With an incubation period of 8-12 days, it's hard to imagine how they could succeed in quarantining someone with measles. If they have some amazing, non-invasive method for identifying diseases people aren't even showing symptoms for yet, they shouldn't be keeping it to themselves.
Are you talking about operation Able Archer, which featured, among other things, US bombers repeatedly flying directly at USSR airspace then pulling back at the last moment? One of the most idiotic ideas imaginable from testosterone-addled military "thinkers".
In mythology, the sickle/scythe of Kronos was made of Adamant (in greek it's something like "adamastos"), which was a mythically hard substance. Sometimes conflated with diamond, or just hard iron or steel. Adamantium from the Marvel universe is named after the Adamant of myth.
To avoid those scenarios the savings and loans are separate financial items.
It sounds to me like the answer here is: "yes, the bank can drop its financial obligation to you and pay off other creditors preferentially, then turn around and insist that you owe them money". Things like this and the fact that savings accounts typically pay interest lower than inflation makes me wonder why on earth anyone trusts banks at all.
Brings up the weird thought of someone who has $300,000 in savings and a $300,000 in mortgage debt with the same bank. Bank fails and what? They end up owing the bank $300,000 and the bank owes them nothing?
If you're 31 with zero debt and credit that would indicate that you cheated the system somehow to get where you are.
And this gem from previous poster:
If you still have no credit history at 38, then you almost certainly still smoke weed with that high school friend in his mom's basement. This has nothing to do with your "real" FICO score, think of it more like the "payday loans" version of a credit rating. Nothing to see here, move along.
Wow, what is wrong with people today that they blindly accept things like this as axioms? What possible use would someone who has always made enough money to live and/or has reliable friends/family to turn to when they need to borrow (even if they have other friends/family who aren't reliable) have for carrying institutional debt that would give them a credit score? Sometimes you actually save money if you use credit wisely. For example, I recently bought a car and it was cheaper to finance it than to pay for it outright since the car company gives the dealer a credit if the customer finances. So financing, then paying it off on the first payment is cheaper than buying the car in full. Also, various credit cards have cashback programs and so forth, and there's plenty of stores that offer you instant savings on your purchase if you register for their store card, etc. There are plenty of places to buy a car where it's not cheaper to finance, or time cost of having to deal with that might not be worth it to some people. Same for those store cards, not to mention the fact that, if you apply for one with no credit history, you'll probably be rejected (then that rejection will probably hurt your credit score).
Well, the personal attack was certainly unnecessary, but he's completely correct about scope creep. Credit scores, for example, used to be pretty much expressly forbidden for use in deciding whether or not an institution loaned people money and they were quick to assure people that they actually looked at the credit history. Today, it's a given that they go pretty much exclusively by the number.
I think the GP may be referring to the lender's actual financial risk in lending to you. It's very complicated. Essentially though, financial institutions loaning you $300,000 to buy a house don't actually need to have that $300,000 themselves in order to loan it to you. They can essentially loan it to you on a margin and more or less create the money out of thin air. It only starts to become real cost to them if enough people don't pay back their loans.
The vast majority of people who watched Armageddon took what he said at face value.
Naturally. Just like the asteroid being "the size of Texas" yet still vulnerable to a nuke, or the entire premise of drilling into it to plant a nuke that would blow it apart along a fault line. There's a lot of really cringe-worthy movie science in that movie. Really, really a lot. Somehow it manages to be watch-able anyway. It certainly had a lot more replay value than _Deep Impact_.
Despite somehow managing to be a decent movie to watch, Armageddon really is a very stupid movie in a lot of ways. This one, for example. Why would they need to "steal a key to the patent office". If it's patented, or patent pending, it's a public record. Anyone can build one. They can also quite legally build one for research and experimentation purposes, and train their astronauts with it without owing anyone license fees. That's even if they're a private entity and not a government agency. If they were a private entity and they actually used it commercially, then they would have to have licensed the technology, but It's been firmly established forever that government agencies can simply ignore patents and use whatever technology. Also, there's a pretty strong argument that using it for the public good would be a protected activity even for a private entity.
