Jump to content

FullBusinessSuit

Member
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Right, and the heat content from smoking is what the cancer has been traced back to. If you can remove the heat content from the smoke it drastically reduces the risk of cancer. The point is absolutely no one is going to get cancer from eating normal or heavy amounts of red meat or pork, and in the unlikely event that this does happen, it could never be verified (well with Science™ I'm sure we'll see cases popping up everywhere with a dogmatic conviction that it's happening and it's ~~oh so real~~), and even if it could it's likely the case that the person has a predisposition to that sort of thing happening. Avoiding red meat or pork in this case is like taking precautions that you could get hit by a meteorite when you walk out your front door or while you're sitting in your house. I also see that there are website online saying to drastically reduce one's meat intake to nonsense levels, like eating a pound (~0.5 KG) of these meats per week. Now, I don't know the affiliation of these sites to the official sources, so they could be randoms pushing their own ideals, but this ridiculous "recommended" reduction in meat consumption tells me that there's an agenda behind it. And I'm sure many of us know that there are people who use the internet thinking that whatever turns up in the search results must, not only be true, but it's a dogmatic Scientific™ Fact™. I'm really starting to hate America...
  2. Well, something has to be done about a president evidently getting fraudulently elected (after having seen lists of videos bigger than I can even watch proving countless occurrences of voter fraud I am not interested in any responses contesting this, and any responses to this effect will be ignored). I was completely apolitical before December 2015, and when I started seeing the Project Veritas videos where they showed the democratic campaigners casually talking about how they've been committing voter fraud for 50+ years (they might have said 70, I forget exactly), and having seen the documentary Obama 2016, and after having followed google and other tech companies closer than any other person I've ever met (including the Google employees I've met and chatted with at length) I really began to question what the hell had been going on in USA since 2008 and, really, since 1945 when America's road to communism began when they stopped the Third Reich from defeating those Bolshevik Communists in the East!! That was western civilization's turning point! Why did America interrupt the Third Reich from defeating Soviet Russia! Why did Truman stop McArthur from nuking the Communists in NK? But I digress. Back on point, big tech is what is driving all of this. Something needs to be done on that front, and this nonsense that all violence is terrorism is killing any sort of corrective action that needs to be taken. There is no such thing as domestic terrorism. Are vigilantes terrorists? Are bounty hunters terrorists? Are serial killers terrorists? Are mass murderers terrorists? Are police terrorists? Are military personnel terrorists? Are countries that declare war on other countries terrorists? The answer in all cases is no; it's very difficult for something to classified as terrorism, not easy; this rhetoric in USA is inflammatory language marketed to the masses in order to validate radical action on behalf of the paramilitary of the democratic party; Antifa (who are not anti-fascist and let's not even touch the pejorative nature of the word "fascist") and Burn Loot Murder. War is a natural process for humans, and we need to accept that as part of the human condition. It doesn't matter how many fantasy books you've read or movies you've watched, transhumanism isn't real - it hasn't happened, and these battles still warrant tried and true solutions, whether it be war or not. The USA is a failed state if the obvious and sloppy fraud campaign is allowed to stand - it doesn't matter if there is a war over it or not - this fraud still happened, and it calls into question all elections everywhere in USA, big or small. Personally, I have moved on from the notion that America is a democracy, and I didn't really have a strong conviction that is was beforehand either because of how inaccessible political positions were to average people; that's a dead giveaway. Anyways, I'm just kind of getting some thoughts out with this post. Feel free to respond in any way you want about whichever topic you want.
  3. I was in university when carcinogens were said to be contained in pork and red meat. The idea is that carcinogens cause cancer. The main thing I have to say about this is: the idea is far and away overblown, and there are two main reasons for this. The first reason the idea got overblown, for what it actually is, is because the fields of study for this sort of thing rarely have any groundbreaking research, so when they get something they really try to hype it up. I believe the relevant fields here were biology and the medical field. Having been on a campus where intellectual property theft is rampant and everyone thinks they're going to be a famous scientist and "win all the marbles" for something this is definitely something they'd do, and they were trying to cause as much fear in the student population as possible. The second reason is because of synergy from people who have radical views on what foods should be consumed, like vegans. Vegans are almost always far left liberals, and as can plainly be seen in Europe and other European countries, like America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, anyone part of a far left constituency has clout in the media, and so these sort of things get overblown. What about the assertions from the research overblown, you may ask? The amount of carcinogens in these meats is so low that one would have to eat several pounds of meat **in a single sitting** to begin to have a minuscule chance of getting cancer. There are people all over the world who eat a lot of meat as a large part of their diet, especially in European countries like America, and not until this research showed up did anyone even suspect they could get cancer from it? That common knowledge should be enough to convince anyone that this research is negligible. I, for one, have year streaks where I eat 1 to 2+ lbs of beef steak nearly every single day of the year (my freezer is packed with beef). I have regularly gone to all you can eat buffets and eaten about 2.5 lbs of beef steak each meal. My dad has done the same thing, and the only difference between he and I is that I've maintained a normal weight and a muscular build, while he is fine with being obese (hey, at least he doesn't make excuses for why he's obese). Anyways, most of my family is like this, and no one has had cancer in my family, ever. And certainly not bowel cancer, and, again, one would have to eat a significant amount of meat to have so much as a minuscule chance of increasing the likelihood of getting cancer. No one should do anything whatsoever to "avoid" the carcinogens in pork and red meat. Your chances of getting cancer are so low that I don't think there is a single confirmed case. However, nowadays, the science fields are more of Science™ fields than anything else, and information coming from authoritative sources should be heavily questioned, especially when political influence occurs related to it. Or if there's a financial incentive for someone who's already rich and powerful; this almost always guarantees that any radical notion is worth ignoring, as there'd probably be a gradual build up instead.
