shrewish-looking damsel, is in attendance on her._

CLEOPATRA.

[_Nervously._] Am I looking my best, Charmian?

CHARMIAN.

[_Sulkily._] Your majesty is looking as well as _I_ can make you. If
you are not satisfied you had better get another maid.

CLEOPATRA.

[_Looking at herself in hand mirror._] Silly child! Of course I am
satisfied. I think you are wonderful.

CHARMIAN.

[_Mollified._] Yes. I think I've not done so badly.

CLEOPATRA.

Of course, with Antony not even buried yet, it would hardly have done
for me to be _too_ magnificent.

CHARMIAN.

[_Decidedly_]. Most unsuitable.

CLEOPATRA.

As it is, I think we've arrived at a rather successful blend of
splendour and sorrow, suggesting at once the afflicted widow and the
queen who is open to consolation.

CHARMIAN.

That is certainly the impression we intended to convey. By the way,
when does Cæsar arrive?

CLEOPATRA.

Octavian? Almost at once.

CHARMIAN.

His first visit, isn't it?

CLEOPATRA.

Yes. So much depends on a first<|endoftext|> oriented' participants, in addition to elite competitors, became interested in long distance running. She further explained that marathons have now become geared towards any participant interested in improving their physical condition. Andrea Abbas (2004) added that marathon running is mainly a middle class activity because it values self-empowerment and nonaggressive bodily toughness. Some psychological studies provide motivational techniques for participation, other researchers focus on accounts of pain, injury, and suffering during an endurance event. Maylon Hanlon (2010) found that pain and injury occupy a prominent place in distance runners’understandings of themselves. Running is typically constructed as demanding, arduous, and injury prevalent and runners expect pain to be a normal part of their experience. For example, William Bridel and Genevieve Rail (2007) noted that self-identification as a 'runner' included adherence to rigorous training of which pain and injury were frequent and expected aspects.

No doubt these are all part of the embodied endurance event experiences of the participants, but such results paint a picture of distance running as a tortuous activity during which the participants get used to being in pain. Although there must be some enjoyable aspects of endurance running, few researchers focus on these. I want to highlight particularly women's experiences of endurance running to find out if running long distances is all about enduring pain and if it is, why do women voluntary engage in a painful and injury prone activity. As an example, I use Hanlon's study in which she interviewed exclusively women ultramarathon runners.

Ultramarathon (any distance longer than a marathon, but the most common distances are 50k, 50 miles, 100k, and 100 miles) is an interesting event for women in several accounts. Hanlon observed that while not equaling the participation rates for marathons, women's participation rates in ultramarathon have increased sixfold since the 1980s. In addition, women excel in ultramarathon running: the overall winner of a race where participants are men and women can be a woman. One of Hanlon's participants remarked: “all of the top men have been beaten by all of the top women at some point in their racing careers”. This does not happen in marathon running. Ultramarathons also differ from marathons in that they typically take place on unpaved roads or trails through forests and up and over mountain passes. To better understand why women are attracted to ultramarathons, Hanlon interviewed 8 very successful elite ultra runner women from the United States who consistently placed top five in nationally recognized races during 3 years.

These women came to ultrarunning through different backgrounds: while some where previous elite athletes (for example, in triathlon), some began their sporting career with ultramarathon. Different things attracted them to participate, but they also indicated that the prominent ultramarathon attitude centers around breaking down one's own barriers. One of the participants defined the meaning of participation as "seeing one's limitlessness" and the extraordinary things that can happen when one manages to break through the barrier of one's bodily ability during an endurance event. Following this sentiment, these extremely successful ultramarathoners did not value winning a race or obtaining a fast time, but finishing the race. The most feared thing was having the letters DNF (did not finish) printed after one's name in the results list of an event. Despite the prominent attitude that down played winning and valued participation, some of these runners did find successful placing in the results lists an increasing important aspects of their enjoyment in ultramarathon. For example, one participant defined success as “winning races and setting course records, but it’s also really a sense of pushing myself beyond my preconceived limits.” These runners found pushing the limits and finishing extreme running races empowering – a sense of achievement that made them feel good about themselves.

Pain was, nevertheless, a prominent aspect of ultra running. It was also something that needed to be overcome. One runner felt that “to become a better ultrarunner, you’ve got to be in discomfort. . . but that’s good. Discomfort is not going to hurt me.” Hanlon found that the women, nevertheless, described different levels of pain. Quite typically for runners, they distinguished between good and bad pain. The difference between them was negotiated based on how the pain affected their performance: Good pain was felt to be part of running a race, pain that allowed the participant to continue running. Bad pain resulted in injury which meant not finishing the race. The third level of pain was related to negotiating painful moments during the race in terms of enduring pain to get 'second, third, or fourth winds' during which one shifts from feeling very bad to feeling good. Hanlon noted the patient attitude that the women ultrarunners had to their feelings of discomfort. One asserted that it is “a matter of surviving those lows and knowing they would pass.” Another told herself during painful moments, “It’s no big deal, you always live. You always come back from it, so don’t worry about it.” A third revealed that she tried to be conscious, but "free with it [transitions] rather than fighting it—not being caught up in one specific moment.”

While pushing one's limits by enduring pain was an important aspect of running, these participants also referred to the ideal, thin feminine body often associated with long distance running. This is the type of body often seen on such magazine covers as Runner's World. For example, one of the runners suspected that “a lot of people get into ultra because they think it’s going to give them a certain body". Another refers to the marathon runners' body type observing that "marathoners, road marathoners, when they are winning . . . the top people all look the same, either tall and very thin. Ultra runners could be thought of having a similar type of body. Surprisingly, these runners did not find that there was a perfect ultramarathon body shape. They asserted, instead, that one cannot judge a successful ultrarunner based on her looks: they came in all body sizes from 'overweight' to thin and everything in between. This diversity made the participants feel good about current shape of their running bodies. For example, one participant explained: “my body type is more muscular and a little bit heavier than other runners. But it’s who I am. I’m not going to change that." Hanlon found that these successful ultramarathoners consciously created "their bodies according to 'what works' rather than on the 'lean and muscular' shape of the normative running body" (p. 179).

It is evident that running extremely long distances provided the women runners a sense of empowerment as they pushed their physical limits. It is also interesting that in our often sedentary society an engagement in physical activity is considered a way of pushing one's limits in favor of other demanding (such as mental) tasks. As physical inactivity has become more common place, we have perhaps started to value some physical prowess, such as extreme endurance running, more highly. Endurance feats of Ironman, marathon, and ultramarathon are, nevertheless, a part of most participants' leisure time. Few women earn a living as professional endurance athletes. The recreational participants, nevertheless, have a need to push their physical limits and while it might be painful, gain a sense of achievement that cannot be obtained elsewhere in their lives.

Pushing one's physical limits and the pain barrier need not, however, be everyone's goals. We exercise for several reasons and it is usually safer to avoid pain. In addition, our physical limits are different: it might be a major achievement for someone to walk for 30 minutes while for another, running for 5k is a huge accomplishment. We have plenty of choices regarding types of activity and we definitely enjoy very different forms of exercise for different reasons. It is, however, interesting that extreme physical endurance events have become more popular during our times when, on the other hand, many women remain entirely physically inactive.

Works cited:

Abbas, A. (2004). The embodiment of class, gender and age through leisure: A realist analysis of long distance running. Leisure Studies, 23(2), 159–175.

Bridel, W., & Rail

 oriented' participants, in addition to elite competitors, became interested in long distance running. She further explained that marathons have now become geared towards any participant interested in improving their physical condition. Andrea Abbas (2004) added that marathon running is mainly a middle class activity because it values self-empowerment and nonaggressive bodily toughness. Some psychological studies provide motivational techniques for participation, other researchers focus on accounts of pain, injury, and suffering during an endurance event. Maylon Hanlon (2010) found that pain and injury occupy a prominent place in distance runners’understandings of themselves. Running is typically constructed as demanding, arduous, and injury prevalent and runners expect pain to be a normal part of their experience. For example, William Bridel and Genevieve Rail (2007) noted that self-identification as a 'runner' included adherence to rigorous training of which pain and injury were frequent and expected aspects.

No doubt these are all part of the embodied endurance event experiences of the participants, but such results paint a picture of distance running as a tortuous activity during which the participants get used to being in pain. Although there must be some enjoyable aspects of endurance running, few researchers focus on these. I want to highlight particularly women's experiences of endurance running to find out if running long distances is all about enduring pain and if it is, why do women voluntary engage in a painful and injury prone activity. As an example, I use Hanlon's study in which she interviewed exclusively women ultramarathon runners.

