caze

The Martian was great. Nice to have a proper science focused film for a change, hollywood so rarely makes an effort or even attempts to get anything right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/02/heres-a-tale-of-two-scandals-guess-which-one-will-get-more-play/

I think what they're going for is that he's regaining control, he'll eventually supplant Mr Robot, but whether he'll regain all his memories or not...? I think they'll just leave the Angela thing where they left it, just showing that there's corruption everywhere, whatever her plan was is a waste of time. It'll be all about her and the fed now.

why do companies spend money on advertising? it's pretty well established that it has little to do with attracting new customers. it's mostly a complete waste of their resources, but they have to do it because everyone else is doing it, if it works for them it might keep some kind of brand loyalty amongst their customers, when it doesn't someone switches to a similar product sold by someone else. political contributions are very similar, they're usually pretty evenly spread out, amongst the entire political class (bar a couple of different industries here and there where one party tends to monopolise - e.g. the tobacco industry, which almost entirely lobbies with republicans - and a few black democrats only, african americans love tobacco lobbyists for some reason). most of the money goes into election campaigning, it's only necessary because if it goes to one candidate it has to go to the other candidate to counteract it, which is what happens for the most part. they donate in the first place not in order to get quid-pro-quo policies in their favour (in the less corrupt countries of course, america being one of them, you can no doubt find the odd example to the contrary, but they're the exception), but in order to have their voices heard in the huge mess of competing demands on public money (which includes the public). you could almost view it as an extra tax. this is why someone like Clinton can have no problem with taking campaign donations and still campaign to overturn citizens united and replace it with federal campaign funding of some sort - as long as nobody else is doing it and she doesn't have to compete with them there's no problem. fundamentally she's a weathervane politician, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just depends on what direction the wind is blowing, and what the political realities of the day are - and given the current climate she really has little choice but to pursue certain policies (her publicly stated policies - which are pretty far to the left of Obama's for example, and they don't include opening up private prisons and reneging on campaign reform). none of that means she will be successful of course, she's not running for emperor, and both US houses are pretty fucked at the moment, though if Trump brings the rest of the republicans with him in a whitewash loss she might be able to get a lot more done. all most politicians really care about at the end of the day is getting re-elected, this might be because they want to leave some political legacy behind, or just because they like being in power, doesn't really matter too much at the end of the day why. the game is played the same way in most cases.

yeah, I'm sure opening them up again will be her #1 priority. you really have no idea how politics works I'm sensing.

lol Remind me, Hillary is running to be governor of which state again? lol

Brivert & Muonds is great, never listened to it properly before because it was such shitty quality. Waltz just sounds like a Mike P track, in fact wasn't it on his soundcloud at one point? It's very nice though. Vodka Mix 2 isn't all that great, just makes the track worse. Organ Ploddy has some lovely afxy melodies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37255418 lol, Clinton should take this on as her new campaign slogan. wouldn't mind some taco trucks over here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/02/the-national-economic-implications-of-a-taco-truck-on-every-corner/

the only people making any noise about transgenderism in american politics are idiots who think policing bathrooms isn't a complete waste of everyone's time. sex segregated bathrooms are actually a relatively recent phenomenon as well, the first public indoor bathrooms in the US (usually in government buildings, schools, factories, etc) were unisex.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-losing-garrison-keillor-20160831-story.html

I'll take that as a no then.

When everyone in here is talking about people giving Clinton money, are they talking about giving her campaign donations, personal cash, donations to the Clinton foundation? Do you make any distinction between these? Do you know the difference, in terms of the effect of this, the purpose, the various amounts and how it breaks down?

unique solution to the trolley problem:

listening now. woot I've been working since 8am this morning (still going), so am mad tired and can't comment comparatively on the mastering or anything. but it sounds great.

two cartons of smokes and a crate of bottled water for unfettered gas drilling rights, lol.

Rafa got some good performances out of him at the end as well.

Poor Everton, all their main targets turned them down. Koeman may be regretting his decision to go there already.

Teen dies after girlfriend gives fatal hickey http://wwmt.com/news/offbeat/teen-dies-after-girlfriend-gives-fatal-hickey-lover-now-on-the-run

Luiz was a top player for Chelsea.... when Benitez played him as a holding midfielder. Terrible centre back. Maybe Conte will play him in a back three though? Would suit him a lot better, he could push up when they're on the ball, not as likely to get caught out on the break. Marcos Alonso to Chelsea is far more puzzling, especially for that price, bang average player. Cuadrado gone to Juve on three year loan deal too, which is very odd. Balotelli to Nice on a permanent move, nice! Not sure if there's a fee, I'm guessing we either gave him away allowing them to pay his wages, or used whatever fee we got to pay him off. We made back most of our money on Luis Alberto (£6m), gone to Lazio, 30% sell on fee as well. Classy player, too slight to make it as a central midfielder in England though. Andre Wisdom off to Red Bull Salzberg too, loan. Lazar Markovic interesting Benitez at Newcastle apparently (or Sporting Lisbon), over £15m - though could be a loan as well, will probably depend on them offloading Sissoko to Everton or Spurs. Sakho turned down three loan moves, not well received apparently, guessing we're not happy with the drugs thing despite him getting away with it. Arbeloa to West Ham is a good signing, top defensive full back. Wilshere to Bournemouth is a real steal... if he can stay fit.

lol. go to bed delet, you're drunk.

risk is most highly correlated with dosage, taking a handful of ibuprofen/antihistamines every year isn't likely to do anyone any harm. in fact dose response is almost universally nonlinear (unless a substance bioaccumulates or does damage at very low rates and at a rate greater than any ability of the body to repair that damage, e.g. coeliac disease), so even with proven harmful effects of certain substances, below some given limit there's usually no harm, and in many cases, the opposite, below a limit there's often benefits (see ionising radiation, allergen immunotherapy, vaccines, oxygen). by and large people should let their bodies fix themselves, that's what they've evolved to do, very well for the most part. if you occasionally need to take something that's proven to be effective there's really little reason not to, life's to short to deal with that bulshit. with chronic conditions things get more complicated, and there's good reason to avoid many over-prescribed drugs which have very poor evidence for their efficacy (e.g. SSRIs, most of which are no better than controls in long term studies), and to always use the precautionary principle where possible (look for subtractive cures, lifestyle changes, etc. before falling back on drugs/surgery as a last resort - this is how most doctors in the western world are trained to operate btw, though no doubt there are many bad doctors).

...also, for that study: "The researchers only looked at older people and found the increased risk appeared when people took drugs every day for three years or more."

I usually don't take anything for pain, maybe once a year I'll have a hangover induced headache so bad it requires a couple of ibuprofen, usually works a treat (the only correct solution to this is not to drink so much in the first place). I used to suffer from terrible hay-fever (which also caused asthma) when I was younger, antihistamines did the trick. Very rarely suffer now, my immune system is probably just a lot less sensitive than it once was. There's a million studies claiming to point to the causes of numerous diseases and maladies (alzheimer's in particular has a lot of research money thrown at it, and thus a lot of potential causes), I've noticed you put far too much stock in speculative research in the past. The majority of all these studies fail to prove any link in the long term, it's very easy to find a correlation if you look hard enough.

US pharmaceutical ads are mental, I occasionally catch them when watching a US stream of a football game. undoubtedly a significant factor in the overprescription of drugs americans suffer from. I take a couple of ibuprofen a year maybe, an occasional puff on an asthma inhaler in hay-fever season (a handful of anti-histamines a year as well). but that's it, and I'm approaching 40. how many americans can say the same? especially worrying for those under 30, and seriously troubling for kids who's brains aren't even finished growing yet.