Agreed. I bike 30 miles every other day and that was enough, along with a sensible diet, to get me from a peak of 180 pounds down to a more healthy 155. Now I'm steady at 155 but can still eat more than I normally could without the exercise. Plus it's good for the heart.
Maintaining weight is a matter of how many calories you consume and how many your burn. Weight training will build muscle but doesn't burn a lot of calories. Things like running, swimming, and biking are the kinds of things that burn calories.
I'm sorry you're an introvert. Make time for your health and enjoy the great outdoors. You can always get a stationary bike but, having one of those that I use in the winter, I can assure you that a real bike out in the real world is MUCH more rewarding and it will help you relax mentally as well as keep you in shape physically.
It does not follow that the release of carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of global warming this time.
But if the temperature has increased many times in the past and, each time, CO2 has gone up afterwards, and now we're seeing temperature and CO2 go up again, it does not automatically become logical to claim that the high temperatures are because of the CO2 when, in the past, it seems to have been the other way around.
... so it's reasonable to look for potential fixes that may have other consequences that will need to be studied carefully.
This idea will be rejected by the likes of Al Gore and other GW activists because the whole global warming scare was never about global warming, let alone CO2. It's about money, control, and wealth redistribution. It will be very interesting to see how this suggestion is received by the global warming alarmists. I suspect, though, it will be rejected because it's not about finding a solution but legislating their policies. A solution that really solves the problem without drastic changes in our lifestyle--and especially without the help of the self-proclaimed environmentalists--is not what they're interested in.
I've heard this all before... "Keyboards will be replaced with voice recognition." And now mice will be replaces with greasy fingers touching my screen? I don't think so.
Unlimited data plans existed long before the iPhone. I've had unlimited data on my Treo for years. On the few occasions where I've been somewhere I needed to use my laptop and there was no Internet access, I just Bluetooth my computer to the Treo and then use the unlimited data plan to access the Internet. No problem, and not new.
There are cellular modems that many business users use that they just slam into the laptop and get 3G-speed access to the Internet. Those users use a lot more bandwidth than iPhone users and those are flat rate, too.
Unlimited cellular Internet access isn't going anywhere and it's not a new thing just to "stoke flames of iphone's success."
And you don't even understand that kids *ARE ALLOWED* to pray in school?
Nope, in many cases it has been held that there cannot be a moment of silence during which some kids pray and others twiddle their thumbs. That's how bad things have gotten.
What you actually want is to force OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS to say YOUR prayers.
Absolutely not. And except for maybe a few very extremists, NONE of us want that. It could just as easily be your prayer that the state mandates rather than ours. All we want is that our children be allowed to pray if that's their choice.
The rest of your message was just trolling so I'll ignore it.
It's interesting that you picked the Conservative PoV as the most moral.
Because it is. Liberal "morals" (or lack thereof under the banner of "tolerance") leads to an almost social anarchy where pretty much everything goes except those things that are potentially good. This is not conducive to building a solid and lasting society. Want to hand out condoms in schools to teenagers? No problem, they're going to have sex anyway. Want to endorse marriage between homosexual couples? No problem, we have to be tolerant. Some kids want to pray that our society will survive despite these things? Forget that, no tolerance there!
Seriously, liberals promote or tolerate those things that can harm our society and try to trample those things that traditionally has formed a strong and enduring society.
So, yes, I believe the conservative PoV is the most moral and most sustainable.
It still boils down to an informed patient making their own decision. Listen to the quack, or don't. It's the patient's choice.
Yes, but society is potentially impacted by generally stupid people making uninformed decisions. Eventually this can come back as a cost to society that the government (which is ultimately you and me) will have to shoulder.
I think it makes sense for skills to be licensed in areas where life and limb are potentially at risk. Structural engineers, doctors, dentists, etc. A bad apple can cause a lot of damage to a person's physical wellbeing and I think it's reasonable for the state to ensure that people practicing these skills are qualified to do so.
