but SOMEONE must be studying climate intensely, be it NASA or NOAA, it's all the same to me. But trying to gut the program smells distinctly of defensive profiteers with their hands far too deep into the people's government
I think the point is - they're not moving the programs over to NOAA, or even redirecting the funding to NOAA, they are cutting it from NASA. Their rationale that it's because it's NOAA's mission and not NASA's would only make sense if they were moving the programs & funding, not cutting them.
I'm sure if a paper with the opposite conclusion authored only by men was submitted for review, women (both reviewers and others) would be decrying that fact, implicitly because of the assumed tacit bias of the all-male authors
While there would certainly be women decrying such a male-only authored paper, most people (women and men) would have the intelligence to leave those biases out of their peer review. If they can find the actual bias in the paper, fine, and internally they may be more skeptical, but a proper peer review would not the cause (male only) without citing the effect (the actual part of the methods/results/conclusions that demonstrate a bias). This suggests that either PLoS One has inadequate standards for peer reviews, or that this douchebag is an outlier.
"just as, on average, male doctoral students can probably run a mile race a bit faster."
Now, what is this peer-reviewer's area of expertise? Because he should know that's bullshit. Competitive male runners, on average, will be able to run a faster mile because of increased testosterone, plus an average longer leg length. These are physical attributes. I'm pretty sure there is no physiological reason to suggest a difference in intelligence between men and women. Additionally, ignoring the first part and just focusing on his claim that male doctoral students will be able to, on average, run a faster mile...well, male doctoral students vs female doctoral students will be all over the place. Some of them don't exercise, some do. Some of them are overweight, some aren't. The sample set is too stratified to draw such a broad conclusion, a stratified sampling would be required, e.g. a sample set with doctoral students who exercise as least X hrs/week, another sample set with students who exercise Y-Z hrs/wk, and another set with students who don't exercise at all. Not recognizing such demonstrates this peer reviewer's lack of competency to be a peer reviewer.
Actually I was thinking about the perception of cultural differences, from the perspective the US/Canada/Europe. From the US, when this happens in Mexico or China we call it corruption and bribery. When it happens in the US, Canada, or Europe, we call it politics.
Spoken by someone who truly does not understand how unstable an electric grid really is. If there is more power injected into the grid than there is demand very bad things happen.
Spoken by someone who doesn't live in Hawaii. Here on Maui, an engineering study was done that showed the interconnect study requirement was unnecessary, and that what they charge for it is totally overblown. But because the members of the PUC are too busy getting blow jobs (presumably metaphorically) from HECO they won't do anything about it.
Hawaiian Electric is full of crap. It's an excuse to charge people thousands of dollars for an "interconnect study" before allowing them to install a grid-tie system, which is totally bogus. It's essentially them making it more difficult/expensive to install solar, and when you do jump through that hoop, they get to extort a big chunk of money from you.
How much did that report cost? I could have given it to them in 2 words, for free: Q: "Is unconstitutional warrantless spying effective?" A: "Fuck no."
Is there any work that is over 50 years old that still brings in big money? The proper solution is to charge an annual fee per work for continued protection of, say $1000/year after 50 years. I'll bet they won't want to pay that.
So what if they're still making money? The idea of copyright term was never to ensure that anybody would profit from them forever. It is to incentivize creators into creating, to help them make some money to making creating worthwhile. Do you think copyright terms extending beyond 50 years would have had any effect on the decisions of people 50 years ago as to whether or not creating something was worth their time? I'm sure Elvis would have thought, "Gee, copyright terms are only 50 years? Never mind, I'm not going to write or perform these songs, sorry guys."
Say hello to my firearms when they come to try and take my children.
How ironic! The law isn't saying that they're going to take away your children if you don't vaccinate, it's saying they can't attend public school. It's the exact same thing as how they don't allow your kid to bring a gun to school, so that other kids aren't forced to be exposed to deadly things. If you want your child to have access to guns while learning, you can still homeschool them. If you want your child to be unvaccinated, you can still homeschool them.
The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools
For the moment let's set aside fair vs unfair, and just take their claim at face value...
