I'm a periodically tidy person. Every couple of weeks I'll clear out my inbox, and file all the various outstanding messages in their appropriate folders. And that applies in general to the way I organise pretty much everything else. But let me say in defence of messiness/creativity, that some people simply find they can't concentrate when everything's tidy and organised. Sort of like how some people (me included) find it easier to work with some background noise rather than dead silence.
The reason journalists get that privelege is to maintain a free press. "Unpublished material" often includes details a journalist has recorded about people who have only agreed to talk to the journalist with the proviso that their details be held confidential. If the government was able to take that information by force, people would no longer believe a journalists assurance of confidentiality. If that's the case, then people will no longer talk to journalists about issues that could get them in trouble - like government whistleblowers, for example. If the government is able to inspect journalists unpublished materials, then nobody would ever go to a journalist to reveal damning information about government activities.
The thing is, the jurisdictional issue is the core of the case. If the case was under state jurisdiction, the state shield laws would protect him from prosecution arising from his refusal to turn over unpublished material. But because they managed to wriggle into federal jurisdiction, they don't have to content with the state shield laws.
If you don't like how the laws are written, that's fine, then lobby to get them changed. But don't bitch and moan when the letter of the law is followed.
The problem is there are two "letters of the law" here. By choosing which jurisdiction the case is in, they can choose which law they follow.
It is indeed a problem, but I've rarely had a video file that VLC couldn't handle. Of course, VLC doesn't really solve the problem, it just puts the problem in the hands of the VLC developers rather than the user. But it does make it easier for consumers.
The point wasn't the size of the market share, the point was how much AMD's market share grew. If AMD's market share continues to grow at the current rate, Intel wil be out of business within a few years. Not that I think that likely, but it's a more valid point than you make it out to be.
Well, they are taking advantage. However, the people they're taking advantage of are more than happy to help them out. However, these people aren't just using the product in question, they're demanding features from it. Feel free to use what people give you, but if you want to start making demands, then you need to start making some contributions - money or code are generally favourite.
According to the article you linked, the ones charged with Terroristic Activities (is Terroristic a word?) were the ones who called in a bomb threat from a phone booth. Yes, the book should be thrown at them, and terrorism (although overused as a buzzword these days) is an appropriate description - they were obviously trying to create a panic. Letting off baking soda "bombs" isn't on the same scale, but when you're letting them off inside the school, especially with the post-Columbine sensitivity to school violence, it is more than a prank.
Note that the "tree stripping" disagrees with what the kids say. They say they removed a few branches. The Superintendant says they received reports of children stripping every branch from a tree. Note that the Superintendant doesn't say they did, he says they got a report that they did. Given that the super seems to be trying to pull a bit of a linguistic bait-and-switch, in the absence of all other evidence, I'd probably side with the kids.
There's no reason the helicopter has to pick them up mid-air. If the climber was in a gorge or similarly inaccessible place, they could be jumped up to a place that's easier to pick them up from; maybe somewhere that has road access even.
As I understand the article, the only purpose of the radioactivity of the iodine isotope was to allow the venom to be tracked. Obviously a coloured dye is no use, unless they want to chop open the patients brain and see which bits turned green. Instead they use a radioactive dye they can track through imaging. The purpose of the test wasn't to establish a treatment, but to show the targetting agent was safe. In the process they found a statistical anomaly in that some of their patients survived longer than usual, but that wasn't the point of the procedure. As one of the doctors says "we have shown that it is safe and that we should at least move forward." That was the point of the experiment.
I don't imagine the viscosity of this substance, even when in its liquid state, would allow for comfortable swimming. Also, bullets would continue to work just fine, as long as you increase the energy behind them. This sort of armour is just like any other, in that it has a finite amount of energy it can absorb before its compromised. The only difference is that it's flexible, restricting movement less. It's a physical barrier, not a Dune force-shield.
The OP was misinformed. This has to be used in combination with Kevlar to produce the level of resistance; the only criminals who'll be using this are the ones already wearing bulletproof vests.
