Nutritionist is a meaningless title. It has no standing, no required qualifications, certifications or training. If however you had said Dietician then those people are worth listening to. Because they actually know something and have qualifications.
Nutritionists are in the same category as Homoeopaths and Chiropractors.
Lets see Myxomatosis - 99.8% of the rabbit population destroyed in 2 years
Over time the numbers of rabbits resistant to the virus increased and in 1995 the rabbit haemorraghic disease virus RHDV was released to again cull the numbers. Even in 1995 when RHDV was release the rabbit population was no where near the 1950s population which was destroying pastoral Australia.
Cane toads on the other hand - now that was a fuckup.
The problem with privatising Telecom was the fact they didn't split the entities, not that the final mile was privatised.
If Telecom had been split into Telstra and Telecom wholesale and both sold to private hands but with Telecom Wholesale prevented from selling directly to consumers you would have had a good outcome. Then it would have been similar to an Agile or a pipenetworks except it had the incumbent final mile.
If the setup had been the same as what has just happened to TPG, that they have to allow access to their network to other parties at the same base cost. Then a lot of the problems we have today wouldn't have happened.
There is also a third option. The government builds the ISP and then sells it off.
My very first dialup internet connection was this. It was called Global Info Links and was an entity owned and run by Ipswich City Council. They built all the necessary infrastructure for it to work because the telcos didn't believe there was a business model there. 2 years later they sold the business off to private equity for a healthy profit.
So in the end the tax payer got a service that the market wasn't going to provide and over a longer term walked away with a boost to the public coffers so there was no argument of wasted taxes.
I was actually thinking about leveraging the parallel symmetries that exist between the paradigm shifting next generation technology that is the INTERNET of THINGS and the once in a generational market disrupting future shaping technology now known as The Cloud to achieve never before seen levels of synergy, segment alignment and leading edge thought processes, allowing us to disrupt old world dinosaur markets and take us into the new age of Big Data.
Then you would need to charge every plaster who used iron cored mesh when they rendered a house.
And seriously think about what you are saying. If they turned their building into a faraday cage then everything inside the building would still be able to talk to each other. It's not like they are saying "please sir, will you please place your phone inside this copper ball please" and cutting your phone off.
If a hotel turned itself into a faraday cage everyone's mobile phone wouldn't be working either and the last thing a hotel would want is to not be able to host a conference because people's phones don't work.
If the hotspot is connected to your internal network then you absolutely have an issue. If it is just a hotspot, ala your mobile phone then there is no security risk as there is no connection to your network
If that vector exists though for the hotspot to be connected to your network you by default have to treat the network as compromised and hostile. So if you are in an office, or a hotel or any other large physical scale environment you have to treat the wider network as if it is compromised already because you are physically incapable of securing it. And it should be as separate from your server network as possible. It is why we have VLANs.
If you have someone with access to your server rooms they should be a trusted individual. If that individual is setting up an unsecured hotspot with access to your network without prior approval they should be immediately be removed.
I'm still not understanding how your setup allowed them to function. Assuming you are talking about them plugging a router into an active port in a room, how are their devices resolving anything other than your hotels generic hotel login screen. That there should have immediately stopped them as they would have had to authenticate through your portal and you would have had a log of it. Simple case of warning then dismissal.
If it's not a port for guests to access the internet from in their rooms why the hell don't you have port locking turned on at the very least? Why would those ports be of any use what so ever? They either should not have worked via port locking or there should have been no way they resolved and address or had a gateway to the internet. Staff will stop bringing in routers if it doesn't go anywhere.
I've never ever ever got on with voice commands. Whether it is on a desktop or my phone. If we take this one "Hey Cortana", firstly I never say Hey to anyone. It is just not a work I use so that feels bad enough. But next, how do you pronounce Cortana.
Just no.
As an aside - why is everything so flat these days?
I'm sorry what? I could be falling for the biggest WHOOSH of all time here but I've re-read your post a few times.
Are you talking about your employees setting up a hotspot and bridging into your wired network? If that is the case you would be fully within your rights to unplug them from your wired network.
That said if that is even a possible vector into your network (I can only assume you don't control their hardware) then you need to treat that network as hostile anyway and the servers should not be directly accessible.
