For the same price as a high-end dedicated device you can get a tablet that will do everything they can do and far more.
No you don't; why are there people that just can't understand that to some of us an e-ink screen provides a superior reading experience to a glowing one?
Honey is a better option nutrition-wise than sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, and a small amount of either is fine, especially considering that the yeast will convert most of that sugar anyway. But I strongly suspect, based on the location in the ingredients, and the total sugars number, that the sugar in packaged bread far exceeds the amount that you're putting in your challah.
The sugar in the bread serves two functions. It feeds the yeast so that the bread rises, and it reacts with starch to make the crust turn brown & tasty.
As I told the previous poster, it is a myth that you need sugar to make the bread rise. If you don't believe it, try baking it without yeast. Just allow it more time to rise.
Without sugar, your bread would be much denser, and all one color. The 'crust' would just be really dry compared to the interior of the bread.
And you've obviously never tried a traditional French baguette. The bread would be much denser only if you did not allow it a little bit more time to rise.
So what exactly was so wrong about my original assertion?
Ok, I probably spoke too strongly, though overall I think I am right because as far as I know there is no law mandating restaurants do this. A small number of municipalities (such as NYC), and as you point out, a couple of states, require certain restaurants to post the information, but this is not a US-wide thing. I also think we may be coming at this with cultural differences. Where I grew up (NYC, where this guy is trying to pass this law), the vast majority of restaurants are not chain restaurants, so if you say "restaurant" I don't automatically think Chili's, I picture some local place. These local places have no obligation to post nutritional information. I wish they did; I usually eat lunch at Subway, despite the fact that there are some really good delis around here that produce tastier sandwiches, simply because I can monitor calorie/sodium intake.
Bread does not need sugar, though sugar helps it rise faster; in fact, traditional french bread can't have sugar. There are actually a few brands of bread in the supermarket that won't have sugar; my point was they are very hard to find, because the vast majority pour it (listing it as sugar, high fructose corn syrup, or evaporated cane juice)in liberally.
What problem are you trying to solve? Have you read food labels lately? What information is missing that would help you in your quest for healthy food?
True, the problem isn't in the information (except for those annoying labels that show nutritional information by ounce, but don't disclose how many ounces are in the thing in total, but those are a minority). The problem is for some categories of food it's almost impossible to get things that aren't pumped full of sugar and salt. Like bread. There is no reason to put sugar in bread, but it is incredibly difficult to find bread at the supermarket that doesn't have sugar in it.
Tennesee Code:
39-13-212. Criminally negligent homicide.
a) Criminally negligent conduct that results in death constitutes criminally negligent homicide.
b) Criminally negligent homicide is a Class E felony.
39-15-401. Child abuse and child neglect or endangerment.
c) (1) A parent or custodian of a child eight (8) years of age or younger commits child endangerment who knowingly exposes the child to or knowingly fails to protect the child from abuse or neglect resulting in physical injury to the child.
39-17-1320. Providing handguns to juveniles -- Penalties. --
(a) It is an offense for a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun with or without remuneration to any person that the person providing the handgun knows or has reason to believe is a juvenile in violation of 39-17-1319.
How quaint. The rest of us find it fascinating how you, and people like you, want somehow to believe that these other industry players are simply very nice guys, hanging out together, sailing, watching the Super Bowl, and just utterly dismayed as to how the mean old Steve Jobs would be so unkind to them.
Nice, but I never said that. I have no doubt that Schwarz, like Jobs, and like many, many CEOs is likely a jerk.
Another, and likely more valid, perspective on this bit of industry history is that McNealy and Schwartz thought they could play hard ball with Steve Jobs. They bet their company, and they lost.
The idea that Sun "bet the company" on a Linux GUI is so ridiculous that it needs no rebuttal.
Regarding Concurrence, if there exist any patents relevant to the basic concept of a presentation package,
And from Schwarz's blog entry you immediately deduced that the patents Jobs was talking about concerned a "basic concept of a presentation package"? Why would you jump to a conclusion like that?
Frankly, this part of the story doesn't ring true. Silence on the other end of the phone when provoked in such a manner isn't exactly the style of Mr. Jobs, as you might have suspected since you're actively engaged in propagating rumors of his notorious alleged personality traits.
