No, but just as there are a thousand meal replacements out there that people swear by, this will join the crowd.
That may be true from a marketing perspective, but I've yet to find another meal-replacement that is as complete as [s|S]oylent. The problem is they make sacrifices for marketability and/or manufacturability. They want it to taste decent and be in a form-factor that will be appealing on the shelves. The bars that you eat are probably great to have once or even twice a day, but probably aren't complete enough to sustain you properly if that's all you ate for an entire day or longer. The soylent concept is that it is complete, at the sacrifice of having to drink full glasses of stuff that isn't particularly appealing, which is exactly why it truly isn't for everybody, for many people eating is just as much their recreation as biking, running, and swimming were for you. I hated it for the first 2.5 days, drinking a tasteless beverage with an unappealing texture, yuck. But then about half way through the third day I got used to it and ceased caring about the texture.
by the physical process of reducing it to the form of a sludge, you destroy the structure of the food and much of the insoluble fibre.
Citation needed. No, really, if you have evidence of this, preferable a scientifically valid peer-reviewed study, I'd like to see it. I have found numerous sources showing that fiber from real-food sources...fruits, vegetables, and whole grains...are more beneficial than fiber supplementation, but the conclusions always state that it's because the real-food sources contain other needed micronutrients. In the case of soylent, part of the point is that you're already including exactly the right amounts of those nutrients, so those studies are not applicable to your point.
". I'm also a competitive athlete" which mean you are more likely to buy into thing that fit your athletic training narrative. Just like those idiot athletes that wear a power band. This less you input less valuable.
That's some pretty broad assumptions you're making, just like those idiots who assume a power band provides them magical benefits because some marketing crap said so. You assume that just because I have a physical hobby that I am stupid? Well, before I got my degree in CS and became a lead software developer I was a real scientist for several years, so unlike you (I'm making an assumption here) I do actually understand what science actually is and so I can evaluate studies better than you.
"If I wanted to take several hours to create the healthiest most ideal meals every day" If it takes you several hours, you are either stupid or.. nope, just stupid.
I'm not comparing it to the time most be spend making a reasonably healthy meal. I'm comparing to the time somebody would have to spend to make ideal meals and eat them at ideal times. Meaning exactly everything you need with nothing extra. How many people actually do that? The fact that you skipped over the 2nd part of the sentence you quoted means you are either stupid or.. nope, just stupid. Heck, even if you purchase ready-made or microwave most of your meals, how much time out of your day do you spend on food and eating?
" if I am missing something from my soylent recipe that only exists in regular food, then I'll still get some." assuming what you are missing (if anything ) is in the food you eat on weekends.
While that is a good point, I'm also assuming that if it's missing in the food I would eat on the weekends, then it's also missing from the food I would have eaten if I wasn't drinking the soylent. The whole point of this was to provide a comparison.
Maybe it's just a horrible article, but the numbers don't make sense:
The team found that between 17 and 36 per cent of smog produced in China in 2006 came from factories making goods for export. One-fifth of those goods are destined for the US.
Okay, so let's take the average of 17 and 36, we get (17+36)/2 = 26.5. One fifth of that is 5.3. So, 5.3% of smog produced in China came from producing goods for export to the US.
The modelling revealed that on any given day in 2006, goods made in China for the US market accounted for up to a quarter of the sulphate smog over the western US.
Ok, so here's what doesn't make sense. If they're saying 25% of the smog came from china, then only 1.3% of the total smog is from goods produced for export to the US. On the other hand, if they're really saying that what they're saying, and 25% of total smog is from US goods, that means 470% of the smog in total is form China.
This leads to the conclusion that one of the following must be true: 1. The study is full of shit, and the authors need to go back to elementary school. Or, 2. The article is full of shit, and the journalist needs to go back to elementary school. Maybe what the study really says is 25% of the US west coast's smog comes from China, of which 5.3% of that is from production of goods for the US. Or, 3. The paper was written in Chinese, and the translator needs to learn English. Ever put together something complicated made in China? As in, wtf do you mean insert 4 bolts there? There are only screws, and there are only two holes, and they don't line up! Or, 4. Somehow, perhaps by magic, only the sulphate molecules that came out of factories producing goods for the US get blown to the US, while the sulphate molecules made in other production don't. If these molecules somehow know the destination of the goods whose manufacture resulted in their creation, that could make for some really interesting follow up studies! Or, 5. I'm really tired and I missed something. But I don't think I'm that tired.
