No one goes into climate science to make tons of money, so I would guess majority of climate scientists value other things, like making a difference and being right.
Unless, of course, you are a climate scientist who is employed by a big oil company or any other industrial research division, in which case you are clearly seeking money.
Please, every time I hear about how pure the academic scientists are because they aren't in it for the money I want to puke. They may not have gone into the field for the money, but they need money to stay in the field, and guess which of the following two grants will get funded and which won't: 1) man is not the cause of global warming/we're along for the ride on a system controlled in large part by solar output and other effects, give us money to study what they are, or 2) MAN IS DESTROYING THE PLANET, WE MUST BE STOPPED, WE WILL ALL DIE IF YOU DON'T FUND THIS RESEARCH.
It's a fact: research money goes to fund the squeeky wheel. AIDS activists raise a stink, more money goes to AIDS researchers. Global warming is a crisis we have to solve, more money goes to global warming research. If you are in the field, you are just as likely to bias your research to get the limited grant money as you are to bias your research because big oil bought you off. So, now, the ball's in your court. Either stop automatically branding every industrial scientist as unethical and in the pockets of the oil companies, or admit that there is money going to fund the academics, too. If "big oil" scientists cannot be trusted because of how they get paid, neither can academics.
If you want to debate the merits or faults of a scientific theory, you debate the merits or faults, you don't go around invoking conspiracy theories, and if you are going to stoop to that level, you probably shouldn't actually go accusing the scientists directly, but rather keep it all nebulous.
So you agree that all those AGW advocates who attack every opponent by questioning their objectivity and ethics ("he's paid by Big Oil, that's all you need to know") or calling them idiots or worse, are in the wrong. That those who react to every letter in the editor in the local paper that questions AGW with a vitriolic response questioning the author's parents and lineage are behaving poorly.
I know who you thought you were attacking, but the facts show that the opponents to AGW are a lot more civil about it than most advocates. For the advocates, the debate is OVER, the FACTS are the FACTS, there is no room for doubt, and anyone who doesn't agree is a knuckle-dragger. Yes, AGW is "so easy even a caveman knows it".
The pseudo-skeptics...
Yes, such a civil response, you can't even admit they exist.
I guess he's never heard of McViegh, Or Ruby Ridge Or David Koresh.
I think I know what you thought your point was, but you sort of smacked yourself in the head by your selection of examples. Of the three, only McVeigh was a terrorist of any kind.
Ruby Ridge was a guy trying to keep from being forced by the FBI into committing a crime, which pissed the FBI off enough that they came out to his cabin and shot his dog and his wife.
Koresh was a nutjob who wasn't any danger to the community, who was known in the community, and was known to the local sheriff. The local sheriff offered to help the ATF agents pick up Koresh peacefully, and the ATF ignored Koresh when he was in town by himself. ATF chose to attack the compound, shooting the place up and creating a big issue out of nothing at all. If I recall correctly, ATF was attacking a group who had fewer guns, per capita, than most of the people in Texas.
For example, the lab could license the data to anyone on the condition that someone in the lab (or the lab itself) is listed as a co-author of any paper that uses its data.
Ummm, would YOU want to be listed as co-author on a paper that publishes a conclusion about your data that you don't agree with? Do you understand what a legal can of worms is opened up by licensing things at a university, especially when it comes time to enforce?
As for the other guy who replied to what I said, it's good that you've made your agenda public. To assume that someone who can't replicate your data a "knuckle-dragging mouth-breather" is less than unbiased science.
Wikipedia has proven that peer review can be supported for almost nothing.
And that's the value you get from it. Allowing everyone to "peer review" everything results in the "truth" being the result of a majority vote, not the result of it being true.
Peer review requires peers, not random people off the street.
The storage and administrative costs for all research papers should cost at most $50/researcher,
You're confusing the cost of "peer review" with the cost of archiving a paper. Peer review takes place prior to publishing the paper. The value of many journals, compared to "random website" is that there IS peer review, and you are less likely to find random babbling and incoherent thought in the journal.
However, Open Access is the wave of the future, so you will eventually get peer reviewed work online, like you want.
Of course, this discussion is about the data behind the papers, not the papers themselves. I don't know of a single paper that includes the "raw source" data it was based on. That's the purpose of the paper, to analyze and theorize.
If Group A and Group B use exactly the same source data there's no possibility of Group B proving Group A's research wrong.
Wrong. If Group B cannot duplicate Group A's analysis of the data, that proves that Group A did something wrong and probably came to the wrong conclusion.
If Group B cannot duplicate the experiment and get the same data (and knowing that means being able to compare both sets) that calls the experiment as a whole into question.
There is more to science than simply applying equation A to data B and getting number C.
