Had PPT existed in WWII, they would have used it, too. The same problems existed then. Read Catch-22, Heller satirizes a lot of the same sorts of issues with bureaucracy in the military from 50 years ago.
Well, it's also farther from the Sun. I'd have to check the equations, but for orbits around the planet, at least, that affects things in a linear fashion. Plus, it's had a lot of opportunities to capture asteroids, particularly at lower relative speeds. Earth, Venus, and Mercury, have had a lot fewer.
In addition to what mbone said, it's also the case that the terrestrial planets should have a much more difficult time capturing asteroids into their trojan points thanks to their smaller masses (and therefore shallower potential wells for the asteroids to get captured into).
Nope, discoveries. They occur at opposition because that's the best time to do deep imagine of a patch of sky, of course.
There's a caption to this on the YouTube page for this video that highlights most of the patterns I noticed myself, including the advent of automated surveys in the late 90s/early 2000s.
Ignoring all of your other ad hominem nonsense that I've already explained clearly enough. (If you're going to just repeat yourself, can you at least be civil?)
Once again, if you can show that your competitors are in breach of a law and you are not,
First, it's not even obvious that they're in breach of the law. Bush didn't think it was, Obama didn't think it was, and the first court to hear the case didn't think it was. And even if they are, you can't sue someone else for violating the law. You need to show harm to yourself.
By the very nature of being competitors they are harming you (taking market share from you),
This is utter nonsense. There's no more polite way to phrase it. Competing with someone is not causing harm. If it were, as I said, I could sue everyone who even gets near me. I could sue you for arguing with me.
and because they are not incurring costs that you are in order to comply with the law, their illegal actions are causing you harm.
Who says that they're not incurring similar costs? What makes embryonic stem cell research so much cheaper, then?
Incidentally, after reading the NYT piece, I discovered not only that this case was originally thrown out as having no merit (on the grounds that... yep, they couldn't show harm), the plaintiffs were originally four. Someone is trying a shotgun approach to this suit, hoping something will stick.
Anyway, I'm tired of this. If you can't have a reasonable discussion, there's no point in continuing. I won't reply further, but feel free to reply if you wish.
Probably true, but they're working with what statistics they have and it's also probably difficult to quantify and rigorously match "visibility". Or so I'd imagine.
Drivers are already supposedly trained to watch for pedestrians. This has not, however, eliminated accidents. Drivers won't always be alert or able to see potential threats in time. It's not a bad idea to make it a two-sided obligation, especially since pedestrians have the most to lose in a typical encounter.
Yeah, the study isn't a be-all and end-all, to be sure. (The sample size did bother me, but on the other hand, they seem to be accounting for it in how they phrase their confidence intervals, so that's legitimate anyway.) But it's a lot more than speculation I had seen prior, which is definitely something.
You know, I had those tires in my Civic. I had little handling issues with them in Colorado and they certainly made a fair amount of noise on the road. The only reason I didn't replace them with another set when they wore down was basically cost. I haven't noticed any difference in the handling in rotten conditions (admittedly, I've also moved to a snowier place), to be honest.
Certainly, the average experience may differ. Do you have any studies that show that said tires result in a statistically significant increase in accidents?
Right. Which is why the study linked into the article states that the major increase in accidents with pedestrians and hybrids occurs at very low speeds, especially backing up, parking, and pulling out into traffic.
Read the study, it's good stuff. I admit, I was sort of dubious of the threat posed by quieter cars, but the study is reasonably convincing that at least at slow speeds, it's a problem.
That is generally the way of cheating. Unless you put a good amount of effort into cheating, in most cases, the faculty or graders will notice. They don't always do anything (it's always a hassle and administrations are often hostile to cheating cases), but they notice a lot more than students may think.
You can, of course, put a lot of effort into it and do a good job of cheating, but then... why not study?
The researchers suing would probably be competing with the embryonic stem cell researchers in any case. People don't change research fields just because one line of cells is or is not available, as a rule. So their argument seems more likely that they can't compete in a level way with the embryonic stem cells.
