It's just what people tell the insurance companies.
Must be pretty dumb insurance companies then. And pretty dumb people, too. The latter are basically admitting being grossly negligent, and the former apparently can't find a way to weasel out of paying with that.
It's not OK to tune my stereo a foot to the right of me but it's perfectly safe to look over my shoulder BEHIND ME to check my blind spot?
If you need to look behind yourself to check the blind spot, you should get those rearview mirrors fixed. Checking your blind spot requires turning your head about 45 degrees to the left or right (depending which way you want to turn), and takes less than one second. The blind spot is besides you, not behind you.
There already is the FDP which has a strong civil rights wing and is, for example, opposed to goverment monotoring of private internet use by the secret service.
If the FDP has to chose between tax cuts for a few and civil rights for everyone, they'll chose the former. And they usually have to chose, since they can't govern alone. Also, not everyone buys into their libertarian agenda.
Let's be less than generous with the "content providers". 15 years for copyright.
Let's be even more generous: 20 years. Just like for patents.
The way it is now, if I invent a gizmo that brings about world peace, general happiness, and has the answer to life, the universe, and everything, I can profit from it, and maybe my kids can, too. If I write a song, then my grandkids or even my great-grandkids can still reap the benefits. That doesn't make sense.
While I agree with your other points, the first one doesn't work. Making "PIRATEN" a backronym
Make it into a three- or four-letter backronym that's still recognizable. Heck, isn't that what texting is all about?;)
PRTN, "Partei fuer Rechte der Buerger, Technologie und Neue Medien". I'm sure that with a bit of brainstorming, they can come up with something that makes more sense. Creativity isn't one of their weak points.
It worked for the Greens. They started out worse 30 years ago, and now they're regulars in parliament. A party that stays single-issue isn't going to _gain_ much support.
One of the major reasons for this growth is that they defend a cause (against censorship and freedom of speech) which is supported by people from left and right-wings.
And that precludes forming an opinion on other topics?
There already _is_ profit. Somewhat above €500k in campaign cost reimbursements for getting more than 0.5% of the votes. Getting seats in the parliament is the next step.
This may not sound much, but it is actually pretty good for a new and totally unknown party with a scary name.
1. Re-Brand using a backronym in order to appeal to a more general audience.
2. Expand the party platform somewhat to be less of a single-issue party.
3. Wait four years.
4. Seats in the parliament!
I think the Pirate Party should rebrand itself as the Internet Party, Digital Party or Future Party, some such thing,
Duh, if they rebrand themselves, they should use a backronym, of course. Conveniently enough, Pirate starts with a P, as does Party. Just knock a few letters from "Pirate(s)" to end up with a three- to four-letter backronym palatable to the general public.
If the U.S. doesn't want its own Piratpartiet, the government had better consider that the reason these branch offices have popped up is precisely because of heavy-handed laws that attempt to usurp the inalienable rights of users to download content for free off the internet.
The two large parties in the US can safely ignore any attempts at getting a Pirate party up and running. The election system there will make sure that such a party stays insignificant. Winner takes all and such.
I have control over my information. And that is why you wont find be on Facebook.
Are you sure that all your buddies know about this and never ever post any picture that shows your face on facebook? What about random strangers on whose pictures you end up by accident?
Since when has committing a crime unintentionally ever been a defense?
Um, always? Most crimes require intent. Some require merely negligence. If you're charged with a crime that requires intent, and intent cannot be proven, then you cannot be sentenced for it.
"Oh officer! I wasn't INTENDING to kill all the cancer stricken orphans when I driving drunk, speeding, and firing my gun wildly! I just intending to disturb the peace!"
1. You're not being charged with anything by a police officer. That's the job of the prosecutor. And you'd be stupid for saying anything like that to the police officer arresting you. Remember the Miranda rights?
2. Killing people is one of the few things that are a crime even if done negligently. However, there's a difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter.
And what happens in ketosis? The cells in the body use the ketone bodies (produced from fatty acids in the liver) and fatty acids as substrate for the citric acid cycle (the ketone bodies are reconverted to acetyl-CoA inside the cell first). And there's nothing stopping cancer cells from doing exactly the same thing (well, except for the condition that I haven't mentioned. Should be easy to guess, though). The interesting thing about the citric acid cycle is that it's the point where the catabolic pathways of carbohydrates, fats and protein converge. It's the multi-fuel engine of cells.
