The real thing to take out of this article is the political angle: Canada funded the expedition in the hopes it somehow gives more weight to their claims over the shipping lanes invariably opening up as the arctic ice cap disappears.
A process only aided by the Conservatives extreme reluctance to do anything about global warming. It's actually kinda brilliant.
Nm, I did specify 'we' when referring to Canada so you're likely referring to the US. Which would be odd because unlike Lithuania or Kyrgyzstan the one thing you can be assured of is everyone does know a ton about your country.
True but that's the case for any kind of business with international customers.
That's actually got me wondering why politicians always talk about job creation when selling film and television subsidies since the underlying economics are so dodgy. It seems the true reason for subsidies is the cultural benefit from having a healthy film industry.
Not to sound harsh, but Canada is a shithole and I would move to North Korea before I'd consider going up north.
Some people think Canadians are extraordinarily nice for how we deal with people like this, the truth is we simply have different ways of dealing with problems.
Consider the topic of justice and how to deal with bad people. The US is big into angry retributions and capital punishment, making sure people are punished harshly and everybody knows it.
Canada on the other hand simply tries to put bad people in a place where they don't bother anyone, and when someone does have to be punished we don't talk about it as much. In fact we're big believers in rehabilitation. Quite often we'll give the guilty something they really really want, hoping that in time they'll realize how terrible it is and discover the error of their ways.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I understand your anger and I'm sorry, we both know the US has been responsible for some terrible things, global warming, the Iraq War, NSA spying, etc, the list goes on for a while.
But sending Justin Beiber was definitely overkill.
I think regulating Google and Netflix is a really bad idea but I think there's a defensible motive in trying to promote Canadian content and defend Canadian content providers.
I'm not sure Americans really understand what it's like for smaller countries who lack the population or money to compete with American media productions. People get so much culture from television that it's hard to maintain a national identity when there's a US megaphone next door that dominates mass media. In some ways a well functioning film industry is as important as a military. Just look at what's happening in Ukraine, the rebellion is most certainly not fuelled by East Ukrainians, however it would be hard for Russia to do what it's doing without the support of an East Ukrainian minority who feels closer to Russia and is scared by Kiev. Almost certainly Russia's game would be much more difficult if Ukraine had a mass media strong enough to forge a strong national identity in East Ukraine.
That being said I'm not sure how this works on the Internet, but smaller countries do have a reason to worry about getting swamped by culture from American websites.
Any "for profit" business has the responsibility to maximize profits for the sake of its continued existence and growth, and as a duty to its stockholders if it was publicly held. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of it NOT to take advantage of legal tax loopholes or tactics to minimize costs.
There's lots of unethical practices that corporations avoid as a matter of good PR.
Imagine if exploiting tax loopholes was so socially unacceptable that corporations lost more money than they'd make through lost sales.
The crux of the problem here is the way the laws are written, so only your legislators can correct it.
Partly, but there's also a possibility that the legislation is fairly well written and closing these loopholes would cause even more serious problems.
There's also the possibility that the legislation is terribly written, and by choosing a well defined high profile target (Microsoft) they can create enough political will to fix the legislation.
However the point is that Microsoft is a victim of unconstitutional, illegal government system that usurped power and is stealing people's money. Income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally for a wide range of reasons.
Yeah, I read some of the post you linked.
So you seem to think that the 16th amendment only defines income in an incredibly narrow manner, granting the government very limited power to tax the income of corporations and none to tax individuals. You base this on your... creative interpretation of a 1921 supreme court ruling.
You're not alone in this interpretation, amazingly tax protesters have gone to the courts to make this argument many times, not so amazingly they have lost every single time.
Which begs the question. Assuming you are right, and the 1921 ruling didn't allow income tax, then you're still wrong. In the time since the courts have repeatedly ruled that income taxes are legal. Either the court rulings are legitimate, and income tax is allowed, or they're illegitimate, in which case you have no reason to cite the 1921 ruling. Hell, if you disregard the authority of the constitutionally authorized supreme court, who has rejected your interpretation by never even bothered to hear one of those lower court decisions, then I don't see how you can then claim to be so concerned about the wording of the 16th amendment.
