And if the data is sound, this law would open the EPA to decades of delays for every new rule as someone challenges every piece of data.
I agree it should be based on good science. I never said otherwise. I just think moving the bar too high will end up having harm come to people while waiting for the courts to decide whether each and every new rule meets the standards, harming people and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars.
Why do you want to waste taxpayer money, and move the power to the courts?
Nope, but doublespeak and byperbole mix with lawsuits just fine. Seems you are just agreeing with me in the most disagreeable way possible. Wow 2 accusations of liberal and 2 of conservative in one day. Seems like neither side wishes to think, they both just want to throw insults and stick their heads in the sand.
Have you not seen the stupid lawsuits against the EPA? And you can't conceive of a single polluter who might find it advantageous to delay introductions of new rules?
Nope. I've actually participated in a medical study. My SSN and DOB were collected, and considered "data" for the purposes of the study. That HIPAA and EPA rules would contradict each other is a great thing for the polluters. Lock everything up in court for decades. That's why this is a bad law that should be vetoed. Write a more narrow one that specifies "anonymized" data, if that's what they mean. That's not what they said.
We disagree about "data". Go look at the hubbub about global warming data. The Data wasn't just the location and temperature, but the email history of the person that collected it, as if that changes the location or temperature recorded.
If they meant the anonymized aggegate data, why wouldn't they say so? If they meant the studies used must be publicly available, why didn't they say so? They didn't specify "data" so "raw" isn't an absurd reading of the type of data required, and that would include my SSN and DOB, as they were collected as part of the "data" when I did medical experiments. And they were labeled as such by the experimenters. That you don't know what an experiment looks like doesn't change legal definitions.
It's not about whether they should matter. But if they are scrubbed from the raw data for the aggregate, then I'd exepct you to sue when you are dumping raw sewage down main street because if they scrubbed my SSN and DOB from the data, what else did they scrub from it? How do you know, if you can't see the data. 10 years later, you may lose in court, but you've wasted tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and delayed enforcement of that rule for 10 years, so it's a win.
The language of the bill is very clear. It is intended to do what it says: make sure our regulatory bodies (employees of The People) are making their decisions based on publicly available, sound science.
You have more faith in government than I do. I read the bill as regulating a regulator to make it more expensive and harder to do anything. Why do you want the most expensive government possible? That's what you are defending and advocating.
http://news.sciencemag.org/env... "The bills, introduced by a mostly Republican cast of sponsors in both the House and the Senate, would require that EPA use only publicly available, reproducible data in writing regulations and seek to remake the membership and procedures of the agency’s science advisory panels."
No, I haven't read the bill. Are you calling TFA a liar? Because at this point, it's you or it. TFA is clear. "[The Bil] Would requite that the EPA only use [...] reproducible data."
I've read some excerpts, but haven't had time to read the whole thing yet. Probably not until the weekend.
The bill requires it be "reproducible" but doesn't define that term, so at least one court case will be necessary to define it.
All the court cases will be by polluters, wishing to continue their polluting ways, claiming that it's a matter of "freedom" to poison your air and water.
what exactly is the problem with requiring that that evidence be available to the public
Nothing's wrong with that.
That's what these bills require.
Nope. I've participated in medical studies (when I was in college, it was easy money). To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.
The bill doesn't require "the evidence" be available to the public (that'd be the completed study). The law requires the raw data be published by the EPA.
It also requires the data be "reproducible". All you have to do with a study with 95% confidence is to it 20 times, and then take the 1 failure to court and show the 1 success to be wrong and unreproducible. It may fail in court, but would cost the taxpayer millions, and delay the introduction of rules by years, or decades.
The obvious point of the law is to add hurdles, while claiming (non existent) benefits.
No, that's what he does want, but a law that requires the data be "reproducible" would allow every rule be challenged in court for years. Scientific consensus wouldn't matter if a single "scientist" could challenge the reproducibility. Of course, the lone scientist would be backed by billions from polluters who object to clean water and air.
I was in CA 30 years ago, and more recently. The air quality change was huge. And none of the rules used were science-based. They worked, and worked well. Spending 20 years on each rule, tied up in court, would have killed millions before implementation.
Or unleaded gas. Greatly cut the crime rate, but wasn't backed by science. Lead is bad, so let's ban it. We aren't sure all the problems that level of lead is causing, but it's bad, because we don't like it. But then, long after the ban, we see lead was worse than we thought. But the science followed the rules, by decades. And the rules were right. And if they were wrong, the cost was small.
Sometimes it's better to do the right thing based on the best information you have at the time, than delay the right thing for decades so you can prove it in court against people with a financial interest to get the rules reversed.
The obvious target is to tie up all EPA regulations until courts have confirmed the reproducibility of the data used to base the decision on. It will fall to the EPA to prove their data is reproducible by someone who wishes to not reproduce it. Everything else would be illegal.
