Adblock Edge
Fuck Everything. We're doing five blades.
Of course you also have the option of throwing an ice chest in your car, stocked with whatever sizes of soda you prefer. You could save tons of money, and entirely eliminate waste, by buying 3 litre bottles of generic sodas for $1, and using whatever size cup/bottle you prefer.
That's not a solution. Go back and re-read what I said about the 20 oz. going flat before I could finish it.
Generally, you didn't comprehend much of what I wrote. Coca Cola is a *treat* for me now, not a staple like once was.
That said, it's interesting that through your mist of incomprehension you actually came close to mentioning some things I do now.
If I'm on something other than a grocery run, like a day trip to the beach or something, I do pack a cooler. I have a couple of Glacier (TM) water bottles that are reusable. Theae are available at Whole Foods near here. You pay $6.99 for 750ml of water, which sounds crazy until you factor in the fact that you're getting a reusable stainless bottle for much less than what empty stainless is often sold for. I'm not affiliated with either company.
For the fizzy craving, travel sized Welch's grape juice + Perrier. Once again, not affiliated with either company. This makes a fantastic grape soda, and you know that everything in it is good. Once again though, this is only for an all-day trip. Yes, Perrier makes a difference--it's got a "bite" that I only used to find in Calistoga sparkling water, which is no longer available here.
Maybe now you get the idea that I'm not going to be satisfied lugging over-sized bottles of ever-flattening generic HFCS infused soda around in my car.
The problem of right-sized Coca Cola not being widely available remains. Also noted, It's definitely a "first world problem" we're whining about here.
Personally I am much more excited about a gigatesla than a Tesla Giga.
Wrong way around surely: The test audience found the movie confusing and sad and so the internal monologue and the happy ending was added. Later came the director's cut which attempted (unsuccessfully) to outdo 2001: A Space Odyssey for longest CGI scene with nothing happening.
My apartment has carpet save the kitchen that has tile. When i moved in, i was given a checklist to note what was not perfect. Figuring that's what they would fix, i verbally mentioned the cracks in the kitchen floor and perhaps something else, and moved on. I really had no idea what the checklist was for. Besides, it looked daunting.
It doesn't have to be linear to be useful. It simply has to be able to sort a set of choices into order -- like movie reviews. Nobody thinks a four star movie is "twice as good" as a two star movie, but people generally find the rank ordering of movies by stars useful provided they don't read to much into the rating. In fact the ordering needn't be unique; there can be other equally useful metrics which order the choices in a slightly different way. *Over certain domains of values* minor differences in orderings may not matter very much, especially as your understanding of your future requirements is always somewhat fuzzy (e.g. the future cost of bandwidth or computing power).
The problem with any metric occurs outside those domains; some parameters may have discontinuities in their marginal utility. A parameter's value may be good enough and further improvements yield no benefit; or the parmater's value may be poor enough to disqualify a choice altogether. In such cases such a metric based on continuous functions will objectively misorder choices.
For example Suppose A is fast enough but has poor compression ratios; B is not quite fast enough but has excellent compression ratios. There's really only one viable choice: A; but the metric may order the choices B,A.
On the other hand suppose A has better compression ratios than B; B is faster than A, but A is already so fast that it makes no practical difference. The rational ordering of choices is A,B but the metric might order them B,A.
This kind of thing is always a problem with boiling choices down to a single composite number. You have to understand what goes into that number and how those things relate to your needs. You have to avoid making your decisions on one number alone. But some people *will* fasten on a single number because it makes the job of choosing seem easier than it does. Just don't be one of those people.
I don't see it. I see the article as saying more that Hitler was horrible, and Bush is even worse than that.
The reason why Bush is worse is because Hitler meant well. That's what it says. That's what I am talking about.
It's a false dilemma to assume this means the writer thinks Hitler's dishonorable acts were ok
I never said that. I said that in comparison to Bush, he's not as bad, which is what you agree he said.
Of course, as pointed out by both smitty and I, the writer is factually wrong that Hitler meant well.
And I agree with that.
I find your mockery wanting
I find your understanding of it to be wanting.
and it is more likely to backfire and make the left stronger.
No, it's not.
Taking weak and cheap shots makes your side appear petty and unable to field a better argument.
Mocking the left for taking cheap shots, by pretending to take a cheap shot, is an actual cheap shot?
After Gygax's treatment of Arneson and the way he attempted to attack other games in the roleplaying hobby, I find it hard to feel much sympathy for him.
Well, if you put yourself in his shoes you might well play hardball with other games in the hobby.
D&D as a system wasn't really all special; there were competing systems back in the days he was at TSR which were every bit as enjoyable and arguably easier to play. But D&D had two big things going for it. First, when the three basic manuals for AD&D were published it had by far the best organized and written materials. The Monster Manual was particularly useful. Second it had the network effect: it was the best system to learn to play because everyone else knew how to play it. You could start a campaign at a drop of a hat -- no need to bring everyone up to speed on yet another set of rules.
