I can imagine how this will work in the much hated in the US 'welfare states', but the US society itself is in a lot of trouble the way it is set now.
You don't think "'welfare states'" will be in trouble if 30-50% of working age adults become unemployed? (Note, "welfare states" is not the term I'd use; I'm quoting the previous poster.)
Doing research in response to unsupported assertions is the reason this country is in the pits?
What the hell is "You just invalidated a part of his reply and equated it to an invalid reply" even supposed to mean? I responded to a particular portion of his post - one entirely unrelated to his actual main point, and thus easily separable - and provided facts that demonstrate that portion to be inaccurate. And it should be clear this is what I did, since I quoted the portion I was responding to.
I said nothing about the validity of the rest of his points. I have no independent information to evaluate what he said about the EU. I haven't seen the commercial he described. Maybe what he said about the EU is accurate. I don't know. Hence, I didn't respond to that part of the post.
In sum, I presented facts (with citations) to contradict a small portion of a post. I deliberately did not comment on the portions of a post about which I had no specific knowledge. In what world does responding to that by calling someone an a**hole help make this country less "in pits"?
In the United States, it's clear that the government just doesn't care about false advertising any more
Wow, you are very misinformed. Example 1.Example 2.Example 3.Example 4.Example 5. All this year (most in the last month), all from the FTC, all just a small fraction of recent efforts. There are also several other federal agencies and at least 50 state agencies that go after false advertising.
Court-ordered swapping of bank account info in divorce cases isn't "next," it's previous - as in it's been a pretty standard order in contested divorce cases for years.
Hell it can't even play H.264 Main/High profile video at 720p.
Both my Transformer and my Xoom have been able to play H.264 Main/High profile since Android 3.1 came out. The original problem was caused by software problem, not hardware. Link.
I far prefer having a 401k than a pension plan. It gives me more job mobility - most pensions back-load the benefits, so that those who move from job to job have less at retirement - and puts me less at the mercy of corrupt management or corrupt union bosses (depending on who manages the pension fund). It also allows companies to easily predict compensation costs associated with retirement, which as an employee prevents me from facing an underfunded pension plan that ends up paying pennies on the dollar.
The only downside for me is that I face the market risk, rather than the pension fund. But I have more flexibility to do that than I do in a pension fund - check out how many pension funds have become insolvent - so I'm ok with that.
Funny, my IE9 has Google as the default search provider. I had to test it to check, since I normally don't use IE, but the setting works great. It's been like that since I installed it and changed the setting.
You're wrong. Water is created and destroyed constantly. For example, photosynthesis uses 6 molecules of water and 6 molecules of CO2 to make 6 O2 and 6 sugar molecules. Burning methane results in new water molecules being created, too. And, of course, burning hydrogen results in new water molecules.
Where does the 4th amendment state that a formal charge is required before demanding information or papers? Warrants issue upon probably cause. That's a very low burden. Moreover, there's no requirement that only suspected criminals can have their papers and effects searched. If there is probable cause to believe a search will result in evidence of a crime, then a warrant can be issued, whether or not the person who owns the items being searched is thought to have committed the crime. Basically, if police have probable cause to believe you hid the stolen car in my garage, police can search my garage even if they know I had nothing to do with stealing the car.
When you post a link, the moderation can refer to the link as well as the post itself. And, in this case, the link contains something that a reasonable person could identify as "flamebait". Specifically, "Jobs was a technological visionary, but he was also a holier-than-thou asshole."
Beyond that, straw-manning people's motives is another common form of flamebait, and you did that in your post, too: "The media, of course, is in love with walled gardens, and are in awe of Jobs' ability to sell them. It all makes total and complete sense." It's a cheap form of commentary to dismiss the motives of those who have said something you disagree with in this way.
I wouldn't have bothered to mod it flamebait, but there's far too many reasons someone could deem that post flamebait to justify your knee-jerk application of the "shill" label. That's the post I would have modded flamebait.
Also, don't you have to be sober when you agree to a contract for it to be binding?
No. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_v._Zehmer. It's not the intent, but the meaning of the words and acts as observed by the other party. Inebriation is not generally a defense.
This is NOT a defense of Westboro in any way, shape, or form. But the recent Supreme Court ruling about Westboro did not say they were allowed to say "those sorts of things out loud" at "the funeral or memorial service." The court was very clear it was not addressing the state laws limiting protests, demonstrations, or speeches at or near funerals. It specifically noted that the only part of the protest that people at the service, cemetery, or in between could see was the top of the protestor's heads - not even the signs were visible. Further, the lawsuit the court rejected originally included things that had been posted online (not at a site dedicated to the deceased soldier, but at Westboro's site). The court expressly left open the question as to whether the forced audience standard could be used to establish liability against someone who said outrageously offensive things where a funeral attendee had no choice but to listen or leave the funeral.
In other words, all the Supreme Court decided was that when a protest is done in accordance with state laws designed to eliminate or limit attendees' exposure to hateful speech while at the funeral services or in transit between them, the mourners may not sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress. States may still prevent people from protesting at or near funerals.
Why does every comment here have a score of exactly two minutes after the article was posted?
Is it standard practice to mod up your own comments here. FUCK THIS.
Calm down. People who have been moderated up enough times in the past have +1 to their comments' scores as a Karma Bonus Modifier. You can change this for your profile, which would drop a bunch of the +2s you see down to +1.
Only complete retards drive at 120-150mph on public roads.
You missed a couple of important words: "relative speed." If you drive 60 MPH and oncoming traffic drives 60, then an accident with an oncoming car will be at 120 MPH relative speed.
You can't just "not buy it", or "not grow it". There's a big issue here in the states with Monsanto and their GM crops being cross pollinated into smaller, local farmers fields. Monsanto can go to court, then force the farmers to pay for the right to grow those crops that now contain their gene.
I'm aware of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser]case in Canada[/url]. Brief research turns up lots of cases in the U.S. accusing farmers who bought round-up ready seed of saving seed from one harvest to plant in later years - including some with examples of very dishonest behavior on Monsanto's part. But thats quite different than what you described. Can you link some examples in the U.S.?
Wow. I was going to respond to all Dr.Bob's detractors with a great big Whoosh! I interpreted his post as sarcasm. I'm glad I looked at his post history first.
The article you link doesn't say anything close to that. In fact, the claim Moore makes doesn't come close to saying that. He's saying that the richest 400 control more wealth than the poorest 50%. The poorest 50% don't control 50% of the wealth - that would be impossible unless wealth were evenly distributed.
In fact, the article says that in 2009, the richest 400 controled 1.27 trillion, out of 53.1 trillion total wealth, or 2.4%. That's not close to 50%.
Now, your conclusion that "we have a major oligarchy problem as it stands" may be correct even based on 400 people holding 2.4% of total household net worth. More relevant might be that 60% of the people only hold about 2.4% of the wealth. But claims like "400 people control 50% of the wealth" are false. It boggles the mind that someone would make such a claim and link as evidence an article that actually refutes it.
Well, for a simple example - most countries that can afford some sort of public health option... have one.
Please do not tell me that your entire view of world politics is based on whether they have some sort of public health option or not.
Perhaps you missed the first five words of the quote you responded to. How do you go from someone's "a simple example" to their "entire view of world politics"?
I see it like this: IIRC, Franklin didn't patent his stove design. What if he'd sold one to someone, they quickly realized he'd not patented it, then they patent it. That gives them a right to his profits, without having done any work, all because he neglected to patent his invention before selling it.
No, the person who bought the stove would still have to prove they invented it. And if Franklin could prove he sold him a model that looks just like the one the fraudster is trying to patent, it'd be pretty easy for Franklin to prevail.
That doesn't mean this is a good change - it will clog the patent system as people rush to file prematurely - but it's not as bad as some are making it out to be.
