Re:Organic vs processed (toxic) sugar.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Well poop. There goes all the old classical chemistry.
Thankfully it doesn't look like a route to enrich any of the fissile elements so there is that. The Mad Mullahs are still stuck with centrifuges.
Re:Organic vs processed (toxic) sugar.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
> Wasn't there some studies that showed that the type of carbon from Corn could be traced through the food chain?
It is probably true that you can measure different concentrations of Carbon-14 in the same molecules derived from different sources. But I doubt it would vary much between corn and sugar cane, more likely between different growing regions.
Update: Wikipedia's entry for Carbon-13 suggests there is a difference in ratios based on the 'carbon fixation' method of different plants. But both sugar cane and corn use the same method so there is no difference. So I learned something today.:)
> Wouldn't that make HFCS different in the isotope of Carbon provided to "natural" sources of sugar?
As for differences in how they react in the body? Did poorly in basic physics and chemistry huh? Isotopes are only important in matters of radioactive decay and such. As far as chemistry is concerned Carbon is Carbon. Any change in the nuclus that makes it react different chemically also makes it a different element, by definition.
And again, Wikipedia says some people claim health benefits from higher concentrations of C13 but it sounds like a load of hippie crap because C13 is just as stable as C12 and I really doubt the slight difference in mass means much chemically. Chemically separating isotopes is pretty difficult to pull off, despite the note above. If it were easy they wouldn't use huge centrifuges in commercial operations.
All vendors play these games, Nicrosoft just happens to be damned good at it.
Remember their EAL certification on NT? So long as there wasn't a network port or floppy drive installed on the machine, that part buried in the fine print of course.
Or adding the POSIX subsystem to NT to meet a bid spec. Because of course whoever wrote the spec never imagined somebody would write a whole POSIX implementation, get it certified POSIX and then just ignore it. Because I don't think anyone can point to a single damned application that was ever ported into NT's POSIX subsystem and actually deployed. The whole thing was such a scam they actually used the GNU tools to get it up and going as quick as they did, even had source available to comply with the GPL. Guess it wasn't a cancer when it was helping them scam the Department of the Navy.
Or Office supporting a standard file format.... not. They damned near destroyed the ISO bribing and manipulating the standards process to get a standard they don't actually make an effort to implement. Because as bad as OOXML is it is a standard and if they adhered to it interopeability might result and that would be the end of their monopoly.
Uh... no. Assignment in a conditional and using the fact assignments return the value is a useful idiom. Sometimes it makes code clearer, sometimes it doesn't. Learn to use it for good.
An example for a few days ago makes this pretty clear:
while (my $circ = $circs->fetchrow_hashref) {
It happens to be perl, but equally applicable to most C looking languages that use = and == for assign and equality. Any actual value assigned is TRUE and the loop continues.
> Oak Trail's Atom Z620 processor and SM35 Express hub have a thermal envelope of just 3.75W.
Which isn't in the ball park yet. Look at a typical tablet. A large battery in one has about ~25W/Hr. That would get you a pretty decent six hours.... if you didn't have to worry about misc crap like radios and displays. Oops. And it is notable that they aren't bragging about solving the idle power consumption problem of x86.
> The reason x86 can emulate ARM is because ARM is *simple by design*
Which is only a nicer way of saying RISC. Bottom line is you need more cycles to get the same work done and the fastest ARM chips clock slower than the slowest x86 chips. ARM products that play music and video for example, always offload that sort of compute intensive work because pure software decoding is pitiful. Yes, I own a Nokia N770. Where ARM totally owns Intel is power consumption, both idle power and computing work per unit of power.
Now try emulating a puny 1.6Ghz Atom on a 1Ghz ARM and see how well that goes. Even if you have one of the new dual core ARMs you don't have anywhere near the computing power to make the attempt and if you try you will only succeed in killing the battery, defeating the primary advantage of ARM vs x86.
Yes Microsoft is going to chase the trend and make something for ARM, otherwise they cede the mobile space to Apple and Google. However, while they will call it Windows 8 it won't bear much relationship to the x86 edition we all know and either loath or love.
1. Anyone think Microsoft (or any of their hardware OEM partners) are remotely interested in releasing what we think of as an Operating System on a new mobile platform? Not when they can lock it down hard and rake in the same 30% Apple gets from their app store. Do not think it an accident Microsoft also leaked screenshots of thier app store this week.
2. No, it won't run any existing Windows apps. ARM is puny, x86 is strong. x86 can emulate ARM (see iOS and Android dev environments) but there is no way ARM is going to emulate x86 apps at a usable speed. Assuming of course I'm totally full of crap on point one and unsigned apps were somehow permitted in the first place. Exception possible for.NET projects with no native code, but again see point one.
3. Even if you could, smartphones and tablets are a different environment so an existing Windows app would be lame.
4. Microsoft has ported Windows in the past. They even got some of their own apps running. I'm told Alpha even had most of Office running native vs via FX!86 before the end. But 3rd party buy in wasn't there and they suffered something similar to the fate of Linux. No 3rd party apps means no large deployements which means no interest by developers to port the 3rd party apps. If Microsoft can make cross porting totally painless this time they might have better luck, but again see point one and three. Just having an ARM binary of Photoshop crap out of Visual Studio along with the x86_32 and x86_64 copies won't result in a product Adobe would be willing to sell to tablet customers. Also have to wonder if they will like giving Microsoft 30%. Yes the normal retail path eats more but BestBuy isn't out to kill them.
So if Windows on ARM gains little from the existing catalog of "Windows" applications, will almost certainly require more robust hardware (battery life is issue one) to run it vs Ubuntu or Android and might even piss off customers who won't realize that Windows != Windows will it get traction?
> So Obama both spent a billion dollars in 2008 (liar), and is a cheap whore?
I think you had a reading comprehension failure on that one. Said just the opposite.
> You're not just a liar, you're insane.
Not at all. Official spending of $740B plus at least that much unofficial spending by the unions and other special interest groups in 'uncordinated independent expenditures.' All campaigns do it, not attributing special malice to Obama on that account. The person most responsible would be that asshole McCain for his Mccain/Feingold bogosity. (Mr. McCain, what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you have trouble comprehending?)
