Actually, if you RTFA, the museum had explicitly made a big deal about how they were opening up more to photographers.
According to the SFMOMA, he was photographing staff members "in an inappropriate and harassing manner". Photography of "the permanent collection, the architecture of the building, and the museum's public spaces" is permitted; that's not a license to act in a harassing or annoying manner.
I fully respect the rules about no flash photography. That doesn't stop me from pitching a tripod and taking a shot with a slow shutter, though.
Hope you're doing this when the crowd is sparse, so the rest of us don't have to maneuver around you and your tripod.
I don't recall seeing many here, but in Japan there were many places where photography was fine but tripods were banned. (I don't remember if it was tripods or support in general so that monopods were also out.)
There are two types of law. The law on the books. And, whatever the guy with the gun says is the law. The security guy follows the latter so even though he may be violating your rights, it's best to comply and sue later.
Seldom do mall or store security guards carry guns. If you are assaulted by one who attempts to commit theft, defend yourself, then press criminal charges and sue. (Quick self-defense tip: the repeated and vigorous application of the heels of the palms to the noses and chins of thieves has proven of value in the past.)
The museum had a policy of no photographs. This is hardly uncommon: not only do many people find it annoying to stumble over photographers and deal with flashes while they're trying to look at art, but repeated exposure to light flashes can damage art.
Hawk was well aware of the policy. He choose to violate it, claiming to be some sort of "renegade photographer" whose rights to photograph are more important than those of others to enjoy the venue in peace, and more important than the
This is not a censorship issue. This is a guy being an ass in a museum and getting ejected.
There have been legitimate issues of people being unfairly or illegally harassed for taking photographs in public places. This isn't one of them.
Why does it have to be far? You suggest Washington. With traffic the way it is there, how do you NOT have 3 hours of commuting a day?
My rule is not to take jobs in Northern Virginia or in Rockville...
I suggested the Baltimore-Washington corridor, not just Washington. I live just outside Baltimore, and have never had a one-way commute over an hour (and that only for a contract for a few months).
When I was a student and lived in the D.C. suburbs and had a summer job downtown, I drove to a Metro station and took the train in. Still under an hour. (And wouldn't have to do that if I lived there now, since they've expanded the system to put in the Green Line.)
As long as that electricity is coming from coal and fuel powered sources and not solar, wind, water, or nuclear sources, all it does is shift the problem, not solve it.
It doesn't solve it, but does reduce it. Electrical generation in a modern power plant is much, much more efficient than an automobile engine.
And nuclear - at least nuclear-as-we-know-it, uranium or plutonium fission - doesn't solve the problem either, as the issues of peak uranium, reactor security, nuclear proliferation, and waste disposal remain unsolved. (Accelerator-driven reactors using thorium fuel, and of course someday fusion, hold promise.)
Get a new job that's not in IT. Or move somewhere where you can get a job in IT and afford a house. (Might I suggest that Baltimore/Washington corridor? Plenty of IT jobs in the area, and housing prices are returning to sanity.) Or find a job where you can telecommute.
You made an unwise choice by buying a house far away from any source of jobs of the sort you prefer. (I'm assuming that you don't live in some sort of IT company town, that there wasn't some huge software plant nearby which has since closed down.)
Perhaps you thought gasoline would be cheap forever, or perhaps you didn't think about it at all. But it's your responsibility, and we shouldn't be making public policy to support your lack of forethought.
Except that's not actually the conservative position esposed by Buckley - that was just his quote for the founding of a magazine.
It's not "just" a quote, its his a pithy summary of his own thoughts. It's his summary of the conservative ideology.
And make no mistake, progressives are wrong 10 or 100 times as often as conservatives.
So give at least 10 examples of times when the modern (post-1955) conservative movement has been right on a major issue. Should be easy if you're right.
like the many failed utopias
If we're going back to the 1800s, I'm laying slavery at the feet of the conservatives, abolition on the shoulders of the progressives. Massive, massive win for the progressives.
As for utopianism, many of these 19th century utopian communities were extremely Christian, heavy on the Old Testament - hardly progressive. But the secular and progressive ones pioneered such "failed" ideas as equality for women and public schooling.
or the crazy 19th century health fads.
