I start at 4 a.m. in the morning. I have been an Android user since the HTC G1 and have owned a few handsets and tablets throughout the years. I stay up on hardware and SoC articles from various sites out of passion for the industry. I used to design/code websites so I have experience with CSS(I still make maybe a site per year - If you want examples I can PM some). I have been a pretty big advocate for keeping this sub-reddit on track and standing up against post bashing competitors. If the time ever comes for an Sub-reddit podcast I have a professional voice over microphone and equipment. As a mod I would help direct questions and post to their proper related sub-reddits and push for less app solicitation by developers in this reddit. I believe reddit offers great moderation by it's users... I wouldn't go on a power trip like many sub-reddit mods do. So if there is a question by a newcomer I wouldn't shun them but point them in the right direction or link previously discussed topics. As a mod I wouldn't mind writing white papers and demonstration videos - should there be a need. I wouldn't mind having a rotation period and step down after an allotted time to keep this reddit more like a republic.

I live on the East Coast of the USA (-5 GMT). I am on /r/Android throughout the day. I can code. I am a neutral positive in the platform war. I can help start new /r/Android content(podcast, whitepapers, video tutorials, etc). Keep the reddit free from improper post and slander. Help promote news here and questions to /r/AndroidQuestions.

MirWoelleBleiwe

I detest public employee unions - so I can't believe I'm siding with them on opposing this amendment - but I hate unnecessary and counterproductive amendments to our constitution even more. Here's why I'm voting "no." This amendment is toothless. It does nothing to resolve the huge unfunded pension problem ($83 BILLION!) in Illinois since [nearly all past increases in benefits have passed by more than a 3/5 majority]( OP isn't alone in being confused by the amendment. It is so poorly worded and drafted that no one really knows what its consequences will be. Worse yet, this amendment is counterproductive. We shouldn't be so quick to amend our constitution. Constitutions are designed to provide stability and continuity in our political system. They should only be amended to address fundamental flaws in the way our political system functions. In the last few years, however, we've been amending our constitution to address single issue problems like our terrible governors or our unfunded pensions. But the problem is not how our governor is elected and maintains his office, or how many legislators are required to vote on pension increases. Our problem is the shitty legislators and governors we keep electing! Amending our constitution to require a 3/5 majority vote on pensions or to recall a governor does not fix our state's problems; on the contrary, it only deludes and lulls us into thinking we've addressed the problem. All this amendment does is give Madigan and his ilk cover to claim they did something about our unfunded liabilities, while kicking this 83 BILLION DOLLAR can down the road. **TL;DR** This amendment does nothing to fix our $83 BILLION pension liability. It *does* distract us from the real problem with our state: our elected officials. That's why I'm voting "no." Edit: Formatting.

I detest public employee unions - so I can't believe I'm siding with them on opposing this amendment - but I hate unnecessary and counterproductive amendments to our constitution even more. Here's why I'm voting "no." This amendment is toothless. It does nothing to resolve the huge unfunded pension problem ($83 BILLION!) in Illinois since [nearly all past increases in benefits have passed by more than a 3/5 majority]( OP isn't alone in being confused by the amendment. It is so poorly worded and drafted that no one really knows what its consequences will be. Worse yet, this amendment is counterproductive. We shouldn't be so quick to amend our constitution. Constitutions are designed to provide stability and continuity in our political system. They should only be amended to address fundamental flaws in the way our political system functions. In the last few years, however, we've been amending our constitution to address single issue problems like our terrible governors or our unfunded pensions. But the problem is not how our governor is elected and maintains his office, or how many legislators are required to vote on pension increases. Our problem is the shitty legislators and governors we keep electing! Amending our constitution to require a 3/5 majority vote on pensions or to recall a governor does not fix our state's problems; on the contrary, it only deludes and lulls us into thinking we've addressed the problem. All this amendment does is give Madigan and his ilk cover to claim they did something about our unfunded liabilities, while kicking this 83 BILLION DOLLAR can down the road. TL;DR This amendment does nothing to fix our $83 BILLION pension liability. It does distract us from the real problem with our state: our elected officials. That's why I'm voting "no." Edit: Formatting.

chicago

t5_2qh2t

c6xb92r

I detest public employee unions - so I can't believe I'm siding with them on opposing this amendment - but I hate unnecessary and counterproductive amendments to our constitution even more. Here's why I'm voting "no." This amendment is toothless. It does nothing to resolve the huge unfunded pension problem ($83 BILLION!) in Illinois since [nearly all past increases in benefits have passed by more than a 3/5 majority]( OP isn't alone in being confused by the amendment. It is so poorly worded and drafted that no one really knows what its consequences will be. Worse yet, this amendment is counterproductive. We shouldn't be so quick to amend our constitution. Constitutions are designed to provide stability and continuity in our political system. They should only be amended to address fundamental flaws in the way our political system functions. In the last few years, however, we've been amending our constitution to address single issue problems like our terrible governors or our unfunded pensions. But the problem is not how our governor is elected and maintains his office, or how many legislators are required to vote on pension increases. Our problem is the shitty legislators and governors we keep electing! Amending our constitution to require a 3/5 majority vote on pensions or to recall a governor does not fix our state's problems; on the contrary, it only deludes and lulls us into thinking we've addressed the problem. All this amendment does is give Madigan and his ilk cover to claim they did something about our unfunded liabilities, while kicking this 83 BILLION DOLLAR can down the road.

This amendment does nothing to fix our $83 BILLION pension liability. It does distract us from the real problem with our state: our elected officials. That's why I'm voting "no." Edit: Formatting.

who_bah_stank

I suffer from very similar problems as OP. Years ago started getting panic attacks when I got too high from weed, so I finally quit that, probably about 9 months ago. Still drank a lot though. Then after a weekend of non-stop drinking at a friend's house, I had to make a 2 hour drive early Monday morning to get home for class and work. I didn't go to the bathroom before I left and about halfway home I could tell I definitely had a case of the beer shits. I decided to hold it though. I thought, 'Hey, I can make it home then I'll have my own toilet to go in'. I was wrong. I was probably twenty minutes from home, driving on a particularly hairy stretch of road when I had my first real panic attack. I thought I was having either a stroke or heart attack. My arms and legs went numb and I had to pull over to the side of the road. I was sweating profusely and I had my friend take over the wheel and drive me to the nearest gas station, where I had multiple episodes of diarrhea. I went to the school nurse who told me I probably just had some food poisoning and a small panic attack, but that I would be fine in a few days. I wasn't. I was getting that adrenaline rush, pounding heart with skipped beats, numb arms and legs, terrible migraines, stomach cramps, and uncontrollable bowel movements, where I would have to go immediately no matter where I was. I had convinced myself I was going through alcohol withdrawals, especially because whenever I had an episode I would get really bad shakes. So first I got an EKG. Normal. I ended up doing a week's worth of stool samples to be sent to the lab to see what was wrong with my stomach. For 2 straight weeks I never had a solid bowel movement, and this was on a BRAT diet, with no booze. Came back totally normal. So doctor put me on probiotic pills to take once a day to help my stomach, and sent me to a therapist. Therapy worked wonders for me. Taught me that what I was feeling was just discomfort and to accept it. Unfortunately I had to stop going after about 10 weeks because I graduated, and the therapist was through the school. Then the problems started back up again. Difference is, I now know that I'm not dying and I can deal with the panic attacks on my own. Saw my doctor from childhood, and he put me on Celexa and Xanax for emergencies. Haven't taken either yet. My condition has improved with regular exercise, a healthier diet, and a lot less booze. However, my biggest problem still is being stuck driving on a freeway, and being afraid that I'm going to shit myself. Hasn't happened yet, but it's still something I'm very afraid of. **TL;DR** I have similar problem as OP of fear of shitting self, except my general anxiety and panic attacks have been improving the last few months. EDIT: Sorry OP for posting such a long story. Never posted on this subreddit before. Probably need to post my own thread. But just know you're definitely not alone and there are ways to get through this. Feel free to message me if you need to.

I suffer from very similar problems as OP. Years ago started getting panic attacks when I got too high from weed, so I finally quit that, probably about 9 months ago. Still drank a lot though. Then after a weekend of non-stop drinking at a friend's house, I had to make a 2 hour drive early Monday morning to get home for class and work. I didn't go to the bathroom before I left and about halfway home I could tell I definitely had a case of the beer shits. I decided to hold it though. I thought, 'Hey, I can make it home then I'll have my own toilet to go in'. I was wrong. I was probably twenty minutes from home, driving on a particularly hairy stretch of road when I had my first real panic attack. I thought I was having either a stroke or heart attack. My arms and legs went numb and I had to pull over to the side of the road. I was sweating profusely and I had my friend take over the wheel and drive me to the nearest gas station, where I had multiple episodes of diarrhea. I went to the school nurse who told me I probably just had some food poisoning and a small panic attack, but that I would be fine in a few days. I wasn't. I was getting that adrenaline rush, pounding heart with skipped beats, numb arms and legs, terrible migraines, stomach cramps, and uncontrollable bowel movements, where I would have to go immediately no matter where I was. I had convinced myself I was going through alcohol withdrawals, especially because whenever I had an episode I would get really bad shakes. So first I got an EKG. Normal. I ended up doing a week's worth of stool samples to be sent to the lab to see what was wrong with my stomach. For 2 straight weeks I never had a solid bowel movement, and this was on a BRAT diet, with no booze. Came back totally normal. So doctor put me on probiotic pills to take once a day to help my stomach, and sent me to a therapist. Therapy worked wonders for me. Taught me that what I was feeling was just discomfort and to accept it. Unfortunately I had to stop going after about 10 weeks because I graduated, and the therapist was through the school. Then the problems started back up again. Difference is, I now know that I'm not dying and I can deal with the panic attacks on my own. Saw my doctor from childhood, and he put me on Celexa and Xanax for emergencies. Haven't taken either yet. My condition has improved with regular exercise, a healthier diet, and a lot less booze. However, my biggest problem still is being stuck driving on a freeway, and being afraid that I'm going to shit myself. Hasn't happened yet, but it's still something I'm very afraid of. TL;DR I have similar problem as OP of fear of shitting self, except my general anxiety and panic attacks have been improving the last few months. EDIT: Sorry OP for posting such a long story. Never posted on this subreddit before. Probably need to post my own thread. But just know you're definitely not alone and there are ways to get through this. Feel free to message me if you need to.

Anxiety

t5_2qmij

c6xfic1

I suffer from very similar problems as OP. Years ago started getting panic attacks when I got too high from weed, so I finally quit that, probably about 9 months ago. Still drank a lot though. Then after a weekend of non-stop drinking at a friend's house, I had to make a 2 hour drive early Monday morning to get home for class and work. I didn't go to the bathroom before I left and about halfway home I could tell I definitely had a case of the beer shits. I decided to hold it though. I thought, 'Hey, I can make it home then I'll have my own toilet to go in'. I was wrong. I was probably twenty minutes from home, driving on a particularly hairy stretch of road when I had my first real panic attack. I thought I was having either a stroke or heart attack. My arms and legs went numb and I had to pull over to the side of the road. I was sweating profusely and I had my friend take over the wheel and drive me to the nearest gas station, where I had multiple episodes of diarrhea. I went to the school nurse who told me I probably just had some food poisoning and a small panic attack, but that I would be fine in a few days. I wasn't. I was getting that adrenaline rush, pounding heart with skipped beats, numb arms and legs, terrible migraines, stomach cramps, and uncontrollable bowel movements, where I would have to go immediately no matter where I was. I had convinced myself I was going through alcohol withdrawals, especially because whenever I had an episode I would get really bad shakes. So first I got an EKG. Normal. I ended up doing a week's worth of stool samples to be sent to the lab to see what was wrong with my stomach. For 2 straight weeks I never had a solid bowel movement, and this was on a BRAT diet, with no booze. Came back totally normal. So doctor put me on probiotic pills to take once a day to help my stomach, and sent me to a therapist. Therapy worked wonders for me. Taught me that what I was feeling was just discomfort and to accept it. Unfortunately I had to stop going after about 10 weeks because I graduated, and the therapist was through the school. Then the problems started back up again. Difference is, I now know that I'm not dying and I can deal with the panic attacks on my own. Saw my doctor from childhood, and he put me on Celexa and Xanax for emergencies. Haven't taken either yet. My condition has improved with regular exercise, a healthier diet, and a lot less booze. However, my biggest problem still is being stuck driving on a freeway, and being afraid that I'm going to shit myself. Hasn't happened yet, but it's still something I'm very afraid of.

