Based only on the news stories I have read, my take is that the jury was presented with these facts:
- Roundup causes cancer - the plaintiff used roundup for 3 decades - the plaintiff got cancer
What the jury had to decide was whether Roundup was responsible for the plaintiff's cancer, not whether Roundup causes cancer. Lots of things cause cancer. Was it Roundup in this case? Or was the cancer caused by something else? Both the plaintiff and the defendant made their cases, and the jury decided.
This decision was a legal one, not a scientific one -- a decision that opened the door to the next part of the trial, which was Bayer's liability.
Too bad they didn't use science to reach the proper verdict. This is insane.
The jury did rule that Roundup causes cancer. That is the job of science, and it has already been done.
They jury ruled that Roundup caused plaintiff Edwin Hardeman's cancer. The next step is to determine Bayer's liability.
We have "votes" on climate change, and a "jury of your peers" to decide on medical and biological science.
Scientific results (medical, biological, or otherwise) are not determined by "votes" or "juries". They are determined by experiment. Then they are published by scientists so that their peers can examine them. Hypotheses turn into scientific laws and theories as supporting evidence accumulates.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these rendering Natalie Portman, stoned and petrified, with a bowl of hot grits and a greased up Yoda doll shoved up my ass.
In Soviet Russia, beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans with hot grits down pants feeding Yoda dolls imagines you!
The shipping is essentially free, which is why we do it. We buy a ton of goods from China, ships come in packed to the brim with cheap goods, then the ships and containers need to go back empty. Putting some ultra low value cargo in them for the trip back makes sense.
Fair point. But if all we're doing is buying their stuff and sending garbage back, then I think we're doing it wrong.
The issue with AI/robotics is that it requires energy. I have no hard data, but I highly doubt the benefit of recycling will outweigh the costs of AI/robotics.
Neither do I, but I would think that speed, accuracy, and the absence of fatigue or health risks could make it very competitive.
And humans need energy too. Of course, they also need employment. It's not lost on me that robots displace humans. We do need to plan compassionately to retrain and re-employ workers who are affected by AI.
We are on the verge of self-driving cars being commonplace. I see no reason why we cannot train robots to sort garbage.
One of the major advantages of recycling is that it diverts refuse away from landfill. But having to ship it overseas for processing seems silly. With enough automation, we can reprocess recyclables closer to the point of collection.
Of course it matters if you want to fix the problem. First you need to identify the problem. Which in this case seems to be corruption and not big government as you can have a really small government that does nothing but protect business interests.
Well said.
One possible fix might be to limit bribery, but that means intruding on peoples freedom.
Now I'm confused. You want to limit bribery? I see no virtue in it existing at all. (I assume you mean bribery of elected officials. People go to jail when that happens.)
As for it intruding on peoples' freedoms, I can only assume you mean limiting the freedom of people (or corporations) to contribute to political campaigns. Contributions are the only kind of "bribe" I can see fitting the situation. There are already laws that limit campaign contributions. But alas, SCOTUS has ruled that individuals, corporations, and unions can contribute unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs, and effectively hide their identities. Of course, corporations generally have far more money than individuals and unions, so it's not hard to see who benefits from this situation.
And so, I think one possible solution is to continue to evolve campaign finance reform laws.
Obama, 06/03/2008: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal."
In reference to his nomination.
He was not "taking credit" for those things. It was part of a rhetorical and aspirational invitation to the American public to mark the moment of his nomination as a call to the challenges ahead. In the context of the last paragraph of his address (shown below) he hardly sounds like he's full of himself.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Extreme swings in weather conditions are a sign that the earth's climate system has absorbed more energy. And we have been seeing lots of extreme swings in the last couple of decades.
He has long critized California's water management policies. It seems he's getting through to them now.
From the summary:
California was declared totally drought free for the first time in more than seven years this week, following unusually abundant winter rains and snowfall statewide, according to the government's weekly report on U.S. drought conditions.
So, Trump should take credit for the weather? Who exactly do you think he's m"getting through" to?
If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all. -- John Cage
The bots' main task is not collecting the books, but collecting the late dues. Be afraid...