This hubbub all came about because of the difficulty in prying the source data out of the hands of the guy who produced the "hockey stick" figures. It's covered in the book "Broken Consensus" I think it's called. The "hockey stick" is not the "source data", the source data is all of the individual readings from all the instruments, prior to corrections for sampling errors or known issues. One cannot verify the quality of the "hockey stick" result without having the source data and being able to verify the processing steps that were done to it.
The downside to free and open access to all data is that research groups get grants to collect AND process the data to come up with results. Opening the data up for free access means that other groups, who have more interest in scooping than being right, have more ability to do that scooping. That leaves the people who did the work in the cold. There is good reason to delay opening the data until the group being paid to collect it has a chance to use it.
so neither Ann nor these guys are allowed to say "someone should go and kill that person" like they do,
<citation required>
I don't know who "these guys" are, but I've read every one of Anne Coulter's books and many of her columns, and I have yet to see her say "someone should go kill that person".
That's not the point... a FELONY for kicking a door? What's next, going to jail for littering?/me thinks it's a little excessive
(oh, and I'm posting with my ID, not as AC)
Wow, you are amazing. What the poster wrote was, "My 18 year old daughter is getting charged with a FELONY for kicking a door. She was trying to get the jammed door open to get back to her work area,"
That appeared in an earlier article. What I quoted above is what I replied to. "a felony for kicking a door?" No, sir, not "a felony for kicking a door", "a felony for trying to kick open the door to a federal office building." If you can't see the significant difference between those two statements, I'm sorry, I can't help.
As in she kicked a jammed door that she had every right to pass through.
That may be. But kicking in a door you don't OWN, or trying to, is not the correct response to a door that won't let you in. In any case, it wasn't just "kicking a door".
Let me ask you this: you go to the ATM and try to take out all your money. There's a $300/day limit, so you can't. You go get a lockpick, pick the lock on the ATM, remove an amount of cash equal to what you have in your account, and close it back up. The cops arrest you. It's your money! You're just "thinking and acting on your own." You are "arrested for making an ATM withdrawal" when you report the incident to/.
Is it not relevant how you got the money? I think it is. YMMV. But to claim that you were "arrested for making an ATM withdrawal" is an incorrect description of the event.
Nobody is permitted to think or act for themselves. Exactly the kind of people we want working for the government.
You've got to be kidding. You want people working for the government who choose not to call the on-site maintenance people whose job it is to deal with stuck doors, and instead choose to try to force the door open themselves?
I want you to note that I didn't say she should go to jail, only that the claim that it was "a felony for kicking a door" was an incomplete description, and no, I didn't leave out the stuff about "no damage" and whatever, the poster I replied to did. It's lucky that there was no damage. As for what the law is, I don't doubt that attempting to kick in the door to a federal office building is a felony crime, no matter how little damage there is.
Are you trolling with that line?
Because you just did EXACTLY that.
No, I did not. The poster said "for kicking a door". That leaves out a considerable amount of context. She wasn't kicking just ANY door, it was a door into a federal office building.
It's a sham debate tactic to leave out the critical bit of information to make the situation look ridiculous. It's common on/.. "She was arrested for PUTTING ON LIPSTICK!" Yeah, ok, that sounds silly. "She beat up the salesperson at the cosmetic counter, stole the lipstick, shoved a few people out of the way as she ran out the door, and then put on the lipstick". Not so ridiculous to be arrested, huh?
How about this one. "Boston coed held at gunpoint for wearing a sweatshirt." Oops, did we forget, this was a sweatshirt with blinking lights sewed in, she was asked by an airport employee about it (and the clay object in her hand) and she ignored the questions, was approached by security people who she tried to ignore, and was finally stopped only after they held their weapons at the ready (not pointing at her.)
Yeah, it was also the door into her place of work, but does that matter? Why should an employee get to kick in the door to a federal office building? The proper course of action is to call the maintenance people and report the door, not blast through it yourself. So, when someone tries to shorten the story a bit too far, I think it's fair to remind everyone of the missing bit.
That's not the point... a FELONY for kicking a door?
Trying to kick open a door in a federal office building.
What's next, going to jail for littering?
If by "littering" you meant "spreading 1000 pounds of tickertape around the hallways of a federal office", probably. If you mean "dropping a cigarette butt on the street corner", no.
You can't consider just the act and ignore the context.
That would be extra wear and tear, what's wrong with just overwriting data when the HD is full?
I think we've pretty much covered "what's wrong" already. CBS did a story on it. We've been discussing it in this thread.
So shredding the file you've just printed out is a little more wear and tear on the disk. These were LEASED copy machines that are under maintenance agreements. Charge $100 more per year for maintenance and replace the disk when it fails, and do the right thing by shredding data that isn't intended to be stored on disk long term.
How about you, the customer (most likely a company), figure out what exactly you are buying before using the *blackbox* to handle your *sensitive information*.
That's nice. How many copier companies report what file system they are using on the disk, the size of the disk, and that they are making essentially permanent digital copies of everything you copy or print?
