So, they can't decide women no longer have the vote. They can't decide black people can be property.
That's true because of the 13th and 19th amendments, respectively. Those rights were not due to court rulings (which went the other way).
That's an important distinction between the above two cases and SSM. Ostensibly the objection to this ruling is that the right did not come from the legislative process. Although I'm sure opponents would be equally pissed if SSM were legalized by a legislative process, I do think the gripe has some merit. SSM was legalized by one vote out of nine. It can be undone by the same amount. Other rights won through the supreme court (such as abortion and even the right to use contraception -- Griswold v. Connecticut) can also be undone if the supreme court membership changes. The same is not true for a constitutional amendment -- which is how many other major rights were endowed.
Is it a good or bad thing that the legislative process got bypassed? I don't know. I'd much rather see this type of thing handled by the legislature. However, I'm pragmatic. I think that we see lots of end runs around the legislative branch because the constitution is so darn inflexible with so many hurdles to pass legislation and constitutional amendments. That inflexibility was well intended, but if the constitution were just a little more flexible, I think we'd see the government work much more smoothly.
That sounds like a strong reason to pander to the base if neither party has accurate polls for guidance. If the candidate with the lager base can make swing voters not vote by pandering to the base (as you suggest), then that candidate has won.
I've been burned by interminable pools too. I'd be a lot more willing to answer polls if the people on the phone started with something like, "Hello. We're doing a political poll that has X questions and will take about Y minutes. Are you interested?" Y would be 3-4 minutes tops. I'd answer that type of poll.
I agree that there could be positive effects if polling became useless, but there could also be negative effects. It's not clear to me which effects will be stronger. My guess is that it'll be a wash.
Two possible examples: -I think that politicians have a good idea of what their base wants even without detailed polls. If politicians have no idea what the rest of the electorate wants, maybe politicians will pander even more to their base because it's a known quantity. -When there's real hysteria, politicians don't need polls. Take the recent ebola scare/hysteria. I don't think politicians jumped on it because of polls.
He kind-of-sort-of recommended three children when he said that there was no need to breed like rabbits. I think three is larger than the average size of a Catholic family in the USA, but maybe it's smaller than the world-wide average? In any case, I agree that the pope is a smart guy. I've been pleasantly surprised by him.
How many who whine about global warming and oil companies are willing to take a bus to work or ride a bike 4 hours each way? No hands I see...
You don't see any hands because those are ridiculous solutions. I do know people who have, for sustainability reasons, moved to densely-populated areas and sold their car -- instead choosing to use public transportation, bike, walk, etc. (They rent cars/trucks when necessary, which isn't often.) Many young people are also making this choice, although I can't vouch for all of their motives.
Yes, the suburbs and many American cities are designed so that anything except a car is an impractical way to get around (with limited exceptions). However, that doesn't mean that cars are the only solution to transportation. It simply reflects where you chose to live.
Science can tell us what the planet is and where it's going, but it can't tell us if that's a good thing or not.
I disagree. You have to assume that people interested in their (and their offspring's) physical well being, and scientists darn well can tell us if something is good or not. (I'm not saying that's the only assumption you have to or should make, but those other assumptions can be factored in too.)
However, the scientific answer is a much more complicated calculus. The pope can just tell people to stop destroying the environment. Science gives more nuanced answers like: this amount of environmental alteration will give you a better diet/lower infant mortality rate/more material wealth/etc., but go beyond that and the opposite will happen. E.g., catching this many fish is sustainable, but catching more that that will lead to population collapse and you not catching anything -- i.e. that's a bad decision.
Is that math somehow morally empty? That's an individual's decision. Then again, the majority of humanity doesn't take their cues from the pope, so some will see his proclamations as morally empty too (although non-catholics may see logic in the pope's writing, in which case we're back to judging the morality of math).
It's a little weird to say that the pope went there when in fact the pope took the position furthest from there, but that's semantics.
Regardless, my point stands: the pope is restricted by his moral authority, and that's a real problem if he's leading the charge. (That said, I think the pope will do much more good than harm, but he could do so much more good if he would tell people to use condoms.)
(I have another response to your original post, but I'll put it in another comment.)
Krauss brings up points that the pope doesn't _because_ of the pope's "moral authority". For example, Krauss makes the point that contraception is a must. A large world population is simply unsustainable without doing major environmental harm (and may simply be unsustainable, period). Needless to say, the pope couldn't really go there, although he has previously said that people should have fewer children -- never mind how.
