Lurker > FalinmerTheil

As it's harmful for the individual, I do not believe in fat acceptance. The only exception to this rule for me is those who are fat as a result of a medical issue, IE: it's out of their control. For everyone else, it's a choice, no matter how much you want to argue about it, it's possible to lose weight and not even that expensive, although it can suck. I'm also speaking from experience. I had to lose weight for work or I'd lose my job so I started to diet, my diet mostly composed of salad and chicken, and I managed to make it cost less than $100 for a whole month for my food, so that's not an excuse, and if you want to use time as an excuse, the salad took no time to make (OK, maybe 3 minutes to pull it out the fridge, grab my topping, and put it in a tupperware container that I had to dig out). The chicken itself may have taken more time to cook, but it didn't require constant monitoring, and there's a variety of simple ways to make it taste better at almost no cost!
TL:DR
Unless it's medical, I don't accept obesity, it's not that hard to have a healthy diet (willpower not accounted for).

helly posted...

what if you had a waffletaco?

They are real, and they are good, and they are why we need not decide between the two, as we can have both.

No 401K, but my employer has a retirement package that'll cover me as long as I work for 20 years.

In my opinion, it's purely up to you. Ignore those who say you're a bitch for not playing it with it on, as they're not the one's you're trying to satisfy by playing, you're trying to satisfy yourself. I personally play with it off because I want to get the whole story and don't have the time to dedicate to really mastering it like I did when I was in middle school and beat FE Radiant Dawn (my first Fire Emblem game that I got for Christmas). I beat that game several times just trying to memorize everything so I could get through the game with no casualties, and at the time, I enjoyed it. Now as an adult, I have other responsibilities and can only enjoy something like that when I have an extended break, otherwise, it's just frustrating for me. Also, one note about Radiant Dawn, it is artificially the most difficult fire emblem game in the world (at least the English version is) due to a translation error. What they put as easy is supposed to be the normal while normal is supposed to be the hard, so if you play it on normal (like I did) you're in for a much more difficult time than the rest of the world on normal.

wolfy42 posted...

Xfma100 posted...

wolfy42 posted...

Breakfasts for a week are easy to get for $10, that includes eggs, bread etc.

Milk costs about $5 a gallon where I live.
Cereal and a loaf of bread also make another $5.
That's $10 for milk, bread, and cereal only. (No eggs.)
<_<

Cereal is expensive, don't have that for breakfast, it's not healthy anyway, but every other point you made is correct.

You don't need a gallon of milk for one person in a week, but on top of that, even in themost expensive areas in the US, you can get a gallon of milk for less then $5 (I know, I have lived in themost expensive areas).

Eggs are mega cheap usually. Bread is cheap as well. Boxes of sausage of $1 for 10 patties (2 is plenty for a brekafast). Potatoes for hash browns are 3$ for a 10 pound bag (more then enough to use for both breakfasts and dinners for a week...I included that in the dinner costs already).

You can get cereal on sale of course and then it's not as bad. You can get enough milk for 1 person for $2 for a week in most places as well. Cereal is not totally impossible to do for $10 in a week (with enough left over for eggs and sausage a few times).

You also have pancakes/waffles which are MEGA cheap (a package of mix (just add water) is like $5 for enough for months and months of pancakes/waffles.

There are tons of ways to make breakfasts for a week for $10 or less.

Actually, in Hawaii, milk can cost up to $9 depending on location because they can't easily produce it domestically. I'm a college student and I was living on $100 a month for myself just by cooking for myself, it allowed me to eat well and eat a lot. It's not hard and it's more rewarding.

While based on the information I don't think it was racist, I do think it was stupid. Her reasoning of trying to make them feel more comfortable and safe is logical, but the execution is poor. If she wanted to do something along those lines to make them more comfortable and safe, it would've been a better option to try and cluster them more, rather than segregate them (IE: there's 49 white kids, try to put at least 4-5 in each class, but the more the better, so long as none end up alone).
EDIT: Definition of racist: discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another

Mead posted...

FroMan posted...

Because I shouldn't have to bribe the driver to do his damn job correctly.

Expect your delivery fees to go up dramatically then

Unless you think drivers are gonna work for $3 an hour and no tips

Federal law makes it so if wage+tip=/=minimum wage, the employer has to make up the difference, not the tipper, tips were developed during the depression so that employers could pass on the bill to pay their employees to the customer, and it just stuck.

darkknight109 posted...

FalinmerTheil posted...

darkknight109 posted...

wolfy42 posted...
All else being equal, staff trumps most other weapons thanks to its reach, but against a sword it definitely comes up short (pardon the pun). There's a reason why swords were used by nearly every army in the world in the pre-blackpowder days, while no nation that I'm familiar with used staves in battle (despite the fact that they would have been far cheaper and simpler to mass-manufacture).

