Slashdot Mirror

Steam Explosion
Manhole Explosion
Crane collapse
Manhole electrocution
Light Pole electrocution
Then there are the construction and scaffolding deaths from stuff falling on peoples heads, not to mention getting hit by a taxi or bus or falling on the subway tracks. Watch your step!

Their currency is floated? Then why do articles like this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/world/asia/05diplo.html show up saying (according to Obama in this case) that their currency "is kept at an artificially low level to give China an unfair advantage in selling its exports."

I think there was a later article where China did make some kind of change, but I can't find it in a quick search.

There were 126 people working on the Deepwater Horizon rig, yet no more than eight of them were BP employees. Some 79 worked for Transocean, the firm that owned and operated the rig. A further 41 worked for contractors such as Anadarko Petroleum Corp, a BP partner on the well. BP had 65 per cent of it, Anadarko 25 per cent and Mitsui Oil Exploration 10 per cent. There was also a firm called M-I Swaco, a contractor providing mud-engineering services on the rig, two of whose workers were among the 11 killed. Halliburton, Dick Cheney's former company, had four staff on the rig, and was responsible for "cementing" on the sea bed. Another firm, ironically called Cameron International, supplied the rig's blowout preventer valves, which, as it happened, prevented no such thing.

Further, the New York Times ran a great story examining the technology at work. It makes for some head-smack-inducing reading. It includes such gems as

blowout preventers used by deepwater rigs had a “failure” rate of 45 percent.

BP and other oil companies helped finance a study early this year arguing that blowout preventer pressure tests conducted every 14 days should be stretched out to every 35 days. The industry estimated the change could save $193 million a year in lost productivity. The study found that blowout preventers almost always passed the required government tests — there were only 62 failures out of nearly 90,000 tests conducted over several years — but it also raised questions about the effectiveness of these tests.

As with BP, the rig’s owner, Transocean, was aware of the vulnerabilities and limitations of blowout preventers. But they were not the only ones. The Minerals Management Service knew the problems, too. In fact, the agency helped pay for many of the studies that warned of their shortcomings, including those in 2002 and 2004 that raised doubts about the ability of blind shear rams to cut pipe under real-world conditions.

approved BP’s permit without requiring proof that its blowout preventer could shear pipe and seal a well 5,000 feet down...Mr. Patton said he had approved hundreds of other well permits in the gulf without requiring this proof, and BP likewise contends that companies have never been asked to furnish this proof on drilling applications.

As part of its assessment of the blowout preventer, Transocean hired West Engineering, which had a checklist of more than 250 components and systems to examine. It did not perform 72 of them, mostly for a simple reason: at the time, the Deepwater Horizon was operating in the Gulf of Mexico, and the blowout preventer was on the seafloor and therefore inaccessible.

According to a West Engineering document, one of those 72 items was verifying that the blowout preventer could shear drill pipe and seal off wells in deepwater. This checkup appears to be the last time an independent expert was asked to perform a comprehensive examination of the Deepwater Horizon’s blowout preventer.

The list goes on and on, a litany of errors from everyone involved.

It's easier to make these things about villians and heros than it is to delve into the sticky and complicated issues as they exist in the real world. Check out this article for some interesting facts about the rig,

There were 126 people working on the Deepwater Horizon rig, yet no more than eight of them were BP employees. Some 79 worked for Transocean, the firm that owned and operated the rig. A further 41 worked for contractors such as Anadarko Petroleum Corp, a BP partner on the well. BP had 65 per cent of it, Anadarko 25 per cent and Mitsui Oil Exploration 10 per cent. There was also a firm called M-I Swaco, a contractor providing mud-engineering services on the rig, two of whose workers were among the 11 killed. Halliburton, Dick Cheney's former company, had four staff on the rig, and was responsible for "cementing" on the sea bed. Another firm, ironically called Cameron International, supplied the rig's blowout preventer valves, which, as it happened, prevented no such thing.

Further, the New York Times ran a great story examining the technology at work. It makes for some head-smack-inducing reading. It includes such gems as
 

blowout preventers used by deepwater rigs had a “failure” rate of 45 percent.

BP and other oil companies helped finance a study early this year arguing that blowout preventer pressure tests conducted every 14 days should be stretched out to every 35 days. The industry estimated the change could save $193 million a year in lost productivity. The study found that blowout preventers almost always passed the required government tests — there were only 62 failures out of nearly 90,000 tests conducted over several years — but it also raised questions about the effectiveness of these tests.

