No, but I'd expect them to have some interest in the origin and original meaning of the texts they hold to be worthy/good/true. If not, I don't feel anything they say on the subject warrants attention, and they certainly couldn't be considered 'students' in any meaningful sense. The same would go for literature students studying literature which has been twice translated - it's pointless if you have no interest in going back to the originals or at least comparing translations.
Its good to know where your coming from. By that definition, the vast majority of so called "engineers" here are frauds because they didn't get Newtonian mechanics from the original parchment. Economists have no credibility unless they have read the complete Wealth of Nations. Psychologists are posers unless they have read Freud in German. Attorneys - well they have it coming because they have indiscriminately borrowed from French, Roman, Greek, and Catholic law.
Such a restrictive view ignores the fact that human knowledge can be advanced incrementally by others. What is the basis for such distrust? (I could see a Christian making this argument on a theory that emphasizes the fallibility of humanity). Do I have to reinvent the wheel or become a doctor of metallurgy to ride a bike?
...On the other hand, the Bible is of suspect origin.
Did my post say anything about fallibility? I thought it was simply pointing out that the original poster was placing an unrealistic burden on those studying a subject. No student of any other discipline, be it English, history, science, etc., is given such the burden of discovering the "origin and original meaning" of EVERY text that is released.
Because their professed belief in the truths revealed in these documents affects their life in dramatic ways, and can affect the life of others around them as well. To then confess a happy ignorance of the origin and original meaning of their religious texts is surprising to say the least.
Really? Do you need to independently verify all science behind nuclear physics to be a nuclear physicist?
In an area that affects everyone's lives to a larger degree - Do you need to have a COMPLETE knowledge of the history of the country/the COMPLETE biography of a candidate/COMPLETE voting record of a candidate/understanding of macroeconomics, to be a good voter?
I'd have thought the religious argument would be that God would correct the errors in translation so its original message still shines through.
I realize "Saint Gerbil" is attempting to be inflammatory. However, a little knowledge/understanding never hurt. I can't speak for other groups, but protestants' view of the creation story is that sin took over with the "original sin." Sin is simply the result of human choice - free will. Thus, the protestant view isn't that God can't make the "perfect translation," its that humans are given free-will and there is minimal interference with that.
Even if it does contradict that last passage, encourage people to kill each other etc.
Show me where to find it, and don't neglect context. However, when you do point out your source, I can promise you I wont be able to convince you otherwise. As a student of Constitutional law I have become acutely aware of the fallible nature of human communication. Truth is measured by 5 votes. There will never be a medium of communication that we/I can't manipulate. Give me "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and some time to research, and I can give you a completely different theory of relativity.
Of course, my new theory might need to navigate around what is scientifically verifiable. But then again, it might not need to even be consistent with science. Most people simply accept science on faith. For example, even though I have an engineering background, I have not independently verified the vast majority of science - I simply believe. I realize science is VERY distinguishable from religion because of its verifiability. However, scientists are very religious in the sense of their uncritical acceptance of belief. Real science is made by heretics - those that challenge dogma. Even scientists blindly believe.
To segway into the unrelated theory of relativism - that doesn't mean there is not absolute truth. It would be self defeating to claim that the only truth is that there is no truth. My statements mean (as much as statements can have any meaning) that we bring our own meanings to all information we recieve. Finally, to tie it all together - my freedom to bring my own meaning to communication - that's free will.
Yeah, isn't the LA Times article implying that the system is flawed because there are a (seemingly) surprising number of nearmatches? No one doubts that there are matches, or that a search might come up with some close hits - that's what the statistic says. However, the defense attorneys in the article claim that the statistics are flawed because they can find a number of (near) matches in the database. Is this implication like saying the lottery must really be easier to win then claimed if you have met more than one person that has won? Wouldn't a problem arise only if the number of matches occurred more than the quoted statistics would dictate? I don't see this as being the method of attack in this case.
I think the answer is that most lawyers in general lack a conscience, you'd have to to be successful.
Disclaimer: my bar exam is a week from Tuesday.
I've had this conversation with people before, its why I want to stay out of criminal work. I guess the theory is that you throw everything on the table and hope that the opposing attorney is doing their job. That's the adversarial system. The Constitution dictates that the prosecution has to throw a lot more on the table. Ethics rules dictate that the prosecution also has to defeat their own case when they have information that will damage it. The defense attorney just has to do the best he can with the facts he is given.
Its easy to malign both sides of the system. However, neither is an easy task. The prosecution is ethically responsible for both society's interest, and to some extant, the defendant's as well. The defense attorney is responsible for the defendant's interest but, to a broader extent, society's interests as well. Defense attorneys protect even you and me in the sense that those accused of crimes, whether innocent or guilty, set the periphery of our legal protections. Guilty people have been responsible for the liberties you and I enjoy because they challenged the procedure, actions, and level of proof employed by the government. Whether or not an attorney is scum or devoid of conscience, there is an attorney on the other side taking them to task. Sure its an imperfect system, but its the best society can come up with and we muddle through.
This would be true, but not everyone who matches is going to be able to have committed the crime. For example, a lot of the people who are in the Database are in prison. That is a pretty good alibi. Many of the people are going to be so far away geographically from the crime committed that they will be dismissed as suspects after cursory investigation. The odds of a false positive get MUCH smaller require that the false positive sample in CODIS must come from someone who is close enough to the crime scene and lacks a credible alibi.
