Drinking regular soda is like having a piece of cake or a sandwich, but without the satisfaction.
On the contrary; it's quite satisfying.
Diet has nasty chemicals. Both contribute to osteoporosis and tooth decay.
Sure, if you soak your mouth with it. If you just drink it and get done you're not going to get a lot of demineralization. The studies showing significant demineralization were based on sipping it constantly over several hours. The sugar in regular soda is a bigger problem because it promotes growth of bacteria which keep your mouth acid for much longer.
Tea, on the other hand, has caffeine, comes in a variety of strengths, has next to no calories, does not hurt your stomach like coffee, is CHEAP, is great hot and is great cold.
Looks like my railing against the inherent weaknesses in FPGAs and the need to ditch the fabless model for the sake of quality control wasn't just hot air.
Assuming the feature was added at manufacturing time rather than designed into the chip, anyway.
Ah, but a feminist would totally go off on that blog and about how horrible it is to women. For one thing, they'd go after the picture, noting that not only is it quite prominent, but it's not a simple headshot or anything else you'd see in a professional interview of a man, but a picture of the subject made-up, not in any sort of professional setting, and likely in revealing clothing. No doubt they'd insist that this was a sexualization and objectification of Ms. Verou, and go casting about for some man to blame. Both subject and interviewer are female, so if they couldn't find a male editor or photographer to blame, they'd go on to blame men in general for forcing women to think of themselves that way. Long before which point it's obvious to everyone that the conclusion came first and the evidence is what can be forced to fit.
Men in woman-dominated fields are called pedofiles.
Care to cite your source on that? Or are you just bigoted, and discriminatory?
It's an overgeneralization; male nurses don't have the problem. But a male kindergarten teacher? You betcha. I'm interpreting the original poster as saying that such men are "called" pedophiles, not that they actually are.
The issue that is actually brought up by quoted article is that there are many contracts to do not fall under WOSB because there are less than two women owned small businesses bidding on them. The writer and a senate bill want this restriction removed.
It's even more than that. The current WOSB preference rules require that the businesses be owned by "disadvantaged" women (EDWOSB: economically disadvantaged women owned small businesses). The Senate bill, in addition to providing sole-source contracts, also removes the "disadvantaged" restriction.
The bill this article is flogging extends set-asides for economically disadvantaged women to all women. It removed caps on the size of contracts which can be subject to those set asides. And it gives authority is to award a sole source contract to a woman owned business if 2 or more woman owned businesses aren't expected to bid.
Concepts of mathematics (calculus) are actually very simple.
Most confuse the trivia of solving problems (knowing many rules) and how to apply them with understanding of basic mathematical principles.
This isn't just integral calculus, though; it's differential equations. Finding an analytic solution to a nonlinear differential equation is often difficult, sometimes (provably) impossible.
I swear to the Tech Gods that if ANYONE comes out with "organic technology" I will personally use my homeopathic c-clamp to crush their testicles.
I woudn't recommend trying. The Amish farmer with his organic horse pulling his organic plow is probably a lot tougher than you are, and you might find that c-clamp difficult to extract from where he puts it.
Okay, if slaves is too harsh for you, just jump to the 1940s and 50s in the US where there were no more slaves, just extremely low paid black servants who cleaned and watched the children, but weren't even allowed to use the toilet in the white people's house. Sure, they weren't "slaves" and their lives were unimaginably better than the lives of actual slaves, but their masters/employers still had the same attitude that they were something less and should be damn glad to have their job.
You know, having to use the toilet out back is insulting to the dignity, but it's not really comparable to slavery. Sure, any egalitarian is going to have problems with the very idea of a servant class (even without the racial issues), but servants can negotiate and servants can quit. Slavery was a different situation entirely.
Well, with the usual IANAL qualification, I'd have to observe that that section (d) seems to fairly clearly say when a "service provider shall not be liable...". It doesn't seem to actually state when a service provider shall be liable for anything. Presumably that's stated elsewhere, but I haven't seen it yet.
It doesn't. That's the evil genius of the DMCA. It provides a safe harbor from liability whether or not that liability existed in the first place. In fact, it explictly says (in 512(l)): "The failure of a service provider's conduct to qualify for limitation of liability under this section shall not bear adversely upon the consideration of a defense by the service provider that the service provider's conduct is not infringing under this title or any other defense."
However, I'm pretty sure that if push came to shove, the courts in fact WOULD be more willing to find liability for service providers given that safe harbor exists than if it did not. And because the safe harbor is so easy, no ISP is wiling to take the risk.
Here, let me help you in this impossible endeavour: "The scope of this law is specific to forums that are local in nature, focusing on one city or town or municipality."
Congratulations, you just "protected" Ray Kelly from anonymous criticism on New York forums.
The DMCA is a bad law and he's a bad person for using it. Further, he knew that GoDaddy overreacts to DMCA notices, and he used one _anyway_ for a GoDaddy site, which makes him an even worse person.
