get together with friends to play some old-fashioned board games.
I think people don't try this as often as you wish because many people find Internet cheaper than airfare and/or cab fare to travel to where their friends live.
This has nothing to do with that dribble and you really need to stop preaching. You can be plenty interactive and still take advantage of modern technology and entertainment. Stop even implying that things are bad because you have self control issues.
Whoa, slow down there Sparky! Touched a nerve there did I? I just read your response to my GF - the first words out of her mouth were "Transference, much?", followed by "you might want to mention that when you're watching too much TV or too many movies it's usually with me".
If you're so addicted to something that you literally have to make a special effort to kiss or talk to your SO you have a severely addictive personality.
Again, whoa! That's quite a jump from 'an excessive consumer of prepackaged entertainment' to 'severely addictive personality'. Leapt right over that vast middle ground between the two, didn't you? Probably didn't even notice it whizzing past in your rush to deliver what I'm sure you mistakenly thought was a crippling blow. As for 'special effort', I kiss my girlfriend several times a day - no effort required, except perhaps in finding still more opportunities to do so...
If you stop doing X you'll just find Y to fill it. Netflix, Facebook, online gaming, porn, etc... aren't the problem. You are. Seek treatment and for damn sure don't give anyone advice.
If you're so touchy that you have to lash out in an over-the-top angry response to a bit of mild philosophical musing by a complete stranger, my words aren't the problem. You are. Seek treatment, and for damn sure get them to pull the pickle out of your ass and reverse that humorectomy.
Charter schools supported and molded by the likes of Gates, Zuckerberg, and Jobs are just the latest manifestation of a century-old ongoing process in which the ultra-rich manipulate the minds and vocations of the rest of the population.
I strongly recommend reading Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education", (available as a PDF file here) - I found it to be an eye-opening experience. 'Sheeple' get a lot of grief here on Slashdot; Gatto's work explains why there are so many of them. You might also discover that you have a lot more in common with those sheeple than you realize - I know I did.
Charter schools supported and molded by the likes of Gates, Zuckerberg, and Jobs are just the latest manifestation of a century-old ongoing process in which the ultra-rich manipulate the minds and vocations of the rest of the population.
I strongly recommend reading Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education", (available as a PDF file here) - I found it to be an eye-opening experience. 'Sheeple' get a lot of grief here on Slashdot; Gatto's work explains why there are so many of them. You might also discover that you have a lot more in common with those sheeple than you realize - I know I did.
I'd be happy to see more and more people dumping, (in addition to cable), Netflix, Facebook, online gaming, porn, etc. Go out and take a walk, talk to your spouse and kids and parents and siblings, get together with friends to play some old-fashioned board games. Too many people, (myself included), are excessive consumers of prepackaged entertainment authored by other people.
BTW, I suppose I should add Slashdot to that list of stuff to devote less time to. Gotta go kiss my girlfriend now... Bye!
...Virtually all societies have independently birthed religions. That doesn't happen by chance, or by virtue of a scheme. That happens because there is a real social benefit...
Or, it happens because the human psyche tends toward a deep-seated need for meaning, purpose, and permanence; so much so that a large chunk of our thought processes is dedicated to discovering and creating them. That usually means fabricating them from a combination of observations, inferences, desires, and emotions. In saying this, I don't mean to be critical or demeaning - on the contrary, I see these things as central to what it means to be human, both for good and for bad.
Among both atheists and the religious, I think it's useful to divide people into two types. There are those who have a conscious awareness and acceptance of human yearnings, frailties, and inconsistencies, and who are inclusive by nature and who do their best to transcend the 'self / other' dichotomy. Then there are those who, for a variety of reasons, (the most common being fear, I think), are locked into an 'us and them, either / or, good vs bad' frame of mind. And the kicker is that most of us spend time on both sides of that divide - we just tend to favour one or the other, for whatever reason. I've also noticed that which one we favour can change, in either direction, with age and experience.
