Science has well and truly made available everything you need to know about fat
I am not talking about actual science, but rather about the governmental efforts to push an opinion du jour of a random scientist down everybody's throats (quite literally in this case).
The development and marketing of fat free foodstuffs was triggered by the government's guidance: "fat is bad for you". The article I linked to states:
By 1980 that wisdom was codified. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued its first dietary guidelines, and one of the primary directives was to avoid cholesterol and fat of all...
I guess, now we know, USDA can be mistaken. But I find it remarkable, that you seem to attempt to find excuses for government's stupidity by blaming the victims — food-consuming citizens and food-producing corporations alike — for trusting our elected and appointed overlords.
quite some time ago.
And yet, the official reversal is only being announced today — the old, wrong policy was reaffirmed yet again only 5 years ago. Is there no criminal culpability, in your opinion?
How do you tell the last dying diabetic (who kept destroying his health with low fat, but high-carb foods on government's advice), it was all a mistake?
And lastly, does this not mean, a government official claiming "science is settled", should not be trusted?
But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows [...] the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research
Awesome. And, while we are it, the War on Fat was in error too. Decades after telling us one thing — coercing and outright forcing us to follow its "scientifically proven" and "common sense" guidelines, the government now admit to have been full of shit. Will anybody prosecuted?
One can't help, but wonder, what other famously "settled" science will come apart?
Today, if you deposit cash into your bank account in portions under $10000, the IRS may decide, you are doing it with the intent to avoid having to report the deposit to them and seize all your money — no judge, no jury. The current nominee for Attorney General is particularly infamous for expanding this practice (and for distancing herself from it to win the nomination).
How soon before the FBI and lesser police start treating use of wired telephones — to eavesdrop on which the police still need these pesky Judiciary's approval — with similar suspicion? Following IRS' example, they might then start prosecuting people simply for making non-cellular calls with the intent to avoid eavesdropping.
The limits on surveillance — both by fellow citizens and the government(s) — have never really been laws of men, but those of nature.
How well can a human being see? With nice lenses? With a bunch of cameras? With a high-flying drone?
How much could a human being remember? How much can he record on a piece of papyrus? A bound book? A magnetic tape? A computer?
Our inventions expand our powers. We use them — and abuse them too.
You may be able to push back on some fronts — like forcing EZ-Pass and similar toll-collectors to allow anonymous transponders. You may even be able to, one day, abolish license plates from vehicles.
But to roll back ordinary surveillance, you'll have to destroy/ban/abolish the technology, that enables it. Because you can not outlaw remembering what one has seen. Nor can you outlaw making records to aid one's memory... The populist Europeans attempted introduction of the "right to be forgotten" — not realizing, it may some day be used, for example, by ex-lovers to demand, the other side be forced to forget the good times they once had together.
Maybe, we have to make a dramatic shift in our attitude towards the very perceiving of others. Currently, you can watch/hear/perceive (and — almost always — record) anything visible/audible/perceivable from anywhere, where you can legally be. Can we make it illegal to look at people or listen to them without their explicit permission? I doubt it.
It's not a valid comparison to compare the price of 1kg of rice to the bulk price...
50 pounds is hardly "bulk". Costco's price is what the food costs. Everything extra you pay on top of that is for the fancy convenience of small portions, not waiting in line, etc.
For one thing, the ability and willingness of people to pay more can drive prices up.
Perhaps. But Costco is for people, who seek a no-frills bargain. That they are able to find it shows, rice does cost about the same in US as in Cuba.
Now, how about you — instead of quibbling over food prices — do come up with the requested list of US regions, where salaries are below $400/month?
They certainly do. And we requested a reasonable fee from somebody, who wanted them.
they should be redacted when filed so that we can see them
Yes, I agree with that — and discussed that very idea in a subsequent follow-up. Unfortunately, you helped elect the guy, who is the least likely to affect the, dare I say it, change in the federal bureaucracy, that's required to achieve, what you ask for.
When the drug user commits other crimes to get the drugs up to and including killing innocent people.
Didn't we have a cool action movie recently denouncing preemptive prosecution? I think, Matt Damon was in it...
When a drug user commits actual crimes, he ought to be prosecuted for them. Denying the right to pursue happiness to free citizens just in case, is totalitarian and evil.
