You've offered up a conspiracy theory, one which revolves around something something drug companies who can't be trusted, and linked to a video by Alex Jones as evidence of this. Alex Jones, who makes most of his money by getting his followers to buy his nutritional supplements (because other sources of nutritional supplements can't be trusted). Brilliant.
This whole thread is just... Yes, of course a low carb diet can alleviate type 2 diabetes, any fad diet can alleviate type 2 diabetes. The important part is losing weight, and fad diets are usually all pretty good at that. It's wonderful that this particular one worked for you or for your relation. None of the low carb diets are as extreme as the 850 cal/day liquid diet that they used in this study. Does this mean that a faster, more extreme diet is more effective for treating diabetes?... No, that's not what they were studying here but it seems like a worthwhile question, given their results.
That's a detail though. The important thing is that if you have type 2 diabetes then how exactly you go about losing weight doesn't matter nearly as much as actually doing it.
How do you figure? No, really: how are you counting this? From what are you making this claim?
When people start talking about deaths related to communism they're usually referring to Mao's Great Leap Forward. And that... was done under the auspices of communism anyway, so okay. That's thirty million. World War 2 was seventy million. You've got a lot of ground to cover here, and I'm wondering how you're going to do it.
Not always. This "both parties are the same" business started, more or less, in response to GWB. People were so unhappy with him and, by extension, the Republican party, that the tactic in 2008 was to push for voter disenfranchisement. Figuring that someone who didn't vote out of cynicism at least wasn't voting for Democratic candidates.
"If you can't bring yourself to vote republican, then just don't vote." - some talking head on Fox News. (I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something like this)
VID.ME I can't believe how deaf readers can be sometimes.
They're not huge, but I've been seeing them around more and more lately. People who attempt to make a living by posting videos on the internet keep searching for better options than youtube, because youtube is terrible for content creators, and vid.me is the most recent popular option. Trouble is, there's no money in it for the host, even youtube only breaks even, so they don't last long. Remember Blip? Same thing.
Yes, pretty much all of the specifics about bitcoins are terrible. I certainly won't contest that. But the problem with the fees is not an inherent one - the point is that bitcoins are serving a real function, they have a legitimate non-scam role, they're just doing it poorly.
He made an instructional video for how to implement cheating software. Properly it should be called tertiary infringement, since he's one step removed from secondary, but I don't think that's an actual legal term. His video is a tool to help implement the cheating software which is a tool to help the player commit copyright infringement.
I suppose that the question comes down to whether the video qualifies as a tool or as speech, but given that it exists only to help accomplish a given task, and not to communicate an idea, I find it difficult to picture this as a speech issue.
This is fine, I see nothing wrong with customers choosing to pay with credit cards as a value-added service. I do see something wrong with payment processors siphoning money off because they're the only way to do business.
Yes, of course Bitcoin is a scam. But that isn't all there is to it, there is a need that it fills: we currently lack any kind of digital cash. Banks and other payment processors are currently taking about 3% of all the money spent on the internet, and this is an enormous amount of money that's just disappearing with virtually no return. A lot of internet vendors with thin margins jumped on the Bitcoin bandwagon for just this reason.
What we really need, of course, is a real government-backed digital currency. I can think of a few reasons why this hasn't been implemented yet, but it will happen eventually.
Also: what do you mean "lie"? Even if there have been some bizarre legal shenanigans to reverse what I said there, at worst it would be a mistake. You seem to be unnecessarily insulting.
Might? Isn't this implied by the summary? There is no unselfish reason for this.
The summary says, "helps the school achieve the highest starting compensation packages of any MBA program," and I guess an uncritical reader might interpret that as being beneficial for the students, but those students are getting high compensation packages because of their previous experience. There are basically two reasons why schools want "the best students" - a famous student or alumni can increase the prestige of the school, and rich alumni bring in more money.
This kid puts up a video showing people how to use cheating software. Cheating software has been previously established to be a copyright circumvention tool, thus the kid was clearly committing secondary copyright infringement.
Doctorow could have pointed out that this was dumb, that this was another example of why the DMCA is bad, but instead he claims that there was no copyright infringement going on and talks a lot about how the kid is fourteen years old (as though that were important). He also makes much ado about the lawsuit - what does he expect Epic to do here? A lawsuit is the correct and appropriate legal remedy.
