random n00b
-
Posts
629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by random n00b
-
-
It's just another potential health hazard fulfilled by people doing it wrong. Speeding? Drinking?Well duh, of course it is in controlled amounts ok. Problem is in modern era more and more people drift to eating it way too often - and way too often isn't even close to Supersize ME level wackiness.The byproduct of laziness. Somebody that, for instance, won't cook food at home in the weekends and bring it to their jobs during weekdays isn't very likely to haul their ass over to the gym, either.
I don't know about that. There's a plethora of info available on the worth of Mcfood, as far as health is concerned. If people don't want to listen, what are you going to do about it?Outside world largerly affects how much easier it is to make "wrong" choice in this kind of thing. Using drugs is choice too. It doesn't mean we should let our surroundings to get into state where making "wrong" choice instead of "right" choice is propabilistically higher and higher with each passing year. There are countless ways how our modern western lifestyle, merchandising, brands and all that jazz affects people and lead them to junkfood places they wouldn't otherwise go.And, what's to prevent me from making some delicious slickburgers in the privacy of my home? Those efforts would be better spent in teaching people general healthy living habits, than they are in attacking a handful of companies directly. Which raises the question of who stands to gain from that, and why. Everyone has an agenda...
Well, Volo's example isn't much better at proving anything than Supersize Me, really. It would be interesting to have actual figures on the amount of Big Macs they sell for each salad, though, but I'm too lazy to investigate. Oh well. Time for my Big Mac.Yes, some people dispute that. ( See Volourn's "HEALTHY JUNKFOOD" part for quick reference
)And "junkfood companies" have for a long time tried to make bad health effects seem lesser than they are in eyes of media.
I'm nowhere as concerned about those companies playing mediatic games as I am about them playing cat & mouse with health inspectors.
-
If you make this kind of statement, you must be prepared to drown all opposition in a ****load of statistics that back you. And, for all its comical value, "Supersize ME" proves jack, from a statistical standpoint.But it is statistical fact that junkfood fattens people.It's false, too. "Junkfood" in controlled amounts and otherwise healthy habits will not make you fat. Your arteries, heart, liver, etc might not be too happy about it, but that's an entirely different issue.
Obesity didn't start with the onset of Mcfood. It wouldn't end if you removed it, either. Unhealthy eating habits have found a way of materialising in fast food restaurants, but being fat is a choice, 99% of the time.If every single fastfood chain and shop was closed down at this very moment for all eternity in following years sick overweightness would start to drop dramatically. And that is fact.
Yes. It's a good exercise at pointing the obvious. A huge surplus of calories + zero activity = fatty. I don't think anyone disputed that?I find it ludicruous some people like you and taks would go and start to lambasting Supersize Me based on this or the fact it exaggarates the process to make the very important point. Only "sin" that flick has exaggaration of the eating habits at hand, nothing else. What movie shows and speaks is truth. -
Depends strictly on the amount of ammunition dropped. STALKER, for instance, gives you about the exact amount of ammunition so that you won't run out (provided you don't engage in prolonged firefights), assuming the enemy is using guns of the same calibre as yours.If we assume a game where every downed enemy leaves a suply of ammunition for our weapons, then there's really no difference between limited and unlimited ammo, as both allow the player to continuously replenish their stock, the former at such a rate that ammunition will nearly always be in excess.At any rate, I think it should be made so that the player isn't given time to "stop and loot" bodies after combat, in most cases. This isn't D&D, and I don't remember many instances of Bond checking the bodies for goodies, unless the plot calls for it. After a shootout, the player shoud be encouraged to get the duck out of fodge, not linger around idly. Fast action, that generates (or increases) plot tension, please.
Have you played KGB?If there's no summary, I'd have to treat the game as I treated BG&E, Thief or Final Fantasy: good games, fun, but not roleplaying games and I probably won't end up being as committed. After Mass Effect I still think this 'cinematic' approach is wrong (or rather, antithetical to what-I-want, and no, what-I-want isn't a return to 1997), especially since spy-work involves a lot of careful, subtle dealing and negotiations. I don't want to have to trudge around blind, but we'll see what info comes up.As for the 'feel' of the game I think it's starting to be more fleshed out, their 'exaggerated realism' phrase will probably become iconic soon.
That's one spy game where 99 (100?)% of player decisions can ruin the game, forcing you to reload. It sure involves careful thinking and stuff. It's also probably one of the most frustrating games I've played. Despite its flaws, it's pretty good and rewarding, but I don't think that kind of decisiveness in player actions is very marketable, nowadays.
