In the parents second video link, he says fructose is a poison. That's ridiculous.
I watched the whole video, the 1.5 hour one on the first link, and he goes through how it's treated metabolically by the body, and in particular the liver, and he compares it to alcohol. If what he says is true, he makes a reasonable case. It's not the kind of poison that is going to kill you in one shot, but over time it does have harmful effects and can cause chronic illness.
I wouldn't write this guy off so quickly. In particular, the amount of sugar that's being dumped into our foods has been on a steady climb for decades. The simplest piece of advice he gives is to stop drinking sugared drinks like soda and fruit juices.
No doubt you can get fat eating too much of anything, but the thing about modern Western diets is that they are highly processed. They've added high-fructose corn syrup to everything and taken nearly all the fiber out of our grains.
Eating a banana provides fiber, is more filling, and more nutritious than drinking a bottle of flavored sugar water.
The American Express charge card does the same thing, and yet it is not called a credit card for a reason. You are expected to pay the monthly bill off in full each month; you are not allowed to carry a balance.
They call it a "charge card", but it is still a credit because you don't have the money sitting around in an account with them. It's just a different kind of credit from the typical standard credit cards. It's a short-term loan that you promise to pay off in full, as opposed to one that you can pay off with minimal payments and interest indefinitely. Either way it is still a loan.
If you really want to know whether something is credit, as what happens if you don't pay it. A bounced check can land you in jail for committing fraud. That can't happen with an American Express card, because they are extending you short-term credit.
Not paying a debt until it's due doesn't constitute credit
Yes, it is. Why do you think it is called a credit card? There's a very real chance you will not pay your debt. Whether it's a card issuing bank or a service provider, they are giving you short-term credit.
it's called "float" in financial circles.
That's different. If you write a check and it bounces, you could be criminally charged for fraud. That doesn't happen with credit. The float is the time it takes your check to clear.
So, in short, you're right that it's not length of repayment that's a factor, whether you're being extended credit (buying something for the promise of repayment against future income) or whether you're being given a float to allow you to gather the funds in the form agreed upon (which is why so many businesses started offering due dates for purchases in the first place).
I'm amazed that you managed to describe the same thing twice while claiming they are two separate things. If you're given a due date to repay, it is credit. If payment is demanded right away, it is not.
And if you created A, then you don't have to give it up until an appropriate B is offered in exchange. But you get to determine what that B is.
But that's not the way copyright works. You might write a book in the hopes of getting $100,000, and end up with $1,000 or $1,000,000.
A patronage model, like Kickstarter, where you were paid for the work, and not each copy, would be more explicit, and it would not force practically every person on the planet to give up their natural rights.
There is nothing irrational in expecting that when you create something (A) and exchange it for something else (B), you should only exchange it if B is worth more to you than the time you spent on creating A.
That's true, but there is something irrational in stating that every copy needs to be paid for during the lifetime of the author + 70 years.
You're completely ignoring the idea of justice -- the accused should be presented with evidence against them by the accusers. That's all that is being said. Instead of providing such evidence, you say "speak from facts". That's your job or the accusers.
In short, speak from facts and follow your own advice. You'd want the same if some angry mob was acting against you.
I feel exactly the same way and don't understand how on earth anyone can NOT want to learn about everything around them
Opportunity cost and lack of personal interest. Every hour you spend learning something is an hour you can't spend learning something else, or I dunno, just relaxing and having fun or something.
And personally, I really don't want to learn all the intricate details of how my car works, but I spend a lot of time learning about how computing technology works, keeping up with interesting physics, etc. Yet if some mechanic screwed me over because of my lack of knowledge, I'd get pretty annoyed if some gearhead bashed me about what a dumb idiot I was.
So rather then trying to get some frothy public action thing together with promises to buy again if they change their ways. Just quietly buy what you believe in and let the marketing people figure out why sales dropped.
Fuck that. Speaking out is a good thing to do. If people aren't interesting then they can just ignore it. People who are will benefit from the message.
This is a bit like I could lift that car over my head, but I see no reason to do it so you will just have to trust me when I say I can do it.
In the case of Aaron Barr and HBGary, it was done -- they were a worthy target and it made the news, in particular the dirty tricks they were scheming up, like going after a reporter.
Now, I seriously doubt that anybody posting on this particular thread is actually a hardcore Anonymous member, but it's besides the point, as the taunting AC was trying to disparage the group as a whole.
I agree that the best use of resources would probably be ignoring this person, but seriously, answering a challenge with "your not worth it" casts more doubt then confidence in the abilities to complete the challenge.
So you agree this guy is a waste of time, and there's already been proof positive that Anonymous has successfully gone after worthy targets, but you think stating the truth here is an admission of inability?
