You do realize that the US mortality rates for Hantavirus are probably skewed, and it's carried by deer mice & not house mice, right? (Citation for carriers, mortality rates would require determining how much you actually know about how they get calculated and the history of Hantavirus in the US specifically, and I ain't doing it without being paid.)
We actually kill more adults of other species than we kill their young; the odds are very low that you are any different here, given that it's a damn pain in the US to buy meat of the young of any species whatsoever. So, what makes a human at any age any more special?
What would make you, specifically, more special and deserving of life than other people, who might be kept alive by simply euthanizing you for your organs?
No, I'm not seriously suggesting this. People have, however, taken precisely the logic you're proposing to such ethically horrible conclusions. Logic that has historically tended to end in genocide should be avoided.
And, well, all things considered--why not encourage (only encourage) people who have trouble with self-control to take permanent steps, instead of risking them being too flaky to get an abortion? Sterilization exists, and depending on which procedures you're comparing, it can be distinctly safer than an abortion. There's also implants for women, which has higher reliability rates than all other methods of contraception, and all you need to do is remember every few years to get a new implant. (There's damn few side effects, too. The only particular problem seems to be getting it.)
A decent chunk of it can be purely a 'nurture'-induced problem--nothing genetically wrong here, just nobody bothered making the person learn that actions have consequences while they were young enough for the lesson to take. (Yes, this is why you shouldn't keep kids from feeling sads because things went wrong, even if you really can quite easily fix the immediate problem--the long-term results are worse.) Only way to fix that one is fix the culture.
If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they're 98% effective at preventing pregnancy.
So, less effective than this app. Of course, they're also not used perfectly. Frankly the only time you can guarantee avoiding pregnancy while using a condom is if you're having gay sex with another man.
Actually, the numbers I've seen for condoms at perfect use is about the same as this app claims, but I'm skeptical that the base method works--yes, I know how it works, probably better than most people here because I damn well had to memorize the science it (claims it) is based on. It's a slightly revised version of the Rhythm Method. Slightly revised.
I can believe it'd be 99% effective, if you were using it to try to get pregnant. That's actually the best use for this method, because the temperature uptick that indicates ovulation is impending is not far enough ahead for you to make sure there's no swimmers waiting for that egg. No, more precise thermometers isn't going to change this because sperm lives seven days and the uptick is a couple days ahead of ovulation; what you'd actually need is monitoring the hormone levels in the bloodstream, and enough data to know what your specific patterns are because those vary between individuals. (Yes, there's research going into the basic tech needed for that.)
Pharmacopias would not include any of these things; they deal with pharmaceuticals, not therapies. I also chose the dates I did in part because of knowing the rough timeline of things. Going through your list...
Maggot therapy is actually relatively new even though the observations can be traced to the American Civil War in the 1860s. Until around the time Lister went about spreading the word of germ theory and antiseptic surgery in the 1870s, necrosis was seen as good.
Leeches were used in the past for trying to balance out the humors, not prevent blood from pooling as they're used in surgery now. They also are living things and not pharmaceuticals.
Phages aren't a potion--they're viruses--and were discovered in 1915, so even if they were a drug as opposed to living things, they'd still be in the 'after 1900' period.
Probably because he didn't do his undergrad as a biochemist--that's part of why the sequence I suggested included a registered dietician, because while your GP won't necessarily have a deep knowledge of biochemistry and physiology, it's pretty hard to become a registered dietician/nutritionist without it.
But yeah, raising your potassium should help with the mental fog--you might want to step it up carefully, and it might also help some with the sodium since your body will do its best to keep them relatively even. Add in a decent source of calcium if you want to make sure you've got all three of the major ions for your nervous system just to be sure.
From the perspective of somebody who actually studied physiology+biochemistry and then wandered into neuroscience?
Absolutely nothing is wrong with salt, except most people don't consume anywhere near sufficient potassium. Sodium and potassium really, really need to be kept in balance--they're key to neurons' ability to generate action potentials and electrical signalling. (One interesting test on how to treat high sodium levels actually tried potassium supplementation instead of cutting salt intake to great success--it doesn't hurt that most Americans have a potassium deficiency. If you don't use the salt shaker and supplement potassium, then you should be fine and if you're not then you need to see a doctor & then a licensed dietician.)
You may want to consider using that wording very carefully. The number of cancer cases per capita in the west has literally grown ten-fold during the 1900's, with the increased usage of chemical additives we considered "harmless".
