As I understand things, you are completely wrong. I'd be extremely interested in a cite for this, in US law.
It wouldn't be hard at all to prove downloading for many cases: RIAA would just subpoena rapidshare or megaupload or whoever; scan the download-log for infringing content; and then get financial information (which includes an identity as opposed to just an IP address) from the credit card/paypal used for the account.
As I understand it, it's the same way here in US, except that it does apply to software, books, or anything governed by copyright. The idea is that the uploader is the one doing the distributing, which makes sense to me.
This is because Nature is more like a "Best Of..." magazine, than a journal. As I understand it, the idea is to get your paper accepted/considered at the usual prestigious journal for your field, whatever it may be, and then also have an adapted version make it into Nature, for the "impact factor" and general 'leet-ness.
There are plenty of bitter things with a lot of sugar/sweeteners in them (e.g. most tonic water with quinine). In fact, many artificial sweeteners are noticably bitter if undiluted.
Keep in mind, that chocolates may have cocoa butter added, but very rarely do they have cocoa butter removed. What this means, is that baking chocolate is a lower bound for the amount of fat in dark chocolate. I have already shown that baking chocolate is very fatty, which implies that dark chocolate is, and I have nothing more to say here.
Yes, vegetable fats may be "healthier" overall (although I think the benefit is overstated), but the fact is, there is still an awful lot of them in chocolate; and a lot of them are saturated...
In re how "natural" various foods are, your subjective taxonomy is of no interest to me.
Uh, yeah. Pure 100% chocolate is "only" 53% fat, 60% of which is saturated...:-/ That's about twice as much fat by weight as a "lean" cut of steak...
It's trivial to get a good comparison of nutrition; go to nutritiondata.com (or anywhere else - but this one seems to have the most data and the least ads), and search for "baking chocolate" which is of course 100% chocolate, and will be very close to premium dark chocolate in nutrition facts, if not necessarily in taste. (Although Ghirardelli's baking chocolate gives premium chocolates a run for their money, imho.)
I have nothing against chocolate, but in anything but small amounts, it's just not good for you. I eat it as a delicacy, anything from Hershey's Dark (hey, it's cheap) to premium 99% cacao; single-origins; and even the aforementioned straight Ghirardelli's baking chocolate (100%).
Also, what's unnatural about saltine crackers and cream cheese? Saltines: hull and grind wheat; add salt and water; bake (of course nowadays they add crisco, but you can get them without it...). Cream cheese: milk a cow; add tailored bacteria; wait. I'm not seeing the problem here...
It's not a mispronunciation. The "jiga-" pronunciation was the one formally promoted in the US from the late 50s to the 80s. It is still, in fact, a correct but unusual pronunciation in English.
It comes from the Greek "gigas" (not bothering with unicode here), and if you've ever heard a gamma spoken in native Greek, both "jiga" and "giga" are off, but "jiga-" is a little closer. Think of ordering a gyro.
Bullshit. The Oxford English Dictionary (which is the last word in these matters) gives "atheist" as: 1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God; 2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him...
(added emphasis mine)
That is, although I acknowledge the lack of evidence, I am nonetheless an atheist because I live my life as though there is no god.
What you call "atheism", is somewhat more accurately described as "antitheism". Further, most of those who call themselves "agnostic" today are actually atheists. I would go further and say that most nominally-religious people are actually agnostic; you don't need to scratch very deep to find their doubts...
It doesn't imply that. It was either a slip-streamed quote from the stewardess (as mentioned in the preceding paragf), or a pompous use, by Lomax, of the third-person to generalize a specific narrative into an aphorism.
Yeah... in general, if you want to learn something at all, you take classes outside the Business school. All business school activities are just extended cocktail parties.
Except then they just added (N-1)*100 to the requisite for each skill task. By QFG4, you couldn't climb a ragged stone wall without 350+ Climbing, and apparently gravity was multiplied by 3.
And the mechanics of each game varied enough to completely change the effective of spells vs. long-range vs. melee. For example in QFG3 (only) you could throw almost a hundred rocks at a creature before it crossed a skareen-length, and spells were basically worthless. Then in QFG4, the "charged up" versions of spells in arcade mode over-rode enemy projectiles and completely dominated in combat.
It's a fun series, but the sense of progress was only there in storyline, not mechanics.
Apropos of that, I wonder how many people think/thought that cassette tapes magically have different magnetic flux on the top and bottom, instead of there being two tracks, on the left side and right side.
I've had a tenured fully-senior CS professor (at an Ivy League university, and in computational linguistics nonetheless) use "Micro$oft" on her slides. I therefore consider these claims and accusations moot.
I haven't had to deal with this yet, but I disabled most of Lenovo's start-up junk a while ago by using "autoruns". It has a nice interface and lets you hunt down running processes, and then gives the option to disable them permanently. Made booting XP a lot faster.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand things, you are completely wrong. I'd be extremely interested in a cite for this, in US law.
It wouldn't be hard at all to prove downloading for many cases: RIAA would just subpoena rapidshare or megaupload or whoever; scan the download-log for infringing content; and then get financial information (which includes an identity as opposed to just an IP address) from the credit card/paypal used for the account.
As I understand it, it's the same way here in US, except that it does apply to software, books, or anything governed by copyright. The idea is that the uploader is the one doing the distributing, which makes sense to me.
This is because Nature is more like a "Best Of..." magazine, than a journal. As I understand it, the idea is to get your paper accepted/considered at the usual prestigious journal for your field, whatever it may be, and then also have an adapted version make it into Nature, for the "impact factor" and general 'leet-ness.
