While I certainly agree that kids at (for example) a birthday party do not need sugar to become hyperactive, there are other studies, and they tend to correlate well with what we know of metabolism and how sugar is metabolized:
Other studies show that since sugar is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, blood sugar rises quickly, which can lead to higher adrenaline levels and thus symptoms similar to those associated with hyperactivity.
A study like this carries a lot more weight as it isolates the ingestion of sugar and objectively measures it's biological impact on the children, as opposed to other studies that do not isolate the various stimuli and only measure the results subjectively.
I have 3 kids under the age of 6 and I call a total bullshit!
There are many recent studies that try to dismiss a correlation between sugar and hyperactivity and most of them appear to be pretty flawed. One study states that the parents of the children in the study did indeed report that sugar correlated to hyper-activity, but dismissed that in favour of "clinical" reports--so in their normal environment kids become hyper after eating sugar, but when you put them in a lab they don't. Perhaps the change of environment has an impact on this? This study also compared sucrose, aspartame, and saccharin based on THE ASSUMPTION that aspartame and saccharin do not cause hyperactivity. But few if any of these studies administered the test dose on an empty stomach and monitored the biochemical response.
Other studies show that since sugar is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, blood sugar rises quickly, which can lead to higher adrenaline levels and thus symptoms similar to those associated with hyperactivity. This fits much better with what we understand about metabolism and is not based on any assumptions or other external effects, such as change in environment.
The battery tip is great, but even better than "more manufacturers making out of phone chargers" would be standard sized batteries, or at the very least, standard battery connectors, so anyone could make out of phone chargers, or one charger fits all.
Under C11, statutory damages are now limited to $5000 for non-commercial infiringement, so there's not a lot of incentive for the rights holders to pursue litigation.
If you RTFA, that is exactly the conclusion it draws. There is a fine balance between rewarding the creators and benefiting society. I think one of the great solutions proposed (funny, because I was just discussing this exact idea with someone a couple of nights ago) is to offer the opportunity for incremental increases in copyright term FOR A FEE.
This really is a win-win situation, because the public benefit either way. If a rights holder believes that there is still enough value to hold a copyright, they can pay for it and continue to monopolize revenue generation, but even then, the public still wins because the rights holder is paying into the public coffers which (arguably) benefit everyone.
Those two stats are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for (and I'm pulling numbers out of my hat here) 80% of all fatalities caused by intoxicated drivers ALSO happened under 40MPH within a few miles of home.
In fact, your not even talking about the same groups. In one case you are talking about all injury accidents and in the other you are talking about traffic fatalities. While fatalities are certainly a subset of all injury accidents, it still only represents a portion of all injury accidents.
What you are talking about is really just parliamentary procedure: adopt a "body of rules, ethics, and customs governing meetings and other operations of clubs, organizations, legislative bodies, and other deliberative assemblies" -Wikipedia
Most governments of the world today practice this in some form or other. You generally have the politicians who go about making the rules and the bureaucrats that are responsible for the implementation of those rules. Same goes for most corporations: Board sets policy, and the executive...well...executes it. Some do this better than others.
The exclusive remedy against Company for any damages whatsoever to Customer arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be the refund of the fees paid by Customer to Company with respect to the then current term of this Agreement
Yeah, but then we might actually have to pay for things ourselves. Biliking large corporations from their advertisign dollars to allow users access to a service without having to undertake a monetary transaction ("free") is really the only sort of taxation we can expect these days. There will always be cons, shills and marks. As long as you accept that, then you have a pretty good chance to avoid being one of the latter.
I guess that all depends on one's interpretation of truth.
It is unfortunate that, all too often, "The Truth" is sold by those with a financial interest greater than the cost of the truth. The doctors and pharmacists have culpable deniability because they are just going on what they were told and in the end, it is the patient that suffers.
Oxycontin comes to mind as a very recent example of this behaviour, and I'm sure when all is said and done, this guy will walk away paying a fine that is but a fraction of the profits he made.
On the other hand, who is really stupid enough to buy drugs over the internet? Might as well buy them on the street corner and save the shipping costs.
I barely trust most web-service providers with an email address that can be closed/blocked/changed with little cost or effort. Satan will skate before I start giving out my mobile number!
Slashdot Mirror
While I certainly agree that kids at (for example) a birthday party do not need sugar to become hyperactive, there are other studies, and they tend to correlate well with what we know of metabolism and how sugar is metabolized:
A study like this carries a lot more weight as it isolates the ingestion of sugar and objectively measures it's biological impact on the children, as opposed to other studies that do not isolate the various stimuli and only measure the results subjectively.
I have 3 kids under the age of 6 and I call a total bullshit!
