I think the stormtroopers were pretty heavily discriminated against and socially unequal to other members of society. That led to them becoming a bunch of stupid goons, I think. This led to the famous scene where Han Solo, Chewy, and Luke "rescue" Princess Leia, in a particularly inept manner - and survive it.
Tadaah!
I can, upon request, also make arguments for the slave girls (Leia ended up as one, in THe Empire Strikes Back), anyone who is not a Jedi Knight with "midichlorians", or ewoks. Particularly ewoks. Jar-Jar Binks... no. I think I'll pass on that one.
So I had to google his books, but i found this nice quote right after googling his name and I didn't want to withhold it:)
"Theodore Beale, known by his pseudonym Vox Day,[2] is a science fiction author, game designer,[3] musician,[4] pseudo-libertarian, anti-vaxxer,[5] racist,[6] Christian apologist, pickup artist, stalker[7], and all-round fucking idiot."
I think the last assertion needs more citations. And what is a Christian apologist? And while people are explaining, what is an MRA? The whole discussion is filled with incomprehensible slang.
A lot of dating sites are scams. Locally they now have a branch organisation that tries to weed out the worst offenders but it's hard work. And even if the organisation itself does not scam, there's plenty of "women" trying to make a few bucks by scamming the desperate.
Otherwise, they're going to miss out on all the fun. I mean, the US Army said they didn't like this conduct of their soldiers, so adding a lot of known emailaddresses for high ranking officials could be fun.
More suggestions for the next release: contacting some well-known figures in advance, and extorting money from them. Yeah I know - a lot of scammers are already trying that one. Too bad. You could still give it a try though. Adding a few presidential candidates in the mix would be entertaining too.
My hope is that this will teach people to use fake accounts when signing up for these services and only pay in cash, or with anonymous payment options. Probably idle hope...
That water footprint is interesting. I would have thought that since The Netherlands is a net exporter of agricultural stuff like flowers, milk, and various foods, the internal water footprint would be much higher. Interesting.
One thing over here is that while a lot of people live in houses with lawns, the size is much smaller than US lawns and there is also no need to water, except for a few days per year, due to the standard rainfall we have here. . I think the main issue, however, is industrial/agricultural water use. Perhaps California isn't the best place for certain crops and increasing the price of water (and preventing people from drilling wells on their land) should help drive out undesirable crops that take up a lot of water for little return.
Even disregarding the discussion about climate change: if you use 217 US gallons of water per capita per day, and you live in a state with water issues, and that's disregarding the water use of growing crops that is (a) not measured and (b) really hurting the ground water reserves that people depend on to live, you know you are heading for deep trouble.
I'm not surprised that Schwarzenegger ordered water meters installed in every house - I *am* surprised it's only mandatory by 2025 and not for farmers either.
Oh, and in The Netherlands we use 31 US gallons per capita per day. That's 7 times less. We don't shower less either. But in our climate we don't have a lot of swimming pools. Maybe that's a good explanation? I'm not sure about the price of water in California though - it looks rather difficult to compare to our pricing.
80% oxygen? Wow that's bad. Anyone who has even 90% is likely to be placed on oxygen when the doctor sees that. Unfortunately, that's not always the correct response. But still, 80%... that's *got* to cause damage.
Over here you do. Depending on the price and circumstances - if it was reasonable to think that the seller was legit, the buyer keeps the item and the original owner has to claim the damages from the thief. Otherwise you'd get into some nasty ownership chains regularly, stressing the courts and the police.
You want money? Work for it. Create art and go play it. Read books to audiences, give creative writing classes. There are very few artists who can actually live off their books or music even with copyright - they all just work for it. I'm pretty sure the very small minority that is wildly succesful can do the same, if they stop with the coke and hookers for a few minutes.
Yeah, the Mickey Mouse extension was really meant to combat... Disney getting slightly lower profits from the merchandising. The actual creator being long dead, of course. It's telling that most creators are the ones that get the least benefit from copyright laws. They're hindered more than helped by it. Example: Paul's Boutique.