I'm not saying Steve is a wonderful guy. He's a business man running a business. Please explain to me what you think a business should do when they feel a competitor is infringing their patents. No, really. Let's be serious for a moment and boil it down to the core issue - what should a company do when they feel a competitor is infringing their patents? Now, if you give pretty much the only logical answer that anyone with a hint of business sense could possibly give, then the next question is "why should Apple act differently?" Seriously, why is it evil when Apple does what you would expect any company to do in a similar situation?
Anyone with a hint of business sense would give the only logical answer possible: it depends. A real business person would ask themselves what are the pros and cons of suing? Is this real competition? Would I be spending millions of dollars to litigate something that we can win in the marketplace? Does the entity I want to sue have its own patents it can leverage against us? Would the benefits outweigh any negative publicity? Where would I have to sue them? Is this a company I want to stay on good terms with? Real business is not so cut and dried as you seem to think.
Misformatted the end part there, should have had this separately:
My response was simple. "Steve, I was just watching your last presentation, and Keynote looks identical to Concurrence - do you own that IP?" Concurrence was a presentation product built by Lighthouse Design, a company I'd help to found and which Sun acquired in 1996. Lighthouse built applications for NeXTSTEP, the Unix based operating system whose core would become the foundation for all Mac products after Apple acquired NeXT in 1996. Steve had used Concurrence for years, and as Apple built their own presentation tool, it was obvious where they'd found inspiration. "And last I checked, MacOS is now built on Unix. I think Sun has a few OS patents, too." Steve was silent.
Isn't not suing in the first place when you can even more respectful?
I love how people are eager to describe it as "Steve threatening to sue" when I see it as Steve showing an industry colleague the respect they deserve and picking up the phone himself to make a personal, direct call to provide advance warning and give the other company the chance to remedy the problem before the lawyers are unleashed. If Steve was so evil, he just would have given the lawyers the go-ahead and the first Sun would have known of the issue is when the legal papers arrived. That didn't happen. Phone calls were made and companies were given the chance to fix the issues before it turned nasty.
I don't think you understand how big an undertaking litigation is. Steve made that call because he hoped to prevent a competitor from releasing a product he was nervous about. Respect had absolutely nothing to do with it. Even if he thought he would win (and Steve is neither a lawyer nor a GUI developer so he has no special insight into whether he would), lawsuits are expensive.
Now, I know that flies in the face of the oh-so-cool "Apple is teh evil!" that is all the rage lately but, seriously, can we get some perspective. Steve himself made a call. He didn't pawn it off on an underling. He showed his industry colleague the respect they deserve by making the call himself. He gave advance warning. He let the other company decide whether to take their chances or change their plans. He gave them the power to determine their fate. Sounds pretty respectful to me.
I find it fascinating that you and people like you will not be swayed by three decades of firsthand accounts as to how Jobs treats people, not only competitors but employees and business partners. Why are you so desperate to paint Jobs as anything other than a narcissist? I can understand you love Apple, but why do you extend that love to the CEO too? Can't you really like a movie without also idolizing the president of the production company?
My response was simple. "Steve, I was just watching your last presentation, and Keynote looks identical to Concurrence - do you own that IP?" Concurrence was a presentation product built by Lighthouse Design, a company I'd help to found and which Sun acquired in 1996. Lighthouse built applications for NeXTSTEP, the Unix based operating system whose core would become the foundation for all Mac products after Apple acquired NeXT in 1996. Steve had used Concurrence for years, and as Apple built their own presentation tool, it was obvious where they'd found inspiration. "And last I checked, MacOS is now built on Unix. I think Sun has a few OS patents, too." Steve was silent.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm using an inferior LCD screen instead.
For the same price as a high-end dedicated device you can get a tablet that will do everything they can do and far more.
No you don't; why are there people that just can't understand that to some of us an e-ink screen provides a superior reading experience to a glowing one?
More like $50/hour goes to the peon doing the actual job, and $78/hour goes to the contract holder.
For $50 an hour, you could call me a peon.
Yes because the government might figure out.....WHERE I LIVE? NOOOO!
you can even buy something that doesn't qualify as 'semi-automatic' without putting a mild amount of effort into it.
