(Part 2) Best products from r/AdviceAnimals

You've had a setback, but it isn't the end of the world. Things probably aren't as bad as you think they are, but it will take work both to catch up, and to convince yourself that you're up to speed.

1. Decide you're going to work at this. It sounds like this is where the major gap has been -- without your parents providing goals, it can be difficult to motivate yourself. Make a schedule, and stick to it. Assume something like four hours of work a day and do it -- you might find allocating certain hours works better. I don't know if you have other responsibilities, like a job or caring for family, so ultimately you'll have to decide on this.
   
   
2. Figure out how far behind you really are.
   
   a) Reading
   
   A lot of English skills are about practice, so reading anything (including Reddit) is good. Maybe pick up a popular book:
   
   "The Hunger Games" or "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's (or Sorcerer's) Stone" are both at about a grade 6 level. I'd avoid Twilight, which is at about a grade 4 level (and everything past the first book is crap, in my opinion).
   
   If that's okay, try "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "1984". These are more cultural classics (so you can feel more sophisticated), but at still interesting to read, and are at about a grade 8-9 level.
   
   There aren't really a lot of books that are more difficult than that to read, so if you can manage that, you can read well enough to do a GED.
   
   The more difficult books generally use archaic language like "The Canterbury Tales" or Shakespeare. In general I wouldn't recommend Shakespeare since reading plays is difficult, the language complicates things, too many people treat them as serious and deadly dull, and it takes a lot of work to even understand many of the references -- that's a place for a good teacher (and teachers who are up to the task are few and far between).
   
   You might also try looking at something like (Dont-Know-Much-About-History)[http://www.amazon.com/Don't Know Much About History/dp/0060083824]. It's fairly advanced reading (grade 11-12), and it teaches some aspects of US history that you might not know. If you like that, there's a similar book by the same author about geography. I'll also suggest (Mother Tongue)[http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Tongue-English-How-That/dp/0380715430] by Bill Bryson. Again a possibly interesting subject, and it's funny.
   
   For other books, a good librarian can be a great resource, or some sites can offer some suggestions for books based on reading level.
   
   b) Writing
   
   I think that clear written communication is a very important skill. Your question was clear, so that's a good sign you aren't too far behind. Some Essay writing is more common in higher education, but the skills are still useful in office work. The introduction in an essay and an executive summary are quite similar.
   
   The problem here is that getting someone else's point of view is very helpful. You might be able to find some assistance on Reddit, but many colleges have writing centers to help students with this. You could probably approach a local high-school teacher -- in many cases they are willing to help any motivated student. It's amazing how much you can improve if you find someone who is decent and take the time to re-write the essay a few times to incorporate their suggestions. It's difficult to completely rewrite an essay multiple times, but going through the effort once or twice can make a dramatic difference. (As a student my wife worked in one of those writing centers and several times had cases where the professors didn't believe the students could improve that much that quickly.)
   
   c) Math
   
   There are a number of sites like http://ca.ixl.com/ that have basic math tests. These don't try to teach math like Khan Academy does, but they can help figure out where to start going through the lessons.
   
   I'm already helping with some math tutoring, so I'm fairly comfortable offering my help here. (If you're serious about this, PM me ahead of time since I'm not always logged into Reddit.)
   
   
3. Catching up
   
   Depending on how far behind you actually are you have a few options.
   
   As others have said, there are GED courses at many community colleges.
   
   If you don't feel ready for that there are also free online high school classes. I don't know much about these, but this one seems to have a pretty standard curriculum, and gets reasonable approval from the home schooling forums. There are also summer school and adult education high school courses that you can take in most places. Or you might try enrolling in regular high school -- this might be the best option, since it provides a structure, extra help from teachers if you're willing to ask for it, and some of the social contact. If you sign up for next year now you'll have given yourself a deadline for some of the other work, which might help with the motivation.

Oh the feels.
When I was fresh off the breakup I tried to get him to tell me why, to get some closure. I thought I needed to know why to move on. Still probably do. But I won't get it. The fact is, there's no such thing as closure on a relationship with someone who has become your family. There's always going to be a coat stuck in the door preventing you from shutting it all the way. Always.

Would her words make you feel better? No, because she can't make you feel emotions. You think about you. What will you do to better yourself? What can you learn from your actions? You start striving to do and think the things that make you happy!
SOOOOOOO much easier said than done, I just said it, but am I doing it or am I wallowing in the fear of an unknown future right now? (hint: it's the latter.)

