Slashdot Mirror

There's more going on than that. This was a very illuminating article for me. Basically, not only do PD's not get enough resources to properly do their job, they get those resources weather or not they do a proper job at all. This leads to a situation where taking many cases and doing no work on them at all is most adventageous to from the PD's point of view.

I heard this on the radio last week:
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/05/147980299/tough-love-reading-laws-target-third-graders"

They were debating should they spend $10,000 to have a child repeat the 3rd grade because they can't read at grade level OR pass them on to 4th grade and spend $10,000 on tutoring for two years. So flunk a child, and punish the child with shame OR pass the child, and punish the child with an unrealistic sense of accomplishment. Both ideas punish the taxpayer. If a child cannot read by that age, in my very humble opinion, we should be looking to punish the parent.

Education begins at home. That is where it needs to be fixed. A child is like an investment: if you invest nothing you should expect to get nothing. If this debate is about developing a recipe for success, let's try to stay away from the topics of public education and unions and focus on those recipes. My recipe includes having lots of books and spending lots of time reading them to my children.

What are you on about? He knows it's got a 7-inch display, he knows about how much it costs, he knows what software it runs. Does it really matter if the processor is 1.4GHz vs. 1GHz, or it has two cameras instead of one? You'll be able to use it to read books and watch videos either way.

And if he needs four of them, the difference between $800 vs. $2000 for 4 x iPad3 is $1200. That is no small amount of cash. You could use it as half the 20% down payment on a house for crying out loud. (Or you could get a little less than half a Mac Pro, whichever.)

You don't have to take it personally every time someone makes a decision that reduces the ever-shrinking likelihood that Apple will maintain its dominant position in the tablet market.

The actual complaint is against these publishers AND apple who initially set the contract with the publishers to say that in order to publish on iBooks they could not sell the same eBook for less anywhere else. See http://www.npr.org/2011/08/11/139517569/lawsuit-apple-publishers-colluded-on-e-book-prices. Seems to me Apple is who is the biggest part of the issue here.

You've named three of the best-known science fiction authors of the second half of the twentieth century.

The Foundation trilogy, The Caves of Steel, and Childhood's End all made NPR's top 100 science fiction and fantasy stories of all time list. (And it wasn't obscure critics or academics who assembled NPR's list; it was based on open public voting.) I suspect that Have Space Suit might have made the list too, except that the criteria barred young adult fiction.

The latter get their money from advertising. Yes, they have to put on adequately good TV shows so that enough people watch. Their business is making adequately good TV shows, but their income comes from advertising. Same with most newspapers. Same with Google.

You're still not making the right distinction. The distinction you're making is between the quality of products made by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations.

I'll give you an example: NPR is not-for-profit, but they've gone to an ad-based funding model during the recession because the availability of public and private funding has fallen significantly. Their coverage is still far superior to anything produced by News Corp. or Viacom, notwithstanding that they make their money from ads, because they're concerned about making the best product rather than maximizing return on capital.

Now, you can argue that Google would somehow have better products if they were a non-profit that didn't have to care about shareholders, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they use advertising, subscriptions, donations or whatever else as revenues.

Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

Seriously? What do you think is the difference between an apartment complex banning pets and the COUNTRY banning pets? Do you think there is none?

You think the government should be the regulator? Sure, they've dabbled, but that isn't what I'd propose at all.

Professional sports organizations do the right thing and discourage unhealthy behaviors, the fashion industry should do the same.

Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

O.K. Apologies for being a little over-dramatic, but there are some parallels I'd like to point out.

1) Who makes the ban. In the case of professional sports, the ban comes from the professional sports organizations themselves and the fans. For your example, it comes from government.

I'm with you, this shouldn't be government business, even though it was very popular with Congress and President Bush recently. A responsible industry should handle it themselves --Spain is a good example.

2) Who is affected. Professional athletes only or everyone who wants to advertise a product or even parody an advertisement of a product.

See above. Professional models --and, as in sports, their impressionable fans/followers.

3) Harm to society. In the former case, athletes are being forced not to engage in a chemical arms race. Small number of people by a private group. Not much harm. In the thin model case, government is trying to change how society thinks and behaves through government force. Huge immediate harm. To be very blunt here, I do not think saving the lives of a few thousand women a year is worth the harm inflicted by this ban.