> The kind of insane that thinks that any programme can run at all with > no idea whether it will be funded next year.
Since elections are only every other year it the consensus on spending should be fairly constant in out years. But the idea behind my proposal is that pretty quickly the only things the federal government would still be doing were things a widespread consensus could be built for. Which would reduce the Federal government down to something close to the constitutional limits. Because yes, controversial multi-year projects would be sorta insane in the scheme I proposed. The question is whether that is a bug or a feature. I say feature.
> So insane that you don't notice that spending $TRILLIONS invading > countries for no reason other than spending $TRILLIONS on cronies...
Afganistan was a needful war. Whether we should be spending Sagans building a country in a region that has never had one is debatable and we probably are a lot closer on that point. Iraq is a bit more debatable, reasonable people can disagree and should have BEFORE we started shooting. But no, every D was running to a microphone to sign on, only to switch sides as soon as the shooting started. But no, once the shooting starts it is too late for debate, once a war starts the only rational thing is to win it as quickly as possible with as few losses as possible.
Oh, and who are the cronies who will be making trillions from Obama's reckless and illegal war in Libya? I'm free to criticize because there was no debate or vote in Congress.
> Who evidently thinks that sharia law is coming soon to the US.
No, Sharia law is coming to Europe. It will take another generation or two for it to come here. This is only because we import most of our poor unskilled labor from Catholic Mexico and other Central American countries while Europe unwisely imported Middle Eastern Muslims. But we already have a lite version, see my.sig.
> The bulk of their mission is providing cancer screenings for women, providing STD > testing, as well as contraception, regular and emergency.
No they don't. People called PP and asked for cancer screenings, no PP location provides that service. I know brand name politicians were all over the legacy media saying they do, so if you are a casual disinterested citizen you can perhaps be forgiven for falling victim to those falsehoods. But it is a bald faced lie. And saying "as well as contraception, regular and emergency" tells me you a a double plus good duckspeaker so you probably knew you were repeating a lie.
The mission of Planned Parenthood is still unchanged from it's founder's mission. Eliminate black babies to 'improve the genetic health of the herd.' They don't care whether it happens through condoms or abortion. Either own it or choose a different set of allies.
> By what _possible_ measure are people like Rupert Murdoch "lefties" ?
He certainly isn't a righty, he endorsed Obama for POTUS. His news organizations are more tabloid sensationalist than right. He is simply a savy enough businessman to realizes there is a great unserved niche in the US news landscape.... consisting of the ~40% of the country who identify as conservative and by making a show of a middle right tilt can pretty much own that segment of the market. Combine that with a nice chunk of independents and conservative leaning Ds and you have the explanation for the ratings dominance of FNS. The more interesting question is why every other media outlet is still willing to cede half of the market to Murdoch and fight over the remainder. Answer that question and take the first step toward enlightenment.
And Fox certainly isn't immune from influence, they just sacked Beck for pissing off the Saudis (who own a nice chunk of News Corp.) and did it fast. Beck started promoting a 'very special episode' on Monday to expose an organized threat to Israel scheduled to have aired Friday. Thursday was apparently his final episode. On Friday they expanded Special Report across the first airing and put RedEye on top of the repeat slot.
> This nation's citizens could organize and do a complete end-run around the corporate-funded election process.
It would really help if a few of you guys would stop that stupidity. The 'corporations' don't run our elections. The Media and their lefty masters do. Do the math guys, Obama broke records in '08 by spending a billion dollars. Which is what percentage of what Coke spent promoting their flavored water over Pepsi's flavored water? The problem is not too much money in politics unless you are dumb enough to actually believe Obama not only a whore but a cheap one. He isn't. He is a true believer and so are most of the people in politics.
The problem is we have two absolutely opposed philosophical systems fighting for control of the country and because of the battlescape we can't even SAY that in public so everyone speaks in code. Hell a big chunk of one side won't even admit the scale of the fight even amongst themselves. Things can't continue like this much longer, one side will either defeat the other and implement their worldview in law or chaos will devour both sides.
To the actual topic of this article, the correct solution to the spending problem is to go after the core idea that isn't spoken of. Our problem stems from the underlying assumptions, so assumed they aren't even thought of as such, in the budgeting process. Baseline budgeting assumes any program, once approved, is immortal; that it is assumed in the next budget with an automatic increase for inflation plus a couple points for good measure. The other assumption is the art of political compromise is an OR operator. Democrats in the House have a list of program proposals, Republicans have a list. Democrats in the Senate and Republicans have lists. The Executive has policy new programs it wants. The default position is to 'compromise' by ORing those lists and funding most of them with the argument over amounts.
All spending bills must originate in the House so Baynor the Orange should just chuck both assumptions. Start with a zero baseline each year and each and every program be challenged to justify it's continued existence anew. And don't pass a handful of huge bills, pass a swarm of separate bills funding each program. If they fail in the Senate or get vetoed they are done. In other words start with zero and the set of programs that get funded becomes a logical AND operation instead of OR. Yes there would be a bit of back scratching where pols promise to vote on another guys pet program in exchange for a vote on their own, but demanding separate recorded votes on each program instead of allowing them to hide behind votes on hundred billion plus catchall funding bills would keep it down.
And right now I'd add an extra roll call vote right before each funding vote. A sense of the House resolution that the program in question is so fracking important that we should borrow the money from China to fund it. Just how many of the weasels would have the balls to go on record that Reid's fucking Cowboy Poetry is worth borrowing the money from China to fund. Lot of programs fail that test.
Another obviously mentally disturbed individual, if we have to claim him you guys have to take Laughner and his higher body count. Being an obvious nut probably explains the scant national coverage, which I did miss even though CNN apparently at least had a piece on their net presence.
> Check out Roy Warden.
What about him? Google doesn't find any crimes committed by him, at least on the first page. Anti-illegal immigration is ok but he seems to go a wee bit over the line to actual intolerance... but I didn't investigate too deeply and most of the accusations seem to track back to charges by the SPLC and they bear false witness and aren't to be believed without lots of independent evidence.
> They keep claiming their rallies are somehow cleaner, but I suspect that there is no independent verification of their claims.
