Seamonkey also has a lot of extra config options in the Preferences window compared to FF. In this respect FF feels completely dumbed down.
This is why I used to use Seamonkey years ago. However, Firefox has grown in the options department, and plugins took care of others, and for the last few bits I use about:config. I'm not really a fan of app bundling (like an email client with a web browser), and Firefox was getting all the mindshare, so I dropped Seamonkey.
Isn't that about as unlikely as the people moving in mass?
No, because there is no penalty of losing an election because everybody else didn't move with you. There are plenty of examples of successful referendums, compared to very few examples of candidates breaking away from the two-party stronghold.
Who is going to change the system? It's been working reasonably fine for those in power, so why would any of them change it?
It's a voter referendum, which means the voters can initiate and decide on it. You just need the signatures. I don't know the law nationally, but there are many states that have this system in place.
If anyone can walk in and have copies made of a key that's stamped "Do Not Duplicate", it defeats the purpose DND key.
Is there some legal enforcement of this signage not to duplicate? Back in my college days, I needed keys duplicated for roomates. I noticed the "Do Not Duplicate" stamp, thought "Whatever," and took it down to the corner pharmacy. The guy behind the counter didn't bat an eyelash.
The people don't move because they think the other people won't move either. Way to go.
That's the practical reality. It's extremely hard to get people to move in mass when the penalty for failure is more than they are willing to pay.
Anyway in this modern day and age one of you can go set up a polling system to figure out which of your preferred 3rd parties has a chance or not before the election, so you bunch can move together if you think you have the chance. Might not catch on, or it might, but given the stuff that goes viral, who knows.
I'd rather just fix the system once for all voters and elections, at least where the system is in effect, than hope people will be convinced by a particular poll. This could via voter referendum.
Yes, you are. You claim you are here to "educate" people, yet when you make a factually incorrect statement about the law, when corrected you go into asshole mode.
So he was buying iced tea from Zimmerman on the street at night?
No, he bought it from a convenience store, and you can watch the video yourself. It's been released and you can easily find it online.
He got shot while prowling.
You don't know that, and have presented no evidence in support of it. The evidence points to him going home after making a convenience store purchase. Also, the fact remains that you still put in extra words in a quote that changed the meaning of what the original poster said, all while complaining about "look at the facts and mis-interpret them deliberately". You're a hypocrite who can't even get the facts straight, let alone interpret them.
I'm worried by this blurring of distinctions in the historical significance of the two events. Whatever your political persuasion, Pearl Harbor was a de facto declaration of war.
So was 9/11. The scope of the event shocked the nation, much like Pearl Harbor did. There were plenty of terrorist attacks against the United States before 9/11, but nothing was anywhere near the same level.
The "9/11" terrorist attack was something else. It was carried out by an independent group that at worst can be described as being in an alliance of convenience with some foreign government.
Yes, and? Does that change the scope of the event? That there was a government harboring the group responsible makes them a proxy.
Treating "9/11" as an act of war, and not simply as a well-coordinated distributed terrorist attack, led to a trillion-dollar War on Terror.
Is part or most of that trillion-dollar cost due to Iraq? Because Iraq was a war of opportunity for the neocons, and had little or nothing to do with terrorism besides being an excuse.
On hindsight did it make sense to send out a nation's armies to deal with a few hundred suspected terrorists?
In Iraq, definitely not, but in Afghanistan? It was entirely appropriate.
So now will the hometowns/countries of suspected Anonymous members be the target of the same massive disruption of IT services that US would launch in retaliaton for a supposed cyberattack from Iran or China?
It depends on the context. How much damage was caused, what was known about the attackers, their level of support from any hosting country, and the hosting country's response.
After all I keep hearing people keep saying there's not much difference between "A" and "B".
On some issues there isn't, on some issues there are. Do you think Gore would have invaded Iraq after 9/11? I don't. Do you think Gore would have weakened support of the environment and science like Bush did? I don't. That's why Bill Maher and Michael Moore were on there knees begging Nader not to run in 2008.
If A and B combined keep winning more than 97% of the votes why should they change much when the voters have basically said "keep doing what you're doing".
They shouldn't, and I wouldn't expect them to. That's why the best strategy is some kind of voter referendum that introduces a voting system that allows preference.