I think the alleged point of the congressional hearings and media flap on steroids in pro baseball was that it encouraged the acceptance of steroid use by young athletes. It seemed more people were having a "think-of-the-children" moment than displaying genuine concern for the plight of professional ball players.

And I am not surprised that you are unconcerned with the deaths of thousands of women.

4) Precedence. I know some people don't believe in the existence of the slippery slope, but it does remain that private groups imposing behavior restrictions on voluntary members or employees is nothing new. But once we have a ban on certain human behavior and communication due to one disease, that forms a precedent for the government to impose further bans for other tenuous health or public welfare excuses. A ban would also reward the doctors and organizations that advocated for it and empower them. I'd rather they be punished via marginalization for even daring to suggest just a vile scheme.

The political balance between regulation and freedom is tricky --and the first 100 tries usually fail. But if we didn't try, lawful civilization wouldn't exist. The fact we're not all paying over 90% in taxes is a thorough debunking of the slippery slope. The pendulum of human affairs always swings back when it's gone too far.

5) Potential for abuse. In addition to creating a negative precedent on crucial human activities, it also creates a huge avenue of abuse for government to impose its will on businesses and non-profits that advertise. It's an lever for coercion of government whim over a business or charity. It's another means for one business to gain advantage over another through more rigorous enforcement of the ban on the latter.

Again, I think we agree, ideally this should be the business and responsibility of the fashion industry, not government, to stop encouraging (sometimes demanding?) unhealthy behavior.

How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

Because regulating drugs is rather different than regulating the display of photographs of clothed people based on their body type?

Sure, I'd agree it's significantly different, but at the root of it, it's a public health issue --and that's supposedly why pointy-headed politicians got all bent about steroids in baseball. The welfare of the professional players wasn't as much of a consideration as the message it sent aspiring young athletes. Both problems hinge on behaviors that are heavily influenced by culture.

Can you imagine having to submit every fashion photo to some government committee, which would then argue over whether each model was appropriately non-skinny?

No, nothing that ridiculous, but I can imagine something similar to what already happened with Spain's fashionistas. I don't think it's absurd at all to ask an industry to NOT encourage unhealthy employee behaviors.

There's absolutely nothing new about this situation. It's a fact of modern political life that if you want face time with a politician you have to donate to their campaign. Planet Money did an interesting podcast about the concept of political fundraisers in Washington that really sheds light on the problem: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/11/01/141913370/the-tuesday-podcast-inside-washingtons-money-machine

If you are referring to the three cases HBO highlighted, two of those were found to be unrelated to fracking. The third, of course, was an issue and that land owner was compensated, probably quite well. As for the other two, it turns out that their water wells were drilled through three coal beds and contain NATURALLY occurring gas.

Sources? A serious request has I haven't seen anything that has ever mentioned alternative theories to the source of the gas in the water.

Certainly. HERE is an NPR article explaining the whole debate. As we all know, NPR is a right wing outfit that is in the pocket of big oil. Except, they are not. Here is an excerpt:

Some worry fracking fluid will leak out of a well and contaminate aquifers. In fact, a recent draft EPA study about water pollution in Pavilion, Wyo., does make that link. Fracking wastewater has also spilled and contaminated surface water.

But fracking does not put methane into tap water. Tap water blow torches, as seen in the documentary film Gasland, result from methane migration. Such movements of gas may or may not be related to drilling. But they do not result from fracking. And that’s an important distinction to make.

HERE is something describing the problem in 1983, before any friggin' fracking ever started.

Of course, you also have to have your BS detector on the most sensitive setting. Take this quote:

A study released Monday by five Duke University scientists found that drinking water wells near gas extraction sites had on average, 17 times higher levels of methane gas than wells that weren’t.

Um... maybe that's because there is no gas in the area, there will be no drilling. Of the places where they are NOT drilling, how many of those had as much natural gas in the ground as the places where they were drilling? Of course, that's not in the study, but common sense doesn't get grant money, doesn't get professors published and doesn't make headlines.

