Uh, nice listing of links. Hope you realize that most are worthless and not what people asked for.... Most are about as good for proof as slashdot posts (I said it, so it must be true...) Some reference some crappy studies (studies with inherent problems that make them less than useful for their intended purpose). Studies by think tanks are NOT scientific studies, they are opinion pieces.
This is about the only link that is worth anything: http://learninfreedom.org/socialization .html
References Shyer's work. Seems decent. But without looking at it, who knows.
It is certainly possible they may need to be replaced more often. I imagine it depends upon the application. One study I have read assumed batteries would be replaced twice in a EV's lifetime. As batteries can fail due to time OR load, this doesn't seem to far outside normal.
If you discharged the batteries deeply on a regular basis, you would probably be right, though. Hence the wide time to replacement variation given by this manufacturer.
Actually, lead acid batteries pose only minor environmental challenges. They are recycled almost completely (same tech. as regular car batteries and this waste stream would be insignificant compared to that). At least 80% of the lead in them is recycled as well. Significantly reduces the amount of mining needed.
If what you say about not recycling the nickel in the NiMH batteries is true, then lead-acid batteries are almost certainly more "environmentally friendly". You do realize they mine nickel don't you? Health hazards are minor if regulations are followed.
"And then there are those batteries. Where do they go for disposal?"
Car batteries (lead-acid) in the US are highly recycled (over 98% in 1993, and over 90% of the lead/ lead oxides is recycled or exported for recycling-newest info I have handy). I believe the cases are recycled as well-the plastic must be used for new battery cases only-by law IIRC. Pretty much any place that sells them will take them. They are actually worth something. After all, a small fee is charged (I assume everywhere) if you don't recycle yours. Other battery types are also recycled-it is one of the things they consider when introducing different battery types.
"...everyone has known that if war actually sparked between the Koreas, Seoul would be levelled and there is little the US could do to stop it.."
Really? That memo must not have reached me. We managed to stop it the last time. I see no reason that we couldn't stop it now (unless we didn't want to). We are certainly better prepared. Heck, the North Korean army collapsed after we counter attacked (before the Chinese intervened) during the Korean war. Whether the South Korean's are any more effective at fighting...heck if I know...
I do believe the US supports the reunification of the penninsula in a peaceful manner. That hardly makes the US an aggressor-after all North Korea did invade South Korea and technically we are not at peace with North Korea (US, China, North Korea signed only an armistice not a peace agreement). After all, we don't regularly send troops into North Korea (the same cannot be said of NK sending troops/spies into SK). The ultimate outcome of the situation really depends on decisions made by North Korea (the actual aggressor in the situation).
"On the other hand, if private dollars are spent, there's a very big incentive to be efficient..."
Really. So why did I hear this joke from Boeing workers (employees and contractors).
How many people work at Boeing?
About half.
All large organizations are probably inefficient. Any many small ones too. Sure, the government as a whole can get more money than private companies, but both can waste it VERY efficiently. The waste is just called different things.
Well, I don't think their programmers are incompetent. From everything I have heard, they are excellent.
But one does have to question their management. A large and profitable company, with massive amount of developers delaying an operating system upgrade (maybe a partial to total rewrite?-only time will tell) that will make them massive amounts of money. An upgrade that by most accounts will not be particularly appealing to end users, will have taken at least FIVE years (assuming on time release-not likely given past history), and MIGHT be more secure and stable than its predecessor (based on past history-who knows). Doesn't sound like good management to me.
"I'm not a control freak, I just figure it's a good thing if I can be contacted in case my permission is required for medical procedures."
If it is a life threatening situation your permission will not be required. The doctor(s) will do what is needed. All other situations can wait. The message left on your phone will be waiting there when you leave the blocked area (theater).
Look, if the theater can dictate other policies (no talking during the movie, don't bring in outside food, etc.) then they have every right to block cell phone signals. This crap about having to be in touch for emergency reasons is just that, crap. Based on that line of reasoning, we should be allowed to bring in outside food because we might have an allergic reaction to an ingredient in the theater's food and die. That line of reasoning doesn't work because the chance of it happening is small, because you don't have to eat the food (or be in touch), and because it is a private business. But the risk of that happening (allergic reaction) is far greater than your proposed bogeyman.
