I should clarify: I didn't mean actual expansion of the law.
What I meant in regard to item "F" was: since when does difficulty of enforcement, even if they did prove it, justify loosening the standards of evidence? I did not think that was allowable.
Hi, NYCL! I haven't noticed you around here much lately.
Is item F even a thing? Since when does the difficulty of enforcing a law allow judicial expansion of the law? I thought that idea had been thoroughly buried a long time ago.
It's the lie of globalization being good for anything but corporate profits which is killing our economies. Basically it transfers the value of our jobs to the corporations.
Agree. Anybody who had read their Adam Smith should have know this already.
At best, you'll see a temporary relief of the symptoms specific to sitting before you start to develop the symptoms specific to standing.
You seem to be assuming that this is a trade between sitting all the time or standing all the time. Not so. The "ideal" situation is an adjustable desk that will let you sit or stand. You then do each part of the day.
There is definite evidence that switching up your working position has real benefits. You don't have to -- probably should not -- do all of one or all of the other.
The question is who defines a mental health check?
This. Mod up.
I don't understand why so many people don't get this. I think many do, but pretend not to for ideological reasons, or are simply afraid of their own shadows, or are power-mongers. Or some combination of the three.
The USSR was a prime example: disagree with somebody in power? Suddenly you're in a "mental health" hospital, being sedated or worse.
It was a case of a single country trying to help out its own economy.
There. Fixed that for you.
It isn't and wasn't a freebie. All it accomplished was shoving the problem further down the road. The result: massively increased debt AND a sluggish economy that has never recovered from 2008-2009. (Stock market levels are not, and never have been, a good indicator of the general state of the economy.)
Real unemployment (as opposed to official government figures re: "job market") remain high. Inflation remains a problem. Income disparity has continued to increase.
Obamanomics doesn't work. It didn't work for FDR (his own Treasury Secretary though he was completely nuts). It didn't work for Carter. It doesn't work now.
is just plain BS. Google is pushing the web where Google wants it to go, and that is neither near its capability or, if you just ask people, very close to WHERE it wants to go.
I dumped Chrome a long time ago, for very good reasons (bloated, slow, Google-centric) and even if they've improved those things, it's still not good enough. No thanks.
Why the neverending insults and accusations, Jane?
Please explain what they are.
I repeat: I'm only responding to YOUR OWN insults and accusations. I point out the fallacies in your arguments and accusations.
For the most part the only things I've "accused" you of are things I can prove beyond reasonable doubt: misrepresentation, misrepresentation out-of-context, outright libel, and intentional, malicious defamation of character.
What else do I need to say? In fact I don't think I've "accused" you of anything else, and the truth isn't an "insult". It is just the truth.
I don't make "baseless" comments, as I have explained to you innumerable times. And you have never -- not once -- demonstrated that my comments were "baseless".
You seem to think you can "wear me down" by making the same false accusations over and over.
All that really accomplishes is another entry in the journal.
Does distorting what other people actually say make YOU feel like a big man, Bryan?
Seriously... if you had the courage of your convictions, wouldn't you just repeat what other people actually said and then refute it?
As opposed to, say, your actual habit of misrepresenting what other people say so you can try to knock THAT down with straw-man or out-of-context misrepresentations?
Do you really want to have a testerone contest? Ooops... wait... you already did, and you didn't come out smelling very good.
In a discussion completely unrelated to climate science, suggesting out of the blue that "we can just fire all the climate scientists right now" sounds like a personal vendetta.
Climate science was a rather obvious example of the principle being discussed. It was just an example of something about which one might improperly assume a bias which might not exist. Nobody singled it out as either good or evil.
Until you stepped up and jumped into it with both feet. WTF is wrong with you? Do you realize just how much that made you look like a complete moron?
Also, this anti-trust bullshit is bullshit. Call Google whatever you want in the media and.... let consumers decide. They know Yahoo and Bing exist. They know others exist as well.
If you consider source of funding to be an automatic bias and cause for disqualification, then we can just fire all the climate scientists right now.
This is a guy who thinks your average (or, more precisely, well below-average) college professor is a "scientist". Someone who couldn't even do high-school-level statistics right without blatant bias.
How dare they possibly charge you in the future for a service they are providing that you make the choice whether to use or not!
They're welcome to try. I don't mind. But as EFF explains, it's much BETTER to run your own WiFi hotspot as a public service. I'm already paying for the bandwidth, so who cares?
It's part of the battle which will decide whether we will be a friendly, cooperative society or permanent slaves to corporations.
Make your own choice. I already have, and I don't really give a damn which way you go.
Public Service Announcement
---------------
It is my policy to not respond to this person because he seems to have some kind of personal vendetta, plus a nasty habit of publicly lying about other people.
Slashdot Mirror
Glad to see them coming around.
As are the rest of us, I am sure!
I should clarify: I didn't mean actual expansion of the law.
What I meant in regard to item "F" was: since when does difficulty of enforcement, even if they did prove it, justify loosening the standards of evidence? I did not think that was allowable.
Hi, NYCL! I haven't noticed you around here much lately.
Is item F even a thing? Since when does the difficulty of enforcing a law allow judicial expansion of the law? I thought that idea had been thoroughly buried a long time ago.
It's the lie of globalization being good for anything but corporate profits which is killing our economies. Basically it transfers the value of our jobs to the corporations.
Agree. Anybody who had read their Adam Smith should have know this already.
Yes, it seems I did miss that part.
