You claim there's scientific data supporting male circumcision. It's not as clear-cut (no pun intended) as you make out.
In 1980, after an exhaustive analysis of the extensive "scientific" data supporting circumcision, Edward Wallerstein, in his book, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy, exposed the flawed research and researcher bias of that data.
In 1989, because K.J.S. Anand, M.B.B.S., D.Phil., and P.R. Hickey, M.D., studied babies undergoing circumcision and reported that infants do experience pain (New England Journal of Medicine, November 19, 1987). Their subsequent research indicates that babies undergoing excruciatingly painful procedures are at increased risk of death due to the stress of surgery (NEJM January 2, 1992). In the same journal, Mark C. Rogers, M.D., wrote "One hundred fifty years ago, surgery was performed under brutal conditions. Without benefit of anesthesia, patients endured excruciating pain; indeed, the belief was widespread that they could die from the 'shock' of surgery. With the advent of anesthesia, this primitive and inhumane era passed. Adult patients could expect complete relief of pain during surgical procedures. Unfortunately, infants and children continued to receive inadequate relief of pain or even no treatment for pain during surgical procedures, and this is often still the case..." In the case of unnecessary surgery, the appropriate alternative to anesthesia is not operating.
They started bundling iTunes with Quicktime, thus widening their potential market. They made the iPod USB compatible, thus widening their potential market. They dropped the price way down from $400 thus widening their potential market.
LoudMusic's comment was perfectly valid at the time. Apple reacted.
Many of the complaints about the iPad are equally valid. We'll see what happens to it, but it's not going to ignite the world tomorrow.
It seems to me that one of the reasons journalism science is so bad, is that they believe (rightly or wrongly) that any article which appears to be saying "DARWIN WAS WRONG!" will sell more copies.
The article doesn't say that, obviously, but it at a cursory glance it could be perceived as that.
I have a few problems with this post. 1) It's a dupe. 2) The article it refers to hasn't been published/peer reviewed yet. 3) Finding out we have 350 quadrillion years to go instead of 700 quadrillion years, is utterly meaningless at this point, since estimates that far wide and ranging will doubtless change a LOT in the X million years it will be before it becomes even remotely meaningful to human science.
Our ignorance about super massive black holes, and the number of them in the universe, already set the error bars on any estimate far too wide for it to be meaningful to even talk about it.
I haven't been this non-excited since they moved the estimates of Graham's Number from 6 < N* < N to 11 < N* < N.
There's such a thing as cruel and unusual punishment, even in the torture loving United States of Amerika.
Prison isn't fun. But you still let the prisoners have playing cards, recreational time, access to a gym or exercise yard or television.
They still have to avoid violence from inmates and the occasional guard, a higher than normal chance of being raped/killed, isolation from their family and loved ones... it's a LONG way from being fun. Prison food isn't like the stuff that mother used to make either.
If you don't think prison is a deterrent, you haven't spent any time in there. Either as a resident or a visitor.
What we need to do, is raise the standard of living across ALL levels of society, so that the lowest levels don't see prison as a step above what they're used to.
I've had the "pleasure" of using this for about a year now. It's a terrible interface. It takes an appreciable amount of time for each keypress to be acknowledged by the system. And if you try to type quickly, without waiting for the device to catch up, you'll very soon be touch typing and hoping like hell you haven't made a mistake or run out the memory buffer. And god help you if haven't disabled to the autocorrect feature, which has suggested some truly astonishing word replacements in the last 12 months.
I thought dogs just generally chased, attacked, and ate just about anything i.e. squirrels, rabbits, cars, postal employees, spherical objects, non-spherical objects, dirt, rocks...
Dogs from the pound? Sure. They're borderline mentally defective.
Pure-bred dogs? They're smart. If you've never interacted with one, the first time you do will blow your mind. They can do things that make you think you've stepped into a Disney movie, and any second now, the dog will start talking to you.
Mind you, if it does? You're in a different kind of movie...
And will they make it available to small indie movies too?
There are MANY movies I have wanted to see, but the distribution channels just don't exist.
