Well, he did say "legally". Seeking a prescription for medication under false pretenses or using your prescribed medication in ways other than proscribed is not legal and not the way a legitimate lab operates (for long, anyway).
That whole standard was stupid anyway. It was essentially making tracking the default state and requiring the user to opt-out. Intrusive marketing like this should be opt-in.
So why not make the tracking opt-in, so that you can choose to be tracked and everybody else can also get what they want?
You could even go and set up accounts with all of the tracking agents so that you can tweak your profile and ensure that you're getting the most targeted ads. Doesn't that sound better to you? A requirement to opt-out of intrusive marketing is bullshit.
Could we get some sort of statement, perhaps just in the FAQ, that addresses this? It would be nice to know that the supported candidates are being chosen based only on their suitability for accomplishing this goal. Politicians don't stay bought, and I'd be sad to see my money go toward electing someone who turns around and breaks their promise once the money gets them into office.
I wouldn't want to earmark my donation for either Democrats or Republicans, but I'd want to know that the candidates being supported are actually the "bankruptcy judges" that Lessig talked about and not just more-of-the-same problem politicians who are just using the PAC to boost themselves into office.
The impetus behind this concern is something said in the Bill Moyers interview linked by the main page. In this interview, Lessig puts forward the idea of Michael Bloomberg as being a possible "bankruptcy judge". Bloomberg is almost a caricature of partisan politics, one of the the poster boys of using his money to buy personal representation regardless of what the citizens want, and pathologically incapable of not using his influence to push his personal goals. It seems as though Lessig is judging the feasibility of potential candidates based on his personal politics and not any objective measure of accountability. Suggesting Bloomberg as a possible candidate for funding is just as ridiculous as suggesting that the PAC be used to fund the Koch brothers running for office.
It seems that Lessig is blinded by his politics from seeing that Bloomberg is just as representative of what this PAC is supposed to be fighting as the Kochs are, albeit on a smaller scale. If this PAC is going to get universal support, Lessig needs to show that he can keep his own politics out of it. The point of this PAC should be to get money out of government, not to give Lessig the money he needs to become his own Koch or Bloomberg.
The mention of TED however makes me wonder this is just another left wing power grab, same as it might be a neocon power grab if this came from the heritage foundation.
The more I read about this, the more I agree with you on this point. I'm by no means associated with either party or either wing, by the way. (Seriously. I'm very firmly anti-party politics and my views are not simplistic enough to represented by either of the two main parties.)
In his Moyers interview, he suggests funding someone like Bloomberg to handle this one cause and then "step aside". Anyone who thinks Bloomberg (almost a caricature of partisan politics, one of the the poster boys of using his money to buy personal representation regardless of what the citizens want, and pathologically incapable of not using his influence to push his personal goals) would be a good place to spend this money is clearly letting his politics lead him around.
I'm assuming that all of the D's they fund will be of Bloomberg's character and all of the R's will be ones who personally don't offend Lessig's sensibilities. I like the idea of this PAC quite a bit, but there's no way I'm giving any of my money to see Bloomberg elected to an even higher office. It's a trap!
You can't conceive of a person who's good a taking tests and also good at other things? How would a demonstrated ability in more than one area possibly count against an applicant?
Nobody is suggesting making the choice solely on grades. I mean, I specifically said that in the sentence you quoted.
You're not going to exclude the 4.0ers and then randomly select from what's left, right? So apply your selection criteria to the smaller set of people with 4.0 and see if anyone makes it. When you have thousands or tens of thousands of people applying for a single fellowship, statistics say you are very likely to find someone who is awesome at everything. Why would you pass them up just because they don't fall in the center of the distribution?
These extremely competitive internships and fellowships will look for actual indicators of performance in addition to grades. The two need not be mutually exclusive.
The difference between the commercial and noncommercial things you list is scale. Many things that are allowed for individuals (sport fishing or picking wildflowers (which, by the way, is still illegal for individuals... the difference is in enforcement) are forbidden for commercial interests because the impact of large scale operations is more damaging. Disallowing commercial activities is easier than putting limits in place and ramping up inspection and enforcement for small operations.
The potential audience of a YouTube video is just as large as a press published video, even if the marketing push of the press is larger. Your "argument" doesn't apply in that case.
