"[Unix] is *not* as susceptible as Windows is. Not by a large margin."
Oh really? I'd just like to point out that while this bug is *attacking* one of MS's sites, it won't successfully *break in*. It was a mere 2 days ago that a hacker successfully broke into GNU.org and compromised the crown jewel of the Linux community.
So who's more secure again? Don't be so quick to jump to Unix's defense. A lot more exploits are publicised for Linux than for Windows.
You're an American, aren't you? Even in lawsuit-happy US-of-A, I believe in order to have a valid lawsuit, you still need to show damages and negligence. Of course, such a lawsuit would still be absurd to people with common sense, but that doesn't seem to mean much in lawsuit-land.
there's always someone willing to apply the logic I've applied to one situation, and apply it to another.
That's because the situations are analogous, and your position is hypocritical. Sexual harassment (note: big difference from sexual "assault" - I chose harassment because it closely parallels your second-hand smoke example) is harmful to others, as you state. However, SO IS SECONDHAND SMOKE!
Here in Ottawa, Ontario, we have a blanket smoking ban on all restaurants and bars, and I think it's great. For years, industries have been held accountable for the physical (and even mental!) well-being of their employees, with the sole exception of the food-service industry. On construction sites, employees must wear hard-hats and steel-toe boots. In hospitals, nurses must wear masks. In auto-painting shops, employees must wear ventilators. And yet, in bars, there was no requirement for employees to protect themselves from the smoke.
A woman in Ontario was recently awarded a large sum of money, because she developed terminal lung-cancer after working in a (smoke-filled) restaurant for 40 years. She never smoke in her entire life.
If a coal miner developed black lung, and the mine he worked for forbid employees to wear masks, don't you think it would be reasonable for the company to be held accountable? Or should he simply "quit and get another job?"
By the way, leave alcohol out of this, because no one ever got liver disease from "second-hand alcohol." They are two completely separate issues. I can sit next to you and drink alcohol without adversely affecting your health, but smoke, by nature, affects everyone around.
You may think smoking bans are ridiculous, but I, on the other hand, feel the lack of smoking bans is ridiculous. It is absurd for the food service industry to enjoy being the lone exception in workplace safety scrutiny. Staff at these establishments have every right to a safe work environment, just as everyone else in the country does. Anything else is hypocritical at best.
Are you at all familiar with the concept of a "democracy?" It means "majority rules." Even if the majority decides to do something that you (a minority) might think is wrong. Suck it up, work for change, or leave. Those are your options. If 99% of the population approved of randomly eating strangers, then that would be the rule of the land. That's how democracy works, my friend.
Citing labor laws as a reason to disallow smoking in a workplace is ridiculous because people can simply choose to work for smoking or non-smoking establishments.
Great! So I suppose then that you'd support repealing the anti-workplace sexual-harassment legislation, right? I mean, after all, if a young, attractive woman doesn't like being whistled at by the gruffy, overweight contractors, and slapped on the tushy by her boss, she's free to quit and work somewhere else.
Your post is so ridiculous and incorrect that I initially wasn't going to respond. But on the off-chance that someone just getting started in fitness might read your post and form some grossly erroneous opinions on supplements, I'm going to take a couple of minutes to pick your post apart.
1. Yes, of course your body can only utilize so much protein. But if you're not giving it enough, then you're not realizing the full benefits of your workouts. The powders and bars provide a convenient and affordable way to "top off" your protein requirements. And by the way, I've never seen a bar or powder that claims to deliver 100 grams of protein in a single serving. The most I've ever seen is 35 grams. The stuff I use has 30 grams per serving.
2. The long-term side effects of aspartame are still not very well understood, although I personally know someone who has permanently lost her peripheral vision due to overconsumption of aspartame (12 cans of Diet Coke daily for months; the worst part? She's still drinking Diet Coke judiciously). However, the amount of aspartame present in MRPs is well below safe, acceptable limits, even according to nutritionists.
3. "Protein cannot be effectively utilized without carbs?" Where did you get that from? Besides, most protein powders do include carbs. In fact, you have to look extra hard to find protein powder without carbs. And virtually all MRPs are composed of the ideal 30-30-40 balance of protein, fat, and carbs. But even if you had a point, and these powders were low in carbs, there's no evidence to back up your claim that we need carbs to process protein. In fact, there is a multitude of evidence against your claim, for example, the millions of people who have been on the Atkins diet for years without any ill effects.
4. "On the protein utilization scale, soy has the lowest value" This is simply patently false. Soy protein has a better Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) than wheat protein.