However, I do agree that it should be easy to wipe the HD, if it isn't that's some bullshit.
The CBS story said that they used some open source file system forensic program to recover the data. This implies a standard file system of some sort, probably VFAT. It would not have required a true shredding operation to overwrite the data with zeros to prevent a simple forensic recovery of thousands of "deleted" files.
If you want to store digital copies of forms on the copier, that's trivial for the copier maker to do. Create a directory of non-shredded files and store your copy there. If you need to enter a PIN to print a secure document, then the document should have been encrypted using that PIN to start with and not stored in the clear. And then once the document is printed, overwrite it.
And for God's sake, if you want a long-term repository of electronic data, BUY A FREAKING DISK ARRAY where you can apply security rules so that people can and can't get to the data they are or aren't supposed to get to. Don't expect your freakin copy machine to be your file system or database server or asterix server. And if you do, don't let the damn thing roll out the door without pulling the freakin disk.
There's virtually no chance that any of the savvy young hipsters in your organization could fail to be aware of this threat.
As a geezer, let me say that I understand that modern copiers digitize the copy and then print it, but I would have expected the copier manufacturer to have shredded the on-disk copy once it was done using it, instead of simply "deleting" the file. This is a failure of the copier manufacturer.
I noticed that the CBS story reported that the copier manufacturers do offer the extra-cost option of encryption of the data -- so they are trying to get money out of the person leasing the copier instead of doing the right thing in the first place.
A judge can prevent a case from going to trial because the facts alleged, if viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, don't support a legal cause of action.
"I allege that my daughter was burned by the application of a 1mW laser to her face for five seconds."
"Yes, your honor, we do have light bulbs in our house. Yes, we have some 100W light bulbs. Yes, we do allow our daughter to go outside in the sunshine. What's that? Case dismissed?"
The "facts alleged", in the most favorable light, show the plaintiff is a moron or crook or both, neither of which is a legal cause of action against the store or clerk. It IS a cause of action against the plaintiff.
What, twitter doesn't promote porn? The first three followers I got, almost immediately after signing on, were twitter-hos begging me to come visit them.
...it's nothing more than "contacting the judge through official channels to show support."
Well, that's where the problem is. The courts aren't supposed to operate based on public opinion or popularity. They are a check and balance on the legislature, which DOES operate
based on public opinion and popularity.
You are supposed to have some legal standing in a case before you can file an amicus brief, and that isn't simply emailed to the judge, it goes to the clerk so it can be properly routed to all participants.
Why can't this be predicted? An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, right? So why is it difficult or impossible to predict what happens when you add another proton?
Because most of the interesting properties of an element are not defined by the number of protons but by the number of electrons and which orbitals they are found in in the ground state.
The orbitals are not simply layers like a layer cake and they don't fill up in a strictly one-two-three kind of order. The way the lanthanides stick up out of the periodic table is due to the fact that an outer orbital fills in before one of the inner ones does for those elements.
The fact that sodium behaves like potassium is not because of the number of protons for each, for example, it is because the number of electrons to balance those protons results in one electron in the outermost 's' orbital. The atom prefers to get rid of this electron, making the + ion. The inert elements are all due to the fact that they have the right number of electrons to completely fill the outer shell. Chlorine and the elements in that column lack completeness by one electron, so they prefer to pick up one electron and form the - ion.
H2 is stable because the two H atoms share the two electrons, making a complete outer shell. Na2 is not stable, because even though they'd share the outer electron and make a complete 's' orbital, the outer shell of Na has more than an s orbital.
...and when he actually did invade Iraq, the exact same crime that the Nazis were hanged for at Nuremberg,
The Nazis in 1939 were enforcing UN sanctions against the German-Jewish nuclear weapons program?
The ever-wily Jews were hiding said nuclear development programs in squalid concentration camps with funny names like "Auschwitz"?
Interesting. How much is your newsletter, I'd like to subscribe.
Also, you get to have a cool ID code to use online and offline...
Other than the vanity plate thing, where the states have limited ham plates to hams, I can use any "cool ID code" I want online, even "KI6WPV". About the only one I can't get online is KI6WPV@arrl.net, but I can be KI6WPV@comcast.net, @yahoo, @gmail (unless you've already used those, and I doubt you've picked them all up.) Hmm, maybe I should go sign up for that handle here on/.?
What's odd is that hams sometimes register their.com domain using their callsign. It's an odd conflation of purely non-commercial activity using a purely commercial domain name. But there's nothing stopping me from getting KI6WPV.com, unless it's already taken -- and it doesn't appear to be.
In other words, I don't need to spend the money or take the time passing a test in order to have a "cool ID code" online.
What is the draw and use of this stuff? Not in a snarky sense, just that I'm half-way curious and ready to be pulled in.
