Yes, I know. And I didn't particularly care. But they are still charging me to change that. If they really wanted to show good will and really change their position on DRM, wouldn't it have made sense that they would actually GIVE me DRM-free copies?
Go to 2010 and click on a few, scroll down to the senators list. Republicans are always, without fail, either the exact opposite of the majority of Democrats (usually Nay) or Not Voting.
I hate to bring it up, but correlation != causation;) No, what I mean is this: it could be that the agenda for 2010 by Democrats happen to be things Republicans particularly oppose, thus they will be the "exact opposite." Back in 2005, perhaps the agenda on the floor was not quite so divisive.
In other words, you can't just expect two parties to ALWAYS be bipartisan on EVERY issue or set of issues. I would not call Democrats "partisan" because a Republican-controlled senate and house happened to start bringing up bills that Democrats really, really, really dislike. I don't expect them to ignore their conscience (do politicians have those?;) ) simply in the name of "bipartisanship."
And frankly, it would appear that the ignore-what-you-really-think-and-just-vote-with-us kind of bipartisanship is the only kind of bipartisanship that is acceptable to Democrats at the moment. Could be the only kind Republicans like, too, but Republicans aren't the one that are in the majority and thus are able to force the issue, bipartisan or not... thus I am more critical of Democrats right now, because they are the ones in the majority:)
It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. IIRC, a theory is osmething that has already been tested, correct? Hypotheses haven't. Obviously, this hypothesis has not been tested much, or "woohoo, we found it on an asteroid!!" wouldn't be news, it'd be old news... something that had already been done.
I really don't think that a "hey, I think they came from asteroids" idea becomes a theory before you actually prove that the stuff even exists ON an asteroid?
I would generally agree, and I think the people of a democratic[ish] country SHOULD be able to er.. legislate?... what software or businesses or solutions or whatever the government itself uses. As long as you do not start legislating what other companies are allowed to use (I understand the monopoly thing, but that has to do with the monopolizing company, not the companies that are utilizing the monopolizing company).
The only problem I see is when you start forcing a government into a single solution, or forcing one solution [or company] OUT of the government... for example, I don't know that we should simply bar Microsoft Office from government computers, or Adobe Photoshop, or Microsoft Windows, etc, nor do I think we should force them to buy RedHat licenses/support...
Etc. It seems like a fairly sticky situation when you start legislating against or for certain companies or organizations...
OTOH, it sure seems like the government could save money by switching to free software. But I get the feeling that most government officials don't REALLY care if they cut spending. They just want to stay in office, and it just so happens that a lot of people support it... or at least, would get really upset if the budget issues aren't dealt with right now...
Those of us that don't really need Word, nor really even like it, should not be held hostage by those that do.
I agree with your premise. But the question is... who gets to decide that? I don't think that's a legislative action item. It's not the government's job to make sure people make smart decisions.
openoffice seems to be working out pretty well. I know a lot of people that use it - because it is free, for the most part. Furthermore, it appears to be forcing Microsoft to change it's Office ways... what with office live and all that.
No, I'm not saying MS is now playing nice all of the sudden with all the open standards. I'm saying that they ARE being forced to change somewhat, due to a pretty good product that is available for free that substitutes for normal usage of MS's product...
To me, that is the correct way to go about doing it. Basically a sort of market/freedom-driven solution...
I agree, growing food does seem to be less resource-intensive. As far as human sustainability, though, one would need more. I guess a Giant Bottle of B12 (tm) would work for the time being.
Uhhh. Just B12 alone, your link does not say that. It says this:
The Vegan Society and Vegan Outreach, among others, recommend that vegans either consistently eat foods fortified with B12 or take a B12 supplement.
"Fortified" would basically be putting the supplement into the food, manually, before eating it... e.g., flour can be "fortified." These foods don't naturally have enough.
So here again: "planned properly" == taking supplements, in some way.
"but can bear healthy children without them"
By accident or perhaps part of their past in which they ate animal products high in B12? It seems to me that all evidence suggests that unless your mother is taking B12 in some way, the child will be deficient. If the child is deficient, even if she doesn't die, HER child will be even MORE deficient. Either your definition of "healthy children" is strange, or your definition of "no supplements" is not really "no supplements.":)
That or I am totally missing something in my brief research in this. I have not seen any vegan-okay food that naturally has B12 worth any note.
Seriously, though, it would be a pretty bad name. Let's see. Garden of Eden: freely roam throughout the entire thing. All kinds of vegetation. Wonderful climate. Many other life forms for variety, none of which would actually harm you and thus you were free to mingle with them.
This garden kit: something that will hopefully allow you to breathe and maybe eat something, too.
