While listening to lectures, I generally take extensive notes to keep my mind on the lecture topic and attention on the lecturer. Something like this would just be too distracting.
Then don't do it. But for many people, this is a great way to resolve questions without bugging the speaker and to generally enhance the presentation.
And really, like people are only going to chat about the lecture. Everybody I knew with a laptop in class was playing Quake.
This was probably only the case for mandatory-attendance classes. I've always felt that mandatory attendance in college is ridiculous. If the student can get a good grade in a class they don't attend, there's no reason for them to go. And if the prof does make them go, don't be surprised if they play Quake. I never did that in college, because if I wasn't getting anything out of the lectures, I didn't go.
Well the problem is, you won't see a compelling reason why not to believe the mainstream research, unless you go out and look for it. Also, you are not putting your chances in the "bulk of all dietetic research to date." You are putting your chances on the bulk of dietetic research that these organizations have allowed you to hear.
That's always true, but for those quantities to be different then there should be some significant corruption and bias. I go with independent organizations with a proven track record...like the AMA. Sure, I don't trust the FDA at all, and don't trust the AHA too much now - your article was informative for that at least. But your article actually took the AMA as near gospel, for what its worth. Therefore, I assume that what's reported in JAMA and Lancet are representative of the good research being done. You seem to distrust all authorities, and believe implicitly anyone who disagrees with them, and I think that's a bit dangerous.
I understand why you see any discrediting of the JAMA or various widely trusted medical journals as a conspiracy theory. It's hard to distrust something so many people take as scientific fact. But just because something appears in a medical journal does not make it true. Likewise, just because something is not in a medical journal, doesn't mean it's false.
No, but if it's something reported about medicine and it's *not* in a medical journal, then it raises the barrier of believability. Such as, who the hell wrote this? Why did they write it? Why can't they get published through normal routes? Do they have any credentials? Are they bought off? See, there are a lot of reasons not to believe any jackass publishing himself. So if some no-name group goes against the AMA, I'll probably believe the AMA unless I have a damned good reason not to.
I agree, not every authority is tainted. And I understand your skepticism in what sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. But at the same time, don't dismiss it just because it goes against the mainstream. Check out this article. Industry has a lot of power in this country.
Trust me, I know, but this amounts to a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" argument. You need to form reasoned opinions about which organizations are tainted. EPA and FCC are my current favorites. FDA isn't too far behind. I don't trust a damned thing those asshats tell me. But AMA is another story, as they aren't government, and I've never seen instances of significant bias from them.
Also, your article itself (the first part) has some serious scientific flaws. Most of those studies have nonexistent or flawed control setups, making comparisons very difficult. It sounds like the study from the 30's that results in the current RDA intake for sodium - some researcher found that a group of pacific islanders had virtually no salt intake, and no heart disease. However, they also ate tons of "good" oils and fish. Conclusion? Salt causes heart disease. And the "studies" in your paper are all pretty similar - overreaching conclusions. It also claims that humans have historicall eaten a lot of meat and eggs, which is completely false - that's only been the case for the last few hundred years since such things have ceased being a luxury. That much meat is not something we've evolved around.
So ultimately, trans-fatty acids are bad, but saturated is too. It's sticky, hard to break down, and ends up finding your arterial walls. I'd avoid ingesting too much of it.
If you do cardiovascular exercise while doing this ketone crap you'll be lucky if you don't pass out. Bodybuilders do a lot of unhealthy things to get where they do - steroids come to mind.
For god's sake, nothing's wrong with a little blood sugar. In fact, if you keep your blood sugar from crashing in the first place, you won't even have to worry about your body burning muscle when dieting. If that happens, it's a sign you are dieting too hard. Back off a bit. For a bodybuilder, the best way to not lose muscle while dieting is to diet slowly. Use some patience and you won't have a problem with that. 1 pound per week would be a good target. But there's no reason to put your body through that ketone stuff, as you'll go through hypoglycemic shock if you're not lucky.
Bottom line is your body is not meant to operate this way, and there's no reason to make it. And by the way, acetone is the main component of nail polish remover.
People who have no idea about exercise or conditiong continue to try to give me "advice" while eating ice cream and sporting 45% bodyfat.
Mine's about 10-12%. I've had it around 7% before. Could be lower except my wife doesn't like it when I get too skinny. You can get where you want to be quite easily using a very healthy, yet non-extreme diet. And you get there without getting the shakes and lightheadedness that come with too low blood sugar. And I'm guessing you know what I'm talking about, whether you choose to admit it or not.
I'm asking you to make up your mind for yourself, rather than being convinced something is true because the AMA says it's true. Do a little research. There are a lot of studies (ones that don't receive their funding from the food industry) that show our whole America idea of health is wrong.
Unless you actually do the studies, you're taking someone's word for it too. As it happens, you choose to believe more counterculture, non-recognized "authorities" because you prefer to. However, I'd rather put my chances on the bulk of all dietetic research done to date, rather than believe the exact opposite just to do so. Good medical research (such as that in Lancet, a British journal, or JAMA) I will belivee with skepticism until I see a compelling reason why not. And some unfunded, unrecognized group saying what I want to hear doesn't count.
The problem with trusting the AMA is that it is a government organization which receives a lot of its funding from the food industry.
You have anything to back that up? First, the AMA isn't even a governmental organization. Second, it receives its funding (I believe) principally from its members who are doctors. For what it's worth, they are currently opposing direct drug advertising on TV, going against the pharm industry, and if they fight the drug indistry I see no reason why they wouldn't fight the food indistry, which they have done in the past. So the conspiracy theory dies. Finally, even governmental funding agencies rarely show any sort of deference to the government, or interest groups. See NIH and NSF.
Bottom line is you're trying to discredit several large medical and dietetic organizations (like the AMA) by saying they're government funded, while they're not. Then you want me to believe the word of some group no one's ever even heard of? What are their credentials? Where have they published? I want to see real research I can evaluate on my own, not ridiculous claims.
The AMA has a similar situation with the food industry. And before disagreeing with me, check it out yourself.
Please feel free to provide me with information as I have been unable to find any to support your claim.
And no, the bottom line is not that margerine and animal fat are 100% fat. Margerine contains bad fat (hydrogenated, trans fats). Animal fat does not (saturated is not bad)
First, yes, oil is 100% fat, whether it be animal or vegetable - check the label if you don't believe me. Second, yes, saturated fat is pretty bad when it's above 10% of total daily calories. Admittedly trans-fat is damned bad also, but it doesn't suddenly make saturated good simply by comparison. I'd prefer non-trans polyunsaturated (like from olive oil). Also, I'd like to see anything to the contrary claimed by an independent medical group.
