It only now occurs to me that the mistake that happened, the leaking of information to the press directly or through confirming the information, is exactly the kind of thing that WikiLeaks is all about. Somehow that does make the police seem not at fault, even if they would have been so if they had leaked information normally. The false accusation is still serious, though.
For a Swedish prosecutor to deem a rape accusation from TWO women baseless enough to stop even investigating it anymore, after 6 hours, you can be damn sure that it was abundantly clear that Assange could not possibly have done what he was accused of. Sweden is very much focused on catching rapists. For the investigating to be ceased just like that, it must have been something like one of the women was determined to be a virgin upon examination or Assange appeared on television giving a speech to 100 people in a different town while the rape supposedly took place, or the women admitted to making the charge up.
It's now absolutely clear that no rape occurred here, but imagine a real rape case. If two women credibly claim to have been raped in the span of last week by the same named person, then most definitely the suspect must be apprehended immediately in the event that those two rapes really did occur, that the suspect is the guilty party, and that he is going to do it again. That cannot be postponed pending further investigation since there is clearly a risk that another rape is imminent. If then a few hours later it turns out for some reason that clearly the suspect could not have been doing what the women claim, then the arrest order can be canceled. None of this is then a mistake by the police or the prosecutor.
Of course with just an accusation to go on, the name of the suspect should not be circulating in the press with an accusation of rape, at the very most it should be known that the police want to talk to him immediately for some unspecified-but-serious reason. In this case the police claim that the press found out about the arrest order on their own somehow, but that the police confirmed the information when asked. It was a mistake to confirm the information, and if the press somehow found out about it from the police, that was a mistake as well. Both are serious mistakes.
We do not have the information to know whether or not the arrest order was a mistake. We do have the information to say that the Swedish state fucked up royally by confirming the arrest order to the press. It is unknown to me if the fuck-up is due to people in the police not knowing how to say "no comment", or if it is due to Swedish laws. Lots of countries' laws do not protect the identity of people who have done nothing but been accused.
The proper response to such allegations is not to dismiss them out of hand as a government plot. The proper response is to assume and treat him as completely innocent until such a time that he is found guilty in a court of law - at that point you may want to look into the case to see if the jury was crazy or reasonable. Until then nothing should change to the extent that a "not guilty" verdict should be as if no new information was given. An allegation should be both taken seriously and not believed until it has been verified. That's the proper response.
Now of course humans just aren't built to behave like that. If you can't maintain this stance, then you have to choose between being suspicious of him or saying that you are sure the allegations are false. In that choice it's pretty clear that the preponderance of evidence so far is to dismiss the claims. We have no evidence to look at.
Pedestrians especially may start walking as soon as oncoming traffic gets a red light. (Do people in China obey the walk/don't-walk signals? They sure don't in any North American cities I've lived in!
That is a direct consequence of the way traffic lights work in the US. They take so long until they give pedestrians a green light that standing there waiting for that to happen is just laughable, so no one does. This is an effect of just the times set for the light, though that is not all. For the traffic lights I've seen in the US, first one direction of cars go, then another direction of cars go, and then pedestrians go in every direction. The right solution is to have pedestrians and cars going the same direction go at the same time. Cars that need to turn then need to yield to pedestrians. At least that is the right solution in Europe, such that waiting on red lights is actually something you can conceivably do as a pedestrian. Perhaps Americans are just too prone to run pedestrians down in that setup, refusing to yield, I don't know.
If you went to the trouble of writing a textbook, obviously you will want to use that one. It has exactly the stuff you think is important, in a format that supports your lectures and if you don't think it improves on whatever else is out there, then probably you have better things to do than to write a textbook on your own - you'd just use the better one already written. If you think academics write books to obtain money for themselves, then you are mistaken - it takes a lot of time and pays poorly indeed compared to that.
Chernobyl wasn't due to a bomb and a bomb wouldn't have that effect on a modern plant. Radioactive material just isn't the most convenient kind of poison and it kills over the course of tens of years instead of the instant deaths that make for effective terrorism. Now blowing up a giant dam, that is effective terrorism. In any case it is intolerable for terrorists to wield political power in the free world by so directly influencing so many decisions.
In fact, 90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials. It is humbling to realize that the flipping of a coin would have proved five times more accurate and much cheaper.
I doubt the claim unless "harm" also refers to relatively harmless side effects in comparison to what the medicine is helping with, but let's suppose it's true. It still doesn't follow animal testing didn't help. It may be that most medications of any kind, animal tested or not, do have some side-effects and that number may have been larger than 90% without animal testing. Animal testing may also have uncovered some of the more severe side-effects, so with animal testing something like at the level of a runny nose may often be undetected or just plain accepted while without animal testing the test persons may drop dead more often.