Unfortunately, one of the more recent draws to amateur radio comes from hospitals and government organizations, where the administrators are learning that they can equip their people with ham radios for use during emergencies for A LOT LESS MONEY than it takes to build a commercial system with enough capability to handle large emergencies.
The FCC recently modified the rules so that government agencies can request a waiver of the rules regarding use of amateur radio on behalf of employers during drills and exercises, so that those agencies could train their employees how to use amateur radio in a real emergency that way. They still need individual licenses, but now they can be 'on the clock' while using their ham radio for their employer.
The FCC is now seeking to modify the rules so that they don't even have to ask for a waiver -- employees will be able to use amateur radio for "emergency drills" and be paid to do it.
Prior to this, amateur radio was strictly that. There were two significant loopholes in the rules. One was for school teachers so they could use amateur radio in their classrooms. The other was for "operators of stations transmitting code practice or other bulletins on a regular basis at least X hours per week...", which was an exception written specifically for the ARRL so they could hire someone to send their code practice tapes.
A multi-county radio system that will survive a major disaster like an earthquake (or be repaired quickly and easily following one) could cost millions, if commercial radio equipment and sufficient resources are used. If you go the amateur radio route, you can get the same package for significantly less. A hundred dollars a hand-held radio, $300 per base, and repeaters for free (because you'll use the ones that hams already have put up.)
The State of Oregon just paid $250,000 for a state-wide communications system using ham radio, linking almost every county's EOC back to Salem. The FCC rule changes means that the counties can staff those stations with county employees, even during exercises.
The Samaritan Hospital group is in the middle of an exercise testing their ability to link their multi-county group of hospitals to the county health departments and emergency operations centers.
Someone else posted that ham radio had access to a large amount of bandwidth that is used solely by hams. Even ignoring the fact that most of the amateur radio bands are dual or more assigned, and many where hams have secondary status, this involvement of local and state governments in ham radio means we are in danger of losing that spectrum altogether, once paid employees of those organizations start using them for routine ops.
I resent that the FCC (I'm an American) required people to learn CW to operate a radio.
The CW requirement for HF radio operation was an INTERNATIONAL treaty requirement through the ITU. That's why Technician class licensees without code credit could operate on all bands above 30 MHz for many years, and those that had code credit could operate with Novice privileges below 30MHz.
It took a few years, but after the treaty was changed, the CW requirement went away.
I'll give you 20 to 1 odds on 90% of those "suggestions" being something along the lines of "Take pictures of Uranus!".
I'll give 40 to 1 that the few wishes selected out of the 1000's were pictures that the NASA scientists wanted to take anyway, but created a huge public relations event to make themselves look good. "Just consider the kids...!"
Actually, you have hit the nail on the head. The doctor goes to cure your son's colorblindness, and asks: "While we're in there, would you like to pay some more money to make him taller? Boost his IQ? Make him live longer?"
The difference is that the cure for colorblindness is a repair to a known-defective gene which will provide NORMAL vision for the patient. The rest of what you ask about isn't.
Now, making someone who is genetically short "taller" may fit in that same category, so I would say that gets the same answer. Ditto if the patient has a known genetic defect that leaves him with an IQ of 3. Of course. FIX what is wrong.
But making someone who is NORMAL "taller" is not fixing something that is broken, it won't merit the same answer. It isn't FIXING what is wrong. It is a different kind of question.
But at some point fixing things turns into improving things,...
No, at some point "fixing things" turns into "not fixing things", and that's pretty easy
to differentiate. "Fixing things" is, by default, "improving things", at least for those who suffer from being broken.
Someone I love very much is colorblind. But I think the dangers really do bear thinking about.
Do you worry about providing sulfa drugs to someone who has an infection? You do realize that this is "fixing things" using technology. You do realize that rich people can afford more sulfa drugs than poor people can. How about operations to fix defective heart valves? Again, fixing things using technology. Do you have any difficulty determining what is "fixing things" and what is "not fixing things" when it comes to surgery? Does that rhinoplasty correct a defect like a cleft palatte, or is it just to make your nose look better? Any confusion about which is a fix?
Do you question the right of someone with a cleft palatte to get plastic surgery to fix it just because someone else might have the same surgeon operate for purely cosmetic reasons? Then I wouldn't worry about people not knowing the difference with fixing colorblindness.
... since it's a colossal waste of time to do a bill in the House, then redo it in the Senate, then back to the House, then back to the Senate, etc, etc.
You call it a waste of time, the rest of us call it "due process, preventing knee-jerk reactionism and requiring a collaboration and deliberation of both parts of the legislative branch, giving each power and giving each oversite of the other."
The legislative branch is supposed to deliberate over legislation, not come up with 4000 pages one day and vote it the next. This was a deliberate decision of the founders. Make the process slow, because there are few, if any, real emergencies that couldn't have been dealt with before they became such.