Citation needed that "crazy 19th century health fads" were somehow the exclusive domain of progressives. Kellogg, for example, was a Seventh-Day Adventist who favored segregation. (Of course, his ideas that a vegetarian diet and execise are good for you are hardly crazy. He was even right about probiotics; but his love of enemas, plus his extreme views about sex, let us file him in the "crazy" bin.)
*Of course* if you look at the ideas that actually *worked*, the progressivs are nearly always right - but that's trivially true, and not very interesting.
So according to you, progressives have lots of ideas, many of them bad, but nearly all of the ideas that worked came from them? So you admit that conservatives rarely have ideas that work?
Are the progressive wrong on the danger of global warming, or were they wrong when I was young on the danger of the coming ice age?
And the deliberate conflating of the two by anti-science conservatives shows, yet again, why few smart - or at least, smart and honest - people will align themselves with this movement.
It's an easy illusion to think of the way things are now as better in every way then the way things were, since we're comfortable with the familiar, and what about even better ways of living that we missed in our rush to pick something that sounded good at the time?
When were these "better ways of living" around? Back when we had segregation? When women were second-class citizens? When America was so dominated by ignorance that we had to argue over whether science should be taught in science classes?
Whoops, we're still in the total grip of that last one, and the partial grip of the second. And really, one look at the inner cities and the prisons show that the first hasn't gone away either. Still lots of progress needed.
Are there some good policy ideas in the past? Sure. I was recently arguing that we ought to return to the Eisenhower days' top marginal tax rate of 90%. But as a whole, that era of segregation, McCarthyism, and sexism belongs in the dustbin.
If I knew nothing about a candidate other than party affiliation, my preference would be: Green, Libertarian, Democratic, Republican.
Kevin Zeese ran for Senate here on a Green/Libertarian unity ticket, which was pretty nifty.
But I may well write my own name in for President this time around...I am now Constitutionally qualified. I was excited about Obama for a few minutes, but he's backpedaled away from his interesting stances. Cynthia McKinney's not doing much for me; Bob Barr has come a little bit toward sanity from his nutcase positions in the House but not enough to make me trust him.
As a professional software engineer, I value my QA depaptment. Their job is to stand athwart product delivery, yelling, stop.
There is a very large difference between "Slow down, and be cautious in working toward your goal!", and "Stop! Keep things are they are!"
To continue your software metaphor, the conservative position (as expressed by Buckley) is to say "The current release is perfect! Nothing could ever be better! Stop the patches!"
It's failure of imagination: as Tim Kreider puts it: "Conservatives don't have any. The status quo seems only inevitable and right to them, the natural order of things, and anyone who protests it is an impractical dreamer who should get a job or a malcontent who needs to be medicated. They're incapable of seeing their own historical moment as in any way anomalous or provisional; as Montag's colleagues assure him in Farenheit 451, `Believe me, houses have always been fireproof. Firemen have always burned books.' They believe that they deserve their own lives; they can't imagine having been born as someone else. (Empathy, and by extension compassion, is a function of imagination.) They can't imagine what it would be like to be poor, or black, or gay, because, well, they're not, and they suspect that these unfortunate conditions are those people's own faults, a consequence of some moral failing or dereliction. (I always secretly felt this way about old people until I noticed I was aging as well.) Likewise people living in other cultures with different beliefs and customs; they're simply ignorant, deprived of the advantages of Jesus and Wal-Mart. Francis Fukyama, in a book with the straight-line title The End of History, argues that capitalist liberal democracy is the final culmination of all social progress, apparently unable to imagine a more perfect system than the one epitomized by Donald Trump and Kenneth Lay."
All good engineers are conservative engineers
Two different meanings of "conservative" are at play here - for example, a "conservative estimate" of the cost of the Iraq boondoggle doesn't mean one that comes from the GOP. Nor does Postel's law tell us that we should be political conservatives.
If you spent more time talking to smart conservatives you'd realize that they're just as common as smart progressives, and they're in general just as desirous of progress
Well, smart people of any type are a rarity.:-(
I find most of the few smart people who identity as "conservative", simply aren't: smart "conservatives" tend toward libertarian, but have bought into the mistaken notion that "conservative" means "small government" and "liberal" or "progressive" means more government.
