There certainly is an expectation of privacy if the photos were taken by police officers in the course of recording evidence as part of their jobs. The woman had a pre-existing brain injury as the result of childhood cancer which made her prone to impulsive behavior.
1. The photos were taken by police officers improperly.
2. The photos found their way onto the sickosphere.
3. The photos were then shown to a school class, which included the deceased girl's younger sister
4. No, you don't have a right to view anything and everything that someone has a camera on.
She wasn't drunk. She did have a pre-existing brain injury which was the result of childhood cancer which made her prone to impulsive and reckless behavior.
And no, you don't have a right to view the result unless you're a complete fucked-up ghoul.
I'd agree, but the kick-ass products would be "How to Ace Calculus" and "How to Ace the rest of calculus". Then the Schaum series make sense (like the College Mathematics book for example.
The "How to Ace" series make me madder than hell that it wasn't published twenty-five years ago.
Of course Elite became Eve Online, exactly the same game only with better graphics, multiplayer and millions of options designed to suck out your lifespan through your wallet.
I played Elite a lot as a kid, which is why I couldn't see the Eve Online screen for the deja vu
I wasn't aware that 'humankind' was a euphemism for 'The USA'.
It isn't. I certainly thought of Gagarin and Tereshkova as well as the Mir. It certainly wasn't my intention to denigrate the Soviet space program acheivements.
But even Russia's ambition for human spaceflight goes no higher than LEO.
My point was the same as Buzz Aldrin's:
"A great statement was made by Apollo 13 which had a problem en route - failure is not an option we have got to succeed in getting them back. But if failure is not an option, don't fly, don't go into space. Its hazardous"
I just don't think that sending people who can pay x hundred thousand dollars for a ticket for a few minutes of microgravity and a brief view of the edge of the atmosphere is anything other than the world's most expensive and pointless roller-coaster.
A roller-coaster which will shut down the first time it has a fatal accident.
Let's get this all in perspective. I was born in the mid 1960's.
1960's - humankind put people into space and then put them around and then on the Moon.
1970's - humankind stopped bothering putting them on the Moon, but did put them in high orbit - Skylab
1980's - humankind dumped Skylab into the sea (and Western Australia) but brought in the shuttle
1990's - humankind used the Shuttle to get people into low earth orbit and started to build the International Space Station
2000's - humankind decides to retire Shuttle and considers retiring the ISS
2010's - humankind lifts people to the edge of the atmosphere.
At this rate by the time I'm retired, humankind will have set its sights for the top of the stairs. It may make it - but only if its risk-free.
When it came for our little girl to be imunized with the MMR jab, I would be lying if I said that I wasn't just a little bit afraid. Reading the debunking of Wakefield's "research" and what the meta-studies showed (ie no relation) gave a lot of comfort, but less emotional certainty than I would have liked.
So you do the right thing for your kid (get them the shots) and you hope for the best that your kid isn't the one out of the hundreds of thousands who has a negative reaction to immunization.
By the way, both my kids are fully immunized and they have not had the childhood diseases that in days gone past used to spread like wildfire and kill or maim hundreds.
For those parents who trust their feelings more than reason, anti-vax groups are preying on their fears. I think that what will kill anti-vax groups will be an outbreak of some entirely preventable disease amongst the un-immunized which unfortunately will kill or maim children rather than the idiot parents.
Of course, gas and electric companies would like to kill off wind power because it makes their own products uneconomic...WAIT NO IT DOESN'T. Wind power is expensive, unreliable and to provide electric power for when the wind drops, standby fossil fuel generation has to be provided. The only reason wind power is out there at all is due to massive subsidies from the taxpayer and "green" taxes on gas and electric companies.
In other words, all taxpayers get it in the shorts to pay for these shibboleths. Wind turbines, even under favorable circumstances, don't produce even enough power to manufacture wind turbines.
Only the economically illiterate would want wind power to grow significantly while we still have (but not for much longer methinks) an absurd apocalyptic panic about carbon dioxide and fossil fuels. Eventually, the laws of economics trump sentimental rubbish about wind power, because when the winter comes and the winds die down, people will demand fossil fuel generation in preference to freezing to death.
...... amateur pornography makers, Chinese citizens who are perceived as unpatriotic, journalists who urge a moderate stance on Tibet and rich people who try to game the Chinese system
This is the online version of denouncing people to the Thought Police in 1984. Just a reminder that China is still very much a totalitarian state.
If you're that close, you should be able to put a small coil of wire in your apartment and induce a nice free electric current. It won't make you popular with the owners of the antenna but what do they know?
Otherwise no, I don't see a problem with RF.
Yes, denialist works just as well as a smear, especially if you want to invoke Holocaust denial, but are just to cowardly to come out and say it. Like another jerk just replied to, there's no amount of evidence that will contradict an unreasonable argument.
Yes I'm a denier of the coming Apocalypse.
You may quote me at my trial for Climate Catastrophe Denial.
