Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: All your base... (Score -1, Offtopic) 47

by roman_mir (#49350477) Attached to: PayPal To Pay $7.7 Million For Sanctions Violations

America...
America...

America, FUCK YEAH!

Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!

Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorists your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!

So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
itâ(TM)s the dream that we all share; itâ(TM)s the hope for tomorrow

FUCK YEAH!

McDonalds, FUCK YEAH!
Wal-Mart, FUCK YEAH!
The Gap, FUCK YEAH!
Baseball, FUCK YEAH!
NFL, FUCK YEAH!
Rock and roll, FUCK YEAH!
The Internet, FUCK YEAH!
Slavery, FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!

Starbucks, FUCK YEAH!
Disney world, FUCK YEAH!
Porno, FUCK YEAH!
Valium, FUCK YEAH!
Reeboks, FUCK YEAH!
Fake Tits, FUCK YEAH!
Sushi, FUCK YEAH!
Taco Bell, FUCK YEAH!
Rodeos, FUCK YEAH!
Bed Bath And Beyond (fuck yeah?, fuck yeah)

Liberty, FUCK YEAH!
White Slips, FUCK YEAH!
The Alamo, FUCK YEAH!
Band-aids, FUCK YEAH!
Las Vegas, FUCK YEAH!
Christmas, FUCK YEAH!
Immigrants, FUCK YEAH!
Popeye, FUCK YEAH!
Democrats, FUCK YEAH!
Republicans (.....fuck yeah, ....fuck yeah)
Sportsmanship, (....)
Books, (......)

Comment: Re:It works both ways (Score 1) 832

To whoever modded me "troll", I'll explain my position this much further:

You don't get to step on the Constitutional rights of one group in order to uphold another.

It doesn't work that way. Trying to do so will inevitably backfire. You set a terrible precedent, and weaken everybody's rights, including your own, when you do that.

---
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." -- Thomas Jefferson

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 759

For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

Since you consider yourself to be a scientist, maybe I can use you for an example of how scientists think?

You have VERY frequently demonstrated that you appear to think repeating the same false thing in public over and over again somehow makes it more true.

I assure you, it's not.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 759

Jane, that's the most charitable explanation for all your baseless accusations.

You have not once demonstrated that any of my "accusations", as you call them, were in any way "baseless".

Saying my comments were baseless is a bald-faced lie. One which you know to be a lie.

That's something that is (at least in the moral sense) called libel. Knock it off.

I'm not accusing you of libel in any legal sense. At least not yet. If I do, I'm not the person you will hear about it from.

Comment: Re:It works both ways (Score 0) 832

If GenCon moves because of this bill, I will make it a point not to attend GenCon.

I am with you on this. I do not perceive it to be an anti-gay bill at all, but rather a bill that protects religious freedom.

I'm no religious nut myself, nevertheless forcing people to do things that violate their genuine religious beliefs is the opposite of "tolerance".

Comment: Re:Not comprehensive (Score 1) 91

As you can see, a PhD physicist has already said that "RespekMyAthorati" is wrong. But feel free to keep accusing me of being six different people. The irony is delicious.

I didn't "accuse you" but I did suggest the possibility. More than just a possibility, really.

And I find the "coincidence" (as I explained above) of him answering for you to be just a bit too unlikely. Actually, I think it's damned near impossible. Of course "nearly impossible" happens all the time in this world, but Slashdot is not the entire world.

You have also been caught sock-puppeting before. So that should be no surprise to anyone, either.

And it hardly surprises me that you would contradict yourself. You did it a lot when we were actually having our Spencer discussion. You never admitted it, but as I have stated before, it's all a matter of record.

Unlike you, while I certainly have made mistakes, and changed my mind on some issues over the years, I have been happy to admit it when that actually happens.

Comment: Re:Totally agree with Bechdel (Score 5, Insightful) 513

by Jane Q. Public (#49332123) Attached to: A Bechdel Test For Programmers?

That is the crux of the problem, that you do not care.

Absolute nonsense. No programmer I know gives the slightest damn who wrote a function they use. They just want it to work. And that's the proper way to look at it.

