Peta volunteers have killed animals in their vans just after pickup, they often make no attempt to rehome animals.
Citations that show your claims are systemic or go away. All large organizations have individuals who go off script - what matters is if appropriate action is taken to stop those individuals.
Maybe, but if so we certainly could also consider adding some of those PETA loonies.
That website is out of whack. PETA stands for "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" the keyword being Ethical. That they put to death animals for which they are unable to find caretakers is entirely consistent with their stated objectives.
Now, if they had discovered that PETA tortured the animals, then that website would have a story worth telling. But they don't have such a story because its just some idiot with a vendetta jousting at strawmen and it shows in the way statements there are worded, such as - "Not counting the pets PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during the last five years." Considering that you can't adopt a regular pet without getting it spayed or neutered the guys running the website choose to ignore all of the regular pets that come into the shelters and are then adopted. No bias at all there.
Mods on crack - that's not offtopic at all. Its a comparison between what happened to the Dixie Chicks and what happened to this girl. Although, in the end the Dixie Chicks get the better of it as the album they were promoting at the time sold very well.
In which juries are composed of people who (a) do not have a specific interest in the case, unlike vigilantes and (b) pass screening intended to filter out those looking to take advantage of their being on a jury for their own agenda.
I didn't get that from the article at all. What the article said is that Ubisoft said, "In the event that all servers are turned off we could patch the game to not require a server connection." That's a long way from "Ubisoft included a feature that allowed games to be played without an internet connection."
Or to use a car analogy, it's like saying that Honda includes a feature that allows their cars to be easily stolen and that by hotwiring a car, the thieves are just enabling that feature.
Exactly this. Matroska in general is great and a lot better than Ogg or others, but it doesn't work on any device besides PC - not on 360, not on PS3, not in mobile phones..
However, matroska support is pretty much standard in any but the most proprietary set-top boxes. For example - WDTV, TiVX, Popcorn Hour - basically anything that uses any recent Sigma Designs chipset. Similarly iRiver supports matroska on their newest portable media players and Archos's latest android based pmp also supports matroska.
JVC and Phillips have currently shipping blu-ray players that play matroska. Panasonic has announced their next generation of TVs and blu-ray players will do matroska, and the specs for NEC's next gen of video decoder chipsets (which compete with Sigma Designs) say they will include matroska support.
In 2008 I invited two policemen into my home and voluntarily gave them a DNA and fingerprint sample to help with a murder investigation, as they'd promised it would only be used for that investigation. I was never under any suspicion...
Of course you were under suspicion - they just didn't have enough evidence to get a warrant to force you to give up your DNA so they bamboozled you into doing it voluntarily. Of course they kept it on file, they were suspicous enough of you to request a DNA sample thus you are under permanent suspicion for the rest of your life and probably a ways beyond.
What you did was the equivalent of getting pulled over by a cop and when he looks in your car window and doesn't see anything to justify a search , instead of letting you go on your way, he asks you if he can go ahead and search your car anyway and you said yes.
He already touched the hood. He still wants to talk to you for some reason you don't know.
EXACTLY my thoughts. Either the cop was fishing or he was time-wasting. That story really does nothing to bolster his argument. It's like saying, "I walked by a snake once and it didn't bite me, so clearly there is no need to worry about snake bites."
It's possible they did, and just one more form or signature from the hospital was forgotten by all those parents.
It certainly is possible. Back in 2001 the supreme court ruled that hospitals could not take blood samples from new mothers solely for the purpose of drug testing them without a warrant. So now what do they do? They contrive some plausible medical reason to take a blood or urine sample get a broad-based consent form signed, perform whatever tests are required to legitimize that excuse and then they test the sample for drugs and hand the information over to child protective services who will take the children away.
All this despite the fact that there are no studies that show marijuana use in the 3rd trimester is dangerous to the health of the child, in fact, the only study that investigated it plausibly (versus something crazy like exposing cells in a petri dish to 100x the normal dose) showed that at 1 month the infants born to mothers that did smoke in the last trimester were better developed than those who had no exposure.
