Hardly. A pure carb diet is very unhealthy, and a great ticket to obesity and diabetes.
Meat isn't the only dietary protein source, and is far from the cheapest.
Quinoa, lentils, dairy, all the many varieties of nuts and beans all sustain a person, and taste good, to boot. Eggs, dairy, and a few vegetable sources are complete proteins, but the rest need only be eaten in conjunction with wheat, or rice, for example, to provide a complete protein. Meat is an ecologically expensive luxury that no one needs to eat three times a day, every day, without exception.
I find it difficult to imagine eating a pure carb diet without conscious effort. It'd look something like cake flour, sugar, water, and nothing else.
Whether the proposed data gathering scheme provides google with privacy-compromising information is beside the point. If the scheme proves successful, personal space will have shrunk. It will have become more acceptable for information gathering to be an increasingly active process about which the person to whom the information is due has a constrained say - compare information being pulled for analysis, instead of pushed information being analysed. The scary part is that the space the observed person's influence has been made to vacate will come into the observer's domain, further shifting the scales in favor of the organisation at the individual's expense.
Private student loans typically require a FAFSA to be filed, iinm. The real way to not be under surveillance through this program is to be rich enough to begin with, or to just not pursue higher education.
The glass of a crt's monitor is filled with lead. Consider that a crt monitor is an electron gun, and the health implications of sitting for hours on end of one, were it not full of something to keep x-rays from irradiating the sitter.
How about if those who would render Tor ineffective have the capability to record traffic passed by an isp to any node in the USA? How about if that same adversary has intelligence-sharing agreements with foreign intelligence agencies? It's not just hostile nodes you have to worry about, but also the possibility of the insfrastructure on which Tor is built being hostile.
One day some of ya'll are going to grow up and realize that "the man" isn't out to get you. He is out to get the bad guy and the real problem is that the most effective ways are denied to him because of political correctness.
"The man" _is_ out to get me. Or, more accurately, while I don't believe I'm anything like a priority as an individual as far as federal agents, lists, and secret prisons are concerned, I have been arrested, jailed, detained, stopped, searched, I can't count how many times by the police. I'm not a terrorist, a murderer, or a burglar, I just look likely and associate with other targetted persons.
It's easy to believe that the police are really just there to protect us when you posess the right combination of skin color, wealth, education, place of residence, all the rest of it. It's not so easy to believe when the greatest immediate threat to your safety at any time wears a badge and carries a gun.
My favorite "riddles" aren't exactly riddles, but games requiring a certain amount of logical problem solving nonetheless.
Some example games are: (1)The words I, me, my, and mine are forbidden. Using any of these words will result in a demerit, penalisation, loss, or similar. Creativity counts. Creative cheating counts extra.
(2)Think "What did I just think?" As soon as you forget what you just thought, you lose.
(3)Think "What did I just think?" As soon as you remember what you just thought, you lose.
And so on. In (1), some fundamental words are removed from the list of words available in speech, forcing the player to keep constantly on the toes while reforging verbal associations. In (2), a winner will have some characteristics of a befuddled butterfly, while a lose will be unaware of their loss. In (3), a winner may set "What did I just think?" spinning, place it in the corner of the mind, and check up on it every now and again. When such games are participated in by multiple parties great parts of the fun and attraction lie in the inevitable arguments about who's won, who's lost, who's the most points, and "why don't we add this rule," or "doesn't that rule we added five minutes ago have this implication?"
That the proportion of incidence of HIV/AIDS to total population is a low one(about 39.4 million infected(1) in a population of about 6.4 billion(2) for about.6 infected people per 100) means that any random person has a rather low risk of contracting HIV in the next, say, ten years. Statistically, _nobody_ catches AIDS for any reason, except for a few anomalies. Certainly it's easy to ignore AIDS cases caused by a subset of possible causes in a relatively unaffected subset of all people, because _every_ case of AIDS in the USA is a statistical anomaly.
