Actually the first official food pyramid was in the 1970s, and the USDA no longer uses that model, having replaced it this year with MyPlate. Yes, there are still major problems with it, and it represents an imperfect compromise between the more abstract idea of getting certain nutrients and the more concrete idea of eating certain foods, but if more Americans followed it they would certainly be healthier.
That's true only to a limited extent. If it takes more inputs to produce a kg of food locally than it does to produce it further away and transport it, the latter may still be the better choice. I live in a temperate region with cold winters. Fruit such as apples and berries grows well here, but it all ripens at the same time (summer and fall), so it makes sense to preserve it (drying, freezing, canning, jams, not to mention wine, etc.). In a warmer climate, the same fruits can be produced year-round. So it makes sense for those regions to ship fresh fruit to my area when it's not in season here, and my area to ship preserved fruit to them. That's actually the most economical and energy-efficient use of resource.
It's not a law. It's not the government restricting what you can do in a virtual environment, and even if it were a law, that would be a First, not Second, Amendment issue. This is no different from a store having a policy of not selling guns. Or more precisely, of a flea market setting a policy that its vendors cannot sell guns (or candy or wooden nickels or whatever else they want). What would the alternative be? Should Microsoft be forced to sell guns on Xbox Live? That would be a clear First Amendment violation.
Surely one factor is that early in its history much of the content on Wikipedia was copied from a public domain edition (1911?) of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in which one would expect to find very few spelling errors. Over time more and more of the content is user-generated, so naturally it is more likely to contain typos.
The problem is that until very recently, Apple had a near monopoly on "Wi-Fi-only smartphones", or "PDAs" as they used to be called, and there weren't any Android counterparts the way there are to the iPhone. That changed a couple months ago when Samsung introduced the Galaxy Player.
Archos has made such devices for a while, though they're not as well known (or as highly polished) as the Galaxy Player.
I need every 'smart' function except for the 'calling' ability itself. Your mileage may vary.
Then you don't need a smart phone at all. It sounds like most of what you're doing could be accomplished by an iPod touch or the Android equivalent (e.g., an Archos 3- or 4-inch tablet). The only exception would be if you are streaming the video you watch on the bus rather than downloading them via wifi. Otherwise, you're better off saving the subscription costs for a smartphone.
People who want to learn about the candidate will want to go to their web site to see their official stance on things. This is an attempt to keep the public misinformed by the opposition.
You can still do that. It's at newt.org. And how does this use of the URL "misinform" anybody"? It redirects to media reports about him, organizations he has worked for, a public-service video he appeared in with Nancy Pelosi, etc. How is any of this "misinformation"? It's information he doesn't want to emphasize in his current campaign, sure, but that doesn't make it false or even deceptive.
Sure, but it's easy enough to fix the problem in this case. The city council just needs to pass a bylaw that the minimum time for all yellow lights be X seconds. And the incentive is there even without cameras, since cops can use short yellows to increase the number of red light runners they catch.
Two reasons not to do that. One, charities are, in principle, experts at spotting and filling such needs, and I am not. Second, if I spend more time working at my job and give that income to charity, it could pay for someone who makes less than I do to work for even longer. If I make $20/hr doing whatever it is I do and the charity pays someone $10/hr to fix someone's house, for every hour of additional labor I put in the charity gets two hours of labor, probably from someone more competent than I at that task.
That is illogical. First, why would it make a difference whether I send $100 to the Red Cross in my town vs the Red Cross on the other side of the country? Second, less overhead =/= most good. If I give the $100 to a charity that gives free medical care overseas, where it is more needed than in my community, there might be overhead that is unavoidable in running long-distance operations, but the work won't be done otherwise. And finally, there is a certain fungibility to donations. If, for example, a charity gets free advertising from media sponsors, none of its donations go to that, whereas another agency might have to spend part of its income on publicity. It's not clear to me that the second charity is worse for doing so.
Bad plan. If you don't get the lawyers involved and ask the people involved to sign a waiver, your "gift" will count for nothing: they can say "thanks for the new minivan" and still sue you for the loss of the old one (and in court the act of doing all this so quickly might be taken as a sign of guilt). Sometimes you do need to call in the lawyers and insurance companies, and this is one of those times. It would probably also be a no-no not to inform your insurer about an event like this, since when your policy is up for renewal it does not look good to have hidden a previous accident.