I have similar problem as OP of fear of shitting self, except my general anxiety and panic attacks have been improving the last few months. EDIT: Sorry OP for posting such a long story. Never posted on this subreddit before. Probably need to post my own thread. But just know you're definitely not alone and there are ways to get through this. Feel free to message me if you need to.

hisham_hm

Not much, unfortunately. Besides work and studies, I've been kept busy developing [LuaRocks]( (and of course htop). I still run it in my computers, though, and there's a small community that keeps using it, and [updating our source-based "recipes"]( (yes, we're not dead yet!). There have been also some updated images of the system floating around, but none of us actually went all the way to make a finished .iso that we could stamp as a new release. The iso on the website is seriously outdated -- there are howtos on how to upgrade it after installation, but it's becoming more and more cumbersome, so we eventually _have_ to get our act together and pack a new release. It might pop up unexpectedly at any moment, though, but who knows when. I guess a side effect of the qualities of the system is that it just keeps working, so most of us don't bother with radical upgrades anymore. :) **tl;dr:** we're still using it, but we're all busy and keeping a low profile. At some point something may come up, but don't hold your breath :)

Not much, unfortunately. Besides work and studies, I've been kept busy developing LuaRocks . I still run it in my computers, though, and there's a small community that keeps using it, and updating our source-based "recipes" . There have been also some updated images of the system floating around, but none of us actually went all the way to make a finished .iso that we could stamp as a new release. The iso on the website is seriously outdated -- there are howtos on how to upgrade it after installation, but it's becoming more and more cumbersome, so we eventually have to get our act together and pack a new release. It might pop up unexpectedly at any moment, though, but who knows when. I guess a side effect of the qualities of the system is that it just keeps working, so most of us don't bother with radical upgrades anymore. :) tl;dr: we're still using it, but we're all busy and keeping a low profile. At some point something may come up, but don't hold your breath :)

linux

t5_2qh1a

c6xtch5

Not much, unfortunately. Besides work and studies, I've been kept busy developing LuaRocks . I still run it in my computers, though, and there's a small community that keeps using it, and updating our source-based "recipes" . There have been also some updated images of the system floating around, but none of us actually went all the way to make a finished .iso that we could stamp as a new release. The iso on the website is seriously outdated -- there are howtos on how to upgrade it after installation, but it's becoming more and more cumbersome, so we eventually have to get our act together and pack a new release. It might pop up unexpectedly at any moment, though, but who knows when. I guess a side effect of the qualities of the system is that it just keeps working, so most of us don't bother with radical upgrades anymore. :)

we're still using it, but we're all busy and keeping a low profile. At some point something may come up, but don't hold your breath :)

five_hammers_hamming

Appearances are subjective. It makes me appear that way to you, apparently. *tears of joy* And all I've ever wanted was for someone on the internet to think I was an asshole! *sniffle* You've made my dream come true! *run up and hug* On a more serious note, sometimes people express opinions that they know to be opinions as if they were facts for reasons like expressing the high degree of their attachment to the opinion. tl;dr: Loosen up, the internet is serious business after all. :P

Appearances are subjective. It makes me appear that way to you, apparently. tears of joy And all I've ever wanted was for someone on the internet to think I was an asshole! sniffle You've made my dream come true! run up and hug On a more serious note, sometimes people express opinions that they know to be opinions as if they were facts for reasons like expressing the high degree of their attachment to the opinion. tl;dr: Loosen up, the internet is serious business after all. :P

Minecraft

t5_2r05i

c6xtegj

Appearances are subjective. It makes me appear that way to you, apparently. tears of joy And all I've ever wanted was for someone on the internet to think I was an asshole! sniffle You've made my dream come true! run up and hug On a more serious note, sometimes people express opinions that they know to be opinions as if they were facts for reasons like expressing the high degree of their attachment to the opinion.

Loosen up, the internet is serious business after all. :P

Jojay1

This one time, I was handling my business in the bathroom, which was a one-seater with the door that opened up to a hallway connected to the office. I was having a pretty good time. Suddenly the door opened. The guy who came in and I shared a very awkward glance that seemed to last an eternity. All I could muster was a very weak, "I locked the door, what?" Then pooped a little more in embarrassment. Apparently I only half locked the door so that when the handle was jiggled even a little, it would come undone. TL;DR- I'm never pooping at work ever again.

This one time, I was handling my business in the bathroom, which was a one-seater with the door that opened up to a hallway connected to the office. I was having a pretty good time. Suddenly the door opened. The guy who came in and I shared a very awkward glance that seemed to last an eternity. All I could muster was a very weak, "I locked the door, what?" Then pooped a little more in embarrassment. Apparently I only half locked the door so that when the handle was jiggled even a little, it would come undone. TL;DR- I'm never pooping at work ever again.

memes

t5_2qjpg

c6xuj0t

This one time, I was handling my business in the bathroom, which was a one-seater with the door that opened up to a hallway connected to the office. I was having a pretty good time. Suddenly the door opened. The guy who came in and I shared a very awkward glance that seemed to last an eternity. All I could muster was a very weak, "I locked the door, what?" Then pooped a little more in embarrassment. Apparently I only half locked the door so that when the handle was jiggled even a little, it would come undone.

I'm never pooping at work ever again.

Aumah

The GOP lost this - not Romney. Romney did everything he's supposed to do, including fending off totally hopeless challengers for the "honor" of being nominated by strategic imbeciles who didn't even appreciate him. The GOP was a burden on Romney that Obama wisely piled onto. They could have helped Romney more by simply sitting the presidential election out and letting him establish his own party run everything himself. Romney would've been better off without delusional "masterminds" like Rove and the bobbleheads at Fox that turn primaries into freak shows. tl;dr - Romney a pro race car driver asked to drive around in a clown car (aka the GOP)

The GOP lost this - not Romney. Romney did everything he's supposed to do, including fending off totally hopeless challengers for the "honor" of being nominated by strategic imbeciles who didn't even appreciate him. The GOP was a burden on Romney that Obama wisely piled onto. They could have helped Romney more by simply sitting the presidential election out and letting him establish his own party run everything himself. Romney would've been better off without delusional "masterminds" like Rove and the bobbleheads at Fox that turn primaries into freak shows. tl;dr - Romney a pro race car driver asked to drive around in a clown car (aka the GOP)

Conservative

t5_2qh6p

c6xpu9i

The GOP lost this - not Romney. Romney did everything he's supposed to do, including fending off totally hopeless challengers for the "honor" of being nominated by strategic imbeciles who didn't even appreciate him. The GOP was a burden on Romney that Obama wisely piled onto. They could have helped Romney more by simply sitting the presidential election out and letting him establish his own party run everything himself. Romney would've been better off without delusional "masterminds" like Rove and the bobbleheads at Fox that turn primaries into freak shows.

Romney a pro race car driver asked to drive around in a clown car (aka the GOP)

skoy

It was a poll by a biased party using dubious methodology, asking highly biased *rhetorical* questions. Does it really surprise you that the results show what they wanted it to show? Also see a [previous comment]( of mine about that poll. TL-DR: Even the pro-Palestinian organization supposedly behind the poll were distancing themselves from having any relation to it. There is indeed a whiff of confirmation bias here, but I don't think I'm the one who smells...

It was a poll by a biased party using dubious methodology, asking highly biased rhetorical questions. Does it really surprise you that the results show what they wanted it to show? Also see a [previous comment]( of mine about that poll. TL-DR: Even the pro-Palestinian organization supposedly behind the poll were distancing themselves from having any relation to it. There is indeed a whiff of confirmation bias here, but I don't think I'm the one who smells...

worldnews

t5_2qh13

c6xwvfl

It was a poll by a biased party using dubious methodology, asking highly biased rhetorical questions. Does it really surprise you that the results show what they wanted it to show? Also see a [previous comment]( of mine about that poll.

Even the pro-Palestinian organization supposedly behind the poll were distancing themselves from having any relation to it. There is indeed a whiff of confirmation bias here, but I don't think I'm the one who smells...

MyNameIsNotJeff

As an Iranian, I'm tired of reading this narrative by other Iranians. This is dishonest not only to non-Iranians but a self delusional explanation for the dire state of Iran. Not only do I think it's foolish to compare Iranians to Israelis culturally, a lot of Iranians tend to say the mullahs are different than the people and that their policies is not a reflection of everyday Iranians. This is simply not true. The Islamic Republic has a strong support in Iran among merchants, rural residents, low-mid income families and the religious elite. And although some of its social values are not shared among the young educated Iranians, its culture of oppression and "king like rule" is still relevant even among them. Iranians may set up rave parties in their basements or have bottles of whiskey in their homes, but culturally they're not ready for democracy. The idea of freedom of speech or questioning authority is something that has not settled well in Persian culture. For example the father figure still has the last word on most family matters and the idea of younger people speaking their minds is usually frowned upon. These are traditions that have defined Persian people for generation, and until they're overcome at the micro level, you can't expect a regime like the Islamic Republic becoming irrelevant at the macro level. That was just one example, but there many more like it that demonstrate a lack of readiness by Iranian for true democracy. However, I don't believe it's all bad news. I believe out of all islamic/arab countries in the middle east, Iran is by far the most progressive. For example in recent years there has been a progressive push in sexual openness and family planning. However, like I said there is still a long way to go. **TL;DR** The idea that the Iranian people are not the same as their government is dishonest and self delusional. Iranian culture is still fairly traditional which in turn continues to make the Islamic Republic relevant.

As an Iranian, I'm tired of reading this narrative by other Iranians. This is dishonest not only to non-Iranians but a self delusional explanation for the dire state of Iran. Not only do I think it's foolish to compare Iranians to Israelis culturally, a lot of Iranians tend to say the mullahs are different than the people and that their policies is not a reflection of everyday Iranians. This is simply not true. The Islamic Republic has a strong support in Iran among merchants, rural residents, low-mid income families and the religious elite. And although some of its social values are not shared among the young educated Iranians, its culture of oppression and "king like rule" is still relevant even among them. Iranians may set up rave parties in their basements or have bottles of whiskey in their homes, but culturally they're not ready for democracy. The idea of freedom of speech or questioning authority is something that has not settled well in Persian culture. For example the father figure still has the last word on most family matters and the idea of younger people speaking their minds is usually frowned upon. These are traditions that have defined Persian people for generation, and until they're overcome at the micro level, you can't expect a regime like the Islamic Republic becoming irrelevant at the macro level. That was just one example, but there many more like it that demonstrate a lack of readiness by Iranian for true democracy. However, I don't believe it's all bad news. I believe out of all islamic/arab countries in the middle east, Iran is by far the most progressive. For example in recent years there has been a progressive push in sexual openness and family planning. However, like I said there is still a long way to go. TL;DR The idea that the Iranian people are not the same as their government is dishonest and self delusional. Iranian culture is still fairly traditional which in turn continues to make the Islamic Republic relevant.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

c6y0tmg

As an Iranian, I'm tired of reading this narrative by other Iranians. This is dishonest not only to non-Iranians but a self delusional explanation for the dire state of Iran. Not only do I think it's foolish to compare Iranians to Israelis culturally, a lot of Iranians tend to say the mullahs are different than the people and that their policies is not a reflection of everyday Iranians. This is simply not true. The Islamic Republic has a strong support in Iran among merchants, rural residents, low-mid income families and the religious elite. And although some of its social values are not shared among the young educated Iranians, its culture of oppression and "king like rule" is still relevant even among them. Iranians may set up rave parties in their basements or have bottles of whiskey in their homes, but culturally they're not ready for democracy. The idea of freedom of speech or questioning authority is something that has not settled well in Persian culture. For example the father figure still has the last word on most family matters and the idea of younger people speaking their minds is usually frowned upon. These are traditions that have defined Persian people for generation, and until they're overcome at the micro level, you can't expect a regime like the Islamic Republic becoming irrelevant at the macro level. That was just one example, but there many more like it that demonstrate a lack of readiness by Iranian for true democracy. However, I don't believe it's all bad news. I believe out of all islamic/arab countries in the middle east, Iran is by far the most progressive. For example in recent years there has been a progressive push in sexual openness and family planning. However, like I said there is still a long way to go.

The idea that the Iranian people are not the same as their government is dishonest and self delusional. Iranian culture is still fairly traditional which in turn continues to make the Islamic Republic relevant.

ethanmad

As a Persian-American, I understand what you mean. I used to have this notion that all Iranians are crazy and insane, but my grandfather who somehow managed to visit without getting killed (he's Jewish and has been to Israel) keeps telling me that people in Tehran and other cities are hospitable and generous, even though they know he is a Jew. However, he did tell say that the rural people support the idiots that are the Mullah. And the entire government is run by monkeys and the brilliant politician that is Ahmedinajad (I do not like him, nor do I approve of his actions, but he is a very charismatic and manipulative puppet--the perfect politician). tl;dr: urban Iranians aren't insane terrorists that run on nuclear "energy", but the Mullah needs to die. Also, Ahmedinajad looks like a monkey.

As a Persian-American, I understand what you mean. I used to have this notion that all Iranians are crazy and insane, but my grandfather who somehow managed to visit without getting killed (he's Jewish and has been to Israel) keeps telling me that people in Tehran and other cities are hospitable and generous, even though they know he is a Jew. However, he did tell say that the rural people support the idiots that are the Mullah. And the entire government is run by monkeys and the brilliant politician that is Ahmedinajad (I do not like him, nor do I approve of his actions, but he is a very charismatic and manipulative puppet--the perfect politician). tl;dr: urban Iranians aren't insane terrorists that run on nuclear "energy", but the Mullah needs to die. Also, Ahmedinajad looks like a monkey.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

c6y0u99

As a Persian-American, I understand what you mean. I used to have this notion that all Iranians are crazy and insane, but my grandfather who somehow managed to visit without getting killed (he's Jewish and has been to Israel) keeps telling me that people in Tehran and other cities are hospitable and generous, even though they know he is a Jew. However, he did tell say that the rural people support the idiots that are the Mullah. And the entire government is run by monkeys and the brilliant politician that is Ahmedinajad (I do not like him, nor do I approve of his actions, but he is a very charismatic and manipulative puppet--the perfect politician).

urban Iranians aren't insane terrorists that run on nuclear "energy", but the Mullah needs to die. Also, Ahmedinajad looks like a monkey.

whenimoveyoumove

can we get some TL/DR action here

can we get some TL/DR action here

worldnews

t5_2qh13

c6xyxbk

can we get some

action here

TooManyInLitter

&gt; I'm 15, and I do believe in God, but I hate him. Why do you believe? Perhaps you should examine that position. You mention Christians and the Second Coming - so the God to whom you are referring to is the monotheistic YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/God of Abraham (all names for the same Deity). What supports you belief in that Deity vs. the other 6000+ deities for which you appear to be atheistic? &gt; To help me see clearly, could you recommend me something to read? Specific to the monotheistic Yahweh - A foundational belief in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is that Allah, God, or Yahweh/YHWH, is the only true revealed God. As this is also the core of the Tanakh (Judaism), Bible (Christianity), and Qur'an/Koran (Islam); questions concerning the source of, and the validity of, this monotheistic Deity would raises significant doubt as to the Holy Book's validity as the word of God/Yahweh/Allah. Yet, within the Holy Scriptures of predecessor Ugarit and Canaanite, and early Israelite religions/societies/cultures, the evidence points to the growth in the belief of the monothesitic Yahweh God from a polytheistic foundation of the El God pantheon in the ancient Ugarits and Canaanites who became the early Israelites. Yahweh (son of El, the Father God) was a subordinate fertility/rain/warrior local desert God whom, through a process of convergence, differentiation and displacement (synthesis and syncretism), was elevated to a monolatry and then to a monotheistic Deity. Evidential sources related to the development and growth of Allahism/Yahwehism: * [Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel]( * [The evolution of God]( * [Ugarit and the Bible]( * [The Ascension of Yahweh: The Origins and Development of Israelite Monotheism from the Afrasan to Josiah - PDF warning]( * [The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel]( by Mark Smith * [The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts]( by Mark S. Smith * [A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam]( by Karen Armstrong * [The Religion of Ancient Israel]( (Library of Ancient Israel) by Patrick D. Miller * [Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches]( by Ziony Zevit TL;DR Yahweh/Allah/God is claimed to be the only true God (ex., “There is no god but Allah”/“You shall have no other gods before Me"), yet significant physical archeological and linguistic anthropological evidence documents the doctrinal growth of Yahweh/Allah from a subordinate rain/fertility/warrior Deity in a large polytheistic pantheon of revealed and worshiped Deities into a politically and militarily motivated monotheistic Deity belief system. In other words, the evidence points to monotheistic Yahwehism/Allahism as a human-made concept and not as a self-revealed monotheistic Deity. As such, the attributed monotheism of Yahweh, as the prime foundation for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is so inherently flawed that these religions are rendered demonstrably invalid.

