Loser pays should only be invoked under these circumstances:
1. The loser reprsesents a corporation
2. The loser has means (more than a $5 million net worth) in the case of it being an individual.
Why should people with net worth up to five million dollars get a free pass? A lot of frivolous lawsuits are launched by people of relatively modest means. The television commmercials for personal injury firms aren't targeting people with millions in net worth--they're targeting working stiffs: trying to lure them into playing the lawsuit lottery. Perhaps the amount the loser pays should be tied to income--give judges some discretion here--but you can't go giving a free ride.
A defendant should never be subject to loser pays, only the initiator.
Defendants should be and are already subject to loser pays. Courts generally award costs to the plaintiff if the action is successful. This makes sense: if as a plaintiff you suffered genuine damages, and had to go to court to recover them, you shouldn't be out of pocket.
Take a look at who files patents and how benefits from them. (Hint - it's not John).
Take a look at who is spending billions of dollars and employing millions of people trying to invent things worth patenting. (Hint - it's not John).
Yes, large companies file a lot of patents. Some of them are bogus--we all read Slashdot. Perhaps it would be appropriate to reconsider the scope of what can be patented (*cough* software *cough*). Most patents are meaningful, and legitimately advance science and technology. Individuals and corporations that see fit to carry out this reseach are deservedly rewarded.
Personally my money's on Atlantis being located beneath the antarctic - google for 'charles hapgood crustal displacement' sometime
Done. It seems to be bunk. Hapgood suggested that Antarctica shifted through thirty degrees of latitude over a period of centuries(!) He was a historian by training who dabbled in geology, and quite frankly he got it wrong.
All the evidence we have indicates that tectonic shifts can run up to inches or feet per year--miles per year for centuries is definitely unreasonable. You just don't run a continent around with that kind of speed, and there's no sound geologic evidence to support his hypothesis.
That's right. Until now you could only get instant recordings of pre-recorded concerts. Now, with our cutting-edge "live concert" technology you can get instant recordings of live concerts.
Is anyone else reminded of that scene in Spaceballs where Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) fast forwards through the video version of Spaceballs to find out where the hero has gone?
...is the subject of a "be on the lookout" warning.
This is a lot less insidious than the parent poster seems to think. Traditionally, this 'be on the lookout' thing is invoked when there is good reason to believe that a vehicle is directly involved in some sort of crime. These broadcasts are issued as a rapid response when, for example, a car is seen speeding away from a kidnapping, bank robbery, or homicide.
Remember, even if the camera notices an 'interesting' license plate, the police still have to dispatch cruisers and officers to track down the car--which could be quite a ways down the road by the time they arrive. They're not going to expend that kind of effort because you have an unpaid parking ticket. These are 911 dispatchers being notified--they don't like to have their time wasted.
This automated system is akin to having a police officer in each location with a camera, whose sole responsibility is to record license plates. How would you feel about living in that society?
The town in question is one of the wealthiest in the United States. I can see them considering just such an option if these cameras weren't available.
Cheers. I've never been the target of physics trash talk before; it made my day. My apologies if I was a bit sloppy with my terminology--it was fairly early in the morning, and I didn't want to get bogged down in detail.
For the record, my formal education has been in physics and chemistry. Hardcore chemical physics requires more than a passing understanding of quantum mechanics.
As an aside, I mentioned running afoul of "uncertainty principles" deliberately--depending upon the measurement technique used to measure the 'analog' state in question, one might not use the most famous formulation of delta_p * delta_x > h-bar.
I respectfully submit that for the highly precise measurements described in the great-grandparent post uncertainty concerns will indeed arise. In measuring the (nominally arbitrarily precise) frequency of an oscillating system one runs smack into the conjugate variable pair of energy and time.
Any analog variable has an INFINITE number of states.
Er, no. At least, not within the known bounds of quantum mechanics. Your mileage may vary.
What we perceive as a continuously variable analog world just happens to have a *lot* of very closely-spaced discrete states. Each time you add volume, matter, or energy to a system you increase the number of available states by a large, but still finite, amount.
A wave could have a frequency of 1Hz, 1.1Hz, 1.00057Hz, 1.2399327772883786682676376627676367267Hz, etc. If "computation" is defined as "the act or process of evaluating with numerical or mathematical methods" then there is no physical limit to computation when using analog data storage...
Here we run into quantum mechanics once again. To take the measurement of the frequency of a wave, for instance--how do you resolve a difference down at the one part in a quintillion level? Essentially you run afoul of uncertainty principles. To reduce the uncertainty in your measurement of frequency to a low enough level to resolve such small differences, you have to pay a price in measurement time. Actually, you have the same problem when you write your data in the first place. See also my remarks about number of accessible states--storing an analog wave with a finite precision will require a certain amount of matter and energy, neither of which is available in infinite amounts*.