Good to see someone else who actually knows what they're talking about, also, in a way, many militaries did cash in on staves for combat, they just added a point to them and made them a spear. The spear required little to no practice to use (obviously, the more you practice the better, but they could just hand them out to farmers and it worked) and it gave the reach advantage, and when fighting in groups, it was more devastating than swords most of the time. It is far cheaper to make due to mostly being a wooden shaft, and the amount of metal on the end is negligible (and if they want to go full on cheap, they can just make the end of the wooden shaft pointy and say that's enough).

Spears/polearms and staves are fairly distinct in terms of fighting style, though. Much like the sword/staff comparison, a spear's primary use is as a stabbing (or occasionally cutting) weapon.

I agree with your conclusions, just not the initial comparison of spears being "staves with a pointy thing on the end".

I was definitely stretching things, you're definitely right on that, I just figured it would make an entertaining intro.

Zareth posted...

Blighboy posted...

Is it possible to effectively reload guns when you're dual wielding? I have no experience with firearms so I'm not sure. But it seems like a big problem to me that's never really addressed when people do it.

No.
If you have two guns, you're far, FAR better off just shooting one gun with both hands then switching to the other when the magazine's empty.

Most of the myths about dual wielding handguns came from the appearance of the wild west, where those who carried handguns often carried multiple, and they did so for exactly the reason that Zareth stated, so they could switch between them when one ran out of ammo, after all, reloading a revolver takes a lot more time than switching a magazine.

darkknight109 posted...

wolfy42 posted...
All else being equal, staff trumps most other weapons thanks to its reach, but against a sword it definitely comes up short (pardon the pun). There's a reason why swords were used by nearly every army in the world in the pre-blackpowder days, while no nation that I'm familiar with used staves in battle (despite the fact that they would have been far cheaper and simpler to mass-manufacture).

Good to see someone else who actually knows what they're talking about, also, in a way, many militaries did cash in on staves for combat, they just added a point to them and made them a spear. The spear required little to no practice to use (obviously, the more you practice the better, but they could just hand them out to farmers and it worked) and it gave the reach advantage, and when fighting in groups, it was more devastating than swords most of the time. It is far cheaper to make due to mostly being a wooden shaft, and the amount of metal on the end is negligible (and if they want to go full on cheap, they can just make the end of the wooden shaft pointy and say that's enough).

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

How heavy are the swords

how heavy are the shields?

a buckler is useless against a claymore, but a tower shield is overkill against a bastard sword or estoc.

Not really correct, a buckler is fine against a claymore. In any case, you never want to meet a force head on in combat, that's just a waste of energy, so redirecting it is better. With a buckler, you would hold it at an angle to deflect the strike, so you're not taking the full force while also costing the attacker their balance to a degree (and this is even more so with a 2h like a claymore). Tower shields were not meant for solo combat, they're meant for group combat, so among shields, they're relatively unwieldy, but again, they're the prime example of a stationary combat group shield, used to create a wall while the spearmen behind you stab through at your enemies, if it was 1v1 against any relatively light weapon, it would most likely lose do to its unwieldiness.

yutterh posted...

Xialoh posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Sword and shield, as if you need two hands for fighting, they should be on your weapon, not weapons.

what

It is better to have both hands holding one weapon, then using a weapon in each,

It all depends, but in most cases, this is true (also, remember, a shield is just another weapon with a different focus). Most weapons are designed to be used by themselves, and the ones that aren't tend to have a dedicated secondary component or partner, see the kusarigama which, while having a chain connecting the two parts, is used as two separate weapons with the chain as a control and retrieval, it doesn't interfere with the use of the other half when properly used. Something like a sword is not designed to be used with another sword (this doesn't mean it can't happen, but it is technologically inferior as a result). Humans are great at war, and as such they worked hard at developing how to kill each other and the tools to do so, so if a ton of humans used it, it's probably safe to assume that it's technologically and tactically sound along with having numerous skills developed for it, those rare ones like dual swords are outliers that don't fit this equation, but most people still can't use them when someone develops the skill.

wolfy42 posted...

Blah.

Two short sticks work just fine, and short swords would as well, they are easier to hide then a shield (and if they are sticks very safe to do so), you don't even need to be ambidextrous to pull it off.

2 swords/sticks give you more options, you still have defense, just not as much as a shield (but you can also move your defense faster then most shields), but you have 2 points of attack as well, or even the ability to attack 2 different people at once.

You also have a weapon to throw in a pinch, and still have a weapon to fight with.

