Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
That does not follow. What's immoral is to continue to increase energy usage. Some energy sources have more negative effects than other, but they all have negative effects. Those that use long-term stored energy instead of fresh energy from the sun increase surface/atmosphere entropy. No matter how much or little, an increase is the net effect. The only moral solution is to reduce humanity's energy consumption.
See subject (you lose in your theoretical bs too) 0.0.0.0 1f873bb2fed1.hostname.com & 0.0.0.0 2953bfe64711.hostname.com = blocked (up to whatever via DGA tracker lists have changing a source in my APKIniFile.ini (change back once loaded & blocked))
You completely miss the point. You blocked the two examples, but not the possible hosts. The entire point was that they were random. The host name part doesn't exist until generated, at which point it needs to be blocked. When a piece of js generates f4002db3688.hostname.com or any other random hostname in the.hostname.com domain, your hosts file does not have that never-before-seen hostname there.
And this is not just botnets as you seem to think - several ad trackers do the same these days, generating random hostnames, presented in URLs. Not only is it unblockable by fixed name lists, but it also gives them two pieces of information instead of one - both your IP, and the IP of your DNS server. This helps identify where users are, to better present ads that a user might actually click.
And you can do nothing to block them with your host list, because you have no idea what the name is before it is generated by a piece of javascript or server side code.
You don't understand domain names at all. You don't need 4 billion domains. You need one, with any number of subdomains and hosts you want being free. 4 billion, 8 trillion, it doesn't matter. They're all yours for the price of a single domain.
2.) Does my approach work to STOP this threat??
Nope, it does not. That's the problem. You cannot block: 1f873bb2fed1.hostname.com 2953bfe64711.hostname.com... where the first part is randomly generated. These are legal domain names, by the way. Try them.
Because hosts doesn't take wildcards, you would have to enumerate the entire list of possible domains, and with a 63 character limit, you can't find a hard drive big enough to hold all the variations. So your host list is worthless for this, whereas a DNS server, firewall or adblocker can easily block it, because they support wildcards.
Even if you pay $1 per domain & get 255 subdomains over 4 billion, ROI = weak!
You don't get 255 subdomains. Confusing subdomains with class C subnets is worrying if you attempt to sell network-related software.
With a single domain, you get the choice to create as many hostnames and subdomains on the domain as you want. Any number of hostnames or subdomains on a domain won't cost a dime more. What makes this feasible is that DNS servers take wildcard requests. Unlike your hosts file, they don't need an entry for every host, but can use wildcards, like:
.origin foo.ru. * IN A 123.45.67.89
This will resolve any host in the foo.ru domain to the same address. It does not carry any cost per hostname. You don't need to know it in advance. By using a very simple javascript, like what I posted before, the client generates a random hostname. Whatever it is, it can now be looked up in DNS,
You can do nothing to stop this with a hosts file, because you cannot possibly pregenerate every possible random hostname.
And for the record, no I do not use sockpuppets, nor do I post as AC. I have no need to. I don't feel a need to back up my claims with support from others - verifiable and reproducible information doesn't need that kind of support. That others also point out the same "flaws" doesn't mean that they are me. And the number of people who have done so over the years does not necessarily mean that there's something wrong with all of them. There could be a different explanation, just saying...
Randomly generated or not, once a hostname is blocked in hosts, it's blocked & I've even shown Tepples there are DGA lists (where names are generated thus) & I use them - so much for that bs from you.
bs from me? A snippet of javscript code in a web page here shows:
var host = Math.random().toString(16).slice(2,10); var domain = 'thrax.ru'; var url = 'https://' + host + domain + '/js/master.js';
How do you possibly block that with a host list without adding 4 billion entries? Answer HOW, please.
It should be obvious to anyone that it's using a hosts list that can't even handle wildcards like DNS can that's bs.
