oh yes, our hallowed rights to making donuts with trans-fats. I'm sure the founding fathers are turning in their graves at the very thought of banning it. Are you serious? I don't buy the slippery slope "first they came for my trans-fats" BS either....and if the "simple solution" is no longer eating out, that's kind of a problem.
Read up more on trans-fats. Most of the health problems occur even with small amounts, and 0.5 grams per serving is much more than the trace amounts of natural trans-fats you mention that no one cares about. These aren't naive people calling for the ban. They're more educated on the subject than either of us.
The rule about less than.5 grams also applies to all other fats as well.
All other fats are natural nutrients that the body is not allergic to, as with trans-fats, so that's irrelevant.
We lose our rights. At the end of the day, if I make a dougnt with transfat, and someone wants to buy it, you really have no right to interfere.
How about if you make a donut with crack in it? Your logic implies that, like the unicorn dude, the government has no place regulating businesses, which I think is pretty silly.
I don't see you running around advocating banning all sodas.
Soda is not that big of a problem, or at least, studies haven't confirmed that artificial sweetener is a problem. Furthermore, soda serves a unique purpose. Trans-fat serves no purpose that natural fats don't already serve, except longer shelf lives.
Personally I see no reason for religion to be around either, but that has never been a reason to interfere with the rights of another person's beliefs.
To equate banning trans-fat with banning a religion is utterly absurd. You're not allowed to use excessive amounts of lead in paint. I suppose christianity is next?
I'm a little confused: do you think the government shouldn't regulate corporations, and that the government shouldn't have social programs? I think there's a time and a place for both, though not universally so, so I'm somewhere in between the extremes. I suppose if we differ fundamentally on these two issues, there's really no point in discussing their effect on something further down the chain, as there is no basis for agreement.
Personally, I believe the more powerful a corporation becomes, the more like a government they become. They pay for our politicians, they stomp out private business, and they limit the choices we have as consumers. I think that necessitates regulation, and thus opens the door for my other arguments, but if you view the situation differently, then that's pretty much the end of the line.
In some ways I can understand the libertarian view (assuming that's what you subscribe to), but I think it's naive and unworkable. I'm definitely for individual rights, but I don't view the actions of corporations in the same light. Honestly, I'd probably vote for more libertarians if they weren't so often socially conservative, which is pretty much my #1 area of political concern.
Transfats are also TRIVIAL to avoid transfats when grocery shopping. I read labels carefully because I'm starting a muscle building program. It's rare I ever find anything.
Dude, where do you shop?! Are you sure you're checking the labels correctly? The FDA allows food manufacturers to state they have 0 grams trans fat per serving if they actually have less than 0.5 grams. Check the ingredients. If they have "hydrogenated", "margerine", or "shortening" anywhere in the list, they almost definitely have trans-fats.
I admit, it has gotten a lot better in the last few years, but there's still a lot of work to do. I had to stop eating burritos for a long time until just 2 weeks ago, when manny's finally stopped using trans-fats. I couldn't find another tortilla anywhere that didn't use them, or wasn't some crazy fat-free tortilla that fell apart or something like that.
as far as restraunts go, you can ask and if they use transfats, tell them you won't be eating there unless they decide not to use them anymore. If they don't, that's fine, you don't have a right to eat at any restruant you want.
I do, and even in a hippie town like Bloomington, IN, it's hard to find places that don't. Nearly all fast food is out, though I heard recently that mcdonalds is making moves to eliminate it (Wendy's said they did, but they actually didn't. It's the 0.5 rule). Many waiters can't answer my question, or lie just to shut me up. A lot of the time restaurant owners don't realize that margerine and shortening are trans-fat, so they say they don't use it even if they do. I'm a crazy person. I go back and check their boxes. I catch them in lies all the time. I really won't trust the system until there are actual regulations in place; preferably a complete ban, as I see no reason for this stuff to be around anyway. That's the sticking point for me: why do we need it? What do we lose in banning it?
Let's fix medicare and medicaid by allowing them to refuse to pay for obesety related problems. For example, did you know that medicare COVERS gastric bypass surgery? I find THAT outragous.
I'm really not sure how to approach the issue of obesity and public health care. There are a lot of ways to look at it and it's a pretty complicated issue that I think is best left in the hands of those who know what they're talking about.