All current evidence supports the view that cancer is literally the result of sufficient accumulation of mutations & low immune function--there is no 'magic' way to avoid it, it's not proof of sinful indulgence in scary chemicals like dihydrogen monoxide or anything. You just did not die before your body stopped being able to kill off cancerous cells fast enough.
Since the 1900s, life expectancy has steadily increased due to the discovery of such things as 'antibiotics' and other means to keep people from dying. Most of modern pharmacology doesn't date back to before the 1900s, damn few things date to before the 1850s or so, and a lot of the stuff used circa 1900 for medicine that isn't still in use was dropped from the pharmacopeia. (The only ways to pull off that feat is having truly horrible side effects and/or being proven to be snake oil. Only the second is 100% certain to result in removal.)
...highlight the unintended consequences of introducing otherwise harmless additives to the food supply.
It seems like this 'highlights' one unique and unproven possibility, and nothing more. Getting ahead of ourselves....
Actually, reading the paper over in Nature (sorry, paywall) and good science reporting from the kinds of places that'll link you straight to Nature? They're very clear that they've not gotten to do human trials--which is understandable, you're not going to get to do them without the paper, and even then you might have a severe amount of trouble getting permission to do them given that C. diff can be fatal.
What it highlights, really, is that the current methods used to determine if a food additive is harmless are stupid. Animal models are only good at telling us if it's safe for that species--in this specific case, some of the weaknesses the researchers behind the paper note is that we don't know if trehalose makes it far enough in the human intestine to reach where C. diff gets found. (It totally does in mice.) The models they used, however, were a lot closer to human than is usual for safety testing: the mice were modified and set up to have human-like gut flora, which is what was required to catch this problem. That said, given that the enzyme required to break down trehalose is not abundant even in those people who have it? It's likely that the mouse models are close enough.
It helps when they're are not on a crusade to be as much of an arsehole as they can to everybody else.
They're not. The transgender people I know personally, like most people, just want to get on with their lives in peace.
Please note my choice of pronouns here, it might help you slightly since you missed my point--and are clearly thinking I'm leaving other transgender people out of the 'everybody else' when nope, they're being an arsehole to us too.
People who get triggered when their birth sex is mentioned,
I've never met any, then again I'm not on a crusade to be as much as an arsehole as I can to my transgender friends.
It helps when they're are not on a crusade to be as much of an arsehole as they can to everybody else. If you look and dress like a big burly 1%er biker dude or like a bubble-headed cheerleader? You might wanna wait until you've changed out your closet and been on hormones a while before expecting people will automatically know you're respectively really Jennifer or Bruce.
Labeling people discussing this sort of issue as transphobic only shuts down discussions--some of which are going to be important discussions among transgender people, given that assuming people have psychic powers does not precisely make us look like we're mentally healthy.
When you buy a wedding cake you pick the design out of a book. The only reason they're made to order is that they're larger than the cakes people usually need, not because the baker has to come up with a unique design that reflects his opinions about your specific choice of spouse.
Custom and made to order are not the same thing. I am not a baker--my partner, though, has worked as one--but I've been inside quite a few bakeries that do custom cakes of various types.
However, I've also actually been in several different cake stores when people were placing an order for a custom wedding cake, and... A custom wedding cake is a custom wedding cake, not merely a made to order deal. This was not just 'pick a design out of a book' deal; you sit down with somebody and work out all the details, quite possibly with sketches to confirm that the cake designer understands what you want correctly, with prices being negotiated.
A made to order cake? There is a description and a price under the photo and possibly a couple options. The book will include all types of special occasion cakes, ranging from wedding cakes to "Happy [Pick A Holiday]!" cakes.
Lucky for them that there was another bakery near by.
It wasn't nearby. At the time, gay marriage was not legal in Colorado; in fact, if memory serves, the wedding was to take place out of state and the cake for that wedding already arranged for.
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law is actually likely to get struck down for being enforced in a discriminatory way, looking at the way argument went and SCOTUS has ruled in the past--Justice Kennedy, in fact, was the author of the majority opinion in the case where they said you cannot do an end-run by having the text be fine but still being a bunch of bigots. And yes, this is actually rather explicitly stated by Justice Kennedy in the opinion in question. It's not something to protest, because it also means you cannot have a law be a de facto DWB.
Let me know when people begin growing and maturing again rather than lashing out at society for your problems (every rights movement save ending segregation).
Feminism was originally a just movement, true to its stated goals.
("Feminism" today is a sick, twisted perversion of the original. It's so bad they retroactively redefined feminism. Now if you want to talk about the feminism that cares about equality, respects men and women the same, etc. you have to talk about "first wave feminism".)