Plumbing? Pretty much the worst that can happen is you flood your basement. PC repair? Maybe you get a computer virus or your computer still doesn't work. These aren't generally things that are a matter of personal or public safety so I don't think they merit being licensed.
On what grounds? I suspect that the state can set pretty much any licensing requirements they want, up to some point, and I doubt this has hit that point.
I dunno. If to become an electrical engineer the state requires you to get a medical degree, does that make sense? Yes, they can set their licensing requirements. I believe, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately conclude that the licensing requirements must have something vaguely to do with the skill being licensed.
"Liberals" seem to fight a hell of a lot more often and with more passion to protect the right to choice in virtually every situation, while the "conservatives" want more laws restricting what people can do.
Actually both liberals and conservatives want to protect choice--just on different issues. Conservatives want to protect your choice to spend your money but want to apply their concepts of morality on society. Liberals, meanwhile, don't really care what you do morally speaking as long as you do what they tell you to do with your money.
Which is better? In my opinion a moral society in which people can do what they want with their money is desirable to a morally corrupt society where everything goes as long as you're paying extortion money to the liberal government. But that's just my opinion.
The only ones that really have a passion for freedom of choice across the board are libertarians. They have some good ideological points, though I think their platform is lacking from a practical standpoint.
A percentage should never be used with either the term "more" or "less."
Is that a real mathematical or English rule or just your preference? I see nothing wrong with saying that something that costs $110 costs 10% more than something that costs $100.
It should always be "of." Then any ambiguity is eliminated.
There wasn't an ambiguity to start with.
The worst is when someone says "This costs ten times less than that!" Really? The price is NEGATIVE 900% of that?
While I'll give you that saying "It costs ten times less than that" could be confusing (to a geek), most non-geeks implicitly understand that something that costs $10 is 10 times less than $100. It might not be technically correct but the expression and implication is well understood.
Sometimes being a geek causes us to complicate things more than we need to.
Go to your local Target and see how some 19" HDTVs are $400 while others cost twice as much. Price can't be the only criteria. There's a reason why a Sony HDTV costs a hell of a lot more than an Olevia.
Yes, because one is better than the other. The article is apparently talking about identical upgrades. You yourself mentioned that you could get the *exact* same memory stick for 3x less than what Apple wanted to sell it for. It's not like Apple is selling a better product for a higher price. They're selling the SAME product for a rip-off price.
I agree that it's not news that Apple is severely overpriced. That's been the case since... well, forever, I think. I think their prices are unconscionable. It's amusing, though, that many Slashdotters seem to forgive this sickening level abuse just because they're the hip company.
GP: Phishing sites have used signed certificates as well.
You: But their cert won't match the domain name that their intended victims are trying to access, so the browser will throw up a warning.
Only if the phishers try to deviate requests for www.somebank.com to their new server and new certificate. But if they send out a phising email they probably don't interfere with the somebank.com, rather they just send users to www.s0mebank.com for which they DO have a valid certificate and the browser will NOT throw up a warning.
Encryption is only a small part of the idea of certificates. The main part is that it gives you, the user, some idea that the web site you are typing your credentials into is who you think it is (eg your bank) and isn't someone else pretending to be your bank.
But that's nonsense. I have been robbed by the SSL certificate companies so that my shopping cart page would not flag any browser warnings. I paid my money and had the certificate the next day. They didn't contact me by phone or snail mail. The most they could've done is verified that the business name I gave them was an actual business--but there's no way they could have verified that I was authorized to request a certificate on behalf of the company.
In short, the whole idea that SSL certificates come anywhere close to proving that a website is who it says it is is nonsense. Only a fool would trust that to be true.
SSL certificates are organized theft and are a racket.
It has nothing to do with Obama himself. It's the fact that if an obvious die-hard liberal thinks it's necessary to pull these kinds of stunts, apparently the die-hard liberals think Obama is weak on the merits. I actually agree with them on that. Obama is a lot of words and very little substance and, honestly, McCain is going to have to try hard if he wants to lose.
Despite all the anti-Bush hatred, despite supposed hatred towards Republicans... it will be absolutely amazing if McCain loses. The amazing thing is most Democrats still think they're a shoe-in to the presidency. Sure, they have a shot. But it's far from a given.