It's like calling a kit that would allow you to build a very early computer that was the size of a house the "Mac Pro Construction Kit."
I'm not trolling. This is a seriousm philosophical question: why? "Humans," to most people, represent nothing more than an animal in a long evolutionary chain. Why is what we are doing any different from what any other animal does?
My wife is extremely allergic to soy. We have since found out that it is in everything from tea to salad dressing. And soybean oil is common, too, along with sunflower oil - which is also in almost everything... even vitamin E gel things.
You don't need to be allergic to much at all to basically eliminate almost all non-"single" food (i.e., where it's just exactly what it says: like "broccoli" or "beef")... i.e.: if you can't have sugar, dairy, gluten, and soy, it knocks out a whole lot of stuff. Even normal things like chips, tea, etc.
Vitamin B12 deficiency is one of the leading issues with a poorly planned vegan diet
Yes, that's the one. Especially dangerous in pregnancy and causes, as the other replier mentioned, disfigurement, brain development issues, and fatalities.
Re:Title could also be Gardening On Earth in 50 ye
on
Gardening On Mars
·
· Score: 1
That doesn't garner excitement, advancement... and funding though.
continued survival of the worlds vegan population indicates that there are no major health problems with such a diet.
Don't you have to take supplements to make up for things missing in the vegan diet? I have read this several times in nutrition books, based on studies. And some of them were major health problems, depending on which supplement was not taken... especially for pregnancy.
Hehe... unfortunately, I like cooking and baking. Luckily, I have little time for it. The main issue with my moderation is that it does not adversely affect me right away (I guess that's most people's problem!) and I don't seem to even gain weight that quickly. Oh well, I can resist and all that... and not eat the ENTIRE pan of brownies...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know. And I didn't particularly care. But they are still charging me to change that. If they really wanted to show good will and really change their position on DRM, wouldn't it have made sense that they would actually GIVE me DRM-free copies?
Go to 2010 and click on a few, scroll down to the senators list. Republicans are always, without fail, either the exact opposite of the majority of Democrats (usually Nay) or Not Voting.
I hate to bring it up, but correlation != causation ;) No, what I mean is this: it could be that the agenda for 2010 by Democrats happen to be things Republicans particularly oppose, thus they will be the "exact opposite." Back in 2005, perhaps the agenda on the floor was not quite so divisive.
In other words, you can't just expect two parties to ALWAYS be bipartisan on EVERY issue or set of issues. I would not call Democrats "partisan" because a Republican-controlled senate and house happened to start bringing up bills that Democrats really, really, really dislike. I don't expect them to ignore their conscience (do politicians have those? ;) ) simply in the name of "bipartisanship."
And frankly, it would appear that the ignore-what-you-really-think-and-just-vote-with-us kind of bipartisanship is the only kind of bipartisanship that is acceptable to Democrats at the moment. Could be the only kind Republicans like, too, but Republicans aren't the one that are in the majority and thus are able to force the issue, bipartisan or not... thus I am more critical of Democrats right now, because they are the ones in the majority :)
Apple hasn't sold DRMd music for a couple of years now.
No, but they still want me to pay [a total of] $100 to get non-DRM versions of the music that I already bought and own...
Apple was sure smart, buying a business model that was doomed to fail...
It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. IIRC, a theory is osmething that has already been tested, correct? Hypotheses haven't. Obviously, this hypothesis has not been tested much, or "woohoo, we found it on an asteroid!!" wouldn't be news, it'd be old news ... something that had already been done.
I really don't think that a "hey, I think they came from asteroids" idea becomes a theory before you actually prove that the stuff even exists ON an asteroid?
Please tell this to the people that produce movies in quicktime format that require quicktime. Until then, I still have to use QT. *
* Although some media players can play that codec it seems, besides QT, but not always reliably for some reason...
I would generally agree, and I think the people of a democratic[ish] country SHOULD be able to er .. legislate? ... what software or businesses or solutions or whatever the government itself uses. As long as you do not start legislating what other companies are allowed to use (I understand the monopoly thing, but that has to do with the monopolizing company, not the companies that are utilizing the monopolizing company).
The only problem I see is when you start forcing a government into a single solution, or forcing one solution [or company] OUT of the government... for example, I don't know that we should simply bar Microsoft Office from government computers, or Adobe Photoshop, or Microsoft Windows, etc, nor do I think we should force them to buy RedHat licenses/support...
Etc. It seems like a fairly sticky situation when you start legislating against or for certain companies or organizations...
OTOH, it sure seems like the government could save money by switching to free software. But I get the feeling that most government officials don't REALLY care if they cut spending. They just want to stay in office, and it just so happens that a lot of people support it... or at least, would get really upset if the budget issues aren't dealt with right now...
that are setup in a totally screwed up manor.