So, while I think the pope is doing much good, he is dangerously restricted by the very moral authority you mention. It's a double-edged sword.
In these uncertain times, you can't be too careful. We should all be driving armored vehicles, like the Marauder. Top Gear did a wonderful review of the vehicle, showing how practical the Marauder is for normal city driving.
Wow, you're right. They've co opted the + to search Google+ pages. WTF? From the page you linked to: "[+ symbol usage:] Search for Google+ pages or blood types Examples: +Chrome or AB+"
Let's be honest, Uber is a cab company in everything but name. So, it's no surprise that governments treat Uber like a cab company -- something governments have the power to do.
Many commenters (understandably) don't like the regulations for cab companies and thus don't want to see Uber treated like one -- leading to the senseless denial that Uber is cab company (which it is).
What these commenters suggest is not how the legal system should work. The executive branch of government should enforce the laws. Commenters should instead take issue with the legislative branch for writing the laws in the first place.
And you know what? In some places the legislative branch does listen. Here in WI, the state legislature passed a law last month preempting local ordinances and allowing Uber to operate state wide (with some regulation). As a consequence, Uber is extending service to 5 new areas in Wisconsin. (Believe it or not, that means Uber will operate in 8 Wisconsin locations. Apparently there's demand. Who knew?)
It's true, but I believe that science is making progress and there is better evidence now than there was when the previous "reforms" were made.
This cycle is hardly unique to nutritional science, and it's easy to think that we're simply going in circles. However, I think it's more of a helix than a circle. Yes, we do sometimes get close to where we were before, but we never go exactly back to the same point because we have progressed forwards -- although often less than we'd like.
Although many people don't think about lard in baked goods (other than maybe biscuits), it works quite well there. Oreos was made with lard until sometime in the '90s when the replaced it with -- wait for it -- partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. It looks like we've come full circle. (Yes, I know oreos aren't exactly the greatest baked good, but it can work elsewhere too.)
That said, you only listed tallow and lard. Don't forget about butter and rendered chicken fat (schmaltz), which is really good stuff (and is often a byproduct of cooking chicken).
On an unrelated note, Wisconsin is ahead of the curve on regulating trans fats courtesy of the butter lobby:
97.18 (4) The serving of colored oleomargarine or margarine at a public eating place as a substitute for table butter is prohibited unless it is ordered by the customer. 97.18 (5) The serving of oleomargarine or margarine to students, patients or inmates of any state institutions as a substitute for table butter is prohibited...
Philae was launched in 2004. NASA launched a Pu-238 radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) as part of the Mars Science Laboratory in 2011, and a Pu-238 RTG was being designed by NASA as late as 2013. Even if your claim is true, and Pu-238 became unavailable in the last two years (I doubt it), Pu-238 must have been available in 2004 since it was available as late as 2013.
Moreover, while Pu-238 has been used for the majority of space RTGs. It's not the only element that can be used. U-235 was used in space and Sr-90 has been used on the ground. I don't know about the availability of those isotopes, but Am-241 can also be used, and I doubt there's a shortage of that because it is used in many smoke detectors.
Yes, solar would have been fine if the harpoon worked. However, it is a good idea to build spacecraft to handle contingencies. Maybe there are good reason (cost, weight) that a RTG was not used, but the unavailability of proper isotopes sure wasn't one of them. I'm guessing the issue was mostly political.
Here's a better headline: Wassenaar Treaty _DRAFT__MAY_ Hamper Bug Bounties
The summary makes it sound like the treaty is a done deal; it's not. (TFA makes that point.) There's an open comment period through July 20th.
Yes, it sounds like the proposed wording isn't good. However, the final version isn't done. Give them useful feedback if you'd like. I'm sure the companies who use bug bounties have already given feedback.
While cool, TF summary notes this is a first "between space and Earth". I'm guessing this has already been done between two (possibly distant) places on earth. The IN SPACE factor is neat, but is there much new here?
I'd add some kind of DC electrical system. AC power is fine for moving electricity over long distances, powering motors, heaters, etc. However, all electronics need DC. Life without AC->DC adapters on every damn piece of electronics would be great. (Yes, maybe you'd need some external DC->DC adapters, but lots of things already can be powered by a USB port -- meaning 5 V.)
AC is especially dumb for solar: you have DC power source (a solar panel) which you then turn into AC power which gets converted back to DC for your electronics, LED lighting, etc. What a waste!