I don't think Feargie wants AP to go the way of DX, regardless of its present cult status.
-
Which is proof, I think, of the lack of a truly defining forward in our team. This supposed technical superiority on paper I keep hearing about should have meant at least one goal, which Villa and Torres both managed to miss, repeatedly.
I think it's pretty obvious that a well organized, competent defense (call it "anal", if you will, but give credit where it's due) can reduce Spain's scoring chances to near-zero levels. Italy at least showed that yesterday.
Germany is very bad news... assuming the win vs Russia can be repeated.
-
YUM!
Seriously, now. What do you do with this kind of scum?
-
Which, if you read my post, you'll find is not what I said.And by the way, random n00b, they most certainly can arrest you if you say you plan to kill Bush. Both in Britain and America.Yes, I guess you can be arrested if whatever statements you make can be construed as threats. But that applies to everyone, not just the US Prez. Otherwise, not likely.
-
WOOHOO!!
-
Good game, so far. I wish Spain would rely more on decisive attack actions than diving and ref action, but you can't have everything I guess.
Cassano is doing pretty good so far, better than Toni even. Pirlo's absence is showing, I think, with long passes barely representing any danger from Italy.
Here's hoping we'll see some goals in 2nd half, and a bit more of organisation on Italy's side...
-
You fail at life gaming.'specially since hte last game that had me play as a facehugger left me throwing hte game away after reaching a roadblock."Hey. Being a facehugger is pretty cool. *scurry* Look, two scientists! Oh. That could be a problem"
You take one scientist, and the other immediately calls a security team, who proceed to kill you. Most frustrating moments of my life.
-
Try contacting Fionavar via PM. It's been done in the past.
-
No, no. I was referring to the decryption thing. I didn't know about that 48-day (at first I read 48 HOUR, wtf?) thing. That's pretty effin extreme.
-
Wow, awesome game.
-
This is regarding to already ongoing investigations that have previously been authorized by the Judicial authority, right?
I don't see the problem.
-
I was acting in character, but that's essentially it. Constitution hasn't been suspended, the govt hasn't been given carte blanche to perform anal probing on any and all citizens at their leisure, or anything. It's not the end of freedom as we know it.
Sure, it's not cool that my electronic comms are being constantly monitored, but it's not such a big deal. It's not like some bozo at the other end of the line is actually reading what I post here, but even if he does, so what? They still can't arrest me if I say I'd kill Bush, or anything. I don't know how it works over there, but here, there are very strict limitations regarding how and with what purpose any private information can be used by the Administration and authorities, and AFAIK, Echelon doesn't change that.
Yeah, yeah. Big Bro is here and all. Wake me up in time for two minutes hate.
-
No, not immediately. They were trying to deal with one big problem of the 20th century so far, though, that had been an important theme in WWII (and before, too) and that had seen no closure by the war's end (antisemitism). Jews hadn't been the cause for WWII, but they had been used by Hitler in his rise to power.First, with the creation of Israel they didn't, in any way, try to avoid a new World War so I don't see where you're coming with that.
Lol, you think they didn't see it coming? Don't flatter yourself.Secondly while obviously they couldn't have predicted terrorism in its modern form, they certainly should have predicted the war that immediately started right after the British pulled out of the region, and the conflicts that continued and the tensions that mounted in the area over the next decades, which of course were completely avoidable.They didn't care though because the Arabs weren't considered a threat. So they dumped the Jews over there and were done with it. Easier than any of the alternatives at the time, probably.
Lol armchair statesmanship
-
What do you mean, what?
-
Sure. Because back then in 1947, the Arab world was conceivably as big a threat as 1939 Germany had been.A retarded monkey could have figured out what the consequences would be.OMG! How could they not see the onset of global terrorism!
And, looking at the numbers, they weren't off-mark by much, really. I'll take highly localized, moderately low-intensity conflicts over World Wars any day, thank you.
-
Come now. I'm sure you can do better.
-
Criminal negligence at worst, I'd say. Regardless of all the boasting and the hard-ass attitude, I find it hard to believe that harmful intent, or even the awareness that a serious risk to the soldier's health existed. Should have taken precautions to prevent or mitigate a possible heatstroke - he didn't, and a person died as a result. that's all there's to it. The fact that this happened during a more or less "brutal" disciplining (which is otherwise legal) is, I think, rather irrelevant. I don't think there would be so many people going "ooh!" and "aah!", if it had happened during regular instruction.
