I've had the same experience. I think the people saying that are either going off their experience of years ago or are getting some really crappy bulbs. I have a house full of GE Softwhite CFLs and they perform great. No warm up time and the spectrum is a nice warm color, identical to most incandescent bulbs. The only ones I've had a problem with over the past few years were some GE CFL globe lights for the bathroom. Those were very slow to warm up, but that actually worked out since I hate bright light first thing in the morning anyway.
The problem is that many of us rent or otherwise occupy a dwelling for a much shorter period of time than the lifetime of these bulbs. So either you've got to convince my landlord (or the next tenant) to pay me for the remaining lifetime on the LED bulb (how can they measure that, we don't know) or else I've got to swallow it when I move somewhere else.
Or you do I like did and replace the bulbs when you move in, keeping the old ones to swap out when you leave. Or buy a case of cheap incandescent bulbs now so you have bulbs to swap in when you leave.
But instead they're forced to use the more environmentally harmful mercury-filled incandescants, or e-waste-with-dirty-manufacturing LED bulbs.
So your friends live in some strange part of the world that has banned halogen A19 replacement bulbs and is forcing them to use LED or regular light bulbs filled up with mercury?
Most of the imports around me had (thank god it's mostly a dead fad) grey primed wings, fascias, "aero kits", and fenders. Same reason though: bought parts but didn't factor in the cost of painting them.
Triclosan is a widely used biocide that is considered as an effective antimicrobial agent against different microorganisms. It is included in many contemporary consumer and personal health-care products, like oral and dermal products, but also in household items, including plastics and textiles. At bactericidal concentrations, triclosan appears to act upon multiple nonspecific targets, causing disruption of bacterial cell wall functions, while at sublethal concentrations, triclosan affects specific targets. During the 1990s, bacterial isolates with reduced susceptibility to triclosan were produced in laboratory experiments by repeated exposure to sublethal concentrations of the agent. Since 2000, a number of studies have verified the occurrence of triclosan resistance amongst dermal, intestinal, and environmental microorganisms, including some of clinical relevance. Of major concern is the possibility that triclosan resistance may contribute to reduced susceptibility to clinically important antimicrobials, due to either cross-resistance or co-resistance mechanisms. Although the number of studies elucidating the association between triclosan resistance and resistance to other antimicrobials in clinical isolates has been limited, recent laboratory studies have confirmed the potential for such a link in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica. Thus, widespread use of triclosan may represent a potential public health risk in regard to development of concomitant resistance to clinically important antimicrobials.
There is a lot of ongoing research into whether the genetic changes that impart resistance to biocides like triclosan also have an effect on the efficiency of antibiotics in MRSA strains. So no, it's not a silly argument at all.
the "anti-bacterial" ingredients are chlorinated organics, they just poison bacteria. they are not in any way related to antibiotics and thus do not in any way conribute to resistance to antibiotics any more than your chlorinated kitchen cleanser does.
That may or may not be true. There is ongoing research into MERSA regarding Triclosan resistance and antibiotic resistance and if there may be a link. The theory they are investigating is whether or not one of the genetic changes that allows for Triclosan resistance may also affect antibiotic efficiency. There is also the problem that Triclosan resistance can impart resistance to other biocides as well. Finally, keep in mind that Triclosan is (or was) one of the first-line biocides against MERSA, so creating more opportunity for the microbes to develop resistance for no good reason is just crazy. The levels of triclosan in OTC medicated soaps is just too low to be effective. Studies have shown this, when comparing bacterial cultures from hands washed with them vs. traditional soaps.
Because washing your hands does not "kill' bacteria, it dislodges them so they can be washed away. The demonstration is extremely valid in demonstrating how long it actually takes to clean the hands of something that tends to cling. Is it a perfect model? No. It is, however, a very good educational too. Most people do not wash their hands properly because they a) miss regions such as the wrist or the thumb and b) they do not wash long enough to be effective. It's the reason that most hospitals have hand washing education programs for their staff.
We are covered with bacteria a lot of it is rather helpful to us. So by using Anti-bacterial soap we do kill off the good bacteria too..
In this case, probably not. Most studies on OTC soaps containing Triclosan (the antibiotic used in "antimicrobial" soaps) shows that it is, at the levels allowed in those products, virtually useless. There is no difference in bacteria counts (good or bad) between using those and regular non-medicated soaps. All it does is allow the exposed bacteria to develop an immunity to it, as well as contaminating the environment.
No no no no. Did you learn nothing from the import fad of the last decade? If you want it to go faster, you have to paint it primer-gray and cover it in stickers for aftermarket automotive component manufacturers. Shez, everyone knows that.
This is also apparent in the way the California law was written:
This bill would provide that any person who photographs or records by any means the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, under circumstances where the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private, and the person subsequently distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional distress, is guilty of disorderly conduct and subject to that same punishment.