Comparing animal testing to a coin based on a 90% figure doesn't work because then we have to assume that half of all medicines that are proposed are harmless and half are not. I see no reason to think that the base rates are like that - indeed, the idea that animal testing actively selects for harmful effects at a level far above chance is preposterous.
The actual problem with animal testing is as you point out not so much that it lets too many harmful medicines through, it's that it rules some medicines out that in fact would be beneficial to have available. That's a price we pay to have patients in early studies suffer less of a risk from the untested medicine.
It's clear that your real motivation to oppose animal testing is out of concern for the animals, and not in fact because of any scientific deficiencies with animal testing. If you doubt that, consider that you'd still be against it even if you believed that animal testing is as effective as the rest of the world believes. Right?
That's not defending in kind. Once he is down and is no immediate threat, yeah, maybe you get a few kicks for bad behavior on his part. You don't keep kicking him for three minutes just like you don't pull out a gun and start shooting him once he's already down.
Don't people already know that when people say that "Bush banned stem cell research", what is meant by that is "Bush made it very difficult for any lab to work with anything but a very specific set of cell lines that were inappropriate for a large amount of stem cell research." The thing is if a lab worked with the actually interesting stem cell lines, then they could no longer receive government funding for any other even unrelated research at that lab, and by far most labs do receive some government funding. The net effect of that is almost as if Bush had banned stem cell research in the US, and so it makes a better political slogan to say "Bush banned stem cell research". If liberals are already aware of all this, then telling them about it makes no difference. I wonder if they somehow made sure that the people in the study were previously unaware of the information they were given. I guess I should just go read the study.
It also requires an environment where we are not penalized for admitting a mistake. E.g. discussion on Internet forums such as Slashdot is nothing like that. Politics sure isn't either. Clear thinking can only develop among a group of people where disagreeing with each other is expected and welcome. Where the penalties for being wrong or having been wrong are explicitly understood and taken out of the picture. I'd sure like to see a discussion forum like that.
If you are doing a decent job of kicking someone for three minutes, he won't be alive after that. E.g. the neck really isn't all that robust. If you are kicking someone in the nuts for tree minutes, that thing won't ever work again. Hence the reason he didn't really kick the guy for 3 minutes, but if he had, that wouldn't be cool. Not at all.
It packs up like wolves and feeds on the dumbest among itself to feel minutely superior.
Your post is a great example of putting other people down to feel superior to them. It's something all people feel a drive to do - it's got nothing to do with intelligence. If you pay attention to your self-talk and your own and other people's behavior, you'll see that gaining superior position in a situation and avoiding other people doing the same is a second-to-second concern for all people. You get along better with people the more you can catch yourself doing it and refrain from it, but it's very difficult to face that you are doing it at all, realize each occurrence of it and then to not do it. E.g. if I wasn't so weak at it I wouldn't have made this post - I'm doing the exact same thing.
That's not the point. Maybe the initial ball-kicking was called for. 3 minutes of kicking is along the lines of permanent injury, eating through a straw, getting around in a wheelchair and possibly death. The story is made up or it was really 10 seconds that became a taller story with age.
Because it is a non-group assignment and the rules for a non-group assignment is that you must do it yourself. So if you don't you are breaking the rules and that is the definition of cheating. The arguments in your post are arguments that there should not be non-group assignments and that's different from the topic of whether working as a group on non-group assignment is cheating.
Much better! 7/10. Will troll again. Add a tiny bit more infuriation to the main text. The irrationality level is just right to be believable. The sig still gives you away, though; you have to find something that doesn't advertise what you are doing or you won't get any takers.
Let me give you some advice on your trolling - it's way too obvious and that'll never work. Kohath managed to slip under the radar because what he was saying was somewhat related to the posts he was responding to. Your post bears no relation to what anyone is saying and the Egypt analogy is too far out to enrage anyone. To troll effectively, you do need a good dash of infuriating irrationality, and you got that down, but it needs to be moderated so it doesn't become as obvious as what you are doing now. I give you 2 points of 10 for effort, but don't let that discourage you.
Slashdot Mirror
It only now occurs to me that the mistake that happened, the leaking of information to the press directly or through confirming the information, is exactly the kind of thing that WikiLeaks is all about. Somehow that does make the police seem not at fault, even if they would have been so if they had leaked information normally. The false accusation is still serious, though.
