"A simple chip added to water could prevent retail theft. According to the AP article at MSNBC, the chip would be activated at the register to make previously dark water clear, and therefore drinkable. Could this help to stem the tide of the approximate 400 million dollars in losses from brick and water stores? Sparkling water could also be protected this way too. Could this help to bring the prices down on inflated water prices?"
Be careful when you're giving people medical advice like that. I used to give out advice like this, until I realized that people have adverse reactions to everything. I've tried to take 100% daily vitamin D, but I keep getting serious arthritis. What makes you 100% sure what you're doing is totally okay, for you, or anyone for that matter?
It's one thing to tell people to try it, check with your doctor, see if it works for you, but you're telling people it's okay to take 1000%. You're talking about D3, a completely active, fat-soluble vitamin/hormone, that gets stored in your fat, and hence, not easily eliminated from the body after toxicity symptoms occur; which immediately mobilizes minerals into the blood stream and tissues, which can accumulate and mineralize and calcify in said tissues, causing blood clotting, calcium on the brain, and so on.. and you just think that's totally okay, taking 1000% of it every day?
And what happens 10 years from now, when they discover that it was NOT supplementation that helped, in fact, supplementation actually harmed peoples' kidneys hearts and joints?
Don't jump so far onto the bandwagon. That's crazy.
I often wonder if it unhealthy to eat a large variety of foods... I wonder if our bodies can handle a constantly varying diet, and would prefer a healthy, but simple/consistent diet.
What I think is you're wrong. A varied diet is the best. You get exposed to a variety of vitamins, nutrients and chemicals.
They actually have bred fruit flies on rice or single foods, and they do adapt, through natural (artificial) selection to the food.
But what does that tell you? Species have to die to adapt, and the end result is not the optimum state for the species, unless the species would be expected to experience related famines periodically. Otherwise, species thrive on ample supplies of food.
No. It doesn't shatter them. It damages them. If it damages one side, the cell can repair it by looking at the other, but if it damages both parallel acids (be it TGA or C), it can cause a permanent change. But that change has to happen at exactly the right spot to become cancer. Theoretically. Off the top of my head, from old text books.
I think Opera 6 introduced multi instance MDI. Why people call this TRUE tabs is beyond me. Anyway, you can get multi instance with previous versions of Opera by opening in a hex editor and changing one Byte. Search for "Opera Create" and change the 'O' to a unique name for each instance. You also have to have different install directories and ensure the opera.ini points to separate install folders, otherwise you have conflicts.
Making a program multi instance is simply that arbitrary, a check box in a wizard, and it's ridiculous that people attack Opera for not being a TRUE tabbed browser over such idiotic things as this.
Oh, I just installed Opera 3 and I don't see tabs. Opera 4 has them.
Call them what you like. If you have windows, overlapping, and you can switch between them, with tiny titled labels, then you're talking about TABS. Microsoft invented tabs in Windows 95. It's called the Task Bar. Along with all the property windows. Oh, but I guess they didn't invent bookmarks, because they called them favorites. Shoot.
MDI is not the antithesis of Tabs. Just because you don't call something tabs, or promote as such, does not mean your browser is not tabbed.
Nevertheless, based on a quick install, it does look like Opera 3 doesn't have Tabs, but you [Ctrl] + [Tab] the windows. I must have confused v4 with v3. But you're still making bad arguments:
"Opera wasn't the first browser with tabs.. I mean TRUE tabs... It was just MDI.. I mean, they didn't seem like tabs to me, and no one called them tabs, or promoted as such.
Mistakes: Opera was a browser with tabs in v4. MDI can have tabs. They don't need to be called or promoted as tabs to be tabs. TRUE tabs is loading the dice. You should really never argue with someone who says TRUE ANYTHING, as it'll probably go nowhere.
"No it didn't, Netcaptor did. Not Opera. Opera didn't have true tabbed browsing until after a few others had implemented it (Skipstone, Galeon, Mozilla)."
Well, if you're going to split hairs to load the dice, Netcaptor was not a browser, it was a shell. I remember Opera 3 had what I, and most people would call tabbed browsing, but you're trying to be a jackass.
