Last I checked, there is not a war going on in Coshocton, OH
Well actually the US is a country at war. Fighting TWO wars, as a matter of fact. I know the point you're trying to make - that part of the Conventions was mostly about rounding up people in a town and shooting them for being Belgian (I don't see a problem with that but never mind), not using that well known grade-school teacher tactic of "if someone doesn't tell me who did this, the whole class is getting detention!" but still...
Just because some idiot judge made some decision X years ago, now like little sheep, everyone has to cite that case. Effectively this gives judges the power to "make" laws, or at least an interpretation of it. Instead of the system working as DESIGNED, where each and every person gets judged on a CASE BY CASE basis, considering the changing times and technology, the individual nuances of this particular case: nope, let's pull out A vs B in 1978 and yes, there it is - let's fuck this guy over.
What responsibility or culpability does the bar owner / bar tender have if someone leaves their bar totally drunk and kills someone on their way home?
In the litigation-happy US, I know that bartenders have been successfully sued for just that. But then again, crooks can sue the owner of a car they stole because the brakes are faulty.
A criminal case, however, is another thing entirely.
Common sense, however, would say that no one forced the person into the bar, and no one forced the person to drink that alcohol. The bartender merely provides a service, and can't be responsible for all the wrongs in the world. However litigation has very little to do with common sense.
Geneva Convention applies to international conflict bud, not private corporations.
Actually IANAL but:
International treaties and conventions ARE the law of the land if your country is a signatory, and said law must be respected by all persons - physical or judicial. Corporations are NOT above the law.
There's a little clause in the US constitution that says:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Most constitutions of other countries do the same - after all, it's the only way a government can make an international treaty binding on all its citizens.
What is the point anyway ? Either you've got root, or you assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.
It's one thing to have to give a single (presumably trusted, limited) process permission to execute, and another thing entirely to blindly trust the OS and give it permission to do anything, anytime (that's called Windows).
It's like having your dad's car keys when he's on vacation out of town, vs. driving your dad somewhere.
There's a RIGHT way to use a computerized slides, and a WRONG way. MOST people do it the wrong way - trying to cram as much text as possible onto a single slide, then reading the slides to the audience. I won't even mention those that think their presentation isn't complete without AT LEAST 100 slides filled with, after everyone's brain has switched off, gibberish.
Slides are meant to ENHANCE and SUPPORT a presentation, not BE the presentation. They will NOT turn a mediocre teacher into a great one. I have a doctorate, so I've probably been in more years of classes than the author of the article (3rd year of college). I have been in some excellent world class courses that relied heavily on power point presentations (my microbiology teacher was just a GOOD teacher). And I have attended mind blisteringly dull lectures done on chalk (or whiteboard) in such varied topics as biochemistry and physiology (that cardiologist who will remain nameless - she simply doesn't know how to teach!). It's not the medium, it's the teacher.
Being a leader in your field or winning awards and prizes does NOT necessarily qualify you to teach well - that is an art in itself. And any number of audio-visual aids will not hide the fact that you're just a boring person that has no idea how to get your message across.
Murdoch does not "create" anything (propaganda aside). He's only "reporting" things that happen. Guess what... other people can do that too. "News" reporting is a dying art and rightly so. Back in the day, no one knew what was happening in Zimbabwe. You had to pay a professional team to fly there (or take a boat, a couple centuries ago). They would "report" the current events and either mail, telegraph, telex or eventually send the "story" in through radio or a satellite TV link. All of this cost money, and news companies had to sell a lot of advertising to cover costs.
But guess what? Times have changed. Now anyone with a cell phone and internet access can provide "breaking news". How often do I see CNN or other "news" channels showing the EXACT same video that was on LiveLeak. Except of course they "blur out" the LiveLeak logo (yeah, you try and do that to THEIR content and see how many lawyers you get on your ass). Frankly there's no value in "syndicated" news anymore. Firstly, they're almost always behind the internet, secondly, their reporting is always biased, and thirdly - I really don't want to watch the damned ads.
The device is pretty cool. Of course there's a huge bottle-neck - the communications companies providing your connectivity. I'm sure they'd love a device like this as an excuse to gouge you even more on bandwidth and dig ever deeper into your pockets. So much so that the communication companies would probably make a device like this impractical. Unless you are willing to pay an extra $200/month low low "flat rate".
We need to get rid of the middlemen. Sadly that's not going to happen soon. Too bad such a creative, innovative machine is utterly impractical.
however these days when scientists can subvert the free market and undermine sound public policy simply by publishing false papers in journals,
As a scientist, there is undeniable evidence for recent climate change and "global warming". Just look at the fact that the earth was virtually covered in ice as little as 150,000 years ago, and you'll see a trend.
