So what happened to... not infringing on God's right to judge who goes to hell and who doesn't... or for that matter, "thou shalt not kill"?
Optimistic answer: It's still there for the church side of the church/state separation. The state, on the other hand, specified it was -citizens- who should not do the killing in most cases.
Notice how there aren't too many House Democrats doing town halls [cbsnews.com] this summer? Why face our Consistency and justify our agenda when it's much easier to hide behind the Congressional leadership?
They say that the townhalls were taken over by people screaming at them, not giving them a chance to respond, justify, or even interact with the protesters. The videos that I saw seemed to back them up. I expect elected officials to answer to the voters, I don't expect them to waste their time being screamed at by people who quite clearly are there just to prevent any discussion.
That goes for both sides of the political spectrum. Whether its a republican or democrat politician talking, doing shit like that should get you tased.
Buffet style insurance is a huge part of the problem. People don't see the costs of their health care, and they're accustomed to getting as much as they want (not need) for a set amount of money, much of which is paid "magically", "somehow" by their employer.
While that would -sound- like a convincing idea, I see no evidence of that being the case. From personal experience, I don't decide to schedule myself, fill out the forms, disrupt my schedule, and then take the MRI for my sore throat, and I wouldn't even if it were absolutely free, no questions asked. A buffet of food, yeah, I'll take extra because I like eating food. Extra medical procedures? Who wants more of those? Are you telling me that people pointlessly waste other's money and their own time, and that's really a significant contributor to the problem? Because I'd like to see a citation for that.
I'd believe with your idea, there would be fewer of them, but if we're only talking about 1% of the problem, then let's not bother.
It is a sad state of our societies that child pornography can be invoked to justify absurd and highly unethical changes that would infringe of fundamental rights.
Plus it's stupid politics. Had he said "We need to eliminate anonymity on the internet so... uh... you can find who you want on facebook and twitter and invite them to your farmville," everyone who was saying it was a bad idea would be drowned out in a sea of twitter posts and escaped cows.
Scientists and doctors are often trained not to overstate conclusions, since things are never certain. Which is partially why creationists can say "It's just a theory" and rather than just say "You're wrong and an idiot" scientists usually start explaining how they're mostly wrong, and by the third paragraph, anyone undecided lost interest and decided evolution was just a theory.
In this case, you could hypothesize that she may have been the first known victim of an extremely rare disease, independant from the lupus, that would have killed her with growths on her kidney even without the injections. Sure, that's unlikely, occam's razor comes to mind, but it would be overstating it to say it is 100% certain to be the cause. You might be able to do a test that would make it more certain, but why waste the time, it's certain enough not to suggest not doing what these "doctors" did.
I stopped reading the article when I read "Dr. Wurman said that amateur storm chasers rarely offer useful information"
So then you missed the part after that where he mentions that the amateurs typically haven't calibrated their instruments correctly AKA a pretty good reason to "discount the information provided by amateurs"?
If they are worried about the numbers of amateur storm chasers maybe they should have a conference with them and train them in proper data collection and where to report it. Then the people they think are "getting in the way" could be helpful and add to the body of scientific knowledge.
These people were unwilling to move their cars to let them by. Doubt they're going to show up to a lecture on "how to pull your car off the road." Besides: that's not their job.
Besides, you can't just declare martial law and saw "No one can storm chase". There's no solution that will ever be enacted that ends with making it illegal, so you may as well stop bitching about it and simply work with the other guys.
You could also complain about it WITHOUT trying to make it illegal, you know, appeal to the senses of those who are doing the thing you don't like without involving the legal system. Sorta like how rational people deal with their problems.
Oh, hey, lookit that, right in the article, it's clear that's exactly what they were doing, NOT trying to get it illegal. They don't even appear to be suing! Wow!
DON'T SAY WOOSH! That might be a mating call for tornadoes, attracting more of them, maybe. We can't be sure, because everytime we try to test that hypothesis, storm chasers prevent us from learning anything.
I'm amazed we haven't had a fail of epic proportions yet where a storm changes directions and sucks up a bunch of them.
That did happen, saw it in the documentary "Twister."
Come to think of it, it's a little odd that the cinematography from inside the car as it's being destroyed is so great. You'd think the cameraman would be afraid for his own life, or the camera would cut out or something. Another eye opener is that some B list celebrities conduct research on tornadoes. Weird...
