Do you think they are going to remove the high fructose corn syrup from all the products that are causing diabetes? Hell no. Most of us already are insulin resistant. The best thing to do is to find a cure for diabetes instead of worrying about how to prevent it. It's no longer possible to prevent it when theres high fructose corn syrup in just about every food. The only solution to diabetes is to find a way to upregulate insulin receptors and increase insulin sensitivity so people never develop type 2 diabetes, and for those who do it can be reversed. When you reverse or prevent insulin resistance you prevent people from dying of heart disease and you actually strengthen the financial viability of the healthcare industry. Right now drug industrys like the diabetes situation because they have a continuous supply of new diabetics coming in. At some point half the population will be diabetic, and when this happens its going to be too late.
The best situation would be for people to fund the search for a cure, not the search for a new drug or treatment. This means people need to fund the supplement industry not the drug industry, and people need to start open source drug companies that share their discoveries. These drug companies will form when doctors want to cure diabetes, and people with big money want to fund these doctors. Hey if people with diabetes or who have certain genes to make them vulnerable to it actually became a member of a network of individuals trying to cure it, its only a matter of time. I think diabetes type 1 will be cured first, then type 2, I don't think cancer will ever be cured, however I think we will find ways to prevent it.
If you want a cure, you have to make it yourself, drug companies will never make it and will do everything in their power to surpress you and your industry backing a cure if you ever do come up with a cure. So if you are rich and powerful, and diabetes genes are in your family, it is your responsibility to cure the disease. It is also the responsibility of consumers, lawyers, etc.
Heart disease will be cured once insulin resistance is cured. Insulin resistance will be cured once diabetes is cured. All of this won't increase or decrease lifespan, what it does is it increases the quality of life.
Some countries have no reason to fear us. China, Russia, Isreal, North Korea, these countries all have nukes, they have space travel, they can most likely bomb us from space just as easily as we can bomb them. The whole space wars idea is dumb.
When I drive my car do I attach a gun to the front of my car to avoid traffic? Hell no, instead theres rules of the road which everyone follows to prevent accidents.
Why not have rules of space?
Everyone believes that its best to be efficient with the tax money, both the democrats and republicans claim this and for the most part its true for both sides because they both know that in order to increase the size and influence of government that you have to spend the money in ways which matter to the taxpayers, else people such as yourself will complain the taxes are too high because they do not benefit them.
Taxes do have a role and I don't believe now is the best time to lower them. I do believe the government should be precise with how they spend their money but this should be reflected by the voters wishes.
This is why both the demorats and republicans will go on TV to debate how they will spend our money. I think the question is how do we want our tax dollars spent? We are the shareholders so lets act like it,
By moral leadership I do not mean we should follow the UN moral system, I mean we should follow our own moral system.
We believe in strength because you have to be strong and competent to carry out your responsibilities and no one is debating the strength of Mr.Bush, what is on debate is if he is being a responsible leader.
We believe in safety and protection and that is why we need strength.
We believe in fulfillment in life and this is why we have the ability to empathize with others who may or may not be able to have a life like ours.
We believe in freedom but we also believe in fairness because when we care about others we believe we should treat them fairly while also helping them them treat others fairly.
We believe in freedom, this allows us to have fulfillment, it allows us to live up to our full potential and realize our dreams.
We believe in opportunity, because a society in which we care about others has to be a society which is fair.
We believe in prosperity because without prosperity there can be no oppurtunity.
We believe in communities, healthy communities are based on cooperation, honestty, trust and open communication.
The United States of America is a community, and what is the major issue in this election? Betrayal of trust. Without honesty you cannot have trust or open communication.
We also believe in discipline, this means the ability to earn your prosperity.
and because discipline is so important, we reward those who have it.
Discipline will also be a debate in this election.
So the election is going to be discipline vs trust, and we have to pick the value which we want because neither Bush or Kerry has both qualities.
We need a moral leadership to represent our morality to the world and Mr.Bush needs to explain his betrayal of our trust to both the international community and to American voters. Kerry needs to prove he has the discipline to run this country and represent us.
Why are you afraid to pay your dues? America is not free, building a country like this costs money, why not pay for membership in our country?