Ultimately, you seem to have some issues with perceived conspiracies. I see the occasional conspiracy in places too, but it doesn't mean that every recognized authority is tainted and that everything they say is a lie. It doesn't mean that I should believe the opposite just to do so.
Yes, but differently. Fruits, especially if cooked (or juice) are instantly absorbed. Veggies, on the other hand, if they aren't cooked, don't go so quickly. So I restricted intake of fruits (except for some daily OJ for calcium - I hate milk), and tried to eat a lot of raw veggies (which I prefer anyway).
The FSF response to the SCO lawsuit was written by Eben Moglen. Also, after you get past the "It's GNU/Linux", they open up a barrage of incredible logic and common-sense, making the over-all release a good read.
It's incorrect to a degree, however interesting it may be. FSF forgot to consider how harms are evaluated in a trade-secret case. The fact that SCO distributed linux isn't relevant to that (though it is relevant to SCO's copyright attack on linux users). They could make a strong case that their trade-secret code was made non-secret when it was committed to the linux CVS tree, which one would presume occurred before they distributed it through linux.
Therefore, IBM would be at fault for making SCO's information public. By releasing linux, SCO would simply be re-releasing information that was, by that point, no longer secret. It doesn't at all kill their case against IBM from a trade secret stance.
I do the "whatever my wife feels like cooking" version of Atkins... more fish than pork. I do try to avoid saturated/trans fat when I can. I love avocados and mac nuts, which are both good in that regard.
That's not so bad then - but realize that most people aren't like you.;) So how many carbs *do* you get?
As for being a guinea pig - sorry pal, whatever you do, you're taking someone's word for it. The human metabolism is just not fully understood yet by anyone.
To a degree, but that's not to say that my new diet of dirt and sewage should be considered no less safe than a balanced "pyramid" diet simply because we don't fully understand the human metabolism. From an evolutionary standpoint, we might consider it a good idea to eat what we evolved around, and I can assure you that, while it isn't much processed carbs, it also isn't that much non-fish meat. Fruits, nuts, vegatables, and a little meat is the historical hominid diet, so from that standpoint it is likely the healthiest.
I have the feeling that if we actually compared diets, they aren't that much different. This is starting to occur to me.;) No simple sugars and little red meat.
As for the literature, I'll check it out and get back at ya.
You get acess to a 1000 users netowrk password file. Recovering all paswords will take you 9 days instead of 70, giving you a large advantage over the network security reaction.
I'll buy that certainly for situations where you want to 0wnz0r every account, but usually you only need one priveleged one. From there, everything's candy.
Besides, before that you could only crack into your evil co-worker station when he was away for a cup of coffe. Now it is enough for him to be distracted by the hot boss assistant's legs...
The who....mmmmm...leggggs....ah shit, somebody h4X0r3d my box!;) Seriously, as I understand it though, all you do at the local machine is get the hashes - which takes a fixed amount of time. The processing time is all on your own machine. And as I said, unless I want every account on the machine, I'll surf the net for the extra 90 seconds or whatever while that shit's a-crackin'.
I mean, I appreciate them saving me the extra 90 seconds and all,thanx guys, but I'm much more afraid that it takes anywhere as short as 2 minutes in the first place, ya know? I'd feel better with, say, months. To me, the most relevant thing about this is the nice web page the put up where they'll crack windows hashes for you. Very considerate, guys.;)
I'll try to find you the article if you want to read it, it came across Newshub a few months ago.
Sure, I'll read anything.
If you have any studies which argue your point about Atkins not being good long-term, I'd like to read them.
I'll see if I can find them, but bottom line is the version of the Atkins generally considered in the studies is a more moderate version that involved reduction of simple sugars, moderate increase in protein and perhaps some fat as well. The difference is that many people are using a diet devoid of carbs (which are necessary for general health), too high in protein (hard on the kidneys), and too high in saturated fat (very bad for the heart).
So basically, which version of Atkins are you doing - the one where you eat a ton of fish (high in protein and the best possible fats) or the one where you eat a ton of steak (high in protein, yes, but also in the worst conceivable form of fat)? Makes a hell of a difference. So it's not really possible to talk about Atkins as a whole, because that doesn't exist - but I'm going to go ahead and assume that most people are on the "steak and pork chop" version of it, and that's not good.
Also, it's hard to do long-term studies on Atkins because it's too new. However, I'd rather not be the guinea pig, I dunno about you.
Here's the nutritional content of McDonalds Super Size French Fries: 176g, calories 540, calories from fat 230, fat 26g, carbohydrates 68g, protein 8g. This means 272 calories from carbs and 32 from protein.
I call something that gets near 50% of its calories from fat far too high. Also, realize that the fries have the least fat of anything in the meal, and that's a bit of a sobering thought.
I don't put any stock in the argument that calories are what count.
You can put stock in whatever you want, but it's scientific fact. Of course, I agree that the second part is you eat what keeps you from eating again 10 minutes later. We both agree that this eliminates simple carbs from a diet. However, this doesn't mean that taking the most extreme solution that keeps you full is a great idea. There are other possibilities.
Look - on Atkins I eat as much as I want. I don't know how many calories I eat. And I lose weight. When I'm not on Atkins, I eat as much as I want, and I gain weight.
That's not a fair comparison, because you only considered two diets - Atkins and the crappy one you tried previously. My alternative worked great - I lost weight, I wasn't hungry, and I ate smaller portions of the really horrible things I like. But I still got them. So I was still pretty happy.
I wouldn't call Atkins a fad diet. People use what works. I suggest you try your diet with no exercise, and see how well you do.
I did the opposite controls - I started excercising before I started dieting, and it didn't work. Also, I'm still exercising and I'm off the diet (mostly - I got to my target weight), and I'm no longer losing weight - but I'm not gaining either. While I was on the diet, I had not yet leveled off on my weight loss - it was still coming off. That should be enough to prove that the diet I used worked.
Here's the thing - I agree that getting rid of simple sugars is essential (the first thing I did was get rid of Coke; I was on about 4-5 a day). And I agree that protein is a great thing in moderation - one of my favorite snacks is now lean beef jerky. So if you look at it that way, I believe in the moderate version of the Atkins sort of stuff, like no simple carbs and some more protein. But the high-fat part is flat-out dangerous, and needless. You can easily lose weight without the risk, and also without being hungry. There are great high-protein low-fat sources available, so there's no reason not to.
By the way, you did hear that Atkins had a heart attack, right? Just wondering. Because even if your diet works (and I'm not contending 100% that it doesn't - like you said, you lost weight), it's not good at all long-term.
What they got was a power of ten increase (roughly). This is a significant improvement because it is not simply incremental.
