They went with a one-button mouse to force programmers to write software which could be controlled by a single mouse button. Before then, programmers would write whatever they wanted and expected users to learn all the esoteric intricacies of how their software operated. In that respect, the one-button mouse succeeded marvelously in creating a unified UI experience, and vastly reducing the amount of learning required of users to use a computer.
Apple's mistake with the one-button mouse was sticking to a single button long after their original success had ingrained certain UI functionality into that single button. They could've added a second or even third button later on (as Windows did) without diminishing the benefit to UI simplicity that the single-button mouse had fostered. But by then they were well down their Form uber alles path, and stuck with the one-button mouse.
The Trump campaign has since then countered that there's nothing to see, never any outside influence, and the whole investigation should be shut down.
Actually I believe they've only claimed that there's no conspiracy. No overt influence by foreign powers. And that any meddling that's been found thus far is no different statistically than the incidental foreign influence that happens every election. Obviously some foreign influence, whether accidental or trivial, happens every election. So it would be silly for them to counter that there is absolutely no outside influence.
Over a year of investigation by the media, including revelations by some of the biggest social media companies with deep data into the daily personal browsing activities of every American, has turned up less than a million dollars spent by foreigners during "the election cycle" (which by their definition seems to span back into 2015). That's about a half cent per voter, vs the $18.60 spent overall ($2.4 billion spent on 129 million voters), and doesn't even include any of the "free" coverage given by the media as part of their regular news reporting. Trump's campaign is probably correct.
The company, commonly associated with arcade classics such as Asteroids, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, and Pong
Asteroids and Pong were by Atari.
Pac-Man was by Namco. They actually bailed out Atari by purchasing Atari Japan (and its debts) in the 1970s. Atari might have gone bankrupt before it ever became a household name if not for Namco. They also became part-owner of Atari in the late 1980s when Atari failed and was split, but Pac-Man was developed all on their own in 1980.
Space Invaders was by Taito. Which is now a subsidiary of Square Enix (of Final Fantasy fame).
Atari licensed rights to Pac-Man and Space Invaders to make home console versions, but they weren't involved with the arcade classic versions. This may seem like esoteric nit picking, but misattributions like this are how the public got the misconception that Bill Gates invented the Internet, or Apple invented the smartphone. Let's nip it in the bud.
There are two types of pollution we're dealing with here. Particulates and CO2.
Regulation like the EPA is effective at dealing with particulate pollution. Planting trees only helps here a little - particulates settle on the leaves, and are washed to the ground when it rains, if it doesn't kill the trees (acid rain).
Regulation does nothing for CO2 pollution (short of banning the burning of fossil fuels). Trees reverse CO2 production entirely, converting the CO2 back into a hydrocarbon. So China's strategy is more effective at this.
While the EPA helps reduce particulate pollution, unfortunately it also impedes the easiest method of carbon sequestration: Cutting down trees and burying them underground, sprinkling some desiccant on top of them to prevent decomposition, then planting new trees to replace them. So instead we're left investigating active methods of carbon sequestration (where we have to pay the energy cost of converting the CO2 into something else, which defeats the whole point of having burned the original hydrocarbon in the first place). Why do we have to develop a new method of carbon sequestration, when there's already an organism which already does exactly that. Trees and plants use energy from sunlight to convert atmospheric CO2 back into hydrocarbons, and it doesn't cost us a dime. All we have to do is plant lots of trees, let them do their thing, cut them down and bury them, then plant new trees.
People seem to get that burning fossil fuels is a problem because it's taking carbon which has been locked underground for millions of years, and releasing it into the air as CO2. But they seem to have blinders on to the idea that the obvious way to reverse it is to take something which removes that CO2 from the atmosphere (trees) and bury them back underground.
This is really simple. All that needs to happen is for Twitter to implement a little checkbox that says "you grant Twitter an unconditional license to display your copyrighted photo/video in your tweet when it's embedded." That will cover retweets and embedded twitter posts. It will not cover manually saving the copyrighted work and reproducing it outside of the context of the original tweet.
If you own the copyrighted photo/video and you check the box, then that indemnifies everyone who retweets or embeds your tweet in another site.
If you own the copyrighted photo/video and you don't check the box, then retweets and embeds don't show the photo/video. They only give a link back to your original tweet. It's up to you to decide which you value more - preserving your copyright, or the additional publicity which comes from people being able to see your photo/video without having to click a link.
If you do not own or have permission to distribute the copyrighted photo/video, then you are liable for your copyright infringement and subsequent copyright infringements (like someone who "sells" a house they don't really own).
how would one do that in this case? Ask Getty for a copy of every photo they ever had so they can filter search results? These won't just show up on Getty's site, but on sites that have licensed images for web use from them.