When you get down to it, that's the normal trajectory of pretty much any mass movement which doesn't have extremely well-defined goals which are kept to. Some of this can be easily inherent in the movement from its start.
When it's the employer citing 'managerial differences,' I'm used to it being code for 'we cannot openly say so but was fired for illegal/immoral behavior.' I've generally seen it being treated as quite acceptable to cite 'wanting to spend more time with family' as a reason you left a job, though you probably should try to avoid giving that when interviewing for any job that expects you to drop everything and teleport over the instant they need you.
The communist party in 1930s Germany has its own paramilitary wing--the Roter Frontkampferbund. This wasn't precisely that strange when you're talking 1930s European politics; they and the Brownshirts are merely two of them, and they all got into fights with the police as well as each other. What it was like could be very accurately thought of as if all the political parties running people for office in your district were intimately linked with gangs with all that implies. (And yes, there were even centrist parties in Weimar Germany who had their own paramilitary branches.)
Politically-motivated violence has tended to not end anywhere good, if you consider human rights important. It's best to disapprove of it completely--to take the view that no matter how noble the cause they claim, it's really just how they are justifying indulging in their violent urges and some are self-aware enough to do this knowingly.
Just an FYI: CPR causes blunt force injuries to the chest when performed correctly--in fact, expect broken ribs--and that's just one of the various things that might be attempted to resuscitate somebody who seems to be having a heart attack, and most actually will leave a 'signature' set of blunt force injuries to the chest.
Which isn't to say that this might be the cause, but if you want me to tell you anything about that, give me a link to the ME's report, not Newsweek. Most journalists are as qualified to understand what they're reading when given an ME's report as they are if what they were reading was source code...
Wrong-headed thinking there, corporate sheeple. Abusive employers need to be outed in all possible venues, maps are an excellent place to warn interviewees.
No, Glassdoor is, especially since that's what it does. Maps isn't, because typically that's the only comment from a current or former employee and, quite frankly, that's utterly useless for me even if I'm considering applying to work there. Maybe it's accurate, maybe it's deliberate lies, maybe they totally believe that, for example, their boss could only possibly have fired them because their boss is a bigot and it cannot possibly have anything to do with the fact they have been sexually harassing coworkers and/or clients and/or the office dog.
So. Pretty much useless, and that's without taking into account that most of them read like they're libel. The tone and content is simply very...wrong for a valid grievance.
Sites like Glassdoor collect reviews from current and former employees, and also give me useful information like what sort of pay I can expect from the employer (particularly useful when they want me to ask in the application for a specific amount) and what sort of compensation package is actually offered.
FB is all about interaction and clicks. So 1) is out right a way. If you make people afraid their accounts get locked because they decided to share something they have not exhaustively researched. They will stop sharing anything, but photos of their own dog and cat.
If this only applies to things like the pedo slander/troll mob? No, not really. It needs to penalize malicious behavior.
2) This one *might* be doable but it won't really work. If you don't put teeth on it people will just click thru and not think anymore of it. You can't put teeth on it because it will drive people away from the site.
And? They've actually gotten pretty good at ensuring that you've at least skimmed through the ToS. Do it in an engaging form, such as a short video with the click-through button only accessible at the end.
3) I don't know if you have noticed but FB share price and a lot of what they talk about at share holder meetings are "active users." That is what advertisers care about, and by extension investors. Kicking the worst trouble makers off the site who make it toxic is probably necessary, but that is going have to be reserved for a few serial offenders.
Agreed. There'd need to be a lot of stages involved and it probably should be run on a point system like driver's licenses sometimes are. You only get kicked off after you've proven that you're toxic, and it should be pretty indifferent to the beliefs underlying it.
4) Oh that's brilliant incentive third parties to continue to support alternative logon methods so that they don't cut off facebook users who did something stupid 10 years ago as teenagers. Sure that help keep FB where they want to be in the middle of every web request.
They're going to maintain alternative logons whatever because some people are going to not want to give them FB access. It should take longer/more to trigger a lifetime ban, though--three strikes in a year getting you a lifetime ban should take doing something impressive, along the lines of starting the internet lynch mob off and riling it up sufficiently that your target each time ended up dead.
I'm not claiming it's the best solution. Seems better than banning accounts entirely because they might be trolls though.
Did you just...miss the part about how the tool was used to troll? What do you do when you start having people set up these bots to deliberately target people for such false messages? Set another bot on them?
What do you to when you get a trll bot impersonating one of those bots? Set yet another bot on them?
