Datasets:

webis

/

tldr-17

like 36

RCProAm

If you believe you are attractive, you will be attractive. Physical attractiveness is not nearly as important as confidence and knowing you're a boss and any lady would be lucky to have you. That shit drives women nuts. Be assertive but kind, and demonstrate how interesting you are. Looks will quickly fade away when you can confidently ask a woman about her life and pose leading and interesting questions. Make her laugh and it's game over. TL:DR Looks don't matter as much as confidence.

If you believe you are attractive, you will be attractive. Physical attractiveness is not nearly as important as confidence and knowing you're a boss and any lady would be lucky to have you. That shit drives women nuts. Be assertive but kind, and demonstrate how interesting you are. Looks will quickly fade away when you can confidently ask a woman about her life and pose leading and interesting questions. Make her laugh and it's game over. TL:DR Looks don't matter as much as confidence.

AskMen

t5_2s30g

c7977jz

If you believe you are attractive, you will be attractive. Physical attractiveness is not nearly as important as confidence and knowing you're a boss and any lady would be lucky to have you. That shit drives women nuts. Be assertive but kind, and demonstrate how interesting you are. Looks will quickly fade away when you can confidently ask a woman about her life and pose leading and interesting questions. Make her laugh and it's game over.

Looks don't matter as much as confidence.

LeifEriksonisawesome

Oh, they do not get them as far. However, I assure you, that on a first meeting basis, an attractive personality on anyone is not going to get one far. However, if one adds prolonged contact to both, than it muddles up and is less clear. but in my life so far through personal( more weighted to what I previously mentioned) and through threads like these one really can't generalize how one sex acts towards the other. Women are apt to view looks secondary, though in my experience not more so. I have experienced this through observation, not participation maybe that effects it. Secondly, men seem to always be characterised for putting looks secondary to other things. However, I find this only works under the hivemind. A man with friends might focus on looks( or will stay quiet), whereas a man having a man to man chat will not focus on looks so much, and once a certain depth of conversation is reached, puts a lot more importance on personality for a relationship Also, I have, not often but I have, hung out and listened to groups of women. I find that they often betray that which you present as fact. I found that in a group, just like men, they are, in my personal experience, extremely looks oriented. They criticize men I know, celebrities, random people across the street for being unattractive or praise them for being attractive. I mention men I know because that accounts for them roughly knowing that guy's personality. So, in the aspect of groups, I have found men and women act similarly. Now, individually, like men, they are a lot more lenient on looks, however, I would not say more so than a man of the same maturity level. TL:DR. It doesn't seem right to put one sex regarding looks as less important than the other as both sexes feature a wide range of personalities and approaches to dating. Also, I acknowledged that it was somewhat less than that with women. "I have seen plenty of fat girls with boyfriends. Rarer, but not that much less than with women, I have seen attractive men date fatter women." I said that it was not that much less than attractive women with fat men. I honestly haven't seen either that often, so in my experience one isn't greater than the other. I added slightly less than women purely from gained experience from the internet, which increased both. I should have clarified. **Here's the big thing, men are often the ones asking other's out. So, comparing women asking out fat men, and men asking out fat women( both attractive), in both cases they are relatively rare. However, if you add in accepting a date. In this regard, both cases rise up. In my experience, mature men and women, will both accept someone who they like personality wise, but who is on the pudgy side of things. It is hard to compare the two because current social standards have men asking out women, more often than women asking out men. I have seen very few women actually ask out the nice fat guy, but who would accept. Same with men, they wouldn't ask, but would accept. However, in both cases there are some who will ask out the fatter party.** Sorry for the jumble, I am tired.

Oh, they do not get them as far. However, I assure you, that on a first meeting basis, an attractive personality on anyone is not going to get one far. However, if one adds prolonged contact to both, than it muddles up and is less clear. but in my life so far through personal( more weighted to what I previously mentioned) and through threads like these one really can't generalize how one sex acts towards the other. Women are apt to view looks secondary, though in my experience not more so. I have experienced this through observation, not participation maybe that effects it. Secondly, men seem to always be characterised for putting looks secondary to other things. However, I find this only works under the hivemind. A man with friends might focus on looks( or will stay quiet), whereas a man having a man to man chat will not focus on looks so much, and once a certain depth of conversation is reached, puts a lot more importance on personality for a relationship Also, I have, not often but I have, hung out and listened to groups of women. I find that they often betray that which you present as fact. I found that in a group, just like men, they are, in my personal experience, extremely looks oriented. They criticize men I know, celebrities, random people across the street for being unattractive or praise them for being attractive. I mention men I know because that accounts for them roughly knowing that guy's personality. So, in the aspect of groups, I have found men and women act similarly. Now, individually, like men, they are a lot more lenient on looks, however, I would not say more so than a man of the same maturity level. TL:DR. It doesn't seem right to put one sex regarding looks as less important than the other as both sexes feature a wide range of personalities and approaches to dating. Also, I acknowledged that it was somewhat less than that with women. "I have seen plenty of fat girls with boyfriends. Rarer, but not that much less than with women, I have seen attractive men date fatter women." I said that it was not that much less than attractive women with fat men. I honestly haven't seen either that often, so in my experience one isn't greater than the other. I added slightly less than women purely from gained experience from the internet, which increased both. I should have clarified. Here's the big thing, men are often the ones asking other's out. So, comparing women asking out fat men, and men asking out fat women( both attractive), in both cases they are relatively rare. However, if you add in accepting a date. In this regard, both cases rise up. In my experience, mature men and women, will both accept someone who they like personality wise, but who is on the pudgy side of things. It is hard to compare the two because current social standards have men asking out women, more often than women asking out men. I have seen very few women actually ask out the nice fat guy, but who would accept. Same with men, they wouldn't ask, but would accept. However, in both cases there are some who will ask out the fatter party. Sorry for the jumble, I am tired.

AskMen

t5_2s30g

c79f0xb

Oh, they do not get them as far. However, I assure you, that on a first meeting basis, an attractive personality on anyone is not going to get one far. However, if one adds prolonged contact to both, than it muddles up and is less clear. but in my life so far through personal( more weighted to what I previously mentioned) and through threads like these one really can't generalize how one sex acts towards the other. Women are apt to view looks secondary, though in my experience not more so. I have experienced this through observation, not participation maybe that effects it. Secondly, men seem to always be characterised for putting looks secondary to other things. However, I find this only works under the hivemind. A man with friends might focus on looks( or will stay quiet), whereas a man having a man to man chat will not focus on looks so much, and once a certain depth of conversation is reached, puts a lot more importance on personality for a relationship Also, I have, not often but I have, hung out and listened to groups of women. I find that they often betray that which you present as fact. I found that in a group, just like men, they are, in my personal experience, extremely looks oriented. They criticize men I know, celebrities, random people across the street for being unattractive or praise them for being attractive. I mention men I know because that accounts for them roughly knowing that guy's personality. So, in the aspect of groups, I have found men and women act similarly. Now, individually, like men, they are a lot more lenient on looks, however, I would not say more so than a man of the same maturity level.

It doesn't seem right to put one sex regarding looks as less important than the other as both sexes feature a wide range of personalities and approaches to dating. Also, I acknowledged that it was somewhat less than that with women. "I have seen plenty of fat girls with boyfriends. Rarer, but not that much less than with women, I have seen attractive men date fatter women." I said that it was not that much less than attractive women with fat men. I honestly haven't seen either that often, so in my experience one isn't greater than the other. I added slightly less than women purely from gained experience from the internet, which increased both. I should have clarified. Here's the big thing, men are often the ones asking other's out. So, comparing women asking out fat men, and men asking out fat women( both attractive), in both cases they are relatively rare. However, if you add in accepting a date. In this regard, both cases rise up. In my experience, mature men and women, will both accept someone who they like personality wise, but who is on the pudgy side of things. It is hard to compare the two because current social standards have men asking out women, more often than women asking out men. I have seen very few women actually ask out the nice fat guy, but who would accept. Same with men, they wouldn't ask, but would accept. However, in both cases there are some who will ask out the fatter party. Sorry for the jumble, I am tired.

Zorbick

Fresh out of school, eh? Let's get serious for a second. Does the car you have right now work? Do you really need a car payment? Are you sure that your job won't lose a contract and you'll be dropped in the first 3 months? I ask this because I've had several friends go through this. "I got a job! Look at my new car!" 76 days later..."Well, they lost the bid they hired me for, so, I'm looking for a new job...and I didn't work with them long enough to get unemployment." A $20-30k NEW car is a lot for someone getting their first out-of-school job, though I'm assuming you're not a lawyer or working a management role in some oil field I don't know about in Iowa. Seriously, car payments suck. I make good money and my $400/mo payment bums me out. I waited a year after I got my job, was like "Yeah, I can pull this off," but, no, that's a huge chunk of change just gone. My insurance and gas receipts went up, too, because I went from a get-me-through-school Toyota Echo to a Mazda3. What's your credit like? If it's good, you may be okay, but if it's under 700 like fresh-out-of-college kids who've only had a credit card in their name for a couple of years, you may be hurting yourself. Anyway, that's a lot of what ifs. You may be in good standing, have the money to spare, may have a beater of a car or no car at all; it may be good for you to get a car right off the bat. However, if you can survive with the car you have now, I would **highly recommend** dumping what you think you would run on a car payment into a Roth IRA or your 401(k) for the first year. Then, as you get a raise, that money stays funneling in there and you can be more settled into your monthly routine and know how much you can spare on a car. That's the other thing: you think you know what your budget will be like, but until you get to the job and even out your social life, figure out if the place you rent sucks for gas bills, etc, you don't really know if you'll have to cut out stuff to have the car. For some people the answer may be "the car is most important," so, if that's you, go ahead. tl;dr : Stay away from the ST, it's not as cool as you think. Go for a Mazda3--not the Speed--hatchback. Works fine in the snow, is a blast to drive, and is cheap in the long run.

Fresh out of school, eh? Let's get serious for a second. Does the car you have right now work? Do you really need a car payment? Are you sure that your job won't lose a contract and you'll be dropped in the first 3 months? I ask this because I've had several friends go through this. "I got a job! Look at my new car!" 76 days later..."Well, they lost the bid they hired me for, so, I'm looking for a new job...and I didn't work with them long enough to get unemployment." A $20-30k NEW car is a lot for someone getting their first out-of-school job, though I'm assuming you're not a lawyer or working a management role in some oil field I don't know about in Iowa. Seriously, car payments suck. I make good money and my $400/mo payment bums me out. I waited a year after I got my job, was like "Yeah, I can pull this off," but, no, that's a huge chunk of change just gone. My insurance and gas receipts went up, too, because I went from a get-me-through-school Toyota Echo to a Mazda3. What's your credit like? If it's good, you may be okay, but if it's under 700 like fresh-out-of-college kids who've only had a credit card in their name for a couple of years, you may be hurting yourself. Anyway, that's a lot of what ifs. You may be in good standing, have the money to spare, may have a beater of a car or no car at all; it may be good for you to get a car right off the bat. However, if you can survive with the car you have now, I would highly recommend dumping what you think you would run on a car payment into a Roth IRA or your 401(k) for the first year. Then, as you get a raise, that money stays funneling in there and you can be more settled into your monthly routine and know how much you can spare on a car. That's the other thing: you think you know what your budget will be like, but until you get to the job and even out your social life, figure out if the place you rent sucks for gas bills, etc, you don't really know if you'll have to cut out stuff to have the car. For some people the answer may be "the car is most important," so, if that's you, go ahead. tl;dr : Stay away from the ST, it's not as cool as you think. Go for a Mazda3--not the Speed--hatchback. Works fine in the snow, is a blast to drive, and is cheap in the long run.

cars

t5_2qhl2

c7950w9

Fresh out of school, eh? Let's get serious for a second. Does the car you have right now work? Do you really need a car payment? Are you sure that your job won't lose a contract and you'll be dropped in the first 3 months? I ask this because I've had several friends go through this. "I got a job! Look at my new car!" 76 days later..."Well, they lost the bid they hired me for, so, I'm looking for a new job...and I didn't work with them long enough to get unemployment." A $20-30k NEW car is a lot for someone getting their first out-of-school job, though I'm assuming you're not a lawyer or working a management role in some oil field I don't know about in Iowa. Seriously, car payments suck. I make good money and my $400/mo payment bums me out. I waited a year after I got my job, was like "Yeah, I can pull this off," but, no, that's a huge chunk of change just gone. My insurance and gas receipts went up, too, because I went from a get-me-through-school Toyota Echo to a Mazda3. What's your credit like? If it's good, you may be okay, but if it's under 700 like fresh-out-of-college kids who've only had a credit card in their name for a couple of years, you may be hurting yourself. Anyway, that's a lot of what ifs. You may be in good standing, have the money to spare, may have a beater of a car or no car at all; it may be good for you to get a car right off the bat. However, if you can survive with the car you have now, I would highly recommend dumping what you think you would run on a car payment into a Roth IRA or your 401(k) for the first year. Then, as you get a raise, that money stays funneling in there and you can be more settled into your monthly routine and know how much you can spare on a car. That's the other thing: you think you know what your budget will be like, but until you get to the job and even out your social life, figure out if the place you rent sucks for gas bills, etc, you don't really know if you'll have to cut out stuff to have the car. For some people the answer may be "the car is most important," so, if that's you, go ahead.

Stay away from the ST, it's not as cool as you think. Go for a Mazda3--not the Speed--hatchback. Works fine in the snow, is a blast to drive, and is cheap in the long run.

John_Duh

I'm not a neurolog so take this with a grain of salt, the way brains creates "knowledge" is by neurons creating a connection between them. So if a bigger brain means more neurons then the maximum number of connections increases, however note that the maximum number of connections is faculty (!) of the number of neurons, so to give an example 55! is more then 10^73 so given a billion neurons the maximum number of connections is beyond our comprehension of numbers. TL;DR Technically it might but in practice no.

I'm not a neurolog so take this with a grain of salt, the way brains creates "knowledge" is by neurons creating a connection between them. So if a bigger brain means more neurons then the maximum number of connections increases, however note that the maximum number of connections is faculty (!) of the number of neurons, so to give an example 55! is more then 10^73 so given a billion neurons the maximum number of connections is beyond our comprehension of numbers. TL;DR Technically it might but in practice no.

funny

t5_2qh33

c797rra

I'm not a neurolog so take this with a grain of salt, the way brains creates "knowledge" is by neurons creating a connection between them. So if a bigger brain means more neurons then the maximum number of connections increases, however note that the maximum number of connections is faculty (!) of the number of neurons, so to give an example 55! is more then 10^73 so given a billion neurons the maximum number of connections is beyond our comprehension of numbers.

Technically it might but in practice no.

overmindthousand

Your ignorance is astounding. If you knew anything about South Africa, you'd realize that the "uncompetitiveness" of the black population is the result of white exclusionism. They can't get jobs because the wealthy white minority literally set up the country in such a way as to keep the black population poor and powerless. The only reason white Africans were able to dominate their country's majority was because of military power, itself the result of a technological legacy originating with the Islamic empire of the "Golden Age"... The Golden Age drew on knowledge from the Greeks, who got that knowledge from Persia and Egypt, who had the means to gather said knowledge because of a legacy that FUCKING STARTED IN BLACK FUCKING AFRICA. White supremacists are a fucking embarrassment to all of humanity. Nothing the "white race" has achieved could have been done without the influence of every culture that came before us. Fucking appreciate your "colored" fellow human beings; this is their world too. TLDR; Jeff, you're a God Damned idiot.

Your ignorance is astounding. If you knew anything about South Africa, you'd realize that the "uncompetitiveness" of the black population is the result of white exclusionism. They can't get jobs because the wealthy white minority literally set up the country in such a way as to keep the black population poor and powerless. The only reason white Africans were able to dominate their country's majority was because of military power, itself the result of a technological legacy originating with the Islamic empire of the "Golden Age"... The Golden Age drew on knowledge from the Greeks, who got that knowledge from Persia and Egypt, who had the means to gather said knowledge because of a legacy that FUCKING STARTED IN BLACK FUCKING AFRICA. White supremacists are a fucking embarrassment to all of humanity. Nothing the "white race" has achieved could have been done without the influence of every culture that came before us. Fucking appreciate your "colored" fellow human beings; this is their world too. TLDR; Jeff, you're a God Damned idiot.

funny

t5_2qh33

c79c7ay

Your ignorance is astounding. If you knew anything about South Africa, you'd realize that the "uncompetitiveness" of the black population is the result of white exclusionism. They can't get jobs because the wealthy white minority literally set up the country in such a way as to keep the black population poor and powerless. The only reason white Africans were able to dominate their country's majority was because of military power, itself the result of a technological legacy originating with the Islamic empire of the "Golden Age"... The Golden Age drew on knowledge from the Greeks, who got that knowledge from Persia and Egypt, who had the means to gather said knowledge because of a legacy that FUCKING STARTED IN BLACK FUCKING AFRICA. White supremacists are a fucking embarrassment to all of humanity. Nothing the "white race" has achieved could have been done without the influence of every culture that came before us. Fucking appreciate your "colored" fellow human beings; this is their world too.

Jeff, you're a God Damned idiot.

VerifiablyMrWonka

It turned up. To start. I'm very impressed. On mine (can't speak for quality control) I have no discernible faults. The quality of the seams, stitching and materials is all top notch. It's lighter by a significant amount then the official rubberised case which is very nice. It fits the Nexus very well - it snapped in lovely and doesn't move. There is one minor fault in that the top microphone hole doesn't align with the one on the Nexus. I'm not sure if this will affect me as I haven't yet used any functionality needing this, the side microphone hole however aligns perfectly so perhaps it won't. The auto on/off feature works as you'd expect. TLDR. It's awesome. Get one.

It turned up. To start. I'm very impressed. On mine (can't speak for quality control) I have no discernible faults. The quality of the seams, stitching and materials is all top notch. It's lighter by a significant amount then the official rubberised case which is very nice. It fits the Nexus very well - it snapped in lovely and doesn't move. There is one minor fault in that the top microphone hole doesn't align with the one on the Nexus. I'm not sure if this will affect me as I haven't yet used any functionality needing this, the side microphone hole however aligns perfectly so perhaps it won't. The auto on/off feature works as you'd expect. TLDR. It's awesome. Get one.

Nexus7

t5_2ucrx

c7fi6bk

It turned up. To start. I'm very impressed. On mine (can't speak for quality control) I have no discernible faults. The quality of the seams, stitching and materials is all top notch. It's lighter by a significant amount then the official rubberised case which is very nice. It fits the Nexus very well - it snapped in lovely and doesn't move. There is one minor fault in that the top microphone hole doesn't align with the one on the Nexus. I'm not sure if this will affect me as I haven't yet used any functionality needing this, the side microphone hole however aligns perfectly so perhaps it won't. The auto on/off feature works as you'd expect.

It's awesome. Get one.

Clicker8371

It really comes down to your teammates. Do they have the patience to wait out a Katarina that sits on top of ward? If so, push that tower to the ground. If they're getting upset or playing recklessly, you're going to want to follow and try to turn the fight around. Or prevent it all together. If for instance your mid laner roams top and your top lane is wardless, ping and call MIA, but you're going to want to follow just in case. tldr: Depends on the skill/awareness/patience of your team.

It really comes down to your teammates. Do they have the patience to wait out a Katarina that sits on top of ward? If so, push that tower to the ground. If they're getting upset or playing recklessly, you're going to want to follow and try to turn the fight around. Or prevent it all together. If for instance your mid laner roams top and your top lane is wardless, ping and call MIA, but you're going to want to follow just in case. tldr: Depends on the skill/awareness/patience of your team.

summonerschool

t5_2t9x3

c79iz15

It really comes down to your teammates. Do they have the patience to wait out a Katarina that sits on top of ward? If so, push that tower to the ground. If they're getting upset or playing recklessly, you're going to want to follow and try to turn the fight around. Or prevent it all together. If for instance your mid laner roams top and your top lane is wardless, ping and call MIA, but you're going to want to follow just in case.

Depends on the skill/awareness/patience of your team.

octavius404

As far as I am aware the film is just to keep hot air and steam near the food, so the more holes you have the more the hot air and steam escapes so the drier your food will be. However if you have no holes but generate that same hot air and steam, then the film will blow off, simple as that. TL:DR Sealed package heats quickest however it is likely to explode.

As far as I am aware the film is just to keep hot air and steam near the food, so the more holes you have the more the hot air and steam escapes so the drier your food will be. However if you have no holes but generate that same hot air and steam, then the film will blow off, simple as that. TL:DR Sealed package heats quickest however it is likely to explode.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c79k3hm

As far as I am aware the film is just to keep hot air and steam near the food, so the more holes you have the more the hot air and steam escapes so the drier your food will be. However if you have no holes but generate that same hot air and steam, then the film will blow off, simple as that.

Sealed package heats quickest however it is likely to explode.

LorisUmbrella

Personally I have a rather nice turntable and a fully analog amplifier with a pair of speakers I built myself. Then I did an electrical engineering degree and lost the placebo effect. Does vinyl sound better? Nope. Does it sound 'warmer'? Yes, it's called distortion. What the human ear can distinguish is a matter of biology. How signals are made and amplified is a matter of engineering. It is trivially simple to make a digital amplifier that plays well-encoded music that is totally indistinguishable from any chosen analog 'audiophile method'. The only thing that's really better is a live performance. TL;DR: Take it from a former audiophile now engineer. Audiophiles are often audiophools.

Personally I have a rather nice turntable and a fully analog amplifier with a pair of speakers I built myself. Then I did an electrical engineering degree and lost the placebo effect. Does vinyl sound better? Nope. Does it sound 'warmer'? Yes, it's called distortion. What the human ear can distinguish is a matter of biology. How signals are made and amplified is a matter of engineering. It is trivially simple to make a digital amplifier that plays well-encoded music that is totally indistinguishable from any chosen analog 'audiophile method'. The only thing that's really better is a live performance. TL;DR: Take it from a former audiophile now engineer. Audiophiles are often audiophools.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c79knvc

Personally I have a rather nice turntable and a fully analog amplifier with a pair of speakers I built myself. Then I did an electrical engineering degree and lost the placebo effect. Does vinyl sound better? Nope. Does it sound 'warmer'? Yes, it's called distortion. What the human ear can distinguish is a matter of biology. How signals are made and amplified is a matter of engineering. It is trivially simple to make a digital amplifier that plays well-encoded music that is totally indistinguishable from any chosen analog 'audiophile method'. The only thing that's really better is a live performance.

Take it from a former audiophile now engineer. Audiophiles are often audiophools.

MadScotty

I'm hella late to the party, but here's my story anyhow: One summer, I had taken to running evenings because my schedule wouldn't allow me to be up before it got blistering hot. This became a problem one fateful Friday night. I get home after a few beers with friends at a sports bar. I'm feeling a little buzzed, but I'll be damned if I miss my evening run. I strap on my shoes and head out the door. Somewhere around mile two it occurs to me that I had underestimated my level of drunkenness. Fuck it, I'm already out here anyway, right? Not long after that, a beat up pickup truck passes me, and I see a redneck scream lean out the passenger window and yell "Put some damn clothes on, man!" (I was shirtless.) It's worth noting that I live in Kentucky, so just imagine your best redneck stereotype, and you can picture the situation. With my normally razor-sharp wit dulled by alcohol, the best thing I could retort was "**FUUUUCK YOUUUU!!!**" and the double middle-finger salute. I found great humor, and giggled for at least a minute afterwards. Then, inspiration struck. Suddenly, every person who had ever yelled something smartass at me while I was running came to me in an instant. In that instant, empowered by the alcohol and the hilarity, I realized that **I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THIS SHIT ANYMORE** I decided that every single car I saw was going to get the same treatment as the redneck in that beat up 80's pickup. It was time for the revenge run. I spent the next few miles screaming obscenities and making rude gestures to cars, while giggling like a little girl. To put a little perspective on the situation, it is 1 in the morning on a Saturday, I am screaming at traffic while running down the street giggling and shirtless. I'm starting to wind down and sober up, and I'm about a mile from my house. A member of the local PD drives past, pulls a U-turn and stops to have a chat with me, because apparently they had received a few calls about a runner wearing black shorts screaming at cars. I tell the officers the story above, (omitting the part about the alcohol, of course). They let me go after running my info and basically telling me to stop acting like an idiot. The rest of my run was serious business after that. **tl;dr: Beermiles are for pussies, real men run the Shithoused Six.**

I'm hella late to the party, but here's my story anyhow: One summer, I had taken to running evenings because my schedule wouldn't allow me to be up before it got blistering hot. This became a problem one fateful Friday night. I get home after a few beers with friends at a sports bar. I'm feeling a little buzzed, but I'll be damned if I miss my evening run. I strap on my shoes and head out the door. Somewhere around mile two it occurs to me that I had underestimated my level of drunkenness. Fuck it, I'm already out here anyway, right? Not long after that, a beat up pickup truck passes me, and I see a redneck scream lean out the passenger window and yell "Put some damn clothes on, man!" (I was shirtless.) It's worth noting that I live in Kentucky, so just imagine your best redneck stereotype, and you can picture the situation. With my normally razor-sharp wit dulled by alcohol, the best thing I could retort was " FUUUUCK YOUUUU!!! " and the double middle-finger salute. I found great humor, and giggled for at least a minute afterwards. Then, inspiration struck. Suddenly, every person who had ever yelled something smartass at me while I was running came to me in an instant. In that instant, empowered by the alcohol and the hilarity, I realized that I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THIS SHIT ANYMORE I decided that every single car I saw was going to get the same treatment as the redneck in that beat up 80's pickup. It was time for the revenge run. I spent the next few miles screaming obscenities and making rude gestures to cars, while giggling like a little girl. To put a little perspective on the situation, it is 1 in the morning on a Saturday, I am screaming at traffic while running down the street giggling and shirtless. I'm starting to wind down and sober up, and I'm about a mile from my house. A member of the local PD drives past, pulls a U-turn and stops to have a chat with me, because apparently they had received a few calls about a runner wearing black shorts screaming at cars. I tell the officers the story above, (omitting the part about the alcohol, of course). They let me go after running my info and basically telling me to stop acting like an idiot. The rest of my run was serious business after that. tl;dr: Beermiles are for pussies, real men run the Shithoused Six.

running

t5_2qlit

c79wz9q

I'm hella late to the party, but here's my story anyhow: One summer, I had taken to running evenings because my schedule wouldn't allow me to be up before it got blistering hot. This became a problem one fateful Friday night. I get home after a few beers with friends at a sports bar. I'm feeling a little buzzed, but I'll be damned if I miss my evening run. I strap on my shoes and head out the door. Somewhere around mile two it occurs to me that I had underestimated my level of drunkenness. Fuck it, I'm already out here anyway, right? Not long after that, a beat up pickup truck passes me, and I see a redneck scream lean out the passenger window and yell "Put some damn clothes on, man!" (I was shirtless.) It's worth noting that I live in Kentucky, so just imagine your best redneck stereotype, and you can picture the situation. With my normally razor-sharp wit dulled by alcohol, the best thing I could retort was " FUUUUCK YOUUUU!!! " and the double middle-finger salute. I found great humor, and giggled for at least a minute afterwards. Then, inspiration struck. Suddenly, every person who had ever yelled something smartass at me while I was running came to me in an instant. In that instant, empowered by the alcohol and the hilarity, I realized that I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THIS SHIT ANYMORE I decided that every single car I saw was going to get the same treatment as the redneck in that beat up 80's pickup. It was time for the revenge run. I spent the next few miles screaming obscenities and making rude gestures to cars, while giggling like a little girl. To put a little perspective on the situation, it is 1 in the morning on a Saturday, I am screaming at traffic while running down the street giggling and shirtless. I'm starting to wind down and sober up, and I'm about a mile from my house. A member of the local PD drives past, pulls a U-turn and stops to have a chat with me, because apparently they had received a few calls about a runner wearing black shorts screaming at cars. I tell the officers the story above, (omitting the part about the alcohol, of course). They let me go after running my info and basically telling me to stop acting like an idiot. The rest of my run was serious business after that.

Beermiles are for pussies, real men run the Shithoused Six.

billding88

I didn't like the call, but there is no way they would have done what we SHOULD have done. You have 2 options. 1.) go for the win. 2.) play for your defense. They chose option 2, and they played it right for that option. 40 seconds in a 2 minute drill really IS a shit ton of time. Thats about 4 plays with spikes, or 2 in a hurry up. That is a huge difference. However, I am a fan of option 1. Go for the win. To do this, however, this would have been 4 down territory. That gives you 2 plays to get 5 yards. If you miss it once, go for it again. No fake punt, no shenanigans, just 2 tries to get the first down. Even with the punt if you don't down it, you only lose about 30 yards, which I believe they recovered in what, 3 plays? GO FOR IT! WIN THE GAME! A first down seals it. TL;DR They did take the second best option. They didn't throw it. They shouldn't have thrown it unless they are going for it on 4th down.

I didn't like the call, but there is no way they would have done what we SHOULD have done. You have 2 options. 1.) go for the win. 2.) play for your defense. They chose option 2, and they played it right for that option. 40 seconds in a 2 minute drill really IS a shit ton of time. Thats about 4 plays with spikes, or 2 in a hurry up. That is a huge difference. However, I am a fan of option 1. Go for the win. To do this, however, this would have been 4 down territory. That gives you 2 plays to get 5 yards. If you miss it once, go for it again. No fake punt, no shenanigans, just 2 tries to get the first down. Even with the punt if you don't down it, you only lose about 30 yards, which I believe they recovered in what, 3 plays? GO FOR IT! WIN THE GAME! A first down seals it. TL;DR They did take the second best option. They didn't throw it. They shouldn't have thrown it unless they are going for it on 4th down.

detroitlions

t5_2rynx

c7a8nmb

I didn't like the call, but there is no way they would have done what we SHOULD have done. You have 2 options. 1.) go for the win. 2.) play for your defense. They chose option 2, and they played it right for that option. 40 seconds in a 2 minute drill really IS a shit ton of time. Thats about 4 plays with spikes, or 2 in a hurry up. That is a huge difference. However, I am a fan of option 1. Go for the win. To do this, however, this would have been 4 down territory. That gives you 2 plays to get 5 yards. If you miss it once, go for it again. No fake punt, no shenanigans, just 2 tries to get the first down. Even with the punt if you don't down it, you only lose about 30 yards, which I believe they recovered in what, 3 plays? GO FOR IT! WIN THE GAME! A first down seals it.

They did take the second best option. They didn't throw it. They shouldn't have thrown it unless they are going for it on 4th down.

sprunkiely

Isaiah 43:10 ESV “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. ------ That's because Christianity is base on the other religion before it; like: Judaism, Pagan, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Greek and etc.... And All religion is based to the astrological view (actually seen with your eyes) and beliefs. It's the base which all religion was formed when we "as early humans" made up religion. If you haven't seen ZEITGEIST watch it. ----- But this does not surprise at all (your post). I remember a yahoo answers that asked " If the big bang "happen" why are there no pictures or videos of it".ಠ\_ಠ Just because they read a book that says it "is the word of god". Doesn't mean it is. But the memoir of peter pan is pretty good. And Watchmen with doctor Manhattan was the second coming of Jesus. To bad I wasn't born earlier to see him. TL;DR - not really a surprising in the lest. Religious people tend to be on the lower side of the IQ chart. And tend to know the lest about history (that we know of; Which is skewed but is the best that got from 3,000+ years.) * Sorry for the rant. Bring the downvotes I guess.

Isaiah 43:10 ESV “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. That's because Christianity is base on the other religion before it; like: Judaism, Pagan, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Greek and etc.... And All religion is based to the astrological view (actually seen with your eyes) and beliefs. It's the base which all religion was formed when we "as early humans" made up religion. If you haven't seen ZEITGEIST watch it. But this does not surprise at all (your post). I remember a yahoo answers that asked " If the big bang "happen" why are there no pictures or videos of it".ಠ_ಠ Just because they read a book that says it "is the word of god". Doesn't mean it is. But the memoir of peter pan is pretty good. And Watchmen with doctor Manhattan was the second coming of Jesus. To bad I wasn't born earlier to see him. TL;DR - not really a surprising in the lest. Religious people tend to be on the lower side of the IQ chart. And tend to know the lest about history (that we know of; Which is skewed but is the best that got from 3,000+ years.) Sorry for the rant. Bring the downvotes I guess.

todayilearned

t5_2qqjc

c7aj68b

Isaiah 43:10 ESV “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. That's because Christianity is base on the other religion before it; like: Judaism, Pagan, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Greek and etc.... And All religion is based to the astrological view (actually seen with your eyes) and beliefs. It's the base which all religion was formed when we "as early humans" made up religion. If you haven't seen ZEITGEIST watch it. But this does not surprise at all (your post). I remember a yahoo answers that asked " If the big bang "happen" why are there no pictures or videos of it".ಠ_ಠ Just because they read a book that says it "is the word of god". Doesn't mean it is. But the memoir of peter pan is pretty good. And Watchmen with doctor Manhattan was the second coming of Jesus. To bad I wasn't born earlier to see him.

not really a surprising in the lest. Religious people tend to be on the lower side of the IQ chart. And tend to know the lest about history (that we know of; Which is skewed but is the best that got from 3,000+ years.) Sorry for the rant. Bring the downvotes I guess.

sn44

Personally I would go with the 4.0. Given that motor was still being used over here till 2006 there are a lot more aftermarket parts for them and a lot more OEM parts to rebuild the motors. That said, I don't know what kind of parts support you have in France for the 4.0 verses the diesel. As for 2-door vs. 4 door, that will come down to personal preference. I had a four-door and it was great because I could access the back seat area for storage. Now I have a ZJ and I use the back seat almost exclusively for my dog. However, I always liked the looks of the 2-door XJ and if I didn't need/want a back seat I would just remove it and do a rear cargo drawer setup and just access it from the hatch. In terms of parts you could salvage from your diesel, your axles, wheels/tires, exterior and interior parts should all carry over. The only thing that would be different would be the engine and transmission. May even use the same (or maybe a stronger) transfer case. If it does have the stronger 231HD transfer-case with the 6-gear planetary set up **keep it.** **TL;DR:** Get a 2-door gasser and salvage what you can from your current one. Windows, t-case if it is an HD model, axles, etc.

Personally I would go with the 4.0. Given that motor was still being used over here till 2006 there are a lot more aftermarket parts for them and a lot more OEM parts to rebuild the motors. That said, I don't know what kind of parts support you have in France for the 4.0 verses the diesel. As for 2-door vs. 4 door, that will come down to personal preference. I had a four-door and it was great because I could access the back seat area for storage. Now I have a ZJ and I use the back seat almost exclusively for my dog. However, I always liked the looks of the 2-door XJ and if I didn't need/want a back seat I would just remove it and do a rear cargo drawer setup and just access it from the hatch. In terms of parts you could salvage from your diesel, your axles, wheels/tires, exterior and interior parts should all carry over. The only thing that would be different would be the engine and transmission. May even use the same (or maybe a stronger) transfer case. If it does have the stronger 231HD transfer-case with the 6-gear planetary set up keep it. TL;DR: Get a 2-door gasser and salvage what you can from your current one. Windows, t-case if it is an HD model, axles, etc.

CherokeeXJ

t5_2unpm

c7aj1tg

Personally I would go with the 4.0. Given that motor was still being used over here till 2006 there are a lot more aftermarket parts for them and a lot more OEM parts to rebuild the motors. That said, I don't know what kind of parts support you have in France for the 4.0 verses the diesel. As for 2-door vs. 4 door, that will come down to personal preference. I had a four-door and it was great because I could access the back seat area for storage. Now I have a ZJ and I use the back seat almost exclusively for my dog. However, I always liked the looks of the 2-door XJ and if I didn't need/want a back seat I would just remove it and do a rear cargo drawer setup and just access it from the hatch. In terms of parts you could salvage from your diesel, your axles, wheels/tires, exterior and interior parts should all carry over. The only thing that would be different would be the engine and transmission. May even use the same (or maybe a stronger) transfer case. If it does have the stronger 231HD transfer-case with the 6-gear planetary set up keep it.

Get a 2-door gasser and salvage what you can from your current one. Windows, t-case if it is an HD model, axles, etc.

crashspeeder

I worked retail for about 3 years while I applied for jobs in my field. The main (and probably the only) reason I survived was that I had fun with it. I, too, was a supervisor and had to deal with all sorts of ridiculous customers but I'd make the most of the ones that were nice. I'd go out of my way to help them and they'd appreciate it. At the end of the day I'd have fun while cleaning up and closing the store. I got in trouble once for singing "White Christmas" over the PA after inhaling some helium while my manager chased me to take the Spectralink phone away from me. There are a few ways to look at this. If you're good enough at your job and the managers appreciate you enough then you'll be able to get away with making your job fun (this has the added bonus of making those in your charge a little more relaxed as well). If you're not appreciated enough to get some leeway or you're not good enough at your job then you should leave. This may sound insensitive but it's for your own mental health and for the good of the company as well. An unstable or unhappy employee does nothing for morale except tank it and it certainly doesn't improve the public's view of the company. A final piece of advice, hit the assholes where it hurts - in the wallet. I would give people discounts based on how (un)pleasant they were. If you were buying a clearance item and you were a dick you'd pay whatever price I put on there. If you were nice then I just happened to be discounting this right now! How convenient! If you were an asshole returning something past our 90 day return policy I'll offer you the lowest refund possible (the price of any sale during that period), but if you treated me like a person I'd turn the key and give you full a price refund. Customers often left coupon books at the store. If you were nice I'd give you either the coupon you need to make that $300 item come down into your price range or I'd give you the whole book. **TL;DR:** Take your sanity into your own hands. Quit, or make your job fun.

I worked retail for about 3 years while I applied for jobs in my field. The main (and probably the only) reason I survived was that I had fun with it. I, too, was a supervisor and had to deal with all sorts of ridiculous customers but I'd make the most of the ones that were nice. I'd go out of my way to help them and they'd appreciate it. At the end of the day I'd have fun while cleaning up and closing the store. I got in trouble once for singing "White Christmas" over the PA after inhaling some helium while my manager chased me to take the Spectralink phone away from me. There are a few ways to look at this. If you're good enough at your job and the managers appreciate you enough then you'll be able to get away with making your job fun (this has the added bonus of making those in your charge a little more relaxed as well). If you're not appreciated enough to get some leeway or you're not good enough at your job then you should leave. This may sound insensitive but it's for your own mental health and for the good of the company as well. An unstable or unhappy employee does nothing for morale except tank it and it certainly doesn't improve the public's view of the company. A final piece of advice, hit the assholes where it hurts - in the wallet. I would give people discounts based on how (un)pleasant they were. If you were buying a clearance item and you were a dick you'd pay whatever price I put on there. If you were nice then I just happened to be discounting this right now! How convenient! If you were an asshole returning something past our 90 day return policy I'll offer you the lowest refund possible (the price of any sale during that period), but if you treated me like a person I'd turn the key and give you full a price refund. Customers often left coupon books at the store. If you were nice I'd give you either the coupon you need to make that $300 item come down into your price range or I'd give you the whole book. TL;DR: Take your sanity into your own hands. Quit, or make your job fun.

TalesFromRetail

t5_2t2zt

c7aja3k

I worked retail for about 3 years while I applied for jobs in my field. The main (and probably the only) reason I survived was that I had fun with it. I, too, was a supervisor and had to deal with all sorts of ridiculous customers but I'd make the most of the ones that were nice. I'd go out of my way to help them and they'd appreciate it. At the end of the day I'd have fun while cleaning up and closing the store. I got in trouble once for singing "White Christmas" over the PA after inhaling some helium while my manager chased me to take the Spectralink phone away from me. There are a few ways to look at this. If you're good enough at your job and the managers appreciate you enough then you'll be able to get away with making your job fun (this has the added bonus of making those in your charge a little more relaxed as well). If you're not appreciated enough to get some leeway or you're not good enough at your job then you should leave. This may sound insensitive but it's for your own mental health and for the good of the company as well. An unstable or unhappy employee does nothing for morale except tank it and it certainly doesn't improve the public's view of the company. A final piece of advice, hit the assholes where it hurts - in the wallet. I would give people discounts based on how (un)pleasant they were. If you were buying a clearance item and you were a dick you'd pay whatever price I put on there. If you were nice then I just happened to be discounting this right now! How convenient! If you were an asshole returning something past our 90 day return policy I'll offer you the lowest refund possible (the price of any sale during that period), but if you treated me like a person I'd turn the key and give you full a price refund. Customers often left coupon books at the store. If you were nice I'd give you either the coupon you need to make that $300 item come down into your price range or I'd give you the whole book.