Of course you don't deserve this kind of treatment! It makes you feel like she can't even see you as a human anymore! As someone who has had contact regularly with my ex, it does not make it easier. It makes it harder because I still feel like he doesn't see me as a person. But that's my own fault. I have helped him repeatedly because I felt selfish if I didn't.

But he doesn't want to share our thoughts and feelings like we used to. He doesn't want to have chats about our day, at least not in the same way. He doesn't want to have basic human interactions with me. Which I feel like I deserve! But do I?

I'm trying hard to work on accepting the fact that he owes me nothing and I can't expect him to treat me fairly. But like all things in this process so far, it's cyclical.

Basically yes, she has been monumentally unfair to you. Try to see and understand her perspective as best as you can. See your actions for what they really were, not just how you felt they were. Understanding how others see you is more important to self-awareness, which leads to more fulfillment and happiness, than closure will ever get you.

Try the book Emotional Intelligence 2.0 http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Intelligence-2-0-Travis-Bradberry/dp/1441842233, it's a test for your emotional intelligence that gives you specific assignments to help you better yourself. I find that it has helped give me a sense of direction. In fact I should go read it right now.
Also I have found, How One of You can Bring The Two of You Together, to be helpful in understanding my part of what went wrong. It's a relationship book, but the beginning is entirely focused on what you bring to the relationship. That's where I learned how to get a real honest perspective. I haven't found any break up advice that helped me understand, but this did. It's painful and revealing and hard. It's worth it and you'll be a better, more compassionate person for it.

Just don't go trying the techniques in the book on your ex, it will backfire!! UGh.
http://www.amazon.com/How-One-You-Bring-Together/dp/0767900421

I hope some of this long ass message helped you!
Oh and journal the shit out of your feelings. I have never journaled before in my life but something about getting everything out helps give me a perspective. Helps takes me out of the downward spiral of crazy emotions.

/r/keto

I was 246lbs in November of last year. About a month ago I was 196. Been hovering around there since then 'cause I've been traveling and unable to diet properly, but it's a great diet.

It's a more radical version of what is known as the 'Paleolithic' diet. The gist of that diet is that humans survived and indeed thrived and evolved on a diet that was high in animal protein, fat, and vegetables. The only source of sugar being fruit. For the majority of human history, that was our diet.

Then came the Industrial Revolution and new forms of processed wheat that were cheaper and easy to mass produce. The FDA recommended diet of 300g of carbohydrates a day -- a high carb/low fat diet -- coincides exactly with the rise in obesity, diabetes, and other weight-related illnesses.

There's an excellent documentary called The Perfect Human Diet that goes into great detail about the paleolithic diet. And more information on why wheat is bad for you can be found in a book called Wheat Belly.

Anyway, /r/keto is like a paleolithic diet but without fruit. So it's pretty much protein, fat, and vegetables. I don't consider it a sustainable diet or one that could be a lifestyle, but it's good for weight loss. The way it works is that, when your body runs out of carbohydrates to burn for energy, it goes into ketosis and starts burning fat for energy.

Turns out, it's much more efficient that way. Back before I ate keto/paleo, I'd have the bowl of cereal for breakfast or something high in carbohydrates, get a burst of energy, and need a nap by 11AM. Now I eat bacon, eggs, sausage for breakfast and I'm good until 1 or 2PM.

I lost a lot of weight, I never felt hungry because I could eat all the meat and cheese and fat and vegetables I wanted provided I stayed under 20-30g of carbohydrates (and stayed within a reasonable calorie limit).

It's really a dream diet, and in addition to losing weight, I just feel healthier. I lost around 50 pounds, and I'm happy where I am under 200, so I've reintroduced fruit into my diet in small forms, and some carbohydrates -- but from things like beans and potatoes and whatnot rather than processed wheat.

Honestly, it was a lifechanger. I was at a 44 waist, and now I'm at a 34. Once I start exercising to get rid of the remaining belly fat, I'll be set.

I'm very distrustful of such claims. What is considered a "jobless degree" today was a perfectly reasonable degree 30 years ago. We crack jokes about philosophy majors or english majors or history majors but there is nothing inherently bad about those majors.

