A "tendency"? Nonsense, and any ill effect is due to contamination, not with some inherent property of the milk.
Is the risk of contamination higher with raw milk? Probably, yes. Do the health benefits of the milk exceed the risks? That is for the individual, not the government to decide. Is it any worse than mega-doses of corn syrup, preservatives, artificial sweeteners and hormone-laced meat/dairy products and other "government approved" crap that they sell as "food"?
"[you] as a society" have no right to interfere in the consumption choices of others. Buying and selling milk of all things? What next? Are you also going to tell people that they cannot milk their own cows and feed the milk to their kids?
"Think of the children" Again?
Some parents repeatedly expose their children to second hand smoke and far too many parents are also over-feeding their kids. Both of which definitely cause health damage. Do you also see a role of the state in policing this behavior too?
Anti-vaccination? Of course not. Anti-FORCED-vaccination? Absolutely.
You might want to re-think your opinion regarding the degree to which you and society feel morally justified in interfering with the behavior of others.
This is a good step. Now I wonder if the Feds feel the same way when someone is taping THEIR activity? DEA? BATF? TSA? FBI? DHS?
This practice of blocking recordings, seizing and destroying cameras, etc. has been going on at the federal level as well, so I'm not about to fall on my knees and thank the DOJ for lecturing Baltimore.
Note that there ARE complications when videotaping because certain states have laws which prohibit audio recording of a conversation unless all parties give their consent. The cops have used this as an excuse to charge people with a crime for making video recordings of cops.
I believe you're misinterpreting that section however. Yes, the section you cite states that it does nothing to change/affect EXISTING laws related to detention (of which there are many).
However, on the same page in section 1021, the Armed Forces are granted NEW authority to detain "covered persons" which is so vague as to mean basically anyone the government doesn't like.
The ACLU interpreted it as meaning indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, other civil liberties groups and lawyers have concluded the same, and it sure sounds like the judge in this case believed it.
Wouldn't all subway systems share the same Euler number? Isn't a subway system just a connection of varying numbers of segments with varying numbers of nodes? I suppose that there could be "faces" in the topology as well. Definitely if you look from a 3D standpoint. Do lines actually have physical 'intersections' in a 3D sense? I don't think that changes the Euler number however.
I think it's interesting from an academic standpoint, but hardly something that needs immediate expenditure of massive resources.
"those goals are more important than 99% of other charitable goals, because without a habitable earth or human population there is no point to any charity."
From the article, NASA states that there are no asteroids that are capable of an extinction type event of the type we believe wiped out the dinosaurs.
As usual, we'll wait for a major destructive impact before closing the proverbial barn door.
If you want action now, start telling people that Iran and Muslim extremists are planning to divert an asteroid to hit America.
"3) Exercise is good, but has a very limited effect on weight."
I'm rather skeptical of that claim as it pertains to obesity.
I can see how the effect of added exercise on weight would be very limited for someone who was already in decent shape or in a "normal" weight range.
By contrast, suppose that an obese person added 30 minutes of strenuous aerobic exercise 3-4 times per week to their schedule. With all else being equal, I'd be surprised if the extra calories being burned and an increase in metabolism did not have a significant effect on their weight.
All I can do is laugh at the idea of the U.S. Federal government protecting people from privacy violations.
How about they ban themselves and their renegade espionage and law enforcement agencies from committing egregious privacy violations before they start meddling in private relationships?
For profit companies manage to deliver thousands of goods and services of high quality at affordable costs. Innovation and competition drive down prices and increase quality. Government subsidies have the precise opposite effect.
"Without loans a lot of students couldn't go at all."
Without guaranteed government loans (which do nothing but drive up prices) more students could afford college without going into debt.
When colleges know that every student has access to this credit they crank up prices simply because they know students can afford it. We would observe the same effect in any other market. Why would a college which has more applicants than openings at $25K per year charge only $20K? Even the 'non-profit' colleges do this.
The problem is not necessarily with 'loans'. The problem is GUARANTEED government loans which can never be discharged via bankruptcy. If a lender had to take a risk on the student's ability to pay, there would still be education loans, but they would be minuscule as compared to the debt burdens we observe today. Something on the order of $10K as opposed to $100K.
IMO, it is not a mission of government to 'encourage' higher education. The federal government doesn't even have a Constitutional mandate to do so. What's best for the country is for the government to get out of markets where their involvement produces negative outcomes for the consumer. Higher education, healthcare and housing being the prime examples.
I hate to use these sweeping labels, but for the sake of argument, it's not necessary to invent problems to make "liberals" want big government. The mere presence of a problem (of which there is no shortage) is sufficient to generate demand for new federal laws and more government spending. Federal government is the proverbial hammer of the "liberals" and every problem imaginable looks like a nail.