According to this article which is about a 1998 experiment done on rats, the rats suffered from the following affects from eating transgenic potatoes:...
The 1998 study was highly controversial. Arpad Pusztai prematurely released results without verification or the support of his colleagues. Subsequent expert review by Tom Sanders (a University of London toxicologist) suggested that Pusztai's work failed to account for a number of factors. The symptoms described may also be caused by protein deficiency--which in turn would be expected in rats fed a diet solely of potatoes. There's a good timeline here.
Note also that the alarmist account linked by the parent poster is the work of Joseph Mercola, who seems more intent on selling his books than on presenting balanced information.
New toxins and allergens in foods Potentially, though unlikely. Geneticists aren't dumb enough to introduce genes from known allergens--a transgenic potato that contained genes from the peanut would be a risky proposition, but it would never get off the drawing board. The company lawyers would chew it to shreds first for fear of a lawsuit.
Whenever you buy food items in the supermarket, there's a small risk that there has been some cross-contamination with another food product, genetic modification or not. The produce guy crushed a tomato under some beets. The stock clerk dropped a jar of peanut butter.
Other damaging effects on health caused by unnatural foods This is rather a red herring. Be more specific. What effects? What does 'unnatural' mean?
Increased use of chemicals on crops, resulting in increased contamination of our water supply and food Yeah, I'm concerned about this one, too. Genes for pesticide resistance are troubling in this way, and I agree that we should discourage their use as much as possible. Trying to beat back nature with increasing doses of chemicals never works in the long term.
The creation of herbicide-resistant weeds Perhaps. On the other hand, if these genes already exist in the wild in other organisms, they might get into weeds on their own. Also, this might discourage pesticide use and ultimately lead to crop choices better suited for competition with weeds, if the pesticides did stop working.
The spread of diseases across species barriers This is pretty unlikely, unless one is deliberately introducing vulnerabilities to diseases. Further, 'conventional' agriculture is occasionally affected by a new disease; it's inconvenient and costly but not the end of the world. The notion of a disease spreading from corn to humans merits no discussion.
Loss of bio-diversity in crops Too late. We've already got a problem with monocultures in farming. Genetic modification just supplies us with a different monoculture. It's no more or less vulnerable to disease or other problems than non-GM crops.
The disturbance of ecological balance What does that mean? If clearcutting forest and planting freakishly inbred corn and heavily sprayed cotton and millions of acres of wheat didn't already disturb the 'ecological balance' then inserting the odd transgene here or there isn't going to push us over the top.
Artificially induced characteristics and inevitable side-effects will be passed on to all subsequent generations and to other related organisms. Once released, they can never be recalled or contained. The consequences of this are incalculable. Well, yes and no. Many GM crops are engineered to be infertile, both as a safety mechanism and as a way for Monsanto to control their intellectual property. (That last bothers me a great deal.) If a field of GM crops doesn't behave the way you expect it to, plough it under and try again. There don't have to be subseque
Government is not capable of conducting its business through voluntary means -- if it did, it wouldn't be government (it would be free enterprise). By definition, government must conduct its business by force.
Er, no. Most of what we call "free enterprise" operates within a sheltered framework provided by government and protected by force where necessary.
Absent government, "free enterprise" would be pleased to commit all manner of crimes--but they wouldn't be crimes without government, would they? It wouldn't be a capitalist utopia. Free enterprise without government is what you get from Al Capone.
So yes, the moment an opinion becomes "endorsed" by government, we should be very afraid.
In line with my previous remark, it rather depends on what that opinion is, doesn't it? If the government asserts that theft and murder are bad things, most of us are willing to go along with that. If the government opines that Communists should be blacklisted, that's something to be concerned about.
Incidentally, where did the government come into this thread in the first place?
t's very similar to domain name squatting. If you go to www.ford.com, you expect to find a company named Ford (most likely Ford motor company), not a redirect to www.honda.com. If you instead found information about a competitor, you might think that the company supports the competitor, which is does not.
Ah, but that's a very poor analogy. Google isn't Ford. Google's sites are owned and operated by Google. The content on those sites is presented by Google. Up in the title bar of the browser, it says Google.
If you search for "Ford" on Google, the very first returned link is to the Ford Motor Company at www.ford.com. If you click through that link, you get delivered straight to that site--pure and unedited, exactly as Ford intended it.
On the other hand, if you were to click on a clearly marked advertising link, it would take you somewhere else. What's the surprise here? If I click on a banner on anybody else's web site, I expect to be taken offsite. If I post my list of bookmarks and Slashdot appears next to Fark, should people assume that the sites are closely related?
Advertising on many websites is contextual--should Amazon eliminate its "People who bought this book also bought X" links? Will Stephen King sue because this 'associates' him with Dean Koontz?
