Actually, I bought one because the BT HomeHub 5 provided for free by British Telecoms is just absolute rubbish, trying to be "helpful" when it loses its internet connection and failing miserably.
I just run hostapd on my linux box. Since I have an always-on server anyway, turning it into a WAP saves me one more device to plug in. I realize that won't work well for grandma's house, but any decent geek house has an always on server running, probably sitting right next to a dedicate WAP.
We should pass a law: if any public funding is used for research, the public has a right to free and unfettered access of your research results... end of story.
In the US, NIH policy requires that NIH-funded research be deposited in PubMed Central, a taxpayer-funded archive of published work. This is not quite unfettered access, as the incumbent publishers forced them to accept a 12-month lag between publication and archiving, but it's pretty good. The NSF (which is only ~25% as big as NIH) claims public archiving as a goal, but not a requirement. I believe ERC has a similar policy.
For the most part, these policies date to about 2005, and most journals have been very reluctant to give up control of their 'legacy' content. That's what the publishers are holding hostage behind their paywalls: the most recent 12 months and everything older than 2005.
Libraries of big universities could simply provide the infrastructure to publish (online only) journals. There is not much needed as most of the work is already done by volunteers (reviewers / editors) so this could be really cheap.
The NIH, through PubMed Central, already provides the infrastructure for archiving (biomedical) articles. In fact, they demand that any publications resulting from NIH-funded research be archived there (with a 1-year delay from release by the official publisher). I believe ERC has a similar requirement for European research Some of the best journals have put their entire historical archives there (J Physiol back to 1878), but most journals only since the 2008 NIH mandate.
The problem is not the infrastructure to do online publishing. The problem is incumbency. The people who actually run the journals are, for the most part, tied to their historical publishing partners. I'm thinking especially of the 'big' journals that are the official publications of various academic societies. They are as locked in to publishers' workflow software as most people are to Microsoft Office.
Personally, I think every academic society, each of which claim education and public dissemination of science as core values, should make their historical archives available through PubMed Central, arXiv, or similar. Most of them have been digitized. Most of them are available to society members or journal subscribers. Most of them cost $30-$50 per article for the public to read, and there's no reason for that. If the society you belong to has not released its legacy content, ask your leadership, Why not?
It's money, isn't it. "Why do you want to work here?". Money. Slightly different problems elsewhere.
Company founders, generally, aren't in it for the money. They're in it because they think they have a cool widget and really want other people to value that widget. They want everyone they work with to share that passion.
Workers want to trade time for money. They share the management belief that employees are faceless, fungible cogs that can be plugged into tasks without any real connection to the business or widget. Coding, digging coal, torturing puppies, whatever...it's just a job.
Healthy people are somewhere in between. Sip the coolaid, join the team, but make sure your personal well-being is not 100% dependent on success. You'll have a lot more fun when the widget wins. You'll do better work. You'll still be able to change jobs if things go to crap.
Yes, the hypocrisy is the most stunning thing about this guys position. His rationalisation for SIGINT was "if the state knows everything, they'll see that you're truly a good person", where the word good should of course actually read loyal.
"Socrates" describes himself as a libertarian. Bemoans that he can not just load up his family in a wagon and head out for the prairie. Confesses to guilt/confusion when watching his superiors "misuse" his surveillance product. Then tells the entire, internal NSA audience that they just have suck up the cognitive dissonance and trust that their superiors know what they're doing (or at least that everything will work out in the end).
His whole life seems to be built around justifying his whims. The story about the failed polygraph perhaps best of all: "the needle jumped" on certain questions, and he's sure that, if he could just give the interrogator a longer explanation, then the interrogator would understand that he's really done nothing wrong (completely independent of whether he actually has done anything wrong). This mindset is exactly why you should never talk to the police. It's why Jamie Lee Hood thought he could get a jury to set him free, essentially by claiming the cop he shot initiated the aggression.
Well, can't have it both ways. I agree - they should have doxxed him. And if/when random strangers turn up outside his house, follow his wife and kids around, and constantly force him to justify his life.... he can't complain.
"Socrates" is an idiot, content to follow orders while fantasizing about life as a rugged individualist. Lots of us are like that. He doesn't deserve to be made a target for all the other nutbags out there.
