Slashdot Mirror

I don't know of any republicans that want to completely abolish the EPA.

I suspect that's because you don't want to know about them.
Bashing E.P.A. Is New Theme in G.O.P. Race
Senate Republicans Introduce Bill To Abolish The EPA
Public Rejects GOP Push to Eliminate EPA
Bachmann pledges to have the EPA's 'doors locked and lights turned off'
GOP on abolishing the EPA

The last link is a video where a number of Republicans are allowed to speak freely about what they think should be done with the EPA.

the marcellus shale has so much natural gas, we could all start driving cars powered by natural gas and all of the geopolitical headaches of oil would just go away. plus, with no incentive to safeguard foreign petroleum, we could just not care about security in the middle east

however, that's all fine and dandy until you consider the possibility that you are trading energy security for poisoned underground aquifers. i like my water supply clean, thanks

but the fracking goes on on a level far below the water table

still, it's like puncture holes that can induce mixing between layers. the poisons are not necessarily just from the fracking chemicals, there are all sorts of completely natural nasty minerals you don't want mixed up and introduced into your water supply with some artificial mayhem underground

the need then becomes that states and local governments REQUIRE drilling companies to go through a process whereby

1. they absolutely guarantee they follow procedures to carefully puncture the water table,
2. then seal their operations off from the water table, during operations,
3. and finally, when operations cease, to make sure they have a seal that is inspected and certified as the best we can technologically do

the problem is people acting too quickly and shoddy efforts and abandoned responsibilities, the usual lax standards when there is no fierce regulatory body around: you get the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

this is a case where strict government regulation is an absolute must. government regulation something that is apparently evil according republicans. i guess republicans don't have to turn the faucet on in their home!

finally, there is the issue of the chemicals they are using your fracking. a lot of these mictures are trade secrets. well, that trade secret veil needs to be pierced: if it goes into the ground near my water table, i don't give a flying f*ck about your trade secrets, i want to know what you are pumping down there, and my right to know that my water is safe supersedes your capitalist imperative

however, i was recently amused to find out one major componet of the fracking brew:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/world/asia/fracking-in-us-lifts-guar-farmers-in-india.html

Guar gum!

Yes, the same thing you see listed as a thickener on your ice cream!

Which makes sense, you want to shove something down there thick and rigid and with a high viscosity to shove the natural gas back up: water laced with sand and thickeners. Makes sense.

So this relieves my worry somewhat. But I still want to know every chemical going into the ground. I don't care about your trade secrets, it's my water!

Drugs with side effects trigger attachments. Caffeine is just as dangerous as Alcohol in that respect

Except that "attachments" are not dangerous. Coma and death are dangerous, brain damage is dangerous, liver damage is dangerous, and the typical doses of alcohol are frighteningly close to such adverse effects -- whereas the typical dose of caffeine is nowhere near that point.

Go to a coffee stand (or at work) and watch some people with their hands shaking so hard they can't hold the coffee in the cup.

Which may be scary, but is not a sign of any permanent damage to that person's mind or body. Caffeine withdrawal is tough, but it is not life threatening, and a person who is committed to it can get through the symptoms at home (maybe with the help of close friend) in less than a week. Alcohol withdrawal, on the other hand, can be so dangerous that it requires medical supervision.

That is a sign of a drug addiction beyond the persons ability to control.

Yet the drug abuse and dependence treatment programs that emerged from clinical psychology (read: science) are based on teaching people how to take control and avoid harmful behaviors.

Prescribed drugs can be abused but at least someone is trying to limit the effects

Really? A typical Adderall prescription (d,l-amphetamine salts) is for 10-20mg, two-three times per day, for a month. That is well above a lethal quantity, and a person could easily give themselves brain damage by taking a large fraction of their month's supply. People who abuse Adderall and related medicines (other amphetamines, Ritalin, etc.) can have psychotic episodes; see, for example, this recent NY Times article (sorry for paywall) about prescription stimulant abuse among high school and college students:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/education/seeking-academic-edge-teenagers-abuse-stimulants.html?_r=1&hp

It's not just psychiatric drugs; prescription opiates are also readily abused, and people get high by using the prescribed amount of those drugs. Some pharmaceutical opiates are more potent than heroin, and abuse is an ever-present concern with those drugs; Rush Limbaugh abused prescription opiates:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1561324.html

Here is the problem with the war on drugs: recreational drugs need not be any more dangerous than prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical methamphetamine is safer than "truck stop" methamphetamine, not because it is a different drug, but because the production is much better controlled. Many of the dangerous of recreational methamphetamine stem from the adulterants that are left over from poor production techniques.

So in a sense, I agree with you: we need better regulation. That means legalizing recreational drugs, and requiring that legal sources adhere to standardized and regulation production and distribution methods (I do not think anyone can argue that a 14 year old should be buying recreational drugs). When someone buys cocaine, they should not have to worry about what is mixed into the drug; when someone buys MDMA (ecstasy), they should not worry about having actually received methamphetamine mixed with caffeine (a well known trick on the black market). There will still be problems with abuse, but when someone visits their doctor, they should be able to tell their doctor what drugs they have been taking, and in what doses -- which is basically impossible if you are buying some mystery powder in an alley somewhere.

Would Cyprus arrest creators of Stuxnet, on request from Iran, if those people would show up in Cyprus?

They cannot, as the head of Stuxnet gang enjoys diplomatic immunity when traveling abroad.

