Imagine what we would be going through if he had tried it with exploding underwear! I really don't want to see that many people with their pants off. (cringe)
Oh and the experts have agreed that the shoe bomb and any supposed 'drink attack' wouldn't take the plane down!
Terrorism is an attempt to scare a population so it will live in fear while looking over its shoulder. By this definition Homeland Security is a terrorist organization. Terrorism is not a credible threat in everyday life. Dying in a car accident is a credible threat but we don't live in fear of it. (Hell, we can't even get people to check their tire pressures because that is a VERY credible threat to their safety.)
I have now lived through the greatest loss of freedom in US history and it has been caused by the government doing exactly what Al Qaeda would want them to do. My personal safety hasn't been improved and it wasn't a problem to begin with.
(No you say? If you were booked on a flight in the US on 9/11 you still only had a 1 in 10,000 chance in being on one of the doomed flights because there were 40,000+ domestic flights a day. And during that month more people died from car accidents then died from the airplane crashes! Additionally there is no longer a security problem of that type because NO ONE WILL OPEN THE COCKPIT DOOR EVER AGAIN!)
To make this country great again we need to stop being scared, stop cutting corners with personal liberty for fake 'safety', change our foreign policy, and hopefully make serious inroads into cutting our dependency on foreign energy because we are pouring an insane quantity of power (Money=Power) into foreign countries that don't even like us.
Back then it wasn't such a jaw dropping statement. It is pretty extreme for now days but in 2002 we didn't really know what DRM truly meant for the end user so it didn't raise an eyebrow. I thought it was stupid because that would mean that their key focus wasn't on creating a platform to run programs on so they were losing their vision...
I have tried searching to get a good web reference for it and but when you put in "Digital Rights Management Platform" on a search engine you get a billion hits. It was during a public press conference. If someone knows how to search just transcripts of press conferences I would really like a link to it too.
The big thing is that XP does some automatic things whenever you hit a file system.
When doing recovery work I mostly use my 95B system in DOS. (Safemode command prompt only) (I do use an XP system for certain tasks when doing recover. It just depends on what is needed.)
A simple example of Windows stupidity is if you copy a *.lnk file (shortcut) it will look into the file to see where it is pointing to and can alter it. I will use the example of recovering things from a "D" drive to the "C" drive. The contents of the shortcut points to "C:\Program Files\Example\example.exe". That program exists on the "D" drive but not on the "C" drive in your recovery computer. If you copy it in Windows it will look at the contents of the file, see that it doesn't exist on "C", see that it does exist on the source drive, and then alter the copy of the shortcut to point to "D:\Program Files\Example\example.exe".
Their are a number of directories that you can't touch either. Things like the Windows\Fonts directory for example. The desktop.ini makes it so Windows alters your access to to it. 95B is good for looking at drives that have been rootkitted too. The last little bit is I have a number of very low level DOS utilities to get straight to the HD that won't run under an NT based OS.
There is a real point to his argument. It also happens to be the real flaw in his argument...
The only real reason to "upgrade" something is if you need something more. For business, need should be defined as something that will do a business function that will make money, replace labor, acquire additional business related information of value, etc... It has to do something you truly need. If all you any business need for is a computer that runs a word processor then he has a genuine point. It assumes that there is no other piece of software that serves a valid business need that anyone else might need.
A number of pieces of software have been written that require a later OS that fulfill a number of very valuable ($$$) tasks. Also Win 95 is only stable if you have hardware with extremely good drivers under it, a limited number of processes/programs on top of it, and your continuous up-time requirements are somewhat limited. This makes 95 a long way from being the one-size-fits-all solution. (I have one Win 95B station at my desk just to do drive data recovery and to do a few file tasks that XP doesn't want to let you do...)
Using that same logic there isn't a valid reason for almost anyone to use Vista instead of XP. Plus there is the "Business downside" of the end users having to relearn how to use computers that they already knew how to use.
