There was a study a few years back that children raised in the cleanest households were more likely to have allergies and be asthmatic than those raised in households with a small amount of dirt. The authors of the study speculated that this was due to pet dander (their observation was that the difference between the very clean households and the not-so-clean households in their study was the presence of pets). They suggested that a followup study should be conducted to test this explanation. I have yet to see such a study be conducted. The interesting thing about the study was that the incidence of asthma and allergies was reduced as the households got cleaner until a certain point was reached and then the trend reversed.
OK, let me see if I got this straight. They bred some mice that age prematurely, then they developed a therapy that reverses the premature aging and this is supposed to be a treatment for natural aging? Come back to me when they use this treatment on mice (or some other animal) that has naturally aged and it has the same effect, as it is, this is an interesting study about possible avenues to be explored but nothing to get particularly excited about at this time.
Cause or effect? Mental or emotional issues tend to make it harder to live healthily. Try getting someone with clinical depression to exercise or sleep well.
All of those who I knew before they had the problems did not get sufficient exercise or sleep before the mental/emotional problems appeared.
Re:The best way to avoid all that anxiety ...
on
Anxiety and IT?
·
· Score: 1
That's a very good point. I have a real simple philosophy: make sure that if things come to a screeching halt, it is not a result of something I have done. If someone else does something that causes things to come to a screeching halt, I'll fix it if I can, but it won't be my head on the line if I can't. I make sure I let my bosses know the extent of my abilities and their limits. I, also make sure they know when someone else is being given the authority to do something that might make the systems I am responsible for come to a screeching halt.
Yes, but you know what, it is a good place to start for whatever ails you. Studies have repeatedly shown that people who get sufficient exercise, sleep and eat a good diet have fewer mental health problems then those who don't. For that matter everyone I know personally who has a mental or emotional issue, either gets little or no exercise, or gets irregular and limited sleep, or eats a diet low on fiber and vitamins, or some combination of the above (often all three). Just because it is a cliche, doesn't mean it is wrong. Once you have addressed these issues that are the cause of at least 50% of most people's mental and emotional problems, you can go on to look at other factors. However, there will be a lot more variance in appropriate courses of action at that point.
You missed the part of showing how the non-profit reduces the copyright holder's ability to make money from the copyrighted material. The reason that is difficult for Righthaven is because Righthaven doesn't make money from publishing, they make money from suing people.
Unfortunately for Righthaven, the courts have generally interpreted that clause to mean interfering with a copyright holder's ability to make money that they would have made if the infringer hadn't copied their work
I see, you vote based on what a politician says. You know, I've always found it more useful to judge people by what they do, especially when it comes to politicians.
Had I been the composer or copyright owner of "Kookabura", I would have been appreciative of the homage in Men at Work's "Down Under", and would have wondered how many listeners would have recognized the riff and remembered fondly the rhyme they learned as children.
Actually, the evidence available suggests that exactly that is the case. The woman who wrote "Kookabura" was still alive (and still held copyright)when the Men at Work song came out. Before she died she gave the copyright to a nonprofit organization (I don't remember the name of te organization--something like the Australian National Library). That organization sold the rights to the song as part of a fund raiser.
Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, Righthaven is a company that exists for the sole purpose of filing copyright lawsuits against anyone who uses any part of an article published by the Las Vegas Review Journal. Righthaven does not publish anything. As far as I can tell, they don't even sell the rights to publish anything. What you miss is that since the organization being sued is a non-profit, Righthaven must show how their publishing of the article reduces Righthaven's ability to make money from the article. Since Righthaven doesn't make money from the article (except from copyright infringement lawsuits), this will be a hard sell in court.
Yes, it is interesting that the blue states "vote against their own interest" as much as the red states. States that vote Democratic tend to send more tax dollars to Washington than they receive. States that vote Republican tend to receive more federal tax dollars than they spend.
I remember my father commenting on the governor of my state (a Democrat at the time) campaigning strongly for a new federal revenue sharing program where the federal government was going to distribute federal money to the states. My father's comment was that this program made no sense for our state as we would end up paying more in the new taxes associated with the program than we would receive.
What you are missing is that Righthaven is the plaintiff in this case and appears to be a copyright troll (that is, they have sued lots of people for copyright infringement, many times in cases that were blatantly fair use). The judge is basically saying, "I don't like you, you have wasted the court's time on numerous occassions, so I am going to force you to make the case that this use in some way damaged your revenue more than it enhanced it."