Please don't go off on a crybaby tangent about DARE. Maybe cocaine is "more" dangerous than alcohol? But danger is danger. When that danger involves taking drugs, then climbing into a 2 ton missile and getting on the highway, you'd better believe we need to do something about it. Other wise, I'm going to kick your ass so hard you're going to need shoes for your face.
...there is a serious problem with treating these issues as solvable through prohibitions. People want drugs... forcing them to go through back channels... [creates] a fantastic money-making machine for the criminal element to exploit, and makes criminals out of a whole bunch of people...
Yes, there are problems, both ways. That's the problem. It's a dilemma. Your Don't-Prohibit Plan creates lots of problems too.
Speed, coke, and heroin were quite accessible years ago, and once thought to be okay. They were touted as panaceas, much like weed today. Soldiers were given drugs to ward off fatigue. Truckers and college students would use speed to stay alert. But addiction became a Huge problem, which lead to prohibitions. It's not a Big Conspiracy.
A better solution is to treat these things like we currently treat alcoholism...do everything in your power to help out those that can't deal with their drug of choice...but leave everyone else alone.
Yeah, that's a great idea, considering that people die every day, with AA. And then there's the fact that anyone can have too much to drink, and drive impaired. AA only represents a small fraction of alcoholics. The majority of addicts are delusional about - and impaired by - their substance abuse.
...[Smokers] can't smoke in enclosed places anymore, so it doesn't negatively impact others, but otherwise they are left alone.
Addiction has a high recidivism rate. The vast majority of smokers CAN'T quit. There is an negative impact on society who pays for smoker' medical bills, and the friends and family who have to be exposed to, or take care of they're smoking-induced stroke- or cancer-victim parents, and later themselves.
As far as pot, the stuff doesn't even physically addict you...
"Self-administration of drugs by animals, long considered a model of human drug-seeking behavior, is characteristic of virtually all addictive and abused drugs....The drug-seeking behavior in these animals was comparable in intensity to that maintained by cocaine... This finding suggests that marijuana has as much potential for abuse as other drugs of abuse, such as cocaine and heroin."
Yeah, how dare we infringe upon the right of the minority to force their ideals upon the majority, right? This is one of the most blatant inversions of the principle of protection from mob rule that I've ever seen..
Sometimes people try to defend their position by crying about discrimination. Like you. Other times they can think of the right thing to say: Just because the idiot majority believes marijuana is harmless doesn't mean they're right.
Belladonna is a plant too. It doesn't change the fact that it's deadly. Opium and Coca are plants too. That doesn't make them harmless. Drug abuse and addiction harms not just individuals, but entire families, and the rest of society.
Beer and (another addictive, carcinogenic plant:) tobacco are not safer. They should be restricted More, and that's gradually happening to smokers, worldwide.
Just what are you suggesting we do about the problem with drug abuse and addiction?
Note, he said CD's. Red Book Audio uses less ECC, and uses pop-smoothing recovery that averages. I always find problems with audio CDs. Then there's Green Book for data/multimedia which is less reliable too, and I think most software uses Green Book.
However, Yellow Book CD-ROM is the most reliable. Maybe his CD burning software is using Green Book for multi media, with less ECC. Make sure your software is burning Mode 1, Yellow Book CD-ROM. I remember CDRWIN will show the tracks as yellow or green, mode1 or 2.
Unlike the thin exposed top layer on CDR's, DVD+R's are much better, as the data layer is sandwich on both sides by a thick plastic, and probably uses better ECC, but I've not researched DVD ECC.
I'd conclude DVD R's are the way to go right now. With a plextor drive, to read through scratches better.
If people could choose what they pay taxes for, social security and welfare would go right out the window, then we'd have a big problem with all the sick and disabled people dying in the streets. Charity workers don't make up for the difference.
I personally don't like the new CSS slashdot, as it fails in version 5 era browsers due to height:%100 usage, and is bigger than the previous PDA version. This would drive anyone away. It hasn't been fixed. My User CSS has solved the height problem(, which causes black text on black background, and large vertical gaps between teal boxes).
Non-hex letter escapes solves this probably in all v5 browsers: {h\eight:100%}.
Google to Googlize the Googlenet.
on
China Buys Google
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Google has purchased the Googleheimer Googlesphere to further Googlize the Googlenet into a Googlable Googlben. Google's googlies and googlans are gabbling to Googlize Googillion Googlepoo Googies, for the Goodness of the Googlopolis.