Take your sanity into your own hands. Quit, or make your job fun.

MewtwoStruckBack

Oh, doing the last bit of what you suggested is so empowering and it really does make retail fun at times. You get a dickhead that's buying something that has an instant coupon they need to bring into the store? Why no, I'm not going to just automatically apply that to your order, you'll be paying full price. Regular stock item that also comes in a gift set? Not only will I not be telling you about the gift set, but if I know you won't ask for a receipt I'll put in the gift set code, put the regular item back on the shelf, and save the gifts for a more deserving customer. Promotional stuff gets saved only for the good regulars that treat us with respect. Definitely with you on the return policy as well - could also enforce the "you have to leave it here and the upper level manager, who only visits once monthly, has to approve the return and THEN you will receive your refund" policy. I'm not sure exactly what to believe in terms of karma, as far as a person getting things coming around to them based on how they treat others throughout life, but I know that it sure feels nice to help karma along a little. tl;dr; save the good customers as much money as possible, screw the shitty customers out of as much as possible while still staying within the bounds of the law.

Oh, doing the last bit of what you suggested is so empowering and it really does make retail fun at times. You get a dickhead that's buying something that has an instant coupon they need to bring into the store? Why no, I'm not going to just automatically apply that to your order, you'll be paying full price. Regular stock item that also comes in a gift set? Not only will I not be telling you about the gift set, but if I know you won't ask for a receipt I'll put in the gift set code, put the regular item back on the shelf, and save the gifts for a more deserving customer. Promotional stuff gets saved only for the good regulars that treat us with respect. Definitely with you on the return policy as well - could also enforce the "you have to leave it here and the upper level manager, who only visits once monthly, has to approve the return and THEN you will receive your refund" policy. I'm not sure exactly what to believe in terms of karma, as far as a person getting things coming around to them based on how they treat others throughout life, but I know that it sure feels nice to help karma along a little. tl;dr; save the good customers as much money as possible, screw the shitty customers out of as much as possible while still staying within the bounds of the law.

TalesFromRetail

t5_2t2zt

c7axevr

Oh, doing the last bit of what you suggested is so empowering and it really does make retail fun at times. You get a dickhead that's buying something that has an instant coupon they need to bring into the store? Why no, I'm not going to just automatically apply that to your order, you'll be paying full price. Regular stock item that also comes in a gift set? Not only will I not be telling you about the gift set, but if I know you won't ask for a receipt I'll put in the gift set code, put the regular item back on the shelf, and save the gifts for a more deserving customer. Promotional stuff gets saved only for the good regulars that treat us with respect. Definitely with you on the return policy as well - could also enforce the "you have to leave it here and the upper level manager, who only visits once monthly, has to approve the return and THEN you will receive your refund" policy. I'm not sure exactly what to believe in terms of karma, as far as a person getting things coming around to them based on how they treat others throughout life, but I know that it sure feels nice to help karma along a little.

save the good customers as much money as possible, screw the shitty customers out of as much as possible while still staying within the bounds of the law.

FireinMI

This is what I would love to be the post-season in college football. The bowl games are still below these 2 tournaments and the losers in the first 2 rounds drop down into bowl games. These 2 tournaments are the national championship tournament (Tournament of Roses, ToR) and a kind of NIT with the next best teams (Orange Bowl Invitational Tournament, OBIT). There are just a few simple selection rules that I followed to come up with this field. 1.Every conference champion of a conference with at least 8 teams gets to participate in the ToR. The left over slots are decided by the BCS rankings. The OBIT field is determined by the highest 8 teams in the BCS that did not get into the ToR. 2.Teams from the same conference cannot play each other in the first 2 rounds (this affectively limits a conference’s participation to 4 teams in the ToR and 2 additional teams in the OBIT). 3.If a team participates in their conference’s championship game and lose, they cannot move behind a team from their own division that is ranked behind the participating team leading into the conference championship game (This year, Georgia cannot move behind Florida because Georgia was ranked higher than Florida heading into the SECCG). Format: The first 2 rounds of both tournaments are single elimination and are hosted by the higher seed. The winners of the 2 bracket pools of the OBIT advance to the Orange Bowl. The 4 winners of the bracket pools of the ToR are re-seeded (highest seed left plays lowest seed left, 2nd highest seed left plays 2nd lowest seed left) regardless of conference. The highest seed left in the tournament then chooses which semi-final bowl game their semi-final will be (Fiesta Bowl or Sugar Bowl). The winners of the Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl advance to the Rose Bowl National Championship Game. Other: This post season structure would not work with our current model of a 13th conference championship game so in order for this to happen divisional conferences would need to have a sort of cross over last week so that all the teams are playing the week before the tournament would start. Also, all teams would have to play 12 games in the first 13 weeks, then week 14 and 15 would be the 1st and 2nd round of the tournament. There would then be a final exams break and then the semifinal/other bowls/Orange Bowl would happen followed by at least a week break and then the Rose Bowl Final. Before people say that 16 games is too many, I would just like to point out that under the current system USC is going to play 13 regular season games next year (due to going to Hawaii) and if they make the Pac12CG and a bowl they will play in 15 games. Then, starting in 2014 if a team goes to Hawaii they could play 16 games if they play 13 regular season, their conf. championship, the semi-final, and the Final. TLDR; 16 team NCAA Tournament and 8 team NIT tournaments including conference champions. But please read this before commenting that this will never happen, because I completely realize that this will never happen in college football, I just think that this would be the best way to decide the national champion.

This is what I would love to be the post-season in college football. The bowl games are still below these 2 tournaments and the losers in the first 2 rounds drop down into bowl games. These 2 tournaments are the national championship tournament (Tournament of Roses, ToR) and a kind of NIT with the next best teams (Orange Bowl Invitational Tournament, OBIT). There are just a few simple selection rules that I followed to come up with this field. 1.Every conference champion of a conference with at least 8 teams gets to participate in the ToR. The left over slots are decided by the BCS rankings. The OBIT field is determined by the highest 8 teams in the BCS that did not get into the ToR. 2.Teams from the same conference cannot play each other in the first 2 rounds (this affectively limits a conference’s participation to 4 teams in the ToR and 2 additional teams in the OBIT). 3.If a team participates in their conference’s championship game and lose, they cannot move behind a team from their own division that is ranked behind the participating team leading into the conference championship game (This year, Georgia cannot move behind Florida because Georgia was ranked higher than Florida heading into the SECCG). Format: The first 2 rounds of both tournaments are single elimination and are hosted by the higher seed. The winners of the 2 bracket pools of the OBIT advance to the Orange Bowl. The 4 winners of the bracket pools of the ToR are re-seeded (highest seed left plays lowest seed left, 2nd highest seed left plays 2nd lowest seed left) regardless of conference. The highest seed left in the tournament then chooses which semi-final bowl game their semi-final will be (Fiesta Bowl or Sugar Bowl). The winners of the Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl advance to the Rose Bowl National Championship Game. Other: This post season structure would not work with our current model of a 13th conference championship game so in order for this to happen divisional conferences would need to have a sort of cross over last week so that all the teams are playing the week before the tournament would start. Also, all teams would have to play 12 games in the first 13 weeks, then week 14 and 15 would be the 1st and 2nd round of the tournament. There would then be a final exams break and then the semifinal/other bowls/Orange Bowl would happen followed by at least a week break and then the Rose Bowl Final. Before people say that 16 games is too many, I would just like to point out that under the current system USC is going to play 13 regular season games next year (due to going to Hawaii) and if they make the Pac12CG and a bowl they will play in 15 games. Then, starting in 2014 if a team goes to Hawaii they could play 16 games if they play 13 regular season, their conf. championship, the semi-final, and the Final. TLDR; 16 team NCAA Tournament and 8 team NIT tournaments including conference champions. But please read this before commenting that this will never happen, because I completely realize that this will never happen in college football, I just think that this would be the best way to decide the national champion.

CFB

t5_2qm9d

c7aiouh

This is what I would love to be the post-season in college football. The bowl games are still below these 2 tournaments and the losers in the first 2 rounds drop down into bowl games. These 2 tournaments are the national championship tournament (Tournament of Roses, ToR) and a kind of NIT with the next best teams (Orange Bowl Invitational Tournament, OBIT). There are just a few simple selection rules that I followed to come up with this field. 1.Every conference champion of a conference with at least 8 teams gets to participate in the ToR. The left over slots are decided by the BCS rankings. The OBIT field is determined by the highest 8 teams in the BCS that did not get into the ToR. 2.Teams from the same conference cannot play each other in the first 2 rounds (this affectively limits a conference’s participation to 4 teams in the ToR and 2 additional teams in the OBIT). 3.If a team participates in their conference’s championship game and lose, they cannot move behind a team from their own division that is ranked behind the participating team leading into the conference championship game (This year, Georgia cannot move behind Florida because Georgia was ranked higher than Florida heading into the SECCG). Format: The first 2 rounds of both tournaments are single elimination and are hosted by the higher seed. The winners of the 2 bracket pools of the OBIT advance to the Orange Bowl. The 4 winners of the bracket pools of the ToR are re-seeded (highest seed left plays lowest seed left, 2nd highest seed left plays 2nd lowest seed left) regardless of conference. The highest seed left in the tournament then chooses which semi-final bowl game their semi-final will be (Fiesta Bowl or Sugar Bowl). The winners of the Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl advance to the Rose Bowl National Championship Game. Other: This post season structure would not work with our current model of a 13th conference championship game so in order for this to happen divisional conferences would need to have a sort of cross over last week so that all the teams are playing the week before the tournament would start. Also, all teams would have to play 12 games in the first 13 weeks, then week 14 and 15 would be the 1st and 2nd round of the tournament. There would then be a final exams break and then the semifinal/other bowls/Orange Bowl would happen followed by at least a week break and then the Rose Bowl Final. Before people say that 16 games is too many, I would just like to point out that under the current system USC is going to play 13 regular season games next year (due to going to Hawaii) and if they make the Pac12CG and a bowl they will play in 15 games. Then, starting in 2014 if a team goes to Hawaii they could play 16 games if they play 13 regular season, their conf. championship, the semi-final, and the Final.

16 team NCAA Tournament and 8 team NIT tournaments including conference champions. But please read this before commenting that this will never happen, because I completely realize that this will never happen in college football, I just think that this would be the best way to decide the national champion.

laikalost

The time I order an Old Fashioned with Maker's Mark. The bartender, some 19yr old kid, started by muddling a mess of oranges, limes, and lemons. Then proceeded to add about a cup of granulated sugar, grenadine, and sweet & dry vermouth. To top it all off, he gave it a healthy splash of tonic. My first thought was to stop him as soon as I saw the lemons and limes; but there was a part of me that decided to sit back and watch how much worse this drink could get. TL;DR -- Curiosity killed the cat, and also my cocktail.

The time I order an Old Fashioned with Maker's Mark. The bartender, some 19yr old kid, started by muddling a mess of oranges, limes, and lemons. Then proceeded to add about a cup of granulated sugar, grenadine, and sweet & dry vermouth. To top it all off, he gave it a healthy splash of tonic. My first thought was to stop him as soon as I saw the lemons and limes; but there was a part of me that decided to sit back and watch how much worse this drink could get. TL;DR -- Curiosity killed the cat, and also my cocktail.

cocktails

t5_2qpco

c7amwr7

The time I order an Old Fashioned with Maker's Mark. The bartender, some 19yr old kid, started by muddling a mess of oranges, limes, and lemons. Then proceeded to add about a cup of granulated sugar, grenadine, and sweet & dry vermouth. To top it all off, he gave it a healthy splash of tonic. My first thought was to stop him as soon as I saw the lemons and limes; but there was a part of me that decided to sit back and watch how much worse this drink could get.

Curiosity killed the cat, and also my cocktail.

BeastAP23

They were a top team for years and I would look at the suspension in game 6 where they had a great shot to make it. But remember, they play in a tough conference hell they were playing the spurs lakers and mavs every year and not every good team makes the playoffs. The suns had a good team but you can't blame him entirely espescially when his system was winning games and he was a few points and a suspension away from the finals. His defense is not NEARLY as bad as people make it out to be. If you look at points per possession (obviously more accurate) youll find hes ranged from 23rd to 5th but stays around 14-17. And don't even bring up the Knicks. Tl;dr LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE!

They were a top team for years and I would look at the suspension in game 6 where they had a great shot to make it. But remember, they play in a tough conference hell they were playing the spurs lakers and mavs every year and not every good team makes the playoffs. The suns had a good team but you can't blame him entirely espescially when his system was winning games and he was a few points and a suspension away from the finals. His defense is not NEARLY as bad as people make it out to be. If you look at points per possession (obviously more accurate) youll find hes ranged from 23rd to 5th but stays around 14-17. And don't even bring up the Knicks. Tl;dr LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE!

nba

t5_2qo4s

c7aqyzv

They were a top team for years and I would look at the suspension in game 6 where they had a great shot to make it. But remember, they play in a tough conference hell they were playing the spurs lakers and mavs every year and not every good team makes the playoffs. The suns had a good team but you can't blame him entirely espescially when his system was winning games and he was a few points and a suspension away from the finals. His defense is not NEARLY as bad as people make it out to be. If you look at points per possession (obviously more accurate) youll find hes ranged from 23rd to 5th but stays around 14-17. And don't even bring up the Knicks.

LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE!

blazenl

In July of last year, you won't see this in paper Btw, but a girl fainted on the platform and collapsed on the tracks. This was at the 42nd St. station...anyway me and this other dude, without thinking, jumped down and were able to throw her back up on the platform and get back up ourselves before the train stopped. It was the biggest adrenaline rush of my life and I'll never forget it, but if we didn't act she would have been cut in half. The platform was fairly empty and no one was waving for the train to stop. I'm getting a bit of a rush just recalling it and typing t down. Tl:dr; - don't stand next to the edge for pushing and fainting reasons - its dangerous shit.

In July of last year, you won't see this in paper Btw, but a girl fainted on the platform and collapsed on the tracks. This was at the 42nd St. station...anyway me and this other dude, without thinking, jumped down and were able to throw her back up on the platform and get back up ourselves before the train stopped. It was the biggest adrenaline rush of my life and I'll never forget it, but if we didn't act she would have been cut in half. The platform was fairly empty and no one was waving for the train to stop. I'm getting a bit of a rush just recalling it and typing t down. Tl:dr; - don't stand next to the edge for pushing and fainting reasons - its dangerous shit.

nyc

t5_2qhu2

c7b04u3

In July of last year, you won't see this in paper Btw, but a girl fainted on the platform and collapsed on the tracks. This was at the 42nd St. station...anyway me and this other dude, without thinking, jumped down and were able to throw her back up on the platform and get back up ourselves before the train stopped. It was the biggest adrenaline rush of my life and I'll never forget it, but if we didn't act she would have been cut in half. The platform was fairly empty and no one was waving for the train to stop. I'm getting a bit of a rush just recalling it and typing t down.

don't stand next to the edge for pushing and fainting reasons - its dangerous shit.

biglebroski

Honestly go to a local shop and tell them what your planning. Ours gave us a ton a free merchandise and came buy to deliver. The offered to do education and shit but we passed on that. Tldr your local shop see frat as $$$

Honestly go to a local shop and tell them what your planning. Ours gave us a ton a free merchandise and came buy to deliver. The offered to do education and shit but we passed on that. Tldr your local shop see frat as $$$

Frat

t5_2s0mx

c7apk3d

Honestly go to a local shop and tell them what your planning. Ours gave us a ton a free merchandise and came buy to deliver. The offered to do education and shit but we passed on that.

your local shop see frat as $$$

Lagkiller

This is two extremes that I don't think anyone can agree with. DRM used to be very simple (and for many companies still is). A unique game code. Allow only one game code to come online at a time and you shut down piracy like what this company experienced. The current problem with gaming is multi-faceted, but excessive DRM kills games. As someone who pirates games (and buys them later if I like them) I find there is a sickening lack of ways to preview a game. Many "demos" are too short or limited to get an experience of the game or aren't actual game play. A game I might have never bought on my own is Tropico 4. I like city builders but it didn't sound very good but I thought I would try it. Loved it. Bought it. Bought all the DLC. On the flip side there are a number of games where I thought the premise sounded great but ended up being just awful like Sins of a Solar Empire, for example. I would have been very upset if I paid $50 for the game. It's just awful. A lot of my grief comes from being younger and buying games at premium prices only to get home and be incredibly disappointed by the quality and/or game play. If the industry wanted to reduce piracy (not eliminate because it will never happen), there are a few simple things to actually combat the problem: * Remove intrusive DRM - Always Online DRM, Account Login, Internet required activation, CD required etc and go back to a simple system. * Reduce the cost if you aren't buying on physical media, reduce the cost of the game * Make the price of the game based off time played, not a set media price. Why am I paying $60 for a game that has 50 hours of game time versus the same cost for a game with 10 hours of game time? * Standardize the cost and release dates of game across borders. There is no reason Australia should pay double the cost for a game AND have to wait 2 months extra to get it. * Value loyalty among customers. If I am buying Assassins Creed 52, and I have purchased the previous versions, throw me a bone. This doesn't even have to be a monetary incentive - give me a bonus level, weapon or something. * Revert DLC to expansions. Instead of $3 here and $2 there, release a big pack for $10 as an expansion. This is what stayed my hand from buying Tropico 4 at first. $30 for the game and another $30 for DLC was too much for the game. * Make DRM like Batman Arkham Asylum. For those that don't know, anyone trying to circumvent the DLC was stopped just a few levels in by an intentionally placed "bug". * Lastly, allow Steam and other resellers to set prices on their own. Stop trying to horde profits. Steam has led the way for sales and packages to make tons of money for companies. I would even argue that Steam saved a dying gaming industry with its Steam Sales. I won't argue that Piracy isn't stealing. It is. However, without any other option, we are left in this predicament. I would have saved thousands of dollars in purchases the last few years without Piracy because I absolutely can't stand to purchase a game and hate it. I can't return it after opening it, there wasn't any way to play it before hand because games for PC aren't rented at blockbuster like XBox games are...I'm stuck. Piracy returned that ability to me. It also allows me to purchase when I feel the price is right for the game. I liked Dragon Age, and bought it when it hit $30 which I believed was a fair price instead of the $100 (with all the DLC). tl;dr Piracy is the only option until the gaming industry reforms. edit - Welcome to circlebroke, where if you have a dissenting opinion, we just downvote you until you go away. Time for me to unsub I guess.

This is two extremes that I don't think anyone can agree with. DRM used to be very simple (and for many companies still is). A unique game code. Allow only one game code to come online at a time and you shut down piracy like what this company experienced. The current problem with gaming is multi-faceted, but excessive DRM kills games. As someone who pirates games (and buys them later if I like them) I find there is a sickening lack of ways to preview a game. Many "demos" are too short or limited to get an experience of the game or aren't actual game play. A game I might have never bought on my own is Tropico 4. I like city builders but it didn't sound very good but I thought I would try it. Loved it. Bought it. Bought all the DLC. On the flip side there are a number of games where I thought the premise sounded great but ended up being just awful like Sins of a Solar Empire, for example. I would have been very upset if I paid $50 for the game. It's just awful. A lot of my grief comes from being younger and buying games at premium prices only to get home and be incredibly disappointed by the quality and/or game play. If the industry wanted to reduce piracy (not eliminate because it will never happen), there are a few simple things to actually combat the problem: Remove intrusive DRM - Always Online DRM, Account Login, Internet required activation, CD required etc and go back to a simple system. Reduce the cost if you aren't buying on physical media, reduce the cost of the game Make the price of the game based off time played, not a set media price. Why am I paying $60 for a game that has 50 hours of game time versus the same cost for a game with 10 hours of game time? Standardize the cost and release dates of game across borders. There is no reason Australia should pay double the cost for a game AND have to wait 2 months extra to get it. Value loyalty among customers. If I am buying Assassins Creed 52, and I have purchased the previous versions, throw me a bone. This doesn't even have to be a monetary incentive - give me a bonus level, weapon or something. Revert DLC to expansions. Instead of $3 here and $2 there, release a big pack for $10 as an expansion. This is what stayed my hand from buying Tropico 4 at first. $30 for the game and another $30 for DLC was too much for the game. Make DRM like Batman Arkham Asylum. For those that don't know, anyone trying to circumvent the DLC was stopped just a few levels in by an intentionally placed "bug". Lastly, allow Steam and other resellers to set prices on their own. Stop trying to horde profits. Steam has led the way for sales and packages to make tons of money for companies. I would even argue that Steam saved a dying gaming industry with its Steam Sales. I won't argue that Piracy isn't stealing. It is. However, without any other option, we are left in this predicament. I would have saved thousands of dollars in purchases the last few years without Piracy because I absolutely can't stand to purchase a game and hate it. I can't return it after opening it, there wasn't any way to play it before hand because games for PC aren't rented at blockbuster like XBox games are...I'm stuck. Piracy returned that ability to me. It also allows me to purchase when I feel the price is right for the game. I liked Dragon Age, and bought it when it hit $30 which I believed was a fair price instead of the $100 (with all the DLC). tl;dr Piracy is the only option until the gaming industry reforms. edit - Welcome to circlebroke, where if you have a dissenting opinion, we just downvote you until you go away. Time for me to unsub I guess.

circlebroke

t5_2tnz9

c7b4osu

This is two extremes that I don't think anyone can agree with. DRM used to be very simple (and for many companies still is). A unique game code. Allow only one game code to come online at a time and you shut down piracy like what this company experienced. The current problem with gaming is multi-faceted, but excessive DRM kills games. As someone who pirates games (and buys them later if I like them) I find there is a sickening lack of ways to preview a game. Many "demos" are too short or limited to get an experience of the game or aren't actual game play. A game I might have never bought on my own is Tropico 4. I like city builders but it didn't sound very good but I thought I would try it. Loved it. Bought it. Bought all the DLC. On the flip side there are a number of games where I thought the premise sounded great but ended up being just awful like Sins of a Solar Empire, for example. I would have been very upset if I paid $50 for the game. It's just awful. A lot of my grief comes from being younger and buying games at premium prices only to get home and be incredibly disappointed by the quality and/or game play. If the industry wanted to reduce piracy (not eliminate because it will never happen), there are a few simple things to actually combat the problem: Remove intrusive DRM - Always Online DRM, Account Login, Internet required activation, CD required etc and go back to a simple system. Reduce the cost if you aren't buying on physical media, reduce the cost of the game Make the price of the game based off time played, not a set media price. Why am I paying $60 for a game that has 50 hours of game time versus the same cost for a game with 10 hours of game time? Standardize the cost and release dates of game across borders. There is no reason Australia should pay double the cost for a game AND have to wait 2 months extra to get it. Value loyalty among customers. If I am buying Assassins Creed 52, and I have purchased the previous versions, throw me a bone. This doesn't even have to be a monetary incentive - give me a bonus level, weapon or something. Revert DLC to expansions. Instead of $3 here and $2 there, release a big pack for $10 as an expansion. This is what stayed my hand from buying Tropico 4 at first. $30 for the game and another $30 for DLC was too much for the game. Make DRM like Batman Arkham Asylum. For those that don't know, anyone trying to circumvent the DLC was stopped just a few levels in by an intentionally placed "bug". Lastly, allow Steam and other resellers to set prices on their own. Stop trying to horde profits. Steam has led the way for sales and packages to make tons of money for companies. I would even argue that Steam saved a dying gaming industry with its Steam Sales. I won't argue that Piracy isn't stealing. It is. However, without any other option, we are left in this predicament. I would have saved thousands of dollars in purchases the last few years without Piracy because I absolutely can't stand to purchase a game and hate it. I can't return it after opening it, there wasn't any way to play it before hand because games for PC aren't rented at blockbuster like XBox games are...I'm stuck. Piracy returned that ability to me. It also allows me to purchase when I feel the price is right for the game. I liked Dragon Age, and bought it when it hit $30 which I believed was a fair price instead of the $100 (with all the DLC).

Piracy is the only option until the gaming industry reforms. edit - Welcome to circlebroke, where if you have a dissenting opinion, we just downvote you until you go away. Time for me to unsub I guess.

MannerRev

Trial and Error. Lots of testing. Generally it could go something like this (10 minutes in Mspaint for me): Keep in mind, this chart assume your voltages are within safe limits, temperatures are in check, and everything in your computer is working as intended. Faulty hardware, high temperatures or other random glitches can throw a wrench into any overclocking session. Say for example, you want 4.5 GHz. You set your CPU to 4.5 GHz but it doesn't want to boot. You'd have to increase your voltage more 'till it boots. Voltage too high and you still can't reach 4.5 GHz? You have to decrease your CPU speed till it boots at your maximum safe voltage. Still want less voltage/heat? Decrease your voltage and CPU speed accordingly until you reach an overclock that meets your performance-temperature-voltage expectations. Some people don't need 4.5GHz so they are perfectly fine with 4.2 GHz at (or less than) 1.19V. Some people are nuts and want crazy overclock so they run 4.7GHz at 1.35V. TL;DR: There is no "set way" to get overclocking down to a science due to variances in silicon, parts, temperatures, etc, etc, etc.

Trial and Error. Lots of testing. Generally it could go something like this (10 minutes in Mspaint for me): Keep in mind, this chart assume your voltages are within safe limits, temperatures are in check, and everything in your computer is working as intended. Faulty hardware, high temperatures or other random glitches can throw a wrench into any overclocking session. Say for example, you want 4.5 GHz. You set your CPU to 4.5 GHz but it doesn't want to boot. You'd have to increase your voltage more 'till it boots. Voltage too high and you still can't reach 4.5 GHz? You have to decrease your CPU speed till it boots at your maximum safe voltage. Still want less voltage/heat? Decrease your voltage and CPU speed accordingly until you reach an overclock that meets your performance-temperature-voltage expectations. Some people don't need 4.5GHz so they are perfectly fine with 4.2 GHz at (or less than) 1.19V. Some people are nuts and want crazy overclock so they run 4.7GHz at 1.35V. TL;DR: There is no "set way" to get overclocking down to a science due to variances in silicon, parts, temperatures, etc, etc, etc.

overclocking

t5_2rfc8

c7azw9f

Trial and Error. Lots of testing. Generally it could go something like this (10 minutes in Mspaint for me): Keep in mind, this chart assume your voltages are within safe limits, temperatures are in check, and everything in your computer is working as intended. Faulty hardware, high temperatures or other random glitches can throw a wrench into any overclocking session. Say for example, you want 4.5 GHz. You set your CPU to 4.5 GHz but it doesn't want to boot. You'd have to increase your voltage more 'till it boots. Voltage too high and you still can't reach 4.5 GHz? You have to decrease your CPU speed till it boots at your maximum safe voltage. Still want less voltage/heat? Decrease your voltage and CPU speed accordingly until you reach an overclock that meets your performance-temperature-voltage expectations. Some people don't need 4.5GHz so they are perfectly fine with 4.2 GHz at (or less than) 1.19V. Some people are nuts and want crazy overclock so they run 4.7GHz at 1.35V.

There is no "set way" to get overclocking down to a science due to variances in silicon, parts, temperatures, etc, etc, etc.

Fruitbat3

Semi-related story: I became a Brony in secret during the early days when the fan base wasn't really forcing itself on people. I won't really give Doctor Who a chance because of that same problem, people showing up absolutely everywhere trying to force the show on everyone. And it kind of pisses me off because MLP gets a bad rep for it's for it, but Doctor Who's fan base does the same thing and doesn't get bitched at nearly as much. Not that I don't think MLP somewhat deserves the bad rep that it gets because of it's over zealous fans who should have sent their letters to Princess Celestia a long ass time ago. If I were to have stumbled upon MLP nowadays rather than 2 years ago I would probably just say "fuck this shit" and then move on. **TL;DR:Keep it to yourselves sometimes fanbases, let the show do the talking!**

Semi-related story: I became a Brony in secret during the early days when the fan base wasn't really forcing itself on people. I won't really give Doctor Who a chance because of that same problem, people showing up absolutely everywhere trying to force the show on everyone. And it kind of pisses me off because MLP gets a bad rep for it's for it, but Doctor Who's fan base does the same thing and doesn't get bitched at nearly as much. Not that I don't think MLP somewhat deserves the bad rep that it gets because of it's over zealous fans who should have sent their letters to Princess Celestia a long ass time ago. If I were to have stumbled upon MLP nowadays rather than 2 years ago I would probably just say "fuck this shit" and then move on. TL;DR:Keep it to yourselves sometimes fanbases, let the show do the talking!

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c7b4urn

Semi-related story: I became a Brony in secret during the early days when the fan base wasn't really forcing itself on people. I won't really give Doctor Who a chance because of that same problem, people showing up absolutely everywhere trying to force the show on everyone. And it kind of pisses me off because MLP gets a bad rep for it's for it, but Doctor Who's fan base does the same thing and doesn't get bitched at nearly as much. Not that I don't think MLP somewhat deserves the bad rep that it gets because of it's over zealous fans who should have sent their letters to Princess Celestia a long ass time ago. If I were to have stumbled upon MLP nowadays rather than 2 years ago I would probably just say "fuck this shit" and then move on.

Keep it to yourselves sometimes fanbases, let the show do the talking!

TarosB4

Except that Brony carries with it a connotation of more extreme fandom. When someone refers to a Brony, most people see a fat 30 year old posting on some internet board about his magical police unicorn that shoots toxic gas out of his horn and lives in ponyville catching thieves because, ponyville is nice and all, but it DOES have crime. Mostly pickpocketing. All the while, he is surrounded by his collection of collectible plastic ponies, and yeah your damn right that's the transparent Twilight Sparkle that is ultra-rare and worth money. How much money? Lots. You know. To someone. TL;DR - I have had bad experiences with Bronies, and don't want to be associated with them just because I watch a stupid cartoon.

Except that Brony carries with it a connotation of more extreme fandom. When someone refers to a Brony, most people see a fat 30 year old posting on some internet board about his magical police unicorn that shoots toxic gas out of his horn and lives in ponyville catching thieves because, ponyville is nice and all, but it DOES have crime. Mostly pickpocketing. All the while, he is surrounded by his collection of collectible plastic ponies, and yeah your damn right that's the transparent Twilight Sparkle that is ultra-rare and worth money. How much money? Lots. You know. To someone. TL;DR - I have had bad experiences with Bronies, and don't want to be associated with them just because I watch a stupid cartoon.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c7b8v77

Except that Brony carries with it a connotation of more extreme fandom. When someone refers to a Brony, most people see a fat 30 year old posting on some internet board about his magical police unicorn that shoots toxic gas out of his horn and lives in ponyville catching thieves because, ponyville is nice and all, but it DOES have crime. Mostly pickpocketing. All the while, he is surrounded by his collection of collectible plastic ponies, and yeah your damn right that's the transparent Twilight Sparkle that is ultra-rare and worth money. How much money? Lots. You know. To someone.

I have had bad experiences with Bronies, and don't want to be associated with them just because I watch a stupid cartoon.

Lobin

I only recently became aware of the crazy fangirl aspect. Happily, now that I know it exists, I also know to avoid sites where I might have to encounter it. Woo! Those boys are eye candy, sure (source: straight girl speaking), but it *really* needn't go any further than simply acknowledging the fact. Know why I love Supernatural? I like the nods to Neil Gaiman; I enjoy the fact that they world they've created feels a little like the one he created in *American Gods*. In fact, I think what's-his-face—Eric Kripke?—acknowledged the heavy influence of that book on the show. I also like the nods to the Joss Whedon playbook, like the way they give you a lighter episode before hitting you with something heavy. I could do without them killing off characters I love, though. But mostly I like it because it's glaringly obvious that they have a crapton of fun making it. Just this season there was the Randy Raccoon preschool or something. There's a Serenity Valley Convalescent Home in there somewhere. The Rise of Dick, fer cryin' out loud! And the episode titled "Mannequin 3: The Reckoning." That title just tickles the shit outta me, and the 80s movie music . . . you just *know* that the writers and music supervisor(s) had a high old time with that one. The fun they all have with it just oozes out all over the whole damn show. Almost forgot: they are champions of breaking the fourth wall in small, entertaining ways. They struck gold earlier this season with "Wait--are you the new Bobby?" and "Have we eaten yet?" in one episode. **TL;DR:** Supernatural is a damn fine show, and those of us who aren't creepy fangirls shouldn't watch it in secret. We should trumpet our very sane and reasonable enjoyment of it and make the *fangirls* be the ones who feel ashamed! Shit. Ima hafta watch me some Supernatural now. *Edited to remove potential spoilers.*

I only recently became aware of the crazy fangirl aspect. Happily, now that I know it exists, I also know to avoid sites where I might have to encounter it. Woo! Those boys are eye candy, sure (source: straight girl speaking), but it really needn't go any further than simply acknowledging the fact. Know why I love Supernatural? I like the nods to Neil Gaiman; I enjoy the fact that they world they've created feels a little like the one he created in American Gods . In fact, I think what's-his-face—Eric Kripke?—acknowledged the heavy influence of that book on the show. I also like the nods to the Joss Whedon playbook, like the way they give you a lighter episode before hitting you with something heavy. I could do without them killing off characters I love, though. But mostly I like it because it's glaringly obvious that they have a crapton of fun making it. Just this season there was the Randy Raccoon preschool or something. There's a Serenity Valley Convalescent Home in there somewhere. The Rise of Dick, fer cryin' out loud! And the episode titled "Mannequin 3: The Reckoning." That title just tickles the shit outta me, and the 80s movie music . . . you just know that the writers and music supervisor(s) had a high old time with that one. The fun they all have with it just oozes out all over the whole damn show. Almost forgot: they are champions of breaking the fourth wall in small, entertaining ways. They struck gold earlier this season with "Wait--are you the new Bobby?" and "Have we eaten yet?" in one episode. TL;DR: Supernatural is a damn fine show, and those of us who aren't creepy fangirls shouldn't watch it in secret. We should trumpet our very sane and reasonable enjoyment of it and make the fangirls be the ones who feel ashamed! Shit. Ima hafta watch me some Supernatural now. Edited to remove potential spoilers.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c7bb1nc

I only recently became aware of the crazy fangirl aspect. Happily, now that I know it exists, I also know to avoid sites where I might have to encounter it. Woo! Those boys are eye candy, sure (source: straight girl speaking), but it really needn't go any further than simply acknowledging the fact. Know why I love Supernatural? I like the nods to Neil Gaiman; I enjoy the fact that they world they've created feels a little like the one he created in American Gods . In fact, I think what's-his-face—Eric Kripke?—acknowledged the heavy influence of that book on the show. I also like the nods to the Joss Whedon playbook, like the way they give you a lighter episode before hitting you with something heavy. I could do without them killing off characters I love, though. But mostly I like it because it's glaringly obvious that they have a crapton of fun making it. Just this season there was the Randy Raccoon preschool or something. There's a Serenity Valley Convalescent Home in there somewhere. The Rise of Dick, fer cryin' out loud! And the episode titled "Mannequin 3: The Reckoning." That title just tickles the shit outta me, and the 80s movie music . . . you just know that the writers and music supervisor(s) had a high old time with that one. The fun they all have with it just oozes out all over the whole damn show. Almost forgot: they are champions of breaking the fourth wall in small, entertaining ways. They struck gold earlier this season with "Wait--are you the new Bobby?" and "Have we eaten yet?" in one episode.

Supernatural is a damn fine show, and those of us who aren't creepy fangirls shouldn't watch it in secret. We should trumpet our very sane and reasonable enjoyment of it and make the fangirls be the ones who feel ashamed! Shit. Ima hafta watch me some Supernatural now. Edited to remove potential spoilers.

Lobin

Fuck yeah! I would also like to state that the opening of the season 5 finale, when Chuck's writing about the millionth car off the Chevrolet production line and then segues into writing about the Impala, was beautifully, beautifully written. Oh, and everything about the Supernatural books and their crazy fandom makes me smile, up to and including "I'm the webmistress of morethanbrothers.net!" It's funny 'cuz it's gross. And because it's probably poking fun at the actual crazy fans. There's one other thing I love that I'm reluctant to bring up because, well, it smacks of crazy fangirl if I don't explain it properly. But fuck it. I feel safe with y'all. Just go with me on this, ok? I freaking love Jensen Ackles. Not because he's pretty, but for his little twitches of pure, subtle comedy. F'rinstance, when Castiel (god I love Castiel) is watching porn for the first time: "Oh, great. Now he has a boner." Or when he mentions that one of the Ramones is buried in a certain cemetery: Sam asks if they're going to dig him up, and Dean replies, with *perfect* inflection, "Bite your tongue, heathen!" He also delivers my favorite line in the whole series, and it's the delivery that makes me love it so: "Puddiiiinnnnng!" Jesus. Look at me rattling off lines. I *do* sound like a crazy fangirl. Stupid brain, being the kind that words and scenes sear themselves into. I plead being a former stagehand who can't *help* noticing this stuff. **TL;DR:** Puddiiiinnnnng!

Fuck yeah! I would also like to state that the opening of the season 5 finale, when Chuck's writing about the millionth car off the Chevrolet production line and then segues into writing about the Impala, was beautifully, beautifully written. Oh, and everything about the Supernatural books and their crazy fandom makes me smile, up to and including "I'm the webmistress of morethanbrothers.net!" It's funny 'cuz it's gross. And because it's probably poking fun at the actual crazy fans. There's one other thing I love that I'm reluctant to bring up because, well, it smacks of crazy fangirl if I don't explain it properly. But fuck it. I feel safe with y'all. Just go with me on this, ok? I freaking love Jensen Ackles. Not because he's pretty, but for his little twitches of pure, subtle comedy. F'rinstance, when Castiel (god I love Castiel) is watching porn for the first time: "Oh, great. Now he has a boner." Or when he mentions that one of the Ramones is buried in a certain cemetery: Sam asks if they're going to dig him up, and Dean replies, with perfect inflection, "Bite your tongue, heathen!" He also delivers my favorite line in the whole series, and it's the delivery that makes me love it so: "Puddiiiinnnnng!" Jesus. Look at me rattling off lines. I do sound like a crazy fangirl. Stupid brain, being the kind that words and scenes sear themselves into. I plead being a former stagehand who can't help noticing this stuff. TL;DR: Puddiiiinnnnng!

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c7bck25

Fuck yeah! I would also like to state that the opening of the season 5 finale, when Chuck's writing about the millionth car off the Chevrolet production line and then segues into writing about the Impala, was beautifully, beautifully written. Oh, and everything about the Supernatural books and their crazy fandom makes me smile, up to and including "I'm the webmistress of morethanbrothers.net!" It's funny 'cuz it's gross. And because it's probably poking fun at the actual crazy fans. There's one other thing I love that I'm reluctant to bring up because, well, it smacks of crazy fangirl if I don't explain it properly. But fuck it. I feel safe with y'all. Just go with me on this, ok? I freaking love Jensen Ackles. Not because he's pretty, but for his little twitches of pure, subtle comedy. F'rinstance, when Castiel (god I love Castiel) is watching porn for the first time: "Oh, great. Now he has a boner." Or when he mentions that one of the Ramones is buried in a certain cemetery: Sam asks if they're going to dig him up, and Dean replies, with perfect inflection, "Bite your tongue, heathen!" He also delivers my favorite line in the whole series, and it's the delivery that makes me love it so: "Puddiiiinnnnng!" Jesus. Look at me rattling off lines. I do sound like a crazy fangirl. Stupid brain, being the kind that words and scenes sear themselves into. I plead being a former stagehand who can't help noticing this stuff.

