Sounds fine to me; We have to keep our law enforcement departments up to date with technology. I would gladly trade my privacy in silly conversations for the safety of a secured America. The only people who don't like this stuff are people who have something to hide.
That's nice for you, but I wouldn't trade my privacy in silly conversations for the (illusion of) safety in America. Neither would a lot of other people. The problem is, you can't just trade your privacy by endorsing wiretaps. You're trading everyone's privacy. Perhaps you'd like to write a letter allowing the government to listen to all the conversations they want, read your emails, and rifle through your files, but don't speak for the rest of the country.
No, it isn't. You don't need to understand much more to be able to write "apt-get install openoffice", than you need to get down to your favourite software store, get Microsoft Office, insert the CD's and click next, next, next, and finish. I would actually go so far, as to say that debian is simpler for the end-user in this arena.
Yes you do. You have to know
the exact name of the command apt-get.
the exact parameter to pass to apt-get.
most importantly, the exact name of the package.
That last one is the killer here. How is someone supposed to find out the name of the package? The answer is of course use apt-get search, but that imposes even further requirements on the user's knowledge, like how the "apt-get search" command works, what things to search for, which packages are good for their needs, etc. The command line is nowhere near as simple as "Buy software. Insert CD. Click buttons."
It is much slower, and unavoidably so. It's a very dynamic language, and this has consequences as far as performance is concerned.
Perhaps this is a dumb question, but I don't know how interpreted languages work. If it were possible to compile Python (or any other interpreted language), would this make it anywhere near the speed of C/C++? Is Python's slowness the result of the overhead of the interpreter? Or is it just an inevitable side effect of abstracting programming to such a high level?
I know a huge benefit of interpreted languages is that they can run anywhere. But I've often been impressed with the ease of coding in such a language, and thought to myself, "It's a shame it has to run so slow. Now if they could just compile it to machine code..."
Okay, so perhaps it takes some amount of learning to be able to use a computer. Like learning how to use a mouse and/or keyboard. And learning what double clicking is. And learning shell variables and PATHs and shell commands and rpm flags and how to organize your filesystem so you can install rpms + resolve dependencies and how to understand what "unresolved dependencies" even means. Oh wait, that last one only applies to Linux.
I'm not taking for granted that Joe Sixpack knows his ass from his elbow. All I'm saying is that Windows is far easier to use than Linux. Try explaining a command shell to one of those end users who doesn't know what "double click" means. I'd say you'd have far greater luck letting them use Windows.
As a side note, I have used Linux almost extensively for the past 10 years. I've learned most of the ins and outs of using a Linux system. And yet I still admit that Windows is much easier to use. You could argue that I still haven't learned enough about Linux in the 10 years I've used it, but this only further proves my point. I know nothing about Windows, and it is quite usable for me. And easier than Linux.
No the fact is, things are supposed to work instantly.
You should really try supporting Windows XP sometime.
I don't know what problems you've had with Windows XP, but it works fine for me. Videos, sound, games, everything works perfectly right away and is all integrated. Programs take seconds to install as I have said. None of this works so easily in Linux. The bottom line is, Windows is easier (far easier) to use than Linux, no matter which OS you first grew accustomed to.
I'm not sure what you mean by "supporting", but I have developed software for Windows. Trying to get my friends to install it was at first a pain, because I distributed a.zip file and asked them to copy it to a certain directory. This was too difficult for a surprising number of people. When I released it with a self-installing.exe, people had no problem downloading it and double-clicking it. Why? Not because they have "learned" to double click install files. It's because it doesn't take any learning to do simple tasks in Windows, whereas in Linux, you have to know what you're doing.
As for your girlfriend, she finds Linux difficult because she's already learned something different.
That's ridiculous and incorrect. As I had stated, things work much more simply in Windows. It takes no learning. She never "learned" how to use Windows. Things just worked. Now that she has Linux, which requires her to know things about the way the system works (not a requirement in Windows), it is difficult. One might argue that the steep learning curve is a good thing to keep non-techies away from computers, but I'm sure anyone who isn't a sanctimonious geek will admit that computers should be easy to use.