So your argument is that one misguided follower serves as an indictment of Obama himself?
Not necessarily, but it might be. If a die-hard liberal finds it necessary to poison Google to try to promote dirt on his opponent, it would seem that that person thinks his candidate is weak on the merits. Sure, he could just be wrong about that. But someone is definitely concerned in liberalville.
So I'm guessing your vote in November will be "none of the above"? Or possibly Montgomery Brewster? (Bonus points if you get the reference.)
Brewster's Millions.
I'll probably vote for McCain. Not because I want to, believe me. I wish we had a real Republican to vote for. I was really close to considering voting for Obama because I'd rather have a Democrat mess up the country than have McCain do it under the Republican banner (no need for anti-Bush remarks to this comment). But at the end of the day I can't gamble with the country's future and I at least do believe McCain will fight to keep this country safe from foreign threats. I cannot say the same for Obama.
... but if the articles contain information pertinent to gaining a better understanding of the true character of a presidential candidate, information which might otherwise get buried by the whims of Big Media, then these bloggers are providing a service where our "free press" has failed us.
In other words, "dirt." Virtually all politicians are going to have some--as do most non-politicians.
In short, it's manipulation of information for political purposes. That's not in the spirit of democracy whether it's a blogger or the mainstream media that's doing it.
The goal of politics should be to do what's best for the country. The goal of politicians is to gain power. So apparently the liberal blogger in question is a politician because he's doing what's best for his candidate, not what's best for the country. Making it hard to find the best information (even if it's not information the liberal blogger wants people to see) about a candidate is not in the spirit of a free society and democracy. Basically, this liberal blogger is decreasing the signal to noise ratio rather than providing useful and compelling reasons to vote for his own candidate.
Seriously... if Obama were as amazing as we were supposed to believe he is, it would be more than enough to promote his virtues rather than trying to smear the opponent. Guess Obama isn't all that great stuff.
There is absolutely no excuse for bypassing the FISA courts, which were setup to prevent EXACTLY this scenario -- an Executive abusing his power. There is never an excuse in this situation.
The fact of the matter is that there might be an excuse in this situation. As I often say: NONE of us know as much about the real terrorist situation than many people at DHS and even President Bush. Hate him all you want, criticize him all you want, but I am 100% sure that he knows more about the realities of the threats than we do. So we can armchair quarterback all we want but the truth is we don't know.
Let's put it this way: If the president honestly believed that by violating the "privacy" (a vague concept that is not guaranteed by the Constitution) of a few people that he could save the lives of literally millions, would it be worth it? I'd say yes. It seems the president would too. Some would say no but I think that kind of blind extremism in support of privacy is every bit as absurd as a fascist state. A balance has to be found.
We can argue all we want about whether or not the president honestly thought the threat was so imminent as to justify the supposed privacy violations. We can debate black, white, and colors of gray when it comes to how absolute privacy should be. But we are debating from a position of ignorance because none of us know all the facts.
So in other words this is all just to try to get evidence against Bush because you haven't been successful in finding anything else you could actually prove he did illegally? This is just part of the Bush-hate agenda?
The government is supposed to follow the law and enforce the law. If the government comes to you, especially under what could easily be considered "special circumstances," and asks you to do something that doesn't seem unreasonable given the circumstances, I don't think it's an individual's (or corporation's) job to evaluate or second-guess the government's action and decide whether or not they should comply. They certainly can, but I don't think they have to.
If the government is supposed to enforce the law, there should be an assumption that official requests made by the government are legal. If the government charged with enforcing the law requests you to do something, you should be pretty dang secure in that that same government (via its courts) will not subsequently find you guilty of something for cooperating.
Now I'm not advocating a blank check here, nor saying that "I was just following orders" is a valid defense again. But there's a difference between the government telling you "Go over there and kill that guy" and asking for cooperation in trying to avoid a terrorist attack.