This is applied in addition to Kevlar, it's not a replacement for it. The liquid is sprayed on top of Kevlar to give additional protection. I don't know how effective this would be on regular fabric. If you sprayed it on a cotton shirt and shot a bullet at it, I imagine the cotten would just tear farther from the impact site, as the fabric itself is less resilient than kevlar.
Also note that what they were performing isn't actually designed to destroy the cancer. They mixed this venom-derivative with a dye, and it targetted the cells correctly. When they actually use it properly, they're going to be mixing the targetting agent with something a lot more effective than an iodine dye. The 2 out of 18 thing is not an evaluation of the therapy, its noting an anomoly which a researcher presents a possible explanation for (the targetting agent itself inhibits cancerous growth). That possible explanation has neither been proved, nor is the point of this research.
With that sort of price tag and flight-time, I'm not sure of it's uses as a personal toy, but it might very well be useful for rescue efforts. On his site, the guy says there will be two production models, one with the capacity to lift one person, and another with the capacity to lift two. That might be quite useful for rescuing people in situations where an air-lift from a helicopter is just too difficult or dangerous.
Again and again, I see people howling about how this is a method of controlling kids, and yet every one of them uses it to assume that the parent involved will abuse it to ridiculous lengths. Why is that?
Because it'd be so easy to. Just tick a box, and rest safely in the assumption that your parental duties of dietary control are fulfilled. Of course, we all know they're really not, but it won't stop irresponsible parents from blaming the system when it turns out their kids have been sneaking junk food on their way home from school. "But we ticked the box! It's your duty to make sure our kids eat properly!"
No, I'm saying parents should not control absolutely their child's diet or behaviour. Sooner or later, the children will have to make decisions for themselves. If they've never had to make a decision before, then they are more likely to make bad ones. It's better for children to make decisions and mistakes when their parents are still around to catch them and help them with the consequences than when they've left home and are on their own.
but by and large if a kid is raised correctly, they will respect the (reasonable) limits that have been placed upon them
Exactly. But I don't think totally forbidding something like junk food from a child is correct parenting, or a reasonable limit. If you completely control what your child can and can't do, there is never any impetus for them to develop self-restraint. Thus, when you can no longer control your child (when they turn 18, leave home, whatever) you have an adult that has no ability to exercise restraint. It is then natural enough that they will want to explode all these things that were kept from them as a child. Most forbidden things are enjoyable (or there would be no need to forbid them) but also have negative long-term consequences. If you have no self-restraint, and encounter for the first time something that makes you feel good, what do you think the chances are of stopping at just one?
There's no problem with my language skills. But "going along with the parents" essentially means "imposing the parents ideology" if that's what the parents wants the school to do. Personally, I think this sort of thing ends up over-politicizing schools, and their primary mission of education starts to get drowned out.
Isn't forcing kids to eat healthy imposing an ideology on them? And isn't "eating crap" a bit of a wide interpretation of "harm"? Taken to that extreme, the school should probably prohibit children from playing most sports (do you know how many injuries occur due to sports?) and talking to each other (children can, and do, say horrible, hurtful things to each other).
What school should do is to help parents to do parenting.
I couldn't agree less. What school should do is educate children. That should definately include education on nutrition and good food. But what they shouldn't be is surrogate parents.
There is no way to get most of the fat and grease out of food, no matter how you cook it...Fast food is fatty and unhealthy, period.
Fast food is (generally) fatty and unhealthy. But the OP's point was that other methods of cooking can reduce the fat content. Buy some mince meat, mix in a bit of onion and breadcrumbs (and whatever else you like), and make your own hamburger patties at home. I can practically guarantee you that they'll be far lower in fat than the whopper you linked too. The thing is, fat is high in flavour, and sugar is a flavour enhancer. If you want to make cheap, easy food that people like to eat, you artificially load it up with fat and sugar (a lot of take-away hamburger buns actually have a relatively high sugar content). A McDonalds hamburger is always going to be bad for you. It doesn't mean that all hamburgers are bad for you. The same can be said about pretty much all fast food. Except maybe fries.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a periodically tidy person. Every couple of weeks I'll clear out my inbox, and file all the various outstanding messages in their appropriate folders. And that applies in general to the way I organise pretty much everything else. But let me say in defence of messiness/creativity, that some people simply find they can't concentrate when everything's tidy and organised. Sort of like how some people (me included) find it easier to work with some background noise rather than dead silence.