To me, trans-fats is not a complicated issue. They're cheap, they hurt you, and they don't taste better than natural fats, nor have any other benefit to average consumers. Why not ban them? To me, cases like this are exactly why we have government regulation.
furthermore, an interesting note about trans-fat in junkfood: A lot of junkfood is becoming 100% trans-fat free, at a much higher rate than other foods, largely as an effect of the 0.5 grams per serving limit. It's a lot harder to hide the fact that you're using trans-fat in junkfood, since there's gong to be a lot more than 0.5 grams of it, so a lot of companies have stopped using it all together in some products, like lays potato chips and oreo cookies. I think this underlines the fact that this is not a junkfood issue. I think if the FDA properly labels food, we can re-evaluate whether or not a ban is necessary, since that might do enough on the education front to tip the scales.
And you are free to say that. I agree with you on that. If you would like to see the world eat less junk food, get the word out to people and donate to worthy causes.
I do my best to, including this instance here. Though I'm by no means wealthy, I also make donations to the cause.
Don't force people to accept your position.
Corporations aren't people and do not have individual rights. Many people, myself included, seek a ban from large distributors only, understanding that it will then eventually dry up everywhere. I don't want to force people to do anything. If you want to make your own margerine, be my guest.
If they don't want junk food, they will stop buying it and the food producers will need to shape up or face huge losses.
This is a big misconception about trans-fats. transfats != junkfood. Trans-fats are in *everything*, especially low-cost box dinners that are a staple for low income families. The only reason junkfood tends to have more trans-fats is because junkfood HAS MORE FATS! It's also not true that junkfood must have trans-fats. It's just as easy, albeit more expensive, to manufacture better tasking junkfood without trans-fats. Use of trans-fat is a lot more like using a preservative than anything else. It's very frustrating to see this misconception time and time again.
"Anyone educated on the subject understands why we shouldn't have them around."
So then it should only be a matter of time before the food producers have to remove them from their food or lose business.
No, most people are not educated about the subject, and getting the word out is very difficult when you're working against the vast finances of the processed food lobby. Getting trans-fat on the FDA label was only a half-victory. Food manufacturers can state 0 grams trans fat if they have less than 0.5 grams per serving. If anything, this misinforms as much as it informs.
Even if we are able to successfully educate everyone, it's still nearly impossible to avoid the stuff as it is. As staunch of an advocate as I am of a ban, I still have trans-fats from time to time, by accident and on purpose, because there's almost no way to avoid them.
"you can at least appreciate the cost of medicare and medicaid caused by this stuff"
You're using the cost reduction of a publicly-funded service as a rationale against privatization. That's not a valid point. The whole purpose of my argument is to get rid of such publicly-funded services altogether.
If you're against medicaid, wow... but I suppose that's wholly another topic.
You can eat whatever you want. If you're an idiot, you can hydrogenate your own soybean oil and kill yourself for all I care. I say that food companies shouldn't manufacture products that make you sick, especially when it's done nearly universally and ends up giving people little choice in what they can eat. Trans-fats were nearly impossible to avoid when buying groceries or eating out in restaurants, and now are still very difficult to avoid.
Like I said before, there's no such thing as a grass-roots effort to keep trans-fats on the table. Anyone educated on the subject understands why we shouldn't have them around. Even if you don't care about the health of the poor people buying these low cost foods, you can at least appreciate the cost of medicare and medicaid caused by this stuff.
I think that's true, but I think it's also true that the government would become more involved in people's health and I don't think this is always a bad thing. For instance, trans fats, (largely) man-made fats which are known to wreak havoc on your cholesterol levels and are suspected in other common health problems with little benefit other than higher melting point and longer shelf life (thus cheaper processed foods) are beginning to be banned in european countries with universal healthcare as well. Some astroturfers, like the center for consumer freedom cry foul, but there's really no reason for these fats to be around other than to save a little money. This is one of the best times for the government to come in and ban it, but considering a ban would seriously diminish campaign contributions, they're going to need an even bigger reason to go through with one. When the government is financially interested in preventing people from dying early in hospitals, everyone but the food industry wins.
You're right, I did miss the operative phrase there. My bad. I suppose I'm a bit sensitive to the fact that you wouldn't be the first, or even 3258th person to have said that already.
