...if you want to damage your kidneys, starve your brain of glucose, and generally damage your body, that is.
"Low carb" diets are toxic. The body needs carbohydrates for energy, protien for tissue building, and fats for a variety of metabolic purposes. Carbs are what you're supposed to be burning, not protein; protein doesn't burn clean.
Yes, reduce sugars, that's a fine and good idea. The amount of sugar the average American consumes is simply mind-boggling. The majority of your calories should still come from complex carbohydrates, not proteins and certainly not fats. People temporarily lose weight on "low carb" diets because they're paying attention to what they eat and end up eating fewer calories, not because of some metabolic magic.
Eat less (I lost ten pounds over three months in Japan just by getting used to smaller portions), exercise more, and learn to de-stress - I think the constant low-level stress of American society is an under-explored cause of our obesity problem.
Mach is a microkernel, not a kernel. Classically, you had to run a OS "personality" on top of Mach to get a full set of kernel features (things like a filesystem, processes, and users are not found in Mach). Back when Mach was a hot topic in the mid 90s, there were POSIX and OS/2 personalities being developed.
OS/X's XNU kernel uses a combination of the Mach microkernel with the BSD kernel - they're co-equal, not a BSD "personality" on top of Mach.
Sure, the GPL is viral. I don't think anyone really denies that.
No, the GPL is not viral. If a genetic metaphor is desired, it's more
like a dominant gene. A virus affects unrelated organisms; the GPL can only
affect "descendants", i.e. derivative works.
Of course it differs from a dominant gene in that all descendants will
inherit it, but dominant gene is still a much closer metaphor than virus.
Isn't that like asking a physicist about cellular mitosis?
I would expect a physicist to understand mitosis enough to be able to object if some ignorant polictal hack tried to say that the theory of cell division is just a conspiracy by the opposition. Richard Feynman, IIRC, did some graduate level work in biology, and could probably have given a fair layman's explanation of mitosis.
I would expect the surgeon general to be scientifically literate, and be able to explain that the Earth moves around the Sun, that burning hydrogen creates water, that objects of different masses fall with the same accleration (disregarding air resistance), and that the biosphere is warming and it seems that human activity is at least partly responsible.
The current candidate is criticized because he called homosexual intercourse unhealthy and unnatural. Excuse me, but are there any reproductive structures in the anus?
Excuse me, but are there any reproductive structures in the mouth?
Leave cunniligus and fellatio out of it, what are you doing kissing?
If it's "unnnatural", how do you explain ass-fucking homosexual sheep? Did somebody sit them down and make them watch Brokeback Mountain and turn them gay?
(Oh, and you do realize that many heterosexual people enjoy anal sex, right?)
and if you get coverage where you're at, why not use them.
Because I'm not always where I'm at now - if I was always at home I'd just have a land line, right? The whole point of a mobile phone is to be mobile.
AT&T/Cingular is higher priced, but they have a great GSM network with good coverage all over the US.
Maybe it's changed post-merger, but last I checked Cingular's coverage sucked. And the slowness of their data network is one of the most frequent complaints about the iPhone. AT&T/Cingular is also rated low for call quality.
So don't use those [Sprint or Verizon] networks then.
Sadly, Verizon has the best network in terms of coverage, and Sprint's is also pretty good. To my knowledge the only U.S. network that allows for unlocked phones is T-Mobile, and their coverage sucks.
You have a trade-off here of good plans that you can only use in limited areas, or crappy plans that work most places.
The RIAA "guesses" what songs you would have played, and pays the songwritters according to these guesses.
The RIAA is not responsible for songwriter royalties for live performance. That would be groups like ASCAP, BMI, and SECAP.
While they can be heavy-handed at times, the model of "private use ok, profit making public use encurs royalties" is basically good - IMHO such a "royalty right" should replace "copy right".
If a place is attracting business by playing my songs (either recorded or via a cover band), the venue (not the band) owes me a cut. Yes, it's done statistically.