This nitwit has borrowed the name, probably having seen the derivative film and never twigged to the fact that the word meant something.
It's a metaphor. He's not saying it's the exact same stuff that's in the book. Maybe it's silly, but it's also catchy. If he didn't know what he was doing when he named it, then perhaps it would be reasonable to call him a nitwit, but that's clearly not the case. It's like Sex Wax surfboard wax. Did the creators really think it was actually intended to be used for sex? Of course not. They named it that because it's catchy and people buy it. It also happens to be the best wax on the market IMO.
I've been drinking my homemade "soylent" (with a lowercase 's', because it's not his brand) most weekdays for about 2 months now. In fact, I'm drinking it right now, literally. Actually not literally, I set it down to type. I adapted it from various recipes I found online, all started by the ideas of the creator of Soylent. I'm also a competitive athlete, so I tweaked things quite a bit, particularly the macronutrients. So, as the (seemingly) only commenter who actually has experience with it, I'll point out a few things:
1. To those whining about lack of fiber...it has plenty of fiber (33.45 grams to be exact). More than that little bit of shredded lettuce in a Big Mac extra value meal. In fact, my bowel movements seem more regular on soylent than when I eat regular food.
2. I eat better on it than without it. Meaning: Okay, what if my recipe isn't perfect? What if I'm missing something? Well compare that to what I would otherwise normally eat on a weekday...maybe some toast for breakfast, a microwave chicken burrito for lunch, and a reasonably healthy but probably too large meal for dinner to make up for the slice of toast I had for breakfast. Then I have to try to work those meals around my workouts, which probably means downing some extra calories. Some days I ate well, some days not.
3. It's a timesaver. This is related to #2. If I wanted to take several hours to create the healthiest most ideal meals every day, then perhaps it would come out healthier than soylent. But let's face it, that just doesn't happen. I've tried that in the past, and it always falls by the wayside. I'd rather be out having fun...obviously if cooking was your version of play (e.g. it's your favorite hobby) then this isn't for you. I can hold my own pretty well in the kitchen and have always enjoyed making delicious meals once and a while, but 90% of the time it just seems like work.
4. I eat at better times. I spend 10 minutes in the morning mixing it up. Then it's right there, available to me anytime, all I have to do is go to the fridge and poor it into a glass, or take it with me in a water bottle, so I can eat at ideal times that are the healthiest, meaning my caloric distribution throughout is even and/or at proper times around my workouts, rather than having too few calories in the morning and too many late at night like most people do. Otherwise, I end up being too busy for awhile, then by the time it's my next meal I end up either just throwing something in the microwave and/or eating too much all at once, or I go too long before or after a workout without eating, or I eat right before a workout and my stomach isn't happy...you get the idea.
5. I never feel too hungry. I don't crave junk like I do otherwise. If I do have a thought like, "gee, some chips sound good," I don't feel compelled to eat them because I don't feel hungry, plus I know I can eat them on the weekend if I still want them.
6. I chose to eat normal on the weekends because that's when it becomes a social thing. Also, by knowing I'm going to eat other foods on the weekend it keeps me from craving junk, and also if I am missing something from my soylent recipe that only exists in regular food, then I'll still get some.
It's really expensive to bury lines, something like 10x the cost of above ground lines in some cases. The only way you're gonna get them to do it is if your neighborhood ponies up the money. The other alternative is to change the C&Rs to allow above ground, and even then they'll only do it if they're gonna make more money than what it costs.
stopping just short of burying our own cable and hoping they'll at least be willing to run a line to the pole at the end of the street and drop it into our box.
Well, if you want it badly enough, then that may be pretty much what you have to do (or at least bear the cost of it). You're dealing with a for-profit company, not a charity, so from a business perspective why would they spend the money when they have no hope of making enough to cover it in the foreseeable future?
