Well, I phrased that wrong and there's no edit feature. I'm guessing people get the gist of it though. I'd rather be healthy and risk loss of cognition than unhealthy with the same risk.
1. For people in the embryonic stem cell research business to cash in using government money. 2. As a political wedge issue. Embryonic stem cells are needed in order to portray anyone religious (or anyone else who values human life before birth) as standing between the diseased and their inevitable cures.
They need to keep telling the story about the miracle cure that's always only a few years away in order to get out the votes, raise funds, spread hatred, marginalize religious minorities, and get the government to write them checks to fund it all again next election.
You want to create TV electricity police for a near zero potential long-term benefit?
Some might suggest that you just like policing every aspect on everyone's life in the tiniest detail. Or maybe you just want votes from the TV police union. Either of those are problems. The small acts of oppression pile up into a big totalitarian heap.
And that assumes your ultra-rosy scenario is true. What's the track record for government involvement actually lowering the cost of things?
No one has the right to be Science czar. Sacking him is not "convicting him" of anything. If it were, then the same thing happened to me when I wasn't given the job of Science Czar.
I understand your position, but I disagree with giving evil people power based on assurances. He can have the benefit of the doubt without serving as Science Czar. He would be a poor choice even it he hadn't written that book.
Ethanol production in the US is mostly a way to funnel money to farmers and ethanol processing businesses in exchange for votes and political payoffs. The fuel produced is inferior and much more expensive than the equivalent fossil fuels.
We has tarrifs on sugar in the US, specifically to funnel money to the same people.
I wish farming was a business in the US instead of a front for theft from consumers and taxpayers. But I never get what I wish for.
Eugenics used to be fashionable too. Holdren's views are no less dangerous. And, in many ways, they're very similar. Holdren was simply worried about quantity rather than quality.
Having a guy like Holdren in a government position destroys any possibility of trust. If we need to trust our government and be vaccinated to prevent a pandemic, then Holdren should resign. It's the only responsible course of action.
But even without a pandemic, this is the USA. We have a right to a government we can trust. Holdren should be ineligible for government positions of responsibility in a non-totalitarian regime. Maybe someday we can have one of those again.
You mean one of these pie-in-the-sky alternative energy ideas was actually over-hyped and too good to be true!!???? Unbelievable! Next you'll be telling us that there weren't as many "green jobs" as we were promised and that they don't help the economy.
What about the power of HOPE? Can I use that to fuel my car?
I'd probably get the flu shot if I thought I had a good chance at getting the flu. Risks from the shot are low and I have gotten the shots the last 5 years or so. It doesn't change Holdren's past though. Why do we have guys like that in our government? It's a really bad sign.
What politicians? There are no politicians involved. I just want John Holdren fired because he's not worthy of being in a non-totalitarian government. If he were fired, it would be a sign that the Obama government isn't irredeemably despotic.
The book clearly does say what that web site quotes it as saying.
On what basis should we trust these people to inject us with anything?
And no, I don't believe the flu vaccine is adulterated to sterilize the population. It's unbelievable, like the government taking over the US auto industry or something equally crazy.
If the government is serious about fighting the flu, John Holdren and anyone else in the Obama Administration with similar views needs to resign as a good faith gesture to promote trust.
Every single modded-up article misses the simple answer to the question.
What happens as more mobile subscribers are added? You get congestion. Then the provider adds another base station and the capacity is doubled. Repeat as needed.
But aren't base stations expensive? Yes. But base stations are much like any other electronic device. It's cheaper to build them out of discrete components when you only need a few expensive units. When you need many inexpensive units, you integrate the functions on a chip and manufacture it for $4 (plus some other costs, plus $50 million in engineering amortized over the total number of chips sold in the product lifetime). Then base stations are cheap and can be plentiful, supporting many, many high-bandwidth mobile phones. There's an upper limit, but it's pretty high.
Anything that brings new people to video games will ultimately be good for everyone who makes games.
The quality of the entertainment is what matters. Quality will continue to win. Always. That's why games are taking over from movies and (to a lesser extent) TV. Great games and bad movies.
Phone games can only "win" if they are a better entertainment experience than console games. And that's not normally going to be true.
Newspapers and crossword puzzles and card games better watch out for the iPhone though.
You want to protect one person's (accidental, illegitimate) possession of data even though it victimizes 1325 other innocent people. That is unjust. I'm glad the court agreed with me, though the court should have ordered only the one email be deleted rather than all of them.
Courts are given the power to do these things. This case is a good example of why we need them. It's not really a question of "rights being violated" because the court action is "due process". The court has a duty to look out for the rights of everyone involved, including the Gmail user. That's why we have courts. The court decided to rule to help the 1325 people.
