hilarious. the adam sandler impression. good video
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Friday, December 28, 2012
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all
great article. one of the few first hand accounts of the theater of war, the psychology of it,. and how it affects people. the author definitely did some serious reporting.
great article. one of the few first hand accounts of the theater of war, the psychology of it,. and how it affects people. the author definitely did some serious reporting.
Guess how much money I made this year?
$49,452
Guess how much I brought home?
$35,821
That's a 28% cut. Let's look at taxes, shall we?:
$9212 for an 18.6% rate, not bad.. I know the cut has always been 28% but I forgot about the health benefits, parking, and savings.
oh wait. So the savings was at 3282 (I think I have 10%, maybe it's 8%, going into savings). That means I really made $39,000. only 21.1% of my paycheck doesn't go to me.. dang, huge difference. Plus, I get I believe an extra 6% toward my savings from the company which equals $1302 according to the pay site. that means I really made about 40,000, maybe 40,300. that means I only lose 18.5% of my earnings... dang. not bad at all.
funny thing is, both you and jimmy are making more than me with all of the benefits you guys get.
I worked 1969 hours. hey hey hey (funny thing about this: my manager said that for the CCRN certification, the nurse has to have 1000 hours which is one year.. I was like, no, that's half a year, 'cause 2000 hours is one working year.. she was like "no, 1000 is a year".. so I said "take 52 weeks x 40 hours, that's just over 2000." her reply: "well, with lunch breaks, that brings it closer to 1000." hahahahahaha... ok.. i just shut up after that.
$49,452
Guess how much I brought home?
$35,821
That's a 28% cut. Let's look at taxes, shall we?:
$9212 for an 18.6% rate, not bad.. I know the cut has always been 28% but I forgot about the health benefits, parking, and savings.
oh wait. So the savings was at 3282 (I think I have 10%, maybe it's 8%, going into savings). That means I really made $39,000. only 21.1% of my paycheck doesn't go to me.. dang, huge difference. Plus, I get I believe an extra 6% toward my savings from the company which equals $1302 according to the pay site. that means I really made about 40,000, maybe 40,300. that means I only lose 18.5% of my earnings... dang. not bad at all.
funny thing is, both you and jimmy are making more than me with all of the benefits you guys get.
I worked 1969 hours. hey hey hey (funny thing about this: my manager said that for the CCRN certification, the nurse has to have 1000 hours which is one year.. I was like, no, that's half a year, 'cause 2000 hours is one working year.. she was like "no, 1000 is a year".. so I said "take 52 weeks x 40 hours, that's just over 2000." her reply: "well, with lunch breaks, that brings it closer to 1000." hahahahahaha... ok.. i just shut up after that.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
As I said, the world is too .. well, it says it in one of the last paragraphs
Flo's sitting on the living room floor in housedress and pinny, her frowning expression flushed with anger. The table next to her has been tipped over, throwing a cup and saucer to the ground and breaking the saucer into six pieces. A nearby picture has been knocked askance by whatever force landed Flo and the table where they now are.
Andy stands over her with one hand thrust casually into his trouser pocket and the other leaning against the wall. He's looking Flo straight in the eye, and the smile on his open mouth suggests he thinks this is all pretty funny. "Look at it this way, honey," he says. "I'm a man of few pleasures and one of them 'appens to be knockin' yer about."
That cartoon appeared in the Daily Mirror on August 20, 1957, just two weeks after the first Andy Capp of them all. Andy was then a single-panel cartoon, appearing only in the paper's North-of-England edition, and would not get national publication until the following April. Seeing the drawing today, you can't help but gasp at the casual cruelty it portrays, yet it was thought so uncontroversial at the time that the Mirror chose it to open Andy's very first collection.
It's also important to remember just how common jokes like the 1957 cartoon were in British comedy at the time. On February 4, 1958, for example, the BBC broadcast a radio episode of Hancock's Half-Hour called The Male Suffragettes.
Tony Hancock was hugely popular in Britain at the time, pulling in an audience of about five million a week for his radio programme and another nine million for his weekly television show. Then, as now, the BBC was prone to fretting over any offence its programmes might cause, particularly those with the vast mainstream audience Hancock's Half-Hour commanded.
The Male Suffragettes has Hancock joining with Bill Kerr and Sid James to resist what they see as women's growing power to boss them about. "I can hold me own against men, but women are different," Sid complains. "If only we were allowed to thump 'em now and again, I'd be all right." The three men – all of whom play versions of themselves in the show - set about recruiting new members with the help of a lapel badge showing "a bird being sloshed over the nut with a spiked club".
At the inaugural meeting, Hancock announces plans for a pamphlet warning all males over the age of 14 against the evils of women. "The pamphlets will be illustrated with pictures of all the types of women a man can expect to come into contact with, and illustrations on how best to deal with 'em," he announces. "Plus an invaluable section on how to hit 'em without the bruises showing."
It's clear from the studio audience's laughter that women watching the recording found these exchanges just as funny as the men. Audiences of that era found it easier to shrug off such gags than we do in our own politically-correct times, and would have thought us ridiculous to worry that they encouraged violence against women in real life.
"I suppose that people from 1957, looking at the subjects for humour now, would be quite amazed at the things that are accepted and tolerated," Hiley says. "Maybe tastes will change again."
Flo's sitting on the living room floor in housedress and pinny, her frowning expression flushed with anger. The table next to her has been tipped over, throwing a cup and saucer to the ground and breaking the saucer into six pieces. A nearby picture has been knocked askance by whatever force landed Flo and the table where they now are.
Andy stands over her with one hand thrust casually into his trouser pocket and the other leaning against the wall. He's looking Flo straight in the eye, and the smile on his open mouth suggests he thinks this is all pretty funny. "Look at it this way, honey," he says. "I'm a man of few pleasures and one of them 'appens to be knockin' yer about."
That cartoon appeared in the Daily Mirror on August 20, 1957, just two weeks after the first Andy Capp of them all. Andy was then a single-panel cartoon, appearing only in the paper's North-of-England edition, and would not get national publication until the following April. Seeing the drawing today, you can't help but gasp at the casual cruelty it portrays, yet it was thought so uncontroversial at the time that the Mirror chose it to open Andy's very first collection.
It's also important to remember just how common jokes like the 1957 cartoon were in British comedy at the time. On February 4, 1958, for example, the BBC broadcast a radio episode of Hancock's Half-Hour called The Male Suffragettes.
Tony Hancock was hugely popular in Britain at the time, pulling in an audience of about five million a week for his radio programme and another nine million for his weekly television show. Then, as now, the BBC was prone to fretting over any offence its programmes might cause, particularly those with the vast mainstream audience Hancock's Half-Hour commanded.
The Male Suffragettes has Hancock joining with Bill Kerr and Sid James to resist what they see as women's growing power to boss them about. "I can hold me own against men, but women are different," Sid complains. "If only we were allowed to thump 'em now and again, I'd be all right." The three men – all of whom play versions of themselves in the show - set about recruiting new members with the help of a lapel badge showing "a bird being sloshed over the nut with a spiked club".
At the inaugural meeting, Hancock announces plans for a pamphlet warning all males over the age of 14 against the evils of women. "The pamphlets will be illustrated with pictures of all the types of women a man can expect to come into contact with, and illustrations on how best to deal with 'em," he announces. "Plus an invaluable section on how to hit 'em without the bruises showing."
It's clear from the studio audience's laughter that women watching the recording found these exchanges just as funny as the men. Audiences of that era found it easier to shrug off such gags than we do in our own politically-correct times, and would have thought us ridiculous to worry that they encouraged violence against women in real life.
"I suppose that people from 1957, looking at the subjects for humour now, would be quite amazed at the things that are accepted and tolerated," Hiley says. "Maybe tastes will change again."
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/my-elf-self-1524863.html
interesting article. worth a really quick skim
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/mississippi-drift/?single=1
good stuff :
The digital revolution in retailing had led to gift-card cloning (copying the magnetic strip on an unused gift card, returning it to the store display, and then waiting until it is activated) and bar-code swapping (either printing up low-price bar codes on stickers or switching them from one item to another). Various lower-tech shoplifting methods could be employed anywhere, from the primitive "wahoo" (wherein the shoplifter walks into a convenience store, takes a case of beer, screams Wahoo! and runs out the door) to "left-handing" (paying for an item with your right hand while walking through the checkout with another item in your left) and "kangarooing" (the more theatrical use of a dummy arm and a pair of overalls with a large hidden pouch). One of the most lucrative scams was called "taking a flight" and involved having an accomplice steal one's luggage from an airport baggage carousel, which, with enough persistent calls to customer service, could result in a $3,000 payday from the airline.
