Fracking is considered evil for one reason, it is used to get more oil and gas out of the ground, thus helping to prevent the Malthusian demise that so many are relying on to centralize power in the hands of the elites.
Yes, there is a good chance that you are correct. However, if VMWare changed the license, that could only apply to the parts that were written by Tim Fox (or another VMWare employee) AND would not effect the license on copies that are already released. That is, they would be unable to revoke the Apache license on the project as it exists currently. Which means that someone (Tim Fox, now that he no longer works for VMWare) could fork the project.
CBS won't be prosecuted. They become a Fox News of selective coverage.
What would/should they be prosecuted for here? I cannot imagine any reason why they should be prosecuted for this. Any attempt to prosecute them for this would be a violation of freedom of the press.
As to them "becoming a Fox News of selective coverage" they were doing selective coverage of the news before there was a Fox News. Just go back and look at the way they reported on the Vietnam War.
It is not a violation of freedom of the press for a company to decline to report something that said company perceives as being against its interests. It is not a violation of freedom of the press for CBS to decline to cover another company with whom they are currently having a legal dispute (which is what happened here). You can make a case that it would be a violation of freedom of the press if CBS successfully pressured ABC to not review and/or give awards to Dish, but you cannot make a case that it is a violation of freedom of the press for CBS to decide that they will not review and give awards to Dish.
I have not seen the comparison for recent years, However, one of the things the summary talks about is how the life expectancy for American women is shorter than the life expectancy of Japanese women. Why this is interesting is that several years ago I saw a comparison that showed that while the life expectancy in Japan was greater than the life expectancy in the U.S., the life expectancy of Japanese living in the U.S. was greater than that of Japanese living in Japan. Another interesting fact is that one of the reasons that infant mortality is higher in the U.S. than many other countries is how we count live births vs how they count them. Many of the countries with lower infant mortality do not count a baby that dies in the first 24 hours as a live birth while the U.S. does.
"I've heard people on slashdot" is a pretty terrible way of getting a sense of what most proponents of an argument are saying. In fact, that's probably worse than using Fox news to get a sense of it.
I am using that to show that there are people in a setting that we have in common who are proponents of banning all guns. The fact is that I have also seen comments from politicians and others that indicate that they are in favor of banning all guns. For that matter, until recently, Washington DC had a de facto ban on anybody who was not a government official owning a gun (the only reason they no longer do is because the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional). There is no advantage to "compromising" with people who will use the compromise as the starting point to negotiations on moving the next step in the direction they wish to go as soon as the "compromise" is enacted.
I have seen people on slashdot propose that no one except government officials should have guns, that is close enough to banning all guns for me to consider it banning all guns.
The problem is that you missed his point. Even with those greater restrictions on cars, which you admit are not even designed to kill people, more people are killed with cars than with guns, which are designed to kill. So, you want to come up with a solution that will make guns cause fewer fatalities than cars. Heck rifles cause fewer fatalities than hammers. Maybe we should have a waiting list when people want to buy hammers?
The people who are "demanding action" are the people who are always looking for was to outlaw guns. This is not an offer of compromise. It is an intermediate step to getting rid of guns. The people who back this sort of proposal support banning guns and would continue to do so if they got this made into the law.
Then how did Scooter Libby get convicted of perjury? At the time that the special prosecutor was interviewing him the prosecutor already knew that someone else had released the identity of Valerie Plame, yet Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury because he remembered a telephone conversation differently than the reporter who was on the other end of the phone from him.
I get that lawyers make a living out of lying by omission and have reduced our legal system to accepting that. However, the purpose of wording the oath that way is to let people know that the court considers lying by omission lying just as much a lying by commission (of course, as you point out this is actually a legacy of a bygone day when people actually expected honesty). However, the definition I found for perjury in a legal setting says "1. Law The deliberate, willful giving of false,misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath." The problem is proving that someone deliberately gave incomplete testimony. Even this case, where it is clear to me that they intended to mislead I do not think it would rise above the burden of beyond reasonable doubt.
According to the legal document linked, the school actually offered to compromise and allow her to wear a badge with no RFID chip at all.
The condition on that "compromise" was that she and her parents would not share their objections to the program with others (my recollection was that it actually went so far as to ask them to endorse the program, but I may be remembering that incorrectly). In addition, they were not allowed to tell anyone else that they had reached this accommodation with the school district.
