Your physique is the result of what you put into it.
I agree with you mostly, except for that. I wish it were that simple. But, given an overview of what we have learned in genetics we see bodies with unique nutritional needs (albeit overlapping). True, what we put in has a direct impact on how well we perform, feel, stay healthy, etc, but different people have different nutritional needs. For some, eating a diet high in carbohydrates and low in protein and fat is the perfect answer, for others it is not. But, eating a healthy selection of the food types that are best for you is important. Avoiding junk, is important. Potatoes for instance make me very tired, pump my blood sugars to the moon and then make me sick. Tomatoes don't have the effect on blood sugars, but they give me flu like symptoms. I can eat very hot spicy foods, and I feel better, whereas many people do not. When I eat a low fat diet, I tend to get a run down immune system. Even though I am eating lots of salads with a large variety of greens, beans and other healthy foods.
Mixing different food types is important, as is drinking enough water.
My only question is how much will it cost Microsoft to fix this for themselves? Yeah, mod me down fanboys. But, the reality is this is something Microsoft has done all too often. So have many other companies. This seems to be a huge issue to Microsoft. Maybe they will let it slide for now and spend time building up their bastardized version of open format (truly a closed format) while doing what they can to destroy a truly open format (like they did with so many other standards before), or will they decide to go for the quick kill and buy the standard?
I used to really like Microsoft products. I used to look forward to when they came out with new products. I also used to like Monsanto for their *engineering*. Reality is they both have too much in common. I believe Open Format is far more important than anything else in computing at the moment. The implications for the future and the present are huge. Open Format is truly what is needed to create competition. As long as the documents are interoperable across applications, then the applications will have to compete on best of breed, not best of lock in. And, as a bonus if the formats are open, then the worry of data loss due to format loss or is much lower. How many times I have had to pull something from an archive in the Microsoft world only to find none of the current tools can open a document that old (happens in law and finance). That is one of the reasons everyone I have worked with keeps digital images of their documents. They are still human readable, though it does defeat several of the strengths of digitally stored documents.
What do you all think? Will Microsoft go for the long term takeover or try to force the issue now (and why do you think so)?
I am a diabetic, and have been for probably 20 years. I have had to pay special attention to my diet and its effects by keeping a diary of what I eat, how much insulin I use, how I feel and what my weight and SIZE are.
Anyone can loose weight by not eating. At the extreme, this is known as anorexia. I have been down both roads, low carb and low cal. I have lost weight on both, but on the low cal diet, eating foods that are supposed to be very good for you, I was always getting sick. I was tired all the time and I had a hard time focusing. I did loose some weight, but not near enough. Yeah, that USDA recommendation really worked well. Not!
Then, I started in on the Adkins diet and lost most of the rest of the weight. I felt better, had more energy and the best part, my blood serum levels of ldl, cholesterol and other negative indicators became very good. In fact my ldl became so low on the diet that I was told to increase it (Yes, ldl does serve a useful purpose and not having enough is bad for you).
I was walking and bicycling on both diets and taking a good vitamin. I value my sleep, so I don't let myself skimp on that. I did notice that I needed about 2 hours more per day on the normal diet to feel at my peak and stay healthy. I also noticed that my insulin requirements dropped by about two thirds on the Adkins diet.
I had a precautionary heart exam performed this year, and the arteries around it are in perfect condition (no blockage whatsoever).
What is the moral of my experience? We are individuals with unique bio-chemical compositions. Maybe 99.5% similar, but that last.5% can be an extreme difference in how we need to live. The Inuit lived on nothing but meat and fat, and look at how healthy they were. A group of people may exist for thousands of years on a particular diet, and without medicine, as a group they adapt to live on that diet. If they do not, they die. Pretty simple stuff. The whole idea of one diet fits all is ignorant unscientific BS. The food pyramid has its start in supporting agriculture, not science. It seems like the right thing on the surface, but then again so did keeping foul odors away to prevent disease, or blood letting to get rid of the bad fluids in a sick person.
Technologically, we have to grow beyond these concepts to become a healthier society. With the discovery of genes and other determining factors of the human growth and development, we have the chance to truly understand why things work the way we do. Instead of spouting one size fits all BS, we need to put much more effort into understanding the variations in our composition that make people respond differently to foods, medicines, light sources, sounds, socialization, etc. Anything less is ignorance and belongs in a certain museum in Kentucky.
I was already getting brownouts from my ISP provider. It took them over six months to fix the issue. Now, it works all the time, but nowhere near the advertised speeds. Is this what they might be referring to? Cause, if it is, those issues are already here.
My greatest fear is not what we are, but what we may yet become.
The slippery slope gets more slippery the further along it you are.
We have nothing to fear, but fear itself, and fear itself may be used to justify the end to the freedoms that we have left, as it has been used as a justification to limit/end the freedoms it already has.
That is a nice list of names, with a few notable presidents who were assassinated, but I looked up a few of the election results, and I did not see the comparison outside of Rutherford Hayes (1876) and Benjamin Harrison (1888). Ironically, this situation has only occurred where a Republican has defeated a Democrat (the democrat has won the popular vote, but the republican has won the electoral vote), and these situations have normally been surrounded by very problematic conditions with the vote count, handling or voter denial.
As an aside, there is a tidbit of information on in the wikipedia entry for the 1888 election that pertains to the past 20 years concerning free trade.
For our next trick, we will quote Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern as principles of honesty and integrity in reporting.
