The trick with the carbohydrates is: The longer, the better. The easiest way is to use the glycemic load, because that value goes mostly parallel to the length of the molecules in the food. There are tables for this value. Glucose, sugar, starch and non-whole cereals are the worst. The sugar inside eats up all the b-vitamins and gives the body none. But they are essential for a working brain.
Whole grain is not significantly different from white grain as far as glycemic index is concerned. And for sugar to "eat up" B vitamins would require a significantly more complex sugar molecule than the ones which exist in real life.
As for raw food... I'm not about to waste my great^Nth grandfather's invention, a method for containing and preserving fire, by not cooking my food.
(he's probably your great^Nth grandfather too; taming fire made him popular with the women. Alas, this also killed him, when the inventor of the rock-with-a-stick-attached caught him with his wife)
It also buggers common sense to say that a low-soda diet might be depriving anyone of beneficial caffeination. Find me a nutritionist who claims that the benefits of the caffeine in soda outweighs the negative of all those empty calories, and I'll drink a six pack of Mountain Dew, then eat the cans.
Nutritionists have an ascetic bias and will generally be against caffeine and alcohol despite the demostrated benefits of both (alcohol in moderation, caffeine in rather large quantities). And no one thinks that aluminum is good for you, so skip the can.
But "empty calories" is a misconception. Calories are calories and micronutrients are micronutrients. They are separate issues, and a calorie combined with various micronutrients is no different than a calorie not combined with them. There's no particularly negative effect to "empty calories". The 140 calories in a can of Coke is no worse for you than the same number of calories in a slightly smaller amount of orange juice.
Whenever a discussion about certs comes up here, plenty of actual real-world managers post comments along the lines that certs are worthless and anyone proud of his certs is a dubious hire.
Sure. But there's two reasons to get them still
A) There are plenty of PHBs who think certs are important and (probably MORE importantly, since working for PHBs is generally to be avoided if possible) B) Certs impress HR people, which will keep your resume from getting trashed before it makes it to the hiring manager.
The doctrine of the thin-skulled plaintiff only applies to damages. It cannot create liability for an act that is not a tort to begin with. So yeah, if you bean someone with a baseball and they die because they had a thin skull, you're liable for wrongful death. But if you accidentally bump into them in the subway and they die because they're especially fragile, you're not liable because your actions didn't constitute a tort to begin with.
but to some guy named Paul Francis Gadd, who was apparently also a singer, and had sales of his music decline after being found to possess child pornography. He used a stage name, "Gary Glitter", but apparently that didn't really protect him.
Gary Glitter? Genius move. I can see the hearing:
Cop: We'd like a warrant to search Mr. Gadd's home and effects for child pornography. Magistrate: Do you have any evidence at all? Cop: He goes by the name "Gary Glitter" Magistrate: That perv! That's good enough for me. Search away.
It's not a business method patent on splitting the bill. It's a device patent for a portable terminal which allows people to split the bill using a credit card.
I still don't think it's patent-worthy -- the idea for the gadget has no doubt been thought of by numerous groups of geeks, and the patent really doesn't disclose anything beyond the idea and basic method of operation. But at least it's not totally silly.
And do you think that it is acceptable? The punishment of prison is to remove a person's liberty, not to have them subjected to sexual and/or physical assualt while turning a blind eye.
Don't be silly. The government wouldn't be able to keep so many decent people in line if jail was just a time-out. Ordinary people might actually be willing to practice civil disobedience or other forms of protest if the worst that would happen is they'd spend time in a cage isolated from society. No, to let prison really keep people in line, the authorities rely on two things -- prison rape is #1, and your complete isolation from decent society even once you're out of prison is #2.
Restrictive contracts and policies are examples of a masculine philosophy that many business leaders erroneourly believe in, the idea that business is a kind of war.
Business is what a person wants it to be, and what they want it to be depends on their personality, which is in turn dependent on their DNA and their life experiences.
If what a person wants it to be is not compatible with reality, the only thing business is, is bankruptcy. The fact that many business leaders believe that business is a kind of war suggests that this is a useful paradigm.