Windows doesn't use swap files well. In Win, since XP, I've just turned off swap. Works much better then, just need to have lots of RAM. Other OSs, I leave it on.
And we wouldn't have caused WWII if we hadn't insisted on such punitive reparations after WWI, and had backed the League of Nations. But nope, that would have been too rational, so we had WWII to remind us that if we aren't reasonable, we'll forever repeat history.
I'll never be without one again, even if it's just a tiny one for Cache, or the minimum size for an OS/Swap/boot partition. Just that little bit makes a massive difference, and makes almost all the difference. The cost isn't that high.
When I've served, nobody tried to get out of it, once they were selected and showed up on the day. Multiple people lied to get on the jury. Ended up hung with people wanting vengeance, and people who hated government. The facts don't matter, just personal agenda.
And time shifting doesn't use just one. Time shifting monetized (when done by a company) is almost always not fair use. Tivo is the only one that survived legal challenges.
But it meets more than just one criteria. It's non-commercial. The problem with fan fiction, someone can claim that it hurts the protected work, even if not monetarily benefiting the infringing work.
I do agree it's complicated, and often difficult to predict, but fan fiction has generally been allowed (whether by the rights holders, or the courts), so I don't think they'd have nearly as much to fear as people here assert.
If you sniff someone's password, if they re-use it places, you could track them down online and try email or bank accounts with that password. If you don't re-use passwords, the worst they could do is delete your card.
Fair Use is also the sum of the parts of the defense. It's parody (kinda), non-commercial, uses the character names and ideas, but doesn't copy the creative details of the original. Any one alone wouldn't be fair use, but possibly all of them together is. Making every unrelated claim at the same time diminishes your case in a criminal trial, but is acceptable (and preferred) when claiming Fair Use.
I never said any such thing. And I'm constantly told here that people who buy Apple pay more to get less, so it's obviously common (if Slashdot A/Cs are to be believed).
I'm simply saying that spreading the weath amongst the poor benefits the economy much more than giving the same wealth to the privileged few.
Slashdot Mirror
And if the data is sound, this law would open the EPA to decades of delays for every new rule as someone challenges every piece of data.
I agree it should be based on good science. I never said otherwise. I just think moving the bar too high will end up having harm come to people while waiting for the courts to decide whether each and every new rule meets the standards, harming people and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars.
Why do you want to waste taxpayer money, and move the power to the courts?
Nope, but doublespeak and byperbole mix with lawsuits just fine. Seems you are just agreeing with me in the most disagreeable way possible. Wow 2 accusations of liberal and 2 of conservative in one day. Seems like neither side wishes to think, they both just want to throw insults and stick their heads in the sand.
Have you not seen the stupid lawsuits against the EPA? And you can't conceive of a single polluter who might find it advantageous to delay introductions of new rules?
Nope. I've actually participated in a medical study. My SSN and DOB were collected, and considered "data" for the purposes of the study. That HIPAA and EPA rules would contradict each other is a great thing for the polluters. Lock everything up in court for decades. That's why this is a bad law that should be vetoed. Write a more narrow one that specifies "anonymized" data, if that's what they mean. That's not what they said.
We disagree about "data". Go look at the hubbub about global warming data. The Data wasn't just the location and temperature, but the email history of the person that collected it, as if that changes the location or temperature recorded.
If they meant the anonymized aggegate data, why wouldn't they say so? If they meant the studies used must be publicly available, why didn't they say so? They didn't specify "data" so "raw" isn't an absurd reading of the type of data required, and that would include my SSN and DOB, as they were collected as part of the "data" when I did medical experiments. And they were labeled as such by the experimenters. That you don't know what an experiment looks like doesn't change legal definitions.
It's not about whether they should matter. But if they are scrubbed from the raw data for the aggregate, then I'd exepct you to sue when you are dumping raw sewage down main street because if they scrubbed my SSN and DOB from the data, what else did they scrub from it? How do you know, if you can't see the data. 10 years later, you may lose in court, but you've wasted tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and delayed enforcement of that rule for 10 years, so it's a win.
Science is never 100%. With that standard, the world couldn't function.
The language of the bill is very clear. It is intended to do what it says: make sure our regulatory bodies (employees of The People) are making their decisions based on publicly available, sound science.
You have more faith in government than I do. I read the bill as regulating a regulator to make it more expensive and harder to do anything. Why do you want the most expensive government possible? That's what you are defending and advocating.
http://news.sciencemag.org/env...
"The bills, introduced by a mostly Republican cast of sponsors in both the House and the Senate, would require that EPA use only publicly available, reproducible data in writing regulations and seek to remake the membership and procedures of the agency’s science advisory panels."
No, I haven't read the bill. Are you calling TFA a liar? Because at this point, it's you or it. TFA is clear. "[The Bil] Would requite that the EPA only use [...] reproducible data."
