Not only are you not anonymous, but the legal system can most assuredly find you and exact penalties for misbehavior.
Oh really? Then how about them doing something about all this spam I get for stuff I have no need for, being female? If they can find and slap someone who wasn't causing anyone any harm other than perhaps one individual, they should be able to find someone who is causing lots of harm to millions.
It is illegal to sell tainted food that is designed to injure whoever eats it, and it's illegal to tamper with food after it is already on the shelf for sale (look up Stella Nichols and the OTC drug tampering case -- she got the book thrown at her for what she did).
If you try it, you'll find yourself in quite a bit of trouble. Product tampering is not the same at all as eating food that, if eaten in excessive quantities, could make you sick -- in fact, ANY food eaten in excessive quantities can make you sick.
Butter, milk, cheese, and similar items can make some people violently ill because they're allergic to dairy products. Yet, I don't see people crusading against those and calling them "not food". Instead, I see "you're allergic, and you ate that? And got sick? Weren't you thinking?"
1. Cleaner doesn't have to mean healthier but if the food is eaten by hand, less mess on your hands is a good thing. The original purpose of M&Ms was to provide soldiers with chocolate that didn't outright melt all over, and they do that very well, but they're still not perfect.
2. Lower fat ice cream pointless? I don't think so. There are people out there who are on low-fat diets for one reason or another but would like to be able to eat the stuff. If you're going to call food that is "accessible" to more people pointless, then just go ahead and call Lactaid (milk modified so that it's drinkable by lactose-intolerant people) pointless, too. After all, apparently, what business do those people have wanting to drink milk? Eat cheese? People eat food that's not optimally nutritious. That's a fact and isn't going to change. So if someone's set on eating a particular sort of food, why not find a way to make it "safer" for them to do it? (And besides, sales of low-fat ice cream increase far more quickly these days than sales of full-fat ice cream).
3. Are you putting them in the freezer? If you do that, that happens. Warm them up slightly.
4. Then buy food that is affected that way. Nobody's forcing you to buy any of this stuff.
I would hold them just as responsible for their failing to follow a warning as someone who disregards restrictions on how many pills to take, takes too many, and dies of a drug overdose. The warning is there -- it's not up to manufacturers to force you to follow it. Food can be dangerous even if it is intended for consumption -- just as drugs are (and are dangerous if misused).
If it is sold as food it is sold under FDA regulations. Complain to them, if you want, but the FDA will tell you that the food in question has been tested and is safe -- provided you obey recommendations printed on the label.
I'm pretty sure it was replaced by Olestra -- similar idea. And it doesn't have negative effects for everyone -- and even then mostly if eaten in large quantities. That is why the package has a warning against eating too much of the food at the same time.
There IS a reason to have warning labels on food packages, just like medicine, and it's hardly anyone's fault other than the "victim"'s if someone ignores the warnings and gets sick. These days though it's always of course going to be someone else's fault...
some of the initial suggestions are a little pointless (lower-fat ice cream, harder-to-melt M&Ms)
So healthier and cleaner (as in the food is not adversely affected by temperature extremes) food is pointless? What color is the sky on that planet you apparently live on? What are the coordinates, so we can point our telescopes your way and study your planet? Tell us about the life there -- we want to know how it evolved.
Instead of logging in as an admin to install software, just change the rights of your current user - temporarily
Why not just right-click on the item in question and select "Run As" from the context menu? (you may have to hold down shift as you click). I do this all the time -- I know the magic admin password for the machines in the department office but the staff doesn't -- and so if they need something installed (Flash, iTunes, something that we know is safe and are OK with) I ask them to download the installer onto their desktop and then use Run as to run the installer with the appropriate privs.
The OEM had to make sure they would last for 100000 miles. your aftermarket chipper does not.
And that's not necessarily a problem for owners. It depends on how long they plan to keep the car and how much strain they put on it while driving. Cars are far more reliable today than they used to be, and even a chipped car can last a very, very long time.
I hope you understand what a lot of those chips really are. They're just "better" fuel maps where better means more gas.
Not necessarily. Read up on how they work -- not all are the same. Many of them increase boost from the turbocharger, if there is one. There is a tradeoff, but it's not necessarily pollution -- most commonly it's reliability.
The misconception that chips are illegal is just that -- a misconception. In and of themselves they are not. Only so when another law is violated.
What part of "For off-road use only" did you not understand when you did this to your car?