  4. The holiday vids should make more references to whichever holiday the video is for. Not doing this is missing an easy opportunity to set a mood for the video. I realized that the holiday videos don't seem like holiday videos because I lose track of the idea that the game exploration video is for that holiday. I don't like a lot of things about cable TV, but one thing they did right is create a theme for holidays, like halloween, and you *knew* it was time to get in the halloween/christmas spirit. Commercial breaks would have a quick shot of some lit up carved jackolanterns and spider webs or something. These are the "things you see all the time" for halloween, but it does the trick!! I don't want to say *how* to implement these things (unless ross is really interested to hear about it, but I think he watched the same television i did as a kid) or which things to implement; all I'm trying to get at is making the idea of the holiday more present in the viewers' minds; i really feel like all these holiday vids lost potential without having done this. I have some example ideas, however these are just some quick ideas and it can be done however: - for halloween videos do a segue to pumpkins and show carved pumpkins or something - tell a relevant story or anecdote about something that happened on that holiday. - play some generic christmas music. jingle bells is always a winner (even if you're tired of "the same songs" ross. I WANT TO HEAR JINGLE BELLS ALL. THE. TIME.) - talk about festive activities related to whichever holiday and go on the quick tangent to titillate our thoughts - sleigh bells for christmas - lets see some green ooze for halloween. everyone likes green ooze, ross 8-| I think you get the idea.
  5. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1420850/CyberTaxi/ Discuss.
  6. I didn't see it before. I don't cruise these forums often, and when I saw this I thought I should post it here before I lost it.
  7. https://ameliorated.info/ Gives info on this project. The following link is a version you can just download, as I think the official website tries making people sign up for Telegram (the British pseudo-secure "encrypted" messaging app). https://archive.org/details/windows-10-ameliorated-1903 There is an option to torrent the file for anyone without patience or a fast internet connection. I'm also hearing that there's a "Windows LTSC N". I don't know what it is, but people are saying it's the same thing as above, except it's made by an official source. Saw a useful comment about this project on a forum: More info https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwkiU6GG-YU
  8. I was watching the Battle Forge episode where Ross goes into talking about how the Need for Speed games also have tinting for no reason. Well, in the Human Revolution video Ross mentioned that it's not merely a tint over the whole screen, they seem to have also added other layers of yellow tinting to the game; such as a tint to the game's asset itself. My theory on why they do this is so that no one can easily rip out the assets, and repurpose them. There'd be extra work needed to get it to work, and whoever did it could get caught, and open up a free money supply, on legal grounds, for the company who made the tinted game assets. I think it might be this simple. I anticipate someone will ask why they'd bother adding a yellow fog or tint to the level if it doesn't show up when the assets would be ripped from the game and reused, and the answer is simply obfuscation. As can be seen in the Human Revolution video, Ross is even confused as to what they did, and the mods couldn't even properly correct it. Some of these obfuscation techniques aren't good at all, but given the internal politics of software development and corporatism, it was probably done for the managers who think if they're confused, so is everyone else. It doesn't have to make perfect sense, in fact, it probably never would; especially in today's corporate world. Thought?
  9. Let's talk about the mentally ill having a megaphone to say their nonsense online. How do we deal with this? I for one, wish to have a way to ignore the mentally ill without having to first read and hear their words/thoughts on every single website that they have an account. I'm also a proponent of freedom of speech, and I think any sort of blanket banning tool would too easily be misused by any power hungry employee. Maybe we should simply have these people locked up, and limit their computer use? Feel free to give your organic response agnostic of what I've said here and then respond to my ideas, as I'd like to hear peoples' thoughts on this, rather than merely a response to what I've said. I'd like this topic to be left as open as possible with the main premise being "the mentally ill and internet usage".
