Comment Re: You cannot eat yourself thin (Score 1) 192
Oh I forgot - nobody was talking about regulating what people can and can not eat. That would have been a lot shorter message and would've really contained all that was needed.
Oh I forgot - nobody was talking about regulating what people can and can not eat. That would have been a lot shorter message and would've really contained all that was needed.
That would be ok with me, if just all people could afford to eat healthy - but in USA it is often the case that impoverished families simply can't afford healthy ingredients, and what they can afford is often super market fast food's (even here in Finland a cheeseburger at MacDonald's costs 1 euro - probably sold at 1000% what it cost them to make it) which, especially over there, are all laced with high fructose corn starch - now that's something that should be regulated, but apparently US food industry couldn't survive without it being everywhere.
Of course, this is all useless talk from my part as you probably just shrug it off with something about being poor is a choice they made; and their kids did as well, apparently.
There's much more I could say about this, but really I don't think it's much of a use... just consider this, what precious freedoms would you lose, if indeed there was a regulation about having to sell smaller portions as well? Or are you just afraid of the bigger portions becoming more expensive, meaning you couldn't afford to keep up you're massive belly? And no, I'm not claiming you have one, it's part of the question.
Or is this about defending corporations from any/all regulations? There already exist far bigger regulations than this in your country - and regulations have been a part of any functioning capitalist economy since capitalism became a thing and it has existed throughout history of commerce. And you don't want to go back to the days of swill milk, marketed as real milk from healthy cows in the countryside and actual real milk laced with toxic amounts of formaldehyde, and children and infants that died from those... or do you? I mean, I don't know - to me anyone who seems like they are against any and all regulations are a total wild card to me... I mean, sure I guess you could argue that people deserve the freedom of buying toxic "milk" and the industry deserves the freedom to not tell people the products contain toxic ingredients, but that would be totally insane and I refuse to argue with insanities.
I'd be interested to hear how did you learn that they don't jack off at least three times per day? Did you ask? And if so, how do you know they weren't too embarrassed to admit jacking off that much? *mumble* bunch of prunes... *mumble*
And for the most important question: What's the most common reaction? That is, of course, if you asked and didn't in fact just hack their computers to find out how often they go to www.oldprinciple teachesteenagestudentalesson.com/
All it takes is to stupidly write a regex that assumes 1 or 2 digits for version number. It's dumb, yes, but many good programmers sometimes make stupid assumptions about stuff like this - usually happens when you're highly skilled and writing parts of code you might already feel you've written gazillion times in your life, one might go kinda on autodrive and then - you write stupid shit like this; I know it's happened to me, but this specific case...?
Well, I'm not certain there was never a time when I might have made a mistake like that - I certainly could've botched out the parsing code of software version in many other ways, back when I was learning the basics. But for the most of my programming life I wouldn't have put a length limit on version number if I had the need to parse a version number - it only makes sense if you're parsing for specific version(s) you want to match against anyway.
It's a noob error for sure, but sometimes good programmers do make rookie mistakes, most often in pretty non-challenging (meaning 'so easy you could do it blinded') parts of code too.
As for this case? Well, you know, some web developers - not designers, I'm talking about coders - just aren't... what's the word I'm looking for? ah, fsck it, let's just say they aren't that good. And I'm fairly certain that this wasn't just a highly competent - oh, that's the word I was looking for earlier - but bored programmer making a mistake on some very basic code he has written several times for several projects. Or probably not many of the sites affected anyway. If it was a bug in some modestly successful CMS suite, then that software wouldn't be worth the little success it has.
Sure, most software never gets to double-digit version numbers, even less ever get to triple-digits, but unless the pages were originally coded in the 90's, or at least before Chrome (as it being the first browser I know that chose so rabid [- not a typo] incrementation of it's version number), there's no justification for assuming that double digit version numbers are the biggest ones the browser will reach. There really is no justification for it at all though, but it's at least slightly more "understandable" if that was the case that they were written before Chrome. And by understandable I do not mean professional
Besides that, I can't understand how a well written site could justifiably break when you're using wrong or unknown browser. There may be a reason for notifying the user about it, saying you're browser is unknown or unsupported (different things, I'll come back to it). Unsupported if the browser is recognized, but known to be one that is not capable of rendering the site (like text-browser on video-streaming site. The site should be send the content of the page anyway, leave it for the user to either know what he is doing or to realize Lynx doesn't support streaming youtube videos and the site even gives a notify message explaining it.
In case of unknown browser, the site should respond with page that *conforms to W3C standards* and in case of unsupported browser it really depends on how the site works if it can serve at least what the browser can show - if it is the case that the site simply can't deliver any reasonable content to an older browser, then and only then is it justifiable to send back nothing but error explaining that the browser is unsupported.
In short, sending a page that only says "usupported browser" just because of failure to recognize the browser is not acceptable anyway.
