I do have some vague feeling that I heard it used in the way you describe once several decades ago, but I'd hardly say that such a meaning is "well recognized".
If you check the Urban Dictionary page for "Nimrod", I'd say that it appears to be pretty well recognized. According to one entry, the usage dates to a Bugs Bunny cartoon where Elmer Fudd is referred to as such.
I can't say it's universally common among the entire English-speaking world, but where I grew up (East Coast US in the 70s/80s) it was a common synonym for 'dimwit'.
Not to be seen as a classist biggot, but if someone homeless or destitute, but understand the nature of the proposition, why shouldn't they be able to enter an agreement to test drugs that 1) might help whatever the condition being treated is and 2) render them with some income? The same opportunities should be afforded them as others. You can't exclude someone because they are homeless or destitute.
Well, putting aside the question of whether or not this practice is exploitative, I see a greater concern in the fact that they are testing on a group that may not be representative of the general population. If, for example, the people you are testing on are disproportionately severe alcoholics or drug addicts, you might get a disproportional incidence of side effects that will skew your results. Ethics aside, it seems like bad scientific practice to me.
The real question is: If you value privacy and dislike ads, why would you ever use Chrome?
Well, I keep Chrome installed as my secondary browser because I run Firefox by default in "hazmat suit" mode (ABP, NoScript, Ghostery, RequestPolicy, etc.) which does break a lot of sites. For sites that I trust, oftentimes it is easier to just use Chrome than figure out what I need to whitelist in which plugin using FF. In terms of using it as your only/default browser, I agree with you, but even for a moderate paranoid like me, there is a case to be made for 'ever' using it.
uTorrent IS malware these days.
Sadly true. I recently switched to qBittorrent and and though it lacks a few of the bells and whistles, I have not looked back.
Provided you don't know that _all_ poppies are opium poppies, then it's legal to buy the seeds and grow the flowers. Of course now that you know
GP might not "know" that because it's false.
Only Papaver somniferum are opium poppies. The common red 'Flanders' poppy aka the Veteran's Day/Remembrance Day poppy (Papaver rhoeas) is not an opium poppy, nor are a number of others like the California poppy that are not even of the genus Papaver.
Or you can just work 16hour days like the rest of us and wear it with a badge of sucker.
No, really, it is. Remember when everyone said that butter was bad for you and you had to eat margarine instead? Now it's the other way 'round (or looking to go that way). So - how would you feel about having to pay for all those times you bought real butter all those years?
Oh, even better - let's talk diets! Not like recommendations for those don't ever change from, say, the old four food groups to pyramid to tetrahedron, to... - oh, wait.
No thanks - I prefer to not put my eating habits and health in the hands of some corporate asshats.
My first thought reading this: Is there any actual scientific evidence that the data gathered by a FitBit or similar device is actually indicative of better health? Or is it yet one more assumption in the field of human health that seemed reasonable but turned out to be misguided, as in the cases you mentioned?
My second thought: once you put a financial incentive on wearing such a device, there will now be incentives for people to hack/game the output...e.g., throw your FitBit in a paint can shaker and it looks like you're doing calisthenics when you're really sitting on the couch eating bonbons. (I have no idea if that would work, but you get the picture.)
Why not put the logo on the marker of Christopher Reeve or George Reeves. They are the only people who would have actually earned it.
What about Kirk Alyn, you insensitive clod?
I'm guessing, since I've heard this argument before, that s/he's saying that if you're going to drive a car that will be an average of 7 1/2 years old over the time you own it, you might as well buy a used car to start with and avoid the upfront depreciation hit of a new vehicle.
I'm with you, though. My response to the person who made this argument to me was to refer him to George Akerlof's The Market for Lemons, and my sentiment that it's worth it for me to know that the only one to ever abuse my vehicle is me.
Yep, sounds like just another variation on the evil bit.