Group think is really a misnomer. Group think is really a large bunch of individuals not thinking (or thinking at a minimal level). So, republicans, democrats, libertarians, religious assemblies, whatever, is just minimal thinking individuals participating in groups guided by a few individuals in swarm behavior. It really does make so much sense this way. It has almost always worked when marketing. That is why marketers want a buzz about their ads and products, it promotes a swarm (mob) mentality about the product in question.
It is funny, but I think this will have more impact on marketing in the next 10 years than anything else.
Someone marked me troll. What a looser. Are you going to argue that what has been done has not been done? Are you going to argue that Microsoft has one of the most effective marketing machines around? Are you going to argue that this did not happen after Windows 98, ME, 2000, 2003, XP, etc? Are you going to argue that Microsoft is not continuously talking (leaking) future components that never make it into the Operating System? If you are going to argue any of this, go back and study their history. They have done and do do all of this. Why? I'll tell you why.
First, marketing. There products are notorious for release issues and patching issues. I have had to deal with many of these (as most people here have). Some of the people here say, oh well, that is just how it is! Some say, I paid for this restrictive license junk, I want better, or at least I want to be able to fix what is broken, or fix what they broke in the patch! By keeping the focus off the problems, they garnish a better reputation. All of those not paying attention to the real issues, follow the shiny ball. If it did not work, why do you think companies spend billions of dollars per year (only including the US market) to accomplish market share (mind share/viewer share)?
Second, research. They float a bunch of ideas into the market to see how well they are received. Not just by the end user, but by the business markets as well (DRM???). What seems to float well, they focus more effort on (as that is a hot button, and that is what will sell) and what they can actually develop of those parts makes it in. No matter how you color it, it saves them time, money and the headache of having to know exactly what people want. it is like fuzzy logic, they hedge their bets, and the public and business (and government) lets them know what they like and dislike.
Third, professional image. In the years that go by, as others introduce the technologies they are working on, Microsoft can claim we were already working on that in blah blah blah. That helps with patents, copyright, and other claims that may be leveled against them. Their software may not always be very good, but they really do know their marketing and legal stuff. Like it or not, in any large valued industry, those are the two most important parts, not product.
Jeesh, must be the month of prozac. Never had so many emotionally disturbed post responses in my life.
It may be called a wish list, but is marketing. They have been doing this for a long time. Release a broken OS, then talk about the next coming. People focus on the vapor (ooh, its shiny), and overlook the broken stuff more. They are not the first, nor are they going to be the last. The problem is the average consumer who has no desire to do be aware of what is going on. They live day to day, in their world, ignoring almost anything that happens outside of their small bubble (unless it is in Star magazine, or the Enquirer - *solid* information). Too many people spend their time floating through life working their 8 to 10 hours per day, then plopping their bottom on the couch at home, and then tranquilizing their mind and spirit with 100 (1000 now with digital) channels of nothing.
It works because most people are so immediate, and can not normally remember much after 15 minutes. But, the warm fuzzy feeling remains. Politicians are especially well known for doing this, as are many other companies (SCO anyone?). Best way to put an end to this practice is to stop being the patsy for it.
Oh wait, that would mean the average person would have to care about something outside of their bubble. Sorry.
Actually, you are correct. No argument here. It is not a matter of good and bad, but the lesser of evils.
We the people (in general) have our collective heads to far up where they do not belong to deserve a democracy anymore. That is why each successive administration tends to push the limits further (and we see less and less of a democracy - or republic). This one just did a kind of warp speed ahead, so it is noticed much more - got us into a war based on lies, strongly participated in the tanking of the economy (wittingly or not), outed a devoted public servant (Valerie) and many more things. But, they both did bad things.
Personally, I would be happy if he had simply dropped his pants for some *innocent* intern. That is so much easier to explain to my kids than this pile of rubbish. Gah, what am I worried about, there will be someone worse soon. That ought to scare me, but I know it is coming, and I know what it is (just not who, nor from which side). Nothing like legalizing organized criminals.
Along those lines, maybe the US going bankrupt, or a world wide depression might be good. All of that suffering might lead to people actually taking the time to elect good people, for an election or two at least. [sarcasm off]
Once more, the oft quoted post is more tragic than humorous. I doubt the individuals controlling the White House will actually listen to a Judge any more than they pay attention to the constitution. This will probably spur them into a deletion frenzy. They will probably simply find another way to communicate that has less of a trail.
It is kind of like making it illegal to own guns or use encryption. The criminals never listen anyway.
Not in the least, are you, and what does that have to do with it?
No, you just come across that way.
Show me some numbers.
Okay, you asked for it, here are some links. There are thousands of entries in the databases and journals that are not outdated research. Many of which you can not access directly form the web (subscription required). Here are a few links I glossed over quickly:
Do you really want me to go on? As I had said before, there is a ton of research that shows this. There are many reasons, poverty being but one. Children of single parent households are at greater risk (risk means chance, as in it might be, but might not be), but not doomed. And, I was not making a comment on yourself (just the language you
used and the attitude which you came across with.) I have studied and worked in psychology, sociology and recovery. Have you? If you have, what has caused you to believe that economics are the sole foundation of family's woes. That sounds like a very narrow and personal understanding of the issues at hand. I have seen mental health, drugs, accidents, abuse, life crises, market changes, job shifts, marital issues, and many others things cause the issues you so conveniently blame poverty for. On the flip side, I have seen outstanding leaders, students, writers, managers, researchers, etc come from poverty stricken homes. Our world has a fine history of great individuals growing up in poverty to lead and become icons of success.
