My point wasn't that aspartame was harmless. My point was that it fucks up the metabolism even for those whose body handles it normally. I hate aspartame and basically all other artificial sweeteners. They don't fool my taste buds (they taste metallic and syrup-like to me), and they often leave me lightheaded. I am actually quite bothered by the prevalence of them, since it's rare around here to find chewing gum with just real sugar and they will often be placed next to the 'real' food with minimal labeling.
Aspartame doesn't appear to be directly toxic, but artificial sugars trick your brain into thinking you are going to get sugary goodness, and there can be negative effects if there isn't negative, including weight gain.
Oxygen is literally a poison. It can kill you from acute toxicity and from long term damage. The fact that people like the way it affects their mental state gets many people to ignore the fact that it is poison.
Since alcohol tolerance was essential to the dominance of our ancestors, then it follows that our society would not exist without alcohol. It was also essential to making it through certain periods of history.
Yes, men don't need their inhibitions lowered to consent to sex. But they may need their inhibitions lowered to approach and confidently speak with women to get a chance to have said sex in the first place, or to prevent them from overthinking and ruining things.
And the levels of resveratrol in wine are so low that their effects, given our current understanding, cannot explain the 'French Paradox.' Basically, nutritional science is full of nonsense, and nutritional science regarding alcohol is even worse. So, if you are making claims either way about the health effects of alcohol that aren't 'don't drown yourself in it' and 'hell if I know,' you are probably full of shit.
Yeah, since then you have to explain who gave William Shakespeare a time machine so he could write about the seven ages of man. Segmenting the development and aging process is something quite common in many cultures. The details may change a bit, but our lifestyles themselves has changed quite a bit as well.
Or, investigate the claim first, since prank calls are going to be more common than actual threats, and it's probably ideal to try and figure out the situation before kicking the door in.
You're right that it doesn't remotely resemble the worst drivers we have. It does bear a fair resemblance to the average to high skilled drivers. The biggest difference being that the AI is less well rounded, instead being more skilled in certain core areas with weakness regarding the exceptional cases, which are by and large predictable scenarios.
I'm not sure if that would actually be the case. The top torrents probably are mostly recent, and the chances of somebody already having them would be low.
More importantly, it's also not relevant to the point I made, which was that unreasonable laws and practices breed contempt for the system and create habits of acting in contempt of said system. Basically, the copyright term makes copyright holders look like enormous assholes, and we are a lot less willing to choose to support assholes.
Yes, they are unaware of the give and take of the copyright system because it's been all take on the part of copyright holders. To them, copyright is the system to back up a corporate empire, as opposed to being a system that is supposed to ultimately benefit the public. If copyright were 10 years, then people might be more willing to wait because the system can at least potentially be respected since they would actually see the fruits of sacrificing their liberty. It would also mean that said works could be hosted at more legitimate sites, drawing people away from 'pirate' sites. The copyright laws we have now are insane, so of course nobody is going to respect them. Even Hollywood studios regularly break copyright law because the system is so onerous.and complex.
Actually, Twain published portions of his autobiography in 25 installments over a period of about 2 years, and then the full thing was released 100 years after his death basically because he didn't think the world could handle it before then. Also, that someone might try to exploit the system when writing a book doesn't mean that they wouldn't still write it absent such option.
As I explained above, it could be a matter of the law being unreasonable causes greater contempt for the law. If you ask someone to wait 5 years, they are more likely to obey that than if they have to wait until after they are dead before it is in the public domain.
You also have to take in mind the public respect for the institution in general. Most people alive today in the US have not only had the public domain not grow in their lifetimes, it's actually shrank due to retroactive copyright. It's easier to get people to follow laws when said laws are reasonable, so having unreasonable laws can lead to breaking the law even in situations where it would be covered by a reasonable law. That's part of why drug and alcohol prohibition are so dangerous, as it gets people in the habit of breaking the law, which undermines respect for the law.
