Why would they need to change the laws? They probably aren't breaking them, musicians just don't like their music being used by politicians they disdain. That doesn't make it illegal.
Milk's issue for Celiac disease sufferers is generally due to the lack of cilia. If you're gluten-free long enough to regenerate them, you should be fine with milk again. It's not because there's little gluten proteins in your GM milk. And in what world is genetically modified corn harmful to people with Celiac disease?
Maybe you don't have supermarkets in Europe, but there are tons of them here in the US. They always have a gluten-free section in the natural foods area, and many of our other products have dropped an ingredient and are now gluten-free as well (especially cereals). I don't know what frozen foods you're buying, but I constantly read labels and straight frozen vegetables and meat are always safe. Do you mean the frozen prepared meals? Here, you just need to be prepared to go to the right part of the store for those (and pay 3-5 times as much money). I even know local pizza places that have gluten-free options now.
I hate to sound like a jerk, but I'm surprised you haven't done more research on your disease. There's a lot of information on it out there, and life doesn't suck for you like it would have 20 years ago.
Are you really getting anywhere near 250 GB of use per month? I know use tends to grow over time, but we use ours constantly and haven't hit over 80 GB or so in a month. And how much additional usage do you really think DNSSEC will generate for an end-user?
I predict that would work as well as banning "payola". They'd just funnel their "contributions" through an additional layer or two of indirection: discounted TV spots, tickets to movie premiers, free services, free upgrades, etc.
The "National Organization For Marriage" has been blasting my Google Reader ads for a week, about how Ron Paul is the only candidate (out of Mitt, Santorum, Newt, Obama, Paul) who is "wrong on marriage". They say he "REFUSES to defend traditional marriage" (as opposed to their photo of Obama) and "RON PAUL says "Sure" GAYS should be able to marry."
It sounds like you may want to reconsider which candidates support gay marriage, since Ron Paul is apparently the only one who believes in it enough for them to oppose him. http://www.wrongonmarriage.com/
I frequently walk to work, which is a real challenge here since some of the lights don't have crosswalks here and I'm the only person on foot. My argument is not on my own account.
Gas taxes hit poor people with old vehicles much harder than affluent people with large vehicles. You're not thinking like an economist, you're thinking like a politician. As was Knittel.
It may benefit the local producers, but not the economy overall. If it were more efficient to buy locally-produced goods, they would already be cheaper.
He should ask some economists. If we wanted to optional travel, gas taxes would help. But our whole nation's economy depends on motor vehicle travel to move goods. Raising gas taxes would significantly increase the cost of all goods and possibly bump us toward recession. It happens every time gas prices spike due to factors outside our control. So maybe the number of economists wouldn't be 98% after all.
If you read it, the theme is, "The government needs to spend a lot of money directly on research in order for research to happen". I don't believe that. I think the out-of-control patent system is what's messed up our research. The place where I work does things in specific ways in order to be within the realm of our patents and (as far as I can tell) outside others' patents. That's stupid. We should all be able to use the best system possible that we can think of, without getting sued by competitors who think of the same ideas.
Maybe if we discover that herpes is the cause of most cancers, instead of just a handful, it will receive some attention. If an incurable disease isn't killing people, it's not as much of a concern.
Why is anyone surprised? A pledge, not backed up by, say, a money-back guarantee, is meaningless. If these people could get a refund for their phones if they weren't updated, the "pledge" would have teeth. This is why nobody trusts companies who pledge not to sue over patents. This is why people didn't trust AT&T about their merger pledges. Pledges are just for PR and they mean nothing.
With any luck, at some point we'll have good enough simulated models to more accurately represent humans biomedically than chimps do. I doubt that we'll be able to do that with behavioral research. So how can we do effective behavioral research, if we can't use humans or similar non-humans? Are we required to exclusively use gathered, instead of experimental, data in the future?
Surprised nobody else has said it, but it also helps if you have a piece-of-junk car. People don't expect to find anything worth stealing if you have visible rust and dents on a 10-year-old Ford or Saturn. I've never had a car broken into, and I frequently leave (small amounts of) cash in plain sight and a backpack with a laptop in the back seat.
This is the easy way to deal with it. You have a "PAYT" (Pay As You Throw) system with recyclables and compost taken for free. You incentivize the behavior you want, instead of mandating it.
I believe the concern is that it will be required for every transaction to prove it's authorized by you and as an internet "driver's license" so that you can't do anything without being tracked by the government and various industry groups. We like our anonymity.
This is actually very easy to deal with. The driver is still liable. The insurers decide, based on the cars, the expected crash rate for autonomous vehicles. They don't really care about individual situations, they care about overall numbers. They can choose how much to charge if it's an automated driver, and how much if it's a physical driver, and pay out if it fails. It's really not a hard system. If autonomous vehicles are safer drivers, they will take over a lot faster due to significantly reduced insurance costs relative to physical drivers.
You're missing John Barrow (D), Karen Bass (D), John Conyers (D), Howard Berman (D), Ted Deutch (D), Ben Lujan (D), Adam Schiff (D), William Owens (D), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D), and Melvin Watt (D). Surely if we're going to support the (R) candidates we should support the (D) candidates with the same beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would they need to change the laws? They probably aren't breaking them, musicians just don't like their music being used by politicians they disdain. That doesn't make it illegal.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/03482614973/dear-musicians-once-again-politicians-can-probably-play-your-songs-events-without-your-permission.shtml
Not to mention that Australian IDs are ridiculously easy to fake. They're a lot less complex than US or Canadian IDs.
I've used DVI. It's been nice for monitors that got signal interference on RGB from noisy power supplies.
