Slashdot Mirror

they had a guy four square for a brutal rape, but the guy was unconcerned. sure enough, the dna test came back and turned out he only shared half the dna with the culprit: the murderer must be the guy's brother

so they let him loose and track down brother after brother, sample his dna, and it turns out to be yet another brother. meanwhile, the woman who was raped is murdered, and they find a hair on her body that matches the original suspect's dna 100%

while examining the original suspect again, grissom sees that his skin is strangely mottled, and he has an interesting statue in his house: the legendary greek chimera

grissom cracks the case: the guy committed the rape because he knew he was a genetic chimera. the dna of his semen was the "brother" of the dna of his blood

http://www.csifiles.com/reviews/miami/bloodlines.shtml

a genetic chimera is an extremely rare individual in which fraternal twin zygotes are created, then fuse. so different organ lines in the body are from two different "individuals". you are your own twin, you are a mix of two people. there is also the real life case of a woman who became a criminal suspect because she was suspected of kidnapping: she claimed to be the mother of a child, but a genetic test reveals she was the aunt: her own ovaries weren't hers but from her "phantom sister"

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2315693&page=1

not that this is an argument against how they caught the grim sleeper, i applaud this use of genetic profiling of relatives to solve crimes. its simple sleuthwork, and plenty of innocent people come under suspicion all the time in criminal investigations that must be ruled out with basic detective work

Hey, people who live in low risk locations take those low risks seriously...

Yes, and so does the IPCC, read their statement, they admit, appologise and are working to correct authours not following their own procedure, ie: they failed to check the primary source referenced in the WWF report.

Good point, and I look forward to reading the next version.

Finally; science is never about trust, it's about understanding the underlying physical processes and the likely consequences.

True, true.....let me say it a different way.....the IPCC report WGII doesn't seem like an analysis of the results and consequences of global warming. It seems more like a list of everything that could possibly go wrong.

we do have high confidence levels that our emmission will serverly fuck with the biosphere and our civilization within the next century

I haven't seen this case made. Ocean levels may rise a few feet, but geological factors are more significant on any given coastline (see this for example and remember that tectonic plates move several times faster than the predicted ocean rise). The Navy might be worried about needing to move/maintain their bases, but they will need to deal with that anyway over that long a period.

The cost of not adding anymore CO2 to the atmosphere is so great; doing so would be a serious catastrophe. That would mean no more driving, no more CO2-producing power plants. Unless we create new technology there is really nothing we can do. I am in favor of promoting new technology, especially electric cars. In fact, there are so many potential benefits of electric cars, I would be happy if the US spent $50billion or even $100billion on creating a viable electric car.

Until then, because we are not willing to do what it would truly take to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we are going to see first-hand the results of global warming. Hopefully the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Actually, the SAT is a very good predicter of how well a student will do in college (not sure about the ACT). http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2008/10/by_peter_salins_one_of.html http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98373&page=2 http://collegeapps.about.com/b/2009/09/19/the-sats-ability-to-predict-college-success-revisited.htm I actually wasn't sure if it still held true, but every study I have ever heard of that compares either first year grades within the same school or college graduation rates has shown that a higher SAT score correlates with higher grades and a higher graduation rate.

Also, PETA funds the Earth Liberation Front, an ecoterrorist organization.

The Yankees spend LOTS of money and win on average every 4-5 years. The Mets spend slightly less money and have won 3 or 4 times since they joined the league in 1962. Not to say you're wrong... but the Mets throw LOTS of money down to drain to produce negligible results. I think you're trying to make the point that NASA doesn't have the budget to put up "Yankees" numbers in the "Championships Won" department.

Maybe you meant to compare NASA to the Pittsburgh Pirates who spend about 20% of what the elite teams do to field their 0.333 team?

The Yankees spend LOTS of money and win on average every 4-5 years. The Mets spend slightly less money and have won 3 or 4 times since they joined the league in 1962. Not to say you're wrong... but the Mets throw LOTS of money down to drain to produce negligible results. I think you're trying to make the point that NASA doesn't have the budget to put up "Yankees" numbers in the "Championships Won" department.

Maybe you meant to compare NASA to the Pittsburgh Pirates who spend about 20% of what the elite teams do to field their 0.333 team?