A simple thermostat wouldn't hold temperature constant enough for a lot of sous vide. One degree can radically alter some dishes, and some cooking is done at the lower end of safety ranges (like pasteurizing burgers at a 131F or braising short ribs at 135F for 24 hours). A simple thermostat would suffice for long-term braises at higher temperatures, but I'd want some additional temperature monitoring for safety's sake.
There are a couple of solutions available. Sous Vide Supreme offers an all-in-one waterbath with a PID temperature controller, but no active circulation (relies on convection), for $400 or $300 depending on size. The Fresh Meals Magic is an immersible PID-controlled heater and air bubbler (to provide circulation) for $300 (up to 18 L capacity), or you can get a PID controller for $160 to use with an analog rice cooker or a slow cooker. The PID controller basically acts like a smart dimmer switch to control the amount of heat the cooker puts out. For $800 you can get a Polyscience immersion circulator.
I rather expect that regardless of how many pages he's filled, Myhrvold has more to learn from Adria than Adria has to learn from Myrhvold.
I expect so, too. I expect that Myhrvold would agree. Nonetheless, Myhrvold is documenting new techniques that Adria will use - and likely expand on. More importantly, Myhrvold is making those techniques more accessible to newcomers to the field than Adria has. The fact that Adria could have written a better book on the subject doesn't mean Myhrvold's book lacks value.
Ferran Adrià of El Bulli has said, “This book will change the way we understand the kitchen.” David Chang, the chef and owner of Momofuku, called “Modernist Cuisine” “the cookbook to end all cookbooks.” As Mr. Chang explained, “Only someone like Nathan could do something this comprehensive and rigorous, and we will probably never see another cookbook like it again.”
"A fascinating overview of the techniques of modern gastronomy." --Heston Blumenthal
Myhrvold has always acknowledged the contributions of people like Blumenthal, Dufresne, and Adria to modernist cuisine and to the techniques he describes in his book. That's probably why he co-authored the book with one of Blumenthal's protoges.
Slashdot Mirror
I can imagine how this will work in the much hated in the US 'welfare states', but the US society itself is in a lot of trouble the way it is set now.
You don't think "'welfare states'" will be in trouble if 30-50% of working age adults become unemployed? (Note, "welfare states" is not the term I'd use; I'm quoting the previous poster.)
Doing research in response to unsupported assertions is the reason this country is in the pits?
What the hell is "You just invalidated a part of his reply and equated it to an invalid reply" even supposed to mean? I responded to a particular portion of his post - one entirely unrelated to his actual main point, and thus easily separable - and provided facts that demonstrate that portion to be inaccurate. And it should be clear this is what I did, since I quoted the portion I was responding to.
I said nothing about the validity of the rest of his points. I have no independent information to evaluate what he said about the EU. I haven't seen the commercial he described. Maybe what he said about the EU is accurate. I don't know. Hence, I didn't respond to that part of the post.
In sum, I presented facts (with citations) to contradict a small portion of a post. I deliberately did not comment on the portions of a post about which I had no specific knowledge. In what world does responding to that by calling someone an a**hole help make this country less "in pits"?
In the United States, it's clear that the government just doesn't care about false advertising any more
Wow, you are very misinformed. Example 1. Example 2. Example 3. Example 4. Example 5. All this year (most in the last month), all from the FTC, all just a small fraction of recent efforts. There are also several other federal agencies and at least 50 state agencies that go after false advertising.
It's 99.99% open volume. Sounds feasible to me.
What's next, swapping bank account info?
Court-ordered swapping of bank account info in divorce cases isn't "next," it's previous - as in it's been a pretty standard order in contested divorce cases for years.
Hell it can't even play H.264 Main/High profile video at 720p.
Both my Transformer and my Xoom have been able to play H.264 Main/High profile since Android 3.1 came out. The original problem was caused by software problem, not hardware. Link.
I far prefer having a 401k than a pension plan. It gives me more job mobility - most pensions back-load the benefits, so that those who move from job to job have less at retirement - and puts me less at the mercy of corrupt management or corrupt union bosses (depending on who manages the pension fund). It also allows companies to easily predict compensation costs associated with retirement, which as an employee prevents me from facing an underfunded pension plan that ends up paying pennies on the dollar.