As with BP, the rig’s owner, Transocean, was aware of the vulnerabilities and limitations of blowout preventers.
But they were not the only ones.
The Minerals Management Service knew the problems, too. In fact, the agency helped pay for many of the studies that warned of their shortcomings, including those in 2002 and 2004 that raised doubts about the ability of blind shear rams to cut pipe under real-world conditions.

approved BP’s permit without requiring proof that its blowout preventer could shear pipe and seal a well 5,000 feet down...Mr. Patton said he had approved hundreds of other well permits in the gulf without requiring this proof, and BP likewise contends that companies have never been asked to furnish this proof on drilling applications.

As part of its assessment of the blowout preventer, Transocean hired West Engineering, which had a checklist of more than 250 components and systems to examine. It did not perform 72 of them, mostly for a simple reason: at the time, the Deepwater Horizon was operating in the Gulf of Mexico, and the blowout preventer was on the seafloor and therefore inaccessible.

According to a West Engineering document, one of those 72 items was verifying that the blowout preventer could shear drill pipe and seal off wells in deepwater. This checkup appears to be the last time an independent expert was asked to perform a comprehensive examination of the Deepwater Horizon’s blowout preventer.

The list goes on and on, a litany of errors from everyone involved.

Although considering 1 in 5 Americans thinks the sun revolves around the Earth, it should be noted that your country's percentages may vary.

As opposed to what? Before people were "forced" to recycle? When old equipment almost always ended up in a landfill or was dumped into the ocean, as New York used to do with all of their trash?

Be careful what you do with statistics. My guess is that New York City's rate is only slightly lower because, in addition to having a lot of walkers, it has a lot of poor people. For example, Manhattan has a much lower obesity rate, and while I could state that this is because Manhattan is the most easily walkable of all the boroughs, it's much more likely that it's because Manhattan has the most rich people.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/nyregion/22fat.html for some good information

The escalators in the NYC subway system are notorious for breaking down and costing a *lot* of money to maintain. In 2008 there were 169 escalators, and overall each averaged 68 repair calls a year. It is unlikely that it would be different above ground.

My problem with GM food has nothing to do with GM food. It has to do with patents. The large corps involved are getting tons of patents to lock out independant research, including good humanitarian projects.

On the other hand, without the patents, these products might never get developed (who could afford all the political/marketing effort to deal with the anti-GM crowd, much less the research effort?)

In 2014 the patent on RoundUp Ready Soybeans runs out, and then anyone can use the seeds.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

In other news, U.S. Radium says radium paint is safe. News at 11...

I knew about the Radium Girls story. I didn't know that it was so bad that Geiger-counters still go off at their grave sites!

What city depopulation are you talking about?

You could also read this report to be a strongly in favor of cities. Urban/Rural living is much more likely to be a sterile airconditioned monoculture than city living.

http://nymag.com/news/features/35815/
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/new-york-citys-superior-health/

what about superweeds that are now glyphosate resistant and mirid bug plagues in Northern China because they haven't been using pesticides on their bollworm killing GM-Cotton from Monsanto. Nothing is as simple as Monsanto wants you to believe. We are only now seeing the effects of decades of use of this stuff.

Read the paper. Haggerty had two cages, one of which was RF-transparent fiberglass which was close to the same air and light blockage as the aluminum faraday cage.

That assumes the only influence of the cages is in blocking EM radiation. I can already tell you that's not the case. Metal in moist soil can create a voltage gradient and current, which has long been known to affect plant growth.

A better control would be a metal cage, and an identical fiberglass cage with an equivalent amount/type of metal in contact with the ground.

Was he really prosecuting people for stuff like escort services? I was under the impression that he targeted much more real crimes.

See this NY Times story from 2004 for an example. Choice quote:

''This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure,'' the state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, who oversees the task force, said in a statement. ''It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring, and now its owners and operators will be held accountable.''

The fact that this man is not subject to the same laws that he enforced is corrosive to justice.

Don't register or host your domain in the U.S. if it's the least bit controversial. It's just too easy for a plaintiff or government agency to seize it. One of the worst examples was a Spanish travel agency that handled trips to Cuba and which was foolish enough to register their domain name in the U.S. See NYTimes article A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears

See http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/2010/02/dont-register-or-host-your-domain-in-us.html for more on this topic.

Even practical nuclear fusion wouldn't generate nearly enough helium to meet today's needs. Fusion creates an incredibly tiny amount of helium. Even if all of the electrical power in the world was generated by fusion there wouldn't be enough helium produced to fill a single Goodyear blimp in a year.