Still waiting for you to speak from fact. What, exactly, was Stratfor "evil" for? All that we've heard are that "Anonymous" hacked them and that they are a "corporation". The way justice is supposed to work is that the accused are given evidence against them. Anything else is akin to an old-fashioned lynching.
OK, that's a loophole, but you're limited to a device without wireless, and it's still the case that nobody can check the book out while you have it out. And if somebody really wants to get it, then they'll just pirate it from the Net. The publishers are being greedy and stupid.
Limitless free library ebooks are the death of them.
From the article: "E-lending is not without some friction. Software ensures that only one patron can read an e-book copy at a time, and people who see a long waiting list for a certain title may decide to buy it instead."
You're a nobody. Why would any serious "Anonymous" user go after you? They already compromised a legit target who went after them, Aaron Barr and HBGary.
No doubt there are plenty of posers flying under the handle "Anonymous" (which you are, too, in a way), but that's the way it is. Anybody can don the mask. Until they start dropping PGP signatures or something, but they don't seem inclined to do that.
Neither you nor anybody else in the chain of parents or replies identified what, exactly, Stratfor was "evil" for, except for nebulous comments about "corporations". So follow your own advice.
Do you have any concept of how many suicides have resulted directly from the subprime meltdown, or how many have died from exposure or from inadequately treated illnesses after having lost their jobs and homes?
Do you? Or are you just assuming it's some big number?
Many things work very well in books and very poorly in movies, and subplots unrelated to the main plot are one of them. The encounter with Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, and the encounter with the barrow-wights were all correctly left out of the movie adaptation.
I'll even go one further: The film should have ended after Frodo and Sam were saved. It was already a long movie (200 minutes), and it would have been a nice point to end it. I remember sitting in the theater feeling somewhat exhausted and exasperated as the movie dragged on after the climax.
What's funny is that the Wikipedia article says, "The ending is streamlined so as not to include the Scouring of the Shire, which was always seen by the screenwriters as anti-climactic.[9]" I agree, but they didn't go far enough!
Slashdot Mirror
In the parents second video link, he says fructose is a poison. That's ridiculous.
I watched the whole video, the 1.5 hour one on the first link, and he goes through how it's treated metabolically by the body, and in particular the liver, and he compares it to alcohol. If what he says is true, he makes a reasonable case. It's not the kind of poison that is going to kill you in one shot, but over time it does have harmful effects and can cause chronic illness.
I wouldn't write this guy off so quickly. In particular, the amount of sugar that's being dumped into our foods has been on a steady climb for decades. The simplest piece of advice he gives is to stop drinking sugared drinks like soda and fruit juices.
No doubt you can get fat eating too much of anything, but the thing about modern Western diets is that they are highly processed. They've added high-fructose corn syrup to everything and taken nearly all the fiber out of our grains.
Eating a banana provides fiber, is more filling, and more nutritious than drinking a bottle of flavored sugar water.
The American Express charge card does the same thing, and yet it is not called a credit card for a reason. You are expected to pay the monthly bill off in full each month; you are not allowed to carry a balance.
They call it a "charge card", but it is still a credit because you don't have the money sitting around in an account with them. It's just a different kind of credit from the typical standard credit cards. It's a short-term loan that you promise to pay off in full, as opposed to one that you can pay off with minimal payments and interest indefinitely. Either way it is still a loan.
If you really want to know whether something is credit, as what happens if you don't pay it. A bounced check can land you in jail for committing fraud. That can't happen with an American Express card, because they are extending you short-term credit.
Not paying a debt until it's due doesn't constitute credit
Yes, it is. Why do you think it is called a credit card? There's a very real chance you will not pay your debt. Whether it's a card issuing bank or a service provider, they are giving you short-term credit.
it's called "float" in financial circles.
That's different. If you write a check and it bounces, you could be criminally charged for fraud. That doesn't happen with credit. The float is the time it takes your check to clear.
So, in short, you're right that it's not length of repayment that's a factor, whether you're being extended credit (buying something for the promise of repayment against future income) or whether you're being given a float to allow you to gather the funds in the form agreed upon (which is why so many businesses started offering due dates for purchases in the first place).
I'm amazed that you managed to describe the same thing twice while claiming they are two separate things. If you're given a due date to repay, it is credit. If payment is demanded right away, it is not.
And if you created A, then you don't have to give it up until an appropriate B is offered in exchange. But you get to determine what that B is.
But that's not the way copyright works. You might write a book in the hopes of getting $100,000, and end up with $1,000 or $1,000,000.
A patronage model, like Kickstarter, where you were paid for the work, and not each copy, would be more explicit, and it would not force practically every person on the planet to give up their natural rights.