The parent didn't describe the case entirely accurately. The claim that Blizzard made was that in order you play the game you need to make a copy - you copy from your hard drive to RAM. This copy is authorized if you're abiding by the EULA, but not authorized if you're in violation of the EULA. Thus they claimed that this particular botting software was a copyright circumvention tool.
The court agreed with them, and so that's how it is.
The game maker needed to tell people how it was calculating XP, so that they would know that running the same mission over and over again was not the most efficient way to get XP. With the result that they wouldn't do it, and more importantly wouldn't feel that they were missing out or falling behind for not doing it, and would go do fun things instead.
The point is that the player shouldn't have to choose between what is most efficient for advancement and what is most fun.
This kind of system is common, usually meant to break up the grind - keep players doing different things, playing with other people, etc., instead of just running the same mission over and over again for maximum efficiency.
This works best, of course, if you actually tell people that's what's going on. So that part's kinda funny, but this doesn't seem like a big deal.
I'm sorry, did you just declare your opinion to be correct and claim that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? I've having trouble interpreting what you said any other way.
There have been a lot of self-declared "kindest ways to make war." It's like history has this great big turd-polishing competition and everyone needs their chance to say, "No no, I have the shiniest piece of shit." But you buddy, you have the answer. You got it. First prize.
Kid gloves? Is that what people are calling drone-fired missiles these days? I can never keep up...
Fighting like our enemies would involve first having 1% of the money that we have presently, blaming foreigners for our impoverished state and lack of jobs, and then trying to strike out at them with whatever hand-me-down weapons and improvised explosives that we could scrape together. So... I guess we're partway there.
"Injecting themselves in American politics" was not the reason given for downlisting the Russian media, that was just the parent's tongue-in-cheek description. Google's actual reason probably has more to do with deceiving the public, and yes there is certainly American media which also qualifies there.
I hope that at some point the studios will return to regular old fashioned blockbuster movies to pass the summer (or winter), instead of the current overload of superhero garbage.
You make it sound like you want more superhero movies, you just want them to be called something else.
This is a good point. I usually just think about this in terms of the legislative consequences, but there has to be some criminal component here. Who is responsible for prosecuting something like this, and why have I never heard of them actually doing it?
Someone made a reasonable claim a while back that we can blame the hysteria over pedophiles that has been building for the last few decades on Rupert Murdoch. This is an apolitical criticism: he gets a lot of crap for his politics, and for the politics of the media outlets that he owns, but apparently this was just about making money. People buy newspapers and watch the news more when they're scared, and scaring people about their children turns out to be very effective.
Also, responding to the article: No, no brand would ever want to be associated with scantily clad children. Never.
Or... not. They're both rated T - age 13+ - and while companies don't usually release statistics on their player base, the average age of Overwatch players has been estimated as mid to late 20s. Battlefront is probably similar.
Well that's something to consider, let's see. The argument for restricting guns is usually something like: "having a lot of dangerous things all over the place is dangerous." So for bittorrent... having a lot of bittorrents all over is dangerous? (in a non-physical sense?)
From Comcast's perspective the problem with bittorrent isn't copyright (or at least it wasn't back in 2008 before Comcast bought NBC), Comcast's problem with bittorrent is network congestion. And if we equate a congested network with people who are dead from bullet wounds... there are some reasonable parallels there. It's not the majority of bittorrent users (majority of gun owners) who are the problem, it's the small number of abusers who ruin it for everyone. But, having a lot of people with guns (having a lot bittorrent users) increases the ease and speed with which a person can kill another (become an abuser) and increases the chances that a suicidal person will kill themselves successfully in their moment of weakness (I'm not sure that there's a parallel to suicide).
Of course, one big difference is that bittorrent is such a problem for Comcast because their infrastructure is set up for asynchronous communication. This is a solvable problem, albeit one which would cost a lot of money. There's no similar solution for guns. On the other hand, the argument in favor of bittorrent has never been: "bittorrent should be restricted over a reasonable time period while ISPs update their infrastructure, and then those restrictions removed." The argument in favor of bittorrent has pretty much always been that it should be unrestricted right now.
You mistook what the parent was saying. That wasn't a defense of anything, that was calling out the grandparent for obvious deceit. The grandparent was attempting to preemptively deflect away from Trump and Co's elitism and racism by calling his opposition elitist and racist first.