The rally itself was carried live on C-Span so you are welcome to consult their archives for the events on the stage. Photos of the National Mall after the event are easy to find online. Compare and contrast with similar photos made of the union/revolutionary One Nation rally and the Stewart/Colbert rallys.
> And I certainly have no reason to take Beck at his word, he so obviously lies about so many things..
Uh huh. Vague charges. At least you aren't as stupid as the poster upthread who made the mistake of parroting a specific charge from the fever swamps. Idiot actually accused Beck of being an anti-semite, I wasn't nice to that guy. Mind making a specific charge so I might ridicule you too as another dishonest shill who hasn't ever actually watched the guy you are slandering as a liar?
And do remember that 'lie' doesn't mean what most lefties think it means, a lie is a knowingly bearing false witness. It isn't being wrong or holding a position progressives disagree with. For example, President Bush did not lie when he asserted that Saddam had WMD since he believed it to be true along with pretty much everyone else on the planet including Saddam Hussein. He may have been incorrect, but that isn't lying. Although the Syrians got a reactor from somewhere for the Israeli air force to blow up and there are persistent reports of cargo flown to Syria from Iraq on the eve of GWII, plus that whole shipload of Uranium that went to Canada from Iraq a couple of years ago that got little coverage. A lie is President Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman; Ms Lewinsky." (If you don't believe me let some bimbo blow you and tell your spouse/gf that you didn't have sex and invoke the Clinton defense. After they let you out of the hospital come back here and admit I was right.)
> Complain about Sharpton all you want, but he's not actually that important. You want to ban him?
You do know the President went just this week to kiss Sharpton's ring and ask for his support in the '12 campaign, right? Please supply your definition of 'not actually that important' that Sharpton isn't included in. Any racial issue results in EVERY media outlet booking Sharpton, even Fox, to get the official black response. And he incites riots, at least once resulting in death beyond a reasonable doubt attributable directly to him. He perpetuated the Tawana Brawley hoax. He has never apologized or paid any legal, political or financial price for either act.
> conspiracy theorists with barely-hidden anti-semitic views.
You just lost the argument with that one. Glenn Beck an anti-semite? To make the charge proves beyond all doubt that you are just spewing stuff you read out in the fever swamps of the left instead of actually watching a single episode of his program. There isn't a more strident defender of Israel to be found on the Tube. Or did you even know that Mr. Beck is a fundamentalist Mormon and almost all fundies are big defenders of Israel. You couldn't possibly have picked a worse time to make that charge. Today's program (preempted by coverage of the shutdown, so watch for it to air later) was promoted as exposing a 'growing danger' to Israel.
> Then why aren't Glenn Beck and half the hate speech jocks on am radio in jail?
Ok moron I call you out. Name ONE statement made by Glenn Beck that any sane person would consider 'hate speech.' It just ain't him. Or Rush. Liddy on the the other hand.... and Levin gets a bit overexcited so probably says stupid things too. However you specifically named Glenn Beck so back it up. Not conspiracy theory, not stuff you disagree with, not policy positions you don't like. And if you cite the radio show you had better provide a few paragraphs of context on either side to make it possible to separate the quotes of other people and obvious sarcasm/satire from serious commentary. As for the TV program I probably saw the episode since it and RedEye are the two FNS programs I DVR. (If you think Beck is hyperactive, try him at 1.2x playback sometimes.)
> the difference is that unlike the GOP, the Democratic party doesn't encourage, endorse or suggest violence
As much as I hate the "citation needed' meme on slashdot, I gotta call you out and ask for some examples.
Meanwhile finding violent lefties is trivial. Bringing up Al Sharpton would be almost like shooting fish in a barrel. Stood on the stage in Democratic Party presidential primary debates with blood on his hands. Inciting a riot that results in dead bodies is a violent crime that would have been prosecuted against any white person, including most Dems.
How many violent 60's rejects are honored elders in the Democratic Party? Oh, those don't count? Why?
How many Tea Party guys have been violently assaulted by lefty goons and loons? The SEIU beatdown Kenneth Gladney for the offense of being a capitalist, selling Gadsden flags at a TP event. Another loon bit a guy's fricking finger off. The Wisconsin situation has been on a hair trigger for violence now for a month, all from union goons and outright socialist revolutionaries.
Now name a violent right winger. You have to go back to McVeigh to even find a good candidate to try to hang on our team's account. Or that loon that popped the abortion Dr. a while back. But note the common thread there, all lone wolves, not organized all the way up to the highest levels of the party like Sharpton or SEIU.
Despite the faked fear from the legacy media for months of leadup, the most evil bugbear in your side's universe, Glenn Beck held a rally in Washington and instead of a hatefest with burning down the city as a big finish, the actual event was a prayer rally that left the grounds cleaner than they found them.
Somebody gets it running on a Thinkpad with a proper three button pointer and the Thinkpad build quality and I might consider it. But probably not even then, kinda late to make a jump to a dying platform from a closed software house. Because any idiot can see iOS is the future at Apple Inc. and that I would never touch. Plus there is the ever changing whims of Steve that make this foolishness from the GNOMEs seem minor since I still have two other desktop environment options while staying on Linux. If Steve changes the whole feng shei of the next OS X my options are? All in all, I'll pass.
> Do you truly hold the opinion that anything a socialist or even a Marxist says is automatically wrong, because they are members > of the left without even looking at the substance and reasoning underlying their position?
Of course not. However I do understand the political reality of the day. There are two utterly incompatible world views struggling for dominance, the Progressive movement and Western Civilization. So any position espoused by the enemy is suspect by default since it arose from an alien worldview. Sometimes an idea is sound in both systems of thought, but usually not.
As an example of the typical mush thinking in your camp, let us examine your sig:
> The free market has failed. Copyright is theft.
Copyright is a government granted monopoly. Our Constitution grants the government the OPTION of using them "to promote progress in the useful arts and sciences." In what way does that sound like a free market device whether we agree or disagree on whether they are theft? In your world, everything bad is the free market, everything good is The State. Since you don't like copyright you must assign it to the enemy camp when any fool can see it is more your problem than mine. The reality is copyright, like most things, is a tool that can be used for both good and ill. With modern eternal copyright we are probably in agreement it is doing far more harm than good.