So people like you are a bunch of idiots.
Only if you agree with the premise that A and B are essentially the same. Otherwise, the idiot is the person who throws their vote away in a losing game of trying to move people in mass.
One can hardly fault the Bible for giving a worldview that was current at the time it was written.
If the Bible claims divine revelation, which it does, then of course it can be faulted when it instead just portrays current thinking.
Then people also read it as if it is a science textbook, or as if it exists to teach us scientific things. The bible does not claim to be/do any of this.
Considering that there was no "science" when it was written, of course it doesn't explicitly state this. Yet it does try to explain our creation, something which science does as well, and gets it fantastically wrong. In comes God of the Gaps, where the creation myth of Genesis is turned into an allegory, nevermind that it contains gross errors even at that level.
US currency isn't backed by government power, although you're free to think that means something if you want.
Did you mean to say it is backed by government power? If you owe taxes on something you bought in bitcoins (like a house or car), it has to be paid in US dollars. Don't pay, and your stuff is seized, or if you hide try to hide your transaction and are caught, you can go to jail. Bitcoins can't enforce their value that way.
US currency is only valuable so long as others believe in it.
That's true of just about anything, including property rights, or the value of gold. Personally, I don't give a crap about gold, except that other people find it valuable.
However, in contrast with the days when there was gold or other real commodities to back the greenback, its now only as valuable as the rest of the world thinks it is.
A funny thing has happened with any currency backed by gold: it always defaults. Eventually, there's never enough gold to pay the debts.
Complete rubbish. We left the gold standard because countries hoarded it, and it lead to a stagnation in the economy called The Great Depression.
He's talking about the Nixon Shock. I remember in 1988 or so reading in my school book about Nixon taking the US off the gold standard. My teacher was actually surprised when I corrected her that the US wasn't on a gold standard anymore.
You have a weird definition of stupid. If you know something is wrong and you do it anyways, then you're stupid and if you do it just because someone else might get the job then you're selfish and stupid.
You have a weird definition of stupid. Selfish doesn't equal stupid. If I owned a business or my job depended on it, I wouldn't want to lose it over a tiny bit of history, as if every piece of pottery or body from hundreds of years ago is some invaluable artifact.
* No more than 80 hours worked in a week (Many surgery residencies previously averaged up to 100.) * No more than 30 hours in a row (Previously 36 was the standard; 48 was not unheard of.) * 4 days completely off out of every 4 weeks.
These rules are still appalling. You shouldn't have sleep-deprived people working while people's lives are at stake.
Yes, I'm aware of the special pet name for her philosophy, but the free market and freedom of the individual espoused by her books are libertarian, and these are the ideas that she is known and paraded out for. Hardly anybody talks about objectivism when they bring up Rand.
True on the 55-45; that is a mistake on my part, but is not terribly relevant:
Considering that was our main point of difference, it was relevant to our little discussion.
10% more fructose in a drink with 1/10th of a pound of sugar-- which do you suppose is the problematic factor?
Yeah, no kidding, and that was the main point of my original post.
Not terribly impressed if their liquid chromatography is 10% off in its measurements. It throws the entirety of their other claims (which rest on ~10% discrepancies in the measured fructose) into question, as they are all within margin of error.
The 10% you state is for sucrose, not for fructose and glucose. Anyways, I agree with the comment on the site from the "Corn Refiners Association" guy: it isn't a strong study. It needs confirmation by a stronger one, and that's why I said "if reports like this are correct".
No, it's called high fructose corn syrup for a reason. Sucrose is a 50-50 fructose-glucose split. HFCS, as used in soft drinks, is generally 55% fructose.
Frankly, New York City can do more to improve its citizens' health than banning certain sizes of HFCS drinks (because calling them "sugary" simply ignores the fact that soda can be made using real sugar).
What's silly is your assumption that HFCS is a problem and not cane sugar, or the idea that cane sugar is a good nutrient to pad calories with. "Sugary" is meant to cover both cane sugar and HFCS.
