True but that's the case for any kind of business with international customers.

That's actually got me wondering why politicians always talk about job creation when selling film and television subsidies since the underlying economics are so dodgy. It seems the true reason for subsidies is the cultural benefit from having a healthy film industry.

Some people think Canadians are extraordinarily nice for how we deal with people like this, the truth is we simply have different ways of dealing with problems.

Consider the topic of justice and how to deal with bad people. The US is big into angry retributions and capital punishment, making sure people are punished harshly and everybody knows it.

Canada on the other hand simply tries to put bad people in a place where they don't bother anyone, and when someone does have to be punished we don't talk about it as much. In fact we're big believers in rehabilitation. Quite often we'll give the guilty something they really really want, hoping that in time they'll realize how terrible it is and discover the error of their ways.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I understand your anger and I'm sorry, we both know the US has been responsible for some terrible things, global warming, the Iraq War, NSA spying, etc, the list goes on for a while.

But sending Justin Beiber was definitely overkill.

I think regulating Google and Netflix is a really bad idea but I think there's a defensible motive in trying to promote Canadian content and defend Canadian content providers.

I'm not sure Americans really understand what it's like for smaller countries who lack the population or money to compete with American media productions. People get so much culture from television that it's hard to maintain a national identity when there's a US megaphone next door that dominates mass media. In some ways a well functioning film industry is as important as a military. Just look at what's happening in Ukraine, the rebellion is most certainly not fuelled by East Ukrainians, however it would be hard for Russia to do what it's doing without the support of an East Ukrainian minority who feels closer to Russia and is scared by Kiev. Almost certainly Russia's game would be much more difficult if Ukraine had a mass media strong enough to forge a strong national identity in East Ukraine.

That being said I'm not sure how this works on the Internet, but smaller countries do have a reason to worry about getting swamped by culture from American websites.

There's lots of unethical practices that corporations avoid as a matter of good PR.

Imagine if exploiting tax loopholes was so socially unacceptable that corporations lost more money than they'd make through lost sales.

Partly, but there's also a possibility that the legislation is fairly well written and closing these loopholes would cause even more serious problems.

There's also the possibility that the legislation is terribly written, and by choosing a well defined high profile target (Microsoft) they can create enough political will to fix the legislation.

Yeah, I read some of the post you linked.

So you seem to think that the 16th amendment only defines income in an incredibly narrow manner, granting the government very limited power to tax the income of corporations and none to tax individuals. You base this on your... creative interpretation of a 1921 supreme court ruling.

You're not alone in this interpretation, amazingly tax protesters have gone to the courts to make this argument many times, not so amazingly they have lost every single time.

Which begs the question. Assuming you are right, and the 1921 ruling didn't allow income tax, then you're still wrong. In the time since the courts have repeatedly ruled that income taxes are legal. Either the court rulings are legitimate, and income tax is allowed, or they're illegitimate, in which case you have no reason to cite the 1921 ruling. Hell, if you disregard the authority of the constitutionally authorized supreme court, who has rejected your interpretation by never even bothered to hear one of those lower court decisions, then I don't see how you can then claim to be so concerned about the wording of the 16th amendment.

Couldn't this approach be used for any infectious disease for which there's no effective cure but there are some survivors? Are there just no Western diseases that fit the profile? I suppose you need both a person sick with a deadly infection and a recent survivor of a same infection (with the same blood type). So it may just be the case that we simply don't experience that scenario enough to develop this solution. But I'm curious if this approach has been used outside of Ebola in Africa.

Completely offtopic but I suddenly want someone to make a movie about the making of the original Star Trek series just so they can cast this guy as Shatner.

Not quite

Note from the Dreadnoughtus article (emphasis added):
It is one of the largest of all known terrestrial vertebrates, possessing the greatest mass of any land animal that can be calculated with reasonable certainty

From the Argentinosaurus article it sounds like the estimates range from 60-90 tonnes, most likely the Argentinosaurus is heavier but we're more confident about the weight of the Dreadnoughtus.

Adding a special character sounds like a good idea, a simple permutation or rule you can remember across all accounts.

But remember for it to work you can't rely on yourself remembering the answer, you need to know it without remembering it's creation.

So your solution for forgetting your password is another password?

The solution isn't random info. It's questions you create with personal information that is memorable enough that you're remember in an instance, but only you, or a very small handful of intimate people, would know. Ie, 'Who was that girl you had a really secret crush on in grade 10?"

The current suite of questions, mother's maiden name, cars, etc, is all information that's potentially communicated to casual friends, as such it can easily slip out into public knowledge.

The problem is there's only so many questions that fit that description, so instead of sharing passwords you end up sharing answers.

Being a psychopath doesn't mean he's suicidal, it just means he has no empathy.

Putin's a dictator, he sees Russia's triumph as his triumph and his legacy is tied to how Russia's views him. He has no interest in a nuclear war, and even if he did he lacks the North Korean personality cult that would allow him to carry out an attack.

I think the solution is simple. The West quietly says if you invade Russia is locked out of the world economy until Ukraine is peaceful and Crimea is returned. Do that and Putin will find a way out. The only problem here is convincing the various EU members to endure the potential gas shortage.

Barring that I think NATO has to step in. After the NATO summit Poroshenko should go back to Ukraine with a NATO treaty in hand.

The important thing to remember is Putin hasn't officially invaded, in fact he's done everything he can to maintain the lie Russia is uninvolved and has consistently done the minimal amount necessary to keep the rebels alive. He knows he needs an escape route because he's unwilling to risk open war.

Lots of other sites discuss the situation in Ukraine, but few do so with this kind of audience.

Certainly /. shouldn't become a politics/world affairs site. But when really important things come up they effect all facets of life. The reality of Russia as an agressive pseudo-fascist rogue state is very relevant even from a pure technology perspective.

Well according to this analysis of the study by an actual obesity researcher this study suggests the USDA recommendations aren't a problem:

This study also adds to the evidence that low-fat high-carbohydrate diets can cause weight loss. Even though the degree of weight loss is very modest, and possibly not significant from a clinical standpoint, this further undermines the argument that the carbohydrate-centric USDA dietary recommendations caused the obesity epidemic. It turns out, when you put people on a diet that's similar to the USDA guidelines, they don't generally gain weight, and they often lose a little bit.

Claims from the West should be treated with healthy skepticism.

Claims from Russia should be treated with howls of laughter.

The study is paywalled but from the article:

The high-fat group followed something of a modified Atkins diet. They were told to eat mostly protein and fat, and to choose foods with primarily unsaturated fats, like fish, olive oil and nuts. But they were allowed to eat foods higher in saturated fat as well, including cheese and red meat.

[...]

The low-fat group included more grains, cereals and starches in their diet. They reduced their total fat intake to less than 30 percent of their daily calories, which is in line with the federal government’s dietary guidelines. The other group increased their total fat intake to more than 40 percent of daily calories.

Of the three macro-nutrients protein is known to be the most satiating per calorie.

And things that are high in protein (meat, eggs, nuts) tend to be the same things that are high in fat. While things high in carbs (grains, starch) tend to be low in protein.

So a big effect of a low-fat diet will be fewer calories from protein, and a low-carb diet will mean more calories from protein. I'm almost certain that the low-carb group ate a lot more protein than the low-fat group, and I'll bet that was responsible for the additional weight loss.

This is important because it means these results are completely consistent with the hypothesis that fat is the most fattening macronutrient, followed by carbs, and then protein being the most thinning. The reason why low-carb was the most thinning is that the weight loss caused by the additional protein overcame the weight gain caused by the additional fat.

Can anyone with access to the study confirm if there were big differences in the protein intake?