Unfortunately, in the real life you speak of nobody is 6/1000ths HIV+. It's easy to hide information using statistics; with the 6/1000ths number one might not expect for whole countries to have an adult HIV/AIDS prevalence rate of 21.3%(3) One might not even expect 640,000 children 15 and under to have been newly infected with HIV in 2004(4).
Of course AIDS isn't going to kill us all, at least not until it somehow manages to become transmissible by mosquito bite. But to say that "normal" people who "take a modicum of precaution" don't catch AIDS except for a few anomalies is willingness to misleadingly ignore those life has shat on, and because of that ignorance claim those covered shit don't exist.
Consider:
Correctional institutions in the USA have an HIV/AIDS rate five to ten times higher than that of the general population(5).
In 1998, 11.5 million inmates were released from jails and prisons(6), re-entering the "normal" population and bringing with them any diseases contracted while imprisoned.
It is estimated that more than 425,000 inmates in the USA are raped every year, although accurate numbers are notoriously difficult or impossible to come by(7)
True monogamy is really very uncommon, with most sexually active people in the USA going through a period of serial monogamy, wherein they may have a great number of sexual partners, allowing diseases such as AIDS to be spread unwittingly even by those held in trust.
You conveniently forget rape, the infidelities of a trusted long term partner, the period during which a carrier of HIV is capable of transmitting infection without showing up positive on any tests, and even simple condom breakage. Keep in mind that such nonsense as "...you have to pretty much be TRYING to get AIDS to get it," is the sort of uninformed idiocy that allows one to believe that those with AIDS deserve it, this belief itself doing nothing but to allow HIV to propagate unchecked and sentence those HIV+ to a horrible, needless death.
However, everyone I know in that second group (including myself, among many people) stopped purchasing audio CDs after the Canadian levy was placed on blank CD media -- after all, even though it was of grey legality, the prevailing thought was, "Hey, I'm already paying the music industry each time I purchase a blank CD, to compensate them for people downloading songs and putting them on blank CDs. By that token, it is my right, since I have paid this compensation, to go and download all the songs I want and put them on this CD."
Does the purchaser of blank CD media listen exclusively to those artists represented by the collectors of the CD levy? Consider that obscure Band X receives money only from merchandise sales, gigging, and donations, with exactly zero contribution from any kind of "piracy tax." To consider an artist financially rewarded, removing the music listener from the onerous burden of supporting art and its creators, when in fact it is only the monied portion of the music industry being rewarded, is nothing short of crackheaded.
Of course if all the purchaser of blank CD media listens to is flavor of the moment pap, it should have no logical inconsistency in rationalising turning potential wealth for the artist into real wealth for the lawsuit threatening, culture destroying enemy.
Gamme ray crowd control weapon? Gamma ray? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_rays , "Gamma ray is a term for high-energy electromagnetic radiation produced by nuclear transitions." The word you probably mean is "microwave."
ok, mod my above post -1, egregious misuse of the phrase 'central... planning of the economy.'
The Federal Republic of Germany might be accurately described as a social democracy, and, just as the USA does not embrace pure capitalism. Unlike the USA however, it is much more in line with socialist ideals, with unions explicitly given part in the power structure, heavy regulation of industry, mandatory health insurance, the use of political parties not just as contenders for office but also as organs of government, allowing the Church first dibs on some parts of the health industry, government bankrolling of certain types of job training and hiring, government sponsored apprenticeship programs,...the list goes on.
Germany might be considered a socialist state about as much as the USA a capitalist one.
"Is it the US media that is almost exclusively US centric to the extent that your average slashdotter knows neither the difference between Sweden and Switzerland or between Austria and Australia, and has vague and unsettling notions about the EU being
socialist or even communist..."
Much of the EU really is socialist with Germany coming to mind in particular, featuring strong central government planning of the economy and extensive social safety nets, workers' unions with real power truly representing their membership, and so on.
In the short story, the mental handicapping device uses sound, yes. In the movie however, while only the briefest of explanations are given of the handicapping devices' operation, they seem to involve some kind of electronic technomagic. IINM one of the movie's characters is made into a barely functioning slab of meat by cutting certain neural pathways.