James Bond is actually a really good example. There have been a TON of issues with the rights regarding James Bond. James Bond could also appear as a character in other universes. I would love to be able to watch an episode of Archer in which Archer actually meets James Bond.
Looking for a country to be the villain implies you don't understand how it works. The US got a 70 year term by bitching about how other countries had that. Had most of the EU not already had life+70 terms and exerted pressure on the US, we wouldn't have been able to get the Mickey Mouse Act passed. Likewise, the DRM stuff from the DMCA was because we needed to 'harmonize' our laws, except we are now pressuring other countries to 'harmonize' with ours. They use a ratchet mechanism to expand their empires, and that means that different countries are going to push for different things, and we'll getting stricter and stricter laws as we try and make the laws more consistent with each other.
Life based terms are a nightmare, especially for works with multiple authors. They make it much more difficult to figure out whether a book is still under copyright as opposed to the 'add X years' method of fixed terms. It also has a number of biases, many of them bizarre. Left-handed people, diabetics, the elderly, and males all receive less protection relative to those who don't meet any of the above. Life based terms are outright idiotic, and they have no real justification other than the horseshit argument about natural rights.
Because a house is rival while a novel in the abstract is non-rival. You can't have a million people occupying a house simultaneously, at least without great risk of damage and danger, but you can have a billion people reading the same book at the same time without the book or the people being harmed. The tragedy of the commons only applies to rival goods. That's why it's a good idea to remove 'intellectual property' from your vocabulary, because economically, the subjects of copyright and patents have completely different traits than physical objects.
Where is the evidence that natural testosterone leads to reduced violence and crime? Males in the teens to twenties range make up basically all violent crime. Also, a cursory glance seems to indicate that eunuchs don't commit crimes very often despite the anger that castration would cause.
Slashdot Mirror
My point wasn't that aspartame was harmless. My point was that it fucks up the metabolism even for those whose body handles it normally. I hate aspartame and basically all other artificial sweeteners. They don't fool my taste buds (they taste metallic and syrup-like to me), and they often leave me lightheaded. I am actually quite bothered by the prevalence of them, since it's rare around here to find chewing gum with just real sugar and they will often be placed next to the 'real' food with minimal labeling.
Aspartame doesn't appear to be directly toxic, but artificial sugars trick your brain into thinking you are going to get sugary goodness, and there can be negative effects if there isn't negative, including weight gain.
Coors commercial.
Oxygen is literally a poison. It can kill you from acute toxicity and from long term damage. The fact that people like the way it affects their mental state gets many people to ignore the fact that it is poison.
Since alcohol tolerance was essential to the dominance of our ancestors, then it follows that our society would not exist without alcohol. It was also essential to making it through certain periods of history.
Yes, men don't need their inhibitions lowered to consent to sex. But they may need their inhibitions lowered to approach and confidently speak with women to get a chance to have said sex in the first place, or to prevent them from overthinking and ruining things.
He didn't say that he needs it, he said that it helps.
And the levels of resveratrol in wine are so low that their effects, given our current understanding, cannot explain the 'French Paradox.' Basically, nutritional science is full of nonsense, and nutritional science regarding alcohol is even worse. So, if you are making claims either way about the health effects of alcohol that aren't 'don't drown yourself in it' and 'hell if I know,' you are probably full of shit.
Yeah, since then you have to explain who gave William Shakespeare a time machine so he could write about the seven ages of man. Segmenting the development and aging process is something quite common in many cultures. The details may change a bit, but our lifestyles themselves has changed quite a bit as well.
Or, investigate the claim first, since prank calls are going to be more common than actual threats, and it's probably ideal to try and figure out the situation before kicking the door in.
You say that as if there is a point to the NSA? The best thing we could do for national security is to nuke it from orbit.
I believe those are better known as bread and circuses.
