Slashdot Mirror

I was skeptical about the claim that PETA euthanizes so many animals, but studies say it's true, and may even understate the situation.

The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.

This is not ethical treatment of animals. There's no "nuance" here. Putting the vast majority of healthy pets to death rather than trying to find homes for them is cruel and highly unusual.

Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries. The animals are just raw material to be exploited, then tossed in a dumpster

I'm not a fan of PETA by any stretch but I can't criticize them for this.

I'm sure PETA would adopt out all of the animals they were given if there were enough people willing to adopt them. But the fact is there simply aren't that many people looking for pets, and the people who are looking generally don't want the kinds of pets who are given up for adoption.

So given there's no one to adopt those animals what do you propose they do with them? Pets require a lot of food and care, you basically have a choice between storing them in conditions that are slightly expensive and really horrific, really expensive and somewhat pleasant, or cheaply euthanizing them. Given the fact that $35 million is completely insufficient to humanely care for that many animals what would you suggest they do instead?

I was skeptical about the claim that PETA euthanizes so many animals, but studies say it's true, and may even understate the situation.

The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.

This is not ethical treatment of animals. There's no "nuance" here. Putting the vast majority of healthy pets to death rather than trying to find homes for them is cruel and highly unusual.

Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries. The animals are just raw material to be exploited, then tossed in a dumpster

I'm not a fan of PETA by any stretch but I can't criticize them for this.

I'm sure PETA would adopt out all of the animals they were given if there were enough people willing to adopt them. But the fact is there simply aren't that many people looking for pets, and the people who are looking generally don't want the kinds of pets who are given up for adoption.

So given there's no one to adopt those animals what do you propose they do with them? Pets require a lot of food and care, you basically have a choice between storing them in conditions that are slightly expensive and really horrific, really expensive and somewhat pleasant, or cheaply euthanizing them. Given the fact that $35 million is completely insufficient to humanely care for that many animals what would you suggest they do instead?

I was skeptical about the claim that PETA euthanizes so many animals, but studies say it's true, and may even understate the situation.

The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.

This is not ethical treatment of animals. There's no "nuance" here. Putting the vast majority of healthy pets to death rather than trying to find homes for them is cruel and highly unusual.

Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries. The animals are just raw material to be exploited, then tossed in a dumpster

I was skeptical about the claim that PETA euthanizes so many animals, but studies say it's true, and may even understate the situation.

The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.

This is not ethical treatment of animals. There's no "nuance" here. Putting the vast majority of healthy pets to death rather than trying to find homes for them is cruel and highly unusual.

Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries. The animals are just raw material to be exploited, then tossed in a dumpster

I remember hearing that couples who lived together before they got married were more likely to get divorced. That never made sense to me, but new research suggest that it's actually not true:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

FWIW, my wife and I have been married for ten years and we didn't live together before then.

OK. Let's look at the articles that you linked me. The CCPOA (the California Guard's Union) has nothing to do with private prisons (not private prisons). CCPOA is a very powerful union, and they are guards of state run prisons. CCPOA is against the concept of private prisons (they state in the link that they "Successfully defended the basic incarceration function from privatization (contracting out)"). These are public employees doing what you're accusing private organizations of doing! It's no surprise that a powerful state correctional officer union doesn't like private prisons, the private prisons are a threat to the correctional officers' jobs.

In the third link, it discusses contracts where CCA requires states to have minimal occupancy rates or pay rebates. I can see how that might be objectionable, but that is not an example of using lobbyists to campaign stronger sentencing. The agreements essentially say: "We've invested dollars for infrastructure to build this prison under agreement with you guys. If we're going to continue to operate this facility, you need to fill our facility to x percent capacity". If private prison firms are getting paid at a capitated rate, there is no money in operating an empty prison...just like flying a plane with empty seats will lose an airline money. The only article of substance in your post basically says "see, those evil bastards are trying to make money from prisons!' Well duh, of course they are. That does not, in any way, point to their lobbyists pressuring lawmakers for harder sentencing. Further, none of these states are entirely privatized, believe me - the states don't need to incarcerate more people to fill prisons. California, in particular, really doesn't need more inmates - they were among the first to enact (what I believe are unreasonable) 3-strikes laws (which existed before private prisons).