Also, note your sources. Anything called "CleanWater.org" is going to be against fracking. For that matter, I'm willing to bet these guys are against all forms of energy with the exception of wind or solar. To be fair, there are sites like NaturalGasAmerica.com (or whatever) that will do the same thing, but the tree-huggers outnumber them 10-1.

THIS looks interesting, but I don't have the time to view it right now.

From my research, it appears that NPR is right. Fracking may contaminate deep ground water. This is obvious since it is pushing high pressure water deep under ground (duh). Will that have any effect on wells, which are not terribly deep? Most of the time, no, but it is possible. This is why it's important to know the chemical makeup that the frackers are using. As long as it's not toxic, it shouldn't be a problem. But understand that even if they were pumping the cleanest, purest, distilled water into the ground, the environmentalists would oppose it. I've actually seen it happen here in Central Texas.

A school wanted to use river water, which comes out of the ground at a chilly 50 degrees F, to cool the air conditioning evaporators around campus. This would save a fortune in electricity bills for the school, use much less energy, which is green, and would allow the school to stop using the chemical mix they were using to cool the evaporators now. The cost would be that the water would be returned to the river downstream about one degree warmer. There were protests non stop for years. People would carry signs saying "Don't let SWT Kill the River!!!" Now, again, SWT was doing the environmentally conscious th

There's an excellent Planet Money podcast on North Korea's illegal economy.

In the podcast they explain how North Korea is able to sell their fake currency, as well as the other shady things their government does to make money. It's worth a listen if you're interested in the North Korean regime.

I ain't interested in Nor Kakalaka, but if I can buy sum o dat fake money for cheap, an if its good, i want in!!! If its convincing I no lotsa places in AMERICA that will take it so's i can get rich!!!! My master plan might actually work this time:

1. Buy fake USD from DPRK
2. Exchange funny money for real money
3. Skip usual question marks and go to step 4
4. Profit!!!

There's an excellent Planet Money podcast on North Korea's illegal economy.

In the podcast they explain how North Korea is able to sell their fake currency, as well as the other shady things their government does to make money. It's worth a listen if you're interested in the North Korean regime.

and cited local ordinances to reduce coal dust pollution in Pittsburgh during the heyday of coal mining."

A deregulationist citing the protection from local environmental regulations. That's rich.
The hypocrisy is double because Pittsburg is currently undergoing a massive battle over fracking regulations.

Pittsburg has banned fracking outright and PA Republicans were trying to pass a State law to nullify local regulations.
When that was deemed a politically untenable idea, they switched to a straight-jacket of State level regulations.
Read about it here: http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142948831/a-debate-over-who-regulates-gas-fracking-in-penn

The concept of money is a kind of fiction -- a shared, collective illusion in which we all participate. Which is by no means to suggest it's not worth something -- it's worth exactly what our economy says it's worth. But are you advocating a return to the gold standard?? You probably want to think long and hard about that. Does it make sense that a country should tie the size of its economy to the arbitrary physical amount of a precious metal which can be found within its borders?

Have a read/listen, be enlightened. Why we left the gold standard.

Are you saying the "size" of the economy is the sum of the currency units in circulation? Do we need to print currency to grow the economy?

The concept of money is a kind of fiction -- a shared, collective illusion in which we all participate. Which is by no means to suggest it's not worth something -- it's worth exactly what our economy says it's worth. But are you advocating a return to the gold standard?? You probably want to think long and hard about that. Does it make sense that a country should tie the size of its economy to the arbitrary physical amount of a precious metal which can be found within its borders?

Have a read/listen, be enlightened. Why we left the gold standard.

While agree with you that pennies are useless, I must disagree with your opinion on paper 1 dollar bills. According to Planet Money, a great NPR podcast, the cost of a dollar bill vs a dollar coin are not a cut and dry as you make it out to be. I cannot find the reference to which podcast it was on but they interviewed someone at the mint who said that the lifetime cost of a coin dollar vs. a bill was about equal with improvements to paper quality and price. The main reason I don't want dollar coins, or many coins at all, is that they are cumbersome to deal with.

The primary manufacturer of that drug was horrible and the FDA shut them down. Since then both government and industry are ramping up to make the drug available in time to prevent it from running out.

