Sorry, but no, you're wrong. Here's another video of the event showing the handlers and the pastor announcing the eagle's arrival and that it was being released from the balcony. "Eagle flying in the Chapel window" should read "into the Chapel window".
In the United States they were endangered most of my life (until about 10 years ago), and still to this day it is illegal to "own" one in captivity except under certain very rare circumstances.
Evidently, it is not rare enough circumstances to prevent this particularly egregious fucktardery, which also shows that some of the most "patriotic" 'Murkans have no problem with it at all.
Well, it seems to me that two things are likely true:
1) Making malware code public helps malware programmers (current and aspiring) write better malware programs.
2) Making malware code public helps anti-malware programmers (current and aspiring) write better anti-malware programs.
Who benefits more? I honestly don't know. However, my bias is towards openness over secrecy, and I think it needs to demonstrated that the risks of making malware code public outweigh any potential benefits.
Seconded. Holds better and longer by far than any duck tape I've ever used, yet comes off easier. Since the day my friend alerted me to its existence, it's my 'duct tape' of choice.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
You know what else Henry Ford is quoted as having said?
"I know who caused the war (World War I)...the German-Jewish bankers! I have the evidence here. Facts! I can't give out the facts now, because I haven't got them all yet, but I'll have them soon."
Just sayin', it not like we should blindly accept every pearl of wisdom that dropped off ol' HF's lips or anything.
There's no need to visit a site when your client has built in search across whatever you want to configure it with as well as sensible defaults and no malware included (I'm looking at YOU SourceForge).
I highly recommend qBittorrent for that, as one reason among many. I've used it for years and is the best client I've encountered.
While I agree with your recommendation of qBittorrent, in-client search is only useful when you know exactly what you're looking for. If you want to browse, you're SOL unless you visit the site(s).
As to the issue with qBittorrent and SourceForge, their primary download provider is FossHub, and it is also available via Ninite, neither of which seems to have whored out their reputation like SourceForge...yet.
Nope, wasn't arguing that at all. My only point was that LSD was to my knowledge, and have now confirmed, a pretty serendipitous discovery.
But to rant on a bit...in my opinion, most drugs are not really 'designed', and I've always bristled at the term 'designer drugs'. Ask people to name as many 'designer drugs' as they can and I'll bet you 99.99% of the answers will be some form of MDMA (discovered 1912), ketamine (1962), or maybe GHB (1874). There are a handful of drugs out there on the fringe of the party drug market that may be newer than than that, but I hope you get my point. Implicit in the concept of 'designer drugs' is that evil drug lords are just toiling day and night in their secret laboratories trying to come up with that just-right formula to evade the CSA scheduling list, but it's just not reality. The fact is that the pharmaceutical industry pretty much covered the vast majority of that ground by 50 years ago, and the corner of the illicit drug market beyond the 'tried and true' is statistically insignificant.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not attributing any of that cultural baggage to you...I'm just trying to express where I'm coming from. Do I think that mankind would ever stop looking for a better trip/buzz/what-have-you? No, not at all. But for the most part, they are rarely designed, more like they try every variant that chemistry permits and then determine which ones are interesting. I can't call that 'design' any more than animal/plant breeding or hybridization is 'design'; sure, you may start with objectives in mind, but good luck if your design is to make a cow capable of photosynthesis.
Source please. If they were looking specifically for psychedelics, why did take 5 years to figure out it had that property in spades and then only by accident?
Ergotamine had been known as a vasoconstrictor and was used to treat migraines. I've never read a single source about Hofmann's work that indicated he was looking for psychedelics specifically.
"While researching lysergic acid derivatives, Hofmann first synthesized LSD on November 16, 1938. The main intention of the synthesis was to obtain a respiratory and circulatory stimulant (an analeptic) with no effects on the uterus in analogy to nikethamide (which is also a diethylamide) by introducing this functional group to lysergic acid. It was set aside for five years, until April 16, 1943, when Hofmann decided to reexamine it. While re-synthesizing LSD, he accidentally touched his hand to his mouth, nose or possibly eye, accidentally ingesting a small amount and fortuitously discovered its powerful effects."
So I guess if you want to stick by 'designed' to mean 'designed for some completely different purpose for which it was no good but then accidentally discovered to be a powerful entheogen"...umm, yeah OK, but then I'd suggest that perhaps we're speaking different languages, because the intent was clearly not to create a psychedelic.