I won't be afraid until they start delivering summonses. There's always the mail to deliver late-fee bills.
One of the goals of the project might be to encourage people (particularly kids) to be less afraid of "robots amongst us". And it looks like it might be working.
But I'm really irked. An entire comment thread, starting with a comment about the nature of the community filtering out easily offended people, just vanished. At least 6 posts.
I think I commented in that thread. It no longer exists. The post on my comments page goes to a page with a message that says as much.
The thread did not begin with a comment about filtering out easily-offended people. It began with an offensive GNAA post that had an all-caps racially-explicit subject-line. It was followed by several posts denouncing it. And it was the first post. I think Slashdot nuked it. If they did, I don't blame them. You don't want a comment-thread with a subject-line like that as the first thing people see when they open the story.
When I get mod points, I open the level filter. You make a choice. Want to start a 1? open an account. Want to be a Coward? post and accept starting at 0. That's it. Simple.
When I get mod points, I browse at -1. As the moderator guidelines say (or used to say?) you should be on the lookout for other abusive moderators, and have the chance to repair their harm.
I tought that was what I said.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant when you said "open the level filter".
Slashdot Mirror
Based only on the news stories I have read, my take is that the jury was presented with these facts:
- Roundup causes cancer
- the plaintiff used roundup for 3 decades
- the plaintiff got cancer
What the jury had to decide was whether Roundup was responsible for the plaintiff's cancer, not whether Roundup causes cancer. Lots of things cause cancer. Was it Roundup in this case? Or was the cancer caused by something else? Both the plaintiff and the defendant made their cases, and the jury decided.
This decision was a legal one, not a scientific one -- a decision that opened the door to the next part of the trial, which was Bayer's liability.
I think you misread my comments. I'm not a denialist. I agree with the science you cited.
What I said was that the jury did not determine that Roundup causes cancer. Rather, they determined that Roundup caused the plaintiff's cancer.
The jury did rule that Roundup causes cancer. That is the job of science, and it has already been done.
They jury ruled that Roundup caused plaintiff Edwin Hardeman's cancer. The next step is to determine Bayer's liability.
Whoops, Didn't proofread carefully enough. Perhaps it's obvious, but that should have read "The jury did not rule that Roundup causes cancer."
Too bad they didn't use science to reach the proper verdict. This is insane.
The jury did rule that Roundup causes cancer. That is the job of science, and it has already been done.
They jury ruled that Roundup caused plaintiff Edwin Hardeman's cancer. The next step is to determine Bayer's liability.
We have "votes" on climate change, and a "jury of your peers" to decide on medical and biological science.
Scientific results (medical, biological, or otherwise) are not determined by "votes" or "juries". They are determined by experiment. Then they are published by scientists so that their peers can examine them. Hypotheses turn into scientific laws and theories as supporting evidence accumulates.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these rendering Natalie Portman, stoned and petrified, with a bowl of hot grits and a greased up Yoda doll shoved up my ass.
In Soviet Russia, beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans with hot grits down pants feeding Yoda dolls imagines you!
[Hmm. Soviet Russia sounds damn good...]
The shipping is essentially free, which is why we do it. We buy a ton of goods from China, ships come in packed to the brim with cheap goods, then the ships and containers need to go back empty. Putting some ultra low value cargo in them for the trip back makes sense.
Fair point. But if all we're doing is buying their stuff and sending garbage back, then I think we're doing it wrong.
The issue with AI/robotics is that it requires energy. I have no hard data, but I highly doubt the benefit of recycling will outweigh the costs of AI/robotics.
Neither do I, but I would think that speed, accuracy, and the absence of fatigue or health risks could make it very competitive.
And humans need energy too. Of course, they also need employment. It's not lost on me that robots displace humans. We do need to plan compassionately to retrain and re-employ workers who are affected by AI.
We are on the verge of self-driving cars being commonplace. I see no reason why we cannot train robots to sort garbage.
One of the major advantages of recycling is that it diverts refuse away from landfill. But having to ship it overseas for processing seems silly. With enough automation, we can reprocess recyclables closer to the point of collection.
