Image

Statutory and civil duties 9. Experts find answer to the knuckle-popping puzzle (Update) THE LANGHAM, HONG KONG IGNITES THE POPPING SUMMER AT MAIN ST.

Categories: Erection | price of viagra

Comments

  • jasonhamrick

    jasonhamrick

    March 10, 2015, 8:29 pm

    2005 Mazda 3 Hatchback. The car that I own now. What makes it great. it's stylish, and runs like top. I'm 6'4 and the interior feels huge. It's got a 2.3 liter engine and handles well and doesn't drive like a sports car, but it has power and pep when I need it. Basically, it's a zippy little sports car that looks like a hatchback.

    I live in DC, and the car is small so it's easy to park, but the hatchback is just enough cargo area. My friends call me when they need things moved. Oh.. and I get consistently get great gas mileage -- 28 city / 35 highway. Even though I have it over-insured (for lots of good reasons that I won't go into now) and live in the city, it is $1200 a year to insure.

    Reply

  • JStarx

    JStarx

    March 11, 2015, 1:01 am

    We understand the epiphenomena of our consciousness and we understand quite a bit of how this phenomena is affected by external forces. We also understand a lot on a cellular level. But we don't have a "working theory" of how to connect the two.

    You most certainly could NOT make the same argument about microprocessors. I would think the difference here is plainly obvious; microprocessors are well understood at all levels. Not by me, I'm not an engineer, but the knowledge is available were I to make the effort to learn it. We know how the small scale physics works, we know the large scale effects, and most importantly we know how the small scale physics creates the large scale effects.

    Nowhere in my other post did I use "we can't understand everything perfectly" as an excuse to validate religion, pseudoscience, or new age bullshit and I'll thank you not to use your false dilemma to suggest that I did. Part of rejecting religion, pseudoscience, new age bullshit, etc. is that you have to be honest about what you don't understand. Fear of "I don't know" is what created these things in the first place.

    Even when you do begin to understand you don't just "accept the working theories" and leave it at that. To do that is to cripple science. As long as there's something you don't know, there's something for you to figure out. You don't have to turn to religion and claim you know the answer and you don't have to just accept your current understanding as good enough and claim you don't need to know the answer.

    Reply

  • qlqropi

    qlqropi

    March 10, 2015, 11:43 am

    The problem with citing C-H here is that most "engineered" software is specified by things other than its types. In other words, the theorems you're proving are trivial; what the client is paying for is a particular *kind* of proof.

    For this to change would require widespread adoption of dependently-typed languages. At that point, "Write me a program that does foo" is the same as "Write me a program that has type foo". Right now, these languages are impossibly cumbersome for real-world coding, outside of the most critically high-assurance software. Combine the difficulty of convincing *ourselves* that our code is correct, with the extreme elaboration necessary in formal proof systems, and it's not hard to see why.

    Reply

  • bigtimeslacker

    bigtimeslacker

    March 10, 2015, 12:56 pm

    The main motivator for wanting to play for a living was the fact I really hated working for other people. I just couldnt bring myself to put forth any major amount of effort if I wasnt going to benefit directly from it.

    I made the jump when I saved up 500 buyins to the normal game I play in. I didnt touch any living money from that, the 500 buyins was pure profit from playing poker. It took quite some time to reach that level, but the day I quit my job and walked into the poker room was one of the happiest days of my life.

    As for studying the game, I've only read 2 poker books in my life, both by big name pros who have proven themselves year after year and have earned the respect of their peers. The rest just came from playing the game and studying people.

    Reply

  • soddit

    soddit

    March 10, 2015, 12:13 pm

    Only if the amount of parenting was the only factor, which it isn't.

    Take something as simple as kindergarden, which effectively is collective child rearing. Most psychologists I've talked with think kindergarden is a bad idea for young children, and that kids shouldn't be sent to it until they've reached atleast 5 years of age.

    I can't be bothered to find the article, but aparantly, a british study recently concluded that kids who are kept out of kindergarden until they start school, learn better, and are more emotionally stable.

