You mean both of them who didn't say that? One of them said she wanted him to face trial. She's conflicted about it, like most rape victims - the longer it takes to get to trial, the more they want to put it behind them.
As the AC below said, Sweden can't guarantee that he won't be extradited; they have to consider requests as they come in, and can't promise to break a treaty.
The information was not deemed classified until long after the emails were sent.
That doesn't appear to be true. At least one email was classified at the time it was sent, and several others were considered automatically classified under the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's guidelines. Furthermore, "what server it was stored on" is not irrelevant; if you have classified information and store it in unapproved locations, you would ordinarily get in a lot of trouble.
I haven't seen anything that explicitly says it was ONLY sent to her by other people. I have seen articles that say she deleted emails after she was supposed to turn them over, which could get her charged with destruction of evidence. Furthermore, if she knowingly kept and stored classified information (regardless of whether it was classified at the time of sending) in an unauthorized fashion (private server definitely counts) then that is her breach.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong - it was against the law. In 2014, the law was amended slightly to add a time frame required for someone to turn over emails, but data retention laws were still clear at the time. And previous office holders doing bad things in the past doesn't exactly excuse someone else from doing it later.
How is it that NIMBYs and greens are so good at keeping nuclear down, yet fail to stop fracking or coal plants or oil drilling? Why is nuclear so uniquely vulnerable to their lawsuits?
Seriously? They have different regulatory hurdles, fewer people care about oil drilling nearby (which, incidentally, often isn't done near people on any large scale), and the oil industry has more money to throw at people. Most people also don't care about coal plants, because they don't know that they should.
I mean, that's still relatively small compared to current power plant sizes. Obviously, there will still need to be surrounding equipment and everything, but at this point I don't think size is a problem by itself; the reason it's a problem is mostly because of the complexity and expense needed to make it.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, you are wrong about that. It was amended after she left office, but the requirements to turn things over were still in place.
And yes, before you say something, I'd be happy to see previous (Republican) Secretaries of State be brought up on charges too, if they also violated the law.
No, you're wrong. In 2014, they amended the law to be more strict, but deleting records was already illegal, as was storing classified information on unauthorized personal servers. See here for a more thorough explanation.
This is just wrong. Farmers can still grow their own seed, and if Monsanto's crops happen to cross-pollinate (and the farmer doesn't intentionally select for this or try to make it happen) then that's fine. If the farmer tries to select for hybrids, then they get sued for patent infringement.
Moreover, the reason farmers (even non-GMO farmers) tend to not grow their own seeds any more is because many plants grow better when they're heterozygous at some alleles. Because they're heterozygous, they don't breed true, so companies keep breeding them up and then selling them.
Monsanto doesn't sell "terminator seeds". Furthermore, plenty of farmers buy new seed each year because many desirable features come about when a plant is heterozygous at an allele, which means that they don't breed true. It's much easier to buy known heterozygotes each year than it is to try to select your own.
First off, the evidence for including them as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (category 2A) is fairly weak. Some glyphosates were only classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (category 2B), which means there's no good evidence one way or the other - coffee falls in this category, FYI. Second, do you really think farmers are stupid enough to pay extra money for Monsanto seeds if they were getting much less out of them? That's just dumb.
But what the heck, let's cater to our knuckle dragging redneck readers because we figure if we start to talk about directed RF or other more effective means, we'll loose you at the first multisyllabic word.
I think you meant "lose", which, as you may know, is not a multisyllabic word.
I don't know, I think concentrated sulfuric acid would do a pretty good job on the human body. Maybe you'd have a few bits left over, but probably not much. And if you're worried about exothermic reactions, just freeze the body parts beforehand.
I don't think there is a clean way to get rid of a body. Burying it maybe, but that does leave more evidence behind, and you still have to dig (or get someone to do it for you).
While it's true that we produce more food than we need, and could make even more without GMOs, I think that more productive use of land is better. If GMOs are more efficient - which may not always be the case - then we should use them. That is land that can then be used for other purposes, whether that's human use or letting it return to a more natural state. Using less land is better in the long run, ecologically speaking.
