Slashdot Mirror

It's never that simple, when parents receive conflicting information from different doctors. And when someone alleges a parent is abusing a child, that be a very scary thing. It's particularly so when it involves removing custody from a parent who genuinely wants the best for the child. It's very possible the parents may not have cooperated out of fear. There are plenty of people who will say that medical child abuse is overcharged, that it's actually less frequent than the accusations that are made.

There have been other improper allegations of medical child abuse made by BCH and others, some of which is well documented at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/opinion/sunday/the-new-child-abuse-panic.html. Take the case of the Hilliards, described in the article. Their daughter died at age 5 from what experts concluded was a genetic disorder affecting mitochondrial function. When their three year old son began to show symptoms, the parents asked that he be tested. The hospital, also BCH in this case, alleged abuse, though the state disagreed. The parents took the child to Tufts to be treated. However, a BCH pediatrician called a different doctor at Tufts and again alleged abuse. The state intervened against the medical opinions of the pediatrician treating the child at Tufts. Under demands of the state, the treatments were scaled back, resulting in a six week hospital stay in which the child's condition worsened. The treatments were restored and the child recovered. In this case, the improper allegations of medical child abuse by BCH actually harmed the child involved. BCH has twice made the allegation of medical child abuse in similar circumstances, this one clearly being false.

I have no clue why you'd simply accept BCH's word on this. Their credibility is certainly in question based on the other incident. Furthermore, there's plenty of reason to believe that most allegations of medical child abuse are completely unfounded.

Justina spent over a year in psychiatric care at BCH. When that treatment ended, her symptoms hadn't improved. BCH may well have misdiagnosed Justina because their treatments weren't successful. Furthermore, it's unbelievable to me that you're willing to simply disregard the opinions of multiple other doctors both before and after the child abuse allegations who believe that Justina's symptoms are caused by physical health issues rather than mental health issues.

It's one thing to go into CVS and take a bottle of aspirin off a shelf next to all the other OTC remedies.

It's something else again to go into a hospital pharmacy and take a bottle of aspirin off a shelf next to a lot of drugs that could kill you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03...
At my own hospital, in 2013 we gave a teenager a 39-fold overdose of a common antibiotic. The initial glitch was innocent enough: A doctor failed to recognize that a screen was set on âoemilligrams per kilogramâ rather than just âoemilligrams.â But the jaw-dropping part of the error involved alerts that were ignored by both physician and pharmacist. The error caused a grand mal seizure that sent the boy to the I.C.U. and nearly killed him.

Hospitals have systems in place to prevent those 1-in-a-million accidents. In fact, since they dispense more than a million pills, they have systems in place to prevent 1-in-100 million accidents. Even so, they keep making rare mistakes. It's a constant battle. And it's expensive -- they use bar codes, the pharmacist has to check the prescription, the nurse has to check the prescription, and if there are dangerous drugs around, like in cancer treatment, another nurse has to check the first nurse, etc. It's a pretty expensive process. It's worth a lot, because otherwise they would kill more people.

There was a recent British report that evaluated the reason why a cancer patient got an injection into the spine of the wrong, fatal drug, which killed him. It went into great detail about the error-prevention methods, and why they failed. Here's a news story about it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

So when you get an aspirin in a hospital, it has to go through an expensive process. They can't just go next door to CVS and buy a bottle.

http://www.breitbart.com/natio...

The CIA, working in coordination with U.S. troops, bought and destroyed hundreds of nerve agent rockets during the occupation of Iraq.

I remember a guy who blamed the NSA for him defrauding all the other shareholders. "Qwest is doing great, but just ignore the fact that I'm selling tens of millions of dollars in stock just before everything tanks!" Any executive in a company who sells stock while still working there needs to be investigated very thoroughly, especially if that company subsequently tanks without warning. Qwest, if you recall, had to restate BILLIONS in sales (there are more links if you care to search).

Why don't you try comparing Russia's condition and market share to what it was eight years ago? You just might find we are winning the war. And since their petro-dollars are worth shit, the threat is further reduced. The latest news is our new buildup in Eastern Europe. Now's the time, right? So, really, what is your complaint? Let the proxies and mercenaries fight the wars for us, more money, less American blood. In the Game of Empires our position has never been better, and is getting better still.

And where did you get that 4.5% nonsense? That might cover the toilet paper, if that.

Many of the environmentalists worried about the climate do, in fact, advocate nuclear power.