An old friend of mine joined an atheist group, but soon left it, complaining that they had 'made a religion of atheism'. I knew what he meant. I think the most balanced people, atheist or not, are simply inclusive, tolerant, and wary of fundamentalism, extremism, absolutism, and exclusion in all their forms. As I'm fond of saying, "I'm an atheist - yet I know that when I'm staring down the barrel of my own death there's a damn good chance I'll be praying for deliverance". I feel no hypocrisy in saying that; to me, it's simply a paradox, not a contradiction...;-)
What could go wrong? I mean really, who the fuck trusts a consortium of GCHQ and several mega-corps to neutrally and impartially protect them from "known malware and bad addresses"? Incidentally, I have to wonder - do those 'bad addresses' include sites that are critical of the government and/or the companies in question? Might they include 'non-approved' IP telephony services? Sites that promote Scottish independence?
The opportunities for abuse are endless. This is a very bad idea.
When a couple of drivers were asked about Uber's push to get cabs drive themselves, they weren't pleased.
Displeased, sure - but I hope to hell they weren't surprised. If they were, they haven't been paying attention, and that wouldn't bode well for their passengers.
but in practice, providers will price the various levels and speeds of data transport the same way they price cellular and cable plans. That is to say, the pricing models will be utterly arcane, difficult to understand, obfuscated to the nth degree, and designed so as to make comparisons almost impossible. And then there will also inevitably be the same kinds of 'inconsistencies', (to give the providers the probably-undeserved benefit of the doubt), between the usage recorded by the user, and that recorded by the provider.
Network Cookies sounds like a technically useful development; but the inventors' naive view of how it would be a fair substitute for true net neutrality has 'egghead fail' written all over it.
People have been claiming that automation will lead to vast numbers of unemployed since the early days of the industrial revolution - the original Luddites - and, to date, have been demonstrably in error.
The key phrase there is "to date". At one time it was inconceivable that we would ever run out of oil, or forests, or that we could have any significant impact on a thing so vast as our planet's weather. Yet today we recognize these things as real threats to our survival as a species. I would say the idea that "we'll always have jobs for everyone" is a similar fallacy; there may always be opportunity for humans to work and create, but will there always be an economic need for them to do so? When robots do all of the physical work, and Artificial Intelligence makes all of the necessary decisions to keep the supply chains and the factories and the mines running smoothly, and there are robots that repair other robots, as well as maintaining the machines that the AI's run on, and the electrical plants that power them - what need will there be for man to work? Check out Marshall Brain's Manna for a compelling picture of how our advancements in automation and AI might well effect our economy and our society.
The increased use of robotics in industry, manufacturing, and other sectors, is almost certainly just the latest change that will ultimately just result in another redistribution of the labour pool to areas that have not been automated.
"areas that have not yet been automated". FTFY
It still sucks if you are one of those put out of work by a robot and have to try and find employment elsewhere, but doom and gloom on a national scale is just FUD.
It shouldn't suck, and it doesn't have to suck. If the benefits of automation and increased efficiency were spread around as they should be, instead of being the new currency of the hoarders in the "point-one-percent" class, we could all have better lives.
The real question is whether 55% fructose HFCS is meaningfully different from 50% fructose cane sugar. That's a difference of 2 grams (21.5 vs 19.5) in a 12 ounce soda. It seems intuitively silly to say that 19.5g of fructose in a cane-sugar sweetened soda is just fine, but that 21.5 in an HFCS soda is deadly.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that "19.5g of fructose in a cane-sugar sweetened soda is just fine, but that 21.5 in an HFCS soda is deadly". What I DO think people are saying is that the correlation between increasing use of HFCS, and increasing obesity, is suggestive of a link. In addition to that, there is strong clinical evidence, not just of correlation, but of causation.
Also, when you think about it, a 10% increase in content is not trivial. If you were to raise the caloric content of your diet by 10% and change nothing else, you would expect steady weight gain to ensue. (No, I'm not saying that fructose is more calorie dense - I'm just using an example of the significance of 10% that's relevant to the current discussion). Even looking at the most visible and quantifiable effects of excessive fructose consumption, (fatty liver and increased insulin resistance), 10% may be quite important. Add in the less tangible effects, (lower satiation, increased craving, inflammation and the related immune system response, etc), and the net result might be far more ominous than the 10% increase would initially suggest.