Linux is different than Windows, and only more difficult when it doesn't come preinstalled.
I beg to differ. Linux is FAR more difficult, regardless of whether it was preinstalled or not.
A few months ago, my girlfriend was getting sick of Windows frequently crashing, and she suspected it had a virus. At my suggestion, she decided to give Linux a try. After all, the only things she used her computer for were surfing the web, listening to mp3s, and the occasional word processing. I installed Redhat 9 for her. It's been a few months since then, and she is still confused by Linux. For one thing, she doesn't know how to install new programs. Windows: download.exe file and double-click. Linux: download.rpm file, fire up a shell, rpm -i file, download dependencies after it fails, rpm -i files, repeat; OR, fire up a shell, apt-get install package.
Despite how simple you may think.rpm's are compared to installing something from source, they are still way too hard to use!. Double-clicking on an install file and have it immediately work is orders of magnitudes better than the (many) Linux alternatives.
Having to fire up a shell is simply too complicated for the average user.
Yes, it may be easy for you and me, but learning these commands are not what normal people want to do in their spare time. And the wonderful diversity everyone always harps about actually makes Linux a lot harder to use - instead of a nice set of standard libraries, everyone chooses their own, and it creates dependency hell. In Windows, I don't have to download 40 libraries to use a program. I don't care how it works, all I have to do is double click and my program is running.
It amazes me how so many/.ers think Linux is just as easy to use as Windows. It is not! Get over it! I've been using Linux for 10 years, and I still don't delude myself into thinking it's easy. The fact is, in Windows, things work instantly. In Linux, you have to know what you're doing, and play around with it for hours or days before getting things to work. Perhaps the effort is worth it (and in my case, I think it is) - but that doesn't make Linux easy to use.
Unless you actually do the studies, you're taking someone's word for it too. As it happens, you choose to believe more counterculture, non-recognized "authorities" because you prefer to. However, I'd rather put my chances on the bulk of all dietetic research done to date, rather than believe the exact opposite just to do so. Good medical research (such as that in Lancet, a British journal, or JAMA) I will belivee with skepticism until I see a compelling reason why not. And some unfunded, unrecognized group saying what I want to hear doesn't count.
Well the problem is, you won't see a compelling reason why not to believe the mainstream research, unless you go out and look for it. Also, you are not putting your chances in the "bulk of all dietetic research to date." You are putting your chances on the bulk of dietetic research that these organizations have allowed you to hear. It's not a matter of believing what you prefer, it's a matter of believing the research you find more credible. When you see research funded by Philip Morris or Pepsi Co, and contradicting research done by independent researchers, you have to check which has more studies, which looks less biased, etc.
I understand why you see any discrediting of the JAMA or various widely trusted medical journals as a conspiracy theory. It's hard to distrust something so many people take as scientific fact. But just because something appears in a medical journal does not make it true. Likewise, just because something is not in a medical journal, doesn't mean it's false.
For example: Back in the 60's, Mary Enig was doing research on fats. Her findings showed that trans fats were unhealthy, among other things, which contradicted what the food industry wanted to hear. The food industry aggressively tried to discredit her, and funded many contradicting studies. She lost the food industry funding, some of her research was not published, and she was generally shunned for years by much of the academic community. Just the fact that something like this can happen should be a warning to how manipulated mainstream research can be. It's just now that we're starting to hear talk of how trans fats are bad and should be labeled.
You're right, it's not a governmental organization - my misconception. But the AMA does get funding from the food industry.
First, yes, oil is 100% fat, whether it be animal or vegetable - check the label if you don't believe me.
I never said it wasn't. What I said was that that was not "the bottom line". Fats are different. Some fats are essential to your health, others ar e detrimental.
Ultimately, you seem to have some issues with perceived conspiracies. I see the occasional conspiracy in places too, but it doesn't mean that every recognized authority is tainted and that everything they say is a lie. It doesn't mean that I should believe the opposite just to do so.