Puddiiiinnnnng!

dschaefer

Permitting depends on where you are. I got an EIN, State sales permit, city permits for tobacco, non-intoxicating beverages, and vending. Besides that the big one for me was a wisconsin tobacco products distributor license. That allowed me to buy tobacco from other states and pay the proper taxes, but there are also distributors that may pay your state's applicable taxes. Again the permits you need will vary state to state so make sure to check your local laws. If you have a smoking ban in your state you may be SOL. Expenses, the best I can from memory, were as follows: Realize I was trying to get this off as cheaply as possible and then spend more on it as I made it. You could definitely spend more on equipment and furniture, but I don't see the reason. If your clientele ends up being like mine they will just have somewhere cool to go and won't care if the couch is brand new designer, or second hand with a cover. This is rough estimations below. Also I was in a 1000+ sqft location that seated 25-35 to start furniture costs go up with more space :P * Stainless sink, fridge, and stainless work tables - (all used) ~2-3K * Couches, chairs, tables - (As much quality used as possible and filled in the gaps with some cheap new) ~ 2-3k * Cash register - (I now use an ipad with square and a cash drawer) 100-1000 * Hookahs, supplies, & tobacco (for use and sale) ~ 2-3K * legal fees and permitting ~ 2k Other stuff is any buildout or remodeling, paint, decorations, music apparatus, and depends on the state of the building you rent. I also rented an ice maker in the beginning rather than buying, but this is also something you can find relatively cheap used on CL. Finally you could avoid the fridge by instead buying or renting an old canned soda vending machine and using that. Also for music I contacted a local coin-op vender and 'rented' (they take 50% of the take) a jukebox and a dig dug machine and it cost me nothing up front. You also want to make sure you have enough squirreled away for the first few months of rent and bills and advertising. Hope this helps a bit. TLDR; If you are smart about it you can do it without breaking the bank. The hardest part about opening a new one at this point is avoiding smoking bans.

Permitting depends on where you are. I got an EIN, State sales permit, city permits for tobacco, non-intoxicating beverages, and vending. Besides that the big one for me was a wisconsin tobacco products distributor license. That allowed me to buy tobacco from other states and pay the proper taxes, but there are also distributors that may pay your state's applicable taxes. Again the permits you need will vary state to state so make sure to check your local laws. If you have a smoking ban in your state you may be SOL. Expenses, the best I can from memory, were as follows: Realize I was trying to get this off as cheaply as possible and then spend more on it as I made it. You could definitely spend more on equipment and furniture, but I don't see the reason. If your clientele ends up being like mine they will just have somewhere cool to go and won't care if the couch is brand new designer, or second hand with a cover. This is rough estimations below. Also I was in a 1000+ sqft location that seated 25-35 to start furniture costs go up with more space :P Stainless sink, fridge, and stainless work tables - (all used) ~2-3K Couches, chairs, tables - (As much quality used as possible and filled in the gaps with some cheap new) ~ 2-3k Cash register - (I now use an ipad with square and a cash drawer) 100-1000 Hookahs, supplies, & tobacco (for use and sale) ~ 2-3K legal fees and permitting ~ 2k Other stuff is any buildout or remodeling, paint, decorations, music apparatus, and depends on the state of the building you rent. I also rented an ice maker in the beginning rather than buying, but this is also something you can find relatively cheap used on CL. Finally you could avoid the fridge by instead buying or renting an old canned soda vending machine and using that. Also for music I contacted a local coin-op vender and 'rented' (they take 50% of the take) a jukebox and a dig dug machine and it cost me nothing up front. You also want to make sure you have enough squirreled away for the first few months of rent and bills and advertising. Hope this helps a bit. TLDR; If you are smart about it you can do it without breaking the bank. The hardest part about opening a new one at this point is avoiding smoking bans.

hookah

t5_2qkma

c7bafwx

Permitting depends on where you are. I got an EIN, State sales permit, city permits for tobacco, non-intoxicating beverages, and vending. Besides that the big one for me was a wisconsin tobacco products distributor license. That allowed me to buy tobacco from other states and pay the proper taxes, but there are also distributors that may pay your state's applicable taxes. Again the permits you need will vary state to state so make sure to check your local laws. If you have a smoking ban in your state you may be SOL. Expenses, the best I can from memory, were as follows: Realize I was trying to get this off as cheaply as possible and then spend more on it as I made it. You could definitely spend more on equipment and furniture, but I don't see the reason. If your clientele ends up being like mine they will just have somewhere cool to go and won't care if the couch is brand new designer, or second hand with a cover. This is rough estimations below. Also I was in a 1000+ sqft location that seated 25-35 to start furniture costs go up with more space :P Stainless sink, fridge, and stainless work tables - (all used) ~2-3K Couches, chairs, tables - (As much quality used as possible and filled in the gaps with some cheap new) ~ 2-3k Cash register - (I now use an ipad with square and a cash drawer) 100-1000 Hookahs, supplies, & tobacco (for use and sale) ~ 2-3K legal fees and permitting ~ 2k Other stuff is any buildout or remodeling, paint, decorations, music apparatus, and depends on the state of the building you rent. I also rented an ice maker in the beginning rather than buying, but this is also something you can find relatively cheap used on CL. Finally you could avoid the fridge by instead buying or renting an old canned soda vending machine and using that. Also for music I contacted a local coin-op vender and 'rented' (they take 50% of the take) a jukebox and a dig dug machine and it cost me nothing up front. You also want to make sure you have enough squirreled away for the first few months of rent and bills and advertising. Hope this helps a bit.

If you are smart about it you can do it without breaking the bank. The hardest part about opening a new one at this point is avoiding smoking bans.

Gwenhwyfar666

Okay, I've read through your comments, and I can only assume that you have no friends that like metal, nor have you ever actually been to a metal gig or even met another metalhead. You've formed all your opinions in some weird bubble and argue things that are generally accepted by all metalheads as if they aren't. I've withheld from commenting on your ridiculous posts because I think there are others here, like noodle, fighting the good fight far more eloquently than I ever could. However, this time I cannot help myself. Saying metal archives has zero credibility in the metal world makes no sense. Say what you will about the layout (I've had my issues with it in the past - many of which have recently been addressed with the latest version), but the metal archives has been one of the most valuable resources for the underground at large for the last decade or more. There is no other database out there, electronic or otherwise, that has as massive a metal catalogue, that for the most part is neatly organized into several different search terms, including genre, country, label, and more. Similar to Wikipedia, it is user edited, but on a points system - you must have a certain number of points in order to edit things, which you get by submitting reviews. On top of that, all reviews and all edits are closely moderated by some very dedicated people - the better written the review, the more points you get. This means that the only people that are submitting to and editing the metal archives are dedicated metalheads. In all my discussions with metalheads and travels to gigs all across the globe, I have NEVER met a person who hasn't ever used the archives. I personally do not know where I would be without having it to reference. When I hear of a new band, the first thing I do is check their archives page. It is the best and easiest way to get a glimpse and determine whether it's a band worth looking into. Or maybe I'm just trying to remember the name of an album or the name of a band member or I want to look up lyrics. Metal archives is the quickest and easiest way to achieve that, and everyone in metal knows it. TL;DR: Whether it's a shitty site with a terrible layout is debatable (I personally don't think it is). Does is have zero credibility in metal? Absolutely not.

Okay, I've read through your comments, and I can only assume that you have no friends that like metal, nor have you ever actually been to a metal gig or even met another metalhead. You've formed all your opinions in some weird bubble and argue things that are generally accepted by all metalheads as if they aren't. I've withheld from commenting on your ridiculous posts because I think there are others here, like noodle, fighting the good fight far more eloquently than I ever could. However, this time I cannot help myself. Saying metal archives has zero credibility in the metal world makes no sense. Say what you will about the layout (I've had my issues with it in the past - many of which have recently been addressed with the latest version), but the metal archives has been one of the most valuable resources for the underground at large for the last decade or more. There is no other database out there, electronic or otherwise, that has as massive a metal catalogue, that for the most part is neatly organized into several different search terms, including genre, country, label, and more. Similar to Wikipedia, it is user edited, but on a points system - you must have a certain number of points in order to edit things, which you get by submitting reviews. On top of that, all reviews and all edits are closely moderated by some very dedicated people - the better written the review, the more points you get. This means that the only people that are submitting to and editing the metal archives are dedicated metalheads. In all my discussions with metalheads and travels to gigs all across the globe, I have NEVER met a person who hasn't ever used the archives. I personally do not know where I would be without having it to reference. When I hear of a new band, the first thing I do is check their archives page. It is the best and easiest way to get a glimpse and determine whether it's a band worth looking into. Or maybe I'm just trying to remember the name of an album or the name of a band member or I want to look up lyrics. Metal archives is the quickest and easiest way to achieve that, and everyone in metal knows it. TL;DR: Whether it's a shitty site with a terrible layout is debatable (I personally don't think it is). Does is have zero credibility in metal? Absolutely not.

thrashmetal

t5_2s66e

c7cko3n

Okay, I've read through your comments, and I can only assume that you have no friends that like metal, nor have you ever actually been to a metal gig or even met another metalhead. You've formed all your opinions in some weird bubble and argue things that are generally accepted by all metalheads as if they aren't. I've withheld from commenting on your ridiculous posts because I think there are others here, like noodle, fighting the good fight far more eloquently than I ever could. However, this time I cannot help myself. Saying metal archives has zero credibility in the metal world makes no sense. Say what you will about the layout (I've had my issues with it in the past - many of which have recently been addressed with the latest version), but the metal archives has been one of the most valuable resources for the underground at large for the last decade or more. There is no other database out there, electronic or otherwise, that has as massive a metal catalogue, that for the most part is neatly organized into several different search terms, including genre, country, label, and more. Similar to Wikipedia, it is user edited, but on a points system - you must have a certain number of points in order to edit things, which you get by submitting reviews. On top of that, all reviews and all edits are closely moderated by some very dedicated people - the better written the review, the more points you get. This means that the only people that are submitting to and editing the metal archives are dedicated metalheads. In all my discussions with metalheads and travels to gigs all across the globe, I have NEVER met a person who hasn't ever used the archives. I personally do not know where I would be without having it to reference. When I hear of a new band, the first thing I do is check their archives page. It is the best and easiest way to get a glimpse and determine whether it's a band worth looking into. Or maybe I'm just trying to remember the name of an album or the name of a band member or I want to look up lyrics. Metal archives is the quickest and easiest way to achieve that, and everyone in metal knows it.

Whether it's a shitty site with a terrible layout is debatable (I personally don't think it is). Does is have zero credibility in metal? Absolutely not.

ireditfirst

Idk, I highly doubt he is personally invested in it. If he wanted the money, he wouldn't have gone into politics. He is a very well educated guy and could have made a killing as an economic advisor (Hes got a masters in econ) I think he's the type of guy thats in it for the power and glory. Keep in mind he has a history in the Reform party. Which was an extreme right wing party that merged with the Conservative Alliance (i think that was their name) to get todays party. tl;dr His personal ideals a far more right wing that the party itself.

Idk, I highly doubt he is personally invested in it. If he wanted the money, he wouldn't have gone into politics. He is a very well educated guy and could have made a killing as an economic advisor (Hes got a masters in econ) I think he's the type of guy thats in it for the power and glory. Keep in mind he has a history in the Reform party. Which was an extreme right wing party that merged with the Conservative Alliance (i think that was their name) to get todays party. tl;dr His personal ideals a far more right wing that the party itself.

trees

t5_2r9vp

c7brdlo

Idk, I highly doubt he is personally invested in it. If he wanted the money, he wouldn't have gone into politics. He is a very well educated guy and could have made a killing as an economic advisor (Hes got a masters in econ) I think he's the type of guy thats in it for the power and glory. Keep in mind he has a history in the Reform party. Which was an extreme right wing party that merged with the Conservative Alliance (i think that was their name) to get todays party.

His personal ideals a far more right wing that the party itself.

BlueTact

I don't really see a problem. It is just a surrender box with colours. All you are doing is jumping on the season 3 patch hate train. **TLDR: Downvote me plz**

I don't really see a problem. It is just a surrender box with colours. All you are doing is jumping on the season 3 patch hate train. TLDR: Downvote me plz

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c7bhiz4

I don't really see a problem. It is just a surrender box with colours. All you are doing is jumping on the season 3 patch hate train.

Downvote me plz

Deutro

I agree with you in most of what you said. The problem I see is that football players now that they will get "banned" for doing shit and behaving like douches. We dont know if IWDominate knew that he can get banned from professional gaming. He knew that his account may get permabanned but that is his personal problem. Imho its right to ban players from professional games if they act like IWDominate did but you should get a warning like: "Hey IWDominate change your behaviour or we will ban you from the professional scene". Tl;dr: Ban justified, correct way to handle the situation from Riot? Imo no!

I agree with you in most of what you said. The problem I see is that football players now that they will get "banned" for doing shit and behaving like douches. We dont know if IWDominate knew that he can get banned from professional gaming. He knew that his account may get permabanned but that is his personal problem. Imho its right to ban players from professional games if they act like IWDominate did but you should get a warning like: "Hey IWDominate change your behaviour or we will ban you from the professional scene". Tl;dr: Ban justified, correct way to handle the situation from Riot? Imo no!

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c7bk3rz

I agree with you in most of what you said. The problem I see is that football players now that they will get "banned" for doing shit and behaving like douches. We dont know if IWDominate knew that he can get banned from professional gaming. He knew that his account may get permabanned but that is his personal problem. Imho its right to ban players from professional games if they act like IWDominate did but you should get a warning like: "Hey IWDominate change your behaviour or we will ban you from the professional scene".

Ban justified, correct way to handle the situation from Riot? Imo no!

SeriousDan

It's definately a good step to "clean up" in high elo territory for once, especially when players get money from Riot to be a professional gamer and represent their game. On the other hand though, the times I've seen IWD on streams he wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary. There's joking trash talking in almost all games and since the introduction of the Tribunal everybody has grown really thin-skinned. Now I don't say that what he did was right but a year long ban is also a grave punishment for somebody who relies on tournament earnings (aka pro players). Being probably 10 years above the age of the average league player I don't really get upset about flaming (which seems to be what IWD has been banned for); everyone has bad games/days every now and then and of course, you only hear about the bad ones on the Tribunal. On the other hand you have players like Dyrus who troll and feed on purpose (on a stream with 10k viewers no less) or just afk/ragequit games. As a player I'd rather have somebody on my team who's raging at me for making a mistake (nobody rages at somebody for no reason to be honest) than somebody who's actively working for the other team to win. Of course, we won't see any punishment for Dyrus though because Riot loves TSM for some reason (also inb4 fanboy downvotes). TL;DR: If Riot really wants punishment this harsh for the pro players that made their game famous in the first place they should hold all pro players to the same standards. Also stop getting upset about words, people.

It's definately a good step to "clean up" in high elo territory for once, especially when players get money from Riot to be a professional gamer and represent their game. On the other hand though, the times I've seen IWD on streams he wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary. There's joking trash talking in almost all games and since the introduction of the Tribunal everybody has grown really thin-skinned. Now I don't say that what he did was right but a year long ban is also a grave punishment for somebody who relies on tournament earnings (aka pro players). Being probably 10 years above the age of the average league player I don't really get upset about flaming (which seems to be what IWD has been banned for); everyone has bad games/days every now and then and of course, you only hear about the bad ones on the Tribunal. On the other hand you have players like Dyrus who troll and feed on purpose (on a stream with 10k viewers no less) or just afk/ragequit games. As a player I'd rather have somebody on my team who's raging at me for making a mistake (nobody rages at somebody for no reason to be honest) than somebody who's actively working for the other team to win. Of course, we won't see any punishment for Dyrus though because Riot loves TSM for some reason (also inb4 fanboy downvotes). TL;DR: If Riot really wants punishment this harsh for the pro players that made their game famous in the first place they should hold all pro players to the same standards. Also stop getting upset about words, people.

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c7blhtq

It's definately a good step to "clean up" in high elo territory for once, especially when players get money from Riot to be a professional gamer and represent their game. On the other hand though, the times I've seen IWD on streams he wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary. There's joking trash talking in almost all games and since the introduction of the Tribunal everybody has grown really thin-skinned. Now I don't say that what he did was right but a year long ban is also a grave punishment for somebody who relies on tournament earnings (aka pro players). Being probably 10 years above the age of the average league player I don't really get upset about flaming (which seems to be what IWD has been banned for); everyone has bad games/days every now and then and of course, you only hear about the bad ones on the Tribunal. On the other hand you have players like Dyrus who troll and feed on purpose (on a stream with 10k viewers no less) or just afk/ragequit games. As a player I'd rather have somebody on my team who's raging at me for making a mistake (nobody rages at somebody for no reason to be honest) than somebody who's actively working for the other team to win. Of course, we won't see any punishment for Dyrus though because Riot loves TSM for some reason (also inb4 fanboy downvotes).

If Riot really wants punishment this harsh for the pro players that made their game famous in the first place they should hold all pro players to the same standards. Also stop getting upset about words, people.

geeege21

I will start by stating I have been a Riot supporter since day 1, starting with beta and introducing many many people to the game. I truly have believed in what riot's mission has been thus far. However, Riot did destroy his league career. You think LoL will be around as the most competitive game for another 5 years? Think again, this year is the single most important year to date, and will determine whether this is a feasible approach to eSports professional gaming. Of which IWD has put in substantial time and effort in helping develop the pro scene to this point as he has been a part of it for an extensive amount of time. Gaming has, and always will be full of gamers. Since the beginning of gaming, people get hyped/emotional/jabber mouthed/etc. when things do not go as intended. This ranges from a 2 year old to a 50 year old. I have not been punished by the tribunal on any of my accounts, ever. However from the start of tribunal being implemented in the way it is, it started off being a GREAT idea, and quickly was realized that not all god ideas are implemented properly. This was the start, since first time since playing this game over 3 years ago that I have been disappointed with Riot. And this very harsh implementation only leaves me with a taste in my mouth that riot is pushing more towards catering to its masses (not top 20% elo) players, just as WoW did in its beginning after Blackwing lair I believe it was called. They made everything easy mode and more accessible to the casual gamer and continued to do so from what I've been told. I see this game doing the same thing in a different way, punishing players by perma-banning is already excessive considering the amount of time and money put in by the individual. This in itself is trying to change the nature of online gaming, competitive gamers as I stated above have historically had a raging nature. That is why they are playing a PURELY PVP based game. The root disruption of the game in my opinion is not typing ragers, you have plenty of options if your feelings are hurt by keystrokes. The biggest problem is people who do not communicate in team select/afk-ragequitter's. This disrupts the game the most, I have had plenty of ragers in my games and there is a mute button for each player in the game that any moron can figure out. If your feelings are hurt so much in a competitive environment I suggest you stick to candyland because regardless of Riot's stance on this, this behavior towards less skilled players will be in EVERY competitive style game til the end of gaming. The best players, want to win. TL;DR Poor decision by riot trying to make a purely competitive pvp style game into happy joy land style game that appeals to the majority (masses), as this will never be successful d/t the nature of the most competitive players. This may be their focus in this game and people will adapt at that level for now, however this will be the nature of all very high competitive players forever.

I will start by stating I have been a Riot supporter since day 1, starting with beta and introducing many many people to the game. I truly have believed in what riot's mission has been thus far. However, Riot did destroy his league career. You think LoL will be around as the most competitive game for another 5 years? Think again, this year is the single most important year to date, and will determine whether this is a feasible approach to eSports professional gaming. Of which IWD has put in substantial time and effort in helping develop the pro scene to this point as he has been a part of it for an extensive amount of time. Gaming has, and always will be full of gamers. Since the beginning of gaming, people get hyped/emotional/jabber mouthed/etc. when things do not go as intended. This ranges from a 2 year old to a 50 year old. I have not been punished by the tribunal on any of my accounts, ever. However from the start of tribunal being implemented in the way it is, it started off being a GREAT idea, and quickly was realized that not all god ideas are implemented properly. This was the start, since first time since playing this game over 3 years ago that I have been disappointed with Riot. And this very harsh implementation only leaves me with a taste in my mouth that riot is pushing more towards catering to its masses (not top 20% elo) players, just as WoW did in its beginning after Blackwing lair I believe it was called. They made everything easy mode and more accessible to the casual gamer and continued to do so from what I've been told. I see this game doing the same thing in a different way, punishing players by perma-banning is already excessive considering the amount of time and money put in by the individual. This in itself is trying to change the nature of online gaming, competitive gamers as I stated above have historically had a raging nature. That is why they are playing a PURELY PVP based game. The root disruption of the game in my opinion is not typing ragers, you have plenty of options if your feelings are hurt by keystrokes. The biggest problem is people who do not communicate in team select/afk-ragequitter's. This disrupts the game the most, I have had plenty of ragers in my games and there is a mute button for each player in the game that any moron can figure out. If your feelings are hurt so much in a competitive environment I suggest you stick to candyland because regardless of Riot's stance on this, this behavior towards less skilled players will be in EVERY competitive style game til the end of gaming. The best players, want to win. TL;DR Poor decision by riot trying to make a purely competitive pvp style game into happy joy land style game that appeals to the majority (masses), as this will never be successful d/t the nature of the most competitive players. This may be their focus in this game and people will adapt at that level for now, however this will be the nature of all very high competitive players forever.

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

c7bob97

I will start by stating I have been a Riot supporter since day 1, starting with beta and introducing many many people to the game. I truly have believed in what riot's mission has been thus far. However, Riot did destroy his league career. You think LoL will be around as the most competitive game for another 5 years? Think again, this year is the single most important year to date, and will determine whether this is a feasible approach to eSports professional gaming. Of which IWD has put in substantial time and effort in helping develop the pro scene to this point as he has been a part of it for an extensive amount of time. Gaming has, and always will be full of gamers. Since the beginning of gaming, people get hyped/emotional/jabber mouthed/etc. when things do not go as intended. This ranges from a 2 year old to a 50 year old. I have not been punished by the tribunal on any of my accounts, ever. However from the start of tribunal being implemented in the way it is, it started off being a GREAT idea, and quickly was realized that not all god ideas are implemented properly. This was the start, since first time since playing this game over 3 years ago that I have been disappointed with Riot. And this very harsh implementation only leaves me with a taste in my mouth that riot is pushing more towards catering to its masses (not top 20% elo) players, just as WoW did in its beginning after Blackwing lair I believe it was called. They made everything easy mode and more accessible to the casual gamer and continued to do so from what I've been told. I see this game doing the same thing in a different way, punishing players by perma-banning is already excessive considering the amount of time and money put in by the individual. This in itself is trying to change the nature of online gaming, competitive gamers as I stated above have historically had a raging nature. That is why they are playing a PURELY PVP based game. The root disruption of the game in my opinion is not typing ragers, you have plenty of options if your feelings are hurt by keystrokes. The biggest problem is people who do not communicate in team select/afk-ragequitter's. This disrupts the game the most, I have had plenty of ragers in my games and there is a mute button for each player in the game that any moron can figure out. If your feelings are hurt so much in a competitive environment I suggest you stick to candyland because regardless of Riot's stance on this, this behavior towards less skilled players will be in EVERY competitive style game til the end of gaming. The best players, want to win.

Poor decision by riot trying to make a purely competitive pvp style game into happy joy land style game that appeals to the majority (masses), as this will never be successful d/t the nature of the most competitive players. This may be their focus in this game and people will adapt at that level for now, however this will be the nature of all very high competitive players forever.

Phlebin_Harnwell

I agree completely. I just started documenting my dreams a little over a month ago and within the first week of documentation my dream recall had noticeably improved. The problem for me, and I imagine a lot of beginners, is MAKING myself write down my dream on those mornings where my brain is telling me 'Fuck this, go back to bed!' 'You'll remember it when you wake up again, how could you forget?' Building the discipline to routinely document my dreams is the biggest struggle thus far, but I know the benefits of lucid dreaming are worth the effort. Tl;dr? Documenting your dreams routinely is tough, but IS necessary.

I agree completely. I just started documenting my dreams a little over a month ago and within the first week of documentation my dream recall had noticeably improved. The problem for me, and I imagine a lot of beginners, is MAKING myself write down my dream on those mornings where my brain is telling me 'Fuck this, go back to bed!' 'You'll remember it when you wake up again, how could you forget?' Building the discipline to routinely document my dreams is the biggest struggle thus far, but I know the benefits of lucid dreaming are worth the effort. Tl;dr? Documenting your dreams routinely is tough, but IS necessary.

LucidDreaming

t5_2r0f4

c7cma25

I agree completely. I just started documenting my dreams a little over a month ago and within the first week of documentation my dream recall had noticeably improved. The problem for me, and I imagine a lot of beginners, is MAKING myself write down my dream on those mornings where my brain is telling me 'Fuck this, go back to bed!' 'You'll remember it when you wake up again, how could you forget?' Building the discipline to routinely document my dreams is the biggest struggle thus far, but I know the benefits of lucid dreaming are worth the effort.

Documenting your dreams routinely is tough, but IS necessary.

blowafuse

I'm the SEM/SEO manager for an ecommerce company that does almost 200 million annually. I've been on the other end of the presentations and here's some stuff i would look for. Siegoboy's comments are really good if the company is starting SEO from scratch. For a company that's been actively building their SEO, i think you want to provide more details on the value added you provide. Identify problem points in their SEO efforts and talk about the current environment. Don't rip them apart, because you want to make them feel positive as well, but talk about what you can do to contribute. Saying 'We want to start this from scratch! or We want to re-do this" basically = lots of work or lots of money and taking steps backwards and that the guy in charge of the program (the one who will be hiring you) is incompetent. More likely, he/she/they will understand where you're coming from but will have a different idea of where priorities should lie. Unless something they're doing is completely wrong, don't offer to redo anything. Ie, blogs, content, URL structure. Rather - try to add to what they're doing instead (unless it's a complete mess). If they are doing 100 million, then they have other systems tied to the site and there are other factors that are preventing them from improving their site or it's a bigger job than you think because other departments will need to get involved. Ie. content could reside in IT instead of marketing or vice versa meaning they have to go through gatekeepers to get changes implemented. Simple changes like title tags etc which would take a few mins on a smaller site could take weeks to get done on a larger company's site. Although, you shouldn't guarantee any performance (because that will just raise flags), set goals based on what you think you can accomplish. Whether that is traffic goals, conversions, ranking etc. - is up to you. This will help them get an idea of what they will get back on their investment. In the end SEO is another channel. Most people understand it takes time to see results from SEO but visually showing what the forecasted growth will look like is something i request in all my RFPs. This forecast and the tactics used to get there are what i look at most closely when i am looking at proposals from agencies. Talk about some of the tactics you will be using to get to your proposed forecasts and try to get into some detail. Ie. don't just say link building $1000 - say linkbuilding allocating this amount of funds into content creation, this much into getting X number of high PR sites per month, X number of mid PR sites, and $X into directories or whatever. Don't worry about the company taking your ideas and running with it themselves. if they're this large, they have the resources to do everything in-house if they wanted to but it's not worth the resources they will need to put into it. Hiring an agency will allow them to implement and hit the ground running rather than building it up internally. If they're new to SEO, offer a site audit to kick things off and make this a big part of the presentation because it will highlight your expertise and also show where their investment is going. If they are SEO veterans, mention the site audit outlining what's involved but don't make a big deal out of it. Chances are they've done/had numerous audits and another one will just look like a waste of time. Realize that a site that does $100 million will be slow to act. There's going to be release cycles, and other projects that are bigger priority than SEO so factor that into your recommendations and projects. Low hanging fruit is very attractive - so make sure you highlight those. Things that you can implement quickly (sometimes site related, but off-site might be better if they will be slower to make changes). Offering to take on some of the on-site work is very attractive but can also backfire. This usually means opening up code and dev environments to your team which may be backlash on from those who manage those areas. I'm sure there's more stuff but this reply is TLDR enough as it is. Someone sourced Neil Patel in one of the responses - you should definately take a look at what he says. Good luck. I hope you land it.

I'm the SEM/SEO manager for an ecommerce company that does almost 200 million annually. I've been on the other end of the presentations and here's some stuff i would look for. Siegoboy's comments are really good if the company is starting SEO from scratch. For a company that's been actively building their SEO, i think you want to provide more details on the value added you provide. Identify problem points in their SEO efforts and talk about the current environment. Don't rip them apart, because you want to make them feel positive as well, but talk about what you can do to contribute. Saying 'We want to start this from scratch! or We want to re-do this" basically = lots of work or lots of money and taking steps backwards and that the guy in charge of the program (the one who will be hiring you) is incompetent. More likely, he/she/they will understand where you're coming from but will have a different idea of where priorities should lie. Unless something they're doing is completely wrong, don't offer to redo anything. Ie, blogs, content, URL structure. Rather - try to add to what they're doing instead (unless it's a complete mess). If they are doing 100 million, then they have other systems tied to the site and there are other factors that are preventing them from improving their site or it's a bigger job than you think because other departments will need to get involved. Ie. content could reside in IT instead of marketing or vice versa meaning they have to go through gatekeepers to get changes implemented. Simple changes like title tags etc which would take a few mins on a smaller site could take weeks to get done on a larger company's site. Although, you shouldn't guarantee any performance (because that will just raise flags), set goals based on what you think you can accomplish. Whether that is traffic goals, conversions, ranking etc. - is up to you. This will help them get an idea of what they will get back on their investment. In the end SEO is another channel. Most people understand it takes time to see results from SEO but visually showing what the forecasted growth will look like is something i request in all my RFPs. This forecast and the tactics used to get there are what i look at most closely when i am looking at proposals from agencies. Talk about some of the tactics you will be using to get to your proposed forecasts and try to get into some detail. Ie. don't just say link building $1000 - say linkbuilding allocating this amount of funds into content creation, this much into getting X number of high PR sites per month, X number of mid PR sites, and $X into directories or whatever. Don't worry about the company taking your ideas and running with it themselves. if they're this large, they have the resources to do everything in-house if they wanted to but it's not worth the resources they will need to put into it. Hiring an agency will allow them to implement and hit the ground running rather than building it up internally. If they're new to SEO, offer a site audit to kick things off and make this a big part of the presentation because it will highlight your expertise and also show where their investment is going. If they are SEO veterans, mention the site audit outlining what's involved but don't make a big deal out of it. Chances are they've done/had numerous audits and another one will just look like a waste of time. Realize that a site that does $100 million will be slow to act. There's going to be release cycles, and other projects that are bigger priority than SEO so factor that into your recommendations and projects. Low hanging fruit is very attractive - so make sure you highlight those. Things that you can implement quickly (sometimes site related, but off-site might be better if they will be slower to make changes). Offering to take on some of the on-site work is very attractive but can also backfire. This usually means opening up code and dev environments to your team which may be backlash on from those who manage those areas. I'm sure there's more stuff but this reply is TLDR enough as it is. Someone sourced Neil Patel in one of the responses - you should definately take a look at what he says. Good luck. I hope you land it.

SEO

t5_2qhbx

c7bxspi

I'm the SEM/SEO manager for an ecommerce company that does almost 200 million annually. I've been on the other end of the presentations and here's some stuff i would look for. Siegoboy's comments are really good if the company is starting SEO from scratch. For a company that's been actively building their SEO, i think you want to provide more details on the value added you provide. Identify problem points in their SEO efforts and talk about the current environment. Don't rip them apart, because you want to make them feel positive as well, but talk about what you can do to contribute. Saying 'We want to start this from scratch! or We want to re-do this" basically = lots of work or lots of money and taking steps backwards and that the guy in charge of the program (the one who will be hiring you) is incompetent. More likely, he/she/they will understand where you're coming from but will have a different idea of where priorities should lie. Unless something they're doing is completely wrong, don't offer to redo anything. Ie, blogs, content, URL structure. Rather - try to add to what they're doing instead (unless it's a complete mess). If they are doing 100 million, then they have other systems tied to the site and there are other factors that are preventing them from improving their site or it's a bigger job than you think because other departments will need to get involved. Ie. content could reside in IT instead of marketing or vice versa meaning they have to go through gatekeepers to get changes implemented. Simple changes like title tags etc which would take a few mins on a smaller site could take weeks to get done on a larger company's site. Although, you shouldn't guarantee any performance (because that will just raise flags), set goals based on what you think you can accomplish. Whether that is traffic goals, conversions, ranking etc. - is up to you. This will help them get an idea of what they will get back on their investment. In the end SEO is another channel. Most people understand it takes time to see results from SEO but visually showing what the forecasted growth will look like is something i request in all my RFPs. This forecast and the tactics used to get there are what i look at most closely when i am looking at proposals from agencies. Talk about some of the tactics you will be using to get to your proposed forecasts and try to get into some detail. Ie. don't just say link building $1000 - say linkbuilding allocating this amount of funds into content creation, this much into getting X number of high PR sites per month, X number of mid PR sites, and $X into directories or whatever. Don't worry about the company taking your ideas and running with it themselves. if they're this large, they have the resources to do everything in-house if they wanted to but it's not worth the resources they will need to put into it. Hiring an agency will allow them to implement and hit the ground running rather than building it up internally. If they're new to SEO, offer a site audit to kick things off and make this a big part of the presentation because it will highlight your expertise and also show where their investment is going. If they are SEO veterans, mention the site audit outlining what's involved but don't make a big deal out of it. Chances are they've done/had numerous audits and another one will just look like a waste of time. Realize that a site that does $100 million will be slow to act. There's going to be release cycles, and other projects that are bigger priority than SEO so factor that into your recommendations and projects. Low hanging fruit is very attractive - so make sure you highlight those. Things that you can implement quickly (sometimes site related, but off-site might be better if they will be slower to make changes). Offering to take on some of the on-site work is very attractive but can also backfire. This usually means opening up code and dev environments to your team which may be backlash on from those who manage those areas. I'm sure there's more stuff but this reply is

enough as it is. Someone sourced Neil Patel in one of the responses - you should definately take a look at what he says. Good luck. I hope you land it.

Skyoung93

The difference between tachyons and a black hole is that while both are hypothetical, a black hole has support through deduction. Tachyons don't even have that. I mean essentially everything we cannot immediately observe is considered just a theory, but most of our science past that point is extrapolated by taking said theory as truth. While the black hole may technically be hypothetical, it has backing and we've advanced with that assumption, and everything still follows the laws of physics. A tachyon on the other hand has no support, no true contribution, as well as a direct violation of the laws of physics. TL;DR, there's a difference between theory and a theory with support. You can't say that a tachyon actually exists as anything more than a theory.

The difference between tachyons and a black hole is that while both are hypothetical, a black hole has support through deduction. Tachyons don't even have that. I mean essentially everything we cannot immediately observe is considered just a theory, but most of our science past that point is extrapolated by taking said theory as truth. While the black hole may technically be hypothetical, it has backing and we've advanced with that assumption, and everything still follows the laws of physics. A tachyon on the other hand has no support, no true contribution, as well as a direct violation of the laws of physics. TL;DR, there's a difference between theory and a theory with support. You can't say that a tachyon actually exists as anything more than a theory.

DotA2

t5_2s580

c7cm57j

The difference between tachyons and a black hole is that while both are hypothetical, a black hole has support through deduction. Tachyons don't even have that. I mean essentially everything we cannot immediately observe is considered just a theory, but most of our science past that point is extrapolated by taking said theory as truth. While the black hole may technically be hypothetical, it has backing and we've advanced with that assumption, and everything still follows the laws of physics. A tachyon on the other hand has no support, no true contribution, as well as a direct violation of the laws of physics.

there's a difference between theory and a theory with support. You can't say that a tachyon actually exists as anything more than a theory.

ElectricRebel

Ugh. If any state really wants a nuclear weapon (and is willing to pay the consequences in international relations), it can build a graphite moderated, water-cooled natural uranium reactor and run the rods on a short fuel cycle and then reprocess. All of the materials required to do the above are available anywhere. This is 1940s technology and is the method that all modern US nuclear weapons [were built with]( And it could easily be done underground so that it is hard to detect from space. North Korea built one of these above ground but was forced to stop doing it when the [US threatened to do air strikes]( Of course, they could have rebuilt this infrastructure underground and not told anyone until they make enough bombs. Who knows. The other methods pretty much suck. Enriching uranium is a pain in the ass because isotopic separation is complex and slow (the US only does this for power reactors these days because we naively think not using the practically limitless energy of plutonium power reactors like the Integral Fast Reactor in our country will prevent proliferation in other countries). And using a LFTR to separate out protactinium is incredibly stupid because you then lose the fuel to needed maintain the reactors breeding ratio to produce more material. The breeding ratios of LFTRs [aren't very high]( so if you remove the stuff that decays into fuel then you have to put more fuel in to keep the reactor going (which means enriched uranium, plutonium, or more U-233). This is basic physics. LFTRs are also much more complex than the Chicago Pile/Hanford B reactor (note: this doesn't mean they aren't a million times better for power production, they just require more engineering effort and industrial production for materials like Hallestoy-N). The thing is that states like Iran and North Korea really don't want to make these materials in mass. If they do, it would be seen as a major threat by the powers that be and would be pretext for a JDAM tossing party by 'Murica. They want to do just enough to keep their capabilities ambiguous so they feel big and bad while still preventing invasion. But they don't want to do anything too over the top because that is suicide (this is why Iran publicly stated it stopped uranium enrichment at 20%, they just wanted to show they had the turnkey capability to make weapons, not that they'd actually do it). And further, nuclear materials aren't enough by themselves. The USA and USSR invested enormous amounts of money that Iran and Best Korea don't have in delivery systems (MIRVed ICBMs with advanced inertial and celestial guidance systems, stealth bombers, terrain mapping cruise missiles, missile subs, the [Davy Fuckin' Crockett]( the dreaded and banned-by-treaty [Fractional Orbital Bombardment System]( and probably even Goldeneyes :) and weapons design/testing to perfect their Armageddon-bringing capabilities. If the remaining members of the Axis of Evil actually used a bomb, they would be completely obliterated (i.e. their entire population will look like the guy that was microwaved like in Kick-Ass) while the other side would just suffer some relatively minor damage (note: although many people died there in 1945, Hiroshima still exists and thrives today). So yeah, the Iranians might desire to have the ability to prevent invasion, but the steps to get there involve invoking invasion before they are capable of defending themselves. So, don't expect the status quo to change. The only reason NK crossed the initial threshold is because Kim Jong Il wanted to compensate for his many inadequacies, but no one considers the NK bomb a significant real world threat. But even then, they can't get their rockets to fire straight and may be crazy, but aren't suicidal. The only place I really worry about is Pakistan. If some corrupt idiots in their government leaks a few kg of enriched uranium (which can be trivially made into a crude nuke using the gun design) to some religious nut, India is gonna have a pretty bad time. Of course, that will probably trigger the destruction of Pakistan, so hopefully the corrupt idiots will keep that in mind before going through with that. What really worries me is what if the corrupt idiots are also themselves religious nuts. Then we have a problem that isn't easily fixable. TL;DR: Proliferation concerns aren't that big of a deal. Stop worrying and love the LFTR (and the IFR).