Look, I have already said that it is in their best interests that incarceration rates are high. CCA said it themselves in the (mandated by law) risk profile of their SEC filing ("The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction ..."). But I've worked for a mental health company who had to put into our risk profile filing that if all mental illness were somehow cured tomorrow, the demand for our service would be adversely affected. It does not, in any way, suggest that this company would fight against a cure for mental health, if it existed.

You also complain that they exist solely because of lobbying. What public-private partnership does not exist (in-part) because of lobbying? Does that make the entire privatized government service industry shady, or just private prisons? Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed, SpaceX, Boeing...these all helped America build our space program with help from lobbying (among other things). I am not suggesting that the space program is the same as private prisons, or even remotely in the same ball ballpark, but these are private agencies who served the government with serious help from lobbying efforts, on the same level as companies like CCA.

I've said a number of times, I understand how higher incarceration rates are in the best interest of private prisons. I also understand how the idea of private prisons can be objectionable to many. However, my post effectively asked a simple question: Is there actual evidence to demonstrate that the private prison is actively lobbying to increase prison sentencing? Your 5 second trip to google did not provide any answers to the question that was implicitly asked. You provided links to more of the same conjecture. Conjecture does not equal evidence.

I also understand why many have a problem with private prisons on a fundamental ideo

intentionally risking the infection of people in order to save your own ass is monumentally stupid. But people tend to act in ways of self preservation when the issue is pressed and you will see things like this often. It's no different than a criminal who rats on his buddies for a lesser term in prison or the conscripted soldier who flees to another country to avoid the conscription.

So aspirin, Pepto bismol, and hydrocodone or Vicodin will cover up most early symptoms of Ebola. I guess the issue is will the news coverage be such in ways that people in these infected countries think they can be cured by going to other countries. If so, expect a raid and looting on hospital clinics and people thinking their lives will be saved if they can only get to another country.

And this is not even touching the terrorism aspect of things. Imagine someone intentionally doing this knowing that their eventual symptoms will be discovered after it is already too late. Imagine if they worked at a food stall at a busy mall or subway or right outside the government offices or court rooms or something.

Printed books are dying.

Never mind that printed books outsold ebooks in the first half of 2014.

If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

That's ridiculous, the same sort of mentality that says "you shouldn't mind our searching your home if you have nothing to hide."

Alan Grayson supports it too, so it seems like travel bans have bipartisan support: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... The main complaint from the CDC and others against bans would be that it would stop aid workers from getting to the region. That can be addressed by allowing medical workers and other people from governments & NGOs that are going there to help. Another step would be to stop issuing and terminate existing visitor visas for people from those countries if they haven't entered the US, UK, or whatever country issued the visa. That would stop people from legally traveling to another country that isn't on the restricted list and then go on to their expected destination. Sure, people could find ways around it, which also highlights the need for a better means of screening & quarantining passengers. IMHO, the "it's not 100% effective, so let's not even try" mantra is just crazy. It would be like a doctor, nurse, or some other medical personnel saying "condoms aren't 100% effective, so don't bother putting one on. Come back and see us if you think you've caught something".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

On a related note, it's been shown again and again that you can't really do more than one higher-level brain task at once. So even the people that are very very good at switching rapidly between operating a cell phone and driving are still not really doing both at the same time.

So they aren't actually performing the task of driving while they are preoccupied with their cell phone. They may as well be asleep during those periods.

"We conclude that the high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits, not just intelligence."

Did they factor in the socio-economic background of the parents, as in children of rich-folk get better education than children of poor-parents, and therefore do better, and are expected to do better, in exams. While the children of poor-parents are ignored and expected to drop-out at fifteen, in short, it's a difference in lifestyle.

This Is Why Poor People's Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense"

Communism and dictatorship orthogonal to each other. One can exist without the other.

