Datasets:

webis

/

tldr-17

like 39

102WOLFPACK

While playing shooters on PC will always be more accurate, shooters on console are still incredibly fun. No matter what system people prefer, being an asshole and referring to other gamers as "cows" doesn't help anything, you just look like an elitist ass. In the end, shooters are a little clunky on consoles, and always will be, but are still loads of fun. Shooters on PC are more accurate causing them to possibly be more fun. No matter what system you prefer, don't be an ass, we all love to play games, we just love to play them in different ways. TL; DR: PCs are more accurate, consoles are still fun.

While playing shooters on PC will always be more accurate, shooters on console are still incredibly fun. No matter what system people prefer, being an asshole and referring to other gamers as "cows" doesn't help anything, you just look like an elitist ass. In the end, shooters are a little clunky on consoles, and always will be, but are still loads of fun. Shooters on PC are more accurate causing them to possibly be more fun. No matter what system you prefer, don't be an ass, we all love to play games, we just love to play them in different ways. TL; DR: PCs are more accurate, consoles are still fun.

gaming

t5_2qh03

cfakuni

While playing shooters on PC will always be more accurate, shooters on console are still incredibly fun. No matter what system people prefer, being an asshole and referring to other gamers as "cows" doesn't help anything, you just look like an elitist ass. In the end, shooters are a little clunky on consoles, and always will be, but are still loads of fun. Shooters on PC are more accurate causing them to possibly be more fun. No matter what system you prefer, don't be an ass, we all love to play games, we just love to play them in different ways.

PCs are more accurate, consoles are still fun.

ComradConnor

Son, you fucked up your scouting bad if 10 void rays suddenly appear at your third. 20 Hydras+ Queens + a handful of spores is absolute overkill and will deal with that many voids, always. TLDR; Scouting, Scouting, Scouting.

Son, you fucked up your scouting bad if 10 void rays suddenly appear at your third. 20 Hydras+ Queens + a handful of spores is absolute overkill and will deal with that many voids, always. TLDR; Scouting, Scouting, Scouting.

allthingszerg

t5_2tkq6

cfa06km

Son, you fucked up your scouting bad if 10 void rays suddenly appear at your third. 20 Hydras+ Queens + a handful of spores is absolute overkill and will deal with that many voids, always.

Scouting, Scouting, Scouting.

Ooeiooeioo

I still feel pretty new here and you helped me get going big time. I think one thing that really trips up new people when they start trading is that good items like occy, ss, jalals, etc. are usually worth around a pul on b.net, but here they are worth pretty much nothing because everyone gets them for free. There are also enough people on slash who would happily rip off a noob that people would rather hoard items they think *might* be good rather than trading it for the best offer at the time. Ultimately I think people need to stop price checking all together and either show off their e-peen or just trade the shit they don't intend to keep. tldr: trade your shit, its only worth what you can get for it at the time of trading.

I still feel pretty new here and you helped me get going big time. I think one thing that really trips up new people when they start trading is that good items like occy, ss, jalals, etc. are usually worth around a pul on b.net, but here they are worth pretty much nothing because everyone gets them for free. There are also enough people on slash who would happily rip off a noob that people would rather hoard items they think might be good rather than trading it for the best offer at the time. Ultimately I think people need to stop price checking all together and either show off their e-peen or just trade the shit they don't intend to keep. tldr: trade your shit, its only worth what you can get for it at the time of trading.

slashdiablo

t5_2sv1q

cfa83ke

I still feel pretty new here and you helped me get going big time. I think one thing that really trips up new people when they start trading is that good items like occy, ss, jalals, etc. are usually worth around a pul on b.net, but here they are worth pretty much nothing because everyone gets them for free. There are also enough people on slash who would happily rip off a noob that people would rather hoard items they think might be good rather than trading it for the best offer at the time. Ultimately I think people need to stop price checking all together and either show off their e-peen or just trade the shit they don't intend to keep.

trade your shit, its only worth what you can get for it at the time of trading.

vexstream

Nope! When you die of cyanide poisoning, it's actually fairly slow as compared to what media portrays. You kinda sorta die of asphyxiation, with several other unpleasant side effects. It makes the cells in the body unable to use oxygen, leading to death. Tl;dr Nope, it takes a couple minutes to die.

Nope! When you die of cyanide poisoning, it's actually fairly slow as compared to what media portrays. You kinda sorta die of asphyxiation, with several other unpleasant side effects. It makes the cells in the body unable to use oxygen, leading to death. Tl;dr Nope, it takes a couple minutes to die.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

cfankk2

Nope! When you die of cyanide poisoning, it's actually fairly slow as compared to what media portrays. You kinda sorta die of asphyxiation, with several other unpleasant side effects. It makes the cells in the body unable to use oxygen, leading to death.

Nope, it takes a couple minutes to die.

vexstream

Actually, most of the deaths were due to consumption of industrial alcohols. Industry in the prohibition era still used quite a lot of alcohol, some of which could be safely drunk. This, of course, led to people drinking this, and getting happily drunk, which the government couldn't have. So, they hired chemists to design poisons for the alcohol, which, more often then not ended up in many a bar-goers glass. Tl;dr It was much cheaper to steal industrial alcohol and sell it, then make moonshine. Industrial alcohol was poisoned by the govt.

Actually, most of the deaths were due to consumption of industrial alcohols. Industry in the prohibition era still used quite a lot of alcohol, some of which could be safely drunk. This, of course, led to people drinking this, and getting happily drunk, which the government couldn't have. So, they hired chemists to design poisons for the alcohol, which, more often then not ended up in many a bar-goers glass. Tl;dr It was much cheaper to steal industrial alcohol and sell it, then make moonshine. Industrial alcohol was poisoned by the govt.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

cfanomb

Actually, most of the deaths were due to consumption of industrial alcohols. Industry in the prohibition era still used quite a lot of alcohol, some of which could be safely drunk. This, of course, led to people drinking this, and getting happily drunk, which the government couldn't have. So, they hired chemists to design poisons for the alcohol, which, more often then not ended up in many a bar-goers glass.

It was much cheaper to steal industrial alcohol and sell it, then make moonshine. Industrial alcohol was poisoned by the govt.

holycowbatman

Hm, this is interesting, I guess it depends what kind of people they run into first or where they go to attempt to pick up women. Please note Im basing this on the first situation as my knowledge of star trek is non existent. Mark is incredibly awkward and does not react well to being in unfamiliar social situations, he generally plays the long game and wears down women for months before they finally sleep with/date him (look at how long it took him to get with sophie/dobby). However he does have a certain kind of pathetic charm to him and I think he could do well connecting with women on an intellectual level first, so maybe if he went somewhere like a bookstore or art exhibition and started striking up conversations with women about something he was knowledgeable about then he has a decent shot, his main problem would be sealing the deal and seducing them enough to sleep with him. Zapp is incredibly confident and brash with absolutely no shame whatsoever. He has puts on a ridiculously cocky facade and in all honesty a lot of women (or people in general) are drawn to confident aura's like that, just look at how quickly he slept with Leela after meeting her. I think Zapp could go to a bar or club and be fairly successful in picking up a girl as the night went on. TL;DR Zapp has little to no problem picking up a woman at a bar using his confident charm and has a string of one night stands before contracting an STD. Mark spends weeks courting one girl and has a steady relationship for a few months before it all falls apart.

Hm, this is interesting, I guess it depends what kind of people they run into first or where they go to attempt to pick up women. Please note Im basing this on the first situation as my knowledge of star trek is non existent. Mark is incredibly awkward and does not react well to being in unfamiliar social situations, he generally plays the long game and wears down women for months before they finally sleep with/date him (look at how long it took him to get with sophie/dobby). However he does have a certain kind of pathetic charm to him and I think he could do well connecting with women on an intellectual level first, so maybe if he went somewhere like a bookstore or art exhibition and started striking up conversations with women about something he was knowledgeable about then he has a decent shot, his main problem would be sealing the deal and seducing them enough to sleep with him. Zapp is incredibly confident and brash with absolutely no shame whatsoever. He has puts on a ridiculously cocky facade and in all honesty a lot of women (or people in general) are drawn to confident aura's like that, just look at how quickly he slept with Leela after meeting her. I think Zapp could go to a bar or club and be fairly successful in picking up a girl as the night went on. TL;DR Zapp has little to no problem picking up a woman at a bar using his confident charm and has a string of one night stands before contracting an STD. Mark spends weeks courting one girl and has a steady relationship for a few months before it all falls apart.

whowouldwin

t5_2s599

cfadlz8

Hm, this is interesting, I guess it depends what kind of people they run into first or where they go to attempt to pick up women. Please note Im basing this on the first situation as my knowledge of star trek is non existent. Mark is incredibly awkward and does not react well to being in unfamiliar social situations, he generally plays the long game and wears down women for months before they finally sleep with/date him (look at how long it took him to get with sophie/dobby). However he does have a certain kind of pathetic charm to him and I think he could do well connecting with women on an intellectual level first, so maybe if he went somewhere like a bookstore or art exhibition and started striking up conversations with women about something he was knowledgeable about then he has a decent shot, his main problem would be sealing the deal and seducing them enough to sleep with him. Zapp is incredibly confident and brash with absolutely no shame whatsoever. He has puts on a ridiculously cocky facade and in all honesty a lot of women (or people in general) are drawn to confident aura's like that, just look at how quickly he slept with Leela after meeting her. I think Zapp could go to a bar or club and be fairly successful in picking up a girl as the night went on.

Zapp has little to no problem picking up a woman at a bar using his confident charm and has a string of one night stands before contracting an STD. Mark spends weeks courting one girl and has a steady relationship for a few months before it all falls apart.

disparue

Well, half the issue with work will be getting enough hours and the fact that you won't be able to work in a position that receives tips due to not having smart serve or any Canadian experience. Anyways, lets look at your expected $1533. After payroll taxes you're taking home $1,328.93. There are currently zero listings for a $400 (at least with just a quick search). The cheapest I found in the city is $525 and it is out by Sheppard & Bayview. At this time of the year you're looking at $600-800 for a room. But lets assume $600 if you move here before the summer (rents are cheaper in the summer since more people are moving but go up by the end when students are moving in). So now you've got $728.93 minus your metro pass so $595.18. Cellphone plans in Canada are literally the most expensive in the world for what you get, but you can get a $50 phone from WIND and a $30 plan ($34.50) after taxes so you're left with $565.18. If you have to pay for internet the best plan you're going to get looks to be around $28.69, but it'll have data caps on that, but I hear that company does count data use at night or something. $537 is what you have left for gym, food, clothing, emergencies. This won't stretch very far if you end up going out very often (even $20 a week is going to really eat into the budget). If you're near Scarborough I know there is a clinic that you can goto that provides healthcare for people without OHIP. Lets look at that same budget if you can only get three days a week: you're at -$6 per month before paying for food. tl;dr make sure you either have a job or support from your friends when you move here.

Well, half the issue with work will be getting enough hours and the fact that you won't be able to work in a position that receives tips due to not having smart serve or any Canadian experience. Anyways, lets look at your expected $1533. After payroll taxes you're taking home $1,328.93. There are currently zero listings for a $400 (at least with just a quick search). The cheapest I found in the city is $525 and it is out by Sheppard & Bayview. At this time of the year you're looking at $600-800 for a room. But lets assume $600 if you move here before the summer (rents are cheaper in the summer since more people are moving but go up by the end when students are moving in). So now you've got $728.93 minus your metro pass so $595.18. Cellphone plans in Canada are literally the most expensive in the world for what you get, but you can get a $50 phone from WIND and a $30 plan ($34.50) after taxes so you're left with $565.18. If you have to pay for internet the best plan you're going to get looks to be around $28.69, but it'll have data caps on that, but I hear that company does count data use at night or something. $537 is what you have left for gym, food, clothing, emergencies. This won't stretch very far if you end up going out very often (even $20 a week is going to really eat into the budget). If you're near Scarborough I know there is a clinic that you can goto that provides healthcare for people without OHIP. Lets look at that same budget if you can only get three days a week: you're at -$6 per month before paying for food. tl;dr make sure you either have a job or support from your friends when you move here.

askTO

t5_2xjsd

cfb3r11

Well, half the issue with work will be getting enough hours and the fact that you won't be able to work in a position that receives tips due to not having smart serve or any Canadian experience. Anyways, lets look at your expected $1533. After payroll taxes you're taking home $1,328.93. There are currently zero listings for a $400 (at least with just a quick search). The cheapest I found in the city is $525 and it is out by Sheppard & Bayview. At this time of the year you're looking at $600-800 for a room. But lets assume $600 if you move here before the summer (rents are cheaper in the summer since more people are moving but go up by the end when students are moving in). So now you've got $728.93 minus your metro pass so $595.18. Cellphone plans in Canada are literally the most expensive in the world for what you get, but you can get a $50 phone from WIND and a $30 plan ($34.50) after taxes so you're left with $565.18. If you have to pay for internet the best plan you're going to get looks to be around $28.69, but it'll have data caps on that, but I hear that company does count data use at night or something. $537 is what you have left for gym, food, clothing, emergencies. This won't stretch very far if you end up going out very often (even $20 a week is going to really eat into the budget). If you're near Scarborough I know there is a clinic that you can goto that provides healthcare for people without OHIP. Lets look at that same budget if you can only get three days a week: you're at -$6 per month before paying for food.

make sure you either have a job or support from your friends when you move here.

imMute

>Hmm. Typical. Instead of following standard practices, add another library, and do something weird/different in the name of "efficiency". What. The. Fuck? How are shared libraries *not* standard practice? The *whole point* of shared libraries is the *sharing of code*. It's not weird, it's not different, it's not even in the name of "efficiency". >Chances are, your devs will probably do exactly what you described. It's "easier" to do that way. Actually, it's demonstrably **harder**. Suppose you need to get some data from the PCIe card to know what firmware is loaded on it. CLI uses shared library to talk to hardware and prints the data to stdout (because it was written for me, to quickly know what I'm working with, but isn't a critical function). In your world, the best way for a GUI to get this same information would be to popen() to my CLI application, then use all kinds of string parsing to decode my human readable output into a format the GUI code can use. **OR** they could just call the same shared library call that *will be made anyway* and get the data they need back in a nice easy struct. TL;DR: you're either a troll or misinformed. >

>Hmm. Typical. Instead of following standard practices, add another library, and do something weird/different in the name of "efficiency". What. The. Fuck? How are shared libraries not standard practice? The whole point of shared libraries is the sharing of code . It's not weird, it's not different, it's not even in the name of "efficiency". >Chances are, your devs will probably do exactly what you described. It's "easier" to do that way. Actually, it's demonstrably harder . Suppose you need to get some data from the PCIe card to know what firmware is loaded on it. CLI uses shared library to talk to hardware and prints the data to stdout (because it was written for me, to quickly know what I'm working with, but isn't a critical function). In your world, the best way for a GUI to get this same information would be to popen() to my CLI application, then use all kinds of string parsing to decode my human readable output into a format the GUI code can use. OR they could just call the same shared library call that will be made anyway and get the data they need back in a nice easy struct. TL;DR: you're either a troll or misinformed. >

linux

t5_2qh1a

cfb8om5

Hmm. Typical. Instead of following standard practices, add another library, and do something weird/different in the name of "efficiency". What. The. Fuck? How are shared libraries not standard practice? The whole point of shared libraries is the sharing of code . It's not weird, it's not different, it's not even in the name of "efficiency". >Chances are, your devs will probably do exactly what you described. It's "easier" to do that way. Actually, it's demonstrably harder . Suppose you need to get some data from the PCIe card to know what firmware is loaded on it. CLI uses shared library to talk to hardware and prints the data to stdout (because it was written for me, to quickly know what I'm working with, but isn't a critical function). In your world, the best way for a GUI to get this same information would be to popen() to my CLI application, then use all kinds of string parsing to decode my human readable output into a format the GUI code can use. OR they could just call the same shared library call that will be made anyway and get the data they need back in a nice easy struct.

you're either a troll or misinformed. >

cutanddried

This reminds me of an awesome story of booze and benzos. So a large drunken crowed ended up with just 3 roommates standing. Then 3 of us beating the shit out of each other. In the end, one dude just wanted to escape, so of course we held him down, and blocked the door. He (a "pacifist") didnt want to fight us, so he ended up punching himself in the face repeatedly, then jumping out a second story window. we just stood there like WTF! next morning he comes home, I was playing video games, and didn't want to look up. He grabbed the controller, threw it in a trash can and shoved his face in mine, and screamed "WHY THE FUCK DID YOU BREAK MY FACE!?!?!" we all burst out laughing, and I told him the story. He was blacked out. TL;DR Maybe you beat the shit out of your own nose/eye like my friend did.

This reminds me of an awesome story of booze and benzos. So a large drunken crowed ended up with just 3 roommates standing. Then 3 of us beating the shit out of each other. In the end, one dude just wanted to escape, so of course we held him down, and blocked the door. He (a "pacifist") didnt want to fight us, so he ended up punching himself in the face repeatedly, then jumping out a second story window. we just stood there like WTF! next morning he comes home, I was playing video games, and didn't want to look up. He grabbed the controller, threw it in a trash can and shoved his face in mine, and screamed "WHY THE FUCK DID YOU BREAK MY FACE!?!?!" we all burst out laughing, and I told him the story. He was blacked out. TL;DR Maybe you beat the shit out of your own nose/eye like my friend did.

cripplingalcoholism

t5_2s68b

cfbd0f9

This reminds me of an awesome story of booze and benzos. So a large drunken crowed ended up with just 3 roommates standing. Then 3 of us beating the shit out of each other. In the end, one dude just wanted to escape, so of course we held him down, and blocked the door. He (a "pacifist") didnt want to fight us, so he ended up punching himself in the face repeatedly, then jumping out a second story window. we just stood there like WTF! next morning he comes home, I was playing video games, and didn't want to look up. He grabbed the controller, threw it in a trash can and shoved his face in mine, and screamed "WHY THE FUCK DID YOU BREAK MY FACE!?!?!" we all burst out laughing, and I told him the story. He was blacked out.

Maybe you beat the shit out of your own nose/eye like my friend did.

Shittey_Grammer_Nazi

If you miss don't lose contact just keep shaking and make a firm grip so he nos you mean bisness if you break away for one second he's gonna no your a betamax 5000 and shit on you. TL.DR Show some dominance.

If you miss don't lose contact just keep shaking and make a firm grip so he nos you mean bisness if you break away for one second he's gonna no your a betamax 5000 and shit on you. TL.DR Show some dominance.

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

cfb84l5

If you miss don't lose contact just keep shaking and make a firm grip so he nos you mean bisness if you break away for one second he's gonna no your a betamax 5000 and shit on you.

Show some dominance.

baby-Carlton

E30 M3 owner here... In the 7 years I've owned my M3 I've rebuilt the S14 3 times nearing my 4th, 2 times were because of the head gasket fucking up. You can make this car really expensive like I've been doing but basic repair is going to feel more expensive anyway as opposed to say a Honda Civic from the same era. Its just the nature of BMWs. A lot of the time I have to fabricate my own nuts and bolts because I'm expected to buy some special flimsy little lockwasher for 10 bucks a pop. If I could have anything for the car I would probably get rid of the S14 after another rebuilt and swap in a more reliable 6-cylinder such as an S50 or an S52(sorry not sorry purists). The S14 is a great motor but it does not provide enough low end power for city driving and it simply isn't worth rebuilding constantly for how much power I get out of it (172whp). TL;DR -Basic maintenance is expensive -S14 expensive -I want to swap for a better motor

E30 M3 owner here... In the 7 years I've owned my M3 I've rebuilt the S14 3 times nearing my 4th, 2 times were because of the head gasket fucking up. You can make this car really expensive like I've been doing but basic repair is going to feel more expensive anyway as opposed to say a Honda Civic from the same era. Its just the nature of BMWs. A lot of the time I have to fabricate my own nuts and bolts because I'm expected to buy some special flimsy little lockwasher for 10 bucks a pop. If I could have anything for the car I would probably get rid of the S14 after another rebuilt and swap in a more reliable 6-cylinder such as an S50 or an S52(sorry not sorry purists). The S14 is a great motor but it does not provide enough low end power for city driving and it simply isn't worth rebuilding constantly for how much power I get out of it (172whp). TL;DR -Basic maintenance is expensive -S14 expensive -I want to swap for a better motor

BMW

t5_2qn3a

cfbolmb

E30 M3 owner here... In the 7 years I've owned my M3 I've rebuilt the S14 3 times nearing my 4th, 2 times were because of the head gasket fucking up. You can make this car really expensive like I've been doing but basic repair is going to feel more expensive anyway as opposed to say a Honda Civic from the same era. Its just the nature of BMWs. A lot of the time I have to fabricate my own nuts and bolts because I'm expected to buy some special flimsy little lockwasher for 10 bucks a pop. If I could have anything for the car I would probably get rid of the S14 after another rebuilt and swap in a more reliable 6-cylinder such as an S50 or an S52(sorry not sorry purists). The S14 is a great motor but it does not provide enough low end power for city driving and it simply isn't worth rebuilding constantly for how much power I get out of it (172whp).

Basic maintenance is expensive -S14 expensive -I want to swap for a better motor

DarkhorseV

If she's new to them, seriously try the Machete order, except leave episode 1 in. So: IV, V, I, II, III, VI. I did this with my girlfriend and, even after seeing them all quite a few times it really made the scale of everything just seem so much more grand! A New Hope introduces you to Star Wars, then you continue the main story into Empire. Once you find out Vader is Luke's father it's like, WHAT THE HELL - and you use all of the prequels as an extended flashback. You see Anakin's origins and whole arc leading to the dark side and WHY Sideous/Palpatine is so feared, then you go back to wrap up the story with Return of the Jedi. You just watched Anakin fall to the dark side, then Jedi starts out with Luke (his son) in black robes being all cocky at Jabba's palace. Even after seeing it dozens of times you're still nervous he's going dark. He went from whiny to determined just like Anakin, and the power seems to be going to his head. Then, by the end of the movie, you get the conclusion to the story, some redemption for Vader, and Sideous finally biting the dust. It's really gratifying. TL:DR - Originals introduce SW, prequels add scale/background/significance, then Jedi wraps it all up beautifully.

If she's new to them, seriously try the Machete order, except leave episode 1 in. So: IV, V, I, II, III, VI. I did this with my girlfriend and, even after seeing them all quite a few times it really made the scale of everything just seem so much more grand! A New Hope introduces you to Star Wars, then you continue the main story into Empire. Once you find out Vader is Luke's father it's like, WHAT THE HELL - and you use all of the prequels as an extended flashback. You see Anakin's origins and whole arc leading to the dark side and WHY Sideous/Palpatine is so feared, then you go back to wrap up the story with Return of the Jedi. You just watched Anakin fall to the dark side, then Jedi starts out with Luke (his son) in black robes being all cocky at Jabba's palace. Even after seeing it dozens of times you're still nervous he's going dark. He went from whiny to determined just like Anakin, and the power seems to be going to his head. Then, by the end of the movie, you get the conclusion to the story, some redemption for Vader, and Sideous finally biting the dust. It's really gratifying. TL:DR - Originals introduce SW, prequels add scale/background/significance, then Jedi wraps it all up beautifully.

StarWars

t5_2qi4s

cfbqwvs

If she's new to them, seriously try the Machete order, except leave episode 1 in. So: IV, V, I, II, III, VI. I did this with my girlfriend and, even after seeing them all quite a few times it really made the scale of everything just seem so much more grand! A New Hope introduces you to Star Wars, then you continue the main story into Empire. Once you find out Vader is Luke's father it's like, WHAT THE HELL - and you use all of the prequels as an extended flashback. You see Anakin's origins and whole arc leading to the dark side and WHY Sideous/Palpatine is so feared, then you go back to wrap up the story with Return of the Jedi. You just watched Anakin fall to the dark side, then Jedi starts out with Luke (his son) in black robes being all cocky at Jabba's palace. Even after seeing it dozens of times you're still nervous he's going dark. He went from whiny to determined just like Anakin, and the power seems to be going to his head. Then, by the end of the movie, you get the conclusion to the story, some redemption for Vader, and Sideous finally biting the dust. It's really gratifying.

Originals introduce SW, prequels add scale/background/significance, then Jedi wraps it all up beautifully.

legallyasian87

No. Don't do that. Plan B will not guarantee that you will miss your period on June 6th. Seriously, just no. The best way to make sure you don't have your period on your wedding day is to go and get some birth control. It's freaking free now! tl;dr: USE BIRTH CONTROL.

No. Don't do that. Plan B will not guarantee that you will miss your period on June 6th. Seriously, just no. The best way to make sure you don't have your period on your wedding day is to go and get some birth control. It's freaking free now! tl;dr: USE BIRTH CONTROL.

weddingplanning

t5_2rv3t

cfbsnxp

No. Don't do that. Plan B will not guarantee that you will miss your period on June 6th. Seriously, just no. The best way to make sure you don't have your period on your wedding day is to go and get some birth control. It's freaking free now!

USE BIRTH CONTROL.

7ofalltrades

ITT: Lots of people who have no idea how cars work and making blanket statements to apply to all cars. Depending on the age and technology in the car, using cruise control in these conditions could range from being suicidal to better than driving yourself. If it has CC but no tech to moderate slipping, GLHF, try to get it on camera and not die. If it has CC and all kinds of neat traction control tech, it will react faster than you do, immediately cut power to the wheels and not hit the breaks, which is exactly what you want it to do. TL;DR, there is no definite answer that applies to all cars. If you don't know for sure your car's setup, just don't use CC in bad weather. It probably won't kill you. But then again, it might.

ITT: Lots of people who have no idea how cars work and making blanket statements to apply to all cars. Depending on the age and technology in the car, using cruise control in these conditions could range from being suicidal to better than driving yourself. If it has CC but no tech to moderate slipping, GLHF, try to get it on camera and not die. If it has CC and all kinds of neat traction control tech, it will react faster than you do, immediately cut power to the wheels and not hit the breaks, which is exactly what you want it to do. TL;DR, there is no definite answer that applies to all cars. If you don't know for sure your car's setup, just don't use CC in bad weather. It probably won't kill you. But then again, it might.

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

cfc18tz

ITT: Lots of people who have no idea how cars work and making blanket statements to apply to all cars. Depending on the age and technology in the car, using cruise control in these conditions could range from being suicidal to better than driving yourself. If it has CC but no tech to moderate slipping, GLHF, try to get it on camera and not die. If it has CC and all kinds of neat traction control tech, it will react faster than you do, immediately cut power to the wheels and not hit the breaks, which is exactly what you want it to do.

there is no definite answer that applies to all cars. If you don't know for sure your car's setup, just don't use CC in bad weather. It probably won't kill you. But then again, it might.

Healz

You can use cruise control to drive, you just can't brake to disengage cruise control. The problem most drivers have in winter driving is that the law of how cars work is reversed in snow. When you are accelerating, or maintaining a constant speed a car will keep friction with the ground and keep it's traction. When you go to stop that is when you lose traction, normally there is a lot of friction when you stop on concrete but when you stop on snow/ice it is almost no friction what so ever. Once the car first loses it's friction with the road that is where drivers lose control and go into the ditch. That's why we have ABS, so that the tires will rotate and find traction after losing it temporarily. TLDR: Speeding up in snow gives more control then stopping.

You can use cruise control to drive, you just can't brake to disengage cruise control. The problem most drivers have in winter driving is that the law of how cars work is reversed in snow. When you are accelerating, or maintaining a constant speed a car will keep friction with the ground and keep it's traction. When you go to stop that is when you lose traction, normally there is a lot of friction when you stop on concrete but when you stop on snow/ice it is almost no friction what so ever. Once the car first loses it's friction with the road that is where drivers lose control and go into the ditch. That's why we have ABS, so that the tires will rotate and find traction after losing it temporarily. TLDR: Speeding up in snow gives more control then stopping.

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

cfc8sdp

You can use cruise control to drive, you just can't brake to disengage cruise control. The problem most drivers have in winter driving is that the law of how cars work is reversed in snow. When you are accelerating, or maintaining a constant speed a car will keep friction with the ground and keep it's traction. When you go to stop that is when you lose traction, normally there is a lot of friction when you stop on concrete but when you stop on snow/ice it is almost no friction what so ever. Once the car first loses it's friction with the road that is where drivers lose control and go into the ditch. That's why we have ABS, so that the tires will rotate and find traction after losing it temporarily.

Speeding up in snow gives more control then stopping.

computanti

No idea bout Golden Gate specifically, but I have an MST. There aren't a *ton* of schools out there that offer the degree, so if you really think you'll dig tax it's worthwhile in my opinion. The knowledge I had when I started (B4) compared to colleagues who only had an MPA or MAcc was noticeable. After a year or two it kind of levels off though because you're all pretty much on the same level from a technical standpoint. The downside is that it's a very very specialized degree. There aren't many other gigs that require an MST, so if you ever want to get out of tax you either have to hustle like a mofo and work your way into M&A via due diligence or something (BORING!) or go back and get an MBA. Even then, you'll always be tainted a little. Sometimes it can be beneficial to have the knowledge (if you wanted to jump into private equity/investment banking/venture capital) but that doesn't do you a lot of good if you don't really like tax. TL;DR - No idea about Golden Gate. MST is worthwhile if you really like tax (I do). Make sure you really like it before you get the degree.

No idea bout Golden Gate specifically, but I have an MST. There aren't a ton of schools out there that offer the degree, so if you really think you'll dig tax it's worthwhile in my opinion. The knowledge I had when I started (B4) compared to colleagues who only had an MPA or MAcc was noticeable. After a year or two it kind of levels off though because you're all pretty much on the same level from a technical standpoint. The downside is that it's a very very specialized degree. There aren't many other gigs that require an MST, so if you ever want to get out of tax you either have to hustle like a mofo and work your way into M&A via due diligence or something (BORING!) or go back and get an MBA. Even then, you'll always be tainted a little. Sometimes it can be beneficial to have the knowledge (if you wanted to jump into private equity/investment banking/venture capital) but that doesn't do you a lot of good if you don't really like tax. TL;DR - No idea about Golden Gate. MST is worthwhile if you really like tax (I do). Make sure you really like it before you get the degree.

tax

t5_2quww

cfc30lm

No idea bout Golden Gate specifically, but I have an MST. There aren't a ton of schools out there that offer the degree, so if you really think you'll dig tax it's worthwhile in my opinion. The knowledge I had when I started (B4) compared to colleagues who only had an MPA or MAcc was noticeable. After a year or two it kind of levels off though because you're all pretty much on the same level from a technical standpoint. The downside is that it's a very very specialized degree. There aren't many other gigs that require an MST, so if you ever want to get out of tax you either have to hustle like a mofo and work your way into M&A via due diligence or something (BORING!) or go back and get an MBA. Even then, you'll always be tainted a little. Sometimes it can be beneficial to have the knowledge (if you wanted to jump into private equity/investment banking/venture capital) but that doesn't do you a lot of good if you don't really like tax.

No idea about Golden Gate. MST is worthwhile if you really like tax (I do). Make sure you really like it before you get the degree.

TheRockefellers

Good question! This is a tricky area; the legal authority for this decision rests in a number of different places. Most notable, though, is the Executive branch's constitutional duty/power to safeguard the security of the country. The President has immense power when dealing in matters of national security; as long as he isn't doing anything unconstitutional, he can operate in this arena with relative impunity. Of course, that's the concern here, isn't it? On one hand, we have the President exercising his constitutional authority. On the other, an American citizen has certain due process protections - one of which is that you're entitled to a trial before the government kills you. That said, this due process protection isn't afforded in every case, is it? Law enforcement is clearly well within its rights to kill a person if that person presents an imminent threat to others. Similarly, no one would blame the military for gunning down a U.S. citizen who joined the Taliban and fought alongside them. That brings us to our first justification - this particular citizen presents an "imminent threat." Under "international law," a state is justified in killing an individual if: (i) that individual presents an imminent threat to the public, and (ii) there is no reasonable possibility of capturing him/her. That's exactly the argument the administration is using here. (Note, I put "international law" in quotes because it's a sort of tricky phrase here. There's no actual, written statute in place saying this - it's a common law principle, one that courts worldwide abide by, more or less.) Of course, this still leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it? It would no doubt leave a bad taste in the mouth of President Gerald Ford, as well, which is why he banned political assassinations (Executive Order 11905). Of course, even President Ford recognized the Executive's need for flexibility regarding matters of national security. So the ban doesn't apply to individuals approved for a "kill list" by the National Security Committee (which is sort of like the All Star team of the military/intelligence/law enforcement world). The NSC approved Anwar al-Awlaki back in 2010, and this step is presumably what the White House is debating right now. Also, note that the U.S. Congress authorized the use of lethal force against members of al-Quaeda and a number of other terrorist organizations. That would appear to implicate the anonymous suspect at issue here, who presumably had ties to al-Quaeda. (Note that al-Awlaki had *substantial* involvement with al-Quaeda, which kind of vindicated Congress's/Obama's decision.) So those are the various justifications for authorizing a targeted killing of a U.S. citizen in the terrorism context. Do those reasons prevail against a citizen's right to a fair trial? It's a close question, but I would wager that they do. As I've stated above, this is kind of a contest between the government's constitutional power and a citizen's constitutional protections. Given the strength of the government's authority here, and specific circumstances of these terrorism cases, I think that the government *probably* wins this constitutional dispute. **tl;dr:** There are four (not necessarily distinct) justifications. From strongest to weakest: * National security falls within the *strong* constitutional power inherent in the office of the President. * The National Security council must approve the individual for termination. * Congress authorized the use of deadly force against al-Quaeda. * The killing may be justifiable under international law.