A) You did not perform wholesale collection, but targeted collection. If you threw away the innocent stuff. You actually build FILES ON EVERYBODY and no amount of denial invalidates this
Stored data doesn't count as a "file," until a human looks at it. That's a big difference between the Stasi and the NSA: Stasi had actual humans examine and physically sort pieces of data; NSA does it by computer, hence no "file".
B) Would go after folks like Cheney and Bush when they work for the Saudis and Israel.
Elected officials, by definition, represent and therefore do the will of the people. The appropriate question to ask is why the people would want to place the security and welfare of a foreign nation above their own. The answer to this may lie in massive data archive, given the right analysis.
C) Would go after those who still suck up to Saudi Money, like the British guy.
Why do you hate our way of life? There is nothing better than to find a source of money and suck it dry. Capitalism means everything is for sale.
Collecting the data is the actual work. Any idiot with a computer can make the analysis. And draw the wrong conclusions from that.
It's a shame that so many people seem to agree with this. I would put it exactly the opposite: any idiot can be trained to collect data; knowing what data to collect, why to collect it, how it fits in with 100 years of pre-existing data, and how to condense all of that into a concise but readable story is the difficult (and creative) part.
Maybe it's learned from student science labs, where you spend a lot of time getting the mechanics of an experiment to work, then plug the numbers into a pre-set template for analysis. Of course, those labs are exactly about training students to collect data, and not so much about doing science. Maybe it's learned from the media, where an uninformed reporter picks a bit of data out of a paper and concludes the green coffee extract is a fat-cure-all. Maybe it's just that it takes a lot of work to be able to distinguish good work that advances our state of knowledge from a mountain of data that doesn't really say anything.
The grad student writes the paper and his adviser wants his name included because he "advised".
I've read enough PhD theses to know that very few students write their own papers. The difference between the chapters that have been accepted for publication in a journal and those that submission is still pending is easily determined. Nevermind the unseen contributions refining the research topic, the methodology, and analysis.
There's a reason science still works by the apprenticeship model. If you think you wrote your own Ph.D. thesis, you're either pathologically egotistical or your advisor died in your second year.
True, however, a poor diet of fast food, highly processed snacks and soda is harder to reduce than a good well balanced diet.
Leave the last bite of Big Mac on the table. Leave the last six french fries on the plate. Processed/packaged food is sold in doses that satisfy "most" people, which means they are more food than most people need. We've all grown up with the pressure to clean our plate, to not take more than we can eat, to not throw away perfectly good food. When someone puts too much food in front of us, we eat as much as we can, which is more than we should.
No, the problem is that the calorie/kilocalorie values were derived by setting food on fire . Seriously, I am not making this up. Since mitochondria are not little coalmen shoveling food into furnaces, the whole idea of deriving caloric benefit values by setting food on fire is basically insane.
Setting food on fire is fine, because basal metabolic rate is determined by setting shit on fire. Net energy = energy in - energy out. They really do proper thermodynamics, and not just touchy-feely Dr. Oz crap (or at least they used to...there's a lot more rule-of-thumb approximation going on these days. Damn kids don't have the patience for real science). This means any energy lost as gut fauna convert food into more gut fauna (which then get excreted) gets counted in BMR.
Exercise has tremendous health benefits, but it's so mostly meaningless to weight loss that I really hate seeing it brought up in weight loss discussions.
The best part of exercise is clearing blood glucose without insulin. Once you're eating enough that your muscles start ignoring insulin and get out of the habit of scavenging glucose in response to infrequent feedings, you have to do something else to hold blood glucose at sane levels. A little bit of exercise, vigorous enough to trigger glucose uptake, will remind your muscle cells what insulin means and help them beat fat cells in the race to take up post-prandial calories.
I'd rather store excess calories in muscle than fat.
I think that the AC's point is that Usenet is a redundant, distributed system managed by a cadre of independent operators, many (used to) operating their services without charge (at least to a privileged population). It is^wwas an internet hydra and highly resistant to focal disruption. Legal action against a single provider would not stop distribution of whatever content, which was already mirrored by thousands of other providers, and no single provider can pay the cost of the plaintiff's legal case, let alone actual perceived damages. "The Internet" could easily detect censorship in one node and migrate to a node without censorship.