Note that is specifically calls out that the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private. This is their attempt to create an implied agreement on the use of the image, one that does not exist under current law.
I, again, want to be clear that I would love to see this guy hang, he deserves it. I just question whether or not he actually broke the law the way they are currently written, and to make people aware that their believe on how the law works is probably wrong.
You are off base. All states have varying flavors of privacy laws, and most have laws regarding the commercial exploitation of a person's image (and California certainly does). Things can be damned fuzzy, sometimes. An art gallery show doesn't require a model release, but if prints are being sold, it's best to have one, for instance.
It is always good to have one but there is no legal requirement for one. Street photography is a good example of this. There is also the case in NYC recently of a photographer photographing the tenants across the street through their open windows, exibiting and selling prints. The residents had no real legal recourse. Laws like those in California only kick in when the image is used to promote or endorse another product. If the image, itself, is the product, that does not trigger the law.
Privacy is less fuzzy, generally. If there's an expectation of privacy, and the photo itself, or the events depicted are not newsworthy, generally speaking, it's a privacy violation to publish the photos. That's a civil matter, but when you demand money to not commit a civil privacy violation, that's criminal extortion (as has been charged in this case).
Also not true under most US law. Once you concent to being photographed, you give up most privacy related rights for that instance. This is the difference between a hidden camera pic (bathroom stalls, for example) and a photo you allow your SO to take. Newsworthy, again, is a matter of copyright, not privacy, law. If you look at the court cases around some of the sex tape releases (where the photographer was not in question and both parties had proportial access to legal representation) it's pretty clear.
Where that unfortunately seems to fall down is that public court records are otherwise public. They are not a secret.
Private photos are otherwise private and considered to be a secret. If said photos are published far and wide then perhaps there is a claim to be made that they are not secret, but the claim that they are not secret because one site published them is a bit of circular reasoning.
I.e. The argument that it is illegal to publish secret information, but once published the information is no longer secret by definition, so you can never be guilty of publishing secret information, does not quite follow.
Not a fan of mugshot sites, mainly because only an absolute douchebag would ever run something like that.
That's not true, at least under US law. The difference between the mugshot sites and this one is one of copyright. For mugshots, being part of the public record, the copyright falls into the public domain. For intimate images of your significant other, the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo. Unless the photo was taken without concent (i.e. hidden bathroom camera, etc) the subject of the photo has very little recourse in how they are actually used. Basically anything short of advertising (i.e. implying an endorsement of a product or service) is fair game. I only need your consent to take the photos, and even that's a tricky issue based on if you have a resonable expectation of privacy or not at the time the photos are taken. What happens to them after that is almost completely up to the photographer.
To that end, I don't see any difference between the two. They are both equally morally bankrupt acts but if one is legal, then the other is. Now we don't know all the details from the summary (maybe he went above and beyond in the way he operated vs the mugshot sites) but on the surface they don't seem to differ.
That said, I think we need to carefully change the laws to prevent this sort of abuse. I thnk the new California law is a step in the right direction (if it can stand up to legal challenge that is)
Being allowed to take a picture and redistributing it is two totally different things....
Actually, under US law they are not in most circumstances. If I take your photo, even in a private setting (assuming the circumstances under which I'm taking it are legal), I own the copyright to that photograph and you have very, very little control over how I choose to use it. I can sell it, post it online, put it in a coffee table book, or have it displayed in a public exhibit all without your consent. The only time I need your consent is if I use it in a way that would imply that you, as a person, are endorsing a product or service. This is why comstock agencies are strict about model releases.
The way these laws work is why tabloids can exist and operate the way they do. This is why I feel like the new California "revenge porn" law is going to end up getting slapped down in the courts. It's pretty crappy but I can't see it working out any other way.
Don't be silly. Obviously all those unemployed and displaced workers will get jobs building and servicing the robots. You know, buggy wheels and industrial whip-cream and all that...
There is a vast difference between fecal transplants and the "probiotics" that you find in the healthfood section of your local store. The key difference is that one has been proven to work in rigorous and repeated scientific study, and the other has not. That said, I think what TFA is talking about is closer to to a fecal transplant where existing gut bacteria are cultured from the control mice and transferred to the model mice.
And before you ask no, I'm not heavily invested in big pharma. I am, however, a well read dick with digestive issues and access to journals.
Slashdot Mirror
Film at 11!
If they spent the money on better brakes, I'm good with their choices. But I doubt that.
That depends on if you consider spray-painted brake calipers an improvement.
