Seems simple enough to me. The girl will have a wildly unrealistic idea of what being a software developer is like, so that when she enters the working world, she will be totally disillusioned and hate it, and have to re-focus her education in her mid 20s.
As opposed to the boys who go to computer camp and spend all day in meetings and screwing with build errors, merge conflicts, and management changing the requirements mid-project?
i think they're wondering why the people that think there is a need for an all-female computer camp don't think that there is a need for an all-female computer camp that isn't more expensive than college.
949*52 is 49000.
I don't know the typical cost for camps but that's not a fair comparison.
A one-week camp is going to include rent and food and have a very diverse itinerary that requires a lot of set-up for each component. Plus the fact that it's a 1-week camp and a start up means there's a huge one-time overhead getting things going.
Daddy, daddy, computer camp was so great, we uploaded Justin Bieber videos, we connected to Wifi while riding a pony and I even convinced a really gross dork to fix our computers ! All the girls were just like me, cool, popular, white and totally not poor.
And people wonder why there's a need for an all-girls computer camp.
So delaying the corporate mandate was a "bug", in that no on really expected ACA to go into effect for *everyone*, even up until this very day? You're a useful idiot.
It was written for a specific set of conditions, those assumptions were slightly off meaning the original timeline wasn't possible, that's exactly what I'd call a bug since the intended end state is the same. Running the program intelligently (and fixing bugs on the fly) is precisely the role I think the US President is supposed to fulfil on domestic matters.
The alternative is any significant legislation requiring modification by several successive congresses to work properly. Forcing a President to execute a broken law to the letter strikes me as a very dumb way to run a country.
The wording in Obamacare was deliberate. Parts were necessary to get it passed; it would not have passed without those "bugs" in place. Other parts were there to punish uncooperative states; that backfired on Obama.
You mean the thing that just went to the supreme court? Everyone understood the subsidies went to all the states right up until Republicans started arguing differently. The only evidence offered to the contrary is a single individual, making a single argument, several years later.
For all we know he forgot about that section entirely, saw it during the talk, then made up a justification on the fly.
When someone we don't like does an evil, it's because they are evil. When someone we do like does an evil, it's okay, because they have goodness in their hearts.
We tend to overlook the evil things done by people we like.
It doesn't mean every controversial thing done by someone we like is actually evil.
To the extent that Obama has "retroactively and unilaterally revising law passed by Congress" with the ACA he's done it to work around things that most here would recognize as bugs, ie words in the law that make the law do things we didn't actually want it to do.
The issue we're talking about with Bush wasn't a bug fix, he added new features to make the law things it was never intended to do.
We are meant to bask in the glow of fluorescent lighting in cubicles or basements. The sunlight weakens us and makes us vulnerable. Add exercise to the mix and you are flirting with disaster.
Of course in this case you're completely inaccurate, FTA:
He was described by the New York Times as "a competitive triathlete who rode on Saturday in honour of a friend who had been stricken with cancer".
No one sane is saying climate change does not happen. It's been going on for billions of years.
No one sane would imagine that I was claiming there were people who thought otherwise. Why would you even bother to make that statement other than pointless pedantry?
Thinking that humans are the primary cause through CO2 production is absurd.
Thinking a huge majority of the world's scientists have an absurd opinion is absurd.
I'm pretty against this idea for free speech and inquiry reasons as I think most are.
However, to the extent one could justify it I think this would be the justification.
The fact that energy companies do spend funds to discredit climate change is fairly well established, though the extent of their funding and the degree to which they are responsible to driving the skeptical movement isn't really known.
So consider the scenario where energy companies are aware that climate change is real, they're aware that it will have huge and severe consequences, and they're involved in a large scale deliberate campaign to spread things they know to be lies in order to discredit the science and enable them to continue an activity they know to be harmful unabated.
If that scenario is true, that there's an actual conspiracy to knowingly spread harmful lies, then using legal means to expose it and even press charges because a bit more plausible.
