Not in the case of the stories I have been discussing, it doesn't
There's your problem. You cherry-pick. Thanks for admitting it.
In case you hadn't noticed, this discussion is occurring in a story about a conservative. Said story in no way disputes what he says or criticizes him. I have also pointed to other examples of pro-conservative rhetoric making the front page of slashdot.
That is not cherry-picking, that is me backing up my statements with facts. I have stated and supported that slashdot has a conservative bend to it. You have nebulously claimed the opposite yet been unable to provide any support for your claim.
Not that I expect any different from you at this point. So far every message you have posted in reply to me in this discussion has been the equivalent of you sticking your own fingers in your ears and proclaiming that you can't hear me. If you don't want to have an actual discussion, I can't force you to, nor can I force you to actually back up your statements with factual information.
Apparently YOU don't read the Slashdot front page very often because it can takes days and even weeks for a story to make it to the front page.
Not in the case of the stories I have been discussing, it doesn't. Conservative news on the slashdot front page makes it in a few hours more often than not.
Ron Paul is a libertarian running as conservative. Perhaps you should learn the difference.
No, ron paul is a fascist republican running under the guise of a libertarian. If you don't know his plans well enough to realize this, then I suggest you go back and look again.
Go back four and see how everyone was worshiping Obama
Bullshit. You are free to dislike Obama as much as you want, but you make yourself look like an idiot when you try to put words into the mouths of the entire slashdot community. There is zero support for your allegation. I previously said you could not back up your words with anything, and so far you are proving me right.
Also, you seem to be completely ignorant of the number of left leaning articles that appear on the front page from biased sources such as the Guardian along with the avalanche of extreme left comments.
If there is an "avalanche of left leaning articles" you should be able to very easily provide one. Yet you have not done this, and I'm not holding my breath for you to ever do so.
Your mindset is the same as Rose's. You come to a site with a left of center bent and claim it to be extreme right wing. She would do the same.
I have no idea who is Rose person is, so I cannot comment on whether or not we are philosophically similar. But your allegation of slashdot being "left of center" is absurd. I expect if you reply to me again you will provide more unsubstantiated claims but nothing of any substance.
You should take your own advice as you are obviously delusional and paranoid.
Are your psychiatric issues giving you illusions of grandeur such that you feel entitled to rewrite the dictionary now? Not that you're the first far-right slashdotter to feel granted that entitlement...
( beck is a nut, btw. If you can't see the distinction between slashdot and beck...well, you might be standing too close to that particular fire )
Did you not see slashdot featuring the already-debunked-by-then story about the "food police" on Thursday? That was just one example of slashdot catering to the Glenn Beck crowd. By the time the story was accepted to the front page - nevermind that it didn't belong on the front page anyways - it had already been debunked start to finish. But because it was good for riling up the slashdot conservative base, facts be damned.
And that example does not stand alone. Plenty of other similar cases have occurred here; one that comes to mind quickly was the "Wii suicide" case that was covered a while back. I challenge you to find a slashdot front page story that gave positive coverage to liberal - or even non-conservative - positions. This story sure as hell didn't dispute Santorum's claims in the summary, it came a lot closer to endorsing him because of what he said rather than challenging him on the same.
You have absolutely no idea how your comments shows you to be not just extreme left, but idiotically extreme left, do you?
You either don't read the slashdot front page often enough, or you spend too much time listening to conservative talk radio and not enough time paying attention to the real world.
Just a few days ago slashdot featured on the front page the story about "food police" - several hours after it had already been thoroughly debunked. Damned near every week of the past 4 months has had at least one pro-Ron-Paul story as well. I challenge you to find a slashdot front page story that has been favorable to anyone who isn't a conservative.
In other words, you couldn't back up your words with anything resembling facts even if you tried. Not that I expect you to.
You remind me of a girl I knew who thought that GWB was going to declare martial law to prevent his leaving office and had nightmares that she was going to be taken aside in an airport, tortured, and sexually assaulted because she wrote a blog post.
There is no similarity between that and what I wrote. If you somehow connect what I wrote with that, you likely need to either reduce your medication, or increase it. I'm not sure which, but you really should contact your mental health professional.