Well, ignoring the obvious job security worries for mainstream economists stepping out of line, maybe the issue is more "religious" at this point?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/03/the-market-as-god/6397/
"A few years ago a friend advised me that if I wanted to know what was going on in the real world, I should read the business pages. Although my lifelong interest has been in the study of religion, I am always willing to expand my horizons; so I took the advice, vaguely fearful that I would have to cope with a new and baffling vocabulary. Instead I was surprised to discover that most of the concepts I ran across were quite familiar.
Expecting a terra incognita, I found myself instead in the land of deja vu. The lexicon of The Wall Street Journal and the business sections of Time and Newsweek turned out to bear a striking resemblance to Genesis, the Epistle to the Romans, and Saint Augustine's City of God. Behind descriptions of market reforms, monetary policy, and the convolutions of the Dow, I gradually made out the pieces of a grand narrative about the inner meaning of human history, why things had gone wrong, and how to put them right. Theologians call these myths of origin, legends of the fall, and doctrines of sin and redemption. But here they were again, and in only thin disguise: chronicles about the creation of wealth, the seductive temptations of statism, captivity to faceless economic cycles, and, ultimately, salvation through the advent of free markets, with a small dose of ascetic belt tightening along the way, especially for the East Asian economies."

And:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/economy/04econ.html?pagewanted=all
"But in the wake of the recent crisis, a few economists -- like Professors Reinhart and Rogoff, and other like-minded colleagues like Barry Eichengreen and Alan Taylor -- have been encouraging others in their field to look beyond hermetically sealed theoretical models and into the historical record. "There is so much inbredness in this profession," says Ms. Reinhart. "They all read the same sources. They all use the same data sets. They all talk to the same people. There is endless extrapolation on extrapolation on extrapolation, and for years that is what has been rewarded.""

These are people who essentially deny that economic alternatives exists (or are viable, which is the same thing); contrast that with:
"The Dictionary of Alternatives: Utopianism and Organization" By Martin Parker, Valerie Fournier, Patrick Reedy
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Dictionary_of_Alternatives.html?id=IKZVKMPEQCEC

How many millions of people have been harmed by the essentially "religious" market fundamentalism of so many mainstream economists, who turn a blind eye to externalities, systemic risks, and wealth concentration? (To be clear, it is also a weird sort of market fundamentalism in the USA mixed with protectionism for favored already "worthy" wealthy groups.)

See also:
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue21/Stanford21.htm
"I am an economist. It is seventeen days since I last uttered the phrase "supply and demand." But the demon still lurks untamed, within me. Economics is an addiction. Every other addiction has a Twelve Step program, laced with tough love and blunt self-honesty. Why not a Twelve Step program for economists? God knows, we have done enough damage with our arrogant, drunken prescriptions. Here's how each and every economist can face up to their inner demons, and make their own small contribution to setting things right.
Step 1: Admit you have a problem. Like they say at the AA meetings, this is half the solution

It also conflates correlation with causation. The supposed fact that they were government officials could be the result, not the cause - psychopaths are likely to be attracted to positions where they can wield power, whether in social, tribal, corporate or government environment is just a matter of convenience and availability. Also, it's hard to say whether Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great would rightly described as 'government officials'. Or a large number of ancient Roman Caesars - as often as not they came up through the military, and often achieved the emperorship by means of social manipulation as well as the use of force. I don't know of a single Caesar who came up through the bureaucracy, which would be the province of 'government officials'. So I'm inclined to disagree with the parent's proposition entirely. The only one I can think of offhand was Hitler, who did manage to get himself elected.

A recent NY times article discussed work on discovering psychopathic tendencies in young children. It's early days but there seems to be some pretty good evidence that this problem can be diagnosed and eventually possibly treated early. Psychopathy is apparently about 80% inherited. The childhood 'calculating unemotional' (CU) syndrome is strongly correlated with later psychopathic behaviors, but about 1/2 of those with the syndrome seem to grow out of it or learn how to behave in their teens, so it's unfair to stigmatize them early on and this leaves hope that the percentages can be improved.

IANA evolutionary biologist, but the fact that psychopathy and leadership are so strongly correlated, and that the syndrome appears to be solidly 1% of the population (up to about 4% in high leadership positions according to another study) implies to me that there is an evolutionary advantage both individually and for a given population as a whole. Perhaps this characteristic, or some components of it, make it more likely that a particular tribe will succeed against its neighbors (such as success in war); or maybe psychopaths' manipulative abilities improve their chances of having offspring.

Above all: I realize we are all participating in a thought exercise in the comments today. My thoughts are with the people harmed in this incident and their families.

Now...
Can we please begin blaming the perpetrator and NOT the tool they used to commit their crimes?

Can we craft laws that give family members the ability to report troubling behavior to authorities, possibly forcing a doctors' consultation? How is it that in the U.S., you can be jailed and forced to take treatment for Tuberculosis, but persons who walk around month after month, year after year exhibiting a dozen classical red flags for behavioral illness are left to their own devices? - Maybe they'll never harm anyone. Maybe they'll shoot up a movie theater.

Please stop blaming guns. Where are all the guns in Western Europe, where Britain has a violent crime rate higher than the United States, or for that matter even South Africa?

SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
SOURCE: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/696036-britain-more-violent-than-us-and-europe

10 killed - 63 seriously injured - CLEARLY we need a background check and 30 day waiting period to buy AUTOMOBILES. What happens when a tragedy like this is intentional and not an accident? What could a sick person do with a Chevy Suburban in a crowded parking lot?

SOURCE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222924,00.html
SOURCE: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-05/justice/farmer.market.crash_1_movsha-hoffman-molok-ghoulian-brendon-esfahani?_s=PM:LAW

I'd rather gamble my life rushing a gunman to grapple their weapon away. The Tueller Drill / 21 Foot Rule says I'd probably win:
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
SOURCE: http://www.policeone.com/edged-weapons/articles/102828-Edged-Weapon-Defense-Is-or-was-the-21-foot-rule-valid-Part-1/

According to a number of sources, gunshot wounds - with access to medical treatment - are survivable nearly 95% of the time. Fate is cruel; survivability has everything to do with where you are shot and what is damaged internally.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=1

This just in!
Another human being can pick a fight with you, or sucker punch you in the head, AND KILL YOU BARE HANDED.