You show a bit of a lack of understanding of basic cellular physiology (this is really, really basic stuff). Are you sure you're not just repeating stuff you heard from someone else without understanding it? I'm sure you can find a textbook on basic physiology in the nearest library. Until you really understand what you're talking about, please refrain from giving people advice that's quite likely to shorten their lifespan.
*Most* of your body doesn't need to run on glucose, it can run just fine on ketones/fatty acids.
Exactly. And a cell turning cancerous doesn't suddenly change its metabolism completely. It will still use the citric acid cycle just like any other cell to satisfy its ATP needs using whatever substrate is available.
Saying you can starve cancer of glucose with a carbohydrate-free diet is kind of like saying you can starve it of oxygen by holding your breath. It's not going to work, and you'll do more damage to your body than to the cancer in the process.
A lot of cancers need glucose,
Some _parts_ of a cancerous tumor may, under a certain condition. That's a couple of big question marks there, and still doesn't mean that you're going to do more damage to your body than to the cancer.
If you have cancer it's probably better to actually generate only the glucose you need, as opposed to most of the calories you eat...
Cancers are usually very good at feeding themselves. They'll get whatever nutrients they need as long the rest of the body is still alive. If you try to "starve" the cancer of glucose, what's going to happen is that it won't bother the cancer much, but your body (which is already busy trying to fight the cancer) gets deprived of an important nutrient and has to spend extra resources manufacturing it - and that still may not be enough since the cancer is mooching off the limited manufacturing capacity.
In short: You're going to hurt your body a lot more than you're going to hurt the cancer. Effective cancer treatments work the other way round (surgery/chemotherapy/radiation therapy/etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Hand in your geek card.
if(employee.is_texting && employee.is_driving)
{
fire(employee);
}
It's just what people tell the insurance companies.
Must be pretty dumb insurance companies then. And pretty dumb people, too. The latter are basically admitting being grossly negligent, and the former apparently can't find a way to weasel out of paying with that.
It's not OK to tune my stereo a foot to the right of me but it's perfectly safe to look over my shoulder BEHIND ME to check my blind spot?
If you need to look behind yourself to check the blind spot, you should get those rearview mirrors fixed. Checking your blind spot requires turning your head about 45 degrees to the left or right (depending which way you want to turn), and takes less than one second. The blind spot is besides you, not behind you.
If the FDP has to chose between tax cuts for a few and civil rights for everyone, they'll chose the former. And they usually have to chose, since they can't govern alone. Also, not everyone buys into their libertarian agenda.
Just imagine how much more variety there would be in Three Dogs selection of music if they didn't have to license all those songs for Fallout 3 ...
Ok, you owe me a new monitor. And a new keyboard. Mine didn't survive being showered with coffee. ;)
It's not just about original recordings. The songs themselves would be public domain, meaning that anyone could perform them, etc.
Let's be less than generous with the "content providers". 15 years for copyright.
Let's be even more generous: 20 years. Just like for patents.
The way it is now, if I invent a gizmo that brings about world peace, general happiness, and has the answer to life, the universe, and everything, I can profit from it, and maybe my kids can, too. If I write a song, then my grandkids or even my great-grandkids can still reap the benefits. That doesn't make sense.
There were over a dozen parties on the ballot that couldn't.
Make it into a three- or four-letter backronym that's still recognizable. Heck, isn't that what texting is all about? ;)
PRTN, "Partei fuer Rechte der Buerger, Technologie und Neue Medien". I'm sure that with a bit of brainstorming, they can come up with something that makes more sense. Creativity isn't one of their weak points.
It worked for the Greens. They started out worse 30 years ago, and now they're regulars in parliament. A party that stays single-issue isn't going to _gain_ much support.
One of the major reasons for this growth is that they defend a cause (against censorship and freedom of speech) which is supported by people from left and right-wings.
And that precludes forming an opinion on other topics?
You mean there won't be any profit?
There already _is_ profit. Somewhat above €500k in campaign cost reimbursements for getting more than 0.5% of the votes. Getting seats in the parliament is the next step.