But feel free to defend the current 250 years of copyright... oh wait, that's up for the next time the copyright on Mickey Mouse threatens to run out. That's 2019, right? It will be interesting to re-read these arguments then.
I'm fine with people getting paid for creative work. I'm utterly horrified by the fact that companies run roughshod over the rights of the people with iron boots and it's apparently okay because "starving artists". Give me a break - they're not helped in the least by this.
No, I second the sentiment of the first party: I will *never* pay a dime for any form of intellectual property again, until copyright is back to sane limits (except cases where I cannot avoid it).
Since oil,gas and coal are subsidized as well (differently, but still) to the tune of a few hundred billion dollar each year, I think we can safely ignore that particular issue - because if you don't, fossil fuel looks even worse.
From wikipedia: "Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[1] Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.[2] ". They have a nice list of sources too.
The article fails to mention whether the author is either paid by DataStax or has shares - because it's a pretty blatant advertisement.
And it doesn't really say much about Oracle, except that people are moving to the cloud. I can count the number of my customers doing that on the fingers of one hand, even if I cut them all off!
Now, I'm using whatever database the customer has, normally. Currently it's SQL Server 2012, about 66% of the time it's Oracle, but I've worked with Postgress as well. What is really important to me are the transactional functions of the database, the locking implementation, the way it deals with time (unfortunately no db actually deals with it, apart from Teradata), and after that we get indexing, analytical functions, and then the rest such as the transactional language, trigger handling, view handling (table elimination is HUGE if you use any modeling method from the Anchor modeling family).
You can say a lot about Oracle, but their transactional locking scheme is the best I've seen so far. On paper, SQL Server 2012 is similar. In practice, Oracle beats them handily. It takes a lot more time to get things working right in SQL Server once you really get inside the database and use all of its features, than with Oracle.
I do admit: Oracle is evil. They treat customers like crap. I vividly remember the fact we had to hire a "licensing consultant" to make sense of their licenses a few years ago. Even Oracle could not give a definitive answer to questions about whether we had the right license for what we wanted. And if you make a mistake, it's the fault of the customer. SAP and Oracle are a good match that way: both totally dedicated to screwing over their customers.
Give me Microsoft for a clear license anytime. But for transactions and locking, analytical functions and all the things that really help performance, it's Oracle all the way.
The advice was sound. But it seems your stomach isn't used to food that is healthy for you. That's a pretty bad sign in and of itself.
Otherwise you should wash and cook your vegetables, that will help with the diarrhea.
Fresh vegetables don't keep as well as nuts, no. Are they supposed to? I know I buy them at most 1 or 2 days before I actually use them. If you need to keep them longer you could buy frozen vegetables. They're probably better vitamine-wise than even fresh vegetables. Most fresh vegetables are less fresh than the frozen ones that get processed as fast as possible - at least in my country. Not sure about the USA in that area. Avoid canned vegetables. The vegetables in them are not as fresh when processed and their is a suspicion that the metal of the cans is leeching into the moisture surrounding the vegetables.
You can ofcourse continue to subsist on other foods. I mean, even the cereal boxes are probably nutricious if you chew them long enough. That doesn't mean it's good for you. And if you don't eat vegetables or replace them with other sources of fiber and vitamines, colon cancer is a much higher risk. Especially if you eat a lot of red meat as well.
They've *always* applied US censorship rules worldwide. Now they just added a few more.
For example: breastfeeding pictures, nudes in paintings of classical masters, your own naked photo's - all banned. None of it illegal in the EU. So don't complain when the chickens come home to roost - censorship was built in from the start.
Okay, and then I went, read the review from Ars Technica and found this quote:
"While most americans do not consume enough fiber, the amount present in 1.4 is well above the average intake," [the company president] elaborated, "and, given the elemental nature of the product, is ample to maintain a healthy digestive system while consuming Soylent along with other food."