There's already shortages of helium-3 (an isotope that has to be manufactured). The entire world only produces 20,000 liters of helium-3 per year (it takes 368 million liters of helium to fill a blimp).

See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/us/23helium.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=helium%20billions&st=cse

Once the natural supply of helium-2 runs out, all helium would have to be produced on earth artificially or somehow imported from other parts of the solar system. It would take billions of years for enough uranium to decay to replenish the earth's supply of helium.

Also, from one of the articles linked to in the story (Sobotka refers to Lee Sobotka, Ph.D., professor of chemistry and physics in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis):

"When we use what has been made over the approximate 4.5 billion of years the Earth has been around, we will run out," Sobotka said . "We cannot get too significant quantities of helium from the sun — which can be viewed as a helium factory 93 million miles away — nor will we ever produce helium in anywhere near the quantities we need from Earth-bound factories. Helium could eventually be produced directly in nuclear fusion reactors and is produced indirectly in nuclear fission reactors, but the quantities produced by such sources are dwarfed by our needs."

They're one and only job is to make money for their shareholders.

No, the one and only job of a corporation is to benefit the common or public good. In return for doing they are given limited liability. The first two corporations granted charters were the Dutch East India Company in 1602 and the British East India Company in 1604 just for this reason. The Dutch and British believed trade benefited the public yet shipping was risky. Both companies were shipping companies shipping cargo like tea from India to Europe, however ship owners were liable for the loss of cargo as well as crew and passengers. If any cargo was lost due to hurricanes or pirates the shipping company was liable for that loss. So government gave their investors limited liability with the understanding that if a company no longer serves the public good it's charter can be revoked. Of course as Thomas Jefferson foresaw and warned about the corporate aristocracy that "would dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Corporations no longer have to fight government, they write laws now.

Also capitalism is not the enemy, the corporate aristocracy is the enemy. Do you really think you'd be sitting there surfing the web with enough to eat if not for capitalism?

Falcon

Capitalism would be just fine if not for our ridiculous "corporate personhood" doctrine, the result of a few corrupt assholes in black robes called the "Supreme Court" getting paid off at just the right time.

The end result is the corporatist government of the US today - laws written by the corporations, for the corporations, Fuck The People. Our two-party system hasn't helped much either, if you look at each party, it's not a question of one party being corporatist and the other not, it's just which corporations the party in question is a stooge of. Both parties are beholden to the MafiAA/"entertainment" types, which is why copyright law is so fucked up. Both parties are beholden to Big Oil - sure the Democraps talk a good game to keep their sierra club/PETA/ecoterrorist types on board, but at the end of the day, do you really think they're going to do something that seriously causes trouble for the big oil corporations? I doubt it.

Illegal immigration? The Democraps are sure that the illegal immigrants are going to become their new core voting block, just like the blacks they've kept uneducated in ghettos for the past 40 years are today. The Rethuglicans, or at least most of their higher ranking members, salivate at illegal immigration as a way to keep wages down and prevent the middle class from growing. And if someone from either side happens to talk about illegal immigration sanely, well, watch what happens to them - just look what happened to Lou Dobbs getting bounced from CNN when they went on their "Mexico Uber Alles" kick, or the fact that Duncan Hunter got basically held off camera in the Rethuglican debates.

Take a look at the Obama campaign - especially when they deliberately cut off every bit of default identity detection on donations in order to deliberately enable donation fraud and refused to fix their deliberately broken process. Wonder where all that money was coming from, and what "interests" it supported? I don't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/business/energy-environment/09solar.html

Another sources says $4...

However - 'Cannot yet help with astigmatism', '80% of refractive errors can be fixed'.

Given that I have astigmatisms, I'd be out of luck with these, and I'm even outside of the 80% of people needing refraction correction (-8+).

-Ah, article mentions 'AdSpecs' - $30k at $19/pair, vs 'Focusspec' for $4.

In the end - this made me examine the article more closely - the device mentioned DOES compute astigmatism, which the 'self setting' glasses don't do.

Yeah, market share, Android sales are up 24% over what they were last year. In the last 3 years, Acer sale increased almost 40% pushing Apple down to 5th.

