Slashdot Mirror

What about the Japanese maitake mushroom ? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NAH/is_6_31/ai_80088291/

Which is why Steve Ballmer never said Microsoft's stock was overvalued Oh wait... he DID say that! May Ballmer just has more balls that Schwartz! (Although most women would prefer a bigger schwartz.)

Sorry. LordSid and Snowgirl are right. If you hire someone as a 1099 contractor, the code produced belongs to the programmer, not the person hiring them. Here's another good article regarding works for hire. These people thought they could hire the guy cheap as a 1099, not pay benefits or taxes, and then take ownership of libraries he produced years before meeting them? If I were Kevin Partner, I would just tell them to shove it. These people are unbelievable.

If they didn't pay as agreed, their ass would be in court. They'd not only pay what they owed with interest, but they'd be on the hook for legal fees and court costs as well. If I didn't think they were big enough to withstand that without folding, I'd sell it to a collection agency for whatever I could get. Then at least I would be comforted knowing I made their credit into shit for doing that and that someone was harassing them daily for the rest of eternity.

Nice straw man, there. Show me where a car thief gets 'decades' in prison, and you might have a point. The usual sentence depends on jurisdiction,

When racism is involved.
35 years for a black and white TV.

The notion that "anybody can make it in the US if they work hard" is a fairy tale.

Seriously. Be born rich. That's the way to go.

The notion that the notion is a fairytale is a fairytale. People love to blindly spread memes like this because they enjoy feeling sorry for themselves, but it simply isn't true:

Rags To Riches Billionaires: "Almost two-thirds of the world's 946 billionaires made their fortunes from scratch, relying on grit and determination"

That doesn't mean everyone can end up a billionaire, but it's simply false that this notion that 'anyone can make it' is a fairytale; it's borne out on practically a daily basis. If you open your eyes and look, you'll find true-life rags-to-riches story under every second stone you turn --- especially in the USA, but also these days frequently in places like China. But yeah, not everyone is born hard-working, I guess, so keep sitting and feeling sorry for yourself and you'll definitely ensure that nothing ever changes for you.

Rags to Riches CEOs

7 greatest celebrity rags to riches stories

Rags to Riches

Entrepreneur takes women from rags to riches

Rags to Riches billionaires

Asian American Rags to Riches Sagas

Case Study: From Rags to Riches (Brenda French)

Cordia Harrington: From Rags to Riches Success Story

Local cosmetics magnate reveals rags-to-riches life story

China: A rags-to-riches story to dream about (Yan Huiyan)

China’s paper magnate is a rags-to-riches story, literally

Rags to riches: Bill MacAloney: from orphan to successful business owner to CBA

From rags to riches: Filipino weavers trade up

Etc. etc. blah blah ... I could go on pasting these stories in here all day. Nothing worse than listening to whiny losers feeling sorry for themselves that they weren't born rich.

If Pixar had been able to render scenes with better quality in a matter of minutes, they wouldn't have needed over 100 machines in their render farm. In fact, each frame took "from two to 13 hours."

Please tell these people that you read on the internet somewhere that water doesn't conduct electricity.

Identical resumes with "white" and "black" sounding names are treated very differently.

Hmm... According to this 2005 article, Dr. Ilan Wittstein came to the same conclusion after conducting a study:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_11_107/ai_n13452973/

Some might have conducted similar studies prior to his.

You are kidding me aren't you ?

The only thing guaranteed is that the Liberals (the ONLY alternative government) will push exactly the same agenda with exactly the same results!

Have you forgotten Helen Coonan seeks to censor the Web and Senator Richard Alston: Australia's Internet killer? both Ministers for Communications under the previous Liberal government ?

Stephen Conroy is a mis-guided tool, there is no doubt, but please don't try to push the point that there is a credible alternative.... there isn't.

Utilize a Halon, Halon replacement or water extinguisher to extinguish the fire and prevent its spread to additional flammable materials.

