I hope that was meant to be tongue-in-check... a quick check of http://www.mcbrideelectric.com shows that McBride Electric was founded in Wichita, KS by Lloyd McBride. Not Darl McBride.
Being a reader of Slashdot, I'd hope you'd be able to use the website and easily find the following information
And I wish that your towering ego and overbearing personality were matched by intelligence and wit. Unfortunately, we can't always that which we desire.
Are you suggesting that's all the Gates Foundation gave to charity this year?
If you had bothered to read my post, you should have noticed that the very first sentence was:
"Note that the Grants Paid information is in terms of thousands of dollars."
Thus, the total listed, $1,146,958, is also in terms of thousands of dollars. Which, if you do the math, is roughly $1.1 billion. Frankly, I'm confused. Either you blew a logic circuit or you simply failed to read my post, because apparently you missed my entire point.
Somehow I know you could have found this information, but chose to play stupid because it didn't suit your agenda.
First, I'm not sure what "agenda" you think I'm pushing, but I think you jumped to the wrong conclusions. I was very impressed that the Gates Foundation issued $1.1 billion in grants last year. In my opinion, that's a helluva lot of money. Furthermore, insulting me is unnecessary and just plain childish.
Second, go back and re-read the original post by Chromamonkey. He wrote, "here's a few highlights of the year ending 12/31/2001." Now go and look at the link Chromamonkey provided. The titled of the page is "Summary of Grants Paid by Program Area for the Years Ending December 31, 2001 and 2000." The link you provided clearly says that the graph "shows selected grants since inception." Notice that we're talking about two different things. Chromamonkey and I are talking about the total grants issued for 2001. That's where the $1.1 billion came from. You're talking about total grants issued since the creation of the Gates Foundation. That's why the numbers are different. Perhaps in the future you could spend a little more time working on your reading and comprehension skills and less time criticizing others.
Um, either you're being redundant or you're wrong.
Ahhh... We are all having one giant misunderstanding. I was trying to clarify the Grants Paid information that Chromomonkey posted. I thought his/her post made it clear that the financial position of the Gates was $32 billion, but I didn't think it was clear that the numbers for Grants Paid were also in terms of thousands of dollars. In addition, I thought the full breakdown of the distribution and total amount of paid grants, neither of which Chromomonkey posted, were quite interesting.
That is why I wrote, "note that the grants paid information is in terms of thousands of dollars." I thought it was very important to realize that not only is the Gates Foundation worth $32 billion, but they donated $1.5 billion in grants and of that, $855 million went to global healthcare.
Not too shabby (yes, I know, only a small fraction of his net worth, Bill is evil, blah, blah).
We have to keep in mind that the money controlled by the Gates Foundation is completely separate from Bill Gates. His personal net worth isn't really related, not to mention that a large portion of his net worth is tied up with Microsquish. For a foundation to donate 1/5 of its valuation in a single year is insane! Especially given how poorly the market performed in the past 12 months...
Yes and after you play that LP 1,000 times it sounds like utter crap even on the good stuff. Oils from the human hands and using it over and over will (not might, WILL) degrade the vinyl.
True indeed. I guess I was just being a little sophistic... *grin* I don't even own record player anymore; my collection is entirely CD now. Don't get me wrong, I'm still fanatical and kind of a perfectionist when it comes to music, but I agree - you ~have~ to draw the line somewhere.
Only thing perfect in music is a live performance
That is my wife's primary concern whenever I look at new audio equipment. And, you're both right. There is no such thing as a perfect reproduction. Instead, I try to maximize (by my standards) the tradeoff between sound quality and cost. Of course, I realize that I'm certainly in a minority with this belief - people that are willing to listen to MP3s generally do so, because they feel that MP3s sound "good enough".
Also, DVD will DOOM us parents to watching Roly Poly Olie 500 times a day because the DVD will never wear out.
That's another good point. We certainly have already seen this with regard to home videos. VHS tapes definitely wear out with regular use, so now we have moved onto DV cameras. I would be interested in seeing side-by-side comparisons of high-end VHS video recorders and high-end DV cameras; I would love to know what kind of different (if any) we would see. Admittedly, this goes back to the original question about analog film recordings vs. digital video recordings. I would really like to read more, from someone other than Ebert, about the apparent differences between the two.
Funny. When CDs first came out, so-called audiophiles were saying the same thing about CDs vs. vinyl. It sounded plausible to me until I heard my first CD of an LP I already had. No contest, the CD was much better. Trust your own eyes and ears.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one... LP's -can- have a significantly wider, deeper, and more colorful sound than CDs. To make an accurate comparison you must do a couple of things. First, you need to compare the same recording in both LP and CD format - if you're comparing two different recordings, then that isn't a fair comparison. Second, if you're listening to poor recordings on cheap equipment, you probably won't hear the difference. However, as you increase the quality of the listening equipment, you can hear a noticable difference between LP and CD.
The big question is whether or not the same applies to video. My gut reaction is a resounding YES! However, I've never done any A/B comparisons on decent equipment, so I really don't have anything to backup my opinions. With accurate comparisons, we're really not in any position to judge.
Yes and no. I wasn't attempting to be misleading. It's what happens when you code and think about food at the same time. Plants contain fats.
I know the feeling. Mmmm food.
Anyway, you are absolutely correct. Some plant-derived foods do contain saturated fats, which has been shown to increase cholesterol levels. My bad for not mentioning this in my original post. See my other comments below for a more detailed discussion of HDL and LDL cholesterol.
I'll do my best to ignore the flamebait in your response...
RE: Third, the idea that you need to consume 1+ grams of protein per pound of bodyweight to maintain weight and thrive is a myth.
