So, ~312 times more data than I have on one of my computers today, which is ~312 times more data than I had on one of my computers 10 years ago. Saying someone has "too much" data when your only measure is the byte size is a bit of an oversimplification. And it's not exactly easy to meet demand if you can't analyze your traffic to figure out where the demand is coming from.
I like my privacy, but the idea that a phone company wouldn't aggregate data about calls made on its system is just naive. What about a shipping company? Should they just guess how many trucks they're likely to need? "Looks like we've got a crapload of boxes piling up.. we should probably order more trucks."
That's the problem with voluntary compliance. If most people comply, it means anyone who doesn't is suspicious by default. Further, most people are inclined to be (or be viewed as) cooperative and helpful, especially toward authority figures. In my opinion, law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to perform a search or siezure (beyond a Terry Stop or items in plain sight) without a warrant, period.
Interesting.. thanks for that. So it seems his termination was illegal, especially in light of this:
An employee who is discharged because of his participation, on his own time, in lawful political or recreational activities can bring an action against his employer for damages and equitable relief. If you believe you have been discharged because of your involvement in such legitimate pursuits, you should consult your attorney to discuss possible legal action and report the circumstances of your discharge to the Attorney General, who also has jurisdiction to seek injunctive relief and penalties against your employer. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/labor/fired.html
I think it could also be argued that the current practice of approving 99.9x% of warrants is contributing to the climate in law enforcement where getting a warrant is almost deemed optional.
Either that, or law enforcement is just really good at their job. But you'd think, just as a matter of human error, that at least some requests would be legally groundless.
DR 2-108 [1200.13] Agreements Restricting the Practice of a Lawyer.
A. A lawyer shall not be a party to or participate in a partnership or employment agreement with another lawyer that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice law after the termination of a relationship created by the agreement, except as a condition to payment of retirement benefits.
B. In connection with the settlement of a controversy or suit, a lawyer shall not enter into an agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice law.
Non-competes are also explicitly disallowed by the bar, at least in CA, meaning lawyers are exempt. (Actually it means they're not allowed to agree to them in the first place).
Rule 1-500. Agreements Restricting a Member's Practice.
But that's only after the fact. While his firm is representing a client, they have an obligation to behave in a manner befitting the interests of their client.
Except lawyers are held to a higher standard. They must comply with the legal code of ethics for the state in which they practice. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/listing.html) Failure to abide by those standards can result in disbarrment, and is grounds for a malpractice suit. If they currently represent clients whose interests are in direct opposition to the position publicly stated by this guy, the firm itself could have been liable. At least, that's my understanding after reading a few of them.
I think a lawyer can argue mitigating circumstances after the fact, but advocating or inciting violation of the law is illegal in most states. Civil disobedience is defensible, but advocating it is not likely to be.
Regardless, publicly advocating a position in direct conflict with the interests of a client may violate the letter or spirit of the legal code of ethics. (Each state bar has its own.) If so, the firm would essentially be required to fire him to avoid a malpractice suit.
(IANAL and this is not legal advice; just my opinion based on my limited knowledge of the relevant facts).
Fortunately, they sent out notices to alert people about the potential problem. I just received mine.
TO: Johnathan L. Doe 227-08-1234 (Son of Doe, Jane Anderson since 12/16/80) 145 Average Ln. Anywhere, ST 90000-0009 V/4129 0003 2183 7979 EXP 08/09 FIRST LOCAL CREDIT UNION
If you are not Mr. Doe, PIN 6821, please disregard this letter. Address correction requested. TYPE AB POSITIVE Important information enclosed. Ledger balance: $14,293.23
It's tempting to try to try to grasp at others imagined inconsistencies when you yourself know deep down the inconsistency in yourself. You try to tell yourself that you are against inflicting torturous suffering for no good reason, but then you can't give up your little addiction to the yummy taste of burgers or the nice feel of wearing leather shoes etc.
It's just a joke. It's okay to kill ugly animals, for any reason?!? If you took me seriously, you're seriously stupid.