Can you point to any actual evidence to support this assertion? Excessive sugar is bad for you, but I am aware of no controlled studies that have found that fructose or HFCS is any better or worse than any other sugar. The common belief that HFCS is worse than sucrose is based on conjecture and superstition, not data.
Guzzling soda sweetened with HFCS is bad for you. But guzzling the same amount of soda sweetened with cane sugar is no better.
Fructose is far worse than glucose, so any sugar with a higher percentage of fructose, (such as HFCS), has measurably worse health effects. Evidence is here, and many other places as well. All it took was a quick Google search for "fructose glucose liver", and a click on the third link. But then, I've been following this for a while, so I knew what to look for. The bottom line is that glucose is used by every cell in the body, whereas fructose can only be processed by the liver. Excessive consumption leads to liver disease almost exactly like that caused by excessive alcohol consumption, whereas excessive glucose consumption does not. There is also evidence that consumption of fructose in concentrations common in the current North American diet actually increases appetite. So yes, all sugars can lead to increased body fat through excessive calorie consumption; but fructose, in more than limited amounts, messes with the body's metabolism in ways that both cause more damage and more inflammation, and make weight gain more likely. The effects of fructose in causing obesity and poor health go far beyond its mere caloric content.
As the grandson of a signatory to the Israeli Declaration of Independence, the son of an Israeli general, a former soldier himself, and the uncle of a 13-year-old niece who was killed in a suicide attack in Jerusalem, Miko Peled has both credibility and some serious skin in the game. When he debunks revisionist history, criticizes Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and devotes his life to the cause of peace and the end of Israeli apartheid, he makes a most compelling case. Anyone who is not blindly devoted to knee-jerk Palestine-bashing will find his work interesting and informative; anyone who IS so devoted REALLY should hear what he has to say.
If someone can provide some sort of convincing explanation of why lights which you can only see with your eyes open make sleeping difficult I would be most appreciative.
When I go to asleep, I don't simply close my eyes and nod off - I may open my eyes briefly, either in response to external stimuli, (such as an unexpected or unfamiliar sound), or when I roll over to get more comfortable. By that time my eyes are somewhat adapted to the dark, and even small, dim lights are really jarring and actually raise my hear rate. I hate most hotel rooms for that reason - the LED's on the smoke detectors are a real problem for me, along with any pilot lights on TV sets, displays on clock radios, etc. I cover up what I can, but those smoke detectors can be a real bitch, being located directly above the bed. It's amazing how much light gets through a Breath-Right strip or a Band-Aid... At home I have tape over the (red) charging lights on my wireless phones, and I turn my LED alarm clock face down on the bedside table.
Also, some people spend at least a part of the night sleeping with their eyes partly or fully open - I can see even very dim sources of light causing disturbed sleep for such people.
It seems to me that Amazon's business model is based on the economies of NOT having the overheads associated with retail stores. I would guess that their growth is declining, or is projected to do so within two or three years. The last place for them to grow their market in North America is to start converting those customers who still shop at bricks 'n' mortar stores. Once Amazon manages to put a few of the traditional players out of business, I expect that they'll dramatically shrink the number of their own stores in the hopes of diverting that business into their more profitable mail-order model. (Unless they plan for the stores to also be 'drone terminals' - in that case they'll probably just take over the lion's share of B+M retail and hold on to it for a good long time). In either case, look for them to keep the stores open 24-7, in order to put more pressure on the incumbents.
One 'outlier' possibility just occurred to me: I'm sure Amazon would love to be in the ISP business as well. Stores would establish a physical presence that might be leveraged to provide Internet service. I bet that service would be really cheap for Prime members. In that case, look for a 'Prime Plus' membership that comes with free Internet service.
the breaker will blow from the backfed voltage, but all the expensive devices attached will be smoked.
