The lion and the eagle don't pump their meat full of drugs before they eat it.
The lion and the eagle don't cook their food either. Nor do they make tasty little casseroles or salads. Also they have to live out in the open with only trees for shelter, they don't store water in case of draught, they don't build fires to keep warm, and they don't sew up their wounds.
OTOH, tobacco is natural, but I'm not going to put it in my mouth or lungs. Cocaine is natural, but I'm not going to put it up my nose. Crabs are natural, but I don't want them hanging out in my crotchal region.
It may be true that modern processed animals are unhealthy, unnatural, or both, but it's a logical fallicy to say things are unhealthy because they're unnatural.
Modern slaughterhouses run their line speeds at rates that are too fast for the meat packers to assure that they aren't cutting into the intestines of the cows. Every time they do so, more bacteria enters our beef supply.
That's only part of it.. the bacteria generally only grows on the (muscle) meat that's been exposed, which makes ground beef particularly hazardous since all of it has been exposed; the exterior has been mixed with the interior. A steak OTOH can be lightly cooked on the outside with a reasonable guarantee that the inside is still bacteria free.
So, for an extra $100, I get the exact same controller except with no wire, and the smallest hard drive still in production? Where do I sign up?
Seems like you'd have to be an idiot to buy the more expensive version, unless it's impossible to install a normal hard drive, which seems unlikely since custom hard drives would quite likely double the production costs. How much are wireless controllers going for these days? $40?
Then again, never underestimate the buying power of idiots...
That's why I encrypt personal files, and why password-based encryption of folders should be commonplace and a promoted feature of any modern OS. The same reason they make valet keys that don't open the trunk.. because sooner or later, most people will have to put their computer/car in someone else's hands.
Well put. I have the same view of RF scans in airports. They're even one step removed as you're not seeing skin through the visible spectrum; rather something akin to night vision. Bodies aren't particularly private just because we call them "private parts," and Puritanical moral standards shouldn't be confused with real privacy issues, i.e. political beliefs, what you read, what you purchase, what you say in the privacy of your home, where you go, etc. The shape of our physical shells is probably the least important part of what makes us human, but we tend to place the greatest emphasis on it in all aspects of society.
You obviously feel some affection for "Noni," (did you make that up yourself?), and I know people don't want to believe bad things about people they like. But it's perfectly reasonable that celebrities be held to the same standard of law as everyone else. Even if one believes that the DA had ulterior motives other than, say, just filing charges against a suspect, the DA didn't convict her -- the jury did. Shoplifting is such a minor charge that she should've just plea bargained in the first place, especially considering the DA never sought jail time.
It's possible that I'm just talking crazy, and there really was a huge consipracy within the justice system to frame a celebrity for something only slightly worse than a parking ticket. But all things being equal, I tend to think she was just using the trial for some free publicity, and to bolster her card carrying fan base. Looks like it worked.
Senior intelligence officials are quoted as saying, "It was just supposed to be a harmless joke. Nobody thought the President would actually believe Iran was stockpiling trousers." Iranian officials, however, are not laughing.
I suspect at least some of these numbers can be attributed to people playing with IE7 in MS Vista Beta 1. Although it wasn't released until late in the month, so that certainly couldn't be the sole reason for the switch.
The only piece of Apple sanctioned hardware that I use with OS X is the CPU/motherboard itself. The wireless Bluetooth mouse, Bluetooth cellphone, external Firewire HDD's, external Firewire DVD, OEM ATI Radeon video card, external USB printer, Linksys/Cisco wireless network base station, non-Apple LCD monitor, USB pen drive, etc. and EVERYTHING works perfectly with OS X (I am running 10.4.2).
We're talking about the x86 architecture here. I got OS x86 to boot fine, but alas, it doesn't support a keyboard connected to the PS/2 port. Little things like that tend to put a damper on functionality.