Ultramarathon (any distance longer than a marathon, but the most common distances are 50k, 50 miles, 100k, and 100 miles) is an interesting event for women in several accounts. Hanlon observed that while not equaling the participation rates for marathons, women's participation rates in ultramarathon have increased sixfold since the 1980s. In addition, women excel in ultramarathon running: the overall winner of a race where participants are men and women can be a woman. One of Hanlon's participants remarked: “all of the top men have been beaten by all of the top women at some point in their racing careers”. This does not happen in marathon running. Ultramarathons also differ from marathons in that they typically take place on unpaved roads or trails through forests and up and over mountain passes. To better understand why women are attracted to ultramarathons, Hanlon interviewed 8 very successful elite ultra runner women from the United States who consistently placed top five in nationally recognized races during 3 years.

These women came to ultrarunning through different backgrounds: while some where previous elite athletes (for example, in triathlon), some began their sporting career with ultramarathon. Different things attracted them to participate, but they also indicated that the prominent ultramarathon attitude centers around breaking down one's own barriers. One of the participants defined the meaning of participation as "seeing one's limitlessness" and the extraordinary things that can happen when one manages to break through the barrier of one's bodily ability during an endurance event. Following this sentiment, these extremely successful ultramarathoners did not value winning a race or obtaining a fast time, but finishing the race. The most feared thing was having the letters DNF (did not finish) printed after one's name in the results list of an event. Despite the prominent attitude that down played winning and valued participation, some of these runners did find successful placing in the results lists an increasing important aspects of their enjoyment in ultramarathon. For example, one participant defined success as “winning races and setting course records, but it’s also really a sense of pushing myself beyond my preconceived limits.” These runners found pushing the limits and finishing extreme running races empowering – a sense of achievement that made them feel good about themselves.

Pain was, nevertheless, a prominent aspect of ultra running. It was also something that needed to be overcome. One runner felt that “to become a better ultrarunner, you’ve got to be in discomfort. . . but that’s good. Discomfort is not going to hurt me.” Hanlon found that the women, nevertheless, described different levels of pain. Quite typically for runners, they distinguished between good and bad pain. The difference between them was negotiated based on how the pain affected their performance: Good pain was felt to be part of running a race, pain that allowed the participant to continue running. Bad pain resulted in injury which meant not finishing the race. The third level of pain was related to negotiating painful moments during the race in terms of enduring pain to get 'second, third, or fourth winds' during which one shifts from feeling very bad to feeling good. Hanlon noted the patient attitude that the women ultrarunners had to their feelings of discomfort. One asserted that it is “a matter of surviving those lows and knowing they would pass.” Another told herself during painful moments, “It’s no big deal, you always live. You always come back from it, so don’t worry about it.” A third revealed that she tried to be conscious, but "free with it [transitions] rather than fighting it—not being caught up in one specific moment.”

While pushing one's limits by enduring pain was an important aspect of running, these participants also referred to the ideal, thin feminine body often associated with long distance running. This is the type of body often seen on such magazine covers as Runner's World. For example, one of the runners suspected that “a lot of people get into ultra because they think it’s going to give them a certain body". Another refers to the marathon runners' body type observing that "marathoners, road marathoners, when they are winning . . . the top people all look the same, either tall and very thin. Ultra runners could be thought of having a similar type of body. Surprisingly, these runners did not find that there was a perfect ultramarathon body shape. They asserted, instead, that one cannot judge a successful ultrarunner based on her looks: they came in all body sizes from 'overweight' to thin and everything in between. This diversity made the participants feel good about current shape of their running bodies. For example, one participant explained: “my body type is more muscular and a little bit heavier than other runners. But it’s who I am. I’m not going to change that." Hanlon found that these successful ultramarathoners consciously created "their bodies according to 'what works' rather than on the 'lean and muscular' shape of the normative running body" (p. 179).

It is evident that running extremely long distances provided the women runners a sense of empowerment as they pushed their physical limits. It is also interesting that in our often sedentary society an engagement in physical activity is considered a way of pushing one's limits in favor of other demanding (such as mental) tasks. As physical inactivity has become more common place, we have perhaps started to value some physical prowess, such as extreme endurance running, more highly. Endurance feats of Ironman, marathon, and ultramarathon are, nevertheless, a part of most participants' leisure time. Few women earn a living as professional endurance athletes. The recreational participants, nevertheless, have a need to push their physical limits and while it might be painful, gain a sense of achievement that cannot be obtained elsewhere in their lives.

Pushing one's physical limits and the pain barrier need not, however, be everyone's goals. We exercise for several reasons and it is usually safer to avoid pain. In addition, our physical limits are different: it might be a major achievement for someone to walk for 30 minutes while for another, running for 5k is a huge accomplishment. We have plenty of choices regarding types of activity and we definitely enjoy very different forms of exercise for different reasons. It is, however, interesting that extreme physical endurance events have become more popular during our times when, on the other hand, many women remain entirely physically inactive.

Works cited:

Abbas, A. (2004). The embodiment of class, gender and age through leisure: A realist analysis of long distance running. Leisure Studies, 23(2), 159–175.

Bridel, W., & Rail, G. (2007). Sport, sexuality, and the production of (resistant) bodies: De/re-constructing the meanings of gay male marathon corporeality.Sociology of Sport Journal, 24, 127–144.

Chase, L. F. (2008). Running big: Clydesdale runners and technologies of the bodies. Sociology of Sport Journal, 25(1), 130–147.

Hanlon, M. T. (2010). Beyond the marathon: (De)Construction of female ultrarunning bodies. Sociology of Sport Journal, 27, 160-177

Pirkko Markula, Ph.D.,
is a professor of socio-cultural studies of physical activity at the University of Alberta, Canada.

Subscribe to Fit Femininity

Current Issue

Let It Go!
<|endoftext|>World Tech

How To Make A Private Story On Snapchat

Snapchat is a popular social media app that lets you send photos, videos, and text messages, to a small group of your friends (usually between one and ten people) from your phone. The app has a special feature called “stories” that lets you create an ongoing narrative of photos and videos that will expire after a few seconds if no one views it. While Snapchat has been around for a few years, in recent months a lot of people have been using Snapchat more as a place for people to post short videos to friends on a daily basis.

Snapchat is a very fun application, but it can also be


the audience had
received favorably a "Marguerite" who was neither fat nor forty, and the
newspaper critics had united in giving me a most enthusiastic verdict
of approval.

[Illustration: "MY THIRD SEASON OPENED IN TRAVIATA"]

Naturally after such a success I expected to be called upon again very
soon, but many weeks passed and still my name was not included in the
published casts given out from week to week. Finally I determined to
find out the reason for this neglect, so I called on Count von Hochberg
in his private office at the opera.

"Good-evening, Your Excellency," I remarked pleasantly. "I have just
looked over the billboards and I don't see my name included in next
week's repertoire."

There was a moment of embarrassment, then I continued:--

"I merely wondered why I don't sing," adding, "Of course, if Berlin
doesn't want me I should like to know it."

Count von Hochberg murmured something about giving me an answer the next
day, but I insisted I must know that night.

"Very<|endoftext|>
I too think Walt Jr might step outside and interact with Jesse.

I don't remember the house looking burned down, fucked up yes, but not noticeably burned.

by Anonymousreply 3308/26/2013

R32 - yes. I think he did it so that Jesse would let it go and they could get back to cooking meth.

by Anonymousreply 3408/26/2013

R30 has a point.

It's complicated to think that Walt wanted Jesse to live but just go away. I think that's the case. Walt needs to believe that Jesse would do anything for him, including just disappear.

I don't think Walt wants to kill anyone else, especially now that he's this close to being known. But when push comes to shove and he knows that Jesse will threaten him— he will kill Jesse, no two thoughts about it.

[quote]It is definitely a stretch on their part to expect the audience to remember the guard picking Jesse's pocket.

Um, hence the extended explanation by Jesse in the next scene.

by Anonymousreply 3508/26/2013

I meant to refer to R31 in my post obviously.

by Anonymousreply 3608/26/2013

r31. The main point of that confession was to highlight the fact that Marie and Hank have both profited from Walt's drug money. Hank had no idea that Marie took money from them.

Hank essentially saying, 'if I go down, I'm dragging you all down with me, kicking and screaming.'

It's amazing how alike Hank and Walt are in some ways. They both are in their current mess because their pride refused to accept money from other parties for their health care.

by Anonymousreply 3708/26/2013

God, I completely missed seeing Jesse get pick pocketed. Thanks for tipping me off. I do think Walt Jr is home too. Will he survive? He was looking a bit worn out in this episode and I do wonder if Walt will have to pay somehow. That somehow being his son being killed.

by Anonymousreply 3808/26/2013

Details of the pickpocketing here. Upon playback you can see it clearly.

Another reason this is a brilliant show. It doesn't spoon feed the audience.

