What about people born with XX Male Syndrome(physically male with XX), Swyer syndrome(physically female with XY), or 46,XX DSD(physically male with XX)?
Could be a desire not to endanger people Manning may have worked with or contacted within Wikileaks or even within the military. And of course, from the summary: "Manning has said she objects to the secrecy of the grand jury process, and that she already revealed everything she knows at her court martial."
It's the same thing as the McRib. Just sayin'. No reason we can't have the McRib all year. NO REASON!
Let's be honest. No one really likes the McRib. The only reason people go crazy for it is because it only comes out every couple years. If it was out year round it would be the Nickelback of sandwiches.
Almost all of the upvoted questions seem to be canned questions. One, maybe 2 sentences with no replies. In most Slashdot Q&As(including this one if you look at the questions posted by logged in users) the truly insightful questions tend to generate multiple child/grandchild responses and tend to be more in depth or detailed.
Research the Act of 1871. The UNITED STATES (all caps, no "of America") is a federal municipal corporation that own D.C. and is the defacto government.
/Facepalm
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 served only to incorporate (ie. bring together) the cities of Washington and Georgetown, as well as the surrounding areas, into a single entity-the District of Columbia-for local governmental purposes. It had and has no bearing outside of DC, nor did it create a corporation governing all of the territorial US. There is not a second Constitution. Next you're going to say that because flags in courts have gold fringe it makes them maritime courts and invalidates their authority.
How does this prove "the patriarchy"? Doesn't it really prove that media organizations don't practice what they preach?
In a story about women's increasing presence in technology they cut all the interviews with women in favor for an interview with a man. It's like doing a documentary about wineries and having as your main interview the CEO of Coors.
The "cure" involves full-body irradiation to destroy the immune system, and then a bone-marrow transplant from someone that's HIV resistant. In general, these cures have been a side-effect of someone battling pretty serious cancer.
If it turns out there is pretty good evidence that this treatment works, it may lead to funding for research into less invasive but equally effective treatments.
There should always be a human behind the gun. I don't mean "in the loop", I mean an actual person flying the jet, carrying the rifle, firing the artillery, etc. War should be expensive, not in terms of money (which it already is), but in lives. It needs to have a political cost. Because otherwise, it makes going to war too easy of a choice. People are already used to the government wasting billions of dollars, so a war of just machines(on their side) won't phase them. Without flow of dead and injured coming home, the government will turn to endless conflict with undefined scopes or objectives. Having people on the ground and at risk of injury or death works to remind both the government and voters at home that war has real consequences and helps insure that any aggressive action is limited in scope with defined objectives, with a plan in place to win as quickly as possible with as little damage as possible.
To quote Robert E Lee:"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." Remove the people, the soldiers, from war, and you remove the very thing that makes it terrible.
I have, and also own 4 handguns, a shotgun, and 2 rifles. In literally the 1st 3 words of the Amendment are the words "well regulated".
That's not what "well regulated" meant in 1791.... but we'll also be hypocrites and use the modern day meaning of "arms".
Well, in 1791 that meant everyone would show up with their own guns at the town square every couple weeks and go through military drills, which revolves back to my argument that regular firearm training should be a mandatory component of firearm ownership.
The follow up to this is that countries (still today) that lack clean water, clean food and clean living conditions still get diseases that vaccines supposedly cure.
This'll really blow your mind. States (or areas/populations within states) that lack access to clean water, food, and living conditions also lack the medical infrastructure necessary to enact state-wide vaccination programs. Shocking, I know.
I have, and also own 4 handguns, a shotgun, and 2 rifles. In literally the 1st 3 words of the Amendment are the words "well regulated". There are multiple common sense and reasonable controls that could be put on firearm ownership without infringing on the ability to own firearms, as I have laid out in Slashdot numerous times. Mandatory initial and recurring training provided by local governments (funded by a nominal tax on ammunition and of course the NRA-surely they of all people gladly would support training firearm owners in proper firearm storage, handling, operation, and relevant laws, yes?) would be a great start. More rigorous reporting and administration of background checks. And in an important but tangential action, substantive improvements to mental health treatment in the US.
DNC doesn't have a right to fight a border wall.