Ugh. If any state really wants a nuclear weapon (and is willing to pay the consequences in international relations), it can build a graphite moderated, water-cooled natural uranium reactor and run the rods on a short fuel cycle and then reprocess. All of the materials required to do the above are available anywhere. This is 1940s technology and is the method that all modern US nuclear weapons [were built with]( And it could easily be done underground so that it is hard to detect from space. North Korea built one of these above ground but was forced to stop doing it when the [US threatened to do air strikes]( Of course, they could have rebuilt this infrastructure underground and not told anyone until they make enough bombs. Who knows. The other methods pretty much suck. Enriching uranium is a pain in the ass because isotopic separation is complex and slow (the US only does this for power reactors these days because we naively think not using the practically limitless energy of plutonium power reactors like the Integral Fast Reactor in our country will prevent proliferation in other countries). And using a LFTR to separate out protactinium is incredibly stupid because you then lose the fuel to needed maintain the reactors breeding ratio to produce more material. The breeding ratios of LFTRs aren't very high . This is basic physics. LFTRs are also much more complex than the Chicago Pile/Hanford B reactor (note: this doesn't mean they aren't a million times better for power production, they just require more engineering effort and industrial production for materials like Hallestoy-N). The thing is that states like Iran and North Korea really don't want to make these materials in mass. If they do, it would be seen as a major threat by the powers that be and would be pretext for a JDAM tossing party by 'Murica. They want to do just enough to keep their capabilities ambiguous so they feel big and bad while still preventing invasion. But they don't want to do anything too over the top because that is suicide (this is why Iran publicly stated it stopped uranium enrichment at 20%, they just wanted to show they had the turnkey capability to make weapons, not that they'd actually do it). And further, nuclear materials aren't enough by themselves. The USA and USSR invested enormous amounts of money that Iran and Best Korea don't have in delivery systems (MIRVed ICBMs with advanced inertial and celestial guidance systems, stealth bombers, terrain mapping cruise missiles, missile subs, the Davy Fuckin' Crockett and weapons design/testing to perfect their Armageddon-bringing capabilities. If the remaining members of the Axis of Evil actually used a bomb, they would be completely obliterated (i.e. their entire population will look like the guy that was microwaved like in Kick-Ass) while the other side would just suffer some relatively minor damage (note: although many people died there in 1945, Hiroshima still exists and thrives today). So yeah, the Iranians might desire to have the ability to prevent invasion, but the steps to get there involve invoking invasion before they are capable of defending themselves. So, don't expect the status quo to change. The only reason NK crossed the initial threshold is because Kim Jong Il wanted to compensate for his many inadequacies, but no one considers the NK bomb a significant real world threat. But even then, they can't get their rockets to fire straight and may be crazy, but aren't suicidal. The only place I really worry about is Pakistan. If some corrupt idiots in their government leaks a few kg of enriched uranium (which can be trivially made into a crude nuke using the gun design) to some religious nut, India is gonna have a pretty bad time. Of course, that will probably trigger the destruction of Pakistan, so hopefully the corrupt idiots will keep that in mind before going through with that. What really worries me is what if the corrupt idiots are also themselves religious nuts. Then we have a problem that isn't easily fixable. TL;DR: Proliferation concerns aren't that big of a deal. Stop worrying and love the LFTR (and the IFR).

energy

t5_2qhkd

c7c3z7s

Ugh. If any state really wants a nuclear weapon (and is willing to pay the consequences in international relations), it can build a graphite moderated, water-cooled natural uranium reactor and run the rods on a short fuel cycle and then reprocess. All of the materials required to do the above are available anywhere. This is 1940s technology and is the method that all modern US nuclear weapons [were built with]( And it could easily be done underground so that it is hard to detect from space. North Korea built one of these above ground but was forced to stop doing it when the [US threatened to do air strikes]( Of course, they could have rebuilt this infrastructure underground and not told anyone until they make enough bombs. Who knows. The other methods pretty much suck. Enriching uranium is a pain in the ass because isotopic separation is complex and slow (the US only does this for power reactors these days because we naively think not using the practically limitless energy of plutonium power reactors like the Integral Fast Reactor in our country will prevent proliferation in other countries). And using a LFTR to separate out protactinium is incredibly stupid because you then lose the fuel to needed maintain the reactors breeding ratio to produce more material. The breeding ratios of LFTRs aren't very high . This is basic physics. LFTRs are also much more complex than the Chicago Pile/Hanford B reactor (note: this doesn't mean they aren't a million times better for power production, they just require more engineering effort and industrial production for materials like Hallestoy-N). The thing is that states like Iran and North Korea really don't want to make these materials in mass. If they do, it would be seen as a major threat by the powers that be and would be pretext for a JDAM tossing party by 'Murica. They want to do just enough to keep their capabilities ambiguous so they feel big and bad while still preventing invasion. But they don't want to do anything too over the top because that is suicide (this is why Iran publicly stated it stopped uranium enrichment at 20%, they just wanted to show they had the turnkey capability to make weapons, not that they'd actually do it). And further, nuclear materials aren't enough by themselves. The USA and USSR invested enormous amounts of money that Iran and Best Korea don't have in delivery systems (MIRVed ICBMs with advanced inertial and celestial guidance systems, stealth bombers, terrain mapping cruise missiles, missile subs, the Davy Fuckin' Crockett and weapons design/testing to perfect their Armageddon-bringing capabilities. If the remaining members of the Axis of Evil actually used a bomb, they would be completely obliterated (i.e. their entire population will look like the guy that was microwaved like in Kick-Ass) while the other side would just suffer some relatively minor damage (note: although many people died there in 1945, Hiroshima still exists and thrives today). So yeah, the Iranians might desire to have the ability to prevent invasion, but the steps to get there involve invoking invasion before they are capable of defending themselves. So, don't expect the status quo to change. The only reason NK crossed the initial threshold is because Kim Jong Il wanted to compensate for his many inadequacies, but no one considers the NK bomb a significant real world threat. But even then, they can't get their rockets to fire straight and may be crazy, but aren't suicidal. The only place I really worry about is Pakistan. If some corrupt idiots in their government leaks a few kg of enriched uranium (which can be trivially made into a crude nuke using the gun design) to some religious nut, India is gonna have a pretty bad time. Of course, that will probably trigger the destruction of Pakistan, so hopefully the corrupt idiots will keep that in mind before going through with that. What really worries me is what if the corrupt idiots are also themselves religious nuts. Then we have a problem that isn't easily fixable.

Proliferation concerns aren't that big of a deal. Stop worrying and love the LFTR (and the IFR).

Hristix

I had a similar experience once. Now, a little back story on this car. It has less than 10k miles on it, has been taken care of, and has come back from the factory three times with the same damn leak that was supposedly fixed. Basically, one of the windows allows moisture in. This means it has a nice moldy smell all the time and bugs can get in. Also, the air bag doesn't work, the speakers don't work, etc. 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt if you must know, out of warranty. Anyway. I was driving to the store in this car, which belonged to my parents, as my mom had no license and my dad had advanced lou gehrig's disease and couldn't drive anyway. I get there and load up the groceries in the trunk. I start back. Before I'm even out of the parking lot, I reach into the back seat to grab my jacket because I was getting cold. I felt something on my hand and looked back. My entire arm was covered in ants. There were hundreds, nay, thousands of them. Thankfully there was a gas station in the same parking lot so I high tailed it over there and began to vacuum out the ants. There was a book in the back seat, and the entirety of the book and all surrounding parts was ant nest. It took me a good hour to suck them all up with the vacuum. They had infested my jacket, too, so that got a good vacuuming too and a trip through the wash when I got home. TLDR; Fuck you Chevrolet for hiring stupid technicians and being completely able to fix leaks until the warranty runs out at which point you tell people to go pound sand.

I had a similar experience once. Now, a little back story on this car. It has less than 10k miles on it, has been taken care of, and has come back from the factory three times with the same damn leak that was supposedly fixed. Basically, one of the windows allows moisture in. This means it has a nice moldy smell all the time and bugs can get in. Also, the air bag doesn't work, the speakers don't work, etc. 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt if you must know, out of warranty. Anyway. I was driving to the store in this car, which belonged to my parents, as my mom had no license and my dad had advanced lou gehrig's disease and couldn't drive anyway. I get there and load up the groceries in the trunk. I start back. Before I'm even out of the parking lot, I reach into the back seat to grab my jacket because I was getting cold. I felt something on my hand and looked back. My entire arm was covered in ants. There were hundreds, nay, thousands of them. Thankfully there was a gas station in the same parking lot so I high tailed it over there and began to vacuum out the ants. There was a book in the back seat, and the entirety of the book and all surrounding parts was ant nest. It took me a good hour to suck them all up with the vacuum. They had infested my jacket, too, so that got a good vacuuming too and a trip through the wash when I got home. TLDR; Fuck you Chevrolet for hiring stupid technicians and being completely able to fix leaks until the warranty runs out at which point you tell people to go pound sand.

WTF

t5_2qh61

c7c3sv2

I had a similar experience once. Now, a little back story on this car. It has less than 10k miles on it, has been taken care of, and has come back from the factory three times with the same damn leak that was supposedly fixed. Basically, one of the windows allows moisture in. This means it has a nice moldy smell all the time and bugs can get in. Also, the air bag doesn't work, the speakers don't work, etc. 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt if you must know, out of warranty. Anyway. I was driving to the store in this car, which belonged to my parents, as my mom had no license and my dad had advanced lou gehrig's disease and couldn't drive anyway. I get there and load up the groceries in the trunk. I start back. Before I'm even out of the parking lot, I reach into the back seat to grab my jacket because I was getting cold. I felt something on my hand and looked back. My entire arm was covered in ants. There were hundreds, nay, thousands of them. Thankfully there was a gas station in the same parking lot so I high tailed it over there and began to vacuum out the ants. There was a book in the back seat, and the entirety of the book and all surrounding parts was ant nest. It took me a good hour to suck them all up with the vacuum. They had infested my jacket, too, so that got a good vacuuming too and a trip through the wash when I got home.

Fuck you Chevrolet for hiring stupid technicians and being completely able to fix leaks until the warranty runs out at which point you tell people to go pound sand.

Quigglebuffin

Gotta love Australia. Tips though. Wash your car (inside and out) frequently. Less shit in the car means less hiding spots plus chances are you're leaving food wrappers that attract ants and other bugs, which is partly the reason spidey is hangin around. Pressure wash the outside, don't forget mirrors, door gaps and wheel arches etc. If you are extra paranoid get the engine bay too. Doesn't take long. Not using the car for a while? Close the vents and hit recirculate. Also don't park contacting any trees or bushes, ever. TLDR - Tips to hopefully stop you killing me from by finding a spider in your car whilst driving.

Gotta love Australia. Tips though. Wash your car (inside and out) frequently. Less shit in the car means less hiding spots plus chances are you're leaving food wrappers that attract ants and other bugs, which is partly the reason spidey is hangin around. Pressure wash the outside, don't forget mirrors, door gaps and wheel arches etc. If you are extra paranoid get the engine bay too. Doesn't take long. Not using the car for a while? Close the vents and hit recirculate. Also don't park contacting any trees or bushes, ever. TLDR - Tips to hopefully stop you killing me from by finding a spider in your car whilst driving.

WTF

t5_2qh61

c7c4ipe

Gotta love Australia. Tips though. Wash your car (inside and out) frequently. Less shit in the car means less hiding spots plus chances are you're leaving food wrappers that attract ants and other bugs, which is partly the reason spidey is hangin around. Pressure wash the outside, don't forget mirrors, door gaps and wheel arches etc. If you are extra paranoid get the engine bay too. Doesn't take long. Not using the car for a while? Close the vents and hit recirculate. Also don't park contacting any trees or bushes, ever.

Tips to hopefully stop you killing me from by finding a spider in your car whilst driving.

PurpleAmity

Summer of 2011. Last day of high school senior. Left school early to go on the lake. 8 of us on my friends pontoon and my jet skis (read: my parents jet skis). 3 girls, 5 guys, lots of flashing titties for no reason. Their reasoning? YOLO. I liked YOLO that day. Later that summer, same setting, same people. Assholes in a wakeboarding boat (huge wake) keep swamping our boat with water. One of them gets on a jet ski with a girl on the back. They start spraying us with the rooster tail and the jet. A lot. I was pissed. You i grabbed a just opened, almost full can of Dr. Pepper. With perfect timing, I threw the can at them right as they turned to spray us, [like this]( but much *much* faster. The pop can collides with the girls ass. Perfect hit. We recovered the pop can later. The top was blown off and it was *completely* crushed. They didn't bother us anymore. I am a legend. TL;DR: Minnesota.

Summer of 2011. Last day of high school senior. Left school early to go on the lake. 8 of us on my friends pontoon and my jet skis (read: my parents jet skis). 3 girls, 5 guys, lots of flashing titties for no reason. Their reasoning? YOLO. I liked YOLO that day. Later that summer, same setting, same people. Assholes in a wakeboarding boat (huge wake) keep swamping our boat with water. One of them gets on a jet ski with a girl on the back. They start spraying us with the rooster tail and the jet. A lot. I was pissed. You i grabbed a just opened, almost full can of Dr. Pepper. With perfect timing, I threw the can at them right as they turned to spray us, [like this]( but much much faster. The pop can collides with the girls ass. Perfect hit. We recovered the pop can later. The top was blown off and it was completely crushed. They didn't bother us anymore. I am a legend. TL;DR: Minnesota.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c7c23lt

Summer of 2011. Last day of high school senior. Left school early to go on the lake. 8 of us on my friends pontoon and my jet skis (read: my parents jet skis). 3 girls, 5 guys, lots of flashing titties for no reason. Their reasoning? YOLO. I liked YOLO that day. Later that summer, same setting, same people. Assholes in a wakeboarding boat (huge wake) keep swamping our boat with water. One of them gets on a jet ski with a girl on the back. They start spraying us with the rooster tail and the jet. A lot. I was pissed. You i grabbed a just opened, almost full can of Dr. Pepper. With perfect timing, I threw the can at them right as they turned to spray us, [like this]( but much much faster. The pop can collides with the girls ass. Perfect hit. We recovered the pop can later. The top was blown off and it was completely crushed. They didn't bother us anymore. I am a legend.

Minnesota.

pessimistdiary

That's the one thing that really kills me about some religious people (not all, by any means): when they know less than you about their own supposed beliefs and the argument essentially turns into "Im right and dats it I dont need to no anything else because JEEZUS." I also don't agree with that everything has to turn into an argument, but when someone is demonstrating intolerance of any kind, I generally feel the need to step in, because that's how I do. TL;DR Boo to dicks like this.

That's the one thing that really kills me about some religious people (not all, by any means): when they know less than you about their own supposed beliefs and the argument essentially turns into "Im right and dats it I dont need to no anything else because JEEZUS." I also don't agree with that everything has to turn into an argument, but when someone is demonstrating intolerance of any kind, I generally feel the need to step in, because that's how I do. TL;DR Boo to dicks like this.

atheism

t5_2qh2p

c7c68gp

That's the one thing that really kills me about some religious people (not all, by any means): when they know less than you about their own supposed beliefs and the argument essentially turns into "Im right and dats it I dont need to no anything else because JEEZUS." I also don't agree with that everything has to turn into an argument, but when someone is demonstrating intolerance of any kind, I generally feel the need to step in, because that's how I do.

Boo to dicks like this.

Danecdotes

I know I'm going to catch crap for this, but I can't find any context for this video, so let's not jump to conclusions. There was a similar incident in October (iirc) and after the story blew up it was found out that during the course of disciplining bad students they started swearing at/assaulting their teacher, who then reacted (admittedly) badly. Here, all we have is a video of a teacher pushing a student back, her swinging at him and then him slapping her. My korean is not good enough to be able to understand the whole dialogue, but I have taught enough spoiled, aggressive students to realize that there's likely more going on here than we see. tl;dr: let's at least figure out what's going on before we grab the pitchforks, and cool it with the "FOR KOREA" stuff.

I know I'm going to catch crap for this, but I can't find any context for this video, so let's not jump to conclusions. There was a similar incident in October (iirc) and after the story blew up it was found out that during the course of disciplining bad students they started swearing at/assaulting their teacher, who then reacted (admittedly) badly. Here, all we have is a video of a teacher pushing a student back, her swinging at him and then him slapping her. My korean is not good enough to be able to understand the whole dialogue, but I have taught enough spoiled, aggressive students to realize that there's likely more going on here than we see. tl;dr: let's at least figure out what's going on before we grab the pitchforks, and cool it with the "FOR KOREA" stuff.

korea

t5_2qiog

c7c2mgr

I know I'm going to catch crap for this, but I can't find any context for this video, so let's not jump to conclusions. There was a similar incident in October (iirc) and after the story blew up it was found out that during the course of disciplining bad students they started swearing at/assaulting their teacher, who then reacted (admittedly) badly. Here, all we have is a video of a teacher pushing a student back, her swinging at him and then him slapping her. My korean is not good enough to be able to understand the whole dialogue, but I have taught enough spoiled, aggressive students to realize that there's likely more going on here than we see.

let's at least figure out what's going on before we grab the pitchforks, and cool it with the "FOR KOREA" stuff.

therewillbeblood2

I've been having a helluva lot of fun with this game since I bought it. Tight gun play, challenging/rewarding system with capturing camps and turning on cell towers. good sneak mechanics, nice graphics. It has all the game I could ever want. Oh and one giant island to explore? oh why ubisoft I thought you would never ask! YES YES THAT IS WHAT I WANT. MORE OF THIS GAME. tl;dr: damn fine game, worth the 60 bucks(well 65 with tax). (I hear the multiplayer is good too, just haven't played it yet)

I've been having a helluva lot of fun with this game since I bought it. Tight gun play, challenging/rewarding system with capturing camps and turning on cell towers. good sneak mechanics, nice graphics. It has all the game I could ever want. Oh and one giant island to explore? oh why ubisoft I thought you would never ask! YES YES THAT IS WHAT I WANT. MORE OF THIS GAME. tl;dr: damn fine game, worth the 60 bucks(well 65 with tax). (I hear the multiplayer is good too, just haven't played it yet)

gaming

t5_2qh03

c7ciaeh

I've been having a helluva lot of fun with this game since I bought it. Tight gun play, challenging/rewarding system with capturing camps and turning on cell towers. good sneak mechanics, nice graphics. It has all the game I could ever want. Oh and one giant island to explore? oh why ubisoft I thought you would never ask! YES YES THAT IS WHAT I WANT. MORE OF THIS GAME.

damn fine game, worth the 60 bucks(well 65 with tax). (I hear the multiplayer is good too, just haven't played it yet)

Sornos

Dumbledore would win under most conditions. I know that seems a little controversial given the other comments, but hear me out. He'd win because he is human. Well, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it. Gandalf isn't human. He's a maiar in the form of an old man. In plainspeak, he's an angel. Because he such a being, his influence is relatively weak. He can guide and teach but he cannot rule. He can only do those things if he went rogue, like Saruman and even then, Saruman's power wasn't magic, but cunning and strategy. Dumbledore isn't bound by those rules. If he wanted to make the floor into a dragon, he could damn well do it. If he wanted Gandalf's insides to boil away, he could to that too. The conditions ultimately come down to what Gandalf's superiors want. If they want him to defeat Dumbledore, they'll send him back until he does, like with the Balrog. But since this is simply being on being and without back up, it's pretty definitive that Dumbledore would win. **tl;dr Dumbledore wins because his power can be expressed violently whereas Gandalf's power is wisdom and guidance**

Dumbledore would win under most conditions. I know that seems a little controversial given the other comments, but hear me out. He'd win because he is human. Well, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it. Gandalf isn't human. He's a maiar in the form of an old man. In plainspeak, he's an angel. Because he such a being, his influence is relatively weak. He can guide and teach but he cannot rule. He can only do those things if he went rogue, like Saruman and even then, Saruman's power wasn't magic, but cunning and strategy. Dumbledore isn't bound by those rules. If he wanted to make the floor into a dragon, he could damn well do it. If he wanted Gandalf's insides to boil away, he could to that too. The conditions ultimately come down to what Gandalf's superiors want. If they want him to defeat Dumbledore, they'll send him back until he does, like with the Balrog. But since this is simply being on being and without back up, it's pretty definitive that Dumbledore would win. tl;dr Dumbledore wins because his power can be expressed violently whereas Gandalf's power is wisdom and guidance

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c7cmtt2

Dumbledore would win under most conditions. I know that seems a little controversial given the other comments, but hear me out. He'd win because he is human. Well, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it. Gandalf isn't human. He's a maiar in the form of an old man. In plainspeak, he's an angel. Because he such a being, his influence is relatively weak. He can guide and teach but he cannot rule. He can only do those things if he went rogue, like Saruman and even then, Saruman's power wasn't magic, but cunning and strategy. Dumbledore isn't bound by those rules. If he wanted to make the floor into a dragon, he could damn well do it. If he wanted Gandalf's insides to boil away, he could to that too. The conditions ultimately come down to what Gandalf's superiors want. If they want him to defeat Dumbledore, they'll send him back until he does, like with the Balrog. But since this is simply being on being and without back up, it's pretty definitive that Dumbledore would win.

Dumbledore wins because his power can be expressed violently whereas Gandalf's power is wisdom and guidance

branewalker

When an ability like "regenerate this creature" resolves, all it does is wait until the creature would die that turn. THEN, if it would die, at the that time, it prevents that. In order for that to matter, it does a few extra things. First, it removes all damage. That's important, otherwise a creature regenerating from lethal damage would immediately die again. Then, it does two other things which basically allow a player to remove the creature for a turn even if it does regenerate. Those two things are: tap the creature (if it has not yet attacked at the time it would die, it can't normally attack after regenerating) and remove it from combat (if it hasn't already done combat damage, that would keep it from dealing combat damage). These other two effects aren't things it needs to do, they're just effects that balance regeneration, and perhaps add a little flavor. TL;DR: regeneration doesn't do anything until the point where state-based actions *would* kill the creature.

When an ability like "regenerate this creature" resolves, all it does is wait until the creature would die that turn. THEN, if it would die, at the that time, it prevents that. In order for that to matter, it does a few extra things. First, it removes all damage. That's important, otherwise a creature regenerating from lethal damage would immediately die again. Then, it does two other things which basically allow a player to remove the creature for a turn even if it does regenerate. Those two things are: tap the creature (if it has not yet attacked at the time it would die, it can't normally attack after regenerating) and remove it from combat (if it hasn't already done combat damage, that would keep it from dealing combat damage). These other two effects aren't things it needs to do, they're just effects that balance regeneration, and perhaps add a little flavor. TL;DR: regeneration doesn't do anything until the point where state-based actions would kill the creature.

magicTCG

t5_2qn5f

c7cqh60

When an ability like "regenerate this creature" resolves, all it does is wait until the creature would die that turn. THEN, if it would die, at the that time, it prevents that. In order for that to matter, it does a few extra things. First, it removes all damage. That's important, otherwise a creature regenerating from lethal damage would immediately die again. Then, it does two other things which basically allow a player to remove the creature for a turn even if it does regenerate. Those two things are: tap the creature (if it has not yet attacked at the time it would die, it can't normally attack after regenerating) and remove it from combat (if it hasn't already done combat damage, that would keep it from dealing combat damage). These other two effects aren't things it needs to do, they're just effects that balance regeneration, and perhaps add a little flavor.

regeneration doesn't do anything until the point where state-based actions would kill the creature.

sgst

End it. I'm not a woman but I've been in *exactly* your situation. Eventually it was her lies that were the last straw - finding out that she'd been binge eating and hiding it from me for years was kinda a break of trust. But that aside, you're not happy. And it's not fair to string someone along who you don't really want to be with. I stayed with my ex for a good couple of years because I loved her and I just wanted her to change back into the girl I used to be attracted to. All that time I thought she would and had hope, but even with her (fake) efforts (and binge eating), she just kept getting bigger. I tried encouraging us both to be healthier, and eventually I told her the truth about how I felt. That didn't help either and shortly after we broke up... and I am so much happier for it! I don't have all that stuff hanging over me all the time, I'm not thinking about it when I'm with her, I don't feel like crap every time I get horny, and I'm not wondering what she's stuffing in her face while I'm at work. As far as I know she hasn't changed her habits, a year on. If she's happy like that then good for her, but I just couldn't share my life with someone like that. Tl;dr: break it off, for the good of both of you. Unless you honestly believe she'll change and want to change.

End it. I'm not a woman but I've been in exactly your situation. Eventually it was her lies that were the last straw - finding out that she'd been binge eating and hiding it from me for years was kinda a break of trust. But that aside, you're not happy. And it's not fair to string someone along who you don't really want to be with. I stayed with my ex for a good couple of years because I loved her and I just wanted her to change back into the girl I used to be attracted to. All that time I thought she would and had hope, but even with her (fake) efforts (and binge eating), she just kept getting bigger. I tried encouraging us both to be healthier, and eventually I told her the truth about how I felt. That didn't help either and shortly after we broke up... and I am so much happier for it! I don't have all that stuff hanging over me all the time, I'm not thinking about it when I'm with her, I don't feel like crap every time I get horny, and I'm not wondering what she's stuffing in her face while I'm at work. As far as I know she hasn't changed her habits, a year on. If she's happy like that then good for her, but I just couldn't share my life with someone like that. Tl;dr: break it off, for the good of both of you. Unless you honestly believe she'll change and want to change.

AskWomen

t5_2rxrw

c7crdao

End it. I'm not a woman but I've been in exactly your situation. Eventually it was her lies that were the last straw - finding out that she'd been binge eating and hiding it from me for years was kinda a break of trust. But that aside, you're not happy. And it's not fair to string someone along who you don't really want to be with. I stayed with my ex for a good couple of years because I loved her and I just wanted her to change back into the girl I used to be attracted to. All that time I thought she would and had hope, but even with her (fake) efforts (and binge eating), she just kept getting bigger. I tried encouraging us both to be healthier, and eventually I told her the truth about how I felt. That didn't help either and shortly after we broke up... and I am so much happier for it! I don't have all that stuff hanging over me all the time, I'm not thinking about it when I'm with her, I don't feel like crap every time I get horny, and I'm not wondering what she's stuffing in her face while I'm at work. As far as I know she hasn't changed her habits, a year on. If she's happy like that then good for her, but I just couldn't share my life with someone like that.

break it off, for the good of both of you. Unless you honestly believe she'll change and want to change.

WalkerEU

[Alternative Article]( To avoid any confusion: Baltic Ace - Bahamas flagged, Greek managed, owned by a company in Isle of Man -- sunk in 15 minutes. Corvus J - Cypriot-flagged / German owned, slightly damaged and continued to its destination. tl;dr: No Mitsubishi for Finland.

[Alternative Article]( To avoid any confusion: Baltic Ace - Bahamas flagged, Greek managed, owned by a company in Isle of Man -- sunk in 15 minutes. Corvus J - Cypriot-flagged / German owned, slightly damaged and continued to its destination. tl;dr: No Mitsubishi for Finland.

europe

t5_2qh4j

c7cpc6d

Alternative Article]( To avoid any confusion: Baltic Ace - Bahamas flagged, Greek managed, owned by a company in Isle of Man -- sunk in 15 minutes. Corvus J - Cypriot-flagged / German owned, slightly damaged and continued to its destination.

No Mitsubishi for Finland.

architect_son

People are so freaking paranoid... Can anyone tell me, besides the legal reasons, why Marriage is important? Does anyone spiritually sincerely believe dancing in circles in front of dead gods will legitimize a bond that you feel for another human being? There is no boundary which keeps people, in the afterlife or without, together that could expresses love any more or less. The act of marriage is a tradition which solidifies possession over individuals, which doesn't sound like, "to honor, to cherish". Inviting family and friends, however wonderful a community gathering could be, is a con for gifts and to ward off any male or female predators. The only joy I could possibly foresee is the Bride's, "One Day", but that is reinforcing a HUGE negative social stereotype which is capturing the absolute beauty of a woman in her prime, her aesthetics, and her youth. After that day, THAT'S IT! Either back to yoga to keep up obsessing over a wedding dress that you will never wear again for the rest of your life or always wondering if you could COMPARE TO YOUR WEDDING DAY. You know the most beautiful I've ever seen a woman? It was after my buddy's kid was born. His partner was so freaking beautiful in intention, motivation, and was in complete aww over a tangible journey which lead to the most beautiful life on this planet. But when she got out of the hospital, only myself and their parents were there to help and be a part of their lives. I wouldn't say that they need to rush the couple, but the community could do more for the lives of those they supposedly cherish than to sit, kneel, stand, aww, eat, drink, dance, cheers, and go home. I would want people involved in the most important moments in my partner's and my lives rather than creating an intangible moment to the dead gods to ward off any other male predators so that I could, how did you put it, "lock that down". Legally, makes sense. That's a commitment. Spiritually, unless it's deeply personal and a completely intimate connection with everyone involved, not a fucking preacher you've met twice before and to impress your Bosses Boss or your distant Aunt that lent you some money because she has no children of her own and, "It would be nice to give her some attention, considering...", then what's the point. Shit, since I'm already on this rant, Sex. Fuck people before marriage. The body is sacred, which is why you SHOULD test drive it before "committing to owning". The reason is not because you should know how it feels, (because it feels pretty fucking good or it's awful, never really a middle ground about it), but because in those soft, silent moments after is the ground which make the earth tremble, the moments of bliss which will sincerely connect you to your partner. God DAMN nothing feels better than having finished mutually and then discussing about your lives, fears, woes, joys, memories, expectations, and hopes. Worst case, if the relationship doesn't work out. then you have come to understand better who 'you' wish to be better and with 'whom' you wish to be better with! WHAT A FUCKING CONCEPT! Do you wish to commit to the partner that you love? Get legally whatever makes you safe from society, and then commit to each other in the knowledge that, no matter how ever much you both change, that the only person in this world that is important enough to share it with is your partner. No "official notice", no community peer pressure, but by acknowledging the joy you both feel for one another every single day, because through the uncertainty of life, there is a stronger love for those who know rather than who need evidence... scratch that... who need a shiny rock as proof rather than the boundless experiences of every day with each other as evidence of your commitment towards one another. I'm going to love my partner so much when I get home. Then we'll play with our pet Chinchilla as she bites our toes and hides in our blanket as we snuggle on the floor while we watch M.A.S.H. (RADAR!), then after sweeping, cleaning out her cage, and finishing the dishes, we'll fall asleep in each other's arms, knowing that this was also the happiest day of our entire lives as well, and looking forwards to tomorrow. TL;DR: Marriage is an institution for those who need evidence of love. However, [love is better expressed through the act of itself.]( Plus, gonna play with a Chinchilla. Chinchilla's rule.

People are so freaking paranoid... Can anyone tell me, besides the legal reasons, why Marriage is important? Does anyone spiritually sincerely believe dancing in circles in front of dead gods will legitimize a bond that you feel for another human being? There is no boundary which keeps people, in the afterlife or without, together that could expresses love any more or less. The act of marriage is a tradition which solidifies possession over individuals, which doesn't sound like, "to honor, to cherish". Inviting family and friends, however wonderful a community gathering could be, is a con for gifts and to ward off any male or female predators. The only joy I could possibly foresee is the Bride's, "One Day", but that is reinforcing a HUGE negative social stereotype which is capturing the absolute beauty of a woman in her prime, her aesthetics, and her youth. After that day, THAT'S IT! Either back to yoga to keep up obsessing over a wedding dress that you will never wear again for the rest of your life or always wondering if you could COMPARE TO YOUR WEDDING DAY. You know the most beautiful I've ever seen a woman? It was after my buddy's kid was born. His partner was so freaking beautiful in intention, motivation, and was in complete aww over a tangible journey which lead to the most beautiful life on this planet. But when she got out of the hospital, only myself and their parents were there to help and be a part of their lives. I wouldn't say that they need to rush the couple, but the community could do more for the lives of those they supposedly cherish than to sit, kneel, stand, aww, eat, drink, dance, cheers, and go home. I would want people involved in the most important moments in my partner's and my lives rather than creating an intangible moment to the dead gods to ward off any other male predators so that I could, how did you put it, "lock that down". Legally, makes sense. That's a commitment. Spiritually, unless it's deeply personal and a completely intimate connection with everyone involved, not a fucking preacher you've met twice before and to impress your Bosses Boss or your distant Aunt that lent you some money because she has no children of her own and, "It would be nice to give her some attention, considering...", then what's the point. Shit, since I'm already on this rant, Sex. Fuck people before marriage. The body is sacred, which is why you SHOULD test drive it before "committing to owning". The reason is not because you should know how it feels, (because it feels pretty fucking good or it's awful, never really a middle ground about it), but because in those soft, silent moments after is the ground which make the earth tremble, the moments of bliss which will sincerely connect you to your partner. God DAMN nothing feels better than having finished mutually and then discussing about your lives, fears, woes, joys, memories, expectations, and hopes. Worst case, if the relationship doesn't work out. then you have come to understand better who 'you' wish to be better and with 'whom' you wish to be better with! WHAT A FUCKING CONCEPT! Do you wish to commit to the partner that you love? Get legally whatever makes you safe from society, and then commit to each other in the knowledge that, no matter how ever much you both change, that the only person in this world that is important enough to share it with is your partner. No "official notice", no community peer pressure, but by acknowledging the joy you both feel for one another every single day, because through the uncertainty of life, there is a stronger love for those who know rather than who need evidence... scratch that... who need a shiny rock as proof rather than the boundless experiences of every day with each other as evidence of your commitment towards one another. I'm going to love my partner so much when I get home. Then we'll play with our pet Chinchilla as she bites our toes and hides in our blanket as we snuggle on the floor while we watch M.A.S.H. (RADAR!), then after sweeping, cleaning out her cage, and finishing the dishes, we'll fall asleep in each other's arms, knowing that this was also the happiest day of our entire lives as well, and looking forwards to tomorrow. TL;DR: Marriage is an institution for those who need evidence of love. However, [love is better expressed through the act of itself.]( Plus, gonna play with a Chinchilla. Chinchilla's rule.

funny

t5_2qh33

c7cty92

People are so freaking paranoid... Can anyone tell me, besides the legal reasons, why Marriage is important? Does anyone spiritually sincerely believe dancing in circles in front of dead gods will legitimize a bond that you feel for another human being? There is no boundary which keeps people, in the afterlife or without, together that could expresses love any more or less. The act of marriage is a tradition which solidifies possession over individuals, which doesn't sound like, "to honor, to cherish". Inviting family and friends, however wonderful a community gathering could be, is a con for gifts and to ward off any male or female predators. The only joy I could possibly foresee is the Bride's, "One Day", but that is reinforcing a HUGE negative social stereotype which is capturing the absolute beauty of a woman in her prime, her aesthetics, and her youth. After that day, THAT'S IT! Either back to yoga to keep up obsessing over a wedding dress that you will never wear again for the rest of your life or always wondering if you could COMPARE TO YOUR WEDDING DAY. You know the most beautiful I've ever seen a woman? It was after my buddy's kid was born. His partner was so freaking beautiful in intention, motivation, and was in complete aww over a tangible journey which lead to the most beautiful life on this planet. But when she got out of the hospital, only myself and their parents were there to help and be a part of their lives. I wouldn't say that they need to rush the couple, but the community could do more for the lives of those they supposedly cherish than to sit, kneel, stand, aww, eat, drink, dance, cheers, and go home. I would want people involved in the most important moments in my partner's and my lives rather than creating an intangible moment to the dead gods to ward off any other male predators so that I could, how did you put it, "lock that down". Legally, makes sense. That's a commitment. Spiritually, unless it's deeply personal and a completely intimate connection with everyone involved, not a fucking preacher you've met twice before and to impress your Bosses Boss or your distant Aunt that lent you some money because she has no children of her own and, "It would be nice to give her some attention, considering...", then what's the point. Shit, since I'm already on this rant, Sex. Fuck people before marriage. The body is sacred, which is why you SHOULD test drive it before "committing to owning". The reason is not because you should know how it feels, (because it feels pretty fucking good or it's awful, never really a middle ground about it), but because in those soft, silent moments after is the ground which make the earth tremble, the moments of bliss which will sincerely connect you to your partner. God DAMN nothing feels better than having finished mutually and then discussing about your lives, fears, woes, joys, memories, expectations, and hopes. Worst case, if the relationship doesn't work out. then you have come to understand better who 'you' wish to be better and with 'whom' you wish to be better with! WHAT A FUCKING CONCEPT! Do you wish to commit to the partner that you love? Get legally whatever makes you safe from society, and then commit to each other in the knowledge that, no matter how ever much you both change, that the only person in this world that is important enough to share it with is your partner. No "official notice", no community peer pressure, but by acknowledging the joy you both feel for one another every single day, because through the uncertainty of life, there is a stronger love for those who know rather than who need evidence... scratch that... who need a shiny rock as proof rather than the boundless experiences of every day with each other as evidence of your commitment towards one another. I'm going to love my partner so much when I get home. Then we'll play with our pet Chinchilla as she bites our toes and hides in our blanket as we snuggle on the floor while we watch M.A.S.H. (RADAR!), then after sweeping, cleaning out her cage, and finishing the dishes, we'll fall asleep in each other's arms, knowing that this was also the happiest day of our entire lives as well, and looking forwards to tomorrow.

Marriage is an institution for those who need evidence of love. However, [love is better expressed through the act of itself.]( Plus, gonna play with a Chinchilla. Chinchilla's rule.

hephaestusness

My point is that as an engineer and roboticist, I am telling you, you **can** effectively do away with the things that can not be decentralized. I cant wait for the video we are working on to be done so I don't have to keep typing this, This is [The Technocopia Plan]( Imagine a building, lets say 1000 ft/square with 12 ft ceilings (a bit tall for normal, but it makes the math for the square footage round). In this space you have a machine, this machine takes in air and energy and can make things like food, water purifiers, air wells, composite fiber board, manufactured plastics, electronics, computers, solar panels, LED's even electric bikes. Some things need to be put together like Ikia furniture, some are assembled. No metals, or minerals, but really no need for them either. This will produce enough food (pescetarian) for one person permanently. Now the neatest trick this thing will do is make an exact copy of itself as well as the other things. This means if you need more stuff then the machine can provide, you make another one. In fact, since there is no cost and very little labor to build new ones, you generally would keep a spare ready to go, just in case. These machines can be kept individual, or in your local community center to encourage communal meals and collaborative inventing and creativity. Inside the machine on one end is a small vertical aquaponics farm where the veggies, fish and raw material for the rest of the industrial processes comes from. The materials digesters turn bio mass into plastics, graphene electronics and semiconductors, and a whole host of composites. Next level is the manufacturing, of which 3d printing is one part. Robotics manages the interactions between the stages, takes care of the plants and feeds out the ordered items. You use one of the computers made by the machine to design new things, upload them to the internet to share with everyone with a similar machine, and ultimately print out on your local manufacturing system. We have started building the first level of this and meet online every week to discuss progress, if your interested in participating PM me. **tl;dr no, economics of scale will not always exist.**

My point is that as an engineer and roboticist, I am telling you, you can effectively do away with the things that can not be decentralized. I cant wait for the video we are working on to be done so I don't have to keep typing this, This is [The Technocopia Plan]( Imagine a building, lets say 1000 ft/square with 12 ft ceilings (a bit tall for normal, but it makes the math for the square footage round). In this space you have a machine, this machine takes in air and energy and can make things like food, water purifiers, air wells, composite fiber board, manufactured plastics, electronics, computers, solar panels, LED's even electric bikes. Some things need to be put together like Ikia furniture, some are assembled. No metals, or minerals, but really no need for them either. This will produce enough food (pescetarian) for one person permanently. Now the neatest trick this thing will do is make an exact copy of itself as well as the other things. This means if you need more stuff then the machine can provide, you make another one. In fact, since there is no cost and very little labor to build new ones, you generally would keep a spare ready to go, just in case. These machines can be kept individual, or in your local community center to encourage communal meals and collaborative inventing and creativity. Inside the machine on one end is a small vertical aquaponics farm where the veggies, fish and raw material for the rest of the industrial processes comes from. The materials digesters turn bio mass into plastics, graphene electronics and semiconductors, and a whole host of composites. Next level is the manufacturing, of which 3d printing is one part. Robotics manages the interactions between the stages, takes care of the plants and feeds out the ordered items. You use one of the computers made by the machine to design new things, upload them to the internet to share with everyone with a similar machine, and ultimately print out on your local manufacturing system. We have started building the first level of this and meet online every week to discuss progress, if your interested in participating PM me. tl;dr no, economics of scale will not always exist.

Anarchism

t5_2qh5j

c86ig7s

My point is that as an engineer and roboticist, I am telling you, you can effectively do away with the things that can not be decentralized. I cant wait for the video we are working on to be done so I don't have to keep typing this, This is [The Technocopia Plan]( Imagine a building, lets say 1000 ft/square with 12 ft ceilings (a bit tall for normal, but it makes the math for the square footage round). In this space you have a machine, this machine takes in air and energy and can make things like food, water purifiers, air wells, composite fiber board, manufactured plastics, electronics, computers, solar panels, LED's even electric bikes. Some things need to be put together like Ikia furniture, some are assembled. No metals, or minerals, but really no need for them either. This will produce enough food (pescetarian) for one person permanently. Now the neatest trick this thing will do is make an exact copy of itself as well as the other things. This means if you need more stuff then the machine can provide, you make another one. In fact, since there is no cost and very little labor to build new ones, you generally would keep a spare ready to go, just in case. These machines can be kept individual, or in your local community center to encourage communal meals and collaborative inventing and creativity. Inside the machine on one end is a small vertical aquaponics farm where the veggies, fish and raw material for the rest of the industrial processes comes from. The materials digesters turn bio mass into plastics, graphene electronics and semiconductors, and a whole host of composites. Next level is the manufacturing, of which 3d printing is one part. Robotics manages the interactions between the stages, takes care of the plants and feeds out the ordered items. You use one of the computers made by the machine to design new things, upload them to the internet to share with everyone with a similar machine, and ultimately print out on your local manufacturing system. We have started building the first level of this and meet online every week to discuss progress, if your interested in participating PM me.

no, economics of scale will not always exist.