With a device as small as a wallwart, the breaker will almost certainly NOT blow, unless your "many megavolts" pulse is long enough and of a low enough impedance that it breaks through the insulation and causes and ionized channel between Hot and Neutral or Ground. And it's likely only *some* of the devices attached that will be smoked.
It would cost a bit to implement, but wouldn't be at all hard to develop: a USB port that kills 'kill sticks'. Protect the data lines, sense the way-too-high voltage coming in on said lines, and counter it with a power source having *bigger* voltage and substantial current capability. One $55 investment down the drain, and one fucktard of a vandal gets a comeuppance. Bonus points for implementing video capture, and sounding a loud piezo buzzer, as soon as the vandalism attempt is sensed.
Of course, minus points if it accidentally fries a legitimate device plugged into the port...
Laborers pool their resources in unions.
Capital owners pool their resources in companies.
I see no difference. Both are trying to gain an advantage over others to benefit themselves. Both often abuse their power if the pooling activity turns out to be successful.
Beats me why many people think one of these is a great thing and the other is a problem.
There is the third choice. Take the pay, and botch the training. Be an incredibly bad "teacher". Don't correct even the most basic mistakes. Be like a politician, don't answer any question straight. Be rude and belittle them for asking "stupid" questions. You were hired to do some kind of work, not to teach. They can't really expect you to be able to do a good teaching job.
Damn! I wish I mod points right now - I'd mod you up. Sometimes subversive practices like the ones you've advocated are the only feasible response to a horribly broken system.
...When electronic searches are done in secret, we lose our right to challenge the legality of law enforcement invasions of privacy. The Fourth Amendment doesn't allow that, and it's time for the government to step up and respect the Constitution."
"Respect" is an attitude that can easily be faked, and it doesn't mean jack shit in this context. Given that the Constitution is, according to Wikipedia, "the supreme law of the United States of America", the government had bloody well better "step up and abide by the Constitution". I would expect a senior attorney for the EFF to realize the importance of this wording, and to speak more carefully on the matter. Too damned many people in the government regard the Constitution as merely a set of suggestions. Talking about respecting it, rather than insisting that they obey it, encourages these asshats to pay only lip service to the law of the land.
This whole model of corporations thinking that we're going to just use any old crap they put out and let them do what they want with our files, force us to log on to their servers, force us to watch ads etc. is going to end in one way only.
Intelligent people will simply stop using the shit altogether.
There are lots of very intelligent people who, through lack of information or understanding, or simple lack of caring, are users of 'this shit'. I know some of them.
It turns out that even smart people can be lulled into a stupor when they have the full bellies and constant diversions present in a bread 'n' circuses society. Entertainment and infotainment are the new opiate of the masses. That's why we have the corporate system of governance we now 'enjoy' throughout the developed world.
psychology already has a poor enough reputation when it comes to scientific credibility. It certainly doesn't need junk science like this 'study' cluttering up its landscape. This is something I'd expect to see in some laughable rag while standing in the supermarket checkout line.
Who pays for shit research like this anyway? And why?
or at least that's what Microsoft is betting on. I suspect they're planning on neutering and gutting their OS, and Windows 10 is the start of that. They want everything in 'the cloud', where they have absolute control and can pwn your data at will, and where they can charge whatever they want because the only alternative will be other cloud providers with whom they're colluding.
It should simply have read "Microsoft Fixes Windows 10". But then I guess they'd have to call it "Windows 7", and Satya Nadella would no longer have a job shafting Microsoft customers.
Slashdot Mirror
get together with friends to play some old-fashioned board games.
I think people don't try this as often as you wish because many people find Internet cheaper than airfare and/or cab fare to travel to where their friends live.
Too true. Sigh...
This has nothing to do with that dribble and you really need to stop preaching. You can be plenty interactive and still take advantage of modern technology and entertainment. Stop even implying that things are bad because you have self control issues.
