I'd just make him spend one day in jail for each piece of spam he sent out.
Re:People are getting fatter from diet foods?
on
The Fresca Rebellion
·
· Score: 1
The tax idea doesn't make sense. It's not likely to happen.
You're half right. It makes no sense at all - but that's never stopped Big Brother. BB is only interested in money and power. "Sense" has nothing to do with his actions.
The idea that discouraging people from drinking diet soda is going to stop them from binging on a box of chips ahoy or fig newtons is stupid.
Absolutely. But that has no bearing on the inevitably of the tax.
Flat taxes put more burden on the lower classes.
The government doesn't care about that. As long as they get more money and power they're happy.
Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k/year. The first thing he did in office was raise the tobacco tax to fund SCHIP. The biggest increase was on roll-your-own tobacco - he raised it 2400%. I don't think too many wealthy or middle class people are rolling their own cigs.
Kids are supposed to get dirty, get cuts and scrapes and bruises, find themselves in difficult situations, get filthy and yes, even get lost. They're even supposed to lose at games, and join competitions where everyone doesn't get a trophy. Learning how to handle small pains and failures results in a happy, healthy adult who is much better equipped to handle the bigger pains and failures that come from Real Life.
Parents are hard-wired to protect their kids from any harm, no matter how minor. Parents who don't learn to fight that urge raise helpless self-centered adults. Obviously, we need to protect our kids from real dangers and big hurts when we can, and it can be difficult to find the correct middle point. This isn't a correct middle point - this is for paranoid helicopter parents. It is a fine tool for those who want to raise dependent wussies or seriously deranged trouble makers.
Kids who are given the freedom to get hurt and get in trouble usually don't in any big way. Those who are watched every minute have much more incentive to get into much more trouble when they finally figure out how to get away from their overbearing parents.
Although my kids are grown now (and since they were allowed to get hurt and get in trouble they very seldom did) I really like the attitude of this site: http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/
Of course it's the responsibility of the pedestrian to be aware, but everyone of us has, at some time in our life, been distracted, lost in thought, involved in a conversation, watching that hot chick across the street, etc. and stepped into the street when we shouldn't have, heard the danger approaching and saved ourselves. It happens, we're human.
OTOH, I'm not all that keen on congress making laws, and they're bound to screw this one up and demand something that's either ineffective or extremely annoying.
The control freaks have been in charge for years. Pages on straightforward subjects are fairly accurate, but if it is at all controversial, WikiNazis are camped out on it. It doesn't matter if your facts are stated clearly, documented, and presented in an unbiased manner. If they don't like them your changes are gone in an hour or two.
I've tried adding facts to their Passive Smoking page, to no avail. The very name of the page is loaded with bias. The correct term is Environmental Tobacco Smoke. The common term is Second Hand Smoke, and the page used to be called that. But they've deliberately used the most loaded term possible for the page, and it's packed with inaccurate and biased statements. I've added facts, complete with references, and they've never lasted more than two hours. Even tiny edits to make a statement more neutral were quickly removed.
If there's any controversy about a subject you can be sure Wikipedia will only highlight the POV of the resident WikiNazis. This has made the site useless for all but the most basic subjects for years. Now they're just making it even more impossible for facts they don't like to be displayed.
First I searched for my name. The first two links were from Linked-In, perhaps the least important web presence I have. The rest were from old articles from my site - no new ones. Two featured pictures I've never seen before. Perhaps they're crawling in reverse order, or using The Wayback Machine.
Then I searched on "second hand smoke." Google shows three million matches, and my SHS page is usually on their first page. (Currently it's number six.) Cuel says, "We didn't find any results for "second hand smoke"" Somehow they missed all three million pages that mention it.
Although the EPA did some good work in their early years, once Carol Browner took over their mandate seemed to be "Let's Harass Big Business For Sport," and "We Can Make Stuff Up!" They have become a junk science machine that causes a lot of harm and very little good.
Deleting E-Mail from the EPA is a good start. But a better approach would be to delete the EPA.
Would you make similar claims about elections? If not, what is the critical difference?
Yes. I honestly think that picking out random adults and sticking them in political positions would result in a more honest, more useful, and at the very least, far more interesting system than we have today. Sure, there would be plenty of incompetents in place, but how would that be different than what we have now?
Based on that data, a 50% increase would raise one's theoretical high-end risk of developing a tumor in the head from 0.003% per year to 0.0045% per year.
This is complete and absolute nonsense. Epidemiology it too crude a tool to measure changes this tiny. It's like trying to measure microns with a meter stick.
Of course, that won't stop idiot "journalists" to scream from the rooftops "A 50% Increase in cancer. A 50% Increase in cancer! What about the CHILLLLLLLLLDREEEEEEN?"