If you must be in touch 24/7, you obviously won't be able to go there. That's life. The reality is, no one has to be in touch 24/7. Hell, even the president of the US probably cannot reached 24/7 (based on history) and he is the only person I can think of that really has a need to be able to be contacted 24/7.
Actually, I think most certifications are considered worthless because many people who get them memorize information to pass tests (they don't have to get it off the internet-they can use the test materials). I imagine few people fall into this category:
"Someone who's learned what's really supposed to be taught by the certification process is invaluable."
Hell, I know more than a few college grads that have difficulty thinking and learning. Why should people with certs be any different.
A cert that is based on regurgitation of information is fundamentally worthless. It measures the fact that you spent X amount of time and Y amount of money, no more. People who rely primarily on this information for hiring decisions are idiots. Of course, you might have to actually LOOK at all of the resumes you get. OH THE HORRORS. In the end, you have to actually INTERVIEW people to find out if they are qualified. OH MY GOD, THAT MIGHT TAKE DAYS, I mean we are only hiring a person that can screw up our company and paying them a lot of money. But if there is no penalty for hiring bad employees (but he had a lot of certs, education, etc.-it's all CYA for bad managers) it won't change....
But they are not necessarily a "waste" of petroleum. A barrel of crude oil is refined into many types of materials (about 44% gasoline, 21% heating oil, etc.-1995 US figures). The materials that produce the discs may not be able to used for heating oil or gasoline production to begin with. They may be 'waste' products of refining, products that had little or no economic value to begin with or are produced as a consequence of refining 20 or so million barrels of oil a day in the US.
I believe one time (or short term) useable discs are a bad idea. But their actual environmental impact is minor, very minor (probably a lot less than that newspaper...). It is actually a very poor argument to use against them.
Hmmm, interesting take. Asking people to self report data is not a good way to get accurate data-to make money or make changes. Of course, if I enter fake data, I could care less about their income streams-I don't enter fake data to deprive them of money on purpose, though that may be the end result. It is very simple, if you don't want people to access information that you have without receiving monetary compensation, don't put it on the internet free for the taking. I can always go buy the newspaper.
I do it because I don't want them to have my real information (well, I actually may give them a real throw-away email address) for what is often a one time viewing. I am not really worried about them selling my information at the present time but there is nothing to prevent them from doing so in the future (privacy policies are worthless as they can be changed at any time). If they don't like it, that is their problem. There is no requirement for me to fill the form in accurately and the more info they ask for the more likely I will fake some or all.
I go to few of these sites that require this registration because filling out forms to access information such as general news is a waste of my time. If you consider me egotistical because of this, so be it (being considered egotistical would be a first for me), I don't really care about your opinion:)
Personally I find it hard to believe that his data is 99% correct while the Piladelphia Inquirer had a 15-20% falsification rate (from the article summary). This of course could be a difference in what they consider "bad" information. For instance, if what you are really interested in is location, then maybe most of the zip code info is correct while the other data is not. If you want other demographic info, I find it hard to believe the 99% accuracy rate (how exactly do you determine this? IP logging might help for location but for demographics? I would doubt 99% accuracy in a controlled situation much less self reporting...)
Huh? Unless you plan on ingesting the depleted uranium it will have little to no effect on your health (assuming western rounds). As in, there won't be much radiation above background levels. Uranium is a naturally occuring element (all rocks and as a result soils, generally contain some uranium, averaging between 1 and 3 ppm).
Perhaps the reason that studies focus on soldiers is that they are exposed to the rounds in close quarters and have a high chance of being exposed to uranium dust which would be unhealthy to breath. Radioactivity from uranium will be blocked by skin-not lung tissue. The greatest threat from uranium over time is radon gas generation-not too much of a problem in a farming area (unless you were planning on building your airtight house on top of a pile of used shells!)
And another very simple concept. Stay away from abandoned military ordinance. It's dangerous-not really because it might contain uranium (just don't eat that-of course other countries rounds might be more radioactive-think Soviet bloc) but because it might not have exploded. Ordinance that goes boom will kill more people and cause more disruption than depleted uranium rounds. Not to mention all that wreckage, fuel and liquid spills (carcinogens, toxic chemicals, potential pollution).
Wow, so much ignorance in one post, where to start...