The writers work well in an age where EVERYTHING can be played back and watched over and over again.

by Anonymousreply 3908/26/2013

Thanks #39. I completely missed it the first time I watched the episode.

by Anonymousreply 4008/26/2013

Didn't Walt "find" the ricin cigarette in Jesse's roomba? I'm confused why the pickpocketing would tip Jesse off since this missing poison was found and it's not even the same poison used to poison that kid (who lived).

Also, how did it and up in Walt's wall outlet?

by Anonymousreply 4108/26/2013

They are certainly not letting up in these final episodes. It's going out as one of the best final seasons ever. I think maybe THE best. Such a sad moment with Jesse and Walt, during that hug to think of their entire, difficult relationship. Beautifully acted.

by Anonymousreply 4208/26/2013

Did Walt hide the resin there a few seasons back?

by Anonymousreply 4308/26/2013

Walt tried to get Jesse to believe that Gus was responsible for poisoning the kid at first. That is why he wanted the cig stolen so it would look suspicious.

However once it later came to light that it wasn't ricin the suspicion he used to manipulate Jesse had already served its purpose.

Then the ricin cig was "found" in Jesse's house and the whole thing was forgotten.

Until this past episode where Jesse connected the dots and realized it was a ruse to manipulate him. The funny thing is if you go back and look Jesse's first assumption was that Saul's guys pickpocketed the ricin for Walt, he was right all along.

by Anonymousreply 4408/26/2013

He put it there for safekeeping in the beginning of the season. Do you people actually watch this show? Damn.

by Anonymousreply 4508/26/2013

And to clarify for R41, the one they "found" in Jessie's apartment was a fake while Walt kept the real ricin cig in his house.

by Anonymousreply 4608/26/2013

Jesse believes that it was the ricin that poisoned the kid. It wasn't. We know that, but Jesse doesn't.

That said, his "aha!" moment was a little convenient. But no matter. The stage is finally set, though God only knows for what.

Aaron Paul and Dean Norris have moved to a new level this season.

by Anonymousreply 4708/26/2013

Remind me why Jesse had the ricin cigarette in the first place. Also, Walt convinced Jesse that Gus had stolen it, but how would have Gus known that he had it?

This was always the most unconvincing subplot of Breaking Bad, I'm sorry they've turned it into such a pivotal plot point. Still the best show on TV, though.

by Anonymousreply 4808/26/2013

My jaw dropped when they said Hank's medical bills were only $177k. That seems really low for all the private care, rehab and hospitalization.

by Anonymousreply 4908/26/2013

I have reached the point in life where I need either Cliff Notes or someone from DataLounge holding my hand as I watch this show. Old age is clearly not for sissies. I seem to miss half of everything these days.

by Anonymousreply 5008/26/2013

Doesn't anyone here have Netflix streaming? You can go back and watch the episodes to see how this was built up.

by Anonymousreply 5108/26/2013

[quote]Jesse believes that it was the ricin that poisoned the kid. It wasn't. We know that, but Jesse doesn't.

This is blatantly false. Jesse finds out it ended up being Lily, however for a while he was being convinced it was ricin used by Gus because Walt wanted Jesse on his side.

by Anonymousreply 5208/26/2013

Nope, R#51. I am not in the USA so no streaming.

by Anonymousreply 5308/26/2013

Something else:

When Jesse is beating up Saul, he says, " “The ricin cigarettes! He poisoned Brock and you… you helped him!”

But even if he realized that it was Huell that lifted the ricin cigarette, why would he connect that with the poisoning of Brock, since Brock wasn't poisoned by Ricin.

by Anonymousreply 5408/26/2013

Okay. I kind of remember now. Jesse was gonna poison Gus with the ricin but changed his mind.

by Anonymousreply 5508/26/2013

Exactly R55. Walt gave it to Jesse to poison Gus but Jesse was starting to grow close to Gus, and didn't even poison him when he had the opportunity.

Thus Walt's actions with Brock to get Jesse to hate Gus (it doesn't matter that Jesse later finds out it wasn't Gus but a flower because he has already helped Walt).

I get it is a little convoluted, but the show laid out everything.

by Anonymousreply 5608/26/2013

[quote]Jesse believes that it was the ricin that poisoned the kid. Even thought it wasn't— Jesse doesn't know that. BUT Walt DID actually poison and almost(?) kill the kid. So the point stands. Walt will do anything to manipulate people to his bidding, including harming kids.

Kids are Jesse's trigger. Walt knew that which why he poisoned Brock and framed Gus for it. He knew that would break Jesse's loyalty and budding admiration for Gus.

The fact that it wasn't actually the ricin may be beyond the point, unless Walt uses that little detail to keep Jesse from killing him somehow. "The devil is in the details" indeed. I keep waiting for that repeating line to come back somehow. There will be some payoff involving a minute detail.

What always amused me about the ricin plot, however

I too think Walt Jr might step outside and interact with Jesse.

I don't remember the house looking burned down, fucked up yes, but not noticeably burned.

by Anonymousreply 3308/26/2013

R32 - yes. I think he did it so that Jesse would let it go and they could get back to cooking meth.

by Anonymousreply 3408/26/2013

R30 has a point.

It's complicated to think that Walt wanted Jesse to live but just go away. I think that's the case. Walt needs to believe that Jesse would do anything for him, including just disappear.

I don't think Walt wants to kill anyone else, especially now that he's this close to being known. But when push comes to shove and he knows that Jesse will threaten him— he will kill Jesse, no two thoughts about it.

[quote]It is definitely a stretch on their part to expect the audience to remember the guard picking Jesse's pocket.

Um, hence the extended explanation by Jesse in the next scene.

by Anonymousreply 3508/26/2013

I meant to refer to R31 in my post obviously.

by Anonymousreply 3608/26/2013

r31. The main point of that confession was to highlight the fact that Marie and Hank have both profited from Walt's drug money. Hank had no idea that Marie took money from them.

Hank essentially saying, 'if I go down, I'm dragging you all down with me, kicking and screaming.'

It's amazing how alike Hank and Walt are in some ways. They both are in their current mess because their pride refused to accept money from other parties for their health care.

by Anonymousreply 3708/26/2013

God, I completely missed seeing Jesse get pick pocketed. Thanks for tipping me off. I do think Walt Jr is home too. Will he survive? He was looking a bit worn out in this episode and I do wonder if Walt will have to pay somehow. That somehow being his son being killed.

by Anonymousreply 3808/26/2013

Details of the pickpocketing here. Upon playback you can see it clearly.

Another reason this is a brilliant show. It doesn't spoon feed the audience.

The writers work well in an age where EVERYTHING can be played back and watched over and over again.

by Anonymousreply 3908/26/2013

Thanks #39. I completely missed it the first time I watched the episode.

by Anonymousreply 4008/26/2013

Didn't Walt "find" the ricin cigarette in Jesse's roomba? I'm confused why the pickpocketing would tip Jesse off since this missing poison was found and it's not even the same poison used to poison that kid (who lived).

Also, how did it and up in Walt's wall outlet?

by Anonymousreply 4108/26/2013

They are certainly not letting up in these final episodes. It's going out as one of the best final seasons ever. I think maybe THE best. Such a sad moment with Jesse and Walt, during that hug to think of their entire, difficult relationship. Beautifully acted.

by Anonymousreply 4208/26/2013

Did Walt hide the resin there a few seasons back?

by Anonymousreply 4308/26/2013

Walt tried to get Jesse to believe that Gus was responsible for poisoning the kid at first. That is why he wanted the cig stolen so it would look suspicious.

However once it later came to light that it wasn't ricin the suspicion he used to manipulate Jesse had already served its purpose.

Then the ricin cig was "found" in Jesse's house and the whole thing was forgotten.

Until this past episode where Jesse connected the dots and realized it was a ruse to manipulate him. The funny thing is if you go back and look Jesse's first assumption was that Saul's guys pickpocketed the ricin for Walt, he was right all along.

by Anonymousreply 4408/26/2013

He put it there for safekeeping in the beginning of the season. Do you people actually watch this show? Damn.

by Anonymousreply 4508/26/2013

And to clarify for R41, the one they "found" in Jessie's apartment was a fake while Walt kept the real ricin cig in his house.

by Anonymousreply 4608/26/2013

Jesse believes that it was the ricin that poisoned the kid. It wasn't. We know that, but Jesse doesn't.

That said, his "aha!" moment was a little convenient. But no matter. The stage is finally set, though God only knows for what.

Aaron Paul and Dean Norris have moved to a new level this season.

by Anonymousreply 4708/26/2013

Remind me why Jesse had the ricin cigarette in the first place. Also, Walt convinced Jesse that Gus had stolen it, but how would have Gus known that he had it?