Waste? The private sector wastes just as much money as the public sector trying to come up with new ideas. In the private sector shareholders often have to wait for years while Microsoft or others come up with good ideas. The benefits come when that revolutionary idea happens and the same rules apply to the public sector and to the government.
Our government needs R&D to continue to keep America strong.
All of the major inventions have been produced by the public sector. Road, The internet, radio, satelites, robotics, even computers.
This technology is then passed down to the private sector and the reason the public sector must develop the building blocks of future technology is because the private sector will not invest its R&D into something without immediate profitability. We need taxes to build the foundations to new industries.
We also need taxes to train the workers of these new industries. NanoTechnology may someday be a new industry but if we cannot educate the scientists of the future through the public academic sector do you think the private sector wants to pick up the tab? Absolutely they will pick up the tab, but they will train workers in india, china, africa, and every third world country they can to reduce costs.
Without a public sector we have no way to protect American workers. Without a public sector its harder to start a business. Do you want to learn Indian and go over to India to teach C and C++ or do you want to just hire a kid out of college in your own country?
Are you saying Microsoft as a company should not care about working conditions of the employees? How will Microsoft ensure employee loyalty if they do not care about the needs of the employees? What would stop these employees from quitting and going to work for Apple? What would stop them from even joining the Linux movement?
If we are going to be the military leader, economic leader, and world leader, we should also be the moral leader.
To regain moral leadership the international community must trust us again.
Would Microsoft believe that cutting R&D would be good for their company at this time of global competition in the form of Linux?
No of course not, they won't cut R&D, Microsoft increases R&D as a commitment to their goal and they increase their commitment to share holders to earn and regain the trust.
This means we need targetted tax cuts by our CEO Mr.Bush to the middle class, and we need increased spending on R&D to develop the technologies and to create the building blocks from which we can construct the world of tomorrow.
What we should ask ourselves and not the President is it is actually good strategy to lower our commitment in a time of war.
The taxes will always be there as the price we pay for living in America. This price provides benefits such as the internet, radio, and scientific building blocks which in the future will allow us to compete in a global economy but not just for economic reasons would a tax cut at this time be bad, it would also be bad because we have a war on terror to fight.
What we as well as the President should ask ourselves is if we are seriously committed to this war on terror and what are we willing to sacrifice for increased security of both ourselves physically and security of our economy. This requires investments. We cannot be the greatest nation on the earth if we don't pay our taxes and fight our wars.
It's our responsibility to pay taxes, its Bush's responsibility to properly spend this money. We are the share holders and Bush is our CEO.
Mr.President, Do you believe that during a time of international crisis and with our responsibility to fight the war on terror that we as American's should not accept that responsibility ourselves through taxes?
Mr. President, Should the war on terror be faught alone and if not then how can we regain the moral leadership and trust of the international community?
Right now we are arguing about whats illegal and what isnt. If we can't even figure out all the details of the law then obviously the law needs to be updated.
How is child porn defined? Nudity? What?
What age is a child a child and how exactly do we enforce it if teeangers have sex and produce their own porn? I don't think our laws even considered this stuff.
Here is what we should do, we should ask our doctors and scientists to tell us an age that a child is physically an adult and mentally mature enough. Myself I'd say around 16, but the law says 18, in some situations its 13, but to most people its clear that someone under 13 is a child, it gets fuzzy as they get older.
You could be right with all these teenagers and their cams, maybe its not child porn if they themselves took the pictures, so what are we supposed to do about that? Theres nothing we can do.
With children under 13 however we should just make it so they can't use a computer without censoring the computer and monitoring their activity. Someone under 13 is clearly a child mentally and physically and theres no debate on this. 16 is so close to 18 that a person who looks at a 16 year old could easily be fooled into thinking they are 18 and this is where things get fuzzy. If the person can't figure out the persons age by looking at them and the 16 year old distributes her own pictures and pretends to be 18 theres nothing we can do.
The age which says child does not always match up with the physical age or mental age of the person involved. Currently all he child porn laws are to stop pedophiles, but the majority of us arent peodphiles and the majority of child porn is most likely teen porn.
If what you say is true and most child porn is created in eastern europe and I actually agree with that statement because their laws their arent as strict, the solution create strict laws against the creation of childporn, such as 10 years in prison for each child they abuse, this would be a start.
