Slashdot Mirror

for decades:

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/05/04/report-nearly-half-of-detroiters-cant-read/

Atlas did indeed shrug. Anyone who wants to see what liberals are all about should head to Detroit.

This is SPAM, it has nothing to do with the topic, it's a totally irrelevant bigoted shot at Black people. (I'd mod it down, but I've commented, so I'll comment it down)

for decades:

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/05/04/report-nearly-half-of-detroiters-cant-read/

Atlas did indeed shrug. Anyone who wants to see what liberals are all about should head to Detroit.

I agree that our military expenditures are insane, deficit or otherwise. Well out of line with any form of reason.

I totally disagree on the general welfare clause bit, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Clearly I'm in a tiny minority who realizes the danger in taking wildly broad interpretations of two words - even though those dangers stare us in the face every day.

I do think funding education makes sense under that clause, but not managing it. Because of that line of thinking, we've ended up with the standardized testing regime that I don't think many people on Slashdot support, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it's considered a massive success and I've missed something. I can see equalizing funds, though.

Anyway, what's 14 trillion between friends? Certainly I'll never be responsible to pay it, so why should I care to try and reign in the sort of thinking that produces such a bizarrely large number?

Let's not even think about the dangers of concentrating so much power into such few hands - only silly jackasses like me would rather have that power spread out amongst hundred and thousands of entities so that no one could dominate it. Concentration of power works so much better. It's never abused at all.

This is my concern as well.

I just found the answer though:

The Intrepid plans to build a glass hangar on neighboring Pier 86 to protect the shuttle from the elements. The enclosure would include multiple platforms to give visitors different perspectives on the shuttle.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/12/intrepid-will-get-space-shuttle-enterprise/

So at least that's taken care of. Good for me, bad for the middle of the country. DC and NYC really are too close to call this decision totally fair.
/ :

I apologize to the little toadies, and hope you save many lives with this.

Please don't apologise to them. "Rescuing people after disasters" is always trotted out as an excuse for developing military technology - but how many drones were deployed in Japan? Zero. How many have been deployed in Afghanistan and Pakistan? More than 7,000. (And that report is two years out of date.)

Incidentally, it's cute of the press release to choose the word 'compound', which suggests a foreign location, rather than the word 'house', which might make the readers reflect on future applications of this technology in their own neighbourhoods.

So instead of believing actual experts in the field, you're going to trust the manufacturer and original inventor? Are you serious?

In another post, you also cite a Johns Hopkins study. After even the most minute amount of research on my part, I found that this came just a month after DHS donated $6m to the university. A study in which the key data is all redacted. A study which no researcher at the university, or anywhere else, would sign their name to. A study that was conducted not on production equipment, but at a research lab owned by the manufacturer on a unit configured differently than those used at airports. A study that a university spokesperson told a reporter was being misued and misinterpreted by the government, and that they have never tested the safety of the units.

If you look at all their official statements, it's always that the "pose no significant health risk." There's a risk, they just don't consider it significant.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/02/11/i-team-do-airport-x-ray-scanners-pose-a-risk-to-travelers/

Did you see how I put a link to the letter I was referring to so everyone can read it and formulate their own opinion? Do you think perhaps you could do the same for the sources you're referring to? It adds a lot of credence to your argument.

I'm afraid I don't have much confidence in the study from the inventor (who is for obvious reasons, biased), but would certainly be interested in seeing the John Hopkins reports you mentioned. Here's what I found out about the John Hopkins reports from a quick google search, I welcome links to the full reports:

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/02/11/i-team-do-airport-x-ray-scanners-pose-a-risk-to-travelers/

(the Stroud referenced in the article is one of the author's of the paper I linked to above)

...

But what Stroud calls key data in the Johns Hopkins assessment is being withheld from the public. Literally blacked out.” The document is heavily redacted,” says a troubled Stroud.But what Stroud calls key data in the Johns Hopkins assessment is being withheld from the public. Literally blacked out.” The document is heavily redacted,” says a troubled Stroud.

...

  The radiation safety evaluation was not conducted at the Johns Hopkins Lab in Baltimore, Maryland. The report admits “a spare system was not available to facilitate this.” Instead, it was tested at the manufacturer’s lab in California. The test was not performed on the exact configuration of the system in place in America’s airports.

...

Who at Johns Hopkins stands behind the study?
“There are no names on the document to say who actually wrote this document and who is responsible,” says Stroud.

...

The I-Team has tried to find out but the University will not reveal their names. But a spokeswoman did tell Gillen that the scope of the study has been misinterpreted – including by the government – that Johns Hopkins had not been asked to prove the safety of the scanners and it did not prove the scanners are safe.

So it looks like this John Hopkins study (maybe there was more than one study?) was conducted by anonymous John Hopkins researchers, had much of the data redacted, the study was conducted on a company owned model that may or may not be the same as what's been deployed in the field, and a John Hopkins spokesman says that the study was not intended to, nor does prove that the scanners are safe.

I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/12/police-arrest-stabbing-suspect-in-subway-tunnel/

Bullshit:

"All of the whooping cough-related deaths in California occurred in babies too young to be fully immunized against the illness, which is why parents and caretakers are being urged to get booster shots. Typically, babies are given a series of vaccinations, then receive booster shots between ages 4 and 6 and again after age 10.

Many parents forgo vaccines for their children because of concerns about autism, typically fueled by misinformation on the Internet, said Dr. Mark Sawyer, a University of California-San Diego professor and fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics."

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2010/09/17/9-infant-deaths-in-california-whooping-cough-outbreak/

True, and I agree with you. But in the end your definition of reasonable might not be shared by the police and the prosecutor's office. And if they convince the jury to see it their way, well, you're in trouble.

For example, the guy in Long Island who, back in September, was confronted at his home by 20 or so violent gang members threatening to kill his family. He fired four rounds into a lawn from his legally owned AK-47, scaring the gang members away. He was initially charged with felony reckless endangerment, as the law only allows a proportionate response (ie. he could only pull a gun if they pulled a gun first). (Caveats: I don't know the current status of the charges. Also, none of the reports mention any witnesses besides the family, and at least one report has him firing into both the lawn and the air.)

I would guess that the research is quite solid, the press release is overhyping as usual.

The finding that the oscillations of anti-neutrinos behave differently than those of neutrinos is very interesting though. It may lead to an explanation of why we see far more matter than antimatter in our universe. This should have been the headline, like here.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This article is the one linked to from Drudge. I find it interesting that it reports most people at LaGuardia were willing to go through the TSA security because the 'alternative' is worse (plane blowed up). I queried my friends and acquaintances this past week and not one of them feels these security measures are necessary and many are changing travel plans around which airports have the scanners.

"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,"— Rafi Sela, leading Israeli airport security expert, referring to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world. source