    My guess is that the emotional bond is a really important part of the equation (and who better to provide that than one's parents), not to mention having consistent role models, instead of half a dozen or more.

    Edit: And then there's my personal experience with people who've been raised in real collectives; the well adjusted ones are in minority. I'm talking drugs, depression, etc.

    Reply

  • Magento

    Magento

    March 11, 2015, 4:41 am

    Beat him up. Show whos boss. I you follow all the great advice people have given, he will grow up and be superawesome. When he earns more money than you, sleeps with supermodels and drives fast cars, he'll still remember that you beat him up back in the day.

    No seriously I think you're going to do really good. But one thing nobody has mentioned yet is to look for something he really loves, and make him follow that for a very long time. I had lots of talents when I was younger (drawing, skateboarding, skiing, programming, animation photography/film) and nobody pushed me to keep up with anything. I just got bored when I got to a certain level and found something else to do. Being versatile is great, but being really good at something is VERY useful when you get older.

    Reply

  • tedivm

    tedivm

    March 10, 2015, 10:50 pm

    Its not that businesses want to charge you a surcharge for using the card. The fee structure for cards is just absolutely ridiculous, and thats the big issue. When I got my merchant account we received a book of the fee structure that was a good inch and a half thick- its essentially impossible to calculate beforehand.

    On top of the fee's just being ridiculously structured, they're now outrageous in price. 20% of a transaction is absolutely ridiculous, and even if you as a card holder aren't directly paying it with a surcharge, you are going to pay for it as the stores raise their prices so they can continue making the same amount of money.

    Higher, more complicated fee's for merchants means higher prices for consumers.

    Reply

  • BenKenobi88

    BenKenobi88

    March 11, 2015, 1:39 am

    Man, I can feel a resemblance of the same emotions, but a "discount to people who believed in the first one"?

    Give me a break...they made a decent game, and now they're making an improved sequel.

    TF2 is really the only Valve game to get such amazing content and support for free, this is hardly a "Valve thing" to give out updates for free. Infinity Ward gave out a free COD4 DLC pack, but they're also making Modern Warfare 2. Where is the outcry there?

    And it should be obvious to you...L4D was reasonably popular on the 360...a first for a Valve game...and the easiest way to get content to the 360 is to simply make a sequel. Not enough console owners would be aware of the DLC for the first L4D, and it would be a hassle and a big loss to Valve to make this content free.

    Reply

  • earnestp

    earnestp

    March 10, 2015, 1:57 pm

    That question is irrelevant. Yes, it leaves us with two major parties, but the problem with that system isn't the number of parties (if there were three major parties, we'd be complaining about that, too) but the tendency of the party to ignore the needs of different constituencies that get their members elected. Suppose, for example, that the Green Party shows up as 25% of the support for an Democrat who was elected because his votes came through the Green Party's line. That's a number that is impossible to ignore or dismiss so that candidate must be aware of that constituency's needs or fear losing their support during the next primary.

    Reply

  • shutthehellup

    shutthehellup

    March 10, 2015, 8:46 pm

    Many (if not most) wealthy entrepreneurs are gracious enough to admit that some form of luck -- being in the right place at the right time, stumbling across the right idea etc. -- played a major, major role in their success. But these men (and women) also tended to work their asses off, sometimes leaving sight of the shore for many years, grueling marathons of 80 hour weeks etcetera, and they were also, as a general rule, willing to take big, big risks in terms of life, career, personal pride if they failed, and so on (not to mention the large number of wealthy entrepreneurs who failed more than once prior to succeeding).

    Similarly, the investment world is so competitive, and the average investment return so mediocre -- S&P returns now flat to negative for the past decade, don't even ask about real estate! -- that it seems highly unlikely, borderline naive even, to suggest that a statistically relevant percentage get rich through sheer investment luck alone. Again, unless you're George W. Bush, you have to work hard, take meaningful risks, AND have good fortune to boot.

