At the risk of further "Offtopic" modding, yes, it was a PA car. As I recall, by 1984 only the diesel models were being imported from Germany.
And BTW I have nothing against VW at all. I've owned 5 over the years.
It was late and I was a bit slaphappy when I posted. It was just my idea of a satire on the whole story, which should never have been posted by the so-called editors because it was totally lacking in research, documentation, or anything else which would qualify it as worthy of attention.
This is from the transcript of the cited interview, attributed to Dr. Lustig. I'm not trying to be bitchy; I just thought you might want to know it:
You know a lot has been made over this high fructose corn syrup being particularly evil. In fact high fructose corn syrup is either 42% or 55% fructose, the rest is glucose. Well sucrose is 50% fructose the rest is glucose. In fact high fructose corn syrup and sucrose are equally problematic.
If you're having success with your diet, I imagine it's your common sense and restraint at work, not your choice of sugars.
Only in my case it was a 1984 Volkswagen Rabbit GTI, and the problem was soft paint. Every little grain of sand that hit that car cut through the black finish to the white primer. It looked like shit. Eventually I was able to get VW to repaint the car, but they insisted I pay $60 to repaint one of the panels. There was no logic to this, but the division rep said, "Well, if you don't want to do that, I'll just keep repainting your panels one at a time as the scratches come," so I went along with the scam. Anyway, I haven't tried a VW product in over 20 years, but I would recommend you keep yourself and your loved ones away from this car company.
One more, then you can have the last word if you want it because I'm afraid we're talking past each other. I think that you're using "morality" to mean a formalism for ANY social reasoning, however twisted or cruel. That's not the usual definition of morality. If that's what you mean by morality, then we agree on what law is, but if that's what morality is, then it's just emotion--hate, affection, greed, envy, fear, whatever--by another name (as long as enough people in a society share it). So what's the point of morality? Do as I did and draw a straight line from emotion to law.
Your first post said: Emotion -> Empathy -> Morality -> Law. Show me a path from "I hate Jews" through anything that could be called empathy to get to a morality that says "We should persecute the Jews."
Men came off worse than women. Only 55 per cent of men could remember their wedding anniversary, compared to 90 per cent of women.
I almost snorted tea out of my nose when I read this. Go watch a few hours of reruns of sitcoms from the '60's if you think this is a new phenomenon.
The article confuses "cannot remember" with "cannot memorize." It may be short-sighted to count on your Google calendar to remember your mom's birthday (or it may not--who knows? Perhaps soon it will interface directly with your onboard, subdermal external memory), but it's a long way from proving you've lost your long term memory.
Your argument is more sophisticated than the one I responded to first, but it still wants to throw morality into a formula that doesn't require it. I talked about a fair legal system because that's where the OP was coming from; I could as easily have talked about degenerate systems like apartheid or Naziism. I don't think you would argue that those systems were based on empathy or morality, but their proponents would. And that's the point: systems from Libertarianism to fascism to Communism all claim to be based on what is right and good. In truth it's about nothing more complicated than what some people want, i.e. their emotions.
There is indeed a magic oracle from which law springs. It's called power. Power in the form of votes or money or guns or whatever it takes to make thing work the way you and your allies want them to work.
I'll grant that the legal system I described in my post was based on emotion. Just don't go dragging morality into the thing.
Your conclusion is that because some laws coincide with some widely held moral positions, the latter must motivate the former. This is as erroneous as another person concluding that because laws and morals are separate issues that murder (illegal pretty much everywhere) must not be immoral.
It is entirely possible to formulate a functioning body of law based on the concept that one person's space/liberty/rights must not intrude on another person's right to be secure in their possessions (including, naturally, their body). The law protects each citizen from all others within the limitations imposed by human error and imperfection.