I agree, not every authority is tainted. And I understand your skepticism in what sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. But at the same time, don't dismiss it just because it goes against the mainstream. Check out this article. Industry has a lot of power in this country.
I'll take my chances with AMA above rogue, discredited doctors with no credibility who write books, eh? Otherwise this is convincing yourself of something you want to believe, and that's not particularly rational. There are maybe 5 doctors in the country who haven't been bought who believe the Atkins stuff in its extreme. The research that supports a higher protein diet doesn't advocate the fat consumption that goes with Atkins.
I'm not asking you to believe rogue, discredited doctors. I'm asking you to make up your mind for yourself, rather than being convinced something is true because the AMA says it's true. Do a little research. There are a lot of studies (ones that don't receive their funding from the food industry) that show our whole America idea of health is wrong. But since they conflict with what the food industry wants to sell you, no one ever hears of them.
Two things there: First, consumption of animal fat also picked up over that period (ie, 60's to today).
Not according to what I've heard. But then I'm sure you'll say it wasn't AMA approved research, so it doesn't mean anything.
Second, processed vegetable oils are dead fatal, containing lots of trans-fatty acids. In general, avoid anything hydrogenated. That's my advice. For what it's worth, the AMA (I believe it was them) fought for labeling of foods with trans-fat labels. But bottom line, both margerine and animal fat are 100% fat. And a diet high in either isn't good.
Hydrogenated fats are bad, agreed. The AMA has just recently fought for labeling of these foods, when it has been known for decades (since the 60s I belive) that trans-fats are bad. And no, the bottom line is not that margerine and animal fat are 100% fat. Margerine contains bad fat (hydrogenated, trans fats). Animal fat does not (saturated is not bad). Don't assume that because the name is "fat" that it is bad for you. You do need a diet consisting of carbs, fats, and protein.
First, that's the food industry, not the medical community - I reasonably trust AMA, not the food industry. Second, farmers are a big part of the food industry (see "Beef - it's what's for dinner"). Third, we don't eat food "straight from a farmer" even if that's where we get it, as cooking is processing. Not trying to split hairs, just trying to point out that a great deal of the damage we do to food in terms of its nutritive value etc. we do in the kitchen.
The problem with trusting the AMA is that it is a government organization which receives a lot of its funding from the food industry. You can't separate the two so easily, and say "The AMA is unbiased and scientific, so I trust it." As a slashdotter, perhaps you recognize the problem of the RIAA and MPAA funding our politicians campaigns - many laws are skewed in their favor. The AMA has a similar situation with the food industry. And before disagreeing with me, check it out yourself.
As for farmers, I'm not talking about giant agribusiness companies. Yes, they are part of the food industry, and that's where your "Beef" slogan comes from. I'm talking about smaller farmers, who don't try to convince you that hormone-infested and irradiated meat is good for you.
For the record, while cooking may be processing in the technical sense, there is a big difference between cooking and the processing that goes on before you that jar of jelly ends up in the grocery store.
And to clarify, I'm not advocating the Atkins' diet, although it is probably closer to being healthy than the standard American diet. I'm merely saying that your belief that "fat = bad, carbs = good", is wholly wrong and based on faulty research.
However, for a lot of the people posting in this thread, their "diet" consists of pork chops and eggs. First-class ticket to a coronary. Bottom line is a diet that consists of 60% of calories from fat is not safe. And I've yet to hear any medical institution (like, say, JAMA) state otherwise.
Perhaps that is your problem. Don't believe everything the AMA tells you. If such a diet of animal fats caused heart disease, why is it that heart disease in America began to increase during the time when the food industry decided to start pushing margerine and processed vegetable oils? The food industry stands a lot to gain from convincing you that their processed foods are better for you than foods straight from a farmer.
I wonder where you got your information from. As another poster has explained, there is logic (and unbiased research) behind the low-carb diet plan. Carbs raise insulin, which controls the storing of fat in your body. The higher the insulin, the more sugar gets stored as fat in your body.