The distribution once its created is impossible to stop so you can only stop its creation.
Yeah you are right about that but we need to clearly define the law. What exactly is a child and can we realistically enforce the over 18 limit? Most adults consider under 13 a child, most adults won't give webcams to children, but teenagers will buy their own webcams and might have a job.
So this situation is a situation of irresponsible parents and stupid teenagers. Child porn and Teen porn should be treated differently. You cannot really stop teen porn but theres no excuse for child porn.
Trying to stop teenagers from being stupid is like trying to stop them from drinking and doing drugs, its a lost cause. You are right we do need to fix the laws because the laws arent designed for the digital age.
Setting up fake sites would be illegal. The only way to stop child porn is to stop its production and I don't know how you go about doing that with censorship. Censorship only increases demand.
The alternative is to copy japan and let them watch whatever fake porn and arrest the people who own or create real childporn. The whole childporn debate should be about protecting children and not censorship.
The way to protect children is to prevent children from being exploited in the first place, censorship of childporn sites won't make a difference because the site already exists. What makes a difference is shutting the site down and finding out where the owner got their pictures and if they refuse to talk then you put them in prison.
The hard drive does not need to transmit at that speed if theres enough ram. Also the harddrive can have cache itself to speed the process. 128 megs of harddrive internal cache with 10 gigs of system ram and you might have the type of computer to take advantage of the speed.
Most people who do download music arent going to be able to download the kind of music you mentioned nor would they want to.
Second, when I said no one should own music I mean the actual compositions, someone has to still "play" the composition! So people will still go to concerts to hear LIVE art vs stale captured art.
If you could listen to your favorite musicians create new innovative variations to their songs on the fly vs listen to the same boring compositions then you'd go to concerts wouldn't you?
The reason people don't pay for music is because most of the musicians suck and lack the talent to put on a totally new show every night. If every concert is a new show and its never exactly the same then you can have people going to your concerts 3-4 maybe 5 times.
Talent is what matters, ability to play as well as compose and a musician should have both. With both then a musician would make more money with P2P than without it because P2P advertises the concerts.
I think music is not a product but an artform. People should pay to go to concerts, people should pay for CDs, but music should never be something which is treated as intellectual property because its an art.
Artists don't even make money from copyrights on music so whats the point of defending it?
If they aren't "smart" enough, they must be handicapped,
They arent handicapped but in a way they are. You can be of average intelligence but average is not good enough anymore. A guy like George Bush would be considered handicapped by most of our standards.
Yes stupid people can find work, the problem is welfare pays them more not to work than McDonalds pays them to work.
People who are anti welfare are actually making the situation worse. What other option exists besides prison for people who arent smart enough or too lazy to work?
With welfare at least they could work part time, at least they'd be contributing to society and buying their own food. Why the hell do we want to build all these prisons to throw the poor into when we can just give them an education so they can work hard and get a job and if not then giving them welfare seems like a better option than to give them a prison cell.
Also its less costly to give someone welfare because at some point they might actually get a job. When you put someone in prison they'll never get a job when they come out.
Before I am accused of being a racist by those of more liberal persuasions, I am Asian (biologically, at least) and would stand to benefit from some affirmative action programs. Black people in America (not all but many) are constantly complaining about the perceived inequality between themselves and the rest of America, but they will never acheive equality if we continue to treat them inequally with affirmative action.
Do you have statistics which prove without a doubt that blacks are the majority of people who benefit from Affirmative Action? Honestly theres not that many blacks in this country and theres just as many if not more hispanics and asians. What is your point? Why is every issue a black and white issue as if the other groups in this country don't go on welfare and arent struggling too.
