From your response: "Extended Network" is like saying he's listed in a phone book. If you've got a MySpace page, and have friends registered, then everyone on MySpace is in your extended network. Think 6-degrees of separation.
From my original post: I do not have a MySpace account. I have not ever logged in. On this computer, I have all MySpace cookies blocked. That is, I have no network on MySpace. It is not possible that, "Barack is in my extended network".
My new commentary: Are you sure you're mentally competent to operate a computer? Perhaps you should seek help.
I do not have a MySpace account. I have not ever logged in. On this computer, I have all MySpace cookies blocked. That is, I have no network on MySpace. It is not possible that, "Barack is in my extended network".
Don't take my word for it - flush your cookies and see for yourself.
Again, the point is that I disagree with him, but I certainly don't think the issues at stake are serious enough to CELEBRATE HIS DEATH over.
Fair enough. I do. It is merely a matter on which we disagree.
I also support the death penalty. And I support it for far smaller crimes than those perpetrated by Jack. For example, I believe in the death penalty for people who commit a single murder. Even when they murderer had a pretty good reason for doing it (that came short of justifiable homicide).
Jack had some pretty good reasons (at least in his mind) for paying Congress to violate their oaths of office. But that doesn't make his actions any less treasonous.
Correction - I'm wrong. Parts 1 and 2 of the document are actually contradictory. Part 1 alone makes it sound like Sony makes an image. Part 2 alone makes it sound like the expert makes two images. Reading both parts together makes it sound like the document is flawed.
No, it said the earlier order specified that an RIAA's person was to make the image. The new order says agreed upon expert.
Verbatim, from the new court order: 1. Kimberly Arellanes ("Defendant") shall make her computer hard drive available for imaging by Plaintiffs on or before March 21, 2007 [emphasis mine]
Clearly the court order says that Sony gets to do the initial imaging.
Step 2 is, "an expert in computer forensics selected by the parties shall make two (2) verified bit-images". That's the second set of images. The initial image is done by Sony.
The provisions of the Patent Reform Act would... restrict damages that patent holders can receive for infringement lawsuits
Ahhh, I love that. So it's going to be enough for the big guys (who are all backing it) to kill upstart competition. But if the big guys think they can ship a lot of product, they can simply; ignore the little guy's patent, bury him in lawyers if they do get sued, and in the unlikely event that the little guy can withstand that onslaught, the most the big guy risks is one quarter's worth of profits. Excellent.
As a manager now, I would fire anyone who uses stored procedures. Even if it is "faster."
It is possible, and in some cases effective, to split a system's logic into presentation logic, business logic, and data access logic. If you do that, it is possible to write a good three tier system that has some of the logic in the database (I'm referring to the data access logic - for the slow folks in the crowd).
I'm not saying that every database backed system should be this way. Nor even that every database backed system will benefit from it. But there are some systems that can benefit from it. This is particularly true when the ability to migrate between RDBMSs is a very low priority (or claimed to be a non-priority), and the decoupling of the data access logic from the business logic is a very high priority.
Rules of thumb are nice. Absolute laws are the enemy of pragmatic system design.
This is a US phenomena - other countries can and do have higher rates of gun ownership and lower murder rates, the difference being that other countries also have stiffer gun control laws. But wackos seem to think its an inalienable right to own a gun, and they have an easy time getting them in the US than most other places, where if you want a gun, you can go to the corner store, or steal one from a neighbour, or buy one off a friendly gas-station attendant or barman, no questions asked "for your protection". The easy availability of guns to the general populace is a crime, not a "right".
I am strongly in favor of strict carry licensing, and I completely agree that allowing possession by those who do not know how to safely handle a firearm is a bad idea.
There was no statistically significant association between changes in concealed carry laws and state homicide rates. The finding was consistent across a variety of models.
Nice. A study in which every single finding is against guns - except one. The ability of people to get a CCW does not affect the homicide rate. This implies that properly licensed and trained gun owners are not a problem. Perhaps not in agreement with the apparent intent of my post, which was light on the details of my support for gun licensing, but in full agreement with my actual views.
I can't speak for other states, but the people who can pass a CCP exam aren't the type that will be shooting wildly.
I'll go you one better; in Arizona, the people with their CCW are a heckuva lot more likely to be hiding behind a desk on their cell phone. It's part of the training.