I don't pretend to know how to unravel the problem of Linus's disliking GPLv3 while many people who have made very substantial contributions to Linux (perhaps whose contributions outweigh his on some scale) may wish to adopt it. Sometimes it seems Linus doesn't see this problem, but he's too smart not to. I think in the end, this will be a lesson for contributors to FOSS: the guy who owns the project calls the shots, and some of those calls will extend beyond the realm of the technical. Contributor beware.
I'll bet the guys who run OpenLogic are scratching their heads over this story. "Demonize FOSS?" they're saying to each other. "WTF are they talking about?"
OpenLogic is a leading provider of open source solutions that enable enterprises to safely acquire, support, and control open source software. OpenLogic provides enterprises with a certified library of open source software that encompasses hundreds of the most popular open source packages. With the broadest open source coverage in the industry, OpenLogic offers indemnification; updates; and enterprise-grade technical support backed by the OpenLogic Expert Community.
Granted, it would have been better if this software were FOSS itself, but maybe that will come in time. They are, after all, in business to make a profit.
I read the damn paper, and I'm disappointed. How is this not a slippery slope argument? It amounts to "don't let them spy on you because someday when things have changed in ill-specified ways by undefined means there might be horrible consequences like, um, chilling effect." Letting bad people run around unobserved doing whatever they want has already screwed us. Convincing people that it's better to accept an increased risk of another unstopped attack than it is to put up with a computer scanning your phone calls isn't easy.
"Can I watch you and your wife have sex?" just doesn't cut it as an argument with anybody with half a brain. They know that's not what the government wants.
The worst part is, I strongly believe in freedom from government surveillance, but I can't think of any better reasons than this lame paper comes up with. Please, somebody with some fresh ideas on how to frame this argument stand up and help us give the American public (and me, I guess) a clue.
I doubt the cough was in your lungs--more likely in your head. I smoked for 14 years, sometimes over a pack per day, and I never developed a cough. Only the puffingest of my friends started coughing before their forties. On the other hand, the patch is a lot safer. If the dose they deliver is too big you could cut them into smaller pieces and save money too.
Not that that's as much fun as smoking. I gave it up for my health, but I loved every butt I ever smoked. If I'm ever diagnosed with a terminal disease, I'm gonna start right up again. (Probably drink more, too.)
I don't think anyone would claim that relicensing qualifies as an upgrade. As long as Novell's customers are content with the last GPLv2 version of any software that subsequently relicenses to GPLv3, they have no problem. If, however, they wish to move forward along with the rest of us as that software is corrected and improved, that might create difficulties.
Well, I went and checked your previous posts and there's no indication that you're any stupider than the rest of us. I'll just chalk this up to Sunday morning lethargy. But really you might want to post a mea culpa or something because your sarcasm detector is seriously hung over.
Personally I vote against all office holders in every election, it's the only chance to change things.
I'm sorry, but this is simply wrongheaded. Indiscriminate removal of all of the old elements of a system is called revolution, and despite what Time magazine or CNN may have told you it does not occur at the ballot box (except in those rare cases where the very act of having a meaningful election is new, eg. South Africa or Russia, which are invariably a product of violence or the credible threat of violence).
If you want to kill the beast, you'll have to get a gun (and a bunch of friends who have guns too). If you want to force the beast to evolve, you must select for the traits you admire and against the ones you do not. As in biological evolution, you cannot expect very rapid change, nor can you expect to find the traits you like neatly bundled in a perfect specimen. Sorry about that.
There are spaces in OP's URLs, so they don't work (not to mention they're not links). I'm a kindly soul with time to kill, so here is the Boeing link, and here is the Air Force Times link.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There. No need to guess what it says, only what it means. In this case, I think "papers and effects" might cover email, given when the document was written.
Actually, the browser isn't doing that. It is adding the "http://" part, but the rest is done at the server end. It's possible to teach your server(s) to interpret "example.com" as a synonym for "www.example.com". It's equally possible to treat the "www" as superfluous and have your server drop it. For an example of this behavior, try going to www.slashdot.org and watch the "www" get thrown away.