We compare them to hard science majors or engineering majors without examining what exactly distinguishes them. Consensus on reddit appears to be that engineering majors are hard and liberal arts majors are easy. This is probably empirically valid in most US colleges but it wasn't always the case. We used to have a serious liberal arts program in this country and you could expect to devote a considerable amount of effort into getting a history degree or a philosophy degree (or any of the humanities). The idea was "liberal arts" meant rigorous preparation for life in general--critical faculties, writing skills, etc.

A few things happened on the way to the forum. In the late 20th century college ceased to be the limited preserve of the rich and dedicated. Rather for the first time a significant percentage of Americans would attend college--partially due to the GI bill but also due to the spread of secondary education. Go have a look at the percentage of americans with high school diplomas pre WWII. It's pretty amazing. This rise in enrollment coincided with a much less fortuitous change--the ascendance of the business school. Expanded from an original mission to produce (at the undergraduate level) book-keepers and (at the graduate level) managers, the business school has fashioned itself as a generalist trade school with a more expensive tuition. In doing so it has produced a much higher percentage of wealthy alumni (arguably the true goal of a university) who have in turn spent a great deal of money on the schools. Because of this cycle, the goal of business schools has metastasized to other departments--college must be considered a training ground for future employment.

The first thing to suffer in the training ground mentality is the humanities. Who needs to know about shakespeare or Weber (or Webster!) in order to manage a factory. Here we get to the last unfortunate coincidence.

At the time when liberal arts departments should have been mounting a concerted argument in their defense, they were engaged in internecine strife over cultural politics. The 60s (and really the 70s) marked a watershed in the humanities and social sciences. Colleges which had been segregating student bodies (yes, even into the 60s and even big, important colleges) now faced a huge backlash from students and faculty and opened departments devoted to post-colonial study, feminist and black/latino issues. don't get me wrong. All of those departments needed to be opened up. anyone who says that we were learning a complete (or even moderately honest/comprehensive) history when it was all white men is ignorant of the actual goings on. But I digress. These professors and students didn't just devote themselves to teaching black/latino/NA/feminist history. They relished in their victory and focused on the meta-issues like historiography and feminist/marxist/nationalist social theory. The snake began to eat its own tail and outside observers could see it. By the time the humanities awoke from their post-watershed slumber it was too late. The funding and students had gone, along with the expectation that liberal arts meant a strong and rigorous education rather than a simple "rounding out" of a business or engineering student.

There are some other factors at work here. Rising cost and student mobility (compare the average distance traveled for a student in 1960 w/ 1990 from high school to college) have given rise to an entitlement in the student body which the faculty isn't all that quick to disabuse. One way it has been phrased is that students don't really like homework and professors don't like it either, so they both agree to an equilibrium with less of it (that's from an omnibus study on grade inflation--I can find the cite but it may take me a while). "Good" degrees may just be those in fields which due to their own cultural leanings haven't succumbed to lowered standards or lack of rigor. In some cases these are art classes (seriously talk to a BFA student at one of the big private art colleges, their workload is insane). In some cases these are math or engineering majors. But in other places they may be philosophy majors or anthropology majors or econ or poly sci.

Whew. Sorry that's probably way long.

tl;dr American education underwent some serious shit in the last 60 years and we haven't got it all figured out yet.

Edit: some sources just to let people see what I am and am not pulling out of my ass:

• Jerome Karabel's The Chosen isn't about this issue per se but it does give a great window into how restrictive (in terms or race/class) Ivy Leagues were before WWII
  
• Journal of Economic Perspectives article on grade inflation
  
• There is a great book on the rise of the American MBA program in the 20th century whose name escapes me
  
• On the rise of the "hard social sciences" and government funded lab work from the 30s to the 70s you can read Philip Mirowski's Machine Dreams. I didn't really talk about this above either but it is in the mix as well.

I've had a lot of friends that have had various levels of trauma and PTSD from various sources such as child abuse, abduction, incarnation, rape, war, to just being an EMT. There are lots of coping mechanisms but the one thing I've seen help the most people was this book:
PTSD invisible hero's.

http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Heroes-Survivors-Trauma-They/dp/0553383744

As a vet I'd buy you a copy.
Personally its helped and I've given out close to 20 copies now.

I've also used cannabis with high CNB strains like silver sativa or cat piss previously. Although I haven't smoked in a few years. It does have a benefit of making you dream less. My wife has less terrors when she smokes even if its just two or three times a week.

