Slashdot Mirror

Paul Krugman disagrees with you, and I suspect he's onto something.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

You can only fix as much as you have money for, as bandaids cost money too. And who is going to pay for it if it is commercial project and should remain profitable? You have Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and liability is limited anyway. Regulators and regulated are working in the same nuclear industry and are friends effectively.

The design is more or less inherently unsafe in any case, it is still possible to end with melted core and it is too bad even if containment is left intact. You can read the same criticism about US plants as for Fukushima ones:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com...

Considering Hillary earned more than $30 million in the last two years, I'm pretty sure republicans aren't the only wealthy politicians. You aren't a front-runner in a presidential election without a massive bankroll anymore, no matter what party you are running for.

Thinking that any politician whose name will actually be on the 2016 ballot has your best interest at heart, and not the interest of the corporations and other "people" funding their Super PACs shows total ignorance of how the system actually works. Most voters get their information on candidates from paid advertising and the press. Whoever does the best job with their ad campaign and who has the most sympathy in the press is going to win.

When the World Trade Center collapsed, there were those who said the burning fuel from the airliners never got hot enough to melt the steel beams of the buildings. This means, in their warped view, there was no way for the buildings to have collapsed on their own and were instead deliberately destroyed.

The problem with that idea is twofold. While the heat from the burning fuel may not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel, it was sufficient to heat the metal and cause structural deformation.

Further, these conspiracy folks completely ignore all the other combustible material inside the buildings which WERE hot enough to warp the beams and pull them laterally from the sides of the building (see this sheet, numbers 8 and 9 for a further explanation) which then precipitated the pancake effect we all witnessed.

Thus, the reference to not being able to melt an airliner.

However, these same folks ignore incidents such as this one where a tanker fire directly under a bridge was able to melt steel beams. It's the way conspiracy theories work. Ignore anything which contradicts your point of view or explain them away as not relevant to their rantings. Just like Russia and their proxies have done trying to claim their innocence at shooting down the civilian airliner.

Hackers go to jail for insider trading because it rips off punters without access to the inside information.

So what about High-frequency trading? Investment bankers pay a premium to the stock exchange to connect their computers closer than everyone elses. They get inside information microseconds before those same punters, and milk them for it, and it's all legit. Isn't High-frequency trading just another kind of insider trading?

http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/re...
http://faculty.chicagobooth.ed...

Oh, there are people doing it they just have the law on their side.

There have multiple cases of warrantless domestic spying by both the NSA and the FBI:

FBI:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...

NSA:
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Apple, Google and other tech/communications companies also believe that the USA Federal Government is abusing the FISA warrants for both domestic and international cases:
https://www.google.com/search?...

The USA Government has long used evidence that is gathered without a warrant to direct their case so that they know where to look with a warrant. If they get caught they have to prove that they could have obtained the information a different way. After you know what you are looking for that is a pretty low barrier to overcome.

Not saying this is write or wrong, but it is definitely documented.

it kind of blows my mind how Uber just said "fuck the laws" and expanded like crazy

don't get me wrong, i like Uber and I welcome the competition. in New York City now traditional taxi companies are getting their own apps to compete: that's innovation improving our lives, jolting complacency. made possible by Uber

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08...

but Uber is going to have increasing problems. you can't just flaunt local regulations. some of it is corrupt. but some of it, like safety and taxes, is valid and important and not a joke

you can have innovation without ignoring the laws Uber. which is what is going to happen anyways: Uber will come to bend to the will of the local ordinances one way or the other eventually

it's an interesting lesson though: expand like a weed by ignoring local laws, then get beaten into submission by local laws later. but by then you have serious market share. i am not sure that lesson transports to other market segments (pun intended), but it is indeed a very interesting lesson

I'm only bothering to raise this because I think a lot of people try to argue that being overweight is a simple issue of "willpower" and "not eating so much"

So why is it that in every rigorous study where people have been put under strict control and have demonstrably reduced their caloric intake, ALL of them ALWAYS lost weight? See for example this experiment conducted by the NIH where 132 men and women have had their caloric intake reduced by 25% for 2 years. All of them lost weight.