SOURCE: http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Man__bleeding_in_brain__after_club_fracas-139265238.html
SOURCE: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/02/27/20120227california-girl-dies-after-fight.html
SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9PoXH_-tUE
SOURCE: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2011/04/teen-killed-in-fistfight-near.html/
SOURCE: http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/fist-fight-left-miami-tourist-dead-caught-video/story?id=11445914#.UAnc_oa-zUY
SOURCE:

If you read this article (see page 2), it's clear that his medical condition is nothing more than the removal of his wearable computer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/technology/at-airport-gate-a-cyborg-unplugged.html

I bet his doctor is even the same guy named in the article.

I'm sure everyone here has already heard the news about the shootings (I can't believe the Slashdot editors let this story go up today), but for posterity's sake when people stumble across this article and wonder what the inappropriate attempts of humor are with thinly veiled references to the attack, here's more background:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/colorado-mall-shooting.html?pagewanted=all

A gunman dressed head to foot in body armor and brandishing three weapons, including an assault rifle, opened fire in a theater crowded with families and children at a midnight showing of the Batman movie “The Dark Knight Rises” in a Denver suburb early Friday morning, killing at least 12 people and wounding 59 others, police and federal officials said.

The suspect, James Holmes, 24, told the police after his arrest that he had booby-trapped his Aurora apartment with explosive devices, leading the police to evacuate five buildings in the neighborhood as they sought to disable what they described as “incendiary devices” rigged to trip wires.

Mr. Holmes’s only criminal history was a traffic summons, said Aurora’s police chief, Dan Oates. Mr. Holmes earned a bachelor’s degree with honors in neuroscience in 2010 from the University of California, Riverside.

During the attack, witnesses said Mr. Holmes had entered through a side door of the packed theater and first set off at least two smoke devices before firing randomly at audience members, who had just settled into their seats. Within minutes, he was arrested in a parking lot behind the theater near his car, the police said.

Mr. Holmes had apparently planned the attack for some time: He wore a gas mask, body armor, a tactical helmet and was dressed completely in black. He entered the theater with an AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12-guage shotgun and a 40-caliber Glock handgun. A fourth gun, another Glock pistol, was found in his car. The authorities believe that Mr. Holmes acted alone, and that the death toll may increase because some of the injuries were serious.

The police and witnesses described a scene of utter chaos inside the darkened, smoke-filled theater as bullets resounded loudly around them, and people who had gone to see a PG-13-rated action movie were suddenly forced to scramble to safety as friends and loved ones were felled around them.

Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

If the case is as you describe it so certainly, yes, Zimmerman started the confrontation.

But, if you believe Zimmerman's version, he did nothing wrong, although he probably put himself at more risk than was prudent. He didn't chase down Martin and did follow the dispatcher's suggestion that it wasn't necessary to follow Martin. He was going to check the address for the police dispatcher, who had requested an address, and during that process Martin surprised and attacked him - well after Zimmerman thought Martin was gone.

Check out the video of Zimmerman's "on scene walkthrough" with the police the next day to get a perspective on his side. The first couple minutes of this video appear to be the police/investigators talking between themselves then it switches to the car that Zimmerman is in and the actual walkthrough. It's instructive also to go back and listen to the recording of Zimmerman's call to the police and see how that syncs up with his recollections during the walkthrough.

I've spent quite a bit of time looking at the details of this case as they leaked or were released and I'm betting that Zimmerman is either acquitted outright (most likely) or the jury is deadlocked with most in favor of acquittal and the prosecutor, having extracted all the political value she could (and having suffered unexpected political embarrassment due to her overcharging), won't retry him. Zimmerman's worst case scenario is, I think, that the jury will "compromise" and find him guilty of a lesser charge such as some form of manslaughter even though if that was the original charge they would also have acquired him on it - sad how juries work sometimes.

It looks to me like all the prosecutor can do is pick at the corners of Zimmerman's claims that have nothing to do with the core of what really happened. Unfortunately for her, her own witnesses also lack total recall and photographic memory in times of stress so she will screw herself in this strategy. But, she's kind of in a box, there appears to be no actual evidence that supports her case and all the actual evidence seems to support Zimmerman's version or is neutral so she has to rely on shaky witnesses. Since conviction requires "beyond reasonable doubt", she's pretty much screwed.

In America, we too have VERY few massacres.

How do you define "VERY few"?

July 2012 - 12 dead, 50 wounded - Aurora, CO
May 2012 - 6 dead, 1 wounded; Seattle, WA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Seattle_cafe_shooting_spree
April 2012 - 7 dead, 3 injured - Oikos University, Oakland, CA
Feb 2012 - 3 dead, 2 wounded - Chardon, OH
Aug 2011 - 8 dead, 1 wounded; Copley Township, OH -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Copley_Township,_Ohio_shooting
July 2011 - 8 dead, 2 wounded; Grand Rapids, MI -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Grand_Rapids,_Michigan_shooting
Jan 2011 - 6 dead; 13 wounded - Tucson, AZ -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
Jan 2010 - 8 dead; Appomattox, VA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Appomattox_shootings
Nov 2009 - 13 dead, 30 wounded; Ft. Hood, TX -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_Shooting
April 2009 - 14 dead; 4 wounded - Binghamton, NY -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binghamton_shootings
Mar 2009 - 11 dead 6 wounded, Samson, AL -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_County_massacre
Feb 2009 - 4 dead, 1 wounded; University of AZ -- http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-527308.html
Dec 2008 - 9 dead, 3+ injured; Covina, CA
Sept 2008 - 6 dead, 2 injured; Alger, WA -- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008153942_webshooting02m.html
Dec 2007 - 8 dead, 5 wounded; Omaha, NE
April 2007 - 32 dead; Virginia Tech
Oct 2006 - 6 dead, 5 injured; Nickel Mines, PA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish_school_shooting
Jan 2006 - 7 dead; Goleta, CA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_San_Marco
March 2005 - 7 dead, 4 wounded; Brooksfield, WI -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Ratzmann
March 2005 - 10 dead, 12 injured; Red Lake HS, Minnesota
October 2002 - 10 dead, 3 injured; Washington DC (sniper attacks over 3 week period) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks
July 1999 - 9 dead 13 wounded; Atlanta, GA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_O._Barton
April 1999 - 12 dead; Columbine HS
Dec 1993 - 6 dead, 19 wounded; Long Island Railroad -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Rail_Road_Massacre
May 1993 - 2 dead, 3 wounded; Dearborn, MI --
May 1993 - 3 dead; Dana Point, CA
July 1993 - 9 dead, 6 wounded; San Francisco, CA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shootings
Nov 1991 - 4 dead, 6 wounded; Royal Oak, MI -- http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/15/us/ex-postal-worker-kills-3-and-wounds-6-in-michigan.html
Oct 1991 - 4 dead (1 by samurai sword); Ridgewood, NJ -- http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/a-former-postal-worker-commits-mass-murder
Oct 1991