James Hansen, for example, is probably the most well known person warning about climate change. He is strongly in favor of nuclear power. He stated:

..continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.
We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem.... in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

citation: http://grist.org/news/more-nuk...
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes....

Or, check out this one:
http://www.takepart.com/articl...

As you mentioned that data isn't complete and this only looks at the sitting justices, but here's something:

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

From the NYTimes:
How long does it take to confirm a SC nominee?

The other aspect was his voting power. As far as I know, there has never been a justice who had a shadow second vote like that of Clarence Thomas. Actually, this would be an easy topic to research, though the last part of it will have to wait until Thomas dies. (Gee, now there's a reason to hope Thomas lasts for at least a short while longer?) The votes of all of the Supreme Court justices could be correlated to see which justices vote the same way most often. It's probably already been done, now that we have these computer things, eh? I'm pretty sure that the correlation between Scalia and Thomas will be one of the highest ever recorded.

Turns out the correlation for Sotomayor and Kagan is higher than Scalia and Thomas. As reported by that infamous right-wing rag, the New York Times. I'm sure your apology will be forthcoming.

Reminder mods, just because you like the idiot doesn't mean she isn't a pro-authoritarian pos. This is the idiot in question. And still the idiot in question And still some more idiot in question. All along with the help of this idiot.

How about that "no more baby parts" Christian extremist who is proud that he killed 3 people and shot 9 others? And all the other christian nutters ...

It was her words, but there were some editorial decisions because: a) she actually wrote two versions, and b) there were some sexually explicit entries in her diary that got left out for the initial publication. Subsequent editions added some of the deleted parts back in. Those later editions are also called Diary of a Young Girl. Here's a good article about it.

First off, the Ukraine powercuts were caused by old fashioned sabotage. Secondly no amount of malware can knock out the power generators as they are not controlled by SCADA units running Microsoft windows and directly connected to the Internet. ref
--

PROTHERO: Do you believe this crap, Dascombe?

DASCOMBE: It's not our job to believe it, Lewis. Our job is to tell the people --

PROTHERO: "Exactly what they tell us." I Know but do you think that people will believe it?

DASCOMBE: They will if it's you that's telling it to them. Now let's try it again.

Zika may not be responsible for the microcephaly cases in Brazil. Colombia is reporting no occurrences or indications of problems despite a large number of pregnant women being diagnosed with the Zika virus. I don't know if it's a relief that Zika may not be as bad as feared or if we should be more worried that we don't know what was responsible for the problems in Brazil.

I don't think we have enough data on the Zika virus yet to fully understand what's going on or if it's just one particular strain that is causing these problems.

Your lack of knowledge does not make my comment idiotic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11...

I suggest you read all of it before replying.

Look it up.

Only about 20% of smokers develop lung disease. Over 80% of people with lung disease are thought to have gotten it from smoking.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11...

The New York Times website is dropping flash also.

I've not installed Flash in years now, and have not missed it one bit... it's great to see the world moving on past such a resource consuming hog.

EPA estimate for economic value of a human life (7.5 billion dollars)

This ALSO seemed dubious so I looked it up. According to the NY Times, EPA value of a human life is 9.1 million dollars in 2011. One mistake I'd be willing to forgive, but two factual errors makes it seem like you are deliberately using misinformation to steer opinion in your direction. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...

Or (at one time) "reasonable and prudent".

Perhaps my favorite factoid about the state I grew up in is that prior to 1974 there was no set speed limit. When the Federal 55MPH limit was set, Montana's law defined speeding not as a moving violation, but as an "environmental waste of resources", and the fine was a flat $5 which didn't go on your record. The joke was to "keep a stack of fives on the dash" while driving through Montana.

In 1995 they re-instated the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit until it was struck down in 1998. During all of this there was no evidence that the lack of speed limits impacted fatalities.

Google should send some of their engineers to Italy. They have been doing this for more than ten years with buses in Turin and Genoa. Seems to work. http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.co...

1. Automatic rifles are extremely rare. You lack of knowledge on this calls you out as not having enough knowledge to form an opinion. Go read a little bit.

2. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. The police in the US are LITERALLY not required to stop a crime in progress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06...

The police investigate crime after the fact, they are not required to stop someone intent on murdering you, stealing all your stuff, or raping you. So, good luck relying on those police, there have been many instances where they didn't even stop a crime after being notified of a crime being in progress.
http://insider.foxnews.com/201...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Since when have we reached the point where you aren't allowed to annoy or offend people?