Finally if you are Asian how do you know you actually earned your job? The reason affirmative action exists is because if it didnt, you'd never be able to find a job unless you worked for an asian company, blacks would never be able to find a job unless they worked for a black company, and most workplaces would be extremely segregated just like most communities were in historical evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think they are going to remove the high fructose corn syrup from all the products that are causing diabetes? Hell no. Most of us already are insulin resistant. The best thing to do is to find a cure for diabetes instead of worrying about how to prevent it. It's no longer possible to prevent it when theres high fructose corn syrup in just about every food. The only solution to diabetes is to find a way to upregulate insulin receptors and increase insulin sensitivity so people never develop type 2 diabetes, and for those who do it can be reversed. When you reverse or prevent insulin resistance you prevent people from dying of heart disease and you actually strengthen the financial viability of the healthcare industry. Right now drug industrys like the diabetes situation because they have a continuous supply of new diabetics coming in. At some point half the population will be diabetic, and when this happens its going to be too late.
The best situation would be for people to fund the search for a cure, not the search for a new drug or treatment. This means people need to fund the supplement industry not the drug industry, and people need to start open source drug companies that share their discoveries. These drug companies will form when doctors want to cure diabetes, and people with big money want to fund these doctors. Hey if people with diabetes or who have certain genes to make them vulnerable to it actually became a member of a network of individuals trying to cure it, its only a matter of time. I think diabetes type 1 will be cured first, then type 2, I don't think cancer will ever be cured, however I think we will find ways to prevent it.
If you want a cure, you have to make it yourself, drug companies will never make it and will do everything in their power to surpress you and your industry backing a cure if you ever do come up with a cure. So if you are rich and powerful, and diabetes genes are in your family, it is your responsibility to cure the disease. It is also the responsibility of consumers, lawyers, etc.
Heart disease will be cured once insulin resistance is cured. Insulin resistance will be cured once diabetes is cured. All of this won't increase or decrease lifespan, what it does is it increases the quality of life.
Some countries have no reason to fear us. China, Russia, Isreal, North Korea, these countries all have nukes, they have space travel, they can most likely bomb us from space just as easily as we can bomb them. The whole space wars idea is dumb. When I drive my car do I attach a gun to the front of my car to avoid traffic? Hell no, instead theres rules of the road which everyone follows to prevent accidents. Why not have rules of space?
Everyone believes that its best to be efficient with the tax money, both the democrats and republicans claim this and for the most part its true for both sides because they both know that in order to increase the size and influence of government that you have to spend the money in ways which matter to the taxpayers, else people such as yourself will complain the taxes are too high because they do not benefit them.
Taxes do have a role and I don't believe now is the best time to lower them. I do believe the government should be precise with how they spend their money but this should be reflected by the voters wishes.
This is why both the demorats and republicans will go on TV to debate how they will spend our money. I think the question is how do we want our tax dollars spent? We are the shareholders so lets act like it,
By moral leadership I do not mean we should follow the UN moral system, I mean we should follow our own moral system.
We believe in strength because you have to be strong and competent to carry out your responsibilities and no one is debating the strength of Mr.Bush, what is on debate is if he is being a responsible leader.
We believe in safety and protection and that is why we need strength.
We believe in fulfillment in life and this is why we have the ability to empathize with others who may or may not be able to have a life like ours.
We believe in freedom but we also believe in fairness because when we care about others we believe we should treat them fairly while also helping them them treat others fairly.
We believe in freedom, this allows us to have fulfillment, it allows us to live up to our full potential and realize our dreams.
We believe in opportunity, because a society in which we care about others has to be a society which is fair.
We believe in prosperity because without prosperity there can be no oppurtunity.
We believe in communities, healthy communities are based on cooperation, honestty, trust and open communication.
The United States of America is a community, and what is the major issue in this election? Betrayal of trust. Without honesty you cannot have trust or open communication.
We also believe in discipline, this means the ability to earn your prosperity.
and because discipline is so important, we reward those who have it.
Discipline will also be a debate in this election.
So the election is going to be discipline vs trust, and we have to pick the value which we want because neither Bush or Kerry has both qualities.
We need a moral leadership to represent our morality to the world and Mr.Bush needs to explain his betrayal of our trust to both the international community and to American voters. Kerry needs to prove he has the discipline to run this country and represent us.
Why are you afraid to pay your dues? America is not free, building a country like this costs money, why not pay for membership in our country?
Waste? The private sector wastes just as much money as the public sector trying to come up with new ideas. In the private sector shareholders often have to wait for years while Microsoft or others come up with good ideas. The benefits come when that revolutionary idea happens and the same rules apply to the public sector and to the government.