Yes, that means that someone's real bright idea for how to do things better can't be implemented tomorrow, and that's good. It usually turns out that someone's "really bright idea" has problems that need to be solved before it becomes a production system.
It's bad because people who demand "change" will demand "any change" and denounce those who seek the right change because the "right change" will take time. "Good enough becomes the enemy of the right." Or something like that.
This end part of the section explicitly gives them the power to ask for other information as it is directed by law.
No, it says that the ENUMERATION shall be conducted "in such manner as they shall by law direct". Once you've asked "how many", you've reached the end of your Constitutionally mandated directive. "In such manner" means "this year, we'll have people come to your door and ask", or "return a postcard with the answer", or whatever means of conducting the ENUMERATION has been directed by law. This opens the door to using the web to conduct the enumeration, at least part of it.
"In such manner" does not mean "and anything else you want to ask about, no matter how personal or ridiculous".
And yet - I still hear it....all the time....'Calories in vs. Calories out'.
Everyone seems to forget that one's metabolism adjusts to the caloric intake, so simply cutting calories for many people means slower metabolism and more stored fat -- the body senses the famine and prepares.
This was all covered in the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taube. Lots of studies, especially of "native peoples" and what happens when they change from traditional diets to diets high in HFCS.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless, of course, you are a climate scientist who is employed by a big oil company or any other industrial research division, in which case you are clearly seeking money.
Please, every time I hear about how pure the academic scientists are because they aren't in it for the money I want to puke. They may not have gone into the field for the money, but they need money to stay in the field, and guess which of the following two grants will get funded and which won't: 1) man is not the cause of global warming/we're along for the ride on a system controlled in large part by solar output and other effects, give us money to study what they are, or 2) MAN IS DESTROYING THE PLANET, WE MUST BE STOPPED, WE WILL ALL DIE IF YOU DON'T FUND THIS RESEARCH.
It's a fact: research money goes to fund the squeeky wheel. AIDS activists raise a stink, more money goes to AIDS researchers. Global warming is a crisis we have to solve, more money goes to global warming research. If you are in the field, you are just as likely to bias your research to get the limited grant money as you are to bias your research because big oil bought you off. So, now, the ball's in your court. Either stop automatically branding every industrial scientist as unethical and in the pockets of the oil companies, or admit that there is money going to fund the academics, too. If "big oil" scientists cannot be trusted because of how they get paid, neither can academics.
So you agree that all those AGW advocates who attack every opponent by questioning their objectivity and ethics ("he's paid by Big Oil, that's all you need to know") or calling them idiots or worse, are in the wrong. That those who react to every letter in the editor in the local paper that questions AGW with a vitriolic response questioning the author's parents and lineage are behaving poorly.
I know who you thought you were attacking, but the facts show that the opponents to AGW are a lot more civil about it than most advocates. For the advocates, the debate is OVER, the FACTS are the FACTS, there is no room for doubt, and anyone who doesn't agree is a knuckle-dragger. Yes, AGW is "so easy even a caveman knows it".
The pseudo-skeptics...
Yes, such a civil response, you can't even admit they exist.
I think I know what you thought your point was, but you sort of smacked yourself in the head by your selection of examples. Of the three, only McVeigh was a terrorist of any kind.
Ruby Ridge was a guy trying to keep from being forced by the FBI into committing a crime, which pissed the FBI off enough that they came out to his cabin and shot his dog and his wife.
Koresh was a nutjob who wasn't any danger to the community, who was known in the community, and was known to the local sheriff. The local sheriff offered to help the ATF agents pick up Koresh peacefully, and the ATF ignored Koresh when he was in town by himself. ATF chose to attack the compound, shooting the place up and creating a big issue out of nothing at all. If I recall correctly, ATF was attacking a group who had fewer guns, per capita, than most of the people in Texas.
So, exactly what was your point?
Ummm, would YOU want to be listed as co-author on a paper that publishes a conclusion about your data that you don't agree with? Do you understand what a legal can of worms is opened up by licensing things at a university, especially when it comes time to enforce?
As for the other guy who replied to what I said, it's good that you've made your agenda public. To assume that someone who can't replicate your data a "knuckle-dragging mouth-breather" is less than unbiased science.
And that's the value you get from it. Allowing everyone to "peer review" everything results in the "truth" being the result of a majority vote, not the result of it being true.
Peer review requires peers, not random people off the street.
The storage and administrative costs for all research papers should cost at most $50/researcher,
You're confusing the cost of "peer review" with the cost of archiving a paper. Peer review takes place prior to publishing the paper. The value of many journals, compared to "random website" is that there IS peer review, and you are less likely to find random babbling and incoherent thought in the journal.
However, Open Access is the wave of the future, so you will eventually get peer reviewed work online, like you want.
Of course, this discussion is about the data behind the papers, not the papers themselves. I don't know of a single paper that includes the "raw source" data it was based on. That's the purpose of the paper, to analyze and theorize.