Based on the misconception, most of what I said, and especially the tone, was moot, but even though you recognized that, you still knowingly decided to read into what I said, and with some pretty bizarre results. If we're talking in terms of democrats, or even senators, reaching back 50 yeas *IS* insane. There are too many examples you'd have looked over in the meantime. I wouldn't make the same claim about presidential candidates, but that's besides the point, since, as you pointed out, I *WASN'T*.
So, when someone says "the other side always tells this lie", it is inappropriate to contradict them. That sort of implies that when bush lies about Iraq, it is innappropriate to contradict him. Or did you really mean "it is inappropriate to contradict anyone on YOUR side"?
Where the fuck did you get any of that horseshit? Dude, you're even worse at reading than I apparently am. Here, I'll spell out what I "meant":
1) It's obvious that Barak Obama is not the most leftist democrat (regardless of my incorrect assumption, that is what I *meant*)
2) When claiming that republicans 'always' accuse the other side of being 'the most leftist (insert favorite political designation) ever, I would assume that the person making the claim was not talking about "since Lincoln", but rather the last 10, maybe 20, years (and no, that would not depend on what "side" was being discussed, regardless of what you choose to believe about a complete stranger). Politics change pretty rapidly. The democratic party today hardly resembles the democrats of more than 50 years ago, and reaching back that far for a 'counter-example' strikes me as disingenuous.
That much I'd state regardless of how I read your original statement. I think it's pretty ironic, really, that just because I was vigorously disagreeing with you, you assume that I'd have a problem with anyone disagreeing with someone "on my side". As I'd often say when grading proofs, that's quite a leap.
I'd still argue that Obama is not the most leftist candidate, depending on what that's relative to. Lincoln beats him handily and he was a republican (again, another example of how quickly things change in politics).
So, that's what's with the whole 50 year thing, from my perspective, not really the crazy 'religion' BS you pulled out of the end of your small intestine. Seriously dude. You make a baseless claim that I ignore context when considering time, so far as to say I ignore anything before I was born? Dude, my sig is nearly 200 years old. I mean, yes, in some contexts, including this one, I think 50 years is a bit too far back to go for evidence. In others, I don't. I really don't understand how you were able to assume I don't make this distinction based off of one example. It's beyond silly.
It's not just a canadian thing; it's just that 60% of americans are religious nutters who want to believe that gay people don't exist. The other 40% of us are right with you.
why not give each voter a ticket with some unique number on it when they leave. Only the voter knows his/her particular number, and they can then check a public website afterword which has all of the unique numbers next to the voting record for each voter. Anonymous, private, voter-verifiable. The only thing this doesn't protect against is ballot stuffing.
I dunno.. what do you guys think? Sound reasonable?
Better counterexample: Obama is against gay marriage. I think that pretty much automatically makes him *not* the most leftist democrat. There are much "further-left" democrats out there, so you can stop your "you missed a technical possibility that the statement was true" BS right there. This is a seriously stupid exchange going on here.
...I mean, seriously dude... Truman?? more than 50 fucking years ago?? Why even bother posting this crap?
Why constantly push for bills in an environment where there is a 100% chance of failure?
If I was naive, I'd say it's because they're idealistic and feel the must do the right thing. However, I'm cynical, and believe it is because they want the next president to be a democrat, so they're forcing republicans to reveal some of their shadier motives. Honestly, though, I really don't think I blame them...
It has come to our attention that a flaw in the coding of G-Archiver may have revealed customer's Gmail account usernames and passwords.
It is urgent that you remove the current version of G-Archiver from your computer, and change your Gmail account password right away.
What happened was that a member of our development team had inserted coding used for testing G-Archiver in the debug version and forgot to delete it in the final release version.
We sincerely apologize and assure you that this coding mishap was in no way intentional.
We'll be releasing a new version that corrects the flaw in version 1.0. The new version will be available very soon.
This is misleading. They should have fully disclosed the problem if they want to re-gain anyone's trust. It wasn't that they "may" have been revealed; they as a matter of fact "WERE" revealed. An admission that their program LOGGED AND TRANSMITTED PASSWORDS TO THE PARENT COMPANY would also have been nice.
If this was his *own* email address, he DEFINITELY should have noticed that everyone's password was being sent to him! If anything, this is proof that he left this in there on purpose.