Well, if you sit around all day doing nothing, sure. But WEIGHT TRAINING ATHLETES participating in STRENUOUS EXERCISE have been shown in RECENT studies to need AT LEAST 1g/1lb bodyweight PER DIEM.
You need to look at who sponsored the studies you are referring to. Since you don't cite a paticular source, I will assume this is just something you "heard somewhere." Often this common knowledge is derived from studies funded by the Dairy Research Council (a PAC supporting the dairy industry) and the National Egg Board. From everything I have read, many scientists seriously doubt that virtually anyone really needs 1g protein per pound per day.
RE: scientific calculations fall within the range of "2.5% of our total daily calories up to a high estimate of over 8%" (Robbins 173). Who benefits from higher estimates of protein needs?
Weightlifters, powerlifters, football players, manual laborers.... people who don't sit around on hemp mats all day living off rice and ambient moisture in the air.
Two thoughts: First, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I don't "sit around on [a] hemp mat all day living off rice." In fact, I am a 150#, vegan triathlete; in the summer I generally bike 10-30 miles a day, swim 1/2-1 mile every other day, run 5 miles every other day, as well as basic weight training every day for my upper body.
Secondly, you missed my point. I certainly agree that people with far more active lifestyles have different dietary requirements than people who lead sedentary lives. Most people do not need really high intake levels of protein. Most people who want to increase their protein intake by 30% generally increase the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs. If a supposed study suggests that people need a 30% increase in their protein intake, who benefits? The meat, dairy and egg industries benefit because people go out and buy 30% more of their products then before. If a study is published by a research group funded and supported by these industries, it becomes very difficult to believe that the study does not have an inherent bias.
RE: Spinach, for example, provides 49% of its calories from protein.
Excellent! But you have to understand that just saying "protein" isn't enough. There are lots of amino acids, and you have to have them all.
And as I said before, you can derive any and all of these amino acids from plant sources. On page 22 of "Vegetarian Times" issue 43, Nathan Pritikin, the famed dietition responsible for the pritikin diet, stated that he was concerned that people had the "impression that vegetable proteins don't have sufficient percentages of amino acids." Many of his clinical studies clearly demonstrated that this is not the case: vegetable proteins provide enough necessary amino acids.
RE: At this point, it truly isn't known whether or not these theories hold true for humans, since most of the related research has been funded by the meat/dairy industries.
So what? So long as the research is sound...
Once again you missed my point. The research is clearly not sound! Look back at my previous post: all of this original research was based off lab rats. Not humans. Rats need to increase their body mass far more rapidly than humans: rats double their birth weight in 4 days, while humans double their birthrate in 180 days. The research on rats simply doesn't transfer to humans.
I don't have the time and energy to go out and eat fifty kinds of bean. A steak tastes better, is more filling, provides heme iron, balanced amino acid profiles...
I never said anything about eating fifty kinds of beans. I simply said that food combining is a very effective way of acquiring amounts of balanced amino acids. If you have time to eat, you have time to eat. Classic food combinations include: rice and beans, tortilla and beans, bulgar wheat and garbanzo beans, pita bread with hummus (made from garbanzo beans), rice chapatis with dal (lentils), soy with rice, soy with millet, and soy with barley. Instead of eating a steak, have two bean burritos.
Furthermore, it's just not healthy to eat a steak and nothing else. This is especially true of someone with an active lifestyle. Amino acids should not be your only concern. A person also needs to be heavily concerned with their intake of other nutrients: Vitamin A, Vitamin C, the Vitamin B complex, Calcium, Iron, etc. Eating a steak does not provide you with necessary levels of all of these nutrients.
RE:Frankly, I'm not sure where you got this idea.
Research. That's why soy protein is out of favor with weightlifters. They're trying to max testosterone and be manly, not mince around with tons more estrogen in their systems. Maybe that's why vegans are more in touch with their feelings, and don't know how to use a car in reverse gear.
Two words: What research?
As far as vegans are more in touch with their feelings and don't know how to use a car in reverse car... I don't know if you were abused or neglected as a child or if you have difficulty satisfying your partner sexually, but you obviously have some deep seated emotional issues you need to work out and my only recommendation is that you should probably see a therapist. Frankly I don't see what your hangups about what it means to be a man has to do with eating a healthy, balanced diet.
vegans are more in touch with their feelings
You say this as if it were a bad thing. Why? And again, what does this have to do with your diet?
BZZZT. As I stated in an above post many vegetables have fat (and thus cholesterol).
BZZT yourself.
There is a difference between containing cholesterol and raising cholesterol. Fat does not necessarily equal cholesterol. As Mr. Gearman mentions above: "Saturated fat is the main dietary component associated with raising cholesterol." Many (not all, I realize) vegetables do have fat, yes, but it is predominately unsaturated fat.
It is important to understand that there are two main forms of cholesterol: high-density lipips (HDL) and and low-density lipids (LDL). High levels of HDL are associated with an increased risk of heart disease. LDL seems, to a certain degree, to restrict the levels of HDL within the body. In other words, total cholesterol is not the only important factor: relative levels of cholesterol types are also vital. And individual with an average total cholesterol, but a high level of HDL has an increased risk factor than an individual with a higher total cholesterol level, but a lower HDL level.
Ever cook with Olive Oil? Ever eat an avocado?
As Mr. Gearman also points out: "Monounsaturated fats are the best fats to consume. They can help decrease total cholesterol without affecting HDL cholesterol. The two fats highest in monounsaturated fats are canola and olive oil." Also, according to your repost, avoacodo has approximately 6.8g fat, but only 1.3g of this is saturated.
I still stand by my original statement: Cholesterol only exists in two plant products: palm oil and coconut milk. Some plant products contain saturated fat, which is associated with increasing HDL cholesterol levels.
And in order to do so and thrive, I need to consume 1+g of protein per day per pound of bodyweight. That as it stands right now is 250g/day.