Instead of the biased article, read what the report actually concludes:
Overall, the current outlook suggests potentially serious climate problems are not likely to occur until the late 21st century or perhaps beyond at projected energy demand rates. This should provide time to resolve uncertainties regarding the overall carbon cycle and the contribution of fossil fuel combustion as well as the role of the oceans as a reservoir for both heat and carbon dioxide. [...] Making significant changes in energy consumption patterns now to deal with this potential problem amid all the scientific uncertainties would be premature in view of the severe impact such moves could have on the world's economies and societies.
The report also points out that temperature increases would not be uniform, with strong increase at the polar caps and little increase near the equator.
The interesting thing is that little has changed about these conclusions in the last 30 years; science has produced a lot of new data, but the conclusions have changed little.
38 years.
And things have changed, the later 21st century is 38 years closer, the uncertainties a lot smaller, and alternative sources of energy a lot more mature.
But it is somewhat surprising how close the projections were at that time.
Or rather they are quite smart (think about hard it actually is to narrate a play as it happens as well as offering interesting commentary) but they're in a habit of not really respecting computers the way they do trucks and other manly-man products..
No, you are right, it shouldn't exist. They should be able to call their thingies iPads and Microsoft should too. It's stupid that Apple can claim such a short word. IP law is illogical and extremely stupid, just like the politicians who created it. May they burn.
As many issues as I have with various IP laws this use of trademarks is perfectly fine.
iPad is a word Apple made up specifically for their product, the use of the trademark is to protect their brand. Hell, the entire point of this story is that people using Apple's trademark iPad is causing brand confusion!
Why do people think are entitled to other people's money?
We've already seen what numerous entitlement programs have done to the USA. Our labor participation rate is the lowest it's been in my lifetime and I was born in the 70s. This is what happens when you over regulate an economy, over legislate entitlement programs, and don't require people to be productive in order to live.
Are there people that are truly down and out through no fault of their own? Absolutely! Is it really half of the US population? (47% don't pay federal income tax) Hell no. Maybe 5%. Let's scale back all of the unnecessary entitlements and get people being productive and working again.
And doing this will help get people working.
You won't have people avoiding work because they're worried about losing benefits and actually costing themselves money (or working for a ridiculously low real income).
You won't have this big complex bureaucracy figuring out who's deserving or not.
If you're lucky you won't have as many petty criminals either because they won't need crime to supplement their income.
Forget the moralizing, it's a sound economic strategy that should make you wealthier by fixing so many other things.
In your opinion, what are the societal implications of electing an alleged murdering drug addict to the office of President? As a followup, if elected will you install a stripper pole in the oval office?
Odd he's starting his own party.
It sounds like he's the one who could finally challenge Trump in the Republican primary!
Cloning people who are dead is easy. That does not bring back their minds, their memories or anything else that makes them "them".
The claim wasn't that cloning is the same as cryonics. It was that you don't need to solve cloning or cryonics to leave something that is useful for the people who eventually figure out cloning or cryonics.
Same for DNA testing, how many people went free because of evidence saved by people who weren't even thinking about DNA, or who understood the evidence contained DNA even though no one knew how to test that DNA.
Have you heard of the Cargo Cult? There are these pacific island that, during World War II, had pilots come and leave supplies. The islanders received minor gifts from the combatants and felt like they were wealthy. Then World War II ended and the soldiers left.
So the islanders built wooden control towers and wooden headsets, then paraded around like the soldiers did.
They expected their rituals to bring the planes full of supplies again. Surprise, Surprise, it didn't work!
The cargo cult failed not because the runway wasn't function, it failed because they were missing a critical element, a reason for the planes to come.
With cryonics future people do have a motive to resurrect frozen ancestors.
I have no doubt that in a thousand years we will have cryonics. And I absolutely sure that it will ONLY work with people that are properly prepared with technology that we do not have yet.
Perhaps, but imagine 100 years ago someone noticed the passenger pigeons were dying out and said "hey! lets toss a few in a freezer, maybe they'll be able to bring them back to life in the future!" And as a result there were some university freezers filled with frozen passenger pigeons.