A spokesperson for MSN was Googled as saying: "Oh, crap."
I know someone who says he has Asperger's. He's very cold, callous, and he'll say, "That's my other line. Goodbye." and to people who bore him, "I don't even like you as a person. Don't call me again."
Or, "What part of 'I don't want to talk about this' are you not getting?" Or, "This conversation bores me, change the subject."
I could go on and on.
I've had a suspicion he really is just a narcissistic sociopath. But, if this is Asperger's, then I can't see that he'd care what others are feeling, even with an emotional vibrator sidekick, because he has only empathy for himself, and not others.
Can someone tell me is that normal with Asperger's? Another friend told me that he's just a bitch because he knows someone with Asperger's who's really a nice guy. I've been told I might have it, and I'm nothing like this.
If they want to stop violence, they should investigate religion. Religion seems to derange lots of people. Most of the violent criminals are bible thumpers in prison. And then we have riots and killing over cartoons.
This is just wrong. If they have to decide if fun things make us violent, are they going to investigate football and sports? I don't think the CDC should be telling us how to have fun. It's always people who don't play or understand video games that get all upset about them.
Saying that video games cause violence is like saying that sugar causes diabetes.. which, by the way, more people die from every year. Maybe they should research diabetes.
I'm pretty sure that a world filled with kittens and rainbows will still have violence. It also would be gay.
Correlation does imply or suggest causation though. To get close to the cause of something, you first must have a correlation, but then you have to rule out other explanations through experimentation. You can apply Ockham's razor to arrive at the more plausible explanation, and test that first.
I think it's stupid that people blame games for violence, but even if they do cause an increase in violence, I'm not sure they should be regulated. I think sports promote violence, there is a correlation at least, but no one says children shouldn't play sports.
back up that claim with some kind of empirical evidence. My own experiences dispute it...
I have to get empirical evidence, but you can rely on garbage evidence, which consists of you hanging out with a bunch of hippies, who by definition, are successful drug users, and you didn't find any that hate drugs? What a shock.
You obviously don't understand how drug testing works. I don't have to prove to you that it's unsafe. You, and drug companies, have to prove that a drug is safe.
Oh, and you link to some drug fanatic bringing up questions about other studies that link LSD to mental illness, and you jumped to the conclusion LSD doesn't cause mental illness. Bullshit. The evidence doesn't suggest that.
Don't try to blame away.
This isn't about blame. It's about cause and effect. I think you should look into what "etiology" means in the context of medical diagnosis. Just because Charles Whitman was prescribed Adderall before he stabbed his mother to death and climbed up that clock tower doesn't mean that Adderall causes mental illness. Similarly, if the incidence of schizophrenia in LSD users is the same as that of the non-LSD-using population, and schizophrenia patients who have used LSD have the same premorbid conditions as schizophrenics who haven't, then most-likely LSD does not cause schizophrenia.
1.) There is no similarity to Charles Whitman here at all.
2.) That's just a correlation. We also have a correlation to drug use and disorders that are listed in the DSM-IV, such as HPPD, depersonalization, and psychosis. LSD triggers or induces psychosis in apparently healthy people. That's all we need to know. You can explain that away however you like, but the evidence you're presenting is just a bunch of extreme skepticism, because you're in love with LSD. You're listening to what you want to hear. And let me just tell you that those points you find so persuasive are actually not. I don't have all day to explain it to you. Maybe read the post above for more points, amidst the insults.
Anyway, what evidence is that? People who have schizophrenia are like people who have schizophrenia. They're crazy.
Don't anyone take this guys opinion as fact, not when you're dealing with your body. Better safe than sorry.
Sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry, but sometimes the risk is so remote that it doesn't make sense to worry about it.... If everyone took your approach, then Ken Kesey would never have written One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Kary Mullis might not have won the Nobel Prize, Francis Crick might not have discovered the helical structure of DNA, and some of the greatest music the world has known would not exist today.
Better Safe Than Sorry does not apply to everything, but it works here; and when handling guns, don't point them at your face, even when you think their empty; or when you think of taking that mystery substance off the street that some slashdot idiot told you to eat. The fact that you're comparing LSD use with writing music or winning a Nobel Prize is just ridiculous.