The Occupy movement was almost completely non existent here in Australia. Fergusen style riots don't happen here either. They also don't happen in NZ.
The USA has some terrible social issues to deal with, with some crazy rich living alongside some crazy poor. While that divide exists you will always have problems. But the US is quite unique in first world countries in that regard. Using the Gini coefficient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) the US is worse than most countries in the world for income disparity, about equal with China and significantly worse than India. And both of those countries have suffered civil unrest because of the income divide.
But fundamentally money is easy to move and if the US does start to have too many social and civil issues the money will leave. At the moment the US is the place to be if you want easy access to capital and to build a business. But the US has nasty tax rules if you decide to reside somewhere else and keep your US citizenship which means there is an incentive, if you have decided to move somewhere else, to take all your business with you too.
Actually the answer to that is pretty conclusively answered as a no. As much as the cause of psychological make-ups can be proven.
Being sexually attracted to children is something that you are born with. In the same was as being heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual or any of the other sexuals.
The difference is that most people who are attracted to children do not act upon those feelings. The scum are the people who do act upon them or feed them material. Potentially this persons upbringing bred in him a sense of entitlement and a disregard for other humans. This then led to him indulging in his desires.
I know nothing about the particular case that they are referring to. But the fact that it wasn't widely reported is actually a good thing. Being charged is not the same as being convicted. There are too many cases of people being tried in the media and having their lives destroyed when they actually haven't done anything wrong.
Given people are so fucking stupid they will attack paediatricians thinking they are paedophiles just sums up the wider mobs inability to effectively deal with the information.
We lose far more than we collect from the taxes on them.
As far as the government is concerned banning outright tobacco and alcohol would make huge sense. In fact they did try it. The problem for the government is a much larger percentage of the population is happy with people smoking and drinking then there is people happy with them taking heroin. As a result heroin can be banned where as alcohol and tobacco not so much.
In Tasmania, the little island off the bottom of Australia, the state government is currently considering banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born in 2000 or later as a permanent measure.
Any situation where you don't have the details of what is inside the object but you want them.
Take a step away from the "teleportation" aspect and put the sender and receiver right next to each other. One disassembles the item while the other recreates it. At the end of the process you have the replacement item to stick back into where ever you took it from AND a scan of all the layers inside allowing you to produce more should you so desire.
You get no disagreement from me with regards to your theory or the fact that those drugs are being used in large quantities or that I am paying for it now.
The only question I have, and it is an impossible one to answer, is would the economic losses of legalised heroin be higher or lower than the economic losses caused by heroin when it is illegal.
Would legalising it increase its usage? If yes, would that increased usage cause economic damage and would that damage exceed that currently being suffered while it is illegal?
I simply don't know the answers to these questions. But I feel that we have gone a little off track here. You obviously acknowledge that heroin usage does come with costs and I started out by pointing out to blue trane that there were costs to its use. And then to Mullen that those costs were not restricted to enforcement costs.
As an anecdote I once interviewed a senior manager for a role to work on a major project overseeing the construction and maintenance of a large desalination plant. His salary would have been in the mid $200k range. Between meeting with me and meeting with my boss, the CEO, he went into our toilets and shot up. It turned him into a drooling zombie during the next stage of the process. He was in his mid 40s and up until that stage had led a very productive successful life. That decision and that drug destroyed his career. The only upside was he didn't have a family that would have suffered as well.
Obviously in this case he still obtained the drug illegally so there would be no change there. But the level of dependence he obviously felt, to have to shoot up between interviews terrifies me. It is one of the big reasons I lean against legalising it, I'm not convinced that people can control themselves once they start.
Nalaxone will prevent ODs in a lot of cases and counter act the immediate effects of opiates. However it does not prevent the long term damage.
I am also aware of taxes that attempt to pass the cost of an activity to the people involved. The problem with them is often the tax required is too high so you have the effect of either subsidising it from general tax revenue OR pushing the cost of something so high you are effectively criminalising it via price and people move to finding illicit sources. You see this in the current cost of cigarettes.