Vista's big offerings are two fold:
- One is what I call the "raccoon" factor. Give people something bright and shiny and their eyes will roll back in their head as they start to murmur, "Gimme, gimme, gimme..." as you can hear the words, "It is new!" echoing softly in the background. This offers them nothing that is real but it does drive people amazingly hard. Look at the number of people that paid $100+ premiums to have an iPhone in the first week of release. A month later no one including themselves remember that they got their phone early and it certainly didn't pay any dividend for the expense but they will do it again: They are raccoons!
- Two, Vista includes huge DRM underpinnings. After XP was released Bill Gates publicly stated they the next version of Windows wouldn't be an OS but instead it would be a Digital Rights Management Platform. This does nothing for us but does plenty for Mickeysoft and the big media companies. I notice they aren't mentioning that fact any more either!
Basically Microsoft wrote a new OS for themselves instead of us and they made it really visually flashy so the raccoon in all of us will want to roll our eyes back in our head and buy it. The fact that they forgot to put anything we actually need in it has made its adoption really tank. The only real reason they have sold any volume of it is that you almost can't buy a computer without it. To help the process along Microsoft has pushed for new hardware that doesn't have XP driver support and you will start to see programming tools with limited or missing XP support.
We are coming up to a point where we are looking at a future where we could lose control of what is on our own computers! Vista is already trying to decide if you should be able to access your own files that are already on your computer! Take this fact and combine it with the whole limitations being rammed down our throat with HDTV and we are looking at being consumers that are buying things that we have no control over. A computer could easily act as a HDTV 'VCR' because that is an amazingly simple function but we have been forced to buy into a system where that isn't allowed. The only HDTV VCR like devices are subscription ($$) based!
You are being quietly guided into a world where you will tithe endlessly to corporations for simple things that in the past you could buy once and be done with. MS has tried to make the OS subscription based. (tithe) Limited number of play media files are subscription based. (tithe) Buying a cell with an MP3 player in it that you will just replace in a year or two is ano
Credibility? After ten minutes on/. people should have figured out that 'wildly inaccurate' can shout just as loudly as 'incredibly insightful'.
(And there is a lot more 'wildly inaccurate' out there.)
Should I just tear your response apart?
I can say, "RTFA" but obviously you won't. It will take a few minutes.
"Oh, by the way, not all sugar is table sugar."
Wow really? Oh BTW, I was the one who specified the exact sugars that comprise sucrose. I guess while I was mentioning percentages of glucose and fructose it might have lead somebody to believe that there is only one type of sugar. To make it very clear: Yes, know there are a number of types of sugars. If you have studied the creb cycle you will learn that your body needs glucose. Your body has no need for fructose. That is part of why sucrose is bad for you too.
"For you to say fructose is the cause of all our problems is simply bogus.
Can't recall saying that "fructose is the cause of all of our problems". But with what we are learning about it, it makes sense that it is a big contributing factor. It can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Ingesting something that tends to fool your body into remaining hungry would obviously be a tipping point in the balance between a healthy couch potato and an obese one wouldn't it? Hmmmm... (Fructose could be the cause of the current sub-prime mortgage crisis though!)
"Surely then there's millions of other doctors that agree with her? Oh, there's not? I see."
Great point! The earth is flat!
- First you have presented no basis for any numbers of doctors that believe or disbelieve these concepts about fructose. Frankly, you have no idea how many doctors believe the contents of that interview.
Secondly and more importantly, changes in scientific understanding NEVER starts with consensus. That comes after a lot of work that the interviewee clearly points out hasn't been done yet.
- Oh, and Robert is a man's name.
"My god, with all this fructose, no wonder I couldn't lose weight! Oh, I did though, by exercising and reducing portions to sensible amounts."
The interviewee relates that eliminating fructose seems to have the effect of causing people to become more active and to eat less. All without any prompting. Hmmm... Sounds like your method but without the struggle. I guess that wouldn't be of interest to an overweight person...
"Still, I guess I'll throw away my apple anyway. Its LOADED with fructose!"
As the interview transcript clearly explains, issues with fructose are offset by fiber consumption. So eating an orange doesn't have the issues that drinking orange juice does. Besides eating some sort of healthy diet does not include eating nothing but fruit.