It also doesn't do diddly squat for blocking URLs like https://translate.google.com/t... Nor domains where some content is good and some is evil. It's all or nothing. Nor randomly generated hostnames like f359db86.evil.com where the attacker points *.evil.com to the same A/AAAA (with a simple 8 nibble address like this, you'd need 4,294,967,296 host names). Nor if using a proxy server that doesn't have a host list, because the proxy server does the resolving. Nor if using a resolver that doesn't have file as the first lookup mechanism. (Mine have "dns [!UNAVAIL=return] files") Nor can it block apk spamming slashdot.
It's almost 2018. You have to be pretty delusional to think that host files blocking is useful today.
Once you do prove the link between radiation and cancer, make sure to contact the Nobel people to claim your prize. You will be the first to have proven this link btw.
H. J. Muller Jr. received the Nobel prize in physmed in 1946 for just that.
Why are anti-nuclear people disappointed to learn that nuclear power hasn't killed more people? Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
Quit that binary thinking. Just quit it, Just because someone points out that there are problems related to nuclear reactors, especially when they fail, does not mean that they are opposed to nuclear power.
What I'm for is that not only adequate but reassuring safeguards are in place, both for production and post-production. Not from an economic standpoint with more insurance and lawyers, but from a worst case standpoint with actual physical safeguards, already existing evacuation and containment and remediation plans. Hopefully things won't go wrong, but with the numerous examples where reactors have gone wrong, more focus on what else to do when things do go wrong seems needed. Admit that there are problems, and don't let that stop us.
Because this is/., the obligatory car analogy is that hust because cars are very safe relative to horseback riding doesn't mean that we should rest on our laurels and say that seat belts and air bags and crumple zones is a waste of money, and that more research into car and road safety isn't useful.
I'm sorry, but most or all of these are classified as class 4 or higher on the IAEA International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. For a class 4 to be declared, one of the criteria is that it must have caused death by radiation poisoning.
What you're pointing to when saying 0 deaths is that none of the individual deaths can be proven to be due to the increased radiation. Much like the tobacco companies claimed that smoking was harmless because you couldn't prove that any individual death was due to smoking. It's just as disingenuous, and is easily refuted by statistics showing that cancer death rates have indeed gone up both in the aftermath of Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Whether one can point to any specific death and conclude that that one death was caused by it is irrelevant. The IAEA looks at the statistics.
As for your claim that one needs to differentiate the reasons for the reactors - why exactly? A reactor that produces electricity and a reactor that enriches plutonium are both reactors, with a risk of radioactive contamination. There have been accidents and releases of radioactive material in both. Quite often the same radioactive materials. And the claim was that reactors was safe, not that electricity producing commercial ones were. Moving the goal posts doesn't help.
Even failed plants, aside from Chernobyl, have not harmed anyone from radiation. Everyone should know that as well, but they don't.
Because it's not true, as in a bloody lie?
Kyshtim, 1957, Estimated 200-8000 fatalities over the years Sellafield, 1957, Estimated 33 cancer deaths Idaho Falls, 1961, 3 dead Jaslovske Bohunice, 1976, 2 dead Three Mile Island, 1979, studies suggest a cancer rate increase of over 60% in affected areas. Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture, 1999, 2 dead, more likely affected Fukushima, 2011, at least 2 dead, more likely affected from radiation poisoning.
A lot of the medical procedures, equipment and medicine Americans now rely on were developed in non-profit universities and research centres in countries with socialized medicine. I'm fairly certain that American medicine depends more on the rest of the world than the other way around.
What's special about the US system is that you pay not only the medical staff, but lawyers, insurance companies, more lawyers, patent holders, more lawyers, stock holders, and a few lawyers too. The $50 hospital aspirin is $50 mostly because of all the lawyers who have to be paid, in case something goes wrong and there's a million dollar lawsuit. "Cover your ass" comes way before "help the patient". But the patient has to pay for the ass coverage.
The problem I see with this reasoning is that taxis provide the same service, so a shift from Taxi to Uber shold not make any change here. If anything, depending on location, taxis often have first aid kits and basic first aid training for all the drivers. Or (again depending on locality) laws preventing them from turning down a fare because a person is leaking.