I found that MDMA with friends just talking was a great way to open up. But avoid amphetamines. Use a test kit.

I moved on to reading The Psychedelic Experience:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychedelic-Experience-Tibetan-Underground/dp/0806516526

And then using mushrooms camping with friends. I wouldn't suggest jumping into MDMA or mushrooms without researching them at least by reading their pages in eworid. But I've seen them help people with serious PTSD even those with uncontrollable shakes and insomnia. MAPS is doing great work along those lines.

Another stress reliever that I've seen work which is less psychoactive then cannabis or mushrooms or mda is kava. Kava and passionflower combinations can have a calming effect that continues with use but is fairly mild when starting. Its worth considering but is a very mild maoi. So I'd read up about maois and not combine with other more powerful drugs the same day as taking kava.

Take care and keep hope alive.

Fwiw, they do this more for white people than they do for black people. Athletes (most athletes at places like Harvard play sports like squash, not basketball) and legacies make up a large percentage of the student body.

If you're interested, here is a really interesting book talking about the history of admission at Harvard, Yale and Princeton. These places were built by and for prominent male WASPS, and they're still the ones who fund it, so there are all kinds of things built in to ensure that people like them still get in, namely easier admission for legacies and athletes.

A major point of the book is that the idea of merit in this sense is kind of made up. They create a class of the kinds of people they like and say that it's based on merit. They used to basically just use test scores, then those schools started filling up with Jews, so they decided to assess "character" as well, which meant basically meant being WASPy. Now it's kind of the same thing but with Asians. They still rely heavily on "character" and "leadership." The main thing is that it's a balancing act between a ton of different interests, and most of those interests are rich old white dudes.


Edit: Found this:
“Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600 point scale, but recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, Hispanic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage which is 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points.”

>And in all those fields, there is a large number of people studying the issue, using different methods of data collection, and different methods of extrapolating it. And among all of them, there will be a general consensus, and disagreement about certain hypotheses - whether that comes from criticism of methodology, how the theory is applied, how applicable the theory is, etc. Climate science is no different.

It actually is different though. Why is it so hard to be given objective proof? There is talk that adopting a carbon tax will help curb global warming - why will that curb global warming?

>Getting a degree in a related subject would be a start.

You shouldn't have to have a degree to have a concept explained to you. Surely you wouldn't expect a professor to simply assert it is a factual phenomenon as a form of teaching their students?

>Here. This is the first study that NASA are citing. And curiously enough, the results for all the sources in the politifact article comes to above 90%, with the exception of a poll of earth scientists, which states the consensus at 82%, although it rises to over 97% once they cut that sample down to actively publishing climate scientists, and the American Meteorological Society poll, which states the consensus was only at 73%, but once it was narrowed down to actively publishing scientists, rose to 93%.

Well, the first line in the NASA report is this: "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing
climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper" - which is the same as what politifact reported on. It's a huge stretch to go from "97% of all scientists agree" to "97% of publishing climate scientists agree" - in particular when there are current accusations of bias in the climate science world.

That said, it is invariably going to seem like I'm moving a goalpost here, so I'm going to leave the matter to rest. I do appreciate your responses - we had a conversation on the topic, and it would be unfair to ask more of you.

>Here are some links to textbooks on the subject.
http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9789400757561 Climate Change Science: A modern synthesis - one of the authors is actually the guy who extrapolated the 97% figure.

>http://www.cambridge.org/features/climatechange/textbooks.htm - a list of textbooks compiled by Cambridge university on the various subjects of climate change.

>https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/0521173159 - Introduction to Modern Climate Change; this is a textbook for beginners at degree level.

I'll check some of them out if I can find a digital copy floating around somewhere - though admittedly, when I asked for proof on it, I didn't mean the 97% figure, rather I meant the soundness of the evidence behind the man-made aspect of man-made climate change. Thanks. :)

When my kids became teenagers Christmas was boring; they asked for a gift and got it. Yawn. The following year I gave them money before Black Friday and told them that was their Christmas gift. They had to shop for themselves, wrap it up, put it under the tree and on Christmas and at least we would be surprised. It was awesome. They bought the greatest stuff for themselves; some was inappropriate (my youngest bought something called Liquid Ass then told everyone who was horrified "My mom got that for me for Christmas".) They loved it. We've done it for about 5 years now and it is fantastic. I still do stockings and my husband throws a few boring gifts like jumper cables or tire chains under the tree but this works great for us. I realize I should demand they make a wish list but this is more fun for me, so we will keep doing it until it isn't anymore.