This isn't Wikipedia and I'm not writing a scholarly article for publication so no. There is something called Google on this here Internet thing, perhaps you have heard about it.
And if you are really needing a citation I have to assume you take no interest in public affairs and probably don't even vote (or at least I hope you don't vote) so again, why bother. Do you get CNN where you live? While most Progs have got the memo now and have shut up, back in the '08 campaign it was pretty common to hear one openly admitting to their desire to 'regulate' blogs to stop all of the 'misinformation' on the Internet. Just a couple weeks ago a couple of the usual retards on Meet the Depressed went off the reservation and started pining for the government to save the republic from the Internet. They really can't help themselves, the legacy media wants the government to save their sorry ass industry.
You might want to start your research by looking into the past of the FCC Chairman and his pet 'Diversity Czar.' When you look up Lloyd you will almost certainly get a lot of hits to Glenn Beck, MIchelle Malkin and such, but go there because those are about the only places with the full unedited videos and it doesn't matter who is hosting it so long as it is the uncut version. Then look up 'Free Press' and use Google to research the background of the principles there. Start looking for a locus where almost all of these people cross paths, and yes there is one. David Horowitz has a great Java based app called "Discover the Networks' that lets you research various entities and see, graphically, the links between them. Better if you do your own research, you won't believe it otherwise because disbelief allows you to keep your comfortable world view instead of having a lot of assumptions questioned.
I dunno about that. While there is truth to what you say, the Linux desktop has been getting worse these last couple of years. And I'm saying that as an oldtimer who switched their primary desktop from WfW 3.11 to Yggdrasil. I don't have too many hardware problems because I have been making every purchase decision based on Linux suitability for several hardware refreshes.... until my Thinkpad stopped undocking with a kernel update back on F12 and I have been stuck there since after reverting. But F15 appears to finally solve that based on trying the F15 Alpha live disc.
Pulseaudio comes in for a lot of the flaming, and rightfully so. Just when things were looking good, Vista was a disaster from Hell and we could have taken significant marketshare away, every major distro adopted PulseAudio two years before it was ready for primetime and made it such that I couldn't recommend Linux to a new user because I *KNEW* I'd be spending hours handholding them with sound problems on top of the normal teething problems of installing Linux on random Windows hardware. On days when I'm extra cynical I wonder if Pottering isn't on Microsoft's payroll, sent as an agent of chaos to exploit the one weakness in the Open Source development process, obsession with half broken shiny bits. I do know he almost singlehandedly saved Microsoft from their Vista mistake even if by accident.
But we can't stop there. The mindless churning in the *Kits, *Managers, etc. as they blindly scurried up blind alley after blind alley before finally settling on the current arrangement made almost all documentation useless other than the source code for whatever version was on your machine that day. For years. And today you still can't find a dead tree from O'Reilly applicable to any of the current Linux desktops.
Or worse, you can't find a solid book to recommend to a programmer wanting to learn to write for the Linux desktop. One that will teach the current best practices to get a working GNOME or KDE app up while using all of the core technologies to have an app that responds to all of the themes, internationalization, accessability, system tray widgets, etc. made available by the desktop environment. In any programming language, but since we are discussing a new programmer lets prefer something easier than C/C++. Better, something a university could teach from instead of being forced to teach C# or Java on Windows. Why doesn't something like that exist? Because nobody qualified to write such a book is stupid enough to do it knowing it will be obsolete before it sees print. And we wonder why C#/Java is so popular in education when, as any Linux user is quick to point out, Linux is Free and comes with a full suite of programming tools.
Not yet. Interest rates haven't hit 20% yet. Soon.
I have one of those "Miss me yet?" t-shirts with Bush on it. Always gets attention, and almost always positive. (southwest Louisiana) I am always joking that when they start selling lots of similar shirts with Carter on it the 2012 race is pretty much in the bag for the R team. Personally, I'd take Hillary about now. She is a fricking commie herself, but at least she is an American and not some citizen of the world 'sort of a God.' I really believe if you were to shoot Obama up with truth serum he would admit his secret fantasy is to be the last President of the US.
And your point would be? The FCC won't stop the caps. The FCC isn't even talking about stopping the caps. Their stated goals are only to make it 'fair' so the Cable company can't kill Netflix in favor of their own video on demand offering or kill Vonage connectivity to push their ownVOIP product.
And they shouldn't stop the caps. People who use more of a resource should pay more than someone who uses less. What they should do is unleash market forces to destroy their monopoly creations but if you believe they would ever do that you are mad. In a free market there would be a downward push on per GB rates such that few people would care about the issue. Our problem is that for most Americans the choice is Government Monopoly Telco or Government Monopoly Cable Co with an occasional wildcard of Governement regulated out the wazoo Wireless carrier. And hint: wireless is never going to compete with wired.
> So Congress has now taken over the role of Courts, too.
No need, the courts already told the FCC they didn't have the authority to do this. Obama has gone rogue and intends to do this heedless of the cost. This is fast approaching Constitutional Crisis time.
> Currently the democrats control the senate, they're not going to vote for this.
Don't bet on it. When Network Neutrality was attempted the legal way both houses of Congress were in Democratic hands. Didn't pass. And I don't think you can filibuster one of these bills which assert Congressional oversight on the rulemakings of the Executive branch agencies.
> For some reason, conservatives are equating or selling net neutrality as equivalent to the fairness doctrine.
You wanted reasons....
1. Start with the people pushing for it. Socialists all and few netheads leading the push. Go look up the FCC head guy's past. Now ask why George Soros sock puppets like Media Matters are involved. MM is usually a one note song of denouncing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News with no past involvement in the Internet's governance. And Free Press is a veritable vipers nest of Marxists.
2. The blatant lawlessness of the FCC's push should be a major clue. It means this issue is IMPORTANT to the administration, important enough to risk a showdown with Congress, and a good number of the opponents are Democrats.
3. The statements of too many movers in the NN debate that regardless of what YOU might think the plan is, they see it as a key component in their plans to regulate political content on the Internet. When my sworn enemies say they aim to shut my team up I believe they intend to do exactly that and oppose their plans with 100% effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Well poop. There goes all the old classical chemistry.
