Some people smoke. Yes, it's unhealthy. People do unhealthy things, it's part of free will. Get used to it. It's not an ethical or moral issue.
Employers should not have any role in what someone does outside of work, and we need a law-or better yet a constitutional amendment- to that effect. It's unfortunate government, both parties leans the opposite way. As for the argument of "Smoking is bad for society-when you get cancer, other people have to pay for it", also bullshit. Unless you want to regulate every aspect of someones life, in order to minimize health care expense(ACLU's pizza animation-google it- sums the implications of this nicely), you have to accept that as a whole, in a civilized society, we pay for each others choices. If someone judges that smoking increases the quality of their life enough to outweigh the health risks, let them be.
If you're so damn concerned about second hand smoke, why don't you do something useful and demand better mass transit so you can quit breathing car exhaust. Or, if you smell smoke and you don't like it, leave.
The vast majority of people are not sociopathic mass murderers, and do not aspire to be such. Therefore, chances are most people who shine lights at airplanes are unaware it's dangerous. So, require lasers to come with a full package inserts explaining the danger caused to aircraft, put a video showing the effects on websites, and maybe rent some TV ads. Make sure everyone knows what lasers do. It would also help if more people realized that airplanes do not 'fly themselves'.
If everyone knows the extreme dangers of lasering airplanes, then society can in good conscience criminally prosecute people for it.
First of all, to get this out of the way-Monsanto is obviously quite amoral, and their business practices are largely indefensible. However, it's worth discussing the actual issues at hand here.
The legal issues are basically: 1. Is it infringement when contaminated seeds are planted unintentionally and they contain patented genetic engineering. I would say no, because my understanding is that the tort of infringement must be willful.(IANAL) 2.Does the right of first sale allow seeds to be reproduced to create more seeds for the use of the same former. A complex issue, I would guess probably not, legally.
The more commonly discussed issue though, is the ethics of GM food. I personally believe, very strongly, that genetically engineered food is good and desirable, since mankind has yet to grasp the whole 'birth control' concept, and likely never will. GM food also has a massive capacity for good, making food more nutritious and easier to grow.
Politically, I'm very far left, but I (unpopularly) believe that technology is often it's own solution. I'm as anti-Monsanto as everyone, but their business practices does not make their product evil, anymore than Microsoft's antitrust issues made the PC unethical. They are distinct issues.
If someone needs surgery on a trans-atlantic flight, they divert to the nearest airport near a hospital, which would usually be under one hour and rarely more than three. Most surgical conditions can wait 1-3 hours.
You can't wait 1-3 months though, as you would if a spacecraft needed to turn around
I just read the link to the blog, where he claims a public available geolocation site was used, that is obviously false since anyone who has ever tried plugging their IP into one of these knows it can only give you a very broad location, city-level.
This story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and I see basically two possibilities:
1.The events described, as a whole, actually happened, but the technical issues described(finding the IP and hacking the facebook page) were misinterpreted by the author. 2. The entire thing is false.
I don't know which one it is, personally I think the latter as it sounds implausible and reads like a work of fiction.
The claim of the "IT genius friend" finding the house from the IP obviously makes no sense for two reasons:
1.Twitter and Facebook do not reveal their user's IPs, nor do most email services. Depending on the blog host, it's possible he could have found the IP there, but obviously there would be no way to be sure it was the same as the stalker(troll is the wrong word) on FB and Twitter. 2.Converting the IP to a physical address obviously is not possible without cooperation from the ISP. The author claims that his friend was able to deduce not one, not two, but THREE physical addresses from the IP addresses, including his friend's house. I don't see an ISP doing that without police or court involvement first, as giving a customer's physical location out opens them up to significant liability.
The overall story appears false as it is practically written to appeal to those who fear young people using computers. "His son was glued to the computer...couldn't watch TV without tweeting" "engrossed in conspiracy sites". This reads like a work of fiction pushing an agenda, an anti-youth, anti-internet hit piece.
When I started writing this post, I honestly wasn't sure which of the two possibilities was true, whether the author misconstrued the events or whether the whole thing was a hoax. Having re-read the article a few times now, I'm sure this is false and a hoax, and I hope it is exposed.
MS agreed to purchase X amount of electricity and pay a penalty if they don't. It's no different than an ETF on a cell contract, or any other ordinary contractual agreement.
You obviously don't like the Great Firewall, and presumably don't support China's totalitarian government. So, don't support China's economy and government by visiting China.
The internet is a part of life now, and large data centers are part of the modern world. They use energy. That is not a problem. Like everything else, it would be good to develop more energy-efficient servers, but it's not the end of the world, or a 'dirty little secret'.
This seems to be just another case of someone who doesn't want real work being done in the U.S. First they chase out all the factories, because they're too 'icky' and low-class, now guys like this want to eliminate all the data centers, and live in a world where all industrial facilities are off-shore in the third-world, and someone else's problem.
I just read through the patent and I can't make head or tail of what exactly is being patented. The best I can tell is some sort of system that has multiple identities that it shows to different people depending on your relationship.
And if it's difficult to tell what is being patented should it really be patented?