One recent film festival (Fantastic Fest, Austin 2008 I think) allowed you to stream the movies being showcased at the festival from anywhere in the world. It was great. I saw some excellent documentaries I would never have had the chance to see otherwise.
You and I both know that once anything gets on the internet, it's probably there for life.
But the sort of person who uses twitter, or who uploads naked pics of themselves to myspace, or emails them to the person they are currently dating (in the foolish expectation that it will last for ever)... or even the sort of person who says their boyfriends seed was "yum" (Claire Swires, you are remembered yet)... well, these people don't understand that.
The amount of cases online where average everyday people don't understand the permanence of the internet or how widespread it is, should convince you that the public can have a reasonable expectation of privacy, without that expectation being in any way realistic.
The Claire Swires example is actually a good one. Because the first weak link the chain was one of his friends who felt "honour bound" to pass it on. These were people who used computers and email every day in work, and they still seemed to have no idea of the potential long-term damage that clicking "FORWARD" can do.
Would you or I threaten the President of the USA on twitter? Of course not. Even if the twitter account was marked "private" and had no followers, we're just not that stupid. But you and I do not represent the average user.
You know, I'd never suggest such a thing obviously. But it would make an interesting social experiment (gedanken experiment, if you will) to place a fake bomb threat and see for yourself that nothing happens because the threat is not credible.
There is a cost/benefit for these sorts of actions. Closing down the aiport, etc.. is millions of lost pounds, so you *don't* take that action unless you're sure the threat is serious. Hassling an innocent man because you can, and it will make it look as though the police are on the case tracking down every single threat no matter how small or retarded... well, that's cheap. And easy. So hey, let's do that a lot.
but threatening to blow up an airport is just stupid.
Suppose I wrote the same sentences in my diary. Would that constitute making a bomb threat? Bear in mind, I've told no-one at the airport that I'd intend to blow it up.
Suppose my diary is not under lock and key, but is open to a few friends and family. Again, I've made no communication to the airport or anyone associated with it. Does this constitute me making a threat to them?
His twitter post was made in the reasonable expectation that it would never be seen by anyone related to the airport. It is therefore reasonable to assume it wasn't a bomb threat. If he had sent a letter to the airport, even anonymously, the reverse would be true.
The IRA gave coded telephone warnings a few minutes in advance. This was NOT to allow civilians time to escape, or reduce the number of civilian casualties.
It was to verify that the IRA were the ones responsible for the attack, because after an attack there was usually a RUSH of extremist groups stepping forward to claim responsibility. The IRA wanted to make sure they got appropriate "credit" for the attack.
The fact that it's profitable does not automatically sidestep any ethical considerations. Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.
But a better analogy would be chaining robots to the floor and making them work 24/7. Luddites might complain, and the people who lose their jobs, but the robots won't.
He took the elevator to the top floor. The guy greeted him and offered him lines of coke as thick as your finger, on a mirror. Then he ordered some hookers. And then it was time for business.
I think you'll find that the *top* floor is like this in a lot of companies, not just members of the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
You claim there's scientific data supporting male circumcision.
It's not as clear-cut (no pun intended) as you make out.
In 1980, after an exhaustive analysis of the extensive "scientific" data supporting circumcision, Edward Wallerstein, in his book, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy, exposed the flawed research and researcher bias of that data.
In 1989, because K.J.S. Anand, M.B.B.S., D.Phil., and P.R. Hickey, M.D., studied babies undergoing circumcision and reported that infants do experience pain (New England Journal of Medicine, November 19, 1987). Their subsequent research indicates that babies undergoing excruciatingly painful procedures are at increased risk of death due to the stress of surgery (NEJM January 2, 1992). In the same journal, Mark C. Rogers, M.D.,
wrote "One hundred fifty years ago, surgery was performed under brutal conditions. Without benefit of anesthesia, patients endured excruciating pain; indeed, the belief was widespread that they could die from the 'shock' of surgery. With the advent of anesthesia, this primitive and inhumane era passed. Adult patients could expect complete relief of pain during surgical procedures. Unfortunately, infants and children continued to receive inadequate relief of pain or even no treatment for pain during surgical procedures, and this is often still the case..." In the case of unnecessary surgery, the appropriate alternative to anesthesia is not operating.