(Notice that I didn't assume that because you said that you eat apples, that I didn't assume that you eat nothing but apples. Use a little commonsense as you go charging through these statements. Sorry about the mocking, but hey, it is easy and fun!)
- - - - -
You didn't even get to the part in the interview where they mention the fact that fructose can only be metabolized by the liver did you. The subtle counter intuitive cycle of what fructose does to your metabolizing is very interesting. The liver damage bit from high levels of fructose consumption was another interesting bit.
If you read the transcript "knowing" that it is wrong then there is no chance that you will learn something. It is important to remember that at least half of everything that you know is wrong. Just look at your parent's text books. They knew that stuff but at least half of the knowledge has been surpassed. Our current knowledge is just the same. It will be superseded. And in the end it may turn out that fructose is great and wonderful for you. I ain't buying that ticket though.
Sugar (table sugar) is sucrose. Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Yup it is bad for you but only half as bad as fructose is. Try this link and click "Show Transcript": http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm
The person relating this "Bunk" is Dr Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology, University of California, San Francisco
Don't believe it? Fine. Do what you want but I suspect in ten years this will be one of those things where everybody asks, "why were we doing that".
BTW - Go to the grocery store and check the different brands of mustard. About 2/3rds of them have fructose in them. The cheaper yellow mustards seem to be less likely to have fructose. Also some of the gourmet mustards are fructose free too.
The obesity "epidemic" hit in the early 80s. Interestingly enough fructose was massively introduced into the US food supply in the early 80s. As it has been introduced into other countries obesity has taken off there too. Could be a coincidence but the evidence is pretty damning.
Try to cut fructose out of your diet. It is almost impossible. Soda has fructose (in the US) but everyone knows that... Bread has fructose in it. (Huh?) Not only does ketchup have it but mustard has fructose in it. (Why?!!!) Look for "High Fructose Corn Syrup" or some times just "Corn Syrup". You will be amazed at how much of your diet has these ingredients.
Research is showing that fructose short circuits the body's normal hunger response. Where it would normally say, "That's enough" it instead makes you continue to be hungry. No one can say that the food manufacturers knowingly did this but if you were a large company that is only worried about your stock value and you could add a completely legal and unregulated ingredient that makes things sweeter while insuring that people stayed hungry while they were stuffing their pie holes, would you do it?
Hmmmm...
You give them $200 worth of food and once they eat it what do they have besides an open mouth needing another $200 worth of food?
If you give them tools to become productive and relevant you have the possibility that they might get the next $200 worth of food themselves.
"Teach a man to fish..."
Your forgetting that there is nothing scarier then people communicating!!!
(The sad part is that it is that while it is a funny statement, it is basically true and some fool will probably try and ban unapproved communication so they will feel safer. (and then once they are 'safer' they will still be much more likely to die while driving to the 7 Eleven...))
The Internet is a whole world full of all of the good and bad that exists in the real world (and then some). Do you let your kids wander about unsupervised through the real world? Everyone would think you were insane if you did that.
Then why do so many people let their kids wonder through the Internet unsupervised? It is just stupid. The simple solution is "No computers with an Internet connection in their rooms!" The computer should be out in a visible exposed public place where they can't sneak around because they can never tell when someone might peek around the corner.
Don't be derogatory just because someone is of a certain nationality or race. Everywhere I have gone I have found wonderful people to share a drink with. (Italians seem to know more about relaxing then just about anyone so they get extra bonus points to boot...)
If you are going to bag on him do it because he just doesn't get the joke.
Slow down for a second. Is is the govs. fault that people use credit without thinking of the consequences? . ..
No, of course not. It is the governments fault that usury laws were rewritten because of lobbying pressure from credit card companies. This is why they can legally charge 30% interest. (Which used to be criminal literally!) It is why someone who charges $20,000 worth of stuff can easily pay out over $25,000 and end up still owing more then $30,000! (or more)
Raising the minimum payment on credit cards was sold to the legislators as something good for consumers and it does sound good too. But the fact that the credit card companies (the saints that they are...) were pushing for it should have been a warning that there was a hidden poop flavored surprise inside.