The only downside for me is that I face the market risk, rather than the pension fund. But I have more flexibility to do that than I do in a pension fund - check out how many pension funds have become insolvent - so I'm ok with that.
Funny, my IE9 has Google as the default search provider. I had to test it to check, since I normally don't use IE, but the setting works great. It's been like that since I installed it and changed the setting.
You're wrong. Water is created and destroyed constantly. For example, photosynthesis uses 6 molecules of water and 6 molecules of CO2 to make 6 O2 and 6 sugar molecules. Burning methane results in new water molecules being created, too. And, of course, burning hydrogen results in new water molecules.
goatse - someone mod this troll down, please.
Where does the 4th amendment state that a formal charge is required before demanding information or papers? Warrants issue upon probably cause. That's a very low burden. Moreover, there's no requirement that only suspected criminals can have their papers and effects searched. If there is probable cause to believe a search will result in evidence of a crime, then a warrant can be issued, whether or not the person who owns the items being searched is thought to have committed the crime. Basically, if police have probable cause to believe you hid the stolen car in my garage, police can search my garage even if they know I had nothing to do with stealing the car.
When you post a link, the moderation can refer to the link as well as the post itself. And, in this case, the link contains something that a reasonable person could identify as "flamebait". Specifically, "Jobs was a technological visionary, but he was also a holier-than-thou asshole."
Beyond that, straw-manning people's motives is another common form of flamebait, and you did that in your post, too: "The media, of course, is in love with walled gardens, and are in awe of Jobs' ability to sell them. It all makes total and complete sense." It's a cheap form of commentary to dismiss the motives of those who have said something you disagree with in this way.
I wouldn't have bothered to mod it flamebait, but there's far too many reasons someone could deem that post flamebait to justify your knee-jerk application of the "shill" label. That's the post I would have modded flamebait.
Also, don't you have to be sober when you agree to a contract for it to be binding?
No. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_v._Zehmer . It's not the intent, but the meaning of the words and acts as observed by the other party. Inebriation is not generally a defense.
This is NOT a defense of Westboro in any way, shape, or form. But the recent Supreme Court ruling about Westboro did not say they were allowed to say "those sorts of things out loud" at "the funeral or memorial service." The court was very clear it was not addressing the state laws limiting protests, demonstrations, or speeches at or near funerals. It specifically noted that the only part of the protest that people at the service, cemetery, or in between could see was the top of the protestor's heads - not even the signs were visible. Further, the lawsuit the court rejected originally included things that had been posted online (not at a site dedicated to the deceased soldier, but at Westboro's site). The court expressly left open the question as to whether the forced audience standard could be used to establish liability against someone who said outrageously offensive things where a funeral attendee had no choice but to listen or leave the funeral.
In other words, all the Supreme Court decided was that when a protest is done in accordance with state laws designed to eliminate or limit attendees' exposure to hateful speech while at the funeral services or in transit between them, the mourners may not sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress. States may still prevent people from protesting at or near funerals.
Why does every comment here have a score of exactly two minutes after the article was posted? Is it standard practice to mod up your own comments here. FUCK THIS.
Calm down. People who have been moderated up enough times in the past have +1 to their comments' scores as a Karma Bonus Modifier. You can change this for your profile, which would drop a bunch of the +2s you see down to +1.
Only complete retards drive at 120-150mph on public roads.
You missed a couple of important words: "relative speed." If you drive 60 MPH and oncoming traffic drives 60, then an accident with an oncoming car will be at 120 MPH relative speed.
You can't just "not buy it", or "not grow it". There's a big issue here in the states with Monsanto and their GM crops being cross pollinated into smaller, local farmers fields. Monsanto can go to court, then force the farmers to pay for the right to grow those crops that now contain their gene.
I'm aware of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser]case in Canada[/url]. Brief research turns up lots of cases in the U.S. accusing farmers who bought round-up ready seed of saving seed from one harvest to plant in later years - including some with examples of very dishonest behavior on Monsanto's part. But thats quite different than what you described. Can you link some examples in the U.S.?
