Yeah, it sure it is all about excess calories. No, it isn't just about excess sugar, which is what:
Very simply food manufacturers removed the fat in the 70's and replaced it with huge amounts of sugar. The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.
suggest, because:
The reason why your caloric intake is such as it is, why your burning efficiency is lower, or why you're less active and hence burn less are obviously quite a complex set of conditions
which isn't really reduced to food manufactures removing fat and replacing it with sugar (let alone the validity of this claim and it's applicability to the considered population). And this is what I believe was what AC was trying to point out and you reinforced.
As far as I know, you can't treat the decay of mental nor physical decay people undergo as they age. Some people decay more gracefully than others, some decay slower than others for whatever reason, but as far as I know we haven't found a way to return the brain to the state it is when it was when you had 20 years, or even 30. There is a decay you can't stop (for now).
If I'm wrong, please do tell me. I'd like to know what my options are to have a long, long life with quality, and he does present a set of issues that as far as I know can't be dealt with by medicine.
What I could understand from the website, that would be something that mattered to him. Except he didn't do it in front of witness because he didn't want anybody having to face that, yet he did call 911 before doing so. In theory (that is, what he says he was planning at his website), he would be found rather quickly, by prepared people.
I take it walking and talking are not considered two task at once. Unless you mean high-level tasks (ie the ones we are conscious about, not like walking and such).
Valid argument. One problem: people (common people that aren't your regular slashdot user) are already paying for the content. So, to reduce prices/increase quality (I'm more willing to pay for FLACs), we would have to convince the regular music buyer that doesn't really care about the things I care because they find that the offerings are cheap enough for them and good enough for them.
In my case, I try to buy as much as I can. Which is little, but I try to. My steam account usually grows during holiday/sales seasons because I buy things I've been waiting to buy for a long time and they are finally at a price I can justify spending on my budget (which is admittedly pretty much non-existent). I don't remember the last time I obtained music from bandcamp that wasn't either free or I paid for it (and some of the music I want to pay for I'm willing to spend twice the minimum price). But there are things I am not going to pay for that I may get from other sources. They mostly fall into the category of: I should play/listen/see this to grow in what I consider is culture of the medium (kind of like never playing half-life, or doom1/2; or never listening to the beatles or some other important musician) and this is slowly reducing itself thanks to offering like spotify (which let me listen to some things I won't pay for but want to listen to, or can't pay for but want to listen to).
Books are the lucky medium, I suppose. I have a high tendency to buy one of those, and I barely ever obtain through other methods a book/book series.
While I agree with you, I posses not the skills to start a fork, nor would I want to have that burden on my back. The whole issue about this is there are no developers willing to fork firefox so that Mozilla can go straight towards fulfilling the needs of the average internet user without screwing over their technical/"special needs" users because they would use the fork anyway.
I won't comment on whether or not Mozilla really said that. I read an statement quoted on bugtracker that basically said that we should remove features so that 2% of the user base can't fuck up their browser at the cost of another two percent of users who used the features (but should be using addons [that are generally subpar and thus end up diminishing the experience the user has, and makes it harder to get good metrics/good bug-hunting]), so I don't really know what to think anymore.
Well, they certainly look cheap enough that they could be useful for guerrillas/resitances. Besides, remember that the same knowledge that led to the nuclear bomb also led to advances in other fields (I believe it led to nuclear energy) and advances in physics itself. I don't see how knowledge how to make a firearm that doesn't break couldn't be adapted to some other item that handles explosions/very strong forces. Of course, then one could wonder why the motivational factor to gaining such knowledge is a firearm, but then ask yourself why is the US investing in military research (that will undoubtedly produce technology useful for civilians).
I think wishing that it kills him is a bit too much. Besides, wouldn't terrorists have an R&D group that could do the same this man is doing or more? Unless you mean limited-resources terrorists, but those aren't really the ones we probably need to care about (imo).
Just sharing the love (or the protection from decisions for the sake of everyone): this extension apparently allows you to hide the tab bar complete (didn't check), and this hiding the tab bar when single-tab browsing.
Chances are you can still modify those options through the about:config page (I hope). I'm sure they will argue that if you do want to disable it, you probably can go out of your way to do it in about:config page and thus we can remove it from the options so that unexperienced users don't mess up with the options they shouldn't and then complain it doesn't work.
