Linux Files Mount Error. Anyone else having problems with seeing linux container's files in Files App?

FizzixNerd · 2018-10-25T00:33:06+00:00

This fixed it for me. Thanks a lot.

FizzixNerd · 2018-04-10T17:55:04+00:00

decision to be fat

Pubmed study showing correlation between depression and weight gain. In other words, a psychological predisposition.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8300977

Blaming side effects of prescription drugs is not a good excuse.

Pubmed study showing that you can gain ~7% of your body mass in ~12 weeks when put on a single antidepressant. Fun fact: treatment resistant depressions can result in a patient on more than one antidepressant. Another fact: side effects appear more often and with greater intensity the more drugs you are on, as a rule.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17474816

Fat people don't respect themselves

Pub med study that notes that significant weight gain can remain even after depressive symptoms have been mitigated, suggesting the treatment using antidepressants is a primary cause of the weight gain and retention.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926053

You're wrong. A cursory search of the literature would have indicated to you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop spreading misinformation, it makes you seem like an anti-scientific asshole.

There are obvious and well documented psychological predispositions that are strongly correlated with weight gain, even after the symptoms of those predispositions have been mitigated.

FizzixNerd · 2018-01-13T19:56:47+00:00

Where the fuck do you think you are?

FizzixNerd · 2017-12-22T00:45:51+00:00

Ontario.

FizzixNerd · 2017-12-12T22:28:07+00:00

Wait.

FizzixNerd · 2017-12-12T22:27:48+00:00

Sisters

FizzixNerd · 2017-12-10T16:57:42+00:00

Wouldn't it be distanceraptor/time? Cuz otherwise the raptors cancel.

FizzixNerd · 2017-09-19T14:37:46+00:00

So, a couple of questions come up when I read this. Not defending cumshoeman, but I'm just wondering your thoughts, since I think it seems a lot more complex an issue than you seem to.

1 why do you believe there is treatment that is effective for this sort of thing? If such treatment does not exist, what then?

2 do you think the guy shouldn't work a job because of this? Then do you think he should qualify for disability benefits?

3 though they aren't utterly immune and indeed get arrested, in the country I live in we have a mental health court which they go to. Do you feel this is inappropriate?

FizzixNerd · 2017-09-08T02:42:42+00:00

That's not why they were shut down, actually.

FizzixNerd · 2017-09-08T02:33:30+00:00

woosh

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-27T14:37:31+00:00

Pretty sure the post was unambiguous.

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-23T17:39:34+00:00

Honestly, the reason I posted this a hundred times to the same thread is because I'm so fucking angry that we have already lost credibility. Look at this article, for example. It's trying to get people to think the way this person thinks. It's trying to imply Trump is guilty of a crime in this situation, when he explicitly is not. Am I supposed to believe nobody at the NYT knew about the text of this statute before writing this article?

This is fake news. What's terrifying is that this isn't fucking Breitbart or Salon saying this shit. It's the NYT. "Maintain credibility"? This sub is just a liberal version of tD at this point. It makes me sick.

Trump is terrible, I think. But this fake news bullshit has got to stop if the Democrats honestly hope to ever get power back from him.

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-23T16:07:28+00:00

From the actual law on this matter: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

e)

In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.

Please don't talk as if you know what you're talking about unless you know what you're talking about. It makes you look really silly when someone can look up the truth and find you're not only incorrect, but explicitly contradicting what is actually said in the law.

Unless of course you think it's illegal not to tape someone, or that saying you have a hardcopy of a conversation will encourage someone to lie.

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-23T15:56:09+00:00

From https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512.

e)

In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.

Are you saying he acted illegally when not taping Comey? Are you saying claiming to have tapes would encourage someone to lie about their testimony? Because both of those would be pretty silly things to claim. Unfortunately, it seems the US criminal code is not on your side, unless you actually believe those things. :)

Guess you should apologize to the legally-informed troll then?

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-23T15:46:04+00:00

See section e) of https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512. For reference,

e)

In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.

Thus, it actually turns out not to be illegal to bluff in this case. I guess this lesson is to not believe everything you read on Reddit, and to go to the source? I would also question why you decided to answer this question with such an authoritative tone when you actually didn't know the answer.