Amusingly enough, there was a Google advert at the top of the comments for this article--does Slashdot support Google? Or vice versa? I see Microsoft ads, too...what conspiracy is afoot here? Why shouldn't Google be allowed to sell advertising on its page? As long as the ads are clearly marked as such (and they are) and they don't contain incorrect information (ie if the ads in question claimed to link to AXA when they did not) then they really do seem to be legit.
(But wait a second... there's no way SCO's hand can be as bad as a 5-high...)
Sure it can. SCO is holding a two, a three, a five, the Rules of Poker card (in Spanish), and a "powerful card that [they] intend to reveal in court"...which appears to be a coaster.
But you are trying to tell me that they demanded attendees sign a pledge that they would be in support of the rally
Yep, that's precisely what I'm saying. To even be admitted to the meeting, the organizers wanted to force attendees to sign a pledge supporting their cause.
The University, in my opinion, and I could very well be wrong, was not preventing the meeting on the grounds that it was preventing dissent, indeed the meeting itself was dissent, peaceful or not.
I'm having a bit of trouble parsing that sentence;) but I think you've got the gist of it. The University blocked the meeting because of the pledge ("basis of unity") requirement, not because of the meeting content. Indeed, the meeting was allowed to go ahead once the pledge signing requirement was lifted. From an article in the U of T student newspaper The Varsity,
For the administration, the basis of unity was the sticking point. "That was the reason we cancelled it last weekend," noted Vice-Provost, Students David Farrar. According to Jamjoum, an agreement was reached in which the basis of unity was moved below the signature line in the conference's registration form, meaning participants would acknowledge that the conference organizers abided by the tenets, but they themselves need only respect the tenets, not agree with them.
This is just stupid. Breaking the lock on every suitcase they come across? What's the advantage? Between xrays and chemical detectors and geiger counters, why do they even need to be able to go through the luggage?
My understanding is that they don't break every lock. They will open luggage if there is something suspicious on the x-ray/chemical/radiation detectors. They will also do the odd spot check.
And why is this being done after it's checked if it's so important?
You luggage doesn't get x-rayed at the same place that it's checked, in most places. It would be extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming to locate you after your luggage was checked. To perform all of that screening at the same place you check in would place would require significant renovations in most airports.
The University itself may have its own problems with censorship, but at least get the organization right.
I was wondering how this was an issue of censorship...?
The meeting in question was of a pro-Palestinian group that demanded all attendees sign a pledge to support principles like "We support the right of the Palestinian people to resist Israeli and colonialism by any means of their choosing."
The University was only prepared to allow the meeting to proceed if the organizers allowed anyone to freely attend without signing a pledge first. In an institution that must be dedicated to academic and political freedom it would have been unconscionable to bar students who disagree on points of doctrine from attending. Indeed, it would have been an infringement of the constitutional rights of dissenters to freedom of speech and conscience.
Note that the University has a formal policy on the disruption of meetings--students who chose to attend would not have a free pass to disrupt proceedings, and would face sanctions from the University. Also, any students who freely chose to sign the pledge were welcome to do so.
Interesting, considering the "Canadian Content"-based censorship laws in Canada, where foreign stations are banned (censored) due to lack of "Canadian Content".
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
In order to preserve and stimulate Canadian cultural achievement--art, music, performance--in the face of the American entertainment behemoth, the Canadian federal government in their infinite wisdom chose to enact a series of provisions back in the 1960s to regulate the amount of Canadian content on Canadian broadcast radio and television. So far, this sounds like Saudi Arabia--you must have Canadian content, not that dirty American stuff.
The difference lies in degree and application. On Canadian radio, 35% of content must be Canadian. On Canadian television stations, something like 60% (50% from 6pm to midnight) of content must be Canadian. Detailed rules are here; there's a pretty good summary here, too. The rest of the content can be American, European, Asian, Australian...whatever you wish. I can watch The Simpsons and The Wonderful World of Disney on our national broadcaster (the CBC).
There are also no moral or religious restrictions on the content--Canadian or otherwise--beyond basic obscenity statutes that often seem noticeably less restrictive than those in the United States.
And you know what? The system works. There are more and better-known Canadian recording artists and actors than ever before, likely in large part due to CanCon requirements. Sure, some of them would have been recognized without it, but as a program to encourage Canadian artists, this one (incredibly) has worked.
The notion that 'foreign stations are banned' is patently ridiculous. If my cable provider supplies HBO, or CNN, or TNN, or A&E, or the History Channel--they don't have to delete 60% of the material and replace it with CanCon. NBC, CBS, ABC--all appear on Canadian cable and satellite unaltered (unfortunately or otherwise) from the channels seen in American markets.