There are a lot of "the free market is evil" postings by bloggers on this issue who use the pain of others to attack both industry and government when both are working it out. I do not see the ones lambasting them doing much of anything but attempting to whip up a frenzy and feed on the rage and fear. I didn't bother to examine their agenda.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/15/146960417/latest-drug-shortage-threatens-children-with-leukemia?live=1

"If you want to read something to give you nightmares, you can look at the FDA 483 inspection form," Fox says. "You can read about mold on the walls and rust from machinery falling into the vials. It really provides a very grim picture of a crumbling factory."

Make sure you boil the shit out of the water before you neti, though, or you could get brain amoebas.

Not Kidding.

I'll just leave this here...


Moral of the story, if you live in a third-world country without a safe drinking water supply, like Louisiana , you might want to boil your water before filling your sinuses up with it with a neti pot. Or else you might get a bad case of microscopic brain-eating monsters.

BTW, some of these diseases really are quite extinct in the US. Getting infected is about as likely as getting hit by lightening.

Yeah, not the diseases we're talking about here. Smallpox is virtually extinct. The vaccine has a chance of negative health side effects, so people aren't vaccinated against it anymore.

Measles though, that is still around, and the vaccine has no downsides. You'd be a moron not to get your kid vaccinated.

From what I've heard (I recommend listening to NPR's investigation into IV), the district has become one of the best places for patent litigation as the judges are extremely familiar with the topic.

East Texas started being used as it was one of the few federal districts not backed up with drug related cases. Since then, that courtroom has become one of the defacto places to handle patent lawsuits.

Get off your high horse. A lot of more valuable things get forgotten or stolen.

No one WANTS it to happen, but it does. To all of us.

Frankly, I'm trying to figure out why this has put such a bee in your bonnet. So he publicizes it to try to get his saber back. How does that hurt you?

It's a tangent, but there's a good article on 2008 rice prices freaking out because of the same effect: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2011/11/02/141771712/how-fear-drove-world-rice-markets-insane

Short version is that in a normal environment there is enough rice produced for everyone, but suddenly everyone worries that RIGHT NOW they need to buy all the rice they will eat ALL YEAR, and that causes problems.

The solution was really interesting too. Turns out that Japan artificially insulates it's rice farmers from foreign competition, but to satisfy world trade agreements they buy lots of rice that sits in warehouses and rots. People started negotiations to re-export that rice to countries with a shortfall, and as soon as the word got around that this might happen people went back to normal buying behavior and the problem evaporated without actually moving anything around.

Oh my apologies, the truth hurts. And I forget Liberals can't handle the truth.

I posted elsewhere with the citation, but here it is again.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122441095

I heard on NPR the other day a story about Roger Angel, U. Arizona mirror guru, who's making 27-footers for installation in Chile by, I think it was, 2020. The amazing part is casting to that accuracy -- without exact uniformity. These 27-foot mirrors have to focus slightly off-center. Here's the transcript: http://m.npr.org/news/Science/145837380

I love how Democrats & liberals believe such crap. Well here, from the super conservative bastion Newsmax....no wait, NPR.

2009 most partisan year ever, and the Democrats voted 91% in block.

"In 2009 in the Senate, Democrats stuck together for an average party support score of 91 percent â" the highest ever. The House Democrats' score was the same â" 91 percent â" just below the all-time high of 92 percent set in 2007 and 2008. Republican Party support was also high, though not record-breaking: 85 percent in the Senate and 87 percent in the House.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122441095

This story happened weeks ago, and originally it was suspected as arson, and that it was in too dense of an area for Firefighters to reach. Here is a link to the NPR story.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/17/145342304/one-of-worlds-oldest-cypress-trees-the-senator-burns-in-florida.

This happened in mid-January. "On Monday (Jan. 16, 2012) Seminole County firefighter Al Caballero applied water to the smoldering base of The Senator. "

What is two weeks to a 3,500 ear old tree?

This story happened weeks ago, and originally it was suspected as arson, and that it was in too dense of an area for Firefighters to reach. Here is a link to the NPR story.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/17/145342304/one-of-worlds-oldest-cypress-trees-the-senator-burns-in-florida.

