I'm not surprised as gluten-free is a tricky diet to follow due to the huge amount of wheat used in everyday food. You don't want half a platoon getting malnutrition due to not being able to find a good delicatessen. Presumably the navy and air force are always provided with enough support personnel to be able to do their own catering.
I just looked it up and you're right. They are carnivores with opportunistic omnivorous tendencies. I'd assumed they were omnivores due to them eating such a wide range of food, but their anatomy is carnivorous.
You have to draw the line somewhere as it's impossible to live without inadvertently killing gut flora or bacteria. I imagine that most vegetarians would refuse to eat a piano if it were made using ivory.
That's interesting because I think it's almost a rights issue that vegetarians (as well as other "fussy" eaters) should have the right to choose what they do or don't eat. To me, it's important that people aren't forced to eat food that they have an objection to - and this should apply both ways. If someone wants to eat meat, then they shouldn't be getting grief from anyone with a more specialised diet.
Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat â" red meat, poultry, seafood and the flesh of any other animal; it may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter, such as animal-derived rennet and gelatin.
The Vegetarian Society defines a vegetarian as: "Someone who lives on a diet of grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits with, or without, the use of dairy products and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish* or by-products of slaughter."
So, where do I need to look to find anything supporting your "entire lifestyle" view?
I was under the impression that vegetarian is a diet choice - which can be for a variety of reasons (e.g. animal cruelty, health, religion, farming practices). Whether someone chooses to wear leather shoes is not necessarily related to their diet.
Veganism is more of a political/moral choice and thus vegans don't wear leather shoes or wear woolen clothes.
Fish oil is defintitely not vegetarian (wines are often not vegetarian if they use fish finings to clarify the wine). Myself, I'm a pescatarian - I eat fish and vegetables - mainly for health reasons.
You're confusing vegetarian and vegan. Vegans eschew the use of animal products (including not eating milk, eggs, cheese etc). Vegetarians don't eat animals, but usually eat animal products (that don't directly involve their death). Also, vegetarians are often quite happy to wear leather shoes, but will refuse to eat them.
Yes, but in relatively small amounts compared to getting 15 minutes sunlight exposure on your skin. Also, there are different varieties of vitamin D and vitamin D3 is the one that has the most benefit.
I can't think of any previous case that would have indicated the kind of jail-time he could have been facing, so I don't think he could have known about what would happen.
Ironically, the Feds wanted to drop the case, but it was MIT that was pushing for jail-time.
I don't think any sane person would have expected the kind of jail sentences that Aaron was facing for what were essentially victimless crimes. I don't think it is realistic to expect people to sacrifice their freedom (for decades) for the sake of enabling access to academic publications.
I expect that if he had been facing 30 days in jail, he most likely would have been prepared to stand trial and do the time.
If we want to tune the analogy further, it'd be more akin to picking the lock on the library door to get out-of-hours access and then copying loads of books and letting anyone read those copies. (I don't know if he actually caused any significant damage or not).
Obviously, there's a lot of difference between moving physical books and digitally copying stuff.
I don't think that mob justice is justified here as the people responsible most likely had no idea that their behaviour would lead to Aaron taking his own life. However, they were extremely malicious and the papers should be released (with their names redacted if deemed necessary) so that we can prevent this happening again.
America used to be proud of being "Land of the Free", but it now seems to be that secrecy is valued higher than people's lives. Release the information and let the chips fall where they may.
I'm torn as I regularly read Slashdot, but I live in an EU country and as such feel that I should be using metric units. Anyone know the metric equivalent of 1 LOC?
I think all the replies to this comment have demonstrated what a poor analogy and false dichotomy you've just made.
For the record, I do not think that a member of the public who breaks into a public library should be jailed. Why should we prioritise the "locking down" of information over the freedom of an individual? Something's very wrong with your world view if you think that makes sense.
You're right, Aaron should have been held responsible for what he did. However, what he did amounted to the digital equivalent of checking out too many library books. He should have been held responsible for that and made to pay back damages to the victim(s).
However, I don't believe that his "crimes" should have involved any jail-time whatsoever and I'm surprised by anyone who did think that Aaron was a danger to society and should have been locked up for years.
So, with people being held responsible for their beliefs and actions, why is MIT not just releasing the information and instead weaseling around the court system?
Firstly, thanks for your polite, well reasoned post.
Secondly, I agree that he was justified in breaking the contract to disclose criminal behaviour by his employer/government. If only everyone had his level of courage/personal responsibility, then the world would be a much better place.
Thirdly, I think you are getting confused over two separate issues. His right to freedom of speech is not affected by signing a contract. However, if he breaks that contract, then he can expect to face the consequences of breaking that contract. In addition, there is the Espionage Act of 1917 that he is likely to be breaking.
Personally, I think the US government should give him complete immunity and welcome him as a hero, but that would encourage whistle blowers which in some circumstances can endanger government/military agents.
I think it's more that Snowden freely signed a contract to not divulge that information. I personally think he was justified in breaking that contract, but he knew he would get into trouble over it.
I think you're misinterpreting his actions. I read it that he's protesting about the fees paid to other artists (he's got truckloads of money and if not, he's not going to find it difficult to get a paying gig) and by removing the Radiohead catalogue, it makes his point in a way that less successful artists can't manage.
I could be wrong, but the impression I've got about Thom is that he loves making music and is far less concerned about monetary matters than you might think (especially as he must be made for life by now).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not surprised as gluten-free is a tricky diet to follow due to the huge amount of wheat used in everyday food. You don't want half a platoon getting malnutrition due to not being able to find a good delicatessen. Presumably the navy and air force are always provided with enough support personnel to be able to do their own catering.