It's okay to kill animals that aren't cute, for any reason. For example, the Almiqui, this mole, the opossum, and most toads. You won't see any of those on the PETA website. All bugs fall into the ugly category (except butterflies.. awwww), so it's fine to kill them.
The most obvious problem is that any measure of the qualifications to vote would be subject to discrimination by the administrators of such a test. Moreover, voting is a right, not a privilege. The uneducated and unintelligent (by whatever arbitrary measure you would use) have just as much of a right to be heard as anyone else. The problem is that these people don't always make good choices. Neither do intelligent people. That's part of the price we pay to have a part in our own government.
The problem is that eat well and exercise to get skinny has been pretty well debunked by huge portions of the population.
You mean except for people who actually lost weight:
Participants were asked questions about how they achieved their weight loss, and the researchers who maintain the NWCR found that: 89 percent changed their diets and increased physical activity (10 percent used diet modification only and one percent used activity only). http://obesity.org/treatment/weight.shtml
If it was really that easy, most people would be skinny.
You're equating easy with simple, but they're not the same. Driving a car is easy, but it's not simple. Picking up 50lbs (coincidentally, exercise) is simple, but not necessarily easy. I never said it was easy to maintain a healthy lifestyle (and I certainly know how easy it is to not do so), but it's still simple.
Anyone who's ever been in the military can verify the effectiveness of enforced diet and exercise. The problem is that most people don't have the self-discipline to maintain such a regimen. It's like anything else in life.. if there are no short-term consequences or rewards, it either gets procrastinated or avoided entirely. Anyway, nothing worth achieving is ever easy.
I just explained why that's not true. That you choose to ignore relevant aspects (i.e., the costs to society at large) is not a valid argument for your isolationist outlook.
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 1
Fat's not good for you, but I'll wager it's better for you than sugar.
Right. Additionally, at least one study suggests that it's necessary to eat fat to burn fat, due to the enzymes involved.
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 1
So by rare, you mean extreamly common? Of all the thin and fat people I have known, actually working out was slightly more common for fat people.
I said the rarity (or commonality) of thin people who don't work out is likely equal to the rarity (or commonality) of large people who do work out.
Of all the thin and fat people I have known, actually working out was slightly more common for fat people.
Of all the thin and fat people I have known, actually working out was vastly less common for fat people. There. My anecdotal evidence cancels out yours. (I'm not making that up either. We have a $1500 pool at work [$100 per contestant, two categories]. Most of my coworkers (and myself) are overweight, and most of us do not exercise.) But that's why anecdotal evidence, while useful, is not a valid basis for a scientific argument. When you have some empiracle evidence, I'll be happy to hear it.
genetics makes up a lot of it too. . . . Of course your parents size would increase your likely hood to be fat/thin. It would be absurd to think that genetics plays a significant roll in a persons height, and not width.
It is commonly acknowledged that genetics increase or decrease the susceptibility to obesity, but that does not equate it to height. Fat != bone, no matter how you spin it. Moreover, given pure chance, it's equally likely that someone will be genetically inclined to be thin no matter what as it is that someone will be genetically inclined to be obese no matter what. The majority of people fall somewhere in the middle, where personal habits play the largest role.
This means that per our current definition of "obease", I become more obease the more I work out.
No, the current definition of obese is related to BMI, or percent of body fat. If you strictly gained more muscle mass, you would become less obese by current standards.
Having the government and schools convincing the poplulous that high sugar diets are healthy doesn't help.
I haven't seen any such campaign promoting a sugary diet. On the contrary,corn syrup is widely recognized to be a significant source of both unnessecary calories (you need more of it to get a "sweet" flavor than alternatives including cane or beet sugar), an appetite stimulant and a possible contributor, directly and indirectly, to obesity and heart disease. (Quick source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_syrup)
Re:Conservation of energy revoked?
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Answering ignorance with ignorance is rarely an effective strategy.
The fact is that real science exists, and it clearly shows that
a) Obesity is a chronic health condition b) Treatment is available and the most effective method (statistically) requires the individual to.. you know. Exercise and eat healthy. c) Any reduction in weight, regardless of method, has a direct correlation with reduced risk of comorbid disease.