Lawsuits would have quickly ended the operations of the offending company, and gone further, severely punishing its shareholders, who would not have been protected by the corporate veil.

The social and political environment that makes federal regulation possible is the same environment that makes successful civil litigation possible.

It is a double-barreled shotgun blast.

When a Switch in Time Saved Nine

Unfortunately, treatment will still cost more than ever due to lawsuits and drug costs.

Lawsuits are often caused by human error: sleep deprived doctors, or overconfident doctors making bad diagnoses on insufficient information.

No, actually they are not. The leading cause of lawsuits is poor communication. And if you want to believe a lawyer the top two leading causes are surgical misadventures and issues with child birth. Missed diagnosed probably comes in third.

I actually predict Watson as potentially increasing medical costs. The issue? Something we call incidentalomas. These are incidental findings that were not expected and rarely result in an identified problem. But we spend a ton of time, money, and effort tracking these down, and they rarely pan out.

A nurse with a printed flowchart will usually give a better diagnosis than a doctor. So replacing (or supplementing) doctors with AI should reduce lawsuits, and improve care.

If that is what you think, then go for it. If you believe that care from a lesser trained individual is better for you, then by all means have at it. I work with nurses, and physicians, and other "healthcare" extenders. Nurses are great a following a well ordered script. They can nail, say, 90-95% of the primary care medical problems out there (e.g. outpatient settings). The problem? If you are part of the 5-10%, they don't do so well (and cost you more money in the process). Most don't have the training or experience to "know what they don't know" or they are Unconsciously incompetent. A good primary physician is at least "Consciously incompetent" to "Unconsciously competent" and can either treat you or refer you. Now I know some are going to tell me that their doctors "know nothing", but I'll bet they know more than most nurses (yes there are physicians who shouldn't be - that's another discussion for another day).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html?_r=0

Of course, that didn't work out [nypost.com] too well [cbslocal.com]

It is still ongoing story and too early for any conclusions.

If you read a more detailed description, you'll see that it is a mixed bag, with a mix of both good and bad consequences. Also, note that some of the biggest current hardships (legal issues) are totally independent of the $70K wage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09...

sauce for the goose and all. It's a pretty grey area, but in my mind, people are reddit's customers, and reddit is serving as a mass messaging tool/communication device.

we already have protection in the US that protect voice calls from tampering by phone companies.

How comfortable would you be with comcast screening your traffic?

reddit has the right to refuse service, just as comcast does, just as verizon does. should they though?

corporate self-censorship is so much more insidious in my eyes than government censorship. How soon until censorship as a concept no longer has any meaning, because nobody has an unwelcome thought?

Citation required. "Often" is a bit of hyperbole. Maybe a lot of hyperbole. Manufacturers of pills have quality control systems that verify the output of their pill mills, and if they aren't right the entire batch is dumped.

Or maybe it's not a lot of hyperbole. Maybe drug companies don't actually take as much care as you think they do. Maybe you're just making unfounded assumptions because they make you feel better.

The truth is that there isn't a recall every time a defective drug is found; and there is no reason to believe that every defect is detected. The drug manufacturers do not take the care that you think they do; at best, some of them do.

why do we take it this direction?

Self defense.

There's a fine line between free speech and harassment. PETA and groups like them are known for secretly making videos, heavily editing them, and distributing them as fact. There was a case here in PA a couple of years ago on a chicken farm - the owner wasn't able to keep up with the maintenance and cleaning of the facility, so he hired a man to help. Instead of helping clean it up, the man secretly videoed the conditions and used the recordings to try and put the farmer out of business. How would you react to that kind of activity if it was used against you?

Farmers and biologists also face criminal acts carried out to destroy their livelihood.

Here's an example of that.. :)

Fingerprints and other biometric data go always to the FBI's IAFIS and are kept for god only knows how long.

What is included in IAFIS: Not only fingerprints, but corresponding criminal histories; mug shots; scars and tattoo photos; physical characteristics like height, weight, and hair and eye color; and aliases. The system also includes civil fingerprints, mostly of individuals who have served or are serving in the U.S. military or have been or are employed by the federal government. The fingerprints and criminal history information are submitted voluntarily by state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies.