I will give you that the OP had to vote for one of them. I, also, knew that Obama would be much like he turned out to be. I just don't understand someone who says, "These two candidates are bad, but this guy comes with someone who would have no power and little influence that is worse than the one that comes with the other guy, so I'm going to vote for the other guy even though he is much worse."
The poster I responded to said that he knew exactly what Obama was and voted for him anyway. That is like saying, "I knew this car was more expensive, unreliable and unsafe, but I bought it anyway because the other car I had to choose from was boring."
I knew she was this stupid when it comes to security. She was good at education and better at the budget than some, but her border security policy was awful and never did jack shit towards actually keeping anyone safe. Why she was selected for this, of all jobs, is beyond me.
You answered your question in the first part: "her border security policy was awful and never did jack shit towards actually keeping anyone safe."
What part of "never waste a crisis" didn't you understand? If you have people who are good at their jobs in various high level positions, you might not get enough crises to accomplish all of your goals.
Fastest way to defeat a terrorist is to give him a real job or business to support loved ones with out interference from corruption.
Ah, that would explain why those doctors and engineers who worked and lived in Great Britain blew up the trains a couple years back. If you do a little research on actual terrorists, you will discover that many of them are well-educated people from middle class backgrounds who have excellent job prospects.
Those of us paying attention knew exactly what he was, but voting for McCain/Palin was simply out of the question.
You knew he was somebody who would attempt to increase the power of government at the expense of personal liberty, who would govern arbitrarily and you voted for him anyway?
McCain probably wouldn't have done anything particularly good, but I can't imagine him systematically dismantling civil liberties and the economy. And if you voted against him because of Palin, why would you choose someone you knew would be a bad President to avoid having a bad Vice President (who has almost no power and in a McCain Administration would have had essentially none)?
This is not so much a "lobbying" issue, as it is related to the "earmarks" issue. This provision was put into the bill for the express purpose of protecting the jobs of those who live in Utah and work for ATK.
While I support Congressmen and Senators going to bat for companies located in their districts when they run afoul of bureaucrats, this goes beyond that and appears (and almost certainly is) to be legislators trying to dictate that a particular company be used, which is not in the taxpayers' interest.
Tea Party voters already have their sights set on Senator Hatch. He is next up for re-election in 2012 and will probably face a strong primary challenge. The tea party voters have already removed Bob Bennett from office (he lost in the primary this year and is only still a Senator until the end of the year).
The Federal Reserve Bank is part of the government. It was created by an act of Congress and its Board of Governors is appointed by the President (and confirmed by the Senate). However, each member of the Board of Governors serves for a 14 year term. Additionally, the President selects a member of the Board of Governors to appoint for a 4 year term as Chairman and a second member to serve a 4 year term as Vice Chairman.
So to repeat, the Federal Reserve is a government body. Its governing Board is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. What makes this whole thing more complicated is that the Regional Federal Reserve Banks are not exactly part of the government (they are, also, not exactly private organizations, either).
I have serious doubts as to whether those involved with the writing and approval of the Constitution would consider the Federal Reserve to be Constitutional as currently constructed. I suspect that even Alexander Hamilton (the strongest proponent of a central bank from the period) would have a problem with the way the Federal Reserve was created.
Actually, it is not necessary to use an additional "s" to form a possesive with words that end with an "s" sound. Several sources say that it is prefered, however I find that it is more readable without the additional "s".
basically I just want to read about earthquakes and legal issues without thinking about so much goddamn anal and anuses.
I think that that is probably your problem and not the original poster's. It seems likely that your problem is that you obsess entirely too much about anuses and anal.
I know two people with Ipads. In neither case does "need" have anything to do with it. For that matter, most of the Ipad users who post on Slashdot express that they bought and use the Ipad for reasons other than need.
He didn't say they didn't have a plan for how to use them, he said they didn't work for what they planned to use them for. I work for a company that bought 200 thin clients. We deployed 30 of them and they did not work for the purpose we bought them for. I don't know what was done with the remaining 170. If they had worked out, we would have deployed several thousand over the next couple of years. The failure of these units to meet our business needs still amazes me.
