I totally agree. In fact, there's a very large problem in the other direction--an awful lot of people don't see how software/music/video, which is readily duplicated and lacking in physical substance, has a significant monetary value at all.
We handled it excellently? What, by being the second to last country in the Americas and Europe to outlaw it? (Third if you want to count the Ottoman Empire...). If you beat your kid for years, do we say you "handled it excellently" when you finally stop?
The Japanese banned slavering in the 1500's, long before most of Europe. Cyrus the Great of Persia banned it in the Persian Empire (which constituted much of the "civilized people" at the time). Abolition was hardly invented by white Europeans. And much like you shouldn't be saddled with the blame for slavery, you really don't get any credit for your ancestors' roles (if any) in ending slavery, so don't go looking for thanks.
Apparently although "slavery was part of the general human condition from the dawn of time", you have researched the slave owning habits of your ancestors back to the dawn of time and realized that not one person ever owned a slave. That's mighty impressive work. Let me be the first to compliment you on your genealogical research skills.
What are they getting sick with? The only relevant illnesses are the things they were vaccinated again. I find it highly unlikely you have lots of vaccinated buddies who have come down with, say, polio. You gain immunities to these diseases one way: by being exposed to them. You can be exposed to them in the form of a vaccine, or in the form of actually contracting the diseases. To my knowledge there's no evidence of "natural immunity" to polio, measles, mumps, pertussis, chicken pox, small pox, etc.
Many of these things were once common diseases. There were major polio epidemics as recently as 1952. There aren't anymore. In fact there hasn't been a case in the Americas 15 years or so. That's not because everybody is immune. In fact, a few percent of those who receive the vaccine won't develop effective immunity. In the U.S. alone that means there are thousands of people who would be susceptible to the disease if they were exposed, despite having been vaccinated. Rather it is because once you reach a high percentage of immunity in the population, you get what's called "herd immunity", which means that the pathogen essentially dies out for lack of enough hosts to propagate it. You're getting a free ride on the herd immunity developed by people who took the small risk of being vaccinated themselves. If enough people decided to take the free ride, the herd immunity would collapse.
If it was only you that this freeloading put at risk that'd be fine, but you're also endangering that small percentage of vaccinated people who were not effectively immunized, or the innocent children unfortunate enough to be born to parents who refuse to get them vaccinated.
The one I signed with my employer (in California, incidentally) basically says it is assumed that anything I patent for six months after the end of my employment is derived from work done there and owned by them, unless I can prove otherwise. I actually don't think that's horribly unreasonable, especially given my particular line of work, in which in any invention is going to leave a substantial amount of evidence behind.
As I see it, Canada is nothing but a very, very wide, above water, ridge, running North from the United States. By the same logic, Canada, the North Pole, AND Russia should all belong to the U.S.
My computer just finds a network and, if it's open, connects me. There's no active choice involved.
Regardless, if they cared, they should require a login.
If have something I consider valuable, say a big pile of gold jewelry. And I decide that where I'd like to keep it is scattered all over my block. On the sidewalk, in the street, I even toss a little into my neighbors houses. If I find my neighbor wearing my jewelry, do I really have a right to complain?
Funny, I went into industry after a decade in academia, specifically because it seemed more free. At least in the field I'm in, working in academia meant spending at least half your time grubbing for money--the end result being that while you are techincally free to do what you want, you wind up with so many strings attached that you're basically doing what the granting organizations think is important. (Don't get me wrong, I loved lots of things about academia).
I'm fortunate in that I have an unusual amount of liberty in my industry job. But I do disagree with the idea that you have to make money to do what you want. If I was independently wealthy, I'd be doing what I'm doing now. I'd probably keep slightly more irregular hours, and there are some phone calls I'd ignore. I never set out to make any money beyond what it took to live (it took me 5 years to crack $25,000) and yet now I'm doing exactly what I want, and make six figures. I'm not in a field that pays well...I just happen to have acquired a very specific skill set and am (I think) quite good at what I do. But I'd still be doing essentially the same thing even if I was still making $25,000.
The big problems with the bees right now are varroa and tracheal mites, both introduced pests. There are other, newer issues, but they're still minor by comparison.
Autism may not have a "provable genetic origin" but it clearly has a very strong genetic component. Yes, it's currently unknown exactly what that genetic component is, but it's very obviously there, much more so than any proposed environmental factor.