It's still a strange move (that I don't agree with it). And I've seen the argument above be used.
What would be your instance on hunting? In theory, the hunters try to minimize the suffering of their prey, aiming to get quick, as painless as possible kills.
And easier for the government to get rid of those that don't agree with them by grouping them with terrorist groups. It's so clever it's almost stupidly so, so much that it's quite hard to miss. After all, everyone agrees that we should get rid of terrorists.
What's stagnating art is the notion that people need to always be around people, slowly losing their identity in favor of the group identity. Then again most of the great artist weren't exactly the kind you see being another individual in the crowd: they had their ideas, they explored them, they didn't exactly follow societies rules and ideas.
This video is quite interesting in presenting the point I'm trying to express. And I'm positive there is a field in psychology dealing exactly with how individuals behave in a crowd, how they follow the crowd, and how the take on the identify of the crowd.
Yeah that certainly works. Unless you decide to leave him alone at home, then he won't be that reluctant, will he? I say this as somebody who has the computer in an open room. Just as a little experiment, install some sort of monitoring software, leave him alone and see what he visits. And then proceed to do nothing about it because you shouldn't be having such software there in the first place, except now you know whether or not what you have been trying works or not.
For what it is worth, I think this is one of the best solutions. I read somewhere else where basically the parent managed to gain such respect that even if he was not looking the kid would refuse to browse into certain websites/look for some content (when a friend asked, at least) because the kid thought his dad wouldn't be okay with it, thus he decided against it.
My point was: yeah, they care about profit. Now, are they deciding that to achieve that goal they want H-1B workers because they are cheaper, or because they are perceived to cheaper, or because of what? Yeah, they are profit driven. That does not really explain that they want h-1b workers unless you also consider that they are (or thought to be) cheaper than local population.
What I want then is for real data to be gathered to answer the question. Unless you consider the comments section of slashdot good enough to change/create laws based on its contents? That would seem a little strange, considering the multiple complaints when a politician tries to do the same without fully understanding technology or the internet.
What I would like to know is: why is people from outside willing to take a low-paying job and people from within not willing? Or why does the employer believe that?
If the problem is local people not willing to settle for lower, then I can't really blame the employers for wanting to look for something cheaper (even if it means from the outside). They are, after all, looking for profit.
If the problem is the perception, why does such perception exist? What can potential, local employes do to change that perception?
I guess what I'm trying to ask is: why do they want H-1B workers instead of local? And so far I haven't seen this question answered, at least not outside the speculations of the comment section going "it's all about profit, that's what they care about" which is, well, a given. But why do they think that H-1B workers are a viable strategy for what they are looking for?
I wouldn't like it, that's for sure, and being uploaded to "bestrapes.com" isn't the place I would like to see it (it implies a disrespectful reason why people are going to watch it). But there is a difference between being disrespectful and not talking about things. So while I wouldn't like it, I'm nobody to stop them from watching the video. I can try to persuade them, change their mind, but I can't force them to do so. And that doesn't mean they don't respect me or my mother (in this case). It just means they have a very strong reason (to them, whatever it is) to watch it.
And I certainly wouldn't want a law to be put in place either. I don't know if I effectively get my point across. And I realize I'm kind of putting aside emotional response.
To be honest, while I wouldn't want to see whatever it is that was posted (though I might so I am able to see just where it is regarding to what I allow myself to watch, and to be able to have better opinions), I think that there may be legitimate reasons to post something like this. People may want to expose themselves to this kind of content so that they know just what kind of thing humanity is capable. They might be interested in it as a source of ideas for a book, a movie or a TV series (you know, there is a whole genre around criminals and what they do). Or simply to raise awareness to those that want to listen.*
To be honest, while there are things I wouldn't mind not seeing again and not thinking "somewhere this exists", I believe in freedom of speech. If I were to vote, I would vote against banning such content (unless given a very damn good reason, besides people not liking it). And on the other hand it is because some content exist that I know some of my limits -- what I'm capable of watching and enjoying and what I decide I would rather simply close.
