I read somewhere that two-thirds of colonial citizens didn't care who won the Revolutionary War. Fast forward 242 years, two-third of American citizens don't care who wins the presidential election. Some things never change.
Well, the benefits for independence weren't as strong for the average person back then as might be expected. Sure, it is everyone's rights to self-determination but some of the grievances like "high taxes" might not have been completely fair- I think I read once that Britain paid more to defend the American colonies than they received in taxes. (obviously Britain also got a benefit of using the colonies to ship raw materials home that was used to improve the home economy too).
It is almost certainly a good thing for everyone that America won her independence, but I'm sure for many common folk back in the day the benefits for independence might have seemed few.
It isn't too dissimilar to the middle ages when nations regularly swapped territory and conquered land off each other. Nationalism wasn't a big thing back then. The peons in each country couldn't care less which nation of lords were subjugating them. An English, French, or Austria noble would take advantage of them just the same. The only ones who really cared were those in power that gained or lost land.
In context of the 21st century, I think if it were written today plenty of people WOULD have a problem with the sentence "Indian Savages". Obviously the declaration of Independence wasn't intended as a "hate piece" but by today's morality I can't blame Facebook for automatically filtering it out per algorithm.
I'm not a fan of Facebook or censorship (although I think a private entity like Facebook has a right to keep content non-objectionable ON THEIR SITE- but not off it) but I think there is nothing wrong with Facebook's algorithm in this case- it did what it was written to do- it caught unwanted language on it's system.
I'm pretty sure a lot of Mark Twain's work would rightly get blocked too.
That's actually a lot higher than I had expected; it would be interesting to see how much of this they blame on Formaldehyde vs just normal base rate occurrence.
I mean - where was your outrage when your side was doing it?
To be fair here; I can't speak for AC but lots of people on both sides of the political spectrum have expressed outrage at the Drone Strikes. It's kind of a grey area though. He was never going to be captured to be put on trial- and did killing him save thousands of other lives? I don't know- and I don't know everything that military intelligence knew about it.
WITHIN the US the police have the right to use lethal force if they legitimately believe the perpetrator is threat to life of another human and don't have a non-lethal option to stop them. The military are presumably (hopefully) acting under the same guideline here.
Point taken; but still, it's not one of the more common cancers. If formaldehyde were linked to autism, adhd, lung cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, something relatively common... etc I can see being worried and thinking "so that's why those are so prevalent". If it's something we're all over exposed to and yet it is linked to one of the least common forms of cancer- it can't be a huge risk- and maybe (not my judgement call) it's worth the risk for the benefits it gives. If there is a safer alternative- sure use it... but let's make sure risks and benefits balance up.
We accept the small chance of dying by driving a car each day (more likely than getting leukemia) because cars are useful to us. We accept low risks based on usefulness. Oviously it sucks to be the guy in the car crash, or the guy with leukemia. Leukemia is frequently more genetic risk than environmental even when it does occur. How many cases exactly are being caused by formaldehyde? It can't be that many surely. Obviously, I don't know the science and data behind this so I'm making no point other than the anecdotal- I've lived half an average life span and never known anyone with it. If the risks are higher than I presume I'll gladly change my opinion that this is a non-event.
Poorly worded, but as you probably know it gives you a "chance" there's people who smoke 3 packs a day and live to 100 years old without cancer too, others get cancer and die after only 3 years of smoking. Humans aren't binary
As far as diseases go, leukemia is a pretty rare one. Formaldehyde has been commonly used for decades.
What exactly is the risk? If the risk is 1 extra person out of 1 million get it that's not significant. If it is 1 out of 1000, we'd be seeing a lot more people with it. The fact that leukemia is so rare makes me think that this is probably a non-event.
I'm not pro any sitting President stopping scientific announcements, don't get me wrong. I don't approve of Trump's actions; but I think in this instance the warning is probably for something minor.
Also... I don't snort it, but I use Glutaraldehyde, a similar chemical on a daily basis in my fish tanks. It acts as a carbon source for aquatic plants.
If we're breathing in enough formaldehyde to get leukemia, why have I never met anyone with leukemia? Am I just lucky and I put out a lucky aura that protects those around me?
But there isn't really an environmentally sound way to dispose of them.
Throw them into an active caldera. They get instantly melted down and form part of the earth's magma. The only downside is you have to walk to the volcano- not drive because driving pollutes. Some people have a longer walk/swim than others.
There should be a separation of Education and State.
No... there really shouldn't be. Not even close. That's about the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time. We had that in the 1700's. If you want 2% literacy follow that route! It's a benefit to EVERYONE that all of society is educated. Even if you're some rich snob, it's to your benefit that society is educated enough that it can create entrepreneurs, doctors, etc.
That's the first damn thing on my mind whenever such a device is leaving my control.
WTF is wrong with you people? Bell curve, that's what.