Not if they're used for food, materials, etc. As long as nothing goes to waste, I don't see a problem with it.
There have been many cultures where it was considered acceptable to eat other humans. Some would even massacre/slaughter villages and eat the spoils. Would that still be okay today, as long as nothing goes to waste?
I agree, "slaughter" should not have been used in the headline. Considering the intelligence of dolphins compared to cows, pigs, chickens, or fish, "murder" or "massacre" would have been more appropriate terms.
It was an issue in the election that Obama won in 2008. The problem is that he lied his ass off and wasn't held accountable in 2012, not because Obama was doing a great job but because the other guy would have been 10x worse. I'm sure whoever runs in 2016 will either lie their ass off or figure out a way to make it a non-issue.
Among other lies on the subject: "That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient," Obama said in 2007. Later: "I take the Constitution very seriously," he said. "The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America."
But either way, this won't be a huge issue in the next election. Ironically, it'll be the things Obama actually did right that the democrats get reamed for, like social services (since that costs money, albeit a teeny tiny fraction of what the wars are costing each year) that help a helluva lot of people,I didn't even know how much good they did until having a conversation with a relative who's a social worker, and healthcare reform (although implementation was half-assed, it is allowing a lot of people get insurance, and in the bigger picture it's a move in the right direction).
The "Windows key" location existed before on other systems, it was called the "meta" key. Apple had the Apple logo in that place, Sun keyboards had the diamond logo, even the Symbolics machines had the key well before Microsoft even talked about ripping off DOS.
The point wasn't that MS was innovative in creating the Windows key, the point was that they got other manufacturers to include the Windows key in their keyboards.
XP is a security nightmare and most MBA managers do not know or calculate this.
If all you're running is Microsoft Office or other off-the-shelve programs, sure, but there's a hell of a lot of niche stuff out there that still requires Windows XP, either because upgrading to a new niche product would be extremely expensive, or because there is no longer a product that does the same thing so it would require massive (expensive) organizational changes.
So yeah, in a lot of cases upgrading from Windows XP is a lot more expensive than just the Windows license and the labor of the IT guy. Don't get me wrong, there's still a ton of organizations that fall into that category too, just sayin' there's more to it for a lot of organization than you seem to realize.
From the hippie side of things, yes, it is. These are the same people who think that eating an "alkalizing" diet and drinking "alkalized water" is a necessity for being healthy and ridding the body of "toxins." It's pseudoscience because they have BS "science" that "proves" it. For example, there are papers by people with fake phd's that say eating protein means your pee is more acidic, which means your body is toxic. Anyone who remembers high school biology should know why that's BS (and why the "Westernmost Institution for Gaia Science" is not an accredited institution), but they believe it because they've smoked away their high school memories.
Interestingly, at least on Maui, I can't necessarily speak for the Big Island but I'm going to assume parallels, it wasn't the hippies that got the anti-GMO ball rolling, although they're the ones taking off with it. The initial ball-rollers were the taro farmers, and for entirely different (and IMO legitimate) reasons. There are a lot of small independent family (actually a family, not just a big conglomerate owned by a family) taro farmers. With taro (it's like a big potato), much of the planting is done by cutting of the top of the corm (the potato part) and replanting it. They saw what Monsanto was doing with not allowing corn farmers to save seed, and were concerned that if the taro market went to GMO the same thing would happen with taro, where farmers would be entirely dependent on Monsanto and pretty much unable to resist or remain independent.
The SEC is missing the point of their existence. Okay, so I know the point really is that big business wants to prevent competition and they are the SEC's puppet master, but in theory...
The point of the SEC is to prevent corruption by making sure investors know exactly what they're getting into. In crowdfunding, "investors" know exactly what they're getting into (I'll use typical kickstarter as examples). The investors don't expect to make a profit. They are presented with some information, if they think it's cool then they'll donate (it's called a pledge, not an investment for cryin' out loud!). They know there's a good chance the company won't succeed, but if it does, cool, they get some sort of reward.