"Receipt diving" involved plucking a crumpled receipt from an ashtray by the exit, entering the store, selecting the same object off the shelves, and promptly returning it, receipt in hand, for store credit. Another ruse involved finding goods in the trash (a bag of chips, perhaps), to which a paid sticker had been affixed. This sticker was removed and placed on a small, expensive object, which was then returned for store credit;
interesting article. worth a really quick skim
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/mississippi-drift/?single=1
good stuff :
The digital revolution in retailing had led to gift-card cloning (copying the magnetic strip on an unused gift card, returning it to the store display, and then waiting until it is activated) and bar-code swapping (either printing up low-price bar codes on stickers or switching them from one item to another). Various lower-tech shoplifting methods could be employed anywhere, from the primitive "wahoo" (wherein the shoplifter walks into a convenience store, takes a case of beer, screams Wahoo! and runs out the door) to "left-handing" (paying for an item with your right hand while walking through the checkout with another item in your left) and "kangarooing" (the more theatrical use of a dummy arm and a pair of overalls with a large hidden pouch). One of the most lucrative scams was called "taking a flight" and involved having an accomplice steal one's luggage from an airport baggage carousel, which, with enough persistent calls to customer service, could result in a $3,000 payday from the airline.
"Receipt diving" involved plucking a crumpled receipt from an ashtray by the exit, entering the store, selecting the same object off the shelves, and promptly returning it, receipt in hand, for store credit. Another ruse involved finding goods in the trash (a bag of chips, perhaps), to which a paid sticker had been affixed. This sticker was removed and placed on a small, expensive object, which was then returned for store credit;
Sunday, December 23, 2012
boom, played 2 games of nhl earlier. Not a great game but it's good for gettin' a fix. Lost the first game against a half-glitchin' fool. he was great on the forecheck and neutral zone trap, shitty in the D zone.
Here's one thing I learned from playing.. in order to avoid a check on the blue line with the puck, pull the puck back and go in the direction that will guarantee avoiding the check.. it works 100% of the time. by pulling the puck back, you're in the triple threat (basketball) position.. can shoot, pass, and keep skating. THe goals in the game are almost surely not random, too. It's all on keeping the D in position. Take 'em out, and random-looking goals start going in.
2nd guy was crap.. I think I had 40 shots, he had 12-15. WEnt to a shootout, though. He kept his D in position for the most part. I was crumbling him on the forecheck all day. Went 8 rounds in the shootout before I finally beat him by faking a forehand then going backhand and his goalie STILL hits the puck with his stick even though he was at least 5 feet away from it. total BS but it trickled in. He was probably the best goalie I've ever seen in a SO.
Halo - eh, havent played that in a while. Point and click, point and click. move around. Ah, yeah, I saw a video of two armor abilities that are in the game but didn't get implemented - a teleporter that is basically the thruster pack but the player is invisible during the "thrust." A 'hacker' ability disabled the other nearby players' abilities, so camo'ed players are visible, jetpackers fall, etc. That should have been implemented , no idea why it wasn't. Everybody complains about the invisible campers. it works, but yeah, it's lame. Otherwise, no interest in that game.
Watched the last 2 episodes of Dexter. Haven't watched TV since 3 weeks ago.
Dexter - season 7. They bring Doakes back.. well, really, they just show some scenes from season 1 or 2 or both.. I see what you mean, man. Doakes really did bring some excitement and character to the show. I dont' remember hiim that much, probably 'cause it's been 2 years since I've seen those seasons. he was always pissed off, but that's a nice changae from the usual characterization on the show.
Something else that's obviuos but works: plot twists are important for creating suspense and a sense of thrill, but they have to be realistic, not off-the-wall crap. I guess I finished season 7, not a bad one overall. Season 6 was probably the best, though. Season 2 wasn't bad from what i remember of it.
Boom x2, got 1000 questions done in 10 days. I wouldn't recommend doing it for long, but it's the best way to study - keep pounding the info until it sinks in. Most of it I'll never use, but I need to know some small details for the CCRN certification. Then, taking the Cardiac Surgery certification. Hospital pays for them, so why not. I'd even take the Cardiac Medicine certification if I don't get accepted to school which I should , but you never know.
If I don't get accepted, that's another year of bullshit I gotta go through - take at least 2 more courses but more likely i'll have to take 4, do more at work like join committees. and really just taking those certifications. I'm most likely going to drop that chemistry 2 course. there's no need for it. If anything, I'd have to retake A&P 2 and/or Microbiology. If I didn't have to work, I'd take 18 credits of classes, get it all over with. Having a baby in March makes me not wanna get too much going on. That's gonna be enough with work most likely.
Hurt my back at work again. No idea what happened. I put ice on it yesterday which made it hurt more.. so today I put heat on it , felt somewhat better. Then I did some planks and stretches. The planks make my lower back feel like there's a huge buildup of pressure building. Uncomfortable, but not too bad. Afterwards, I stretched a lot, but not really stretching too far to avoid pulling the muscle. No idea what's going on, but I know I can't do deadlifts. Squatting seems OK which is good 'cause I have to be able to get low someties like picking up Jasper, putting on shoes, getting stuff at work.
Gotta work tonight and tomorrow night. What a Christmas.
OOh, another plot twist. Really not though 'cuase it's the only course of action that could be taken if there would be an 8th season. haha, Doakes is awesome.
haha.
Doakes:I don't want no fuckin' doughnut, MOrgan.
Dexter: Sorry.
Doakes: It's not you. It's LaGuerta. I should have never gotten involved with her to begin with. ( I don't remember that story arc.)
Dexter: Never jump the fence if you're not willing to face what's on the other side.
Doakes: Where the fuck did you hear that?
Dex: A friend said it to me in a moment of stress.
Doakes: Bullshit. You don't have any friends.
What...
Doakes: You don't even walk right. You glide... like a fucking lizard on ice. It's all a fucking act, and I ain't buying it. (That was one thing about the show that I didn't undrestand: nobody ever thought that Dexter was weird, yet he never did anything outside of work, never really talks, shows no emotion. He'd be a textbook example of a mass murderer.)
Another complaint from the beginning seasons was that Dexter frankly just wasn't relatable as a character EXCEPT for the fact that he talks to the audience through the monologues. if it wasn't for hearing his inner thoughts, he would be a waste of a character, and the audience would know what Doakes knows: that he is fucking weird and not normal. It's easy to think "oh, hey, Dexter thinks this, this, and that" without also thinking "but observing him around others shows that he isn't normal and not even realistic." I caught on to it real quick, but the one guy at work that told me about teh show didn't get it. Exactly, most people probably didn't. SUre, it works as TV, but it's not realistic. Unfortunately, it's probably the best that TV has to offer. Breaking Bad would probably be the 2nd best TV show. We're not even gonna mention The Wire 'cause that'll most likely never be topped. It would take another epic story and setting.
Ah, the thing about Doakes is that he tries to pin the creepiness on Dexter when in fact it only shows that Doakes is the creep. They could have really made that a great story arc in a different movie/TV show if they had the two conflicting viewpoints.. who would you believe? Doakes is too demanding in his viewpoint to be beleivable, yet Dexter is too weird to be completely dismissed.
The other characters in the first few seasons really served no purpose for the Dexter story but I guess it all comes together over the seasons with their political/work stories.
ah wow, another plot "twist" with yet only one possible outcome if they wanna have a season 8. kills the suspense.
get better, son. Take it easy for a few weeks/months.
http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com/
i watched one with Kramer. i'd just skip to the scene when they're finally sitting down in the coffee shop, good stuff in there.
Friday, December 21, 2012
from an commenter on X Factor: Ok here is the problem, and I can't believe they couldn't see this coming... 3 acts in the finale. Why? 2 of them are female teen pop acts, who split the votes, basically canceling each other out, and Tate took all of a whole demographic himself. If they had a 2 person finale, say Tate vs carly, the 5th H voters would have mostly voted carly and she would have won easily. Does anyone not see this? They need to change that next season.
yeah, good point
yeah, good point
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
what the hell man? wilfred.. you serious? emily and i watched 2, maybe 3, minutes. quickly shut that shit off. absolutely terrible. i can't imagine it gets much better over the next 26 episodes.
turned on "tree of life" 'cause supposedly it was one of the best movies of 2011. it might have been good, but it was really slow. shut it off after 10 minutes.
moved on to "the king's speech" good movie, man. there're really only 2 characters/actors. they do all the work. i couldn't imagine watching it alone. I'd give it a B. definitely some great acting in that movie, something you don't see much of these days.
gotta work tomorrow .. daylight
#5. The Hippies Were Wrong
[http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/5/157675.jpg?v=1]Getty
Here is the greatest scene in the history of movies (WARNING: EXTREME NSFW LANGUAGE):
For those of you who can't watch videos, it's the famous speech Alec Baldwin gives in the cinematic masterpiece Glengarry Glenn Ross. Baldwin's character -- whom you assume is the villain -- addresses a room full of dudes and tears them a new asshole, telling them that they're all about to be fired unless they "close" the sales they've been assigned:
"Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you! Go home and play with your kids. If you want to work here, close."