I was thinking the same thing. It will be rare that a person is prosecuted with no other connecting factors (circumstantial evidence). However, the state is required to prove its case. The defense attorneys here are pointing out that the government is claiming that its evidence is much more reliable then it really is. When life and liberty is on the line, a person is entitled to letting the jury know every potentially exculpating detail.
On the other hand, it may be a moot point. We have become a "DNA culture" of sorts. TV has ingrained the infallibility of DNA in all potential jurors' minds. Quoting the appropriate statistics will only substitute a slightly less big number for a really big number.
Now to display my ignorance. This debate doesn't apply when a crime scene DNA sample is compared with a defendant's sample, right? Isn't CODIS only about narrowing the field?
Referring the psychology at work in the parent-post's story about hiding from the wandering kid, my parents did a similar brilliant thing to delay my brother from getting his driver's license. My dad is a farmer and we live in a farm state. Because it was a small state, the driving age was 14 and kids would generally start as soon as possible. My brother had a way of finding trouble and so my parents didn't like the idea of him driving at 14. My brother hated farm work and so my parents led him to believe that they would force him to get his license when he turned 14 and make him help on the farm. He didn't get a license until much, much later.
As to other people's comments about the parents in this story, parenting is like everything else in this world, it needs balance. I've seen friends/kids rebel because of oppressive parents and I've seen kids destroy their lives because of parents that wanted to be their kids' "friends." One extreme is my mom's friend whose son could do no wrong and no one could tell her otherwise - until he died from drugs. The other extreme is my friend whose marriage is in shambles since he married a woman simply because his mom hated her.
Unfortunately, I do not believe in the slightest that wind energy is going to have a major effect on our dependency on oil. It sounds great for power plants and other things, but it's the automobile sector we really need to worry about.
Wind energy has some problems. The wind doesn't always blow. When the wind IS blowing there is no way to store the energy, it just gets pushed on the grid and may or may not be used. Transmission lines are expensive to build and its proved tough to get power companies to buy an unpredictable source of power.
But what if wind energy could produce fuel? The big problem with hydrogen is that it costs energy to produce. Why not produce hydrogen with "free" wind energy? This would eliminate the problems with energy storage, expensive infrastructure, etc. Further, cars are being produced now that can use hydrogen (CNG cars).
In my home state of South Dakota, we elected a public utilities commissioner on his promise of championing wind power similar to our neighbors in Minnesota and Iowa. However, we can't get hooked up to the grid and we can't get power companies to buy. There's plenty of open land and plenty of wind. Hydrogen generation might be the better solution. I realize that there is going to be the group that says hydrogen generation is a waste of energy and the perfect solution is wind and solar generating electricity which will power electric cars, but battery technology isn't there yet and we need a collection of bridge solutions.
My parents took out a Sears card about 5 years ago to get a deal on carpet and then put the card in the filing cabinet and left it. About 2 months ago they got a bill from Citibank stating that they purchased several thousand dollars of something in Paris. Turns out that Sears sold all their accounts off to Citibank. My father immediately called Citibank and they were absolute jerks. They couldn't understand that my Dad didn't even own a Citibank card (and had never been to Paris). Evidently, someone had gotten the number and activated the old Sears (now Citi) account. After several calls to the VERY rude customer support Dad simply drove to Citibank's fraud prevention unit which isn't very far from their home. Fraud prevention is run out of the Midwest and very helpful but the plain customer service people suck.
Further, Citibank's fraud detection must be absolutely horrible. If this was the same security breach, Citi didn't know about it even in March. Further, one large random charge in a foreign country on a card that hasn't been used in 5 years should raise some warning flags. In stark contrast, about two weeks ago Wells Fargo discovered fraud on my card. Turns out someone had my number and was testing its validity with online purchases. The sad sad sad thing is that the transaction that they found odd was a $1 purchase of a weight lifting dietary supplement. I guess even Wells Fargo knows I'm a geek.
Considering that it was slipped in by a Democrat (Dodd) and the person blowing the whistle is a Republican (Armey) you might want to warn people about not purchasing the equivalent "Obama Is Evil" book.
You know how you can tell the party affiliations on a Slashdot story? If its negative about a Republican the summary almost always mentions it. If its negative about a Democrat they usually just say "Senator" or 'Congressman" with no party affiliation.
Slashdot politics have always puzzled me. But then maybe it has to do with the internal inconsistencies in the American political parties. Slashdotters fear the government - traditionally a Republican ideology. Slashdotters hate the idea of property rights in ideas (even though they howl when the GPL - a copyright licensing scheme - is violated) traditionally a Democratic (?) ideal. Slashdotters hate bureaucracy (TPS reports) - a Republican sentiment. Slashdotters fear organized religion - a Democrat leaning. The list can go on.
The parties themselves are inconsistent in the values they uphold. Both the Republicans and Democrats seem selective in the forms of free speech they would protect - Republicans hold up religious and commercial speech (unless the speech was not Judeo-Christian or dealt with pornography or homosexuality) while Democrats would suppress those areas (unless they were not Judeo-Christian or favored cause speech). Republicans prefer smaller government and fear big government (unless they are bringing bacon home or providing national security). Democrats feel that government programs are the solution (unless they give people a choice - i.e. school vouchers - or a chance to rise above their circumstances - a welfare system that doesn't penalize wise financial decisions like savings).
Despite all that inconsistency - somehow I have to agree that there is a very large left leaning bias on Slashdot
We have no written constitution in the sense the US does. In fact, our constitutional law is written but it is spread all over the place. There is no constitutional court and no need for lawyers (in general) to argue about the wording of the constitution. This works well because those in power have to do the right thing instead of what they think they can get away with. I'm intrigued by this comment because I have just spent the last 2 years of upper level (American) constitutional law classes arguing that rights are better protected by an impartial judiciary rather than the majoritarian process. Can you elaborate?
