Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me
Wish I had mod points.
If posting to FB can be 'holding out' I imagine that using an app to publish publicly puts this in the illegal territory.
So either make a requirement that all food additives follow guidelines to provide "safe levels of consumption and health benefits" or let consumers and corporations work it out on their own. Targeting individual food products is as productive as targeting individual financial products or individual companies in regulation. It just creates more work
I'm more worried that they're saying he was "brilliant." Those actions are trivial. I'm disappointed that's all he had to do to get that info.
Agree with his actions or not, anyone who declared him anything more than "some sysadmin who took some liberties with his access" shouldn't be in charge of gathering, investigating or protecting anyone's sensitive data.
I came to post the same thing. This is like calling a child that signs their parents name on a school note as "brilliant". Sysadmin has access to everything, it's like saying the locksmith is "brilliant" for opening the door.
I once had a network admin compliment me for "hacking" into his server when I copied a file there for him.
My coworker and I laughed and pointed out that it's not hacking when you know root. Granted I'd just complained I my user account was denied access so I can understand the confusion.
Anecdotal proof that even among IT workers sometimes sysadmin privileges are mysterious.
This must be modded up by others that didn't RTFA
articles like this that just throw in the proverbial towel arent helping. We need competent nutritional education and responsible industry to start offering food that is both nutritious and healthy. Yet as with most industries the change often comes from the consumer, and its often met half-hearted and begrudgingly.
The author would agree with you that we need competent nutritional education and the point is that rather than throw in the towel because it's a complicated issue we need to do something.
He prescribes more research and updating public policy based on current research.
Also: the consumer is only 1/2 the problem. Food companies spend millions advertising junk food, which increases consumer demand for said food, creating an artificial feedback loop. We could create a similar feedback loop for healthy (i.e. non-junk) food but doing so is costly. Not just in terms of advertising dollars.
There's lost profits when selling healthy food at a lower margin than junk food.
There's lost profits when people no longer need to purchase health care products/services due to weight related illness.
There's lost tax money on junk food vs. healthy food (in some countries.)
We've created an economic feedback loop that encourages unhealthy lifestyles - it pays better.
Note: I do not think (nor have I seen evidence of) a conspiracy. I'm talking about economic forces that we can take control over if we wish. It will take many different groups working together to achieve this goal. Consumers, government, and industry need to work together and against the economic incentives.
3. Fight back - I'm talking violence here.
I know how melodramatic that all sounds, and a few years ago I would have never imagined myself realistically making such a statement - not in a million years.
Not only does this sound melodramatic you only need to look to Syria/Egypt/Libya to see how bad of an idea violence is.
I fail to understand why so many Americans have given up on our representative Republic. You want to fight back, go vote (and get your friends to vote) for someone who will work to change the system. And when they're corrupted vote in someone else. And keep voting out corrupted politicians until the expense of corrupting them outweighs the benefit.
It will take work (you might say "eternal vigilance") but currently America has the government we deserve.
Look into http://pandaunite.org/
It was Chicago 'economics' that did Detroit in.
As a resident of the Chicago metropolitan area I'm curious what you consider 'Chicago economics.'
If you're referring to corruption that's a problem as old as civilization itself. Crediting Chicago with originating it does little but boost the already over-inflated egos of Chicago politicians.
I imagine with a little extra funding the USPTO could hire folks like Joel in order to find prior art for these patents.
The issue, as always with government services, is funding.
Perhaps we should consider a frequent filer fine. That would avoid increasing the costs for small businesses or independent engineers.
Alternately we could decide as a society that all of us chipping in some more money each year to improve the USPTO is a reasonable sacrifice to make, but that strikes me as less likely and it punishes the many for the sins of the few.
politicians constantly remind us that driving is a privilege
Remind them that while the US is a member of the UN, its charter definitions are binding.
Not certain the argument that 'freedom of movement' equates to 'automobile license' would hold up in court.
Not that it matters, the UN hasn't kicked China out and they still require permits to move between districts. That strikes me as a tad bit more restrictive than calling a driver's license a 'privilege.' (A privilege now required to vote in Texas.)
I don't see what you do. Granted I've not done a scientific study, but here's what I've seen:
1) Most Americans I talk to that are critical of US policy don't hate the US. Rather, they want to shine a light on problems in the US that they see as at best ignored or at worst denied. The end-game is an improvement of the US (making it better) rather than simply "hating" on their own country.
2) As most
This difference affected their ability to innovate and socialize the way we, modern people (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) do.
It amazes me that comments like this, with so little data to make such a conjecture, can be taken seriously by people who scoff at religion. We know slightly more about these other branches of humanity (their biology aside) than we do about the historicity and culture of Atlantis. Yet we are supposed to take for granted that we can just know, with virtually nothing known about neanderthal society, what caused them to go extinct.
Actually, if you read what the scientists have to say, they're liberal with "may" and "might".
Contrast this with someone who is certain that (insert diety here) told them to (insert action here).
Wish I had mod points for this one.
Personally, I see asteroid mining as a critical first step in this endeavor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
Once we learn how to acquire the materials needed from rocks already in space (thus negating the fuel requirements to get it there) it becomes much easier to construct the types of environments needed to support human life in space. Which, until we learn how to generate magnetic shielding like the earth has (ha!), likely means a 6' concrete exoskeleton. Maybe we'll start out by hollowing out a few asteroids and sticking propulsion systems / access hatches on them.
For example, any company should allow for any customer to migrate all her data to another service, without the information loosing its original structure.
This goal is nearly impossible. Are you going to legislate the data structure for every SaaS out there? How on earth is congress going to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape that is silicon valley?
The U.S. congress was designed to move slowly. It's a bit like a qwerty keyboard. They've already bitten off more than can chew, as they've shown time and again recently.
Just ask NASA! (I assume this is what you're referring to.)