Poverty is a societal crime anymore in my opinion, but it is not the cause of all of these issues. Having worked in schools, I can tell you from first hand experience that it is the attitude of the parent(s) that make the crucial difference. And, there is also a great deal of research out there to explain to you as well.
It's a cycle, and the cycle typically begins with (drum roll...) Poverty!. Your making a gross exaggeration here.
And you are making a gross simplification of an enormous problem touching on a multitude of issues from mental health to parent's values. How do you explain so many children of well off parents winding up in poverty, so many children of poverty stricken parents winding up great successes? Poverty has something to do with it, but not as much as things have to do with poverty. One of the reasons I support public education over private is poverty discrimination inherent in private educations. Your language reminds me of the teenagers I deal with. That is another reason I asked if you were bitter about your life. The way we use language and the way we disparage others is a very big clue. The more bitter we are on the inside, the more we lash out on the outside. At others we do not know and even more so at those who are close to us.
Honestly I don't think you read what I said, nor do I think you have any fucking right saying that kids with two parents are better off than kids with one.
I read what you typed. there is but one root factor here dipshit[And you wonder why I asked if you are bitter?!?!?], it's money, poor couples are about 40% more likely to argue and split up, the kids are more likely to wind up being yelled at excessively/getting-the-shit-beaten-out-of. this has nothing to do with two working parents, single parents, mixed homes, etc Uh, yes it does. If you have experience researchin
Are you bitter about your life? Money is not the only factor, nor is being single. There are plenty of well off couples who simply both want careers, are not good parents, have their own set of overwhelming issues...
You can find the comment as offensive as you want. It was not meant to be. Your reaction and language back up what I was saying. Single parents have a statistically higher chance of having troubled children and being troubled themselves. It has a lot to do with the extra stress, self-doubt (many times stemming from whatever caused the person to be a single parent, and what they had to give up to become a single parent) not whether or not they are bad people. Whatever blanket reason you might want to give, there are many factors, money only being one. There is a reason advertising campaigns like "Parents, the anti-drug" are out. They are true. And for parents to be able to parent, they have to be there. A one parent family is not so different from a two parent family with both parents working (especially in retail or some other job when your hours do not mesh with your childrens' hours).
Married parents can have just as many issues as well. If your spouse is not there for the children, and constantly gets in your way while you are trying to help the children, then the net is a greater negative for the children. Life is not perfect, and neither are people. Things happen, we loose ones we love and wind up alone, those we marry turn out to be horribly wrong for us, etc... Being disadvantaged does not make us bad, it merely means we have a harder fight than others (but normally not as hard as others still).
As a single parent, are you able to be with your children from the time they get out of school until the time they go back the next day? Are you able to leave work at a moment's notice to deal with their issues that need attention? Are you able know all of their friends, and their parents as well? Are you able to sit down with them and assist them with their homework, ensuring it is not only complete, but well learned? Are you able to volunteer in their schools to know what is going on in their classes on a weekly basis? Are you able to take them on trips to teach them about the world around them? Are you able to have a social life they can be part of to see how good healthy relationships work? Are you able to...? Just in case you were thinking I am attacking single parenting, there are many married couples who can not answer yes to these questions! The best parenting starts with being there, but not being able to be there does not make you a bad parent, it just makes you not there. If you can not do that, you are already behind. Single or married does not change that. No matter how good you are (I am or anyone is), you can't make up for not being present.
Most important of anything is what kind of example do you set for your children? Not what you say (maybe how you say things), but more importantly, what you do, what promises you make *and* keep, what bad habits you have, how much you know about them (they need to know they are important to you), how you follow the rules you set, the laws around you and so on. Being married does not make you better at these things. You have to really want to be a good parent to hit all these things. Anyone can do it, most do not.
Being a single parent is tough. I know. But, you can not put your head in the sand and pretend that you can do the same job as two parents working together (and I know that for people who are divorced, more often than not, the parents were not able to work together or provide a good example of marriage because one or the other or both would not commit and keep their part of the marital promise/commitment). We all have 24 hours per day, whether we like it or not. You can only do the best you can do. Is it good enough? You will know in thirty to fifty years. Until then, ranting like a child and swearing like a child only shows you have issues that belong to you. The childlike
I know that I would prefer to live in a society where everyone is encouraged to do their best. That attitude seems to be a lot more constructive and egalitarian to me.
Which is why people do not throw trash out their car windows, smoke in places they are not supposed to smoke, exceed the speed limit, play music (or any other noise producing device) excessively loud in residential areas, leave garbage sitting on their front lawn, sell drugs out of residential areas (to kids even), cut in line, act like asses in general? Because given no real encouragement, people just do the right thing? Right?
I agree with the concept, but not the potential application. People in general are selfish and are wont to do as they see others do, even if they do not like the behavior from others. Like a bunch of monkeys, monkey see, monkey do.
Now, that does not mean we need the government legislating as much as it does, but when I want to eat in peace, I want to eat in peace, and if my favorite restaurant prevents cell phone calls, smoke and other intrusions into my dining experience, then what do you think I am paying for? If they provide the needed emergency communications services, then what liability do you think the have? I prefer an emf blockout region, as it can be turned off in an emergency, whereas a cage can not be turned off. Regulating how an area can have cell phone services restricted may be a function of government to provide *guidelines* for peoples' safety. But, as to whether or not they can prevent these intrusions (unless like smoke their is a proven health concern) or enforce them, I say no, the government has no business doing so.