My preference is a written (to tie the judiciary to something) constitution, that is counter-majoritarian (to protect individual rights against factions/ i.e. majoritarian abuse). How are individual rights protected by the legislative/majoritarian process? I am unfamiliar with the New Zealand system (though I have visited the beautiful country) and Wikipedia hasn't helped. England has the House of Lords which has served as its quasi-judicial branch (and is now, evidentally, converting to a supreme court system of judicial review). The House of Lords has life time tenure which ensures some degree of impartiality (in theory) - just like the American system. How does the NZ system protect individual rights?
In the USA, the burden is on the person supposedly being slandered to prove that they were actually slandered. Usually, this means that one has to show some sort of an actual economic loss caused by the speech AND, that the speech has to be untrue. Not quite, at common law truth was a defense that had to be proven by the defendant. The remedy is not limited to economic damages (but it is a monetary award). However, there is a certain preference for economic damages, not out of greed as another poster has suggested, but out of certainty. My "grave emotional distress" over being slandered is pretty speculative. Thus, any such preference is more likely a deterrent to litigiousness.
The United States Supreme Court has modified the Common Law with the public concern/public figure doctrines. If the plaintiff is a public figure or the subject is a public concern, a level of fault must be proven and the plaintiff has the burden of proving falsity.
I haven't read the article and I agree that the circumstances sound suspicious but an indefinite jail term (at least in the US) can be used in a criminal contempt situation in order to compel some sort of performance. This remedy is limited (obviously) by the guarantee of due process.
However, what is rarely pointed out in pro-ethanol stories is that both Brazil and China are enormous countries with a surplus of arable land and relatively low car usage. Just to add a little info on the other side of the debate. Before ethanol production ramped up to use a good percentage (30%?) of the US corn - it was surplus that was sold very cheaply (exported)/dumped on the third world as "aid". We produce more corn than we use at home for food/animal feed, the reason the price is high is because it is sold at world market prices. We have a triple whammy of Chinese industrialization, market hysteria, and (yes) increased biofuel production. Your claim that China and Brazil can make ethanol production work ignores the fact that the US has excess production and that there is a world market. Extra global corn (or your favorite alcohol capable plant) production (the Chinese arable land you mentioned) will simply reduce the price and reduce the current world supply shock. Remember, higher demand means higher prices not necessarily a shortage. Also remember that the quickest way to cure high prices is high prices. Your theory translates to a "peak corn" rationale, which is far less defensible than a "peak oil" rationale because there is tremendous untapped production in the third world. The third world has been devastated by cheap American corn (at least according to the UN).
What I'm talking about is more along the lines of proportion for criminal acts. A hypothetical example being that through indirect action a corp causes a man to die. If the corp were an actual person, he'd be guilty of manslaughter and most likely jailed. There is no such thing as jailtime for a corp. At worse some sort of fine is levied - a fine that rarely costs the corp proportionally as much as jailtime for a person would cost that individual. My point still holds that it isn't the limited liability nature of the corporate structure at issue here. Limited liability only means limited civil liability, not criminal. However, criminal law simply does not impute criminal acts to others beyond a certain combination of intent and causality. All the shareholders will not be held criminally responsible for the acts of some employees of the corporation. Criminal law acts upon individuals, a corporation is a collective. If individual shareholders were in on it but not active, they will be charged with an "incohate" crime (solicitation, conspiracy, or attempt). The shareholders do suffer loss for corporate actions if a civil suit is brought against the corporation for the criminal conduct (just like OJ could be prosecuted criminally and sued civily). This is the exact same result as if a partner committed a criminal act in the name of the partnership.
Perhaps the criminal law should apply harsher penalties to collective business entities, however due process dictates that a jail sentence should never be imposed on a person without some form of culpability. Due process would also mean that your "corporate death penalty" would also not pass constitutional muster. You are imposing a "strict liability" (criminal liability with out any proof of intent to cause harm) and "guilt by association" whereby all assets of a certain type (corporate) are confiscated. Strict liability in criminal penalties can not be extended to this degree consistent with due process.
Further, even if it could it might impact the First Amendment freedom of association. As I hope I have pointed out, limited liability is inapplicable in the criminal context. Criminal liability is the same for any collective business entity. Thus, your death penalty idea would/should be applicable to any collective because they are all treated identically by the criminal law. Taken to the extreme (I realize slippery slope arguments are speculative and far-fetched), mom's quilting club should get the "death-penalty" when one of the members recklessly mows over a pedestrian (involuntary manslaughter) on the way to the meeting (i.e. within the course and scope of the association). Such a policy could have a chilling effect on the freedom of association.
I'm sorry if I came across in an antagonistic fashion before. My intention is only to expose some issues in the argument for/against limiting liability.
I'd have to say that your response is the one that doesn't get it. You made a statement about being liable for the actions of millions of shareholders, I asked you to explain that, you went off on a tangent about partners, not millions of shareholders. There are (generally) three basic types of business entity; sole proprietorship, partnership, and corporation. The non-limited liability forms are sole proprietorship and partnership. When there is more than one owner it is called a partnership. You argued that there should not be a limitation on liability in a business entity - that is called a partnership and has all the traits I have described.
As for common sense and personal experience, sorry just because you have experienced the current system doesn't mean understand it. Hundreds of millions of people drive cars but don't understand the internal combustion engine. It also helps to have a JD (i.e. experience).
