Nice post! To bad you mangled the parent post which does not say what you are ranting about, and makes you look like the one needing the 'GDE [sic]'.
The parent is making the point that if you are American, then be American and be proud of it. If you are African, be African and be proud of it - but there is no such place as African-America.
You quoted the parent poster incorrectly, changing what was said. They did not post "African American crap", they posted "What... is this "African-American" crap?" meaning what is up with calling themselves African-American. Either people are African and should get themselves back to Africa and stop complaining about how bad it is here in America, or they are American and should call themselves American, and quit perpetuating the 'poor me' attitude by clinging to the claim of 'African-American'.
It is you, and people like you (ignorant, willing to misread what is in front of them, ready to jump to misinformed conclusions - notice I never once specified any race, nationality, or religion. Ignorance, impetuousness, and prejudice are not specific to any one race, nationality, creed, or religion.) that create and perpetuate racial classes.
If you have families for 300 years who received free labor and had trade agreements with other countries don't you feel this is unfair.
My family has not been in America for 300 years.
My family has never received free labor from ownership of others.
My family has never had trade agreements with other countries.
But if they had, I am sure they/we/I would not feel this is unfair. What is your point?
By the way, a question usually ends with a question mark, I believe you were meaning GED (substitute high school diploma) instead of "GDE", and the generalizing I see being done is on your part, which does seem to validate your point about it being a sign of ignorance.
THREE bits changing. You are using binary, not Gray code. For binary, you are correct, for Gray code, you are not.
By the way, I always thought it was Grey - with an 'e' instead of an 'a' - but while Google does show a Grey code, it does not seem to be the same as the Gray code.
Funny you should mention kidneys. My friend just got her blood test results back (creatinine, etc) and her numbers were normal
Good for her again. But having a normal creatinine level in her blood does not mean anything about her kidneys - except that they are managing to keep up with the demands being placed on them. It does NOT mean she is not damaging them or will not have problems later in life that could have been prevented through PROPER diet at this stage in her life.
Parrot the "conventional wisdom" all you want, I can see the truth with my own eyes.
Appearances can be deceiving. My server has a redundant power supply. My server is up and running therefore "I can see the truth with my own eyes" that the power supply is fine. However, tests have let me know that the primary power supply has failed and I am running on the backup. A new power supply has been ordered. Have you put in an order for a new kidney for your girlfriend to replace the ones she is abusing through diet? Or are you perhaps expecting to order a new girlfriend when the current one fails?
Millions of dollars are spent each year on research into causes and possible cures for cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and diabetes. For you to label it as "conventional wisdom" and dismiss it all is extremely arrogant as well as shortsighted when it comes to the health of someone close to you.
You seem to be concerned with your girlfriends' health, which is good of you, and good for her. But to base actions - specifically diet - on the appearance (the "truth" your eyes can show you) that no harm is being done does not support the concern you seem to be showing. Are you really concerned? Then go to a registered dietitian, a physician, or a diabetic nurse educator for diet FACTS.
I worked 10 years as an ambulance attendant, 10 years as a nurse in the ER, and 4 years in critical care - Cardiovascular Unit, and then the Medical ward for 3 years. I have dealt with more diabetic patients, cardiac patients, and kidney disease patients than I chose to remember. My comments are based on college education, 27 years experience and - as a diabetic myself - research on topics of intrest and importance to myself. Your comments are based on...?
There is already an insulin pump that is programmed to deliver small doses over time, and a monitor that gives minute by minute glucose readings.
In fact, some places let you use the monitor to record (on tape cassettes) your readings so that the pump can be programmed for your bodys' sugar rhythm. Unfortunately, due to price, most insurances won't cover the monitor, and the price is out of most peoples range.
Both are fairly expensive, but if they could combine the two and give up-to-the-second insulin doses, the effects of diabetes would be greatly alleviated.
Insulin CAN be injected directly in to the blood stream - it just becomes _very_ fast acting. It is usually injected into the fatty pad or tissue because that slows the absorption to a managable level. In the hospital where I work we do, for specific reasons and conditions, and always on a doctors order and with oversite from the pharmacy, hang IVs with insulin in them.
For routine home use, though, avoid injecting into the bloodstream. It is not a Good Thing!
Meat is not the problem. Carbs are bad; "trans fats" (hydrogenated fats) are awful. Protein and natural fats are your friend.
This is just so wrong on so many points that I am not really sure where to start.
Meat is a problem FOR DIABETICS, not because of the protein, but because of the byproducts of the body breaking down the meat - mainly creatinine, but also others. Protein gives the same number of calories (actually KiloCalories...) as carbs on a gram for gram basis, which means the two actually break down to the same amount of glucose in the blood stream. Protein also provides amino acids the body uses to build its own protein - connective tissue and muscle. For diabetics, though, the breakdown of the protein in meat causes an increased stress on the kidneys - already stressed by the excess glucose in the blood stream (excess glucose is excreted in the urine. Diabetes Mellitus actually means "sweet tasting urine" as ancient healers diagnosed the disease by tasting the urine. If it was sweet, you were going to die as there was no insulin at that time) . In addition, the number one killer of diabetics is cardiovascular disease, and eating animal products (including meat) is the only source of non-indogenous cholesterol.
I have a friend who's diabetic. She has lost 35 pounds in the last year on a low-carb diet and she now only needs one long-acting insulin shot per day (and her doc even lowered her dose of that) because her blood sugar has gotten so stable. In the process, her cholesterol and triglycerides have decreased dramatically. She is much healthier now, eating lots of meat and cheese and vegetables, than she was when she followed the government's dietary recommendations.
