where do you think all the bond villains get their recruits?
"Hello, Mister Job is it?.... Oh, it's Mister Oddjob? Sorry... I'm calling from Goldfinger Staffing Services. We happened to come upon your resume'..."
it's completely related. the article discusses atlantic methane vents. given that they are of a much smaller and potentially earlier stage of development, it stands to reason to look elsewhere and see if there are any other data to point to a larger issue, and one which may set the stage for what could happen in the atlantic, and elsewhere. the magnitude and severity of the arctic activity speaks volumes, and to ignore it by saying 'same same, but different' is to put one's head in the sand.
except for the fact that arctic methane hydrate release vent growth give some pretty damning testimony. it's basically still a question the same way that evolution is 'just a theory'.
most of the seeps lie at depths where small changes in temperature could be releasing the methane
in other words, the warming that is already occurring has (surprise surprise) a positive feedback loop. one of many. whether or not the initiator was man-made in origin (hint: it was and is).
good idea w/r/t clear and topcoat. would solve all the issues you raise. just top off before you head out.. a clear would be fine for even one or two fingers on an otherwise non-polish-wearing-man.
i absolutely agree with you vis-a-vis the manipulative farce that is 'terrorist' risk - but in my mind, this is materially different for a few reasons:
'terrorist' acts either go reported (due to their obvious ex-post nature) or are "thwarted" by those who have a vested interest in trumping up the whole scenario. in the date-rape scenario, there is no military-industrial-complex that stands to gain from people believing the stories... granted, others might be motivated to do so, but not nearly to the same extent.
also, and perhaps most importantly, is that the data for reported cases (also, unlike car accidents) is so corrupted. given that non-drug assisted rapes often go unreported , it stands to reason that drug-induced rapes have a significantly higher incidence of going unreported for a variety of reasons. so the lack of demonstrable cases cannot be used as evidence that it doesn't exist (or exist in significant numbers).
that's of course not to say that there is proof it IS a high risk - but here is where the final issue comes to play - cost to detect/prevent. if you're talking 'terrorism', you're talking billions or trillions of dollars and the trashing of civil liberties left and right. this? a few bucks to paint your nail polish a color?? incidentally, if women actually all used the nailpolish, they could report cases where the dosing/rape was attempted but AVOIDED (and the drug was detected) which could yield far better data.
i think your sample set and conclusions might be seriously biased. i'm no expert on rape-statistics, but it's my understanding that a very significant amount of non-drug-assisted rapes go unreported by the victims for a variety of reasons.
it seems to me that under the circumstances where a woman 'comes to' and can't even remember what happened (not to mention probably still feeling mentally/emotionally impaired from the chemical hangover) there would be an even higher incidence of the rapes going unreported.
it may still be possible that drug-facilitated rape occurs with less frequency than feared, but i see no ability to reach that conclusion logically from your estimation.
i think the benefit of nail polish is that it's subtle. to whip out a testing strip in a bar is to say "hey everyone - i think the guy im talking to may be a rapist and trying to drug me. pardon me while i conduct an experiment. "
to dip one fingertips into a well stirred (and presumably mostly full) drink could be very discreetly done. and i dont think hygienics should be an issue (esp with the alcohol content.) and if a girls fingertips are so grody she feels the hygiene is too rough, well.. then she may have bigger issues.
my first thought was that this was redundant, as but it seem to me that women who are apt to buy and wear this nail polish would probably already follow the most basic rule.. if a drink leaves your hand... (or passes within someone else's range of dosing), you don't drink from it again. EVER. to me, that's probably the most basic think to teach girls new to bars. I was astounded when i was in thailand a couple of years ago taking a course, and when we hit a bar one night, a girl from my class (probably 21 or 22 years old) put her drink down and left it to dance.. only to go back to it afterwards. i gave her quite an earful about the dangers etc etc.
all that being said though, the rule wouldn't help you if the bartender is in cahoots with his buddy. you could also then only drink beer from a bottle (that you see opened in front of you), but for mixed drinks - why not have the extra level of security?
also, to the extent that people understand this exists, it may prevent ne'er do wells from trying it in the first place, as a positive test should result in some serious accusations flying that creepers would probably like to avoid.
so... instead of appreciating the insight from empirical study on learning methods, you're criticizing it based on semantics. you have some weird hater thing going on.
wanted to upvote, but instead opted to comment. i'm astounded at the extent to which everyone is falling for the same old story. it's like bad kabuki-theatre.. they are barely trying to even pretend anymore that it's all orchestrated, but people just refuse to see it. sigh.
would someone please stop and think?? We are being told to believe on the one hand that "ISIS" is this incredibly intelligent and organized organization. yet on the other hand, that said same intelligent organization would commit a heinous act of murder on video with NO STRATEGIC VALUE WHATSOVER --- **EXCEPT** to give ammunition to America's media to declare them 'barbarians' and begin to incite the public to once again given tacit approval to a U.S. led "liberation" of the region.