I claim that limiting liability is simply a form of government subsidy, transferring the cost of the actions of corp to the people that suffer damages due to those actions. Such a subsidy is unnecessary in a free market. Any costs caused by the corporation are borne by the corporation in the same manner as a sole proprietorship or partnership. What you appear to be referring to are costs that are not borne by a business entity. Costs that are not borne by a business entity are called externalities. Externalities occur regardless of the form of business entity but are instead the result of costs (like pollution) being distributed over the wider population rather than being borne by the source (the business entity).
To restate, a sole proprietorship/partnership/corporation all have the same amount of liability for actions imposed. The difference is where the money to satisfy any judgment can come from. With a partnership (remember a business entity with a collection of owners that do not have limited liability is called a partnership), any owner (called a partner) can be required to answer for the entire amount of the partnership's liability.
Your free market argument may have some merit in the sense that the law is creating a property right. However, even a laissez-faire economist would recognize some degree of property right protection/creation by the government.
some limitation of liability is necessary to encourage people to collaborate. You state that as a given. And we've all heard it a million times before.
But why do you believe it to be true? Common sense and personal experience. You may have a misunderstanding of the alternative form of collaborative business structure that does not limit liability. This misunderstanding is evidenced by your response to my statement:
it would be ridiculous to expect me to answer for any wrongs of the millions of owners in a multinational corporation simply because I invested a grand or so. That's a non-sequitur - what wrongs can a mere shareholder commit in the first place? In a partnership partners are jointly and severably liable for the torts of the other partners committed in the course and scope of the business or which were foreseeable. Joint and severable liability means that a partner can be vicariously liable for the entire amount regardless of fault. This is especially damaging when the at fault partner is judgment proof, which can be accomplished easily through bankruptcy. This means any partner has his house and kids' education on the line. The first type of liability - course and scope - is especially broad in a partnership setting (as opposed to an employment context). In a partnership setting a "mere shareholder" is called a partner and can impose liability on the partnership while arguably attempting to advance the partnership's interests. You appear to be more concerned about Enron style abuses (sorry, I'm making an assumption). Remember, the executives in an Enron type situation are owners only incidentally and thus the limited liability for owners has no bearing on this analysis (except that imposing liability on owners would cause them to be more concerned about executive accountability). Further, your comment ("what wrongs can a mere shareholder commit in the first place") defeats your argument for unlimited liability for owners.
Corporations exist primarily as a means to shield owners from the liability that results from actions performed in the service of the corporation. I apologize for the off-topic comment (not that it matters anymore Slashdot has strayed far into the political). The parent has a pretty narrow view of corporate law. Corporations are economic engines. The limitation of liability encourages the investment of resources and collaborative effort.
Perhaps you believe that owners (shareholders) should have greater accountability. That may be true (executives definately need more accountability), but some limitation of liability is necessary to encourage people to collaborate. The alternative collaborative format is the partnership. However this construct is only effective at a small scale. I might be able to protect against personal (joint and several) liability when there are only a handful of partners but it would be ridiculous to expect me to answer for any wrongs of the millions of owners in a multinational corporation simply because I invested a grand or so. To a large degree, I shouldn't answer for the wrongs of the corporation beyond what I have invested. I believe the real problem that critics of corporations have is not limited liability but risk distribution. Corporate accountability is hard to come by when bad decisions can be spread over a large number of shareholders.
Not only is Ethanol shortsighted it is exactly the wrong direction for us to take. Ethanol is taken from food sources and results in local, regional and, as it increases in popularity, global increases in food prices as well as predictable food shortages.
This sounds a little extreme. A similar panic was in place during the 70's oil shortages. The fallacy is the assumption that increased use of a item translates into a shortage, this is not true. Increased use translates into a higher price, for sure, but the economics are more complicated. The corollary is just as true; increased price does not necessarily translate into a shortage. A more reasoned analysis is found in today's Wall Street Journal:
As for food prices, it's true that government policies supporting biofuels have created new demand for corn and other grains. This and price controls in some countries have contributed to the food panic. But the price surge has been so rapid and so broad across nearly all commodities that it can't merely be a function of supply glitches or new demand for specific grains.
The Fed's Bender April 28, 2008; Page A18
Besides the inefficiencies of transporting the raw materials, the finished product CANNOT be piped due to the inherent water in the ethanol rusting/corroding the pipes. So, the only means of transportation is truck, train or barge -- fossil fuel transportation systems.
The parent claims that corn should be used completely for food production, isn't the transportation cost relatively constant regardless of the form that corn takes? In other words, food corn can only be transported by truck/train/barge as well. I believe what is really going on in many peoples' minds is something akin to the "peak oil" theory except with corn production. These people believe that using corn in ethanol is displacing food production because we are at peak capacity. The world is not at peak capacity - the third world still grows corn by hand with hoes. In the short term, corn is displacing food production because investment in technology does not happen over night. Further, in the long term, demand for corn will increase.
While I agree that the farm lobby is distorting research and development, many don't realize the efficiencies that are being achieved in corn ethanol.
Ethanol production yields distillers dried grain which is used as animal feed (something corn was previously used for).
Ethanol production yields corn oil which is used in food or biodiesel production.
Cellulosic technology is being employed to use the waste chaff from the harvest.
Methane sources such as landfills and sewage/manure lagoons are being used to generate the heat for the ethanol production process.