... endorses his comment. Fits well with all the other right-wing rhetoric that dominates the front page here. I'm not sure if this is part of their mission to bring the site back to relevance or not, but I'm not sold it is a good idea regardless. Some of us remember when slashdot was, for the most part, apolitical. Now they are slightly less political than Glenn Beck, and spending most of their time in his same philosophical camp.
Were they stomping around in the woods flushing out wild birds to shoot, or did someone bring in a truckload of specifically bred (or captured) birds for shooting? The former is called hunting. The latter has in many cases been replaced by shooting at clay pigeons.
Furthermore the former is the shooting of a nuisance animal that in many areas is overpopulated. The latter, on the contrary, often involves selective breeding of some of the worst of the species because they are more fun to shoot at.
The article doesn't really provide enough information to tell which way this "pigeon shoot" was intended to go. If everyone fled on small vehicles it would suggest the former more so than the latter, but that's only conjecture.
Your moral flexibility is staggering. You really favor legalization of murder for something that has not been changed when murder has previously been applied as a tool.
everyone knows the spammers are controlled by competing mafia groups and pay part of their proceeds to the government.
Which relates to the situation how? Spammers in Russia have undoubtedly been murdered in the past. Yet spam continues to pour out of Russia at an astonishing rate. I'm not even talking about state-sponsored murder, but just simply vigilante or mob murder, and that hasn't caused people to spam less in that country. So why on earth would it make a difference anywhere else if it makes no difference there?
the parent and administration agreed that they did indeed substitute the kid's lunch and try to charge the mother for the price
The article linked to from this abstract does not actually support that. Do you have a different source?
The analysis of the situation I read disagrees and states that the child was actually offered milk and - likely due to the confusion that goes with being four years old - grabbed chicken nuggets, milk, and vegetables. I have certainly not heard of the administration agreeing to having substituted the child's lunch.
What's dispicable is that morons so damned stupid are teaching our kids.
Now, we may differ in our concept of who at a preschool is considered to be tasked with the job of teaching our kids. However it is rather clear that it was not a teacher who suggested the girl might want to get milk, but rather some other preschool employee working in the lunch room.
I submitted the debunking of this "story" to be a slashdot article. While we can't make this miserable piece go away, we can vote for the correction to go to the front page. Go to slashdot.org/recent and vote it up. Slashdot editors won't take responsibility for a crappy article posted, but we can use the system to get them to pay attention to a correction.
As I've already said in other replies, the note is questionable as to when it was sent home. The article linked to from this story did not specify that the note regarding the school checking lunches was received the same day; it could have been a policy note that was sent home earlier.
The note was specific about the charge "in her case". It's hard to imagine that a note sent home two months ago would tell a mother that her child would not bring a sufficiently healthy lunch and thus be required to pay $1.25 on Jan. 30 of the next year. That makes the argument that is was a "form letter" sent home "earlier" hard to accept.
We are talking about two different "notes" that are mentioned in the article. I am talking about the note brought up that children need to bring healthy lunches. You are talking about what is effectively a receipt for the chicken nuggets. I do not doubt that the receipt was written the same day, but the general note could have been from the start of the preschool term.
That said, the whole thing has been debunked already, and the excessive conservative spin exposed for the crap that it is:
rather I doubt that a four-year-old girl is capable of giving a completely accurate account of what happened
OK. I've give you that.
It's refreshing to see someone approaching this from a reasonable standpoint. Most people thus far who have disagreed with me have not wanted to meet anywhere in the middle. I thank you for not being one of them.
But if start with that as an assumption, then I think that you also have to accept that a 4 year old is NOT capable of understanding when teacher / other school official says (with dramatic license) "That lunch does not meet the appropriate nutritional guidelines. We are not replacing your lunch that you brought from home, but merely supplementing it in order to ensure you have the proper diet of a child of your age."
That is pretty much where I was going with it. I'm not trying to accuse the girl of lying or trying to pull one off on someone. I figured she was probably told to get something (maybe something specific) from the line - or given something from the line by an adult - and misinterpreted what she was said.
Someone else pointed out that the whole story has already pretty well been debunked:
If a teacher / school official really believed the child's lunch was inadequate, was it absolutely essential that action be taken immediately / that day?
As I read it, apparently the girl was instructed to get some milk from the line, and - I would wager through confusion and nothing more - grabbed chicken nuggets, milk, and some other items.