-=-=-=-=-
You people who are so motivated by your politics that you must attempt to skew and misinterpret reality to fit your current set of political insults are weird. Party politics really are the systematic movement to remove rationality from government. Goodbye Enlightenment and Age of Reason. Welcome back to tribalism and knee-jerk emotional hysterics.
If you have enough applicants and only a few positions, you're better off taking the best performers who also got a 4.0. In the extremely competitive internships and fellowships, you can afford (stats-wise) to target only the best tail of the distribution and the outliers.
Some individuals experience headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, or euphoria, but some become unconscious without warning.
The vengeance seeking crowd seem to have a little too much say in state executions and the possibility that their victim might not suffer, or worse might feel pleasure, turns them off of many of the more humane methods.
I just reinstalled my OS a few weeks ago and never reinstalled flash. Despite a profuse amount of websurfing and watching videos here and there, I haven't needed flash yet.
Fewer annoying, moving, sound-producing site navigation controls, better battery life on my laptop when watching videos, and fewer horrible security vulnerabilities to worry about! Dumping Flash is something I should have done long ago!
So was your original plan to invade his home on your coast-to-coast tour? Otherwise, how would what happens inside his home affect your vacation?
I don't know what definition of "free" you're using, but in a "land of the free" people are free to prep for whatever they want without being forced to conform to your personal life choices...
Or are you one of those people who wouldn't visit a country that allows gay marriage because you don't want to be forced into a gay marriage? You really need to get your irrational fears in check.
Are you trying to make the parent's point? While it may take "Olympic-level upper body strength" to swim in the Olympics or play golf professionally, it certainly isn't required to simply swim in a pool or casually play golf. The "frail old people" swimming in pools and playing golf demonstrate that pretty well.
Quoth the GP:
While putting does not require much strength, doesn't driving (i.e. long distance shots) require a lot of upper body strength equivalent to olympic sports like javelin and discus throw?
It's likely that staying anonymous was his original plan.
There was a lag between the leaks and his taking credit for them. Perhaps it became clear after he leaked that he wouldn't be able to continue to hide and so becoming a public figure was the safest choice.
Reading back through the thread, it looks like most everyone is thinking the same thing but disagreeing because of different terminology. The key misunderstanding in this thread relates to the situation where the liabilities are equal to, or larger than, the assets and the heirs-to-be want some of the assets.
You and Cyberax are calling the situation "inheriting debt", whereas I think it's more realistically described as accruing new debt in exchange for certain assets otherwise owed to the creditors. If you choose not to accrue this new debt to retain the estate's collateral, there's no way the estate's debt would pass on to you. The debt belongs solely to the estate and can't be inherited.
Nursing care debts are only passed on if (and because) the descendants sign as guarantors or cosigners when the parent begins to accrue that particular debt. That's more common with end-of-life services, but it's contractual and not statutory. In this particular case, the debt isn't inherited so much as it was shared with the children from the start.
Again, you're confusing "estate" with "heirs". All (most) debts are settled from the estate before any assets pass on to the heirs. In the US, if the assets of an estate are exhausted before the liabilities are satisfied then the remaining creditors and the heirs get nothing. The slate is then wiped clean.
The estate is the remaining assets and liabilities of the deceased. Once assets are inherited, they no longer belong to the deceased's estate (as the estate, a legal construct, ceases to exist once liabilities are settled and assets are transferred).
In the US, at least, the only time you have the appearance of inheriting debt is if you inherit property that is collateral for a debt (eg, a house with a mortgage). The bank could take the collateral from the estate, as it is entitled to do, but can let you keep the collateral in exchange for continuing to pay down the debt. Is that what you are talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
My thoughts exactly. The code for which pins/wafers to use is usually stamped on the key itself, too.
That's levomethamphetamine, the non-psychoactive enantiomer. It's present in several cold and flu products.
No, the molecule I linked to is dextromethamphetamine. Of course, you can get levomethamphetamine samples there if you want, too.
Well, he did say "legally". Seeking a prescription for medication under false pretenses or using your prescribed medication in ways other than proscribed is not legal and not the way a legitimate lab operates (for long, anyway).
Wow. Forgot to close a link tag and forgot that /. still doesn't support unicode... all in a short four sentence post. Screw this, I need more beer.