Okay, setting aside that claim...the law isn't actually saying that you have to vaccinate your children (personally I think it should, but it doesn't). It merely says you have to vaccinate your kids in order to allow them to expose other children in public school. If you want to homeschool your children, you don't have to vaccinate. You're kids also aren't allowed to bring a gun to public school, but if you want your kids to have access to a gun while they are learning, then again, you can homeschool them. Same fucking thing.
Even in the Americas, we tend not to talk overly much of what the Europeans did to the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere.
I would disagree, in a sense. In the US people who are informed are happy to talk about it. The problem is that we're not taught it in high school history class. And most history teachers tend to punish students for contradicting the textbook - which happened to me in American History where she would give me C's (she tried giving me F's but I complained to the principal, so she couldn't actually fail me, apparently I was a defiant brat which of course only made that bitch hate me more) for well researched papers that contradicted the textbook on topics much less important than the genocide of the the Native Americans. If I knew then what I know now, I could have had so much fun messing with with that bitch. Okay, I digress...point being it's not taught in school and in most schools students are prevented from contradicting the textbooks' propaganda.
First of all, genocide had a well accepted meaning before a bunch of self-appointed lexicographers in the UN or whatever got in a room to come up with their own definition.
If you're going to argue based on the etymology of a word, maybe you should look up the etymology of the word before making crap up. The term "genocide" was coined based on the killing of Armenians by the Ottoman government. Therefore this is not only an example of genocide, it is the example of genocide.
can you write into the house buying contract, the requirement for inet connectivity?
Yes, you can. But what happens if you've done your due diligence (and maybe even the seller has too) and you don't know until after closing? I suppose you could write in that broadband be installed before closing to prove it, but if they have multiple offers then having an extra clause like that could be viewed as an extra pain in the ass (and an indication that there's higher chance that you'll back out for some other nonsense reason even if they do install it) so you're less likely to get your offer accepted.
All these people blaming the homeowner have probably never bought a house before, or at least if they did, they didn't pay enough attention to know what was really going on (which is what the realtor's job, so that doesn't mean they're stupid) and they didn't encounter anything unexpected.
Maybe he shoulda talked to the people he bought the house from instead of level 1 sales drone.
And what if the people living in the house didn't have broadband because they weren't interested in it? There are still plenty of people, although a small percentage, who don't have a computer at home, especially older people. On a previous rental I had, I asked the owner if it had broadband available and he didn't know because the previous tenant (who had been there a long time) didn't have it. On my house that I bought 2 years ago, I called both the phone and cable companies (only 2 options in my area) and both said I could get service. If they later told me I couldn't, what would I do? The seller listed that it had DSL available on the seller's disclosure, but they also listed that it was on sewer (there is no sewer in the area, which I already knew) so clearly that wasn't reliable. Sure, it could be used as a reason to back out of the sales contract before closing, but once it's closed, what are you gonna do? Sue the seller for being wrong in the disclosure? Good luck with that. Sue the cable and phone companies for being wrong? Good luck with that too.
Hell, even looking at the house he should have seen if there was coax in place or not.
And if it had analog cable but no digital or broadband available, that would be pretty meaningless, right? Or, if it wasn't wired for cable just because the previous owners didn't care about it doesn't mean it's not available.
If you're baking cakes out the back door of your house and selling them on Etsy (never mind how that works), fine, the government probably didn't support you, and you didn't promise them you'd participate in the economy they set up.
How do you bake cakes without the help of the government? Ingredients were produced with the help of government farming subsidies. Those ingredients were delivered to your wholesaler on roads built by the government. Water and power are delivered to your kitchen using government built and/or subsidized infrastructure. The stuff contained in your bakery is protected from thieves by laws created by the government and enforced by police provided by the government. If your neighbor's place catches fire, it's prevented from spreading to your bakery by the government funded fire department. The list goes on and on...you get the idea.
People shouldn't have to be convinced that chemicals in their living space and food chain are a bad idea.
Do you know what a chemical is. Without chemicals you'd be dead. Your misuse of the word is blaring example that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Thus, at the very least the WHO needs to explain the stats rather than just the raw "probably causes cancer."
The problem is that people don't understand what that term means. It sounds like it means it probably gives people cancer. What it does not mean it that it causes cancer in normal use. For example, nitrates are on that same list. This includes sodium nitrate, which is in all cured meats (bacon, ham, lunchmeat, sausage) - even Organic & natural ones (check ingredients for "celery powder" or "beet powder"). So, under normal rates of consumption, a human isn't going to get nearly enough to be carcinogenic. But if you give massive quantities to rats, it is.