So basically, someone felt she either didn't have enough dairy in her lunch, or not enough to drink in her lunch, and suggested she get some milk. I don't think that is any kind of grave or sweeping action being taken.
I'm assuming these people at the school are themselves educated past the high school level, but perhaps I am wrong.
It's a North Carolina pre-school program. I have no idea what kind of qualifications the people there do or do not have. One would hope they at least graduated high school though we certainly know that is not a prerequisite for having children...
Given the description of what the kid brought from home, though, if I were the parent I would probably tell them to pound sand.
I could understand the frustration, if the incident actually occurred as suggested by the article that slashdot posted to.
Yes. Obviously conservatives are taking the kids word for it. Not the physical evidence, like the note, or demands to pay, or anything else.
As I've already said in other replies, the note is questionable as to when it was sent home. The article linked to from this story did not specify that the note regarding the school checking lunches was received the same day; it could have been a policy note that was sent home earlier.
The receipt for the chicken nuggets only shows that the girl bought chicken nuggets. It does not, however, support the allegations that she was ordered to not eat her own lunch and have instead only the chicken nuggets as many "news" sites want us to believe. It does not support in any way her being separated from her lunch at any time during the lunch hour, for that matter.
How the hell your post got to +5 boggles my mind.
Maybe because it was a more reasonable evaluation of the facts provided than the summaries that are flying all over the conservative blogosphere?
Don't worry, though. The drugedot conservatives will have it down to (-1, flamebait) soon enoiugh.
In what way, exactly? The girl's mother says she received a note from the school regarding the incident. Are you claiming the 4 year old kid faked the note?
No, I am not claiming the note to be fake.
Go back and re-RTFA. They did not say that the note was specifically in response to this lunch, only that it came from the school - time not specified. While the receipt was from the same day, the note could have been a school policy that was handed out when preschool first started.
Even more so, people are taking the girl's word that the school somehow ordered her to not heat her own lunch and have only three chicken nuggets. I'm not accusing her of lying, rather I am inclined to believe she did not understand what she was told.
No, they're relying on the note (and bill) the child brought home. I doubt very much that a 4 year old forged the note.
Except that the note, at least the way it was mentioned in the article, does not explicitly mention that girl's lunch. If you look at the article, you'll see:
she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a âoehealthy lunchâ would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria
They did not say that note was specifically received in response to this lunch; it could have just as well been a note that was sent out at the start of preschool.
So the note does not need to have been forged to make this absurd. It could well have been received on a different date altogether or not for a specific incident. I don't dispute that the child was billed for lunch; rather I doubt that a four-year-old girl is capable of giving a completely accurate account of what happened, especially considering how emotional the quoted response was from her parents.
.... not so much the fact that this may have happened, but the fact that slashdot put it on the front page. This story has set the conservative blogosphere alight over "obama's nanny state" and what have you while overlooking one huge glaring problem here...
They are taking the word of a four year old kid to be god's-own-truth. I'm not saying she's intentionally lying, but how many reliable four year olds have you met in your life time? There could well be a very large gap between what she was told and what she thought she heard, and yet another between what she did and what she told her parents.
That is a very long post for an AC, maybe you should consider signing up for an account next time you want to post something? More people will see your comment that way...
Nonetheless your assertion of
You cannot stop them getting paid.
Is dead wrong. The spammers aren't getting paid in cash, animal hides, or gold bullion. They are being paid via wire transfers and other digital equivalents of the same. It is quite easy to track the money that goes to the spammers, and the money that is used to pay them. In fact it has been done in the past and unlike filters it actually did reduce the spamming volume.
Furthermore, your notion of
So we're stuck with the weakest link in the spammer's chain - the medium used to spam (email).
Is also incorrect. email is not the weakest link in the matter, not by a long shot. The weakest link is the payment delivery system.
Of course it is just as illogical as your outright lie of
spam filters are the best defence we have against spammers
Because if spam filters were worth anything at all in the fight against spam, then volume should have reduced. Instead it grows every year, and we pay more every year as a result of it. Spam is a huge portion of all internet traffic, and we invest huge amounts of money in updating, applying, and maintaining filters. Spam still ends up being delivered to servers that have to assess it, and that costs money. As long as people still cling to the false premise of spam filters somehow being worthwhile in the long-term, those costs will only continue to rise.