Are you a university student who wants to do a faculty-sponsored research project that uses Windows? Congratulations, the Windows Research Kernel [microsoft.com] may be available to you:
Of course, the license conditions you state here are far from the unrestricted openness required by the term "open source".
Quite aside from the cultural ubiquity, the lyrics of the first part of the song (which is the only part many people sing) only contains five (or six if you consider birthday to be two words). The lyrics are the only part under copyright since the original "Good Morning to You" is not in copyright. So all that's left is an incredibly generic birthday song consisting of a highly generic birthday greeting repeated with a slight alteration and the substitution of "dear" plus the name of the subject in one of the repetitions. It's simply too short and derivative a work to deserve a copyright.
Or maybe instead of arguing against using their organs we should argue against this instead? Why throw the baby out with the bath water? I don't get this whole "If we make the leap to A, then there is a chance we make a similarly big leap to B, which is bad, therefore no A." How about just making sure B doesn't happen? If you are afraid you can't prevent B, then how do you expect to prevent A in the first place? Why not draw the line at the place with the actual problem, instead of drawing it some arbitrary point ahead of time, at the risk of people now ignoring you.
I'm not quite sure what magic you plan to apply there. It's already been demonstrated that juries are swayed by whether or not defendants come into court in a prison jumpsuit. It's not a small effect either, it makes a major difference in conviction rates. How exactly do you think you're going to stop people from more readily convicting and more harshly sentencing defendants when they start to see them as selfish organ hoarders. How are you going to stop ulterior motives from taking over as they clearly have in collection of traffic and other fines and civil forfeitures? Most municipalities quite clearly look at these things primarily in terms of revenue generation. What safeguards do you think would possibly prevent allowing the harvesting of prisoner organs from turning the justice system into a a butcher shop?
Pharma conspiracy nutters. Heroin has never been prescribed, nor has marijuana
Clearly you're a bit more informed than those sentences imply. Personally I find it very interesting that the Bayer chemists who developed heroin apparently intended it to be a cure for morphine addiction. It probably worked very well at curing morphine addiction, for that matter. Actually, it probably worked very well as a cough syrup and as a sedative, etc. as well. It also has very few side effects aside from the chemical dependence. Ultimately, it's not really any more dangerous than plenty of other allowed pharmaceuticals. Obviously it's a really bad idea to start taking recreationally, but it clearly was prescribed by perfectly legitimate doctors in the past.
On the other side of the spectrum the opt-out system has its own share of horror stories: doctors not doing their best to save certain people and pronouncing them dead, because the patient's organs are compatible with someone on the waiting list who offered a sizable bribe.
Are any of those horror stories actually true though? Or even plausible? It seems like it would be really, really, really hard to get the timing right.
Actually, all hyperbole aside, my thoughts were "why are they stopping this and why aren't WE in the US doing this?"
It seems like, if you're going to kill people anyway, that there shouldn't be a problem with this. The problem is, are you really going to kill the people anyway? Sure, it might start out that way. Pretty soon though, appeals for prisoners awaiting execution are going to be influenced by arguments that their organs could be saving lives. Same for the criminal trials in the first place. Same with the laws and mandatory criminal penalties, etc. It wouldn't take long for it to become like traffic tickets or civil forfeiture which virtually no-one can argue aren't abused to boost revenues. I was about to write that with prisoner organs it would be a matter of saving lives rather than revenues, then I realized that it's not as if they would just give these organs away, so it would be a matter of revenues after all.
Frankly I don't think it would be too long before people with compatibility factors for rich and politically powerful people in need of transplant organs would find themselves being railroaded off to prison on capital charges.
Pharma conspiracy nutters. Heroin has never been prescribed, nor has marijuana.
You might be correct, but only because prescriptions weren't required for them at the time. I should point you to this article. I has some interesting pictures of ads for heroin, mostly for children. I'm not sure if I should be typing "Heroin (R)" since it was a registered Bayer trademark, but they've let it lapse, plus the term has become a generic, so I don't think I need to.