Effort like...saying "I'll take the revolver"?
Bearing arms is indeed your right, whether or not you agree that it should be your right. Read the fucking constitution some time.
And the Constitution isn't law? He's not allowed to criticize the Constitution?
Honestly, after 20 years or however long that joke has been around, any humor in it joke has been eroded away.
Perhaps this is an indication of how far from reality the ruling class is: it would seem that many of them have never had to cook for themselves.
Trust me, a NY assemblyman is not part of the "ruling class."
When was this though? Rents in the East Village used to be relatively cheap.
Honey is a better option nutrition-wise than sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, and a small amount of either is fine, especially considering that the yeast will convert most of that sugar anyway. But I strongly suspect, based on the location in the ingredients, and the total sugars number, that the sugar in packaged bread far exceeds the amount that you're putting in your challah.
I'm guessing you don't work with many engineers.
Or read much slashdot.
This poster has never baked bread.
Actually I have.
The sugar in the bread serves two functions. It feeds the yeast so that the bread rises, and it reacts with starch to make the crust turn brown & tasty.
As I told the previous poster, it is a myth that you need sugar to make the bread rise. If you don't believe it, try baking it without yeast. Just allow it more time to rise.
Without sugar, your bread would be much denser, and all one color. The 'crust' would just be really dry compared to the interior of the bread.
And you've obviously never tried a traditional French baguette. The bread would be much denser only if you did not allow it a little bit more time to rise.
So what exactly was so wrong about my original assertion?
Ok, I probably spoke too strongly, though overall I think I am right because as far as I know there is no law mandating restaurants do this. A small number of municipalities (such as NYC), and as you point out, a couple of states, require certain restaurants to post the information, but this is not a US-wide thing. I also think we may be coming at this with cultural differences. Where I grew up (NYC, where this guy is trying to pass this law), the vast majority of restaurants are not chain restaurants, so if you say "restaurant" I don't automatically think Chili's, I picture some local place. These local places have no obligation to post nutritional information. I wish they did; I usually eat lunch at Subway, despite the fact that there are some really good delis around here that produce tastier sandwiches, simply because I can monitor calorie/sodium intake.
Actually, sugar is food for the yeast in bread.
Bread does not need sugar, though sugar helps it rise faster; in fact, traditional french bread can't have sugar. There are actually a few brands of bread in the supermarket that won't have sugar; my point was they are very hard to find, because the vast majority pour it (listing it as sugar, high fructose corn syrup, or evaporated cane juice)in liberally.
Every restaurant has to post their ingredients somewhere (often online).
That is one of the wrongest thing I've ever read on slashdot, and that's saying somethign.
What problem are you trying to solve? Have you read food labels lately? What information is missing that would help you in your quest for healthy food?
True, the problem isn't in the information (except for those annoying labels that show nutritional information by ounce, but don't disclose how many ounces are in the thing in total, but those are a minority). The problem is for some categories of food it's almost impossible to get things that aren't pumped full of sugar and salt. Like bread. There is no reason to put sugar in bread, but it is incredibly difficult to find bread at the supermarket that doesn't have sugar in it.
It's good to see that the /. editorial bias is still very much well and truly alive.
Which bias are you talking about? I don't see the usual slashdot pro-gun bias evidenced here.
Tennesee Code:
39-13-212. Criminally negligent homicide.
a) Criminally negligent conduct that results in death constitutes criminally negligent homicide.
b) Criminally negligent homicide is a Class E felony.
39-15-401. Child abuse and child neglect or endangerment.
c) (1) A parent or custodian of a child eight (8) years of age or younger commits child endangerment who knowingly exposes the child to or knowingly fails to protect the child from abuse or neglect resulting in physical injury to the child.
39-17-1320. Providing handguns to juveniles -- Penalties. --
(a) It is an offense for a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun with or without remuneration to any person that the person providing the handgun knows or has reason to believe is a juvenile in violation of 39-17-1319.
Who's scared? I simply admit that shit happens, and am prepared to deal with shit happening to me.
You have no idea how prepared you are. Just having a gun doesn't mean you'll know how to use it or won't freeze up when the time comes.
Wow you're a little jumpy there.