A few are murders for hire, and others are cold, calculating bastards, but pretty much any gun murder described as a "crime of passion" wouldn't have happened if the murderer hadn't had ready, legal access to a gun.
This is flatly incorrect. Stats show that the murderer would use a knife instead.
I would hasten to add that the people saying guns reduce crime are also wrong. Gun ownership has no statistically significant effect on violent crime rates.
Check out the top five gun owning countries (among those that keep good statistics), US, Norway, Finland, Canada, Switzerland. They're nicely distributed from the top of the chart to the bottom, in terms of homicide rate: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Sorry to those on the pro, and the anti, side of the argument. There's simply no ground for either of you in the crime rate stats. Accidental death rates are equally unimpressive. In countries where gun ownership is common, people are more familiar with firearms and have less accidents per gun - the overall casualness of the society is a much larger determining factor in the rate of accidents.
Alas, like so many serious problems with easy answers, the easy answers are bullshit. More guns won't help. Less guns won't help. Heck, would we even be having this argument if the stats were definitive in one direction or the other?
In the absence of meaningful regulation of who gets guns - which people like you have fought vehemently against - sane people like me simply don't trust being around any number of idiots with guns. If you want more of society to accept the wisdom of having armed citizens around, you'll have to convince us that there's some method of keeping them in the right hands - which clearly did NOT happen today.
Soo... the gun control regulations on V. Tech. campus didn't work.
What would work? It's tough. Can't be the government - the government is the reason the citizens are supposed to have guns. I think Arizona's system comes pretty close: One receives a concealed carry license by taking a rigorous course from a government certified, but not government operated, training facility. At the end the paperwork still goes to the state for approval, which is a somewhat weak link, I believe. However, once approved, no further records have to go to the state. IE: Once one has proven their trustworthiness to the state, that person can purchase firearms without having to notify the government. Of course, if a purchased firearm were used in a crime, there is a records trail that would lead to the training facility, where the proper authorities would subpoena the gun sale record, and it would then lead to the owner. But, of course, anyone who makes it through the course gets a deep lesson about the gravity of gun ownership - most of the people leaving the course wind up buying gun safes (I would say all, but some already have them). Those few that aren't so inclined typically fail the written test, or the proficiency test, or more likely both.
So - that seems like a pretty good system to me. And it seems to meet your criteria that idiots can't just go out and buy guns. What do you think? Will you now stand by your claim that prudent gun certification is sufficient?
There's something about American culture that makes people think a gun is a solution instead of an accident waiting to happen, and we're seeing this attitude bleed over into other countries
There is no strong correlary, either positive or negative, between gun ownership and crime rates.
Check out the murder rates in the top five gun owning countries (among those with good gun ownership stats) on this chart; Norway, Switzerland, Canada, US, Finland. They range from the bottom of the chart to the top.
I'm a big advocate of gun ownership (for reasons that are outside the scope of, and unrelated to, this thread). I would like the chart to show strong correlation between gun ownership and reduced crime - because it would make it easier to argue my case. But it doesn't. Nor does it show anti-correlary. The simple fact is that the causes of violent crime are vastly more complex than simple solutions like less guns, more jails, or a better social net. We kill a lot in the US because we're a relatively violent society - for a bunch of reasons. Not because we have access to guns.
Am I the only one that notices when an anti-republican or anti-Bush article is posted, most of the replies focus on how evil Republicans/Bush/Rove are, but when an anti-democrat article is linked, the closest thing to criticism is "both parties suck!"
What I am about to say is based on the people I know, and certainly I don't know a random sample - so take it with a grain of salt.
I would hypothesize that the reason for this is that people who tend to vote Democrat realize, for the most part, that they are picking the person that is (in their world view) the lesser of two evils. Those people who tend to vote Republican tend to vote a straight party ticket, and say things like, "it's a media conspiracy" in the same breath with, "did you see the report on Fox News? Democrats want the terrorists to win." That is, Republican supporters strike me as vastly more credulous than those who tend to support Democrats.
It may be a side effect of the religious focus of the Republican party. Religious people are taught from a very young age to accept things because they are so, to not question authority, and to perceive the world in terms of good versus evil.
So what does that have to do with your question? Well, I think that the reason you don't hear extreme criticism of Democrats as much on Slashdot (aside from the fact that this site leans a bit left) is that everyone, left and right, already knows the Democrats are evil. It is mostly the Republican party that gets carte blanche from a wide swath of the public. So when Republicans do something blatantly evil, and 35% of the country is busily explaining why it's OK, 50% of the country says, "Ferfucksake, open your eyes, they're evil."