That's like the MHz myth - if the increment isn't really perceivable, then it doesn't matter. Like, say, how I couldn't tell the difference between a 3 GHz computer and a 2000000GHz computer - similarly, it also won't matter much whether I crack passwords in 13 seconds or 100, as it will take me a lot longer than that to get the hashes. Here, the factor of 10 is pretty much irrelevant in practice.
It might matter if they somehow made the password hashes longer or something, as then the analysis you make would take effect - 1 hour vs. 8 hours, etc. But over such short time intervals, no way. Bottom line is 100 seconds is so short, you're already screwed.
Just wondering, but is there any reason why it's so easy to get the hashes? I might recommend shadowing the password file...oh, wrong OS.;)
Fried foods are not intrinsically bad because they are fried. These days almost all frying is done in vegetable oils, which are good for you.
I'm not going after the heart disease angle as much as the caloric angle. You are right in general that veggie oils are better than animal - however, I would very much recommend you look further, as all veggie oils *are not* created equal. Some of them are actually downright bad (see palm oil) while others are very good for your heart (see olive oil). I would guess that palm oil isn't as bad as a handfull of crisco, but it isn't good either.
The two problems with "fried foods" are that the bulk of fast food is carbs
That's flat *not true* - I'm sick of saying this so I looked up the numbers from McDonalds. Result? That demon of carbs, the large fries, actually has 43% of its calories from fat. The quarter pounder gets 51% of its from fat. This amounts to over 1000 calories total, and that ain't good. The preakdown for such a meal is 40% calories from carbs (exactly what it should be) and 47% from fat (far too high) and 13% from protein (actually far too low). So, I would say the problem with fast food is that, while the carbs are OK, the fat is too high and protein too low. Naturally, if the idiot gets a big gulp Coke with it, this would change, but remember neither of us is advocating that. For reference, recommended values for fat are under 30%. (30% protein and 40% from preferably non-sugary carbs round that out).
frying at too high a temperature transforms some oil parts into carcinogens.
Well, yeah, but that's not making you fat, it's just going to kill you.;)
Perhaps that is your problem. Don't believe everything the AMA tells you.
I'll take my chances with AMA above rogue, discredited doctors with no credibility who write books, eh? Otherwise this is convincing yourself of something you want to believe, and that's not particularly rational. There are maybe 5 doctors in the country who haven't been bought who believe the Atkins stuff in its extreme. The research that supports a higher protein diet doesn't advocate the fat consumption that goes with Atkins.
If such a diet of animal fats caused heart disease, why is it that heart disease in America began to increase during the time when the food industry decided to start pushing margerine and processed vegetable oils?
Two things there: First, consumption of animal fat also picked up over that period (ie, 60's to today). Second, processed vegetable oils are dead fatal, containing lots of trans-fatty acids. In general, avoid anything hydrogenated. That's my advice. For what it's worth, the AMA (I believe it was them) fought for labeling of foods with trans-fat labels. But bottom line, both margerine and animal fat are 100% fat. And a diet high in either isn't good.
The food industry stands a lot to gain from convincing you that their processed foods are better for you than foods straight from a farmer.
First, that's the food industry, not the medical community - I reasonably trust AMA, not the food industry. Second, farmers are a big part of the food industry (see "Beef - it's what's for dinner"). Third, we don't eat food "straight from a farmer" even if that's where we get it, as cooking is processing. Not trying to split hairs, just trying to point out that a great deal of the damage we do to food in terms of its nutritive value etc. we do in the kitchen.
But you are of course correct, don't trust the food industry, as they've fought labeling every step of the way, from the outset.
Uh, take it from someone with diabetes: complex carbs are no different than any other carbs. They all digest almost instantly.
Then honestly, you aren't eating the right carbs. If I eat a cracker, it dissolves on my tongue. If I put a piece of whole-grain bread on my tongue, it does not. I'm not diabetic, but I get the shakes pretty bad when I get hungry, and simple sugar is the best hit - whole grain breads don't work. Moral: *nothing* gets your blood sugar up like, well, sugar. Certainly not complex carbs.
The whole point that everyone is bitching about here can be summed up on one sentence: don't forget to cut back on carbs when you diet, as people often think that cutting only fat will make them lose weight.
Well yeah, if you unbalance your diet you're going to be screwed. However, for a lot of the people posting in this thread, their "diet" consists of pork chops and eggs. First-class ticket to a coronary. Bottom line is a diet that consists of 60% of calories from fat is not safe. And I've yet to hear any medical institution (like, say, JAMA) state otherwise.
Fried foods are high-carb. That's why people who eat lots of fries get fat. Fried meats have breading which is in turn high-carb
That's flat out bullshit. Look at the nutritional value on a pack of McD's fries sometime. Though it's a potato product, the bulk of the calories are fat.
I've been doing Atkins for about 2 years now. I lost 40 pounds pretty quickly and have kept it off. *I* can guarantee *you* that if you eat a pound of carbs (bread for example), and I eat a pound of fat (macadamia nuts), I will lose weight while you gain it.
No, that's NOT TRUE. You honestly need to learn how to read a nutritional label. Even the Atkins people admit that carbs only pack on weight because you eat 4x as many. Eat complex carbs instead of simple sugars and you won't do that, and you'll lose weight. Fat has MORE calories, per mass, than carbs, and I don't care what diet you use. That's science, and it's unavoidable. 9cal/g for fat, 4cal/g for carbs.
I wonder: are you fit? Before Atkins I did low-fat dieting, and had very little luck, because I was always hungry.
Quite fit - I'm 5'9" and 150lbs. Body fat is low, and would be lower if my wife didn't make me keep a bit of pudge.;) I lost 30 lbs in 100 days after Christmas, and I did it with exactly the diet I described - 40% complex carbs, 30% fat, 30% protein. And, as we will both agree I'm sure, I avoided simple sugary carbs like the plague. I used beef jerky as a snack, as it's high in protein (sticks to you) and is 98% fat free. I was almost never hungry, and I lost weight rather easily (I also started running about 12 miles/week).
There have been diet fads roughly once every 3 years for decades. The only one that people come back to is a balanced diet low in calories, with complex carbs instead of sugars to avoid the sugar spikes. Works like a charm.
You are wrong in assuming calories equal calories. You have to consider the hormonal and metabolic implications of different macronutrients.
What the hell is a macronutrient? I want to see some literature to back this stuff up. I have never heard a reputable, scientifically-trained nutritionist spout this Atkins crap. So really, let's see some real evidence.
The light-headedness only last a few days. After that you should be burning Ketones
Do you know what a ketone is? I'm a chemist. I do. And you don't burn them. For reference, nail polish remover contains the two most common ketones. Want to eat some? Thought not.