Sure they will, if by filters you mean "AK-47s or other suitable firearms" and by getting there you mean "we tracked down those spamming assholes and ended their stupid shit permanently".
You must not read the news much. That very tactic has been applied in Russia and it made no difference there. If spammers being murdered by the Russian mob doesn't make a difference...
Filters will never end the spam epidemic, at best all they do is kick the can down the road. Any time the filters are changed, the spammers change their tactics correspondingly to get around them. The filters don't do jack shit to address the underlying cause of spam.
For those who are too clueless to comprehend the root cause, I'll clue you in that spammers are not actually spamming you to piss you off and waste your time. Spammers are spamming you because they make money doing it. If you actually want a real, long-term solution to the spamming problem, you need to go after the money. As soon as the spammers stop getting paid, they will stop sending spam. And filters will never, ever, ever, get us there.
Being as we've already demonstrated clearly your inability to comprehend the written word, I see no reason why I should place any merit on the rest of what you have written or bother responding to it.
It says nothing about the type of journal they can publish in
And neither did I. Perhaps that is why you are so confused, you read what I wrote and then interpreted it to be something other than what I wrote. Feel free to go back and re-read what I wrote.
But in practice, what really happened was that the NIH told the publishers, "fuck you, we're paying for these papers, so we're putting them online whether you like it or not."
That is a strange way to interpret it. Perhaps you have a bone to pick with the NIH? The NIH provided tools for the publishers so they could easily comply. I have yet to find a publisher who outright declined, they realized quickly it was not in their own best interest to do so. Even Nature papers are available freely quickly in compliance with the NIH standard.
I suspect where you may be confused - beyond your misreading of what I wrote - may be in the fact that the NIH could not make this retroactive, they could only apply it forward. Hence existing grants were exempt, and of course already published work was unaffected as well. Which creates the illusion to those who are not familiar with the situation that publishers are getting around it or someone is cheating the NIH.
There is now a bill in the house to end this, I forgot the name of it but there was a slashdot article a couple weeks ago one it.
I hadn't heard of such a bill. Was it attached to SOPA/PIPA?
Also, the percentage of successful grant proposals is determined by three primary factors: 1) Amount of money available
2) Amount given out per grant
3) Number of applicants
Very true.
You are only focusing on one. Have any of the other factors changed recently?
I focused on that one because this article is about funding - hence money available - for research agencies. To address your point though, the number of applicants has gone up for some funding mechanisms.
As for amount given per grant, that number has likely, on average risen to match inflation and other costs of doing science. As projects get bigger and more collaborative the costs of doing them goes up.
NIH-funded researches still publish in Nature or Elsevier journals all the time
Which is still allowed. I can't force you to read the requirements if you chose not to.
The requirement is actually that they deposit the manuscript in PubMed Central within either 6 months or a year (I forget which) after publication, regardless of what other arrangement may have been made with the journal.
So you did read the requirement, then. Where is your grievance?
So everything funded by the NIH should, in theory, become open-access eventually
You are erroneously assuming that liberals would only spend what isn't there. A liberal could cut the military budget and have enough to bring research spending up to where it should be and reform health care without increasing the national debt.
Instead we get one conservativeafteranotherconservativeafteranotherconservative. We don't seem capable of breaking this chain. We've had nothing but conservative presidents for around half a century now and no matter what happens we'll get another 4 years of a conservative president after the 2012 election.
Even more frustrating people will wonder why nothing changes... Quoth Lewis Black:
The American Democracy is a bucket of shit looking at itself in the mirror
The National Institutes of Health would also see its budget remain flat, at $30.7 billion
Thanks a lot. And for those of you who think you don't care, it's worth pointing out that NIH is the first funding agency to require publications coming from its work to be put in open-access or publicly-accessible journals. The other agencies are still allowing their work to go into paywalled journals at the time. So even if you don't agree with their mission of health research, you might want to at least take notice that they are trying to ensure that the work the taxpayer pays for is in a place where the taxpayer doesn't have to pay again to see the results.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in the case of the stories I have been discussing, it doesn't
There's your problem. You cherry-pick. Thanks for admitting it.
In case you hadn't noticed, this discussion is occurring in a story about a conservative. Said story in no way disputes what he says or criticizes him. I have also pointed to other examples of pro-conservative rhetoric making the front page of slashdot.