Please explain why you think the gmail user should get to keep the private bank account data. Please explain why it's more responsible for the bank to simply allow an anonymous person to have 1325 bank records than to file a court action to get the data erased.
And what's wrong with sealing records in a privacy-related court case?
If I were on that list of 1325 names, I'd want the data erased. If the bank needed to go to court to accomplish this, I'd expect them to file suit. I'd want the court records sealed so I'm not publicly dragged into this. And I'd also switch banks.
It is the right answer if you're interested in prevention of future occurrences.
Wrong. You prevent future occurrences by not doing it again.
The bank should be obligated (by the judge or whomever) to close all customer accounts related to those records, reissue new accounts with different numbers, and to pay for any identity theft protection that the bank's customers may need with no questions asked.
Yeah. Unless the bank already did that, that's something you'd also do.
I'm not getting why you think the gmail user should get to keep the bank account data.
Yours is one of the only thoughtful comments in this thread so far.
I'm not sure what everyone here thinks should have happened in this case. Leaving the gmail account alone with 1300 bank records in it isn't the right answer. The bank had to go to court to get the email deleted. (Google can't just let anyone ask to delete an email from your email account, hence the need for the court action.)
Closing the email account seems like overkill. But other than that, everyone else seems to have acted correctly after the initial mistake.
You first point is (seemingly) correct. Sleep is not evolution's way of preventing Alzheimer's Disease. Your second point is incorrect.
Healthy old folks are directly beneficial to social groups. They remember how to solve problems. They can take care of grandchildren while the parents are off gathering food. And many social groups had old folks. Sure, most people didn't live to get very old. But some did.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I phrased that wrong and there's no edit feature. I'm guessing people get the gist of it though. I'd rather be healthy and risk loss of cognition than unhealthy with the same risk.
That's better than a frail body with "a brain that is slowly losing function" ? Really?
The same two reasons they were always needed:
1. For people in the embryonic stem cell research business to cash in using government money.
2. As a political wedge issue. Embryonic stem cells are needed in order to portray anyone religious (or anyone else who values human life before birth) as standing between the diseased and their inevitable cures.
They need to keep telling the story about the miracle cure that's always only a few years away in order to get out the votes, raise funds, spread hatred, marginalize religious minorities, and get the government to write them checks to fund it all again next election.
You want to create TV electricity police for a near zero potential long-term benefit?
Some might suggest that you just like policing every aspect on everyone's life in the tiniest detail. Or maybe you just want votes from the TV police union. Either of those are problems. The small acts of oppression pile up into a big totalitarian heap.
And that assumes your ultra-rosy scenario is true. What's the track record for government involvement actually lowering the cost of things?
No one has the right to be Science czar. Sacking him is not "convicting him" of anything. If it were, then the same thing happened to me when I wasn't given the job of Science Czar.
I understand your position, but I disagree with giving evil people power based on assurances. He can have the benefit of the doubt without serving as Science Czar. He would be a poor choice even it he hadn't written that book.
Ethanol production in the US is mostly a way to funnel money to farmers and ethanol processing businesses in exchange for votes and political payoffs. The fuel produced is inferior and much more expensive than the equivalent fossil fuels.
We has tarrifs on sugar in the US, specifically to funnel money to the same people.
I wish farming was a business in the US instead of a front for theft from consumers and taxpayers. But I never get what I wish for.
Eugenics used to be fashionable too. Holdren's views are no less dangerous. And, in many ways, they're very similar. Holdren was simply worried about quantity rather than quality.
Having a guy like Holdren in a government position destroys any possibility of trust. If we need to trust our government and be vaccinated to prevent a pandemic, then Holdren should resign. It's the only responsible course of action.
But even without a pandemic, this is the USA. We have a right to a government we can trust. Holdren should be ineligible for government positions of responsibility in a non-totalitarian regime. Maybe someday we can have one of those again.
You mean one of these pie-in-the-sky alternative energy ideas was actually over-hyped and too good to be true!!???? Unbelievable! Next you'll be telling us that there weren't as many "green jobs" as we were promised and that they don't help the economy.
What about the power of HOPE? Can I use that to fuel my car?
Be my guest.
I'd probably get the flu shot if I thought I had a good chance at getting the flu. Risks from the shot are low and I have gotten the shots the last 5 years or so. It doesn't change Holdren's past though. Why do we have guys like that in our government? It's a really bad sign.
I haven't heard any defense of Holdren, BTW.