You have one big bit of leverage at your disposal here: you. You obviously have some skill set they want, and, most likely, not too many people have it (I'm guessing they weren't paying for your relocation so you could flip burgers). They wanted it bad enough to pay you a salary and pay some significant amount in relocation expenses. They'll probably want it bad enough to pay that plus a bit more. Even if this is a contract, and you're now stuck with each other if that's really how they want it, do they really think they'll get your best work as things stand? Or that you'd be interest in renewing a contract with a company like that? Too many people view employment as a one way deal. Employers need you just as much you need them.
The U.S. Congress, under Republican leadership but with an unfortunate amount of cooperation from Democrats, has in recent years routinely voted to basically cede away it's own constitutionally granted powers to the executive.
I thought of this too. I know lots and lots of people in IT (most of my friends from high school and their friends, plus I flirted with a career in it myself and made a lot of contacts). I also know lots and lots of people in biological research fields (this is where I work now). The hours are at least as long and unpredictable in my field as they are for my friends in IT, but I have to say that the relationships are much healthier by comparison. Why? Hard to say for sure, but one big difference I've noticed is that by comparison the IT people have, on average, worse interpersonal skills. And as far as I can tell, always did, even before they entered that field. It's hardly universal, of course, and I know exceptions on either side, but in general the pattern's pretty clear.
Oh, so you have to kill Americans to count as terrorists? Those silly Peruvians.
One could make the same the same claim about "lip service" about most of the "right to life" movement. They may say they don't support bombings and killing doctors, but I don't see them out protesting it. Where were the wild pro-life celebrations in the street when Eric Rudolph was captured? Come on.
There were large protests against al-Qaeda and in support of the U.S. throughout the muslim world and among the American Muslim community after 9/11. Persistent demonization of Muslims by the American right and the invasion of an Islamic country by the U.S. have dampened that enthusiasm, but the vast majority are still more pro-U.S. than pro al-Qaeda.
Have you ever even had a conversation with an actual Muslim? The Muslims I know routinely complain of the damage al-Qaeda has done to the perception of their faith, though many do it privately among friends, rather than in a public setting, because frankly being vocally Muslim in this country, regardless of the sentiment expressed, isn't that smart at the moment.
As for the Army of God, Eric Rudolph attacked random civilians in the general populace in the Olympic Park bombing.
So basically what you're saying is if you select a bunch of terrorist acts by Muslims, it turns out that they were all done by Muslims! Shocker! It's amazing how the numbers just work out the way you want when you selectively ignore data.
Try telling a Peruvian that all terrorists are Muslim. The Shining Path killed nearly ten times as many people as al-Qaeda.
And I get so sick of the right wing in this country complaining that Muslims don't condemn terrorism. If you don't hear it, then you're not listening for it. Every mainstream Muslim organization has vehemently condemned all of the acts of terrorism you have mentioned above. Al-Qaeda even succeeded in alienating a good portion of the Taliban because of its terrorist acts, which is saying something. These acts are committed by a tiny, tiny radical splinter of the Islamic community...just like the Army of God types are in the Christian community.
The IRA, at least when it was active, numbered roughly 5,000 active members. That's at least five times the number of active members of al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11. That also ignores a half dozen or so smaller Irish terrorist groups like the Real IRA, the Continuity Army Council, and the Irish National Liberation Army, as well as Loyalist groups like the Loyalist Militia, the Orange Volunteers, and the LVF.
While we're on the Christian terrorists, one might also like to note the Ku Klux Klan, which although rarely referred to as such absolutely fits the profile of a terrorist organization. The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda (10,000+ dead), the Freedomites of Canada, and the Army of God movement in the U.S. are all terrorist organizations composed of Christians.
There are also Jewish (Gush Emunim, Jewish Defense League), Hindu (Shiv Sena, RSS, etc.), and Sikh (about a zillion factions, responsible for as many as 100,000 deaths between them) religious terrorist organizations. Also Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, whatever the heck religion that was.
Add the nationalist groups like the Tamil Tigers, ETA, Kurdistan Workers Party, etc. and the Marxist/Communists such as the Shining Path in Peru, Japanese Red Army, etc.
