It is as if Europe is saying "You are not allowed to take our data" and these websites are saying "Well, if that is the case, as punishment, we are not going to take your data."
It's not "punishment", it's a simple cost/benefit analysis.
It's the reason why companies like Apple will offer different warranties to customers in the EU vs the USA.
Apple actually has a subsidiary in Europe and that subsidiary must comply with EU laws. On the other hand, companies that don't have a business presence in the EU are not subject to EU law.
Just because the Internet makes it so easy to reach those customers doesn't mean you should be able to ignore their laws.
EU customers using a business outside the EU are responsible for complying with the laws under which the business operates. The EU does not get to dictate to businesses in other countries how they operate.
Curing" something in a single incident means jack shit.
For starters, it means that the treatment is probably not immediately toxic, something people also establish as part of clinical trials first.
Otherwise the pizza I had yesterday is a perfect cure for headaches because I had a headache before I ate the pizza but it was gone by the time I was done eating.
Herpes is not like headaches; herpes infections don't generally spontaneously clear, so if they do within a few weeks or months of a treatment, it's likely caused by the treatment.
In any case, people shouldn't require your or anybody else's approval to experiment on their own bodies.
t is unscientific to use observations that were gathered under conditions that are not reproducible, or by biased observers.
In other words, astronomy is largely pseudo-science. Got it.
Huh? Astronomical observations are reproducible and the raw data is available to anybody who wants it. So, yes, astronomy is a science, anthropology is not.
Private school systems aren't going to educate every single child in the country. That takes government. You're taking the actual failings and assuming they're necessary, while ruling out the only solution that can work.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm asking you to provide evidence or reasoning in support of a statement you made. You said:
Public schools are a function of government, for example, and pupils at bad schools don't have the same opportunity as students in good schools. This is a form of inequality of opportunity the government can address.
I'm asking you to justify that statement. I'm pointing out that this is inconsistent with what we actually observe, namely that after many decades of massive public school funding and government attempts to give students equal educational opportunities, this still hasn't happened. In fact, since poor families are forced into the public school system and don't have any alternatives, their opportunities seem reduced.
So, explain (1) why the government has failed to accomplish what you claim only the government can accomplish, and (2) how it is going to accomplish this in the future.
Beyond that, there's no point in proceeding.
Well, obviously not, as long as you refuse to actually provide any kind of support for the assertions you make.
Or anybody who wants to live in a stable residential neighborhood.
If you want to live in a stable residential neighborhood, pay for it: HOAs and landlords are perfectly entitled to prohibit AirBnB entirely on their property.
Actually, no. Slavery was enforced by the US government, which didn't create it. Slave markets were typically private sector.
So? How does "private sector" factor into anything? Almost all economic activity under fascism is private sector and none of it is free market. All the corrupt dealings of US politicians are private sector.
Slavery certainly was a private sector activity, but that private sector activity was caused by the US government and wouldn't have existed without the US government. Even progressives like to point out that governments create free markets. Slavery was caused by policies adopted by the US government; in a free market, slavery doesn't exist. And your attempt at confusing "private property" and "free markets" doesn't change that fact.
Similarly, if I were to refer to "precipitation", you'd doubtless be complaining that I used it to describe gentle rain, hard rain, hail, snow, and freezing rain.
You: "Precipitation is bad. Just look at those one pound hailstones that kill people and flatten crops. To be safe, we should all live in a desert where precipitation doesn't occur!"
Me: "You know full well that hail is atypical precipitation, so stop equivocating and say what you mean: hailstones are bad."
Not in different meanings, but "capitalism" is the economic system that has won. Private ownership of the means of production, and economic progress by individual initiative rewarded by money.
That describes everything from free markets to fascism. And you know that too, which is why you persist in using such imprecise language and keep confusing things that have little to do with one another.
The prohibition of drugs may have started as part of progressive ideology, but it isn't now. Progressive idealism currently means at least decriminalizing sex work and allowing more access to drugs.
