Not to worry, she probably has some patsy lined up to take the fall for her. At some point she'll probably claim she didn't know the mail server was at her house, and didn't know that she sent classified documents to personal email addresses because all this technology is so darned confusing.
Sounds like a parallel system might be a popular idea with some U.S. presidential candidates, too.
I'm genuinely curious. I know the knee-jerk reaction is going to be "Teh Republicanz!", but I haven't heard any suggestion from any Dem or Rep that they want to introduce this. National ID cards? Sure, there are some politicians spouting that, but chipping people like dogs is a step beyond that.
How are Hulu and Netflix doing? Even better, how is HBO doing now that they've made HBO Go available without a cable subscription?
It's an interesting time to be a cable subscriber. I called Comcast to cancel my HBO & Starz from my cable service since both Game of Thrones & Outlander were finished. They told me I could keep them both for just $1 a month each for 2 years, so I decided to keep them. They're desperate to keep the customers they already have.
Because you don't eat, you "end up" eating. No choice. You are a victim of your food, and you need a government mommy to choose your diet for you.
You're leaping to conclusions. I didn't advocate for any kind of government regulation on food. In fact, government would be the last place I'd look to for solutions to most problems.
There's some indication that your body actually reacts to the taste of sweetness... although I only half-believe that myself, it's still interesting to think about at minimum.
Yesterday on a radio I heard a DJ saying that there was a study showing that diet drinks didn't help people loose weight. So the propaganda is already flowing.
They don't. They reduce the amount of calories you consume from drinking soda (diet vs. regular), but they stimulate your appetite so you actually end up eating more food when you do eat.
Nope. Not how it works. Not getting revenue from someone who wouldn't have clicked on your link if it were full of adware (for them) is not a "cost." The actual cost is in bandwidth, etc. and is much less than beelions of dollars.
Some advertisers per impression. While I don't know all of the ins-and-outs of how ad blockers work, it seems to me if they are blocking the ads from the source & they aren't getting served, then the publisher is indeed losing revenue. Otherwise why would a publisher care? I know some sites I have visited display a black "Support our site. Please turn off your ad blocker", so there must be some sort of incentive for them to show them. There are probably other metrics too like clicks per impression, and if you don't get enough of those, you lose the advertisers.
I personally don't believe life originated here, I think it's more likely that more primitive microbes started elsewhere, and when that elsewhere planet was subjected to meteor bombardment, its ejecta seeded life on other planets in its star cluster, including ours.
Panspermia is one of the hardest ideas for me to wrap my mind around. Life emerges on another planet. Planet is hit by a meteor and ejects the life forms into the vacuum space, where they are subject to massive amounts of radiation. They travel millions (if not billions) of kilometers for millions (if not billions) of years. The ejected chunks also need to not be pulled into any stars they might be passing by or pulverized by other collisions with objects in space. Then they need to land on a planet capable of supporting that particular kind of life while passing through its atmosphere and impacting at high speed with massive force. It takes an improbable event like abiogenesis and increases it by another exponent of improbability, which equates to impossible in my mind.
Actually, when it gets close to collapse, the people in power will just start a BIG war. It has worked numerous times in the past, and will work again in the future.
That doesn't seem to be that good of a way of doing things. Suppose you had a global conflict, and maybe 200 million people die. That's less than 3% of the population, not really enough to make a huge dent. This doesn't include all of the people injured by a war, who now need medical help, etc, which costs even more. War is one of the worst things there is for the economy, unless you're an arms dealer.
I can buy loratidine over the counter - in fact my local supermarket has it next to the tampons and bandages.
Anything with pseudoephedrine in it. I use Claritin D (loratidine w/pseudoephedrine sulfate) and you have to sign a statement that it is for your use and you're not going to sell it to meth dealers, i.e. you're not a "smurf" as they put it in Breaking Bad.
Colorado has $100M+ in tax revenue from pot. Not much of a black market either.
There's a tipping point. It's not that you can't have any taxes, it's just that you can't tax too much. However, I think if pot was legal, and I wanted to smoke it, I'd probably just grow my own. I have a bad enough memory as it is though, so i just avoid it.
Now meth, that's a get-up-and-do-things drug. That's genuinely harmful to society. Sure, some people just get up and clean their bathroom. And some people go out and look for fun, in a condition in which their judgement is severely impaired.
Meth used to be perfectly legal to buy and wasn't anywhere near the problem it is now. Just as with alcohol, and even "crack" cocaine, when you outlaw something, the potency tends to go up and the purity gets compromised because they cut it with whatever garbage they feel like adding.