So with glyphosate, what is it? Is it just carcinogenic if you give massive amounts to rats? Is it carcinogenic if you inhale it but not consume it? Is it only carcinogenic in liquid form but not after it dries? Do people get enough of it in their diet to be carcinogenic? How 'bout if you live next to a farm that uses it? What about farm workers? The classification of "probably carcinogenic" is essentially meaningless without proper context.
even though streaming video services have been around for years and years, apple will enter the market & suddenly everybody will be "WOW look!!! Apple invented streaming video! Amazing!"
Apple essentially invented a new market, just like Starbucks did. Were MP3 players (and expensive espresso drinks) available before that? Yes. Could you download music before that? Yes. What Apple did that wasn't so readily available before was made a device that could hold tons of music and had the market power to negotiate contracts to make music available for purchase on iTunes. Apple (and Starbucks) made their market readily available to the masses - whether it being available to the masses is a matter of perception or of a superior, easier to use product is irrelevant, what matters to the market is whether or not people are actually buying it.
The streaming video market is already pretty big and available to the masses through Netflix and Hulu. What's not so available to the masses is being able to stream the major networks in "real time" (which really means not having to wait a day to watch a new episode on Hulu). Sure, there are options, but those options are not so readily available to the masses - again, whether it's perception or a difficulty of use for non-geeks is irrelevant, what matters to the market is whether people are actually doing it. People hang on to cable either because (1)Hulu/Nextflix doesn't offer them what they want, or because (2) they're afraid of change. For group #1, offer them what they want and make it easy to obtain (and cheaper than cable) and people will go for it.
And people don't want to spend hours and hours figuring out new shit (or driving more than 3 blocks to a coffee shop), which is part of making things available to the masses.
Sheesh, it's just semantics. Definitions are for communication, if they call them brown dwarfs then you know what they're talking about. The IAU's considered an object with a mass capable of fusing deuterium a brown dwarf, which is 13 Jupiter masses. Don't like it? Too bad, as long as it's qualified with "brown dwarf" then you know what they're referring to. So, the term "closest start to Earth" is another issue of semantics. In the context of this article, it means, "closest object outside of our own solar system with a mass over 13 Jupiters." Now, if they start handing out medals and big prize money to stars for being the closest to Earth, then go ahead and debate it, otherwise who cares?
More like a look-alike. I'm not trying to play semantics here, but the term knock-off implies that either it's pretending to be the same thing. These watches are made to look like the Apple watch (whose pics have been available for a long time) but they don't carry the same name (Ai-watch, D-watch) and there is no indication at all about functionality. It's like the difference between a knock-off Rolex that actually says Rolex on it and a cheap watch from Wal-Mart that is made to look like a Rolex.
if it's false positives, that'll get found later....... not a big deal.
if it's a complete miss-- ouch...
If this becomes more widely used, either way, this would probably not be something that would be done in lieu of a biopsy. If a doctor had reason to suspect cancer, they'd likely still do a biopsy. This could be done in addition to the biopsy as an additional datapoint, but mostly this could be done as part of a routine screening. You're not going to get a thyroid biopsy as part of a routine physical, but a K9 scent screening could be added to a standard urinalysis.
But talking about expulsion and searching frantically for actual crimes to charge them with, for singing a stupid racist song?
So, where does it say anything about criminal charges, or even expulsion? The are closing down the frat chapter. Beyond just being racist, this is probably what did them in the most, FTA:
The chant vows that African-Americans will “never” be allowed to join the campus chapter.
First off, it is illegal (though not criminally) to deny somebody admission to anything based on race. Secondly, they don't have to commit a crime to be banned, in general universities have policies and codes of conduct, and if you violate those you can be expelled. In this case it appears the frat is being closed down because they violated university policies, not because they committed crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
but SOMEONE must be studying climate intensely, be it NASA or NOAA, it's all the same to me. But trying to gut the program smells distinctly of defensive profiteers with their hands far too deep into the people's government
I think the point is - they're not moving the programs over to NOAA, or even redirecting the funding to NOAA, they are cutting it from NASA. Their rationale that it's because it's NOAA's mission and not NASA's would only make sense if they were moving the programs & funding, not cutting them.