Bottom line, this is exactly what I predicted - the bulk of this Atkins stuff is coming from people with no scientific or real nutritional training. No offense. Screwing with your diet like this is dangerous. Stick with a balanced diet, watch out for the simple carbs, and you'll be fine.
No offense, but you're way off on the carb stuff..
And lay off the carbohydrates too. This might start a flame war (Atkins diet arguments and such.) You should lay of the bread, chips, orange juice, and other things that have a lot of carbs. This stuff gets absorbed by your body and makes you fat.
Yes, excess carbs do get turned to fat. However, so do excess protein and excess fat. The difference is that carbs and protein are 4 cal/gram, while fat is 9 cal/gram. You do the math.
Actual fat is more or less just passing through and makes it into the toilet with your centrum multivitamin.
Don't know who told you that but they didn't know what they were talking about. Fat is readily absorbed. Notice how people who eat a lot of fried food get fat? That's right. Fat makes you fat. Shocking, I know, but it's true. The only way fat isn't completely absorbed is to eat a ton of it really quickly. The problem is that 1) your body is then absorbing fat as fast as it possibly can, which is enough to make you morbidly obese, and 2) any fat in your poo gives you nasty diarrhea, which I'm assuming isn't an attractive solution. Otherwise, pretty much all fat is absorbed.
Cutting back on the carbohydrates and stepping up on the exercise is really what makes the difference.
Excercise is of course good - particularly intensive cardio, as the longer it takes you to get your heart rate back to normal after excercise, the more calories you burn. Additionally, doing a lot of frequent cardio can raise your metabolism. Think of it as excercising when you aren't excercising. Good deal, eh?
Regarding the carbs fiasco - I guarantee you, if I eat 1 pound of carbs, and you eat 1 pound of fat, you will put on twice the weight as you consume (more than) twice the calories. The mitigating factor is that simple carbs are broken down much faster. Put a cracker in your mouth, and within seconds it tastes sweet - because it's broken down into simple sugar before it even hits your stomach, and simple sugar is readily absorbed like nothing else.
That is bad because eating a lot of simple carbs spikes your blood sugar, causing your body to release a ton of insulin. However, because it was a short-term sugar spike, you now have too much insulin, causing blood sugar to plummet. At the same time, your stomach has emptied, making you really hungry. That's why simple carbs are bad.
So what to do? To lose weight, you have to eat fewer calories than you use, of course. Naturally, that means regulating your blood sugar and keeping yourself non-hungry with the least calories possible. A nearly all-fat diet is bad because, while you're satisfied (fat digests slowly), you also consume massive amounts of calories. Simple carbs are the opposite - each binge is small, but you're hungry every 10 minutes. The best recommendation is a good amount of protein, complex carbs, and a diet with 30% of calories from fat. That way, you don't eat too often, and you don't get 2000 calories/meal, either.
Complex carbs are things like whole grains and such. So brown, whole-grain bread is good. If you like pasta and rice, again get the whole-grain stuff, and cook it less time than usual - cooking carbs in water breaks them down, effectively digesting them. The more they digest in the pot, the quicker they are absorbed in your body.
Bottom line is the Atkins diet is dangerous, containing way too much saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories from fat, and too much protein can be bad on the kidneys. Eat a balanced diet low in simple carbs, substituting complex carbs instead, and you'll do well.
If this hack's complaints are in any way a reflection of what the majority of end-users think after using Google, I have no doubt that MS are hard at work finding ways of delivering "solutions" to those "problems".
Wow, is that a relief!;) Nice point though about how MS is trying to spin their sellout as a feature. I want books, you give me amazon. I want keyword-specific info and you give me someone who (I'm assuming) pays for the privelege.
Um...no thanks MSN. I'm sticking with google unless they sell out.
You ever see a lawyer use Webster's dictionary in court? No? Maybe there's a reason. It's because words have extremely specific meanings in law.
However, since you asked, this is neither as SCO has actually not approached any specific party. They've said that any customers of theirs won't be sued by them. However, they've not approached anyone saying "Buy this or we'll sue your ass."
Also, your definition includes "unlawful," making things a bit circular. You've shown nothing that suggests that what they're doing isn't completely legal. If you believe it is, suggest some case law.
Too many commercial sites - True, and I wouldn't be surprised if google didn't allow an option soon to limit sales sites. It's feasible, and they often rise to this sort of challenge (like they did with the blog horde).
Synonym problems - This is certainly not something MSN will help with. This is also easy to get around my a little massaging of the search engine - you just think of a word that would come up in the stuff you want to see and not the other. For the retarded, perhaps Google could dynamically suggest categories after searching (kind of how they suggest misspellings).
No books for scholarly research - this is such a small use (though I am admittedly among them). Furthermore, it's not that great a problem if journals come up preferentially - if your research cites mostly books, that's a problem anyway, as it probably means your research is not current. But again, this is a problem for such a slight proportion of the population.
Bottom line is that google will fix any big problems - just think of how many things might have been on that list 3 years ago that they've already fixed. Put it this way - I have more faith in google to deliver a great search engine than I do MS any day.
Given this whole wireless thing, how difficult would it be to rig a device that just checks to see how many WozNet devices there are in the immediate area-- say, 10 feet-- and where they are? That way paranoids or children could just scan their cars/backpacks/whatever for WozNet trackers, and if they find one present, they can pinpoint its location for removal.
I was wondering that too - it won't be retarded easy simply because I assume it will operate on unlicensed bands along with, for example, your garage door opener. But assuming the device you built was smart, I could envision it decoding packets or something to see if it was a Woz device. That assumes you get it to send you a packet, which leads to...
However, I am pretty sure with RFID that there's no way an RFID could be designed such that it would have any choice but to broadcast its presence-- it just discharges energy collected from radio waves, so it seems like there's no way you could tag something with an RFID such that the purchaser would be unable to find the RFID just by sending out hellos on low-frequency radio, but the tagger can talk to the RFID by sending out a secret code or something. Right?
I'm not so sure, actually. The last thing you want is the confusion of seeing everyone else's Woz devices, so (of course) each will broadcast its unique ID. However, you also don't want just anyone to interrogate your Woz devices - so I bet you'd have to broadcast some sort of code, it processes the signal, recognizes it, pings back. I see a one way hash here, but I could be wrong.
But ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if these things are made to *not* respond to a general sweep, at least in part to make searching them out impossible.;)
However, seeing as SCOX has distributed, and does distribute, linux, frightening people who don't pay up for a license with legal action, even though they've been granted a boatload of rights under the GPL already is barratry. Barratry is not legal. Nor is extortion, what this amounts to.