Back in 1995, Kagan said (widly reported .. and first link off google Vapid hollow)

When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce.

So it should be an interesting nomination

Here's the way regulation works. Private business tries something, people hate it. Customers can't get the companies to change their ways because all of the companies are doing it - there's no competitor to jump to. So now the government has to put a stop to it.

Write the bill and send it to your Congress critter.

It's quaint and charming when my friends tell me how writing a thoughtful letter to their elected representatives will accomplish something. Even intelligent people believe that.

Lobbyists know the system better than you or I ever will, they have contacts, but most of all they have money. They can contribute tens of millions of dollars to the Dem and Republican parties, and to individual candidates. That money can make the difference in paying for enough attack TV ads to bring a candidate over the top in a close race.

You, on the other hand, can send no more than a few letters, and if you're really charismatic you may be able to organize a dozen or a hundred of your friends to do the same. Meanwhile, you can't pay the millions of dollars for campaign costs which your elected official really needs.

There was a book that one a political science prize called "The Congressman," written by a former congressman turned political science professor, who said that the first priority for an elected official has to do is get re-elected. Otherwise they won't be an elected official any longer.

No matter how well-meaning, your congressman will either do whatever it takes to get re-elected, or he won't be a congressman. And it takes tens of millions of dollars.

Getting between a congressman and his millionaire contributors is like getting between a grizzly bear and her cub.

The example I understand best is health care reform.

According to the polls, the American public supported a single payer system (like other countries with better health care systems have) by over 50%, in multiple polls. They like Medicare and (by majorities) they wanted Medicare extended to people under 65.

During the Democratic primary, I saw a rundown of campaign contributions from the health care industry. Recalling from memory, it was:

Hillary Clinton $8.8 million

Barak Obama $8.4 million

Dennis Kucinich $40,000 (from the California Nurses Association).

Kucinich supported single payer.

As soon as Obama got into office, he broke his promise to support a single payer system. He came up with a compromise (public option), then a compromise of that compromise, and finally threw government-funded health care under the bus. The current plan is the same private insurance system, with subsidies for the private insurance industry to prevent it from collapsing immediately.

All of the touching letters to Obama didn't make any difference. He followed the interests of his financial contributors rather than the interests of the people who elected him. Now we're paying twice as much for health care as the next most expensive country, for care that isn't even always as good. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/wireStory?id=10987822 http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx

The best explanation I've seen for this was at Bill Moyer's Journal. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12182009/watch.html Moyers said that Obama never *wanted* a meaningful reform. He never *wanted* single payer. He *wanted* to cut a deal with the insurance industry.
 

Our US thuggery is fairly predictable. I'm sure the CIA or equivalent has already been given hit orders.

You've seen a few too many movies.

Before attempting to dismiss other's fears as being mere fantasty, do a little research:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-american-terrorist/story?id=9740491

This article demonstrates that not only do 'hit orders' exist, but they are not prohibited from using such orders against citizens who are constitutionally guaranteed to stand trial.

So while parent may have seen too many movies, you, dear friend, have seen too few congressional hearings.

See here for an example of infrared imaging devices being used to "invade privacy". Basically, cops use(ed?) these things to look for unusually hot attics or basements (presumably caused by glow lamps) and would then get a search warrant to look for drugs.

Probably worth noting: although I think the comparison between wifi and infrared is a poor one (people expect a certain degree of privacy on the infrared part of the spectrum, while anyone who expects privacy on unsecured wifi is (in my humble opinion...) being foolish), I actually disagree with the supreme court on this one. I don't have any real legal issue with police using infrared imaging without a warrant.

Whoooole 'nother debate here though. There was a slashdot article a while back about it that I didn't immediately find. You can check out that for more detailed conversation ;)

moving us closer to socialism and the end of The American Way of Life.

Yeah, I know! That would be so horrible!

Instead, you'd have socialism, where your ability to get a good education and a good job doesn't depend on how much money your parents have but how skilled you are at what you do. When you get sick, you get cured instead of gouged. When you buy a cell phone, you get serviced by well-regulated telephone companies---you don't get gouged*.