So put yourself in his position. The future success of D&D is contingent on no other game reaching critical mass. You're completely dependent on D&D, you have no other marketable skills or assets. You have a company with over a hundred employees (which is surely a mistake on your part), and that company has nothing else bringing in cash *but* D&D products. You've made D&D your life work. It's not a situation to bring out the best in people.
The Internet is not powered by experiments on humans. Not even in the DARPA days.
No, websites do NOT experiment on users. Users may experiment on websites, if there's customization, but the rules for good design have not changed either in the past 30 years or the past 3,000. And, to judge from how humans organized carvings and paintings, not the past 30,000 either.
To say that websites experiment on people is tripe. Mouldy tripe. Websites may offer experimental views, surveys on what works, log analysis, etc, but these are statistical experiments on depersonalized aggregate data. Not people.
Experiments on people, especially without consent, is vulgar and wrong. It also doesn't help the website, because knowing what happens doesn't tell you why. Early experiments in AI are littered with extraordinarily bad results for this reason. Assuming you know why, assuming you can casually sketch in the cause merely by knowing one specific effect, is insanity.
Look, I will spell it out to these guys. Stop playing Sherlock Holmes, you only end up looking like Lestrade. Sir Conan Doyle's fictional hero used recursive subdivision, a technique Real Geeks use all the time for everything from decision trees to searching lists. Isolating single factors isn't subdivision because there isn't a single ordered space to subdivide. Scientists mask, yes, but only when dealing with single ordered spaces, and only AFTER producing a hypothesis. And if it involves research on humans, also after filling out a bloody great load of paperwork.
I flat-out refuse to use any website tainted with such puerile nonsense, insofar as I know it to have occurred. No matter how valuable that site may have been, it cannot remain valuable if it is driven by pseudoscience. There's also the matter of respect. If you don't respect me, why should I store any data with you? I can probably do better than most sites out there over a coffee break, so what's in it for me? What's so valuable that I should tolerate being second-class? It had better be damn good.
I'll take a temporary hit on what I can do, if it safeguards my absolute, unconditional control over my virtual persona. And temporary is all it would ever be. There's very little that's truly exclusive and even less that's exclusive and interesting.
The same is true of all users. We don't need any specific website, websites need us. We dictate our own limits, we dictate what safeguards are minimal, we dictate how far a site owner can go. Websites serve their users. They exist only to serve. And unlike with a certain elite class in the Dune series, that's actually true and enforceable.
Who said anything about drinking from a cup? Not every convenience store has a fountain, and even if they do the performance is inconsistent. Vending machines are definitely not fountains. There's no "cup" a lot of times.
There were many times in my Coke-drinking days when I'd partially empty a 20 oz. I just hated wasting the stuff; but I knew I didn't want to drink all of it. It always went flat before I wanted any more.
BTW, the Mexican cokes are still a bit too big. 12 oz. (355 ml) or half-liter. I find 12 oz., poured over ice and shared with somebody is best; although I can tolerate 12 oz. The half-liter is a disturbing trend. The Mexicans certainly don't need it, since they just surpassed the US in obesity.
BTW, I knew the original coke bottle was smaller and found this article about 6.5 oz. bottles.. Sigh... apparently this was available in the UK not that long ago? Maybe they'll bring it back to the US and finally reverse the trend. The original size was just about right. Yes, I'd pay more per oz., but I'd pay the same per *serving*.
Can the Coke executives get that through their heads? Some of us are desiring a *serving*, not a "most ounces for the buck". Wondering what to do with the excess soda, or being suckered into finishing more than you need... is not a pleasant experience. Having a right-sized glass bottle with real sugar in it, that's what some of us want.
I've been saying for years, leftists generally hate the rule of law. They just do. The rule of law means they are restrained from doing what they think is best. Therefore, they hate it. There is infinite evidence of this. They openly question whether we should follow the law at every turn, from the top (Justice Breyer and President Obama) to the bottom (pretty much every "occupy" protestor).
We actually had a majority of the federal legislature decry a Supreme Court decision that merely said -- in reference to Lily Ledbetter -- that you cannot punish a company under the law, unless it actually breaks the law. Not to mention the case that said the federal legislature cannot restrict political speech by a person or group of persons, just because they are organized a certain way under the law, that also got massive opposition from liberals.
Time and again, the left just demonstrates a very clear and palpable hatred for the rule of law. They would have us ruled by enlightened people who would be free to make up rules as they went along.
Impeachment is a stupid idea. It will likely give the country little benefit to shave a mere year or so off his presidency, and generate massive animosity that will increase the liklihood of another law-hater being elected.
"You tweachewous miscweant!" -- Elmer Fudd