We can through out statistics all day long, bottom line, Apples current rate of growth in the last 5 years in the PC market is about close to 1% a year and even SHRUNK last year while Acer growth was 50%. OMG 50%! Of course YOU assume that since Dell went down, those people went to Apple, sorry, statistically, they went to Acer.
Statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is suggestive, what they hide is critical.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135603/Analysts_pull_Mac_sales_numbers_out_of_a_hat.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/07/15/idc.prelim.q2.2009/
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/acer-eclipsed-dell-and-apple/

We have been hearing for 10 years how awesome Apple is and how much inroads they are making into the home computing market but they only have 8% total after 10 years. 10 years is a LOOOONG time in the computer industry and going from 2-8 in 10 years is not a fast paced sprintto the finish by any stretch of the imagination and as glorified as you seem to think.

Your highly selective reading and responding to my posts matches up quite nicely with your highly selective picking of sales numbers.

Okay, Dells numbers should be falling greatly, noticeable AND those numbers are going to Apple. Let's look at overall sales numbers?

Yes let's! I'll respond to this paragraph again at the bottom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/technology/19compute.html

Apple also picked up market share in the United States, growing to 5 percent, from 4 percent, as its shipments increased 30 percent, according to Gartner. Apple grew faster than any other PC maker in the United States, Gartner said.

http://www.maclife.com/article/news/apples_market_share_pc_world_continues_surge

or http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/14/apple_sells_estimated_1_4m_macs_in_us_to_capture_8_market_share.html

Research firm Gartner said that Apple was the fifth-largest PC seller in the U.S. for the three-month quarter to start 2010. An estimated 1.398 million Macs were shipped in the States, and Apple only lagged behind HP, Dell, Acer and Toshiba.

Looking back 6 years...

http://www.macworld.com/article/43741/2005/03/marketshare.html

Apple's desktop market share in the United States for the fourth quarter of 2004 was 2.88 percent (and 2.06% q4 2003)

So in those 7 years Apple managed to almost quadruple their marketshare (2.06 to 8.0, 6% or 3.8x). Dell lost 9%. HP gained 3%. etc.

http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/Dell/10-Things-Dell-Must-Do-to-Catch-Up-to-HP-221568/

Obviously primarily an opinion piece with many facts, but does this sound like anything I've been saying about Dell / Apple?

1. Keep It Simple
Dell tries to do too much. The company has spent the last few years attempting to be the company that satisfies any potential buyer. That's a mistake. HP has shown that simplicity will reign supreme in the computing market. That company has gone out of its way to provide customers with several options that will satisfy them in one way or another. Dell should follow suit. Its buying process is a mess that's overrun with customization options. Even its product offerings are all over the place. Enough is enough. Keep it simple, Dell. That's what customers want.

Okay, Dells numbers should be falling greatly, noticeable AND those numbers are going to Apple. Let's look at overall sales numbers?

Dell loses ~8%, Apple gains about 6%. Those are the numbers. You don't think that's significant? Really?

Dell has closed or is closing almost all of their facilities in the US, including a factory building ~5 years ago near where I live. Should this tell you anything?

given the success of the Apple store
Success, measured in what why? Compared to what?

Success meaning that they are profitable! Success meaning that they have helped quadruple Apple marketshare in the last 6-7 years. Success meaning that while others like Gateway tried--and failed--to open branded computer stores, Apple is opening more every month. Is this really that difficult to see?

Apple has been so popular over the past decade

Popular means going from 2% of the computer market to 8% in 6-7 years. It means everybody in the WORLD knowing what an iPod, and a lot of them having one! It means 1.7 million iphones sold in 3 days at prices higher than most Android phones (and none of the 2 for 1 deals). It means virtually every

Fairtax is a scam whereby the rich don't pay their fair share and the rest of us end up picking up the tab.

Another person who fell for the myth that the wealthy paid little taxes. The Top 1% Pay More Income Tax Than Bottom 90%.

23% sales tax is enough to kill pretty much any economic activity.

Yet you'd have people pay even more in taxes. The tax on the top income in the US is 35% of their salaries, bonuses and business income. And those numbers are from the pseudo (fake) liberal New York Times.

Falcon

And to raise import tariffs will cause many more jobs to be lost. Caterpiller, General Electric, and other businesses employ thousands of workers, about one in five. And they depend on exports. "Caterpillar sells China some of its most sophisticated, and therefore expensive, American-made equipment, including giant bulldozers, large mining trucks and gas turbines." GE has been providing the turbines for China's Three Gorges Dam. They, and their employees, can say goodbye to their exports.

Falcon

Consumers are already paying for the degenerate practice of shipping jobs overseas.