"While police sources speculated that the use of a street drug like "bath salts" might have been a factor, experts have expressed doubt toward this speculation as toxicology reports were only able to identify marijuana in his system, leaving the ultimate cause of Eugene's behavior to remain unknown."
Hysterical anti-drug propaganda: scaring Americans stupid since 1914.
Not by any definition of 'designed' I'm aware of. Wikipedia says it best:
"LSD was first synthesized on November 16, 1938 by Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann at the Sandoz Laboratories in Basel, Switzerland as part of a large research program searching for medically useful ergot alkaloid derivatives. LSD's psychedelic properties were discovered 5 years later when Hofmann himself accidentally ingested an unknown quantity of the chemical."
In other words, it's most noted property was not known at the time it was first synthesized. Not sure how that could be called 'designed'.
I was told the strength of the cans is a result of the carbonated drink inside. They are too soft to transport plain water.
First of all, the most difference you could possibly see between a carbonated vs. non-carbonated beverage is that the carbonated drink can might be a bit more resistant to denting. But a lack of pressure won't make the can spontaneously implode or anything like that, any more than it does an empty can.
But more to the point, I have seen non-carbonated iced tea sold in standard soda cans. Perhaps they add a bit of pressure to the headspace in that case, but either way, it's clearly not a problem.
"Miss Edie, as long as there are chicken layin' and truck drivin' and my feet walkin', you can be sure that l will bring you the finest of the fine, the largest of the large and the whitest of the white. ln other words, that thin-shelled ovum of the domestic fowl will never be safe as long as there are chicken layin' and l'm alive because l am your eggman and there ain't a better one in town!"
The problem is that since it is a secret gov't program, no one can actually prove they have standing. In other words, it is legally unassailable by design.
Aside from the very valid points others have raised...
Of course you can lose some weight in the short term by gaming energy balance. And the reason said experiment has been done "again and again and time again" is because in the long term, you will need to consistently cut more and/or burn more to keep losing the same amount of weight, and in 95% or more of cases you will be unable to keep that up, and eventually will gain that weight back and likely more.
The person who suffers giganticism will also lose weight with such a strategy. But no one would suggest that restricting intake or increasing expenditure will *cure* giganticism, or that too much expenditure *caused* it...we recognize that it is a hormonal problem that cause a person to grow abnormally. Even though thermodynamics apply as surely as it does with obesity (and indeed you can stunt developmental growth through starvation), they is not the primary or even really a particularly relevant factor.
Now that doesn't mean that obesity isn't caused by simple caloric excess, but it does prove that thermodynamics do not make it necessarily so. In fact, the only way one would be justified in claiming such a thing was if you could (a) prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no similar biological disruption involved in common obesity, or (b) show clinical results where simply trying to create negative energy balance via caloric restriction and increased exertion (aka standard diet and exercise advice) reliably reverses obesity over the long term. There is far too much evidence otherwise to claim (a), and the only way you can justify (b) is through the the standard rationalization practiced by the medical community today..."it's not true that our standard prescription of diet/exercise is 95+% ineffective, it's 100% effective but there's a 95+% non-compliance rate." Of course it's a tautology, the only indicator of 'compliance' is success...and you easily could substitute 'prayer' for 'diet/exercise' and it would be just as true. (You didn't lose weight, obviously you're not praying hard enough, fatty!)
So does the fact that you can temporarily shed some weight by effectively starving yourself via diet or exertion justify your initial claim that simple control of caloric balance (whatever that even means in the real world) is the "precisely one thing...nothing else" that a fatty needs to know to be a former fatty? It may be the conventional wisdom, but, to use the vernacular, it's fucking retarded.
Most sodas aren't made with sugar, they're made with Corn SYRUP, which is fructose only.
Real table sugar is made up of multiple sugar forms and is easier to digest, and better for your body than pure fructose.
Ummm...no. The 'corn syrup' you cite is 'high fructose corn syrup', not 'ALL fructose corn syrup'. Specifically it is HFCS-55, which 55% fructose/45% glucose and small amounts of other sugars. It is 'high-fructose' compared to ordinary corn syrup which is virtually 100% glucose or maltose (two bound glucose molecules).
'Real' table sugar is sucrose which is a glucose molecule bound to a fructose, I.e., 50-50 glucose to fructose. So far, there is precious little evidence of any significant difference in metabolic effects between sucrose and HFCS. The big thing with the advent of HFCS 35-40 years ago is that people have been consuming so much more total sugar overall since its introduction.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but no, you're wrong. Here's another video of the event showing the handlers and the pastor announcing the eagle's arrival and that it was being released from the balcony. "Eagle flying in the Chapel window" should read "into the Chapel window".