Border collies are AKC's 139th breed. Because it is a relatively new AKC recognized breed, "AKC will accept accept dogs registered with the American Border Collie Association (ABC), the American International Border Collie (AIBC), and the North American Sheepdog Society (NASD)." (AKC web site) It is currently in open registration (see web site for details-but requires the dog to have a pedigree, submit pictures etc.).
Some more info: Date entered into Regular Classes: October 1, 1995. The Border Collie was recognized by the AKC for inclusion in the Miscellaneous Class in 1955. (AKC web site)
If you scroll down a little more on the same page you will note a breed standard. In short, the breed IS ALREADY STANDARDIZED. Any inbreeding is not the fault of the AKC. It is the fault of clueless and/or idiotic and/or greedy owners generally fueled by the desire to make a quick buck of the popularity of a breed (indirectly aided and abetted by an ignorant public-such as you). Inbreeding is a FAULT. Good (ethical) owners/breeders take great pains to avoid inbreeding as it can permanently damage a breed's genetic diversity and introduce genetic disorders that are extremely difficult to overcome (probably what you think you are referring to...)
"So in this case the university really has no choice." Sure it does. My University states in the rules that cheating will not be tolerated. The procedures for dealing with this say otherwise (in other words, cheating IS tolerated, just don't be blantant enough to encourage someone to go through the process). They also make a lot of other statements that are, at best, inaccurate. This doesn't include all the rules they selectively enforce.
So what's my point? The official reason is for unethical behavior. The real reason is embarrassment-for the university and probably other professors. If this person wasn't famous (or infamous) and hadn't brought embarrassment to the University, I really doubt they would be trying to remove his degree.
After all, do you think this is the first time he falsified data? Perhaps (probably?) he did it in his PhD? Has anyone checked (gee, if no one has gone over his work at the University, wouldn't that be considered unethical behavior)? If PhD data was falsified, is the University going to revoke the PhD's of all the members of the review committee (they signed off on it-sounds unethical to me to not know what's in your students thesis but benefit from it....). Is the University actively searching out any and all unethical behavior by its current faculty and former students? (I doubt it). So, yes, it is a political move. More correctly, the guy made the mistake of embarrassing people in academia who still held power over him.
"Nowadays, there is such a number of research papers (most of which don't actually contain earth-shattering results) that they are not actually examined with that much detailed attention. Reviewers pay more attention to stylistic aspects (is it readable? understandable without too much efforts? are my buddies, who did research in the same field appropriately credited in the bibliography?) than to contents."
If this is fundamentally true, then why bother with peer review? (Note, I have a MS and was planning to get a PhD in geology so I know a little about the process). I realize that this may happen occasionally, especially when the subject of the papers is in a new field with few reviewers. But if the reviewers do not catch the errors (or bother to try), what is the point of peer review?
I assume that the University in question has a right to strip the guy of a PhD. It might even be the 'right' thing to do. But my question is this: What about the (mis?)conduct of those who reviewed his papers to begin with? You mean to tell me as experts in their field they didn't have any suspicions about his results? Sorry, but it sounds like a lot of people were embarrassed and are now trying to cover their behind by or encouraging others to make a public (and extreme) example. After all, his reputation is already toast, which is far more important than a piece of paper...
So, how are those cameras going to prevent terrorism. Are they going to identify a terrorist? Nope. Are they going stop a terrorist act? Nope. Are they going to arrest a terrorist? Nope. Heck, are they even going to record a potential terrorist or their activity long enough so a real live police officer can arrest them in the future? Maybe. In other words, these cameras are USELESS for terrorism. Cameras at best may move other crime away from the cameras but it sure won't stop criminals or terrorists (that requires real live cops, and real live money)
Oh, and shutting down Baltimore harbor, or its bridges and tunnels wouldn't cripple the East coast. Inconvienence people, cause headaches, yes. But Baltimore isn't that important. There are other ports and roads on the east coast.
"If you work in advertising and promotion for a record company and your efforts are a waste of money, you lose your job."
Okay, if this is true, why isn't there wholesale firings going on in the industry? After all, the vast majority of artists they sign fail (lose money). I find it hard to believe lack of talent is an issue considering some of the bands/artists that have been successful but still, evaluating talent is their business, so that is no excuse. Sounds like a failure of advertising and promotion to me.
"...but once you start down the slippery slope of justification and compromise, where does one draw the line? Think about it."