I can understand why some people would say "The letter of the law is..." and on that basis want to go after the telcos. But the issue here is not black and white. There's a certain "stink test" that just seems like some people have a vendetta against some telcos when they really should be going after the government. I think they want to go after the telcos because it's easier to go after them than the government and, heck, they're corporations anyway so dang it they MUST be evil!
If you're at the scene of an accident and a policeman asks you to rush someone to the hospital because the ambulance can't get there fast enough and the policeman can't leave the scene, and tells you "feel free to go 80mph down the freeway rather than 65mph," would you? The request of the policeman doesn't seem unreasonable given the circumstances. Would it then leave a sour taste in your mouth if you were later charged with speeding to the hospital and your license revoked? Yes, you did something that was technically illegal. But it didn't seem unreasonable AND the government asked you to!
I don't understand why people are so eager to go after the telecomm companies instead of the administration that made the requests that the companies were hesitant to resist?
I definitely think the telecomm companies should have immunity for cooperating with the government. If laws were broken, go after the government that made the requests.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I bike 30 miles every other day and that was enough, along with a sensible diet, to get me from a peak of 180 pounds down to a more healthy 155. Now I'm steady at 155 but can still eat more than I normally could without the exercise. Plus it's good for the heart.
Maintaining weight is a matter of how many calories you consume and how many your burn. Weight training will build muscle but doesn't burn a lot of calories. Things like running, swimming, and biking are the kinds of things that burn calories.
I'm sorry you're an introvert. Make time for your health and enjoy the great outdoors. You can always get a stationary bike but, having one of those that I use in the winter, I can assure you that a real bike out in the real world is MUCH more rewarding and it will help you relax mentally as well as keep you in shape physically.
But if the temperature has increased many times in the past and, each time, CO2 has gone up afterwards, and now we're seeing temperature and CO2 go up again, it does not automatically become logical to claim that the high temperatures are because of the CO2 when, in the past, it seems to have been the other way around.
This idea will be rejected by the likes of Al Gore and other GW activists because the whole global warming scare was never about global warming, let alone CO2. It's about money, control, and wealth redistribution. It will be very interesting to see how this suggestion is received by the global warming alarmists. I suspect, though, it will be rejected because it's not about finding a solution but legislating their policies. A solution that really solves the problem without drastic changes in our lifestyle--and especially without the help of the self-proclaimed environmentalists--is not what they're interested in.
I've heard this all before... "Keyboards will be replaced with voice recognition." And now mice will be replaces with greasy fingers touching my screen? I don't think so.
Took minutes in WarGames.
Unlimited data plans existed long before the iPhone. I've had unlimited data on my Treo for years. On the few occasions where I've been somewhere I needed to use my laptop and there was no Internet access, I just Bluetooth my computer to the Treo and then use the unlimited data plan to access the Internet. No problem, and not new.
There are cellular modems that many business users use that they just slam into the laptop and get 3G-speed access to the Internet. Those users use a lot more bandwidth than iPhone users and those are flat rate, too.
Unlimited cellular Internet access isn't going anywhere and it's not a new thing just to "stoke flames of iphone's success."
So have the Democrats. This is not a Republican-specific pass-time.
Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Nope, in many cases it has been held that there cannot be a moment of silence during which some kids pray and others twiddle their thumbs. That's how bad things have gotten.
Absolutely not. And except for maybe a few very extremists, NONE of us want that. It could just as easily be your prayer that the state mandates rather than ours. All we want is that our children be allowed to pray if that's their choice.
The rest of your message was just trolling so I'll ignore it.
Because it is. Liberal "morals" (or lack thereof under the banner of "tolerance") leads to an almost social anarchy where pretty much everything goes except those things that are potentially good. This is not conducive to building a solid and lasting society. Want to hand out condoms in schools to teenagers? No problem, they're going to have sex anyway. Want to endorse marriage between homosexual couples? No problem, we have to be tolerant. Some kids want to pray that our society will survive despite these things? Forget that, no tolerance there!
Seriously, liberals promote or tolerate those things that can harm our society and try to trample those things that traditionally has formed a strong and enduring society.
