By putting out a press release stating that arrests are imminent, maybe they are hoping that LulzSec will destroy their own infrastructure and go into hiding, thus eliminating them as a threat. It's true doublethink; it can mean that they have no leads whatsoever, or that they do.
-The FBI has identified the members, can capture them, will capture them, put out this statement to scare them into stopping the attacks until they can be arrested
-The FBI has identified the members, can capture them, will capture them, couldn't keep a lid on the rumors, leading to this leak
-The FBI has identified the members, can capture some of them, but want to scare off the ones they can't with this
-The FBI has not identified the members, and wants to scare them off
-The FBI thinks it has identified the members, foolishly bragging about it beforehand, and will be have egg on their face when the people they arrest have little to do with it, attacks continue
Looks impressive, and though it may be a technical term or what the thing is universally called, lets rename the "wiggler" part. Doesn't exactly inspire fear.
President: "Look, North Korea, either you turn the giant kim-il-jong robot around, or we deploy the electron beam laser with wiggler attachment"
Clone of Kim-il Jong: "Bwahahah! We are not afraid of your wiggly little laser! KIMBOT! DEPLOY THE MIRROR SHIELD!"
It does seem like $100k spent on security would have longer benefits than one payoff. For that matter, maybe a $100k insurance policy would be a better investment.
Just to reiterate, Al Gore is not the theory of climate change. His faults and shortcomings are completely separate from climate change, and proving him wrong, a hypocrite, or misleading does not reflect on the science behind climate change. Lets just keep that straight that the two are completely separate.
The article you cited seems to take the movie as a scientific publication rather than a movie designed to raise awareness among the public. That was the goal, not to prove that global warming was happening. As it was, critics complained that the movie was too boring, and the movie went straight over the heads of most people who will be affected by climate change. Giving the level of detail that Marlo Lewis demands would put everyone to sleep and would be quite counterproductive. It would be nice if Al Gore had been able to address every concern in a 2 hour movie and not confuse the hell out of everyone, but if he were capable of that, he probably would have been able to win the electoral vote as well.
Since your only complaint seems to be about the movie, not anything about the actual theory of climate change, is it safe to assume you're undecided or are convinced global climate change is happening? If so, why bother attacking the movie?
That's a bit of an overstatement at best there, or maybe comparing apples to oranges. Real news sources make the claim that what they're saying is accurate. The Onion explicitly states that what they're saying is not true. You may remember some particularly insightful parodies they ran, but would forget the ones that weren't as spot-on. With news on the other hand, you're more likely to remember when the news wasn't accurate.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. The onion is very funny, and does make many important observations on the world, but they have no credibility as a news source since they never say "This is the news, this is actually happening." They have never made any -false- statements about the current events, but they haven't made any true statements about current events either. If they have any credibility as a news source for that, my 4 month old niece has even -more- credibility. She absolutely has not said anything that could be proven wrong and by that scoring system has 100% reliability.
Nevermind that scientists ripped it for being terrible science. But if it pushes the agenda you want to hear, so be it.
I hear scientists also ripped apart evolution and the link between smoking and cancer too. My own research has been subjected to withering criticism from time to time as well, you might call that "ripping it apart."
You -could- conclude that diverse interpretations exist on all data, the truth is often hard to identify, most scientific issues are complicated with plenty of room for disagreement. Maybe one should conclude that scientists say a lot of things, but that doesn't make it true. Sometimes one or a few scientists may be right and the rest wrong, sometimes not.
Wait, what the hell am I saying? It's far better and easier to insist that if a scientist said it, it must be true, even if other scientists say otherwise. Global warming isn't happening, and my research is right no matter what my committee or reviewers say! There's just a massive conspiracy among evil scientists to get rid of our beloved SUVs, our dangerous coal power, our delicious cigarettes, convince us we're apes, and deny me my PhD!
Either way, creating a movie about environmental awareness while flying everywhere on a private jet apparently gets you a prize dedicated to Peace.
Wait wait wait wait wait... you're telling me that a POLITICIAN... is... is.. is a HYPOCRITE?!?!?
[falls dead of shock]
Well, that clearly proves that whatever he was arguing for was false. What's an "ad-homenim argument"? Doesn't matter I guess.