We can't clone them yet, but we'll probably be able to clone them in the future, and the people that made it possible never would have never even heard of DNA.
Because Judaism doesn't have the concept of dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, nor does Judaism demand death or conversion for all kafirs.
Or Iran might have had nothing to do with it, it's a legitimately unsolved crime:
Other opinion
According to a report in The Nation, the author claims that James Cheek, United States Ambassador to Argentina at the time of the bombing, told him, "To my knowledge, there was never any real evidence [of Iranian responsibility]. They never came up with anything." The hottest lead in the case, he recalled, was an Iranian defector named Manoucher Moatamer, who "supposedly had all this information." But Moatamer turned out to be only a dissatisfied low-ranking official without the knowledge of government decision-making that he had claimed. "We finally decided that he wasn't credible," Cheek recalled.[94]
In 2013, American investigative journalist Gareth Porter cast doubt on the alleged involvement of Iran and Hezbollah, reporting that the link depended centrally on just claims from the People's Mujahedin of Iran, a controversial Iranian anti-regime group that has been described as terrorist by some nations.[95]
Depends. If there are only a few dozen, those people have a pretty good chance of being revived because of scientific curiosity. But let's say over the course of a century or two a billion people were frozen. Nobody's going to revive even a tiny fraction of that number. Those future people will have their own lives to live.
Perhaps, though people doing it now will be a very scarce and valuable resource just because no one is doing it now.
And even if two do freeze a billion people the past is still a limited resource and there are centuries worth of future humans who all want some.
There's also the potential of uploading minds, in which case 2 billion might be a drop in the bucket.
What are the odds that someone frozen today gets revived in a relatively intact mental state? 10%? 5%? 0.01%? At what point is it a worthwhile bet?
Hibernation works for large mammals. Yes, it's the poor cousin of full on cryonics. That's exactly my point. You don't try to go from building ladders to building a rocket to the moon. First you learn to build an airplane, and then use some of those skills when you go for the rocket.
Similarly, we should be working on hibernation, not cryonics. Once we can send a person to sleep for 40 years, while they only age 20 years, then we should be able to move to full cryonics. Until then, we are just kids firing off model rockets that go 1,000 ft straight up while we talk about hitting the moon.
The difference is we don't need to solve cryonics, we just need to not screw things up badly enough so that a future who has solved cryonics can fix our mistakes.
I really think a lot of the skepticism about cryonics is overblown. Sure it sounds like science fiction but that's not an issue as long as it's science fiction that we eventually solve.
Yeah the stuff we freeze now will contain a lot of goo, but we can recover a damaged hard drive, why it is so implausible that in 100 or 500 years they could put our frozen brains through a scanner and recreate all the information?
As for the claim that they wouldn't revive the preserved people. How many people have dedicated their lives to studying the past, do you really think they'd leave centuries old people unrevived?
How about the continued and extended monopolization and control of media?
The grants are irrelevant. There's already a scientific consensus around climate change and if you want to do "research" to disprove climate change there's no shortage of money available, but it doesn't really matter, you can't invent good science where none exists.
But the media arm is a major worry. The public are the ones who are sceptical about climate change, buying the 800lb gorilla of science media and shilling scepticism is not going to help.
It doesn't matter if you're right if the other side has learned they can win by simply lying their asses off in a coordinated manner.
Many of the things you post above are false, because over 75% of drivers drive for Uber and Lyft simultaneously (source: http://therideshareguy.com/how...).
Does their Uber contract allow that or has Uber simply not bothered to enforce the clause?
So yes, they can subcontract
Subcontracting is something different. Are you allowed to give your Uber phone to a friend and have them drive and use your account for a cut? Can you make a collective of drivers under a single account for a cut?