So, yes, I believe the conservative PoV is the most moral and most sustainable.
Yes, but society is potentially impacted by generally stupid people making uninformed decisions. Eventually this can come back as a cost to society that the government (which is ultimately you and me) will have to shoulder.
I think it makes sense for skills to be licensed in areas where life and limb are potentially at risk. Structural engineers, doctors, dentists, etc. A bad apple can cause a lot of damage to a person's physical wellbeing and I think it's reasonable for the state to ensure that people practicing these skills are qualified to do so.
Plumbing? Pretty much the worst that can happen is you flood your basement. PC repair? Maybe you get a computer virus or your computer still doesn't work. These aren't generally things that are a matter of personal or public safety so I don't think they merit being licensed.
I dunno. If to become an electrical engineer the state requires you to get a medical degree, does that make sense? Yes, they can set their licensing requirements. I believe, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately conclude that the licensing requirements must have something vaguely to do with the skill being licensed.
Actually both liberals and conservatives want to protect choice--just on different issues. Conservatives want to protect your choice to spend your money but want to apply their concepts of morality on society. Liberals, meanwhile, don't really care what you do morally speaking as long as you do what they tell you to do with your money.
Which is better? In my opinion a moral society in which people can do what they want with their money is desirable to a morally corrupt society where everything goes as long as you're paying extortion money to the liberal government. But that's just my opinion.
The only ones that really have a passion for freedom of choice across the board are libertarians. They have some good ideological points, though I think their platform is lacking from a practical standpoint.
Is that a real mathematical or English rule or just your preference? I see nothing wrong with saying that something that costs $110 costs 10% more than something that costs $100.
There wasn't an ambiguity to start with.
While I'll give you that saying "It costs ten times less than that" could be confusing (to a geek), most non-geeks implicitly understand that something that costs $10 is 10 times less than $100. It might not be technically correct but the expression and implication is well understood.
Sometimes being a geek causes us to complicate things more than we need to.
Yes, because one is better than the other. The article is apparently talking about identical upgrades. You yourself mentioned that you could get the *exact* same memory stick for 3x less than what Apple wanted to sell it for. It's not like Apple is selling a better product for a higher price. They're selling the SAME product for a rip-off price.
I agree that it's not news that Apple is severely overpriced. That's been the case since... well, forever, I think. I think their prices are unconscionable. It's amusing, though, that many Slashdotters seem to forgive this sickening level abuse just because they're the hip company.
Only if the phishers try to deviate requests for www.somebank.com to their new server and new certificate. But if they send out a phising email they probably don't interfere with the somebank.com, rather they just send users to www.s0mebank.com for which they DO have a valid certificate and the browser will NOT throw up a warning.
But that's nonsense. I have been robbed by the SSL certificate companies so that my shopping cart page would not flag any browser warnings. I paid my money and had the certificate the next day. They didn't contact me by phone or snail mail. The most they could've done is verified that the business name I gave them was an actual business--but there's no way they could have verified that I was authorized to request a certificate on behalf of the company.
In short, the whole idea that SSL certificates come anywhere close to proving that a website is who it says it is is nonsense. Only a fool would trust that to be true.
SSL certificates are organized theft and are a racket.
It has nothing to do with Obama himself. It's the fact that if an obvious die-hard liberal thinks it's necessary to pull these kinds of stunts, apparently the die-hard liberals think Obama is weak on the merits. I actually agree with them on that. Obama is a lot of words and very little substance and, honestly, McCain is going to have to try hard if he wants to lose.
Despite all the anti-Bush hatred, despite supposed hatred towards Republicans... it will be absolutely amazing if McCain loses. The amazing thing is most Democrats still think they're a shoe-in to the presidency. Sure, they have a shot. But it's far from a given.
Not necessarily, but it might be. If a die-hard liberal finds it necessary to poison Google to try to promote dirt on his opponent, it would seem that that person thinks his candidate is weak on the merits. Sure, he could just be wrong about that. But someone is definitely concerned in liberalville.
Brewster's Millions.