Ummm, you do realize that compromise is one of the central components of our form of government? It is deliberately difficult to accomplish anything in government without the support of others (both houses of Congress, the administration, etc) leading inevitably to compromises. As for justification, well, we justify everything, even those "absolute and standard codes". A person's justification may differ of course (diety of your choice said so, it seems like a really good idea, etc.) but it is still only a justification. As you so aptly put it, think about it.
Yes and I'm sure its real fun to download large patches (this one is 2647 KB) over a modem. Maybe over a modem that can only do about say, 14.4 kbs, due to line conditions. These do exist, you know... Granted, they won't be bothering anyone else if they are compromised. Sure the jerk who created/exploited the problem has the ultimate blame. But you can't exploit a hole that isn't there. And Microsoft has a lot of holes, with a poor patch process-large patches and/or patches that seem to break things... In any case, why can't you get an up to date patch CD monthly, if not weekly, if you choose? This would seem to fix pretty much all of the problems. The only two reasons I can think of: it would cost MS money (sorry we are too busy building expensive insecure software) and/or they are incompetent (see previous comment).
The point of being confident, aware of your surroundings, etc. is to help prevent being preyed on by the opportunistic thief. The ones that look for the easy marks. If someone really wants to attack/rob you they are going to do it. The point is to reduce the odds to an acceptable level. Many people have no clue about these things.
Somewhat akin to the safety devices in cars. They don't prevent all deaths and injuries, but you wouldn't not use them, would you?
Finally, from your post, it sounds like you are confident, aware of your surroundings, etc. You are also known and respected and/or liked. And you haven't been mugged. I'm sure there is no correlation there at all....
Sure, technically you don't shoot to kill. But most shootings occur within 7 yards IIRC. So, you aim for the largest part of the body (the chest) and fire until the attacker stops. The chance of firing less than two bullets is rather small and rather foolish from a self defense perspective. If the attacker doesn't go down after two bullets, you better assume he is wearing body armor or on drugs and aim for the head/groin (depending if he has a firearm or blunt weapon). You can be shot in the heart an operate for up to 10 seconds or so (two seconds to go 20 feet-gee plenty of time for the attacker to kill me) A bullet to the head will likely be fatal and stop the attack instantly. If you carry a gun for self defense, you had better be prepared to kill someone. If you aren't, do yourself a favor and don't carry the weapon. If you are justified in using the weapon, by definition you are justified in using deadly force. I don't believe the poster advocated killing an attacker after the attack ended-that clearly is murder. But if you are a good shot (if you are carrying I sure hope you can shoot better than the general police force-it isn't hard) you are aiming for vital organs because it will end the threat the quickest. The attacker's fate is secondary to your own. Granted, it would suck to be judged by 12, but less than being carried by six....
Wearing headphones and listening to music reduces your awareness of your surroundings. In simple terms, you look like a victim and as a result are more likely to become one. A simple concept you should learn in any self defense course if it wasn't apparent to begin with.
The fact that the ipod is a portable music player that allows you to listen to music while walking does not negate the fact that it makes you more likely to be attacked/mugged. How much more likely is open to debate and will of course vary.
One of the basic rules I learned when I took a self defense course can be roughly summed up as follows: While it is better to avoid a dangerous encounter, if you are in one, do whatever it takes to get out of a dangerous situation intact. If you survive the incident unharmed, then by definition you acted correctly.
The police statements merely prove they are morons or at least out of touch (uniformed police officers don't get mugged very often, know self defense, interact with criminals on a regular basis, and are required to carry weapons when not on duty-not typical of most of the population...). Yes, going along with the demands of a criminal may work most of the time, but if you believe differently at the time, don't follow the police advice blindly-the police aren't going to save your behind...
"My expierence is that beaurocrats seek to expand their power - that means increasing budget at every opportunity."
I think this is roughly summed up as: The goal of every organization (bureaucracy) is to survive and grow.
But never, ever make the mistake of assuming that it only applies to the government. It is the goal of any organization, government, private, non-profit, public, etc. Business is included in that. They can waste money every bit as well as government (they may have less of it). Their budgeting process often is just as screwed up. Programs can be very difficult to get rid of (managers prestige and power is related to size of programs managed...).