There's a big difference between saying, "here, pledge a few bucks, if we succeed you get something cool." And, "here, invest your money with us, we promise we'll succeed and make you even more money." So if there's no promise of a return on investment, why should a company be required to back up a non-existent promise on a non-existent investment?
That's what happens when you hire fast food workers into bureaucratic roles and give them absolute power over other people.
That is seriously not fair. You are pretty lumping a whole group of hard working, well-meaning people in with a job position that is at the absolute bottom of society. You really should have more respect for fast food workers.
Why they didn't just give all this stuff to Google is beyond me. I'm sure they'd love to have a project like this, and they'd probably make it publicly available for the price of ads.
Can you really not imagine why they might do this? How much money is T3 making off of this, and who are they brib^H^H^H^H contributing campaign funds to?
No politician that already has any real power is going to want to reign in the NSA. Politicians don't want to take anything like this back. If you're the one who does, and then an attack does happen, then regardless of whether or not it would have been prevented you're pretty much handing the next election to your opponent, who will claim that the attack was your fault because you were too soft.
If you were a sociopath and cared only about your career rather than doing what's right (as a politician generally is by the time they get elected to an office where they have any real power), would you make a decision at work that had a finite chance of completely ruining your career?
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Let's not dilute the word by using it for other bad things.
If we go with the federal government's stipulation that terrorists are the enemy, then yes, the NSA is adhering to the terrorists. Without the TLAs' and politicians' reaction to 9/11, people would not still be terrified. A terrorist's goal is not to kill people, it's to make those who remain alive afraid, hence the word "terrorist" and not "mass murderer." So: 1. Terrorists are the enemy of the USA (as stipulated by the TLAs and politicians). 2. By definition, the Terrorists' mission is to make people afraid. 3. The the TLAs' and politicians' reaction to the terrorists' action 12 years ago are intended to keep people afraid (though they may have different motivation than Al Qaeda, the intent is still there). 4. By #2 and #3, the TLAs and politicians are aiding the terrorists and adhering to their mission. 5. By #1 and #4, the TLAs and politicians are committing treason. QED
You could know this before he was elected the first time, because he went out of his way to vote in favor of the program.
Actually here's some of his election promises: "Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law."
"As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision."
The reason Facebook has any advertising income, and therefore value as a company, is that it has the ability to provide very directed advertising.
If you want to target people who read cnn.com and nytimes.com, why not just advertise there like you always could.
I think the phrase "For example" implies the answer. They're giving that as one example of how you can infer somebody's income, but the whole point of aggregating as much info as possible about somebody is that you have more factors available. If somebody reads cnn and nytimes daily, they are more likely to be wealthier. If they read cnn, nytimes, meet 10 other factors that imply their income, live in an area with a hot real estate market, and have been looking at real estate related websites, then you're gonna be more successful when server those people ads for mortgages than a random cnn reader.
And give us a constitutional-based government with elections.
Our government is constitutionally based. Of course, the government doesn't actually follow the constitution when they don't want to, but it's still based on it. We have elections too. That doesn't mean they're meaningful in any way, but we still have them.
I think what you mean is:
And give us a government that actually follows the constitution and has fair and meaningful elections.
If the book was published in 2009 and the exact event stated by DHS for denying entry occurred in 2012, how did the 2012 event get known by the DHS from a 2009 book?
Remember that "Minority Report style interface" that/. is always talking about it? The DHS has the whole setup.
but why would the DHS consider a depressed Canadian (whose itinerary, and thus the fact that she'd be on a boat for most of her time here, were presumably also known to them) an entry problem?
False positives. Some dumb algorithm that was designed by committee red flagged something, and any lower-level human in the [TSA|FBI|DHS|ICE|CIA] doesn't want to be the one to push it up the food chain to get overridden because their primary job responsibility is to keep their head down to avoid getting in trouble.
What about someone who just reads erotica... while naked and covered in butter? Hypothetically, of course!
I'd say you would be in big trouble, because the corn industry gives more campaign contributions than the dairy industry. Switch to margarine or canola oil and you should be okay.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but just as there are a thousand meal replacements out there that people swear by, this will join the crowd.