> I'm 15, and I do believe in God, but I hate him. Why do you believe? Perhaps you should examine that position. You mention Christians and the Second Coming - so the God to whom you are referring to is the monotheistic YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/God of Abraham (all names for the same Deity). What supports you belief in that Deity vs. the other 6000+ deities for which you appear to be atheistic? > To help me see clearly, could you recommend me something to read? Specific to the monotheistic Yahweh - A foundational belief in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is that Allah, God, or Yahweh/YHWH, is the only true revealed God. As this is also the core of the Tanakh (Judaism), Bible (Christianity), and Qur'an/Koran (Islam); questions concerning the source of, and the validity of, this monotheistic Deity would raises significant doubt as to the Holy Book's validity as the word of God/Yahweh/Allah. Yet, within the Holy Scriptures of predecessor Ugarit and Canaanite, and early Israelite religions/societies/cultures, the evidence points to the growth in the belief of the monothesitic Yahweh God from a polytheistic foundation of the El God pantheon in the ancient Ugarits and Canaanites who became the early Israelites. Yahweh (son of El, the Father God) was a subordinate fertility/rain/warrior local desert God whom, through a process of convergence, differentiation and displacement (synthesis and syncretism), was elevated to a monolatry and then to a monotheistic Deity. Evidential sources related to the development and growth of Allahism/Yahwehism: [Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel]( [The evolution of God]( [Ugarit and the Bible]( [The Ascension of Yahweh: The Origins and Development of Israelite Monotheism from the Afrasan to Josiah - PDF warning]( [The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel]( by Mark Smith [The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts]( by Mark S. Smith [A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam]( by Karen Armstrong The Religion of Ancient Israel by Patrick D. Miller [Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches]( by Ziony Zevit TL;DR Yahweh/Allah/God is claimed to be the only true God (ex., “There is no god but Allah”/“You shall have no other gods before Me"), yet significant physical archeological and linguistic anthropological evidence documents the doctrinal growth of Yahweh/Allah from a subordinate rain/fertility/warrior Deity in a large polytheistic pantheon of revealed and worshiped Deities into a politically and militarily motivated monotheistic Deity belief system. In other words, the evidence points to monotheistic Yahwehism/Allahism as a human-made concept and not as a self-revealed monotheistic Deity. As such, the attributed monotheism of Yahweh, as the prime foundation for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is so inherently flawed that these religions are rendered demonstrably invalid.

atheism

t5_2qh2p

c6y5oro

I'm 15, and I do believe in God, but I hate him. Why do you believe? Perhaps you should examine that position. You mention Christians and the Second Coming - so the God to whom you are referring to is the monotheistic YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/God of Abraham (all names for the same Deity). What supports you belief in that Deity vs. the other 6000+ deities for which you appear to be atheistic? > To help me see clearly, could you recommend me something to read? Specific to the monotheistic Yahweh - A foundational belief in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is that Allah, God, or Yahweh/YHWH, is the only true revealed God. As this is also the core of the Tanakh (Judaism), Bible (Christianity), and Qur'an/Koran (Islam); questions concerning the source of, and the validity of, this monotheistic Deity would raises significant doubt as to the Holy Book's validity as the word of God/Yahweh/Allah. Yet, within the Holy Scriptures of predecessor Ugarit and Canaanite, and early Israelite religions/societies/cultures, the evidence points to the growth in the belief of the monothesitic Yahweh God from a polytheistic foundation of the El God pantheon in the ancient Ugarits and Canaanites who became the early Israelites. Yahweh (son of El, the Father God) was a subordinate fertility/rain/warrior local desert God whom, through a process of convergence, differentiation and displacement (synthesis and syncretism), was elevated to a monolatry and then to a monotheistic Deity. Evidential sources related to the development and growth of Allahism/Yahwehism: [Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel]( [The evolution of God]( [Ugarit and the Bible]( [The Ascension of Yahweh: The Origins and Development of Israelite Monotheism from the Afrasan to Josiah - PDF warning]( [The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel]( by Mark Smith [The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts]( by Mark S. Smith [A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam]( by Karen Armstrong The Religion of Ancient Israel by Patrick D. Miller [Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches]( by Ziony Zevit

Yahweh/Allah/God is claimed to be the only true God (ex., “There is no god but Allah”/“You shall have no other gods before Me"), yet significant physical archeological and linguistic anthropological evidence documents the doctrinal growth of Yahweh/Allah from a subordinate rain/fertility/warrior Deity in a large polytheistic pantheon of revealed and worshiped Deities into a politically and militarily motivated monotheistic Deity belief system. In other words, the evidence points to monotheistic Yahwehism/Allahism as a human-made concept and not as a self-revealed monotheistic Deity. As such, the attributed monotheism of Yahweh, as the prime foundation for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is so inherently flawed that these religions are rendered demonstrably invalid.

callumgg

The Chinese system isn't exactly transparent, but there have been several decent attempts I've seen. The National People's Congress is basically a huge gathering of all the most important people in China (leaders, generals, party chiefs, governors, mayors, managers of big state-owned business etc.) and what regional officials consider to be 'grassroots' role models that can range from teachers and doctors, to farmers and scientists. Big important people make up 70%, and the role models 30%. The congress only happens every five years, and elects ~370 people to become part of the party's elite Central Committee (selected from a pool of people just a bit over ~370 - see a problem?). After being elected, this committee then chooses 24 members (who were also kind of pre-chosen by the state party's leadership anyway). Those 24 members (called the Politburo) decide the new standing committee. The new Standing Committee (which is the elite elite) is then revealed after the first meeting of the Central Committee. Currently has 9 members (so it's pretty exclusive) but it's rumoured that it'll go down to 7, which will make the quick decision making power of the Chinese government even quicker at making decisions as there'll be less discussion in the wake of reforms. The top of this elite elite standing comittee is the chair, who is also now the president of China. *** ***TL;DR*** ~2700 Delegates and representatives from all over China elect a Central Committee (~370 from a pre-chosen party list), which in turn elects a Politburo (24 members). The Politburo then elects an exclusive 9-member committee called the Standing Committee, the head of this is the President. Edit: [shout out to custerc below for his last two paragraphs.]( and [TheAgora for a *much* more comprehensive explanation.](

The Chinese system isn't exactly transparent, but there have been several decent attempts I've seen. The National People's Congress is basically a huge gathering of all the most important people in China (leaders, generals, party chiefs, governors, mayors, managers of big state-owned business etc.) and what regional officials consider to be 'grassroots' role models that can range from teachers and doctors, to farmers and scientists. Big important people make up 70%, and the role models 30%. The congress only happens every five years, and elects ~370 people to become part of the party's elite Central Committee (selected from a pool of people just a bit over ~370 - see a problem?). After being elected, this committee then chooses 24 members (who were also kind of pre-chosen by the state party's leadership anyway). Those 24 members (called the Politburo) decide the new standing committee. The new Standing Committee (which is the elite elite) is then revealed after the first meeting of the Central Committee. Currently has 9 members (so it's pretty exclusive) but it's rumoured that it'll go down to 7, which will make the quick decision making power of the Chinese government even quicker at making decisions as there'll be less discussion in the wake of reforms. The top of this elite elite standing comittee is the chair, who is also now the president of China. TL;DR ~2700 Delegates and representatives from all over China elect a Central Committee (~370 from a pre-chosen party list), which in turn elects a Politburo (24 members). The Politburo then elects an exclusive 9-member committee called the Standing Committee, the head of this is the President. Edit: [shout out to custerc below for his last two paragraphs.]( and [TheAgora for a much more comprehensive explanation.](

explainlikeimfive

t5_2sokd

c6y9grw

The Chinese system isn't exactly transparent, but there have been several decent attempts I've seen. The National People's Congress is basically a huge gathering of all the most important people in China (leaders, generals, party chiefs, governors, mayors, managers of big state-owned business etc.) and what regional officials consider to be 'grassroots' role models that can range from teachers and doctors, to farmers and scientists. Big important people make up 70%, and the role models 30%. The congress only happens every five years, and elects ~370 people to become part of the party's elite Central Committee (selected from a pool of people just a bit over ~370 - see a problem?). After being elected, this committee then chooses 24 members (who were also kind of pre-chosen by the state party's leadership anyway). Those 24 members (called the Politburo) decide the new standing committee. The new Standing Committee (which is the elite elite) is then revealed after the first meeting of the Central Committee. Currently has 9 members (so it's pretty exclusive) but it's rumoured that it'll go down to 7, which will make the quick decision making power of the Chinese government even quicker at making decisions as there'll be less discussion in the wake of reforms. The top of this elite elite standing comittee is the chair, who is also now the president of China.

2700 Delegates and representatives from all over China elect a Central Committee (~370 from a pre-chosen party list), which in turn elects a Politburo (24 members). The Politburo then elects an exclusive 9-member committee called the Standing Committee, the head of this is the President. Edit: [shout out to custerc below for his last two paragraphs.]( and [TheAgora for a much more comprehensive explanation.](

mcanerin

Here is an analogy I've used before and might help a 5 year old. Imagine a private company owned by a single family (Imperial Dynasty). The dad would hand down ownership of the company to his son, and the only people who were managers in the company were either family members or people who were friends of the family. The workers in the company had no say in anything. Eventually, the workers get tired of this and form a workers union to oppose management (communism is almost literally this in theory). Management doesn't like this and there is a big fight. Normally management would not lose this kind of fight, except outsiders (Japanese) had taken over the board of directors and were really running things in the company, with the management team as puppets. Management loses and the union, led by Sun Yat-Sen, takes over the company. Shortly after this, Sun Yat Sun dies. Almost immediately, there is another fight. Some of the workers want to become the new owners of the company (Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT). They are supported by the US. The other workers think that replacing one management team with another is not likely to solve anything, and decide that the union should actually be the ultimate owners of the company, and that management should work for them, not the other way around. This was led by Mao Zedong and was supported by the Soviets. Big fight, and Mao wins. The KMT retreat to Formosa, kick the natives to the curb, and create the ROC (Taiwan). So now the union (Communist Party) is in charge of the mainland (China). From their perspective, they are not really a political party like we would understand it. They are, in their minds, the representatives of the people, like union leaders. As a result, there really isn't a reason to vote for them, since they ARE the people. Voting and discussion is more about what the people are going to do and who they are going to appoint to do it. If you think about what you know about unions, you'll note that normally there is only one union in the company. The workers don't usually vote for which union represents them. They may vote for which union members are in charge of various jobs, but the union is the union. Similarly, there is no opposing "party" to the Communist Party. I've grossly oversimplified some things, but this is why China has a completely different system than the US, and why talking about political parties in the context actually doesn't make much sense. They actually have lots of elections and votes, but it's all low level things. The Party, as the direct representative of the people (theoretically) just acts on behalf of the people (theoretically) without any need for elections (theoretically). This is also why the leaders of the country, like the President and Premier, are appointed by the Communist Party. There are votes and negotiations behind the scenes, but basically it's a case of the union being the Board of Directors and appointing the President, Secretary and Treasurer. They even use those terms. So, not a democracy. But also not a dictatorship. The Premier reports to the Party. It's more of a rule by committee. It is very authoritarian, however. The show that is going on right now over the National Peoples Congress is primarily to reassure the people that the Party is still representing them properly. So you will see lots of flowery speeches, discussions about what the people want, and so on. These are more about making sure that the Party appears to be aligned with the best interests of the people than about the decision making itself. **TL;DR:** the Communist Party isn't a political party, it's a workers union. You don't vote for different unions, you just vote for who does what within the union.