We have a great experiment in Colorado not just economically but socially.
The arguments in Colorado went around cost/benefit analysis of taxes vs. law enforcement. That the ban on drugs violates those self-evident rights of human beings, given to use by our creators, was never considered.
I have an Idea! How about you dig up the wikipedia page
No, sonny, that's not, how it works. You make a statement — you supply substantiation. Best is to do that in advance. Absolutely must do it, when requested. Several replies later, you still don't offer the substantiation. It is perfectly logical to conclude, it does not exist.
I heard somewhere that the actual number for Cuban monthly household incomes is over 20 times what you cited.
Just to go farther out there 'where no bureaucrat has gone before' so to speak, how about government not collecting and storing so much data of such personal and sensitive nature in the first damned place?
Though I agree with you about the government in general, this particular case is about records of criminal prosecution (the "localization and capture" of Mexican drug lord "El Chapo."). Something — one of the very few things, in fact — the government really should be doing.
A Libertarian like myself would point out, the government has no business banning drugs, because a free citizen ought to remain free to kill/harm himself in any fashion he chooses.
But if it does ban them and prosecutes people for selling them against the ban, it better keep all records of such prosecutions.
confusing the "new" Slashdot's uninformed and not particularly bright libertarian-esque hivemind with things it doesn't like: facts and cogent analysis
Actually, I find the Libertarian approach to life and government to be the most self-consistent and coherent — with the lowest number of "yes buts", that is.
If you don't mind descending further off-topic, please, explain, what lead you to believe, Maxo-Texas is in any way "libertarian-eqsue"?
It really doesn't. One kilo of rice costs C$3.67 in Montreal.
No sure, what's wrong with Montreal — or the numbeo-site, where you got your numbers — but an American Costco sells a 50-pound bag of rice for $22.69. That's 23kg, or just under $1/kg.
And, of course, you can buy as much as you'd like of it, whereas in Cuba the quantities are limited by the loving and caring government officials.
You forgot to provide evidence of the average income in each — choosing to talk instead about availability of Internet service there instead. Try again.
The whole continent isn't a city, bro.
I'm not your brother — keep your creepy attempts at fraternization to yourself.
Swagging it, 1.4 million implies at least 14 staff attorneys would have to work 12 months.
A federal government's staff attorney makes $126K per year on average. (Plus bonuses, benefits, office space and supplies, and a manager.) That's about $1.8 million at least, more likely well over $2million.
Now, to be able to go through 13000 cases (each with multiple documents), each member of this hypothetical team will need to process 928 cases. How many can they process per day? To finish in the 12 months allotted (250 business days, less 20 vacation days per person), it would have to be more than 4 cases per day per attorney.
Possible, but on the optimistic side. As I said, if there is anything wrong with the requested fee, it is too low.
Now, maybe, as the AC below suggests, the entire government has to keep all of its documents ready for publishing from the moment they are created (with the necessary black-outs specified by each document's very author or his boss) — and publish them automatically after certain number of years. But that would require an actual dramatic change in how the government bureaucracy operates — a change well beyond the ability (perhaps, even imagination) of not only the community organizer we've got, but even of a seasoned CEO, who almost replaced him the last time...
I hate to even appear to be defending a government agency, but the request was for over 13K case files. $1.4mln divided by 13K comes to about $107 per case. If a lawyer has to (carefully) review each one — such as to black-out parts affecting privacy of innocent or other government secrets — the requested fee may even appear too small.
As TFA aknowledges:
This request will have to be narrowed considerably if MuckRock hopes to obtain anything on this subject from the DEA.
The malware, dubbed Xnote, gets delivered on the target computer after the attackers mount a successful brute force attack and establish an SSL connection with the machine.
What a fine description of the attack vector. OMG, we are all doomed!
And are you comparing the purchasing power of that 20$/200$ with the prices in Cuba or the prices in the U.S.A.?
Dollar is a dollar. Labor-intensive and locally-produced things (like prostitution and cigars) are remarkably cheaper in Cuba, but few people regularly partake of all that. A pound of rice costs the same anywhere, and a TV-set is much cheaper in America.
But, what the heck, let's throw in another adjustment: can you list 3 regions of the US, where average income is below $400 a month? That's 20 times above average Cuban's...