Wrong. If Group B cannot duplicate Group A's analysis of the data, that proves that Group A did something wrong and probably came to the wrong conclusion.
If Group B cannot duplicate the experiment and get the same data (and knowing that means being able to compare both sets) that calls the experiment as a whole into question.
There is more to science than simply applying equation A to data B and getting number C.
This hubbub all came about because of the difficulty in prying the source data out of the hands of the guy who produced the "hockey stick" figures. It's covered in the book "Broken Consensus" I think it's called. The "hockey stick" is not the "source data", the source data is all of the individual readings from all the instruments, prior to corrections for sampling errors or known issues. One cannot verify the quality of the "hockey stick" result without having the source data and being able to verify the processing steps that were done to it.
The downside to free and open access to all data is that research groups get grants to collect AND process the data to come up with results. Opening the data up for free access means that other groups, who have more interest in scooping than being right, have more ability to do that scooping. That leaves the people who did the work in the cold. There is good reason to delay opening the data until the group being paid to collect it has a chance to use it.
<citation required>
I don't know who "these guys" are, but I've read every one of Anne Coulter's books and many of her columns, and I have yet to see her say "someone should go kill that person".
Wow, you are amazing. What the poster wrote was, "My 18 year old daughter is getting charged with a FELONY for kicking a door. She was trying to get the jammed door open to get back to her work area,"
That appeared in an earlier article. What I quoted above is what I replied to. "a felony for kicking a door?" No, sir, not "a felony for kicking a door", "a felony for trying to kick open the door to a federal office building." If you can't see the significant difference between those two statements, I'm sorry, I can't help.
As in she kicked a jammed door that she had every right to pass through.
That may be. But kicking in a door you don't OWN, or trying to, is not the correct response to a door that won't let you in. In any case, it wasn't just "kicking a door".
Let me ask you this: you go to the ATM and try to take out all your money. There's a $300/day limit, so you can't. You go get a lockpick, pick the lock on the ATM, remove an amount of cash equal to what you have in your account, and close it back up. The cops arrest you. It's your money! You're just "thinking and acting on your own." You are "arrested for making an ATM withdrawal" when you report the incident to /.
Is it not relevant how you got the money? I think it is. YMMV. But to claim that you were "arrested for making an ATM withdrawal" is an incorrect description of the event.
Nobody is permitted to think or act for themselves. Exactly the kind of people we want working for the government.
You've got to be kidding. You want people working for the government who choose not to call the on-site maintenance people whose job it is to deal with stuck doors, and instead choose to try to force the door open themselves?
I want you to note that I didn't say she should go to jail, only that the claim that it was "a felony for kicking a door" was an incomplete description, and no, I didn't leave out the stuff about "no damage" and whatever, the poster I replied to did. It's lucky that there was no damage. As for what the law is, I don't doubt that attempting to kick in the door to a federal office building is a felony crime, no matter how little damage there is.
Now, the horse is dead. Your turn to beat it.
No, I did not. The poster said "for kicking a door". That leaves out a considerable amount of context. She wasn't kicking just ANY door, it was a door into a federal office building.
It's a sham debate tactic to leave out the critical bit of information to make the situation look ridiculous. It's common on /.. "She was arrested for PUTTING ON LIPSTICK!" Yeah, ok, that sounds silly. "She beat up the salesperson at the cosmetic counter, stole the lipstick, shoved a few people out of the way as she ran out the door, and then put on the lipstick". Not so ridiculous to be arrested, huh?
How about this one. "Boston coed held at gunpoint for wearing a sweatshirt." Oops, did we forget, this was a sweatshirt with blinking lights sewed in, she was asked by an airport employee about it (and the clay object in her hand) and she ignored the questions, was approached by security people who she tried to ignore, and was finally stopped only after they held their weapons at the ready (not pointing at her.)
Yeah, it was also the door into her place of work, but does that matter? Why should an employee get to kick in the door to a federal office building? The proper course of action is to call the maintenance people and report the door, not blast through it yourself. So, when someone tries to shorten the story a bit too far, I think it's fair to remind everyone of the missing bit.
Trying to kick open a door in a federal office building.
What's next, going to jail for littering?
If by "littering" you meant "spreading 1000 pounds of tickertape around the hallways of a federal office", probably. If you mean "dropping a cigarette butt on the street corner", no.
You can't consider just the act and ignore the context.
I think we've pretty much covered "what's wrong" already. CBS did a story on it. We've been discussing it in this thread.
So shredding the file you've just printed out is a little more wear and tear on the disk. These were LEASED copy machines that are under maintenance agreements. Charge $100 more per year for maintenance and replace the disk when it fails, and do the right thing by shredding data that isn't intended to be stored on disk long term.
How about you, the customer (most likely a company), figure out what exactly you are buying before using the *blackbox* to handle your *sensitive information*.