Our government needs R&D to continue to keep America strong.
All of the major inventions have been produced by the public sector. Road, The internet, radio, satelites, robotics, even computers.
This technology is then passed down to the private sector and the reason the public sector must develop the building blocks of future technology is because the private sector will not invest its R&D into something without immediate profitability. We need taxes to build the foundations to new industries.
We also need taxes to train the workers of these new industries. NanoTechnology may someday be a new industry but if we cannot educate the scientists of the future through the public academic sector do you think the private sector wants to pick up the tab? Absolutely they will pick up the tab, but they will train workers in india, china, africa, and every third world country they can to reduce costs.
Without a public sector we have no way to protect American workers. Without a public sector its harder to start a business. Do you want to learn Indian and go over to India to teach C and C++ or do you want to just hire a kid out of college in your own country?
Are you saying Microsoft as a company should not care about working conditions of the employees? How will Microsoft ensure employee loyalty if they do not care about the needs of the employees? What would stop these employees from quitting and going to work for Apple? What would stop them from even joining the Linux movement?
If we are going to be the military leader, economic leader, and world leader, we should also be the moral leader. To regain moral leadership the international community must trust us again.
Would Microsoft believe that cutting R&D would be good for their company at this time of global competition in the form of Linux?
No of course not, they won't cut R&D, Microsoft increases R&D as a commitment to their goal and they increase their commitment to share holders to earn and regain the trust.
This means we need targetted tax cuts by our CEO Mr.Bush to the middle class, and we need increased spending on R&D to develop the technologies and to create the building blocks from which we can construct the world of tomorrow.
We need a long term vision not just short term.
What we should ask ourselves and not the President is it is actually good strategy to lower our commitment in a time of war.
The taxes will always be there as the price we pay for living in America. This price provides benefits such as the internet, radio, and scientific building blocks which in the future will allow us to compete in a global economy but not just for economic reasons would a tax cut at this time be bad, it would also be bad because we have a war on terror to fight.
What we as well as the President should ask ourselves is if we are seriously committed to this war on terror and what are we willing to sacrifice for increased security of both ourselves physically and security of our economy. This requires investments. We cannot be the greatest nation on the earth if we don't pay our taxes and fight our wars.
It's our responsibility to pay taxes, its Bush's responsibility to properly spend this money. We are the share holders and Bush is our CEO.
Mr.President, Do you believe that during a time of international crisis and with our responsibility to fight the war on terror that we as American's should not accept that responsibility ourselves through taxes?
Mr. President, Should the war on terror be faught alone and if not then how can we regain the moral leadership and trust of the international community?
Mr. President, Do you believe the government should decide who should marry who?
Right now we are arguing about whats illegal and what isnt. If we can't even figure out all the details of the law then obviously the law needs to be updated.
How is child porn defined? Nudity? What?
What age is a child a child and how exactly do we enforce it if teeangers have sex and produce their own porn? I don't think our laws even considered this stuff.
Here is what we should do, we should ask our doctors and scientists to tell us an age that a child is physically an adult and mentally mature enough. Myself I'd say around 16, but the law says 18, in some situations its 13, but to most people its clear that someone under 13 is a child, it gets fuzzy as they get older.
You could be right with all these teenagers and their cams, maybe its not child porn if they themselves took the pictures, so what are we supposed to do about that? Theres nothing we can do.
With children under 13 however we should just make it so they can't use a computer without censoring the computer and monitoring their activity. Someone under 13 is clearly a child mentally and physically and theres no debate on this. 16 is so close to 18 that a person who looks at a 16 year old could easily be fooled into thinking they are 18 and this is where things get fuzzy. If the person can't figure out the persons age by looking at them and the 16 year old distributes her own pictures and pretends to be 18 theres nothing we can do.
The age which says child does not always match up with the physical age or mental age of the person involved. Currently all he child porn laws are to stop pedophiles, but the majority of us arent peodphiles and the majority of child porn is most likely teen porn.
If what you say is true and most child porn is created in eastern europe and I actually agree with that statement because their laws their arent as strict, the solution create strict laws against the creation of childporn, such as 10 years in prison for each child they abuse, this would be a start.