They can't even keep drugs out of the prisons WITHOUT drone delivery. The entire war on drugs has cost the U.S. untold billions of dollars and what do we have to show for it? We'd be much better off as a country if everything was legalized and the money currently spent on drug war law enforcement/court system/prison system was spent on drug rehab for those who actually developed a problem.
why don't you bother to read what I was responding to
Probably because I got down-modded below their threshold. But I'll respond to your reply. The videos were made of a business meeting at a public place. There is no expectation of privacy. Asking me how I feel about having my private activities videotaped does nothing to counter that argument.
The supposed Planned Parenthood videos were blocked by a court of law as they were found to be, at best, a carefully edited mischaracterization of a meeting where what was likely a completely legal conversation was warped into an apparent conversation about an illegal act or, at worst, a complete fabrication created by paid actors to switfboat Planned Parenthood during an election year.
Except they also released unedited versions. Why not let people see them and decide? If anything, the First Amendment was targeted at political speech, regardless of how you feel about it. And the paid actors were conducting the interviews, not the ones admitting PP's ghoulish practices.
What's the point of this article? Nobody thinks Jobs or Musk was abandoned by their parents on some deserted island, and was raised by wolves but somehow managed to discover calculus and electromagnetism. The difference between guys like Jobs and Musk versus your average engineer or lab scientist is having a compelling vision of the future and doing what it takes to achieve it. I don't idolize either one, but I'm not going to deny that they're a breed apart.
I have an HP printer/scanner at home that I pretty much use only for the scanner. My wife uses the printer on occasion, but I'm convincing her on the virtues of saving things as PDFs and putting them on her iPad. Likewise at work whenever someone wants to give me a printed copy of anything, I tell them to email or share the document. That way I can search for it, and I can search in it, and make changes/notes instead. Some of my coworkers are slowly picking up on this too. I can't wait for the day when we're truly paperless.
Comcast does it as well. When I had their phone service, any calls I got would automatically be transcribed (often with humorous effect) and sent to me via e-mail. The only bad thing is it went to my Comcast e-mail address, which I almost never check.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you don't partake and claim yourself exempt? You get random annual bodily-fluid testing where you get to prove that you're nicotine-free.
What if you just like chewing nicotine gum? I can't imagine anyone who would, since it tastes gross, but it's possible.
Not to worry, she probably has some patsy lined up to take the fall for her. At some point she'll probably claim she didn't know the mail server was at her house, and didn't know that she sent classified documents to personal email addresses because all this technology is so darned confusing.
Sounds like a parallel system might be a popular idea with some U.S. presidential candidates, too.
I'm genuinely curious. I know the knee-jerk reaction is going to be "Teh Republicanz!", but I haven't heard any suggestion from any Dem or Rep that they want to introduce this. National ID cards? Sure, there are some politicians spouting that, but chipping people like dogs is a step beyond that.
How are Hulu and Netflix doing? Even better, how is HBO doing now that they've made HBO Go available without a cable subscription?
It's an interesting time to be a cable subscriber. I called Comcast to cancel my HBO & Starz from my cable service since both Game of Thrones & Outlander were finished. They told me I could keep them both for just $1 a month each for 2 years, so I decided to keep them. They're desperate to keep the customers they already have.
It took the astronauts about an hour to harvest and prepare the lettuce both plain and with oil and vinegar.
Sounds like they burned off more calories than they gained in this exercise.
Because you don't eat, you "end up" eating. No choice. You are a victim of your food, and you need a government mommy to choose your diet for you.
You're leaping to conclusions. I didn't advocate for any kind of government regulation on food. In fact, government would be the last place I'd look to for solutions to most problems.
There's some indication that your body actually reacts to the taste of sweetness... although I only half-believe that myself, it's still interesting to think about at minimum.
From what I understand artificial sweeteners causes insulin to increase the way that sugar/HFCS does, but since they don't have any calories, you're left feeling more hungry.
Yesterday on a radio I heard a DJ saying that there was a study showing that diet drinks didn't help people loose weight. So the propaganda is already flowing.
They don't. They reduce the amount of calories you consume from drinking soda (diet vs. regular), but they stimulate your appetite so you actually end up eating more food when you do eat.
Nope. Not how it works. Not getting revenue from someone who wouldn't have clicked on your link if it were full of adware (for them) is not a "cost." The actual cost is in bandwidth, etc. and is much less than beelions of dollars.
Some advertisers per impression. While I don't know all of the ins-and-outs of how ad blockers work, it seems to me if they are blocking the ads from the source & they aren't getting served, then the publisher is indeed losing revenue. Otherwise why would a publisher care? I know some sites I have visited display a black "Support our site. Please turn off your ad blocker", so there must be some sort of incentive for them to show them. There are probably other metrics too like clicks per impression, and if you don't get enough of those, you lose the advertisers.
I personally don't believe life originated here, I think it's more likely that more primitive microbes started elsewhere, and when that elsewhere planet was subjected to meteor bombardment, its ejecta seeded life on other planets in its star cluster, including ours.