I thought your type was all states rights nonsense.
In the context of this discussion, there is no difference between Federal and States' governments. Try to keep up.
What that has to do with cars is beyond me.
As you came to understand upon typing the next sentence below, I'm talking about tracking vehicle movement through de-facto mandatory EZ-Pass. That is, what it "has to do with cars".
You mean the threat of your car being tracked by EZ-Pass? The threat you can avoid BY NOT TAKING TOLL ROADS.
Yes, and the threat posed by hacking-prone car electronics, which are subject of TFA, can be avoided by not buying such cars. If we can talk about that avoidable threat, we can also talk about other threat our cars pose — even if, strictly speaking, it can be avoided too.
Because the threat is bigger and avoiding it is harder.
A lot of rural regions in the U.S. are not only fairly sparsely populated but also aren't really that much better off economically than Cuba.
Please, name 3 regions in the US — rural or otherwise — where the average monthly income is $20. Heck, let's make it $200 — which is ten times, what Cubans earn — because they don't have to pay for that wonderful healthcare of theirs.
You said, there are "a lot" of such regions, so coming up with 3 should be no problem. Thank you.
So we have fat ignorant and narcissistic Cubans to look forward to in a few years. GG capitalism.
Uhm, no. If the current clique is allowed to rule America for much longer, there will be lean and cautious people talking in hints and reading between the lines on both sides of the straits.
I'm not accepting anything since you haven't really made any point.
Let me enumerate my points for the slower among the audience:
The main threat to our money and privacy are not competing corporations like car-makers, but our government and, even worse:
Corporations, which — like EZ-Pass — are given monopoly by the government.
The government's threats against us evolve and aren't limited to the old known evil of unwarranted eavesdropping.
The Senator in TFA is scoring cheap points by harking at car-manufacturers over imaginary threats from hypothetical hackers, rather than going after the clear and present dangers enumerated.
The only objectionable thing you found, was that it is possible to avoid toll roads. Wow...
TFA is about people buying new cars, which are, supposedly, loaded by remotely-explotaible electronics.
I — a crazy Libertarian — pointed out, that, as usual, the main threat to our privacy (as well as money) comes not from competing manufacturers, but from government and government-backed monopolies.
You objected to that by saying, taking a toll road is never a requirement. I countered that statement (not entirely accurate one, BTW), by reminding, that buying a car at all is not a requirement either and even if one feels compelled to buy one, one can choose a used one — without the dangerously fancy electronics.
Meaning that, if we are discussing flaws of new cars on the market, we've already allowed the "commonly used" and "required" to be interchangeable terms in our discussion.
I don't think they really enforce the Pass matching the plates though.
You are violating your contract, if you use it with another vehicle. They may come down at you if they choose to — and, them being a monopoly, you'll have no option but to pay up whatever they decide to demand (a $50 "administrative fee" for a $0.50 payment is normal). And, being a government-backed monopoly, they will hold your driver-license or car-registration hostage until you pay up.
I think it only comes into play if you report the Pass stolen.
Not really relevant to my point about anonymity, is it?
Slashdot Mirror
I am not talking about actual science, but rather about the governmental efforts to push an opinion du jour of a random scientist down everybody's throats (quite literally in this case).
The development and marketing of fat free foodstuffs was triggered by the government's guidance: "fat is bad for you". The article I linked to states:
I guess, now we know, USDA can be mistaken. But I find it remarkable, that you seem to attempt to find excuses for government's stupidity by blaming the victims — food-consuming citizens and food-producing corporations alike — for trusting our elected and appointed overlords.
And yet, the official reversal is only being announced today — the old, wrong policy was reaffirmed yet again only 5 years ago. Is there no criminal culpability, in your opinion?
How do you tell the last dying diabetic (who kept destroying his health with low fat, but high-carb foods on government's advice), it was all a mistake?
And lastly, does this not mean, a government official claiming "science is settled", should not be trusted?
Awesome. And, while we are it, the War on Fat was in error too. Decades after telling us one thing — coercing and outright forcing us to follow its "scientifically proven" and "common sense" guidelines, the government now admit to have been full of shit. Will anybody prosecuted?
One can't help, but wonder, what other famously "settled" science will come apart?