That is not cherry-picking, that is me backing up my statements with facts. I have stated and supported that slashdot has a conservative bend to it. You have nebulously claimed the opposite yet been unable to provide any support for your claim.
Not that I expect any different from you at this point. So far every message you have posted in reply to me in this discussion has been the equivalent of you sticking your own fingers in your ears and proclaiming that you can't hear me. If you don't want to have an actual discussion, I can't force you to, nor can I force you to actually back up your statements with factual information.
Apparently YOU don't read the Slashdot front page very often because it can takes days and even weeks for a story to make it to the front page.
Not in the case of the stories I have been discussing, it doesn't. Conservative news on the slashdot front page makes it in a few hours more often than not.
Ron Paul is a libertarian running as conservative. Perhaps you should learn the difference.
No, ron paul is a fascist republican running under the guise of a libertarian. If you don't know his plans well enough to realize this, then I suggest you go back and look again.
Go back four and see how everyone was worshiping Obama
Bullshit. You are free to dislike Obama as much as you want, but you make yourself look like an idiot when you try to put words into the mouths of the entire slashdot community. There is zero support for your allegation. I previously said you could not back up your words with anything, and so far you are proving me right.
Also, you seem to be completely ignorant of the number of left leaning articles that appear on the front page from biased sources such as the Guardian along with the avalanche of extreme left comments.
If there is an "avalanche of left leaning articles" you should be able to very easily provide one. Yet you have not done this, and I'm not holding my breath for you to ever do so.
Your mindset is the same as Rose's. You come to a site with a left of center bent and claim it to be extreme right wing. She would do the same.
I have no idea who is Rose person is, so I cannot comment on whether or not we are philosophically similar. But your allegation of slashdot being "left of center" is absurd. I expect if you reply to me again you will provide more unsubstantiated claims but nothing of any substance.
You should take your own advice as you are obviously delusional and paranoid.
Are your psychiatric issues giving you illusions of grandeur such that you feel entitled to rewrite the dictionary now? Not that you're the first far-right slashdotter to feel granted that entitlement...
( beck is a nut, btw. If you can't see the distinction between slashdot and beck...well, you might be standing too close to that particular fire )
Did you not see slashdot featuring the already-debunked-by-then story about the "food police" on Thursday? That was just one example of slashdot catering to the Glenn Beck crowd. By the time the story was accepted to the front page - nevermind that it didn't belong on the front page anyways - it had already been debunked start to finish. But because it was good for riling up the slashdot conservative base, facts be damned.
And that example does not stand alone. Plenty of other similar cases have occurred here; one that comes to mind quickly was the "Wii suicide" case that was covered a while back. I challenge you to find a slashdot front page story that gave positive coverage to liberal - or even non-conservative - positions. This story sure as hell didn't dispute Santorum's claims in the summary, it came a lot closer to endorsing him because of what he said rather than challenging him on the same.
You have absolutely no idea how your comments shows you to be not just extreme left, but idiotically extreme left, do you?
You either don't read the slashdot front page often enough, or you spend too much time listening to conservative talk radio and not enough time paying attention to the real world.
Just a few days ago slashdot featured on the front page the story about "food police" - several hours after it had already been thoroughly debunked. Damned near every week of the past 4 months has had at least one pro-Ron-Paul story as well. I challenge you to find a slashdot front page story that has been favorable to anyone who isn't a conservative.
In other words, you couldn't back up your words with anything resembling facts even if you tried. Not that I expect you to.
You remind me of a girl I knew who thought that GWB was going to declare martial law to prevent his leaving office and had nightmares that she was going to be taken aside in an airport, tortured, and sexually assaulted because she wrote a blog post.
There is no similarity between that and what I wrote. If you somehow connect what I wrote with that, you likely need to either reduce your medication, or increase it. I'm not sure which, but you really should contact your mental health professional.
... endorses his comment. Fits well with all the other right-wing rhetoric that dominates the front page here. I'm not sure if this is part of their mission to bring the site back to relevance or not, but I'm not sold it is a good idea regardless. Some of us remember when slashdot was, for the most part, apolitical. Now they are slightly less political than Glenn Beck, and spending most of their time in his same philosophical camp.