That make more sense? I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you, but next time, ask rather trying to be snarky please.
Scientifically everyone is in absolute agreement that those embryos are 100% human
That's an outright twisting of the truth. People agree that the material is human material, but so are my toenail clippings. Those aren't human, and that's the same debate here with blastocysts. So you're vastly overstating the case.
I believe the lawsuit (see a few posts up in the thread) actually specifies the exact law they claim the other researchers are breaching. If you can name the exact law you claim your competitors are breaching, then yes you most certainly can go sue them...
Nope, you also have to show harm. That's why the guy suing over "under God" in the pledge wasn't allowed to pursue his suit on behalf of his daughter, remember? (He wasn't the custodial parent.) If that's sufficient reason to dismiss a suit, it seems like this demonstration of "harm" is even weaker.
There's a world of difference between ethics like these ("is testing on an abstract maybe-human wrong") and ethical cases where real harm that would not have otherwise occurred against real people will result (your drug testing example). One of those is highly dependent on your moral and/or religious view of what a life even is, the other is almost universally accepted and is enshrined in our countries legal system.
That said, you're making a strawman. The researchers who use embryonic stem cells are no less ethical than the ones who are suing (arguably, more so). You may not like their views on this matter, but it seems like it's not conducive to a discussion to put them down like that.
If "their ethics are different from mine in a way that gives them an advantage" is sufficient reason to sue, I should be able to sue a lot of people.
You only get to be morally righteous if you are willing to take the consequences of your moral stands. Trying to tear down everyone else to play by your rules isn't moral, it's egomania.
Doctors James Sherely of Watertown, Massachusetts, and Theresa Diesher of Seattle, identified by Lamberth as adult stem cell researchers, sued in August 2009, arguing that NIH guidelines breach the Dickey-Wicker strictures. They also argued that they were being irreparably harmed by having to compete for NIH funding with researchers using embryonic cells.
Wait, what? They're being done harm by competing with this research? So... embryonic cells are that much superior? (Sounds like we should make sure this is as legal as can be pronto!) But they can't evidently use them themselves?
Man, if I could sue every time I found someone else who had an edge on me in research, I'd be the only person active in my field right now. Sign me up!
Teaching is the only profession that continually demands NOT to be evaluated or held accountable,
That statement can be disproved pretty easily. Virtually every profession does what it can to avoid being evaluated. CEOs of corporations? (If the company fails, they leave with a golden parachute. Even if the government has to step in, they get ridiculous bonuses. Why? It's not their fault!) The guy who did your plumbing? Ever threatened to give one of these guys a bad review on Angie's List? They'll cajole you all day to avoid it.
And let's talk about MDs, a group that lets some of the most egregious screw-ups continue to practice medicine. (Yes, most doctors are honest, competent professionals. But as a group, the AMA will protect its own.) Or cops?
And tenure has nothing to do with it. Tenure means it's harder to fire you, but not impossible. That's a good idea if you want teachers who feel free enough to experiment with teaching. But if you fail to do your job or if you break the rules, they can (and should) fire you. Now, that doesn't always happen, but that's not the fault of tenure. That's the fault of school administrators not wanting to do their jobs.
All of that said, I've never known a teacher who fought evaluation. I've even known many who asked colleagues to give them extra feedback. The whole process of becoming and remaining a teacher is full of evaluations.
What these teachers are fighting is having their personnel records made public. In most workplaces, such records are considered private. I'm not sure what the LA school district's policies are regarding HR matters, but if they don't have such a policy, I'll be surprised.
(Of course, if you really think that this isn't a reasonable concern, feel free to give us your real name and entire, most recent work evaluation.)
I agree. I had higher-pressure tires that came with my Civic Hybrid. This past year, they finally were to the point of needing replacement. Having moved to Minnesota (from Colorado) in the meantime, I went with regular tires for the somewhat better traction. My mileage has dropped maybe 1 MPG as a result and traction seems noticeably better in rough weather. (It's a bit of apples and oranges to compare, of course.)