Just about everyone has 'mental illness' in their family. And the likelihood of a negative experience on LSD is much higher than you suggest. Negative experiences are dose related too. They can last hours or decades.
Young people are not wise enough to distinguish between your bullshit and true scientific data, so stop being so stupid an irresponsible. You obviously don't have any authority to be giving such advice on the topic, outside of being a druggie and an idiot.
I've only met 3 individuals whom I've witnessed really bizarre behavior from after they took psychedelic drugs. [...]
While I don't doubt that a bad trip on acid can be the springboard for schizophrenia, these are usually cases where the individual is already predisposed towards mental illness, and the acid simply triggers it by inducing a traumatic experience. [...]
I have simply known too many people who have done acid or similar hallucinogens and have never exhibited any psychotic behavior to believe that LSD can cause schizophrenia. In fact, I don't think that LSD plays much of a role in the etiology of schizophrenia or any other mental illness.
Oh really, Mr. Doctor Scientist, thanks for your superior scientific analysis. Where did you get your degree again, the school of "I used drugs."? And what's your clinical experience, Drug use and your brother? What controls did you use, yourself? Has anyone examined you for your strange psychotic novelty-seeking obsession with drugs, or did you just diagnose yourself as normal?
It doesn't matter that these individuals, "may have been prone to bad trips?" LSD causes mental illness?
Don't try to blame away.
Don't anyone take this guys opinion as fact, not when you're dealing with your body. Better safe than sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
"A simple chip added to water could prevent retail theft. According to the AP article at MSNBC, the chip would be activated at the register to make previously dark water clear, and therefore drinkable. Could this help to stem the tide of the approximate 400 million dollars in losses from brick and water stores? Sparkling water could also be protected this way too. Could this help to bring the prices down on inflated water prices?"
Be careful when you're giving people medical advice like that. I used to give out advice like this, until I realized that people have adverse reactions to everything. I've tried to take 100% daily vitamin D, but I keep getting serious arthritis. What makes you 100% sure what you're doing is totally okay, for you, or anyone for that matter?
It's one thing to tell people to try it, check with your doctor, see if it works for you, but you're telling people it's okay to take 1000%. You're talking about D3, a completely active, fat-soluble vitamin/hormone, that gets stored in your fat, and hence, not easily eliminated from the body after toxicity symptoms occur; which immediately mobilizes minerals into the blood stream and tissues, which can accumulate and mineralize and calcify in said tissues, causing blood clotting, calcium on the brain, and so on.. and you just think that's totally okay, taking 1000% of it every day?
And what happens 10 years from now, when they discover that it was NOT supplementation that helped, in fact, supplementation actually harmed peoples' kidneys hearts and joints?
Don't jump so far onto the bandwagon. That's crazy.
I often wonder if it unhealthy to eat a large variety of foods... I wonder if our bodies can handle a constantly varying diet, and would prefer a healthy, but simple/consistent diet.
What I think is you're wrong. A varied diet is the best. You get exposed to a variety of vitamins, nutrients and chemicals.
They actually have bred fruit flies on rice or single foods, and they do adapt, through natural (artificial) selection to the food.
But what does that tell you? Species have to die to adapt, and the end result is not the optimum state for the species, unless the species would be expected to experience related famines periodically. Otherwise, species thrive on ample supplies of food.
No. It doesn't shatter them. It damages them. If it damages one side, the cell can repair it by looking at the other, but if it damages both parallel acids (be it TGA or C), it can cause a permanent change. But that change has to happen at exactly the right spot to become cancer. Theoretically. Off the top of my head, from old text books.
The name of this new legislation will be the PMCA.
I think Opera 6 introduced multi instance MDI. Why people call this TRUE tabs is beyond me. Anyway, you can get multi instance with previous versions of Opera by opening in a hex editor and changing one Byte. Search for "Opera Create" and change the 'O' to a unique name for each instance. You also have to have different install directories and ensure the opera.ini points to separate install folders, otherwise you have conflicts.
Making a program multi instance is simply that arbitrary, a check box in a wizard, and it's ridiculous that people attack Opera for not being a TRUE tabbed browser over such idiotic things as this.
Oh, I just installed Opera 3 and I don't see tabs. Opera 4 has them.