Dictatorship can exist without Communism, yes — Sulla was one example, Pinochet was another. Communism, on the other hand, can not exist without dictatorship — its economic ineptitude is such, that people revolt very quickly unless the Communists manage to gain dictatorial power.

communism was never reached, never even tried for, in the authoritarian socialist republics. Socialism by itself is thriving and well in Europe in Sweden, Danmark, Finland, France, and others

Your attempts to distinguish between Socialism and Communism are silly — Socialism is nothing but "Communism-lite". Says so in "Das Kapital"...

Those are the countries with some of the highest standards of living.

No, they aren't — their apartments and cars are smaller, and everything (that is not subsidized) is more expensive. And what good they do have, is despite their Socialism, not thanks to it.

Hugo Chavez was not a dictator

Well, maybe, there are subtle differences between "president for life" and "dictator", but I'm not aware of it.

He also left the country [Venezuela -mi] in better state than he found it for its people

And what sources can you cite to support this claim? Maybe, it is the quadrupling of the murder rate in the country, which makes it better "for its people"? Or its "wonderful" GDP growth (despite the spiking demand for oil)?

And you just did [caused a coup and installed a dictator -mi] it in Ukraine last year.

Wow... Am I talking to Joe Biden? Please, cite the sources proving both: a) the US caused a coup in Ukraine last year; b) the current President of Ukraine is a dictator.

The only period of sustained economic growth in your country? The economic and political hegemony?

I asked you, what did the US grab — as you alleged we did. The hegemony was simply due to the fact, we weren't destroyed by the bombings — thanks to geography, not any premeditated evil plan... Our laissez-faire Capitalism may have had something to do with our economic power too.

Cared for defeating Hitler and the Nazis? Stopping the atrocities?

Nothing was known by the outside world about Hitler's atrocities until circa 1943 — when Polish intelligence managed to smuggle some proofs from their (occupied) country. Earlier rumors were dismissed as anti-German propaganda. One of us, indeed, ignorant of history...

Of course, by 1943 we already deeply involved — helping our allies both economically and militarily — because we did (and do) care for these values even if we didn't know the worst of it, when we started.

When I make arguments, list couple articles on wikipedia

Listing a couple of articles does not make an argument. You can cite such articles to support an argument, but you didn't... Your arguments — and I am using the term loosely — were quite apart from the links you gave.

First go and learn history and politics

Shkolota, my knowledge of history and politics far exceeds yours — and even that of your Kremlin handlers :-)

It must be. That nice poltician in Kentucky said so. He said:

As you [Energy & Environment Cabinet official] sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.

And of course it's a total concidence that he happens to own a company called Mohawk Energy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

From today's headlines: Fuck, cops kill a sleeping 7-year-old girl during a botched raid and Judge Cynthia Gray Hathaway dismisses manslaughter charges against the triggerman.

Another no-knock warrant served after midnight, cops all SWATted up, flashbangs a-flying'. Sure sounds fun.

Yes but there still has to be the right to defend yourself. If you take away the means by which I can pay lawyers, my funds, then I can't get the best legal representation. Therefore the prosecution is already convicting you before the trial even commences. This was already addressed by SCOTUS earlier this year and it's sad that it went the way it did. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and I could see seizing them after trial but not before or at least the judge allowing the guy to pay for his defense. In this case the judge already allowed the bitcoins to be auctioned but there's the sense here of convicting before any adjudication has actually been done. That really needs to be fixed in the legal system.

Just because most women that play video games are ugly

[citation required]

Way to go, insulting your natural allies (women who play games).

58% of minecraft players are women. Are they mostly ugly? Somehow I doubt it.

As I originally wrote, the definition of "gamers" has to be changed. The old view that all gamers are fat nerdy males needs to be abandoned. Either update the definition to match today's reality, or come up with a new word to describe people who play video games that is more inclusive.

It's that YOU women are invading our hobby

All I'm saying is make things more realistic. We already have a world where girls have poor body images because they see photoshopped images of women on magazine covers that are literally impossibly thin unless you're anorexic. Even Barbie is getting some more realistic competition because the old one had a ridiculously impossible physique, so bad she wouldn't have been able to stand.

Really, what criminal is going to say: "Okay Google, set a reminder for 6pm Thursday to abduct Susie from the Playground on the corner of 5th and Lexington"?