Who knows what he planned to do with the accounts. However, the fact that he was intentionally harvesting them should be obvious. Anyone smart enough to write this code will realize that this "debugging" feature would be the most important thing to remove before launch. There's no way a back-door password logger "slipped his mind".
Why was he even under oath if republicans didn't feel a blowjob was more important than anything the Bush administration has done? Bush hasn't had to testify under oath over ANY of the insane shit his administration has pulled. If you don't think the republicans were just looking for a way to hang Clinton when they forced him into either: 1) lying under oath...or 2) guaranteeing extreme embarrassment for himself, his family, his party and the entire country, then I really don't know what to say....
I was thinking the same thing. This is pretty frightening. It seems the whole "slashkos" tagging crew thinks that reporting on the FBI's dirty little secrets is somehow representative of poor liberal judgement. I think this speaks volumes about how stupid these people are. I thought the libertarian slashdot variety was against big government??..or maybe the ranks of the Bush acolyte neo-cons is growing here?
I wholeheartedly agree. Not only that, but there is a *TON* of unused land in the soutwest, screaming for a solar farm to be built. They get so much sun and the land is so cheap, they don't even need to use traditional solar panels; they could go with a cheap, low-tech steam turbine powered by solar energy. I have no idea why there aren't more of these being built.
If uranium is a stopgap that will last even centuries (like fossil fuels), to say nothing about thousands or millions of years, it's worthy of being pursued.
I didn't mean to imply it wasn't. I just meant that comparing it to the lifespan of the sun is silly.
Personally, I'm not sure what I think about nuclear energy. I am a huge fan of advances in solar energy, though, given that there's a shitload of it hitting us that we just let reflect off into space or be absorbed into waste heat. The trick is just how to capture, store, and transport this energy; a problem we've already made a lot of headway into (hydrogen). Honestly, nuclear power, given the storage issues, seems to be more of an open problem to me than solar energy. I think the only reason people are more excited about it is because it's currently cheaper than solar or because you're some nimrod who wants to develop nuclear weapons.
Why not just store energy in hydrogen instead of batteries? Sure, there's the *KABOOM* factor, but that's what engineers and several decades are for:)
I look at it this way: Imagine how much energy it costs to heat or light your home. Now imagine how much energy there is in Tuscon AZ, coming from the sun, on any given day. The sun has more than enough energy to sustain us, even given only the tiny amount we're able to capture on earth. The issue will just be, how do we capture it in the most efficient manner and how do we store it? I think there's a lot of work yet to be done in this arena, and it seems a much easier problem than developing an efficient fusion reactor.
I won't "yell like a troll" about our hydrogen source (I save that for comparisons of our fossil fuel / uranium supply to a fusion reactor several hundred thousand times more massive than the earth), I'm well aware that we have a lot of it. However, I don't know much about the practicality of such a scheme or the energy yield, so I won't comment beyond what I've already said.
You're equaling paradigm change to belief change, and they are totally different (though sometimes they overlap).
I'm not sure they meant "every time an activist changes their opinion". Personally, I would agree with the GP if they meant that this case proves that this particular activist is *willing* to change their mind. Too many people are not *willing* to change their mind (see current US govt) and are more concerned with saving face than being correct or doing the right thing. It's refreshing to see proof that someone doesn't operate under those restrictions.
Slashdot Mirror
oh yes, our hallowed rights to making donuts with trans-fats. I'm sure the founding fathers are turning in their graves at the very thought of banning it. Are you serious? I don't buy the slippery slope "first they came for my trans-fats" BS either. ...and if the "simple solution" is no longer eating out, that's kind of a problem.
Read up more on trans-fats. Most of the health problems occur even with small amounts, and 0.5 grams per serving is much more than the trace amounts of natural trans-fats you mention that no one cares about. These aren't naive people calling for the ban. They're more educated on the subject than either of us.
All other fats are natural nutrients that the body is not allergic to, as with trans-fats, so that's irrelevant.
How about if you make a donut with crack in it? Your logic implies that, like the unicorn dude, the government has no place regulating businesses, which I think is pretty silly.
Soda is not that big of a problem, or at least, studies haven't confirmed that artificial sweetener is a problem. Furthermore, soda serves a unique purpose. Trans-fat serves no purpose that natural fats don't already serve, except longer shelf lives.