I wouldn't even SELL or giveaway any SD card/ HDD, etc, even if I had wiped it. Not worth potential privacy and identity loss, even if I have wiped it with special software... I just would never take that risk. Who even sells their used SD cards? What do you get $2? Not worth it.
Throttle phone video to make people use cable instead. If you only get crappy video on your phone then you're more likely to break and spring for cable.
You think CBS and ABC have right wing bias? Maybe compared to the New York Times or Slate. Compared to anybody else, not so much.
They at least used to when I had cable. It is possible they've moved to the left over the last 7 or 8 years- but yeah, they at least used to be to the right. Not like fox- crazy propaganda right, but certainly had a right wing bias.
I've gotten some calls, in which after I say "hello", I hear a lady's voice saying something like, "Hi, I'm Mary, and I'm the administrator." But she doesn't say what she's the administrator of.
Once after I responded to her, the voice started to repeat the sentence in exactly the same way. But she only got half-way through her sentence the second time, and then she hung up.
So I figured the voice in my calls was a recording. But maybe it was this Google voice assistant, or something like it.
I've had numerous AI calls recently trying to sell me stuff. It starts "Hello, how are you today"- and responds appropriately based on how your reply. The last one I had I wanted to play around with so I said "purple cauliflower" when it asked me how I was to see how it would respond.
It hung up on me... I think that last one was a real person not an AI- surprised she gave up so easily.
And... in addition; Charter being a cable company and throttling video, the clear motive behind their actions would be to act in a way to deny access to competing services. This would help push the decision in favour of ruling that Charter was acting against net neutrality.
Well, a legal case could easily be made that by restricting only certain types of data that they are not treating all data equal. They would not be treating video content providers with the same full access as they are other content providers.
It would be up to the courts to decide; I happen to think they would most likely rule against the company trying to throttle HD video stream if net neutrality were still in place.
Much bigger problem is that it isn't against the law for private corporations to censor. While we rightfully condemn China Mobile for blocking NYT, there is no law preventing, for example, AT&T from doing the same.
Of course there is... there are net neutrali... oh yeah...
Slashdot Mirror
I read somewhere that two-thirds of colonial citizens didn't care who won the Revolutionary War. Fast forward 242 years, two-third of American citizens don't care who wins the presidential election. Some things never change.
Well, the benefits for independence weren't as strong for the average person back then as might be expected. Sure, it is everyone's rights to self-determination but some of the grievances like "high taxes" might not have been completely fair- I think I read once that Britain paid more to defend the American colonies than they received in taxes. (obviously Britain also got a benefit of using the colonies to ship raw materials home that was used to improve the home economy too).
It is almost certainly a good thing for everyone that America won her independence, but I'm sure for many common folk back in the day the benefits for independence might have seemed few.
It isn't too dissimilar to the middle ages when nations regularly swapped territory and conquered land off each other. Nationalism wasn't a big thing back then. The peons in each country couldn't care less which nation of lords were subjugating them. An English, French, or Austria noble would take advantage of them just the same. The only ones who really cared were those in power that gained or lost land.
TLDR: Hey Britain, we're breaking up with you.
In context of the 21st century, I think if it were written today plenty of people WOULD have a problem with the sentence "Indian Savages". Obviously the declaration of Independence wasn't intended as a "hate piece" but by today's morality I can't blame Facebook for automatically filtering it out per algorithm.
I'm not a fan of Facebook or censorship (although I think a private entity like Facebook has a right to keep content non-objectionable ON THEIR SITE- but not off it) but I think there is nothing wrong with Facebook's algorithm in this case- it did what it was written to do- it caught unwanted language on it's system.
I'm pretty sure a lot of Mark Twain's work would rightly get blocked too.
They all avoid you because you're an asshole.
Us cancer free folks avoid you as well.
Asshole.
Cool, I'm an introvert so that works in my favour, thanks.
That's actually a lot higher than I had expected; it would be interesting to see how much of this they blame on Formaldehyde vs just normal base rate occurrence.
It's a very similar rate as death by car.
I'm a programmer... I don't eat salad. Just pizza.
Would [Trump] kill Americans to serve is foreign master?
Obama killed Americans without due process - what about it?
I mean - where was your outrage when your side was doing it?
To be fair here; I can't speak for AC but lots of people on both sides of the political spectrum have expressed outrage at the Drone Strikes. It's kind of a grey area though. He was never going to be captured to be put on trial- and did killing him save thousands of other lives? I don't know- and I don't know everything that military intelligence knew about it.
WITHIN the US the police have the right to use lethal force if they legitimately believe the perpetrator is threat to life of another human and don't have a non-lethal option to stop them. The military are presumably (hopefully) acting under the same guideline here.
Point taken; but still, it's not one of the more common cancers. If formaldehyde were linked to autism, adhd, lung cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, something relatively common... etc I can see being worried and thinking "so that's why those are so prevalent". If it's something we're all over exposed to and yet it is linked to one of the least common forms of cancer- it can't be a huge risk- and maybe (not my judgement call) it's worth the risk for the benefits it gives. If there is a safer alternative- sure use it... but let's make sure risks and benefits balance up.