Here is an analogy I've used before and might help a 5 year old. Imagine a private company owned by a single family (Imperial Dynasty). The dad would hand down ownership of the company to his son, and the only people who were managers in the company were either family members or people who were friends of the family. The workers in the company had no say in anything. Eventually, the workers get tired of this and form a workers union to oppose management (communism is almost literally this in theory). Management doesn't like this and there is a big fight. Normally management would not lose this kind of fight, except outsiders (Japanese) had taken over the board of directors and were really running things in the company, with the management team as puppets. Management loses and the union, led by Sun Yat-Sen, takes over the company. Shortly after this, Sun Yat Sun dies. Almost immediately, there is another fight. Some of the workers want to become the new owners of the company (Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT). They are supported by the US. The other workers think that replacing one management team with another is not likely to solve anything, and decide that the union should actually be the ultimate owners of the company, and that management should work for them, not the other way around. This was led by Mao Zedong and was supported by the Soviets. Big fight, and Mao wins. The KMT retreat to Formosa, kick the natives to the curb, and create the ROC (Taiwan). So now the union (Communist Party) is in charge of the mainland (China). From their perspective, they are not really a political party like we would understand it. They are, in their minds, the representatives of the people, like union leaders. As a result, there really isn't a reason to vote for them, since they ARE the people. Voting and discussion is more about what the people are going to do and who they are going to appoint to do it. If you think about what you know about unions, you'll note that normally there is only one union in the company. The workers don't usually vote for which union represents them. They may vote for which union members are in charge of various jobs, but the union is the union. Similarly, there is no opposing "party" to the Communist Party. I've grossly oversimplified some things, but this is why China has a completely different system than the US, and why talking about political parties in the context actually doesn't make much sense. They actually have lots of elections and votes, but it's all low level things. The Party, as the direct representative of the people (theoretically) just acts on behalf of the people (theoretically) without any need for elections (theoretically). This is also why the leaders of the country, like the President and Premier, are appointed by the Communist Party. There are votes and negotiations behind the scenes, but basically it's a case of the union being the Board of Directors and appointing the President, Secretary and Treasurer. They even use those terms. So, not a democracy. But also not a dictatorship. The Premier reports to the Party. It's more of a rule by committee. It is very authoritarian, however. The show that is going on right now over the National Peoples Congress is primarily to reassure the people that the Party is still representing them properly. So you will see lots of flowery speeches, discussions about what the people want, and so on. These are more about making sure that the Party appears to be aligned with the best interests of the people than about the decision making itself. TL;DR: the Communist Party isn't a political party, it's a workers union. You don't vote for different unions, you just vote for who does what within the union.

explainlikeimfive

t5_2sokd

c6yj68l

Here is an analogy I've used before and might help a 5 year old. Imagine a private company owned by a single family (Imperial Dynasty). The dad would hand down ownership of the company to his son, and the only people who were managers in the company were either family members or people who were friends of the family. The workers in the company had no say in anything. Eventually, the workers get tired of this and form a workers union to oppose management (communism is almost literally this in theory). Management doesn't like this and there is a big fight. Normally management would not lose this kind of fight, except outsiders (Japanese) had taken over the board of directors and were really running things in the company, with the management team as puppets. Management loses and the union, led by Sun Yat-Sen, takes over the company. Shortly after this, Sun Yat Sun dies. Almost immediately, there is another fight. Some of the workers want to become the new owners of the company (Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT). They are supported by the US. The other workers think that replacing one management team with another is not likely to solve anything, and decide that the union should actually be the ultimate owners of the company, and that management should work for them, not the other way around. This was led by Mao Zedong and was supported by the Soviets. Big fight, and Mao wins. The KMT retreat to Formosa, kick the natives to the curb, and create the ROC (Taiwan). So now the union (Communist Party) is in charge of the mainland (China). From their perspective, they are not really a political party like we would understand it. They are, in their minds, the representatives of the people, like union leaders. As a result, there really isn't a reason to vote for them, since they ARE the people. Voting and discussion is more about what the people are going to do and who they are going to appoint to do it. If you think about what you know about unions, you'll note that normally there is only one union in the company. The workers don't usually vote for which union represents them. They may vote for which union members are in charge of various jobs, but the union is the union. Similarly, there is no opposing "party" to the Communist Party. I've grossly oversimplified some things, but this is why China has a completely different system than the US, and why talking about political parties in the context actually doesn't make much sense. They actually have lots of elections and votes, but it's all low level things. The Party, as the direct representative of the people (theoretically) just acts on behalf of the people (theoretically) without any need for elections (theoretically). This is also why the leaders of the country, like the President and Premier, are appointed by the Communist Party. There are votes and negotiations behind the scenes, but basically it's a case of the union being the Board of Directors and appointing the President, Secretary and Treasurer. They even use those terms. So, not a democracy. But also not a dictatorship. The Premier reports to the Party. It's more of a rule by committee. It is very authoritarian, however. The show that is going on right now over the National Peoples Congress is primarily to reassure the people that the Party is still representing them properly. So you will see lots of flowery speeches, discussions about what the people want, and so on. These are more about making sure that the Party appears to be aligned with the best interests of the people than about the decision making itself.

the Communist Party isn't a political party, it's a workers union. You don't vote for different unions, you just vote for who does what within the union.

TheCourageToLurk

The 90% figure probably comes from the 1% rule: If you don't want to click the link, or just want the tl;dr: 1% creators, 9% contributors, 90% lurkers

The 90% figure probably comes from the 1% rule: If you don't want to click the link, or just want the tl;dr: 1% creators, 9% contributors, 90% lurkers

Music

t5_2qh1u

c6yfkjg

The 90% figure probably comes from the 1% rule: If you don't want to click the link, or just want the

1% creators, 9% contributors, 90% lurkers

karangawesome

last year my sister and I were driving from Portland to San Francisco late night. Around 2am we were rear ended by a drunk driver and our car flipped, landed on the passenger side and skidded down road for what seemed like an hour. I had to hold on to the oh'shit handle to keep from getting dragged under the car, as glass, gravel and sparks showered my face (fuck you oxford comma). I don't remember this part, but apparently while we were skidding, my sister looked down half expecting me to be mangled and dying, but instead, with my left arm hooked around the passenger seat head rest, I was looking up at her with a goofy smile, giving the thumbs up. when we came to a stop about 150 yards later and I realized what had just happened, I looked back at my sister dangling from the drivers seat, and we exchange a look. Somehow the ipod stayed plugged in and was still functioning, and it was playing this song. Just at that moment I hear the lyric "with my feet in the air and my head on the ground". Now my sister's band always covers this song and it still kind of still freaks me out to hear. TLDR; caraccident/thissong/upsidedown/woahman

last year my sister and I were driving from Portland to San Francisco late night. Around 2am we were rear ended by a drunk driver and our car flipped, landed on the passenger side and skidded down road for what seemed like an hour. I had to hold on to the oh'shit handle to keep from getting dragged under the car, as glass, gravel and sparks showered my face (fuck you oxford comma). I don't remember this part, but apparently while we were skidding, my sister looked down half expecting me to be mangled and dying, but instead, with my left arm hooked around the passenger seat head rest, I was looking up at her with a goofy smile, giving the thumbs up. when we came to a stop about 150 yards later and I realized what had just happened, I looked back at my sister dangling from the drivers seat, and we exchange a look. Somehow the ipod stayed plugged in and was still functioning, and it was playing this song. Just at that moment I hear the lyric "with my feet in the air and my head on the ground". Now my sister's band always covers this song and it still kind of still freaks me out to hear. TLDR; caraccident/thissong/upsidedown/woahman

Music

t5_2qh1u

c6yb5p0

last year my sister and I were driving from Portland to San Francisco late night. Around 2am we were rear ended by a drunk driver and our car flipped, landed on the passenger side and skidded down road for what seemed like an hour. I had to hold on to the oh'shit handle to keep from getting dragged under the car, as glass, gravel and sparks showered my face (fuck you oxford comma). I don't remember this part, but apparently while we were skidding, my sister looked down half expecting me to be mangled and dying, but instead, with my left arm hooked around the passenger seat head rest, I was looking up at her with a goofy smile, giving the thumbs up. when we came to a stop about 150 yards later and I realized what had just happened, I looked back at my sister dangling from the drivers seat, and we exchange a look. Somehow the ipod stayed plugged in and was still functioning, and it was playing this song. Just at that moment I hear the lyric "with my feet in the air and my head on the ground". Now my sister's band always covers this song and it still kind of still freaks me out to hear.

caraccident/thissong/upsidedown/woahman

Jwarubu22

I see your post starting with "as" and raise you one starting with "Breaking Bad". DAE Breaking Bad? Breaking Bad? Breaking Bad? DAE see my Breaking Bad and raise me my DAE? Game, set, match...Point.... Scott. Game over. End of game. TL;DR-[l]eAtheism. LeTheism.

I see your post starting with "as" and raise you one starting with "Breaking Bad". DAE Breaking Bad? Breaking Bad? Breaking Bad? DAE see my Breaking Bad and raise me my DAE? Game, set, match...Point.... Scott. Game over. End of game. TL;DR-[l]eAtheism. LeTheism.

circlejerk

t5_2qpol

c6ydpml

I see your post starting with "as" and raise you one starting with "Breaking Bad". DAE Breaking Bad? Breaking Bad? Breaking Bad? DAE see my Breaking Bad and raise me my DAE? Game, set, match...Point.... Scott. Game over. End of game.

l]eAtheism. LeTheism.

Perm_Punch

Honestly? MMA is still fairly early in its evolution, new generations of fighters come in and change the entire dynamic of the sport. The 1st generation was mostly style vs style competition, where as the 2nd generation took from various arts to strengthen a weakness. Wrestlers learned how to strike, BJJ guys learned how to wrestle, Strikers learned how to defend takedowns, etc. 3rd generation were the beginning of what we recognize as "MMA" today, instead of just simply adding a few things to their arsenal... they began to train in many styles. 4th generation is what I would refer to as a fighter like GSP, because the reason he dominates his opponents so much is his ability to transition from striking to grappling, and grappling to striking. The problem with BJJ at the moment is that everyone has begun to train it consistently, so the level of skill needed to still submit someone is way higher. There are a lot of techniques that don't really belong in MMA, but I think they're misinterpreting what's actually going on. I sincerely believe that a lot of BJJ guys are stubborn, and refuse to learn how to grapple outside of their position of preference. I've lost count of how many times I've seen wonderful grapplers that were perfectly setup for a leglock, or a triangle anywhere other than from off your back... and everyone just goes for the same old techniques, over and over again, but if that's the case? Why are they surprised? There's this thing in BJJ that's similar to anti-intellectualism, because it's frowned upon to try anything "unorthodox", guys simply dismiss these things as low percentage moves that won't help them in MMA. My philosophy is that you should try everything, and anything, at least once. I'm not saying you guys need to start playing inverted guard 24/7, or trying to hit a Berimbolo sweep when there are other avenues open to exploit. The problem I have with the current era of MMA is that while it's smart to stick to the basics, by doing so you're completely overlooking numerous techniques that could have won you the fight. Guys take the back of someone... and all they try to do is go for the RNC. Very few recognize that you can transition into an armbar from there, and even less people realize that triangles are open all day from back control. Obviously you have to sometimes play it safe, because you don't want to end up losing position... but there's no reason to keep going for a RNC if a guy is giving you his arm on a platter. tl;dr -- Learn everything, try anything, refine your skill set after you have a considerable amount of options from every position.

Honestly? MMA is still fairly early in its evolution, new generations of fighters come in and change the entire dynamic of the sport. The 1st generation was mostly style vs style competition, where as the 2nd generation took from various arts to strengthen a weakness. Wrestlers learned how to strike, BJJ guys learned how to wrestle, Strikers learned how to defend takedowns, etc. 3rd generation were the beginning of what we recognize as "MMA" today, instead of just simply adding a few things to their arsenal... they began to train in many styles. 4th generation is what I would refer to as a fighter like GSP, because the reason he dominates his opponents so much is his ability to transition from striking to grappling, and grappling to striking. The problem with BJJ at the moment is that everyone has begun to train it consistently, so the level of skill needed to still submit someone is way higher. There are a lot of techniques that don't really belong in MMA, but I think they're misinterpreting what's actually going on. I sincerely believe that a lot of BJJ guys are stubborn, and refuse to learn how to grapple outside of their position of preference. I've lost count of how many times I've seen wonderful grapplers that were perfectly setup for a leglock, or a triangle anywhere other than from off your back... and everyone just goes for the same old techniques, over and over again, but if that's the case? Why are they surprised? There's this thing in BJJ that's similar to anti-intellectualism, because it's frowned upon to try anything "unorthodox", guys simply dismiss these things as low percentage moves that won't help them in MMA. My philosophy is that you should try everything, and anything, at least once. I'm not saying you guys need to start playing inverted guard 24/7, or trying to hit a Berimbolo sweep when there are other avenues open to exploit. The problem I have with the current era of MMA is that while it's smart to stick to the basics, by doing so you're completely overlooking numerous techniques that could have won you the fight. Guys take the back of someone... and all they try to do is go for the RNC. Very few recognize that you can transition into an armbar from there, and even less people realize that triangles are open all day from back control. Obviously you have to sometimes play it safe, because you don't want to end up losing position... but there's no reason to keep going for a RNC if a guy is giving you his arm on a platter. tl;dr -- Learn everything, try anything, refine your skill set after you have a considerable amount of options from every position.

MMA

t5_2qhj4

c6ybr4p

Honestly? MMA is still fairly early in its evolution, new generations of fighters come in and change the entire dynamic of the sport. The 1st generation was mostly style vs style competition, where as the 2nd generation took from various arts to strengthen a weakness. Wrestlers learned how to strike, BJJ guys learned how to wrestle, Strikers learned how to defend takedowns, etc. 3rd generation were the beginning of what we recognize as "MMA" today, instead of just simply adding a few things to their arsenal... they began to train in many styles. 4th generation is what I would refer to as a fighter like GSP, because the reason he dominates his opponents so much is his ability to transition from striking to grappling, and grappling to striking. The problem with BJJ at the moment is that everyone has begun to train it consistently, so the level of skill needed to still submit someone is way higher. There are a lot of techniques that don't really belong in MMA, but I think they're misinterpreting what's actually going on. I sincerely believe that a lot of BJJ guys are stubborn, and refuse to learn how to grapple outside of their position of preference. I've lost count of how many times I've seen wonderful grapplers that were perfectly setup for a leglock, or a triangle anywhere other than from off your back... and everyone just goes for the same old techniques, over and over again, but if that's the case? Why are they surprised? There's this thing in BJJ that's similar to anti-intellectualism, because it's frowned upon to try anything "unorthodox", guys simply dismiss these things as low percentage moves that won't help them in MMA. My philosophy is that you should try everything, and anything, at least once. I'm not saying you guys need to start playing inverted guard 24/7, or trying to hit a Berimbolo sweep when there are other avenues open to exploit. The problem I have with the current era of MMA is that while it's smart to stick to the basics, by doing so you're completely overlooking numerous techniques that could have won you the fight. Guys take the back of someone... and all they try to do is go for the RNC. Very few recognize that you can transition into an armbar from there, and even less people realize that triangles are open all day from back control. Obviously you have to sometimes play it safe, because you don't want to end up losing position... but there's no reason to keep going for a RNC if a guy is giving you his arm on a platter.