No, because in order to follow them without the RFID you need to be able to see them. If you have to follow the student from a location where you can see them, it becomes apparent to others that you are following them much quicker than if all you have to do is stay in range of an RFID tag. Additionally, the RFID badge makes it much harder for a student who becomes aware that they are being followed to lose the follower.
From you (assuming that you pay federal taxes). The school is projecting that this system will reduce truancy and allow them to report a larger number of students attending class each day. Schools receive federal funds based on the average number of students in attendance (I am not quite sure how the formula works). In part this will allow them to say that "Johnny" was at school today, even though none of his teachers saw him in order to mark him on the attendance sheet (which they will not have to keep anymore because the central computer for this system will do that).
Except that staff, who have access to the information regarding which students have which RFID badges, can track the students off campus, they just cannot do so with the school's equipment. It is not the badges which do not work off campus, it is the central tracking system which does not work off campus. This is a violation of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." There is a reason that the oath is worded that way, your statements to the court under oath are supposed to be worded so as to be clear as to their meaning. Reading this it looks to me like this was carefully worded so as to make it seem that the badges stopped functioning when the student left campus while leaving the school able to say, "Oh no, that is not what we meant at all."
It is based on evidence of the efficacy and safety of certain vaccinations (smallpox, polio, several more), which the advocates of mandating the flu shot (and some other vaccines) take on faith as meaning that all vaccines are safe and effective. There is solid evidence that the flu vaccination is safe (with just enough outlyers to allow rationally question whether there should be more studies to determine why those occur), but little evidence that it is effective (mostly because the prevalent flu virus changes every year and the makers of the vaccine do not always select the correct strain for the vaccine for that year. This results in data that is subject to varying interpretations depending on the pre-existing bias of the person doing the interpretation).
The doctor from the AAPS did not claim that there was no scientific basis for vaccination. What the doctor claimed was that the scientific evidence for mandatory flu vaccines was not there. There is a difference between questioning the efficacy of vaccines in general and questioning whether the evidence supports mandatory flu vaccines.
The point is that nurses are purportedly a greater risk to patients if they have not received immunisation.
Except that there is no evidence that this is the case. The evidence suggests that maintaining proper hygiene is as effective at reducing the transmission of the flu virus as having the entire staff get the flu vaccine. There is one important difference, having the entire staff get the flu vaccine reduces the transmission rate of the flu virus while maintaining proper hygiene reduces the transmission rate of every communicable disease.
Except of course that the flu vaccine will only prevent coughing and sneezing if the people who choose which strain to vaccinate against guessed correctly. Additionally, as a previous poster noted the evidence suggests that proper hygiene by the hospital staff is just as effective at halting the spread of the flu virus as mandatory vaccination. Personally, I would prefer the hospital to ramp up efforts to maintain proper hygiene rather than mandatory flu vaccines since proper hygiene will reduce the spread of all infectious diseases while the flu vaccine, at best, will only reduce the spread of flu.
Except that Edmonton is not between Anchorage and Seoul, by any stretch of the imagination. Going near Edmonton on your way from Anchorage to Seoul is like going near Kansas City on your way from Miami to London.
Actually, GP recognized that he was going to get labeled as sexist no matter how he stated his point, so he went ahead and stated it in the most sexist manner that he could without completely swamping his valid point.
Let's strip his arguments of their value-laden phrasing and state them in a more neutral tone. Girls are better at interpersonal relations and are more respectful of authority figures than boys (this is a generalization and is not true of every individual). On the other hand, boys are better at looking at a problem, identifying its key elements and coming up with a solution (as long as the problem does not involve interpersonal relationships--in which case the answer as to who is better at solving it is not amenable to generalization) than girls. One of the reasons for that boys are better at test taking than girls is because girls look for interpersonal cues in order to decide on the best solution and in a test-taking setting those cues are absent.
This is Sony we are talking about here. Why would it even be a question? Of course you will need to buy a whole new catalog of games if your console breaks and needs to be replaced. Sony does not consider their customers to be individuals with whom they enter into agreements to reach mutually satisfying exchanges of goods and services. Sony views their customers as sheep to be fleeced. If you are not a sheep, don't do business with Sony! (I know a few people who are not sheep who do business with Sony, but they are people who are willing to put out the effort to take advantage of certain market conditions).
Slashdot Mirror
Fracking is considered evil for one reason, it is used to get more oil and gas out of the ground, thus helping to prevent the Malthusian demise that so many are relying on to centralize power in the hands of the elites.