That is assuming you believe the samples were actually anonymized, which there's no way to know for sure.
Bingo. Even if they THINK they anonymized the samples, it doesn't mean they did a particularly good job of it. The imdb+netflix fiasco should be proof to anyone that privacy lives in a pandora's box - once you let even a piece of it out, all you are left with is hope that it won't get exploited.
That's a terrible analogy because the reason GaGa is played on all over the radio is precisely because of the corrupt oligopoly in the market of radio stations.
I thought that the details had been obscured by the government when it made the release. It appears that the ABC and Seven blurred the important numbers. Others broadcast the details without editing. I thought we had enough of these on Media Watch last year to teach them a lesson.
That's not particularly foolproof - after all if the stations have to blur out the numbers that means that the materials that were released to the stations (and thus presumably to the public at large) weren't blurred out. So, it helps reduce but in no way eliminates the further spread of the info, but the real source of the problem is whoever gave the stations the information in first place.
Seeing as how I oppose just about any increase in government involvement in the medical industry and in fact want it to back out from a lot of where its moved in over the last few decades, I think you are seriously confused. But thanks for demonstrating why so many people think the anti-obamacare people are incoherent idiots. You are really helping to make things right.
Interesting that you would support such a position; (I am the same AC as above.) You are implying that people are ruled by their emotions, and not their minds.
I had to work hard to hold back from adding an extra sentence to the effect of - "now watch you exaggerate my point and pretend that I said that what were minor events were really overriding cases." I did not write that because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you really were skeptical and would understand that when I said "a fairly small series of events" I really did mean small.
But alas, I gave you far too much credit. You appear to be so emotionally invested in this belief that a minor display of humanity overrides a staggering amount of methodical research that you must reshape any counterpoint to fit that belief. You really do demonstrate exactly what you rail against.
It's laughed at because the same people who would call a government review board a "death panel" fully support the private "death panels" each insurance company has.
Totally. That's what's bugged me about the whole "death panel" fubar from the beginning - we've ALREADY got them and the only people who aren't beholden to death panels are the uninsured.
I think Europe set a pretty good example until the US started punching holes in it in the name of terrorism. In a nutshell, EU privacy laws prevented anyone from putting together a database without getting the consent of the people who's information was in the database - and none of the typical american cop-out of "in order to do any business with us in any way you consent to being fully abused." Sure, some companies bitched-and-moaned about it being anti-business, but they seemed to do business just fine anyway.
From a legal standpoint there is nothing wrong with this.
Well, its about damn time that the legal standpoint changed. Technology has changed and the laws need to catch up. At one point we didn't even have license plates, the law changed because there was a need for something like them and at the time the balance of pros versus cons tilted towards the pro side. New technology has changed that balance towards the con side and the law needs to change with it.
Any argument that sacrifices Truth for Cause, is not an argument I am willing to support.
Funny, you seem to be doing precisely that.
The truth here is that people are only human. They get emotionally invested in their work, that's the way people are. To expect real people to behave like emotionless automata is to hold them to a standard higher than you or anyone else can achieve.
What you have done is take a fairly small series of events and extrapolated them far beyond their import. That's not seeking truth, that's just posturing.
Which DRM has slowed down copying more than it's pissed off consumers? I don't consider CD keys DRM, BTW. DRM in my mind is screwing up a game's code for no reason other than to obstruct pirates.
I'm pretty confident that even "cd keys" have pissed off legit customers more than they have slowed down pirating. Mainly because they are super easy to just include in a text file with the bootleg copy of the game but a legit customer who loses the piece of paper it came on is going to be mighty pissed if he has to reinstall.
Slashdot Mirror
Peta volunteers have killed animals in their vans just after pickup, they often make no attempt to rehome animals.
Citations that show your claims are systemic or go away.
All large organizations have individuals who go off script - what matters is if appropriate action is taken to stop those individuals.
Maybe, but if so we certainly could also consider adding some of those PETA loonies.