Good for her! However, the benefits she is seeing are not from the low-carb diet, but from the weight loss, and I would guess from an increase in exercise - exercise is recommended in lowering cholesterol, lowering the low density lipoproteins (bad cholesterol) and raising the high density lipoproteins (good cholesterol) The problem I see is that, if she lost the weight ONLY on a low carb diet (no exercise - which I don't really believe) then she stressed her kidneys much more than she should have - kidneys have a large reserve of redundancy, but when kidney disease sets in, it goes quickly as all the redundancy has been used up before symptoms show.
The number one killer of diabetics is cardiovascular disease, and diet plays a huge part in that. I have already said the low carb diet was not a good idea, but another factor also enters into it - again through the kidneys. ACE (angiotensen converting enzyme) is produced in the kidneys and used by the body to help regulate blood pressure. So a diet high in protein from animal sources increases blood cholesterol, and also may - through kidney damage - cause a long-term increase in blood pressure.
If you want diet advise, see a registered dietitian, not someone posting about a friend on slashdot - unless they ARE a registered dietitian, in which case I would not expect them to be posting such general advise.
I am also diabetic, and your advise about the HgA1c is correct and also not correct.
What you need is the new continuous blood glucose monitor as HgA1c is a HISTORY, not a check of what is right now.
Knowing what your blood sugar was 3 months ago (90 days is about the life of the blood cell that is used to check HgA1c) is invaluable in telling what your medications or diet regimen are doing or helping you make long term changes, but useless in knowing if you are having to much glucose or insulin RIGHT NOW.
Most diabetics should monitor and control their sugars very closely to prevent future health problems - HgA1c is not very helpful there.
I was a nurse in critical care for many years, and currently am dealing with diabetes myself. I am coming from both an educational and personal background here.
Intel was responsible enough to disclose the problem and do a recall instead of hiding the problem and quietly repacing "defective" processers on a case by case basis as many companies do.
Nice history re-write!
What actually happened was much less forthright and upstanding - you had to prove to Intel that the problem DID - not would or could - affect you before they would replace the defective CPU.
Intel Corp.'s response to the flap over its Pentium processor bug is turning into a textbook example of how not to handle a delicate situation. Angry customers have posted hundreds of complaints on CompuServe and the Usenet. These users, who paid top dollar for the most expensive microprocessor in its class, have learned that the chip doesn't handle floating-point division consistently. When the users request help, the Intel "sysbot" repeats, "If you have questions about the subtle floating-point unit flaw of the Intel Pentium processor, cal l 1-800-628-8686." (from an article in InformationWeek appearing 12-19-1994, my emphasis)
And:
While Intel president Andy Grove now says he's "truly sorry," the company pooh-poohed user concerns at first, claiming its chip problem would affect "users of the Pentium processor who are engaged in heavy-duty scientific/floating-point calculations," as Grove's Internet posting put it. Users, upon reaching Intel's 800 number, apparently go through a lengthy interview process to see if Intel deems them worthy of receiving a corrected chip. If you can't convince Intel that you may encounter the bug in daily life, you just don't make the cut. (Intel To Users: 'Humbug!)
Threats of class action lawsuits probably had something to do with Intel being "responsible enough to disclose the problem and do a recall instead of hiding the problem and quietly repacing "defective" processers on a case by case basis as many companies do."
Must be nice being so self-righteous - even if you wrong.
McDonalds was told the coffee was to hot, but they ignored that fact and did not lower the temperature of their coffee. The reason? If they kept it hotter, it did not have to be thrown out as often, so they spent less on supplies - like coffee.
McDonalds paid out several claims for burns before the lady in question got burned. Over 700 claims submitted, unknown how many were paid - however one woman was paid over $230,000. They did not lower the temperature, as they expected they would gain more money by not throwing out the stale coffee than they paid out in claims for burns.
McDonalds modified the coffee cups so that the lid was an integral part, providing structural support. The lady in question was burned in a car that was sitting still because she took the lid off to add cream/sugar/something. Taking the lid off weakened the cup enough that it collapsed, spilling hot coffee on her and burning her to the point of needing skin grafts.
McDonalds expert witness, paid $15,000 (only $5,000 less than Ms. Liebeck wanted in the first place!), "Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually.
To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare."
Interviews with the jurors after the verdict show that almost all of them went into the case thinking just like you, that coffee is hot, and if you spill some on yourself, then you deal with it. As the case was presented to them, they went to the side of the plaintiff when they understood the "callous disregard for the safety of the people." The verdict was for $200,000, reduced by 20% as the jury found Ms. Liebeck that much at fault.
Some jurors wanted to give punitive damages of up to $9.6M, but settled on $2.7M - the equivalent of 2 days coffee sales by McDonalds. The judge lowered the punitive damages to teh legal limit of three times actual damages, or $480,000. McDonalds and Ms. Liebeck then reached an agreement out-of-court for an undisclosed sum.
Bottom line is she was, with no warning, put in a dangerous situation by McDonalds actions and conduct, and was injured - and a jury held McDonalds liable. In addition, the (excessive? Two days sales of coffee?) award of punitive damages was not enforced as the law already limited punitive damage awards to 3x actual damages.
SURGEON GENERALS WARNING Living life can be hazardous to your health If you do not accept these terms please self abort now
I agree, but think it can be summed up better by "Life is not fair. Get over it."
One fault with your logic is that, ... stuff deleted...they are not required to tell you they are felons.
Last time I applied for work with the federal government, with the state government, or at a security establishment, as well as when I enlisted in the Army National Guard (I have worked in reformatories, state and federal prisons and holding centers, as well as with police and in healthcare in several communities) there was a set of check boxes that said things like "Have you EVER been convicted of a felony?", "Have you ever taken medications/drugs not prescribed by a physician?" and stating that false answers are punishable under the law, and that if hired before determining that the statements are false, you also will be dismissed/dishonorably discharged/charged with additional crimes.