I already avoid restaurants and theaters that have cell phone users talking while I am eating. Those businesses will simply not receive my money.
If one has a university education, it's a waste to just stay at home with the kids. Also, the kids will be better off in good kindergartens, with educated personnel and many similarly aged friends to play with.
So, the kids are far better off with a stranger being paid $6.00 to $9.00 per hour that most likely does not have a college education, let alone a strong belief in education or a strong desire to see all these children do well no matter what than to be home with a person who has walked the walk and believes in education, personal advancement, has a vested interest in the children they are watching and will be able to filter who the children will learn good habits and not learn bad habits from?
Since when did early childhood care centers actually have more than one person (if even that) who had serious early childhood development training working? Must not be the US anywhere I am used to, unless you are talking about the expensive centers where only a few can afford to send their kids. Even then, the stay at home parent involved in play groups seems to do very well. Children learn by example. The examples they see and spend time with.
Hmm. How about passive blocking is legal, but must have large signs so that anyone who enters the blocked area will know they are no longer going to be receiving cell phone signals. There must also be a publicly accessible phone and a phone that may be called that will be answered by a human being that allows for emergency communications to take place.
The idea is that there are places where one's restful/relaxed state ought not be interrupted. There are also situations that may arise where emergency communications are required. To allow both of these, as in other situations where the normal expectations might be unavailable, signs ought to be present to warn of this. Now, people can have a place where they go that is free of cell phone noise (pollution) just as they can go to places now that are free of smoke. Of course, smoking is never an emergent need (to my knowledge), whereas communications might be, so have a phone number that is guaranteed to be answered and phones that can be called out on available.
I know we do not go to the movies anymore, as the audience and the atmosphere of the theater is embarrassingly trashy. People talk throughout the show, there is garbage left all over the floor and the quality of the lighting, sound and seating is worthless. And, our theater is considered a good theater.
Admittedly cell phone conversations are only one of the issues with the theater, but if you can not watch a $30 movie without interruption, why try?
Their are restaurants around here that actively do not allow cell phones in the main part of the restaurant. They both provide a separate inside space to take your cell phone to talk while inside the building, but the dining, entertainment and waiting areas do not allow your cell phones to work. They have signs up to warn you of this. They have Friday and Saturday night reservations booked several weeks in advance. And, are still crowded on most weekdays (except Monday and Tuesday). It seems to be working there.
Well, if it was true for you, obviously it must be true for EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD. I bow to your superior logic.
I know from experience, working in schools and dealing firsthand with children and their families that there is a strong correlation to the presence of competent parenting and better adjusted children. I have also seen in a few situations a very well adjusted child come from a bad family situation. Though, that would definitely be the exception, not the rule. I can not give you hard statistics, but I can tell you that a majority of the poorer performers I dealt were from families where proper adult supervision was not present as much. I have also seen narcissistic wannabes come from families where one of the parents did stay home, but was not a good parent.
but is "TCP/IP standards compliance" part of their user contract?
That is a bit like providing telephone service for people with bulk packages (49.00 per month unlimited) and then forcing their conversation to hangup in the middle if they talk too much (hmm..)
Yep, that would be fraudulent. The Internet is based on the TCP/IP protocols. If a company does not hold to those protocols in good faith, they might as well be using ipx/spx. Offering a service based on a set of conditions happening a certain way, then not allowing those conditions to happen does not provide the service.
I have had many problems with Comcast. I still do not get the throughput they promise, but they have no viable competition in my city. In the city next door, a company is installing Fiber to the door and providing 10mbits bidirectional for under $30.00 per month. Comcast is loosing their shirt to them. When the competing company moves into our city, Comcast will loose me and many others do to their abusive nature.
I have been with Comcast since they first put high speed cable into the city here. I have averaged at best about 1.2Mbit down and a bit over 100kbit up. Far short of their advertised claims. I have been more than 20 percent downtime. No where near then 99+% uptime they *guarantee* (but never compensated for failing to achieve). So, why I am still with them. Because the competition is worse here. Much worse.
AT&T, et al provide DSL that works most of the time, but they charge as much as Comcast for less connectivity and less packet reliability and throughput. When I called about static IP, they did not have it for our area. They do not seem to see our market as worth making an effort for. Now, we have a private phone company moving into the area to provide fiber services hand in hand with the city.
The city laid the first fiber loops and they are passing them off to the private carrier for a *fee* and an ongoing maintenance charge. So, we might have chance with this offering. The company building out down south of us is doing fiber to the home as well, so we might have a chance with them as well (if they come up here). Or, we might wind up with YACMM (Yet another city mandated monopoly).
Meanwhile, my friends in Korea, Japan and Many places in Europe are getting inexpensive, robust highly reliable connections that have solid bandwidth starting at 25Mbit bidirectional and going up.
Slashdot Mirror
Your physique is the result of what you put into it.
I agree with you mostly, except for that. I wish it were that simple. But, given an overview of what we have learned in genetics we see bodies with unique nutritional needs (albeit overlapping). True, what we put in has a direct impact on how well we perform, feel, stay healthy, etc, but different people have different nutritional needs. For some, eating a diet high in carbohydrates and low in protein and fat is the perfect answer, for others it is not. But, eating a healthy selection of the food types that are best for you is important. Avoiding junk, is important. Potatoes for instance make me very tired, pump my blood sugars to the moon and then make me sick. Tomatoes don't have the effect on blood sugars, but they give me flu like symptoms. I can eat very hot spicy foods, and I feel better, whereas many people do not. When I eat a low fat diet, I tend to get a run down immune system. Even though I am eating lots of salads with a large variety of greens, beans and other healthy foods.