Whoa, slow down there Sparky! Touched a nerve there did I? I just read your response to my GF - the first words out of her mouth were "Transference, much?", followed by "you might want to mention that when you're watching too much TV or too many movies it's usually with me".
If you're so addicted to something that you literally have to make a special effort to kiss or talk to your SO you have a severely addictive personality.
Again, whoa! That's quite a jump from 'an excessive consumer of prepackaged entertainment' to 'severely addictive personality'. Leapt right over that vast middle ground between the two, didn't you? Probably didn't even notice it whizzing past in your rush to deliver what I'm sure you mistakenly thought was a crippling blow. As for 'special effort', I kiss my girlfriend several times a day - no effort required, except perhaps in finding still more opportunities to do so...
If you stop doing X you'll just find Y to fill it. Netflix, Facebook, online gaming, porn, etc... aren't the problem. You are. Seek treatment and for damn sure don't give anyone advice.
If you're so touchy that you have to lash out in an over-the-top angry response to a bit of mild philosophical musing by a complete stranger, my words aren't the problem. You are. Seek treatment, and for damn sure get them to pull the pickle out of your ass and reverse that humorectomy.
U.S. education, it seems, is becoming The Game of Billionaires.
Public education as it exists in America today was instituted by the robber barons for the purpose of producing compliant, unimaginative, mentally and experientially stunted citizens to constitute an easily managed, reflexively obedient industrial workforce that would have insufficient independence and free thought to upset the long range plans and investments of the industrialists.
Charter schools supported and molded by the likes of Gates, Zuckerberg, and Jobs are just the latest manifestation of a century-old ongoing process in which the ultra-rich manipulate the minds and vocations of the rest of the population.
I strongly recommend reading Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education", (available as a PDF file here) - I found it to be an eye-opening experience. 'Sheeple' get a lot of grief here on Slashdot; Gatto's work explains why there are so many of them. You might also discover that you have a lot more in common with those sheeple than you realize - I know I did.
U.S. education, it seems, is becoming The Game of Billionaires.
Public education as it exists in America today was instituted by the robber barons for the purpose of producing compliant, unimaginative, mentally and experientially stunted citizens to constitute an easily managed, reflexively obedient industrial workforce that would have insufficient independence and free thought to upset the long range plans and investments of the industrialists.
Charter schools supported and molded by the likes of Gates, Zuckerberg, and Jobs are just the latest manifestation of a century-old ongoing process in which the ultra-rich manipulate the minds and vocations of the rest of the population.
I strongly recommend reading Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education", (available as a PDF file here) - I found it to be an eye-opening experience. 'Sheeple' get a lot of grief here on Slashdot; Gatto's work explains why there are so many of them. You might also discover that you have a lot more in common with those sheeple than you realize - I know I did.
I'd be happy to see more and more people dumping, (in addition to cable), Netflix, Facebook, online gaming, porn, etc. Go out and take a walk, talk to your spouse and kids and parents and siblings, get together with friends to play some old-fashioned board games. Too many people, (myself included), are excessive consumers of prepackaged entertainment authored by other people.
BTW, I suppose I should add Slashdot to that list of stuff to devote less time to. Gotta go kiss my girlfriend now... Bye!
...Virtually all societies have independently birthed religions. That doesn't happen by chance, or by virtue of a scheme. That happens because there is a real social benefit...
Or, it happens because the human psyche tends toward a deep-seated need for meaning, purpose, and permanence; so much so that a large chunk of our thought processes is dedicated to discovering and creating them. That usually means fabricating them from a combination of observations, inferences, desires, and emotions. In saying this, I don't mean to be critical or demeaning - on the contrary, I see these things as central to what it means to be human, both for good and for bad.
Among both atheists and the religious, I think it's useful to divide people into two types. There are those who have a conscious awareness and acceptance of human yearnings, frailties, and inconsistencies, and who are inclusive by nature and who do their best to transcend the 'self / other' dichotomy. Then there are those who, for a variety of reasons, (the most common being fear, I think), are locked into an 'us and them, either / or, good vs bad' frame of mind. And the kicker is that most of us spend time on both sides of that divide - we just tend to favour one or the other, for whatever reason. I've also noticed that which one we favour can change, in either direction, with age and experience.