We accept the small chance of dying by driving a car each day (more likely than getting leukemia) because cars are useful to us. We accept low risks based on usefulness. Oviously it sucks to be the guy in the car crash, or the guy with leukemia. Leukemia is frequently more genetic risk than environmental even when it does occur. How many cases exactly are being caused by formaldehyde? It can't be that many surely. Obviously, I don't know the science and data behind this so I'm making no point other than the anecdotal- I've lived half an average life span and never known anyone with it. If the risks are higher than I presume I'll gladly change my opinion that this is a non-event.
Poorly worded, but as you probably know it gives you a "chance" there's people who smoke 3 packs a day and live to 100 years old without cancer too, others get cancer and die after only 3 years of smoking. Humans aren't binary
As far as diseases go, leukemia is a pretty rare one. Formaldehyde has been commonly used for decades.
What exactly is the risk? If the risk is 1 extra person out of 1 million get it that's not significant. If it is 1 out of 1000, we'd be seeing a lot more people with it. The fact that leukemia is so rare makes me think that this is probably a non-event.
I'm not pro any sitting President stopping scientific announcements, don't get me wrong. I don't approve of Trump's actions; but I think in this instance the warning is probably for something minor.
Because Jesus and the bible.
Thank you Jesus!
OK, who here is snorting formaldehyde ?
Also... I don't snort it, but I use Glutaraldehyde, a similar chemical on a daily basis in my fish tanks. It acts as a carbon source for aquatic plants.
OK, who here is snorting formaldehyde ?
It's in hair products apparently according to the article... so anyone who puts conditioner on their nose hair is at risk of snorting formaldehyde.
If we're breathing in enough formaldehyde to get leukemia, why have I never met anyone with leukemia? Am I just lucky and I put out a lucky aura that protects those around me?
Yes. I call it the Tesla strategy.
Booooo! You're bashing Musk again! Booooo!
- I was expecting to see you on the Musk offering to help the Thai cave victims article earlier. You let me down, you weren't there.
I'm not fat, I've got big ntfs!
But there isn't really an environmentally sound way to dispose of them.
Throw them into an active caldera. They get instantly melted down and form part of the earth's magma. The only downside is you have to walk to the volcano- not drive because driving pollutes. Some people have a longer walk/swim than others.
There should be a separation of Education and State.
No... there really shouldn't be. Not even close. That's about the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time. We had that in the 1700's. If you want 2% literacy follow that route! It's a benefit to EVERYONE that all of society is educated. Even if you're some rich snob, it's to your benefit that society is educated enough that it can create entrepreneurs, doctors, etc.
That's the first damn thing on my mind whenever such a device is leaving my control.
WTF is wrong with you people? Bell curve, that's what.
I wouldn't even SELL or giveaway any SD card/ HDD, etc, even if I had wiped it. Not worth potential privacy and identity loss, even if I have wiped it with special software... I just would never take that risk. Who even sells their used SD cards? What do you get $2? Not worth it.
Throttle phone video to make people use cable instead. If you only get crappy video on your phone then you're more likely to break and spring for cable.
You think CBS and ABC have right wing bias? Maybe compared to the New York Times or Slate. Compared to anybody else, not so much.
They at least used to when I had cable. It is possible they've moved to the left over the last 7 or 8 years- but yeah, they at least used to be to the right. Not like fox- crazy propaganda right, but certainly had a right wing bias.
I've gotten some calls, in which after I say "hello", I hear a lady's voice saying something like, "Hi, I'm Mary, and I'm the administrator." But she doesn't say what she's the administrator of.
Once after I responded to her, the voice started to repeat the sentence in exactly the same way. But she only got half-way through her sentence the second time, and then she hung up.
So I figured the voice in my calls was a recording. But maybe it was this Google voice assistant, or something like it.
I've had numerous AI calls recently trying to sell me stuff. It starts "Hello, how are you today"- and responds appropriately based on how your reply. The last one I had I wanted to play around with so I said "purple cauliflower" when it asked me how I was to see how it would respond.
It hung up on me... I think that last one was a real person not an AI- surprised she gave up so easily.
Cheaper Cold Calls equals more Cold Calls.
And... in addition; Charter being a cable company and throttling video, the clear motive behind their actions would be to act in a way to deny access to competing services. This would help push the decision in favour of ruling that Charter was acting against net neutrality.
Debate it then. You're wrong BTW.
Well, a legal case could easily be made that by restricting only certain types of data that they are not treating all data equal. They would not be treating video content providers with the same full access as they are other content providers.
It would be up to the courts to decide; I happen to think they would most likely rule against the company trying to throttle HD video stream if net neutrality were still in place.
Much bigger problem is that it isn't against the law for private corporations to censor. While we rightfully condemn China Mobile for blocking NYT, there is no law preventing, for example, AT&T from doing the same.
Of course there is... there are net neutrali... oh yeah...