Right after the first of those "joking about hijacking" cases hit the news I had to get on a plane. Getting through security was an excruciating 30 minutes of biting my lips as hard as I could to stop myself from making every lame hijacking joke that popped into my head..
"oh, wow! Hi, Jack! I heard you were flying to Cuba!":-P
The whole zero-tolerance thing has been pounded into teachers' heads so completely that I'm not sure he wouldn't have been suspended for wearing such a button.
You'd realize the judge knew exactly what he was talking about. Laws and legal precedent say that threats are not protected speech no more than slander and libel are. IIRC, the Supreme Court has upheld this.
The kid's parents should be allowed to sue the school system for money because they can't cope with the idea that their precious babykins is also an ass?
No single company can afford to get off the patent treadmill because they would be vulnerable to attack - but anything that forced the entire industry to "disarm" would be a win for them all.
You know, most people would be honored to be referred to as a "serial entrepreneur" - since that would mean that they had not only successfully created something new - they did it more than once.
Myself, I'm only an aspiring charlatan. Ready? Nothing up my sleeves....
NASA AD-1 - from 19-frigg'n-80 - and *that* aircraft was predated by an RPV from 1976!
Hey, I've got a great idea for a plane that combines forward thrust with a rotary wing that increases lift and reduces fuel consumption. I call it... "the autogyro". I wonder how many the Pentagon will want...
The correct number is that if you are continuously exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (i.e., you live with a smoker) then your risk of getting cancer is 1/90th the smoker's own risk.
The odds of you getting cancer from occasionally being exposed to smoke are indistinguishable from your odds of getting lung cancer from any other cause.
Assuming the EPA study on environmental tobacco smoke is accurate, they attribute 3000 deaths per year in the US to environmental tobacco smoke. It also assumes pervasive, continuous exposure to tobacco smoke - not simply being down wind of an occasional smoker.
Current estimates are that 275,000 deaths per year are due to direct smoking. That would lead me to believe that being occasionally exposed to second hand smoke isn't much of a cancer risk.
Consider - people often compare second hand smoke to asbestos exposure. This is illuminating because no one has ever gotten sick from asbestos who didn't directly work with it for many years.
I'm sure you've met people who believe they got cancer from second hand smoke. I'm also sure that there is no way in modern medicine to conclusively identify the cause of a specific cancer.
I would also point out that (1) people do get lung cancer in the complete absence of tobacco smoke. Cancer is caused by genetic damage; it doesn't care what caused the damage, (2) the EPA study used as the basis for second hand smoke claims says "3000 deaths per year" - that means that shs represents, at worst 1/300th the risk of smoking itself.
Slashdot Mirror
In what sense is "KILL MR SMITH" an opinion?
Heh.
:-P
Right after the first of those "joking about hijacking" cases hit the news I had to get on a plane. Getting through security was an excruciating 30 minutes of biting my lips as hard as I could to stop myself from making every lame hijacking joke that popped into my head..
"oh, wow! Hi, Jack! I heard you were flying to Cuba!"
what about laws that limit campaign donations? Those limit free speech, too.
So, you don't believe in slander or libel laws either?
How about laws that ban false advertising?
How about laws that ban hate speech?
I didn't realize how many people there are in the world who still have not used instant messaging.
That icon appeared on every instant message he sent to he friends for several weeks.
Have you ever seen an instant messaging program?
This icon appeared next to every IM he sent for several weeks - so every one of his buddies saw it, probably many times.
Actually, mod the parents as "flamebait"
The whole zero-tolerance thing has been pounded into teachers' heads so completely that I'm not sure he wouldn't have been suspended for wearing such a button.
You'd realize the judge knew exactly what he was talking about. Laws and legal precedent say that threats are not protected speech no more than slander and libel are. IIRC, the Supreme Court has upheld this.
The kid's parents should be allowed to sue the school system for money because they can't cope with the idea that their precious babykins is also an ass?
The judge not only knows the Constitution, he knows the relevant laws and precedents about threats of violence.
He's not the person who needs a lesson in law.
It wouldn't because violating the terms of use isn't illegal, it's merely grounds for having your account cancelled.
No single company can afford to get off the patent treadmill because they would be vulnerable to attack - but anything that forced the entire industry to "disarm" would be a win for them all.
You know, most people would be honored to be referred to as a "serial entrepreneur" - since that would mean that they had not only successfully created something new - they did it more than once.
Myself, I'm only an aspiring charlatan. Ready? Nothing up my sleeves....
US tops world in school spending.
You do realize that federal funding of education is only a tiny percentage of total education funding?
Most of the funds for education in the United States come from property taxes.
Boy, I'm glad I'm not the only one old enough to remember that plane.
That's why.
NASA AD-1 - from 19-frigg'n-80 - and *that* aircraft was predated by an RPV from 1976!
Hey, I've got a great idea for a plane that combines forward thrust with a rotary wing that increases lift and reduces fuel consumption. I call it... "the autogyro". I wonder how many the Pentagon will want...
What was the name of that book? Bowling Alone?
"EPA estimates that approximately 3,000 American nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke."
There's no evidence to back up the ACS' higher number, and you'll notice they don't provide a source for it.
Sorry - I made a stupid math error.
The correct number is that if you are continuously exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (i.e., you live with a smoker) then your risk of getting cancer is 1/90th the smoker's own risk.
The odds of you getting cancer from occasionally being exposed to smoke are indistinguishable from your odds of getting lung cancer from any other cause.
Assuming the EPA study on environmental tobacco smoke is accurate, they attribute 3000 deaths per year in the US to environmental tobacco smoke. It also assumes pervasive, continuous exposure to tobacco smoke - not simply being down wind of an occasional smoker.
Current estimates are that 275,000 deaths per year are due to direct smoking. That would lead me to believe that being occasionally exposed to second hand smoke isn't much of a cancer risk.
Consider - people often compare second hand smoke to asbestos exposure. This is illuminating because no one has ever gotten sick from asbestos who didn't directly work with it for many years.
I was pointing out the illogic of the current definition of "species" - not claiming that the different races were different species.
I'm sure you've met people who believe they got cancer from second hand smoke. I'm also sure that there is no way in modern medicine to conclusively identify the cause of a specific cancer.
I would also point out that (1) people do get lung cancer in the complete absence of tobacco smoke. Cancer is caused by genetic damage; it doesn't care what caused the damage, (2) the EPA study used as the basis for second hand smoke claims says "3000 deaths per year" - that means that shs represents, at worst 1/300th the risk of smoking itself.