Good question! This is a tricky area; the legal authority for this decision rests in a number of different places. Most notable, though, is the Executive branch's constitutional duty/power to safeguard the security of the country. The President has immense power when dealing in matters of national security; as long as he isn't doing anything unconstitutional, he can operate in this arena with relative impunity. Of course, that's the concern here, isn't it? On one hand, we have the President exercising his constitutional authority. On the other, an American citizen has certain due process protections - one of which is that you're entitled to a trial before the government kills you. That said, this due process protection isn't afforded in every case, is it? Law enforcement is clearly well within its rights to kill a person if that person presents an imminent threat to others. Similarly, no one would blame the military for gunning down a U.S. citizen who joined the Taliban and fought alongside them. That brings us to our first justification - this particular citizen presents an "imminent threat." Under "international law," a state is justified in killing an individual if: (i) that individual presents an imminent threat to the public, and (ii) there is no reasonable possibility of capturing him/her. That's exactly the argument the administration is using here. (Note, I put "international law" in quotes because it's a sort of tricky phrase here. There's no actual, written statute in place saying this - it's a common law principle, one that courts worldwide abide by, more or less.) Of course, this still leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it? It would no doubt leave a bad taste in the mouth of President Gerald Ford, as well, which is why he banned political assassinations (Executive Order 11905). Of course, even President Ford recognized the Executive's need for flexibility regarding matters of national security. So the ban doesn't apply to individuals approved for a "kill list" by the National Security Committee (which is sort of like the All Star team of the military/intelligence/law enforcement world). The NSC approved Anwar al-Awlaki back in 2010, and this step is presumably what the White House is debating right now. Also, note that the U.S. Congress authorized the use of lethal force against members of al-Quaeda and a number of other terrorist organizations. That would appear to implicate the anonymous suspect at issue here, who presumably had ties to al-Quaeda. (Note that al-Awlaki had substantial involvement with al-Quaeda, which kind of vindicated Congress's/Obama's decision.) So those are the various justifications for authorizing a targeted killing of a U.S. citizen in the terrorism context. Do those reasons prevail against a citizen's right to a fair trial? It's a close question, but I would wager that they do. As I've stated above, this is kind of a contest between the government's constitutional power and a citizen's constitutional protections. Given the strength of the government's authority here, and specific circumstances of these terrorism cases, I think that the government probably wins this constitutional dispute. tl;dr: There are four (not necessarily distinct) justifications. From strongest to weakest: National security falls within the strong constitutional power inherent in the office of the President. The National Security council must approve the individual for termination. Congress authorized the use of deadly force against al-Quaeda. The killing may be justifiable under international law.

explainlikeimfive

t5_2sokd

cfc1qdv

Good question! This is a tricky area; the legal authority for this decision rests in a number of different places. Most notable, though, is the Executive branch's constitutional duty/power to safeguard the security of the country. The President has immense power when dealing in matters of national security; as long as he isn't doing anything unconstitutional, he can operate in this arena with relative impunity. Of course, that's the concern here, isn't it? On one hand, we have the President exercising his constitutional authority. On the other, an American citizen has certain due process protections - one of which is that you're entitled to a trial before the government kills you. That said, this due process protection isn't afforded in every case, is it? Law enforcement is clearly well within its rights to kill a person if that person presents an imminent threat to others. Similarly, no one would blame the military for gunning down a U.S. citizen who joined the Taliban and fought alongside them. That brings us to our first justification - this particular citizen presents an "imminent threat." Under "international law," a state is justified in killing an individual if: (i) that individual presents an imminent threat to the public, and (ii) there is no reasonable possibility of capturing him/her. That's exactly the argument the administration is using here. (Note, I put "international law" in quotes because it's a sort of tricky phrase here. There's no actual, written statute in place saying this - it's a common law principle, one that courts worldwide abide by, more or less.) Of course, this still leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it? It would no doubt leave a bad taste in the mouth of President Gerald Ford, as well, which is why he banned political assassinations (Executive Order 11905). Of course, even President Ford recognized the Executive's need for flexibility regarding matters of national security. So the ban doesn't apply to individuals approved for a "kill list" by the National Security Committee (which is sort of like the All Star team of the military/intelligence/law enforcement world). The NSC approved Anwar al-Awlaki back in 2010, and this step is presumably what the White House is debating right now. Also, note that the U.S. Congress authorized the use of lethal force against members of al-Quaeda and a number of other terrorist organizations. That would appear to implicate the anonymous suspect at issue here, who presumably had ties to al-Quaeda. (Note that al-Awlaki had substantial involvement with al-Quaeda, which kind of vindicated Congress's/Obama's decision.) So those are the various justifications for authorizing a targeted killing of a U.S. citizen in the terrorism context. Do those reasons prevail against a citizen's right to a fair trial? It's a close question, but I would wager that they do. As I've stated above, this is kind of a contest between the government's constitutional power and a citizen's constitutional protections. Given the strength of the government's authority here, and specific circumstances of these terrorism cases, I think that the government probably wins this constitutional dispute.

There are four (not necessarily distinct) justifications. From strongest to weakest: National security falls within the strong constitutional power inherent in the office of the President. The National Security council must approve the individual for termination. Congress authorized the use of deadly force against al-Quaeda. The killing may be justifiable under international law.

bonesthebroken

well dude... you can get a straight pg vg mix on fluid... but i would suggest flavoring, it makes it a tad bit easier to quit, as well as nicotine... it helps.... as long as you dont use tobacco flavors like menthol or tobacco anything. the higher the pg the more throat hit/burn you get the more vg you use the move vapor you get, but you dont want to use so much vg that your liquid is like syrup. 50/50 or 70pg/30vg are both pretty standard but if you wanna try it, there is a shit tonne of info out there, i would check out e-cig forums or youtube. the learning curve is tough... unless you are in absolute need of something the size of a cig... stay away the only way those are any good are in a pinch. if you must, volcano e-cigs always treated me well, they are a bit more pricey, but they have a wonderful forum. if your ready for something a bit better, i would check out the ego style batteries which they also have, cartridges are your decision and you always want to keep spare parts around... extra atomizers/cartomizers if thats what you use, cartriges are overpriced and usually underfilled, but everything is refillable if your willing. for a beginner if you dont care about variable voltage get a nice ego IF your willing to spend a bit of money and are pretty good at picking up on electronics/ have basic knowledge of electrical, things can be easy. IF you want to spend allot of money at first get a variable voltage/wattage mod, you want something durable, nothing like a lavatube or really anything joytech for an APV (advanced personal vaporizor) i had great success with the tesla and the provari, im currently on an itaste vtr because i prefer box mods. check out rebuildable attomizers or dripping atomizer and stay away from stainless mesh wicks unless you love fighting with tiny frustrating objects. i have been vaping since '07 and when mesh hit the scene... i was amazed... after fighting with it, i dunno about the ss rope, its been difficult to get at the hardware store. tldr: good luck to you, check ecf for help or use flavors WITH nic

well dude... you can get a straight pg vg mix on fluid... but i would suggest flavoring, it makes it a tad bit easier to quit, as well as nicotine... it helps.... as long as you dont use tobacco flavors like menthol or tobacco anything. the higher the pg the more throat hit/burn you get the more vg you use the move vapor you get, but you dont want to use so much vg that your liquid is like syrup. 50/50 or 70pg/30vg are both pretty standard but if you wanna try it, there is a shit tonne of info out there, i would check out e-cig forums or youtube. the learning curve is tough... unless you are in absolute need of something the size of a cig... stay away the only way those are any good are in a pinch. if you must, volcano e-cigs always treated me well, they are a bit more pricey, but they have a wonderful forum. if your ready for something a bit better, i would check out the ego style batteries which they also have, cartridges are your decision and you always want to keep spare parts around... extra atomizers/cartomizers if thats what you use, cartriges are overpriced and usually underfilled, but everything is refillable if your willing. for a beginner if you dont care about variable voltage get a nice ego IF your willing to spend a bit of money and are pretty good at picking up on electronics/ have basic knowledge of electrical, things can be easy. IF you want to spend allot of money at first get a variable voltage/wattage mod, you want something durable, nothing like a lavatube or really anything joytech for an APV (advanced personal vaporizor) i had great success with the tesla and the provari, im currently on an itaste vtr because i prefer box mods. check out rebuildable attomizers or dripping atomizer and stay away from stainless mesh wicks unless you love fighting with tiny frustrating objects. i have been vaping since '07 and when mesh hit the scene... i was amazed... after fighting with it, i dunno about the ss rope, its been difficult to get at the hardware store. tldr: good luck to you, check ecf for help or use flavors WITH nic

electronic_cigarette

t5_2qmlu

cfchxl4

well dude... you can get a straight pg vg mix on fluid... but i would suggest flavoring, it makes it a tad bit easier to quit, as well as nicotine... it helps.... as long as you dont use tobacco flavors like menthol or tobacco anything. the higher the pg the more throat hit/burn you get the more vg you use the move vapor you get, but you dont want to use so much vg that your liquid is like syrup. 50/50 or 70pg/30vg are both pretty standard but if you wanna try it, there is a shit tonne of info out there, i would check out e-cig forums or youtube. the learning curve is tough... unless you are in absolute need of something the size of a cig... stay away the only way those are any good are in a pinch. if you must, volcano e-cigs always treated me well, they are a bit more pricey, but they have a wonderful forum. if your ready for something a bit better, i would check out the ego style batteries which they also have, cartridges are your decision and you always want to keep spare parts around... extra atomizers/cartomizers if thats what you use, cartriges are overpriced and usually underfilled, but everything is refillable if your willing. for a beginner if you dont care about variable voltage get a nice ego IF your willing to spend a bit of money and are pretty good at picking up on electronics/ have basic knowledge of electrical, things can be easy. IF you want to spend allot of money at first get a variable voltage/wattage mod, you want something durable, nothing like a lavatube or really anything joytech for an APV (advanced personal vaporizor) i had great success with the tesla and the provari, im currently on an itaste vtr because i prefer box mods. check out rebuildable attomizers or dripping atomizer and stay away from stainless mesh wicks unless you love fighting with tiny frustrating objects. i have been vaping since '07 and when mesh hit the scene... i was amazed... after fighting with it, i dunno about the ss rope, its been difficult to get at the hardware store.

good luck to you, check ecf for help or use flavors WITH nic

FlyingSpaghettiMan

Well, it also happens to guys as well. I've had a ridiculous amount of women demand these sorts of things from me as well and gave no reciprocation in turn. tl;dr: Everyone should reciprocate.

Well, it also happens to guys as well. I've had a ridiculous amount of women demand these sorts of things from me as well and gave no reciprocation in turn. tl;dr: Everyone should reciprocate.

AskWomen

t5_2rxrw

cfcu1c0

Well, it also happens to guys as well. I've had a ridiculous amount of women demand these sorts of things from me as well and gave no reciprocation in turn.

Everyone should reciprocate.

ben827

To put it shortly (and bluntly), our pal toruk basically thinks they're the spawn of Satan in the battery world. His opinion is perfectly justified, too, and he has plenty of scientific data and factual proof to back it up. They're pretty poor quality batteries and could cause some harm to the blaster if not correctly managed or dealt with. TL;DR: Basically everything is wrong with __Fires. [search the subreddit for more info]

To put it shortly (and bluntly), our pal toruk basically thinks they're the spawn of Satan in the battery world. His opinion is perfectly justified, too, and he has plenty of scientific data and factual proof to back it up. They're pretty poor quality batteries and could cause some harm to the blaster if not correctly managed or dealt with. TL;DR: Basically everything is wrong with __Fires. [search the subreddit for more info]

Nerf

t5_2qz7g

cfd3egr

To put it shortly (and bluntly), our pal toruk basically thinks they're the spawn of Satan in the battery world. His opinion is perfectly justified, too, and he has plenty of scientific data and factual proof to back it up. They're pretty poor quality batteries and could cause some harm to the blaster if not correctly managed or dealt with.

Basically everything is wrong with __Fires. [search the subreddit for more info]

czdl

There's a graphic EQ inserted between the aux out for a monitor and the monitor's amp. Or, there really should be. If there isn't, stop the world and get one. Per monitor. Now, empty the room and set up some mics approximately where the band will need them, with most emphasis on vocal mics near monitors. In short, get a 58 on a stand in front of a wedge, and get it slightly closer than it will be for the gig. Now head back to the desk. Bring the mic up in the room or use cans. Send the mic to the wedge until it feeds back, and bring it back a touch. Ok, you now have an unstable mic. You're ready to start ringing. Go to the graphic (which is set flat), working left to right, and for each fader push it up a bit. If it feeds quickly, pull the fader low, if it doesn't feed at all, put it back to zero. Repeat for all faders. You've now mapped out the frequency response of the mic->wedge->mic feedback path. Well done! Notice that you can now send a few more dB to the wedge from the mic before it feeds. Often quite a few more dB! This will be helpful, because the band (unless you have the privilege of working with pros) will continually complain that the wedges are too quiet. The process is much easier with an assistant, who can torture test the system by 'pointing the mic at the crowd' or cupping the mic. TL;DR: ringing out a monitor is the process of sliding up the faders on a graphic EQ to see how easily they cause feedback, to determine how much cut they need to be set to.

There's a graphic EQ inserted between the aux out for a monitor and the monitor's amp. Or, there really should be. If there isn't, stop the world and get one. Per monitor. Now, empty the room and set up some mics approximately where the band will need them, with most emphasis on vocal mics near monitors. In short, get a 58 on a stand in front of a wedge, and get it slightly closer than it will be for the gig. Now head back to the desk. Bring the mic up in the room or use cans. Send the mic to the wedge until it feeds back, and bring it back a touch. Ok, you now have an unstable mic. You're ready to start ringing. Go to the graphic (which is set flat), working left to right, and for each fader push it up a bit. If it feeds quickly, pull the fader low, if it doesn't feed at all, put it back to zero. Repeat for all faders. You've now mapped out the frequency response of the mic->wedge->mic feedback path. Well done! Notice that you can now send a few more dB to the wedge from the mic before it feeds. Often quite a few more dB! This will be helpful, because the band (unless you have the privilege of working with pros) will continually complain that the wedges are too quiet. The process is much easier with an assistant, who can torture test the system by 'pointing the mic at the crowd' or cupping the mic. TL;DR: ringing out a monitor is the process of sliding up the faders on a graphic EQ to see how easily they cause feedback, to determine how much cut they need to be set to.

audioengineering

t5_2qkby

cfddltn

There's a graphic EQ inserted between the aux out for a monitor and the monitor's amp. Or, there really should be. If there isn't, stop the world and get one. Per monitor. Now, empty the room and set up some mics approximately where the band will need them, with most emphasis on vocal mics near monitors. In short, get a 58 on a stand in front of a wedge, and get it slightly closer than it will be for the gig. Now head back to the desk. Bring the mic up in the room or use cans. Send the mic to the wedge until it feeds back, and bring it back a touch. Ok, you now have an unstable mic. You're ready to start ringing. Go to the graphic (which is set flat), working left to right, and for each fader push it up a bit. If it feeds quickly, pull the fader low, if it doesn't feed at all, put it back to zero. Repeat for all faders. You've now mapped out the frequency response of the mic->wedge->mic feedback path. Well done! Notice that you can now send a few more dB to the wedge from the mic before it feeds. Often quite a few more dB! This will be helpful, because the band (unless you have the privilege of working with pros) will continually complain that the wedges are too quiet. The process is much easier with an assistant, who can torture test the system by 'pointing the mic at the crowd' or cupping the mic.

ringing out a monitor is the process of sliding up the faders on a graphic EQ to see how easily they cause feedback, to determine how much cut they need to be set to.

Mortons_Spork

Less interested in another job that is just a rehash of another and looking forward to any job that fills a official support role. But I don't see this ever happening anytime in the near future as the vast majority of the player base would likely reject a 4th role because it would be too complicated for the casual player (no offense but its true). A new tank, dps or healer won't really move the game forward like a totally new role would. Most who argue against this either haven't experienced an MMO that isn't your standard trinity. So they can't wrap their heads around the idea that there can be other comps that are just as viable (if not more so) by replacing or adding a full fledged support. Another weak argument I hear against adding the 4th support role is that current classes already can buff/debuff/crowd control etc.. But there is so much room to expand on a strictly utilitarian role that it's narrow minded and shows how little some can think outside of the box. For one most of these cool downs have pretty long reset timers and the ones on short on short, spammable rotations could have much more potent versions given to a support role. One last argument against a support role I hear a lot is how much it would "break the game", which again shows a lack of understanding of the true potential a support-oriented role would function, not to mention that it says something of the faith they have in devs to be able to build up their game into newer levels of complexity while maintaining balance. Most players who have played FFXI will know that 4 roles work extremely well and add a totally new layer to the game that isn't typically offered within more traditional, trinity-only MMOs. There were *so many* group comps that could preform the same (if not often even better) than your same ol' tank/healer/dps set up and is probably the distinct thing I can think of that made FFXI stand out in a sea of MMOs with the generic group make up. TL;DR Idc what the next job is, so long as it is an official 4th "support" role. (That being said RDM would be an excellent way of capturing the very essence of how the role would function!)

Less interested in another job that is just a rehash of another and looking forward to any job that fills a official support role. But I don't see this ever happening anytime in the near future as the vast majority of the player base would likely reject a 4th role because it would be too complicated for the casual player (no offense but its true). A new tank, dps or healer won't really move the game forward like a totally new role would. Most who argue against this either haven't experienced an MMO that isn't your standard trinity. So they can't wrap their heads around the idea that there can be other comps that are just as viable (if not more so) by replacing or adding a full fledged support. Another weak argument I hear against adding the 4th support role is that current classes already can buff/debuff/crowd control etc.. But there is so much room to expand on a strictly utilitarian role that it's narrow minded and shows how little some can think outside of the box. For one most of these cool downs have pretty long reset timers and the ones on short on short, spammable rotations could have much more potent versions given to a support role. One last argument against a support role I hear a lot is how much it would "break the game", which again shows a lack of understanding of the true potential a support-oriented role would function, not to mention that it says something of the faith they have in devs to be able to build up their game into newer levels of complexity while maintaining balance. Most players who have played FFXI will know that 4 roles work extremely well and add a totally new layer to the game that isn't typically offered within more traditional, trinity-only MMOs. There were so many group comps that could preform the same (if not often even better) than your same ol' tank/healer/dps set up and is probably the distinct thing I can think of that made FFXI stand out in a sea of MMOs with the generic group make up. TL;DR Idc what the next job is, so long as it is an official 4th "support" role. (That being said RDM would be an excellent way of capturing the very essence of how the role would function!)

ffxiv

t5_2rgs7

cfdqajv

Less interested in another job that is just a rehash of another and looking forward to any job that fills a official support role. But I don't see this ever happening anytime in the near future as the vast majority of the player base would likely reject a 4th role because it would be too complicated for the casual player (no offense but its true). A new tank, dps or healer won't really move the game forward like a totally new role would. Most who argue against this either haven't experienced an MMO that isn't your standard trinity. So they can't wrap their heads around the idea that there can be other comps that are just as viable (if not more so) by replacing or adding a full fledged support. Another weak argument I hear against adding the 4th support role is that current classes already can buff/debuff/crowd control etc.. But there is so much room to expand on a strictly utilitarian role that it's narrow minded and shows how little some can think outside of the box. For one most of these cool downs have pretty long reset timers and the ones on short on short, spammable rotations could have much more potent versions given to a support role. One last argument against a support role I hear a lot is how much it would "break the game", which again shows a lack of understanding of the true potential a support-oriented role would function, not to mention that it says something of the faith they have in devs to be able to build up their game into newer levels of complexity while maintaining balance. Most players who have played FFXI will know that 4 roles work extremely well and add a totally new layer to the game that isn't typically offered within more traditional, trinity-only MMOs. There were so many group comps that could preform the same (if not often even better) than your same ol' tank/healer/dps set up and is probably the distinct thing I can think of that made FFXI stand out in a sea of MMOs with the generic group make up.

Idc what the next job is, so long as it is an official 4th "support" role. (That being said RDM would be an excellent way of capturing the very essence of how the role would function!)

RaniAndKatrina

I am no expert but am developing a game in unity and here's what I am doing: I have a long-running "soap opera" called NeverEndingPrincessStory. You can watch a youtube clip here: Next up is the game. Version 2.0 @ Screen stutter on load resolved and now has some basic counting functions. Menu's are basic but created using free version of NGUI so within scope. Website to be redesigned to add these elements and more. I will do this about 10 more times over the next 4 months and then be perhaps 1/2 way there. More levels based on movie; rinse and repeat. I looked at doing this in Unity like 2 years ago and it was pretty primitive back then. Now it seems to work better and I was able to get a little guy running around a terrain in short order. This made me slightly more confident that it was possible to actually COMPLETE something using this tech. So I bought some terrain assets, a camera rig and Playmaker. Got a coder to make a barebones rig. Populated it a bit with what you see and will update from here. Vision is multiplayer where you can meet/interact with women, maybe find your "One True Love" - it would all be part and parcel of the website; which is designed for this purpose and has a pretty decent backend to support this. What I do usually is done by companies but I am company of 1 (with contractors). This way I retain all the IP and have control over the development/vision. If my goal is to recoup the approx 200$ I've spent on this, with a little adsense banner and some time it's achievable for sure. Good luck with your project, hope this helped. TL:DR This shit is complex and takes a long time and some $$$ to complete and finsih. Edit for updates.

I am no expert but am developing a game in unity and here's what I am doing: I have a long-running "soap opera" called NeverEndingPrincessStory. You can watch a youtube clip here: Next up is the game. Version 2.0 @ Screen stutter on load resolved and now has some basic counting functions. Menu's are basic but created using free version of NGUI so within scope. Website to be redesigned to add these elements and more. I will do this about 10 more times over the next 4 months and then be perhaps 1/2 way there. More levels based on movie; rinse and repeat. I looked at doing this in Unity like 2 years ago and it was pretty primitive back then. Now it seems to work better and I was able to get a little guy running around a terrain in short order. This made me slightly more confident that it was possible to actually COMPLETE something using this tech. So I bought some terrain assets, a camera rig and Playmaker. Got a coder to make a barebones rig. Populated it a bit with what you see and will update from here. Vision is multiplayer where you can meet/interact with women, maybe find your "One True Love" - it would all be part and parcel of the website; which is designed for this purpose and has a pretty decent backend to support this. What I do usually is done by companies but I am company of 1 (with contractors). This way I retain all the IP and have control over the development/vision. If my goal is to recoup the approx 200$ I've spent on this, with a little adsense banner and some time it's achievable for sure. Good luck with your project, hope this helped. TL:DR This shit is complex and takes a long time and some $$$ to complete and finsih. Edit for updates.

unity_tutorials

t5_2r9tr

cfed871

I am no expert but am developing a game in unity and here's what I am doing: I have a long-running "soap opera" called NeverEndingPrincessStory. You can watch a youtube clip here: Next up is the game. Version 2.0 @ Screen stutter on load resolved and now has some basic counting functions. Menu's are basic but created using free version of NGUI so within scope. Website to be redesigned to add these elements and more. I will do this about 10 more times over the next 4 months and then be perhaps 1/2 way there. More levels based on movie; rinse and repeat. I looked at doing this in Unity like 2 years ago and it was pretty primitive back then. Now it seems to work better and I was able to get a little guy running around a terrain in short order. This made me slightly more confident that it was possible to actually COMPLETE something using this tech. So I bought some terrain assets, a camera rig and Playmaker. Got a coder to make a barebones rig. Populated it a bit with what you see and will update from here. Vision is multiplayer where you can meet/interact with women, maybe find your "One True Love" - it would all be part and parcel of the website; which is designed for this purpose and has a pretty decent backend to support this. What I do usually is done by companies but I am company of 1 (with contractors). This way I retain all the IP and have control over the development/vision. If my goal is to recoup the approx 200$ I've spent on this, with a little adsense banner and some time it's achievable for sure. Good luck with your project, hope this helped.

This shit is complex and takes a long time and some $$$ to complete and finsih. Edit for updates.

fatum210

I used to follow this rule to a tee. I got fucking tired of not being appreciated, and started following my own rules. Then, suddenly, everything started to go well and people now give me the praise I needed back then that I don't even want anymore. TL:DR - Do whatever the fuck you want, but remember to be yourself and do things that make you happy BEFORE being nice or even trying to be.

I used to follow this rule to a tee. I got fucking tired of not being appreciated, and started following my own rules. Then, suddenly, everything started to go well and people now give me the praise I needed back then that I don't even want anymore. TL:DR - Do whatever the fuck you want, but remember to be yourself and do things that make you happy BEFORE being nice or even trying to be.

GetMotivated

t5_2rmfx

cfebann

I used to follow this rule to a tee. I got fucking tired of not being appreciated, and started following my own rules. Then, suddenly, everything started to go well and people now give me the praise I needed back then that I don't even want anymore.

Do whatever the fuck you want, but remember to be yourself and do things that make you happy BEFORE being nice or even trying to be.

incasethrow

I have been in and I am in the same situation as you. You are tortured not seeing her those months, but the idea in the back of your head, no matter how much you have tried to forget her, is still there. Except I got back together with her 2 months ago and tomorrow I will see her and things have been falling apart and she says she doesnt feel the way she used to. All I can say to you is heed this advice. Things will be great tomorrow, she will be so happy to see you. Ridiculously happy, she wont think about or talk about anything else. And all of those feelings that have been building inside of you, the stress of not knowing if she loves another, forgot about you, thinks your pathetic or what. ALL of those emotions that have been tormenting you will seemingly disappear, because you will get what you have been longing for this entire drought; her affection. She will give it to you and things will be fucking great! They will seem awesome on the outside, but know that she is still fragile on the inside, and what you do is PLAY IT FUCKING COOL. PLAY IT FUCKING COOL MAN. You smile,but dont for a second say how much you love her or how you have been longing for her beautiful gaze(at this moment, or any moment until SHE talks serious with you and even then be careful to reveal your cards right away). She broke up with you. You know how you feel about her, and you will show her your affection accordingly. But jesus christ in heaven take it slow(when it comes to revealing these emotions, you have to be 10000000000000% sure that she is feeling the same way before you say anything revealing and heartfelt). Otherwise, you reveal your cards too soon, you plant a seed in her fucking mind, that she won't need you. And then when that OTHER guy tries texting her, she wont immediately tell him to no. Just dont let this be a case of her emotionally using you as a crutch. You want her for the long run, right? Don't let her walk all over her. You have feelings too and need affection. tldr: just be careful man. I'm talking surgically careful. Good luck

I have been in and I am in the same situation as you. You are tortured not seeing her those months, but the idea in the back of your head, no matter how much you have tried to forget her, is still there. Except I got back together with her 2 months ago and tomorrow I will see her and things have been falling apart and she says she doesnt feel the way she used to. All I can say to you is heed this advice. Things will be great tomorrow, she will be so happy to see you. Ridiculously happy, she wont think about or talk about anything else. And all of those feelings that have been building inside of you, the stress of not knowing if she loves another, forgot about you, thinks your pathetic or what. ALL of those emotions that have been tormenting you will seemingly disappear, because you will get what you have been longing for this entire drought; her affection. She will give it to you and things will be fucking great! They will seem awesome on the outside, but know that she is still fragile on the inside, and what you do is PLAY IT FUCKING COOL. PLAY IT FUCKING COOL MAN. You smile,but dont for a second say how much you love her or how you have been longing for her beautiful gaze(at this moment, or any moment until SHE talks serious with you and even then be careful to reveal your cards right away). She broke up with you. You know how you feel about her, and you will show her your affection accordingly. But jesus christ in heaven take it slow(when it comes to revealing these emotions, you have to be 10000000000000% sure that she is feeling the same way before you say anything revealing and heartfelt). Otherwise, you reveal your cards too soon, you plant a seed in her fucking mind, that she won't need you. And then when that OTHER guy tries texting her, she wont immediately tell him to no. Just dont let this be a case of her emotionally using you as a crutch. You want her for the long run, right? Don't let her walk all over her. You have feelings too and need affection. tldr: just be careful man. I'm talking surgically careful. Good luck

relationships

t5_2qjvn

cff2ihu

I have been in and I am in the same situation as you. You are tortured not seeing her those months, but the idea in the back of your head, no matter how much you have tried to forget her, is still there. Except I got back together with her 2 months ago and tomorrow I will see her and things have been falling apart and she says she doesnt feel the way she used to. All I can say to you is heed this advice. Things will be great tomorrow, she will be so happy to see you. Ridiculously happy, she wont think about or talk about anything else. And all of those feelings that have been building inside of you, the stress of not knowing if she loves another, forgot about you, thinks your pathetic or what. ALL of those emotions that have been tormenting you will seemingly disappear, because you will get what you have been longing for this entire drought; her affection. She will give it to you and things will be fucking great! They will seem awesome on the outside, but know that she is still fragile on the inside, and what you do is PLAY IT FUCKING COOL. PLAY IT FUCKING COOL MAN. You smile,but dont for a second say how much you love her or how you have been longing for her beautiful gaze(at this moment, or any moment until SHE talks serious with you and even then be careful to reveal your cards right away). She broke up with you. You know how you feel about her, and you will show her your affection accordingly. But jesus christ in heaven take it slow(when it comes to revealing these emotions, you have to be 10000000000000% sure that she is feeling the same way before you say anything revealing and heartfelt). Otherwise, you reveal your cards too soon, you plant a seed in her fucking mind, that she won't need you. And then when that OTHER guy tries texting her, she wont immediately tell him to no. Just dont let this be a case of her emotionally using you as a crutch. You want her for the long run, right? Don't let her walk all over her. You have feelings too and need affection.

just be careful man. I'm talking surgically careful. Good luck

sigkapkirsten

I trust him completely. When I say completely, I mean he could be in a room with 100 naked women and I'd walk away knowing nothing would happen. We're both young and attractive, smart and successful. Either one of us could easily have sex with someone else. Neither of us want to. That's not the key though. The key is, I "allow" him to find other people attractive. And by that I mean that I don't give him a hard time about checking other women out. In fact, since I know his type, I point women out to him. I let him innocently flirt and I do my fair share of it. I refuse to be a jealous wife and I recognize that attraction is natural and beauty should be appreciated. I recognize he's going to have chemistry with other people, as he recognizes that in me. What keeps us together is our desire to be a couple and our commitment to our situation. A jealousy free relationship allows up to open up about more than just sexual desires, but emotional desires too. We tell each other everything and we acknowledge each others wants and needs and do our best to fulfill them. People often think love is about meeting "the one" or finding a "soul mate". I hate to break it to you but it's not. It's about finding someone who is on the same exact page as you are. Someone who wants the same things as you and is willing to fight for those things. Be open and honest from the start and you may find yourself in a good relationship. Don't EVER play games and always say what's on your mind. If your partner doesn't respond positively, guess what? you're not with the right person! And thats okay! People fight too hard to stay with people that just aren't right for them. You can love someone all day long, but that doesn't make you compatible. Trust your instincts and of course, unless you're married WRAP IT UP! Tl;dr: Trust, honesty, communication, sex, PROTECTION (until marriage because STDs and babies).

I trust him completely. When I say completely, I mean he could be in a room with 100 naked women and I'd walk away knowing nothing would happen. We're both young and attractive, smart and successful. Either one of us could easily have sex with someone else. Neither of us want to. That's not the key though. The key is, I "allow" him to find other people attractive. And by that I mean that I don't give him a hard time about checking other women out. In fact, since I know his type, I point women out to him. I let him innocently flirt and I do my fair share of it. I refuse to be a jealous wife and I recognize that attraction is natural and beauty should be appreciated. I recognize he's going to have chemistry with other people, as he recognizes that in me. What keeps us together is our desire to be a couple and our commitment to our situation. A jealousy free relationship allows up to open up about more than just sexual desires, but emotional desires too. We tell each other everything and we acknowledge each others wants and needs and do our best to fulfill them. People often think love is about meeting "the one" or finding a "soul mate". I hate to break it to you but it's not. It's about finding someone who is on the same exact page as you are. Someone who wants the same things as you and is willing to fight for those things. Be open and honest from the start and you may find yourself in a good relationship. Don't EVER play games and always say what's on your mind. If your partner doesn't respond positively, guess what? you're not with the right person! And thats okay! People fight too hard to stay with people that just aren't right for them. You can love someone all day long, but that doesn't make you compatible. Trust your instincts and of course, unless you're married WRAP IT UP! Tl;dr: Trust, honesty, communication, sex, PROTECTION (until marriage because STDs and babies).

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

cfe7qjt

I trust him completely. When I say completely, I mean he could be in a room with 100 naked women and I'd walk away knowing nothing would happen. We're both young and attractive, smart and successful. Either one of us could easily have sex with someone else. Neither of us want to. That's not the key though. The key is, I "allow" him to find other people attractive. And by that I mean that I don't give him a hard time about checking other women out. In fact, since I know his type, I point women out to him. I let him innocently flirt and I do my fair share of it. I refuse to be a jealous wife and I recognize that attraction is natural and beauty should be appreciated. I recognize he's going to have chemistry with other people, as he recognizes that in me. What keeps us together is our desire to be a couple and our commitment to our situation. A jealousy free relationship allows up to open up about more than just sexual desires, but emotional desires too. We tell each other everything and we acknowledge each others wants and needs and do our best to fulfill them. People often think love is about meeting "the one" or finding a "soul mate". I hate to break it to you but it's not. It's about finding someone who is on the same exact page as you are. Someone who wants the same things as you and is willing to fight for those things. Be open and honest from the start and you may find yourself in a good relationship. Don't EVER play games and always say what's on your mind. If your partner doesn't respond positively, guess what? you're not with the right person! And thats okay! People fight too hard to stay with people that just aren't right for them. You can love someone all day long, but that doesn't make you compatible. Trust your instincts and of course, unless you're married WRAP IT UP!

Trust, honesty, communication, sex, PROTECTION (until marriage because STDs and babies).

m6hurricane

You see, now we have to be careful about what words we use. TIL that the ingredients "Fritos" is required to report are Corn, Corn Oil, and Salt. Food labeling and production is weird and unnecessarily complicated. For example something labeled "100% pure ground beef" is required to have 85% beef. Therefore, all those Bubba Burgers that are out there say that they're 100% ground beef but in reality have 15% of fillers, juice re-introductions, scrap trims, flavor pumps, and all kinds of crap. To the concept at hand, what is corn oil? 70% oil from corn? What kind of corn is used? Livestock corn, all GMO corn, or maybe a 40% blend of normal/GMO corn and 60% livestock corn? tl;dr Fritos reports that their ingredients are corn, corn oil, and salt. But what in the hell does that actually *mean?*

You see, now we have to be careful about what words we use. TIL that the ingredients "Fritos" is required to report are Corn, Corn Oil, and Salt. Food labeling and production is weird and unnecessarily complicated. For example something labeled "100% pure ground beef" is required to have 85% beef. Therefore, all those Bubba Burgers that are out there say that they're 100% ground beef but in reality have 15% of fillers, juice re-introductions, scrap trims, flavor pumps, and all kinds of crap. To the concept at hand, what is corn oil? 70% oil from corn? What kind of corn is used? Livestock corn, all GMO corn, or maybe a 40% blend of normal/GMO corn and 60% livestock corn? tl;dr Fritos reports that their ingredients are corn, corn oil, and salt. But what in the hell does that actually mean?

todayilearned

t5_2qqjc

cfeblf3

You see, now we have to be careful about what words we use. TIL that the ingredients "Fritos" is required to report are Corn, Corn Oil, and Salt. Food labeling and production is weird and unnecessarily complicated. For example something labeled "100% pure ground beef" is required to have 85% beef. Therefore, all those Bubba Burgers that are out there say that they're 100% ground beef but in reality have 15% of fillers, juice re-introductions, scrap trims, flavor pumps, and all kinds of crap. To the concept at hand, what is corn oil? 70% oil from corn? What kind of corn is used? Livestock corn, all GMO corn, or maybe a 40% blend of normal/GMO corn and 60% livestock corn?