Today, if you deposit cash into your bank account in portions under $10000, the IRS may decide, you are doing it with the intent to avoid having to report the deposit to them and seize all your money — no judge, no jury. The current nominee for Attorney General is particularly infamous for expanding this practice (and for distancing herself from it to win the nomination).
How soon before the FBI and lesser police start treating use of wired telephones — to eavesdrop on which the police still need these pesky Judiciary's approval — with similar suspicion? Following IRS' example, they might then start prosecuting people simply for making non-cellular calls with the intent to avoid eavesdropping.
The limits on surveillance — both by fellow citizens and the government(s) — have never really been laws of men, but those of nature.
How well can a human being see? With nice lenses? With a bunch of cameras? With a high-flying drone?
How much could a human being remember? How much can he record on a piece of papyrus? A bound book? A magnetic tape? A computer?
Our inventions expand our powers. We use them — and abuse them too.
You may be able to push back on some fronts — like forcing EZ-Pass and similar toll-collectors to allow anonymous transponders. You may even be able to, one day, abolish license plates from vehicles.
But to roll back ordinary surveillance, you'll have to destroy/ban/abolish the technology, that enables it. Because you can not outlaw remembering what one has seen. Nor can you outlaw making records to aid one's memory... The populist Europeans attempted introduction of the "right to be forgotten" — not realizing, it may some day be used, for example, by ex-lovers to demand, the other side be forced to forget the good times they once had together.
Maybe, we have to make a dramatic shift in our attitude towards the very perceiving of others. Currently, you can watch/hear/perceive (and — almost always — record) anything visible/audible/perceivable from anywhere, where you can legally be. Can we make it illegal to look at people or listen to them without their explicit permission? I doubt it.
50 pounds is hardly "bulk". Costco's price is what the food costs. Everything extra you pay on top of that is for the fancy convenience of small portions, not waiting in line, etc.
Perhaps. But Costco is for people, who seek a no-frills bargain. That they are able to find it shows, rice does cost about the same in US as in Cuba.
Now, how about you — instead of quibbling over food prices — do come up with the requested list of US regions, where salaries are below $400/month?
They certainly do. And we requested a reasonable fee from somebody, who wanted them.
Yes, I agree with that — and discussed that very idea in a subsequent follow-up. Unfortunately, you helped elect the guy, who is the least likely to affect the, dare I say it, change in the federal bureaucracy, that's required to achieve, what you ask for.
Didn't we have a cool action movie recently denouncing preemptive prosecution? I think, Matt Damon was in it...
When a drug user commits actual crimes, he ought to be prosecuted for them. Denying the right to pursue happiness to free citizens just in case, is totalitarian and evil.
The arguments in Colorado went around cost/benefit analysis of taxes vs. law enforcement. That the ban on drugs violates those self-evident rights of human beings, given to use by our creators, was never considered.
No, sonny, that's not, how it works. You make a statement — you supply substantiation. Best is to do that in advance. Absolutely must do it, when requested. Several replies later, you still don't offer the substantiation. It is perfectly logical to conclude, it does not exist.
Citation needed. NBC would be fine.
Just to go farther out there 'where no bureaucrat has gone before' so to speak, how about government not collecting and storing so much data of such personal and sensitive nature in the first damned place?
Though I agree with you about the government in general, this particular case is about records of criminal prosecution (the "localization and capture" of Mexican drug lord "El Chapo."). Something — one of the very few things, in fact — the government really should be doing.
A Libertarian like myself would point out, the government has no business banning drugs, because a free citizen ought to remain free to kill/harm himself in any fashion he chooses.
But if it does ban them and prosecutes people for selling them against the ban, it better keep all records of such prosecutions.
Actually, I find the Libertarian approach to life and government to be the most self-consistent and coherent — with the lowest number of "yes buts", that is.
If you don't mind descending further off-topic, please, explain, what lead you to believe, Maxo-Texas is in any way "libertarian-eqsue"?
No sure, what's wrong with Montreal — or the numbeo-site, where you got your numbers — but an American Costco sells a 50-pound bag of rice for $22.69. That's 23kg, or just under $1/kg.
And, of course, you can buy as much as you'd like of it, whereas in Cuba the quantities are limited by the loving and caring government officials.