Since when did "Scientists" gain possession of the roads?
No implication of possession was made, the scientists were simply saying it was rude and dangerous. Which, it sounds like it is to park across the highway in the middle of a tornado!
Not sure when the assumption on slashdot became "If you say something -should- be this way, you're trying to pass a law enforcing it."
In before the right wingers start ranting about how net neutrality violates the principles of the free market.
It will be some people who could be called "right wing" that will champion the rights of telecos, but I think it would be more accurate to call them "industry shills." Were it a republican administration taking these actions, some people who could be called "left wingers" would crop up against it, but again it would be more accurate to call those "industry shills."
And funny enough when you dig into the root of the consequences of letting corporations run wild, you'll find usually the problems start with the government. Think the housing crash was cus of greedy corporations? well it's true some gambled, but there was good old federal reserve to print money, and there was good old barney frank & company making banks take on mortgages they otherwise wouldn't. And then what do our wonderful politicians do? bail them all out.
Not that it's always the government's fault, there's certainly plenty of blame for private companies, but the worse disasters are usually rooted in government.
The two are often correlated, just as blood vessels and high-grade tumors are correlated. It would be a mistake to conclude though that blood vessels are the -cause- of the worst tumors and thus blood vessels are a bad thing.
In the case of tumors, the real problems start when a low grade tumor learns how to get the body to grow blood vessels to it, feeding it. In the case of the worst businesses gone wild, yes, there are often government programs, subsidies, laws, etc that are helping to feed it, but cause and effect can be more tricky, some corrupt businesses use their power to bend government to feed their interests. Other unfortunate collaborations between business interests and government may have started out on the other end, with corrupt individuals in the government seeing an opportunity.
I am convinced though that government regulations do not make dishonest business people from honest business people, and furthermore government regulations are quite often needed to keep business interests in check, just as I am convinced that blood vessels do not make tumors out of healthy tissue and are needed for life.
The ruling was for devices provided by the government, did you expect anything less?
To their credit, enforcement of government regulations seems pretty hit and miss. The guy was on SWAT, so he may have been expecting this to go the way of so many investigations into police misconduct. And there may have been some revenge motives behind this rather than sound legal reasoning: he sued the city after "...transcripts showed that Quon had been exchanging sexually explicit messages with his wife, his girlfriend and another SWAT team member."
I'm guessing all three may have found out and been mad at him, and rather than accept the consequences of his philandering, he chose to blame the investigation.
Meanwhile, on the "big boy stage", both of the other big 3 are busy trying to desperately imitate the "gimmick" of motion control that they spent the past few years mocking Nintendo for doing. Meanwhile, Nintendo's perfecting it.
While I think, yes, to a large degree, kinetic and move are trying to cash in on the same thing that's propelling the wii, and move is clearly a blatant ripoff, I don't think Nintendo's really "perfecting it". I haven't seen any games that really use the motion controls for much. It's been 4 years, and still the best games on the system only use it for "shake the controller and that will do something that we could have put as a button push if we had more buttons to work with." Move is said to be more sensitive than the wii, so maybe they'll be able to do something better than just waggle, but I'm not holding my breath, developers just aren't doing much with it.
Kinetic on the other hand, I think that sounds less like an actual gaming device and more of a larval form of something bigger. It sounds like it has too much lag for being useful for games, but if it's a precursor to a "minority report" input system, that could pay off for MS. Voice activated controls seem interesting too.
Slashdot Mirror
"Mod Up" != "I agree"
Yes! Totally! I wish I had mod points today for you!
@99redballoons: What's that? Nukes inbound? Defcon1 ordered, launch!
What if you had a wedding, and the bridal march was done by some guys farting
Hypothetically, how good are the fart-musicians? Like, completely on key, with good timing? And tell me about ventilation of the site.
So what happened to... not infringing on God's right to judge who goes to hell and who doesn't... or for that matter, "thou shalt not kill"?
Optimistic answer: It's still there for the church side of the church/state separation. The state, on the other hand, specified it was -citizens- who should not do the killing in most cases.
Pessimistic answer: It didn't poll too well.
Notice how there aren't too many House Democrats doing town halls [cbsnews.com] this summer? Why face our Consistency and justify our agenda when it's much easier to hide behind the Congressional leadership?