30 sounds about right for a trial deployment in a large organization.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a study a few years back that children raised in the cleanest households were more likely to have allergies and be asthmatic than those raised in households with a small amount of dirt. The authors of the study speculated that this was due to pet dander (their observation was that the difference between the very clean households and the not-so-clean households in their study was the presence of pets). They suggested that a followup study should be conducted to test this explanation. I have yet to see such a study be conducted. The interesting thing about the study was that the incidence of asthma and allergies was reduced as the households got cleaner until a certain point was reached and then the trend reversed.
OK, let me see if I got this straight. They bred some mice that age prematurely, then they developed a therapy that reverses the premature aging and this is supposed to be a treatment for natural aging? Come back to me when they use this treatment on mice (or some other animal) that has naturally aged and it has the same effect, as it is, this is an interesting study about possible avenues to be explored but nothing to get particularly excited about at this time.
Cause or effect? Mental or emotional issues tend to make it harder to live healthily. Try getting someone with clinical depression to exercise or sleep well.
All of those who I knew before they had the problems did not get sufficient exercise or sleep before the mental/emotional problems appeared.
That's a very good point. I have a real simple philosophy: make sure that if things come to a screeching halt, it is not a result of something I have done. If someone else does something that causes things to come to a screeching halt, I'll fix it if I can, but it won't be my head on the line if I can't. I make sure I let my bosses know the extent of my abilities and their limits. I, also make sure they know when someone else is being given the authority to do something that might make the systems I am responsible for come to a screeching halt.
Yes, but you know what, it is a good place to start for whatever ails you. Studies have repeatedly shown that people who get sufficient exercise, sleep and eat a good diet have fewer mental health problems then those who don't. For that matter everyone I know personally who has a mental or emotional issue, either gets little or no exercise, or gets irregular and limited sleep, or eats a diet low on fiber and vitamins, or some combination of the above (often all three). Just because it is a cliche, doesn't mean it is wrong. Once you have addressed these issues that are the cause of at least 50% of most people's mental and emotional problems, you can go on to look at other factors. However, there will be a lot more variance in appropriate courses of action at that point.
You do know that he has been campaigning for re-election since he lost the Presidential race, don't you?
You missed the part of showing how the non-profit reduces the copyright holder's ability to make money from the copyrighted material. The reason that is difficult for Righthaven is because Righthaven doesn't make money from publishing, they make money from suing people.
Unfortunately for Righthaven, the courts have generally interpreted that clause to mean interfering with a copyright holder's ability to make money that they would have made if the infringer hadn't copied their work
I see, you vote based on what a politician says. You know, I've always found it more useful to judge people by what they do, especially when it comes to politicians.
Had I been the composer or copyright owner of "Kookabura", I would have been appreciative of the homage in Men at Work's "Down Under", and would have wondered how many listeners would have recognized the riff and remembered fondly the rhyme they learned as children.
Actually, the evidence available suggests that exactly that is the case. The woman who wrote "Kookabura" was still alive (and still held copyright)when the Men at Work song came out. Before she died she gave the copyright to a nonprofit organization (I don't remember the name of te organization--something like the Australian National Library). That organization sold the rights to the song as part of a fund raiser.
Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, Righthaven is a company that exists for the sole purpose of filing copyright lawsuits against anyone who uses any part of an article published by the Las Vegas Review Journal. Righthaven does not publish anything. As far as I can tell, they don't even sell the rights to publish anything. What you miss is that since the organization being sued is a non-profit, Righthaven must show how their publishing of the article reduces Righthaven's ability to make money from the article. Since Righthaven doesn't make money from the article (except from copyright infringement lawsuits), this will be a hard sell in court.
Yes, it is interesting that the blue states "vote against their own interest" as much as the red states. States that vote Democratic tend to send more tax dollars to Washington than they receive. States that vote Republican tend to receive more federal tax dollars than they spend.
I remember my father commenting on the governor of my state (a Democrat at the time) campaigning strongly for a new federal revenue sharing program where the federal government was going to distribute federal money to the states. My father's comment was that this program made no sense for our state as we would end up paying more in the new taxes associated with the program than we would receive.
What you are missing is that Righthaven is the plaintiff in this case and appears to be a copyright troll (that is, they have sued lots of people for copyright infringement, many times in cases that were blatantly fair use). The judge is basically saying, "I don't like you, you have wasted the court's time on numerous occassions, so I am going to force you to make the case that this use in some way damaged your revenue more than it enhanced it."