Some friends and I were in Townsville a few years ago.. One of them rented a car and drove to Cairns for a couple of days to do some diving. Later he mentioned how nobody seems to speed, and he had been flying past all of them. He also mentioned seeing yellow boxes all over the place on the side of the road. He just assumed they were emergency telephones or something. A couple of months later, a bill from the rental company showed up on his credit card for $3,000US. He called the rental company to ask them about it, and they said the car had been issued 35 speeding tickets on the weekend he had rented the car. It was then that he realized that the yellow boxes were cameras. Expensive lesson.
There are some circumstances where speeding is simply not acceptable, such as residential areas. However, most interstate highways (in the US anyway) are easily traversable at speeds in excess of 100, with a few exceptions. Driving fast is not, in and of itself, a cause of crashes. In Germany, for example, traffic fatalities in 2004 were 7.1 per 100,000. Meanwhile, with our "life saving" speed limits in the US, our traffic fatalities in 2003 (most recent data) were more than double that at 14.66 per 100,000. Clearly it's possible for people to drive fast without a higher number of fatalities.
Driving is an inherently risky activity, and it's impossible to remove all human error without removing humans. I just don't believe that speed limits are much more than an inconvenience and a cycle of tickets funding enforcement and government. If there are more accidents when people are speeding, I believe it's because they haven't had proper training; speed limits don't generally let anyone come close to approaching the limits of their vehicles' abilities, and it gives people the illusion that they can make any turn at any speed and stop on a dime. Furthermore, people tend to focus more when driving faster because they don't get lulled by the relaxing pace of 55MPH. People who are reckless will be reckless regardless of the law; it's just an inconvenience for the rest of us. But that's just my opinion.
Few people realize that ethernet signals also travel on the left. I've been silently protesting this outrage for years by connecting crossover adapters to both ends of my Cat-5. I urge freedom-loving citizens everywhere to do the same.
Oops.. I based my energy costs on living on an island where my average power bill is $200/mo. It would be considerably less for someone on the mainland. But we don't use no stinkin DST here anyway.. The days are pretty close to 12 hours long year-round in the tropics, and dawn/dusk are considerably shorter.
Studies done by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time.
Hey, if we extend it to go year-round, we can save an extra 160%!
160% of one day's worth of energy.. even so, if the effects were the same year-round, the total conservation would be 1% of one year's worth of electricity. So.. like $20 per person, or 7 gallons of gas or something. Hardly worth the effort.
You could get far better energy savings by mandating a minimum MPG for passenger vehicles or telling everyone to turn out the lights at night to prevent a terrorist attack.
Bill Gates reputed has about $40 billion. If he used it to buy 20 billion gallons of gasoline and burned it all in a huge bonfire, by your argument it would not be wasteful as long as he thought it was worth it. Right?
I'd pay to see that.
Crap, I bet that's his plan.. have a giant bonfire and get the world to pay for it by buying tickets.
That way you don't know WHICH pervert is selling the naked pictures of your daughter on the Internet. If someone wants to search me, they had better have probable cause, and a warrant SIGNED BY A JUDGE! Otherwise, it's an illegal invasion of my privacy and I will respond as if it were an attack.
Look, the "save the children" argument is wearing a little thin.
Anonymity by definition is not an invasion of privacy, but the maintainance of that privacy. It's not only that I wouldn't know who was looking at me, but rather that they wouldn't know who I was. These devices don't produce an image which is anything like a photograph; merely an outline of skin. Aside from that, the obsessive paranoia about nudity and sexuality in America is what drives the market for deviant voyeur-types in the first place.
To be honest I really don't care if you don't mind all this intrusion. I mind. Not being able to go out in public places without the risk that some guy in a uniform who doesn't like the look of you, can stop you at random, shake you down, grope you, exert his power trip over you, demand your papers, look at your private possesions is simply not what supposedly free countries are about.