Panspermia is one of the hardest ideas for me to wrap my mind around. Life emerges on another planet. Planet is hit by a meteor and ejects the life forms into the vacuum space, where they are subject to massive amounts of radiation. They travel millions (if not billions) of kilometers for millions (if not billions) of years. The ejected chunks also need to not be pulled into any stars they might be passing by or pulverized by other collisions with objects in space. Then they need to land on a planet capable of supporting that particular kind of life while passing through its atmosphere and impacting at high speed with massive force. It takes an improbable event like abiogenesis and increases it by another exponent of improbability, which equates to impossible in my mind.
Actually, when it gets close to collapse, the people in power will just start a BIG war. It has worked numerous times in the past, and will work again in the future.
That doesn't seem to be that good of a way of doing things. Suppose you had a global conflict, and maybe 200 million people die. That's less than 3% of the population, not really enough to make a huge dent. This doesn't include all of the people injured by a war, who now need medical help, etc, which costs even more. War is one of the worst things there is for the economy, unless you're an arms dealer.
I can buy loratidine over the counter - in fact my local supermarket has it next to the tampons and bandages.
Anything with pseudoephedrine in it. I use Claritin D (loratidine w/pseudoephedrine sulfate) and you have to sign a statement that it is for your use and you're not going to sell it to meth dealers, i.e. you're not a "smurf" as they put it in Breaking Bad.
But first, you have to get used to sleeping with a mask on. Something I never found helpful for sleeping. :-/
Colorado has $100M+ in tax revenue from pot. Not much of a black market either.
There's a tipping point. It's not that you can't have any taxes, it's just that you can't tax too much. However, I think if pot was legal, and I wanted to smoke it, I'd probably just grow my own. I have a bad enough memory as it is though, so i just avoid it.
Now meth, that's a get-up-and-do-things drug. That's genuinely harmful to society. Sure, some people just get up and clean their bathroom. And some people go out and look for fun, in a condition in which their judgement is severely impaired.
Meth used to be perfectly legal to buy and wasn't anywhere near the problem it is now. Just as with alcohol, and even "crack" cocaine, when you outlaw something, the potency tends to go up and the purity gets compromised because they cut it with whatever garbage they feel like adding.
They can't even keep drugs out of the prisons WITHOUT drone delivery. The entire war on drugs has cost the U.S. untold billions of dollars and what do we have to show for it? We'd be much better off as a country if everything was legalized and the money currently spent on drug war law enforcement/court system/prison system was spent on drug rehab for those who actually developed a problem.
why don't you bother to read what I was responding to
Probably because I got down-modded below their threshold. But I'll respond to your reply. The videos were made of a business meeting at a public place. There is no expectation of privacy. Asking me how I feel about having my private activities videotaped does nothing to counter that argument.
There is also a lack of a public interest waver around an abortion because it has no impact on you personally and is not in contravention of any laws.
Aside from the fact that it's funded by taxpayers.
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. - Thomas Jefferson
The supposed Planned Parenthood videos were blocked by a court of law as they were found to be, at best, a carefully edited mischaracterization of a meeting where what was likely a completely legal conversation was warped into an apparent conversation about an illegal act or, at worst, a complete fabrication created by paid actors to switfboat Planned Parenthood during an election year.
Except they also released unedited versions. Why not let people see them and decide? If anything, the First Amendment was targeted at political speech, regardless of how you feel about it. And the paid actors were conducting the interviews, not the ones admitting PP's ghoulish practices.
but how is this news for nerds?
It involves technology & free speech. How isn't it news for nerds?
Can't wait to see this applied to the abortion video TROs.
But that's *different*! /sarcasm
What's the point of this article? Nobody thinks Jobs or Musk was abandoned by their parents on some deserted island, and was raised by wolves but somehow managed to discover calculus and electromagnetism. The difference between guys like Jobs and Musk versus your average engineer or lab scientist is having a compelling vision of the future and doing what it takes to achieve it. I don't idolize either one, but I'm not going to deny that they're a breed apart.
I have an HP printer/scanner at home that I pretty much use only for the scanner. My wife uses the printer on occasion, but I'm convincing her on the virtues of saving things as PDFs and putting them on her iPad. Likewise at work whenever someone wants to give me a printed copy of anything, I tell them to email or share the document. That way I can search for it, and I can search in it, and make changes/notes instead. Some of my coworkers are slowly picking up on this too. I can't wait for the day when we're truly paperless.
Comcast does it as well. When I had their phone service, any calls I got would automatically be transcribed (often with humorous effect) and sent to me via e-mail. The only bad thing is it went to my Comcast e-mail address, which I almost never check.
Especially if the choice is between your data being secure or not.