Slashdot Mirror
You've offered up a conspiracy theory, one which revolves around something something drug companies who can't be trusted, and linked to a video by Alex Jones as evidence of this. Alex Jones, who makes most of his money by getting his followers to buy his nutritional supplements (because other sources of nutritional supplements can't be trusted). Brilliant.
... No, that's not what they were studying here but it seems like a worthwhile question, given their results.
This whole thread is just... Yes, of course a low carb diet can alleviate type 2 diabetes, any fad diet can alleviate type 2 diabetes. The important part is losing weight, and fad diets are usually all pretty good at that. It's wonderful that this particular one worked for you or for your relation. None of the low carb diets are as extreme as the 850 cal/day liquid diet that they used in this study. Does this mean that a faster, more extreme diet is more effective for treating diabetes?
That's a detail though. The important thing is that if you have type 2 diabetes then how exactly you go about losing weight doesn't matter nearly as much as actually doing it.
How do you figure? No, really: how are you counting this? From what are you making this claim?
When people start talking about deaths related to communism they're usually referring to Mao's Great Leap Forward. And that... was done under the auspices of communism anyway, so okay. That's thirty million. World War 2 was seventy million. You've got a lot of ground to cover here, and I'm wondering how you're going to do it.
Not always. This "both parties are the same" business started, more or less, in response to GWB. People were so unhappy with him and, by extension, the Republican party, that the tactic in 2008 was to push for voter disenfranchisement. Figuring that someone who didn't vote out of cynicism at least wasn't voting for Democratic candidates.
"If you can't bring yourself to vote republican, then just don't vote." - some talking head on Fox News. (I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something like this)
VID.ME I can't believe how deaf readers can be sometimes.
They're not huge, but I've been seeing them around more and more lately. People who attempt to make a living by posting videos on the internet keep searching for better options than youtube, because youtube is terrible for content creators, and vid.me is the most recent popular option. Trouble is, there's no money in it for the host, even youtube only breaks even, so they don't last long. Remember Blip? Same thing.
Yes, pretty much all of the specifics about bitcoins are terrible. I certainly won't contest that. But the problem with the fees is not an inherent one - the point is that bitcoins are serving a real function, they have a legitimate non-scam role, they're just doing it poorly.
He made an instructional video for how to implement cheating software. Properly it should be called tertiary infringement, since he's one step removed from secondary, but I don't think that's an actual legal term. His video is a tool to help implement the cheating software which is a tool to help the player commit copyright infringement.
I suppose that the question comes down to whether the video qualifies as a tool or as speech, but given that it exists only to help accomplish a given task, and not to communicate an idea, I find it difficult to picture this as a speech issue.
This is fine, I see nothing wrong with customers choosing to pay with credit cards as a value-added service. I do see something wrong with payment processors siphoning money off because they're the only way to do business.
Yes, of course Bitcoin is a scam. But that isn't all there is to it, there is a need that it fills: we currently lack any kind of digital cash. Banks and other payment processors are currently taking about 3% of all the money spent on the internet, and this is an enormous amount of money that's just disappearing with virtually no return. A lot of internet vendors with thin margins jumped on the Bitcoin bandwagon for just this reason.
What we really need, of course, is a real government-backed digital currency. I can think of a few reasons why this hasn't been implemented yet, but it will happen eventually.
The case is from 2009, how has it not been heard?
Also: what do you mean "lie"? Even if there have been some bizarre legal shenanigans to reverse what I said there, at worst it would be a mistake. You seem to be unnecessarily insulting.
Might? Isn't this implied by the summary? There is no unselfish reason for this.
The summary says, "helps the school achieve the highest starting compensation packages of any MBA program," and I guess an uncritical reader might interpret that as being beneficial for the students, but those students are getting high compensation packages because of their previous experience. There are basically two reasons why schools want "the best students" - a famous student or alumni can increase the prestige of the school, and rich alumni bring in more money.
This kid puts up a video showing people how to use cheating software. Cheating software has been previously established to be a copyright circumvention tool, thus the kid was clearly committing secondary copyright infringement.
Doctorow could have pointed out that this was dumb, that this was another example of why the DMCA is bad, but instead he claims that there was no copyright infringement going on and talks a lot about how the kid is fourteen years old (as though that were important). He also makes much ado about the lawsuit - what does he expect Epic to do here? A lawsuit is the correct and appropriate legal remedy.