Yea, they get to buy cheaper goods. And the one in five employees who work for an exporter like Caterpillar and GE get to keep their jobs.

Putting a tax of this sort on those items puts the price of said items closer to what they'd be were the Chinese and Japanese engaging in illegal currency manipulation.

Just as the protectionist law Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did, another one will cause other nations to enact their own protectionist laws.

Falcon

Given Clinton raised taxes (the largest tax raise in history if the Republicans are to be believed) and he left office with a robust economy and a balanced budget

Given that Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and the boom in the economy was in the later '90s, it's more likely the 1997 tax cuts did more.

and Bush reversed all Clinton's taxes (and many other policies) resulting in enormous tax reductions, and he left office with a busted economy and unemployment rapidly approaching 10% I find it difficult to understand how anybody can still be pushing supply side economics

HAHA! In 1997 when Clinton was still president, not only were taxes cut but the economy boomed. The economy started souring, was in a recession, at the end of his terms in office, not on Bush's watch.

I would put in a law that requires some percentage of any product consumed in the US (say for products with $100 Million gross) must be produced at least at the 25% level (of products consumed by US people) by US workers.

Doing so would result in other nations retaliating and thus shut down trade. That, like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act wich had a hand in making the Great Depression worse than it otherwise would have been, would cause another depression. Maybe one in five US employees depends on exports and you would have many of them lose their jobs. Caterpillar has some stats on US exports. They like GE and other companies export a lot to China. Here's a list of United States Exports by Product Section in US Dollars from 2001 to 2005.

Falcon

For every scientist you can produce who makes this claim I'm sure I can produce one who advises maybe we should take a longer look at the "evidence"

No you can't.

"The employee would have to declare that they need domestic partner health benefits. Google isn't "snooping", it's information the employee is providing."

And what is the procedure to verify they need domestic partner health benefits? Do they "test" for gayness? Here's a statement some employers make employees sign:

"--Have lived together at least six months.
--Are both age 18 or older.
--Share a close personal relationship and are responsible for each other’s common welfare.
--Are exclusive.
--Are not married to anyone else.
--Are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the state.
--Share the same regular and permanent residence, with the current intent to continue doing so indefinitely.
--Are jointly financially responsible for "basic living expenses," defined as the cost of basic food, shelter and any other expenses of a domestic partner because of the domestic partnership. (Domestic partners need not contribute equally or jointly to the cost of these expenses as long as they agree that both are responsible for the cost.)
--Were mentally competent to consent to the contract when the domestic partnership began."

I'm not gay but I've had male roommates and if I can get a few more dollars per hour (average $1,069 a year according to the article) by signing by all means I'm going to do that. Can someone be denied domestic partner health benefits? If a co-worker believes someone is scamming the system, are Google managers prepared to call employees into their office and tell them they're not gay?

I can't see this ending well

Not sure why they haven't got more success with stuff like this yet: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/03/us/plastic-pancreas-in-diabetic-dogs-brings-human-tests-closer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_pancreas#Approaches_to_an_Artificial_Pancreas

you know, some of us actually believe the point of life is not to labor as a wage slave. that if society were set up in such a way to maximize individual happiness instead of profit, corporations would take a dent, but capitalism would go right on ticking, and we would be happier people with richer lives. exactly what is wrong with that goal?

meanwhile, you seem wedded to the ravenous idea that toiling for the corporation should be the end-all consume-all point of life

"Everybody else at that company gets hurt, especially the substitute worker who'd really like to keep the job."

well yeah, if the point is to run at maximum capacity possible, all the time, like we are at war with something. there is no slack to pick up if there is no tension in the rope. relax the goddamn rope, you don't have to run full bore all the fucking time. go about your company's business leisurely, let things go a little slower, and calm the fuck down

if all your competitors labor under the same respect the individual's happiness rules, there's no competitive disadvantage

or, move to china, where the wage slaves are committing suicide in mass numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Employee_suicides_and_deaths

and forming unions (in a communist country, irony)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/world/asia/21chinalabor.html

to agitate for the respect from the government and companies that i am agitating towards you: the individual's happiness is the paramount concern, not the fucking company

really, asshole

" "At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge", said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?", asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons", said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?", demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still", returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?", said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course", said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude", returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when want is keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!", Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone", said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned--they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die", said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides--excuse me--I don't know that."
"But you might know it", observed the gentleman.
"It's not my business", Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"
Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him."

fuck you fucking corporatists,

Enzymes for conversion of cellulose into something more useful as a fuel have been around for years. The problem is that the enzymes tend to cost too much. This outfit at least has a plan to grow the enzymes at the refinery, rather than shipping them in. The costs of these processes have dropped substantially in recent years.