I'm sure if a paper with the opposite conclusion authored only by men was submitted for review, women (both reviewers and others) would be decrying that fact, implicitly because of the assumed tacit bias of the all-male authors
While there would certainly be women decrying such a male-only authored paper, most people (women and men) would have the intelligence to leave those biases out of their peer review. If they can find the actual bias in the paper, fine, and internally they may be more skeptical, but a proper peer review would not the cause (male only) without citing the effect (the actual part of the methods/results/conclusions that demonstrate a bias). This suggests that either PLoS One has inadequate standards for peer reviews, or that this douchebag is an outlier.
"just as, on average, male doctoral students can probably run a mile race a bit faster."
Now, what is this peer-reviewer's area of expertise? Because he should know that's bullshit. Competitive male runners, on average, will be able to run a faster mile because of increased testosterone, plus an average longer leg length. These are physical attributes. I'm pretty sure there is no physiological reason to suggest a difference in intelligence between men and women. Additionally, ignoring the first part and just focusing on his claim that male doctoral students will be able to, on average, run a faster mile...well, male doctoral students vs female doctoral students will be all over the place. Some of them don't exercise, some do. Some of them are overweight, some aren't. The sample set is too stratified to draw such a broad conclusion, a stratified sampling would be required, e.g. a sample set with doctoral students who exercise as least X hrs/week, another sample set with students who exercise Y-Z hrs/wk, and another set with students who don't exercise at all. Not recognizing such demonstrates this peer reviewer's lack of competency to be a peer reviewer.
Actually I was thinking about the perception of cultural differences, from the perspective the US/Canada/Europe. From the US, when this happens in Mexico or China we call it corruption and bribery. When it happens in the US, Canada, or Europe, we call it politics.
Interesting how in some places in the world, we call it bribery and corruption. In other places, it's just "how stuff gets done."
Spoken by someone who truly does not understand how unstable an electric grid really is. If there is more power injected into the grid than there is demand very bad things happen.
Spoken by someone who doesn't live in Hawaii. Here on Maui, an engineering study was done that showed the interconnect study requirement was unnecessary, and that what they charge for it is totally overblown. But because the members of the PUC are too busy getting blow jobs (presumably metaphorically) from HECO they won't do anything about it.
Hawaiian Electric is full of crap. It's an excuse to charge people thousands of dollars for an "interconnect study" before allowing them to install a grid-tie system, which is totally bogus. It's essentially them making it more difficult/expensive to install solar, and when you do jump through that hoop, they get to extort a big chunk of money from you.
How much did that report cost? I could have given it to them in 2 words, for free:
Q: "Is unconstitutional warrantless spying effective?"
A: "Fuck no."
Is there any work that is over 50 years old that still brings in big money? The proper solution is to charge an annual fee per work for continued protection of, say $1000/year after 50 years. I'll bet they won't want to pay that.
So what if they're still making money? The idea of copyright term was never to ensure that anybody would profit from them forever. It is to incentivize creators into creating, to help them make some money to making creating worthwhile. Do you think copyright terms extending beyond 50 years would have had any effect on the decisions of people 50 years ago as to whether or not creating something was worth their time? I'm sure Elvis would have thought, "Gee, copyright terms are only 50 years? Never mind, I'm not going to write or perform these songs, sorry guys."
Say hello to my firearms when they come to try and take my children.
How ironic! The law isn't saying that they're going to take away your children if you don't vaccinate, it's saying they can't attend public school. It's the exact same thing as how they don't allow your kid to bring a gun to school, so that other kids aren't forced to be exposed to deadly things. If you want your child to have access to guns while learning, you can still homeschool them. If you want your child to be unvaccinated, you can still homeschool them.
The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools
For the moment let's set aside fair vs unfair, and just take their claim at face value...
Okay, setting aside that claim...the law isn't actually saying that you have to vaccinate your children (personally I think it should, but it doesn't). It merely says you have to vaccinate your kids in order to allow them to expose other children in public school. If you want to homeschool your children, you don't have to vaccinate. You're kids also aren't allowed to bring a gun to public school, but if you want your kids to have access to a gun while they are learning, then again, you can homeschool them. Same fucking thing.