Modern streaming services, and even torrent aggregators, are isolated fortresses. They distinguish themselves by their unique data sets, resulting in balkanization. It is hard to detect if content is blocked from your favored site, so less motivation to 'route around' censorship. They provide good targets for legal or enforcement action. Shut down one provider, and it takes a long time for another to grow into its place.
75% of American jobs are in the service sector. The vast majority of these job are jobs that no one wants, even the people filling them currently.
It's actually 80% now. The "Service Sector" includes financial services (ie, Wall St), health care (ie, doctors), educational services (ie tenured professor), information services (ie,/.), and government (ie, cushy, do-nothing, job-for-life). Only about a third of "service sector" jobs are retail-wholesale-transportation-leisure (ie McJob).
This is supposed to be the new economic model: countries progress from agriculture to manufacturing to service (The three major sectors) as the skills of their people increase. There's a lot of people trying to scare you by implying that "service sector" means "McDonalds," but the service sector includes all the white collar jobs.
This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat
(Exodus 16:16-18
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to the Lord, and you be guilty of sin.Deuteronomy 24:14
Then do whatever it takes litigatively/legislatively/extrajudicially to bring back stability and make it a epic, royal, and complete PITA to dodge it. After that, make it hard to not hire citizens by making it worth more to hire any citizen FTE's by default.
This doesn't work. It artificially inflates the price of labor, and we've seen what happens when local labor is expensive. Never mind that creating a two (three) tiered society of Citizens and (il)legal Immigrants is the Kuwaiti system. You don't get to vote yourself into the aristocracy.
Besides, you can argue that "stability" is bad for both employer and employee. Without ties to a particular job, it's much easier for an employee to shop his skills around and find a better job. Assuming the employers are not illegally colluding to fix wages. He has to hustle a bit more than showing up to a 9-to-5 bolt-tightening job, but I thought we liked for people to be actively engaged in their own well-being. I thought the American way was to reward ambitious self-motivated people and let starve the ones too lazy to care for themselves.
Even with good shotshell and a patterned gun, it's very unlikely to score a buckshot kill at more than 40-45 yards away.
Projectiles have to hit a buck (or a duck) a lot harder to kill than they need to hit a drone to disable it. Drones are regularly disabled by tree leaves, for example.
And you think that hiding the foods' provenance is the way to make people stop believing the FUD?
"Provenance?" This isn't a Regency Table we're talking about, it's commoditized food. I eat stuff where the manufacturer can't even tell me what kind of oil they use (one or more of...) let alone prove the genotype of every grain of wheat. Do you think a company that buys a million pounds of flour a year gets it all from the same place? Or even cares about the varietal? Consumers don't care if their bread is made from Calingiri or Ytipi. Farmers don't: they'll generally change their varietal every couple of years when the seed man tells them there's something new out. Keeping varietals separate in an 80 ton silo (never mind a 100,000 ton bulk carrier) is more trouble than anyone wants to go through.
And recently there has been the phenomenon where companies try to hide things by using confusing nomenclature. E.g., "evaporated cane juice" in products with "no added sugar." [foodnavigator-usa.com] Yeah -- "cane juice" -- it must be good for you, since they call it "juice"! Well, it's just another form of sugar... processed slightly differently, but still basically sucrose.
You need to stop confusing "ingredient list" with "chemical composition." As an ingredient, "sugar" means "refined sugar," but there's sugar in everything. Even beef is 1-2% sugar.
Most people are interested in "sugar" in the sense of "refined sugar" so-called empty calories that contain no additional micronutrients and have high glycemic index. When you refine sugar out of cane juice, or beets, or just about anything, you preferentially select sucrose from all the other sugars, proteins, and minerals in the extract.
Most food is a mixture. If your recipe is bitter, you can make it more pleasant by adding refined sugar, honey, maple syrup, apple juice, cane juice, or a host of other things. Some of those ingredients have their own distinctive flavor, which may mix well or badly with your other ingredients. Refined sugar is popular because it's pretty flavor neutral and stores forever. Cane juice is also pretty flavor neutral and cheap, but not as easy to store or transport.
Please tells us how many million of years statistically you would need to go from a barley growth factor, to a rice growth factor, and would even the intermediate protein be viable (active) or even if the surrounding gene would still be active.
Most of the genetic modification of plants is based on a bacterium (agrobacterium tumefaciens) that naturally performs horizontal gene transfer between plants. Usually, this results in plant tumors, but given a few million generations and a few billion plants, there's no reason to imagine it couldn't transfer the gene.