Well, at least as far back as 1999, as reported here. When a professor cannot use the word "niggardly" in his classroom talking about Chaucer because an ignorant student refuses to be educated as to the meaning of that word, we've gone well past the point.

I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.

The difference is that there are active steps being taken to keep people who are PREDICTED to talk about things that are "offensive" from being able to talk at all. Church ladies protesting outside are fine, until they hinder people who want to attend the Clay show. If they link arms and block access, they've crossed the line.

And even this example I think crosses the line. We recently had a "public forum" with an "open mic" relating to the feelings of minorities on campus. I think it had stemmed from the stuff where a basketball team threatened to strike if the provost of their university didn't resign, or some such.

One poor white sot actually spoke at the "public meeting" with an "open mic". He was branded a racist and was run through the public ringer for daring to speak when only minorities were allowed to. He had at least one apology published in the student newspaper, and I think it made the city paper as well.

I believe what he said was actually supportive of the minorities, but the fact he was white was the only thing they heard. It was offensive for him to speak in support of them.

So -- "the rights and freedoms they grew up enjoying should be curtailed such that they only extend to people who agree with them" doesn't cover it anymore. "Agree with me and be the same minority as I am" is closer to the truth.

i'm more troubled that they don't know how fundamentally un-american a speech-ban would actually be.

There is speech, there's response, and there's prior-restraint. As a society it feels like we're moving toward a place where people are going to censor themselves for fear of overwhelmingly vitriolic harassment from the left.

you say something wrong, you slip up once in a public way, or slip up in a way that someone with a grudge can make public. and looks like you're going to have to move, and change jobs, and go into exile for half a decade

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02...

bleh, where's the variety in life when we can't afford to be wrong ever?

Of course, whenever she loses her job (voluntarily or involuntarily), I'm sure there's a golden parachute that will deploy and she'll be set for life either way.

Even with Yahoo's stock tanking, Marissa Mayer doesn't need a golden parachute to be set for life.

Your "They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense." is an example of what is wrong with politics today, and you should be ashamed of posting it.

Ok, let's look at your argument.

On the classification side of things, there is not a lot of solid information about whether something bad was actually done or not. Yes there are seven email threads (twenty-some emails in all) that contain information that is now considered classified. So far no-one with any knowledge of those emails directly has commented on whether that information was classified when those emails were sent. We have heard that those emails did not have classified markers on them, but that again does not mean that the information was not classified at that time.

In other words, she committed a felony right there by creating and maintaining the server right here since classified information was sent repeatedly and corrective action not taken.

It's also worth noting here that there's a lot more than a handful of "email threads". We have spy satellite data stripped of its classified information - that's a felony for whoever did that. We have people, particularly, Sidney Blumenthal without a clearance given access to this information. That is a felony right there. And then we have Clinton instructing an aide to strip classified markings from an email. That is a felony right there.

And it's worth noting that this particular email setup has already allowed Clinton to evade FOIA requests. I believe that is a felony as well.

So, saying people who support Hillery Clinton are not morally principled is an example of unprincipled partisanship. Please wait for facts before accusing anyone, let alone making accusations about their supporters. There is plenty to legitimately disagree about in the actual issues in the campaign, without resorting to unsubstantiated mud-slinging.

Fuck you. This sort of weaseling is exactly why I agree that Clinton supporters are remarkably unprincipled. Notice that you aren't arguing that Clinton didn't commit these crimes, but rather that we can't prove it.

Indeed, the original study and design were were funded through a grant provided by 3M. There were evaluation studies performed by the Texas Transportation Institute that were FHWA funded, such as this one.

No, not really. According to this NY Times article, and reports I heard on NPR earlier:

The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.

So, they're classified *now* after the fact but were not earlier. From what I know, and is noted in the article itself, this is not that uncommon. Furthermore:

No. Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. It is not clear from the quote you provided that they were not classified earlier. You made that part up; it is fiction.

From that quote, it is clear that they were not "marked at any level of classification" earlier, but that has no bearing on whether or not they were classified. It is entirely possible for classified documents to not be "marked at any level of classification". Simply stripping the classification markings from classified documents has no bearing on their classification.

The Israeli spy agencies have a huge reputation in the spy game for skill, guile and ruthlessness.

And war crimes.

A great body of which are fabrications and deceptions.