I also tell family members to buy my kids memories instead of items. Tickets to a show or a dinner out or other event don't have to be stored and are always appreciated.

As I have said, from the beginning, the rights (duties of parenting) are not the same, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't treat animals with respect, just because they aren't as smart as you. Animals eat other animals, and humans are animals, so no, I am not a vegan because I do not believe I could be as healthy as such, but I do try to pay attention to where it comes from if I can.

I want to emphasize that i am not talking like many people who say you should humanize a dog and treat it as if it were a child, i am just saying that through adopting, i have become it's parent in the sense that i have raised, trained, loved, cared for, and have been responsible for them, while they have also had effects on me. We evolve together, not in spite of each other. We live together, they are not just my property. I do not own them, they could run away at any time or attack me, and I do not coerce them through violence or fear. We have a relationship of mutual respect and trust. I know this may not fit with your definition of parent, but your definition of parent comes from a stance of speciesism, where if it is not as difficult to do as for a human, then it doesn't count. I argue that it does count, by my definition of parenting, but I am by no means drawing a parallel and calling them equal. This is not black and white.

It is a very complex issue that you won't grasp through reading a couple of reddit comments, I had to read this book twice, a couple of other articles, and a discussion in university for it to start to make sense to me. It requires some very deep thought, but it is profound nevertheless.

One last thing, again, you are claiming in that last sentence that people who have handicapped or otherwise dependent children are regarded less as parents than those who have children that gain independence. For me to let my dogs out in an urban environment would be the same as throwing a handicapped child out at maturity:certain death. Parenting, to me, requires doing what is best for the subject, and while adult independence is what you are judging to be the benchmark, it is not the standard that all cases of parenting need to meet.

One of the things that really works for me is limiting the cooking pieces I have to a few, high quality, specific pieces. Don't buy a 12 piece pan set filled with crappy pans and non-universal lids. I have one high quality stainless steel 12" skillet, one 3 qt SS saucepan, one non-stick for eggs and cheese, and a couple dutch ovens.

Those literally take care of 90+% of my cooking. If you only have a couple pieces, it's way easier to keep clean, since nothing can pile up. Also, having a far fewer number of pieces allows me to spend an equal amount of money as people do on sets, but on higher quality cookwear. I'm very happy with my setup, and it's easy to store and clean.

>Any other field can show raw data and explain how that data is extrapolated, even with regards to a complex system.

And in all those fields, there is a large number of people studying the issue, using different methods of data collection, and different methods of extrapolating it. And among all of them, there will be a general consensus, and disagreement about certain hypotheses - whether that comes from criticism of methodology, how the theory is applied, how applicable the theory is, etc. Climate science is no different. Look into any aspect of scientific research, and you're going to find disagreement within the field, and plenty of good reasons to back up each point - most of the time.

>If the issue is so complex, how can so many people be so thoroughly certain of it?

Within any scientific field there is a massive range of topics being explored. Since nobody has the time to read all the material and decide for themselves, they tend to trust that the researchers know what they're doing. Published material is subjected to peer review to ensure that it isn't nonsense, and scientists who disagree with an assertion criticise it, and explain why.

Here are some links to textbooks on the subject.

http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9789400757561 Climate Change Science: A modern synthesis - one of the authors is actually the guy who extrapolated the 97% figure.


http://www.cambridge.org/features/climatechange/textbooks.htm - a list of textbooks compiled by Cambridge university on the various subjects of climate change.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/0521173159 - Introduction to Modern Climate Change; this is a textbook for beginners at degree level.

The takeaway message I'm trying to get across is that modern day climate research has an incredibly broad scope, and trying to get a full, top-level handle on all of it is near impossible due to the massive amounts of material out there. Getting a degree in a related subject would be a start.

>Simply asking where the figure that 97% of scientists agree comes from should really get a direct answer, yet it really doesn't.

Here. This is the first study that NASA are citing. And curiously enough, the results for all the sources in the politifact article comes to above 90%, with the exception of a poll of earth scientists, which states the consensus at 82%, although it rises to over 97% once they cut that sample down to actively publishing climate scientists, and the American Meteorological Society poll, which states the consensus was only at 73%, but once it was narrowed down to actively publishing scientists, rose to 93%.