Mixing different food types is important, as is drinking enough water.
InnerWeb
My only question is how much will it cost Microsoft to fix this for themselves? Yeah, mod me down fanboys. But, the reality is this is something Microsoft has done all too often. So have many other companies. This seems to be a huge issue to Microsoft. Maybe they will let it slide for now and spend time building up their bastardized version of open format (truly a closed format) while doing what they can to destroy a truly open format (like they did with so many other standards before), or will they decide to go for the quick kill and buy the standard?
I used to really like Microsoft products. I used to look forward to when they came out with new products. I also used to like Monsanto for their *engineering*. Reality is they both have too much in common. I believe Open Format is far more important than anything else in computing at the moment. The implications for the future and the present are huge. Open Format is truly what is needed to create competition. As long as the documents are interoperable across applications, then the applications will have to compete on best of breed, not best of lock in. And, as a bonus if the formats are open, then the worry of data loss due to format loss or is much lower. How many times I have had to pull something from an archive in the Microsoft world only to find none of the current tools can open a document that old (happens in law and finance). That is one of the reasons everyone I have worked with keeps digital images of their documents. They are still human readable, though it does defeat several of the strengths of digitally stored documents.
What do you all think? Will Microsoft go for the long term takeover or try to force the issue now (and why do you think so)?
InnerWeb
I am a diabetic, and have been for probably 20 years. I have had to pay special attention to my diet and its effects by keeping a diary of what I eat, how much insulin I use, how I feel and what my weight and SIZE are.
Anyone can loose weight by not eating. At the extreme, this is known as anorexia. I have been down both roads, low carb and low cal. I have lost weight on both, but on the low cal diet, eating foods that are supposed to be very good for you, I was always getting sick. I was tired all the time and I had a hard time focusing. I did loose some weight, but not near enough. Yeah, that USDA recommendation really worked well. Not!
Then, I started in on the Adkins diet and lost most of the rest of the weight. I felt better, had more energy and the best part, my blood serum levels of ldl, cholesterol and other negative indicators became very good. In fact my ldl became so low on the diet that I was told to increase it (Yes, ldl does serve a useful purpose and not having enough is bad for you).
I was walking and bicycling on both diets and taking a good vitamin. I value my sleep, so I don't let myself skimp on that. I did notice that I needed about 2 hours more per day on the normal diet to feel at my peak and stay healthy. I also noticed that my insulin requirements dropped by about two thirds on the Adkins diet.
I had a precautionary heart exam performed this year, and the arteries around it are in perfect condition (no blockage whatsoever).
What is the moral of my experience? We are individuals with unique bio-chemical compositions. Maybe 99.5% similar, but that last .5% can be an extreme difference in how we need to live. The Inuit lived on nothing but meat and fat, and look at how healthy they were. A group of people may exist for thousands of years on a particular diet, and without medicine, as a group they adapt to live on that diet. If they do not, they die. Pretty simple stuff. The whole idea of one diet fits all is ignorant unscientific BS. The food pyramid has its start in supporting agriculture, not science. It seems like the right thing on the surface, but then again so did keeping foul odors away to prevent disease, or blood letting to get rid of the bad fluids in a sick person.
Technologically, we have to grow beyond these concepts to become a healthier society. With the discovery of genes and other determining factors of the human growth and development, we have the chance to truly understand why things work the way we do. Instead of spouting one size fits all BS, we need to put much more effort into understanding the variations in our composition that make people respond differently to foods, medicines, light sources, sounds, socialization, etc. Anything less is ignorance and belongs in a certain museum in Kentucky.
InnerWeb
Now, we begin to truly understand the complexity of swarm theory.
First a judge, now confused mods.
InnerWeb
I was already getting brownouts from my ISP provider. It took them over six months to fix the issue. Now, it works all the time, but nowhere near the advertised speeds. Is this what they might be referring to? Cause, if it is, those issues are already here.
[sarcasm off]
InnerWeb
My greatest fear is not what we are, but what we may yet become.
The slippery slope gets more slippery the further along it you are.
We have nothing to fear, but fear itself, and fear itself may be used to justify the end to the freedoms that we have left, as it has been used as a justification to limit/end the freedoms it already has.
InnerWeb
That is a nice list of names, with a few notable presidents who were assassinated, but I looked up a few of the election results, and I did not see the comparison outside of Rutherford Hayes (1876) and Benjamin Harrison (1888). Ironically, this situation has only occurred where a Republican has defeated a Democrat (the democrat has won the popular vote, but the republican has won the electoral vote), and these situations have normally been surrounded by very problematic conditions with the vote count, handling or voter denial.
As an aside, there is a tidbit of information on in the wikipedia entry for the 1888 election that pertains to the past 20 years concerning free trade.
What am I overlooking? Please educate.
InnerWeb
Troll Road?
InnerWeb
For our next trick, we will quote Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern as principles of honesty and integrity in reporting.