I bought my 15" LCD just four or five years ago; 17" was not affordable then. I had a 17" CRT at the time, so I got the same amout of screen space (17 CRT inches gives the same useful space as a 15" LCD) with a clearer, flicker-free picture, it was a definite win. Given the lifespan of a LCD monitor - at 50,000 hours, say 12 hours a day, you're looking at 11 years - expect 15" LCDs to be in service for several more years.
Gamers might upgrade their monitors every few years, but for many of us a monitor is something you keep until it dies (to both save money and to minimize haxardous electronics waste).
That said, bringing my editor out to full screen I see I can fit 162 columns on it without changing my font size
When did the word "only" start applying to 17" screens?
If I maximize my Emacs window I can get 108 characters. I'd rather not shrink my font, that would hurt my eyes. Please don't asusme 132, stick to 80 columns.
why are we using such primitive typography in our text editors? We used to see all these *beautiful* demos of text editors that used proportional fonts, boldfacing, and the like, but you *never* see that in a production system.
Using a fixed-width font puts text in an easily navigable grid; I can clearly see where five down-arrows is going to bring my cursor. I don't want my editor to use a proportional font.
Emacs's various langnage modes make use of colors, boldfacing, etc., so I don't understand your other points.
Yep, I screwed up. My usual rhetoric is to point out that any nation industrial enough to build a color TV set, is at about the tech level to handle fission - first color television broadcast was 1951.
a pre-emptive annihilating nuclear strike on Iran would almost certainly forestall other nations from threatening to develop nuclear weapons.
Like our nuking of Japan forestalled the Soviet Union from developing nukes?
(And make no mistake, scaring the Soviets was the main point of the bombing. Japan had already begun to sue for peace by the time of Hiroshima, but they were selected by the U.S. military as the target of the first nuke as early as 1943. Originally we were going to nuke Japan to scare the shit out of the Nazis. But after the Soviets beat the Nazis - they had much more to do with the Allied victory in Europe than the U.S. did - we decided we needed to scare the shit out of them.)
Only if by "predates" you mean "came along 19 years later"...
You're right. I usually make the comparision in tech levels between fission and the first color television broadcast (1951) - point being that any nation industrial enough to build a color TV set, pretty much has the tech level to make nukes - but I slipped up.
And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, look at how many people
died from not standing up to Hitler early enough.
The one has nothing to do with the other. Iraq was a penny-ante
dictatorship - one that the U.S. supported in many ways. Saddam was to
Hitler as the local school bully is to Charles Manson.
When we "stood up" to Saddam, we trashed the place and destablized the
whole region; and every day we stay makes things worse.
Aggressively invading a sovereign nation is a piss-poor way to "stand
up" to a threat of a dictator. Especially a
trumped-up threat based on misinformation.
Look, I know the fantasy that this is somehow WWII all over again, is the only way that you few remaining
supporters of the Iraq invasion can manage to convince yourself that
there's some good end possible if we just keep sending Americans over to
fight and kill and die. But it ain't so.
Only this time, the megalomaniac will have nukes, and since
he's not just a power-hungry despot but a religious fanatic, he won't be
afraid to use them.
Eventually, everyone is going to have nukes. The technology predates
television, for crying out loud. The developing nations recognize the
nuclear states as the hyopcrites we are ("we can have nukes, but you
can't") and also see what happens to nations without nukes.
If we'd been willing to take our responsibilities under the NPT
seriously and work toward disarmament, maybe it could have worked. But we
went for the Cold War buildup and nuclear brinksmanship instead, setting
one hell of an example that the rest of the world will follow.
The question now isn't whether nukes will be used again; it's where and
when, and what the world will do afterward.
Meanwhile, bombing other nations because they're on the way to
developing a nuclear deterent, is a heck of an incentive for other nations to develop a nuclear deterent that would
prevent you from bombing them.
let's see now by your logic none of these are bad as they perform a social good
Odd. The parent poster said not a word about "social good", but about
stopping "slimeballs from taking advantage of people".
