They added the warnings the agency asked them to. Do a bit of research before accusing people of lying. For more than two years, the packages have had strong warnings as required by the CPSC.
Wrong tense. They used to market this product as a toy for children. That recall you mentioned in your post? Guess what that was for: "The high powered magnets sets were labeled 'Ages 13+' and do not meet the mandatory toy standard... which requires that such powerful magnets are not sold for children under 14." Oh, and the recall itself mentions that this was in the past: "Since March 2010, Buckyballs® high powered magnets sets were labeled 'Keep Away From All Children' and are not being recalled."
But not as children's toys: they have big warnings saying "keep away from children." You have to check-acknowledge reading the warning when you buy them from the site.
Defamation is a broad category that includes libel and slander. Libel is defamation that occurs in a persistent form; slander is defamation that occurs in a transitory form.
According to the complaint, Mann is suing for five counts of libel and one count of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Nothing about this decay was ever described as non-linear. By their measure, it would be gone in 1042 years, maybe less.
If say there is a fixed number of enzymes and they can destroy a fixed number of bonds per year, it would be linear.
The term "half-life" is inherently non-linear. It is a means of measuring exponential decay. And it seems it was used correctly (that is, to describe non-linear decay)in the article: "That means that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on."
I wasn't saying it would be a problem. I was refuting the poster who implied that the half-life article was somehow incompatible with the mammoth-cloning article.
You switch from Free (as in speech) to free (as in beer) halfway through your post, greatly weakening your point. The creation of all of that software was not free. It was, in fact, very expensive. People paid for it for various reasons: altruism, idealism, and, yes, to make a profit. Not to mention that the physical infrastructure, without which none of that software would matter, was (and is) very, very costly.
That's not to say I agree with ITIF's statement regarding DNT. DNT requests should be honored (although I don't think sites should be forced to serve those who select DNT). But I have no problem with sites advertising. In fact, I'm glad of it, because it means I've got access to Google, Slashdot, the Washington Post, many webcomics, and hundreds of other sites that probably would not exist otherwise.
I'm glad other sites can get by without advertising. Wikipedia survives on donations and not advertising (except for the self-advertising on the site), and so do a couple of my other daily-read sites. But I'd lose access to a lot of information without web ads.
You haven't given a single example of that or refuted any of the supporting examples I gave.
You didn't actually give any examples. you made a bunch of assertions of general powers Congress has allegedly usurped, but not one example of situations where these alleged usurpations limited presidential power beyond what it used to be. And the examples you've given now are ridiculous:
If Congress passed a law George Washington had unilateral authority with regard to it's execution and only a new law, the judicial, or the people via jury nullification could change his actions.
Simply not true.
Today if he didn't do what a handful of congressmen in an oversight committee wanted checks would bounce the next day.
Also not true. To change funding, Congress would have to either pass a new law, or wait for appropriations to expire and then not re-appropriate funding. And Congress would have to act as a whole. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that Congress cannot authorize subsets of itself to exercise powers delegated to Congress as a whole. See INS v. Chadha for a concrete example.
Further, in your first post that I responded to, you mentioned Congress's making funding renewable as if it were something new. It's not. Most appropriations since the Constitution was enacted have had expiration dates.
Yes, the chief justice's portion of the opinion (which no other justice joined) limited the commerce clause. It's unclear whether that part of the opinion will be viewed as dicta or binding precedent by the courts; strong arguments have been made both ways. But it doesn't really matter in a practical sense, because the clearly binding portion of the opinion of the court gave Congress a blueprint on how to enact commerce mandates within the bounds of the constitution. And because that power was derived from the taxing power, it's actually not just limited to interstate commerce.
Are you seriously arguing that "all power held by the executive branch" has been eliminated? Even allowing for hyperbole in the word "all," it's hard to make the case that presidential power has lessened in any way. Presidential power is pretty much at its height. Except for maybe two presidential terms,* presidential power has increased since 1933 pretty much continuously, starting with the rise of the regulatory state (which has expanded under both parties) and expanding throughout WWII, the cold war, and its associated armed conflicts (also expanding under both parties).