To equate banning trans-fat with banning a religion is utterly absurd. You're not allowed to use excessive amounts of lead in paint. I suppose christianity is next?
I'm a little confused: do you think the government shouldn't regulate corporations, and that the government shouldn't have social programs? I think there's a time and a place for both, though not universally so, so I'm somewhere in between the extremes. I suppose if we differ fundamentally on these two issues, there's really no point in discussing their effect on something further down the chain, as there is no basis for agreement.
Personally, I believe the more powerful a corporation becomes, the more like a government they become. They pay for our politicians, they stomp out private business, and they limit the choices we have as consumers. I think that necessitates regulation, and thus opens the door for my other arguments, but if you view the situation differently, then that's pretty much the end of the line.
In some ways I can understand the libertarian view (assuming that's what you subscribe to), but I think it's naive and unworkable. I'm definitely for individual rights, but I don't view the actions of corporations in the same light. Honestly, I'd probably vote for more libertarians if they weren't so often socially conservative, which is pretty much my #1 area of political concern.
Dude, where do you shop?! Are you sure you're checking the labels correctly? The FDA allows food manufacturers to state they have 0 grams trans fat per serving if they actually have less than 0.5 grams. Check the ingredients. If they have "hydrogenated", "margerine", or "shortening" anywhere in the list, they almost definitely have trans-fats.
I admit, it has gotten a lot better in the last few years, but there's still a lot of work to do. I had to stop eating burritos for a long time until just 2 weeks ago, when manny's finally stopped using trans-fats. I couldn't find another tortilla anywhere that didn't use them, or wasn't some crazy fat-free tortilla that fell apart or something like that.
I do, and even in a hippie town like Bloomington, IN, it's hard to find places that don't. Nearly all fast food is out, though I heard recently that mcdonalds is making moves to eliminate it (Wendy's said they did, but they actually didn't. It's the 0.5 rule). Many waiters can't answer my question, or lie just to shut me up. A lot of the time restaurant owners don't realize that margerine and shortening are trans-fat, so they say they don't use it even if they do. I'm a crazy person. I go back and check their boxes. I catch them in lies all the time. I really won't trust the system until there are actual regulations in place; preferably a complete ban, as I see no reason for this stuff to be around anyway. That's the sticking point for me: why do we need it? What do we lose in banning it?
I'm really not sure how to approach the issue of obesity and public health care. There are a lot of ways to look at it and it's a pretty complicated issue that I think is best left in the hands of those who know what they're talking about.
To me, trans-fats is not a complicated issue. They're cheap, they hurt you, and they don't taste better than natural fats, nor have any other benefit to average consumers. Why not ban them? To me, cases like this are exactly why we have government regulation.
furthermore, an interesting note about trans-fat in junkfood: A lot of junkfood is becoming 100% trans-fat free, at a much higher rate than other foods, largely as an effect of the 0.5 grams per serving limit. It's a lot harder to hide the fact that you're using trans-fat in junkfood, since there's gong to be a lot more than 0.5 grams of it, so a lot of companies have stopped using it all together in some products, like lays potato chips and oreo cookies. I think this underlines the fact that this is not a junkfood issue. I think if the FDA properly labels food, we can re-evaluate whether or not a ban is necessary, since that might do enough on the education front to tip the scales.
I do my best to, including this instance here. Though I'm by no means wealthy, I also make donations to the cause.
Corporations aren't people and do not have individual rights. Many people, myself included, seek a ban from large distributors only, understanding that it will then eventually dry up everywhere. I don't want to force people to do anything. If you want to make your own margerine, be my guest.
This is a big misconception about trans-fats. transfats != junkfood. Trans-fats are in *everything*, especially low-cost box dinners that are a staple for low income families. The only reason junkfood tends to have more trans-fats is because junkfood HAS MORE FATS! It's also not true that junkfood must have trans-fats. It's just as easy, albeit more expensive, to manufacture better tasking junkfood without trans-fats. Use of trans-fat is a lot more like using a preservative than anything else. It's very frustrating to see this misconception time and time again.
No, most people are not educated about the subject, and getting the word out is very difficult when you're working against the vast finances of the processed food lobby. Getting trans-fat on the FDA label was only a half-victory. Food manufacturers can state 0 grams trans fat if they have less than 0.5 grams per serving. If anything, this misinforms as much as it informs.