What part of "That's ridiculous" was not implied with the original statement? Do you really think that it's practical to jack up your car, install stuff over several hours, drive off the street, jack up the car, spend several more hours re-swapping, and then drive back on? Come ON already.
Chips are not illegal -- as long as they do not increase emissions past the legal limit. And a chip that did that would be at a huge disadvantage because those who live in states with emissions tests (like me) would not buy that chip.
What part of "higher performance doesn't automatically mean 'illegal'" escapes you?
I guess the cars manufacturers could just stop selling their 'horrible' product in CA, and see how that works, eh?
Or they could just make a cleaner, safer car. California hasn't outlawed selling cars. They just are outlawing selling dirty, unsafe ones.
The automakers certainly could do it, but they don't want to because it'd cost money. They'd rather make as much now and potentially have problems later than actually make something sustainable. Witness Ford's (or was it GM's?) plan to revitalize by... selling 21 varieties of pickup truck. When high operating costs are driving down sales of pickups and SUVs and raising car sales!
I am strongly environmentalist but I don't know what to think of the lawsuit yet; but I do think that if you want to do business in a state and you can obey its laws (laws that benefit everyone, by the way, with cleaner air and less global warming) why not just do it? Think of all the good press you would get -- and all the bad press you just got by being squarely blamed for all the problems.
Yes. But your average Linux user isn't forced to run with root-level privs. Windows blindly forces this and in fact creates the first user account (which is the most many people use) as an admin! OS X and other UNIXes don't do this. You get a non-admin account that can only do root-level things by using sudo.
Funny, I thought that when I was sitting at my desk, I was at work. What I'm actually doing at my desk has nothing to do with whether or not I am at work.
You say you don't care if people walk around for a bit? Eat your words:
"recreational Web surfing has become a kind of mental floss for workers who spend their days sucking in a stream of work-related data that now comes in at a firehose pace--it's the information age equivalent of a walk around the block."
Apparently you don't allow people to have social lives. Apparently, you think all your workers need to be mindless drones while at work. Guess what -- people work better when they can let their minds wander a bit when they need to during the day.
I guess that's against corporate policy, too, then, since it's quite possible to block file transfers while still allowing people to socialize.
But then, it's so much easier to use "security" as an excuse to clamp down on imagined "productivity threats".
People are idiots for wanting something that works with their computers, software, and car headunits? People are idiots for liking the interface of the iPod and/or itunes? It's really unfair to blatantly claim that you're an idiot just because you choose to buy an iPod.
I guess that makes me an idiot, then. Oh, wait. I'm not. I'd be an idiot to buy a player that didn't integrate with my Alpine headunit, that didn't work with my chosen music software, and didn't play nice with the occasional track I download from iTunes and/or eMusic.
I do expect them to, because these actions are far from being in the best interests of the people. The best interests of big business are not the best interests of the people, and it is the people to which the government owes its responsibilities, not faceless megacorps.
It's been covered over and over by essayists and articles on this and other sites that the destruction of the public domain by rampant (and basically unlimited, contrary to the original intent of the lawmakers who created copyright) is not in the best interests of the people.
Or maybe he just doesn't post much! Not posting often doesn't mean that when someone does choose to say something, they have an agenda behind it. How do you know that user mostly reads and only posts if something very interesting to them comes along, and that they don't visit the site very often?
Seems to me like you're saying "if you aren't a dinosaur around here you don't matter".
And you have decided to label me as a "he", which I find rude and offensive, as long as we're randomly deciding that things that other people post is rude and offensive, and wasting time flinging pointless insults at each other, when things would better be served by deciding you don't like someone else's ideas and/or tone but not making a public stink about it.
Come on. I've seen far worse shit on Slashdot go unremarked and yet here you are taking time out of your day to bitch at me. Talk about immature.
Then, I guess, until the developers here get around to fixing it, you can get a taste of why Firefox users get so upset when the attitude goes the other way. Can't say I'm sorry. Maybe it'll give a kick in the pants to the coders who refuse to do a thing about it.
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. I just think that a glib "I don't know" or whatever is a hell of a lot less appropriate for this particular forum than an answer that actually invites debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only are you not anonymous, but the legal system can most assuredly find you and exact penalties for misbehavior.
Oh really? Then how about them doing something about all this spam I get for stuff I have no need for, being female? If they can find and slap someone who wasn't causing anyone any harm other than perhaps one individual, they should be able to find someone who is causing lots of harm to millions.
That is an entirely different situation.