One of the features of Google Images is a "find other sizes of this image" function. If Getty did provide Google with copies of all their images, it'd be pretty easy for Google to block copies from Google Images. (Note: the pic I selected is one of Getty's royalty-free pics.)
That's what baffles me about Getty suing Google over this. Google Images is the best thing that could happen to Getty. Not because of the publicity, but because Google Images makes it trivial to find copyright violations. Getty just has to put the URL for one of their copyrighted images into Google Images, and use the "find other sizes of this image" function to get a list of websites using that image. It's then trivial for them to cross-reference the list of websites to confirm they've properly licensed the image. Asking Google to neuter Google Images just reeks of a decision by some clueless manager or lawyer, with no input from someone who's actually on the front lines trying to find copyright violations for Getty. This is going to result in more violations of Getty's copyrights, not less.
A couple of the small businesses I do computer support for have 1990s-era hardware for mission-critical operations. They're not as clueless as you've described. They knew what they were up against, and bought additional compatible computers, boards, and cables as spares while they were still available. These computers aren't networked so there's no security risk. And the old hardware does the job well enough that it'd be silly for them to spend a lot of money upgrading to a modern system.
That's what a lot of people who think like you don't seem to get. A lot of business tasks don't need GHz computers with gigabytes of RAM. And if the computer you've got is handling that job just fine, it's a waste of money to upgrade it. Need I remind you we successfully landed people on the moon a half dozen times using a computer with as much processing power as a modern calculator. Bigger/faster is not always better.
Lundgren should pay the fine or be jailed. He distributed copyrighted software for profit without the copyright owner's permission.
Microsoft/Dell should be forced to provide restore disks (physical or downloadable) for these and all systems which shipped with Windows, or refund the owners the cost of Windows. By their own argument, the license is attached to the hardware. So the new owner of the hardware is entitled to a licensed copy. Loss of the original install/restore discs does not invalidate the license. Failure by these companies to provide a copy to exercise the original license constitutes breach of that licensing contract. They must either make good on their original licensing agreement for which they received money, or they must refund that money.
Note that the latter is pretty much how Microsoft now handles Windows 8/10 and Office licensing. The box you buy just has an install key in it. You download the installer. Windows 7 was also treated similarly - you could download the install DVD for free (though not everyone knew this), you just needed a valid install key to use it. They should be required to do the same for all older versions of Windows. Dell and other sellers who make OEM versions of Windows (whose keys don't work with Microsoft's downloadable retail copies) should be required to make the disc images available for download, or be found in breach of the licensing agreement.
(The same goes for movies, music, and ebooks in digital format. I'd also argue that the license for a copyrighted work is agnostic to media format, whether it be digital, optical, magnetic, or paper. If you buy any one, you're entitled to a new copy if the original somehow gets lost or destroyed. Because as the copyright holders keep telling us, you're not buying a copy, you're buying a license.)
All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again. The world is returning to ideograms for an alphabet. But instead of calling them characters, we're calling them emojis.
except you've loaded your post with a remark questioning the moral character ("lifestyle choices") of the people who rely on over processed food.
He didn't load anything. You're arguing as if he only specified the "lifestyle choices" explanation. He didn't. He gave three possible explanations based on the correlation that was found. That the processed food caused the cancer. That the lifestyles of the people who tended to get cancer also encouraged eating processed foods. Or some other relationship.
Without more evidence than a correlation, all three are equally valid, and he presented all three. By choosing to critique only the "lifestyle choices" explanation, you're the one exhibiting bias. By presenting only the processed foods explanation, TFA is exhibiting bias.
Moreover, there's tons of evidence these chemicals are bad for you. You will _never_ find a doctor who says they're A-Ok. At least not one that isn't on the payroll of one of the companies hawking this stuff. The question isn't so much "are they bad for you" it's "how bad and why".
I see people making this mistake all the time. The proper question is "are they worse for you than the alternative?" You can't compare to a nonexistent zero base state (one where nitrates are simply deleted from the diet but everything else magically remains the same). You have to compare to the nearest realistic alternative. In this case it means if you delete nitrates, you incur all the other risks that the nitrates were helping prevent (e.g. botulism as has been posted elsewhere).
When United 232 crashed one of the fatalities was a lap child. This is a baby who was flying without a ticket and thus didn't have a seat, and was held on a parent's lap. When preparing for the crash landing, the mother asked what to do with her baby. The stewardess followed procedure and told her to put the baby underneath the seat in front like luggage. The mother and stewardess survived; the baby did not. Racked with guilt, the stewardess campaigned for nearly two decades to prohibit lap children, and require all babies and small children to have a paid seat. When the FAA concluded their review of her proposal, they rejected it.