A person who is low on the social dominance orientation metric is likely to see business as cooperation or collaboration, and will only use means that are acceptable by the business and greater social community. They may believe that the economy is not a zero-sum game (ie that new wealth can be created at any time), therefore they will seek to cooperate with others in a collaborative effort to produce more new wealth by joining forces together. Such people are also likely to be high in agreeableness (and mayble also in empathy and altruism). They think that a communitarian spirit is a better strategy because they perceive the economy as a non-zero-sum game in which only the most creative individuals survive (and, as free and open-source software demonstrates, creativity and wealth-creation is much more easier when people collaborate together).
A person who is low on the "social dominance orientation metric" is unlikely to become a business leader. If they do, they will have their lunch eaten by those who are high on the "social dominance orientation metric".
Dominant people lead. Non-dominant people follow, or are enslaved. Those who refuse to play the game are cast out, or (again) enslaved.
But that is not what was said. Telling someone you are a doctor and giving them aspirin would be illegal too, but it is not illegal to give your pal a couple of aspirin if they have a headache.
It can be. "Dispensing medication without a license." One I was told by an EMT was that in their state (I think it was New Jersey but it might have been New York), handing someone a couple of aspirin was "dispensing" (which EMTs can't do), but handing them a bottle of aspirin was OK. Also that if someone was obviously in anaphylactic shock from a bee sting, had an epi-pen on them, a responding EMT couldn't administer the epi-pen for the same reason. Freedom is DEAD.
The Debian people believe that distributing GPL'd code that links against a GPL-incompatible libc is a violation of the GPL (and they are probably right).
Not quite that simple. You can distribute GPL (V2) code which links against an incompatible (or even closed-source) libc, provided you don't also distribute libc. This is the "special exception" in section 3. Of course, a distro like this does distribute libc, so it's not eligible for the exception.
Libertarian legal scholar Eugene Volokh has posted a discussion of this in which he concludes that what Holder advocated was actually a very narrow restriction on helping people build bombs.
So what you're saying is that he's against the Second Amendment as well as the First?
So, no, it would not set the precedent you fear (unless you routinely share your wifi in the process of committing assault, or for the purposes of harrassment).
Breach of contract is a tort in itself. There's no reason, assuming this case goes for the prosecution, that they could not prosecute you for sharing wi-fi because you were violating their TOS in the furtherance of a tortious act -- namely violating their TOS.
Extending those grounds to a citizen seems the most logical, then, you would agree?
No. The citizen is not the state, and while lacking powers reserved to the state, may also not be subject to restrictions that the state is subject to.
And yet, it is very rare for citizens to be held to such standards. See, for example, Texas.
It's not rare at all. Texas is the exception; in most jurisdictions, it is not legal for a citizen to use deadly force against a fleeing criminal.
This is one of those hard cases which is going to make bad law. There was nothing legitimate to charge Lori Drew with, so they went reaching for any tool available -- in this case, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which has already been pretty badly stretched. If Drew is found guilty (and she will be, on the emotional factor), that sets the precedent that violation of Terms of Service is now a criminal act. Talk about a big stick for ISPs to beat customers with... (share your wifi, go to jail...)
In my part of the world, I don't recall ever seeing any reputable news source use such portraits to illustrate a news article.
I see it all the time. Usually the photo is marked "file photo" so that anyone who cares to read the caption realizes it's just illustrating the person involved and not the events in the article.
So I rephrase my question. If the law does not permit the State to take life for theft or robbery, and it does not, then why should it allow citizens, who are not held to due process and common law requirements, to do so?
You've misrepresented the case. Tennessee v. Garner doesn't say the State can't take life for theft or robbery. It says that the police may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a robber. Most states do not allow citizens to use deadly force to apprehend fleeing criminals, so there's no conflict.
If the law does not permit the State to execute you for theft or robbery, and it doesn't [...], then why should it allow citizens, who are not held to due process and common law requirements, to do so?