Insisting that a program include functions written by women that access other functions written by women is by definition sexist. The opposite of sexism isn't more sexism in the opposite direction... it's truly not caring.

You don't fight discrimination by institutionalizing discrimination. It hasn't worked, and it doesn't work. You fight discrimination by eliminating its consideration.

I no more care whether a software tool I use was written by a woman or a man than I care whether a bolt or a piece of material used in a weekend project was made by a woman or a man. It just has to work. Who made it is completely irrelevant... and should be.

Comment: what do you have against a paleo lifestyle? (Score 1, Informative) 485

by e3m4n (#49327863) Attached to: Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30 Pounds

you make it sound like its hard to maintain. Not to belittle a 30lb loss in 9mos, but after 9mos of my lifestyle change (including a shift to paleo nutrition) I had lost ALL of my excess body fat. That turned out to be about 100lb from my heaviest. But, had I been heavier, I have no doubt I still would have shed every bit of excess weight, whatever that number has been. I often encourage people to take up the paleo diet because its fairly simple to maintain (avoid grains, starchy foods, legumes, and the oils derived from them for the most part) and, due to the nature of protein having a high satiation effect, effectively also reduces your consumption of food in general. If someone wants to burn fat they first have to train their body to actually USE fat. That's never going to happen if you continue to eat a lot of carbs. Carbs are the low hanging fruit of fuel for your body. As long as there is plenty of that sort of fuel laying around your body is going to use it and never use fat. In an absence of glycogen, your body will begin converting a 9cal fat gram into a 7cal ketone; which, once converted, cannot be re-absorbed as fat. You either use it or piss it away. So before you've made any other lifestyle change, you're already getting a 25% bonus to your BMR out of basic inefficiencies.

  Compound this by training your muscles to burn more fat for fuel instead of carbs and you accelerate the weight loss significantly. White, fast-twitch, muscle fibers burn glucose and cannot oxidize during use, resulting in tired sore muscles after a short stent of activity. Whereas red muscle fibers of both fast and slow twitch burn fat directly and can self-oxidize during use. The calves of an Olympic sprinter are majority white muscle fibers, whereas a Olympic marathon runner re quite the opposite where 80% of the muscles in their calves are red fibers. This can be achieved by structuring your workouts to focus more on endurance and increasing workout times than trying to first increase resistance. Enough resistance to keep your HR within the cardio/peak ranges, but once there, focus on endurance building.

Comment: Re:Not comprehensive (Score 0) 91

Really? Where did "RespekMyAthorati" claim to be a PhD physicist?

Well, let's see if the rest of Slashdot has much of a problem with this logic:

For years now, I have had ONE person claiming to be a physicist, who seems to care (understatement; "obsessed" would be more accurate) about who he thinks I am outside of Slashdot, and who likes to argue -- nay, insists upon arguing -- fallaciously about physics.

And along comes "RespekMyAthorati", with marvellously coincidental timing, who apparently also likes to argue fallaciously about physics, and who also seems to care about some person outside of Slashdot who he thinks is me.

Rather astounding coincidence, wouldn't you say?

I would. I bet if I put together a group of Slashdotters, and showed this to them, they would conclude that the one account is very likely (understatement again) a sock-puppet of the other.

And I know you don't seem to care, but Slashdotters don't think very highly of sock-puppetry.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 0) 759

Once again, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?

I neither agree or disagree. I'm not even reading your entire comments. I have no reason to.

I solved the problem we discussed using standard textbook radiative physics methods. I have ZERO reason to go back and try to do it the "Khayman80" way, which is not exactly what I would call "standard" methodology. The textbook way is fine by me and I'm sticking with it.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 759

Once again, you disputed my simple substitution of the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation, and simultaneously insisted that you don't dispute the standard physics definition.

No. You do NOT get to take my words out of context, insert your own later comments around them, then try to argue that I said something I explained to you in plain English that I did not mean in the context you are trying to portray them.

That's called LYING, man. Or worse.

We already had this argument, and you lost. End of story. Go the fuck away, and leave me alone.

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Working...