There is nothing irrational in expecting that when you create something (A) and exchange it for something else (B), you should only exchange it if B is worth more to you than the time you spent on creating A.
That's true, but there is something irrational in stating that every copy needs to be paid for during the lifetime of the author + 70 years.
You're completely ignoring the idea of justice -- the accused should be presented with evidence against them by the accusers. That's all that is being said. Instead of providing such evidence, you say "speak from facts". That's your job or the accusers.
In short, speak from facts and follow your own advice. You'd want the same if some angry mob was acting against you.
That's not weird, it's just business sense. Linux has like a 1% share on the desktop, so where is their return on investment to support it?
I feel exactly the same way and don't understand how on earth anyone can NOT want to learn about everything around them
Opportunity cost and lack of personal interest. Every hour you spend learning something is an hour you can't spend learning something else, or I dunno, just relaxing and having fun or something.
And personally, I really don't want to learn all the intricate details of how my car works, but I spend a lot of time learning about how computing technology works, keeping up with interesting physics, etc. Yet if some mechanic screwed me over because of my lack of knowledge, I'd get pretty annoyed if some gearhead bashed me about what a dumb idiot I was.
So rather then trying to get some frothy public action thing together with promises to buy again if they change their ways. Just quietly buy what you believe in and let the marketing people figure out why sales dropped.
Fuck that. Speaking out is a good thing to do. If people aren't interesting then they can just ignore it. People who are will benefit from the message.
This is a bit like I could lift that car over my head, but I see no reason to do it so you will just have to trust me when I say I can do it.
In the case of Aaron Barr and HBGary, it was done -- they were a worthy target and it made the news, in particular the dirty tricks they were scheming up, like going after a reporter.
Now, I seriously doubt that anybody posting on this particular thread is actually a hardcore Anonymous member, but it's besides the point, as the taunting AC was trying to disparage the group as a whole.
I agree that the best use of resources would probably be ignoring this person, but seriously, answering a challenge with "your not worth it" casts more doubt then confidence in the abilities to complete the challenge.
So you agree this guy is a waste of time, and there's already been proof positive that Anonymous has successfully gone after worthy targets, but you think stating the truth here is an admission of inability?
Like i said, speak from fact or shut up.
Still waiting for you to speak from fact. What, exactly, was Stratfor "evil" for? All that we've heard are that "Anonymous" hacked them and that they are a "corporation". The way justice is supposed to work is that the accused are given evidence against them. Anything else is akin to an old-fashioned lynching.
OK, that's a loophole, but you're limited to a device without wireless, and it's still the case that nobody can check the book out while you have it out. And if somebody really wants to get it, then they'll just pirate it from the Net. The publishers are being greedy and stupid.
Limitless free library ebooks are the death of them.
From the article: "E-lending is not without some friction. Software ensures that only one patron can read an e-book copy at a time, and people who see a long waiting list for a certain title may decide to buy it instead."
Or hey, you could always prove me wrong.
You're a nobody. Why would any serious "Anonymous" user go after you? They already compromised a legit target who went after them, Aaron Barr and HBGary.
No doubt there are plenty of posers flying under the handle "Anonymous" (which you are, too, in a way), but that's the way it is. Anybody can don the mask. Until they start dropping PGP signatures or something, but they don't seem inclined to do that.
Neither you nor anybody else in the chain of parents or replies identified what, exactly, Stratfor was "evil" for, except for nebulous comments about "corporations". So follow your own advice.
Honk!
What are you, 8 years old?
And even besides that, their advertising schemes have been creepy from the start and Bob Parsons is now and always will be a cunt.
So why did you go with them in the first place?
a lot of thought out work by conservation programs to make sure populations are kept in balance with their environment and other species..
Except for the humans, of course.
If you have to explain your joke, it isn't funny.
they kiss my feet on a daily basis for it
You should hear what they say about you behind your back.
Do you have any concept of how many suicides have resulted directly from the subprime meltdown, or how many have died from exposure or from inadequately treated illnesses after having lost their jobs and homes?
Do you? Or are you just assuming it's some big number?
Spot on.
Wow, your dad's an annoying dick. Save the comments for after the movie.
Many things work very well in books and very poorly in movies, and subplots unrelated to the main plot are one of them. The encounter with Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, and the encounter with the barrow-wights were all correctly left out of the movie adaptation.
I'll even go one further: The film should have ended after Frodo and Sam were saved. It was already a long movie (200 minutes), and it would have been a nice point to end it. I remember sitting in the theater feeling somewhat exhausted and exasperated as the movie dragged on after the climax.
What's funny is that the Wikipedia article says, "The ending is streamlined so as not to include the Scouring of the Shire, which was always seen by the screenwriters as anti-climactic.[9]" I agree, but they didn't go far enough!