Couldn't this approach be used for any infectious disease for which there's no effective cure but there are some survivors? Are there just no Western diseases that fit the profile? I suppose you need both a person sick with a deadly infection and a recent survivor of a same infection (with the same blood type). So it may just be the case that we simply don't experience that scenario enough to develop this solution. But I'm curious if this approach has been used outside of Ebola in Africa.
Completely offtopic but I suddenly want someone to make a movie about the making of the original Star Trek series just so they can cast this guy as Shatner.
The author of the summary is not up to date on the recent release of info on Dreadnoughtus schrani, now believed to be the largest creature to ever have walked on land.
Note from the Dreadnoughtus article (emphasis added): It is one of the largest of all known terrestrial vertebrates, possessing the greatest mass of any land animal that can be calculated with reasonable certainty
From the Argentinosaurus article it sounds like the estimates range from 60-90 tonnes, most likely the Argentinosaurus is heavier but we're more confident about the weight of the Dreadnoughtus.
First of all, it doesn't have to random every time. I simply would be using answer that no one would associate with me but that I can remember. I already do that for car, street I was born on, mom's maiden name. I also add a number and special character to the answer. Is it fool proof? No, but better than using easily discovered real information. It's not that difficult and the point is to make it hard to find the answers via web searches, for example. Sure, making up your own questions would work but many sites do not let you do that.
Adding a special character sounds like a good idea, a simple permutation or rule you can remember across all accounts.
But remember for it to work you can't rely on yourself remembering the answer, you need to know it without remembering it's creation.
Remember 2008? Some random douche on 4chan just looked up her dog's name?
Security questions do not work for public figures. Almost none of them will hold up to people whose whole lives are pointlessly documented.
More to the point why does anybody use real information for security questions? As long as I can remember the answer the accuracy is irrelevant. Same with birthdays. If I decide some random date is my birthday it makes it a lot harder to guess.
So your solution for forgetting your password is another password?
The solution isn't random info. It's questions you create with personal information that is memorable enough that you're remember in an instance, but only you, or a very small handful of intimate people, would know. Ie, 'Who was that girl you had a really secret crush on in grade 10?"
The current suite of questions, mother's maiden name, cars, etc, is all information that's potentially communicated to casual friends, as such it can easily slip out into public knowledge.
The problem is there's only so many questions that fit that description, so instead of sharing passwords you end up sharing answers.
I thought we were through with all this by the turn of the century. And I mean you can say that he's bluffing but really, Putin's a psychopath. If you corner a genuine bona fide psycho they'll take you down with them if they can, and they don't need any 72 virgins as an excuse either. Even if he's not, he'll have to act like one - to lose face in his position would represent a fundamental weakening of power, he'd lose support overnight, be deposed and likely disposed of.
It would seem to me that western leaders have been caught with their pants well and truly around their ankles in this situation, I doubt they were expecting this kind of heavy handedness, er, ever again. So my guess is they'll back out and leet him have his way.
Being a psychopath doesn't mean he's suicidal, it just means he has no empathy.
Putin's a dictator, he sees Russia's triumph as his triumph and his legacy is tied to how Russia's views him. He has no interest in a nuclear war, and even if he did he lacks the North Korean personality cult that would allow him to carry out an attack.
I think the solution is simple. The West quietly says if you invade Russia is locked out of the world economy until Ukraine is peaceful and Crimea is returned. Do that and Putin will find a way out. The only problem here is convincing the various EU members to endure the potential gas shortage.
Barring that I think NATO has to step in. After the NATO summit Poroshenko should go back to Ukraine with a NATO treaty in hand.
The important thing to remember is Putin hasn't officially invaded, in fact he's done everything he can to maintain the lie Russia is uninvolved and has consistently done the minimal amount necessary to keep the rebels alive. He knows he needs an escape route because he's unwilling to risk open war.
While this sort of news is important, without a doubt, I just don't see why it's on Slashdot's front page. This submission contains nothing but political news.
There are thousands upon thousands of news and discussion web sites that focus on politics and current events of this sort. We can go there if we want to read and discuss news such as that in this submission.
There are comparatively fewer web sites focusing on technology, mathematics, science, and computing. Slashdot was such a site. We'd be able to come here to find articles and dicussion that wouldn't be readily available from other sources or venues.
Please, keep Slashdot about technical topics. Leave the politics for other sites! Please!
Lots of other sites discuss the situation in Ukraine, but few do so with this kind of audience.
