My company developed a new type of jet fuel that will make all air travel 50% cheaper and scrub greenhouses gasses as a happy side effect. The thing is, I have no idea about the toxicity, because no animal in nature has ever encountered this chemical before. Does one whiff cause instant death? Does 10 years of exposure cause horrible lung cancer? If I get it in my eyes will it eat my brain?
How do I get informed consent for those tests? Is it more ethical to drive to the nearest underpass and tell the homeless guy, if you drink this I'll give you $100 than to feed it to a rat? It probably won't do anything, but it might kill you. It might lead to 20 years of agonizing pain. But I do know this $100 is yours for the sake of science.
Then we need to find out if it causes cancer. All those guys who refuel the planes are going to get at least a little exposure for their entire careers. I could wait to bring it to market until I run a small 20 year test that might not be statistically significant, or I could pump it into the cages of 1000 mice with controlled environments and diets and see what happens over 7 generations.
Then you've got mutagenic and teratogenic effects. I'm sure I could find a pregnant crackhead who would be willing to take money in order to see if the exposure deforms here progeny, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to live with myself if a test turns out positive (and even then was it the test substance or all the other substances she's exposing her body to). At any rate, I'm much more comfortable taking the chance that a rat might be born without orifices than a human.
I'm not really familiar with the cosmetic industries testing protocols, but I'd hazard a guess that they don't just randomly poke puppies in the eye with mascara for the hell of it.
I used to work for a company that had to do animal testing for EPA approval, the reason was that we were developing novel useful chemicals that (like all chemicals) carried a potential for human could be exposure - if they were exposed, we needed to know the results. The way we determined if the product was safe to market was by dosing animals with the chemical until they developed problems, then they were euthanized. If the substance caused particularly severe problems or problems at particularly low rates the project died. Now imagine that someone in the cosmetics industry decides that lead oxide and coconut oil doesn't really do a good job of blocking "the sun's harmful rays." Some material scientist things that titanium might work better. Should we assume it's safe and roll out the marketing campaign, scrap it because it's new and might be dangerous, or should we conduct an animal toxicology study? Cosmetics is the placing of chemicals on ones face. Either we convince Pamella Anderson that she doesn't need make-up (*snort*) or we evaluate the hazards of those chemicals. Use all natural products you say? I've located some natural silicate minerals that would make great exfoliates, I'm thinking of marketing them under the trade name "asBESTos."
An interesting thing occurs at the confluence of product-safety and animal rights. There is a large overlap in people who freak out that the plasticizers in rubber-ducky might be harmful and people who are horrified at the prospect of animal testing. Well what's to be done? Either we perform animal tests on a wide range of previously untested chemicals (the EU is doing this now), we suck it up when a chemical is shown to be hazardous, or we become luddites.
(In reality, we continue to buy flat panel TVs, don't want anything tested, and but want to know that everything is 100% safe.)
As a product of 12 years of catholic schooling, let me just say that this is generally regarded as ret-conning. You can tie institutional Catholicism to Peter though scripture, but drawing a line from Peter through to Leo is a bit dicey.
Standard christian history holds that most Jews didn't recognize Jesus to be the messiah specifically because he did not come to deliver Israel from Rome. He even tells his disciples to be good and pay taxes "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s..." He also affirms many times that his kingdom is not of the commonly understood political variety.
sweet jeebus. I haven't made it to the list yet - just read the intro - and I'm already alternating between hysteria and banging my head against the wall.
my personal favorite is the screed against the guys who compiled the NIV because they're assosiated with institutes of higher education - and therefore can be expected to have a liberal bias...
I always remember to place bible scholars in my liberal pantheon... right next to Kieth Olbermann.
(p.s. there's little that I find to be more infuriating than anti-intellectualism)
The guy who wrote the article seems to have about as clear a case as one could imagine that the copyright owners are perjuring themselves - AND and interest in the rule of law AND (maybe) a university to foot his legal bills. Can an individual pursue perjury charges, or do they have to be brought by the state?
mises.org is free in the same way that the CATO institute and Center for American Progress issue "free" reports for government consumption. They have ulterior motivations. You can take a loss on your website all day long if you can convince your readers that buying gold is always a terrific investment - and you happen to get kickbacks from someone who sells gold.
I am speculating - I don't know how mises.org is funded - but someone is paying them to serve up their content, and if it isn't advertisers, rest assured they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Personally, I would rather look at ads than see the internet dominated by players that position their content as loss leaders.
But imagine you sue Microsoft for a small amount of money for, say, voiding your registration after updating a graphics card. MS, in their defense spends tens of thousands of dollars preparing to defend the case (this is not unrealistic, their corporate lawyers are already collecting a salary, now they're just billing their time against your case. Microsoft parades a few expert witnesses in front of the judge (or jury) and successfully confuses them. They rule against you - now you're on the hook for a huge legal bill.