Of course it matters if you want to fix the problem. First you need to identify the problem. Which in this case seems to be corruption and not big government as you can have a really small government that does nothing but protect business interests.
Well said.
One possible fix might be to limit bribery, but that means intruding on peoples freedom.
Now I'm confused. You want to limit bribery? I see no virtue in it existing at all. (I assume you mean bribery of elected officials. People go to jail when that happens.)
As for it intruding on peoples' freedoms, I can only assume you mean limiting the freedom of people (or corporations) to contribute to political campaigns. Contributions are the only kind of "bribe" I can see fitting the situation. There are already laws that limit campaign contributions. But alas, SCOTUS has ruled that individuals, corporations, and unions can contribute unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs, and effectively hide their identities. Of course, corporations generally have far more money than individuals and unions, so it's not hard to see who benefits from this situation.
And so, I think one possible solution is to continue to evolve campaign finance reform laws.
So if a democrat does it, it's "aspirational". If a republican does it, it's racist/nazism/ignorance/etc.
Something I did not say. Something I have not said, or even implied, ever. Be more creative with your strawmen.
Got it. How about we just call it what it is, campaign rhetoric on BOTH sides.
No, let's call it quoting out of context. Supply the context, and the false accusation self-destructs.
Obama, 06/03/2008: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal."
In reference to his nomination.
He was not "taking credit" for those things. It was part of a rhetorical and aspirational invitation to the American public to mark the moment of his nomination as a call to the challenges ahead. In the context of the last paragraph of his address (shown below) he hardly sounds like he's full of himself.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
I remember Obama took credit for the healing of the earth and lowering of the seas before he even won the election.
Citations please?
"Understood?" No, you fail at understanding how oscillating systems behave. More energy leads to higher amplitudes.
Extreme swings in weather conditions are a sign that the earth's climate system has absorbed more energy. And we have been seeing lots of extreme swings in the last couple of decades.
He has long critized California's water management policies. It seems he's getting through to them now.
From the summary:
California was declared totally drought free for the first time in more than seven years this week, following unusually abundant winter rains and snowfall statewide, according to the government's weekly report on U.S. drought conditions.
So, Trump should take credit for the weather? Who exactly do you think he's m"getting through" to?
If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all. -- John Cage
Illegal Aliens are not Citizens
Neither are legal ones. What's your point?
Your ironically fact-free post shows that you are far more "bent" than anyone else in this thread.
Disagreeing with a troll isn't Trolling.
FTFY
They're retrieving the data bits from the digital books. The robots have a little EPROM flasher and it wipes the bits off of the reader devices.
Fahrenheit 0b111000011?
The bots' main task is not collecting the books, but collecting the late dues. Be afraid...
I won't be afraid until they start delivering summonses. There's always the mail to deliver late-fee bills.
One of the goals of the project might be to encourage people (particularly kids) to be less afraid of "robots amongst us". And it looks like it might be working.
Maybe they needed something for their diversity hires to do?
I'll grant that it's an interesting and challenging project -- the kind that could provide lessons learned for other ones.
In a digitally-transformed publishing world, we have AI-powered robots that handle returns of library books?
Look, I love books and libraries. But Google, I think you may be doing it wrong.
But I'm really irked. An entire comment thread, starting with a comment about the nature of the community filtering out easily offended people, just vanished. At least 6 posts.
I think I commented in that thread. It no longer exists. The post on my comments page goes to a page with a message that says as much.
The thread did not begin with a comment about filtering out easily-offended people. It began with an offensive GNAA post that had an all-caps racially-explicit subject-line. It was followed by several posts denouncing it. And it was the first post. I think Slashdot nuked it. If they did, I don't blame them. You don't want a comment-thread with a subject-line like that as the first thing people see when they open the story.
When I get mod points, I open the level filter. You make a choice. Want to start a 1? open an account. Want to be a Coward? post and accept starting at 0. That's it. Simple.
When I get mod points, I browse at -1. As the moderator guidelines say (or used to say?) you should be on the lookout for other abusive moderators, and have the chance to repair their harm.
I tought that was what I said.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant when you said "open the level filter".