Research after research has proven that not only is dietary cholesterol not bad for you (and doesn't actually raise your blood cholesterol afterall,) but saturated fat isn't either
Not certain about the saturated fat but I certainly agree the consensus has shifted away from dietary cholesterol being bad.
and in fact low fat high carb diets themselves are likely the cause of obesity, high blood cholesterol, and a number of other problems.
And here I'm very dubious. There are simply too many examples of populations on low fat high carb diets who are perfectly thin and healthy. In fact I think it's better just to forget about macro-nutrients altogether and focus more on specific foods and their palatability and satiety.
It's likely not a coincidence at all that while these things have been rising in the last 50 years, dietitians have been making the wrong recommendations for the past 50 years.
Diet isn't the only thing to have changed in the last 50 years.
Vegan diets are ALL ABOUT low protein, low fat, high carb. It is NOT a healthy way to live (if you fail to watch your amino and mineral balance, you can have really bad things happen, such as blindness.) The fact is that protein and fat raise blood leptin better than carbohydrates do, which makes you feel more full on less overall calories. The only reason some vegans may appear healthier is because usually they don't consume too much sugar (a simple carb) often found in breads and snacks that are made in part by egg and/or dairy products.
True vegans and vegetarians need to be careful to make sure they get enough protein and micronutrients.
But otherwise they tend to be really healthy and I don't think less sugar is sufficient to explain them away.
Obviously the summary was written to generate sympathy: 2 years prison, 2 years probation is NOT a 4-year sentence, in common parlance. I don't give a shit about how you feel about piracy (it's not actually piracy, it's copyright infringement) but he did something he knew was illegal, and profited massively from it.
So 2 years in a minimum security jail? Sure, I think that's reasonable.
Agreed.
I have a lot of sympathy for people who pirate stuff because they legitimately feel like they're sharing and contributing.
I have almost no sympathy for people who pirate stuff because they think they can make a lot of money.
12 million movies over 5 years? That's still an average of 6,575+ movies a day. How do you do that with a 2008 broadband internet connection from your bedroom while you're unemployed and have never been employed.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they weren't HD 1080p videos?
He ran it from his bedroom (ie didn't create a multi-person company or rent office space), I'm pretty sure he didn't host it from his bedroom.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems simple enough to me. The girl will have a wildly unrealistic idea of what being a software developer is like, so that when she enters the working world, she will be totally disillusioned and hate it, and have to re-focus her education in her mid 20s.
As opposed to the boys who go to computer camp and spend all day in meetings and screwing with build errors, merge conflicts, and management changing the requirements mid-project?
i think they're wondering why the people that think there is a need for an all-female computer camp don't think that there is a need for an all-female computer camp that isn't more expensive than college.
949*52 is 49000.
I don't know the typical cost for camps but that's not a fair comparison.
A one-week camp is going to include rent and food and have a very diverse itinerary that requires a lot of set-up for each component. Plus the fact that it's a 1-week camp and a start up means there's a huge one-time overhead getting things going.
It's just not meaningful to multiply it by 52.
Daddy, daddy, computer camp was so great, we uploaded Justin Bieber videos, we connected to Wifi while riding a pony and I even convinced a really gross dork to fix our computers ! All the girls were just like me, cool, popular, white and totally not poor.
And people wonder why there's a need for an all-girls computer camp.
So delaying the corporate mandate was a "bug", in that no on really expected ACA to go into effect for *everyone*, even up until this very day?
You're a useful idiot.
It was written for a specific set of conditions, those assumptions were slightly off meaning the original timeline wasn't possible, that's exactly what I'd call a bug since the intended end state is the same. Running the program intelligently (and fixing bugs on the fly) is precisely the role I think the US President is supposed to fulfil on domestic matters.
The alternative is any significant legislation requiring modification by several successive congresses to work properly. Forcing a President to execute a broken law to the letter strikes me as a very dumb way to run a country.
The wording in Obamacare was deliberate. Parts were necessary to get it passed; it would not have passed without those "bugs" in place. Other parts were there to punish uncooperative states; that backfired on Obama.