That's not even close to the legal definition. "Barratry" gets thrown around a lot on slashdot, but have fun finding situations where it was actually used successfully. "Using a lawsuit to screw the little guy" doesn't meet the burden. In fact, it wouldn't work here because there haven't *been* any lawsuits, and if they don't win against IBM, there won't be. If they do win, then it won't be barratry because they'll have a very good case.
And you might believe that the whole GPL case makes this so obvious that the result is extortion, but until this gets decided they have the right to sell licenses to their IP, and it only makes sense to indemnify their customers. They have no relationship with non-customers, by definition, so no one is actually being extorted.
What they're not doing is going up to someone and saying "buy this now or we'll sue you." - even though that wouldn't even be blatant extortion if worded correctly. They're making an open offer to companies to buy their product and indemnification. That's nowhere near the legal requirement for extortion, and if you believe it is, I'd love to see some case history.
SCOX is obviously threatening whoever they think they can get away with threatening; a fishing expedition.
Gee, kind of like Microsoft's action through the BSA, huh? I never saw any barratry or extortion suits there, either. The problem is that, yes, you and I know that this is basically extortion, in the vernacular sense. Unfortunately, it's not legally, and it's not enough to qualify for barratry either. Check out the results of the DirecTV suit recently - that claim of extortion got nuked pretty quick. Bottom line is that what you seem to believe in terms of this case is not consistent with case law, though I would also love to see SCO get nailed.
Slashdot Mirror
Untenured junior faculty looking for press. That's who.
Then don't do it. But for many people, this is a great way to resolve questions without bugging the speaker and to generally enhance the presentation.
And really, like people are only going to chat about the lecture. Everybody I knew with a laptop in class was playing Quake.
This was probably only the case for mandatory-attendance classes. I've always felt that mandatory attendance in college is ridiculous. If the student can get a good grade in a class they don't attend, there's no reason for them to go. And if the prof does make them go, don't be surprised if they play Quake. I never did that in college, because if I wasn't getting anything out of the lectures, I didn't go.
That's always true, but for those quantities to be different then there should be some significant corruption and bias. I go with independent organizations with a proven track record...like the AMA. Sure, I don't trust the FDA at all, and don't trust the AHA too much now - your article was informative for that at least. But your article actually took the AMA as near gospel, for what its worth. Therefore, I assume that what's reported in JAMA and Lancet are representative of the good research being done. You seem to distrust all authorities, and believe implicitly anyone who disagrees with them, and I think that's a bit dangerous.
I understand why you see any discrediting of the JAMA or various widely trusted medical journals as a conspiracy theory. It's hard to distrust something so many people take as scientific fact. But just because something appears in a medical journal does not make it true. Likewise, just because something is not in a medical journal, doesn't mean it's false.
No, but if it's something reported about medicine and it's *not* in a medical journal, then it raises the barrier of believability. Such as, who the hell wrote this? Why did they write it? Why can't they get published through normal routes? Do they have any credentials? Are they bought off? See, there are a lot of reasons not to believe any jackass publishing himself. So if some no-name group goes against the AMA, I'll probably believe the AMA unless I have a damned good reason not to.
I agree, not every authority is tainted. And I understand your skepticism in what sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. But at the same time, don't dismiss it just because it goes against the mainstream. Check out this article. Industry has a lot of power in this country.
Trust me, I know, but this amounts to a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" argument. You need to form reasoned opinions about which organizations are tainted. EPA and FCC are my current favorites. FDA isn't too far behind. I don't trust a damned thing those asshats tell me. But AMA is another story, as they aren't government, and I've never seen instances of significant bias from them.
Also, your article itself (the first part) has some serious scientific flaws. Most of those studies have nonexistent or flawed control setups, making comparisons very difficult. It sounds like the study from the 30's that results in the current RDA intake for sodium - some researcher found that a group of pacific islanders had virtually no salt intake, and no heart disease. However, they also ate tons of "good" oils and fish. Conclusion? Salt causes heart disease. And the "studies" in your paper are all pretty similar - overreaching conclusions. It also claims that humans have historicall eaten a lot of meat and eggs, which is completely false - that's only been the case for the last few hundred years since such things have ceased being a luxury. That much meat is not something we've evolved around.
So ultimately, trans-fatty acids are bad, but saturated is too. It's sticky, hard to break down, and ends up finding your arterial walls. I'd avoid ingesting too much of it.
For god's sake, nothing's wrong with a little blood sugar. In fact, if you keep your blood sugar from crashing in the first place, you won't even have to worry about your body burning muscle when dieting. If that happens, it's a sign you are dieting too hard. Back off a bit. For a bodybuilder, the best way to not lose muscle while dieting is to diet slowly. Use some patience and you won't have a problem with that. 1 pound per week would be a good target. But there's no reason to put your body through that ketone stuff, as you'll go through hypoglycemic shock if you're not lucky.
Bottom line is your body is not meant to operate this way, and there's no reason to make it. And by the way, acetone is the main component of nail polish remover.
People who have no idea about exercise or conditiong continue to try to give me "advice" while eating ice cream and sporting 45% bodyfat.
Mine's about 10-12%. I've had it around 7% before. Could be lower except my wife doesn't like it when I get too skinny. You can get where you want to be quite easily using a very healthy, yet non-extreme diet. And you get there without getting the shakes and lightheadedness that come with too low blood sugar. And I'm guessing you know what I'm talking about, whether you choose to admit it or not.
Unless you actually do the studies, you're taking someone's word for it too. As it happens, you choose to believe more counterculture, non-recognized "authorities" because you prefer to. However, I'd rather put my chances on the bulk of all dietetic research done to date, rather than believe the exact opposite just to do so. Good medical research (such as that in Lancet, a British journal, or JAMA) I will belivee with skepticism until I see a compelling reason why not. And some unfunded, unrecognized group saying what I want to hear doesn't count.
The problem with trusting the AMA is that it is a government organization which receives a lot of its funding from the food industry.
You have anything to back that up? First, the AMA isn't even a governmental organization. Second, it receives its funding (I believe) principally from its members who are doctors. For what it's worth, they are currently opposing direct drug advertising on TV, going against the pharm industry, and if they fight the drug indistry I see no reason why they wouldn't fight the food indistry, which they have done in the past. So the conspiracy theory dies. Finally, even governmental funding agencies rarely show any sort of deference to the government, or interest groups. See NIH and NSF.
Bottom line is you're trying to discredit several large medical and dietetic organizations (like the AMA) by saying they're government funded, while they're not. Then you want me to believe the word of some group no one's ever even heard of? What are their credentials? Where have they published? I want to see real research I can evaluate on my own, not ridiculous claims.
The AMA has a similar situation with the food industry. And before disagreeing with me, check it out yourself.
Please feel free to provide me with information as I have been unable to find any to support your claim.