Were they stomping around in the woods flushing out wild birds to shoot, or did someone bring in a truckload of specifically bred (or captured) birds for shooting? The former is called hunting. The latter has in many cases been replaced by shooting at clay pigeons.
Furthermore the former is the shooting of a nuisance animal that in many areas is overpopulated. The latter, on the contrary, often involves selective breeding of some of the worst of the species because they are more fun to shoot at.
The article doesn't really provide enough information to tell which way this "pigeon shoot" was intended to go. If everyone fled on small vehicles it would suggest the former more so than the latter, but that's only conjecture.
everyone knows the spammers are controlled by competing mafia groups and pay part of their proceeds to the government.
Which relates to the situation how? Spammers in Russia have undoubtedly been murdered in the past. Yet spam continues to pour out of Russia at an astonishing rate. I'm not even talking about state-sponsored murder, but just simply vigilante or mob murder, and that hasn't caused people to spam less in that country. So why on earth would it make a difference anywhere else if it makes no difference there?
the parent and administration agreed that they did indeed substitute the kid's lunch and try to charge the mother for the price
The article linked to from this abstract does not actually support that. Do you have a different source?
The analysis of the situation I read disagrees and states that the child was actually offered milk and - likely due to the confusion that goes with being four years old - grabbed chicken nuggets, milk, and vegetables. I have certainly not heard of the administration agreeing to having substituted the child's lunch.
What's dispicable is that morons so damned stupid are teaching our kids.
Now, we may differ in our concept of who at a preschool is considered to be tasked with the job of teaching our kids. However it is rather clear that it was not a teacher who suggested the girl might want to get milk, but rather some other preschool employee working in the lunch room.
I submitted the debunking of this "story" to be a slashdot article. While we can't make this miserable piece go away, we can vote for the correction to go to the front page. Go to slashdot.org/recent and vote it up. Slashdot editors won't take responsibility for a crappy article posted, but we can use the system to get them to pay attention to a correction.
As I've already said in other replies, the note is questionable as to when it was sent home. The article linked to from this story did not specify that the note regarding the school checking lunches was received the same day; it could have been a policy note that was sent home earlier.
The note was specific about the charge "in her case". It's hard to imagine that a note sent home two months ago would tell a mother that her child would not bring a sufficiently healthy lunch and thus be required to pay $1.25 on Jan. 30 of the next year. That makes the argument that is was a "form letter" sent home "earlier" hard to accept.
We are talking about two different "notes" that are mentioned in the article. I am talking about the note brought up that children need to bring healthy lunches. You are talking about what is effectively a receipt for the chicken nuggets. I do not doubt that the receipt was written the same day, but the general note could have been from the start of the preschool term.
That said, the whole thing has been debunked already, and the excessive conservative spin exposed for the crap that it is:
North Carolina non-troversy
rather I doubt that a four-year-old girl is capable of giving a completely accurate account of what happened
OK. I've give you that.
It's refreshing to see someone approaching this from a reasonable standpoint. Most people thus far who have disagreed with me have not wanted to meet anywhere in the middle. I thank you for not being one of them.
But if start with that as an assumption, then I think that you also have to accept that a 4 year old is NOT capable of understanding when teacher / other school official says (with dramatic license) "That lunch does not meet the appropriate nutritional guidelines. We are not replacing your lunch that you brought from home, but merely supplementing it in order to ensure you have the proper diet of a child of your age."
That is pretty much where I was going with it. I'm not trying to accuse the girl of lying or trying to pull one off on someone. I figured she was probably told to get something (maybe something specific) from the line - or given something from the line by an adult - and misinterpreted what she was said.
Someone else pointed out that the whole story has already pretty well been debunked:
a north carolina non-troversy
If a teacher / school official really believed the child's lunch was inadequate, was it absolutely essential that action be taken immediately / that day?
As I read it, apparently the girl was instructed to get some milk from the line, and - I would wager through confusion and nothing more - grabbed chicken nuggets, milk, and some other items.
So basically, someone felt she either didn't have enough dairy in her lunch, or not enough to drink in her lunch, and suggested she get some milk. I don't think that is any kind of grave or sweeping action being taken.
I'm assuming these people at the school are themselves educated past the high school level, but perhaps I am wrong.
