That is because you did not read what they actually said. They did not say, "We do not see any reason to beleive there is any increased risk of earthquake at this time." They said, "There is NO RISK of a major earthquake at this time." The emphasis was in their statement at the time it was made. The fact that they made this statement in response to an uninformed fearmonger who was stirring up fears based on bad science is a somewhat mitigating factor.
That is not true. The DEA was involved in Fast & Furious. They just weren't given the whole picture or even enough information to do their theoretical part. Just enough information to lend cover to the idea that Fast & Furious was about catching high level drug cartel memebers, but not enough to risk preventing the guns from turning up at crime scenes.
And Carter created the DOE with the mission to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil.. 35 years and trillions later, not a thing has changed.
That is not true at all. A lot has changed since the DOE was created in order to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. For example, when the DOE was created something on the order of 28% of our oil was imported, now we import about 60%. So, as you can see, the DOE is acting as anyone with any experience of government bureaucracies would expect.
Very well said. One does not have to oppose the "War on Drugs" to oppose the existence of the DEA. I am rather ambivalent about the War on Drugs. On one hand, most, if not all, of the drugs that are classed as controlled substances result in significant harm to society when abused. On the other hand, I do not really see any Constitutional authority for the federal government to decide what should or should not be a controlled substance. If the War on Drugs was moved to a state level decision, different states could try different approaches (including legalization) and we could see which provided the most benefit to society as a whole and whether the harm to society from abuse really does exceed the harm to society that laws designed to control its use cause.
People have been predicting that human population would outstrip human ability to produce food since at least the late 1700s, with a major upsurge in such predictions in the 1960s. The interesting thing is that average per capita caloric consumption in developing countries rose from 1960 through 2000 (and probably since, but I do not have any supporting evidence for that). I cannot find the link where it was exactly spelled out, however, this link contradicts the links you give and makes reference to the trend I pointed out.
I feel the same way. However, this is a good excuse to make more people aware of how unethical Sony is. Bring this up,then mention that it is a continuation of a pattern of bad behavior on Sony's part.
Yes, that is always my favorite story about the record industry. Talk about shooting the goose that lays the golden eggs. When Foggerty realized how ripped off he was by his record company, he asked/demanded a renegotiated contract. Their answer was, "This contract is legally binding. We don't have to change it. You're stuck with it." Think how much more money they could have made if he had continued writing songs and performing with CCR if they had been willing to renegotiate a fair contract with him. There are probably even ways that they could have spun it to make it seem like they weren't really trying to take advantage of him. "Well, there are a lot of costs involved in bringing a young act along and not every act ever pays back that initial investment. I completely forgot that we still had you under a startup act contract. Let's renegotiate to better terms for you."
Every economic theory I have seen that addresses ethical vs non-ethical corporate behavior suggests that ethical corporate behavior is more profitable in the long run than unethical corporate behavior. In addition, those economic theories suggest that corporations which routinely practice unethical behavior are the ones which become defunct.
The logic behind the idea that unethical corporations do not last is too complex to spell out in a slashdot post, but several posters further down the thread do a good job of pointing out elements of it.
SEC. 2105. 7 U.S.C. 6504 NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC PRODUCTION.
To be sold or labeled as an organically produced agricultural product under this title, an agricultural product shall --
(1) have been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals, except as otherwise provided in this title;
(2) except as otherwise provided in this title and excluding livestock, not be produced on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural products; and
(3) be produced and handled in compliance with an organic plan agreed to by the producer and handler of such product and the certifying agent.
Nothing in there about being non-GMO, so despite your authoritative quote from Wikipedia, the "organic" label most certainly CAN be assigned to food grown using genetically modified seeds.
I have no problem with this whatsoever. Except for those doctors who the article mentions who did it to patients that had other conditions which the vaccine exacerbated by the vaccines. Or the poster above who has a child that is very allergic to eggs who the doctor said they would not continue to treat if they did not accept the vaccine (that contained eggs, or at least that the parent believed to contain eggs). I still think it is the doctor's right to do so, but if the claims being made in those cases are accurate than the doctor is acting inappropriately. There are conditions under which it is better for the child to not receive the vaccine. Those conditions are few and far between, but they do exist.
Yes, what you are missing is that this is article two on slashdot in the latest "OMG, what will we do when all the fresh water is gone" scare that is being promoted as an excuse to justify greater bureaucratic control over the economy.
The thing is that terms of Lightspeed's license is that they demonstrate that they do not interfere with those GPS devices.
If those complaints came from people who had bought those radios before you got those licenses and your license stipulated that you not interfere with their reception of other radio stations then your situation would be different.
