haffy

So how exactly would they ever get linked to him? Realistically there isn't a fucking chance.

Ending someones career over not wanting to take the smallest amount of risk imaginable is incomprehensible to me. It's just so fucking selfish and just plain nasty in my opinion. I really find it hard to understand how people will stick to rules to cover their own arse, instead of using common sense and rational thinking. Not only that, they honestly believe they have done nothing morally wrong.

Hopefully I'm just being a dick and looking at it from a negative point of view. But after reading giantstalker's post over and over. I see no inferred negligence or incompetence on the soldier in question, just a single arbitrary rule had been broken. And for that he was willing to end a persons career. Crazy imo. Good thing there is rules to prevent people from having to think about grey areas. They can look up the rule and decide if the grey is indeed black or white, no moral or personal responsibility needed.

That's all well and nice, but you haven't actually put forward anything. How much someones time is worth is completely subjective. There is pretty good evidence to suggest that people aren't motivated by productivity goals/guidelines or increase in pay.

Also you're looking at something that is massively complex and directly effects billions of peoples lives. And you want to go into a system which is progressively getting better, gut it out and slap your ideology in it's place. I mean for someone who criticized my earlier post with "Sure, but your entire perspective on this hinges on your acceptance of work as a gamble." You're willing to take a pretty fucking big gamble against something that is proven to work well.

@seppli: Eh, seriously how do define how much a persons time is worth and make it a good system? Society has consistently got better at living standards and pay. Look at what workers were expected to do 100, 200 and 300 years back and you'll see it has gotten much better. Why criticize a system that is slowly getting better and the flaws in the system getting better over with time, with an idealistic situation which is unrealistic to achieve quickly.

It's a high risk and high reward job. If you are somehow among the best at a sport, you've went through your career with no major set backs in terms of injuries and other life issues which would prevent you from training. You've been dedicated and motivated to stick with something for the majority of your life. You would probably have to be pretty gifted psychically and mentally, being able to perform at the highest level with a shit ton of people watching, which I can imagine would be a difficult thing to do.

Also not to mention other shit like you've probably given up or had to cut back on unhealthy stuff like alcohol, food and drugs. Probably let your backup career path or education suffer as well.

Then if you do finally make it you've got to deal with press/interviews random people talking about you, getting hassled every time you're seen publicly etc etc etc...

Probably not fair. But you're kind of under playing how difficult and stressful that life style probably is and what sacrifices you have to go through to achieve it. If you just look at the benefits of something, of course it's going to sound amazing.

Top 100 on few of the trials extreme levels and that extreme tournament. But that's on PC, the Xbox leaderboards are much harder. And I guess being in masters in sc2 since it became the highest league and getting my two off races in masters as well.

I have never really understood this elitism in areas of knowledge that people cling to, even though I rarely notice it outside of internet forums. If someone has a little bit of interest in something I'm pretty adept at, I enjoy talking about it to them, and hopefully it's the same when they explain something they're knowledgeable about to me.

If someone wants to be entertained by simplified science and history, what is wrong with that? I actually can not comprehend anything worth criticizing about it.

I mean your other points are just random baseless assumptions backed up by nothing and can't even be retorted to because of the vagueness of your claims. It actually annoys me that someone can be so vague and pretend to come off so informed and intelligent.

Yeah seriously, History channel and Discovery channel is good? What is this 2001? Those two channels have been second rate reality TV shite for the longest time.

I also agree that scientists and famous intellectuals is disgraceful! Who the fuck wants Richard Dawkins talking about that fancy wancy sciency stuff, while I could be watching some mother fucking swamp people on TV, and watch Miley Cyrus stick her tongue out.

You know some people just have an interest in random sciences and history. If that makes you angry, man I feel sorry for you.

Random science;

veritasium

scishow

minutephsyics

crashcourse

sixtysymbols

minuteearth

asapscience

cpggray

History;

crashcourse

Agnostic/athiest anti-creationism;

thunderf00t

potholer54

Those are the channels I subscribe to anyway.

You say that you think you're over training, but you haven't posted your normal routine, your routine that you think is over training or what you are actually training for. A 10 mile jog is a short run for some people, while for other people it's a massive overstep in their training, so if you want some real advice you really need to be a lot more specific. Especially in what you want to actually achieve.

Also relating cardio to time is pretty much a waste of time if you want real results and improvements in jogging or cycling. You need to be specific with what you want and where you are currently at in terms of pace over miles/km and weekly mileage.

I consider obese people the reason the human race has been so good at surviving in the past up until now.

Too bad company's spend billions on misleading and tricking people into unhealthy eating habits and exploiting a human trait that should be a positive thing. But you know, money, so fuck them guys right.