Oh - and by the way, for anyone that does even a LITTLE bit of research, they can find out that the ISIS has gotten all their funding from the US, and is coincidentally using all US made weaponry, that was conveniently left for them to pick up.
this whole ISIS thing started in Syria, with Saudia Arabia (and the US and Europe) wanting Assad to give the all-clear to a natural gas pipeline from Qatar which would eliminate Gazprom's effective monopoly over Europe. When the instigation there failed to elicit support for an invasion, (again, that Assad, a seemingly quite rational person if you've ever read his speeches, had suddenly authorize acts 'of terror' that would ONLY serve to invite outside forces to intervene (when he was close to crushing the insurgency anyway) - suddenly ISIS shows up.
So now, the border between iraq and syria has become blurred due to 'ISIS' (which are the 'moderate' rebels americans told were being funded), and yet again, the west has an excuse to go knocking on Assad's door.
i know, right?!?! why wont anyone believe me when i tell them that its my 'scientific research' and inefficient ad-targeting algorithms that are causing all the bondage-dildo popups in my browser?!?!
and everyone knows those tiny darn little X's to close the popups are nearly impossible to click on...hence, my browser history....
as we all know, phone's aren't just phones anymore. They are both video and still cameras. The issue should be re-phrased as 'Should we let the government/police/etc have the ability to disable all cameras and recording devices in an area at will?'
Disabling the wireless tower in Ferguson would kill the twitter and livestream feeds, but people would still be capturing all the events on their cameras, er, i mean phones, which would have found it's way out to the world later regardless. If every camera (or the great majority of cameras) were bricked... well.. maybe not quite so much.
if it was satire, i absolutely fell for it. but in any case i absolutely agree with your points. ironically, i suppose that by getting riled up beyond my initial comment, i became somewhat guilty of contributing to the derailment of the thread myself. ah well. not the dumbest thing ive done. thanks for helping me see it.
Slashdot Mirror
does he hang out in his grave with his laptop/wifi and read /.? last i heard, we still could fog a mirror...
where do you think all the bond villains get their recruits? "Hello, Mister Job is it?.... Oh, it's Mister Oddjob? Sorry... I'm calling from Goldfinger Staffing Services. We happened to come upon your resume'..."
sigh.
oh well.
it's completely related. the article discusses atlantic methane vents. given that they are of a much smaller and potentially earlier stage of development, it stands to reason to look elsewhere and see if there are any other data to point to a larger issue, and one which may set the stage for what could happen in the atlantic, and elsewhere. the magnitude and severity of the arctic activity speaks volumes, and to ignore it by saying 'same same, but different' is to put one's head in the sand.
except for the fact that arctic methane hydrate release vent growth give some pretty damning testimony. it's basically still a question the same way that evolution is 'just a theory'.
well put.
get ready to be surprised.
very possibly.
most of the seeps lie at depths where small changes in temperature could be releasing the methane
in other words, the warming that is already occurring has (surprise surprise) a positive feedback loop. one of many. whether or not the initiator was man-made in origin (hint: it was and is).
logical flaws... hurting... head... can't.... continue......
90-95% (let's be honest, 99.9%) of people are deeply conditioned into thinking they are doing good things.
FTFY
dont worry - if it isn't already, the economy will be sending people your way as willing participants.
good idea w/r/t clear and topcoat. would solve all the issues you raise. just top off before you head out.. a clear would be fine for even one or two fingers on an otherwise non-polish-wearing-man.
i absolutely agree with you vis-a-vis the manipulative farce that is 'terrorist' risk - but in my mind, this is materially different for a few reasons:
'terrorist' acts either go reported (due to their obvious ex-post nature) or are "thwarted" by those who have a vested interest in trumping up the whole scenario. in the date-rape scenario, there is no military-industrial-complex that stands to gain from people believing the stories... granted, others might be motivated to do so, but not nearly to the same extent.
also, and perhaps most importantly, is that the data for reported cases (also, unlike car accidents) is so corrupted. given that non-drug assisted rapes often go unreported , it stands to reason that drug-induced rapes have a significantly higher incidence of going unreported for a variety of reasons. so the lack of demonstrable cases cannot be used as evidence that it doesn't exist (or exist in significant numbers).
that's of course not to say that there is proof it IS a high risk - but here is where the final issue comes to play - cost to detect/prevent. if you're talking 'terrorism', you're talking billions or trillions of dollars and the trashing of civil liberties left and right. this? a few bucks to paint your nail polish a color?? incidentally, if women actually all used the nailpolish, they could report cases where the dosing/rape was attempted but AVOIDED (and the drug was detected) which could yield far better data.