I just looked it up and you're right. They are carnivores with opportunistic omnivorous tendencies. I'd assumed they were omnivores due to them eating such a wide range of food, but their anatomy is carnivorous.
So, it has come to this.
Dogs are omnivores - in fact dogs will eat almost anything if it smells interesting (including poop).
You have to draw the line somewhere as it's impossible to live without inadvertently killing gut flora or bacteria. I imagine that most vegetarians would refuse to eat a piano if it were made using ivory.
That's interesting because I think it's almost a rights issue that vegetarians (as well as other "fussy" eaters) should have the right to choose what they do or don't eat. To me, it's important that people aren't forced to eat food that they have an objection to - and this should apply both ways. If someone wants to eat meat, then they shouldn't be getting grief from anyone with a more specialised diet.
You suggested that I look it up, so here we go:
http://https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism/:
http://www.vegsoc.org/FAQs/:
So, where do I need to look to find anything supporting your "entire lifestyle" view?
Must remember to buy cat food
I was under the impression that vegetarian is a diet choice - which can be for a variety of reasons (e.g. animal cruelty, health, religion, farming practices). Whether someone chooses to wear leather shoes is not necessarily related to their diet.
Veganism is more of a political/moral choice and thus vegans don't wear leather shoes or wear woolen clothes.
Fish oil is defintitely not vegetarian (wines are often not vegetarian if they use fish finings to clarify the wine). Myself, I'm a pescatarian - I eat fish and vegetables - mainly for health reasons.
You're confusing vegetarian and vegan. Vegans eschew the use of animal products (including not eating milk, eggs, cheese etc). Vegetarians don't eat animals, but usually eat animal products (that don't directly involve their death). Also, vegetarians are often quite happy to wear leather shoes, but will refuse to eat them.
Yes, but in relatively small amounts compared to getting 15 minutes sunlight exposure on your skin. Also, there are different varieties of vitamin D and vitamin D3 is the one that has the most benefit.
Also, I imagine there's not a huge demand for smuggling goods into Mexico.
No - there's a difference between manslaughter and murder. They should be punished by having to live with what they did and by being removed from MIT.
I can't think of any previous case that would have indicated the kind of jail-time he could have been facing, so I don't think he could have known about what would happen.
Ironically, the Feds wanted to drop the case, but it was MIT that was pushing for jail-time.
I don't think any sane person would have expected the kind of jail sentences that Aaron was facing for what were essentially victimless crimes. I don't think it is realistic to expect people to sacrifice their freedom (for decades) for the sake of enabling access to academic publications.
I expect that if he had been facing 30 days in jail, he most likely would have been prepared to stand trial and do the time.
Not really.
If we want to tune the analogy further, it'd be more akin to picking the lock on the library door to get out-of-hours access and then copying loads of books and letting anyone read those copies. (I don't know if he actually caused any significant damage or not).
Obviously, there's a lot of difference between moving physical books and digitally copying stuff.
I don't think that mob justice is justified here as the people responsible most likely had no idea that their behaviour would lead to Aaron taking his own life. However, they were extremely malicious and the papers should be released (with their names redacted if deemed necessary) so that we can prevent this happening again.
America used to be proud of being "Land of the Free", but it now seems to be that secrecy is valued higher than people's lives. Release the information and let the chips fall where they may.
No. No, I can't.
I'm torn as I regularly read Slashdot, but I live in an EU country and as such feel that I should be using metric units. Anyone know the metric equivalent of 1 LOC?
I think all the replies to this comment have demonstrated what a poor analogy and false dichotomy you've just made.
For the record, I do not think that a member of the public who breaks into a public library should be jailed. Why should we prioritise the "locking down" of information over the freedom of an individual? Something's very wrong with your world view if you think that makes sense.
You're right, Aaron should have been held responsible for what he did. However, what he did amounted to the digital equivalent of checking out too many library books. He should have been held responsible for that and made to pay back damages to the victim(s).
However, I don't believe that his "crimes" should have involved any jail-time whatsoever and I'm surprised by anyone who did think that Aaron was a danger to society and should have been locked up for years.
So, with people being held responsible for their beliefs and actions, why is MIT not just releasing the information and instead weaseling around the court system?
Firstly, thanks for your polite, well reasoned post.
Secondly, I agree that he was justified in breaking the contract to disclose criminal behaviour by his employer/government. If only everyone had his level of courage/personal responsibility, then the world would be a much better place.
Thirdly, I think you are getting confused over two separate issues. His right to freedom of speech is not affected by signing a contract. However, if he breaks that contract, then he can expect to face the consequences of breaking that contract. In addition, there is the Espionage Act of 1917 that he is likely to be breaking.
Personally, I think the US government should give him complete immunity and welcome him as a hero, but that would encourage whistle blowers which in some circumstances can endanger government/military agents.
Typical - I live in Bristol and hadn't even heard that you could talk to street furniture until seeing it here.
What's the point of rhetorical questions?
I think it's more that Snowden freely signed a contract to not divulge that information. I personally think he was justified in breaking that contract, but he knew he would get into trouble over it.
I think you're misinterpreting his actions. I read it that he's protesting about the fees paid to other artists (he's got truckloads of money and if not, he's not going to find it difficult to get a paying gig) and by removing the Radiohead catalogue, it makes his point in a way that less successful artists can't manage.
I could be wrong, but the impression I've got about Thom is that he loves making music and is far less concerned about monetary matters than you might think (especially as he must be made for life by now).