In the age of the Patriot act, it all goes into IAFIS. Oh and sign up for the TSA Pre-Check program and guess what, you're fingerprints go there too, for at least 75 years. Oh and recent supreme court rulings have allowed DNA evidence to be collected in connection with 'serious' crimes. The definition of serious is still nebulous but I know a guy who had to give a mouth swab for a public intoxication arrest.

There's multiple reasons why I object to this kind of data being retained except for the purposes intended and it should have a lifespan suiting the needs, or it shouldn't be collected at all. Unfortunately for all of us in the US, everybody wants to collect data on us and our government is no different. If you're convicted of a felony, yes retain the data indefinitely but shit if you get a parking ticket or non-felony you shouldn't have this crap follow you around for the rest of your life.

cut the cables between the two boards [of a TRS-80] and send them separately to avoid getting caught in customs.

Reminds me of the story of Richard Garriott's Sputnik 1. It's an actual spare probe prepared by the Soviets in the 1950's as a backup.

When Russia was having a hard time transitioning away from Soviet rule in the 90's, Soviet space stuff was being auctioned for ridiculously low prices.

Richard snapped up the spare Sputnik for a bargain, and disassembled it to get it past customs. His team unscrewed the metal sphere into two halves and presented them as "new-age salad bowls" to customs officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10...

Well I arrived at America in the 1940s (when I was born), and you don't know how good this country used to be.

Up to the 1960s, some of the best colleges (like CCNY) were basically free. So college students didn't have to work for slave wages in Chinatown. In the developed European countries (except the UK) college is still free, so it's not impossible for a modern economy to supply free education.

My father grew up in the "old norm." He worked loyally for his company during WWII, risked his life going up testing experimental aircraft systems, came in to work every day, and worked as much overtime as it took to get the job done. He was never drunk on the job, and never lied to cover up mistakes. After he was in his 50s, he couldn't keep up with the latest technology, but he had a good union so his employer found him another job in the company where he could be useful until he retired. And he was paid very well -- enough to help me and my sister through college.

That was standard in the American work force from after WWII up to the 1970s. All the major corporations -- Eastman Kodak, IBM, The New York Times -- had a policy of employment for life. Some companies, like the auto manufacturers, had cyclical layoffs, but with the unions they set it up with unemployment insurance and so forth to cushion the shock.

Companies in Germany and the other developed countries in Europe are continuing to do that, so it's not impossible.

I think you should go back to college and study some sociology. (I once did a paper on Henry Ford and the asssembly line.) It sounds like you don't understand social science research.

I think you're making 2 mistakes.

(1) The Andrew Carnegie story you're describing is unusual.

Almost everybody who succeeds in America succeeds with some kind of social support. You came to this country with enough education to be able to go to college.

You had significant advantages over most black people, for example. In much of the South, they weren't even allowed to vote until the 1970s, and their school systems were worse than any socialist country.

(2) You may be doing well now, but the American economy has an enormous amount of insecurity.
As TFA says, the wheel of fortune turns. Most Americans have a peak income in heir career, and never earn as much again.

That's particularly true in the engineering and technical professions. In the 1970s, there were many age-discrimination lawsuits by older programmers in their 50s who were trained in COBOL, FORTRAN, etc. who were not given a chance to retrain themselves but fired and replaced by younger, cheaper workers. Aircraft engineers, who were in great demand during the 1960s, wound up selling real estate in the 1970s.

You may have made enough money in your business to live in comfort for the rest of your life. If so, enjoy America.

If not, you may wind up in 10 years in the cutthroat capitalism job market again, back in Chinatown waiting on tables.

What good is a high income without job security? I know people who worked their way up to $60,000 after 20 years of loyal service, got fired at age 50 and never worked again. What does that average out to, $35,000 a year?

If you want "real science," go read Paul Krugman in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/column/... He's an economist, but he went to MIT so he knows what science is, and he gives you all the data you want. (You may not care, but I'm saying this for the benefit of anyone who is reading this.)

Job insecurity is not normal for the US, it's not good and its not necessary.

As Bernie Sanders says, the European social democracies are a good model.

Yugoslavia under Tito was not a totalitarian state. Dictatorship, yes. Keeping the ethnic tensions that later exploded in the 1990's repressed, yes. Totalitarian? No, at least, not by the 1970's.