Ok, this makes some sense. But as to the battery itself:

After extinguishing the fire, douse the device with water or other non-alcoholic liquids to cool the device and prevent additional battery cells from reaching thermal runaway.

... Ok, so the battery is on fire and they want you to douse it with water. A LITHIUM battery... Cripes, I'm thinking these guys don't know what they are talking about. By the way, here's the doc I deal with at work

Hm.. This page has some interesting things on it.

*Water may be used to extinguish packaging fires if batteries have not ruptured; water is not an effective extinguishing agent for a battery fire.

* For small fires involving the battery [extinguishing] media such as Lith-X or copper powder may be used, but should be applied with a long handled tool. Do not use CO2 or Halon directly on a battery fire as the exposed surface of the contained lithium may react with these materials.

TurboTax is great for filling in the forms, but a lot of people are scared of math, or the government, or filling in forms, and so they run to a tax preparer.

Not entirely accurate. Filling in the forms is easy, and the math is the easy part. What you're not saying is the law is hard, difficult, and at over 7,500 pages, next to impossible to decipher.

What to deduct, when, do I qualify, etc.

Even the IRS gets it wrong. That's why you use a tax preparer, for the "insurance" that if you get audited, they'll take the heat instead of you.

Something else unfamiliar will be the low noise level and, unique for a racing engine, the smooth running of the engine. At high speeds, the engine cannot be heard from the open cockpit and there is hardly any vibration. Indeed, the new R10 can only be recognized as diesel-powered during the warm-up or in the pit lane. Its exhaust will also be invisible since a pair of diesel particulate filters are fitted. And unlike spark-ignition racing engines, there are no flashes of flame from the exhaust created by unburned fuel.

from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FZX/is_6_72/ai_n16521075/.

In a radio report about this car, a journalist said that it was so quite, it could be driving through a suburban neighborhood, and nobody would call the police. Describing it as eery to see it go by vs the other, much louder, gasoline cars.

Back when overhead projectors were the dominant method of displaying information before a large audience (y'know the ones you put clear sheets of plastic on and wrote with a marker), before powerpoint and before projectors that connected to your VGA port. IBM came out with the Thinkpad 755CV in which you could remove the backcover of the screen and then place the screen over the light on your overhead projector.

A snap-off screen panel gives the new ThinkPad 755CV the ability to "piggyback" atop many types of standard overhead projectors. Remove the rear panel and the images on the computer's screen become a see-through "slide show" projected on a wall or screen by the overhead's lamp. The contents of any software program or presentation can easily be shared with a group of people.

Back in 1995...

Applying your reasoning the military-industrial complex that is the US government could easily start up a company to make eg. these or these and sell them well below their actual value to anyone who wants (say $20 or $50) and subsequently use them everywhere to make a real-time map of anyone's location.

TFA misrepresents the real reason for the low MRSA rates in Norway. Antibiotic use plays a part, but old fashioned hygiene and quarantining infected patients is by far the most important factor. Hospitals all over the US are already on this, it has nothing to do with whether or not health care is "free".

Cuttlefish can also communicate (and hide) by changing their body patterns (and they can do it very very quickly):

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_3_109/ai_61524425/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/cephalopod_camouflage_or_turni.php

Great, a propaganda piece

I suppose that if you reject anything you disagree with as propaganda, you'll never feel compelled to reconsider your position.

From the reference above:

“Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” by the Clinton administration’s Justice Department shows that between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others from criminals each year.

Surely you don't think Clinton was pro-gun, do you? Yet even his numbers document the vast number of defensive gun uses made by law-abiding people every year, and these numbers agree with what the gun rights supporters are saying.

According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.

Original source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_n1_86/ai_n28663294/ This is a well-written paper published in a well-known and respected law enforcement publication. Unfortunately, I believe this copy omits the graphical data, but I'm sure that is simply a google search away.

No one is saying guns are responsible for behavior. I'm saying they are responsible for the results.

That is self-contradictory. Behavior dictates results.

However, a criminal with a gun is more dangerous than a criminal without. And that is the one point that it seems no gun-nut will ever say "yes, I agree with that" to.