And yes, it matters what kind of carbs you eat - simple sugars go straight to your blood and raise insulin. However, cereal, bread, pasta, etc are NOT complex carbs - they are broken down into simple sugars and go right to your blood stream. If you want good carbs, you'll need to go to vegetables. Even fruits are a kind of high on the glycemic index (although they at least have nutritional value, unlike cereal).
Calorie intake is definitely not the determining factor for your health. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that eating 2000 calories worth of crackers would the same nutritional benefit of eating a balanced 2000 calorie diet. And overall nutrition has a huge effect on your weight. The problem is, what is a balanced diet?
I won't try to answer that anymore than I've alluded to, but instead refer you to this website. That article is a good one, but if you are interested, the whole site has some very good information.
Something along those lines exists at sodaplay. I don't believe there's any evolution about it, but you get to build models and control how their muscles move and such. It's pretty cool.
You have got to be kidding. Do you think everyone who uses Linux has the time to do that for every package they install? When I installed Debian, I wanted X. I typed 'apt-get install x-window-system'. The following download and install of all the required packages took about a half hour (over dsl). Your way would have taken me about 2 hours to get all the right packages, and another couple days to compile them from source (after of course checking for security vulnerabilities and fixing them myself).
Not everyone who uses a computer is a programmer. Not everyone who is a programmer is paranoid enough to think that a binary package from RedHat contains a secret connect() to send out their passwd files. Not everyone who IS a programmer, and who IS that paranoid, has the time to audit the code of every package they install.
For these people, binary packages are quite convenient and useful.
A nice friendly install guide would have gotten me nowhere. I found documentation quite readily with a few google searches. Video card wasn't accelerated, no problem, google for "radeon m6 accelerated linux" and I had several sites telling me what to do. Even the ethernet driver problem wasn't that difficult to solve, once I had a PCMCIA network card to use to connect to the internet.
The problem is not lack of documentation - there is plenty of that. The problem is with the diversity of hardware, you can't provide an easy 1-2-3 install guide for everyone. Everyone's guide will be different. And you seem to imply that in the distant future this problem can be solved, as our hardware gets less "finicky". But since hardware is evolving all the time, I don't think this problem will ever go away.
Also, you seem to associate ease-of-install with lack of robustness. So if debian had built-in support for all my hardware, and automagically detected it all (as Redhat and many other installers do), then somehow it would become less customizable? I don't believe that for a second. Usable defaults does not mean you can't change them.
Actually I think the original chown was more legitimate. Your version would own things like ~your/bin/base, ~your/src/base, ~your/dog/base, etc. Us wants to be owning all YOUR base, not your dog's.
As a Debian user, I object to this. I spent 3 full days installing my laptop with Debian, and it was not a pleasant experience. One of the biggest problems was the fact that there was no driver for my ethernet card in the kernel, so I had to download one - without an ethernet driver to connect to the Internet, this was pretty difficult.
I like programming and playing around with config files to optimize my setup, but spending 3 days trying to get a computer installed is just ridiculous. I would much rather have popped in a disc, clicked a few buttons, and have it automatically detect and set up my hardware while I do something else. I chose Debian for the single reason that I was sick of dealing with RPM dependencies, and that there were far more packages on apt-deb servers than apt-rpm. I don't understand the pleasure in struggling with an OS for days just to get it to the point where it is as usable as another OS after 2 hours of install.
People seem to be missing something here. SCO is adamant that they don't want people to see the source code in question. If they compare it against the Linux kernel and show there's a match (assuming there is), wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of people not seeing their source code?
Why would they go to such lengths to prevent anyone from seeing their code, then compare keys and show that it's an exact match to something freely available for anyone to see?
All your issues can be answered with a simple fact. Plan 9 is by far the coolest name for an OS you will ever hear. The mere thought that when asked whether I run Windows XP or ME, I can answer "I use Plan 9", is about as compelling as any reason I can think of to download it right now.
I'm sure I'll get tarred and feathered by the geek community for this, but I actually think the time-sensitive shading idea is pretty cool. Not sure how good it would be in practice, but I'm always up for some good eye candy. Especially my own (shameless unrelated plug). What's a little wasted CPU time if you can have your desktop reflect the time of day it is? Sounds a lot like xplanet, but cooler.