That website is out of whack. PETA stands for "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" the keyword being Ethical. That they put to death animals for which they are unable to find caretakers is entirely consistent with their stated objectives.
Now, if they had discovered that PETA tortured the animals, then that website would have a story worth telling. But they don't have such a story because its just some idiot with a vendetta jousting at strawmen and it shows in the way statements there are worded, such as - "Not counting the pets PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during the last five years." Considering that you can't adopt a regular pet without getting it spayed or neutered the guys running the website choose to ignore all of the regular pets that come into the shelters and are then adopted. No bias at all there.
That is all.
Mods on crack - that's not offtopic at all. Its a comparison between what happened to the Dixie Chicks and what happened to this girl.
Although, in the end the Dixie Chicks get the better of it as the album they were promoting at the time sold very well.
Groupthink is not rational.
Right, and that's why we have Jury System.
In which juries are composed of people who (a) do not have a specific interest in the case, unlike vigilantes and (b) pass screening intended to filter out those looking to take advantage of their being on a jury for their own agenda.
Ubisoft can always blame "those damn pirates" and claim the DRM development as a failed project tax write off.
Failed or not, business costs are pretty much always tax free - you only pay tax on profits.
I didn't get that from the article at all. What the article said is that Ubisoft said, "In the event that all servers are turned off we could patch the game to not require a server connection." That's a long way from "Ubisoft included a feature that allowed games to be played without an internet connection."
Or to use a car analogy, it's like saying that Honda includes a feature that allows their cars to be easily stolen and that by hotwiring a car, the thieves are just enabling that feature.
Exactly this. Matroska in general is great and a lot better than Ogg or others, but it doesn't work on any device besides PC - not on 360, not on PS3, not in mobile phones..
However, matroska support is pretty much standard in any but the most proprietary set-top boxes. For example - WDTV, TiVX, Popcorn Hour - basically anything that uses any recent Sigma Designs chipset. Similarly iRiver supports matroska on their newest portable media players and Archos's latest android based pmp also supports matroska.
JVC and Phillips have currently shipping blu-ray players that play matroska. Panasonic has announced their next generation of TVs and blu-ray players will do matroska, and the specs for NEC's next gen of video decoder chipsets (which compete with Sigma Designs) say they will include matroska support.
I Would Be Happy to Have an ID Chip Implant...
If I could reprogram it to identify me as anyone I wanted to and to not respond at all when I didn't want it to.
In 2008 I invited two policemen into my home and voluntarily gave them a DNA and fingerprint sample to help with a murder investigation, as they'd promised it would only be used for that investigation. I was never under any suspicion...
Of course you were under suspicion - they just didn't have enough evidence to get a warrant to force you to give up your DNA so they bamboozled you into doing it voluntarily. Of course they kept it on file, they were suspicous enough of you to request a DNA sample thus you are under permanent suspicion for the rest of your life and probably a ways beyond.
What you did was the equivalent of getting pulled over by a cop and when he looks in your car window and doesn't see anything to justify a search , instead of letting you go on your way, he asks you if he can go ahead and search your car anyway and you said yes.
He already touched the hood. He still wants to talk to you for some reason you don't know.
EXACTLY my thoughts. Either the cop was fishing or he was time-wasting. That story really does nothing to bolster his argument. It's like saying, "I walked by a snake once and it didn't bite me, so clearly there is no need to worry about snake bites."
Left out the link to the study of the effects of pot on the unborn:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/can-babies.htm
It's possible they did, and just one more form or signature from the hospital was forgotten by all those parents.
It certainly is possible. Back in 2001 the supreme court ruled that hospitals could not take blood samples from new mothers solely for the purpose of drug testing them without a warrant. So now what do they do? They contrive some plausible medical reason to take a blood or urine sample get a broad-based consent form signed, perform whatever tests are required to legitimize that excuse and then they test the sample for drugs and hand the information over to child protective services who will take the children away.