(And, yes, I did go there and did know people there. It was the sort of place where people could travel abroad and dissidents could get their convictions thrown out on appeal. Tito was no Mao.)

When were those conditions NOT true?

Answer, never. It's something more. Perhaps the level of greed increased somewhere, perhaps the short term consequences for taking it too far diminished.Perhaps someone gained disproportionate control of the government.

So let's see here, OH, it looks like corporate profits are at an 85 year high and wages are at a 65 year low!

Hrmm, where DID that wealth go?!?

Well, let's see...

• The Chernyobyl accident, which shouldn't need further explaining.
• The Aralkum, a desert created by the USSR out of the Aral Sea.
• Lake Karachay, which the USSR used as a dumping ground for nuclear weapons.
• The Bitterfield Chemical Combine's deliberate destruction of of the surrounding area.
• A study by an Ralph Nader (hardly a Republican) organization, about environmental devastation in the USSR.
• The USSR dumping worn-out nuclear reactors into the ocean.

That's from one quick search (obviously not needed for the Chernobyl item). And beyond those, the contrast in the level of pollution between democratic, capitalist West Germany and authoritarian, Marxist East Germany at the time of unification is well-documented, the subject of many studies and articles. It's about as close to a lab comparison as you could ask for.

Are there, and have there been, environmental problems in the free world? Certainly. But the idea that they're worse than in undemocratic countries is ludicrous, especially since the Marxist countries had their problems even with the benefit of hindsight, since most of them industrialized long after the free world had.

Well, let's see...

• The Chernyobyl accident, which shouldn't need further explaining.
• The Aralkum, a desert created by the USSR out of the Aral Sea.
• Lake Karachay, which the USSR used as a dumping ground for nuclear weapons.
• The Bitterfield Chemical Combine's deliberate destruction of of the surrounding area.
• A study by an Ralph Nader (hardly a Republican) organization, about environmental devastation in the USSR.
• The USSR dumping worn-out nuclear reactors into the ocean.

That's from one quick search (obviously not needed for the Chernobyl item). And beyond those, the contrast in the level of pollution between democratic, capitalist West Germany and authoritarian, Marxist East Germany at the time of unification is well-documented, the subject of many studies and articles. It's about as close to a lab comparison as you could ask for.

Are there, and have there been, environmental problems in the free world? Certainly. But the idea that they're worse than in undemocratic countries is ludicrous, especially since the Marxist countries had their problems even with the benefit of hindsight, since most of them industrialized long after the free world had.

All this really does is cause these poor guys to face charges that prosecutors now must try to prove. Given that all the other methods of getting an indictment on these guys failed, one can easily infer that the chances they get convicted of anything is next to nil.

This is basically a political witch hunt by some PR hounds who want to make it look like the accused are somehow guilty of gross negligence because it was their plant (which satisfied the government's safety requirements) blew up and made a mess after some natural disaster that nobody foresaw or even considered possible happened. It's like holding the tornado shelter installer criminally liable for not protecting the occupants of the shelter from earthquake damage and chemical attacks.

Do some research before commenting. Corporate TEPCO repeatedly lied to the public and the government, was incompetent (sending water needed to cool the reactor in drinking water bottles) and obstructive to the point of disregarding human life (ordering sea-water injection to be shut off based on how the prime minister's "mood").

I'm a fan of apk. Yes he trolls, but he only trolls where it's contextually appropriate. I respect that.

Sad. And sadly deluded. Like I said, one post is more than enough - does that not sound like respect for the deranged? He's got what - more than a dozen fat trolls posted in response to this story?

You must be new around here - or have a distorted idea of "contextually appropriate". He trolls anywhere, and he stalks anywhere.

What do you call a mugging? Performance theatre?

I suppose by your logic Love Canal was some sort of wetlands revegetation project.

Now do you see why Randi Harper and her "Code of Conducts" aren't conducive to actually helping anyone? I'm in my 30s, contributing member of society. I have a job, a kid, a wife. But god save me if shit I said when I was 14 on IRC was published. I was 14. I couldn't imagine where I'd be if my life was ruined by dogpiling for some stupid tweet I made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/31/...