That may be true from a marketing perspective, but I've yet to find another meal-replacement that is as complete as [s|S]oylent. The problem is they make sacrifices for marketability and/or manufacturability. They want it to taste decent and be in a form-factor that will be appealing on the shelves. The bars that you eat are probably great to have once or even twice a day, but probably aren't complete enough to sustain you properly if that's all you ate for an entire day or longer. The soylent concept is that it is complete, at the sacrifice of having to drink full glasses of stuff that isn't particularly appealing, which is exactly why it truly isn't for everybody, for many people eating is just as much their recreation as biking, running, and swimming were for you. I hated it for the first 2.5 days, drinking a tasteless beverage with an unappealing texture, yuck. But then about half way through the third day I got used to it and ceased caring about the texture.
by the physical process of reducing it to the form of a sludge, you destroy the structure of the food and much of the insoluble fibre.
Citation needed. No, really, if you have evidence of this, preferable a scientifically valid peer-reviewed study, I'd like to see it. I have found numerous sources showing that fiber from real-food sources...fruits, vegetables, and whole grains...are more beneficial than fiber supplementation, but the conclusions always state that it's because the real-food sources contain other needed micronutrients. In the case of soylent, part of the point is that you're already including exactly the right amounts of those nutrients, so those studies are not applicable to your point.
why did you write that?
Because I felt like it.
". I'm also a competitive athlete"
which mean you are more likely to buy into thing that fit your athletic training narrative. Just like those idiot athletes that wear a power band.
This less you input less valuable.
That's some pretty broad assumptions you're making, just like those idiots who assume a power band provides them magical benefits because some marketing crap said so. You assume that just because I have a physical hobby that I am stupid? Well, before I got my degree in CS and became a lead software developer I was a real scientist for several years, so unlike you (I'm making an assumption here) I do actually understand what science actually is and so I can evaluate studies better than you.
"If I wanted to take several hours to create the healthiest most ideal meals every day"
If it takes you several hours, you are either stupid or.. nope, just stupid.
I'm not comparing it to the time most be spend making a reasonably healthy meal. I'm comparing to the time somebody would have to spend to make ideal meals and eat them at ideal times. Meaning exactly everything you need with nothing extra. How many people actually do that? The fact that you skipped over the 2nd part of the sentence you quoted means you are either stupid or.. nope, just stupid. Heck, even if you purchase ready-made or microwave most of your meals, how much time out of your day do you spend on food and eating?
" if I am missing something from my soylent recipe that only exists in regular food, then I'll still get some."
assuming what you are missing (if anything ) is in the food you eat on weekends.
While that is a good point, I'm also assuming that if it's missing in the food I would eat on the weekends, then it's also missing from the food I would have eaten if I wasn't drinking the soylent. The whole point of this was to provide a comparison.
Maybe it's just a horrible article, but the numbers don't make sense:
The team found that between 17 and 36 per cent of smog produced in China in 2006 came from factories making goods for export. One-fifth of those goods are destined for the US.
Okay, so let's take the average of 17 and 36, we get (17+36)/2 = 26.5. One fifth of that is 5.3. So, 5.3% of smog produced in China came from producing goods for export to the US.
The modelling revealed that on any given day in 2006, goods made in China for the US market accounted for up to a quarter of the sulphate smog over the western US.
Ok, so here's what doesn't make sense. If they're saying 25% of the smog came from china, then only 1.3% of the total smog is from goods produced for export to the US. On the other hand, if they're really saying that what they're saying, and 25% of total smog is from US goods, that means 470% of the smog in total is form China.
This leads to the conclusion that one of the following must be true:
1. The study is full of shit, and the authors need to go back to elementary school. Or,
2. The article is full of shit, and the journalist needs to go back to elementary school. Maybe what the study really says is 25% of the US west coast's smog comes from China, of which 5.3% of that is from production of goods for the US. Or,
3. The paper was written in Chinese, and the translator needs to learn English. Ever put together something complicated made in China? As in, wtf do you mean insert 4 bolts there? There are only screws, and there are only two holes, and they don't line up! Or,
4. Somehow, perhaps by magic, only the sulphate molecules that came out of factories producing goods for the US get blown to the US, while the sulphate molecules made in other production don't. If these molecules somehow know the destination of the goods whose manufacture resulted in their creation, that could make for some really interesting follow up studies! Or,
5. I'm really tired and I missed something. But I don't think I'm that tired.
This nitwit has borrowed the name, probably having seen the derivative film and never twigged to the fact that the word meant something.