This was always the most unconvincing subplot of Breaking Bad, I'm sorry they've turned it into such a pivotal plot point. Still the best show on TV, though.

by Anonymousreply 4808/26/2013

My jaw dropped when they said Hank's medical bills were only $177k. That seems really low for all the private care, rehab and hospitalization.

by Anonymousreply 4908/26/2013

I have reached the point in life where I need either Cliff Notes or someone from DataLounge holding my hand as I watch this show. Old age is clearly not for sissies. I seem to miss half of everything these days.

by Anonymousreply 5008/26/2013

Doesn't anyone here have Netflix streaming? You can go back and watch the episodes to see how this was built up.

by Anonymousreply 5108/26/2013

[quote]Jesse believes that it was the ricin that poisoned the kid. It wasn't. We know that, but Jesse doesn't.

This is blatantly false. Jesse finds out it ended up being Lily, however for a while he was being convinced it was ricin used by Gus because Walt wanted Jesse on his side.

by Anonymousreply 5208/26/2013

Nope, R#51. I am not in the USA so no streaming.

by Anonymousreply 5308/26/2013

Something else:

When Jesse is beating up Saul, he says, " “The ricin cigarettes! He poisoned Brock and you… you helped him!”

But even if he realized that it was Huell that lifted the ricin cigarette, why would he connect that with the poisoning of Brock, since Brock wasn't poisoned by Ricin.

by Anonymousreply 5408/26/2013

Okay. I kind of remember now. Jesse was gonna poison Gus with the ricin but changed his mind.

by Anonymousreply 5508/26/2013

Exactly R55. Walt gave it to Jesse to poison Gus but Jesse was starting to grow close to Gus, and didn't even poison him when he had the opportunity.

Thus Walt's actions with Brock to get Jesse to hate Gus (it doesn't matter that Jesse later finds out it wasn't Gus but a flower because he has already helped Walt).

I get it is a little convoluted, but the show laid out everything.

by Anonymousreply 5608/26/2013

[quote]Jesse believes that it was the ricin that poisoned the kid. Even thought it wasn't— Jesse doesn't know that. BUT Walt DID actually poison and almost(?) kill the kid. So the point stands. Walt will do anything to manipulate people to his bidding, including harming kids.

Kids are Jesse's trigger. Walt knew that which why he poisoned Brock and framed Gus for it. He knew that would break Jesse's loyalty and budding admiration for Gus.

The fact that it wasn't actually the ricin may be beyond the point, unless Walt uses that little detail to keep Jesse from killing him somehow. "The devil is in the details" indeed. I keep waiting for that repeating line to come back somehow. There will be some payoff involving a minute detail.

What always amused me about the ricin plot, however, is the fact that Walt is a chemist. Why is he hiding this one little stash around when he could easily make some more if he needed it? it must be symbolic somehow. It's kinda the loaded gun of his relationship with Jesse.

by Anonymousreply 5708/26/2013

I wish the show would have done a little more with maria. I loved her stealing and her lying but we have seen so little of it. That color purple thing she has going on seems odd.

by Anonymousreply 5808/26/2013

Thinking about this more the ricin is rather symbolic because it's supposed to be a CLEAN and CONTROLLED way to kill someone without any detectable traces.

This ricin was the their first murder weapon that Walt created for Tuco— but that went all wrong and it ended up getting messy and it got the Cartel twing onto Hank opening a chain of events that would hurt and kill many, many people.

Every time Walt or Jess kill someone to end a problem the show gets more and more messy and chaotic and out of control. Yet Walt still seems to think there is a way to do it "cleanly".


 the car.

Window Tints

Can appeal in the high value ‘Top Car’ market where privacy windows are very fashionable, but darkened windows on more modest cars can look pretentious (and on the windscreen and front side windows can be illegal). Retro-tints are generally disliked and there are issues over legality on darker tints that motorists are now more aware of. The legal tint limit for side windows in front of the B Post (front passenger windows) must allow 70% of light through, while front windscreens must allow 75% of light through. Anything above that and potential buyers will be factoring in the cost of a new windscreen and passenger windows. Might add £100 (on select high-value cars). Overtinted windows could devalue the car by several hundred pounds (and that’s without the legal issues.)

In-car entertainment.

Once again, factory fits are best. Overall, most used car buyers are happy with a CD/Radio unit that works, and are not concerned about having state of the art equipment delivering crystal clear clarity at 99+ decibels. MP3 compatibility is increasingly important and buyers again like integral factory-fitted systems. No increase in value, but might make the car more saleable to the right buyer.

Tim Naylor concludes, “Before adding any retro-fitted extras, sellers should take into account that used car buyers, as group, have traditionally had very conservative tastes so any additions should be carefully considered. While you may fancy lowered suspension, tinted windows and some fancy paintwork, it could cost more than you bargained for when it comes to reselling the vehicle.”

More at

Add a comment

Ask Honest John

Value my car

Amount to borrow
Sorry. The minimum loan amount is £1000
To pay back over

My credit score

Best available rate 9.20%

Total repayment £8,930.17

Total cost of credit £1,430.17

48 monthly payments

Apply now

Representative example

CarFinance 247 Limited is acting as an independent credit broker

Universal Square, Devonshire Street North, Manchester, M12 6JH<|endoftext|>It enabled the Church to enjoy for eighteen months the
ministry of the Rev. Edward White.  It is unnecessary to explain to any
one who knows any thing of Congregationalism, or the history of
theological thought during the last half century, who Mr. Edward White
is.  There had been a time when he was suspected and misunderstood, for
having interpreted the teaching of Scripture on one point in a sense
different from the majority of his brethren.  But we live in happier
days, when our joy is to dwell rather on our substantial unity than on
points of different interpretation.  Mr. White has won the recognition of
the whole Catholic Church as a stalwart standard-bearer in the “good
fight of faith”; and great was the satisfaction at Kensington, when one
who was just retiring from an arduous and remarkable ministry at Kentish
Town was willing to give himself to the superintendence of the work at
Kensington, until the minister-elect had completed his college training.

The result of this<|endoftext|>What is meta? ×

In a few situations, it's nice to be able to get a rep recalc "on demand." In the past, I've simply pinged Marc Gravell about this, but it would be good not to have to bother him.

As an example, this morning I received lots of "dodgy" votes early in the day. They were removed later on, but then that effectively meant that the other votes I'd received up until that point in the day (which hadn't been counted due to the rep limit) still didn't get counted. A quick rep recalc would (possibly? not sure) have sorted this out.

Given that this is an expensive operation, I'd expect a rate limit on this - once per day per user would be adequate, I'd imagine - but it would definitely be handy. I'm hoping it wouldn't take much to implement, given that the moderators already have that ability.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Anna Lear Dec 23 '13 at 0:18

I would really like to be able to see a rep preview of what the result of a re-calc would be. –  jjnguy Aug 13 '09 at 12:59
Make it a 10K tool! –  Tom Ritter Aug 13 '09 at 12:59
That is a great idea Tom. –  jjnguy Aug 13 '09 at 13:00
@jjnguy - why? there are intermittent rep recalcs anyway... it is artificial to cling to false rep. Just accept the delta and move on... –  Marc Gravell Aug 13 '09 at 13:02
(-1) For the reasons I described in my answer. I just don't feel this tool would be useful enough for the (probable) CPU stress it would incur, and the likelihood of its overuse. –  devinb Aug 13 '09 at 13:02
What about just making it so the rep cap is never less than 200? –  Kyle Brandt Aug 13 '09 at 13:03
btw... I have some bad new for you re those dodgy votes and a rep-recalc fixing it (ahem) –  Marc Gravell Aug 13 '09 at 13:03
@Marc, Well, I guess I would be interested in a report showing where the changes came from. I suppose the report could come after the recalc. –  jjnguy Aug 13 '09 at 13:04
@jjnguy: I don't think it knows about changes really, beyond the total change. It's just a rebuild from scratch, rather than a diff. –  Jon Skeet Aug 13 '09 at 13:06
Thanks Marc! I feel like I've been living a lie. Everyone should get a recalc. It will set you free!!! –  jjnguy Aug 13 '09 at 13:16
Proving that, unlike jinguy, my reputation is built on solid facts and trust, rather than a catalogue of deceit and dodgy business practices. –  devinb Aug 13 '09 at 13:27
In case anyone wants to know my results: 12,290 -> 11,869 –  jjnguy Aug 13 '09 at 13:28
Is there anyway to discover who's fault it is? So that I can serially downvote them? –  devinb Aug 13 '09 at 13:29
How is the false rep generated? How come recalculating it fixes it? Why the offset to begin with? –  juanformoso Aug 13 '09 at 13:44
Why shouldn't we have a daily recalc for every user? It just makes the rep system more consistent. Is the cost really that high? –  LeakyCode Aug 14 '09 at 21:36

6 Answers 6

up vote 60 down vote accepted

This will go out with our next build.