This happened in mid-January. "On Monday (Jan. 16, 2012) Seminole County firefighter Al Caballero applied water to the smoldering base of The Senator. "

According to NPR, Kalydeco, "works by helping to fix one defect in the protein that causes the disease." Unfortunately the way the drug works is also very specific, and won't work for all sufferers NPR also reports that it will "only work for about 1,200 patients in the U.S.". Now, being that a cursory Internet search says that there are about 30,000 sufferers in the USA, it's pretty clear that Kalydeco is just a step in the right direction, at least from a medical and research perspective.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/01/146166743/cystic-fibrosis-drug-wins-fda-approval?ps=sh_sthdl

U.S. does not have a single unified power grid, though - at least not on the scale where there's meaningful load balancing between the parts.

"ultra-wealthy SierraClub and PETA members!" ROFLMAO!!!

So wealthy they're pitching tents on Wall Street.

On what planet are there "ultra-wealthy SierraClub and PETA members" ?!?

Good news! You don't have to save up to buy a rocket ship to find out!

Mayor Bloomberg Donates $50 Million To Sierra Club
Sierra Club - Green Home - Advisory Board

Actually that part about Jesus saying, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" wasn't in the bible originally. It was added to the margin of one version, and then when it was re-copied/translated the copyist moved the marginal addition into the main body of text.
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries

Te MegaUpload take down, not quite carefully timed to give Congress some balls regarding SOPA, is likely to become a circus act of the most grandiose proportions.

Not only did the Feds seize a foreign company, but they did so in the face of several SCOTUS decisions that held harmless the operators of sites that might contain user uploaded content which might violate copyright, in addition to billions of files that did no such thing.

With the government forced withdrawal of Megaupload's attorney Robert Bennett, citing rather insincere claims of conflict of interest, and the Justice department seizing a Foreign company this is far from the normal pattern for these cases. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Chinese government step into the fray any day now.

When the dust clears on this battle there will be some major revelations about how much pressure the DOJ used all over the world to affect this arrest and take down. Eight countries, big and small like New Zealand were leaned on to act, for largely theatrical effect as SOPA goes down to public pressure. The timing couldn't be accidental. But the DOJ miss timed it by three days, and their case is far from certain.

I predict this will drag out for a long time.

It may be the shipping that kills the product, but only indirectly. Because the product was designed around shipping, it was never good from the start...

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137371975/how-industrial-farming-destroyed-the-tasty-tomato

(I have a 30 ft orange tree and plant at least 3-4 tomato plants in my backyard and will never buy either of those products if they come from Florida. Nothing against the state, just the industry. I'm sure your homegrown oranges in FL are as awesome as mine are in CA :)

Yesterday on NPR, a commentator talked about how in the US, R&D has moved from the corporate world to universities.
Being a cynic, I would attribute this to the fact that R&D is expensive, requires a long-term investment, and doesn't increase profits in the short-term. This makes it unattractive to many public corporations, which must beat Wall St. expectations every quarter.

My opinion is that this trend contributes to both a brain drain and a drain of ideas from the US. When the corporate world was funding more R&D, that R&D was protected as trade secrets and used to make the corporation more competitive. If the commentator is correct in that more if this research is moving to the academic world, then that R&D is easily adopted offshore either by foreign entities that don't suffer from the "not invented here" mindset, or by those that simply hire the international grad students that did the research in the first place.

No NPR confirmed it today on the radio. The show was more detailed about its demise. Yes they did focus stronger on the professional market as they feared the low end market.

Kodak then castrated itself by only focusing on the professional market and looked into film based devices as they loooved those fat margins. Problem is professional grade digital came into the scene and so did digital based film devices like xrays, mri equipment, and so on.

Nothing left. Rolls Royce may make nice cars but how many do you see on the road today? Are they even still in business?

Not even close.

Old Apple circa 1996 I would agree.

NPR just had a story today about where Kodak and Fitijsu split paths in 1995 when both companies experimented with digital cameras.

Basically, MBA executives at Kodak loved the insane profit margins of film vs the razor thin margins of CCD/digital based cameras. So they focused just on film to because excel told them it was the way to go. ... they forgot the customer is part of the equation and digital did cut into films profit margins. Just that their competitors did to them. Did they learn their lesson? No they stayed gung ho on film film film and made xray, medical film devices, analog copiers, etc.