5. "GNC sells ephedra..." Again, just plain wrong, at least in Canada. I was into GNC just 2 weeks ago and asked them that very question, and the 2 clerks informed me that GNC had pulled all Ephedra products from their shelves indefinitely. Although this is really just a boogieman chase, as Ephedra is very similar to caffeine, which can also be abused. Both are stimulants, and neither are harmful, unless taken in large doses. The people having trouble with Ephedra likely would have had the same problems with caffeine supplements. They are also typically people with pre-existing heart conditions who failed to consult their doctor prior to commencing taking the supplements (or did, and simply ignored their doctor's advice), or people who ignored the instructions and took much larger doses than recommended. But the point is moot, since you're wrong, and GNC doesn't sell Ephedra anymore.
6, 7. You can't criticise these substances without providing a shred of evidence to indicate that they're actually bad, or that GNC actually sells them. Link to a study that proves glutamine is bad, then link to the GNC order page showing a product containing glutamine. In short, "put up, or shut up."
8. If the supplement contains what it says it does (calcium), and people are willing to buy it anyway, then sure, it's probably a waste of their money.
Look, there are products out there that claim to "melt fat with no exercise." These claims are obviously false. And GNC probably stocks some of these products on their shelves. But they also stock products that do work, like the creatine, protein, MRPs, and thermogenics (though some of the thermogenics are the ones making those claims).
I responded because "stratjakt" claimed that GNC "sells nothing but sugar pills and snake oil." While some of the products may be little more than
Look how many GNC stores there are these days. They sell nothing but sugar pills and snake oil.
What makes you think that? GNC sells several useful health products that have very real effects. I buy my multivitamins there, as well as protein powder. Unless the legally-required nutrition label on the side is lying to me, each serving contains 30 grams of protein, just like the container advertises. How is that "sugar pills" or "snake oil?" I buy the powder to get the protein, the container claims to contain protein, the powder actually is protein. I get exactly what I pay for and expect.
I call bullsh*t on you.
But they make billions selling Stacker 2 to fatties too lazy to excersize and too weak willed to stem their eating.
I've heard this comment all the time, too, and I used to think it was true. But as time went on, and I heard the comment more and more, and I met more people taking supplements, creatine, and protein bars/mixes/shakes, I noticed something: they did work out. They weren't just taking the pills and sitting on their asses. Come to think of it, I've never met anyone taking those supplements who wasn't also on some kind of exercise program.
Whoops, sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of the Kodak Plus Digital system of disposable/reusable cameras. It looks like these ones actually do use some kind of flash buffer, and not film. Apologies.
The nice thing from the business point of view is that the continuing costs are lower. You just wipe the storage card and recharge the batteries, and you rent it again. Don't have to pay a couple bucks in film every time you rent the camera.
Wrong. The camera does use film. I've read about these in "Popular Photography and Imaging." Though the images may be captured digitally, they are stored on plain old 35mm film.
You're both wrong. The photos are stored on 35mm film. The "digital" gimmick is that the last picture taken is stored temporarily so you can delete it, before it is committed to film. Once you're done with the camera, the camera is processed just like any other disposable. The film is removed and processed. However, to keep with the "digital" marketing gimmick, they scan the prints onto a PhotoCD for you, too. Then they reload a new roll of film, re-wrap the camera, and resell it.
There is no flash memory, or, if there is, it is just enough to hold one picture.
I don't have a luxury car, but I do prefer to bring my car to the dealer rather than "Joe's Garage." It costs more, but it's worth it.
No it's not. This must be your first car, am I right? You'll learn eventually that there's nothing special about the dealership, except maybe they'll give you a copy of today's paper (estimated cost: 75 cents) while they work on your car. Of course, you'd save hundreds by going to an independent shop, and if it's a shop that happens to specialize in your make of car, their mechanics may even be more knowledgeable, but you wouldn't get a copy of the day's paper.
I ditched the dealership a year ago, and I'm glad I did. They were really nice people, no complaints about the service, but sorry, money talks. I get quality work done at an independent specialty shop, for significantly less money.
the majority of people I dealt with who saw the car decided that I was obviously stinking rich
Well, having looked at your website, and noting that despite totalling one Jag, you were able to buy another one, and that you also drive a Miata and a brand new Mini (that's 2 sports cars and a luxury car, by my count), sorry to break it to you, but you ARE "rich." Or at least, richer than 95% of the rest of the population. Suck it up.
There is only one thing that secures my freedoms, rights and privacy: My.45
I find it highly ironic that you would cling to such a false sense of security, particularly considering your opening statement:
America of 2003 is a far far cry from America of 1776.
The Second Amendment (The right to bear arms one that you reference) was added during a time when the most sophisticated weapons the US military sported were little more than muskets with bayonnettes. The second amendment was intented to ensure that the citizenry was guaranteed access to the exact same firepower and weapons as the military, thus ensuring that should the government ever need to be overthrown, the citizens would win. Same weapons * more people = ensured victory.