Learn everything, try anything, refine your skill set after you have a considerable amount of options from every position.

mr_jiffy

I was going to say that OP is a faggot but I realized you might just be homosexual and I wouldn't want to offend actual gay people so I regressed. TL;DR - There's a difference between being a faggot and being homosexual.

I was going to say that OP is a faggot but I realized you might just be homosexual and I wouldn't want to offend actual gay people so I regressed. TL;DR - There's a difference between being a faggot and being homosexual.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c6yam75

I was going to say that OP is a faggot but I realized you might just be homosexual and I wouldn't want to offend actual gay people so I regressed.

There's a difference between being a faggot and being homosexual.

brighthand

Bringing down a buffalo is much different than hunting a Bear. One is a glorified cow, the other is an apex predator. TL;DR: Packers suck.

Bringing down a buffalo is much different than hunting a Bear. One is a glorified cow, the other is an apex predator. TL;DR: Packers suck.

nfl

t5_2qmg3

c6ybydq

Bringing down a buffalo is much different than hunting a Bear. One is a glorified cow, the other is an apex predator.

Packers suck.

Darminian

I'm in the military but I'm stuck in a sort of limbo where I work in a supply techs posistion. I handle a wide range of strange tasks from inventory management to weapons vault management. I fucking hate and love the job, it's annoying because I'm stuck and can't go anywhere with it so I'm riding out the end of my contract. It's brutal because it causes me to sort of sit and spin and hate myself. That being said there's a lot of downtime and nothing going on so it's got some perks. Good boss, reddit time and a console on my desk for gaming between the effort that needs to happen. A shitty side is that I lose a lot of weekends and the hours can be strange and unpredictable but generally it's a 9-5 ish job. Family pressure and a lack of personal awareness sort of pushed me into an 8 year contract post high school and I'm free in june. tl;dr - Military and no.

I'm in the military but I'm stuck in a sort of limbo where I work in a supply techs posistion. I handle a wide range of strange tasks from inventory management to weapons vault management. I fucking hate and love the job, it's annoying because I'm stuck and can't go anywhere with it so I'm riding out the end of my contract. It's brutal because it causes me to sort of sit and spin and hate myself. That being said there's a lot of downtime and nothing going on so it's got some perks. Good boss, reddit time and a console on my desk for gaming between the effort that needs to happen. A shitty side is that I lose a lot of weekends and the hours can be strange and unpredictable but generally it's a 9-5 ish job. Family pressure and a lack of personal awareness sort of pushed me into an 8 year contract post high school and I'm free in june. tl;dr - Military and no.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c6yd6pf

I'm in the military but I'm stuck in a sort of limbo where I work in a supply techs posistion. I handle a wide range of strange tasks from inventory management to weapons vault management. I fucking hate and love the job, it's annoying because I'm stuck and can't go anywhere with it so I'm riding out the end of my contract. It's brutal because it causes me to sort of sit and spin and hate myself. That being said there's a lot of downtime and nothing going on so it's got some perks. Good boss, reddit time and a console on my desk for gaming between the effort that needs to happen. A shitty side is that I lose a lot of weekends and the hours can be strange and unpredictable but generally it's a 9-5 ish job. Family pressure and a lack of personal awareness sort of pushed me into an 8 year contract post high school and I'm free in june.

Military and no.

BrooklynNets

I'm very confident that I've watched *Mary Poppins* more than anyone on earth. As a child living in a semi-developed country, we inherited a busted Betamax player that my father, being a handy sort, somehow managed to fix. Wedged inside was a tape of *Mary Poppins*, the only one we were ever likely to get our hands on given that our little island was all but cut off from the rest of the world. At the time my mother worked in a small bar by the beach, one of the few places on the island with electricity. By chance they had an old TV in the back, and so one day while my mother was working she sat me in the office with my usual assortment of books, pencils and paper, and started the movie in the background. I was transfixed immediately, and as soon as I learned to rewind the tape I watched *Mary Poppins* on a loop, day after day, for well over a year. It wasn't until later that I was told that other movies existed, and that when we moved to England I'd be able to watch them. I eventually wore out the tape, but not before I'd watched it three to five times daily, six days a week, for at least fifteen months. Even a low-end estimate would mean that I watched that movie 1400 times. I quickly abandoned it when I discovered that other movies did, in fact, exist, but by then I'd memorised practically every detail of every frame of that film. Oddly, I barely remember anything about the movie today. **TL;DR: I've seen *Mary Poppins* at least 1400 times.**

I'm very confident that I've watched Mary Poppins more than anyone on earth. As a child living in a semi-developed country, we inherited a busted Betamax player that my father, being a handy sort, somehow managed to fix. Wedged inside was a tape of Mary Poppins , the only one we were ever likely to get our hands on given that our little island was all but cut off from the rest of the world. At the time my mother worked in a small bar by the beach, one of the few places on the island with electricity. By chance they had an old TV in the back, and so one day while my mother was working she sat me in the office with my usual assortment of books, pencils and paper, and started the movie in the background. I was transfixed immediately, and as soon as I learned to rewind the tape I watched Mary Poppins on a loop, day after day, for well over a year. It wasn't until later that I was told that other movies existed, and that when we moved to England I'd be able to watch them. I eventually wore out the tape, but not before I'd watched it three to five times daily, six days a week, for at least fifteen months. Even a low-end estimate would mean that I watched that movie 1400 times. I quickly abandoned it when I discovered that other movies did, in fact, exist, but by then I'd memorised practically every detail of every frame of that film. Oddly, I barely remember anything about the movie today. TL;DR: I've seen Mary Poppins at least 1400 times.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c6yp2pa

I'm very confident that I've watched Mary Poppins more than anyone on earth. As a child living in a semi-developed country, we inherited a busted Betamax player that my father, being a handy sort, somehow managed to fix. Wedged inside was a tape of Mary Poppins , the only one we were ever likely to get our hands on given that our little island was all but cut off from the rest of the world. At the time my mother worked in a small bar by the beach, one of the few places on the island with electricity. By chance they had an old TV in the back, and so one day while my mother was working she sat me in the office with my usual assortment of books, pencils and paper, and started the movie in the background. I was transfixed immediately, and as soon as I learned to rewind the tape I watched Mary Poppins on a loop, day after day, for well over a year. It wasn't until later that I was told that other movies existed, and that when we moved to England I'd be able to watch them. I eventually wore out the tape, but not before I'd watched it three to five times daily, six days a week, for at least fifteen months. Even a low-end estimate would mean that I watched that movie 1400 times. I quickly abandoned it when I discovered that other movies did, in fact, exist, but by then I'd memorised practically every detail of every frame of that film. Oddly, I barely remember anything about the movie today.

I've seen Mary Poppins at least 1400 times.

G8r

I don't believe you've thought this through sufficiently. You're imagining the vast scale of the universe and assuming that anything is possible, but in this case its scale is the greatest obstacle. The universe is a large system of mostly stars, perhaps 9x10^21 in the observable universe. But it's a *single system* and therefore cannot "evolve" in any sense that would promote a degree of organization that might be construed as sentience. An eyedropper with 0.27 CC volume of water (less than six drops) has 9x10^21 molecules in it, and it's not going to be intelligent or even *living*, because there is no conceivable process that would bring it to that point in isolation--as the universe most certainly is, and even if there were there's simply not enough complexity there to work with. Use ourselves as an example. An adult human brain masses about 1.4 kilograms. It's about 77% water, 11% lipids and 8% protein, so it has around 1.4 x 10^26 atoms. That's about 16,000 times as many atoms as there are stars in the observable universe. And those atoms can react together *instantaneously*, with even the slowest thought crossing the brain in less than ¼ of a second--that's 125 million traversals before a child is even a year old. Compare that to the universe, or even one galaxy. A light-speed impulse takes 100,000 years to cross the Milky Way, and could have done so only 110,000 times since it formed. The universe itself--even the *observable* universe--is too large for an impulse to cross it *at all*, so there's simply no way for one side of it to share any kind of sentience with the other side. Even if you allowed stars to somehow function as synaptic analogs, or allowed solar winds to interact intelligently, or made pulsars carriers for nerve impulses, what does that get you? There's simply not enough time to develop intelligence. Even if you allowed for vastly more time, say *hundreds of trillions* of years, and 10,000 times as many stars, all while keeping the universe in an impossibly compact steady state (say, a billion light-years across), we're still imagining the equivalent of *two days* of brain activity of a full-term human fetus. But there may be an infinite number of universes, right? And out of that infinite number, *some* of them might have some kind of organization resembling a thought process, right? Well, that may be, but I hope you see that given their size and the restrictions of information theory, the most intelligent conceivable universe could scarcely have the brains of even a developmentally disabled [nematode]( **TL;DR:** Yes, the universe is big. It's *really, really big*. But a spade of freshly-turned earth would contain thousands of better candidates for godhood.

I don't believe you've thought this through sufficiently. You're imagining the vast scale of the universe and assuming that anything is possible, but in this case its scale is the greatest obstacle. The universe is a large system of mostly stars, perhaps 9x10^21 in the observable universe. But it's a single system and therefore cannot "evolve" in any sense that would promote a degree of organization that might be construed as sentience. An eyedropper with 0.27 CC volume of water (less than six drops) has 9x10^21 molecules in it, and it's not going to be intelligent or even living , because there is no conceivable process that would bring it to that point in isolation--as the universe most certainly is, and even if there were there's simply not enough complexity there to work with. Use ourselves as an example. An adult human brain masses about 1.4 kilograms. It's about 77% water, 11% lipids and 8% protein, so it has around 1.4 x 10^26 atoms. That's about 16,000 times as many atoms as there are stars in the observable universe. And those atoms can react together instantaneously , with even the slowest thought crossing the brain in less than ¼ of a second--that's 125 million traversals before a child is even a year old. Compare that to the universe, or even one galaxy. A light-speed impulse takes 100,000 years to cross the Milky Way, and could have done so only 110,000 times since it formed. The universe itself--even the observable universe--is too large for an impulse to cross it at all , so there's simply no way for one side of it to share any kind of sentience with the other side. Even if you allowed stars to somehow function as synaptic analogs, or allowed solar winds to interact intelligently, or made pulsars carriers for nerve impulses, what does that get you? There's simply not enough time to develop intelligence. Even if you allowed for vastly more time, say hundreds of trillions of years, and 10,000 times as many stars, all while keeping the universe in an impossibly compact steady state (say, a billion light-years across), we're still imagining the equivalent of two days of brain activity of a full-term human fetus. But there may be an infinite number of universes, right? And out of that infinite number, some of them might have some kind of organization resembling a thought process, right? Well, that may be, but I hope you see that given their size and the restrictions of information theory, the most intelligent conceivable universe could scarcely have the brains of even a developmentally disabled [nematode]( TL;DR: Yes, the universe is big. It's really, really big . But a spade of freshly-turned earth would contain thousands of better candidates for godhood.

atheism

t5_2qh2p

c6yu9qs

I don't believe you've thought this through sufficiently. You're imagining the vast scale of the universe and assuming that anything is possible, but in this case its scale is the greatest obstacle. The universe is a large system of mostly stars, perhaps 9x10^21 in the observable universe. But it's a single system and therefore cannot "evolve" in any sense that would promote a degree of organization that might be construed as sentience. An eyedropper with 0.27 CC volume of water (less than six drops) has 9x10^21 molecules in it, and it's not going to be intelligent or even living , because there is no conceivable process that would bring it to that point in isolation--as the universe most certainly is, and even if there were there's simply not enough complexity there to work with. Use ourselves as an example. An adult human brain masses about 1.4 kilograms. It's about 77% water, 11% lipids and 8% protein, so it has around 1.4 x 10^26 atoms. That's about 16,000 times as many atoms as there are stars in the observable universe. And those atoms can react together instantaneously , with even the slowest thought crossing the brain in less than ¼ of a second--that's 125 million traversals before a child is even a year old. Compare that to the universe, or even one galaxy. A light-speed impulse takes 100,000 years to cross the Milky Way, and could have done so only 110,000 times since it formed. The universe itself--even the observable universe--is too large for an impulse to cross it at all , so there's simply no way for one side of it to share any kind of sentience with the other side. Even if you allowed stars to somehow function as synaptic analogs, or allowed solar winds to interact intelligently, or made pulsars carriers for nerve impulses, what does that get you? There's simply not enough time to develop intelligence. Even if you allowed for vastly more time, say hundreds of trillions of years, and 10,000 times as many stars, all while keeping the universe in an impossibly compact steady state (say, a billion light-years across), we're still imagining the equivalent of two days of brain activity of a full-term human fetus. But there may be an infinite number of universes, right? And out of that infinite number, some of them might have some kind of organization resembling a thought process, right? Well, that may be, but I hope you see that given their size and the restrictions of information theory, the most intelligent conceivable universe could scarcely have the brains of even a developmentally disabled [nematode](

Yes, the universe is big. It's really, really big . But a spade of freshly-turned earth would contain thousands of better candidates for godhood.

acid_lover

pop music, makes me want to vomit every time I here the next new hit played on the radio. it always ends up the same, being overplayed into oblivion and then discarded on the side of the road. Artists like justin beiber, nicki minaj etc. all suck and are simply designed to milk people out of their money tldr fuck pop

pop music, makes me want to vomit every time I here the next new hit played on the radio. it always ends up the same, being overplayed into oblivion and then discarded on the side of the road. Artists like justin beiber, nicki minaj etc. all suck and are simply designed to milk people out of their money tldr fuck pop

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c6yv24l

pop music, makes me want to vomit every time I here the next new hit played on the radio. it always ends up the same, being overplayed into oblivion and then discarded on the side of the road. Artists like justin beiber, nicki minaj etc. all suck and are simply designed to milk people out of their money

fuck pop

esuma10

I want to say pop, but I know thats next to impossible, so about about pop-fusions? Believe it or not, there is good country, rap and electronica out there. I mean really good. I mean music that I could get my 16 year old sister to like. But when people think Taylor Swift is country, that Flo-Rida is rap, and that the only good electronica is dubstep, theres a problem. Hank Williams, Hopsin, and Daft Punk would all like to have a word with you. TLDR; I wouldn't rid the world of a genre, just of radio music.