I'm not saying I support this, but in order to understand this proposal you have to understand what an exempt employee is in US (and state) law. (IANAL: this is my rough-and-ready understanding of the system). There are two categories of employee, exempt and nonexempt, and different labor rules apply to each, about things like overtime, unionization, and benefits. There are several tests for whether a given job is exempt or non-exempt, including salary and job description. In general, people with managerial or administrative responsibilities are exempt, whereas those who work hourly and do not supervise others are nonexempt. But it's incredibly complicated (see, e.g., this page). So many IT workers were in a grey area, and this bill proposes to put those above the salary cutoff on the exempt side of the line. It does not mean singling out IT workers for some uniquely debased, exploited status, but rather putting them in the category of professionals/administrators/managers (which confers both downsides and potential benefits). You can agree or disagree with the move, but you need to appreciate how it fits into the context of American labor law.
Often, when a court does something like this it's because the real world analogy makes sense, but doesn't translate well into electronic contexts. Here it seems to be the opposite: the meatspace equivalent would be to not only shut down a business that is selling counterfeit goods, but also to order that the business be delisted from the Yellow Pages, at the expense of the phone book publisher. I'm confident that this judge would not have done that, but probably imagined that the company is responsible for its presence in search engine results the way it would be responsible for buying advertising space.
I think that predates Windows. Crashes of various kinds were frequent on Apple IIs, Commodores, etc. You just got use to various reboot/retry routines.
Different legal regimes. It's easier in some countries than in others to expropriate land for public purposes. It's also easier to oppose government actions with lawsuits in the US than in many other countries.
Slashdot Mirror
The problems with much American pizza are (a) too much cheese and (b) the amount of oil used in the dough.
Actually the first official food pyramid was in the 1970s, and the USDA no longer uses that model, having replaced it this year with MyPlate. Yes, there are still major problems with it, and it represents an imperfect compromise between the more abstract idea of getting certain nutrients and the more concrete idea of eating certain foods, but if more Americans followed it they would certainly be healthier.
That's true only to a limited extent. If it takes more inputs to produce a kg of food locally than it does to produce it further away and transport it, the latter may still be the better choice. I live in a temperate region with cold winters. Fruit such as apples and berries grows well here, but it all ripens at the same time (summer and fall), so it makes sense to preserve it (drying, freezing, canning, jams, not to mention wine, etc.). In a warmer climate, the same fruits can be produced year-round. So it makes sense for those regions to ship fresh fruit to my area when it's not in season here, and my area to ship preserved fruit to them. That's actually the most economical and energy-efficient use of resource.
It's not a law. It's not the government restricting what you can do in a virtual environment, and even if it were a law, that would be a First, not Second, Amendment issue. This is no different from a store having a policy of not selling guns. Or more precisely, of a flea market setting a policy that its vendors cannot sell guns (or candy or wooden nickels or whatever else they want). What would the alternative be? Should Microsoft be forced to sell guns on Xbox Live? That would be a clear First Amendment violation.
Surely one factor is that early in its history much of the content on Wikipedia was copied from a public domain edition (1911?) of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in which one would expect to find very few spelling errors. Over time more and more of the content is user-generated, so naturally it is more likely to contain typos.
The problem is that until very recently, Apple had a near monopoly on "Wi-Fi-only smartphones", or "PDAs" as they used to be called, and there weren't any Android counterparts the way there are to the iPhone. That changed a couple months ago when Samsung introduced the Galaxy Player.
Archos has made such devices for a while, though they're not as well known (or as highly polished) as the Galaxy Player.
I need every 'smart' function except for the 'calling' ability itself. Your mileage may vary.
Then you don't need a smart phone at all. It sounds like most of what you're doing could be accomplished by an iPod touch or the Android equivalent (e.g., an Archos 3- or 4-inch tablet). The only exception would be if you are streaming the video you watch on the bus rather than downloading them via wifi. Otherwise, you're better off saving the subscription costs for a smartphone.
People who want to learn about the candidate will want to go to their web site to see their official stance on things. This is an attempt to keep the public misinformed by the opposition.