It's a North Carolina pre-school program. I have no idea what kind of qualifications the people there do or do not have. One would hope they at least graduated high school though we certainly know that is not a prerequisite for having children...
Given the description of what the kid brought from home, though, if I were the parent I would probably tell them to pound sand.
I could understand the frustration, if the incident actually occurred as suggested by the article that slashdot posted to.
Yes. Obviously conservatives are taking the kids word for it. Not the physical evidence, like the note, or demands to pay, or anything else.
As I've already said in other replies, the note is questionable as to when it was sent home. The article linked to from this story did not specify that the note regarding the school checking lunches was received the same day; it could have been a policy note that was sent home earlier.
The receipt for the chicken nuggets only shows that the girl bought chicken nuggets. It does not, however, support the allegations that she was ordered to not eat her own lunch and have instead only the chicken nuggets as many "news" sites want us to believe. It does not support in any way her being separated from her lunch at any time during the lunch hour, for that matter.
How the hell your post got to +5 boggles my mind.
Maybe because it was a more reasonable evaluation of the facts provided than the summaries that are flying all over the conservative blogosphere?
Don't worry, though. The drugedot conservatives will have it down to (-1, flamebait) soon enoiugh.
taking the word of a four year old kid
In what way, exactly? The girl's mother says she received a note from the school regarding the incident. Are you claiming the 4 year old kid faked the note?
No, I am not claiming the note to be fake.
Go back and re-RTFA. They did not say that the note was specifically in response to this lunch, only that it came from the school - time not specified. While the receipt was from the same day, the note could have been a school policy that was handed out when preschool first started.
Even more so, people are taking the girl's word that the school somehow ordered her to not heat her own lunch and have only three chicken nuggets. I'm not accusing her of lying, rather I am inclined to believe she did not understand what she was told.
No, they're relying on the note (and bill) the child brought home. I doubt very much that a 4 year old forged the note.
Except that the note, at least the way it was mentioned in the article, does not explicitly mention that girl's lunch. If you look at the article, you'll see:
she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a âoehealthy lunchâ would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria
They did not say that note was specifically received in response to this lunch; it could have just as well been a note that was sent out at the start of preschool.
So the note does not need to have been forged to make this absurd. It could well have been received on a different date altogether or not for a specific incident. I don't dispute that the child was billed for lunch; rather I doubt that a four-year-old girl is capable of giving a completely accurate account of what happened, especially considering how emotional the quoted response was from her parents.
.... not so much the fact that this may have happened, but the fact that slashdot put it on the front page. This story has set the conservative blogosphere alight over "obama's nanny state" and what have you while overlooking one huge glaring problem here...
They are taking the word of a four year old kid to be god's-own-truth. I'm not saying she's intentionally lying, but how many reliable four year olds have you met in your life time? There could well be a very large gap between what she was told and what she thought she heard, and yet another between what she did and what she told her parents.
So if the lord limited humans to 120, why did Methuselah get 8 times that much time?
Nonetheless your assertion of
You cannot stop them getting paid.
Is dead wrong. The spammers aren't getting paid in cash, animal hides, or gold bullion. They are being paid via wire transfers and other digital equivalents of the same. It is quite easy to track the money that goes to the spammers, and the money that is used to pay them. In fact it has been done in the past and unlike filters it actually did reduce the spamming volume.
Furthermore, your notion of
So we're stuck with the weakest link in the spammer's chain - the medium used to spam (email).
Is also incorrect. email is not the weakest link in the matter, not by a long shot. The weakest link is the payment delivery system.
Of course it is just as illogical as your outright lie of
spam filters are the best defence we have against spammers
Because if spam filters were worth anything at all in the fight against spam, then volume should have reduced. Instead it grows every year, and we pay more every year as a result of it. Spam is a huge portion of all internet traffic, and we invest huge amounts of money in updating, applying, and maintaining filters. Spam still ends up being delivered to servers that have to assess it, and that costs money. As long as people still cling to the false premise of spam filters somehow being worthwhile in the long-term, those costs will only continue to rise.
Sure they will, if by filters you mean "AK-47s or other suitable firearms" and by getting there you mean "we tracked down those spamming assholes and ended their stupid shit permanently".
You must not read the news much. That very tactic has been applied in Russia and it made no difference there. If spammers being murdered by the Russian mob doesn't make a difference...