Keeping slimeballs from taking advantage of people may be a subset of
"social good" (social
good actually means something rather different, but we'll skip that for
now), but that does not mean that an argument in favor of the state
stopping slimeballs is an argument for the state doing anything it want to
promote "social good".
You might legitimately argue that this law does not in fact keep
slimeballs from taking advantage of people; or that it has additional
consequences that make it undesirable. You might even make some Social
Darwinist argument that it is not the function of the government to keep
slimeballs from taking advantage of people.
But your misreading or miscomprehension of the parent post is simply
wrong.
But I'm guessing younger people in the US use SMS quite a bit.
It's more popular in the U.S. with the kids than with the 30+ crowd, but even there still not as big as in Japan (from my observation) or Europe (from what I hear). It's usually cheaper to call. I get 450 "peak" minutes a month plus unlimited nights and weekends, on Verizon's cheapest plan, hardly ever come close to using it all - but it costs me fifteen cents to send or receive an SMS.
I didn't appreciate texting until I got back from a few months in Japan, and took a train ride from Baltimore to NYC. People yelling into their phones are so annoying once you get used to people quietly texting away.
What kind of lives are file system authors leading these days?
Well, I'm much more disturbed by Reiser playing graphically violent video games with his young son - to the point where the kids has nightmares - in order to "teach the culture of manhood", than by the fact he has a friend into BDSM and cutting. (Of course, Sturgeon's claim later on that he killed a bunch of people is more disturbing than either, and certainly throws dobut into the case against Reiser.)
BDSM? Body mod? Somebody you know is into it or something equally "strange", but hasn't told you. That normal-looking coder in the next office has a pierced penis; your brother's art history professor used to be a professional dominatrix. In every day "normal" society you're never going to find out.
Spend some time in the "alternative" cultures, though, and you'll find out how gloriously weird your neighbors are.
Open source programs are typically not well-commented and searchable enough for a capable outsider to improve upon without significant investment of time.
Programs in general are typically not well-commented and searchable enough for a capable coder new to the project to improve upon without significant investment of time. (And not uncommonly, they're so bad that the best thing a new coder can do is a near total rewrite.)
Most code sucks rocks. Good code is the exception, rather than the rule, regardless of whether the code is open or closed.
I've dug into a handful of FOSS projects over the years and the worst FOSS I've seen is not as bad as the worst proprietary code I've worked on; the best FOSS is about as good as the best closed code.
However, they also explicitly say that they insert ads:
As a content provider, I didn't give them any licence to create derivative works. Creating versions of my pages with ads, is clearly creation of a derivative work.
But of course, it's much more important for copyright law to prevent me from copying a CD for a friend, then to prevent some large ISP from violating my moral rights by whoring out my content.
1) forwarding sucks. Why? I don't know. But if I can't tell if it's coming from a legitimate server, it sucks.
See, SPF sucks so bad that it's confused you about forwarding.
The question is not if it comes to me from a legitimate server; it's if it *originated* from a legitimate server. DomainKeys allows this without crazy-ass rewriting.
The only reason that people might want to check SPF headers on the receiving end is to prevent spam from reaching them. Once they figure out it doesn't, they don't have much motivation.
Do I, running the server for a small company, care if you get Joe jobbed? Sorry, but not really. So why am I going to bother to have my mail server spent cycles and bandwidth checking SPF headers?
Some people claim that SPF directly combats spam. It doesn't. SPF attempts to address forgery. In fact, a large amount of spam rates an SPF 'pass' result, because spammers have rapidly adopted SPF for themselves.
You still need a blacklist or other kind of trust database, to tell you which domains are trustworthy and which are not. But we already have lots of blacklists; it's just that we list the IP address instead of the domain name, to tell you which hosts are trustworthy and which are not. We don't need to break email and force everyone to upgrade to some bizarre new scheme just for that.