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/01/...

Thankfully I found Slashdot instead of 4Chan (or what ever the equivalent was back then). I learned to type such that I got +5 "Informative" from adults. Rather than running around calling each other faggots. When I posted on Usenet I used my real name and knew that people could find me with that. I created a new account on most sites that couldn't be linked to anything else (0100010001010011 for Slashdot).

I've noticed that the 20 year olds talk different depending on where they 'grew up' on the internet. If you think that adults run around calling each other Faggot and think that's "just boy talk" there's a good chance you were on 4Chan. I'm sure there are 20 year olds that have been on Slashdot since they could and I wouldn't know them any different than my peers in my 30s or the guys I looked up to that are now in their 40s. Because they learned to talk like adults.

It's why losing Slashdot is really a shame. I don't even know where 16 year old me would go these days. FreeBSD used to be one of the last 'pure' places I could go where I was judged by 1 thing, my code. I couldn't imagine the shitstorm if someone (Randi Harper) took some inside joke of a tweet to friends, twisted it and dog piled her followers on me to kick me out.

Currently Quantum Computers Might Be Where Rockets Were At the Time of Goddard

So the New York Times thinks it's a bunch of bunk, then...

2. Our drones are effectively remotely piloted aircraft. Not "killbots". There is some chair jockey in a building in the Nevada desert who pilots the craft and fires the missiles and then goes home to be with his family after his shift is done.

True.

Just as an FYI though, it seems that being the pilot, is a job that comes with way more stress than was anticipated (or than the general public appreciates).
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/as-stress-drives-off-drone-operators-air-force-must-cut-flights.html

Early days, but looks promising: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05...

The New York Times told me that a A Sharp Spike in Honeybee Deaths Deepens a Worrisome Trend only two months ago.

So we have the Globe and Mail along with the UN and Stats Canada up against the NYT and the "Bee Informed Partnership". Meaning the old "consider the source" adage isn't really up to the challenge....

Well, geez; if you want them to stop dying stop sticking them with a sharp spike!!! idiots!

Yes, because an unarmed black man running *away* from you is an immediate threat requiring discharge of 8 rounds in the back

The forensic evidence showed that Brown was facing the officer when he was shot, not that he was running away. The only question is how far away he was when the shots were fired.

Not the only one. Because another question is why you're confusing a clear reference to Walter Scott with a reference to Michael Brown.

The foresic evidence showed that Scott was facing away from the officer when he was shot. The video showed that he was running away.

Try again.

I get that some level of executive security is probably a good thing, but does the Secret Service really need 1,500 people on staff?

The Secret Service protects more than the President. Plus, they're responsible for enforcing counterfeiting laws, which probably keeps them kind of busy, because counterfeiting has to be one of the most tempting crimes of all.

The reason this story highlights Obama is because he's got that pesky problem with his skin color that makes him a target for domestic terrorists like this guy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07...

Non-residents are also barred from being mayor of Chicago. That didn't stop Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) from finding a way of invaliding a court ruling and doing it anyway.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12...

I don't think Hillary would stop just because something was illegal either.

The range of the fast key for the trunk sensor is very short, not more than 2 or 3 feet centered in the back of the trunk.

The MO of the thieves unlocking the cars with keyless entry FOBs is that they're using some kind of transmitter/amplifier. It basically acts like a man in the middle, rebroadcasting signals from the car and FOB at higher power to greatly increase the range.

It all boils down to a foolish decision by automakers that there was always a 100% correlation between signal strength and distance. If the thief watches you walking away from your car and they've got a directional antenna mounted to this thing (and your car is parked in a location where the antenna wouldn't attract attention), then you could be hundreds of meters away and they can still get into your car.

"In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07...

Unless you have a conducting loop in or around your body when it fires, such as a wedding ring, or a magnets in your body, such as are found in some medical electronics, or if you've got any accidentally embedded magnets such as those swallowed by children..

      http://www.npr.org/sections/he...

Or unless there is a bulky, conducting metal object in the room, such as an oxygen tank:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07...

I'm not suggesting that a modest hom recharger will create such risks. But please, do not extrapolate armchair physics to assume you understand the real risks of a real electromechanical device without doing the research.