*sigh*
First of all, I don't think most men in this country weigh 250 pounds.
Second, we should also be considering females in this discussion; many of whom weigh far less than 250 pounds.
Third, the idea that you need to consume 1+ grams of protein per pound of bodyweight to maintain weight and thrive is a myth. Specifically it is a myth produced and propagated by and for the meat and dairy industries. Please see "Diet for a New America", by John Robbins - specifically, Chapter 7: "The Rise and Fall of the Protein Empire", pages 170 - 202. While there is not a precise agreement on the amount of protein necessary for the human body, most scientific calculations fall within the range of "2.5% of our total daily calories up to a high estimate of over 8%" (Robbins 173). Who benefits from higher estimates of protein needs? Specifically the people who sell meat, fish, cheese, eggs, chicken, and other expensive sources of protein. Furthermore, nature seems to agree that this range is a reasonable conclusion: "human mother's milk provides 5% of its calories from protein" (ibid 174).
Fourth, meat is far from being the only source of large amounts of protein. The following items provide more than 25% of their calories from protein: soybean sprouts, mungbean sprouts, tofu, soy flour, soybeans, soy sauce, broad beans, lentils, split peas, kidney beans, navy beans, lima beans, spinach, watercress, kale, broccoli, brussels sprouts, turnip greens, collards, cauliflower, mustard greens, mushrooms, chinese cabbage, parsley, lettuce, green peas, zucchini, green beans, and wheat germ. Spinach, for example, provides 49% of its calories from protein.
The belief that protein from animal sources is superior to that from vegetable sources dates back to studies conducted in 1914 by Osborne and Mendel on lab rats. Later research in the 1940s, which continued to look at rats rather than humans, produced the theories regarding the 10 essential amino acids. Unfortunately, there wasn't any way, at that time, to generate similar tests for humans (idid 178). At this point, it truly isn't known whether or not these theories hold true for humans, since most of the related research has been funded by the meat/dairy industries.
Notwithstanding the fact that soy protein has a crap amino acid balance
That may be true fom some soy protein supplements, but there is absolutely no basis for that when examining natural plant sources. In "Diet for a Small Planet", Francis Moore Lappe demonstrated that eating combinations of vegetables can easily provide the same pattern of amino acids as found in animal sources.
I am NOT eating that much ESTROGENIC substance. That's right, ESTROGENIC.
Frankly, I'm not sure where you got this idea. Soy is not a particularly estrogenic substance. Indeed, it is very healthy for women to consume and has been shown to help reduce the risks of breast and cervical cancer, not to mention reduce menopause and menarchal related problems. But that does not mean that when you consume it you suddenly turn into a women. All men have estrogen in the bodies - we all produce estrogen in varying amounts, just as all women produce testosterone.
Meat is not unhealthy. A balanced diet is the one of the keys factors to a long and healthy life. As a matter of fact, meats contain several key protiens that the body uses in maintaining healthy skin, hair, and nails.
There are several problems with your statement. First, here in the midwest, most meat eaters do not eat balanced diets. Meat quickly becomes the focal point of the meal to the exclusion of virtually everything else.
Second, research has shown that you do not need nearly as much protein in your diet as you have been led to believe. Most of the research in this field has been funded by the meat and dairy industries (see "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins for some excellent sources). Regardless, all forms of protein required by humans are available in plant forms. Third, meat is unhealthy when consumed in normal portions. It contains large amounts of saturated fat and is high in cholestoral. The rate of heart disease is 3-5 times higher in meat eaters than in strict vegetarians (vegans).
Cholesterol, which comes in 'good' and 'bad' forms, does exist in plants. And eating just fruits and vegatables without understanding the amounts and levels of plant cholesterols can be unhealthy as well.
Unfortunately, that is a blatantly false statement. Cholesterol only exists in two plant products: palm oil and coconut milk.
Sorry, but I'm making a big enough sacrifice (possibly even dying in the effort) to go on this 3 year journey to Mars. Come Saturday night, I want a goddamn steak. Period. More meat, for the meat eaters.
And I don't want my tax dollars to pay for someone to have a heart attack half-way there. In the US, heart attacks are the single-biggest killer - nearly 40% of all deaths are directly related to heart problems. Red meat, in the quantities normal meat-eaters consume, is one of the best sources of cholesterol and saturated fat. Furthermore, eating that steak will probably mean that you, the astronaut whom my tax dolloars are paying, will probably not eat sufficiently large quantities of other sources of nutrition.
P.S. The sprig of parsley on top of a steak does not count as a good source of nutrition.
I don't think so. You do realize that right now an incredibly large amount of food goes to waste due to a number of sociopolitical reasons. I'd say that a huge amount of hunger is caused by corruption, not livestock.
I don't completely agree with you. By far the single biggest consumer of food and water is the meat/dairy industry. Animals require a great deal of food and water in order to grow; most of this is used up as the animal matures. In other words, most of the crops grown in America do not go to humans; instead they are feed crops for animals.
Unfortunately, this is a really ineffecient process. The amount of arable land required to produce enough cow to feed one person, would feed 6 people if you grew corn on it and fed the corn directly to humans (instead of the cow). The same land would feed 30 people if you grew soybeans on it, instead.
Admittedly, I think one of the main reasons we still grow and consume large amounts of animals, is entirely a socio-political reason: the Meat Board, Dairy Board and Poultry boards have huge lobbying groups with a lot of money. These industries have spent tons of money trying to convince people to buy their products. Really, these industries have the tobacco companies beat: they have managed to convince people that their products are necessary for your survival. Of course I will buy some milk - I know that milk does a body good! So, yes, in a sense, a great deal of hunger is caused by "corruption": corruption of governmental officials, corruption of scientific information, and especially greed and corruption within the meat and dairy industries.