I think what you're referring to is "MAN MADE" global warming. Not ALL the scientific community agree with that hypothesis because it fails to account for the shrinking martian polar caps or the increased atmospheric phenomena in Jupiter's atmosphere, for example - phenomena which are clearly not man made and yet happen to be occurring at the same time as our planet is heating up. Some people explain it away as co-incidence, talking about wobbles in Mars' revolution, etc. Anyway I'm not out to "convince" anyone of anything - that's not what science is about.
What I do want is to defend those of us that refuse to be lumped into the POLITICAL outcry about "man made" climate change which, surprise surprise, occurs at the same time as governments are enforcing a new way of taxation: taxation on "greenhouse gases". WOW. What a co-incidence. Surely there's no "political" motive behind blaming polluters for climate change? The backlash is eventually going to happen, however, when all those measures and steps fail to change global warming one bit. I wonder what the answer will be from the politicians THEN. Probably more taxes.
Climate change, however, IS a fact. Our poles ARE receding, and our AVERAGE temperatures are increasing. If you deny this I suggest a little more research.
Excuse me, but your own quote seems to rebuff your exclusion...
Only if you conveniently look at the '+' that favors your argument, and completely ignore the '-' as well as the MEAN. OK so one person gained weight out of 58.
Fat is a long term storage form of energy. Everything (proteins, glucose) can be converted to fat, but fat cannot be converted back to glucose (unless you count the lone glycerol molecule that holds the 3 fatty acids together on the triglyceride). It's NOT a reverse reaction. Thus the problems begin. It's easy to make fat, and hard to get rid of it.
So how is exercise supposed to get rid of fat then? Well, fat CAN be converted to acetyl-COA and shoved into the Krebs cycle. Only the Krebs cycle is an AEROBIC process and takes place in the mitochondria, not in the cytoplasm of the cells. Aha! Problem #2. Sedentary people have fewer mitochondria than athletic people. Therefore their ability to "burn" fat as acetyl-CoA is limited. An athlete can burn fat just as efficiently as glucose, the only difference being he'll lose out on the couple ATP from glycolysis.
So you need mitochondria, in quantity, to burn up acetyl-CoA and therefore fat. If you don't get rid of the acetyl-CoA somehow, the whole catabolic process starts backing up. How do you obtain mitochondria? Increased exercise - over a sustained period. 12 weeks is hardly enough to increase the number of mitochondria in your muscle cells, much less expect them to burn through a dozens of kilos of fat. But the title of this article is misleading - according to the study the cited article is based on -
Mean reduction in body weight was -3.3 ±3.63kg (P less than 0.01). However, 26 of the 58 participants failed to attain the predicted weight loss estimated from individuals' exercise-induced energy expenditure. Their mean weight loss was only -0.9 ±1.8kg (P less than 0.01). Despite attaining lower than predicted weight reduction, these individuals experienced significant increases in aerobic capacity (6.3 ±6.0ml.kg-1.min-1; P less than 0.01), decreased systolic (-6.00 ±11.5mmHg; P less than 0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (-3.9 ±5.8mmHg; P less than 0.01), waist circumference (-3.7 ±2.7cm; P less than 0.01) and resting heart rate (-4.8±8.9bpm, p less than 0.001). In addition, these individuals experienced an acute exercise-induced increase in positive mood.
So they ALL lost weight. Only some (probably cheated on their diets/lied about their original diet) lost LESS weight than others. Continuing the exercise for more than 12 weeks would probably have caused further reduction in weight. I don't know HOW the submitter can turn that into "Why Doesn't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss?". Oh yeah, but this is slashdot- news for nerds. This site should be renamed to "Slashdot - news for trolls: engage critical thinking now".
"Never attribute to a time traveling malicious Higgs boson what can easily be attributed to human stupidity."
Physicists spend too much time in the lab in theoretical situations. It's amazing that when they design a machine that will go outside, they forget that birds tend to crap on everything.
1) Point the rod at the nearest bystander. 2) Shoot and kill the bystander with a rifle. 3) Search the body of the dead bystander. If said body is wrapped in explosives - Congratulations! Your bomb detector rod has worked successfully. Otherwise if the body lacked explosives, this means your bomb detector rod is not properly calibrated. Return to step 1 and repeat instructions until your rod is calibrated.
A brief read through comments on this very/. article will tell you that the story is quite different for many people.