I think you misinterpreted me, or I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't mind, but rather that I don't believe these particular searches are a violation of civil liberties. You're free to shout "The sky is falling! Where are zee papers!" but how about stating which civil liberty is being violated, and how? Police aren't searching people walking around; they're searching people who use mass transporation. They aren't forcing people to be searched, and, according to reports, you're free to leave if you don't wish to submit to a search. That's a far cry from getting pulled over, where the policy is essentially "Let us search your car or we'll just call in for a warrant." Many jurisdictions even permit officers to perform random "DUI stops," on any vehicle on the roads after a certain hour, regardless of whether or not the stop is otherwise justified.
Look, I'm all for the preservation of civil liberties, I just think you're barking up the wrong tree on this issue. I'm far more troubled by the loss of haebus corpus for anyone deemed an enemy combatant. Or the idea of a national ID card. Or the "no fly list," where someone is essentially punished for a crime he might commit. The Patriot Act. The DMCA. The virtually unrestricted authority weilded by the Office of Homeland Security. In this case however, there's a long and established precedent for searches at public gatherings. At the very least this suggests that courts have not found anything unconstitutional about these searches.
Is it possible people will become acclimitized to these searches and willingly submit to more questionable searches in the future? Absolutely. As it stands, the maroons in NYC practically run up to police and say "Search me! Search me!" Do I regret that the government feels this is a necessary or effective measure? Absolutely, and I don't think it will solve anything except to provide the illusion of security. But, regardless of my personal feelings, I still cannot rationally argue that it is a violation of any civil liberty.
Well thats probably because I don't think recreational drug use should be a crime.
To be honest, I don't really care if you get busted with two joints because you forgot to take them out of your pocket. Laws against unreasonable search and seizure were not put in place to facilitate illegal activity as long as you don't attract attention.
But really, your position on recreational drug use is fine, it's just completely unrelated and should be left to its own discussion. Which was why I said it detracted from your argument. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you position, but it's a separate topic unto itself which shouldn't be thrown into your argument against searches like a porkbelly rider on a Bill. It just allows your opponents to label you as a "druggy" to discredit you, rather than focusing on the meat of your argument. I realize throwing weed into the fray helps you gain a little traction with the hipsters, but if an argument can't stand on its own merit then it isn't particularly worthy of consideration. That's my opinion anyway, but I realize that other people are open minded enough to consider any argument regardless of whether not it's logical.
I think most of your comments were right on target.. However, when it comes to searches, I think it's much preferable to have an RF scan viewed by someone who's in a room where they can't see my face than have someone patting, poking, prodding, and groping me. I agree with the idea that searches are important at airports, and as long as people don't start reading my letters or cloning my hard drive, a cursory scan of the items an individual is transporting seems reasonable. Searches are part of any place where a large number of people gather: sporting events, concerts, clubs, etc.
The only real problem I have with searching mass transit users is that when you make it less convenient than driving, fewer people will use it, and that means more cars crowding my roads. That's right, I own them. If you see my high beams, please change lanes. But seriously, there are situations where searches are reasonable; just because they haven't been performed in the past doesn't mean they're not justified. The main reason that they're tolerated in airports is because adding an extra hour or two to a flight is still much faster than driving (or cruising) a long distance. Further, to assert that searches are an invasion because someone might get caught transporting an illicit substance is what I like to call ridiculous, and it does a discredit to your argument by lumping unrelated issues together. If police have a warrant to search a car for weapons, that doesn't mean they have to ignore any dead bodies they find.
I'm with you. From now on, days are the equivelant of 3.6525 current days, and there are 100 days in a year. Months are now ten days long, and we'll just get rid of February and May, because February sucks, and May already has its own day.
Ah, the ideas.. my mind feels like it's running at 5,280 ft. per minute!
Slashdot Mirror
The lion and the eagle don't pump their meat full of drugs before they eat it.
The lion and the eagle don't cook their food either. Nor do they make tasty little casseroles or salads. Also they have to live out in the open with only trees for shelter, they don't store water in case of draught, they don't build fires to keep warm, and they don't sew up their wounds.