Cryptographic signatures are the solution to preventing forgeries. Until we get them into wide use on the user level, DomainKeys is a fairly good solution. SFP is a poor one.
There is no federal mandate. A publicly funded school is at the state level...
The linked document quotes the Coinage Act of 1965, (Section 31 U.S.C. 5103) as stating entitled "United States coins and currency...are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." Seems to me anything paid to a state institution is a public charge.
Slashdot Mirror
...if you want to damage your kidneys, starve your brain of glucose, and generally damage your body, that is.
"Low carb" diets are toxic. The body needs carbohydrates for energy, protien for tissue building, and fats for a variety of metabolic purposes. Carbs are what you're supposed to be burning, not protein; protein doesn't burn clean.
Yes, reduce sugars, that's a fine and good idea. The amount of sugar the average American consumes is simply mind-boggling. The majority of your calories should still come from complex carbohydrates, not proteins and certainly not fats. People temporarily lose weight on "low carb" diets because they're paying attention to what they eat and end up eating fewer calories, not because of some metabolic magic.
Eat less (I lost ten pounds over three months in Japan just by getting used to smaller portions), exercise more, and learn to de-stress - I think the constant low-level stress of American society is an under-explored cause of our obesity problem.
Mach is a microkernel, not a kernel. Classically, you had to run a OS "personality" on top of Mach to get a full set of kernel features (things like a filesystem, processes, and users are not found in Mach). Back when Mach was a hot topic in the mid 90s, there were POSIX and OS/2 personalities being developed.
OS/X's XNU kernel uses a combination of the Mach microkernel with the BSD kernel - they're co-equal, not a BSD "personality" on top of Mach.
No, the GPL is not viral. If a genetic metaphor is desired, it's more like a dominant gene. A virus affects unrelated organisms; the GPL can only affect "descendants", i.e. derivative works.
Of course it differs from a dominant gene in that all descendants will inherit it, but dominant gene is still a much closer metaphor than virus.
I would expect a physicist to understand mitosis enough to be able to object if some ignorant polictal hack tried to say that the theory of cell division is just a conspiracy by the opposition. Richard Feynman, IIRC, did some graduate level work in biology, and could probably have given a fair layman's explanation of mitosis.
I would expect the surgeon general to be scientifically literate, and be able to explain that the Earth moves around the Sun, that burning hydrogen creates water, that objects of different masses fall with the same accleration (disregarding air resistance), and that the biosphere is warming and it seems that human activity is at least partly responsible.
Excuse me, but are there any reproductive structures in the mouth?
Leave cunniligus and fellatio out of it, what are you doing kissing?
If it's "unnnatural", how do you explain ass-fucking homosexual sheep? Did somebody sit them down and make them watch Brokeback Mountain and turn them gay?
(Oh, and you do realize that many heterosexual people enjoy anal sex, right?)
Because I'm not always where I'm at now - if I was always at home I'd just have a land line, right? The whole point of a mobile phone is to be mobile.
Maybe it's changed post-merger, but last I checked Cingular's coverage sucked. And the slowness of their data network is one of the most frequent complaints about the iPhone. AT&T/Cingular is also rated low for call quality.
No. Music does more for the venue than the venue does for music; go into a bar with live music on a Friday or Saturday night and this is quite clear.
If my music isn't helping their business, why are they playing it?
Sadly, Verizon has the best network in terms of coverage, and Sprint's is also pretty good. To my knowledge the only U.S. network that allows for unlocked phones is T-Mobile, and their coverage sucks.
You have a trade-off here of good plans that you can only use in limited areas, or crappy plans that work most places.
The RIAA is not responsible for songwriter royalties for live performance. That would be groups like ASCAP, BMI, and SECAP.