When 49,000 US citizens are violently attacked by illegals every year, a wall is common sense, sanctuary cities need to be punished for protecting criminals.
In 2013 there were 73,505 firearm related injuries and 33,636 deaths. GOP doesn't have a right to fight gun control. When 107,000 US citizens are violently attacked with firearms every year, gun control is common sense.
this doesn't change the fact that one very effective and inexpensive (tax-wise) solution to crime is to just drive out the poor.
That's not a solution as it doesn't solve crime, it merely transports it (and most likely you will have increased net crime at the new location as compared to the original location due to lack of contacts/support/job prospects/housing/etc for the displaced).
Traditional, long time used vaccines have a proven track record. However, to suggest vaccines are 100% safe isn't honest. For as misguided as many anti-vaxxors are, they're not completely wrong. There are real, documented safety issues with some vaccines.
If vaccines are so safe, then why are vaccine manufactures NOT liable.
Because the government, while acknowledging that vaccines are not 100% safe, still mandates vaccinations with some exceptions. Because getting vaccines is mandatory and there are known but rare side effects it makes sense that government bears the liability, not the manufacturers, and has paid out well over 1 billion dollars in claims for injury due to vaccine (do you know what the highest payout rate is? Tetanus).
In the Bush case, there was at least an argument that there was a national security justification. With Trump and his wall, there are valid concerns that, should his "national emergency" declaration be upheld, future Democratic administrations may use the same tactic against things such as gun control or even healthcare(both of which in my opinion are far closer to a "national emergency" than illegal immigration over the Southern border). Politics have shown time and again that it is a pandora's box: once you let a tactic out, it will be used against you later by the other side. Some people are starting to recognize this, but most politicians look no further than the next election so have no concern for long-term effects, it's all about getting them reelected now.
Not sure how Google employees think this works, but you don't get to tell your employer what to do.
Employees have a right to try and change (or at least guide) the corporate culture of their employer. And, since the actions and reputation of the employer get reflected onto the employee, if they see the company doing something they feel is unethical, tarnishes the brand, or is in other ways detrimental to the well-being of the company they have a right to speak up to try and stop those actions.
I left the Midwest because - like this week - it will be -30 degrees. F*ck that. I'm in Seattle...
You moved to Seattle for the weather? The last time I was there it was late summer, I had to wear a jacket, the sky was perpetually overcast, and the mountains still had passes closed with 7 feet of snow. Now, eastern Washington had some amazing weather and was actually pretty.
Herd Immunity is un-vaccinated people being protected by vaccinated people. The idea is that if there are enough immune people around that the virus can't exist. So, how does that explain vaccinated people getting sick? Because that is what anti-vax people are getting blamed for.
If vaccines work as advertised, the only people anti-vaxers are POTENTIALLY hurting is themselves. The truth is that vaccines don't work, and they need a scapegoat.
Do you have any evidence that vaccinated people catching the diseases for which they were vaccinated is widespread? I doubt it, but it would be good to see it if you have it.
I believe with one of the latest measles outbreaks there were something like 50-150 people sickened, 2 of whom had been vaccinated while the rest were unvaccinated.
355 children in Sweden who got the H1N1 vaccine (Pandemrix), have since been diagnosed with narcolepsy.
(the number may be higher now)
This has been judged to be a direct result of the vaccine.
Those 355 individuals can now never have a driver's license, or a normal job.
Sweden had to formulate a special law to give each up to 10 million SEK (1.1 million USD or so) in restitution.
There's a reason why some people are against vaccines.
The US has had the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) since 1988. So far, out of 3,454,305,356 vaccinations, there have been 4,153. That's 1.2 per 1 million vaccinations. Surprisingly, tetanus vaccines have the highest incidence rate of compensation. To win compensation, the claimant must present a biological theory of harm, demonstrate a logical sequence of events connecting the vaccine to the injury, and establish an appropriate time frame in which injury occurred.
The problem I have with congressional hearings, it is that you a forced to go to a roasting session, and a scolding that one hasn't had sense they were 8 years old.