OTOH, tobacco is natural, but I'm not going to put it in my mouth or lungs. Cocaine is natural, but I'm not going to put it up my nose. Crabs are natural, but I don't want them hanging out in my crotchal region.
It may be true that modern processed animals are unhealthy, unnatural, or both, but it's a logical fallicy to say things are unhealthy because they're unnatural.
Modern slaughterhouses run their line speeds at rates that are too fast for the meat packers to assure that they aren't cutting into the intestines of the cows. Every time they do so, more bacteria enters our beef supply.
That's only part of it.. the bacteria generally only grows on the (muscle) meat that's been exposed, which makes ground beef particularly hazardous since all of it has been exposed; the exterior has been mixed with the interior. A steak OTOH can be lightly cooked on the outside with a reasonable guarantee that the inside is still bacteria free.
Back to those male cows though
You mean.... bulls?
So, for an extra $100, I get the exact same controller except with no wire, and the smallest hard drive still in production? Where do I sign up?
Seems like you'd have to be an idiot to buy the more expensive version, unless it's impossible to install a normal hard drive, which seems unlikely since custom hard drives would quite likely double the production costs. How much are wireless controllers going for these days? $40?
Then again, never underestimate the buying power of idiots...
That's why I encrypt personal files, and why password-based encryption of folders should be commonplace and a promoted feature of any modern OS. The same reason they make valet keys that don't open the trunk.. because sooner or later, most people will have to put their computer/car in someone else's hands.
Well put. I have the same view of RF scans in airports. They're even one step removed as you're not seeing skin through the visible spectrum; rather something akin to night vision. Bodies aren't particularly private just because we call them "private parts," and Puritanical moral standards shouldn't be confused with real privacy issues, i.e. political beliefs, what you read, what you purchase, what you say in the privacy of your home, where you go, etc. The shape of our physical shells is probably the least important part of what makes us human, but we tend to place the greatest emphasis on it in all aspects of society.
You obviously feel some affection for "Noni," (did you make that up yourself?), and I know people don't want to believe bad things about people they like. But it's perfectly reasonable that celebrities be held to the same standard of law as everyone else. Even if one believes that the DA had ulterior motives other than, say, just filing charges against a suspect, the DA didn't convict her -- the jury did. Shoplifting is such a minor charge that she should've just plea bargained in the first place, especially considering the DA never sought jail time.
It's possible that I'm just talking crazy, and there really was a huge consipracy within the justice system to frame a celebrity for something only slightly worse than a parking ticket. But all things being equal, I tend to think she was just using the trial for some free publicity, and to bolster her card carrying fan base. Looks like it worked.
Senior intelligence officials are quoted as saying, "It was just supposed to be a harmless joke. Nobody thought the President would actually believe Iran was stockpiling trousers." Iranian officials, however, are not laughing.
I suspect at least some of these numbers can be attributed to people playing with IE7 in MS Vista Beta 1. Although it wasn't released until late in the month, so that certainly couldn't be the sole reason for the switch.
search query: blog -1337 -teh -kewl -hugz -omg -bored -lol -lmao -"can't wait to get my drivers license"
The only piece of Apple sanctioned hardware that I use with OS X is the CPU/motherboard itself. The wireless Bluetooth mouse, Bluetooth cellphone, external Firewire HDD's, external Firewire DVD, OEM ATI Radeon video card, external USB printer, Linksys/Cisco wireless network base station, non-Apple LCD monitor, USB pen drive, etc. and EVERYTHING works perfectly with OS X (I am running 10.4.2).
We're talking about the x86 architecture here. I got OS x86 to boot fine, but alas, it doesn't support a keyboard connected to the PS/2 port. Little things like that tend to put a damper on functionality.
Right, but it starts with a soft G, as in George.