Fuels are very cheap per unit volume. Any input to the process has to be even cheaper.

To begin learning why the statement you just got up-modded for is total bullshit, start here:
The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is (Part 1)

Not just that, I've heard rumours (take them with as much salt as you think such a rumour from someone you've never met babbling on /. deserves) that at least one police force actively discriminates against people who are too smart because such people might start to think for themselves.

A little googling pops up the answer:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-connecticut-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores.html

http://www.adversity.net/policefire_1_connecticut.htm

The Associated Press reported the following case from New London, Connecticut: "A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

                    "The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test."

                    In 1996, Jordan scored 33 points on the police exam which is the equivalent of an IQ of 125 (well above average, but 15 points short of the traditional "genius" cutoff of 140).

                    "But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training."

                    Associated Press reports that the national average for police officers is an IQ of 104, or slightly above average.

                    The U.S. District Court ruled the New London police had a reasonable explanation for their policy of rejecting applicants who were too intelligent -- they might get easily bored and leave the job after receiving costly training. On August 23, 2000 the Second Circuit Court agreed.

                    Robert Jordan has been working as a prison guard since his rejection by New London police. Apparently prison authorities don't care of Jordan is too intelligent for the guard job; or maybe prison guards have to be smarter than police recruits. (Associated Press as published by ABC News 09/08/00)

Remember when we found foreigners strange and paranoid?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/28/international/europe/28PLAN.html?ex=1021135303&ei=1&en=2da41336db98c932

Here's the actual evidence

I've heard of this as well. I think there was a case in Arizona, too, but the only one I could find online was the case of Robert Jordan, who attempted to sue after he barred from the police force for scoring too high on an intelligence test. At least in America, it's not just a rumor; the police *do* actively discriminate based on intelligence and a federal judge has ruled that that's perfectly okay.

Yes, this is apparently what happened. Read pages 8-13 of the criminal complaint. After years of covert surveillance, three days ago the FBI arranged a meeting between an undercover agent posing as a Russian intelligence official and one of the alleged spies.

The undercover agent knew the right code phrases, but asked a lot of nosy questions. He/she actually convinced the Russian agent to give him/her the laptop she used for secret communications so it could be repaired, which has got to be one of the ballsiest counterespionage moves ever. But the Russian agent apparently got suspicious, bought a disposable cell phone, called for confirmation, and never showed up for a followup meeting.

At this point, the FBI decided to haul in the net.

Why the FBI chose to arrest them now is the mystery because the FBI knew for over a decade.

It's no mystery, it's all right there in the criminal complaint, if you read it with attention to dates. It's got nothing to do with global politics and everything to do with the details of the case.

The FBI had been monitoring one of the spy couples since January 2000 (Lazaro and Pelaez). Over the years, this gradually expanded to include five couples plus Metsos, their money man. It's not clear that all these individuals are linked, but many are. Their every daily move was watched, their houses were bugged 24/7, for years.

Three days ago (June 26), the FBI decided to go beyond passive monitoring, and engineer a meet-up between an undercover FBI agent posing as a Russian operative, and one of the spy couples (Chapman and Semenko). The undercover FBI agent knew the right code phrases, but asked Chapman what I'd consider too many nosy questions. They set up a meeting for the next day, but Chapman was apparently suspicious. An hour later, Chapman bought a disposable cell phone to use as a "burner", and apparently made a call to check on the agent. She apparently figured out her cover was blown, since she didn't make the meeting the next day.

At this point, the FBI must have realized the jig was up, and they'd better close the net on the whole spy ring now before they could react.

If anyone is interested in a picture of the (totally unrelated) said hydrangeas, I believe these are the ones. I guess the lawn could have used a bit more care, though

Does it come with pills to make more neurons so an average user can actually use it before losing interest for what would otherwise be lengthy learning process? (you've all heard what technology is doing to your brains, right?)

Ahh yes you mention "fiat currency", as opposed to "real" currency based off of ruthenium, indium, weapons-grade enriched uranium, xenon, cesium, chlorine trifluoride, or yes, even gold. None of the elements and compounds I mentioned have any inherent value by themselves, not even a small amount. Though I suppose suffocating on xenon, being able to burn nearly anything or anyone with chlorine trifluoride might be useful to someone, or having a large quantity of a soft yellowish metal that is inedible and would make poor hand tools like gold, just not of much value to most people.