So you agree then that progressivism a century ago stood for sterilizing homosexuals and minorities and demonizing sex work and drugs, while now it embraces homosexuals, minorities, and drugs while demonizing white males and religion. Now think about what that tells you about progressivism as an ideology.
Yes, and I responded in so many words that making policy based worst case scenarios is irrational and harmful; I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. And most people understand this intuitively and don't base everyday decisions on worst case scenarios; they (you) dredge up worst case scenarios when you engage in motivated reasoning; that is, when you have reached a conclusion already and then just try to find any reason whatsoever to defend your conclusion.
You: Except teachers don't have an option of working summers Me: Plenty of teachers take other jobs during the summer. You: Which is irrelevant to how teachers are paid.
Do you even think before you post?
I'm sorry if you and your family are the underperforming and overpaid teachers you reference.
You misunderstood: I'm an immigrant. I'm comparing the high pay and poor performance of American public school teachers to the low pay and better performance of teachers abroad.
That is part of the problem. In general they are not starting with reasonable theories based on prior extensive experimental results. They are starting with ideas that people with no domain knowledge think sound right and experiments that would get laughed out of a professional lab.
You're pulling that opinion out of your ass. And it's a ridiculous belief, because doing anything with CRISPR requires a significant understanding of molecular biology; that is, if you lack the expertise, you'll simply design DNA sequences that do nothing.
Their whole ethos is that they are smarter than people who actually know what they are doing and that knowledge means you know less.
You're projecting your own ethos onto others: you're clearly wildly ignorant yet pretend to speak with authority.
Worst case, you introduce a change that gets into the gene pool that makes us more vulnerable to a common disease, shortens lifespan, increases infant mortality, etc.
Germ line modifications with CRISPR take a lot of extra effort to produce. Even if the self-experiment did result in vertical transmission, how is that different from any other deleterious mutation? Right now, not only do we tolerate deleterious mutations from propagating in the human gene pool, we actively and massively subsidize deleterious mutations.
The world's top most minds in this field can be described as "not knowing what they are doing"
There are thousands of reasonable potential gene therapy treatments that a reasonably competent molecular biologist can underrstand and that have an excellent, rational basis in decades of research.
which is why there is so much trial and testing in the first place.
No, there is so much "trial and testing" going on because the FDA, drug companies, and doctors are covering their asses. People experimenting on themselves don't need to cover their asses and know their preferences, which means that they can make a more rational assessment of their risks and benefits.
You gave "being alive" as your evidence that you knew "enough about gene therapy" to give an informed opinion. Since, by your own admission, you have not had a need for gene therapy, your argument doesn't work: you're still alive not because of your (obviously non-existent) understanding of gene therapy, but because you have never had the need for it.
Where I draw the line is when he tries to convince others that his quackery has any merit.
That seems like an odd position to take. Are you saying that after he injected himself with a gene therapy treatment, he shouldn't be able to talk truthfully about his experiences?
Things like this really don't help advance medicine at all.
A lot of science starts with anecdotes and individual observations. They are not sufficient to prove a scientific theory, but they are sufficient to formulate it and formulate good controlled experiments.
This is the very embodiment of the phrase "the plural of anecdote is not data."
And your platitudes are not an argument.
Also, a medical treatment, particularly something like gene therapy, is nothing like repairing your own car.
It costs money to throw your body out. You cannot make killing yourself impact nothing. You live in the world with other people.
Yes, I can impose costs on you and there is nothing you can do about it. It isn't fair.
I don't consider your attitude particularly adult.
The adult thing to do is to recognize that life isn't fair, and that trying to turn society into a totalitarian shithole in an attempt to make it fair doesn't work.
Glad you asked. Canada has a higher level of redistribution and a lower level of economic inequality than the US. On the spectrum of completely free market (no redistribution) to completely socialist (maximum redistribution), it therefore sits closer to the socialist end.