Fritos reports that their ingredients are corn, corn oil, and salt. But what in the hell does that actually mean?

adaranyx

Haha oh god THESE ARE ALL HORRIBLE. tl;dr *everyone's screwed.*

Haha oh god THESE ARE ALL HORRIBLE. tl;dr everyone's screwed.

BabyBumps

t5_2s7cl

cff0hgt

Haha oh god THESE ARE ALL HORRIBLE.

everyone's screwed.

DrPepperHelp

Ya more pissed off people who want to do something but don't have a large enough base to begin with. Between smokers and vapers we are only 25% of the popularion. How the fuck do they expect to do anything but rob votes from another party that might be more effective and cover our needs as well. *TL;DR:* Screw politics. Don't be the loud ass whiney druk bitch. That's who they try to silence first.

Ya more pissed off people who want to do something but don't have a large enough base to begin with. Between smokers and vapers we are only 25% of the popularion. How the fuck do they expect to do anything but rob votes from another party that might be more effective and cover our needs as well. TL;DR: Screw politics. Don't be the loud ass whiney druk bitch. That's who they try to silence first.

electronic_cigarette

t5_2qmlu

cfeh7kv

Ya more pissed off people who want to do something but don't have a large enough base to begin with. Between smokers and vapers we are only 25% of the popularion. How the fuck do they expect to do anything but rob votes from another party that might be more effective and cover our needs as well.

Screw politics. Don't be the loud ass whiney druk bitch. That's who they try to silence first.

lawrence_uber_alles

I will totally check out that youtube when I can, posting this comment for posterity. How in the hell did you know you wanted to be a bladesmith? I have no idea about any of this but I've always liked knifes and used to work in carpentry/cabinet work...it looks like you know some woodworking too. tl:dr: Awesome knifes, how you get into making knifes?

I will totally check out that youtube when I can, posting this comment for posterity. How in the hell did you know you wanted to be a bladesmith? I have no idea about any of this but I've always liked knifes and used to work in carpentry/cabinet work...it looks like you know some woodworking too. tl:dr: Awesome knifes, how you get into making knifes?

pics

t5_2qh0u

cff05kt

I will totally check out that youtube when I can, posting this comment for posterity. How in the hell did you know you wanted to be a bladesmith? I have no idea about any of this but I've always liked knifes and used to work in carpentry/cabinet work...it looks like you know some woodworking too.

Awesome knifes, how you get into making knifes?

arleban

eh, you've just got "middle sibling syndrome". At the moment, you're good enough to not suck, but suck enough to not be great. Then you have us, who are the little retarded brother your parents had when your mom was 40 and way to old to have kids. The doctors said there were increased risks of genetic defects, but she went ahead with the pregnancy anyway. tl;dr: Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!!

eh, you've just got "middle sibling syndrome". At the moment, you're good enough to not suck, but suck enough to not be great. Then you have us, who are the little retarded brother your parents had when your mom was 40 and way to old to have kids. The doctors said there were increased risks of genetic defects, but she went ahead with the pregnancy anyway. tl;dr: Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!!

nfl

t5_2qmg3

cff4ttf

eh, you've just got "middle sibling syndrome". At the moment, you're good enough to not suck, but suck enough to not be great. Then you have us, who are the little retarded brother your parents had when your mom was 40 and way to old to have kids. The doctors said there were increased risks of genetic defects, but she went ahead with the pregnancy anyway.

Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!!

loweredmydonger

Welcome to League of Legends. This is the reason why Riot focuses on esports and the pro scene and just uses the rest of us for cash-ins on skins/new OP champ releases/etc. It's technically not their fault the community is a gigantic cesspool. If I were in charge of I Riot I'd have made the same decision. This game is pretty much incapable of retaining new players due to how horrible the community is combined with the toxic nature of the game itself. As soon as a new player reaches the point where they start wanting to do well the game is no longer fun and becomes akin to pulling teeth. Low level games are 99.9% bitter smurfs who were banned on their mains and post-30 ranked (aside from the special snowflake top 1% challenger games) are even worse. TL;DR - Unless you're high diamond or challenger this game is not worth playing by yourself unless you're a masochist. Now getting 4 of your buddies, getting hammered and queuing up is pretty fun.

Welcome to League of Legends. This is the reason why Riot focuses on esports and the pro scene and just uses the rest of us for cash-ins on skins/new OP champ releases/etc. It's technically not their fault the community is a gigantic cesspool. If I were in charge of I Riot I'd have made the same decision. This game is pretty much incapable of retaining new players due to how horrible the community is combined with the toxic nature of the game itself. As soon as a new player reaches the point where they start wanting to do well the game is no longer fun and becomes akin to pulling teeth. Low level games are 99.9% bitter smurfs who were banned on their mains and post-30 ranked (aside from the special snowflake top 1% challenger games) are even worse. TL;DR - Unless you're high diamond or challenger this game is not worth playing by yourself unless you're a masochist. Now getting 4 of your buddies, getting hammered and queuing up is pretty fun.

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

cff4tre

Welcome to League of Legends. This is the reason why Riot focuses on esports and the pro scene and just uses the rest of us for cash-ins on skins/new OP champ releases/etc. It's technically not their fault the community is a gigantic cesspool. If I were in charge of I Riot I'd have made the same decision. This game is pretty much incapable of retaining new players due to how horrible the community is combined with the toxic nature of the game itself. As soon as a new player reaches the point where they start wanting to do well the game is no longer fun and becomes akin to pulling teeth. Low level games are 99.9% bitter smurfs who were banned on their mains and post-30 ranked (aside from the special snowflake top 1% challenger games) are even worse.

Unless you're high diamond or challenger this game is not worth playing by yourself unless you're a masochist. Now getting 4 of your buddies, getting hammered and queuing up is pretty fun.

zv1dex

I think the same thing is mentioned in the comment below me. Basically, (form what I gather off the 300+ pages on the Aune T1 on headfi.org) the Aune T1 is built with some pretty great components (debatable to to authenticity of parts, but another story altogether), but for the most part it is a tube DAC first with a solid state amp. The components for the amp are not astounding, but have ample power. This results in a serviceable sound, but not near as good as running through another separate amp, like a Schiit Vali. Sometimes dac/amp combos sacrifice something for size, convenience, or price reasons. Also, the review you linked is a Magnii vs. Aune T1 amp, which are both solid state and will have comparable sounds. The Vali will sound distinctly different due to being OTL tube amp/hybrid. TL:DR - Aune T1 = A+ DAC with a C- amp. Modi A-/+ DAC, Magni A- amp, Vali A+ amp. These ratings are for their price range and are obviously very subjective.

I think the same thing is mentioned in the comment below me. Basically, (form what I gather off the 300+ pages on the Aune T1 on headfi.org) the Aune T1 is built with some pretty great components (debatable to to authenticity of parts, but another story altogether), but for the most part it is a tube DAC first with a solid state amp. The components for the amp are not astounding, but have ample power. This results in a serviceable sound, but not near as good as running through another separate amp, like a Schiit Vali. Sometimes dac/amp combos sacrifice something for size, convenience, or price reasons. Also, the review you linked is a Magnii vs. Aune T1 amp, which are both solid state and will have comparable sounds. The Vali will sound distinctly different due to being OTL tube amp/hybrid. TL:DR - Aune T1 = A+ DAC with a C- amp. Modi A-/+ DAC, Magni A- amp, Vali A+ amp. These ratings are for their price range and are obviously very subjective.

headphones

t5_2rcyx

cffecd3

I think the same thing is mentioned in the comment below me. Basically, (form what I gather off the 300+ pages on the Aune T1 on headfi.org) the Aune T1 is built with some pretty great components (debatable to to authenticity of parts, but another story altogether), but for the most part it is a tube DAC first with a solid state amp. The components for the amp are not astounding, but have ample power. This results in a serviceable sound, but not near as good as running through another separate amp, like a Schiit Vali. Sometimes dac/amp combos sacrifice something for size, convenience, or price reasons. Also, the review you linked is a Magnii vs. Aune T1 amp, which are both solid state and will have comparable sounds. The Vali will sound distinctly different due to being OTL tube amp/hybrid.

Aune T1 = A+ DAC with a C- amp. Modi A-/+ DAC, Magni A- amp, Vali A+ amp. These ratings are for their price range and are obviously very subjective.

Adinowscar

From an Einstein point of view look at it this way. When you plan to meet up with someone in a multistory building for instance, you give the cross streets the building is located on (that is 2 dimensions) and you tell the floor that you are on which gives you your third dimensions, then you tell them what time you guys should meet up giving you the fourth. TLDR, Basically Einstein realized that space and time are interwoven like a fabric, you cannot travel space without time elapsing. So he added them together as spacetime, 3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension.

From an Einstein point of view look at it this way. When you plan to meet up with someone in a multistory building for instance, you give the cross streets the building is located on (that is 2 dimensions) and you tell the floor that you are on which gives you your third dimensions, then you tell them what time you guys should meet up giving you the fourth. TLDR, Basically Einstein realized that space and time are interwoven like a fabric, you cannot travel space without time elapsing. So he added them together as spacetime, 3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension.

askscience

t5_2qm4e

cfgjllm

From an Einstein point of view look at it this way. When you plan to meet up with someone in a multistory building for instance, you give the cross streets the building is located on (that is 2 dimensions) and you tell the floor that you are on which gives you your third dimensions, then you tell them what time you guys should meet up giving you the fourth.

Basically Einstein realized that space and time are interwoven like a fabric, you cannot travel space without time elapsing. So he added them together as spacetime, 3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension.

Bob_DDole

While this can increase your clear speed it has a cost. Normally by lvl 9 you finish maxing a skill. If you take a point in tiger you have 1 point in every other spell now. You don't tank as well, or run as fast, and all this just for what becomes a very minor damage increase mid game. tl:dr, you just sacrifice too much mid game for a minimal increase in clear speed.

While this can increase your clear speed it has a cost. Normally by lvl 9 you finish maxing a skill. If you take a point in tiger you have 1 point in every other spell now. You don't tank as well, or run as fast, and all this just for what becomes a very minor damage increase mid game. tl:dr, you just sacrifice too much mid game for a minimal increase in clear speed.

summonerschool

t5_2t9x3

cfgcdjx

While this can increase your clear speed it has a cost. Normally by lvl 9 you finish maxing a skill. If you take a point in tiger you have 1 point in every other spell now. You don't tank as well, or run as fast, and all this just for what becomes a very minor damage increase mid game.

you just sacrifice too much mid game for a minimal increase in clear speed.

sean_ake

>That it was real enough for them that it didn't matter that for you it wasn't? If they remember it as real, then what's the difference? I don't particularly believe "real enough" has enough qualifiers for reality. It either happened or it didn't. Yes, the act of thinking is a reality. You think. It happens. But as I said before, and I'm sorry for repeating my argument, the values of the thought don't constitute reality unless it's a memory of a particular event. Even that claim is a bit wishy washy considering we all perceive an event in different ways. Though, I think we can agree that if 5 people saw John Doe fall to the ground dead, that would be the reality of the scenario. The events leading up to said event undoubtedly could sway from person to person. But that's not the point. The point is we all agree that the event happened. John Doe died. Whether or not you remember someone sneezing before hand I would say is memory-timey-whimey-rolled-up-in-a-carpet-stuff. The difference, I would say, lies on a particular threshold between crazy and real, [hallucination]( of memory and a factual occurrence, acceptable and unacceptable recollection. A pathological liar will believe their lies as solid truths and fight the entire way for their "reality" to be true. If in Jane Doe's pathological liar of a mind her father is dead, then her father is dead. Upon seeing her father alive and well, her mind will not recognize him as her father. Instead, she will continue to live the lie she has constructed to horrifying ends. We all agree that her father is alive except her. Whose reality is correct: the five people's who are talking to him face to face or his daughter who believes, in her mind, he is dead? Obviously Jane Doe has a completely unacceptable reality she is presenting where as we have a completely acceptable one. So what about that threshold? Lets revisit John Doe and the mystery sneeze. Most story telling happens in three ways: 1. This is exactly what happened. - there is no faulting from the correct story. 2. This is pretty much the whole story. - You get the main event, but some of the details are a little skewed. 3. You flew from New York to California in 2 hours. - No truth, no real facts, straight up fabrication. The threshold is all about number two. An amount of information is given that either brings the story into the red as not reality or in the green as reality. The more factual information there is, the more readily we are willing to accept that fabrications thrown in there. The opposite stands true as well. The closer you are to factual events, the more likely it's going to be considered reality. <Insert something pertaining to mass hallucinations as a contradictory argument here> Well, unfortunately we know from the past and present that just because thousands or millions of people agree upon one thing, that doesn't make it real. >If you watch, are you as bad as someone who has pushed it in? Or not? In both cases, you're the agent that decided whether the child lived or died. This is a loaded question followed by a loaded statement. I would go so far as to say a logical fallacy as well. I won't bring up variables such as having a crippling panic attack from experiencing the situation thus hindering you unable to save the child. Though, I will take the easy way out on this one because I'm tired: Person "A" is telling you they are going to shoot person "B." You have the option of standing between person "B" and the gun, thus ensuring person "B" does not get shot, but you absolutely will be shot. If I decide not to stand in front of the bullet, does that make you as bad as the person with the gun? Does that make you a killer? TL;DR: Do the realities of pathological liars constitute a reality? Given the option, not putting myself between a bullet and another person does not make me a killer. If I'm missing anything, let me know. I'm super tired. Going to bed.

>That it was real enough for them that it didn't matter that for you it wasn't? If they remember it as real, then what's the difference? I don't particularly believe "real enough" has enough qualifiers for reality. It either happened or it didn't. Yes, the act of thinking is a reality. You think. It happens. But as I said before, and I'm sorry for repeating my argument, the values of the thought don't constitute reality unless it's a memory of a particular event. Even that claim is a bit wishy washy considering we all perceive an event in different ways. Though, I think we can agree that if 5 people saw John Doe fall to the ground dead, that would be the reality of the scenario. The events leading up to said event undoubtedly could sway from person to person. But that's not the point. The point is we all agree that the event happened. John Doe died. Whether or not you remember someone sneezing before hand I would say is memory-timey-whimey-rolled-up-in-a-carpet-stuff. The difference, I would say, lies on a particular threshold between crazy and real, [hallucination]( of memory and a factual occurrence, acceptable and unacceptable recollection. A pathological liar will believe their lies as solid truths and fight the entire way for their "reality" to be true. If in Jane Doe's pathological liar of a mind her father is dead, then her father is dead. Upon seeing her father alive and well, her mind will not recognize him as her father. Instead, she will continue to live the lie she has constructed to horrifying ends. We all agree that her father is alive except her. Whose reality is correct: the five people's who are talking to him face to face or his daughter who believes, in her mind, he is dead? Obviously Jane Doe has a completely unacceptable reality she is presenting where as we have a completely acceptable one. So what about that threshold? Lets revisit John Doe and the mystery sneeze. Most story telling happens in three ways: This is exactly what happened. - there is no faulting from the correct story. This is pretty much the whole story. - You get the main event, but some of the details are a little skewed. You flew from New York to California in 2 hours. - No truth, no real facts, straight up fabrication. The threshold is all about number two. An amount of information is given that either brings the story into the red as not reality or in the green as reality. The more factual information there is, the more readily we are willing to accept that fabrications thrown in there. The opposite stands true as well. The closer you are to factual events, the more likely it's going to be considered reality. <Insert something pertaining to mass hallucinations as a contradictory argument here> Well, unfortunately we know from the past and present that just because thousands or millions of people agree upon one thing, that doesn't make it real. >If you watch, are you as bad as someone who has pushed it in? Or not? In both cases, you're the agent that decided whether the child lived or died. This is a loaded question followed by a loaded statement. I would go so far as to say a logical fallacy as well. I won't bring up variables such as having a crippling panic attack from experiencing the situation thus hindering you unable to save the child. Though, I will take the easy way out on this one because I'm tired: Person "A" is telling you they are going to shoot person "B." You have the option of standing between person "B" and the gun, thus ensuring person "B" does not get shot, but you absolutely will be shot. If I decide not to stand in front of the bullet, does that make you as bad as the person with the gun? Does that make you a killer? TL;DR: Do the realities of pathological liars constitute a reality? Given the option, not putting myself between a bullet and another person does not make me a killer. If I'm missing anything, let me know. I'm super tired. Going to bed.

funny

t5_2qh33

cfhom63

That it was real enough for them that it didn't matter that for you it wasn't? If they remember it as real, then what's the difference? I don't particularly believe "real enough" has enough qualifiers for reality. It either happened or it didn't. Yes, the act of thinking is a reality. You think. It happens. But as I said before, and I'm sorry for repeating my argument, the values of the thought don't constitute reality unless it's a memory of a particular event. Even that claim is a bit wishy washy considering we all perceive an event in different ways. Though, I think we can agree that if 5 people saw John Doe fall to the ground dead, that would be the reality of the scenario. The events leading up to said event undoubtedly could sway from person to person. But that's not the point. The point is we all agree that the event happened. John Doe died. Whether or not you remember someone sneezing before hand I would say is memory-timey-whimey-rolled-up-in-a-carpet-stuff. The difference, I would say, lies on a particular threshold between crazy and real, [hallucination]( of memory and a factual occurrence, acceptable and unacceptable recollection. A pathological liar will believe their lies as solid truths and fight the entire way for their "reality" to be true. If in Jane Doe's pathological liar of a mind her father is dead, then her father is dead. Upon seeing her father alive and well, her mind will not recognize him as her father. Instead, she will continue to live the lie she has constructed to horrifying ends. We all agree that her father is alive except her. Whose reality is correct: the five people's who are talking to him face to face or his daughter who believes, in her mind, he is dead? Obviously Jane Doe has a completely unacceptable reality she is presenting where as we have a completely acceptable one. So what about that threshold? Lets revisit John Doe and the mystery sneeze. Most story telling happens in three ways: This is exactly what happened. - there is no faulting from the correct story. This is pretty much the whole story. - You get the main event, but some of the details are a little skewed. You flew from New York to California in 2 hours. - No truth, no real facts, straight up fabrication. The threshold is all about number two. An amount of information is given that either brings the story into the red as not reality or in the green as reality. The more factual information there is, the more readily we are willing to accept that fabrications thrown in there. The opposite stands true as well. The closer you are to factual events, the more likely it's going to be considered reality. <Insert something pertaining to mass hallucinations as a contradictory argument here> Well, unfortunately we know from the past and present that just because thousands or millions of people agree upon one thing, that doesn't make it real. >If you watch, are you as bad as someone who has pushed it in? Or not? In both cases, you're the agent that decided whether the child lived or died. This is a loaded question followed by a loaded statement. I would go so far as to say a logical fallacy as well. I won't bring up variables such as having a crippling panic attack from experiencing the situation thus hindering you unable to save the child. Though, I will take the easy way out on this one because I'm tired: Person "A" is telling you they are going to shoot person "B." You have the option of standing between person "B" and the gun, thus ensuring person "B" does not get shot, but you absolutely will be shot. If I decide not to stand in front of the bullet, does that make you as bad as the person with the gun? Does that make you a killer?

Do the realities of pathological liars constitute a reality? Given the option, not putting myself between a bullet and another person does not make me a killer. If I'm missing anything, let me know. I'm super tired. Going to bed.

sagewah

Many years ago I thought I'd try something fun and while my (then) girlfriend was in the shower, I very quickly lined our bed with Christmas lights. Turned them on, trotted off for a joint. A few minutes later she comes out to join me and she's got this *look* in her eye.. she sits down, and incredibly nonchalantly asks me if there's anything I'd like to ask her. *Oh. Fuck*. See, I just wanted to get a little blitzed and have great sex illuminated by flashing Christmas lights. She thought I was going to propose... I felt as bad as anyone can while having great stoned sex illuminated by pretty lights. TL,DR: When a girl wants you to propose she will start to see almost anything you do as a potential proposal. Tread very, very carefully.

Many years ago I thought I'd try something fun and while my (then) girlfriend was in the shower, I very quickly lined our bed with Christmas lights. Turned them on, trotted off for a joint. A few minutes later she comes out to join me and she's got this look in her eye.. she sits down, and incredibly nonchalantly asks me if there's anything I'd like to ask her. Oh. Fuck . See, I just wanted to get a little blitzed and have great sex illuminated by flashing Christmas lights. She thought I was going to propose... I felt as bad as anyone can while having great stoned sex illuminated by pretty lights. TL,DR: When a girl wants you to propose she will start to see almost anything you do as a potential proposal. Tread very, very carefully.

funny

t5_2qh33

cfgnqdj

Many years ago I thought I'd try something fun and while my (then) girlfriend was in the shower, I very quickly lined our bed with Christmas lights. Turned them on, trotted off for a joint. A few minutes later she comes out to join me and she's got this look in her eye.. she sits down, and incredibly nonchalantly asks me if there's anything I'd like to ask her. Oh. Fuck . See, I just wanted to get a little blitzed and have great sex illuminated by flashing Christmas lights. She thought I was going to propose... I felt as bad as anyone can while having great stoned sex illuminated by pretty lights.

When a girl wants you to propose she will start to see almost anything you do as a potential proposal. Tread very, very carefully.

ImReallyNewHere

Adam Vaughn has been actively involved in revitalization and has been a great advocate for the Alexandra Park community. In regards to the number of subsidized units, there will be no reductions. Unfortunately, there will not be any units added though either. This is due to the fact that funding is coming exclusively from the sale of market rent condos. There is simply not enough money to add units without assistance from the government. To clear up what /u/lethal_weapon_five mentioned, the number of new subsidized units being built, is less than the number of new market rent units being built. This is because *not all the subsidized units are being demolished*. The appartments on Vanauly Walk and Augusta Ave. for example, will be refurbished rather than torn down. This makes it look like there will be more market rent units, because they currently do not exist. The numbers that appear on the proposal signs *do not* include units that are being refurbished (two rather large appt. buildings). **TL;DR: Adam Vaughn is not a liar. The number of subsidized units on the property will remain the same.**

Adam Vaughn has been actively involved in revitalization and has been a great advocate for the Alexandra Park community. In regards to the number of subsidized units, there will be no reductions. Unfortunately, there will not be any units added though either. This is due to the fact that funding is coming exclusively from the sale of market rent condos. There is simply not enough money to add units without assistance from the government. To clear up what /u/lethal_weapon_five mentioned, the number of new subsidized units being built, is less than the number of new market rent units being built. This is because not all the subsidized units are being demolished . The appartments on Vanauly Walk and Augusta Ave. for example, will be refurbished rather than torn down. This makes it look like there will be more market rent units, because they currently do not exist. The numbers that appear on the proposal signs do not include units that are being refurbished (two rather large appt. buildings). TL;DR: Adam Vaughn is not a liar. The number of subsidized units on the property will remain the same.

toronto

t5_2qi63

cfh1ky5

Adam Vaughn has been actively involved in revitalization and has been a great advocate for the Alexandra Park community. In regards to the number of subsidized units, there will be no reductions. Unfortunately, there will not be any units added though either. This is due to the fact that funding is coming exclusively from the sale of market rent condos. There is simply not enough money to add units without assistance from the government. To clear up what /u/lethal_weapon_five mentioned, the number of new subsidized units being built, is less than the number of new market rent units being built. This is because not all the subsidized units are being demolished . The appartments on Vanauly Walk and Augusta Ave. for example, will be refurbished rather than torn down. This makes it look like there will be more market rent units, because they currently do not exist. The numbers that appear on the proposal signs do not include units that are being refurbished (two rather large appt. buildings).

Adam Vaughn is not a liar. The number of subsidized units on the property will remain the same.

Co_Jack

you have to remember that raidens mission in MGS2 was basically a simulation of the shadow moses incident. the patriots have been looking to replicate big boss in some way, and the les enfant terribles wasnt a shining example of success, seeing as it didnt quite go as planned with 2 of its 3 surviving subjects being liquid and solid, and we all know how that turned out for the patriots. so the colonel wasnt really campbell, as /u/Bangersss expertly pointed out, and the AI freakout towards the end of 2 should have been a pretty big giveaway. TL;DR nanomachines

you have to remember that raidens mission in MGS2 was basically a simulation of the shadow moses incident. the patriots have been looking to replicate big boss in some way, and the les enfant terribles wasnt a shining example of success, seeing as it didnt quite go as planned with 2 of its 3 surviving subjects being liquid and solid, and we all know how that turned out for the patriots. so the colonel wasnt really campbell, as /u/Bangersss expertly pointed out, and the AI freakout towards the end of 2 should have been a pretty big giveaway. TL;DR nanomachines

metalgearsolid

t5_2s4hr

cfgoomo

you have to remember that raidens mission in MGS2 was basically a simulation of the shadow moses incident. the patriots have been looking to replicate big boss in some way, and the les enfant terribles wasnt a shining example of success, seeing as it didnt quite go as planned with 2 of its 3 surviving subjects being liquid and solid, and we all know how that turned out for the patriots. so the colonel wasnt really campbell, as /u/Bangersss expertly pointed out, and the AI freakout towards the end of 2 should have been a pretty big giveaway.

nanomachines

Segal-train

Both Ty and Thee Oh Sees are incredibly prolific. Much like THEE OH SEES, Ty albums are all fairly unique. Since you liked Mikal Cronin I would suggest Goodbye Bread for you, as it kind of has a similar feel to Mikal. His most recent album Sleepers is acoustic and mellow, so you might be into that too. If you are more interested in some heavier stuff Slaughterhouse by the Ty Segall Band is great. Again like THEE OH SEES, Ty has an album which showcases his many sounds, which is Twins. It has a great mix of garage, punk and simple songwriting. But basically anything coming from that scene is golden right now. THee Oh Sees, Mikal Cronin, Wooden Shjips, TY and so many more! TLDR: Probably the best for you specifically is Goodbye Bread, because you are into Mikal Cronin already. For people completely new to this sound, Twins is probably the best.

Both Ty and Thee Oh Sees are incredibly prolific. Much like THEE OH SEES, Ty albums are all fairly unique. Since you liked Mikal Cronin I would suggest Goodbye Bread for you, as it kind of has a similar feel to Mikal. His most recent album Sleepers is acoustic and mellow, so you might be into that too. If you are more interested in some heavier stuff Slaughterhouse by the Ty Segall Band is great. Again like THEE OH SEES, Ty has an album which showcases his many sounds, which is Twins. It has a great mix of garage, punk and simple songwriting. But basically anything coming from that scene is golden right now. THee Oh Sees, Mikal Cronin, Wooden Shjips, TY and so many more! TLDR: Probably the best for you specifically is Goodbye Bread, because you are into Mikal Cronin already. For people completely new to this sound, Twins is probably the best.

indieheads

t5_2zj24

cfh2slf

Both Ty and Thee Oh Sees are incredibly prolific. Much like THEE OH SEES, Ty albums are all fairly unique. Since you liked Mikal Cronin I would suggest Goodbye Bread for you, as it kind of has a similar feel to Mikal. His most recent album Sleepers is acoustic and mellow, so you might be into that too. If you are more interested in some heavier stuff Slaughterhouse by the Ty Segall Band is great. Again like THEE OH SEES, Ty has an album which showcases his many sounds, which is Twins. It has a great mix of garage, punk and simple songwriting. But basically anything coming from that scene is golden right now. THee Oh Sees, Mikal Cronin, Wooden Shjips, TY and so many more!

Probably the best for you specifically is Goodbye Bread, because you are into Mikal Cronin already. For people completely new to this sound, Twins is probably the best.

jefferies227

Dude--I thought it was just me! Although my timing is different, my first Eagle Rare bottle was purchased early-to-mid-2013 and I loved it. Had great flavor and was a smoother alternative to other more potent whiskies/bourbons that I normally enjoy. I picked up another bottle around thanksgiving 2013 to share with a friend who had never tried it before, touting it's under the radar quality. Sure enough, the bottle was quite underwhelming. It was a bit more pungent while at the same time lacking the full flavor profile and completeness that my original bottle had. I was confused, chalking it up to misremembering while having to defend my palate, but I'm glad someone else out there had this experience. tl;dr: your comment makes me feel vindicated.

Dude--I thought it was just me! Although my timing is different, my first Eagle Rare bottle was purchased early-to-mid-2013 and I loved it. Had great flavor and was a smoother alternative to other more potent whiskies/bourbons that I normally enjoy. I picked up another bottle around thanksgiving 2013 to share with a friend who had never tried it before, touting it's under the radar quality. Sure enough, the bottle was quite underwhelming. It was a bit more pungent while at the same time lacking the full flavor profile and completeness that my original bottle had. I was confused, chalking it up to misremembering while having to defend my palate, but I'm glad someone else out there had this experience. tl;dr: your comment makes me feel vindicated.

whiskey

t5_2r06y

cfkgw30

Dude--I thought it was just me! Although my timing is different, my first Eagle Rare bottle was purchased early-to-mid-2013 and I loved it. Had great flavor and was a smoother alternative to other more potent whiskies/bourbons that I normally enjoy. I picked up another bottle around thanksgiving 2013 to share with a friend who had never tried it before, touting it's under the radar quality. Sure enough, the bottle was quite underwhelming. It was a bit more pungent while at the same time lacking the full flavor profile and completeness that my original bottle had. I was confused, chalking it up to misremembering while having to defend my palate, but I'm glad someone else out there had this experience.

your comment makes me feel vindicated.

MoonlitHaze

well, since people are very unlikely to look at their own mistakes, and junglers are the second most related players to the lane, ofc u get blamed all the time. The only thing you can do is just deal with it and keep playing ur best, thats how i move from s1 bronze to d3 diamond in jungle. TL;DR: jungler is the bitch role, deal with it, and keep playing

well, since people are very unlikely to look at their own mistakes, and junglers are the second most related players to the lane, ofc u get blamed all the time. The only thing you can do is just deal with it and keep playing ur best, thats how i move from s1 bronze to d3 diamond in jungle. TL;DR: jungler is the bitch role, deal with it, and keep playing

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

cfhdz0h

well, since people are very unlikely to look at their own mistakes, and junglers are the second most related players to the lane, ofc u get blamed all the time. The only thing you can do is just deal with it and keep playing ur best, thats how i move from s1 bronze to d3 diamond in jungle.

jungler is the bitch role, deal with it, and keep playing

Blahblkusoi

That's a much smarter way to do it IMO. I think having a public higher education system would be the best thing the US could do right now. The system in the USA is an obvious scam, cutting tens of thousands of dollars out of people for classes and books. The information isn't even worth hearing about half the time, and the other half it is only slightly more informative than the classes taken in public school, covering most of the same information with slight changes. Colleges are here to get as much money as possible, and the social movement to "get a degree if you want to be successful" is absolutely playing straight into that and I guarantee you that is what has allowed student loans to skyrocket. Obviously that's ridiculous since countless entrepreneurs and laborers without college degrees are happy and successful, but it still gets shoved down everyone's throat every single day in public school. Then everyone goes out of fear of being 'unsuccessful' and spends WAY more than they can afford through student loans, racking up a massive debt that on occasion completely outweighs the financial benefit of the degree (we calculated my roommates loan debt next to the highest salary he can expect from his work, he would have made more money working minimum wage his whole life). If colleges are allowed to continue raising interest rates, it's entirely possible that the rates will get to the point that it's impossible to get out of debt without investing a good 10 to 20 years after graduation solely to paying off debt and bills. That would utterly destroy other industries by sapping almost all young potential consumers since nearly every single person thought they had to go to college to be worth anything and now they can't spend anything on anything except loans. Tl;dr Colleges use the idea that graduates are higher status individuals to siphon as much out of young and hopeful people as possible, and if left alone could disfigure or otherwise destroy the US economy by bankrupting the youth.

That's a much smarter way to do it IMO. I think having a public higher education system would be the best thing the US could do right now. The system in the USA is an obvious scam, cutting tens of thousands of dollars out of people for classes and books. The information isn't even worth hearing about half the time, and the other half it is only slightly more informative than the classes taken in public school, covering most of the same information with slight changes. Colleges are here to get as much money as possible, and the social movement to "get a degree if you want to be successful" is absolutely playing straight into that and I guarantee you that is what has allowed student loans to skyrocket. Obviously that's ridiculous since countless entrepreneurs and laborers without college degrees are happy and successful, but it still gets shoved down everyone's throat every single day in public school. Then everyone goes out of fear of being 'unsuccessful' and spends WAY more than they can afford through student loans, racking up a massive debt that on occasion completely outweighs the financial benefit of the degree (we calculated my roommates loan debt next to the highest salary he can expect from his work, he would have made more money working minimum wage his whole life). If colleges are allowed to continue raising interest rates, it's entirely possible that the rates will get to the point that it's impossible to get out of debt without investing a good 10 to 20 years after graduation solely to paying off debt and bills. That would utterly destroy other industries by sapping almost all young potential consumers since nearly every single person thought they had to go to college to be worth anything and now they can't spend anything on anything except loans. Tl;dr Colleges use the idea that graduates are higher status individuals to siphon as much out of young and hopeful people as possible, and if left alone could disfigure or otherwise destroy the US economy by bankrupting the youth.

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

cfhsptq

That's a much smarter way to do it IMO. I think having a public higher education system would be the best thing the US could do right now. The system in the USA is an obvious scam, cutting tens of thousands of dollars out of people for classes and books. The information isn't even worth hearing about half the time, and the other half it is only slightly more informative than the classes taken in public school, covering most of the same information with slight changes. Colleges are here to get as much money as possible, and the social movement to "get a degree if you want to be successful" is absolutely playing straight into that and I guarantee you that is what has allowed student loans to skyrocket. Obviously that's ridiculous since countless entrepreneurs and laborers without college degrees are happy and successful, but it still gets shoved down everyone's throat every single day in public school. Then everyone goes out of fear of being 'unsuccessful' and spends WAY more than they can afford through student loans, racking up a massive debt that on occasion completely outweighs the financial benefit of the degree (we calculated my roommates loan debt next to the highest salary he can expect from his work, he would have made more money working minimum wage his whole life). If colleges are allowed to continue raising interest rates, it's entirely possible that the rates will get to the point that it's impossible to get out of debt without investing a good 10 to 20 years after graduation solely to paying off debt and bills. That would utterly destroy other industries by sapping almost all young potential consumers since nearly every single person thought they had to go to college to be worth anything and now they can't spend anything on anything except loans.