As for your mention of Post-WWI and ancient Greece (you missed 8th century China) only post-WWI Germany and recently Zimbabwe are actually relevant, and even then the following is not happening anywhere today

From Paul Krugman here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/stagflation-versus-hyperinflation/

Hyperinflation is actually a quite well understood phenomenon, and its causes aren’t especially controversial among economists. It’s basically about revenue: when governments can’t either raise taxes or borrow to pay for their spending, they sometimes turn to the printing press, trying to extract large amounts of seignorage — revenue from money creation. This leads to inflation, which leads people to hold down their cash holdings, which means that the printing presses have to run faster to buy the same amount of resources, and so on.

Also, the CRA of 1977 had nothing to do with financial institutions owning mortgage-backed securities failing, it was a bubble, and private lenders not subject to the CRA acting badly.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/things-everyone-in-chicago-knows/

Ahh yes you mention "fiat currency", as opposed to "real" currency based off of ruthenium, indium, weapons-grade enriched uranium, xenon, cesium, chlorine trifluoride, or yes, even gold. None of the elements and compounds I mentioned have any inherent value by themselves, not even a small amount. Though I suppose suffocating on xenon, being able to burn nearly anything or anyone with chlorine trifluoride might be useful to someone, or having a large quantity of a soft yellowish metal that is inedible and would make poor hand tools like gold, just not of much value to most people.

As for your mention of Post-WWI and ancient Greece (you missed 8th century China) only post-WWI Germany and recently Zimbabwe are actually relevant, and even then the following is not happening anywhere today

From Paul Krugman here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/stagflation-versus-hyperinflation/

Hyperinflation is actually a quite well understood phenomenon, and its causes aren’t especially controversial among economists. It’s basically about revenue: when governments can’t either raise taxes or borrow to pay for their spending, they sometimes turn to the printing press, trying to extract large amounts of seignorage — revenue from money creation. This leads to inflation, which leads people to hold down their cash holdings, which means that the printing presses have to run faster to buy the same amount of resources, and so on.

Also, the CRA of 1977 had nothing to do with financial institutions owning mortgage-backed securities failing, it was a bubble, and private lenders not subject to the CRA acting badly.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/things-everyone-in-chicago-knows/

Overrated mods, really ? It's not at all relevant that the site that has faced police action and possible criminal charges after the stolen prototype sage are pushing this story to the point where they are getting interviewed about it in The NY Times ? (Best part of that article: the Gizmodo editor actually has better reception with his iPhone 4 than before.) Well excuse me for pointing out that when you say "consider the source" that works both ways.

There's mention of rental sisters here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/15japanese.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/technology/10money.html

"The companies will waive the early termination fee if you die."

"Next to death, moving to a place where your phone company does not have service may not seem so draconian. Each company provides maps on its Web site or at its stores that show the general service area, so you can easily figure that out. But companies will ask for proof of the new address. The T-Mobile spokesman warns that it has to be a legitimate address, and post office boxes will not work.

There is an intriguing escape clause in contracts with phone companies that offer "roaming" services, though it is intended to give the carrier a way out. When a cellphone is used outside the provider's network, calls are routed through another company's network. The consumer pays a monthly fee for this service, which the carrier uses to pay the other phone companies to handle those calls.

Roam too much and your phone company starts losing money. Find a place where your phone goes into roaming mode and make at least half your calls from there. Every carrier said they would cancel the contract, though it might take them a month or two to notice."

The wife did everything she needed to according to the NYTimes article to have the contract voided w/o the termination fee. She signed a contract for them to provide service and moved to an area that they didn't cover. For the contract to continue, they would have needed to provide service for her.....much cheaper for them to just waive the ETF.

The economy is bankrupting the UK. Fark puts it succinctly: "Facing a massive budget deficit, the UK to cut welfare, increase the VAT to 20 percent, and impose a new tax on anyone who brings one of those damn vuvuzelas back from the World Cup". Chancellor George Osborne is doing what all countries should do in that situation but are afraid to do, due to the unlikelihood of reelection. The country is damn near bankruptcy, the whole European continent is over-leveraged on debt and Britain is doing their best to make an example by balancing their budget. Tax handouts to the entertainment industry don't help balance the budget. Insert snarky comment about US legislators growing some balls and balancing our budget here...