Some friends and I were in Townsville a few years ago.. One of them rented a car and drove to Cairns for a couple of days to do some diving. Later he mentioned how nobody seems to speed, and he had been flying past all of them. He also mentioned seeing yellow boxes all over the place on the side of the road. He just assumed they were emergency telephones or something. A couple of months later, a bill from the rental company showed up on his credit card for $3,000US. He called the rental company to ask them about it, and they said the car had been issued 35 speeding tickets on the weekend he had rented the car. It was then that he realized that the yellow boxes were cameras. Expensive lesson.
There are some circumstances where speeding is simply not acceptable, such as residential areas. However, most interstate highways (in the US anyway) are easily traversable at speeds in excess of 100, with a few exceptions. Driving fast is not, in and of itself, a cause of crashes. In Germany, for example, traffic fatalities in 2004 were 7.1 per 100,000. Meanwhile, with our "life saving" speed limits in the US, our traffic fatalities in 2003 (most recent data) were more than double that at 14.66 per 100,000. Clearly it's possible for people to drive fast without a higher number of fatalities.
Driving is an inherently risky activity, and it's impossible to remove all human error without removing humans. I just don't believe that speed limits are much more than an inconvenience and a cycle of tickets funding enforcement and government. If there are more accidents when people are speeding, I believe it's because they haven't had proper training; speed limits don't generally let anyone come close to approaching the limits of their vehicles' abilities, and it gives people the illusion that they can make any turn at any speed and stop on a dime. Furthermore, people tend to focus more when driving faster because they don't get lulled by the relaxing pace of 55MPH. People who are reckless will be reckless regardless of the law; it's just an inconvenience for the rest of us. But that's just my opinion.
Few people realize that ethernet signals also travel on the left. I've been silently protesting this outrage for years by connecting crossover adapters to both ends of my Cat-5. I urge freedom-loving citizens everywhere to do the same.
Then it stands that it was negative information.
Right. That's probably why he made the Billy Madison quote.
If I tell you negative information, you'll know less.
/. story...
Sort of like reading the comments attached to a
Oops.. I based my energy costs on living on an island where my average power bill is $200/mo. It would be considerably less for someone on the mainland. But we don't use no stinkin DST here anyway.. The days are pretty close to 12 hours long year-round in the tropics, and dawn/dusk are considerably shorter.
Studies done by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time.
Hey, if we extend it to go year-round, we can save an extra 160%!
160% of one day's worth of energy.. even so, if the effects were the same year-round, the total conservation would be 1% of one year's worth of electricity. So.. like $20 per person, or 7 gallons of gas or something. Hardly worth the effort.
You could get far better energy savings by mandating a minimum MPG for passenger vehicles or telling everyone to turn out the lights at night to prevent a terrorist attack.
If you want proof on these "ridiculous accusations" pick up a copy of Penn and Teller's Bullshit.
Nothing says proof to me like a book by a couple of magicians, one of whom doesn't speak.
Bill Gates reputed has about $40 billion. If he used it to buy 20 billion gallons of gasoline and burned it all in a huge bonfire, by your argument it would not be wasteful as long as he thought it was worth it. Right?
I'd pay to see that.
Crap, I bet that's his plan.. have a giant bonfire and get the world to pay for it by buying tickets.
Perhaps, but all of their base are belong to me.
That way you don't know WHICH pervert is selling the naked pictures of your daughter on the Internet. If someone wants to search me, they had better have probable cause, and a warrant SIGNED BY A JUDGE! Otherwise, it's an illegal invasion of my privacy and I will respond as if it were an attack.
Look, the "save the children" argument is wearing a little thin.
Anonymity by definition is not an invasion of privacy, but the maintainance of that privacy. It's not only that I wouldn't know who was looking at me, but rather that they wouldn't know who I was. These devices don't produce an image which is anything like a photograph; merely an outline of skin. Aside from that, the obsessive paranoia about nudity and sexuality in America is what drives the market for deviant voyeur-types in the first place.
