Hmm - this analogy would be much better if it involved cars.
The point I was trying to get to was that the flu shot prevents the nurses from catching the flu, but doesn't necessarily prevent transmission of flu virus.
It's okay, Microsoft have got lots of money; I'm sure they can afford to replace the stolen phones/pads. Besides, they'll have insurance to cover themselves.
That reminds me of someone I know whose kid was really wanting a Blackberry for xmas and making sure everyone knew about it. On xmas day, the kid opened his present to find a black beret (i.e. a hat) instead. After the kid started crying, his dad gave him the real Blackberry.
There's plenty of science to suggest that flu shots prevent you catching the flu, but very little on how flu shots affect the transmission of flu. The shots work to strengthen your immune system - they don't kill off all of the flu virus, so it's entirely possible that the shots have minimal effect on transmission.
Science is to do with specific experiments to determine specific results - you don't just wave a 'science' wand and declare all medical procedures infallible. e.g. breast cancer screening can have a negative effect due to the extra operations for removing cancerous lumps that might never have caused a problem during the patient's lifetime.
I'm in favour of vaccinations, but this sounds like a bit of a witch-hunt as there's no hard science behind requiring the nurses to have shots. Immunisation won't necessarily stop the nurses spreading flu to vulnerable patients, but it will help prevent the nurses from taking time off work being ill.
I don't think it's fair to fire the nurses unless it can be proven that not having the shots is interfering with them carrying out their job. My failed analogy would be requiring STD Clinic staff to not have sex as they could be contributing to infection rates.
I can't recall ever getting a job where the contract stipulated that I had to have whatever jabs the employer deemed necessary, and I don't believe that nurses should have to. If the hospital staff can't explain the need sufficiently to the nurses, then they can't have a very strong case.
They should just get shut down. If a business is blatantly ignoring and bypassing a law, why should it be allowed to continue doing business? Shut it down and throw the owners/board into prison.
I didn't realise that businesses are allowed privacy. Surely businesses can be inspected to ensure that they abide by fire regulations and follow health and safety law. If they're discharging waste into a stream it's not unreasonable for them to be checked on from time to time.
Just realised another benefit to using google's SMTP vs your own POP3 - you don't have to give google your POP3 credentials and when you change your password(s) you don't have to worry about updating google.
It sounds like you should just forward his mail to his gmail account. Use google's SMTP server and you don't have to worry about what certificate you choose to use. It'd be a better use of bandwidth as you only connect to them when there is email to send, rather than google connecting every so often to check if there's new mail available. Push vs pull.
Which US law are they breaking/trying to break? I'm curious as people keep mentioning this, but as far as I know, they haven't done anything illegal and there's been no charges filed.
Wikileaks haven't broken any laws. There's no charges against them at all - the only thing they could get against Assange was some trumped up rape accusation (I don't believe they've even charged him).
What is this "legitimate journalist" bullshit? Is there a list of legitimate journalists? How do you apply to be legitimate and can you get it rescinded?
That bit about enforcing other countries laws is only down to what is specified in treaties - it's not by any means automatic and even when specified by a treaty it's still up to the countries involved as to what laws they choose to enforce.
The fixation on children's funerals is probably that losing a child is the worst thing that can happen to a person. To harass these afflicted parents is inhumane. As a fan of free speech (although not an American) I don't care too much about what the WBC are saying, but to say it right outside the funerals is quite simply dick-ish.
I'm glad Anonymous have done this - they don't worry about justifying their morality; they're more like a force of nature.
However, it's debatable whether his actions were illegal in the UK. US laws don't have jurisdiction over UK citizens unless they are in the US despite what the US government might want. The issue is which laws did he break?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm - this analogy would be much better if it involved cars.
The point I was trying to get to was that the flu shot prevents the nurses from catching the flu, but doesn't necessarily prevent transmission of flu virus.
It's okay, Microsoft have got lots of money; I'm sure they can afford to replace the stolen phones/pads. Besides, they'll have insurance to cover themselves.
That reminds me of someone I know whose kid was really wanting a Blackberry for xmas and making sure everyone knew about it. On xmas day, the kid opened his present to find a black beret (i.e. a hat) instead. After the kid started crying, his dad gave him the real Blackberry.