I am very suspicious of the conclusion drawn that Uber causes lower ambulance usage. I would suggest looking at whether something else could be causing Uber usage to go up and/or ambulance usage to go down. Like, for example, fewer people going to the ER with the vastly increased co-pay prices and shift from full coverage to percentage coverage plans. Or fewer traffic accidents due to more traffic jams. There can be many factors, some right and some wrong, but jumping to the conclusion that Uber is the cause and less ambulance usage is the result seems premature.
Uber drivers should be safe from liability in these cases, unless they're medically trained. Perversely: If trained, they're risking their net worth by helping (some states protect them, but not most).
It depends on where you are. Where I am, only people with current emergency/first aid training credentials are covered by good samaritan laws. Untrained people or those who haven't paid the troll to renew are not. Unsurprisingly, those who provide emergency services for profit are also those who have lobbied those laws through.
Where I originally came from, it was a duty to provide first aid, regardless of skills. Not attempting to provide assistance to someone in dire need was a felony
That puts you above what's common. Where I live, I have the choice between partially crippled cable, overshared and with no bandwidth rate guarantee, and 1.5/384 ADSL (which some politicians consider broadband). And the town politicians dictate who can provide me internet service based on how much they get bribed. I have no choice. It's the one cable provider that pull their strings, or none.
I think you mean 'I guess you dont use SMS to text'
Right. My phone still has the ability to text when I'm connected through wifi and choose to be connected. The point being it being an active choice, not a default one. No one has the right to interrupt me for communication unless I'm on paid watch. If it's not an emergency, and I haven't positively announced that I'm open for communication right now, send me an e-mail or a letter. If it is an emergency, call emergency services.
My Garmin watch lasts about 2 weeks on a single charge
That's inconvenient compared to the years of charge for normal watches. Again, if it's going to be less convenient than what people are accustomed to, it will always be a hard sell. If it's more convenient, it's going to be much easier to sell.
- Wind-up watch to battery run watch you only have to change the battery on every few years: More convenient. - Weight driven wall clock to wall clock driven by mains or long-lived batteries: More convenient. - Pocket watch to wrist watch, where you didn't have to pull out the watch to look at it: More convenient. - Regular watch to nixie tube watches where you had to push a button to see the time: Less convenient. - Regular watch to smart watch that you have to take off and charge every few hours or days days: Less convenient.
A smart device for the other arm, doing different functions than a watch does can be a good sell. But as long as people buy watches primarily to easily tell the time with as little inconvenience as possible, they're fighting an uphill battle.
What do they do about their immune systems? Immune systems are pretty deadly killing machines. Macrophages are pretty impressive
If I understand it correctly, they proscribe more killing, pain or upset to other beings than what is necessary for survival. So they accept that the immune system kills, but will only eat foods with antiseptic properties or "live" food like yoghurt if prescribed by a doctor, because either would be killing other living beings.
I've you've only had broccoli heads or florets from these heads you're missing a real treat. Tender-stem broccoli, or best of all tender-stem broccoli tips are are several notches higher on the taste ladder than 'ordinary' broccoli.
No, if you don't like the bitter plant taste in the first place, you are not going to like it if you serve a variety that has even more of the distasteful sulforaphane and raphanin left intact. It doesn't matter if you like it ten times as much as the most common variety. It's not suddenly going to taste like meat or grain or ginger. It's going to taste like a brassica plant, for the benefit of those who like those tastes in the first place. Not all do.
The only edible preparation of brassica plants for someone who dislikes the taste is to boil it until the distasteful elements break down - at least a couple of hours, and more if you don't discard the harder cooked parts like stems before cooking.
Texts are like phone calls - almost none of them are truly important and cannot wait until a person is near a stationary phone, mailbox or e-mailbox.
The small number of texts that the sender considers critical are usually because the sender screwed up, and doesn't really care, like "I'm going to be late". Well, don't send that, because it discloses that you're incompetent and either can't plan, or can't remediate. Make sure you don't have to send that type of text in the first place. And if you have to, follow etiquette and call the stationary phone of where you're going to be late. Another good one is the confirmation type texts, like "We're meeting at 7, right?". If you don't take something seriously enough to know the time for sure, just don't come.