That's nice. How many copier companies report what file system they are using on the disk, the size of the disk, and that they are making essentially permanent digital copies of everything you copy or print?
However, I do agree that it should be easy to wipe the HD, if it isn't that's some bullshit.
The CBS story said that they used some open source file system forensic program to recover the data. This implies a standard file system of some sort, probably VFAT. It would not have required a true shredding operation to overwrite the data with zeros to prevent a simple forensic recovery of thousands of "deleted" files.
If you want to store digital copies of forms on the copier, that's trivial for the copier maker to do. Create a directory of non-shredded files and store your copy there. If you need to enter a PIN to print a secure document, then the document should have been encrypted using that PIN to start with and not stored in the clear. And then once the document is printed, overwrite it.
And for God's sake, if you want a long-term repository of electronic data, BUY A FREAKING DISK ARRAY where you can apply security rules so that people can and can't get to the data they are or aren't supposed to get to. Don't expect your freakin copy machine to be your file system or database server or asterix server. And if you do, don't let the damn thing roll out the door without pulling the freakin disk.
As a geezer, let me say that I understand that modern copiers digitize the copy and then print it, but I would have expected the copier manufacturer to have shredded the on-disk copy once it was done using it, instead of simply "deleting" the file. This is a failure of the copier manufacturer.
I noticed that the CBS story reported that the copier manufacturers do offer the extra-cost option of encryption of the data -- so they are trying to get money out of the person leasing the copier instead of doing the right thing in the first place.
"I allege that my daughter was burned by the application of a 1mW laser to her face for five seconds."
"Yes, your honor, we do have light bulbs in our house. Yes, we have some 100W light bulbs. Yes, we do allow our daughter to go outside in the sunshine. What's that? Case dismissed?"
The "facts alleged", in the most favorable light, show the plaintiff is a moron or crook or both, neither of which is a legal cause of action against the store or clerk. It IS a cause of action against the plaintiff.
What, twitter doesn't promote porn? The first three followers I got, almost immediately after signing on, were twitter-hos begging me to come visit them.
Well, that's where the problem is. The courts aren't supposed to operate based on public opinion or popularity. They are a check and balance on the legislature, which DOES operate based on public opinion and popularity.
You are supposed to have some legal standing in a case before you can file an amicus brief, and that isn't simply emailed to the judge, it goes to the clerk so it can be properly routed to all participants.
Because most of the interesting properties of an element are not defined by the number of protons but by the number of electrons and which orbitals they are found in in the ground state.
The orbitals are not simply layers like a layer cake and they don't fill up in a strictly one-two-three kind of order. The way the lanthanides stick up out of the periodic table is due to the fact that an outer orbital fills in before one of the inner ones does for those elements.
The fact that sodium behaves like potassium is not because of the number of protons for each, for example, it is because the number of electrons to balance those protons results in one electron in the outermost 's' orbital. The atom prefers to get rid of this electron, making the + ion. The inert elements are all due to the fact that they have the right number of electrons to completely fill the outer shell. Chlorine and the elements in that column lack completeness by one electron, so they prefer to pick up one electron and form the - ion.
H2 is stable because the two H atoms share the two electrons, making a complete outer shell. Na2 is not stable, because even though they'd share the outer electron and make a complete 's' orbital, the outer shell of Na has more than an s orbital.
It's all an electron thing, not proton.
The Nazis in 1939 were enforcing UN sanctions against the German-Jewish nuclear weapons program? The ever-wily Jews were hiding said nuclear development programs in squalid concentration camps with funny names like "Auschwitz"?
Interesting. How much is your newsletter, I'd like to subscribe.
Other than the vanity plate thing, where the states have limited ham plates to hams, I can use any "cool ID code" I want online, even "KI6WPV". About the only one I can't get online is KI6WPV@arrl.net, but I can be KI6WPV@comcast.net, @yahoo, @gmail (unless you've already used those, and I doubt you've picked them all up.) Hmm, maybe I should go sign up for that handle here on /.?
What's odd is that hams sometimes register their .com domain using their callsign. It's an odd conflation of purely non-commercial activity using a purely commercial domain name. But there's nothing stopping me from getting KI6WPV.com, unless it's already taken -- and it doesn't appear to be.
In other words, I don't need to spend the money or take the time passing a test in order to have a "cool ID code" online.
Unfortunately, one of the more recent draws to amateur radio comes from hospitals and government organizations, where the administrators are learning that they can equip their people with ham radios for use during emergencies for A LOT LESS MONEY than it takes to build a commercial system with enough capability to handle large emergencies.
The FCC recently modified the rules so that government agencies can request a waiver of the rules regarding use of amateur radio on behalf of employers during drills and exercises, so that those agencies could train their employees how to use amateur radio in a real emergency that way. They still need individual licenses, but now they can be 'on the clock' while using their ham radio for their employer.