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, nice listing of links. Hope you realize that most are worthless and not what people asked for.... Most are about as good for proof as slashdot posts (I said it, so it must be true...) Some reference some crappy studies (studies with inherent problems that make them less than useful for their intended purpose). Studies by think tanks are NOT scientific studies, they are opinion pieces.
n .html
This is about the only link that is worth anything:
http://learninfreedom.org/socializatio
References Shyer's work. Seems decent. But without looking at it, who knows.
It is certainly possible they may need to be replaced more often. I imagine it depends upon the application. One study I have read assumed batteries would be replaced twice in a EV's lifetime. As batteries can fail due to time OR load, this doesn't seem to far outside normal.
If you discharged the batteries deeply on a regular basis, you would probably be right, though. Hence the wide time to replacement variation given by this manufacturer.
Actually, lead acid batteries pose only minor environmental challenges. They are recycled almost completely (same tech. as regular car batteries and this waste stream would be insignificant compared to that). At least 80% of the lead in them is recycled as well. Significantly reduces the amount of mining needed.
If what you say about not recycling the nickel in the NiMH batteries is true, then lead-acid batteries are almost certainly more "environmentally friendly". You do realize they mine nickel don't you? Health hazards are minor if regulations are followed.
"And then there are those batteries. Where do they go for disposal?"
:)
Car batteries (lead-acid) in the US are highly recycled (over 98% in 1993, and over 90% of the lead/ lead oxides is recycled or exported for recycling-newest info I have handy). I believe the cases are recycled as well-the plastic must be used for new battery cases only-by law IIRC. Pretty much any place that sells them will take them. They are actually worth something. After all, a small fee is charged (I assume everywhere) if you don't recycle yours.
Other battery types are also recycled-it is one of the things they consider when introducing different battery types.
"How often are they replaced?"
Probably as often as other car batteries
"...everyone has known that if war actually sparked between the Koreas, Seoul would be levelled and there is little the US could do to stop it.."
Really? That memo must not have reached me. We managed to stop it the last time. I see no reason that we couldn't stop it now (unless we didn't want to). We are certainly better prepared. Heck, the North Korean army collapsed after we counter attacked (before the Chinese intervened) during the Korean war. Whether the South Korean's are any more effective at fighting...heck if I know...
I do believe the US supports the reunification of the penninsula in a peaceful manner. That hardly makes the US an aggressor-after all North Korea did invade South Korea and technically we are not at peace with North Korea (US, China, North Korea signed only an armistice not a peace agreement). After all, we don't regularly send troops into North Korea (the same cannot be said of NK sending troops/spies into SK). The ultimate outcome of the situation really depends on decisions made by North Korea (the actual aggressor in the situation).
"On the other hand, if private dollars are spent, there's a very big incentive to be efficient..."
Really. So why did I hear this joke from Boeing workers (employees and contractors).
How many people work at Boeing?
About half.
All large organizations are probably inefficient. Any many small ones too. Sure, the government as a whole can get more money than private companies, but both can waste it VERY efficiently. The waste is just called different things.
Well, I don't think their programmers are incompetent. From everything I have heard, they are excellent.
But one does have to question their management. A large and profitable company, with massive amount of developers delaying an operating system upgrade (maybe a partial to total rewrite?-only time will tell) that will make them massive amounts of money. An upgrade that by most accounts will not be particularly appealing to end users, will have taken at least FIVE years (assuming on time release-not likely given past history), and MIGHT be more secure and stable than its predecessor (based on past history-who knows). Doesn't sound like good management to me.
"I'm not a control freak, I just figure it's a good thing if I can be contacted in case my permission is required for medical procedures."
If it is a life threatening situation your permission will not be required. The doctor(s) will do what is needed. All other situations can wait. The message left on your phone will be waiting there when you leave the blocked area (theater).
Look, if the theater can dictate other policies (no talking during the movie, don't bring in outside food, etc.) then they have every right to block cell phone signals. This crap about having to be in touch for emergency reasons is just that, crap. Based on that line of reasoning, we should be allowed to bring in outside food because we might have an allergic reaction to an ingredient in the theater's food and die. That line of reasoning doesn't work because the chance of it happening is small, because you don't have to eat the food (or be in touch), and because it is a private business. But the risk of that happening (allergic reaction) is far greater than your proposed bogeyman.