(* seriously---you're on the hook for 2 years?? I'm on the hook for 6 months, paying 10$/mo. for internet on my N900. My operator doesn't care whether I tether, use skype, or run my landline through asterisk on my laptop via the internet onto my cell; they just give me 1 gig / mo. and 0.10$/minute; and once I'm off the expensive contract, I'm back to getting 50 free minutes and 50 texts per month. That's *free*, zero charge).

I'm not really sure why it works, but Danes are the happiest people on earth (or were in 2007): http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1

You have to realize SF's Board of Supes is way into touchy feeley useless laws, it's easier than fixing their broken water mains, potholes, clogged storm drains, unreliable transit system, intractable homeless problem, and enormous budget deficit.

This law just requires sellers to post SAR levels where they can be easily evaluated. Verizon already posts SARs on the little price cards next to the phone. Whatever, SAR is a completely meaningless figure anyway.

It isn't nearly as nutty as the City of Sebastopol which refused to consider municipal WiFi, citing radiation concerns:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6082680

Violent football hooliganism is primarily an English rather than specifically a German tradition.

O Rly?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/117669.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,646723,00.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/news?slug=ap-serbia-fanviolence

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=406446&cc=5739

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1565414,00.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL1369951620070313

http://sfcu.com.au/smf111/index.php?topic=5427.175;wap2

Cut the "holier than thou" bullshit.

Not everywhere:

Man Wins $1.5M Over Profane Debt Collection Calls
Man Out For Repoman's Blood (Listen To Their Calls)

This guy is no different than Steve Bartman who made a mistake as a fan that could have been anybody. He was chastised, ridiculed and pretty much couldn't return to Wrigley Field to watch the Cubs ever again. One ESPN writer did hunt him down a few years later.

You must be in the NAACP:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7475737 :(

A woman recently won like 42 million in a jackpot and they refused to pay her saying it was a bug.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/colorado-42-mil-jackpot-winner-jack/story?id=10235836

A quick google shows that this happens all the time, whenever someone wins a large number its always blaimed on a bug, and for some magical reason the winners do not get paid.

The casino's are ripping winners off.

You didn't miss anything, GP did.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10367109

I'm not sure though if the Obama administration's proposed budget has made it through Congress yet

Especially if you ride a motorcycle. The cop might decide to put a bullet into your back for fun. And he will probably get off scott free. At least we got rid of one of the most notorious speed traps in Ohio this year.

This is somewhat old hat. Companies that depend on urban transportation efficiency for a profit (FedEx and UPS) have long ago implemented systems that recommend routes to drivers. UPS for example uses technology to help reduce/eliminate left turns (usually involve sitting at an intersection idling and waiting, wasting gas and time): http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/ups-driving-cost-savings-by-eliminating-left-hand-turns/2190 (2005 article). True it hasn't been done on such a scale or for specifically this exact purpose, but data mining this informational ore vein isn't exactly new.

Off topic, but another slightly more shocking example of just how the drive of money has helped corporations know everything about us: How about being able to predict your marriage and divorce percentage to 90% accuracy? Better yet, how about doing that based on _what you buy_? Visa's got you all covered: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/visa-predicts-divorce/story?id=10320638 ;)

Things like this make me wonder what knowledge about society these companies know about us, and aren't letting ourselves know, simply to help them turn a better profit.

Thinking about drug companies is a scary thought.

There is a strong divide between (very generally) Western and Asian cultures. In the West we tend to believe that talent and ability is innate, and that your success in life will be down to the use of your gifts. Contrarily, Asian cultures believe that success is directly proportional to the effort the person puts into it. The psychological evidence is they are essentially correct.

This idea is the same one behind the book NurtureShock. Watch how the parents from Hong Kong talk to their children versus the way American parents talk to theirs when it comes to ability and performance.

This over the ear video unit is being used by some San Jose, CA cops after they beat the living crap out of a Vietnamese foreign exchange student who is suing for 6 million dollars now.

Ok, if someone takes a physical object from you without your consent, that's theft. If they break into your house to do it, that's B&E + theft.

If you have an online account with "things" that are sellable/transferable out of it, is taking those "theft"? Obviously the B&E part is some form of computer trespassing, etc, but do the items exist in such a fashion to be considered "missing" if stolen?