You see, she was comparing to a nonexistent base state - one where lap children are prohibited, but everything else remains the same. The FAA analyzed it correctly and looked at the nearest realistic alternative. If parents were forced to pay for an extra seat to bring a small child, the higher price would cause more of them to opt to drive instead of fly. And driving is much more dangerous than flying. So even though the lap child policy killed a baby in this one case, it was saving dozens if not hundreds of babies every year by preventing them from dying in car accidents. (The NTSB suggested an alternative where restraints for lap children are carried aboard for use in emergencies.)
You should try Vancouver. When I was there around 2010, average monthly housing costs exceeded 100% of median income. I hear it's gotten better and it's "only" 79% now.
Which brings up a important caveat to these type of stories. These home price to income ratios are assuming you just got a job there and need to move and buy a home in the area. If you've been living there for a while, you bought your home when the price was much lower, so it still makes sense for you to live and work there.
Steam In-home Streaming encodes your desktop in real-time via MPEG4/h.264, and does it with so little latency that you can use it to play FPS games. It's not like you're encoding it over and over so the latency builds up. You encode it once just before you stream it.
Cost shouldn't be an issue. Broadcast equipment typically costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. The addition of a few dollars for a GPU with hardware h.264 encode (now commonly found on phones and tablets) would be trivial.
I suspect the issue is simply foot dragging due to backwards compatibility. If you want your HD distribution broadcast to work with the largest number of legacy client devices, MPEG2 is what you need to use. Switching to MPEG4/h.264 would require the cable company send out a newer cable box to all those customers who've been dutifully been paying $15/mo to rent a cable box which was paid off a decade ago.
Roads receive "investment", public transport (including rail) receives "subsidy". As if a layer of tarmac is somehow going to earn money on its own if only enough were spent on it.
That is in fact exactly what happens. The increased business activity from building a road (where it's needed) means more economic activity and thus more tax revenue for the government. The entity which builds/owns it reaps a monetary benefit from it, thus making it an investment.
Public transport doesn't increase economic activity per se. It can increase economic activity once your city passes a certain density threshold, and the cost per passenger-mile of public transport drops below the cost per passenger-mile of other modes of travel (i.e. it's more efficient). But mostly it just tempers the reduction in economic activity that would otherwise be caused by increased traffic congestion from a growing city. In the case of free public transport, the entity which builds/owns it does not reap a monetary benefit from it, thus making it a subsidy.
Germany's rationale for considering this is reducing pollution, so it can have an indirect monetary benefit, thus making the idea worthwhile while not being an investment in strictly financial terms. Everyone reaps the benefit, rather than the investor reaping the benefit.
So, each time you drive to work you are taking money from a neighbor who cycles, or walks, to work.
Why shouldn't the neighbor who cycles or walks to work help pay for the roads? All the food, clothing, materials needed to build and maintain their house, and other goods and services they need to live are delivered via those roads, even if they personally don't use them.
The public transport system in most of the US is (intentionally or not) crippled.
It's not crippled. With a few notable exceptions (e.g. NYC), the cities here tend to be a lot sparser than the European cities I've visited. The means the traffic problems which slow down driving your own car there are not as bad here (in time per distance), and that public transportation has to cover a larger area so either runs slower (more stops per trip) or leaves you with a longer distance to walk after getting off (fewer stops and longer distance between stops). Also, a lot of the European and Asian cities' roads are based on historical foot paths, cow paths, landowner plot borders, and organic city expansion over a half dozen to dozen centuries, so are curved and twisted making navigation and traffic management a nightmare. A subway has an advantage in being able to bypass a squiggly road route, and taking a more or less straight underground route. Most of the cities in the U.S. (Boston being a notable exception) have their streets laid out in a grid which eases navigation and traffic management, resulting in shorter travel distances by car and less traffic (per distance).
In other words, it's not that public transportation here is crippled. It's that the optimal solution changes depending on city density, road layout, traffic volume, and parking availability. And a lot of the cities in the U.S. have better road layouts and haven't yet reached the high enough density needed to make public transportation the optimal solution. The lower density also means there's more parking per distance so you can find a parking space quicker and closer to your destination that even if there were European-style public transport available.
Just because there's an optimal a solution which works in one location in one situation, does not automatically mean it's the optimal solution for all locations in all situations.
One of the benefits of printed news is its permanence. You find a newspaper clipping from April 15, 1865 and you know that's what the people back then read.