Advanced microbiology is producing a more efficient use of corn sugars.
etc
I think the issue is contemplated by the sensitive subject of food supply. A better reasoned analysis of an energy alternative would be to view it more objectively. Ethanol is essentially a means of solar power that incidentally displaces some food production. The effect would be no different if solar panels were being placed on productive land rather than corn used in ethanol. The difference is that ethanol has advantages in storage, transportation, and use because of the existing petroleum based infrastructure. The objective question then, is whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. This question is more complicated than FUD and massive food supply panic. It is conceivable that ethanol can be an important transition to renewable fuel or simply a component in a broader solution. It is obvious that the world could not tolerate using 100% of corn/productive acres for energy output. However, the world has an excess capacity for production of corn. Food shortages have historically been the result of poor utilizat
I would like to see them do the same thing with a non pre-configurated windows (no flash, no video or sound driver etc.) without any software that's not "out of the box". Oh - and it must read files from a Ubuntu partition to be able to burn music (let her figure out how to do this)...
That would make the comparison a bit more fair don't you think? I agree with the other posters in this thread, the standard shouldn't be whether it is as good as Windows. Linux is already at a competitive disadvantage with Windows - AND THATS A GOOD THING. It is an uphill battle and that means Linux doesn't just have to be 1% better than Windows - the goal has to be much higher.
I'm just a little dismayed that a guy sitting his girlfriend down to test Ubuntu is even newsworthy. Instead, its some kind of revelation. This simple article was able to point out some pretty fundamental - show stopping problems. Hopefully the revelation is that someone on Slashdot has a girlfriend rather than the revelation that it might be a good idea to have non-nerds test Ubuntu.
Since there seems to be consensus among scientists that corn based ethanol blows This is overstated - corn ethanol produces a net energy gain (even when the detractors factor in cost of production and transportation, a calculation that is not made on any other form of energy including oil). The comment is correct that there are much better ways of producing ethanol and the corn lobby is distorting production.
on the other hand there seems to be a consensus that thermal solar works well, why not invest in that This is also slightly overstated. There are pros and cons to every energy alternative. Why not emphasize the strengths of each by a hybrid approach? By utilizing ALL alternatives we can make a much bigger dent in fossil fuel usage. High energy prices means the economics of solar became much more attractive.
if the farmers of the midwest want more welfare, we just send them checks, and at least be honest about it? Farm subsidies originated as a way to maintain cheep food. Globalization has kind of made that a moot issue. Now subsidies are a method of control of a voting block for farm state senators.
Even the same price can be both too high and too low if you take geography, culture, topography, and so forth into account. I agree that it is an issue with frame of reference but disagree with what those reference points are. Low food prices are good for the world's consumers but bad for the world's producers. The third world is in a catch 22. If you dump cheap grain on the market, it destroys third world ag. If you raise the price it devastates third world consumers.
They do not compete in acres, but they do compete in markets. If corn prices go up, rice prices go up as people switch to rice. I'll concede this to a point. Fuel prices and increased demand from the developing world are a much bigger component.
What is really going on is that the world's largest countries (by population) suddenly have some extra cash and all resources are being burdened.
According to the article, the approximate area needed to produce ethanol with corn to fuel all U.S. transportation needs is around 820,000 square miles, an area almost the size of the entire Midwest. This is why the debate over energy alternatives is so skewed. I don't think any proponent of ethanol claims its the magic solution to all energy needs. The debate is about how we can use our surplus corn to reduce dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
If there is a better source of ethanol that comes around, then so be it. Corn ethanol has stimulated development of the next generation of technology.
Implicit in the parent's argument is the idea that ethanol competes for food crop acres and thus raises prices. That is correct. However, the sensationalist media and proponents of other energy alternatives neglect several components of the equation. One component is the argument that high food prices is bad for the third world. The argument seems confusing when you discover that these are usually the same people that argue farm subsidies are causing food prices to be too low . Recent Wall Street Journal articles indicate that high crop prices are finally stimulating investment in third world agriculture. Another component is the argument that today's high food prices are because of ethanol. This is also confusing because similar price increases have been witnessed in products that have nothing to do with corn production. Rice for example, has shown the same percentage jump and yet does not compete with corn acres. My last point is that fuel prices are a major cost of corn production. If we eliminated ethanol production today, the increase in fuel prices due to reduced dilution from ethanol would mean that food prices would hardly change (if at all). [Note this is a little too simplistic because eliminating ethanol would distribute increased fuel costs over a market broader than agriculture - the net effect is the same].
I am not arguing that tying energy and food production together can't be dangerous. I am arguing that we haven't reached that point. Further, in a sense, energy and food production have always been tied together.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but I'd expect them to have some interest in the origin and original meaning of the texts they hold to be worthy/good/true. If not, I don't feel anything they say on the subject warrants attention, and they certainly couldn't be considered 'students' in any meaningful sense. The same would go for literature students studying literature which has been twice translated - it's pointless if you have no interest in going back to the originals or at least comparing translations.
Its good to know where your coming from. By that definition, the vast majority of so called "engineers" here are frauds because they didn't get Newtonian mechanics from the original parchment. Economists have no credibility unless they have read the complete Wealth of Nations. Psychologists are posers unless they have read Freud in German. Attorneys - well they have it coming because they have indiscriminately borrowed from French, Roman, Greek, and Catholic law.
Such a restrictive view ignores the fact that human knowledge can be advanced incrementally by others. What is the basis for such distrust? (I could see a Christian making this argument on a theory that emphasizes the fallibility of humanity). Do I have to reinvent the wheel or become a doctor of metallurgy to ride a bike?
To segway into the unrelated theory of relativism
A beautiful mental image. Dean Kamen would be proud.
Good job - whity and insulating at the same time. (have fun).