You mean the thing that just went to the supreme court? Everyone understood the subsidies went to all the states right up until Republicans started arguing differently. The only evidence offered to the contrary is a single individual, making a single argument, several years later.
For all we know he forgot about that section entirely, saw it during the talk, then made up a justification on the fly.
When someone we don't like does an evil, it's because they are evil. When someone we do like does an evil, it's okay, because they have goodness in their hearts.
We tend to overlook the evil things done by people we like.
It doesn't mean every controversial thing done by someone we like is actually evil.
To the extent that Obama has "retroactively and unilaterally revising law passed by Congress" with the ACA he's done it to work around things that most here would recognize as bugs, ie words in the law that make the law do things we didn't actually want it to do.
The issue we're talking about with Bush wasn't a bug fix, he added new features to make the law things it was never intended to do.
We are meant to bask in the glow of fluorescent lighting in cubicles or basements. The sunlight weakens us and makes us vulnerable. Add exercise to the mix and you are flirting with disaster.
Of course in this case you're completely inaccurate, FTA:
He was described by the New York Times as "a competitive triathlete who rode on Saturday in honour of a friend who had been stricken with cancer".
No one sane is saying climate change does not happen. It's been going on for billions of years.
No one sane would imagine that I was claiming there were people who thought otherwise. Why would you even bother to make that statement other than pointless pedantry?
Thinking that humans are the primary cause through CO2 production is absurd.
Thinking a huge majority of the world's scientists have an absurd opinion is absurd.
I'm pretty against this idea for free speech and inquiry reasons as I think most are.
However, to the extent one could justify it I think this would be the justification.
The fact that energy companies do spend funds to discredit climate change is fairly well established, though the extent of their funding and the degree to which they are responsible to driving the skeptical movement isn't really known.
So consider the scenario where energy companies are aware that climate change is real, they're aware that it will have huge and severe consequences, and they're involved in a large scale deliberate campaign to spread things they know to be lies in order to discredit the science and enable them to continue an activity they know to be harmful unabated.
If that scenario is true, that there's an actual conspiracy to knowingly spread harmful lies, then using legal means to expose it and even press charges because a bit more plausible.
He'll just use his management superpowers to make all the over-charged donors multi-millionaires.
Instead of the biased article, read what the report actually concludes:
http://insideclimatenews.org/s...
The report also points out that temperature increases would not be uniform, with strong increase at the polar caps and little increase near the equator.
The interesting thing is that little has changed about these conclusions in the last 30 years; science has produced a lot of new data, but the conclusions have changed little.
38 years.
And things have changed, the later 21st century is 38 years closer, the uncertainties a lot smaller, and alternative sources of energy a lot more mature.
But it is somewhat surprising how close the projections were at that time.
Newsflash: announcers aren't really that smart.
Or rather they are quite smart (think about hard it actually is to narrate a play as it happens as well as offering interesting commentary) but they're in a habit of not really respecting computers the way they do trucks and other manly-man products..
No, you are right, it shouldn't exist. They should be able to call their thingies iPads and Microsoft should too. It's stupid that Apple can claim such a short word. IP law is illogical and extremely stupid, just like the politicians who created it. May they burn.
As many issues as I have with various IP laws this use of trademarks is perfectly fine.
iPad is a word Apple made up specifically for their product, the use of the trademark is to protect their brand. Hell, the entire point of this story is that people using Apple's trademark iPad is causing brand confusion!
Why do people think are entitled to other people's money?
We've already seen what numerous entitlement programs have done to the USA. Our labor participation rate is the lowest it's been in my lifetime and I was born in the 70s. This is what happens when you over regulate an economy, over legislate entitlement programs, and don't require people to be productive in order to live.
Are there people that are truly down and out through no fault of their own? Absolutely! Is it really half of the US population? (47% don't pay federal income tax) Hell no. Maybe 5%. Let's scale back all of the unnecessary entitlements and get people being productive and working again.
And doing this will help get people working.
You won't have people avoiding work because they're worried about losing benefits and actually costing themselves money (or working for a ridiculously low real income).