Yes, there is a good chance that you are correct. However, if VMWare changed the license, that could only apply to the parts that were written by Tim Fox (or another VMWare employee) AND would not effect the license on copies that are already released. That is, they would be unable to revoke the Apache license on the project as it exists currently. Which means that someone (Tim Fox, now that he no longer works for VMWare) could fork the project.
CBS won't be prosecuted. They become a Fox News of selective coverage.
What would/should they be prosecuted for here? I cannot imagine any reason why they should be prosecuted for this. Any attempt to prosecute them for this would be a violation of freedom of the press.
As to them "becoming a Fox News of selective coverage" they were doing selective coverage of the news before there was a Fox News. Just go back and look at the way they reported on the Vietnam War.
It is not a violation of freedom of the press for a company to decline to report something that said company perceives as being against its interests. It is not a violation of freedom of the press for CBS to decline to cover another company with whom they are currently having a legal dispute (which is what happened here). You can make a case that it would be a violation of freedom of the press if CBS successfully pressured ABC to not review and/or give awards to Dish, but you cannot make a case that it is a violation of freedom of the press for CBS to decide that they will not review and give awards to Dish.
I have not seen the comparison for recent years, However, one of the things the summary talks about is how the life expectancy for American women is shorter than the life expectancy of Japanese women. Why this is interesting is that several years ago I saw a comparison that showed that while the life expectancy in Japan was greater than the life expectancy in the U.S., the life expectancy of Japanese living in the U.S. was greater than that of Japanese living in Japan. Another interesting fact is that one of the reasons that infant mortality is higher in the U.S. than many other countries is how we count live births vs how they count them. Many of the countries with lower infant mortality do not count a baby that dies in the first 24 hours as a live birth while the U.S. does.
It's akin to a union strike or a mob of protesters having a sit-in and handcuffing themselves together to DENY ACCESS to some location.
Of course, that is also illegal, which makes the petition by Anonymous stupid.
"I've heard people on slashdot" is a pretty terrible way of getting a sense of what most proponents of an argument are saying. In fact, that's probably worse than using Fox news to get a sense of it.
I am using that to show that there are people in a setting that we have in common who are proponents of banning all guns. The fact is that I have also seen comments from politicians and others that indicate that they are in favor of banning all guns. For that matter, until recently, Washington DC had a de facto ban on anybody who was not a government official owning a gun (the only reason they no longer do is because the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional). There is no advantage to "compromising" with people who will use the compromise as the starting point to negotiations on moving the next step in the direction they wish to go as soon as the "compromise" is enacted.
I have seen people on slashdot propose that no one except government officials should have guns, that is close enough to banning all guns for me to consider it banning all guns.
The problem is that you missed his point. Even with those greater restrictions on cars, which you admit are not even designed to kill people, more people are killed with cars than with guns, which are designed to kill. So, you want to come up with a solution that will make guns cause fewer fatalities than cars. Heck rifles cause fewer fatalities than hammers. Maybe we should have a waiting list when people want to buy hammers?
TFA points out that people are demanding action.
The people who are "demanding action" are the people who are always looking for was to outlaw guns. This is not an offer of compromise. It is an intermediate step to getting rid of guns. The people who back this sort of proposal support banning guns and would continue to do so if they got this made into the law.
Then how did Scooter Libby get convicted of perjury? At the time that the special prosecutor was interviewing him the prosecutor already knew that someone else had released the identity of Valerie Plame, yet Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury because he remembered a telephone conversation differently than the reporter who was on the other end of the phone from him.
I get that lawyers make a living out of lying by omission and have reduced our legal system to accepting that. However, the purpose of wording the oath that way is to let people know that the court considers lying by omission lying just as much a lying by commission (of course, as you point out this is actually a legacy of a bygone day when people actually expected honesty). However, the definition I found for perjury in a legal setting says "1. Law The deliberate, willful giving of false,misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath." The problem is proving that someone deliberately gave incomplete testimony. Even this case, where it is clear to me that they intended to mislead I do not think it would rise above the burden of beyond reasonable doubt.
It wasn't? If it was not pertinent, why was it included?
According to the legal document linked, the school actually offered to compromise and allow her to wear a badge with no RFID chip at all.
The condition on that "compromise" was that she and her parents would not share their objections to the program with others (my recollection was that it actually went so far as to ask them to endorse the program, but I may be remembering that incorrectly). In addition, they were not allowed to tell anyone else that they had reached this accommodation with the school district.
