I have seen several studies that compare talking on a cell phone to driving at.08 BAC (blood alcohol level). All of these studies have also compared various hands free devices and handsets. None of them have shown any difference between conversations with hand held cell phones and conversations with some sort of hands free cell phone. However, to the best of my knowledge, none of them have compared cell phone usage to conversation with a passenger. My suspicion is that the result of that last comparison would demonstrate as much "driver impairment" as cell phone usage and/or BAC of.08. I would like to see the results of that study.
I look at it this way, in the US, if a company operates in two neighboring states it is not a multi state company. The same for companies operating in multiple countries, if a company operates in the US and Canada (or Australia and New Zealand), it is not multinational. There is nothing in its current operations that makes it significantly easier to operate worldwide than for a company that operates in just one of those countries. Now if on the other hand, it operates in say the US and France (or Australia and Japan), it is already operating over a greater distance and in significantly different business cultures, so most of the systems necessary to expand into a company operating worldwide are already in place. That being said a company operating in New Zealand and Australia is, generally speaking, closer to being ready to make the jump to multinational than one operating in the US and Canada (having to deal with offices where ground transport cannot be used to get from one to the other introduces some significant logistical hurdles).
Of course, New Zealand is rightfully sovereign, but I'm not sure that calling an ISP that services both Australia and New Zealand a "multinational".
Do you realise that this kind of attitude is why Americans are stereotyped as being totally ignorant and ego-centric? Just because a company doesn't cater to your precious US of A, it doesn't mean it isn't multinational. Multi. National. It means that it operates in multiple nations. Such as Australia and New Zealand.
Multi=many, so a company that does business in only Australia and New Zealand is not a multinational company, it is a bi national company just as a company that does business in only the US and Canada (or Mexico, or any other single nation) is not a multinational company. THe companies not being multinational is not because they don't do business in the US, there are numerous multinationals that do not do business in the US. Two countries are not enough to make a company a multinational in my view.
I actually know a case where a guy was arrested possessing a very large amount of cocaine. He was charged with intent to distribute based on the law as an earlier post described. His lawyer got him off by presenting testimony that that the accused actually did consume cocaine in that kind of volume. I don't remember the amount, but I remember being amazed that anyone would consume anywhere close to that amount of cocaine in a reasonable time frame.
Lets look at #10 first. What does "all access to network resources" define out to be? These days EVERYTHING is a network resource, and not all of them are within the admin's control. Take the iPhone for example. Is the PCI-compliant admin supposed to certify that every iPhone on the company's network cannot be accessed by others, thereby turning it into a 'network resource'? How do I, as an admin, track that Joe and Jim transfered files peer-to-peer style between their phones? I assume that we have to then ban all these devices?
It is _possible_ to comply with 'all access to network resources', but this is costly.
I am pretty sure that when they say "network resource", I am pretty sure that they are talking about the network that the cardholder data is on. It is not necessary that all of your company's business goes on on the network that handles your credit card processing. As a matter of fact, it is probably a good idea if things like cell phones that access the company network, don't access the network that handles credit card data.
Most people out there know someone that worked at or works for Walmart. I have never met someone that had anything good to say about working there, yes even higher up district managers.
I have known several Walmart employees well. Two of them were coworkers on my last job who had part time jobs at Walmart. They were both intense Walmart evangelists. Another one was a regional training manager (I think that was her title), she was also very pro Walmart. I have also known a couple of former Walmart employees who hated Walmart, they were the type who always blamed other people for everything that went wrong in their life.
In your example, you'll find out a lot more about the residents of Chiapas and Oaxaca, that if you study the Catholic church, or reference Spain or the US. What part of the Catholic Church are you studying? The part in Chiapas, or the part in Rome? If you study the part of the Catholic Church in Chiapas, it will tell you a lot more about the residents of Chiapas than if you study the Mayan civilization that built the Mayan ruins. And why would you study the US to try and understand the culture of any part of Mexico (except possibly some of the border areas)? As to studying Spain, Spain when? I suspect that if you study the culture of Spain of 300 years ago it tell you more about modern Chiapas or Oaxaca than studying the culture of the Mayans who built the ruins.