The news I read on websites is often updated, edited, and re-edited to delete a controversial phrase, erase speculation which turned out to be mistaken, or add information which wasn't there in the original report (without updating the timestamp). You read a bunch of people complaining about the article, go read the source article for yourself, and because the statement was edited out you don't know what the fuss is all about and you think the people complaining are idiots. Likewise, whereas before if a newspaper published something which was later discredited, they'd print a retraction but the original evidence of their shoddy reporting was still out there. Nowadays they simply delete the discredited story, erasing their failure from history. Occasionally I link to newspaper articles from the 1990s, but I honestly have no idea if it's still true to the original or if it's been altered in the intervening quarter century. Archive.org used to help, but I'm increasingly finding more sites have set their robots.txt to not allow archiving. And perhaps more disturbingly, some sites have requested archive.org delete the entire archived history of their site.
Despite the explosion in the availability of information, historians of the future are going to have a bitch of a time figuring out what we were actually saying and thinking, because a lot of the evidence is being scrubbed, sanitized, or deleted. It's the digital equivalent of burning books, except it's all being done silently and out of sight. The only evidence being a broken link; or a "quote" in a forum posting which no longer matches the purported source, and you have no idea if the post is in error or if the source was edited.
Why in the hell would Vermont even have the authority to "license" a corporation to exist, not to mention dictate how it must grow it's business and get a bunch of free kickbacks on those government entities?
Cables (and pipes) are strung up through public easements. These are access rights the government has to send "essential" wires, cables, and pipes through private property. Without these easements, any utility company would have to negotiate with thousands if not millions of private property owners in order to be able to provide service. If the guy who owns the house at the corner of your court refused to allow the electric company to send their wires through his property, he could deprive you and everyone else on your street of electricity.
For a cable company like Comcast to be able to use these easements, they have to negotiate with the government on how they want to pay for access rights. This can be free (if the government deems the service that essential), straight cash payment, or a list of conditions like guarantees to provide service to lower income areas. Oversight of these easement access rights (and the utilities and companies which use them) is done via a Public Utilities Commission.
I'm not sure what Comcast's game is here. Worst case, Vermont can simply revoke Comcast's easement access rights and award the cable service contract to another company, requiring Comcast pay to remove all the cable they've installed in public easements (underground conduits and telephone pole wiring). Assuming of course that their contract with the Vermont PUC is as stated in the summary - access in exchange for a guarantee to provide service to those areas which they've failed to do so. There are some provisions in contract law which could get them off - e.g. If it turns out laying out that extra 550 miles of cable would be so expensive as to make the original contract they agreed to a money-loser for Comcast, then that would constitute a mistake and could get them out of it. (e.g. You sign a contract to sell a widget for $100, but it turns out that you misread the price and thought it was $1000, and acquiring a widget would actually cost you $900 meaning you'd lose gobs of money. That is a legitimate mistake and you are not obligated to fulfill the original contract to deliver the widget in exchange for $100. Companies which honor price mistakes like this are doing so to maintain good customer relations, not because they're legally required to do so.)
It's significant, but not in the way most people seem to think - that it means 100 people lose their jobs. Most of those people find other work.
If one robot is worth 100 workers, then it means automating your entire workforce would increase the standard of living by 100x. That's such a huge increase that all sorts of welfare and UBI programs which are currently mathematically unsustainable (without amassing debt), becomes roundoff error. And the Star Trek economic utopia becomes reality.
The influenza death rate is lower in the U.S. than in many countries with universal health care and paid time off for illness. And the difference in the rate between it and many better countries (France, Germany, Canada) is so small as to be statistically insignificant.
So either paid sick days just don't matter that much to the spread rate of influenza, or the health care system takes care of it just fine despite not being universal, or both.
1 week is the average duration. I never bothered with the flu shot. Then one year I got the flu and was miserable and bedridden for 3 weeks, including 10 days of feeling like I'd been run over by a truck (literally - like all my muscles were torn and bruised), 3 days of alternating hot and cold flashes every 10-20 min (going from kicking off the blanket and taking off your shirt, to putting it all back on and throwing on an extra blanket for more warmth). I'm never gonna go through that again if I can avoid it. I get the flu shot every year now.
If you've gotten the flu before but never got to the point where you wished you would just die, then you've been lucky so far. Get the flu shot.
If any of them are still alive. They worked at Bletchley Park during WWII, programming Colossus to decode Nazi Enigma messages. I'm assuming we're talking about programming electronic computers, since anyone who used a slide rule in their youth would've programmed a mechanical computer.