Your example gives the most notorious pre-9-11 hijacking, but D.B. Cooper was not typical of hijackers in the U.S. at that point. He was actually rather exceptional. The other eight hijackers at that point were about evenly divided between African-Americans and Hispanics. So, if they had been using a profiling system at the time, they would not have caught D.B. Cooper, which seems to better support the argument you are making than what you actually posted does.
However, based on accounts I have heard, if they had been using a profiling system similar to that used by the Israelis, it is likely that they would have caught D.B> Cooper before he boarded the plane. The Israelis use a behavior based profiling technique (although I believe it also uses ethnic characteristics as part of the screening criteria, just not as a definitive one, in either direction).
May I suggest that you move to a state of wisdom, before you start to recommend a course of action to others. Being before wisdom is not the place to hand out advice. That is how we often end up with problems in this world, by following the advice of people who have yet to acquire wisdom.
I just came across an article that says that at current usage rates (plus usage for plants that are in the planning/building stages), the world will fall short of producing enough supplies to meet the demand for uranium by 2014. I just tried to google for that article and came up with several different outlooks on uranium supply, with most of them predicting demand to supply by 2020 at the latest. The one exception to that was a study that suggested there are technological ways to change the way we use uranium to offset the supply shortages. None of the articles I found thought that production could be increased sufficiently to meet the increased demand.
I basically agree with your points. One of the things that angers me is when the federal government passes laws governing water usage based on areas that have water limitations that apply to the entire country. I live in an area that has an abundance of water (precipitation exceeds amount of water used by a very large factor). Yet we have federal laws that apply to us to cause us to conserve water. Why? My usage of water will not effect anyone outside of my area and even there it will only effect others on those rare occasions when there is a local drought (We have local droughts that sometimes, although rarely more than a month or two, last up to a year, but my above statement about precipitation applies to any five year period for all of the time that Europeans have lived in this area and long before that). I understand that some of the areas near me with municipal water supplies have more involved issues, but those issues are ones for the local municipality to address (or, in some cases the state government), not the federal government.
I understand that there are parts of the country where water usage effects an area that crosses state lines. In those cases, it is perfectly appropriate for the federal government to play a role in resolving the conflct between states. However, the rules applied to address those issues should be applied to that area, not to areas where water usage issues are minimal, if they exist at all.
You sound a lot like the slashdotters of yesteryear who insisted (vociferously) that all they wanted was a phone that made phone calls.
This too shall pass.
All I have is a phone that makes phone calls. I have friends who have smart phones. Only one of them still uses the features on a regular basis and even he has cut back significantly since he realized that I am not impressed by his ability to not interact with the people he is actually with. The rest of them do not use the smart phone features all that much now that the novelty has worn off.
In the U.S., once they get people used to being forced to buy health insurance by government mandate, they are going to pass a law requiring that you buy a certain number of music tracks from one of the government designated music companies (OK, they will probably pass a law about how much broccoli you have to buy each year first).
One wonders what that means: is it an agency against serious organized crime, or is one to commit the crime itself?
It is an agency that licenses people to commit serious organized crime. If you do not have a license from this agency and you commit serious organized crime (such as pirating music. They are not interested in non-serious organized crime, such as murder) they will track you down and make you pay.
That makes a lot of sense, especially if Amazon out sources its customer service support (which many companies do). It is quite likely that the person who sent this e-mail has a script they use to find the answer to send. This response was the closest to the customer complaint they were responding to (and they failed to understand that the person was not asking about an Ipad).
You might want to re-evaluate your understanding of people's positions in light of this apparent discrepancy. Either you misunderstand the position of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution or you misunderstand the position of those you call "right-wing nujob christian extremists". As far as I can tell the vast majority of those called "right-wing nutjob christian extremists" have a better understanding and greater respect for the document those framers produced than any of those who call them that since it is typical of the latter to think the Constitution is hard to understand because it was "written over one hundred years ago."
OK, so you believe that the law should be different depending on who you are. That different people should be treated differently under the law based on who they are. In the long run such an approach to law ends up favoring the rich and well connected.
My right to talk about you is called "freedom of speech". Because you want the ability to tell people what they can say about you online, you are willing to give politicians the power to tell you what you can say about them online?
So, this law, which has 117 pages, tries to spell out how judges should decide every possible scenario that might come up from this law? Do you think that the crafters of this law will have done a good job of deciding how this law will apply to a technology that will not even be thought of until ten years from now?