To be honest I really don't care if you don't mind all this intrusion. I mind. Not being able to go out in public places without the risk that some guy in a uniform who doesn't like the look of you, can stop you at random, shake you down, grope you, exert his power trip over you, demand your papers, look at your private possesions is simply not what supposedly free countries are about.
I think you misinterpreted me, or I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't mind, but rather that I don't believe these particular searches are a violation of civil liberties. You're free to shout "The sky is falling! Where are zee papers!" but how about stating which civil liberty is being violated, and how? Police aren't searching people walking around; they're searching people who use mass transporation. They aren't forcing people to be searched, and, according to reports, you're free to leave if you don't wish to submit to a search. That's a far cry from getting pulled over, where the policy is essentially "Let us search your car or we'll just call in for a warrant." Many jurisdictions even permit officers to perform random "DUI stops," on any vehicle on the roads after a certain hour, regardless of whether or not the stop is otherwise justified.
Look, I'm all for the preservation of civil liberties, I just think you're barking up the wrong tree on this issue. I'm far more troubled by the loss of haebus corpus for anyone deemed an enemy combatant. Or the idea of a national ID card. Or the "no fly list," where someone is essentially punished for a crime he might commit. The Patriot Act. The DMCA. The virtually unrestricted authority weilded by the Office of Homeland Security. In this case however, there's a long and established precedent for searches at public gatherings. At the very least this suggests that courts have not found anything unconstitutional about these searches.
Is it possible people will become acclimitized to these searches and willingly submit to more questionable searches in the future? Absolutely. As it stands, the maroons in NYC practically run up to police and say "Search me! Search me!" Do I regret that the government feels this is a necessary or effective measure? Absolutely, and I don't think it will solve anything except to provide the illusion of security. But, regardless of my personal feelings, I still cannot rationally argue that it is a violation of any civil liberty.
Well thats probably because I don't think recreational drug use should be a crime.
To be honest, I don't really care if you get busted with two joints because you forgot to take them out of your pocket. Laws against unreasonable search and seizure were not put in place to facilitate illegal activity as long as you don't attract attention.
But really, your position on recreational drug use is fine, it's just completely unrelated and should be left to its own discussion. Which was why I said it detracted from your argument. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you position, but it's a separate topic unto itself which shouldn't be thrown into your argument against searches like a porkbelly rider on a Bill. It just allows your opponents to label you as a "druggy" to discredit you, rather than focusing on the meat of your argument. I realize throwing weed into the fray helps you gain a little traction with the hipsters, but if an argument can't stand on its own merit then it isn't particularly worthy of consideration. That's my opinion anyway, but I realize that other people are open minded enough to consider any argument regardless of whether not it's logical.
I think most of your comments were right on target.. However, when it comes to searches, I think it's much preferable to have an RF scan viewed by someone who's in a room where they can't see my face than have someone patting, poking, prodding, and groping me. I agree with the idea that searches are important at airports, and as long as people don't start reading my letters or cloning my hard drive, a cursory scan of the items an individual is transporting seems reasonable. Searches are part of any place where a large number of people gather: sporting events, concerts, clubs, etc.
The only real problem I have with searching mass transit users is that when you make it less convenient than driving, fewer people will use it, and that means more cars crowding my roads. That's right, I own them. If you see my high beams, please change lanes. But seriously, there are situations where searches are reasonable; just because they haven't been performed in the past doesn't mean they're not justified. The main reason that they're tolerated in airports is because adding an extra hour or two to a flight is still much faster than driving (or cruising) a long distance. Further, to assert that searches are an invasion because someone might get caught transporting an illicit substance is what I like to call ridiculous, and it does a discredit to your argument by lumping unrelated issues together. If police have a warrant to search a car for weapons, that doesn't mean they have to ignore any dead bodies they find.
I'm with you. From now on, days are the equivelant of 3.6525 current days, and there are 100 days in a year. Months are now ten days long, and we'll just get rid of February and May, because February sucks, and May already has its own day.
Ah, the ideas.. my mind feels like it's running at 5,280 ft. per minute!