Certainly/. shouldn't become a politics/world affairs site. But when really important things come up they effect all facets of life. The reality of Russia as an agressive pseudo-fascist rogue state is very relevant even from a pure technology perspective.
Well according to this analysis of the study by an actual obesity researcher this study suggests the USDA recommendations aren't a problem:
This study also adds to the evidence that low-fat high-carbohydrate diets can cause weight loss. Even though the degree of weight loss is very modest, and possibly not significant from a clinical standpoint, this further undermines the argument that the carbohydrate-centric USDA dietary recommendations caused the obesity epidemic. It turns out, when you put people on a diet that's similar to the USDA guidelines, they don't generally gain weight, and they often lose a little bit.
The high-fat group followed something of a modified Atkins diet. They were told to eat mostly protein and fat, and to choose foods with primarily unsaturated fats, like fish, olive oil and nuts. But they were allowed to eat foods higher in saturated fat as well, including cheese and red meat.
[...]
The low-fat group included more grains, cereals and starches in their diet. They reduced their total fat intake to less than 30 percent of their daily calories, which is in line with the federal government’s dietary guidelines. The other group increased their total fat intake to more than 40 percent of daily calories.
Of the three macro-nutrients protein is known to be the most satiating per calorie.
And things that are high in protein (meat, eggs, nuts) tend to be the same things that are high in fat. While things high in carbs (grains, starch) tend to be low in protein.
So a big effect of a low-fat diet will be fewer calories from protein, and a low-carb diet will mean more calories from protein. I'm almost certain that the low-carb group ate a lot more protein than the low-fat group, and I'll bet that was responsible for the additional weight loss.
This is important because it means these results are completely consistent with the hypothesis that fat is the most fattening macronutrient, followed by carbs, and then protein being the most thinning. The reason why low-carb was the most thinning is that the weight loss caused by the additional protein overcame the weight gain caused by the additional fat.
Can anyone with access to the study confirm if there were big differences in the protein intake?
As you said, "The problem [is] cops under investigation never being punished regardless of the severity of their actions". Unlike you, I don't advocate punishing those under investigation... just those found guilty.
You simply misinterpreted my comment.
I wasn't advocating punishing people under investigation.
I was pointing out that the true problem was cops under investigation are never found guilty and punished. The reason people are complaining about the paid suspensions is they've given up on actual findings of guilt, so they're focusing on increasing the severity of the only consequence the cops experience, the suspension.
Your suggestion punishes the innocent because even though they're still paid they can't use that income because of the shadow of a potential adverse finding.
That's not a real punishment under any sort of legal theory. I can imagine a variety of adverse scenarios and these are not considered "punishments". For example, I can imagine that I were wrongfully convicted and subsequently executed for a crime I didn't commit. Am I being punished right this moment by this threat? It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. Do I deserve protection codified in the legal system to somehow preclude my fears?
For another example, I can conceive that the IRS could decide through a miscarriage of justice to have me convicted of tax fraud and thereby seize all my assets and garnish my income. Am I being punished right now, even though I'm innocent? I'm facing the potential prospect of wrongful conviction; according to you I am therefore logically unable to spend a cent of my income. I'm living in the shadow of a potential adverse finding, you know.
As I said, nothing is protecting you from the specter of miscarriage of justice. It's a fact of life, and you and everyone else just has to deal with that however you can because the alternative (accommodating everyone's fears) is absurd.
The IRS thing is possible, but not an imminent threat. An active investigation IS an imminent threat, so it will cause you to severely hedge your bets.
Consider if you were a cop under paid suspension with a hearing hearing in 6 months. You know you're innocent but you figure there's still a 10% chance you'll be found guilty.
How do you think it would affect your spending habits if you knew in 6 months the department would ask for all of that salary back? Personally I'd put that money in the bank and not touch a penny. It would be the same as an unpaid suspension with retro-active pay if I was found innocent.
How is a 6 month delay in salary not a punishment?
Wait. So, I'm the one thinking about this incorrectly when I propose punishing those found guilty, whereas you are proposing punishing those who are only under investigation?
Huh? I think you have it backwards.
Your suggestion punishes the innocent because even though they're still paid they can't use that income because of the shadow of a potential adverse finding.
My suggestion is you still get paid while under suspension and by default get to keep that money in the case of a conviction (civil suit are a separate manner).