Back in '99 I wrote an article about someone who threatened lawsuits against people who had posted his poem. Last summer I got an e-mail from him,asking, not demanding, that I take the article down because it was the first thing that came up when someone searched on his name. It was ancient history and not something he was proud of.
I thought about it a bit, and, rather than remove the article, removed his name from it. It took about a month for Google to forget, but now when you search on his name the article is nowhere to be found.
If he had demanded that it be taken down, I would have laughed and ignored him. If he had threatened legal action, I would have blogged about it and brought it even more attention. But he asked. That made all the difference.
Can we please start modding down all "fixed that for you" posts to the point of invisibility?
Putting words in other people's mouth is about the worst thing you can do in a debate/discussion. And adding "fixed that for you" adds a pathetic level of triteness on top of the dishonesty.
An important part of jury duty is determining if the law makes sense. Unfortunately, few juries are aware of this. In fact being aware of it can get you disqualified as a juror.
It's always important to consider the source of the information, and the likely biases of the researchers.
The study was conducted by "researchers" from New York University and UCLA, two very liberal institutions.
The analysis is provided by "experts" at UCLA and Berkley.
The article is published in the LA Times, one of the most left leaning big papers in the country.
With the above information you don't even have to look at the study to know what the results and conclusions will be.
Now consider the science. "Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy." Excuse me? Where was there any measurement of brain circuits? These were just people pressing keys.
This is nonsense, pure junk science. The only thing proven by this study, and the people here who think it proves something, is that the left is really, really gullible.
Two years ago I wrote a
review comparing my Tivo to the Time Warner's Scientific Atlanta DVR. After three weeks I told TW to remove it immediately. I was amazed that anyone could fit that much suck into such a small box.
Looks like things haven't changed much since then.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd just make him spend one day in jail for each piece of spam he sent out.
The tax idea doesn't make sense. It's not likely to happen.
You're half right. It makes no sense at all - but that's never stopped Big Brother. BB is only interested in money and power. "Sense" has nothing to do with his actions.
The idea that discouraging people from drinking diet soda is going to stop them from binging on a box of chips ahoy or fig newtons is stupid.
Absolutely. But that has no bearing on the inevitably of the tax.
Flat taxes put more burden on the lower classes.
The government doesn't care about that. As long as they get more money and power they're happy.
Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k/year. The first thing he did in office was raise the tobacco tax to fund SCHIP. The biggest increase was on roll-your-own tobacco - he raised it 2400%. I don't think too many wealthy or middle class people are rolling their own cigs.
Kids are supposed to get dirty, get cuts and scrapes and bruises, find themselves in difficult situations, get filthy and yes, even get lost. They're even supposed to lose at games, and join competitions where everyone doesn't get a trophy. Learning how to handle small pains and failures results in a happy, healthy adult who is much better equipped to handle the bigger pains and failures that come from Real Life.
Parents are hard-wired to protect their kids from any harm, no matter how minor. Parents who don't learn to fight that urge raise helpless self-centered adults. Obviously, we need to protect our kids from real dangers and big hurts when we can, and it can be difficult to find the correct middle point. This isn't a correct middle point - this is for paranoid helicopter parents. It is a fine tool for those who want to raise dependent wussies or seriously deranged trouble makers.
Kids who are given the freedom to get hurt and get in trouble usually don't in any big way. Those who are watched every minute have much more incentive to get into much more trouble when they finally figure out how to get away from their overbearing parents.
Although my kids are grown now (and since they were allowed to get hurt and get in trouble they very seldom did) I really like the attitude of this site: http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/
Of course it's the responsibility of the pedestrian to be aware, but everyone of us has, at some time in our life, been distracted, lost in thought, involved in a conversation, watching that hot chick across the street, etc. and stepped into the street when we shouldn't have, heard the danger approaching and saved ourselves. It happens, we're human.
OTOH, I'm not all that keen on congress making laws, and they're bound to screw this one up and demand something that's either ineffective or extremely annoying.
The control freaks have won, again.
The control freaks have been in charge for years. Pages on straightforward subjects are fairly accurate, but if it is at all controversial, WikiNazis are camped out on it. It doesn't matter if your facts are stated clearly, documented, and presented in an unbiased manner. If they don't like them your changes are gone in an hour or two.
I've tried adding facts to their Passive Smoking page, to no avail. The very name of the page is loaded with bias. The correct term is Environmental Tobacco Smoke. The common term is Second Hand Smoke, and the page used to be called that. But they've deliberately used the most loaded term possible for the page, and it's packed with inaccurate and biased statements. I've added facts, complete with references, and they've never lasted more than two hours. Even tiny edits to make a statement more neutral were quickly removed.
If there's any controversy about a subject you can be sure Wikipedia will only highlight the POV of the resident WikiNazis. This has made the site useless for all but the most basic subjects for years. Now they're just making it even more impossible for facts they don't like to be displayed.