Simple really, would you like to share a confined space with someone who only would only eat beans and pulses?
I would rather share a space with someone who eats beans than someone who eats a Big Mac. I'm sorry, but Beer-n-Burger and Beer-n-Brat farts beat out bean farts any day of the week in terms of vileness. Don't get me wrong, my vegan ass stinks too. However, there's nothing like going into a bathroom right after someone who had 2 double-bacon cheeseburgers for lunch and washed them down with Pabst.
Fiorina has a bachelor's degree in medieval history and philosophy + a MBA. How the fuck can she run a company like HP?
A few years ago someone (I forget who) did a study of CEOs for Fortune 500 companies. The study revealed that philosophy is the most common undergraduate degree for Fortune 500 CEOs.
And if they think that this thing will make it cheaper, they are in for a shock. Budgets on movies that can afford aerial shots are large enough that hiring professional cameramen and helicopter pilots is not an issue.
Dude, that doesn't make any sense. Just because the studios can use a cheap drone helicopter doesn't mean they would have to give up professional cameramen. Furthermore, it brings all kinds of different cinematography to the table, without the need for CG.
Even for the military, there isn't much need for a maneuverable drone.
What are you basing this statement on? I would say it's very clear the military definitely has a need for small, cheap, maneuverable drones. Between combat and safety, I can think of a myriad of applications for these.
I agree with the A/C who responded, in saying that PCs may not be dead for a while. However, I think your core point is very important. Even if desktop PCs still exist in 5 years, they definitely will not be the same as desktop machines today. It makes far more sense to focus on the future and the computers/devices of the future, than to argue about yesterday's machines.
It's not as if Microsoft is sitting back on it's haunches, waiting for The Next Big Thing. With.NET, Micro$oft is trying to massively direct the flow of computing over the 5-10 years. As Bob Young even points out in the interview: "How did Microsoft get to own the desktop?... They took advantage of a major shift in technology toward the PC, and they became the de facto standard on the new technology model, being the PC."
While we do not know exactly what the next big thing will be, Linux is so flexible that is has a tremendous advantage over the competition. When the next gen of "desktops" becomes available, someone can relatively easily modify existing Linux installations to work with it. Footprint too large/small/whatever for the next gen of portable/wearable PCs? Linux can easily fit that niche and can easily be modified, if it doesn't already.
One key question in my mind, is if OSS is such a great thing, why doesn't everyone make their source freely available? Obviously there are a variety of answers to this (including flames), but Mr. Dalke mentioned one specifically: some of the software labs use are not open-sourced. It's as simple as that.
With this in mind, does it become necessary to mandate OSS as public policy, with regard to tax-payer funded endeavors? It seems to me to be equally unfair to mandate OSS or not mandate OSS - either the taxpayer gets screwed out of research that is never conducted or the taxpayer gets screwed out of a product that they can't access. Either way, the taxpayer loses. Futhermore, implementing the infrastructure required to mandate OSS could be fairly complicated and costly to the taxpayers.
The only solution I can see is to recommend OSS as a policy, but not mandate it. Obviously this will not guarantee any changes, but government sanctioned backing of OSS w/out regulation might provide the best of both possible worlds.
When they pull stuff like jailing people for posting disenting opinions of the government on the internet. Or restrict peoples internet activities, as they do, who will be willing to sign up with them as a root or any other higher level management function, for that matter.
That's just it... they can make it law that everyone in China has to use the Chinese root servers. Those who dissent are jailed.
No, China will not take over root servers. Some other nation might, maybe. But, definitely not China.
I disagree. While taking over root servers may not be the most successful policy, it is certainly a viable option. It's not an issue of whether or not China can setup root servers, China definitely has people who can, and would be willing to, setup and maintain root servers. The bigger issue is their motivation. Given a desire to prevent people from posting and reading dissenting opinions, the Chinese government may perceive root servers as a very viable option.
OK, let's say you steal $50,000 from the bank, and the police come to your house and say "Give us the $50,000 or we'll throw you in jail." Is that extortion? Hardly.
Both the police and the BSA are acting as enforcing agents. Unfortunately there are several differences between your police example and the BSA:
The BSA, as an enforcing agency, has a certain conflict of interest. The police are (theoretically) an unbiased governmental organization charged with enforcing the laws.
If you stole $50,000 from a bank and the police recover the money, the police do not directly benefit monetarily. The BSA is sponsored and supported by software companies who reap the monetary benefits if/when audited companies are forced to buy additional licenses.
One word: Accountability. The police, as an extension of the executive branch of government, have to be accountable to the public, because their payroll is directly funded by the taxpayers. In contrast, the BSA is accountable to whom? The very people who benefit economically from the efforts of the BSA. If they exert strong-arm tactics, why would their sponsors complain?
This issue is not really about stealing software from hardworking corporations like Adobe and Microsoft. It is about the strong-arm, scare tactics employed by a group with no public accountability funded by the very organizations who benefit from the group's efforts.
Well, if those are still future services, why would I want to upgrade now? Why don't I wait until these services are actually available and I can be certain that unit, with add-ons, actually functions the way they claim it will.
Ow...where the hell do you live that you get ripped off like that?
Costs here are somewhat similar to the original post. Phone service is closer to your estimate, but everything else is pretty steep. I'm not sure what you're including when you say cable service should be $25/month.
Phone bill: $18/month per line w/out any features. $30/month per line w/features.
Cable TV: $45/month non-digital expanded-basic service. Includes local channels, and Discovery, Food Network, Comedy Central, MTV, etc.
Internet: Cable service is ~$55/month and DSL runs from $45-$85, depending on bandwidth.