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/colorado-mall-shooting.html#commentsContainer

BBCentral Coast, CalifNYT Pick
Let's say patrons were allowed to carry guns. When one or more movie goers exiting the theatre reached for his/her gun to stop the first shooter, it would be unknown to the many bystanders whether they were acting in collusion. This is why the first armed individual who arrived on the scene of the Gaby Gifford's shooting didn't open fire. He did not want to be mistaken for a second gunman. While that was a wise choice on his part, it shows the fallacy of the "allowing everyone to carry arms is the only way to make us all safer" NRA position. Uncoordinated responses would more likely result in greater carnage.
July 20, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.You recommended this491

JanetSalt Lake City, Utah
Verified
Everytime something like this happens, many of us ask ourselves how many more need to die before we have reasonable gun control laws in this country. Apparently not enough people have been killed. Perhaps a few more thousand?

In my area a 2-year-old shot and killed himself this week with a gun he found in his grandfather's bedroom.

The 2nd Amendment needs to be changed so that everyone knows without question or confusion that the amendment was intended to protect a state's right to have a militia. It does not mean that every person has a right to stock pile weapons and to use them at will to commit murder and mayhem.

And we need to hold the gun and bullet manufacturers accountable for the murders they make possible. Every employee at those companies are accessories to the murders in Aurora.
July 20, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.REPLYYou recommended this370

PauloSan Francisco
I beg to differ, I don't believe there is a really a "gun culture" in America. I think most Americans are actually for gun control, but we have been held hostage to a minority who will stop at nothing to prevent gun control legislation.
July 20, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.You recommended this333

TsultrimCO
I think it was in the Times I read that 4% of gun owners belong to the NRA. With such a small percentage, why do we support this group? Why do we allow them such power? When ordinary citizens carry guns, we get this. We get Trayvon Martin. We get Columbine. In my 60 years I have never heard of a gun carried by a citizen protecting anyone. Only story after story of a child killed by accident, a shooting by a disturbed person, a wife killed by a violent husband. Isn't it clear yet that we need to remove the weapons from our society? They do not provide protection from anything. They are a nightmare, born of some stupid fear people embrace, inflamed by the rhetoric of a few. I believe our right to live peacefully and safely trumps the "rignt" to carry a weapon out of some macho fear and need. I live in this state. I know exactly where that theatre is--downtown in a populated, busy area. The terrorism in our society today comes from within ourselves.
July 20, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.REPLYRECOMMEND292

WMNYCNYT Pick
I live in Madrid now. No handguns.

Last week, both my iPad and my iPhone were stolen in the subway.

In response to the loss of my property (about which I was violently angry), a friend in the States wrote, "Don't you wish you'd had had a gun so you could've shot them?", to which I replied, "As angry as I am, stuff is just stuff, and nothing is worth a human life."

I don't think most Americans realize what it's like to live in a culture in which there is zero fear of gun violence, as opposed to one in which people are legally armed and able to act immediately on their reptilian instincts with deadly force.

It's just crazy. Completely crazy.
July 20, 2012 at 8:07 a.m.REPLYRECOMMEND277

billcoleSitges
It would be better if everyone carried a gun. No, wait: TWO guns. Or even better: a few guns, a bazooka, a couple of rocket-propelled grenades.

I was hoping the story linked under "Big Data analytics" would be interesting but it wasn't. It only has vague statements and a couple small examples. A much better story is "Target knows you're pregnant" from earlier this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

Yeah... I happen to presume that taking a hand gun to the theater is idiotic but that is just my personal opinion... in fact, I think it says a lot about your culture (or personal insecurity) if you feel that you need to do this. Of course, you are entitle to disagree.

It seems to me that you fear taking personal responsibility for your own security. I do not know your nation of origin, but this is a typically European "nanny state" point of view. Over here the cops aren't for protection, they're to mop up the mess and conduct an investigation after the fact.

From the grandparent:

You are presuming that the owner of the gun is an idiot. Though it might be true in some cases, most of the people are responsible.

From you:

No, I cannot cite examples... it was a question (i.e., how... [sorry I forgot the question mark at the end]). Can you provide examples to support your claim?

Read about Joe Zamudio for that.

From the link on the Gabby Giffords shooting:

Here is a man that heard gunshots and ran towards them in an effort to help however he could. He did this without knowing the situation or who was in danger. Arriving on scene he recognized that the criminal was no longer a threat and provided assistance in restraining the assassin. Several things should be noted: He did not draw a firearm and charge into an unknown situation. That would have added to the confusion, possibly leading to him being identified as a second gunman.