Group think is really a misnomer. Group think is really a large bunch of individuals not thinking (or thinking at a minimal level). So, republicans, democrats, libertarians, religious assemblies, whatever, is just minimal thinking individuals participating in groups guided by a few individuals in swarm behavior. It really does make so much sense this way. It has almost always worked when marketing. That is why marketers want a buzz about their ads and products, it promotes a swarm (mob) mentality about the product in question.
It is funny, but I think this will have more impact on marketing in the next 10 years than anything else.
InnerWeb
Someone marked me troll. What a looser. Are you going to argue that what has been done has not been done? Are you going to argue that Microsoft has one of the most effective marketing machines around? Are you going to argue that this did not happen after Windows 98, ME, 2000, 2003, XP, etc? Are you going to argue that Microsoft is not continuously talking (leaking) future components that never make it into the Operating System? If you are going to argue any of this, go back and study their history. They have done and do do all of this. Why? I'll tell you why.
First, marketing. There products are notorious for release issues and patching issues. I have had to deal with many of these (as most people here have). Some of the people here say, oh well, that is just how it is! Some say, I paid for this restrictive license junk, I want better, or at least I want to be able to fix what is broken, or fix what they broke in the patch! By keeping the focus off the problems, they garnish a better reputation. All of those not paying attention to the real issues, follow the shiny ball. If it did not work, why do you think companies spend billions of dollars per year (only including the US market) to accomplish market share (mind share/viewer share)?
Second, research. They float a bunch of ideas into the market to see how well they are received. Not just by the end user, but by the business markets as well (DRM???). What seems to float well, they focus more effort on (as that is a hot button, and that is what will sell) and what they can actually develop of those parts makes it in. No matter how you color it, it saves them time, money and the headache of having to know exactly what people want. it is like fuzzy logic, they hedge their bets, and the public and business (and government) lets them know what they like and dislike.
Third, professional image. In the years that go by, as others introduce the technologies they are working on, Microsoft can claim we were already working on that in blah blah blah. That helps with patents, copyright, and other claims that may be leveled against them. Their software may not always be very good, but they really do know their marketing and legal stuff. Like it or not, in any large valued industry, those are the two most important parts, not product.
Jeesh, must be the month of prozac. Never had so many emotionally disturbed post responses in my life.
It may be called a wish list, but is marketing. They have been doing this for a long time. Release a broken OS, then talk about the next coming. People focus on the vapor (ooh, its shiny), and overlook the broken stuff more. They are not the first, nor are they going to be the last. The problem is the average consumer who has no desire to do be aware of what is going on. They live day to day, in their world, ignoring almost anything that happens outside of their small bubble (unless it is in Star magazine, or the Enquirer - *solid* information). Too many people spend their time floating through life working their 8 to 10 hours per day, then plopping their bottom on the couch at home, and then tranquilizing their mind and spirit with 100 (1000 now with digital) channels of nothing.
It works because most people are so immediate, and can not normally remember much after 15 minutes. But, the warm fuzzy feeling remains. Politicians are especially well known for doing this, as are many other companies (SCO anyone?). Best way to put an end to this practice is to stop being the patsy for it.
Oh wait, that would mean the average person would have to care about something outside of their bubble. Sorry.
InnerWeb
Actually, you are correct. No argument here. It is not a matter of good and bad, but the lesser of evils.
We the people (in general) have our collective heads to far up where they do not belong to deserve a democracy anymore. That is why each successive administration tends to push the limits further (and we see less and less of a democracy - or republic). This one just did a kind of warp speed ahead, so it is noticed much more - got us into a war based on lies, strongly participated in the tanking of the economy (wittingly or not), outed a devoted public servant (Valerie) and many more things. But, they both did bad things.
Personally, I would be happy if he had simply dropped his pants for some *innocent* intern. That is so much easier to explain to my kids than this pile of rubbish. Gah, what am I worried about, there will be someone worse soon. That ought to scare me, but I know it is coming, and I know what it is (just not who, nor from which side). Nothing like legalizing organized criminals.
Along those lines, maybe the US going bankrupt, or a world wide depression might be good. All of that suffering might lead to people actually taking the time to elect good people, for an election or two at least. [sarcasm off]
InnerWeb
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Once more, the oft quoted post is more tragic than humorous. I doubt the individuals controlling the White House will actually listen to a Judge any more than they pay attention to the constitution. This will probably spur them into a deletion frenzy. They will probably simply find another way to communicate that has less of a trail.
It is kind of like making it illegal to own guns or use encryption. The criminals never listen anyway.
InnerWeb
and seeks to undermine a law put in place in response to Nixon.
Bush Jr and Nixon have way too much in common. Except, Nixon was a better politician and statesman.
InnerWeb
RIAA
InnerWeb
Flash based ads? I have not seen any. I use Firefox, maybe that is why.
InnerWeb
[Humor - product advertisement]
Not in the least, are you, and what does that have to do with it?
No, you just come across that way.
Show me some numbers.
Okay, you asked for it, here are some links. There are thousands of entries in the databases and journals that are not outdated research. Many of which you can not access directly form the web (subscription required). Here are a few links I glossed over quickly:
Do you really want me to go on? As I had said before, there is a ton of research that shows this. There are many reasons, poverty being but one. Children of single parent households are at greater risk (risk means chance, as in it might be, but might not be), but not doomed. And, I was not making a comment on yourself (just the language you used and the attitude which you came across with.) I have studied and worked in psychology, sociology and recovery. Have you? If you have, what has caused you to believe that economics are the sole foundation of family's woes. That sounds like a very narrow and personal understanding of the issues at hand. I have seen mental health, drugs, accidents, abuse, life crises, market changes, job shifts, marital issues, and many others things cause the issues you so conveniently blame poverty for. On the flip side, I have seen outstanding leaders, students, writers, managers, researchers, etc come from poverty stricken homes. Our world has a fine history of great individuals growing up in poverty to lead and become icons of success.