What happens in actuality is:
Joe Debtor in an effort to get some control over his situation goes to a debt relief organization and they negotiate with the credit card company to get the interest on the card dropped to something reasonable. Joe Debtor buckles down and is making his now doubled minimum payments which should mean that the debt is paid off before the earth's core cools. (Not a bad idea, right?!) A couple months later Joe Debtor can't quite make the minimum payment on one of his cards or is a day or two late with a check and suddenly the interest rate is back up to 30%. We wind the clock forward a couple years and Joe Debtor now owes twice as much to the credit card companies.
[sarcasm] Yes! Thank god the government is helping us out. [/sarcasm]
"You get the government that you pay for." The credit card companies have paid good money for our government and that has insured that not only will they get additional chances to suck us dry, but they can also get a chance at an additional year of blood sucking because of some very good lobbying.
Paying the $70 isn't really a problem because part of the process of filing for bankruptcy is stopping making payments on all of your debts. If you do pay some of your debts the bankruptcy trustee will have to go and retrieve that money to distribute evenly among all of the creditors. The credit counseling specified for Chapter 7 will NEVER try to get you to pay some of your debts. It is simply to teach you how credit works so if you jump into credit you will do it with your eyes open.
The new bankruptcy law really doesn't change much of anything except for "The means test" and the previously mentioned credit counseling. The means test is just a formula they plug your numbers into to see if you can file or if you have to try to pay the credit card companies back as a Chapter 13 for an additional year.
The supposed "Reform" was bought and paid for by the credit card companies because apparently they needed the changes to keep from losing money even though they are insanely profitable. One thing they got was the minimum payments on your credit card is doubled so if someone might be having trouble making payments they now will certainly be delinquent and that will get the interest rate jacked up to 30%. (Thank god the government is helping us out like this!)
If you think the Anarchist Cookbook is a danger to the public then I have a real danger for you!
I have PC support techs that travel everywhere in the country and one thing they carry is an IDE HD with the standard images of all of the different models of computers we support. This is an amazingly scary source of danger for the American public! (apparently...)
The TSA in LaGuardia confiscated one of my tech's drives because it looked suspicious: He had affixed an orange DHL "10:30 AM Urgent" sticker on the drive so he could make sure it wasn't overwritten by mistake. Apparently those orange stickers are either a powerful explosive or an extremely efficient oxidizer. (In that case we should all cringe when we see a DHL cargo plane go overhead.)
. . . or maybe the TSA's airport security is one of the stupidest things to ever be seen on this planet.
As a rule: Security is a logical exercise. If it doesn't make sense then it can't be an adequate security model!
(so there!)
In the real world the solution to this kind of data collection is to play "garbage in, garbage out". Just get a mass movement of people to open up the browser and just start typing random subversive junk. If all they get is text logs full of "Osama bin Laden, ammonium nitrate, anthrax, jihad, kill George Bush, blah, blah, blah..." they will quickly go back to doing real work
I think it is a pretty easy guess that the real reason that he has FiOS is that the way ISPs have locked out competition in local markets, he probably just can't get anything but Verizon at his house!
I'm trying to think of ANY branch of government that isn't a lackey for corporate america.
Usually you can track most things back to economics. I think it is pretty obvious that as individual people we haven't paid for the government that we want. It is equally obvious that corporations have paid for the government they want.
Maybe we should start lobbying the corporations!
Back to the original post: Could someone point out to the people in the judicial system that the same corporations that want to squash Net Neutrality are the same greedy, self centered, money grubbing entities that have strangled the bandwidth marketplace so that the US is now a second class country in terms of broadband market penetration and speed?
(God love them run on sentences!)
Slashdot Mirror
And this made the main page of /. as a story?
Come on...
Bingo! We have a winner!
Imagine what we would be going through if he had tried it with exploding underwear! I really don't want to see that many people with their pants off. (cringe)
Oh and the experts have agreed that the shoe bomb and any supposed 'drink attack' wouldn't take the plane down!