I want to say pop, but I know thats next to impossible, so about about pop-fusions? Believe it or not, there is good country, rap and electronica out there. I mean really good. I mean music that I could get my 16 year old sister to like. But when people think Taylor Swift is country, that Flo-Rida is rap, and that the only good electronica is dubstep, theres a problem. Hank Williams, Hopsin, and Daft Punk would all like to have a word with you. TLDR; I wouldn't rid the world of a genre, just of radio music.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c6ytbwo

I want to say pop, but I know thats next to impossible, so about about pop-fusions? Believe it or not, there is good country, rap and electronica out there. I mean really good. I mean music that I could get my 16 year old sister to like. But when people think Taylor Swift is country, that Flo-Rida is rap, and that the only good electronica is dubstep, theres a problem. Hank Williams, Hopsin, and Daft Punk would all like to have a word with you.

I wouldn't rid the world of a genre, just of radio music.

oatsbarley

**Tinyfights** (working title) I posted a really rough screenshot last Saturday of a prototype that wasn't really anything more than graphics. Since then I've done lots to it and it's now a 2-player online mini-strategy game. The graphics are just programmer art. [A few seconds into a match.]( [Turretsss]( [WIP album]( - here are the shots from last saturday, as well as progress shots in between then and now. **How it works:** You start a match with 2 bases, with a shield each. Every half a second or so, each base spawns a "goon" that slowly trundles towards the enemy base. If they collide with another goon or with the shield, they die. Every time a goon collides with the shield, it loses health. Once the shield is down, the goons can collide with the base, bringing its health down. Once the base health is down, that team loses. Players can build things behind the shields, like turrets, shield rechargers, power generators, etc. and this uses up available Power. Turrets can shoot goons in the same lane as them. **tl;dr - it's sort of like 2-player Plants vs. Zombies** [@oatsbarley]( - this is my twitter account. [superbase]( - this is my new blog; I sometimes post screenshots here.

Tinyfights (working title) I posted a really rough screenshot last Saturday of a prototype that wasn't really anything more than graphics. Since then I've done lots to it and it's now a 2-player online mini-strategy game. The graphics are just programmer art. [A few seconds into a match.]( [Turretsss]( [WIP album]( - here are the shots from last saturday, as well as progress shots in between then and now. How it works: You start a match with 2 bases, with a shield each. Every half a second or so, each base spawns a "goon" that slowly trundles towards the enemy base. If they collide with another goon or with the shield, they die. Every time a goon collides with the shield, it loses health. Once the shield is down, the goons can collide with the base, bringing its health down. Once the base health is down, that team loses. Players can build things behind the shields, like turrets, shield rechargers, power generators, etc. and this uses up available Power. Turrets can shoot goons in the same lane as them. tl;dr - it's sort of like 2-player Plants vs. Zombies [@oatsbarley]( - this is my twitter account. [superbase]( - this is my new blog; I sometimes post screenshots here.

gamedev

t5_2qi0a

c6z7d96

Tinyfights (working title) I posted a really rough screenshot last Saturday of a prototype that wasn't really anything more than graphics. Since then I've done lots to it and it's now a 2-player online mini-strategy game. The graphics are just programmer art. [A few seconds into a match.]( [Turretsss]( [WIP album]( - here are the shots from last saturday, as well as progress shots in between then and now. How it works: You start a match with 2 bases, with a shield each. Every half a second or so, each base spawns a "goon" that slowly trundles towards the enemy base. If they collide with another goon or with the shield, they die. Every time a goon collides with the shield, it loses health. Once the shield is down, the goons can collide with the base, bringing its health down. Once the base health is down, that team loses. Players can build things behind the shields, like turrets, shield rechargers, power generators, etc. and this uses up available Power. Turrets can shoot goons in the same lane as them.

it's sort of like 2-player Plants vs. Zombies [@oatsbarley]( - this is my twitter account. [superbase]( - this is my new blog; I sometimes post screenshots here.

quentinp

Ah **Steel Archers** I got you pinned down at last. Took me a few months of full time, nearly a year of part time, to realize my mistakes. So now it's gameplay first! And it is a very different game (again!) But in one week I feel I've accomplished more than the other 12 months. [screenshot of the new Steel Archers]( Now the theme is still Western Cyberpunk - it's not communicated in the new graphics just yet. You'll have various mounts you can capture, with various uses. The levels will be strung together procedurally. The currency will be used for everything - from gaining powers and leveling up to, using your powers. So you'll be forced into making choices. Why the big change? [here is the last render of the old graphics]( The Javelina there was a two week project and it's still not rigged or animated. The cowboy wasn't taking so long but he's still not done. I was overwhelmed! Then I went to Gamercamp in Toronto, and saw what was being done, and how fun all the games looked without fancy graphics, and how creative! Later in the hotel, I messed with making some ultra lopoly graphics - I remember the Virtua games (Virtua Racer), and how amazing it felt when they first came out, and realized I still liked that style. In an hour or so I'd come up with [this]( Instantly liked it better than Steel Archers, the temptation was there to work on this project instead. Eventually I came to decide that it was Steel Archers that needed to change again, and far more drastically than it had before. tl;dr Basically started over with simpler graphics and focus on gameplay [oh and here's a new mob i'm working on]( [Here's the webplayer so far]( (360 Controller required!)

Ah Steel Archers I got you pinned down at last. Took me a few months of full time, nearly a year of part time, to realize my mistakes. So now it's gameplay first! And it is a very different game (again!) But in one week I feel I've accomplished more than the other 12 months. [screenshot of the new Steel Archers]( Now the theme is still Western Cyberpunk - it's not communicated in the new graphics just yet. You'll have various mounts you can capture, with various uses. The levels will be strung together procedurally. The currency will be used for everything - from gaining powers and leveling up to, using your powers. So you'll be forced into making choices. Why the big change? [here is the last render of the old graphics]( The Javelina there was a two week project and it's still not rigged or animated. The cowboy wasn't taking so long but he's still not done. I was overwhelmed! Then I went to Gamercamp in Toronto, and saw what was being done, and how fun all the games looked without fancy graphics, and how creative! Later in the hotel, I messed with making some ultra lopoly graphics - I remember the Virtua games (Virtua Racer), and how amazing it felt when they first came out, and realized I still liked that style. In an hour or so I'd come up with [this]( Instantly liked it better than Steel Archers, the temptation was there to work on this project instead. Eventually I came to decide that it was Steel Archers that needed to change again, and far more drastically than it had before. tl;dr Basically started over with simpler graphics and focus on gameplay [oh and here's a new mob i'm working on]( Here's the webplayer so far

gamedev

t5_2qi0a

c6z851l

Ah Steel Archers I got you pinned down at last. Took me a few months of full time, nearly a year of part time, to realize my mistakes. So now it's gameplay first! And it is a very different game (again!) But in one week I feel I've accomplished more than the other 12 months. [screenshot of the new Steel Archers]( Now the theme is still Western Cyberpunk - it's not communicated in the new graphics just yet. You'll have various mounts you can capture, with various uses. The levels will be strung together procedurally. The currency will be used for everything - from gaining powers and leveling up to, using your powers. So you'll be forced into making choices. Why the big change? [here is the last render of the old graphics]( The Javelina there was a two week project and it's still not rigged or animated. The cowboy wasn't taking so long but he's still not done. I was overwhelmed! Then I went to Gamercamp in Toronto, and saw what was being done, and how fun all the games looked without fancy graphics, and how creative! Later in the hotel, I messed with making some ultra lopoly graphics - I remember the Virtua games (Virtua Racer), and how amazing it felt when they first came out, and realized I still liked that style. In an hour or so I'd come up with [this]( Instantly liked it better than Steel Archers, the temptation was there to work on this project instead. Eventually I came to decide that it was Steel Archers that needed to change again, and far more drastically than it had before.

Basically started over with simpler graphics and focus on gameplay [oh and here's a new mob i'm working on]( Here's the webplayer so far

Wozzle90

Well, there isn't. I suppose it's true that there can be long wait times for things like MRI's, but if someone really wants to have that scan they usually go to a private place (like in Alberta) or maybe a few super-rich go to the States. The average person isn't running away from the system, though. It definitly isn't perfect, but I think the fact that elections are won and lost based on fears that X party will threaten our healthcare speaks volumes. tl;dr It seems to me that a lot of Americans have an irrational fear of national healthcare. I mean, most of the world has that kind of system and is successful, why would America be different?

Well, there isn't. I suppose it's true that there can be long wait times for things like MRI's, but if someone really wants to have that scan they usually go to a private place (like in Alberta) or maybe a few super-rich go to the States. The average person isn't running away from the system, though. It definitly isn't perfect, but I think the fact that elections are won and lost based on fears that X party will threaten our healthcare speaks volumes. tl;dr It seems to me that a lot of Americans have an irrational fear of national healthcare. I mean, most of the world has that kind of system and is successful, why would America be different?

canada

t5_2qh68

c6z8syp

Well, there isn't. I suppose it's true that there can be long wait times for things like MRI's, but if someone really wants to have that scan they usually go to a private place (like in Alberta) or maybe a few super-rich go to the States. The average person isn't running away from the system, though. It definitly isn't perfect, but I think the fact that elections are won and lost based on fears that X party will threaten our healthcare speaks volumes.

It seems to me that a lot of Americans have an irrational fear of national healthcare. I mean, most of the world has that kind of system and is successful, why would America be different?

DownvotesKarmaSluts

&gt;I tooke a bodkine gh &amp; put it betwixt my eye &amp; [the] bone as neare to [the] backside of my eye as I could: &amp; pressing my eye [with the] end of it (soe as to make [the] curvature a, bcdef in my eye) there appeared severall white darke &amp; coloured circles r, s, t, &amp;c. Which circles were plainest when I continued to rub my eye [with the] point of [the] bodkine, but if I held my eye &amp; [the] bodkin still, though I continued to presse my eye [with] it yet [the] circles would grow faint &amp; often disappeare untill I removed [them] by moving my eye or [the] bodkin. -Sir Isaac Newton TL;DR: Isaac Motherfucking Newton stuck a needle in his eye *just to see what would happen.*

>I tooke a bodkine gh & put it betwixt my eye & [the] bone as neare to [the] backside of my eye as I could: & pressing my eye [with the] end of it (soe as to make [the] curvature a, bcdef in my eye) there appeared severall white darke & coloured circles r, s, t, &c. Which circles were plainest when I continued to rub my eye [with the] point of [the] bodkine, but if I held my eye & [the] bodkin still, though I continued to presse my eye [with] it yet [the] circles would grow faint & often disappeare untill I removed [them] by moving my eye or [the] bodkin. -Sir Isaac Newton TL;DR: Isaac Motherfucking Newton stuck a needle in his eye just to see what would happen.

WTF

t5_2qh61

c6zlu4q

I tooke a bodkine gh & put it betwixt my eye & [the] bone as neare to [the] backside of my eye as I could: & pressing my eye [with the] end of it (soe as to make [the] curvature a, bcdef in my eye) there appeared severall white darke & coloured circles r, s, t, &c. Which circles were plainest when I continued to rub my eye [with the] point of [the] bodkine, but if I held my eye & [the] bodkin still, though I continued to presse my eye [with] it yet [the] circles would grow faint & often disappeare untill I removed [them] by moving my eye or [the] bodkin. -Sir Isaac Newton

Isaac Motherfucking Newton stuck a needle in his eye just to see what would happen.

littlefuckface

It actually makes it less flat. Google it if you can. I'm way too lazy to explain. tl;dr surface area.

It actually makes it less flat. Google it if you can. I'm way too lazy to explain. tl;dr surface area.

funny

t5_2qh33

c6zrjqb

It actually makes it less flat. Google it if you can. I'm way too lazy to explain.

surface area.

HenryDeTamble

Reminds me of yesterday when I went to catch Skyfall with my family. Before the movie started I was really excited because of all the good reviews I read. My heart sank when a couple moved into the seats behind me carrying a kid estimated at about 2 years old. My prediction came true when the movie started and the kid just wouldn't stop making noises. It was distracting even at parts when the movie had no conversations. What pissed me off was that the parents wouldn't keep their kid quiet. Not even a shhh at him. Only when the kid was obnoxiously loud did they ask him to shut up. To the revenge part. An idea came to me to condition the parents. I'm a pretty tall dude so I do my best to slouch in cinemas. So,whenever that kid make a sound,I sat up straight. As straight as I could. When the kid was quiet I went back to slouching. Soon the parents picked it up and as soon as I sat up they tried to keep him quiet. TL;DR - If I can't enjoy Skyfall,no one can.

Reminds me of yesterday when I went to catch Skyfall with my family. Before the movie started I was really excited because of all the good reviews I read. My heart sank when a couple moved into the seats behind me carrying a kid estimated at about 2 years old. My prediction came true when the movie started and the kid just wouldn't stop making noises. It was distracting even at parts when the movie had no conversations. What pissed me off was that the parents wouldn't keep their kid quiet. Not even a shhh at him. Only when the kid was obnoxiously loud did they ask him to shut up. To the revenge part. An idea came to me to condition the parents. I'm a pretty tall dude so I do my best to slouch in cinemas. So,whenever that kid make a sound,I sat up straight. As straight as I could. When the kid was quiet I went back to slouching. Soon the parents picked it up and as soon as I sat up they tried to keep him quiet. TL;DR - If I can't enjoy Skyfall,no one can.

pettyrevenge

t5_2vg7t

c703wgm

Reminds me of yesterday when I went to catch Skyfall with my family. Before the movie started I was really excited because of all the good reviews I read. My heart sank when a couple moved into the seats behind me carrying a kid estimated at about 2 years old. My prediction came true when the movie started and the kid just wouldn't stop making noises. It was distracting even at parts when the movie had no conversations. What pissed me off was that the parents wouldn't keep their kid quiet. Not even a shhh at him. Only when the kid was obnoxiously loud did they ask him to shut up. To the revenge part. An idea came to me to condition the parents. I'm a pretty tall dude so I do my best to slouch in cinemas. So,whenever that kid make a sound,I sat up straight. As straight as I could. When the kid was quiet I went back to slouching. Soon the parents picked it up and as soon as I sat up they tried to keep him quiet.