You forgot to provide evidence of the average income in each — choosing to talk instead about availability of Internet service there instead. Try again.
I'm not your brother — keep your creepy attempts at fraternization to yourself.
A federal government's staff attorney makes $126K per year on average. (Plus bonuses, benefits, office space and supplies, and a manager.) That's about $1.8 million at least, more likely well over $2million.
Now, to be able to go through 13000 cases (each with multiple documents), each member of this hypothetical team will need to process 928 cases. How many can they process per day? To finish in the 12 months allotted (250 business days, less 20 vacation days per person), it would have to be more than 4 cases per day per attorney.
Possible, but on the optimistic side. As I said, if there is anything wrong with the requested fee, it is too low.
Now, maybe, as the AC below suggests, the entire government has to keep all of its documents ready for publishing from the moment they are created (with the necessary black-outs specified by each document's very author or his boss) — and publish them automatically after certain number of years. But that would require an actual dramatic change in how the government bureaucracy operates — a change well beyond the ability (perhaps, even imagination) of not only the community organizer we've got, but even of a seasoned CEO, who almost replaced him the last time...
I hate to even appear to be defending a government agency, but the request was for over 13K case files. $1.4mln divided by 13K comes to about $107 per case. If a lawyer has to (carefully) review each one — such as to black-out parts affecting privacy of innocent or other government secrets — the requested fee may even appear too small.
As TFA aknowledges:
What a fine description of the attack vector. OMG, we are all doomed!
Dollar is a dollar. Labor-intensive and locally-produced things (like prostitution and cigars) are remarkably cheaper in Cuba, but few people regularly partake of all that. A pound of rice costs the same anywhere, and a TV-set is much cheaper in America.
But, what the heck, let's throw in another adjustment: can you list 3 regions of the US, where average income is below $400 a month? That's 20 times above average Cuban's...
As expected, no actual regions of US with poverty similar to Cuba's could be enumerated.
In the context of this discussion, there is no difference between Federal and States' governments. Try to keep up.
As you came to understand upon typing the next sentence below, I'm talking about tracking vehicle movement through de-facto mandatory EZ-Pass. That is, what it "has to do with cars".
Yes, and the threat posed by hacking-prone car electronics, which are subject of TFA, can be avoided by not buying such cars. If we can talk about that avoidable threat, we can also talk about other threat our cars pose — even if, strictly speaking, it can be avoided too.
Because the threat is bigger and avoiding it is harder.
Yes, in exchange for 100% taxation and not being free to leave (even moving to a different town within Cuba requires police' permission).
Which is precisely the deal, slaves were getting on plantations. The fools weren't happy with that for some reason...
Please, name 3 regions in the US — rural or otherwise — where the average monthly income is $20. Heck, let's make it $200 — which is ten times, what Cubans earn — because they don't have to pay for that wonderful healthcare of theirs.
You said, there are "a lot" of such regions, so coming up with 3 should be no problem. Thank you.
Uhm, no. If the current clique is allowed to rule America for much longer, there will be lean and cautious people talking in hints and reading between the lines on both sides of the straits.
GG Socialism!
Let me enumerate my points for the slower among the audience:
The only objectionable thing you found, was that it is possible to avoid toll roads. Wow...
Thank you for accepting all of my other points.
I'll surrender this one.
TFA is about people buying new cars, which are, supposedly, loaded by remotely-explotaible electronics.
I — a crazy Libertarian — pointed out, that, as usual, the main threat to our privacy (as well as money) comes not from competing manufacturers, but from government and government-backed monopolies.
You objected to that by saying, taking a toll road is never a requirement. I countered that statement (not entirely accurate one, BTW), by reminding, that buying a car at all is not a requirement either and even if one feels compelled to buy one, one can choose a used one — without the dangerously fancy electronics.
Meaning that, if we are discussing flaws of new cars on the market, we've already allowed the "commonly used" and "required" to be interchangeable terms in our discussion.
You are violating your contract, if you use it with another vehicle. They may come down at you if they choose to — and, them being a monopoly, you'll have no option but to pay up whatever they decide to demand (a $50 "administrative fee" for a $0.50 payment is normal). And, being a government-backed monopoly, they will hold your driver-license or car-registration hostage until you pay up.
Not really relevant to my point about anonymity, is it?