Well, there's this guy. And there's this guy. And this guy. But aside from that I'm sure that every other criminal is smart enough not to write anything down where it could easily be picked up by investigators.

It would be more convincing if you had cases where the police found something on someones phone that prevented a crime, vs. the criminal to be announcing to the world on a public forum that he was about to commit a crime.

Really, what criminal is going to say: "Okay Google, set a reminder for 6pm Thursday to abduct Susie from the Playground on the corner of 5th and Lexington"?

Well, there's this guy. And there's this guy. And this guy. But aside from that I'm sure that every other criminal is smart enough not to write anything down where it could easily be picked up by investigators.

And how would having the phone have prevented any of this? All three of these are incidents where the guy told, in a public forum, exactly what he planned on doing. And in the case of the selfie, that was while he was doing it. Newsflash: Advertising that you are committing/planning on committing a crime gets the attention of the police. Stopping the guy and searching his phone would have given the police NOTHING more then what any concerned citizen would have already told them.

Really, what criminal is going to say: "Okay Google, set a reminder for 6pm Thursday to abduct Susie from the Playground on the corner of 5th and Lexington"?

Well, there's this guy. And there's this guy. And this guy. But aside from that I'm sure that every other criminal is smart enough not to write anything down where it could easily be picked up by investigators.

> How is the government not concerned about corporate espionage, terrorism, and other criminal activity, you'd think from a security standpoint, they would want encryption to be legit.

Because such measures limits the capacity of the government to conduct corporate espionage, terrorism, and other criminal activity?

Exactly. Don't forget the war on toiletries in baggage. Or how something is OK when the US Federal Govt does it, for example, the way waterboarding is called torture only when done by other governments.

So, not long ago, America's major newspapers basically decided that waterboarding was somehow okay. American waterboarding, that is! In the same time frame, the same newspapers made it clear that if any other country practiced waterboarding, it was torture.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

This sort of "Laugh at China" story is designed to make the US look smart, and the rest of the world stupid and to help people miss how stupid our own government is being. But if you look around, you'll find some great ways to spend those student loans:

"Purdue University Graduate Certificate Program in Veterinary Homeland Security"
http://vet.purdue.edu/biosecur...

Maybe graduates can work for the tax black hole that is Homeland Security: http://www.dhs.gov/food-agricu...
http://www.dhs.gov/reference-n...

"Scientists are now armed with the most accurate gravity model ever produced."

Unfortunately "global warming" has become politicized to the extent that it's really hard to follow the science and technology being discussed. For me the original article is about measurement and our ability to detect minute changes in gravity. There is no "global threat" from the ebbs of gravity. But the scientists behind the satellite gravity monitoring probably figured that introducing the findings with "reveals" and relating the tools to "climate" would find a "hook" in the global warming debate. Not dismissing the debate, and this new ability to measure the ebbs and flows of gravity may well tell us something about "global warming". We just don't know what that would be yet, but the tool gets pulled into the shouting match.

Science is like "South Park". Science is not your Political Ally, no matter what you believe. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... South Park

1. I have seen no evidence that Apple has increased the speed of its patching of security vulnerabilities since the study was conducted (this latest patch delay being just one example). Do you have any evidence that Apple has changed?

2. Red Hat is the best-supported corporate Desktop Linux distro, so it makes since to use them as a base of comparison as opposed to something more consumer-oriented like Ubuntu.

3. Multiple other studies have show that Apple lags behind in fixing security flaws.[1] [2]

Do you have any actual quantitative data to present to provide some context or counterpoint to the data I have presented, because speculation and cherry-picking is not really a valid criticism. The truth is in the numbers.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

[2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/secu...

We do have debtor's prisons.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Undercover of helping immigrant agricultural workers who have long needed a break in America, the American technology sector - lead by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg - has seen fit to heavily lobby Congress to increase H1-B and other worker visa permits, vastly increasing H1-B visas at a time when very good research shows that there is no shortage of tech workers in America. Zuckerberg has so far succeeded, in the Senate. What is motivating the claim for more H1-B visas?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

previously

One of the most respected technology pundits in Silicon Valley has this to say about the H1-B worker problem and Two H1-B's walk into a Bar: More on the H1-B visa problem

One of many examples of what goes on behind closed doors: an immigration attorney and his consultants teaching corporations how to manipulate foreign-worker immigration law to replace qualified American workers.