Terrorism is an attempt to scare a population so it will live in fear while looking over its shoulder. By this definition Homeland Security is a terrorist organization. Terrorism is not a credible threat in everyday life. Dying in a car accident is a credible threat but we don't live in fear of it. (Hell, we can't even get people to check their tire pressures because that is a VERY credible threat to their safety.)
I have now lived through the greatest loss of freedom in US history and it has been caused by the government doing exactly what Al Qaeda would want them to do. My personal safety hasn't been improved and it wasn't a problem to begin with.
(No you say? If you were booked on a flight in the US on 9/11 you still only had a 1 in 10,000 chance in being on one of the doomed flights because there were 40,000+ domestic flights a day. And during that month more people died from car accidents then died from the airplane crashes! Additionally there is no longer a security problem of that type because NO ONE WILL OPEN THE COCKPIT DOOR EVER AGAIN!)
To make this country great again we need to stop being scared, stop cutting corners with personal liberty for fake 'safety', change our foreign policy, and hopefully make serious inroads into cutting our dependency on foreign energy because we are pouring an insane quantity of power (Money=Power) into foreign countries that don't even like us.
The real panic for the public happens only when individuals fear for their lives.
This is basically the exact reason that Homeland Security is the biggest terrorist organization in the US.(The news media is right up there though...)
Back then it wasn't such a jaw dropping statement. It is pretty extreme for now days but in 2002 we didn't really know what DRM truly meant for the end user so it didn't raise an eyebrow. I thought it was stupid because that would mean that their key focus wasn't on creating a platform to run programs on so they were losing their vision...
I have tried searching to get a good web reference for it and but when you put in "Digital Rights Management Platform" on a search engine you get a billion hits. It was during a public press conference. If someone knows how to search just transcripts of press conferences I would really like a link to it too.
The big thing is that XP does some automatic things whenever you hit a file system. When doing recovery work I mostly use my 95B system in DOS. (Safemode command prompt only) (I do use an XP system for certain tasks when doing recover. It just depends on what is needed.)
A simple example of Windows stupidity is if you copy a *.lnk file (shortcut) it will look into the file to see where it is pointing to and can alter it. I will use the example of recovering things from a "D" drive to the "C" drive. The contents of the shortcut points to "C:\Program Files\Example\example.exe". That program exists on the "D" drive but not on the "C" drive in your recovery computer. If you copy it in Windows it will look at the contents of the file, see that it doesn't exist on "C", see that it does exist on the source drive, and then alter the copy of the shortcut to point to "D:\Program Files\Example\example.exe".
Their are a number of directories that you can't touch either. Things like the Windows\Fonts directory for example. The desktop.ini makes it so Windows alters your access to to it. 95B is good for looking at drives that have been rootkitted too. The last little bit is I have a number of very low level DOS utilities to get straight to the HD that won't run under an NT based OS.
But that is the primary reason for
There is a real point to his argument. It also happens to be the real flaw in his argument...
The only real reason to "upgrade" something is if you need something more. For business, need should be defined as something that will do a business function that will make money, replace labor, acquire additional business related information of value, etc... It has to do something you truly need. If all you any business need for is a computer that runs a word processor then he has a genuine point. It assumes that there is no other piece of software that serves a valid business need that anyone else might need.
A number of pieces of software have been written that require a later OS that fulfill a number of very valuable ($$$) tasks. Also Win 95 is only stable if you have hardware with extremely good drivers under it, a limited number of processes/programs on top of it, and your continuous up-time requirements are somewhat limited. This makes 95 a long way from being the one-size-fits-all solution. (I have one Win 95B station at my desk just to do drive data recovery and to do a few file tasks that XP doesn't want to let you do...)
Using that same logic there isn't a valid reason for almost anyone to use Vista instead of XP. Plus there is the "Business downside" of the end users having to relearn how to use computers that they already knew how to use.
Vista's big offerings are two fold:
- One is what I call the "raccoon" factor. Give people something bright and shiny and their eyes will roll back in their head as they start to murmur, "Gimme, gimme, gimme..." as you can hear the words, "It is new!" echoing softly in the background. This offers them nothing that is real but it does drive people amazingly hard. Look at the number of people that paid $100+ premiums to have an iPhone in the first week of release. A month later no one including themselves remember that they got their phone early and it certainly didn't pay any dividend for the expense but they will do it again: They are raccoons!