I think you'll be hard pressed to find a comment, in this story's discussion, saying, "but it's OK because" with some very thin justification involving terrorists, children, and Jesus. But look back through the story postings about Republican misdeeds - they're littered with comments explaining why it's OK.
In case you're reading this, Apple, I'm ready to be a customer. And a moderately large one at that (I have about $5,000 worth of CDs). Unfortunately I only have Linux machines - is there a good path for me to buy from you?
The goal was to help map coverage gaps, since FCC broadband data is worthless for this purpose. Cable and phone company lobbyists have scuttled the plan, convincing state leaders the plan would bring 'competitive harm,'
hehehe. "You see, senator, perfect information is a fundamental underpinning of efficient capitalism. That is because perfect information supports perfect competition. That perfect competition, while great for the consumer, would harm us. That is, it would bring competitive harm, to us, the people who buy you boats."
I don't really know that anybody's proven that a random collection of people doing their own thing actually creates value.
Mr. Ballmer went on complain that, in general, competition for good programmers has become an issue.
Hunh. So what you're saying is that you don't respect the ability of information scientists to create wealth, and you're having a hard time getting them to come and work for you. Imagine that. What a baffling problem. I don't think Adam Smith and Dale Carnegie combined could find a solution to that conundrum.
How shall I put this? I know, "Less QQ, More PewPew."
Don't torpedo the whole company just because the former CEO bungled a bad deal with a flawed political agenda. It'll eventually work out in the wash, then you can cast aspersions on a new company TBA.
So... let me get this straight. The executives can't be held accountable because of the limited liability that incorporation provides. Shareholders obviously can't be held accountable. Now the company can't be held accountable either?
Ferfucksake. I'm sick and tired of hearing, "You can't blame the executives, they're just acting in the best interest of the stockholders. You can't blame the corporation, it's just doing what the market demands." Bullshit. It is Diebold's fault, and it is O'Dells fault. If the company files chapter eleven tomorrow, that would be the just deserts for letting a jackass run the company. If your family all loses their jobs, it is their fault for not walking out of the company five years ago when it started selling out our democracy. Sometimes you have to take a stand. Sometimes that stand is painful. But we can't continue to let those who do evil get away with it.
I'm a 37 year old software engineer. About 3 years ago I decided I wanted to learn about electronics. I started with one of these. It was nice, and had some very nice example projects - both analog and digital. It also came with a nice supply of op-amps, transistors, resistors, capacitors, and other goodies.
The only complaint I might proffer is that I very quickly outgrew the relatively small breadboard and graduated to something like this. I was infinitely more pleased with the layout. If you enjoy it, a breadboard and a small arsenal of nicely varied resistors, transistors, caps, diodes, and other bits will be an excellent choice. If you start getting them in any significant quantity, look online. Radio Shack is nice and convenient, but does charge a bit of a markup.
Also, if you want to really blow your mind, pick up a copy of The Art of Electronics by Horowitz and Hill. It was recommended by a coworker who is an MSEE, is mind-bogglingly good, and is used in lots of college courses.
Completely agreed. I'm delighted when someone finds a bug in my code. The bug was there whether the reporter finds it or not. The reporting of it is the good part. Shoot the messenger? Hell no, thank him.
What are YOU doing to prepare the Avian Flu vaccine? Thought so.
Paying taxes that go to USAMRIID and WHO?
Preventing the spread of communicable diseases is one of the textbook cases of a "positive externality" (literally - look in any econ textbook that covers externalities). It is one of the very few things that is supposed to be paid for through taxation in a well formed capitalist society.
authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Ummm, that authority was given to FISA years ago. The question should not be whether they now will be allowed to do their job, but if those who broke the law in circumventing it will be held accountable.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhh, now that's good info. Thank you!
From your response:
"Extended Network" is like saying he's listed in a phone book. If you've got a MySpace page, and have friends registered, then everyone on MySpace is in your extended network. Think 6-degrees of separation.
From my original post:
I do not have a MySpace account. I have not ever logged in. On this computer, I have all MySpace cookies blocked. That is, I have no network on MySpace. It is not possible that, "Barack is in my extended network".
