And also just as likely the headline will read "vitamin just found in ____ fount to cause ____." Eat what you want, drink what you want, and keep it all in moderation. If you KNOW something is bad for you from personal experience (you're allergic, or it makes you ill in some way) then avoid it, but don't assume that because you have an adverse reaction to something that everyone else will or that that item is somehow universally "bad" for you (and likewise don't assume it's "good" either). Our bodies are governed by very very complex and individualistic chemical reactions, and no two peoples metabolisms are exactly the same. When it comes to nutrition there are very few universal rules (the most basic chemical reactions are pretty universal, so for instance it's a good idea to steer clear of arsenic as we like our Krebs Cycle running thank you very much), but for anything more complex than general categories don't assume something is universal (I for instance know people that have issues dealing with certain kinds of proteins in their diet, that most people have no problem with and generally enjoy).

I'm diabetic you insensitive clod.

Diet soda may be nothing more than flavored water, but that's kind of the point. Also Diet Coke Plus is flavored water with vitamins.

Your argument (aside from the point about fiber) is all hogwash. I was curious about the term "phytonutrients" as that was a new one on me (although I was able to guess what it meant which I confirmed when I looked it up on wikipedia), so I did a little research and found out it's just a generic term for nutrients (aka vitamins) found in plants. Everything you list (except fiber, which can be had in dietary supplement form) can and is available in a multi-vitamin up to and including anti-oxidants. Further more recent research suggests those anti-oxidants everyone is raving over lately might actually have some adverse health effects.

You're right though, the body does need more than just vitamins, minerals and simple carbohydrates, it also needs protein, so eat a steak with your soda and multi-vitamin.

Why not have it pulse, say every 5 seconds. As a bonus it might also improve your sense of time, assuming it wasn't already good to begin with.

FTFY.

You imply a difference where one does not exist. The same people run both.

It's removed from 64 bit copies of Windows, including XP 64 bit.

It's annoying to do so, but with iTunes you can burn to CDs which removes any DRM imposed by the store. As for Steam, you can make a backup copy on a DVD (or other media), but I'm not sure if you still need Steam running in order to install/play the games. I know you can mark a game for offline play after it's been installed and authenticated, but I still think you have to have Steam itself running and perform the initial authentication on a new machine, so your point on Steam still stands.

This technology isn't exactly DRM, although it plays a roll similar to DRM. Essentially what they've done is put a access layer on a streaming server, which isn't really anything new. It's not exactly DRM as DRM is used to manage (cripple) what you're allowed to do with a file, where as this system is more like putting a tollbooth on a road. In theory once you've sucked the content down you could just rip it to a file much as the previous attempts at controlling streaming media were circumvented. Also, due to the streaming nature of this approach it's more or less doomed to failure as it won't work on anything that doesn't have a permanent internet connection (IE iPods, by far the dominate portable media player out there).

My statement still stands. I'd still stand a good chance against most players, as most players are not at the level of competition gamers. Just because you can have your ass handed to you by someone that makes a living playing the game doesn't mean you suck, it just means they're very very good. Professional level players are probably less than 10% of all the players out there. Also, I never claimed to be a bad ass player, just that I could stand up to most players (IE average players).

Thanks for the info, but I don't drink. Not because of any moral objection or anything, but rather for health reasons (I'm diabetic and alcohol is a bitch to regulate in the blood stream). I was mostly just curious to learn a bit more about scotch as it's something I don't have very much knowledge about.

I think it's been closer to 7 years, and I've got no idea what iccup is (did they replace battle.net?). Unless they nerfed protoss badly in addition to buffing the Zerg I'd still stand a pretty good chance against most players, I doubt they've done anything too drastic like removing protos carriers so fundamentally the game should still be the same. I assume if the Zerg can hold their own in a long running game they've been given something more powerful than a mutalisk (probably the most powerful Zerg unit overall at the last time I played).

If it's a windows executable you can specify the icon to use (and if it isn't it's probably not going to run very well). All you'd need to do is specify the generic word doc icon (pick the one from Word 2003 and you'd probably get most people). The icon being displayed should not be an indicator of the file type anyway, that's merely a convenience for skimming a long list of files.

I've found the best use for Zerg is to capture one using a dark archon and then just build lurkers, they're really the most useful unit the Zerg have. If I can last long enough to have my carrier fleet built and a dark archon it's pretty much all over as I'll go capture the other two races and combine the best of all of them. On defense a wall of lurkers, followed by photon cannons, and backed by seige tanks will stop almost anything, particularly with a cloaked carrier fleet hanging above it. On offense the ability to teleport a mass of carriers just about anywhere on the battlefield is pretty much game over.

I never said they were terrible, just that a successful Zerg game relies on a early victory. Once you've reached the higher levels of the tech trees the Zerg can no longer compete against the other two races. The Zerg can easily defeat one of the other races if they pump out enough units early on and their opponent has been focusing on climbing the tech tree rather than also pumping out their cheaper low level units.

Being that it was early in the game and he was focusing on building out his basic infrastructure he didn't have many units to spare. Had he pulled all his drones off production immediately when he saw me coming he might have been able to stop them, but would have left himself crippled for the followup wave of Zealots I had coming his way. The reason I was able to use that tactic was it was a 1v1 game, had I needed to deal with another player I could not have performed the rush as it would have left my base completely undefended. The Zerg, with their very cheap, fast to produce, and weak units can afford to go run them off cliffs at random because they cost virtually nothing to make. They may also leave their base (relatively) undefended while they harass other players because they can produce units much faster than others even though individually those units are far weaker (counting on the other players more concentrated forces to be at their own base doing defense). Essentially the Zerg can afford to spread themselves thin without leaving large gaps in forces.