*There was probably less power at the end of the 1973-77 term (Nixon/Ford) than at the start, due to Watergate, and it's possible presidential power didn't grow under Carter, depending on how you measure it. Even Carter effectively ended the building of nuclear power plants.
It's saying exactly what I said it says.
"I'm going to use incandescents and get around the restriction because government told me I shouldn't.
No, it does not say "because government told me I shouldn't." It says, in effect, "the government told me I shouldn't, but I'm going to anyway." It doesn't actually say why.
(PS I notice you fail to give a reason other than that)
So? I'm not going to engage in the mind-reading you seem to be so fond of. I don't know why he doesn't want to give up incandescents. Other people have given various reasons here, some of which I find to be convincing, some of which I don't. Some people have disagreed with those reasons, or explained why the factual premises underlying those reasons are wrong. Some people have posted explanations in response to those explanations. Some people - me included - have sought information about non-incandescent light bulbs in order to see if they might work adequately in their situation. You know, having an actual discussion.
For some reason, I think that's better than calling people twats, attributing immature motives to people who don't act the way you want them to, and calling them babies.
That doesn't say what you seem to think it says. It's a statement about the proper limits of governmental v. parental authority, not a statement about why he's refusing to submit to that authority.
A google search didn't turn up anything useful, but it sounds like you've got a good handle on what's available.
Do they offer the 3-way LED bulbs yet? I'm not talking about dimmable ones (I know they exist), but rather the ones that work in sockets designed for these kinds of incandescent bulbs, providing three levels of light. My floor lamps are all of this kind, and I use each of the settings in different situations.
What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.
The resulting savings in energy and greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to be immense. But the move also had unintended consequences.
Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China.
Consisting of glass tubes twisted into a spiral, they require more hand labor, which is cheaper there. So though they were first developed by American engineers in the 1970s, none of the major brands make CFLs in the United States.
Whether the loss of this factory is a cost worth paying for increased energy efficiency is a different question, but the regulations did shut down a plant.
Because, in Sweden, they can't charge him until he's present. It's a formal action that takes place in a specific way. BTW, in the U.S. (and I think in the U.K., but I'm not sure), many arrest warrants are issued before the person is charged.
"Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.
This again? Yes, it "involves" him failing to use a condom. But, with respect to one of the counts, it's a lot more than that: the allegation is that he had sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent. This lack of consent was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.
Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.
The alleged "recantation" has been addressed a bit below.
"He looks foreign" in the latter part of the article, by the TSA agent asking for permission to put him through the wringer.
Did you happen to miss that?
He didn't miss that, because that's not what the article says:
Not before being interrogated further, though, and this time by local law enforcement officers with the NFTA. Even after being booted, Arijit says that transit cops questioned him relentlessly, asking him about where he got his shirt and for details about his family.
According to Arijits account, an NFTA [(Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority)] officer named Mark radioed in on his walkie-talkie for permission to further interrogate the dangerous potential terrorist.
“He gave a stupid answer,” Arijit recalls hearing the officer say to a supervisor. “And he looks foreign.”
The NFTA is not TSA. It's a local transit police department. No, that doesn't make what happened to this guy OK. It's very far from OK. But the principle villains are the pilot and one local police officer, who was overruled by his supervisor.
It doesn't help to bring attention to problems like this inaccurately. Doing that simply gives the people in charge an easy way to ignore and marginalize the complaints.
We don't just discard the rule of law because someone on the Internet knows it's "obviously" a sham. Sweden made a legitimate request for extradition. It's been reviewed by one court in Sweden and three courts in the UK. There's nothing wrong with the legal reasoning in any of those decisions. He is accused of committing a violent crime. That's all undisputed.
Almost every reason we're given to abandon the rule of law is found, on examination, to be either false or greatly exaggerated. "It's not a real rape - it's only punishable by fine if true." False (see above). "The victims don't want him extradited." False. One of the accusers is working for the the CIA. As tenuous as Bachman's accusations about Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers in the State Department.
We have trials for a reason. When you have two witnesses who allege facts that amount to sexual assault - one of whom alleges she was asleep and incapable of giving consent - we have enough for police to proceed against the accused. Not necessarily to convict, mind you. Again, that's what trials are for.