  10. Everybody calm down. What I'm saying is already how mentally ill are treated and have been for my entire life. Except now it seems like these people are not kept in institutions, whereas when I was younger, that's where they were kept. And I doubt they can use computers with internet in there. There is nothing wrong with attending to the mentally ill, and RaTcHeT302 already went on to talk about the way in which they're already handled. I don't understand the outrage, and I will continue on the course of inquiring to people how the mentally ill should be dealt with when it comes to the internet. It's already been suggested by big tech companies' executives that truly insane people should be looked at when it comes to things like allowing them to use twitter, to give their specific example. I'm only mentioning this because I'd like for respondents to avoid unwelcome personal attacks, and I'm presuming that if an authoritative figure has said something like this then that gives the folks who love their authoritative sources an excuse to jump on board. So if you'll join me, let's discuss the handling of the mentally ill online. What effect does a mentally ill woman or man have when talking in an online forum or on social media? What effect does 100 or 1000 mentally ill people have in comparison to just one? In general, how does one spot a mentally ill woman or man? (already assumed the response that I'm one myself. Please move on to a general answer).
  11. There is a difference between coordinated violence and savagery. Not all violence is wrong, for example, there are wars that have been fought for very good reasons, there are vigilantes on the side of the law or even like Robin Hood, or bounty hunters, or what have you. If just the thought of that is scaring you to the point where you are petrified, maybe go take a martial arts or self defense class, and get some violence in you. If you can't even use a bit of violence to defend yourself, I don't know what to say; that's kind of the bare minimum one should go with violence. I'm not a fighter or a violent person, but I'm not frightened to the extent that you appear to be. I think I could use some battle/combat conditioning even to get myself where I need to be. I've yet to dive into the forums here. I see some topics I want to read, but I haven't spent the time to read them yet, so I wouldn't know what people are saying. I mean, you sound like you're from the UK. You guys have full blown internet censorship already there. Are you aware of that? If not, it could be triggering a thought in your mind where you are realizing something is in play that you assumed wouldn't be; censorship. People in USA get paranoid and nervous when someone brings up a topic that they intentionally or unintentionally are unaware of, especially if it affects their life in a big way. Hey, more power to you. I've largely decreased my internet use the past few years. The internet isn't as good and serendipitous as it used to be. Like you mentioned in your other thread about checking the news, well everyone nowadays thinks they have to get online to be "up to date" (and people will use those exact words), and they get bummed out, like you were saying. There's nothing wrong with taking large amounts of time away from the computer. This does sound quite a bit like an over reaction. I've never quite read something like this before. Perhaps it is paranoia about something you're realizing about your surroundings. I'd be interested in hearing about it, if so. I have done a lot of research about the history of the British Empire, and it sounds like it's fallen quite a ways. So if you have any comments on daily life there (since you don't check the "news"), I'd have a listen.
  12. I might not be seeing the option because I'm on mobile. Is this a thing on accursed farms?
  13. Oh boyyyy. Given your response in that first paragraph combined with this response You sound like the mentally I'll being talked about. Reading on... >you personally have a distaste for mentally ill people wow at this statement. reading on... Just read this gem of a clause you wrote > you're not giving this discussion much of a choice but to revolve around you This is exactly what I planned to do with you (resolve around you) after reading that first paragraph. but you said it first AMIRITE? reddit tactics will not be entertained. i'm taking it you use reddit a lot? I'm not even going to address the specifics of your lack of so much attempting to solve the problems I presented. Your solution is to get upset, hope people throw you a pity party and attack me because you are "virtue" signaling in a politically correct way; Reddit behavior. That website should be fined until it's out of business. Do you have a mental illness? Do people often react to you in a way that let's you know you're not like everyone else, you know what I mean? Have you had a doctor diagnose you with a mental illness? Have you been referred to a doctor for mental assessment? Are you on any medications that alter your mental state? Please share details (I'm querying the forums on how to block you on this site, since I'm not interested in your thoughts/opinions on the original post, so you have until someone let's me know how to respond).
  14. https://www.gog.com/game/serious_sam_4 There are some overly negative reviews of this game that come across as something other than someone with legitimate complaint. I don't think this is a "troll" either where someone is attempting to get a rise out of people with very little or no back blow to them (which is what trolling means, and trolling as it is properly defined has not been a thing on the internet since about 2009 or 2010, at very latest; unless you go on a forum and tell people the Earth is flat - that is pretty funny and can give you a sense of what trolling really used to look like). The post topic: Let's talk about the mentally ill having a megaphone to say their nonsense online. How do we deal with this? I for one, wish to have a way to ignore the mentally ill without having to first read and hear their words/thoughts on every single website that they have an account. I'm also a proponent of freedom of speech, and I think any sort of blanket banning tool would too easily be misused by any power hungry employee. Maybe we should simply have these people locked up, and limit their computer use? Feel free to give your organic response agnostic of what I've said here and then respond to my ideas, as I'd like to hear peoples' thoughts on this, rather than merely a response to what I've said. I'd like this topic to be left as open as possible with the main premise being "the mentally ill and internet usage".
×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.