I get they are no longer accessible from your account, but if they can only be viewed through "the web" do they really exist?

If I buy a physical book off amazon, I get a physical thing. If amazon goes the way of the dodo, I still have my book.

If I buy a virtual couch from VirtualCouchGuys.com and they go out of business, my, as well as everyone elses couch, goes bye bye. Just the same as a cell phone service/plan would go bye bye if the company simply folds and turns out the lights.

So wouldn't virtual goods be services then? It is a service to log in and see a blue pin striped couch more than it is an item. But what about the whole "theft" portion? How can you "steal" service? The only thing I can think of is akin to stealing bandwidth through WEP Wifi or cutting someones phone line and splicing yours into it or doing the same with cable.

You're not stealing a physical object, you're stealing a service. I guess that's the only rational way to go after "virtual furniture" thieves. But, now, if I steal cable, can the cops arrest me? Apparently, yes. The actual charge appears to be "unauthorized use of computer, cable, or telecommunications property" which seems to fit with virtual items as well (correct me if I'm wrong).

Now, I know this is in Finland, but it seems it would apply here in the States too.

Only those things that are probable. No real scientist would make the claim you are making here now.

No science can disprove things, even those that are improbable. My desk will turn into a frog in two seconds. That's highly improbable and evidently false by it's failure to do such things. This is one of those things like claiming there was a global flood 4,000 years ago.

Religion says there was a global flood some 4,000 years ago.

You need to learn a thing or two about commanding the English language before you engage in this kind of crap.

You think that that statement is somehow misstated? It's a pretty basic metonymy. Am I to really be chided for the White House being unable to talk when I say that the White House said something?

Religion says there was a global flood.
Science says that there was not.

Some religionists and religious texts make the claim...
Some scientists make the claim...

I assumed my audience would understand this as it is meant, "there is a religious claim". A claim made by religious sources or people. Which is to say I assumed my audience would have a grasp of English.

First, which religion to begin with? You can't say "Religion says X" when we know for a fact that multiple religions do not abide by X.

Whichever religion makes the claim! When I say that science says the universe is expanding demanding to know which science and which scientists is rather silly. I'm not tacitly suggesting that geologists are busy making this claim. I'm using the word "Science" as a representation of something some scientists say with some scientific authority. It's metonymy, not poor English.

So you have be specific about which religion you are talking about.

No I don't. I'm talking about those that make the claim. When religion makes claim X, science makes claim ~X for this given X. Thus we can suggest there is some contradiction and some basis for claiming there is some conflict.

You are referring to a passage in the old testament, namely the Genesis.

I'm referring to a number of passages in Genesis. I think chapters 6-8 or so.

And this happens to a passage shared by many people in the Levant and Middle East, all the way back to the Sumerians.

The story itself is largely taken from the older Assyrian story of the Epic of Gilgamesh which itself predates the typical given date for the flood.

Now, and if had an understanding of religion, ancient literature and social anthropology (which you should if you ever want to engage in this type of discussions without talking out of your ass), you'll know that most major Christian religions teach that this passage should never be taking literally.

I'm actually quite well versed in most all of those areas of study and there is a very large segment of the US population that takes the Bible to be literally true. In fact, it's a majority.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/us/views_of_bible_poll_040216.html

A 2004 poll by ABC News found that 61% of people believe the story of the Ark is literally true. That it actually happened. Claiming that it's a minority opinion of "a few retarded fringe creationists" is a bit silly when on average if I pick a random person on the street there's a better than half chance that they accept that Noah's Ark story really happened.

This is actually written as foot notes in the passages of many bibles.

Some like the NIV point out things like the forged NT letters, Noah's Ark, or that Exodus never happened and offer some general apologetics in places. This doesn't stop people from believing that they are literally true as the majority of people in the US do seem to believe it

There is no God. I feel I can say that here, but if I said that where I work, my career would be doomed. People who believe in God would trust anyone from any other religion over an atheist. source: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1

The idea of a "God" was an invention for week minded people to have something greater than themselves to believe in AND for other people to claim a nearly-direct connection to this entity beyond what everyone else has as a way of control.

How many atheists are known to have started religious wars and tried convert entire countries or kill them if they wouldn't convert?