Other "smart" conservatives are otherwise intelligent people under the influence of a delusional belief system, typically a religious one.
Other than that, it's hard to find smart people who have chosen to line up with the side that has been so consistently wrong. If we take the modern conservative movement as beginning in 1955 with the founding of National Review, we see that their position has been wrong on segregation, McCarthyism, Vietnam, and the women's movement. Anyone with sense knows the current conservative position on gay rights is going to be looked back on the same way as the conservative position in the 1960s on miscegenation is viewed today. Moderate Jimmy Carter tried to encourage alternative energy development in the 1970s, had solar panels installed on the White House roof; conservative hero Reagan tore 'em out and slashes federal funding for alternative fuels.
Over the past fifty years, if you take any issue with clear "conservative" and "liberal" positions, time and time again we see the conservative one now widely accepted as unwise.
Everybody has a "bigass vat" in their home! I happen to most often use mine to boil pasta in.
I was thinking of a much bigger vat.
But if you've got a pasta-pot's worth of nitroglycerine, anthrax spores, metallic sodium, or weapons-grade uranium, yes, I want you to label it, if you're living anywhere near me, so in case of emergency it can be handled in way less likely to kill me or damage my property.
If you've got a pasta-pot's worth of water, salt, vinegar, grass clippings, or other non-hazardous stuff, I don't care, rock on.
If you've got a pasta-pot's worth of pasta, I want a dinner invitation.
The server looks at the domain name to decide what to serve. Thus, just putting an IP in the hosts file will not work.
It will, in fact, work just fine with virtual hosts.
You still enter http://example1.com/ in your browser. Your browser then uses gethostbyname() to get the IP addresses for that hostname. gethostbyname() looks at/etc/hosts and returns whatever IP address you've set there. Your browser then connects to that IP address, and in the HTTP headers it provides the hostname you gave it in the URL.
Just like we can specify a URL like "http://username:password@www.somewhere.com/" can we come up with a way to specify a given virtualhostname at an IP address (say... "http://www.somesite.com>192.168.1.5/")?
Just put "192.168.1.5 www.somesite.com" in/etc/hosts, or whatever the Windows equivalent is.
"Red State" used to mean, "Leave me alone and keep the government SMALL."
"Small", of course, not including our ridiculous military spending; and leave me alone" means "feel free to go into other people's bedrooms and tell them how and with whom it's acceptible to make love." And of course, the government's powers to make the rich richer, to keep the engine of state capitalism humming, are never to be reduced: seldom will you hear a "small government" conservative rail against the government's powers to issue patents, copyrights, land and resource deeds, or corporate charters
Conservatism has never been about smaller government. Their most "intellectual" leader, William Buckley, famously said "The job of conservatives was to stand athwart history, yelling, stop." And that's exactly the heart of conservatism: fear of change and progress. When the government is a agent of progress, as it was during desegregation, it is a thing to be opposed; when it is an agent of the repression of progress, as in aggressive war, anti-sodomy laws, forced religious indoctrination, and the like, it is to be supported with flag-waving fervor.
If the chemicals were, in fact, unmarked, this is a total non-issuse
Execept, of course, if there are laws and regulations requiring them to be marked - so that, for instance, if firefighters respond to a call at your house and see a bigass vat, they know whether or not it's something that might be hazardous to them and to your neighbors.
Are there such laws in this location? Dunno. But according to TFA, "Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments".
Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman's words into plain English: 'Mr. Deeb hasn't actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don't like what he's doing because I'm ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I'll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down.'"
According to TFA, "Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties."
Also according to TFA, Mr. Deeb invited the fire department into his home, to deal with an an unrelated fire.
So, it seems that a violation was committed (though the question of the reasonability of the regulations in question remains open), and that this wasn't some sort of "no knock" raid.
Also, the fact that the chemicals in question were no more dangerous than typical household chemicals is not relevant - a lot of household chemical are very dangerous and are only permitted because they are typically kept in small quantities. It's one thing to have a can of bug spray, another to store a ton of pesticides.
Empathy is a natural phenomenon in primates, probably in other mammals too, and probably involving mirror neurons. Our neocortex can manage to narrow it to only members of our tribe, or broaden it's scope to all living things, these are learned, but the basic functionality is innate.