It doesn't. Killing in self defense is not execution, not even when agents of the state (police) do it.
Running an organization that goes after people with little to no proof (an IP is not proof), seeking outrageously high damages per alleged incident. Is that not fraud? Not exhortation? "Settle with us for x, or go to court for 10x"
I think that's barratry (not to be confused with an officer's rebellion in the navy).
Doesn't matter, though. The reason the RIAA wins these is that they're seen as law-n-order, and the courts have a strong bias in favor of law-n-order, even when the actual law doesn't.
Before those of us here who love to download copyright films and music at no cost start cheering these men on who challenge the RIAA, let's remember that Lessig doesn't want to abolish copyright, but simply restore short terms.
Since the mainstream in the US on copyright is to increase terms to infinity (less one day, to let the robed 9 declare it OK), increase scope nearly as much, and increase penalties to the point where you'd get a lesser term for shooting a record company executive than copying one of the albums, Lessig still deserves some cheering, even if he's not radical enough.
Personally, I think the only meaningful copyright reform in the US has to start with "Title 17 of the US Code is hereby repealed, and the United States hereby withdraws from the Berne Convention and the World International Property Organization". Then they can start with a new copyright that acknowledges the reality of modern technology rather than trying to outlaw it.
NB: because the VESA-specified DRM systems are part of the DisplayPort controller hardware, they do not require any OS or driver support to prevent protected media from playing on non-conforming displays, which means that they can't be bypassed by the OS or drivers either.
Eh? That doesn't make any sense. Something has to tell the DisplayPort that the media being played is protected.
Slashdot Mirror
Whole grain is not significantly different from white grain as far as glycemic index is concerned. And for sugar to "eat up" B vitamins would require a significantly more complex sugar molecule than the ones which exist in real life.
As for raw food... I'm not about to waste my great^Nth grandfather's invention, a method for containing and preserving fire, by not cooking my food.
(he's probably your great^Nth grandfather too; taming fire made him popular with the women. Alas, this also killed him, when the inventor of the rock-with-a-stick-attached caught him with his wife)
Good thing, because my survey of mice shows that eating peanut butter is strongly correlated with sudden death from a broken back.
Nutritionists have an ascetic bias and will generally be against caffeine and alcohol despite the demostrated benefits of both (alcohol in moderation, caffeine in rather large quantities). And no one thinks that aluminum is good for you, so skip the can.
But "empty calories" is a misconception. Calories are calories and micronutrients are micronutrients. They are separate issues, and a calorie combined with various micronutrients is no different than a calorie not combined with them. There's no particularly negative effect to "empty calories". The 140 calories in a can of Coke is no worse for you than the same number of calories in a slightly smaller amount of orange juice.
Sure. But there's two reasons to get them still
A) There are plenty of PHBs who think certs are important and
(probably MORE importantly, since working for PHBs is generally to be avoided if possible)
B) Certs impress HR people, which will keep your resume from getting trashed before it makes it to the hiring manager.
The doctrine of the thin-skulled plaintiff only applies to damages. It cannot create liability for an act that is not a tort to begin with. So yeah, if you bean someone with a baseball and they die because they had a thin skull, you're liable for wrongful death. But if you accidentally bump into them in the subway and they die because they're especially fragile, you're not liable because your actions didn't constitute a tort to begin with.
Gary Glitter? Genius move. I can see the hearing:
Cop: We'd like a warrant to search Mr. Gadd's home and effects for child pornography.
Magistrate: Do you have any evidence at all?
Cop: He goes by the name "Gary Glitter"
Magistrate: That perv! That's good enough for me. Search away.
Unless you have a live lawyer and a <strike>gun</strike> sharpened wooden stake.
It's not a business method patent on splitting the bill. It's a device patent for a portable terminal which allows people to split the bill using a credit card.
I still don't think it's patent-worthy -- the idea for the gadget has no doubt been thought of by numerous groups of geeks, and the patent really doesn't disclose anything beyond the idea and basic method of operation. But at least it's not totally silly.
