The MRC seems to paint a good picture but then you see it has cherry picked one particular herd, the Central Arctic caribou herd, and ignored a huge decline in other carabou herds!
"In 1977, as the Prudhoe region started delivering oil to America's southern 48 states, the Central Arctic caribou herd numbered 6,000; it has since grown to 27,128. "
It seems to me that the pipeline's benefit to carabou is a conservative fiction. Grrr. I used to be very conservative from 1980 to 1992. It upsets me that so many religious people lie by commission or omission on the conservative side.
An ultimate frisbee buddy of mine came back with a story about a hot three way in new orleans with an enthusiastic girl and her boyfriend.
Three weeks later he's contacted for by the DA about raping her. The reason was she had been observed drinking that evening and so her consent wasn't valid. (Obviously she had changed her mind after the fact - perhaps because her boyfriend changed his mind but he never found out).
He was lucky to not be convicted but it cost him thousands of dollars, his promising job at a law firm, and a lot of mental anguish.
I've looked it up since then and it's not just new orleans. Many areas (and many college campuses) are headed to a position that intoxication means you can't give consent. And they usually apply it unequally in favor of females to boot. So if an intoxicated man and an intoxicated woman have sex- he's the guilty party.
It's a mine field out there and the rules are changing all the time.
All you really need is a non-intoxicated, non-coerced "YES" between two people of legal age.
It's not really that difficult.
It's not sex that is vile. It's risking forcing someone to have sex they don't want that's vile. (sometimes it's full on rape, other times it's sexual harassment).
He was above her in the chain of command and sex with someone you have power over has been a no-no for at least 10 years.
That being said, they were BOTH drunk- we have no idea how it started. For all we know, she started with him while sloshed and he went along since he was so drunk as to behave like a idiot. For all we know, he got her drunk and tricked her back to his room.
The only think we know for sure is that he was her supervisor and that he shouldn't be making out or having sex with her.
It's common custom in many countries (and still at many businesses in the U.S.) for subordinates and superiors to drink socially. It's a way of opening lines of communication and getting a safe place to speak frankly. However, when you mix people who are sexually attracted to each other, it can turn messy. Women are starting to be caught abusing their power too.
And it's only abuse when it goes badly. In the cases where it goes well, the subordinate is promoted over more qualified peers. So it's going to continue. And there will continue to be scandals.
Unless you are a person that gets sick from VR or have formally studied it, I don't think you can speak to that with even as a good a basis in reality as the parent poster.
I'm strongly in favor of legalizing (not simply decriminalizing) drugs.
If I were president tomorrow, I'd legalize pot to the level of alcohol and booze. I'd legalize cocaine to the level of allowing legal consumption in special access controlled areas at clubs and bars. I'd legalize heroin to the level of allowing legal consumption at government sponsored medical areas.
I wouldn't legalize crystal meth and I'd use some of the money freed up by legalizing the other drugs to go towards stopping crystal meth. From everything I can see, it's dangerous, nasty stuff.
In support of the above points... I knew and I've known many, many, many successful happy people who did cocaine without issues. The addiction rate is only a couple points higher than booze. I've never tried it myself since I have chemotherapy heart damage and the 1:10,000 odds of instant death are probably even higher for me.
Heroin is not as addictive as portrayed. The actual addiction rate is much lower and addiction depends heavily on the rest of the user's life being miserable. Studies of returning viet nam vets who used heroin showed only a 5% addiction rate once they returned to normal surroundings with a good social network (family and friends).
Prohibition results in the corruption of our judicial and police systems and contempt for the rule of law (you know wealthy people and performers do drugs all the time and get off with light fines while poor people go to jail for years). Billy Idol's autobiography is full of stories of heavy drug use and the winking acceptance by police (who would escort him out of the country rather than arrest him and put him in jail for a couple decades).
Prohibition also is destroying much of central and south america as well has resulting in tens of thousands of murders per year (many of them innocent of any crime) as well as funding some really bad people with billions of dollars.
Lacking certain probiotics will make some food indigestable to you. Lacking a lot of probiotics will make a lot of food indigestible to you. Lacking certain probiotics will lead to bad food reactions. Having certain probiotics will lead to gaining weight as you will be more efficient at extracting calories from food.
While you usually lose a lot of your intestinal bacteria when you take antibiotics, you can also lose them from diseases which don't make you sick but which do kill off your intestinal bacteria.
While some people push taking pro-biotics every day (even selling them in bottles of 30 pills), in my life, I've found taking a single pill is enough to jumpstart my system when I lose it.