Now, I don't know what the parents may be thinking. Probably something along the lines of "why don't you respect the memory of my child" or something (assuming of course they are against this, which I don't know). But I have no idea how showing the video of the murder is a disrespect if it is what happened and in no way altered. Because that's what happened. Unless they are asking to respect what they want to remember of their child (which doesn't include getting killed), in which case I will disagree with them and disregard their request.
*I'll admit I can't really come up with any reason somebody might want to watch it, or share it (assuming what I've read is accurate). What I came up with sounds shitty to me, too. But I reject "disgusting and unnecessary" or damaging to the family as valid reason to BAN the sharing of such content. If individuals want to take into account those reasons, they are free to do so. If I'm ever found in that position, I'll then face the question whether or not I care enough about the family of the victim and whether or not I'm okay with sharing it with others (I would not deny access to those that explicitly asked and I deemed as valid [so no 12 year old kids asking for it will get it, I'm not that crazy]). Or at least I expect to be able to make that decision instead of being forced by law to act a certain way.
That is mostly a non-issue nowadays if you consider Virtual Machines are a thing (and as far as I know you don't install AMD/NVidia drivers on the VM), and that gog.com is a thing. I do get your point, though.
As far as I can read in the e-mail they send (pics all over the place), you will only have a problem if the ads are to adult websites/content, and not just "having ads".
Relevant Quote: After June 30th 2013, we will be enforcing this policy and will remove blogs which are adult in nature and are displaying advertisements to adult websites.
Of course, I'm aware of the issue of "what kind of ads am I supposed to display, then?". I have no solution for it.
Yes, this seems to be a difficulty they may face, and something I would like to see addressed. While I have seen things I would rather have not (and not necessarily related to this topic), I'm not entirely sure I would deem it illegal. Maybe I'm just biased by finding it as something that just comes with the Internet as part of the package. That and as long as it's not shoved in my face I don't really mind it existing*
*of course, child porn/abuse is illegal, so my personal view on it is kind of irrelevant and thus not part of that statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it sure it is all about excess calories. No, it isn't just about excess sugar, which is what:
Very simply food manufacturers removed the fat in the 70's and replaced it with huge amounts of sugar. The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.
suggest, because:
The reason why your caloric intake is such as it is, why your burning efficiency is lower, or why you're less active and hence burn less are obviously quite a complex set of conditions
which isn't really reduced to food manufactures removing fat and replacing it with sugar (let alone the validity of this claim and it's applicability to the considered population). And this is what I believe was what AC was trying to point out and you reinforced.
What are you talking about? I see the symbols just fine. Or did they fix them?
As far as I know, you can't treat the decay of mental nor physical decay people undergo as they age. Some people decay more gracefully than others, some decay slower than others for whatever reason, but as far as I know we haven't found a way to return the brain to the state it is when it was when you had 20 years, or even 30. There is a decay you can't stop (for now).
If I'm wrong, please do tell me. I'd like to know what my options are to have a long, long life with quality, and he does present a set of issues that as far as I know can't be dealt with by medicine.
What I could understand from the website, that would be something that mattered to him. Except he didn't do it in front of witness because he didn't want anybody having to face that, yet he did call 911 before doing so. In theory (that is, what he says he was planning at his website), he would be found rather quickly, by prepared people.
I take it walking and talking are not considered two task at once. Unless you mean high-level tasks (ie the ones we are conscious about, not like walking and such).
Neither, considering that the article mentions 3% muzzle energy of an .22 LR which is different than the muzzle velocity. Proof: this picture here
Valid argument. One problem: people (common people that aren't your regular slashdot user) are already paying for the content. So, to reduce prices/increase quality (I'm more willing to pay for FLACs), we would have to convince the regular music buyer that doesn't really care about the things I care because they find that the offerings are cheap enough for them and good enough for them.
In my case, I try to buy as much as I can. Which is little, but I try to. My steam account usually grows during holiday/sales seasons because I buy things I've been waiting to buy for a long time and they are finally at a price I can justify spending on my budget (which is admittedly pretty much non-existent). I don't remember the last time I obtained music from bandcamp that wasn't either free or I paid for it (and some of the music I want to pay for I'm willing to spend twice the minimum price). But there are things I am not going to pay for that I may get from other sources. They mostly fall into the category of: I should play/listen/see this to grow in what I consider is culture of the medium (kind of like never playing half-life, or doom1/2; or never listening to the beatles or some other important musician) and this is slowly reducing itself thanks to offering like spotify (which let me listen to some things I won't pay for but want to listen to, or can't pay for but want to listen to).