If you must be in touch 24/7, you obviously won't be able to go there. That's life. The reality is, no one has to be in touch 24/7. Hell, even the president of the US probably cannot reached 24/7 (based on history) and he is the only person I can think of that really has a need to be able to be contacted 24/7.
Actually, I think most certifications are considered worthless because many people who get them memorize information to pass tests (they don't have to get it off the internet-they can use the test materials). I imagine few people fall into this category:
"Someone who's learned what's really supposed to be taught by the certification process is invaluable."
Hell, I know more than a few college grads that have difficulty thinking and learning. Why should people with certs be any different.
A cert that is based on regurgitation of information is fundamentally worthless. It measures the fact that you spent X amount of time and Y amount of money, no more. People who rely primarily on this information for hiring decisions are idiots. Of course, you might have to actually LOOK at all of the resumes you get. OH THE HORRORS. In the end, you have to actually INTERVIEW people to find out if they are qualified. OH MY GOD, THAT MIGHT TAKE DAYS, I mean we are only hiring a person that can screw up our company and paying them a lot of money. But if there is no penalty for hiring bad employees (but he had a lot of certs, education, etc.-it's all CYA for bad managers) it won't change....
I agree they are a lousy idea.
But they are not necessarily a "waste" of petroleum. A barrel of crude oil is refined into many types of materials (about 44% gasoline, 21% heating oil, etc.-1995 US figures). The materials that produce the discs may not be able to used for heating oil or gasoline production to begin with. They may be 'waste' products of refining, products that had little or no economic value to begin with or are produced as a consequence of refining 20 or so million barrels of oil a day in the US.
I believe one time (or short term) useable discs are a bad idea. But their actual environmental impact is minor, very minor (probably a lot less than that newspaper...). It is actually a very poor argument to use against them.
Hmmm, interesting take. Asking people to self report data is not a good way to get accurate data-to make money or make changes. Of course, if I enter fake data, I could care less about their income streams-I don't enter fake data to deprive them of money on purpose, though that may be the end result. It is very simple, if you don't want people to access information that you have without receiving monetary compensation, don't put it on the internet free for the taking. I can always go buy the newspaper.
:)
I do it because I don't want them to have my real information (well, I actually may give them a real throw-away email address) for what is often a one time viewing. I am not really worried about them selling my information at the present time but there is nothing to prevent them from doing so in the future (privacy policies are worthless as they can be changed at any time). If they don't like it, that is their problem. There is no requirement for me to fill the form in accurately and the more info they ask for the more likely I will fake some or all.
I go to few of these sites that require this registration because filling out forms to access information such as general news is a waste of my time. If you consider me egotistical because of this, so be it (being considered egotistical would be a first for me), I don't really care about your opinion
Personally I find it hard to believe that his data is 99% correct while the Piladelphia Inquirer had a 15-20% falsification rate (from the article summary). This of course could be a difference in what they consider "bad" information. For instance, if what you are really interested in is location, then maybe most of the zip code info is correct while the other data is not.
If you want other demographic info, I find it hard to believe the 99% accuracy rate (how exactly do you determine this? IP logging might help for location but for demographics? I would doubt 99% accuracy in a controlled situation much less self reporting...)
Huh? Unless you plan on ingesting the depleted uranium it will have little to no effect on your health (assuming western rounds). As in, there won't be much radiation above background levels. Uranium is a naturally occuring element (all rocks and as a result soils, generally contain some uranium, averaging between 1 and 3 ppm).
Perhaps the reason that studies focus on soldiers is that they are exposed to the rounds in close quarters and have a high chance of being exposed to uranium dust which would be unhealthy to breath. Radioactivity from uranium will be blocked by skin-not lung tissue. The greatest threat from uranium over time is radon gas generation-not too much of a problem in a farming area (unless you were planning on building your airtight house on top of a pile of used shells!)
And another very simple concept. Stay away from abandoned military ordinance. It's dangerous-not really because it might contain uranium (just don't eat that-of course other countries rounds might be more radioactive-think Soviet bloc) but because it might not have exploded. Ordinance that goes boom will kill more people and cause more disruption than depleted uranium rounds. Not to mention all that wreckage, fuel and liquid spills (carcinogens, toxic chemicals, potential pollution).
Wow, so much ignorance in one post, where to start...