My new commentary:
Are you sure you're mentally competent to operate a computer? Perhaps you should seek help.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the profile - I don't know enough of the full story yet.
The following, however, does seem a little wrong:
http://traxel.com/tmp/obama-myspace-2.png
I do not have a MySpace account. I have not ever logged in. On this computer, I have all MySpace cookies blocked. That is, I have no network on MySpace. It is not possible that, "Barack is in my extended network".
Don't take my word for it - flush your cookies and see for yourself.
Again, the point is that I disagree with him, but I certainly don't think the issues at stake are serious enough to CELEBRATE HIS DEATH over.
Fair enough. I do. It is merely a matter on which we disagree.
I also support the death penalty. And I support it for far smaller crimes than those perpetrated by Jack. For example, I believe in the death penalty for people who commit a single murder. Even when they murderer had a pretty good reason for doing it (that came short of justifiable homicide).
Jack had some pretty good reasons (at least in his mind) for paying Congress to violate their oaths of office. But that doesn't make his actions any less treasonous.
Awww - I was out of town this past weekend, so noone's going to see my extraordinarily witty comment. No matter. The tree must fall anyway. To wit:
So Diebold's machines weren't working as Diebold intended in 2006? That explains how the Democrats won both houses of Congress.
Eben, you have made the world a better place. Thank you for all your hard work, and I wish you the very best in all your endeavors.
Correction - I'm wrong. Parts 1 and 2 of the document are actually contradictory. Part 1 alone makes it sound like Sony makes an image. Part 2 alone makes it sound like the expert makes two images. Reading both parts together makes it sound like the document is flawed.
No, it said the earlier order specified that an RIAA's person was to make the image. The new order says agreed upon expert.
Verbatim, from the new court order:
1. Kimberly Arellanes ("Defendant") shall make her computer hard drive available for imaging by Plaintiffs on or before March 21, 2007 [emphasis mine]
Clearly the court order says that Sony gets to do the initial imaging.
Step 2 is, "an expert in computer forensics selected by the parties shall make two (2) verified bit-images". That's the second set of images. The initial image is done by Sony.
The provisions of the Patent Reform Act would... restrict damages that patent holders can receive for infringement lawsuits
Ahhh, I love that. So it's going to be enough for the big guys (who are all backing it) to kill upstart competition. But if the big guys think they can ship a lot of product, they can simply; ignore the little guy's patent, bury him in lawyers if they do get sued, and in the unlikely event that the little guy can withstand that onslaught, the most the big guy risks is one quarter's worth of profits. Excellent.
As a manager now, I would fire anyone who uses stored procedures. Even if it is "faster."
It is possible, and in some cases effective, to split a system's logic into presentation logic, business logic, and data access logic. If you do that, it is possible to write a good three tier system that has some of the logic in the database (I'm referring to the data access logic - for the slow folks in the crowd).
I'm not saying that every database backed system should be this way. Nor even that every database backed system will benefit from it. But there are some systems that can benefit from it. This is particularly true when the ability to migrate between RDBMSs is a very low priority (or claimed to be a non-priority), and the decoupling of the data access logic from the business logic is a very high priority.
Rules of thumb are nice. Absolute laws are the enemy of pragmatic system design.
This is a US phenomena - other countries can and do have higher rates of gun ownership and lower murder rates, the difference being that other countries also have stiffer gun control laws. But wackos seem to think its an inalienable right to own a gun, and they have an easy time getting them in the US than most other places, where if you want a gun, you can go to the corner store, or steal one from a neighbour, or buy one off a friendly gas-station attendant or barman, no questions asked "for your protection". The easy availability of guns to the general populace is a crime, not a "right".
7 61931
I am strongly in favor of strict carry licensing, and I completely agree that allowing possession by those who do not know how to safely handle a firearm is a bad idea.
There was no statistically significant association between changes in concealed carry laws and state homicide rates. The finding was consistent across a variety of models.
Nice. A study in which every single finding is against guns - except one. The ability of people to get a CCW does not affect the homicide rate. This implies that properly licensed and trained gun owners are not a problem. Perhaps not in agreement with the apparent intent of my post, which was light on the details of my support for gun licensing, but in full agreement with my actual views.
Here's a post I made earlier that goes into a bit more detail on a model that I believe works well:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231053&cid=18
I can't speak for other states, but the people who can pass a CCP exam aren't the type that will be shooting wildly.