You won't have this big complex bureaucracy figuring out who's deserving or not.
If you're lucky you won't have as many petty criminals either because they won't need crime to supplement their income.
Forget the moralizing, it's a sound economic strategy that should make you wealthier by fixing so many other things.
In your opinion, what are the societal implications of electing an alleged murdering drug addict to the office of President? As a followup, if elected will you install a stripper pole in the oval office?
Odd he's starting his own party.
It sounds like he's the one who could finally challenge Trump in the Republican primary!
Cloning people who are dead is easy. That does not bring back their minds, their memories or anything else that makes them "them".
The claim wasn't that cloning is the same as cryonics. It was that you don't need to solve cloning or cryonics to leave something that is useful for the people who eventually figure out cloning or cryonics.
Same for DNA testing, how many people went free because of evidence saved by people who weren't even thinking about DNA, or who understood the evidence contained DNA even though no one knew how to test that DNA.
This claim is magical thinking, not scientific.
Have you heard of the Cargo Cult? There are these pacific island that, during World War II, had pilots come and leave supplies. The islanders received minor gifts from the combatants and felt like they were wealthy. Then World War II ended and the soldiers left.
So the islanders built wooden control towers and wooden headsets, then paraded around like the soldiers did.
They expected their rituals to bring the planes full of supplies again. Surprise, Surprise, it didn't work!
The cargo cult failed not because the runway wasn't function, it failed because they were missing a critical element, a reason for the planes to come.
With cryonics future people do have a motive to resurrect frozen ancestors.
I have no doubt that in a thousand years we will have cryonics. And I absolutely sure that it will ONLY work with people that are properly prepared with technology that we do not have yet.
Perhaps, but imagine 100 years ago someone noticed the passenger pigeons were dying out and said "hey! lets toss a few in a freezer, maybe they'll be able to bring them back to life in the future!" And as a result there were some university freezers filled with frozen passenger pigeons.
We can't clone them yet, but we'll probably be able to clone them in the future, and the people that made it possible never would have never even heard of DNA.
Nor does Israel murder Iranians in Argentina.
Why?
Because Judaism doesn't have the concept of dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, nor does Judaism demand death or conversion for all kafirs .
Or Iran might have had nothing to do with it, it's a legitimately unsolved crime:
Other opinion
According to a report in The Nation, the author claims that James Cheek, United States Ambassador to Argentina at the time of the bombing, told him, "To my knowledge, there was never any real evidence [of Iranian responsibility]. They never came up with anything." The hottest lead in the case, he recalled, was an Iranian defector named Manoucher Moatamer, who "supposedly had all this information." But Moatamer turned out to be only a dissatisfied low-ranking official without the knowledge of government decision-making that he had claimed. "We finally decided that he wasn't credible," Cheek recalled.[94]
In 2013, American investigative journalist Gareth Porter cast doubt on the alleged involvement of Iran and Hezbollah, reporting that the link depended centrally on just claims from the People's Mujahedin of Iran, a controversial Iranian anti-regime group that has been described as terrorist by some nations.[95]
Depends. If there are only a few dozen, those people have a pretty good chance of being revived because of scientific curiosity. But let's say over the course of a century or two a billion people were frozen. Nobody's going to revive even a tiny fraction of that number. Those future people will have their own lives to live.
Perhaps, though people doing it now will be a very scarce and valuable resource just because no one is doing it now.
And even if two do freeze a billion people the past is still a limited resource and there are centuries worth of future humans who all want some.
There's also the potential of uploading minds, in which case 2 billion might be a drop in the bucket.
What are the odds that someone frozen today gets revived in a relatively intact mental state? 10%? 5%? 0.01%? At what point is it a worthwhile bet?
Hibernation works for large mammals. Yes, it's the poor cousin of full on cryonics. That's exactly my point. You don't try to go from building ladders to building a rocket to the moon. First you learn to build an airplane, and then use some of those skills when you go for the rocket.