Goldstone: You Cannot Undo a Slander
Richard Goldstone, the formerly respected South African jurist who disgraced himself by lending his name to a sinister and libelous U.N. report condemning Israel for war crimes, has now issued a very public retraction. “If I had known then what I know now,” he wrote in the Washington Post, “the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.” New information has persuaded him, he said, “that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy” by Israel.

U.N. Report Rejects Claims of a Massacre of Refugees

The United Nations issued a cautious report today dismissing as unsubstantiated Palestinian claims that 500 people were killed when Israeli forces invaded a refugee camp in the West Bank city of Jenin in April.

As Israel strikes back, fake Gaza images dominate social media

A BBC report has found that many of the photographs used to illustrate the situation in Gaza are from years ago, and even from the conflicts in Iraq and Syria.

CNN Uses Faked Palestinian 'Casualty' Video in Coverage

CNN isn’t the only Old Media outlet that falls for fake Palestinian videos. There is a famous video that caused a contentious court case in France back in 2008. It was a fake video supposedly showing a young Palestinian boy named Muhammad al-Dura being shot at by Israel’s Defense Forces. At first, the video caused international outrage, but in time it was proven to be just Palestinian street theater. No Muhammad al-Dura was ever shot.

Explosives Found in Palestinian Ambulance

The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews

The Israeli spy agencies have a huge reputation in the spy game for skill, guile and ruthlessness.

And war crimes.

A great body of which are fabrications and deceptions.

Goldstone: You Cannot Undo a Slander
Richard Goldstone, the formerly respected South African jurist who disgraced himself by lending his name to a sinister and libelous U.N. report condemning Israel for war crimes, has now issued a very public retraction. “If I had known then what I know now,” he wrote in the Washington Post, “the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.” New information has persuaded him, he said, “that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy” by Israel.

U.N. Report Rejects Claims of a Massacre of Refugees

The United Nations issued a cautious report today dismissing as unsubstantiated Palestinian claims that 500 people were killed when Israeli forces invaded a refugee camp in the West Bank city of Jenin in April.

As Israel strikes back, fake Gaza images dominate social media

A BBC report has found that many of the photographs used to illustrate the situation in Gaza are from years ago, and even from the conflicts in Iraq and Syria.

CNN Uses Faked Palestinian 'Casualty' Video in Coverage

CNN isn’t the only Old Media outlet that falls for fake Palestinian videos. There is a famous video that caused a contentious court case in France back in 2008. It was a fake video supposedly showing a young Palestinian boy named Muhammad al-Dura being shot at by Israel’s Defense Forces. At first, the video caused international outrage, but in time it was proven to be just Palestinian street theater. No Muhammad al-Dura was ever shot.

Explosives Found in Palestinian Ambulance

The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews

Executions have never been "cruel and unusual".

Wrong.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

Funny thing, poll taxes were a Democrat invention. Trying to claim that requiring an ID to vote is the same is lying, sophistry at best.

Which were outlawed in 1964, and brought back by the GOP starting in 2010.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

Seriously? When have Republicans EVER attempted to prevent someone older than 18 from voting because of their age?

Started in 2008, and accelerated in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12...

You could have easily checked these things for yourself before posting.

Right? She "confirmed" they didn't. 100% honest to goodness. No way jose.

Except... turns out she lied.

Again.

No, not really. According to this NY Times article, and reports I heard on NPR earlier:

The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.

So, they're classified *now* after the fact but were not earlier. From what I know, and is noted in the article itself, this is not that uncommon. Furthermore:

“We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,” Mr. Fallon said.

Officials at the State Department have said the “upgrading” of the classification of Mrs. Clinton’s emails has been routine. Mr. Kirby said Friday that the classification review was “focused on whether they need to be classified today.”

Apparently, at least one of the emails was about a NY Times article about the US classified drone program. Hard to imagine why an email about an article in a public newspaper would be classified.

Okay, let's forgive the Bosnian sniper for the sake of discussion.

I'm sure this was intended as just a cute family fairy tale...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10...
As was this...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
And this was just a bit of hyperbole
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And we know she was just kidding with
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
I'm sure she just forgot when she said
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/...

I could go on for many more lines, but it's late.

And so is pointing guns at law enforcement. But hey, they're white!

And in several cases, in custody today or even dead. What's your point?

the guys at the original Bundystock got a free pass for promising to shoot people http://static2.businessinsider... http://www.reviewjournal.com/s... http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i... http://www.trbimg.com/img-536a... http://www.motherjones.com/fil... the new bunch overgeneralized from that.

