PETA has so many problems with its tactics that you'd think they were sponsored by the American Beef Council.
The thing that surprises people the most about vegetarian (although not vegan) diets is that the food they can eat is relatively normal: cheese pizza instead of pepperoni, bagels rather than bacon, bean burritos rather than beef, etc. And you're absolutely right that reducing meat has significant benefits.
Don't forget the premiums charged by health insurance companies that refused to pay the bill. (That's very often the case with medical bill bankruptcy.) Part of the problem is that insurance companies are most profitable when they successfully sell effectively a "never pay" policy.
You do realize that's not written by mindstorms, and is just a standard form to be used in all discussions of how to solve spam, right? You can find it at http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt.
It came about because there are so many "this is how to solve spam" posts with the same set of flaws, so this simply radically sped up the process of demonstrating why the plan wouldn't work.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what has the government ever done for us?
Even better, if you're in Dingell's district, contact his office and let him know that you'd like it to conveniently never come up for consideration (which is what happens to a lot of bills).
If it's the latter, then the most obvious explanation: management prioritized adding new features in the next version over proper documentation, and programmers can't describe what they wrote 15 years ago (even if they have the source).
Its frightening that you take a politician *especially one from the Chicago political machine* at his word..
I wouldn't either, but in this case the Executive Orders he's been signing (particularly the one about FOIA requests) in the last couple of days indicate that he's prepared to back that one up with some action.
approach to fighting spam. His idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to his particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money (X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, his plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (X) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves (X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to his are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free (X) Why should we have to trust him and his servers? (X) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about him:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and he's a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to burn his house down!
Also worth noting (and this is coming from a descendant of someone blacklisted by HUAC) is that many of the actual Communists supported the Communists before and during WWII, when they were on our side (at least in theory).
Although sibling poster is right: Senator McCarthy's investigations were not the same as the House UnAmerican Activities Committee)
That's not the only time he's tried to do that. (Although I wouldn't call him Redneck, because that's totally unfair to rednecks) Most notably, in negotiating and signing an agreement with the Iraqi government about when US troops would pull out, which for some reason was a bit longer than the 16-month timeline Obama had been pushing for.
It would become quite scary if being arrested for some crime and later released for being not guilty to that crime would still have your name connected to the case in a public record.
that's pretty much how it works now. just ask the duke lacrosse team...
Or OJ Simpson.
Oh, wait, that last example probably bothered some people because they think he did it. Even though it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not as much fun as the MSNBC coverage that (I kid you not) spent at least 15 minutes discussing hats: as in who was wearing them, how stylish they were, etc. all I could think of is the Monty Python moment where a business executive announces that in the search for the meaning of life they came upon the conclusion that "People don't wear enough hats."
What I look for when I try to find non-abusive IT jobs: 1. People managing technologists who have done technology jobs. And I don't mean just the team leads, I mean at least up to the VP and ideally the CTO/CIO level. In the case of a small company, I look for an owner who is either a techie (for a tech company) or is willing to trust me with technical decisions.
2. The work that the technical folks do shows up in the bottom line, either via increased revenue or decreased costs. Keeping the good ship rolling along will not get the department the respect and budget it needs to do the things it ought to do.
3. A clear and reasonable policy on on-call duties. Something along the lines of "in our 7-person department, everyone is on-call 1 night a week, and if a call causes you to work late you can come in late the next day."
4. Managers who can say no to the rest of the company. And by "can" I mean both emotionally capable of doing so and politically capable of making that response stick.
And I've definitely suffered my share of abuse, most notably being called in on a Sunday morning and told that I was not to leave the building until a project was done.
Or as they say, "Why is it that Americans have to put on all that padding just to play rugby?"
The answer is that we don't: Women's rugby in particular is one of the faster-growing collegiate sports. And the Americans are slowly learning how to really play the game properly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkU3zR-dsXU
Slashdot Mirror
PETA has so many problems with its tactics that you'd think they were sponsored by the American Beef Council.
The thing that surprises people the most about vegetarian (although not vegan) diets is that the food they can eat is relatively normal: cheese pizza instead of pepperoni, bagels rather than bacon, bean burritos rather than beef, etc. And you're absolutely right that reducing meat has significant benefits.
Well, it wasn't quite right: more correct is
"In Korea, only old people use 1Gbps broadband to check email."