Maybe more importantly, both barley and rice (and wheat, and....) naturally express SUSIBA2. Barley SUSIBA2 transcripts (accession AY323206) are 82% identical to rice SUSIBA2 (accession NM_001066651), so it's not even like they're wildly different things.
You left out the third option that will become a standard and that's to stall you out if you are using any kind of ad blocker.
Any web site that does this suffers a fatally inflated sense of worth. There is almost no content on the web that can't be found in alternative form somewhere else. NYT blocking non-subscribers? The Guardian is running a story about the same thing. Used up all your "free" views on ESPN? MLB.com has scores and commentary. Seriously, I can count on one hand the ad-supported web sites that I would suffer should they drop off the planet tomorrow.
A surprising number of sites I read are written by enthusiasts who pay BlueHost (or someone) $5/month for hosting, and don't run any ads. Honestly, that's what I thought the web was supposed to be: a platform where anyone could publish content based on their passion for collecting pocket lint that looks like famous people, and connect with similar maniacs around the world. You pay a little to host your own stuff and contribute to the community, and you get to read other people's ramblings for free. I'm not surprised that it's turned into a way to get paid $0.25 for posting pictures of your cat sitting in a sink, but neither can you convince me that removing advertising would make those people stop posting cat pictures.
If you believe your content is so valuable that I'll turn off my ad blocker just to read it, you're wrong.
Radio advertising started as a patronage model. Phillip Morris or Dove would pay for the production or syndication of a radio show, and the show/broadcaster would express their gratitude. Not unlike PBS today. From a listener perspective, this is great - you get content and you have relatively unobtrusive product mentions. From a sponsor perspective, it's great - your brand gets associated with popular bits of culture, you get the opportunity to mention new products, and people begin to associate your brand with class and good works. Everyone knew The Shadow smoked Lucky Strikes (or whatever). Sponsors had an interest in evaluating the quality of programming, because who wants to be associated with a crappy show?
Internet advertising is the exact opposite of this. There's zero connection between the advertiser and the content producer, because ad placement is determined by a third party. Ads appear on Joe's Scat Collection just as much (or more) as CNN.
I'd be happy to see the current advertising model die. I think a lot of companies would do well to establish "Arts" sponsorship programs to reward people putting actual, quality content on the web. These people complaining that content will disappear from the web if advertising is blocked/ignored/banned are missing the point that 95% of web 'content' is completely without value. If you want to keep an online diary on facebook, you are not entitled to make an income from it, and no one is obligated to pay you to look at a picture of yesterday's dinner.
If I had some stuff I wanted to keep secure, I would buy a safe with a dial combination lock, not an electronic safe (and certainly not one with software sophisticated enough that it needs an actual OS underneath it)
But then you wouldn't be able to have your safe count your money for you. It wouldn't be able to confirm who made the deposit. It wouldn't be able to communicate with your central office to tell you how much money was at each different location. It wouldn't be able to call the bank for a pickup when it's full. My guess is this is basically the same as ATM/USB hacks, where Brinks decided that the safe is going to be installed in a sufficiently secure area that it's OK to leave a USB port exposed.
This thing is not a "safe" in the sense of a monothithic box with a door where you might keep your Krugerands. Compusafe is a gas station/back office safe, with a touch screen GUI, cash reporting, and centralized accounting. ie, your night clerk drops a stack of bills into the loading tray, and the safe counts them, separates them, and sends a note home how much is in it. This seems to be a 4th generation product, so, like most software running on legacy platforms, I would guess that Brinks thinks the fact they've been using this code for 15 years means that they have already fixed most of the bugs and vulnerabilities. Or at least that it's much cheaper to keep using the same software they've been using for 15 years: why fix what ain't (known to be) broke?
A mine does indeed indiscriminately kill civilians, and production of land mines should follow strict guidelines to ensure they can be cleared. Mines are not an offensive weapon, however.
US FASCAM mines are designed to be delivered by air. Think cluster bomb that waits until someone gets close to explode. They are not your grandfather's minefield.
There are already treaties banning the use of land mines
Of course, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, and the US refused to sign that treaty. The list of non-signatories is interesting from the perspective of being known by the company you keep.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple sells WiFi routers.