Wow. I was going to respond to all Dr.Bob's detractors with a great big Whoosh! I interpreted his post as sarcasm. I'm glad I looked at his post history first.
And in a country where just 400 people control over 50% of the wealth
The article you link doesn't say anything close to that. In fact, the claim Moore makes doesn't come close to saying that. He's saying that the richest 400 control more wealth than the poorest 50%. The poorest 50% don't control 50% of the wealth - that would be impossible unless wealth were evenly distributed.
In fact, the article says that in 2009, the richest 400 controled 1.27 trillion, out of 53.1 trillion total wealth, or 2.4%. That's not close to 50%.
Now, your conclusion that "we have a major oligarchy problem as it stands" may be correct even based on 400 people holding 2.4% of total household net worth. More relevant might be that 60% of the people only hold about 2.4% of the wealth. But claims like "400 people control 50% of the wealth" are false. It boggles the mind that someone would make such a claim and link as evidence an article that actually refutes it.
Well, for a simple example - most countries that can afford some sort of public health option... have one.
Please do not tell me that your entire view of world politics is based on whether they have some sort of public health option or not.
Perhaps you missed the first five words of the quote you responded to. How do you go from someone's "a simple example" to their "entire view of world politics"?
I see it like this: IIRC, Franklin didn't patent his stove design. What if he'd sold one to someone, they quickly realized he'd not patented it, then they patent it. That gives them a right to his profits, without having done any work, all because he neglected to patent his invention before selling it.
No, the person who bought the stove would still have to prove they invented it. And if Franklin could prove he sold him a model that looks just like the one the fraudster is trying to patent, it'd be pretty easy for Franklin to prevail.
That doesn't mean this is a good change - it will clog the patent system as people rush to file prematurely - but it's not as bad as some are making it out to be.
A simple thermostat wouldn't hold temperature constant enough for a lot of sous vide. One degree can radically alter some dishes, and some cooking is done at the lower end of safety ranges (like pasteurizing burgers at a 131F or braising short ribs at 135F for 24 hours). A simple thermostat would suffice for long-term braises at higher temperatures, but I'd want some additional temperature monitoring for safety's sake.
There are a couple of solutions available. Sous Vide Supreme offers an all-in-one waterbath with a PID temperature controller, but no active circulation (relies on convection), for $400 or $300 depending on size. The Fresh Meals Magic is an immersible PID-controlled heater and air bubbler (to provide circulation) for $300 (up to 18 L capacity), or you can get a PID controller for $160 to use with an analog rice cooker or a slow cooker. The PID controller basically acts like a smart dimmer switch to control the amount of heat the cooker puts out. For $800 you can get a Polyscience immersion circulator.
I rather expect that regardless of how many pages he's filled, Myhrvold has more to learn from Adria than Adria has to learn from Myrhvold.
I expect so, too. I expect that Myhrvold would agree. Nonetheless, Myhrvold is documenting new techniques that Adria will use - and likely expand on. More importantly, Myhrvold is making those techniques more accessible to newcomers to the field than Adria has. The fact that Adria could have written a better book on the subject doesn't mean Myhrvold's book lacks value.
Funny you should mention Ferran Adria. He seems to like the book, as does David Chang:
Ferran Adrià of El Bulli has said, “This book will change the way we understand the kitchen.” David Chang, the chef and owner of Momofuku, called “Modernist Cuisine” “the cookbook to end all cookbooks.” As Mr. Chang explained, “Only someone like Nathan could do something this comprehensive and rigorous, and we will probably never see another cookbook like it again.”
Blumenthal likes it too (and Wylie Dusfresne, too):
"A fascinating overview of the techniques of modern gastronomy." --Heston Blumenthal
Myhrvold has always acknowledged the contributions of people like Blumenthal, Dufresne, and Adria to modernist cuisine and to the techniques he describes in his book. That's probably why he co-authored the book with one of Blumenthal's protoges.