Whole foods used to sell 3 varieties of pills- each with a different selection of healthy gut bacteria. One was yellow and one was purple. I can't recall the color of the third type. My feeling was that a complex gut was better than a monoculture gut (no science to back that up tho).
Three times in my life- I've had my gut bacteria killed off by an illness. Two of those times, it only effected my intestinal flora. The other, I was also sick physically. In each case, taking a single pill of each type and some yogart fixed things up quickly.
I have a friend who has celiac disease and her reaction was bad tho. She had strong distress after taking pro-biotics.
It has become a profit center in many states and a form of horrible punishment in most states (essentially ruin your life for several years or more even if you are found innocent). Just the threat of years of debt paying off thousands of dollars in fees (and interest and fees on top of those fees) is enough to make innocent people agree they are guilty.
The public defender's office should be free or limited to a small slice of the defendent's income after a basic deduction. For example: A limit of 5% of their net income over $24,000.
Charging a person more than their annual income for their defense (as is happening in many states) makes a mockery of justice.
Similar 'rent seeking' behavior around traffic fines was also highlighted by the john oliver show. Including such offensive behavior as requiring every penny of payments to go to interest first- preventing any possibility of paying the fine off unless the victim of the"justice" system comes into a large sum of money.
The quality of John Oliver's shows are high and he provides a valuable service which used to be handled by the major news networks in highlighting ridiculously over the top bad government and corporate abuse.
Your point is quibbling and irrelevant to John Oliver's credibility which was what was being discussed.
http://www.motherjones.com/med... " In preparing for upcoming episodes, Oliver & Co. will often reach out to journalists or experts in a certain field for more information and perspective. For instance, prior to the Keith Alexander interview, they got in touch with Shane Harris, who profiled Alexander for Foreign Policy late last year. Furthermore, their staff includes Charles Wilson, an alumnus of the New York Times and The New Yorker, who now serves as the show's "journalistic fact-checker," in Oliver's words.
"You can't build a joke on sand, because otherwise then the joke doesn't work andâ¦everything falls apart," Oliver says. "So you gotta make sure, even if it's sometimes incredibly frustrating, if you get excited about a joke angle, and then your fact-checker says, 'Yeah, you can't say that. That's not right.' And it's a tough job. I remember when I was talking to Charles before he joined the show, I was just saying, 'It is the thankless position to have to walk into a room that has kind of a joyful momentum behind itâ¦and be the one saying, 'Yeah, you can't do any of that. It's not true.'" " Everyone makes mistakes but Oliver's show takes efforts to check the facts and get them straight.
Hmm. Given the context of your post, it sounded like you were saying he was incorrect in saying that people had to pay for public defenders. Rereading your actual post... I agree that you would only have to show some errors.
In this case however, 43 states do charge for public defenders (which is even more than I thought) and it is a horrific path for poor defenders to start on. It seems fundamentally unjust to offer a public defender and then charge them for the public defender. In the interest of justice, public defenders should be well funded and any charges should be based on the defendent's income.
Slashdot Mirror
touche'! outstanding.
Ah.... but you see my comment was a sarcastic reference to the A.I. effect.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect)
When they figure out a way for A.I. to recognize sarcasm, then people will say recognizing sarcasm isn't A.I. just an algorithm.
Like many psychological studies, I'd like to see the results replicated in different countries and different settings.
I don't think pipeline spills lead to carabou declines.
I do think MRC presented a highly slanted picture tho.
I agree there could be many causes for the overall herd decline.
If the pipeline provided benefits, they were overshadowed by other factors.
I thought that about carabou but info on it seems to be mixed on an ideological basis.
Here's some links on it.
Government
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/ind...
Herds have declined a lot.
Hunters
http://www.adn.com/article/201...
Herds have declined a lot.
Liberals
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...
Disaster! Woe is me! Caribous going extinct!
Conservatives
http://www.mrc.org/news/alaska...
One herd has increased!
Conservatives
http://www.heritage.org/resear...
Mmmm. Pipelines good! Jobs jobs jobs! Pipelines good!
The MRC seems to paint a good picture but then you see it has cherry picked one particular herd, the Central Arctic caribou herd, and ignored a huge decline in other carabou herds!
"In 1977, as the Prudhoe region started delivering oil to America's southern 48 states, the Central Arctic caribou herd numbered 6,000; it has since grown to 27,128. "
It seems to me that the pipeline's benefit to carabou is a conservative fiction. Grrr. I used to be very conservative from 1980 to 1992. It upsets me that so many religious people lie by commission or omission on the conservative side.