So even if the 97% figure is disputed, it's also got plenty of good information behind it too. The reason it gets used so much is because there is enough credit put by it to consider it "good enough", and that the consensus itself: "Humans are contributing to climate change" is correct.

Which leads us to the final conclusion: if the vast majority of the scientific community believe that climate change is A) happening and B) affected on a major level by anthropogenic activity, then do we wait for the rest to get on board (bearing in mind that there are also biologists who believe in intelligent design), or do we accept that this is probably going to happen, and start drawing up ways of mitigating it?

Great Gig in the Sky's voice solo has artifacting even with MP3s. Also symbol crashes chirp in any FFT-based lossy audio compression.

For the best experience - might I recommend DSotM in 5.1? https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Moon-30th-Anniversary/dp/B00008CLOA Comes in SACD and DVD Audio.

James Guthrie remastered it from the original studio tapes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon He's also remastered several other classics in 5.1 - all excellent.

There are a few notable changes:

- On The Run - footsteps go AROUND you

- Gig in the Sky - "if you can hear, this you're dying" is more audible

- Closing base drum (aka. heart beat) - the dub-over of Beatles Ticket to Ride is no longer audible.

Go to class, visit the career fair every year (or twice if your college does it), have a resume, do projects, DO INTERNSHIPS.

The future is bright for us CS guys, my friend. Just gotta get out there. :)

And read this book. Best money I spent at college. Wish I had it sooner!

I often give this book as advice. Read the Oxford University translation of the Qur'an. Hear me out. It's a wonderful book which covers an amazing amount of topics. Feel free to ask me any questions. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199535957/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/183-3918815-6920315. I think it will help you find the peace and fulfillment you are looking for.

Instincts are developed by time in the kitchen.

Also, if the stock you're making is hot enough to boil, it's too hot, especially if it's a meat based stock. Once you get the bones above a certain temp, the pores in the bones close up and effective flavor extraction ends. That's why you slowly bring it to a boil, then lightly simmer while skimming.

You need to do some research. I suggest watching every episode of Good Eats, with Alton Brown, that you can. It's corny, but it's a great primer on the basics of a hugely wide variety of foods, food science, techniques, and cuisines over 14 seasons of the show.

Additionally, if you are inclined towards the technical side of things, On Food and Cooking; The Science and Lore of the Kitchen is a fantastic reference manual.

Well, to linguists (and others), it does matter - to them! To the rest of us, what matters is that we all agree to use the same order - it keeps things, well, orderly. Because we've all implicitly agreed to use this order, it would gain nothing by trying to break it and use something else - if any order is just as good as any other, the current order is perfectly fine, and more importantly, compatible with current usage.


As to "why it matters that there is an order" I think can be answered not about language, but about human perception: we want to find order in chaos, and see patterns in everything, even when there is none - which is why gamblers have a huge problem, we see things like the face on mars, read tea leaves, etc. So we feel that there should be a reason why the letters are ABC, when there really isn't one outside of historical usage that changed over time.




For a good book related to the subject of English in general, pick up a copy of The Mother Tongue - English And How It Got That Way by Bill Bryson. Well written, very accessible to non-linguists.

http://www.amazon.com/Wondfo-Pregnancy-Test-Strips-50-count/dp/B004AOMAOG/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1371507696&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=wandafo+test

that's the best i could find right now. i guess their prices went up from when i bought them, but still 38 cents a piece is way better than like $5 or more a piece from the drugstore lol

Buy a kitchen scale. Weigh out 2-2.5 ounces of dry pasta. THAT is a good single serving. 3 ounces is a little much, unless youre super hungry. good luck.

Then i would highly recommend the book "Atlas of Remote Islands - Fifty Islands I Have Not Visited and Never Will" by Judith Schalansky. The book itself is a really crafty and great looking object, and the maps are beautifully.

Each map is accompanied with a story about the island, with what i suspect is varying grade of truth.

Get it on amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atlas-Remote-Islands-Fifty-Visited/dp/1846143489

A good and small nonstick pan is key in my book. Cook on high heat, constantly but gently move the cooked egg around to allow the runny part access to the pan to cook, lifting the cooked part for the runny part toget underneath in some cases. When ready, flip with the pan.