And no, the bottom line is not that margerine and animal fat are 100% fat. Margerine contains bad fat (hydrogenated, trans fats). Animal fat does not (saturated is not bad)
First, yes, oil is 100% fat, whether it be animal or vegetable - check the label if you don't believe me. Second, yes, saturated fat is pretty bad when it's above 10% of total daily calories. Admittedly trans-fat is damned bad also, but it doesn't suddenly make saturated good simply by comparison. I'd prefer non-trans polyunsaturated (like from olive oil). Also, I'd like to see anything to the contrary claimed by an independent medical group.
Ultimately, you seem to have some issues with perceived conspiracies. I see the occasional conspiracy in places too, but it doesn't mean that every recognized authority is tainted and that everything they say is a lie. It doesn't mean that I should believe the opposite just to do so.
Yes, but differently. Fruits, especially if cooked (or juice) are instantly absorbed. Veggies, on the other hand, if they aren't cooked, don't go so quickly. So I restricted intake of fruits (except for some daily OJ for calcium - I hate milk), and tried to eat a lot of raw veggies (which I prefer anyway).
It's incorrect to a degree, however interesting it may be. FSF forgot to consider how harms are evaluated in a trade-secret case. The fact that SCO distributed linux isn't relevant to that (though it is relevant to SCO's copyright attack on linux users). They could make a strong case that their trade-secret code was made non-secret when it was committed to the linux CVS tree, which one would presume occurred before they distributed it through linux.
Therefore, IBM would be at fault for making SCO's information public. By releasing linux, SCO would simply be re-releasing information that was, by that point, no longer secret. It doesn't at all kill their case against IBM from a trade secret stance.
That's not so bad then - but realize that most people aren't like you. ;) So how many carbs *do* you get?
As for being a guinea pig - sorry pal, whatever you do, you're taking someone's word for it. The human metabolism is just not fully understood yet by anyone.
To a degree, but that's not to say that my new diet of dirt and sewage should be considered no less safe than a balanced "pyramid" diet simply because we don't fully understand the human metabolism. From an evolutionary standpoint, we might consider it a good idea to eat what we evolved around, and I can assure you that, while it isn't much processed carbs, it also isn't that much non-fish meat. Fruits, nuts, vegatables, and a little meat is the historical hominid diet, so from that standpoint it is likely the healthiest.
I have the feeling that if we actually compared diets, they aren't that much different. This is starting to occur to me. ;) No simple sugars and little red meat.
As for the literature, I'll check it out and get back at ya.
I'll buy that certainly for situations where you want to 0wnz0r every account, but usually you only need one priveleged one. From there, everything's candy.
Besides, before that you could only crack into your evil co-worker station when he was away for a cup of coffe. Now it is enough for him to be distracted by the hot boss assistant's legs...
The who....mmmmm...leggggs....ah shit, somebody h4X0r3d my box! ;) Seriously, as I understand it though, all you do at the local machine is get the hashes - which takes a fixed amount of time. The processing time is all on your own machine. And as I said, unless I want every account on the machine, I'll surf the net for the extra 90 seconds or whatever while that shit's a-crackin'.
I mean, I appreciate them saving me the extra 90 seconds and all,thanx guys, but I'm much more afraid that it takes anywhere as short as 2 minutes in the first place, ya know? I'd feel better with, say, months. To me, the most relevant thing about this is the nice web page the put up where they'll crack windows hashes for you. Very considerate, guys. ;)
Sure, I'll read anything.
If you have any studies which argue your point about Atkins not being good long-term, I'd like to read them.
I'll see if I can find them, but bottom line is the version of the Atkins generally considered in the studies is a more moderate version that involved reduction of simple sugars, moderate increase in protein and perhaps some fat as well. The difference is that many people are using a diet devoid of carbs (which are necessary for general health), too high in protein (hard on the kidneys), and too high in saturated fat (very bad for the heart).
So basically, which version of Atkins are you doing - the one where you eat a ton of fish (high in protein and the best possible fats) or the one where you eat a ton of steak (high in protein, yes, but also in the worst conceivable form of fat)? Makes a hell of a difference. So it's not really possible to talk about Atkins as a whole, because that doesn't exist - but I'm going to go ahead and assume that most people are on the "steak and pork chop" version of it, and that's not good.
Also, it's hard to do long-term studies on Atkins because it's too new. However, I'd rather not be the guinea pig, I dunno about you.
I call something that gets near 50% of its calories from fat far too high. Also, realize that the fries have the least fat of anything in the meal, and that's a bit of a sobering thought.
I don't put any stock in the argument that calories are what count.
You can put stock in whatever you want, but it's scientific fact. Of course, I agree that the second part is you eat what keeps you from eating again 10 minutes later. We both agree that this eliminates simple carbs from a diet. However, this doesn't mean that taking the most extreme solution that keeps you full is a great idea. There are other possibilities.
Look - on Atkins I eat as much as I want. I don't know how many calories I eat. And I lose weight. When I'm not on Atkins, I eat as much as I want, and I gain weight.
That's not a fair comparison, because you only considered two diets - Atkins and the crappy one you tried previously. My alternative worked great - I lost weight, I wasn't hungry, and I ate smaller portions of the really horrible things I like. But I still got them. So I was still pretty happy.
I wouldn't call Atkins a fad diet. People use what works. I suggest you try your diet with no exercise, and see how well you do.
I did the opposite controls - I started excercising before I started dieting, and it didn't work. Also, I'm still exercising and I'm off the diet (mostly - I got to my target weight), and I'm no longer losing weight - but I'm not gaining either. While I was on the diet, I had not yet leveled off on my weight loss - it was still coming off. That should be enough to prove that the diet I used worked.
Here's the thing - I agree that getting rid of simple sugars is essential (the first thing I did was get rid of Coke; I was on about 4-5 a day). And I agree that protein is a great thing in moderation - one of my favorite snacks is now lean beef jerky. So if you look at it that way, I believe in the moderate version of the Atkins sort of stuff, like no simple carbs and some more protein. But the high-fat part is flat-out dangerous, and needless. You can easily lose weight without the risk, and also without being hungry. There are great high-protein low-fat sources available, so there's no reason not to.
By the way, you did hear that Atkins had a heart attack, right? Just wondering. Because even if your diet works (and I'm not contending 100% that it doesn't - like you said, you lost weight), it's not good at all long-term.
That's like the MHz myth - if the increment isn't really perceivable, then it doesn't matter. Like, say, how I couldn't tell the difference between a 3 GHz computer and a 2000000GHz computer - similarly, it also won't matter much whether I crack passwords in 13 seconds or 100, as it will take me a lot longer than that to get the hashes. Here, the factor of 10 is pretty much irrelevant in practice.