Don't forget the premiums charged by health insurance companies that refused to pay the bill. (That's very often the case with medical bill bankruptcy.) Part of the problem is that insurance companies are most profitable when they successfully sell effectively a "never pay" policy.
You do realize that's not written by mindstorms, and is just a standard form to be used in all discussions of how to solve spam, right? You can find it at http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt.
It came about because there are so many "this is how to solve spam" posts with the same set of flaws, so this simply radically sped up the process of demonstrating why the plan wouldn't work.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what has the government ever done for us?
In Soviet Russia, computers program you!
Yeah, all we could do now is prosecute them and possibly throw them in federal PMITA prison.
That's why my mother's maiden name is "f03itncvl102$#(2l$" (for purposes of site logins).
Even better, if you're in Dingell's district, contact his office and let him know that you'd like it to conveniently never come up for consideration (which is what happens to a lot of bills).
In other words: "We didn't land on the space rock. The space rock landed on us."
(with apologies to Malcolm X)
In other words, if you took all the economists in the world and laid them end to end, they still couldn't reach a conclusion.
I wonder if you can be modded insightfull for "insights" from the article? No one reads them anyway...
Apparantly so. Thrice as of this writing.
Hey, he's got Eric Schmidt advising him on some issues, so why not?
If it's the latter, then the most obvious explanation: management prioritized adding new features in the next version over proper documentation, and programmers can't describe what they wrote 15 years ago (even if they have the source).
Yeah, but he's busy watching the game, having a Bud.
Its frightening that you take a politician *especially one from the Chicago political machine* at his word..
I wouldn't either, but in this case the Executive Orders he's been signing (particularly the one about FOIA requests) in the last couple of days indicate that he's prepared to back that one up with some action.
It does now: specifically referencing GGP.
Bill Gates advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. His idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to his particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, his plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to his are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust him and his servers?
(X) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about him:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and he's a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to burn his
house down!
Also worth noting (and this is coming from a descendant of someone blacklisted by HUAC) is that many of the actual Communists supported the Communists before and during WWII, when they were on our side (at least in theory).
Although sibling poster is right: Senator McCarthy's investigations were not the same as the House UnAmerican Activities Committee)
That's not the only time he's tried to do that. (Although I wouldn't call him Redneck, because that's totally unfair to rednecks) Most notably, in negotiating and signing an agreement with the Iraqi government about when US troops would pull out, which for some reason was a bit longer than the 16-month timeline Obama had been pushing for.
It would become quite scary if being arrested for some crime and later released for being not guilty to that crime would still have your name connected to the case in a public record.
that's pretty much how it works now. just ask the duke lacrosse team...
Or OJ Simpson.
Oh, wait, that last example probably bothered some people because they think he did it. Even though it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
How about:
"In Soviet Russia, space trip buys you!"
Not as much fun as the MSNBC coverage that (I kid you not) spent at least 15 minutes discussing hats: as in who was wearing them, how stylish they were, etc. all I could think of is the Monty Python moment where a business executive announces that in the search for the meaning of life they came upon the conclusion that "People don't wear enough hats."
What I look for when I try to find non-abusive IT jobs:
1. People managing technologists who have done technology jobs. And I don't mean just the team leads, I mean at least up to the VP and ideally the CTO/CIO level. In the case of a small company, I look for an owner who is either a techie (for a tech company) or is willing to trust me with technical decisions.
2. The work that the technical folks do shows up in the bottom line, either via increased revenue or decreased costs. Keeping the good ship rolling along will not get the department the respect and budget it needs to do the things it ought to do.
3. A clear and reasonable policy on on-call duties. Something along the lines of "in our 7-person department, everyone is on-call 1 night a week, and if a call causes you to work late you can come in late the next day."
4. Managers who can say no to the rest of the company. And by "can" I mean both emotionally capable of doing so and politically capable of making that response stick.
And I've definitely suffered my share of abuse, most notably being called in on a Sunday morning and told that I was not to leave the building until a project was done.
Or as they say, "Why is it that Americans have to put on all that padding just to play rugby?"
The answer is that we don't: Women's rugby in particular is one of the faster-growing collegiate sports. And the Americans are slowly learning how to really play the game properly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkU3zR-dsXU