...On the other hand, the Bible is of suspect origin.
Did my post say anything about fallibility? I thought it was simply pointing out that the original poster was placing an unrealistic burden on those studying a subject. No student of any other discipline, be it English, history, science, etc., is given such the burden of discovering the "origin and original meaning" of EVERY text that is released.
Because their professed belief in the truths revealed in these documents affects their life in dramatic ways, and can affect the life of others around them as well. To then confess a happy ignorance of the origin and original meaning of their religious texts is surprising to say the least.
Really? Do you need to independently verify all science behind nuclear physics to be a nuclear physicist?
In an area that affects everyone's lives to a larger degree - Do you need to have a COMPLETE knowledge of the history of the country/the COMPLETE biography of a candidate/COMPLETE voting record of a candidate/understanding of macroeconomics, to be a good voter?
I'd have thought the religious argument would be that God would correct the errors in translation so its original message still shines through.
I realize "Saint Gerbil" is attempting to be inflammatory. However, a little knowledge/understanding never hurt. I can't speak for other groups, but protestants' view of the creation story is that sin took over with the "original sin." Sin is simply the result of human choice - free will. Thus, the protestant view isn't that God can't make the "perfect translation," its that humans are given free-will and there is minimal interference with that.
Even if it does contradict that last passage, encourage people to kill each other etc.
Show me where to find it, and don't neglect context. However, when you do point out your source, I can promise you I wont be able to convince you otherwise. As a student of Constitutional law I have become acutely aware of the fallible nature of human communication. Truth is measured by 5 votes. There will never be a medium of communication that we/I can't manipulate. Give me "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and some time to research, and I can give you a completely different theory of relativity.
Of course, my new theory might need to navigate around what is scientifically verifiable. But then again, it might not need to even be consistent with science. Most people simply accept science on faith. For example, even though I have an engineering background, I have not independently verified the vast majority of science - I simply believe. I realize science is VERY distinguishable from religion because of its verifiability. However, scientists are very religious in the sense of their uncritical acceptance of belief. Real science is made by heretics - those that challenge dogma. Even scientists blindly believe.
To segway into the unrelated theory of relativism - that doesn't mean there is not absolute truth. It would be self defeating to claim that the only truth is that there is no truth. My statements mean (as much as statements can have any meaning) that we bring our own meanings to all information we recieve. Finally, to tie it all together - my freedom to bring my own meaning to communication - that's free will.
This is about 160 matches!
Yeah, isn't the LA Times article implying that the system is flawed because there are a (seemingly) surprising number of nearmatches? No one doubts that there are matches, or that a search might come up with some close hits - that's what the statistic says. However, the defense attorneys in the article claim that the statistics are flawed because they can find a number of (near) matches in the database. Is this implication like saying the lottery must really be easier to win then claimed if you have met more than one person that has won? Wouldn't a problem arise only if the number of matches occurred more than the quoted statistics would dictate? I don't see this as being the method of attack in this case.
I think the answer is that most lawyers in general lack a conscience, you'd have to to be successful.
Disclaimer: my bar exam is a week from Tuesday.
I've had this conversation with people before, its why I want to stay out of criminal work. I guess the theory is that you throw everything on the table and hope that the opposing attorney is doing their job. That's the adversarial system. The Constitution dictates that the prosecution has to throw a lot more on the table. Ethics rules dictate that the prosecution also has to defeat their own case when they have information that will damage it. The defense attorney just has to do the best he can with the facts he is given.
Its easy to malign both sides of the system. However, neither is an easy task. The prosecution is ethically responsible for both society's interest, and to some extant, the defendant's as well. The defense attorney is responsible for the defendant's interest but, to a broader extent, society's interests as well. Defense attorneys protect even you and me in the sense that those accused of crimes, whether innocent or guilty, set the periphery of our legal protections. Guilty people have been responsible for the liberties you and I enjoy because they challenged the procedure, actions, and level of proof employed by the government. Whether or not an attorney is scum or devoid of conscience, there is an attorney on the other side taking them to task. Sure its an imperfect system, but its the best society can come up with and we muddle through.
This would be true, but not everyone who matches is going to be able to have committed the crime. For example, a lot of the people who are in the Database are in prison. That is a pretty good alibi. Many of the people are going to be so far away geographically from the crime committed that they will be dismissed as suspects after cursory investigation. The odds of a false positive get MUCH smaller require that the false positive sample in CODIS must come from someone who is close enough to the crime scene and lacks a credible alibi.
I was thinking the same thing. It will be rare that a person is prosecuted with no other connecting factors (circumstantial evidence). However, the state is required to prove its case. The defense attorneys here are pointing out that the government is claiming that its evidence is much more reliable then it really is. When life and liberty is on the line, a person is entitled to letting the jury know every potentially exculpating detail.
On the other hand, it may be a moot point. We have become a "DNA culture" of sorts. TV has ingrained the infallibility of DNA in all potential jurors' minds. Quoting the appropriate statistics will only substitute a slightly less big number for a really big number.
Now to display my ignorance. This debate doesn't apply when a crime scene DNA sample is compared with a defendant's sample, right? Isn't CODIS only about narrowing the field?
Referring the psychology at work in the parent-post's story about hiding from the wandering kid, my parents did a similar brilliant thing to delay my brother from getting his driver's license. My dad is a farmer and we live in a farm state. Because it was a small state, the driving age was 14 and kids would generally start as soon as possible. My brother had a way of finding trouble and so my parents didn't like the idea of him driving at 14. My brother hated farm work and so my parents led him to believe that they would force him to get his license when he turned 14 and make him help on the farm. He didn't get a license until much, much later.