It's a metaphor. He's not saying it's the exact same stuff that's in the book. Maybe it's silly, but it's also catchy. If he didn't know what he was doing when he named it, then perhaps it would be reasonable to call him a nitwit, but that's clearly not the case. It's like Sex Wax surfboard wax. Did the creators really think it was actually intended to be used for sex? Of course not. They named it that because it's catchy and people buy it. It also happens to be the best wax on the market IMO.
I've been drinking my homemade "soylent" (with a lowercase 's', because it's not his brand) most weekdays for about 2 months now. In fact, I'm drinking it right now, literally. Actually not literally, I set it down to type. I adapted it from various recipes I found online, all started by the ideas of the creator of Soylent. I'm also a competitive athlete, so I tweaked things quite a bit, particularly the macronutrients. So, as the (seemingly) only commenter who actually has experience with it, I'll point out a few things:
1. To those whining about lack of fiber...it has plenty of fiber (33.45 grams to be exact). More than that little bit of shredded lettuce in a Big Mac extra value meal. In fact, my bowel movements seem more regular on soylent than when I eat regular food.
2. I eat better on it than without it. Meaning: Okay, what if my recipe isn't perfect? What if I'm missing something? Well compare that to what I would otherwise normally eat on a weekday...maybe some toast for breakfast, a microwave chicken burrito for lunch, and a reasonably healthy but probably too large meal for dinner to make up for the slice of toast I had for breakfast. Then I have to try to work those meals around my workouts, which probably means downing some extra calories. Some days I ate well, some days not.
3. It's a timesaver. This is related to #2. If I wanted to take several hours to create the healthiest most ideal meals every day, then perhaps it would come out healthier than soylent. But let's face it, that just doesn't happen. I've tried that in the past, and it always falls by the wayside. I'd rather be out having fun...obviously if cooking was your version of play (e.g. it's your favorite hobby) then this isn't for you. I can hold my own pretty well in the kitchen and have always enjoyed making delicious meals once and a while, but 90% of the time it just seems like work.
4. I eat at better times. I spend 10 minutes in the morning mixing it up. Then it's right there, available to me anytime, all I have to do is go to the fridge and poor it into a glass, or take it with me in a water bottle, so I can eat at ideal times that are the healthiest, meaning my caloric distribution throughout is even and/or at proper times around my workouts, rather than having too few calories in the morning and too many late at night like most people do. Otherwise, I end up being too busy for awhile, then by the time it's my next meal I end up either just throwing something in the microwave and/or eating too much all at once, or I go too long before or after a workout without eating, or I eat right before a workout and my stomach isn't happy...you get the idea.
5. I never feel too hungry. I don't crave junk like I do otherwise. If I do have a thought like, "gee, some chips sound good," I don't feel compelled to eat them because I don't feel hungry, plus I know I can eat them on the weekend if I still want them.
6. I chose to eat normal on the weekends because that's when it becomes a social thing. Also, by knowing I'm going to eat other foods on the weekend it keeps me from craving junk, and also if I am missing something from my soylent recipe that only exists in regular food, then I'll still get some.
It's really expensive to bury lines, something like 10x the cost of above ground lines in some cases. The only way you're gonna get them to do it is if your neighborhood ponies up the money. The other alternative is to change the C&Rs to allow above ground, and even then they'll only do it if they're gonna make more money than what it costs.
stopping just short of burying our own cable and hoping they'll at least be willing to run a line to the pole at the end of the street and drop it into our box.
Well, if you want it badly enough, then that may be pretty much what you have to do (or at least bear the cost of it). You're dealing with a for-profit company, not a charity, so from a business perspective why would they spend the money when they have no hope of making enough to cover it in the foreseeable future?