Does this mean that leaving my car in the street with the keys in the ignition means that I've given implicit permission to drive it?
Hmm. My girlfriend and I once came across an idling Volkswagen Beetle parked in a fire lane without the parking brake on. The owner was nowhere to be seen and the car, being a manual, did not have a park gear, but was instead in neutral. The owner clearly did not understand that being in neutral does not lock the transmission and that some torque may (that really should be "will") be applied to the wheels. We watched the car drive itself about a meter or so gradually picking up speed, looked around at the parking lot with various children and elderly people who might not be able to move out of the way of even a slow moving driverless car, then I stood in front of the car and stopped it from moving forward while my girlfriend got into the car and applied the parking brake. The woman who owned the car came out of the store in short order and thought we were stealing her car or something, but we just told her that her car was driving itself away and went on our way.
Anyway. If the parking brake in that car didn't work, I would have had no problem getting into it and driving it out of the fire lane and parking it in a parking spot, then turning off the ignition, then possibly popping the trunk and using the jack or something to block the wheels. If the owner had called the police and a reasonable police officer had come along, they would have fined the owner and thanked me (an unreasonable police officer would, of course, have arrested me for grand theft auto and I would have had to wait for a hopefully reasonable court). Basically, by leaving their car illegally and dangerously parked, I would say the owner gave me implied permission to save them from potential negligent manslaughter charges.
So, the car analogy is not as cut and dried as you presented it. At this point, you might say that the situation I described doesn't map very well to the copyright situation. Of course, your original car analogy doesn't really map properly to it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the word you are looking for is renowned.
It's probably what he meant to write, but it sort of also works as is.
With an incubation period of 8-12 days, it's hard to imagine how they could succeed in quarantining someone with measles. If they have some amazing, non-invasive method for identifying diseases people aren't even showing symptoms for yet, they shouldn't be keeping it to themselves.
Are you talking about operation Able Archer, which featured, among other things, US bombers repeatedly flying directly at USSR airspace then pulling back at the last moment? One of the most idiotic ideas imaginable from testosterone-addled military "thinkers".
In mythology, the sickle/scythe of Kronos was made of Adamant (in greek it's something like "adamastos"), which was a mythically hard substance. Sometimes conflated with diamond, or just hard iron or steel. Adamantium from the Marvel universe is named after the Adamant of myth.
To avoid those scenarios the savings and loans are separate financial items.
It sounds to me like the answer here is: "yes, the bank can drop its financial obligation to you and pay off other creditors preferentially, then turn around and insist that you owe them money". Things like this and the fact that savings accounts typically pay interest lower than inflation makes me wonder why on earth anyone trusts banks at all.
Brings up the weird thought of someone who has $300,000 in savings and a $300,000 in mortgage debt with the same bank. Bank fails and what? They end up owing the bank $300,000 and the bank owes them nothing?
If you're 31 with zero debt and credit that would indicate that you cheated the system somehow to get where you are.
And this gem from previous poster:
If you still have no credit history at 38, then you almost certainly still smoke weed with that high school friend in his mom's basement. This has nothing to do with your "real" FICO score, think of it more like the "payday loans" version of a credit rating. Nothing to see here, move along.
Wow, what is wrong with people today that they blindly accept things like this as axioms? What possible use would someone who has always made enough money to live and/or has reliable friends/family to turn to when they need to borrow (even if they have other friends/family who aren't reliable) have for carrying institutional debt that would give them a credit score? Sometimes you actually save money if you use credit wisely. For example, I recently bought a car and it was cheaper to finance it than to pay for it outright since the car company gives the dealer a credit if the customer finances. So financing, then paying it off on the first payment is cheaper than buying the car in full. Also, various credit cards have cashback programs and so forth, and there's plenty of stores that offer you instant savings on your purchase if you register for their store card, etc. There are plenty of places to buy a car where it's not cheaper to finance, or time cost of having to deal with that might not be worth it to some people. Same for those store cards, not to mention the fact that, if you apply for one with no credit history, you'll probably be rejected (then that rejection will probably hurt your credit score).