He was aware that there was a crowd and recognized the danger of hitting bystanders.

A person other than the assassin was in control of the firearm when Joe arrived. He did not misidentify the criminal and fire on an innocent.

He did not act as “judge, jury and executioner”.

He has stated (on the Fox and Friends interview) that he has no special training for such situations.

I'm reasonably certain that you could replace a wall switch. However, I don't have the same certainty that you could teach a 5th-grade math or science class.

I'm sure that you could find parents who would choose you, but there are also parents who would choose to have you teach creation science, So the fact that some parents would choose you has no bearing on your competence.

New York City and other districts have programs to give prospective teachers the basics of teaching, under supervision from experienced teachers. If you wanted to teach, you could go through those programs. There are science teachers with PhDs who teach in New York City high schools.

You want to teach without going through those programs -- and without being evaluated on your ability to teach by successful, experienced teachers. Most school districts aren't willing to do that. And for good reason. They can't put somebody in front of a class without knowing whether he's capable of teaching. And long experience has shown that technical competence in science alone isn't enough to teach K-12.

I'm not an educator, so I can't cite the data-filled studies. As I said, Science magazine has had many articles on what works and what doesn't work in STEM education, both case histories and general evidence-based research. Scientists and science teachers study teaching itself in the same way that they study anything else in science. If you read those articles, that would be a good start on understanding how to teach. You claim to understand science because you have a PhD? Then you should understand that a scientist forms his conclusions by looking at the data, and you should look at the data on STEM education before drawing your conclusions.

To give you an idea of what teaching is all about, I just saw this article in the New York Times which explains one aspect very well. Note that he's describing the teaching of English, but everything he says applies just as well to STEM. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/the-trouble-with-online-education.html

As for your comment about teachers' unions, the evidence shows that's false. When you do studies of educational achievement around the US, students in the heavily-unionized regions, like the northeast, do better on standardized tests than students in the non-unionized south. Students in unionized Canada do better than students in the US overall. When you rank the countries around the world in education indicators, especially in science, there are many countries that rank above the US, and most of them have unionized teachers. By one index, the top-scoring country in the world was Finland, and as Finns have just pointed out right here on Slashdot, they have well-paid, unionized teachers, and long training programs. They study both the course content and also "pedagogy" (the methods of teaching). There was a recent book on the Finnish education system which you should read before you start bashing unions.

I don't know of any successful school systems around the world where they just turn engineers and scientists loose on K-12 students without any training in education.

You're a scientist, look at the data.

This so frustrates me. We do not have to get CO2 levels down to 350ppm to be safe as you put it.

When I said that, I meant 'safe' as a way to mean, "at 350ppm we will be in a range that will safely (and surely) let us avoid the negative effects of adding CO2." I was trying to summarize this paper, though perhaps I did so poorly.

As for actual safety, the way one of the world's top climatologists (James Hansen) describes it doesn't sound very safe. Quote "Civilization would be at risk.....If this sounds apocalyptic, it is."

It was in fact NOT a great quarter for Microsoft. I agree that the $6.2 billion loss on the acquisition is a red herring, but if you disregard that and look at the rest of their business, you'll find that their windows revenue declined 13% Yes, DECLINED 13%. Now, you can further write off most of that decline by saying that this is due to the reduced cost of Windows 8 that Microsoft offered to people buying Windows 7 now, but even after you do that, Windows revenue declined 1%. That's not huge, but they still DECLINED in windows sales. You know... WINDOWS... one of the two cash cows that Microsoft owns? Microsoft's core business is shrinking. If I help Microsoft stock, I'd be a bit worried. (For what it's worth, I do hold Apple stock, and I'm worried there too, Microsoft's wave has crested, Apple's is at the peak so there's nowhere to go but down, I'm just waiting for the right time to sell, it might be now.)

But don't let that stop the speculation about how "Microsoft" is doing great.

Kind of like you making shit up about what he did? His failing is that he didn't independently verify some of what was reported to him by workers in the factories.

Well, he said he personally met people that he did not meet, and that they told him their stories, when these people did not exist and the stories were things that he made up based on rumors he'd heard.

He also lied about the name of the translator who was with him during these purported interviews, and when "This American Life" asked to contact her to check the facts of the story, he told them she'd moved, changed her phone number, and could not be contacted, when when she had not changed her phone number nor moved nor would have been hard to contact if they knew her name. If his failng had been merely "he failed to independently verify," it seems a bit peculiar that he would lie to the producers and tell them it was impossible to contact his translator.

Some links:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/16/148761812/this-american-life-retracts-mike-daiseys-apple-factory-story
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog/2012/03/retracting-mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory/
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/theater/defending-this-american-life-and-its-mike-daisey-retraction.html
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/19/mike_daisey_and_the_inconvenient_truth/

The take-home lesson is that even if you think you're on the side of the angels, you shouldn't lie, because it makes people disbelieve anything you say. In fact, especially if you think you're on the side of the angels.

I often think about an SUV conversion project, my 2004 TrailBlazer was a very popular model as was the blazer before it with many still on the roads today. These body on frame Trucks are a dangerous safety hazard.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/are-suvs-more-dangerous-than-minivans/

I can't find it now, but there was a pretty famous article about SUVs how users wanted to be up high, and have plenty of metal around them, as well as lots of cupholders. The height invites rollovers, the metal makes them terrible at avoiding crashes, and the owners died or were maimed hundreds of times more often than minivan owners. The models compared were the Ford Explorer and Aerostar minivan.

For a long time body on frame SUVs were not tested for safety, unlike the minivans.

So you're better off from a safety perspective with a Crossover SUV or a minivan.

Meanwhile we'd all be safer and more efficient if all the body on frame SUVs dissappeared tomorrow, so making them more efficient keeps us all worried about getting crashed into by an SUVs so people don't opt for the smaller cars in any great numbers.