Not if they're used for food, materials, etc. As long as nothing goes to waste, I don't see a problem with it.
There have been many cultures where it was considered acceptable to eat other humans. Some would even massacre/slaughter villages and eat the spoils. Would that still be okay today, as long as nothing goes to waste?
What other word would you have them use?
I agree, "slaughter" should not have been used in the headline. Considering the intelligence of dolphins compared to cows, pigs, chickens, or fish, "murder" or "massacre" would have been more appropriate terms.
It was an issue in the election that Obama won in 2008. The problem is that he lied his ass off and wasn't held accountable in 2012, not because Obama was doing a great job but because the other guy would have been 10x worse. I'm sure whoever runs in 2016 will either lie their ass off or figure out a way to make it a non-issue.
Among other lies on the subject:
"That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient," Obama said in 2007.
Later:
"I take the Constitution very seriously," he said. "The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America."
But either way, this won't be a huge issue in the next election. Ironically, it'll be the things Obama actually did right that the democrats get reamed for, like social services (since that costs money, albeit a teeny tiny fraction of what the wars are costing each year) that help a helluva lot of people,I didn't even know how much good they did until having a conversation with a relative who's a social worker, and healthcare reform (although implementation was half-assed, it is allowing a lot of people get insurance, and in the bigger picture it's a move in the right direction).
The "Windows key" location existed before on other systems, it was called the "meta" key. Apple had the Apple logo in that place, Sun keyboards had the diamond logo, even the Symbolics machines had the key well before Microsoft even talked about ripping off DOS.
The point wasn't that MS was innovative in creating the Windows key, the point was that they got other manufacturers to include the Windows key in their keyboards.
XP is a security nightmare and most MBA managers do not know or calculate this.
If all you're running is Microsoft Office or other off-the-shelve programs, sure, but there's a hell of a lot of niche stuff out there that still requires Windows XP, either because upgrading to a new niche product would be extremely expensive, or because there is no longer a product that does the same thing so it would require massive (expensive) organizational changes.
So yeah, in a lot of cases upgrading from Windows XP is a lot more expensive than just the Windows license and the labor of the IT guy. Don't get me wrong, there's still a ton of organizations that fall into that category too, just sayin' there's more to it for a lot of organization than you seem to realize.
I wouldn't call it pseudoscience
From the hippie side of things, yes, it is. These are the same people who think that eating an "alkalizing" diet and drinking "alkalized water" is a necessity for being healthy and ridding the body of "toxins." It's pseudoscience because they have BS "science" that "proves" it. For example, there are papers by people with fake phd's that say eating protein means your pee is more acidic, which means your body is toxic. Anyone who remembers high school biology should know why that's BS (and why the "Westernmost Institution for Gaia Science" is not an accredited institution), but they believe it because they've smoked away their high school memories.
Interestingly, at least on Maui, I can't necessarily speak for the Big Island but I'm going to assume parallels, it wasn't the hippies that got the anti-GMO ball rolling, although they're the ones taking off with it. The initial ball-rollers were the taro farmers, and for entirely different (and IMO legitimate) reasons. There are a lot of small independent family (actually a family, not just a big conglomerate owned by a family) taro farmers. With taro (it's like a big potato), much of the planting is done by cutting of the top of the corm (the potato part) and replanting it. They saw what Monsanto was doing with not allowing corn farmers to save seed, and were concerned that if the taro market went to GMO the same thing would happen with taro, where farmers would be entirely dependent on Monsanto and pretty much unable to resist or remain independent.
The SEC is missing the point of their existence. Okay, so I know the point really is that big business wants to prevent competition and they are the SEC's puppet master, but in theory...
The point of the SEC is to prevent corruption by making sure investors know exactly what they're getting into. In crowdfunding, "investors" know exactly what they're getting into (I'll use typical kickstarter as examples). The investors don't expect to make a profit. They are presented with some information, if they think it's cool then they'll donate (it's called a pledge, not an investment for cryin' out loud!). They know there's a good chance the company won't succeed, but if it does, cool, they get some sort of reward.