This one works amazingly well

Edit: If your sketched out about flipping the egg, try it over the sink. If the cooked egg easily slides around on its own, it should flip rather easily. Oh, and i guess it's my cake day, whatever the hell that's worth.

Then this is the perfect book for you:
Atlas of remote islands

Great book!

This is a highly generic statement that serves no purpose other than to feed ignorance.

While I agree there have been lots of things we've done internationally that would should not have, especially with hindsight, but most of the things we do you could argue would have been in actually in direct line with protecting our nation and its interests, and almost always with international support and agreement. There are several things we have done with our military that were clearly beneficial or prevented far worse from happening.

You would have to be much more specific in your claim to discuss it any further, but it would be magnificently counterproductive to remove our influence in the rest of the world out of simplistic, childish fear.

If you simply don't like spending money on this influence, rest assured, we still have most of it. The only problem is that we have spent the last 30 years working our fingers to the bone to give it to the few percentage that already have it all.

It is literally destroying us from the inside. This is harming our nation far more than "bullying" (as you put it) other nations to our benefit.

Try Rocket Men by Craig Nelson. It's about the Apollo 11 flight. Great read. Just the right mix of information and anecdotes. The thing I took away from it was that almost no-one expected Apollo 11 to succeed (also, that they deliberately only partially filled the LEM fuel tanks in Apollo 10, in case the astronauts decided to deviate from the flight plan and have a go at landing, being the gung-ho "Right Stuff" test pilots they were; they wouldn't have enough fuel to get off the surface if they did).

You can use something like this. They work pretty well.

Solution? Get an FM Transmitter. They're like 17 bucks

Or read this book. Amazing science up in here.

Try it out. I recommend the book Wheat Belly

Here is a podcast with the author, see if it interests you.

To be honest, a good FM transmitter (I have this one) really isn't all that bad/different from AUX. Find a station you don't listen to (especially a weak one), and you're set.

I use an FM transmitter in one car and AUX in the other, the quality really isn't too different.

1. The stipulative definition given for food faddism "The phrases food faddism and fad diet originally referred to idiosyncratic diets and eating patterns that promote short-term weight loss, usually with no concern for long-term weight maintenance, and enjoy temporary popularity. [1]" does not in any way apply to paleo as the point of paleo is to optimize long term health by removing foods that cause inflammation and allergic reactions.
   
2. The source used to establish the "faddism" of paleo in the wikipedia article is suspect and uses one observational study to dismiss the entire paleo movement.
   
3. There is mounting evidence for the connection between wheat, obesity, cancer, auto-immune disease, and cardiovascular disease.
   
4. Though vegetables are lower in B vitamins and calcium per gram they are also not very calorie dense being composed mostly of water and fiber. For you to argue that eating more non-starchy vegetables will cause weight gain is patently absurd.

It was a pre-online maps pastime as well. Check out Atlas of Remote Islands: 50 Islands I Have Never Visited And Never Will.

• myfitnesspal.com
  
• food scale & measuring cups
  
• honesty with self
  
• /r/1200isplenty
  
• possibly /r/loseit if you want some buddies.
  
• all the water and Liquid Water Enhancers (e.g. Mio) when you get bored of plain water.
  
  Go for low volume, high calorie.

Prank shops close to the campus, or online

https://smile.amazon.com/Liquid-Ass-Mister/dp/B000OCEWGW/ref=sr_1_1?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1522095629&sr=1-1&keywords=liquid+ass

I believe this is the book for you!

And also get and read this book,

On Food and Cooking: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0684800012

You'll see Alton Brown occasionally holding this book during his shows. It is NOT a cookbook, it is a manual on WHY cooking does what it does.

So much hassle. Just get some of this for when she's at lunch: http://www.amazon.com/Liquid-Ass-Mister/dp/B000OCEWGW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397758502&sr=8-1&keywords=ass+spray

Logically, smokers shouldn't have to be told, because they are the ones who are polluting their surroundings by introducing a smelly health hazard to the air, and are therefore grossly inconsiderate. To illustrate this point; as a non-smoker, I don't expect that it would be okay for me to stand next to people and pollute their air with this. Or would that be cool with you smokers?

Besides, smokers that smoke around people are usually inconsiderate to begin with and are not likely to respond well to being asked to stop or move.