That "very interesting science" is being done does not conflict with existing medical and scientific wisdom.
The only similarity I see to ID is believing that (previously) unexplained exceptions invalidate the general conclusion. IE, "There's no evolutionary ancestor known for the platypus, so evolution is false" = "A virus is common among obese persons, so personal habits must not be the cause."
I'm with the other poster who suggested that all of you shouting "it's fatso's fault that he's fat" without considering the evidence are just as bad as the ID people who refuse to even consider the evidence.
Similarly, ignoring well established evidence as to the causes and methods of treating obesity, and using rare exceptions as a rationale to avoid personal responsibility is just as bad as the ID people who say "You can't find the link between specimen A and specimen B, so evolution must be false." Diet and exercise are not the only treatment, nor will they be effective for 100% of the population. They are effective for the overwhelming majority of people, but alternative treatment (including surgery) is equally effective at reducing the morbid risks of obesity. http://obesity.org/treatment/cost.shtml
I would argue that we're being too politically correct, and not addressing obesity as the problem that it is. The reason that saying (more reasonably) "you must take personal responsibility for your weight," has been ineffective is not because the words have no effect, but because too few people are saying it, to the point that anyone who does say it can be labled as judgemental and intolerant of others.
Of course, that's only the beginning. Fortunately (and the only redeeming quality of reality TV thus far, IMHO) shows such as "The Biggest Loser" show people effective strategies for affecting their physique and adopting a healthy lifestyle. Perhaps equally important, they provide role models that people can relate to; not celebs/models who "are and always were" thin, but normal people who take measures to increase their health.
When a health problem becomes epidemic, then yes, it is everyone's problem. Weight may not be contagious in the traditional sense, but it's psychologically contagious in the sense that seeing obesity everywhere makes it "ok." Should you be singled out individually? Of course not. But it must be recognized that any societial change involves a bunch of individuals doing their part.
Still, that's not the only reason. Obesity is directly and indirectly responsible for over 12% of healthcare costs in the U.S., according to a study done seven years ago. (Source: http://www.obesity.org/treatment/cost.shtml) Since that time, the prevelance of obesity has only increased in the US.
At this point, we have a clear understanding that:
obesity causes many major health conditions, such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease,
obesity causes high level of both direct and indirect health care expenditures, and
weight loss interventions are effective in both reducing weight and in the reduction of comorbid conditions.
Source: Same as above.
Whether or not people care if their friends and family are more likely to die from preventable causes (which, I assume, they probably do), everyone who pays for health insurance has a stake, and a legitimate reason to be concerned about the health risks of others involved. Once again, I'm not singling you out, but saying nobody has a reason to care about the problem in general is simplistic and shortsighted. Yes, we're all individuals, but nobody exists in a vacuum, no man is an island, etc.
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 1
Thin people who never exercise and eat whatever they want are just as much of a rarity as fat people who eat responsibly and work out.
At least, they could be just as rare. My evidence (none) is just as plentiful as your evidence to the contrary. But at least probability agrees with me.
Slashdot Mirror
So, ~312 times more data than I have on one of my computers today, which is ~312 times more data than I had on one of my computers 10 years ago. Saying someone has "too much" data when your only measure is the byte size is a bit of an oversimplification. And it's not exactly easy to meet demand if you can't analyze your traffic to figure out where the demand is coming from.
I like my privacy, but the idea that a phone company wouldn't aggregate data about calls made on its system is just naive. What about a shipping company? Should they just guess how many trucks they're likely to need? "Looks like we've got a crapload of boxes piling up.. we should probably order more trucks."
a) They're not suing directly; they're just providing the lawyers.
b) The target of this lawsuit is AT&T, not the NSA.
That's the problem with voluntary compliance. If most people comply, it means anyone who doesn't is suspicious by default. Further, most people are inclined to be (or be viewed as) cooperative and helpful, especially toward authority figures. In my opinion, law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to perform a search or siezure (beyond a Terry Stop or items in plain sight) without a warrant, period.