Colleges use the idea that graduates are higher status individuals to siphon as much out of young and hopeful people as possible, and if left alone could disfigure or otherwise destroy the US economy by bankrupting the youth.

Arugulaboogaloo

Does he ever jerk off in front of you? If not, see if he is willing to do so. If he does, watch closely to see how he likes to get himself off. How light is his touch? What rhythm does he like? What kind of grip does he use? And so on. The next time you give him a hand job, try to incorporate what you learned. As far as enthusiasm is concerned, I think that should be the number one thing that you should bring to the act. If you have been on this sub for a while, you would have surely seen the recurring survey of what men like best when receiving a blowjob. Enthusiasm *always* gets rated highly. Think of your favorite sexual act. Now imagine your bf simply going through the motions, looking disinterested, bored, distracted, whatever-anything but totally in the moment. How would you feel on an emotional level? Would the act feel intimate, or like some informal transaction? If my SO isn't feeling it, I much prefer a small kiss, a gentle squeeze, and a rain check on sexy times, rather than a listless session that I *know* she isn't feeling. **tl;dr:** Enthusiasm matters.

Does he ever jerk off in front of you? If not, see if he is willing to do so. If he does, watch closely to see how he likes to get himself off. How light is his touch? What rhythm does he like? What kind of grip does he use? And so on. The next time you give him a hand job, try to incorporate what you learned. As far as enthusiasm is concerned, I think that should be the number one thing that you should bring to the act. If you have been on this sub for a while, you would have surely seen the recurring survey of what men like best when receiving a blowjob. Enthusiasm always gets rated highly. Think of your favorite sexual act. Now imagine your bf simply going through the motions, looking disinterested, bored, distracted, whatever-anything but totally in the moment. How would you feel on an emotional level? Would the act feel intimate, or like some informal transaction? If my SO isn't feeling it, I much prefer a small kiss, a gentle squeeze, and a rain check on sexy times, rather than a listless session that I know she isn't feeling. tl;dr: Enthusiasm matters.

sex

t5_2qh3p

cfhjrkv

Does he ever jerk off in front of you? If not, see if he is willing to do so. If he does, watch closely to see how he likes to get himself off. How light is his touch? What rhythm does he like? What kind of grip does he use? And so on. The next time you give him a hand job, try to incorporate what you learned. As far as enthusiasm is concerned, I think that should be the number one thing that you should bring to the act. If you have been on this sub for a while, you would have surely seen the recurring survey of what men like best when receiving a blowjob. Enthusiasm always gets rated highly. Think of your favorite sexual act. Now imagine your bf simply going through the motions, looking disinterested, bored, distracted, whatever-anything but totally in the moment. How would you feel on an emotional level? Would the act feel intimate, or like some informal transaction? If my SO isn't feeling it, I much prefer a small kiss, a gentle squeeze, and a rain check on sexy times, rather than a listless session that I know she isn't feeling.

Enthusiasm matters.

negativeone2012

I had a similar experience at my cert and it was disappointing to see. As time has gone on though I've watched how the free market nature of crossfit works out. I've seen gyms fail that have poor coaches and I've seen gyms succeed who have had great coaching. It's very much a real thing that the success or failure in a lot of the industry is based on the reputation of those boxes. In my area we have a couple big-box gyms that either offer crossfit classes or "crossfit like" classes (where they haven't paid to be an affiliate and use the crossfit name), they offer substantially cheaper memberships and yet our box which is owned by a couple is doing really well membership wise and continues to grow despite their competition offering an alternative that's so much cheaper. tl;dr The freemarket system seems to be working in weeding out the bad coaches/owners

I had a similar experience at my cert and it was disappointing to see. As time has gone on though I've watched how the free market nature of crossfit works out. I've seen gyms fail that have poor coaches and I've seen gyms succeed who have had great coaching. It's very much a real thing that the success or failure in a lot of the industry is based on the reputation of those boxes. In my area we have a couple big-box gyms that either offer crossfit classes or "crossfit like" classes (where they haven't paid to be an affiliate and use the crossfit name), they offer substantially cheaper memberships and yet our box which is owned by a couple is doing really well membership wise and continues to grow despite their competition offering an alternative that's so much cheaper. tl;dr The freemarket system seems to be working in weeding out the bad coaches/owners

crossfit

t5_2qqfd

cfjiprw

I had a similar experience at my cert and it was disappointing to see. As time has gone on though I've watched how the free market nature of crossfit works out. I've seen gyms fail that have poor coaches and I've seen gyms succeed who have had great coaching. It's very much a real thing that the success or failure in a lot of the industry is based on the reputation of those boxes. In my area we have a couple big-box gyms that either offer crossfit classes or "crossfit like" classes (where they haven't paid to be an affiliate and use the crossfit name), they offer substantially cheaper memberships and yet our box which is owned by a couple is doing really well membership wise and continues to grow despite their competition offering an alternative that's so much cheaper.

The freemarket system seems to be working in weeding out the bad coaches/owners

SteelKage

About your "rapists' paradise" and the religion hijacking comment; here is something I posted a few days ago: ................... So hey, listen to this; parts of Saudi Arabia, say the capital, Riyadh have a really strict environment for 'immoral' acts. There's even this sort of [law enforcement division]( -wikipedia link- that is in charge of reacting to anything that may be you know, immoral. Also, the segregation between men and women is in a way a result of the extreme reactions that that group. So now you have as a result is what? A mass of guys with almost no way to disperse sexual tension, because there are no women. What I'm trying to say is, that the strict parts of Saudi Arabia are seriously gay, or bisexual (I mean they prefer women but will still go for guys). The guys would fuck in school stalls for pete's sake. I've heard stories from my Saudi friends (I'm Syrian by the way) and yeah, it is INSANE. /u/JZ_212: &gt; [The guys would fuck in school stalls for pete's sake.]( &gt; Jeebus, that sounds horrid. Kind of like prison, when there arent any chicks you go for the next best thing. Is the segregation really that bad? I mean, risking being beheaded to get a quickie (from a sex you arent really attracted to) doesnt really sound that sensible imo. &gt; Do they really do it just to get a quickie? I mean isnt the main argument pro-gay that you are born liking the same sex? Ah prison! That sounds almost exactly how it is. So you could say that they aren't really gay as people define it, but how do I put this more eloquently... They're really horny, and have a high libido is as close as it'll get to describe their situation. We've all heard of stories of some kid who masturbates in school, but these guys would stick their junk through the leg of their pants and just rub all day. (Yeah, apparently they have big dicks) Another thing a friend told me is that, they'd marry any woman. Doesn't matter if she's 30 years older or whatever, just that she has a vagina and a pair of tits. I reserved this story to the end because i think my buddy might have been exaggerating, but he's a originally Syrian and a fairly good looking guy, so according to him, the situation for him when he moved to S.A was like he was some hot chick afraid of being gangraped. I mean goddamn. To answer your question if they're willing to risk getting executed just to get off, the Hai'a (that's the committee thing I told you about) won't really find out unless they can see you. I mean what are they gonna do, ban friends from visiting each other? So unless someone rats them out out, they're safe. Take all this with consideration that you and I may have been told only the extreme stories. I mean I've heard the stories from different friends but still, sometimes stuff gets exaggerated. FUN FACT: Saudi dudes will travel to other Arab countries to get booze. ^^hah ^^that ^^rhymes... ........................ Yeah so not completely on topic but still talks about the state the country is in because of repressing the women. Hell, a few years ago my friend told me that women weren't allowed to drive... And then HE justified it by saying that traffic jams almost an all day thing in some places and it's insane; and if the other half of the population was on the roads the roads would stop. TLDR; Explains what happened due to women being repressed (again, can't find a better word). +Saudi dudes are kinda gay.

About your "rapists' paradise" and the religion hijacking comment; here is something I posted a few days ago: ................... So hey, listen to this; parts of Saudi Arabia, say the capital, Riyadh have a really strict environment for 'immoral' acts. There's even this sort of law enforcement division . The guys would fuck in school stalls for pete's sake. I've heard stories from my Saudi friends (I'm Syrian by the way) and yeah, it is INSANE. /u/JZ_212: > [The guys would fuck in school stalls for pete's sake.]( > Jeebus, that sounds horrid. Kind of like prison, when there arent any chicks you go for the next best thing. Is the segregation really that bad? I mean, risking being beheaded to get a quickie (from a sex you arent really attracted to) doesnt really sound that sensible imo. > Do they really do it just to get a quickie? I mean isnt the main argument pro-gay that you are born liking the same sex? Ah prison! That sounds almost exactly how it is. So you could say that they aren't really gay as people define it, but how do I put this more eloquently... They're really horny, and have a high libido is as close as it'll get to describe their situation. We've all heard of stories of some kid who masturbates in school, but these guys would stick their junk through the leg of their pants and just rub all day. (Yeah, apparently they have big dicks) Another thing a friend told me is that, they'd marry any woman. Doesn't matter if she's 30 years older or whatever, just that she has a vagina and a pair of tits. I reserved this story to the end because i think my buddy might have been exaggerating, but he's a originally Syrian and a fairly good looking guy, so according to him, the situation for him when he moved to S.A was like he was some hot chick afraid of being gangraped. I mean goddamn. To answer your question if they're willing to risk getting executed just to get off, the Hai'a (that's the committee thing I told you about) won't really find out unless they can see you. I mean what are they gonna do, ban friends from visiting each other? So unless someone rats them out out, they're safe. Take all this with consideration that you and I may have been told only the extreme stories. I mean I've heard the stories from different friends but still, sometimes stuff gets exaggerated. FUN FACT: Saudi dudes will travel to other Arab countries to get booze. ^^hah ^^that ^^rhymes... ........................ Yeah so not completely on topic but still talks about the state the country is in because of repressing the women. Hell, a few years ago my friend told me that women weren't allowed to drive... And then HE justified it by saying that traffic jams almost an all day thing in some places and it's insane; and if the other half of the population was on the roads the roads would stop. TLDR; Explains what happened due to women being repressed (again, can't find a better word). +Saudi dudes are kinda gay.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

cfi69gu

About your "rapists' paradise" and the religion hijacking comment; here is something I posted a few days ago: ................... So hey, listen to this; parts of Saudi Arabia, say the capital, Riyadh have a really strict environment for 'immoral' acts. There's even this sort of law enforcement division . The guys would fuck in school stalls for pete's sake. I've heard stories from my Saudi friends (I'm Syrian by the way) and yeah, it is INSANE. /u/JZ_212: > [The guys would fuck in school stalls for pete's sake.]( > Jeebus, that sounds horrid. Kind of like prison, when there arent any chicks you go for the next best thing. Is the segregation really that bad? I mean, risking being beheaded to get a quickie (from a sex you arent really attracted to) doesnt really sound that sensible imo. > Do they really do it just to get a quickie? I mean isnt the main argument pro-gay that you are born liking the same sex? Ah prison! That sounds almost exactly how it is. So you could say that they aren't really gay as people define it, but how do I put this more eloquently... They're really horny, and have a high libido is as close as it'll get to describe their situation. We've all heard of stories of some kid who masturbates in school, but these guys would stick their junk through the leg of their pants and just rub all day. (Yeah, apparently they have big dicks) Another thing a friend told me is that, they'd marry any woman. Doesn't matter if she's 30 years older or whatever, just that she has a vagina and a pair of tits. I reserved this story to the end because i think my buddy might have been exaggerating, but he's a originally Syrian and a fairly good looking guy, so according to him, the situation for him when he moved to S.A was like he was some hot chick afraid of being gangraped. I mean goddamn. To answer your question if they're willing to risk getting executed just to get off, the Hai'a (that's the committee thing I told you about) won't really find out unless they can see you. I mean what are they gonna do, ban friends from visiting each other? So unless someone rats them out out, they're safe. Take all this with consideration that you and I may have been told only the extreme stories. I mean I've heard the stories from different friends but still, sometimes stuff gets exaggerated. FUN FACT: Saudi dudes will travel to other Arab countries to get booze. ^^hah ^^that ^^rhymes... ........................ Yeah so not completely on topic but still talks about the state the country is in because of repressing the women. Hell, a few years ago my friend told me that women weren't allowed to drive... And then HE justified it by saying that traffic jams almost an all day thing in some places and it's insane; and if the other half of the population was on the roads the roads would stop.

Explains what happened due to women being repressed (again, can't find a better word). +Saudi dudes are kinda gay.

CalOD

The biggest thing with LeBron for me is that I feel he's relatively humble in comparison. Everyone always bitches their tits off about how he's so arrogant...is he hell. He's been feared/respected/worshipped by 90% of the people he knows since he was 15 years old. Are you fucking kidding me? The kid was destined for greatness, he knew he was destined for greatness and he still had the motivation to get there. Not to mention, even now in his interviews he doesn't portray the self-righteous arrogance that other 'greats' have done. I just get so hyped about LbJ because he really is the consumate professional (for me). I understand everyone got pissy about Cleveland etc etc, but look what he's achieved since? 2 MVPs, 2 Finals MVPs, three-peat final appearances, a chance to three-peat...and of course, Two rings. TL;DR I fucking love Lebron.

The biggest thing with LeBron for me is that I feel he's relatively humble in comparison. Everyone always bitches their tits off about how he's so arrogant...is he hell. He's been feared/respected/worshipped by 90% of the people he knows since he was 15 years old. Are you fucking kidding me? The kid was destined for greatness, he knew he was destined for greatness and he still had the motivation to get there. Not to mention, even now in his interviews he doesn't portray the self-righteous arrogance that other 'greats' have done. I just get so hyped about LbJ because he really is the consumate professional (for me). I understand everyone got pissy about Cleveland etc etc, but look what he's achieved since? 2 MVPs, 2 Finals MVPs, three-peat final appearances, a chance to three-peat...and of course, Two rings. TL;DR I fucking love Lebron.

nba

t5_2qo4s

cfianwd

The biggest thing with LeBron for me is that I feel he's relatively humble in comparison. Everyone always bitches their tits off about how he's so arrogant...is he hell. He's been feared/respected/worshipped by 90% of the people he knows since he was 15 years old. Are you fucking kidding me? The kid was destined for greatness, he knew he was destined for greatness and he still had the motivation to get there. Not to mention, even now in his interviews he doesn't portray the self-righteous arrogance that other 'greats' have done. I just get so hyped about LbJ because he really is the consumate professional (for me). I understand everyone got pissy about Cleveland etc etc, but look what he's achieved since? 2 MVPs, 2 Finals MVPs, three-peat final appearances, a chance to three-peat...and of course, Two rings.

I fucking love Lebron.

Robutt-bot2000

I respectfully disagree. 3 million is a shit ton of money to any organization that gets it. For comparison, All Star saturday night generated $500,000 split up between charities. This was 3 million essentially generated from an extended press conference. Nobody had to do anything but turn on their TV for these kids to get their rec centers and computers and whatnot. And 3 million dollars will get you 3 million dollars worth of goods/services regardless of the "charity given vs. total income" ratio of the charity giver. Really, for me the charity was easily THE most redeeming value of the decision, regardless of the content or outcome. I mean, if somebody went on TV tomorrow and singled me out personally and just cursed me out for an hour, but the whole thing generated 3 million in charity, I'd have a hard time saying it wasn't worth it... fuckers. But an athlete just announcing his intentions and generating that - I have no problem with that at all. Hell, those kids might have had their own personal lamborghinis if only Brett Favre and Terrell Owens had been smart enough to do the same. Finally, the big thing in all of this - dude was absolutely right. It WAS one of the biggest events in sports. The entire NBA had been maneuvering for like 3 years in advance for Lebron's free agency. Entire cities were serenading him to come play for them the whole year leading up to it. His decision was going to be a huge event regardless of the actual show. Kudos to him then, for transforming it from just an NBA event to a massive cultural one. Also, going to Miami was also unequivocally the right decision even though most cavs fans don't want to hear it. There wouldn't have been any way where Lebron leaving would've been okay. Should he have demanded a trade, pulled a VC in toronto? Say he just told the cavs he wasn't going there before the decision - what would that have accomplished, other than it possibly (almost certainly) being leaked to the media? So not only was the decision good for him, it was incredible for the NBA as a whole. All those arguments, from it was always going to be Wade's team, to how he was only gonna be the 2nd banana, and how his legacy would be forever tarnished - all of it was completely wrong, just like saying "The Decision" was wrong. TL;DR Looking at it objectively from a grand scheme of things view - motherfucker was right, man, about pretty much all of it.

I respectfully disagree. 3 million is a shit ton of money to any organization that gets it. For comparison, All Star saturday night generated $500,000 split up between charities. This was 3 million essentially generated from an extended press conference. Nobody had to do anything but turn on their TV for these kids to get their rec centers and computers and whatnot. And 3 million dollars will get you 3 million dollars worth of goods/services regardless of the "charity given vs. total income" ratio of the charity giver. Really, for me the charity was easily THE most redeeming value of the decision, regardless of the content or outcome. I mean, if somebody went on TV tomorrow and singled me out personally and just cursed me out for an hour, but the whole thing generated 3 million in charity, I'd have a hard time saying it wasn't worth it... fuckers. But an athlete just announcing his intentions and generating that - I have no problem with that at all. Hell, those kids might have had their own personal lamborghinis if only Brett Favre and Terrell Owens had been smart enough to do the same. Finally, the big thing in all of this - dude was absolutely right. It WAS one of the biggest events in sports. The entire NBA had been maneuvering for like 3 years in advance for Lebron's free agency. Entire cities were serenading him to come play for them the whole year leading up to it. His decision was going to be a huge event regardless of the actual show. Kudos to him then, for transforming it from just an NBA event to a massive cultural one. Also, going to Miami was also unequivocally the right decision even though most cavs fans don't want to hear it. There wouldn't have been any way where Lebron leaving would've been okay. Should he have demanded a trade, pulled a VC in toronto? Say he just told the cavs he wasn't going there before the decision - what would that have accomplished, other than it possibly (almost certainly) being leaked to the media? So not only was the decision good for him, it was incredible for the NBA as a whole. All those arguments, from it was always going to be Wade's team, to how he was only gonna be the 2nd banana, and how his legacy would be forever tarnished - all of it was completely wrong, just like saying "The Decision" was wrong. TL;DR Looking at it objectively from a grand scheme of things view - motherfucker was right, man, about pretty much all of it.

nba

t5_2qo4s

cfinxav

I respectfully disagree. 3 million is a shit ton of money to any organization that gets it. For comparison, All Star saturday night generated $500,000 split up between charities. This was 3 million essentially generated from an extended press conference. Nobody had to do anything but turn on their TV for these kids to get their rec centers and computers and whatnot. And 3 million dollars will get you 3 million dollars worth of goods/services regardless of the "charity given vs. total income" ratio of the charity giver. Really, for me the charity was easily THE most redeeming value of the decision, regardless of the content or outcome. I mean, if somebody went on TV tomorrow and singled me out personally and just cursed me out for an hour, but the whole thing generated 3 million in charity, I'd have a hard time saying it wasn't worth it... fuckers. But an athlete just announcing his intentions and generating that - I have no problem with that at all. Hell, those kids might have had their own personal lamborghinis if only Brett Favre and Terrell Owens had been smart enough to do the same. Finally, the big thing in all of this - dude was absolutely right. It WAS one of the biggest events in sports. The entire NBA had been maneuvering for like 3 years in advance for Lebron's free agency. Entire cities were serenading him to come play for them the whole year leading up to it. His decision was going to be a huge event regardless of the actual show. Kudos to him then, for transforming it from just an NBA event to a massive cultural one. Also, going to Miami was also unequivocally the right decision even though most cavs fans don't want to hear it. There wouldn't have been any way where Lebron leaving would've been okay. Should he have demanded a trade, pulled a VC in toronto? Say he just told the cavs he wasn't going there before the decision - what would that have accomplished, other than it possibly (almost certainly) being leaked to the media? So not only was the decision good for him, it was incredible for the NBA as a whole. All those arguments, from it was always going to be Wade's team, to how he was only gonna be the 2nd banana, and how his legacy would be forever tarnished - all of it was completely wrong, just like saying "The Decision" was wrong.

Looking at it objectively from a grand scheme of things view - motherfucker was right, man, about pretty much all of it.

wyndysascha

I agree that arguing is fun! I also agree with Morkelebmink, that debate is perhaps better aimed at the *audience* rather than the *debaters*. Imagine an adversarial courtroom process, where the goal is to advance one's own case to the judge and jury rather than to cooperatively all advance towards some truth. The process exposes all evidence and arguments and allows for judgement by the observers. However, I don't agree with OP's belief that the debate *can't* change the debaters' minds. That presupposes a degree of intellectual dishonesty from one or both sides in the debate. Is your opponent so driven to win an argument that they would willfully ignore a logical contradiction? Are *you* so doctrinaire that you would gloss over an item of fact that undermined your case? Scientists and academics of all disciplines have to accept the simple truth, that previously cherished positions can be revised and even undermined by advancing knowledge. This acceptance is a day-to-day fact of their professional lives. In fact, as human beings, it should be a matter of course. One's own Christian faith can't live behind some sort of intellectual firewall. Challenges to our faith and doctrines are just that - **challenges**. They have to be met, and overcome, or else submitted to, or at least used to kick-start a process of enquiry. In as much as debate has a point, its point is the realization of conflict and the bringing to the fore of these challenges. We argue, then, to strengthen our beliefs or to gracefully give way: to acknowledge error based on faulty or incomplete understanding; or to incorporate new knowledge into an existing framework and so move closer to truth. As Christians, we shouldn't simply look at arguing with atheists as something to "win" or "lose", as adjudged by "changing minds" - arguing is an opportunity to advance. This all somewhat skips the role of faith, I know, and so is fairly incomplete as far as Christian understanding goes! All I'd say here then is that faith isn't meant to be a sticking-your-fingers-in-your-ears thing. It's not meant to insulate you from ideas and arguments you don't want to hear. It's also not meant to be a justification for browbeating others when your argument fails to convince. Our faith is our certainty in the salvation freely given to us by the ever-loving God. That faith must be strengthened at every opportunity, as a good in and of itself. You *can't* ignore challenges to your faith. You have to *strengthen* your faith by *meeting* the challenges. Refusing to argue will ultimately weaken your faith. Arguing with atheists will make you a better Christian, or at least help forestall you becoming a less faithful one, and that's why you should do it. **TL;DR** arguing isn't just "winning" and "losing", it's a faith strengthener and exercise in intellectual honesty.

I agree that arguing is fun! I also agree with Morkelebmink, that debate is perhaps better aimed at the audience rather than the debaters . Imagine an adversarial courtroom process, where the goal is to advance one's own case to the judge and jury rather than to cooperatively all advance towards some truth. The process exposes all evidence and arguments and allows for judgement by the observers. However, I don't agree with OP's belief that the debate can't change the debaters' minds. That presupposes a degree of intellectual dishonesty from one or both sides in the debate. Is your opponent so driven to win an argument that they would willfully ignore a logical contradiction? Are you so doctrinaire that you would gloss over an item of fact that undermined your case? Scientists and academics of all disciplines have to accept the simple truth, that previously cherished positions can be revised and even undermined by advancing knowledge. This acceptance is a day-to-day fact of their professional lives. In fact, as human beings, it should be a matter of course. One's own Christian faith can't live behind some sort of intellectual firewall. Challenges to our faith and doctrines are just that - challenges . They have to be met, and overcome, or else submitted to, or at least used to kick-start a process of enquiry. In as much as debate has a point, its point is the realization of conflict and the bringing to the fore of these challenges. We argue, then, to strengthen our beliefs or to gracefully give way: to acknowledge error based on faulty or incomplete understanding; or to incorporate new knowledge into an existing framework and so move closer to truth. As Christians, we shouldn't simply look at arguing with atheists as something to "win" or "lose", as adjudged by "changing minds" - arguing is an opportunity to advance. This all somewhat skips the role of faith, I know, and so is fairly incomplete as far as Christian understanding goes! All I'd say here then is that faith isn't meant to be a sticking-your-fingers-in-your-ears thing. It's not meant to insulate you from ideas and arguments you don't want to hear. It's also not meant to be a justification for browbeating others when your argument fails to convince. Our faith is our certainty in the salvation freely given to us by the ever-loving God. That faith must be strengthened at every opportunity, as a good in and of itself. You can't ignore challenges to your faith. You have to strengthen your faith by meeting the challenges. Refusing to argue will ultimately weaken your faith. Arguing with atheists will make you a better Christian, or at least help forestall you becoming a less faithful one, and that's why you should do it. TL;DR arguing isn't just "winning" and "losing", it's a faith strengthener and exercise in intellectual honesty.

Christianity

t5_2qh6c

cfi6icm

I agree that arguing is fun! I also agree with Morkelebmink, that debate is perhaps better aimed at the audience rather than the debaters . Imagine an adversarial courtroom process, where the goal is to advance one's own case to the judge and jury rather than to cooperatively all advance towards some truth. The process exposes all evidence and arguments and allows for judgement by the observers. However, I don't agree with OP's belief that the debate can't change the debaters' minds. That presupposes a degree of intellectual dishonesty from one or both sides in the debate. Is your opponent so driven to win an argument that they would willfully ignore a logical contradiction? Are you so doctrinaire that you would gloss over an item of fact that undermined your case? Scientists and academics of all disciplines have to accept the simple truth, that previously cherished positions can be revised and even undermined by advancing knowledge. This acceptance is a day-to-day fact of their professional lives. In fact, as human beings, it should be a matter of course. One's own Christian faith can't live behind some sort of intellectual firewall. Challenges to our faith and doctrines are just that - challenges . They have to be met, and overcome, or else submitted to, or at least used to kick-start a process of enquiry. In as much as debate has a point, its point is the realization of conflict and the bringing to the fore of these challenges. We argue, then, to strengthen our beliefs or to gracefully give way: to acknowledge error based on faulty or incomplete understanding; or to incorporate new knowledge into an existing framework and so move closer to truth. As Christians, we shouldn't simply look at arguing with atheists as something to "win" or "lose", as adjudged by "changing minds" - arguing is an opportunity to advance. This all somewhat skips the role of faith, I know, and so is fairly incomplete as far as Christian understanding goes! All I'd say here then is that faith isn't meant to be a sticking-your-fingers-in-your-ears thing. It's not meant to insulate you from ideas and arguments you don't want to hear. It's also not meant to be a justification for browbeating others when your argument fails to convince. Our faith is our certainty in the salvation freely given to us by the ever-loving God. That faith must be strengthened at every opportunity, as a good in and of itself. You can't ignore challenges to your faith. You have to strengthen your faith by meeting the challenges. Refusing to argue will ultimately weaken your faith. Arguing with atheists will make you a better Christian, or at least help forestall you becoming a less faithful one, and that's why you should do it.

arguing isn't just "winning" and "losing", it's a faith strengthener and exercise in intellectual honesty.

cracktr0

Everyone has a preference, so that is something you will have to work out on your own. I personally prefer right-click, like you described in the 1st part of your post, but it requires good accuracy on the mouse. I also believe it is the easiest to practice consistently. Try different ways and see what is more natural for you. tldr; Its preference, try them all a few times and see whats most natural and what gives you good results.

Everyone has a preference, so that is something you will have to work out on your own. I personally prefer right-click, like you described in the 1st part of your post, but it requires good accuracy on the mouse. I also believe it is the easiest to practice consistently. Try different ways and see what is more natural for you. tldr; Its preference, try them all a few times and see whats most natural and what gives you good results.

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

cfiacz8

Everyone has a preference, so that is something you will have to work out on your own. I personally prefer right-click, like you described in the 1st part of your post, but it requires good accuracy on the mouse. I also believe it is the easiest to practice consistently. Try different ways and see what is more natural for you.

Its preference, try them all a few times and see whats most natural and what gives you good results.

InsaneNoobz

I believe that this is personal preference, but for many people it is easier to right click away from or around the enemy (especially as Vayne, who you're supposed to feel like you're "boxxing" with the enemy) and then hit a and left click. The reason for this is that if you're constantly right clicking, and suddenly right click next to the enemy, instead of attacking them, you will start walking towards them, which will allow them to get free damage on you, which is not something you want as an ADC. That being said, when playing Vayne especially, you want to be sure not to miss your target as much as possible because it will reset your passive on whichever target you end up hitting. However, that will probably still be better than walking towards the enemy and getting killed instantly. TL;DR: Most people find it easier to right click and then A + left click.

I believe that this is personal preference, but for many people it is easier to right click away from or around the enemy (especially as Vayne, who you're supposed to feel like you're "boxxing" with the enemy) and then hit a and left click. The reason for this is that if you're constantly right clicking, and suddenly right click next to the enemy, instead of attacking them, you will start walking towards them, which will allow them to get free damage on you, which is not something you want as an ADC. That being said, when playing Vayne especially, you want to be sure not to miss your target as much as possible because it will reset your passive on whichever target you end up hitting. However, that will probably still be better than walking towards the enemy and getting killed instantly. TL;DR: Most people find it easier to right click and then A + left click.

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

cfifo5k

I believe that this is personal preference, but for many people it is easier to right click away from or around the enemy (especially as Vayne, who you're supposed to feel like you're "boxxing" with the enemy) and then hit a and left click. The reason for this is that if you're constantly right clicking, and suddenly right click next to the enemy, instead of attacking them, you will start walking towards them, which will allow them to get free damage on you, which is not something you want as an ADC. That being said, when playing Vayne especially, you want to be sure not to miss your target as much as possible because it will reset your passive on whichever target you end up hitting. However, that will probably still be better than walking towards the enemy and getting killed instantly.

Most people find it easier to right click and then A + left click.

TheQuestionaut

Not the greatest of argument because "we could prevent X by preventing all the things leading up to X" doesn't quite work in sport. I get the idea though, you minimise risks all the time, but sometimes, despite everything, a winger slips by you and puts in the cross, and despite practising defending crosses and jumping, the striker just managers to outjump you. tl;dr: shit happens :P

Not the greatest of argument because "we could prevent X by preventing all the things leading up to X" doesn't quite work in sport. I get the idea though, you minimise risks all the time, but sometimes, despite everything, a winger slips by you and puts in the cross, and despite practising defending crosses and jumping, the striker just managers to outjump you. tl;dr: shit happens :P

soccer

t5_2qi58

cfiwu93

Not the greatest of argument because "we could prevent X by preventing all the things leading up to X" doesn't quite work in sport. I get the idea though, you minimise risks all the time, but sometimes, despite everything, a winger slips by you and puts in the cross, and despite practising defending crosses and jumping, the striker just managers to outjump you.

shit happens :P

themanifoldcuriosity

Your points have been dealt with already. This isn't going to go anywhere with you continuing to fail to understand the distinction between defenders and defending. - A player who has possession of the ball isn't defending anything. That is black and white. Your talk of strikers intercepting pass backs is irrelevant. - As is your talk of luck. A player can be unlucky to have a short rebound of him and go in. A TEAM that prevents that shot being taken in the first place has defended well. - Likewise, a screamer from 30 yards is something you can't do much about. Unless that player is being pressed so hard he can't take the shot in the first place. That is good defence. Tldr: A perfect defence will never allow the game to be decided on luck or howlers or anything. The position will never be in a position to score because the players are *defending well*. And they will end the game having conceded no goals. That is black and white. Until you can present me an argument that proves that a team had never not conceded a goal during a game, you have no business being here.

Your points have been dealt with already. This isn't going to go anywhere with you continuing to fail to understand the distinction between defenders and defending. A player who has possession of the ball isn't defending anything. That is black and white. Your talk of strikers intercepting pass backs is irrelevant. As is your talk of luck. A player can be unlucky to have a short rebound of him and go in. A TEAM that prevents that shot being taken in the first place has defended well. Likewise, a screamer from 30 yards is something you can't do much about. Unless that player is being pressed so hard he can't take the shot in the first place. That is good defence. Tldr: A perfect defence will never allow the game to be decided on luck or howlers or anything. The position will never be in a position to score because the players are defending well . And they will end the game having conceded no goals. That is black and white. Until you can present me an argument that proves that a team had never not conceded a goal during a game, you have no business being here.

soccer

t5_2qi58

cfj5u0v

Your points have been dealt with already. This isn't going to go anywhere with you continuing to fail to understand the distinction between defenders and defending. A player who has possession of the ball isn't defending anything. That is black and white. Your talk of strikers intercepting pass backs is irrelevant. As is your talk of luck. A player can be unlucky to have a short rebound of him and go in. A TEAM that prevents that shot being taken in the first place has defended well. Likewise, a screamer from 30 yards is something you can't do much about. Unless that player is being pressed so hard he can't take the shot in the first place. That is good defence.

A perfect defence will never allow the game to be decided on luck or howlers or anything. The position will never be in a position to score because the players are defending well . And they will end the game having conceded no goals. That is black and white. Until you can present me an argument that proves that a team had never not conceded a goal during a game, you have no business being here.

macgyvertape

My friend's experience with the summer session was that the main challenge was easier than during the year, and the initial design project was shorter. On the other had it is a smaller class, so there were less TAs around to have open lab hours. The summer semester is shorter, so unless you plan well, and are able to work on parts of the project individually, you will basically live in the MRDC. tldr: it's manageable if your group can figure out how do work on things independently. Also if you aren't taking a lot of hours.

My friend's experience with the summer session was that the main challenge was easier than during the year, and the initial design project was shorter. On the other had it is a smaller class, so there were less TAs around to have open lab hours. The summer semester is shorter, so unless you plan well, and are able to work on parts of the project individually, you will basically live in the MRDC. tldr: it's manageable if your group can figure out how do work on things independently. Also if you aren't taking a lot of hours.

gatech

t5_2r8t2

cfifyv8

My friend's experience with the summer session was that the main challenge was easier than during the year, and the initial design project was shorter. On the other had it is a smaller class, so there were less TAs around to have open lab hours. The summer semester is shorter, so unless you plan well, and are able to work on parts of the project individually, you will basically live in the MRDC.

it's manageable if your group can figure out how do work on things independently. Also if you aren't taking a lot of hours.

dogtulosba

Totally agree. Just did a fishing trip in Cozumel. We went directly to the charter via cab. Was funny because as we were settling in the fishing boat while in the harbor, quite a few other boats were heading out to receive their charter clients. At first we thought we got screwed since we had a $15 cab ride to pay for. When we got out to the ocean, it quickly became apparent that we scored. The other boats were packed like a can of sardines. Sorry, but we wanted to get away from some of the cruise population. Also noticed that the other boats didn't go out very far. Pretty much held the same course, with a good view of the beach and parasail though. TL;DR- Agree. Skeptical at first, but worth it.