They say that the townhalls were taken over by people screaming at them, not giving them a chance to respond, justify, or even interact with the protesters. The videos that I saw seemed to back them up. I expect elected officials to answer to the voters, I don't expect them to waste their time being screamed at by people who quite clearly are there just to prevent any discussion.
That goes for both sides of the political spectrum. Whether its a republican or democrat politician talking, doing shit like that should get you tased.
Buffet style insurance is a huge part of the problem. People don't see the costs of their health care, and they're accustomed to getting as much as they want (not need) for a set amount of money, much of which is paid "magically", "somehow" by their employer.
While that would -sound- like a convincing idea, I see no evidence of that being the case. From personal experience, I don't decide to schedule myself, fill out the forms, disrupt my schedule, and then take the MRI for my sore throat, and I wouldn't even if it were absolutely free, no questions asked. A buffet of food, yeah, I'll take extra because I like eating food. Extra medical procedures? Who wants more of those? Are you telling me that people pointlessly waste other's money and their own time, and that's really a significant contributor to the problem? Because I'd like to see a citation for that.
I'd believe with your idea, there would be fewer of them, but if we're only talking about 1% of the problem, then let's not bother.
It is a sad state of our societies that child pornography can be invoked to justify absurd and highly unethical changes that would infringe of fundamental rights.
Plus it's stupid politics. Had he said "We need to eliminate anonymity on the internet so... uh... you can find who you want on facebook and twitter and invite them to your farmville," everyone who was saying it was a bad idea would be drowned out in a sea of twitter posts and escaped cows.
Extra not in there...
Scientists and doctors are often trained not to overstate conclusions, since things are never certain. Which is partially why creationists can say "It's just a theory" and rather than just say "You're wrong and an idiot" scientists usually start explaining how they're mostly wrong, and by the third paragraph, anyone undecided lost interest and decided evolution was just a theory.
In this case, you could hypothesize that she may have been the first known victim of an extremely rare disease, independant from the lupus, that would have killed her with growths on her kidney even without the injections. Sure, that's unlikely, occam's razor comes to mind, but it would be overstating it to say it is 100% certain to be the cause. You might be able to do a test that would make it more certain, but why waste the time, it's certain enough not to suggest not doing what these "doctors" did.
Why do you think he missed that?
Because he said he stopped reading at a part that was before that.
Are you going to claim that only PhDs can properly calibrate instruments?
The PhD quoted who had actually seen the data from the amateur storm chasers indicated that they -did not- calibrate the equipment.
It's not a matter of "can they do it" it's a matter of "did they do it" and the answer seems to be no.
I stopped reading the article when I read "Dr. Wurman said that amateur storm chasers rarely offer useful information"
So then you missed the part after that where he mentions that the amateurs typically haven't calibrated their instruments correctly AKA a pretty good reason to "discount the information provided by amateurs"?
If they are worried about the numbers of amateur storm chasers maybe they should have a conference with them and train them in proper data collection and where to report it. Then the people they think are "getting in the way" could be helpful and add to the body of scientific knowledge.
These people were unwilling to move their cars to let them by. Doubt they're going to show up to a lecture on "how to pull your car off the road." Besides: that's not their job.
Besides, you can't just declare martial law and saw "No one can storm chase". There's no solution that will ever be enacted that ends with making it illegal, so you may as well stop bitching about it and simply work with the other guys.
You could also complain about it WITHOUT trying to make it illegal, you know, appeal to the senses of those who are doing the thing you don't like without involving the legal system. Sorta like how rational people deal with their problems.
Oh, hey, lookit that, right in the article, it's clear that's exactly what they were doing, NOT trying to get it illegal. They don't even appear to be suing! Wow!
Darwin will clean up this mess soon enough. These people will NOT be passing their curiosity onto their children.
That's not really how evolution usually works, read up on punctuated equilibrium.
All I can say is, "WHOOOSH!"
DON'T SAY WOOSH! That might be a mating call for tornadoes, attracting more of them, maybe. We can't be sure, because everytime we try to test that hypothesis, storm chasers prevent us from learning anything.
Even if you made it illegal to chase storms without a storm chasing permit
or some other silly government drama ppl would still do it.