    Corruption and connections aside, the picture that emerges is sort of an overlapping venn diagram. Generally speaking -- not talking about lottery winners here -- to get seriously rich you need a confluence of three things:

    1. the willingness to work your ass off

    2. a willingness to take significant risks, and

    3. a heaping helping of luck alongside 1 and 2.

    This is very much different than saying "it's just luck," while still openly acknowledging that luck plays a major part.

    It also offers some explanatory power in that the field of people willing to commit to 1. and 2. -- working their asses off and taking risks -- is dwindled from the very start. From a standing start, what percentage of the general population is even willing to TRY to get rich, to really put their back into it? That narrows the field dramatically right there.

    So if one were to hypothesize, say, that only four out of ten people had the gumption to try for the brass ring in the first place, and then to further hypothesize that of those four who tried, only two got sufficiently lucky, that's two out of ten... and thus you have a luck-driven hypothesis that fits with the pareto principle while still making room for obviously important inputs (the willingness to work hard and take risks). Not saying that this is "THE" formula, but it's certainly another way to look at it (and arguably a more realistic way).

    p.s. I eagerly anticipate downvotes from those who are annoyed at this subtle counterargument to the naturally socialist stance (i.e. "rich people suck and don't deserve their money period").

    Reply

  • j1mb0

    j1mb0

    March 10, 2015, 2:25 pm

    response to both cinnamonandgravy & mrhorrible:

    I said nex-gen console wars. Obviously I know there has been competition between consoles ever since they've existed, the unnecessary age jab was accurate though, congrats.

    I never said Halo was my favorite game, but based on what the OP said: "I think it's important to consider the influence a game has had on the industry, other games, gamers, or a system platform.", I wanted to post something in regard to the influence of a game.

    And yes, I guess what I meant was that it allowed microsoft to enter the nex-gen console wars.

    Halo was a great game, and especially in recent history, has had a tremendous, undeniable influence on gaming. There is no way to strictly determine "the best" game of all time, but I tried to post something that would foster some sort of interesting discussion based on some of the parameters that the OP mentioned.

    However, I should have known that posting something outside the reddit hivemind of disliking anything deemed too "popular" or "mainstream" would get me downvoted and the only replies would be thinly-veiled insults.

    Reply

  • cynopt

    cynopt

    March 10, 2015, 10:28 pm

    Good recipe all around, I use this method a lot too. I have a couple minor adjustments people might want to make while cooking the chicken though:

    The amount of broth should mostly depend on how big the pan is; ideally you want about an inch in the pan per hour it will be in the oven.

    You can work out the cooking time by how much the chicken weighs, figuring twenty minutes per pound at 350, and you'll get a crispier skin if you start it at 450 for the first 20 minutes, and let it rest in the oven with the door cracked for an extra 20 minutes after you turn off the heat.

    If there's a little extra prep time, I like to make a couple batches of biscuits at the same time too since they can cook at the same temperature, but that's just personal preference.

    Reply

  • staleprin

    staleprin

    March 10, 2015, 10:07 pm

    I had sex when obese. Fortunately I was in a long term relationship with someone who, because he loved me and because he is a good guy, was sexually attracted to me when I was obese. He saw me through the weight gain and loss and always wanted to have sex with me regardless of my body size/shape.

    For me, I had a very low sex drive when I was overweight. I struggled to be sexually active. I imagine this was a physiological thing as well as a psychological thing. I didn't feel sexy (although my partner being turned on by me helped me feel a somewhat sexy) and therefore didn't have a strong desire to have sex.

    The sex itself, apart from being limited somewhat due to being large, was no different to now.

    Reply

  • Fimbulfamb

    Fimbulfamb

    March 10, 2015, 11:34 pm

    We recrystallized it, and he says that the resulting white crystalline powder is evidence enough. (It's a rather simple process, all we do is substitute the hydroxide group of salicylic acid with acetic anhydride. Creating the salicylic acid is the real work.) The recrystallization entails boiling away the acetic acid, and you see pretty if it works properly.

    If I remember this correctly, the problem was rather recrystallizing enough of the aspirin, rather than boiling away too little of the impurities.

    Not that I would eat the stuff.

    Reply

Leave a comment