On the other hand, in Colorado I seldom had any traction problems with the high-pressure tires. But we hardly had any snow on the ground, ever, so that's not so surprising. If you live in a low-snow state, I would happily recommend that type of tire.
So their logic is that the telegraph (so phone, now?) lines can get overwhelmed and break, sparking fires?
Wow, that seems like a long way to go. (For one thing, I think that phone and power lines have more protection on them now. You might overload a transformer or even take down an entire grid, but I should think widespread sparking would be uncommon. They'd have had problems all over in Canada already, if not.)
Especially since in his post the driver mentions two guys standing by the side of the street, one with a pencil and paper. So it's not even like there's a question as to whether there were witnesses, it's just a matter of finding them.
But online statements are sufficient reason to have a chat with him. The fact that he confessed ("plead guilty", says the article) means that they had all the evidence that they needed when the time came.
The third point is perhaps the most concerning (OK, maybe the game of telephone here is). The guy (who is unnamed, which isn't promising) claims to be a physicists with expertise in astronomy, but his work sounds a lot more like he's an engineer.
Also,
Stressing he was not a “crackpot”, he said he wanted to investigate the science behind the incident after his grandfather, who was bound by the Official Secrets Act,
So... his grandfather couldn't talk to anyone about it and therefore had to bit his tongue in spite of his curiosity. (With me so far?) But granddad also tells his wife and daughter? Lookit, if the guy believes in official secrecy, he knows secret means just that: secret. You don't have a state secret that you religiously keep for 50 years, except telling your loved ones. Word leaks out, that's why they made a big to-do in WWII about "loose lips sink ships" and all of that.
Slashdot Mirror
Had PPT existed in WWII, they would have used it, too. The same problems existed then. Read Catch-22, Heller satirizes a lot of the same sorts of issues with bureaucracy in the military from 50 years ago.
And they're the most "full" in phase, so that they are as bright as they'll ever get.
Well, it's also farther from the Sun. I'd have to check the equations, but for orbits around the planet, at least, that affects things in a linear fashion. Plus, it's had a lot of opportunities to capture asteroids, particularly at lower relative speeds. Earth, Venus, and Mercury, have had a lot fewer.
In addition to what mbone said, it's also the case that the terrestrial planets should have a much more difficult time capturing asteroids into their trojan points thanks to their smaller masses (and therefore shallower potential wells for the asteroids to get captured into).
Nope, discoveries. They occur at opposition because that's the best time to do deep imagine of a patch of sky, of course.
There's a caption to this on the YouTube page for this video that highlights most of the patterns I noticed myself, including the advent of automated surveys in the late 90s/early 2000s.
Ignoring all of your other ad hominem nonsense that I've already explained clearly enough. (If you're going to just repeat yourself, can you at least be civil?)
Once again, if you can show that your competitors are in breach of a law and you are not,
First, it's not even obvious that they're in breach of the law. Bush didn't think it was, Obama didn't think it was, and the first court to hear the case didn't think it was. And even if they are, you can't sue someone else for violating the law. You need to show harm to yourself.
By the very nature of being competitors they are harming you (taking market share from you),
This is utter nonsense. There's no more polite way to phrase it. Competing with someone is not causing harm. If it were, as I said, I could sue everyone who even gets near me. I could sue you for arguing with me.
and because they are not incurring costs that you are in order to comply with the law, their illegal actions are causing you harm.
Who says that they're not incurring similar costs? What makes embryonic stem cell research so much cheaper, then?
Incidentally, after reading the NYT piece, I discovered not only that this case was originally thrown out as having no merit (on the grounds that... yep, they couldn't show harm), the plaintiffs were originally four. Someone is trying a shotgun approach to this suit, hoping something will stick.
Anyway, I'm tired of this. If you can't have a reasonable discussion, there's no point in continuing. I won't reply further, but feel free to reply if you wish.