Totally agree. Just did a fishing trip in Cozumel. We went directly to the charter via cab. Was funny because as we were settling in the fishing boat while in the harbor, quite a few other boats were heading out to receive their charter clients. At first we thought we got screwed since we had a $15 cab ride to pay for. When we got out to the ocean, it quickly became apparent that we scored. The other boats were packed like a can of sardines. Sorry, but we wanted to get away from some of the cruise population. Also noticed that the other boats didn't go out very far. Pretty much held the same course, with a good view of the beach and parasail though. TL;DR- Agree. Skeptical at first, but worth it.

LifeProTips

t5_2s5oq

cfiltiq

Totally agree. Just did a fishing trip in Cozumel. We went directly to the charter via cab. Was funny because as we were settling in the fishing boat while in the harbor, quite a few other boats were heading out to receive their charter clients. At first we thought we got screwed since we had a $15 cab ride to pay for. When we got out to the ocean, it quickly became apparent that we scored. The other boats were packed like a can of sardines. Sorry, but we wanted to get away from some of the cruise population. Also noticed that the other boats didn't go out very far. Pretty much held the same course, with a good view of the beach and parasail though.

Agree. Skeptical at first, but worth it.

Krystie

I didn't particularly enjoy American Beauty either - it seems to be a commentary of not super-rich/not poor class American suburbia and mid-life crisis in the 80s. I guess i didn't grow up in that era so the message of the movie is lost on me. Neither do I understand the supposed torture of mid-life crisis. I guess to tldr it, it seemed like a very 1st.world.problems: the movie. Then again I didn't enjoy fight club either, and it speaks about a similar era.

I didn't particularly enjoy American Beauty either - it seems to be a commentary of not super-rich/not poor class American suburbia and mid-life crisis in the 80s. I guess i didn't grow up in that era so the message of the movie is lost on me. Neither do I understand the supposed torture of mid-life crisis. I guess to tldr it, it seemed like a very 1st.world.problems: the movie. Then again I didn't enjoy fight club either, and it speaks about a similar era.

movies

t5_2qh3s

cfjo11c

I didn't particularly enjoy American Beauty either - it seems to be a commentary of not super-rich/not poor class American suburbia and mid-life crisis in the 80s. I guess i didn't grow up in that era so the message of the movie is lost on me. Neither do I understand the supposed torture of mid-life crisis. I guess to

it, it seemed like a very 1st.world.problems: the movie. Then again I didn't enjoy fight club either, and it speaks about a similar era.

winterpalace

I agree with what you're saying, to an extent. He was a very real character, I imagine there are a lot of kids just like him in the world - but that doesn't mean they should be protagonists in a film because... well, they're just not very likable or interesting to watch. Half the movie he's wearing an expression somewhere between mopey and eerily absent, as if he’s gone beyond ordinary teenage malaise and half-checked out of consciousness altogether. The whole "lump of clay" trope for protagonists in coming-of-age films seems to have been taken a bit to literally by the writers; Duncan is such a blank that it feels miraculous that anyone in the film (especially Sam Rockwell or Anna-Sophia Robb's characters) takes an interest in him at all. tl;dr: Duncan might be a *realistic* interpretation of many teenagers in the world, but he doesn't give enough reasons for anyone (characters in the film, *and* the audience) to like him.

I agree with what you're saying, to an extent. He was a very real character, I imagine there are a lot of kids just like him in the world - but that doesn't mean they should be protagonists in a film because... well, they're just not very likable or interesting to watch. Half the movie he's wearing an expression somewhere between mopey and eerily absent, as if he’s gone beyond ordinary teenage malaise and half-checked out of consciousness altogether. The whole "lump of clay" trope for protagonists in coming-of-age films seems to have been taken a bit to literally by the writers; Duncan is such a blank that it feels miraculous that anyone in the film (especially Sam Rockwell or Anna-Sophia Robb's characters) takes an interest in him at all. tl;dr: Duncan might be a realistic interpretation of many teenagers in the world, but he doesn't give enough reasons for anyone (characters in the film, and the audience) to like him.

movies

t5_2qh3s

cfjihz6

I agree with what you're saying, to an extent. He was a very real character, I imagine there are a lot of kids just like him in the world - but that doesn't mean they should be protagonists in a film because... well, they're just not very likable or interesting to watch. Half the movie he's wearing an expression somewhere between mopey and eerily absent, as if he’s gone beyond ordinary teenage malaise and half-checked out of consciousness altogether. The whole "lump of clay" trope for protagonists in coming-of-age films seems to have been taken a bit to literally by the writers; Duncan is such a blank that it feels miraculous that anyone in the film (especially Sam Rockwell or Anna-Sophia Robb's characters) takes an interest in him at all.

Duncan might be a realistic interpretation of many teenagers in the world, but he doesn't give enough reasons for anyone (characters in the film, and the audience) to like him.

RealModeX86

Straight-through cables are most of the ones you see. They work from computer end to a switch or router end traditionally. So, they swap the transmit and receive pairs in the switches and routers, so that a straight through cable has the computer transmitting into the switches receive pin. Problems come up computer-to-computer because then you have a transmit going to transmit, and a receive going to receive, so nothing really happens, link doesn't work. Some newer hardware detects which way the cable is and will compensate automatically. Otherwise, it's possible the cable went bad, it may be worth testing it with the xbox again to verify that. TL;DR: Get a [crossover cable]( and ICS should work fine.

Straight-through cables are most of the ones you see. They work from computer end to a switch or router end traditionally. So, they swap the transmit and receive pairs in the switches and routers, so that a straight through cable has the computer transmitting into the switches receive pin. Problems come up computer-to-computer because then you have a transmit going to transmit, and a receive going to receive, so nothing really happens, link doesn't work. Some newer hardware detects which way the cable is and will compensate automatically. Otherwise, it's possible the cable went bad, it may be worth testing it with the xbox again to verify that. TL;DR: Get a [crossover cable]( and ICS should work fine.

techsupport

t5_2qioo

cfjq244

Straight-through cables are most of the ones you see. They work from computer end to a switch or router end traditionally. So, they swap the transmit and receive pairs in the switches and routers, so that a straight through cable has the computer transmitting into the switches receive pin. Problems come up computer-to-computer because then you have a transmit going to transmit, and a receive going to receive, so nothing really happens, link doesn't work. Some newer hardware detects which way the cable is and will compensate automatically. Otherwise, it's possible the cable went bad, it may be worth testing it with the xbox again to verify that.

Get a [crossover cable]( and ICS should work fine.

DHCKris

Sex was fair game in the movies since the '70s. Actually, the acceptance of risque content in the movies was due in part to the popularity of television! Because it was in everyone's home and there were only a few channels available, TV had to be censored. Movie execs thought, hey, movies have to be edgy in order to prove to an audience that they're better than TV. And so, the MPAA and the R rating were born. Now movies could swear, show tits and have adult themes and extreme violence. In the '80s and '90s you had the introduction and increasing popularity of cable television networks which were optional for each consumer and therefore did not have to be regulated by the FCC. They could show whatever they wanted. This led to TV abandoning the squeaky-clean reputation it had since the '50s. **tl;dr** the entertainment industry is always looking to make money, and realized decades ago how much people will pay for sexual content.

Sex was fair game in the movies since the '70s. Actually, the acceptance of risque content in the movies was due in part to the popularity of television! Because it was in everyone's home and there were only a few channels available, TV had to be censored. Movie execs thought, hey, movies have to be edgy in order to prove to an audience that they're better than TV. And so, the MPAA and the R rating were born. Now movies could swear, show tits and have adult themes and extreme violence. In the '80s and '90s you had the introduction and increasing popularity of cable television networks which were optional for each consumer and therefore did not have to be regulated by the FCC. They could show whatever they wanted. This led to TV abandoning the squeaky-clean reputation it had since the '50s. tl;dr the entertainment industry is always looking to make money, and realized decades ago how much people will pay for sexual content.

explainlikeimfive

t5_2sokd

cfj3y5s

Sex was fair game in the movies since the '70s. Actually, the acceptance of risque content in the movies was due in part to the popularity of television! Because it was in everyone's home and there were only a few channels available, TV had to be censored. Movie execs thought, hey, movies have to be edgy in order to prove to an audience that they're better than TV. And so, the MPAA and the R rating were born. Now movies could swear, show tits and have adult themes and extreme violence. In the '80s and '90s you had the introduction and increasing popularity of cable television networks which were optional for each consumer and therefore did not have to be regulated by the FCC. They could show whatever they wanted. This led to TV abandoning the squeaky-clean reputation it had since the '50s.

the entertainment industry is always looking to make money, and realized decades ago how much people will pay for sexual content.

Koyorigaming

To be honest despite people saying cringe worthy for the mouse pad I have one but of the front chest side. These mouse pads actually cradle and support my wrist better then others and have since improved the way my wrist feels. Spent a summer using this two years ago and got rid of my nasty bump from dragging my massive hands on my mouse pad/table. TL:DR they are shaped like that for a reason.

To be honest despite people saying cringe worthy for the mouse pad I have one but of the front chest side. These mouse pads actually cradle and support my wrist better then others and have since improved the way my wrist feels. Spent a summer using this two years ago and got rid of my nasty bump from dragging my massive hands on my mouse pad/table. TL:DR they are shaped like that for a reason.

pcmasterrace

t5_2sgp1

cfjokoa

To be honest despite people saying cringe worthy for the mouse pad I have one but of the front chest side. These mouse pads actually cradle and support my wrist better then others and have since improved the way my wrist feels. Spent a summer using this two years ago and got rid of my nasty bump from dragging my massive hands on my mouse pad/table.

they are shaped like that for a reason.

ShenOu

Answering No.2 because I think it's my favourite aspect of the game but it's really easily misjudged.. especially if you have any sort of end game MMO raiding background at all. There is close to 0 flexibility on your gear/stat/cross-class allocations. At 50, you get 5 cross-class skills from 2 sub-classes. Sounds flexible, but in reality the number of options you have is usually limited to 7-8 skills.. with at least 1 or 2 being completely useless for your job. This is the same with Stat choices, Warriors are probably the only job that USED to have stat variations (Full STR/Full VIT) but now with 2.1 that has changed and Full VIT is almost "The Way" to go. However, the developers have focused on making sure that every job has it's value. There are 8 party slots and 9 jobs available, in no fight in this game this game (post 2.1) is having 2 of a particular job better than having 8 different jobs. In fact, having more than 1 duplicate is now considered a bad decision. (IE, 2PLD, 2WHM, 2BRD party. Which was a norm pre2.1) Every Job, despite being ridiculously cookie cutter, brings incredible value to the group once you know how to utilize all it's little tricks. tl;dr, no matter what job you play. You may be completely cookie cutter with every other player that enjoys your job. But you will bring unique value to whichever group you join.

Answering No.2 because I think it's my favourite aspect of the game but it's really easily misjudged.. especially if you have any sort of end game MMO raiding background at all. There is close to 0 flexibility on your gear/stat/cross-class allocations. At 50, you get 5 cross-class skills from 2 sub-classes. Sounds flexible, but in reality the number of options you have is usually limited to 7-8 skills.. with at least 1 or 2 being completely useless for your job. This is the same with Stat choices, Warriors are probably the only job that USED to have stat variations (Full STR/Full VIT) but now with 2.1 that has changed and Full VIT is almost "The Way" to go. However, the developers have focused on making sure that every job has it's value. There are 8 party slots and 9 jobs available, in no fight in this game this game (post 2.1) is having 2 of a particular job better than having 8 different jobs. In fact, having more than 1 duplicate is now considered a bad decision. (IE, 2PLD, 2WHM, 2BRD party. Which was a norm pre2.1) Every Job, despite being ridiculously cookie cutter, brings incredible value to the group once you know how to utilize all it's little tricks. tl;dr, no matter what job you play. You may be completely cookie cutter with every other player that enjoys your job. But you will bring unique value to whichever group you join.

ffxiv

t5_2rgs7

cfjngz5

Answering No.2 because I think it's my favourite aspect of the game but it's really easily misjudged.. especially if you have any sort of end game MMO raiding background at all. There is close to 0 flexibility on your gear/stat/cross-class allocations. At 50, you get 5 cross-class skills from 2 sub-classes. Sounds flexible, but in reality the number of options you have is usually limited to 7-8 skills.. with at least 1 or 2 being completely useless for your job. This is the same with Stat choices, Warriors are probably the only job that USED to have stat variations (Full STR/Full VIT) but now with 2.1 that has changed and Full VIT is almost "The Way" to go. However, the developers have focused on making sure that every job has it's value. There are 8 party slots and 9 jobs available, in no fight in this game this game (post 2.1) is having 2 of a particular job better than having 8 different jobs. In fact, having more than 1 duplicate is now considered a bad decision. (IE, 2PLD, 2WHM, 2BRD party. Which was a norm pre2.1) Every Job, despite being ridiculously cookie cutter, brings incredible value to the group once you know how to utilize all it's little tricks.

no matter what job you play. You may be completely cookie cutter with every other player that enjoys your job. But you will bring unique value to whichever group you join.

BrohanGutenburg

I think his vision for marketing is the biggest contribution he made to the tech industry. I have a degree in Mass Comm and studied a lot of different marketing strategies. I am far from an expert, but IMHO, those original iPod commercials with the dancing silhouettes were some of the most important ads to air in the last 2 decades. TL;DR: Bill Gates made computers cheap, Steve Jobs (and Apple) made them cool.

I think his vision for marketing is the biggest contribution he made to the tech industry. I have a degree in Mass Comm and studied a lot of different marketing strategies. I am far from an expert, but IMHO, those original iPod commercials with the dancing silhouettes were some of the most important ads to air in the last 2 decades. TL;DR: Bill Gates made computers cheap, Steve Jobs (and Apple) made them cool.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

cfjj6m1

I think his vision for marketing is the biggest contribution he made to the tech industry. I have a degree in Mass Comm and studied a lot of different marketing strategies. I am far from an expert, but IMHO, those original iPod commercials with the dancing silhouettes were some of the most important ads to air in the last 2 decades.

Bill Gates made computers cheap, Steve Jobs (and Apple) made them cool.

Genetic_Algorithm

Priest just needs more minions, that's it. Right now if your enemy doesn't play any minions and just use his hero power and spells, you can only sit back and heal yourself, all of your spells are useless. I was thinking something like Armorsmith for Priest but instead of armor it heals a random friendly character (including himself) when damaged. TL;DR More class specific minions for priest.

Priest just needs more minions, that's it. Right now if your enemy doesn't play any minions and just use his hero power and spells, you can only sit back and heal yourself, all of your spells are useless. I was thinking something like Armorsmith for Priest but instead of armor it heals a random friendly character (including himself) when damaged. TL;DR More class specific minions for priest.

hearthstone

t5_2w31t

cfjd3cm

Priest just needs more minions, that's it. Right now if your enemy doesn't play any minions and just use his hero power and spells, you can only sit back and heal yourself, all of your spells are useless. I was thinking something like Armorsmith for Priest but instead of armor it heals a random friendly character (including himself) when damaged.

More class specific minions for priest.

H_is_for_Human

Med student here: This exists: It basically says that because most people have low calcium intake, too much sodium might reduce this level even further and cause problems. That being said, I would strive to increase calcium intake instead. By far the best thing a young person can do for their bone health is to get appropriate amounts of vitamin D and calcium. Unless your diet is excellent, this generally requires a supplement, either in pill form or through Calcium + Vit. D fortified foods (I'm a big fan of high calcium orange juice). That being said: Regardless of your sodium intake your kidneys will generally be able to prevent your blood levels of sodium from increasing beyond healthy levels. However, they do this by increasing the amount of water they hold onto. This increases the volume of water in your blood vessels. This in turn increases your blood pressure, which is why people trying to reduce their blood pressure should decrease sodium intake. TL;DR - most Americans have too little calcium and too much sodium. Have more calcium (and Vit. D) as a young person to help maximize your peak bone mass (or as an older person to help slow bone loss), and have less sodium to avoid high blood pressure.

Med student here: This exists: It basically says that because most people have low calcium intake, too much sodium might reduce this level even further and cause problems. That being said, I would strive to increase calcium intake instead. By far the best thing a young person can do for their bone health is to get appropriate amounts of vitamin D and calcium. Unless your diet is excellent, this generally requires a supplement, either in pill form or through Calcium + Vit. D fortified foods (I'm a big fan of high calcium orange juice). That being said: Regardless of your sodium intake your kidneys will generally be able to prevent your blood levels of sodium from increasing beyond healthy levels. However, they do this by increasing the amount of water they hold onto. This increases the volume of water in your blood vessels. This in turn increases your blood pressure, which is why people trying to reduce their blood pressure should decrease sodium intake. TL;DR - most Americans have too little calcium and too much sodium. Have more calcium (and Vit. D) as a young person to help maximize your peak bone mass (or as an older person to help slow bone loss), and have less sodium to avoid high blood pressure.

keto

t5_2rske

cfjh9xe

Med student here: This exists: It basically says that because most people have low calcium intake, too much sodium might reduce this level even further and cause problems. That being said, I would strive to increase calcium intake instead. By far the best thing a young person can do for their bone health is to get appropriate amounts of vitamin D and calcium. Unless your diet is excellent, this generally requires a supplement, either in pill form or through Calcium + Vit. D fortified foods (I'm a big fan of high calcium orange juice). That being said: Regardless of your sodium intake your kidneys will generally be able to prevent your blood levels of sodium from increasing beyond healthy levels. However, they do this by increasing the amount of water they hold onto. This increases the volume of water in your blood vessels. This in turn increases your blood pressure, which is why people trying to reduce their blood pressure should decrease sodium intake.

most Americans have too little calcium and too much sodium. Have more calcium (and Vit. D) as a young person to help maximize your peak bone mass (or as an older person to help slow bone loss), and have less sodium to avoid high blood pressure.

angel14995

The "hate" comes from 2 sides -- the new/casual players, and the veteran/know-how-to-deal-with-Slivers. For new/casual players, they haven't experienced much in terms of deck building. A lot of it is slapping together cards they like and playing with it. Slivers (and Elves, and Goblins, etc.) is a very simple introduction to tribal decks. Tribal decks do well against newer players because unless they are running a lot of removal, the creatures just pile up. You end up trying to fight down a wall of 20/20s with Flying Lifelink Vigilance Deathtouch Infect... what have you. It gets difficult to fight. The general response to this is "Use kills spells", "Use board wipes", etc. Well, wraths seem to usually be at rare/mythic, and if you are just trading within your friends group, that becomes difficult to get one. Include the fact that many decks are usually creature-based, and you have this fear from many people that they are just going to lose, since they don't have any creatures on the board (when in fact they can just repopulate the board afterwards, putting them on the better foot). For Veteran players, the slivers/tribals aren't exactly hated, but rather are understood, and many people I know simply don't like the mechanics. The one guy I know who played Goblins in Legacy eventually traded up for BUG Delver, and likes that much better. Basically, while Slivers/tribal decks are powerful because the creatures work well together, it's simple to dismember the plans. If you play your cards right against sliver decks, you can easily turn what was an unfavorable trade into basically a board-wipe on their part. Because of this, it's rarely about playing better against someone, but rather just knowing what and where to kill the creature during combat to make sure you get the most out of the exchange. For example, I was playing casual Standard against a guy in one of my playgroups who was playing Slivers. Some of the other people from the playgroup were complaining that he was getting cocky because his Sliver deck was just stomping everyone. I hadn't played him, since I was testing with a friend. Now, this group isn't exactly the best, with a lot of people pretty new to the game, but it's fun when we're playing EDH and junk. This guy is known to be a little bit of a dick, so I said "Gimme a minute." From the cards I had on me, and a couple of the long-boxes of crappy cards that we had around, I built a crappy UWR control list (all of the Patriot Shocks, 2x Verdict, 4 D-Sphere, Turn//Burn, Young Pyromancer, Guttersnipe, Essence Scatter, Elixir of Immortality, Magma Jet, Syncopate, etc. etc. etc.) Now, you'll say "But Angel, you were running money against a guy who was running slivers!" Yeah, well, this guy was running 4x Mutavaults, the appropriate shocks, 4x Hero's Downfall, etc. etc. etc. He had money, but not exactly the best at putting that to good use. Either way, I wasn't aiming to out-cost this guy, just rough his deck up a little, show people that it's beatable. We played like 3-4 games, with me winning all of them. His deck was more mid-range than aggro, and it came back to bite him. For example, he had swung with the team, with like a Megantic Sliver, Predatory Sliver, and then a bunch of vanilla 1/1 Slivers (Manawefts an the slivers from Hive Stirrings IIRC). He's thinking that he has me beat, all I do it "Turn//Burn", Turn targetting the Megantic, Burn targeting the Predatory. Put a 1/1 Elemental onto the battlefield, block the Weird. Now he's only swinging for something like 5, and he's now lost the 2 creatures that were pumping his board. Drop an Assemble the Legion next turn, proceed to control the game and win. I hand the deck to one of the newer players in the group, tell her to play him. She plays the next game amazingly well, since she was watching me, and she proceeded to beat him easily. The rest of the group saw what I was playing, and spent a bit learning what was happening and why my 5-minute thrown-together deck was beating a deck that was basically unbeatable until then. The bounce, the burn, the card advantage, the control was just working in a way that they hadn't really experienced much of, aside from the times they played at FNM and got wrecked by the control decks. **TL;DR**: New/casual players usually don't like them because control/board wipes aren't as prevalant they they should be to keep them in check. Veteran players don't like them because they are annoying, and jerkasses use them to stomp on newer players.

The "hate" comes from 2 sides -- the new/casual players, and the veteran/know-how-to-deal-with-Slivers. For new/casual players, they haven't experienced much in terms of deck building. A lot of it is slapping together cards they like and playing with it. Slivers (and Elves, and Goblins, etc.) is a very simple introduction to tribal decks. Tribal decks do well against newer players because unless they are running a lot of removal, the creatures just pile up. You end up trying to fight down a wall of 20/20s with Flying Lifelink Vigilance Deathtouch Infect... what have you. It gets difficult to fight. The general response to this is "Use kills spells", "Use board wipes", etc. Well, wraths seem to usually be at rare/mythic, and if you are just trading within your friends group, that becomes difficult to get one. Include the fact that many decks are usually creature-based, and you have this fear from many people that they are just going to lose, since they don't have any creatures on the board (when in fact they can just repopulate the board afterwards, putting them on the better foot). For Veteran players, the slivers/tribals aren't exactly hated, but rather are understood, and many people I know simply don't like the mechanics. The one guy I know who played Goblins in Legacy eventually traded up for BUG Delver, and likes that much better. Basically, while Slivers/tribal decks are powerful because the creatures work well together, it's simple to dismember the plans. If you play your cards right against sliver decks, you can easily turn what was an unfavorable trade into basically a board-wipe on their part. Because of this, it's rarely about playing better against someone, but rather just knowing what and where to kill the creature during combat to make sure you get the most out of the exchange. For example, I was playing casual Standard against a guy in one of my playgroups who was playing Slivers. Some of the other people from the playgroup were complaining that he was getting cocky because his Sliver deck was just stomping everyone. I hadn't played him, since I was testing with a friend. Now, this group isn't exactly the best, with a lot of people pretty new to the game, but it's fun when we're playing EDH and junk. This guy is known to be a little bit of a dick, so I said "Gimme a minute." From the cards I had on me, and a couple of the long-boxes of crappy cards that we had around, I built a crappy UWR control list (all of the Patriot Shocks, 2x Verdict, 4 D-Sphere, Turn//Burn, Young Pyromancer, Guttersnipe, Essence Scatter, Elixir of Immortality, Magma Jet, Syncopate, etc. etc. etc.) Now, you'll say "But Angel, you were running money against a guy who was running slivers!" Yeah, well, this guy was running 4x Mutavaults, the appropriate shocks, 4x Hero's Downfall, etc. etc. etc. He had money, but not exactly the best at putting that to good use. Either way, I wasn't aiming to out-cost this guy, just rough his deck up a little, show people that it's beatable. We played like 3-4 games, with me winning all of them. His deck was more mid-range than aggro, and it came back to bite him. For example, he had swung with the team, with like a Megantic Sliver, Predatory Sliver, and then a bunch of vanilla 1/1 Slivers (Manawefts an the slivers from Hive Stirrings IIRC). He's thinking that he has me beat, all I do it "Turn//Burn", Turn targetting the Megantic, Burn targeting the Predatory. Put a 1/1 Elemental onto the battlefield, block the Weird. Now he's only swinging for something like 5, and he's now lost the 2 creatures that were pumping his board. Drop an Assemble the Legion next turn, proceed to control the game and win. I hand the deck to one of the newer players in the group, tell her to play him. She plays the next game amazingly well, since she was watching me, and she proceeded to beat him easily. The rest of the group saw what I was playing, and spent a bit learning what was happening and why my 5-minute thrown-together deck was beating a deck that was basically unbeatable until then. The bounce, the burn, the card advantage, the control was just working in a way that they hadn't really experienced much of, aside from the times they played at FNM and got wrecked by the control decks. TL;DR : New/casual players usually don't like them because control/board wipes aren't as prevalant they they should be to keep them in check. Veteran players don't like them because they are annoying, and jerkasses use them to stomp on newer players.

magicTCG

t5_2qn5f

cfjym8g

The "hate" comes from 2 sides -- the new/casual players, and the veteran/know-how-to-deal-with-Slivers. For new/casual players, they haven't experienced much in terms of deck building. A lot of it is slapping together cards they like and playing with it. Slivers (and Elves, and Goblins, etc.) is a very simple introduction to tribal decks. Tribal decks do well against newer players because unless they are running a lot of removal, the creatures just pile up. You end up trying to fight down a wall of 20/20s with Flying Lifelink Vigilance Deathtouch Infect... what have you. It gets difficult to fight. The general response to this is "Use kills spells", "Use board wipes", etc. Well, wraths seem to usually be at rare/mythic, and if you are just trading within your friends group, that becomes difficult to get one. Include the fact that many decks are usually creature-based, and you have this fear from many people that they are just going to lose, since they don't have any creatures on the board (when in fact they can just repopulate the board afterwards, putting them on the better foot). For Veteran players, the slivers/tribals aren't exactly hated, but rather are understood, and many people I know simply don't like the mechanics. The one guy I know who played Goblins in Legacy eventually traded up for BUG Delver, and likes that much better. Basically, while Slivers/tribal decks are powerful because the creatures work well together, it's simple to dismember the plans. If you play your cards right against sliver decks, you can easily turn what was an unfavorable trade into basically a board-wipe on their part. Because of this, it's rarely about playing better against someone, but rather just knowing what and where to kill the creature during combat to make sure you get the most out of the exchange. For example, I was playing casual Standard against a guy in one of my playgroups who was playing Slivers. Some of the other people from the playgroup were complaining that he was getting cocky because his Sliver deck was just stomping everyone. I hadn't played him, since I was testing with a friend. Now, this group isn't exactly the best, with a lot of people pretty new to the game, but it's fun when we're playing EDH and junk. This guy is known to be a little bit of a dick, so I said "Gimme a minute." From the cards I had on me, and a couple of the long-boxes of crappy cards that we had around, I built a crappy UWR control list (all of the Patriot Shocks, 2x Verdict, 4 D-Sphere, Turn//Burn, Young Pyromancer, Guttersnipe, Essence Scatter, Elixir of Immortality, Magma Jet, Syncopate, etc. etc. etc.) Now, you'll say "But Angel, you were running money against a guy who was running slivers!" Yeah, well, this guy was running 4x Mutavaults, the appropriate shocks, 4x Hero's Downfall, etc. etc. etc. He had money, but not exactly the best at putting that to good use. Either way, I wasn't aiming to out-cost this guy, just rough his deck up a little, show people that it's beatable. We played like 3-4 games, with me winning all of them. His deck was more mid-range than aggro, and it came back to bite him. For example, he had swung with the team, with like a Megantic Sliver, Predatory Sliver, and then a bunch of vanilla 1/1 Slivers (Manawefts an the slivers from Hive Stirrings IIRC). He's thinking that he has me beat, all I do it "Turn//Burn", Turn targetting the Megantic, Burn targeting the Predatory. Put a 1/1 Elemental onto the battlefield, block the Weird. Now he's only swinging for something like 5, and he's now lost the 2 creatures that were pumping his board. Drop an Assemble the Legion next turn, proceed to control the game and win. I hand the deck to one of the newer players in the group, tell her to play him. She plays the next game amazingly well, since she was watching me, and she proceeded to beat him easily. The rest of the group saw what I was playing, and spent a bit learning what was happening and why my 5-minute thrown-together deck was beating a deck that was basically unbeatable until then. The bounce, the burn, the card advantage, the control was just working in a way that they hadn't really experienced much of, aside from the times they played at FNM and got wrecked by the control decks.

New/casual players usually don't like them because control/board wipes aren't as prevalant they they should be to keep them in check. Veteran players don't like them because they are annoying, and jerkasses use them to stomp on newer players.

Johnny_lung_buster

Yes and no. Fuel air bombs are in essence the same thing but on a much smaller scale. A fuel are mixture has a primary(release) and a secondary(ignition) charge. The primary is a smaller charge that releases the fuel into the air spreading it out in a mist like fashion. The secondary ignites the mixture at the ideal point in time where you have the best or most destructive potency of fuel to air. This creates a much more powerful explosion then traditional HE( high explosive). Because it spreads the fuel before exploding creating a larger volume also being able to burn more air which is an essential element in combustion. There is another type of thermoberric explosive that is used in Afghanistan that is top secret developed by a Vietnamese refugee that can ignite air without having to spread the fuel causing an exponentially greater blast wave that has blown the vents off caves in the sides of mountains a few miles from the detonation point at the entrance. There is actually a future weapons episode that shows the 3 differences. HE fuel air and thermo. If you can't find it they use 1lb of each c4, fuel air, and thermo. The c4 dismembers. The fuel air produces 1-2ft chunks. The thermoberic leaves softball sized pieces at the largest. Its scary stuff. TL:DR MOAB and fuel air are pussified by true thermoberrics the US has developed

Yes and no. Fuel air bombs are in essence the same thing but on a much smaller scale. A fuel are mixture has a primary(release) and a secondary(ignition) charge. The primary is a smaller charge that releases the fuel into the air spreading it out in a mist like fashion. The secondary ignites the mixture at the ideal point in time where you have the best or most destructive potency of fuel to air. This creates a much more powerful explosion then traditional HE( high explosive). Because it spreads the fuel before exploding creating a larger volume also being able to burn more air which is an essential element in combustion. There is another type of thermoberric explosive that is used in Afghanistan that is top secret developed by a Vietnamese refugee that can ignite air without having to spread the fuel causing an exponentially greater blast wave that has blown the vents off caves in the sides of mountains a few miles from the detonation point at the entrance. There is actually a future weapons episode that shows the 3 differences. HE fuel air and thermo. If you can't find it they use 1lb of each c4, fuel air, and thermo. The c4 dismembers. The fuel air produces 1-2ft chunks. The thermoberic leaves softball sized pieces at the largest. Its scary stuff. TL:DR MOAB and fuel air are pussified by true thermoberrics the US has developed

WTF

t5_2qh61

cfkkl1l

Yes and no. Fuel air bombs are in essence the same thing but on a much smaller scale. A fuel are mixture has a primary(release) and a secondary(ignition) charge. The primary is a smaller charge that releases the fuel into the air spreading it out in a mist like fashion. The secondary ignites the mixture at the ideal point in time where you have the best or most destructive potency of fuel to air. This creates a much more powerful explosion then traditional HE( high explosive). Because it spreads the fuel before exploding creating a larger volume also being able to burn more air which is an essential element in combustion. There is another type of thermoberric explosive that is used in Afghanistan that is top secret developed by a Vietnamese refugee that can ignite air without having to spread the fuel causing an exponentially greater blast wave that has blown the vents off caves in the sides of mountains a few miles from the detonation point at the entrance. There is actually a future weapons episode that shows the 3 differences. HE fuel air and thermo. If you can't find it they use 1lb of each c4, fuel air, and thermo. The c4 dismembers. The fuel air produces 1-2ft chunks. The thermoberic leaves softball sized pieces at the largest. Its scary stuff.

MOAB and fuel air are pussified by true thermoberrics the US has developed

Dargok

As someone who is a QA in another type of business, testing isn't always so simple. Even the smallest of things can blow up important services / features and require hotfixes which then have to be tested again. Sometimes, things work perfectly in the development environment but when they get released are all kinds of screwed. TL;DR shit happens.

As someone who is a QA in another type of business, testing isn't always so simple. Even the smallest of things can blow up important services / features and require hotfixes which then have to be tested again. Sometimes, things work perfectly in the development environment but when they get released are all kinds of screwed. TL;DR shit happens.

hearthstone

t5_2w31t

cfk6bv5

As someone who is a QA in another type of business, testing isn't always so simple. Even the smallest of things can blow up important services / features and require hotfixes which then have to be tested again. Sometimes, things work perfectly in the development environment but when they get released are all kinds of screwed.

shit happens.

metocin

Why is everything about what the individual can contribute to society? What about the suffering of the individual as a direct result of his/her disease? (I have Aspergers and several other issues that I'd gladly do away with even though they make me who I am. I'm sure others would disagree). It's kind of like trying to convince people not to get AIDS because it's a terrible disease. Sure, you could offend those who already have it, but the message of prevention is still necessary to spare others the same fate. It's a fine line between stigmatizing one group and censoring the medical truth from the other. TL;DR - It's possible to believe a *disorder* should be eliminated without believing those already afflicted should be wiped out.

Why is everything about what the individual can contribute to society? What about the suffering of the individual as a direct result of his/her disease? (I have Aspergers and several other issues that I'd gladly do away with even though they make me who I am. I'm sure others would disagree). It's kind of like trying to convince people not to get AIDS because it's a terrible disease. Sure, you could offend those who already have it, but the message of prevention is still necessary to spare others the same fate. It's a fine line between stigmatizing one group and censoring the medical truth from the other. TL;DR - It's possible to believe a disorder should be eliminated without believing those already afflicted should be wiped out.

IAmA

t5_2qzb6

cfkynb2

Why is everything about what the individual can contribute to society? What about the suffering of the individual as a direct result of his/her disease? (I have Aspergers and several other issues that I'd gladly do away with even though they make me who I am. I'm sure others would disagree). It's kind of like trying to convince people not to get AIDS because it's a terrible disease. Sure, you could offend those who already have it, but the message of prevention is still necessary to spare others the same fate. It's a fine line between stigmatizing one group and censoring the medical truth from the other.

It's possible to believe a disorder should be eliminated without believing those already afflicted should be wiped out.