Actually if you check the time I posted and read the articles posted before mine, you'll notice that the overwhelming majority of comments are along the lines of "problems, WHAT problems?". Sure, people have had trouble. No, I'm not going to read 900+ comments posted AFTER mine to make you happy. However I certainly feel that, despite a few users having problems, the headline: "Early adopters stung" is unjustified and inflammatory.
I'm curious which morals would you have me and the rest of us adopt to solve our "problems" because to me that sounds like another case of "makes" 'cause you want to make me have the morals you would want me to have.
Well, the ones about not killing people or driving on the approved side of the road, or how about not stealing... those morals. You seem to think they are commendable things, since obviously you want to make people do them.
I don't have the answer to all problems. But I certainly know that making legislating for every possible scenario of human interaction and thus having some central bureaucracy make every possible action a potential legal minefield is not a good answer.
Seriously, make slum lords live in their buildings, make the banksters who did the fraudulent mortgages...
Make Make Make Make MAKE!!!
All arguments for a nanny state. Consider the following:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it." - Henry David Thoreau
Be careful what you wish for, or they will be coming for YOU soon. The problem is people wanting the government to MAKE other people do things. The solution is having people with sound ethics and principles, so that no one has to MAKE anyone do anything. This is called parenting, or raising your children properly. However it's a dying art, and we're left with half of the population of spoiled brats screaming for a government that will MAKE the other half of the population who are also spoiled brats do "x". What you will end up with in reality is a huge government that will MAKE everyone broke and oppressed, until the next revolution. History is full of these cycles, and people never learn. The collapse of a country is always preceded by a moral collapse.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked, there is not a war going on in Coshocton, OH
Well actually the US is a country at war. Fighting TWO wars, as a matter of fact. I know the point you're trying to make - that part of the Conventions was mostly about rounding up people in a town and shooting them for being Belgian (I don't see a problem with that but never mind), not using that well known grade-school teacher tactic of "if someone doesn't tell me who did this, the whole class is getting detention!" but still...
case law
One of the HUGE flaws in the legal system.
Just because some idiot judge made some decision X years ago, now like little sheep, everyone has to cite that case. Effectively this gives judges the power to "make" laws, or at least an interpretation of it. Instead of the system working as DESIGNED, where each and every person gets judged on a CASE BY CASE basis, considering the changing times and technology, the individual nuances of this particular case: nope, let's pull out A vs B in 1978 and yes, there it is - let's fuck this guy over.
Why even bother paying judges?
What responsibility or culpability does the bar owner / bar tender have if someone leaves their bar totally drunk and kills someone on their way home?
In the litigation-happy US, I know that bartenders have been successfully sued for just that. But then again, crooks can sue the owner of a car they stole because the brakes are faulty.
A criminal case, however, is another thing entirely.
Common sense, however, would say that no one forced the person into the bar, and no one forced the person to drink that alcohol. The bartender merely provides a service, and can't be responsible for all the wrongs in the world. However litigation has very little to do with common sense.
Geneva Convention applies to international conflict bud, not private corporations.
Actually IANAL but:
International treaties and conventions ARE the law of the land if your country is a signatory, and said law must be respected by all persons - physical or judicial. Corporations are NOT above the law.
There's a little clause in the US constitution that says:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Most constitutions of other countries do the same - after all, it's the only way a government can make an international treaty binding on all its citizens.
Its trivial for the cable company to inert a watermark identifying the time, date and cable subscriber recording that stream.
You're forgetting about the global nature of the internet. A chain is only as strong as it's WEAKEST link, the saying goes.
This stream was recorded in the boondocks somewhere in Nigeria. Come and get me...
At most, it has applied for a patent who's claims could be twisted to make it look like they're trying to patent sudo.
And this doesn't bother you? Obviously you haven't hanging been around many IP lawyers lately...
What is the point anyway ? Either you've got root, or you assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.
It's one thing to have to give a single (presumably trusted, limited) process permission to execute, and another thing entirely to blindly trust the OS and give it permission to do anything, anytime (that's called Windows).
It's like having your dad's car keys when he's on vacation out of town, vs. driving your dad somewhere.
Isn't it better to have all that energy released gradually, instead of all at once? :)
There's a RIGHT way to use a computerized slides, and a WRONG way. MOST people do it the wrong way - trying to cram as much text as possible onto a single slide, then reading the slides to the audience. I won't even mention those that think their presentation isn't complete without AT LEAST 100 slides filled with, after everyone's brain has switched off, gibberish.