People usually assume that redistribution is limited by the amount that is available to redistribution; that is, you can't tax the rich at more than 100%. But, in fact, redistribution is limited by labor mobility; that is, if you tax people more than other countries, your people tend to leave. Progressives like to call this "race to the bottom".
And, no, Canada is not a "free market capitalist society", and neither is the US.
Sure we might have a good idea that a certain gene controls X but we don't necessarily know other things it might control.... Some snippet of dna might do one thing in muscle cells and something completely different in brain cells.
So what? Worst case, the person dies. It was their choice and their life.
Even animal testing isn't a sure thing because we still don't really know what is unique about humans that makes us smarter than other animals.
And as I was pointing out, when it comes to gene editing, there really is no animal model for a specific treatment. You can try a similar treatment in animals to what you intend to use in humans, but it's going to give you little useful safety data. That is why gene editing is different from normal drugs.
What should be, and what is, as you point out, are two different things. I would rather be overly cautious in the case.
Just like lots of people are irrationally afraid of GMO, vaccinations, and other technologies. The fact that their "caution", translated into legislation, causes people to die just obviously doesn't matter to you.
People can also make mistakes when trying to end their lives, and society bears the cost of taking care of these people flight for no other natural reason than human compassion
Compassion is something individual feel, and it leads to charity, a voluntary act. To argue that you should restrict people's liberties because other people might be charitable towards them otherwise is obscene.
When society provides medical treatments to people, that has nothing to do with compassion but compulsion.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that is typical of Europeans and their ignorance and arrogance.
It's not "punishment", it's a simple cost/benefit analysis.
How nice for you. But this is also a matter of principle.
Apple actually has a subsidiary in Europe and that subsidiary must comply with EU laws. On the other hand, companies that don't have a business presence in the EU are not subject to EU law.
EU customers using a business outside the EU are responsible for complying with the laws under which the business operates. The EU does not get to dictate to businesses in other countries how they operate.
Typo, corrected.
For starters, it means that the treatment is probably not immediately toxic, something people also establish as part of clinical trials first.
Herpes is not like headaches; herpes infections don't generally spontaneously clear, so if they do within a few weeks or months of a treatment, it's likely caused by the treatment.
In any case, people shouldn't require your or anybody else's approval to experiment on their own bodies.
Is that what you think I said? You really are a bit dimwitted, aren't you.
Huh? Astronomical observations are reproducible and the raw data is available to anybody who wants it. So, yes, astronomy is a science, anthropology is not.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm asking you to provide evidence or reasoning in support of a statement you made. You said:
I'm asking you to justify that statement. I'm pointing out that this is inconsistent with what we actually observe, namely that after many decades of massive public school funding and government attempts to give students equal educational opportunities, this still hasn't happened. In fact, since poor families are forced into the public school system and don't have any alternatives, their opportunities seem reduced.
So, explain (1) why the government has failed to accomplish what you claim only the government can accomplish, and (2) how it is going to accomplish this in the future.
Well, obviously not, as long as you refuse to actually provide any kind of support for the assertions you make.
If you want to live in a stable residential neighborhood, pay for it: HOAs and landlords are perfectly entitled to prohibit AirBnB entirely on their property.
So? How does "private sector" factor into anything? Almost all economic activity under fascism is private sector and none of it is free market. All the corrupt dealings of US politicians are private sector.
Slavery certainly was a private sector activity, but that private sector activity was caused by the US government and wouldn't have existed without the US government. Even progressives like to point out that governments create free markets. Slavery was caused by policies adopted by the US government; in a free market, slavery doesn't exist. And your attempt at confusing "private property" and "free markets" doesn't change that fact.
You: "Precipitation is bad. Just look at those one pound hailstones that kill people and flatten crops. To be safe, we should all live in a desert where precipitation doesn't occur!"
Me: "You know full well that hail is atypical precipitation, so stop equivocating and say what you mean: hailstones are bad."
That describes everything from free markets to fascism. And you know that too, which is why you persist in using such imprecise language and keep confusing things that have little to do with one another.