If I can't enjoy Skyfall,no one can.

joehills

Howdy, y'all! I'm that Joe Hills guy, and I work hard to make videos focused on hilarity over technical precision. Some folks don't like how I talk, which is fair, as I have pursued humor to challenge myself rather than to universally please. If you watch what I make and you like what you see, I thank you and appreciate your time. If you don't like what you see, the time you spent is still appreciated, and I encourage you to check out other guys from Britain and Canada like Biffa and Topmass whose voices you might find less jarring. TL;DR: I live to celebrate creativity. You can party with me, or party somewhere else. Either way, have fun!

Howdy, y'all! I'm that Joe Hills guy, and I work hard to make videos focused on hilarity over technical precision. Some folks don't like how I talk, which is fair, as I have pursued humor to challenge myself rather than to universally please. If you watch what I make and you like what you see, I thank you and appreciate your time. If you don't like what you see, the time you spent is still appreciated, and I encourage you to check out other guys from Britain and Canada like Biffa and Topmass whose voices you might find less jarring. TL;DR: I live to celebrate creativity. You can party with me, or party somewhere else. Either way, have fun!

feedthebeast

t5_2v620

c719mt6

Howdy, y'all! I'm that Joe Hills guy, and I work hard to make videos focused on hilarity over technical precision. Some folks don't like how I talk, which is fair, as I have pursued humor to challenge myself rather than to universally please. If you watch what I make and you like what you see, I thank you and appreciate your time. If you don't like what you see, the time you spent is still appreciated, and I encourage you to check out other guys from Britain and Canada like Biffa and Topmass whose voices you might find less jarring.

I live to celebrate creativity. You can party with me, or party somewhere else. Either way, have fun!

VolkMusic

I'm more interested in seeing exterior nose decals, like parts of the hull, especially around the cockpit, painted/customized with art, a name, a numerical designation, number of kills, etc. Think like old school bombers and fighters, with a painted woman or shark maw, things like that. I'd love something similar as a personal touch. Imagine wreaking havoc across a system, and seeing YOUR face and YOUR ship on wanted posters. tl;dr - I wanna paint flames on my ship so it'll go faster.

I'm more interested in seeing exterior nose decals, like parts of the hull, especially around the cockpit, painted/customized with art, a name, a numerical designation, number of kills, etc. Think like old school bombers and fighters, with a painted woman or shark maw, things like that. I'd love something similar as a personal touch. Imagine wreaking havoc across a system, and seeing YOUR face and YOUR ship on wanted posters. tl;dr - I wanna paint flames on my ship so it'll go faster.

starcitizen

t5_2v94d

c6zutgq

I'm more interested in seeing exterior nose decals, like parts of the hull, especially around the cockpit, painted/customized with art, a name, a numerical designation, number of kills, etc. Think like old school bombers and fighters, with a painted woman or shark maw, things like that. I'd love something similar as a personal touch. Imagine wreaking havoc across a system, and seeing YOUR face and YOUR ship on wanted posters.

I wanna paint flames on my ship so it'll go faster.

jjohn6438

So I have been looking for anything from the BTAC for well over a month now, adding my name to lists, hitting up friends in other towns. Nothing. This weekend I went back to my old university to see some college friends. Got there a little early and decided to go my favorite liquor store. When I was in school, this is the only place I went. Basically it ended in me knowing all the staff and obviously the owners. So I walk in and boom, all five bottles, gleaming in the light. Some of them were still wrapped, no price tags. So obviously I want all of them, but decide to be good and get Stagg and Weller because they were on the top of my list. I got to ring up, Stagg: 77.99, Weller: 23.99. Uh oh. They rang up the Weller as WL Weller 12 rather than the BTAC Weller. I felt bad not saying anything, so I ask for Frank (the owner). I explain the situation to him. He had at 5 Wellers still on the shelf. He says "well, you just saved me a lot of money. rather than losing all that, i want to give you both of these for 100". My jaw dropped. Just goes to show, treat your local shop owners well, bring them business, and be honest. A little compassion goes a long way sometimes folks. Made my weekend to say the least. **TL;DR: Saved a familiar shop owner at least a couple hundred bucks by pointing out a pricing error. Score Stagg and Weller for $100**

So I have been looking for anything from the BTAC for well over a month now, adding my name to lists, hitting up friends in other towns. Nothing. This weekend I went back to my old university to see some college friends. Got there a little early and decided to go my favorite liquor store. When I was in school, this is the only place I went. Basically it ended in me knowing all the staff and obviously the owners. So I walk in and boom, all five bottles, gleaming in the light. Some of them were still wrapped, no price tags. So obviously I want all of them, but decide to be good and get Stagg and Weller because they were on the top of my list. I got to ring up, Stagg: 77.99, Weller: 23.99. Uh oh. They rang up the Weller as WL Weller 12 rather than the BTAC Weller. I felt bad not saying anything, so I ask for Frank (the owner). I explain the situation to him. He had at 5 Wellers still on the shelf. He says "well, you just saved me a lot of money. rather than losing all that, i want to give you both of these for 100". My jaw dropped. Just goes to show, treat your local shop owners well, bring them business, and be honest. A little compassion goes a long way sometimes folks. Made my weekend to say the least. TL;DR: Saved a familiar shop owner at least a couple hundred bucks by pointing out a pricing error. Score Stagg and Weller for $100

bourbon

t5_2rgos

c6zwiwy

So I have been looking for anything from the BTAC for well over a month now, adding my name to lists, hitting up friends in other towns. Nothing. This weekend I went back to my old university to see some college friends. Got there a little early and decided to go my favorite liquor store. When I was in school, this is the only place I went. Basically it ended in me knowing all the staff and obviously the owners. So I walk in and boom, all five bottles, gleaming in the light. Some of them were still wrapped, no price tags. So obviously I want all of them, but decide to be good and get Stagg and Weller because they were on the top of my list. I got to ring up, Stagg: 77.99, Weller: 23.99. Uh oh. They rang up the Weller as WL Weller 12 rather than the BTAC Weller. I felt bad not saying anything, so I ask for Frank (the owner). I explain the situation to him. He had at 5 Wellers still on the shelf. He says "well, you just saved me a lot of money. rather than losing all that, i want to give you both of these for 100". My jaw dropped. Just goes to show, treat your local shop owners well, bring them business, and be honest. A little compassion goes a long way sometimes folks. Made my weekend to say the least.

Saved a familiar shop owner at least a couple hundred bucks by pointing out a pricing error. Score Stagg and Weller for $100

TwigOnAStick

Both of you have to accept that it will be difficult. It obviously won't be easy. But if you both truly want to be together, you can make it work. It just takes will power. And skype. Skype helps a lot. I've been with my girlfriend for 2.5 years, and we've lived at separate colleges for over a year. On top of that, sports are a huge time commitment, and I have almost no free weekends to see her. But we make it work. Talk every day, but not all day. Always ask how his day went. Stay connected. Also, it's fine to be mad at each other. You'll get over it when you're reunited. TL;DR: Skype.

Both of you have to accept that it will be difficult. It obviously won't be easy. But if you both truly want to be together, you can make it work. It just takes will power. And skype. Skype helps a lot. I've been with my girlfriend for 2.5 years, and we've lived at separate colleges for over a year. On top of that, sports are a huge time commitment, and I have almost no free weekends to see her. But we make it work. Talk every day, but not all day. Always ask how his day went. Stay connected. Also, it's fine to be mad at each other. You'll get over it when you're reunited. TL;DR: Skype.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c702qk8

Both of you have to accept that it will be difficult. It obviously won't be easy. But if you both truly want to be together, you can make it work. It just takes will power. And skype. Skype helps a lot. I've been with my girlfriend for 2.5 years, and we've lived at separate colleges for over a year. On top of that, sports are a huge time commitment, and I have almost no free weekends to see her. But we make it work. Talk every day, but not all day. Always ask how his day went. Stay connected. Also, it's fine to be mad at each other. You'll get over it when you're reunited.

Skype.

vanillarain

I am going to check this thread throughout the day and then make all the necessary changes when I get home. **TL;DR** I am typical

I am going to check this thread throughout the day and then make all the necessary changes when I get home. TL;DR I am typical

OkCupid

t5_2rct2

c70851m

I am going to check this thread throughout the day and then make all the necessary changes when I get home.

I am typical

xilpaxim

Apparently you didn't read the post in this thread from the guy living in Japan. His tl;dr is basically "you agree with some bullshit".

Apparently you didn't read the post in this thread from the guy living in Japan. His tl;dr is basically "you agree with some bullshit".

food

t5_2qh55

c70sq6a

Apparently you didn't read the post in this thread from the guy living in Japan. His

is basically "you agree with some bullshit".

dybre

I actually was at ski dazzle yesterday and everything looked like just below retail price as far as gear until I found a booth that sold me [this board]( , Avalanche boots and bindings for $250 flat with no sales tax since I paid in cash. If it wasn't for that deal, I would have said it was a waste of a trip. I was just a novice snowboarder looking to score my own gear after borrowing for years. TLDR: there are some good deals at ski dazzle, just have to look

I actually was at ski dazzle yesterday and everything looked like just below retail price as far as gear until I found a booth that sold me [this board]( , Avalanche boots and bindings for $250 flat with no sales tax since I paid in cash. If it wasn't for that deal, I would have said it was a waste of a trip. I was just a novice snowboarder looking to score my own gear after borrowing for years. TLDR: there are some good deals at ski dazzle, just have to look

snowboarding

t5_2qi0t

c72y9qk

I actually was at ski dazzle yesterday and everything looked like just below retail price as far as gear until I found a booth that sold me [this board]( , Avalanche boots and bindings for $250 flat with no sales tax since I paid in cash. If it wasn't for that deal, I would have said it was a waste of a trip. I was just a novice snowboarder looking to score my own gear after borrowing for years.

there are some good deals at ski dazzle, just have to look

MarsIsForRovers

It really depends. Just on food, flea/tick preventative, and heartworm preventative I spend about $85/month. My dog weighs a little over 60lbs and goes through a 60lb bag of food about every 5 weeks. I definitely got more than I bargained for with my girl on basically every level. She's a pretty high energy dog so we go for 2-3 mile walks every day and go to the dog park a few times a week as well. We also spent a LOT of time at obedience school, which is typically around $100-$120 for six 1 hour sessions. My dog also turned out to be something of a special needs dog and has food allergies, recurrent bladder infections, a mild gastrointestinal disorder that causes her to vomit frequently if I don't manage her eating and drinking carefully, and she just had to have orthopedic knee surgery done by a specialist after she was diagnosed with a luxating patella (her knee cap didn't fit in the groove properly causing it to pop out frequently, this is something labs are genetically predisposed to) which cost over $2200 and requires her to be on joint supplements and monthly injections to preserve her joint health, which is about another $40/month. I've had people tell me that my dog is a "rescue dog horror story" and even though she's practically given me an ulcer over worrying about her and worrying about how I'm going to afford to take care of her I have never once regretted adopting her. She's hard work but she is so worth it and I'm honestly just grateful that she's in my life. She's saved me as much as I've saved her. **TL;DR: My dog is ridiculously expensive and also ridiculously awesome. I regret nothing.**

It really depends. Just on food, flea/tick preventative, and heartworm preventative I spend about $85/month. My dog weighs a little over 60lbs and goes through a 60lb bag of food about every 5 weeks. I definitely got more than I bargained for with my girl on basically every level. She's a pretty high energy dog so we go for 2-3 mile walks every day and go to the dog park a few times a week as well. We also spent a LOT of time at obedience school, which is typically around $100-$120 for six 1 hour sessions. My dog also turned out to be something of a special needs dog and has food allergies, recurrent bladder infections, a mild gastrointestinal disorder that causes her to vomit frequently if I don't manage her eating and drinking carefully, and she just had to have orthopedic knee surgery done by a specialist after she was diagnosed with a luxating patella (her knee cap didn't fit in the groove properly causing it to pop out frequently, this is something labs are genetically predisposed to) which cost over $2200 and requires her to be on joint supplements and monthly injections to preserve her joint health, which is about another $40/month. I've had people tell me that my dog is a "rescue dog horror story" and even though she's practically given me an ulcer over worrying about her and worrying about how I'm going to afford to take care of her I have never once regretted adopting her. She's hard work but she is so worth it and I'm honestly just grateful that she's in my life. She's saved me as much as I've saved her. TL;DR: My dog is ridiculously expensive and also ridiculously awesome. I regret nothing.

dogs

t5_2qhhk

c70mkyj

It really depends. Just on food, flea/tick preventative, and heartworm preventative I spend about $85/month. My dog weighs a little over 60lbs and goes through a 60lb bag of food about every 5 weeks. I definitely got more than I bargained for with my girl on basically every level. She's a pretty high energy dog so we go for 2-3 mile walks every day and go to the dog park a few times a week as well. We also spent a LOT of time at obedience school, which is typically around $100-$120 for six 1 hour sessions. My dog also turned out to be something of a special needs dog and has food allergies, recurrent bladder infections, a mild gastrointestinal disorder that causes her to vomit frequently if I don't manage her eating and drinking carefully, and she just had to have orthopedic knee surgery done by a specialist after she was diagnosed with a luxating patella (her knee cap didn't fit in the groove properly causing it to pop out frequently, this is something labs are genetically predisposed to) which cost over $2200 and requires her to be on joint supplements and monthly injections to preserve her joint health, which is about another $40/month. I've had people tell me that my dog is a "rescue dog horror story" and even though she's practically given me an ulcer over worrying about her and worrying about how I'm going to afford to take care of her I have never once regretted adopting her. She's hard work but she is so worth it and I'm honestly just grateful that she's in my life. She's saved me as much as I've saved her.