Your claim, even if true, has nothing to do with how bad sugar is for you. Only how enjoyable it is...
There are plenty of bitter things with a lot of sugar/sweeteners in them (e.g. most tonic water with quinine). In fact, many artificial sweeteners are noticably bitter if undiluted.
In brief: go fuck yourself, asshole.
And as an added bonus, its concept of memory allocation is faithful to the movie:
KNOWN PROBLEMS
The game must be rebooted every few hours as it will deplete system resources over
time and crash.
OK. How do I read the instructions? Lynx?
Keep in mind, that chocolates may have cocoa butter added, but very rarely do they have cocoa butter removed. What this means, is that baking chocolate is a lower bound for the amount of fat in dark chocolate. I have already shown that baking chocolate is very fatty, which implies that dark chocolate is, and I have nothing more to say here.
Yes, vegetable fats may be "healthier" overall (although I think the benefit is overstated), but the fact is, there is still an awful lot of them in chocolate; and a lot of them are saturated...
In re how "natural" various foods are, your subjective taxonomy is of no interest to me.
Uh, yeah. Pure 100% chocolate is "only" 53% fat, 60% of which is saturated... :-/ That's about twice as much fat by weight as a "lean" cut of steak...
It's trivial to get a good comparison of nutrition; go to nutritiondata.com (or anywhere else - but this one seems to have the most data and the least ads), and search for "baking chocolate" which is of course 100% chocolate, and will be very close to premium dark chocolate in nutrition facts, if not necessarily in taste. (Although Ghirardelli's baking chocolate gives premium chocolates a run for their money, imho.)
I have nothing against chocolate, but in anything but small amounts, it's just not good for you. I eat it as a delicacy, anything from Hershey's Dark (hey, it's cheap) to premium 99% cacao; single-origins; and even the aforementioned straight Ghirardelli's baking chocolate (100%).
Also, what's unnatural about saltine crackers and cream cheese? Saltines: hull and grind wheat; add salt and water; bake (of course nowadays they add crisco, but you can get them without it...). Cream cheese: milk a cow; add tailored bacteria; wait. I'm not seeing the problem here...
Real dark chocolate tastes like ass.
Yeah, just like single-malt scotch.
Most likely the custom-made bars are artificially sweetened. Also, sugar isn't as bad as smoking.
Sure, chocolate is better for you than eating suet or lard; but this isn't valid a reasonable comparison.
X calories of steak is much better food than X calories of chocolate; even if only because it leaves you feeling "full" and satisfied.
It's not a mispronunciation. The "jiga-" pronunciation was the one formally promoted in the US from the late 50s to the 80s. It is still, in fact, a correct but unusual pronunciation in English.
It comes from the Greek "gigas" (not bothering with unicode here), and if you've ever heard a gamma spoken in native Greek, both "jiga" and "giga" are off, but "jiga-" is a little closer. Think of ordering a gyro.
Bullshit. The Oxford English Dictionary (which is the last word in these matters) gives "atheist" as: 1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God; 2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him...
(added emphasis mine)
That is, although I acknowledge the lack of evidence, I am nonetheless an atheist because I live my life as though there is no god.
What you call "atheism", is somewhat more accurately described as "antitheism". Further, most of those who call themselves "agnostic" today are actually atheists. I would go further and say that most nominally-religious people are actually agnostic; you don't need to scratch very deep to find their doubts...
I'm not a nursing student nor am I a nurse, doctor or in fact anyone in the medical profession. I am, however, a third year computing student.
And that's my cue to stop reading. Thanks!
It doesn't imply that. It was either a slip-streamed quote from the stewardess (as mentioned in the preceding paragf), or a pompous use, by Lomax, of the third-person to generalize a specific narrative into an aphorism.
Yeah... in general, if you want to learn something at all, you take classes outside the Business school. All business school activities are just extended cocktail parties.
Except then they just added (N-1)*100 to the requisite for each skill task. By QFG4, you couldn't climb a ragged stone wall without 350+ Climbing, and apparently gravity was multiplied by 3.
And the mechanics of each game varied enough to completely change the effective of spells vs. long-range vs. melee. For example in QFG3 (only) you could throw almost a hundred rocks at a creature before it crossed a skareen-length, and spells were basically worthless. Then in QFG4, the "charged up" versions of spells in arcade mode over-rode enemy projectiles and completely dominated in combat.
It's a fun series, but the sense of progress was only there in storyline, not mechanics.
The LD50 alone means nothing; it must be compared to the "effective dose".
Apropos of that, I wonder how many people think/thought that cassette tapes magically have different magnetic flux on the top and bottom, instead of there being two tracks, on the left side and right side.
Thanks to PCs, any slob in a smelly T-shirt can use linux.
No wait, reverse that; even the well-groomed can use linux.
I've had a tenured fully-senior CS professor (at an Ivy League university, and in computational linguistics nonetheless) use "Micro$oft" on her slides. I therefore consider these claims and accusations moot.
I haven't had to deal with this yet, but I disabled most of Lenovo's start-up junk a while ago by using "autoruns". It has a nice interface and lets you hunt down running processes, and then gives the option to disable them permanently. Made booting XP a lot faster.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx
fuck-the-skull-of-jesus (the best satire site on the internet; updated once every 4 years or so) had the final word on this in 2002.
http://fuck-the-skull-of-jesus.mit.edu/osamajesus.html
That chick in the lower-left doesn't look too healthy. :-/
I'd give these a shot, if I were still having irreflexive intercourse these days.