Thankfully it doesn't look like a route to enrich any of the fissile elements so there is that. The Mad Mullahs are still stuck with centrifuges.
> Wasn't there some studies that showed that the type of carbon from Corn could be traced through the food chain?
It is probably true that you can measure different concentrations of Carbon-14 in the same molecules derived from different sources. But I doubt it would vary much between corn and sugar cane, more likely between different growing regions.
Update: Wikipedia's entry for Carbon-13 suggests there is a difference in ratios based on the 'carbon fixation' method of different plants. But both sugar cane and corn use the same method so there is no difference. So I learned something today. :)
> Wouldn't that make HFCS different in the isotope of Carbon provided to "natural" sources of sugar?
As for differences in how they react in the body? Did poorly in basic physics and chemistry huh? Isotopes are only important in matters of radioactive decay and such. As far as chemistry is concerned Carbon is Carbon. Any change in the nuclus that makes it react different chemically also makes it a different element, by definition.
And again, Wikipedia says some people claim health benefits from higher concentrations of C13 but it sounds like a load of hippie crap because C13 is just as stable as C12 and I really doubt the slight difference in mass means much chemically. Chemically separating isotopes is pretty difficult to pull off, despite the note above. If it were easy they wouldn't use huge centrifuges in commercial operations.
All vendors play these games, Nicrosoft just happens to be damned good at it.
Remember their EAL certification on NT? So long as there wasn't a network port or floppy drive installed on the machine, that part buried in the fine print of course.
Or adding the POSIX subsystem to NT to meet a bid spec. Because of course whoever wrote the spec never imagined somebody would write a whole POSIX implementation, get it certified POSIX and then just ignore it. Because I don't think anyone can point to a single damned application that was ever ported into NT's POSIX subsystem and actually deployed. The whole thing was such a scam they actually used the GNU tools to get it up and going as quick as they did, even had source available to comply with the GPL. Guess it wasn't a cancer when it was helping them scam the Department of the Navy.
Or Office supporting a standard file format.... not. They damned near destroyed the ISO bribing and manipulating the standards process to get a standard they don't actually make an effort to implement. Because as bad as OOXML is it is a standard and if they adhered to it interopeability might result and that would be the end of their monopoly.
Uh... no. Assignment in a conditional and using the fact assignments return the value is a useful idiom. Sometimes it makes code clearer, sometimes it doesn't. Learn to use it for good.
An example for a few days ago makes this pretty clear:
while (my $circ = $circs->fetchrow_hashref) {
It happens to be perl, but equally applicable to most C looking languages that use = and == for assign and equality. Any actual value assigned is TRUE and the loop continues.
> Oak Trail's Atom Z620 processor and SM35 Express hub have a thermal envelope of just 3.75W.
Which isn't in the ball park yet. Look at a typical tablet. A large battery in one has about ~25W/Hr. That would get you a pretty decent six hours.... if you didn't have to worry about misc crap like radios and displays. Oops. And it is notable that they aren't bragging about solving the idle power consumption problem of x86.
> The reason x86 can emulate ARM is because ARM is *simple by design*
Which is only a nicer way of saying RISC. Bottom line is you need more cycles to get the same work done and the fastest ARM chips clock slower than the slowest x86 chips. ARM products that play music and video for example, always offload that sort of compute intensive work because pure software decoding is pitiful. Yes, I own a Nokia N770. Where ARM totally owns Intel is power consumption, both idle power and computing work per unit of power.
Now try emulating a puny 1.6Ghz Atom on a 1Ghz ARM and see how well that goes. Even if you have one of the new dual core ARMs you don't have anywhere near the computing power to make the attempt and if you try you will only succeed in killing the battery, defeating the primary advantage of ARM vs x86.
Yes Microsoft is going to chase the trend and make something for ARM, otherwise they cede the mobile space to Apple and Google. However, while they will call it Windows 8 it won't bear much relationship to the x86 edition we all know and either loath or love.
1. Anyone think Microsoft (or any of their hardware OEM partners) are remotely interested in releasing what we think of as an Operating System on a new mobile platform? Not when they can lock it down hard and rake in the same 30% Apple gets from their app store. Do not think it an accident Microsoft also leaked screenshots of thier app store this week.
2. No, it won't run any existing Windows apps. ARM is puny, x86 is strong. x86 can emulate ARM (see iOS and Android dev environments) but there is no way ARM is going to emulate x86 apps at a usable speed. Assuming of course I'm totally full of crap on point one and unsigned apps were somehow permitted in the first place. Exception possible for .NET projects with no native code, but again see point one.
3. Even if you could, smartphones and tablets are a different environment so an existing Windows app would be lame.
4. Microsoft has ported Windows in the past. They even got some of their own apps running. I'm told Alpha even had most of Office running native vs via FX!86 before the end. But 3rd party buy in wasn't there and they suffered something similar to the fate of Linux. No 3rd party apps means no large deployements which means no interest by developers to port the 3rd party apps. If Microsoft can make cross porting totally painless this time they might have better luck, but again see point one and three. Just having an ARM binary of Photoshop crap out of Visual Studio along with the x86_32 and x86_64 copies won't result in a product Adobe would be willing to sell to tablet customers. Also have to wonder if they will like giving Microsoft 30%. Yes the normal retail path eats more but BestBuy isn't out to kill them.
So if Windows on ARM gains little from the existing catalog of "Windows" applications, will almost certainly require more robust hardware (battery life is issue one) to run it vs Ubuntu or Android and might even piss off customers who won't realize that Windows != Windows will it get traction?
> So Obama both spent a billion dollars in 2008 (liar), and is a cheap whore?
I think you had a reading comprehension failure on that one. Said just the opposite.
> You're not just a liar, you're insane.
Not at all. Official spending of $740B plus at least that much unofficial spending by the unions and other special interest groups in 'uncordinated independent expenditures.' All campaigns do it, not attributing special malice to Obama on that account. The person most responsible would be that asshole McCain for his Mccain/Feingold bogosity. (Mr. McCain, what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you have trouble comprehending?)
> The kind of insane that thinks that any programme can run at all with
> no idea whether it will be funded next year.