Actually, every gun advocate I know agrees with that statement. However, they also go on to say that an armed target is less likely to become a victim, which is a demonstrated and documented truth. You seem to have a hard time accepting that.

Sorry, no respect for someone that makes up things in order to bash.

Right back at you. Oh, and I haven't made up a single thing ... unlike you.

Criminologist [sic] John Lott from the University of Florida found that 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three-fourths of those are warning shots.

John Lott, a PhD in Economics, (nitpick: I'm not aware whether he is a criminologist, as the article indicates) wrote a few excellent books on guns and crime. Before you engage further in a gun control discussion, you should read them. IIRC, he essentially set out to see what economic impact guns had, approached it from a purely statistical point of view, and came up with some rather dramatic findings. Gun rights opponents don't like his findings, of course, but a majority of his academic peers support his work. Additionally, his critics have to admit that the very least, his work does prove that more permissive gun laws do not increase crime

"We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared."

(Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis", 55 Stanford Law Review 101 (2003))

FWIW, Ayres and Donohue are a couple of Lott's more vocal adversaries.

(yes, people walked around downtown Dallas carrying rifles and shotguns in organized posses about the time CCW was passed, but all the nutters ignore any effe

NVidia historically had a dominant position

I suppose "historically" is a relative term. I remember when just about EVERY graphics card was ATI.
ATI had the OEM market in the bag for quite a while.

From 1999:

What this also does is put a dent in the armor of ATI Technologies Inc., Toronto, Canada. ATI is the PC graphics market share leader with revenues close to $1 billion and has been steam rolling over the competition in the PC space for the past year or so. This includes S3, Trident Microsystems, 3Dfx, 3Dlabs and even Intel. The only companies to put up much of a fight was Nvidia, which is much smaller than ATI, and Montreal, Canada-based Matrox Graphics Inc., which has a similar business model to ATI.

Until the nVidia juggernaut took off in 2000:

Nvidia has overtaken ATI Technologies as the biggest maker of chips to enhance graphics on desktop computers, according to a new study by industry consultant Mercury Research.
In the third quarter, Nvidia chips were in 48 percent of all desktop computers, more than doubling its market share from 20 percent in the third quarter last year, Mercury said. ATI slipped to 34 percent from 39 percent.

The "known experimental results" was in the context of a debate about physics, and yet you've just inserted a huge bunch of unrelated waffle about how nice Jesus was, and how much he worked hard to make everyone happy.

I perceived the thread as being diverted when Mister Stoopid responded with what looked to me like a very open question regarding...some testable hypothesis proposed by Jesus, I guess. Reading it again, I see that the context may have remained intact. If so, it was an absurd question and didn't warrant its +5 rating, and neither does my response as it is then off-topic--of course Jesus has nothing to do with physics. But the fact that they are both highly rated leads me to believe that most mods here are okay with such diversions; after all, it's not as if we're crowding out other, more topical discussion. There's plenty of room.

A simpler (and more scientific) way of analysing it would be in terms of game theory. Let's consider a world where everyone follows this [golden rule] advice: if I decide to act like a complete tool then nobody is going to change their behaviour towards me, so I can get all of the advantages without suffering any of the consequences. By symmetry this argument applies to anyone else. So everybody derives an advantage by switching away from the golden rule. Hence it is a weak equilibrium strongly dominated by (almost) any other strategy.

The golden rule does not exist in a vacuum. Jesus also said, "If no one welcomes you or listens to your words, as you leave that house or town, shake its dust off your feet." You could act like a tool, and you would in short order have a very small amount of company.

Society relies on cooperation. Your argument has been realized time and time again, and a good recent example is the poisoned milk in China. The milk companies acted like tools, gaining the advantage of profit at the cost of sickening children. That was an act with consequences.

More complete work has been published on the game theoretic analysis of truth-telling/lying and altruism. So your imaginary friend not only lacks accurate predictions of known experimental results, but when you try and twist his alleged words into such proofs you run up into the problem that he was wrong.