An unfortunate number of "conservatives" have also consumed the "big government" Kool-Aid. Arguing the point that "government is not the solution", although typically true, seems to be a hopeless endeavor. Perhaps the only alternative strategy to stem the tide is to argue that there is no problem to begin with?
I'm certainly not going to provide any 'backlash' because I'm concerned that general recognition of a problem will generate the knee-jerk response of giving the federal government power to micro-manage our energy consumption.
The American experiment with socialism and central planning has been a demonstrable failure, at least for the average citizen. We've created a 'socialist' central government which seizes vast amounts of our national wealth and steadily assumes control over more and more aspects of our personal lives. The result has been a disaster for the vast majority of Americans. Only the central planners themselves and their elite comrades have thrived. The evidence of 'stupidity' rests in the fact that millions of Americans think that we should grant additional wealth and power to this government.
That's very interesting. I hadn't looked at the EU from this perspective, but it appears that you could following the same trajectory as the USA. Be warned!
The USA (under The Constitution) began as a voluntary agreement between independent states. Exactly as you described, we delegated certain authorities to a central government in a few areas (e.g. a monetary system and military) where it seemed we could be more effective as a unit.
As you can see from our example, the system was ultimately corrupted to the point that we now suffer under the reign of a massive, self-serving central government which has trampled the sovereignty of the states to serve its own self interests.
You're absolutely right to be skeptical of your government and extremely wary of any attempted EU power grabs. I'd caution you not to allow the destruction of your existence as independent states.
"Yeah. The "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument makes complete sense, after all."
That argument is used by tyrants and authoritarian regimes to justify invasions of privacy. It's nonsense, and it's certainly not an argument that I'm regurgitating.
To clarify MY comment:
From the point of view of a person whose goal is to transport the "secret files", why disguise the data as porn AND try to smuggle it in your underpants? The latter technique totally undermines the usefulness of the former. Disguising it as porn would make much more sense on a laptop with 40GB worth of other porn.
"a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight"
Yes, but he wasn't concealing it in "plain sight". The storage medium was hidden in his pants. That's the part of this "plot" that doesn't make sense to me. If the authorities find something being 'smuggled' they instantly know the person has something to hide. Was the idea that he would feel compelled to hide this simply because of the porn itself?
Sounds like another orchestrated stunt based on the plot of a cheap spy novel to perpetuate a culture of fear in the U.S. and Europe.
I think our evolution has become somewhat "chaotic" however. Our environment has been changing so rapidly that particularly advantageous traits might differ from generation to generation, thus making any sort of "trend" difficult to spot.
Unfortunately, I think the mere willingness to procreate is probably one of the most favored traits in the current environment of the 'developed' world I say 'unfortunate' because this willingness might strongly correlate with a tendency toward disregard for the future consequences of one's actions. Furthermore, the advent of the welfare state has effectively counter-balanced some of the environmental factors which might work against this tendency.
Lincoln invaded the South to preserve the union, not to "free the slaves". The war began in April 1861. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issues until January 1863. Furthermore, the proclamation applied only to the states that were part of the Confederacy, There were still border states where slavery was legal and they were unaffected. In addition, any confederate state willing to re-join the union was also promised an exemption.
Other nations managed to eradicate slavery without a bloody civil war. It was clearly the bitterness engendered by armed conflict and the North's attempts to basically rub the South's face in their defeat that perpetuated racial hatred in the country.
State powers are enshrined in The Constitution. The Southern states had a very valid legal argument.
The unfortunate fact is that when people bring up the issue of state powers and the 10th Amendment these days, the absurd counter-argument is that rolling back federal power-grabbing means that South Carolina could and would re-institute slavery.
"Perhaps, the closer you get to the outer fringe of the political spectrum, the more susceptible you are to believing conspiratorial nonsense."
A common misconception. People on "the fringe" so to speak are actually the people who are least susceptible to being brainwashed. The "normal" healthy extroverts are the vulnerable ones. People who are part of the political "mainstream" and who hold "majority opinion" as the "truth" are simply the people who are most easily influenced by their surroundings. That's why they're part of the "mainstream". That's also why they believe "conspiratorial nonsense" like Iraq had WMDs. Those on "the fringe" tend to question the "official" narratives.
"This time he's very publicly threatened to veto."
Ah yes, just like he did with NDAA.
Same playbook this time. He'll get a couple of meaningless clauses added, use a "signing statement" to say that he won't abuse this, and then claim it's a victory for the American people.
Not true. The government cannot circumvent the 4th Amendment by coercing a third party to do their dirty work for them... at least until CISPA becomes law.