It is illegal to sell tainted food that is designed to injure whoever eats it, and it's illegal to tamper with food after it is already on the shelf for sale (look up Stella Nichols and the OTC drug tampering case -- she got the book thrown at her for what she did).
If you try it, you'll find yourself in quite a bit of trouble. Product tampering is not the same at all as eating food that, if eaten in excessive quantities, could make you sick -- in fact, ANY food eaten in excessive quantities can make you sick.
Butter, milk, cheese, and similar items can make some people violently ill because they're allergic to dairy products. Yet, I don't see people crusading against those and calling them "not food". Instead, I see "you're allergic, and you ate that? And got sick? Weren't you thinking?"
It's the same thing.
1. Cleaner doesn't have to mean healthier but if the food is eaten by hand, less mess on your hands is a good thing. The original purpose of M&Ms was to provide soldiers with chocolate that didn't outright melt all over, and they do that very well, but they're still not perfect.
2. Lower fat ice cream pointless? I don't think so. There are people out there who are on low-fat diets for one reason or another but would like to be able to eat the stuff. If you're going to call food that is "accessible" to more people pointless, then just go ahead and call Lactaid (milk modified so that it's drinkable by lactose-intolerant people) pointless, too. After all, apparently, what business do those people have wanting to drink milk? Eat cheese? People eat food that's not optimally nutritious. That's a fact and isn't going to change. So if someone's set on eating a particular sort of food, why not find a way to make it "safer" for them to do it? (And besides, sales of low-fat ice cream increase far more quickly these days than sales of full-fat ice cream).
3. Are you putting them in the freezer? If you do that, that happens. Warm them up slightly.
4. Then buy food that is affected that way. Nobody's forcing you to buy any of this stuff.
I would hold them just as responsible for their failing to follow a warning as someone who disregards restrictions on how many pills to take, takes too many, and dies of a drug overdose. The warning is there -- it's not up to manufacturers to force you to follow it. Food can be dangerous even if it is intended for consumption -- just as drugs are (and are dangerous if misused).
If it is sold as food it is sold under FDA regulations. Complain to them, if you want, but the FDA will tell you that the food in question has been tested and is safe -- provided you obey recommendations printed on the label.
I'm pretty sure it was replaced by Olestra -- similar idea. And it doesn't have negative effects for everyone -- and even then mostly if eaten in large quantities. That is why the package has a warning against eating too much of the food at the same time.
...
There IS a reason to have warning labels on food packages, just like medicine, and it's hardly anyone's fault other than the "victim"'s if someone ignores the warnings and gets sick. These days though it's always of course going to be someone else's fault
some of the initial suggestions are a little pointless (lower-fat ice cream, harder-to-melt M&Ms)
So healthier and cleaner (as in the food is not adversely affected by temperature extremes) food is pointless? What color is the sky on that planet you apparently live on? What are the coordinates, so we can point our telescopes your way and study your planet? Tell us about the life there -- we want to know how it evolved.
How about some geek purses?
Instead of logging in as an admin to install software, just change the rights of your current user - temporarily
Why not just right-click on the item in question and select "Run As" from the context menu? (you may have to hold down shift as you click). I do this all the time -- I know the magic admin password for the machines in the department office but the staff doesn't -- and so if they need something installed (Flash, iTunes, something that we know is safe and are OK with) I ask them to download the installer onto their desktop and then use Run as to run the installer with the appropriate privs.
No logging in/out or rights-changing needed.
This semi-deaf geek also thanks you. (Can understand music once the lyrics are known, but can't pick them out as easily as those with normal hearing).
The OEM had to make sure they would last for 100000 miles. your aftermarket chipper does not.
And that's not necessarily a problem for owners. It depends on how long they plan to keep the car and how much strain they put on it while driving. Cars are far more reliable today than they used to be, and even a chipped car can last a very, very long time.
The state can make a law that's more strict
Then why did CAN-SPAM (a bad law) destroy California's more-strict antispam law (a good one)?
I hope you understand what a lot of those chips really are. They're just "better" fuel maps where better means more gas.
Not necessarily. Read up on how they work -- not all are the same. Many of them increase boost from the turbocharger, if there is one. There is a tradeoff, but it's not necessarily pollution -- most commonly it's reliability.
The misconception that chips are illegal is just that -- a misconception. In and of themselves they are not. Only so when another law is violated.
Allright, matching your tone here ...
What part of "For off-road use only" did you not understand when you did this to your car?