If you're going to say I'm reaching and then offer a counter-claim, you ought to back it up. I found an interesting article that shows how the golden rule is beneficial, though not under all circumstances. One game theory staple where it is beneficial is in repeated play of the Prisoner's Dilemma, where first assuming altruism pays off, on the condition that there are enough other players in the population also first assuming altruism. This strikes me as a pretty decent (though limited) description of a society. But there is another game, the snowdrift game, which also mirrors aspects of society, in which it doesn't pay off to assume altruism. Which stripped-down scientific study more accurately mirrors reality? I can't say. I will however continue to treat others with fairness and respect unless they give me a reason to do otherwise. It may not get me the most cash or the shiniest toys, but it feels a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

yes, even NPR, are no better

NPR is substantially worse. If I don't want to support Fox News or CNN or MSNBC, I can simply not watch them. Presto, I'm not supporting them.

If I don't want to support NPR, I have to stop filing taxes.

Once you start accepting public funds, the amount of bias you're allowed to show should drop to none, but instead, NPR is one of the most biased news sources out there.

But don't take my word for. Instead take NPR's own admission of bias.

Sure, remember the GM x Microsoft Analogy War?

They don't. It's modern-day McCarthyism, it's just that no one senator has stepped up to bat and get his name attached to this whole racket.

Sen, Ed Kennedy was on the No Fly list.

Falcon

You know that people actually do get shorter as they age, right?

I agree, once you have RECEIVED a patent on something you are not REQUIRED to actually implement it.

I have no clue what they actually intend to do with this patent if and when it is granted, but it is entirely possible that the main goal of the patent is to prevent anyone else from implementing ads on their OS and if they do, Apple gets to sue them. It could simply be leverage for future use, I don't know.

A rather famous example of a pre-emptive patent is "Device for Perfusing An Animal Head" which, according to the "inventor" was designed to give him legal ground to slow or stop the process of this type of research unless it was done to a certain standard.

I don't know how successful it was but patents primarily give you legal grounds to sue. That is really all they are.

Almost all married couples eventually have children.

I'm afraid you'll need to back that one up. 19% of women 40-44 are childless in the USA I would be surprised if less than quarter of them were unmarried, and yet that's going to be at least twice the number of potential gay marriages.

Maybe these benefits should be scaled back or more closely tied to the children,

Bingo. If marriage is really about kids then tying it to something non-kid is completely hypocritical.

A market can be made unfree by government decree, or by the actions of those in the market. A monopoly or monopsony is not a free market, for instance.

Agreed, and usually it's government that grants those monopolies.

A pump and dump scheme makes the market it is done in unfree

Like SCO?

Interesting bit about the birth of insurance, but I'm not sure how accurate it is

If you mean employer provided insurance besides the "Time" article there are other sources. Findarticles has this article, "Health care in the twentieth century: a history of government interference and protection". At employer provided health insurance historyGoogle has more.

In many states including mine, you can set up a pre-tax medical fund and pay for any medical expenses out of that, which kind of demolishes the main argument of the Time piece.

Does it really, can you cross state lines to buy insurance? States control who can and can not offer health insurance in each state. The federal government has the 2 biggest insurance plans, Medicare and Medicaid, with the states practically running Medicaid. And that, employer provided insurance, was the basis of the "Time"article.

Health care is a type of good can't be fairly traded in a free market.

I compleatly and totally disagree.

But more than that, providing health care to all is a moral issue. We are the only rich and powerful nation that does not see it as such. Every nation that has socialized health care framed it as a moral issue: letting the poor die is just wrong.

That's right it's a moral issue and the government has nothing to do with it. The best government can do is get out of the way and let private citizens and organizations provide health care.