They all went digital too and left the market to Fijitsu.

Apple
Did focus on the mac which was years ahead of its time in 1984 and beyond. They kept innovating. The Powerbooks were the first real successful laptops. When Steve Jobs came back he did not let appliances and phones take over. He embraced new things like the IPad and made a better phone even if it did cut into profits of its expensive macbook lines.

Apple is not going anyway. It has vision. Kodak was the technological marvel a century ago and won by getting ahead. This is a classic business case study that should be taught in MBA business school that you need vision and not just numbers on a spreadsheet to run a company. Kodak fucked up and if the market is going somewhere else you can't force it to come back to you. You need to accept lower profit margins or outdo the competition with something more awesome and advanced to stay ahead. Apple provides while Kodak does not.

MS is more in danger in my opinion. Once critical business apps become tabletized HTML 5 apps in 10 years why would you need Windows or Win32? MS is trying hard with IE 9, Windows Phone, and Windows 8 but it is in more in trouble long term in my opinion.

Piffle and nonsense--the article is basically an elaborate form of "have you stopped beating your wife"?

Any objective scientist will tell you that the AGW idea doesn't remotely reach the standards of a real "theory". It *does* explain some observations in the same way Creationism does, but only by cherry picking data and incorrectly confusing "correlation" with "causation". Anybody can show correlation (http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php) but that don't mean one thing about *causation*. All the thermometers in the world showing temperatures are great to see and it's always good to have reliable data (though apparently not all of the AGW stuff is all that reliable--http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/Docs/hurrell.soundings.jclim98.pdf), but one needs *proof* to tie everything together.

Is the Earth warming? Maybe....the observations are definitely mixed on this (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg , http://isthereglobalwarming.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/2010_2011_winter_2.6753403.gif). (NOTE that the second is a decidedly anti-global warming site.)

If the Earth is warming, are increasing CO2 levels the cause? Doubtful. CO2 levels were higher during the last Ice Age (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261) and the current CO2 levels are practically rock-bottom compared to the bulk of the collected data (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm).

The AGW theorists have made numerous predictions using their various software models, which have been shown to be simplistic and unworthy of a first year software student (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1813/US-Government-Scientists-Shock-Admission-Climate-Model-Software-Doesnt-Meet-the-Best-Standards-Available). As a simulations expert I've had the chance to examine much of the code that was released from the Hadley Institute a few years back....it was *horrifically* poorly put together. If these had been my student, they'd have failed the course.

Nor frankly do those predictions pan out. Just a few years ago Al Gore (basing his statements on information various AGW alarmists were spouting at the time) said that "...the Arctic will be ice free by 2013..." (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/02/horror-junk-scientist-al-gore-predicts-north-pole-will-be-completely-ice-free-by-next-year/). I'm guessing that Mother Nature didn't get the word.

AGW models also predicted that the ocean deep sea temperatures would rise by approximately 1 degree Centigrade (http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/99641/tracing_the_upper_oceans_missing_heat and http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025). It would seem that there are some parameters missing from their calculations.

Lastly, in order for AGW to rise to the level of a theory it must be able to postulate experiments that would prove it to be true. This hasn't happened and can't without a few dozen parallel Earths. You *test* a hypothesis by performing controlled experiments and seeing how well observations match experimental results as well as predictions. We've already shown that many of the predictions are flawed, and as to experiments--hard to do without some Earths to test against.

AGW is at best an unproven hypothesis in much the same way as Creationism is, with fewer religious overtones. It doesn't belong in schools any more than Creationism does, and for very similar reasons. Stick to *facts* and leave the activism for college.

But overall the statement is clearly supportive of anti-piracy efforts...

There's nothing wrong with being supportive of anti-piracy efforts. People deserve to get paid for their work. Those efforts, however, shouldn't undermine technological infrastructure. The White House's statement is overall a condemnation of the legislation, but it does allow leeway for Obama to sign an amended bill that addresses the most pressing concerns.