As for the rights. I agree. I am advocating that peoples rights are curtailed in a society. In the same way that I am not allowed to have my stereo playing at 1000db at 2am on a Saturday night. Or to burn off my garbage in a bonfire in the back yard. Or to drive my motorcyle at 200kph. Or any one of a million other laws and by-laws that make our society function.
You may feel that legalising heroin would have a net benefit on society, I may believe that legalising heroin would be a net penalty on society. These are obviously differences in opinion but the fundamentals of having an individuals rights curtailed for the benefit of society as a greater whole is already there and I'm sure that there are many many cases where you agree with curtailing an individuals rights.
I am also aware of the concept of if a government has the power to ban all the things I don't like then it will also have the power to ban the things I do.
As an aside I live in Australia which has a universal health-care system and a universal welfare system. It is not as socialist as say a northern european country but compared to the US you would find it very left wing. If you are ill you are looked after to the best of our ability irrespective of whether you can afford to pay for the care or not. Many of the arguments around rights and what people can and cannot do in the US are settled questions here. Abortion and gun control being the two most obvious ones.
One of the biggest differences you notice when going to the US from Australia is the disenfranchisement of so much of the population. The obvious poverty and the feeling that they see no way out is actually quite shocking. You can wander around any Australian city at night and feel safe and while there are homeless people the numbers are small (Brisbane has a homeless population of 50, in a city of 2 million). http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au...
So perhaps that helps explain where I am coming from when I sit in favour of restricting an individuals rights to something like heroin. I believe that it would be a significant net cost to society to legalise it and the only way for it to not be a net cost would be for society to abandon those who become victims of it. Something I am not willing to advocate.
Slashdot Mirror
Nutritionist is a meaningless title. It has no standing, no required qualifications, certifications or training. If however you had said Dietician then those people are worth listening to. Because they actually know something and have qualifications.
Nutritionists are in the same category as Homoeopaths and Chiropractors.
Lets see Myxomatosis - 99.8% of the rabbit population destroyed in 2 years
Over time the numbers of rabbits resistant to the virus increased and in 1995 the rabbit haemorraghic disease virus RHDV was released to again cull the numbers. Even in 1995 when RHDV was release the rabbit population was no where near the 1950s population which was destroying pastoral Australia.
Cane toads on the other hand - now that was a fuckup.
The problem with privatising Telecom was the fact they didn't split the entities, not that the final mile was privatised.
If Telecom had been split into Telstra and Telecom wholesale and both sold to private hands but with Telecom Wholesale prevented from selling directly to consumers you would have had a good outcome. Then it would have been similar to an Agile or a pipenetworks except it had the incumbent final mile.
If the setup had been the same as what has just happened to TPG, that they have to allow access to their network to other parties at the same base cost. Then a lot of the problems we have today wouldn't have happened.
The same with their mobile phone network and coverage. It just seems so patchy.
There is also a third option. The government builds the ISP and then sells it off.
My very first dialup internet connection was this. It was called Global Info Links and was an entity owned and run by Ipswich City Council. They built all the necessary infrastructure for it to work because the telcos didn't believe there was a business model there. 2 years later they sold the business off to private equity for a healthy profit.
So in the end the tax payer got a service that the market wasn't going to provide and over a longer term walked away with a boost to the public coffers so there was no argument of wasted taxes.
I was actually thinking about leveraging the parallel symmetries that exist between the paradigm shifting next generation technology that is the INTERNET of THINGS and the once in a generational market disrupting future shaping technology now known as The Cloud to achieve never before seen levels of synergy, segment alignment and leading edge thought processes, allowing us to disrupt old world dinosaur markets and take us into the new age of Big Data.
Specifically it is the terms I hate, not the technology behind them. Its the same as I hate terms like twitterati.
The Cloud annoys me because you have been able to rent servers. IoT annoys me because it just feels like a bollocks name.
Pintrest?
Whatsapp?
Snapchat?
Slashdot Beta?
G+?
I have been old for a very very very long time then.
Truly the "Internet of Things" is "Totes Adorbs"
Internet of Things has actually managed to surpass my hatred of "The Cloud"
Then you would need to charge every plaster who used iron cored mesh when they rendered a house.