Slides are meant to ENHANCE and SUPPORT a presentation, not BE the presentation. They will NOT turn a mediocre teacher into a great one. I have a doctorate, so I've probably been in more years of classes than the author of the article (3rd year of college). I have been in some excellent world class courses that relied heavily on power point presentations (my microbiology teacher was just a GOOD teacher). And I have attended mind blisteringly dull lectures done on chalk (or whiteboard) in such varied topics as biochemistry and physiology (that cardiologist who will remain nameless - she simply doesn't know how to teach!). It's not the medium, it's the teacher.
Being a leader in your field or winning awards and prizes does NOT necessarily qualify you to teach well - that is an art in itself. And any number of audio-visual aids will not hide the fact that you're just a boring person that has no idea how to get your message across.
Cute analogy - except, it's not even his stuff.
Murdoch does not "create" anything (propaganda aside). He's only "reporting" things that happen. Guess what... other people can do that too. "News" reporting is a dying art and rightly so. Back in the day, no one knew what was happening in Zimbabwe. You had to pay a professional team to fly there (or take a boat, a couple centuries ago). They would "report" the current events and either mail, telegraph, telex or eventually send the "story" in through radio or a satellite TV link. All of this cost money, and news companies had to sell a lot of advertising to cover costs.
But guess what? Times have changed. Now anyone with a cell phone and internet access can provide "breaking news". How often do I see CNN or other "news" channels showing the EXACT same video that was on LiveLeak. Except of course they "blur out" the LiveLeak logo (yeah, you try and do that to THEIR content and see how many lawyers you get on your ass). Frankly there's no value in "syndicated" news anymore. Firstly, they're almost always behind the internet, secondly, their reporting is always biased, and thirdly - I really don't want to watch the damned ads.
The device is pretty cool. Of course there's a huge bottle-neck - the communications companies providing your connectivity. I'm sure they'd love a device like this as an excuse to gouge you even more on bandwidth and dig ever deeper into your pockets. So much so that the communication companies would probably make a device like this impractical. Unless you are willing to pay an extra $200/month low low "flat rate".
We need to get rid of the middlemen. Sadly that's not going to happen soon. Too bad such a creative, innovative machine is utterly impractical.
So I should throw out all the knowledge I learned in 6 years of medical school and 10 years of practice, and take your word for it?
I think not.
however these days when scientists can subvert the free market and undermine sound public policy simply by publishing false papers in journals,
As a scientist, there is undeniable evidence for recent climate change and "global warming". Just look at the fact that the earth was virtually covered in ice as little as 150,000 years ago, and you'll see a trend.
I think what you're referring to is "MAN MADE" global warming. Not ALL the scientific community agree with that hypothesis because it fails to account for the shrinking martian polar caps or the increased atmospheric phenomena in Jupiter's atmosphere, for example - phenomena which are clearly not man made and yet happen to be occurring at the same time as our planet is heating up. Some people explain it away as co-incidence, talking about wobbles in Mars' revolution, etc. Anyway I'm not out to "convince" anyone of anything - that's not what science is about.
What I do want is to defend those of us that refuse to be lumped into the POLITICAL outcry about "man made" climate change which, surprise surprise, occurs at the same time as governments are enforcing a new way of taxation: taxation on "greenhouse gases". WOW. What a co-incidence. Surely there's no "political" motive behind blaming polluters for climate change? The backlash is eventually going to happen, however, when all those measures and steps fail to change global warming one bit. I wonder what the answer will be from the politicians THEN. Probably more taxes.
Climate change, however, IS a fact. Our poles ARE receding, and our AVERAGE temperatures are increasing. If you deny this I suggest a little more research.
The car in the front is a professional, probably government employed, driver.
Now I REALLY feel safe...
Excuse me, but your own quote seems to rebuff your exclusion...
Only if you conveniently look at the '+' that favors your argument, and completely ignore the '-' as well as the MEAN. OK so one person gained weight out of 58.
That's your problem right there. Let's see:
Fat is a long term storage form of energy. Everything (proteins, glucose) can be converted to fat, but fat cannot be converted back to glucose (unless you count the lone glycerol molecule that holds the 3 fatty acids together on the triglyceride). It's NOT a reverse reaction. Thus the problems begin. It's easy to make fat, and hard to get rid of it.
So how is exercise supposed to get rid of fat then? Well, fat CAN be converted to acetyl-COA and shoved into the Krebs cycle. Only the Krebs cycle is an AEROBIC process and takes place in the mitochondria, not in the cytoplasm of the cells. Aha! Problem #2. Sedentary people have fewer mitochondria than athletic people. Therefore their ability to "burn" fat as acetyl-CoA is limited. An athlete can burn fat just as efficiently as glucose, the only difference being he'll lose out on the couple ATP from glycolysis.