The parent didn't describe the case entirely accurately. The claim that Blizzard made was that in order you play the game you need to make a copy - you copy from your hard drive to RAM. This copy is authorized if you're abiding by the EULA, but not authorized if you're in violation of the EULA. Thus they claimed that this particular botting software was a copyright circumvention tool.
The court agreed with them, and so that's how it is.
People who disagree with me are not real members of my tribe.
The game maker needed to tell people how it was calculating XP, so that they would know that running the same mission over and over again was not the most efficient way to get XP. With the result that they wouldn't do it, and more importantly wouldn't feel that they were missing out or falling behind for not doing it, and would go do fun things instead.
The point is that the player shouldn't have to choose between what is most efficient for advancement and what is most fun.
This kind of system is common, usually meant to break up the grind - keep players doing different things, playing with other people, etc., instead of just running the same mission over and over again for maximum efficiency.
This works best, of course, if you actually tell people that's what's going on. So that part's kinda funny, but this doesn't seem like a big deal.
I'm sorry, did you just declare your opinion to be correct and claim that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? I've having trouble interpreting what you said any other way.
There have been a lot of self-declared "kindest ways to make war." It's like history has this great big turd-polishing competition and everyone needs their chance to say, "No no, I have the shiniest piece of shit." But you buddy, you have the answer. You got it. First prize.
Kid gloves? Is that what people are calling drone-fired missiles these days? I can never keep up...
Fighting like our enemies would involve first having 1% of the money that we have presently, blaming foreigners for our impoverished state and lack of jobs, and then trying to strike out at them with whatever hand-me-down weapons and improvised explosives that we could scrape together. So... I guess we're partway there.
"Injecting themselves in American politics" was not the reason given for downlisting the Russian media, that was just the parent's tongue-in-cheek description. Google's actual reason probably has more to do with deceiving the public, and yes there is certainly American media which also qualifies there.
I hope that at some point the studios will return to regular old fashioned blockbuster movies to pass the summer (or winter), instead of the current overload of superhero garbage.
You make it sound like you want more superhero movies, you just want them to be called something else.
This is a good point. I usually just think about this in terms of the legislative consequences, but there has to be some criminal component here. Who is responsible for prosecuting something like this, and why have I never heard of them actually doing it?
You seem to not be aware
Nothing in your reply contradicted anything that the parent said.
Someone made a reasonable claim a while back that we can blame the hysteria over pedophiles that has been building for the last few decades on Rupert Murdoch. This is an apolitical criticism: he gets a lot of crap for his politics, and for the politics of the media outlets that he owns, but apparently this was just about making money. People buy newspapers and watch the news more when they're scared, and scaring people about their children turns out to be very effective.
Also, responding to the article: No, no brand would ever want to be associated with scantily clad children. Never.
or child in this case
Or... not. They're both rated T - age 13+ - and while companies don't usually release statistics on their player base, the average age of Overwatch players has been estimated as mid to late 20s. Battlefront is probably similar.
Well that's something to consider, let's see. The argument for restricting guns is usually something like: "having a lot of dangerous things all over the place is dangerous." So for bittorrent... having a lot of bittorrents all over is dangerous? (in a non-physical sense?)
From Comcast's perspective the problem with bittorrent isn't copyright (or at least it wasn't back in 2008 before Comcast bought NBC), Comcast's problem with bittorrent is network congestion. And if we equate a congested network with people who are dead from bullet wounds... there are some reasonable parallels there. It's not the majority of bittorrent users (majority of gun owners) who are the problem, it's the small number of abusers who ruin it for everyone. But, having a lot of people with guns (having a lot bittorrent users) increases the ease and speed with which a person can kill another (become an abuser) and increases the chances that a suicidal person will kill themselves successfully in their moment of weakness (I'm not sure that there's a parallel to suicide).
Of course, one big difference is that bittorrent is such a problem for Comcast because their infrastructure is set up for asynchronous communication. This is a solvable problem, albeit one which would cost a lot of money. There's no similar solution for guns. On the other hand, the argument in favor of bittorrent has never been: "bittorrent should be restricted over a reasonable time period while ISPs update their infrastructure, and then those restrictions removed." The argument in favor of bittorrent has pretty much always been that it should be unrestricted right now.
You mistook what the parent was saying. That wasn't a defense of anything, that was calling out the grandparent for obvious deceit. The grandparent was attempting to preemptively deflect away from Trump and Co's elitism and racism by calling his opposition elitist and racist first.