Oh, and there are a lot of hoops to jump through to [legally] obtain a meth standard.
Actually, it's a piece of cake. Here's one that you don't even need a DEA license to receive. You can get standards for analysis for most any drug easily. Of course, you're only getting g to mg, so there's no real avenue for abuse.
The constitution gives the interpretation to the supreme court.
Oh yeah? Where in the Constitution does it say that?
That whole standard was stupid anyway. It was essentially making tracking the default state and requiring the user to opt-out. Intrusive marketing like this should be opt-in.
So why not make the tracking opt-in, so that you can choose to be tracked and everybody else can also get what they want?
You could even go and set up accounts with all of the tracking agents so that you can tweak your profile and ensure that you're getting the most targeted ads. Doesn't that sound better to you? A requirement to opt-out of intrusive marketing is bullshit.
Could we get some sort of statement, perhaps just in the FAQ, that addresses this? It would be nice to know that the supported candidates are being chosen based only on their suitability for accomplishing this goal. Politicians don't stay bought, and I'd be sad to see my money go toward electing someone who turns around and breaks their promise once the money gets them into office.
I wouldn't want to earmark my donation for either Democrats or Republicans, but I'd want to know that the candidates being supported are actually the "bankruptcy judges" that Lessig talked about and not just more-of-the-same problem politicians who are just using the PAC to boost themselves into office.
The impetus behind this concern is something said in the Bill Moyers interview linked by the main page. In this interview, Lessig puts forward the idea of Michael Bloomberg as being a possible "bankruptcy judge". Bloomberg is almost a caricature of partisan politics, one of the the poster boys of using his money to buy personal representation regardless of what the citizens want, and pathologically incapable of not using his influence to push his personal goals. It seems as though Lessig is judging the feasibility of potential candidates based on his personal politics and not any objective measure of accountability. Suggesting Bloomberg as a possible candidate for funding is just as ridiculous as suggesting that the PAC be used to fund the Koch brothers running for office.
It seems that Lessig is blinded by his politics from seeing that Bloomberg is just as representative of what this PAC is supposed to be fighting as the Kochs are, albeit on a smaller scale. If this PAC is going to get universal support, Lessig needs to show that he can keep his own politics out of it. The point of this PAC should be to get money out of government, not to give Lessig the money he needs to become his own Koch or Bloomberg.
The mention of TED however makes me wonder this is just another left wing power grab, same as it might be a neocon power grab if this came from the heritage foundation.
The more I read about this, the more I agree with you on this point. I'm by no means associated with either party or either wing, by the way. (Seriously. I'm very firmly anti-party politics and my views are not simplistic enough to represented by either of the two main parties.)
In his Moyers interview, he suggests funding someone like Bloomberg to handle this one cause and then "step aside". Anyone who thinks Bloomberg (almost a caricature of partisan politics, one of the the poster boys of using his money to buy personal representation regardless of what the citizens want, and pathologically incapable of not using his influence to push his personal goals) would be a good place to spend this money is clearly letting his politics lead him around.
I'm assuming that all of the D's they fund will be of Bloomberg's character and all of the R's will be ones who personally don't offend Lessig's sensibilities. I like the idea of this PAC quite a bit, but there's no way I'm giving any of my money to see Bloomberg elected to an even higher office. It's a trap!
You can't conceive of a person who's good a taking tests and also good at other things? How would a demonstrated ability in more than one area possibly count against an applicant?
Nobody is suggesting making the choice solely on grades. I mean, I specifically said that in the sentence you quoted.
You're clearly missing my point.
You're not going to exclude the 4.0ers and then randomly select from what's left, right? So apply your selection criteria to the smaller set of people with 4.0 and see if anyone makes it. When you have thousands or tens of thousands of people applying for a single fellowship, statistics say you are very likely to find someone who is awesome at everything. Why would you pass them up just because they don't fall in the center of the distribution?
These extremely competitive internships and fellowships will look for actual indicators of performance in addition to grades. The two need not be mutually exclusive.
In case this is bugging anyone else as much as it is me, here's the close to that dangling parenthesis: )
Ahhh, OCD soothed...
Wtf, indeed?