But the worst things about text messages is that the sender expects rapid response. They should not dictate the time of the recipient. That's just plain rude and pushy.
Trust me, cutting the cell connection was a wonderful liberating experience. People still manage to keep in touch, but if they're not willing to put in a minimum of effort, what they have to say is just not worth it.
It is nice to be able to see who is calling before getting the phone out though, so if it is not important they can go leave a message.
Back when I was chained to a phone, I used different ring tones and vibration patterns.
But the best thing was realizing that few calls are really important. Almost none. So the best decision I made was removing the sim card, and use the phone as an e-book reader.
The Pebble hit it right - it did just enough, and the battery lasted a long time on a charge.
Most of us are used to watches that last years on a battery charge if they use batteries. And you can tell the time with a glance, without touching it. That's why wrist watches won over pocket watches, and if you can't bring that level of convenience with a new product, it won't win either.
Once I get a clock that displays on the inside of my eyelid, I may consider getting rid of my wrist watches. But until then, that's what I'll use for the sheer convenience and dependability, neither of which Smartwatches have.
Speed reading has less backing than anti-vaxers. How people can get through a book in a day or two and call it reading is silly to me.
That's because you judge others by yourself. Studies show that fast readers retain more of the books they read, not less.
The biggest hurdle to reading (and writing) quickly is getting past the barrier of vocalizing words in your head. If you have to do that, you can never become a fast reader who retains the contents well. Learning other languages from books and then reading books in that language is a great way of overcoming that obstacle. So is reading highly technical books. When you don't know the pronunciation, or there isn't one, you are not fettered by the speed of vocalizing, and can apply the same technique to reading your native language too.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
That does not follow. What's immoral is to continue to increase energy usage. Some energy sources have more negative effects than other, but they all have negative effects. Those that use long-term stored energy instead of fresh energy from the sun increase surface/atmosphere entropy. No matter how much or little, an increase is the net effect. The only moral solution is to reduce humanity's energy consumption.
See subject (you lose in your theoretical bs too) 0.0.0.0 1f873bb2fed1.hostname.com & 0.0.0.0 2953bfe64711.hostname.com = blocked (up to whatever via DGA tracker lists have changing a source in my APKIniFile.ini (change back once loaded & blocked))
You completely miss the point. You blocked the two examples, but not the possible hosts. The entire point was that they were random. The host name part doesn't exist until generated, at which point it needs to be blocked. When a piece of js generates f4002db3688.hostname.com or any other random hostname in the .hostname.com domain, your hosts file does not have that never-before-seen hostname there.
And this is not just botnets as you seem to think - several ad trackers do the same these days, generating random hostnames, presented in URLs. Not only is it unblockable by fixed name lists, but it also gives them two pieces of information instead of one - both your IP, and the IP of your DNS server. This helps identify where users are, to better present ads that a user might actually click.
And you can do nothing to block them with your host list, because you have no idea what the name is before it is generated by a piece of javascript or server side code.
1.) How much does 4 billion domains cost
You don't understand domain names at all. You don't need 4 billion domains. You need one, with any number of subdomains and hosts you want being free. 4 billion, 8 trillion, it doesn't matter. They're all yours for the price of a single domain.
2.) Does my approach work to STOP this threat??
Nope, it does not. That's the problem. You cannot block: ... where the first part is randomly generated.
1f873bb2fed1.hostname.com
2953bfe64711.hostname.com
These are legal domain names, by the way. Try them.
Because hosts doesn't take wildcards, you would have to enumerate the entire list of possible domains, and with a 63 character limit, you can't find a hard drive big enough to hold all the variations. So your host list is worthless for this, whereas a DNS server, firewall or adblocker can easily block it, because they support wildcards.
Even if you pay $1 per domain & get 255 subdomains over 4 billion, ROI = weak!
You don't get 255 subdomains. Confusing subdomains with class C subnets is worrying if you attempt to sell network-related software.