Also, adding drugs to counteract side effects isn't necessarily bad medical practice. Sometimes the only available drugs have side effects you don't want.
After reading about Vernon Bowman's case, he did the same thing as Schmeiser: he intentionally selected for Monsanto's seeds. There wasn't natural cross-pollination involved at all.
In general, there are several concerns about GMO foods (presented in no particular order):
1. GMO foods cause cancer, infertility, etc. (health concerns in general)
2. GMO foods will disrupt the environment, either by spreading too far due to their increased fitness or by spreading their genes and causing unforeseen changes in the surrounding wildlife
3. Issues with the concept of patenting life
4. Concerns about letting one (or several) large company control most of the seed stock
5. Concerns about allowing crops to get too similar, thus potentially raising the chance of crop collapse like the Potato Famine
6. It's "unnatural" and scary
Of these, 1. has no real evidence behind it, and plenty of evidence against it. It's still a potential concern in some cases, but in general these fears are overblown (especially when people are afraid they will pick up those genes - if gene therapy was that easy, hemophilia or muscular dystrophy wouldn't be an issue), as the proteins made from the inserted genes are already generally considered safe. 2. is possible, in that they could disrupt the insect/pest population, but their genes are unlikely to significantly improve the fitness of surrounding plants, and crops aren't good enough to grow outside of fields, for the most part. I understand both sides of the issue on #3. 4 and 5 are (in my opinion) legitimate concerns in general, but that isn't limited to GMO crops. 6 is just stupid.
I disagree; they're a lot better than New Yorkers, for instance. Not nearly as nice as the Midwest, but for an East Coast city it's not bad. Unless you're in North Philly, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean both of them who didn't say that? One of them said she wanted him to face trial. She's conflicted about it, like most rape victims - the longer it takes to get to trial, the more they want to put it behind them.
As the AC below said, Sweden can't guarantee that he won't be extradited; they have to consider requests as they come in, and can't promise to break a treaty.
Sweden legally can't guarantee that he won't be extradited anywhere.
It is muckraking.
The information was not deemed classified until long after the emails were sent.
That doesn't appear to be true. At least one email was classified at the time it was sent, and several others were considered automatically classified under the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's guidelines. Furthermore, "what server it was stored on" is not irrelevant; if you have classified information and store it in unapproved locations, you would ordinarily get in a lot of trouble.
I haven't seen anything that explicitly says it was ONLY sent to her by other people. I have seen articles that say she deleted emails after she was supposed to turn them over, which could get her charged with destruction of evidence. Furthermore, if she knowingly kept and stored classified information (regardless of whether it was classified at the time of sending) in an unauthorized fashion (private server definitely counts) then that is her breach.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong - it was against the law. In 2014, the law was amended slightly to add a time frame required for someone to turn over emails, but data retention laws were still clear at the time. And previous office holders doing bad things in the past doesn't exactly excuse someone else from doing it later.
So the current review saying that there was Top Secret (not just Classified) information being sent through emails is what, a lie?
In addition, if you receive classified information in error, you're supposed to destroy it, not hang onto it.
How is it that NIMBYs and greens are so good at keeping nuclear down, yet fail to stop fracking or coal plants or oil drilling? Why is nuclear so uniquely vulnerable to their lawsuits?
Seriously? They have different regulatory hurdles, fewer people care about oil drilling nearby (which, incidentally, often isn't done near people on any large scale), and the oil industry has more money to throw at people. Most people also don't care about coal plants, because they don't know that they should.
I mean, that's still relatively small compared to current power plant sizes. Obviously, there will still need to be surrounding equipment and everything, but at this point I don't think size is a problem by itself; the reason it's a problem is mostly because of the complexity and expense needed to make it.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, you are wrong about that. It was amended after she left office, but the requirements to turn things over were still in place.
And yes, before you say something, I'd be happy to see previous (Republican) Secretaries of State be brought up on charges too, if they also violated the law.