Like, was the flooring warped or something or some of the parlors were painted weird colors? ;)
Those of us that don't really need Word, nor really even like it, should not be held hostage by those that do.
I agree with your premise. But the question is ... who gets to decide that? I don't think that's a legislative action item. It's not the government's job to make sure people make smart decisions.
openoffice seems to be working out pretty well. I know a lot of people that use it - because it is free, for the most part. Furthermore, it appears to be forcing Microsoft to change it's Office ways... what with office live and all that.
No, I'm not saying MS is now playing nice all of the sudden with all the open standards. I'm saying that they ARE being forced to change somewhat, due to a pretty good product that is available for free that substitutes for normal usage of MS's product...
To me, that is the correct way to go about doing it. Basically a sort of market/freedom-driven solution...
... and it works well on Windows ...
I know, I know, it DOES run on Windows. If you have KDE for Windows installed ...
I agree, growing food does seem to be less resource-intensive. As far as human sustainability, though, one would need more. I guess a Giant Bottle of B12 (tm) would work for the time being.
Well, then it's not vegan :D (how did we get on this has-to-be-vegan thing in the first place, I forgot...
chickens also provide you with fertilizer and pillows.
Uhhh. Just B12 alone, your link does not say that. It says this:
The Vegan Society and Vegan Outreach, among others, recommend that vegans either consistently eat foods fortified with B12 or take a B12 supplement.
"Fortified" would basically be putting the supplement into the food, manually, before eating it... e.g., flour can be "fortified." These foods don't naturally have enough.
So here again: "planned properly" == taking supplements, in some way.
"but can bear healthy children without them"
By accident or perhaps part of their past in which they ate animal products high in B12? It seems to me that all evidence suggests that unless your mother is taking B12 in some way, the child will be deficient. If the child is deficient, even if she doesn't die, HER child will be even MORE deficient. Either your definition of "healthy children" is strange, or your definition of "no supplements" is not really "no supplements." :)
That or I am totally missing something in my brief research in this. I have not seen any vegan-okay food that naturally has B12 worth any note.
hehe...
Seriously, though, it would be a pretty bad name. Let's see. Garden of Eden: freely roam throughout the entire thing. All kinds of vegetation. Wonderful climate. Many other life forms for variety, none of which would actually harm you and thus you were free to mingle with them.
This garden kit: something that will hopefully allow you to breathe and maybe eat something, too.
It's like calling a kit that would allow you to build a very early computer that was the size of a house the "Mac Pro Construction Kit."
(and I don't like Macs. ;) )
Why?
I'm not trolling. This is a seriousm philosophical question: why? "Humans," to most people, represent nothing more than an animal in a long evolutionary chain. Why is what we are doing any different from what any other animal does?
Soy is the second most alergenic food to humans
My wife is extremely allergic to soy. We have since found out that it is in everything from tea to salad dressing. And soybean oil is common, too, along with sunflower oil - which is also in almost everything... even vitamin E gel things.
You don't need to be allergic to much at all to basically eliminate almost all non-"single" food (i.e., where it's just exactly what it says: like "broccoli" or "beef")... i.e.: if you can't have sugar, dairy, gluten, and soy, it knocks out a whole lot of stuff. Even normal things like chips, tea, etc.
Vitamin B12 deficiency is one of the leading issues with a poorly planned vegan diet
Yes, that's the one. Especially dangerous in pregnancy and causes, as the other replier mentioned, disfigurement, brain development issues, and fatalities.
That doesn't garner excitement, advancement ... and funding though.
continued survival of the worlds vegan population indicates that there are no major health problems with such a diet.
Don't you have to take supplements to make up for things missing in the vegan diet? I have read this several times in nutrition books, based on studies. And some of them were major health problems, depending on which supplement was not taken... especially for pregnancy.
eat instantaneously eat up the whole solar system
Wow, so it eats it twice :-o
or .... Sabayon. I've had good experiences with it so far. Even had music during installation .. or something like that. Scared me at first :D
A witty quote proves nothing.
No, but a misplaced one can cause compile errors...
Hehe... unfortunately, I like cooking and baking. Luckily, I have little time for it. The main issue with my moderation is that it does not adversely affect me right away (I guess that's most people's problem!) and I don't seem to even gain weight that quickly. Oh well, I can resist and all that... and not eat the ENTIRE pan of brownies...
Ah, but he wasn't talking about railing against gays; he was talking about being gay and acting lewdly in a public restroom...
or steal Wifi from a poorly secured neighbour.
That's not theft, it is only theft if you take a physical object... ;)
[sarcasm]