Since elections are only every other year it the consensus on spending should be fairly constant in out years. But the idea behind my proposal is that pretty quickly the only things the federal government would still be doing were things a widespread consensus could be built for. Which would reduce the Federal government down to something close to the constitutional limits. Because yes, controversial multi-year projects would be sorta insane in the scheme I proposed. The question is whether that is a bug or a feature. I say feature.
> So insane that you don't notice that spending $TRILLIONS invading
> countries for no reason other than spending $TRILLIONS on cronies...
Afganistan was a needful war. Whether we should be spending Sagans building a country in a region that has never had one is debatable and we probably are a lot closer on that point. Iraq is a bit more debatable, reasonable people can disagree and should have BEFORE we started shooting. But no, every D was running to a microphone to sign on, only to switch sides as soon as the shooting started. But no, once the shooting starts it is too late for debate, once a war starts the only rational thing is to win it as quickly as possible with as few losses as possible.
Oh, and who are the cronies who will be making trillions from Obama's reckless and illegal war in Libya? I'm free to criticize because there was no debate or vote in Congress.
> Who evidently thinks that sharia law is coming soon to the US.
No, Sharia law is coming to Europe. It will take another generation or two for it to come here. This is only because we import most of our poor unskilled labor from Catholic Mexico and other Central American countries while Europe unwisely imported Middle Eastern Muslims. But we already have a lite version, see my .sig.
> The bulk of their mission is providing cancer screenings for women, providing STD
> testing, as well as contraception, regular and emergency.
No they don't. People called PP and asked for cancer screenings, no PP location provides that service. I know brand name politicians were all over the legacy media saying they do, so if you are a casual disinterested citizen you can perhaps be forgiven for falling victim to those falsehoods. But it is a bald faced lie. And saying "as well as contraception, regular and emergency" tells me you a a double plus good duckspeaker so you probably knew you were repeating a lie.
The mission of Planned Parenthood is still unchanged from it's founder's mission. Eliminate black babies to 'improve the genetic health of the herd.' They don't care whether it happens through condoms or abortion. Either own it or choose a different set of allies.
> By what _possible_ measure are people like Rupert Murdoch "lefties" ?
He certainly isn't a righty, he endorsed Obama for POTUS. His news organizations are more tabloid sensationalist than right. He is simply a savy enough businessman to realizes there is a great unserved niche in the US news landscape.... consisting of the ~40% of the country who identify as conservative and by making a show of a middle right tilt can pretty much own that segment of the market. Combine that with a nice chunk of independents and conservative leaning Ds and you have the explanation for the ratings dominance of FNS. The more interesting question is why every other media outlet is still willing to cede half of the market to Murdoch and fight over the remainder. Answer that question and take the first step toward enlightenment.
And Fox certainly isn't immune from influence, they just sacked Beck for pissing off the Saudis (who own a nice chunk of News Corp.) and did it fast. Beck started promoting a 'very special episode' on Monday to expose an organized threat to Israel scheduled to have aired Friday. Thursday was apparently his final episode. On Friday they expanded Special Report across the first airing and put RedEye on top of the repeat slot.
> This nation's citizens could organize and do a complete end-run around the corporate-funded election process.
It would really help if a few of you guys would stop that stupidity. The 'corporations' don't run our elections. The Media and their lefty masters do. Do the math guys, Obama broke records in '08 by spending a billion dollars. Which is what percentage of what Coke spent promoting their flavored water over Pepsi's flavored water? The problem is not too much money in politics unless you are dumb enough to actually believe Obama not only a whore but a cheap one. He isn't. He is a true believer and so are most of the people in politics.
The problem is we have two absolutely opposed philosophical systems fighting for control of the country and because of the battlescape we can't even SAY that in public so everyone speaks in code. Hell a big chunk of one side won't even admit the scale of the fight even amongst themselves. Things can't continue like this much longer, one side will either defeat the other and implement their worldview in law or chaos will devour both sides.
To the actual topic of this article, the correct solution to the spending problem is to go after the core idea that isn't spoken of. Our problem stems from the underlying assumptions, so assumed they aren't even thought of as such, in the budgeting process. Baseline budgeting assumes any program, once approved, is immortal; that it is assumed in the next budget with an automatic increase for inflation plus a couple points for good measure. The other assumption is the art of political compromise is an OR operator. Democrats in the House have a list of program proposals, Republicans have a list. Democrats in the Senate and Republicans have lists. The Executive has policy new programs it wants. The default position is to 'compromise' by ORing those lists and funding most of them with the argument over amounts.
All spending bills must originate in the House so Baynor the Orange should just chuck both assumptions. Start with a zero baseline each year and each and every program be challenged to justify it's continued existence anew. And don't pass a handful of huge bills, pass a swarm of separate bills funding each program. If they fail in the Senate or get vetoed they are done. In other words start with zero and the set of programs that get funded becomes a logical AND operation instead of OR. Yes there would be a bit of back scratching where pols promise to vote on another guys pet program in exchange for a vote on their own, but demanding separate recorded votes on each program instead of allowing them to hide behind votes on hundred billion plus catchall funding bills would keep it down.
And right now I'd add an extra roll call vote right before each funding vote. A sense of the House resolution that the program in question is so fracking important that we should borrow the money from China to fund it. Just how many of the weasels would have the balls to go on record that Reid's fucking Cowboy Poetry is worth borrowing the money from China to fund. Lot of programs fail that test.
> Go look up Jim David Adkisson if you want.
Another obviously mentally disturbed individual, if we have to claim him you guys have to take Laughner and his higher body count. Being an obvious nut probably explains the scant national coverage, which I did miss even though CNN apparently at least had a piece on their net presence.
> Check out Roy Warden.
What about him? Google doesn't find any crimes committed by him, at least on the first page. Anti-illegal immigration is ok but he seems to go a wee bit over the line to actual intolerance... but I didn't investigate too deeply and most of the accusations seem to track back to charges by the SPLC and they bear false witness and aren't to be believed without lots of independent evidence.
> They keep claiming their rallies are somehow cleaner, but I suspect that there is no independent verification of their claims.
The rally itself was carried live on C-Span so you are welcome to consult their archives for the events on the stage. Photos of the National Mall after the event are easy to find online. Compare and contrast with similar photos made of the union/revolutionary One Nation rally and the Stewart/Colbert rallys.