Normally, it's the FTC's duty to investigate anti-consumer anti-competitive practices. The FCC is involved here only because the open-access rules were a stipulation of purchasing the 700 MHz band. So even if the FCC does nothing, the FTC can still step in.
(This was back in the 1970s and 1980s, when schoolkids were still being taught cursive.) After considerable thought, I concluded that written text was a WORM operation (write-once read-many).
Cursive saved time at the write stage (easier to write), at the cost of additional time at the read stage (harder to read). Since the write operation happened only once while the read operation could happen multiple times, I decided saving time at the write stage was not usually not worth it - the cumulative extra time wasted at the read stage could easily exceed the time saved at the write stage. And I began writing exclusively in print letters in the 6th grade.
Already, many delivery boys will ask you to order direct from their own site next time, instead of one of the popular (and increasingly expensive) 3rd party takeout services.
I do a similar thing when buying stuff online. Unless another website contributed significantly in helping me find or select the product I end up buying, I take steps to find and erase the referring affiliate info in the URL. When a website describing a product gives you a courtesy link to an online store, it's not just for your convenience. That link sets themselves as the affiliate who referred you to the store, and if you end up buying something the store pays the affiliate a percentage for the referral.
Unfortunately these things have grown like a secret underground black market. Search engines, malware, cash back sites, and even credit card purchasing programs fight to code their websites to erase other affiliates' referrals and replace it with their own. So if I already knew I was going to buy the product from a certain store, I take steps to erase any affiliate ID so the store can keep all the money I pay them. If a certain website substantially helped me select the product (like a review site), I will take steps to make sure they get the referral.
Slashdot Mirror
They went with a one-button mouse to force programmers to write software which could be controlled by a single mouse button. Before then, programmers would write whatever they wanted and expected users to learn all the esoteric intricacies of how their software operated. In that respect, the one-button mouse succeeded marvelously in creating a unified UI experience, and vastly reducing the amount of learning required of users to use a computer.
Apple's mistake with the one-button mouse was sticking to a single button long after their original success had ingrained certain UI functionality into that single button. They could've added a second or even third button later on (as Windows did) without diminishing the benefit to UI simplicity that the single-button mouse had fostered. But by then they were well down their Form uber alles path, and stuck with the one-button mouse.
Actually I believe they've only claimed that there's no conspiracy. No overt influence by foreign powers. And that any meddling that's been found thus far is no different statistically than the incidental foreign influence that happens every election. Obviously some foreign influence, whether accidental or trivial, happens every election. So it would be silly for them to counter that there is absolutely no outside influence.
Over a year of investigation by the media, including revelations by some of the biggest social media companies with deep data into the daily personal browsing activities of every American, has turned up less than a million dollars spent by foreigners during "the election cycle" (which by their definition seems to span back into 2015). That's about a half cent per voter, vs the $18.60 spent overall ($2.4 billion spent on 129 million voters), and doesn't even include any of the "free" coverage given by the media as part of their regular news reporting. Trump's campaign is probably correct.
Asteroids and Pong were by Atari.
Pac-Man was by Namco. They actually bailed out Atari by purchasing Atari Japan (and its debts) in the 1970s. Atari might have gone bankrupt before it ever became a household name if not for Namco. They also became part-owner of Atari in the late 1980s when Atari failed and was split, but Pac-Man was developed all on their own in 1980.
Space Invaders was by Taito. Which is now a subsidiary of Square Enix (of Final Fantasy fame).
Atari licensed rights to Pac-Man and Space Invaders to make home console versions, but they weren't involved with the arcade classic versions. This may seem like esoteric nit picking, but misattributions like this are how the public got the misconception that Bill Gates invented the Internet, or Apple invented the smartphone. Let's nip it in the bud.
While the EPA helps reduce particulate pollution, unfortunately it also impedes the easiest method of carbon sequestration: Cutting down trees and burying them underground, sprinkling some desiccant on top of them to prevent decomposition, then planting new trees to replace them. So instead we're left investigating active methods of carbon sequestration (where we have to pay the energy cost of converting the CO2 into something else, which defeats the whole point of having burned the original hydrocarbon in the first place). Why do we have to develop a new method of carbon sequestration, when there's already an organism which already does exactly that. Trees and plants use energy from sunlight to convert atmospheric CO2 back into hydrocarbons, and it doesn't cost us a dime. All we have to do is plant lots of trees, let them do their thing, cut them down and bury them, then plant new trees.
People seem to get that burning fossil fuels is a problem because it's taking carbon which has been locked underground for millions of years, and releasing it into the air as CO2. But they seem to have blinders on to the idea that the obvious way to reverse it is to take something which removes that CO2 from the atmosphere (trees) and bury them back underground.