Don't be silly. The government wouldn't be able to keep so many decent people in line if jail was just a time-out. Ordinary people might actually be willing to practice civil disobedience or other forms of protest if the worst that would happen is they'd spend time in a cage isolated from society. No, to let prison really keep people in line, the authorities rely on two things -- prison rape is #1, and your complete isolation from decent society even once you're out of prison is #2.
Actually, I was responding to meaningless nonsense with uncomfortable, but almost tautological generalizations.
If what a person wants it to be is not compatible with reality, the only thing business is, is bankruptcy. The fact that many business leaders believe that business is a kind of war suggests that this is a useful paradigm.
A person who is low on the "social dominance orientation metric" is unlikely to become a business leader. If they do, they will have their lunch eaten by those who are high on the "social dominance orientation metric".
Dominant people lead. Non-dominant people follow, or are enslaved. Those who refuse to play the game are cast out, or (again) enslaved.
It can be. "Dispensing medication without a license." One I was told by an EMT was that in their state (I think it was New Jersey but it might have been New York), handing someone a couple of aspirin was "dispensing" (which EMTs can't do), but handing them a bottle of aspirin was OK. Also that if someone was obviously in anaphylactic shock from a bee sting, had an epi-pen on them, a responding EMT couldn't administer the epi-pen for the same reason. Freedom is DEAD.
Not quite that simple. You can distribute GPL (V2) code which links against an incompatible (or even closed-source) libc, provided you don't also distribute libc. This is the "special exception" in section 3. Of course, a distro like this does distribute libc, so it's not eligible for the exception.
So what you're saying is that he's against the Second Amendment as well as the First?
Yeah, McCain got stuck with that slogan, and look how it worked out for him.
(OK, he said "...maverick Washington insider")
Breach of contract is a tort in itself. There's no reason, assuming this case goes for the prosecution, that they could not prosecute you for sharing wi-fi because you were violating their TOS in the furtherance of a tortious act -- namely violating their TOS.
No. The citizen is not the state, and while lacking powers reserved to the state, may also not be subject to restrictions that the state is subject to.
It's not rare at all. Texas is the exception; in most jurisdictions, it is not legal for a citizen to use deadly force against a fleeing criminal.
This is one of those hard cases which is going to make bad law. There was nothing legitimate to charge Lori Drew with, so they went reaching for any tool available -- in this case, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which has already been pretty badly stretched. If Drew is found guilty (and she will be, on the emotional factor), that sets the precedent that violation of Terms of Service is now a criminal act. Talk about a big stick for ISPs to beat customers with... (share your wifi, go to jail...)
I see it all the time. Usually the photo is marked "file photo" so that anyone who cares to read the caption realizes it's just illustrating the person involved and not the events in the article.
You've misrepresented the case. Tennessee v. Garner doesn't say the State can't take life for theft or robbery. It says that the police may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a robber. Most states do not allow citizens to use deadly force to apprehend fleeing criminals, so there's no conflict.
They take the long view. Everyone's going to die anyway; the death penalty is just borrowing from the future.
It doesn't. Killing in self defense is not execution, not even when agents of the state (police) do it.
I think that's barratry (not to be confused with an officer's rebellion in the navy).
Doesn't matter, though. The reason the RIAA wins these is that they're seen as law-n-order, and the courts have a strong bias in favor of law-n-order, even when the actual law doesn't.
Since the mainstream in the US on copyright is to increase terms to infinity (less one day, to let the robed 9 declare it OK), increase scope nearly as much, and increase penalties to the point where you'd get a lesser term for shooting a record company executive than copying one of the albums, Lessig still deserves some cheering, even if he's not radical enough.
Personally, I think the only meaningful copyright reform in the US has to start with "Title 17 of the US Code is hereby repealed, and the United States hereby withdraws from the Berne Convention and the World International Property Organization". Then they can start with a new copyright that acknowledges the reality of modern technology rather than trying to outlaw it.
Eh? That doesn't make any sense. Something has to tell the DisplayPort that the media being played is protected.