After reading the headline, I thought this article was about people playing soccer with the AIBO robot dogs - in my opinion, a far more fun sport than robot dogs playing soccer with soccer balls.
Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious here, but for those who like the idea of GoboLinux's revised directory structure (as I do), check out the encap package manager. It's not as complete and elegant a solution, but it's along the same idea and it works with your existing Linux distro. I use it for every package I install from source.
The most common explanation for early "memories" (like pre-3 years old) is that you had heard the story when you were old enough to remember, then incorporated that into your long term memory. You eventually think you remember it because it's been told to you before, and you come up with your own visual for the story. It's not really a memory of the event, it's a memory of your imagination when you heard about the event.
I take BART into work every day. Every day, I end up standing for half an hour on the way in and another half hour on the way out. Now, remind me, why is mass transit unpopular?
Actually, god created monkey for Adam first. If you'll read your Bible, you'll find that god created the animals out of dust first in an attempt to give Adam a mate. When he didn't like those, he pulled out his rib and made Eve.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nice for you, but I wouldn't trade my privacy in silly conversations for the (illusion of) safety in America. Neither would a lot of other people. The problem is, you can't just trade your privacy by endorsing wiretaps. You're trading everyone's privacy. Perhaps you'd like to write a letter allowing the government to listen to all the conversations they want, read your emails, and rifle through your files, but don't speak for the rest of the country.
Yes you do. You have to know
- the exact name of the command apt-get.
- the exact parameter to pass to apt-get.
- most importantly, the exact name of the package.
That last one is the killer here. How is someone supposed to find out the name of the package? The answer is of course use apt-get search, but that imposes even further requirements on the user's knowledge, like how the "apt-get search" command works, what things to search for, which packages are good for their needs, etc. The command line is nowhere near as simple as "Buy software. Insert CD. Click buttons."Perhaps this is a dumb question, but I don't know how interpreted languages work. If it were possible to compile Python (or any other interpreted language), would this make it anywhere near the speed of C/C++? Is Python's slowness the result of the overhead of the interpreter? Or is it just an inevitable side effect of abstracting programming to such a high level?
I know a huge benefit of interpreted languages is that they can run anywhere. But I've often been impressed with the ease of coding in such a language, and thought to myself, "It's a shame it has to run so slow. Now if they could just compile it to machine code..."
I'm not taking for granted that Joe Sixpack knows his ass from his elbow. All I'm saying is that Windows is far easier to use than Linux. Try explaining a command shell to one of those end users who doesn't know what "double click" means. I'd say you'd have far greater luck letting them use Windows.
As a side note, I have used Linux almost extensively for the past 10 years. I've learned most of the ins and outs of using a Linux system. And yet I still admit that Windows is much easier to use. You could argue that I still haven't learned enough about Linux in the 10 years I've used it, but this only further proves my point. I know nothing about Windows, and it is quite usable for me. And easier than Linux.
I don't know what problems you've had with Windows XP, but it works fine for me. Videos, sound, games, everything works perfectly right away and is all integrated. Programs take seconds to install as I have said. None of this works so easily in Linux. The bottom line is, Windows is easier (far easier) to use than Linux, no matter which OS you first grew accustomed to.
I'm not sure what you mean by "supporting", but I have developed software for Windows. Trying to get my friends to install it was at first a pain, because I distributed a .zip file and asked them to copy it to a certain directory. This was too difficult for a surprising number of people. When I released it with a self-installing .exe, people had no problem downloading it and double-clicking it. Why? Not because they have "learned" to double click install files. It's because it doesn't take any learning to do simple tasks in Windows, whereas in Linux, you have to know what you're doing.
As for your girlfriend, she finds Linux difficult because she's already learned something different.