You want ethical and humane living? Read the Avesta of Zoroaster. Unlike the rabid Old Testament, it pleads that humanity have good thought, good speech and good deeds, not casting it's neighbors as "abominations" and wishing them plagues. Unfortunately your comparison is not apt. The Avesta is a "prayer book", so the valid comparison would be to Psalms (and possibly Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes) not the entire Old Testament. Any Zoroastrian writings equivalent to the rest of the Old Testament have been lost to history.
More importantly the current culture in Iran bears little to no resemblance or connection to the culture that spawned Zoroastrianism. Drawing conclusions about modern Iran based on the culture of ancient Persia is even less valid than drawing conclusions about modern Mexico based on the culture of the ancient Mayans.
Except that it is not 100 Americans, it is less than 100 people in the US. That is a subtle, but important difference. It doesn't necessarily make it right, but it is significantly different than 100 Americans. This topic has enough disagreements on principle, that it is important to get the facts right. That difference that I pointed out makes a difference as to what principles are violated (or not)by this wiretapping. Mis-stating the facts makes it harder to find common ground. Mis-stating the facts also increases the likelihood of people dismissing valid arguments because they no longer trust the person making them to not distort things.
"The problem is that the governments are allowed to get away with it" Exactly how can the government of Iran or China be prevented from getting away with it? Unless of course you are advocating either that those countries should have a revolution, or that the US should invade them. I'm not going to say that you are wrong if you are advocating revolution in those countries, however, it is important that it be remembered that, unlike in most first world countries, the people of China and Iran (and most other countries with strong internet censorship) do not have the ability to change the laws of their country without some sort of violent revolution or outside intervention.
That's right, let's do to science what TV has done
on
YouTube for Science?
·
· Score: 1
to politics. So now the accepted science will be that presented by the most photogenic scientists.
The goal of the terrorists was to get us to convert to Islam and accept their version of sharia law, so, no, they haven't won. That does not, however, mean that we have not lost. I personally think that the question of whether or not we have lost the war is still to be decided, although there have been several actions in that direction (this Act being one of them).
In the 1950's and 1960's there was a movement in the US to consolidate school districts, small schools combined to form larger school districts to take advantage of the economies of scale. In the late 60's and early 70's it became obvious that our school systems were deteriorating, so we decided to get to get the state government involved. In the late 70's we got the federal government involved with the creation of the Department of Education. As time went on the state and then the federal government got more involved in the education and the education system got worse. Smaller schools provide a better education. Education decisions should be made on as local a basis as possible. Actually that is only part of it, but overall part of the solution to many of the problems we have is to address it at the lowest level of government possible. I have even heard it suggested that we as a society would be better off if we stopped having the government run education. I don't know that I agree with that argument, however some interesting points were made, but that argument is too complicated to make in a post on here.
Wordperfect, Quattro Pro and DR DOS were already essentially dead when Novell bought them. I remember hoping that Novell could bring them back from the dead when I first heard that they had bought them, but it was too late/Novell didn't have a clue how to make it happen. I am not sure which of those two was the bigger issue, but Novell didn't destroy those products, their original creators had already done so (with a lot of help from MS).
I didn't say anything about the money being spent on the war. I asked how the money already being spent by the Washington, DC school district was being spent on the war. If money was the answer to the problem, Washington, DC should have a pretty good school system. They have a really crappy school system, so obviously the problem is not money, but something else (possibly what they spend it on, but giving them more money won't fix that).
I don't see how more money directed at the Washington, DC school system would fix its problems. I agree with everything you said about the Washington, DC school system, I just don't understand how giving it more money (which is what you say you want to do) would fix any of that. Washington, DC already spends more per student than just about any school system in the country (BTW the only way to compare the money spent by different school districts is on a "per student" basis), yet somehow, magically, if the federal government gives them more money the problems they have will get fixed? I don't get it.
"That's because the money is being used to fund a war that should have never happened in the first place"
Exactly how is the Washington, DC school district spending money on this "war that should never have happened"? The Washington, DC school district spends more money per student than just about any other school in the country, yet has some of the worst results. It seems obvious to me that despite what the teachers' unions say, more money isn't the answer. Personally, I think the best thing would be smaller school districts, allowing greater accountability to individual parents. Certainly, the answer is some system allowing for greater accountability to individual parents.