As to other people's comments about the parents in this story, parenting is like everything else in this world, it needs balance. I've seen friends/kids rebel because of oppressive parents and I've seen kids destroy their lives because of parents that wanted to be their kids' "friends." One extreme is my mom's friend whose son could do no wrong and no one could tell her otherwise - until he died from drugs. The other extreme is my friend whose marriage is in shambles since he married a woman simply because his mom hated her.
Unfortunately, I do not believe in the slightest that wind energy is going to have a major effect on our dependency on oil. It sounds great for power plants and other things, but it's the automobile sector we really need to worry about.
Wind energy has some problems. The wind doesn't always blow. When the wind IS blowing there is no way to store the energy, it just gets pushed on the grid and may or may not be used. Transmission lines are expensive to build and its proved tough to get power companies to buy an unpredictable source of power.
But what if wind energy could produce fuel? The big problem with hydrogen is that it costs energy to produce. Why not produce hydrogen with "free" wind energy? This would eliminate the problems with energy storage, expensive infrastructure, etc. Further, cars are being produced now that can use hydrogen (CNG cars).
In my home state of South Dakota, we elected a public utilities commissioner on his promise of championing wind power similar to our neighbors in Minnesota and Iowa. However, we can't get hooked up to the grid and we can't get power companies to buy. There's plenty of open land and plenty of wind. Hydrogen generation might be the better solution. I realize that there is going to be the group that says hydrogen generation is a waste of energy and the perfect solution is wind and solar generating electricity which will power electric cars, but battery technology isn't there yet and we need a collection of bridge solutions.
My parents took out a Sears card about 5 years ago to get a deal on carpet and then put the card in the filing cabinet and left it. About 2 months ago they got a bill from Citibank stating that they purchased several thousand dollars of something in Paris. Turns out that Sears sold all their accounts off to Citibank. My father immediately called Citibank and they were absolute jerks. They couldn't understand that my Dad didn't even own a Citibank card (and had never been to Paris). Evidently, someone had gotten the number and activated the old Sears (now Citi) account. After several calls to the VERY rude customer support Dad simply drove to Citibank's fraud prevention unit which isn't very far from their home. Fraud prevention is run out of the Midwest and very helpful but the plain customer service people suck.
Further, Citibank's fraud detection must be absolutely horrible. If this was the same security breach, Citi didn't know about it even in March. Further, one large random charge in a foreign country on a card that hasn't been used in 5 years should raise some warning flags. In stark contrast, about two weeks ago Wells Fargo discovered fraud on my card. Turns out someone had my number and was testing its validity with online purchases. The sad sad sad thing is that the transaction that they found odd was a $1 purchase of a weight lifting dietary supplement. I guess even Wells Fargo knows I'm a geek.
Considering that it was slipped in by a Democrat (Dodd) and the person blowing the whistle is a Republican (Armey) you might want to warn people about not purchasing the equivalent "Obama Is Evil" book.
You know how you can tell the party affiliations on a Slashdot story? If its negative about a Republican the summary almost always mentions it. If its negative about a Democrat they usually just say "Senator" or 'Congressman" with no party affiliation.
Slashdot politics have always puzzled me. But then maybe it has to do with the internal inconsistencies in the American political parties. Slashdotters fear the government - traditionally a Republican ideology. Slashdotters hate the idea of property rights in ideas (even though they howl when the GPL - a copyright licensing scheme - is violated) traditionally a Democratic (?) ideal. Slashdotters hate bureaucracy (TPS reports) - a Republican sentiment. Slashdotters fear organized religion - a Democrat leaning. The list can go on.The parties themselves are inconsistent in the values they uphold. Both the Republicans and Democrats seem selective in the forms of free speech they would protect - Republicans hold up religious and commercial speech (unless the speech was not Judeo-Christian or dealt with pornography or homosexuality) while Democrats would suppress those areas (unless they were not Judeo-Christian or favored cause speech). Republicans prefer smaller government and fear big government (unless they are bringing bacon home or providing national security). Democrats feel that government programs are the solution (unless they give people a choice - i.e. school vouchers - or a chance to rise above their circumstances - a welfare system that doesn't penalize wise financial decisions like savings).
Despite all that inconsistency - somehow I have to agree that there is a very large left leaning bias on Slashdot
My preference is a written (to tie the judiciary to something) constitution, that is counter-majoritarian (to protect individual rights against factions/ i.e. majoritarian abuse). How are individual rights protected by the legislative/majoritarian process? I am unfamiliar with the New Zealand system (though I have visited the beautiful country) and Wikipedia hasn't helped. England has the House of Lords which has served as its quasi-judicial branch (and is now, evidentally, converting to a supreme court system of judicial review). The House of Lords has life time tenure which ensures some degree of impartiality (in theory) - just like the American system. How does the NZ system protect individual rights?
The United States Supreme Court has modified the Common Law with the public concern/public figure doctrines. If the plaintiff is a public figure or the subject is a public concern, a level of fault must be proven and the plaintiff has the burden of proving falsity.
I haven't read the article and I agree that the circumstances sound suspicious but an indefinite jail term (at least in the US) can be used in a criminal contempt situation in order to compel some sort of performance. This remedy is limited (obviously) by the guarantee of due process.