With a single domain, you get the choice to create as many hostnames and subdomains on the domain as you want. Any number of hostnames or subdomains on a domain won't cost a dime more. What makes this feasible is that DNS servers take wildcard requests. Unlike your hosts file, they don't need an entry for every host, but can use wildcards, like:
* IN A 123.45.67.89
This will resolve any host in the foo.ru domain to the same address. It does not carry any cost per hostname. You don't need to know it in advance.
By using a very simple javascript, like what I posted before, the client generates a random hostname. Whatever it is, it can now be looked up in DNS,
You can do nothing to stop this with a hosts file, because you cannot possibly pregenerate every possible random hostname.
And for the record, no I do not use sockpuppets, nor do I post as AC. I have no need to. I don't feel a need to back up my claims with support from others - verifiable and reproducible information doesn't need that kind of support. That others also point out the same "flaws" doesn't mean that they are me. And the number of people who have done so over the years does not necessarily mean that there's something wrong with all of them. There could be a different explanation, just saying...
In 1946 Muller was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, "for the discovery that mutations can be induced by x-rays".
And cancers are mutations.
P.S.=> Who cares if hosts don't do wildcards? It's near ZERO EFFORT per my program PLUS?
To generate 4+ billion entries? Lol!
Randomly generated or not, once a hostname is blocked in hosts, it's blocked & I've even shown Tepples there are DGA lists (where names are generated thus) & I use them - so much for that bs from you.
bs from me?
A snippet of javscript code in a web page here shows:
var host = Math.random().toString(16).slice(2,10);
var domain = 'thrax.ru';
var url = 'https://' + host + domain + '/js/master.js';
How do you possibly block that with a host list without adding 4 billion entries? Answer HOW, please.
It should be obvious to anyone that it's using a hosts list that can't even handle wildcards like DNS can that's bs.
It also doesn't do diddly squat for blocking URLs like https://translate.google.com/t...
Nor domains where some content is good and some is evil. It's all or nothing.
Nor randomly generated hostnames like f359db86.evil.com where the attacker points *.evil.com to the same A/AAAA (with a simple 8 nibble address like this, you'd need 4,294,967,296 host names).
Nor if using a proxy server that doesn't have a host list, because the proxy server does the resolving.
Nor if using a resolver that doesn't have file as the first lookup mechanism. (Mine have "dns [!UNAVAIL=return] files")
Nor can it block apk spamming slashdot.
It's almost 2018. You have to be pretty delusional to think that host files blocking is useful today.
I can't see this being a problem for the /. crowd.
Really, who here uses Facebook Messenger, Google Chrome and open ZIP attachments?
Once you do prove the link between radiation and cancer, make sure to contact the Nobel people to claim your prize. You will be the first to have proven this link btw.
H. J. Muller Jr. received the Nobel prize in physmed in 1946 for just that.
I am going to need a credible source for that and not any of that ecowatch bs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
http://www.thelancet.com/journ...
Why are anti-nuclear people disappointed to learn that nuclear power hasn't killed more people? Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
Quit that binary thinking. Just quit it, Just because someone points out that there are problems related to nuclear reactors, especially when they fail, does not mean that they are opposed to nuclear power.
What I'm for is that not only adequate but reassuring safeguards are in place, both for production and post-production. Not from an economic standpoint with more insurance and lawyers, but from a worst case standpoint with actual physical safeguards, already existing evacuation and containment and remediation plans. Hopefully things won't go wrong, but with the numerous examples where reactors have gone wrong, more focus on what else to do when things do go wrong seems needed. Admit that there are problems, and don't let that stop us.
Because this is /., the obligatory car analogy is that hust because cars are very safe relative to horseback riding doesn't mean that we should rest on our laurels and say that seat belts and air bags and crumple zones is a waste of money, and that more research into car and road safety isn't useful.
I'm sorry, but most or all of these are classified as class 4 or higher on the IAEA International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.
For a class 4 to be declared, one of the criteria is that it must have caused death by radiation poisoning.