I'm not saying that religion is bad, just that it is bad for lots of people of different religions.

No, Hurley believed he was cursed.

You're confusing the opinion of a character with explicit exposition from a narrator. The opinions of one character in a show do not necessary equate to gospel for that show.

Did the show creators ever say Hurley was in fact cursed?

Did anyone who knew absolutely anything for a fact say they knew he was cursed?

The show in many ways was a larger allegory for science vs faith, and free will vs destiny. Part of that allegory was often demonstrating amazing coincidences.

The viewer was asked them to decide how they wanted to perceive them. You can decide to believe they are part of destiny and a larger scheme, or merely coincidences.

The numbers were picked for a code. Those numbers were repeated. Someone hear the repeated transmission, and Hurley head it from that guy. He played the lottery with those numbers.

Actual real life lottery coincidences happen all the time.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=97845&page=1

I've seen the same set of numbers win two days in a row for instance.

Jacob assigned numbers to a lot of people on his wheel in the lighthouse, and respectively his cave scribblings. Most of those got scratched out. It doesn't seem that even Jacob knew who the final candidates would be. The numbers pop up here. Why?

Again, you get to decide if it was destiny or coincidence.

Rather recently my wife and I had a discussion about this very thing. I think we are past the point where a really smart and motivated person can sit down, think for awhile, buy a few cheap pieces of equipment, and come away with a tremendous scientific achievement. This day in age there are soooo many scientists with equipment and resources that a garage scientist cannot even dream of having.

Oddly, one that was mentioned the he might not want to get into (Astronomy) is one that he might have the best chance of making a new discovery. The universe is a large place. What wasn't there yesterday may be there today. These discoveries might not change the world, but there is a chance to be the first to find something. Here is an article talking of some discoveries by amateurs. I am sure there are more.

I think you pretty much give the best answer. Build/experiment with crap because you enjoy it. Actually DOING science, provided you aren't doing something that may harm yourself or others, is a good thing. Pick something of interest to you and run with it. If you find something that changes the world, great! If not it is likely that it will give you an outlet to enjoy yourself, stimulate your intellect, and feel a sense of accomplishment.

But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard?

No, just the safety standards they're supposed to be held to, which they felt they should not be required to have. If you fight tooth and nail against requiring safeguards, I will blame you when your lack of those safeguards cause globally catastrophic problems.

Bollywood creates 800 movies a year in India, a place the US is exceptionally upset at for it's lax IP laws, that by all politicians should not have nearly the thriving multimedia industry it does.

Hollywood creates about 600 (603 in 2007).

Given the local differences, it's amazing that they make 10% of the revenue that Hollywood does, while investing only $500K per movie (from the previous PBS report, as contrasted with the average of $100 million for a Hollywood movie.

True, I've always thought this guy was a steaming ball of yum. Or the man with the eyebrows that just don't stop, or you can always count on this guy for a great expression.

Seriously, if you see them on TV, the soft lighting and makeup does wonders, but in real life........lets hope they don't find a jury.

It bothers you because the RIAA/MPAA is trying to have their cake and eat it too. When it comes to copying and distribution, they want their products to be treated as a license. Even though you bought it, you're limited in how you can use it (no public performances, don't want you making backup copies, costs more for copies which are rented out, etc). But when it comes to replacements and upgrades, they want their products to be treated as physical media. "New version on better media comes out? Sorry, you didn't buy a license, you bought a copy, so you need to buy a new copy." "You accidentally scratched your DVD and it won't play anymore? Sorry, you need to buy a new one."

The software industry "gets it." They treat software as a license, period. If they come out with a new, better version, they rationalize that you've already purchased a license for most of the features in the new versions, and the new features represent just an incremental upgrade. So they charge you less to buy the upgrade version. If you lose your media, you can just mail/fax them proof that you've bought it and they'll send you replacement media for a small fee.* Same goes for other industries where you own the physical product. Once you bought it, they don't care if you dismantle it, modify it, use it for unintended purposes, resell it. The worst they'll do is void your warranty.