The authorities are supposed to investigate - by interviewing the alleged victims, Assange, and others who might have relevant information. If the investigation so warrants, charges are brought, and the prosecution attempts to prove its case in court. If he so desires, Assange presents evidence in his defense. Then an impartial trier of fact determines whether the prosecution met its burden of proof and renders a decision. Would you prefer that we not follow the legal process in this case?
Also, in case it's not clear, my account of what happened is a list of the alleged conduct Sweden used to justify its request for extradition. Nowhere did I render any opinion as to whether those allegations are true. Rather, I commented on what the legal effect would be if they are true.
Is that really your response to evidence that the statement "Even if he did do what is being alleged, it only carries a fine as punishment, like a speeding ticket" is false? "Do you honestly think that is what this whole thing is really about?" is simply not relevant to what I posted. People are repeating a now-disproven falsehood in order to bolster their point. If their point is so strong, why the need to lie. Make the case for this being about something else without the lie.
Is the statement "Even if he did do what is being alleged, it only carries a fine as punishment, like a speeding ticket" false or not? If you say not, what's your evidence? It would have to be pretty convincing to overcome the evidence I linked, which is a verbatim English translation of the alleged conduct, which includes penetration without consent.
As to your empirical question, it lacks foundation. This is not an "allegation[] of 'sure I wanted to sleep with him, but I didn't want to go all the way.'" It is, among other things, an allegation that he stuck his dick inside her without her consent while she was asleep. Do you have evidence that EU countries don't extradite on the basis of such allegations?
And mods down the truth for the same reason. To the modder who marked my above post "overrated": what's wrong in my post. Did I misrepresent the facts? If so, link some evidence. You can do it AC if you don't want to undo your ridiculous modding.
Can people PLEASE stop spreading this ridiculous lie. The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf
The description of the alleged unlawful conduct includes sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent, which was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.
Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.
Slashdot Mirror
They added the warnings the agency asked them to. Do a bit of research before accusing people of lying. For more than two years, the packages have had strong warnings as required by the CPSC.
The market this product as a toy for children.
Wrong tense. They used to market this product as a toy for children. That recall you mentioned in your post? Guess what that was for: "The high powered magnets sets were labeled 'Ages 13+' and do not meet the mandatory toy standard ... which requires that such powerful magnets are not sold for children under 14." Oh, and the recall itself mentions that this was in the past: "Since March 2010, Buckyballs® high powered magnets sets were labeled 'Keep Away From All Children' and are not being recalled."
Remember -- these are being sold AS toys.
But not as children's toys: they have big warnings saying "keep away from children." You have to check-acknowledge reading the warning when you buy them from the site.
Defamation is a broad category that includes libel and slander. Libel is defamation that occurs in a persistent form; slander is defamation that occurs in a transitory form.
According to the complaint, Mann is suing for five counts of libel and one count of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Nothing about this decay was ever described as non-linear. By their measure, it would be gone in 1042 years, maybe less. If say there is a fixed number of enzymes and they can destroy a fixed number of bonds per year, it would be linear.
The term "half-life" is inherently non-linear. It is a means of measuring exponential decay. And it seems it was used correctly (that is, to describe non-linear decay)in the article: "That means that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on."
I wasn't saying it would be a problem. I was refuting the poster who implied that the half-life article was somehow incompatible with the mammoth-cloning article.
Why do they need to know? 10,000 years is roughly 20 half-life periods, so they should expect roughly 1-millionth of the DNA to remain.
You switch from Free (as in speech) to free (as in beer) halfway through your post, greatly weakening your point. The creation of all of that software was not free. It was, in fact, very expensive. People paid for it for various reasons: altruism, idealism, and, yes, to make a profit. Not to mention that the physical infrastructure, without which none of that software would matter, was (and is) very, very costly.
That's not to say I agree with ITIF's statement regarding DNT. DNT requests should be honored (although I don't think sites should be forced to serve those who select DNT). But I have no problem with sites advertising. In fact, I'm glad of it, because it means I've got access to Google, Slashdot, the Washington Post, many webcomics, and hundreds of other sites that probably would not exist otherwise.