I think the researchers and surgeons DID repair his leg for less than $7 million. "The surgery is the result of a $70 million investment by the US military into regenerative medicine research," sounds to me not like the army spent $70 million on his leg, it sounds like that was the price tag of the whole study.
Kind of like how companies spend millions developing a new drugs: they're spending the money to learn how to make it. The actual finished product has to cost far, far less in order for anyone to buy it.
I'm guessing the actual costs of repairing his leg were in the thousands of dollars range, not 70 million.
You are right though that a private company would be unlikely to invest in this type of research, at least without significant grant money from taxpayers, precisely because there is no product to sell at the end.
when the real admirable thing to do would be to put all that money and energy spent trying to reproduce those faulty genes into helping some poor child out there who would be delighted to have a family of their own.
Someone is very hasty to judge on the internet. It's entirely possible that she'd adopt too, having your own children and adopting is not mutually exclusive. She obviously has her own reasons she wanted to have a child herself, don't know why you'd boil it down to "If you want baby, adopt." And all that I've heard about adopting is that it is not an easy process. I can't imagine the process is any easier in Sweden, where the population is not booming. It is plausible that transplanting her mother's uterus is an easier method to get a kid than adopting is.
Story was posted at 11:25 PM, yours at 12:17 AM. So it took Slashdot at most 45 minutes to think of adoption. This woman presumably has been thinking about it longer. She's consulted with doctors, who are generally not idiots. Her mother is obviously on board, so it's safe to assume that her family is involved in this decision. So there are multiple people who are talking to her about this.
You can't possibly believe adoption had neither occurred to her, nor had it been suggested to her at some point.
She -must-- have some reason why she didn't want to adopt. Maybe you and I wouldn't agree with the reasons, but she has them.
To make matters worse, they are using medicine to spread defective DNA. Helping people that can't reproduce normally is going against evolution, and a direct attack on our genetic pool, and the future of our species.
What you're describing is only consistent with the idea of gradualism in evolution, which was discarded by most evolutionary biologists in favor of punctuated equilibrium.
Natural selection isn't really a constant force in any species throughout the history of life. It doesn't need to constantly act on a species to keep that species in shape. Evolution acts to create and destroy whole species, it doesn't act to improve species.
Talking about evolution and human genetics gets even more ridiculous in this case. As another poster pointed out, this disease isn't necessarily genetic. Even if it is, that's not going to spread to the entire human population. It would take many, many generations to do so in the first place, you'd be dust before having to worry about it. And since it would affect fertility, in order for it to become widespread, it would need to be easily correctable. And if that is the case, what's the problem?
Lastly, medical technology is improving rapidly, especially compared to the timescale that evolution operates on. We'll likely be able to manipulate our own genomes before too long. Maybe it will take several generations, which is a long time for a human, but before humans could slide back to any apreciable degree, we'll likely be making designer babies and directing our own evolution.
Heh Dr.Bob,DC is a known troller (Some even suspect it is a bot)
Bah, they only suspect that because they are paranoid because their humors are out of balance because their chi is misdirected because they have subluxations. A good vertebral adjustment and trepanation will make them realize Dr. Bob is a modern day medical messiah.
I think that this world is already overpopulated with humans as it is.
No it isn't. There aren't a lot of people dying of starvation due to scarcity of food, which is the usual way of indicating overpopulation. Seems to me that people starving these days are mostly due to neglect or problems with distribution, both of which would happen with half the population we have now.
Environmental damage is not a sign of overpopulation either, that's poor resource management and again, could and would be happening with half our population levels.
We're certainly not running out of space on Earth, so that's right out.
Seriously, what makes you say the world is overpopulated? Traffic on your commute getting worse? Warped elitism "I didn't have a kid, and it was because having a kid is an irresponsible thing to do?"
Anyway, it looks like Sweden's population is growing extremely slow, 0.9% in 2009. One more kid in the world doesn't change the situation much.
No, but it's a fantastic way to try-before-you-buy. I am sick to death of buying $50-$60 games only to get burned on them. I'll happily pay two bucks to see if it's worth buying my own copy.
You know there is a recent intriguing invention to help you decide before buying. I think they're called "reviews.":-P
I refuse to buy any game new that doesn't have a green rating on metacritic. If a game isn't a sequel to a game I've already played and enjoyed, I either play the demo, borrow it from a friend, or wait until I can get it for less (either used or reduced price on steam.)