Well I for one don't, and I've been following the issue with some interest. Nothing in the selection of emails stolen from CRU could reasonably said to constitute HARD PROOF.
No of course not. Especially when you had your eyes tightly shut when you read them.
Based on the fact that the numbers he used for deforestation were not applicable to the problem, aggregated over different collection methods, and completely irrelevant to the problem caused by deforestation: loss of habitat for endemic species.
Citation please.
And yes, I read his crap. It was a massive disappointment, and the only conclusion I could come to was that he was either ignorant beyond belief, or dishonest.
So a blanket condemnation based on a single unsourced reference.
So yes, we can ignore him. As for your statement "that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research", that's not true either. The closest thing that has been demonstrated is that some researchers are human and petty in their responses to other people's requests and research. That's a long way from demonstrating that EVERY researcher has faked his research.
Here we get to the rub. You dismiss Lomberg based on a selective quotation of a supposed mistake and then bend over backwards to excuse data manipulation, censorship and interference in peer review, and other forms of scientific misconduct.
Not human and petty - just dishonest.
No-one has ever claimed that EVERY researcher has faked his research. But the ones which are supposed to establish that there is a climate crisis? Very, very dubious indeed.
Feel free to argue otherwise, but to be credible, you're going to have to demonstrate that every single paper arguing for AGW is dishonest. Go ahead.
Why should we, when you argue that every single quote from Bjorn Lomberg is dishonest and 'crap'.
Its interesting to note that AGW believers mimic creationists even to the extent of believing that climate was ever stable, that it was destabilized through the sin of Man eating from the Tree of Knowledge called the Industrial Revolution, that the ensuing mess can only be reversed through reverting to enforced poverty and a return to antedeluvian beliefs, that the penalty for not doing so is Apocalypse and the destruction of the Earth, that anyone who does not believe the message of salvation through self-denial is an apostate who is a representative of an evil conspiracy and in Denial of the Truth.
Neo-creationism by any other name.
It's a perfect remapping of Christian Apocalyptic beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
There certainly is an expectation of privacy if the photos were taken by police officers in the course of recording evidence as part of their jobs. The woman had a pre-existing brain injury as the result of childhood cancer which made her prone to impulsive behavior.
Fuck you.
The differences are:
1. The photos were taken by police officers improperly.
2. The photos found their way onto the sickosphere.
3. The photos were then shown to a school class, which included the deceased girl's younger sister
4. No, you don't have a right to view anything and everything that someone has a camera on.
Who the fuck made this trollbait "insightful"?
She wasn't drunk. She did have a pre-existing brain injury which was the result of childhood cancer which made her prone to impulsive and reckless behavior.
And no, you don't have a right to view the result unless you're a complete fucked-up ghoul.
I'd agree, but the kick-ass products would be "How to Ace Calculus" and "How to Ace the rest of calculus". Then the Schaum series make sense (like the College Mathematics book for example.
The "How to Ace" series make me madder than hell that it wasn't published twenty-five years ago.
Will the publisher be liable if the Wikishit they sell proves to be libelous, defamatory or gratuitously wrong?
Of course Elite became Eve Online, exactly the same game only with better graphics, multiplayer and millions of options designed to suck out your lifespan through your wallet.
I played Elite a lot as a kid, which is why I couldn't see the Eve Online screen for the deja vu
I wasn't aware that 'humankind' was a euphemism for 'The USA'.
It isn't. I certainly thought of Gagarin and Tereshkova as well as the Mir. It certainly wasn't my intention to denigrate the Soviet space program acheivements.
But even Russia's ambition for human spaceflight goes no higher than LEO.
My point was the same as Buzz Aldrin's:
"A great statement was made by Apollo 13 which had a problem en route - failure is not an option we have got to succeed in getting them back. But if failure is not an option, don't fly, don't go into space. Its hazardous"
I just don't think that sending people who can pay x hundred thousand dollars for a ticket for a few minutes of microgravity and a brief view of the edge of the atmosphere is anything other than the world's most expensive and pointless roller-coaster.
A roller-coaster which will shut down the first time it has a fatal accident.
That makes sense. Space policy is being made by geriatrics.
Let's get this all in perspective. I was born in the mid 1960's.
1960's - humankind put people into space and then put them around and then on the Moon.
1970's - humankind stopped bothering putting them on the Moon, but did put them in high orbit - Skylab
1980's - humankind dumped Skylab into the sea (and Western Australia) but brought in the shuttle
1990's - humankind used the Shuttle to get people into low earth orbit and started to build the International Space Station
2000's - humankind decides to retire Shuttle and considers retiring the ISS
2010's - humankind lifts people to the edge of the atmosphere.
At this rate by the time I'm retired, humankind will have set its sights for the top of the stairs. It may make it - but only if its risk-free.
...something about "Should a man keep the sweat of his brow..."
Mod parent up!