DownedDefault

I've never actually been very religious, and as a 17 year old growing up in Illinois, I finally told my parents I wasn't a believer. I had some complications at the public school I went to and was never really forced upon religion (with the exception of grandparents being religious). My parents sent me to a private Catholic school last year and I started questioning creationism and such, read the bible multiple times, researched a lot, and finally came to the conclusion that it was bogus. To say the least, my parents took it well and we still talk about it, small debates on our beliefs really, and I may be changing them over unintentionally... They understand my arguments and sometimes agree with me, and it wasn't a painful process to come out at all. Tl;DR: told parents I was atheist, they took it well. Ninja edit: forgot my spaces lol

I've never actually been very religious, and as a 17 year old growing up in Illinois, I finally told my parents I wasn't a believer. I had some complications at the public school I went to and was never really forced upon religion (with the exception of grandparents being religious). My parents sent me to a private Catholic school last year and I started questioning creationism and such, read the bible multiple times, researched a lot, and finally came to the conclusion that it was bogus. To say the least, my parents took it well and we still talk about it, small debates on our beliefs really, and I may be changing them over unintentionally... They understand my arguments and sometimes agree with me, and it wasn't a painful process to come out at all. Tl;DR: told parents I was atheist, they took it well. Ninja edit: forgot my spaces lol

atheism

t5_2qh2p

c7d4frw

I've never actually been very religious, and as a 17 year old growing up in Illinois, I finally told my parents I wasn't a believer. I had some complications at the public school I went to and was never really forced upon religion (with the exception of grandparents being religious). My parents sent me to a private Catholic school last year and I started questioning creationism and such, read the bible multiple times, researched a lot, and finally came to the conclusion that it was bogus. To say the least, my parents took it well and we still talk about it, small debates on our beliefs really, and I may be changing them over unintentionally... They understand my arguments and sometimes agree with me, and it wasn't a painful process to come out at all.

told parents I was atheist, they took it well. Ninja edit: forgot my spaces lol

InfernalWedgie

>By "your place" and "her place" do you mean that you each live **indecently** of parents? I think this makes moving in together *more fun*, don't you? But seriously, don't move in together until both of you have a clear understanding of each other's home habits: How clean is she? What will she tolerate? How much does she nag when she doesn't toolerate something? What chores does she despise? Toilet paper over or under? Pets? How much clutter will she bring/generate? How prompt is she with her rent? tl;dr give yourself enough time to determine whether she's a good roommate.

>By "your place" and "her place" do you mean that you each live indecently of parents? I think this makes moving in together more fun , don't you? But seriously, don't move in together until both of you have a clear understanding of each other's home habits: How clean is she? What will she tolerate? How much does she nag when she doesn't toolerate something? What chores does she despise? Toilet paper over or under? Pets? How much clutter will she bring/generate? How prompt is she with her rent? tl;dr give yourself enough time to determine whether she's a good roommate.

relationships

t5_2qjvn

c7czlbm

By "your place" and "her place" do you mean that you each live indecently of parents? I think this makes moving in together more fun , don't you? But seriously, don't move in together until both of you have a clear understanding of each other's home habits: How clean is she? What will she tolerate? How much does she nag when she doesn't toolerate something? What chores does she despise? Toilet paper over or under? Pets? How much clutter will she bring/generate? How prompt is she with her rent?

give yourself enough time to determine whether she's a good roommate.

johopolo13

What you wear to a club depends on what you want to get out of your trip to the club, what type of club you are going to and what city you are in. If you want to get compliments from the ladies who compliment these guys then dress like these guys. There are a ton of different options for your clothes but it all depends on if you're comfortable going to the clubs as yourself, regardless of outcome, or if you're going to the clubs hoping to hook up with an easy barfly. Neither is necessarily bad. I know that doesn't answer your question but I don't think it makes sense to give you a description of what I wear to clubs and suggest that as the right outfit that "one wears to a club". With a little more information we could probably figure out your style. Ultimately, real confidence is your best article of clothing whenever you go out. TL/DR: Wear what makes you feel confident.

What you wear to a club depends on what you want to get out of your trip to the club, what type of club you are going to and what city you are in. If you want to get compliments from the ladies who compliment these guys then dress like these guys. There are a ton of different options for your clothes but it all depends on if you're comfortable going to the clubs as yourself, regardless of outcome, or if you're going to the clubs hoping to hook up with an easy barfly. Neither is necessarily bad. I know that doesn't answer your question but I don't think it makes sense to give you a description of what I wear to clubs and suggest that as the right outfit that "one wears to a club". With a little more information we could probably figure out your style. Ultimately, real confidence is your best article of clothing whenever you go out. TL/DR: Wear what makes you feel confident.

malefashionadvice

t5_2r65t

c7d0m3v

What you wear to a club depends on what you want to get out of your trip to the club, what type of club you are going to and what city you are in. If you want to get compliments from the ladies who compliment these guys then dress like these guys. There are a ton of different options for your clothes but it all depends on if you're comfortable going to the clubs as yourself, regardless of outcome, or if you're going to the clubs hoping to hook up with an easy barfly. Neither is necessarily bad. I know that doesn't answer your question but I don't think it makes sense to give you a description of what I wear to clubs and suggest that as the right outfit that "one wears to a club". With a little more information we could probably figure out your style. Ultimately, real confidence is your best article of clothing whenever you go out.

Wear what makes you feel confident.

Cyberslasher

No. This isn't. [Horus was conceived by Isis and Osiris.]( with a zombie dick.... No one could find him, his mother gave birth to him in secret to protect him from Set... He was the light and the truth, because his Eye represented clarity, but not the other titles.... He wasn't ever crucified, and burial+resurrection is Osiris.... Raising the dead, also Osiris.... The rest I don't know about, but going from the track record.. No. TLDR: OP is being a faggot again. Edit: I remembered something else, the december 25th.... No. He was born in a time outside of the year, because ....Ged? Ra? Someone didn't want him, osiris, isis, set, and nepthys to be born and over throw him. I think it was Ged.... Anyways, Nut went and gambled for moonlight to make enough time to give birth with Khonsu the moon god.

No. This isn't. [Horus was conceived by Isis and Osiris.]( with a zombie dick.... No one could find him, his mother gave birth to him in secret to protect him from Set... He was the light and the truth, because his Eye represented clarity, but not the other titles.... He wasn't ever crucified, and burial+resurrection is Osiris.... Raising the dead, also Osiris.... The rest I don't know about, but going from the track record.. No. TLDR: OP is being a faggot again. Edit: I remembered something else, the december 25th.... No. He was born in a time outside of the year, because ....Ged? Ra? Someone didn't want him, osiris, isis, set, and nepthys to be born and over throw him. I think it was Ged.... Anyways, Nut went and gambled for moonlight to make enough time to give birth with Khonsu the moon god.

atheism

t5_2qh2p

c7d4ljd

No. This isn't. [Horus was conceived by Isis and Osiris.]( with a zombie dick.... No one could find him, his mother gave birth to him in secret to protect him from Set... He was the light and the truth, because his Eye represented clarity, but not the other titles.... He wasn't ever crucified, and burial+resurrection is Osiris.... Raising the dead, also Osiris.... The rest I don't know about, but going from the track record.. No.

OP is being a faggot again. Edit: I remembered something else, the december 25th.... No. He was born in a time outside of the year, because ....Ged? Ra? Someone didn't want him, osiris, isis, set, and nepthys to be born and over throw him. I think it was Ged.... Anyways, Nut went and gambled for moonlight to make enough time to give birth with Khonsu the moon god.

CakesArePies

Buy a used 200L instead of the 400L. I have owned both. The 200L is two stops wider than the 400 and has half the focal length. Because of this the light required to get a sharp image is about 4 stops lower (2 stops aperture, 2 stops shutter speed). You can use your 200L when the sun starts going down. That's advantage 1. The 200L is much lighter and smaller than the 400L. Advantage 2. The 200L is, give or take, half the price of the 400L. Advantage 3. The 200mm focal length has more uses than the 400L. Advantage 4. The kicker? The 400L is tack sharp. Holy Jesus or Unholy Satin, I don't know who did this, but my 200L has 90% of the sharpness at 2:1 magnification that the 400L has at 1:1. It's ridiculous. Remember how I said I have owned both? I sold my 400L because my 200 could resolve almost the same amount of detail. With a teleconverter (less money than the price difference), you could get a 200L and 90% of a 400L. That's why you should never buy a 400mm f/5.6L. As a side note, adding any teleconverters to a 400L will kill the autofocus. If you want maximum reach go with a 300mm f/4 IS. You can add a 1.4 TC for 420mm and keep the IS/AF. It's a bit pricier than the 400L though. tl;dr: Skip the 400L. Buy a 200L (and 2x TC only if you print and need the megapixel count). I bought my 200L for $600.

Buy a used 200L instead of the 400L. I have owned both. The 200L is two stops wider than the 400 and has half the focal length. Because of this the light required to get a sharp image is about 4 stops lower (2 stops aperture, 2 stops shutter speed). You can use your 200L when the sun starts going down. That's advantage 1. The 200L is much lighter and smaller than the 400L. Advantage 2. The 200L is, give or take, half the price of the 400L. Advantage 3. The 200mm focal length has more uses than the 400L. Advantage 4. The kicker? The 400L is tack sharp. Holy Jesus or Unholy Satin, I don't know who did this, but my 200L has 90% of the sharpness at 2:1 magnification that the 400L has at 1:1. It's ridiculous. Remember how I said I have owned both? I sold my 400L because my 200 could resolve almost the same amount of detail. With a teleconverter (less money than the price difference), you could get a 200L and 90% of a 400L. That's why you should never buy a 400mm f/5.6L. As a side note, adding any teleconverters to a 400L will kill the autofocus. If you want maximum reach go with a 300mm f/4 IS. You can add a 1.4 TC for 420mm and keep the IS/AF. It's a bit pricier than the 400L though. tl;dr: Skip the 400L. Buy a 200L (and 2x TC only if you print and need the megapixel count). I bought my 200L for $600.

photography

t5_2qh2a

c7d92eb

Buy a used 200L instead of the 400L. I have owned both. The 200L is two stops wider than the 400 and has half the focal length. Because of this the light required to get a sharp image is about 4 stops lower (2 stops aperture, 2 stops shutter speed). You can use your 200L when the sun starts going down. That's advantage 1. The 200L is much lighter and smaller than the 400L. Advantage 2. The 200L is, give or take, half the price of the 400L. Advantage 3. The 200mm focal length has more uses than the 400L. Advantage 4. The kicker? The 400L is tack sharp. Holy Jesus or Unholy Satin, I don't know who did this, but my 200L has 90% of the sharpness at 2:1 magnification that the 400L has at 1:1. It's ridiculous. Remember how I said I have owned both? I sold my 400L because my 200 could resolve almost the same amount of detail. With a teleconverter (less money than the price difference), you could get a 200L and 90% of a 400L. That's why you should never buy a 400mm f/5.6L. As a side note, adding any teleconverters to a 400L will kill the autofocus. If you want maximum reach go with a 300mm f/4 IS. You can add a 1.4 TC for 420mm and keep the IS/AF. It's a bit pricier than the 400L though.

Skip the 400L. Buy a 200L (and 2x TC only if you print and need the megapixel count). I bought my 200L for $600.

Jack_Donaghy_Jr

I would advise that you just save you money. Make sure that when you're out of college and on your own you have a big ol pile of money to help you. You'll need all kinds of things you don't even know about right now and then if you don't have a job, you'll need them anyway and a bunch of rent money. Find a high yield savings or CD and park your cash. You will need it. If you can start your career in no debt, you will be in an excellent position moving forward. It will allow you to start saving/investing in earnest and you will make up any "lost" ground almost instantly. tl;dr Just build up a graduation nest egg and do your best to avoid debt.

I would advise that you just save you money. Make sure that when you're out of college and on your own you have a big ol pile of money to help you. You'll need all kinds of things you don't even know about right now and then if you don't have a job, you'll need them anyway and a bunch of rent money. Find a high yield savings or CD and park your cash. You will need it. If you can start your career in no debt, you will be in an excellent position moving forward. It will allow you to start saving/investing in earnest and you will make up any "lost" ground almost instantly. tl;dr Just build up a graduation nest egg and do your best to avoid debt.

personalfinance

t5_2qstm

c7dahdb

I would advise that you just save you money. Make sure that when you're out of college and on your own you have a big ol pile of money to help you. You'll need all kinds of things you don't even know about right now and then if you don't have a job, you'll need them anyway and a bunch of rent money. Find a high yield savings or CD and park your cash. You will need it. If you can start your career in no debt, you will be in an excellent position moving forward. It will allow you to start saving/investing in earnest and you will make up any "lost" ground almost instantly.

Just build up a graduation nest egg and do your best to avoid debt.

RhymesWithEloquent

Wait, is anyone actually disagreeing that *AJFA* is the fucking bomb? It's a refinement of six years of work and development as a band, and the undeniable pinnacle of songwriting achievement for Metallica. IMO it's their best album, and it's my favorite Metallica album, above even *Ride the Lightning* and *Master of Puppets*. It contains some of my favorite songs ("Dyers Eve," "Harvester of Sorrow," "Blackened," "Eye of the Beholder,") not just from Metallica, but in general, the entire world over. "Dyers Eve" holds particular significance for me, being not just my favorite Metallica song but one of my favorite songs ever--and a lot of that, frankly, came with my own emotional difficulties and certain resentments I held towards my own parents that came about when I really started to listen to and love Metallica (which have long since been resolved, but I digress.) The fact that they were able to create songs with such powerful emotional resonance, combined with a technicality and progressiveness that's not just impressive for the sheer skill of the band but also for the remarkable taste and astounding melodicism with which they pull it all off, should be a testament to the quality of that material. Of extremely important note is the fact that they recorded it all with Jason Newsted, a new bassist they were still getting used to playing with, and in the wake of the tragedy arising from the passing of Cliff. The fact that in spite of such a loss (and, at the same time, such a gain--remember that, while he was no Cliff Burton, Jason was no slouch when it came to conjuring up magic on his bass, even if you can barely hear it in the mix) they were able to put together such an amazing album is, frankly, remarkable. With all of the hate that gets tossed at Metallica from the metal community at large, it's often easy for people to forget that, for a long time, they really were the greatest metal band in the world. A single listen to any of the cuts off of *...And Justice For All* makes it completely obvious why that was. And while it's true that I'd rather listen to The Chasm or Bolt Thrower than Metallica's post-Black Album output (although I do love all of their stuff, *Lulu* excepted,) if I had to live on a desert island and could only take one metal album with me, ten times out of ten it would have to be *...And Justice For All.* At the time (this was 1988!) nobody else was really doing this kind of thing--combining this sort of extreme heaviness with all of the progressiveness, technicality and melody that they conjured up for *AJFA*. Remember that, in 1988, this was still groundbreaking stuff--Dream Theater wouldn't release an LP for another half-year (and when *When Dream and Day Unite* finally did come out, it *still* wasn't as good as this,) the rest of the progressive metal world was still busy trying to be Yes or Rush (not to knock prog metal though, because I love that shit, same goes for Yes and Rush) and the only things that could really come close at the time were Death's *Leprosy* and Slayer's *South of Heaven* (both released the same year and both, IMO, of near-equal quality.) While Megadeth was still doing Sex Pistols covers and Anthrax was quickly fading into outdatedness and irrelevance, Metallica was crafting an eternal masterpiece. **TL;DR** Yes. AJFA is a masterpiece.

Wait, is anyone actually disagreeing that AJFA is the fucking bomb? It's a refinement of six years of work and development as a band, and the undeniable pinnacle of songwriting achievement for Metallica. IMO it's their best album, and it's my favorite Metallica album, above even Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets . It contains some of my favorite songs ("Dyers Eve," "Harvester of Sorrow," "Blackened," "Eye of the Beholder,") not just from Metallica, but in general, the entire world over. "Dyers Eve" holds particular significance for me, being not just my favorite Metallica song but one of my favorite songs ever--and a lot of that, frankly, came with my own emotional difficulties and certain resentments I held towards my own parents that came about when I really started to listen to and love Metallica (which have long since been resolved, but I digress.) The fact that they were able to create songs with such powerful emotional resonance, combined with a technicality and progressiveness that's not just impressive for the sheer skill of the band but also for the remarkable taste and astounding melodicism with which they pull it all off, should be a testament to the quality of that material. Of extremely important note is the fact that they recorded it all with Jason Newsted, a new bassist they were still getting used to playing with, and in the wake of the tragedy arising from the passing of Cliff. The fact that in spite of such a loss (and, at the same time, such a gain--remember that, while he was no Cliff Burton, Jason was no slouch when it came to conjuring up magic on his bass, even if you can barely hear it in the mix) they were able to put together such an amazing album is, frankly, remarkable. With all of the hate that gets tossed at Metallica from the metal community at large, it's often easy for people to forget that, for a long time, they really were the greatest metal band in the world. A single listen to any of the cuts off of ...And Justice For All makes it completely obvious why that was. And while it's true that I'd rather listen to The Chasm or Bolt Thrower than Metallica's post-Black Album output (although I do love all of their stuff, Lulu excepted,) if I had to live on a desert island and could only take one metal album with me, ten times out of ten it would have to be ...And Justice For All. At the time (this was 1988!) nobody else was really doing this kind of thing--combining this sort of extreme heaviness with all of the progressiveness, technicality and melody that they conjured up for AJFA . Remember that, in 1988, this was still groundbreaking stuff--Dream Theater wouldn't release an LP for another half-year (and when When Dream and Day Unite finally did come out, it still wasn't as good as this,) the rest of the progressive metal world was still busy trying to be Yes or Rush (not to knock prog metal though, because I love that shit, same goes for Yes and Rush) and the only things that could really come close at the time were Death's Leprosy and Slayer's South of Heaven (both released the same year and both, IMO, of near-equal quality.) While Megadeth was still doing Sex Pistols covers and Anthrax was quickly fading into outdatedness and irrelevance, Metallica was crafting an eternal masterpiece. TL;DR Yes. AJFA is a masterpiece.

Metallica

t5_2qwwr

c7e54bh

Wait, is anyone actually disagreeing that AJFA is the fucking bomb? It's a refinement of six years of work and development as a band, and the undeniable pinnacle of songwriting achievement for Metallica. IMO it's their best album, and it's my favorite Metallica album, above even Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets . It contains some of my favorite songs ("Dyers Eve," "Harvester of Sorrow," "Blackened," "Eye of the Beholder,") not just from Metallica, but in general, the entire world over. "Dyers Eve" holds particular significance for me, being not just my favorite Metallica song but one of my favorite songs ever--and a lot of that, frankly, came with my own emotional difficulties and certain resentments I held towards my own parents that came about when I really started to listen to and love Metallica (which have long since been resolved, but I digress.) The fact that they were able to create songs with such powerful emotional resonance, combined with a technicality and progressiveness that's not just impressive for the sheer skill of the band but also for the remarkable taste and astounding melodicism with which they pull it all off, should be a testament to the quality of that material. Of extremely important note is the fact that they recorded it all with Jason Newsted, a new bassist they were still getting used to playing with, and in the wake of the tragedy arising from the passing of Cliff. The fact that in spite of such a loss (and, at the same time, such a gain--remember that, while he was no Cliff Burton, Jason was no slouch when it came to conjuring up magic on his bass, even if you can barely hear it in the mix) they were able to put together such an amazing album is, frankly, remarkable. With all of the hate that gets tossed at Metallica from the metal community at large, it's often easy for people to forget that, for a long time, they really were the greatest metal band in the world. A single listen to any of the cuts off of ...And Justice For All makes it completely obvious why that was. And while it's true that I'd rather listen to The Chasm or Bolt Thrower than Metallica's post-Black Album output (although I do love all of their stuff, Lulu excepted,) if I had to live on a desert island and could only take one metal album with me, ten times out of ten it would have to be ...And Justice For All. At the time (this was 1988!) nobody else was really doing this kind of thing--combining this sort of extreme heaviness with all of the progressiveness, technicality and melody that they conjured up for AJFA . Remember that, in 1988, this was still groundbreaking stuff--Dream Theater wouldn't release an LP for another half-year (and when When Dream and Day Unite finally did come out, it still wasn't as good as this,) the rest of the progressive metal world was still busy trying to be Yes or Rush (not to knock prog metal though, because I love that shit, same goes for Yes and Rush) and the only things that could really come close at the time were Death's Leprosy and Slayer's South of Heaven (both released the same year and both, IMO, of near-equal quality.) While Megadeth was still doing Sex Pistols covers and Anthrax was quickly fading into outdatedness and irrelevance, Metallica was crafting an eternal masterpiece.

Yes. AJFA is a masterpiece.

producer35

It's always a challenge to an important turning point like that: why didn't they just do it some other way? As a writer, you try to make it feel as though the characters feel their action is naturally the best thing for them to do or the thing they are compelled to do or the situation dictates this is the only thing they can do. NOTE: All the rest of my comment are spoilers. Here you have three characters making a tight decision under duress. Bond, M and Eve. I believe thematically, this moment comes down to whether M trusts Bond to get the job done or not. Eve is in position to take the shot but she abdicates her decision to M. She doesn't have the confidence to make this decision on her own. Her decision becomes: will she follow M's order to shoot if told to? It is almost a foregone conclusion as to what she will do as she has already placed control in M's hands. For her not to follow M's orders to shoot would be for her to choose her own course and she is just a cog on the wheel, not her own person like Bond. Bond can hear what is going on in the ear piece, he knows the shot is set up. His decision is to keep fighting or try to duck out of the way so Eve has a clear shot. Bond keeps fighting because he believes in himself. He believes it is better for him to get the job done than to rely on someone else. If he thought it would be better to duck out of the way and let Eve take the shot he would have done it. Turns out he was right, Eve misses the bad guy entirely. M is the one who has the fulcrum decision as her opportunity to have Eve take the shot has a very short shelf life. The choice is this: should she rely on Eve's marksmanship to take out the bad guy or on Bond's ability to beat the guy in hand-to-hand combat? M chooses wrong, not because Bond gets hit, but because Eve misses the bad guy altogether and he gets away. M's choice to believe Eve had a better chance than Bond to get the job done was a bad choice. When she chooses this, she symbolically kills Bond with her lack of confidence in him. She spends the rest of the movie thematically making this up to Bond. Bond "dies" and his self-confidence is destroyed for a time. We see him aimless, drunk and shiftless wandering through booze and women and not giving a damn if he dies. He has no purpose. When MI6 is attacked Bond comes back because he believes he is the best guy to save the organization. Now he has a purpose. He is reborn and will show M he has what it takes to get the job done. The film has a motif on the value of self-confidence running though it and that is what helps to inform many of the plot turning points. tl;dr: It isn't about Bond getting hit or not. It is about who believes they have the ability to get the job done. Bond thinks he does, M makes a bad choice and chooses Eve.

It's always a challenge to an important turning point like that: why didn't they just do it some other way? As a writer, you try to make it feel as though the characters feel their action is naturally the best thing for them to do or the thing they are compelled to do or the situation dictates this is the only thing they can do. NOTE: All the rest of my comment are spoilers. Here you have three characters making a tight decision under duress. Bond, M and Eve. I believe thematically, this moment comes down to whether M trusts Bond to get the job done or not. Eve is in position to take the shot but she abdicates her decision to M. She doesn't have the confidence to make this decision on her own. Her decision becomes: will she follow M's order to shoot if told to? It is almost a foregone conclusion as to what she will do as she has already placed control in M's hands. For her not to follow M's orders to shoot would be for her to choose her own course and she is just a cog on the wheel, not her own person like Bond. Bond can hear what is going on in the ear piece, he knows the shot is set up. His decision is to keep fighting or try to duck out of the way so Eve has a clear shot. Bond keeps fighting because he believes in himself. He believes it is better for him to get the job done than to rely on someone else. If he thought it would be better to duck out of the way and let Eve take the shot he would have done it. Turns out he was right, Eve misses the bad guy entirely. M is the one who has the fulcrum decision as her opportunity to have Eve take the shot has a very short shelf life. The choice is this: should she rely on Eve's marksmanship to take out the bad guy or on Bond's ability to beat the guy in hand-to-hand combat? M chooses wrong, not because Bond gets hit, but because Eve misses the bad guy altogether and he gets away. M's choice to believe Eve had a better chance than Bond to get the job done was a bad choice. When she chooses this, she symbolically kills Bond with her lack of confidence in him. She spends the rest of the movie thematically making this up to Bond. Bond "dies" and his self-confidence is destroyed for a time. We see him aimless, drunk and shiftless wandering through booze and women and not giving a damn if he dies. He has no purpose. When MI6 is attacked Bond comes back because he believes he is the best guy to save the organization. Now he has a purpose. He is reborn and will show M he has what it takes to get the job done. The film has a motif on the value of self-confidence running though it and that is what helps to inform many of the plot turning points. tl;dr: It isn't about Bond getting hit or not. It is about who believes they have the ability to get the job done. Bond thinks he does, M makes a bad choice and chooses Eve.

JamesBond

t5_2rsg9

c7d6zgv

It's always a challenge to an important turning point like that: why didn't they just do it some other way? As a writer, you try to make it feel as though the characters feel their action is naturally the best thing for them to do or the thing they are compelled to do or the situation dictates this is the only thing they can do. NOTE: All the rest of my comment are spoilers. Here you have three characters making a tight decision under duress. Bond, M and Eve. I believe thematically, this moment comes down to whether M trusts Bond to get the job done or not. Eve is in position to take the shot but she abdicates her decision to M. She doesn't have the confidence to make this decision on her own. Her decision becomes: will she follow M's order to shoot if told to? It is almost a foregone conclusion as to what she will do as she has already placed control in M's hands. For her not to follow M's orders to shoot would be for her to choose her own course and she is just a cog on the wheel, not her own person like Bond. Bond can hear what is going on in the ear piece, he knows the shot is set up. His decision is to keep fighting or try to duck out of the way so Eve has a clear shot. Bond keeps fighting because he believes in himself. He believes it is better for him to get the job done than to rely on someone else. If he thought it would be better to duck out of the way and let Eve take the shot he would have done it. Turns out he was right, Eve misses the bad guy entirely. M is the one who has the fulcrum decision as her opportunity to have Eve take the shot has a very short shelf life. The choice is this: should she rely on Eve's marksmanship to take out the bad guy or on Bond's ability to beat the guy in hand-to-hand combat? M chooses wrong, not because Bond gets hit, but because Eve misses the bad guy altogether and he gets away. M's choice to believe Eve had a better chance than Bond to get the job done was a bad choice. When she chooses this, she symbolically kills Bond with her lack of confidence in him. She spends the rest of the movie thematically making this up to Bond. Bond "dies" and his self-confidence is destroyed for a time. We see him aimless, drunk and shiftless wandering through booze and women and not giving a damn if he dies. He has no purpose. When MI6 is attacked Bond comes back because he believes he is the best guy to save the organization. Now he has a purpose. He is reborn and will show M he has what it takes to get the job done. The film has a motif on the value of self-confidence running though it and that is what helps to inform many of the plot turning points.

It isn't about Bond getting hit or not. It is about who believes they have the ability to get the job done. Bond thinks he does, M makes a bad choice and chooses Eve.

Kodix

I played through about half of the Enhanced Edition so far. I'm not particularly impressed with it. Most of the bugfixes duplicated those already available for free as mods. The new features are kinda neat, but very rarely useful. The only thing the enhanced edition really added that had any inpact of my enjoyment of the game were the new characters and the quests they were involved in - and I do not rate those very highly, either. Adoy's Enclave in particular felt just plain unfinished. The characters and their banter were okay for the most part. However, despite all these negatives, the developers seem to be actively fixing the problems in a fairly rapid manner. Once (if) they are all fixed, I think it will be a worthy purchase, especially if you do not already own Baldur's Gate, or if you are not confident in your ability to install mods properly (which is absolutely trivial to do, but still). TLDR; New is not so great, but probably worth a purchase for anyone who doesn't already own old.

I played through about half of the Enhanced Edition so far. I'm not particularly impressed with it. Most of the bugfixes duplicated those already available for free as mods. The new features are kinda neat, but very rarely useful. The only thing the enhanced edition really added that had any inpact of my enjoyment of the game were the new characters and the quests they were involved in - and I do not rate those very highly, either. Adoy's Enclave in particular felt just plain unfinished. The characters and their banter were okay for the most part. However, despite all these negatives, the developers seem to be actively fixing the problems in a fairly rapid manner. Once (if) they are all fixed, I think it will be a worthy purchase, especially if you do not already own Baldur's Gate, or if you are not confident in your ability to install mods properly (which is absolutely trivial to do, but still). TLDR; New is not so great, but probably worth a purchase for anyone who doesn't already own old.

rpg_gamers

t5_2su0w

c7dojs7

I played through about half of the Enhanced Edition so far. I'm not particularly impressed with it. Most of the bugfixes duplicated those already available for free as mods. The new features are kinda neat, but very rarely useful. The only thing the enhanced edition really added that had any inpact of my enjoyment of the game were the new characters and the quests they were involved in - and I do not rate those very highly, either. Adoy's Enclave in particular felt just plain unfinished. The characters and their banter were okay for the most part. However, despite all these negatives, the developers seem to be actively fixing the problems in a fairly rapid manner. Once (if) they are all fixed, I think it will be a worthy purchase, especially if you do not already own Baldur's Gate, or if you are not confident in your ability to install mods properly (which is absolutely trivial to do, but still).

New is not so great, but probably worth a purchase for anyone who doesn't already own old.

Crunchyave

How well it turns out really just depends on your expectations... You're not going to get an upright sound just by throwing a bow into the mix, obviously. But you can get some cool effects, without question. There's a couple issues with doing this, namely: * The fretboard on an electric bass isn't really radiused enough to play anything but the outer strings. * The bow causes the string to vibrate in a different axis than the magnetic pickups on your bass were designed to pick up. To expand on this: If you don't know (forgive me if you do!), magnetic guitar pickups work by creating a magnetic field that the string vibrates within when it is struck. The locus for these vibrations is the pole pieces on your pickup. When you hit a string, you are causing tiny electromagnetic changes in the flux field generated by the pickups' magnet, and this magnetic change is centered most strongly at the pole pieces for the pickup. This is why you have one pole piece under each string, because it allows for the most efficient changes in electromagnetic flux, and thereby the most sensitive pickups. Because of the orientation of the strings vs. the pole pieces, the part of the strings' vibration which is actually picked up by your pickups (and then translated into electromagnetic changes, and later becomes the sound you hear when amplified) is basically the "vertical" axis - meaning, *your pickups most strongly sense the movement of the string away from, and back towards, the top of the pole piece.* The flux field is changed by lateral "side-to-side" motion as well, but traditional magnetic pickups mostly respond to vertical vibration. Have you ever been playing REALLY hard (particularly with a pick or something) and attacked a note, which initially dropped off but then had a volume swell back up? You've heard the effect of too much lateral vibration. Nearly all electric bass technique creates *vertical* vibration in the strings. Bowing, on the other hand, creates primarily *lateral* motion in the strings, and in addition to that it actually suppresses the vertical motion of the string. When you lift the bow from the string, the vertical motion is allowed to come back, which causes a volume swell. [You can hear that in effect in this video, particular at 2:37.]( The NS electric upright bass has a pickup system designed to combat exactly this issue I described. [Here's the pickup page]( and there's a bunch of youtube videos out there. Anyway, do whatever you want! [It can be really beautiful.]( Tl;dr Electric bass pickups aren't designed for that, but some rules are meant to be broken.

How well it turns out really just depends on your expectations... You're not going to get an upright sound just by throwing a bow into the mix, obviously. But you can get some cool effects, without question. There's a couple issues with doing this, namely: The fretboard on an electric bass isn't really radiused enough to play anything but the outer strings. The bow causes the string to vibrate in a different axis than the magnetic pickups on your bass were designed to pick up. To expand on this: If you don't know (forgive me if you do!), magnetic guitar pickups work by creating a magnetic field that the string vibrates within when it is struck. The locus for these vibrations is the pole pieces on your pickup. When you hit a string, you are causing tiny electromagnetic changes in the flux field generated by the pickups' magnet, and this magnetic change is centered most strongly at the pole pieces for the pickup. This is why you have one pole piece under each string, because it allows for the most efficient changes in electromagnetic flux, and thereby the most sensitive pickups. Because of the orientation of the strings vs. the pole pieces, the part of the strings' vibration which is actually picked up by your pickups (and then translated into electromagnetic changes, and later becomes the sound you hear when amplified) is basically the "vertical" axis - meaning, your pickups most strongly sense the movement of the string away from, and back towards, the top of the pole piece. The flux field is changed by lateral "side-to-side" motion as well, but traditional magnetic pickups mostly respond to vertical vibration. Have you ever been playing REALLY hard (particularly with a pick or something) and attacked a note, which initially dropped off but then had a volume swell back up? You've heard the effect of too much lateral vibration. Nearly all electric bass technique creates vertical vibration in the strings. Bowing, on the other hand, creates primarily lateral motion in the strings, and in addition to that it actually suppresses the vertical motion of the string. When you lift the bow from the string, the vertical motion is allowed to come back, which causes a volume swell. [You can hear that in effect in this video, particular at 2:37.]( The NS electric upright bass has a pickup system designed to combat exactly this issue I described. [Here's the pickup page]( and there's a bunch of youtube videos out there. Anyway, do whatever you want! [It can be really beautiful.]( Tl;dr Electric bass pickups aren't designed for that, but some rules are meant to be broken.

Bass

t5_2qpc3

c7dn54d

How well it turns out really just depends on your expectations... You're not going to get an upright sound just by throwing a bow into the mix, obviously. But you can get some cool effects, without question. There's a couple issues with doing this, namely: The fretboard on an electric bass isn't really radiused enough to play anything but the outer strings. The bow causes the string to vibrate in a different axis than the magnetic pickups on your bass were designed to pick up. To expand on this: If you don't know (forgive me if you do!), magnetic guitar pickups work by creating a magnetic field that the string vibrates within when it is struck. The locus for these vibrations is the pole pieces on your pickup. When you hit a string, you are causing tiny electromagnetic changes in the flux field generated by the pickups' magnet, and this magnetic change is centered most strongly at the pole pieces for the pickup. This is why you have one pole piece under each string, because it allows for the most efficient changes in electromagnetic flux, and thereby the most sensitive pickups. Because of the orientation of the strings vs. the pole pieces, the part of the strings' vibration which is actually picked up by your pickups (and then translated into electromagnetic changes, and later becomes the sound you hear when amplified) is basically the "vertical" axis - meaning, your pickups most strongly sense the movement of the string away from, and back towards, the top of the pole piece. The flux field is changed by lateral "side-to-side" motion as well, but traditional magnetic pickups mostly respond to vertical vibration. Have you ever been playing REALLY hard (particularly with a pick or something) and attacked a note, which initially dropped off but then had a volume swell back up? You've heard the effect of too much lateral vibration. Nearly all electric bass technique creates vertical vibration in the strings. Bowing, on the other hand, creates primarily lateral motion in the strings, and in addition to that it actually suppresses the vertical motion of the string. When you lift the bow from the string, the vertical motion is allowed to come back, which causes a volume swell. [You can hear that in effect in this video, particular at 2:37.]( The NS electric upright bass has a pickup system designed to combat exactly this issue I described. [Here's the pickup page]( and there's a bunch of youtube videos out there. Anyway, do whatever you want! [It can be really beautiful.](

Electric bass pickups aren't designed for that, but some rules are meant to be broken.

tforehand

Last night at work, I was telling a coworker about a video I saw on reddit yesterday and how it was really sad and made me cry. So, as most sad videos on here, other redditors are like "if this made you cry you should see this." So naturally, I watched about 45 minutes worth of sad videos and then I come across the no cry challenge. He asks what it was and I explain, and start to tell him about the saddest video from yesterday. I can't remember the name of it, but it was about 7 minutes long and it was a camera crew following and documenting the final moments of this man and his dog. The dog had cancer I believe. He had all of his friends say goodbye and him and his wife/girlfriend took the dog to the vet to have him put down and this man was just in tears, as was I. So I then proceed to tell him about the time when I had to go put my dog down because he needed a surgery we couldn't afford. I told him how much pain my dog was in, and how badly I was crying and how when the lady put the injection in, how I could slowly see peace coming into his eyes. At this point in the story, I happen to look up (we weren't really looking at each other because we were cleaning so I was completely oblivious to his reaction and just kept running my mouth) and he says please stop, I can't talk about this. And he turned around and had to compose himself for a few minutes. I felt AWFUL. I still feel awful. It got really awkward and we didn't really talk much for the last few hours. I was fighting tears the whole time. I don't know how to handle awkward situations, especially when its my fault, so when I went to the cooler to get more carrots, I stood in there and just cried for about five minutes. I couldn't sleep last night because I felt terrible. tl;dr: I told a coworker about the no cry challenge, ended up telling him about how my dog got put down, brought up some sad memories for him and things got really awkward and I cried in the cooler.

Last night at work, I was telling a coworker about a video I saw on reddit yesterday and how it was really sad and made me cry. So, as most sad videos on here, other redditors are like "if this made you cry you should see this." So naturally, I watched about 45 minutes worth of sad videos and then I come across the no cry challenge. He asks what it was and I explain, and start to tell him about the saddest video from yesterday. I can't remember the name of it, but it was about 7 minutes long and it was a camera crew following and documenting the final moments of this man and his dog. The dog had cancer I believe. He had all of his friends say goodbye and him and his wife/girlfriend took the dog to the vet to have him put down and this man was just in tears, as was I. So I then proceed to tell him about the time when I had to go put my dog down because he needed a surgery we couldn't afford. I told him how much pain my dog was in, and how badly I was crying and how when the lady put the injection in, how I could slowly see peace coming into his eyes. At this point in the story, I happen to look up (we weren't really looking at each other because we were cleaning so I was completely oblivious to his reaction and just kept running my mouth) and he says please stop, I can't talk about this. And he turned around and had to compose himself for a few minutes. I felt AWFUL. I still feel awful. It got really awkward and we didn't really talk much for the last few hours. I was fighting tears the whole time. I don't know how to handle awkward situations, especially when its my fault, so when I went to the cooler to get more carrots, I stood in there and just cried for about five minutes. I couldn't sleep last night because I felt terrible. tl;dr: I told a coworker about the no cry challenge, ended up telling him about how my dog got put down, brought up some sad memories for him and things got really awkward and I cried in the cooler.

cringe

t5_2r6rj

c7dpt25

Last night at work, I was telling a coworker about a video I saw on reddit yesterday and how it was really sad and made me cry. So, as most sad videos on here, other redditors are like "if this made you cry you should see this." So naturally, I watched about 45 minutes worth of sad videos and then I come across the no cry challenge. He asks what it was and I explain, and start to tell him about the saddest video from yesterday. I can't remember the name of it, but it was about 7 minutes long and it was a camera crew following and documenting the final moments of this man and his dog. The dog had cancer I believe. He had all of his friends say goodbye and him and his wife/girlfriend took the dog to the vet to have him put down and this man was just in tears, as was I. So I then proceed to tell him about the time when I had to go put my dog down because he needed a surgery we couldn't afford. I told him how much pain my dog was in, and how badly I was crying and how when the lady put the injection in, how I could slowly see peace coming into his eyes. At this point in the story, I happen to look up (we weren't really looking at each other because we were cleaning so I was completely oblivious to his reaction and just kept running my mouth) and he says please stop, I can't talk about this. And he turned around and had to compose himself for a few minutes. I felt AWFUL. I still feel awful. It got really awkward and we didn't really talk much for the last few hours. I was fighting tears the whole time. I don't know how to handle awkward situations, especially when its my fault, so when I went to the cooler to get more carrots, I stood in there and just cried for about five minutes. I couldn't sleep last night because I felt terrible.