It's brutal, rude and borderline sociopathic, and also it is an honest and accurate expression of what the world is going to expect from you. The difference is that, in the real world, people consider it so wrong to talk to you that way that they've decided it's better to simply let you keep failing.
[http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/8/157678_v1.jpg]Getty
"First graders, welcome to Mr. Baldwin's third period art class -- is everyone here? Well, I'm goin' anyway."
That scene changed my life. I'd program my alarm clock to play it for me every morning if I knew how. Alec Baldwin was nominated for an Oscar for that movie and that's the only scene he's in. As smarter people have pointed out<http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html>, the genius of that speech is that half of the people who watch it think that the point of the scene is "Wow, what must it be like to have such an asshole boss?" and the other half think, "Fuck yes, let's go out and sell some goddamned real estate!"
Or, as the Last Psychiatrist blog put it<http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html>:
"If you were in that room, some of you would understand this as a work, but feed off the energy of the message anyway, welcome the coach's cursing at you, 'this guy is awesome!'; while some of you would take it personally, this guy is a jerk, you have no right to talk to me like that, or -- the standard maneuver when narcissism is confronted with a greater power -- quietly seethe and fantasize about finding information that will out him as a hypocrite. So satisfying."
[http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/9/157679_v1.jpg]Getty
"I swear, if he mentions my hair, I'll slap his face so har- Yes, sir, I'm listening. I'm sorry."
That excerpt is from an insightful critique of "hipsters" and why they seem to have so much trouble getting jobs (that doesn't begin to do it justice, go read the whole thing<http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html>), and the point is that the difference in those two attitudes -- bitter vs. motivated -- largely determines whether or not you'll succeed in the world. For instance, some people want to respond to that speech with Tyler Durden's line from Fight Club: "You are not your job."
But, well, actually, you totally are. Granted, your "job" and your means of employment might not be the same thing, but in both cases you are nothing more than the sum total of your useful skills. For instance, being a good mother is a job that requires a skill. It's something a person can do that is useful to other members of society. But make no mistake: Your "job" -- the useful thing you do for other people -- is all you are.
There is a reason why surgeons get more respect than comedy writers. There is a reason mechanics get more respect than unemployed hipsters. There is a reason your job will become your label if your death makes the news ("NFL Linebacker Dies in Murder/Suicide"). Tyler said, "You are not your job," but he also founded and ran a successful soap company and became the head of an international social and political movement. He was totally his job.
[http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/8/3/157683.jpg?v=1]Getty
It was the irony that many people missed from that movie.
Or think of it this way: Remember when Chick-fil-A came out against gay marriage? And how despite the protests, the company continues to sell millions of sandwiches every day? It's not because the country agrees with them; it's because they do their job of making delicious sandwiches well. And that's all that matters.
You don't have to like it. I don't like it when it rains on my birthday. It rains anyway. Clouds form and precipitation happens. People have needs and thus assign value to the people who meet them. These are simple mechanisms of the universe and they do not respond to our wishes.
[http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/8/1/157681.jpg?v=1]Getty
"This is bullshit. I have a completely clean criminal record, and this is the thanks I get?"
If you protest that you're not a shallow capitalist materialist and that you disagree that money is everything, I can only say: Who said anything about money? You're missing the larger point.
Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/#ixzz2FLz22Mhq
[http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/5/157675.jpg?v=1]Getty
![http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/5/157675.jpg?v=1]Getty](http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/5/157675.jpg?v=1]Getty){kind=link}
Here is the greatest scene in the history of movies (WARNING: EXTREME NSFW LANGUAGE):
For those of you who can't watch videos, it's the famous speech Alec Baldwin gives in the cinematic masterpiece Glengarry Glenn Ross. Baldwin's character -- whom you assume is the villain -- addresses a room full of dudes and tears them a new asshole, telling them that they're all about to be fired unless they "close" the sales they've been assigned:
"Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you! Go home and play with your kids. If you want to work here, close."
It's brutal, rude and borderline sociopathic, and also it is an honest and accurate expression of what the world is going to expect from you. The difference is that, in the real world, people consider it so wrong to talk to you that way that they've decided it's better to simply let you keep failing.
[http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/8/157678_v1.jpg]Getty
![http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/8/157678_v1.jpg]Getty](http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/8/157678_v1.jpg]Getty){kind=link}
"First graders, welcome to Mr. Baldwin's third period art class -- is everyone here? Well, I'm goin' anyway."
That scene changed my life. I'd program my alarm clock to play it for me every morning if I knew how. Alec Baldwin was nominated for an Oscar for that movie and that's the only scene he's in. As smarter people have pointed out<http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html>, the genius of that speech is that half of the people who watch it think that the point of the scene is "Wow, what must it be like to have such an asshole boss?" and the other half think, "Fuck yes, let's go out and sell some goddamned real estate!"
Or, as the Last Psychiatrist blog put it<http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html>:
"If you were in that room, some of you would understand this as a work, but feed off the energy of the message anyway, welcome the coach's cursing at you, 'this guy is awesome!'; while some of you would take it personally, this guy is a jerk, you have no right to talk to me like that, or -- the standard maneuver when narcissism is confronted with a greater power -- quietly seethe and fantasize about finding information that will out him as a hypocrite. So satisfying."
[http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/9/157679_v1.jpg]Getty
![http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/9/157679_v1.jpg]Getty](http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/9/157679_v1.jpg]Getty){kind=link}
"I swear, if he mentions my hair, I'll slap his face so har- Yes, sir, I'm listening. I'm sorry."
That excerpt is from an insightful critique of "hipsters" and why they seem to have so much trouble getting jobs (that doesn't begin to do it justice, go read the whole thing<http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html>), and the point is that the difference in those two attitudes -- bitter vs. motivated -- largely determines whether or not you'll succeed in the world. For instance, some people want to respond to that speech with Tyler Durden's line from Fight Club: "You are not your job."
But, well, actually, you totally are. Granted, your "job" and your means of employment might not be the same thing, but in both cases you are nothing more than the sum total of your useful skills. For instance, being a good mother is a job that requires a skill. It's something a person can do that is useful to other members of society. But make no mistake: Your "job" -- the useful thing you do for other people -- is all you are.
There is a reason why surgeons get more respect than comedy writers. There is a reason mechanics get more respect than unemployed hipsters. There is a reason your job will become your label if your death makes the news ("NFL Linebacker Dies in Murder/Suicide"). Tyler said, "You are not your job," but he also founded and ran a successful soap company and became the head of an international social and political movement. He was totally his job.
[http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/8/3/157683.jpg?v=1]Getty
![http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/8/3/157683.jpg?v=1]Getty](http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/8/3/157683.jpg?v=1]Getty){kind=link}
It was the irony that many people missed from that movie.
Or think of it this way: Remember when Chick-fil-A came out against gay marriage? And how despite the protests, the company continues to sell millions of sandwiches every day? It's not because the country agrees with them; it's because they do their job of making delicious sandwiches well. And that's all that matters.
You don't have to like it. I don't like it when it rains on my birthday. It rains anyway. Clouds form and precipitation happens. People have needs and thus assign value to the people who meet them. These are simple mechanisms of the universe and they do not respond to our wishes.
[http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/8/1/157681.jpg?v=1]Getty
![http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/8/1/157681.jpg?v=1]Getty](http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/8/1/157681.jpg?v=1]Getty){kind=link}
"This is bullshit. I have a completely clean criminal record, and this is the thanks I get?"
If you protest that you're not a shallow capitalist materialist and that you disagree that money is everything, I can only say: Who said anything about money? You're missing the larger point.
Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/#ixzz2FLz22Mhq
Saturday, December 15, 2012
interesting article. ties the ideas together, though the article is nothing groundbreaking by any standard
http://www.esquire.com/features/gus-bricks-columbine-essay-14858099?src=rss
http://www.esquire.com/features/gus-bricks-columbine-essay-14858099?src=rss
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
today in micro we did a case study, some 7 year girl had a hip
infection and a 103 fever. doctor says surgery time, drain the fluid,
plus some antibiotics to clear up the bacteria.
what kind of antibiotics should we give?
I said Bartrim (i think thats what its called) and one partner agreed,
i ask the girl across from me (hot, but jesus, wear any more makeup?)
and she said bartrim as well.
5 person groups, probably 9 or 10 groups. every other group said
cefalozine or whatever its called.
not a bad choice.
well, the bacteria is MRSA, methicilin resistant staph aureus. the
girl now has breathing difficulty and is doing much worse. now what
antibiotic should we give? triclomysine (harmful to kids), vancomycin
(attacks this strain of MRSA, but also has a low selective toxicity,
which means its harmful) or bartrim (attacks a general spread of
bacteria).all three help the lung problem.
my group said either vancomycin or bartrim but were undecided. at the
critical point when the prof asks us what we picked, I say Bartrim.
every other group said vancomycin.