For a Swedish prosecutor to deem a rape accusation from TWO women baseless enough to stop even investigating it anymore, after 6 hours, you can be damn sure that it was abundantly clear that Assange could not possibly have done what he was accused of. Sweden is very much focused on catching rapists. For the investigating to be ceased just like that, it must have been something like one of the women was determined to be a virgin upon examination or Assange appeared on television giving a speech to 100 people in a different town while the rape supposedly took place, or the women admitted to making the charge up.
It's now absolutely clear that no rape occurred here, but imagine a real rape case. If two women credibly claim to have been raped in the span of last week by the same named person, then most definitely the suspect must be apprehended immediately in the event that those two rapes really did occur, that the suspect is the guilty party, and that he is going to do it again. That cannot be postponed pending further investigation since there is clearly a risk that another rape is imminent. If then a few hours later it turns out for some reason that clearly the suspect could not have been doing what the women claim, then the arrest order can be canceled. None of this is then a mistake by the police or the prosecutor.
Of course with just an accusation to go on, the name of the suspect should not be circulating in the press with an accusation of rape, at the very most it should be known that the police want to talk to him immediately for some unspecified-but-serious reason. In this case the police claim that the press found out about the arrest order on their own somehow, but that the police confirmed the information when asked. It was a mistake to confirm the information, and if the press somehow found out about it from the police, that was a mistake as well. Both are serious mistakes.
We do not have the information to know whether or not the arrest order was a mistake. We do have the information to say that the Swedish state fucked up royally by confirming the arrest order to the press. It is unknown to me if the fuck-up is due to people in the police not knowing how to say "no comment", or if it is due to Swedish laws. Lots of countries' laws do not protect the identity of people who have done nothing but been accused.
The proper response to such allegations is not to dismiss them out of hand as a government plot. The proper response is to assume and treat him as completely innocent until such a time that he is found guilty in a court of law - at that point you may want to look into the case to see if the jury was crazy or reasonable. Until then nothing should change to the extent that a "not guilty" verdict should be as if no new information was given. An allegation should be both taken seriously and not believed until it has been verified. That's the proper response. Now of course humans just aren't built to behave like that. If you can't maintain this stance, then you have to choose between being suspicious of him or saying that you are sure the allegations are false. In that choice it's pretty clear that the preponderance of evidence so far is to dismiss the claims. We have no evidence to look at.
Pedestrians especially may start walking as soon as oncoming traffic gets a red light. (Do people in China obey the walk/don't-walk signals? They sure don't in any North American cities I've lived in!
That is a direct consequence of the way traffic lights work in the US. They take so long until they give pedestrians a green light that standing there waiting for that to happen is just laughable, so no one does. This is an effect of just the times set for the light, though that is not all. For the traffic lights I've seen in the US, first one direction of cars go, then another direction of cars go, and then pedestrians go in every direction. The right solution is to have pedestrians and cars going the same direction go at the same time. Cars that need to turn then need to yield to pedestrians. At least that is the right solution in Europe, such that waiting on red lights is actually something you can conceivably do as a pedestrian. Perhaps Americans are just too prone to run pedestrians down in that setup, refusing to yield, I don't know.
If you went to the trouble of writing a textbook, obviously you will want to use that one. It has exactly the stuff you think is important, in a format that supports your lectures and if you don't think it improves on whatever else is out there, then probably you have better things to do than to write a textbook on your own - you'd just use the better one already written. If you think academics write books to obtain money for themselves, then you are mistaken - it takes a lot of time and pays poorly indeed compared to that.
From what I hear that is in more modern reactors. Chernobyl was a very bad design.
I think the GPs point was that the salt you'd get this way would already be hot so you wouldn't have to heat it as much.
A million slow agonizing radiation deaths would be quite effectively terrorizing, for quite a while.
I suggest you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
Chernobyl wasn't due to a bomb and a bomb wouldn't have that effect on a modern plant. Radioactive material just isn't the most convenient kind of poison and it kills over the course of tens of years instead of the instant deaths that make for effective terrorism. Now blowing up a giant dam, that is effective terrorism. In any case it is intolerable for terrorists to wield political power in the free world by so directly influencing so many decisions.
It seems to me that a bomb below a dam can be a whole lot more dangerous than the inconvenience a bomb at a nuclear power plant would cause.
Posting to undo mistaken mod.
Hacking skills are not taught in schools and working for the goverment pays c@rp
Hey nice! I love carp!
Should we give up our humanity and compassion to achieve immortality?
I only wish I had that fantastic opportunity :(
In fact, 90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials. It is humbling to realize that the flipping of a coin would have proved five times more accurate and much cheaper.