There's a big difference between saying, "here, pledge a few bucks, if we succeed you get something cool." And, "here, invest your money with us, we promise we'll succeed and make you even more money." So if there's no promise of a return on investment, why should a company be required to back up a non-existent promise on a non-existent investment?
That's what happens when you hire fast food workers into bureaucratic roles and give them absolute power over other people.
That is seriously not fair. You are pretty lumping a whole group of hard working, well-meaning people in with a job position that is at the absolute bottom of society. You really should have more respect for fast food workers.
Why they didn't just give all this stuff to Google is beyond me. I'm sure they'd love to have a project like this, and they'd probably make it publicly available for the price of ads.
Can you really not imagine why they might do this? How much money is T3 making off of this, and who are they brib^H^H^H^H contributing campaign funds to?
No politician that already has any real power is going to want to reign in the NSA. Politicians don't want to take anything like this back. If you're the one who does, and then an attack does happen, then regardless of whether or not it would have been prevented you're pretty much handing the next election to your opponent, who will claim that the attack was your fault because you were too soft.
If you were a sociopath and cared only about your career rather than doing what's right (as a politician generally is by the time they get elected to an office where they have any real power), would you make a decision at work that had a finite chance of completely ruining your career?
Per Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution,
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Let's not dilute the word by using it for other bad things.
If we go with the federal government's stipulation that terrorists are the enemy, then yes, the NSA is adhering to the terrorists. Without the TLAs' and politicians' reaction to 9/11, people would not still be terrified. A terrorist's goal is not to kill people, it's to make those who remain alive afraid, hence the word "terrorist" and not "mass murderer." So:
1. Terrorists are the enemy of the USA (as stipulated by the TLAs and politicians).
2. By definition, the Terrorists' mission is to make people afraid.
3. The the TLAs' and politicians' reaction to the terrorists' action 12 years ago are intended to keep people afraid (though they may have different motivation than Al Qaeda, the intent is still there).
4. By #2 and #3, the TLAs and politicians are aiding the terrorists and adhering to their mission.
5. By #1 and #4, the TLAs and politicians are committing treason.
QED
You could know this before he was elected the first time, because he went out of his way to vote in favor of the program.
Actually here's some of his election promises:
"Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law."
"As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision."
Because I was just following orders. Just like the Nazis.
The reason Facebook has any advertising income, and therefore value as a company, is that it has the ability to provide very directed advertising.
If you want to target people who read cnn.com and nytimes.com, why not just advertise there like you always could.
I think the phrase "For example" implies the answer. They're giving that as one example of how you can infer somebody's income, but the whole point of aggregating as much info as possible about somebody is that you have more factors available. If somebody reads cnn and nytimes daily, they are more likely to be wealthier. If they read cnn, nytimes, meet 10 other factors that imply their income, live in an area with a hot real estate market, and have been looking at real estate related websites, then you're gonna be more successful when server those people ads for mortgages than a random cnn reader.
And give us a constitutional-based government with elections.
Our government is constitutionally based. Of course, the government doesn't actually follow the constitution when they don't want to, but it's still based on it. We have elections too. That doesn't mean they're meaningful in any way, but we still have them.
I think what you mean is:
And give us a government that actually follows the constitution and has fair and meaningful elections.
If the book was published in 2009 and the exact event stated by DHS for denying entry occurred in 2012, how did the 2012 event get known by the DHS from a 2009 book?
Remember that "Minority Report style interface" that /. is always talking about it? The DHS has the whole setup.
but why would the DHS consider a depressed Canadian (whose itinerary, and thus the fact that she'd be on a boat for most of her time here, were presumably also known to them) an entry problem?
False positives. Some dumb algorithm that was designed by committee red flagged something, and any lower-level human in the [TSA|FBI|DHS|ICE|CIA] doesn't want to be the one to push it up the food chain to get overridden because their primary job responsibility is to keep their head down to avoid getting in trouble.
What about someone who just reads erotica ... while naked and covered in butter? Hypothetically, of course!
I'd say you would be in big trouble, because the corn industry gives more campaign contributions than the dairy industry. Switch to margarine or canola oil and you should be okay.