There's plenty of science to suggest that flu shots prevent you catching the flu, but very little on how flu shots affect the transmission of flu. The shots work to strengthen your immune system - they don't kill off all of the flu virus, so it's entirely possible that the shots have minimal effect on transmission.
Science is to do with specific experiments to determine specific results - you don't just wave a 'science' wand and declare all medical procedures infallible. e.g. breast cancer screening can have a negative effect due to the extra operations for removing cancerous lumps that might never have caused a problem during the patient's lifetime.
I'm in favour of vaccinations, but this sounds like a bit of a witch-hunt as there's no hard science behind requiring the nurses to have shots. Immunisation won't necessarily stop the nurses spreading flu to vulnerable patients, but it will help prevent the nurses from taking time off work being ill.
I don't think it's fair to fire the nurses unless it can be proven that not having the shots is interfering with them carrying out their job. My failed analogy would be requiring STD Clinic staff to not have sex as they could be contributing to infection rates.
I can't recall ever getting a job where the contract stipulated that I had to have whatever jabs the employer deemed necessary, and I don't believe that nurses should have to. If the hospital staff can't explain the need sufficiently to the nurses, then they can't have a very strong case.
Repairs on space craft?
That says "Power" which is not the same as a right.
You'd be fine giving away the manuals even though you're getting paid to teach. As long as you're not charging for the manual, then you're good to go.
Thinking about it; everyone who has hands is a potential child molester - let's lobotomise everyone with hands!
Great idea! There's no chance that a court will make a mistake and punish someone only to find out later that the woman had lied about what happened.
I went for the three LED model: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0097A6R2E/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00/ . It works really well on the lowest light setting - I reckon the highest setting would probably set fire to anything in front of me.
They should just get shut down. If a business is blatantly ignoring and bypassing a law, why should it be allowed to continue doing business? Shut it down and throw the owners/board into prison.
I didn't realise that businesses are allowed privacy. Surely businesses can be inspected to ensure that they abide by fire regulations and follow health and safety law. If they're discharging waste into a stream it's not unreasonable for them to be checked on from time to time.
As a political party, the "Pirate Party" is a legal entity when it's entered into the Registry of Political Parties ( http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/15592 ).
No - google require SSL/TLS for their SMTP.
What? I thought that there were rape allegations, but "rape" as defined in Sweden is not necessarily considered "rape" elsewhere.
Just realised another benefit to using google's SMTP vs your own POP3 - you don't have to give google your POP3 credentials and when you change your password(s) you don't have to worry about updating google.
It sounds like you should just forward his mail to his gmail account. Use google's SMTP server and you don't have to worry about what certificate you choose to use. It'd be a better use of bandwidth as you only connect to them when there is email to send, rather than google connecting every so often to check if there's new mail available. Push vs pull.
Which US law are they breaking/trying to break? I'm curious as people keep mentioning this, but as far as I know, they haven't done anything illegal and there's been no charges filed.
Wikileaks haven't broken any laws. There's no charges against them at all - the only thing they could get against Assange was some trumped up rape accusation (I don't believe they've even charged him).
What is this "legitimate journalist" bullshit? Is there a list of legitimate journalists? How do you apply to be legitimate and can you get it rescinded?
That bit about enforcing other countries laws is only down to what is specified in treaties - it's not by any means automatic and even when specified by a treaty it's still up to the countries involved as to what laws they choose to enforce.
More importantly, will it use a high-pressure hose with highly sterilised water at near-boiling point?
The fixation on children's funerals is probably that losing a child is the worst thing that can happen to a person. To harass these afflicted parents is inhumane. As a fan of free speech (although not an American) I don't care too much about what the WBC are saying, but to say it right outside the funerals is quite simply dick-ish.
I'm glad Anonymous have done this - they don't worry about justifying their morality; they're more like a force of nature.
Yep - most likely. I think he's already served the 6 months maximum prison term and he's probably lost more than the £5000 maximum fine.
However, it's debatable whether his actions were illegal in the UK. US laws don't have jurisdiction over UK citizens unless they are in the US despite what the US government might want. The issue is which laws did he break?
As he wasn't in the US, he shouldn't be subject to US law. As he is in the UK, he's only subject to UK law.