Most human cell lines that are used in the laboratory are already cancer cells. The normal human cell reproduces a set number of times and then dies out. Cancer cells don't do this (that is part of why they cause a problem in the body). In many cases when scientists wanted to study a particular type of cell outside of the body, they would find a likely candidate and attempt to induce it to become cancerous so that they could grow it indefinitely in the lab. With rare exceptions, it is impossible to maintain a normal human cell line for more than a couple of years.
Actually, the strain that is in the body all the time can become dangerous. The dangerous strain is not actually a different one than what occurs naturally inside the human body, it is just that under certain conditions e. coli changes the way it expresses certain genes and when that happens it becomes hazardous to the host (usually this change occurs when e. coli is outside the body). It has been a long time since I took the biology class where this was discussed so my explanation will leave something to be desired.
It's not that these companies are run by people who don't get it. They are run by people who get it exactly. The problem is that those company make lots of money fr things that aren't needed in the marketplace anymore. There used to be lots of costs involved in distributing music and movies (creating the media, marketing, distribution, etc). Most of these costs have gone away or are going away. There is little reason for either the consumer or the artist to give this money to these companies anymore. These companies are trying to build a model that will allow them to make money. They are hoping to delay the transition to the new model long enough to find a business model that allows them to make money in the new situation. They know what is going on, they just don't know how to make money from it.
"What is that supposed to mean? It sounds like an appeal to a conspiracy theory. The fact is the mainstream media has been biased towards the Bush administration and Republicans in general for at least the past 10 years. For example, the New York Times trumpeted the Bush administration claims about Iraq nonstop until we went to war. All the major newspapers reported every unsubstantiated accusation against Clinton when he was in office, but they quickly lose interest in all the far more serious Bush scandals."
What have you been smoking? That's why we never heard anything about Bush's supposedly being AWOL from the Air National Guard. And when Clinton was in office there was all that news about Hilary's cattle futures or the Whitewater scandal. I am sorry, but every Bush "scandal" (some of them deserve to be called scandals, some don't) is in the press for weeks or months. Most of the Clinton "scandals" (same reason for the quotes) got a day or two of coverage, if that.
I used to work at a Medical College Bookstore where we sold stethoscopes. I just did a search on the current equivalent of a couple of common models of stethoscope that we sold. They are listed at around $250 retail.
I intentionally took an exaggerated example, because there are people who would say that a journalist should not be compelled in the example I gave and I have no interest in what those people have to say. That being said the first question is: Where do you draw the line? The second question is: why are journalists a special case? What makes a "journalist" different than anybody else (in the eyes of the law)? In my opinion, either the law should not compel anyone to reveal where they learned what they know about a crime, or it should compel everyone (an exception to this I would be willing to accept would be very limited cases such as some cases involving undercover police officers and such).
"that "rule of law" and "separation of church and state" are synonyms."
No, they aren't. There are many completely nonreligious governments that do not operate by the rule of law. I use the term "rule of edict" as the antonym for "rule of law". There are many governments that have separation of church and state that do not operate by rule of law.
Slashdot Mirror
I have seen several studies that compare talking on a cell phone to driving at .08 BAC (blood alcohol level). All of these studies have also compared various hands free devices and handsets. None of them have shown any difference between conversations with hand held cell phones and conversations with some sort of hands free cell phone. However, to the best of my knowledge, none of them have compared cell phone usage to conversation with a passenger. My suspicion is that the result of that last comparison would demonstrate as much "driver impairment" as cell phone usage and/or BAC of .08. I would like to see the results of that study.
The problem with that is that the Amish are "non-resistant". That means they don't beat people up, even when those people attack them.
I look at it this way, in the US, if a company operates in two neighboring states it is not a multi state company. The same for companies operating in multiple countries, if a company operates in the US and Canada (or Australia and New Zealand), it is not multinational. There is nothing in its current operations that makes it significantly easier to operate worldwide than for a company that operates in just one of those countries. Now if on the other hand, it operates in say the US and France (or Australia and Japan), it is already operating over a greater distance and in significantly different business cultures, so most of the systems necessary to expand into a company operating worldwide are already in place. That being said a company operating in New Zealand and Australia is, generally speaking, closer to being ready to make the jump to multinational than one operating in the US and Canada (having to deal with offices where ground transport cannot be used to get from one to the other introduces some significant logistical hurdles).