This newly approved device does not "resolve any problems [the patient] might have," it applies current to some part of the brain. That is, how and why it works, the patient likely has no clue. The doctor likely has only a slightly larger clue. Even the designers of the device are likely to not have a full understanding of how the thing works, because the brain is far from understood.
That is, the device does _something_ to the brain; just trust me, it'll make you all better. That's the sort of blind faith requirement that should be given close scrutiny, because the brain is too vital an organ to hand over to just anyone and because the black box nature of the device allows it to be a wonder medicine just as well as a horrible mind control device. While it is unlikely that both anyone has yet made a device similar to that used in/Harrison Bergeron/ and is secretly implanting it in the USA's morbidly depressed, the possibility of such or something similarly nefarious should not be thrown out without consideration.
Yes, fission power is a better proposition than oil in many respects, but don't think it's perfect. While those constructing and operating nuclear power plants and disposing of the waste are for-profit organisations, while those with political power are not nuclear engineers, while lobbyists are able to buy legislation, there will be problems. Expect leaky containers of waste, expect three mile island, Chernobyl, and Sellafield.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
These are compatible with and more or less equivalent to the USA's first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
As long as there are multiple independent, uncensored, well-staffed resources such as archive.org and the wish of some significant segment of the general populace to engage in research, the danger of 1984 style history rewriting is diminished.
The way I see it, though, this sort of weapon has the same drawbacks as a nuclear weapon. It's not like they're going to use it against their enemies without it being traced back to them.
Not quite. A large rock dropped on whatever city you wish won't result in radioactive fallout. Also, consider that if the star wars program ever manages to, well, function, missiles aimed and launched at the posessor of the star wars program become more or less wastes of resources. A large rock falling out of the heavens would however be likely mor or less immune to star wars, providing the balancing force opposing superpowers so seem to take pleasure in.
Keep in mind also that "a large rock falling from the heavens" needn't be so large as to destroy civilisation, only large enough to destroy whatever it is used to target.
It should be mentioned that the president does not appoint judges to the SCotUS, but nominates them; Those the president wishes to fill certain posts must receive the blessings of congress. There's really a very big difference between a nominee and an appointee that most news outlets and voters seem to have completely excised from common awareness. The requirement that the president's nominees be approved is one of the important checks and balances that were intended to keep the USA from spiralling into tyranny or whatehaveyou. The recent attempts to stifle congressional debate on presidential nominees are entirely counter-democratic and result in error in knowledge of the extent of the president's powers to gain popular currency. This does not change along with the name of the majority party.
Slashdot Mirror
Meat isn't the only dietary protein source, and is far from the cheapest.
Quinoa, lentils, dairy, all the many varieties of nuts and beans all sustain a person, and taste good, to boot. Eggs, dairy, and a few vegetable sources are complete proteins, but the rest need only be eaten in conjunction with wheat, or rice, for example, to provide a complete protein. Meat is an ecologically expensive luxury that no one needs to eat three times a day, every day, without exception.
I find it difficult to imagine eating a pure carb diet without conscious effort. It'd look something like cake flour, sugar, water, and nothing else.
Whether the proposed data gathering scheme provides google with privacy-compromising information is beside the point. If the scheme proves successful, personal space will have shrunk. It will have become more acceptable for information gathering to be an increasingly active process about which the person to whom the information is due has a constrained say - compare information being pulled for analysis, instead of pushed information being analysed. The scary part is that the space the observed person's influence has been made to vacate will come into the observer's domain, further shifting the scales in favor of the organisation at the individual's expense.
Private student loans typically require a FAFSA to be filed, iinm. The real way to not be under surveillance through this program is to be rich enough to begin with, or to just not pursue higher education.
The glass of a crt's monitor is filled with lead. Consider that a crt monitor is an electron gun, and the health implications of sitting for hours on end of one, were it not full of something to keep x-rays from irradiating the sitter.