- Two, Vista includes huge DRM underpinnings. After XP was released Bill Gates publicly stated they the next version of Windows wouldn't be an OS but instead it would be a Digital Rights Management Platform. This does nothing for us but does plenty for Mickeysoft and the big media companies. I notice they aren't mentioning that fact any more either!
Basically Microsoft wrote a new OS for themselves instead of us and they made it really visually flashy so the raccoon in all of us will want to roll our eyes back in our head and buy it. The fact that they forgot to put anything we actually need in it has made its adoption really tank. The only real reason they have sold any volume of it is that you almost can't buy a computer without it. To help the process along Microsoft has pushed for new hardware that doesn't have XP driver support and you will start to see programming tools with limited or missing XP support.
We are coming up to a point where we are looking at a future where we could lose control of what is on our own computers! Vista is already trying to decide if you should be able to access your own files that are already on your computer! Take this fact and combine it with the whole limitations being rammed down our throat with HDTV and we are looking at being consumers that are buying things that we have no control over. A computer could easily act as a HDTV 'VCR' because that is an amazingly simple function but we have been forced to buy into a system where that isn't allowed. The only HDTV VCR like devices are subscription ($$) based!
You are being quietly guided into a world where you will tithe endlessly to corporations for simple things that in the past you could buy once and be done with. MS has tried to make the OS subscription based. (tithe) Limited number of play media files are subscription based. (tithe) Buying a cell with an MP3 player in it that you will just replace in a year or two is ano
Credibility? After ten minutes on /. people should have figured out that 'wildly inaccurate' can shout just as loudly as 'incredibly insightful'.
(And there is a lot more 'wildly inaccurate' out there.)
Should I just tear your response apart?
I can say, "RTFA" but obviously you won't. It will take a few minutes.
"Oh, by the way, not all sugar is table sugar."
Wow really? Oh BTW, I was the one who specified the exact sugars that comprise sucrose. I guess while I was mentioning percentages of glucose and fructose it might have lead somebody to believe that there is only one type of sugar. To make it very clear: Yes, know there are a number of types of sugars. If you have studied the creb cycle you will learn that your body needs glucose. Your body has no need for fructose. That is part of why sucrose is bad for you too.
"For you to say fructose is the cause of all our problems is simply bogus.
Can't recall saying that "fructose is the cause of all of our problems". But with what we are learning about it, it makes sense that it is a big contributing factor. It can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Ingesting something that tends to fool your body into remaining hungry would obviously be a tipping point in the balance between a healthy couch potato and an obese one wouldn't it? Hmmmm... (Fructose could be the cause of the current sub-prime mortgage crisis though!)
"Surely then there's millions of other doctors that agree with her? Oh, there's not? I see."
Great point! The earth is flat!
- First you have presented no basis for any numbers of doctors that believe or disbelieve these concepts about fructose. Frankly, you have no idea how many doctors believe the contents of that interview.
Secondly and more importantly, changes in scientific understanding NEVER starts with consensus. That comes after a lot of work that the interviewee clearly points out hasn't been done yet.
- Oh, and Robert is a man's name.
"My god, with all this fructose, no wonder I couldn't lose weight! Oh, I did though, by exercising and reducing portions to sensible amounts."
The interviewee relates that eliminating fructose seems to have the effect of causing people to become more active and to eat less. All without any prompting. Hmmm... Sounds like your method but without the struggle. I guess that wouldn't be of interest to an overweight person...
"Still, I guess I'll throw away my apple anyway. Its LOADED with fructose!" As the interview transcript clearly explains, issues with fructose are offset by fiber consumption. So eating an orange doesn't have the issues that drinking orange juice does. Besides eating some sort of healthy diet does not include eating nothing but fruit.
(Notice that I didn't assume that because you said that you eat apples, that I didn't assume that you eat nothing but apples. Use a little commonsense as you go charging through these statements. Sorry about the mocking, but hey, it is easy and fun!)