Censorship? I don't think so.
And "Cheers!" to John Ashcroft. How's your quaint little shut-down-the-adult-film-industry crusade going?
The $1000 hammer is a myth. Actually, it's even a badly reported myth--the usual figure cited by the media back in the Eighties was $600, and the real number on the books is $435.
Still, that seems rather shocking...until you dig deeper and realize that the hammer's actual cost was fifteen dollars. Sydney Freedberg described the issue in Government Executive magazine way back in 1998.
One problem: "There never was a $600 hammer," said Steven Kelman, public policy professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and a former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. It was, he said, "an accounting artifact."
The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list--a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the Pentagon paid overall--they simply treated every item the same. So the hammer, originally $15, picked up the same amount of research and development overhead--$420--as each of the highly technical components, recalled retired procurement official LeRoy Haugh. (Later news stories inflated the $435 figure to $600.)
"The hammer got as much overhead as an engine," Kelman continued, despite the fact that the hammer cost much less than $420 to develop, and the engine cost much more?"but nobody ever said, 'What a great deal the government got on the engine!' "
Thus retold, the legend of the $600 hammer becomes a different kind of cautionary tale. It is no longer about simple, obvious waste. The new moral is that numbers, taken as self-explanatory truths by the public and the press, can in fact be the woefully distorted products of a broken accounting system.
I don't for a minute deny that waste exists in some government programs, but it's time to put this particular tired old tale to rest. Repeating it just damages the credibility of the speaker.
Try this. Push your accelerator to the floor, now push your break. The car stops (loudly). Don't want to risk your car? Do it in your head. Which changes your car's speed faster? It's the breaks.
Er, no. Don't do it in your head. Find someplace safely empty and try it. Your car will not stop.
Ask a driving instructor. (A competent one, who is properly trained.) They have a brake pedal on the passenger side of the car, but they'll tell you that they've been trained to actually reach over and shut off the car's ignition if the student driver won't get off the gas. You can't stop a car at full throttle with just brakes.
Incidentally, after a modest period of time your brakes will heat to the point that they start boiling brake fluid. Then you'll be in a world of trouble, because you'll have essentially no braking ability even if you let off the gas.
Your observation that 'runaway' cars are usually caused by inept drivers pushing the wrong pedal is spot on. Nevertheless, there are a few well-documented cases of throttles genuinely sticking due to mechanical or electrical failures.
I lean towards treating the BBI as the car-owner's, to be used/disclosed at his sole discretion. I recognize that this is probably inconsistent with how other "evidence" is treated, but it would make me more comfortable with the presence of the black boxes as the information wouldn't necessarily "come back to haunt me" in the form of criminal/civil jeopardy, as justification for higher insurance rates, etc.
However, with a warrant the police are free to inspect items owned by a suspect, even if they may be incriminating. I'm quite certain that the fact that an automobile accident occurred would constitute probably cause for police to recover black boxes from any vehicles involved.
Besides, it's equally easy for the black box to support your innocence. If the other guy says I ran a red light in front of him, but my black box says my car was stationary for the preceding five seconds--I'm cleared; my insurance doesn't take a big hit; I don't have to go to court, except as a witness against the other guy.
Beyond that, there's always basic questions to be answered like how do we know that the BBI in the Canadian case wasn't a recording of a 5-second interval where the (front ?) tires (or just one of the tires?) weren't in contact with the road?
These recorders usually track things like throttle and brake positions as well as speed. If the black box says he had the pedal to the floor for the entire five seconds, then the speed reading makes sense.
Also, if he wasn't doing something he shouldn't, how would he keep the front tire off the ground for five seconds before his airbag went off? (Airbag inflation is the cue for these devices to stop recording.)
Is this really necessary? Perhaps the database could have other uses, but this application seems pretty silly.
I'm lost in a city--what do I do? I walk into the nearest convenience store (if in an English-speaking nation) or hotel (in other countries) and ask the nice clerk where I am, and how to get where I want to go.
If I have my cell phone, I can call a cab. (They also have these neat devices called 'phone booths' in some places.) I can read the address off the building next to me.
If I want a map, services like Mapquest can provide me with one--I can access it through a web-enabled phone. Again, this requires me to key in the address that's on the front of the building next to me.
True, this doesn't directly provide orientation information, but I can always ask someone which way is north--or walk one block and compare with my Mapquest map to find out which way I went. (Assuming I can't tell from the sun/stars due to cloud cover/smog.)
None of these methods is vulnerable to GPS degradation, either. Incidentally, why would a lost tourist need better than ten meter--or even hundred meter--precision? Particularly if they're on one of the major routes that is likely to be mapped by this group.
Even the small bills ($20) are tagged with RFID's, so cash no longer guarantees privacy.