More tools to make that decision are of course good, but I don't see anything wrong with the free alternatives out there.
Nearly any spending can be made to sound wasteful when you gloss over important details. The government spent $47k on nintendo Wiis? I don't know what that's about but here's two wild guesses:
1. The government funds some services for children, like orphanages, hospitals, day cares, holding facilities, and schools, and someone thought that spending $200 on a wii to pacify the kids was a good investment (compared to maybe the kids getting bored and causing damage to the facilities in vandalism, costing more.)
2. A massive conspiracy in which congressmen and women and their staff do nothing but play videogames, made in some backroom deal with Nintendo.
Probably number two now that I think about it.
At any rate, lets not be simpletons and start foaming at the mouth because a valid reason for some of these expenditures don't immediately pop out at us.
why is it that always republicans are behind the gravest, dastardliest shit, and they are behind less dastardly shit with a democrat close to their aisle ?
Democrats do some dastardly shit too. It depends a little on what you consider dastardly I guess. Some of my (sigh) inlaws would undoubtedly find this silly at worst, but will find the John Edwards (Democrat) affair to be the worst thing ever. Which one affects more people? The current abomination if it passes. Which one can those simpletons understand? The douche cheating on his dying wife. Which one will they complain about over christmas dinner? The democrat.
Note to self, stock up on alchohol this Christmas...
As far as why it seems republicans are always behind shit like this, that's confirmation bias. Misusing the law to benefit corporations happens on both sides of the aisle (democrats aren't sworn enemies of the RIAA or MPAA). As someone who is more sympathetic to democrats, you naturally find ways of writing it off as one bad egg, or not that bad when you hear about Democrats doing it, wheras when a republican does it, it's "Oh those fucking republicans!"
I'm a democrat, and sometimes find myself doing that too.
It's important to keep in mind, there's a clear difference between republicans and republican politicians. Republicans are nice people generally(except the ones that are going to go on and on and on about how society is going to hell because one politician cheated on his dying wife). I might find them a bit naive, and disagree with what they value more, but I know plenty of republicans, and they all are as opposed to rape as I would expect any sane person to be (wouldn't put it past one or two of my inlaws to blame the victim though).
Republican politicians though are evil, but maybe only a little bit more than democrat politicians. Their constituents might be less concerned with the rights of individuals, and might pay more attention to their politicians' personal lives. I think in many cases that makes republican politicians more likely to sell out public interests in favor of corporate interests, like the case here.
The short answer is "because 1. they're not and 2. they have different values than you."
Only Score:0 Troll? Can't we go for -1? This whole article is a troll. Anybody who has ever had a mail account on a government system knows that all email is archived specifically to comply with the FOIA. It's not like some savvy whistleblower stumbled across Palin's personal emails.
The Streisand effect is working here. By delaying as long as possible, then refusing to provide the e-mails in an easy to search format, whoever was in charge of this made certain it would be a big deal.
And transparency in government, especially among (ahem) potential presidential candidates, is a big deal.
Let's try an experiment: BUSH IS EVIL! Now the lemming liberal moderators will blow a fuse trying to figure out which way to mod this.
If you're upset by the troll moderation, here's the lesson: try not typing "libtard" into your post. Maturity and all that.
I can understand govt watchdogging; we need that. But she's not even in the govt.
But she and at least a few other people would like for her to be. I'm not optimistic enough to say for sure "America would not vote Sarah Palin into the white house," so the more insurance we have that she won't get there, the better.
When forced to sign up for forums to ask a question about coding or tech troubleshooting, I generally use a pretty basic password and then lie about all of my personal info.
Bonus points for unimportant sites that don't accept mailinator.com e-mail addresses or won't let you set a weak, easy to remember password.
Because, you know, if my "I can haz cheezeburger" account gets compromised, western civilization might end.
Slashdot Mirror
By putting out a press release stating that arrests are imminent, maybe they are hoping that LulzSec will destroy their own infrastructure and go into hiding, thus eliminating them as a threat. It's true doublethink; it can mean that they have no leads whatsoever, or that they do.