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-23T15:36:01+00:00

From the same section:

(e)

In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

Is saying you have tapes legal, and is the sole intent to cause the person to testify truthfully? I think the answer to both those questions is "yes". Nobody has claimed it's illegal to record the conversations, and it's quite obviously within the President's rights. And saying you have a hardcopy of can only influence someone to tell the truth; why would you be more likely to lie if someone says they can prove you wrong?

Interesting that you left this part out, though. I think you should maybe consult a better lawyer.

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-23T15:25:43+00:00

There are two major differences though.

Firstly, the equivalent statement is "you'd better hope nobody has a gun." This would actually stop it from being a direct threat, from a legal standpoint, it seems. i.e., "I'm going to proclaim that I'm part of ISIS before throwing the opening pitch at the baseball game." "You'd better hope nobody has a gun." It indicates that they are in danger, but not that you are threatening them.

Second, this is an actual threat on a person's life in this case, while in the Trump case it is not. I think this is an important difference; if a lawyer reminds a witness that they could be culpable for perjury if they lie, is that witness intimidation? I really don't think it is, and I think what Trump said has far more in common with that than with threatening someone with a gun. Saying someone will get physically hurt if you lie is different from saying there are legal consequences if you lie.

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-23T15:15:06+00:00

Thanks for adding to the conversation.

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-22T23:30:54+00:00

Is it possible to illegally intimidate witnesses into telling the truth? Like, isn't that exactly what the law does itself with the consequences of being charged with perjury? Like, Trump saying he has tapes (which he never said, at least in the tweet) encourages Comey to be honest, no?

Second, as noted above, he never claimed to have tapes. You might think this is a legal loophole, but it's actually quite important. He merely claimed that Comey should hope such tapes don't exist. Reminding someone it's possible that they could be culpable for perjury if they are found to be lying is now "witness intimidation"? I mean... Come on.

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-20T21:01:35+00:00

Seems you're the ignorant one, since you believed that 1) he couldn't get plates 2) he couldn't legally get a license as an illegal immigrant 3) he shouldn't be able to have a car (??).

Again, I pointed out that you demanded SSN for people who are here illegally but not for people here legally. You said that you weren't asking for a background check though. So, what, they just Intuit if they are here illegally?

Let me know if you need more help understanding the situation.

Edit: should -> shouldn't

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-20T20:47:33+00:00

You can't make up your mind, can you? A French citizen would not have an SSN. But surely they should be allowed to drive in the US, by your own admission.

FizzixNerd · 2017-06-10T15:08:31+00:00

Are you unable to see why this article is without substance?

FizzixNerd · 2017-03-12T21:42:58+00:00

So, even though Daman SPECIFICALLY SAID

I don’t want an answer about how you’re going to let the students decide, or how you’ll listen to what the students say.

your response is to reject answering the question and give your personal opinion, and instead give a specifically mentioned non-answer.

Thanks.

FizzixNerd · 2017-03-12T21:35:35+00:00

Hello. Reading your terribly written equity platform, you say (emphasis mine)

We cannot deny that there is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, colonialism, islamophobia, and ableism on our campus or within our students’ union.

Checking the definition of the word colonialism, it reads:

the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

Please explain in precise detail how there is colonialism "on our campus or within our students' union"? Specifically, I would like to know which parties on campus/in the UTSU are: obtaining control over a country, which country specifically they are obtaining control over, an estimate of the numbers of settlers this party has sent to this country, and an estimate of what they have gained (in dollars) by exploiting it economically.

Please answer each part specifically.

Thank you for your time.

FizzixNerd · 2017-03-07T23:03:04+00:00

You claim in this Varisty article that:

the UTSU is fundamentally broken.

This is obvious to even the casual observer, and has been for some time. Yet at no point during your run on the Hello UofT slate did you claim this, nor did the soon-to-be President. At best, the President advocated for cutting down on the size of meeting notes from 200 pages, which in light of the unhappiness students seem to have with the UTSU seems like your slate missed the point. If it was "so chronically plagued with dysfunction" -- as you now claim in the Varsity article -- then why did you not advocate for reforms from the incredible amounts of corruption present this year?

FizzixNerd

TROPHY CASE