Even in the Americas, we tend not to talk overly much of what the Europeans did to the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere.
I would disagree, in a sense. In the US people who are informed are happy to talk about it. The problem is that we're not taught it in high school history class. And most history teachers tend to punish students for contradicting the textbook - which happened to me in American History where she would give me C's (she tried giving me F's but I complained to the principal, so she couldn't actually fail me, apparently I was a defiant brat which of course only made that bitch hate me more) for well researched papers that contradicted the textbook on topics much less important than the genocide of the the Native Americans. If I knew then what I know now, I could have had so much fun messing with with that bitch. Okay, I digress...point being it's not taught in school and in most schools students are prevented from contradicting the textbooks' propaganda.
First of all, genocide had a well accepted meaning before a bunch of self-appointed lexicographers in the UN or whatever got in a room to come up with their own definition.
If you're going to argue based on the etymology of a word, maybe you should look up the etymology of the word before making crap up. The term "genocide" was coined based on the killing of Armenians by the Ottoman government. Therefore this is not only an example of genocide, it is the example of genocide.
can you write into the house buying contract, the requirement for inet connectivity?
Yes, you can. But what happens if you've done your due diligence (and maybe even the seller has too) and you don't know until after closing? I suppose you could write in that broadband be installed before closing to prove it, but if they have multiple offers then having an extra clause like that could be viewed as an extra pain in the ass (and an indication that there's higher chance that you'll back out for some other nonsense reason even if they do install it) so you're less likely to get your offer accepted.
All these people blaming the homeowner have probably never bought a house before, or at least if they did, they didn't pay enough attention to know what was really going on (which is what the realtor's job, so that doesn't mean they're stupid) and they didn't encounter anything unexpected.
The Common Law is so 'Caveat Emptor' it isn't funny.
I would say it's more like qui habet pecuniam pro advocatorum
Maybe he shoulda talked to the people he bought the house from instead of level 1 sales drone.
And what if the people living in the house didn't have broadband because they weren't interested in it? There are still plenty of people, although a small percentage, who don't have a computer at home, especially older people. On a previous rental I had, I asked the owner if it had broadband available and he didn't know because the previous tenant (who had been there a long time) didn't have it. On my house that I bought 2 years ago, I called both the phone and cable companies (only 2 options in my area) and both said I could get service. If they later told me I couldn't, what would I do? The seller listed that it had DSL available on the seller's disclosure, but they also listed that it was on sewer (there is no sewer in the area, which I already knew) so clearly that wasn't reliable. Sure, it could be used as a reason to back out of the sales contract before closing, but once it's closed, what are you gonna do? Sue the seller for being wrong in the disclosure? Good luck with that. Sue the cable and phone companies for being wrong? Good luck with that too.
Hell, even looking at the house he should have seen if there was coax in place or not.
And if it had analog cable but no digital or broadband available, that would be pretty meaningless, right? Or, if it wasn't wired for cable just because the previous owners didn't care about it doesn't mean it's not available.
If you're baking cakes out the back door of your house and selling them on Etsy (never mind how that works), fine, the government probably didn't support you, and you didn't promise them you'd participate in the economy they set up.
How do you bake cakes without the help of the government? Ingredients were produced with the help of government farming subsidies. Those ingredients were delivered to your wholesaler on roads built by the government. Water and power are delivered to your kitchen using government built and/or subsidized infrastructure. The stuff contained in your bakery is protected from thieves by laws created by the government and enforced by police provided by the government. If your neighbor's place catches fire, it's prevented from spreading to your bakery by the government funded fire department. The list goes on and on...you get the idea.
People shouldn't have to be convinced that chemicals in their living space and food chain are a bad idea.
Do you know what a chemical is. Without chemicals you'd be dead. Your misuse of the word is blaring example that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Thus, at the very least the WHO needs to explain the stats rather than just the raw "probably causes cancer."
The problem is that people don't understand what that term means. It sounds like it means it probably gives people cancer. What it does not mean it that it causes cancer in normal use. For example, nitrates are on that same list. This includes sodium nitrate, which is in all cured meats (bacon, ham, lunchmeat, sausage) - even Organic & natural ones (check ingredients for "celery powder" or "beet powder"). So, under normal rates of consumption, a human isn't going to get nearly enough to be carcinogenic. But if you give massive quantities to rats, it is.