The only way it could possibly work is if you had the bots be exclusively permitted only when run by, say, Twitter, and even then you're going to have problems if the bot has too many and/or too high-profile false positives. I will agree that this might be better than banning accounts entirely because they might be trlls, but what is being pointed out is that having it done by indies is known to just cause trllception.
Also, I wouldn't necessarily want somebody who'd not even attempted to get official blessing writing the script for such a bot if I was running the service--once again, for it to possibly work, it needs to be trustworthy and reliable,
(Note: Apparently,/. has a filter that is against discussing trlling at length. The reader is expected to be capable of figuring out what the missing vowel happens to be.)
You know what is squelching free speech? Shutting someone down for telling the truth. Tell me which is a case of that: shutting down a bot that warns people that certain twitter accounts are posting in bad faith, or warning people that certain twitter accounts post in bad faith.
I'd say the former.
I'd say it's irrelevant: The platform's Twitter. As people have pointed out, the assumption ought to be that the only accounts possibly not posting in bad faith are ones spamming the 'net or just letting you check a server's or site's status.
But it does smell like an attempt to generate a story. The proposed digest-and-report bot actually probably would have been more useful and effective overall; so would having gone asking Twitter for permission to set up the bot. The false positive issue that gets glossed over suggests that this might have a bit to do with why the bot is not being allowed back up--we're not being told some things, and I wouldn't be surprised if the initial resurrection had been on the condition that they meet a goal that just wasn't met. (I'm not clicking, because it's NYT and I don't really care to deal with their paywall/tantrums over people using adblock on the off chance that they'd admit anything like that.)
it sounds like this particular ISP doesn't so much "shut off" as deliver less than the customer originally paid for
No, it sounds like the ISP is delivering exactly what they said they would when both parties agreed to a contract that - among other things - says you can't use their systems and properties and related services to rip off intellectual property. It's not exactly mysterious.
Which would be fine, except there's a rather significant track record of those complaints being not in fact true. There's also no penalty for that, outside of the few cases where the person decided to go ahead and sue and could because they could prove damages in court.
The DCMA is bad, bad law for many reasons, if you've not noticed.
Yeah because Plastic bubble wrap in a padded envelope is much more planet friendly then a cardboard box.
Exactly. Cardboard is one of the easiest and most 'friendly' for recycling options--if they choose the inks and glues right, you even have the option of just burning it and using the ashes to enrich the soil for plants. It'd probably take a bit more effort to ensure you wouldn't even need to be worried about the tape not being safe for that.
Plastic bubble wrap in a padded envelope? Not so easy, especially since those things cannot be recycled in many places.
So I ask again, when I'm looking to fill junior staff positions, why should I spend money alerting the part of the talent pool that in almost every case is either looking for more senior work or simply mediocre?
So you can take advantage of word of mouth? Quite a few of the job postings sites require you pay for access, or for more useful filters, or have a free version that claims to let you filter for entry-level jobs but has an interesting definition, and even if they were all free, there's still a lot of places to check for jobs so doing it alone is difficult. Networking pays off, even if it's with people looking for jobs that are just enough different from the ones you're after that you aren't going to be in competition so there's no problem with trading leads with them.
This is no different from a realtor who chooses not to show houses to black people - definitely illegal.
Yes it is different. This is an automated platform for advertising. Can Facebook's server look at that ad and determine that it's a "job" ad or a "housing" ad? How do you expect Facebook to know?
Facebook made the choice to not spend the money to have people (or anybody) vet the ads before they get run. This is the decision they may find themselves in legal trouble for--that they decided that it was better to whine about how hard and expensive it would be to have somebody vet ads they were accepting money to run.
Remove the artificial limits placed on the number of doctors by the AMA
You really need to look in to what you're saying. Several problems exist with that statement.
[...]
Do you really want someone practicing medicine who has less qualifications than that?
The artificial limits placed on the number of doctors is by limiting access to the qualifications--it's not 'as many people as can meet the qualifications,' the AMA is limiting the number of seats available for people to attempt to get the qualifications in the first place. Dropping any attempt to cap the number of seats available in MD programs and instead working purely off of "program must meet these qualifications and standards" would do a lot to help, especially since we're already seeing shortages and a universal single-payer system will make the problem harder to miss.
A lot of countries with single-payer actually are importing a decent chunk of their doctors from the developing world, which probably at least contributes to the problem the WHO is reporting--the farther you have to travel to receive medical care, the greater the costs are...even if the place providing the health care services is a completely free clinic.