I was like "why would you want to cause harmful side effects?"
teacher said our group saved the girl, and in reality the doctor gave
cefalozin and then vancomycin and the girl died. even the case study
assumed people pick those two drugs. he came up to us after class and
I asked him "how often does that happen?" he took it as how often
doctors prescribe inadequate antibiotics, but I meant that a group
picks a worhtwhile antibiotic. since we were 10% of the class that
decided right, I bet its even less over his tenure.
I will say, in real life, doctors don't have a chart listing a drug's
effectiveness or target spread. and they most likely get caught up in
a routine of "hey, we used this before, no reason to think about
changing it up"
made me wonder if it would be grounds for malpractice, the girl dying.
probably not, but you think someone would want to do something about
it. remember that article about the doctor doing workshops across the
country on simple handwashing and sterilization of hospital equipment
so people don't get infections from hospital care? u might not have
read it, but I was like "wtf, that guy is surely busy as hell, and its
such a simple thing" yet those infection rates significantly dropped
when his simple plan was put into use. I believe it was a checklist
of things to do, and by simply checking them off as you did it the
care improved an insane amount.
i wonder if they had a list of a drug's spectrum and selectivity if
doctors would provide better cure? i wouldn't be surprised if someone
thought of it already. If not, I'm patenting an idea.
after class, Shantall told me "you raelly need to go to medical
school." Why? "Cuz you think outside the box" Eh, I said it was a
group effort, and I don't think I really had any effect since the
three girls were debating among themselves and me and the other kid
worked together.
She also said depending on what kind of doctor you are, you don't work
all the time. her friend's dad is a pediatrician, has Wednesdays and
the weekends off. I could live with something like that. depends on
if I want to do the school. i'll think about it some more, most
liklely leaning towards PA but we'll see.
also, I told that kid in chemistry, the smart one who sits beside me,
that I got a 2110 on the SAT, and he was like "that's incredible". he
got a 2050 though, and I told him that's pretty fuckin good. still 95%
better than the national average. 2110 is slightly less below 97%.
that kid definitely isn't dumb. got a 760 on the verbal. and he's a
math major, haha.
infection and a 103 fever. doctor says surgery time, drain the fluid,
plus some antibiotics to clear up the bacteria.
what kind of antibiotics should we give?
I said Bartrim (i think thats what its called) and one partner agreed,
i ask the girl across from me (hot, but jesus, wear any more makeup?)
and she said bartrim as well.
5 person groups, probably 9 or 10 groups. every other group said
cefalozine or whatever its called.
not a bad choice.
well, the bacteria is MRSA, methicilin resistant staph aureus. the
girl now has breathing difficulty and is doing much worse. now what
antibiotic should we give? triclomysine (harmful to kids), vancomycin
(attacks this strain of MRSA, but also has a low selective toxicity,
which means its harmful) or bartrim (attacks a general spread of
bacteria).all three help the lung problem.
my group said either vancomycin or bartrim but were undecided. at the
critical point when the prof asks us what we picked, I say Bartrim.
every other group said vancomycin.
I was like "why would you want to cause harmful side effects?"
teacher said our group saved the girl, and in reality the doctor gave
cefalozin and then vancomycin and the girl died. even the case study
assumed people pick those two drugs. he came up to us after class and
I asked him "how often does that happen?" he took it as how often
doctors prescribe inadequate antibiotics, but I meant that a group
picks a worhtwhile antibiotic. since we were 10% of the class that
decided right, I bet its even less over his tenure.
I will say, in real life, doctors don't have a chart listing a drug's
effectiveness or target spread. and they most likely get caught up in
a routine of "hey, we used this before, no reason to think about
changing it up"
made me wonder if it would be grounds for malpractice, the girl dying.
probably not, but you think someone would want to do something about
it. remember that article about the doctor doing workshops across the
country on simple handwashing and sterilization of hospital equipment
so people don't get infections from hospital care? u might not have
read it, but I was like "wtf, that guy is surely busy as hell, and its
such a simple thing" yet those infection rates significantly dropped
when his simple plan was put into use. I believe it was a checklist
of things to do, and by simply checking them off as you did it the
care improved an insane amount.
i wonder if they had a list of a drug's spectrum and selectivity if
doctors would provide better cure? i wouldn't be surprised if someone
thought of it already. If not, I'm patenting an idea.
after class, Shantall told me "you raelly need to go to medical
school." Why? "Cuz you think outside the box" Eh, I said it was a
group effort, and I don't think I really had any effect since the
three girls were debating among themselves and me and the other kid
worked together.
She also said depending on what kind of doctor you are, you don't work
all the time. her friend's dad is a pediatrician, has Wednesdays and
the weekends off. I could live with something like that. depends on
if I want to do the school. i'll think about it some more, most
liklely leaning towards PA but we'll see.
also, I told that kid in chemistry, the smart one who sits beside me,
that I got a 2110 on the SAT, and he was like "that's incredible". he
got a 2050 though, and I told him that's pretty fuckin good. still 95%
better than the national average. 2110 is slightly less below 97%.
that kid definitely isn't dumb. got a 760 on the verbal. and he's a
math major, haha.
Re: [Madness Writers] 12/02/2012 10:33:00 PM
what you should have added was people don't acquire the necessary
vitamins, and proper %'s of fat. protein, and carbs....al the
processed food we eat is shit loads of salt, which holds water, which
makes us fatter and less healthy. i haven't taken the class but that's
pretty basic to know for the class, Im sure. sure veggies have
vitamins, but its not explicitly stated by that guy.
the not thinking wasnt bad, it actually was controversial, unlike that
other guy's "controversial" statement. he clearly had a point and
clearly had very little thopught about it. "well....errrm...these two
things are a dichotomy [not that he'd ever use that word], bluh bluh
bluh, but I have no idea what Im really saying, but it DOES sound
good, am I right?" but wheres the controversy?
then your quoted source, jesus man, closes his case instantly.
hilarious. proves your controversy instantly. what I'd be pissed off
about if I was a professor, would be your "im too tired" setence.
personally, I woul;d understand, its like 130am, anyone would be
tired. if it was during the day that cleraly means u dont care much,
as prefaced by your opening statement : "we havent learned much in
this class" haha.
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Madness <nayrrizdaed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's an argument for you:
>
>
>
> In this class, I have made a few controversial points. This week will be no
> different. Last week, there was a public service announcement on the radio
> about how sixty percent of the children in the United States are in danger
> of going hungry because poverty is an epidemic and it is every Americans
> responsibility to make sure no one goes hungry. For most of my adult life
> and continuing to the next public services announcement that was on the
> radio that day, the greatest disaster befalling our children is the scourge
> of childhood obesity. This is an epidemic and it is every Americans
> responsibility to make sure children stop eating. For me, the math just does
> not add up. Maybe I am just some goof ball from Southern Ohio but common
> sense says you cannot have it both ways. Are we fat or are we starving?
>
>
>
> Rest assured that the government is "ON IT"! We have 46 million Americans on
> food stamps and the White House Task force on childhood obesity is on the
> case! A proclamation will save us all! Here's one now! Let's Move! is a
> comprehensive initiative, launched by the First Lady, dedicated to solving
> the problem of obesity within a generation so that kids born today will grow
> up healthier and able to pursue their dreams. (White House Task Force on
> Childhood Obesity, 2012, p. 1)
>
>
>
> The key in my opinion to both problems is for the children's parents to step
> up, stop making excuses for everything and try being parents for a change.
> Say "Go outside and play."
>
>
>
> It is time to say "No, you cannot have another Mt. Dew, have an apple."
>
>
>
> What I have learned in this class is that all that stuff your Mom told you
> were right. Eat all your vegetables then go out and play.
>
>
>
>
>
> But wait! is that a valid argument? no, no it isn't, sir. You fail in life.
> Here's my response:
>
>
>
> Darryl,
>
> Yeah, the course in general didn't really teach much that we didn't already
> know. Anything that we didnt't know probably isn't that important, right?
> Don't eat candy or ice cream. Eat your fruits and veggies. The science of
> nutrition hasn't changed much in the last 30 years, I'm guessing. The
> science of food, has, though. Ah well. The issue of obesity vs. hunger can
> be explained quite easily. You just aren't thinking. Don't be alarmed. Most
> people don't. Now that's controversial! haha.
>
> Seriously, though, "The hungriest people in America today, statistically
> speaking, may well be not sickly skinny, but excessively fat," (Dolnick,
> 2010, para. 2). Why is this? Because it does not require a large quantity of
> unhealthy foods to supply more than enough calories. The issue, most likely,
> comes down to the metabolism of the person. I, for example, will never gain
> weight unless I eat probably 3,000 calories a day for weeks on end. My body
> is used to only 1,500 calories or so. I just don't like to eat - it doesn't
> do anything for me. Sure, it resolves some hunger, but I only feel hungry
> once or twice a day. But I'm not most people. Most people "love to eat." (I
> never understood this.) They can eat all day everyday, I guess. I couldn't
> tell you what it means. If they eat at a fast food restaurant even once a
> day, grabbing some burgers from the dollar menu, then not eating again until
> the next day, that could be considered being hungry yet obese. I know, for
> example, that my uncle only eats once, never more than twice, a day. He is
> overweight, unfortunately. Why? Because he drinks a lot of Mountain Dew
> throughout the day.