I don't think I understood what you meant about "there's no Conrol + Enter shortcut". It works in every browser I have on my computer. Are you saying your browsers don't do it? Are you saying it's not a shortcut? Or just a lame one? I'm confused.
When the air traffic control centers in the U.S. were
constructed (late '50s, early 60's), it was decided that the buildings
needed to be able to resist the effects of nuclear fallout. They were
equipped with giant vertical steel louvers all around the perimeter
and a washdown feature for the roof. But the roofs never so much as
held out the rain, let alone the radioactive soup that trying to wash
away fallout would have created. I've worked at Atlanta Center for
about 23 years, and I think they just re-roofed for the fourth time.
Within two years, it will probably leak again.
BTW, the Cold War
systems were decommissioned about a decade ago. In the early 1990's
the louvers needed painting, so they were removed from building, shipped
to someplace (rumor said Texas), painted and then reinstalled. A
couple of years later they were removed for good.
I agree with the thrust of your post, but I must say I think you give the American establishment too much credit. You make it sound like the Cold War mindset is a once-useful zeitgeist rendered obsolete, but I think it was always a poorly thought out composition of paranoia, arrogance and aggression. Just blowing shit up harder and better than the other guy can is rarely optimal, and certainly helped us (I'm American--I note your TLD) not at all in Vietnam.
Slashdot Mirror
It was late and I was a bit slaphappy when I posted. It was just my idea of a satire on the whole story, which should never have been posted by the so-called editors because it was totally lacking in research, documentation, or anything else which would qualify it as worthy of attention.
If you're having success with your diet, I imagine it's your common sense and restraint at work, not your choice of sugars.
Only in my case it was a 1984 Volkswagen Rabbit GTI, and the problem was soft paint. Every little grain of sand that hit that car cut through the black finish to the white primer. It looked like shit. Eventually I was able to get VW to repaint the car, but they insisted I pay $60 to repaint one of the panels. There was no logic to this, but the division rep said, "Well, if you don't want to do that, I'll just keep repainting your panels one at a time as the scratches come," so I went along with the scam. Anyway, I haven't tried a VW product in over 20 years, but I would recommend you keep yourself and your loved ones away from this car company.
Well, we can hope your theory is correct, but I rather suspect they mean to use this. Chalk it up to Google envy.
Your first post said: Emotion -> Empathy -> Morality -> Law. Show me a path from "I hate Jews" through anything that could be called empathy to get to a morality that says "We should persecute the Jews."
I almost snorted tea out of my nose when I read this. Go watch a few hours of reruns of sitcoms from the '60's if you think this is a new phenomenon.
The article confuses "cannot remember" with "cannot memorize." It may be short-sighted to count on your Google calendar to remember your mom's birthday (or it may not--who knows? Perhaps soon it will interface directly with your onboard, subdermal external memory), but it's a long way from proving you've lost your long term memory.
Your argument is more sophisticated than the one I responded to first, but it still wants to throw morality into a formula that doesn't require it. I talked about a fair legal system because that's where the OP was coming from; I could as easily have talked about degenerate systems like apartheid or Naziism. I don't think you would argue that those systems were based on empathy or morality, but their proponents would. And that's the point: systems from Libertarianism to fascism to Communism all claim to be based on what is right and good. In truth it's about nothing more complicated than what some people want, i.e. their emotions.
There is indeed a magic oracle from which law springs. It's called power. Power in the form of votes or money or guns or whatever it takes to make thing work the way you and your allies want them to work.
I'll grant that the legal system I described in my post was based on emotion. Just don't go dragging morality into the thing.
It is entirely possible to formulate a functioning body of law based on the concept that one person's space/liberty/rights must not intrude on another person's right to be secure in their possessions (including, naturally, their body). The law protects each citizen from all others within the limitations imposed by human error and imperfection.