Here's some more info on the subject:

from the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/europe/23britain.html?hpw

Britain Unveils Emergency Budget

LONDON -- Setting the scene for years of potential strife with the powerful public-sector unions and their allies in the Labour Party, Britain's new coalition government on Tuesday unveiled the most severe package of spending cuts and tax increases since the early days of Margaret Thatcher's era.

George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, held the budget box as he left 11 Downing Street for Parliament on Tuesday.
After only six weeks in office, the government of Prime Minister David Cameron took what his coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats acknowledged was a historic gamble: that austerity measures will help balance the government's books without pitching the country into a double-dip recession.

The cuts and tax increases, including average budget reductions of 25 percent for almost all government departments over the next five years, will make Britain a leader among European countries, including Ireland, Greece and Spain, competing to show they can slash spending and appease investors worried about surging debt. But the sharp reductions defy conventional economic wisdom, which holds that governments should increase spending to stimulate growth when the private sector is weak.

The steps outlined to the House of Commons by George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, would cut the annual government deficit by nearly $180 billion over the next five years, shrinking Britain's public sector and instituting tough reductions in public housing benefits, disability allowances and other previously sacrosanct aspects of the country's $285 billion welfare budget.

Only health and international aid spending would be protected from the 25 percent cuts for government departments by 2015, the steepest fiscal spending reductions since the 1930s. Mr. Osborne also announced a two-year wage freeze for all but the lowest paid among Britain's six million public servants and a three-year freeze on benefits paid to parents for rearing children, in addition to new medical screening for people claiming disability benefits, part of a bid to cut $16 billion from the annual welfare budget.

Mr. Osborne also announced a raft of tax increases, though he was at pains to say that the government's plan to sharply reduce the country's $1.4 trillion national debt would rest on making roughly four pounds in spending cuts for every pound in tax increases, a point of considerable political weight in a country that is already among the highest-taxed in Europe.

The new taxes include an increase next year to 20 percent from 17.5 percent in the value-added tax on most goods and services, and an increase in the capital gains tax, to a new high of 28 percent, to curb what Mr. Osborne described as rich people in Britain "paying less tax than the people who clean for them." At the same time, changes in income tax will remove nearly 900,000 of Britain's poorest people from the income tax system altogether, and corporate taxes will also be reduced over a five-year period, to 24 percent from 28 percent.

"I

That being said, I believe in contracts. If you didn't want the contract, don't sign it.

A big part of the problem is that Verizon is allowed to unilaterally change the terms of the contract, but the consumer is not. In fact, it was such a change to the contract that led to this incident:

"Effective April the 26th, 2010 Early Termination Fees are no longer waived if a consumer moves out of our digital calling area coverage map. This means for customers whom have lost jobs and must relocate, people with immigration status and are liable to leave, or anyone who may otherwise relocate, is now subject to the ETF of $175 or $350, depending on device. " Source

Interestingly, there is an official exception for deployed military personnel, but (apparently) not for soldiers killed in action.

Of course, one could argue "don't sign a contract that allows Verizon to change the terms" but every consumer contract these days contains such a clause, so what do you do?

William Safire disagrees with you.

"..Our thoughts and prayers are with Mrs. Brummund and her family."

Am I being overly sensitive, or is that just a bit odd?

It's somewhere between mindless PR pandering to the masses who believe, and mindless recitation of a plain dumb meme. There has never been a scientific study which revealed any statistically significant effect of prayer. However, there has been a scientific study which demonstrated a distinct lack of statistically significant effects from prayer. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

Except in this case Verizon sporadically decided to change the commitment, after the contract was already in place, in other words, the ETF fee used to not be charged under such circumstances but they revised the contract through (informal) policy change:

"Effective April the 26th, 2010 Early Termination Fees are no longer waived if a consumer moves out of our digital calling area coverage map. This means for customers whom have lost jobs and must relocate, people with immigration status and are liable to leave, or anyone who may otherwise relocate, is now subject to the ETF of $175 or $350, depending on device.

Verizon's reply: "This was an old policy that needed updating, a leftover from before our network covered over 300 million out of the 305 million or so people in the U.S. "There are two issues here. First, very few customers actually move out of a service area today. Second, if a customer buys a device from us at a deep discount in return for a two-year contract, and then decides to cancel service because he or she moves outside of that coverage area (likely out of the country, given the breadth of our coverage area), then the ETF helps us recoup our losses associated with the customer's early cancellation. This policy change was made in April and applies to very few people. We also have other ways of handling exceptions such as military -- Verizon Wireless waives the ETF for deployed military personnel."