Loser pays disincentivizes bringing law suits against big players. That is not to say our system is necessarily preferable, both systems have their pros and cons.
You could - but product differentiation is a pretty important marketing concept. Neither Amazon nor B&N particularly wants to conflate their devices with netbooks.
A helicopter produces lift as long as the rotor is spinning, do you think that all helicopter crashes result from main engine or rotor failure?
Helicopter crashes are more deadly than plane crashes because helicopters do more dangerous things, like flying around cities at a couple hundred feet.
how many helicopters are generating zero lift when they hit the ground? What's important is not the height of helicopter crashes, but the speed. I can certainly imagine worse accidents than 53mph at 33 degrees, but I'm willing to take NASA's word for it that this is "relatively severe."
I don't have a problem with fox criticizing people or policies, so long as it is presented as opinion and not as news - msnbc isn't perfect in this regard, but it's considerably better than fox.
Kieth's bio blurb may portray him as a newscaster (he occasionally plays the straight anchor for political events) but no one who has ever watched countdown would mistake that show for a newscast.
I also get uncomfortable when a news organization uses it's platform to materially support events, and then reports on them as if they're organic - as we saw with the teabagger nonsense.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
(emphasis mine)
No one is pretending media matters is neutral - anyone is free to start up their own service fact checking liberal media outlets - which is far from perfect. But you can't defelct criticism by your work by complaining that they're only looking at you - that may be true, but if the work were any good there wouldn't be any criticism.
As for Olbermann - he's a commentator, not a newscaster - you'll note that none of those links I gave singled out Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity - who are also not news men. (the first link about Jennings starts with Hannity, but then details the falsehood in "straight" newscasts.)
government or private interests... what else is there?
I know you're trying to make a dig at the the corporate media hegemony (which incidentally isn't a private interest but rather a public one), but your statement is almost as meaningless as the study. Not all info that makes it to our retinas is equal, just because some poor sap actually made it to page 7F of Today's Washington Times, doesn't mean the data was consumed in any meaningful way.
Also, consuming information isn't really what the content industry want from you. They either want you to buy information, or sell your retina time to an advertiser. Remember, every time you go to news.google.com, you're stealing from Rupert Murdoch - you're consuming data, but no one's getting paid - and according to the conservipedia bible project, this makes baby jesus cry.
In 1998 this may have been true, but today no one burns a copy of their CD for a friend. Music piracy is happening on the very same sites that movie piracy is happening on - and if you can figure out how to download and play a song, you can download and play a movie.
The reason the movie industry isn't going the way of the music industry are more complex than DRM and goes from technical (larger file sizes and crappy compression) to social (the way we enjoy the formats is different) to business (people don't want to pay for current pop music)
There's less than one movie a year that I want to see more than once. You went all the way back to 1978 to find a particularly good example. If the movie industry had to rely on the rare gems to support itself the quantity would drop precipitously. Which might sound like it has it's upsides - but consider that they'd only make "safe" blockbusters - like Titanic.
There may be problems on the horizon for the movie industry, but you can't rely on their accounting to come to that conclusion.
We'll know when movie studios start suffering because they'll stop dumping $200 million into projects like king kong just because Peter Jackson is directing.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you understand exposure testing.
My company developed a new type of jet fuel that will make all air travel 50% cheaper and scrub greenhouses gasses as a happy side effect. The thing is, I have no idea about the toxicity, because no animal in nature has ever encountered this chemical before. Does one whiff cause instant death? Does 10 years of exposure cause horrible lung cancer? If I get it in my eyes will it eat my brain?
How do I get informed consent for those tests? Is it more ethical to drive to the nearest underpass and tell the homeless guy, if you drink this I'll give you $100 than to feed it to a rat? It probably won't do anything, but it might kill you. It might lead to 20 years of agonizing pain. But I do know this $100 is yours for the sake of science.
Then we need to find out if it causes cancer. All those guys who refuel the planes are going to get at least a little exposure for their entire careers. I could wait to bring it to market until I run a small 20 year test that might not be statistically significant, or I could pump it into the cages of 1000 mice with controlled environments and diets and see what happens over 7 generations.
Then you've got mutagenic and teratogenic effects. I'm sure I could find a pregnant crackhead who would be willing to take money in order to see if the exposure deforms here progeny, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to live with myself if a test turns out positive (and even then was it the test substance or all the other substances she's exposing her body to). At any rate, I'm much more comfortable taking the chance that a rat might be born without orifices than a human.
I'm not really familiar with the cosmetic industries testing protocols, but I'd hazard a guess that they don't just randomly poke puppies in the eye with mascara for the hell of it.