Books are the lucky medium, I suppose. I have a high tendency to buy one of those, and I barely ever obtain through other methods a book/book series.
While I agree with you, I posses not the skills to start a fork, nor would I want to have that burden on my back. The whole issue about this is there are no developers willing to fork firefox so that Mozilla can go straight towards fulfilling the needs of the average internet user without screwing over their technical/"special needs" users because they would use the fork anyway.
I won't comment on whether or not Mozilla really said that. I read an statement quoted on bugtracker that basically said that we should remove features so that 2% of the user base can't fuck up their browser at the cost of another two percent of users who used the features (but should be using addons [that are generally subpar and thus end up diminishing the experience the user has, and makes it harder to get good metrics/good bug-hunting]), so I don't really know what to think anymore.
Well, they certainly look cheap enough that they could be useful for guerrillas/resitances. Besides, remember that the same knowledge that led to the nuclear bomb also led to advances in other fields (I believe it led to nuclear energy) and advances in physics itself. I don't see how knowledge how to make a firearm that doesn't break couldn't be adapted to some other item that handles explosions/very strong forces. Of course, then one could wonder why the motivational factor to gaining such knowledge is a firearm, but then ask yourself why is the US investing in military research (that will undoubtedly produce technology useful for civilians).
I think wishing that it kills him is a bit too much. Besides, wouldn't terrorists have an R&D group that could do the same this man is doing or more? Unless you mean limited-resources terrorists, but those aren't really the ones we probably need to care about (imo).
Just sharing the love (or the protection from decisions for the sake of everyone): this extension apparently allows you to hide the tab bar complete (didn't check), and this hiding the tab bar when single-tab browsing.
Chances are you can still modify those options through the about:config page (I hope). I'm sure they will argue that if you do want to disable it, you probably can go out of your way to do it in about:config page and thus we can remove it from the options so that unexperienced users don't mess up with the options they shouldn't and then complain it doesn't work.
It's still a strange move (that I don't agree with it). And I've seen the argument above be used.
What would be your instance on hunting? In theory, the hunters try to minimize the suffering of their prey, aiming to get quick, as painless as possible kills.
And easier for the government to get rid of those that don't agree with them by grouping them with terrorist groups. It's so clever it's almost stupidly so, so much that it's quite hard to miss. After all, everyone agrees that we should get rid of terrorists.
What's stagnating art is the notion that people need to always be around people, slowly losing their identity in favor of the group identity. Then again most of the great artist weren't exactly the kind you see being another individual in the crowd: they had their ideas, they explored them, they didn't exactly follow societies rules and ideas.
This video is quite interesting in presenting the point I'm trying to express. And I'm positive there is a field in psychology dealing exactly with how individuals behave in a crowd, how they follow the crowd, and how the take on the identify of the crowd.
Of course. Otherwise it wouldn't be slashdot. Oh, and btw, it was very fun, but man was it frustrating to try to do *anything* in the fight.
Yeah that certainly works. Unless you decide to leave him alone at home, then he won't be that reluctant, will he? I say this as somebody who has the computer in an open room. Just as a little experiment, install some sort of monitoring software, leave him alone and see what he visits. And then proceed to do nothing about it because you shouldn't be having such software there in the first place, except now you know whether or not what you have been trying works or not.
For what it is worth, I think this is one of the best solutions. I read somewhere else where basically the parent managed to gain such respect that even if he was not looking the kid would refuse to browse into certain websites/look for some content (when a friend asked, at least) because the kid thought his dad wouldn't be okay with it, thus he decided against it.
My point was: yeah, they care about profit. Now, are they deciding that to achieve that goal they want H-1B workers because they are cheaper, or because they are perceived to cheaper, or because of what? Yeah, they are profit driven. That does not really explain that they want h-1b workers unless you also consider that they are (or thought to be) cheaper than local population.
What I want then is for real data to be gathered to answer the question. Unless you consider the comments section of slashdot good enough to change/create laws based on its contents? That would seem a little strange, considering the multiple complaints when a politician tries to do the same without fully understanding technology or the internet.