I don't pretend to know how to unravel the problem of Linus's disliking GPLv3 while many people who have made very substantial contributions to Linux (perhaps whose contributions outweigh his on some scale) may wish to adopt it. Sometimes it seems Linus doesn't see this problem, but he's too smart not to. I think in the end, this will be a lesson for contributors to FOSS: the guy who owns the project calls the shots, and some of those calls will extend beyond the realm of the technical. Contributor beware.
It was my sad idea of a joke, sorry. One mod got it.
You know it is. Java is Write Once, Run Anywhere, remember?
I don't think that would be in their interests. From the company's website:
OpenLogic is a leading provider of open source solutions that enable enterprises to safely acquire, support, and control open source software. OpenLogic provides enterprises with a certified library of open source software that encompasses hundreds of the most popular open source packages. With the broadest open source coverage in the industry, OpenLogic offers indemnification; updates; and enterprise-grade technical support backed by the OpenLogic Expert Community.
Granted, it would have been better if this software were FOSS itself, but maybe that will come in time. They are, after all, in business to make a profit.
The worst part is, I strongly believe in freedom from government surveillance, but I can't think of any better reasons than this lame paper comes up with. Please, somebody with some fresh ideas on how to frame this argument stand up and help us give the American public (and me, I guess) a clue.
Now see, this shit is funny. But no mods give it any love, and I have no points right now. Sorry.
Not that that's as much fun as smoking. I gave it up for my health, but I loved every butt I ever smoked. If I'm ever diagnosed with a terminal disease, I'm gonna start right up again. (Probably drink more, too.)
I don't think anyone would claim that relicensing qualifies as an upgrade. As long as Novell's customers are content with the last GPLv2 version of any software that subsequently relicenses to GPLv3, they have no problem. If, however, they wish to move forward along with the rest of us as that software is corrected and improved, that might create difficulties.
Well, I went and checked your previous posts and there's no indication that you're any stupider than the rest of us. I'll just chalk this up to Sunday morning lethargy. But really you might want to post a mea culpa or something because your sarcasm detector is seriously hung over.
I'm sorry, but this is simply wrongheaded. Indiscriminate removal of all of the old elements of a system is called revolution, and despite what Time magazine or CNN may have told you it does not occur at the ballot box (except in those rare cases where the very act of having a meaningful election is new, eg. South Africa or Russia, which are invariably a product of violence or the credible threat of violence).
If you want to kill the beast, you'll have to get a gun (and a bunch of friends who have guns too). If you want to force the beast to evolve, you must select for the traits you admire and against the ones you do not. As in biological evolution, you cannot expect very rapid change, nor can you expect to find the traits you like neatly bundled in a perfect specimen. Sorry about that.
There are spaces in OP's URLs, so they don't work (not to mention they're not links). I'm a kindly soul with time to kill, so here is the Boeing link, and here is the Air Force Times link.
You were right. Tennessee doesn't have an income tax (except on interest and dividends).
There. No need to guess what it says, only what it means. In this case, I think "papers and effects" might cover email, given when the document was written.
I don't think I understood what you meant about "there's no Conrol + Enter shortcut". It works in every browser I have on my computer. Are you saying your browsers don't do it? Are you saying it's not a shortcut? Or just a lame one? I'm confused.
BTW, the Cold War systems were decommissioned about a decade ago. In the early 1990's the louvers needed painting, so they were removed from building, shipped to someplace (rumor said Texas), painted and then reinstalled. A couple of years later they were removed for good.
Does it really get clean without soap?
Returning us once again to the ever more important question, "What constitutes journalism?"
I agree with the thrust of your post, but I must say I think you give the American establishment too much credit. You make it sound like the Cold War mindset is a once-useful zeitgeist rendered obsolete, but I think it was always a poorly thought out composition of paranoia, arrogance and aggression. Just blowing shit up harder and better than the other guy can is rarely optimal, and certainly helped us (I'm American--I note your TLD) not at all in Vietnam.