i think your sample set and conclusions might be seriously biased. i'm no expert on rape-statistics, but it's my understanding that a very significant amount of non-drug-assisted rapes go unreported by the victims for a variety of reasons.
it seems to me that under the circumstances where a woman 'comes to' and can't even remember what happened (not to mention probably still feeling mentally/emotionally impaired from the chemical hangover) there would be an even higher incidence of the rapes going unreported.
it may still be possible that drug-facilitated rape occurs with less frequency than feared, but i see no ability to reach that conclusion logically from your estimation.
i think the benefit of nail polish is that it's subtle. to whip out a testing strip in a bar is to say "hey everyone - i think the guy im talking to may be a rapist and trying to drug me. pardon me while i conduct an experiment. "
to dip one fingertips into a well stirred (and presumably mostly full) drink could be very discreetly done. and i dont think hygienics should be an issue (esp with the alcohol content.) and if a girls fingertips are so grody she feels the hygiene is too rough, well.. then she may have bigger issues.
my first thought was that this was redundant, as but it seem to me that women who are apt to buy and wear this nail polish would probably already follow the most basic rule.. if a drink leaves your hand... (or passes within someone else's range of dosing), you don't drink from it again. EVER. to me, that's probably the most basic think to teach girls new to bars. I was astounded when i was in thailand a couple of years ago taking a course, and when we hit a bar one night, a girl from my class (probably 21 or 22 years old) put her drink down and left it to dance.. only to go back to it afterwards. i gave her quite an earful about the dangers etc etc.
all that being said though, the rule wouldn't help you if the bartender is in cahoots with his buddy. you could also then only drink beer from a bottle (that you see opened in front of you), but for mixed drinks - why not have the extra level of security?
also, to the extent that people understand this exists, it may prevent ne'er do wells from trying it in the first place, as a positive test should result in some serious accusations flying that creepers would probably like to avoid.
so... instead of appreciating the insight from empirical study on learning methods, you're criticizing it based on semantics. you have some weird hater thing going on.
oh yeah.. and here it is...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
like i said.. barely even trying to pretend.
wanted to upvote, but instead opted to comment. i'm astounded at the extent to which everyone is falling for the same old story. it's like bad kabuki-theatre.. they are barely trying to even pretend anymore that it's all orchestrated, but people just refuse to see it. sigh.
would someone please stop and think?? We are being told to believe on the one hand that "ISIS" is this incredibly intelligent and organized organization. yet on the other hand, that said same intelligent organization would commit a heinous act of murder on video with NO STRATEGIC VALUE WHATSOVER --- **EXCEPT** to give ammunition to America's media to declare them 'barbarians' and begin to incite the public to once again given tacit approval to a U.S. led "liberation" of the region.
Oh - and by the way, for anyone that does even a LITTLE bit of research, they can find out that the ISIS has gotten all their funding from the US, and is coincidentally using all US made weaponry, that was conveniently left for them to pick up.
this whole ISIS thing started in Syria, with Saudia Arabia (and the US and Europe) wanting Assad to give the all-clear to a natural gas pipeline from Qatar which would eliminate Gazprom's effective monopoly over Europe. When the instigation there failed to elicit support for an invasion, (again, that Assad, a seemingly quite rational person if you've ever read his speeches, had suddenly authorize acts 'of terror' that would ONLY serve to invite outside forces to intervene (when he was close to crushing the insurgency anyway) - suddenly ISIS shows up.
So now, the border between iraq and syria has become blurred due to 'ISIS' (which are the 'moderate' rebels americans told were being funded), and yet again, the west has an excuse to go knocking on Assad's door.
i know, right?!?! why wont anyone believe me when i tell them that its my 'scientific research' and inefficient ad-targeting algorithms that are causing all the bondage-dildo popups in my browser?!?!
.. .hence, my browser history....
and everyone knows those tiny darn little X's to close the popups are nearly impossible to click on
oops - errant bold tag.. sorry bout that.
as we all know, phone's aren't just phones anymore. They are both video and still cameras. The issue should be re-phrased as 'Should we let the government/police/etc have the ability to disable all cameras and recording devices in an area at will?'
Disabling the wireless tower in Ferguson would kill the twitter and livestream feeds, but people would still be capturing all the events on their cameras, er, i mean phones, which would have found it's way out to the world later regardless. If every camera (or the great majority of cameras) were bricked... well.. maybe not quite so much.
The code to brick the phones will be super secret. On the order of the encryption that protected DVDs.
You mean the code that made it's way to t-shirts? riiight.
nice comeback. take you 4 days to come up with it?
if it was satire, i absolutely fell for it. but in any case i absolutely agree with your points. ironically, i suppose that by getting riled up beyond my initial comment, i became somewhat guilty of contributing to the derailment of the thread myself. ah well. not the dumbest thing ive done. thanks for helping me see it.