In addition, in the US, a FELON is not allowed to vote, nor is (s)he allowed to legally own a firearm.
Try looking at it from the side of the person you abuse.
In this case, try looking at it from the side of the person who has obeyed the rules, but doesn't get the job when it goes to someone who does not/did not obey the rules. Better yet, try looking at it from the side of society, not from some utopian 'what-if'.
There is a saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." meaning that actions have consequences, and that you accept those consequences when you decide to do the action.
Criminals are made to spend time in prison to reform.(my emphasis)
Wrong.
The root of the word Reformatory is reform, which is what they were supposed to do to their inmates. It doesn't always happen
The root of the word penitentiary is penitent, which is what the people inside were supposed to be. Not all are.
Criminals are made to spend time in prison to get them out of society when they demonstrate that they cannot/will not abide by the rules of our society. After a time, they may be allowed to re-enter society. Here in the U.S., some places have a "three strikes" law, basically stating if you show you can not follow the rules three separate times, then you are not allowed back into society for a much longer time. If the person breaking the rules IS penitent, or wants to reform, then great, they avoid the "three strikes". However, I don't think you can mandate either penitence or reform. Like stopping smoking, it is done because you want to, not because someone says you have to.... why the hell did the prosecutor get the 'criminal' the sentence in the first place...
The prosecutor did not get the sentence, they got the conviction by proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" the person did the crime. The sentence, at least here in the US is either mandated by law, or imposed by the judge/jury at a sentencing hearing. Usually the sentencing guidelines are built into the rule - "If you do this, then you are guilty of this crime, and it is punishable by incarceration of not more than... months or less than... months." If the point was reformation, then the guidelines would have an indication of how to tell if the person was reformed or not, or "until reformed" or "until repentent" not a specified time.
Should one mistake be a burden for the rest of your life?
From the article
After the session, Painter said that his real concern is that Mitnick showed "very little remorse" for the damage he caused during a two-year hacking rampage in the 1990's, that began while he was on probation for a former hacking conviction. (my emphasis)
ONE mistake, maybe not. Multiple mistakes, some while on probation for prior instances of THE SAME MISTAKE? "What we have here is a failure to communicate!" - or a slow learner!
I agree that it sets a bad example for the youth in this way, but even a marihuana smoking hippie became president.....:-)
This happens all of the time with non-felons. Point?
Where to even start with this...
1) Sheep ranchers don't buy dogs that have killed sheep because they know how the wolves wanting to kill sheep think, they get dogs that have a history of working with sheep in the past or in their ancestry. Why? because while ALL dogs CAN kill sheep (All people CAN commit crimes), some dogs DO kill sheep (some people DO commit crimes), and if they have in the past, what is to say they won't again in the future?
2) If I have something I value highly enough to hire a security consultant to help me protect it, why should I hire a CONVICTED thief? Isn't that just putting temptation in front of them - after they have PROVEN they can succumb to temptation? Even if I don't tell them what I am guarding, or why I value it, I am telling them that I have SOMETHING I value enough to want to protect it.
Personally, I think Kevin Mitnick has demonstrated that he can not be trusted. He broke trust by 'social engineering' (lying) and by intruding into areas he had no business in, and by doing so even after being convicted of doing so - After the session, Painter said that his real concern is that Mitnick showed "very little remorse" for the damage he caused during a two-year hacking rampage in the 1990's, that began while he was on probation for a former hacking conviction. (my emphasis)
3) There is a story about a man that, while out walking in th ewinter, comes upon a serpent that is freezing. The serpent begs the man to save him, but the man is wary of being bitten. Finally the serpent promises not to bite, so the man tucks the snake into his shirt to warm up. Once the snake warms up, though, he bites the man. While dying, the man asks "Why did you bite me, all I wanted to do was help, to save you!" and the snake answers "You knew what I was when you picked me up."
My point is that once something/someone shows their nature, expecting them to not follow that nature is unrealistic. It might work out at times, but I would not bet my company, my income, or my life on it (or even my sheep!).
41. Defendant's web site also has been the subject of an article in the university newspaper, "The Daily Princetonian." In November 2002, the newspaper highlighted the centralized indexing and searching functions provided by Defendant's web site that enable students to more efficiently "get music" on the university's network.
Plaintiffs are presumably referring to this article which appeared on November 20. The article mentions "wake" among several other sites that index the Princeton network. The article supports viewing Wake as a filename-indexing engine.
Read the article, follow some of the links.
RIAA charges include contributory copyright infringement accusing that Peng "has taken a network created for higher learning and academic pursuits and converted it into an emporium of music piracy where copyright infringement is simplified down to the click of a computer mouse", and of direct copyright infringement for "copying and distributing hundreds of sound recordings over his system without the authorization of the copyright owners.(my emphasis, links not retained)
So the article DOES mention both the 'facts' you state are missing, and also addresses the fact that the charge of "contributory copyright infringement" is totally separate from the charge of "direct copyright infringement", and being guilty of one does NOT mean that he is guilty of the other. The article recognizes both charges, but addresses only the one charge.
In fact, the article states:
First, plaintiffs allege that the defendant has committed contributory infringement by running a search service. Second, plaintiffs allege that the defendant committed direct infringement by "copying and distributing hundreds of sound recordings over his system without the authorization of the copyright owners."
The former complaint shall be the focus of this analysis. The latter complaint (of direct infringement) is less legally interesting: precedent in cases of direct infringement is much more clear than it is for contributory infringement. Determining its presence is largely a matter of fact-finding, not one of legal reasoning. As this is an analytical, rather than a factual article, we will not consider the claims of direct infringement.
I don't think anything you said disagrees with anything I posted.:-)
If the index is moderated, then anything in the index is there BECAUSE THE MODERATOR KNOWS IT IS THERE AND WANTS IT THERE, which puts the liability (at least partially, as I understand it) on the moderator.