Re:Mod please +5 paper bag over head
on
House Passes CISPA
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Since 2000, we've seen the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, telecom immunity for the aforementioned, indefinite detention(and now assassination!) of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, NDAA... and this relentless effort to legalize internet espionage.
Furthermore, it's no secret that the NSA is building a huge new data center in Utah.
No big deal. I'll bet that German court hasn't uploaded very many videos.
Anyone know that the German Court's YouTube ID is? I did a search and I didn't see anything obvious. Maybe the "uploads by [the] German Court" have all been removed already?
"Hume highlighted the fact that our every day habits of mind depend on drawing uncertain conclusions from our relatively limited experiences..."
There's nothing wrong with making generalizations based on the data set to which you've been exposed. I think it goes without saying that the comment is based on personal experience as opposed to a comprehensive study.
The evolutionary nature of this type of thought process is obvious. People that didn't figure out that certain plants and animals will kill you after they'd made a few observations were weeded out of the gene pool.
I just don't get it. It's obvious that you believe the government is corrupt and controlled by the corporations. Yet you describe "small government" as a dumb idea? Why would you advocate giving more wealth and more power to a government you believe is corrupt and beholden to special interests?
Left and Right are completely irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties. One thing that the vast majority of both parties in Washington DC agree on is that government should have more power and the people should have fewer freedoms. If these people are entitled to the label "moderate", then we definitely need more extremists. The type that will fight against this relentless assault on our essential liberties.
Power and corruption are intimately linked. A government where 535 politicians can suck $2.2T out of the economy, borrow trillions more and pass sweeping laws (CISPA e.g.) which affect the lives of 330 million people will always be corrupt.
We should be electing libertarian candidates to federal office so that they can shrink the size and scope of this monstrosity in Washington D.C. and restore power to the states and the people where it belongs. Corporate influence will crumble and fragment if power and resources are restored to local and state governments.
You can have as much or as little government as you want, but if you want to keep it under the control of the citizens, it must be architected from the bottom up. Central planning and big top-down government are failed experiments.
Slashdot Mirror
A "tendency"? Nonsense, and any ill effect is due to contamination, not with some inherent property of the milk.
Is the risk of contamination higher with raw milk? Probably, yes. Do the health benefits of the milk exceed the risks? That is for the individual, not the government to decide. Is it any worse than mega-doses of corn syrup, preservatives, artificial sweeteners and hormone-laced meat/dairy products and other "government approved" crap that they sell as "food"?
"[you] as a society" have no right to interfere in the consumption choices of others. Buying and selling milk of all things? What next? Are you also going to tell people that they cannot milk their own cows and feed the milk to their kids?
"Think of the children" Again?
Some parents repeatedly expose their children to second hand smoke and far too many parents are also over-feeding their kids. Both of which definitely cause health damage. Do you also see a role of the state in policing this behavior too?
Anti-vaccination? Of course not. Anti-FORCED-vaccination? Absolutely.
You might want to re-think your opinion regarding the degree to which you and society feel morally justified in interfering with the behavior of others.
This is a good step. Now I wonder if the Feds feel the same way when someone is taping THEIR activity? DEA? BATF? TSA? FBI? DHS?
This practice of blocking recordings, seizing and destroying cameras, etc. has been going on at the federal level as well, so I'm not about to fall on my knees and thank the DOJ for lecturing Baltimore.
Note that there ARE complications when videotaping because certain states have laws which prohibit audio recording of a conversation unless all parties give their consent. The cops have used this as an excuse to charge people with a crime for making video recordings of cops.
This is a useful resource from the ACLU:
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers
So keep recording government abuses and posting them online, but know your rights and be careful.
Thanks for the link.
I believe you're misinterpreting that section however. Yes, the section you cite states that it does nothing to change/affect EXISTING laws related to detention (of which there are many).
However, on the same page in section 1021, the Armed Forces are granted NEW authority to detain "covered persons" which is so vague as to mean basically anyone the government doesn't like.
The ACLU interpreted it as meaning indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, other civil liberties groups and lawyers have concluded the same, and it sure sounds like the judge in this case believed it.
Wouldn't all subway systems share the same Euler number? Isn't a subway system just a connection of varying numbers of segments with varying numbers of nodes?
I suppose that there could be "faces" in the topology as well. Definitely if you look from a 3D standpoint. Do lines actually have physical 'intersections' in a 3D sense? I don't think that changes the Euler number however.
I think it's interesting from an academic standpoint, but hardly something that needs immediate expenditure of massive resources.
"those goals are more important than 99% of other charitable goals, because without a habitable earth or human population there is no point to any charity."