Even were it true that it would be appropriate to ban anonymity on local forums (and I do not agree with that statement), there's still the problem that it's impossible to craft a law with that effect and only that effect.
Yes, in fact I did. Did you read my comment? It sure appears you did not.
you are telling me that people would or should be able to blithely ignore vicious anonymous slander in a small community?
you are telling me the problem is not real?
Nor did I say that.
What I said was that banning anonymity was not an appropriate solution, and that pointing to a problem that banning anonymity would solve does not put the burden of finding a solution to that problem on those who would preserve anonymity.
Really? Take a look at the definition in 17 USC 101, and then look at 17 USC 117.
Neither part of the DMCA, I might point out.
Now, you or I might define "computer program" differently, say, as an executable, but that's not how Congress has defined it. Rather, they defined it as "a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result." An audio file could be interpreted as a set of statements to be used indirectly by a media player application in order to bring about a certain result, specifically statements of sequential values of an A/D converter. Again, it might not be the definition we'd choose, but it's certainly a valid one, given the broad definition of "computer program" and the lack of any explicit definition of "statement".
It's a theory, and I suppose it has a non-zero chance of holding up in court. I personally would doubt it. At the time 17 USC 117 was written, it was probably not considered that the line between a computer program and an audiovisual work would be as blurred as it is today. Note that if this interpretation were to hold up, offering DVDs for rental without the authorization of the copyright holder would be a violation of copyright; copyright restricts renting computer programs and audio works, but not audiovisual works. So it does contradict established law.
here you have people who hide and pick out neighbors by name and viciously lie and attack them, constantly, always carefully from hiding
Yes, so there are anonymous douchebags. That doesn't mean anonymity should be banned. There's no way you can craft a law which would effectively ban anonymity in the case of slander of private parties, and not end up with a law which would be mostly used for banning anonymity in other cases. First thing they'd use it for in NYC is going after anyone who anonymously wrote anything bad about the NYPD or Commissioner Ray Kelly, probably.
if you don't like this legislation, fine. then what is YOUR answer to cyberbullying in small local communities?
Doesn't work that way. You don't get to identify a problem, propose a totally ridiculous solution, then shift the burden of solving the problem to anyone opposing your solution.
Fortunately, we've got a 21st century definition, in the form of the recently-updated copyright act, which expressly addressed things like copying to RAM. You may have heard of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, no?
The DMCA does not address RAM copies. No statute addresses such copies of anything but computer programs. And the DMCA was written by the MPAA and RIAA -- whose members proceeded to sue (and fortunately lose) over temporary copies of audiovisual pieces.
Hey now, I make good money convincing people that what I do is something mystical. I'm sure many others here do too. Don't go and ruin it for the rest of us.
I wouldn't worry about it. Math has the same rep, and it's been taught in schools for millennia.
Artificial scarcity makes Time-Warner more money right now. Plus they might be able to pull off some huge win copyright lawsuits. They'll wait for someone else to create a successful business model before they change.
So basically they make a lot of money by being dicks. Some people respond to them being dicks by getting their show without paying them any money. But they're still better off for being dicks. So what's the problem? Everybody wins.
Time-Warner can whine about stealing and piracy and all that, but since they abandoned the moral high ground by being total dicks, no one should listen to them. What they really mean by all their pissing and moaning is they want the state to back up their right to be total dicks. That's a bad move; that just makes gives them more incentive to be total dicks.
Summary: Want to promote unbundling and shows seen sooner in foreign markets: pirate away. Want more bundling and longer delays for shows in foreign markets, DVD releases, etc -- respect copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary; it's quite satisfying.
Sure, if you soak your mouth with it. If you just drink it and get done you're not going to get a lot of demineralization. The studies showing significant demineralization were based on sipping it constantly over several hours. The sugar in regular soda is a bigger problem because it promotes growth of bacteria which keep your mouth acid for much longer.
Too bad it tastes like crap.
There's no law. King Bloomberg is imposing the regulation by fiat.
Before you go rushing off to the patent office, look up "NNTP". (then give the patent office a try anyway, they've probably never heard of it)
Steve JOBS came up with the Apple II? I don't think so.
Assuming the feature was added at manufacturing time rather than designed into the chip, anyway.
Ah, but a feminist would totally go off on that blog and about how horrible it is to women. For one thing, they'd go after the picture, noting that not only is it quite prominent, but it's not a simple headshot or anything else you'd see in a professional interview of a man, but a picture of the subject made-up, not in any sort of professional setting, and likely in revealing clothing. No doubt they'd insist that this was a sexualization and objectification of Ms. Verou, and go casting about for some man to blame. Both subject and interviewer are female, so if they couldn't find a male editor or photographer to blame, they'd go on to blame men in general for forcing women to think of themselves that way. Long before which point it's obvious to everyone that the conclusion came first and the evidence is what can be forced to fit.
