(BTW, I also know you're either not obese or you're obese and you've never successfully stuck to a very low-calorie diet for any length of time. Almost certainly the former, since the idea that somebody can eat 1,200kcal/day and not lose weight is so utterly foreign to you. That means that you're likely eating 2500kcal+/day. Probably the former For five years I maintained a ~1000kcal/day diet - average, never going over 1500kcal in a given day - and managed to gain 50bs of fat over that time. Yes it is possible for people to subsist off a piece of bread and an egg for breakfast, a can of tuna for lunch, and a small dinner. It's just very, very unpleasant.)

You are incorrect. Though people eating so little usually suffer from severe lethargy and a host of neurological/psychological problems, they don't necessarily lose weight. (Let me state again: you're simply incorrect. You aren't aware of all the variables.)

People are commenting that some people eat 500/1200/etc. calories and still not loosing weight. Can someone explain this to me?

Yes. They're deluding themselves about how much they're actually eating.

Or you're wrong about what causes obesity.

I can probably explain what happened to your sister (and help her). I can also bet she's suffered pretty severe psychological/neurological changes as well (though she might hide them from her family). If you want to start a conversation, ping me at dbharris@eelf.ddts.net

Of course they did If you give the government an inch, they take a mile.

Let me fix that for you: If you give anybody (particularly an asshole) an inch, they take a mile. Oh, and cops are generally assholes.

Seriously? Really?

C'mon.
C'mooon.

Enough said.

I've started reading the text through, and all I can say is: GO CANADA!

As a Canadian I've been dreading our role in these negotiations. I feel that we really haven't pressed our position sufficiently in bilateral treaties with the US when it comes to commerce (this goes back decades). This is exasperated by the current Federal party in power in parliament (though it's a minority), which demonstrably follows the US lead in many areas.

However, it seems that at least in this case, our government (as distinct from parliament, I might add) is clearly pushing for the Right Stuff(tm). At least as hard as the EU, maybe harder. As an example, it seems that wherever punishments (remedies) for infringers are mentioned, Canada (and usually the EU) has added: [the judicial authorities] "shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement and the remedies ordered as well as the interest of third parties."

In other words, no ridiculous court cases where a 16-year-old gets saddled with a $750,000 judgement against them because they downloaded a few tracks from Kazaa (or whatever the kids are using these days :) and didn't know enough to turn it off.

DAMNED FUCKING RIGHT. TAKE THAT YOU BASTARDS.

Okay, clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, because a Cisco Universal Broadband Router is a bit of kit used to terminate DOCSIS lines. In other words, it's for cable-modem broadband, not wireless. It would be useless to you.

That said, for others who're reading and who might be interested in some high-end, Linux-based packet-processing kit (because really, the prices Cisco and Juniper and the rest of them charge really are past the ass-raping point of the screw-me spectrum), you could check out Vyatta: http://www.vyatta.com/

Enjoy. HTH.

Your comment ("the reason people ignore you is because you're a dick") is clearly a troll, but it was also moderated Insightful ... which might also be a troll :)

Nevertheless, assuming for a moment that you're being truthful in your expression, then I have this to say:

This is what is wrong with the world today. Billions upon millions of morons who don't know what they're doing, and people trying to show them how to (or, hell, what the fuck - people trying to beat them into) do(ing) it the right way.

You want these assholes who can't even figure out how to correctly measure something to build the bridge you drive over twice a day? How about the building you work in?

Or I dunno, maybe you'd prefer having _only_ people who will point out errors when they see them working on it? How about your doctor? You want your operating room filled with maybe one smart guy who recognizes an error and six people who don't know any better? And you're saying that, when the smart guy recognizes the error and tries to point it out (no matter HOW he does it, though I'm betting the original poster isn't that much of an asshat at work), he's being a dick?

Christ, what's wrong with you? Seriously?

Okay, so you don't buy that MySQL couldn't survive as a strictly open-source project without the ability to sell proprietary/closed-source licenses (like they currently can). I wouldn't argue that.

How do you respond to this scenario?:

Oracle owns MySQL. Oracle shapes MySQL's development very slowly over the course of a decade or two, cementing it in its current niche (and, thus, it will never be a threat to Oracle's ridiculously fat profit margins).

In this scenario, do you think there will sufficient impetus to fork and grow an open-source-only MySQL project (with a different brand and basically a new community starting from scratch)?

Surely you can agree that the desire for such will be radically reduced, possibly to the point that it's not feasible?

Even if it is feasible, surely you can agree that it would almost certainly slow down MySQL's developments in this direction by years? (For many years MySQL has been growing more and more feature-rich, arguable to expand the roles that it can play. I would say pretty much all of their current momentum is in this direction.)

"MySql is a low-end [DB]" ... "[some] companies replacing their Oracle database with a MySql one, but those are very few and far between"

And you can be pretty bloody sure that if Oracle owns MySQL, that'll never change. :)

You're a moron.

"People should have the freedom to hold on to their money if they wish if they feel it is to their benefit to do so. Especially the poor who are usually not the ones who invest in stocks for one reason or another and the only way to mitigate the erosion of their wealth is to spend that cash on something and the poor are the most in need of developing a safety net of cash that they can use to drag themselves up in the world."

The poor don't invest in stocks because THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO.

They don't lose money (directly) from inflation, because they HAVE NO MONEY TO LOSE.

They (must) spend it on the necessities - food, clothing, shelter. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF POOR.

You're welcome.