Poverty is a societal crime anymore in my opinion, but it is not the cause of all of these issues. Having worked in schools, I can tell you from first hand experience that it is the attitude of the parent(s) that make the crucial difference. And, there is also a great deal of research out there to explain to you as well.
It's a cycle, and the cycle typically begins with (drum roll...) Poverty!. Your making a gross exaggeration here.
And you are making a gross simplification of an enormous problem touching on a multitude of issues from mental health to parent's values. How do you explain so many children of well off parents winding up in poverty, so many children of poverty stricken parents winding up great successes? Poverty has something to do with it, but not as much as things have to do with poverty. One of the reasons I support public education over private is poverty discrimination inherent in private educations. Your language reminds me of the teenagers I deal with. That is another reason I asked if you were bitter about your life. The way we use language and the way we disparage others is a very big clue. The more bitter we are on the inside, the more we lash out on the outside. At others we do not know and even more so at those who are close to us.
Honestly I don't think you read what I said, nor do I think you have any fucking right saying that kids with two parents are better off than kids with one.
I read what you typed. there is but one root factor here dipshit[And you wonder why I asked if you are bitter?!?!?], it's money, poor couples are about 40% more likely to argue and split up, the kids are more likely to wind up being yelled at excessively/getting-the-shit-beaten-out-of. this has nothing to do with two working parents, single parents, mixed homes, etc Uh, yes it does. If you have experience researchin
Are you bitter about your life? Money is not the only factor, nor is being single. There are plenty of well off couples who simply both want careers, are not good parents, have their own set of overwhelming issues...
You can find the comment as offensive as you want. It was not meant to be. Your reaction and language back up what I was saying. Single parents have a statistically higher chance of having troubled children and being troubled themselves. It has a lot to do with the extra stress, self-doubt (many times stemming from whatever caused the person to be a single parent, and what they had to give up to become a single parent) not whether or not they are bad people. Whatever blanket reason you might want to give, there are many factors, money only being one. There is a reason advertising campaigns like "Parents, the anti-drug" are out. They are true. And for parents to be able to parent, they have to be there. A one parent family is not so different from a two parent family with both parents working (especially in retail or some other job when your hours do not mesh with your childrens' hours).
Married parents can have just as many issues as well. If your spouse is not there for the children, and constantly gets in your way while you are trying to help the children, then the net is a greater negative for the children. Life is not perfect, and neither are people. Things happen, we loose ones we love and wind up alone, those we marry turn out to be horribly wrong for us, etc... Being disadvantaged does not make us bad, it merely means we have a harder fight than others (but normally not as hard as others still).
As a single parent, are you able to be with your children from the time they get out of school until the time they go back the next day? Are you able to leave work at a moment's notice to deal with their issues that need attention? Are you able know all of their friends, and their parents as well? Are you able to sit down with them and assist them with their homework, ensuring it is not only complete, but well learned? Are you able to volunteer in their schools to know what is going on in their classes on a weekly basis? Are you able to take them on trips to teach them about the world around them? Are you able to have a social life they can be part of to see how good healthy relationships work? Are you able to...? Just in case you were thinking I am attacking single parenting, there are many married couples who can not answer yes to these questions! The best parenting starts with being there, but not being able to be there does not make you a bad parent, it just makes you not there. If you can not do that, you are already behind. Single or married does not change that. No matter how good you are (I am or anyone is), you can't make up for not being present.
Most important of anything is what kind of example do you set for your children? Not what you say (maybe how you say things), but more importantly, what you do, what promises you make *and* keep, what bad habits you have, how much you know about them (they need to know they are important to you), how you follow the rules you set, the laws around you and so on. Being married does not make you better at these things. You have to really want to be a good parent to hit all these things. Anyone can do it, most do not.
Being a single parent is tough. I know. But, you can not put your head in the sand and pretend that you can do the same job as two parents working together (and I know that for people who are divorced, more often than not, the parents were not able to work together or provide a good example of marriage because one or the other or both would not commit and keep their part of the marital promise/commitment). We all have 24 hours per day, whether we like it or not. You can only do the best you can do. Is it good enough? You will know in thirty to fifty years. Until then, ranting like a child and swearing like a child only shows you have issues that belong to you. The childlike
I know that I would prefer to live in a society where everyone is encouraged to do their best. That attitude seems to be a lot more constructive and egalitarian to me.
Which is why people do not throw trash out their car windows, smoke in places they are not supposed to smoke, exceed the speed limit, play music (or any other noise producing device) excessively loud in residential areas, leave garbage sitting on their front lawn, sell drugs out of residential areas (to kids even), cut in line, act like asses in general? Because given no real encouragement, people just do the right thing? Right?
I agree with the concept, but not the potential application. People in general are selfish and are wont to do as they see others do, even if they do not like the behavior from others. Like a bunch of monkeys, monkey see, monkey do.