Not sure how much is in there, but I read 30 grams. This is actually the recommended amount. And fiber never goes in "dry" anyway, the mouth chews it up and then mixes it with saliva. So I think that may be covered.
True. What I've read over the past few years is that fiber is actually much more important than previously considered, and not just a filler but quite essential in keeping healthy. Especially in preventing various sorts of darm cancer. So I'm wondering as much as you whether this soylent stuff is good for your health in the long term.
The truth is not a defense if the truth is damaging. I.e. yes you may tell everyone the truth about someone, but if that person suffers damage as a result of that, you are still liable for the damage.
The judge can decide that *if* there was a compelling reason for the truth to be stated (such as the public interest), you aren't liable for the damage. But it's not a solid 100% defense, no.
In 2013 the libel laws were reformed as described above with the Defamation Act of 2013 - before that, yes, things were awful.
"The Defamation Act 2013 has introduced new protections for publishers. In particular, the public interest defence at s.4 of the Act offers a defence in libel when the publisher believed that the matter was in the public interest. The legislation should give publishers new confidence and reduce the occurrence of self-censorship." - from http://www.libelreform.org/
And if the Japanese subsidiary was selling drugs to the EU, because where they are based it is legal? Or sending arms?
The EU can claim jurisdiction because they are publishing information on EU citizens to others. So the EU claims jurisdiction and Google Japan's management can be extradited if they don't obey the law, if the Japanese courts agree.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the stormtroopers were pretty heavily discriminated against and socially unequal to other members of society. That led to them becoming a bunch of stupid goons, I think. This led to the famous scene where Han Solo, Chewy, and Luke "rescue" Princess Leia, in a particularly inept manner - and survive it.
Tadaah!
I can, upon request, also make arguments for the slave girls (Leia ended up as one, in THe Empire Strikes Back), anyone who is not a Jedi Knight with "midichlorians", or ewoks. Particularly ewoks. Jar-Jar Binks... no. I think I'll pass on that one.
So I had to google his books, but i found this nice quote right after googling his name and I didn't want to withhold it :)
"Theodore Beale, known by his pseudonym Vox Day,[2] is a science fiction author, game designer,[3] musician,[4] pseudo-libertarian, anti-vaxxer,[5] racist,[6] Christian apologist, pickup artist, stalker[7], and all-round fucking idiot."
I think the last assertion needs more citations. And what is a Christian apologist? And while people are explaining, what is an MRA? The whole discussion is filled with incomprehensible slang.
I always wonder why they leave out the Trotskyites. After all, if we're gonna be paranoid, why not go whole hog?
Is it possible to get an Arduino or Raspberry Pi that just acts as a nice little firewall, and that I can modify with pre-set profiles?
Would it be powerful enough?
Mostly my game collection.
I coulnd't do without it :P
... because unless the guy with the kalashnikov was planning a round of CS:GO, I think it's better to report the story on CNN. Oh, it already is.
A lot of dating sites are scams. Locally they now have a branch organisation that tries to weed out the worst offenders but it's hard work. And even if the organisation itself does not scam, there's plenty of "women" trying to make a few bucks by scamming the desperate.
Otherwise, they're going to miss out on all the fun. I mean, the US Army said they didn't like this conduct of their soldiers, so adding a lot of known emailaddresses for high ranking officials could be fun.
More suggestions for the next release: contacting some well-known figures in advance, and extorting money from them. Yeah I know - a lot of scammers are already trying that one. Too bad. You could still give it a try though. Adding a few presidential candidates in the mix would be entertaining too.
My hope is that this will teach people to use fake accounts when signing up for these services and only pay in cash, or with anonymous payment options. Probably idle hope...
That water footprint is interesting. I would have thought that since The Netherlands is a net exporter of agricultural stuff like flowers, milk, and various foods, the internal water footprint would be much higher. Interesting.