>
> This was a terrible explanation probably, because I'm too tired to really
> put the focus into it. It does make sense, though, if you account for low
> metabolism, foods that have high-calories yet are not calorie-dense, and
> eating only once or twice a day.
>
> Dolnick, S. (2010). The obesity-hunger paradox. New York Times online.
> Retrieved from
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/nyregion/14hunger.html?_r=0.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> yeah, I was too tired , but come on man, a simple google search explains it.
> And the section about "you just aren't thinking. don't worry. most people
> don't?" I wonder what the professors will say about it, hahahaha, i'm
> leaving it in though. It's so true man.
>
> --
> Posted By Madness to Madness Writers at 12/02/2012 10:33:00 PM
vitamins, and proper %'s of fat. protein, and carbs....al the
processed food we eat is shit loads of salt, which holds water, which
makes us fatter and less healthy. i haven't taken the class but that's
pretty basic to know for the class, Im sure. sure veggies have
vitamins, but its not explicitly stated by that guy.
the not thinking wasnt bad, it actually was controversial, unlike that
other guy's "controversial" statement. he clearly had a point and
clearly had very little thopught about it. "well....errrm...these two
things are a dichotomy [not that he'd ever use that word], bluh bluh
bluh, but I have no idea what Im really saying, but it DOES sound
good, am I right?" but wheres the controversy?
then your quoted source, jesus man, closes his case instantly.
hilarious. proves your controversy instantly. what I'd be pissed off
about if I was a professor, would be your "im too tired" setence.
personally, I woul;d understand, its like 130am, anyone would be
tired. if it was during the day that cleraly means u dont care much,
as prefaced by your opening statement : "we havent learned much in
this class" haha.
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Madness <nayrrizdaed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's an argument for you:
>
>
>
> In this class, I have made a few controversial points. This week will be no
> different. Last week, there was a public service announcement on the radio
> about how sixty percent of the children in the United States are in danger
> of going hungry because poverty is an epidemic and it is every Americans
> responsibility to make sure no one goes hungry. For most of my adult life
> and continuing to the next public services announcement that was on the
> radio that day, the greatest disaster befalling our children is the scourge
> of childhood obesity. This is an epidemic and it is every Americans
> responsibility to make sure children stop eating. For me, the math just does
> not add up. Maybe I am just some goof ball from Southern Ohio but common
> sense says you cannot have it both ways. Are we fat or are we starving?
>
>
>
> Rest assured that the government is "ON IT"! We have 46 million Americans on
> food stamps and the White House Task force on childhood obesity is on the
> case! A proclamation will save us all! Here's one now! Let's Move! is a
> comprehensive initiative, launched by the First Lady, dedicated to solving
> the problem of obesity within a generation so that kids born today will grow
> up healthier and able to pursue their dreams. (White House Task Force on
> Childhood Obesity, 2012, p. 1)
>
>
>
> The key in my opinion to both problems is for the children's parents to step
> up, stop making excuses for everything and try being parents for a change.
> Say "Go outside and play."
>
>
>
> It is time to say "No, you cannot have another Mt. Dew, have an apple."
>
>
>
> What I have learned in this class is that all that stuff your Mom told you
> were right. Eat all your vegetables then go out and play.
>
>
>
>
>
> But wait! is that a valid argument? no, no it isn't, sir. You fail in life.
> Here's my response:
>
>
>
> Darryl,
>
> Yeah, the course in general didn't really teach much that we didn't already
> know. Anything that we didnt't know probably isn't that important, right?
> Don't eat candy or ice cream. Eat your fruits and veggies. The science of
> nutrition hasn't changed much in the last 30 years, I'm guessing. The
> science of food, has, though. Ah well. The issue of obesity vs. hunger can
> be explained quite easily. You just aren't thinking. Don't be alarmed. Most
> people don't. Now that's controversial! haha.
>
> Seriously, though, "The hungriest people in America today, statistically
> speaking, may well be not sickly skinny, but excessively fat," (Dolnick,
> 2010, para. 2). Why is this? Because it does not require a large quantity of
> unhealthy foods to supply more than enough calories. The issue, most likely,
> comes down to the metabolism of the person. I, for example, will never gain
> weight unless I eat probably 3,000 calories a day for weeks on end. My body
> is used to only 1,500 calories or so. I just don't like to eat - it doesn't
> do anything for me. Sure, it resolves some hunger, but I only feel hungry
> once or twice a day. But I'm not most people. Most people "love to eat." (I
> never understood this.) They can eat all day everyday, I guess. I couldn't
> tell you what it means. If they eat at a fast food restaurant even once a
> day, grabbing some burgers from the dollar menu, then not eating again until
> the next day, that could be considered being hungry yet obese. I know, for
> example, that my uncle only eats once, never more than twice, a day. He is
> overweight, unfortunately. Why? Because he drinks a lot of Mountain Dew
> throughout the day.
>
> This was a terrible explanation probably, because I'm too tired to really
> put the focus into it. It does make sense, though, if you account for low
> metabolism, foods that have high-calories yet are not calorie-dense, and
> eating only once or twice a day.
>
> Dolnick, S. (2010). The obesity-hunger paradox. New York Times online.
> Retrieved from
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/nyregion/14hunger.html?_r=0.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> yeah, I was too tired , but come on man, a simple google search explains it.
> And the section about "you just aren't thinking. don't worry. most people
> don't?" I wonder what the professors will say about it, hahahaha, i'm
> leaving it in though. It's so true man.
>
> --
> Posted By Madness to Madness Writers at 12/02/2012 10:33:00 PM
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Here's an argument for you:
In this class, I have made a few controversial points. This week will be no different. Last week, there was a public service announcement on the radio about how sixty percent of the children in the United States are in danger of going hungry because poverty is an epidemic and it is every Americans responsibility to make sure no one goes hungry. For most of my adult life and continuing to the next public services announcement that was on the radio that day, the greatest disaster befalling our children is the scourge of childhood obesity. This is an epidemic and it is every Americans responsibility to make sure children stop eating. For me, the math just does not add up. Maybe I am just some goof ball from Southern Ohio but common sense says you cannot have it both ways. Are we fat or are we starving?
Rest assured that the government is "ON IT"! We have 46 million Americans on food stamps and the White House Task force on childhood obesity is on the case! A proclamation will save us all! Here's one now! Let's Move! is a comprehensive initiative, launched by the First Lady, dedicated to solving the problem of obesity within a generation so that kids born today will grow up healthier and able to pursue their dreams. (White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity, 2012, p. 1)
The key in my opinion to both problems is for the children's parents to step up, stop making excuses for everything and try being parents for a change. Say "Go outside and play."
It is time to say "No, you cannot have another Mt. Dew, have an apple."
What I have learned in this class is that all that stuff your Mom told you were right. Eat all your vegetables then go out and play.
But wait! is that a valid argument? no, no it isn't, sir. You fail in life. Here's my response:
Darryl,
Yeah, the course in general didn't really teach much that we didn't already know. Anything that we didnt't know probably isn't that important, right? Don't eat candy or ice cream. Eat your fruits and veggies. The science of nutrition hasn't changed much in the last 30 years, I'm guessing. The science of food, has, though. Ah well. The issue of obesity vs. hunger can be explained quite easily. You just aren't thinking. Don't be alarmed. Most people don't. Now that's controversial! haha.
Seriously, though, "The hungriest people in America today, statistically speaking, may well be not sickly skinny, but excessively fat," (Dolnick, 2010, para. 2). Why is this? Because it does not require a large quantity of unhealthy foods to supply more than enough calories. The issue, most likely, comes down to the metabolism of the person. I, for example, will never gain weight unless I eat probably 3,000 calories a day for weeks on end. My body is used to only 1,500 calories or so. I just don't like to eat - it doesn't do anything for me. Sure, it resolves some hunger, but I only feel hungry once or twice a day. But I'm not most people. Most people "love to eat." (I never understood this.) They can eat all day everyday, I guess. I couldn't tell you what it means. If they eat at a fast food restaurant even once a day, grabbing some burgers from the dollar menu, then not eating again until the next day, that could be considered being hungry yet obese. I know, for example, that my uncle only eats once, never more than twice, a day. He is overweight, unfortunately. Why? Because he drinks a lot of Mountain Dew throughout the day.