Although most of what you say is true--it is definitely very easy to track most financial and other activities--currency does not bear any sort of RFID. There is still no unique identifier on paper money beyond the printed serial number.
Some people have confused the counterfeit-resistant metallic foil strip in the new bills with some sort of ID tag because it may incidentally trigger store security alarms in very large wads of bills. Slashdot has also previously observed that large stacks of new bills can be ignited in the microwave (presumably) because of this metallic strip, though I don't recommend trying something that stupid at home.
In principle it might be possible to identify individuals carrying large numbers of bills because of this metallic content, but it doesn't identify individual bills or allow them to be tracked from point A to point B.
What they should really be more worried about is the nation's subway systems.
Subways are already monitored for radiation, and probably some other nasties as well. Sure you don't have to go through an x-ray screening, and obviously rail transit is vulnerable to attack (see: Spain), but they're not totally ignoring the issue, either.
Re:Amazing news: Lawyers invented Perl in 1984!
on
Happy Spamiversary!
·
· Score: 1
This all just lends credence to my theory that the best way for Microsoft to kill Linux is for them to adopt it. Nothing would make the Linux Zealots jump ship faster.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that most of the zealots would just be crowing about how "we won!" Microsoft distributing an operating system for which they are license-bound to also distribute the code? No hidden hooks for their own products? Bill Gates bowing down before the Altar of Linus?
The zealots would be thrilled.
Re:Then choose another device
on
The Blues for LEDs
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That said....unless someone gives him all his devices for free then geesh just buy different devices!
Ian Johnson writes a regular column for the Globe and Mail called The Chic Geek. He also edits the technology section of the paper.
You can be certain that manufacturers regularly send him stuff in the hope that he will review it. Additionally, you can be sure that they will try to send him the 'sexiest' and most eye-catching products from their line--which is all the stuff with blue LEDs.
Slashdot Mirror
1. The loser reprsesents a corporation
2. The loser has means (more than a $5 million net worth) in the case of it being an individual.
Why should people with net worth up to five million dollars get a free pass? A lot of frivolous lawsuits are launched by people of relatively modest means. The television commmercials for personal injury firms aren't targeting people with millions in net worth--they're targeting working stiffs: trying to lure them into playing the lawsuit lottery. Perhaps the amount the loser pays should be tied to income--give judges some discretion here--but you can't go giving a free ride.
A defendant should never be subject to loser pays, only the initiator.
Defendants should be and are already subject to loser pays. Courts generally award costs to the plaintiff if the action is successful. This makes sense: if as a plaintiff you suffered genuine damages, and had to go to court to recover them, you shouldn't be out of pocket.
Take a look at who is spending billions of dollars and employing millions of people trying to invent things worth patenting. (Hint - it's not John).
Yes, large companies file a lot of patents. Some of them are bogus--we all read Slashdot. Perhaps it would be appropriate to reconsider the scope of what can be patented (*cough* software *cough*). Most patents are meaningful, and legitimately advance science and technology. Individuals and corporations that see fit to carry out this reseach are deservedly rewarded.
Done. It seems to be bunk. Hapgood suggested that Antarctica shifted through thirty degrees of latitude over a period of centuries(!) He was a historian by training who dabbled in geology, and quite frankly he got it wrong.
All the evidence we have indicates that tectonic shifts can run up to inches or feet per year--miles per year for centuries is definitely unreasonable. You just don't run a continent around with that kind of speed, and there's no sound geologic evidence to support his hypothesis.
Is anyone else reminded of that scene in Spaceballs where Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) fast forwards through the video version of Spaceballs to find out where the hero has gone?
This is a lot less insidious than the parent poster seems to think. Traditionally, this 'be on the lookout' thing is invoked when there is good reason to believe that a vehicle is directly involved in some sort of crime. These broadcasts are issued as a rapid response when, for example, a car is seen speeding away from a kidnapping, bank robbery, or homicide.
Remember, even if the camera notices an 'interesting' license plate, the police still have to dispatch cruisers and officers to track down the car--which could be quite a ways down the road by the time they arrive. They're not going to expend that kind of effort because you have an unpaid parking ticket. These are 911 dispatchers being notified--they don't like to have their time wasted.
This automated system is akin to having a police officer in each location with a camera, whose sole responsibility is to record license plates. How would you feel about living in that society?
The town in question is one of the wealthiest in the United States. I can see them considering just such an option if these cameras weren't available.
Cheers. I've never been the target of physics trash talk before; it made my day. My apologies if I was a bit sloppy with my terminology--it was fairly early in the morning, and I didn't want to get bogged down in detail.
For the record, my formal education has been in physics and chemistry. Hardcore chemical physics requires more than a passing understanding of quantum mechanics.