I just meant to write a short couple lines at max comment how it could have been a professional, even if the mistake is one that a pro should not make... oh well, fsck that too
Unreasonably risky activities, huh? They really have a lot of confidence about this, don't they? If they consider going on this flight unreasonably risky activity, well, I'm not sure I could be paid enough to consider going myself
Doubtful; it's the only thing that makes him feel smart
...and that's why a two party system is very limited democracy and most countries we classify as democratic have a larger number of parties - parties that sometimes break into two separate parties, something that is very unlikely to happen in two party system where members of these parties are too afraid to break from their party even if someone would break from them to form a new party that better fits their views. I bet there exists a number of Republicans who would like to go back to pre-Trump times, but they wouldn't dare to think of breaking from the party to form another.
Two parties. >300 million people. How many people are there whose views match >75% with one or the other? But one or the other is all you can choose from. Of course no party is going to match perfectly with almost nobody, but it would be a huge step forwards if at first the two parties would both be split in two - republicans could be split to old republicans and Trumps. That would not only give people more choice. It would also open new doors for new parties to be born. It would also likely lessen the number of non-partisan issues that get unnecessarily politicized by competing party when the other party tries to act on the issue - opposing something not because you disagree, but because it came from the competing party.
It's just strange to see people who feel genuinely one of the two as their party that aligns with their views, like a huge part of US citizens seem to do. With all numerous things the parties disagree on, issues that span numerous completely different areas, how could either one of them match (let's say "be close enough") with views of more than small fraction of their voters? Who should I vote if I feel strongly against gun control laws (even those that are put in place to restrict black people from getting guns legally) as well as anti-abortion laws? I guess Democrats would fit better, but if I felt really strongly about these two issues, there would be no good choice for me. With a dozen parties I would at least have more chances for finding a better fit.
It must also be frustrating to the politicians, who have to maneuver between their actual views and the party line.
So... vote for "3rd parties"?
Of course the last presidential elections was a special case. It brought in people who normally don't vote - and I believe a large number of them probably chose not to vote before because there was no party to represent them - to vote not for one party but to vote against this one specific person, vote to make sure this one person doesn't have a chance for a second term. I would've voted Democrats as well, even Biden, because a 2nd term for Trump could well have led to the country being ripped in two; and I certainly don't find Democrats very fitting for me, just less bad.
It's like a flat earther ranting of how the "globetards" have to think for themselves, actually do experiments to prove shape of earth and stop just blindly believing what someone tells you. It's both hilarious and frustrating beyond anything - projection to the max!
But, the right has created a censored bubble it lives in.
FTFY - yes, it is a big problem.
You mean like the fascist right calling the more moderate and progressive capitalist right wing party bolsheviks?
Of course everyone with a nugget for a brain even understands that when people call someone "such a nazi", they usually don't mean it to be taken literally that the person of interest is a member of Nazi party - and people have always done this name calling against other party/parties all around the world, at least where there is some kind of democracy in action and people get to discuss about which party and/or candidate would be best for the people. If that was the reason for USA becoming dangerously divided and swinging on the edge of things falling completely apart, then the whole world would be burning already.
Yes, if you want you can stink - and it seems quite a few people choose to stink, not of sweat but of obnoxious chemicals that sting my nose. The point of the post was not "defending body odor", but that many people after washing themselves then go on to put even worse smelling chemicals on them.
If you need perfumes (that includes "menly products" like aftershave and stingy smelling deodorants) to "not smell sweaty", you're not doing the washing part correctly.
I think you were looking for your "body odor defense" post too eagerly, because the post you replied to wasn't it.
There's more to arm pit stench than waste products - most animals can do just fine without sweating stuff through their skin, but like horses we humans sweat to control our body temperature, to cool down. We also excrete pheromones through sweating. I found it odd at first that my ex gf, love of my life unfortunately, when we were in bed (post-sex or just going to sleep) liked to put his head on my arm so that her nose was deep in my armpit - and this tended to happen more when I hadn't just before showered. I asked her "doesn't it smell like armpit in there", which she replied "yes, it doesn't matter". Having talked to other guys and girls I've found it to be relatively common thing with females, they are attracted to our pheromones.
It's true though that it's harmful to live without bathing, not just because of our own dirt but also because of dirt we collect from outside of our bodies. But interestingly the more often you take a bath or a shower, especially using soap, the faster you will excrete smelly sweat and the stronger it's smell becomes. I tend to shower couple times a week, but I actually use soap once a week at tops, and the result is that my sweat is not that smelly - while when I used to soap myself every time I showered my armpit started to become slightly smelly just 1-2 hours after I had showered.
It seems to me that when you clean yourself too often the body is triggered to make sure you don't lose your personal smell, which has it's purposes. This is just how it seems to me, I'm not claiming it's backed up by any scientific facts
Not that long ago also it wasn't a rape if the man and woman were married
Who says "yes" or "no"?
I dunno, it kinda depends on who asks the question - welcome to the future.
Other than that... I'm not interested in trying to argue with people who oversimplify complex social matters like this, seems it's always an uphill struggle, so I'll just go now...
I must stop taking a weekly one hour sauna (75-85C) then
Interestingly sauna has been considered medical kind of cure-it-all here in the past - there's a saying here that goes like "if sauna, booze nor tar is of no help, the disease will kill you"
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