I'm glad other sites can get by without advertising. Wikipedia survives on donations and not advertising (except for the self-advertising on the site), and so do a couple of my other daily-read sites. But I'd lose access to a lot of information without web ads.
You haven't given a single example of that or refuted any of the supporting examples I gave.
You didn't actually give any examples. you made a bunch of assertions of general powers Congress has allegedly usurped, but not one example of situations where these alleged usurpations limited presidential power beyond what it used to be. And the examples you've given now are ridiculous:
If Congress passed a law George Washington had unilateral authority with regard to it's execution and only a new law, the judicial, or the people via jury nullification could change his actions.
Simply not true.
Today if he didn't do what a handful of congressmen in an oversight committee wanted checks would bounce the next day.
Also not true. To change funding, Congress would have to either pass a new law, or wait for appropriations to expire and then not re-appropriate funding. And Congress would have to act as a whole. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that Congress cannot authorize subsets of itself to exercise powers delegated to Congress as a whole. See INS v. Chadha for a concrete example.
Further, in your first post that I responded to, you mentioned Congress's making funding renewable as if it were something new. It's not. Most appropriations since the Constitution was enacted have had expiration dates.
Yes, the chief justice's portion of the opinion (which no other justice joined) limited the commerce clause. It's unclear whether that part of the opinion will be viewed as dicta or binding precedent by the courts; strong arguments have been made both ways. But it doesn't really matter in a practical sense, because the clearly binding portion of the opinion of the court gave Congress a blueprint on how to enact commerce mandates within the bounds of the constitution. And because that power was derived from the taxing power, it's actually not just limited to interstate commerce.
Are you seriously arguing that "all power held by the executive branch" has been eliminated? Even allowing for hyperbole in the word "all," it's hard to make the case that presidential power has lessened in any way. Presidential power is pretty much at its height. Except for maybe two presidential terms,* presidential power has increased since 1933 pretty much continuously, starting with the rise of the regulatory state (which has expanded under both parties) and expanding throughout WWII, the cold war, and its associated armed conflicts (also expanding under both parties).
*There was probably less power at the end of the 1973-77 term (Nixon/Ford) than at the start, due to Watergate, and it's possible presidential power didn't grow under Carter, depending on how you measure it. Even Carter effectively ended the building of nuclear power plants.
It's saying exactly what I said it says. "I'm going to use incandescents and get around the restriction because government told me I shouldn't.
No, it does not say "because government told me I shouldn't." It says, in effect, "the government told me I shouldn't, but I'm going to anyway." It doesn't actually say why.
(PS I notice you fail to give a reason other than that)
So? I'm not going to engage in the mind-reading you seem to be so fond of. I don't know why he doesn't want to give up incandescents. Other people have given various reasons here, some of which I find to be convincing, some of which I don't. Some people have disagreed with those reasons, or explained why the factual premises underlying those reasons are wrong. Some people have posted explanations in response to those explanations. Some people - me included - have sought information about non-incandescent light bulbs in order to see if they might work adequately in their situation. You know, having an actual discussion.
For some reason, I think that's better than calling people twats, attributing immature motives to people who don't act the way you want them to, and calling them babies.
That doesn't say what you seem to think it says. It's a statement about the proper limits of governmental v. parental authority, not a statement about why he's refusing to submit to that authority.
A google search didn't turn up anything useful, but it sounds like you've got a good handle on what's available.
Do they offer the 3-way LED bulbs yet? I'm not talking about dimmable ones (I know they exist), but rather the ones that work in sockets designed for these kinds of incandescent bulbs, providing three levels of light. My floor lamps are all of this kind, and I use each of the settings in different situations.
What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.
The resulting savings in energy and greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to be immense. But the move also had unintended consequences.
Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China.
Consisting of glass tubes twisted into a spiral, they require more hand labor, which is cheaper there. So though they were first developed by American engineers in the 1970s, none of the major brands make CFLs in the United States.
Whether the loss of this factory is a cost worth paying for increased energy efficiency is a different question, but the regulations did shut down a plant.
Where did either the original AC poster or cayenne8 say that the reason they're using incandescent bulbs is because they've been told not to?