For me personally, my costs for 1 phone line, expanded-basic cable TV, and a cable modem total over $110 each month. Sounds like a deal to me, although I won't believe it until I see it...
Re:Don't forget the other Butterfly Effect
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 1
Which is exactly what they were driving at: GMO has the potential for tiny hidden mistakes to have huge earth-shaking consequences over time.
It really isn't reasonable to expect companies such as Monsanto to research every possible interaction between a given GMO and all the organisms in the world. That just isn't feasible.
From the article:
A spokeswoman for Monsanto, which produces and distributes the Bt seed, said the company welcomes more research. But Lisa Watson of Monsanto cautioned that the Cornell study was conducted under laboratory conditions and may not accurately reflect Bt's impact in farm fields.
She said the company has not yet conducted its own research on Bt's impact on monarch butterflies, but they have found no impact on several other insect species in previous tests.
This also goes back to the previous posts about trusting the corporation. When Ms. Watson of Monsanto claims that they "found no impact on several other insect species", what does that mean? Does she mean absolutely no impact whatsoever or simply no negative impact? If she is only refering to a "negative" impact, what factors determine whether or not a given impact is negative?
Regardless, this still indicates the uncertainty behind the process. Even if Monsanto truly did do extensive and accurate testing on other insect species, they still overlooked the problem with Monarchs. With this in mind, how can one possibly believe that we can ever know that a particular GMO is "safe"?
Slashdot Mirror
I hope that was meant to be tongue-in-check ... a quick check of http://www.mcbrideelectric.com shows that McBride Electric was founded in Wichita, KS by Lloyd McBride. Not Darl McBride.
Being a reader of Slashdot, I'd hope you'd be able to use the website and easily find the following information
And I wish that your towering ego and overbearing personality were matched by intelligence and wit. Unfortunately, we can't always that which we desire.
Are you suggesting that's all the Gates Foundation gave to charity this year?
If you had bothered to read my post, you should have noticed that the very first sentence was:
"Note that the Grants Paid information is in terms of thousands of dollars."
Thus, the total listed, $1,146,958, is also in terms of thousands of dollars. Which, if you do the math, is roughly $1.1 billion. Frankly, I'm confused. Either you blew a logic circuit or you simply failed to read my post, because apparently you missed my entire point.
Somehow I know you could have found this information, but chose to play stupid because it didn't suit your agenda.
First, I'm not sure what "agenda" you think I'm pushing, but I think you jumped to the wrong conclusions. I was very impressed that the Gates Foundation issued $1.1 billion in grants last year. In my opinion, that's a helluva lot of money. Furthermore, insulting me is unnecessary and just plain childish.
Second, go back and re-read the original post by Chromamonkey. He wrote, "here's a few highlights of the year ending 12/31/2001." Now go and look at the link Chromamonkey provided. The titled of the page is "Summary of Grants Paid by Program Area for the Years Ending December 31, 2001 and 2000." The link you provided clearly says that the graph "shows selected grants since inception." Notice that we're talking about two different things. Chromamonkey and I are talking about the total grants issued for 2001. That's where the $1.1 billion came from. You're talking about total grants issued since the creation of the Gates Foundation. That's why the numbers are different. Perhaps in the future you could spend a little more time working on your reading and comprehension skills and less time criticizing others.
Ahhh... We are all having one giant misunderstanding. I was trying to clarify the Grants Paid information that Chromomonkey posted. I thought his/her post made it clear that the financial position of the Gates was $32 billion, but I didn't think it was clear that the numbers for Grants Paid were also in terms of thousands of dollars. In addition, I thought the full breakdown of the distribution and total amount of paid grants, neither of which Chromomonkey posted, were quite interesting.
That is why I wrote, "note that the grants paid information is in terms of thousands of dollars." I thought it was very important to realize that not only is the Gates Foundation worth $32 billion, but they donated $1.5 billion in grants and of that, $855 million went to global healthcare.
Not too shabby (yes, I know, only a small fraction of his net worth, Bill is evil, blah, blah).
We have to keep in mind that the money controlled by the Gates Foundation is completely separate from Bill Gates. His personal net worth isn't really related, not to mention that a large portion of his net worth is tied up with Microsquish. For a foundation to donate 1/5 of its valuation in a single year is insane! Especially given how poorly the market performed in the past 12 months...
Note that the Grants Paid information is in terms of thousands of dollars:
Global Health $855,567
Education $177,944
Libraries $43,176
Pacific Northwest and Other $36,868
Special Projects $33,403
TOTAL: $1,146,958
Yes and after you play that LP 1,000 times it sounds like utter crap even on the good stuff. Oils from the human hands and using it over and over will (not might, WILL) degrade the vinyl.
True indeed. I guess I was just being a little sophistic... *grin* I don't even own record player anymore; my collection is entirely CD now. Don't get me wrong, I'm still fanatical and kind of a perfectionist when it comes to music, but I agree - you ~have~ to draw the line somewhere.
Only thing perfect in music is a live performance
That is my wife's primary concern whenever I look at new audio equipment. And, you're both right. There is no such thing as a perfect reproduction. Instead, I try to maximize (by my standards) the tradeoff between sound quality and cost. Of course, I realize that I'm certainly in a minority with this belief - people that are willing to listen to MP3s generally do so, because they feel that MP3s sound "good enough".
Also, DVD will DOOM us parents to watching Roly Poly Olie 500 times a day because the DVD will never wear out.
That's another good point. We certainly have already seen this with regard to home videos. VHS tapes definitely wear out with regular use, so now we have moved onto DV cameras. I would be interested in seeing side-by-side comparisons of high-end VHS video recorders and high-end DV cameras; I would love to know what kind of different (if any) we would see. Admittedly, this goes back to the original question about analog film recordings vs. digital video recordings. I would really like to read more, from someone other than Ebert, about the apparent differences between the two.