One thing over here is that while a lot of people live in houses with lawns, the size is much smaller than US lawns and there is also no need to water, except for a few days per year, due to the standard rainfall we have here.
.
I think the main issue, however, is industrial/agricultural water use. Perhaps California isn't the best place for certain crops and increasing the price of water (and preventing people from drilling wells on their land) should help drive out undesirable crops that take up a lot of water for little return.
Even disregarding the discussion about climate change: if you use 217 US gallons of water per capita per day, and you live in a state with water issues, and that's disregarding the water use of growing crops that is (a) not measured and (b) really hurting the ground water reserves that people depend on to live, you know you are heading for deep trouble.
I'm not surprised that Schwarzenegger ordered water meters installed in every house - I *am* surprised it's only mandatory by 2025 and not for farmers either.
Oh, and in The Netherlands we use 31 US gallons per capita per day. That's 7 times less. We don't shower less either. But in our climate we don't have a lot of swimming pools. Maybe that's a good explanation? I'm not sure about the price of water in California though - it looks rather difficult to compare to our pricing.
80% oxygen? Wow that's bad. Anyone who has even 90% is likely to be placed on oxygen when the doctor sees that. Unfortunately, that's not always the correct response. But still, 80%... that's *got* to cause damage.
Over here you do. Depending on the price and circumstances - if it was reasonable to think that the seller was legit, the buyer keeps the item and the original owner has to claim the damages from the thief. Otherwise you'd get into some nasty ownership chains regularly, stressing the courts and the police.
Fuck 'em. I've had it with those prima donna's.
You want money? Work for it. Create art and go play it. Read books to audiences, give creative writing classes. There are very few artists who can actually live off their books or music even with copyright - they all just work for it. I'm pretty sure the very small minority that is wildly succesful can do the same, if they stop with the coke and hookers for a few minutes.
Yeah, the Mickey Mouse extension was really meant to combat... Disney getting slightly lower profits from the merchandising. The actual creator being long dead, of course. It's telling that most creators are the ones that get the least benefit from copyright laws. They're hindered more than helped by it. Example: Paul's Boutique.
But feel free to defend the current 250 years of copyright... oh wait, that's up for the next time the copyright on Mickey Mouse threatens to run out. That's 2019, right? It will be interesting to re-read these arguments then.
I'm fine with people getting paid for creative work. I'm utterly horrified by the fact that companies run roughshod over the rights of the people with iron boots and it's apparently okay because "starving artists". Give me a break - they're not helped in the least by this.
No, I second the sentiment of the first party: I will *never* pay a dime for any form of intellectual property again, until copyright is back to sane limits (except cases where I cannot avoid it).
Since oil,gas and coal are subsidized as well (differently, but still) to the tune of a few hundred billion dollar each year, I think we can safely ignore that particular issue - because if you don't, fossil fuel looks even worse.
From wikipedia: "Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[1] Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.[2] ". They have a nice list of sources too.
Well, not exactly nothing. I'm sure Putin is entertained each time he reads about it, so it does return *something*.
The article fails to mention whether the author is either paid by DataStax or has shares - because it's a pretty blatant advertisement.
And it doesn't really say much about Oracle, except that people are moving to the cloud. I can count the number of my customers doing that on the fingers of one hand, even if I cut them all off!
Now, I'm using whatever database the customer has, normally. Currently it's SQL Server 2012, about 66% of the time it's Oracle, but I've worked with Postgress as well. What is really important to me are the transactional functions of the database, the locking implementation, the way it deals with time (unfortunately no db actually deals with it, apart from Teradata), and after that we get indexing, analytical functions, and then the rest such as the transactional language, trigger handling, view handling (table elimination is HUGE if you use any modeling method from the Anchor modeling family).
You can say a lot about Oracle, but their transactional locking scheme is the best I've seen so far. On paper, SQL Server 2012 is similar. In practice, Oracle beats them handily. It takes a lot more time to get things working right in SQL Server once you really get inside the database and use all of its features, than with Oracle.