That's ridiculous and incorrect. As I had stated, things work much more simply in Windows. It takes no learning. She never "learned" how to use Windows. Things just worked. Now that she has Linux, which requires her to know things about the way the system works (not a requirement in Windows), it is difficult. One might argue that the steep learning curve is a good thing to keep non-techies away from computers, but I'm sure anyone who isn't a sanctimonious geek will admit that computers should be easy to use.
I beg to differ. Linux is FAR more difficult, regardless of whether it was preinstalled or not.
A few months ago, my girlfriend was getting sick of Windows frequently crashing, and she suspected it had a virus. At my suggestion, she decided to give Linux a try. After all, the only things she used her computer for were surfing the web, listening to mp3s, and the occasional word processing. I installed Redhat 9 for her. It's been a few months since then, and she is still confused by Linux. For one thing, she doesn't know how to install new programs. Windows: download .exe file and double-click. Linux: download .rpm file, fire up a shell, rpm -i file, download dependencies after it fails, rpm -i files, repeat; OR, fire up a shell, apt-get install package.
Despite how simple you may think .rpm's are compared to installing something from source, they are still way too hard to use!. Double-clicking on an install file and have it immediately work is orders of magnitudes better than the (many) Linux alternatives.
Having to fire up a shell is simply too complicated for the average user.
Yes, it may be easy for you and me, but learning these commands are not what normal people want to do in their spare time. And the wonderful diversity everyone always harps about actually makes Linux a lot harder to use - instead of a nice set of standard libraries, everyone chooses their own, and it creates dependency hell. In Windows, I don't have to download 40 libraries to use a program. I don't care how it works, all I have to do is double click and my program is running.
It amazes me how so many /.ers think Linux is just as easy to use as Windows. It is not! Get over it! I've been using Linux for 10 years, and I still don't delude myself into thinking it's easy. The fact is, in Windows, things work instantly. In Linux, you have to know what you're doing, and play around with it for hours or days before getting things to work. Perhaps the effort is worth it (and in my case, I think it is) - but that doesn't make Linux easy to use.
Well the problem is, you won't see a compelling reason why not to believe the mainstream research, unless you go out and look for it. Also, you are not putting your chances in the "bulk of all dietetic research to date." You are putting your chances on the bulk of dietetic research that these organizations have allowed you to hear. It's not a matter of believing what you prefer, it's a matter of believing the research you find more credible. When you see research funded by Philip Morris or Pepsi Co, and contradicting research done by independent researchers, you have to check which has more studies, which looks less biased, etc.
I understand why you see any discrediting of the JAMA or various widely trusted medical journals as a conspiracy theory. It's hard to distrust something so many people take as scientific fact. But just because something appears in a medical journal does not make it true. Likewise, just because something is not in a medical journal, doesn't mean it's false.
For example: Back in the 60's, Mary Enig was doing research on fats. Her findings showed that trans fats were unhealthy, among other things, which contradicted what the food industry wanted to hear. The food industry aggressively tried to discredit her, and funded many contradicting studies. She lost the food industry funding, some of her research was not published, and she was generally shunned for years by much of the academic community. Just the fact that something like this can happen should be a warning to how manipulated mainstream research can be. It's just now that we're starting to hear talk of how trans fats are bad and should be labeled.
You're right, it's not a governmental organization - my misconception. But the AMA does get funding from the food industry.
First, yes, oil is 100% fat, whether it be animal or vegetable - check the label if you don't believe me.
I never said it wasn't. What I said was that that was not "the bottom line". Fats are different. Some fats are essential to your health, others ar e detrimental.
Ultimately, you seem to have some issues with perceived conspiracies. I see the occasional conspiracy in places too, but it doesn't mean that every recognized authority is tainted and that everything they say is a lie. It doesn't mean that I should believe the opposite just to do so.
I agree, not every authority is tainted. And I understand your skepticism in what sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. But at the same time, don't dismiss it just because it goes against the mainstream. Check out this article. Industry has a lot of power in this country.
I'm not asking you to believe rogue, discredited doctors. I'm asking you to make up your mind for yourself, rather than being convinced something is true because the AMA says it's true. Do a little research. There are a lot of studies (ones that don't receive their funding from the food industry) that show our whole America idea of health is wrong. But since they conflict with what the food industry wants to sell you, no one ever hears of them.