Fortunately, studies have also shown that if you are aware of the "Bystander Effect" you are less likely to be influenced by it.
Thus, if we want to eliminate it from society, we merely have to educate ourselves about it.
We're closing up shop.
You'll close up shop when China TELLS YOU you can close up shop.
And not a minute before.
They started bundling iTunes with Quicktime, thus widening their potential market.
They made the iPod USB compatible, thus widening their potential market.
They dropped the price way down from $400 thus widening their potential market.
LoudMusic's comment was perfectly valid at the time. Apple reacted.
Many of the complaints about the iPad are equally valid. We'll see what happens to it, but it's not going to ignite the world tomorrow.
Interesting... a cartoon character rises to the level of person now. Whoever knew.. I suppose it is the next logical step.
Well, corporations already have the status of persons.
Who's up for voting-rights for corporations and cartoon characters?
I thought the point of harsh laws against child pornography were meant to prevent the exploitation of children.
I wonder what gave you a crazy idea like that.
Tell me, do you also believe that the drug laws are there to protect the health of the citizens?
Raytheon Polar Services is almost always hiring for positions at the US South Pole research facilities.
Yeah. Lots of testers for their pain boxes, wasn't it? :)
Even if we weren't all in a recession right now, demand for positions in Antarctica is always surprisingly high.
Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.
Wrong. With the recent trend in Product Placement advertising, EVERYONE in advertising would care if 500,000,000 people were watching a show.
(How the hell you got modded +5 for knowing nothing about the industry... well, that's slashdot for you.)
It seems to me that one of the reasons journalism science is so bad, is that they believe (rightly or wrongly) that any article which appears to be saying "DARWIN WAS WRONG!" will sell more copies.
The article doesn't say that, obviously, but it at a cursory glance it could be perceived as that.
I have a few problems with this post.
1) It's a dupe.
2) The article it refers to hasn't been published/peer reviewed yet.
3) Finding out we have 350 quadrillion years to go instead of 700 quadrillion years, is utterly meaningless at this point, since estimates that far wide and ranging will doubtless change a LOT in the X million years it will be before it becomes even remotely meaningful to human science.
Our ignorance about super massive black holes, and the number of them in the universe, already set the error bars on any estimate far too wide for it to be meaningful to even talk about it.
I haven't been this non-excited since they moved the estimates of Graham's Number from 6 < N* < N to 11 < N* < N.
There's such a thing as cruel and unusual punishment, even in the torture loving United States of Amerika.
Prison isn't fun. But you still let the prisoners have playing cards, recreational time, access to a gym or exercise yard or television.
They still have to avoid violence from inmates and the occasional guard, a higher than normal chance of being raped/killed, isolation from their family and loved ones... it's a LONG way from being fun. Prison food isn't like the stuff that mother used to make either.
If you don't think prison is a deterrent, you haven't spent any time in there. Either as a resident or a visitor.
What we need to do, is raise the standard of living across ALL levels of society, so that the lowest levels don't see prison as a step above what they're used to.
What if they played any other sort of RPG?
Or is the law so nutty that they'll ban boardgames like Clue because it features a murder? Or Colditz, because it features escaping from a prison?
I've had the "pleasure" of using this for about a year now. It's a terrible interface.
It takes an appreciable amount of time for each keypress to be acknowledged by the system.
And if you try to type quickly, without waiting for the device to catch up, you'll very soon be touch typing and hoping like hell you haven't made a mistake or run out the memory buffer.
And god help you if haven't disabled to the autocorrect feature, which has suggested some truly astonishing word replacements in the last 12 months.
I thought dogs just generally chased, attacked, and ate just about anything i.e. squirrels, rabbits, cars, postal employees, spherical objects, non-spherical objects, dirt, rocks...