What you're pointing to when saying 0 deaths is that none of the individual deaths can be proven to be due to the increased radiation. Much like the tobacco companies claimed that smoking was harmless because you couldn't prove that any individual death was due to smoking. It's just as disingenuous, and is easily refuted by statistics showing that cancer death rates have indeed gone up both in the aftermath of Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Whether one can point to any specific death and conclude that that one death was caused by it is irrelevant. The IAEA looks at the statistics.
As for your claim that one needs to differentiate the reasons for the reactors - why exactly? A reactor that produces electricity and a reactor that enriches plutonium are both reactors, with a risk of radioactive contamination. There have been accidents and releases of radioactive material in both. Quite often the same radioactive materials. And the claim was that reactors was safe, not that electricity producing commercial ones were. Moving the goal posts doesn't help.
Even failed plants, aside from Chernobyl, have not harmed anyone from radiation. Everyone should know that as well, but they don't.
Because it's not true, as in a bloody lie?
Kyshtim, 1957, Estimated 200-8000 fatalities over the years
Sellafield, 1957, Estimated 33 cancer deaths
Idaho Falls, 1961, 3 dead
Jaslovske Bohunice, 1976, 2 dead
Three Mile Island, 1979, studies suggest a cancer rate increase of over 60% in affected areas.
Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture, 1999, 2 dead, more likely affected
Fukushima, 2011, at least 2 dead, more likely affected from radiation poisoning.
A lot of the medical procedures, equipment and medicine Americans now rely on were developed in non-profit universities and research centres in countries with socialized medicine. I'm fairly certain that American medicine depends more on the rest of the world than the other way around.
What's special about the US system is that you pay not only the medical staff, but lawyers, insurance companies, more lawyers, patent holders, more lawyers, stock holders, and a few lawyers too. The $50 hospital aspirin is $50 mostly because of all the lawyers who have to be paid, in case something goes wrong and there's a million dollar lawsuit.
"Cover your ass" comes way before "help the patient". But the patient has to pay for the ass coverage.
The problem I see with this reasoning is that taxis provide the same service, so a shift from Taxi to Uber shold not make any change here.
If anything, depending on location, taxis often have first aid kits and basic first aid training for all the drivers. Or (again depending on locality) laws preventing them from turning down a fare because a person is leaking.
I am very suspicious of the conclusion drawn that Uber causes lower ambulance usage. I would suggest looking at whether something else could be causing Uber usage to go up and/or ambulance usage to go down. Like, for example, fewer people going to the ER with the vastly increased co-pay prices and shift from full coverage to percentage coverage plans. Or fewer traffic accidents due to more traffic jams. There can be many factors, some right and some wrong, but jumping to the conclusion that Uber is the cause and less ambulance usage is the result seems premature.
Uber drivers should be safe from liability in these cases, unless they're medically trained. Perversely: If trained, they're risking their net worth by helping (some states protect them, but not most).
It depends on where you are. Where I am, only people with current emergency/first aid training credentials are covered by good samaritan laws. Untrained people or those who haven't paid the troll to renew are not. Unsurprisingly, those who provide emergency services for profit are also those who have lobbied those laws through.
Where I originally came from, it was a duty to provide first aid, regardless of skills. Not attempting to provide assistance to someone in dire need was a felony
I do have 3-4 local broadband options
That puts you above what's common.
Where I live, I have the choice between partially crippled cable, overshared and with no bandwidth rate guarantee, and 1.5/384 ADSL (which some politicians consider broadband).
And the town politicians dictate who can provide me internet service based on how much they get bribed. I have no choice. It's the one cable provider that pull their strings, or none.
I think you mean 'I guess you dont use SMS to text'
Right. My phone still has the ability to text when I'm connected through wifi and choose to be connected. The point being it being an active choice, not a default one.
No one has the right to interrupt me for communication unless I'm on paid watch. If it's not an emergency, and I haven't positively announced that I'm open for communication right now, send me an e-mail or a letter. If it is an emergency, call emergency services.
My Garmin watch lasts about 2 weeks on a single charge
That's inconvenient compared to the years of charge for normal watches.