Probably true, but they're working with what statistics they have and it's also probably difficult to quantify and rigorously match "visibility". Or so I'd imagine.
Drivers are already supposedly trained to watch for pedestrians. This has not, however, eliminated accidents. Drivers won't always be alert or able to see potential threats in time. It's not a bad idea to make it a two-sided obligation, especially since pedestrians have the most to lose in a typical encounter.
Yeah, the study isn't a be-all and end-all, to be sure. (The sample size did bother me, but on the other hand, they seem to be accounting for it in how they phrase their confidence intervals, so that's legitimate anyway.) But it's a lot more than speculation I had seen prior, which is definitely something.
You know, I had those tires in my Civic. I had little handling issues with them in Colorado and they certainly made a fair amount of noise on the road. The only reason I didn't replace them with another set when they wore down was basically cost. I haven't noticed any difference in the handling in rotten conditions (admittedly, I've also moved to a snowier place), to be honest.
Certainly, the average experience may differ. Do you have any studies that show that said tires result in a statistically significant increase in accidents?
Linked article says Nissan is planning to add it to the Leaf, too. So I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
(Also, a lot of hybrids never move without the engine running, so it's less of an issue with, say, the Civic.)
Right. Which is why the study linked into the article states that the major increase in accidents with pedestrians and hybrids occurs at very low speeds, especially backing up, parking, and pulling out into traffic.
Read the study, it's good stuff. I admit, I was sort of dubious of the threat posed by quieter cars, but the study is reasonably convincing that at least at slow speeds, it's a problem.
That is generally the way of cheating. Unless you put a good amount of effort into cheating, in most cases, the faculty or graders will notice. They don't always do anything (it's always a hassle and administrations are often hostile to cheating cases), but they notice a lot more than students may think.
You can, of course, put a lot of effort into it and do a good job of cheating, but then... why not study?
The researchers suing would probably be competing with the embryonic stem cell researchers in any case. People don't change research fields just because one line of cells is or is not available, as a rule. So their argument seems more likely that they can't compete in a level way with the embryonic stem cells.
That make more sense? I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you, but next time, ask rather trying to be snarky please.
Scientifically everyone is in absolute agreement that those embryos are 100% human
That's an outright twisting of the truth. People agree that the material is human material, but so are my toenail clippings. Those aren't human, and that's the same debate here with blastocysts. So you're vastly overstating the case.
I believe the lawsuit (see a few posts up in the thread) actually specifies the exact law they claim the other researchers are breaching. If you can name the exact law you claim your competitors are breaching, then yes you most certainly can go sue them...
Nope, you also have to show harm. That's why the guy suing over "under God" in the pledge wasn't allowed to pursue his suit on behalf of his daughter, remember? (He wasn't the custodial parent.) If that's sufficient reason to dismiss a suit, it seems like this demonstration of "harm" is even weaker.
There's a world of difference between ethics like these ("is testing on an abstract maybe-human wrong") and ethical cases where real harm that would not have otherwise occurred against real people will result (your drug testing example). One of those is highly dependent on your moral and/or religious view of what a life even is, the other is almost universally accepted and is enshrined in our countries legal system.
That said, you're making a strawman. The researchers who use embryonic stem cells are no less ethical than the ones who are suing (arguably, more so). You may not like their views on this matter, but it seems like it's not conducive to a discussion to put them down like that.
If "their ethics are different from mine in a way that gives them an advantage" is sufficient reason to sue, I should be able to sue a lot of people.
You only get to be morally righteous if you are willing to take the consequences of your moral stands. Trying to tear down everyone else to play by your rules isn't moral, it's egomania.
Doctors James Sherely of Watertown, Massachusetts, and Theresa Diesher of Seattle, identified by Lamberth as adult stem cell researchers, sued in August 2009, arguing that NIH guidelines breach the Dickey-Wicker strictures. They also argued that they were being irreparably harmed by having to compete for NIH funding with researchers using embryonic cells.