What I would like to know is: why is people from outside willing to take a low-paying job and people from within not willing? Or why does the employer believe that?
If the problem is local people not willing to settle for lower, then I can't really blame the employers for wanting to look for something cheaper (even if it means from the outside). They are, after all, looking for profit.
If the problem is the perception, why does such perception exist? What can potential, local employes do to change that perception?
I guess what I'm trying to ask is: why do they want H-1B workers instead of local? And so far I haven't seen this question answered, at least not outside the speculations of the comment section going "it's all about profit, that's what they care about" which is, well, a given. But why do they think that H-1B workers are a viable strategy for what they are looking for?
I wouldn't like it, that's for sure, and being uploaded to "bestrapes.com" isn't the place I would like to see it (it implies a disrespectful reason why people are going to watch it). But there is a difference between being disrespectful and not talking about things. So while I wouldn't like it, I'm nobody to stop them from watching the video. I can try to persuade them, change their mind, but I can't force them to do so. And that doesn't mean they don't respect me or my mother (in this case). It just means they have a very strong reason (to them, whatever it is) to watch it.
And I certainly wouldn't want a law to be put in place either. I don't know if I effectively get my point across. And I realize I'm kind of putting aside emotional response.
To be honest, while I wouldn't want to see whatever it is that was posted (though I might so I am able to see just where it is regarding to what I allow myself to watch, and to be able to have better opinions), I think that there may be legitimate reasons to post something like this. People may want to expose themselves to this kind of content so that they know just what kind of thing humanity is capable. They might be interested in it as a source of ideas for a book, a movie or a TV series (you know, there is a whole genre around criminals and what they do). Or simply to raise awareness to those that want to listen.*
To be honest, while there are things I wouldn't mind not seeing again and not thinking "somewhere this exists", I believe in freedom of speech. If I were to vote, I would vote against banning such content (unless given a very damn good reason, besides people not liking it). And on the other hand it is because some content exist that I know some of my limits -- what I'm capable of watching and enjoying and what I decide I would rather simply close.
Now, I don't know what the parents may be thinking. Probably something along the lines of "why don't you respect the memory of my child" or something (assuming of course they are against this, which I don't know). But I have no idea how showing the video of the murder is a disrespect if it is what happened and in no way altered. Because that's what happened. Unless they are asking to respect what they want to remember of their child (which doesn't include getting killed), in which case I will disagree with them and disregard their request.
*I'll admit I can't really come up with any reason somebody might want to watch it, or share it (assuming what I've read is accurate). What I came up with sounds shitty to me, too. But I reject "disgusting and unnecessary" or damaging to the family as valid reason to BAN the sharing of such content. If individuals want to take into account those reasons, they are free to do so. If I'm ever found in that position, I'll then face the question whether or not I care enough about the family of the victim and whether or not I'm okay with sharing it with others (I would not deny access to those that explicitly asked and I deemed as valid [so no 12 year old kids asking for it will get it, I'm not that crazy]). Or at least I expect to be able to make that decision instead of being forced by law to act a certain way.
That is mostly a non-issue nowadays if you consider Virtual Machines are a thing (and as far as I know you don't install AMD/NVidia drivers on the VM), and that gog.com is a thing. I do get your point, though.
or is everyone panicking a tad too much?
As far as I can read in the e-mail they send (pics all over the place), you will only have a problem if the ads are to adult websites/content, and not just "having ads".
Relevant Quote: After June 30th 2013, we will be enforcing this policy and will remove blogs which are adult in nature and are displaying advertisements to adult websites.
Of course, I'm aware of the issue of "what kind of ads am I supposed to display, then?". I have no solution for it.
Why are you commenting here? Prove prior art and destroy the patent!
Woops, I meant warn, I MEANT WARN!
Yes, this seems to be a difficulty they may face, and something I would like to see addressed. While I have seen things I would rather have not (and not necessarily related to this topic), I'm not entirely sure I would deem it illegal. Maybe I'm just biased by finding it as something that just comes with the Internet as part of the package. That and as long as it's not shoved in my face I don't really mind it existing*
*of course, child porn/abuse is illegal, so my personal view on it is kind of irrelevant and thus not part of that statement.