-The FBI has identified the members, can capture them, will capture them, put out this statement to scare them into stopping the attacks until they can be arrested
-The FBI has identified the members, can capture them, will capture them, couldn't keep a lid on the rumors, leading to this leak
-The FBI has identified the members, can capture some of them, but want to scare off the ones they can't with this
-The FBI has not identified the members, and wants to scare them off
-The FBI thinks it has identified the members, foolishly bragging about it beforehand, and will be have egg on their face when the people they arrest have little to do with it, attacks continue
"Supporting terrorists" is a stupid description, and the idiot who said that needs a kick in the teeth.
I'm guessing kicking that individual in the teeth would also count as terrorism...
Looks impressive, and though it may be a technical term or what the thing is universally called, lets rename the "wiggler" part. Doesn't exactly inspire fear.
President: "Look, North Korea, either you turn the giant kim-il-jong robot around, or we deploy the electron beam laser with wiggler attachment"
Clone of Kim-il Jong: "Bwahahah! We are not afraid of your wiggly little laser! KIMBOT! DEPLOY THE MIRROR SHIELD!"
It does seem like $100k spent on security would have longer benefits than one payoff. For that matter, maybe a $100k insurance policy would be a better investment.
Just to reiterate, Al Gore is not the theory of climate change. His faults and shortcomings are completely separate from climate change, and proving him wrong, a hypocrite, or misleading does not reflect on the science behind climate change. Lets just keep that straight that the two are completely separate.
The article you cited seems to take the movie as a scientific publication rather than a movie designed to raise awareness among the public. That was the goal, not to prove that global warming was happening. As it was, critics complained that the movie was too boring, and the movie went straight over the heads of most people who will be affected by climate change. Giving the level of detail that Marlo Lewis demands would put everyone to sleep and would be quite counterproductive. It would be nice if Al Gore had been able to address every concern in a 2 hour movie and not confuse the hell out of everyone, but if he were capable of that, he probably would have been able to win the electoral vote as well.
Since your only complaint seems to be about the movie, not anything about the actual theory of climate change, is it safe to assume you're undecided or are convinced global climate change is happening? If so, why bother attacking the movie?
That's a bit of an overstatement at best there, or maybe comparing apples to oranges. Real news sources make the claim that what they're saying is accurate. The Onion explicitly states that what they're saying is not true. You may remember some particularly insightful parodies they ran, but would forget the ones that weren't as spot-on. With news on the other hand, you're more likely to remember when the news wasn't accurate.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. The onion is very funny, and does make many important observations on the world, but they have no credibility as a news source since they never say "This is the news, this is actually happening." They have never made any -false- statements about the current events, but they haven't made any true statements about current events either. If they have any credibility as a news source for that, my 4 month old niece has even -more- credibility. She absolutely has not said anything that could be proven wrong and by that scoring system has 100% reliability.
Nevermind that scientists ripped it for being terrible science. But if it pushes the agenda you want to hear, so be it.
I hear scientists also ripped apart evolution and the link between smoking and cancer too. My own research has been subjected to withering criticism from time to time as well, you might call that "ripping it apart."
You -could- conclude that diverse interpretations exist on all data, the truth is often hard to identify, most scientific issues are complicated with plenty of room for disagreement. Maybe one should conclude that scientists say a lot of things, but that doesn't make it true. Sometimes one or a few scientists may be right and the rest wrong, sometimes not.
Wait, what the hell am I saying? It's far better and easier to insist that if a scientist said it, it must be true, even if other scientists say otherwise. Global warming isn't happening, and my research is right no matter what my committee or reviewers say! There's just a massive conspiracy among evil scientists to get rid of our beloved SUVs, our dangerous coal power, our delicious cigarettes, convince us we're apes, and deny me my PhD!
Either way, creating a movie about environmental awareness while flying everywhere on a private jet apparently gets you a prize dedicated to Peace.
Wait wait wait wait wait... you're telling me that a POLITICIAN... is... is.. is a HYPOCRITE?!?!?
[falls dead of shock]
Well, that clearly proves that whatever he was arguing for was false. What's an "ad-homenim argument"? Doesn't matter I guess.
According to this article his leg began increasing in muscle mass in a few weeks.
It sounds like he didn't have to regrow bone, it was just muscle. Perhaps if the bone was lost, it would have taken much more time.