If you believe that a Tarot layout will "tell your future", you're going to be disappointed. If you look at Tarot as a collection of archetypes, and grab a random handful of them and think about how they are present in your life, or how they might be applied to some task or issue at hand, it can be helpful. Tarot is a rich source, but you can get some of the same effect with a universe deck, which is just a bunch of index cards with random words on them.
Divination doesn't directly tell the future; but it can be a tool for understanding the present, and understanding the present helps us predict the future. It's an artistic, poetic, intuitive, mythological tool, not a rational, intellectual, one.
There, like here, they'd have to come on to private property to take pictures with any effect.
But you don't have to come on to private property to take invasive pictures.
Here in Baltimore, we have a traditional "folk" art of screen painting. Nothing to do with screen printing, it involves painting pictures on the screens in screen doors. Why did this become popular? Because there's no front yard for a rowhouse. and you could very easily look through a screen door from the street. The painting made it hard to look through the screen (at least during the day, when backlit from inside at night.
Someone standing on a public street can take all kinds of invasive photos.
Gandhi, after all, got about 10 million people killed.
C'mon, you can't drop a bomb like that and not at least give a link. While Gandhi was probably not the saint that history has made him out to be, how do you figure he's responsible for 10,000,000 deaths, more than the Nazi Holocaust?
Yes, there are some studies with negative findings. All such studies I've seen either don't apply the principles of Chinese medicine to treatment, and so don't test acupuncture as it's actually used; or use poor controls such as comparing acupressure to acupuncture, which is sort of like using aspirin as your placebo in a test of ibuprofen.
More thoughts on this, as well as links to several studies on acupressure, at my shiatsu website.
Og, by the way, the concept "Chinese Medicine" and "Western medicine" is a false dichotomy. There is just Medicine. It is falsifiable and pass, or it doesn't.
Western medicine uses a structural model based on anatomy. Chinese Medicice uses a functional model based on the concept of "qi". So there is clearly a distinction.
Very few therapies from either tradition have been well-tested with blinded studies.
It's fascinating how some self-styled skeptics will demand double-blinded studies of herbs or acupuncture or "alternative" therapies, and yet willingly submit themselves to the surgeon's knife. Every placebo-controlled test of a surgical technique - there have only been a handful - has found the surgery being tested to be no more effective that placebo surgery.
Capping upper limit on malpractice lawsuits saves everyone money.
That's a poor sort of interference in the marketplace. If a doctor or a hospital creates X amount of damage, they ought to pay for it; the industry should not be shielded from responsibility by buying favorable caps from legislators.
with a 90mm Schmitt-Cassegrain telescope in my carry-on. Now this thing is essentially an aluminum cylinder 4 inches in diameter and 10 inches long
Before the "no liquids" nonsense, I went through several checkpoints with a Sigg-type aluminum water bottle. Could've been filled with gasoline, could've been a bomb. Not checked at all at any American airport. (The guy at Kansai International outside Osaka asked me to open it and gave it a look and a sniff.)
Slashdot Mirror
According to the SFMOMA, he was photographing staff members "in an inappropriate and harassing manner". Photography of "the permanent collection, the architecture of the building, and the museum's public spaces" is permitted; that's not a license to act in a harassing or annoying manner.
Hope you're doing this when the crowd is sparse, so the rest of us don't have to maneuver around you and your tripod.
I don't recall seeing many here, but in Japan there were many places where photography was fine but tripods were banned. (I don't remember if it was tripods or support in general so that monopods were also out.)
Seldom do mall or store security guards carry guns. If you are assaulted by one who attempts to commit theft, defend yourself, then press criminal charges and sue. (Quick self-defense tip: the repeated and vigorous application of the heels of the palms to the noses and chins of thieves has proven of value in the past.)
The museum had a policy of no photographs. This is hardly uncommon: not only do many people find it annoying to stumble over photographers and deal with flashes while they're trying to look at art, but repeated exposure to light flashes can damage art.
Hawk was well aware of the policy. He choose to violate it, claiming to be some sort of "renegade photographer" whose rights to photograph are more important than those of others to enjoy the venue in peace, and more important than the
This is not a censorship issue. This is a guy being an ass in a museum and getting ejected.