H1-B's are only the tip of the iceberg; there are more than 20 categories of foreign worker visas.

Professor Norman Matloff's extremely well documented studies on the H1-B and foreign worker visa problem. Matloff claims that Hi-B abuse has cost Americans $10Trillion dollars, since 1975. Inc. Magazine weights in Professor Matloff's Webpage

Mother Jones weighs in:How H1-B visa abuse is hurting American tech workers

Marc Zuckerberg and other wealthy tech scions - including large immigration law firms and corporation who profit from importing H1-B's continue to perpetuate this trend

How H1-B malpractice hurts the American economy

Most of the new crop of H1-Bs is coming from one of the most corrupt university systems in the world.

Indian government officials are not happy that the universities that they collude with might have some limitations placed on the abuses that have enabled them to "sell" their product to the American IT sector.

How the new immigration bill could ignite a trade war with India

How to underpay an H1-B worker

The Obama Admin has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all former administrations combined AFAIK. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/obama-whistleblower-prosecutions-press_n_3091137.html

If only there was some sort of cultural moment dedicated to changing the perception and social role of women. We could call it "feminism".

I think you might have a branding problem with that name. It's sometimes been associated with anti-intellectual post-modern garbage (such as this), transphobia (such as this), and various bits of misandry. ranging from the subtle (bell hooks's claim that rich and rewarding inner lives that have historically been the exclusive province of women) to the absurd (Dworkin's claim that "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt for womenâ(TM)s bodies.").

Of course there are wingnuts in any group, but it seems that feminist leaders have not done an adequate job of disassociating from them. Since the majority of women reject the feminist label, it seems to me that those of us interested in gender equality -- which would include listening to women's opinions, no? Including the majority of women who reject the label "feminist", right? -- might want to find a new one. (I've been thinking "gender libertarianism" might cover it, but the American so-called "libertarian" movement has been working hard for decades to degrade that term. Maybe "gender anarchy"?)

If only there was some sort of cultural moment dedicated to changing the perception and social role of women. We could call it "feminism".

I think you might have a branding problem with that name. It's sometimes been associated with anti-intellectual post-modern garbage (such as this), transphobia (such as this), and various bits of misandry. ranging from the subtle (bell hooks's claim that rich and rewarding inner lives that have historically been the exclusive province of women) to the absurd (Dworkin's claim that "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt for womenâ(TM)s bodies.").

Of course there are wingnuts in any group, but it seems that feminist leaders have not done an adequate job of disassociating from them. Since the majority of women reject the feminist label, it seems to me that those of us interested in gender equality -- which would include listening to women's opinions, no? Including the majority of women who reject the label "feminist", right? -- might want to find a new one. (I've been thinking "gender libertarianism" might cover it, but the American so-called "libertarian" movement has been working hard for decades to degrade that term. Maybe "gender anarchy"?)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Huff post version, no paywall- references both the American Association of University Women and US Dept of Labor studies that showed the 23 cent distinction nearly vanishes when you control for Job Role, and the number of women working full time.

China is kicking the worlds ass when it comes to clean air generation progress.

China is moving its dirty coal burning plants away from the cities, not getting rid of them

Coal gas boom in China holds climate change risks

This is the first of more than 60 coal-to-gas plants China wants to build, mostly in remote parts of the country where ethnic minorities have farmed and herded for centuries. Fired up in December, the multibillion-dollar plant bombards millions of tons of coal with water and heat to produce methane, which is piped to Beijing to generate electricity.

It's part of a controversial energy revolution China hopes will help it churn out desperately needed natural gas and electricity while cleaning up the toxic skies above the country's eastern cities. However, the plants will also release vast amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, even as the world struggles to curb greenhouse gas emissions and stave off global warming.