Actually, I bought one because the BT HomeHub 5 provided for free by British Telecoms is just absolute rubbish, trying to be "helpful" when it loses its internet connection and failing miserably.
I just run hostapd on my linux box. Since I have an always-on server anyway, turning it into a WAP saves me one more device to plug in. I realize that won't work well for grandma's house, but any decent geek house has an always on server running, probably sitting right next to a dedicate WAP.
We should pass a law: if any public funding is used for research, the public has a right to free and unfettered access of your research results... end of story.
In the US, NIH policy requires that NIH-funded research be deposited in PubMed Central, a taxpayer-funded archive of published work. This is not quite unfettered access, as the incumbent publishers forced them to accept a 12-month lag between publication and archiving, but it's pretty good. The NSF (which is only ~25% as big as NIH) claims public archiving as a goal, but not a requirement. I believe ERC has a similar policy.
For the most part, these policies date to about 2005, and most journals have been very reluctant to give up control of their 'legacy' content. That's what the publishers are holding hostage behind their paywalls: the most recent 12 months and everything older than 2005.
Libraries of big universities could simply provide the infrastructure to publish (online only) journals. There is not much needed as most of the work is already done by volunteers (reviewers / editors) so this could be really cheap.
The NIH, through PubMed Central, already provides the infrastructure for archiving (biomedical) articles. In fact, they demand that any publications resulting from NIH-funded research be archived there (with a 1-year delay from release by the official publisher). I believe ERC has a similar requirement for European research Some of the best journals have put their entire historical archives there (J Physiol back to 1878), but most journals only since the 2008 NIH mandate.
The problem is not the infrastructure to do online publishing. The problem is incumbency. The people who actually run the journals are, for the most part, tied to their historical publishing partners. I'm thinking especially of the 'big' journals that are the official publications of various academic societies. They are as locked in to publishers' workflow software as most people are to Microsoft Office.
Personally, I think every academic society, each of which claim education and public dissemination of science as core values, should make their historical archives available through PubMed Central, arXiv, or similar. Most of them have been digitized. Most of them are available to society members or journal subscribers. Most of them cost $30-$50 per article for the public to read, and there's no reason for that. If the society you belong to has not released its legacy content, ask your leadership, Why not?
It's money, isn't it. "Why do you want to work here?". Money. Slightly different problems elsewhere.
Company founders, generally, aren't in it for the money. They're in it because they think they have a cool widget and really want other people to value that widget. They want everyone they work with to share that passion.
Workers want to trade time for money. They share the management belief that employees are faceless, fungible cogs that can be plugged into tasks without any real connection to the business or widget. Coding, digging coal, torturing puppies, whatever...it's just a job.
Healthy people are somewhere in between. Sip the coolaid, join the team, but make sure your personal well-being is not 100% dependent on success. You'll have a lot more fun when the widget wins. You'll do better work. You'll still be able to change jobs if things go to crap.
Yes, the hypocrisy is the most stunning thing about this guys position. His rationalisation for SIGINT was "if the state knows everything, they'll see that you're truly a good person", where the word good should of course actually read loyal.
"Socrates" describes himself as a libertarian. Bemoans that he can not just load up his family in a wagon and head out for the prairie. Confesses to guilt/confusion when watching his superiors "misuse" his surveillance product. Then tells the entire, internal NSA audience that they just have suck up the cognitive dissonance and trust that their superiors know what they're doing (or at least that everything will work out in the end).
His whole life seems to be built around justifying his whims. The story about the failed polygraph perhaps best of all: "the needle jumped" on certain questions, and he's sure that, if he could just give the interrogator a longer explanation, then the interrogator would understand that he's really done nothing wrong (completely independent of whether he actually has done anything wrong). This mindset is exactly why you should never talk to the police. It's why Jamie Lee Hood thought he could get a jury to set him free, essentially by claiming the cop he shot initiated the aggression.
Well, can't have it both ways. I agree - they should have doxxed him. And if/when random strangers turn up outside his house, follow his wife and kids around, and constantly force him to justify his life .... he can't complain.
"Socrates" is an idiot, content to follow orders while fantasizing about life as a rugged individualist. Lots of us are like that. He doesn't deserve to be made a target for all the other nutbags out there.