However, over the years, the government has slowly castrated the second amendment, insidiously changing its interpretation to guarantee ownership of little more than peashooters, while reserving the real hardware for the "good guys" (i.e., the military). Nowadays, citizens are not allowed to own anywhere near the same firepower as the military.
In an all-out battle of every citizen against the entire military, the military would wipe their collective asses with your piddly little.45.
Combine this with the fact that for any kind of uprising to last more than a few hours, you'd require the support of a large percentage of the population, meaning you'd need to convince the masses that the government has crossed a line, and is finally corrupt enough to warrant violent resistance.
The people at Waco felt they were resisting tyranny. So did the people at Ruby Ridge. And the government crushed both of those "problems."
So in summary, I guess what I'm saying is, your.45 won't protect your "freedoms, rights, or privacy" if the government decides otherwise, even if the entire population were behind you. The second amendment has been gutted. Its present interpretation is nowhere near the spirit your forefathers intended.
But hey, if it gives you a warm, fuzzy false sense of security, then who am I to rain on your parade.
some coward terrorist decided to blow himself up on a Tel Aviv bus
I know this'll be modded down as "Troll" faster than Richard Simmons on an Espresso and a solid night's sleep, but I have to ask: If someone is willing to die for a cause they believe in (even if that cause is counter to your own culture's values), and you're not, and you call them a coward, what does that make YOU?
I'm sure that there must be a few things out there that you would be willing to die for, and I'm equally sure that there are those would would disagree with your actions. But does that make you a "coward?"
Why do USAmericans feel this incessant need for moral superiority, and resort to labeling everything they don't understand as "un-American", and everyone they disagree with as "Cowards" or "terrorists?"
Suicide bombers are a lot of things, but they are not cowards. Cowards don't give their lives for things they believe in; they stand by the sidelines and criticise those who do.
Moderators, do your worst. A truly intellingent reader would post a follow up and explain why I'm wrong, rather than mod me down. So I expect to be modded down quickly.
As with everything like this, the powers-that-be (i.e., the telcos and ISPs) will drag their heels until they are either forced to change, or they are convinced it will increase profits. Expect the changeover to go extremely slowly. Expect providers to try every trick in the book to milk their existing network for every last day they can possibly profit from it. The fact that the economy is in the toilet doesn't help either.
Taxes (GST, propertry taxes, income taxes, they're all much higher than the US, with few exceptions)
This is an incomplete comparison. While some aspects of Canadian taxation are higher, others are comparable, or even less. Our income tax is less than in some areas of the US. Also, you must consider that while you may be paying a little more in taxes, you are also paying far, far less for education and healthcare. Tuition at the most expensive undergraduate university in Canada runs about $6000 per year (2 semesters). You don't need to shell out $300/month for health insurance. These things add up.
Colder Weather (although it depends on where you live)
This is a good thing! Don't you get tired of hot, sticky 95+ degree weather day after day? Where I live (Ottawa), there are only a few days per year where it goes above 85 degrees F. That's the way I like it. Cooler temperatures means you can spend more time outside, fewer bugs, and no dangerous/poisonous snakes or whatever.
Sure, the winter's are a little colder, but so what? Wear a hat and a coat. You're not outside for very long unless you're skiing, snowboarding, snowmobiling, sledding, skating, etc., and in those cases, you just dress for it.
While individual freedoms are rarely infringed upon in Canada, they are not necessarily guaranteed by law
We have a charter of rights and freedoms, just as the US does. And while there are a few invasions by the state (eg., national firearms registry), in general, the freedoms enjoyed up here outweigh them. For example, the drinking age here is 19, as opposed to 21 in the US. The age of sexual consent is 14, vers 18 (depending on jurisdiction in the US). Prostitution is legal. Drug laws are much softer. Things are, in general, more liberal up here.
What if a paedophile managed to hack into the system, and then had instant access to the exact locations of thousands of children ?
You mean like cracking open a phone book and looking under "Schools?" Or did you mean picking up a local tourism brochure and flipping to the "Playgrounds" section? Perhaps even something as evil and insidious as looking up daycare centers on the Internet using YellowPages.com?
Maybe he can find one on their own, somewhere quiet.
Near enough that he/she won't be gone by the time the pervert arrives? "Hey, there's one by itself (boy or girl?) in the trees near Seattle. If I catch the 7:00 commuter flight out of San Diego and make the connection in Chicago, I can be there by... " Sure.
Given the level of fear over people using their credit card numbers on computers connected to the internet,
Bad example. Those "fears" are nothing more than irrational, uneducated, paranoid FUD. The Internet is a far safer place to exercise your credit card than virtually all physical retail outlets.