One of the features of Google Images is a "find other sizes of this image" function. If Getty did provide Google with copies of all their images, it'd be pretty easy for Google to block copies from Google Images. (Note: the pic I selected is one of Getty's royalty-free pics.)
That's what baffles me about Getty suing Google over this. Google Images is the best thing that could happen to Getty. Not because of the publicity, but because Google Images makes it trivial to find copyright violations. Getty just has to put the URL for one of their copyrighted images into Google Images, and use the "find other sizes of this image" function to get a list of websites using that image. It's then trivial for them to cross-reference the list of websites to confirm they've properly licensed the image. Asking Google to neuter Google Images just reeks of a decision by some clueless manager or lawyer, with no input from someone who's actually on the front lines trying to find copyright violations for Getty. This is going to result in more violations of Getty's copyrights, not less.
A couple of the small businesses I do computer support for have 1990s-era hardware for mission-critical operations. They're not as clueless as you've described. They knew what they were up against, and bought additional compatible computers, boards, and cables as spares while they were still available. These computers aren't networked so there's no security risk. And the old hardware does the job well enough that it'd be silly for them to spend a lot of money upgrading to a modern system.
That's what a lot of people who think like you don't seem to get. A lot of business tasks don't need GHz computers with gigabytes of RAM. And if the computer you've got is handling that job just fine, it's a waste of money to upgrade it. Need I remind you we successfully landed people on the moon a half dozen times using a computer with as much processing power as a modern calculator. Bigger/faster is not always better.
Note that the latter is pretty much how Microsoft now handles Windows 8/10 and Office licensing. The box you buy just has an install key in it. You download the installer. Windows 7 was also treated similarly - you could download the install DVD for free (though not everyone knew this), you just needed a valid install key to use it. They should be required to do the same for all older versions of Windows. Dell and other sellers who make OEM versions of Windows (whose keys don't work with Microsoft's downloadable retail copies) should be required to make the disc images available for download, or be found in breach of the licensing agreement.
(The same goes for movies, music, and ebooks in digital format. I'd also argue that the license for a copyrighted work is agnostic to media format, whether it be digital, optical, magnetic, or paper. If you buy any one, you're entitled to a new copy if the original somehow gets lost or destroyed. Because as the copyright holders keep telling us, you're not buying a copy, you're buying a license.)
All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again. The world is returning to ideograms for an alphabet. But instead of calling them characters, we're calling them emojis.
He didn't load anything. You're arguing as if he only specified the "lifestyle choices" explanation. He didn't. He gave three possible explanations based on the correlation that was found. That the processed food caused the cancer. That the lifestyles of the people who tended to get cancer also encouraged eating processed foods. Or some other relationship.
Without more evidence than a correlation, all three are equally valid, and he presented all three. By choosing to critique only the "lifestyle choices" explanation, you're the one exhibiting bias. By presenting only the processed foods explanation, TFA is exhibiting bias.
I see people making this mistake all the time. The proper question is "are they worse for you than the alternative?" You can't compare to a nonexistent zero base state (one where nitrates are simply deleted from the diet but everything else magically remains the same). You have to compare to the nearest realistic alternative. In this case it means if you delete nitrates, you incur all the other risks that the nitrates were helping prevent (e.g. botulism as has been posted elsewhere).
When United 232 crashed one of the fatalities was a lap child. This is a baby who was flying without a ticket and thus didn't have a seat, and was held on a parent's lap. When preparing for the crash landing, the mother asked what to do with her baby. The stewardess followed procedure and told her to put the baby underneath the seat in front like luggage. The mother and stewardess survived; the baby did not. Racked with guilt, the stewardess campaigned for nearly two decades to prohibit lap children, and require all babies and small children to have a paid seat. When the FAA concluded their review of her proposal, they rejected it.
You see, she was comparing to a nonexistent base state - one where lap children are prohibited, but everything else remains the same. The FAA analyzed it correctly and looked at the nearest realistic alternative. If parents were forced to pay for an extra seat to bring a small child, the higher price would cause more of them to opt to drive instead of fly. And driving is much more dangerous than flying. So even though the lap child policy killed a baby in this one case, it was saving dozens if not hundreds of babies every year by preventing them from dying in car accidents. (The NTSB suggested an alternative where restraints for lap children are carried aboard for use in emergencies.)
Will quitting make them forget your phone number?
The only winning move is not to play.
You should try Vancouver. When I was there around 2010, average monthly housing costs exceeded 100% of median income. I hear it's gotten better and it's "only" 79% now.