The DMCA point is well taken, as it is still not the moderator/editor/list owner/indexing software owner making the changes on his/her own, but in response to notification of a possible illegal activity.
But back to the parent poster, if the person being sued would '...just remove the files from his index.' without the notification of an illegal act, then he would be taking responsibility - as you pointed out "Now, if CmdrTaco removed things for reasons other than DMCA takedowns, he might become responsible. For example, if as a matter of policy, he deleted posts that mention Scientology, then any Scientology-related posts that somehow remained on Slashdot, would be highly suspicious. CmdrTaco's ass might not be covered." - which I agree is not a thought to have on a full stomach.
So, to minimize liability he either should police the index so thoroughly that NO POSSIBLE file could be listed that might infringe on a copyright, or he should NOT MODIFY the index - i.e., allow the listing in the index of copyright infringing files - making his index just like a phone book. I think, an "escort service" can advertise in the yellow pages legally, even if they have been convicted of prostitution in the past. My point is that, although his index could be considered to 'facilitate' an illegal activity, if the phone company is not liable for the prostitution ('facilitated' by the yellow pages listing), the index owner is not liable for copyright infringement based solely on the index.
I am wondering, though, what his liability is supposed to be. He has a listing of files OWNED BY OTHERS that MIGHT be infringing on a copyright. Copyright infringing files HE OWNS are a legal liability, but the rest is just cruft from the RIAA.
The RIAA has mucho dinero, maybe they are smoking some righteous stuff.
Yes, making a profit from copyright infringment is bad, but not necessary to establish liability.
Part of the reason for copyright is to reserve the OPPORTUNITY to make a profit from the work to the copyright holder. If I make copies of your work and give them away for free, I have not made a profit, but I may have eliminated a few sales and reduced your profit. You can use the copyright laws to make me 'make you whole' by coughing up enough cash to cover what you would have made, and possibly punative damages - I don't know, IANAL.
In addition, there is a statutory penalty involved - $150,000 per!
If he starts censoring the lists, then it is not a listing of data (like the phone book) but a derivative work which is copyrighted to him - AND HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENTS!
Messing with the listing/index shows maintenance, which implies ownership - which brings liability!
In true Slashdot tradition, I have not read the article, but it seems to me that a robot search and index of available files does NOT bring, impart, or indicate a responsibility or liability for those files, while modifying the index by removing the index entry of any of the files found (only in the index, not the actual file)they would be expressing an endorsement of the availability of the files listed and bringing legal liability on themselves.
Slashdot editors do not censor the postings, not because they can't or because they agree with everything posted, but because if they start, then everything posted must be edited by them, and they assume legal liability for libel if they allow postings that may be libelous, or for hate crimes if hate messages are posted, copyright infringement if copyrighted material is posted, etc.
In the list of states, ordered from largest to smallest, Texas is number two, not number one. If the state at the top of that list was cut in two, Texas would actually drop a spot to number three on the list.
"Back home in Texas, I could get in my truch and ride all day and not get to the end of my property"
...shouting "IRAQ!" when she wants to get attention...
My blue-fronted amazon does the same thing, except I think it is actually spelled "Awwwrrrrrrk!" Does kinda sound like 'Iraq', though, now that you mention it.
Re:Meteor strikes not that uncommon
on
Meteor Over Midwest
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ever shot a shotgun? Using shot, starting from the same starting point and being pointed in one direction, they do not all wind up at the target in the same tight wad that they were in the shot shell. In addition, the recoil of the shot may be quite uncomfortable, but at 50-60-70 yards a single pellet may not have enough energy left to even break the skin.
A slug, on the other hand, hits much harder and at much greater range.
So you hit the rock as far out as you can, breaking it into the smallest pieces you can. There will be dispersal of some of the debris to the point where it will not even strike the atmosphere, some will strike but at an angle that - depending on how close to a tangent it is - may not be in atmosphere for any length of time and remains largely intact, probably causing little or no harm.
In addition, the amount of "space dust" currently hitting the earth has been estimated to be between 14 MILLION tons (by Hans Pettersson of the Swedish Oceanographic Institute in 1957, based on studies of dust collected on Hawaiian mountains - he stated in his write-up that that number was probably quite high) to 10,000 tons based on satellite collection. This is per year, so the per day rate would be that amount/365, or almost 55,000 pounds per day (based on the 10,000 ton rate) that we are CURRENTLY receiving.
I don't know how big a rock would be that would weigh 27.5 tons (about as big as a VW?/*VBG*/) but we do seem to be dealing with the heat created by the kinetic energy just fine.
I see the problem as one of calculation - i.e., deciding with enough advanced warning that an object will in fact strike the earth and must have something done about it, as opposed to MIGHT strike the earth, but might not, so if we break it up and create a bunch of smaller pieces (but each large enough to be dangerous on their own) the possibility of one of them hitting is greater than the possibility of the larger mass hitting. In addition, the energy added in whatever means of breaking the larger mass into smaller pieces would disrupt the path of the object, so a period of observation would be required to start predicting its new path - time that might be needed for additional efforts to break up pieces that had been redirected directly at earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice post! To bad you mangled the parent post which does not say what you are ranting about, and makes you look like the one needing the 'GDE [sic]'.
... is this "African-American" crap?" meaning what is up with calling themselves African-American. Either people are African and should get themselves back to Africa and stop complaining about how bad it is here in America, or they are American and should call themselves American, and quit perpetuating the 'poor me' attitude by clinging to the claim of 'African-American'.
The parent is making the point that if you are American, then be American and be proud of it. If you are African, be African and be proud of it - but there is no such place as African-America.