The problem is that these do little to fix the problems, politician zingers only really hurt people with political ambitions. A CEO doesn't need to win popular vote, He is fine being the most hated man in the world just as long as he gets his pay. Besides after the hearing, most CEO's will get out of the public eye, and most people will forget such insults and scolding told to him.
These hearings shouldn't be about punishing a guy, no matter how nasty they are. But trying to get information so Congress can craft laws and policies to prevent it from happening again.
I am sure Mark Begor as an adult, will fly home in his personal jet, and not loose much sleep, because a Congresswomen got a good zing on him.
Committees are mostly about sound bites, nothing more. Half the time the committee members aren't even asking questions, they are just making statements. Every now and then you get something big out of a committee, but that only happens in an actually bipartisan committee which is rare these days.
I used that term ["mulatto"] with a friend of mine who is mixed-race. He told me it was offensive
I've been told (in a friendly way) that in the UK I shouldn't call people "mixed race" any more cos that's offensive - instead I should use "people of colour" (but woe betide me if I say "coloured people", cos that's offensive too). There was a time when I used "half-caste", but apparently that's really really really wrong, and it was after then that I started using mixed-race.
I'm a honky... you can call me that all you like, I really don't mind:-)
This whole situation has become ridiculous.
USian, not a UKian, but to me "half-caste" has a horribly imperialistic/colonialistic connotation(not to mention anachronistic at this point). And as a USian, "colored people" has a direct connotation with Jim Crow and segregation.
I've often used the object lesson of someone knocking on my door vs breaking a window to enter my child's room. I don't care what race you are - if you break into my home I will treat you like a hostile, and will protect my family with whatever force is necessary. If you knock on my door, odds are you will be invited to dinner.
You're using the wrong analogy. A better analogy for illegal immigration would be you inviting that someone to dinner and they end up shacking up in your living room for a few years. Most illegal immigrants aren't illegally crossing borders("breaking windows") , they are coming in legally(being invited in) and overstaying visas.
Slashdot Mirror
Still a Dude.
What about people born with XX Male Syndrome(physically male with XX), Swyer syndrome(physically female with XY), or 46,XX DSD(physically male with XX)?
Pardon invalidates a conviction (it's preemptively in-hand). A pardon does not apply some blanket immutable legal change of status.
Manning didn't get pardoned, her sentence got commuted. So she is still technically considered guilty of her crimes.
So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?
Could be a desire not to endanger people Manning may have worked with or contacted within Wikileaks or even within the military. And of course, from the summary: "Manning has said she objects to the secrecy of the grand jury process, and that she already revealed everything she knows at her court martial."
It's the same thing as the McRib. Just sayin'. No reason we can't have the McRib all year. NO REASON!
Let's be honest. No one really likes the McRib. The only reason people go crazy for it is because it only comes out every couple years. If it was out year round it would be the Nickelback of sandwiches.
Almost all of the upvoted questions seem to be canned questions. One, maybe 2 sentences with no replies. In most Slashdot Q&As(including this one if you look at the questions posted by logged in users) the truly insightful questions tend to generate multiple child/grandchild responses and tend to be more in depth or detailed.
Research the Act of 1871. The UNITED STATES (all caps, no "of America") is a federal municipal corporation that own D.C. and is the defacto government.
/Facepalm
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 served only to incorporate (ie. bring together) the cities of Washington and Georgetown, as well as the surrounding areas, into a single entity-the District of Columbia-for local governmental purposes. It had and has no bearing outside of DC, nor did it create a corporation governing all of the territorial US. There is not a second Constitution. Next you're going to say that because flags in courts have gold fringe it makes them maritime courts and invalidates their authority.
How does this prove "the patriarchy"? Doesn't it really prove that media organizations don't practice what they preach?
In a story about women's increasing presence in technology they cut all the interviews with women in favor for an interview with a man. It's like doing a documentary about wineries and having as your main interview the CEO of Coors.
The "cure" involves full-body irradiation to destroy the immune system, and then a bone-marrow transplant from someone that's HIV resistant. In general, these cures have been a side-effect of someone battling pretty serious cancer.
If it turns out there is pretty good evidence that this treatment works, it may lead to funding for research into less invasive but equally effective treatments.