No, you're wrong. In 2014, they amended the law to be more strict, but deleting records was already illegal, as was storing classified information on unauthorized personal servers. See here for a more thorough explanation.
This is just wrong. Farmers can still grow their own seed, and if Monsanto's crops happen to cross-pollinate (and the farmer doesn't intentionally select for this or try to make it happen) then that's fine. If the farmer tries to select for hybrids, then they get sued for patent infringement.
Moreover, the reason farmers (even non-GMO farmers) tend to not grow their own seeds any more is because many plants grow better when they're heterozygous at some alleles. Because they're heterozygous, they don't breed true, so companies keep breeding them up and then selling them.
Monsanto doesn't sell "terminator seeds". Furthermore, plenty of farmers buy new seed each year because many desirable features come about when a plant is heterozygous at an allele, which means that they don't breed true. It's much easier to buy known heterozygotes each year than it is to try to select your own.
First off, the evidence for including them as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (category 2A) is fairly weak. Some glyphosates were only classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (category 2B), which means there's no good evidence one way or the other - coffee falls in this category, FYI. Second, do you really think farmers are stupid enough to pay extra money for Monsanto seeds if they were getting much less out of them? That's just dumb.
But what the heck, let's cater to our knuckle dragging redneck readers because we figure if we start to talk about directed RF or other more effective means, we'll loose you at the first multisyllabic word.
I think you meant "lose", which, as you may know, is not a multisyllabic word.
I don't know, I think concentrated sulfuric acid would do a pretty good job on the human body. Maybe you'd have a few bits left over, but probably not much. And if you're worried about exothermic reactions, just freeze the body parts beforehand.
I don't think there is a clean way to get rid of a body. Burying it maybe, but that does leave more evidence behind, and you still have to dig (or get someone to do it for you).
While it's true that we produce more food than we need, and could make even more without GMOs, I think that more productive use of land is better. If GMOs are more efficient - which may not always be the case - then we should use them. That is land that can then be used for other purposes, whether that's human use or letting it return to a more natural state. Using less land is better in the long run, ecologically speaking.
Also, adding drugs to counteract side effects isn't necessarily bad medical practice. Sometimes the only available drugs have side effects you don't want.
After reading about Vernon Bowman's case, he did the same thing as Schmeiser: he intentionally selected for Monsanto's seeds. There wasn't natural cross-pollination involved at all.
In general, there are several concerns about GMO foods (presented in no particular order):
1. GMO foods cause cancer, infertility, etc. (health concerns in general)
2. GMO foods will disrupt the environment, either by spreading too far due to their increased fitness or by spreading their genes and causing unforeseen changes in the surrounding wildlife
3. Issues with the concept of patenting life
4. Concerns about letting one (or several) large company control most of the seed stock
5. Concerns about allowing crops to get too similar, thus potentially raising the chance of crop collapse like the Potato Famine
6. It's "unnatural" and scary
Of these, 1. has no real evidence behind it, and plenty of evidence against it. It's still a potential concern in some cases, but in general these fears are overblown (especially when people are afraid they will pick up those genes - if gene therapy was that easy, hemophilia or muscular dystrophy wouldn't be an issue), as the proteins made from the inserted genes are already generally considered safe. 2. is possible, in that they could disrupt the insect/pest population, but their genes are unlikely to significantly improve the fitness of surrounding plants, and crops aren't good enough to grow outside of fields, for the most part. I understand both sides of the issue on #3. 4 and 5 are (in my opinion) legitimate concerns in general, but that isn't limited to GMO crops. 6 is just stupid.
A drunk Santa Claus who was vomiting on the field and making kids sad, yes.
When was the last time you went there? It's really not that bad.
I disagree; they're a lot better than New Yorkers, for instance. Not nearly as nice as the Midwest, but for an East Coast city it's not bad. Unless you're in North Philly, of course.
Technically, "how bad you're at spelling" is correct, it just sounds weird because one normally wouldn't use a contraction there.
Are you interested in sharing your recipe?
Depends on state laws, and if it was just a pellet rifle, there was no real risk of injury.