No, because in order to follow them without the RFID you need to be able to see them. If you have to follow the student from a location where you can see them, it becomes apparent to others that you are following them much quicker than if all you have to do is stay in range of an RFID tag. Additionally, the RFID badge makes it much harder for a student who becomes aware that they are being followed to lose the follower.
From where does that revenue actually come?
From you (assuming that you pay federal taxes). The school is projecting that this system will reduce truancy and allow them to report a larger number of students attending class each day. Schools receive federal funds based on the average number of students in attendance (I am not quite sure how the formula works). In part this will allow them to say that "Johnny" was at school today, even though none of his teachers saw him in order to mark him on the attendance sheet (which they will not have to keep anymore because the central computer for this system will do that).
Except that staff, who have access to the information regarding which students have which RFID badges, can track the students off campus, they just cannot do so with the school's equipment. It is not the badges which do not work off campus, it is the central tracking system which does not work off campus. This is a violation of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." There is a reason that the oath is worded that way, your statements to the court under oath are supposed to be worded so as to be clear as to their meaning. Reading this it looks to me like this was carefully worded so as to make it seem that the badges stopped functioning when the student left campus while leaving the school able to say, "Oh no, that is not what we meant at all."
It is based on evidence of the efficacy and safety of certain vaccinations (smallpox, polio, several more), which the advocates of mandating the flu shot (and some other vaccines) take on faith as meaning that all vaccines are safe and effective. There is solid evidence that the flu vaccination is safe (with just enough outlyers to allow rationally question whether there should be more studies to determine why those occur), but little evidence that it is effective (mostly because the prevalent flu virus changes every year and the makers of the vaccine do not always select the correct strain for the vaccine for that year. This results in data that is subject to varying interpretations depending on the pre-existing bias of the person doing the interpretation).
I don't know, a lot of people pay attention to what the AMA (another political advocacy group) says.
The doctor from the AAPS did not claim that there was no scientific basis for vaccination. What the doctor claimed was that the scientific evidence for mandatory flu vaccines was not there. There is a difference between questioning the efficacy of vaccines in general and questioning whether the evidence supports mandatory flu vaccines.
The point is that nurses are purportedly a greater risk to patients if they have not received immunisation.
Except that there is no evidence that this is the case. The evidence suggests that maintaining proper hygiene is as effective at reducing the transmission of the flu virus as having the entire staff get the flu vaccine. There is one important difference, having the entire staff get the flu vaccine reduces the transmission rate of the flu virus while maintaining proper hygiene reduces the transmission rate of every communicable disease.
Except of course that the flu vaccine will only prevent coughing and sneezing if the people who choose which strain to vaccinate against guessed correctly. Additionally, as a previous poster noted the evidence suggests that proper hygiene by the hospital staff is just as effective at halting the spread of the flu virus as mandatory vaccination. Personally, I would prefer the hospital to ramp up efforts to maintain proper hygiene rather than mandatory flu vaccines since proper hygiene will reduce the spread of all infectious diseases while the flu vaccine, at best, will only reduce the spread of flu.
Except that Edmonton is not between Anchorage and Seoul, by any stretch of the imagination. Going near Edmonton on your way from Anchorage to Seoul is like going near Kansas City on your way from Miami to London.
Actually, GP recognized that he was going to get labeled as sexist no matter how he stated his point, so he went ahead and stated it in the most sexist manner that he could without completely swamping his valid point.
Let's strip his arguments of their value-laden phrasing and state them in a more neutral tone. Girls are better at interpersonal relations and are more respectful of authority figures than boys (this is a generalization and is not true of every individual). On the other hand, boys are better at looking at a problem, identifying its key elements and coming up with a solution (as long as the problem does not involve interpersonal relationships--in which case the answer as to who is better at solving it is not amenable to generalization) than girls. One of the reasons for that boys are better at test taking than girls is because girls look for interpersonal cues in order to decide on the best solution and in a test-taking setting those cues are absent.
This is Sony we are talking about here. Why would it even be a question? Of course you will need to buy a whole new catalog of games if your console breaks and needs to be replaced. Sony does not consider their customers to be individuals with whom they enter into agreements to reach mutually satisfying exchanges of goods and services. Sony views their customers as sheep to be fleeced. If you are not a sheep, don't do business with Sony! (I know a few people who are not sheep who do business with Sony, but they are people who are willing to put out the effort to take advantage of certain market conditions).