GreenValleyWideRiver

I have a nephew with Downs and I can very confidently say that he has huge positive impact on my (very large) family. In short, having a special needs child around even on a semi-regular basis is very humanizing. It forces you to see your own shortcomings as a person and as a result you have to confront them. Whenever we all get together as a family, he always needs someone to keep an eye on him because he's really curious and tends to get himself into trouble. He also likes to yell really loud (even when he's not upset about anything). He's four now and it's still really hard for him to communicate a lot of the time, his younger sister now has now surpassed him developmentally. He's an awesome kid though, my brother's wife takes him to her OB every time she goes so that her doctor can see the value of his life. When we talk about societal contribution, a lot of times we just think about who is going to invent the next big thing or who can save the most starving kids in whatever country, but most of us on that level don't really contribute much regardless of our mental capacity. Humbling yourself to care for someone who society tells you has nothing to offer really gets at the core of what it means to contribute because you have to empty yourself of the desire to use the world around you for your own personal gain, and most people aren't willing to do that. My brother and his wife are both pretty successful Harvard grads that work a lot and their son is a constant reminder of their responsibility to love the helpless. Without such reminders, I really think we'd be in an even more selfish world than we already live in. And to be clear, it's not an obligation to hang out with kids like my nephew. He's absolutely hilarious and the sweetest kid you'll ever meet. Nothing beats the smile on his face when he's dancing to the music we play or repeating lines from the stories my dad tells him, he's just an awesome kid. It's easy to trivialize this stuff but it's so important to how we function as a society. What's really sad (and I'm not trying to spark a debate on the issue here) is that 90% of these kids are aborted if the parents find out they have downs. I wish I could find the statistic here, my dad had it in one of his medical journals, but 99% of adults with downs are happy with their lives and 98% with the way they look. Our society has a TON to learn from people like this whether it's trying to get more in their mindset or just learning from the way they need to be cared for, especially when they're still children. My parents, 4 siblings, their spouses, and my wife all have much better lives because of my nephew. TL,DR: special needs kids humanize us and make us look past our own often selfish wants. Selfless people=better society.

I have a nephew with Downs and I can very confidently say that he has huge positive impact on my (very large) family. In short, having a special needs child around even on a semi-regular basis is very humanizing. It forces you to see your own shortcomings as a person and as a result you have to confront them. Whenever we all get together as a family, he always needs someone to keep an eye on him because he's really curious and tends to get himself into trouble. He also likes to yell really loud (even when he's not upset about anything). He's four now and it's still really hard for him to communicate a lot of the time, his younger sister now has now surpassed him developmentally. He's an awesome kid though, my brother's wife takes him to her OB every time she goes so that her doctor can see the value of his life. When we talk about societal contribution, a lot of times we just think about who is going to invent the next big thing or who can save the most starving kids in whatever country, but most of us on that level don't really contribute much regardless of our mental capacity. Humbling yourself to care for someone who society tells you has nothing to offer really gets at the core of what it means to contribute because you have to empty yourself of the desire to use the world around you for your own personal gain, and most people aren't willing to do that. My brother and his wife are both pretty successful Harvard grads that work a lot and their son is a constant reminder of their responsibility to love the helpless. Without such reminders, I really think we'd be in an even more selfish world than we already live in. And to be clear, it's not an obligation to hang out with kids like my nephew. He's absolutely hilarious and the sweetest kid you'll ever meet. Nothing beats the smile on his face when he's dancing to the music we play or repeating lines from the stories my dad tells him, he's just an awesome kid. It's easy to trivialize this stuff but it's so important to how we function as a society. What's really sad (and I'm not trying to spark a debate on the issue here) is that 90% of these kids are aborted if the parents find out they have downs. I wish I could find the statistic here, my dad had it in one of his medical journals, but 99% of adults with downs are happy with their lives and 98% with the way they look. Our society has a TON to learn from people like this whether it's trying to get more in their mindset or just learning from the way they need to be cared for, especially when they're still children. My parents, 4 siblings, their spouses, and my wife all have much better lives because of my nephew. TL,DR: special needs kids humanize us and make us look past our own often selfish wants. Selfless people=better society.

IAmA

t5_2qzb6

cfkcjyk

I have a nephew with Downs and I can very confidently say that he has huge positive impact on my (very large) family. In short, having a special needs child around even on a semi-regular basis is very humanizing. It forces you to see your own shortcomings as a person and as a result you have to confront them. Whenever we all get together as a family, he always needs someone to keep an eye on him because he's really curious and tends to get himself into trouble. He also likes to yell really loud (even when he's not upset about anything). He's four now and it's still really hard for him to communicate a lot of the time, his younger sister now has now surpassed him developmentally. He's an awesome kid though, my brother's wife takes him to her OB every time she goes so that her doctor can see the value of his life. When we talk about societal contribution, a lot of times we just think about who is going to invent the next big thing or who can save the most starving kids in whatever country, but most of us on that level don't really contribute much regardless of our mental capacity. Humbling yourself to care for someone who society tells you has nothing to offer really gets at the core of what it means to contribute because you have to empty yourself of the desire to use the world around you for your own personal gain, and most people aren't willing to do that. My brother and his wife are both pretty successful Harvard grads that work a lot and their son is a constant reminder of their responsibility to love the helpless. Without such reminders, I really think we'd be in an even more selfish world than we already live in. And to be clear, it's not an obligation to hang out with kids like my nephew. He's absolutely hilarious and the sweetest kid you'll ever meet. Nothing beats the smile on his face when he's dancing to the music we play or repeating lines from the stories my dad tells him, he's just an awesome kid. It's easy to trivialize this stuff but it's so important to how we function as a society. What's really sad (and I'm not trying to spark a debate on the issue here) is that 90% of these kids are aborted if the parents find out they have downs. I wish I could find the statistic here, my dad had it in one of his medical journals, but 99% of adults with downs are happy with their lives and 98% with the way they look. Our society has a TON to learn from people like this whether it's trying to get more in their mindset or just learning from the way they need to be cared for, especially when they're still children. My parents, 4 siblings, their spouses, and my wife all have much better lives because of my nephew.

special needs kids humanize us and make us look past our own often selfish wants. Selfless people=better society.

patricksly

Im going to shamelessly copy a comment I made from /r/truegaming from my experience on the beta. Just from my time with the beta on Xbox One (about 12 hours logged, 2.8 K/D) it felt lot more skill based to me. This was in stark contrast recent CoD games which, in my opinion, have enough perks and attachments to hold your hand and make it more based on what you have unlocked, vs what you actually do. The only scorestreak (titans) weren't something you called in just to get a few cheap kills. If used at the right time, calling in a single titan with a good pilot could turn the tide of a game. I mostly played hardpoint, but from what I saw, playing Titanfall as you would play a shooter like CoD or Battlefield would get you quickly killed. "Camping" or even attempting to hold a single building, resulted (most of the time) in going 1 for 1 in terms of kills. You would get one cheap kill, show up on radar, and be immediately hunted down. Instead knowledge of the maps, and routes to get around quickly was usually the deciding factor for doing well vs doing poorly. Staying in any spot for more than 30 seconds was basically a death sentence, but the combat flowed well enough that running and gunning was fun, especially with the added verticality of wallrunning and jetpacks. Note: I know the beta isnt as deep as the final game will be, but based on what they did with 5 guns, a few attachments per gun, and limited perks, I feel like the potential is definately there. TL;DR: Insasnely fun, you feel like a badass the whole time, and basically takes everything call of duty has become and throws in the garbage and says "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it" I really hope the 360 version can stand up to the PC and the One, mostly because of the servers. During the beta when they were torture testing the server, I never had a ping higher than 40, and I was on crappy university ethernet. It really help make it one of the must fluid and fun multiplayer experiences I've played. EDIT: You guys are way friendlier than the people in the thread I originally posted in. Love you Roosterteeth community.

Im going to shamelessly copy a comment I made from /r/truegaming from my experience on the beta. Just from my time with the beta on Xbox One (about 12 hours logged, 2.8 K/D) it felt lot more skill based to me. This was in stark contrast recent CoD games which, in my opinion, have enough perks and attachments to hold your hand and make it more based on what you have unlocked, vs what you actually do. The only scorestreak (titans) weren't something you called in just to get a few cheap kills. If used at the right time, calling in a single titan with a good pilot could turn the tide of a game. I mostly played hardpoint, but from what I saw, playing Titanfall as you would play a shooter like CoD or Battlefield would get you quickly killed. "Camping" or even attempting to hold a single building, resulted (most of the time) in going 1 for 1 in terms of kills. You would get one cheap kill, show up on radar, and be immediately hunted down. Instead knowledge of the maps, and routes to get around quickly was usually the deciding factor for doing well vs doing poorly. Staying in any spot for more than 30 seconds was basically a death sentence, but the combat flowed well enough that running and gunning was fun, especially with the added verticality of wallrunning and jetpacks. Note: I know the beta isnt as deep as the final game will be, but based on what they did with 5 guns, a few attachments per gun, and limited perks, I feel like the potential is definately there. TL;DR: Insasnely fun, you feel like a badass the whole time, and basically takes everything call of duty has become and throws in the garbage and says "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it" I really hope the 360 version can stand up to the PC and the One, mostly because of the servers. During the beta when they were torture testing the server, I never had a ping higher than 40, and I was on crappy university ethernet. It really help make it one of the must fluid and fun multiplayer experiences I've played. EDIT: You guys are way friendlier than the people in the thread I originally posted in. Love you Roosterteeth community.

roosterteeth

t5_2s7g9

cfkkn20

Im going to shamelessly copy a comment I made from /r/truegaming from my experience on the beta. Just from my time with the beta on Xbox One (about 12 hours logged, 2.8 K/D) it felt lot more skill based to me. This was in stark contrast recent CoD games which, in my opinion, have enough perks and attachments to hold your hand and make it more based on what you have unlocked, vs what you actually do. The only scorestreak (titans) weren't something you called in just to get a few cheap kills. If used at the right time, calling in a single titan with a good pilot could turn the tide of a game. I mostly played hardpoint, but from what I saw, playing Titanfall as you would play a shooter like CoD or Battlefield would get you quickly killed. "Camping" or even attempting to hold a single building, resulted (most of the time) in going 1 for 1 in terms of kills. You would get one cheap kill, show up on radar, and be immediately hunted down. Instead knowledge of the maps, and routes to get around quickly was usually the deciding factor for doing well vs doing poorly. Staying in any spot for more than 30 seconds was basically a death sentence, but the combat flowed well enough that running and gunning was fun, especially with the added verticality of wallrunning and jetpacks. Note: I know the beta isnt as deep as the final game will be, but based on what they did with 5 guns, a few attachments per gun, and limited perks, I feel like the potential is definately there.

Insasnely fun, you feel like a badass the whole time, and basically takes everything call of duty has become and throws in the garbage and says "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it" I really hope the 360 version can stand up to the PC and the One, mostly because of the servers. During the beta when they were torture testing the server, I never had a ping higher than 40, and I was on crappy university ethernet. It really help make it one of the must fluid and fun multiplayer experiences I've played. EDIT: You guys are way friendlier than the people in the thread I originally posted in. Love you Roosterteeth community.

I_have_shoes

I'm still a noob in regards to this sub-reddit, but I can tell you that the first thing people from here will want is a full detail of your take-home (net income) and your current expenses. Then someone will tell you what the hell to do. TL;DR More detail...income, expenses, etc.

I'm still a noob in regards to this sub-reddit, but I can tell you that the first thing people from here will want is a full detail of your take-home (net income) and your current expenses. Then someone will tell you what the hell to do. TL;DR More detail...income, expenses, etc.

personalfinance

t5_2qstm

cfksbam

I'm still a noob in regards to this sub-reddit, but I can tell you that the first thing people from here will want is a full detail of your take-home (net income) and your current expenses. Then someone will tell you what the hell to do.

More detail...income, expenses, etc.

MisterMrMister

Taxi driver here! Posted this story here somewhere before but here it goes: Allright. Picked up a drunk girl from a house party one night, and from the moment she got in the cab she got really flirty with me. She was in the front passenger seat, and she turned to face me. She started talking about some guy who got her all horny at that party she came from. Then she said to me: "I've never had sex in a cab before". My face was like o_0, hmm okay. If I had to rate her she would be a solid 8/10. Anyway she started lifting her miniskirt to the point that she was showing it all. Touching her boobs and all, so you can imagine that this all was making me horny. Problem was, I had a girlfriend at the time, and I wasn't about to cheat on her. I had to compose myself to not give in. I even stopped the cab at an empty car park, because I still wasn't really sure if I should just go for it or not. After a few minutes at that car park, deciding what to do, I told her to stop it, it wasn't going to work, I have a girlfriend etc. She even gave me her phone number and told me if ever changed my mind I could call her. She was drunk as fuck, I doubt she even remembered me. Anyway, I took her phone number, gave it to a friend of mine who is also a cab driver (I know, I'm horrible). They got in touch, dated for a few months and that was it. TL;DR: Got a horny drunk chick in my cab who offered herself to me numerous times. I declined because of girlfriend, but I still managed to hook my friend up. Win/Win?

Taxi driver here! Posted this story here somewhere before but here it goes: Allright. Picked up a drunk girl from a house party one night, and from the moment she got in the cab she got really flirty with me. She was in the front passenger seat, and she turned to face me. She started talking about some guy who got her all horny at that party she came from. Then she said to me: "I've never had sex in a cab before". My face was like o_0, hmm okay. If I had to rate her she would be a solid 8/10. Anyway she started lifting her miniskirt to the point that she was showing it all. Touching her boobs and all, so you can imagine that this all was making me horny. Problem was, I had a girlfriend at the time, and I wasn't about to cheat on her. I had to compose myself to not give in. I even stopped the cab at an empty car park, because I still wasn't really sure if I should just go for it or not. After a few minutes at that car park, deciding what to do, I told her to stop it, it wasn't going to work, I have a girlfriend etc. She even gave me her phone number and told me if ever changed my mind I could call her. She was drunk as fuck, I doubt she even remembered me. Anyway, I took her phone number, gave it to a friend of mine who is also a cab driver (I know, I'm horrible). They got in touch, dated for a few months and that was it. TL;DR: Got a horny drunk chick in my cab who offered herself to me numerous times. I declined because of girlfriend, but I still managed to hook my friend up. Win/Win?

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

cfl5abl

Taxi driver here! Posted this story here somewhere before but here it goes: Allright. Picked up a drunk girl from a house party one night, and from the moment she got in the cab she got really flirty with me. She was in the front passenger seat, and she turned to face me. She started talking about some guy who got her all horny at that party she came from. Then she said to me: "I've never had sex in a cab before". My face was like o_0, hmm okay. If I had to rate her she would be a solid 8/10. Anyway she started lifting her miniskirt to the point that she was showing it all. Touching her boobs and all, so you can imagine that this all was making me horny. Problem was, I had a girlfriend at the time, and I wasn't about to cheat on her. I had to compose myself to not give in. I even stopped the cab at an empty car park, because I still wasn't really sure if I should just go for it or not. After a few minutes at that car park, deciding what to do, I told her to stop it, it wasn't going to work, I have a girlfriend etc. She even gave me her phone number and told me if ever changed my mind I could call her. She was drunk as fuck, I doubt she even remembered me. Anyway, I took her phone number, gave it to a friend of mine who is also a cab driver (I know, I'm horrible). They got in touch, dated for a few months and that was it.

Got a horny drunk chick in my cab who offered herself to me numerous times. I declined because of girlfriend, but I still managed to hook my friend up. Win/Win?

Shia_LaBoof

This didn't happen to me but while some friends and I were in Florida for spring break we were taking a cab to a party and asked the cab driver this question. Without skipping a beat he began telling us about a girl (must've been around age 21-23) who came into the cab with two of her girlfriends wasted and asked the driver if she could show him her "special talent". The cab driver didn't want to be a jerk and was honestly curious so he said yes. The girl, who was wearing a short skirt at the time, laid back and put her feet up on the seats in front of her, fully exposing her vag to just about anyone in the cab. She then proceeded to stick a ping pong ball in vag and, with the aim of a motherfucking marine sniper, shot the ping pong out of her and right into the cab's rearview mirror. By the time he had told us this story he had already nicknamed her vagina "The Black &amp; Decker Pecker Wrecker." TL;DR girl shot a ping ping ball from her vag.

This didn't happen to me but while some friends and I were in Florida for spring break we were taking a cab to a party and asked the cab driver this question. Without skipping a beat he began telling us about a girl (must've been around age 21-23) who came into the cab with two of her girlfriends wasted and asked the driver if she could show him her "special talent". The cab driver didn't want to be a jerk and was honestly curious so he said yes. The girl, who was wearing a short skirt at the time, laid back and put her feet up on the seats in front of her, fully exposing her vag to just about anyone in the cab. She then proceeded to stick a ping pong ball in vag and, with the aim of a motherfucking marine sniper, shot the ping pong out of her and right into the cab's rearview mirror. By the time he had told us this story he had already nicknamed her vagina "The Black & Decker Pecker Wrecker." TL;DR girl shot a ping ping ball from her vag.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

cfl8puc

This didn't happen to me but while some friends and I were in Florida for spring break we were taking a cab to a party and asked the cab driver this question. Without skipping a beat he began telling us about a girl (must've been around age 21-23) who came into the cab with two of her girlfriends wasted and asked the driver if she could show him her "special talent". The cab driver didn't want to be a jerk and was honestly curious so he said yes. The girl, who was wearing a short skirt at the time, laid back and put her feet up on the seats in front of her, fully exposing her vag to just about anyone in the cab. She then proceeded to stick a ping pong ball in vag and, with the aim of a motherfucking marine sniper, shot the ping pong out of her and right into the cab's rearview mirror. By the time he had told us this story he had already nicknamed her vagina "The Black & Decker Pecker Wrecker."

girl shot a ping ping ball from her vag.

mhende

None of the titles seem to have anything to do with what you are trying to assert. The only link at the bottom is not a study, but a link to fertility friend.com, an unscientific website, which I suspect, is where you get. All of your information from. All of them reference the ova or the menstrual cycle, where are your studies on sperm? Never the less I will give it a shot. First article ( I found full text from my university's library. It only mentions fecundability, and does not mention at all how long sperm lives inside of a woman. It also focuses on the number of acts of coitus within a six day period. So nothing there Second ( mentions nothing concrete on the lifetime of sperm, but says that couples wishing to conceive have a 4 day fertile window before ovulation (seeming to disagree with you) and that couples wishing not to become pregnant should abstain 11-12 days before ovulation. Third source is a link back to fertility friend, so I'll be ignoring that one since it is non scientific. The fourth did not return in a search by my university's library, so I wasn't able to read it. But let's get to the meat of it - "Basal body temperature, ovulation and the risk of conception, with special reference to the lifetimes of sperm and egg." This one I can read on JSTOR. According to the study you asked me to read, conception was achieved most commonly 2 days before ovulation at 36% probability, but 3 and 4 days were tied at 23% probability and 5 days had a 12% probability. Day of ovulation had a 7% chance (not surprising, seeing that the second paper I read mentioned that sperm needed to already be in the tubes when the egg was released, or it was already too late). The day before ovulation had a 16% probability. Basically, your source tells me that you are wrong when you say sperm lives 24-48 hours. Sperm is more likely to conceive a baby starting at 48 hours, but sperm at 72 hours and 96 hours are more likely to conceive a baby than 24 hours before ovulation. So I'm thinking, you are getting all of your information from places like babymed and fertility friend, and was hoping I wouldn't be able to read the articles, otherwise there's no way you would tell me to read them. This is why we learn in high school what good sources are. Tl;dr- it was a good attempt to save face by trying to imply that *I* am the one who doesn't read primary sources or believe what they say, but you have confused me with yourself.

None of the titles seem to have anything to do with what you are trying to assert. The only link at the bottom is not a study, but a link to fertility friend.com, an unscientific website, which I suspect, is where you get. All of your information from. All of them reference the ova or the menstrual cycle, where are your studies on sperm? Never the less I will give it a shot. First article ( I found full text from my university's library. It only mentions fecundability, and does not mention at all how long sperm lives inside of a woman. It also focuses on the number of acts of coitus within a six day period. So nothing there Second ( mentions nothing concrete on the lifetime of sperm, but says that couples wishing to conceive have a 4 day fertile window before ovulation (seeming to disagree with you) and that couples wishing not to become pregnant should abstain 11-12 days before ovulation. Third source is a link back to fertility friend, so I'll be ignoring that one since it is non scientific. The fourth did not return in a search by my university's library, so I wasn't able to read it. But let's get to the meat of it - "Basal body temperature, ovulation and the risk of conception, with special reference to the lifetimes of sperm and egg." This one I can read on JSTOR. According to the study you asked me to read, conception was achieved most commonly 2 days before ovulation at 36% probability, but 3 and 4 days were tied at 23% probability and 5 days had a 12% probability. Day of ovulation had a 7% chance (not surprising, seeing that the second paper I read mentioned that sperm needed to already be in the tubes when the egg was released, or it was already too late). The day before ovulation had a 16% probability. Basically, your source tells me that you are wrong when you say sperm lives 24-48 hours. Sperm is more likely to conceive a baby starting at 48 hours, but sperm at 72 hours and 96 hours are more likely to conceive a baby than 24 hours before ovulation. So I'm thinking, you are getting all of your information from places like babymed and fertility friend, and was hoping I wouldn't be able to read the articles, otherwise there's no way you would tell me to read them. This is why we learn in high school what good sources are. Tl;dr- it was a good attempt to save face by trying to imply that I am the one who doesn't read primary sources or believe what they say, but you have confused me with yourself.

Mommit

t5_2s3i3

cfw05zu

None of the titles seem to have anything to do with what you are trying to assert. The only link at the bottom is not a study, but a link to fertility friend.com, an unscientific website, which I suspect, is where you get. All of your information from. All of them reference the ova or the menstrual cycle, where are your studies on sperm? Never the less I will give it a shot. First article ( I found full text from my university's library. It only mentions fecundability, and does not mention at all how long sperm lives inside of a woman. It also focuses on the number of acts of coitus within a six day period. So nothing there Second ( mentions nothing concrete on the lifetime of sperm, but says that couples wishing to conceive have a 4 day fertile window before ovulation (seeming to disagree with you) and that couples wishing not to become pregnant should abstain 11-12 days before ovulation. Third source is a link back to fertility friend, so I'll be ignoring that one since it is non scientific. The fourth did not return in a search by my university's library, so I wasn't able to read it. But let's get to the meat of it - "Basal body temperature, ovulation and the risk of conception, with special reference to the lifetimes of sperm and egg." This one I can read on JSTOR. According to the study you asked me to read, conception was achieved most commonly 2 days before ovulation at 36% probability, but 3 and 4 days were tied at 23% probability and 5 days had a 12% probability. Day of ovulation had a 7% chance (not surprising, seeing that the second paper I read mentioned that sperm needed to already be in the tubes when the egg was released, or it was already too late). The day before ovulation had a 16% probability. Basically, your source tells me that you are wrong when you say sperm lives 24-48 hours. Sperm is more likely to conceive a baby starting at 48 hours, but sperm at 72 hours and 96 hours are more likely to conceive a baby than 24 hours before ovulation. So I'm thinking, you are getting all of your information from places like babymed and fertility friend, and was hoping I wouldn't be able to read the articles, otherwise there's no way you would tell me to read them. This is why we learn in high school what good sources are.

it was a good attempt to save face by trying to imply that I am the one who doesn't read primary sources or believe what they say, but you have confused me with yourself.

Sir_cire

You really need to calm down and stop projecting your what ever anger you have at elitist FPS players on me. I don't even like first person shooters, for the most part. I do, however, find them to be less casual just because there are people constantly shooting at you and trying to kill you and if you blink for a second you die. Pokemon, not so much. It's turned based. I can sit it down, eat my dinner, come back and pick it up right where I left off. Casual games are not a bad thing, and I never said every Nintendo game is casual. Just the games **I** played because that's what **I** was looking for at the time. Stop putting words in my mouth. It's getting annoying. If you want to defend Nintendo until you're blue in the face, that's fine. Just know that I'm done replying and that you're wasting your time because you're evangelizing Nintendo consoles to someone who's played them exclusively for 7 years. tl;dr Shut up. I don't care.

You really need to calm down and stop projecting your what ever anger you have at elitist FPS players on me. I don't even like first person shooters, for the most part. I do, however, find them to be less casual just because there are people constantly shooting at you and trying to kill you and if you blink for a second you die. Pokemon, not so much. It's turned based. I can sit it down, eat my dinner, come back and pick it up right where I left off. Casual games are not a bad thing, and I never said every Nintendo game is casual. Just the games I played because that's what I was looking for at the time. Stop putting words in my mouth. It's getting annoying. If you want to defend Nintendo until you're blue in the face, that's fine. Just know that I'm done replying and that you're wasting your time because you're evangelizing Nintendo consoles to someone who's played them exclusively for 7 years. tl;dr Shut up. I don't care.

PS4

t5_2rrlp

cfm84vd

You really need to calm down and stop projecting your what ever anger you have at elitist FPS players on me. I don't even like first person shooters, for the most part. I do, however, find them to be less casual just because there are people constantly shooting at you and trying to kill you and if you blink for a second you die. Pokemon, not so much. It's turned based. I can sit it down, eat my dinner, come back and pick it up right where I left off. Casual games are not a bad thing, and I never said every Nintendo game is casual. Just the games I played because that's what I was looking for at the time. Stop putting words in my mouth. It's getting annoying. If you want to defend Nintendo until you're blue in the face, that's fine. Just know that I'm done replying and that you're wasting your time because you're evangelizing Nintendo consoles to someone who's played them exclusively for 7 years.

Shut up. I don't care.

knightstalker1288

Who's paying to have these artifacts repatriated? How can we be sure the artifacts won't sustain any more damage in transit? How can we be sure the facilities in Greece can support the indefinite security and preservation of the artifacts? What is gained from risking the permanent destruction of these highly studied/replicated artifacts? A little more controversial question, "does returning the artifacts to Greece truly represent repatriation?" TLDR: artifact preservation&gt;it being located in its point of origin

Who's paying to have these artifacts repatriated? How can we be sure the artifacts won't sustain any more damage in transit? How can we be sure the facilities in Greece can support the indefinite security and preservation of the artifacts? What is gained from risking the permanent destruction of these highly studied/replicated artifacts? A little more controversial question, "does returning the artifacts to Greece truly represent repatriation?" TLDR: artifact preservation>it being located in its point of origin

Archaeology

t5_2qmyp

cfmq66k

Who's paying to have these artifacts repatriated? How can we be sure the artifacts won't sustain any more damage in transit? How can we be sure the facilities in Greece can support the indefinite security and preservation of the artifacts? What is gained from risking the permanent destruction of these highly studied/replicated artifacts? A little more controversial question, "does returning the artifacts to Greece truly represent repatriation?"

artifact preservation>it being located in its point of origin

alesiar

What you are saying is true. Unfortunately, as I found out the hard way, the "keeping fire off of escorts" thing has greatly diminished in usefulness in STO now. For one, most escorts in STF, even simple, decent builds, can pretty much tank while putting out immense damage. Don't get me started on better builds. A decked-out Fleet Defiant can solo a Cube with ease. A group of escorts can easily take out a Tactical cube by working together. The focus now has become on dealing as much damage as possible, and in PvP, dealing damage, debuffing, and coordinating. The reason ships like Gal-X are given a bad rap, as you say, is because they simply don't add up, most of the time. The Galaxy-X was envisioned as the Federation's "dreadnought", a ship capable of the "wow" factor, as it were, decloaking and unleashing a fury of phaser fire. Well, currently, ships can do "wow" damage in two ways: with narrow arc weapons and a very good turn rate, constant damage and damage resistance debuffing, or with wide arc beam arrays and maybe torps, where turn rate is not as important usually (but still can be, to maintain shield facings). And then there is the question of Bridge Officer stations. For a ship that can decloak and is supposed to be a dreadnought, the Gal-X has a paucity of Tactical stations. It has a Lt and Ens Tactical, a Commander Engineering, a Lt Commander Eng, and an Ens Sci. This is a really bad layout if you want to deal damage, or do anything crafty with crowd control and debuffing. A Lt Sci slot usually means you'll save those slots for TSS and HE, for self and team heals. If you use an Aux-To-Bat build, you can use Tac Team 1, BFAW 1, and Attack Pattern Beta 1 for the Tac slots. And your usual Emergency Power to this and that, Reverse shield polarity, and whatnot. Cool. So why does it get a bad rap, you still ask? Well, consider the fleet Excelsior. It has a Lt Commander Tac instead of the Lt Commander Eng and the Ens is Engineering and not Tac. Already, I can run a better build on this ship. I can now pack a powerful Tac Team 1 - BFAW**2** - APB**2** combo, or as I used to do it: Tac Team 1 - CRF**1**, APO**1**. What's more the turn on the excelsior is much better so you can actually pull off a great single cannon build. Then there is my current ship, the Monbosh. *10* turn rate! Can pack dual cannons! Although I still would suggest single cannons and a single DHC, or beam and DBB layout. It has a Lt Cmdr Tac, Commander Engineering, Ens Science, and **two** universal stations. I use one uni as Eng, and one uni as Science. This means that I can now, having used two slots for Transfer Shield Strength and Hazard Emitters, use a remaining sci BOFF slot for Tractor Beam or even Tractor Beam Repulsors! My Lt Cmdr Tac does TT1 - BO2 - APO1. My turn rate is faster so I can keep my DBBs / Cannons firing almost non-stop. Pit my monbosh against a Gal-X, and it'll be pretty obvious who comes out on top. I'll end up with just a little less hull, compensated by a higher shield modifier. The Gal-X has cloak? I have about twice it's turn, not to mention my ability to run Attack Pattern Omega, which it cant. I don't even need RCS. Instead of RCS, I use a bunch of consoles that make my critical chance skyrocket. (For a Fed at least). **TL;DR**: In the end, the Gal-X may seem attractive because it trades some of the usual boons: high turn rate, good boff layout for extra beefiness and tankiness, but imo and that of others, the trade isn't a fair trade. You get this lunky, fat ship that is not built for a "decloak and alpha" loadout. It was viable long ago. But then came the 5-weapon-fore Kumari. Then the Scimitar. The Avenger. The Mogh. And all those carriers and lockbox ships. The Gal-X is now sort of a reverse-anachronism, and it is heavily outdated. Most of the hate stems from this. Which is why you'll see so many requests **CRYPTIC MAKE A FLEET GAL-X PLS** If Cryptic does make a Fleet Galaxy-X, here's how it can be viable: * 4 Weapons Fore * 4 Weapons Aft * **Lt. Commander Tactical** * **Lt. Universal** * **Ens. Engineering** * **Commander Engineer** * **Lt. Science** * Spinal Lance Mk XII [Acc]x2 [CritD]: Very Rare Fore Weapon, can only be used on Gal-X and Fleet Gal-X. DPS Equal to 2x that of Dual Beam Bank Mk XII, but only one huge-ass beam that can travel through multiple opponents. Its arc is only 45 degrees. Cooldown period for firing this weapon is 15s, so it's almost like a Beam-Torp. Nukara console affects [Acc] by 10% increase. Innate Beam Overload 2 skill * Console - Universal - (something with 2% bonus accuracy and 20% bonus crit severity to all weapons. Increases Subsystem Repair by +15, Increases Power Insulators by +15, and if equipped along with the Spinal Lance, increases the innate Beam Overload skill to level 3. Oh by the way AuxToBat affects the [30second] cooldown on the innate BO. Can be equipped on any Federation vessel) * 3 Engineering * 3 Science * 4 Tactical * Turn Rate: 6 * Shield Mod: 1.1

What you are saying is true. Unfortunately, as I found out the hard way, the "keeping fire off of escorts" thing has greatly diminished in usefulness in STO now. For one, most escorts in STF, even simple, decent builds, can pretty much tank while putting out immense damage. Don't get me started on better builds. A decked-out Fleet Defiant can solo a Cube with ease. A group of escorts can easily take out a Tactical cube by working together. The focus now has become on dealing as much damage as possible, and in PvP, dealing damage, debuffing, and coordinating. The reason ships like Gal-X are given a bad rap, as you say, is because they simply don't add up, most of the time. The Galaxy-X was envisioned as the Federation's "dreadnought", a ship capable of the "wow" factor, as it were, decloaking and unleashing a fury of phaser fire. Well, currently, ships can do "wow" damage in two ways: with narrow arc weapons and a very good turn rate, constant damage and damage resistance debuffing, or with wide arc beam arrays and maybe torps, where turn rate is not as important usually (but still can be, to maintain shield facings). And then there is the question of Bridge Officer stations. For a ship that can decloak and is supposed to be a dreadnought, the Gal-X has a paucity of Tactical stations. It has a Lt and Ens Tactical, a Commander Engineering, a Lt Commander Eng, and an Ens Sci. This is a really bad layout if you want to deal damage, or do anything crafty with crowd control and debuffing. A Lt Sci slot usually means you'll save those slots for TSS and HE, for self and team heals. If you use an Aux-To-Bat build, you can use Tac Team 1, BFAW 1, and Attack Pattern Beta 1 for the Tac slots. And your usual Emergency Power to this and that, Reverse shield polarity, and whatnot. Cool. So why does it get a bad rap, you still ask? Well, consider the fleet Excelsior. It has a Lt Commander Tac instead of the Lt Commander Eng and the Ens is Engineering and not Tac. Already, I can run a better build on this ship. I can now pack a powerful Tac Team 1 - BFAW 2 - APB 2 combo, or as I used to do it: Tac Team 1 - CRF 1 , APO 1 . What's more the turn on the excelsior is much better so you can actually pull off a great single cannon build. Then there is my current ship, the Monbosh. 10 turn rate! Can pack dual cannons! Although I still would suggest single cannons and a single DHC, or beam and DBB layout. It has a Lt Cmdr Tac, Commander Engineering, Ens Science, and two universal stations. I use one uni as Eng, and one uni as Science. This means that I can now, having used two slots for Transfer Shield Strength and Hazard Emitters, use a remaining sci BOFF slot for Tractor Beam or even Tractor Beam Repulsors! My Lt Cmdr Tac does TT1 - BO2 - APO1. My turn rate is faster so I can keep my DBBs / Cannons firing almost non-stop. Pit my monbosh against a Gal-X, and it'll be pretty obvious who comes out on top. I'll end up with just a little less hull, compensated by a higher shield modifier. The Gal-X has cloak? I have about twice it's turn, not to mention my ability to run Attack Pattern Omega, which it cant. I don't even need RCS. Instead of RCS, I use a bunch of consoles that make my critical chance skyrocket. (For a Fed at least). TL;DR : In the end, the Gal-X may seem attractive because it trades some of the usual boons: high turn rate, good boff layout for extra beefiness and tankiness, but imo and that of others, the trade isn't a fair trade. You get this lunky, fat ship that is not built for a "decloak and alpha" loadout. It was viable long ago. But then came the 5-weapon-fore Kumari. Then the Scimitar. The Avenger. The Mogh. And all those carriers and lockbox ships. The Gal-X is now sort of a reverse-anachronism, and it is heavily outdated. Most of the hate stems from this. Which is why you'll see so many requests CRYPTIC MAKE A FLEET GAL-X PLS If Cryptic does make a Fleet Galaxy-X, here's how it can be viable: 4 Weapons Fore 4 Weapons Aft Lt. Commander Tactical Lt. Universal Ens. Engineering Commander Engineer Lt. Science Spinal Lance Mk XII [Acc]x2 [CritD]: Very Rare Fore Weapon, can only be used on Gal-X and Fleet Gal-X. DPS Equal to 2x that of Dual Beam Bank Mk XII, but only one huge-ass beam that can travel through multiple opponents. Its arc is only 45 degrees. Cooldown period for firing this weapon is 15s, so it's almost like a Beam-Torp. Nukara console affects [Acc] by 10% increase. Innate Beam Overload 2 skill Console - Universal - (something with 2% bonus accuracy and 20% bonus crit severity to all weapons. Increases Subsystem Repair by +15, Increases Power Insulators by +15, and if equipped along with the Spinal Lance, increases the innate Beam Overload skill to level 3. Oh by the way AuxToBat affects the [30second] cooldown on the innate BO. Can be equipped on any Federation vessel) 3 Engineering 3 Science 4 Tactical Turn Rate: 6 Shield Mod: 1.1

sto

t5_2rfq3

cflmu9e

What you are saying is true. Unfortunately, as I found out the hard way, the "keeping fire off of escorts" thing has greatly diminished in usefulness in STO now. For one, most escorts in STF, even simple, decent builds, can pretty much tank while putting out immense damage. Don't get me started on better builds. A decked-out Fleet Defiant can solo a Cube with ease. A group of escorts can easily take out a Tactical cube by working together. The focus now has become on dealing as much damage as possible, and in PvP, dealing damage, debuffing, and coordinating. The reason ships like Gal-X are given a bad rap, as you say, is because they simply don't add up, most of the time. The Galaxy-X was envisioned as the Federation's "dreadnought", a ship capable of the "wow" factor, as it were, decloaking and unleashing a fury of phaser fire. Well, currently, ships can do "wow" damage in two ways: with narrow arc weapons and a very good turn rate, constant damage and damage resistance debuffing, or with wide arc beam arrays and maybe torps, where turn rate is not as important usually (but still can be, to maintain shield facings). And then there is the question of Bridge Officer stations. For a ship that can decloak and is supposed to be a dreadnought, the Gal-X has a paucity of Tactical stations. It has a Lt and Ens Tactical, a Commander Engineering, a Lt Commander Eng, and an Ens Sci. This is a really bad layout if you want to deal damage, or do anything crafty with crowd control and debuffing. A Lt Sci slot usually means you'll save those slots for TSS and HE, for self and team heals. If you use an Aux-To-Bat build, you can use Tac Team 1, BFAW 1, and Attack Pattern Beta 1 for the Tac slots. And your usual Emergency Power to this and that, Reverse shield polarity, and whatnot. Cool. So why does it get a bad rap, you still ask? Well, consider the fleet Excelsior. It has a Lt Commander Tac instead of the Lt Commander Eng and the Ens is Engineering and not Tac. Already, I can run a better build on this ship. I can now pack a powerful Tac Team 1 - BFAW 2 - APB 2 combo, or as I used to do it: Tac Team 1 - CRF 1 , APO 1 . What's more the turn on the excelsior is much better so you can actually pull off a great single cannon build. Then there is my current ship, the Monbosh. 10 turn rate! Can pack dual cannons! Although I still would suggest single cannons and a single DHC, or beam and DBB layout. It has a Lt Cmdr Tac, Commander Engineering, Ens Science, and two universal stations. I use one uni as Eng, and one uni as Science. This means that I can now, having used two slots for Transfer Shield Strength and Hazard Emitters, use a remaining sci BOFF slot for Tractor Beam or even Tractor Beam Repulsors! My Lt Cmdr Tac does TT1 - BO2 - APO1. My turn rate is faster so I can keep my DBBs / Cannons firing almost non-stop. Pit my monbosh against a Gal-X, and it'll be pretty obvious who comes out on top. I'll end up with just a little less hull, compensated by a higher shield modifier. The Gal-X has cloak? I have about twice it's turn, not to mention my ability to run Attack Pattern Omega, which it cant. I don't even need RCS. Instead of RCS, I use a bunch of consoles that make my critical chance skyrocket. (For a Fed at least).