And, yes, I'm fine with the scenario you proposed, insofar as the outcome is predicated upon a miscarriage of justice in the courts (which we should always strive to mitigate). What's protecting you, for example, from having all your assets seized if you are targeted by and subsequently lose a false civil lawsuit? Insurance? Nothing?
Welcome to life.
Better than rewarding malfeasant government agents with taxpayer dollars.
The problem with your scenario isn't the miscarriage, it's the threat of miscarriage.
Innocent or guilty, if you're accused you need to prepare for the scenario where you're found guilty. The best system allows the guilty to live the same as the innocent while awaiting trial, otherwise we punish the innocent.
By introducing a retro-active punishment, like taking back all the wages paid out during the suspension, you're going to punish the innocent along with the guilty. The innocent, even though there is unlikely to be a clawback, will have to live as if they're not being paid so they don't risk bankruptcy in the case of a conviction.
Precisely because they are under investigation - to not pay them means the investigators and the employers have taken a particular stance, and also it would be extremely easy to harm someone by making a false accusation against them.
Okay, fine. Presumption of innocence and all. However, if they are found guilty then I want to see a clawback of the pay.
For example, Nadal Hasan, the Ft. Hood terrorist^W"workplace violence perpetrator" drew over $300,000 in salary while awaiting trial. That's swell. What makes it better is that his victims' families were being jerked around and not receiving death benefits, etc, from the government while this was transpiring.
So innocent cops under investigation can't spend the salary they're making since they have to save it for the off-change they'll be found guilty?
You're thinking about the wrong problem. The problem isn't cops being place on paid leave while under investigation, it's cops under investigation never being punished regardless of the severity of their actions.
Ah yes, only the most reliable sources at Slashdot...
But anyway, the more likely explanation is that like many social media platforms, Facebook uses automated systems to deal with thousands and thousands of content complaints every day. Usually, after a certain number of complaints, the system automatically blocks the content, and the original poster has to challenge the block. Keep in mind that due to the volume of content complaints that these types of services get, humans rarely get involved in the beginning, it is simply all automated.
It's possible and even probable that the complaints themselves are âoeorchestratedâ by people with political aims, perhaps even government employees. But that doesn't mean that Facebook is somehow âoecooperatingâ with the Russians because the head of their Russian office is, well, Russian.
Do you think the censorship effort would be as successful if it were being directed against pro-rebel content?
If not, then there is a legitimate complaint to be made about the partiality of the Russian office.
Where's the problem? I mean, for FB. Why should FB care whether Ukraine or Russia is winning the media war? As long as people follow it on FB, FB is winning.
In the short term maybe, but bad PR matters.
If people start associating FB with pro-Russian censorship people will think less positively of FB. Even without any kind of boycott they'll enjoy their time on FB less due to the negative association, as a result they'll use it less and potentially even open the door for a competitor a little bit more.
It's probably not a big deal as far as FB is concerned, but it's certainly not something in their favour.
I'd be a little more inclined to believe that the person who wrote the document was a real expert if there had been a known case of these guys actually producing a biological weapon. This sounds a whole lot more like people who have never built a biological weapon teaching other people who have never built a biologial weapon how to build a biological weapon. Lots of thought experiments being put on paper as instructions as if they were tried and true methods.
I can do a write up for how to build a nuclear bomb for my terrorist brothers based on my rudimentary undergraduate physics education, but there's no way in hell those instructions would actually produce anything useful.
The Bubonic Plague strikes me as a bit of a red flag. I don't know much about biological warfare but the Bubonic Plague strikes me as something you talk about if you don't know anything about biological warfare and just want something that sounds bad and has historical connotations.
Even if they had a good disease I still think it's a terrible plan.
If they target a western state the health care system will make it mostly useless. If they target a middle eastern state they're at war with it will be worse than useless, the target state will have better health care than the neighbouring ISIS territory, the plague could easily boomerang and devastate the ISIS controlled areas far worse than the target state.
Slashdot Mirror
The real thing to take out of this article is the political angle: Canada funded the expedition in the hopes it somehow gives more weight to their claims over the shipping lanes invariably opening up as the arctic ice cap disappears.
A process only aided by the Conservatives extreme reluctance to do anything about global warming. It's actually kinda brilliant.