A) You did not perform wholesale collection, but targeted collection. If you threw away the innocent stuff. You actually build FILES ON EVERYBODY and no amount of denial invalidates this
Stored data doesn't count as a "file," until a human looks at it. That's a big difference between the Stasi and the NSA: Stasi had actual humans examine and physically sort pieces of data; NSA does it by computer, hence no "file".
B) Would go after folks like Cheney and Bush when they work for the Saudis and Israel.
Elected officials, by definition, represent and therefore do the will of the people. The appropriate question to ask is why the people would want to place the security and welfare of a foreign nation above their own. The answer to this may lie in massive data archive, given the right analysis.
C) Would go after those who still suck up to Saudi Money, like the British guy.
Why do you hate our way of life? There is nothing better than to find a source of money and suck it dry. Capitalism means everything is for sale.
Collecting the data is the actual work. Any idiot with a computer can make the analysis. And draw the wrong conclusions from that.
It's a shame that so many people seem to agree with this. I would put it exactly the opposite: any idiot can be trained to collect data; knowing what data to collect, why to collect it, how it fits in with 100 years of pre-existing data, and how to condense all of that into a concise but readable story is the difficult (and creative) part.
Maybe it's learned from student science labs, where you spend a lot of time getting the mechanics of an experiment to work, then plug the numbers into a pre-set template for analysis. Of course, those labs are exactly about training students to collect data, and not so much about doing science. Maybe it's learned from the media, where an uninformed reporter picks a bit of data out of a paper and concludes the green coffee extract is a fat-cure-all. Maybe it's just that it takes a lot of work to be able to distinguish good work that advances our state of knowledge from a mountain of data that doesn't really say anything.
The grad student writes the paper and his adviser wants his name included because he "advised".
I've read enough PhD theses to know that very few students write their own papers. The difference between the chapters that have been accepted for publication in a journal and those that submission is still pending is easily determined. Nevermind the unseen contributions refining the research topic, the methodology, and analysis.
There's a reason science still works by the apprenticeship model. If you think you wrote your own Ph.D. thesis, you're either pathologically egotistical or your advisor died in your second year.
True, however, a poor diet of fast food, highly processed snacks and soda is harder to reduce than a good well balanced diet.
Leave the last bite of Big Mac on the table. Leave the last six french fries on the plate. Processed/packaged food is sold in doses that satisfy "most" people, which means they are more food than most people need. We've all grown up with the pressure to clean our plate, to not take more than we can eat, to not throw away perfectly good food. When someone puts too much food in front of us, we eat as much as we can, which is more than we should.
No, the problem is that the calorie/kilocalorie values were derived by setting food on fire . Seriously, I am not making this up. Since mitochondria are not little coalmen shoveling food into furnaces, the whole idea of deriving caloric benefit values by setting food on fire is basically insane.
Setting food on fire is fine, because basal metabolic rate is determined by setting shit on fire. Net energy = energy in - energy out. They really do proper thermodynamics, and not just touchy-feely Dr. Oz crap (or at least they used to...there's a lot more rule-of-thumb approximation going on these days. Damn kids don't have the patience for real science). This means any energy lost as gut fauna convert food into more gut fauna (which then get excreted) gets counted in BMR.
Exercise has tremendous health benefits, but it's so mostly meaningless to weight loss that I really hate seeing it brought up in weight loss discussions.
The best part of exercise is clearing blood glucose without insulin. Once you're eating enough that your muscles start ignoring insulin and get out of the habit of scavenging glucose in response to infrequent feedings, you have to do something else to hold blood glucose at sane levels. A little bit of exercise, vigorous enough to trigger glucose uptake, will remind your muscle cells what insulin means and help them beat fat cells in the race to take up post-prandial calories.
I'd rather store excess calories in muscle than fat.
I think that the AC's point is that Usenet is a redundant, distributed system managed by a cadre of independent operators, many (used to) operating their services without charge (at least to a privileged population). It is^wwas an internet hydra and highly resistant to focal disruption. Legal action against a single provider would not stop distribution of whatever content, which was already mirrored by thousands of other providers, and no single provider can pay the cost of the plaintiff's legal case, let alone actual perceived damages. "The Internet" could easily detect censorship in one node and migrate to a node without censorship.
Modern streaming services, and even torrent aggregators, are isolated fortresses. They distinguish themselves by their unique data sets, resulting in balkanization. It is hard to detect if content is blocked from your favored site, so less motivation to 'route around' censorship. They provide good targets for legal or enforcement action. Shut down one provider, and it takes a long time for another to grow into its place.