The world wants us to be its policeman, their only quibble is where and when. Our political leaders haven't got the guts to tell the rest of the world to police themselves, or to tell Europe and Japan to start carrying their own weight, so for the time being, yes, we are the world's policeman.
Holy crap! Do all USAmericans think like this??? Who in the hell asked the US to "be the world's policeman?" NO ONE! Your interference is NOT WANTED! Don't you get it?
Your last comment is the most ludicrous of all, when you suggest that it's time for "Japan to start carrying their own weight." What are you, 12 years old? You obviously know absolutely NOTHING about history, because Japan is FORBIDDEN from commissioning anything other than a defensive-only military. Remember when you bitch-slapped them into nice, toasty atoms a couple of times after Pearl Harbour? Part of the terms of their surrender was that they are never allowed to have anything more than a token military.
Good lord... take a history class, kid. Read a non-US newspaper. Travel. Open your eyes. Turn off CNN.
I played strip poker with this computer I met in university once. Things were going great until I popped off the cover and found a positively ancient motherboard.
Gross! It was like I'd just walked in on my Walkman(TM) while it was rewinding.
Uhm, even if their "research" was accurate, and they'd sent you coupons for stuff you do buy, why would that be a bad thing? Right now, I get coupons for tampons and hairspray, neither of which I use. Now, if they'd sent me coupons for steak, that I could use. I buy steak anyway. But if they send out 50,000 tampon coupons blindly in shotgun style hoping to get some women, and then can't afford to send out steak coupons, who wins here? With the information based on these cards, they could send out 25,000 tampon coupons to the women, and 25,000 steak coupons to the men. What's the problem here? I'd rather get steak coupons than tampon coupons. I see this type of data mining as a GOOD THING. The store saves money on mailings, and I get cheap steak, plus not having free samples of feminine products dumped on my doorstep.
Wow. Thanks for telling me that. I really cared whether or not some anonymous dude whom I've never met and don't even know the name of shopped at Walmart. I'll sleep much easier tonight, thanks for putting my curiousity to rest.
Why did you think anyone cared whether or not you shop at Walmart? No, don't answer that. I still don't care.
Wired is reporting that the EU may implant RFID tags into the Euro, basically eliminating the anonymous cash transaction.
How exactly does that "eliminate the anonymous cash transaction?" Newsflash: CURRENCY ALREADY HAS SERIAL NUMBERS ON IT. The fact that the bill has a number is useless unless they know the details of every transaction in which it was ever exchanged. If you lend me $20 and I spend it at Subway and get $10 back in change... how on earth would they ever track any of that? How would the Sub-lady know that it was me who bought that sub?
I disagree. There are more sheep than humans in New Zealand.
People can use computers without learning the jargon though. Much of the jargon is confusing anyway. Why are floppy disks hard? If floppy disks are hard, then what's a "hard disk?" Why do we call "ROM" and "RAM" different things? Isn't ROM also "random access?" Shouldn't ROM be called "RAROM?" Maybe RAM should be "RARWM"? In 10 years, when we have tiny little disks 1/10 the size of a CD, what will we call them? CD's already stand for "Compact Disc" - how can we go even smaller than that? "Super-compact-discs?"
You made good points, but you seem to have restricted your idea of "learning" to "programming a computer." While I agree that Linux offers more/easier/cheaper opportunities to manipulate the computer itself than Windows does, I on the other hand believe that the vast majority of children "learning" on a computer will be doing so at a much higher level. That is, using Encarta to research book reports, or playing math games or a typing tutor. Very few kids are interested in actually learning how to make a computer do what they want, at that low of a level, in my opinion.
HP backed off their cheap Linux offering and MS gives away Office and Windows for $36!.. too bad, His Billness apparently wants everyone to play games with their systems, and not learn/do anything worthwhile:-(
Huh??? I don't see how that logically follows. There is far, far more "educational software" available for Windows platforms than are available for Linux. Why did you presume that Microsoft giving away cheap Windows/Office licenses to undercut a Linux package equates to them promoting gaming? Linux is just an O/S, is it not? MS was giving away an O/S and an office productivity package, not to mention that the O/S in question has an extremely diverse array of educational titles available for it.
Are you sure you don't write the little 1-line blurbs for the Slashdot editors? Because your comment is nothing more than a baseless, irrational, and cheap (not to mention pathetic) Microsoft jab. It's comments like that that give the Linux community the reputation of being rabid, illogical Microsoft-bashers.
Slashdot Mirror
"[Unix] is *not* as susceptible as Windows is. Not by a large margin."