Are they saying a picture of a fan does not provide the same level of cooling as a real fan?
How quaint. The rest of us find it fascinating how you, and people like you, want somehow to believe that these other industry players are simply very nice guys, hanging out together, sailing, watching the Super Bowl, and just utterly dismayed as to how the mean old Steve Jobs would be so unkind to them.
Nice, but I never said that. I have no doubt that Schwarz, like Jobs, and like many, many CEOs is likely a jerk.
Another, and likely more valid, perspective on this bit of industry history is that McNealy and Schwartz thought they could play hard ball with Steve Jobs. They bet their company, and they lost.
The idea that Sun "bet the company" on a Linux GUI is so ridiculous that it needs no rebuttal.
Regarding Concurrence, if there exist any patents relevant to the basic concept of a presentation package,
And from Schwarz's blog entry you immediately deduced that the patents Jobs was talking about concerned a "basic concept of a presentation package"? Why would you jump to a conclusion like that?
Frankly, this part of the story doesn't ring true. Silence on the other end of the phone when provoked in such a manner isn't exactly the style of Mr. Jobs, as you might have suspected since you're actively engaged in propagating rumors of his notorious alleged personality traits.
Unless Jobs really didn't have a response.
I'm not saying Steve is a wonderful guy. He's a business man running a business. Please explain to me what you think a business should do when they feel a competitor is infringing their patents. No, really. Let's be serious for a moment and boil it down to the core issue - what should a company do when they feel a competitor is infringing their patents? Now, if you give pretty much the only logical answer that anyone with a hint of business sense could possibly give, then the next question is "why should Apple act differently?" Seriously, why is it evil when Apple does what you would expect any company to do in a similar situation?
Anyone with a hint of business sense would give the only logical answer possible: it depends. A real business person would ask themselves what are the pros and cons of suing? Is this real competition? Would I be spending millions of dollars to litigate something that we can win in the marketplace? Does the entity I want to sue have its own patents it can leverage against us? Would the benefits outweigh any negative publicity? Where would I have to sue them? Is this a company I want to stay on good terms with? Real business is not so cut and dried as you seem to think.
Isn't not suing in the first place when you can even more respectful?
I love how people are eager to describe it as "Steve threatening to sue" when I see it as Steve showing an industry colleague the respect they deserve and picking up the phone himself to make a personal, direct call to provide advance warning and give the other company the chance to remedy the problem before the lawyers are unleashed. If Steve was so evil, he just would have given the lawyers the go-ahead and the first Sun would have known of the issue is when the legal papers arrived. That didn't happen. Phone calls were made and companies were given the chance to fix the issues before it turned nasty.
I don't think you understand how big an undertaking litigation is. Steve made that call because he hoped to prevent a competitor from releasing a product he was nervous about. Respect had absolutely nothing to do with it. Even if he thought he would win (and Steve is neither a lawyer nor a GUI developer so he has no special insight into whether he would), lawsuits are expensive.
Now, I know that flies in the face of the oh-so-cool "Apple is teh evil!" that is all the rage lately but, seriously, can we get some perspective. Steve himself made a call. He didn't pawn it off on an underling. He showed his industry colleague the respect they deserve by making the call himself. He gave advance warning. He let the other company decide whether to take their chances or change their plans. He gave them the power to determine their fate. Sounds pretty respectful to me.
I find it fascinating that you and people like you will not be swayed by three decades of firsthand accounts as to how Jobs treats people, not only competitors but employees and business partners. Why are you so desperate to paint Jobs as anything other than a narcissist? I can understand you love Apple, but why do you extend that love to the CEO too? Can't you really like a movie without also idolizing the president of the production company? My response was simple. "Steve, I was just watching your last presentation, and Keynote looks identical to Concurrence - do you own that IP?" Concurrence was a presentation product built by Lighthouse Design, a company I'd help to found and which Sun acquired in 1996. Lighthouse built applications for NeXTSTEP, the Unix based operating system whose core would become the foundation for all Mac products after Apple acquired NeXT in 1996. Steve had used Concurrence for years, and as Apple built their own presentation tool, it was obvious where they'd found inspiration. "And last I checked, MacOS is now built on Unix. I think Sun has a few OS patents, too." Steve was silent.