I told a coworker about the no cry challenge, ended up telling him about how my dog got put down, brought up some sad memories for him and things got really awkward and I cried in the cooler.

Totep

Like two months ago a co-worker of mine met his mom at our work so they could spend the day together (he wasn't working that day, it was just a nice in-between location for them). He ends up being 20 minutes late, so another coworker and I start talking with her. I ask her if she has any embarrassing stories about him and what he was like as a child. Kind of light-hearted, funny kind of stuff. Eventually he shows up and I'm telling him that I don't believe that his mom is actually his mom. She's far too cool and nice to be the mother of such a dick-bag. I say, "I bet you paid this nice, old lady to pretend to be your mom." And then I froze dead in my tracks. I did not mean to say old. It just rolled off the tongue. I meant to just say nice; like, "this nice lady." But instead I'm a total dick. I still feel bad about it. TL;DR - Called my coworkers Mom old to her face, not my proudest moment.

Like two months ago a co-worker of mine met his mom at our work so they could spend the day together (he wasn't working that day, it was just a nice in-between location for them). He ends up being 20 minutes late, so another coworker and I start talking with her. I ask her if she has any embarrassing stories about him and what he was like as a child. Kind of light-hearted, funny kind of stuff. Eventually he shows up and I'm telling him that I don't believe that his mom is actually his mom. She's far too cool and nice to be the mother of such a dick-bag. I say, "I bet you paid this nice, old lady to pretend to be your mom." And then I froze dead in my tracks. I did not mean to say old. It just rolled off the tongue. I meant to just say nice; like, "this nice lady." But instead I'm a total dick. I still feel bad about it. TL;DR - Called my coworkers Mom old to her face, not my proudest moment.

cringe

t5_2r6rj

c7dgvtw

Like two months ago a co-worker of mine met his mom at our work so they could spend the day together (he wasn't working that day, it was just a nice in-between location for them). He ends up being 20 minutes late, so another coworker and I start talking with her. I ask her if she has any embarrassing stories about him and what he was like as a child. Kind of light-hearted, funny kind of stuff. Eventually he shows up and I'm telling him that I don't believe that his mom is actually his mom. She's far too cool and nice to be the mother of such a dick-bag. I say, "I bet you paid this nice, old lady to pretend to be your mom." And then I froze dead in my tracks. I did not mean to say old. It just rolled off the tongue. I meant to just say nice; like, "this nice lady." But instead I'm a total dick. I still feel bad about it.

Called my coworkers Mom old to her face, not my proudest moment.

drkinsanity

I grabbed a banana to eat for breakfast on the way to work once. I have about a 45 minute commute that's almost entirely on the interstate, and so after I finished eating the banana, I had no idea what to do with the peel. I felt like I couldn't just throw it out the window because I was going too fast, and I didn't want to risk it sliding all over the place if I set it down. So I ended up just kind of awkwardly holding it for most of my ride. TL;DR, I drove about 40 minutes with a banana peel resting on my lap, won't be doing that again

I grabbed a banana to eat for breakfast on the way to work once. I have about a 45 minute commute that's almost entirely on the interstate, and so after I finished eating the banana, I had no idea what to do with the peel. I felt like I couldn't just throw it out the window because I was going too fast, and I didn't want to risk it sliding all over the place if I set it down. So I ended up just kind of awkwardly holding it for most of my ride. TL;DR, I drove about 40 minutes with a banana peel resting on my lap, won't be doing that again

mildlyinteresting

t5_2ti4h

c7dkk58

I grabbed a banana to eat for breakfast on the way to work once. I have about a 45 minute commute that's almost entirely on the interstate, and so after I finished eating the banana, I had no idea what to do with the peel. I felt like I couldn't just throw it out the window because I was going too fast, and I didn't want to risk it sliding all over the place if I set it down. So I ended up just kind of awkwardly holding it for most of my ride.

I drove about 40 minutes with a banana peel resting on my lap, won't be doing that again

chudsp87

First, we must distinguish b/t pc to stop, to arrest, and to search. These are separate and distinct. To Stop: Needs pc that **you committed the infraction** you are being stopped for. To Arrest: This is the same as the stop (since it was for a crime) - and therefore you can be arrested for the crime. While this rarely happens - it is completely within the cop's power to do this. To Search: This is where it changes. The cop must have pc that an "instrumentality of the crime" you were pulled over is in your car; OR separate PC that some other contraband is in your car, i.e. drugs. The search **must be limited** to those places that could contain the contraband. A few examples to help clarify. Ex. Pulled over for speeding. Absent a gun in plain sight or smell of drugs - no permissible search may be had. (the same is true if you didn't have a license - b/c it is unreasonable to believe it is in your car since you would have found it/provided it otherwise) Ex. Pulled over for fleeing an armed bank robbery. Now there is pc to search your car for a gun - and this would likely cover the entire car since a gun is small and can be hidden anywhere. Terry-search: It while being pulled over you are acting crazy and the officer reasonably fears for his safety - then he is permitted to do a cursory search of you car for **weapons only** that are within your immediate reach. Hope this helps. tl;dr A search is only permitted for specific contraband and being pulled over and/or arrested is not blanket authority to search entire car.

First, we must distinguish b/t pc to stop, to arrest, and to search. These are separate and distinct. To Stop: Needs pc that you committed the infraction you are being stopped for. To Arrest: This is the same as the stop (since it was for a crime) - and therefore you can be arrested for the crime. While this rarely happens - it is completely within the cop's power to do this. To Search: This is where it changes. The cop must have pc that an "instrumentality of the crime" you were pulled over is in your car; OR separate PC that some other contraband is in your car, i.e. drugs. The search must be limited to those places that could contain the contraband. A few examples to help clarify. Ex. Pulled over for speeding. Absent a gun in plain sight or smell of drugs - no permissible search may be had. (the same is true if you didn't have a license - b/c it is unreasonable to believe it is in your car since you would have found it/provided it otherwise) Ex. Pulled over for fleeing an armed bank robbery. Now there is pc to search your car for a gun - and this would likely cover the entire car since a gun is small and can be hidden anywhere. Terry-search: It while being pulled over you are acting crazy and the officer reasonably fears for his safety - then he is permitted to do a cursory search of you car for weapons only that are within your immediate reach. Hope this helps. tl;dr A search is only permitted for specific contraband and being pulled over and/or arrested is not blanket authority to search entire car.

law

t5_2qh9k

c7ekywr

First, we must distinguish b/t pc to stop, to arrest, and to search. These are separate and distinct. To Stop: Needs pc that you committed the infraction you are being stopped for. To Arrest: This is the same as the stop (since it was for a crime) - and therefore you can be arrested for the crime. While this rarely happens - it is completely within the cop's power to do this. To Search: This is where it changes. The cop must have pc that an "instrumentality of the crime" you were pulled over is in your car; OR separate PC that some other contraband is in your car, i.e. drugs. The search must be limited to those places that could contain the contraband. A few examples to help clarify. Ex. Pulled over for speeding. Absent a gun in plain sight or smell of drugs - no permissible search may be had. (the same is true if you didn't have a license - b/c it is unreasonable to believe it is in your car since you would have found it/provided it otherwise) Ex. Pulled over for fleeing an armed bank robbery. Now there is pc to search your car for a gun - and this would likely cover the entire car since a gun is small and can be hidden anywhere. Terry-search: It while being pulled over you are acting crazy and the officer reasonably fears for his safety - then he is permitted to do a cursory search of you car for weapons only that are within your immediate reach. Hope this helps.

A search is only permitted for specific contraband and being pulled over and/or arrested is not blanket authority to search entire car.

imapluralist

WARNING Tangent follows: During law school, I read the oral argument transcript before the decision came out. My Civil Rights (aka advanced constitutional law) professor made an entire fact pattern on an exam nearly identical to the case. I was running out of time when I got to it and so I just mimicked the Justices' questions in my answer. He gave me like 28/33 on that question probably because I made it pretty obvious that I read the transcript. TL;DR - Reading the oral argument transcript from BONG HiTS 4 JESUS saved my ass on a law school exam.

WARNING Tangent follows: During law school, I read the oral argument transcript before the decision came out. My Civil Rights (aka advanced constitutional law) professor made an entire fact pattern on an exam nearly identical to the case. I was running out of time when I got to it and so I just mimicked the Justices' questions in my answer. He gave me like 28/33 on that question probably because I made it pretty obvious that I read the transcript. TL;DR - Reading the oral argument transcript from BONG HiTS 4 JESUS saved my ass on a law school exam.

law

t5_2qh9k

c7dngkr

WARNING Tangent follows: During law school, I read the oral argument transcript before the decision came out. My Civil Rights (aka advanced constitutional law) professor made an entire fact pattern on an exam nearly identical to the case. I was running out of time when I got to it and so I just mimicked the Justices' questions in my answer. He gave me like 28/33 on that question probably because I made it pretty obvious that I read the transcript.

Reading the oral argument transcript from BONG HiTS 4 JESUS saved my ass on a law school exam.

Sn0wpooka

Hey, this may not be exactly what you were looking for but something that should be said (JUST in case no one has told you this before); The only time you should feel bad about being yourself is if you have committed evil on others. Don't apologize for being you and don't be shy about being awkward. I myself have an opposite problem, I am an extremely articulate black guy, when I get nervous I fall back on intense vocabulary and body language. one of my friends told me to stop channeling the spirit of malcolm x at a house party... Do I embarrass myself? most of the time. Do I feel bad about being different in how I express myself as a human being? fuck no man. You're a guy I will presume, don't be scared of manning up, defeat is inevitable, but it is never the end. TL;DR: It's not the first time you've looked ridiculous and if you're a dude it will most certainly not be the last; you need to calm yourself down in pressure situations, you feel you looked bad and you panicked. Take your time, slow your self down and assert.

Hey, this may not be exactly what you were looking for but something that should be said (JUST in case no one has told you this before); The only time you should feel bad about being yourself is if you have committed evil on others. Don't apologize for being you and don't be shy about being awkward. I myself have an opposite problem, I am an extremely articulate black guy, when I get nervous I fall back on intense vocabulary and body language. one of my friends told me to stop channeling the spirit of malcolm x at a house party... Do I embarrass myself? most of the time. Do I feel bad about being different in how I express myself as a human being? fuck no man. You're a guy I will presume, don't be scared of manning up, defeat is inevitable, but it is never the end. TL;DR: It's not the first time you've looked ridiculous and if you're a dude it will most certainly not be the last; you need to calm yourself down in pressure situations, you feel you looked bad and you panicked. Take your time, slow your self down and assert.

socialskills

t5_2r275

c7e1vtu

Hey, this may not be exactly what you were looking for but something that should be said (JUST in case no one has told you this before); The only time you should feel bad about being yourself is if you have committed evil on others. Don't apologize for being you and don't be shy about being awkward. I myself have an opposite problem, I am an extremely articulate black guy, when I get nervous I fall back on intense vocabulary and body language. one of my friends told me to stop channeling the spirit of malcolm x at a house party... Do I embarrass myself? most of the time. Do I feel bad about being different in how I express myself as a human being? fuck no man. You're a guy I will presume, don't be scared of manning up, defeat is inevitable, but it is never the end.

It's not the first time you've looked ridiculous and if you're a dude it will most certainly not be the last; you need to calm yourself down in pressure situations, you feel you looked bad and you panicked. Take your time, slow your self down and assert.

Victini000

Well here it goes. Flash back to little Victini000 in the big Toronto Subway line, when all of a sudden, the train he needs to get on plays the tune that indicates he is leaving. Just getting out of school, he is really excited to get home, so he runs for the train door. He makes it in on time, but he keeps running and the door claps shut on one of the strings hanging off his backpack. He gets pulled backwards, clips a kid in the arm, and falls on his ass. The mother of the kid was furious, but some people on the train had a laugh as he sits on the floor, feeling more embarrassed than the time he said "porn" as opposed to "Bourne" (the series). TL;DR Ran for a train, train grabs part of my bag and makes me kick a kid a fall on my butt.

Well here it goes. Flash back to little Victini000 in the big Toronto Subway line, when all of a sudden, the train he needs to get on plays the tune that indicates he is leaving. Just getting out of school, he is really excited to get home, so he runs for the train door. He makes it in on time, but he keeps running and the door claps shut on one of the strings hanging off his backpack. He gets pulled backwards, clips a kid in the arm, and falls on his ass. The mother of the kid was furious, but some people on the train had a laugh as he sits on the floor, feeling more embarrassed than the time he said "porn" as opposed to "Bourne" (the series). TL;DR Ran for a train, train grabs part of my bag and makes me kick a kid a fall on my butt.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c7e2lid

Well here it goes. Flash back to little Victini000 in the big Toronto Subway line, when all of a sudden, the train he needs to get on plays the tune that indicates he is leaving. Just getting out of school, he is really excited to get home, so he runs for the train door. He makes it in on time, but he keeps running and the door claps shut on one of the strings hanging off his backpack. He gets pulled backwards, clips a kid in the arm, and falls on his ass. The mother of the kid was furious, but some people on the train had a laugh as he sits on the floor, feeling more embarrassed than the time he said "porn" as opposed to "Bourne" (the series).

Ran for a train, train grabs part of my bag and makes me kick a kid a fall on my butt.

FlyinNinjaSqurl

So even the title is misleading. This isn't a "Top 10" list, it's just a list of the 10 of the Most Powerful Female Characters. So while Hermione is the second one mentioned, she's not necessarily number 2. These aren't even the 10 most powerful female characters, these are just 10 ***of*** the most powerful female characters. How vague. tl;dr: This list is basically a list of female characters in literature who did stuff.

So even the title is misleading. This isn't a "Top 10" list, it's just a list of the 10 of the Most Powerful Female Characters. So while Hermione is the second one mentioned, she's not necessarily number 2. These aren't even the 10 most powerful female characters, these are just 10 of the most powerful female characters. How vague. tl;dr: This list is basically a list of female characters in literature who did stuff.

harrypotter

t5_2qiqi

c7eerc0

So even the title is misleading. This isn't a "Top 10" list, it's just a list of the 10 of the Most Powerful Female Characters. So while Hermione is the second one mentioned, she's not necessarily number 2. These aren't even the 10 most powerful female characters, these are just 10 of the most powerful female characters. How vague.

This list is basically a list of female characters in literature who did stuff.

LordKilgar

**sigh** you're right. I obviously would suggest things like disclaimer saying "are you having legal issues? Then get a lawyer! this is not a law office, it's the internet!", probably a disclaimer regarding jurisdictions, and one of the rules should be "do not ask questions about a legal problem you are having, if that is the case, find a lawyer. This subreddit is for discussing legalities in an academic sense." regarding identity, I've yet to find a solution to that with *anything* that is online. Obviously it would require people to generally try to be honest, work based on reputation, and generally be good rather than dishonest. But, as I said, you're right, it would be something of a nightmare to manage. Goodness knows the discussion of the legal precedent and the relevance of the cultural moral climates at the time when those precedents arose and the current climes is part of what interests me most about the subject. Threads would explode into massive walls of text, miles high, with TL;DR the size of small novellas. Thanks for responding though, I wasn't even sure you'd bother reading my thoughts :P I'm glad you have an interest in not letting misapplication and misinterpretation get out of hand. Could use more people like you in the world.

sigh you're right. I obviously would suggest things like disclaimer saying "are you having legal issues? Then get a lawyer! this is not a law office, it's the internet!", probably a disclaimer regarding jurisdictions, and one of the rules should be "do not ask questions about a legal problem you are having, if that is the case, find a lawyer. This subreddit is for discussing legalities in an academic sense." regarding identity, I've yet to find a solution to that with anything that is online. Obviously it would require people to generally try to be honest, work based on reputation, and generally be good rather than dishonest. But, as I said, you're right, it would be something of a nightmare to manage. Goodness knows the discussion of the legal precedent and the relevance of the cultural moral climates at the time when those precedents arose and the current climes is part of what interests me most about the subject. Threads would explode into massive walls of text, miles high, with TL;DR the size of small novellas. Thanks for responding though, I wasn't even sure you'd bother reading my thoughts :P I'm glad you have an interest in not letting misapplication and misinterpretation get out of hand. Could use more people like you in the world.

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

c7ezzp3

sigh you're right. I obviously would suggest things like disclaimer saying "are you having legal issues? Then get a lawyer! this is not a law office, it's the internet!", probably a disclaimer regarding jurisdictions, and one of the rules should be "do not ask questions about a legal problem you are having, if that is the case, find a lawyer. This subreddit is for discussing legalities in an academic sense." regarding identity, I've yet to find a solution to that with anything that is online. Obviously it would require people to generally try to be honest, work based on reputation, and generally be good rather than dishonest. But, as I said, you're right, it would be something of a nightmare to manage. Goodness knows the discussion of the legal precedent and the relevance of the cultural moral climates at the time when those precedents arose and the current climes is part of what interests me most about the subject. Threads would explode into massive walls of text, miles high, with

the size of small novellas. Thanks for responding though, I wasn't even sure you'd bother reading my thoughts :P I'm glad you have an interest in not letting misapplication and misinterpretation get out of hand. Could use more people like you in the world.

andytuba

hah! I see it too. your browser needs to be around 1100px wide to see it right there. easier to see with night mode turned on, IMO. It's /r/AdviceAnimals messing with you. For whatever reason, they've got a link to frontpage in the sidebar and they're using CSS to make it show up in the middle of the page. It's showing up as that little red dot. .titlebox .usertext-body .md h5 { position: fixed; <-- this keeps it stuck in the same spot as you scroll up and down top: 265px; <-- about three inches from the top right: 1180px; <-- and on the left/middle part of the screen. it should move in sync with the right edge of the screen if you resize horizontally. background: red; <-- red height: 2px; <-- a dot width: 1px; <-- in fact skinny dot. } tl;dr: /r/AdviceAnimals stylesheet, not an RES bug.

hah! I see it too. your browser needs to be around 1100px wide to see it right there. easier to see with night mode turned on, IMO. It's /r/AdviceAnimals messing with you. For whatever reason, they've got a link to frontpage in the sidebar and they're using CSS to make it show up in the middle of the page. It's showing up as that little red dot. .titlebox .usertext-body .md h5 { position: fixed; <-- this keeps it stuck in the same spot as you scroll up and down top: 265px; <-- about three inches from the top right: 1180px; <-- and on the left/middle part of the screen. it should move in sync with the right edge of the screen if you resize horizontally. background: red; <-- red height: 2px; <-- a dot width: 1px; <-- in fact skinny dot. } tl;dr: /r/AdviceAnimals stylesheet, not an RES bug.

RESissues

t5_2st3d

c7ejh4h

hah! I see it too. your browser needs to be around 1100px wide to see it right there. easier to see with night mode turned on, IMO. It's /r/AdviceAnimals messing with you. For whatever reason, they've got a link to frontpage in the sidebar and they're using CSS to make it show up in the middle of the page. It's showing up as that little red dot. .titlebox .usertext-body .md h5 { position: fixed; <-- this keeps it stuck in the same spot as you scroll up and down top: 265px; <-- about three inches from the top right: 1180px; <-- and on the left/middle part of the screen. it should move in sync with the right edge of the screen if you resize horizontally. background: red; <-- red height: 2px; <-- a dot width: 1px; <-- in fact skinny dot. }

r/AdviceAnimals stylesheet, not an RES bug.

KingOfAllDucks

This might be a long one. Settle in. So the summer between grade 9 and 10, I took a "Reach Ahead" summer school course so that I only had to take it over 4 weeks instead of a whole semester. In this class was this totally awesome girl that I got partnered with for a couple projects early on. She was a wiccan and kinda goth but really fun to be around. Young devoutly catholic me fell for her head over heels, but I was a shy and nervous kid. When we were about half way through the third week we were in the computer lab for an assignment, and I kept bugging her to send me an email, even though she was sitting right next to me. I told her that it was because I didn't have her on MSN yet (which was true), and she kept saying she'd just give it to me after class. Eventually she relented and sent me an email. Not a minute later I sent her an email asking her out. I was too shy to actually say it, and she thought it was cute. We went out that weekend and we started spending a lot of our free time together, eventually becoming boyfriend and girlfriend. On the last day of summer school, we stayed behind after classes were done, and sat on one of the buildings and just talked and watched the empty field. We had an amazing kiss and afterward she told me she loved me. She was the first girl to ever tell me that. We kept dating in the school year, but for a couple of younger kids, going to separate schools and only seeing each other about twice a month got too hard, and around Christmas we broke up. It was kinda rough going but I got through it. The next summer we started hanging out more and decided to get back together again. Thing were pretty good until one day when she got super mad at me for not calling her back to go to an evanescence concert. What had happened was she phoned my house and my sister picked up and took a message. One that she never passed on. Despite all that, we had a pretty big fight, and broke up again. I had just started to get over it again when I logged into facebook one day and I see her best friends status: "R.I.P (ex's name), I'll miss you". I emailed her, and she told me that my ex had committed suicide, and when the funeral was. She was 16. 6 years later and I still don't know how it happened or if there was a note or anything. Just that she's gone. My parents were supportive, giving me my space, but mostly I just kind of shut down in the time between my initial breakdown and the funeral. I went and got bought a suit, I got driven to the the funeral and sat in the pew and listened to her cousin tell stories from when she was a little girl. It was actually one of the best eulogies I've ever heard. I almost managed to hold it together until they played the funeral dirge. "My Immortal". I just remembered the concert and the fight and I just broke down again. I spent the rest of high school getting over her, and I couldn't even listen to "My Immortal" until 2 years after I'd graduated. TL:DR; Had my first love in summer school, on-off relationship for about 2 years. She committed suicide after out last breakup. edit: formatting goof.

This might be a long one. Settle in. So the summer between grade 9 and 10, I took a "Reach Ahead" summer school course so that I only had to take it over 4 weeks instead of a whole semester. In this class was this totally awesome girl that I got partnered with for a couple projects early on. She was a wiccan and kinda goth but really fun to be around. Young devoutly catholic me fell for her head over heels, but I was a shy and nervous kid. When we were about half way through the third week we were in the computer lab for an assignment, and I kept bugging her to send me an email, even though she was sitting right next to me. I told her that it was because I didn't have her on MSN yet (which was true), and she kept saying she'd just give it to me after class. Eventually she relented and sent me an email. Not a minute later I sent her an email asking her out. I was too shy to actually say it, and she thought it was cute. We went out that weekend and we started spending a lot of our free time together, eventually becoming boyfriend and girlfriend. On the last day of summer school, we stayed behind after classes were done, and sat on one of the buildings and just talked and watched the empty field. We had an amazing kiss and afterward she told me she loved me. She was the first girl to ever tell me that. We kept dating in the school year, but for a couple of younger kids, going to separate schools and only seeing each other about twice a month got too hard, and around Christmas we broke up. It was kinda rough going but I got through it. The next summer we started hanging out more and decided to get back together again. Thing were pretty good until one day when she got super mad at me for not calling her back to go to an evanescence concert. What had happened was she phoned my house and my sister picked up and took a message. One that she never passed on. Despite all that, we had a pretty big fight, and broke up again. I had just started to get over it again when I logged into facebook one day and I see her best friends status: "R.I.P (ex's name), I'll miss you". I emailed her, and she told me that my ex had committed suicide, and when the funeral was. She was 16. 6 years later and I still don't know how it happened or if there was a note or anything. Just that she's gone. My parents were supportive, giving me my space, but mostly I just kind of shut down in the time between my initial breakdown and the funeral. I went and got bought a suit, I got driven to the the funeral and sat in the pew and listened to her cousin tell stories from when she was a little girl. It was actually one of the best eulogies I've ever heard. I almost managed to hold it together until they played the funeral dirge. "My Immortal". I just remembered the concert and the fight and I just broke down again. I spent the rest of high school getting over her, and I couldn't even listen to "My Immortal" until 2 years after I'd graduated. TL:DR; Had my first love in summer school, on-off relationship for about 2 years. She committed suicide after out last breakup. edit: formatting goof.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c7eltrt

This might be a long one. Settle in. So the summer between grade 9 and 10, I took a "Reach Ahead" summer school course so that I only had to take it over 4 weeks instead of a whole semester. In this class was this totally awesome girl that I got partnered with for a couple projects early on. She was a wiccan and kinda goth but really fun to be around. Young devoutly catholic me fell for her head over heels, but I was a shy and nervous kid. When we were about half way through the third week we were in the computer lab for an assignment, and I kept bugging her to send me an email, even though she was sitting right next to me. I told her that it was because I didn't have her on MSN yet (which was true), and she kept saying she'd just give it to me after class. Eventually she relented and sent me an email. Not a minute later I sent her an email asking her out. I was too shy to actually say it, and she thought it was cute. We went out that weekend and we started spending a lot of our free time together, eventually becoming boyfriend and girlfriend. On the last day of summer school, we stayed behind after classes were done, and sat on one of the buildings and just talked and watched the empty field. We had an amazing kiss and afterward she told me she loved me. She was the first girl to ever tell me that. We kept dating in the school year, but for a couple of younger kids, going to separate schools and only seeing each other about twice a month got too hard, and around Christmas we broke up. It was kinda rough going but I got through it. The next summer we started hanging out more and decided to get back together again. Thing were pretty good until one day when she got super mad at me for not calling her back to go to an evanescence concert. What had happened was she phoned my house and my sister picked up and took a message. One that she never passed on. Despite all that, we had a pretty big fight, and broke up again. I had just started to get over it again when I logged into facebook one day and I see her best friends status: "R.I.P (ex's name), I'll miss you". I emailed her, and she told me that my ex had committed suicide, and when the funeral was. She was 16. 6 years later and I still don't know how it happened or if there was a note or anything. Just that she's gone. My parents were supportive, giving me my space, but mostly I just kind of shut down in the time between my initial breakdown and the funeral. I went and got bought a suit, I got driven to the the funeral and sat in the pew and listened to her cousin tell stories from when she was a little girl. It was actually one of the best eulogies I've ever heard. I almost managed to hold it together until they played the funeral dirge. "My Immortal". I just remembered the concert and the fight and I just broke down again. I spent the rest of high school getting over her, and I couldn't even listen to "My Immortal" until 2 years after I'd graduated.

Had my first love in summer school, on-off relationship for about 2 years. She committed suicide after out last breakup. edit: formatting goof.

republicprde

Any person of at least a little fame would get an insane amount of flak for such a statement. That Lauren thinks her prejudice(s) are ok, normal and not mean or political, doesn't make it one bit better or more acceptable. And to call her statement "unbiased" is somewhat off. tl;dr: It's not being a Skinhead, that makes that statement wrong

Any person of at least a little fame would get an insane amount of flak for such a statement. That Lauren thinks her prejudice(s) are ok, normal and not mean or political, doesn't make it one bit better or more acceptable. And to call her statement "unbiased" is somewhat off. tl;dr: It's not being a Skinhead, that makes that statement wrong

starcraft

t5_2qpp6

c7f94uz

Any person of at least a little fame would get an insane amount of flak for such a statement. That Lauren thinks her prejudice(s) are ok, normal and not mean or political, doesn't make it one bit better or more acceptable. And to call her statement "unbiased" is somewhat off.

It's not being a Skinhead, that makes that statement wrong

Leterren

Harken all to my tale of dream pissing, for I have been further down the rabbit hole than you could possibly have imagined. Disclaimer, as impossible as this is to *prove* it did actually happen as stated. You'll just have to take my word on it. Now, I've been there, done that with the 'dream-pissing-into-real-life-pissing' and so when I was about 8 I had a dream where I was pissing. Suddenly realizing it was a dream, I forced myself awake, mortified that I had wet the bed. Luckily, I hadn't, so I went to the bathroom to really piss. But as I stood over the toilet, I realized I was yet still dreaming! I awoke to discover that the bed had been wet, and was furious with myself, only to realize I was in yet another dream--so I forced myself awake one last time, to actual reality, where the bed was dry, and pissed in the toilet. tl;dr For those keeping count, I had a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream, and it was very confusing when I actually woke up.

Harken all to my tale of dream pissing, for I have been further down the rabbit hole than you could possibly have imagined. Disclaimer, as impossible as this is to prove it did actually happen as stated. You'll just have to take my word on it. Now, I've been there, done that with the 'dream-pissing-into-real-life-pissing' and so when I was about 8 I had a dream where I was pissing. Suddenly realizing it was a dream, I forced myself awake, mortified that I had wet the bed. Luckily, I hadn't, so I went to the bathroom to really piss. But as I stood over the toilet, I realized I was yet still dreaming! I awoke to discover that the bed had been wet, and was furious with myself, only to realize I was in yet another dream--so I forced myself awake one last time, to actual reality, where the bed was dry, and pissed in the toilet. tl;dr For those keeping count, I had a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream, and it was very confusing when I actually woke up.

tifu

t5_2to41

c7f5mib

Harken all to my tale of dream pissing, for I have been further down the rabbit hole than you could possibly have imagined. Disclaimer, as impossible as this is to prove it did actually happen as stated. You'll just have to take my word on it. Now, I've been there, done that with the 'dream-pissing-into-real-life-pissing' and so when I was about 8 I had a dream where I was pissing. Suddenly realizing it was a dream, I forced myself awake, mortified that I had wet the bed. Luckily, I hadn't, so I went to the bathroom to really piss. But as I stood over the toilet, I realized I was yet still dreaming! I awoke to discover that the bed had been wet, and was furious with myself, only to realize I was in yet another dream--so I forced myself awake one last time, to actual reality, where the bed was dry, and pissed in the toilet.

For those keeping count, I had a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream, and it was very confusing when I actually woke up.

letdogsvote

Yep. Their policies were given an excellent chance for success as a result of the Bush administration. The results have been economic disaster and a loss of regard for the US internationally. People can be fooled by propaganda for a while and some people will buy a story until the day they die. Eventually, though, the smart ones will no longer be able to deny their own experiences and observations and won't buy the bullshit from the right wing media. Most people in the US right now have realized that this worship of "job creators" is utter bullshit and doesn't work for either the economy or the majority of Americans. The public is getting tired of being nickel and dimed on stagnant wages while companies have record profits and their candidate for president is ridiculously wealthy but wants a tax break. The "GOP is best on national security" has been shown to be a lie from things like the fallout of the idiocy that was the Iraq war and Obama getting Bin Laden after Bush admitted that Bin Laden wasn't a priority. Latino voters are no longer a "religion and we hate Cuba" voting bloc and the immigration positions of the GOP have been almost designed to piss Latino voters off. TLDR: Yeah, time for new policies

Yep. Their policies were given an excellent chance for success as a result of the Bush administration. The results have been economic disaster and a loss of regard for the US internationally. People can be fooled by propaganda for a while and some people will buy a story until the day they die. Eventually, though, the smart ones will no longer be able to deny their own experiences and observations and won't buy the bullshit from the right wing media. Most people in the US right now have realized that this worship of "job creators" is utter bullshit and doesn't work for either the economy or the majority of Americans. The public is getting tired of being nickel and dimed on stagnant wages while companies have record profits and their candidate for president is ridiculously wealthy but wants a tax break. The "GOP is best on national security" has been shown to be a lie from things like the fallout of the idiocy that was the Iraq war and Obama getting Bin Laden after Bush admitted that Bin Laden wasn't a priority. Latino voters are no longer a "religion and we hate Cuba" voting bloc and the immigration positions of the GOP have been almost designed to piss Latino voters off. TLDR: Yeah, time for new policies

politics

t5_2cneq

c7et8d4

Yep. Their policies were given an excellent chance for success as a result of the Bush administration. The results have been economic disaster and a loss of regard for the US internationally. People can be fooled by propaganda for a while and some people will buy a story until the day they die. Eventually, though, the smart ones will no longer be able to deny their own experiences and observations and won't buy the bullshit from the right wing media. Most people in the US right now have realized that this worship of "job creators" is utter bullshit and doesn't work for either the economy or the majority of Americans. The public is getting tired of being nickel and dimed on stagnant wages while companies have record profits and their candidate for president is ridiculously wealthy but wants a tax break. The "GOP is best on national security" has been shown to be a lie from things like the fallout of the idiocy that was the Iraq war and Obama getting Bin Laden after Bush admitted that Bin Laden wasn't a priority. Latino voters are no longer a "religion and we hate Cuba" voting bloc and the immigration positions of the GOP have been almost designed to piss Latino voters off.

Yeah, time for new policies

bugaloo_shrimp

When I was younger my parents went out for a meal one night, leaving me home alone for one of the first times. Now in my parents bedroom they have two huge oak chests of drawers - the really heavy kind that don't have runners on them or anything, the drawers just rest on the wood of the cabinet. These drawers are super hard to open, you have to give them a really hard tug to get them to budge and when they do they make a very distinctive noise. So anyway, I was sat downstairs watching TV on my own when all of a sudden I hear that unmistakable noise - I quickly grabbed a nearby broom and headed upstairs cautiously (believing there must have been a burglar in the house). But when I get there, nothing - one of the drawers had opened itself wide but there was no one to do so. I was thoroughly freaked out, but talked myself down that it must have been something of nothing and there must have been some simple explanation. So I go back downstairs and sit for another half an hour or so until I hear the noise again - this time I grab my coat and keys and get out of the house. I go to a friend's house nearby and stay there for a few hours until I'd talked him into coming back with me - when we go back, sure enough, a second drawer on the opposite chest had opened itself. I've never been able to explain why they both did this on that night, and as far as I'm aware they haven't done it since - but to this day, I still feel a little on edge when I'm left in the house alone. **TL;DR** Scared to be left alone in the house at the age of 22 because of some drawers

When I was younger my parents went out for a meal one night, leaving me home alone for one of the first times. Now in my parents bedroom they have two huge oak chests of drawers - the really heavy kind that don't have runners on them or anything, the drawers just rest on the wood of the cabinet. These drawers are super hard to open, you have to give them a really hard tug to get them to budge and when they do they make a very distinctive noise. So anyway, I was sat downstairs watching TV on my own when all of a sudden I hear that unmistakable noise - I quickly grabbed a nearby broom and headed upstairs cautiously (believing there must have been a burglar in the house). But when I get there, nothing - one of the drawers had opened itself wide but there was no one to do so. I was thoroughly freaked out, but talked myself down that it must have been something of nothing and there must have been some simple explanation. So I go back downstairs and sit for another half an hour or so until I hear the noise again - this time I grab my coat and keys and get out of the house. I go to a friend's house nearby and stay there for a few hours until I'd talked him into coming back with me - when we go back, sure enough, a second drawer on the opposite chest had opened itself. I've never been able to explain why they both did this on that night, and as far as I'm aware they haven't done it since - but to this day, I still feel a little on edge when I'm left in the house alone. TL;DR Scared to be left alone in the house at the age of 22 because of some drawers

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c7eu0b3

When I was younger my parents went out for a meal one night, leaving me home alone for one of the first times. Now in my parents bedroom they have two huge oak chests of drawers - the really heavy kind that don't have runners on them or anything, the drawers just rest on the wood of the cabinet. These drawers are super hard to open, you have to give them a really hard tug to get them to budge and when they do they make a very distinctive noise. So anyway, I was sat downstairs watching TV on my own when all of a sudden I hear that unmistakable noise - I quickly grabbed a nearby broom and headed upstairs cautiously (believing there must have been a burglar in the house). But when I get there, nothing - one of the drawers had opened itself wide but there was no one to do so. I was thoroughly freaked out, but talked myself down that it must have been something of nothing and there must have been some simple explanation. So I go back downstairs and sit for another half an hour or so until I hear the noise again - this time I grab my coat and keys and get out of the house. I go to a friend's house nearby and stay there for a few hours until I'd talked him into coming back with me - when we go back, sure enough, a second drawer on the opposite chest had opened itself. I've never been able to explain why they both did this on that night, and as far as I'm aware they haven't done it since - but to this day, I still feel a little on edge when I'm left in the house alone.

Scared to be left alone in the house at the age of 22 because of some drawers

stevedpirate

I've got to disagree a bit on Aluna being a support. She surely can be played that way, but she's much more of a ganker than anything. Take into account her abilities: a chain stun that increases her attack speed. a trajectory throw that does dmg/ clears trees A movement speed increase that can slow enemies. an ult that modifies/increases all these skills. She's built to stun people, hit them quickly and, if they need to be finished, power sticked. TL;DR It bothers me that people tend to put Ints into the 'support' category just because they're int. Also, I'm glad you included Behe as a support because he totally is.

I've got to disagree a bit on Aluna being a support. She surely can be played that way, but she's much more of a ganker than anything. Take into account her abilities: a chain stun that increases her attack speed. a trajectory throw that does dmg/ clears trees A movement speed increase that can slow enemies. an ult that modifies/increases all these skills. She's built to stun people, hit them quickly and, if they need to be finished, power sticked. TL;DR It bothers me that people tend to put Ints into the 'support' category just because they're int. Also, I'm glad you included Behe as a support because he totally is.

HeroesofNewerth

t5_2r497

c7ewx4j

I've got to disagree a bit on Aluna being a support. She surely can be played that way, but she's much more of a ganker than anything. Take into account her abilities: a chain stun that increases her attack speed. a trajectory throw that does dmg/ clears trees A movement speed increase that can slow enemies. an ult that modifies/increases all these skills. She's built to stun people, hit them quickly and, if they need to be finished, power sticked.

It bothers me that people tend to put Ints into the 'support' category just because they're int. Also, I'm glad you included Behe as a support because he totally is.

brandnew3773

I have gone through two sequences of Accutane and have had zero negative side effects (besides dry skin but that is to be expected). Most of the reasons why Accutane is banned (and it is most people are taking generics these days and don't even realize it) is because of politics and has little to nothing to do with the medication itself. Sure some people have bad reactions to it but that is how all medications are. I have spoken to a lot of my friends and relatives (6 people total) who have taken it and none of them have ever had any issues either. Also keep in mind that you don't hear about the people who are fine because they are no longer on acne websites! Overall I would not hesitate to take Accutane and am actually going to ask my doctor about taking a very low dosage of Accutane over a longer period of time (a practice common in Europe). My dermatologist actually did a lot of research with a team of other dermatologists on Accutane's effect on various organs. TLDR: Accutane is fine for 99% of people. PS: This is just my own idea and has no real scientific backing, but if you look at the individuals who have issues with Accutane they tend to be overweight which might make sense because accutane is a vitamin A derivative which can be stored in fat cells.

I have gone through two sequences of Accutane and have had zero negative side effects (besides dry skin but that is to be expected). Most of the reasons why Accutane is banned (and it is most people are taking generics these days and don't even realize it) is because of politics and has little to nothing to do with the medication itself. Sure some people have bad reactions to it but that is how all medications are. I have spoken to a lot of my friends and relatives (6 people total) who have taken it and none of them have ever had any issues either. Also keep in mind that you don't hear about the people who are fine because they are no longer on acne websites! Overall I would not hesitate to take Accutane and am actually going to ask my doctor about taking a very low dosage of Accutane over a longer period of time (a practice common in Europe). My dermatologist actually did a lot of research with a team of other dermatologists on Accutane's effect on various organs. TLDR: Accutane is fine for 99% of people. PS: This is just my own idea and has no real scientific backing, but if you look at the individuals who have issues with Accutane they tend to be overweight which might make sense because accutane is a vitamin A derivative which can be stored in fat cells.

acne

t5_2qse3

c7grvqr

I have gone through two sequences of Accutane and have had zero negative side effects (besides dry skin but that is to be expected). Most of the reasons why Accutane is banned (and it is most people are taking generics these days and don't even realize it) is because of politics and has little to nothing to do with the medication itself. Sure some people have bad reactions to it but that is how all medications are. I have spoken to a lot of my friends and relatives (6 people total) who have taken it and none of them have ever had any issues either. Also keep in mind that you don't hear about the people who are fine because they are no longer on acne websites! Overall I would not hesitate to take Accutane and am actually going to ask my doctor about taking a very low dosage of Accutane over a longer period of time (a practice common in Europe). My dermatologist actually did a lot of research with a team of other dermatologists on Accutane's effect on various organs.