You quoted the parent poster incorrectly, changing what was said. They did not post "African American crap", they posted "What
It is you, and people like you (ignorant, willing to misread what is in front of them, ready to jump to misinformed conclusions - notice I never once specified any race, nationality, or religion. Ignorance, impetuousness, and prejudice are not specific to any one race, nationality, creed, or religion.) that create and perpetuate racial classes.
If you have families for 300 years who received free labor and had trade agreements with other countries don't you feel this is unfair.
My family has not been in America for 300 years.
My family has never received free labor from ownership of others.
My family has never had trade agreements with other countries.
But if they had, I am sure they/we/I would not feel this is unfair. What is your point?
By the way, a question usually ends with a question mark, I believe you were meaning GED (substitute high school diploma) instead of "GDE", and the generalizing I see being done is on your part, which does seem to validate your point about it being a sign of ignorance.
Have a nice day.
Please don't feed the trolls.
Again, no.
See previous comments.
Gray code only changes one bit at a time.
Your listing has
0001 = 1
0010 = 2
which changes 2 bits at once, and
0011 = 3
0100 = 4
THREE bits changing. You are using binary, not Gray code. For binary, you are correct, for Gray code, you are not.
By the way, I always thought it was Grey - with an 'e' instead of an 'a' - but while Google does show a Grey code, it does not seem to be the same as the Gray code.
a charm quark with ... an anti strange [quark]
Love makes strange bedfellows...
This force, unlike most others in nature, becomes stronger as the distance between the two quarks increases.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder...
They have discovered the LOVE particle!
Funny you should mention kidneys. My friend just got her blood test results back (creatinine, etc) and her numbers were normal
...?
Good for her again. But having a normal creatinine level in her blood does not mean anything about her kidneys - except that they are managing to keep up with the demands being placed on them. It does NOT mean she is not damaging them or will not have problems later in life that could have been prevented through PROPER diet at this stage in her life.
Parrot the "conventional wisdom" all you want, I can see the truth with my own eyes.
Appearances can be deceiving. My server has a redundant power supply. My server is up and running therefore "I can see the truth with my own eyes" that the power supply is fine. However, tests have let me know that the primary power supply has failed and I am running on the backup. A new power supply has been ordered. Have you put in an order for a new kidney for your girlfriend to replace the ones she is abusing through diet? Or are you perhaps expecting to order a new girlfriend when the current one fails?
Millions of dollars are spent each year on research into causes and possible cures for cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and diabetes. For you to label it as "conventional wisdom" and dismiss it all is extremely arrogant as well as shortsighted when it comes to the health of someone close to you.
You seem to be concerned with your girlfriends' health, which is good of you, and good for her. But to base actions - specifically diet - on the appearance (the "truth" your eyes can show you) that no harm is being done does not support the concern you seem to be showing. Are you really concerned? Then go to a registered dietitian, a physician, or a diabetic nurse educator for diet FACTS.
I worked 10 years as an ambulance attendant, 10 years as a nurse in the ER, and 4 years in critical care - Cardiovascular Unit, and then the Medical ward for 3 years. I have dealt with more diabetic patients, cardiac patients, and kidney disease patients than I chose to remember. My comments are based on college education, 27 years experience and - as a diabetic myself - research on topics of intrest and importance to myself. Your comments are based on
There is already an insulin pump that is programmed to deliver small doses over time, and a monitor that gives minute by minute glucose readings.
In fact, some places let you use the monitor to record (on tape cassettes) your readings so that the pump can be programmed for your bodys' sugar rhythm. Unfortunately, due to price, most insurances won't cover the monitor, and the price is out of most peoples range.
Both are fairly expensive, but if they could combine the two and give up-to-the-second insulin doses, the effects of diabetes would be greatly alleviated.
Insulin is injected into fat, not blood.
Insulin CAN be injected directly in to the blood stream - it just becomes _very_ fast acting. It is usually injected into the fatty pad or tissue because that slows the absorption to a managable level. In the hospital where I work we do, for specific reasons and conditions, and always on a doctors order and with oversite from the pharmacy, hang IVs with insulin in them.
For routine home use, though, avoid injecting into the bloodstream. It is not a Good Thing!
Meat is not the problem. Carbs are bad; "trans fats" (hydrogenated fats) are awful. Protein and natural fats are your friend.
This is just so wrong on so many points that I am not really sure where to start.
Meat is a problem FOR DIABETICS, not because of the protein, but because of the byproducts of the body breaking down the meat - mainly creatinine, but also others. Protein gives the same number of calories (actually KiloCalories...) as carbs on a gram for gram basis, which means the two actually break down to the same amount of glucose in the blood stream. Protein also provides amino acids the body uses to build its own protein - connective tissue and muscle. For diabetics, though, the breakdown of the protein in meat causes an increased stress on the kidneys - already stressed by the excess glucose in the blood stream (excess glucose is excreted in the urine. Diabetes Mellitus actually means "sweet tasting urine" as ancient healers diagnosed the disease by tasting the urine. If it was sweet, you were going to die as there was no insulin at that time) . In addition, the number one killer of diabetics is cardiovascular disease, and eating animal products (including meat) is the only source of non-indogenous cholesterol.
I have a friend who's diabetic. She has lost 35 pounds in the last year on a low-carb diet and she now only needs one long-acting insulin shot per day (and her doc even lowered her dose of that) because her blood sugar has gotten so stable. In the process, her cholesterol and triglycerides have decreased dramatically. She is much healthier now, eating lots of meat and cheese and vegetables, than she was when she followed the government's dietary recommendations.
Good for her! However, the benefits she is seeing are not from the low-carb diet, but from the weight loss, and I would guess from an increase in exercise - exercise is recommended in lowering cholesterol, lowering the low density lipoproteins (bad cholesterol) and raising the high density lipoproteins (good cholesterol) The problem I see is that, if she lost the weight ONLY on a low carb diet (no exercise - which I don't really believe) then she stressed her kidneys much more than she should have - kidneys have a large reserve of redundancy, but when kidney disease sets in, it goes quickly as all the redundancy has been used up before symptoms show.