8 .pdf
Some Reference:
http://www.svtc.org/hightech_prod/desktop.htm
http://www.qsrecycling.com/whatisacrt.html
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/comp-dic/lca-sum/ques
How about if those who would render Tor ineffective have the capability to record traffic passed by an isp to any node in the USA? How about if that same adversary has intelligence-sharing agreements with foreign intelligence agencies? It's not just hostile nodes you have to worry about, but also the possibility of the insfrastructure on which Tor is built being hostile.
8 5918.html
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Oct/15-9
"The man" _is_ out to get me. Or, more accurately, while I don't believe I'm anything like a priority as an individual as far as federal agents, lists, and secret prisons are concerned, I have been arrested, jailed, detained, stopped, searched, I can't count how many times by the police. I'm not a terrorist, a murderer, or a burglar, I just look likely and associate with other targetted persons.
It's easy to believe that the police are really just there to protect us when you posess the right combination of skin color, wealth, education, place of residence, all the rest of it. It's not so easy to believe when the greatest immediate threat to your safety at any time wears a badge and carries a gun.
My favorite "riddles" aren't exactly riddles, but games requiring a certain amount of logical problem solving nonetheless.
Some example games are:
(1)The words I, me, my, and mine are forbidden. Using any of these words will result in a demerit, penalisation, loss, or similar. Creativity counts. Creative cheating counts extra.
(2)Think "What did I just think?" As soon as you forget what you just thought, you lose.
(3)Think "What did I just think?" As soon as you remember what you just thought, you lose.
And so on. In (1), some fundamental words are removed from the list of words available in speech, forcing the player to keep constantly on the toes while reforging verbal associations. In (2), a winner will have some characteristics of a befuddled butterfly, while a lose will be unaware of their loss. In (3), a winner may set "What did I just think?" spinning, place it in the corner of the mind, and check up on it every now and again. When such games are participated in by multiple parties great parts of the fun and attraction lie in the inevitable arguments about who's won, who's lost, who's the most points, and "why don't we add this rule," or "doesn't that rule we added five minutes ago have this implication?"
How about this one:
"THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction."
This statement was made on May 29, 2003 however, slightly past the timeframe you mentioned.
That the proportion of incidence of HIV/AIDS to total population is a low one(about 39.4 million infected(1) in a population of about 6.4 billion(2) for about .6 infected people per 100) means that any random person has a rather low risk of contracting HIV in the next, say, ten years. Statistically, _nobody_ catches AIDS for any reason, except for a few anomalies. Certainly it's easy to ignore AIDS cases caused by a subset of possible causes in a relatively unaffected subset of all people, because _every_ case of AIDS in the USA is a statistical anomaly.
a nkorder/2119rank.htmlc ountry/namibia.asph tml
Unfortunately, in the real life you speak of nobody is 6/1000ths HIV+. It's easy to hide information using statistics; with the 6/1000ths number one might not expect for whole countries to have an adult HIV/AIDS prevalence rate of 21.3%(3) One might not even expect 640,000 children 15 and under to have been newly infected with HIV in 2004(4).
Of course AIDS isn't going to kill us all, at least not until it somehow manages to become transmissible by mosquito bite. But to say that "normal" people who "take a modicum of precaution" don't catch AIDS except for a few anomalies is willingness to misleadingly ignore those life has shat on, and because of that ignorance claim those covered shit don't exist.
Consider:
Correctional institutions in the USA have an HIV/AIDS rate five to ten times higher than that of the general population(5).
In 1998, 11.5 million inmates were released from jails and prisons(6), re-entering the "normal" population and bringing with them any diseases contracted while imprisoned.
It is estimated that more than 425,000 inmates in the USA are raped every year, although accurate numbers are notoriously difficult or impossible to come by(7)
True monogamy is really very uncommon, with most sexually active people in the USA going through a period of serial monogamy, wherein they may have a great number of sexual partners, allowing diseases such as AIDS to be spread unwittingly even by those held in trust.
(1)http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
(2)http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/r
(3)http://www.unaids.org/en/geographical+area/by+
(4)http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
(5)http://www.spr.org/en/factsheetdisease.html
(6)Ibid.