As an aside, I mentioned running afoul of "uncertainty principles" deliberately--depending upon the measurement technique used to measure the 'analog' state in question, one might not use the most famous formulation of
delta_p * delta_x > h-bar.
I respectfully submit that for the highly precise measurements described in the great-grandparent post uncertainty concerns will indeed arise. In measuring the (nominally arbitrarily precise) frequency of an oscillating system one runs smack into the conjugate variable pair of energy and time.
Er, no. At least, not within the known bounds of quantum mechanics. Your mileage may vary.
What we perceive as a continuously variable analog world just happens to have a *lot* of very closely-spaced discrete states. Each time you add volume, matter, or energy to a system you increase the number of available states by a large, but still finite, amount.
A wave could have a frequency of 1Hz, 1.1Hz, 1.00057Hz, 1.2399327772883786682676376627676367267Hz, etc. If "computation" is defined as "the act or process of evaluating with numerical or mathematical methods" then there is no physical limit to computation when using analog data storage...
Here we run into quantum mechanics once again. To take the measurement of the frequency of a wave, for instance--how do you resolve a difference down at the one part in a quintillion level? Essentially you run afoul of uncertainty principles. To reduce the uncertainty in your measurement of frequency to a low enough level to resolve such small differences, you have to pay a price in measurement time. Actually, you have the same problem when you write your data in the first place. See also my remarks about number of accessible states--storing an analog wave with a finite precision will require a certain amount of matter and energy, neither of which is available in infinite amounts*.
*probably...
The 1998 study was highly controversial. Arpad Pusztai prematurely released results without verification or the support of his colleagues. Subsequent expert review by Tom Sanders (a University of London toxicologist) suggested that Pusztai's work failed to account for a number of factors. The symptoms described may also be caused by protein deficiency--which in turn would be expected in rats fed a diet solely of potatoes. There's a good timeline here.
Note also that the alarmist account linked by the parent poster is the work of Joseph Mercola, who seems more intent on selling his books than on presenting balanced information.
New toxins and allergens in foods Potentially, though unlikely. Geneticists aren't dumb enough to introduce genes from known allergens--a transgenic potato that contained genes from the peanut would be a risky proposition, but it would never get off the drawing board. The company lawyers would chew it to shreds first for fear of a lawsuit.
Whenever you buy food items in the supermarket, there's a small risk that there has been some cross-contamination with another food product, genetic modification or not. The produce guy crushed a tomato under some beets. The stock clerk dropped a jar of peanut butter.
Other damaging effects on health caused by unnatural foods This is rather a red herring. Be more specific. What effects? What does 'unnatural' mean?
Increased use of chemicals on crops, resulting in increased contamination of our water supply and food Yeah, I'm concerned about this one, too. Genes for pesticide resistance are troubling in this way, and I agree that we should discourage their use as much as possible. Trying to beat back nature with increasing doses of chemicals never works in the long term.
The creation of herbicide-resistant weeds Perhaps. On the other hand, if these genes already exist in the wild in other organisms, they might get into weeds on their own. Also, this might discourage pesticide use and ultimately lead to crop choices better suited for competition with weeds, if the pesticides did stop working.
The spread of diseases across species barriers This is pretty unlikely, unless one is deliberately introducing vulnerabilities to diseases. Further, 'conventional' agriculture is occasionally affected by a new disease; it's inconvenient and costly but not the end of the world. The notion of a disease spreading from corn to humans merits no discussion.
Loss of bio-diversity in crops Too late. We've already got a problem with monocultures in farming. Genetic modification just supplies us with a different monoculture. It's no more or less vulnerable to disease or other problems than non-GM crops.
The disturbance of ecological balance What does that mean? If clearcutting forest and planting freakishly inbred corn and heavily sprayed cotton and millions of acres of wheat didn't already disturb the 'ecological balance' then inserting the odd transgene here or there isn't going to push us over the top.
Artificially induced characteristics and inevitable side-effects will be passed on to all subsequent generations and to other related organisms. Once released, they can never be recalled or contained. The consequences of this are incalculable. Well, yes and no. Many GM crops are engineered to be infertile, both as a safety mechanism and as a way for Monsanto to control their intellectual property. (That last bothers me a great deal.) If a field of GM crops doesn't behave the way you expect it to, plough it under and try again. There don't have to be subseque
Er, no. Most of what we call "free enterprise" operates within a sheltered framework provided by government and protected by force where necessary.
Absent government, "free enterprise" would be pleased to commit all manner of crimes--but they wouldn't be crimes without government, would they? It wouldn't be a capitalist utopia. Free enterprise without government is what you get from Al Capone.
So yes, the moment an opinion becomes "endorsed" by government, we should be very afraid.