You're right that it doesn't remotely resemble the worst drivers we have. It does bear a fair resemblance to the average to high skilled drivers. The biggest difference being that the AI is less well rounded, instead being more skilled in certain core areas with weakness regarding the exceptional cases, which are by and large predictable scenarios.
If you hack the NSA and access THEIR data, you've hit the mother lode.
I'm not sure if that would actually be the case. The top torrents probably are mostly recent, and the chances of somebody already having them would be low.
More importantly, it's also not relevant to the point I made, which was that unreasonable laws and practices breed contempt for the system and create habits of acting in contempt of said system. Basically, the copyright term makes copyright holders look like enormous assholes, and we are a lot less willing to choose to support assholes.
Yes, they are unaware of the give and take of the copyright system because it's been all take on the part of copyright holders. To them, copyright is the system to back up a corporate empire, as opposed to being a system that is supposed to ultimately benefit the public. If copyright were 10 years, then people might be more willing to wait because the system can at least potentially be respected since they would actually see the fruits of sacrificing their liberty. It would also mean that said works could be hosted at more legitimate sites, drawing people away from 'pirate' sites. The copyright laws we have now are insane, so of course nobody is going to respect them. Even Hollywood studios regularly break copyright law because the system is so onerous.and complex.
Actually, Twain published portions of his autobiography in 25 installments over a period of about 2 years, and then the full thing was released 100 years after his death basically because he didn't think the world could handle it before then. Also, that someone might try to exploit the system when writing a book doesn't mean that they wouldn't still write it absent such option.
As I explained above, it could be a matter of the law being unreasonable causes greater contempt for the law. If you ask someone to wait 5 years, they are more likely to obey that than if they have to wait until after they are dead before it is in the public domain.
You also have to take in mind the public respect for the institution in general. Most people alive today in the US have not only had the public domain not grow in their lifetimes, it's actually shrank due to retroactive copyright. It's easier to get people to follow laws when said laws are reasonable, so having unreasonable laws can lead to breaking the law even in situations where it would be covered by a reasonable law. That's part of why drug and alcohol prohibition are so dangerous, as it gets people in the habit of breaking the law, which undermines respect for the law.
In all fairness, she's just employing the same deceptive tactics of male run companies that make up bullshit with statistics.
James Bond is actually a really good example. There have been a TON of issues with the rights regarding James Bond. James Bond could also appear as a character in other universes. I would love to be able to watch an episode of Archer in which Archer actually meets James Bond.
Looking for a country to be the villain implies you don't understand how it works. The US got a 70 year term by bitching about how other countries had that. Had most of the EU not already had life+70 terms and exerted pressure on the US, we wouldn't have been able to get the Mickey Mouse Act passed. Likewise, the DRM stuff from the DMCA was because we needed to 'harmonize' our laws, except we are now pressuring other countries to 'harmonize' with ours. They use a ratchet mechanism to expand their empires, and that means that different countries are going to push for different things, and we'll getting stricter and stricter laws as we try and make the laws more consistent with each other.
Life based terms are a nightmare, especially for works with multiple authors. They make it much more difficult to figure out whether a book is still under copyright as opposed to the 'add X years' method of fixed terms. It also has a number of biases, many of them bizarre. Left-handed people, diabetics, the elderly, and males all receive less protection relative to those who don't meet any of the above. Life based terms are outright idiotic, and they have no real justification other than the horseshit argument about natural rights.
Because a house is rival while a novel in the abstract is non-rival. You can't have a million people occupying a house simultaneously, at least without great risk of damage and danger, but you can have a billion people reading the same book at the same time without the book or the people being harmed. The tragedy of the commons only applies to rival goods. That's why it's a good idea to remove 'intellectual property' from your vocabulary, because economically, the subjects of copyright and patents have completely different traits than physical objects.
Where is the evidence that natural testosterone leads to reduced violence and crime? Males in the teens to twenties range make up basically all violent crime. Also, a cursory glance seems to indicate that eunuchs don't commit crimes very often despite the anger that castration would cause.