We don't really intend the average user to go hog wild with this one, so its pretty well hidden.

Go to the existing reputation audit, there are now suitably ghetto instructions on how to trigger an immediate reputation recalc at the very bottom of the report.

Note that you can only do this once every 24 hours.

share|improve this answer
Nice! Maybe, to avoid confusion (unless there's already some error message in place) add that 24 hour limit to the To trigger a reputation recalc [..] message too? –  Arjan Dec 8 '10 at 11:43
And, given for example Manual rep recalc (new user) - lost 1000 points - nothing in audit re associated accounts?, what about adding a hint (or a real button!) to first save the current reputation overview before clicking that button? I guess folks could then figure out what changed themselves, using the previous and new overview. –  Arjan Dec 14 '10 at 12:17
Oh, never mind I guess, if my new understanding is correct: the report is the actual state, and hence represents the new reputation that will be shown in the header after triggering the recalc. (Mine said total rep 4081 while the header showed 4,360. After clicking the button the report did not change, but the header did.) –  Arjan Dec 14 '10 at 13:16
This new facility is useful. Has any thought been given to automatically doing a recalc daily, or every couple of days, or even weekly, for the top users (say the first two or three pages)? I'm not sure whether we're more vulnerable to losing rep over a recalc, but I seem to accumulate 100 excess points every week or two, and I don't know whether other people request recalcs regularly to keep this under control. (I've not worked out where the points go - or how they arrive erroneously.) –  Jonathan Leffler Dec 27 '10 at 9:04
How long does it usually take for the reputation screen (on the profile view) to synchronize with the actual /reputation data after I've triggered the "rep recalc"? –  Idolon Dec 7 '11 at 16:13
Does this still exist? An update would be nice. –  Tim Dec 26 '14 at 17:05
@Tim rep recalcs are usual instant now.

 future engine issues. Insurance companies also need to be informed as it is very likely premiums will rise in line with any performance gains. More likely to devalue the car.

Window Tints

Can appeal in the high value ‘Top Car’ market where privacy windows are very fashionable, but darkened windows on more modest cars can look pretentious (and on the windscreen and front side windows can be illegal). Retro-tints are generally disliked and there are issues over legality on darker tints that motorists are now more aware of. The legal tint limit for side windows in front of the B Post (front passenger windows) must allow 70% of light through, while front windscreens must allow 75% of light through. Anything above that and potential buyers will be factoring in the cost of a new windscreen and passenger windows. Might add £100 (on select high-value cars). Overtinted windows could devalue the car by several hundred pounds (and that’s without the legal issues.)

In-car entertainment.

Once again, factory fits are best. Overall, most used car buyers are happy with a CD/Radio unit that works, and are not concerned about having state of the art equipment delivering crystal clear clarity at 99+ decibels. MP3 compatibility is increasingly important and buyers again like integral factory-fitted systems. No increase in value, but might make the car more saleable to the right buyer.

Tim Naylor concludes, “Before adding any retro-fitted extras, sellers should take into account that used car buyers, as group, have traditionally had very conservative tastes so any additions should be carefully considered. While you may fancy lowered suspension, tinted windows and some fancy paintwork, it could cost more than you bargained for when it comes to reselling the vehicle.”

More at

Add a comment

Ask Honest John

Value my car

Amount to borrow
Sorry. The minimum loan amount is £1000
To pay back over

My credit score

Best available rate 9.20%

Total repayment £8,930.17

Total cost of credit £1,430.17

48 monthly payments

Apply now

Representative example

CarFinance 247 Limited is acting as an independent credit broker

Universal Square, Devonshire Street North, Manchester, M12 6JH<|endoftext|>What is meta? ×

In a few situations, it's nice to be able to get a rep recalc "on demand." In the past, I've simply pinged Marc Gravell about this, but it would be good not to have to bother him.

As an example, this morning I received lots of "dodgy" votes early in the day. They were removed later on, but then that effectively meant that the other votes I'd received up until that point in the day (which hadn't been counted due to the rep limit) still didn't get counted. A quick rep recalc would (possibly? not sure) have sorted this out.

Given that this is an expensive operation, I'd expect a rate limit on this - once per day per user would be adequate, I'd imagine - but it would definitely be handy. I'm hoping it wouldn't take much to implement, given that the moderators already have that ability.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Anna Lear Dec 23 '13 at 0:18

I would really like to be able to see a rep preview of what the result of a re-calc would be. –  jjnguy Aug 13 '09 at 12:59
Make it a 10K tool! –  Tom Ritter Aug 13 '09 at 12:59
That is a great idea Tom. –  jjnguy Aug 13 '09 at 13:00
@jjnguy - why? there are intermittent rep recalcs anyway... it is artificial to cling to false rep. Just accept the delta and move on... –  Marc Gravell Aug 13 '09 at 13:02
(-1) For the reasons I described in my answer. I just don't feel this tool would be useful enough for the (probable) CPU stress it would incur, and the likelihood of its overuse. –  devinb Aug 13 '09 at 13:02
What about just making it so the rep cap is never less than 200? –  Kyle Brandt Aug 13 '09 at 13:03
btw... I have some bad new for you re those dodgy votes and a rep-recalc fixing it (ahem) –  Marc Gravell Aug 13 '09 at 13:03
@Marc, Well, I guess I would be interested in a report showing where the changes came from. I suppose the report could come after the recalc. –  jjnguy Aug 13 '09 at 13:04
@jjnguy: I don't think it knows about changes really, beyond the total change. It's just a rebuild from scratch, rather than a diff. –  Jon Skeet Aug 13 '09 at 13:06
Thanks Marc! I feel like I've been living a lie. Everyone should get a recalc. It will set you free!!! –  jjnguy Aug 13 '09 at 13:16
Proving that, unlike jinguy, my reputation is built on solid facts and trust, rather than a catalogue of deceit and dodgy business practices. –  devinb Aug 13 '09 at 13:27
In case anyone wants to know my results: 12,290 -> 11,869 –  jjnguy Aug 13 '09 at 13:28
Is there anyway to discover who's fault it is? So that I can serially downvote them? –  devinb Aug 13 '09 at 13:29
How is the false rep generated? How come recalculating it fixes it? Why the offset to begin with? –  juanformoso Aug 13 '09 at 13:44
Why shouldn't we have a daily recalc for every user? It just makes the rep system more consistent. Is the cost really that high? –  LeakyCode Aug 14 '09 at 21:36

6 Answers 6

up vote 60 down vote accepted

This will go out with our next build.

We don't really intend the average user to go hog wild with this one, so its pretty well hidden.

Go to the existing reputation audit, there are now suitably ghetto instructions on how to trigger an immediate reputation recalc at the very bottom of the report.

Note that you can only do this once every 24 hours.

share|improve this answer
Nice! Maybe, to avoid confusion (unless there's already some error message in place) add that 24 hour limit to the To trigger a reputation recalc [..] message too? –  Arjan Dec 8 '10 at 11:43
And, given for example Manual rep recalc (new user) - lost 1000 points - nothing in audit re associated accounts?, what about adding a hint (or a real button!) to first save the current reputation overview before clicking that button? I guess folks could then figure out what changed themselves, using the previous and new overview. –  Arjan Dec 14 '10 at 12:17
Oh, never mind I guess, if my new understanding is correct: the report is the actual state, and hence represents the new reputation that will be shown in the header after triggering the recalc. (Mine said total rep 4081 while the header showed 4,360. After clicking the button the report did not change, but the header did.) –  Arjan Dec 14 '10 at 13:16
This new facility is useful. Has any thought been given to automatically doing a recalc daily, or every couple of days, or even weekly, for the top users (say the first two or three pages)? I'm not sure whether we're more vulnerable to losing rep over a recalc, but I seem to accumulate 100 excess points every week or two, and I don't know whether other people request recalcs regularly to keep this under control. (I've not worked out where the points go - or how they arrive erroneously.) –  Jonathan Leffler Dec 27 '10 at 9:04
How long does it usually take for the reputation screen (on the profile view) to synchronize with the actual /reputation data after I've triggered the "rep recalc"? –  Idolon Dec 7 '11 at 16:13
Does this still exist? An update would be nice. –  Tim Dec 26 '14 at 17:05
@Tim rep recalcs are usual instant now. In the rare cases that they can't be done in realtime, they're re-run daily. I'll try to dig up a reference for the answer... –  Kevin Montrose Dec 26 '14 at 17:07
Can mod's recalc someone's rep? I'm updating this atm. –  Tim Dec 26 '14 at 17:10

This is another issue that would be fixed by sanitizing the reputation system so things like order of votes didn't matter but being as that hasn't happened, I think this would be useful too.