But the MPAA/RIAA wants to have it both ways. Whenever it'll be favorable to them (at the expense of the consumer), they say you bought a copy. And whenever it'll be favorable to them (again at the expense of the consumer), they say you bought a license. That's why it bothers you, that's why the author in the linked story is conflicted. Because the MPAA/RIAA's stance is logically self-contradictory. *(Disney is the one exception I've been able to find. They will replace scratched DVDs, probably because so many kids destroy them that parents would file a class action suit if Disney didn't do this.)

Repaid it with other borrowed/bailout money.

You really have to go beyond the headlines and look at the picky details

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/general-motors-commercial-complaint-bailout-ad-filed-ftc/story?id=10554206

http://cei.org/articles/2010/05/09/gm-deliberately-tried-deceive-americans-letter-editor

bah... I used to work for GM, and was in the UAW, and I *quit*. It was disgusting. Management sucks, those clueless investors suck (can't control their management) and the union sucks, buncha arrogant rednecks. For every one good employee with a clue, they have 50 who couldn't find their ass with a GPS and a map. They are the posterboy corporation that got so big they started believing their own BS. They should have been allowed to crash and burn same as those ripoff derivatives spewing casino banks.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Starting this year, insurance companies would be barred from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions. Effective when the bill is signed, they will also be prevented from placing lifetime caps on policies, or from dropping a patient's insurance if he or she gets sick.

In the next three months, "high risk pools" will be established for those who who have pre-existing conditions, to provide safeguards until all the provisions are fully enacted.

Also this year, insurance companies would be required to cover preventive services, which includes such medical procedures as vaccines that are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

By 2014, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage to adult patients with pre-existing medical conditions or charging them more because of these conditions.

In a move that has made many college students and young Americans happy, the health care bill allows parents to keep their children on their insurance plan until the age of 26. That provision takes effect this year.

- ABC World News

Well, Italy didn't do much where a massive engineering firm created a dam that failed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam

"Tort Reform" has capped the liability for physicians in many states - despite criminals like Michael Swango, M.D. poisoning patients and co-workers. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96548&page=1

The number of crooked lawyers (my own profession) is burgeoning and many are directly involved in the economic meltdown. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/21/92637/goldmans-connections-to-white.html

Time to take a had line approach to a class of criminal that would actually BE deterred if they knew that they would certainly be executed. Hell, make the next of kin push the button. Add a real fear of retaliation from a disgruntled spouse and those "masters of the universe" would dot every "i" and cross every "t."

They are not alone...

The BBC has this problem.

As does CNN.

Even Engadget has their finger on this pulse...

And the odd TV station.

And just plain odd sites.

The U.S. Army got in on this one.

And Rutgers University chimed in. Well, someone at Rutgers.

If your point was that Fox News got snookered, well, they are in good company. If your point was that this is jsut another example of Fox News incompetence, well, you can use the same brush to tar CNN and the BBC. Though what the threee have in common escapes me. Oh, wait, I know.

They all purport to deliver the truth.

Right.

Nice try though. Keep swinging. In baseball, succeeding once in 4 at bats will get you a decent job. In politics and Slashdot, you need much less. Way much less.

But they don't have to do that, so how is this any justification?

Well, nor do the pro-gov forces have to fight either. Note however that the western forces are in Afghanistan by choice, while the anti-gov forces have little choice but to stay there.

No offense but every poll I've seen has a majority of Afghan citizens supporting the US presence.

No offence, but the phrase "Afghan citizens" of itself makes me wonder if you know how fragmented Afghanistan is. Yes, there are recent polls showing Afghans are surprisingly happy (the ABC/BBC/ARD sponsored ACSOR poll). However:

- It aggregates the entire country (I can't find per-region breakouts), we know there are several parts of Afghanistan which have been peaceful, or which have seen much less violence in the last year (largely due to Western forces ceasing air strikes and drawing down other operations!)

- It was unable to sample several areas (10%) due to security concerns. These are the areas *most* likely to be anti-government!

Have a read of the ABC note on sampling methodology and its overview of the result - this overview hints somewhat at diverging views in different parts of Afghanistan.

The poll to me smells a bit. The fact I can't find per-region break-downs of the data is somewhat strange. The fact the poll also shows **80%** support for Karzai is also somewhat strange. I'm not quite sure I'd want to put much faith in this poll, but I guess you'd say I don't want to have faith in it.

But they don't have to do that, so how is this any justification?