Who needs the book? Good NYT article on the subject by JR right here

His original rocket to infamy is definitely worth your time reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...

You called them a dumbshit and then went on to say that it's not legal for them to store the meta data on the outside of your letter.

The USPS takes a photograph of every single letter and package sent and then stores that data for 30 days, unless there's a call to save it for longer. They then freely provide this information to the police, without a warrant. It's considered public information.

I suppose you'll be wanting a citation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...

What would you call yourself? What should you say to the Anonymous Coward?

No superfund site has been created for activities that has taken place after 1986. The private sector simply doesn't operate that way anymore.

That is entirely unknown. They are still adding locations so they may just not have gotten to them yet. Full disclosure: I have not fully researched this topic, my conclusions are based on the fact that sites are still being added, and incidents like this mine spill and these leaks and these incidents. The latter was only not a fund candidate because a) company had significant resources and b) cleanup needed to happen asap.

Co2 most definitely is born by the private sector. Almost all negative aspects if any are actually measurable are realized through reduced costs of products and lowered land values (most of which is controlled or owned by the rich who can afford the losses ).

You are partially correct, the costs are born by the land owners, many of whom are not rich, as they don't hold the mineral rights. Perhaps you should take a good look at the issues around fracking wells and who bears the cost. Here's a hint, it's not the company and in many cases not the land owners that are affected.

How about UFO's? The CIA spread disinformation about UFO's in the 1950's and 1960's to hide their experimental aircraft program. Another example of a conspiracy that took hold with the general public and survived to this day.

It's not amount of time since the event occurred, or the number of people involved, it's the cover story that makes the conspiracy succeed or fail.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

Corporations are all going international. The High US corporate tax rate has caused them to move operations to tax friendly countries. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01... So how is raising taxes further going to help?

Ignore my other post... apparently link got striped out
Actually it can, and does tell them everything.
U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement

Well, there weren't very many but it appears there were some:
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

See, also, the Wikipedia article on the same subject. There were, indeed, some WMDs in Iraq, just not a whole lot of them and it's presumed that they were exfiltrated to Syria either early on during the conflict or just prior to it. Either way, there were never as many as folks were led to believe but, at the same time, there does appear to have actually been some. The Wikipedia article has some examples but the above actually goes into some details as to people who may have actually been injured by WMDs - specifically the of the chemical kind. In some (most?) cases they were pretty old and likely low efficacy or no longer volatile due to age or exposure to other elements.

I answered the question that you asked. No dodge.

No, you didn't.

If you are in doubt, I can provide a link to a video of the college president saying that no guns are allowed.

Go ahead, and I'll show you a link to an armed student that was there. He went on to say others were, too, and elected not to engage for fear of shooting innocent bystanders or becoming a target by the police.

So, once again, how many mass shootings in the last 20 years not in gun free zones?

Do you understand how gun-free zones came into being?

And YOU dodge.

Actually, unlike you, I did answer. "2) Let me guess, we should ban seat belts because you MIGHT get trapped in your car, and unable to flee if it catches on fire." "Nah..."

No, I am not eager. I hope it never happens. However, if forced to choose between a criminal or a family member dying, I am going to save my family.

You should have finished reading that paragraph.

More publicized, maybe. More in general? I don't think so.

Yes. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...

But his victims shouldn't have guns? Yeah, makes sense. That worked out SO well in movie theaters, schools, and churches in S. Carolina. All had a "no guns" policy.

How would people with widely varying skills with firearms somehow end in less bloodshed? We already have statistics that show that, at best, the "Good guy with a gun" only works about 15% of the time. Meanwhile you're opening the door to problems like people rage shooting, accidental discharge, innocent victims, etc.

In fact a woman was shot in a theater just this last weekend. Was the problem that the shooter had a gun or that she wasn't armed?

We protect the President with guns. We protect our kids with plastic signs.

We've already learned that surrounding our kids with more guns doesn't make them safer. That's actually how we got into this in the first place. Remember when I said you got your cause and effect mixed up? Why do you think those signs suddenly appeared? I'll give you a hint: I wasn't from someone predicting the future.

Tell that to the judge:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01...

Damn standing, I hate standing.

I have some problems with it as well. I think there should be a process to, well, challenge laws in the court even before standing has been established, but I'm not enough of a lawyer to say how that should work.