Border collies are AKC's 139th breed. Because it is a relatively new AKC recognized breed, "AKC will accept accept dogs registered with the American Border Collie Association (ABC), the American International Border Collie (AIBC), and the North American Sheepdog Society (NASD)." (AKC web site) It is currently in open registration (see web site for details-but requires the dog to have a pedigree, submit pictures etc.).
Some more info: Date entered into Regular Classes: October 1, 1995. The Border Collie was recognized by the AKC for inclusion in the Miscellaneous Class in 1955. (AKC web site)
If you scroll down a little more on the same page you will note a breed standard. In short, the breed IS ALREADY STANDARDIZED. Any inbreeding is not the fault of the AKC. It is the fault of clueless and/or idiotic and/or greedy owners generally fueled by the desire to make a quick buck of the popularity of a breed (indirectly aided and abetted by an ignorant public-such as you). Inbreeding is a FAULT. Good (ethical) owners/breeders take great pains to avoid inbreeding as it can permanently damage a breed's genetic diversity and introduce genetic disorders that are extremely difficult to overcome (probably what you think you are referring to...)
"So in this case the university really has no choice."
Sure it does. My University states in the rules that cheating will not be tolerated. The procedures for dealing with this say otherwise (in other words, cheating IS tolerated, just don't be blantant enough to encourage someone to go through the process). They also make a lot of other statements that are, at best, inaccurate. This doesn't include all the rules they selectively enforce.
So what's my point? The official reason is for unethical behavior. The real reason is embarrassment-for the university and probably other professors. If this person wasn't famous (or infamous) and hadn't brought embarrassment to the University, I really doubt they would be trying to remove his degree.
After all, do you think this is the first time he falsified data? Perhaps (probably?) he did it in his PhD? Has anyone checked (gee, if no one has gone over his work at the University, wouldn't that be considered unethical behavior)? If PhD data was falsified, is the University going to revoke the PhD's of all the members of the review committee (they signed off on it-sounds unethical to me to not know what's in your students thesis but benefit from it....). Is the University actively searching out any and all unethical behavior by its current faculty and former students? (I doubt it). So, yes, it is a political move. More correctly, the guy made the mistake of embarrassing people in academia who still held power over him.
"Nowadays, there is such a number of research papers (most of which don't actually contain earth-shattering results) that they are not actually examined with that much detailed attention. Reviewers pay more attention to stylistic aspects (is it readable? understandable without too much efforts? are my buddies, who did research in the same field appropriately credited in the bibliography?) than to contents."
If this is fundamentally true, then why bother with peer review? (Note, I have a MS and was planning to get a PhD in geology so I know a little about the process). I realize that this may happen occasionally, especially when the subject of the papers is in a new field with few reviewers. But if the reviewers do not catch the errors (or bother to try), what is the point of peer review?
I assume that the University in question has a right to strip the guy of a PhD. It might even be the 'right' thing to do. But my question is this: What about the (mis?)conduct of those who reviewed his papers to begin with? You mean to tell me as experts in their field they didn't have any suspicions about his results? Sorry, but it sounds like a lot of people were embarrassed and are now trying to cover their behind by or encouraging others to make a public (and extreme) example. After all, his reputation is already toast, which is far more important than a piece of paper...
So, how are those cameras going to prevent terrorism. Are they going to identify a terrorist? Nope. Are they going stop a terrorist act? Nope. Are they going to arrest a terrorist? Nope. Heck, are they even going to record a potential terrorist or their activity long enough so a real live police officer can arrest them in the future? Maybe. In other words, these cameras are USELESS for terrorism. Cameras at best may move other crime away from the cameras but it sure won't stop criminals or terrorists (that requires real live cops, and real live money)
Oh, and shutting down Baltimore harbor, or its bridges and tunnels wouldn't cripple the East coast. Inconvienence people, cause headaches, yes. But Baltimore isn't that important. There are other ports and roads on the east coast.
"If you work in advertising and promotion for a record company and your efforts are a waste of money, you lose your job."
Okay, if this is true, why isn't there wholesale firings going on in the industry? After all, the vast majority of artists they sign fail (lose money). I find it hard to believe lack of talent is an issue considering some of the bands/artists that have been successful but still, evaluating talent is their business, so that is no excuse. Sounds like a failure of advertising and promotion to me.
"...but once you start down the slippery slope of justification and compromise, where does one draw the line? Think about it."