While they can be heavy-handed at times, the model of "private use ok, profit making public use encurs royalties" is basically good - IMHO such a "royalty right" should replace "copy right".
If a place is attracting business by playing my songs (either recorded or via a cover band), the venue (not the band) owes me a cut. Yes, it's done statistically.
I bought my 15" LCD just four or five years ago; 17" was not affordable then. I had a 17" CRT at the time, so I got the same amout of screen space (17 CRT inches gives the same useful space as a 15" LCD) with a clearer, flicker-free picture, it was a definite win. Given the lifespan of a LCD monitor - at 50,000 hours, say 12 hours a day, you're looking at 11 years - expect 15" LCDs to be in service for several more years.
Gamers might upgrade their monitors every few years, but for many of us a monitor is something you keep until it dies (to both save money and to minimize haxardous electronics waste).
Odd that, since my 15" Viewsonic LCD was made in 2002. Must have been right before this great change.
I bought my laptop just this year, and it has a screen much smaller than 17 inches. And 15 inch monitors are still on the market.
When did the word "only" start applying to 17" screens?
If I maximize my Emacs window I can get 108 characters. I'd rather not shrink my font, that would hurt my eyes. Please don't asusme 132, stick to 80 columns.
Using a fixed-width font puts text in an easily navigable grid; I can clearly see where five down-arrows is going to bring my cursor. I don't want my editor to use a proportional font.
Emacs's various langnage modes make use of colors, boldfacing, etc., so I don't understand your other points.
Yep, I screwed up. My usual rhetoric is to point out that any nation industrial enough to build a color TV set, is at about the tech level to handle fission - first color television broadcast was 1951.
Like our nuking of Japan forestalled the Soviet Union from developing nukes?
(And make no mistake, scaring the Soviets was the main point of the bombing. Japan had already begun to sue for peace by the time of Hiroshima, but they were selected by the U.S. military as the target of the first nuke as early as 1943. Originally we were going to nuke Japan to scare the shit out of the Nazis. But after the Soviets beat the Nazis - they had much more to do with the Allied victory in Europe than the U.S. did - we decided we needed to scare the shit out of them.)
You're right. I usually make the comparision in tech levels between fission and the first color television broadcast (1951) - point being that any nation industrial enough to build a color TV set, pretty much has the tech level to make nukes - but I slipped up.
The one has nothing to do with the other. Iraq was a penny-ante dictatorship - one that the U.S. supported in many ways. Saddam was to Hitler as the local school bully is to Charles Manson.
When we "stood up" to Saddam, we trashed the place and destablized the whole region; and every day we stay makes things worse.
Aggressively invading a sovereign nation is a piss-poor way to "stand up" to a threat of a dictator. Especially a trumped-up threat based on misinformation.
Look, I know the fantasy that this is somehow WWII all over again, is the only way that you few remaining supporters of the Iraq invasion can manage to convince yourself that there's some good end possible if we just keep sending Americans over to fight and kill and die. But it ain't so.
Eventually, everyone is going to have nukes. The technology predates television, for crying out loud. The developing nations recognize the nuclear states as the hyopcrites we are ("we can have nukes, but you can't") and also see what happens to nations without nukes.
If we'd been willing to take our responsibilities under the NPT seriously and work toward disarmament, maybe it could have worked. But we went for the Cold War buildup and nuclear brinksmanship instead, setting one hell of an example that the rest of the world will follow.
The question now isn't whether nukes will be used again; it's where and when, and what the world will do afterward.
Meanwhile, bombing other nations because they're on the way to developing a nuclear deterent, is a heck of an incentive for other nations to develop a nuclear deterent that would prevent you from bombing them.
Odd. The parent poster said not a word about "social good", but about stopping "slimeballs from taking advantage of people".
Keeping slimeballs from taking advantage of people may be a subset of "social good" (social good actually means something rather different, but we'll skip that for now), but that does not mean that an argument in favor of the state stopping slimeballs is an argument for the state doing anything it want to promote "social good".