In the end, the Gal-X may seem attractive because it trades some of the usual boons: high turn rate, good boff layout for extra beefiness and tankiness, but imo and that of others, the trade isn't a fair trade. You get this lunky, fat ship that is not built for a "decloak and alpha" loadout. It was viable long ago. But then came the 5-weapon-fore Kumari. Then the Scimitar. The Avenger. The Mogh. And all those carriers and lockbox ships. The Gal-X is now sort of a reverse-anachronism, and it is heavily outdated. Most of the hate stems from this. Which is why you'll see so many requests CRYPTIC MAKE A FLEET GAL-X PLS If Cryptic does make a Fleet Galaxy-X, here's how it can be viable: 4 Weapons Fore 4 Weapons Aft Lt. Commander Tactical Lt. Universal Ens. Engineering Commander Engineer Lt. Science Spinal Lance Mk XII [Acc]x2 [CritD]: Very Rare Fore Weapon, can only be used on Gal-X and Fleet Gal-X. DPS Equal to 2x that of Dual Beam Bank Mk XII, but only one huge-ass beam that can travel through multiple opponents. Its arc is only 45 degrees. Cooldown period for firing this weapon is 15s, so it's almost like a Beam-Torp. Nukara console affects [Acc] by 10% increase. Innate Beam Overload 2 skill Console - Universal - (something with 2% bonus accuracy and 20% bonus crit severity to all weapons. Increases Subsystem Repair by +15, Increases Power Insulators by +15, and if equipped along with the Spinal Lance, increases the innate Beam Overload skill to level 3. Oh by the way AuxToBat affects the [30second] cooldown on the innate BO. Can be equipped on any Federation vessel) 3 Engineering 3 Science 4 Tactical Turn Rate: 6 Shield Mod: 1.1

TheNewHero

Ummm...that is actually true...Back some years ago, two things emerged. One from Singapore/Hong Kong/Malaysia (I can't remember which one of those it was), they would put on a plush toy on their tow hook because they believed it would keep them safe from evil spirits, so street racers did that in belief it'd keep them safe-er. The main occurrence though was in Japan where street racers used it to distinguish one another. It is/was also a part of drifting sub culture where people use it to see what crazy angle they can get it to hang out during drifting tl;dr it does have merit to it, however possibly it's different in America since I have no experience with the car scene there...

Ummm...that is actually true...Back some years ago, two things emerged. One from Singapore/Hong Kong/Malaysia (I can't remember which one of those it was), they would put on a plush toy on their tow hook because they believed it would keep them safe from evil spirits, so street racers did that in belief it'd keep them safe-er. The main occurrence though was in Japan where street racers used it to distinguish one another. It is/was also a part of drifting sub culture where people use it to see what crazy angle they can get it to hang out during drifting tl;dr it does have merit to it, however possibly it's different in America since I have no experience with the car scene there...

cars

t5_2qhl2

cflkbag

Ummm...that is actually true...Back some years ago, two things emerged. One from Singapore/Hong Kong/Malaysia (I can't remember which one of those it was), they would put on a plush toy on their tow hook because they believed it would keep them safe from evil spirits, so street racers did that in belief it'd keep them safe-er. The main occurrence though was in Japan where street racers used it to distinguish one another. It is/was also a part of drifting sub culture where people use it to see what crazy angle they can get it to hang out during drifting

it does have merit to it, however possibly it's different in America since I have no experience with the car scene there...

swim_swim_swim

I haven't regretted it for one minute. I don't go to a first tier school, but my school is prestigious regionally. I think one thing that you **need** to ask yourself before deciding to attend a regional school is whether or not you truly have the capability and work ethic to finish towards the top of your class. I floated through undergrad in finance with a 3.5 GPA doing almost no work whatsoever, but I swam for all 4 years on a top-25 team - so I knew I had the work ethic. Once I was in, doing poorly simply wasn't an option for me. If you pick the right school, are interested in the material, finish towards the top of your class, and take every possible opportunity you get to network, the horror stories you hear will avoid you completely (at least they have for me). I'm sure there are people out there who do all those things and still fall through the cracks in terms of employment, but from what I see going on around me day in and day out, the people who commit themselves to law school (ALL aspects - grades; extracurriculars; taking actual time to craft resumes, cover letters, and thank you notes; networking, professionalism) do much more than just fine for themselves. The people who don't have good job opportunities are the ones who just assume they'll be able to go through law school doing the same thing they've always done. It's a lot of work, but in no way is it impossible, or even miserable, as people tend to describe it. I'll add that 1L year is nerve racking because you don't know how smart everyone else is - but when grades come out, bet your ASS that the people you see at the library the most will be (for the most part) towards the top of the class. After that, not everyone at the top puts actual time into their resumes/etc and into networking, and those people wind up behind the ones that do. Basically, take every chance you have to do things better than the next guy and you'll be absolutely fine. HOWEVER, if you're unsure whether you'll be able to do that, or unsure whether you'll be able to end up toward the top of the class, **think** **twice** **before** **enrolling**. I'll add one more thing: there are three types of people in law school: * 1. people that studied 24/7 in undergrad and for the LSAT, and succeeded and got into law school that way. * 2. People who did absolutely no work in undergrad, and succeeded and got into law school because they are naturally very intelligent. * 3. People who were a combination of 1 and 2 (I.e. Studied a decent bit, and are decently smart). The third group will make up the middle 70% of your law school class. Groups 1 and 2 will both be evenly split between the top 15% and the bottom 15%. The kids who did well because they studied crazy hard in undergrad, but never actually knew *how* to study (I.e. Got by on sheer volume of studying) will be in the bottom. Those who studied a lot and know how to adjust their studying for a different system (law school is waaay different) will end up in the top. The kids who skated by in undergrad and think they can do the same in law school will wind up in the bottom. Those who understand that law school is a different beast and understand that it's time to work will end up in the top. Obviously none of that is 100% set in stone, but I truly believe that recognizing which of those groups you fit into is a HUGE factor in how successful you'll be in law school. TL;DR: don't listen to the people telling you you'll be broke and that law school and the profession sucks - instead, take some to find out whether law school is something you can do successfully. If it is, and if you choose the right school for you, you shouldn't have any regrets.

I haven't regretted it for one minute. I don't go to a first tier school, but my school is prestigious regionally. I think one thing that you need to ask yourself before deciding to attend a regional school is whether or not you truly have the capability and work ethic to finish towards the top of your class. I floated through undergrad in finance with a 3.5 GPA doing almost no work whatsoever, but I swam for all 4 years on a top-25 team - so I knew I had the work ethic. Once I was in, doing poorly simply wasn't an option for me. If you pick the right school, are interested in the material, finish towards the top of your class, and take every possible opportunity you get to network, the horror stories you hear will avoid you completely (at least they have for me). I'm sure there are people out there who do all those things and still fall through the cracks in terms of employment, but from what I see going on around me day in and day out, the people who commit themselves to law school (ALL aspects - grades; extracurriculars; taking actual time to craft resumes, cover letters, and thank you notes; networking, professionalism) do much more than just fine for themselves. The people who don't have good job opportunities are the ones who just assume they'll be able to go through law school doing the same thing they've always done. It's a lot of work, but in no way is it impossible, or even miserable, as people tend to describe it. I'll add that 1L year is nerve racking because you don't know how smart everyone else is - but when grades come out, bet your ASS that the people you see at the library the most will be (for the most part) towards the top of the class. After that, not everyone at the top puts actual time into their resumes/etc and into networking, and those people wind up behind the ones that do. Basically, take every chance you have to do things better than the next guy and you'll be absolutely fine. HOWEVER, if you're unsure whether you'll be able to do that, or unsure whether you'll be able to end up toward the top of the class, think twice before enrolling . I'll add one more thing: there are three types of people in law school: people that studied 24/7 in undergrad and for the LSAT, and succeeded and got into law school that way. People who did absolutely no work in undergrad, and succeeded and got into law school because they are naturally very intelligent. People who were a combination of 1 and 2 (I.e. Studied a decent bit, and are decently smart). The third group will make up the middle 70% of your law school class. Groups 1 and 2 will both be evenly split between the top 15% and the bottom 15%. The kids who did well because they studied crazy hard in undergrad, but never actually knew how to study (I.e. Got by on sheer volume of studying) will be in the bottom. Those who studied a lot and know how to adjust their studying for a different system (law school is waaay different) will end up in the top. The kids who skated by in undergrad and think they can do the same in law school will wind up in the bottom. Those who understand that law school is a different beast and understand that it's time to work will end up in the top. Obviously none of that is 100% set in stone, but I truly believe that recognizing which of those groups you fit into is a HUGE factor in how successful you'll be in law school. TL;DR: don't listen to the people telling you you'll be broke and that law school and the profession sucks - instead, take some to find out whether law school is something you can do successfully. If it is, and if you choose the right school for you, you shouldn't have any regrets.

LawSchool

t5_2rb9g

cfowuwc

I haven't regretted it for one minute. I don't go to a first tier school, but my school is prestigious regionally. I think one thing that you need to ask yourself before deciding to attend a regional school is whether or not you truly have the capability and work ethic to finish towards the top of your class. I floated through undergrad in finance with a 3.5 GPA doing almost no work whatsoever, but I swam for all 4 years on a top-25 team - so I knew I had the work ethic. Once I was in, doing poorly simply wasn't an option for me. If you pick the right school, are interested in the material, finish towards the top of your class, and take every possible opportunity you get to network, the horror stories you hear will avoid you completely (at least they have for me). I'm sure there are people out there who do all those things and still fall through the cracks in terms of employment, but from what I see going on around me day in and day out, the people who commit themselves to law school (ALL aspects - grades; extracurriculars; taking actual time to craft resumes, cover letters, and thank you notes; networking, professionalism) do much more than just fine for themselves. The people who don't have good job opportunities are the ones who just assume they'll be able to go through law school doing the same thing they've always done. It's a lot of work, but in no way is it impossible, or even miserable, as people tend to describe it. I'll add that 1L year is nerve racking because you don't know how smart everyone else is - but when grades come out, bet your ASS that the people you see at the library the most will be (for the most part) towards the top of the class. After that, not everyone at the top puts actual time into their resumes/etc and into networking, and those people wind up behind the ones that do. Basically, take every chance you have to do things better than the next guy and you'll be absolutely fine. HOWEVER, if you're unsure whether you'll be able to do that, or unsure whether you'll be able to end up toward the top of the class, think twice before enrolling . I'll add one more thing: there are three types of people in law school: people that studied 24/7 in undergrad and for the LSAT, and succeeded and got into law school that way. People who did absolutely no work in undergrad, and succeeded and got into law school because they are naturally very intelligent. People who were a combination of 1 and 2 (I.e. Studied a decent bit, and are decently smart). The third group will make up the middle 70% of your law school class. Groups 1 and 2 will both be evenly split between the top 15% and the bottom 15%. The kids who did well because they studied crazy hard in undergrad, but never actually knew how to study (I.e. Got by on sheer volume of studying) will be in the bottom. Those who studied a lot and know how to adjust their studying for a different system (law school is waaay different) will end up in the top. The kids who skated by in undergrad and think they can do the same in law school will wind up in the bottom. Those who understand that law school is a different beast and understand that it's time to work will end up in the top. Obviously none of that is 100% set in stone, but I truly believe that recognizing which of those groups you fit into is a HUGE factor in how successful you'll be in law school.

don't listen to the people telling you you'll be broke and that law school and the profession sucks - instead, take some to find out whether law school is something you can do successfully. If it is, and if you choose the right school for you, you shouldn't have any regrets.

jonlucc

I agree to a point. Basically, you are correct that animals are imperfect test models and the efficacy or toxicology doesn't always translate to humans. On the other hand, it would be cruel to start injecting compounds into humans without some verification that it works and is safe. Humans are way too expensive to do the basic types of tests. It might help to think about it this way. I am in a lab, and I found a novel drug target that has the chance to treat some disease. First, I ask a team of chemists to make some molecules that they think have the potential to hit my target. We test them in a biochemical assay to make sure that they are actually binding to or inhibiting my target, and to find which of the hundreds of molecules they made bind best. After that, I take the top 50 molecules and test them in cells in a flask to see if they do what I want, and don't immediately kill all of the cells. Only after this would we put it into animals. We can either put 20 or so compounds into mice, rats, or rabbits or we can put them into humans, as you suggest. At this point, we know nothing about the safety of these molecules in living systems. They might not kill the cells directly, but they could accumulate in the liver, cause bleeding in the intestine, block cytochromes that make it fatal to eat grapefruit. So we put it into mice. A few mice get sick, and they are euthanized to avoid suffering unnecessarily. We use those mice to see if the molecules even get to my target tissue, if the molecule sticks around in the blood, gets into the brain, etc. Those are tests that would be completely unethical to run in humans, and would definitely be way to expensive to run in humans or monkeys. The next step is usually where dogs, rabbits, sheep, etc come in. They are bigger animals that usually have biology that is more similar to human than a mouse or rat, but still isn't as expensive as monkeys. This is usually to test efficacy (if the drug works and how well). At this point, we still don't have convincing data about how dangerous the drug is in the long term or on unexpected tissues, so we start a couple monkey studies. In these studies, we make sure the drug is still efficacious in the closest relatives to humans, and we look at every tissue we can to see if the drug is present and if there are side effects or toxicology problems. Only after all this is finished and written up into a large book's worth of reports to the FDA (and their international counterparts), we are ready to start planning human trials. There is a reason we don't do human trials earlier, and it isn't because we are afraid of eugenics. We're afraid we're going to expose humans to unnecessary risk that could cause them to be physically unwell for years to come. Not only is that sad and unethical, but it opens up the company to years and years of lawsuits. It's expensive enough to test in animals, it doesn't need to be more expensive because we're using humans willy nilly. **TL;DR The process is long and not perfect, but it exists for a reason.**

I agree to a point. Basically, you are correct that animals are imperfect test models and the efficacy or toxicology doesn't always translate to humans. On the other hand, it would be cruel to start injecting compounds into humans without some verification that it works and is safe. Humans are way too expensive to do the basic types of tests. It might help to think about it this way. I am in a lab, and I found a novel drug target that has the chance to treat some disease. First, I ask a team of chemists to make some molecules that they think have the potential to hit my target. We test them in a biochemical assay to make sure that they are actually binding to or inhibiting my target, and to find which of the hundreds of molecules they made bind best. After that, I take the top 50 molecules and test them in cells in a flask to see if they do what I want, and don't immediately kill all of the cells. Only after this would we put it into animals. We can either put 20 or so compounds into mice, rats, or rabbits or we can put them into humans, as you suggest. At this point, we know nothing about the safety of these molecules in living systems. They might not kill the cells directly, but they could accumulate in the liver, cause bleeding in the intestine, block cytochromes that make it fatal to eat grapefruit. So we put it into mice. A few mice get sick, and they are euthanized to avoid suffering unnecessarily. We use those mice to see if the molecules even get to my target tissue, if the molecule sticks around in the blood, gets into the brain, etc. Those are tests that would be completely unethical to run in humans, and would definitely be way to expensive to run in humans or monkeys. The next step is usually where dogs, rabbits, sheep, etc come in. They are bigger animals that usually have biology that is more similar to human than a mouse or rat, but still isn't as expensive as monkeys. This is usually to test efficacy (if the drug works and how well). At this point, we still don't have convincing data about how dangerous the drug is in the long term or on unexpected tissues, so we start a couple monkey studies. In these studies, we make sure the drug is still efficacious in the closest relatives to humans, and we look at every tissue we can to see if the drug is present and if there are side effects or toxicology problems. Only after all this is finished and written up into a large book's worth of reports to the FDA (and their international counterparts), we are ready to start planning human trials. There is a reason we don't do human trials earlier, and it isn't because we are afraid of eugenics. We're afraid we're going to expose humans to unnecessary risk that could cause them to be physically unwell for years to come. Not only is that sad and unethical, but it opens up the company to years and years of lawsuits. It's expensive enough to test in animals, it doesn't need to be more expensive because we're using humans willy nilly. TL;DR The process is long and not perfect, but it exists for a reason.

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

cfm2g8y

I agree to a point. Basically, you are correct that animals are imperfect test models and the efficacy or toxicology doesn't always translate to humans. On the other hand, it would be cruel to start injecting compounds into humans without some verification that it works and is safe. Humans are way too expensive to do the basic types of tests. It might help to think about it this way. I am in a lab, and I found a novel drug target that has the chance to treat some disease. First, I ask a team of chemists to make some molecules that they think have the potential to hit my target. We test them in a biochemical assay to make sure that they are actually binding to or inhibiting my target, and to find which of the hundreds of molecules they made bind best. After that, I take the top 50 molecules and test them in cells in a flask to see if they do what I want, and don't immediately kill all of the cells. Only after this would we put it into animals. We can either put 20 or so compounds into mice, rats, or rabbits or we can put them into humans, as you suggest. At this point, we know nothing about the safety of these molecules in living systems. They might not kill the cells directly, but they could accumulate in the liver, cause bleeding in the intestine, block cytochromes that make it fatal to eat grapefruit. So we put it into mice. A few mice get sick, and they are euthanized to avoid suffering unnecessarily. We use those mice to see if the molecules even get to my target tissue, if the molecule sticks around in the blood, gets into the brain, etc. Those are tests that would be completely unethical to run in humans, and would definitely be way to expensive to run in humans or monkeys. The next step is usually where dogs, rabbits, sheep, etc come in. They are bigger animals that usually have biology that is more similar to human than a mouse or rat, but still isn't as expensive as monkeys. This is usually to test efficacy (if the drug works and how well). At this point, we still don't have convincing data about how dangerous the drug is in the long term or on unexpected tissues, so we start a couple monkey studies. In these studies, we make sure the drug is still efficacious in the closest relatives to humans, and we look at every tissue we can to see if the drug is present and if there are side effects or toxicology problems. Only after all this is finished and written up into a large book's worth of reports to the FDA (and their international counterparts), we are ready to start planning human trials. There is a reason we don't do human trials earlier, and it isn't because we are afraid of eugenics. We're afraid we're going to expose humans to unnecessary risk that could cause them to be physically unwell for years to come. Not only is that sad and unethical, but it opens up the company to years and years of lawsuits. It's expensive enough to test in animals, it doesn't need to be more expensive because we're using humans willy nilly.

The process is long and not perfect, but it exists for a reason.

jonlucc

You make a big jump from saying that there are drugs on the market which are not as safe as expected. I see this more as a failure of the FDA and the drug company, not the preclinical models. That is not my field, so it would take some time for me to review the preclinical data, but I think it's safe to assume that these drugs looked ok in animals. It takes *very careful* consideration about what should be monitored in clinical trials and how outcomes should be measured. These studies are planned for many months before ever dosing a human, and if you don't look at the right endpoints, you miss stuff. Your point is flawed in a critical way: just because one drug has harmed some people does not mean that you are not increasing safety by doing preclinical studies. Dosing directly in humans would almost certainly result in a *much* higher human morbidity. **TL;DR It's still not a perfect system, but the animals have stopped many unsafe drugs from getting to clinical phase**

You make a big jump from saying that there are drugs on the market which are not as safe as expected. I see this more as a failure of the FDA and the drug company, not the preclinical models. That is not my field, so it would take some time for me to review the preclinical data, but I think it's safe to assume that these drugs looked ok in animals. It takes very careful consideration about what should be monitored in clinical trials and how outcomes should be measured. These studies are planned for many months before ever dosing a human, and if you don't look at the right endpoints, you miss stuff. Your point is flawed in a critical way: just because one drug has harmed some people does not mean that you are not increasing safety by doing preclinical studies. Dosing directly in humans would almost certainly result in a much higher human morbidity. TL;DR It's still not a perfect system, but the animals have stopped many unsafe drugs from getting to clinical phase

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

cfm3nsu

You make a big jump from saying that there are drugs on the market which are not as safe as expected. I see this more as a failure of the FDA and the drug company, not the preclinical models. That is not my field, so it would take some time for me to review the preclinical data, but I think it's safe to assume that these drugs looked ok in animals. It takes very careful consideration about what should be monitored in clinical trials and how outcomes should be measured. These studies are planned for many months before ever dosing a human, and if you don't look at the right endpoints, you miss stuff. Your point is flawed in a critical way: just because one drug has harmed some people does not mean that you are not increasing safety by doing preclinical studies. Dosing directly in humans would almost certainly result in a much higher human morbidity.

It's still not a perfect system, but the animals have stopped many unsafe drugs from getting to clinical phase

Tactical_Nick

I was with my (now ex) girlfriend driving to her house one night after watching a movie at my house. As we were driving though town (she lived outta town) I noticed this weird neon purple light under this van in front of us thinking it was just some lights installed underneath the van for whatever reason. We hit a red light as the van was far enough ahead to make it through the intersection, except as the van drove away the light under it remained in the middle of the intersection and kind of hovered right in front of my girlfriend's car. I couldn't look away from it and had tunnel vision as I was looking at it, and I know it was only for a second or two but it felt like an hour. Then in a flash it shot down the street to our left, to which I turned to my gf and asked her if she just saw that which she did. We told her family and I told mine when I got home, nobody has any clue what it was that happened. TL;DR went driving, saw weird lights, got put into a trance.

I was with my (now ex) girlfriend driving to her house one night after watching a movie at my house. As we were driving though town (she lived outta town) I noticed this weird neon purple light under this van in front of us thinking it was just some lights installed underneath the van for whatever reason. We hit a red light as the van was far enough ahead to make it through the intersection, except as the van drove away the light under it remained in the middle of the intersection and kind of hovered right in front of my girlfriend's car. I couldn't look away from it and had tunnel vision as I was looking at it, and I know it was only for a second or two but it felt like an hour. Then in a flash it shot down the street to our left, to which I turned to my gf and asked her if she just saw that which she did. We told her family and I told mine when I got home, nobody has any clue what it was that happened. TL;DR went driving, saw weird lights, got put into a trance.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

cflvya1

I was with my (now ex) girlfriend driving to her house one night after watching a movie at my house. As we were driving though town (she lived outta town) I noticed this weird neon purple light under this van in front of us thinking it was just some lights installed underneath the van for whatever reason. We hit a red light as the van was far enough ahead to make it through the intersection, except as the van drove away the light under it remained in the middle of the intersection and kind of hovered right in front of my girlfriend's car. I couldn't look away from it and had tunnel vision as I was looking at it, and I know it was only for a second or two but it felt like an hour. Then in a flash it shot down the street to our left, to which I turned to my gf and asked her if she just saw that which she did. We told her family and I told mine when I got home, nobody has any clue what it was that happened.

went driving, saw weird lights, got put into a trance.

StrykerSeven

The roots that are collected are not tree roots. That refers to other wild plant roots and tubers that are traditionally collected, like wild parsnip etc. The reason that more trees=more roots to collect is just because of a game mechanic regarding how such things spawn. tl;dr not many European cultures eat tree roots as a staple food

The roots that are collected are not tree roots. That refers to other wild plant roots and tubers that are traditionally collected, like wild parsnip etc. The reason that more trees=more roots to collect is just because of a game mechanic regarding how such things spawn. tl;dr not many European cultures eat tree roots as a staple food

Banished

t5_2wp64

cfm5ujq

The roots that are collected are not tree roots. That refers to other wild plant roots and tubers that are traditionally collected, like wild parsnip etc. The reason that more trees=more roots to collect is just because of a game mechanic regarding how such things spawn.

not many European cultures eat tree roots as a staple food

Highboi

i just want to point out that [iPod Touch 5's cannot be downgrade]( but if your main concern is with being forced to lose a jailbreak (bootloops or w/e) iLex R.A.T can restore your device to "stock" with a jailbreak intact. [tl;dr version in step 1](

i just want to point out that iPod Touch 5's cannot be downgrade iLex R.A.T can restore your device to "stock" with a jailbreak intact. [tl;dr version in step 1](

jailbreak

t5_2r8c5

cfm9p61

i just want to point out that iPod Touch 5's cannot be downgrade iLex R.A.T can restore your device to "stock" with a jailbreak intact. [

version in step 1](

ikarigullwing

Umbreon is firstly an evolution of Eevee, which is my favorite because of how varied their final outcomes are. Pokemon are extremely fantastic creatures, ranging from dragons to floating crystals that look like ice cream cones. In that regard, an Umbreon is an understated animal that wouldn't cause too much in the way of concern. Again, concealing his strength. Umbreon does not kill you. Umbreon does not beat you into submission. Umbreon defends his trainer, and will whittle you away with status moves, status effects, and stall until there is nothing left. It is in this regard where Umbreon's true strength comes to the forefront. tl;dr Walking an Umbreon at night would be fucking awesome.

Umbreon is firstly an evolution of Eevee, which is my favorite because of how varied their final outcomes are. Pokemon are extremely fantastic creatures, ranging from dragons to floating crystals that look like ice cream cones. In that regard, an Umbreon is an understated animal that wouldn't cause too much in the way of concern. Again, concealing his strength. Umbreon does not kill you. Umbreon does not beat you into submission. Umbreon defends his trainer, and will whittle you away with status moves, status effects, and stall until there is nothing left. It is in this regard where Umbreon's true strength comes to the forefront. tl;dr Walking an Umbreon at night would be fucking awesome.

pokemon

t5_2qmeb

cfm9575

Umbreon is firstly an evolution of Eevee, which is my favorite because of how varied their final outcomes are. Pokemon are extremely fantastic creatures, ranging from dragons to floating crystals that look like ice cream cones. In that regard, an Umbreon is an understated animal that wouldn't cause too much in the way of concern. Again, concealing his strength. Umbreon does not kill you. Umbreon does not beat you into submission. Umbreon defends his trainer, and will whittle you away with status moves, status effects, and stall until there is nothing left. It is in this regard where Umbreon's true strength comes to the forefront.

Walking an Umbreon at night would be fucking awesome.

Makeitnastie

The support picks say a lot about the psyche of the person who plays them. When you pick sona you are making a statement. You have let go of your ego and dedicated yourself to helping your team above yourself. TL;DR Sona = Jesus

The support picks say a lot about the psyche of the person who plays them. When you pick sona you are making a statement. You have let go of your ego and dedicated yourself to helping your team above yourself. TL;DR Sona = Jesus

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

cfmdq7i

The support picks say a lot about the psyche of the person who plays them. When you pick sona you are making a statement. You have let go of your ego and dedicated yourself to helping your team above yourself.

Sona = Jesus

adrianbedard

Not to mention, most modern supports have a lot of engage/disengage, so we are actually easy targets for blame. Happily, when mad, people blame the damage dealers. When you deploy a lantern or stun/knockback and save someone, the damage dealers like you. TL,DR: we should actually get more blame, but we don't. :D

Not to mention, most modern supports have a lot of engage/disengage, so we are actually easy targets for blame. Happily, when mad, people blame the damage dealers. When you deploy a lantern or stun/knockback and save someone, the damage dealers like you. TL,DR: we should actually get more blame, but we don't. :D

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

cfmqp49

Not to mention, most modern supports have a lot of engage/disengage, so we are actually easy targets for blame. Happily, when mad, people blame the damage dealers. When you deploy a lantern or stun/knockback and save someone, the damage dealers like you.

we should actually get more blame, but we don't. :D

Made_you_read_penis

If you switch genders and it still isn't an issue then it isn't an issue. &gt; **I (18M) have been with my girlfriend (19) for two years. Her weight has always bothered me a little. I don't think she'll ever lose it. Is this important?** &gt;When we started dating, my girlfriend was overweight. She's not huge, but probably around 190 and 5'11. She has a lot of belly fat and can't do one sit up (literally). I think her face is gorgeous and our relationship is loving and emotionally perfect. I know I probably sound like a jerk, but I'm skinny and work out and make some effort to try to eat healthily. &gt;I've been trying to make an effort to get her active/eat healthy (telling her i'm at the gym or that i wanna diet...), but she's in college and handles two jobs and by the end of the day she's always exhausted and wants to play videogames/watch tv. She also has a steady diet of burritos and burgers (she's not really into veggies lol) &gt;Sometimes I feel unattracted to her because of her body (if she wears a tighter shirt or has no clothes on), but I love her and her mind/personality and face so much. What do I do? This isn't worth a break up, right? &gt;EDIT: Let's say I make a continued effort over time and try to get her to exercise with me. What if no change happens? &gt;----------- **TLDR: My girlfriend is overweight and I am in good shape. I've tried to get her to become in shape over the past two years but nothing works. Should I stop caring about her weight?** Personally, I would think that was a messed up thing to say, mostly because you came into the relationship knowing that this was a problem for you. I don't want to change my spouse, her body is her choice, and my choice is only my involvement in her life.

If you switch genders and it still isn't an issue then it isn't an issue. > I (18M) have been with my girlfriend (19) for two years. Her weight has always bothered me a little. I don't think she'll ever lose it. Is this important? >When we started dating, my girlfriend was overweight. She's not huge, but probably around 190 and 5'11. She has a lot of belly fat and can't do one sit up (literally). I think her face is gorgeous and our relationship is loving and emotionally perfect. I know I probably sound like a jerk, but I'm skinny and work out and make some effort to try to eat healthily. >I've been trying to make an effort to get her active/eat healthy (telling her i'm at the gym or that i wanna diet...), but she's in college and handles two jobs and by the end of the day she's always exhausted and wants to play videogames/watch tv. She also has a steady diet of burritos and burgers (she's not really into veggies lol) >Sometimes I feel unattracted to her because of her body (if she wears a tighter shirt or has no clothes on), but I love her and her mind/personality and face so much. What do I do? This isn't worth a break up, right? >EDIT: Let's say I make a continued effort over time and try to get her to exercise with me. What if no change happens? >----------- TLDR: My girlfriend is overweight and I am in good shape. I've tried to get her to become in shape over the past two years but nothing works. Should I stop caring about her weight? Personally, I would think that was a messed up thing to say, mostly because you came into the relationship knowing that this was a problem for you. I don't want to change my spouse, her body is her choice, and my choice is only my involvement in her life.

relationships

t5_2qjvn

cfmrcpo

If you switch genders and it still isn't an issue then it isn't an issue. > I (18M) have been with my girlfriend (19) for two years. Her weight has always bothered me a little. I don't think she'll ever lose it. Is this important? >When we started dating, my girlfriend was overweight. She's not huge, but probably around 190 and 5'11. She has a lot of belly fat and can't do one sit up (literally). I think her face is gorgeous and our relationship is loving and emotionally perfect. I know I probably sound like a jerk, but I'm skinny and work out and make some effort to try to eat healthily. >I've been trying to make an effort to get her active/eat healthy (telling her i'm at the gym or that i wanna diet...), but she's in college and handles two jobs and by the end of the day she's always exhausted and wants to play videogames/watch tv. She also has a steady diet of burritos and burgers (she's not really into veggies lol) >Sometimes I feel unattracted to her because of her body (if she wears a tighter shirt or has no clothes on), but I love her and her mind/personality and face so much. What do I do? This isn't worth a break up, right? >EDIT: Let's say I make a continued effort over time and try to get her to exercise with me. What if no change happens? >-----------

My girlfriend is overweight and I am in good shape. I've tried to get her to become in shape over the past two years but nothing works. Should I stop caring about her weight? Personally, I would think that was a messed up thing to say, mostly because you came into the relationship knowing that this was a problem for you. I don't want to change my spouse, her body is her choice, and my choice is only my involvement in her life.