Depending on the shield and it's size weight etc, you will have openings/weaknesses or be slowed down. It will make your defense better, especially if your primarily focusing on it, but when fighting multiple opponents with any brains at all, it may not help as much as another weapon.

I would generally go with no shield and just one weapon to be honest, unless I had plenty of recent practice with wielding two weapons at a time, or it was a weapon meant to be used in combo. A staff is probably a better option in most cases, giving you just about as much defense (and more in some ways), more reach, and still allowing you to deal with multiple opponents fairly easy.

I've trained with the Bo in the past, but not with multiple weapons much, so yeah 1 weapon would make more sense, and if I had a light shield on the other hand that didn't slow me down, it would probably be better.

Actually, a shield is in general better than a sword, and it can be used offensively as well. As with what I said about weapon weights above, shields didn't weigh that much (unless they were meant to be part of a mostly stationary line) because they had to be used for a long time. There's also shield bashing which can be used offensively, and yes, it can be lethal. There are two types of shield bash's, the one where you hit them with the face of the shield, which is mostly for impairing their vision or balance, not for damage, or edge bashing, which could even kill an armored knight (if hit with enough force and in the right place). Even if it doesn't kill them, it hurts like crazy, a shield is just as much a weapon as a sword is, it's just its focus is elsewhere. (EDIT: I am over simplifying the shield bash's, and there are more variants with different purposes, but these are the 2 main ones).

I'd be agitated, but legally, they cannot terminate you for that, and if they tried, I could take them to court. If you are on a vacation and they decided to add a deadline (whether or not they knew you were on vacation to start with is a moot point) You are not on their clock, and as a result, aside from doing an action that could besmirch the company (which requires people to know you work for them) they can't really get you for anything, they try, you sue, and you win.

I think it was middle school, I didn't have a lot of friends, even in elementary school, but that's when I picked up a habit (much to the chagrin of my teachers) of reading a lot (to the point that I would read and not pay attention in class, my teachers hated that I could still answer the questions). So, for me, it wasn't because of the school, but because I picked up good habits.

I don't think so, no matter how stupid he is, most of the world is wary against a world war, even if it's only for the fact that we're so interconnected, any world war would be detrimental and they would try to resolve things without going to it (and no, the world going against 1 nation doesn't count as a world war, that's disciplining an unruly child).

EclairReturns posted...

If it's divisible by 2, then it's even; if otherwise, it's odd.

Well, 3 is divisible by 2, it equals 1.5 (If you want a more accurate rule, if it's divisible by 2 and equals a whole number, it's even).

TheWorstPoster posted...

What I don't understand is why people want murderers to live. If you murder somebody, your own life is forfeit as punishment.

Difference of opinion (I am pro-capital punishment mind you). I personally think that capital punishment should only be reserved for those whom we have absolute evidence for who have committed some of the worst crimes (IE: Murder or rape), anything short of that, give them hard labor, we have no reason to make them comfortable, and if we can at least make them productive members of society while they are incarcerated, it would work even better (Perhaps place the prisons in the middle of nowhere and have them work a farm for their own food among other things, still provide them the necessary nutrients, but if they want anything nice, have them work for it.)

Basically, death is the easy way out and should only be used for the worst of the worst in my opinion.

Dual wielding is an excellent way to fight... if you have the time to train for years on end. It can be a very powerful way of fighting, but it is also one of the most difficult to pull off effectively, and as a result, almost no one uses it (and most of those who do/did sucked at it). I would go with sword and shield as it's both simple and effective, it was developed as a result of fighting for their lives as one of the most simple but devastating ways to keep alive while killing the enemy.

Muffinz0rz posted...

How heavy are the swords

Most swords didn't weigh more than a couple pounds, even 2h swords often wouldn't weigh much more than 5 pounds. You have to remember, they have to be light enough that the wielder can keep swinging it for hours on end in a large battlefield, as their lives would literally depend on the ability to keep going, and most heavy weapons were not conducive to that.

Yes, and they gave me a refund for it, granted, the movie itself wasn't terrible (finding nemo) but their system was glitching out a lot, losing audio and video frequently, so they refunded us hoping that we'd come another time.

This is an example of the stupidity that leads to semantic satiation, or simply put, using a word/phrase so much (especially incorrectly) that it loses its meaning and becomes worthless. In this case, it's child abuse, this is absolutely not child abuse, yet if the phrase is used sufficiently (especially out of context) it will no longer carry any weight, and that's really bad as it's an important phrase that should be used to alert people of real dangers. It's similar to how a lot of (vocal but stupid, not all of them) liberals use the word racist, yeah, some of the people they call that are doing something wrong, and yeah, there are some racists out there, but they yell the word so much that it has no weight anymore, even when it matters.

Saw-moo-rah-ee (although sometimes I will do the sam-oo-rai one)