An old friend of mine joined an atheist group, but soon left it, complaining that they had 'made a religion of atheism'. I knew what he meant. I think the most balanced people, atheist or not, are simply inclusive, tolerant, and wary of fundamentalism, extremism, absolutism, and exclusion in all their forms. As I'm fond of saying, "I'm an atheist - yet I know that when I'm staring down the barrel of my own death there's a damn good chance I'll be praying for deliverance". I feel no hypocrisy in saying that; to me, it's simply a paradox, not a contradiction... ;-)
What could go wrong? I mean really, who the fuck trusts a consortium of GCHQ and several mega-corps to neutrally and impartially protect them from "known malware and bad addresses"? Incidentally, I have to wonder - do those 'bad addresses' include sites that are critical of the government and/or the companies in question? Might they include 'non-approved' IP telephony services? Sites that promote Scottish independence?
The opportunities for abuse are endless. This is a very bad idea.
When a couple of drivers were asked about Uber's push to get cabs drive themselves, they weren't pleased.
Displeased, sure - but I hope to hell they weren't surprised. If they were, they haven't been paying attention, and that wouldn't bode well for their passengers.
but in practice, providers will price the various levels and speeds of data transport the same way they price cellular and cable plans. That is to say, the pricing models will be utterly arcane, difficult to understand, obfuscated to the nth degree, and designed so as to make comparisons almost impossible. And then there will also inevitably be the same kinds of 'inconsistencies', (to give the providers the probably-undeserved benefit of the doubt), between the usage recorded by the user, and that recorded by the provider.
Network Cookies sounds like a technically useful development; but the inventors' naive view of how it would be a fair substitute for true net neutrality has 'egghead fail' written all over it.
People have been claiming that automation will lead to vast numbers of unemployed since the early days of the industrial revolution - the original Luddites - and, to date, have been demonstrably in error.
The key phrase there is "to date". At one time it was inconceivable that we would ever run out of oil, or forests, or that we could have any significant impact on a thing so vast as our planet's weather. Yet today we recognize these things as real threats to our survival as a species. I would say the idea that "we'll always have jobs for everyone" is a similar fallacy; there may always be opportunity for humans to work and create, but will there always be an economic need for them to do so? When robots do all of the physical work, and Artificial Intelligence makes all of the necessary decisions to keep the supply chains and the factories and the mines running smoothly, and there are robots that repair other robots, as well as maintaining the machines that the AI's run on, and the electrical plants that power them - what need will there be for man to work? Check out Marshall Brain's Manna for a compelling picture of how our advancements in automation and AI might well effect our economy and our society.
The increased use of robotics in industry, manufacturing, and other sectors, is almost certainly just the latest change that will ultimately just result in another redistribution of the labour pool to areas that have not been automated.
"areas that have not yet been automated". FTFY
It still sucks if you are one of those put out of work by a robot and have to try and find employment elsewhere, but doom and gloom on a national scale is just FUD.
It shouldn't suck, and it doesn't have to suck. If the benefits of automation and increased efficiency were spread around as they should be, instead of being the new currency of the hoarders in the "point-one-percent" class, we could all have better lives.
The real question is whether 55% fructose HFCS is meaningfully different from 50% fructose cane sugar. That's a difference of 2 grams (21.5 vs 19.5) in a 12 ounce soda. It seems intuitively silly to say that 19.5g of fructose in a cane-sugar sweetened soda is just fine, but that 21.5 in an HFCS soda is deadly.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that "19.5g of fructose in a cane-sugar sweetened soda is just fine, but that 21.5 in an HFCS soda is deadly". What I DO think people are saying is that the correlation between increasing use of HFCS, and increasing obesity, is suggestive of a link. In addition to that, there is strong clinical evidence, not just of correlation, but of causation.