So you need mitochondria, in quantity, to burn up acetyl-CoA and therefore fat. If you don't get rid of the acetyl-CoA somehow, the whole catabolic process starts backing up. How do you obtain mitochondria? Increased exercise - over a sustained period. 12 weeks is hardly enough to increase the number of mitochondria in your muscle cells, much less expect them to burn through a dozens of kilos of fat. But the title of this article is misleading - according to the study the cited article is based on -
Mean reduction in body weight was -3.3 ±3.63kg (P less than 0.01). However, 26 of the 58 participants failed to attain the predicted weight loss estimated from individuals' exercise-induced energy expenditure. Their mean weight loss was only -0.9 ±1.8kg (P less than 0.01). Despite attaining lower than predicted weight reduction, these individuals experienced significant increases in aerobic capacity (6.3 ±6.0ml.kg-1.min-1; P less than 0.01), decreased systolic (-6.00 ±11.5mmHg; P less than 0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (-3.9 ±5.8mmHg; P less than 0.01), waist circumference (-3.7 ±2.7cm; P less than 0.01) and resting heart rate (-4.8±8.9bpm, p less than 0.001). In addition, these individuals experienced an acute exercise-induced increase in positive mood.
So they ALL lost weight. Only some (probably cheated on their diets/lied about their original diet) lost LESS weight than others. Continuing the exercise for more than 12 weeks would probably have caused further reduction in weight. I don't know HOW the submitter can turn that into "Why Doesn't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss?". Oh yeah, but this is slashdot- news for nerds. This site should be renamed to "Slashdot - news for trolls: engage critical thinking now".
The project will look at potential obstacles to the device, such as the effects of perfume
And completely ignores the premise that a religious fanatic about to die for his god might not be afraid at all!
"Never attribute to a time traveling malicious Higgs boson what can easily be attributed to human stupidity."
Physicists spend too much time in the lab in theoretical situations. It's amazing that when they design a machine that will go outside, they forget that birds tend to crap on everything.
1) Point the rod at the nearest bystander.
2) Shoot and kill the bystander with a rifle.
3) Search the body of the dead bystander. If said body is wrapped in explosives - Congratulations! Your bomb detector rod has worked successfully. Otherwise if the body lacked explosives, this means your bomb detector rod is not properly calibrated. Return to step 1 and repeat instructions until your rod is calibrated.
A brief read through comments on this very /. article will tell you that the story is quite different for many people.
Actually if you check the time I posted and read the articles posted before mine, you'll notice that the overwhelming majority of comments are along the lines of "problems, WHAT problems?". Sure, people have had trouble. No, I'm not going to read 900+ comments posted AFTER mine to make you happy. However I certainly feel that, despite a few users having problems, the headline: "Early adopters stung" is unjustified and inflammatory.
Have had Karmic Koala since release and have not had any problems, unlike 8.04 which broke my sound drivers. This release has been flawless.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a nanny state, you dumb libertarian cunt.
Well enjoy your nanny state. Me, I moved.
I'm curious which morals would you have me and the rest of us adopt to solve our "problems" because to me that sounds like another case of "makes" 'cause you want to make me have the morals you would want me to have.
Well, the ones about not killing people or driving on the approved side of the road, or how about not stealing... those morals. You seem to think they are commendable things, since obviously you want to make people do them.
I don't have the answer to all problems. But I certainly know that making legislating for every possible scenario of human interaction and thus having some central bureaucracy make every possible action a potential legal minefield is not a good answer.
Seriously, make slum lords live in their buildings, make the banksters who did the fraudulent mortgages...
Make Make Make Make MAKE!!!
All arguments for a nanny state. Consider the following:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it." - Henry David Thoreau
Be careful what you wish for, or they will be coming for YOU soon. The problem is people wanting the government to MAKE other people do things. The solution is having people with sound ethics and principles, so that no one has to MAKE anyone do anything. This is called parenting, or raising your children properly. However it's a dying art, and we're left with half of the population of spoiled brats screaming for a government that will MAKE the other half of the population who are also spoiled brats do "x". What you will end up with in reality is a huge government that will MAKE everyone broke and oppressed, until the next revolution. History is full of these cycles, and people never learn. The collapse of a country is always preceded by a moral collapse.
Why can't it just be "the article" most of the time?
Someone forgot to RTFM...