In line with my previous remark, it rather depends on what that opinion is, doesn't it? If the government asserts that theft and murder are bad things, most of us are willing to go along with that. If the government opines that Communists should be blacklisted, that's something to be concerned about.
Incidentally, where did the government come into this thread in the first place?
Ah, but that's a very poor analogy. Google isn't Ford. Google's sites are owned and operated by Google. The content on those sites is presented by Google. Up in the title bar of the browser, it says Google.
If you search for "Ford" on Google, the very first returned link is to the Ford Motor Company at www.ford.com. If you click through that link, you get delivered straight to that site--pure and unedited, exactly as Ford intended it.
On the other hand, if you were to click on a clearly marked advertising link, it would take you somewhere else. What's the surprise here? If I click on a banner on anybody else's web site, I expect to be taken offsite. If I post my list of bookmarks and Slashdot appears next to Fark, should people assume that the sites are closely related?
Advertising on many websites is contextual--should Amazon eliminate its "People who bought this book also bought X" links? Will Stephen King sue because this 'associates' him with Dean Koontz?
Amusingly enough, there was a Google advert at the top of the comments for this article--does Slashdot support Google? Or vice versa? I see Microsoft ads, too...what conspiracy is afoot here? Why shouldn't Google be allowed to sell advertising on its page? As long as the ads are clearly marked as such (and they are) and they don't contain incorrect information (ie if the ads in question claimed to link to AXA when they did not) then they really do seem to be legit.
I, DeadVulcan, declare that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction.
See? It worked.
Sure it can. SCO is holding a two, a three, a five, the Rules of Poker card (in Spanish), and a "powerful card that [they] intend to reveal in court"...which appears to be a coaster.
Yep, that's precisely what I'm saying. To even be admitted to the meeting, the organizers wanted to force attendees to sign a pledge supporting their cause.
The University, in my opinion, and I could very well be wrong, was not preventing the meeting on the grounds that it was preventing dissent, indeed the meeting itself was dissent, peaceful or not.
I'm having a bit of trouble parsing that sentence ;) but I think you've got the gist of it. The University blocked the meeting because of the pledge ("basis of unity") requirement, not because of the meeting content. Indeed, the meeting was allowed to go ahead once the pledge signing requirement was lifted. From an article in the U of T student newspaper The Varsity,
My understanding is that they don't break every lock. They will open luggage if there is something suspicious on the x-ray/chemical/radiation detectors. They will also do the odd spot check.
And why is this being done after it's checked if it's so important?
You luggage doesn't get x-rayed at the same place that it's checked, in most places. It would be extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming to locate you after your luggage was checked. To perform all of that screening at the same place you check in would place would require significant renovations in most airports.
I was wondering how this was an issue of censorship...?
The meeting in question was of a pro-Palestinian group that demanded all attendees sign a pledge to support principles like "We support the right of the Palestinian people to resist Israeli and colonialism by any means of their choosing."
The University was only prepared to allow the meeting to proceed if the organizers allowed anyone to freely attend without signing a pledge first. In an institution that must be dedicated to academic and political freedom it would have been unconscionable to bar students who disagree on points of doctrine from attending. Indeed, it would have been an infringement of the constitutional rights of dissenters to freedom of speech and conscience.
Note that the University has a formal policy on the disruption of meetings--students who chose to attend would not have a free pass to disrupt proceedings, and would face sanctions from the University. Also, any students who freely chose to sign the pledge were welcome to do so.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
In order to preserve and stimulate Canadian cultural achievement--art, music, performance--in the face of the American entertainment behemoth, the Canadian federal government in their infinite wisdom chose to enact a series of provisions back in the 1960s to regulate the amount of Canadian content on Canadian broadcast radio and television. So far, this sounds like Saudi Arabia--you must have Canadian content, not that dirty American stuff.
The difference lies in degree and application. On Canadian radio, 35% of content must be Canadian. On Canadian television stations, something like 60% (50% from 6pm to midnight) of content must be Canadian. Detailed rules are here; there's a pretty good summary here, too. The rest of the content can be American, European, Asian, Australian...whatever you wish. I can watch The Simpsons and The Wonderful World of Disney on our national broadcaster (the CBC).
There are also no moral or religious restrictions on the content--Canadian or otherwise--beyond basic obscenity statutes that often seem noticeably less restrictive than those in the United States.
And you know what? The system works. There are more and better-known Canadian recording artists and actors than ever before, likely in large part due to CanCon requirements. Sure, some of them would have been recognized without it, but as a program to encourage Canadian artists, this one (incredibly) has worked.
The notion that 'foreign stations are banned' is patently ridiculous. If my cable provider supplies HBO, or CNN, or TNN, or A&E, or the History Channel--they don't have to delete 60% of the material and replace it with CanCon. NBC, CBS, ABC--all appear on Canadian cable and satellite unaltered (unfortunately or otherwise) from the channels seen in American markets.