Even if we are able to successfully educate everyone, it's still nearly impossible to avoid the stuff as it is. As staunch of an advocate as I am of a ban, I still have trans-fats from time to time, by accident and on purpose, because there's almost no way to avoid them.
If you're against medicaid, wow... but I suppose that's wholly another topic.
You can eat whatever you want. If you're an idiot, you can hydrogenate your own soybean oil and kill yourself for all I care. I say that food companies shouldn't manufacture products that make you sick, especially when it's done nearly universally and ends up giving people little choice in what they can eat. Trans-fats were nearly impossible to avoid when buying groceries or eating out in restaurants, and now are still very difficult to avoid.
Like I said before, there's no such thing as a grass-roots effort to keep trans-fats on the table. Anyone educated on the subject understands why we shouldn't have them around. Even if you don't care about the health of the poor people buying these low cost foods, you can at least appreciate the cost of medicare and medicaid caused by this stuff.
I think that's true, but I think it's also true that the government would become more involved in people's health and I don't think this is always a bad thing. For instance, trans fats, (largely) man-made fats which are known to wreak havoc on your cholesterol levels and are suspected in other common health problems with little benefit other than higher melting point and longer shelf life (thus cheaper processed foods) are beginning to be banned in european countries with universal healthcare as well. Some astroturfers, like the center for consumer freedom cry foul, but there's really no reason for these fats to be around other than to save a little money. This is one of the best times for the government to come in and ban it, but considering a ban would seriously diminish campaign contributions, they're going to need an even bigger reason to go through with one. When the government is financially interested in preventing people from dying early in hospitals, everyone but the food industry wins.
Based on the misconception, most of what I said, and especially the tone, was moot, but even though you recognized that, you still knowingly decided to read into what I said, and with some pretty bizarre results. If we're talking in terms of democrats, or even senators, reaching back 50 yeas *IS* insane. There are too many examples you'd have looked over in the meantime. I wouldn't make the same claim about presidential candidates, but that's besides the point, since, as you pointed out, I *WASN'T*.
Where the fuck did you get any of that horseshit? Dude, you're even worse at reading than I apparently am. Here, I'll spell out what I "meant":
1) It's obvious that Barak Obama is not the most leftist democrat (regardless of my incorrect assumption, that is what I *meant*)
2) When claiming that republicans 'always' accuse the other side of being 'the most leftist (insert favorite political designation) ever, I would assume that the person making the claim was not talking about "since Lincoln", but rather the last 10, maybe 20, years (and no, that would not depend on what "side" was being discussed, regardless of what you choose to believe about a complete stranger). Politics change pretty rapidly. The democratic party today hardly resembles the democrats of more than 50 years ago, and reaching back that far for a 'counter-example' strikes me as disingenuous.
That much I'd state regardless of how I read your original statement. I think it's pretty ironic, really, that just because I was vigorously disagreeing with you, you assume that I'd have a problem with anyone disagreeing with someone "on my side". As I'd often say when grading proofs, that's quite a leap.
I'd still argue that Obama is not the most leftist candidate, depending on what that's relative to. Lincoln beats him handily and he was a republican (again, another example of how quickly things change in politics).
So, that's what's with the whole 50 year thing, from my perspective, not really the crazy 'religion' BS you pulled out of the end of your small intestine. Seriously dude. You make a baseless claim that I ignore context when considering time, so far as to say I ignore anything before I was born? Dude, my sig is nearly 200 years old. I mean, yes, in some contexts, including this one, I think 50 years is a bit too far back to go for evidence. In others, I don't. I really don't understand how you were able to assume I don't make this distinction based off of one example. It's beyond silly.
BTW, yes, count the kurds. They bring Turkey quite heavily into the whole mess as well.
It's not just a canadian thing; it's just that 60% of americans are religious nutters who want to believe that gay people don't exist. The other 40% of us are right with you.
why not give each voter a ticket with some unique number on it when they leave. Only the voter knows his/her particular number, and they can then check a public website afterword which has all of the unique numbers next to the voting record for each voter. Anonymous, private, voter-verifiable. The only thing this doesn't protect against is ballot stuffing.
I dunno.. what do you guys think? Sound reasonable?