- - - - -
You didn't even get to the part in the interview where they mention the fact that fructose can only be metabolized by the liver did you. The subtle counter intuitive cycle of what fructose does to your metabolizing is very interesting. The liver damage bit from high levels of fructose consumption was another interesting bit.
If you read the transcript "knowing" that it is wrong then there is no chance that you will learn something. It is important to remember that at least half of everything that you know is wrong. Just look at your parent's text books. They knew that stuff but at least half of the knowledge has been surpassed. Our current knowledge is just the same. It will be superseded. And in the end it may turn out that fructose is great and wonderful for you. I ain't buying that ticket though.
Sugar (table sugar) is sucrose. Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Yup it is bad for you but only half as bad as fructose is. Try this link and click "Show Transcript":
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm
The person relating this "Bunk" is Dr Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology, University of California, San Francisco
Don't believe it? Fine. Do what you want but I suspect in ten years this will be one of those things where everybody asks, "why were we doing that".
BTW - Go to the grocery store and check the different brands of mustard. About 2/3rds of them have fructose in them. The cheaper yellow mustards seem to be less likely to have fructose. Also some of the gourmet mustards are fructose free too.
The obesity "epidemic" hit in the early 80s. Interestingly enough fructose was massively introduced into the US food supply in the early 80s. As it has been introduced into other countries obesity has taken off there too. Could be a coincidence but the evidence is pretty damning.
Try to cut fructose out of your diet. It is almost impossible. Soda has fructose (in the US) but everyone knows that... Bread has fructose in it. (Huh?) Not only does ketchup have it but mustard has fructose in it. (Why?!!!) Look for "High Fructose Corn Syrup" or some times just "Corn Syrup". You will be amazed at how much of your diet has these ingredients.
Research is showing that fructose short circuits the body's normal hunger response. Where it would normally say, "That's enough" it instead makes you continue to be hungry. No one can say that the food manufacturers knowingly did this but if you were a large company that is only worried about your stock value and you could add a completely legal and unregulated ingredient that makes things sweeter while insuring that people stayed hungry while they were stuffing their pie holes, would you do it?
Hmmmm...
You give them $200 worth of food and once they eat it what do they have besides an open mouth needing another $200 worth of food?
If you give them tools to become productive and relevant you have the possibility that they might get the next $200 worth of food themselves.
"Teach a man to fish..."
Your forgetting that there is nothing scarier then people communicating!!!
(The sad part is that it is that while it is a funny statement, it is basically true and some fool will probably try and ban unapproved communication so they will feel safer. (and then once they are 'safer' they will still be much more likely to die while driving to the 7 Eleven...))
The Internet is a whole world full of all of the good and bad that exists in the real world (and then some). Do you let your kids wander about unsupervised through the real world? Everyone would think you were insane if you did that.
Then why do so many people let their kids wonder through the Internet unsupervised? It is just stupid. The simple solution is "No computers with an Internet connection in their rooms!" The computer should be out in a visible exposed public place where they can't sneak around because they can never tell when someone might peek around the corner.
Problem solved...
Finally! A political idea that is worth working on!!!
Don't be derogatory just because someone is of a certain nationality or race. Everywhere I have gone I have found wonderful people to share a drink with. (Italians seem to know more about relaxing then just about anyone so they get extra bonus points to boot...)
If you are going to bag on him do it because he just doesn't get the joke.
futile - [fyoot-l, fyoo-tahyl]
-adjective
1. trifling; frivolous; unimportant.
2. responding to anonymous cowards.
He didn't say "unconstitutional". He actually said "uncostitutional".
The cost of any internet censorship scheme would be astronomical so I would have to agree that it is uncostitutional.
Slow down for a second. Is is the govs. fault that people use credit without thinking of the consequences? .
. .
No, of course not. It is the governments fault that usury laws were rewritten because of lobbying pressure from credit card companies. This is why they can legally charge 30% interest. (Which used to be criminal literally!) It is why someone who charges $20,000 worth of stuff can easily pay out over $25,000 and end up still owing more then $30,000! (or more)
Raising the minimum payment on credit cards was sold to the legislators as something good for consumers and it does sound good too. But the fact that the credit card companies (the saints that they are...) were pushing for it should have been a warning that there was a hidden poop flavored surprise inside.