"(Note: I have enough money to defend thus suit all the way through trial without it being a severe financial hardship, so please do not give if it is a hardship for you. But, if you would like to make a contribution to help with the cause because you want to help stop people like this, then it will surely be appreciated!)"
Form follows function. You build your visual and aesthetic design around the functionality you want, and work from there, not the other way around. That's pretty much the first rule of designing anything. Form follows function.
What 4Ghz barrier? I have an Intel i7 3700k at 4.6Ghz, and before that I had a Bulldozer at 4.5Ghz(which I promptly returned due to it's horribleness.)
You're not going to wind up smoking four times a week without some bad shit going on in your life. It's perfectly possible to be a healthy person and smoke roughly once or twice a week, but once you get much more than that, common sense will tell you other things are going on. Perhaps depression? Maybe personal issues that weed provides an escape from?
This study isn't that meaningful. Socioeconomic background needs to be discussed, as does home environment, and other areas of mental and physical health.
Saying that smoking weed four times or more a week is correlated with a drop in IQ is meaningless, because we don't know the concept. I will say that from my personal anecdotal evidence, when people smoke that much, there is something else going on.
Or, here's a possibility. You're a pissed off kid. Your crazy parents are making you take an IQ test. The type of guy who smokes a lot of weed is also the type to fill out random bubbles and generally not give a fuck about an IQ test.
This needs to be studied with well-funded, open-minded research.
"Guilt" and "Innocence" are criminal concepts. In a civil case, like this one, the jury finds "for" one party or the other. Guilty or not guilty are not concepts that exist here
There also is no prosecution. That term refers to a state prosecutor in a criminal case. There is a plaintiff and his/her/it's attorney.
Creative Commons isn't intended to be a free license-we have the GPL, BSD license etc for that. It's intended to be a license that supports distribution of creative works while preserving certain rights. It's also intended to be user-friendly for both parties. It's not supposed to be one of the more politically-oriented licenses.
Also: You can't 'retire' a license. It's a legal agreement, a piece of text. A CC license can't be retired anymore than a book can be retired.
You're talking about PCAS. TCAS is radar, and it also communicates with other TCAS units. The little units that go into light aircraft only give traffic advisories, where TCAS gives resolution advisories. PCAS also can only tell you distance an altitude, TCAS uses radar to give you the actual location of traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people smoke. Yes, it's unhealthy. People do unhealthy things, it's part of free will. Get used to it. It's not an ethical or moral issue.
Employers should not have any role in what someone does outside of work, and we need a law-or better yet a constitutional amendment- to that effect. It's unfortunate government, both parties leans the opposite way. As for the argument of "Smoking is bad for society-when you get cancer, other people have to pay for it", also bullshit. Unless you want to regulate every aspect of someones life, in order to minimize health care expense(ACLU's pizza animation-google it- sums the implications of this nicely), you have to accept that as a whole, in a civilized society, we pay for each others choices. If someone judges that smoking increases the quality of their life enough to outweigh the health risks, let them be.
If you're so damn concerned about second hand smoke, why don't you do something useful and demand better mass transit so you can quit breathing car exhaust. Or, if you smell smoke and you don't like it, leave.
The vast majority of people are not sociopathic mass murderers, and do not aspire to be such. Therefore, chances are most people who shine lights at airplanes are unaware it's dangerous. So, require lasers to come with a full package inserts explaining the danger caused to aircraft, put a video showing the effects on websites, and maybe rent some TV ads. Make sure everyone knows what lasers do. It would also help if more people realized that airplanes do not 'fly themselves'.
If everyone knows the extreme dangers of lasering airplanes, then society can in good conscience criminally prosecute people for it.
First of all, to get this out of the way-Monsanto is obviously quite amoral, and their business practices are largely indefensible. However, it's worth discussing the actual issues at hand here.
The legal issues are basically:
1. Is it infringement when contaminated seeds are planted unintentionally and they contain patented genetic engineering. I would say no, because my understanding is that the tort of infringement must be willful.(IANAL)
2.Does the right of first sale allow seeds to be reproduced to create more seeds for the use of the same former. A complex issue, I would guess probably not, legally.
The more commonly discussed issue though, is the ethics of GM food. I personally believe, very strongly, that genetically engineered food is good and desirable, since mankind has yet to grasp the whole 'birth control' concept, and likely never will. GM food also has a massive capacity for good, making food more nutritious and easier to grow.
Politically, I'm very far left, but I (unpopularly) believe that technology is often it's own solution. I'm as anti-Monsanto as everyone, but their business practices does not make their product evil, anymore than Microsoft's antitrust issues made the PC unethical. They are distinct issues.
If someone needs surgery on a trans-atlantic flight, they divert to the nearest airport near a hospital, which would usually be under one hour and rarely more than three. Most surgical conditions can wait 1-3 hours.
You can't wait 1-3 months though, as you would if a spacecraft needed to turn around
Agree or disagree, modding this as troll is so inexplicable, it spurred me to metamod.
I just read the link to the blog, where he claims a public available geolocation site was used, that is obviously false since anyone who has ever tried plugging their IP into one of these knows it can only give you a very broad location, city-level.