I had my crossover Equinox in the shop for 2 weeks and the delaership loaned me an HHR, a boxy little minivan-car sorta thing. It felt remarkably like my Equinox in so far as size, seating, cargo and modest comfort, but it was lower to the ground, had way less materials the doors sounded hollow when you shut them. It also seemed peppier, it got around town great and accellerated much faster than my Equinox or Trailblazer both of which have larger 6 cylinder engines. I drove the thing for 2 weeks normal commuting and errands on 7 gallons of gas as opposed to 14 gallons in my Equinox, couldn't guess on my Trailblazer we try not to use it outside of commuting to public transportation and big truck jobs.

So from a safety perspective you should be looking to refit a crossover or unibody style SUV, but from an efficiency perspective you should rethink the idea of an SUV that's towing an extra ton of vehicle it doesn't really need.

Where did you hear that the Volt has two electric motors? That's one of the most bizarre claims I've heard yet. It has a single motor and a gasoline engine.

Don't like that site about the Volt? Here's some more. Good enough for you?

You act like there's a ton of Japanese manufacturers out there. Toyota is going induction. Nissan is going brushless. The other two, Mitsubishi and Subaru, are bit players in the EV field with really minimalist vehicles; I don't think Subaru even has anything that can go highway speeds. In the US, we have Tesla, GM, and Ford actually selling highway-speed EVs. Tesla: all induction. GM: induction on sale, with a prototype unveiled that uses a brushless. Ford: assuming it uses the same motor as their Focus FCV, the focus EV is induction (the EV transit connect definitely is). Others: Th!nk: induction. BMW: two "demonstration" EVs, one induction and one PM.

Yes, there were more permanent magnet ones out there than I realized. But the basic point is the same: the concept that rare earths are necessary to EVs is simply false.

While I'm all for trolling Muslims, they are not going to decide to ignore the teachings of their faith and be peaceful, respect equality, free speech just because of logic. They're incapable of basic decent humanity, let alone logic. Oh and to preempt those who say that pointing out the evils of Islam is "racist", white Muslims are Just as Capable and likely to be terrorists as brown ones, and there are plenty of brown victims, the peaceful Coptic Christians for example.

Why do you want to put them on a cornfield instead of letting them swim in the ocean or placing them into the desert

Desert (n): Any area in which few forms of life can exist because of lack of water, permanent frost, or absence of soil.

You didn't really think that one through very well, did you?

As for your former concept, well, there's quite a few reasons why most companies are trying to grow them in enclosed vats.

When did this supposedly happen? I'm aware of the Occupy people being jailed, because they were vandalizing property (see the broken windows in Oakland, and feces found in churches/along sidewalks) but not about Tea Party or Paulbots in jail or detained?

Haven't you heard? They're all in the secret FEMA death camps.

I've said the same thing on my facebook, but 99% of the responders tell me I'm nuts.

You are. If you think the US is anywhere NEAR anything that can be described as tyranny, you have no clue what tyranny actually is. The irony is that anything which weakens the US will only give nations like China an advantage, and that's exactly what they're waiting for, and those aren't nations which respect anything resembling freedom or liberal democracy. Oh, I know: you'll say, "the US doesn't, either." I sincerely hope you don't get the world you wish for, because it will be one where you are far less free.

I would think the combination of a cheap tablet with an HTML5 based OS on it is a decent alternative to laptops and netbooks for elementary education purposes.

How many times have we been down this road only to see it dead-end?

Grading the Digital School ---- In Classroom of Future, Stagnant Scores

Are you ignorant enough of history to think that Obama entered office in January 2007?

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29google.html?_r=1

The "miserable failure" here is you.

Its worth remembering what happened to a poor boston student who rented her car for a carshare out using relay rides (and their liability insurance (same 1 million dollar liability insurance GM is using):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/your-money/relayrides-accident-raises-questions-on-liabilities-of-car-sharing.html?pagewanted=all

RelayRides / GetARound / Spride were fully warned back in 2010. I know, as an insurance company owner of a US domiciled carrier. RR was a bit deceptive in their advertising, and it was clear from the beginning that they had both regulatory, legal, and business problems.

REGULATORY: Many/most states (and is state-by-state) don't allow peer-to-peer car sharing, since anytime someone collects a fee to "rent" a vehicle it is commercial use. CA had specifically enabling legislation to allow "sharing." It hasn't been challenged in a court of law, as of yet.

LEGAL #1: Almost every automobile insurance policy has specific, automatic exclusions that terminate coverage if the policyholder rents their vehicle. "Sharing" it for a fee is a commercial use. An insurance company is not interested in absorbing substantial risks for which they aren't paid. So the owner of the vehicle really needs a commercial policy, and well, that makes it a hassle and economically unprofitable (for a single vehicle).

LEGAL #2: Given legal issue #1, if someone rents their vehicle and then the renter causes an accident, there is no policy in force. The "Sharing" companies (eg RelayRides) then step in to offer limited coverage through their commercial policy they purchased and extend to their customers. This is legally questionable in and of itself; however, as soon as those limits are exhausted (read: EVERY time a fatality or multiple-injury accident occurs), the injured party will seek recourse against the vehicle renter/owner.