There have been some recently work on in-home DC power systems, although I haven't followed it closely (since I'm in no danger of owning a home soon).
(Full disclosure: I am neither female nor a parent; I'm a male who studies physics.)
There are too many links in the summary. The most relevant one is the google study, which has some interesting data and is fairly neutral. I don't think the study supports the flamebait headline, but instead paints a complicated picture. In particular, see the charts on page 5 of the study.
The story headline is in the same style as this interesting article titled "Papas, please let your babies grow up to be princesses". That article makes the case that interests in "girly" things are not mutually exclusive with interests in STEM fields. There are anecdotes in the above comments about girls being pressured by parents into STEM activities (like robotics clubs), and how it often doesn't work. Perhaps this is because some parents push STEM at the expense of "girly" things rather than simply encouraging STEM without taking a hostile stance towards "girly" things.
Like it or not, every business is the subject of politicians' experiments. For example, the minimum wage exists in the first place, and CA has a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage. Every law is an experiment because its unintended consequences are unknown. (Hell, even the intended consequences are sometimes unknown.) This experiment is getting more press than others, but the amount of press and the effect of the experiment are two very different things.
A lot of people have strong opinions on raising the minimum wage, but that's all they are: opinions. Yes, there may be logic behind the arguments, but there is only one way to find out the effect of raising the minimum wage, and that's to try it and see what happens. Analysis may be difficult, but some data is better than blowing hot air.
In short: hooray for experiments! Let's see what happens!
Try to be a rational human being: make a prediction based on logic, wait for the data and analysis, and then update your beliefs! (I know, easier said than done.)
My prediction: it'll more-or-less be wash. Some good from increased wages, some people fired, somewhat higher prices to pay for labor. At the end of the day, low-wage workers will get displaced by automation anyway. In short, raising the minimum wage is nothing to get your undies in a bunch about.
Slashdot Mirror
So, they can't decide women no longer have the vote. They can't decide black people can be property.
That's true because of the 13th and 19th amendments, respectively. Those rights were not due to court rulings (which went the other way).
That's an important distinction between the above two cases and SSM. Ostensibly the objection to this ruling is that the right did not come from the legislative process. Although I'm sure opponents would be equally pissed if SSM were legalized by a legislative process, I do think the gripe has some merit. SSM was legalized by one vote out of nine. It can be undone by the same amount. Other rights won through the supreme court (such as abortion and even the right to use contraception -- Griswold v. Connecticut) can also be undone if the supreme court membership changes. The same is not true for a constitutional amendment -- which is how many other major rights were endowed.
Is it a good or bad thing that the legislative process got bypassed? I don't know. I'd much rather see this type of thing handled by the legislature. However, I'm pragmatic. I think that we see lots of end runs around the legislative branch because the constitution is so darn inflexible with so many hurdles to pass legislation and constitutional amendments. That inflexibility was well intended, but if the constitution were just a little more flexible, I think we'd see the government work much more smoothly.
That sounds like a strong reason to pander to the base if neither party has accurate polls for guidance. If the candidate with the lager base can make swing voters not vote by pandering to the base (as you suggest), then that candidate has won.
I've been burned by interminable pools too. I'd be a lot more willing to answer polls if the people on the phone started with something like, "Hello. We're doing a political poll that has X questions and will take about Y minutes. Are you interested?" Y would be 3-4 minutes tops. I'd answer that type of poll.
I agree that there could be positive effects if polling became useless, but there could also be negative effects. It's not clear to me which effects will be stronger. My guess is that it'll be a wash.
Two possible examples:
-I think that politicians have a good idea of what their base wants even without detailed polls. If politicians have no idea what the rest of the electorate wants, maybe politicians will pander even more to their base because it's a known quantity.
-When there's real hysteria, politicians don't need polls. Take the recent ebola scare/hysteria. I don't think politicians jumped on it because of polls.
Oh, don't worry. Robots will put us out of business soon enough -- averting a malthusian catastrophe ;)
He kind-of-sort-of recommended three children when he said that there was no need to breed like rabbits. I think three is larger than the average size of a Catholic family in the USA, but maybe it's smaller than the world-wide average? In any case, I agree that the pope is a smart guy. I've been pleasantly surprised by him.
How many who whine about global warming and oil companies are willing to take a bus to work or ride a bike 4 hours each way? No hands I see ...