My dog is ridiculously expensive and also ridiculously awesome. I regret nothing.

chiupacabra

Cars are never "worth it" from a strictly financial perspective... its value decreases quite significantly as the chances of expensive repairs increase. Honda website quotes base model starting at $26,305. You mention you're from California where average regular gas prices, according to gasbuddy.com, are currently at $3.792. This means you'll save $1.64/gallon. The CNG only has an 8 gallon tank, meaning you'll get 248 miles per full tank with its combined 31mpg. In a regular 12,000 mile driving year, and assuming regular gas prices stay constant, you would need 387 gallons of natural gas, costing you $832/year and saving you $634.68/year over regular gas. Keep in mind that because of the CNG's tiny tank, you will have to go to a natural gas station about 48 times that year, essentially almost once a week. Is saving $634.68/year worth it for you? Compare it, say, to the Civic Hybrid which costs $24,200 for the base model and gets a combined 44mpg, meaning that you would need 273 gallons of gas ($1,035). It has a 13.2 gallon gas tank meaning that you'd get 580 miles per full tank - 20.7 fillups per year! **So the breakdown:** **CNG: $26,305, spend $832/year on gas, 48 fillups/year** **Civic Hybrid: $24,200, spend $1,035/year on gas, 20.7 fillups/year** If you get the CNG, you'll save $200/year on gas vs the Civic Hybrid and it would take you 10 years to see that savings as you paid over $2,000 more for the CNG, not to mention the inconvenience of trying to find a natural gas station almost every week. TL;DR: MPG and cheap gas prices help but for a regular driver, not as much as you'd think.

Cars are never "worth it" from a strictly financial perspective... its value decreases quite significantly as the chances of expensive repairs increase. Honda website quotes base model starting at $26,305. You mention you're from California where average regular gas prices, according to gasbuddy.com, are currently at $3.792. This means you'll save $1.64/gallon. The CNG only has an 8 gallon tank, meaning you'll get 248 miles per full tank with its combined 31mpg. In a regular 12,000 mile driving year, and assuming regular gas prices stay constant, you would need 387 gallons of natural gas, costing you $832/year and saving you $634.68/year over regular gas. Keep in mind that because of the CNG's tiny tank, you will have to go to a natural gas station about 48 times that year, essentially almost once a week. Is saving $634.68/year worth it for you? Compare it, say, to the Civic Hybrid which costs $24,200 for the base model and gets a combined 44mpg, meaning that you would need 273 gallons of gas ($1,035). It has a 13.2 gallon gas tank meaning that you'd get 580 miles per full tank - 20.7 fillups per year! So the breakdown: CNG: $26,305, spend $832/year on gas, 48 fillups/year Civic Hybrid: $24,200, spend $1,035/year on gas, 20.7 fillups/year If you get the CNG, you'll save $200/year on gas vs the Civic Hybrid and it would take you 10 years to see that savings as you paid over $2,000 more for the CNG, not to mention the inconvenience of trying to find a natural gas station almost every week. TL;DR: MPG and cheap gas prices help but for a regular driver, not as much as you'd think.

Frugal

t5_2qhbe

c71yi0w

Cars are never "worth it" from a strictly financial perspective... its value decreases quite significantly as the chances of expensive repairs increase. Honda website quotes base model starting at $26,305. You mention you're from California where average regular gas prices, according to gasbuddy.com, are currently at $3.792. This means you'll save $1.64/gallon. The CNG only has an 8 gallon tank, meaning you'll get 248 miles per full tank with its combined 31mpg. In a regular 12,000 mile driving year, and assuming regular gas prices stay constant, you would need 387 gallons of natural gas, costing you $832/year and saving you $634.68/year over regular gas. Keep in mind that because of the CNG's tiny tank, you will have to go to a natural gas station about 48 times that year, essentially almost once a week. Is saving $634.68/year worth it for you? Compare it, say, to the Civic Hybrid which costs $24,200 for the base model and gets a combined 44mpg, meaning that you would need 273 gallons of gas ($1,035). It has a 13.2 gallon gas tank meaning that you'd get 580 miles per full tank - 20.7 fillups per year! So the breakdown: CNG: $26,305, spend $832/year on gas, 48 fillups/year Civic Hybrid: $24,200, spend $1,035/year on gas, 20.7 fillups/year If you get the CNG, you'll save $200/year on gas vs the Civic Hybrid and it would take you 10 years to see that savings as you paid over $2,000 more for the CNG, not to mention the inconvenience of trying to find a natural gas station almost every week.

MPG and cheap gas prices help but for a regular driver, not as much as you'd think.

DubiousEnvelope

My ring. It took a lot to earn it, and I pushed my limits trying to earn it so it would serve as a reminder that no matter what, I could push myself harder to do whatever the situation calls for. TL;DR: source of motivation.

My ring. It took a lot to earn it, and I pushed my limits trying to earn it so it would serve as a reminder that no matter what, I could push myself harder to do whatever the situation calls for. TL;DR: source of motivation.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c70zgku

My ring. It took a lot to earn it, and I pushed my limits trying to earn it so it would serve as a reminder that no matter what, I could push myself harder to do whatever the situation calls for.

source of motivation.

cabbagery

&gt; Can a logically consistent atheist believe that life on other planets exists? Let's ignore for the moment the fact that you're going to get a bunch of statements to the effect that "atheizm is just a lack of believes in gods!!1!" There's nothing inconsistent about recognizing that the conditions for the formation of life on our planet are probably not unique to this planet, and indeed all indications are that they are ubiquitous. If anything, it would be foolish to suggest that life on other planets was *impossible*. While it may be improper to form a belief that there *is* life on other planets, there is nothing at all wrong with believing that life on other planets is *likely*. Your question conflates the probability that there is life elsewhere in the universe with the probability that there is a single eternally existent entity with magical powers. I have no positive evidence that there is a fire burning anywhere within ten blocks of my house, but to form a belief to that effect is hardly a great offense -- it's nothing like forming a belief that there might be gods. Indeed, if the atheist notes that she *shouldn't* form a belief that gods exist specifically because there is no evidence, she might yet be vindicated with respect to forming beliefs that life exists on other planets -- there *is* evidence that life exists elsewhere. Well, specifically, there is evidence that the *conditions* for life are elsewhere met. You see, life is *contingent*. There are conditions which must be met if life is even to have a *possibility* of existing. Like the fire I may or may not believe is presently burning within a ten-block radius of my house, the *conditions* for life are surely somewhere met -- the question becomes one of whether or not there has been a spark. Since gods are [presumably] *necessary* (if they exist at all), there cannot be any special conditions which might count as [inductive] evidence -- so these two (gods and alien life) are not commensurate. --- **tl;dr**: Forming a positive belief that aliens exist is potentially inconsistent (and a bad idea in general), given that the atheist in question refuses to form positive beliefs where there is no evidence. Also, life is contingent, whereas gods would not be contingent; recognizing the conditions favorable for life counts as evidence which at least increases the probability of life, whereas there are no conditions required for a necessary being, so there *isn't* that sort of evidence available.

> Can a logically consistent atheist believe that life on other planets exists? Let's ignore for the moment the fact that you're going to get a bunch of statements to the effect that "atheizm is just a lack of believes in gods!!1!" There's nothing inconsistent about recognizing that the conditions for the formation of life on our planet are probably not unique to this planet, and indeed all indications are that they are ubiquitous. If anything, it would be foolish to suggest that life on other planets was impossible . While it may be improper to form a belief that there is life on other planets, there is nothing at all wrong with believing that life on other planets is likely . Your question conflates the probability that there is life elsewhere in the universe with the probability that there is a single eternally existent entity with magical powers. I have no positive evidence that there is a fire burning anywhere within ten blocks of my house, but to form a belief to that effect is hardly a great offense -- it's nothing like forming a belief that there might be gods. Indeed, if the atheist notes that she shouldn't form a belief that gods exist specifically because there is no evidence, she might yet be vindicated with respect to forming beliefs that life exists on other planets -- there is evidence that life exists elsewhere. Well, specifically, there is evidence that the conditions for life are elsewhere met. You see, life is contingent . There are conditions which must be met if life is even to have a possibility of existing. Like the fire I may or may not believe is presently burning within a ten-block radius of my house, the conditions for life are surely somewhere met -- the question becomes one of whether or not there has been a spark. Since gods are [presumably] necessary (if they exist at all), there cannot be any special conditions which might count as [inductive] evidence -- so these two (gods and alien life) are not commensurate. tl;dr : Forming a positive belief that aliens exist is potentially inconsistent (and a bad idea in general), given that the atheist in question refuses to form positive beliefs where there is no evidence. Also, life is contingent, whereas gods would not be contingent; recognizing the conditions favorable for life counts as evidence which at least increases the probability of life, whereas there are no conditions required for a necessary being, so there isn't that sort of evidence available.

DebateAnAtheist

t5_2ryfy

c712295

Can a logically consistent atheist believe that life on other planets exists? Let's ignore for the moment the fact that you're going to get a bunch of statements to the effect that "atheizm is just a lack of believes in gods!!1!" There's nothing inconsistent about recognizing that the conditions for the formation of life on our planet are probably not unique to this planet, and indeed all indications are that they are ubiquitous. If anything, it would be foolish to suggest that life on other planets was impossible . While it may be improper to form a belief that there is life on other planets, there is nothing at all wrong with believing that life on other planets is likely . Your question conflates the probability that there is life elsewhere in the universe with the probability that there is a single eternally existent entity with magical powers. I have no positive evidence that there is a fire burning anywhere within ten blocks of my house, but to form a belief to that effect is hardly a great offense -- it's nothing like forming a belief that there might be gods. Indeed, if the atheist notes that she shouldn't form a belief that gods exist specifically because there is no evidence, she might yet be vindicated with respect to forming beliefs that life exists on other planets -- there is evidence that life exists elsewhere. Well, specifically, there is evidence that the conditions for life are elsewhere met. You see, life is contingent . There are conditions which must be met if life is even to have a possibility of existing. Like the fire I may or may not believe is presently burning within a ten-block radius of my house, the conditions for life are surely somewhere met -- the question becomes one of whether or not there has been a spark. Since gods are [presumably] necessary (if they exist at all), there cannot be any special conditions which might count as [inductive] evidence -- so these two (gods and alien life) are not commensurate.

Forming a positive belief that aliens exist is potentially inconsistent (and a bad idea in general), given that the atheist in question refuses to form positive beliefs where there is no evidence. Also, life is contingent, whereas gods would not be contingent; recognizing the conditions favorable for life counts as evidence which at least increases the probability of life, whereas there are no conditions required for a necessary being, so there isn't that sort of evidence available.

WalterPPK

There is a certain likelihood that aliens may exist. However, this likelihood is based on a few assumptions about things we don't know enough about *yet*. Such as: * How common are planets? (we're making a lot of progress on this one) * How common are planets capable of supporting life? (also making a little progress on this one) * How likely is it that life will form in such an environment (we really can't know this one, until we actually visit other planets and check) So as a logically consistent atheist, I'd believe alien life is possible, but we don't even know yet how likely it is. If I had to guess, I'd say about a 10% chance of life existing elsewhere in the universe. Remember that one galaxy alone has about 300 billion stars, and there are many galaxies. We currently know of 849 extra-solar planets just in our neighbourhood. **That is a different argument, though, to my atheism**. I believe there cannot be a god because the concept is logically inconsistent. Aliens *might* exist logically. We know life forms can exist because we *are* life forms. The same argument couldn't be used for gods, because we've never discovered any of them. TL;DR: Belief in god or gods has nothing to do with aliens.

There is a certain likelihood that aliens may exist. However, this likelihood is based on a few assumptions about things we don't know enough about yet . Such as: How common are planets? (we're making a lot of progress on this one) How common are planets capable of supporting life? (also making a little progress on this one) How likely is it that life will form in such an environment (we really can't know this one, until we actually visit other planets and check) So as a logically consistent atheist, I'd believe alien life is possible, but we don't even know yet how likely it is. If I had to guess, I'd say about a 10% chance of life existing elsewhere in the universe. Remember that one galaxy alone has about 300 billion stars, and there are many galaxies. We currently know of 849 extra-solar planets just in our neighbourhood. That is a different argument, though, to my atheism . I believe there cannot be a god because the concept is logically inconsistent. Aliens might exist logically. We know life forms can exist because we are life forms. The same argument couldn't be used for gods, because we've never discovered any of them. TL;DR: Belief in god or gods has nothing to do with aliens.

DebateAnAtheist

t5_2ryfy

c71349b

There is a certain likelihood that aliens may exist. However, this likelihood is based on a few assumptions about things we don't know enough about yet . Such as: How common are planets? (we're making a lot of progress on this one) How common are planets capable of supporting life? (also making a little progress on this one) How likely is it that life will form in such an environment (we really can't know this one, until we actually visit other planets and check) So as a logically consistent atheist, I'd believe alien life is possible, but we don't even know yet how likely it is. If I had to guess, I'd say about a 10% chance of life existing elsewhere in the universe. Remember that one galaxy alone has about 300 billion stars, and there are many galaxies. We currently know of 849 extra-solar planets just in our neighbourhood. That is a different argument, though, to my atheism . I believe there cannot be a god because the concept is logically inconsistent. Aliens might exist logically. We know life forms can exist because we are life forms. The same argument couldn't be used for gods, because we've never discovered any of them.

Belief in god or gods has nothing to do with aliens.

wheelybins

Didnt want to post all of my code because there is about 5 different source files. Thank you for all of your help, you were right that is not where the error occurs i was misusing the debugger and trying to read the values at the function declaration before anything is actually passed through Tl;dr i got it, thank you!

Didnt want to post all of my code because there is about 5 different source files. Thank you for all of your help, you were right that is not where the error occurs i was misusing the debugger and trying to read the values at the function declaration before anything is actually passed through Tl;dr i got it, thank you!

learnprogramming

t5_2r7yd

c71a25x

Didnt want to post all of my code because there is about 5 different source files. Thank you for all of your help, you were right that is not where the error occurs i was misusing the debugger and trying to read the values at the function declaration before anything is actually passed through

i got it, thank you!