Oh really? I'd just like to point out that while this bug is *attacking* one of MS's sites, it won't successfully *break in*. It was a mere 2 days ago that a hacker successfully broke into GNU.org and compromised the crown jewel of the Linux community.
So who's more secure again? Don't be so quick to jump to Unix's defense. A lot more exploits are publicised for Linux than for Windows.
CLASS. ACTION. LAWSUIT.
You're an American, aren't you? Even in lawsuit-happy US-of-A, I believe in order to have a valid lawsuit, you still need to show damages and negligence. Of course, such a lawsuit would still be absurd to people with common sense, but that doesn't seem to mean much in lawsuit-land.
There's a reason people hate lawyers.
there's always someone willing to apply the logic I've applied to one situation, and apply it to another.
That's because the situations are analogous, and your position is hypocritical. Sexual harassment (note: big difference from sexual "assault" - I chose harassment because it closely parallels your second-hand smoke example) is harmful to others, as you state. However, SO IS SECONDHAND SMOKE!
Here in Ottawa, Ontario, we have a blanket smoking ban on all restaurants and bars, and I think it's great. For years, industries have been held accountable for the physical (and even mental!) well-being of their employees, with the sole exception of the food-service industry. On construction sites, employees must wear hard-hats and steel-toe boots. In hospitals, nurses must wear masks. In auto-painting shops, employees must wear ventilators. And yet, in bars, there was no requirement for employees to protect themselves from the smoke.
A woman in Ontario was recently awarded a large sum of money, because she developed terminal lung-cancer after working in a (smoke-filled) restaurant for 40 years. She never smoke in her entire life.
If a coal miner developed black lung, and the mine he worked for forbid employees to wear masks, don't you think it would be reasonable for the company to be held accountable? Or should he simply "quit and get another job?"
By the way, leave alcohol out of this, because no one ever got liver disease from "second-hand alcohol." They are two completely separate issues. I can sit next to you and drink alcohol without adversely affecting your health, but smoke, by nature, affects everyone around.
You may think smoking bans are ridiculous, but I, on the other hand, feel the lack of smoking bans is ridiculous. It is absurd for the food service industry to enjoy being the lone exception in workplace safety scrutiny. Staff at these establishments have every right to a safe work environment, just as everyone else in the country does. Anything else is hypocritical at best.
That's quite an extreme example, but yes.
Are you at all familiar with the concept of a "democracy?" It means "majority rules." Even if the majority decides to do something that you (a minority) might think is wrong. Suck it up, work for change, or leave. Those are your options. If 99% of the population approved of randomly eating strangers, then that would be the rule of the land. That's how democracy works, my friend.
Citing labor laws as a reason to disallow smoking in a workplace is ridiculous because people can simply choose to work for smoking or non-smoking establishments.
Great! So I suppose then that you'd support repealing the anti-workplace sexual-harassment legislation, right? I mean, after all, if a young, attractive woman doesn't like being whistled at by the gruffy, overweight contractors, and slapped on the tushy by her boss, she's free to quit and work somewhere else.
Your post is so ridiculous and incorrect that I initially wasn't going to respond. But on the off-chance that someone just getting started in fitness might read your post and form some grossly erroneous opinions on supplements, I'm going to take a couple of minutes to pick your post apart.
1. Yes, of course your body can only utilize so much protein. But if you're not giving it enough, then you're not realizing the full benefits of your workouts. The powders and bars provide a convenient and affordable way to "top off" your protein requirements. And by the way, I've never seen a bar or powder that claims to deliver 100 grams of protein in a single serving. The most I've ever seen is 35 grams. The stuff I use has 30 grams per serving.
2. The long-term side effects of aspartame are still not very well understood, although I personally know someone who has permanently lost her peripheral vision due to overconsumption of aspartame (12 cans of Diet Coke daily for months; the worst part? She's still drinking Diet Coke judiciously). However, the amount of aspartame present in MRPs is well below safe, acceptable limits, even according to nutritionists.
3. "Protein cannot be effectively utilized without carbs?" Where did you get that from? Besides, most protein powders do include carbs. In fact, you have to look extra hard to find protein powder without carbs. And virtually all MRPs are composed of the ideal 30-30-40 balance of protein, fat, and carbs. But even if you had a point, and these powders were low in carbs, there's no evidence to back up your claim that we need carbs to process protein. In fact, there is a multitude of evidence against your claim, for example, the millions of people who have been on the Atkins diet for years without any ill effects.
4. "On the protein utilization scale, soy has the lowest value" This is simply patently false. Soy protein has a better Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) than wheat protein.