In the two years I've been using it it has caught over 10k spams. It has missed about a half dozen, and had about a dozen false positives.
For a while it was missing spam written in Cyrillic. I solved that by adding a couple of Cyrillic vowels to banned word list.
Big Brother just LOVES little sheep like you.
First I searched for my name. The first two links were from Linked-In, perhaps the least important web presence I have. The rest were from old articles from my site - no new ones. Two featured pictures I've never seen before. Perhaps they're crawling in reverse order, or using The Wayback Machine.
Then I searched on "second hand smoke." Google shows three million matches, and my SHS page is usually on their first page. (Currently it's number six.) Cuel says, "We didn't find any results for "second hand smoke"" Somehow they missed all three million pages that mention it.
Gawsh, I'm awfully impressed.
Although the EPA did some good work in their early years, once Carol Browner took over their mandate seemed to be "Let's Harass Big Business For Sport," and "We Can Make Stuff Up!" They have become a junk science machine that causes a lot of harm and very little good.
Deleting E-Mail from the EPA is a good start. But a better approach would be to delete the EPA.
Obviously not, in this neighborhood.
The man is defending his neighborhood because the cops won't. Good for him.
Of course, the drug dealers might get their own robots to fight his. That would be fun: I miss Battlebots.
Please mod any "fixed it for you" messages down into oblivion.
It's stupid, tiresome, trite, and is putting words in people's mouths.
Would you make similar claims about elections? If not, what is the critical difference?
Yes. I honestly think that picking out random adults and sticking them in political positions would result in a more honest, more useful, and at the very least, far more interesting system than we have today. Sure, there would be plenty of incompetents in place, but how would that be different than what we have now?
Yes, these are ass numbers.
Based on that data, a 50% increase would raise one's theoretical high-end risk of developing a tumor in the head from 0.003% per year to 0.0045% per year.
This is complete and absolute nonsense. Epidemiology it too crude a tool to measure changes this tiny. It's like trying to measure microns with a meter stick.
Of course, that won't stop idiot "journalists" to scream from the rooftops "A 50% Increase in cancer. A 50% Increase in cancer! What about the CHILLLLLLLLLDREEEEEEN?"
I'd say the odds of getting cancer from SHS are exactly the same as cancer from a cell phone.
Zero. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
If you've fallen for the SHS myth, read, learn:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts
Here's something that might work: Ask, nicely.
,asking, not demanding, that I take the article down because it was the first thing that came up when someone searched on his name. It was ancient history and not something he was proud of.
Back in '99 I wrote an article about someone who threatened lawsuits against people who had posted his poem. Last summer I got an e-mail from him
I thought about it a bit, and, rather than remove the article, removed his name from it. It took about a month for Google to forget, but now when you search on his name the article is nowhere to be found.
If he had demanded that it be taken down, I would have laughed and ignored him. If he had threatened legal action, I would have blogged about it and brought it even more attention. But he asked. That made all the difference.
Can we please start modding down all "fixed that for you" posts to the point of invisibility?
Putting words in other people's mouth is about the worst thing you can do in a debate/discussion. And adding "fixed that for you" adds a pathetic level of triteness on top of the dishonesty.
I bet they are flagging the IP of the requester.
They are. When I tired it that also offered me domains that included the name of the town I'm in at the moment.
Most moms say "oh, it's for me", because most moms are bad parents.
At least most moms who shop at Wal-Mart.
An important part of jury duty is determining if the law makes sense. Unfortunately, few juries are aware of this. In fact being aware of it can get you disqualified as a juror.
Read the article. There were no EEG readings.
It's always important to consider the source of the information, and the likely biases of the researchers.
The study was conducted by "researchers" from New York University and UCLA, two very liberal institutions.
The analysis is provided by "experts" at UCLA and Berkley.
The article is published in the LA Times, one of the most left leaning big papers in the country.
With the above information you don't even have to look at the study to know what the results and conclusions will be.
Now consider the science. "Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy." Excuse me? Where was there any measurement of brain circuits? These were just people pressing keys.
This is nonsense, pure junk science. The only thing proven by this study, and the people here who think it proves something, is that the left is really, really gullible.
Having her as a spokesperson is perfectly appropriate. After all, she gives it away for free.
Wrong question. We should ask "Is Journalism journalism?" In most cases, the answer is a resounding "No!"
Two years ago I wrote a review comparing my Tivo to the Time Warner's Scientific Atlanta DVR. After three weeks I told TW to remove it immediately. I was amazed that anyone could fit that much suck into such a small box.
Looks like things haven't changed much since then.
It's cool to complain on websites, but if even a fraction of us actually contacted our representatives in congress, maybe things might change.
Only if you include a large check in the envelope. These people are serving their masters, not us.