From the article, NASA states that there are no asteroids that are capable of an extinction type event of the type we believe wiped out the dinosaurs.
As usual, we'll wait for a major destructive impact before closing the proverbial barn door.
If you want action now, start telling people that Iran and Muslim extremists are planning to divert an asteroid to hit America.
"3) Exercise is good, but has a very limited effect on weight."
I'm rather skeptical of that claim as it pertains to obesity.
I can see how the effect of added exercise on weight would be very limited for someone who was already in decent shape or in a "normal" weight range.
By contrast, suppose that an obese person added 30 minutes of strenuous aerobic exercise 3-4 times per week to their schedule. With all else being equal, I'd be surprised if the extra calories being burned and an increase in metabolism did not have a significant effect on their weight.
All I can do is laugh at the idea of the U.S. Federal government protecting people from privacy violations.
How about they ban themselves and their renegade espionage and law enforcement agencies from committing egregious privacy violations before they start meddling in private relationships?
For profit companies manage to deliver thousands of goods and services of high quality at affordable costs. Innovation and competition drive down prices and increase quality. Government subsidies have the precise opposite effect.
"Without loans a lot of students couldn't go at all."
Without guaranteed government loans (which do nothing but drive up prices) more students could afford college without going into debt.
When colleges know that every student has access to this credit they crank up prices simply because they know students can afford it. We would observe the same effect in any other market. Why would a college which has more applicants than openings at $25K per year charge only $20K? Even the 'non-profit' colleges do this.
The problem is not necessarily with 'loans'. The problem is GUARANTEED government loans which can never be discharged via bankruptcy. If a lender had to take a risk on the student's ability to pay, there would still be education loans, but they would be minuscule as compared to the debt burdens we observe today. Something on the order of $10K as opposed to $100K.
IMO, it is not a mission of government to 'encourage' higher education. The federal government doesn't even have a Constitutional mandate to do so. What's best for the country is for the government to get out of markets where their involvement produces negative outcomes for the consumer. Higher education, healthcare and housing being the prime examples.
I hate to use these sweeping labels, but for the sake of argument, it's not necessary to invent problems to make "liberals" want big government. The mere presence of a problem (of which there is no shortage) is sufficient to generate demand for new federal laws and more government spending. Federal government is the proverbial hammer of the "liberals" and every problem imaginable looks like a nail.
An unfortunate number of "conservatives" have also consumed the "big government" Kool-Aid. Arguing the point that "government is not the solution", although typically true, seems to be a hopeless endeavor. Perhaps the only alternative strategy to stem the tide is to argue that there is no problem to begin with?
I'm certainly not going to provide any 'backlash' because I'm concerned that general recognition of a problem will generate the knee-jerk response of giving the federal government power to micro-manage our energy consumption.
The American experiment with socialism and central planning has been a demonstrable failure, at least for the average citizen. We've created a 'socialist' central government which seizes vast amounts of our national wealth and steadily assumes control over more and more aspects of our personal lives. The result has been a disaster for the vast majority of Americans. Only the central planners themselves and their elite comrades have thrived. The evidence of 'stupidity' rests in the fact that millions of Americans think that we should grant additional wealth and power to this government.
What do you think the USA would do if Russia began installing a "Missile Defense System" in Cuba and Venezuela?
That's very interesting. I hadn't looked at the EU from this perspective, but it appears that you could following the same trajectory as the USA. Be warned!
The USA (under The Constitution) began as a voluntary agreement between independent states. Exactly as you described, we delegated certain authorities to a central government in a few areas (e.g. a monetary system and military) where it seemed we could be more effective as a unit.
As you can see from our example, the system was ultimately corrupted to the point that we now suffer under the reign of a massive, self-serving central government which has trampled the sovereignty of the states to serve its own self interests.
You're absolutely right to be skeptical of your government and extremely wary of any attempted EU power grabs. I'd caution you not to allow the destruction of your existence as independent states.
"Yeah. The "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument makes complete sense, after all."
That argument is used by tyrants and authoritarian regimes to justify invasions of privacy. It's nonsense, and it's certainly not an argument that I'm regurgitating.
To clarify MY comment:
From the point of view of a person whose goal is to transport the "secret files", why disguise the data as porn AND try to smuggle it in your underpants? The latter technique totally undermines the usefulness of the former. Disguising it as porn would make much more sense on a laptop with 40GB worth of other porn.
"a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight"
Yes, but he wasn't concealing it in "plain sight". The storage medium was hidden in his pants. That's the part of this "plot" that doesn't make sense to me. If the authorities find something being 'smuggled' they instantly know the person has something to hide. Was the idea that he would feel compelled to hide this simply because of the porn itself?
