you're very cynical. fair is fair. and the olympics isn't about the money for a lot of these athletes... it's about being the best, and being their best. one single competitor with an unfair advantage is one competitor too many.

... that'd be criminal. unless it were gangrenous.

first off, any major surgery involves a great deal of risk. infection, and otherwise.
secondly, there's always hope. paralyzed limb, limited neural regrowth is probably not that far off. and throw it in a brace if it gets in the wa.

i'm pretty sure that is against the rules. and they'd probably get DQ if found out.

... i don't think you grasp how analogies work.

you just don't want it bad enough.

and i didn't know the drinking problem in russia was so bad that they implemented a ban of sale of alcohol at night to curb it. god i think i fell down the rabbit hole a little there. apparently they have this thing called zapoi, which is multi-day binge drinking. and this other thing synonymous to "the horrors" which is what the Irish call the withdrawal from prolonged zapoi.

yes it's a problem and yes those stereotypes nail the demographics.

:) you can't incite violence against others. you can't incite panic. you can't slander and you can't libel. all these are antithetical to free speech but they are also right. Free speech isn't the end goal, but simply a stepping stone to a better republic. that's the end goal, not free speech in isolation.

better people than us have made the evaluation that how freedom of expression should be limited is in cases where it brings an explicit and immediate harm. when it doesn't, the positives and negatives of restricting speech are unknown and a lighter touch is better.

real men go for the crowbar.

part utility, part brutality, part durability, part homage.

all metal.

jabby, stabby, crunchy, B n E

just my crowbar and me.

as they say, nothing like a blunt piece of iron. you can really feel the bone break.

the great thing is, even if he tweeted her full name the article would be responsible enough to not print it...

... if that were the case, why not just pack anthrax into a crop duster mechanic of some kind, and just ignore the big boom altogether?

can some explain why information can't be lost? this is slightly confusing and that assumption makes it seem like they're building a lot of theory on a pretty shaky foundation.

yes because burning isn't a disinfectant or anything. ebola ain't super contagious.

the analysis is fine, i think my initial comment was more about the whinging comment. which is why i went into obligation.

the service has dropped, yes, people are less satisfied yes, but netflix never promised to keep them as satisfied as it did, so customers shouldn't complain that they are now getting the exact service that they are paying for. if they no longer think it's worth it now that the "awesome" service has dropped to "fine" service, then they should stop paying for it. but they shouldn't be outraged that netflix has somehow "gone back on its word" when its word was never given. that was why i posted in the first place and that was my major gripe with your comment.

it's difficult to explain something that should be pretty obvious :)
the only thing you should ever expect is what is guaranteed. finding words and analogies to explain it is... i don't know... like trying to explain purple.

my gripe is that you seem to be assigning a value that netflix never promised to provide.

"Yeah, golly gosh, how stupid for people to expect the same service that they've had all along just because they are paying the same price. What whiners!" - you :)

they are people who were accustomed to an elevated level of service over what they were purchasing. they are whining because netflix is delivering exactly what it promised to deliver all along. They are free to stop giving Netflix money, but i don't condone their whinging.