Funny. When CDs first came out, so-called audiophiles were saying the same thing about CDs vs. vinyl. It sounded plausible to me until I heard my first CD of an LP I already had. No contest, the CD was much better. Trust your own eyes and ears.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one... LP's -can- have a significantly wider, deeper, and more colorful sound than CDs. To make an accurate comparison you must do a couple of things. First, you need to compare the same recording in both LP and CD format - if you're comparing two different recordings, then that isn't a fair comparison. Second, if you're listening to poor recordings on cheap equipment, you probably won't hear the difference. However, as you increase the quality of the listening equipment, you can hear a noticable difference between LP and CD.
The big question is whether or not the same applies to video. My gut reaction is a resounding YES! However, I've never done any A/B comparisons on decent equipment, so I really don't have anything to backup my opinions. With accurate comparisons, we're really not in any position to judge.
Yes and no. I wasn't attempting to be misleading. It's what happens when you code and think about food at the same time. Plants contain fats.
I know the feeling. Mmmm food.
Anyway, you are absolutely correct. Some plant-derived foods do contain saturated fats, which has been shown to increase cholesterol levels. My bad for not mentioning this in my original post. See my other comments below for a more detailed discussion of HDL and LDL cholesterol.
You need to look at who sponsored the studies you are referring to. Since you don't cite a paticular source, I will assume this is just something you "heard somewhere." Often this common knowledge is derived from studies funded by the Dairy Research Council (a PAC supporting the dairy industry) and the National Egg Board. From everything I have read, many scientists seriously doubt that virtually anyone really needs 1g protein per pound per day.
Two thoughts: First, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I don't "sit around on [a] hemp mat all day living off rice." In fact, I am a 150#, vegan triathlete; in the summer I generally bike 10-30 miles a day, swim 1/2-1 mile every other day, run 5 miles every other day, as well as basic weight training every day for my upper body.
Secondly, you missed my point. I certainly agree that people with far more active lifestyles have different dietary requirements than people who lead sedentary lives. Most people do not need really high intake levels of protein. Most people who want to increase their protein intake by 30% generally increase the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs. If a supposed study suggests that people need a 30% increase in their protein intake, who benefits? The meat, dairy and egg industries benefit because people go out and buy 30% more of their products then before. If a study is published by a research group funded and supported by these industries, it becomes very difficult to believe that the study does not have an inherent bias.
And as I said before, you can derive any and all of these amino acids from plant sources. On page 22 of "Vegetarian Times" issue 43, Nathan Pritikin, the famed dietition responsible for the pritikin diet, stated that he was concerned that people had the "impression that vegetable proteins don't have sufficient percentages of amino acids." Many of his clinical studies clearly demonstrated that this is not the case: vegetable proteins provide enough necessary amino acids.
Once again you missed my point. The research is clearly not sound! Look back at my previous post: all of this original research was based off lab rats. Not humans. Rats need to increase their body mass far more rapidly than humans: rats double their birth weight in 4 days, while humans double their birthrate in 180 days. The research on rats simply doesn't transfer to humans.
I never said anything about eating fifty kinds of beans. I simply said that food combining is a very effective way of acquiring amounts of balanced amino acids. If you have time to eat, you have time to eat. Classic food combinations include: rice and beans, tortilla and beans, bulgar wheat and garbanzo beans, pita bread with hummus (made from garbanzo beans), rice chapatis with dal (lentils), soy with rice, soy with millet, and soy with barley. Instead of eating a steak, have two bean burritos.
Furthermore, it's just not healthy to eat a steak and nothing else. This is especially true of someone with an active lifestyle. Amino acids should not be your only concern. A person also needs to be heavily concerned with their intake of other nutrients: Vitamin A, Vitamin C, the Vitamin B complex, Calcium, Iron, etc. Eating a steak does not provide you with necessary levels of all of these nutrients.
Two words: What research?
As far as vegans are more in touch with their feelings and don't know how to use a car in reverse car... I don't know if you were abused or neglected as a child or if you have difficulty satisfying your partner sexually, but you obviously have some deep seated emotional issues you need to work out and my only recommendation is that you should probably see a therapist. Frankly I don't see what your hangups about what it means to be a man has to do with eating a healthy, balanced diet.
vegans are more in touch with their feelings
You say this as if it were a bad thing. Why? And again, what does this have to do with your diet?
BZZZT. As I stated in an above post many vegetables have fat (and thus cholesterol).
BZZT yourself.
There is a difference between containing cholesterol and raising cholesterol. Fat does not necessarily equal cholesterol. As Mr. Gearman mentions above: "Saturated fat is the main dietary component associated with raising cholesterol." Many (not all, I realize) vegetables do have fat, yes, but it is predominately unsaturated fat.
It is important to understand that there are two main forms of cholesterol: high-density lipips (HDL) and and low-density lipids (LDL). High levels of HDL are associated with an increased risk of heart disease. LDL seems, to a certain degree, to restrict the levels of HDL within the body. In other words, total cholesterol is not the only important factor: relative levels of cholesterol types are also vital. And individual with an average total cholesterol, but a high level of HDL has an increased risk factor than an individual with a higher total cholesterol level, but a lower HDL level.
Ever cook with Olive Oil? Ever eat an avocado?
As Mr. Gearman also points out: "Monounsaturated fats are the best fats to consume. They can help decrease total cholesterol without affecting HDL cholesterol. The two fats highest in monounsaturated fats are canola and olive oil." Also, according to your repost, avoacodo has approximately 6.8g fat, but only 1.3g of this is saturated.
I still stand by my original statement: Cholesterol only exists in two plant products: palm oil and coconut milk. Some plant products contain saturated fat, which is associated with increasing HDL cholesterol levels.