I'll go you one better; in Arizona, the people with their CCW are a heckuva lot more likely to be hiding behind a desk on their cell phone. It's part of the training.
A few are murders for hire, and others are cold, calculating bastards, but pretty much any gun murder described as a "crime of passion" wouldn't have happened if the murderer hadn't had ready, legal access to a gun.
This is flatly incorrect. Stats show that the murderer would use a knife instead.
I would hasten to add that the people saying guns reduce crime are also wrong. Gun ownership has no statistically significant effect on violent crime rates.
Check out the top five gun owning countries (among those that keep good statistics), US, Norway, Finland, Canada, Switzerland. They're nicely distributed from the top of the chart to the bottom, in terms of homicide rate:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Sorry to those on the pro, and the anti, side of the argument. There's simply no ground for either of you in the crime rate stats. Accidental death rates are equally unimpressive. In countries where gun ownership is common, people are more familiar with firearms and have less accidents per gun - the overall casualness of the society is a much larger determining factor in the rate of accidents.
Alas, like so many serious problems with easy answers, the easy answers are bullshit. More guns won't help. Less guns won't help. Heck, would we even be having this argument if the stats were definitive in one direction or the other?
In the absence of meaningful regulation of who gets guns - which people like you have fought vehemently against - sane people like me simply don't trust being around any number of idiots with guns. If you want more of society to accept the wisdom of having armed citizens around, you'll have to convince us that there's some method of keeping them in the right hands - which clearly did NOT happen today.
Soo... the gun control regulations on V. Tech. campus didn't work.
What would work? It's tough. Can't be the government - the government is the reason the citizens are supposed to have guns. I think Arizona's system comes pretty close: One receives a concealed carry license by taking a rigorous course from a government certified, but not government operated, training facility. At the end the paperwork still goes to the state for approval, which is a somewhat weak link, I believe. However, once approved, no further records have to go to the state. IE: Once one has proven their trustworthiness to the state, that person can purchase firearms without having to notify the government. Of course, if a purchased firearm were used in a crime, there is a records trail that would lead to the training facility, where the proper authorities would subpoena the gun sale record, and it would then lead to the owner. But, of course, anyone who makes it through the course gets a deep lesson about the gravity of gun ownership - most of the people leaving the course wind up buying gun safes (I would say all, but some already have them). Those few that aren't so inclined typically fail the written test, or the proficiency test, or more likely both.
So - that seems like a pretty good system to me. And it seems to meet your criteria that idiots can't just go out and buy guns. What do you think? Will you now stand by your claim that prudent gun certification is sufficient?
There's something about American culture that makes people think a gun is a solution instead of an accident waiting to happen, and we're seeing this attitude bleed over into other countries
There is no strong correlary, either positive or negative, between gun ownership and crime rates.
Check out the murder rates in the top five gun owning countries (among those with good gun ownership stats) on this chart; Norway, Switzerland, Canada, US, Finland. They range from the bottom of the chart to the top.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
I'm a big advocate of gun ownership (for reasons that are outside the scope of, and unrelated to, this thread). I would like the chart to show strong correlation between gun ownership and reduced crime - because it would make it easier to argue my case. But it doesn't. Nor does it show anti-correlary. The simple fact is that the causes of violent crime are vastly more complex than simple solutions like less guns, more jails, or a better social net. We kill a lot in the US because we're a relatively violent society - for a bunch of reasons. Not because we have access to guns.
Am I the only one that notices when an anti-republican or anti-Bush article is posted, most of the replies focus on how evil Republicans/Bush/Rove are, but when an anti-democrat article is linked, the closest thing to criticism is "both parties suck!"
What I am about to say is based on the people I know, and certainly I don't know a random sample - so take it with a grain of salt.
I would hypothesize that the reason for this is that people who tend to vote Democrat realize, for the most part, that they are picking the person that is (in their world view) the lesser of two evils. Those people who tend to vote Republican tend to vote a straight party ticket, and say things like, "it's a media conspiracy" in the same breath with, "did you see the report on Fox News? Democrats want the terrorists to win." That is, Republican supporters strike me as vastly more credulous than those who tend to support Democrats.
It may be a side effect of the religious focus of the Republican party. Religious people are taught from a very young age to accept things because they are so, to not question authority, and to perceive the world in terms of good versus evil.