Contrary-Mary

For what it's worth, I'm dealing with this scenario in my family (not me though). Ten years in and it's got the couple in counseling (again) and it's not about the weight so much as it is the behaviors of both of them, and for what the weight issue is a proxy. Picture yourself in 5 years with this guy. The older we get, the less the body forgives. Do you think he will take better care of himself in the future? Are you willing to be a good example for him? For me &amp; my SO, we like a lot of the same physical activities, some of which we do b/c the other likes it more. For my family situation, they don't like to do anything together except hike. I know that me going off on my bike inspires my SO and vice versa. I explained this to my family member but got nowhere. Tl:dr - this can be the issue that breaks you up in the future. Consider it carefully now.

For what it's worth, I'm dealing with this scenario in my family (not me though). Ten years in and it's got the couple in counseling (again) and it's not about the weight so much as it is the behaviors of both of them, and for what the weight issue is a proxy. Picture yourself in 5 years with this guy. The older we get, the less the body forgives. Do you think he will take better care of himself in the future? Are you willing to be a good example for him? For me & my SO, we like a lot of the same physical activities, some of which we do b/c the other likes it more. For my family situation, they don't like to do anything together except hike. I know that me going off on my bike inspires my SO and vice versa. I explained this to my family member but got nowhere. Tl:dr - this can be the issue that breaks you up in the future. Consider it carefully now.

relationships

t5_2qjvn

cfmlsum

For what it's worth, I'm dealing with this scenario in my family (not me though). Ten years in and it's got the couple in counseling (again) and it's not about the weight so much as it is the behaviors of both of them, and for what the weight issue is a proxy. Picture yourself in 5 years with this guy. The older we get, the less the body forgives. Do you think he will take better care of himself in the future? Are you willing to be a good example for him? For me & my SO, we like a lot of the same physical activities, some of which we do b/c the other likes it more. For my family situation, they don't like to do anything together except hike. I know that me going off on my bike inspires my SO and vice versa. I explained this to my family member but got nowhere.

this can be the issue that breaks you up in the future. Consider it carefully now.

backfizz

Well that's the attitude of the majority of ppl playing online games. I played a lot of LoL. Its community turned me into a toxic piece of shit. Realizing what I have become I quit LoL switching to Dota 2. Dota is 1000 times better than LoL tho the community isn't that much better for me. But I met a few nice ppl who told me to ignore the retards appearing periodically which I had trouble with. After a few weeks of working on myself I did it. Despite being calm all the time now it still blows my mind how ridiculously simple some ppl are. I mean all they're trying to do is making others angry. How intelligent of a person you can be if you consistently ruin the game for all but yourself. It's just common sense to want to have fun playing a game. If you have fun picking on others or you are just flaming for no apparent reason you must have some issues. tl;dr : If you are a flamer change your attitude. Insulting other ppl in games or trying to make them mad is literally retarded. Unfortunately manhood is too huge therefore retarded ppl are everywhere.

Well that's the attitude of the majority of ppl playing online games. I played a lot of LoL. Its community turned me into a toxic piece of shit. Realizing what I have become I quit LoL switching to Dota 2. Dota is 1000 times better than LoL tho the community isn't that much better for me. But I met a few nice ppl who told me to ignore the retards appearing periodically which I had trouble with. After a few weeks of working on myself I did it. Despite being calm all the time now it still blows my mind how ridiculously simple some ppl are. I mean all they're trying to do is making others angry. How intelligent of a person you can be if you consistently ruin the game for all but yourself. It's just common sense to want to have fun playing a game. If you have fun picking on others or you are just flaming for no apparent reason you must have some issues. tl;dr : If you are a flamer change your attitude. Insulting other ppl in games or trying to make them mad is literally retarded. Unfortunately manhood is too huge therefore retarded ppl are everywhere.

DotA2

t5_2s580

cfmpabg

Well that's the attitude of the majority of ppl playing online games. I played a lot of LoL. Its community turned me into a toxic piece of shit. Realizing what I have become I quit LoL switching to Dota 2. Dota is 1000 times better than LoL tho the community isn't that much better for me. But I met a few nice ppl who told me to ignore the retards appearing periodically which I had trouble with. After a few weeks of working on myself I did it. Despite being calm all the time now it still blows my mind how ridiculously simple some ppl are. I mean all they're trying to do is making others angry. How intelligent of a person you can be if you consistently ruin the game for all but yourself. It's just common sense to want to have fun playing a game. If you have fun picking on others or you are just flaming for no apparent reason you must have some issues.

If you are a flamer change your attitude. Insulting other ppl in games or trying to make them mad is literally retarded. Unfortunately manhood is too huge therefore retarded ppl are everywhere.

I_amSean

Posting on behalf of a friend: I was standing in my uncle's pub when I looked out the window and saw an old man walking around the back of the building. I was confused as to what he was doing back there, when he drops his pants and takes a big shit on the pavement. He then pulls his pants back up, walks around to the front of the building and talks to a random man, and points to where he took this shit. A wattery one, streaming down the pavement into the drain. Tl;dr took shit showed someone and was proud.

Posting on behalf of a friend: I was standing in my uncle's pub when I looked out the window and saw an old man walking around the back of the building. I was confused as to what he was doing back there, when he drops his pants and takes a big shit on the pavement. He then pulls his pants back up, walks around to the front of the building and talks to a random man, and points to where he took this shit. A wattery one, streaming down the pavement into the drain. Tl;dr took shit showed someone and was proud.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

cfmtcpa

Posting on behalf of a friend: I was standing in my uncle's pub when I looked out the window and saw an old man walking around the back of the building. I was confused as to what he was doing back there, when he drops his pants and takes a big shit on the pavement. He then pulls his pants back up, walks around to the front of the building and talks to a random man, and points to where he took this shit. A wattery one, streaming down the pavement into the drain.

took shit showed someone and was proud.

distortednet

as far as improvements go i don't think i can really comment as i have not been a part of this subreddit for more than 2 weeks tops. i JUST started streaming maybe a week ago, but maybe i can provide new user prespective. Overall, I enjoy it. I try to engage with people that are running into technical issues or have questions like the whole "how do i get followers/viewers" - i feel that while i am new, i have an extremely strong understanding of these sorts of things, and try to help best i can. The banning of dump threads is fine by me. there is no doubt in my mind you are probably dealing with a massive amount of those per day, and they would do nothing but clog up the subreddit with noise. If a person can't put in enough effort to do a proper "this is my stream" thread in accordance to the guidelines posted, then i don't think they are willing to put in the work required to make their stream work and only serve to stain this subreddit with needless things. so tl/dr: i think, from a new user of this subreddit prespective, everything has been a great experience for me. I have engaged in conversation with many wonderful people with like-minded interests, and this subreddit has helped me network a little easier with experienced streamer's that have been in my shoes. its a place i can go to ask questions, or answer them. I strongly suspect this will become far more critical as twitch gains popularity. enabling downvotes could be a finicky thing. I personally would probably leave it as-is.

as far as improvements go i don't think i can really comment as i have not been a part of this subreddit for more than 2 weeks tops. i JUST started streaming maybe a week ago, but maybe i can provide new user prespective. Overall, I enjoy it. I try to engage with people that are running into technical issues or have questions like the whole "how do i get followers/viewers" - i feel that while i am new, i have an extremely strong understanding of these sorts of things, and try to help best i can. The banning of dump threads is fine by me. there is no doubt in my mind you are probably dealing with a massive amount of those per day, and they would do nothing but clog up the subreddit with noise. If a person can't put in enough effort to do a proper "this is my stream" thread in accordance to the guidelines posted, then i don't think they are willing to put in the work required to make their stream work and only serve to stain this subreddit with needless things. so tl/dr: i think, from a new user of this subreddit prespective, everything has been a great experience for me. I have engaged in conversation with many wonderful people with like-minded interests, and this subreddit has helped me network a little easier with experienced streamer's that have been in my shoes. its a place i can go to ask questions, or answer them. I strongly suspect this will become far more critical as twitch gains popularity. enabling downvotes could be a finicky thing. I personally would probably leave it as-is.

Twitch

t5_2s0fe

cft6ibc

as far as improvements go i don't think i can really comment as i have not been a part of this subreddit for more than 2 weeks tops. i JUST started streaming maybe a week ago, but maybe i can provide new user prespective. Overall, I enjoy it. I try to engage with people that are running into technical issues or have questions like the whole "how do i get followers/viewers" - i feel that while i am new, i have an extremely strong understanding of these sorts of things, and try to help best i can. The banning of dump threads is fine by me. there is no doubt in my mind you are probably dealing with a massive amount of those per day, and they would do nothing but clog up the subreddit with noise. If a person can't put in enough effort to do a proper "this is my stream" thread in accordance to the guidelines posted, then i don't think they are willing to put in the work required to make their stream work and only serve to stain this subreddit with needless things. so

i think, from a new user of this subreddit prespective, everything has been a great experience for me. I have engaged in conversation with many wonderful people with like-minded interests, and this subreddit has helped me network a little easier with experienced streamer's that have been in my shoes. its a place i can go to ask questions, or answer them. I strongly suspect this will become far more critical as twitch gains popularity. enabling downvotes could be a finicky thing. I personally would probably leave it as-is.

demonjrules

Stealing this from Jon Stewart - talking about Michael Sam going down on the draft list because he is openly gay. &gt; "If he had just been [convicted of DUI vehicular manslaughter]( or [obstruction of justice in connection with a murder]( or have been [accused of sexual assault]( or [screamed the N-word at a concert]( or [killed a bunch of dogs and buried them in his fucking yard]( -- you know, 'NFL material." [video]( tl;dr people are ridiculous

Stealing this from Jon Stewart - talking about Michael Sam going down on the draft list because he is openly gay. > "If he had just been [convicted of DUI vehicular manslaughter]( or [obstruction of justice in connection with a murder]( or have been [accused of sexual assault]( or [screamed the N-word at a concert]( or [killed a bunch of dogs and buried them in his fucking yard]( -- you know, 'NFL material." [video]( tl;dr people are ridiculous

atheism

t5_2qh2p

cfo5imf

Stealing this from Jon Stewart - talking about Michael Sam going down on the draft list because he is openly gay. > "If he had just been [convicted of DUI vehicular manslaughter]( or [obstruction of justice in connection with a murder]( or have been [accused of sexual assault]( or [screamed the N-word at a concert]( or [killed a bunch of dogs and buried them in his fucking yard]( -- you know, 'NFL material." [video](

people are ridiculous

Badgerisbest

Before bandwagon accusations come... In my opinion, the Blackhawks are the only team that has had consistency in the effort of the players, GM staff, ownership, and coaching all together at least in recent memory. Other teams might had two or three of those four, but something dragging them down that makes them a pain to cheer for. Fairweather baseball fan alert (no shame. I hate cheering for shitty baseball teams) * **Bears** - awful coaching and GM for years no matter how hard the players played, finally turning around for the better. Ownership has become slightly less cheap over the years as old lady McCaskey supposedly got less influence and her younger family took over. * **Cubs** - a mess. When I would go to games over the last decade some of the players didn't even look like they were trying. At least their GM has improved from the complete shit it used to be, but coaching still hasn't been there as the Cubs manager position has been a revolving door. Ownership has changed hands recently from Tribune/Wrigley company, better now. * **Sox** - ups and downs, some great play and some totally shit play. Hell they bought a championship, which was awesome, but the glamor of that has faded now. At least, however, they try and play defense, and Kenny Williams does a decent job. Way more interesting to watch than the Cubs trainwreck, but people always come back to Wrigley in bigger numbers no matter what. Ownership (same guy as Bulls) is a bit cheaper on players because they can't fill the seats all year. He said he would spend more if he could, but people won't fill the seats in droves until the on field product improves. Catch 22. * **Bulls** - Some decent post Jordan players in the past (decade), now much better but dreams smashed into a billion pieces by Derrick Roses hurt knees. Some questionable GM decisions and our tendency to give best rate money to less than top free agent players. It's not really fun watching an NBA season unless you think your team can beat the Heat in a 7 game series. EDIT: Apparently the same owner is more interested in the White Sox than caring about the Bulls. * **Blackhawks** - Rockey Wirtz, fantastic owner compared to his father and fantastic owner compared to most sports teams owners. Won't even badmouth his passed away father on his handling of the Hawks even though he had obviously thought his dad's business decisions were total shit since he changed everything so fast. Scotty Bowman so far pretty great GM, Dave Tallon did a great job but set the club up for destruction (worth it for sure, but only saved by Scotty). World class players that give it all and work their asses off. Chicago has pretty much always been Bears first and spend what you have left in your wallet on the hottest team/ticket in town. People don't have the money to buy new gear or tickets of every team, so they show up to who's performing. Yes, that can bring bandwagon fan accusations, but as long as they are not an ass about it and lie about how long they've been watching hockey I don't care. Chicago likes watching a team firing on all cylinders, not one giving shit effort, and I can't blame them. **TLDR** why waste your limited money on teams giving shit effort in any sport when you can spend it on the two times in four years Stanley cup champions.

Before bandwagon accusations come... In my opinion, the Blackhawks are the only team that has had consistency in the effort of the players, GM staff, ownership, and coaching all together at least in recent memory. Other teams might had two or three of those four, but something dragging them down that makes them a pain to cheer for. Fairweather baseball fan alert (no shame. I hate cheering for shitty baseball teams) Bears - awful coaching and GM for years no matter how hard the players played, finally turning around for the better. Ownership has become slightly less cheap over the years as old lady McCaskey supposedly got less influence and her younger family took over. Cubs - a mess. When I would go to games over the last decade some of the players didn't even look like they were trying. At least their GM has improved from the complete shit it used to be, but coaching still hasn't been there as the Cubs manager position has been a revolving door. Ownership has changed hands recently from Tribune/Wrigley company, better now. Sox - ups and downs, some great play and some totally shit play. Hell they bought a championship, which was awesome, but the glamor of that has faded now. At least, however, they try and play defense, and Kenny Williams does a decent job. Way more interesting to watch than the Cubs trainwreck, but people always come back to Wrigley in bigger numbers no matter what. Ownership (same guy as Bulls) is a bit cheaper on players because they can't fill the seats all year. He said he would spend more if he could, but people won't fill the seats in droves until the on field product improves. Catch 22. Bulls - Some decent post Jordan players in the past (decade), now much better but dreams smashed into a billion pieces by Derrick Roses hurt knees. Some questionable GM decisions and our tendency to give best rate money to less than top free agent players. It's not really fun watching an NBA season unless you think your team can beat the Heat in a 7 game series. EDIT: Apparently the same owner is more interested in the White Sox than caring about the Bulls. Blackhawks - Rockey Wirtz, fantastic owner compared to his father and fantastic owner compared to most sports teams owners. Won't even badmouth his passed away father on his handling of the Hawks even though he had obviously thought his dad's business decisions were total shit since he changed everything so fast. Scotty Bowman so far pretty great GM, Dave Tallon did a great job but set the club up for destruction (worth it for sure, but only saved by Scotty). World class players that give it all and work their asses off. Chicago has pretty much always been Bears first and spend what you have left in your wallet on the hottest team/ticket in town. People don't have the money to buy new gear or tickets of every team, so they show up to who's performing. Yes, that can bring bandwagon fan accusations, but as long as they are not an ass about it and lie about how long they've been watching hockey I don't care. Chicago likes watching a team firing on all cylinders, not one giving shit effort, and I can't blame them. TLDR why waste your limited money on teams giving shit effort in any sport when you can spend it on the two times in four years Stanley cup champions.

hockey

t5_2qiel

cfo0rqj

Before bandwagon accusations come... In my opinion, the Blackhawks are the only team that has had consistency in the effort of the players, GM staff, ownership, and coaching all together at least in recent memory. Other teams might had two or three of those four, but something dragging them down that makes them a pain to cheer for. Fairweather baseball fan alert (no shame. I hate cheering for shitty baseball teams) Bears - awful coaching and GM for years no matter how hard the players played, finally turning around for the better. Ownership has become slightly less cheap over the years as old lady McCaskey supposedly got less influence and her younger family took over. Cubs - a mess. When I would go to games over the last decade some of the players didn't even look like they were trying. At least their GM has improved from the complete shit it used to be, but coaching still hasn't been there as the Cubs manager position has been a revolving door. Ownership has changed hands recently from Tribune/Wrigley company, better now. Sox - ups and downs, some great play and some totally shit play. Hell they bought a championship, which was awesome, but the glamor of that has faded now. At least, however, they try and play defense, and Kenny Williams does a decent job. Way more interesting to watch than the Cubs trainwreck, but people always come back to Wrigley in bigger numbers no matter what. Ownership (same guy as Bulls) is a bit cheaper on players because they can't fill the seats all year. He said he would spend more if he could, but people won't fill the seats in droves until the on field product improves. Catch 22. Bulls - Some decent post Jordan players in the past (decade), now much better but dreams smashed into a billion pieces by Derrick Roses hurt knees. Some questionable GM decisions and our tendency to give best rate money to less than top free agent players. It's not really fun watching an NBA season unless you think your team can beat the Heat in a 7 game series. EDIT: Apparently the same owner is more interested in the White Sox than caring about the Bulls. Blackhawks - Rockey Wirtz, fantastic owner compared to his father and fantastic owner compared to most sports teams owners. Won't even badmouth his passed away father on his handling of the Hawks even though he had obviously thought his dad's business decisions were total shit since he changed everything so fast. Scotty Bowman so far pretty great GM, Dave Tallon did a great job but set the club up for destruction (worth it for sure, but only saved by Scotty). World class players that give it all and work their asses off. Chicago has pretty much always been Bears first and spend what you have left in your wallet on the hottest team/ticket in town. People don't have the money to buy new gear or tickets of every team, so they show up to who's performing. Yes, that can bring bandwagon fan accusations, but as long as they are not an ass about it and lie about how long they've been watching hockey I don't care. Chicago likes watching a team firing on all cylinders, not one giving shit effort, and I can't blame them.

why waste your limited money on teams giving shit effort in any sport when you can spend it on the two times in four years Stanley cup champions.

ignignoktsghost

Starting at the bottom is too obvious. Here's what they could do though. They could set up scenarios that make it obvious that you're being monitored. Or at least form the illusion that you're being monitored. That sounds like a simple "fix" to their problems, but there is an insane amount of psychology behind it. When the paranoia sets in from being watched, for who knows what reason, you start to develop some prejudice. This puts a hindrance on your ability to problem solve. Paranoia also makes it difficult to accept reality. You can get consumed by your own ideas. That's enough to tear you down to the next level. You start to lose confidence because you don't know what's going on in your life. You feel out of control. This can lower your self-esteem. Your paranoid ideas will make you lose respect in others. There is a whole host of cognitive bias driving that. Respect where respect is due. You lose it from the ones that no longer hold yours. Next level. When you no longer hold anyone to the same amount of respect, you start seeing less and less of your friends. You feel less compelled to talk to and keep bonds with your family. At this point, you would feel pretty neurotic most of the time. Good luck keeping up with a sex life when you're in this deep. Next level. You're feeling crippling anxiety at this point. It will affect every aspect of your being. Your coworkers have definitely noticed a decrease in your performance. Manager/supervisor/whatever starts getting on your case, but you're mad and frustrated with your life right now. So you don't care. Maybe you get fired, yeah? You start losing resources as you blow through savings. Maybe the bank forecloses on your home. All you have left is the idea of family bonds and your morality. Guess what, next level. Now homeless and without employment, you've got to find a way to make some money. Crime sounds good right? That pesky morality is holding you back from success. Boom, they've got you. At this point it doesn't matter if you did anything to begin with. They can tie up the final loose end by booking you or finally killing you outright. So how do you get around this? Don't care what anyone thinks of you. This is an unfortunate reality that we need to face now. The more you assume everyone knows about every fucked up thing you've done in life the better. You just have to not give a shit. They have no tangible power. Don't give it to them by caring about opinions. TL;DR: Paranoia is a powerful weapon if you give it its power.

Starting at the bottom is too obvious. Here's what they could do though. They could set up scenarios that make it obvious that you're being monitored. Or at least form the illusion that you're being monitored. That sounds like a simple "fix" to their problems, but there is an insane amount of psychology behind it. When the paranoia sets in from being watched, for who knows what reason, you start to develop some prejudice. This puts a hindrance on your ability to problem solve. Paranoia also makes it difficult to accept reality. You can get consumed by your own ideas. That's enough to tear you down to the next level. You start to lose confidence because you don't know what's going on in your life. You feel out of control. This can lower your self-esteem. Your paranoid ideas will make you lose respect in others. There is a whole host of cognitive bias driving that. Respect where respect is due. You lose it from the ones that no longer hold yours. Next level. When you no longer hold anyone to the same amount of respect, you start seeing less and less of your friends. You feel less compelled to talk to and keep bonds with your family. At this point, you would feel pretty neurotic most of the time. Good luck keeping up with a sex life when you're in this deep. Next level. You're feeling crippling anxiety at this point. It will affect every aspect of your being. Your coworkers have definitely noticed a decrease in your performance. Manager/supervisor/whatever starts getting on your case, but you're mad and frustrated with your life right now. So you don't care. Maybe you get fired, yeah? You start losing resources as you blow through savings. Maybe the bank forecloses on your home. All you have left is the idea of family bonds and your morality. Guess what, next level. Now homeless and without employment, you've got to find a way to make some money. Crime sounds good right? That pesky morality is holding you back from success. Boom, they've got you. At this point it doesn't matter if you did anything to begin with. They can tie up the final loose end by booking you or finally killing you outright. So how do you get around this? Don't care what anyone thinks of you. This is an unfortunate reality that we need to face now. The more you assume everyone knows about every fucked up thing you've done in life the better. You just have to not give a shit. They have no tangible power. Don't give it to them by caring about opinions. TL;DR: Paranoia is a powerful weapon if you give it its power.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

cfo9njr

Starting at the bottom is too obvious. Here's what they could do though. They could set up scenarios that make it obvious that you're being monitored. Or at least form the illusion that you're being monitored. That sounds like a simple "fix" to their problems, but there is an insane amount of psychology behind it. When the paranoia sets in from being watched, for who knows what reason, you start to develop some prejudice. This puts a hindrance on your ability to problem solve. Paranoia also makes it difficult to accept reality. You can get consumed by your own ideas. That's enough to tear you down to the next level. You start to lose confidence because you don't know what's going on in your life. You feel out of control. This can lower your self-esteem. Your paranoid ideas will make you lose respect in others. There is a whole host of cognitive bias driving that. Respect where respect is due. You lose it from the ones that no longer hold yours. Next level. When you no longer hold anyone to the same amount of respect, you start seeing less and less of your friends. You feel less compelled to talk to and keep bonds with your family. At this point, you would feel pretty neurotic most of the time. Good luck keeping up with a sex life when you're in this deep. Next level. You're feeling crippling anxiety at this point. It will affect every aspect of your being. Your coworkers have definitely noticed a decrease in your performance. Manager/supervisor/whatever starts getting on your case, but you're mad and frustrated with your life right now. So you don't care. Maybe you get fired, yeah? You start losing resources as you blow through savings. Maybe the bank forecloses on your home. All you have left is the idea of family bonds and your morality. Guess what, next level. Now homeless and without employment, you've got to find a way to make some money. Crime sounds good right? That pesky morality is holding you back from success. Boom, they've got you. At this point it doesn't matter if you did anything to begin with. They can tie up the final loose end by booking you or finally killing you outright. So how do you get around this? Don't care what anyone thinks of you. This is an unfortunate reality that we need to face now. The more you assume everyone knows about every fucked up thing you've done in life the better. You just have to not give a shit. They have no tangible power. Don't give it to them by caring about opinions.

Paranoia is a powerful weapon if you give it its power.

Hideka

youll win some battles, and youll loose some battles. most players will be willing to learn with you, or help you learn in a legacy like sargatanas, but a big chunk will tell you that you should go die in a fire while cutting your wrists and uninstalling your game mid fall from a bridge into a sea of broken glass and lemonjuice, because your bad, and you should feel bad. Tl/DR: if your used to the internet, but dont want to be on a 7 days a week play schedule, and want to have experienced players guide you, sargatanas is a good home.

youll win some battles, and youll loose some battles. most players will be willing to learn with you, or help you learn in a legacy like sargatanas, but a big chunk will tell you that you should go die in a fire while cutting your wrists and uninstalling your game mid fall from a bridge into a sea of broken glass and lemonjuice, because your bad, and you should feel bad. Tl/DR: if your used to the internet, but dont want to be on a 7 days a week play schedule, and want to have experienced players guide you, sargatanas is a good home.

ffxiv

t5_2rgs7

cfolmh2

youll win some battles, and youll loose some battles. most players will be willing to learn with you, or help you learn in a legacy like sargatanas, but a big chunk will tell you that you should go die in a fire while cutting your wrists and uninstalling your game mid fall from a bridge into a sea of broken glass and lemonjuice, because your bad, and you should feel bad.

if your used to the internet, but dont want to be on a 7 days a week play schedule, and want to have experienced players guide you, sargatanas is a good home.

Soveriegn

Second wind is pretty bad, and mantra far outweighs it. Second wind heal is based off weapon DMG, and even as an allagan wep WAR I only get about 500 HP from it (need to get the exact number when I get off work, been a long time since I tried crossclassing it). That's like 5% HP heal every 2 ( or is it 3?) Minutes. It may work out in a major oh shit moment, but using it as a reliable CD is meh. TL;DR: second wind is weak, mantra brings way more utility

Second wind is pretty bad, and mantra far outweighs it. Second wind heal is based off weapon DMG, and even as an allagan wep WAR I only get about 500 HP from it (need to get the exact number when I get off work, been a long time since I tried crossclassing it). That's like 5% HP heal every 2 ( or is it 3?) Minutes. It may work out in a major oh shit moment, but using it as a reliable CD is meh. TL;DR: second wind is weak, mantra brings way more utility

ffxiv

t5_2rgs7

cfofc4s

Second wind is pretty bad, and mantra far outweighs it. Second wind heal is based off weapon DMG, and even as an allagan wep WAR I only get about 500 HP from it (need to get the exact number when I get off work, been a long time since I tried crossclassing it). That's like 5% HP heal every 2 ( or is it 3?) Minutes. It may work out in a major oh shit moment, but using it as a reliable CD is meh.

second wind is weak, mantra brings way more utility

greenbabyshit

I would love to agree, but I think I want to alter it a bit. I would rid the world of religious propaganda. I don't have a problem with religion itself. Some people find comfort and guidance they would not have otherwise. Many religious groups have programs to take care of the less fortunate. The problem with religion stems from people forcing their beliefs onto others, and deeming themselves capable of judging and punishing those who don't meet the standards they never strive for in the first place. Tl;Dr: religion is like a penis, it's okay to have one, it's okay to be proud of it, it's not okay to wave it around in public.

I would love to agree, but I think I want to alter it a bit. I would rid the world of religious propaganda. I don't have a problem with religion itself. Some people find comfort and guidance they would not have otherwise. Many religious groups have programs to take care of the less fortunate. The problem with religion stems from people forcing their beliefs onto others, and deeming themselves capable of judging and punishing those who don't meet the standards they never strive for in the first place. Tl;Dr: religion is like a penis, it's okay to have one, it's okay to be proud of it, it's not okay to wave it around in public.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

cfoo8vi

I would love to agree, but I think I want to alter it a bit. I would rid the world of religious propaganda. I don't have a problem with religion itself. Some people find comfort and guidance they would not have otherwise. Many religious groups have programs to take care of the less fortunate. The problem with religion stems from people forcing their beliefs onto others, and deeming themselves capable of judging and punishing those who don't meet the standards they never strive for in the first place.

religion is like a penis, it's okay to have one, it's okay to be proud of it, it's not okay to wave it around in public.

cosmonaut205

Hi there! It looks like you just made the comment that I came in here for! I'd like to set some things straight. You can't get rid of religion. It's not this institutional, literary, obelisk that you lovely r/atheism people seem to think. Religion is an innate human response to social formation and the unknown. These things certainly do manifest into organized religion down the line, and these things certainly can (and do!) cause a great amount of strife in the way they interact with society and other religious belief. But that only scratches the surface of what religion is. Religion is inherently social. It's a set of behaviors, actions, in a collective setting, that are usually in response to things we don't know about or have no control over. It's such a multifaceted term that there is no consensus over how to define it. But if you think about it in the way I describe, you can see how we, as a collective body of people like to ritualize "secular" things. We just don't call them religion in a popular sense. Think about it: 4th of July celebrations, sports events, concerts, even the act of performing scientific experiments follow a social rubric that is founded upon the same innate human behaviors that one can call "religion". Not to mention, institutional religion is responsible for not only the bad things throughout the history of civilization, but also got us to where we are. As an elementary extension of human cognitive development, it allowed us to grow from slightly intelligent apes to being masters of our domain. It allowed us to roganize into larger social groups and interact with each other upon a common premise. TL;DR You can't rid the world of religion, even if you wanted to.

Hi there! It looks like you just made the comment that I came in here for! I'd like to set some things straight. You can't get rid of religion. It's not this institutional, literary, obelisk that you lovely r/atheism people seem to think. Religion is an innate human response to social formation and the unknown. These things certainly do manifest into organized religion down the line, and these things certainly can (and do!) cause a great amount of strife in the way they interact with society and other religious belief. But that only scratches the surface of what religion is. Religion is inherently social. It's a set of behaviors, actions, in a collective setting, that are usually in response to things we don't know about or have no control over. It's such a multifaceted term that there is no consensus over how to define it. But if you think about it in the way I describe, you can see how we, as a collective body of people like to ritualize "secular" things. We just don't call them religion in a popular sense. Think about it: 4th of July celebrations, sports events, concerts, even the act of performing scientific experiments follow a social rubric that is founded upon the same innate human behaviors that one can call "religion". Not to mention, institutional religion is responsible for not only the bad things throughout the history of civilization, but also got us to where we are. As an elementary extension of human cognitive development, it allowed us to grow from slightly intelligent apes to being masters of our domain. It allowed us to roganize into larger social groups and interact with each other upon a common premise. TL;DR You can't rid the world of religion, even if you wanted to.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

cfotyzn

Hi there! It looks like you just made the comment that I came in here for! I'd like to set some things straight. You can't get rid of religion. It's not this institutional, literary, obelisk that you lovely r/atheism people seem to think. Religion is an innate human response to social formation and the unknown. These things certainly do manifest into organized religion down the line, and these things certainly can (and do!) cause a great amount of strife in the way they interact with society and other religious belief. But that only scratches the surface of what religion is. Religion is inherently social. It's a set of behaviors, actions, in a collective setting, that are usually in response to things we don't know about or have no control over. It's such a multifaceted term that there is no consensus over how to define it. But if you think about it in the way I describe, you can see how we, as a collective body of people like to ritualize "secular" things. We just don't call them religion in a popular sense. Think about it: 4th of July celebrations, sports events, concerts, even the act of performing scientific experiments follow a social rubric that is founded upon the same innate human behaviors that one can call "religion". Not to mention, institutional religion is responsible for not only the bad things throughout the history of civilization, but also got us to where we are. As an elementary extension of human cognitive development, it allowed us to grow from slightly intelligent apes to being masters of our domain. It allowed us to roganize into larger social groups and interact with each other upon a common premise.

You can't rid the world of religion, even if you wanted to.

arb1987

Omg stfu. As someone who college wasn't an option for this really pisses me off. I started working when I was 14, made 5.15 an hour. Have worked my ass off move up threw the ranks of 2 companies, taken many training classes and now many 14/Hr. So if the minimum wage goes up half my hard work was for nothing. You people are trying to reward low wage workers for doing nothing in hopes it will what? Make the economy better? If companies have to pay workers more they make less profit in turn prices go up and quality goes down. That's fact. I saw you people saying it would make prices at walmart go up 1 cent. Ya not a lot over a million products and employees, but what about the small business owners that have few employees, or in the service industry. Those prices would go up and they would be prone to not hiring people in situations I found myself in 12 years ago Tl;Dr everyone not getting minimum wage is getting fucked

Omg stfu. As someone who college wasn't an option for this really pisses me off. I started working when I was 14, made 5.15 an hour. Have worked my ass off move up threw the ranks of 2 companies, taken many training classes and now many 14/Hr. So if the minimum wage goes up half my hard work was for nothing. You people are trying to reward low wage workers for doing nothing in hopes it will what? Make the economy better? If companies have to pay workers more they make less profit in turn prices go up and quality goes down. That's fact. I saw you people saying it would make prices at walmart go up 1 cent. Ya not a lot over a million products and employees, but what about the small business owners that have few employees, or in the service industry. Those prices would go up and they would be prone to not hiring people in situations I found myself in 12 years ago Tl;Dr everyone not getting minimum wage is getting fucked

news

t5_2qh3l

cfp4dlx

Omg stfu. As someone who college wasn't an option for this really pisses me off. I started working when I was 14, made 5.15 an hour. Have worked my ass off move up threw the ranks of 2 companies, taken many training classes and now many 14/Hr. So if the minimum wage goes up half my hard work was for nothing. You people are trying to reward low wage workers for doing nothing in hopes it will what? Make the economy better? If companies have to pay workers more they make less profit in turn prices go up and quality goes down. That's fact. I saw you people saying it would make prices at walmart go up 1 cent. Ya not a lot over a million products and employees, but what about the small business owners that have few employees, or in the service industry. Those prices would go up and they would be prone to not hiring people in situations I found myself in 12 years ago

everyone not getting minimum wage is getting fucked