The distribution once its created is impossible to stop so you can only stop its creation.
Yeah you are right about that but we need to clearly define the law. What exactly is a child and can we realistically enforce the over 18 limit? Most adults consider under 13 a child, most adults won't give webcams to children, but teenagers will buy their own webcams and might have a job.
So this situation is a situation of irresponsible parents and stupid teenagers. Child porn and Teen porn should be treated differently. You cannot really stop teen porn but theres no excuse for child porn.
Trying to stop teenagers from being stupid is like trying to stop them from drinking and doing drugs, its a lost cause. You are right we do need to fix the laws because the laws arent designed for the digital age.
Setting up fake sites would be illegal. The only way to stop child porn is to stop its production and I don't know how you go about doing that with censorship. Censorship only increases demand.
The alternative is to copy japan and let them watch whatever fake porn and arrest the people who own or create real childporn. The whole childporn debate should be about protecting children and not censorship.
The way to protect children is to prevent children from being exploited in the first place, censorship of childporn sites won't make a difference because the site already exists. What makes a difference is shutting the site down and finding out where the owner got their pictures and if they refuse to talk then you put them in prison.
The hard drive does not need to transmit at that speed if theres enough ram. Also the harddrive can have cache itself to speed the process. 128 megs of harddrive internal cache with 10 gigs of system ram and you might have the type of computer to take advantage of the speed.
With about 10 gigs of ram none of this is going to matter.
Harddrive Speed is important but ram is more important.
Most people who do download music arent going to be able to download the kind of music you mentioned nor would they want to.
Second, when I said no one should own music I mean the actual compositions, someone has to still "play" the composition! So people will still go to concerts to hear LIVE art vs stale captured art.
If you could listen to your favorite musicians create new innovative variations to their songs on the fly vs listen to the same boring compositions then you'd go to concerts wouldn't you?
The reason people don't pay for music is because most of the musicians suck and lack the talent to put on a totally new show every night. If every concert is a new show and its never exactly the same then you can have people going to your concerts 3-4 maybe 5 times.
Talent is what matters, ability to play as well as compose and a musician should have both. With both then a musician would make more money with P2P than without it because P2P advertises the concerts.
Please come up with an arguement against this.
Compose and play your music via the software or electronic hardware like most musicians.
Who the hell listens to music like that anyway besides Bill Gates?
I think music is not a product but an artform. People should pay to go to concerts, people should pay for CDs, but music should never be something which is treated as intellectual property because its an art. Artists don't even make money from copyrights on music so whats the point of defending it?
What will we see first? E17 or project looking glass?
I'm going with project looking glass.
If they aren't "smart" enough, they must be handicapped, They arent handicapped but in a way they are. You can be of average intelligence but average is not good enough anymore. A guy like George Bush would be considered handicapped by most of our standards. Yes stupid people can find work, the problem is welfare pays them more not to work than McDonalds pays them to work.
People who are anti welfare are actually making the situation worse. What other option exists besides prison for people who arent smart enough or too lazy to work?
With welfare at least they could work part time, at least they'd be contributing to society and buying their own food. Why the hell do we want to build all these prisons to throw the poor into when we can just give them an education so they can work hard and get a job and if not then giving them welfare seems like a better option than to give them a prison cell.
Also its less costly to give someone welfare because at some point they might actually get a job. When you put someone in prison they'll never get a job when they come out.
Before I am accused of being a racist by those of more liberal persuasions, I am Asian (biologically, at least) and would stand to benefit from some affirmative action programs. Black people in America (not all but many) are constantly complaining about the perceived inequality between themselves and the rest of America, but they will never acheive equality if we continue to treat them inequally with affirmative action.
Do you have statistics which prove without a doubt that blacks are the majority of people who benefit from Affirmative Action? Honestly theres not that many blacks in this country and theres just as many if not more hispanics and asians. What is your point? Why is every issue a black and white issue as if the other groups in this country don't go on welfare and arent struggling too.
Finally if you are Asian how do you know you actually earned your job? The reason affirmative action exists is because if it didnt, you'd never be able to find a job unless you worked for an asian company, blacks would never be able to find a job unless they worked for a black company, and most workplaces would be extremely segregated just like most communities were in historical evidence.