1. Re-Brand using a backronym in order to appeal to a more general audience.
2. Expand the party platform somewhat to be less of a single-issue party.
3. Wait four years.
4. Seats in the parliament!
Note the absence of question marks.
In their first federal election in 1980, the Green party got 1.5% in Germany. And they received much, much more media attention.
Duh, if they rebrand themselves, they should use a backronym, of course. Conveniently enough, Pirate starts with a P, as does Party. Just knock a few letters from "Pirate(s)" to end up with a three- to four-letter backronym palatable to the general public.
If the U.S. doesn't want its own Piratpartiet, the government had better consider that the reason these branch offices have popped up is precisely because of heavy-handed laws that attempt to usurp the inalienable rights of users to download content for free off the internet.
The two large parties in the US can safely ignore any attempts at getting a Pirate party up and running. The election system there will make sure that such a party stays insignificant. Winner takes all and such.
That applies to military use only, anyway. Any government can feel free to fsck with their own people as they want.
Are you sure that all your buddies know about this and never ever post any picture that shows your face on facebook? What about random strangers on whose pictures you end up by accident?
Indeed, the Germans INVENTED the fabulous pink triangle symbol that gays wear so proudly today!
50 years ago? I think not, that was 70 years ago.
As far as 50 years ago is concerned, maybe they should ask this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing
Since when has committing a crime unintentionally ever been a defense?
Um, always? Most crimes require intent. Some require merely negligence. If you're charged with a crime that requires intent, and intent cannot be proven, then you cannot be sentenced for it.
"Oh officer! I wasn't INTENDING to kill all the cancer stricken orphans when I driving drunk, speeding, and firing my gun wildly! I just intending to disturb the peace!"
1. You're not being charged with anything by a police officer. That's the job of the prosecutor. And you'd be stupid for saying anything like that to the police officer arresting you. Remember the Miranda rights?
2. Killing people is one of the few things that are a crime even if done negligently. However, there's a difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter.
And what happens in ketosis? The cells in the body use the ketone bodies (produced from fatty acids in the liver) and fatty acids as substrate for the citric acid cycle (the ketone bodies are reconverted to acetyl-CoA inside the cell first). And there's nothing stopping cancer cells from doing exactly the same thing (well, except for the condition that I haven't mentioned. Should be easy to guess, though). The interesting thing about the citric acid cycle is that it's the point where the catabolic pathways of carbohydrates, fats and protein converge. It's the multi-fuel engine of cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_body
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis
You show a bit of a lack of understanding of basic cellular physiology (this is really, really basic stuff). Are you sure you're not just repeating stuff you heard from someone else without understanding it? I'm sure you can find a textbook on basic physiology in the nearest library. Until you really understand what you're talking about, please refrain from giving people advice that's quite likely to shorten their lifespan.
Exactly. And a cell turning cancerous doesn't suddenly change its metabolism completely. It will still use the citric acid cycle just like any other cell to satisfy its ATP needs using whatever substrate is available.
Saying you can starve cancer of glucose with a carbohydrate-free diet is kind of like saying you can starve it of oxygen by holding your breath. It's not going to work, and you'll do more damage to your body than to the cancer in the process.
A lot of cancers need glucose,
Some _parts_ of a cancerous tumor may, under a certain condition. That's a couple of big question marks there, and still doesn't mean that you're going to do more damage to your body than to the cancer.
Old East German quality combined with West German prices, a Mercedes in price and a Travant in substance.
No no no. If it was really built like a Trabant, it would weigh less than one ton.
No, it's a pretty sure way to make things worse.
It's something that *might* help.
It's much more likely to hurt than help.
Cancers are usually very good at feeding themselves. They'll get whatever nutrients they need as long the rest of the body is still alive. If you try to "starve" the cancer of glucose, what's going to happen is that it won't bother the cancer much, but your body (which is already busy trying to fight the cancer) gets deprived of an important nutrient and has to spend extra resources manufacturing it - and that still may not be enough since the cancer is mooching off the limited manufacturing capacity.
In short: You're going to hurt your body a lot more than you're going to hurt the cancer. Effective cancer treatments work the other way round (surgery/chemotherapy/radiation therapy/etc).
Perhaps a nasty plague or two might enabled national health care to get really important to the right wing clowns.
No, it'll just be taken as a(nother) sign that Jesus should be coming back any minute now.