Oh, and an doctor of osteopathic medicine is a doctor. They just got a DO instead of an MD. That's pretty much it on the differences: they can, legally, get the same medical license with the same authorizations and everything as somebody with an MD, and can join the AMA if they wish.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much all of our meat is from young animals. Delicious, young, grain fed, steers. Now I'm hungry.
Beef comes from adult animals--you want to eat a calf, you get veal.
I'm a lifelong vegetarian. You should be the one telling me this, not the other way around.
You do realize that the US mortality rates for Hantavirus are probably skewed, and it's carried by deer mice & not house mice, right? (Citation for carriers, mortality rates would require determining how much you actually know about how they get calculated and the history of Hantavirus in the US specifically, and I ain't doing it without being paid.)
We actually kill more adults of other species than we kill their young; the odds are very low that you are any different here, given that it's a damn pain in the US to buy meat of the young of any species whatsoever. So, what makes a human at any age any more special?
What would make you, specifically, more special and deserving of life than other people, who might be kept alive by simply euthanizing you for your organs?
No, I'm not seriously suggesting this. People have, however, taken precisely the logic you're proposing to such ethically horrible conclusions. Logic that has historically tended to end in genocide should be avoided.
And, well, all things considered--why not encourage (only encourage) people who have trouble with self-control to take permanent steps, instead of risking them being too flaky to get an abortion? Sterilization exists, and depending on which procedures you're comparing, it can be distinctly safer than an abortion. There's also implants for women, which has higher reliability rates than all other methods of contraception, and all you need to do is remember every few years to get a new implant. (There's damn few side effects, too. The only particular problem seems to be getting it.)
A decent chunk of it can be purely a 'nurture'-induced problem--nothing genetically wrong here, just nobody bothered making the person learn that actions have consequences while they were young enough for the lesson to take. (Yes, this is why you shouldn't keep kids from feeling sads because things went wrong, even if you really can quite easily fix the immediate problem--the long-term results are worse.) Only way to fix that one is fix the culture.
If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they're 98% effective at preventing pregnancy.
So, less effective than this app. Of course, they're also not used perfectly. Frankly the only time you can guarantee avoiding pregnancy while using a condom is if you're having gay sex with another man.
Actually, the numbers I've seen for condoms at perfect use is about the same as this app claims, but I'm skeptical that the base method works--yes, I know how it works, probably better than most people here because I damn well had to memorize the science it (claims it) is based on. It's a slightly revised version of the Rhythm Method. Slightly revised.
I can believe it'd be 99% effective, if you were using it to try to get pregnant. That's actually the best use for this method, because the temperature uptick that indicates ovulation is impending is not far enough ahead for you to make sure there's no swimmers waiting for that egg. No, more precise thermometers isn't going to change this because sperm lives seven days and the uptick is a couple days ahead of ovulation; what you'd actually need is monitoring the hormone levels in the bloodstream, and enough data to know what your specific patterns are because those vary between individuals. (Yes, there's research going into the basic tech needed for that.)
Pharmacopias would not include any of these things; they deal with pharmaceuticals, not therapies. I also chose the dates I did in part because of knowing the rough timeline of things. Going through your list...
Probably because he didn't do his undergrad as a biochemist--that's part of why the sequence I suggested included a registered dietician, because while your GP won't necessarily have a deep knowledge of biochemistry and physiology, it's pretty hard to become a registered dietician/nutritionist without it.
But yeah, raising your potassium should help with the mental fog--you might want to step it up carefully, and it might also help some with the sodium since your body will do its best to keep them relatively even. Add in a decent source of calcium if you want to make sure you've got all three of the major ions for your nervous system just to be sure.
From the perspective of somebody who actually studied physiology+biochemistry and then wandered into neuroscience?
Absolutely nothing is wrong with salt, except most people don't consume anywhere near sufficient potassium. Sodium and potassium really, really need to be kept in balance--they're key to neurons' ability to generate action potentials and electrical signalling. (One interesting test on how to treat high sodium levels actually tried potassium supplementation instead of cutting salt intake to great success--it doesn't hurt that most Americans have a potassium deficiency. If you don't use the salt shaker and supplement potassium, then you should be fine and if you're not then you need to see a doctor & then a licensed dietician.)
You may want to consider using that wording very carefully. The number of cancer cases per capita in the west has literally grown ten-fold during the 1900's, with the increased usage of chemical additives we considered "harmless".
All current evidence supports the view that cancer is literally the result of sufficient accumulation of mutations & low immune function--there is no 'magic' way to avoid it, it's not proof of sinful indulgence in scary chemicals like dihydrogen monoxide or anything. You just did not die before your body stopped being able to kill off cancerous cells fast enough.