And seriously think about what you are saying. If they turned their building into a faraday cage then everything inside the building would still be able to talk to each other. It's not like they are saying "please sir, will you please place your phone inside this copper ball please" and cutting your phone off.
If a hotel turned itself into a faraday cage everyone's mobile phone wouldn't be working either and the last thing a hotel would want is to not be able to host a conference because people's phones don't work.
If the hotspot is connected to your internal network then you absolutely have an issue. If it is just a hotspot, ala your mobile phone then there is no security risk as there is no connection to your network
If that vector exists though for the hotspot to be connected to your network you by default have to treat the network as compromised and hostile. So if you are in an office, or a hotel or any other large physical scale environment you have to treat the wider network as if it is compromised already because you are physically incapable of securing it. And it should be as separate from your server network as possible. It is why we have VLANs.
If you have someone with access to your server rooms they should be a trusted individual. If that individual is setting up an unsecured hotspot with access to your network without prior approval they should be immediately be removed.
I'm still not understanding how your setup allowed them to function. Assuming you are talking about them plugging a router into an active port in a room, how are their devices resolving anything other than your hotels generic hotel login screen. That there should have immediately stopped them as they would have had to authenticate through your portal and you would have had a log of it. Simple case of warning then dismissal.
If it's not a port for guests to access the internet from in their rooms why the hell don't you have port locking turned on at the very least? Why would those ports be of any use what so ever? They either should not have worked via port locking or there should have been no way they resolved and address or had a gateway to the internet. Staff will stop bringing in routers if it doesn't go anywhere.
I've never ever ever got on with voice commands. Whether it is on a desktop or my phone. If we take this one "Hey Cortana", firstly I never say Hey to anyone. It is just not a work I use so that feels bad enough. But next, how do you pronounce Cortana.
Just no.
As an aside - why is everything so flat these days?
Faraday cages don't jam signals. They insulate the inside from the outside.
I'm sorry what? I could be falling for the biggest WHOOSH of all time here but I've re-read your post a few times.
Are you talking about your employees setting up a hotspot and bridging into your wired network? If that is the case you would be fully within your rights to unplug them from your wired network.
That said if that is even a possible vector into your network (I can only assume you don't control their hardware) then you need to treat that network as hostile anyway and the servers should not be directly accessible.
They are the epitome of the keyboard warrior bully spewing venom at people because they feel safe and anonymous behind their keyboards.
And money is easily moved.
The Occupy movement was almost completely non existent here in Australia. Fergusen style riots don't happen here either. They also don't happen in NZ.
The USA has some terrible social issues to deal with, with some crazy rich living alongside some crazy poor. While that divide exists you will always have problems. But the US is quite unique in first world countries in that regard. Using the Gini coefficient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) the US is worse than most countries in the world for income disparity, about equal with China and significantly worse than India. And both of those countries have suffered civil unrest because of the income divide.
But fundamentally money is easy to move and if the US does start to have too many social and civil issues the money will leave. At the moment the US is the place to be if you want easy access to capital and to build a business. But the US has nasty tax rules if you decide to reside somewhere else and keep your US citizenship which means there is an incentive, if you have decided to move somewhere else, to take all your business with you too.
And yet every time I have been to Germany there seems to be a load of cars on the roads. And trucks as well.
I drove from Bremen to Frankfurt a little over a year ago and Frankfurt was full of cars.
Actually the answer to that is pretty conclusively answered as a no. As much as the cause of psychological make-ups can be proven.
Being sexually attracted to children is something that you are born with. In the same was as being heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual or any of the other sexuals.
The difference is that most people who are attracted to children do not act upon those feelings. The scum are the people who do act upon them or feed them material. Potentially this persons upbringing bred in him a sense of entitlement and a disregard for other humans. This then led to him indulging in his desires.
I know nothing about the particular case that they are referring to. But the fact that it wasn't widely reported is actually a good thing. Being charged is not the same as being convicted. There are too many cases of people being tried in the media and having their lives destroyed when they actually haven't done anything wrong.
Given people are so fucking stupid they will attack paediatricians thinking they are paedophiles just sums up the wider mobs inability to effectively deal with the information.