I've had the same experience. I think the people saying that are either going off their experience of years ago or are getting some really crappy bulbs. I have a house full of GE Softwhite CFLs and they perform great. No warm up time and the spectrum is a nice warm color, identical to most incandescent bulbs. The only ones I've had a problem with over the past few years were some GE CFL globe lights for the bathroom. Those were very slow to warm up, but that actually worked out since I hate bright light first thing in the morning anyway.
The problem is that many of us rent or otherwise occupy a dwelling for a much shorter period of time than the lifetime of these bulbs. So either you've got to convince my landlord (or the next tenant) to pay me for the remaining lifetime on the LED bulb (how can they measure that, we don't know) or else I've got to swallow it when I move somewhere else.
Or you do I like did and replace the bulbs when you move in, keeping the old ones to swap out when you leave. Or buy a case of cheap incandescent bulbs now so you have bulbs to swap in when you leave.
In 2020. I think you have time to stockpile.
But instead they're forced to use the more environmentally harmful mercury-filled incandescants, or e-waste-with-dirty-manufacturing LED bulbs.
So your friends live in some strange part of the world that has banned halogen A19 replacement bulbs and is forcing them to use LED or regular light bulbs filled up with mercury?
Most of the imports around me had (thank god it's mostly a dead fad) grey primed wings, fascias, "aero kits", and fenders. Same reason though: bought parts but didn't factor in the cost of painting them.
Triclosan is a widely used biocide that is considered as an effective antimicrobial agent against different microorganisms. It is included in many contemporary consumer and personal health-care products, like oral and dermal products, but also in household items, including plastics and textiles. At bactericidal concentrations, triclosan appears to act upon multiple nonspecific targets, causing disruption of bacterial cell wall functions, while at sublethal concentrations, triclosan affects specific targets. During the 1990s, bacterial isolates with reduced susceptibility to triclosan were produced in laboratory experiments by repeated exposure to sublethal concentrations of the agent. Since 2000, a number of studies have verified the occurrence of triclosan resistance amongst dermal, intestinal, and environmental microorganisms, including some of clinical relevance. Of major concern is the possibility that triclosan resistance may contribute to reduced susceptibility to clinically important antimicrobials, due to either cross-resistance or co-resistance mechanisms. Although the number of studies elucidating the association between triclosan resistance and resistance to other antimicrobials in clinical isolates has been limited, recent laboratory studies have confirmed the potential for such a link in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica. Thus, widespread use of triclosan may represent a potential public health risk in regard to development of concomitant resistance to clinically important antimicrobials.
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/mdr.2006.12.83?journalCode=mdr
There is a lot of ongoing research into whether the genetic changes that impart resistance to biocides like triclosan also have an effect on the efficiency of antibiotics in MRSA strains. So no, it's not a silly argument at all.
Normal soaps do not work by killing bacteria, they work by helping dislodge them from the skin surface, thus allowing them to be washed away.
the "anti-bacterial" ingredients are chlorinated organics, they just poison bacteria. they are not in any way related to antibiotics and thus do not in any way conribute to resistance to antibiotics any more than your chlorinated kitchen cleanser does.
That may or may not be true. There is ongoing research into MERSA regarding Triclosan resistance and antibiotic resistance and if there may be a link. The theory they are investigating is whether or not one of the genetic changes that allows for Triclosan resistance may also affect antibiotic efficiency. There is also the problem that Triclosan resistance can impart resistance to other biocides as well. Finally, keep in mind that Triclosan is (or was) one of the first-line biocides against MERSA, so creating more opportunity for the microbes to develop resistance for no good reason is just crazy. The levels of triclosan in OTC medicated soaps is just too low to be effective. Studies have shown this, when comparing bacterial cultures from hands washed with them vs. traditional soaps.
http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/publications-data-stats.html
Because washing your hands does not "kill' bacteria, it dislodges them so they can be washed away. The demonstration is extremely valid in demonstrating how long it actually takes to clean the hands of something that tends to cling. Is it a perfect model? No. It is, however, a very good educational too. Most people do not wash their hands properly because they a) miss regions such as the wrist or the thumb and b) they do not wash long enough to be effective. It's the reason that most hospitals have hand washing education programs for their staff.
http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/
We are covered with bacteria a lot of it is rather helpful to us. So by using Anti-bacterial soap we do kill off the good bacteria too..
In this case, probably not. Most studies on OTC soaps containing Triclosan (the antibiotic used in "antimicrobial" soaps) shows that it is, at the levels allowed in those products, virtually useless. There is no difference in bacteria counts (good or bad) between using those and regular non-medicated soaps. All it does is allow the exposed bacteria to develop an immunity to it, as well as contaminating the environment.
No no no no. Did you learn nothing from the import fad of the last decade? If you want it to go faster, you have to paint it primer-gray and cover it in stickers for aftermarket automotive component manufacturers. Shez, everyone knows that.
Why not just call this a Grinch move and be done with it?