The number one killer of diabetics is cardiovascular disease, and diet plays a huge part in that. I have already said the low carb diet was not a good idea, but another factor also enters into it - again through the kidneys. ACE (angiotensen converting enzyme) is produced in the kidneys and used by the body to help regulate blood pressure. So a diet high in protein from animal sources increases blood cholesterol, and also may - through kidney damage - cause a long-term increase in blood pressure.
If you want diet advise, see a registered dietitian, not someone posting about a friend on slashdot - unless they ARE a registered dietitian, in which case I would not expect them to be posting such general advise.
I am also diabetic, and your advise about the HgA1c is correct and also not correct.
What you need is the new continuous blood glucose monitor as HgA1c is a HISTORY, not a check of what is right now.
Knowing what your blood sugar was 3 months ago (90 days is about the life of the blood cell that is used to check HgA1c) is invaluable in telling what your medications or diet regimen are doing or helping you make long term changes, but useless in knowing if you are having to much glucose or insulin RIGHT NOW.
Most diabetics should monitor and control their sugars very closely to prevent future health problems - HgA1c is not very helpful there.
I was a nurse in critical care for many years, and currently am dealing with diabetes myself. I am coming from both an educational and personal background here.
Intel was responsible enough to disclose the problem and do a recall instead of hiding the problem and quietly repacing "defective" processers on a case by case basis as many companies do.
Nice history re-write!
What actually happened was much less forthright and upstanding - you had to prove to Intel that the problem DID - not would or could - affect you before they would replace the defective CPU.
Intel Corp.'s response to the flap over its Pentium processor bug is turning into a textbook example of how not to handle a delicate situation. Angry customers have posted hundreds of complaints on CompuServe and the Usenet. These users, who paid top dollar for the most expensive microprocessor in its class, have learned that the chip doesn't handle floating-point division consistently. When the users request help, the Intel "sysbot" repeats, "If you have questions about the subtle floating-point unit flaw of the Intel Pentium processor, cal l 1-800-628-8686." (from an article in InformationWeek appearing 12-19-1994, my emphasis)
And:
While Intel president Andy Grove now says he's "truly sorry," the company pooh-poohed user concerns at first, claiming its chip problem would affect "users of the Pentium processor who are engaged in heavy-duty scientific/floating-point calculations," as Grove's Internet posting put it. Users, upon reaching Intel's 800 number, apparently go through a lengthy interview process to see if Intel deems them worthy of receiving a corrected chip. If you can't convince Intel that you may encounter the bug in daily life, you just don't make the cut. ( Intel To Users: 'Humbug! )
Threats of class action lawsuits probably had something to do with Intel being "responsible enough to disclose the problem and do a recall instead of hiding the problem and quietly repacing "defective" processers on a case by case basis as many companies do."
Must be nice being so self-righteous - even if you wrong.
McDonalds was told the coffee was to hot, but they ignored that fact and did not lower the temperature of their coffee. The reason? If they kept it hotter, it did not have to be thrown out as often, so they spent less on supplies - like coffee.
McDonalds paid out several claims for burns before the lady in question got burned. Over 700 claims submitted, unknown how many were paid - however one woman was paid over $230,000. They did not lower the temperature, as they expected they would gain more money by not throwing out the stale coffee than they paid out in claims for burns.
McDonalds modified the coffee cups so that the lid was an integral part, providing structural support. The lady in question was burned in a car that was sitting still because she took the lid off to add cream/sugar/something. Taking the lid off weakened the cup enough that it collapsed, spilling hot coffee on her and burning her to the point of needing skin grafts.
McDonalds expert witness, paid $15,000 (only $5,000 less than Ms. Liebeck wanted in the first place!), "Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually.
To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare."
Interviews with the jurors after the verdict show that almost all of them went into the case thinking just like you, that coffee is hot, and if you spill some on yourself, then you deal with it. As the case was presented to them, they went to the side of the plaintiff when they understood the "callous disregard for the safety of the people." The verdict was for $200,000, reduced by 20% as the jury found Ms. Liebeck that much at fault.
The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages.
Some jurors wanted to give punitive damages of up to $9.6M, but settled on $2.7M - the equivalent of 2 days coffee sales by McDonalds. The judge lowered the punitive damages to teh legal limit of three times actual damages, or $480,000. McDonalds and Ms. Liebeck then reached an agreement out-of-court for an undisclosed sum.
Bottom line is she was, with no warning, put in a dangerous situation by McDonalds actions and conduct, and was injured - and a jury held McDonalds liable. In addition, the (excessive? Two days sales of coffee?) award of punitive damages was not enforced as the law already limited punitive damage awards to 3x actual damages.
SURGEON GENERALS WARNING
Living life can be hazardous to your health
If you do not accept these terms please self abort now
I agree, but think it can be summed up better by
"Life is not fair. Get over it."
One fault with your logic is that, ... stuff deleted ... they are not required to tell you they are felons.
/did not obey the rules. Better yet, try looking at it from the side of society, not from some utopian 'what-if'.
Last time I applied for work with the federal government, with the state government, or at a security establishment, as well as when I enlisted in the Army National Guard (I have worked in reformatories, state and federal prisons and holding centers, as well as with police and in healthcare in several communities) there was a set of check boxes that said things like "Have you EVER been convicted of a felony?", "Have you ever taken medications/drugs not prescribed by a physician?" and stating that false answers are punishable under the law, and that if hired before determining that the statements are false, you also will be dismissed/dishonorably discharged/charged with additional crimes.