It might matter if they somehow made the password hashes longer or something, as then the analysis you make would take effect - 1 hour vs. 8 hours, etc. But over such short time intervals, no way. Bottom line is 100 seconds is so short, you're already screwed.
Just wondering, but is there any reason why it's so easy to get the hashes? I might recommend shadowing the password file...oh, wrong OS. ;)
It's not that old, I'm only 26. ;)
Fried foods are not intrinsically bad because they are fried. These days almost all frying is done in vegetable oils, which are good for you.
I'm not going after the heart disease angle as much as the caloric angle. You are right in general that veggie oils are better than animal - however, I would very much recommend you look further, as all veggie oils *are not* created equal. Some of them are actually downright bad (see palm oil) while others are very good for your heart (see olive oil). I would guess that palm oil isn't as bad as a handfull of crisco, but it isn't good either.
The two problems with "fried foods" are that the bulk of fast food is carbs
That's flat *not true* - I'm sick of saying this so I looked up the numbers from McDonalds. Result? That demon of carbs, the large fries, actually has 43% of its calories from fat. The quarter pounder gets 51% of its from fat. This amounts to over 1000 calories total, and that ain't good. The preakdown for such a meal is 40% calories from carbs (exactly what it should be) and 47% from fat (far too high) and 13% from protein (actually far too low). So, I would say the problem with fast food is that, while the carbs are OK, the fat is too high and protein too low. Naturally, if the idiot gets a big gulp Coke with it, this would change, but remember neither of us is advocating that. For reference, recommended values for fat are under 30%. (30% protein and 40% from preferably non-sugary carbs round that out).
frying at too high a temperature transforms some oil parts into carcinogens.
Well, yeah, but that's not making you fat, it's just going to kill you. ;)
I'll take my chances with AMA above rogue, discredited doctors with no credibility who write books, eh? Otherwise this is convincing yourself of something you want to believe, and that's not particularly rational. There are maybe 5 doctors in the country who haven't been bought who believe the Atkins stuff in its extreme. The research that supports a higher protein diet doesn't advocate the fat consumption that goes with Atkins.
If such a diet of animal fats caused heart disease, why is it that heart disease in America began to increase during the time when the food industry decided to start pushing margerine and processed vegetable oils?
Two things there: First, consumption of animal fat also picked up over that period (ie, 60's to today). Second, processed vegetable oils are dead fatal, containing lots of trans-fatty acids. In general, avoid anything hydrogenated. That's my advice. For what it's worth, the AMA (I believe it was them) fought for labeling of foods with trans-fat labels. But bottom line, both margerine and animal fat are 100% fat. And a diet high in either isn't good.
The food industry stands a lot to gain from convincing you that their processed foods are better for you than foods straight from a farmer.
First, that's the food industry, not the medical community - I reasonably trust AMA, not the food industry. Second, farmers are a big part of the food industry (see "Beef - it's what's for dinner"). Third, we don't eat food "straight from a farmer" even if that's where we get it, as cooking is processing. Not trying to split hairs, just trying to point out that a great deal of the damage we do to food in terms of its nutritive value etc. we do in the kitchen.
But you are of course correct, don't trust the food industry, as they've fought labeling every step of the way, from the outset.
Then honestly, you aren't eating the right carbs. If I eat a cracker, it dissolves on my tongue. If I put a piece of whole-grain bread on my tongue, it does not. I'm not diabetic, but I get the shakes pretty bad when I get hungry, and simple sugar is the best hit - whole grain breads don't work. Moral: *nothing* gets your blood sugar up like, well, sugar. Certainly not complex carbs.
The whole point that everyone is bitching about here can be summed up on one sentence: don't forget to cut back on carbs when you diet, as people often think that cutting only fat will make them lose weight.
Well yeah, if you unbalance your diet you're going to be screwed. However, for a lot of the people posting in this thread, their "diet" consists of pork chops and eggs. First-class ticket to a coronary. Bottom line is a diet that consists of 60% of calories from fat is not safe. And I've yet to hear any medical institution (like, say, JAMA) state otherwise.
That's flat out bullshit. Look at the nutritional value on a pack of McD's fries sometime. Though it's a potato product, the bulk of the calories are fat.
I've been doing Atkins for about 2 years now. I lost 40 pounds pretty quickly and have kept it off. *I* can guarantee *you* that if you eat a pound of carbs (bread for example), and I eat a pound of fat (macadamia nuts), I will lose weight while you gain it.
No, that's NOT TRUE. You honestly need to learn how to read a nutritional label. Even the Atkins people admit that carbs only pack on weight because you eat 4x as many. Eat complex carbs instead of simple sugars and you won't do that, and you'll lose weight. Fat has MORE calories, per mass, than carbs, and I don't care what diet you use. That's science, and it's unavoidable. 9cal/g for fat, 4cal/g for carbs.
I wonder: are you fit? Before Atkins I did low-fat dieting, and had very little luck, because I was always hungry.
Quite fit - I'm 5'9" and 150lbs. Body fat is low, and would be lower if my wife didn't make me keep a bit of pudge. ;) I lost 30 lbs in 100 days after Christmas, and I did it with exactly the diet I described - 40% complex carbs, 30% fat, 30% protein. And, as we will both agree I'm sure, I avoided simple sugary carbs like the plague. I used beef jerky as a snack, as it's high in protein (sticks to you) and is 98% fat free. I was almost never hungry, and I lost weight rather easily (I also started running about 12 miles/week).
There have been diet fads roughly once every 3 years for decades. The only one that people come back to is a balanced diet low in calories, with complex carbs instead of sugars to avoid the sugar spikes. Works like a charm.
What the hell is a macronutrient? I want to see some literature to back this stuff up. I have never heard a reputable, scientifically-trained nutritionist spout this Atkins crap. So really, let's see some real evidence.
The light-headedness only last a few days. After that you should be burning Ketones
Do you know what a ketone is? I'm a chemist. I do. And you don't burn them. For reference, nail polish remover contains the two most common ketones. Want to eat some? Thought not.
Bottom line, this is exactly what I predicted - the bulk of this Atkins stuff is coming from people with no scientific or real nutritional training. No offense. Screwing with your diet like this is dangerous. Stick with a balanced diet, watch out for the simple carbs, and you'll be fine.
And lay off the carbohydrates too. This might start a flame war (Atkins diet arguments and such.) You should lay of the bread, chips, orange juice, and other things that have a lot of carbs. This stuff gets absorbed by your body and makes you fat.
Yes, excess carbs do get turned to fat. However, so do excess protein and excess fat. The difference is that carbs and protein are 4 cal/gram, while fat is 9 cal/gram. You do the math.
Actual fat is more or less just passing through and makes it into the toilet with your centrum multivitamin.