Step 1) Deny climate change
Step 2) Northwest passage opens up
Step 3) Profit!!!
Nm, I did specify 'we' when referring to Canada so you're likely referring to the US. Which would be odd because unlike Lithuania or Kyrgyzstan the one thing you can be assured of is everyone does know a ton about your country.
Not to sound harsh, but you're a raving jackass who doesn't know anything about my country, and I'm quite happy you'd never live here.
Not to sound confused, but which country are you talking about?
True but that's the case for any kind of business with international customers.
That's actually got me wondering why politicians always talk about job creation when selling film and television subsidies since the underlying economics are so dodgy. It seems the true reason for subsidies is the cultural benefit from having a healthy film industry.
Not to sound harsh, but Canada is a shithole and I would move to North Korea before I'd consider going up north.
Some people think Canadians are extraordinarily nice for how we deal with people like this, the truth is we simply have different ways of dealing with problems.
Consider the topic of justice and how to deal with bad people. The US is big into angry retributions and capital punishment, making sure people are punished harshly and everybody knows it.
Canada on the other hand simply tries to put bad people in a place where they don't bother anyone, and when someone does have to be punished we don't talk about it as much. In fact we're big believers in rehabilitation. Quite often we'll give the guilty something they really really want, hoping that in time they'll realize how terrible it is and discover the error of their ways.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I understand your anger and I'm sorry, we both know the US has been responsible for some terrible things, global warming, the Iraq War, NSA spying, etc, the list goes on for a while.
But sending Justin Beiber was definitely overkill.
I think regulating Google and Netflix is a really bad idea but I think there's a defensible motive in trying to promote Canadian content and defend Canadian content providers.
I'm not sure Americans really understand what it's like for smaller countries who lack the population or money to compete with American media productions. People get so much culture from television that it's hard to maintain a national identity when there's a US megaphone next door that dominates mass media. In some ways a well functioning film industry is as important as a military. Just look at what's happening in Ukraine, the rebellion is most certainly not fuelled by East Ukrainians, however it would be hard for Russia to do what it's doing without the support of an East Ukrainian minority who feels closer to Russia and is scared by Kiev. Almost certainly Russia's game would be much more difficult if Ukraine had a mass media strong enough to forge a strong national identity in East Ukraine.
That being said I'm not sure how this works on the Internet, but smaller countries do have a reason to worry about getting swamped by culture from American websites.
Any "for profit" business has the responsibility to maximize profits for the sake of its continued existence and growth, and as a duty to its stockholders if it was publicly held. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of it NOT to take advantage of legal tax loopholes or tactics to minimize costs.
There's lots of unethical practices that corporations avoid as a matter of good PR.
Imagine if exploiting tax loopholes was so socially unacceptable that corporations lost more money than they'd make through lost sales.
The crux of the problem here is the way the laws are written, so only your legislators can correct it.
Partly, but there's also a possibility that the legislation is fairly well written and closing these loopholes would cause even more serious problems.
There's also the possibility that the legislation is terribly written, and by choosing a well defined high profile target (Microsoft) they can create enough political will to fix the legislation.
However the point is that Microsoft is a victim of unconstitutional, illegal government system that usurped power and is stealing people's money. Income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally for a wide range of reasons.
Yeah, I read some of the post you linked.
So you seem to think that the 16th amendment only defines income in an incredibly narrow manner, granting the government very limited power to tax the income of corporations and none to tax individuals. You base this on your... creative interpretation of a 1921 supreme court ruling.
You're not alone in this interpretation, amazingly tax protesters have gone to the courts to make this argument many times, not so amazingly they have lost every single time.
Which begs the question. Assuming you are right, and the 1921 ruling didn't allow income tax, then you're still wrong. In the time since the courts have repeatedly ruled that income taxes are legal. Either the court rulings are legitimate, and income tax is allowed, or they're illegitimate, in which case you have no reason to cite the 1921 ruling. Hell, if you disregard the authority of the constitutionally authorized supreme court, who has rejected your interpretation by never even bothered to hear one of those lower court decisions, then I don't see how you can then claim to be so concerned about the wording of the 16th amendment.
Couldn't this approach be used for any infectious disease for which there's no effective cure but there are some survivors? Are there just no Western diseases that fit the profile? I suppose you need both a person sick with a deadly infection and a recent survivor of a same infection (with the same blood type). So it may just be the case that we simply don't experience that scenario enough to develop this solution. But I'm curious if this approach has been used outside of Ebola in Africa.