Accutane is fine for 99% of people. PS: This is just my own idea and has no real scientific backing, but if you look at the individuals who have issues with Accutane they tend to be overweight which might make sense because accutane is a vitamin A derivative which can be stored in fat cells.

cthonctic

In my personal experience, yes. At least I'm positive that you don't get notified if someone shares a post with a circle you are a member of. Might be different if they choose to select you as part of their audience individually but I honestly doubt it. TL;DR if you want to give someone a heads up about a post of yours, +mention them.

In my personal experience, yes. At least I'm positive that you don't get notified if someone shares a post with a circle you are a member of. Might be different if they choose to select you as part of their audience individually but I honestly doubt it. TL;DR if you want to give someone a heads up about a post of yours, +mention them.

google

t5_2qh45

c7fomv5

In my personal experience, yes. At least I'm positive that you don't get notified if someone shares a post with a circle you are a member of. Might be different if they choose to select you as part of their audience individually but I honestly doubt it.

if you want to give someone a heads up about a post of yours, +mention them.

hateReddithate

/r/atheism It's ironic. They come together to talk about not believing in a God. They post stories about how they 'own' theists in public or on facebook. Or how they are oppressed. So first off, talking about not believing in something obviously show insecurity. I'd be willing to be that half of the posters in /r/atheism are there for the karma, remove any insecurities about not believing, or they just haven't made a reddit account to unsubscribe yet. Furthermore coming together on a regular basis to talk about a lack of religion is a religion in its own sense. Second, who actually believes those stories on /r/atheism about people clapping when they own some theist or whatever the fuck it is. Do you know what those stories have in common with the bible? They are pretty unlikely and some people believe them and some people don't. Gosh this place seem to become more and more church like. Third and final point. Religions have been oppressed throughout history. Suck it up deal with it. It's not like your forced to wear a jew star or anything. Give it 100 years and then your parents won't care what you believe in. **tl;dr /r/atheism posters are fucking hypocrites who are actually part of a religion.**

/r/atheism It's ironic. They come together to talk about not believing in a God. They post stories about how they 'own' theists in public or on facebook. Or how they are oppressed. So first off, talking about not believing in something obviously show insecurity. I'd be willing to be that half of the posters in /r/atheism are there for the karma, remove any insecurities about not believing, or they just haven't made a reddit account to unsubscribe yet. Furthermore coming together on a regular basis to talk about a lack of religion is a religion in its own sense. Second, who actually believes those stories on /r/atheism about people clapping when they own some theist or whatever the fuck it is. Do you know what those stories have in common with the bible? They are pretty unlikely and some people believe them and some people don't. Gosh this place seem to become more and more church like. Third and final point. Religions have been oppressed throughout history. Suck it up deal with it. It's not like your forced to wear a jew star or anything. Give it 100 years and then your parents won't care what you believe in. tl;dr /r/atheism posters are fucking hypocrites who are actually part of a religion.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c7fklud

r/atheism It's ironic. They come together to talk about not believing in a God. They post stories about how they 'own' theists in public or on facebook. Or how they are oppressed. So first off, talking about not believing in something obviously show insecurity. I'd be willing to be that half of the posters in /r/atheism are there for the karma, remove any insecurities about not believing, or they just haven't made a reddit account to unsubscribe yet. Furthermore coming together on a regular basis to talk about a lack of religion is a religion in its own sense. Second, who actually believes those stories on /r/atheism about people clapping when they own some theist or whatever the fuck it is. Do you know what those stories have in common with the bible? They are pretty unlikely and some people believe them and some people don't. Gosh this place seem to become more and more church like. Third and final point. Religions have been oppressed throughout history. Suck it up deal with it. It's not like your forced to wear a jew star or anything. Give it 100 years and then your parents won't care what you believe in.

r/atheism posters are fucking hypocrites who are actually part of a religion.

The_Jujunater

Sorry, but that show is terrible. In characterization, it's insulting in the way it constantly portrays these nerds as sexist, arrogant and spineless, introverted, socially and emotionally inept (all have Mommy issues, all seem "virginal", all are prepubescent in behavior, all have the same fandoms, the same dislikes). I'm fine with laughing at these silly stereotypes, but no one challenges their labels, no one actually shows they are a multidimensional character in this story--they all merely follow their typical archetype. And so, there's no character development, no one changes and nothing ever happens because everyone is the same vapid and insulting stereotype. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What really disturbed me the most, however, was the lack of tact the writers took in forming Raj's character. Not only were they unable to write an inoffensive stereotype as they fall into these same ugly patterns I mentioned above... but they do it while dealing with the sensitive subject of presenting the only character who's a racial minority (assuming that Howard isn't racially or ethnically Jewish). I mean, come on. Raj's plights, his aspirations and accomplishments, are ignored even when they are clumsily introduced as center points of the plot. These writers can't seem to even write one serious episode that explores its characters, but this is much worse. It's like these writers can't even plan one episode about Raj, even to just mock and humiliate him exclusively, like they can for Sheldon or Howard or Leonard. Raj is never the center of a storyline, ever, even when he is supposed to be the joke of the episode, and therefore fails the most out of the entire character cast...which says a LOT. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TL;DR The show is a stupidly and insultingly simple jock's depiction of nerd life, as my friend put it. It doesn't explore anything about anyone beyond their superficial labels, and so it fails in my opinion. This is especially troubling and offensive in the case of Raj's character, the only POC of the group (if Howard doesn't identify as racially or ethnically Jewish). Raj suffers lack of screen time, lack of characterization, racism, and, as the show does often for others, is homophobically mocked as possibly gay. It takes conscious effort to suck this hard at writing. Or so I thought until this show came out and seemed like a real attempt at comedy.

Sorry, but that show is terrible. In characterization, it's insulting in the way it constantly portrays these nerds as sexist, arrogant and spineless, introverted, socially and emotionally inept (all have Mommy issues, all seem "virginal", all are prepubescent in behavior, all have the same fandoms, the same dislikes). I'm fine with laughing at these silly stereotypes, but no one challenges their labels, no one actually shows they are a multidimensional character in this story--they all merely follow their typical archetype. And so, there's no character development, no one changes and nothing ever happens because everyone is the same vapid and insulting stereotype. What really disturbed me the most, however, was the lack of tact the writers took in forming Raj's character. Not only were they unable to write an inoffensive stereotype as they fall into these same ugly patterns I mentioned above... but they do it while dealing with the sensitive subject of presenting the only character who's a racial minority (assuming that Howard isn't racially or ethnically Jewish). I mean, come on. Raj's plights, his aspirations and accomplishments, are ignored even when they are clumsily introduced as center points of the plot. These writers can't seem to even write one serious episode that explores its characters, but this is much worse. It's like these writers can't even plan one episode about Raj, even to just mock and humiliate him exclusively, like they can for Sheldon or Howard or Leonard. Raj is never the center of a storyline, ever, even when he is supposed to be the joke of the episode, and therefore fails the most out of the entire character cast...which says a LOT. TL;DR The show is a stupidly and insultingly simple jock's depiction of nerd life, as my friend put it. It doesn't explore anything about anyone beyond their superficial labels, and so it fails in my opinion. This is especially troubling and offensive in the case of Raj's character, the only POC of the group (if Howard doesn't identify as racially or ethnically Jewish). Raj suffers lack of screen time, lack of characterization, racism, and, as the show does often for others, is homophobically mocked as possibly gay. It takes conscious effort to suck this hard at writing. Or so I thought until this show came out and seemed like a real attempt at comedy.

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

c7fom7l

Sorry, but that show is terrible. In characterization, it's insulting in the way it constantly portrays these nerds as sexist, arrogant and spineless, introverted, socially and emotionally inept (all have Mommy issues, all seem "virginal", all are prepubescent in behavior, all have the same fandoms, the same dislikes). I'm fine with laughing at these silly stereotypes, but no one challenges their labels, no one actually shows they are a multidimensional character in this story--they all merely follow their typical archetype. And so, there's no character development, no one changes and nothing ever happens because everyone is the same vapid and insulting stereotype. What really disturbed me the most, however, was the lack of tact the writers took in forming Raj's character. Not only were they unable to write an inoffensive stereotype as they fall into these same ugly patterns I mentioned above... but they do it while dealing with the sensitive subject of presenting the only character who's a racial minority (assuming that Howard isn't racially or ethnically Jewish). I mean, come on. Raj's plights, his aspirations and accomplishments, are ignored even when they are clumsily introduced as center points of the plot. These writers can't seem to even write one serious episode that explores its characters, but this is much worse. It's like these writers can't even plan one episode about Raj, even to just mock and humiliate him exclusively, like they can for Sheldon or Howard or Leonard. Raj is never the center of a storyline, ever, even when he is supposed to be the joke of the episode, and therefore fails the most out of the entire character cast...which says a LOT.

The show is a stupidly and insultingly simple jock's depiction of nerd life, as my friend put it. It doesn't explore anything about anyone beyond their superficial labels, and so it fails in my opinion. This is especially troubling and offensive in the case of Raj's character, the only POC of the group (if Howard doesn't identify as racially or ethnically Jewish). Raj suffers lack of screen time, lack of characterization, racism, and, as the show does often for others, is homophobically mocked as possibly gay. It takes conscious effort to suck this hard at writing. Or so I thought until this show came out and seemed like a real attempt at comedy.

supertaco_12

I didn't realize it wasn't popular either. A lot of people are saying that it's because they feel insulted because apparently the show is making fun of nerds...I think if you're getting mad that it's making fun of nerds, you're either not nerdy enough or you don't realize that the cool part about being a nerd is that you don't have to care what people think because you're probably better than they are anyway...I play WoW, I use alternate operating systems, I'm a CS major, I show up to parties at the time they're supposed to start, and I can get really obsessive about how things need to be and when I'm interested in something I'll get really fixated on it...I don't think the show is insulting at all...I actually relate to it a lot. TL;DR Learn to laugh at yourselves, nerds are a funny group of people

I didn't realize it wasn't popular either. A lot of people are saying that it's because they feel insulted because apparently the show is making fun of nerds...I think if you're getting mad that it's making fun of nerds, you're either not nerdy enough or you don't realize that the cool part about being a nerd is that you don't have to care what people think because you're probably better than they are anyway...I play WoW, I use alternate operating systems, I'm a CS major, I show up to parties at the time they're supposed to start, and I can get really obsessive about how things need to be and when I'm interested in something I'll get really fixated on it...I don't think the show is insulting at all...I actually relate to it a lot. TL;DR Learn to laugh at yourselves, nerds are a funny group of people

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

c7fp95z

I didn't realize it wasn't popular either. A lot of people are saying that it's because they feel insulted because apparently the show is making fun of nerds...I think if you're getting mad that it's making fun of nerds, you're either not nerdy enough or you don't realize that the cool part about being a nerd is that you don't have to care what people think because you're probably better than they are anyway...I play WoW, I use alternate operating systems, I'm a CS major, I show up to parties at the time they're supposed to start, and I can get really obsessive about how things need to be and when I'm interested in something I'll get really fixated on it...I don't think the show is insulting at all...I actually relate to it a lot.

Learn to laugh at yourselves, nerds are a funny group of people

iKickComputers

And here I was thinking I was the only person who actually despised Big Bang Theory. Part of it is I don't like the humor. The only show with a laugh-track I've ever really liked was Seinfeld. Friends... was nothing compared to Whose Line, though I loved the opening theme song. I also don't like how the show portrays smart dudes as being either assholes or social impotents (though that may be jumping to conclusions). I guess I just have different taste in humor is all. I'm a man who demands exquisite writing and I feel BBT just rapes my ears with forced stale humor. TLDR- I just found out I'm not the only person who dislikes Big Bang Theory and I saw an opportunity to vent my distaste of the show. So I did.

And here I was thinking I was the only person who actually despised Big Bang Theory. Part of it is I don't like the humor. The only show with a laugh-track I've ever really liked was Seinfeld. Friends... was nothing compared to Whose Line, though I loved the opening theme song. I also don't like how the show portrays smart dudes as being either assholes or social impotents (though that may be jumping to conclusions). I guess I just have different taste in humor is all. I'm a man who demands exquisite writing and I feel BBT just rapes my ears with forced stale humor. TLDR- I just found out I'm not the only person who dislikes Big Bang Theory and I saw an opportunity to vent my distaste of the show. So I did.

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

c7frlwi

And here I was thinking I was the only person who actually despised Big Bang Theory. Part of it is I don't like the humor. The only show with a laugh-track I've ever really liked was Seinfeld. Friends... was nothing compared to Whose Line, though I loved the opening theme song. I also don't like how the show portrays smart dudes as being either assholes or social impotents (though that may be jumping to conclusions). I guess I just have different taste in humor is all. I'm a man who demands exquisite writing and I feel BBT just rapes my ears with forced stale humor.

I just found out I'm not the only person who dislikes Big Bang Theory and I saw an opportunity to vent my distaste of the show. So I did.

neo45

This is a complicated question, but I think it basically comes down to, do you buy it? Or does it feel like this person, the actor, isn't being true to the situation emotionally? The more demanding the role, the harder it usually is for the actor to convince you that he is the character he's portraying, and the more accolades he deserves if he successfully pulls it off. One of the finest performances I've seen in recent memory is Christian Bale in The Fighter. He thoroughly inhabits that character, physically, mentally, to the point where you don't question he is anyone but the loser crack addict brother of Mark Walhberg's character. He doesn't always hit 'em out of the park, but when he does, man is he brilliant. Johnny Depp is also really good at this, his older, pre "Pirates" stuff much more so than any of his more recent work. Look at a film like Donnie Brasco; he carries that film on his back, brilliantly, because he thoroughly inhabits that character. Never a false moment from him throughout that film. Oh, and Cate Blanchett too; her performance as Bob Dylan in "I'm Not There" a few years ago was one of the best I've ever seen in a film, ever. She's probably the finest female actress working today, and probably one of the best there ever was, which is saying a lot given how many great female actresses there are/have been. It's a skill very, very few actors can successfully pull off, but when they do, there's nothing else like it. Joaquin Phoenix did it for me this year in "The Master." He's usually a decent actor, nothing special, but his performance in that film was nothing short of brilliant. TL;DR: There's lots of good actors out there, but very few great ones. The difference is in how thoroughly they inhabit their character, and, in turn, how much of their performance you buy.

This is a complicated question, but I think it basically comes down to, do you buy it? Or does it feel like this person, the actor, isn't being true to the situation emotionally? The more demanding the role, the harder it usually is for the actor to convince you that he is the character he's portraying, and the more accolades he deserves if he successfully pulls it off. One of the finest performances I've seen in recent memory is Christian Bale in The Fighter. He thoroughly inhabits that character, physically, mentally, to the point where you don't question he is anyone but the loser crack addict brother of Mark Walhberg's character. He doesn't always hit 'em out of the park, but when he does, man is he brilliant. Johnny Depp is also really good at this, his older, pre "Pirates" stuff much more so than any of his more recent work. Look at a film like Donnie Brasco; he carries that film on his back, brilliantly, because he thoroughly inhabits that character. Never a false moment from him throughout that film. Oh, and Cate Blanchett too; her performance as Bob Dylan in "I'm Not There" a few years ago was one of the best I've ever seen in a film, ever. She's probably the finest female actress working today, and probably one of the best there ever was, which is saying a lot given how many great female actresses there are/have been. It's a skill very, very few actors can successfully pull off, but when they do, there's nothing else like it. Joaquin Phoenix did it for me this year in "The Master." He's usually a decent actor, nothing special, but his performance in that film was nothing short of brilliant. TL;DR: There's lots of good actors out there, but very few great ones. The difference is in how thoroughly they inhabit their character, and, in turn, how much of their performance you buy.

explainlikeimfive

t5_2sokd

c7fuozw

This is a complicated question, but I think it basically comes down to, do you buy it? Or does it feel like this person, the actor, isn't being true to the situation emotionally? The more demanding the role, the harder it usually is for the actor to convince you that he is the character he's portraying, and the more accolades he deserves if he successfully pulls it off. One of the finest performances I've seen in recent memory is Christian Bale in The Fighter. He thoroughly inhabits that character, physically, mentally, to the point where you don't question he is anyone but the loser crack addict brother of Mark Walhberg's character. He doesn't always hit 'em out of the park, but when he does, man is he brilliant. Johnny Depp is also really good at this, his older, pre "Pirates" stuff much more so than any of his more recent work. Look at a film like Donnie Brasco; he carries that film on his back, brilliantly, because he thoroughly inhabits that character. Never a false moment from him throughout that film. Oh, and Cate Blanchett too; her performance as Bob Dylan in "I'm Not There" a few years ago was one of the best I've ever seen in a film, ever. She's probably the finest female actress working today, and probably one of the best there ever was, which is saying a lot given how many great female actresses there are/have been. It's a skill very, very few actors can successfully pull off, but when they do, there's nothing else like it. Joaquin Phoenix did it for me this year in "The Master." He's usually a decent actor, nothing special, but his performance in that film was nothing short of brilliant.

There's lots of good actors out there, but very few great ones. The difference is in how thoroughly they inhabit their character, and, in turn, how much of their performance you buy.

RedditBlaze

He seems new, lots of little mistakes, which add up. Not moving crew back to the correct rooms, not investing in a cheap reactor point to fill the open engine slot. Full repairing 4 points of damage to put yourself with too little to buy anything. Targeting the wrong systems. Having the wrong repair procedure and all. Door control. All of these things add up, and as you play you learn the tricks and how to avoid these problems. Biggest thing that has changed how i pay the game... scrap is a limited recourse, when you waste it on repairs and supplies then this puts you behind. Having a good shield and dodge chance early on saves a lot of scrap to help you in later sectors when you need it to make Victory enabling shop runs. TL;DR Roguelikes

He seems new, lots of little mistakes, which add up. Not moving crew back to the correct rooms, not investing in a cheap reactor point to fill the open engine slot. Full repairing 4 points of damage to put yourself with too little to buy anything. Targeting the wrong systems. Having the wrong repair procedure and all. Door control. All of these things add up, and as you play you learn the tricks and how to avoid these problems. Biggest thing that has changed how i pay the game... scrap is a limited recourse, when you waste it on repairs and supplies then this puts you behind. Having a good shield and dodge chance early on saves a lot of scrap to help you in later sectors when you need it to make Victory enabling shop runs. TL;DR Roguelikes

ftlgame

t5_2tnu1

c7gs3eu

He seems new, lots of little mistakes, which add up. Not moving crew back to the correct rooms, not investing in a cheap reactor point to fill the open engine slot. Full repairing 4 points of damage to put yourself with too little to buy anything. Targeting the wrong systems. Having the wrong repair procedure and all. Door control. All of these things add up, and as you play you learn the tricks and how to avoid these problems. Biggest thing that has changed how i pay the game... scrap is a limited recourse, when you waste it on repairs and supplies then this puts you behind. Having a good shield and dodge chance early on saves a lot of scrap to help you in later sectors when you need it to make Victory enabling shop runs.

Roguelikes

Like_Eli_I_Did_It

I'm just going to copy and paste a response I typed up in a past thread since it's easier. > How can I think that? Because I've seen Stan do this all before. Stan is making a profit. Whether he is maximizing his return on investment is another thing. He is conservatively investing, ensuring some profit, albeit like you said not as much as he could be profiting if Arsenal were winning trophies. That would require him to take a risk and invest more in order to receive a higher return. But Stan doesn't do that. He manages his portfolio conservatively. > I'm only critical because I'm American and I've seen this all before. I'm a huge sports fanatic and follow other American sports more than soccer/football. I've watched him take over the Colorado Rapids in 04 (whose business relationships with Arsenal eventually got Stan's foot in the door to buy them also), the Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche in 2000, making marginal investments in the St. Louis Rams in 95 and gaining full control in 2010. > Growing up, the Colorado Avalanche were one of the most feared hockey teams (after moving from Quebec) constantly keeping and attracting top tier talent (who here remembers Sakic, Forseberg, Roy?). They were always competing for Stanley Cups (equiv to the EPL Title) and often division champs. They won the Cup twice, in '96 and '01. Stan acquired them the season they won the Stanley Cup, but he had 0 influence on operations and players at that time, since all the foundation for winning was there already. Since he's owned the team they've been in a gradual decline each season and now they're bottom feeders of the league, not even making it to the playoffs consistently. They keep tinkering with youth development (sound familiar?) since it's a low cost option, but won't make the plunge to sign proven talent. > The Nuggets have always been somewhat mediocre, even when Stan bought them in 2000. They were fortunate enough to see a rise in success around '08 after they drafted one of the premiere players in the game, Carmelo Anthony, and matching it with a veteran, previous champion, Billups. Anthony is an all star talent, constantly playing on the US team, and is an irreplaceable talent. So what does management and ownership do when he asks for a longterm contract and expresses his frustrations about ownership not investing in a little extra talent to help push them over the top? They trade Anthony away ALONG with their second best player, Billups, for cheap nobody players and draft picks. The whole NBA world was shocked. Now the Nuggets are mediocre again, coasting by and winning enough to be relevant but with no shot of ever winning an NBA title (never even in the conversation). They even have a genius coach, George Karl, who has been coaching since the 80s and is always getting the most out of his team, but can't compete since ownership refuses to invest. > The St. Louis Rams came together around '99 with stud talent like Warner and Faulk. This is the year that they won the Superbowl. Stan had little to do with the success of this team, as he was just a partial owner, but the former owner Georgia Frontiere did. It's a similar story to the Colorado Avalanche. He gradually invested and came to own the team, with fuller ownership being reached in 2010. And how has this team gone over the years? Just like the Avalanche, gradually downward, from constant contenders to laughing stocks. This team also mimics some of the troubles the Nuggets saw in not being able to appease their star talent. Steven Jackson has been the premiere running back/player for the St. Louis Rams for years. Arguably one of the best running backs in the NFL for years. So how does ownership treat him this year? They cut his playing time and toss him to the side for literally a first year rookie, Darryl Richardson. They can't take care of Jackson either and negotiate a contract extension, even though Jackson has pledged his loyalty to the club, even through the dark years when he carried their franchise. Instead, Jackson, who was suppose to have a year left with the Rams, is now let go going into next season and has to find a new club. Rams haven't made the playoffs since 2004 btw.. > This is why I'm critical of Stan. I've seen him do enough to take profit from all his clubs, but never make the big/risky moves to either attempt to win it all or maximize his profits. He'd rather always take the sure thing then go for more. I've watched this guy ruin every sports club he's touched (besides the Colorado Rapid winning the League Cup in 2010). So excuse me if I'm a little fearful of what is going on with Arsenal. I don't want to see this beautiful club meet a gradual decline over the years. > **tl;dr: I hate you Stan**

I'm just going to copy and paste a response I typed up in a past thread since it's easier. > How can I think that? Because I've seen Stan do this all before. Stan is making a profit. Whether he is maximizing his return on investment is another thing. He is conservatively investing, ensuring some profit, albeit like you said not as much as he could be profiting if Arsenal were winning trophies. That would require him to take a risk and invest more in order to receive a higher return. But Stan doesn't do that. He manages his portfolio conservatively. > I'm only critical because I'm American and I've seen this all before. I'm a huge sports fanatic and follow other American sports more than soccer/football. I've watched him take over the Colorado Rapids in 04 (whose business relationships with Arsenal eventually got Stan's foot in the door to buy them also), the Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche in 2000, making marginal investments in the St. Louis Rams in 95 and gaining full control in 2010. > Growing up, the Colorado Avalanche were one of the most feared hockey teams (after moving from Quebec) constantly keeping and attracting top tier talent (who here remembers Sakic, Forseberg, Roy?). They were always competing for Stanley Cups (equiv to the EPL Title) and often division champs. They won the Cup twice, in '96 and '01. Stan acquired them the season they won the Stanley Cup, but he had 0 influence on operations and players at that time, since all the foundation for winning was there already. Since he's owned the team they've been in a gradual decline each season and now they're bottom feeders of the league, not even making it to the playoffs consistently. They keep tinkering with youth development (sound familiar?) since it's a low cost option, but won't make the plunge to sign proven talent. > The Nuggets have always been somewhat mediocre, even when Stan bought them in 2000. They were fortunate enough to see a rise in success around '08 after they drafted one of the premiere players in the game, Carmelo Anthony, and matching it with a veteran, previous champion, Billups. Anthony is an all star talent, constantly playing on the US team, and is an irreplaceable talent. So what does management and ownership do when he asks for a longterm contract and expresses his frustrations about ownership not investing in a little extra talent to help push them over the top? They trade Anthony away ALONG with their second best player, Billups, for cheap nobody players and draft picks. The whole NBA world was shocked. Now the Nuggets are mediocre again, coasting by and winning enough to be relevant but with no shot of ever winning an NBA title (never even in the conversation). They even have a genius coach, George Karl, who has been coaching since the 80s and is always getting the most out of his team, but can't compete since ownership refuses to invest. > The St. Louis Rams came together around '99 with stud talent like Warner and Faulk. This is the year that they won the Superbowl. Stan had little to do with the success of this team, as he was just a partial owner, but the former owner Georgia Frontiere did. It's a similar story to the Colorado Avalanche. He gradually invested and came to own the team, with fuller ownership being reached in 2010. And how has this team gone over the years? Just like the Avalanche, gradually downward, from constant contenders to laughing stocks. This team also mimics some of the troubles the Nuggets saw in not being able to appease their star talent. Steven Jackson has been the premiere running back/player for the St. Louis Rams for years. Arguably one of the best running backs in the NFL for years. So how does ownership treat him this year? They cut his playing time and toss him to the side for literally a first year rookie, Darryl Richardson. They can't take care of Jackson either and negotiate a contract extension, even though Jackson has pledged his loyalty to the club, even through the dark years when he carried their franchise. Instead, Jackson, who was suppose to have a year left with the Rams, is now let go going into next season and has to find a new club. Rams haven't made the playoffs since 2004 btw.. > This is why I'm critical of Stan. I've seen him do enough to take profit from all his clubs, but never make the big/risky moves to either attempt to win it all or maximize his profits. He'd rather always take the sure thing then go for more. I've watched this guy ruin every sports club he's touched (besides the Colorado Rapid winning the League Cup in 2010). So excuse me if I'm a little fearful of what is going on with Arsenal. I don't want to see this beautiful club meet a gradual decline over the years. > tl;dr: I hate you Stan

Gunners

t5_2qhqt

c7g6k7l

I'm just going to copy and paste a response I typed up in a past thread since it's easier. > How can I think that? Because I've seen Stan do this all before. Stan is making a profit. Whether he is maximizing his return on investment is another thing. He is conservatively investing, ensuring some profit, albeit like you said not as much as he could be profiting if Arsenal were winning trophies. That would require him to take a risk and invest more in order to receive a higher return. But Stan doesn't do that. He manages his portfolio conservatively. > I'm only critical because I'm American and I've seen this all before. I'm a huge sports fanatic and follow other American sports more than soccer/football. I've watched him take over the Colorado Rapids in 04 (whose business relationships with Arsenal eventually got Stan's foot in the door to buy them also), the Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche in 2000, making marginal investments in the St. Louis Rams in 95 and gaining full control in 2010. > Growing up, the Colorado Avalanche were one of the most feared hockey teams (after moving from Quebec) constantly keeping and attracting top tier talent (who here remembers Sakic, Forseberg, Roy?). They were always competing for Stanley Cups (equiv to the EPL Title) and often division champs. They won the Cup twice, in '96 and '01. Stan acquired them the season they won the Stanley Cup, but he had 0 influence on operations and players at that time, since all the foundation for winning was there already. Since he's owned the team they've been in a gradual decline each season and now they're bottom feeders of the league, not even making it to the playoffs consistently. They keep tinkering with youth development (sound familiar?) since it's a low cost option, but won't make the plunge to sign proven talent. > The Nuggets have always been somewhat mediocre, even when Stan bought them in 2000. They were fortunate enough to see a rise in success around '08 after they drafted one of the premiere players in the game, Carmelo Anthony, and matching it with a veteran, previous champion, Billups. Anthony is an all star talent, constantly playing on the US team, and is an irreplaceable talent. So what does management and ownership do when he asks for a longterm contract and expresses his frustrations about ownership not investing in a little extra talent to help push them over the top? They trade Anthony away ALONG with their second best player, Billups, for cheap nobody players and draft picks. The whole NBA world was shocked. Now the Nuggets are mediocre again, coasting by and winning enough to be relevant but with no shot of ever winning an NBA title (never even in the conversation). They even have a genius coach, George Karl, who has been coaching since the 80s and is always getting the most out of his team, but can't compete since ownership refuses to invest. > The St. Louis Rams came together around '99 with stud talent like Warner and Faulk. This is the year that they won the Superbowl. Stan had little to do with the success of this team, as he was just a partial owner, but the former owner Georgia Frontiere did. It's a similar story to the Colorado Avalanche. He gradually invested and came to own the team, with fuller ownership being reached in 2010. And how has this team gone over the years? Just like the Avalanche, gradually downward, from constant contenders to laughing stocks. This team also mimics some of the troubles the Nuggets saw in not being able to appease their star talent. Steven Jackson has been the premiere running back/player for the St. Louis Rams for years. Arguably one of the best running backs in the NFL for years. So how does ownership treat him this year? They cut his playing time and toss him to the side for literally a first year rookie, Darryl Richardson. They can't take care of Jackson either and negotiate a contract extension, even though Jackson has pledged his loyalty to the club, even through the dark years when he carried their franchise. Instead, Jackson, who was suppose to have a year left with the Rams, is now let go going into next season and has to find a new club. Rams haven't made the playoffs since 2004 btw.. > This is why I'm critical of Stan. I've seen him do enough to take profit from all his clubs, but never make the big/risky moves to either attempt to win it all or maximize his profits. He'd rather always take the sure thing then go for more. I've watched this guy ruin every sports club he's touched (besides the Colorado Rapid winning the League Cup in 2010). So excuse me if I'm a little fearful of what is going on with Arsenal. I don't want to see this beautiful club meet a gradual decline over the years. >

I hate you Stan

asherrd

I feel like I grew up in crazy town. I'm 30 and my parents are in their late 60s and have been making 500k+ combined for decades. They always have been democrats and voted for their taxes to go up when it was up to them to vote. Until I got to college I didn't realize how many selfish well-to-do people there were. Until I went to college I also never realized how many more non-well-to-do-people there were. My parents always distilled in me something to the matter of "we are very, very, lucky to live like this" and also "never spend more than you have unless it is absolutely necessary." If anyone is interested I make about 50k a year but I live in San Francisco so 50k isn't 50k in most places. tl;dr My parents are baby boomers but they know what is up. Might come from the fact that their parents were in a variety of concentration camps during the holocaust. They have a good idea of what real oppression is. Not this I CANT TEACH CREATIONISM IN SCHOOL "oppression."

I feel like I grew up in crazy town. I'm 30 and my parents are in their late 60s and have been making 500k+ combined for decades. They always have been democrats and voted for their taxes to go up when it was up to them to vote. Until I got to college I didn't realize how many selfish well-to-do people there were. Until I went to college I also never realized how many more non-well-to-do-people there were. My parents always distilled in me something to the matter of "we are very, very, lucky to live like this" and also "never spend more than you have unless it is absolutely necessary." If anyone is interested I make about 50k a year but I live in San Francisco so 50k isn't 50k in most places. tl;dr My parents are baby boomers but they know what is up. Might come from the fact that their parents were in a variety of concentration camps during the holocaust. They have a good idea of what real oppression is. Not this I CANT TEACH CREATIONISM IN SCHOOL "oppression."

politics

t5_2cneq

c7gf91c

I feel like I grew up in crazy town. I'm 30 and my parents are in their late 60s and have been making 500k+ combined for decades. They always have been democrats and voted for their taxes to go up when it was up to them to vote. Until I got to college I didn't realize how many selfish well-to-do people there were. Until I went to college I also never realized how many more non-well-to-do-people there were. My parents always distilled in me something to the matter of "we are very, very, lucky to live like this" and also "never spend more than you have unless it is absolutely necessary." If anyone is interested I make about 50k a year but I live in San Francisco so 50k isn't 50k in most places.

My parents are baby boomers but they know what is up. Might come from the fact that their parents were in a variety of concentration camps during the holocaust. They have a good idea of what real oppression is. Not this I CANT TEACH CREATIONISM IN SCHOOL "oppression."

LWJR2552

According to [these]( numbers from the heritage foundation (which is hardly known for a liberal bias) that is not the case. Under Clinton, Revenue increased by an average of 6% per year while Spending increased by an average of 1%. Under Bush, Revenue increased by an average of .4% per year while Spending increased by an average of 4%. So while you are absolutely correct that as a whole Spending has increased at a faster rate than Revenue has, that figure is skewed significantly by the fact that Revenue was slashed under Bush while Spending continued to increase. Had the 6% increase in Revenue been adhered to under Bush, then on average Revenue would have increased 2% faster than Spending. So while you could theoretically argue that the drastic increase in the rate of Spending under Bush was due to an unsustainable precedent set by Clinton, had Bush maintained the increase in revenue set forth by Clinton, he would have maintained the surplus that he inherited . In fact, that surplus would, today, have grown by nearly $1.4T. And that's accounting for a $500B+ increase in spending (under Obama) that arguably would not have been necessary had the increase in revenue been maintained. I'm not an economist so I'm more than happy to be proven wrong if I'm mistaken. tl;dr: You're right, spending increased faster than revenue. But only if you ignore the deep cuts to revenue made under Bush.

According to these that is not the case. Under Clinton, Revenue increased by an average of 6% per year while Spending increased by an average of 1%. Under Bush, Revenue increased by an average of .4% per year while Spending increased by an average of 4%. So while you are absolutely correct that as a whole Spending has increased at a faster rate than Revenue has, that figure is skewed significantly by the fact that Revenue was slashed under Bush while Spending continued to increase. Had the 6% increase in Revenue been adhered to under Bush, then on average Revenue would have increased 2% faster than Spending. So while you could theoretically argue that the drastic increase in the rate of Spending under Bush was due to an unsustainable precedent set by Clinton, had Bush maintained the increase in revenue set forth by Clinton, he would have maintained the surplus that he inherited . In fact, that surplus would, today, have grown by nearly $1.4T. And that's accounting for a $500B+ increase in spending (under Obama) that arguably would not have been necessary had the increase in revenue been maintained. I'm not an economist so I'm more than happy to be proven wrong if I'm mistaken. tl;dr: You're right, spending increased faster than revenue. But only if you ignore the deep cuts to revenue made under Bush.

politics

t5_2cneq

c7gfno4

According to these that is not the case. Under Clinton, Revenue increased by an average of 6% per year while Spending increased by an average of 1%. Under Bush, Revenue increased by an average of .4% per year while Spending increased by an average of 4%. So while you are absolutely correct that as a whole Spending has increased at a faster rate than Revenue has, that figure is skewed significantly by the fact that Revenue was slashed under Bush while Spending continued to increase. Had the 6% increase in Revenue been adhered to under Bush, then on average Revenue would have increased 2% faster than Spending. So while you could theoretically argue that the drastic increase in the rate of Spending under Bush was due to an unsustainable precedent set by Clinton, had Bush maintained the increase in revenue set forth by Clinton, he would have maintained the surplus that he inherited . In fact, that surplus would, today, have grown by nearly $1.4T. And that's accounting for a $500B+ increase in spending (under Obama) that arguably would not have been necessary had the increase in revenue been maintained. I'm not an economist so I'm more than happy to be proven wrong if I'm mistaken.

You're right, spending increased faster than revenue. But only if you ignore the deep cuts to revenue made under Bush.

MrQuick

There is most certainly inflation, but not as measured by CPI. When we talk about inflation we simply think of it as consumer price stuff, buying bread and milk at the shops kind of stuff. The 10 years leading up to the GFC, the Fed increased total money supply by about 85% and CPI only rose by about 35%. There is a 50% difference here, any guesses as to where it went? Remember, money just doesn't disappear. The housing price bubble was nothing more than inflation in the price of assets, hence the term Asset Price Inflation (API). We had the GFC because the Fed kept money supply too loose leading up to it and when you added in a few other factors, it all kinda blew up. Anyway, that term API isn't even acknowledged by the Fed or for that matter any other reserve bank around the world. Currently QE is leading to inflation, just not CPI (which has had it's definition changed last year to reduce, lower CPI -> lower gov. payments linked to CPI) but it is turning up in API. Bond prices are currently inflated beyond belief, as well as current stock prices, precious metals and commodities. QE doesn't work, never worked in Japan and it never will in the US. The current problem is a structural issue that can only be addressed by the government, not something that can be fixed with the one tool the Fed knows how to use. **tl;dr: There IS big inflation, just not as measured by CPI (which the gov changes the definition of anyway to manufacture a lower number) but in assets** Stagflation bitchezz

There is most certainly inflation, but not as measured by CPI. When we talk about inflation we simply think of it as consumer price stuff, buying bread and milk at the shops kind of stuff. The 10 years leading up to the GFC, the Fed increased total money supply by about 85% and CPI only rose by about 35%. There is a 50% difference here, any guesses as to where it went? Remember, money just doesn't disappear. The housing price bubble was nothing more than inflation in the price of assets, hence the term Asset Price Inflation (API). We had the GFC because the Fed kept money supply too loose leading up to it and when you added in a few other factors, it all kinda blew up. Anyway, that term API isn't even acknowledged by the Fed or for that matter any other reserve bank around the world. Currently QE is leading to inflation, just not CPI (which has had it's definition changed last year to reduce, lower CPI -> lower gov. payments linked to CPI) but it is turning up in API. Bond prices are currently inflated beyond belief, as well as current stock prices, precious metals and commodities. QE doesn't work, never worked in Japan and it never will in the US. The current problem is a structural issue that can only be addressed by the government, not something that can be fixed with the one tool the Fed knows how to use. tl;dr: There IS big inflation, just not as measured by CPI (which the gov changes the definition of anyway to manufacture a lower number) but in assets Stagflation bitchezz

politics

t5_2cneq

c7ggxzz

There is most certainly inflation, but not as measured by CPI. When we talk about inflation we simply think of it as consumer price stuff, buying bread and milk at the shops kind of stuff. The 10 years leading up to the GFC, the Fed increased total money supply by about 85% and CPI only rose by about 35%. There is a 50% difference here, any guesses as to where it went? Remember, money just doesn't disappear. The housing price bubble was nothing more than inflation in the price of assets, hence the term Asset Price Inflation (API). We had the GFC because the Fed kept money supply too loose leading up to it and when you added in a few other factors, it all kinda blew up. Anyway, that term API isn't even acknowledged by the Fed or for that matter any other reserve bank around the world. Currently QE is leading to inflation, just not CPI (which has had it's definition changed last year to reduce, lower CPI -> lower gov. payments linked to CPI) but it is turning up in API. Bond prices are currently inflated beyond belief, as well as current stock prices, precious metals and commodities. QE doesn't work, never worked in Japan and it never will in the US. The current problem is a structural issue that can only be addressed by the government, not something that can be fixed with the one tool the Fed knows how to use.

There IS big inflation, just not as measured by CPI (which the gov changes the definition of anyway to manufacture a lower number) but in assets Stagflation bitchezz

aronnax512

China holds about 8% of all US bonds. The majority of US bonds are held by the federal government in trust funds, the federal reserve and private citizens. The "what if China dumped" is a non-issue. Short term reactions would include a slightly weaker dollar, which would result in some minor pain for private citizens purchasing imports that would be difficult to replace domestically (like oil) but the weaker dollar would also drive US manufacturing since it would make the US more competitive internationally. Overall, this would translate into an inconvenience for the average American, not a tragedy. What amuses me when I hear about this threat is the fact that China tries to keep the yuan pinned just below the dollar. So any shock that devalues the dollar will smash their economy. Let me explain: China relies heavily on iron and coal imports from Australia and Brazil to keep their factories running. If they leave the yuan below the dollar the price of those necessary imports will skyrocket and they'll be forced to eat the cost and with their severely low labor prices the additional costs will have to be rolled into their product prices, removing a huge part of their trade advantage internationally. If China unpins the Yuan from the dollar the US's desire for China's cheap goods will dry up, because they will cease to be cheap (this holds true for most of China's export markets). Without a buyer for their exports, China's economy will stall out and fail. Xinhua is toeing the national party line in the above quote. His statement has more to do with politics than anything else. They know dumping the bonds would be cutting off their nose to spite their face, they won't do it. What China will do is talk about the size of the debt and potentially dumping the bonds as a soft political tool. TL;DR~ If China dumps US bonds, US gas prices go up a bit, we get more manufacturing jobs and China's economy implodes.