Well, the personal attack was certainly unnecessary, but he's completely correct about scope creep. Credit scores, for example, used to be pretty much expressly forbidden for use in deciding whether or not an institution loaned people money and they were quick to assure people that they actually looked at the credit history. Today, it's a given that they go pretty much exclusively by the number.
I think the GP may be referring to the lender's actual financial risk in lending to you. It's very complicated. Essentially though, financial institutions loaning you $300,000 to buy a house don't actually need to have that $300,000 themselves in order to loan it to you. They can essentially loan it to you on a margin and more or less create the money out of thin air. It only starts to become real cost to them if enough people don't pay back their loans.
I'm not sure who Millikan is. Do you mean Milken? He's a free man and also a multi-billionaire.
Whoops, just realized I replied to the wrong level of the thread.
Easy. How would they know who my facebook friends are?
Uh, gee, how about they just pay facebook a modest fee to provide them that information?
Which one is Millikan? Do you mean Milken? He's a free man and a multi-billionaire.
What country? The poster you're replying to said "Love this world...", not country.
The vast majority of people who watched Armageddon took what he said at face value.
Naturally. Just like the asteroid being "the size of Texas" yet still vulnerable to a nuke, or the entire premise of drilling into it to plant a nuke that would blow it apart along a fault line. There's a lot of really cringe-worthy movie science in that movie. Really, really a lot. Somehow it manages to be watch-able anyway. It certainly had a lot more replay value than _Deep Impact_.
Despite somehow managing to be a decent movie to watch, Armageddon really is a very stupid movie in a lot of ways. This one, for example. Why would they need to "steal a key to the patent office". If it's patented, or patent pending, it's a public record. Anyone can build one. They can also quite legally build one for research and experimentation purposes, and train their astronauts with it without owing anyone license fees. That's even if they're a private entity and not a government agency. If they were a private entity and they actually used it commercially, then they would have to have licensed the technology, but It's been firmly established forever that government agencies can simply ignore patents and use whatever technology. Also, there's a pretty strong argument that using it for the public good would be a protected activity even for a private entity.
Are you a university student who wants to do a faculty-sponsored research project that uses Windows? Congratulations, the Windows Research Kernel [microsoft.com] may be available to you:
Of course, the license conditions you state here are far from the unrestricted openness required by the term "open source".
Quite aside from the cultural ubiquity, the lyrics of the first part of the song (which is the only part many people sing) only contains five (or six if you consider birthday to be two words). The lyrics are the only part under copyright since the original "Good Morning to You" is not in copyright. So all that's left is an incredibly generic birthday song consisting of a highly generic birthday greeting repeated with a slight alteration and the substitution of "dear" plus the name of the subject in one of the repetitions. It's simply too short and derivative a work to deserve a copyright.
Or maybe instead of arguing against using their organs we should argue against this instead? Why throw the baby out with the bath water? I don't get this whole "If we make the leap to A, then there is a chance we make a similarly big leap to B, which is bad, therefore no A." How about just making sure B doesn't happen? If you are afraid you can't prevent B, then how do you expect to prevent A in the first place? Why not draw the line at the place with the actual problem, instead of drawing it some arbitrary point ahead of time, at the risk of people now ignoring you.
I'm not quite sure what magic you plan to apply there. It's already been demonstrated that juries are swayed by whether or not defendants come into court in a prison jumpsuit. It's not a small effect either, it makes a major difference in conviction rates. How exactly do you think you're going to stop people from more readily convicting and more harshly sentencing defendants when they start to see them as selfish organ hoarders. How are you going to stop ulterior motives from taking over as they clearly have in collection of traffic and other fines and civil forfeitures? Most municipalities quite clearly look at these things primarily in terms of revenue generation. What safeguards do you think would possibly prevent allowing the harvesting of prisoner organs from turning the justice system into a a butcher shop?