If necessary apply limits like minimum rep (eg 5000) and limit how often (eg once per day).

share|improve this answer
Making the site work? Surely you jest. –  Ether Feb 3 '10 at 18:30
The rich get richer ... why do liberals not object? –  Joe Polski Jun 26 '10 at 0:


I do not know whether he read my books. Anti-Jewish books
have existed for the last 2,000 years.

MR. DODD: Now, you offered to resign in October 1944 from your position
as Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories?

ROSENBERG: October 1944.

MR. DODD: You did not have very much to resign from on that date, did
you? The Germans were practically out of Russia, isn’t that a fact? On
October 12, 1944, the German Army was practically out of Russia. It was
on the retreat, isn’t that so?

ROSENBERG: Yes. It was the question of my further tasks for the
political end psychological treatment of several millions of Eastern
workers in Germany; it was furthermore a question of refugees who came
from the Eastern territories and from the Ukraine to Germany, and of the
settlement of economic problems, and above all I still had the hope even
at that hour that a military change also might still occur in the East.

MR. DODD: And everybody, pretty nearly everybody who was informed at all
in<|endoftext|>The people paying for such things are not necessarily evil. They're not even necessarily the rich ones - just mostly. But they simply need a better quality of some kind of services and when they pay more, they may get it.

  12. OneStringToDestroyThemAllDec 5, 2014, 6:38:00 PM

    You are just advocating social darwinism, that's what our society will be like if people listen to your bullshit

  13. I don't know how you define "social darwinism" but if it is a phrase describing the fact that different humans and groups of humans differ and have different resources and achieve different quality of services or products (or fellow people) they receive or buy, and that this inequality is used to optimize the overall system, I assure you that social darwinism has been an unavoidable part of the human lives throughout the 6,000+ years of the civilizations, the previous 2 million of years of homo sapiens, and – when generalized outside humanity – it has worked for the previous billions of years of life on Earth, too. Every day. In virtually every event. You are a complete loon if you want to pretend that life could work without those things.

  14. I was lucky enough to attend this event. Some very good talks and some great questions/discussion afterwards; lots of heavy hitters in the audience to go along with the speakers.

    Lubos, you might be particularly interested in(/entertained by) the exchange between Susskind and Polchinski after Joe's talk:

  15. Happy Birthday Lumo! Best wishes to you and the most interesting blog in the world.

  16. Glad you enjoyed that! And thanks for the summary of your updated viewpoint on this firewall question. It seems that things are still a bit murky, at least moreso than I thought.

    Best wishes for your birthday - my dad increments today as well.

  17. SteveBrooklineMADec 5, 2014, 9:02:00 PM

    I find myself leaning towards Lubos' side here. Communications companies have always provided faster/more certain connections for a premium. Look up "dedicated line," for example. You don't hear about them so much any more because the net is fast enough for most people's needs. But what would happen if it started to bog down? Would the government step in with "fair" rationing? That seems like the logical thing to do if you want government enforced net neutrality. I think such a thing would be a disaster, and I would rather have communication companies charging more for better service. That's how the rest of our economy works.

  18. Šťastný Narozeniny, Luboš. 👍 :)

    Shame I didn't know earlier — I would have had a big cake with candles delivered to your door*, complete with a surprise pop-out stripper in it just for you. Instead I'll order one for myself for tomorrow and report back on the 'test results'. :)

    Happy Birthday! And many happy returns.

    * I didn't have your address anyway — what an incredible stroke of luck for me! Tee hee! :)

  19. Dear Lumo,

    happy birthday from me too :-)

    Even though I am rather late to say this, be sure that the existance of your birthday makes me happy all about 365 days of the year since I have found you and TRF ;-)

    Have fun with your birthday presents, the ones we know about and the other ones ...!

  20. Hey Lubos, here is one Hillary-inspired country song for you ;-)

  21. And please keep your test results for yourself :)

    Bon anniversaire Luboš.

  22. Net neutrality actually does not forbid such "dedicated lines" with better performance. Even now, you can buy connections with different download/upload/ping characteristics! People who demand a better connection can buy it.
    It forbids treating different data types differently. If you already pay for a given connection, it will have to perform to specs no matter if you decide to send/receive HTML pages, video stream or encrypted packets and where/from where you transfer the packets.

  23. Frau Merkel obviously doesn't see the world of infinite capacity, as Herr Marx has anticipated: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

  24. As an often frustrated American telecommunications consumer I do agree with the general gist of some comments of yours.

    I don't agree that we can simply blame free market inefficiencies, as opposed to the vast inefficiencies of, for the lack of better term, democratic political processes.

  25. Well of course I shan't mention them to my wife. Will that do? :)

  26. It certainly is the most interesting blog in my world.

  27. OneStringToRuleLubosDec 6, 2014, 1:39:00 AM

    No one cares if your birthday is on dec 5, get a life.

  28. Happy Birthday!!!

  29. At least Dream Chaser has a fitting name. He loves to chase an illusion, does he not?

  30. Do you actually have anything intelligent to contribute?

  31. Free markets are like democracy itself. Both have obvious problems but no one has come up with a viable alternative for either.

  32. kashyap vasavadaDec 6, 2014, 3:26:00 AM

    Happy Birthday Lubos! I will give you an Indian Birthday
    wish. May you live 100 years and continue writing this interesting blog!

  33. From a Black Hole!

  34. Okay, but the difference here is that I do not want to correct democracy, just the processes that I perceive as preventing it from being fully realized. Same with free markets.

  35. "Free markets are like democracy itself. Both have obvious problems but no one has come up with a viable alternative for either."

    Gosh, Gene! A political statement we can both agree on. :)

    Moreover, both only are means to an end, and not ends in themselves.

    Also they're low-grade optimal: all the alternatives to either are far worse. If one could do everything for himself, and to a pretty high level of satisfaction in each of them, then one would need neither government nor market.

    Unfortunately most of us do not have recourse to our own personal world-destroying nuclear arsenal (and other less important things necessary to our wellbeing), so we have to make deals with others, trading of a bit of this and that for some of that and this. (Among other things, in practice this deal-making means the need for government of some kind. Too bad. Like needing a hat if it's raining.)

    I guess a religious comparison (and not a very good one at that, but it'll do) might be that one would go to a church to worship God, so a church would be very handy for that; but one would definitely be thought rather strange if he worshipped the church too.

    So it is with some free-marketeers who seem to worship the market for its own sake — a secular version of idolatry I suppose. And of course the same goes for democracy.

    There are obvious limits* to both but I wouldn't know where to start to try to classify them, and the attempt is fraught with danger too. It's a tricky business. But in general the fewer restrictions the better.

    * E.g. a majority decision that only people over six foot four will pay income tax, and letting a potential enemy supply all our defence needs because they'll give us the best bang for our buck.

  36. I don't know enough about and around this topic to form any thought-through opinion yet although my default position is, as ever, to keep government well out of it.

    My immediate reaction though on hearing that Merkel* was apparently on the side of the angels was to call bollocks. My next thought was: what's her game? And the instant answer was another question: is she playing good cop to the other leftards' bad cop, with them both in on the game together?

    This would be the usual diversionary theatre act these ####s put on for the masses and the dumbarse media to give the impression that a struggle were taking place between them when all along the final result was decided well

The people paying for such things are not necessarily evil. They're not even necessarily the rich ones - just mostly. But they simply need a better quality of some kind of services and when they pay more, they may get it.

  12. OneStringToDestroyThemAllDec 5, 2014, 6:38:00 PM

    You are just advocating social darwinism, that's what our society will be like if people listen to your bullshit

  13. I don't know how you define "social darwinism" but if it is a phrase describing the fact that different humans and groups of humans differ and have different resources and achieve different quality of services or products (or fellow people) they receive or buy, and that this inequality is used to optimize the overall system, I assure you that social darwinism has been an unavoidable part of the human lives throughout the 6,000+ years of the civilizations, the previous 2 million of years of homo sapiens, and – when generalized outside humanity – it has worked for the previous billions of years of life on Earth, too. Every day. In virtually every event. You are a complete loon if you want to pretend that life could work without those things.

  14. I was lucky enough to attend this event. Some very good talks and some great questions/discussion afterwards; lots of heavy hitters in the audience to go along with the speakers.

    Lubos, you might be particularly interested in(/entertained by) the exchange between Susskind and Polchinski after Joe's talk:

  15. Happy Birthday Lumo! Best wishes to you and the most interesting blog in the world.

  16. Glad you enjoyed that! And thanks for the summary of your updated viewpoint on this firewall question. It seems that things are still a bit murky, at least moreso than I thought.

    Best wishes for your birthday - my dad increments today as well.