Wait, what? They're being done harm by competing with this research? So... embryonic cells are that much superior? (Sounds like we should make sure this is as legal as can be pronto!) But they can't evidently use them themselves?
Man, if I could sue every time I found someone else who had an edge on me in research, I'd be the only person active in my field right now. Sign me up!
Teaching is the only profession that continually demands NOT to be evaluated or held accountable,
That statement can be disproved pretty easily. Virtually every profession does what it can to avoid being evaluated. CEOs of corporations? (If the company fails, they leave with a golden parachute. Even if the government has to step in, they get ridiculous bonuses. Why? It's not their fault!) The guy who did your plumbing? Ever threatened to give one of these guys a bad review on Angie's List? They'll cajole you all day to avoid it.
And let's talk about MDs, a group that lets some of the most egregious screw-ups continue to practice medicine. (Yes, most doctors are honest, competent professionals. But as a group, the AMA will protect its own.) Or cops?
And tenure has nothing to do with it. Tenure means it's harder to fire you, but not impossible. That's a good idea if you want teachers who feel free enough to experiment with teaching. But if you fail to do your job or if you break the rules, they can (and should) fire you. Now, that doesn't always happen, but that's not the fault of tenure. That's the fault of school administrators not wanting to do their jobs.
All of that said, I've never known a teacher who fought evaluation. I've even known many who asked colleagues to give them extra feedback. The whole process of becoming and remaining a teacher is full of evaluations.
What these teachers are fighting is having their personnel records made public. In most workplaces, such records are considered private. I'm not sure what the LA school district's policies are regarding HR matters, but if they don't have such a policy, I'll be surprised.
(Of course, if you really think that this isn't a reasonable concern, feel free to give us your real name and entire, most recent work evaluation.)
... in 3 million years you get a race of bipeds evolved from cats that are uber cool and fight wars over what colors their hats should be?
That's why most people that are smart in those states have 2 sets of tires
And, you know, a place to store the off-season tires. Not everyone has a spacious garage to store things that they aren't using.
I agree. I had higher-pressure tires that came with my Civic Hybrid. This past year, they finally were to the point of needing replacement. Having moved to Minnesota (from Colorado) in the meantime, I went with regular tires for the somewhat better traction. My mileage has dropped maybe 1 MPG as a result and traction seems noticeably better in rough weather. (It's a bit of apples and oranges to compare, of course.)
On the other hand, in Colorado I seldom had any traction problems with the high-pressure tires. But we hardly had any snow on the ground, ever, so that's not so surprising. If you live in a low-snow state, I would happily recommend that type of tire.
So their logic is that the telegraph (so phone, now?) lines can get overwhelmed and break, sparking fires?
Wow, that seems like a long way to go. (For one thing, I think that phone and power lines have more protection on them now. You might overload a transformer or even take down an entire grid, but I should think widespread sparking would be uncommon. They'd have had problems all over in Canada already, if not.)
Especially since in his post the driver mentions two guys standing by the side of the street, one with a pencil and paper. So it's not even like there's a question as to whether there were witnesses, it's just a matter of finding them.
But online statements are sufficient reason to have a chat with him. The fact that he confessed ("plead guilty", says the article) means that they had all the evidence that they needed when the time came.
The third point is perhaps the most concerning (OK, maybe the game of telephone here is). The guy (who is unnamed, which isn't promising) claims to be a physicists with expertise in astronomy, but his work sounds a lot more like he's an engineer.
Also,
Stressing he was not a “crackpot”, he said he wanted to investigate the science behind the incident after his grandfather, who was bound by the Official Secrets Act,
So... his grandfather couldn't talk to anyone about it and therefore had to bit his tongue in spite of his curiosity. (With me so far?) But granddad also tells his wife and daughter? Lookit, if the guy believes in official secrecy, he knows secret means just that: secret. You don't have a state secret that you religiously keep for 50 years, except telling your loved ones. Word leaks out, that's why they made a big to-do in WWII about "loose lips sink ships" and all of that.