Also, when you think about it, a 10% increase in content is not trivial. If you were to raise the caloric content of your diet by 10% and change nothing else, you would expect steady weight gain to ensue. (No, I'm not saying that fructose is more calorie dense - I'm just using an example of the significance of 10% that's relevant to the current discussion). Even looking at the most visible and quantifiable effects of excessive fructose consumption, (fatty liver and increased insulin resistance), 10% may be quite important. Add in the less tangible effects, (lower satiation, increased craving, inflammation and the related immune system response, etc), and the net result might be far more ominous than the 10% increase would initially suggest.
Can you point to any actual evidence to support this assertion? Excessive sugar is bad for you, but I am aware of no controlled studies that have found that fructose or HFCS is any better or worse than any other sugar. The common belief that HFCS is worse than sucrose is based on conjecture and superstition, not data.
Guzzling soda sweetened with HFCS is bad for you. But guzzling the same amount of soda sweetened with cane sugar is no better.
Fructose is far worse than glucose, so any sugar with a higher percentage of fructose, (such as HFCS), has measurably worse health effects. Evidence is here, and many other places as well. All it took was a quick Google search for "fructose glucose liver", and a click on the third link. But then, I've been following this for a while, so I knew what to look for. The bottom line is that glucose is used by every cell in the body, whereas fructose can only be processed by the liver. Excessive consumption leads to liver disease almost exactly like that caused by excessive alcohol consumption, whereas excessive glucose consumption does not. There is also evidence that consumption of fructose in concentrations common in the current North American diet actually increases appetite. So yes, all sugars can lead to increased body fat through excessive calorie consumption; but fructose, in more than limited amounts, messes with the body's metabolism in ways that both cause more damage and more inflammation, and make weight gain more likely. The effects of fructose in causing obesity and poor health go far beyond its mere caloric content.
^This!
Check out what Miko Peled has to say about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians
As the grandson of a signatory to the Israeli Declaration of Independence, the son of an Israeli general, a former soldier himself, and the uncle of a 13-year-old niece who was killed in a suicide attack in Jerusalem, Miko Peled has both credibility and some serious skin in the game. When he debunks revisionist history, criticizes Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and devotes his life to the cause of peace and the end of Israeli apartheid, he makes a most compelling case. Anyone who is not blindly devoted to knee-jerk Palestine-bashing will find his work interesting and informative; anyone who IS so devoted REALLY should hear what he has to say.
If someone can provide some sort of convincing explanation of why lights which you can only see with your eyes open make sleeping difficult I would be most appreciative.
When I go to asleep, I don't simply close my eyes and nod off - I may open my eyes briefly, either in response to external stimuli, (such as an unexpected or unfamiliar sound), or when I roll over to get more comfortable. By that time my eyes are somewhat adapted to the dark, and even small, dim lights are really jarring and actually raise my hear rate. I hate most hotel rooms for that reason - the LED's on the smoke detectors are a real problem for me, along with any pilot lights on TV sets, displays on clock radios, etc. I cover up what I can, but those smoke detectors can be a real bitch, being located directly above the bed. It's amazing how much light gets through a Breath-Right strip or a Band-Aid... At home I have tape over the (red) charging lights on my wireless phones, and I turn my LED alarm clock face down on the bedside table.
Also, some people spend at least a part of the night sleeping with their eyes partly or fully open - I can see even very dim sources of light causing disturbed sleep for such people.
It seems to me that Amazon's business model is based on the economies of NOT having the overheads associated with retail stores. I would guess that their growth is declining, or is projected to do so within two or three years. The last place for them to grow their market in North America is to start converting those customers who still shop at bricks 'n' mortar stores. Once Amazon manages to put a few of the traditional players out of business, I expect that they'll dramatically shrink the number of their own stores in the hopes of diverting that business into their more profitable mail-order model. (Unless they plan for the stores to also be 'drone terminals' - in that case they'll probably just take over the lion's share of B+M retail and hold on to it for a good long time). In either case, look for them to keep the stores open 24-7, in order to put more pressure on the incumbents.