The reason journalists get that privelege is to maintain a free press. "Unpublished material" often includes details a journalist has recorded about people who have only agreed to talk to the journalist with the proviso that their details be held confidential. If the government was able to take that information by force, people would no longer believe a journalists assurance of confidentiality. If that's the case, then people will no longer talk to journalists about issues that could get them in trouble - like government whistleblowers, for example. If the government is able to inspect journalists unpublished materials, then nobody would ever go to a journalist to reveal damning information about government activities.
The thing is, the jurisdictional issue is the core of the case. If the case was under state jurisdiction, the state shield laws would protect him from prosecution arising from his refusal to turn over unpublished material. But because they managed to wriggle into federal jurisdiction, they don't have to content with the state shield laws.
If you don't like how the laws are written, that's fine, then lobby to get them changed. But don't bitch and moan when the letter of the law is followed.
The problem is there are two "letters of the law" here. By choosing which jurisdiction the case is in, they can choose which law they follow.
It is indeed a problem, but I've rarely had a video file that VLC couldn't handle. Of course, VLC doesn't really solve the problem, it just puts the problem in the hands of the VLC developers rather than the user. But it does make it easier for consumers.
You do know that disliking capitalism does not necessarily mean you endorse communism, yes?
The point wasn't the size of the market share, the point was how much AMD's market share grew. If AMD's market share continues to grow at the current rate, Intel wil be out of business within a few years. Not that I think that likely, but it's a more valid point than you make it out to be.
Well, they are taking advantage. However, the people they're taking advantage of are more than happy to help them out. However, these people aren't just using the product in question, they're demanding features from it. Feel free to use what people give you, but if you want to start making demands, then you need to start making some contributions - money or code are generally favourite.
According to the article you linked, the ones charged with Terroristic Activities (is Terroristic a word?) were the ones who called in a bomb threat from a phone booth. Yes, the book should be thrown at them, and terrorism (although overused as a buzzword these days) is an appropriate description - they were obviously trying to create a panic. Letting off baking soda "bombs" isn't on the same scale, but when you're letting them off inside the school, especially with the post-Columbine sensitivity to school violence, it is more than a prank.
Note that the "tree stripping" disagrees with what the kids say. They say they removed a few branches. The Superintendant says they received reports of children stripping every branch from a tree. Note that the Superintendant doesn't say they did, he says they got a report that they did. Given that the super seems to be trying to pull a bit of a linguistic bait-and-switch, in the absence of all other evidence, I'd probably side with the kids.
There's no reason the helicopter has to pick them up mid-air. If the climber was in a gorge or similarly inaccessible place, they could be jumped up to a place that's easier to pick them up from; maybe somewhere that has road access even.
As I understand the article, the only purpose of the radioactivity of the iodine isotope was to allow the venom to be tracked. Obviously a coloured dye is no use, unless they want to chop open the patients brain and see which bits turned green. Instead they use a radioactive dye they can track through imaging. The purpose of the test wasn't to establish a treatment, but to show the targetting agent was safe. In the process they found a statistical anomaly in that some of their patients survived longer than usual, but that wasn't the point of the procedure. As one of the doctors says "we have shown that it is safe and that we should at least move forward." That was the point of the experiment.
I don't imagine the viscosity of this substance, even when in its liquid state, would allow for comfortable swimming. Also, bullets would continue to work just fine, as long as you increase the energy behind them. This sort of armour is just like any other, in that it has a finite amount of energy it can absorb before its compromised. The only difference is that it's flexible, restricting movement less. It's a physical barrier, not a Dune force-shield.
The OP was misinformed. This has to be used in combination with Kevlar to produce the level of resistance; the only criminals who'll be using this are the ones already wearing bulletproof vests.
This is applied in addition to Kevlar, it's not a replacement for it. The liquid is sprayed on top of Kevlar to give additional protection. I don't know how effective this would be on regular fabric. If you sprayed it on a cotton shirt and shot a bullet at it, I imagine the cotten would just tear farther from the impact site, as the fabric itself is less resilient than kevlar.