There should always be a human behind the gun. I don't mean "in the loop", I mean an actual person flying the jet, carrying the rifle, firing the artillery, etc. War should be expensive, not in terms of money (which it already is), but in lives. It needs to have a political cost. Because otherwise, it makes going to war too easy of a choice. People are already used to the government wasting billions of dollars, so a war of just machines(on their side) won't phase them. Without flow of dead and injured coming home, the government will turn to endless conflict with undefined scopes or objectives. Having people on the ground and at risk of injury or death works to remind both the government and voters at home that war has real consequences and helps insure that any aggressive action is limited in scope with defined objectives, with a plan in place to win as quickly as possible with as little damage as possible.
To quote Robert E Lee:"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." Remove the people, the soldiers, from war, and you remove the very thing that makes it terrible.
Bold move Cotton, let's see if it pays off
Gun control so only criminals have them? And criminals will know there will be nobody to stop them?
Gun control does not equal gun confiscation or elimination.
2nd amendment, read it.
I have, and also own 4 handguns, a shotgun, and 2 rifles. In literally the 1st 3 words of the Amendment are the words "well regulated".
That's not what "well regulated" meant in 1791.... but we'll also be hypocrites and use the modern day meaning of "arms".
Well, in 1791 that meant everyone would show up with their own guns at the town square every couple weeks and go through military drills, which revolves back to my argument that regular firearm training should be a mandatory component of firearm ownership.
The follow up to this is that countries (still today) that lack clean water, clean food and clean living conditions still get diseases that vaccines supposedly cure.
This'll really blow your mind. States (or areas/populations within states) that lack access to clean water, food, and living conditions also lack the medical infrastructure necessary to enact state-wide vaccination programs. Shocking, I know.
2nd amendment, read it.
I have, and also own 4 handguns, a shotgun, and 2 rifles. In literally the 1st 3 words of the Amendment are the words "well regulated". There are multiple common sense and reasonable controls that could be put on firearm ownership without infringing on the ability to own firearms, as I have laid out in Slashdot numerous times. Mandatory initial and recurring training provided by local governments (funded by a nominal tax on ammunition and of course the NRA-surely they of all people gladly would support training firearm owners in proper firearm storage, handling, operation, and relevant laws, yes?) would be a great start. More rigorous reporting and administration of background checks. And in an important but tangential action, substantive improvements to mental health treatment in the US.
DNC doesn't have a right to fight a border wall. When 49,000 US citizens are violently attacked by illegals every year, a wall is common sense, sanctuary cities need to be punished for protecting criminals.
In 2013 there were 73,505 firearm related injuries and 33,636 deaths. GOP doesn't have a right to fight gun control. When 107,000 US citizens are violently attacked with firearms every year, gun control is common sense.
this doesn't change the fact that one very effective and inexpensive (tax-wise) solution to crime is to just drive out the poor.
That's not a solution as it doesn't solve crime, it merely transports it (and most likely you will have increased net crime at the new location as compared to the original location due to lack of contacts/support/job prospects/housing/etc for the displaced).
Traditional, long time used vaccines have a proven track record. However, to suggest vaccines are 100% safe isn't honest. For as misguided as many anti-vaxxors are, they're not completely wrong. There are real, documented safety issues with some vaccines.
If vaccines are so safe, then why are vaccine manufactures NOT liable.
Because the government, while acknowledging that vaccines are not 100% safe, still mandates vaccinations with some exceptions. Because getting vaccines is mandatory and there are known but rare side effects it makes sense that government bears the liability, not the manufacturers, and has paid out well over 1 billion dollars in claims for injury due to vaccine (do you know what the highest payout rate is? Tetanus).
In the Bush case, there was at least an argument that there was a national security justification. With Trump and his wall, there are valid concerns that, should his "national emergency" declaration be upheld, future Democratic administrations may use the same tactic against things such as gun control or even healthcare(both of which in my opinion are far closer to a "national emergency" than illegal immigration over the Southern border). Politics have shown time and again that it is a pandora's box: once you let a tactic out, it will be used against you later by the other side. Some people are starting to recognize this, but most politicians look no further than the next election so have no concern for long-term effects, it's all about getting them reelected now.
Not sure how Google employees think this works, but you don't get to tell your employer what to do.