Ummm, you do realize that compromise is one of the central components of our form of government? It is deliberately difficult to accomplish anything in government without the support of others (both houses of Congress, the administration, etc) leading inevitably to compromises.
As for justification, well, we justify everything, even those "absolute and standard codes". A person's justification may differ of course (diety of your choice said so, it seems like a really good idea, etc.) but it is still only a justification.
As you so aptly put it, think about it.
Yes and I'm sure its real fun to download large patches (this one is 2647 KB) over a modem. Maybe over a modem that can only do about say, 14.4 kbs, due to line conditions. These do exist, you know... Granted, they won't be bothering anyone else if they are compromised.
Sure the jerk who created/exploited the problem has the ultimate blame. But you can't exploit a hole that isn't there. And Microsoft has a lot of holes, with a poor patch process-large patches and/or patches that seem to break things... In any case, why can't you get an up to date patch CD monthly, if not weekly, if you choose? This would seem to fix pretty much all of the problems. The only two reasons I can think of: it would cost MS money (sorry we are too busy building expensive insecure software) and/or they are incompetent (see previous comment).
The point of being confident, aware of your surroundings, etc. is to help prevent being preyed on by the opportunistic thief. The ones that look for the easy marks. If someone really wants to attack/rob you they are going to do it. The point is to reduce the odds to an acceptable level. Many people have no clue about these things.
Somewhat akin to the safety devices in cars. They don't prevent all deaths and injuries, but you wouldn't not use them, would you?
Finally, from your post, it sounds like you are confident, aware of your surroundings, etc. You are also known and respected and/or liked. And you haven't been mugged. I'm sure there is no correlation there at all....
Sure, technically you don't shoot to kill. But most shootings occur within 7 yards IIRC. So, you aim for the largest part of the body (the chest) and fire until the attacker stops. The chance of firing less than two bullets is rather small and rather foolish from a self defense perspective. If the attacker doesn't go down after two bullets, you better assume he is wearing body armor or on drugs and aim for the head/groin (depending if he has a firearm or blunt weapon). You can be shot in the heart an operate for up to 10 seconds or so (two seconds to go 20 feet-gee plenty of time for the attacker to kill me) A bullet to the head will likely be fatal and stop the attack instantly.
If you carry a gun for self defense, you had better be prepared to kill someone. If you aren't, do yourself a favor and don't carry the weapon. If you are justified in using the weapon, by definition you are justified in using deadly force. I don't believe the poster advocated killing an attacker after the attack ended-that clearly is murder. But if you are a good shot (if you are carrying I sure hope you can shoot better than the general police force-it isn't hard) you are aiming for vital organs because it will end the threat the quickest. The attacker's fate is secondary to your own. Granted, it would suck to be judged by 12, but less than being carried by six....
Okay, let's feed the troll...
Wearing headphones and listening to music reduces your awareness of your surroundings. In simple terms, you look like a victim and as a result are more likely to become one. A simple concept you should learn in any self defense course if it wasn't apparent to begin with.
The fact that the ipod is a portable music player that allows you to listen to music while walking does not negate the fact that it makes you more likely to be attacked/mugged. How much more likely is open to debate and will of course vary.
One of the basic rules I learned when I took a self defense course can be roughly summed up as follows: While it is better to avoid a dangerous encounter, if you are in one, do whatever it takes to get out of a dangerous situation intact. If you survive the incident unharmed, then by definition you acted correctly.
The police statements merely prove they are morons or at least out of touch (uniformed police officers don't get mugged very often, know self defense, interact with criminals on a regular basis, and are required to carry weapons when not on duty-not typical of most of the population...). Yes, going along with the demands of a criminal may work most of the time, but if you believe differently at the time, don't follow the police advice blindly-the police aren't going to save your behind...
"My expierence is that beaurocrats seek to expand their power - that means increasing budget at every opportunity."
I think this is roughly summed up as:
The goal of every organization (bureaucracy) is to survive and grow.
But never, ever make the mistake of assuming that it only applies to the government. It is the goal of any organization, government, private, non-profit, public, etc. Business is included in that. They can waste money every bit as well as government (they may have less of it). Their budgeting process often is just as screwed up. Programs can be very difficult to get rid of (managers prestige and power is related to size of programs managed...).