Given past positions, it will be interesting to see how Slashdotters respond to the question in the submission. Allow me to quote from a recent comment in a GPL discussion:

It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back. You see, some people are childish and the most visible mark of childishness is a sense of entitlement. This causes them to feel somehow cheated if you place a few conditions on code that is otherwise free, that no one is forcing them to use if the conditions don't suit them.

The comment was modded up. When it's a case of a GPL violation, the violators who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers are childish and entitled. But in an article on the Pirate Bay, suddenly it's all about demonizing the evil RIAA and MPAA, and piracy is just a cultural revolution that sticks it to the evil corporations--the artists who aren't getting paid don't even enter into the discussion, probably because of the guilty feelings it would inspire to be reminded of the reality of the situation.

The point being that there probably should be an attempt made to hinder online piracy in some way. We can't just let it spiral completely out of control, to the point where it's no longer lucrative to produce anything. Part of the reason the console platform became so appealing to game developers is the reduced amount of piracy compared to the PC platform. In other words, they can actually make money from their work, money that is used to make more games. You can't have a functioning long-term economy in which people never get compensated for anything; people are trying to make a living, and they use the income to produce more contributions to society. If your boss withheld your paycheck and told you that the code you wrote is now theirs free of charge because "information wants to be free," you'd sue for the wages and win. But if the code you wrote is included in a game, and the game appears on Pirate Bay, downloaders will happily pirate it and never even dream of spending a time, and they'll justify it until they're red in the face.

The most common one they use is that it's "free advertising"--that pirating games leads them to purchase games. Correlation doesn't equal causation, however, and the fact they buy games as well as pirate them simply suggests that they like games so much that they acquire them by any means possible, and when they can't pirate, they buy. Either that, or they buy to resolve their feelings of guilt. When Louis CK offered his video for download, he made an interesting comment in an NPR interview:

"And a friend of mine who does torrent stuff a lot says that when torrent users do buy something, they act like they're doing the greatest thing ever. ... They're saying, 'I bought something today. I paid for it. And I didn't steal it. I'm the greatest person alive.' "

I've noticed this attitude as well. It's very, very annoying.

I'm probably risking a lot of downmods here--if there's anything Slashdot seems to dislike more than comments about Slashdot, it's comments that are anti-piracy. But I have karma to burn, and I felt like starting the conversation anyway.

nope:
http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/10519399/article-Weather-records-fell-like-rain-in-November
http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/16641072/article-2011-Novemburrrrr-in-Fairbanks-one-to-remember
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/11/145020767/alaska-town-endures-record-snow-fall

I'm pretty sure that snowfall in Anchorage is setting records. There was an unusual storm out west that left Nome, Kotzebue and a few other towns in a bad way. Whether using "normal" in the casual sense that I meant or the forecasting statistical method that you seem to prefer, this is not normal. I'm not trying to convey an underlying message. The weather here always has odd extremes. It's just part of life.

Drones are controlled from reasonably close by, and I would suspect they're fairly autonomous during flight.

That's not correct. While there are some types of small autonomous aircraft used directly by troops, most of the drones are piloted from locations in the continental US, like Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.

These remotely controlled planes can hover in the air 24 hours at a time, collecting intelligence or carrying out a strike in Afghanistan.

But the pilots are thousands of miles away, sitting in front of a bank of computer screens. And that distance, which is the strength of the program, has also created unique challenges.

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/29/142858358/drone-pilots-the-future-of-aerial-warfare

In a recent study, researchers Raquel Alexander and Susan Scholz calculated the total amount the corporations saved from the lower tax rate. They compared the taxes saved to the amount the firms spent lobbying for the law. Their research showed the return on lobbying for those multinational corporations was 22,000 percent. That means for every dollar spent on lobbying, the companies got $220 in tax benefits.

You know what's funny? In Germany, the president is currently under a lot of pressure, and may have to resign, because he got a private credit for his house at too favorable a rate of interest. In the US (the home of democracy, defender of the free world, etc), corporations can openly bribe their senators to get the laws they want.

Something's rotten in the state of Merica...

CJ

While I haven't read his book, A First-Rate Madness, I have seen a few interviews with the author... He has some interesting ideas regarding the US Presidency and some of its greatest leaders. Enough for one to conclude that maybe a touch of lunacy is exactly what those positions require.