I think the researchers and surgeons DID repair his leg for less than $7 million. "The surgery is the result of a $70 million investment by the US military into regenerative medicine research," sounds to me not like the army spent $70 million on his leg, it sounds like that was the price tag of the whole study.
Kind of like how companies spend millions developing a new drugs: they're spending the money to learn how to make it. The actual finished product has to cost far, far less in order for anyone to buy it.
I'm guessing the actual costs of repairing his leg were in the thousands of dollars range, not 70 million.
You are right though that a private company would be unlikely to invest in this type of research, at least without significant grant money from taxpayers, precisely because there is no product to sell at the end.
when the real admirable thing to do would be to put all that money and energy spent trying to reproduce those faulty genes into helping some poor child out there who would be delighted to have a family of their own.
Someone is very hasty to judge on the internet. It's entirely possible that she'd adopt too, having your own children and adopting is not mutually exclusive. She obviously has her own reasons she wanted to have a child herself, don't know why you'd boil it down to "If you want baby, adopt." And all that I've heard about adopting is that it is not an easy process. I can't imagine the process is any easier in Sweden, where the population is not booming. It is plausible that transplanting her mother's uterus is an easier method to get a kid than adopting is.
How about choosing adoption?
Story was posted at 11:25 PM, yours at 12:17 AM. So it took Slashdot at most 45 minutes to think of adoption. This woman presumably has been thinking about it longer. She's consulted with doctors, who are generally not idiots. Her mother is obviously on board, so it's safe to assume that her family is involved in this decision. So there are multiple people who are talking to her about this.
You can't possibly believe adoption had neither occurred to her, nor had it been suggested to her at some point.
She -must-- have some reason why she didn't want to adopt. Maybe you and I wouldn't agree with the reasons, but she has them.
To make matters worse, they are using medicine to spread defective DNA. Helping people that can't reproduce normally is going against evolution, and a direct attack on our genetic pool, and the future of our species.
What you're describing is only consistent with the idea of gradualism in evolution, which was discarded by most evolutionary biologists in favor of punctuated equilibrium.
Natural selection isn't really a constant force in any species throughout the history of life. It doesn't need to constantly act on a species to keep that species in shape. Evolution acts to create and destroy whole species, it doesn't act to improve species.
Talking about evolution and human genetics gets even more ridiculous in this case. As another poster pointed out, this disease isn't necessarily genetic. Even if it is, that's not going to spread to the entire human population. It would take many, many generations to do so in the first place, you'd be dust before having to worry about it. And since it would affect fertility, in order for it to become widespread, it would need to be easily correctable. And if that is the case, what's the problem?
Lastly, medical technology is improving rapidly, especially compared to the timescale that evolution operates on. We'll likely be able to manipulate our own genomes before too long. Maybe it will take several generations, which is a long time for a human, but before humans could slide back to any apreciable degree, we'll likely be making designer babies and directing our own evolution.
Heh Dr.Bob,DC is a known troller (Some even suspect it is a bot)
Bah, they only suspect that because they are paranoid because their humors are out of balance because their chi is misdirected because they have subluxations. A good vertebral adjustment and trepanation will make them realize Dr. Bob is a modern day medical messiah.
I think that this world is already overpopulated with humans as it is.
No it isn't. There aren't a lot of people dying of starvation due to scarcity of food, which is the usual way of indicating overpopulation. Seems to me that people starving these days are mostly due to neglect or problems with distribution, both of which would happen with half the population we have now.
Environmental damage is not a sign of overpopulation either, that's poor resource management and again, could and would be happening with half our population levels.
We're certainly not running out of space on Earth, so that's right out.
Seriously, what makes you say the world is overpopulated? Traffic on your commute getting worse? Warped elitism "I didn't have a kid, and it was because having a kid is an irresponsible thing to do?"
Anyway, it looks like Sweden's population is growing extremely slow, 0.9% in 2009. One more kid in the world doesn't change the situation much.
...how do I rent the controllers for Rock Band?
More importantly, how do I rent Steel Battalion and it's peripherals?!?
No, but it's a fantastic way to try-before-you-buy. I am sick to death of buying $50-$60 games only to get burned on them. I'll happily pay two bucks to see if it's worth buying my own copy.
You know there is a recent intriguing invention to help you decide before buying. I think they're called "reviews." :-P
I refuse to buy any game new that doesn't have a green rating on metacritic. If a game isn't a sequel to a game I've already played and enjoyed, I either play the demo, borrow it from a friend, or wait until I can get it for less (either used or reduced price on steam.)