The Shining Path alone numbered more than 10,000 at its peak and caused roughly 45,000 deaths, both of which are numbers which dwarf any Islamist group.
Islamic groups are currently those most focused on targeting air travel (in part because, when all is said and done, it's not the easiest or most effective form of terrorism) but that doesn't mean that any of these other organizations couldn't or wouldn't use these tactics.
A little disclaimer: I know some people are going to try to claim that some of these aren't terrorist organizations. All of these have been classified as terrorist at some point in the mainstream press, beyond that I won't try to defend the idea one way or the other. Who counts as a terrorist depends on your point of view. Some Muslims do not consider al Qaeda a terrorist organization. One person's Terrorist is another person's Freedom Fighter or Holy Warrior or Patriot.
Some of these groups are defunct or much reduced in strength...but rest assured that for each of them there are a half dozen growing movements that though they haven't even acheived international visibility are chock-full of violent, scary people that would love to make a big splash and make a name for themselves and their organizations.
Well, just looking solely at the numbers of astronauts ony tells us that the U.S. has larger crews, which we already knew, too. If we want to go with a strict definition of spaceflight fatalies, and exclude Apollo 1 on the grounds that the accident didn't occur during an actual launch or mission, then the Soviets and Americans are tied, with Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 on the Soviet side, and Challenger and Columbia on the American side. That would probably be a better reflection of the safety of the vehicle. I think the numbers of launches are pretty comparable, although I could be wrong.
Okay, I guess you're right on that...they hypothesis when I original read about it (and in much of the existing literature) is that this was a Mars mission, however it does seem to have turned out to be an ICBM. Although at that stage, I really think it's difficult to draw a real line between the space and missile programs, particularly considering it was a prototype, it might well have been utilized in either capacity eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree. In fact, there's a very large problem in the other direction--an awful lot of people don't see how software/music/video, which is readily duplicated and lacking in physical substance, has a significant monetary value at all.
Well, you'll notice that I didn't. I used polio.
We handled it excellently? What, by being the second to last country in the Americas and Europe to outlaw it? (Third if you want to count the Ottoman Empire...). If you beat your kid for years, do we say you "handled it excellently" when you finally stop?
The Japanese banned slavering in the 1500's, long before most of Europe. Cyrus the Great of Persia banned it in the Persian Empire (which constituted much of the "civilized people" at the time). Abolition was hardly invented by white Europeans. And much like you shouldn't be saddled with the blame for slavery, you really don't get any credit for your ancestors' roles (if any) in ending slavery, so don't go looking for thanks.
Apparently although "slavery was part of the general human condition from the dawn of time", you have researched the slave owning habits of your ancestors back to the dawn of time and realized that not one person ever owned a slave. That's mighty impressive work. Let me be the first to compliment you on your genealogical research skills.
What are they getting sick with? The only relevant illnesses are the things they were vaccinated again. I find it highly unlikely you have lots of vaccinated buddies who have come down with, say, polio. You gain immunities to these diseases one way: by being exposed to them. You can be exposed to them in the form of a vaccine, or in the form of actually contracting the diseases. To my knowledge there's no evidence of "natural immunity" to polio, measles, mumps, pertussis, chicken pox, small pox, etc.
Many of these things were once common diseases. There were major polio epidemics as recently as 1952. There aren't anymore. In fact there hasn't been a case in the Americas 15 years or so. That's not because everybody is immune. In fact, a few percent of those who receive the vaccine won't develop effective immunity. In the U.S. alone that means there are thousands of people who would be susceptible to the disease if they were exposed, despite having been vaccinated. Rather it is because once you reach a high percentage of immunity in the population, you get what's called "herd immunity", which means that the pathogen essentially dies out for lack of enough hosts to propagate it. You're getting a free ride on the herd immunity developed by people who took the small risk of being vaccinated themselves. If enough people decided to take the free ride, the herd immunity would collapse.
If it was only you that this freeloading put at risk that'd be fine, but you're also endangering that small percentage of vaccinated people who were not effectively immunized, or the innocent children unfortunate enough to be born to parents who refuse to get them vaccinated.
The one I signed with my employer (in California, incidentally) basically says it is assumed that anything I patent for six months after the end of my employment is derived from work done there and owned by them, unless I can prove otherwise. I actually don't think that's horribly unreasonable, especially given my particular line of work, in which in any invention is going to leave a substantial amount of evidence behind.