All this despite the fact that there are no studies that show marijuana use in the 3rd trimester is dangerous to the health of the child, in fact, the only study that investigated it plausibly (versus something crazy like exposing cells in a petri dish to 100x the normal dose) showed that at 1 month the infants born to mothers that did smoke in the last trimester were better developed than those who had no exposure.
That is assuming you believe the samples were actually anonymized, which there's no way to know for sure.
Bingo. Even if they THINK they anonymized the samples, it doesn't mean they did a particularly good job of it.
The imdb+netflix fiasco should be proof to anyone that privacy lives in a pandora's box - once you let even a piece of it out, all you are left with is hope that it won't get exploited.
That's a terrible analogy because the reason GaGa is played on all over the radio is precisely because of the corrupt oligopoly in the market of radio stations.
I am expecting Go to stay
Go stay go!
I thought that the details had been obscured by the government when it made the release. It appears that the ABC and Seven blurred the important numbers. Others broadcast the details without editing. I thought we had enough of these on Media Watch last year to teach them a lesson.
That's not particularly foolproof - after all if the stations have to blur out the numbers that means that the materials that were released to the stations (and thus presumably to the public at large) weren't blurred out. So, it helps reduce but in no way eliminates the further spread of the info, but the real source of the problem is whoever gave the stations the information in first place.
Seeing as how I oppose just about any increase in government involvement in the medical industry and in fact want it to back out from a lot of where its moved in over the last few decades, I think you are seriously confused. But thanks for demonstrating why so many people think the anti-obamacare people are incoherent idiots. You are really helping to make things right.
Interesting that you would support such a position; (I am the same AC as above.) You are implying that people are ruled by their emotions, and not their minds.
I had to work hard to hold back from adding an extra sentence to the effect of - "now watch you exaggerate my point and pretend that I said that what were minor events were really overriding cases." I did not write that because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you really were skeptical and would understand that when I said "a fairly small series of events" I really did mean small.
But alas, I gave you far too much credit. You appear to be so emotionally invested in this belief that a minor display of humanity overrides a staggering amount of methodical research that you must reshape any counterpoint to fit that belief. You really do demonstrate exactly what you rail against.
It's laughed at because the same people who would call a government review board a "death panel" fully support the private "death panels" each insurance company has.
Totally. That's what's bugged me about the whole "death panel" fubar from the beginning - we've ALREADY got them and the only people who aren't beholden to death panels are the uninsured.
I think Europe set a pretty good example until the US started punching holes in it in the name of terrorism. In a nutshell, EU privacy laws prevented anyone from putting together a database without getting the consent of the people who's information was in the database - and none of the typical american cop-out of "in order to do any business with us in any way you consent to being fully abused." Sure, some companies bitched-and-moaned about it being anti-business, but they seemed to do business just fine anyway.
From a legal standpoint there is nothing wrong with this.
Well, its about damn time that the legal standpoint changed. Technology has changed and the laws need to catch up. At one point we didn't even have license plates, the law changed because there was a need for something like them and at the time the balance of pros versus cons tilted towards the pro side. New technology has changed that balance towards the con side and the law needs to change with it.
Any argument that sacrifices Truth for Cause, is not an argument I am willing to support.
Funny, you seem to be doing precisely that.
The truth here is that people are only human. They get emotionally invested in their work, that's the way people are.
To expect real people to behave like emotionless automata is to hold them to a standard higher than you or anyone else can achieve.
What you have done is take a fairly small series of events and extrapolated them far beyond their import. That's not seeking truth, that's just posturing.
Which DRM has slowed down copying more than it's pissed off consumers? I don't consider CD keys DRM, BTW. DRM in my mind is screwing up a game's code for no reason other than to obstruct pirates.
I'm pretty confident that even "cd keys" have pissed off legit customers more than they have slowed down pirating. Mainly because they are super easy to just include in a text file with the bootleg copy of the game but a legit customer who loses the piece of paper it came on is going to be mighty pissed if he has to reinstall.
There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.
Really? Disparaged maybe, but the papers the CRU emails were talking about trying to "shut up" were published anyway.