Two things there: First, consumption of animal fat also picked up over that period (ie, 60's to today).
Not according to what I've heard. But then I'm sure you'll say it wasn't AMA approved research, so it doesn't mean anything. Second, processed vegetable oils are dead fatal, containing lots of trans-fatty acids. In general, avoid anything hydrogenated. That's my advice. For what it's worth, the AMA (I believe it was them) fought for labeling of foods with trans-fat labels. But bottom line, both margerine and animal fat are 100% fat. And a diet high in either isn't good.
Hydrogenated fats are bad, agreed. The AMA has just recently fought for labeling of these foods, when it has been known for decades (since the 60s I belive) that trans-fats are bad. And no, the bottom line is not that margerine and animal fat are 100% fat. Margerine contains bad fat (hydrogenated, trans fats). Animal fat does not (saturated is not bad). Don't assume that because the name is "fat" that it is bad for you. You do need a diet consisting of carbs, fats, and protein.
First, that's the food industry, not the medical community - I reasonably trust AMA, not the food industry. Second, farmers are a big part of the food industry (see "Beef - it's what's for dinner"). Third, we don't eat food "straight from a farmer" even if that's where we get it, as cooking is processing. Not trying to split hairs, just trying to point out that a great deal of the damage we do to food in terms of its nutritive value etc. we do in the kitchen.
The problem with trusting the AMA is that it is a government organization which receives a lot of its funding from the food industry. You can't separate the two so easily, and say "The AMA is unbiased and scientific, so I trust it." As a slashdotter, perhaps you recognize the problem of the RIAA and MPAA funding our politicians campaigns - many laws are skewed in their favor. The AMA has a similar situation with the food industry. And before disagreeing with me, check it out yourself.
As for farmers, I'm not talking about giant agribusiness companies. Yes, they are part of the food industry, and that's where your "Beef" slogan comes from. I'm talking about smaller farmers, who don't try to convince you that hormone-infested and irradiated meat is good for you.
For the record, while cooking may be processing in the technical sense, there is a big difference between cooking and the processing that goes on before you that jar of jelly ends up in the grocery store.
And to clarify, I'm not advocating the Atkins' diet, although it is probably closer to being healthy than the standard American diet. I'm merely saying that your belief that "fat = bad, carbs = good", is wholly wrong and based on faulty research.
Perhaps that is your problem. Don't believe everything the AMA tells you. If such a diet of animal fats caused heart disease, why is it that heart disease in America began to increase during the time when the food industry decided to start pushing margerine and processed vegetable oils? The food industry stands a lot to gain from convincing you that their processed foods are better for you than foods straight from a farmer.
And yes, it matters what kind of carbs you eat - simple sugars go straight to your blood and raise insulin. However, cereal, bread, pasta, etc are NOT complex carbs - they are broken down into simple sugars and go right to your blood stream. If you want good carbs, you'll need to go to vegetables. Even fruits are a kind of high on the glycemic index (although they at least have nutritional value, unlike cereal).
Calorie intake is definitely not the determining factor for your health. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that eating 2000 calories worth of crackers would the same nutritional benefit of eating a balanced 2000 calorie diet. And overall nutrition has a huge effect on your weight. The problem is, what is a balanced diet?
I won't try to answer that anymore than I've alluded to, but instead refer you to this website. That article is a good one, but if you are interested, the whole site has some very good information.
Something along those lines exists at sodaplay. I don't believe there's any evolution about it, but you get to build models and control how their muscles move and such. It's pretty cool.
You have got to be kidding. Do you think everyone who uses Linux has the time to do that for every package they install? When I installed Debian, I wanted X. I typed 'apt-get install x-window-system'. The following download and install of all the required packages took about a half hour (over dsl). Your way would have taken me about 2 hours to get all the right packages, and another couple days to compile them from source (after of course checking for security vulnerabilities and fixing them myself).
