I can speak from personal experience on this. I know people have heard this a million times, but I'm not convinced of these "cookie-cutter" diets due to the fact that everyone is different in so many different ways.
For example, how do you explain the fact that I can gain so much weight by not watching every last gram of carbohydrates I eat while a friend of mine can have his "nights of 10,000 calories" and not gain a single pound ever.
I think it all comes down to taking a step back, looking at your body, and picking what's right for you -- not some predetermined plan that you get off of a website.
Also, doesn't the IRS provide information on how to fill the forms? (For instance, the French tax services have email addresses you can send tax queries to, and they do answer.)
ha ha ha. Sure they provide information, but it's as confusing as the system. Also, I doubt you'd get an answer unless it was some automated response.:)
Well, as we sit here, I'm sure there are a ton of microwaves flying all through us at any given time.. so, it's a small price to pay for the extra "convenience."
It is tough because a skillful lawyer representing the spammer's interests could always make an argument that the government is being too restrictive.
For example, the government could implement a policy forcing spammers to register (i.e. being a licensed spammer -- now that's a dubious distinction). However, the spammers are going to cry that their speech is being regulated by too much restriction. ..
Agreed. I don't see a viable way for the government to effectively regulate spam because they are handcuffed by having to use the "least restrictive means." The idea of placing the sender's email and opt-out instructions is not too restrictive; however, it isn't really effective because you are still getting the spam in your inbox. If the government wiped out all spam, they would fail the "least restrictive means" test. Where's the middle ground?
Well, in the name of time, manner, and place, I don't want to see any form of spam anytime anywhere on my computer! Can't the government get some loving in the form of intermediate scrutiny here???
You know how Congress works. They'll probably point to their power underneath the Commerce Clause as a viable reason for promoting their anti-spam bill in the name of interstate commerce. Do you really think they care about the First Amendment?
I definitely think that a crisis could be avoided beforehand if the site owner is notified, creating the possibility of getting some mirrors up before the onslaught ensues.
This guy has got to have way too much time on his hands.
Oh wait. Isn't there some kind of saying about people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing something... forget it. I forgot who I am and what I do for a second.:-D
Slashdot Mirror
All I'm saying is that you should be on "Nonac's diet" and not someone else's.
Excuse me for being a little skeptical after I tried many diets and finally decided to take matters into my own hands and tailor something to my body.
I ate whatever I wanted, as much as I wanted, as long as the daily total remained under 2000 calories.
:)
Well you obviously couldn't eat as much as you wanted or else there would be no calorie restriction.
I can speak from personal experience on this. I know people have heard this a million times, but I'm not convinced of these "cookie-cutter" diets due to the fact that everyone is different in so many different ways.
For example, how do you explain the fact that I can gain so much weight by not watching every last gram of carbohydrates I eat while a friend of mine can have his "nights of 10,000 calories" and not gain a single pound ever.
I think it all comes down to taking a step back, looking at your body, and picking what's right for you -- not some predetermined plan that you get off of a website.
To illustrate the customizable interface, check out this pic of my personalized Opera.
Better watch out for the RIAA and DMCA freaks clicking on that link and seeing Kazaa running. . .
More info here.
Also see:
If you've already seen it -- I'm sorry for the redundancy. Shouldn't be readin slashdot so early in da mawnin'!
government gives you money
Whoa.. what a novel concept? How come you didn't include a link where I can sign up for this "free" money ????
I don't know much about the tax system, but I do know many things in life aren't free. What's the catch here?
Also, doesn't the IRS provide information on how to fill the forms? (For instance, the French tax services have email addresses you can send tax queries to, and they do answer.)
:)
ha ha ha. Sure they provide information, but it's as confusing as the system. Also, I doubt you'd get an answer unless it was some automated response.
Well, as we sit here, I'm sure there are a ton of microwaves flying all through us at any given time.. so, it's a small price to pay for the extra "convenience."
It is tough because a skillful lawyer representing the spammer's interests could always make an argument that the government is being too restrictive.
.
For example, the government could implement a policy forcing spammers to register (i.e. being a licensed spammer -- now that's a dubious distinction). However, the spammers are going to cry that their speech is being regulated by too much restriction. .
So Europeans are allowed to look at kiddie porn to their heart's content?
:)
You guys are a bunch of sickos! he he..
Agreed. I don't see a viable way for the government to effectively regulate spam because they are handcuffed by having to use the "least restrictive means." The idea of placing the sender's email and opt-out instructions is not too restrictive; however, it isn't really effective because you are still getting the spam in your inbox. If the government wiped out all spam, they would fail the "least restrictive means" test. Where's the middle ground?
Why not just stuff it under your mattress? They'll never find it there...
Well, in the name of time, manner, and place, I don't want to see any form of spam anytime anywhere on my computer! Can't the government get some loving in the form of intermediate scrutiny here???
Let's just get Carnivore to take out all the spam from everywhere!
To the end-user it may not be an inconvenience, but it zaps up valuable bandwidth. So, even if you may not be feeling the effects, someone is...
You know how Congress works. They'll probably point to their power underneath the Commerce Clause as a viable reason for promoting their anti-spam bill in the name of interstate commerce. Do you really think they care about the First Amendment?
Congress has not done a decent job of creating legislation in the past, so why should they start now?
I'm sure they'll infringe on some type of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well I must say I was being a bit facetious.
I definitely think that a crisis could be avoided beforehand if the site owner is notified, creating the possibility of getting some mirrors up before the onslaught ensues.
Ethical question: Do we owe our linked site owners some advance warning before our herd of tribbles swarms onto their bridge?
Nawwwww! Let 'em fry! It's a great exercise in crisis response...
I can't take credit for the idea. I saw it used a long time ago on some site; can't remember what it was.
:)
Glad I could offer some help and advice.
This guy has got to have way too much time on his hands.
:-D
Oh wait. Isn't there some kind of saying about people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing something... forget it. I forgot who I am and what I do for a second.
It's a tough call. We hate spam, yet we're scared of having the government regulate the Internet which they have been having trouble with as of late.
It's a conundrum of epic proportions that I think the government is not coping with very well.
they do things like limit number of recipients per message, or recipients per day, that sort of thing. (Can anyone confirm that?)
I heard this too and did some research. Here's an article to quench your thirst for email liberty!
spam is harrasment, spam is bad, spam is undermining the internet
There might be some hope for you in the works. Congress is trying to pass a bill in order to control spam.
Senators' bill takes aim at spam