Easier - include an elevated chair so that the desk does not have to be adjusted.
It might be easier but it is likely even more costly.
I evaluated a number of options. And in general, a good standing desk together with a good tall chair came to more $$ than a good adjustable desk.
I do most of my work at the computer, so a good chair is a must.
I did end up buying an electric adjustable desk but it hasn't arrived yet.
Hmm, what kind of herbs ?
I think it's fair to assume, at first anyway, that it will be used less to grow 900 pots of basil, than 900 basils of pot.
At best, you'll see a temporary relief of the symptoms specific to sitting before you start to develop the symptoms specific to standing.
You seem to be assuming that this is a trade between sitting all the time or standing all the time. Not so. The "ideal" situation is an adjustable desk that will let you sit or stand. You then do each part of the day.
There is definite evidence that switching up your working position has real benefits. You don't have to -- probably should not -- do all of one or all of the other.
The question is who defines a mental health check?
This. Mod up.
I don't understand why so many people don't get this. I think many do, but pretend not to for ideological reasons, or are simply afraid of their own shadows, or are power-mongers. Or some combination of the three.
The USSR was a prime example: disagree with somebody in power? Suddenly you're in a "mental health" hospital, being sedated or worse.
It was a case of a single country trying to help out its own economy.
There. Fixed that for you.
It isn't and wasn't a freebie. All it accomplished was shoving the problem further down the road. The result: massively increased debt AND a sluggish economy that has never recovered from 2008-2009. (Stock market levels are not, and never have been, a good indicator of the general state of the economy.)
Real unemployment (as opposed to official government figures re: "job market") remain high. Inflation remains a problem. Income disparity has continued to increase.
Obamanomics doesn't work. It didn't work for FDR (his own Treasury Secretary though he was completely nuts). It didn't work for Carter. It doesn't work now.
This is like "functional" programming about as much as playing hopscotch all the way to the next town is like taking the train.
Google is pushing the web as far as it will go
is just plain BS. Google is pushing the web where Google wants it to go, and that is neither near its capability or, if you just ask people, very close to WHERE it wants to go.
I dumped Chrome a long time ago, for very good reasons (bloated, slow, Google-centric) and even if they've improved those things, it's still not good enough. No thanks.
Why the neverending insults and accusations, Jane?
Please explain what they are.
I repeat: I'm only responding to YOUR OWN insults and accusations. I point out the fallacies in your arguments and accusations.
For the most part the only things I've "accused" you of are things I can prove beyond reasonable doubt: misrepresentation, misrepresentation out-of-context, outright libel, and intentional, malicious defamation of character.
What else do I need to say? In fact I don't think I've "accused" you of anything else, and the truth isn't an "insult". It is just the truth.
Maybe he's actually starting to get the point.
But there is SO MUCH evidence to the contrary... I'm not buying it at this time.
I don't make "baseless" comments, as I have explained to you innumerable times. And you have never -- not once -- demonstrated that my comments were "baseless".
You seem to think you can "wear me down" by making the same false accusations over and over.
All that really accomplishes is another entry in the journal.
Obvious typo: s/testerone/testosterone
Does distorting what other people actually say make YOU feel like a big man, Bryan?
Seriously... if you had the courage of your convictions, wouldn't you just repeat what other people actually said and then refute it?
As opposed to, say, your actual habit of misrepresenting what other people say so you can try to knock THAT down with straw-man or out-of-context misrepresentations?
Do you really want to have a testerone contest? Ooops... wait... you already did, and you didn't come out smelling very good.
I will ask again: WTF is wrong with you?
You've chosen to be part of a friendly, cooperative society and you don't really give a damn which way others go? Did you really think that through?
Absolutely. That's part of what makes a "friendly" society.
Did you think your own comment through?
In a discussion completely unrelated to climate science, suggesting out of the blue that "we can just fire all the climate scientists right now" sounds like a personal vendetta.
Climate science was a rather obvious example of the principle being discussed. It was just an example of something about which one might improperly assume a bias which might not exist. Nobody singled it out as either good or evil.
Until you stepped up and jumped into it with both feet. WTF is wrong with you? Do you realize just how much that made you look like a complete moron?
How could MY comments be a personal vendetta when that only exists in your own mind?
How could MY comments be a personal vendetta when they're only replies to your own insults?
Think about that.
Believe me: many people have reviewed our exchanges. You're the one not doing well. I'm stating that politely.
Also, this anti-trust bullshit is bullshit. Call Google whatever you want in the media and.... let consumers decide. They know Yahoo and Bing exist. They know others exist as well.
If you consider source of funding to be an automatic bias and cause for disqualification, then we can just fire all the climate scientists right now.
Sound good?
This is a guy who thinks your average (or, more precisely, well below-average) college professor is a "scientist". Someone who couldn't even do high-school-level statistics right without blatant bias.
How dare they possibly charge you in the future for a service they are providing that you make the choice whether to use or not!
They're welcome to try. I don't mind. But as EFF explains, it's much BETTER to run your own WiFi hotspot as a public service. I'm already paying for the bandwidth, so who cares?
It's part of the battle which will decide whether we will be a friendly, cooperative society or permanent slaves to corporations.
Make your own choice. I already have, and I don't really give a damn which way you go.
Public Service Announcement --------------- It is my policy to not respond to this person because he seems to have some kind of personal vendetta, plus a nasty habit of publicly lying about other people.
Please don't feed the troll.
(And let the dumbshits identify themselves.)
Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"???
You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.