Because Grinch is a registered trademark?
So, added bonus then! Can it be tuned into the range that only children and teenagers hear as well?
This bill would provide that any person who photographs or records by any means the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, under circumstances where the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private, and the person subsequently distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional distress, is guilty of disorderly conduct and subject to that same punishment.
Note that is specifically calls out that the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private. This is their attempt to create an implied agreement on the use of the image, one that does not exist under current law.
I, again, want to be clear that I would love to see this guy hang, he deserves it. I just question whether or not he actually broke the law the way they are currently written, and to make people aware that their believe on how the law works is probably wrong.
You are off base. All states have varying flavors of privacy laws, and most have laws regarding the commercial exploitation of a person's image (and California certainly does). Things can be damned fuzzy, sometimes. An art gallery show doesn't require a model release, but if prints are being sold, it's best to have one, for instance.
It is always good to have one but there is no legal requirement for one. Street photography is a good example of this. There is also the case in NYC recently of a photographer photographing the tenants across the street through their open windows, exibiting and selling prints. The residents had no real legal recourse. Laws like those in California only kick in when the image is used to promote or endorse another product. If the image, itself, is the product, that does not trigger the law.
Privacy is less fuzzy, generally. If there's an expectation of privacy, and the photo itself, or the events depicted are not newsworthy, generally speaking, it's a privacy violation to publish the photos. That's a civil matter, but when you demand money to not commit a civil privacy violation, that's criminal extortion (as has been charged in this case).
Also not true under most US law. Once you concent to being photographed, you give up most privacy related rights for that instance. This is the difference between a hidden camera pic (bathroom stalls, for example) and a photo you allow your SO to take. Newsworthy, again, is a matter of copyright, not privacy, law. If you look at the court cases around some of the sex tape releases (where the photographer was not in question and both parties had proportial access to legal representation) it's pretty clear.
Where that unfortunately seems to fall down is that public court records are otherwise public. They are not a secret.
Private photos are otherwise private and considered to be a secret. If said photos are published far and wide then perhaps there is a claim to be made that they are not secret, but the claim that they are not secret because one site published them is a bit of circular reasoning.
I.e. The argument that it is illegal to publish secret information, but once published the information is no longer secret by definition, so you can never be guilty of publishing secret information, does not quite follow.
Not a fan of mugshot sites, mainly because only an absolute douchebag would ever run something like that.
That's not true, at least under US law. The difference between the mugshot sites and this one is one of copyright. For mugshots, being part of the public record, the copyright falls into the public domain. For intimate images of your significant other, the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo. Unless the photo was taken without concent (i.e. hidden bathroom camera, etc) the subject of the photo has very little recourse in how they are actually used. Basically anything short of advertising (i.e. implying an endorsement of a product or service) is fair game. I only need your consent to take the photos, and even that's a tricky issue based on if you have a resonable expectation of privacy or not at the time the photos are taken. What happens to them after that is almost completely up to the photographer.
To that end, I don't see any difference between the two. They are both equally morally bankrupt acts but if one is legal, then the other is. Now we don't know all the details from the summary (maybe he went above and beyond in the way he operated vs the mugshot sites) but on the surface they don't seem to differ.
That said, I think we need to carefully change the laws to prevent this sort of abuse. I thnk the new California law is a step in the right direction (if it can stand up to legal challenge that is)
Legal or no, it's very wrong.
Being allowed to take a picture and redistributing it is two totally different things....
Actually, under US law they are not in most circumstances. If I take your photo, even in a private setting (assuming the circumstances under which I'm taking it are legal), I own the copyright to that photograph and you have very, very little control over how I choose to use it. I can sell it, post it online, put it in a coffee table book, or have it displayed in a public exhibit all without your consent. The only time I need your consent is if I use it in a way that would imply that you, as a person, are endorsing a product or service. This is why comstock agencies are strict about model releases.
The way these laws work is why tabloids can exist and operate the way they do. This is why I feel like the new California "revenge porn" law is going to end up getting slapped down in the courts. It's pretty crappy but I can't see it working out any other way.
Don't be silly. Obviously all those unemployed and displaced workers will get jobs building and servicing the robots. You know, buggy wheels and industrial whip-cream and all that...
There is a vast difference between fecal transplants and the "probiotics" that you find in the healthfood section of your local store. The key difference is that one has been proven to work in rigorous and repeated scientific study, and the other has not. That said, I think what TFA is talking about is closer to to a fecal transplant where existing gut bacteria are cultured from the control mice and transferred to the model mice.
And before you ask no, I'm not heavily invested in big pharma. I am, however, a well read dick with digestive issues and access to journals.
Not if I own the private prisions
No, I want to find every possible reason to have anyone around me arrested. The more of you in prison, the more resources on the outside for me.