We lose far more than we collect from the taxes on them.
As far as the government is concerned banning outright tobacco and alcohol would make huge sense. In fact they did try it. The problem for the government is a much larger percentage of the population is happy with people smoking and drinking then there is people happy with them taking heroin. As a result heroin can be banned where as alcohol and tobacco not so much.
In Tasmania, the little island off the bottom of Australia, the state government is currently considering banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born in 2000 or later as a permanent measure.
Any situation where you don't have the details of what is inside the object but you want them.
Take a step away from the "teleportation" aspect and put the sender and receiver right next to each other. One disassembles the item while the other recreates it. At the end of the process you have the replacement item to stick back into where ever you took it from AND a scan of all the layers inside allowing you to produce more should you so desire.
You get no disagreement from me with regards to your theory or the fact that those drugs are being used in large quantities or that I am paying for it now.
The only question I have, and it is an impossible one to answer, is would the economic losses of legalised heroin be higher or lower than the economic losses caused by heroin when it is illegal.
Would legalising it increase its usage? If yes, would that increased usage cause economic damage and would that damage exceed that currently being suffered while it is illegal?
I simply don't know the answers to these questions. But I feel that we have gone a little off track here. You obviously acknowledge that heroin usage does come with costs and I started out by pointing out to blue trane that there were costs to its use. And then to Mullen that those costs were not restricted to enforcement costs.
As an anecdote I once interviewed a senior manager for a role to work on a major project overseeing the construction and maintenance of a large desalination plant. His salary would have been in the mid $200k range. Between meeting with me and meeting with my boss, the CEO, he went into our toilets and shot up. It turned him into a drooling zombie during the next stage of the process. He was in his mid 40s and up until that stage had led a very productive successful life. That decision and that drug destroyed his career. The only upside was he didn't have a family that would have suffered as well.
Obviously in this case he still obtained the drug illegally so there would be no change there. But the level of dependence he obviously felt, to have to shoot up between interviews terrifies me. It is one of the big reasons I lean against legalising it, I'm not convinced that people can control themselves once they start.
Nalaxone will prevent ODs in a lot of cases and counter act the immediate effects of opiates. However it does not prevent the long term damage.
I am also aware of taxes that attempt to pass the cost of an activity to the people involved. The problem with them is often the tax required is too high so you have the effect of either subsidising it from general tax revenue OR pushing the cost of something so high you are effectively criminalising it via price and people move to finding illicit sources. You see this in the current cost of cigarettes.
As for the rights. I agree. I am advocating that peoples rights are curtailed in a society. In the same way that I am not allowed to have my stereo playing at 1000db at 2am on a Saturday night. Or to burn off my garbage in a bonfire in the back yard. Or to drive my motorcyle at 200kph. Or any one of a million other laws and by-laws that make our society function.
You may feel that legalising heroin would have a net benefit on society, I may believe that legalising heroin would be a net penalty on society. These are obviously differences in opinion but the fundamentals of having an individuals rights curtailed for the benefit of society as a greater whole is already there and I'm sure that there are many many cases where you agree with curtailing an individuals rights.
I am also aware of the concept of if a government has the power to ban all the things I don't like then it will also have the power to ban the things I do.
As an aside I live in Australia which has a universal health-care system and a universal welfare system. It is not as socialist as say a northern european country but compared to the US you would find it very left wing. If you are ill you are looked after to the best of our ability irrespective of whether you can afford to pay for the care or not. Many of the arguments around rights and what people can and cannot do in the US are settled questions here. Abortion and gun control being the two most obvious ones.
One of the biggest differences you notice when going to the US from Australia is the disenfranchisement of so much of the population. The obvious poverty and the feeling that they see no way out is actually quite shocking. You can wander around any Australian city at night and feel safe and while there are homeless people the numbers are small (Brisbane has a homeless population of 50, in a city of 2 million). http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au...
So perhaps that helps explain where I am coming from when I sit in favour of restricting an individuals rights to something like heroin. I believe that it would be a significant net cost to society to legalise it and the only way for it to not be a net cost would be for society to abandon those who become victims of it. Something I am not willing to advocate.
Sorry for a ridiculously long rambling post.