A lot of the sahara desert is stony and not sandy.
Also, creating a huge shaded area should create an interesting micro-climate underneath the power plant.
It is in new orleans, lousiana.
An ultimate frisbee buddy of mine came back with a story about a hot three way in new orleans with an enthusiastic girl and her boyfriend.
Three weeks later he's contacted for by the DA about raping her. The reason was she had been observed drinking that evening and so her consent wasn't valid. (Obviously she had changed her mind after the fact - perhaps because her boyfriend changed his mind but he never found out).
He was lucky to not be convicted but it cost him thousands of dollars, his promising job at a law firm, and a lot of mental anguish.
I've looked it up since then and it's not just new orleans. Many areas (and many college campuses) are headed to a position that intoxication means you can't give consent. And they usually apply it unequally in favor of females to boot. So if an intoxicated man and an intoxicated woman have sex- he's the guilty party.
It's a mine field out there and the rules are changing all the time.
All you really need is a non-intoxicated, non-coerced "YES" between two people of legal age.
It's not really that difficult.
It's not sex that is vile. It's risking forcing someone to have sex they don't want that's vile. (sometimes it's full on rape, other times it's sexual harassment).
Well, it's clear he was an idiot.
He was above her in the chain of command and sex with someone you have power over has been a no-no for at least 10 years.
That being said, they were BOTH drunk- we have no idea how it started. For all we know, she started with him while sloshed and he went along since he was so drunk as to behave like a idiot. For all we know, he got her drunk and tricked her back to his room.
The only think we know for sure is that he was her supervisor and that he shouldn't be making out or having sex with her.
It's common custom in many countries (and still at many businesses in the U.S.) for subordinates and superiors to drink socially. It's a way of opening lines of communication and getting a safe place to speak frankly. However, when you mix people who are sexually attracted to each other, it can turn messy. Women are starting to be caught abusing their power too.
And it's only abuse when it goes badly. In the cases where it goes well, the subordinate is promoted over more qualified peers. So it's going to continue. And there will continue to be scandals.
If your summary isn't vague then someone will find out some way it's wrong.
lol.
By sending hundreds of kilobytes of data as an ad.
It's horrific on mobile devices on wifi.
And by not vetting ads so (as happened in reality last month to Forbes), they are serving malware.
I'm sure I could think of others...
oh yea, flashing, blinking, taking over the screen, click jacking you with transparent ads.
Probably more.
Reasonable, low bandwidth ads may get ignored but they don't get blocked unless they are from somewhere with abusive ads.
Ads are dangerous these days.
Ad sellers don't vet the ads at all. It's basically begging for malware to be installed on your machine.
Static ads won't be blocked. Go back to static ads.
Why should I go rooting around deleting things when they know what should be deleted in the first place?
Seriously.
Wow... what religion prohibits building unshielded reactors?
I have friends who get nauseous simply from the head bobbing in minecraft.
There are a lot of people who get nauseous from VR.
There are a lot of people who get headaches from VR.
It's still a very real thing
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/r...
Unless you are a person that gets sick from VR or have formally studied it, I don't think you can speak to that with even as a good a basis in reality as the parent poster.
And the solar powerplant behind her is impressive too!
I'm strongly in favor of legalizing (not simply decriminalizing) drugs.
If I were president tomorrow, I'd legalize pot to the level of alcohol and booze.
I'd legalize cocaine to the level of allowing legal consumption in special access controlled areas at clubs and bars.
I'd legalize heroin to the level of allowing legal consumption at government sponsored medical areas.
I wouldn't legalize crystal meth and I'd use some of the money freed up by legalizing the other drugs to go towards stopping crystal meth. From everything I can see, it's dangerous, nasty stuff.
In support of the above points...
I knew and I've known many, many, many successful happy people who did cocaine without issues. The addiction rate is only a couple points higher than booze. I've never tried it myself since I have chemotherapy heart damage and the 1:10,000 odds of instant death are probably even higher for me.
Heroin is not as addictive as portrayed. The actual addiction rate is much lower and addiction depends heavily on the rest of the user's life being miserable. Studies of returning viet nam vets who used heroin showed only a 5% addiction rate once they returned to normal surroundings with a good social network (family and friends).
Prohibition results in the corruption of our judicial and police systems and contempt for the rule of law (you know wealthy people and performers do drugs all the time and get off with light fines while poor people go to jail for years). Billy Idol's autobiography is full of stories of heavy drug use and the winking acceptance by police (who would escort him out of the country rather than arrest him and put him in jail for a couple decades).