In addition, in the US, a FELON is not allowed to vote, nor is (s)he allowed to legally own a firearm.
Try looking at it from the side of the person you abuse.
In this case, try looking at it from the side of the person who has obeyed the rules, but doesn't get the job when it goes to someone who does not
There is a saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." meaning that actions have consequences, and that you accept those consequences when you decide to do the action.
Criminals are made to spend time in prison to reform.(my emphasis)
... why the hell did the prosecutor get the 'criminal' the sentence in the first place ...
... months or less than ... months." If the point was reformation, then the guidelines would have an indication of how to tell if the person was reformed or not, or "until reformed" or "until repentent" not a specified time .
Wrong.
The root of the word Reformatory is reform, which is what they were supposed to do to their inmates. It doesn't always happen
The root of the word penitentiary is penitent, which is what the people inside were supposed to be. Not all are.
Criminals are made to spend time in prison to get them out of society when they demonstrate that they cannot/will not abide by the rules of our society. After a time, they may be allowed to re-enter society. Here in the U.S., some places have a "three strikes" law, basically stating if you show you can not follow the rules three separate times, then you are not allowed back into society for a much longer time. If the person breaking the rules IS penitent, or wants to reform, then great, they avoid the "three strikes". However, I don't think you can mandate either penitence or reform. Like stopping smoking, it is done because you want to, not because someone says you have to.
The prosecutor did not get the sentence, they got the conviction by proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" the person did the crime. The sentence, at least here in the US is either mandated by law, or imposed by the judge/jury at a sentencing hearing. Usually the sentencing guidelines are built into the rule - "If you do this, then you are guilty of this crime, and it is punishable by incarceration of not more than
Should one mistake be a burden for the rest of your life?
..... :-)
;-)
From the article
After the session, Painter said that his real concern is that Mitnick showed "very little remorse" for the damage he caused during a two-year hacking rampage in the 1990's, that began while he was on probation for a former hacking conviction. (my emphasis)
ONE mistake, maybe not. Multiple mistakes, some while on probation for prior instances of THE SAME MISTAKE? "What we have here is a failure to communicate!" - or a slow learner!
I agree that it sets a bad example for the youth in this way, but even a marihuana smoking hippie became president
Yeah, but he didn't inhale...
This happens all of the time with non-felons. Point?
Where to even start with this...
1) Sheep ranchers don't buy dogs that have killed sheep because they know how the wolves wanting to kill sheep think, they get dogs that have a history of working with sheep in the past or in their ancestry. Why? because while ALL dogs CAN kill sheep (All people CAN commit crimes), some dogs DO kill sheep (some people DO commit crimes), and if they have in the past, what is to say they won't again in the future?
2) If I have something I value highly enough to hire a security consultant to help me protect it, why should I hire a CONVICTED thief? Isn't that just putting temptation in front of them - after they have PROVEN they can succumb to temptation? Even if I don't tell them what I am guarding, or why I value it, I am telling them that I have SOMETHING I value enough to want to protect it.
Personally, I think Kevin Mitnick has demonstrated that he can not be trusted. He broke trust by 'social engineering' (lying) and by intruding into areas he had no business in, and by doing so even after being convicted of doing so - After the session, Painter said that his real concern is that Mitnick showed "very little remorse" for the damage he caused during a two-year hacking rampage in the 1990's, that began while he was on probation for a former hacking conviction. (my emphasis)
3) There is a story about a man that, while out walking in th ewinter, comes upon a serpent that is freezing. The serpent begs the man to save him, but the man is wary of being bitten. Finally the serpent promises not to bite, so the man tucks the snake into his shirt to warm up. Once the snake warms up, though, he bites the man. While dying, the man asks "Why did you bite me, all I wanted to do was help, to save you!" and the snake answers "You knew what I was when you picked me up."
My point is that once something/someone shows their nature, expecting them to not follow that nature is unrealistic. It might work out at times, but I would not bet my company, my income, or my life on it (or even my sheep!).
Wrong, and wrong AND irrelevant.
41. Defendant's web site also has been the subject of an article in the university newspaper, "The Daily Princetonian." In November 2002, the newspaper highlighted the centralized indexing and searching functions provided by Defendant's web site that enable students to more efficiently "get music" on the university's network.
Plaintiffs are presumably referring to this article which appeared on November 20. The article mentions "wake" among several other sites that index the Princeton network. The article supports viewing Wake as a filename-indexing engine.
Read the article, follow some of the links.
RIAA charges include contributory copyright infringement accusing that Peng "has taken a network created for higher learning and academic pursuits and converted it into an emporium of music piracy where copyright infringement is simplified down to the click of a computer mouse", and of direct copyright infringement for "copying and distributing hundreds of sound recordings over his system without the authorization of the copyright owners.(my emphasis, links not retained)
So the article DOES mention both the 'facts' you state are missing, and also addresses the fact that the charge of "contributory copyright infringement" is totally separate from the charge of "direct copyright infringement", and being guilty of one does NOT mean that he is guilty of the other. The article recognizes both charges, but addresses only the one charge.
In fact, the article states:
First, plaintiffs allege that the defendant has committed contributory infringement by running a search service. Second, plaintiffs allege that the defendant committed direct infringement by "copying and distributing hundreds of sound recordings over his system without the authorization of the copyright owners."
The former complaint shall be the focus of this analysis. The latter complaint (of direct infringement) is less legally interesting: precedent in cases of direct infringement is much more clear than it is for contributory infringement. Determining its presence is largely a matter of fact-finding, not one of legal reasoning. As this is an analytical, rather than a factual article, we will not consider the claims of direct infringement.
Basic no-no, replying to your own post, but I have been informed by a co-worker that my list is in error.
Salt is not a food group.
The actual 5 major food groups are:
Sugar
Alcohol
Cholesterol
Caffine
and
That white stuff in Twinkies
Sorry for the confusion!