The New York Times told me that a A Sharp Spike in Honeybee Deaths Deepens a Worrisome Trend only two months ago.

So we have the Globe and Mail along with the UN and Stats Canada up against the NYT and the "Bee Informed Partnership". Meaning the old "consider the source" adage isn't really up to the challenge....

and if you arent EXTRA DOUBLE PLUS polite to a cop maybe you should get a permanent lesson in respect of authoritah! aka get shot in the face, or beaten to death in a cell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07...

This is what happens when you give people unquestionable immunity.

I don't understand how Uber is a taxi service. They don't take street fares. At best Uber is a car service.

This. The ability to be hailed from the street (and in some places, use special lanes/stands at public transportation hubs) is what makes a taxi, what requires a medallion, etc. Uber, Lyft, and friends cannot be hailed from the street, so they are not taxis in the strict sense--they are a car service that utilizes personal-use vehicles.

Although for the purposes of some /.er outrage, there is no practical difference. For instance, the need for adequate insurance applies to both taxis and car services. I'm all about consumer protection, so I have no problem with requiring the corporation to insure at commercial liability levels (which they do, but the different coverage permutations could definitely use more clarity). This also makes me a big fan of the driver pictures and ride tracking Uber employs.

Licensing I'm on the fence about. I'd like to see some data on accidents per mile driven by ridesharing drivers vs taxi and car service drivers. My personal, anecdotal experience is that taxi drivers have been more reckless and less knowledgable; YMMV. If the data were to consistently show that Uber had fewer accidents and other incidents, what's the point in making all those people get CDLs? It would just be a barrier to entry without demonstrable safety benefit. If it went the other way, or even if it was lower but not low enough, I'd be in favor of some sort of class or cert (akin to a defensive driving course).

I'm even less inclined to buy in to non-safety related regulations, which are largely relics of a bygone era or straight buttering the biscuits for the taxi lobby. IIRC the major traffic engineering burdens in this arena are from street hailable taxis (even when they aren't intentionally shutting down a city), but if there are studies showing RS is a major independent contributor, I'm all ears.

As for other regs, metering is even less reliable than the fare estimates given before RS rides. RS may already be better serving underserved areas. I am in favor of requiring more handicapped-accessible vehicles, and Uber has the resources to make sure there is an appropriate ratio if there aren't enough.

What an interesting way to present the information.

What does seem to have contributed to the abandonment of the Western Settlements, archaeologists said, is climate change. The onset of a ''little ice age'' made living halfway up Greenland's coast untenable in the mid-1300's, argues Dr. Charles Schweger, an archaeology professor at the University of Alberta, who has studied soils around the Farm Beneath the Sand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05...

It's almost as if you didn't care about what happened, but wanted to score political points.

Now you're going to tell us that Iceland was named because it used to be cold, but the geothermal effects started up later on?

As I made clear, the issue is competition against males.

Women don't mind competing against women. They just shut off when they compete against men. I think I made this very clear.

No. you said math. I can even look that up for you.

You very expressly wrote:

Its actually worse than that. Men aren't predisposed to math. We're predisposed to COMPETE. Where as women are predisposed to sit quietly and watch when males compete.

So you have the weird temerity to say that as soon as a male is in any competition, all females just drop out? Because that is what it appears you wrote. A woman will not compete against a man. Especially in math?

In general, and in competition against males.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08...

Please to elaborate on this young lady. Looks like a couple males beside her. No doubt those girls just kept the benches warm while the boys went out and COMPETED.

But since you will ignore that, let us go to your math competitive premise, that the women will sit down and watch the men COMPETE.

http://www.thecantoncitizen.co...

http://www.nthurston.k12.wa.us...

? http://www.triblocal.com/naper...

Lots of Girls, competing with boys. On the same teams even.

Bolshy Yarblockos, You are just plain wrong in your assessment.

I think you just put those logical inconsistencies and sweeping generalizations in there in order to get responses in order to argue with people. Then wear them down until they just don't reply, and you think you won the argument.

Either that, or watched All in the family reruns, and decided you were the reincarnation of Archie Bunker.