Filters will never end the spam epidemic, at best all they do is kick the can down the road. Any time the filters are changed, the spammers change their tactics correspondingly to get around them. The filters don't do jack shit to address the underlying cause of spam.
For those who are too clueless to comprehend the root cause, I'll clue you in that spammers are not actually spamming you to piss you off and waste your time. Spammers are spamming you because they make money doing it. If you actually want a real, long-term solution to the spamming problem, you need to go after the money. As soon as the spammers stop getting paid, they will stop sending spam. And filters will never, ever, ever, get us there.
Being as we've already demonstrated clearly your inability to comprehend the written word, I see no reason why I should place any merit on the rest of what you have written or bother responding to it.
It says nothing about the type of journal they can publish in
And neither did I. Perhaps that is why you are so confused, you read what I wrote and then interpreted it to be something other than what I wrote. Feel free to go back and re-read what I wrote.
But in practice, what really happened was that the NIH told the publishers, "fuck you, we're paying for these papers, so we're putting them online whether you like it or not."
That is a strange way to interpret it. Perhaps you have a bone to pick with the NIH? The NIH provided tools for the publishers so they could easily comply. I have yet to find a publisher who outright declined, they realized quickly it was not in their own best interest to do so. Even Nature papers are available freely quickly in compliance with the NIH standard.
I suspect where you may be confused - beyond your misreading of what I wrote - may be in the fact that the NIH could not make this retroactive, they could only apply it forward. Hence existing grants were exempt, and of course already published work was unaffected as well. Which creates the illusion to those who are not familiar with the situation that publishers are getting around it or someone is cheating the NIH.
There is now a bill in the house to end this, I forgot the name of it but there was a slashdot article a couple weeks ago one it.
I hadn't heard of such a bill. Was it attached to SOPA/PIPA?
Also, the percentage of successful grant proposals is determined by three primary factors:
1) Amount of money available
2) Amount given out per grant
3) Number of applicants
Very true.
You are only focusing on one. Have any of the other factors changed recently?
I focused on that one because this article is about funding - hence money available - for research agencies. To address your point though, the number of applicants has gone up for some funding mechanisms.
The article on the NIH examining the drop in approval rates shows that as well. While there was a bit of a drop, overall the number of applicants for this year in comparison to 2003 is up quite a bit.
As for amount given per grant, that number has likely, on average risen to match inflation and other costs of doing science. As projects get bigger and more collaborative the costs of doing them goes up.
NIH is the first funding agency to require publications coming from its work to be put in open-access or publicly-accessible journals.
I'm pretty sure this is not true
Here's the link proving it to be true, straight from the NIH.
NIH-funded researches still publish in Nature or Elsevier journals all the time
Which is still allowed. I can't force you to read the requirements if you chose not to.
The requirement is actually that they deposit the manuscript in PubMed Central within either 6 months or a year (I forget which) after publication, regardless of what other arrangement may have been made with the journal.
So you did read the requirement, then. Where is your grievance?
So everything funded by the NIH should, in theory, become open-access eventually
Which does not counter what I said...
yeah, liberal with money we don't have. asshole.
You are erroneously assuming that liberals would only spend what isn't there. A liberal could cut the military budget and have enough to bring research spending up to where it should be and reform health care without increasing the national debt.
Instead we get one conservative after another conservative after another conservative. We don't seem capable of breaking this chain. We've had nothing but conservative presidents for around half a century now and no matter what happens we'll get another 4 years of a conservative president after the 2012 election.
Even more frustrating people will wonder why nothing changes... Quoth Lewis Black:
The American Democracy is a bucket of shit looking at itself in the mirror
The National Institutes of Health would also see its budget remain flat, at $30.7 billion
Thanks a lot. And for those of you who think you don't care, it's worth pointing out that NIH is the first funding agency to require publications coming from its work to be put in open-access or publicly-accessible journals. The other agencies are still allowing their work to go into paywalled journals at the time. So even if you don't agree with their mission of health research, you might want to at least take notice that they are trying to ensure that the work the taxpayer pays for is in a place where the taxpayer doesn't have to pay again to see the results.
And being as NIH grant success rate is at an all-time low (same source), the odds of more great original research coming from their effectively-reduced budget is miniscule.