I do admit: Oracle is evil. They treat customers like crap. I vividly remember the fact we had to hire a "licensing consultant" to make sense of their licenses a few years ago. Even Oracle could not give a definitive answer to questions about whether we had the right license for what we wanted. And if you make a mistake, it's the fault of the customer. SAP and Oracle are a good match that way: both totally dedicated to screwing over their customers.
Give me Microsoft for a clear license anytime. But for transactions and locking, analytical functions and all the things that really help performance, it's Oracle all the way.
I imagine what the conversation with their CSO went down b4 they removed the post.
probably something along the lines of "Did you seriously just tell our customer to fuck off?"
"Certainly not, I just explained them our license policy."
"THAT'S WHAT I SAID!!"
Ah... never mind :) Yeah, plums do that :)
The advice was sound. But it seems your stomach isn't used to food that is healthy for you. That's a pretty bad sign in and of itself.
Otherwise you should wash and cook your vegetables, that will help with the diarrhea.
Fresh vegetables don't keep as well as nuts, no. Are they supposed to? I know I buy them at most 1 or 2 days before I actually use them. If you need to keep them longer you could buy frozen vegetables. They're probably better vitamine-wise than even fresh vegetables. Most fresh vegetables are less fresh than the frozen ones that get processed as fast as possible - at least in my country. Not sure about the USA in that area. Avoid canned vegetables. The vegetables in them are not as fresh when processed and their is a suspicion that the metal of the cans is leeching into the moisture surrounding the vegetables.
You can ofcourse continue to subsist on other foods. I mean, even the cereal boxes are probably nutricious if you chew them long enough. That doesn't mean it's good for you. And if you don't eat vegetables or replace them with other sources of fiber and vitamines, colon cancer is a much higher risk. Especially if you eat a lot of red meat as well.
They've *always* applied US censorship rules worldwide. Now they just added a few more.
For example: breastfeeding pictures, nudes in paintings of classical masters, your own naked photo's - all banned. None of it illegal in the EU. So don't complain when the chickens come home to roost - censorship was built in from the start.
Okay, and then I went, read the review from Ars Technica and found this quote:
"While most americans do not consume enough fiber, the amount present in 1.4 is well above the average intake," [the company president] elaborated, "and, given the elemental nature of the product, is ample to maintain a healthy digestive system while consuming Soylent along with other food."
Not sure how much is in there, but I read 30 grams. This is actually the recommended amount. And fiber never goes in "dry" anyway, the mouth chews it up and then mixes it with saliva. So I think that may be covered.
True. What I've read over the past few years is that fiber is actually much more important than previously considered, and not just a filler but quite essential in keeping healthy. Especially in preventing various sorts of darm cancer. So I'm wondering as much as you whether this soylent stuff is good for your health in the long term.
The truth is not a defense if the truth is damaging. I.e. yes you may tell everyone the truth about someone, but if that person suffers damage as a result of that, you are still liable for the damage.
The judge can decide that *if* there was a compelling reason for the truth to be stated (such as the public interest), you aren't liable for the damage. But it's not a solid 100% defense, no.
In 2013 the libel laws were reformed as described above with the Defamation Act of 2013 - before that, yes, things were awful.
"The Defamation Act 2013 has introduced new protections for publishers. In particular, the public interest defence at s.4 of the Act offers a defence in libel when the publisher believed that the matter was in the public interest. The legislation should give publishers new confidence and reduce the occurrence of self-censorship." - from http://www.libelreform.org/
And if the Japanese subsidiary was selling drugs to the EU, because where they are based it is legal? Or sending arms?
The EU can claim jurisdiction because they are publishing information on EU citizens to others. So the EU claims jurisdiction and Google Japan's management can be extradited if they don't obey the law, if the Japanese courts agree.