As I see it, Canada is nothing but a very, very wide, above water, ridge, running North from the United States. By the same logic, Canada, the North Pole, AND Russia should all belong to the U.S.
This assumes that sex determination and viability are the same as in the Komodo dragon. I wouldn't bet that they are.
Actually, would the exact opposite by "Radiation not eating fungi"? Or "Non-radiation-eating fungi"?
My computer just finds a network and, if it's open, connects me. There's no active choice involved.
Regardless, if they cared, they should require a login.
If have something I consider valuable, say a big pile of gold jewelry. And I decide that where I'd like to keep it is scattered all over my block. On the sidewalk, in the street, I even toss a little into my neighbors houses. If I find my neighbor wearing my jewelry, do I really have a right to complain?
Funny, I went into industry after a decade in academia, specifically because it seemed more free. At least in the field I'm in, working in academia meant spending at least half your time grubbing for money--the end result being that while you are techincally free to do what you want, you wind up with so many strings attached that you're basically doing what the granting organizations think is important. (Don't get me wrong, I loved lots of things about academia).
I'm fortunate in that I have an unusual amount of liberty in my industry job. But I do disagree with the idea that you have to make money to do what you want. If I was independently wealthy, I'd be doing what I'm doing now. I'd probably keep slightly more irregular hours, and there are some phone calls I'd ignore. I never set out to make any money beyond what it took to live (it took me 5 years to crack $25,000) and yet now I'm doing exactly what I want, and make six figures. I'm not in a field that pays well...I just happen to have acquired a very specific skill set and am (I think) quite good at what I do. But I'd still be doing essentially the same thing even if I was still making $25,000.
It could be, but in the case of Bt, it absolutely is toxic to the targeted pests.
The big problems with the bees right now are varroa and tracheal mites, both introduced pests. There are other, newer issues, but they're still minor by comparison.
Autism may not have a "provable genetic origin" but it clearly has a very strong genetic component. Yes, it's currently unknown exactly what that genetic component is, but it's very obviously there, much more so than any proposed environmental factor.
You have one big bit of leverage at your disposal here: you. You obviously have some skill set they want, and, most likely, not too many people have it (I'm guessing they weren't paying for your relocation so you could flip burgers). They wanted it bad enough to pay you a salary and pay some significant amount in relocation expenses. They'll probably want it bad enough to pay that plus a bit more. Even if this is a contract, and you're now stuck with each other if that's really how they want it, do they really think they'll get your best work as things stand? Or that you'd be interest in renewing a contract with a company like that? Too many people view employment as a one way deal. Employers need you just as much you need them.
The U.S. Congress, under Republican leadership but with an unfortunate amount of cooperation from Democrats, has in recent years routinely voted to basically cede away it's own constitutionally granted powers to the executive.
Does that count?
Yeah, but what I really hate about Macs is that tiny 9" black and white screen.
I thought of this too. I know lots and lots of people in IT (most of my friends from high school and their friends, plus I flirted with a career in it myself and made a lot of contacts). I also know lots and lots of people in biological research fields (this is where I work now). The hours are at least as long and unpredictable in my field as they are for my friends in IT, but I have to say that the relationships are much healthier by comparison. Why? Hard to say for sure, but one big difference I've noticed is that by comparison the IT people have, on average, worse interpersonal skills. And as far as I can tell, always did, even before they entered that field. It's hardly universal, of course, and I know exceptions on either side, but in general the pattern's pretty clear.
Oh, so you have to kill Americans to count as terrorists? Those silly Peruvians.
One could make the same the same claim about "lip service" about most of the "right to life" movement. They may say they don't support bombings and killing doctors, but I don't see them out protesting it. Where were the wild pro-life celebrations in the street when Eric Rudolph was captured? Come on.
There were large protests against al-Qaeda and in support of the U.S. throughout the muslim world and among the American Muslim community after 9/11. Persistent demonization of Muslims by the American right and the invasion of an Islamic country by the U.S. have dampened that enthusiasm, but the vast majority are still more pro-U.S. than pro al-Qaeda.