Since the 1900s, life expectancy has steadily increased due to the discovery of such things as 'antibiotics' and other means to keep people from dying. Most of modern pharmacology doesn't date back to before the 1900s, damn few things date to before the 1850s or so, and a lot of the stuff used circa 1900 for medicine that isn't still in use was dropped from the pharmacopeia. (The only ways to pull off that feat is having truly horrible side effects and/or being proven to be snake oil. Only the second is 100% certain to result in removal.)
It seems like this 'highlights' one unique and unproven possibility, and nothing more. Getting ahead of ourselves....
Actually, reading the paper over in Nature (sorry, paywall) and good science reporting from the kinds of places that'll link you straight to Nature? They're very clear that they've not gotten to do human trials--which is understandable, you're not going to get to do them without the paper, and even then you might have a severe amount of trouble getting permission to do them given that C. diff can be fatal.
What it highlights, really, is that the current methods used to determine if a food additive is harmless are stupid. Animal models are only good at telling us if it's safe for that species--in this specific case, some of the weaknesses the researchers behind the paper note is that we don't know if trehalose makes it far enough in the human intestine to reach where C. diff gets found. (It totally does in mice.) The models they used, however, were a lot closer to human than is usual for safety testing: the mice were modified and set up to have human-like gut flora, which is what was required to catch this problem. That said, given that the enzyme required to break down trehalose is not abundant even in those people who have it? It's likely that the mouse models are close enough.
It helps when they're are not on a crusade to be as much of an arsehole as they can to everybody else.
They're not. The transgender people I know personally, like most people, just want to get on with their lives in peace.
Please note my choice of pronouns here, it might help you slightly since you missed my point--and are clearly thinking I'm leaving other transgender people out of the 'everybody else' when nope, they're being an arsehole to us too.
People who get triggered when their birth sex is mentioned,
I've never met any, then again I'm not on a crusade to be as much as an arsehole as I can to my transgender friends.
It helps when they're are not on a crusade to be as much of an arsehole as they can to everybody else. If you look and dress like a big burly 1%er biker dude or like a bubble-headed cheerleader? You might wanna wait until you've changed out your closet and been on hormones a while before expecting people will automatically know you're respectively really Jennifer or Bruce.
Labeling people discussing this sort of issue as transphobic only shuts down discussions--some of which are going to be important discussions among transgender people, given that assuming people have psychic powers does not precisely make us look like we're mentally healthy.
When you buy a wedding cake you pick the design out of a book. The only reason they're made to order is that they're larger than the cakes people usually need, not because the baker has to come up with a unique design that reflects his opinions about your specific choice of spouse.
Custom and made to order are not the same thing. I am not a baker--my partner, though, has worked as one--but I've been inside quite a few bakeries that do custom cakes of various types.
However, I've also actually been in several different cake stores when people were placing an order for a custom wedding cake, and... A custom wedding cake is a custom wedding cake, not merely a made to order deal. This was not just 'pick a design out of a book' deal; you sit down with somebody and work out all the details, quite possibly with sketches to confirm that the cake designer understands what you want correctly, with prices being negotiated.
A made to order cake? There is a description and a price under the photo and possibly a couple options. The book will include all types of special occasion cakes, ranging from wedding cakes to "Happy [Pick A Holiday]!" cakes.
Lucky for them that there was another bakery near by.
It wasn't nearby. At the time, gay marriage was not legal in Colorado; in fact, if memory serves, the wedding was to take place out of state and the cake for that wedding already arranged for.
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law is actually likely to get struck down for being enforced in a discriminatory way, looking at the way argument went and SCOTUS has ruled in the past--Justice Kennedy, in fact, was the author of the majority opinion in the case where they said you cannot do an end-run by having the text be fine but still being a bunch of bigots. And yes, this is actually rather explicitly stated by Justice Kennedy in the opinion in question. It's not something to protest, because it also means you cannot have a law be a de facto DWB.
Let me know when people begin growing and maturing again rather than lashing out at society for your problems (every rights movement save ending segregation).
Feminism was originally a just movement, true to its stated goals.
("Feminism" today is a sick, twisted perversion of the original. It's so bad they retroactively redefined feminism. Now if you want to talk about the feminism that cares about equality, respects men and women the same, etc. you have to talk about "first wave feminism".)
When you get down to it, that's the normal trajectory of pretty much any mass movement which doesn't have extremely well-defined goals which are kept to. Some of this can be easily inherent in the movement from its start.