Maybe that's why NONE OF THE SCIENTISTS WERE TALKING ABOUT MAKING IT ILLEGAL.
Plus, now the next tornado is going to be slashdotted.
My head is spinning at all these puns. It's like slashdot is some kind of internet vortex of bad humor.
I'm amazed we haven't had a fail of epic proportions yet where a storm changes directions and sucks up a bunch of them.
That did happen, saw it in the documentary "Twister."
Come to think of it, it's a little odd that the cinematography from inside the car as it's being destroyed is so great. You'd think the cameraman would be afraid for his own life, or the camera would cut out or something. Another eye opener is that some B list celebrities conduct research on tornadoes. Weird...
Since when did "Scientists" gain possession of the roads?
No implication of possession was made, the scientists were simply saying it was rude and dangerous. Which, it sounds like it is to park across the highway in the middle of a tornado!
Not sure when the assumption on slashdot became "If you say something -should- be this way, you're trying to pass a law enforcing it."
In before the right wingers start ranting about how net neutrality violates the principles of the free market.
It will be some people who could be called "right wing" that will champion the rights of telecos, but I think it would be more accurate to call them "industry shills." Were it a republican administration taking these actions, some people who could be called "left wingers" would crop up against it, but again it would be more accurate to call those "industry shills."
And funny enough when you dig into the root of the consequences of letting corporations run wild, you'll find usually the problems start with the government. Think the housing crash was cus of greedy corporations? well it's true some gambled, but there was good old federal reserve to print money, and there was good old barney frank & company making banks take on mortgages they otherwise wouldn't. And then what do our wonderful politicians do? bail them all out.
Not that it's always the government's fault, there's certainly plenty of blame for private companies, but the worse disasters are usually rooted in government.
The two are often correlated, just as blood vessels and high-grade tumors are correlated. It would be a mistake to conclude though that blood vessels are the -cause- of the worst tumors and thus blood vessels are a bad thing.
In the case of tumors, the real problems start when a low grade tumor learns how to get the body to grow blood vessels to it, feeding it. In the case of the worst businesses gone wild, yes, there are often government programs, subsidies, laws, etc that are helping to feed it, but cause and effect can be more tricky, some corrupt businesses use their power to bend government to feed their interests. Other unfortunate collaborations between business interests and government may have started out on the other end, with corrupt individuals in the government seeing an opportunity.
I am convinced though that government regulations do not make dishonest business people from honest business people, and furthermore government regulations are quite often needed to keep business interests in check, just as I am convinced that blood vessels do not make tumors out of healthy tissue and are needed for life.
The ruling was for devices provided by the government, did you expect anything less?
To their credit, enforcement of government regulations seems pretty hit and miss. The guy was on SWAT, so he may have been expecting this to go the way of so many investigations into police misconduct. And there may have been some revenge motives behind this rather than sound legal reasoning: he sued the city after "...transcripts showed that Quon had been exchanging sexually explicit messages with his wife, his girlfriend and another SWAT team member."
I'm guessing all three may have found out and been mad at him, and rather than accept the consequences of his philandering, he chose to blame the investigation.
Have to also say that an immature person is preferable to the MPAA and RIAA trying to take over the world.
Meanwhile, on the "big boy stage", both of the other big 3 are busy trying to desperately imitate the "gimmick" of motion control that they spent the past few years mocking Nintendo for doing. Meanwhile, Nintendo's perfecting it.
While I think, yes, to a large degree, kinetic and move are trying to cash in on the same thing that's propelling the wii, and move is clearly a blatant ripoff, I don't think Nintendo's really "perfecting it". I haven't seen any games that really use the motion controls for much. It's been 4 years, and still the best games on the system only use it for "shake the controller and that will do something that we could have put as a button push if we had more buttons to work with." Move is said to be more sensitive than the wii, so maybe they'll be able to do something better than just waggle, but I'm not holding my breath, developers just aren't doing much with it.
Kinetic on the other hand, I think that sounds less like an actual gaming device and more of a larval form of something bigger. It sounds like it has too much lag for being useful for games, but if it's a precursor to a "minority report" input system, that could pay off for MS. Voice activated controls seem interesting too.
Do they really think that people want to carry a separate portable gaming device, media player, and pda or smart phone in this day and age?
Yes, and you would to if you looked at the games currently available for phones.