> And I certainly have no reason to take Beck at his word, he so obviously lies about so many things..
Uh huh. Vague charges. At least you aren't as stupid as the poster upthread who made the mistake of parroting a specific charge from the fever swamps. Idiot actually accused Beck of being an anti-semite, I wasn't nice to that guy. Mind making a specific charge so I might ridicule you too as another dishonest shill who hasn't ever actually watched the guy you are slandering as a liar?
And do remember that 'lie' doesn't mean what most lefties think it means, a lie is a knowingly bearing false witness. It isn't being wrong or holding a position progressives disagree with. For example, President Bush did not lie when he asserted that Saddam had WMD since he believed it to be true along with pretty much everyone else on the planet including Saddam Hussein. He may have been incorrect, but that isn't lying. Although the Syrians got a reactor from somewhere for the Israeli air force to blow up and there are persistent reports of cargo flown to Syria from Iraq on the eve of GWII, plus that whole shipload of Uranium that went to Canada from Iraq a couple of years ago that got little coverage. A lie is President Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman; Ms Lewinsky." (If you don't believe me let some bimbo blow you and tell your spouse/gf that you didn't have sex and invoke the Clinton defense. After they let you out of the hospital come back here and admit I was right.)
> Complain about Sharpton all you want, but he's not actually that important. You want to ban him?
You do know the President went just this week to kiss Sharpton's ring and ask for his support in the '12 campaign, right? Please supply your definition of 'not actually that important' that Sharpton isn't included in. Any racial issue results in EVERY media outlet booking Sharpton, even Fox, to get the official black response. And he incites riots, at least once resulting in death beyond a reasonable doubt attributable directly to him. He perpetuated the Tawana Brawley hoax. He has never apologized or paid any legal, political or financial price for either act.
> conspiracy theorists with barely-hidden anti-semitic views.
You just lost the argument with that one. Glenn Beck an anti-semite? To make the charge proves beyond all doubt that you are just spewing stuff you read out in the fever swamps of the left instead of actually watching a single episode of his program. There isn't a more strident defender of Israel to be found on the Tube. Or did you even know that Mr. Beck is a fundamentalist Mormon and almost all fundies are big defenders of Israel. You couldn't possibly have picked a worse time to make that charge. Today's program (preempted by coverage of the shutdown, so watch for it to air later) was promoted as exposing a 'growing danger' to Israel.
> Then why aren't Glenn Beck and half the hate speech jocks on am radio in jail?
Ok moron I call you out. Name ONE statement made by Glenn Beck that any sane person would consider 'hate speech.' It just ain't him. Or Rush. Liddy on the the other hand.... and Levin gets a bit overexcited so probably says stupid things too. However you specifically named Glenn Beck so back it up. Not conspiracy theory, not stuff you disagree with, not policy positions you don't like. And if you cite the radio show you had better provide a few paragraphs of context on either side to make it possible to separate the quotes of other people and obvious sarcasm/satire from serious commentary. As for the TV program I probably saw the episode since it and RedEye are the two FNS programs I DVR. (If you think Beck is hyperactive, try him at 1.2x playback sometimes.)
> the difference is that unlike the GOP, the Democratic party doesn't encourage, endorse or suggest violence
As much as I hate the "citation needed' meme on slashdot, I gotta call you out and ask for some examples.
Meanwhile finding violent lefties is trivial. Bringing up Al Sharpton would be almost like shooting fish in a barrel. Stood on the stage in Democratic Party presidential primary debates with blood on his hands. Inciting a riot that results in dead bodies is a violent crime that would have been prosecuted against any white person, including most Dems.
How many violent 60's rejects are honored elders in the Democratic Party? Oh, those don't count? Why?
How many Tea Party guys have been violently assaulted by lefty goons and loons? The SEIU beatdown Kenneth Gladney for the offense of being a capitalist, selling Gadsden flags at a TP event. Another loon bit a guy's fricking finger off. The Wisconsin situation has been on a hair trigger for violence now for a month, all from union goons and outright socialist revolutionaries.
Now name a violent right winger. You have to go back to McVeigh to even find a good candidate to try to hang on our team's account. Or that loon that popped the abortion Dr. a while back. But note the common thread there, all lone wolves, not organized all the way up to the highest levels of the party like Sharpton or SEIU.
Despite the faked fear from the legacy media for months of leadup, the most evil bugbear in your side's universe, Glenn Beck held a rally in Washington and instead of a hatefest with burning down the city as a big finish, the actual event was a prayer rally that left the grounds cleaner than they found them.
Somebody gets it running on a Thinkpad with a proper three button pointer and the Thinkpad build quality and I might consider it. But probably not even then, kinda late to make a jump to a dying platform from a closed software house. Because any idiot can see iOS is the future at Apple Inc. and that I would never touch. Plus there is the ever changing whims of Steve that make this foolishness from the GNOMEs seem minor since I still have two other desktop environment options while staying on Linux. If Steve changes the whole feng shei of the next OS X my options are? All in all, I'll pass.
> Do you truly hold the opinion that anything a socialist or even a Marxist says is automatically wrong, because they are members
> of the left without even looking at the substance and reasoning underlying their position?
Of course not. However I do understand the political reality of the day. There are two utterly incompatible world views struggling for dominance, the Progressive movement and Western Civilization. So any position espoused by the enemy is suspect by default since it arose from an alien worldview. Sometimes an idea is sound in both systems of thought, but usually not.
As an example of the typical mush thinking in your camp, let us examine your sig:
> The free market has failed. Copyright is theft.
Copyright is a government granted monopoly. Our Constitution grants the government the OPTION of using them "to promote progress in the useful arts and sciences." In what way does that sound like a free market device whether we agree or disagree on whether they are theft? In your world, everything bad is the free market, everything good is The State. Since you don't like copyright you must assign it to the enemy camp when any fool can see it is more your problem than mine. The reality is copyright, like most things, is a tool that can be used for both good and ill. With modern eternal copyright we are probably in agreement it is doing far more harm than good.
> Citation please?
This isn't Wikipedia and I'm not writing a scholarly article for publication so no. There is something called Google on this here Internet thing, perhaps you have heard about it.