When it's the employer citing 'managerial differences,' I'm used to it being code for 'we cannot openly say so but was fired for illegal/immoral behavior.' I've generally seen it being treated as quite acceptable to cite 'wanting to spend more time with family' as a reason you left a job, though you probably should try to avoid giving that when interviewing for any job that expects you to drop everything and teleport over the instant they need you.
The communist party in 1930s Germany has its own paramilitary wing--the Roter Frontkampferbund. This wasn't precisely that strange when you're talking 1930s European politics; they and the Brownshirts are merely two of them, and they all got into fights with the police as well as each other. What it was like could be very accurately thought of as if all the political parties running people for office in your district were intimately linked with gangs with all that implies. (And yes, there were even centrist parties in Weimar Germany who had their own paramilitary branches.)
Politically-motivated violence has tended to not end anywhere good, if you consider human rights important. It's best to disapprove of it completely--to take the view that no matter how noble the cause they claim, it's really just how they are justifying indulging in their violent urges and some are self-aware enough to do this knowingly.
Was not struck by the vehicle
Erm. Then what caused the blunt force injury to the chest? http://www.newsweek.com/charlo...
Just an FYI: CPR causes blunt force injuries to the chest when performed correctly--in fact, expect broken ribs--and that's just one of the various things that might be attempted to resuscitate somebody who seems to be having a heart attack, and most actually will leave a 'signature' set of blunt force injuries to the chest.
Which isn't to say that this might be the cause, but if you want me to tell you anything about that, give me a link to the ME's report, not Newsweek. Most journalists are as qualified to understand what they're reading when given an ME's report as they are if what they were reading was source code...
Wrong-headed thinking there, corporate sheeple. Abusive employers need to be outed in all possible venues, maps are an excellent place to warn interviewees.
No, Glassdoor is, especially since that's what it does. Maps isn't, because typically that's the only comment from a current or former employee and, quite frankly, that's utterly useless for me even if I'm considering applying to work there. Maybe it's accurate, maybe it's deliberate lies, maybe they totally believe that, for example, their boss could only possibly have fired them because their boss is a bigot and it cannot possibly have anything to do with the fact they have been sexually harassing coworkers and/or clients and/or the office dog.
So. Pretty much useless, and that's without taking into account that most of them read like they're libel. The tone and content is simply very...wrong for a valid grievance.
Sites like Glassdoor collect reviews from current and former employees, and also give me useful information like what sort of pay I can expect from the employer (particularly useful when they want me to ask in the application for a specific amount) and what sort of compensation package is actually offered.
FB is all about interaction and clicks. So 1) is out right a way. If you make people afraid their accounts get locked because they decided to share something they have not exhaustively researched. They will stop sharing anything, but photos of their own dog and cat.
If this only applies to things like the pedo slander/troll mob? No, not really. It needs to penalize malicious behavior.
2) This one *might* be doable but it won't really work. If you don't put teeth on it people will just click thru and not think anymore of it. You can't put teeth on it because it will drive people away from the site.
And? They've actually gotten pretty good at ensuring that you've at least skimmed through the ToS. Do it in an engaging form, such as a short video with the click-through button only accessible at the end.
3) I don't know if you have noticed but FB share price and a lot of what they talk about at share holder meetings are "active users." That is what advertisers care about, and by extension investors. Kicking the worst trouble makers off the site who make it toxic is probably necessary, but that is going have to be reserved for a few serial offenders.
Agreed. There'd need to be a lot of stages involved and it probably should be run on a point system like driver's licenses sometimes are. You only get kicked off after you've proven that you're toxic, and it should be pretty indifferent to the beliefs underlying it.
4) Oh that's brilliant incentive third parties to continue to support alternative logon methods so that they don't cut off facebook users who did something stupid 10 years ago as teenagers. Sure that help keep FB where they want to be in the middle of every web request.
They're going to maintain alternative logons whatever because some people are going to not want to give them FB access. It should take longer/more to trigger a lifetime ban, though--three strikes in a year getting you a lifetime ban should take doing something impressive, along the lines of starting the internet lynch mob off and riling it up sufficiently that your target each time ended up dead.
I'm not claiming it's the best solution. Seems better than banning accounts entirely because they might be trolls though.
Did you just...miss the part about how the tool was used to troll? What do you do when you start having people set up these bots to deliberately target people for such false messages? Set another bot on them?
What do you to when you get a trll bot impersonating one of those bots? Set yet another bot on them?
The only way it could possibly work is if you had the bots be exclusively permitted only when run by, say, Twitter, and even then you're going to have problems if the bot has too many and/or too high-profile false positives. I will agree that this might be better than banning accounts entirely because they might be trlls, but what is being pointed out is that having it done by indies is known to just cause trllception.