This was a terrible explanation probably, because I'm too tired to really put the focus into it. It does make sense, though, if you account for low metabolism, foods that have high-calories yet are not calorie-dense, and eating only once or twice a day.
Dolnick, S. (2010). The obesity-hunger paradox. New York Times online. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/nyregion/14hunger.html?_r=0.
yeah, I was too tired , but come on man, a simple google search explains it. And the section about "you just aren't thinking. don't worry. most people don't?" I wonder what the professors will say about it, hahahaha, i'm leaving it in though. It's so true man.
In this class, I have made a few controversial points. This week will be no different. Last week, there was a public service announcement on the radio about how sixty percent of the children in the United States are in danger of going hungry because poverty is an epidemic and it is every Americans responsibility to make sure no one goes hungry. For most of my adult life and continuing to the next public services announcement that was on the radio that day, the greatest disaster befalling our children is the scourge of childhood obesity. This is an epidemic and it is every Americans responsibility to make sure children stop eating. For me, the math just does not add up. Maybe I am just some goof ball from Southern Ohio but common sense says you cannot have it both ways. Are we fat or are we starving?
Rest assured that the government is "ON IT"! We have 46 million Americans on food stamps and the White House Task force on childhood obesity is on the case! A proclamation will save us all! Here's one now! Let's Move! is a comprehensive initiative, launched by the First Lady, dedicated to solving the problem of obesity within a generation so that kids born today will grow up healthier and able to pursue their dreams. (White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity, 2012, p. 1)
The key in my opinion to both problems is for the children's parents to step up, stop making excuses for everything and try being parents for a change. Say "Go outside and play."
It is time to say "No, you cannot have another Mt. Dew, have an apple."
What I have learned in this class is that all that stuff your Mom told you were right. Eat all your vegetables then go out and play.
But wait! is that a valid argument? no, no it isn't, sir. You fail in life. Here's my response:
Darryl,
Yeah, the course in general didn't really teach much that we didn't already know. Anything that we didnt't know probably isn't that important, right? Don't eat candy or ice cream. Eat your fruits and veggies. The science of nutrition hasn't changed much in the last 30 years, I'm guessing. The science of food, has, though. Ah well. The issue of obesity vs. hunger can be explained quite easily. You just aren't thinking. Don't be alarmed. Most people don't. Now that's controversial! haha.
Seriously, though, "The hungriest people in America today, statistically speaking, may well be not sickly skinny, but excessively fat," (Dolnick, 2010, para. 2). Why is this? Because it does not require a large quantity of unhealthy foods to supply more than enough calories. The issue, most likely, comes down to the metabolism of the person. I, for example, will never gain weight unless I eat probably 3,000 calories a day for weeks on end. My body is used to only 1,500 calories or so. I just don't like to eat - it doesn't do anything for me. Sure, it resolves some hunger, but I only feel hungry once or twice a day. But I'm not most people. Most people "love to eat." (I never understood this.) They can eat all day everyday, I guess. I couldn't tell you what it means. If they eat at a fast food restaurant even once a day, grabbing some burgers from the dollar menu, then not eating again until the next day, that could be considered being hungry yet obese. I know, for example, that my uncle only eats once, never more than twice, a day. He is overweight, unfortunately. Why? Because he drinks a lot of Mountain Dew throughout the day.
This was a terrible explanation probably, because I'm too tired to really put the focus into it. It does make sense, though, if you account for low metabolism, foods that have high-calories yet are not calorie-dense, and eating only once or twice a day.
Dolnick, S. (2010). The obesity-hunger paradox. New York Times online. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/nyregion/14hunger.html?_r=0.
yeah, I was too tired , but come on man, a simple google search explains it. And the section about "you just aren't thinking. don't worry. most people don't?" I wonder what the professors will say about it, hahahaha, i'm leaving it in though. It's so true man.
someone commented on that blog, not in reply to me...somebody understands!
"Well the hockey ain't bad but that goalie is fucking terrible.
(also, I'm a feminist too but I think you lot are being prudes.
They're fucking bikinis man. Have you seen TV lately?)"
thats a huge statement coming from a so called feminist. someone call
Jesus, the second coming is on.
"Well the hockey ain't bad but that goalie is fucking terrible.
(also, I'm a feminist too but I think you lot are being prudes.
They're fucking bikinis man. Have you seen TV lately?)"
thats a huge statement coming from a so called feminist. someone call
Jesus, the second coming is on.
Re: [Madness Writers] 12/02/2012 05:52:00 PM
people were commenting about that guy not being a man and stuff, and
lots of idiots saying he needs to have his ass kicked, and whats his
reason for being a douchebag, bluh bluhh bluh.
one, people dont do shit for no reason. that guy has a family, i
highly doubt he's gonna be an idiotic teenager about another family's
retard...I mean child.
since they lived beside each other they have some kind of issue going
on between the two families. not saying he's right, but threats like
that don't come out of nowhere.
and as for people saying he should have has ass kicked? just fuckin
ignore him. t hats the best strategy. and if he keeps on, ignore him
more. then if he actually does something you kick his fuckin ass.
whats so hard to understand about that? OOOOOHHH I can sit behind my
computer and ridicule some guy who has absolutely zero bearing on my
life and get my testosterone pumped up about nothing.
people are idiots. and that whole karma thing on reddit, guess its
just upvotes, who knows. most of the time I wouldnt mind making some
hilarious comment deriding some fools. who cares about votes. I'd
comment for the entertainment. like that toolbag on that hockey blog.
people dont think, and that gets real annoying real quick. you can
make blanket statements, just keep em to your fuckin self.
whats hard to understand about that?
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Madness <nayrrizdaed@gmail.com> wrote:
> come at me, bro!
>
>
>
> disorderly conduct? i'll call that a "threat" if anything. that would be my
> charge, judge.
>
>
>
> yeah, ever since the 70s or maybe early 80s, the world slowly started
> becoming too sissy-like. By the 90s? any sense of manhood was gone. "oooh,
> don't hurt my child" well, protect your child, then. not OK to use my belt?
> watch as i undo it, son. take my kid in the backyard and show him what fear
> feels like. that'll turn him into a good citizen. just like God intended.
>
> --
> Posted By Madness to Madness Writers at 12/02/2012 05:52:00 PM
lots of idiots saying he needs to have his ass kicked, and whats his
reason for being a douchebag, bluh bluhh bluh.
one, people dont do shit for no reason. that guy has a family, i
highly doubt he's gonna be an idiotic teenager about another family's
retard...I mean child.
since they lived beside each other they have some kind of issue going
on between the two families. not saying he's right, but threats like
that don't come out of nowhere.
and as for people saying he should have has ass kicked? just fuckin
ignore him. t hats the best strategy. and if he keeps on, ignore him
more. then if he actually does something you kick his fuckin ass.
whats so hard to understand about that? OOOOOHHH I can sit behind my
computer and ridicule some guy who has absolutely zero bearing on my
life and get my testosterone pumped up about nothing.
people are idiots. and that whole karma thing on reddit, guess its
just upvotes, who knows. most of the time I wouldnt mind making some
hilarious comment deriding some fools. who cares about votes. I'd
comment for the entertainment. like that toolbag on that hockey blog.
people dont think, and that gets real annoying real quick. you can
make blanket statements, just keep em to your fuckin self.
whats hard to understand about that?
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Madness <nayrrizdaed@gmail.com> wrote:
> come at me, bro!
>
>
>
> disorderly conduct? i'll call that a "threat" if anything. that would be my
> charge, judge.
>
>
>
> yeah, ever since the 70s or maybe early 80s, the world slowly started
> becoming too sissy-like. By the 90s? any sense of manhood was gone. "oooh,
> don't hurt my child" well, protect your child, then. not OK to use my belt?
> watch as i undo it, son. take my kid in the backyard and show him what fear
> feels like. that'll turn him into a good citizen. just like God intended.
>
> --
> Posted By Madness to Madness Writers at 12/02/2012 05:52:00 PM
come at me, bro!
disorderly conduct? i'll call that a "threat" if anything. that would be my charge, judge.
yeah, ever since the 70s or maybe early 80s, the world slowly started becoming too sissy-like. By the 90s? any sense of manhood was gone. "oooh, don't hurt my child" well, protect your child, then. not OK to use my belt? watch as i undo it, son. take my kid in the backyard and show him what fear feels like. that'll turn him into a good citizen. just like God intended.
disorderly conduct? i'll call that a "threat" if anything. that would be my charge, judge.
yeah, ever since the 70s or maybe early 80s, the world slowly started becoming too sissy-like. By the 90s? any sense of manhood was gone. "oooh, don't hurt my child" well, protect your child, then. not OK to use my belt? watch as i undo it, son. take my kid in the backyard and show him what fear feels like. that'll turn him into a good citizen. just like God intended.
Re: [Madness Writers] 12/02/2012 05:41:00 PM
come to think of it, the opnly reason anything was done about it was
because the prosecutor is a woman. cant make this stuff up.