Of course, New Zealand is rightfully sovereign, but I'm not sure that calling an ISP that services both Australia and New Zealand a "multinational".
Do you realise that this kind of attitude is why Americans are stereotyped as being totally ignorant and ego-centric? Just because a company doesn't cater to your precious US of A, it doesn't mean it isn't multinational. Multi. National. It means that it operates in multiple nations. Such as Australia and New Zealand.
Multi=many, so a company that does business in only Australia and New Zealand is not a multinational company, it is a bi national company just as a company that does business in only the US and Canada (or Mexico, or any other single nation) is not a multinational company. THe companies not being multinational is not because they don't do business in the US, there are numerous multinationals that do not do business in the US. Two countries are not enough to make a company a multinational in my view.I actually know a case where a guy was arrested possessing a very large amount of cocaine. He was charged with intent to distribute based on the law as an earlier post described. His lawyer got him off by presenting testimony that that the accused actually did consume cocaine in that kind of volume. I don't remember the amount, but I remember being amazed that anyone would consume anywhere close to that amount of cocaine in a reasonable time frame.
It is _possible_ to comply with 'all access to network resources', but this is costly.
I am pretty sure that when they say "network resource", I am pretty sure that they are talking about the network that the cardholder data is on. It is not necessary that all of your company's business goes on on the network that handles your credit card processing. As a matter of fact, it is probably a good idea if things like cell phones that access the company network, don't access the network that handles credit card data.
I have known several Walmart employees well. Two of them were coworkers on my last job who had part time jobs at Walmart. They were both intense Walmart evangelists. Another one was a regional training manager (I think that was her title), she was also very pro Walmart. I have also known a couple of former Walmart employees who hated Walmart, they were the type who always blamed other people for everything that went wrong in their life.
More importantly the current culture in Iran bears little to no resemblance or connection to the culture that spawned Zoroastrianism. Drawing conclusions about modern Iran based on the culture of ancient Persia is even less valid than drawing conclusions about modern Mexico based on the culture of the ancient Mayans.
Except that it is not 100 Americans, it is less than 100 people in the US. That is a subtle, but important difference. It doesn't necessarily make it right, but it is significantly different than 100 Americans. This topic has enough disagreements on principle, that it is important to get the facts right. That difference that I pointed out makes a difference as to what principles are violated (or not)by this wiretapping. Mis-stating the facts makes it harder to find common ground. Mis-stating the facts also increases the likelihood of people dismissing valid arguments because they no longer trust the person making them to not distort things.
"The problem is that the governments are allowed to get away with it" Exactly how can the government of Iran or China be prevented from getting away with it? Unless of course you are advocating either that those countries should have a revolution, or that the US should invade them. I'm not going to say that you are wrong if you are advocating revolution in those countries, however, it is important that it be remembered that, unlike in most first world countries, the people of China and Iran (and most other countries with strong internet censorship) do not have the ability to change the laws of their country without some sort of violent revolution or outside intervention.
to politics. So now the accepted science will be that presented by the most photogenic scientists.
The goal of the terrorists was to get us to convert to Islam and accept their version of sharia law, so, no, they haven't won. That does not, however, mean that we have not lost. I personally think that the question of whether or not we have lost the war is still to be decided, although there have been several actions in that direction (this Act being one of them).
In the 1950's and 1960's there was a movement in the US to consolidate school districts, small schools combined to form larger school districts to take advantage of the economies of scale. In the late 60's and early 70's it became obvious that our school systems were deteriorating, so we decided to get to get the state government involved. In the late 70's we got the federal government involved with the creation of the Department of Education. As time went on the state and then the federal government got more involved in the education and the education system got worse. Smaller schools provide a better education. Education decisions should be made on as local a basis as possible. Actually that is only part of it, but overall part of the solution to many of the problems we have is to address it at the lowest level of government possible. I have even heard it suggested that we as a society would be better off if we stopped having the government run education. I don't know that I agree with that argument, however some interesting points were made, but that argument is too complicated to make in a post on here.
Wordperfect, Quattro Pro and DR DOS were already essentially dead when Novell bought them. I remember hoping that Novell could bring them back from the dead when I first heard that they had bought them, but it was too late/Novell didn't have a clue how to make it happen. I am not sure which of those two was the bigger issue, but Novell didn't destroy those products, their original creators had already done so (with a lot of help from MS).