The EU Commission is elected by gorvernments who themselves are elected. That's barely legitimate when it comes to democracy.
In the US, that's how we used to elect our Senators. We changed that in 1913. It's amusing that you say it's "barely legitimate" as some people here want to roll back the amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Milk's issue for Celiac disease sufferers is generally due to the lack of cilia. If you're gluten-free long enough to regenerate them, you should be fine with milk again. It's not because there's little gluten proteins in your GM milk. And in what world is genetically modified corn harmful to people with Celiac disease?
Maybe you don't have supermarkets in Europe, but there are tons of them here in the US. They always have a gluten-free section in the natural foods area, and many of our other products have dropped an ingredient and are now gluten-free as well (especially cereals). I don't know what frozen foods you're buying, but I constantly read labels and straight frozen vegetables and meat are always safe. Do you mean the frozen prepared meals? Here, you just need to be prepared to go to the right part of the store for those (and pay 3-5 times as much money). I even know local pizza places that have gluten-free options now.
I hate to sound like a jerk, but I'm surprised you haven't done more research on your disease. There's a lot of information on it out there, and life doesn't suck for you like it would have 20 years ago.
Different definition of popular. This is using it in the "most used" sense, not the "most liked" sense.
Are you really getting anywhere near 250 GB of use per month? I know use tends to grow over time, but we use ours constantly and haven't hit over 80 GB or so in a month. And how much additional usage do you really think DNSSEC will generate for an end-user?
I predict that would work as well as banning "payola". They'd just funnel their "contributions" through an additional layer or two of indirection: discounted TV spots, tickets to movie premiers, free services, free upgrades, etc.
The "National Organization For Marriage" has been blasting my Google Reader ads for a week, about how Ron Paul is the only candidate (out of Mitt, Santorum, Newt, Obama, Paul) who is "wrong on marriage". They say he "REFUSES to defend traditional marriage" (as opposed to their photo of Obama) and "RON PAUL says "Sure" GAYS should be able to marry."
It sounds like you may want to reconsider which candidates support gay marriage, since Ron Paul is apparently the only one who believes in it enough for them to oppose him. http://www.wrongonmarriage.com/
I frequently walk to work, which is a real challenge here since some of the lights don't have crosswalks here and I'm the only person on foot. My argument is not on my own account.
Gas taxes hit poor people with old vehicles much harder than affluent people with large vehicles. You're not thinking like an economist, you're thinking like a politician. As was Knittel.
It may benefit the local producers, but not the economy overall. If it were more efficient to buy locally-produced goods, they would already be cheaper.
If he wanted to discourage optional travel, or slightly influence choice of car when people can next afford to buy one. Sorry for the typo there.
He should ask some economists. If we wanted to optional travel, gas taxes would help. But our whole nation's economy depends on motor vehicle travel to move goods. Raising gas taxes would significantly increase the cost of all goods and possibly bump us toward recession. It happens every time gas prices spike due to factors outside our control. So maybe the number of economists wouldn't be 98% after all.
If you read it, the theme is, "The government needs to spend a lot of money directly on research in order for research to happen". I don't believe that. I think the out-of-control patent system is what's messed up our research. The place where I work does things in specific ways in order to be within the realm of our patents and (as far as I can tell) outside others' patents. That's stupid. We should all be able to use the best system possible that we can think of, without getting sued by competitors who think of the same ideas.
Maybe if we discover that herpes is the cause of most cancers, instead of just a handful, it will receive some attention. If an incurable disease isn't killing people, it's not as much of a concern.
Why is anyone surprised? A pledge, not backed up by, say, a money-back guarantee, is meaningless. If these people could get a refund for their phones if they weren't updated, the "pledge" would have teeth. This is why nobody trusts companies who pledge not to sue over patents. This is why people didn't trust AT&T about their merger pledges. Pledges are just for PR and they mean nothing.
With any luck, at some point we'll have good enough simulated models to more accurately represent humans biomedically than chimps do. I doubt that we'll be able to do that with behavioral research. So how can we do effective behavioral research, if we can't use humans or similar non-humans? Are we required to exclusively use gathered, instead of experimental, data in the future?
Surprised nobody else has said it, but it also helps if you have a piece-of-junk car. People don't expect to find anything worth stealing if you have visible rust and dents on a 10-year-old Ford or Saturn. I've never had a car broken into, and I frequently leave (small amounts of) cash in plain sight and a backpack with a laptop in the back seat.
You sure none of them borrow it from a friend or a library? I've seen that a lot.
This is the easy way to deal with it. You have a "PAYT" (Pay As You Throw) system with recyclables and compost taken for free. You incentivize the behavior you want, instead of mandating it.
I believe the concern is that it will be required for every transaction to prove it's authorized by you and as an internet "driver's license" so that you can't do anything without being tracked by the government and various industry groups. We like our anonymity.
Obviously the government shouldn't know your Social Security number...
This is actually very easy to deal with. The driver is still liable. The insurers decide, based on the cars, the expected crash rate for autonomous vehicles. They don't really care about individual situations, they care about overall numbers. They can choose how much to charge if it's an automated driver, and how much if it's a physical driver, and pay out if it fails. It's really not a hard system. If autonomous vehicles are safer drivers, they will take over a lot faster due to significantly reduced insurance costs relative to physical drivers.
You're missing John Barrow (D), Karen Bass (D), John Conyers (D), Howard Berman (D), Ted Deutch (D), Ben Lujan (D), Adam Schiff (D), William Owens (D), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D), and Melvin Watt (D). Surely if we're going to support the (R) candidates we should support the (D) candidates with the same beliefs.
If you think that's what the Pirate Party holds as its political platform, you're an idiot or a shill.