I doubt the claim unless "harm" also refers to relatively harmless side effects in comparison to what the medicine is helping with, but let's suppose it's true. It still doesn't follow animal testing didn't help. It may be that most medications of any kind, animal tested or not, do have some side-effects and that number may have been larger than 90% without animal testing. Animal testing may also have uncovered some of the more severe side-effects, so with animal testing something like at the level of a runny nose may often be undetected or just plain accepted while without animal testing the test persons may drop dead more often.
Comparing animal testing to a coin based on a 90% figure doesn't work because then we have to assume that half of all medicines that are proposed are harmless and half are not. I see no reason to think that the base rates are like that - indeed, the idea that animal testing actively selects for harmful effects at a level far above chance is preposterous.
The actual problem with animal testing is as you point out not so much that it lets too many harmful medicines through, it's that it rules some medicines out that in fact would be beneficial to have available. That's a price we pay to have patients in early studies suffer less of a risk from the untested medicine.
It's clear that your real motivation to oppose animal testing is out of concern for the animals, and not in fact because of any scientific deficiencies with animal testing. If you doubt that, consider that you'd still be against it even if you believed that animal testing is as effective as the rest of the world believes. Right?
That's not defending in kind. Once he is down and is no immediate threat, yeah, maybe you get a few kicks for bad behavior on his part. You don't keep kicking him for three minutes just like you don't pull out a gun and start shooting him once he's already down.
Don't people already know that when people say that "Bush banned stem cell research", what is meant by that is "Bush made it very difficult for any lab to work with anything but a very specific set of cell lines that were inappropriate for a large amount of stem cell research." The thing is if a lab worked with the actually interesting stem cell lines, then they could no longer receive government funding for any other even unrelated research at that lab, and by far most labs do receive some government funding. The net effect of that is almost as if Bush had banned stem cell research in the US, and so it makes a better political slogan to say "Bush banned stem cell research". If liberals are already aware of all this, then telling them about it makes no difference. I wonder if they somehow made sure that the people in the study were previously unaware of the information they were given. I guess I should just go read the study.
It also requires an environment where we are not penalized for admitting a mistake. E.g. discussion on Internet forums such as Slashdot is nothing like that. Politics sure isn't either. Clear thinking can only develop among a group of people where disagreeing with each other is expected and welcome. Where the penalties for being wrong or having been wrong are explicitly understood and taken out of the picture. I'd sure like to see a discussion forum like that.
If you are doing a decent job of kicking someone for three minutes, he won't be alive after that. E.g. the neck really isn't all that robust. If you are kicking someone in the nuts for tree minutes, that thing won't ever work again. Hence the reason he didn't really kick the guy for 3 minutes, but if he had, that wouldn't be cool. Not at all.
It packs up like wolves and feeds on the dumbest among itself to feel minutely superior.
Your post is a great example of putting other people down to feel superior to them. It's something all people feel a drive to do - it's got nothing to do with intelligence. If you pay attention to your self-talk and your own and other people's behavior, you'll see that gaining superior position in a situation and avoiding other people doing the same is a second-to-second concern for all people. You get along better with people the more you can catch yourself doing it and refrain from it, but it's very difficult to face that you are doing it at all, realize each occurrence of it and then to not do it. E.g. if I wasn't so weak at it I wouldn't have made this post - I'm doing the exact same thing.
That's not the point. Maybe the initial ball-kicking was called for. 3 minutes of kicking is along the lines of permanent injury, eating through a straw, getting around in a wheelchair and possibly death. The story is made up or it was really 10 seconds that became a taller story with age.
Because it is a non-group assignment and the rules for a non-group assignment is that you must do it yourself. So if you don't you are breaking the rules and that is the definition of cheating. The arguments in your post are arguments that there should not be non-group assignments and that's different from the topic of whether working as a group on non-group assignment is cheating.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Anyone who doesn't sympathize is a troll maybe?
I'm so sorry for you if you aren't a troll. You have my sympathies.
Much better! 7/10. Will troll again. Add a tiny bit more infuriation to the main text. The irrationality level is just right to be believable. The sig still gives you away, though; you have to find something that doesn't advertise what you are doing or you won't get any takers.
Let me give you some advice on your trolling - it's way too obvious and that'll never work. Kohath managed to slip under the radar because what he was saying was somewhat related to the posts he was responding to. Your post bears no relation to what anyone is saying and the Egypt analogy is too far out to enrage anyone. To troll effectively, you do need a good dash of infuriating irrationality, and you got that down, but it needs to be moderated so it doesn't become as obvious as what you are doing now. I give you 2 points of 10 for effort, but don't let that discourage you.