I think it could also be argued that the current practice of approving 99.9x% of warrants is contributing to the climate in law enforcement where getting a warrant is almost deemed optional.
Either that, or law enforcement is just really good at their job. But you'd think, just as a matter of human error, that at least some requests would be legally groundless.
But you were made in China?!?
Except lawyers are held to a higher standard. They must comply with the legal code of ethics for the state in which they practice. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/listing.html) Failure to abide by those standards can result in disbarrment, and is grounds for a malpractice suit. If they currently represent clients whose interests are in direct opposition to the position publicly stated by this guy, the firm itself could have been liable. At least, that's my understanding after reading a few of them.
I think a lawyer can argue mitigating circumstances after the fact, but advocating or inciting violation of the law is illegal in most states. Civil disobedience is defensible, but advocating it is not likely to be.
Regardless, publicly advocating a position in direct conflict with the interests of a client may violate the letter or spirit of the legal code of ethics. (Each state bar has its own.) If so, the firm would essentially be required to fire him to avoid a malpractice suit.
(IANAL and this is not legal advice; just my opinion based on my limited knowledge of the relevant facts).
I'm not sure. I'll try it and let you know, because I was getting sick of being employed anyway.
It's tempting to try to try to grasp at others imagined inconsistencies when you yourself know deep down the inconsistency in yourself. You try to tell yourself that you are against inflicting torturous suffering for no good reason, but then you can't give up your little addiction to the yummy taste of burgers or the nice feel of wearing leather shoes etc.
It's just a joke. It's okay to kill ugly animals, for any reason?!? If you took me seriously, you're seriously stupid.
It's okay to kill animals that aren't cute, for any reason. For example, the Almiqui, this mole, the opossum, and most toads. You won't see any of those on the PETA website. All bugs fall into the ugly category (except butterflies.. awwww), so it's fine to kill them.
Actually, there are quite a few below legal drinking age. Whether you want to call them adults or not is a matter of preference I suppose.
The most obvious problem is that any measure of the qualifications to vote would be subject to discrimination by the administrators of such a test. Moreover, voting is a right, not a privilege. The uneducated and unintelligent (by whatever arbitrary measure you would use) have just as much of a right to be heard as anyone else. The problem is that these people don't always make good choices. Neither do intelligent people. That's part of the price we pay to have a part in our own government.
You mean except for people who actually lost weight:
If it was really that easy, most people would be skinny.
You're equating easy with simple, but they're not the same. Driving a car is easy, but it's not simple. Picking up 50lbs (coincidentally, exercise) is simple, but not necessarily easy. I never said it was easy to maintain a healthy lifestyle (and I certainly know how easy it is to not do so), but it's still simple.
Anyone who's ever been in the military can verify the effectiveness of enforced diet and exercise. The problem is that most people don't have the self-discipline to maintain such a regimen. It's like anything else in life.. if there are no short-term consequences or rewards, it either gets procrastinated or avoided entirely. Anyway, nothing worth achieving is ever easy.
I just explained why that's not true. That you choose to ignore relevant aspects (i.e., the costs to society at large) is not a valid argument for your isolationist outlook.
Fat's not good for you, but I'll wager it's better for you than sugar.
Right. Additionally, at least one study suggests that it's necessary to eat fat to burn fat, due to the enzymes involved.
So by rare, you mean extreamly common? Of all the thin and fat people I have known, actually working out was slightly more common for fat people.
I said the rarity (or commonality) of thin people who don't work out is likely equal to the rarity (or commonality) of large people who do work out.
Of all the thin and fat people I have known, actually working out was slightly more common for fat people.
Of all the thin and fat people I have known, actually working out was vastly less common for fat people. There. My anecdotal evidence cancels out yours. (I'm not making that up either. We have a $1500 pool at work [$100 per contestant, two categories]. Most of my coworkers (and myself) are overweight, and most of us do not exercise.) But that's why anecdotal evidence, while useful, is not a valid basis for a scientific argument. When you have some empiracle evidence, I'll be happy to hear it.
genetics makes up a lot of it too. . . . Of course your parents size would increase your likely hood to be fat/thin. It would be absurd to think that genetics plays a significant roll in a persons height, and not width.