Completely offtopic but I suddenly want someone to make a movie about the making of the original Star Trek series just so they can cast this guy as Shatner.
The author of the summary is not up to date on the recent release of info on Dreadnoughtus schrani, now believed to be the largest creature to ever have walked on land.
Not quite
Note from the Dreadnoughtus article (emphasis added):
It is one of the largest of all known terrestrial vertebrates, possessing the greatest mass of any land animal that can be calculated with reasonable certainty
From the Argentinosaurus article it sounds like the estimates range from 60-90 tonnes, most likely the Argentinosaurus is heavier but we're more confident about the weight of the Dreadnoughtus.
First of all, it doesn't have to random every time. I simply would be using answer that no one would associate with me but that I can remember. I already do that for car, street I was born on, mom's maiden name. I also add a number and special character to the answer. Is it fool proof? No, but better than using easily discovered real information. It's not that difficult and the point is to make it hard to find the answers via web searches, for example. Sure, making up your own questions would work but many sites do not let you do that.
Adding a special character sounds like a good idea, a simple permutation or rule you can remember across all accounts.
But remember for it to work you can't rely on yourself remembering the answer, you need to know it without remembering it's creation.
Remember 2008? Some random douche on 4chan just looked up her dog's name?
Security questions do not work for public figures. Almost none of them will hold up to people whose whole lives are pointlessly documented.
More to the point why does anybody use real information for security questions? As long as I can remember the answer the accuracy is irrelevant. Same with birthdays. If I decide some random date is my birthday it makes it a lot harder to guess.
So your solution for forgetting your password is another password?
The solution isn't random info. It's questions you create with personal information that is memorable enough that you're remember in an instance, but only you, or a very small handful of intimate people, would know. Ie, 'Who was that girl you had a really secret crush on in grade 10?"
The current suite of questions, mother's maiden name, cars, etc, is all information that's potentially communicated to casual friends, as such it can easily slip out into public knowledge.
The problem is there's only so many questions that fit that description, so instead of sharing passwords you end up sharing answers.
I thought we were through with all this by the turn of the century. And I mean you can say that he's bluffing but really, Putin's a psychopath. If you corner a genuine bona fide psycho they'll take you down with them if they can, and they don't need any 72 virgins as an excuse either. Even if he's not, he'll have to act like one - to lose face in his position would represent a fundamental weakening of power, he'd lose support overnight, be deposed and likely disposed of.
It would seem to me that western leaders have been caught with their pants well and truly around their ankles in this situation, I doubt they were expecting this kind of heavy handedness, er, ever again. So my guess is they'll back out and leet him have his way.
Being a psychopath doesn't mean he's suicidal, it just means he has no empathy.
Putin's a dictator, he sees Russia's triumph as his triumph and his legacy is tied to how Russia's views him. He has no interest in a nuclear war, and even if he did he lacks the North Korean personality cult that would allow him to carry out an attack.
I think the solution is simple. The West quietly says if you invade Russia is locked out of the world economy until Ukraine is peaceful and Crimea is returned. Do that and Putin will find a way out. The only problem here is convincing the various EU members to endure the potential gas shortage.
Barring that I think NATO has to step in. After the NATO summit Poroshenko should go back to Ukraine with a NATO treaty in hand.
The important thing to remember is Putin hasn't officially invaded, in fact he's done everything he can to maintain the lie Russia is uninvolved and has consistently done the minimal amount necessary to keep the rebels alive. He knows he needs an escape route because he's unwilling to risk open war.
While this sort of news is important, without a doubt, I just don't see why it's on Slashdot's front page. This submission contains nothing but political news.
There are thousands upon thousands of news and discussion web sites that focus on politics and current events of this sort. We can go there if we want to read and discuss news such as that in this submission.
There are comparatively fewer web sites focusing on technology, mathematics, science, and computing. Slashdot was such a site. We'd be able to come here to find articles and dicussion that wouldn't be readily available from other sources or venues.
Please, keep Slashdot about technical topics. Leave the politics for other sites! Please!
Lots of other sites discuss the situation in Ukraine, but few do so with this kind of audience.