Here's some quotes from the ban:
"(1) Sugary drink means [..] (B) is sweetened by the manufacturer or establishment with sugar or another caloric sweetener;"
"Americans consume 200-300 more calories daily than 30 years ago, with the largest single increase due to sugary drinks.10 Sugary drinks are also the largest source of added sugar in the average American's diet, comprising nearly 43% of added sugar intake.11 A 20 ounce sugary drink can contain the equivalent of 16 packets of sugar. These drinks are associated with long-term weight gain among both adults and youth.12,13,14,15 With every additional sugary beverage a child drinks daily, his/her odds of becoming obese increase by 60%.16 In addition, high consumption of sugary drinks is linked to an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.17,18,19 These drinks are the primary source of added sugars (sugars and syrups that are added to foods or beverages when they are processed or prepared) in children's diets.20 Sugar intake has also been linked to heart disease risk factors in adolescents.21"
German elections (1/4 of US population) use only paper ballots where you mark one (or more) circle(s) with a cross.
If it works, then fine, I'm all for it.
What I didn't understand in the 2000 US election is that Gore was urged to concede defeat quickly, even though it was such a close call.
Americans are impatient, and when it becomes "obvious" when somebody has won the election there's pressure to admit the obvious and move on, and generally not to be a sore loser. That mentality backfired in 2000 due to the news media trying to jump the gun to call the election. Lesson learned.
But the general practice in Germany is that news channels provide only facts by default. Whenever someone expresses their opinion, it is usually marked as such.
That still applies somewhat in the US, but times have changed. CNN, for example, tries to be non-partisan, whereas Fox is totally right, and MSNBC is totally left. A similar thing occurs with newspapers, where the New York Times is left, and the Wall Street Journal is right, and a paper like USA Today generally plays it straight.
Slashdot Mirror
Seamonkey also has a lot of extra config options in the Preferences window compared to FF. In this respect FF feels completely dumbed down.
This is why I used to use Seamonkey years ago. However, Firefox has grown in the options department, and plugins took care of others, and for the last few bits I use about:config. I'm not really a fan of app bundling (like an email client with a web browser), and Firefox was getting all the mindshare, so I dropped Seamonkey.
Isn't that about as unlikely as the people moving in mass?
No, because there is no penalty of losing an election because everybody else didn't move with you. There are plenty of examples of successful referendums, compared to very few examples of candidates breaking away from the two-party stronghold.
Who is going to change the system? It's been working reasonably fine for those in power, so why would any of them change it?
It's a voter referendum, which means the voters can initiate and decide on it. You just need the signatures. I don't know the law nationally, but there are many states that have this system in place.
If anyone can walk in and have copies made of a key that's stamped "Do Not Duplicate", it defeats the purpose DND key.
Is there some legal enforcement of this signage not to duplicate? Back in my college days, I needed keys duplicated for roomates. I noticed the "Do Not Duplicate" stamp, thought "Whatever," and took it down to the corner pharmacy. The guy behind the counter didn't bat an eyelash.
You can believe what you want, but I know what the facts say.
You've consistently gotten the facts wrong. You're a hypocrite who is the very thing you complained about.
The people don't move because they think the other people won't move either. Way to go.
That's the practical reality. It's extremely hard to get people to move in mass when the penalty for failure is more than they are willing to pay.
Anyway in this modern day and age one of you can go set up a polling system to figure out which of your preferred 3rd parties has a chance or not before the election, so you bunch can move together if you think you have the chance. Might not catch on, or it might, but given the stuff that goes viral, who knows.
I'd rather just fix the system once for all voters and elections, at least where the system is in effect, than hope people will be convinced by a particular poll. This could via voter referendum.
Out of ideas and arguments.
That would be you. From your post, after which he decided he had enough:
Says the Sara Brady goon.
Ad hominem.
You don't want to carry a gun and/or defend yourself, go ahead.
Straw man. He was arguing against your position that people should kill muggers for stealing cell phones.
Its called "paraphrasing"
You shouldn't use quotes in your "paraphrasing" if it can be confused with an actual quote.
Clearly I am a liar
Yes, you are. You claim you are here to "educate" people, yet when you make a factually incorrect statement about the law, when corrected you go into asshole mode.
So he was buying iced tea from Zimmerman on the street at night?
No, he bought it from a convenience store, and you can watch the video yourself. It's been released and you can easily find it online.
He got shot while prowling.