So you agree then that progressivism a century ago stood for sterilizing homosexuals and minorities and demonizing sex work and drugs, while now it embraces homosexuals, minorities, and drugs while demonizing white males and religion. Now think about what that tells you about progressivism as an ideology.
Yes, and I responded in so many words that making policy based worst case scenarios is irrational and harmful; I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. And most people understand this intuitively and don't base everyday decisions on worst case scenarios; they (you) dredge up worst case scenarios when you engage in motivated reasoning; that is, when you have reached a conclusion already and then just try to find any reason whatsoever to defend your conclusion.
Think more critically.
Do you even think before you post?
You misunderstood: I'm an immigrant. I'm comparing the high pay and poor performance of American public school teachers to the low pay and better performance of teachers abroad.
You're pulling that opinion out of your ass. And it's a ridiculous belief, because doing anything with CRISPR requires a significant understanding of molecular biology; that is, if you lack the expertise, you'll simply design DNA sequences that do nothing.
You're projecting your own ethos onto others: you're clearly wildly ignorant yet pretend to speak with authority.
Doctors know very little molecular biology and are generally lack the skills to design gene therapies.
Germ line modifications with CRISPR take a lot of extra effort to produce. Even if the self-experiment did result in vertical transmission, how is that different from any other deleterious mutation? Right now, not only do we tolerate deleterious mutations from propagating in the human gene pool, we actively and massively subsidize deleterious mutations.
There are thousands of reasonable potential gene therapy treatments that a reasonably competent molecular biologist can underrstand and that have an excellent, rational basis in decades of research.
No, there is so much "trial and testing" going on because the FDA, drug companies, and doctors are covering their asses. People experimenting on themselves don't need to cover their asses and know their preferences, which means that they can make a more rational assessment of their risks and benefits.
You gave "being alive" as your evidence that you knew "enough about gene therapy" to give an informed opinion. Since, by your own admission, you have not had a need for gene therapy, your argument doesn't work: you're still alive not because of your (obviously non-existent) understanding of gene therapy, but because you have never had the need for it.
That seems like an odd position to take. Are you saying that after he injected himself with a gene therapy treatment, he shouldn't be able to talk truthfully about his experiences?
A lot of science starts with anecdotes and individual observations. They are not sufficient to prove a scientific theory, but they are sufficient to formulate it and formulate good controlled experiments.
And your platitudes are not an argument.
And your platitudes are nothing like an argument.
Yes, I can impose costs on you and there is nothing you can do about it. It isn't fair.
The adult thing to do is to recognize that life isn't fair, and that trying to turn society into a totalitarian shithole in an attempt to make it fair doesn't work.
Obviously, you are not an adult.
Glad you asked. Canada has a higher level of redistribution and a lower level of economic inequality than the US. On the spectrum of completely free market (no redistribution) to completely socialist (maximum redistribution), it therefore sits closer to the socialist end.
People usually assume that redistribution is limited by the amount that is available to redistribution; that is, you can't tax the rich at more than 100%. But, in fact, redistribution is limited by labor mobility; that is, if you tax people more than other countries, your people tend to leave. Progressives like to call this "race to the bottom".
And, no, Canada is not a "free market capitalist society", and neither is the US.
So what? Worst case, the person dies. It was their choice and their life.
And as I was pointing out, when it comes to gene editing, there really is no animal model for a specific treatment. You can try a similar treatment in animals to what you intend to use in humans, but it's going to give you little useful safety data. That is why gene editing is different from normal drugs.
Just like lots of people are irrationally afraid of GMO, vaccinations, and other technologies. The fact that their "caution", translated into legislation, causes people to die just obviously doesn't matter to you.
Suicide is legal in much of the world.
Compassion is something individual feel, and it leads to charity, a voluntary act. To argue that you should restrict people's liberties because other people might be charitable towards them otherwise is obscene.
When society provides medical treatments to people, that has nothing to do with compassion but compulsion.