Falcon

The patent was filed in 1993. In 2000 Uniloc was actively courting the gaming industry. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_Nov_10/ai_66803777/

I don't know of any games using hardware locks before 2000. Steam was released in 2003 and seems to use Uniloc for some of it's games http://store.steampowered.com/app/10560/

Yep, exactly like games have been using http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_Nov_10/ai_66803777/

And you quoted the abstract, which is always pretty boring. Read the claims to really figure out what was novel... http://news.google.com/patents/about?id=K7MoAAAAEBAJ

Suprisingly, this doesn't seem like a patent troll.

Wrong. Those are designations of origins. Champagne and Parma are actual places.

[...]

AFAIK, Hummus, falafel, and so forth are generic names for foods traditional to dozens of countries. Nasi lemak means 'rice in cream' and is also not a designation of origin, therefore, attempting to copyright it is ridiculous and no other country is going to honor Malaysia's demands.

I can think of at least one example of a protected food name which has nothing to do with origin. Feta cheese:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DQA/is_2002_Nov_7/ai_94448045/

I cant be bothered to check too deeply into my reasoning(is that the slashdot effect?). But, I would guess that the schools are protecting themselves from lawsuits so that if little johnny/janey has a heart attack while doing gym the school doesn;t get sued for millions as it would obviously just have to be their fault. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20071214/ai_n21165053/

Actually reduced fertilizer use is one of them

Interestingly, world fertilizer use went up from 69 million tons in 1970 to 145 million tons in 1988, more than doubling while population only went up 30%.

Since then, we've leveled out around 140 million tons with nearly twice the population of 1970, so we are about at the same amount of fertilizer per capita.

I love it. Gullibility by design (TM), the new prescription. The disturbing part of the equation is that price is part of the effect, so I'd expect that a 50$ pill could have a bigger placebo effect than a 5$ pill of identical composition, provided that the patients know it.

This is in fact true - more expensive placebos are more effective than cheaper ones (well, ones that the patient believe are more expensive).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20080309/ai_n24918110/

I read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article which gives me the impression that it's still requires faith which I'd would be in direct conflict with the scientific method.

NO it wouldn't be in conflict. It can be but that doesn't make it a constant problem. The only time it would be in conflict is when it is replacing the scientific method when the scientific method was claimed to of been deployed. Both faith and the scientific method have places in society but neither is a full time requirement.

Religion is notorious for disregarding scientific fact and crushing all opposition. From my point of view it has a very bad track record.

The disregards are small and limited in regards to science and the base of knowledge around it. It's also small in the amounts of people in religion who do it. Science actually started in religious universities. They are not incompatible.

I merely was stating that the 'Christian Science Monitor' makes me disinclined to believe that the article has anything to with with /real/ science.

And I;m merely stating that your concerns are unfounded and shooting or ignoring the messenger instead of the message is not a valid point of debate. You are being blinded by your extreme views which is allowing your ignorance to triumph. You can be skeptical of the claims but there is nothing to suggest the source is biased and lying or anything. IF the facts don't pan out, then you will have a valid concern over the content instead of bashing it for the messenger.

I have no doubt that it is possible for someone with religious belief to appropriately use the scientific method. I just don't think it's very likely.

It happens all the time. Your lack of knowledge or ignorance is proving your own bias. About 40% of scientist do believe in god and Only 52 percent of scientists identified themselves as having no current religious affiliation. That is something completely counter to your opinion.

Science isn't a belief as much as it is analytical method for approaching a problem. I really don't care what any other people want to believe as long as they keep their nonsense out of my life. I'm particularly annoyed with a city bylaw regulating business hours on Sundays.

Science is a belief for some. Take a look at the people claiming biological evolution theory as a whole is fact. Obviously this violates the scientific method in several places because it doesn't allow us to increase our knowledge or the possibility of falsification. It's even more problematic considering that when you separate evolution into adaptation and speciation, we have no no empirical evidence of it's existence without mucking with the definition of species in order to show it. Now it's likely that it's close enough to one day be proven right, but as of now, these people claiming it is fact instead of probable or likely are employing the very same belief system and mental processing as with the any religion and faith.