BUSINESS: Once a plaintiff attorney justifiably makes the case for damages exceeding the $1 million limits of "Sharing" company's policy (eg RelayRides), then the real fun begins as the "Sharing" company is placed into a conundrum. They either take a publicity beating and hurt their customer, or they help the customer and end up drastically increasing their operating costs. Either choice hurts their business model.
                a) In the first instance, the "Sharing" company stands firm and holds the line "we've paid the policy limits". Then the plaintiff attorney sues the underlying vehicle owner for recourse ("the defendant failed to maintain state required financial responsibility", or "the defendant was operating a commercial auto service without a license", etc.). The plaintiff attorney will win, and as soon as word gets out that the "Sharing" company pays in excess of policy limits, it becomes open season with plaintiff attorneys. The "Sharing" company has to pay more for coverage, mollify angry customers, and try to contain the p/r fallout.
                    b) In the second instance, the "Sharing" company makes an "ex-gracia" payment to the plaintiff. They can try to tie the payment to a non-disclosure, but they problem is going to keep re-appearing. Nevertheless, the cost of business goes up. And there will always be another big plaintiff case around the corner. This decision option doesn't solve the fundamental insurance legal problems, it just is a way of paying large sums of hush money to avoid negative p/r and delay the bigger decisions on the business model and operations.
--Dude in The Know

Funny how GrokLaw forgets to mention that the same Judge had previously ruled against Microsoft in the 2002 Sun case. (Just one random article)

Or also that he rejected MS's (hilariously self-serving) class action "settlement offer" (Another example article.)

In fact, this this article asserts this judge was biased against Microsoft:

During the hearing to decide this injunction, Judge Motz made a number of questionable comments from the bench, as noted by CAC's Nicholas Provenzo in this post. From the tone of his comments, Motz clearly was ready to rule for Sun almost from the beginning. But at the same time, I would not presume to argue (in the absence of additional evidence, that is) that Motz was not acting correctly under the law. After all, antitrust generally presumes the defendant's guilt from the outset. Unlike murder, rape, or any other objectively defined crime, antitrust violations exist entirely in the eye of the beholder. What this means, more often than not, is that the defendant must prove his conduct wasn't "anti-competitive" or otherwise illegal. Microsoft's very dominance of Windows was itself a presumption of guilt. After all, what rational company wouldn't abuse its monopoly? Of course, the fact that Microsoft had no monopoly—such things are solely the creation of governments, not private businesses—is irrelevant. Facts rarely get in the way of antitrust.

This was not the first time Microsoft faced a clearly biased judge, either.

Oh, there was a 11-1 hung jury? Well, of course, juries can never be wrong, say, like award ridiculous damages for infringement on two claims of a single patent whose validity is still doubtful (The recent RIM case.).

Oh, he's flown in from outside his district to oversee this case? Could just maybe possibly because he has a lot of experience with Microsoft anti-trust cases?

Oh, right, this is /. and OF COURSE MS is evil and so OF COURSE let's ignore all the inconvenient facts and call the Judge corrupt.

Funny how GrokLaw forgets to mention that the same Judge had previously ruled against Microsoft in the 2002 Sun case. (Just one random article)

Or also that he rejected MS's (hilariously self-serving) class action "settlement offer" (Another example article.)

In fact, this this article asserts this judge was biased against Microsoft:

During the hearing to decide this injunction, Judge Motz made a number of questionable comments from the bench, as noted by CAC's Nicholas Provenzo in this post. From the tone of his comments, Motz clearly was ready to rule for Sun almost from the beginning. But at the same time, I would not presume to argue (in the absence of additional evidence, that is) that Motz was not acting correctly under the law. After all, antitrust generally presumes the defendant's guilt from the outset. Unlike murder, rape, or any other objectively defined crime, antitrust violations exist entirely in the eye of the beholder. What this means, more often than not, is that the defendant must prove his conduct wasn't "anti-competitive" or otherwise illegal. Microsoft's very dominance of Windows was itself a presumption of guilt. After all, what rational company wouldn't abuse its monopoly? Of course, the fact that Microsoft had no monopoly—such things are solely the creation of governments, not private businesses—is irrelevant. Facts rarely get in the way of antitrust.

This was not the first time Microsoft faced a clearly biased judge, either.

Oh, there was a 11-1 hung jury? Well, of course, juries can never be wrong, say, like award ridiculous damages for infringement on two claims of a single patent whose validity is still doubtful (The recent RIM case.).

Oh, he's flown in from outside his district to oversee this case? Could just maybe possibly because he has a lot of experience with Microsoft anti-trust cases?

Oh, right, this is /. and OF COURSE MS is evil and so OF COURSE let's ignore all the inconvenient facts and call the Judge corrupt.

Woman rents out her car via RelayRides, someone gets killed while driving her car, she may end up getting personally sued.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/your-money/relayrides-accident-raises-questions-on-liabilities-of-car-sharing.html?pagewanted=all

Cough you ain't kidding.

Well, last time someone tore up his computer and glasses it got covered. Mann has these issues from time to time, its part of the risk he runs for being an early adopter in integrating technology directly into his body.

Another one. I have not mentioned race at all. You don't even know what race I am. White Muslims are Just as Capable and likely to be terrorists as brown ones, and there are plenty of brown victims, the peaceful Coptic Christians for example

Its worth remembering what happened to a poor boston student who rented her car for a carshare out using relay rides (and their liability insurance (same 1 million dollar liability insurance GM is using):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/your-money/relayrides-accident-raises-questions-on-liabilities-of-car-sharing.html?pagewanted=all

Our basic cell phones track us and that gives others a lot of information about our habits. With a cell phone turned on the company knows where you are, when you get home at night, that you made a late night trip to the drug store, and much more. Then you add the smart phone apps and the personal details that the company knows get even more specific? Are we willing to let companies know the personal details of our life so that we can have a personal digital assistant? Is it worth the cost?

Behold! Chrisq feels the need to tell everyone just how much of a racist fuck he is. You are the problem, not the Muslims.

Behold dave420 feels the need to show everyone what an idiot he is. I have not mentioned race at all. You don't even know what race I am. White Muslims are Just as Capable and likely to be terrorists as brown ones, and there are plenty of brown victims, the peaceful Coptic Christians for example

Maybe 0 CEO experience, but she's spent the last 2 years at Google's "operating committee", previously named the executive management group. - http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/google-search-executive-marissa-mayer-takes-a-new-job/

What's important about the effect of various starches is the rate at which you get those glucoses. HFCS = instant glucose. Oatmeal = 2-3 hour slow release of glucose. Since your enzymes are rate-limited, your foods should be as well.