But again that's a question of use-cases and how the user balances risk.

Correct. What it means, at least to me, is that smart-guns need to be commercially competitive. Consider something like a hydrogen fuel cell car. When the state of the art, even with the company eating all R&D costs, only charging the marginal cost of production results in a $200k vehicle that has 3 fueling points in the city vs hundreds of gasoline fueling points, said car isn't competitive. Get the marginal cost down to $10k per vehicle(IE sale price of about $15k is profitable if they sell enough of them) and the gas station owners will see an opportunity and those 3 points will expand to dozens(at first), so the problems will be solved. Until then, as you say, there's a lot of risk.

So you're basing all of your arguments on the NJ law and the boycott by current gun owners.

No, I'm basing one of my arguments on it. S&W, for example, nearly died to a grass roots boycott when they made a deal with the Clinton Administration to restrict firearm types, features, and sales. So many gun owners refused to buy S&W firearms and/or sold their S&W firearms in protest that not only were there fewer people buying their weapons - there were so many used S&W firearms available that even those still willing to buy were lured into buying used more often than not. The owners ended up selling the company to another party at a 'fire-sale' price, and the new owners repudiated the deal.

So yes, firearm companies are well aware that they can't piss the gun owners off too much. They're one of the few industries that have actually faced an effective boycott in recent history. Most boycotts aren't widespread enough to be 'effective'.

And I don't think that works for this argument because the police or military wouldn't involve themselves in a boycott, and a new maker could survive on a smaller initial market.

They might not involve themselves in a boycott, but the military does their purchasing their own way, and most firearm companies can't survive on the military market alone. You lose the military contract and you're gone if you're dependent upon that. As for the police - they're more distributed, but note what I was saying - the police might not deliberately boycott the company, but they're not buying the smart gun versions. If all you're producing is smart guns, right now that means that the police will keep buying Glocks.

I will note that police and military are probably the worst market for smart guns since they don't really need to worry about 3rd parties getting their guns and their guns are explicitly for combat situations.

Uh, say what? I'd suggest doing a couple google searches on topics like 'military weapons stolen'.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/new...
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12...
https://www.gunandgame.com/thr...

Also, the police are probably one of the better targets for smart guns because being killed by their own weapons is a real problem:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...
"Fifty-one officers were killed when their department-issued firearms or another officer’s gun were turned against them."

Fails as I don't drink.

So because you don't drink, nobody every drinks? Well argued. Guess this didn't happen then. or this. or this. or this. or this. Aren't the things that don't happen amazing?

- I then stab my spouse to death because the gun wouldn't fire. outcome worse than 'bad'.

So it's ok to kill people while on methamphetamine, because people high on coke also kill people sometimes?

Well argued.

Scenario 2: (a) the burglar isn't a burglar, he's a home invader.

And also, he's constantly chasing a long legged bird with the aim of capturing/killing said bird with products he has purchased from ACME corporation. And you forgot to mention he is a coyote.

(b) daughter knows not to sneak in.

Oh. that's all right then, I guess. We don't need to worry about the dead kids.

(c) try finding this actually happening. Removing a firearm from an armed person's hands only really happens in the movies. It's too easy to just shoot somebody trying to snatch your weapon.

OK then

(d) bad conservative/libertarian police: So what? It's the intruder's fault for breaking in. If he doesn't want to risk getting shot, he shouldn't be breaking in.

Sure. We don't need to worry about the dead kids. Just pile em up out back.

It's a dumb claim. What isn't is that women are buying a lot of guns, perhaps more than "ever" before. (I'm sure somebody can point to some month or even year in the past where women bought a lot of guns, but let's keep statistical blips out of the discussion.) So yes, gun ownership is primarily male, but women are getting more involved in gun ownership.

Actually knot theory, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics (not to mention other fields) have deep connections. Knot theory is unreasonably effective.

Just to whet the appetite for our readers .....

Unreasonable Effectiveness of Knot Theory
Mathematicians Link Knot Theory to Physics

No because biofuels will always be problematic

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...

It's the exact same reason the Germans turned to synfuels during WWII.

Nahh, You know what's idiocy ? Artificially limiting your logistics chain, to a system that will never be as widespread as oil is, and is an out and out bad idea

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...

And Apple,

Apple’s Web of Tax Shelters Saved It Billions, Panel Finds

and Microsoft, and many others.

Double Irish arrangement: Companies using the arrangement