Similarly, we should be working on hibernation, not cryonics. Once we can send a person to sleep for 40 years, while they only age 20 years, then we should be able to move to full cryonics. Until then, we are just kids firing off model rockets that go 1,000 ft straight up while we talk about hitting the moon.
The difference is we don't need to solve cryonics, we just need to not screw things up badly enough so that a future who has solved cryonics can fix our mistakes.
I really think a lot of the skepticism about cryonics is overblown. Sure it sounds like science fiction but that's not an issue as long as it's science fiction that we eventually solve.
Yeah the stuff we freeze now will contain a lot of goo, but we can recover a damaged hard drive, why it is so implausible that in 100 or 500 years they could put our frozen brains through a scanner and recreate all the information?
As for the claim that they wouldn't revive the preserved people. How many people have dedicated their lives to studying the past, do you really think they'd leave centuries old people unrevived?
How about the continued and extended monopolization and control of media?
The grants are irrelevant. There's already a scientific consensus around climate change and if you want to do "research" to disprove climate change there's no shortage of money available, but it doesn't really matter, you can't invent good science where none exists.
But the media arm is a major worry. The public are the ones who are sceptical about climate change, buying the 800lb gorilla of science media and shilling scepticism is not going to help.
It doesn't matter if you're right if the other side has learned they can win by simply lying their asses off in a coordinated manner.
Many of the things you post above are false, because over 75% of drivers drive for Uber and Lyft simultaneously (source: http://therideshareguy.com/how...).
Does their Uber contract allow that or has Uber simply not bothered to enforce the clause?
So yes, they can subcontract
Subcontracting is something different. Are you allowed to give your Uber phone to a friend and have them drive and use your account for a cut? Can you make a collective of drivers under a single account for a cut?
Research after research has proven that not only is dietary cholesterol not bad for you (and doesn't actually raise your blood cholesterol afterall,) but saturated fat isn't either
Not certain about the saturated fat but I certainly agree the consensus has shifted away from dietary cholesterol being bad.
and in fact low fat high carb diets themselves are likely the cause of obesity, high blood cholesterol, and a number of other problems.
And here I'm very dubious. There are simply too many examples of populations on low fat high carb diets who are perfectly thin and healthy. In fact I think it's better just to forget about macro-nutrients altogether and focus more on specific foods and their palatability and satiety.
It's likely not a coincidence at all that while these things have been rising in the last 50 years, dietitians have been making the wrong recommendations for the past 50 years.
Diet isn't the only thing to have changed in the last 50 years.
Vegan diets are ALL ABOUT low protein, low fat, high carb. It is NOT a healthy way to live (if you fail to watch your amino and mineral balance, you can have really bad things happen, such as blindness.) The fact is that protein and fat raise blood leptin better than carbohydrates do, which makes you feel more full on less overall calories. The only reason some vegans may appear healthier is because usually they don't consume too much sugar (a simple carb) often found in breads and snacks that are made in part by egg and/or dairy products.
True vegans and vegetarians need to be careful to make sure they get enough protein and micronutrients.
But otherwise they tend to be really healthy and I don't think less sugar is sufficient to explain them away.
Obviously the summary was written to generate sympathy: 2 years prison, 2 years probation is NOT a 4-year sentence, in common parlance.
I don't give a shit about how you feel about piracy (it's not actually piracy, it's copyright infringement) but he did something he knew was illegal, and profited massively from it.
So 2 years in a minimum security jail? Sure, I think that's reasonable.
Agreed.
I have a lot of sympathy for people who pirate stuff because they legitimately feel like they're sharing and contributing.
I have almost no sympathy for people who pirate stuff because they think they can make a lot of money.
12 million movies over 5 years? That's still an average of 6,575+ movies a day. How do you do that with a 2008 broadband internet connection from your bedroom while you're unemployed and have never been employed.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they weren't HD 1080p videos?
He ran it from his bedroom (ie didn't create a multi-person company or rent office space), I'm pretty sure he didn't host it from his bedroom.