HAHAHAHAHAH
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Madness <nayrrizdaed@gmail.com> wrote:
> how the fuck is this a crime?
>
> http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/man-sentenced-jail-teasing-disabled-girl-015101432--abc-news-topstories.html
>
> where in a lawbook would you ever find code that says disfavorable
> behavior toward another human's emotions is a crime?
>
> lets see what the prosecutor has to say:
> ""I think when we look at cases, there's case law out there regarding
> people commenting and gesturing against race and religion. But when
> there's nothing out there regarding disabilities, it took me a little
> bit longer to come to a decision."
>
> hmmm, case closed.
>
> but nope,
>
> He was originally charged for aggravated menacing, a misdemeanor of
> the first degree. In this charge, the victim was Knight, an incident
> she says took place the same day as the bus stop scene.
> Bailey, she said, "was swinging a tow chain on his porch, saying he
> was going to choke me until I stopped twitching. I sent my kids with
> my mother-in-law to leave with them. My husband called the sheriff."
> The second original charge, for the bus stop incident, was disorderly
> conduct,
>
>
> menacing? lets define it: A person or thing that is likely to cause
> harm; a threat or danger.
>
> emotional threat? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH
>
> disorderly conduct, lets define that. Police may use a disorderly
> conduct charge to keep the peace when people are behaving in a
> disruptive manner to themselves or others, but otherwise present no
> serious public danger.
>
> not sure how someone doing something on their porch is disrupting
> another person's life directly.
>
>
> society is definitely turning towards a bunch of pansy ass pussies.
> come at me feminists.
>
> --
> Posted By Madness to Madness Writers at 12/02/2012 05:41:00 PM
because the prosecutor is a woman. cant make this stuff up.
HAHAHAHAHAH
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Madness <nayrrizdaed@gmail.com> wrote:
> how the fuck is this a crime?
>
> http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/man-sentenced-jail-teasing-disabled-girl-015101432--abc-news-topstories.html
>
> where in a lawbook would you ever find code that says disfavorable
> behavior toward another human's emotions is a crime?
>
> lets see what the prosecutor has to say:
> ""I think when we look at cases, there's case law out there regarding
> people commenting and gesturing against race and religion. But when
> there's nothing out there regarding disabilities, it took me a little
> bit longer to come to a decision."
>
> hmmm, case closed.
>
> but nope,
>
> He was originally charged for aggravated menacing, a misdemeanor of
> the first degree. In this charge, the victim was Knight, an incident
> she says took place the same day as the bus stop scene.
> Bailey, she said, "was swinging a tow chain on his porch, saying he
> was going to choke me until I stopped twitching. I sent my kids with
> my mother-in-law to leave with them. My husband called the sheriff."
> The second original charge, for the bus stop incident, was disorderly
> conduct,
>
>
> menacing? lets define it: A person or thing that is likely to cause
> harm; a threat or danger.
>
> emotional threat? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH
>
> disorderly conduct, lets define that. Police may use a disorderly
> conduct charge to keep the peace when people are behaving in a
> disruptive manner to themselves or others, but otherwise present no
> serious public danger.
>
> not sure how someone doing something on their porch is disrupting
> another person's life directly.
>
>
> society is definitely turning towards a bunch of pansy ass pussies.
> come at me feminists.
>
> --
> Posted By Madness to Madness Writers at 12/02/2012 05:41:00 PM
how the fuck is this a crime?
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/man-sentenced-jail-teasing-disabled-girl-015101432--abc-news-topstories.html
where in a lawbook would you ever find code that says disfavorable
behavior toward another human's emotions is a crime?
lets see what the prosecutor has to say:
""I think when we look at cases, there's case law out there regarding
people commenting and gesturing against race and religion. But when
there's nothing out there regarding disabilities, it took me a little
bit longer to come to a decision."
hmmm, case closed.
but nope,
He was originally charged for aggravated menacing, a misdemeanor of
the first degree. In this charge, the victim was Knight, an incident
she says took place the same day as the bus stop scene.
Bailey, she said, "was swinging a tow chain on his porch, saying he
was going to choke me until I stopped twitching. I sent my kids with
my mother-in-law to leave with them. My husband called the sheriff."
The second original charge, for the bus stop incident, was disorderly conduct,
menacing? lets define it: A person or thing that is likely to cause
harm; a threat or danger.
emotional threat? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH
disorderly conduct, lets define that. Police may use a disorderly
conduct charge to keep the peace when people are behaving in a
disruptive manner to themselves or others, but otherwise present no
serious public danger.
not sure how someone doing something on their porch is disrupting
another person's life directly.
society is definitely turning towards a bunch of pansy ass pussies.
come at me feminists.
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/man-sentenced-jail-teasing-disabled-girl-015101432--abc-news-topstories.html
where in a lawbook would you ever find code that says disfavorable
behavior toward another human's emotions is a crime?
lets see what the prosecutor has to say:
""I think when we look at cases, there's case law out there regarding
people commenting and gesturing against race and religion. But when
there's nothing out there regarding disabilities, it took me a little
bit longer to come to a decision."
hmmm, case closed.
but nope,
He was originally charged for aggravated menacing, a misdemeanor of
the first degree. In this charge, the victim was Knight, an incident
she says took place the same day as the bus stop scene.
Bailey, she said, "was swinging a tow chain on his porch, saying he
was going to choke me until I stopped twitching. I sent my kids with
my mother-in-law to leave with them. My husband called the sheriff."
The second original charge, for the bus stop incident, was disorderly conduct,
menacing? lets define it: A person or thing that is likely to cause
harm; a threat or danger.
emotional threat? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH
disorderly conduct, lets define that. Police may use a disorderly
conduct charge to keep the peace when people are behaving in a
disruptive manner to themselves or others, but otherwise present no
serious public danger.
not sure how someone doing something on their porch is disrupting
another person's life directly.
society is definitely turning towards a bunch of pansy ass pussies.
come at me feminists.
Re: [Madness Writers] 12/02/2012 04:46:00 PM
i dont use the laptop anymore, but you can use the desktop.
friday i have a test at 9 and 12, probably stay at campus in between.
actually, no, ill probably come home to get food, but ill go to
formation and go straight to school to study one last time for the
micro test.
id like that trainer, but i can get it when i come home in a month.
maybe those clothes i left, u could bring. doesnt matter really.
cant think of anything else.
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Madness <nayrrizdaed@gmail.com> wrote:
> i'm gonna bring that bike down i guess and the bike pump. not sure about the
> trainer, i don't realy have time to go get it. maybe tuesday morning i could
> get it, who knows.
>
>
>
> gonna bring that controller down. play some noobs on halo or nhl. doesn't
> really amtter too much.
>
>
>
> i'll have to use your laptop at some point to turn in my final paper for my
> one class.
>
>
>
> anything else i should bring?
>
> --
> Posted By Madness to Madness Writers at 12/02/2012 04:46:00 PM
friday i have a test at 9 and 12, probably stay at campus in between.
actually, no, ill probably come home to get food, but ill go to
formation and go straight to school to study one last time for the
micro test.
id like that trainer, but i can get it when i come home in a month.
maybe those clothes i left, u could bring. doesnt matter really.
cant think of anything else.
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Madness <nayrrizdaed@gmail.com> wrote:
> i'm gonna bring that bike down i guess and the bike pump. not sure about the
> trainer, i don't realy have time to go get it. maybe tuesday morning i could
> get it, who knows.
>
>
>
> gonna bring that controller down. play some noobs on halo or nhl. doesn't
> really amtter too much.
>
>
>
> i'll have to use your laptop at some point to turn in my final paper for my
> one class.
>
>
>
> anything else i should bring?