Which brings up a important caveat to these type of stories. These home price to income ratios are assuming you just got a job there and need to move and buy a home in the area. If you've been living there for a while, you bought your home when the price was much lower, so it still makes sense for you to live and work there.
Steam In-home Streaming encodes your desktop in real-time via MPEG4/h.264, and does it with so little latency that you can use it to play FPS games. It's not like you're encoding it over and over so the latency builds up. You encode it once just before you stream it.
Cost shouldn't be an issue. Broadcast equipment typically costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. The addition of a few dollars for a GPU with hardware h.264 encode (now commonly found on phones and tablets) would be trivial.
I suspect the issue is simply foot dragging due to backwards compatibility. If you want your HD distribution broadcast to work with the largest number of legacy client devices, MPEG2 is what you need to use. Switching to MPEG4/h.264 would require the cable company send out a newer cable box to all those customers who've been dutifully been paying $15/mo to rent a cable box which was paid off a decade ago.
That is in fact exactly what happens. The increased business activity from building a road (where it's needed) means more economic activity and thus more tax revenue for the government. The entity which builds/owns it reaps a monetary benefit from it, thus making it an investment.
Public transport doesn't increase economic activity per se. It can increase economic activity once your city passes a certain density threshold, and the cost per passenger-mile of public transport drops below the cost per passenger-mile of other modes of travel (i.e. it's more efficient). But mostly it just tempers the reduction in economic activity that would otherwise be caused by increased traffic congestion from a growing city. In the case of free public transport, the entity which builds/owns it does not reap a monetary benefit from it, thus making it a subsidy.
Germany's rationale for considering this is reducing pollution, so it can have an indirect monetary benefit, thus making the idea worthwhile while not being an investment in strictly financial terms. Everyone reaps the benefit, rather than the investor reaping the benefit.
Why shouldn't the neighbor who cycles or walks to work help pay for the roads? All the food, clothing, materials needed to build and maintain their house, and other goods and services they need to live are delivered via those roads, even if they personally don't use them.
It's not crippled. With a few notable exceptions (e.g. NYC), the cities here tend to be a lot sparser than the European cities I've visited. The means the traffic problems which slow down driving your own car there are not as bad here (in time per distance), and that public transportation has to cover a larger area so either runs slower (more stops per trip) or leaves you with a longer distance to walk after getting off (fewer stops and longer distance between stops). Also, a lot of the European and Asian cities' roads are based on historical foot paths, cow paths, landowner plot borders, and organic city expansion over a half dozen to dozen centuries, so are curved and twisted making navigation and traffic management a nightmare. A subway has an advantage in being able to bypass a squiggly road route, and taking a more or less straight underground route. Most of the cities in the U.S. (Boston being a notable exception) have their streets laid out in a grid which eases navigation and traffic management, resulting in shorter travel distances by car and less traffic (per distance).
In other words, it's not that public transportation here is crippled. It's that the optimal solution changes depending on city density, road layout, traffic volume, and parking availability. And a lot of the cities in the U.S. have better road layouts and haven't yet reached the high enough density needed to make public transportation the optimal solution. The lower density also means there's more parking per distance so you can find a parking space quicker and closer to your destination that even if there were European-style public transport available.
Just because there's an optimal a solution which works in one location in one situation, does not automatically mean it's the optimal solution for all locations in all situations.
One of the benefits of printed news is its permanence. You find a newspaper clipping from April 15, 1865 and you know that's what the people back then read.
The news I read on websites is often updated, edited, and re-edited to delete a controversial phrase, erase speculation which turned out to be mistaken, or add information which wasn't there in the original report (without updating the timestamp). You read a bunch of people complaining about the article, go read the source article for yourself, and because the statement was edited out you don't know what the fuss is all about and you think the people complaining are idiots. Likewise, whereas before if a newspaper published something which was later discredited, they'd print a retraction but the original evidence of their shoddy reporting was still out there. Nowadays they simply delete the discredited story, erasing their failure from history. Occasionally I link to newspaper articles from the 1990s, but I honestly have no idea if it's still true to the original or if it's been altered in the intervening quarter century. Archive.org used to help, but I'm increasingly finding more sites have set their robots.txt to not allow archiving. And perhaps more disturbingly, some sites have requested archive.org delete the entire archived history of their site.
Despite the explosion in the availability of information, historians of the future are going to have a bitch of a time figuring out what we were actually saying and thinking, because a lot of the evidence is being scrubbed, sanitized, or deleted. It's the digital equivalent of burning books, except it's all being done silently and out of sight. The only evidence being a broken link; or a "quote" in a forum posting which no longer matches the purported source, and you have no idea if the post is in error or if the source was edited.