Have you ever even had a conversation with an actual Muslim? The Muslims I know routinely complain of the damage al-Qaeda has done to the perception of their faith, though many do it privately among friends, rather than in a public setting, because frankly being vocally Muslim in this country, regardless of the sentiment expressed, isn't that smart at the moment.
As for the Army of God, Eric Rudolph attacked random civilians in the general populace in the Olympic Park bombing.
So basically what you're saying is if you select a bunch of terrorist acts by Muslims, it turns out that they were all done by Muslims! Shocker! It's amazing how the numbers just work out the way you want when you selectively ignore data.
Try telling a Peruvian that all terrorists are Muslim. The Shining Path killed nearly ten times as many people as al-Qaeda.
And I get so sick of the right wing in this country complaining that Muslims don't condemn terrorism. If you don't hear it, then you're not listening for it. Every mainstream Muslim organization has vehemently condemned all of the acts of terrorism you have mentioned above. Al-Qaeda even succeeded in alienating a good portion of the Taliban because of its terrorist acts, which is saying something. These acts are committed by a tiny, tiny radical splinter of the Islamic community...just like the Army of God types are in the Christian community.
In 1985 Air India flight 182 was blown up by Sikhs: Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri. They're Indians, not Middle-Easterners.
Huh? The IRA was perceived as terrorists by the vast majority of Americans. Only a small subset of Irish Americans viewed them as anything but.
Um...okay, for starters:
The IRA, at least when it was active, numbered roughly 5,000 active members. That's at least five times the number of active members of al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11. That also ignores a half dozen or so smaller Irish terrorist groups like the Real IRA, the Continuity Army Council, and the Irish National Liberation Army, as well as Loyalist groups like the Loyalist Militia, the Orange Volunteers, and the LVF.
While we're on the Christian terrorists, one might also like to note the Ku Klux Klan, which although rarely referred to as such absolutely fits the profile of a terrorist organization. The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda (10,000+ dead), the Freedomites of Canada, and the Army of God movement in the U.S. are all terrorist organizations composed of Christians.
There are also Jewish (Gush Emunim, Jewish Defense League), Hindu (Shiv Sena, RSS, etc.), and Sikh (about a zillion factions, responsible for as many as 100,000 deaths between them) religious terrorist organizations. Also Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, whatever the heck religion that was.
Add the nationalist groups like the Tamil Tigers, ETA, Kurdistan Workers Party, etc. and the Marxist/Communists such as the Shining Path in Peru, Japanese Red Army, etc.
The Shining Path alone numbered more than 10,000 at its peak and caused roughly 45,000 deaths, both of which are numbers which dwarf any Islamist group.
Islamic groups are currently those most focused on targeting air travel (in part because, when all is said and done, it's not the easiest or most effective form of terrorism) but that doesn't mean that any of these other organizations couldn't or wouldn't use these tactics.
A little disclaimer: I know some people are going to try to claim that some of these aren't terrorist organizations. All of these have been classified as terrorist at some point in the mainstream press, beyond that I won't try to defend the idea one way or the other. Who counts as a terrorist depends on your point of view. Some Muslims do not consider al Qaeda a terrorist organization. One person's Terrorist is another person's Freedom Fighter or Holy Warrior or Patriot.
Some of these groups are defunct or much reduced in strength...but rest assured that for each of them there are a half dozen growing movements that though they haven't even acheived international visibility are chock-full of violent, scary people that would love to make a big splash and make a name for themselves and their organizations.
Well, just looking solely at the numbers of astronauts ony tells us that the U.S. has larger crews, which we already knew, too. If we want to go with a strict definition of spaceflight fatalies, and exclude Apollo 1 on the grounds that the accident didn't occur during an actual launch or mission, then the Soviets and Americans are tied, with Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 on the Soviet side, and Challenger and Columbia on the American side. That would probably be a better reflection of the safety of the vehicle. I think the numbers of launches are pretty comparable, although I could be wrong.
Okay, I guess you're right on that...they hypothesis when I original read about it (and in much of the existing literature) is that this was a Mars mission, however it does seem to have turned out to be an ICBM. Although at that stage, I really think it's difficult to draw a real line between the space and missile programs, particularly considering it was a prototype, it might well have been utilized in either capacity eventually.
Ach, should have hit Preview. Just to clarify, the Titan accident is the only additional U.S. casualty I could come up with.