Also note that what they were performing isn't actually designed to destroy the cancer. They mixed this venom-derivative with a dye, and it targetted the cells correctly. When they actually use it properly, they're going to be mixing the targetting agent with something a lot more effective than an iodine dye. The 2 out of 18 thing is not an evaluation of the therapy, its noting an anomoly which a researcher presents a possible explanation for (the targetting agent itself inhibits cancerous growth). That possible explanation has neither been proved, nor is the point of this research.
With that sort of price tag and flight-time, I'm not sure of it's uses as a personal toy, but it might very well be useful for rescue efforts. On his site, the guy says there will be two production models, one with the capacity to lift one person, and another with the capacity to lift two. That might be quite useful for rescuing people in situations where an air-lift from a helicopter is just too difficult or dangerous.
Unless you have a 4 mile or less commute, this is not the jetpack you're looking for.
Again and again, I see people howling about how this is a method of controlling kids, and yet every one of them uses it to assume that the parent involved will abuse it to ridiculous lengths. Why is that?
Because it'd be so easy to. Just tick a box, and rest safely in the assumption that your parental duties of dietary control are fulfilled. Of course, we all know they're really not, but it won't stop irresponsible parents from blaming the system when it turns out their kids have been sneaking junk food on their way home from school. "But we ticked the box! It's your duty to make sure our kids eat properly!"
No, I'm saying parents should not control absolutely their child's diet or behaviour. Sooner or later, the children will have to make decisions for themselves. If they've never had to make a decision before, then they are more likely to make bad ones. It's better for children to make decisions and mistakes when their parents are still around to catch them and help them with the consequences than when they've left home and are on their own.
but by and large if a kid is raised correctly, they will respect the (reasonable) limits that have been placed upon them
Exactly. But I don't think totally forbidding something like junk food from a child is correct parenting, or a reasonable limit. If you completely control what your child can and can't do, there is never any impetus for them to develop self-restraint. Thus, when you can no longer control your child (when they turn 18, leave home, whatever) you have an adult that has no ability to exercise restraint. It is then natural enough that they will want to explode all these things that were kept from them as a child. Most forbidden things are enjoyable (or there would be no need to forbid them) but also have negative long-term consequences. If you have no self-restraint, and encounter for the first time something that makes you feel good, what do you think the chances are of stopping at just one?
The bit that follows on after as "therefore its the schools responsibility to make sure my wishes are followed"
There's no problem with my language skills. But "going along with the parents" essentially means "imposing the parents ideology" if that's what the parents wants the school to do. Personally, I think this sort of thing ends up over-politicizing schools, and their primary mission of education starts to get drowned out.
So they're imposing the parents ideology.
Isn't forcing kids to eat healthy imposing an ideology on them? And isn't "eating crap" a bit of a wide interpretation of "harm"? Taken to that extreme, the school should probably prohibit children from playing most sports (do you know how many injuries occur due to sports?) and talking to each other (children can, and do, say horrible, hurtful things to each other).
What school should do is to help parents to do parenting.
I couldn't agree less. What school should do is educate children. That should definately include education on nutrition and good food. But what they shouldn't be is surrogate parents.
There is no way to get most of the fat and grease out of food, no matter how you cook it...Fast food is fatty and unhealthy, period.
Fast food is (generally) fatty and unhealthy. But the OP's point was that other methods of cooking can reduce the fat content. Buy some mince meat, mix in a bit of onion and breadcrumbs (and whatever else you like), and make your own hamburger patties at home. I can practically guarantee you that they'll be far lower in fat than the whopper you linked too. The thing is, fat is high in flavour, and sugar is a flavour enhancer. If you want to make cheap, easy food that people like to eat, you artificially load it up with fat and sugar (a lot of take-away hamburger buns actually have a relatively high sugar content). A McDonalds hamburger is always going to be bad for you. It doesn't mean that all hamburgers are bad for you. The same can be said about pretty much all fast food. Except maybe fries.