Also, I wouldn't necessarily want somebody who'd not even attempted to get official blessing writing the script for such a bot if I was running the service--once again, for it to possibly work, it needs to be trustworthy and reliable,
(Note: Apparently, /. has a filter that is against discussing trlling at length. The reader is expected to be capable of figuring out what the missing vowel happens to be.)
You know what is squelching free speech? Shutting someone down for telling the truth. Tell me which is a case of that: shutting down a bot that warns people that certain twitter accounts are posting in bad faith, or warning people that certain twitter accounts post in bad faith.
I'd say the former.
I'd say it's irrelevant: The platform's Twitter. As people have pointed out, the assumption ought to be that the only accounts possibly not posting in bad faith are ones spamming the 'net or just letting you check a server's or site's status.
But it does smell like an attempt to generate a story. The proposed digest-and-report bot actually probably would have been more useful and effective overall; so would having gone asking Twitter for permission to set up the bot. The false positive issue that gets glossed over suggests that this might have a bit to do with why the bot is not being allowed back up--we're not being told some things, and I wouldn't be surprised if the initial resurrection had been on the condition that they meet a goal that just wasn't met. (I'm not clicking, because it's NYT and I don't really care to deal with their paywall/tantrums over people using adblock on the off chance that they'd admit anything like that.)
it sounds like this particular ISP doesn't so much "shut off" as deliver less than the customer originally paid for
No, it sounds like the ISP is delivering exactly what they said they would when both parties agreed to a contract that - among other things - says you can't use their systems and properties and related services to rip off intellectual property. It's not exactly mysterious.
Which would be fine, except there's a rather significant track record of those complaints being not in fact true. There's also no penalty for that, outside of the few cases where the person decided to go ahead and sue and could because they could prove damages in court.
The DCMA is bad, bad law for many reasons, if you've not noticed.
Yeah because Plastic bubble wrap in a padded envelope is much more planet friendly then a cardboard box.
Exactly. Cardboard is one of the easiest and most 'friendly' for recycling options--if they choose the inks and glues right, you even have the option of just burning it and using the ashes to enrich the soil for plants. It'd probably take a bit more effort to ensure you wouldn't even need to be worried about the tape not being safe for that.
Plastic bubble wrap in a padded envelope? Not so easy, especially since those things cannot be recycled in many places.
So I ask again, when I'm looking to fill junior staff positions, why should I spend money alerting the part of the talent pool that in almost every case is either looking for more senior work or simply mediocre?
So you can take advantage of word of mouth? Quite a few of the job postings sites require you pay for access, or for more useful filters, or have a free version that claims to let you filter for entry-level jobs but has an interesting definition, and even if they were all free, there's still a lot of places to check for jobs so doing it alone is difficult. Networking pays off, even if it's with people looking for jobs that are just enough different from the ones you're after that you aren't going to be in competition so there's no problem with trading leads with them.
This is no different from a realtor who chooses not to show houses to black people - definitely illegal.
Yes it is different. This is an automated platform for advertising. Can Facebook's server look at that ad and determine that it's a "job" ad or a "housing" ad? How do you expect Facebook to know?
Facebook made the choice to not spend the money to have people (or anybody) vet the ads before they get run. This is the decision they may find themselves in legal trouble for--that they decided that it was better to whine about how hard and expensive it would be to have somebody vet ads they were accepting money to run.
Remove the artificial limits placed on the number of doctors by the AMA
You really need to look in to what you're saying. Several problems exist with that statement.
[...]
Do you really want someone practicing medicine who has less qualifications than that?
The artificial limits placed on the number of doctors is by limiting access to the qualifications--it's not 'as many people as can meet the qualifications,' the AMA is limiting the number of seats available for people to attempt to get the qualifications in the first place. Dropping any attempt to cap the number of seats available in MD programs and instead working purely off of "program must meet these qualifications and standards" would do a lot to help, especially since we're already seeing shortages and a universal single-payer system will make the problem harder to miss.
A lot of countries with single-payer actually are importing a decent chunk of their doctors from the developing world, which probably at least contributes to the problem the WHO is reporting--the farther you have to travel to receive medical care, the greater the costs are...even if the place providing the health care services is a completely free clinic.
Oh, and an doctor of osteopathic medicine is a doctor. They just got a DO instead of an MD. That's pretty much it on the differences: they can, legally, get the same medical license with the same authorizations and everything as somebody with an MD, and can join the AMA if they wish.