You don't know that, and have presented no evidence in support of it. The evidence points to him going home after making a convenience store purchase. Also, the fact remains that you still put in extra words in a quote that changed the meaning of what the original poster said, all while complaining about "look at the facts and mis-interpret them deliberately". You're a hypocrite who can't even get the facts straight, let alone interpret them.
a level of arrogance and/or stupidity I hadn't thought possible outside of government
Really? Sounds like standard marketing tactics to me. Oracle has been marketing "Unbreakable" ever since the dotcom days.
I'm worried by this blurring of distinctions in the historical significance of the two events. Whatever your political persuasion, Pearl Harbor was a de facto declaration of war.
So was 9/11. The scope of the event shocked the nation, much like Pearl Harbor did. There were plenty of terrorist attacks against the United States before 9/11, but nothing was anywhere near the same level.
The "9/11" terrorist attack was something else. It was carried out by an independent group that at worst can be described as being in an alliance of convenience with some foreign government.
Yes, and? Does that change the scope of the event? That there was a government harboring the group responsible makes them a proxy.
Treating "9/11" as an act of war, and not simply as a well-coordinated distributed terrorist attack, led to a trillion-dollar War on Terror.
Is part or most of that trillion-dollar cost due to Iraq? Because Iraq was a war of opportunity for the neocons, and had little or nothing to do with terrorism besides being an excuse.
On hindsight did it make sense to send out a nation's armies to deal with a few hundred suspected terrorists?
In Iraq, definitely not, but in Afghanistan? It was entirely appropriate.
So now will the hometowns/countries of suspected Anonymous members be the target of the same massive disruption of IT services that US would launch in retaliaton for a supposed cyberattack from Iran or China?
It depends on the context. How much damage was caused, what was known about the attackers, their level of support from any hosting country, and the hosting country's response.
Do you really object to "A"'s policies that much?
Yes.
After all I keep hearing people keep saying there's not much difference between "A" and "B".
On some issues there isn't, on some issues there are. Do you think Gore would have invaded Iraq after 9/11? I don't. Do you think Gore would have weakened support of the environment and science like Bush did? I don't. That's why Bill Maher and Michael Moore were on there knees begging Nader not to run in 2008.
If A and B combined keep winning more than 97% of the votes why should they change much when the voters have basically said "keep doing what you're doing".
They shouldn't, and I wouldn't expect them to. That's why the best strategy is some kind of voter referendum that introduces a voting system that allows preference.
So people like you are a bunch of idiots.
Only if you agree with the premise that A and B are essentially the same. Otherwise, the idiot is the person who throws their vote away in a losing game of trying to move people in mass.
One can hardly fault the Bible for giving a worldview that was current at the time it was written.
If the Bible claims divine revelation, which it does, then of course it can be faulted when it instead just portrays current thinking.
Then people also read it as if it is a science textbook, or as if it exists to teach us scientific things. The bible does not claim to be/do any of this.
Considering that there was no "science" when it was written, of course it doesn't explicitly state this. Yet it does try to explain our creation, something which science does as well, and gets it fantastically wrong. In comes God of the Gaps, where the creation myth of Genesis is turned into an allegory, nevermind that it contains gross errors even at that level.
US currency isn't backed by government power, although you're free to think that means something if you want.
Did you mean to say it is backed by government power? If you owe taxes on something you bought in bitcoins (like a house or car), it has to be paid in US dollars. Don't pay, and your stuff is seized, or if you hide try to hide your transaction and are caught, you can go to jail. Bitcoins can't enforce their value that way.
US currency is only valuable so long as others believe in it.
That's true of just about anything, including property rights, or the value of gold. Personally, I don't give a crap about gold, except that other people find it valuable.
However, in contrast with the days when there was gold or other real commodities to back the greenback, its now only as valuable as the rest of the world thinks it is.
A funny thing has happened with any currency backed by gold: it always defaults. Eventually, there's never enough gold to pay the debts.
Complete rubbish. We left the gold standard because countries hoarded it, and it lead to a stagnation in the economy called The Great Depression.
He's talking about the Nixon Shock. I remember in 1988 or so reading in my school book about Nixon taking the US off the gold standard. My teacher was actually surprised when I corrected her that the US wasn't on a gold standard anymore.
You have a weird definition of stupid. If you know something is wrong and you do it anyways, then you're stupid and if you do it just because someone else might get the job then you're selfish and stupid.