You can still do that. It's at newt.org. And how does this use of the URL "misinform" anybody"? It redirects to media reports about him, organizations he has worked for, a public-service video he appeared in with Nancy Pelosi, etc. How is any of this "misinformation"? It's information he doesn't want to emphasize in his current campaign, sure, but that doesn't make it false or even deceptive.
Sure, but it's easy enough to fix the problem in this case. The city council just needs to pass a bylaw that the minimum time for all yellow lights be X seconds. And the incentive is there even without cameras, since cops can use short yellows to increase the number of red light runners they catch.
Unless you really trust your neighbor, how do you know he/she didn't receive multiple donations from several people, pocketing the extra?
Two reasons not to do that. One, charities are, in principle, experts at spotting and filling such needs, and I am not. Second, if I spend more time working at my job and give that income to charity, it could pay for someone who makes less than I do to work for even longer. If I make $20/hr doing whatever it is I do and the charity pays someone $10/hr to fix someone's house, for every hour of additional labor I put in the charity gets two hours of labor, probably from someone more competent than I at that task.
Actually it's far better to give the soup kitchen cash. They buy food at wholesale prices, you're wasting money buying it retail. See this article.
How do you know that the gift wasn't squandered?
That is illogical. First, why would it make a difference whether I send $100 to the Red Cross in my town vs the Red Cross on the other side of the country? Second, less overhead =/= most good. If I give the $100 to a charity that gives free medical care overseas, where it is more needed than in my community, there might be overhead that is unavoidable in running long-distance operations, but the work won't be done otherwise. And finally, there is a certain fungibility to donations. If, for example, a charity gets free advertising from media sponsors, none of its donations go to that, whereas another agency might have to spend part of its income on publicity. It's not clear to me that the second charity is worse for doing so.
Bad plan. If you don't get the lawyers involved and ask the people involved to sign a waiver, your "gift" will count for nothing: they can say "thanks for the new minivan" and still sue you for the loss of the old one (and in court the act of doing all this so quickly might be taken as a sign of guilt). Sometimes you do need to call in the lawyers and insurance companies, and this is one of those times. It would probably also be a no-no not to inform your insurer about an event like this, since when your policy is up for renewal it does not look good to have hidden a previous accident.
If you really believed that you would have posted as AC.
Maybe if the company had given itself a name it would have been easier for it to keep track of information.
I'm not saying I support this, but in order to understand this proposal you have to understand what an exempt employee is in US (and state) law. (IANAL: this is my rough-and-ready understanding of the system). There are two categories of employee, exempt and nonexempt, and different labor rules apply to each, about things like overtime, unionization, and benefits. There are several tests for whether a given job is exempt or non-exempt, including salary and job description. In general, people with managerial or administrative responsibilities are exempt, whereas those who work hourly and do not supervise others are nonexempt. But it's incredibly complicated (see, e.g., this page). So many IT workers were in a grey area, and this bill proposes to put those above the salary cutoff on the exempt side of the line. It does not mean singling out IT workers for some uniquely debased, exploited status, but rather putting them in the category of professionals/administrators/managers (which confers both downsides and potential benefits). You can agree or disagree with the move, but you need to appreciate how it fits into the context of American labor law.
How could it not be specific? It's a law. What did you expect, "25-30 bucks or so?"
You obviously never had to type in hexadecimal bytecode from an Apple II magazine.
Often, when a court does something like this it's because the real world analogy makes sense, but doesn't translate well into electronic contexts. Here it seems to be the opposite: the meatspace equivalent would be to not only shut down a business that is selling counterfeit goods, but also to order that the business be delisted from the Yellow Pages, at the expense of the phone book publisher. I'm confident that this judge would not have done that, but probably imagined that the company is responsible for its presence in search engine results the way it would be responsible for buying advertising space.
On the contrary, they're GREAT at censorship.
So that's why they attack people with pikes..
I think that predates Windows. Crashes of various kinds were frequent on Apple IIs, Commodores, etc. You just got use to various reboot/retry routines.
Different legal regimes. It's easier in some countries than in others to expropriate land for public purposes. It's also easier to oppose government actions with lawsuits in the US than in many other countries.