  17. SteveBrooklineMADec 5, 2014, 9:02:00 PM

    I find myself leaning towards Lubos' side here. Communications companies have always provided faster/more certain connections for a premium. Look up "dedicated line," for example. You don't hear about them so much any more because the net is fast enough for most people's needs. But what would happen if it started to bog down? Would the government step in with "fair" rationing? That seems like the logical thing to do if you want government enforced net neutrality. I think such a thing would be a disaster, and I would rather have communication companies charging more for better service. That's how the rest of our economy works.

  18. Šťastný Narozeniny, Luboš. 👍 :)

    Shame I didn't know earlier — I would have had a big cake with candles delivered to your door*, complete with a surprise pop-out stripper in it just for you. Instead I'll order one for myself for tomorrow and report back on the 'test results'. :)

    Happy Birthday! And many happy returns.

    * I didn't have your address anyway — what an incredible stroke of luck for me! Tee hee! :)

  19. Dear Lumo,

    happy birthday from me too :-)

    Even though I am rather late to say this, be sure that the existance of your birthday makes me happy all about 365 days of the year since I have found you and TRF ;-)

    Have fun with your birthday presents, the ones we know about and the other ones ...!

  20. Hey Lubos, here is one Hillary-inspired country song for you ;-)

  21. And please keep your test results for yourself :)

    Bon anniversaire Luboš.

  22. Net neutrality actually does not forbid such "dedicated lines" with better performance. Even now, you can buy connections with different download/upload/ping characteristics! People who demand a better connection can buy it.
    It forbids treating different data types differently. If you already pay for a given connection, it will have to perform to specs no matter if you decide to send/receive HTML pages, video stream or encrypted packets and where/from where you transfer the packets.

  23. Frau Merkel obviously doesn't see the world of infinite capacity, as Herr Marx has anticipated: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

  24. As an often frustrated American telecommunications consumer I do agree with the general gist of some comments of yours.

    I don't agree that we can simply blame free market inefficiencies, as opposed to the vast inefficiencies of, for the lack of better term, democratic political processes.

  25. Well of course I shan't mention them to my wife. Will that do? :)

  26. It certainly is the most interesting blog in my world.

  27. OneStringToRuleLubosDec 6, 2014, 1:39:00 AM

    No one cares if your birthday is on dec 5, get a life.

  28. Happy Birthday!!!

  29. At least Dream Chaser has a fitting name. He loves to chase an illusion, does he not?

  30. Do you actually have anything intelligent to contribute?

  31. Free markets are like democracy itself. Both have obvious problems but no one has come up with a viable alternative for either.

  32. kashyap vasavadaDec 6, 2014, 3:26:00 AM

    Happy Birthday Lubos! I will give you an Indian Birthday
    wish. May you live 100 years and continue writing this interesting blog!

  33. From a Black Hole!

  34. Okay, but the difference here is that I do not want to correct democracy, just the processes that I perceive as preventing it from being fully realized. Same with free markets.

  35. "Free markets are like democracy itself. Both have obvious problems but no one has come up with a viable alternative for either."

    Gosh, Gene! A political statement we can both agree on. :)

    Moreover, both only are means to an end, and not ends in themselves.

    Also they're low-grade optimal: all the alternatives to either are far worse. If one could do everything for himself, and to a pretty high level of satisfaction in each of them, then one would need neither government nor market.

    Unfortunately most of us do not have recourse to our own personal world-destroying nuclear arsenal (and other less important things necessary to our wellbeing), so we have to make deals with others, trading of a bit of this and that for some of that and this. (Among other things, in practice this deal-making means the need for government of some kind. Too bad. Like needing a hat if it's raining.)

    I guess a religious comparison (and not a very good one at that, but it'll do) might be that one would go to a church to worship God, so a church would be very handy for that; but one would definitely be thought rather strange if he worshipped the church too.

    So it is with some free-marketeers who seem to worship the market for its own sake — a secular version of idolatry I suppose. And of course the same goes for democracy.

    There are obvious limits* to both but I wouldn't know where to start to try to classify them, and the attempt is fraught with danger too. It's a tricky business. But in general the fewer restrictions the better.

    * E.g. a majority decision that only people over six foot four will pay income tax, and letting a potential enemy supply all our defence needs because they'll give us the best bang for our buck.

  36. I don't know enough about and around this topic to form any thought-through opinion yet although my default position is, as ever, to keep government well out of it.

    My immediate reaction though on hearing that Merkel* was apparently on the side of the angels was to call bollocks. My next thought was: what's her game? And the instant answer was another question: is she playing good cop to the other leftards' bad cop, with them both in on the game together?

    This would be the usual diversionary theatre act these ####s put on for the masses and the dumbarse media to give the impression that a struggle were taking place between them when all along the final result was decided well ahead of time by all concerned but making it look as if some reasonable well thought-out compromise had been achieved when the dust finally settles.

    I don't know. But you need to watch the pea very carefully when these ####s are on stage.

    * She is in favour of the euro for one thing — a political programme from head to toe, a huge unaccountable power grab, and NOTHING ELSE.

  37. I thoroughly enjoyed that film, but that was a long time ago. I still like it but I've firmed up a lot since. I don't deal with injuns no more. :)

  38. Yeah, I am likewise skeptical regarding Hillary's empathy. I fear she is much more like Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, if not worse.

  39. That would be la Clinton, would it?

    Well just how far can you spit, Tony? :)

    They're all the same over here too.

  40. Our founding fathers did not want democracy to be fully implemented and did an amazing job of preserving it's benefits while minimizing its dangers. Similarly, many laws restrict free


that De Baçan and the fleet should enter without
opposition. Hawkins might stay till he had repaired his damages, and buy
and sell what he wanted; and further, as long as they remained the
English were to keep possession of the island. This article, Hawkins
says, was long resisted, but was consented to at last. It was absolutely
necessary, for with the island in their hands, the Spaniards had only to
cut the English cables, and they would have driven ashore across the
harbour.

The treaty so drawn was formally signed. Hostages were given on both
sides, and De Baçan came in. The two fleets were moored as far apart
from each other as the size of the port would allow. Courtesies were
exchanged, and for two days all went well. It is likely that the Viceroy
and the admiral did not at first know that it was the very man whom they
had been sent out to sink or capture who was lying so close to them.
When they did know it they may have looked on him as a pirate, with
whom, as with heretics,<|endoftext|> products that would never have seen the light otherwise.

Visually (and audibly) surely progress has been made, but is this the right path? Do games nowadays are so much different from the games of the past?
Personally I think today’s games don’t convey or teach something really meaningful and do not yet fully exploit the potential of the medium.

Most of triple A games tend to be linear stories with cutscenes getting closer and closer to the world of cinema without really being able to find its own language, nor even approaching remotely to the great cinematographic masterpieces such as Sergio Leone or Fellini’s movies to name a few.

Probably indie games having less costs and being able to risk more, tend to explore this medium much more deeply.

With this sentence I don’t mean to despise triple A games (I still like to play them), but I really would like to see more experimentation and not just games that tend to copy each other.

These games don’t really make gamers think or give them profound teachings (other than thoughts on how the plot will continue).
Smaller games like UNDERTALE tend to explore much more this concept, and this is also linked to the fact that the developer’s goal (tobyfox) wasn’t to make millions out of the game. His main objective was to create something unique and something never seen before with a simple idea:

With real moral choices that finally make the player think, these are probably the games that can lead to the path of pure game design.

I think that in order to create truly exceptional games, developers need to look at other fields: not only Cinematography, but even Art, Music, Photography, Philosophy and all aspects of life that can be studied.

After all even Nintendo affirms that when trying to search for the best game designers, they tend not hire gamers–12

This is because gamers tend to take inspiration from other games they played rather than from their other life experiences, and this is something that we try to achieve too as a small game development company.

Even recent Nintendo bestsellers such as “Super Mario Odyssey” and “The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild” have been lauded for being examples of the company’s willingness to take risks with even its most important franchises.

Of course there are many other examples to study, for example cash grabs games like Fortnite or Candy Crush are designed by armies of psychologists in order to study the better way to keep the players glued to the game.

This brings the question I made at the beginning of the post: even if these games made 10x more money then Breath of the Wild, does it really make these games more successful? or do we have to consider other factors to measure the success of a game?

here some links that I took the inspiration by to write this blog post! I hope you liked it :)<|endoftext|>Skip over navigation

Principles of Philosophy

Rene Descartes

Important Quotations Explained

Unreliability of the Senses

Everyone depends on senses for information and awareness. When we want to know what the world is like, we look around us, listen, taste, smell, touch. Even scientific experiments depend on the senses. We mix two chemicals and observe what results, or we let some ball bearings drop and observe how they behave. Descartes would like this heavy reliance on sensory observation to stop. He admits that for some knowledge the senses are required. For example, I could not know what books were on my desk if I did not use my eyes to check. However, he does not believe that we need sensory input when doing science. In fact, he is convinced that the senses only mislead us in scientific endeavors. Science, he feels, should proceed strictly by tracing logical connections between ideas of the intellect, not by observation. The senses do not even initially provide us with the ideas that we use in this reasoning. We are born with them already in our intellect.