There are many recent studies that try to dismiss a correlation between sugar and hyperactivity and most of them appear to be pretty flawed. One study states that the parents of the children in the study did indeed report that sugar correlated to hyper-activity, but dismissed that in favour of "clinical" reports--so in their normal environment kids become hyper after eating sugar, but when you put them in a lab they don't. Perhaps the change of environment has an impact on this? This study also compared sucrose, aspartame, and saccharin based on THE ASSUMPTION that aspartame and saccharin do not cause hyperactivity. But few if any of these studies administered the test dose on an empty stomach and monitored the biochemical response.
Other studies show that since sugar is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, blood sugar rises quickly, which can lead to higher adrenaline levels and thus symptoms similar to those associated with hyperactivity. This fits much better with what we understand about metabolism and is not based on any assumptions or other external effects, such as change in environment.
FTFA:
a notice claiming that subscribers could face up to $20,000 in damages
Considering the law now features a cap of $5,000 for non-commercial statutory damages would this not count as extortion?
That's pretty cool! I had no idea any such device existed!
yeah, but that still doesn't let you charge the batteries outside of the phone.
The battery tip is great, but even better than "more manufacturers making out of phone chargers" would be standard sized batteries, or at the very least, standard battery connectors, so anyone could make out of phone chargers, or one charger fits all.
I'm sure your digital overlords will be proud that you, their lackey, are so faithfully following the scriptures.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of theft.
Under C11, statutory damages are now limited to $5000 for non-commercial infiringement, so there's not a lot of incentive for the rights holders to pursue litigation.
Maybe not such a crazy idea. Maybe it's time to start laying criminal charges against the sites that deliver malware
If you RTFA, that is exactly the conclusion it draws. There is a fine balance between rewarding the creators and benefiting society. I think one of the great solutions proposed (funny, because I was just discussing this exact idea with someone a couple of nights ago) is to offer the opportunity for incremental increases in copyright term FOR A FEE.
This really is a win-win situation, because the public benefit either way. If a rights holder believes that there is still enough value to hold a copyright, they can pay for it and continue to monopolize revenue generation, but even then, the public still wins because the rights holder is paying into the public coffers which (arguably) benefit everyone.
I didn't happen...yet.
No, he's suing YOU.
...as you leave them in the wrapper, but once the seal on the shrink-wrap is broken they start to decay within seconds.
and make sure you leave an extra pull string inside each run!
You must work for the government.
Those two stats are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for (and I'm pulling numbers out of my hat here) 80% of all fatalities caused by intoxicated drivers ALSO happened under 40MPH within a few miles of home.
In fact, your not even talking about the same groups. In one case you are talking about all injury accidents and in the other you are talking about traffic fatalities. While fatalities are certainly a subset of all injury accidents, it still only represents a portion of all injury accidents.
or he could just use the "hack /off" command at the DOS prompt.
What you are talking about is really just parliamentary procedure: adopt a "body of rules, ethics, and customs governing meetings and other operations of clubs, organizations, legislative bodies, and other deliberative assemblies" -Wikipedia
Most governments of the world today practice this in some form or other. You generally have the politicians who go about making the rules and the bureaucrats that are responsible for the implementation of those rules. Same goes for most corporations: Board sets policy, and the executive...well...executes it. Some do this better than others.
Your answer is in the terms of service:
Yeah, but then we might actually have to pay for things ourselves. Biliking large corporations from their advertisign dollars to allow users access to a service without having to undertake a monetary transaction ("free") is really the only sort of taxation we can expect these days. There will always be cons, shills and marks. As long as you accept that, then you have a pretty good chance to avoid being one of the latter.
I guess that all depends on one's interpretation of truth.
It is unfortunate that, all too often, "The Truth" is sold by those with a financial interest greater than the cost of the truth. The doctors and pharmacists have culpable deniability because they are just going on what they were told and in the end, it is the patient that suffers.
Oxycontin comes to mind as a very recent example of this behaviour, and I'm sure when all is said and done, this guy will walk away paying a fine that is but a fraction of the profits he made.
On the other hand, who is really stupid enough to buy drugs over the internet? Might as well buy them on the street corner and save the shipping costs.
I barely trust most web-service providers with an email address that can be closed/blocked/changed with little cost or effort. Satan will skate before I start giving out my mobile number!
Real old timers remember back before QR codes and are more likely to suggest something like IPoAC: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149
It still only has a resolution of 1KM per pixel and the chromatic aberration is terrible.
actually the value of articles confiscated is not entirely wasted as those articles have founded a flourishing "surplus" industry:
http://www.eyeflare.com/article/where-buy-goods-confiscated-tsa/