Call them what you like. If you have windows, overlapping, and you can switch between them, with tiny titled labels, then you're talking about TABS. Microsoft invented tabs in Windows 95. It's called the Task Bar. Along with all the property windows. Oh, but I guess they didn't invent bookmarks, because they called them favorites. Shoot.
MDI is not the antithesis of Tabs. Just because you don't call something tabs, or promote as such, does not mean your browser is not tabbed.
Nevertheless, based on a quick install, it does look like Opera 3 doesn't have Tabs, but you [Ctrl] + [Tab] the windows. I must have confused v4 with v3. But you're still making bad arguments:
"Opera wasn't the first browser with tabs.. I mean TRUE tabs... It was just MDI.. I mean, they didn't seem like tabs to me, and no one called them tabs, or promoted as such.
Mistakes: Opera was a browser with tabs in v4. MDI can have tabs. They don't need to be called or promoted as tabs to be tabs. TRUE tabs is loading the dice. You should really never argue with someone who says TRUE ANYTHING, as it'll probably go nowhere.
Speed, coke, and heroin were quite accessible years ago, and once thought to be okay. They were touted as panaceas, much like weed today. Soldiers were given drugs to ward off fatigue. Truckers and college students would use speed to stay alert. But addiction became a Huge problem, which lead to prohibitions. It's not a Big Conspiracy.Yeah, that's a great idea, considering that people die every day, with AA. And then there's the fact that anyone can have too much to drink, and drive impaired. AA only represents a small fraction of alcoholics. The majority of addicts are delusional about - and impaired by - their substance abuse.Addiction has a high recidivism rate. The vast majority of smokers CAN'T quit. There is an negative impact on society who pays for smoker' medical bills, and the friends and family who have to be exposed to, or take care of they're smoking-induced stroke- or cancer-victim parents, and later themselves.It's not easy getting animals to stoke.
Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer
"Self-administration of drugs by animals, long considered a model of human drug-seeking behavior, is characteristic of virtually all addictive and abused drugs.
See: Tolerance and dependence.Sometimes people try to defend their position by crying about discrimination. Like you. Other times they can think of the right thing to say: Just because the idiot majority believes marijuana is harmless doesn't mean they're right.
Belladonna is a plant too. It doesn't change the fact that it's deadly. Opium and Coca are plants too. That doesn't make them harmless. Drug abuse and addiction harms not just individuals, but entire families, and the rest of society.
Beer and (another addictive, carcinogenic plant:) tobacco are not safer. They should be restricted More, and that's gradually happening to smokers, worldwide.
Just what are you suggesting we do about the problem with drug abuse and addiction?
Another reason women are a good Linux analogy is lack of direction. And boobs.
Note, he said CD's. Red Book Audio uses less ECC, and uses pop-smoothing recovery that averages. I always find problems with audio CDs. Then there's Green Book for data/multimedia which is less reliable too, and I think most software uses Green Book.
However, Yellow Book CD-ROM is the most reliable. Maybe his CD burning software is using Green Book for multi media, with less ECC. Make sure your software is burning Mode 1, Yellow Book CD-ROM. I remember CDRWIN will show the tracks as yellow or green, mode1 or 2.
Unlike the thin exposed top layer on CDR's, DVD+R's are much better, as the data layer is sandwich on both sides by a thick plastic, and probably uses better ECC, but I've not researched DVD ECC.
I'd conclude DVD R's are the way to go right now. With a plextor drive, to read through scratches better.
If people could choose what they pay taxes for, social security and welfare would go right out the window, then we'd have a big problem with all the sick and disabled people dying in the streets. Charity workers don't make up for the difference.
No. IE doesn't override CSS. It cascades it. Better yet, use Opera, User CSS and Shift + G.
I personally don't like the new CSS slashdot, as it fails in version 5 era browsers due to height:%100 usage, and is bigger than the previous PDA version. This would drive anyone away. It hasn't been fixed. My User CSS has solved the height problem(, which causes black text on black background, and large vertical gaps between teal boxes).
Non-hex letter escapes solves this probably in all v5 browsers: {h\eight:100%}.
Google has purchased the Googleheimer Googlesphere to further Googlize the Googlenet into a Googlable Googlben. Google's googlies and googlans are gabbling to Googlize Googillion Googlepoo Googies, for the Goodness of the Googlopolis.
A spokesperson for MSN was Googled as saying: "Oh, crap."