Sounds like another orchestrated stunt based on the plot of a cheap spy novel to perpetuate a culture of fear in the U.S. and Europe.
There is no Al Qaeda.
Of course our species is still evolving.
I think our evolution has become somewhat "chaotic" however. Our environment has been changing so rapidly that particularly advantageous traits might differ from generation to generation, thus making any sort of "trend" difficult to spot.
Unfortunately, I think the mere willingness to procreate is probably one of the most favored traits in the current environment of the 'developed' world I say 'unfortunate' because this willingness might strongly correlate with a tendency toward disregard for the future consequences of one's actions. Furthermore, the advent of the welfare state has effectively counter-balanced some of the environmental factors which might work against this tendency.
Lincoln invaded the South to preserve the union, not to "free the slaves". The war began in April 1861. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issues until January 1863. Furthermore, the proclamation applied only to the states that were part of the Confederacy, There were still border states where slavery was legal and they were unaffected. In addition, any confederate state willing to re-join the union was also promised an exemption.
Other nations managed to eradicate slavery without a bloody civil war. It was clearly the bitterness engendered by armed conflict and the North's attempts to basically rub the South's face in their defeat that perpetuated racial hatred in the country.
State powers are enshrined in The Constitution. The Southern states had a very valid legal argument.
The unfortunate fact is that when people bring up the issue of state powers and the 10th Amendment these days, the absurd counter-argument is that rolling back federal power-grabbing means that South Carolina could and would re-institute slavery.
"Perhaps, the closer you get to the outer fringe of the political spectrum, the more susceptible you are to believing conspiratorial nonsense."
A common misconception. People on "the fringe" so to speak are actually the people who are least susceptible to being brainwashed. The "normal" healthy extroverts are the vulnerable ones. People who are part of the political "mainstream" and who hold "majority opinion" as the "truth" are simply the people who are most easily influenced by their surroundings. That's why they're part of the "mainstream". That's also why they believe "conspiratorial nonsense" like Iraq had WMDs. Those on "the fringe" tend to question the "official" narratives.
"This time he's very publicly threatened to veto."
Ah yes, just like he did with NDAA.
Same playbook this time. He'll get a couple of meaningless clauses added, use a "signing statement" to say that he won't abuse this, and then claim it's a victory for the American people.
Not true. The government cannot circumvent the 4th Amendment by coercing a third party to do their dirty work for them ... at least until CISPA becomes law.
Since 2000, we've seen the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, telecom immunity for the aforementioned, indefinite detention(and now assassination!) of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, NDAA ... and this relentless effort to legalize internet espionage.
Furthermore, it's no secret that the NSA is building a huge new data center in Utah.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
This stuff isn't in the realm of "conspiracy theories" nor exclusive to wearers of tinfoil hats.
No big deal. I'll bet that German court hasn't uploaded very many videos.
Anyone know that the German Court's YouTube ID is? I did a search and I didn't see anything obvious. Maybe the "uploads by [the] German Court" have all been removed already?
"Racism much? I bet your sweeping generalizations of other cultures takes you very far in life."
It's called inductive reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
"Hume highlighted the fact that our every day habits of mind depend on drawing uncertain conclusions from our relatively limited experiences..."
There's nothing wrong with making generalizations based on the data set to which you've been exposed. I think it goes without saying that the comment is based on personal experience as opposed to a comprehensive study.
The evolutionary nature of this type of thought process is obvious. People that didn't figure out that certain plants and animals will kill you after they'd made a few observations were weeded out of the gene pool.
I just don't get it. It's obvious that you believe the government is corrupt and controlled by the corporations. Yet you describe "small government" as a dumb idea? Why would you advocate giving more wealth and more power to a government you believe is corrupt and beholden to special interests?
Left and Right are completely irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties. One thing that the vast majority of both parties in Washington DC agree on is that government should have more power and the people should have fewer freedoms. If these people are entitled to the label "moderate", then we definitely need more extremists. The type that will fight against this relentless assault on our essential liberties.
Power and corruption are intimately linked. A government where 535 politicians can suck $2.2T out of the economy, borrow trillions more and pass sweeping laws (CISPA e.g.) which affect the lives of 330 million people will always be corrupt.
We should be electing libertarian candidates to federal office so that they can shrink the size and scope of this monstrosity in Washington D.C. and restore power to the states and the people where it belongs. Corporate influence will crumble and fragment if power and resources are restored to local and state governments.
You can have as much or as little government as you want, but if you want to keep it under the control of the citizens, it must be architected from the bottom up. Central planning and big top-down government are failed experiments.