Evidently, it is not rare enough circumstances to prevent this particularly egregious fucktardery, which also shows that some of the most "patriotic" 'Murkans have no problem with it at all.
But I do agree...just leave them the fuck alone.
Well, it seems to me that two things are likely true:
1) Making malware code public helps malware programmers (current and aspiring) write better malware programs.
2) Making malware code public helps anti-malware programmers (current and aspiring) write better anti-malware programs.
Who benefits more? I honestly don't know. However, my bias is towards openness over secrecy, and I think it needs to demonstrated that the risks of making malware code public outweigh any potential benefits.
should be doubleplusunloyal
Don't you know? Shards are the secret ingredient in the web scale sauce. ;)
Seconded. Holds better and longer by far than any duck tape I've ever used, yet comes off easier. Since the day my friend alerted me to its existence, it's my 'duct tape' of choice.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
- Max Planck
You know what else Henry Ford is quoted as having said?
"I know who caused the war (World War I)...the German-Jewish bankers! I have the evidence here. Facts! I can't give out the facts now, because I haven't got them all yet, but I'll have them soon."
Just sayin', it not like we should blindly accept every pearl of wisdom that dropped off ol' HF's lips or anything.
While I agree with your recommendation of qBittorrent, in-client search is only useful when you know exactly what you're looking for. If you want to browse, you're SOL unless you visit the site(s).
As to the issue with qBittorrent and SourceForge, their primary download provider is FossHub, and it is also available via Ninite, neither of which seems to have whored out their reputation like SourceForge...yet.
A cocktail waitress.
Nope, wasn't arguing that at all. My only point was that LSD was to my knowledge, and have now confirmed, a pretty serendipitous discovery.
But to rant on a bit...in my opinion, most drugs are not really 'designed', and I've always bristled at the term 'designer drugs'. Ask people to name as many 'designer drugs' as they can and I'll bet you 99.99% of the answers will be some form of MDMA (discovered 1912), ketamine (1962), or maybe GHB (1874). There are a handful of drugs out there on the fringe of the party drug market that may be newer than than that, but I hope you get my point. Implicit in the concept of 'designer drugs' is that evil drug lords are just toiling day and night in their secret laboratories trying to come up with that just-right formula to evade the CSA scheduling list, but it's just not reality. The fact is that the pharmaceutical industry pretty much covered the vast majority of that ground by 50 years ago, and the corner of the illicit drug market beyond the 'tried and true' is statistically insignificant.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not attributing any of that cultural baggage to you...I'm just trying to express where I'm coming from. Do I think that mankind would ever stop looking for a better trip/buzz/what-have-you? No, not at all. But for the most part, they are rarely designed, more like they try every variant that chemistry permits and then determine which ones are interesting. I can't call that 'design' any more than animal/plant breeding or hybridization is 'design'; sure, you may start with objectives in mind, but good luck if your design is to make a cow capable of photosynthesis.
Source please. If they were looking specifically for psychedelics, why did take 5 years to figure out it had that property in spades and then only by accident?
Ergotamine had been known as a vasoconstrictor and was used to treat migraines. I've never read a single source about Hofmann's work that indicated he was looking for psychedelics specifically.
Wait...never mind, the answer is right on the Albert Hofmann Wikipedia page: (Gotta love WP...)
"While researching lysergic acid derivatives, Hofmann first synthesized LSD on November 16, 1938. The main intention of the synthesis was to obtain a respiratory and circulatory stimulant (an analeptic) with no effects on the uterus in analogy to nikethamide (which is also a diethylamide) by introducing this functional group to lysergic acid. It was set aside for five years, until April 16, 1943, when Hofmann decided to reexamine it. While re-synthesizing LSD, he accidentally touched his hand to his mouth, nose or possibly eye, accidentally ingesting a small amount and fortuitously discovered its powerful effects."
So I guess if you want to stick by 'designed' to mean 'designed for some completely different purpose for which it was no good but then accidentally discovered to be a powerful entheogen"...umm, yeah OK, but then I'd suggest that perhaps we're speaking different languages, because the intent was clearly not to create a psychedelic.
2012 wants its propaganda back, too.
Again from Wikipedia:
"While police sources speculated that the use of a street drug like "bath salts" might have been a factor, experts have expressed doubt toward this speculation as toxicology reports were only able to identify marijuana in his system, leaving the ultimate cause of Eugene's behavior to remain unknown."