It's Saturday morning and I'm sitting here in a towel, and I'm peaked. Would you like a peek?
I moved it only by using my brain power. Thanks, science.
I know someone who says he has Asperger's. He's very cold, callous, and he'll say, "That's my other line. Goodbye." and to people who bore him, "I don't even like you as a person. Don't call me again."
Or, "What part of 'I don't want to talk about this' are you not getting?"
Or, "This conversation bores me, change the subject."
I could go on and on.
I've had a suspicion he really is just a narcissistic sociopath. But, if this is Asperger's, then I can't see that he'd care what others are feeling, even with an emotional vibrator sidekick, because he has only empathy for himself, and not others.
Can someone tell me is that normal with Asperger's? Another friend told me that he's just a bitch because he knows someone with Asperger's who's really a nice guy. I've been told I might have it, and I'm nothing like this.
If they want to stop violence, they should investigate religion. Religion seems to derange lots of people. Most of the violent criminals are bible thumpers in prison. And then we have riots and killing over cartoons.
This is just wrong. If they have to decide if fun things make us violent, are they going to investigate football and sports? I don't think the CDC should be telling us how to have fun. It's always people who don't play or understand video games that get all upset about them.
Saying that video games cause violence is like saying that sugar causes diabetes.. which, by the way, more people die from every year. Maybe they should research diabetes.
I'm pretty sure that a world filled with kittens and rainbows will still have violence. It also would be gay.
It's early for brilliance. Bye.
I would not put back doors in vista, not even for less than ten-million dollars.
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does imply or suggest causation though. To get close to the cause of something, you first must have a correlation, but then you have to rule out other explanations through experimentation. You can apply Ockham's razor to arrive at the more plausible explanation, and test that first.
I think it's stupid that people blame games for violence, but even if they do cause an increase in violence, I'm not sure they should be regulated. I think sports promote violence, there is a correlation at least, but no one says children shouldn't play sports.
Can you use it to make small paper swans?
No, but small swine can use it to make papers for the internets as PR stunt.
I have to get empirical evidence, but you can rely on garbage evidence, which consists of you hanging out with a bunch of hippies, who by definition, are successful drug users, and you didn't find any that hate drugs? What a shock.
You obviously don't understand how drug testing works. I don't have to prove to you that it's unsafe. You, and drug companies, have to prove that a drug is safe.
Oh, and you link to some drug fanatic bringing up questions about other studies that link LSD to mental illness, and you jumped to the conclusion LSD doesn't cause mental illness. Bullshit. The evidence doesn't suggest that.1.) There is no similarity to Charles Whitman here at all.
2.) That's just a correlation. We also have a correlation to drug use and disorders that are listed in the DSM-IV, such as HPPD, depersonalization, and psychosis. LSD triggers or induces psychosis in apparently healthy people. That's all we need to know. You can explain that away however you like, but the evidence you're presenting is just a bunch of extreme skepticism, because you're in love with LSD. You're listening to what you want to hear. And let me just tell you that those points you find so persuasive are actually not. I don't have all day to explain it to you. Maybe read the post above for more points, amidst the insults.
Anyway, what evidence is that? People who have schizophrenia are like people who have schizophrenia. They're crazy. Better Safe Than Sorry does not apply to everything, but it works here; and when handling guns, don't point them at your face, even when you think their empty; or when you think of taking that mystery substance off the street that some slashdot idiot told you to eat. The fact that you're comparing LSD use with writing music or winning a Nobel Prize is just ridiculous.
Just about everyone has 'mental illness' in their family. And the likelihood of a negative experience on LSD is much higher than you suggest. Negative experiences are dose related too. They can last hours or decades.
Young people are not wise enough to distinguish between your bullshit and true scientific data, so stop being so stupid an irresponsible. You obviously don't have any authority to be giving such advice on the topic, outside of being a druggie and an idiot.
It doesn't matter that these individuals, "may have been prone to bad trips?" LSD causes mental illness?
Don't try to blame away.
Don't anyone take this guys opinion as fact, not when you're dealing with your body. Better safe than sorry.
Here are the lawyers that are suing Craig: http://www.clccrul.org/list.htm
Oh my god, they're all white! Let's sue them.
Anyone know a good lawyer? I here the Chicago Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights are good at discrimination cases.