She did wake up from it (or, at least, she says she woke up during it).
Because, in Sweden, they can't charge him until he's present. It's a formal action that takes place in a specific way. BTW, in the U.S. (and I think in the U.K., but I'm not sure), many arrest warrants are issued before the person is charged.
"Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.
This again? Yes, it "involves" him failing to use a condom. But, with respect to one of the counts, it's a lot more than that: the allegation is that he had sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent. This lack of consent was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.
The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf
Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.
The alleged "recantation" has been addressed a bit below.
"He looks foreign" in the latter part of the article, by the TSA agent asking for permission to put him through the wringer. Did you happen to miss that?
He didn't miss that, because that's not what the article says:
Not before being interrogated further, though, and this time by local law enforcement officers with the NFTA. Even after being booted, Arijit says that transit cops questioned him relentlessly, asking him about where he got his shirt and for details about his family.
According to Arijits account, an NFTA [(Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority)] officer named Mark radioed in on his walkie-talkie for permission to further interrogate the dangerous potential terrorist.
“He gave a stupid answer,” Arijit recalls hearing the officer say to a supervisor. “And he looks foreign.”
The NFTA is not TSA. It's a local transit police department. No, that doesn't make what happened to this guy OK. It's very far from OK. But the principle villains are the pilot and one local police officer, who was overruled by his supervisor.
It doesn't help to bring attention to problems like this inaccurately. Doing that simply gives the people in charge an easy way to ignore and marginalize the complaints.
We don't just discard the rule of law because someone on the Internet knows it's "obviously" a sham. Sweden made a legitimate request for extradition. It's been reviewed by one court in Sweden and three courts in the UK. There's nothing wrong with the legal reasoning in any of those decisions. He is accused of committing a violent crime. That's all undisputed.
Almost every reason we're given to abandon the rule of law is found, on examination, to be either false or greatly exaggerated. "It's not a real rape - it's only punishable by fine if true." False (see above). "The victims don't want him extradited." False. One of the accusers is working for the the CIA. As tenuous as Bachman's accusations about Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers in the State Department.
We have trials for a reason. When you have two witnesses who allege facts that amount to sexual assault - one of whom alleges she was asleep and incapable of giving consent - we have enough for police to proceed against the accused. Not necessarily to convict, mind you. Again, that's what trials are for.
The authorities are supposed to investigate - by interviewing the alleged victims, Assange, and others who might have relevant information. If the investigation so warrants, charges are brought, and the prosecution attempts to prove its case in court. If he so desires, Assange presents evidence in his defense. Then an impartial trier of fact determines whether the prosecution met its burden of proof and renders a decision. Would you prefer that we not follow the legal process in this case?
Also, in case it's not clear, my account of what happened is a list of the alleged conduct Sweden used to justify its request for extradition. Nowhere did I render any opinion as to whether those allegations are true. Rather, I commented on what the legal effect would be if they are true.
Is that really your response to evidence that the statement "Even if he did do what is being alleged, it only carries a fine as punishment, like a speeding ticket" is false? "Do you honestly think that is what this whole thing is really about?" is simply not relevant to what I posted. People are repeating a now-disproven falsehood in order to bolster their point. If their point is so strong, why the need to lie. Make the case for this being about something else without the lie.
Is the statement "Even if he did do what is being alleged, it only carries a fine as punishment, like a speeding ticket" false or not? If you say not, what's your evidence? It would have to be pretty convincing to overcome the evidence I linked, which is a verbatim English translation of the alleged conduct, which includes penetration without consent.
As to your empirical question, it lacks foundation. This is not an "allegation[] of 'sure I wanted to sleep with him, but I didn't want to go all the way.'" It is, among other things, an allegation that he stuck his dick inside her without her consent while she was asleep. Do you have evidence that EU countries don't extradite on the basis of such allegations?
And mods down the truth for the same reason. To the modder who marked my above post "overrated": what's wrong in my post. Did I misrepresent the facts? If so, link some evidence. You can do it AC if you don't want to undo your ridiculous modding.
Can people PLEASE stop spreading this ridiculous lie. The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf
The description of the alleged unlawful conduct includes sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent, which was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.
Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.