Well, nor do the pro-gov forces have to fight either. Note however that the western forces are in Afghanistan by choice, while the anti-gov forces have little choice but to stay there.

No offense but every poll I've seen has a majority of Afghan citizens supporting the US presence.

No offence, but the phrase "Afghan citizens" of itself makes me wonder if you know how fragmented Afghanistan is. Yes, there are recent polls showing Afghans are surprisingly happy (the ABC/BBC/ARD sponsored ACSOR poll). However:

- It aggregates the entire country (I can't find per-region breakouts), we know there are several parts of Afghanistan which have been peaceful, or which have seen much less violence in the last year (largely due to Western forces ceasing air strikes and drawing down other operations!)

- It was unable to sample several areas (10%) due to security concerns. These are the areas *most* likely to be anti-government!

Have a read of the ABC note on sampling methodology and its overview of the result - this overview hints somewhat at diverging views in different parts of Afghanistan.

The poll to me smells a bit. The fact I can't find per-region break-downs of the data is somewhat strange. The fact the poll also shows **80%** support for Karzai is also somewhat strange. I'm not quite sure I'd want to put much faith in this poll, but I guess you'd say I don't want to have faith in it.

Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That's a real issue. And while I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who've been wrongfully harmed, I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That's how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care.

but that doesn't support the statement by the GP. Or from this interview

Well, let's take an example. And I -- they may be represented here, I wasn't sure, but the Mayo Clinic, everybody has heard of it. It has got some of the best quality care in the world. People fly from all over the world to Rochester, Minnesota, in order to get outstanding care. It turns out that Mayo Clinic oftentimes provides care that is as much as one-third less expensive than the average that's provided or -- or some other health care systems that aren't doing as good of a job. Now, why is that? Well, part of it is that they have set up teams that work together so that, if you go first to your primary care physician and they order a test, you don't then have to duplicate having two more tests with other specialists, because they were in the room when you first met with that primary care physician. They know how to manage chronic diseases in an effective way so that we have people who are getting regular checkups, if they're trying to manage diabetes, as opposed to us paying for a $30,000 foot amputation because we didn't manage the disease properly. So they are doing all kinds of smart things that we could easily duplicate across the system, but we don't. And our job in this -- in this summer and this fall, in which I think everybody understands we've got to move in a different direction, is to identify the best ways to achieve the best possible care in a way that controls costs and is affordable for the American economy long term.

Based on this, I'd say that Obama is right and the GP is full of crap.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Wisconsin , in Wisconsin, if two people between the age of 16 and 18 have sex, then it's a felony if they're not married. The laws are pretty convoluted, but I'd say that in most states, it'd be a felony for a freshman and a junior to have sex. See http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1693362&page=1 . Stories come out like that one every couple months, I could produce a bunch more on request. (Funny enough, it turned out that oral sex was illegal in Georgia between consenting adults.

To throw another example out there, sodomy was illegal in Texas until 2003. And not in a cutesy "You won't believe these crazy laws on the books" sense. Police actively went around breaking into Gay people's homes arresting them until a decade ago. Would you call gay people in Texas, pre-2003, criminals?

" No one is protesting in the streets about arresting minors in possession of alcohol, are they?"

Sure, because the police don't make any effort to enforce it. 75% of high-school students report having drunk a non-trivial amount of alcohol. If the Police started arresting anywhere near that amount, there would be a tremendous amount of protest. ( http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/overview2005.pdf )

"A criminal is someone who has committed a crime."

Sure, there's a sense in which that's true. But then, nearly everybody is a criminal. It is a crime to drink alcohol as a minor, yet most people do it. By this definition, I'm a criminal, our last 3 presidents were criminals, and I'm willing to bet quite a bit of money that you're one too.

And if all of us are criminals, then frankly, the word loses any negative connotation. That's why, in standard English usage, we don't actually use the word criminal for someone who has committed any crime.

I've never owned a gun, but I did do that once. Did every shot hit the bullseye? Nope. Did every shot land within 3 inches of the centre of the target's chest? Yep.

How close to the target were you on your little trip? Think it's a little closer than the most likely distance you would be firing on?

I'm sure that shooting accurately requires lots of practise. I'm also sure that shooting accurately enough to grievously injure someone requires no practise at all.