Hysterical anti-drug propaganda: scaring Americans stupid since 1914.
Not by any definition of 'designed' I'm aware of. Wikipedia says it best:
"LSD was first synthesized on November 16, 1938 by Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann at the Sandoz Laboratories in Basel, Switzerland as part of a large research program searching for medically useful ergot alkaloid derivatives. LSD's psychedelic properties were discovered 5 years later when Hofmann himself accidentally ingested an unknown quantity of the chemical."
In other words, it's most noted property was not known at the time it was first synthesized. Not sure how that could be called 'designed'.
1967 called....it wants its imaginary LSD horror story propaganda back.
First of all, the most difference you could possibly see between a carbonated vs. non-carbonated beverage is that the carbonated drink can might be a bit more resistant to denting. But a lack of pressure won't make the can spontaneously implode or anything like that, any more than it does an empty can.
But more to the point, I have seen non-carbonated iced tea sold in standard soda cans. Perhaps they add a bit of pressure to the headspace in that case, but either way, it's clearly not a problem.
The Killer App ticket...
McAfee/Reiser '16
You do realize that one of those is not a government agency, right? If not, I'll leave it as an exercise to figure out which one.
"Miss Edie, as long as there are chicken layin' and truck drivin' and my feet walkin', you can be sure that l will bring you the finest of the fine, the largest of the large and the whitest of the white. ln other words, that thin-shelled ovum of the domestic fowl will never be safe as long as there are chicken layin' and l'm alive because l am your eggman and there ain't a better one in town!"
- The Eggman
If you're going to link to a Golden Guide, at least link to the best one.
The problem is that since it is a secret gov't program, no one can actually prove they have standing. In other words, it is legally unassailable by design.
I just checked the website, and at $1,849 for a middling spec laptop, it must be true that "freedom isn't free."
I've heard of MongoDB. It's Web Scale!!
Aside from the very valid points others have raised...
Of course you can lose some weight in the short term by gaming energy balance. And the reason said experiment has been done "again and again and time again" is because in the long term, you will need to consistently cut more and/or burn more to keep losing the same amount of weight, and in 95% or more of cases you will be unable to keep that up, and eventually will gain that weight back and likely more.
The person who suffers giganticism will also lose weight with such a strategy. But no one would suggest that restricting intake or increasing expenditure will *cure* giganticism, or that too much expenditure *caused* it...we recognize that it is a hormonal problem that cause a person to grow abnormally. Even though thermodynamics apply as surely as it does with obesity (and indeed you can stunt developmental growth through starvation), they is not the primary or even really a particularly relevant factor.
Now that doesn't mean that obesity isn't caused by simple caloric excess, but it does prove that thermodynamics do not make it necessarily so. In fact, the only way one would be justified in claiming such a thing was if you could (a) prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no similar biological disruption involved in common obesity, or (b) show clinical results where simply trying to create negative energy balance via caloric restriction and increased exertion (aka standard diet and exercise advice) reliably reverses obesity over the long term. There is far too much evidence otherwise to claim (a), and the only way you can justify (b) is through the the standard rationalization practiced by the medical community today..."it's not true that our standard prescription of diet/exercise is 95+% ineffective, it's 100% effective but there's a 95+% non-compliance rate." Of course it's a tautology, the only indicator of 'compliance' is success...and you easily could substitute 'prayer' for 'diet/exercise' and it would be just as true. (You didn't lose weight, obviously you're not praying hard enough, fatty!)
So does the fact that you can temporarily shed some weight by effectively starving yourself via diet or exertion justify your initial claim that simple control of caloric balance (whatever that even means in the real world) is the "precisely one thing...nothing else" that a fatty needs to know to be a former fatty? It may be the conventional wisdom, but, to use the vernacular, it's fucking retarded.
Ummm...no. The 'corn syrup' you cite is 'high fructose corn syrup', not 'ALL fructose corn syrup'. Specifically it is HFCS-55, which 55% fructose/45% glucose and small amounts of other sugars. It is 'high-fructose' compared to ordinary corn syrup which is virtually 100% glucose or maltose (two bound glucose molecules).
'Real' table sugar is sucrose which is a glucose molecule bound to a fructose, I.e., 50-50 glucose to fructose. So far, there is precious little evidence of any significant difference in metabolic effects between sucrose and HFCS. The big thing with the advent of HFCS 35-40 years ago is that people have been consuming so much more total sugar overall since its introduction.