I was only responding to:
Pharma conspiracy nutters. Heroin has never been prescribed, nor has marijuana
Clearly you're a bit more informed than those sentences imply. Personally I find it very interesting that the Bayer chemists who developed heroin apparently intended it to be a cure for morphine addiction. It probably worked very well at curing morphine addiction, for that matter. Actually, it probably worked very well as a cough syrup and as a sedative, etc. as well. It also has very few side effects aside from the chemical dependence. Ultimately, it's not really any more dangerous than plenty of other allowed pharmaceuticals. Obviously it's a really bad idea to start taking recreationally, but it clearly was prescribed by perfectly legitimate doctors in the past.
On the other side of the spectrum the opt-out system has its own share of horror stories: doctors not doing their best to save certain people and pronouncing them dead, because the patient's organs are compatible with someone on the waiting list who offered a sizable bribe.
Are any of those horror stories actually true though? Or even plausible? It seems like it would be really, really, really hard to get the timing right.
I thought that when you gave blood only the bad humours were drained out. You should explain that to your wife.
Actually, all hyperbole aside, my thoughts were "why are they stopping this and why aren't WE in the US doing this?"
It seems like, if you're going to kill people anyway, that there shouldn't be a problem with this. The problem is, are you really going to kill the people anyway? Sure, it might start out that way. Pretty soon though, appeals for prisoners awaiting execution are going to be influenced by arguments that their organs could be saving lives. Same for the criminal trials in the first place. Same with the laws and mandatory criminal penalties, etc. It wouldn't take long for it to become like traffic tickets or civil forfeiture which virtually no-one can argue aren't abused to boost revenues. I was about to write that with prisoner organs it would be a matter of saving lives rather than revenues, then I realized that it's not as if they would just give these organs away, so it would be a matter of revenues after all.
Frankly I don't think it would be too long before people with compatibility factors for rich and politically powerful people in need of transplant organs would find themselves being railroaded off to prison on capital charges.
Pharma conspiracy nutters. Heroin has never been prescribed, nor has marijuana.
You might be correct, but only because prescriptions weren't required for them at the time. I should point you to this article. I has some interesting pictures of ads for heroin, mostly for children. I'm not sure if I should be typing "Heroin (R)" since it was a registered Bayer trademark, but they've let it lapse, plus the term has become a generic, so I don't think I need to.
Does this mean that leaving my car in the street with the keys in the ignition means that I've given implicit permission to drive it?
Hmm. My girlfriend and I once came across an idling Volkswagen Beetle parked in a fire lane without the parking brake on. The owner was nowhere to be seen and the car, being a manual, did not have a park gear, but was instead in neutral. The owner clearly did not understand that being in neutral does not lock the transmission and that some torque may (that really should be "will") be applied to the wheels. We watched the car drive itself about a meter or so gradually picking up speed, looked around at the parking lot with various children and elderly people who might not be able to move out of the way of even a slow moving driverless car, then I stood in front of the car and stopped it from moving forward while my girlfriend got into the car and applied the parking brake. The woman who owned the car came out of the store in short order and thought we were stealing her car or something, but we just told her that her car was driving itself away and went on our way.
Anyway. If the parking brake in that car didn't work, I would have had no problem getting into it and driving it out of the fire lane and parking it in a parking spot, then turning off the ignition, then possibly popping the trunk and using the jack or something to block the wheels. If the owner had called the police and a reasonable police officer had come along, they would have fined the owner and thanked me (an unreasonable police officer would, of course, have arrested me for grand theft auto and I would have had to wait for a hopefully reasonable court). Basically, by leaving their car illegally and dangerously parked, I would say the owner gave me implied permission to save them from potential negligent manslaughter charges.
So, the car analogy is not as cut and dried as you presented it. At this point, you might say that the situation I described doesn't map very well to the copyright situation. Of course, your original car analogy doesn't really map properly to it anyway.