You have a weird definition of stupid. Selfish doesn't equal stupid. If I owned a business or my job depended on it, I wouldn't want to lose it over a tiny bit of history, as if every piece of pottery or body from hundreds of years ago is some invaluable artifact.
His "crime" was guessing the password on a US govt site.
There's no need for the scare quotes. What he did was illegal in both the US and the UK.
* No more than 80 hours worked in a week (Many surgery residencies previously averaged up to 100.)
* No more than 30 hours in a row (Previously 36 was the standard; 48 was not unheard of.)
* 4 days completely off out of every 4 weeks.
These rules are still appalling. You shouldn't have sleep-deprived people working while people's lives are at stake.
Objectivism.
Yes, I'm aware of the special pet name for her philosophy, but the free market and freedom of the individual espoused by her books are libertarian, and these are the ideas that she is known and paraded out for. Hardly anybody talks about objectivism when they bring up Rand.
But I see so many otherwise calm people go from 0 to stark-raving-mad at the mere mention of her name on here.
She's the Karl Marx of libertarianism.
True on the 55-45; that is a mistake on my part, but is not terribly relevant:
Considering that was our main point of difference, it was relevant to our little discussion.
10% more fructose in a drink with 1/10th of a pound of sugar-- which do you suppose is the problematic factor?
Yeah, no kidding, and that was the main point of my original post.
Not terribly impressed if their liquid chromatography is 10% off in its measurements. It throws the entirety of their other claims (which rest on ~10% discrepancies in the measured fructose) into question, as they are all within margin of error.
The 10% you state is for sucrose, not for fructose and glucose. Anyways, I agree with the comment on the site from the "Corn Refiners Association" guy: it isn't a strong study. It needs confirmation by a stronger one, and that's why I said "if reports like this are correct".
Most processed food HFCS is 42% fructose.
But the "sugary drinks" under discussion are 55% to 45%, or even worse if reports like this are correct.
sucrose has more fructose in it than HFCS does
No, it's called high fructose corn syrup for a reason. Sucrose is a 50-50 fructose-glucose split. HFCS, as used in soft drinks, is generally 55% fructose.
Frankly, New York City can do more to improve its citizens' health than banning certain sizes of HFCS drinks (because calling them "sugary" simply ignores the fact that soda can be made using real sugar).
What's silly is your assumption that HFCS is a problem and not cane sugar, or the idea that cane sugar is a good nutrient to pad calories with. "Sugary" is meant to cover both cane sugar and HFCS.
Here's some quotes from the ban:
"(1) Sugary drink means [..] (B) is sweetened by the manufacturer or establishment with sugar or another caloric sweetener;"
"Americans consume 200-300 more calories daily than 30 years ago, with the largest single increase due to sugary drinks.10 Sugary drinks are also the largest source of added sugar in the average American's diet, comprising nearly 43% of added sugar intake.11 A 20 ounce sugary drink can contain the equivalent of 16 packets of sugar. These drinks are associated with long-term weight gain among both adults and youth.12,13,14,15 With every additional sugary beverage a child drinks daily, his/her odds of becoming obese increase by 60%.16 In addition, high consumption of sugary drinks is linked to an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.17,18,19 These drinks are the primary source of added sugars (sugars and syrups that are added to foods or beverages when they are processed or prepared) in children's diets.20 Sugar intake has also been linked to heart disease risk factors in adolescents.21"
And it's been posted before: Is Sugar Toxic?
German elections (1/4 of US population) use only paper ballots where you mark one (or more) circle(s) with a cross.
If it works, then fine, I'm all for it.
What I didn't understand in the 2000 US election is that Gore was urged to concede defeat quickly, even though it was such a close call.
Americans are impatient, and when it becomes "obvious" when somebody has won the election there's pressure to admit the obvious and move on, and generally not to be a sore loser. That mentality backfired in 2000 due to the news media trying to jump the gun to call the election. Lesson learned.
But the general practice in Germany is that news channels provide only facts by default. Whenever someone expresses their opinion, it is usually marked as such.
That still applies somewhat in the US, but times have changed. CNN, for example, tries to be non-partisan, whereas Fox is totally right, and MSNBC is totally left. A similar thing occurs with newspapers, where the New York Times is left, and the Wall Street Journal is right, and a paper like USA Today generally plays it straight.