5. "GNC sells ephedra..." Again, just plain wrong, at least in Canada. I was into GNC just 2 weeks ago and asked them that very question, and the 2 clerks informed me that GNC had pulled all Ephedra products from their shelves indefinitely. Although this is really just a boogieman chase, as Ephedra is very similar to caffeine, which can also be abused. Both are stimulants, and neither are harmful, unless taken in large doses. The people having trouble with Ephedra likely would have had the same problems with caffeine supplements. They are also typically people with pre-existing heart conditions who failed to consult their doctor prior to commencing taking the supplements (or did, and simply ignored their doctor's advice), or people who ignored the instructions and took much larger doses than recommended. But the point is moot, since you're wrong, and GNC doesn't sell Ephedra anymore.
6, 7. You can't criticise these substances without providing a shred of evidence to indicate that they're actually bad, or that GNC actually sells them. Link to a study that proves glutamine is bad, then link to the GNC order page showing a product containing glutamine. In short, "put up, or shut up."
8. If the supplement contains what it says it does (calcium), and people are willing to buy it anyway, then sure, it's probably a waste of their money.
Look, there are products out there that claim to "melt fat with no exercise." These claims are obviously false. And GNC probably stocks some of these products on their shelves. But they also stock products that do work, like the creatine, protein, MRPs, and thermogenics (though some of the thermogenics are the ones making those claims).
I responded because "stratjakt" claimed that GNC "sells nothing but sugar pills and snake oil." While some of the products may be little more than
Look how many GNC stores there are these days. They sell nothing but sugar pills and snake oil.
What makes you think that? GNC sells several useful health products that have very real effects. I buy my multivitamins there, as well as protein powder. Unless the legally-required nutrition label on the side is lying to me, each serving contains 30 grams of protein, just like the container advertises. How is that "sugar pills" or "snake oil?" I buy the powder to get the protein, the container claims to contain protein, the powder actually is protein. I get exactly what I pay for and expect.
I call bullsh*t on you.
But they make billions selling Stacker 2 to fatties too lazy to excersize and too weak willed to stem their eating.
I've heard this comment all the time, too, and I used to think it was true. But as time went on, and I heard the comment more and more, and I met more people taking supplements, creatine, and protein bars/mixes/shakes, I noticed something: they did work out. They weren't just taking the pills and sitting on their asses. Come to think of it, I've never met anyone taking those supplements who wasn't also on some kind of exercise program.
So I call bullsh*t on you again.
Twice in one post. Nice work.
Whoops, sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of the Kodak Plus Digital system of disposable/reusable cameras. It looks like these ones actually do use some kind of flash buffer, and not film. Apologies.
The nice thing from the business point of view is that the continuing costs are lower. You just wipe the storage card and recharge the batteries, and you rent it again. Don't have to pay a couple bucks in film every time you rent the camera.
Wrong. The camera does use film. I've read about these in "Popular Photography and Imaging." Though the images may be captured digitally, they are stored on plain old 35mm film.
You're both wrong. The photos are stored on 35mm
film. The "digital" gimmick is that the last picture taken is stored temporarily so you can delete it, before it is committed to film. Once you're done with the camera, the camera is processed just like any other disposable. The film is removed and processed. However, to keep with the "digital" marketing gimmick, they scan the prints onto a PhotoCD for you, too. Then they reload a new roll of film, re-wrap the camera, and resell it.
There is no flash memory, or, if there is, it is just enough to hold one picture.
I don't have a luxury car, but I do prefer to bring my car to the dealer rather than "Joe's Garage." It costs more, but it's worth it.
No it's not. This must be your first car, am I right? You'll learn eventually that there's nothing special about the dealership, except maybe they'll give you a copy of today's paper (estimated cost: 75 cents) while they work on your car. Of course, you'd save hundreds by going to an independent shop, and if it's a shop that happens to specialize in your make of car, their mechanics may even be more knowledgeable, but you wouldn't get a copy of the day's paper.
I ditched the dealership a year ago, and I'm glad I did. They were really nice people, no complaints about the service, but sorry, money talks. I get quality work done at an independent specialty shop, for significantly less money.
the majority of people I dealt with who saw the car decided that I was obviously stinking rich
Well, having looked at your website, and noting that despite totalling one Jag, you were able to buy another one, and that you also drive a Miata and a brand new Mini (that's 2 sports cars and a luxury car, by my count), sorry to break it to you, but you ARE "rich." Or at least, richer than 95% of the rest of the population. Suck it up.
There is only one thing that secures my freedoms, rights and privacy: My .45
.45.
.45 won't protect your "freedoms, rights, or privacy" if the government decides otherwise, even if the entire population were behind you. The second amendment has been gutted. Its present interpretation is nowhere near the spirit your forefathers intended.
I find it highly ironic that you would cling to such a false sense of security, particularly considering your opening statement:
America of 2003 is a far far cry from America of 1776.