And if you are really needing a citation I have to assume you take no interest in public affairs and probably don't even vote (or at least I hope you don't vote) so again, why bother. Do you get CNN where you live? While most Progs have got the memo now and have shut up, back in the '08 campaign it was pretty common to hear one openly admitting to their desire to 'regulate' blogs to stop all of the 'misinformation' on the Internet. Just a couple weeks ago a couple of the usual retards on Meet the Depressed went off the reservation and started pining for the government to save the republic from the Internet. They really can't help themselves, the legacy media wants the government to save their sorry ass industry.
You might want to start your research by looking into the past of the FCC Chairman and his pet 'Diversity Czar.' When you look up Lloyd you will almost certainly get a lot of hits to Glenn Beck, MIchelle Malkin and such, but go there because those are about the only places with the full unedited videos and it doesn't matter who is hosting it so long as it is the uncut version. Then look up 'Free Press' and use Google to research the background of the principles there. Start looking for a locus where almost all of these people cross paths, and yes there is one. David Horowitz has a great Java based app called "Discover the Networks' that lets you research various entities and see, graphically, the links between them. Better if you do your own research, you won't believe it otherwise because disbelief allows you to keep your comfortable world view instead of having a lot of assumptions questioned.
I dunno about that. While there is truth to what you say, the Linux desktop has been getting worse these last couple of years. And I'm saying that as an oldtimer who switched their primary desktop from WfW 3.11 to Yggdrasil. I don't have too many hardware problems because I have been making every purchase decision based on Linux suitability for several hardware refreshes.... until my Thinkpad stopped undocking with a kernel update back on F12 and I have been stuck there since after reverting. But F15 appears to finally solve that based on trying the F15 Alpha live disc.
Pulseaudio comes in for a lot of the flaming, and rightfully so. Just when things were looking good, Vista was a disaster from Hell and we could have taken significant marketshare away, every major distro adopted PulseAudio two years before it was ready for primetime and made it such that I couldn't recommend Linux to a new user because I *KNEW* I'd be spending hours handholding them with sound problems on top of the normal teething problems of installing Linux on random Windows hardware. On days when I'm extra cynical I wonder if Pottering isn't on Microsoft's payroll, sent as an agent of chaos to exploit the one weakness in the Open Source development process, obsession with half broken shiny bits. I do know he almost singlehandedly saved Microsoft from their Vista mistake even if by accident.
But we can't stop there. The mindless churning in the *Kits, *Managers, etc. as they blindly scurried up blind alley after blind alley before finally settling on the current arrangement made almost all documentation useless other than the source code for whatever version was on your machine that day. For years. And today you still can't find a dead tree from O'Reilly applicable to any of the current Linux desktops.
Or worse, you can't find a solid book to recommend to a programmer wanting to learn to write for the Linux desktop. One that will teach the current best practices to get a working GNOME or KDE app up while using all of the core technologies to have an app that responds to all of the themes, internationalization, accessability, system tray widgets, etc. made available by the desktop environment. In any programming language, but since we are discussing a new programmer lets prefer something easier than C/C++. Better, something a university could teach from instead of being forced to teach C# or Java on Windows. Why doesn't something like that exist? Because nobody qualified to write such a book is stupid enough to do it knowing it will be obsolete before it sees print. And we wonder why C#/Java is so popular in education when, as any Linux user is quick to point out, Linux is Free and comes with a full suite of programming tools.
> *cough* Obama.
Not yet. Interest rates haven't hit 20% yet. Soon.
I have one of those "Miss me yet?" t-shirts with Bush on it. Always gets attention, and almost always positive. (southwest Louisiana) I am always joking that when they start selling lots of similar shirts with Carter on it the 2012 race is pretty much in the bag for the R team. Personally, I'd take Hillary about now. She is a fricking commie herself, but at least she is an American and not some citizen of the world 'sort of a God.' I really believe if you were to shoot Obama up with truth serum he would admit his secret fantasy is to be the last President of the US.
And your point would be? The FCC won't stop the caps. The FCC isn't even talking about stopping the caps. Their stated goals are only to make it 'fair' so the Cable company can't kill Netflix in favor of their own video on demand offering or kill Vonage connectivity to push their ownVOIP product.
And they shouldn't stop the caps. People who use more of a resource should pay more than someone who uses less. What they should do is unleash market forces to destroy their monopoly creations but if you believe they would ever do that you are mad. In a free market there would be a downward push on per GB rates such that few people would care about the issue. Our problem is that for most Americans the choice is Government Monopoly Telco or Government Monopoly Cable Co with an occasional wildcard of Governement regulated out the wazoo Wireless carrier. And hint: wireless is never going to compete with wired.
> the Republicans currently hold the record for the worst president ever..
On what alternate reality does ANY Republican get close to Jimmy Carter? Or was he before your time?
> So Congress has now taken over the role of Courts, too.
No need, the courts already told the FCC they didn't have the authority to do this. Obama has gone rogue and intends to do this heedless of the cost. This is fast approaching Constitutional Crisis time.
> Currently the democrats control the senate, they're not going to vote for this.
Don't bet on it. When Network Neutrality was attempted the legal way both houses of Congress were in Democratic hands. Didn't pass. And I don't think you can filibuster one of these bills which assert Congressional oversight on the rulemakings of the Executive branch agencies.
> For some reason, conservatives are equating or selling net neutrality as equivalent to the fairness doctrine.
You wanted reasons....
1. Start with the people pushing for it. Socialists all and few netheads leading the push. Go look up the FCC head guy's past. Now ask why George Soros sock puppets like Media Matters are involved. MM is usually a one note song of denouncing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News with no past involvement in the Internet's governance. And Free Press is a veritable vipers nest of Marxists.
2. The blatant lawlessness of the FCC's push should be a major clue. It means this issue is IMPORTANT to the administration, important enough to risk a showdown with Congress, and a good number of the opponents are Democrats.
3. The statements of too many movers in the NN debate that regardless of what YOU might think the plan is, they see it as a key component in their plans to regulate political content on the Internet. When my sworn enemies say they aim to shut my team up I believe they intend to do exactly that and oppose their plans with 100% effort.