This story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and I see basically two possibilities:
1.The events described, as a whole, actually happened, but the technical issues described(finding the IP and hacking the facebook page) were misinterpreted by the author.
2. The entire thing is false.
I don't know which one it is, personally I think the latter as it sounds implausible and reads like a work of fiction.
The claim of the "IT genius friend" finding the house from the IP obviously makes no sense for two reasons:
1.Twitter and Facebook do not reveal their user's IPs, nor do most email services. Depending on the blog host, it's possible he could have found the IP there, but obviously there would be no way to be sure it was the same as the stalker(troll is the wrong word) on FB and Twitter.
2.Converting the IP to a physical address obviously is not possible without cooperation from the ISP. The author claims that his friend was able to deduce not one, not two, but THREE physical addresses from the IP addresses, including his friend's house. I don't see an ISP doing that without police or court involvement first, as giving a customer's physical location out opens them up to significant liability.
The overall story appears false as it is practically written to appeal to those who fear young people using computers. "His son was glued to the computer...couldn't watch TV without tweeting" "engrossed in conspiracy sites". This reads like a work of fiction pushing an agenda, an anti-youth, anti-internet hit piece.
When I started writing this post, I honestly wasn't sure which of the two possibilities was true, whether the author misconstrued the events or whether the whole thing was a hoax. Having re-read the article a few times now, I'm sure this is false and a hoax, and I hope it is exposed.
3) Break local laws and flee home before they arrest you
MS agreed to purchase X amount of electricity and pay a penalty if they don't. It's no different than an ETF on a cell contract, or any other ordinary contractual agreement.
Nothing to see here, except MS negotiated badly.
You obviously don't like the Great Firewall, and presumably don't support China's totalitarian government. So, don't support China's economy and government by visiting China.
The internet is a part of life now, and large data centers are part of the modern world. They use energy. That is not a problem. Like everything else, it would be good to develop more energy-efficient servers, but it's not the end of the world, or a 'dirty little secret'.
This seems to be just another case of someone who doesn't want real work being done in the U.S. First they chase out all the factories, because they're too 'icky' and low-class, now guys like this want to eliminate all the data centers, and live in a world where all industrial facilities are off-shore in the third-world, and someone else's problem.
This was the plot of a very good book I read.
Probably violates wiretapping laws.
I just read through the patent and I can't make head or tail of what exactly is being patented. The best I can tell is some sort of system that has multiple identities that it shows to different people depending on your relationship.
And if it's difficult to tell what is being patented should it really be patented?
Quote:
"(Note: I have enough money to defend thus suit all the way through trial without it being a severe financial hardship, so please do not give if it is a hardship for you. But, if you would like to make a contribution to help with the cause because you want to help stop people like this, then it will surely be appreciated!)"
Form follows function. You build your visual and aesthetic design around the functionality you want, and work from there, not the other way around. That's pretty much the first rule of designing anything. Form follows function.
I made that joke too, no one noticed ):
Tough kid, but it's life.
What 4Ghz barrier? I have an Intel i7 3700k at 4.6Ghz, and before that I had a Bulldozer at 4.5Ghz(which I promptly returned due to it's horribleness.)
"Correlation is Not Causation"
You're not going to wind up smoking four times a week without some bad shit going on in your life. It's perfectly possible to be a healthy person and smoke roughly once or twice a week, but once you get much more than that, common sense will tell you other things are going on. Perhaps depression? Maybe personal issues that weed provides an escape from?
This study isn't that meaningful. Socioeconomic background needs to be discussed, as does home environment, and other areas of mental and physical health.
Saying that smoking weed four times or more a week is correlated with a drop in IQ is meaningless, because we don't know the concept. I will say that from my personal anecdotal evidence, when people smoke that much, there is something else going on.
Or, here's a possibility. You're a pissed off kid. Your crazy parents are making you take an IQ test. The type of guy who smokes a lot of weed is also the type to fill out random bubbles and generally not give a fuck about an IQ test.
This needs to be studied with well-funded, open-minded research.
Guilty? Innocent? Prosecution? Defense?
"Guilt" and "Innocence" are criminal concepts. In a civil case, like this one, the jury finds "for" one party or the other. Guilty or not guilty are not concepts that exist here
There also is no prosecution. That term refers to a state prosecutor in a criminal case. There is a plaintiff and his/her/it's attorney.
Creative Commons isn't intended to be a free license-we have the GPL, BSD license etc for that. It's intended to be a license that supports distribution of creative works while preserving certain rights. It's also intended to be user-friendly for both parties. It's not supposed to be one of the more politically-oriented licenses.
Also: You can't 'retire' a license. It's a legal agreement, a piece of text. A CC license can't be retired anymore than a book can be retired.
Because vaccinations that prevent deadly disease with almost no side effects are very different than psychoactive drugs.
You're talking about PCAS. TCAS is radar, and it also communicates with other TCAS units. The little units that go into light aircraft only give traffic advisories, where TCAS gives resolution advisories. PCAS also can only tell you distance an altitude, TCAS uses radar to give you the actual location of traffic.
I'd mode you up, but you're already +5.