There have been legitimate issues of people being unfairly or illegally harassed for taking photographs in public places. This isn't one of them.
My rule is not to take jobs in Northern Virginia or in Rockville...
I suggested the Baltimore-Washington corridor, not just Washington. I live just outside Baltimore, and have never had a one-way commute over an hour (and that only for a contract for a few months).
When I was a student and lived in the D.C. suburbs and had a summer job downtown, I drove to a Metro station and took the train in. Still under an hour. (And wouldn't have to do that if I lived there now, since they've expanded the system to put in the Green Line.)
It doesn't solve it, but does reduce it. Electrical generation in a modern power plant is much, much more efficient than an automobile engine.
And nuclear - at least nuclear-as-we-know-it, uranium or plutonium fission - doesn't solve the problem either, as the issues of peak uranium, reactor security, nuclear proliferation, and waste disposal remain unsolved. (Accelerator-driven reactors using thorium fuel, and of course someday fusion, hold promise.)
Get a new job that's not in IT. Or move somewhere where you can get a job in IT and afford a house. (Might I suggest that Baltimore/Washington corridor? Plenty of IT jobs in the area, and housing prices are returning to sanity.) Or find a job where you can telecommute.
You made an unwise choice by buying a house far away from any source of jobs of the sort you prefer. (I'm assuming that you don't live in some sort of IT company town, that there wasn't some huge software plant nearby which has since closed down.)
Perhaps you thought gasoline would be cheap forever, or perhaps you didn't think about it at all. But it's your responsibility, and we shouldn't be making public policy to support your lack of forethought.
It's not "just" a quote, its his a pithy summary of his own thoughts. It's his summary of the conservative ideology.
So give at least 10 examples of times when the modern (post-1955) conservative movement has been right on a major issue. Should be easy if you're right.
If we're going back to the 1800s, I'm laying slavery at the feet of the conservatives, abolition on the shoulders of the progressives. Massive, massive win for the progressives.
As for utopianism, many of these 19th century utopian communities were extremely Christian, heavy on the Old Testament - hardly progressive. But the secular and progressive ones pioneered such "failed" ideas as equality for women and public schooling.
Citation needed that "crazy 19th century health fads" were somehow the exclusive domain of progressives. Kellogg, for example, was a Seventh-Day Adventist who favored segregation. (Of course, his ideas that a vegetarian diet and execise are good for you are hardly crazy. He was even right about probiotics; but his love of enemas, plus his extreme views about sex, let us file him in the "crazy" bin.)
So according to you, progressives have lots of ideas, many of them bad, but nearly all of the ideas that worked came from them? So you admit that conservatives rarely have ideas that work?
There was no scientific consensus of a ice age coming soon back in the 70s. It was a misinterpretation by popular media. I am unaware that were any progressive ties to this.
On the other hand, there is strong scientific consensus that "global warming" is real and is largely anthropogenic.
And the deliberate conflating of the two by anti-science conservatives shows, yet again, why few smart - or at least, smart and honest - people will align themselves with this movement.
When were these "better ways of living" around? Back when we had segregation? When women were second-class citizens? When America was so dominated by ignorance that we had to argue over whether science should be taught in science classes?
Whoops, we're still in the total grip of that last one, and the partial grip of the second. And really, one look at the inner cities and the prisons show that the first hasn't gone away either. Still lots of progress needed.
Are there some good policy ideas in the past? Sure. I was recently arguing that we ought to return to the Eisenhower days' top marginal tax rate of 90%. But as a whole, that era of segregation, McCarthyism, and sexism belongs in the dustbin.
If I knew nothing about a candidate other than party affiliation, my preference would be: Green, Libertarian, Democratic, Republican.
Kevin Zeese ran for Senate here on a Green/Libertarian unity ticket, which was pretty nifty.
But I may well write my own name in for President this time around...I am now Constitutionally qualified. I was excited about Obama for a few minutes, but he's backpedaled away from his interesting stances. Cynthia McKinney's not doing much for me; Bob Barr has come a little bit toward sanity from his nutcase positions in the House but not enough to make me trust him.