Certainly /. shouldn't become a politics/world affairs site. But when really important things come up they effect all facets of life. The reality of Russia as an agressive pseudo-fascist rogue state is very relevant even from a pure technology perspective.
Well according to this analysis of the study by an actual obesity researcher this study suggests the USDA recommendations aren't a problem:
This study also adds to the evidence that low-fat high-carbohydrate diets can cause weight loss. Even though the degree of weight loss is very modest, and possibly not significant from a clinical standpoint, this further undermines the argument that the carbohydrate-centric USDA dietary recommendations caused the obesity epidemic. It turns out, when you put people on a diet that's similar to the USDA guidelines, they don't generally gain weight, and they often lose a little bit.
Interesting point of view. There seems to be a pretty major propaganda war going on over Russia and Ukraine, and I wonder which parts are truth...
Claims from the West should be treated with healthy skepticism.
Claims from Russia should be treated with howls of laughter.
The study is paywalled but from the article:
The high-fat group followed something of a modified Atkins diet. They were told to eat mostly protein and fat, and to choose foods with primarily unsaturated fats, like fish, olive oil and nuts. But they were allowed to eat foods higher in saturated fat as well, including cheese and red meat.
[...]
The low-fat group included more grains, cereals and starches in their diet. They reduced their total fat intake to less than 30 percent of their daily calories, which is in line with the federal government’s dietary guidelines. The other group increased their total fat intake to more than 40 percent of daily calories.
Of the three macro-nutrients protein is known to be the most satiating per calorie.
And things that are high in protein (meat, eggs, nuts) tend to be the same things that are high in fat. While things high in carbs (grains, starch) tend to be low in protein.
So a big effect of a low-fat diet will be fewer calories from protein, and a low-carb diet will mean more calories from protein. I'm almost certain that the low-carb group ate a lot more protein than the low-fat group, and I'll bet that was responsible for the additional weight loss.
This is important because it means these results are completely consistent with the hypothesis that fat is the most fattening macronutrient, followed by carbs, and then protein being the most thinning. The reason why low-carb was the most thinning is that the weight loss caused by the additional protein overcame the weight gain caused by the additional fat.
Can anyone with access to the study confirm if there were big differences in the protein intake?
Huh? I think you have it backwards.
As you said, "The problem [is] cops under investigation never being punished regardless of the severity of their actions". Unlike you, I don't advocate punishing those under investigation... just those found guilty.
You simply misinterpreted my comment.
I wasn't advocating punishing people under investigation.
I was pointing out that the true problem was cops under investigation are never found guilty and punished. The reason people are complaining about the paid suspensions is they've given up on actual findings of guilt, so they're focusing on increasing the severity of the only consequence the cops experience, the suspension.
Your suggestion punishes the innocent because even though they're still paid they can't use that income because of the shadow of a potential adverse finding.
That's not a real punishment under any sort of legal theory. I can imagine a variety of adverse scenarios and these are not considered "punishments". For example, I can imagine that I were wrongfully convicted and subsequently executed for a crime I didn't commit. Am I being punished right this moment by this threat? It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. Do I deserve protection codified in the legal system to somehow preclude my fears?
For another example, I can conceive that the IRS could decide through a miscarriage of justice to have me convicted of tax fraud and thereby seize all my assets and garnish my income. Am I being punished right now, even though I'm innocent? I'm facing the potential prospect of wrongful conviction; according to you I am therefore logically unable to spend a cent of my income. I'm living in the shadow of a potential adverse finding, you know.
As I said, nothing is protecting you from the specter of miscarriage of justice. It's a fact of life, and you and everyone else just has to deal with that however you can because the alternative (accommodating everyone's fears) is absurd.
The IRS thing is possible, but not an imminent threat. An active investigation IS an imminent threat, so it will cause you to severely hedge your bets.
Consider if you were a cop under paid suspension with a hearing hearing in 6 months. You know you're innocent but you figure there's still a 10% chance you'll be found guilty.
How do you think it would affect your spending habits if you knew in 6 months the department would ask for all of that salary back? Personally I'd put that money in the bank and not touch a penny. It would be the same as an unpaid suspension with retro-active pay if I was found innocent.
How is a 6 month delay in salary not a punishment?
Wait. So, I'm the one thinking about this incorrectly when I propose punishing those found guilty, whereas you are proposing punishing those who are only under investigation?