What politicians? There are no politicians involved. I just want John Holdren fired because he's not worthy of being in a non-totalitarian government. If he were fired, it would be a sign that the Obama government isn't irredeemably despotic.
The book clearly does say what that web site quotes it as saying.
It's been too cold and rainy to go out at night lately.
We have a government with a Science Czar, John Holdren, who wrote in 1977 about ways to involuntarily sterilize the population by adulterating food and water supplies. Now we have a so-called influenza crisis. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has famously said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
On what basis should we trust these people to inject us with anything?
And no, I don't believe the flu vaccine is adulterated to sterilize the population. It's unbelievable, like the government taking over the US auto industry or something equally crazy.
If the government is serious about fighting the flu, John Holdren and anyone else in the Obama Administration with similar views needs to resign as a good faith gesture to promote trust.
Every single modded-up article misses the simple answer to the question.
What happens as more mobile subscribers are added? You get congestion. Then the provider adds another base station and the capacity is doubled. Repeat as needed.
But aren't base stations expensive? Yes. But base stations are much like any other electronic device. It's cheaper to build them out of discrete components when you only need a few expensive units. When you need many inexpensive units, you integrate the functions on a chip and manufacture it for $4 (plus some other costs, plus $50 million in engineering amortized over the total number of chips sold in the product lifetime). Then base stations are cheap and can be plentiful, supporting many, many high-bandwidth mobile phones. There's an upper limit, but it's pretty high.
This was a stupid decision done for the worst of intentions.
What were the judge's intentions? What motivated him? I'm sure you know.
Also, you apparently know that no one could have used that data in any way to harm anyone. How do you know this?
Deleting the account data harms no one.
Your comment is very silly.
Of course, neither his digital camera nor his PDA use any patented technology.
Anything that brings new people to video games will ultimately be good for everyone who makes games.
The quality of the entertainment is what matters. Quality will continue to win. Always. That's why games are taking over from movies and (to a lesser extent) TV. Great games and bad movies.
Phone games can only "win" if they are a better entertainment experience than console games. And that's not normally going to be true.
Newspapers and crossword puzzles and card games better watch out for the iPhone though.
You want to protect one person's (accidental, illegitimate) possession of data even though it victimizes 1325 other innocent people. That is unjust. I'm glad the court agreed with me, though the court should have ordered only the one email be deleted rather than all of them.
Courts are given the power to do these things. This case is a good example of why we need them. It's not really a question of "rights being violated" because the court action is "due process". The court has a duty to look out for the rights of everyone involved, including the Gmail user. That's why we have courts. The court decided to rule to help the 1325 people.
Please explain why you think the gmail user should get to keep the private bank account data. Please explain why it's more responsible for the bank to simply allow an anonymous person to have 1325 bank records than to file a court action to get the data erased.
And what's wrong with sealing records in a privacy-related court case?
If I were on that list of 1325 names, I'd want the data erased. If the bank needed to go to court to accomplish this, I'd expect them to file suit. I'd want the court records sealed so I'm not publicly dragged into this. And I'd also switch banks.
It is the right answer if you're interested in prevention of future occurrences.
Wrong. You prevent future occurrences by not doing it again.
The bank should be obligated (by the judge or whomever) to close all customer accounts related to those records, reissue new accounts with different numbers, and to pay for any identity theft protection that the bank's customers may need with no questions asked.
Yeah. Unless the bank already did that, that's something you'd also do.
I'm not getting why you think the gmail user should get to keep the bank account data.
"It was the bank's fault" is not the answer to "what should we do about it?"
Yours is one of the only thoughtful comments in this thread so far.
I'm not sure what everyone here thinks should have happened in this case. Leaving the gmail account alone with 1300 bank records in it isn't the right answer. The bank had to go to court to get the email deleted. (Google can't just let anyone ask to delete an email from your email account, hence the need for the court action.)
Closing the email account seems like overkill. But other than that, everyone else seems to have acted correctly after the initial mistake.
You first point is (seemingly) correct. Sleep is not evolution's way of preventing Alzheimer's Disease. Your second point is incorrect.
Healthy old folks are directly beneficial to social groups. They remember how to solve problems. They can take care of grandchildren while the parents are off gathering food. And many social groups had old folks. Sure, most people didn't live to get very old. But some did.
Like Microsoft couldn't handle their own protection, fire, water and sanitation if they wanted to?
I wonder if Washington thinks the state's budget would be better off if Microsoft moved to a less greedy state.
They could just cut spending. No one needs to pay more because someone pays less. Just cut spending.
Taxes are taken from people against their will. The people who receive the money can just accept less.