And in order to do so and thrive, I need to consume 1+g of protein per day per pound of bodyweight. That as it stands right now is 250g/day.
*sigh*
First of all, I don't think most men in this country weigh 250 pounds.
Second, we should also be considering females in this discussion; many of whom weigh far less than 250 pounds.
Third, the idea that you need to consume 1+ grams of protein per pound of bodyweight to maintain weight and thrive is a myth. Specifically it is a myth produced and propagated by and for the meat and dairy industries. Please see "Diet for a New America", by John Robbins - specifically, Chapter 7: "The Rise and Fall of the Protein Empire", pages 170 - 202. While there is not a precise agreement on the amount of protein necessary for the human body, most scientific calculations fall within the range of "2.5% of our total daily calories up to a high estimate of over 8%" (Robbins 173). Who benefits from higher estimates of protein needs? Specifically the people who sell meat, fish, cheese, eggs, chicken, and other expensive sources of protein. Furthermore, nature seems to agree that this range is a reasonable conclusion: "human mother's milk provides 5% of its calories from protein" (ibid 174).
Fourth, meat is far from being the only source of large amounts of protein. The following items provide more than 25% of their calories from protein: soybean sprouts, mungbean sprouts, tofu, soy flour, soybeans, soy sauce, broad beans, lentils, split peas, kidney beans, navy beans, lima beans, spinach, watercress, kale, broccoli, brussels sprouts, turnip greens, collards, cauliflower, mustard greens, mushrooms, chinese cabbage, parsley, lettuce, green peas, zucchini, green beans, and wheat germ. Spinach, for example, provides 49% of its calories from protein.
The belief that protein from animal sources is superior to that from vegetable sources dates back to studies conducted in 1914 by Osborne and Mendel on lab rats. Later research in the 1940s, which continued to look at rats rather than humans, produced the theories regarding the 10 essential amino acids. Unfortunately, there wasn't any way, at that time, to generate similar tests for humans (idid 178). At this point, it truly isn't known whether or not these theories hold true for humans, since most of the related research has been funded by the meat/dairy industries.
Notwithstanding the fact that soy protein has a crap amino acid balance
That may be true fom some soy protein supplements, but there is absolutely no basis for that when examining natural plant sources. In "Diet for a Small Planet", Francis Moore Lappe demonstrated that eating combinations of vegetables can easily provide the same pattern of amino acids as found in animal sources.
I am NOT eating that much ESTROGENIC substance. That's right, ESTROGENIC.
Frankly, I'm not sure where you got this idea. Soy is not a particularly estrogenic substance. Indeed, it is very healthy for women to consume and has been shown to help reduce the risks of breast and cervical cancer, not to mention reduce menopause and menarchal related problems. But that does not mean that when you consume it you suddenly turn into a women. All men have estrogen in the bodies - we all produce estrogen in varying amounts, just as all women produce testosterone.
There are several problems with your statement. First, here in the midwest, most meat eaters do not eat balanced diets. Meat quickly becomes the focal point of the meal to the exclusion of virtually everything else.
Second, research has shown that you do not need nearly as much protein in your diet as you have been led to believe. Most of the research in this field has been funded by the meat and dairy industries (see "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins for some excellent sources). Regardless, all forms of protein required by humans are available in plant forms.
Third, meat is unhealthy when consumed in normal portions. It contains large amounts of saturated fat and is high in cholestoral. The rate of heart disease is 3-5 times higher in meat eaters than in strict vegetarians (vegans).
Cholesterol, which comes in 'good' and 'bad' forms, does exist in plants. And eating just fruits and vegatables without understanding the amounts and levels of plant cholesterols can be unhealthy as well.
Unfortunately, that is a blatantly false statement. Cholesterol only exists in two plant products: palm oil and coconut milk.
Sorry, but I'm making a big enough sacrifice (possibly even dying in the effort) to go on this 3 year journey to Mars. Come Saturday night, I want a goddamn steak. Period. More meat, for the meat eaters.
And I don't want my tax dollars to pay for someone to have a heart attack half-way there. In the US, heart attacks are the single-biggest killer - nearly 40% of all deaths are directly related to heart problems. Red meat, in the quantities normal meat-eaters consume, is one of the best sources of cholesterol and saturated fat. Furthermore, eating that steak will probably mean that you, the astronaut whom my tax dolloars are paying, will probably not eat sufficiently large quantities of other sources of nutrition.
P.S. The sprig of parsley on top of a steak does not count as a good source of nutrition.
I don't think so. You do realize that right now an incredibly large amount of food goes to waste due to a number of sociopolitical reasons. I'd say that a huge amount of hunger is caused by corruption, not livestock.
I don't completely agree with you. By far the single biggest consumer of food and water is the meat/dairy industry. Animals require a great deal of food and water in order to grow; most of this is used up as the animal matures. In other words, most of the crops grown in America do not go to humans; instead they are feed crops for animals.
Unfortunately, this is a really ineffecient process. The amount of arable land required to produce enough cow to feed one person, would feed 6 people if you grew corn on it and fed the corn directly to humans (instead of the cow). The same land would feed 30 people if you grew soybeans on it, instead.
Admittedly, I think one of the main reasons we still grow and consume large amounts of animals, is entirely a socio-political reason: the Meat Board, Dairy Board and Poultry boards have huge lobbying groups with a lot of money. These industries have spent tons of money trying to convince people to buy their products. Really, these industries have the tobacco companies beat: they have managed to convince people that their products are necessary for your survival. Of course I will buy some milk - I know that milk does a body good! So, yes, in a sense, a great deal of hunger is caused by "corruption": corruption of governmental officials, corruption of scientific information, and especially greed and corruption within the meat and dairy industries.
Simple really, would you like to share a confined space with someone who only would only eat beans and pulses?