Huh? I think you have it backwards.
Your suggestion punishes the innocent because even though they're still paid they can't use that income because of the shadow of a potential adverse finding.
My suggestion is you still get paid while under suspension and by default get to keep that money in the case of a conviction (civil suit are a separate manner).
And, yes, I'm fine with the scenario you proposed, insofar as the outcome is predicated upon a miscarriage of justice in the courts (which we should always strive to mitigate). What's protecting you, for example, from having all your assets seized if you are targeted by and subsequently lose a false civil lawsuit? Insurance? Nothing?
Welcome to life.
Better than rewarding malfeasant government agents with taxpayer dollars.
The problem with your scenario isn't the miscarriage, it's the threat of miscarriage.
Innocent or guilty, if you're accused you need to prepare for the scenario where you're found guilty. The best system allows the guilty to live the same as the innocent while awaiting trial, otherwise we punish the innocent.
By introducing a retro-active punishment, like taking back all the wages paid out during the suspension, you're going to punish the innocent along with the guilty. The innocent, even though there is unlikely to be a clawback, will have to live as if they're not being paid so they don't risk bankruptcy in the case of a conviction.
Precisely because they are under investigation - to not pay them means the investigators and the employers have taken a particular stance, and also it would be extremely easy to harm someone by making a false accusation against them.
Okay, fine. Presumption of innocence and all. However, if they are found guilty then I want to see a clawback of the pay.
For example, Nadal Hasan, the Ft. Hood terrorist^W"workplace violence perpetrator" drew over $300,000 in salary while awaiting trial. That's swell. What makes it better is that his victims' families were being jerked around and not receiving death benefits, etc, from the government while this was transpiring.
So innocent cops under investigation can't spend the salary they're making since they have to save it for the off-change they'll be found guilty?
You're thinking about the wrong problem. The problem isn't cops being place on paid leave while under investigation, it's cops under investigation never being punished regardless of the severity of their actions.
Ah yes, only the most reliable sources at Slashdot...
But anyway, the more likely explanation is that like many social media platforms, Facebook uses automated systems to deal with thousands and thousands of content complaints every day. Usually, after a certain number of complaints, the system automatically blocks the content, and the original poster has to challenge the block. Keep in mind that due to the volume of content complaints that these types of services get, humans rarely get involved in the beginning, it is simply all automated.
It's possible and even probable that the complaints themselves are âoeorchestratedâ by people with political aims, perhaps even government employees. But that doesn't mean that Facebook is somehow âoecooperatingâ with the Russians because the head of their Russian office is, well, Russian.
Do you think the censorship effort would be as successful if it were being directed against pro-rebel content?
If not, then there is a legitimate complaint to be made about the partiality of the Russian office.
Probably FB's.
Where's the problem? I mean, for FB. Why should FB care whether Ukraine or Russia is winning the media war? As long as people follow it on FB, FB is winning.
In the short term maybe, but bad PR matters.
If people start associating FB with pro-Russian censorship people will think less positively of FB. Even without any kind of boycott they'll enjoy their time on FB less due to the negative association, as a result they'll use it less and potentially even open the door for a competitor a little bit more.
It's probably not a big deal as far as FB is concerned, but it's certainly not something in their favour.
Would you prefer they use the Kremlin run VK?
I'd be a little more inclined to believe that the person who wrote the document was a real expert if there had been a known case of these guys actually producing a biological weapon. This sounds a whole lot more like people who have never built a biological weapon teaching other people who have never built a biologial weapon how to build a biological weapon. Lots of thought experiments being put on paper as instructions as if they were tried and true methods.
I can do a write up for how to build a nuclear bomb for my terrorist brothers based on my rudimentary undergraduate physics education, but there's no way in hell those instructions would actually produce anything useful.
The Bubonic Plague strikes me as a bit of a red flag. I don't know much about biological warfare but the Bubonic Plague strikes me as something you talk about if you don't know anything about biological warfare and just want something that sounds bad and has historical connotations.
Even if they had a good disease I still think it's a terrible plan.
If they target a western state the health care system will make it mostly useless. If they target a middle eastern state they're at war with it will be worse than useless, the target state will have better health care than the neighbouring ISIS territory, the plague could easily boomerang and devastate the ISIS controlled areas far worse than the target state.