Whatchutalkinbout, willis?
There are 5 major food groups as everyone knows!
Sugar
Salt
Cholesterol
Caffine
and
That white stuff in Twinkies
I don't think anything you said disagrees with anything I posted. :-)
If the index is moderated, then anything in the index is there BECAUSE THE MODERATOR KNOWS IT IS THERE AND WANTS IT THERE, which puts the liability (at least partially, as I understand it) on the moderator.
The DMCA point is well taken, as it is still not the moderator/editor/list owner/indexing software owner making the changes on his/her own, but in response to notification of a possible illegal activity.
But back to the parent poster, if the person being sued would '...just remove the files from his index.' without the notification of an illegal act, then he would be taking responsibility - as you pointed out "Now, if CmdrTaco removed things for reasons other than DMCA takedowns, he might become responsible. For example, if as a matter of policy, he deleted posts that mention Scientology, then any Scientology-related posts that somehow remained on Slashdot, would be highly suspicious. CmdrTaco's ass might not be covered." - which I agree is not a thought to have on a full stomach.
So, to minimize liability he either should police the index so thoroughly that NO POSSIBLE file could be listed that might infringe on a copyright, or he should NOT MODIFY the index - i.e., allow the listing in the index of copyright infringing files - making his index just like a phone book. I think, an "escort service" can advertise in the yellow pages legally, even if they have been convicted of prostitution in the past. My point is that, although his index could be considered to 'facilitate' an illegal activity, if the phone company is not liable for the prostitution ('facilitated' by the yellow pages listing), the index owner is not liable for copyright infringement based solely on the index.
I am wondering, though, what his liability is supposed to be. He has a listing of files OWNED BY OTHERS that MIGHT be infringing on a copyright. Copyright infringing files HE OWNS are a legal liability, but the rest is just cruft from the RIAA.
The RIAA has mucho dinero, maybe they are smoking some righteous stuff.
Yes, making a profit from copyright infringment is bad, but not necessary to establish liability.
Part of the reason for copyright is to reserve the OPPORTUNITY to make a profit from the work to the copyright holder. If I make copies of your work and give them away for free, I have not made a profit, but I may have eliminated a few sales and reduced your profit. You can use the copyright laws to make me 'make you whole' by coughing up enough cash to cover what you would have made, and possibly punative damages - I don't know, IANAL.
In addition, there is a statutory penalty involved - $150,000 per!
Or he could just remove the files from his index.
NO! NO! NO!
If he starts censoring the lists, then it is not a listing of data (like the phone book) but a derivative work which is copyrighted to him - AND HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENTS!
Messing with the listing/index shows maintenance, which implies ownership - which brings liability!
In true Slashdot tradition, I have not read the article, but it seems to me that a robot search and index of available files does NOT bring, impart, or indicate a responsibility or liability for those files, while modifying the index by removing the index entry of any of the files found (only in the index, not the actual file)they would be expressing an endorsement of the availability of the files listed and bringing legal liability on themselves.
Slashdot editors do not censor the postings, not because they can't or because they agree with everything posted, but because if they start, then everything posted must be edited by them, and they assume legal liability for libel if they allow postings that may be libelous, or for hate crimes if hate messages are posted, copyright infringement if copyrighted material is posted, etc.
IANAL
In the list of states, ordered from largest to smallest, Texas is number two, not number one. If the state at the top of that list was cut in two, Texas would actually drop a spot to number three on the list.
"Back home in Texas, I could get in my truch and ride all day and not get to the end of my property"
"I had a truck like that, once..."
...shouting "IRAQ!" when she wants to get attention...
My blue-fronted amazon does the same thing, except I think it is actually spelled "Awwwrrrrrrk!" Does kinda sound like 'Iraq', though, now that you mention it.
Ever shot a shotgun? Using shot, starting from the same starting point and being pointed in one direction, they do not all wind up at the target in the same tight wad that they were in the shot shell. In addition, the recoil of the shot may be quite uncomfortable, but at 50-60-70 yards a single pellet may not have enough energy left to even break the skin.
/365, or almost 55,000 pounds per day (based on the 10,000 ton rate) that we are CURRENTLY receiving.
/*VBG*/) but we do seem to be dealing with the heat created by the kinetic energy just fine.
A slug, on the other hand, hits much harder and at much greater range.
So you hit the rock as far out as you can, breaking it into the smallest pieces you can. There will be dispersal of some of the debris to the point where it will not even strike the atmosphere, some will strike but at an angle that - depending on how close to a tangent it is - may not be in atmosphere for any length of time and remains largely intact, probably causing little or no harm.
In addition, the amount of "space dust" currently hitting the earth has been estimated to be between 14 MILLION tons (by Hans Pettersson of the Swedish Oceanographic Institute in 1957, based on studies of dust collected on Hawaiian mountains - he stated in his write-up that that number was probably quite high) to 10,000 tons based on satellite collection. This is per year, so the per day rate would be that amount
I don't know how big a rock would be that would weigh 27.5 tons (about as big as a VW?
I see the problem as one of calculation - i.e., deciding with enough advanced warning that an object will in fact strike the earth and must have something done about it, as opposed to MIGHT strike the earth, but might not, so if we break it up and create a bunch of smaller pieces (but each large enough to be dangerous on their own) the possibility of one of them hitting is greater than the possibility of the larger mass hitting. In addition, the energy added in whatever means of breaking the larger mass into smaller pieces would disrupt the path of the object, so a period of observation would be required to start predicting its new path - time that might be needed for additional efforts to break up pieces that had been redirected directly at earth.
Not Dvorak.
Dvorak 'B' = Qwerty 'N'
Qwerty 'B' = Dvorak 'X'
I am puzzled, too!