The difference between the commercial and noncommercial things you list is scale. Many things that are allowed for individuals (sport fishing or picking wildflowers (which, by the way, is still illegal for individuals... the difference is in enforcement) are forbidden for commercial interests because the impact of large scale operations is more damaging. Disallowing commercial activities is easier than putting limits in place and ramping up inspection and enforcement for small operations.
The potential audience of a YouTube video is just as large as a press published video, even if the marketing push of the press is larger. Your "argument" doesn't apply in that case.
-=-=-=-=-
You people who are so motivated by your politics that you must attempt to skew and misinterpret reality to fit your current set of political insults are weird. Party politics really are the systematic movement to remove rationality from government. Goodbye Enlightenment and Age of Reason. Welcome back to tribalism and knee-jerk emotional hysterics.
If you have enough applicants and only a few positions, you're better off taking the best performers who also got a 4.0. In the extremely competitive internships and fellowships, you can afford (stats-wise) to target only the best tail of the distribution and the outliers.
From the Wikipedia page:
The vengeance seeking crowd seem to have a little too much say in state executions and the possibility that their victim might not suffer, or worse might feel pleasure, turns them off of many of the more humane methods.
I just reinstalled my OS a few weeks ago and never reinstalled flash. Despite a profuse amount of websurfing and watching videos here and there, I haven't needed flash yet.
Fewer annoying, moving, sound-producing site navigation controls, better battery life on my laptop when watching videos, and fewer horrible security vulnerabilities to worry about! Dumping Flash is something I should have done long ago!
So was your original plan to invade his home on your coast-to-coast tour? Otherwise, how would what happens inside his home affect your vacation?
I don't know what definition of "free" you're using, but in a "land of the free" people are free to prep for whatever they want without being forced to conform to your personal life choices...
Or are you one of those people who wouldn't visit a country that allows gay marriage because you don't want to be forced into a gay marriage? You really need to get your irrational fears in check.
Are you trying to make the parent's point? While it may take "Olympic-level upper body strength" to swim in the Olympics or play golf professionally, it certainly isn't required to simply swim in a pool or casually play golf. The "frail old people" swimming in pools and playing golf demonstrate that pretty well.
Quoth the GP:
While putting does not require much strength, doesn't driving (i.e. long distance shots) require a lot of upper body strength equivalent to olympic sports like javelin and discus throw?
But the signs do discourage people from suing the car park owners. That is the ultimate purpose of the signs.
It's likely that staying anonymous was his original plan.
There was a lag between the leaks and his taking credit for them. Perhaps it became clear after he leaked that he wouldn't be able to continue to hide and so becoming a public figure was the safest choice.
I've sold the cards just so they go away and stop showing up as unread messages. Which has made me curious. Who is it that is actually buying them?
Reading back through the thread, it looks like most everyone is thinking the same thing but disagreeing because of different terminology. The key misunderstanding in this thread relates to the situation where the liabilities are equal to, or larger than, the assets and the heirs-to-be want some of the assets.
You and Cyberax are calling the situation "inheriting debt", whereas I think it's more realistically described as accruing new debt in exchange for certain assets otherwise owed to the creditors. If you choose not to accrue this new debt to retain the estate's collateral, there's no way the estate's debt would pass on to you. The debt belongs solely to the estate and can't be inherited.
Nursing care debts are only passed on if (and because) the descendants sign as guarantors or cosigners when the parent begins to accrue that particular debt. That's more common with end-of-life services, but it's contractual and not statutory. In this particular case, the debt isn't inherited so much as it was shared with the children from the start.
Again, you're confusing "estate" with "heirs". All (most) debts are settled from the estate before any assets pass on to the heirs. In the US, if the assets of an estate are exhausted before the liabilities are satisfied then the remaining creditors and the heirs get nothing. The slate is then wiped clean.
The estate is the remaining assets and liabilities of the deceased. Once assets are inherited, they no longer belong to the deceased's estate (as the estate, a legal construct, ceases to exist once liabilities are settled and assets are transferred).
In the US, at least, the only time you have the appearance of inheriting debt is if you inherit property that is collateral for a debt (eg, a house with a mortgage). The bank could take the collateral from the estate, as it is entitled to do, but can let you keep the collateral in exchange for continuing to pay down the debt. Is that what you are talking about?