>
> --
> Posted By Madness to Madness Writers at 12/02/2012 04:46:00 PM
i'm gonna bring that bike down i guess and the bike pump. not sure about the trainer, i don't realy have time to go get it. maybe tuesday morning i could get it, who knows.
gonna bring that controller down. play some noobs on halo or nhl. doesn't really amtter too much.
i'll have to use your laptop at some point to turn in my final paper for my one class.
anything else i should bring?
gonna bring that controller down. play some noobs on halo or nhl. doesn't really amtter too much.
i'll have to use your laptop at some point to turn in my final paper for my one class.
anything else i should bring?
only 1.3 million take the SAT? good business model if i must say, that's what.. like 200 million a year? jesus
for what, it doesn't measure anything other than the ability to take the sat. it's one of the few ways to categorize people based on an 'objective' standard. same with the GRE. its just another hoop to go through for a school admission process, a way for them to rank you based on one measure. in our case, it works out well.
only 7 people would get above a 1580.. 1410 ain't bad, 1360 isn't either, considering i didn't really study for the verbal part. cant' study words, it's pointless. i highly disagree with that being "objective" unless everybody gets the same words, and even then, i know a different set of words than another candidate. not worried about it. it's all pointless.
how else could you objectively rank candidates? gpa is subjective in a way with different schools and professors handing out different grades, standardized tests supplyilng different questions to each test-taker. references which can be subjective. application essay which gives a brief introduction to the person. the interview is about the only way to objectively measure a person's character based on the same question to every interviewee. but that says nothign about skill set, knowledge, critical thinking. Place of employment for anesthesia school says something, but it still doesn't speak about the skills andk nowledge. get certifications? that just says you can take a test for the most part. sure, you wouldnt' be able to pass it, but anybody in the ICU longer than a year should be able to so it just shows that a person takes the time (and wastes the money) to take it.
no idea how to weed people out other than how they do it now i guess.
for what, it doesn't measure anything other than the ability to take the sat. it's one of the few ways to categorize people based on an 'objective' standard. same with the GRE. its just another hoop to go through for a school admission process, a way for them to rank you based on one measure. in our case, it works out well.
only 7 people would get above a 1580.. 1410 ain't bad, 1360 isn't either, considering i didn't really study for the verbal part. cant' study words, it's pointless. i highly disagree with that being "objective" unless everybody gets the same words, and even then, i know a different set of words than another candidate. not worried about it. it's all pointless.
how else could you objectively rank candidates? gpa is subjective in a way with different schools and professors handing out different grades, standardized tests supplyilng different questions to each test-taker. references which can be subjective. application essay which gives a brief introduction to the person. the interview is about the only way to objectively measure a person's character based on the same question to every interviewee. but that says nothign about skill set, knowledge, critical thinking. Place of employment for anesthesia school says something, but it still doesn't speak about the skills andk nowledge. get certifications? that just says you can take a test for the most part. sure, you wouldnt' be able to pass it, but anybody in the ICU longer than a year should be able to so it just shows that a person takes the time (and wastes the money) to take it.
no idea how to weed people out other than how they do it now i guess.
RE: [Madness Writers] 12/02/2012 03:55:00 PM
only 43? you dont play much.
i haven't been playing much over the last few weeks, no interest mainly. i'm usually ranked between 800-1000. level 52 or 53, i'm pretty sure it's 52. at this level, i'd be happy to win 2 games to every loss. surprisingly, the people don't do that backhand pass on the breakout (impossible to defend) for the most part. i never do it, but yeah, if you want to exploit to the max, that's about hte only way. some guy kept doing the circle deke (spin o rama) near the slot, couldn't stop him. i guess that's the only other legit way to exploit that i've seen, but only that guy did it and he still either beat me in a shootout or lost by 1.
i never play against more than 1 player at this stage of competition. they usually don't go out of position and their forecheck is at least 2x as good as the AI, making getting out the D zone difficult. if it happens, it's a clear odd man rush.
just thinkng about the game, i have no interest in playing. i gotta study tomorrow and tuesday anyway for the interview. gotta get out of this place.
i haven't been playing much over the last few weeks, no interest mainly. i'm usually ranked between 800-1000. level 52 or 53, i'm pretty sure it's 52. at this level, i'd be happy to win 2 games to every loss. surprisingly, the people don't do that backhand pass on the breakout (impossible to defend) for the most part. i never do it, but yeah, if you want to exploit to the max, that's about hte only way. some guy kept doing the circle deke (spin o rama) near the slot, couldn't stop him. i guess that's the only other legit way to exploit that i've seen, but only that guy did it and he still either beat me in a shootout or lost by 1.
i never play against more than 1 player at this stage of competition. they usually don't go out of position and their forecheck is at least 2x as good as the AI, making getting out the D zone difficult. if it happens, it's a clear odd man rush.
just thinkng about the game, i have no interest in playing. i gotta study tomorrow and tuesday anyway for the interview. gotta get out of this place.
im level 43, just moved up two levels after two games.
first game was a level 46, beat em (2 ppl) 8-0. hahahaha i figured
they'd be pretty low rank, they fuckin sucked. last nuight I played a
game against 3 people. believe I won 4-0, they go out of position
constantly.
next game I played a level 43, he was pretty good, even had a 5-3 and
then another PP after the 5-4. I had him on shut down man, he
couldnt do anything.
winning 2-1. get a brekaway with 10 sec left, go up ice, PS.
3 sec left, and I do my patented fake shot, shoot strong hand side.
3-1, too easy.
first game was a level 46, beat em (2 ppl) 8-0. hahahaha i figured
they'd be pretty low rank, they fuckin sucked. last nuight I played a
game against 3 people. believe I won 4-0, they go out of position
constantly.
next game I played a level 43, he was pretty good, even had a 5-3 and
then another PP after the 5-4. I had him on shut down man, he
couldnt do anything.
winning 2-1. get a brekaway with 10 sec left, go up ice, PS.
3 sec left, and I do my patented fake shot, shoot strong hand side.
3-1, too easy.
Re: [Madness Writers] RE: [Madness Writers] 12/01/2012 06:32:00 PM
dang, i'd have scored only a 32 on the ACT, roughly.
the test we took in high school, a 1250/1260 is a 27.
get this:
The older SAT (before 1995) had a very high ceiling. In any given
year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. A score
above 1580 was equivalent to the 99.9995 percentile
about 1.3 million people take the SATs every year.
roughly 20 million college students last year, probably more this
year. it increased by 5 million over the last 20 years, probably in
line with the population growth. eh, population increased 1/6,
college kids by 1/4.
the one kid in my chemistry class is pretty intelligent. he said his
high school, probably the best public one around, didnt have calculus.
that's georgia for ya.
dang, I meet the SAT requirements for every college in the US. well,
based off the 2400 score. harvard has the highest reqs at 2100
minimum. 2110, too easy. jesus christ, they accept people (0.5%)
that get a 1000 score...out of 2400.. how the fuck?
I have an IQ between 138-146, apparently. too easy.
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Madness <nayrrizdaed@gmail.com> wrote:
> what article? ah, it's on my reader feed, haven't readi t and won't for a
> while. something about 486 or so frames of the Zapruder film, right?
>
>
>
> jim and you would know better about the accuracy needed to make those shots.
> never shot a rifle
>
> --
> Posted By Madness to Madness Writers at 12/01/2012 07:10:00 PM
the test we took in high school, a 1250/1260 is a 27.
get this:
The older SAT (before 1995) had a very high ceiling. In any given
year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. A score
above 1580 was equivalent to the 99.9995 percentile
about 1.3 million people take the SATs every year.
roughly 20 million college students last year, probably more this
year. it increased by 5 million over the last 20 years, probably in
line with the population growth. eh, population increased 1/6,
college kids by 1/4.
the one kid in my chemistry class is pretty intelligent. he said his
high school, probably the best public one around, didnt have calculus.
that's georgia for ya.
dang, I meet the SAT requirements for every college in the US. well,
based off the 2400 score. harvard has the highest reqs at 2100
minimum. 2110, too easy. jesus christ, they accept people (0.5%)
that get a 1000 score...out of 2400.. how the fuck?
I have an IQ between 138-146, apparently. too easy.
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Madness <nayrrizdaed@gmail.com> wrote:
> what article? ah, it's on my reader feed, haven't readi t and won't for a
> while. something about 486 or so frames of the Zapruder film, right?
>
>
>
> jim and you would know better about the accuracy needed to make those shots.
> never shot a rifle
>
> --
> Posted By Madness to Madness Writers at 12/01/2012 07:10:00 PM
Saturday, December 1, 2012
RE: [Madness Writers] 12/01/2012 06:32:00 PM
what article? ah, it's on my reader feed, haven't readi t and won't for a while. something about 486 or so frames of the Zapruder film, right?
jim and you would know better about the accuracy needed to make those shots. never shot a rifle
jim and you would know better about the accuracy needed to make those shots. never shot a rifle
that article on the JFK assassination...
after watchin the video, I think its quite clear he was shot from
behind. his skull blows off to the front. his head goes slightly
forward (bullet entry from the rear) and then violently backwards
(after hte bullet escapes to the front, forcing the head back because
of the bullet's exit force)
i know Mythbusters re-enacted it with a shooter in the rear which had
basically the exact same results.
not sure what foundation conspiracies have.
though, I will say, to be able to have that kind of accuracy seems
like you'd ahve to be an extremely skilled shooter...even if the
vehicle is moving basically in a straight line away from you. perfect
line of sight.
after watchin the video, I think its quite clear he was shot from
behind. his skull blows off to the front. his head goes slightly
forward (bullet entry from the rear) and then violently backwards
(after hte bullet escapes to the front, forcing the head back because
of the bullet's exit force)
i know Mythbusters re-enacted it with a shooter in the rear which had
basically the exact same results.
not sure what foundation conspiracies have.
though, I will say, to be able to have that kind of accuracy seems
like you'd ahve to be an extremely skilled shooter...even if the
vehicle is moving basically in a straight line away from you. perfect
line of sight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)