What part of "That's ridiculous" was not implied with the original statement? Do you really think that it's practical to jack up your car, install stuff over several hours, drive off the street, jack up the car, spend several more hours re-swapping, and then drive back on? Come ON already.
Chips are not illegal -- as long as they do not increase emissions past the legal limit. And a chip that did that would be at a huge disadvantage because those who live in states with emissions tests (like me) would not buy that chip.
What part of "higher performance doesn't automatically mean 'illegal'" escapes you?
I guess the cars manufacturers could just stop selling their 'horrible' product in CA, and see how that works, eh?
... selling 21 varieties of pickup truck. When high operating costs are driving down sales of pickups and SUVs and raising car sales!
Or they could just make a cleaner, safer car. California hasn't outlawed selling cars. They just are outlawing selling dirty, unsafe ones.
The automakers certainly could do it, but they don't want to because it'd cost money. They'd rather make as much now and potentially have problems later than actually make something sustainable. Witness Ford's (or was it GM's?) plan to revitalize by
I am strongly environmentalist but I don't know what to think of the lawsuit yet; but I do think that if you want to do business in a state and you can obey its laws (laws that benefit everyone, by the way, with cleaner air and less global warming) why not just do it? Think of all the good press you would get -- and all the bad press you just got by being squarely blamed for all the problems.
Neither does Windows.
Yes. But your average Linux user isn't forced to run with root-level privs. Windows blindly forces this and in fact creates the first user account (which is the most many people use) as an admin! OS X and other UNIXes don't do this. You get a non-admin account that can only do root-level things by using sudo.
Social lives, mind wandering = not at work.
Funny, I thought that when I was sitting at my desk, I was at work. What I'm actually doing at my desk has nothing to do with whether or not I am at work.
Oh, and by the way, open your eyes and read this:
What's Next: Stupid Productivity Tricks
You say you don't care if people walk around for a bit? Eat your words:
"recreational Web surfing has become a kind of mental floss for workers who spend their days sucking in a stream of work-related data that now comes in at a firehose pace--it's the information age equivalent of a walk around the block."
The only reason this attack wasn't launched against Linux was
(3) Linux doesn't allow non-root users to install shit in vital system folders and be run at startup.
Apparently you don't allow people to have social lives. Apparently, you think all your workers need to be mindless drones while at work. Guess what -- people work better when they can let their minds wander a bit when they need to during the day.
I guess that's against corporate policy, too, then, since it's quite possible to block file transfers while still allowing people to socialize.
But then, it's so much easier to use "security" as an excuse to clamp down on imagined "productivity threats".
People are idiots for wanting something that works with their computers, software, and car headunits? People are idiots for liking the interface of the iPod and/or itunes? It's really unfair to blatantly claim that you're an idiot just because you choose to buy an iPod.
I guess that makes me an idiot, then. Oh, wait. I'm not. I'd be an idiot to buy a player that didn't integrate with my Alpine headunit, that didn't work with my chosen music software, and didn't play nice with the occasional track I download from iTunes and/or eMusic.
I do expect them to, because these actions are far from being in the best interests of the people. The best interests of big business are not the best interests of the people, and it is the people to which the government owes its responsibilities, not faceless megacorps.
It's been covered over and over by essayists and articles on this and other sites that the destruction of the public domain by rampant (and basically unlimited, contrary to the original intent of the lawmakers who created copyright) is not in the best interests of the people.
Or maybe he just doesn't post much! Not posting often doesn't mean that when someone does choose to say something, they have an agenda behind it. How do you know that user mostly reads and only posts if something very interesting to them comes along, and that they don't visit the site very often?
Seems to me like you're saying "if you aren't a dinosaur around here you don't matter".
And you have decided to label me as a "he", which I find rude and offensive, as long as we're randomly deciding that things that other people post is rude and offensive, and wasting time flinging pointless insults at each other, when things would better be served by deciding you don't like someone else's ideas and/or tone but not making a public stink about it.
Come on. I've seen far worse shit on Slashdot go unremarked and yet here you are taking time out of your day to bitch at me. Talk about immature.
Then, I guess, until the developers here get around to fixing it, you can get a taste of why Firefox users get so upset when the attitude goes the other way. Can't say I'm sorry. Maybe it'll give a kick in the pants to the coders who refuse to do a thing about it.
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. I just think that a glib "I don't know" or whatever is a hell of a lot less appropriate for this particular forum than an answer that actually invites debate.
US TVs are NTSC-only.
No, I don't know why triple-standard TVs aren't sold here. They just aren't.