If all of the plants start up, the carbon dioxide they'd release would equal three-quarters of all energy-related carbon emissions in the U.S., according to U.S. government data and energy experts from Duke and Stanford universities. That is far more than now produced in China by burning coal, the country's main source of power.

And the nuclear plants they have under construction will produce more power than the USA's (#1) and France's (#2) nuclear power combined.
Yet they will still need all that dirty coal power to meet their energy demands.

But how many paiiiiiiid???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

7.2 million, a higher conversion percentage than private industry expects. Call the whambulence for the hard radical right.

sPh

For fifteen years, our launch codes were a string of zeros. Only poorly placed Dippy Bird and we would have all died.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Ahem

You were saying?

I think you need to put the bong down and stay away from it for a while. It is rotting your mind to the point you might actually believe these delusions.

first off it means buisnesses can't 'manipulate' cash strapped people to make artificial job growth or contraction simply by hiring more or less people for the same total work hours.

despite clear evidence that Obamacare has actually caused full time people to become part time and most of the hiring for unskilled labor (the working poor) has been part time, what exactly benefits companies doing this as you think they are?

this no longer works when you are required to provide heathcare then they have no choice but to give people the hours wages needed to live a good life, instead of making them work to boost or contract the economy.

You see, reality doesn't seem to match your misconceptions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The only reason companies hire part time instead of full time is to control costs. They have no direct impact on the economy or for the most part intent to manipulate it outside of being able to sell their goods and services for a profit.

prior to obama care the working poor had only quacks peddling fake insurance houses constantly shifting locations and doing many unscrupulus methods to keep the poor from being able to pay for care via insurance.

Bullshit. Insurance is one of the heaviest regulated industries in the country before and after Obamacare. If these fly by night operations actually existed, the states would have arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned the scam artists behind it. And yes, it's pretty easy to track them down because there always has to be a place to send the payments and then collect them else they don't benefit from the scam.

I'm disgusted that people like Putin are actually of the same species as myself.

How do you feel about this?

Irrelevant to what? His stated purpose was to make the public aware of what the NSA was doing

Irrelevant to the real — rather than potential — abuses of power by the government. For all the talk about NSA, none of the information they collected has been abused — not yet. The worst we've seen so far was the other law-enforcement agencies prosecuting people based on NSA-provided tips (and using "parallel reconstruction" to hide the tips), but none of those thus prosecuted has actually been innocent. The danger of real abuse is there, but it remains potential for the time being.

The actual abuse of the government power has taken place in a different Federal bureaucracy — one much dearer to Statists' hearts. For some reason, none of the people fighting that have made it onto cool T-shirts yet...

Cue the bozos, who, due to Slashdot hivemind, are now required to post "So, exactly like the USA!"

Would you like your unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound with or without lube? Or maybe your textbooks without without evolution?

There are some very ignorant people in this country -- as anyone who's visited a WalMart (at least in the south...but that's why I've lived the majority of my life) can attest. You should be glad you don't have to deal with them.

... employees with STEM degrees have critical thinking skills *and* STEM degrees. Just sayin'.

Hrmmm. Just some random thoughts, as someone with a film degree that also codes and has a highly technical job -- I am a sound designer and a recording engineer. I will to some extent generalize, but that's what we're doing here.

1) I've noticed that people can have really extensive technical knowledge but really not have any concept of social context or even the social utility of what they do. Indeed they'll often argue that the social utility is meaningless when compared to some teleological "search for knowledge," which is portrayed as valueless and objectively good, and questions of economy and competing interests are morally inferior.

2) STEM people can be total philistines. They'll often deride art and creative pursuits as somehow less essential or necessary than the cause of science and progress. They don't seem to understand that "progress" itself is a moral concept deeply embedded within a complex philosophical value system, and indeed a lot of STEM people know nothing of philosophy or epistemology, and think the entire enterprise of philosophy is some sort of academic scam. I love me some Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but he's completely put the foot in his mouth on several occasions when he thinks he's talking about philosophy of science, and I loved the new Cosmos but his depictions of certain historical events, particularly about Giordano Bruno, were glib and lacked rigor or sensitive knowledge.