China holds about 8% of all US bonds. The majority of US bonds are held by the federal government in trust funds, the federal reserve and private citizens. The "what if China dumped" is a non-issue. Short term reactions would include a slightly weaker dollar, which would result in some minor pain for private citizens purchasing imports that would be difficult to replace domestically (like oil) but the weaker dollar would also drive US manufacturing since it would make the US more competitive internationally. Overall, this would translate into an inconvenience for the average American, not a tragedy. What amuses me when I hear about this threat is the fact that China tries to keep the yuan pinned just below the dollar. So any shock that devalues the dollar will smash their economy. Let me explain: China relies heavily on iron and coal imports from Australia and Brazil to keep their factories running. If they leave the yuan below the dollar the price of those necessary imports will skyrocket and they'll be forced to eat the cost and with their severely low labor prices the additional costs will have to be rolled into their product prices, removing a huge part of their trade advantage internationally. If China unpins the Yuan from the dollar the US's desire for China's cheap goods will dry up, because they will cease to be cheap (this holds true for most of China's export markets). Without a buyer for their exports, China's economy will stall out and fail. Xinhua is toeing the national party line in the above quote. His statement has more to do with politics than anything else. They know dumping the bonds would be cutting off their nose to spite their face, they won't do it. What China will do is talk about the size of the debt and potentially dumping the bonds as a soft political tool. TL;DR~ If China dumps US bonds, US gas prices go up a bit, we get more manufacturing jobs and China's economy implodes.

politics

t5_2cneq

c7gi5zq

China holds about 8% of all US bonds. The majority of US bonds are held by the federal government in trust funds, the federal reserve and private citizens. The "what if China dumped" is a non-issue. Short term reactions would include a slightly weaker dollar, which would result in some minor pain for private citizens purchasing imports that would be difficult to replace domestically (like oil) but the weaker dollar would also drive US manufacturing since it would make the US more competitive internationally. Overall, this would translate into an inconvenience for the average American, not a tragedy. What amuses me when I hear about this threat is the fact that China tries to keep the yuan pinned just below the dollar. So any shock that devalues the dollar will smash their economy. Let me explain: China relies heavily on iron and coal imports from Australia and Brazil to keep their factories running. If they leave the yuan below the dollar the price of those necessary imports will skyrocket and they'll be forced to eat the cost and with their severely low labor prices the additional costs will have to be rolled into their product prices, removing a huge part of their trade advantage internationally. If China unpins the Yuan from the dollar the US's desire for China's cheap goods will dry up, because they will cease to be cheap (this holds true for most of China's export markets). Without a buyer for their exports, China's economy will stall out and fail. Xinhua is toeing the national party line in the above quote. His statement has more to do with politics than anything else. They know dumping the bonds would be cutting off their nose to spite their face, they won't do it. What China will do is talk about the size of the debt and potentially dumping the bonds as a soft political tool.

If China dumps US bonds, US gas prices go up a bit, we get more manufacturing jobs and China's economy implodes.

rotten_brido

String gauges depend on your playing style and preferences. Main string gauge problem is that in most of standard 7-string sets (like *10-13-17-26-36-46-56*), tension of low B string is considerably lower that tension of low E string (which is usually somewhat lower than A-string tension). Some people don't mind it (or have accomodated their technique to it). If you're one of them, you're lucky: you can just go to shop and get what you need. Other people (like me) may have have problem with that, because string with low tension goes sharp when you attack it hard (or fret it a bit stronger than usual). If you're one of them (or just prefer feel of balanced tension sets) you have to order single strings (D'Addario and some others others sell them) or balanced sets (some manufacturers do them). The best way to discover your needs is to start from standard set (10 or 9, depending on what you prefer on six-string) and then alter the gauges if you need that. That's what I did. I like standard 10-46 sets on six-string and bought seven string, mainly to be used for metal in standard and DropA tunings. It seemed to have some standard *10-13-17-26-36-46-56* set, and I wasn't happy with that at all. 7th string was going sharp just from me not being gentle with it. Even in B (in DropA it was even worse)! And I don't consider myself wild string-beater, I just play with fairly strong attack when needed. I tried *10-13-17-26-36-46-60* set. Not much difference. I still couldn't hit low B5 chord without low B string going sharp for a while. Then I bought heavy bottom *10-13-17-30-42-54-64* set. 7th string was much better, but 5th and 6th were a bit too heavy for me. And finally I spent some time with [tension calculator]( and ordered custom set from the same company. It was *10-13-18-26-38-50-68* and that's what I stick to now. It's basically standard "10" set, but A-string is a little thicker, low E-string is some more thicker and low B string is seriously heavier. That makes low strings tension much more balanced and, finally, 7th string is not floppy. If I used it only in B, I'd choose something lighter, like .64. But I need it to work in low A too. I also made G-string a little thicker, firstly because I drop it to F# sometimes, secondly to even the tension in standard tuning even more. **tl; dr: Start from standard sets and work up from there, if needed. That's the only way to find your gauge preferences**

String gauges depend on your playing style and preferences. Main string gauge problem is that in most of standard 7-string sets (like 10-13-17-26-36-46-56 ), tension of low B string is considerably lower that tension of low E string (which is usually somewhat lower than A-string tension). Some people don't mind it (or have accomodated their technique to it). If you're one of them, you're lucky: you can just go to shop and get what you need. Other people (like me) may have have problem with that, because string with low tension goes sharp when you attack it hard (or fret it a bit stronger than usual). If you're one of them (or just prefer feel of balanced tension sets) you have to order single strings (D'Addario and some others others sell them) or balanced sets (some manufacturers do them). The best way to discover your needs is to start from standard set (10 or 9, depending on what you prefer on six-string) and then alter the gauges if you need that. That's what I did. I like standard 10-46 sets on six-string and bought seven string, mainly to be used for metal in standard and DropA tunings. It seemed to have some standard 10-13-17-26-36-46-56 set, and I wasn't happy with that at all. 7th string was going sharp just from me not being gentle with it. Even in B (in DropA it was even worse)! And I don't consider myself wild string-beater, I just play with fairly strong attack when needed. I tried 10-13-17-26-36-46-60 set. Not much difference. I still couldn't hit low B5 chord without low B string going sharp for a while. Then I bought heavy bottom 10-13-17-30-42-54-64 set. 7th string was much better, but 5th and 6th were a bit too heavy for me. And finally I spent some time with [tension calculator]( and ordered custom set from the same company. It was 10-13-18-26-38-50-68 and that's what I stick to now. It's basically standard "10" set, but A-string is a little thicker, low E-string is some more thicker and low B string is seriously heavier. That makes low strings tension much more balanced and, finally, 7th string is not floppy. If I used it only in B, I'd choose something lighter, like .64. But I need it to work in low A too. I also made G-string a little thicker, firstly because I drop it to F# sometimes, secondly to even the tension in standard tuning even more. tl; dr: Start from standard sets and work up from there, if needed. That's the only way to find your gauge preferences

7String

t5_2syol

c866obn

String gauges depend on your playing style and preferences. Main string gauge problem is that in most of standard 7-string sets (like 10-13-17-26-36-46-56 ), tension of low B string is considerably lower that tension of low E string (which is usually somewhat lower than A-string tension). Some people don't mind it (or have accomodated their technique to it). If you're one of them, you're lucky: you can just go to shop and get what you need. Other people (like me) may have have problem with that, because string with low tension goes sharp when you attack it hard (or fret it a bit stronger than usual). If you're one of them (or just prefer feel of balanced tension sets) you have to order single strings (D'Addario and some others others sell them) or balanced sets (some manufacturers do them). The best way to discover your needs is to start from standard set (10 or 9, depending on what you prefer on six-string) and then alter the gauges if you need that. That's what I did. I like standard 10-46 sets on six-string and bought seven string, mainly to be used for metal in standard and DropA tunings. It seemed to have some standard 10-13-17-26-36-46-56 set, and I wasn't happy with that at all. 7th string was going sharp just from me not being gentle with it. Even in B (in DropA it was even worse)! And I don't consider myself wild string-beater, I just play with fairly strong attack when needed. I tried 10-13-17-26-36-46-60 set. Not much difference. I still couldn't hit low B5 chord without low B string going sharp for a while. Then I bought heavy bottom 10-13-17-30-42-54-64 set. 7th string was much better, but 5th and 6th were a bit too heavy for me. And finally I spent some time with [tension calculator]( and ordered custom set from the same company. It was 10-13-18-26-38-50-68 and that's what I stick to now. It's basically standard "10" set, but A-string is a little thicker, low E-string is some more thicker and low B string is seriously heavier. That makes low strings tension much more balanced and, finally, 7th string is not floppy. If I used it only in B, I'd choose something lighter, like .64. But I need it to work in low A too. I also made G-string a little thicker, firstly because I drop it to F# sometimes, secondly to even the tension in standard tuning even more.

Start from standard sets and work up from there, if needed. That's the only way to find your gauge preferences

giggity_giggity

So here's the deal. I apparently love green. I mean, I hate green in real life (except the outdoors, but I don't like it as a color on things). But I love me some Dark Angels, Orks, and Nurgle. /couch_moment tl,dr: They're awesome.

So here's the deal. I apparently love green. I mean, I hate green in real life (except the outdoors, but I don't like it as a color on things). But I love me some Dark Angels, Orks, and Nurgle. /couch_moment tl,dr: They're awesome.

Warhammer

t5_2qqd4

c7gly3n

So here's the deal. I apparently love green. I mean, I hate green in real life (except the outdoors, but I don't like it as a color on things). But I love me some Dark Angels, Orks, and Nurgle. /couch_moment

They're awesome.

Tillops

Every man's hair loss is uniquie to them. My only tip is, 'if it's gone, it's gone and you should cut your losses". There's nothing wrong with being balding or bald. It happens to most men. The only problem is if you make a sad and desperate attempt to hold on to the idea that you have a full head of hair long past it being obvious you don't. I have a mate who shaved his balding head to the scalp in his mid-twenties. I promise you he looks better than he would if he combed a scrabbly patch of hair over his shiny scalp every morning, TL;DR - Bald heads are always sexier than combovers.

Every man's hair loss is uniquie to them. My only tip is, 'if it's gone, it's gone and you should cut your losses". There's nothing wrong with being balding or bald. It happens to most men. The only problem is if you make a sad and desperate attempt to hold on to the idea that you have a full head of hair long past it being obvious you don't. I have a mate who shaved his balding head to the scalp in his mid-twenties. I promise you he looks better than he would if he combed a scrabbly patch of hair over his shiny scalp every morning, TL;DR - Bald heads are always sexier than combovers.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

c7gk8w9

Every man's hair loss is uniquie to them. My only tip is, 'if it's gone, it's gone and you should cut your losses". There's nothing wrong with being balding or bald. It happens to most men. The only problem is if you make a sad and desperate attempt to hold on to the idea that you have a full head of hair long past it being obvious you don't. I have a mate who shaved his balding head to the scalp in his mid-twenties. I promise you he looks better than he would if he combed a scrabbly patch of hair over his shiny scalp every morning,

Bald heads are always sexier than combovers.

theirisnetwork

I am a recent graduate and just moved to Chicago and was very happy to find out that a couple of my schoolmates moved here. Three of my best friends here are a lesbian couple and a gay man. Keep in mind that I also went to art school, but in terms of men I've had many gay friends. They're wonderful and a great resource. It's also mutually beneficial to each other. For me I was able to meet some really, really attractive women through my gay friends. Pardon for using such an offensive term but I have no other way to describe it, but a lot of attractive girls are "fag hags", in the sense that they don't have too many lady friends so they gravitate to gay men to be their best friends. Being friends with that gay guy is a great in to these girls. It means that you're safe and that you can hang with both of them and have your friend vouch for you. It also works for the gay guys as well. You need to understand that at their core gay guys are essentially the same as straight dudes when they're on the prowl. It's just that their intentions are more well known. I live near Halsted in Chicago, which is infamous for being the gay district, and I always go out and be a bro to my gay friend and wingman him whenever we go to those bars. It's less pay it forward and more me using myself to his advantage. Just like a regular wingman, gay guys will find someone they fancy but then might get cold feet and bitch out. I on the other hand am a neutral party and since I'm straight can easily start a conversation with the target and wingman him. It's like when you have a friend who has a girlfriend start the conversation with a woman you want to talk to. Since you made it known that you're not a threat or a target, they ease up, which will allow you to give your friend a fair shot. EDIT: **TL;DR: Gay men are the best wingmen you could ever have.**

I am a recent graduate and just moved to Chicago and was very happy to find out that a couple of my schoolmates moved here. Three of my best friends here are a lesbian couple and a gay man. Keep in mind that I also went to art school, but in terms of men I've had many gay friends. They're wonderful and a great resource. It's also mutually beneficial to each other. For me I was able to meet some really, really attractive women through my gay friends. Pardon for using such an offensive term but I have no other way to describe it, but a lot of attractive girls are "fag hags", in the sense that they don't have too many lady friends so they gravitate to gay men to be their best friends. Being friends with that gay guy is a great in to these girls. It means that you're safe and that you can hang with both of them and have your friend vouch for you. It also works for the gay guys as well. You need to understand that at their core gay guys are essentially the same as straight dudes when they're on the prowl. It's just that their intentions are more well known. I live near Halsted in Chicago, which is infamous for being the gay district, and I always go out and be a bro to my gay friend and wingman him whenever we go to those bars. It's less pay it forward and more me using myself to his advantage. Just like a regular wingman, gay guys will find someone they fancy but then might get cold feet and bitch out. I on the other hand am a neutral party and since I'm straight can easily start a conversation with the target and wingman him. It's like when you have a friend who has a girlfriend start the conversation with a woman you want to talk to. Since you made it known that you're not a threat or a target, they ease up, which will allow you to give your friend a fair shot. EDIT: TL;DR: Gay men are the best wingmen you could ever have.

AskMen

t5_2s30g

c7gp9j6

I am a recent graduate and just moved to Chicago and was very happy to find out that a couple of my schoolmates moved here. Three of my best friends here are a lesbian couple and a gay man. Keep in mind that I also went to art school, but in terms of men I've had many gay friends. They're wonderful and a great resource. It's also mutually beneficial to each other. For me I was able to meet some really, really attractive women through my gay friends. Pardon for using such an offensive term but I have no other way to describe it, but a lot of attractive girls are "fag hags", in the sense that they don't have too many lady friends so they gravitate to gay men to be their best friends. Being friends with that gay guy is a great in to these girls. It means that you're safe and that you can hang with both of them and have your friend vouch for you. It also works for the gay guys as well. You need to understand that at their core gay guys are essentially the same as straight dudes when they're on the prowl. It's just that their intentions are more well known. I live near Halsted in Chicago, which is infamous for being the gay district, and I always go out and be a bro to my gay friend and wingman him whenever we go to those bars. It's less pay it forward and more me using myself to his advantage. Just like a regular wingman, gay guys will find someone they fancy but then might get cold feet and bitch out. I on the other hand am a neutral party and since I'm straight can easily start a conversation with the target and wingman him. It's like when you have a friend who has a girlfriend start the conversation with a woman you want to talk to. Since you made it known that you're not a threat or a target, they ease up, which will allow you to give your friend a fair shot. EDIT:

Gay men are the best wingmen you could ever have.

excursionmoney

Straight man: I came from a very conservative community, so from my high school, I never really had any gay or openly-gay friends. But now that I moved countries for college, I befriended one. Sure he's 7 years older than I am, but he's probably the coolest friend I have. tl;dr One.

Straight man: I came from a very conservative community, so from my high school, I never really had any gay or openly-gay friends. But now that I moved countries for college, I befriended one. Sure he's 7 years older than I am, but he's probably the coolest friend I have. tl;dr One.

AskMen

t5_2s30g

c7gz41h

Straight man: I came from a very conservative community, so from my high school, I never really had any gay or openly-gay friends. But now that I moved countries for college, I befriended one. Sure he's 7 years older than I am, but he's probably the coolest friend I have.

One.

CthulhuFerrigno

As a mental health counselor, I can attest that this has less to do with depression than it does anxiety. Some of the best techniques for treating anxiety are to confront those fears directly through imagined or in-vivo experiments, much like the one the author alluded to about the subway. This is called exposure therapy. Our brains, for whatever reason (evolutionary or otherwise) are predisposed to process negative information first and foremost. For example, in a group with my clients I may ask them "what went wrong today?" and they'd supply their answers. Then I would ask them "what went right?" What they don't realize is that this isn't about the content of their answers; I'm actually timing them in my mind to see how quickly they respond. 9 times out of 10 they can supply the negative much more quickly than the positive. Because we are predisposed to avoid negative outcomes, we come to avoid any situations which may lead to negative outcomes, and thus an anxiety disorder may result (agoraphobia, social anxiety, etc.). Depression, on the other hand, is more about negativistic vs. realistic but hopeful thinking. As the author suggests, if we could just "think positive" and alleviate our depression I'd be out of a job. The problem is that overly positive thinking does not ring true for us, and so it does not take hold for us emotionally. For example, I could walk around telling myself "I will succeed at everything I try", but 1) as a realist I don't actually believe that, and 2) even if I did I'd be in for a rude awakening on a daily basis. The irony is that it is just as silly for me to say to myself "I will fail at everything I try", but not only am I more likely to believe this (as negatives such as past failures are more easily retrieved from memory as evidence), but also this syncs with my emotional state (sadness/self-loathing) and so I may then allow this thought to take hold and drag myself deeper into the spiral of depression. Both thoughts are outlandish, but the negative one is more likely to impact us, and that is a key point in terms of depression. Only through meta-cognition (thinking about our thinking) can we work to catch ourselves when we begin to think this way, and substitute realistic and hopeful alternative thoughts such as "I will have my successes and my failures, but even in failure I can succeed by learning from my mistakes". Counselors and therapists do not teach depressed clients to ignore all the negatives, they teach clients to acknowledge and appreciate the positives they have long been ignoring. TL;DR - Anxiety is about confronting negative expectations and realizing they are often overblown. Depression is about confronting negative thought patterns and realizing they are unreasonable.

As a mental health counselor, I can attest that this has less to do with depression than it does anxiety. Some of the best techniques for treating anxiety are to confront those fears directly through imagined or in-vivo experiments, much like the one the author alluded to about the subway. This is called exposure therapy. Our brains, for whatever reason (evolutionary or otherwise) are predisposed to process negative information first and foremost. For example, in a group with my clients I may ask them "what went wrong today?" and they'd supply their answers. Then I would ask them "what went right?" What they don't realize is that this isn't about the content of their answers; I'm actually timing them in my mind to see how quickly they respond. 9 times out of 10 they can supply the negative much more quickly than the positive. Because we are predisposed to avoid negative outcomes, we come to avoid any situations which may lead to negative outcomes, and thus an anxiety disorder may result (agoraphobia, social anxiety, etc.). Depression, on the other hand, is more about negativistic vs. realistic but hopeful thinking. As the author suggests, if we could just "think positive" and alleviate our depression I'd be out of a job. The problem is that overly positive thinking does not ring true for us, and so it does not take hold for us emotionally. For example, I could walk around telling myself "I will succeed at everything I try", but 1) as a realist I don't actually believe that, and 2) even if I did I'd be in for a rude awakening on a daily basis. The irony is that it is just as silly for me to say to myself "I will fail at everything I try", but not only am I more likely to believe this (as negatives such as past failures are more easily retrieved from memory as evidence), but also this syncs with my emotional state (sadness/self-loathing) and so I may then allow this thought to take hold and drag myself deeper into the spiral of depression. Both thoughts are outlandish, but the negative one is more likely to impact us, and that is a key point in terms of depression. Only through meta-cognition (thinking about our thinking) can we work to catch ourselves when we begin to think this way, and substitute realistic and hopeful alternative thoughts such as "I will have my successes and my failures, but even in failure I can succeed by learning from my mistakes". Counselors and therapists do not teach depressed clients to ignore all the negatives, they teach clients to acknowledge and appreciate the positives they have long been ignoring. TL;DR - Anxiety is about confronting negative expectations and realizing they are often overblown. Depression is about confronting negative thought patterns and realizing they are unreasonable.

business

t5_2qgzg

c7h5hqy

As a mental health counselor, I can attest that this has less to do with depression than it does anxiety. Some of the best techniques for treating anxiety are to confront those fears directly through imagined or in-vivo experiments, much like the one the author alluded to about the subway. This is called exposure therapy. Our brains, for whatever reason (evolutionary or otherwise) are predisposed to process negative information first and foremost. For example, in a group with my clients I may ask them "what went wrong today?" and they'd supply their answers. Then I would ask them "what went right?" What they don't realize is that this isn't about the content of their answers; I'm actually timing them in my mind to see how quickly they respond. 9 times out of 10 they can supply the negative much more quickly than the positive. Because we are predisposed to avoid negative outcomes, we come to avoid any situations which may lead to negative outcomes, and thus an anxiety disorder may result (agoraphobia, social anxiety, etc.). Depression, on the other hand, is more about negativistic vs. realistic but hopeful thinking. As the author suggests, if we could just "think positive" and alleviate our depression I'd be out of a job. The problem is that overly positive thinking does not ring true for us, and so it does not take hold for us emotionally. For example, I could walk around telling myself "I will succeed at everything I try", but 1) as a realist I don't actually believe that, and 2) even if I did I'd be in for a rude awakening on a daily basis. The irony is that it is just as silly for me to say to myself "I will fail at everything I try", but not only am I more likely to believe this (as negatives such as past failures are more easily retrieved from memory as evidence), but also this syncs with my emotional state (sadness/self-loathing) and so I may then allow this thought to take hold and drag myself deeper into the spiral of depression. Both thoughts are outlandish, but the negative one is more likely to impact us, and that is a key point in terms of depression. Only through meta-cognition (thinking about our thinking) can we work to catch ourselves when we begin to think this way, and substitute realistic and hopeful alternative thoughts such as "I will have my successes and my failures, but even in failure I can succeed by learning from my mistakes". Counselors and therapists do not teach depressed clients to ignore all the negatives, they teach clients to acknowledge and appreciate the positives they have long been ignoring.

Anxiety is about confronting negative expectations and realizing they are often overblown. Depression is about confronting negative thought patterns and realizing they are unreasonable.

throwaway694

Anecdotal Story: I had sex with my first boyfriend because I felt like if I didn't I would be a bad girlfriend. He was patient enough to say he would wait for as long as necessary and I *still* felt pressured into it. After the sex I also felt slutty and disgusting. It eventually ruined our relationship after two years. He was very patient and when I explained how I felt he said he'd rather wait than make me do something I didn't want to do. But I kept on having sex with him because I knew he wanted it; I'd even initiate because I thought it would make him happy. In the end I didn't even want him to touch me because if we were together (LDR) it seemed to lead to sex. That was even when my partner said he would wait, never said anything like "not being interested in a relationship that never leads to sex". So I can only imagine what your girlfriend is feeling right now; and what she needs is help and therapy, not more pressure. She may one day get more comfortable. But this could be years from now, so if you aren't willing to wait that long I would recommend backing out sooner rather than later. This doesn't sound like something that's going to go away quickly. There's nothing wrong with taking care of yourself. If you really can't see yourself able to go years without sex then this may not be the right relationship for you or her. **tl;dr- Which do you care about more: sex or being with her?**

Anecdotal Story: I had sex with my first boyfriend because I felt like if I didn't I would be a bad girlfriend. He was patient enough to say he would wait for as long as necessary and I still felt pressured into it. After the sex I also felt slutty and disgusting. It eventually ruined our relationship after two years. He was very patient and when I explained how I felt he said he'd rather wait than make me do something I didn't want to do. But I kept on having sex with him because I knew he wanted it; I'd even initiate because I thought it would make him happy. In the end I didn't even want him to touch me because if we were together (LDR) it seemed to lead to sex. That was even when my partner said he would wait, never said anything like "not being interested in a relationship that never leads to sex". So I can only imagine what your girlfriend is feeling right now; and what she needs is help and therapy, not more pressure. She may one day get more comfortable. But this could be years from now, so if you aren't willing to wait that long I would recommend backing out sooner rather than later. This doesn't sound like something that's going to go away quickly. There's nothing wrong with taking care of yourself. If you really can't see yourself able to go years without sex then this may not be the right relationship for you or her. tl;dr- Which do you care about more: sex or being with her?

relationships

t5_2qjvn

c7h45me

Anecdotal Story: I had sex with my first boyfriend because I felt like if I didn't I would be a bad girlfriend. He was patient enough to say he would wait for as long as necessary and I still felt pressured into it. After the sex I also felt slutty and disgusting. It eventually ruined our relationship after two years. He was very patient and when I explained how I felt he said he'd rather wait than make me do something I didn't want to do. But I kept on having sex with him because I knew he wanted it; I'd even initiate because I thought it would make him happy. In the end I didn't even want him to touch me because if we were together (LDR) it seemed to lead to sex. That was even when my partner said he would wait, never said anything like "not being interested in a relationship that never leads to sex". So I can only imagine what your girlfriend is feeling right now; and what she needs is help and therapy, not more pressure. She may one day get more comfortable. But this could be years from now, so if you aren't willing to wait that long I would recommend backing out sooner rather than later. This doesn't sound like something that's going to go away quickly. There's nothing wrong with taking care of yourself. If you really can't see yourself able to go years without sex then this may not be the right relationship for you or her.

Which do you care about more: sex or being with her?

Anonazon

Wow, could they be any more vague reporting the cosmic ray thing? Perhaps the reason the IPCC is now more certain of AGW than they used to be is because all the dissenters have left this purely political organization that touts itself as a scientific one. On the cosmic rays: Greenhouse AGW says the lower atmosphere is where we should see the most warming but this is the part of the atmosphere where we see the least warming. Instead, the heat is accumulating in the upper atmosphere most strongly. I do not see any evidence implicating cosmic rays in the warming but this is a poorly understood area of physics. Since cosmic rays are co-located with the strongest warming it is certainly a valid idea that deserves attention. Personally, I think the upper atmosphere warming could be attributed to Mach's principle which has to do with the aether. Scientists are "99% sure there is no aether" but there is strong evidence that the aether exists. But I digest... we do not know anything about the aether. What we do know a little about is [lightning and red sprites and blue jets]( (at least we know for sure these things exist.) These three things -- lightning, sprites and jets -- are atmospheric phenomena that we do not understand; however, the IPCC ignores this ignorance. Instead, they represent that physical processes in the atmosphere are well understood. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Firstly, there is no known physical model that can explain the large scale accumulation of charge that leads to lightning. Then in the upper atmosphere above lightning (where the strongest warming is seen) we have these sprites and jets that move faster than 10% of the speed of light. Why are there crazy relativistic effects associated with lightning? We can't even begin to address that since we haven't been able to come with a model for atmospheric lightning. Then beyond the mystery of lightning, we have the deeper mystery of jets and sprites occurring in the same part of the atmosphere as the strongest warming. Indeed, red sprites live in the thermosphere so it is not far fetched that this process is related to temperature. **TL;DR** We don't understand the physical processes in the atmosphere very well but IPCC represents like we have a good grasp on things. The IPCC should emphasize the scientific community's ignorance, not its unwarranted certainty.

Wow, could they be any more vague reporting the cosmic ray thing? Perhaps the reason the IPCC is now more certain of AGW than they used to be is because all the dissenters have left this purely political organization that touts itself as a scientific one. On the cosmic rays: Greenhouse AGW says the lower atmosphere is where we should see the most warming but this is the part of the atmosphere where we see the least warming. Instead, the heat is accumulating in the upper atmosphere most strongly. I do not see any evidence implicating cosmic rays in the warming but this is a poorly understood area of physics. Since cosmic rays are co-located with the strongest warming it is certainly a valid idea that deserves attention. Personally, I think the upper atmosphere warming could be attributed to Mach's principle which has to do with the aether. Scientists are "99% sure there is no aether" but there is strong evidence that the aether exists. But I digest... we do not know anything about the aether. What we do know a little about is lightning and red sprites and blue jets These three things -- lightning, sprites and jets -- are atmospheric phenomena that we do not understand; however, the IPCC ignores this ignorance. Instead, they represent that physical processes in the atmosphere are well understood. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Firstly, there is no known physical model that can explain the large scale accumulation of charge that leads to lightning. Then in the upper atmosphere above lightning (where the strongest warming is seen) we have these sprites and jets that move faster than 10% of the speed of light. Why are there crazy relativistic effects associated with lightning? We can't even begin to address that since we haven't been able to come with a model for atmospheric lightning. Then beyond the mystery of lightning, we have the deeper mystery of jets and sprites occurring in the same part of the atmosphere as the strongest warming. Indeed, red sprites live in the thermosphere so it is not far fetched that this process is related to temperature. TL;DR We don't understand the physical processes in the atmosphere very well but IPCC represents like we have a good grasp on things. The IPCC should emphasize the scientific community's ignorance, not its unwarranted certainty.

science

t5_mouw

c7h63wn

Wow, could they be any more vague reporting the cosmic ray thing? Perhaps the reason the IPCC is now more certain of AGW than they used to be is because all the dissenters have left this purely political organization that touts itself as a scientific one. On the cosmic rays: Greenhouse AGW says the lower atmosphere is where we should see the most warming but this is the part of the atmosphere where we see the least warming. Instead, the heat is accumulating in the upper atmosphere most strongly. I do not see any evidence implicating cosmic rays in the warming but this is a poorly understood area of physics. Since cosmic rays are co-located with the strongest warming it is certainly a valid idea that deserves attention. Personally, I think the upper atmosphere warming could be attributed to Mach's principle which has to do with the aether. Scientists are "99% sure there is no aether" but there is strong evidence that the aether exists. But I digest... we do not know anything about the aether. What we do know a little about is lightning and red sprites and blue jets These three things -- lightning, sprites and jets -- are atmospheric phenomena that we do not understand; however, the IPCC ignores this ignorance. Instead, they represent that physical processes in the atmosphere are well understood. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Firstly, there is no known physical model that can explain the large scale accumulation of charge that leads to lightning. Then in the upper atmosphere above lightning (where the strongest warming is seen) we have these sprites and jets that move faster than 10% of the speed of light. Why are there crazy relativistic effects associated with lightning? We can't even begin to address that since we haven't been able to come with a model for atmospheric lightning. Then beyond the mystery of lightning, we have the deeper mystery of jets and sprites occurring in the same part of the atmosphere as the strongest warming. Indeed, red sprites live in the thermosphere so it is not far fetched that this process is related to temperature.

We don't understand the physical processes in the atmosphere very well but IPCC represents like we have a good grasp on things. The IPCC should emphasize the scientific community's ignorance, not its unwarranted certainty.

magmay

I would also recommend a Costco card if you live around one (like I did!). Their pizza prices allegedly haven't changed since at least the 90s (it's like $1.50 a slice for mall quality pizza, I think). They also have lunch time samples, so that can be a good free lunch, and a good way to find cheap, healthy snacks you might not have tried otherwise. Not to mention Sam's Club is a part of Walmart (I think) so if you have reasons not to shop at that hell hole, I would for serious recommend Costco. Also, learn how to do laundry if you don't. Learn how to remove stains, etc. Especially important if you are a lady, dear reader. If you are going to have room mates, keep a snack stash in your room of non-perishable snacky things that they can't eat. Also, someone mentioned a chore sheet, but if you're living alone my advice is to set up a cleaning schedule (and maybe this would work with roomies?) I've been meaning to set this up, but what you do is clean a little bit each day. Like, dust Monday, wipe down bathrooms Tuesday, vacuum Wednesday, mop Thursday, etc etc. That or do everything on one day, like Saturday morning. Speaking as a college student, that isn't really viable though. Also! If you have insurance (through your parents or otherwise) carry the card on you, or at least a copy of it. I'm a sickly child (or I was) so having that up at college was very useful. If you are going to college, definitely find out about your clinic situation. My campus' clinic offers free (FREE) health screenings and the like. These things usually can run up to $200 (they do full blood work up, general check up, STD, pregnancy tests, birth control). If you are not going to college, there are probably urgent care clinics or the like around that you can also take advantage of. Also, depending on your age and your insurance situation, you might need to get a GP to take care of more serious things. Wow this is long. umm tl;dr: Costco is better than Sam's Club, laundry, snack stash, chore sheet/chore days/insurance&clinic

I would also recommend a Costco card if you live around one (like I did!). Their pizza prices allegedly haven't changed since at least the 90s (it's like $1.50 a slice for mall quality pizza, I think). They also have lunch time samples, so that can be a good free lunch, and a good way to find cheap, healthy snacks you might not have tried otherwise. Not to mention Sam's Club is a part of Walmart (I think) so if you have reasons not to shop at that hell hole, I would for serious recommend Costco. Also, learn how to do laundry if you don't. Learn how to remove stains, etc. Especially important if you are a lady, dear reader. If you are going to have room mates, keep a snack stash in your room of non-perishable snacky things that they can't eat. Also, someone mentioned a chore sheet, but if you're living alone my advice is to set up a cleaning schedule (and maybe this would work with roomies?) I've been meaning to set this up, but what you do is clean a little bit each day. Like, dust Monday, wipe down bathrooms Tuesday, vacuum Wednesday, mop Thursday, etc etc. That or do everything on one day, like Saturday morning. Speaking as a college student, that isn't really viable though. Also! If you have insurance (through your parents or otherwise) carry the card on you, or at least a copy of it. I'm a sickly child (or I was) so having that up at college was very useful. If you are going to college, definitely find out about your clinic situation. My campus' clinic offers free (FREE) health screenings and the like. These things usually can run up to $200 (they do full blood work up, general check up, STD, pregnancy tests, birth control). If you are not going to college, there are probably urgent care clinics or the like around that you can also take advantage of. Also, depending on your age and your insurance situation, you might need to get a GP to take care of more serious things. Wow this is long. umm tl;dr: Costco is better than Sam's Club, laundry, snack stash, chore sheet/chore days/insurance&clinic

Frugal

t5_2qhbe

c7h5aul

I would also recommend a Costco card if you live around one (like I did!). Their pizza prices allegedly haven't changed since at least the 90s (it's like $1.50 a slice for mall quality pizza, I think). They also have lunch time samples, so that can be a good free lunch, and a good way to find cheap, healthy snacks you might not have tried otherwise. Not to mention Sam's Club is a part of Walmart (I think) so if you have reasons not to shop at that hell hole, I would for serious recommend Costco. Also, learn how to do laundry if you don't. Learn how to remove stains, etc. Especially important if you are a lady, dear reader. If you are going to have room mates, keep a snack stash in your room of non-perishable snacky things that they can't eat. Also, someone mentioned a chore sheet, but if you're living alone my advice is to set up a cleaning schedule (and maybe this would work with roomies?) I've been meaning to set this up, but what you do is clean a little bit each day. Like, dust Monday, wipe down bathrooms Tuesday, vacuum Wednesday, mop Thursday, etc etc. That or do everything on one day, like Saturday morning. Speaking as a college student, that isn't really viable though. Also! If you have insurance (through your parents or otherwise) carry the card on you, or at least a copy of it. I'm a sickly child (or I was) so having that up at college was very useful. If you are going to college, definitely find out about your clinic situation. My campus' clinic offers free (FREE) health screenings and the like. These things usually can run up to $200 (they do full blood work up, general check up, STD, pregnancy tests, birth control). If you are not going to college, there are probably urgent care clinics or the like around that you can also take advantage of. Also, depending on your age and your insurance situation, you might need to get a GP to take care of more serious things. Wow this is long. umm

Costco is better than Sam's Club, laundry, snack stash, chore sheet/chore days/insurance&clinic

chillin-and-grillin

When my skylight blew off during Hurricane Isaac, my apartment filled with water. Thanks to renters insurance, I was only out my deductible. In my case, water damage was covered because it came from above. TL;DR - consult with an insurance agent. This can be tricky.

When my skylight blew off during Hurricane Isaac, my apartment filled with water. Thanks to renters insurance, I was only out my deductible. In my case, water damage was covered because it came from above. TL;DR - consult with an insurance agent. This can be tricky.

Frugal

t5_2qhbe

c7h5t6y

When my skylight blew off during Hurricane Isaac, my apartment filled with water. Thanks to renters insurance, I was only out my deductible. In my case, water damage was covered because it came from above.

consult with an insurance agent. This can be tricky.

scummie50

Anything that you plan on purchasing which will not be stored in your room is at risk of being destroyed. Don't spend a lot of money on your furniture and cookware in the beginning. Many people do not know how to treat things of value. I had many of my nice dishes broken/thrown away. I had dirty nasty shoes all over my furniture. People will use your bathroom products and everything else. Just think about saving up for nice things once you no longer have to live with roommates. Always keep a secret spare roll of T.P. in your room. It sucks to need it and not have it. I had a roommate once who I swear to god used almost a third of a roll every time she went to the bathroom. What is even more weird is that most of it would be sitting on the top of the trash can seemingly untouched. I have no idea what the hell she was doing with all that T.P. **TL;DR** Other people do weird things, take measures to safeguard yourself and your treasured belongings.

Anything that you plan on purchasing which will not be stored in your room is at risk of being destroyed. Don't spend a lot of money on your furniture and cookware in the beginning. Many people do not know how to treat things of value. I had many of my nice dishes broken/thrown away. I had dirty nasty shoes all over my furniture. People will use your bathroom products and everything else. Just think about saving up for nice things once you no longer have to live with roommates. Always keep a secret spare roll of T.P. in your room. It sucks to need it and not have it. I had a roommate once who I swear to god used almost a third of a roll every time she went to the bathroom. What is even more weird is that most of it would be sitting on the top of the trash can seemingly untouched. I have no idea what the hell she was doing with all that T.P. TL;DR Other people do weird things, take measures to safeguard yourself and your treasured belongings.

Frugal

t5_2qhbe

c7h7trp

Anything that you plan on purchasing which will not be stored in your room is at risk of being destroyed. Don't spend a lot of money on your furniture and cookware in the beginning. Many people do not know how to treat things of value. I had many of my nice dishes broken/thrown away. I had dirty nasty shoes all over my furniture. People will use your bathroom products and everything else. Just think about saving up for nice things once you no longer have to live with roommates. Always keep a secret spare roll of T.P. in your room. It sucks to need it and not have it. I had a roommate once who I swear to god used almost a third of a roll every time she went to the bathroom. What is even more weird is that most of it would be sitting on the top of the trash can seemingly untouched. I have no idea what the hell she was doing with all that T.P.

Other people do weird things, take measures to safeguard yourself and your treasured belongings.

Redditor_for_27_days

I'm pretty butthurt that this comment has 138 upvotes. The kid is moving out of his parents house for the first time; he probably doesn't own much of value. There is no large financial risk so there is no need for insurance. Expected Value of Insurance Premiums > Expected Value of Loss; you're not only paying for your expected loss but the insurance companies expenses, and profit. This would be worth it *if* there was any real risk involved. OP would be better off keeping an emergency fund. **TL;DR: Only buy Insurance to hedge large financial risks, that's what it's for.**

I'm pretty butthurt that this comment has 138 upvotes. The kid is moving out of his parents house for the first time; he probably doesn't own much of value. There is no large financial risk so there is no need for insurance. Expected Value of Insurance Premiums > Expected Value of Loss; you're not only paying for your expected loss but the insurance companies expenses, and profit. This would be worth it if there was any real risk involved. OP would be better off keeping an emergency fund. TL;DR: Only buy Insurance to hedge large financial risks, that's what it's for.

Frugal

t5_2qhbe

c7hgldo

I'm pretty butthurt that this comment has 138 upvotes. The kid is moving out of his parents house for the first time; he probably doesn't own much of value. There is no large financial risk so there is no need for insurance. Expected Value of Insurance Premiums > Expected Value of Loss; you're not only paying for your expected loss but the insurance companies expenses, and profit. This would be worth it if there was any real risk involved. OP would be better off keeping an emergency fund.

Only buy Insurance to hedge large financial risks, that's what it's for.