Don't know who told you that but they didn't know what they were talking about. Fat is readily absorbed. Notice how people who eat a lot of fried food get fat? That's right. Fat makes you fat. Shocking, I know, but it's true. The only way fat isn't completely absorbed is to eat a ton of it really quickly. The problem is that 1) your body is then absorbing fat as fast as it possibly can, which is enough to make you morbidly obese, and 2) any fat in your poo gives you nasty diarrhea, which I'm assuming isn't an attractive solution. Otherwise, pretty much all fat is absorbed.
Cutting back on the carbohydrates and stepping up on the exercise is really what makes the difference.
Excercise is of course good - particularly intensive cardio, as the longer it takes you to get your heart rate back to normal after excercise, the more calories you burn. Additionally, doing a lot of frequent cardio can raise your metabolism. Think of it as excercising when you aren't excercising. Good deal, eh?
Regarding the carbs fiasco - I guarantee you, if I eat 1 pound of carbs, and you eat 1 pound of fat, you will put on twice the weight as you consume (more than) twice the calories. The mitigating factor is that simple carbs are broken down much faster. Put a cracker in your mouth, and within seconds it tastes sweet - because it's broken down into simple sugar before it even hits your stomach, and simple sugar is readily absorbed like nothing else.
That is bad because eating a lot of simple carbs spikes your blood sugar, causing your body to release a ton of insulin. However, because it was a short-term sugar spike, you now have too much insulin, causing blood sugar to plummet. At the same time, your stomach has emptied, making you really hungry. That's why simple carbs are bad.
So what to do? To lose weight, you have to eat fewer calories than you use, of course. Naturally, that means regulating your blood sugar and keeping yourself non-hungry with the least calories possible. A nearly all-fat diet is bad because, while you're satisfied (fat digests slowly), you also consume massive amounts of calories. Simple carbs are the opposite - each binge is small, but you're hungry every 10 minutes. The best recommendation is a good amount of protein, complex carbs, and a diet with 30% of calories from fat. That way, you don't eat too often, and you don't get 2000 calories/meal, either.
Complex carbs are things like whole grains and such. So brown, whole-grain bread is good. If you like pasta and rice, again get the whole-grain stuff, and cook it less time than usual - cooking carbs in water breaks them down, effectively digesting them. The more they digest in the pot, the quicker they are absorbed in your body.
Bottom line is the Atkins diet is dangerous, containing way too much saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories from fat, and too much protein can be bad on the kidneys. Eat a balanced diet low in simple carbs, substituting complex carbs instead, and you'll do well.
Wow, is that a relief! ;) Nice point though about how MS is trying to spin their sellout as a feature. I want books, you give me amazon. I want keyword-specific info and you give me someone who (I'm assuming) pays for the privelege.
Um...no thanks MSN. I'm sticking with google unless they sell out.
"Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it."
Are you advocating *BSD, sir?!!!
Allright: "Ford, you're turning into a daemon. Stop it."
You ever see a lawyer use Webster's dictionary in court? No? Maybe there's a reason. It's because words have extremely specific meanings in law.
However, since you asked, this is neither as SCO has actually not approached any specific party. They've said that any customers of theirs won't be sued by them. However, they've not approached anyone saying "Buy this or we'll sue your ass."
Also, your definition includes "unlawful," making things a bit circular. You've shown nothing that suggests that what they're doing isn't completely legal. If you believe it is, suggest some case law.
Too many commercial sites - True, and I wouldn't be surprised if google didn't allow an option soon to limit sales sites. It's feasible, and they often rise to this sort of challenge (like they did with the blog horde).
Synonym problems - This is certainly not something MSN will help with. This is also easy to get around my a little massaging of the search engine - you just think of a word that would come up in the stuff you want to see and not the other. For the retarded, perhaps Google could dynamically suggest categories after searching (kind of how they suggest misspellings).
No books for scholarly research - this is such a small use (though I am admittedly among them). Furthermore, it's not that great a problem if journals come up preferentially - if your research cites mostly books, that's a problem anyway, as it probably means your research is not current. But again, this is a problem for such a slight proportion of the population.
Bottom line is that google will fix any big problems - just think of how many things might have been on that list 3 years ago that they've already fixed. Put it this way - I have more faith in google to deliver a great search engine than I do MS any day.
...the gnaa? ;)
I was wondering that too - it won't be retarded easy simply because I assume it will operate on unlicensed bands along with, for example, your garage door opener. But assuming the device you built was smart, I could envision it decoding packets or something to see if it was a Woz device. That assumes you get it to send you a packet, which leads to...
However, I am pretty sure with RFID that there's no way an RFID could be designed such that it would have any choice but to broadcast its presence-- it just discharges energy collected from radio waves, so it seems like there's no way you could tag something with an RFID such that the purchaser would be unable to find the RFID just by sending out hellos on low-frequency radio, but the tagger can talk to the RFID by sending out a secret code or something. Right?
I'm not so sure, actually. The last thing you want is the confusion of seeing everyone else's Woz devices, so (of course) each will broadcast its unique ID. However, you also don't want just anyone to interrogate your Woz devices - so I bet you'd have to broadcast some sort of code, it processes the signal, recognizes it, pings back. I see a one way hash here, but I could be wrong.
But ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if these things are made to *not* respond to a general sweep, at least in part to make searching them out impossible. ;)
That's not even close to the legal definition. "Barratry" gets thrown around a lot on slashdot, but have fun finding situations where it was actually used successfully. "Using a lawsuit to screw the little guy" doesn't meet the burden. In fact, it wouldn't work here because there haven't *been* any lawsuits, and if they don't win against IBM, there won't be. If they do win, then it won't be barratry because they'll have a very good case.
And you might believe that the whole GPL case makes this so obvious that the result is extortion, but until this gets decided they have the right to sell licenses to their IP, and it only makes sense to indemnify their customers. They have no relationship with non-customers, by definition, so no one is actually being extorted.
What they're not doing is going up to someone and saying "buy this now or we'll sue you." - even though that wouldn't even be blatant extortion if worded correctly. They're making an open offer to companies to buy their product and indemnification. That's nowhere near the legal requirement for extortion, and if you believe it is, I'd love to see some case history.
SCOX is obviously threatening whoever they think they can get away with threatening; a fishing expedition.
Gee, kind of like Microsoft's action through the BSA, huh? I never saw any barratry or extortion suits there, either. The problem is that, yes, you and I know that this is basically extortion, in the vernacular sense. Unfortunately, it's not legally, and it's not enough to qualify for barratry either. Check out the results of the DirecTV suit recently - that claim of extortion got nuked pretty quick. Bottom line is that what you seem to believe in terms of this case is not consistent with case law, though I would also love to see SCO get nailed.