Now, that does not mean we need the government legislating as much as it does, but when I want to eat in peace, I want to eat in peace, and if my favorite restaurant prevents cell phone calls, smoke and other intrusions into my dining experience, then what do you think I am paying for? If they provide the needed emergency communications services, then what liability do you think the have? I prefer an emf blockout region, as it can be turned off in an emergency, whereas a cage can not be turned off. Regulating how an area can have cell phone services restricted may be a function of government to provide *guidelines* for peoples' safety. But, as to whether or not they can prevent these intrusions (unless like smoke their is a proven health concern) or enforce them, I say no, the government has no business doing so.
I already avoid restaurants and theaters that have cell phone users talking while I am eating. Those businesses will simply not receive my money.
InnerWeb
If one has a university education, it's a waste to just stay at home with the kids. Also, the kids will be better off in good kindergartens, with educated personnel and many similarly aged friends to play with.
So, the kids are far better off with a stranger being paid $6.00 to $9.00 per hour that most likely does not have a college education, let alone a strong belief in education or a strong desire to see all these children do well no matter what than to be home with a person who has walked the walk and believes in education, personal advancement, has a vested interest in the children they are watching and will be able to filter who the children will learn good habits and not learn bad habits from?
Since when did early childhood care centers actually have more than one person (if even that) who had serious early childhood development training working? Must not be the US anywhere I am used to, unless you are talking about the expensive centers where only a few can afford to send their kids. Even then, the stay at home parent involved in play groups seems to do very well. Children learn by example. The examples they see and spend time with.
InnerWeb
Hmm. How about passive blocking is legal, but must have large signs so that anyone who enters the blocked area will know they are no longer going to be receiving cell phone signals. There must also be a publicly accessible phone and a phone that may be called that will be answered by a human being that allows for emergency communications to take place.
The idea is that there are places where one's restful/relaxed state ought not be interrupted. There are also situations that may arise where emergency communications are required. To allow both of these, as in other situations where the normal expectations might be unavailable, signs ought to be present to warn of this. Now, people can have a place where they go that is free of cell phone noise (pollution) just as they can go to places now that are free of smoke. Of course, smoking is never an emergent need (to my knowledge), whereas communications might be, so have a phone number that is guaranteed to be answered and phones that can be called out on available.
I know we do not go to the movies anymore, as the audience and the atmosphere of the theater is embarrassingly trashy. People talk throughout the show, there is garbage left all over the floor and the quality of the lighting, sound and seating is worthless. And, our theater is considered a good theater.
Admittedly cell phone conversations are only one of the issues with the theater, but if you can not watch a $30 movie without interruption, why try?
Their are restaurants around here that actively do not allow cell phones in the main part of the restaurant. They both provide a separate inside space to take your cell phone to talk while inside the building, but the dining, entertainment and waiting areas do not allow your cell phones to work. They have signs up to warn you of this. They have Friday and Saturday night reservations booked several weeks in advance. And, are still crowded on most weekdays (except Monday and Tuesday). It seems to be working there.
InnerWeb
Well, if it was true for you, obviously it must be true for EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD. I bow to your superior logic.
I know from experience, working in schools and dealing firsthand with children and their families that there is a strong correlation to the presence of competent parenting and better adjusted children. I have also seen in a few situations a very well adjusted child come from a bad family situation. Though, that would definitely be the exception, not the rule. I can not give you hard statistics, but I can tell you that a majority of the poorer performers I dealt were from families where proper adult supervision was not present as much. I have also seen narcissistic wannabes come from families where one of the parents did stay home, but was not a good parent.
InnerWeb
This makes sense. In a normal person, alcohol is broken down into water and sugar inside the body.
InnerWeb
but is "TCP/IP standards compliance" part of their user contract?
That is a bit like providing telephone service for people with bulk packages (49.00 per month unlimited) and then forcing their conversation to hangup in the middle if they talk too much (hmm..)
Yep, that would be fraudulent. The Internet is based on the TCP/IP protocols. If a company does not hold to those protocols in good faith, they might as well be using ipx/spx. Offering a service based on a set of conditions happening a certain way, then not allowing those conditions to happen does not provide the service.
I have had many problems with Comcast. I still do not get the throughput they promise, but they have no viable competition in my city. In the city next door, a company is installing Fiber to the door and providing 10mbits bidirectional for under $30.00 per month. Comcast is loosing their shirt to them. When the competing company moves into our city, Comcast will loose me and many others do to their abusive nature.
I have been with Comcast since they first put high speed cable into the city here. I have averaged at best about 1.2Mbit down and a bit over 100kbit up. Far short of their advertised claims. I have been more than 20 percent downtime. No where near then 99+% uptime they *guarantee* (but never compensated for failing to achieve). So, why I am still with them. Because the competition is worse here. Much worse.
AT&T, et al provide DSL that works most of the time, but they charge as much as Comcast for less connectivity and less packet reliability and throughput. When I called about static IP, they did not have it for our area. They do not seem to see our market as worth making an effort for. Now, we have a private phone company moving into the area to provide fiber services hand in hand with the city.
The city laid the first fiber loops and they are passing them off to the private carrier for a *fee* and an ongoing maintenance charge. So, we might have chance with this offering. The company building out down south of us is doing fiber to the home as well, so we might have a chance with them as well (if they come up here). Or, we might wind up with YACMM (Yet another city mandated monopoly).
Meanwhile, my friends in Korea, Japan and Many places in Europe are getting inexpensive, robust highly reliable connections that have solid bandwidth starting at 25Mbit bidirectional and going up.
Only in the US of A.
InnerWeb
Cool for those in apartments.
Now, can the do the same thing to my city so we can have competition?
InnerWeb