I would rather share a space with someone who eats beans than someone who eats a Big Mac. I'm sorry, but Beer-n-Burger and Beer-n-Brat farts beat out bean farts any day of the week in terms of vileness. Don't get me wrong, my vegan ass stinks too. However, there's nothing like going into a bathroom right after someone who had 2 double-bacon cheeseburgers for lunch and washed them down with Pabst.
Fiorina has a bachelor's degree in medieval history and philosophy + a MBA. How the fuck can she run a company like HP?
A few years ago someone (I forget who) did a study of CEOs for Fortune 500 companies. The study revealed that philosophy is the most common undergraduate degree for Fortune 500 CEOs.
Dude, that doesn't make any sense. Just because the studios can use a cheap drone helicopter doesn't mean they would have to give up professional cameramen. Furthermore, it brings all kinds of different cinematography to the table, without the need for CG.
Even for the military, there isn't much need for a maneuverable drone.
What are you basing this statement on? I would say it's very clear the military definitely has a need for small, cheap, maneuverable drones. Between combat and safety, I can think of a myriad of applications for these.
I agree with the A/C who responded, in saying that PCs may not be dead for a while. However, I think your core point is very important. Even if desktop PCs still exist in 5 years, they definitely will not be the same as desktop machines today. It makes far more sense to focus on the future and the computers/devices of the future, than to argue about yesterday's machines.
.NET, Micro$oft is trying to massively direct the flow of computing over the 5-10 years. As Bob Young even points out in the interview: "How did Microsoft get to own the desktop? ... They took advantage of a major shift in technology toward the PC, and they became the de facto standard on the new technology model, being the PC."
It's not as if Microsoft is sitting back on it's haunches, waiting for The Next Big Thing. With
While we do not know exactly what the next big thing will be, Linux is so flexible that is has a tremendous advantage over the competition. When the next gen of "desktops" becomes available, someone can relatively easily modify existing Linux installations to work with it. Footprint too large/small/whatever for the next gen of portable/wearable PCs? Linux can easily fit that niche and can easily be modified, if it doesn't already.
This isn't meant to be a troll comment, but...
One key question in my mind, is if OSS is such a great thing, why doesn't everyone make their source freely available? Obviously there are a variety of answers to this (including flames), but Mr. Dalke mentioned one specifically: some of the software labs use are not open-sourced. It's as simple as that.
With this in mind, does it become necessary to mandate OSS as public policy, with regard to tax-payer funded endeavors? It seems to me to be equally unfair to mandate OSS or not mandate OSS - either the taxpayer gets screwed out of research that is never conducted or the taxpayer gets screwed out of a product that they can't access. Either way, the taxpayer loses. Futhermore, implementing the infrastructure required to mandate OSS could be fairly complicated and costly to the taxpayers.
The only solution I can see is to recommend OSS as a policy, but not mandate it. Obviously this will not guarantee any changes, but government sanctioned backing of OSS w/out regulation might provide the best of both possible worlds.
When they pull stuff like jailing people for posting disenting opinions of the government on the internet. Or restrict peoples internet activities, as they do, who will be willing to sign up with them as a root or any other higher level management function, for that matter.
That's just it... they can make it law that everyone in China has to use the Chinese root servers. Those who dissent are jailed.
No, China will not take over root servers. Some other nation might, maybe. But, definitely not China.
I disagree. While taking over root servers may not be the most successful policy, it is certainly a viable option. It's not an issue of whether or not China can setup root servers, China definitely has people who can, and would be willing to, setup and maintain root servers. The bigger issue is their motivation. Given a desire to prevent people from posting and reading dissenting opinions, the Chinese government may perceive root servers as a very viable option.
Both the police and the BSA are acting as enforcing agents. Unfortunately there are several differences between your police example and the BSA:
If you stole $50,000 from a bank and the police recover the money, the police do not directly benefit monetarily. The BSA is sponsored and supported by software companies who reap the monetary benefits if/when audited companies are forced to buy additional licenses.
This issue is not really about stealing software from hardworking corporations like Adobe and Microsoft. It is about the strong-arm, scare tactics employed by a group with no public accountability funded by the very organizations who benefit from the group's efforts.
-JohnGalt-
Enabled for future services in home entertainment
Well, if those are still future services, why would I want to upgrade now? Why don't I wait until these services are actually available and I can be certain that unit, with add-ons, actually functions the way they claim it will.
Costs here are somewhat similar to the original post. Phone service is closer to your estimate, but everything else is pretty steep. I'm not sure what you're including when you say cable service should be $25/month.
For me personally, my costs for 1 phone line, expanded-basic cable TV, and a cable modem total over $110 each month. Sounds like a deal to me, although I won't believe it until I see it...
It really isn't reasonable to expect companies such as Monsanto to research every possible interaction between a given GMO and all the organisms in the world. That just isn't feasible.
From the article:
A spokeswoman for Monsanto, which produces and distributes the Bt seed, said the company welcomes more research. But Lisa Watson of Monsanto cautioned that the Cornell study was conducted under laboratory conditions and may not accurately reflect Bt's impact in farm fields.
She said the company has not yet conducted its own research on Bt's impact on monarch butterflies, but they have found no impact on several other insect species in previous tests.
This also goes back to the previous posts about trusting the corporation. When Ms. Watson of Monsanto claims that they "found no impact on several other insect species", what does that mean? Does she mean absolutely no impact whatsoever or simply no negative impact? If she is only refering to a "negative" impact, what factors determine whether or not a given impact is negative?
Regardless, this still indicates the uncertainty behind the process. Even if Monsanto truly did do extensive and accurate testing on other insect species, they still overlooked the problem with Monarchs. With this in mind, how can one possibly believe that we can ever know that a particular GMO is "safe"?