More tools to make that decision are of course good, but I don't see anything wrong with the free alternatives out there.
I'm reminded of when Bobby Jindal made fun of "Volcano research" and then a few weeks later a volcano erupted.
Nearly any spending can be made to sound wasteful when you gloss over important details. The government spent $47k on nintendo Wiis? I don't know what that's about but here's two wild guesses:
1. The government funds some services for children, like orphanages, hospitals, day cares, holding facilities, and schools, and someone thought that spending $200 on a wii to pacify the kids was a good investment (compared to maybe the kids getting bored and causing damage to the facilities in vandalism, costing more.)
2. A massive conspiracy in which congressmen and women and their staff do nothing but play videogames, made in some backroom deal with Nintendo.
Probably number two now that I think about it.
At any rate, lets not be simpletons and start foaming at the mouth because a valid reason for some of these expenditures don't immediately pop out at us.
US: walmart has a $300 sale on widescreen TVs.
why is it that always republicans are behind the gravest, dastardliest shit, and they are behind less dastardly shit with a democrat close to their aisle ?
Democrats do some dastardly shit too. It depends a little on what you consider dastardly I guess. Some of my (sigh) inlaws would undoubtedly find this silly at worst, but will find the John Edwards (Democrat) affair to be the worst thing ever. Which one affects more people? The current abomination if it passes. Which one can those simpletons understand? The douche cheating on his dying wife. Which one will they complain about over christmas dinner? The democrat.
Note to self, stock up on alchohol this Christmas...
As far as why it seems republicans are always behind shit like this, that's confirmation bias. Misusing the law to benefit corporations happens on both sides of the aisle (democrats aren't sworn enemies of the RIAA or MPAA). As someone who is more sympathetic to democrats, you naturally find ways of writing it off as one bad egg, or not that bad when you hear about Democrats doing it, wheras when a republican does it, it's "Oh those fucking republicans!"
I'm a democrat, and sometimes find myself doing that too.
It's important to keep in mind, there's a clear difference between republicans and republican politicians. Republicans are nice people generally(except the ones that are going to go on and on and on about how society is going to hell because one politician cheated on his dying wife). I might find them a bit naive, and disagree with what they value more, but I know plenty of republicans, and they all are as opposed to rape as I would expect any sane person to be (wouldn't put it past one or two of my inlaws to blame the victim though).
Republican politicians though are evil, but maybe only a little bit more than democrat politicians. Their constituents might be less concerned with the rights of individuals, and might pay more attention to their politicians' personal lives. I think in many cases that makes republican politicians more likely to sell out public interests in favor of corporate interests, like the case here.
The short answer is "because 1. they're not and 2. they have different values than you."
But then replace "only in the US" with "A buncha places."
Only Score:0 Troll? Can't we go for -1? This whole article is a troll. Anybody who has ever had a mail account on a government system knows that all email is archived specifically to comply with the FOIA. It's not like some savvy whistleblower stumbled across Palin's personal emails.
The Streisand effect is working here. By delaying as long as possible, then refusing to provide the e-mails in an easy to search format, whoever was in charge of this made certain it would be a big deal.
And transparency in government, especially among (ahem) potential presidential candidates, is a big deal.
Let's try an experiment: BUSH IS EVIL! Now the lemming liberal moderators will blow a fuse trying to figure out which way to mod this.
If you're upset by the troll moderation, here's the lesson: try not typing "libtard" into your post. Maturity and all that.
I can understand govt watchdogging; we need that. But she's not even in the govt.
But she and at least a few other people would like for her to be. I'm not optimistic enough to say for sure "America would not vote Sarah Palin into the white house," so the more insurance we have that she won't get there, the better.
Yes. When he leaves office.
When forced to sign up for forums to ask a question about coding or tech troubleshooting, I generally use a pretty basic password and then lie about all of my personal info.
Bonus points for unimportant sites that don't accept mailinator.com e-mail addresses or won't let you set a weak, easy to remember password.
Because, you know, if my "I can haz cheezeburger" account gets compromised, western civilization might end.
Wouldn't that require specific knowledge of the crime?
Wait, am I applying common sense to laws?