Employees have a right to try and change (or at least guide) the corporate culture of their employer. And, since the actions and reputation of the employer get reflected onto the employee, if they see the company doing something they feel is unethical, tarnishes the brand, or is in other ways detrimental to the well-being of the company they have a right to speak up to try and stop those actions.
I left the Midwest because - like this week - it will be -30 degrees. F*ck that. I'm in Seattle...
You moved to Seattle for the weather? The last time I was there it was late summer, I had to wear a jacket, the sky was perpetually overcast, and the mountains still had passes closed with 7 feet of snow. Now, eastern Washington had some amazing weather and was actually pretty.
Herd Immunity is un-vaccinated people being protected by vaccinated people. The idea is that if there are enough immune people around that the virus can't exist. So, how does that explain vaccinated people getting sick? Because that is what anti-vax people are getting blamed for.
If vaccines work as advertised, the only people anti-vaxers are POTENTIALLY hurting is themselves. The truth is that vaccines don't work, and they need a scapegoat.
Do you have any evidence that vaccinated people catching the diseases for which they were vaccinated is widespread? I doubt it, but it would be good to see it if you have it.
I believe with one of the latest measles outbreaks there were something like 50-150 people sickened, 2 of whom had been vaccinated while the rest were unvaccinated.
The health of children is at stake.
355 children in Sweden who got the H1N1 vaccine (Pandemrix), have since been diagnosed with narcolepsy. (the number may be higher now) This has been judged to be a direct result of the vaccine. Those 355 individuals can now never have a driver's license, or a normal job.
Sweden had to formulate a special law to give each up to 10 million SEK (1.1 million USD or so) in restitution.
There's a reason why some people are against vaccines.
The US has had the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) since 1988. So far, out of 3,454,305,356 vaccinations, there have been 4,153. That's 1.2 per 1 million vaccinations. Surprisingly, tetanus vaccines have the highest incidence rate of compensation. To win compensation, the claimant must present a biological theory of harm, demonstrate a logical sequence of events connecting the vaccine to the injury, and establish an appropriate time frame in which injury occurred.
The problem I have with congressional hearings, it is that you a forced to go to a roasting session, and a scolding that one hasn't had sense they were 8 years old. The problem is that these do little to fix the problems, politician zingers only really hurt people with political ambitions. A CEO doesn't need to win popular vote, He is fine being the most hated man in the world just as long as he gets his pay. Besides after the hearing, most CEO's will get out of the public eye, and most people will forget such insults and scolding told to him. These hearings shouldn't be about punishing a guy, no matter how nasty they are. But trying to get information so Congress can craft laws and policies to prevent it from happening again.
I am sure Mark Begor as an adult, will fly home in his personal jet, and not loose much sleep, because a Congresswomen got a good zing on him.
Committees are mostly about sound bites, nothing more. Half the time the committee members aren't even asking questions, they are just making statements. Every now and then you get something big out of a committee, but that only happens in an actually bipartisan committee which is rare these days.
I used that term ["mulatto"] with a friend of mine who is mixed-race. He told me it was offensive
I've been told (in a friendly way) that in the UK I shouldn't call people "mixed race" any more cos that's offensive - instead I should use "people of colour" (but woe betide me if I say "coloured people", cos that's offensive too). There was a time when I used "half-caste", but apparently that's really really really wrong, and it was after then that I started using mixed-race.
I'm a honky ... you can call me that all you like, I really don't mind :-)
This whole situation has become ridiculous.
USian, not a UKian, but to me "half-caste" has a horribly imperialistic/colonialistic connotation(not to mention anachronistic at this point). And as a USian, "colored people" has a direct connotation with Jim Crow and segregation.
I've often used the object lesson of someone knocking on my door vs breaking a window to enter my child's room. I don't care what race you are - if you break into my home I will treat you like a hostile, and will protect my family with whatever force is necessary. If you knock on my door, odds are you will be invited to dinner.
You're using the wrong analogy. A better analogy for illegal immigration would be you inviting that someone to dinner and they end up shacking up in your living room for a few years. Most illegal immigrants aren't illegally crossing borders("breaking windows") , they are coming in legally(being invited in) and overstaying visas.