A shooting occurred at my old high school. The guy fired four shots with a .44 caliber handgun at close range, yet two years later she's fully recovered. She did have a bit of luck due to a metal plate in her shoulder, but just being close and having a gun doesn't make it effective.

In your ideal-driven world, every rule written in a book precisely maps to the real-world implementation of it, huh? Terry stops are never abused, right? cough http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=7382184 cough

And of course, police always listen to the letter of the law, right? cough http://www.dnainfo.com/20100427/manhattan/new-york-city-fined-for-enforcing-unconstitutional-loitering-laws cough

Get real man.

For those that don't follow graffiti news, Banksy articles are appearing in media all over the world right now as his pieces (or imitations of the original, Blek le Rat , and Banksy style) appear as promotion for his movie Exit Through The Gift Shop

Banksy pieces showing up in San Francisco
Banksy in Seattle
Banksy feud with King Robbo

It's very emotional," said Maurice DuBois who has been briefing search teams and offering support to the King family. "It brings us right back to the first week Amber went missing, all the chaos and fear.

Yeah, duh. Emotional, but not at all logical to exploit abuse or loss for political gain and dedicate exorbitant resources, especially during a budget crisis, to statistically insignificant crimes. Piracy and CP will be convenient reasons to screw everybody over as long as enough tools(suburban housewives etc.) can be manipulated emotionally by shit-mouthed political climbers.

"because the screeners KNOW that they've never pulled a guilty person out of line."

This story and of course this one also, and this one would indicate that at least some people that could legitimately be considered a threat were in fact detained.

Not a stellar record, perhaps, but not failure. And not a record of no actual denials of credible suspects. Imperfect? Yup. Better than nothing? Yup.

False positives are inevitable if we are just using names. I suspect that there will be a change in the system, though in most cases it is the nature of counter-terrorism that all you get is a name. Images might compromise sources, and fingerprints are usually not going to be available.

There is quite a bit of advice on how to get off of a no-fly list. One way NOT to get removed, it would seem, is to be elected to the U.S. Senate... Or get hired as an Air Marshal. feh.

Oh, and it isn’t at all unprecedented.

A 17-year-old boy in western New York has been charged with a misdemeanor after he put ketchup on his arms and faked his suicide on a live video Web site, police said.

Troopers got several calls Tuesday night about a young man broadcasting a suicide attempt over the Internet, state police said. The calls came from as far away as Israel, where the Web site is hosted, said Capt. Steven Nitrelli.

Police traced the computer address to a home in the Buffalo suburb of Clarence. The teen admitted the hoax and insisted it was just a joke, Nitrelli said.

The teen was charged with one third-degree count of falsely reporting an incident. He is to return to town court Oct. 29.

Same charge: Third-degree falsely reporting an incident.

Passenger Nbaye Beye said the man, who appeared to be in his late 20s, appeared nervous when approached by a U.S. agent but got off the plane quietly.

Really, someone who was announced by the captain of the flight, to everyone onboard, that he was a "serious security risk", got nervous when approached by what could be assumed to be an armed federal agent???

Yeah. Because I NEVER get nervous after being called a serious security risk and being approached by a federal officer...

<facepalm>

This guy's lucky none of the passengers decided to go vigilante on him.

That's the trade-off of living in a modern civilization: you agree to give up your right to randomly hunt down whoever you think deserves it, in return for being assured that nobody else can randomly hunt you down to satisfy a grudge, either.

Sometimes that's just not a fair trade off. There are people who out there who are getting away with murder. The law is powerless to do anything. Killing a few of them would do a lot more good than bad.

That depends on who these people murdered and why.

I don't believe all murders are equally wrong because not all lives are of equal value.

That's the trade-off of living in a modern civilization: you agree to give up your right to randomly hunt down whoever you think deserves it, in return for being assured that nobody else can randomly hunt you down to satisfy a grudge, either.

Sometimes that's just not a fair trade off. There are people who out there who are getting away with murder. The law is powerless to do anything. Killing a few of them would do a lot more good than bad.

Looks like they actually are looking at possible criminal charges. The sad part? It's the second time that company would have been prosecuted.

Source: ABC News