So with glyphosate, what is it? Is it just carcinogenic if you give massive amounts to rats? Is it carcinogenic if you inhale it but not consume it? Is it only carcinogenic in liquid form but not after it dries? Do people get enough of it in their diet to be carcinogenic? How 'bout if you live next to a farm that uses it? What about farm workers? The classification of "probably carcinogenic" is essentially meaningless without proper context.
A lot of people *CHOOSE*
Canadians get to choose? Here is Soviet USA, ISPs choose YOU!
even though streaming video services have been around for years and years, apple will enter the market & suddenly everybody will be "WOW look!!! Apple invented streaming video! Amazing!"
Apple essentially invented a new market, just like Starbucks did. Were MP3 players (and expensive espresso drinks) available before that? Yes. Could you download music before that? Yes. What Apple did that wasn't so readily available before was made a device that could hold tons of music and had the market power to negotiate contracts to make music available for purchase on iTunes. Apple (and Starbucks) made their market readily available to the masses - whether it being available to the masses is a matter of perception or of a superior, easier to use product is irrelevant, what matters to the market is whether or not people are actually buying it.
The streaming video market is already pretty big and available to the masses through Netflix and Hulu. What's not so available to the masses is being able to stream the major networks in "real time" (which really means not having to wait a day to watch a new episode on Hulu). Sure, there are options, but those options are not so readily available to the masses - again, whether it's perception or a difficulty of use for non-geeks is irrelevant, what matters to the market is whether people are actually doing it. People hang on to cable either because (1)Hulu/Nextflix doesn't offer them what they want, or because (2) they're afraid of change. For group #1, offer them what they want and make it easy to obtain (and cheaper than cable) and people will go for it.
And people don't want to spend hours and hours figuring out new shit (or driving more than 3 blocks to a coffee shop), which is part of making things available to the masses.
Sheesh, it's just semantics. Definitions are for communication, if they call them brown dwarfs then you know what they're talking about. The IAU's considered an object with a mass capable of fusing deuterium a brown dwarf, which is 13 Jupiter masses. Don't like it? Too bad, as long as it's qualified with "brown dwarf" then you know what they're referring to. So, the term "closest start to Earth" is another issue of semantics. In the context of this article, it means, "closest object outside of our own solar system with a mass over 13 Jupiters." Now, if they start handing out medals and big prize money to stars for being the closest to Earth, then go ahead and debate it, otherwise who cares?
More like a look-alike. I'm not trying to play semantics here, but the term knock-off implies that either it's pretending to be the same thing. These watches are made to look like the Apple watch (whose pics have been available for a long time) but they don't carry the same name (Ai-watch, D-watch) and there is no indication at all about functionality. It's like the difference between a knock-off Rolex that actually says Rolex on it and a cheap watch from Wal-Mart that is made to look like a Rolex.
are they false positives or failure to detect?
if it's false positives, that'll get found later....... not a big deal.
if it's a complete miss-- ouch...
If this becomes more widely used, either way, this would probably not be something that would be done in lieu of a biopsy. If a doctor had reason to suspect cancer, they'd likely still do a biopsy. This could be done in addition to the biopsy as an additional datapoint, but mostly this could be done as part of a routine screening. You're not going to get a thyroid biopsy as part of a routine physical, but a K9 scent screening could be added to a standard urinalysis.
Sounds like a doubleplusgood idea to me.
I know you're trying to reference newspeak, but OMG to think that language will be abbreviated in such a way is totes cray, lol.
But talking about expulsion and searching frantically for actual crimes to charge them with, for singing a stupid racist song?
So, where does it say anything about criminal charges, or even expulsion? The are closing down the frat chapter. Beyond just being racist, this is probably what did them in the most, FTA:
The chant vows that African-Americans will “never” be allowed to join the campus chapter.
First off, it is illegal (though not criminally) to deny somebody admission to anything based on race. Secondly, they don't have to commit a crime to be banned, in general universities have policies and codes of conduct, and if you violate those you can be expelled. In this case it appears the frat is being closed down because they violated university policies, not because they committed crimes.