It's an overgeneralization; male nurses don't have the problem. But a male kindergarten teacher? You betcha. I'm interpreting the original poster as saying that such men are "called" pedophiles, not that they actually are.
It's even more than that. The current WOSB preference rules require that the businesses be owned by "disadvantaged" women (EDWOSB: economically disadvantaged women owned small businesses). The Senate bill, in addition to providing sole-source contracts, also removes the "disadvantaged" restriction.
The bill this article is flogging extends set-asides for economically disadvantaged women to all women. It removed caps on the size of contracts which can be subject to those set asides. And it gives authority is to award a sole source contract to a woman owned business if 2 or more woman owned businesses aren't expected to bid.
This isn't just integral calculus, though; it's differential equations. Finding an analytic solution to a nonlinear differential equation is often difficult, sometimes (provably) impossible.
I woudn't recommend trying. The Amish farmer with his organic horse pulling his organic plow is probably a lot tougher than you are, and you might find that c-clamp difficult to extract from where he puts it.
You know, having to use the toilet out back is insulting to the dignity, but it's not really comparable to slavery. Sure, any egalitarian is going to have problems with the very idea of a servant class (even without the racial issues), but servants can negotiate and servants can quit. Slavery was a different situation entirely.
I thought all the COBOL programmers tacked a zero onto their rates in 1999, did one last deathmarch for Y2K, then retired.
It doesn't. That's the evil genius of the DMCA. It provides a safe harbor from liability whether or not that liability existed in the first place. In fact, it explictly says (in 512(l)): "The failure of a service provider's conduct to qualify for limitation of liability under this section shall not bear adversely upon the consideration of a defense by the service provider that the service provider's conduct is not infringing under this title or any other defense."
However, I'm pretty sure that if push came to shove, the courts in fact WOULD be more willing to find liability for service providers given that safe harbor exists than if it did not. And because the safe harbor is so easy, no ISP is wiling to take the risk.
Congratulations, you just "protected" Ray Kelly from anonymous criticism on New York forums.
The DMCA is a bad law and he's a bad person for using it. Further, he knew that GoDaddy overreacts to DMCA notices, and he used one _anyway_ for a GoDaddy site, which makes him an even worse person.
The DMCA. See the 2600 case, which the EFF conceded after losing at the appeals level. Search engines in particular are covered under 17 USC 512(d)
Even were it true that it would be appropriate to ban anonymity on local forums (and I do not agree with that statement), there's still the problem that it's impossible to craft a law with that effect and only that effect.
Yes, in fact I did. Did you read my comment? It sure appears you did not.
you are telling me the problem is not real?
Nor did I say that.
What I said was that banning anonymity was not an appropriate solution, and that pointing to a problem that banning anonymity would solve does not put the burden of finding a solution to that problem on those who would preserve anonymity.
Neither part of the DMCA, I might point out.
It's a theory, and I suppose it has a non-zero chance of holding up in court. I personally would doubt it. At the time 17 USC 117 was written, it was probably not considered that the line between a computer program and an audiovisual work would be as blurred as it is today. Note that if this interpretation were to hold up, offering DVDs for rental without the authorization of the copyright holder would be a violation of copyright; copyright restricts renting computer programs and audio works, but not audiovisual works. So it does contradict established law.
Yes, so there are anonymous douchebags. That doesn't mean anonymity should be banned. There's no way you can craft a law which would effectively ban anonymity in the case of slander of private parties, and not end up with a law which would be mostly used for banning anonymity in other cases. First thing they'd use it for in NYC is going after anyone who anonymously wrote anything bad about the NYPD or Commissioner Ray Kelly, probably.
Doesn't work that way. You don't get to identify a problem, propose a totally ridiculous solution, then shift the burden of solving the problem to anyone opposing your solution.
So THAT'S why the MPAA won't hire me.
The DMCA does not address RAM copies. No statute addresses such copies of anything but computer programs. And the DMCA was written by the MPAA and RIAA -- whose members proceeded to sue (and fortunately lose) over temporary copies of audiovisual pieces.
I wouldn't worry about it. Math has the same rep, and it's been taught in schools for millennia.
So basically they make a lot of money by being dicks. Some people respond to them being dicks by getting their show without paying them any money. But they're still better off for being dicks. So what's the problem? Everybody wins.
Time-Warner can whine about stealing and piracy and all that, but since they abandoned the moral high ground by being total dicks, no one should listen to them. What they really mean by all their pissing and moaning is they want the state to back up their right to be total dicks. That's a bad move; that just makes gives them more incentive to be total dicks.
Summary: Want to promote unbundling and shows seen sooner in foreign markets: pirate away. Want more bundling and longer delays for shows in foreign markets, DVD releases, etc -- respect copyright.