It's been mentioned a fair amount on Slashdot: fructose seems to be the worst part about the high sugar intake, not the glycemic index. High-GI foods like rice are popular in Asia without the corresponding diabetes. Also, there have been a lot of studies now that explain how fructose can lead to diabetes.

Of course, if you already have Type II diabetes, you're better off eating a diet that isn't high in carbs.

Dvorak called a similar-looking 1982 computer a "half-clamshell". Also, until just now, I had always assumed that the term "clamshell" was coined in Whoopi Goldberg's 1986 movie but a search in New York Times archives for "clamshell AND computer" turned up hits from 1983. So I can't blast Time Magazine for an anachronism.

Do you really believe that the US is falling apart?

Yes. A fundamental part of what has made American society great has changed over the last 40 years - upward mobility. Rates of upward mobility have plummetted. Our system of meritocracy has become just another form of aristocracy where the rich are able to give their kids the skills to compete on merit but the children of the poor are left out - no SAT prep, no AP courses, no extra-curricular activities, etc.

What has followed is a false equivalence that success on the narrow scales of our meritocracy (such as standardized testing, high GPAs and ultimately the accumulation of wealth) makes people good decision makers in more broader, complicated areas -- that the expertise which has served a person well enough to make millions on wall-street is also going to make their opionions on things like social policy wise and considered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/business/media/hollywood-acts-warily-at-comic-con-fearing-bad-publicity.html And I was at this panel. The highlight by far was hearing from Andy Serkis, and listening to him act out a dialogue between Gollum and Smeagol. I'm not sure about the rest of the movie, but they showed footage that proved they hit the riddle game scene out of the park.

Police are required to protect the public, especially in public.

I'm afraid you are mistaken on that one. The police are not required to protect anyone, and you had better not rely on them in a dangerous situation. At least, in the US the Supreme Court says that the police don't have to protect anything! Maybe it is different in other countries.

The people that want to use that statement to criticize Romney will ignore your explanation, and continue using the out-of-context quote to attack.

Well, since you mentioned Romney... As he said on CNN, which was quoted on The NY Times (and other places):

“I know there will always be calls for more. People always want to get more,” Mr. Romney said on CNN. “And, you know, we’re putting out what is required plus more that is not required. And those are the two years that people are going to have. And that’s — that’s all that’s necessary for people to understand something about my finances.”

Yes but "something" is not "everything" and I think the distinction is important in this case. We're not all wealthy enough to hide, I mean "shelter", our (personal and family) income and investments off shore. Most of don't know about owning, running and getting paid by a company, but not having any responsibility/accountability for it...or merely running companies that parent company owns.

Technically correct and legal is one thing, proper and ethical another. Romney likes to blur those lines a lot, like, apparently, most Wall Street people of late.

They don't _care_ if it's true, just whether it's effective.

Again, works for Romney and his friends. Simply put, Romney is a weasel. (Hmm... "Weasel in Chief" has a nice ring to it, don't you think?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/business/goldman-sachs-and-a-sale-gone-horribly-awry.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hpw

Goldman Sachs and the $580 Million Black Hole

how many cases were settled outside court?

So many criminal cases are pleaded out that if everyone exercised their right to a trial, the entire system would come grinding to a halt:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/go-to-trial-crash-the-justice-system.html

The second link is to "World Net Daily", a site that has about as much credibility as the John Birch Society.

Allow me -

Chinese step up computer espionage against United States
The Evolution of Espionage: Beijing’s Red Spider Web
Chinese telecom firm tied to spy ministry

Pervasive espionage.

Chinese step up computer espionage against United States
FBI estimates there are currently more than 3,000 corporations operating in the United States that have ties to the PRC and its government technology collection program.
Chinese telecom firm tied to spy ministry

The report by the CIA-based Open Source Center states that Huawei’s chairwoman, Sun Yafang, worked for the Ministry of State Security (MSS) Communications Department before joining the company.

The report on Huawei’s board members states that Ms. Sun used her connections at MSS to help Huawei through “financial difficulties” when the company was founded in 1987.

Based in part on Chinese media reports and Huawei’s website, the report reveals that the Beijing government paid Huawei $228.2 million for research and development during the past three years.

I'm sure you can figure out why this might be important. . . well, maybe not.

Apple has supplied us with an impressive string of fiascos lately. Do you really want me to enumerate? OK, here we go: #1: kicked in the door of a journalist. Ready for more?

Oh, wow...you mean two years ago when the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (not Apple) went to retrieve stolen (yes, stolen) property purchased for $5000 by Gizmodo?

That fiasco?

(Reference for those following, so they can see the facts: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/business/media/03carr.html )

Is that what makes Apple the most valuable company in the world?

I love the fact that you're clearly trolling by just randomly peppering falsehoods (and at best, contextless half-truths, like with this post) throughout this thread. But yes, please — keep 'em coming.

Since you're a fan of free software, why don't we see more open data efforts in particle physics? I see headlines like this and they're kind of a turnoff. Aside from this super confusing applet I haven't been able to find torrents of the data available on these tests. Why is that? I mean, as a software developer there is a legitimate effort of folks writing open source software and then there's a legitimate effort of people using that software to accomplish many things and everyone deserves credit. So why are particle physicists so keen on being the collectors and (at least initially) the sole keepers of their data? It would seem to make sense to me that people should be rewarded based on their collection of data and how meticulous and well they do that while any group can consume and derive results from said data. I understand the process has gotten more open but why so slowly? Why not torrent your data to whoever wants it immediately after you get it?