Frozenlock

...and they never learn.

Except that the article is about brain-damaged people selling their settlements.

The whole grey area here is about the brain-damaged people not being able to correctly evaluate the value of the document they are signing.

Even if 100% of the brain-damaged people were black, that still wouldn't make it OK to include their race in the title, because the article is not about that. It's about brain-damaged people.

Now, it would be different if the article was directly about blacks, about how they were specifically selected, but it's not.

Here's an example headline to show the difference:

"An individual robbed a bank this afternoon"

VS

"A black man robbed a bank this afternoon"

The important event here is the bank robbery, not the race of the person who did it.

You could have a study that showed that 90% (or 10%...) of all bank robbery were caused by black men and THEN including the race in the title would be warranted, because that's what the study is about.

What?

First off, this has nothing to do with semantics. The meaning of the words or the title is not the issue here, it's the inclusion of information that isn't related.

Second, the fact that I disagree with the title has nothing to do with my opinion of the story.

If you see "The cancer kill her yesterday" as a title, you won't say anything about the verb tense because that would imply you love cancer?

Well then, "guess we have to agree to disagree there".

Yes, it matters. It's poor practice for a journalist to include the race, sexual orientation, religion, etc... of someone if it has nothing to do with the story.

Except this isn't 'corresponding weight increases'.

People in USA (and many other countries) are just fatter.

I always wondered about this. There must exist a price after which people will take their daily commune into account when negotiating for a job.

This could have multiple outcomes:

- Change the schedule so that not everyone is on the road the same time;

- More remote work;

- Higher salaries when you have to drive in peak hours.

You don't have less vehicules; just less at the same time.

> And then what?

And then the price of the scarce resource will go up, pushing us towards alternative energy sources. And as time passes, we should have more efficient ways of harnessing those.

> "Sending an HTTP request to a server is no different than walking through the door of an establishment."

Of course it's different. It's not even close to being similar.

Sending an HTTP request is much more like asking sears to send you the catalogue for this season. It's a REQUEST, they can REFUSE.

If they do send me one, I can do whatever I want with it, including throwing it in the garbage or my fireplace.

They might include stuff you don't want in the catalogue, but you can just rip them out. And if, after dozens of issues you realize they always put the unwanted stuff every 10 pages, you could build a machine that rips out every 10th page before you even look at it.

Now, Sears could say they don't like that I'm doing that, but I don't care (nor should I). IF it really is annoying enough to them, they'll just stop sending me the catalogue.

And with HTTP requests, I'm even paying for the bandwidth via my ISP! When they answer to my request, they cost me money, just like I'm costing them money.

Thanks!

What is the command to load a json API? (Which requires to set the content-type header...)

> An interesting fact to consider when people talk about how substance abuse bans create "victimless crimes."

I don't see how this affects the victimless crime argument.

It's exactly as if you made a law forbidding people from living or hanging out together. Domestic-violence arrests would plummet, but the victimless argument would still be valid: living with someone else is not the problem, violence is.

Again, what you are saying is the equivalent of "if you don't want your sink to overflow, make sure less is coming in than is coming out". It says nothing of value.

If you just blindly go into a caloric deficit, without taking into account any of the hormones, your body might not burn what you want (say, for example, muscles). It will also fight you at every occasions and slow down your metabolism, meaning you'll have to be even more in deficit and feel like crap.

Any contact to get gene therapy for muscular dystrophy? :-p

> "Consuming fewer calories than you burn is the only way to lose weight."

You need to look at what is driving the calories consumption/burning.

Suppose I have a problem with my sink and call a plumber. He looks at it for a few minutes and then says: "Sir, your sink is overflowing because more water got in than got out." No shit, I knew that. That doesn't tell me anything useful. I want to know if drain is clogged, or if someone opened a fire hose in it.

The question to ask is 'why'. Why am I overeating?

Think about it: You don't see a deer spontaneously explode because there was too much food around it. When it's full, it stops eating.

What you eat influences how your calories are partitioned; what your body does with them.

If I inject you growth hormones, part of the calories you ingest will be used to make you taller. You'll be hungry because your body is growing.

Similarly, if I inject you an extra dose of insulin, you won't be able to just "exercise it away". The insulin will prevent you from accessing the energy in your fat cells (while accumulating more). And because the body sees less energy 'available', it will shut down excessive energy expenditure while sending you a big hunger signal.

> "(and thus enabling you to consume fewer calories by consuming less calorically dense food)"

I don't know why you shifted from total energy consumption to the energy density, but that's just wrong. You can eat fat and still lose weight.

Increasing metabolic rate doesn't mean you'll loose weight, it means you'll burn more calories. While they are often linked, they are not the same.

If you just burn more calories, you'll be hungrier and you'll eat more.

"(...) a) watching caloric input and b) exercise have been known as being primary to weight control since antiquity."

No.

No, no, no and no.

This kind of misinformation is -=dangerous=-. It pushes overweight people into a dead end which will result only in frustration and sickness.

What was known was that WHAT you eat can make you fat.

Exercise has no impact on your weight (fat-wise).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0GSSSE4l8U&feature=youtu.be...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ0pz4Ggpis

> NYC is arguably the greatest city in the history of world civilization (...)

Well then, go on, argue. :-p

There has been quite a few cities in the last few thousand years...

That doesn't answer my question.

How is that racism?

You can make the centrals more efficient (to a point), but you are still burning hydrocarbons. And then you must apply the same electric efficiency as before. There are losses every time you convert the energy.

By the way, "a growing percentage of renewable over the past decade" is disingenuous. From ~9% renewable in 2002 to ~13% in 2013 is "a growing percentage", but not enough to make a difference in the discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United...

This is not green (electric) VS pollution (hydrocarbon). It's hydrocarbon -> electric -> car instead of hydrocarbon -> car. It's modifying a whole distribution network in the hope of achieving higher efficiency.

Except your electricity has to come from somewhere. If you are in the US, it will most likely be from some kind of hydrocarbon. You are just hiding the pollution, not removing it.

About inheritance taxes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJwUaVDIPXg

> Reading the comments here makes me realise how firmly embedded the "time not spent working is time wasted" attitude is.

Time spent not working is NOT time wasted. Time spent away from what I love, while not being paid IS.

I never understood the ripoff that the "lunch hour" was.

So... you are going to keep me away from other stuff, but I'm not paid for it?

Also, you might not be hungry. If you live on a low carb high fat diet, you can easily go 12 hours or more without feeling the need to eat something.

And some companies will even go to the length of banning sites like youtube. "Try to kill an hour... but we'll remove anything that could distract you... Have fun twiddling your thumbs!"

> Racism and sexism is bad. To fight it, we are going to hire based on race and sex.

If only it was a joke...

"If you are the repository owner, and you believe that your repository was disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification, you have the right to file a counter notice and have the repository reinstated."

Guilty until proven innocent.

For those arguing that they are within their rights, and free speech laws don't apply there: that's not the point. (Like most of similar situations by the way.)

It's about a company acting in a way that is alienating to its userbase. Now, many people might think retard is offensive and would prefer a sanitized environment... but many people don't. Saying "we disagree with what you did" is a way to the users to tell the company that they might be drifting away from what made them interesting in the first place.

You can be legal AND an asshole.

If every time your friend was being an asshole to you, he'd stop listening and said: "Well, it's legal.", he probably wouldn't be your friend for long.

I was hoping they would talk of all countries using 'local times' instead of UTC.

Or, you know, when the thieves leave clear traces, but there's nothing you can do about it because the powers that be are profiting from the loot.

"We'll just take the money in your account, because [insert any political excuse, bonus if it contains the word crisis]."