You might legitimately argue that this law does not in fact keep slimeballs from taking advantage of people; or that it has additional consequences that make it undesirable. You might even make some Social Darwinist argument that it is not the function of the government to keep slimeballs from taking advantage of people.
But your misreading or miscomprehension of the parent post is simply wrong.
It's more popular in the U.S. with the kids than with the 30+ crowd, but even there still not as big as in Japan (from my observation) or Europe (from what I hear). It's usually cheaper to call. I get 450 "peak" minutes a month plus unlimited nights and weekends, on Verizon's cheapest plan, hardly ever come close to using it all - but it costs me fifteen cents to send or receive an SMS.
I didn't appreciate texting until I got back from a few months in Japan, and took a train ride from Baltimore to NYC. People yelling into their phones are so annoying once you get used to people quietly texting away.
Well, I'm much more disturbed by Reiser playing graphically violent video games with his young son - to the point where the kids has nightmares - in order to "teach the culture of manhood", than by the fact he has a friend into BDSM and cutting. (Of course, Sturgeon's claim later on that he killed a bunch of people is more disturbing than either, and certainly throws dobut into the case against Reiser.)
BDSM? Body mod? Somebody you know is into it or something equally "strange", but hasn't told you. That normal-looking coder in the next office has a pierced penis; your brother's art history professor used to be a professional dominatrix. In every day "normal" society you're never going to find out.
Spend some time in the "alternative" cultures, though, and you'll find out how gloriously weird your neighbors are.
Programs in general are typically not well-commented and searchable enough for a capable coder new to the project to improve upon without significant investment of time. (And not uncommonly, they're so bad that the best thing a new coder can do is a near total rewrite.)
Most code sucks rocks. Good code is the exception, rather than the rule, regardless of whether the code is open or closed.
I've dug into a handful of FOSS projects over the years and the worst FOSS I've seen is not as bad as the worst proprietary code I've worked on; the best FOSS is about as good as the best closed code.
Many people have a severely limited choice of ISPs.
Where do you live that this is true? (Or are you perhaps mailing us through a time warp from the early 1990s?)
And customers choosing a different ISP doesn't solve the problem that content provider's moral rights are being violated.
As a content provider, I didn't give them any licence to create derivative works. Creating versions of my pages with ads, is clearly creation of a derivative work.
But of course, it's much more important for copyright law to prevent me from copying a CD for a friend, then to prevent some large ISP from violating my moral rights by whoring out my content.
See, SPF sucks so bad that it's confused you about forwarding.
The question is not if it comes to me from a legitimate server; it's if it *originated* from a legitimate server. DomainKeys allows this without crazy-ass rewriting.
The only reason that people might want to check SPF headers on the receiving end is to prevent spam from reaching them. Once they figure out it doesn't, they don't have much motivation.
Do I, running the server for a small company, care if you get Joe jobbed? Sorry, but not really. So why am I going to bother to have my mail server spent cycles and bandwidth checking SPF headers?
Odd. I made no claims about what SPF is "supposed" to do, only noted that it 1) breaks forwarding, and 2) doesn't prevent spam.
As for preventing forgeries like joe jobs, read the page I so conveniently linked to:
Cryptographic signatures are the solution to preventing forgeries. Until we get them into wide use on the user level, DomainKeys is a fairly good solution. SFP is a poor one.
SPF breaks forwarding. It is a badly brain-damaged scheme.
A few years back it was alleged that more spam than valid e-mail was being sent using SPF.
SPF is bad, mkay? It should have been taken out behind the barn and put out of our misery a long time ago. Don't use it, and don't encourage it.
DomainKeys is a much smarter scheme. Use and encourage it instead.
The linked document quotes the Coinage Act of 1965, (Section 31 U.S.C. 5103) as stating entitled "United States coins and currency...are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." Seems to me anything paid to a state institution is a public charge.