When it came for our little girl to be imunized with the MMR jab, I would be lying if I said that I wasn't just a little bit afraid. Reading the debunking of Wakefield's "research" and what the meta-studies showed (ie no relation) gave a lot of comfort, but less emotional certainty than I would have liked.
So you do the right thing for your kid (get them the shots) and you hope for the best that your kid isn't the one out of the hundreds of thousands who has a negative reaction to immunization.
By the way, both my kids are fully immunized and they have not had the childhood diseases that in days gone past used to spread like wildfire and kill or maim hundreds.
For those parents who trust their feelings more than reason, anti-vax groups are preying on their fears. I think that what will kill anti-vax groups will be an outbreak of some entirely preventable disease amongst the un-immunized which unfortunately will kill or maim children rather than the idiot parents.
Of course, gas and electric companies would like to kill off wind power because it makes their own products uneconomic...WAIT NO IT DOESN'T. Wind power is expensive, unreliable and to provide electric power for when the wind drops, standby fossil fuel generation has to be provided. The only reason wind power is out there at all is due to massive subsidies from the taxpayer and "green" taxes on gas and electric companies.
In other words, all taxpayers get it in the shorts to pay for these shibboleths. Wind turbines, even under favorable circumstances, don't produce even enough power to manufacture wind turbines.
Only the economically illiterate would want wind power to grow significantly while we still have (but not for much longer methinks) an absurd apocalyptic panic about carbon dioxide and fossil fuels. Eventually, the laws of economics trump sentimental rubbish about wind power, because when the winter comes and the winds die down, people will demand fossil fuel generation in preference to freezing to death.
...... amateur pornography makers, Chinese citizens who are perceived as unpatriotic, journalists who urge a moderate stance on Tibet and rich people who try to game the Chinese system
This is the online version of denouncing people to the Thought Police in 1984. Just a reminder that China is still very much a totalitarian state.
If you're that close, you should be able to put a small coil of wire in your apartment and induce a nice free electric current. It won't make you popular with the owners of the antenna but what do they know? Otherwise no, I don't see a problem with RF.
So Friel is submitting his book after peer-review? Of course not.
So your argument is plucked out of the orifice that your proctologist knows so well.
Yes, denialist works just as well as a smear, especially if you want to invoke Holocaust denial, but are just to cowardly to come out and say it. Like another jerk just replied to, there's no amount of evidence that will contradict an unreasonable argument.
Yes I'm a denier of the coming Apocalypse.
You may quote me at my trial for Climate Catastrophe Denial.
Your tin foil hat is slipping. Better add more tin foil.
Well I for one don't, and I've been following the issue with some interest. Nothing in the selection of emails stolen from CRU could reasonably said to constitute HARD PROOF. No of course not. Especially when you had your eyes tightly shut when you read them.
It's touching how you dance around the hard facts of the code to quote something completely irrelevant. And more than a little sad.
You know Lomborg was dishonest? Based on what?
Based on the fact that the numbers he used for deforestation were not applicable to the problem, aggregated over different collection methods, and completely irrelevant to the problem caused by deforestation: loss of habitat for endemic species.
Citation please.
And yes, I read his crap. It was a massive disappointment, and the only conclusion I could come to was that he was either ignorant beyond belief, or dishonest.
So a blanket condemnation based on a single unsourced reference.
So yes, we can ignore him. As for your statement "that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research", that's not true either. The closest thing that has been demonstrated is that some researchers are human and petty in their responses to other people's requests and research. That's a long way from demonstrating that EVERY researcher has faked his research.
Here we get to the rub. You dismiss Lomberg based on a selective quotation of a supposed mistake and then bend over backwards to excuse data manipulation, censorship and interference in peer review, and other forms of scientific misconduct.
Not human and petty - just dishonest.
No-one has ever claimed that EVERY researcher has faked his research. But the ones which are supposed to establish that there is a climate crisis? Very, very dubious indeed.
Feel free to argue otherwise, but to be credible, you're going to have to demonstrate that every single paper arguing for AGW is dishonest. Go ahead.
Why should we, when you argue that every single quote from Bjorn Lomberg is dishonest and 'crap'.
Its interesting to note that AGW believers mimic creationists even to the extent of believing that climate was ever stable, that it was destabilized through the sin of Man eating from the Tree of Knowledge called the Industrial Revolution, that the ensuing mess can only be reversed through reverting to enforced poverty and a return to antedeluvian beliefs, that the penalty for not doing so is Apocalypse and the destruction of the Earth, that anyone who does not believe the message of salvation through self-denial is an apostate who is a representative of an evil conspiracy and in Denial of the Truth.
Neo-creationism by any other name.
It's a perfect remapping of Christian Apocalyptic beliefs.
And that would be you.
Unfortunately correlation is not causation. The ice cores show no forcing of temperatures as a result of carbon dioxide rise.
Unfortunately the 5.35 part is an order of magnitude too high. That's what happens when you have no knowledge of quantum physics.
Yes, your keyboard moved and words came out. Unfortunately the ideas conveyed were nonsense.