75% of American jobs are in the service sector. The vast majority of these job are jobs that no one wants, even the people filling them currently.
It's actually 80% now. The "Service Sector" includes financial services (ie, Wall St), health care (ie, doctors), educational services (ie tenured professor), information services (ie, /.), and government (ie, cushy, do-nothing, job-for-life). Only about a third of "service sector" jobs are retail-wholesale-transportation-leisure (ie McJob).
This is supposed to be the new economic model: countries progress from agriculture to manufacturing to service (The three major sectors) as the skills of their people increase. There's a lot of people trying to scare you by implying that "service sector" means "McDonalds," but the service sector includes all the white collar jobs.
Stick to the Bible, son. It's for the best.
This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat (Exodus 16:16-18
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to the Lord, and you be guilty of sin.Deuteronomy 24:14
Then do whatever it takes litigatively/legislatively/extrajudicially to bring back stability and make it a epic, royal, and complete PITA to dodge it. After that, make it hard to not hire citizens by making it worth more to hire any citizen FTE's by default.
This doesn't work. It artificially inflates the price of labor, and we've seen what happens when local labor is expensive. Never mind that creating a two (three) tiered society of Citizens and (il)legal Immigrants is the Kuwaiti system. You don't get to vote yourself into the aristocracy.
Besides, you can argue that "stability" is bad for both employer and employee. Without ties to a particular job, it's much easier for an employee to shop his skills around and find a better job. Assuming the employers are not illegally colluding to fix wages. He has to hustle a bit more than showing up to a 9-to-5 bolt-tightening job, but I thought we liked for people to be actively engaged in their own well-being. I thought the American way was to reward ambitious self-motivated people and let starve the ones too lazy to care for themselves.
Even with good shotshell and a patterned gun, it's very unlikely to score a buckshot kill at more than 40-45 yards away.
Projectiles have to hit a buck (or a duck) a lot harder to kill than they need to hit a drone to disable it. Drones are regularly disabled by tree leaves, for example.
And you think that hiding the foods' provenance is the way to make people stop believing the FUD?
"Provenance?" This isn't a Regency Table we're talking about, it's commoditized food. I eat stuff where the manufacturer can't even tell me what kind of oil they use (one or more of ...) let alone prove the genotype of every grain of wheat. Do you think a company that buys a million pounds of flour a year gets it all from the same place? Or even cares about the varietal? Consumers don't care if their bread is made from Calingiri or Ytipi. Farmers don't: they'll generally change their varietal every couple of years when the seed man tells them there's something new out. Keeping varietals separate in an 80 ton silo (never mind a 100,000 ton bulk carrier) is more trouble than anyone wants to go through.
And recently there has been the phenomenon where companies try to hide things by using confusing nomenclature. E.g., "evaporated cane juice" in products with "no added sugar." [foodnavigator-usa.com] Yeah -- "cane juice" -- it must be good for you, since they call it "juice"! Well, it's just another form of sugar... processed slightly differently, but still basically sucrose.
You need to stop confusing "ingredient list" with "chemical composition." As an ingredient, "sugar" means "refined sugar," but there's sugar in everything. Even beef is 1-2% sugar.
Most people are interested in "sugar" in the sense of "refined sugar" so-called empty calories that contain no additional micronutrients and have high glycemic index. When you refine sugar out of cane juice, or beets, or just about anything, you preferentially select sucrose from all the other sugars, proteins, and minerals in the extract.
Most food is a mixture. If your recipe is bitter, you can make it more pleasant by adding refined sugar, honey, maple syrup, apple juice, cane juice, or a host of other things. Some of those ingredients have their own distinctive flavor, which may mix well or badly with your other ingredients. Refined sugar is popular because it's pretty flavor neutral and stores forever. Cane juice is also pretty flavor neutral and cheap, but not as easy to store or transport.
An ingredient list is not a chemical analysis
Please tells us how many million of years statistically you would need to go from a barley growth factor, to a rice growth factor, and would even the intermediate protein be viable (active) or even if the surrounding gene would still be active.
Most of the genetic modification of plants is based on a bacterium (agrobacterium tumefaciens) that naturally performs horizontal gene transfer between plants. Usually, this results in plant tumors, but given a few million generations and a few billion plants, there's no reason to imagine it couldn't transfer the gene.