First you claim that the EPA will have to reproduce the data or it will be illegal, and now this.
Liar.
I've read some excerpts, but haven't had time to read the whole thing yet. Probably not until the weekend.
The bill requires it be "reproducible" but doesn't define that term, so at least one court case will be necessary to define it.
All the court cases will be by polluters, wishing to continue their polluting ways, claiming that it's a matter of "freedom" to poison your air and water.
what exactly is the problem with requiring that that evidence be available to the public
Nothing's wrong with that.
That's what these bills require.
Nope. I've participated in medical studies (when I was in college, it was easy money). To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.
The bill doesn't require "the evidence" be available to the public (that'd be the completed study). The law requires the raw data be published by the EPA.
It also requires the data be "reproducible". All you have to do with a study with 95% confidence is to it 20 times, and then take the 1 failure to court and show the 1 success to be wrong and unreproducible. It may fail in court, but would cost the taxpayer millions, and delay the introduction of rules by years, or decades.
The obvious point of the law is to add hurdles, while claiming (non existent) benefits.
No, that's what he does want, but a law that requires the data be "reproducible" would allow every rule be challenged in court for years. Scientific consensus wouldn't matter if a single "scientist" could challenge the reproducibility. Of course, the lone scientist would be backed by billions from polluters who object to clean water and air.
I was in CA 30 years ago, and more recently. The air quality change was huge. And none of the rules used were science-based. They worked, and worked well. Spending 20 years on each rule, tied up in court, would have killed millions before implementation.
Or unleaded gas. Greatly cut the crime rate, but wasn't backed by science. Lead is bad, so let's ban it. We aren't sure all the problems that level of lead is causing, but it's bad, because we don't like it. But then, long after the ban, we see lead was worse than we thought. But the science followed the rules, by decades. And the rules were right. And if they were wrong, the cost was small.
Sometimes it's better to do the right thing based on the best information you have at the time, than delay the right thing for decades so you can prove it in court against people with a financial interest to get the rules reversed.
The obvious target is to tie up all EPA regulations until courts have confirmed the reproducibility of the data used to base the decision on. It will fall to the EPA to prove their data is reproducible by someone who wishes to not reproduce it. Everything else would be illegal.
Windows doesn't use swap files well. In Win, since XP, I've just turned off swap. Works much better then, just need to have lots of RAM. Other OSs, I leave it on.
And we wouldn't have caused WWII if we hadn't insisted on such punitive reparations after WWI, and had backed the League of Nations. But nope, that would have been too rational, so we had WWII to remind us that if we aren't reasonable, we'll forever repeat history.
Shit, you survive here as an outspoken conservative on what could be accurately described as a liberal forum...
Sounds like you are addressing that to me, but it doesn't apply to me at all.
I'll never be without one again, even if it's just a tiny one for Cache, or the minimum size for an OS/Swap/boot partition. Just that little bit makes a massive difference, and makes almost all the difference. The cost isn't that high.
When I've served, nobody tried to get out of it, once they were selected and showed up on the day. Multiple people lied to get on the jury. Ended up hung with people wanting vengeance, and people who hated government. The facts don't matter, just personal agenda.
Its kind of hard to paint the opposite side as bad or terrible when there is no absolutely zero record of what she actually did...
So the reports that she hired terrorists to kill an ambassador at Benghazi aren't substantiated by her record? All the conservatives lied to me.
Basically, she was required by law to archive her communications on federal servers. She did not.
She did, just not in a timely manner, and not in a way that can guarantee 100% coverage.
And time shifting doesn't use just one. Time shifting monetized (when done by a company) is almost always not fair use. Tivo is the only one that survived legal challenges.
But it meets more than just one criteria. It's non-commercial. The problem with fan fiction, someone can claim that it hurts the protected work, even if not monetarily benefiting the infringing work.
I do agree it's complicated, and often difficult to predict, but fan fiction has generally been allowed (whether by the rights holders, or the courts), so I don't think they'd have nearly as much to fear as people here assert.
If you sniff someone's password, if they re-use it places, you could track them down online and try email or bank accounts with that password. If you don't re-use passwords, the worst they could do is delete your card.
Which trademark was used? Just the fact the title was "power rangers"?
Fair Use is also the sum of the parts of the defense. It's parody (kinda), non-commercial, uses the character names and ideas, but doesn't copy the creative details of the original. Any one alone wouldn't be fair use, but possibly all of them together is. Making every unrelated claim at the same time diminishes your case in a criminal trial, but is acceptable (and preferred) when claiming Fair Use.
I never said any such thing. And I'm constantly told here that people who buy Apple pay more to get less, so it's obviously common (if Slashdot A/Cs are to be believed).
I'm simply saying that spreading the weath amongst the poor benefits the economy much more than giving the same wealth to the privileged few.