What happens in actuality is:
Joe Debtor in an effort to get some control over his situation goes to a debt relief organization and they negotiate with the credit card company to get the interest on the card dropped to something reasonable. Joe Debtor buckles down and is making his now doubled minimum payments which should mean that the debt is paid off before the earth's core cools. (Not a bad idea, right?!) A couple months later Joe Debtor can't quite make the minimum payment on one of his cards or is a day or two late with a check and suddenly the interest rate is back up to 30%. We wind the clock forward a couple years and Joe Debtor now owes twice as much to the credit card companies.
[sarcasm] Yes! Thank god the government is helping us out. [/sarcasm]
"You get the government that you pay for." The credit card companies have paid good money for our government and that has insured that not only will they get additional chances to suck us dry, but they can also get a chance at an additional year of blood sucking because of some very good lobbying.
Paying the $70 isn't really a problem because part of the process of filing for bankruptcy is stopping making payments on all of your debts . If you do pay some of your debts the bankruptcy trustee will have to go and retrieve that money to distribute evenly among all of the creditors. The credit counseling specified for Chapter 7 will NEVER try to get you to pay some of your debts. It is simply to teach you how credit works so if you jump into credit you will do it with your eyes open.
The new bankruptcy law really doesn't change much of anything except for "The means test" and the previously mentioned credit counseling. The means test is just a formula they plug your numbers into to see if you can file or if you have to try to pay the credit card companies back as a Chapter 13 for an additional year.
The supposed "Reform" was bought and paid for by the credit card companies because apparently they needed the changes to keep from losing money even though they are insanely profitable. One thing they got was the minimum payments on your credit card is doubled so if someone might be having trouble making payments they now will certainly be delinquent and that will get the interest rate jacked up to 30%. (Thank god the government is helping us out like this!)
Nice and insightful...
Just wondering if you were responding to the underground storage comments or the Solar Cells Flambé comments?
If you think the Anarchist Cookbook is a danger to the public then I have a real danger for you!
I have PC support techs that travel everywhere in the country and one thing they carry is an IDE HD with the standard images of all of the different models of computers we support. This is an amazingly scary source of danger for the American public! (apparently...)
The TSA in LaGuardia confiscated one of my tech's drives because it looked suspicious: He had affixed an orange DHL "10:30 AM Urgent" sticker on the drive so he could make sure it wasn't overwritten by mistake. Apparently those orange stickers are either a powerful explosive or an extremely efficient oxidizer. (In that case we should all cringe when we see a DHL cargo plane go overhead.)
. . . or maybe the TSA's airport security is one of the stupidest things to ever be seen on this planet.
As a rule: Security is a logical exercise. If it doesn't make sense then it can't be an adequate security model!
(so there!)
I think the quantity of energy that it takes to go over 1000 miles an hour is going to be pretty hard to collect in a solar powered plane.
In the real world the solution to this kind of data collection is to play "garbage in, garbage out". Just get a mass movement of people to open up the browser and just start typing random subversive junk. If all they get is text logs full of "Osama bin Laden, ammonium nitrate, anthrax, jihad, kill George Bush, blah, blah, blah..." they will quickly go back to doing real work
I think it is a pretty easy guess that the real reason that he has FiOS is that the way ISPs have locked out competition in local markets, he probably just can't get anything but Verizon at his house!
I'm trying to think of ANY branch of government that isn't a lackey for corporate america.
Usually you can track most things back to economics. I think it is pretty obvious that as individual people we haven't paid for the government that we want. It is equally obvious that corporations have paid for the government they want.
Maybe we should start lobbying the corporations!
Back to the original post: Could someone point out to the people in the judicial system that the same corporations that want to squash Net Neutrality are the same greedy, self centered, money grubbing entities that have strangled the bandwidth marketplace so that the US is now a second class country in terms of broadband market penetration and speed?
(God love them run on sentences!)