Prohibition also is destroying much of central and south america as well has resulting in tens of thousands of murders per year (many of them innocent of any crime) as well as funding some really bad people with billions of dollars.
Hopefully, pot will be legal within my lifetime.
Lacking certain probiotics will make some food indigestable to you.
Lacking a lot of probiotics will make a lot of food indigestible to you.
Lacking certain probiotics will lead to bad food reactions.
Having certain probiotics will lead to gaining weight as you will be more efficient at extracting calories from food.
While you usually lose a lot of your intestinal bacteria when you take antibiotics, you can also lose them from diseases which don't make you sick but which do kill off your intestinal bacteria.
While some people push taking pro-biotics every day (even selling them in bottles of 30 pills), in my life, I've found taking a single pill is enough to jumpstart my system when I lose it.
Whole foods used to sell 3 varieties of pills- each with a different selection of healthy gut bacteria. One was yellow and one was purple. I can't recall the color of the third type. My feeling was that a complex gut was better than a monoculture gut (no science to back that up tho).
Three times in my life- I've had my gut bacteria killed off by an illness. Two of those times, it only effected my intestinal flora. The other, I was also sick physically. In each case, taking a single pill of each type and some yogart fixed things up quickly.
I have a friend who has celiac disease and her reaction was bad tho. She had strong distress after taking pro-biotics.
It has become a profit center in many states and a form of horrible punishment in most states (essentially ruin your life for several years or more even if you are found innocent). Just the threat of years of debt paying off thousands of dollars in fees (and interest and fees on top of those fees) is enough to make innocent people agree they are guilty.
The public defender's office should be free or limited to a small slice of the defendent's income after a basic deduction. For example: A limit of 5% of their net income over $24,000.
Charging a person more than their annual income for their defense (as is happening in many states) makes a mockery of justice.
Similar 'rent seeking' behavior around traffic fines was also highlighted by the john oliver show. Including such offensive behavior as requiring every penny of payments to go to interest first- preventing any possibility of paying the fine off unless the victim of the"justice" system comes into a large sum of money.
The quality of John Oliver's shows are high and he provides a valuable service which used to be handled by the major news networks in highlighting ridiculously over the top bad government and corporate abuse.
Your point is quibbling and irrelevant to John Oliver's credibility which was what was being discussed.
http://www.motherjones.com/med...
"
In preparing for upcoming episodes, Oliver & Co. will often reach out to journalists or experts in a certain field for more information and perspective. For instance, prior to the Keith Alexander interview, they got in touch with Shane Harris, who profiled Alexander for Foreign Policy late last year. Furthermore, their staff includes Charles Wilson, an alumnus of the New York Times and The New Yorker, who now serves as the show's "journalistic fact-checker," in Oliver's words.
"You can't build a joke on sand, because otherwise then the joke doesn't work andâ¦everything falls apart," Oliver says. "So you gotta make sure, even if it's sometimes incredibly frustrating, if you get excited about a joke angle, and then your fact-checker says, 'Yeah, you can't say that. That's not right.' And it's a tough job. I remember when I was talking to Charles before he joined the show, I was just saying, 'It is the thankless position to have to walk into a room that has kind of a joyful momentum behind itâ¦and be the one saying, 'Yeah, you can't do any of that. It's not true.'"
"
Everyone makes mistakes but Oliver's show takes efforts to check the facts and get them straight.
Hmm. Given the context of your post, it sounded like you were saying he was incorrect in saying that people had to pay for public defenders. Rereading your actual post... I agree that you would only have to show some errors.
In this case however, 43 states do charge for public defenders (which is even more than I thought) and it is a horrific path for poor defenders to start on. It seems fundamentally unjust to offer a public defender and then charge them for the public defender. In the interest of justice, public defenders should be well funded and any charges should be based on the defendent's income.
Invalid argument.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.techtimes.com/artic...
Everyone is wrong occasionally.
I seriously doubt a major 15 minute segment would be wrong in any central and fundamental facts. And in this case, it's not.
You'd need to show the areas he said charge for public defenders actually do not charge for public defenders. Which you did not do.
Put it this way... you were wrong sometime in the past year about something, so your current argument is invalid.
It's just as invalid a technique when I do it to you as when you did it with john oliver.
You had a reasonable expectation that the police couldn't track every citizen every minute of their travels in the public.
This is something new and will need new laws to address it.
License numbers are public information but the public would have never accepted policemen on every street filming the public constantly.
You may not be aware but many states and cities are starting to charge you for the public defender if you lose your case.
It's really evil. See John Oliver show for details.