Better counterexample: Obama is against gay marriage. I think that pretty much automatically makes him *not* the most leftist democrat. There are much "further-left" democrats out there, so you can stop your "you missed a technical possibility that the statement was true" BS right there. This is a seriously stupid exchange going on here.
...I mean, seriously dude... Truman?? more than 50 fucking years ago?? Why even bother posting this crap?
yeah, the economy really tanked while Clinton was president. Good thing W cleaned that up over the last 8 years.
If I was naive, I'd say it's because they're idealistic and feel the must do the right thing. However, I'm cynical, and believe it is because they want the next president to be a democrat, so they're forcing republicans to reveal some of their shadier motives. Honestly, though, I really don't think I blame them...
This is misleading. They should have fully disclosed the problem if they want to re-gain anyone's trust. It wasn't that they "may" have been revealed; they as a matter of fact "WERE" revealed. An admission that their program LOGGED AND TRANSMITTED PASSWORDS TO THE PARENT COMPANY would also have been nice.
If this was his *own* email address, he DEFINITELY should have noticed that everyone's password was being sent to him! If anything, this is proof that he left this in there on purpose.
Who knows what he planned to do with the accounts. However, the fact that he was intentionally harvesting them should be obvious. Anyone smart enough to write this code will realize that this "debugging" feature would be the most important thing to remove before launch. There's no way a back-door password logger "slipped his mind".
Why was he even under oath if republicans didn't feel a blowjob was more important than anything the Bush administration has done? Bush hasn't had to testify under oath over ANY of the insane shit his administration has pulled. If you don't think the republicans were just looking for a way to hang Clinton when they forced him into either: 1) lying under oath ...or 2) guaranteeing extreme embarrassment for himself, his family, his party and the entire country, then I really don't know what to say....
it's 'herd', not 'heard', btw :)
I was thinking the same thing. This is pretty frightening. It seems the whole "slashkos" tagging crew thinks that reporting on the FBI's dirty little secrets is somehow representative of poor liberal judgement. I think this speaks volumes about how stupid these people are. I thought the libertarian slashdot variety was against big government?? ..or maybe the ranks of the Bush acolyte neo-cons is growing here?
I try not to assume gender.
I wholeheartedly agree. Not only that, but there is a *TON* of unused land in the soutwest, screaming for a solar farm to be built. They get so much sun and the land is so cheap, they don't even need to use traditional solar panels; they could go with a cheap, low-tech steam turbine powered by solar energy. I have no idea why there aren't more of these being built.
I didn't mean to imply it wasn't. I just meant that comparing it to the lifespan of the sun is silly.
Personally, I'm not sure what I think about nuclear energy. I am a huge fan of advances in solar energy, though, given that there's a shitload of it hitting us that we just let reflect off into space or be absorbed into waste heat. The trick is just how to capture, store, and transport this energy; a problem we've already made a lot of headway into (hydrogen). Honestly, nuclear power, given the storage issues, seems to be more of an open problem to me than solar energy. I think the only reason people are more excited about it is because it's currently cheaper than solar or because you're some nimrod who wants to develop nuclear weapons.
Why not just store energy in hydrogen instead of batteries? Sure, there's the *KABOOM* factor, but that's what engineers and several decades are for :)
I look at it this way: Imagine how much energy it costs to heat or light your home. Now imagine how much energy there is in Tuscon AZ, coming from the sun, on any given day. The sun has more than enough energy to sustain us, even given only the tiny amount we're able to capture on earth. The issue will just be, how do we capture it in the most efficient manner and how do we store it? I think there's a lot of work yet to be done in this arena, and it seems a much easier problem than developing an efficient fusion reactor.
I won't "yell like a troll" about our hydrogen source (I save that for comparisons of our fossil fuel / uranium supply to a fusion reactor several hundred thousand times more massive than the earth), I'm well aware that we have a lot of it. However, I don't know much about the practicality of such a scheme or the energy yield, so I won't comment beyond what I've already said.
I'm not sure they meant "every time an activist changes their opinion". Personally, I would agree with the GP if they meant that this case proves that this particular activist is *willing* to change their mind. Too many people are not *willing* to change their mind (see current US govt) and are more concerned with saving face than being correct or doing the right thing. It's refreshing to see proof that someone doesn't operate under those restrictions.
or simply the capacity to store the energy as hydrogen, which is getting easier and easier.