You don't see any hands because those are ridiculous solutions. I do know people who have, for sustainability reasons, moved to densely-populated areas and sold their car -- instead choosing to use public transportation, bike, walk, etc. (They rent cars/trucks when necessary, which isn't often.) Many young people are also making this choice, although I can't vouch for all of their motives.
Yes, the suburbs and many American cities are designed so that anything except a car is an impractical way to get around (with limited exceptions). However, that doesn't mean that cars are the only solution to transportation. It simply reflects where you chose to live.
Science can tell us what the planet is and where it's going, but it can't tell us if that's a good thing or not.
I disagree. You have to assume that people interested in their (and their offspring's) physical well being, and scientists darn well can tell us if something is good or not. (I'm not saying that's the only assumption you have to or should make, but those other assumptions can be factored in too.)
However, the scientific answer is a much more complicated calculus. The pope can just tell people to stop destroying the environment. Science gives more nuanced answers like: this amount of environmental alteration will give you a better diet/lower infant mortality rate/more material wealth/etc., but go beyond that and the opposite will happen. E.g., catching this many fish is sustainable, but catching more that that will lead to population collapse and you not catching anything -- i.e. that's a bad decision.
Is that math somehow morally empty? That's an individual's decision. Then again, the majority of humanity doesn't take their cues from the pope, so some will see his proclamations as morally empty too (although non-catholics may see logic in the pope's writing, in which case we're back to judging the morality of math).
It's a little weird to say that the pope went there when in fact the pope took the position furthest from there, but that's semantics.
Regardless, my point stands: the pope is restricted by his moral authority, and that's a real problem if he's leading the charge. (That said, I think the pope will do much more good than harm, but he could do so much more good if he would tell people to use condoms.)
(I have another response to your original post, but I'll put it in another comment.)
Krauss brings up points that the pope doesn't _because_ of the pope's "moral authority". For example, Krauss makes the point that contraception is a must. A large world population is simply unsustainable without doing major environmental harm (and may simply be unsustainable, period). Needless to say, the pope couldn't really go there, although he has previously said that people should have fewer children -- never mind how.
So, while I think the pope is doing much good, he is dangerously restricted by the very moral authority you mention. It's a double-edged sword.
In these uncertain times, you can't be too careful. We should all be driving armored vehicles, like the Marauder. Top Gear did a wonderful review of the vehicle, showing how practical the Marauder is for normal city driving.
Review part 1
Review part 2
Wow, you're right. They've co opted the + to search Google+ pages. WTF? From the page you linked to: "[+ symbol usage:] Search for Google+ pages or blood types Examples: +Chrome or AB+"
Let's be honest, Uber is a cab company in everything but name. So, it's no surprise that governments treat Uber like a cab company -- something governments have the power to do.
Many commenters (understandably) don't like the regulations for cab companies and thus don't want to see Uber treated like one -- leading to the senseless denial that Uber is cab company (which it is).
What these commenters suggest is not how the legal system should work. The executive branch of government should enforce the laws. Commenters should instead take issue with the legislative branch for writing the laws in the first place.
And you know what? In some places the legislative branch does listen. Here in WI, the state legislature passed a law last month preempting local ordinances and allowing Uber to operate state wide (with some regulation). As a consequence, Uber is extending service to 5 new areas in Wisconsin. (Believe it or not, that means Uber will operate in 8 Wisconsin locations. Apparently there's demand. Who knew?)
It's true, but I believe that science is making progress and there is better evidence now than there was when the previous "reforms" were made.
This cycle is hardly unique to nutritional science, and it's easy to think that we're simply going in circles. However, I think it's more of a helix than a circle. Yes, we do sometimes get close to where we were before, but we never go exactly back to the same point because we have progressed forwards -- although often less than we'd like.
Although many people don't think about lard in baked goods (other than maybe biscuits), it works quite well there. Oreos was made with lard until sometime in the '90s when the replaced it with -- wait for it -- partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. It looks like we've come full circle. (Yes, I know oreos aren't exactly the greatest baked good, but it can work elsewhere too.)
That said, you only listed tallow and lard. Don't forget about butter and rendered chicken fat (schmaltz), which is really good stuff (and is often a byproduct of cooking chicken).
On an unrelated note, Wisconsin is ahead of the curve on regulating trans fats courtesy of the butter lobby:
97.18 (4) The serving of colored oleomargarine or margarine at a public eating place as a substitute for table butter is prohibited unless it is ordered by the customer.