Again, if it's going to be less convenient than what people are accustomed to, it will always be a hard sell. If it's more convenient, it's going to be much easier to sell.
- Wind-up watch to battery run watch you only have to change the battery on every few years: More convenient.
- Weight driven wall clock to wall clock driven by mains or long-lived batteries: More convenient.
- Pocket watch to wrist watch, where you didn't have to pull out the watch to look at it: More convenient.
- Regular watch to nixie tube watches where you had to push a button to see the time: Less convenient.
- Regular watch to smart watch that you have to take off and charge every few hours or days days: Less convenient.
A smart device for the other arm, doing different functions than a watch does can be a good sell. But as long as people buy watches primarily to easily tell the time with as little inconvenience as possible, they're fighting an uphill battle.
What do they do about their immune systems? Immune systems are pretty deadly killing machines. Macrophages are pretty impressive
If I understand it correctly, they proscribe more killing, pain or upset to other beings than what is necessary for survival. So they accept that the immune system kills, but will only eat foods with antiseptic properties or "live" food like yoghurt if prescribed by a doctor, because either would be killing other living beings.
I've you've only had broccoli heads or florets from these heads you're missing a real treat. Tender-stem broccoli, or best of all tender-stem broccoli tips are are several notches higher on the taste ladder than 'ordinary' broccoli.
No, if you don't like the bitter plant taste in the first place, you are not going to like it if you serve a variety that has even more of the distasteful sulforaphane and raphanin left intact. It doesn't matter if you like it ten times as much as the most common variety. It's not suddenly going to taste like meat or grain or ginger. It's going to taste like a brassica plant, for the benefit of those who like those tastes in the first place. Not all do.
The only edible preparation of brassica plants for someone who dislikes the taste is to boil it until the distasteful elements break down - at least a couple of hours, and more if you don't discard the harder cooked parts like stems before cooking.
I guess you don't text?
Texts are like phone calls - almost none of them are truly important and cannot wait until a person is near a stationary phone, mailbox or e-mailbox.
The small number of texts that the sender considers critical are usually because the sender screwed up, and doesn't really care, like "I'm going to be late". Well, don't send that, because it discloses that you're incompetent and either can't plan, or can't remediate. Make sure you don't have to send that type of text in the first place. And if you have to, follow etiquette and call the stationary phone of where you're going to be late.
Another good one is the confirmation type texts, like "We're meeting at 7, right?". If you don't take something seriously enough to know the time for sure, just don't come.
But the worst things about text messages is that the sender expects rapid response. They should not dictate the time of the recipient. That's just plain rude and pushy.
Trust me, cutting the cell connection was a wonderful liberating experience. People still manage to keep in touch, but if they're not willing to put in a minimum of effort, what they have to say is just not worth it.
It is nice to be able to see who is calling before getting the phone out though, so if it is not important they can go leave a message.
Back when I was chained to a phone, I used different ring tones and vibration patterns.
But the best thing was realizing that few calls are really important. Almost none. So the best decision I made was removing the sim card, and use the phone as an e-book reader.
The Pebble hit it right - it did just enough, and the battery lasted a long time on a charge.
Most of us are used to watches that last years on a battery charge if they use batteries.
And you can tell the time with a glance, without touching it. That's why wrist watches won over pocket watches, and if you can't bring that level of convenience with a new product, it won't win either.
Once I get a clock that displays on the inside of my eyelid, I may consider getting rid of my wrist watches. But until then, that's what I'll use for the sheer convenience and dependability, neither of which Smartwatches have.
Speed reading has less backing than anti-vaxers. How people can get through a book in a day or two and call it reading is silly to me.
That's because you judge others by yourself. Studies show that fast readers retain more of the books they read, not less.
The biggest hurdle to reading (and writing) quickly is getting past the barrier of vocalizing words in your head. If you have to do that, you can never become a fast reader who retains the contents well. Learning other languages from books and then reading books in that language is a great way of overcoming that obstacle. So is reading highly technical books. When you don't know the pronunciation, or there isn't one, you are not fettered by the speed of vocalizing, and can apply the same technique to reading your native language too.