Maybe more importantly, both barley and rice (and wheat, and....) naturally express SUSIBA2. Barley SUSIBA2 transcripts (accession AY323206) are 82% identical to rice SUSIBA2 (accession NM_001066651), so it's not even like they're wildly different things.
You left out the third option that will become a standard and that's to stall you out if you are using any kind of ad blocker.
Any web site that does this suffers a fatally inflated sense of worth. There is almost no content on the web that can't be found in alternative form somewhere else. NYT blocking non-subscribers? The Guardian is running a story about the same thing. Used up all your "free" views on ESPN? MLB.com has scores and commentary. Seriously, I can count on one hand the ad-supported web sites that I would suffer should they drop off the planet tomorrow.
A surprising number of sites I read are written by enthusiasts who pay BlueHost (or someone) $5/month for hosting, and don't run any ads. Honestly, that's what I thought the web was supposed to be: a platform where anyone could publish content based on their passion for collecting pocket lint that looks like famous people, and connect with similar maniacs around the world. You pay a little to host your own stuff and contribute to the community, and you get to read other people's ramblings for free. I'm not surprised that it's turned into a way to get paid $0.25 for posting pictures of your cat sitting in a sink, but neither can you convince me that removing advertising would make those people stop posting cat pictures.
If you believe your content is so valuable that I'll turn off my ad blocker just to read it, you're wrong.
Radio advertising started as a patronage model. Phillip Morris or Dove would pay for the production or syndication of a radio show, and the show/broadcaster would express their gratitude. Not unlike PBS today. From a listener perspective, this is great - you get content and you have relatively unobtrusive product mentions. From a sponsor perspective, it's great - your brand gets associated with popular bits of culture, you get the opportunity to mention new products, and people begin to associate your brand with class and good works. Everyone knew The Shadow smoked Lucky Strikes (or whatever). Sponsors had an interest in evaluating the quality of programming, because who wants to be associated with a crappy show?
Internet advertising is the exact opposite of this. There's zero connection between the advertiser and the content producer, because ad placement is determined by a third party. Ads appear on Joe's Scat Collection just as much (or more) as CNN.
I'd be happy to see the current advertising model die. I think a lot of companies would do well to establish "Arts" sponsorship programs to reward people putting actual, quality content on the web. These people complaining that content will disappear from the web if advertising is blocked/ignored/banned are missing the point that 95% of web 'content' is completely without value. If you want to keep an online diary on facebook, you are not entitled to make an income from it, and no one is obligated to pay you to look at a picture of yesterday's dinner.
If I had some stuff I wanted to keep secure, I would buy a safe with a dial combination lock, not an electronic safe (and certainly not one with software sophisticated enough that it needs an actual OS underneath it)
But then you wouldn't be able to have your safe count your money for you. It wouldn't be able to confirm who made the deposit. It wouldn't be able to communicate with your central office to tell you how much money was at each different location. It wouldn't be able to call the bank for a pickup when it's full. My guess is this is basically the same as ATM/USB hacks, where Brinks decided that the safe is going to be installed in a sufficiently secure area that it's OK to leave a USB port exposed.
Why does a safe need an operating system?
This thing is not a "safe" in the sense of a monothithic box with a door where you might keep your Krugerands. Compusafe is a gas station/back office safe, with a touch screen GUI, cash reporting, and centralized accounting. ie, your night clerk drops a stack of bills into the loading tray, and the safe counts them, separates them, and sends a note home how much is in it. This seems to be a 4th generation product, so, like most software running on legacy platforms, I would guess that Brinks thinks the fact they've been using this code for 15 years means that they have already fixed most of the bugs and vulnerabilities. Or at least that it's much cheaper to keep using the same software they've been using for 15 years: why fix what ain't (known to be) broke?
A mine does indeed indiscriminately kill civilians, and production of land mines should follow strict guidelines to ensure they can be cleared. Mines are not an offensive weapon, however.
US FASCAM mines are designed to be delivered by air. Think cluster bomb that waits until someone gets close to explode. They are not your grandfather's minefield.
There are already treaties banning the use of land mines
Of course, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, and the US refused to sign that treaty. The list of non-signatories is interesting from the perspective of being known by the company you keep.