The OP in this thread was correct, if the law is 117 pages, you are doing it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
That is because you did not read what they actually said. They did not say, "We do not see any reason to beleive there is any increased risk of earthquake at this time." They said, "There is NO RISK of a major earthquake at this time." The emphasis was in their statement at the time it was made. The fact that they made this statement in response to an uninformed fearmonger who was stirring up fears based on bad science is a somewhat mitigating factor.
That is not true. The DEA was involved in Fast & Furious. They just weren't given the whole picture or even enough information to do their theoretical part. Just enough information to lend cover to the idea that Fast & Furious was about catching high level drug cartel memebers, but not enough to risk preventing the guns from turning up at crime scenes.
And Carter created the DOE with the mission to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil.. 35 years and trillions later, not a thing has changed.
That is not true at all. A lot has changed since the DOE was created in order to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. For example, when the DOE was created something on the order of 28% of our oil was imported, now we import about 60%. So, as you can see, the DOE is acting as anyone with any experience of government bureaucracies would expect.
Very well said. One does not have to oppose the "War on Drugs" to oppose the existence of the DEA. I am rather ambivalent about the War on Drugs. On one hand, most, if not all, of the drugs that are classed as controlled substances result in significant harm to society when abused. On the other hand, I do not really see any Constitutional authority for the federal government to decide what should or should not be a controlled substance. If the War on Drugs was moved to a state level decision, different states could try different approaches (including legalization) and we could see which provided the most benefit to society as a whole and whether the harm to society from abuse really does exceed the harm to society that laws designed to control its use cause.
People have been predicting that human population would outstrip human ability to produce food since at least the late 1700s, with a major upsurge in such predictions in the 1960s. The interesting thing is that average per capita caloric consumption in developing countries rose from 1960 through 2000 (and probably since, but I do not have any supporting evidence for that). I cannot find the link where it was exactly spelled out, however, this link contradicts the links you give and makes reference to the trend I pointed out.
I feel the same way. However, this is a good excuse to make more people aware of how unethical Sony is. Bring this up,then mention that it is a continuation of a pattern of bad behavior on Sony's part.
Yes, that is always my favorite story about the record industry. Talk about shooting the goose that lays the golden eggs. When Foggerty realized how ripped off he was by his record company, he asked/demanded a renegotiated contract. Their answer was, "This contract is legally binding. We don't have to change it. You're stuck with it." Think how much more money they could have made if he had continued writing songs and performing with CCR if they had been willing to renegotiate a fair contract with him. There are probably even ways that they could have spun it to make it seem like they weren't really trying to take advantage of him. "Well, there are a lot of costs involved in bringing a young act along and not every act ever pays back that initial investment. I completely forgot that we still had you under a startup act contract. Let's renegotiate to better terms for you."
Every economic theory I have seen that addresses ethical vs non-ethical corporate behavior suggests that ethical corporate behavior is more profitable in the long run than unethical corporate behavior. In addition, those economic theories suggest that corporations which routinely practice unethical behavior are the ones which become defunct.
The logic behind the idea that unethical corporations do not last is too complex to spell out in a slashdot post, but several posters further down the thread do a good job of pointing out elements of it.
SEC. 2105. 7 U.S.C. 6504 NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC PRODUCTION. To be sold or labeled as an organically produced agricultural product under this title, an agricultural product shall -- (1) have been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals, except as otherwise provided in this title; (2) except as otherwise provided in this title and excluding livestock, not be produced on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural products; and (3) be produced and handled in compliance with an organic plan agreed to by the producer and handler of such product and the certifying agent.
Nothing in there about being non-GMO, so despite your authoritative quote from Wikipedia, the "organic" label most certainly CAN be assigned to food grown using genetically modified seeds.
I have no problem with this whatsoever. Except for those doctors who the article mentions who did it to patients that had other conditions which the vaccine exacerbated by the vaccines. Or the poster above who has a child that is very allergic to eggs who the doctor said they would not continue to treat if they did not accept the vaccine (that contained eggs, or at least that the parent believed to contain eggs). I still think it is the doctor's right to do so, but if the claims being made in those cases are accurate than the doctor is acting inappropriately. There are conditions under which it is better for the child to not receive the vaccine. Those conditions are few and far between, but they do exist.
Yes, what you are missing is that this is article two on slashdot in the latest "OMG, what will we do when all the fresh water is gone" scare that is being promoted as an excuse to justify greater bureaucratic control over the economy.
The thing is that terms of Lightspeed's license is that they demonstrate that they do not interfere with those GPS devices.
If those complaints came from people who had bought those radios before you got those licenses and your license stipulated that you not interfere with their reception of other radio stations then your situation would be different.