3) I've noticed that a lot of people with an engineering or medical background are subject to many forms of woo, quackery and crank ideas. Whenever someone prints a list of "scientists" who oppose Evolution/Global Warming/Old Universe, take your pick, the list is generally chock full of engineer Ph.Ds.

4) Relatedly, I've noticed a lot of engineers are dilettantes who tend to see all problems in the world as simply problems of applied computer science, who don't respect professional expertise or knowledge, or respect the fact that things in the world can fundamentally differ in kind from the problems of science and engineering.

5) Some STEM people can be highly dogmatic, if you ever get into an argument with one over some point they will not let go of, eventually they'll resort to some form of scientism, and insist that the thing you believe is false because its existence cannot be falsified. An important part of exposing yourself to art and creativity is acknowledging that you can't prove beauty exists falsifiably, and everyone can argue over wether this or that tulip is beautiful, but beauty exists.

I would say this is more of an example of government regulation and the mindset that wants every business regulated. This entire concept of ride sharing which in practice is the same as taxi/coach/livery has been regulated for quite a long time already. Except in this instance, the state of California actually created a separate regulation class to allow Uber and so on to exist within the framework of regulation the state demanded. This is also where the problem seems to arise, the niche hole they created shoe horned them into a little spot which they are trying to get around now. But what they want to do also places them into another already regulated category so they need to either get the law changed or get permits for the other category also.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Before this, they would have been considered either a taxi cab or limousine service and regulated under a different set of rules in California.

It may be the richest person getting to set the rules for everyone else, but in California, it seems that the public was demanding it also at one time. I'm not sure why when people demand business be regulated but are shocked that when they act like businesses, they end up being regulated too.

You do realize that they are already regulated and have gotten permits to operate in California right? They won the battle by complying with the law. I don't think this supports your supposition much though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Reining in Forfeiture

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

Federal Asset Forfeiture Continues to Skyrocket Under Obama

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07...

Rand Paul introduces bill to reform civil asset forfeiture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The Stealing of America By the Cops, the Courts, the Corporations and Congress

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

(As usual, the Huff Post gives the primary culprit, the head of the executive branch, a pass.)

Yes, because in the U.S. you'd never have for-profit prisons, civil forfeiture, or even outright cops stealing cash under the pretence of fighting crime.

The U.S. certainly wouldn't have issues with police beating minorities or killing them, leading to riots. They wouldn't have a growing number of cases of false imprisonment, or police militarization

No blanket penalties. If a company is convicted of something like that, remove the patents from whatever drugs they're offending with.

Commit a felony with a gun, and you're not allowed to own any guns; nor are you allowed to vote to change that! Commit a felony marketing any drug, you're not allowed to deal drugs.

Before anybody says that is not comparable, here are some facts about guns & drugs. Prescription medication accounts for 60% of OD deaths. Drug OD deaths have risen 102% since 1992 (to ~38000), while gun homicides have dropped 49% in the same period. Furthermore, owning a gun is an explicitly protected right, whereas selling drugs is not.

It is perfectly reasonable to ban an entire company from ever dealing any drugs ever again if they commit even 1 felony violation.

Don't Blame Central American Newspapers For Influx Of Undocumented Children notes that critics say that DACA created the mistaken impression -- then repeated by Central American news media -- that minors who arrived in the U.S. illegally would be allowed to stay.

Of course, Bush 43 gave them the tools to skirt immigration channels by letting people stay in country while the 400,000 backlogged court cases are processed, creating de facto amnesty policy.

The IRS scandal is pretty much all hogwash. But it was handled badly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

As for the CIA, they're not directly under the President's thumb - the director is a Presidential nominee but must be confirmed by the Senate.

"It is why Cities have always struggled." [citation needed. Especially with regard to 'always'.]

Violent crime rates are down across the board so wft ARE you talking about?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

To make sure that NYC is not Ferguson.

In what sense? The NYPD kills people all the time (they seem to be found guilty of misconduct more frequently than other police departments):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

However, as elsewhere, the police killings appear to be representative of the population of suspects and perpetrators:

http://www.motherjones.com/pol...