There is a very large difference between "Slow down, and be cautious in working toward your goal!", and "Stop! Keep things are they are!"
To continue your software metaphor, the conservative position (as expressed by Buckley) is to say "The current release is perfect! Nothing could ever be better! Stop the patches!"
It's failure of imagination: as Tim Kreider puts it: "Conservatives don't have any. The status quo seems only inevitable and right to them, the natural order of things, and anyone who protests it is an impractical dreamer who should get a job or a malcontent who needs to be medicated. They're incapable of seeing their own historical moment as in any way anomalous or provisional; as Montag's colleagues assure him in Farenheit 451, `Believe me, houses have always been fireproof. Firemen have always burned books.' They believe that they deserve their own lives; they can't imagine having been born as someone else. (Empathy, and by extension compassion, is a function of imagination.) They can't imagine what it would be like to be poor, or black, or gay, because, well, they're not, and they suspect that these unfortunate conditions are those people's own faults, a consequence of some moral failing or dereliction. (I always secretly felt this way about old people until I noticed I was aging as well.) Likewise people living in other cultures with different beliefs and customs; they're simply ignorant, deprived of the advantages of Jesus and Wal-Mart. Francis Fukyama, in a book with the straight-line title The End of History, argues that capitalist liberal democracy is the final culmination of all social progress, apparently unable to imagine a more perfect system than the one epitomized by Donald Trump and Kenneth Lay."
Two different meanings of "conservative" are at play here - for example, a "conservative estimate" of the cost of the Iraq boondoggle doesn't mean one that comes from the GOP. Nor does Postel's law tell us that we should be political conservatives.
Well, smart people of any type are a rarity. :-(
I find most of the few smart people who identity as "conservative", simply aren't: smart "conservatives" tend toward libertarian, but have bought into the mistaken notion that "conservative" means "small government" and "liberal" or "progressive" means more government.
Other "smart" conservatives are otherwise intelligent people under the influence of a delusional belief system, typically a religious one.
Other than that, it's hard to find smart people who have chosen to line up with the side that has been so consistently wrong. If we take the modern conservative movement as beginning in 1955 with the founding of National Review, we see that their position has been wrong on segregation, McCarthyism, Vietnam, and the women's movement. Anyone with sense knows the current conservative position on gay rights is going to be looked back on the same way as the conservative position in the 1960s on miscegenation is viewed today. Moderate Jimmy Carter tried to encourage alternative energy development in the 1970s, had solar panels installed on the White House roof; conservative hero Reagan tore 'em out and slashes federal funding for alternative fuels.
Over the past fifty years, if you take any issue with clear "conservative" and "liberal" positions, time and time again we see the conservative one now widely accepted as unwise.
I was thinking of a much bigger vat.
But if you've got a pasta-pot's worth of nitroglycerine, anthrax spores, metallic sodium, or weapons-grade uranium, yes, I want you to label it, if you're living anywhere near me, so in case of emergency it can be handled in way less likely to kill me or damage my property.
If you've got a pasta-pot's worth of water, salt, vinegar, grass clippings, or other non-hazardous stuff, I don't care, rock on.
If you've got a pasta-pot's worth of pasta, I want a dinner invitation.
It will, in fact, work just fine with virtual hosts.
You still enter http://example1.com/ in your browser. Your browser then uses gethostbyname() to get the IP addresses for that hostname. gethostbyname() looks at /etc/hosts and returns whatever IP address you've set there. Your browser then connects to that IP address, and in the HTTP headers it provides the hostname you gave it in the URL.
Just put "192.168.1.5 www.somesite.com" in /etc/hosts, or whatever the Windows equivalent is.
"Small", of course, not including our ridiculous military spending; and leave me alone" means "feel free to go into other people's bedrooms and tell them how and with whom it's acceptible to make love." And of course, the government's powers to make the rich richer, to keep the engine of state capitalism humming, are never to be reduced: seldom will you hear a "small government" conservative rail against the government's powers to issue patents, copyrights, land and resource deeds, or corporate charters
Conservatism has never been about smaller government. Their most "intellectual" leader, William Buckley, famously said "The job of conservatives was to stand athwart history, yelling, stop." And that's exactly the heart of conservatism: fear of change and progress. When the government is a agent of progress, as it was during desegregation, it is a thing to be opposed; when it is an agent of the repression of progress, as in aggressive war, anti-sodomy laws, forced religious indoctrination, and the like, it is to be supported with flag-waving fervor.