One 'outlier' possibility just occurred to me: I'm sure Amazon would love to be in the ISP business as well. Stores would establish a physical presence that might be leveraged to provide Internet service. I bet that service would be really cheap for Prime members. In that case, look for a 'Prime Plus' membership that comes with free Internet service.
Well, there's spam egg MojoKid and spam, that's not got much spam in it! Oh, wait, that's ALL spam except for the egg... Sorry!
the breaker will blow from the backfed voltage, but all the expensive devices attached will be smoked.
With a device as small as a wallwart, the breaker will almost certainly NOT blow, unless your "many megavolts" pulse is long enough and of a low enough impedance that it breaks through the insulation and causes and ionized channel between Hot and Neutral or Ground. And it's likely only *some* of the devices attached that will be smoked.
It would cost a bit to implement, but wouldn't be at all hard to develop: a USB port that kills 'kill sticks'. Protect the data lines, sense the way-too-high voltage coming in on said lines, and counter it with a power source having *bigger* voltage and substantial current capability. One $55 investment down the drain, and one fucktard of a vandal gets a comeuppance. Bonus points for implementing video capture, and sounding a loud piezo buzzer, as soon as the vandalism attempt is sensed.
Of course, minus points if it accidentally fries a legitimate device plugged into the port...
Laborers pool their resources in unions. Capital owners pool their resources in companies. I see no difference. Both are trying to gain an advantage over others to benefit themselves. Both often abuse their power if the pooling activity turns out to be successful. Beats me why many people think one of these is a great thing and the other is a problem.
Mod parent up!!!
There is the third choice. Take the pay, and botch the training. Be an incredibly bad "teacher". Don't correct even the most basic mistakes. Be like a politician, don't answer any question straight. Be rude and belittle them for asking "stupid" questions. You were hired to do some kind of work, not to teach. They can't really expect you to be able to do a good teaching job.
Damn! I wish I mod points right now - I'd mod you up. Sometimes subversive practices like the ones you've advocated are the only feasible response to a horribly broken system.
FTS:
...When electronic searches are done in secret, we lose our right to challenge the legality of law enforcement invasions of privacy. The Fourth Amendment doesn't allow that, and it's time for the government to step up and respect the Constitution."
"Respect" is an attitude that can easily be faked, and it doesn't mean jack shit in this context. Given that the Constitution is, according to Wikipedia, "the supreme law of the United States of America", the government had bloody well better "step up and abide by the Constitution". I would expect a senior attorney for the EFF to realize the importance of this wording, and to speak more carefully on the matter. Too damned many people in the government regard the Constitution as merely a set of suggestions. Talking about respecting it, rather than insisting that they obey it, encourages these asshats to pay only lip service to the law of the land.
This whole model of corporations thinking that we're going to just use any old crap they put out and let them do what they want with our files, force us to log on to their servers, force us to watch ads etc. is going to end in one way only.
Intelligent people will simply stop using the shit altogether.
There are lots of very intelligent people who, through lack of information or understanding, or simple lack of caring, are users of 'this shit'. I know some of them.
It turns out that even smart people can be lulled into a stupor when they have the full bellies and constant diversions present in a bread 'n' circuses society. Entertainment and infotainment are the new opiate of the masses. That's why we have the corporate system of governance we now 'enjoy' throughout the developed world.
psychology already has a poor enough reputation when it comes to scientific credibility. It certainly doesn't need junk science like this 'study' cluttering up its landscape. This is something I'd expect to see in some laughable rag while standing in the supermarket checkout line.
Who pays for shit research like this anyway? And why?
or at least that's what Microsoft is betting on. I suspect they're planning on neutering and gutting their OS, and Windows 10 is the start of that. They want everything in 'the cloud', where they have absolute control and can pwn your data at will, and where they can charge whatever they want because the only alternative will be other cloud providers with whom they're colluding.
It should simply have read "Microsoft Fixes Windows 10". But then I guess they'd have to call it "Windows 7", and Satya Nadella would no longer have a job shafting Microsoft customers.