Dogs from the pound? Sure. They're borderline mentally defective.
Pure-bred dogs? They're smart. If you've never interacted with one, the first time you do will blow your mind.
They can do things that make you think you've stepped into a Disney movie, and any second now, the dog will start talking to you.
Mind you, if it does? You're in a different kind of movie...
Now its ...Paris Hilton. So anyone can get in.
Yes, but you'll be inundated with viruses. Really potent ones that can get past most protection mechanisms.
Still, this is slashdot... and she is female... so herpes me up.
And will they make it available to small indie movies too?
There are MANY movies I have wanted to see, but the distribution channels just don't exist.
One recent film festival (Fantastic Fest, Austin 2008 I think) allowed you to stream the movies being showcased at the festival from anywhere in the world. It was great. I saw some excellent documentaries I would never have had the chance to see otherwise.
(Like the very disturbing "I think we're alone now" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152828/ )
Because the law doesn't say copyrights are eternal. Therefore you cannot milk something indefinitely.
You and I both know that once anything gets on the internet, it's probably there for life.
But the sort of person who uses twitter, or who uploads naked pics of themselves to myspace, or emails them to the person they are currently dating (in the foolish expectation that it will last for ever)... or even the sort of person who says their boyfriends seed was "yum" (Claire Swires, you are remembered yet)... well, these people don't understand that.
The amount of cases online where average everyday people don't understand the permanence of the internet or how widespread it is, should convince you that the public can have a reasonable expectation of privacy, without that expectation being in any way realistic.
The Claire Swires example is actually a good one. Because the first weak link the chain was one of his friends who felt "honour bound" to pass it on. These were people who used computers and email every day in work, and they still seemed to have no idea of the potential long-term damage that clicking "FORWARD" can do.
Would you or I threaten the President of the USA on twitter? Of course not. Even if the twitter account was marked "private" and had no followers, we're just not that stupid. But you and I do not represent the average user.
You know, I'd never suggest such a thing obviously. But it would make an interesting social experiment (gedanken experiment, if you will) to place a fake bomb threat and see for yourself that nothing happens because the threat is not credible.
There is a cost/benefit for these sorts of actions. Closing down the aiport, etc.. is millions of lost pounds, so you *don't* take that action unless you're sure the threat is serious. Hassling an innocent man because you can, and it will make it look as though the police are on the case tracking down every single threat no matter how small or retarded... well, that's cheap. And easy. So hey, let's do that a lot.
but threatening to blow up an airport is just stupid.
Suppose I wrote the same sentences in my diary. Would that constitute making a bomb threat? Bear in mind, I've told no-one at the airport that I'd intend to blow it up.
Suppose my diary is not under lock and key, but is open to a few friends and family. Again, I've made no communication to the airport or anyone associated with it. Does this constitute me making a threat to them?
His twitter post was made in the reasonable expectation that it would never be seen by anyone related to the airport. It is therefore reasonable to assume it wasn't a bomb threat. If he had sent a letter to the airport, even anonymously, the reverse would be true.
The IRA gave coded telephone warnings a few minutes in advance.
This was NOT to allow civilians time to escape, or reduce the number of civilian casualties.
It was to verify that the IRA were the ones responsible for the attack, because after an attack there was usually a RUSH of extremist groups stepping forward to claim responsibility. The IRA wanted to make sure they got appropriate "credit" for the attack.
The fact that it's profitable does not automatically sidestep any ethical considerations. Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.
But a better analogy would be chaining robots to the floor and making them work 24/7.
Luddites might complain, and the people who lose their jobs, but the robots won't.
before the concept of their 3d image as protected property comes into play.
Forget Sean Connery. Imagine a young Angelina Jolie and a young Megan Fox in a hardcore remake of ... well, pick the movie yourselves...
He took the elevator to the top floor. The guy greeted him and offered him lines of coke as thick as your finger, on a mirror.
Then he ordered some hookers. And then it was time for business.
I think you'll find that the *top* floor is like this in a lot of companies, not just members of the RIAA.