I also do not agree with codifying religion into laws. But I have no disagreement with someone taking time off to attend church or a business coming to it's own conclusion to shut down on Sunday. The Idea of closing business on sunday is derived from religion but is also derived from many other customs including long distance traveling. Animals like horses and such will not cover as much distance without a full day of rest. Humans marching in the military seem to operate better with at least one full day of rest too. Picking Sunday could be conveniently tied to religions (although the Seventh-day Adventist would probably disagree), it does have roots in practical measures to take at least

"Dad of 6 is beaten to death by gang"

"The attack is believed to have been recorded by two nearby CCTV cameras. Police are currently studying the footage. "

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20061015/ai_n16785042/

"Student beaten to death yards from home"

"Detectives, who will examine CCTV footage, want to speak to a cyclist who was seen in the area. "

Do you think the sorts of crimes that CCTV cameras are supposed to "prevent" are committed by well mannered, forward thinking and highly analytical individuals?

There's a big disconnect between people on these tech sites and reality of the mindset of much of the lower class.

And, this is precisely why so many people fear guns. They want to hide behind the AC tag, and use vulgarity - knowing they are safe. They also expect to be just as safe when they choose to run their mouth on the street. I'll bet my dollar against your penny, if a real man answers his little potty mouth, AC will pick up a rock, a club, a knife, or something because he's AC. When the real man shoots him dead, then that man is in the wrong for having a weapon. Go figure.

Anonymous COWARD.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/LRB/pubs/ttp/ttp-09-2003.html
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Go, coward, read. The facts are, when the populace is armed, violent crimes go down. When citizens are disarmed, crime goes up.

Since we have already established that you are a coward, allow me to ask a simple question: If/when you ever creep out of your Mama's basement, hoping to drag a female into your den, would you rather face women who are armed, and are able to resist? Or, would you rather face defenseless women? I don't give you much chance in either instance - but I am perfectly happy with armed women. Knowing that she can shoot you dead if you get out of line just helps to keep a guy honest.

I love headlines like these, which you will NEVER read in gaywad anonymous coward magazines:
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2005/04/jacksonville-great-grandmother-shoots.html
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-47396.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20001128/ai_n9979806/

Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin were both gun control proponents. I suppose you would like those individuals, right? Douchebag, yourself.

Links (I haven't read yet, almost a reference for myself later though).
http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7347284.stm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_10_106/ai_53479052/

Forgive my cynicism but in my experience, humans are not altruistic at all. Like monkeys, we do what we do because it benefits us.

I'll forgive your cynicism, but you've got to work on your ignorance.

So, you're saying KFC lied? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_n8_v25/ai_10403447/

"Craig has said in the past that the turnaround hinges on moving away from a dependency on fried chicken toward new, 'better for you" products.'"

I'll take a news article of snopes, thanks.

Of course if you really were unable to find the prior art and did the required level of due diligence in looking for it then they won't be able to prove you knew about it, so you won't get convicted and hence won't get fined.

You mean like how if you are innocent of a crime that you are never wrongfully accused and convicted? Yeah, that never happens.

It's a bit dated, but I'm willing to bet more states have jumped on this band wagon and none have left it. I'm also willing to bet the laws have gotten more draconian, not less. But I'm not looking up the laws for all 50 states.

My point from the beginning was that there are laws regarding this and if you are going to turn a blind eye, you should do a little research into what you may be getting yourself into.

From: A duty to inform: delay reporting allegations of child or elder abuse even for internal investigations and you could land in jail - Safety & Security Agenda
HR Magazine, Sept, 2003 by Diane Cadrain

Full Article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_9_48/ai_108315187/

"It's up to state lawmakers to designate who must report, but there is a great deal of uniformity among the states," says Howard Davidson of the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law. Even so, it's important to check the law in your state.

For example, 18 states require any citizen to report suspected child abuse or neglect. Those states are Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

In these states, HR managers in companies with on-site child care facilities may be required to report alleged abuse, even if an outside contractor runs the facility.

Almost a quarter of the states--Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Sooth Carolina, South Dakota and Wisconsin--designate substance abuse counselors as mandated reporters.