Cables (and pipes) are strung up through public easements. These are access rights the government has to send "essential" wires, cables, and pipes through private property. Without these easements, any utility company would have to negotiate with thousands if not millions of private property owners in order to be able to provide service. If the guy who owns the house at the corner of your court refused to allow the electric company to send their wires through his property, he could deprive you and everyone else on your street of electricity.
For a cable company like Comcast to be able to use these easements, they have to negotiate with the government on how they want to pay for access rights. This can be free (if the government deems the service that essential), straight cash payment, or a list of conditions like guarantees to provide service to lower income areas. Oversight of these easement access rights (and the utilities and companies which use them) is done via a Public Utilities Commission.
I'm not sure what Comcast's game is here. Worst case, Vermont can simply revoke Comcast's easement access rights and award the cable service contract to another company, requiring Comcast pay to remove all the cable they've installed in public easements (underground conduits and telephone pole wiring). Assuming of course that their contract with the Vermont PUC is as stated in the summary - access in exchange for a guarantee to provide service to those areas which they've failed to do so. There are some provisions in contract law which could get them off - e.g. If it turns out laying out that extra 550 miles of cable would be so expensive as to make the original contract they agreed to a money-loser for Comcast, then that would constitute a mistake and could get them out of it. (e.g. You sign a contract to sell a widget for $100, but it turns out that you misread the price and thought it was $1000, and acquiring a widget would actually cost you $900 meaning you'd lose gobs of money. That is a legitimate mistake and you are not obligated to fulfill the original contract to deliver the widget in exchange for $100. Companies which honor price mistakes like this are doing so to maintain good customer relations, not because they're legally required to do so.)
It's significant, but not in the way most people seem to think - that it means 100 people lose their jobs. Most of those people find other work.
If one robot is worth 100 workers, then it means automating your entire workforce would increase the standard of living by 100x. That's such a huge increase that all sorts of welfare and UBI programs which are currently mathematically unsustainable (without amassing debt), becomes roundoff error. And the Star Trek economic utopia becomes reality.
The influenza death rate is lower in the U.S. than in many countries with universal health care and paid time off for illness. And the difference in the rate between it and many better countries (France, Germany, Canada) is so small as to be statistically insignificant.
So either paid sick days just don't matter that much to the spread rate of influenza, or the health care system takes care of it just fine despite not being universal, or both.
1 week is the average duration. I never bothered with the flu shot. Then one year I got the flu and was miserable and bedridden for 3 weeks, including 10 days of feeling like I'd been run over by a truck (literally - like all my muscles were torn and bruised), 3 days of alternating hot and cold flashes every 10-20 min (going from kicking off the blanket and taking off your shirt, to putting it all back on and throwing on an extra blanket for more warmth). I'm never gonna go through that again if I can avoid it. I get the flu shot every year now.
If you've gotten the flu before but never got to the point where you wished you would just die, then you've been lucky so far. Get the flu shot.
If any of them are still alive. They worked at Bletchley Park during WWII, programming Colossus to decode Nazi Enigma messages. I'm assuming we're talking about programming electronic computers, since anyone who used a slide rule in their youth would've programmed a mechanical computer.
Reference to the FCC open-access agreement here.
Normally, it's the FTC's duty to investigate anti-consumer anti-competitive practices. The FCC is involved here only because the open-access rules were a stipulation of purchasing the 700 MHz band. So even if the FCC does nothing, the FTC can still step in.
(This was back in the 1970s and 1980s, when schoolkids were still being taught cursive.) After considerable thought, I concluded that written text was a WORM operation (write-once read-many).
Cursive saved time at the write stage (easier to write), at the cost of additional time at the read stage (harder to read). Since the write operation happened only once while the read operation could happen multiple times, I decided saving time at the write stage was not usually not worth it - the cumulative extra time wasted at the read stage could easily exceed the time saved at the write stage. And I began writing exclusively in print letters in the 6th grade.
I do a similar thing when buying stuff online. Unless another website contributed significantly in helping me find or select the product I end up buying, I take steps to find and erase the referring affiliate info in the URL. When a website describing a product gives you a courtesy link to an online store, it's not just for your convenience. That link sets themselves as the affiliate who referred you to the store, and if you end up buying something the store pays the affiliate a percentage for the referral.
Unfortunately these things have grown like a secret underground black market. Search engines, malware, cash back sites, and even credit card purchasing programs fight to code their websites to erase other affiliates' referrals and replace it with their own. So if I already knew I was going to buy the product from a certain store, I take steps to erase any affiliate ID so the store can keep all the money I pay them. If a certain website substantially helped me select the product (like a review site), I will take steps to make sure they get the referral.