It is commonly acknowledged that genetics increase or decrease the susceptibility to obesity, but that does not equate it to height. Fat != bone, no matter how you spin it. Moreover, given pure chance, it's equally likely that someone will be genetically inclined to be thin no matter what as it is that someone will be genetically inclined to be obese no matter what. The majority of people fall somewhere in the middle, where personal habits play the largest role.
This means that per our current definition of "obease", I become more obease the more I work out.
No, the current definition of obese is related to BMI, or percent of body fat. If you strictly gained more muscle mass, you would become less obese by current standards.
Having the government and schools convincing the poplulous that high sugar diets are healthy doesn't help.
I haven't seen any such campaign promoting a sugary diet. On the contrary,corn syrup is widely recognized to be a significant source of both unnessecary calories (you need more of it to get a "sweet" flavor than alternatives including cane or beet sugar), an appetite stimulant and a possible contributor, directly and indirectly, to obesity and heart disease. (Quick source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_syrup)
Answering ignorance with ignorance is rarely an effective strategy.
The fact is that real science exists, and it clearly shows that
a) Obesity is a chronic health condition
b) Treatment is available and the most effective method (statistically) requires the individual to.. you know. Exercise and eat healthy.
c) Any reduction in weight, regardless of method, has a direct correlation with reduced risk of comorbid disease.
That "very interesting science" is being done does not conflict with existing medical and scientific wisdom.
The only similarity I see to ID is believing that (previously) unexplained exceptions invalidate the general conclusion. IE, "There's no evolutionary ancestor known for the platypus, so evolution is false" = "A virus is common among obese persons, so personal habits must not be the cause."
I'm with the other poster who suggested that all of you shouting "it's fatso's fault that he's fat" without considering the evidence are just as bad as the ID people who refuse to even consider the evidence.
Similarly, ignoring well established evidence as to the causes and methods of treating obesity, and using rare exceptions as a rationale to avoid personal responsibility is just as bad as the ID people who say "You can't find the link between specimen A and specimen B, so evolution must be false." Diet and exercise are not the only treatment, nor will they be effective for 100% of the population. They are effective for the overwhelming majority of people, but alternative treatment (including surgery) is equally effective at reducing the morbid risks of obesity. http://obesity.org/treatment/cost.shtml
I would argue that we're being too politically correct, and not addressing obesity as the problem that it is. The reason that saying (more reasonably) "you must take personal responsibility for your weight," has been ineffective is not because the words have no effect, but because too few people are saying it, to the point that anyone who does say it can be labled as judgemental and intolerant of others.
Of course, that's only the beginning. Fortunately (and the only redeeming quality of reality TV thus far, IMHO) shows such as "The Biggest Loser" show people effective strategies for affecting their physique and adopting a healthy lifestyle. Perhaps equally important, they provide role models that people can relate to; not celebs/models who "are and always were" thin, but normal people who take measures to increase their health.
Still, that's not the only reason. Obesity is directly and indirectly responsible for over 12% of healthcare costs in the U.S., according to a study done seven years ago. (Source: http://www.obesity.org/treatment/cost.shtml) Since that time, the prevelance of obesity has only increased in the US.Whether or not people care if their friends and family are more likely to die from preventable causes (which, I assume, they probably do), everyone who pays for health insurance has a stake, and a legitimate reason to be concerned about the health risks of others involved. Once again, I'm not singling you out, but saying nobody has a reason to care about the problem in general is simplistic and shortsighted. Yes, we're all individuals, but nobody exists in a vacuum, no man is an island, etc.
0 for me. That brings the average to 1000.
Anyone else?
Thin people who never exercise and eat whatever they want are just as much of a rarity as fat people who eat responsibly and work out.
At least, they could be just as rare. My evidence (none) is just as plentiful as your evidence to the contrary. But at least probability agrees with me.