(7)http://www.menweb.org/throop/abuse/usa-prison.
You conveniently forget rape, the infidelities of a trusted long term partner, the period during which a carrier of HIV is capable of transmitting infection without showing up positive on any tests, and even simple condom breakage. Keep in mind that such nonsense as "...you have to pretty much be TRYING to get AIDS to get it," is the sort of uninformed idiocy that allows one to believe that those with AIDS deserve it, this belief itself doing nothing but to allow HIV to propagate unchecked and sentence those HIV+ to a horrible, needless death.
Gamme ray crowd control weapon? Gamma ray? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_rays , "Gamma ray is a term for high-energy electromagnetic radiation produced by nuclear transitions." The word you probably mean is "microwave."
ok, mod my above post -1, egregious misuse of the phrase 'central ... planning of the economy.'
The Federal Republic of Germany might be accurately described as a social democracy, and, just as the USA does not embrace pure capitalism. Unlike the USA however, it is much more in line with socialist ideals, with unions explicitly given part in the power structure, heavy regulation of industry, mandatory health insurance, the use of political parties not just as contenders for office but also as organs of government, allowing the Church first dibs on some parts of the health industry, government bankrolling of certain types of job training and hiring, government sponsored apprenticeship programs,...the list goes on.
Germany might be considered a socialist state about as much as the USA a capitalist one.
Much of the EU really is socialist with Germany coming to mind in particular, featuring strong central government planning of the economy and extensive social safety nets, workers' unions with real power truly representing their membership, and so on.
In the short story, the mental handicapping device uses sound, yes. In the movie however, while only the briefest of explanations are given of the handicapping devices' operation, they seem to involve some kind of electronic technomagic. IINM one of the movie's characters is made into a barely functioning slab of meat by cutting certain neural pathways.
/Harrison Bergeron/ and is secretly implanting it in the USA's morbidly depressed, the possibility of such or something similarly nefarious should not be thrown out without consideration.
This newly approved device does not "resolve any problems [the patient] might have," it applies current to some part of the brain. That is, how and why it works, the patient likely has no clue. The doctor likely has only a slightly larger clue. Even the designers of the device are likely to not have a full understanding of how the thing works, because the brain is far from understood.
That is, the device does _something_ to the brain; just trust me, it'll make you all better. That's the sort of blind faith requirement that should be given close scrutiny, because the brain is too vital an organ to hand over to just anyone and because the black box nature of the device allows it to be a wonder medicine just as well as a horrible mind control device. While it is unlikely that both anyone has yet made a device similar to that used in
Yes, fission power is a better proposition than oil in many respects, but don't think it's perfect. While those constructing and operating nuclear power plants and disposing of the waste are for-profit organisations, while those with political power are not nuclear engineers, while lobbyists are able to buy legislation, there will be problems. Expect leaky containers of waste, expect three mile island, Chernobyl, and Sellafield.
Alternatively you can shop thousands of independent booksellers straightaway.
Do you mean when the UN recognises a USA law as binding? Or when the UN recognises those rights guaranteed by the first amendment?
See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular articles 18 - 21:
"Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
These are compatible with and more or less equivalent to the USA's first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So. You were saying?
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.time.com/t ime/magazine/1998/dom/980302/special_report.clinto ns_29.html
As long as there are multiple independent, uncensored, well-staffed resources such as archive.org and the wish of some significant segment of the general populace to engage in research, the danger of 1984 style history rewriting is diminished.
It should be mentioned that the president does not appoint judges to the SCotUS, but nominates them; Those the president wishes to fill certain posts must receive the blessings of congress. There's really a very big difference between a nominee and an appointee that most news outlets and voters seem to have completely excised from common awareness. The requirement that the president's nominees be approved is one of the important checks and balances that were intended to keep the USA from spiralling into tyranny or whatehaveyou. The recent attempts to stifle congressional debate on presidential nominees are entirely counter-democratic and result in error in knowledge of the extent of the president's powers to gain popular currency. This does not change along with the name of the majority party.