97.18 (5) The serving of oleomargarine or margarine to students, patients or inmates of any state institutions as a substitute for table butter is prohibited...
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.g...
Hell, it was illegal to sell margarine here for many years.
The plan did go through. US production restarted in 2013.
NASA purchased Pu-238 from Russia as late as 2010. If the mission designers wanted an RTG, they could have got one. Full stop.
I conceded that Pu-238 is now in short supply (although NASA restarted production in 2013), but that isn't relevant to a spacecraft launched in 2004.
Maybe it'll be released by then?
(I don't know anything about perl, but someone had to say it.)
Philae was launched in 2004. NASA launched a Pu-238 radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) as part of the Mars Science Laboratory in 2011, and a Pu-238 RTG was being designed by NASA as late as 2013. Even if your claim is true, and Pu-238 became unavailable in the last two years (I doubt it), Pu-238 must have been available in 2004 since it was available as late as 2013.
Moreover, while Pu-238 has been used for the majority of space RTGs. It's not the only element that can be used. U-235 was used in space and Sr-90 has been used on the ground. I don't know about the availability of those isotopes, but Am-241 can also be used, and I doubt there's a shortage of that because it is used in many smoke detectors.
Yes, solar would have been fine if the harpoon worked. However, it is a good idea to build spacecraft to handle contingencies. Maybe there are good reason (cost, weight) that a RTG was not used, but the unavailability of proper isotopes sure wasn't one of them. I'm guessing the issue was mostly political.
Here's a better headline: Wassenaar Treaty _DRAFT__MAY_ Hamper Bug Bounties
The summary makes it sound like the treaty is a done deal; it's not. (TFA makes that point.) There's an open comment period through July 20th.
Yes, it sounds like the proposed wording isn't good. However, the final version isn't done. Give them useful feedback if you'd like. I'm sure the companies who use bug bounties have already given feedback.
Don't panic, yet.
While cool, TF summary notes this is a first "between space and Earth". I'm guessing this has already been done between two (possibly distant) places on earth. The IN SPACE factor is neat, but is there much new here?
I'd add some kind of DC electrical system. AC power is fine for moving electricity over long distances, powering motors, heaters, etc. However, all electronics need DC. Life without AC->DC adapters on every damn piece of electronics would be great. (Yes, maybe you'd need some external DC->DC adapters, but lots of things already can be powered by a USB port -- meaning 5 V.)
AC is especially dumb for solar: you have DC power source (a solar panel) which you then turn into AC power which gets converted back to DC for your electronics, LED lighting, etc. What a waste!
There have been some recently work on in-home DC power systems, although I haven't followed it closely (since I'm in no danger of owning a home soon).
(Full disclosure: I am neither female nor a parent; I'm a male who studies physics.)
There are too many links in the summary. The most relevant one is the google study, which has some interesting data and is fairly neutral. I don't think the study supports the flamebait headline, but instead paints a complicated picture. In particular, see the charts on page 5 of the study.
The story headline is in the same style as this interesting article titled "Papas, please let your babies grow up to be princesses". That article makes the case that interests in "girly" things are not mutually exclusive with interests in STEM fields. There are anecdotes in the above comments about girls being pressured by parents into STEM activities (like robotics clubs), and how it often doesn't work. Perhaps this is because some parents push STEM at the expense of "girly" things rather than simply encouraging STEM without taking a hostile stance towards "girly" things.
Just a thought.
Like it or not, every business is the subject of politicians' experiments. For example, the minimum wage exists in the first place, and CA has a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage. Every law is an experiment because its unintended consequences are unknown. (Hell, even the intended consequences are sometimes unknown.) This experiment is getting more press than others, but the amount of press and the effect of the experiment are two very different things.
A lot of people have strong opinions on raising the minimum wage, but that's all they are: opinions. Yes, there may be logic behind the arguments, but there is only one way to find out the effect of raising the minimum wage, and that's to try it and see what happens. Analysis may be difficult, but some data is better than blowing hot air.
In short: hooray for experiments! Let's see what happens!
Try to be a rational human being: make a prediction based on logic, wait for the data and analysis, and then update your beliefs! (I know, easier said than done.)
My prediction: it'll more-or-less be wash. Some good from increased wages, some people fired, somewhat higher prices to pay for labor. At the end of the day, low-wage workers will get displaced by automation anyway. In short, raising the minimum wage is nothing to get your undies in a bunch about.