The Second Amendment (The right to bear arms one that you reference) was added during a time when the most sophisticated weapons the US military sported were little more than muskets with bayonnettes. The second amendment was intented to ensure that the citizenry was guaranteed access to the exact same firepower and weapons as the military, thus ensuring that should the government ever need to be overthrown, the citizens would win. Same weapons * more people = ensured victory.
However, over the years, the government has slowly castrated the second amendment, insidiously changing its interpretation to guarantee ownership of little more than peashooters, while reserving the real hardware for the "good guys" (i.e., the military). Nowadays, citizens are not allowed to own anywhere near the same firepower as the military.
In an all-out battle of every citizen against the entire military, the military would wipe their collective asses with your piddly little
Combine this with the fact that for any kind of uprising to last more than a few hours, you'd require the support of a large percentage of the population, meaning you'd need to convince the masses that the government has crossed a line, and is finally corrupt enough to warrant violent resistance.
The people at Waco felt they were resisting tyranny. So did the people at Ruby Ridge. And the government crushed both of those "problems."
So in summary, I guess what I'm saying is, your
But hey, if it gives you a warm, fuzzy false sense of security, then who am I to rain on your parade.
some coward terrorist decided to blow himself up on a Tel Aviv bus
I know this'll be modded down as "Troll" faster than Richard Simmons on an Espresso and a solid night's sleep, but I have to ask: If someone is willing to die for a cause they believe in (even if that cause is counter to your own culture's values), and you're not, and you call them a coward, what does that make YOU?
I'm sure that there must be a few things out there that you would be willing to die for, and I'm equally sure that there are those would would disagree with your actions. But does that make you a "coward?"
Why do USAmericans feel this incessant need for moral superiority, and resort to labeling everything they don't understand as "un-American", and everyone they disagree with as "Cowards" or "terrorists?"
Suicide bombers are a lot of things, but they are not cowards. Cowards don't give their lives for things they believe in; they stand by the sidelines and criticise those who do.
Moderators, do your worst. A truly intellingent reader would post a follow up and explain why I'm wrong, rather than mod me down. So I expect to be modded down quickly.
As with everything like this, the powers-that-be (i.e., the telcos and ISPs) will drag their heels until they are either forced to change, or they are convinced it will increase profits. Expect the changeover to go extremely slowly. Expect providers to try every trick in the book to milk their existing network for every last day they can possibly profit from it. The fact that the economy is in the toilet doesn't help either.
Taxes (GST, propertry taxes, income taxes, they're all much higher than the US, with few exceptions)
This is an incomplete comparison. While some aspects of Canadian taxation are higher, others are comparable, or even less. Our income tax is less than in some areas of the US. Also, you must consider that while you may be paying a little more in taxes, you are also paying far, far less for education and healthcare. Tuition at the most expensive undergraduate university in Canada runs about $6000 per year (2 semesters). You don't need to shell out $300/month for health insurance. These things add up.
Colder Weather (although it depends on where you live)
This is a good thing! Don't you get tired of hot, sticky 95+ degree weather day after day? Where I live (Ottawa), there are only a few days per year where it goes above 85 degrees F. That's the way I like it. Cooler temperatures means you can spend more time outside, fewer bugs, and no dangerous/poisonous snakes or whatever.
Sure, the winter's are a little colder, but so what? Wear a hat and a coat. You're not outside for very long unless you're skiing, snowboarding, snowmobiling, sledding, skating, etc., and in those cases, you just dress for it.
While individual freedoms are rarely infringed upon in Canada, they are not necessarily guaranteed by law
We have a charter of rights and freedoms, just as the US does. And while there are a few invasions by the state (eg., national firearms registry), in general, the freedoms enjoyed up here outweigh them. For example, the drinking age here is 19, as opposed to 21 in the US. The age of sexual consent is 14, vers 18 (depending on jurisdiction in the US). Prostitution is legal. Drug laws are much softer. Things are, in general, more liberal up here.
What if a paedophile managed to hack into the system, and then had instant access to the exact locations of thousands of children ?
... " Sure.
You mean like cracking open a phone book and looking under "Schools?" Or did you mean picking up a local tourism brochure and flipping to the "Playgrounds" section? Perhaps even something as evil and insidious as looking up daycare centers on the Internet using YellowPages.com?
Maybe he can find one on their own, somewhere quiet.
Near enough that he/she won't be gone by the time the pervert arrives? "Hey, there's one by itself (boy or girl?) in the trees near Seattle. If I catch the 7:00 commuter flight out of San Diego and make the connection in Chicago, I can be there by
Given the level of fear over people using their credit card numbers on computers connected to the internet,
Bad example. Those "fears" are nothing more than irrational, uneducated, paranoid FUD. The Internet is a far safer place to exercise your credit card than virtually all physical retail outlets.