I didn't say anything about the money being spent on the war. I asked how the money already being spent by the Washington, DC school district was being spent on the war. If money was the answer to the problem, Washington, DC should have a pretty good school system. They have a really crappy school system, so obviously the problem is not money, but something else (possibly what they spend it on, but giving them more money won't fix that).
I don't see how more money directed at the Washington, DC school system would fix its problems. I agree with everything you said about the Washington, DC school system, I just don't understand how giving it more money (which is what you say you want to do) would fix any of that. Washington, DC already spends more per student than just about any school system in the country (BTW the only way to compare the money spent by different school districts is on a "per student" basis), yet somehow, magically, if the federal government gives them more money the problems they have will get fixed? I don't get it.
"That's because the money is being used to fund a war that should have never happened in the first place" Exactly how is the Washington, DC school district spending money on this "war that should never have happened"? The Washington, DC school district spends more money per student than just about any other school in the country, yet has some of the worst results. It seems obvious to me that despite what the teachers' unions say, more money isn't the answer. Personally, I think the best thing would be smaller school districts, allowing greater accountability to individual parents. Certainly, the answer is some system allowing for greater accountability to individual parents.
Most human cell lines that are used in the laboratory are already cancer cells. The normal human cell reproduces a set number of times and then dies out. Cancer cells don't do this (that is part of why they cause a problem in the body). In many cases when scientists wanted to study a particular type of cell outside of the body, they would find a likely candidate and attempt to induce it to become cancerous so that they could grow it indefinitely in the lab. With rare exceptions, it is impossible to maintain a normal human cell line for more than a couple of years.
Actually, the strain that is in the body all the time can become dangerous. The dangerous strain is not actually a different one than what occurs naturally inside the human body, it is just that under certain conditions e. coli changes the way it expresses certain genes and when that happens it becomes hazardous to the host (usually this change occurs when e. coli is outside the body). It has been a long time since I took the biology class where this was discussed so my explanation will leave something to be desired.
It's not that these companies are run by people who don't get it. They are run by people who get it exactly. The problem is that those company make lots of money fr things that aren't needed in the marketplace anymore. There used to be lots of costs involved in distributing music and movies (creating the media, marketing, distribution, etc). Most of these costs have gone away or are going away. There is little reason for either the consumer or the artist to give this money to these companies anymore. These companies are trying to build a model that will allow them to make money. They are hoping to delay the transition to the new model long enough to find a business model that allows them to make money in the new situation. They know what is going on, they just don't know how to make money from it.
"What is that supposed to mean? It sounds like an appeal to a conspiracy theory. The fact is the mainstream media has been biased towards the Bush administration and Republicans in general for at least the past 10 years. For example, the New York Times trumpeted the Bush administration claims about Iraq nonstop until we went to war. All the major newspapers reported every unsubstantiated accusation against Clinton when he was in office, but they quickly lose interest in all the far more serious Bush scandals." What have you been smoking? That's why we never heard anything about Bush's supposedly being AWOL from the Air National Guard. And when Clinton was in office there was all that news about Hilary's cattle futures or the Whitewater scandal. I am sorry, but every Bush "scandal" (some of them deserve to be called scandals, some don't) is in the press for weeks or months. Most of the Clinton "scandals" (same reason for the quotes) got a day or two of coverage, if that.
I used to work at a Medical College Bookstore where we sold stethoscopes. I just did a search on the current equivalent of a couple of common models of stethoscope that we sold. They are listed at around $250 retail.
I intentionally took an exaggerated example, because there are people who would say that a journalist should not be compelled in the example I gave and I have no interest in what those people have to say. That being said the first question is: Where do you draw the line? The second question is: why are journalists a special case? What makes a "journalist" different than anybody else (in the eyes of the law)? In my opinion, either the law should not compel anyone to reveal where they learned what they know about a crime, or it should compel everyone (an exception to this I would be willing to accept would be very limited cases such as some cases involving undercover police officers and such).
"that "rule of law" and "separation of church and state" are synonyms." No, they aren't. There are many completely nonreligious governments that do not operate by the rule of law. I use the term "rule of edict" as the antonym for "rule of law". There are many governments that have separation of church and state that do not operate by rule of law.