Not everyone who uses a computer is a programmer. Not everyone who is a programmer is paranoid enough to think that a binary package from RedHat contains a secret connect() to send out their passwd files. Not everyone who IS a programmer, and who IS that paranoid, has the time to audit the code of every package they install.
For these people, binary packages are quite convenient and useful.
A nice friendly install guide would have gotten me nowhere. I found documentation quite readily with a few google searches. Video card wasn't accelerated, no problem, google for "radeon m6 accelerated linux" and I had several sites telling me what to do. Even the ethernet driver problem wasn't that difficult to solve, once I had a PCMCIA network card to use to connect to the internet.
The problem is not lack of documentation - there is plenty of that. The problem is with the diversity of hardware, you can't provide an easy 1-2-3 install guide for everyone. Everyone's guide will be different. And you seem to imply that in the distant future this problem can be solved, as our hardware gets less "finicky". But since hardware is evolving all the time, I don't think this problem will ever go away.
Also, you seem to associate ease-of-install with lack of robustness. So if debian had built-in support for all my hardware, and automagically detected it all (as Redhat and many other installers do), then somehow it would become less customizable? I don't believe that for a second. Usable defaults does not mean you can't change them.
Yeah, I definitely thought 1984 when hearing about this. It's crimethink, though, not thinkcrime.
Actually I think the original chown was more legitimate. Your version would own things like ~your/bin/base, ~your/src/base, ~your/dog/base, etc. Us wants to be owning all YOUR base, not your dog's.
As a Debian user, I object to this. I spent 3 full days installing my laptop with Debian, and it was not a pleasant experience. One of the biggest problems was the fact that there was no driver for my ethernet card in the kernel, so I had to download one - without an ethernet driver to connect to the Internet, this was pretty difficult.
I like programming and playing around with config files to optimize my setup, but spending 3 days trying to get a computer installed is just ridiculous. I would much rather have popped in a disc, clicked a few buttons, and have it automatically detect and set up my hardware while I do something else. I chose Debian for the single reason that I was sick of dealing with RPM dependencies, and that there were far more packages on apt-deb servers than apt-rpm. I don't understand the pleasure in struggling with an OS for days just to get it to the point where it is as usable as another OS after 2 hours of install.
Wait a minute...
People seem to be missing something here. SCO is adamant that they don't want people to see the source code in question. If they compare it against the Linux kernel and show there's a match (assuming there is), wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of people not seeing their source code?
Why would they go to such lengths to prevent anyone from seeing their code, then compare keys and show that it's an exact match to something freely available for anyone to see?
All your issues can be answered with a simple fact. Plan 9 is by far the coolest name for an OS you will ever hear. The mere thought that when asked whether I run Windows XP or ME, I can answer "I use Plan 9", is about as compelling as any reason I can think of to download it right now.
I'm sure I'll get tarred and feathered by the geek community for this, but I actually think the time-sensitive shading idea is pretty cool. Not sure how good it would be in practice, but I'm always up for some good eye candy. Especially my own (shameless unrelated plug). What's a little wasted CPU time if you can have your desktop reflect the time of day it is? Sounds a lot like xplanet, but cooler.
A good decompiler would recognize the assembly output for loops, and convert them accordingly.
After reading the headline, I thought this article was about people playing soccer with the AIBO robot dogs - in my opinion, a far more fun sport than robot dogs playing soccer with soccer balls.
Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious here, but for those who like the idea of GoboLinux's revised directory structure (as I do), check out the encap package manager. It's not as complete and elegant a solution, but it's along the same idea and it works with your existing Linux distro. I use it for every package I install from source.
The most common explanation for early "memories" (like pre-3 years old) is that you had heard the story when you were old enough to remember, then incorporated that into your long term memory. You eventually think you remember it because it's been told to you before, and you come up with your own visual for the story. It's not really a memory of the event, it's a memory of your imagination when you heard about the event.
Because too many people use it.
Actually, god created monkey for Adam first. If you'll read your Bible, you'll find that god created the animals out of dust first in an attempt to give Adam a mate. When he didn't like those, he pulled out his rib and made Eve.