Your example gives the most notorious pre-9-11 hijacking, but D.B. Cooper was not typical of hijackers in the U.S. at that point. He was actually rather exceptional. The other eight hijackers at that point were about evenly divided between African-Americans and Hispanics. So, if they had been using a profiling system at the time, they would not have caught D.B. Cooper, which seems to better support the argument you are making than what you actually posted does.
However, based on accounts I have heard, if they had been using a profiling system similar to that used by the Israelis, it is likely that they would have caught D.B> Cooper before he boarded the plane. The Israelis use a behavior based profiling technique (although I believe it also uses ethnic characteristics as part of the screening criteria, just not as a definitive one, in either direction).
May I suggest that you move to a state of wisdom, before you start to recommend a course of action to others. Being before wisdom is not the place to hand out advice. That is how we often end up with problems in this world, by following the advice of people who have yet to acquire wisdom.
I just came across an article that says that at current usage rates (plus usage for plants that are in the planning/building stages), the world will fall short of producing enough supplies to meet the demand for uranium by 2014. I just tried to google for that article and came up with several different outlooks on uranium supply, with most of them predicting demand to supply by 2020 at the latest. The one exception to that was a study that suggested there are technological ways to change the way we use uranium to offset the supply shortages. None of the articles I found thought that production could be increased sufficiently to meet the increased demand.
I basically agree with your points. One of the things that angers me is when the federal government passes laws governing water usage based on areas that have water limitations that apply to the entire country. I live in an area that has an abundance of water (precipitation exceeds amount of water used by a very large factor). Yet we have federal laws that apply to us to cause us to conserve water. Why? My usage of water will not effect anyone outside of my area and even there it will only effect others on those rare occasions when there is a local drought (We have local droughts that sometimes, although rarely more than a month or two, last up to a year, but my above statement about precipitation applies to any five year period for all of the time that Europeans have lived in this area and long before that). I understand that some of the areas near me with municipal water supplies have more involved issues, but those issues are ones for the local municipality to address (or, in some cases the state government), not the federal government.
I understand that there are parts of the country where water usage effects an area that crosses state lines. In those cases, it is perfectly appropriate for the federal government to play a role in resolving the conflct between states. However, the rules applied to address those issues should be applied to that area, not to areas where water usage issues are minimal, if they exist at all.
You sound a lot like the slashdotters of yesteryear who insisted (vociferously) that all they wanted was a phone that made phone calls.
This too shall pass.
All I have is a phone that makes phone calls. I have friends who have smart phones. Only one of them still uses the features on a regular basis and even he has cut back significantly since he realized that I am not impressed by his ability to not interact with the people he is actually with. The rest of them do not use the smart phone features all that much now that the novelty has worn off.
In the U.S., once they get people used to being forced to buy health insurance by government mandate, they are going to pass a law requiring that you buy a certain number of music tracks from one of the government designated music companies (OK, they will probably pass a law about how much broccoli you have to buy each year first).
One wonders what that means: is it an agency against serious organized crime, or is one to commit the crime itself?
It is an agency that licenses people to commit serious organized crime. If you do not have a license from this agency and you commit serious organized crime (such as pirating music. They are not interested in non-serious organized crime, such as murder) they will track you down and make you pay.
Keep telling yourself that while politicians and other powerful individuals use the "right to privacy" to consolidate their power over you.
That makes a lot of sense, especially if Amazon out sources its customer service support (which many companies do). It is quite likely that the person who sent this e-mail has a script they use to find the answer to send. This response was the closest to the customer complaint they were responding to (and they failed to understand that the person was not asking about an Ipad).
You might want to re-evaluate your understanding of people's positions in light of this apparent discrepancy. Either you misunderstand the position of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution or you misunderstand the position of those you call "right-wing nujob christian extremists". As far as I can tell the vast majority of those called "right-wing nutjob christian extremists" have a better understanding and greater respect for the document those framers produced than any of those who call them that since it is typical of the latter to think the Constitution is hard to understand because it was "written over one hundred years ago."
OK, so you believe that the law should be different depending on who you are. That different people should be treated differently under the law based on who they are. In the long run such an approach to law ends up favoring the rich and well connected.
My right to talk about you is called "freedom of speech". Because you want the ability to tell people what they can say about you online, you are willing to give politicians the power to tell you what you can say about them online?
So, this law, which has 117 pages, tries to spell out how judges should decide every possible scenario that might come up from this law? Do you think that the crafters of this law will have done a good job of deciding how this law will apply to a technology that will not even be thought of until ten years from now?
The OP in this thread was correct, if the law is 117 pages, you are doing it wrong.