Old people in general are more susceptible to scams. I remember a story awhile back that a university professor fell for a dating scam where someone pretended to be a model. He was an accomplished physicist. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03...

I'm not sure what to do with that information, but this lady wasn't an isolated incident. The entire population of old people as a whole are more susceptible.

Right. And then people like you begin to cry when the government raises taxes to pay for stuff like this.

I just wrote the IRS a check for $4,500. In a strange way, I was glad to pay it. I compared what I was paying to the government with what I was getting from the government, and it was a great deal.

I'd rather pay more in taxes to have the government provide the services I need.

I sent my niece $4,000 to help her pay for college. When Bernie Sanders went to Brooklyn College, it was free (in return for our taxes).

I pay over $400 a month for health insurance. In Canada it would be free (in return for our taxes).

In a well-run country http://www.sanders.senate.gov/... , taxes, in exchange for government services, are the best deal you can get.

In the U.S., unfortunately, the Republicans and centerist Democrats come into office, and say, "Hey, here's all this money in the government treasury. Let's loot it and pass it out to our corporate campaign contributors." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07... http://www.propublica.org/arti...

Then they say, "Government can't do anything. Let's cut taxes."

Not really, more like this.

"We have had very ugly case in Poland recently..."

Just so you know: the problem in the USA is pretty much the exact opposite. There are practically no mental health care institutions anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html

Instead, people with mental problems wind up in the criminal justice system and wind up in our massive prisons, locked up with violent offenders. At least this bill would give some kind of check-and-balance on the proceedings, with doctors involved (not just cops) for at least a few hours.

More generally, if you don't have a US-mindset, here in the states there is little to no public assistance or support for anything like being down on your luck or sick: no public health care, no mental health care, no maternity or family leave, no federal minimum vacation or sick days, etc., etc.

That every man has the keys to heaven, and those same keys open hell. Paraphrasing, hope I didn't butcher it.

Feynman was quoting someone, probably a Buddhist.

The Meaning of It All - Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist, By RICHARD P. FEYNMAN

Once in Hawaii I was taken to see a Buddhist temple. In the temple a man said, "I am going to tell you something that you will never forget." And then he said, "To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell."

And so it is with science. In a way it is a key to the gates of heaven, and the same key opens the gates of hell, and we do not have any instructions as to which is which gate. Shall we throw away the key and never have a way to enter the gates of heaven? Or shall we struggle with the problem of which is the best way to use the key? That is, of course, a very serious question, but I think that we cannot deny the value of the key to the gates of heaven.

Feynman didn't shy away from making religious references as above, or addressing religion as shown below.

THE RELATION OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION - Some fresh observations on an old problem, by RICHARD P. FEYNMAN

I would suggest instead that non-GMO products should voluntarily label themselves as non-GMO, and enforce the veracity of that claim under truth in advertising laws.

The ag lobby has already blocked things like this. On containers of yogurt not made from cows given recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), you'll see a label which says that. But there's also a mandated label (at least in the mid-Atlantic) which says there is no difference in milk from cows given rBGH and cows not given it.

There's a big difference between selectively breeding to enhance certain traits vs. genetically engineering by splicing in artificial genes or those transplanted from other species. Should you expect corn to be able to aggravate a peanut, soy or shellfish allergy? GM has at least on one occasion attempted to splice Brazil nut genes with soy to create a more nutritious soy bean, but to their credit they were quick to identify the potential allergen issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/14/us/genetic-engineering-of-crops-can-spread-allergies-study-shows.html

It doesn't matter how many thousands of years of selective pressure we force onto various crops, we will never make them glow in the dark. With gene splicing it's fairly easy in a single generation. We've also made cats that glow, cabbage that produces scorpion venom and goats that lactate spider silk. These aren't bad things, but like any nascent technology we need to be careful and keep the profit motive second.

Yes, all current agriculture is the product of human interference, but this is a completely different ballgame and it's intellectually dishonest to conflate the two.

ok, so starving people today is not a compelling example that food sharing doesn't happen, how about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...
Hoarding Nations Drive Food Costs Ever Higher

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Food hoarding by governments keen to keep prices low is pushing prices higher

http://www.scmp.com/business/c...
Memories of 2008 food crisis push Asian countries to hoard grain