This is wrong. A research article just came up on Metafilter. Apparently, in a double blind experiment where both the musicians and the listeners are listening to pieces, the newer instruments sound better. The Stradivarius sound seems to be a human perception similar to wine tasting myths. http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad?sc=fb&cc=fp

I don't really see why anything old has an excessive value beyond its use.

Oddly, the type of people who appreciate and create music and art are also the type of people who might value form over function.

For violins in particular, as wood ages its tonal qualities change. Therefore, older violins are more valuable than new violins because they sound better. Well... not necessarily better but they have a more desirable sound and warm.

More importantly, a violin made in a factory in china is going to sound like crap compared to a hand made violin by a skilled luthier, even if it is brand new. An old violin was most likely made with great skill and care, and taken care of through the ages. To play something that is centuries old with a rich history is an amazing experience. This is why, while the Stradivari violins might not necessarily sound better than a modern violin from a master luthier, it's worth millions of dollars more.

As wood ages it decomposes, warps, etc., and the "tonal qualities" of a violin would do the same.
Older violins are more "valuable" only because people like you say they are. They don't sound better, they sound objectively worse.
And if that wasn't enough, you set off the bullshit bomb raid siren when you mentioned "desiareble" and "warm" sound.

Furthermore, I'd take a factory machined and produced violin over a hand-made one from a master any day. Given comparable materials and design, the machined version will be better. Of course, you had to throw in the "China" boogeyman to bolster your retarded claim by insinuating that it's going to be made of the cheapest materials possible and any manual steps are going to be performed by enslaved children who don't care about quality.

The simple fact is that an old violin was likely made with the exact amount of care as one made today. People made violins to sell.
Modern tools, processes, and designs are objectively better than those that are "centuries old", despite any "rich history".

There's value in preserving old things, and old techniques. There's even something to be said for replicating old techniques today.
But your post is ridiculous hyperbole, and is objectively wrong. There's no reason a violin should be "worth" millions of dollars simply due to age/brand/rarity. This goes for nearly all antiquities. The market is an extremely small set of collectors - a handful of individuals, museuems and libraries. The fact that they've all hyped themselves up to pay ridiculous prices for things is a joke that has auction houses laughing all the way to the bank.

I find it amusing that the true collectors will laud the rich history and cultural significance of their pieces, but will squirrel them away, coveting the possession of such a thing more than the thing itself. The rest of the market is split between the profiteers and those who actually care about the significance and historical value of things. The profiteers are the ones who hunt through garage sales, storage auctions, etc., and try to sell for profit as well as those who put their pieces up at a museum, "on loan" for money, status, ass kissing (receptive), etc.
The people who care about the value of the items are the ones who work at the libraries and museums, and they're in a perpetual state of desperation because their budgets have to include wine and cheese receptions for snobby fucks who think they're doing the museum a favor for lending them a piece for a month for the low low cost of a million of dollars.

Basically, your post does the following:
1: Make bullshit claims about quality.
2: Make valid claims of historical/cultural value ("is centuries old with a rich history").
3: Immediately slap a price tag on that historical/cultural value ("millions of dollars").

But anyone who actually cares about the historical/cultural value of a piece would share it with others freely.

I don't really see why anything old has an excessive value beyond its use.

Oddly, the type of people who appreciate and create music and art are also the type of people who might value form over function.

For violins in particular, as wood ages its tonal qualities change. Therefore, older violins are more valuable than new violins because they sound better. Well... not necessarily better but they have a more desirable sound and warm.

More importantly, a violin made in a factory in china is going to sound like crap compared to a hand made violin by a skilled luthier, even if it is brand new. An old violin was most likely made with great skill and care, and taken care of through the ages. To play something that is centuries old with a rich history is an amazing experience. This is why, while the Stradivari violins might not necessarily sound better than a modern violin from a master luthier, it's worth millions of dollars more.

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/30/144470789/the-last-word-in-business

I'm very sorry to hear your situation. I certainly hope the best for your family. I don't really have any advice, but your story reminded me of something I heard on NPR a while back that might at least be of interest:
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/12/140336146/for-the-dying-a-chance-to-rewrite-life

Some of them probably couldn't find it on a map of New Mexico.