Several states, on the lookout for child pornography', require reports from commercial film or photo processors. Those states are Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

Two states--Missouri and South Carolina--designate Internet service providers and computer technicians as mandated reporters.

white people are the ones with the privilege, the ones who bought and sold black people as slaves

http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1006/article/1091
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/
http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/1995/3037.html

They don't have to, they aren't being forced to. They are just getting the game at a certain price and selling it at the MSRP for maximum profit.

No. They are being forced to. The laws in the States allow vertical price fixing.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb274/is_18_12/ai_n29408649/

ebay is fighting this US law.
http://www.stoth.com/2009/05/20/ebay-and-ftc-push-congress-over-retail-price-fixing/

It really is unfair to consumers. And that is why I am surprised no one is asking the question. I am also surprised at the number of people who believe what they'd want us to believe.

Right, also Oakland was famous for this "high-tech system" to triangulate gun shots 8)

Juniper had tried to block the suit by unfairly forcing Abramson into arbitration but reserved the right for itself to use a lawsuit against him. The Superior Court ruled against Juniper.

You meant pckeyboard.com, which makes you doubly wrong--those keyboard are a sad imitation of a true Model M. Lexmark started decreasing the quality of the parts in their keyboards to cut costs in 1995, and the Unicomp models continue in that sad direction. Nothing you can buy today compares to a 1994 or earlier Model M.

State of Utah has more than its fair share of investment scams:

Here is one of several articles I have seen on the topic:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070107/ai_n17107556/

And after story about the inflatable car, I got the impression that these people were looking to scam investors, and/or the federal govt.

Felt isn't exactly a boon to society because we had clothing already. And we're specifically talking about HATS, dude.

And no, I'm not uninformed about DDT.
The whole egg-shell thinning thing is bullshit.
As was the whole cancer thing, which the WHO has finally admitted, and now allows DDT for use in houses. Too bad it doesn't work anymore.)

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html#ref6

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_35_16/ai_65493894/

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/jun/22/after-decades-ddt-still-poisoning-animals-sand/

Notice the date. DDT was banned in 1972, and guess what, it doesn't persist for decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

Notice the ol' half-life in water of about 2 years, and 15 in soil. And we're talking about a beach here!

But go ahead and believe the green!

I don't care that you think logic sucks, and I don't care that you're perfectly willing to ignore scientific studies, rather than disputing them logically. You have the right to those positions. However, don't expect other people to take you seriously.

This article, in the seventh paragraph, starts citing some interesting African studies comparing HIV transmission rates in circumcised and uncircumcised males.

For all we know, the general sentiment that led to religious adoption of circumcision could have been the result of an ancient HIV-like plague, combined with the observation that circumcision reduced transmission rates.

Having said that, I would choose not to have any son(s) circumcised, despite the increased risk of HIV transmission. When they reached an appropriate age, I'd present the argument to them and encourage them to research it themselves, and if they wanted to get circumcised -- for medical reasons, since I would not raise them to be religious -- it'd be fine with me.

Priority lines at the airport bug me. First class passengers are not paying me or the airport, the airline is collecting the cash. So why should they get special treatment and make the wait worse for the rest of us? Maybe I should set up a toll booth on my street. Or go to the DMV and set up velvet ropes to one station, and sell the "right" to that quicker line for $50/head.

From this article on Oakland's introduction of CLEAR:

"[The] airport began receiving a lot of requests for it, especially from large companies whose employees did a lot of traveling, she said. 'We are responding to customer input, customers saying, 'please, please bring this.'"

In essence, this represents a gift to the business community that the airport authority (themselves generally part of the "business leadership" community at some point in the past or future) cherishes. The theory goes that if you make things easier on businesses, the benefits show up for everyone!

Obviously different folks will have different opinions about this, but this is the theory. The LA Times article linked in the article has a comment's section that has a pretty hefty pro-CLEAR tone, so you can read that view espoused 50 times if you want.