So what does that have to do with your question? Well, I think that the reason you don't hear extreme criticism of Democrats as much on Slashdot (aside from the fact that this site leans a bit left) is that everyone, left and right, already knows the Democrats are evil. It is mostly the Republican party that gets carte blanche from a wide swath of the public. So when Republicans do something blatantly evil, and 35% of the country is busily explaining why it's OK, 50% of the country says, "Ferfucksake, open your eyes, they're evil."
I think you'll be hard pressed to find a comment, in this story's discussion, saying, "but it's OK because" with some very thin justification involving terrorists, children, and Jesus. But look back through the story postings about Republican misdeeds - they're littered with comments explaining why it's OK.
JM2C, and just based on my experience.
In case you're reading this, Apple, I'm ready to be a customer. And a moderately large one at that (I have about $5,000 worth of CDs). Unfortunately I only have Linux machines - is there a good path for me to buy from you?
The goal was to help map coverage gaps, since FCC broadband data is worthless for this purpose. Cable and phone company lobbyists have scuttled the plan, convincing state leaders the plan would bring 'competitive harm,'
hehehe. "You see, senator, perfect information is a fundamental underpinning of efficient capitalism. That is because perfect information supports perfect competition. That perfect competition, while great for the consumer, would harm us. That is, it would bring competitive harm, to us, the people who buy you boats."
I don't really know that anybody's proven that a random collection of people doing their own thing actually creates value.
Mr. Ballmer went on complain that, in general, competition for good programmers has become an issue.
Hunh. So what you're saying is that you don't respect the ability of information scientists to create wealth, and you're having a hard time getting them to come and work for you. Imagine that. What a baffling problem. I don't think Adam Smith and Dale Carnegie combined could find a solution to that conundrum.
How shall I put this? I know, "Less QQ, More PewPew."
Don't torpedo the whole company just because the former CEO bungled a bad deal with a flawed political agenda. It'll eventually work out in the wash, then you can cast aspersions on a new company TBA.
So... let me get this straight. The executives can't be held accountable because of the limited liability that incorporation provides. Shareholders obviously can't be held accountable. Now the company can't be held accountable either?
Ferfucksake. I'm sick and tired of hearing, "You can't blame the executives, they're just acting in the best interest of the stockholders. You can't blame the corporation, it's just doing what the market demands." Bullshit. It is Diebold's fault, and it is O'Dells fault. If the company files chapter eleven tomorrow, that would be the just deserts for letting a jackass run the company. If your family all loses their jobs, it is their fault for not walking out of the company five years ago when it started selling out our democracy. Sometimes you have to take a stand. Sometimes that stand is painful. But we can't continue to let those who do evil get away with it.
I'm a 37 year old software engineer. About 3 years ago I decided I wanted to learn about electronics. I started with one of these. It was nice, and had some very nice example projects - both analog and digital. It also came with a nice supply of op-amps, transistors, resistors, capacitors, and other goodies.
The only complaint I might proffer is that I very quickly outgrew the relatively small breadboard and graduated to something like this. I was infinitely more pleased with the layout. If you enjoy it, a breadboard and a small arsenal of nicely varied resistors, transistors, caps, diodes, and other bits will be an excellent choice. If you start getting them in any significant quantity, look online. Radio Shack is nice and convenient, but does charge a bit of a markup.
Also, if you want to really blow your mind, pick up a copy of The Art of Electronics by Horowitz and Hill. It was recommended by a coworker who is an MSEE, is mind-bogglingly good, and is used in lots of college courses.
Completely agreed. I'm delighted when someone finds a bug in my code. The bug was there whether the reporter finds it or not. The reporting of it is the good part. Shoot the messenger? Hell no, thank him.
What are YOU doing to prepare the Avian Flu vaccine? Thought so.
Paying taxes that go to USAMRIID and WHO?
Preventing the spread of communicable diseases is one of the textbook cases of a "positive externality" (literally - look in any econ textbook that covers externalities). It is one of the very few things that is supposed to be paid for through taxation in a well formed capitalist society.
authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Ummm, that authority was given to FISA years ago. The question should not be whether they now will be allowed to do their job, but if those who broke the law in circumventing it will be held accountable.
And, no radio station in the world would get away with having contestants drink alcohol in a similar fashion, waivers and warnings or not.
1 dead, 5 in intensive care, from a vodka drinking contest in Russia, 2003.