Descartes, therefore, begins the Principles with two skeptical worries meant to undermine our faith in the senses. He points out, first, that our senses systematically mislead us. For example, when we view a straight stick through water, it looks bent; when we view things from a distance we tend to see them as much smaller than they are, or even as a different shape. Not only are the senses periodically unreliable, however, they are also constantly and stubbornly unbelievable. When we sleep we often have sensations indistinguishable from those that we have when we are awake. We admit that those dreaming sensations do not correspond to reality, so why are we any more certain of our waking sensations? How do we know that any particular sensation we have is not a dream? We cannot. Therefore, Descartes concludes, better not to rely on the sensations at all, at least not when you are after certain knowledge (such as in science).

Clear and Distinct Perceptions

In our quest for knowledge, Descartes' suggests that we rely on pure intellectual ideas. By taking stock of these ideas and then deducing their logical results, we can arrive at all possible human knowledge. However, we must be careful not to start the process of reasoning from any old ideas we find in the intellect. Judgments can only be certain when the ideas concerned are clear and distinct. Only when a perception is clear and distinct can we proceed from that perception to knowledge. Clear and distinct perceptions, therefore, are the single most important tool in Descartes' toolkit.

A clear and distinct perception is just a perception to which one cannot fail to assent. So long as you are entertaining the notion, you cannot doubt it without landing yourself in a logical incoherence. So, for example, the perception that two plus two equals four would count as a clear and distinct perception. So long as you are aware of the meaning of the terms involved, you cannot coherently doubt the truth of this claim. Descartes believes that the same phenomena holds true of propositions such as "nothing can exist and not exist at the same time," and the ever-popular "I think, therefore I am."

Though you cannot doubt clear and distinct perceptions as long as they are before your mind, once they fall out of your awareness, doubt can creep back in. If you have stopped entertaining the proposition that two plus two equals four, but only remember the conclusion you reached, then you might begin to doubt the legitimacy of the conclusion. You might wonder whether your reasoning was really as airtight as you had thought while it was taking place, perhaps whether some evil scientist was responsible for putting that thought in your mind. Obviously, as long as doubt can keep creeping back in whenever a clear and distinct perception falls out of awareness, clear and distinct perceptions are not going to be much help in the search for knowledge.

Descartes, therefore, appeals to God in order to guarantee the truth of clear and distinct perceptions, so that we can believe in them even after we have stopped entertaining them. God, he claims, created us and, thus, also our faculty

 products that would never have seen the light otherwise.

Visually (and audibly) surely progress has been made, but is this the right path? Do games nowadays are so much different from the games of the past?
Personally I think today’s games don’t convey or teach something really meaningful and do not yet fully exploit the potential of the medium.

Most of triple A games tend to be linear stories with cutscenes getting closer and closer to the world of cinema without really being able to find its own language, nor even approaching remotely to the great cinematographic masterpieces such as Sergio Leone or Fellini’s movies to name a few.

Probably indie games having less costs and being able to risk more, tend to explore this medium much more deeply.

With this sentence I don’t mean to despise triple A games (I still like to play them), but I really would like to see more experimentation and not just games that tend to copy each other.

These games don’t really make gamers think or give them profound teachings (other than thoughts on how the plot will continue).
Smaller games like UNDERTALE tend to explore much more this concept, and this is also linked to the fact that the developer’s goal (tobyfox) wasn’t to make millions out of the game. His main objective was to create something unique and something never seen before with a simple idea:

With real moral choices that finally make the player think, these are probably the games that can lead to the path of pure game design.

I think that in order to create truly exceptional games, developers need to look at other fields: not only Cinematography, but even Art, Music, Photography, Philosophy and all aspects of life that can be studied.

After all even Nintendo affirms that when trying to search for the best game designers, they tend not hire gamers–12

This is because gamers tend to take inspiration from other games they played rather than from their other life experiences, and this is something that we try to achieve too as a small game development company.

Even recent Nintendo bestsellers such as “Super Mario Odyssey” and “The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild” have been lauded for being examples of the company’s willingness to take risks with even its most important franchises.

Of course there are many other examples to study, for example cash grabs games like Fortnite or Candy Crush are designed by armies of psychologists in order to study the better way to keep the players glued to the game.

This brings the question I made at the beginning of the post: even if these games made 10x more money then Breath of the Wild, does it really make these games more successful? or do we have to consider other factors to measure the success of a game?

here some links that I took the inspiration by to write this blog post! I hope you liked it :)<|endoftext|>Skip over navigation

Principles of Philosophy

Rene Descartes

Important Quotations Explained

Unreliability of the Senses

Everyone depends on senses for information and awareness. When we want to know what the world is like, we look around us, listen, taste, smell, touch. Even scientific experiments depend on the senses. We mix two chemicals and observe what results, or we let some ball bearings drop and observe how they behave. Descartes would like this heavy reliance on sensory observation to stop. He admits that for some knowledge the senses are required. For example, I could not know what books were on my desk if I did not use my eyes to check. However, he does not believe that we need sensory input when doing science. In fact, he is convinced that the senses only mislead us in scientific endeavors. Science, he feels, should proceed strictly by tracing logical connections between ideas of the intellect, not by observation. The senses do not even initially provide us with the ideas that we use in this reasoning. We are born with them already in our intellect.

Descartes, therefore, begins the Principles with two skeptical worries meant to undermine our faith in the senses. He points out, first, that our senses systematically mislead us. For example, when we view a straight stick through water, it looks bent; when we view things from a distance we tend to see them as much smaller than they are, or even as a different shape. Not only are the senses periodically unreliable, however, they are also constantly and stubbornly unbelievable. When we sleep we often have sensations indistinguishable from those that we have when we are awake. We admit that those dreaming sensations do not correspond to reality, so why are we any more certain of our waking sensations? How do we know that any particular sensation we have is not a dream? We cannot. Therefore, Descartes concludes, better not to rely on the sensations at all, at least not when you are after certain knowledge (such as in science).

Clear and Distinct Perceptions

In our quest for knowledge, Descartes' suggests that we rely on pure intellectual ideas. By taking stock of these ideas and then deducing their logical results, we can arrive at all possible human knowledge. However, we must be careful not to start the process of reasoning from any old ideas we find in the intellect. Judgments can only be certain when the ideas concerned are clear and distinct. Only when a perception is clear and distinct can we proceed from that perception to knowledge. Clear and distinct perceptions, therefore, are the single most important tool in Descartes' toolkit.

A clear and distinct perception is just a perception to which one cannot fail to assent. So long as you are entertaining the notion, you cannot doubt it without landing yourself in a logical incoherence. So, for example, the perception that two plus two equals four would count as a clear and distinct perception. So long as you are aware of the meaning of the terms involved, you cannot coherently doubt the truth of this claim. Descartes believes that the same phenomena holds true of propositions such as "nothing can exist and not exist at the same time," and the ever-popular "I think, therefore I am."

Though you cannot doubt clear and distinct perceptions as long as they are before your mind, once they fall out of your awareness, doubt can creep back in. If you have stopped entertaining the proposition that two plus two equals four, but only remember the conclusion you reached, then you might begin to doubt the legitimacy of the conclusion. You might wonder whether your reasoning was really as airtight as you had thought while it was taking place, perhaps whether some evil scientist was responsible for putting that thought in your mind. Obviously, as long as doubt can keep creeping back in whenever a clear and distinct perception falls out of awareness, clear and distinct perceptions are not going to be much help in the search for knowledge.

Descartes, therefore, appeals to God in order to guarantee the truth of clear and distinct perceptions, so that we can believe in them even after we have stopped entertaining them. God, he claims, created us and, thus, also our faculty of reason. He is, therefore, responsible for our clear and distinct perceptions. In addition to being our creator, God is also infinitely perfect. If our clear and distinct perceptions were not trustworthy, though, God would be far from perfect. He would be a deceiver, mean and malicious. An infinitely perfect God would never give us a faculty that presented perceptions as indubitably true when really they were false. Therefore, we can trust our clear and distinct perceptions. So long as we remember that a conclusion was reached through a perception that was clear and distinct (i.e. indubitable) while it was going on, we can be absolutely certain that the conclusion is true.

Body As Extended Substance

Perhaps the most important clear and distinct perception of all is the perception that extension is the essence of body. It is this perception that enables all of Descartes' physics.

To say that the essence of body is extension is not just to say that extension is the most important property of body. Rather, it is to say that body simply is extension. What it is to be a body, is to be an extended thing. So long as there is extension, there is body, and so