Execept, of course, if there are laws and regulations requiring them to be marked - so that, for instance, if firefighters respond to a call at your house and see a bigass vat, they know whether or not it's something that might be hazardous to them and to your neighbors.
Are there such laws in this location? Dunno. But according to TFA, "Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments".
Just make sure you bring your inexhaustible labor force of robots.
According to TFA, "Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments, although officials have not yet announced any penalties."
Also according to TFA, Mr. Deeb invited the fire department into his home, to deal with an an unrelated fire.
So, it seems that a violation was committed (though the question of the reasonability of the regulations in question remains open), and that this wasn't some sort of "no knock" raid.
Also, the fact that the chemicals in question were no more dangerous than typical household chemicals is not relevant - a lot of household chemical are very dangerous and are only permitted because they are typically kept in small quantities. It's one thing to have a can of bug spray, another to store a ton of pesticides.
Rhesus monkeys will go hungry rather than subject others to electric shock. How do you think they learned this?
Empathy is a natural phenomenon in primates, probably in other mammals too, and probably involving mirror neurons. Our neocortex can manage to narrow it to only members of our tribe, or broaden it's scope to all living things, these are learned, but the basic functionality is innate.
Well, if you're in to that sort of thing, whatever floats your boat, man.
That, of course, depends on how it's used.
If you believe that a Tarot layout will "tell your future", you're going to be disappointed. If you look at Tarot as a collection of archetypes, and grab a random handful of them and think about how they are present in your life, or how they might be applied to some task or issue at hand, it can be helpful. Tarot is a rich source, but you can get some of the same effect with a universe deck, which is just a bunch of index cards with random words on them.
Divination doesn't directly tell the future; but it can be a tool for understanding the present, and understanding the present helps us predict the future. It's an artistic, poetic, intuitive, mythological tool, not a rational, intellectual, one.
But you don't have to come on to private property to take invasive pictures.
Here in Baltimore, we have a traditional "folk" art of screen painting. Nothing to do with screen printing, it involves painting pictures on the screens in screen doors. Why did this become popular? Because there's no front yard for a rowhouse. and you could very easily look through a screen door from the street. The painting made it hard to look through the screen (at least during the day, when backlit from inside at night.
Someone standing on a public street can take all kinds of invasive photos.
C'mon, you can't drop a bomb like that and not at least give a link. While Gandhi was probably not the saint that history has made him out to be, how do you figure he's responsible for 10,000,000 deaths, more than the Nazi Holocaust?
Not accurate. Studies have shown acupuncture to be effective in treating a variety of conditions including depression, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2567439">alcoholism, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis
Yes, there are some studies with negative findings. All such studies I've seen either don't apply the principles of Chinese medicine to treatment, and so don't test acupuncture as it's actually used; or use poor controls such as comparing acupressure to acupuncture, which is sort of like using aspirin as your placebo in a test of ibuprofen.
More thoughts on this, as well as links to several studies on acupressure, at my shiatsu website.
Western medicine uses a structural model based on anatomy. Chinese Medicice uses a functional model based on the concept of "qi". So there is clearly a distinction.
Very few therapies from either tradition have been well-tested with blinded studies.
It's fascinating how some self-styled skeptics will demand double-blinded studies of herbs or acupuncture or "alternative" therapies, and yet willingly submit themselves to the surgeon's knife. Every placebo-controlled test of a surgical technique - there have only been a handful - has found the surgery being tested to be no more effective that placebo surgery.
That's a poor sort of interference in the marketplace. If a doctor or a hospital creates X amount of damage, they ought to pay for it; the industry should not be shielded from responsibility by buying favorable caps from legislators.
Much better would be getting rid of bad doctors so that huge malpractice suits aren't necessary.
Before the "no liquids" nonsense, I went through several checkpoints with a Sigg-type aluminum water bottle. Could've been filled with gasoline, could've been a bomb. Not checked at all at any American airport. (The guy at Kansai International outside Osaka asked me to open it and gave it a look and a sniff.)