Heh, that's funny. Probably subjecting a [unlawful combatant] prisoner to that kind of disciplinary measures would be construed as "torture", "inhumane treatment", and any number of other equally imaginative epithets. And yet people actually sign up for it...Enemies beware! This is what we do to our own damned soldiers!
-
What's all the fuss about?
If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to worry about...
-
Actually, psychopaths need very little motivation to "take the next step", to kill. In fact, an appeal to their vanity (the dying for God thing) and the assurance that there will be no reprisals (they'll be dead) can be just enough. Combine that with an often extremely low (the folks that do the bombing) or extremely high (the ones that plan them) IQ, and you have a winner. I'm not making up any of that.No, but religion can and does work as motive for deeds just as well greed or anything such. It is rare but not nonexistantYou say greed or any other factor can be a motive to kill, and I agree. But then, why the fixation on Islam?
I'm not defending the clerics. They *are* profitting from the fact that attention is diverted towards the Evil Others instead of their own domestic problems. They maintain the Theocracy status quo, after all.I think Dawkins has written on this, how religious people often hide behind "it's not the religion, it's the nasty people!" argument and then decide not to bat an eyelash for morally ambigious and dangerous aspects of religion that can on their own work as motivator for ill deeds. -
Ah, yeah. I guess I forgot to make my point - can't think straight when I haven't slept.
The deal is, Islam is not what's pushing people to kill. It's just the tool used to generate a group identity that can then be redirected into a "US vs THEM" mentality, enough to have people support terrorism (or be able to look the other side, at least). Unfortunately, the exact same attitude is prevalent in the West, only in a negative.
This is from Metadigital's profile, but I think it illustrates this very well:
-
I wonder if Pro-death fashion would yield similar results?
-
Yeah. And the fact that we aren't taught the barbarism of the Umayyads (more like the opposite), should speak volumes, considering they were invaders and had to be kicked out for a fully "Christian" kingdom to be established.You're from Spain or what?
Actually, it was a period of unprecedented advancement in the region, not seen since the fall of the Roman Empire... Of course, it eventually came down to petty plotting and backstabbing, and things declined. And then... the Empi... er... Christians Struck Back!There were pogroms and such in Moor era too. They weren't as numerous or often as in christian western europe (it should be noted that slavic people had good relationships with jews so it was more of a western-southern-european thing than christial thing) but they did exist. In other parts of muslim world Middle Ages contain time periods when christians and jews were persecuted just like in western world.
Why? Religion is just like any other social tool. You think TV or the Internets are actually opening your mind? Hominids killed their peers long before they had firearms. It's just a scapegoat. And, as Wals cleverly pointed out, we're just playing into the hands of the fundies by centering on Islam, instead of those pulling its strings.But taking away religion's significance in equation is wrong. Islam has - just like Christianity - give birth to violence by itself. Not to say it is main reason but saying it is never ever reason is ludicruous too
Actually, no. You don't need to have an entire population that's murderous - that's insane. It's much better to recruit those that are actually capable of doing the killing (which may account for about ~1% of the population in the West, I don't know over there), and then manipulate the rest into tolerating it. We invented that, as well. Hitler nailed it. I'm fairly confident that your average Saudi Arab couldn't cut your head off, even if he wanted. On the other hand, it doesn't bother him too much if another American Imperialist Pig is disemboweled. As I said, it takes a very specific set of factors to make a murderer, chief among them being victim of abuse as a child, but also neurological disorders.Oh, i don not claim that i have found "the truth". I apologize for that, for i am still searching for it. I doubt however, those who claim to have found it, like any religion would do. I have an idea of what breeds violence:1) Lack of being able to forgive
2) Ignorance
3) Extreme sense of injustice
4) Failure to express and to communicate ones thought and feelings with words
5) Lack of Self-critizism
6) Supreme sense of self-rightousness
7) Lack of being loved or express unconditional love
8 ) Jaded and lack of empathy to others suffering, only seeing the suffering of oneself and ones brethren
9) This might be too freudian and controversial, but the lack expressing oneself sexually and be sexually satisfied
That's all for now.
What the hell am I talking about anyway...
)
A case of evil
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by random n00b
You can't prevent people from engaging in savagery in the privacy of their homes.
Impasse?
Um, treated, how exactly? And for what purpose, actually? The assumption that any criminal, no matter the nature of their offenses, can be rehabilitated, is a legal dogma, not one based on rigorous research. Actually, psychologists and psychiatrists assert the opposite.
In fact, this has CIA fingerprints all over it! Yessss...