IANAL but IASFTB (studying for the bar)
Perhaps the criminal law should apply harsher penalties to collective business entities, however due process dictates that a jail sentence should never be imposed on a person without some form of culpability. Due process would also mean that your "corporate death penalty" would also not pass constitutional muster. You are imposing a "strict liability" (criminal liability with out any proof of intent to cause harm) and "guilt by association" whereby all assets of a certain type (corporate) are confiscated. Strict liability in criminal penalties can not be extended to this degree consistent with due process.
Further, even if it could it might impact the First Amendment freedom of association. As I hope I have pointed out, limited liability is inapplicable in the criminal context. Criminal liability is the same for any collective business entity. Thus, your death penalty idea would/should be applicable to any collective because they are all treated identically by the criminal law. Taken to the extreme (I realize slippery slope arguments are speculative and far-fetched), mom's quilting club should get the "death-penalty" when one of the members recklessly mows over a pedestrian (involuntary manslaughter) on the way to the meeting (i.e. within the course and scope of the association). Such a policy could have a chilling effect on the freedom of association.
To restate, a sole proprietorship/partnership/corporation all have the same amount of liability for actions imposed. The difference is where the money to satisfy any judgment can come from. With a partnership (remember a business entity with a collection of owners that do not have limited liability is called a partnership), any owner (called a partner) can be required to answer for the entire amount of the partnership's liability.
Your free market argument may have some merit in the sense that the law is creating a property right. However, even a laissez-faire economist would recognize some degree of property right protection/creation by the government.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I am skeptical when reason gives way to emotion.
Not only is Ethanol shortsighted it is exactly the wrong direction for us to take. Ethanol is taken from food sources and results in local, regional and, as it increases in popularity, global increases in food prices as well as predictable food shortages.
This sounds a little extreme. A similar panic was in place during the 70's oil shortages. The fallacy is the assumption that increased use of a item translates into a shortage, this is not true. Increased use translates into a higher price, for sure, but the economics are more complicated. The corollary is just as true; increased price does not necessarily translate into a shortage. A more reasoned analysis is found in today's Wall Street Journal:
As for food prices, it's true that government policies supporting biofuels have created new demand for corn and other grains. This and price controls in some countries have contributed to the food panic. But the price surge has been so rapid and so broad across nearly all commodities that it can't merely be a function of supply glitches or new demand for specific grains.
The Fed's Bender April 28, 2008; Page A18
Besides the inefficiencies of transporting the raw materials, the finished product CANNOT be piped due to the inherent water in the ethanol rusting/corroding the pipes. So, the only means of transportation is truck, train or barge -- fossil fuel transportation systems.
The parent claims that corn should be used completely for food production, isn't the transportation cost relatively constant regardless of the form that corn takes? In other words, food corn can only be transported by truck/train/barge as well. I believe what is really going on in many peoples' minds is something akin to the "peak oil" theory except with corn production. These people believe that using corn in ethanol is displacing food production because we are at peak capacity. The world is not at peak capacity - the third world still grows corn by hand with hoes. In the short term, corn is displacing food production because investment in technology does not happen over night. Further, in the long term, demand for corn will increase.
While I agree that the farm lobby is distorting research and development, many don't realize the efficiencies that are being achieved in corn ethanol.
I think the issue is contemplated by the sensitive subject of food supply. A better reasoned analysis of an energy alternative would be to view it more objectively. Ethanol is essentially a means of solar power that incidentally displaces some food production. The effect would be no different if solar panels were being placed on productive land rather than corn used in ethanol. The difference is that ethanol has advantages in storage, transportation, and use because of the existing petroleum based infrastructure. The objective question then, is whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. This question is more complicated than FUD and massive food supply panic. It is conceivable that ethanol can be an important transition to renewable fuel or simply a component in a broader solution. It is obvious that the world could not tolerate using 100% of corn/productive acres for energy output. However, the world has an excess capacity for production of corn. Food shortages have historically been the result of poor utilizat
I'm just a little dismayed that a guy sitting his girlfriend down to test Ubuntu is even newsworthy. Instead, its some kind of revelation. This simple article was able to point out some pretty fundamental - show stopping problems. Hopefully the revelation is that someone on Slashdot has a girlfriend rather than the revelation that it might be a good idea to have non-nerds test Ubuntu.
They do not compete in acres, but they do compete in markets. If corn prices go up, rice prices go up as people switch to rice. I'll concede this to a point. Fuel prices and increased demand from the developing world are a much bigger component.
What is really going on is that the world's largest countries (by population) suddenly have some extra cash and all resources are being burdened.
If there is a better source of ethanol that comes around, then so be it. Corn ethanol has stimulated development of the next generation of technology.
Implicit in the parent's argument is the idea that ethanol competes for food crop acres and thus raises prices. That is correct. However, the sensationalist media and proponents of other energy alternatives neglect several components of the equation. One component is the argument that high food prices is bad for the third world. The argument seems confusing when you discover that these are usually the same people that argue farm subsidies are causing food prices to be too low . Recent Wall Street Journal articles indicate that high crop prices are finally stimulating investment in third world agriculture. Another component is the argument that today's high food prices are because of ethanol. This is also confusing because similar price increases have been witnessed in products that have nothing to do with corn production. Rice for example, has shown the same percentage jump and yet does not compete with corn acres. My last point is that fuel prices are a major cost of corn production. If we eliminated ethanol production today, the increase in fuel prices due to reduced dilution from ethanol would mean that food prices would hardly change (if at all). [Note this is a little too simplistic because eliminating ethanol would distribute increased fuel costs over a market broader than agriculture - the net effect is the same].
I am not arguing that tying energy and food production together can't be dangerous. I am arguing that we haven't reached that point. Further, in a sense, energy and food production have always been tied together.