The world wants us to be its policeman, their only quibble is where and when. Our political leaders haven't got the guts to tell the rest of the world to police themselves, or to tell Europe and Japan to start carrying their own weight, so for the time being, yes, we are the world's policeman.
... take a history class, kid. Read a non-US newspaper. Travel. Open your eyes. Turn off CNN.
Holy crap! Do all USAmericans think like this??? Who in the hell asked the US to "be the world's policeman?" NO ONE! Your interference is NOT WANTED! Don't you get it?
Your last comment is the most ludicrous of all, when you suggest that it's time for "Japan to start carrying their own weight." What are you, 12 years old? You obviously know absolutely NOTHING about history, because Japan is FORBIDDEN from commissioning anything other than a defensive-only military. Remember when you bitch-slapped them into nice, toasty atoms a couple of times after Pearl Harbour? Part of the terms of their surrender was that they are never allowed to have anything more than a token military.
Good lord
I played strip poker with this computer I met in university once. Things were going great until I popped off the cover and found a positively ancient motherboard.
Gross! It was like I'd just walked in on my Walkman(TM) while it was rewinding.
Uhm, even if their "research" was accurate, and they'd sent you coupons for stuff you do buy, why would that be a bad thing? Right now, I get coupons for tampons and hairspray, neither of which I use. Now, if they'd sent me coupons for steak, that I could use. I buy steak anyway. But if they send out 50,000 tampon coupons blindly in shotgun style hoping to get some women, and then can't afford to send out steak coupons, who wins here? With the information based on these cards, they could send out 25,000 tampon coupons to the women, and 25,000 steak coupons to the men. What's the problem here? I'd rather get steak coupons than tampon coupons. I see this type of data mining as a GOOD THING. The store saves money on mailings, and I get cheap steak, plus not having free samples of feminine products dumped on my doorstep.
Wow. Thanks for telling me that. I really cared whether or not some anonymous dude whom I've never met and don't even know the name of shopped at Walmart. I'll sleep much easier tonight, thanks for putting my curiousity to rest.
Why did you think anyone cared whether or not you shop at Walmart? No, don't answer that. I still don't care.
Wired is reporting that the EU may implant RFID tags into the Euro, basically eliminating the anonymous cash transaction.
How exactly does that "eliminate the anonymous cash transaction?" Newsflash: CURRENCY ALREADY HAS SERIAL NUMBERS ON IT. The fact that the bill has a number is useless unless they know the details of every transaction in which it was ever exchanged. If you lend me $20 and I spend it at Subway and get $10 back in change... how on earth would they ever track any of that? How would the Sub-lady know that it was me who bought that sub?
I disagree. There are more sheep than humans in New Zealand.
People can use computers without learning the jargon though. Much of the jargon is confusing anyway. Why are floppy disks hard? If floppy disks are hard, then what's a "hard disk?" Why do we call "ROM" and "RAM" different things? Isn't ROM also "random access?" Shouldn't ROM be called "RAROM?" Maybe RAM should be "RARWM"? In 10 years, when we have tiny little disks 1/10 the size of a CD, what will we call them? CD's already stand for "Compact Disc" - how can we go even smaller than that? "Super-compact-discs?"
Would you cool off a bit? Okay.. good.
:)
Sorry.
You made good points, but you seem to have restricted your idea of "learning" to "programming a computer." While I agree that Linux offers more/easier/cheaper opportunities to manipulate the computer itself than Windows does, I on the other hand believe that the vast majority of children "learning" on a computer will be doing so at a much higher level. That is, using Encarta to research book reports, or playing math games or a typing tutor. Very few kids are interested in actually learning how to make a computer do what they want, at that low of a level, in my opinion.
HP backed off their cheap Linux offering and MS gives away Office and Windows for $36!.. too bad, His Billness apparently wants everyone to play games with their systems, and not learn/do anything worthwhile :-(
Huh??? I don't see how that logically follows. There is far, far more "educational software" available for Windows platforms than are available for Linux. Why did you presume that Microsoft giving away cheap Windows/Office licenses to undercut a Linux package equates to them promoting gaming? Linux is just an O/S, is it not? MS was giving away an O/S and an office productivity package, not to mention that the O/S in question has an extremely diverse array of educational titles available for it.
Are you sure you don't write the little 1-line blurbs for the Slashdot editors? Because your comment is nothing more than a baseless, irrational, and cheap (not to mention pathetic) Microsoft jab. It's comments like that that give the Linux community the reputation of being rabid, illogical Microsoft-bashers.