The FCC is now seeking to modify the rules so that they don't even have to ask for a waiver -- employees will be able to use amateur radio for "emergency drills" and be paid to do it.
Prior to this, amateur radio was strictly that. There were two significant loopholes in the rules. One was for school teachers so they could use amateur radio in their classrooms. The other was for "operators of stations transmitting code practice or other bulletins on a regular basis at least X hours per week...", which was an exception written specifically for the ARRL so they could hire someone to send their code practice tapes.
A multi-county radio system that will survive a major disaster like an earthquake (or be repaired quickly and easily following one) could cost millions, if commercial radio equipment and sufficient resources are used. If you go the amateur radio route, you can get the same package for significantly less. A hundred dollars a hand-held radio, $300 per base, and repeaters for free (because you'll use the ones that hams already have put up.)
The State of Oregon just paid $250,000 for a state-wide communications system using ham radio, linking almost every county's EOC back to Salem. The FCC rule changes means that the counties can staff those stations with county employees, even during exercises.
The Samaritan Hospital group is in the middle of an exercise testing their ability to link their multi-county group of hospitals to the county health departments and emergency operations centers.
Someone else posted that ham radio had access to a large amount of bandwidth that is used solely by hams. Even ignoring the fact that most of the amateur radio bands are dual or more assigned, and many where hams have secondary status, this involvement of local and state governments in ham radio means we are in danger of losing that spectrum altogether, once paid employees of those organizations start using them for routine ops.
The CW requirement for HF radio operation was an INTERNATIONAL treaty requirement through the ITU. That's why Technician class licensees without code credit could operate on all bands above 30 MHz for many years, and those that had code credit could operate with Novice privileges below 30MHz.
It took a few years, but after the treaty was changed, the CW requirement went away.
I'll give 40 to 1 that the few wishes selected out of the 1000's were pictures that the NASA scientists wanted to take anyway, but created a huge public relations event to make themselves look good. "Just consider the kids...!"
The difference is that the cure for colorblindness is a repair to a known-defective gene which will provide NORMAL vision for the patient. The rest of what you ask about isn't.
Now, making someone who is genetically short "taller" may fit in that same category, so I would say that gets the same answer. Ditto if the patient has a known genetic defect that leaves him with an IQ of 3. Of course. FIX what is wrong.
But making someone who is NORMAL "taller" is not fixing something that is broken, it won't merit the same answer. It isn't FIXING what is wrong. It is a different kind of question.
But at some point fixing things turns into improving things,...
No, at some point "fixing things" turns into "not fixing things", and that's pretty easy to differentiate. "Fixing things" is, by default, "improving things", at least for those who suffer from being broken.
Someone I love very much is colorblind. But I think the dangers really do bear thinking about.
Do you worry about providing sulfa drugs to someone who has an infection? You do realize that this is "fixing things" using technology. You do realize that rich people can afford more sulfa drugs than poor people can. How about operations to fix defective heart valves? Again, fixing things using technology. Do you have any difficulty determining what is "fixing things" and what is "not fixing things" when it comes to surgery? Does that rhinoplasty correct a defect like a cleft palatte, or is it just to make your nose look better? Any confusion about which is a fix?
Do you question the right of someone with a cleft palatte to get plastic surgery to fix it just because someone else might have the same surgeon operate for purely cosmetic reasons? Then I wouldn't worry about people not knowing the difference with fixing colorblindness.
You call it a waste of time, the rest of us call it "due process, preventing knee-jerk reactionism and requiring a collaboration and deliberation of both parts of the legislative branch, giving each power and giving each oversite of the other."
The legislative branch is supposed to deliberate over legislation, not come up with 4000 pages one day and vote it the next. This was a deliberate decision of the founders. Make the process slow, because there are few, if any, real emergencies that couldn't have been dealt with before they became such.
Yes, that means that someone's real bright idea for how to do things better can't be implemented tomorrow, and that's good. It usually turns out that someone's "really bright idea" has problems that need to be solved before it becomes a production system.
It's bad because people who demand "change" will demand "any change" and denounce those who seek the right change because the "right change" will take time. "Good enough becomes the enemy of the right." Or something like that.
No, it says that the ENUMERATION shall be conducted "in such manner as they shall by law direct". Once you've asked "how many", you've reached the end of your Constitutionally mandated directive. "In such manner" means "this year, we'll have people come to your door and ask", or "return a postcard with the answer", or whatever means of conducting the ENUMERATION has been directed by law. This opens the door to using the web to conduct the enumeration, at least part of it.
"In such manner" does not mean "and anything else you want to ask about, no matter how personal or ridiculous".
Everyone seems to forget that one's metabolism adjusts to the caloric intake, so simply cutting calories for many people means slower metabolism and more stored fat -- the body senses the famine and prepares.
This was all covered in the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taube. Lots of studies, especially of "native peoples" and what happens when they change from traditional diets to diets high in HFCS.