Censorship? I don't think so.
And "Cheers!" to John Ashcroft. How's your quaint little shut-down-the-adult-film-industry crusade going?
The $1000 hammer is a myth. Actually, it's even a badly reported myth--the usual figure cited by the media back in the Eighties was $600, and the real number on the books is $435.
Still, that seems rather shocking...until you dig deeper and realize that the hammer's actual cost was fifteen dollars. Sydney Freedberg described the issue in Government Executive magazine way back in 1998.
I don't for a minute deny that waste exists in some government programs, but it's time to put this particular tired old tale to rest. Repeating it just damages the credibility of the speaker.Er, no. Don't do it in your head. Find someplace safely empty and try it. Your car will not stop.
Ask a driving instructor. (A competent one, who is properly trained.) They have a brake pedal on the passenger side of the car, but they'll tell you that they've been trained to actually reach over and shut off the car's ignition if the student driver won't get off the gas. You can't stop a car at full throttle with just brakes.
Incidentally, after a modest period of time your brakes will heat to the point that they start boiling brake fluid. Then you'll be in a world of trouble, because you'll have essentially no braking ability even if you let off the gas.
Your observation that 'runaway' cars are usually caused by inept drivers pushing the wrong pedal is spot on. Nevertheless, there are a few well-documented cases of throttles genuinely sticking due to mechanical or electrical failures.
However, with a warrant the police are free to inspect items owned by a suspect, even if they may be incriminating. I'm quite certain that the fact that an automobile accident occurred would constitute probably cause for police to recover black boxes from any vehicles involved.
Besides, it's equally easy for the black box to support your innocence. If the other guy says I ran a red light in front of him, but my black box says my car was stationary for the preceding five seconds--I'm cleared; my insurance doesn't take a big hit; I don't have to go to court, except as a witness against the other guy.
Beyond that, there's always basic questions to be answered like how do we know that the BBI in the Canadian case wasn't a recording of a 5-second interval where the (front ?) tires (or just one of the tires?) weren't in contact with the road?
These recorders usually track things like throttle and brake positions as well as speed. If the black box says he had the pedal to the floor for the entire five seconds, then the speed reading makes sense.
Also, if he wasn't doing something he shouldn't, how would he keep the front tire off the ground for five seconds before his airbag went off? (Airbag inflation is the cue for these devices to stop recording.)
I'm lost in a city--what do I do? I walk into the nearest convenience store (if in an English-speaking nation) or hotel (in other countries) and ask the nice clerk where I am, and how to get where I want to go.
If I have my cell phone, I can call a cab. (They also have these neat devices called 'phone booths' in some places.) I can read the address off the building next to me.
If I want a map, services like Mapquest can provide me with one--I can access it through a web-enabled phone. Again, this requires me to key in the address that's on the front of the building next to me.
True, this doesn't directly provide orientation information, but I can always ask someone which way is north--or walk one block and compare with my Mapquest map to find out which way I went. (Assuming I can't tell from the sun/stars due to cloud cover/smog.)
None of these methods is vulnerable to GPS degradation, either. Incidentally, why would a lost tourist need better than ten meter--or even hundred meter--precision? Particularly if they're on one of the major routes that is likely to be mapped by this group.
Really, this is a solution looking for a problem.
Although most of what you say is true--it is definitely very easy to track most financial and other activities--currency does not bear any sort of RFID. There is still no unique identifier on paper money beyond the printed serial number.
Some people have confused the counterfeit-resistant metallic foil strip in the new bills with some sort of ID tag because it may incidentally trigger store security alarms in very large wads of bills. Slashdot has also previously observed that large stacks of new bills can be ignited in the microwave (presumably) because of this metallic strip, though I don't recommend trying something that stupid at home.
In principle it might be possible to identify individuals carrying large numbers of bills because of this metallic content, but it doesn't identify individual bills or allow them to be tracked from point A to point B.
Subways are already monitored for radiation, and probably some other nasties as well. Sure you don't have to go through an x-ray screening, and obviously rail transit is vulnerable to attack (see: Spain), but they're not totally ignoring the issue, either.
It rather explains the syntax, doesn't it?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that most of the zealots would just be crowing about how "we won!" Microsoft distributing an operating system for which they are license-bound to also distribute the code? No hidden hooks for their own products? Bill Gates bowing down before the Altar of Linus?
The zealots would be thrilled.
Ian Johnson writes a regular column for the Globe and Mail called The Chic Geek. He also edits the technology section of the paper.
You can be certain that manufacturers regularly send him stuff in the hope that he will review it. Additionally, you can be sure that they will try to send him the 'sexiest' and most eye-catching products from their line--which is all the stuff with blue LEDs.