I'll probably vote for McCain. Not because I want to, believe me. I wish we had a real Republican to vote for. I was really close to considering voting for Obama because I'd rather have a Democrat mess up the country than have McCain do it under the Republican banner (no need for anti-Bush remarks to this comment). But at the end of the day I can't gamble with the country's future and I at least do believe McCain will fight to keep this country safe from foreign threats. I cannot say the same for Obama.
In other words, "dirt." Virtually all politicians are going to have some--as do most non-politicians.
In short, it's manipulation of information for political purposes. That's not in the spirit of democracy whether it's a blogger or the mainstream media that's doing it.
The goal of politics should be to do what's best for the country. The goal of politicians is to gain power. So apparently the liberal blogger in question is a politician because he's doing what's best for his candidate, not what's best for the country. Making it hard to find the best information (even if it's not information the liberal blogger wants people to see) about a candidate is not in the spirit of a free society and democracy. Basically, this liberal blogger is decreasing the signal to noise ratio rather than providing useful and compelling reasons to vote for his own candidate.
Seriously... if Obama were as amazing as we were supposed to believe he is, it would be more than enough to promote his virtues rather than trying to smear the opponent. Guess Obama isn't all that great stuff.
The fact of the matter is that there might be an excuse in this situation. As I often say: NONE of us know as much about the real terrorist situation than many people at DHS and even President Bush. Hate him all you want, criticize him all you want, but I am 100% sure that he knows more about the realities of the threats than we do. So we can armchair quarterback all we want but the truth is we don't know.
Let's put it this way: If the president honestly believed that by violating the "privacy" (a vague concept that is not guaranteed by the Constitution) of a few people that he could save the lives of literally millions, would it be worth it? I'd say yes. It seems the president would too. Some would say no but I think that kind of blind extremism in support of privacy is every bit as absurd as a fascist state. A balance has to be found.
We can argue all we want about whether or not the president honestly thought the threat was so imminent as to justify the supposed privacy violations. We can debate black, white, and colors of gray when it comes to how absolute privacy should be. But we are debating from a position of ignorance because none of us know all the facts.
So in other words this is all just to try to get evidence against Bush because you haven't been successful in finding anything else you could actually prove he did illegally? This is just part of the Bush-hate agenda?
Sigh.
The government is supposed to follow the law and enforce the law. If the government comes to you, especially under what could easily be considered "special circumstances," and asks you to do something that doesn't seem unreasonable given the circumstances, I don't think it's an individual's (or corporation's) job to evaluate or second-guess the government's action and decide whether or not they should comply. They certainly can, but I don't think they have to.
If the government is supposed to enforce the law, there should be an assumption that official requests made by the government are legal. If the government charged with enforcing the law requests you to do something, you should be pretty dang secure in that that same government (via its courts) will not subsequently find you guilty of something for cooperating.
Now I'm not advocating a blank check here, nor saying that "I was just following orders" is a valid defense again. But there's a difference between the government telling you "Go over there and kill that guy" and asking for cooperation in trying to avoid a terrorist attack.
I can understand why some people would say "The letter of the law is..." and on that basis want to go after the telcos. But the issue here is not black and white. There's a certain "stink test" that just seems like some people have a vendetta against some telcos when they really should be going after the government. I think they want to go after the telcos because it's easier to go after them than the government and, heck, they're corporations anyway so dang it they MUST be evil!
If you're at the scene of an accident and a policeman asks you to rush someone to the hospital because the ambulance can't get there fast enough and the policeman can't leave the scene, and tells you "feel free to go 80mph down the freeway rather than 65mph," would you? The request of the policeman doesn't seem unreasonable given the circumstances. Would it then leave a sour taste in your mouth if you were later charged with speeding to the hospital and your license revoked? Yes, you did something that was technically illegal. But it didn't seem unreasonable AND the government asked you to!
I don't understand why people are so eager to go after the telecomm companies instead of the administration that made the requests that the companies were hesitant to resist?
I definitely think the telecomm companies should have immunity for cooperating with the government. If laws were broken, go after the government that made the requests.