I will give you that the OP had to vote for one of them. I, also, knew that Obama would be much like he turned out to be. I just don't understand someone who says, "These two candidates are bad, but this guy comes with someone who would have no power and little influence that is worse than the one that comes with the other guy, so I'm going to vote for the other guy even though he is much worse."
The poster I responded to said that he knew exactly what Obama was and voted for him anyway. That is like saying, "I knew this car was more expensive, unreliable and unsafe, but I bought it anyway because the other car I had to choose from was boring."
I knew she was this stupid when it comes to security. She was good at education and better at the budget than some, but her border security policy was awful and never did jack shit towards actually keeping anyone safe. Why she was selected for this, of all jobs, is beyond me.
You answered your question in the first part: "her border security policy was awful and never did jack shit towards actually keeping anyone safe."
What part of "never waste a crisis" didn't you understand? If you have people who are good at their jobs in various high level positions, you might not get enough crises to accomplish all of your goals.
Fastest way to defeat a terrorist is to give him a real job or business to support loved ones with out interference from corruption.
Ah, that would explain why those doctors and engineers who worked and lived in Great Britain blew up the trains a couple years back. If you do a little research on actual terrorists, you will discover that many of them are well-educated people from middle class backgrounds who have excellent job prospects.
Those of us paying attention knew exactly what he was, but voting for McCain/Palin was simply out of the question.
You knew he was somebody who would attempt to increase the power of government at the expense of personal liberty, who would govern arbitrarily and you voted for him anyway?
McCain probably wouldn't have done anything particularly good, but I can't imagine him systematically dismantling civil liberties and the economy. And if you voted against him because of Palin, why would you choose someone you knew would be a bad President to avoid having a bad Vice President (who has almost no power and in a McCain Administration would have had essentially none)?
The rich also vote Democrat to at least as great a degree as the poor.
This is not so much a "lobbying" issue, as it is related to the "earmarks" issue. This provision was put into the bill for the express purpose of protecting the jobs of those who live in Utah and work for ATK.
While I support Congressmen and Senators going to bat for companies located in their districts when they run afoul of bureaucrats, this goes beyond that and appears (and almost certainly is) to be legislators trying to dictate that a particular company be used, which is not in the taxpayers' interest.
Tea Party voters already have their sights set on Senator Hatch. He is next up for re-election in 2012 and will probably face a strong primary challenge. The tea party voters have already removed Bob Bennett from office (he lost in the primary this year and is only still a Senator until the end of the year).
The Federal Reserve Bank is part of the government. It was created by an act of Congress and its Board of Governors is appointed by the President (and confirmed by the Senate). However, each member of the Board of Governors serves for a 14 year term. Additionally, the President selects a member of the Board of Governors to appoint for a 4 year term as Chairman and a second member to serve a 4 year term as Vice Chairman.
So to repeat, the Federal Reserve is a government body. Its governing Board is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. What makes this whole thing more complicated is that the Regional Federal Reserve Banks are not exactly part of the government (they are, also, not exactly private organizations, either).
I have serious doubts as to whether those involved with the writing and approval of the Constitution would consider the Federal Reserve to be Constitutional as currently constructed. I suspect that even Alexander Hamilton (the strongest proponent of a central bank from the period) would have a problem with the way the Federal Reserve was created.
Actually, it is not necessary to use an additional "s" to form a possesive with words that end with an "s" sound. Several sources say that it is prefered, however I find that it is more readable without the additional "s".
basically I just want to read about earthquakes and legal issues without thinking about so much goddamn anal and anuses.
I think that that is probably your problem and not the original poster's. It seems likely that your problem is that you obsess entirely too much about anuses and anal.
I know two people with Ipads. In neither case does "need" have anything to do with it. For that matter, most of the Ipad users who post on Slashdot express that they bought and use the Ipad for reasons other than need.
He didn't say they didn't have a plan for how to use them, he said they didn't work for what they planned to use them for. I work for a company that bought 200 thin clients. We deployed 30 of them and they did not work for the purpose we bought them for. I don't know what was done with the remaining 170. If they had worked out, we would have deployed several thousand over the next couple of years. The failure of these units to meet our business needs still amazes me.
30 sounds about right for a trial deployment in a large organization.