I used to work for a company that had to do animal testing for EPA approval, the reason was that we were developing novel useful chemicals that (like all chemicals) carried a potential for human could be exposure - if they were exposed, we needed to know the results. The way we determined if the product was safe to market was by dosing animals with the chemical until they developed problems, then they were euthanized. If the substance caused particularly severe problems or problems at particularly low rates the project died. Now imagine that someone in the cosmetics industry decides that lead oxide and coconut oil doesn't really do a good job of blocking "the sun's harmful rays." Some material scientist things that titanium might work better. Should we assume it's safe and roll out the marketing campaign, scrap it because it's new and might be dangerous, or should we conduct an animal toxicology study? Cosmetics is the placing of chemicals on ones face. Either we convince Pamella Anderson that she doesn't need make-up (*snort*) or we evaluate the hazards of those chemicals. Use all natural products you say? I've located some natural silicate minerals that would make great exfoliates, I'm thinking of marketing them under the trade name "asBESTos."
An interesting thing occurs at the confluence of product-safety and animal rights. There is a large overlap in people who freak out that the plasticizers in rubber-ducky might be harmful and people who are horrified at the prospect of animal testing. Well what's to be done? Either we perform animal tests on a wide range of previously untested chemicals (the EU is doing this now), we suck it up when a chemical is shown to be hazardous, or we become luddites.
(In reality, we continue to buy flat panel TVs, don't want anything tested, and but want to know that everything is 100% safe.)
As a product of 12 years of catholic schooling, let me just say that this is generally regarded as ret-conning. You can tie institutional Catholicism to Peter though scripture, but drawing a line from Peter through to Leo is a bit dicey.
Standard christian history holds that most Jews didn't recognize Jesus to be the messiah specifically because he did not come to deliver Israel from Rome. He even tells his disciples to be good and pay taxes "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s..." He also affirms many times that his kingdom is not of the commonly understood political variety.
Yeah, something like that would never happen in the states.
What's the most relevant comment to be made for "deregulation"? I know, "Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this. "
apparently, the "Segway's" are conservative. Shoulda known what with those hoity toughty segway polo matches...
sweet jeebus. I haven't made it to the list yet - just read the intro - and I'm already alternating between hysteria and banging my head against the wall.
wait, you mean the story of Jesus and the money changers isn't a "free-market parable"?
Also, I'll thank you to note that the words "charter," "agenda" are liberal words. I suggest the following replacements, "covenant," and "mission."
my personal favorite is the screed against the guys who compiled the NIV because they're assosiated with institutes of higher education - and therefore can be expected to have a liberal bias...
I always remember to place bible scholars in my liberal pantheon... right next to Kieth Olbermann.
(p.s. there's little that I find to be more infuriating than anti-intellectualism)
you can't rape your cake and have it too.
You know that's what I was wondering too.
The guy who wrote the article seems to have about as clear a case as one could imagine that the copyright owners are perjuring themselves - AND and interest in the rule of law AND (maybe) a university to foot his legal bills. Can an individual pursue perjury charges, or do they have to be brought by the state?
mises.org is free in the same way that the CATO institute and Center for American Progress issue "free" reports for government consumption. They have ulterior motivations. You can take a loss on your website all day long if you can convince your readers that buying gold is always a terrific investment - and you happen to get kickbacks from someone who sells gold.
I am speculating - I don't know how mises.org is funded - but someone is paying them to serve up their content, and if it isn't advertisers, rest assured they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Personally, I would rather look at ads than see the internet dominated by players that position their content as loss leaders.
not the OP
But imagine you sue Microsoft for a small amount of money for, say, voiding your registration after updating a graphics card. MS, in their defense spends tens of thousands of dollars preparing to defend the case (this is not unrealistic, their corporate lawyers are already collecting a salary, now they're just billing their time against your case. Microsoft parades a few expert witnesses in front of the judge (or jury) and successfully confuses them. They rule against you - now you're on the hook for a huge legal bill.
Loser pays disincentivizes bringing law suits against big players. That is not to say our system is necessarily preferable, both systems have their pros and cons.
You could - but product differentiation is a pretty important marketing concept. Neither Amazon nor B&N particularly wants to conflate their devices with netbooks.
A helicopter produces lift as long as the rotor is spinning, do you think that all helicopter crashes result from main engine or rotor failure?
Helicopter crashes are more deadly than plane crashes because helicopters do more dangerous things, like flying around cities at a couple hundred feet.
how many helicopters are generating zero lift when they hit the ground? What's important is not the height of helicopter crashes, but the speed. I can certainly imagine worse accidents than 53mph at 33 degrees, but I'm willing to take NASA's word for it that this is "relatively severe."
I don't have a problem with fox criticizing people or policies, so long as it is presented as opinion and not as news - msnbc isn't perfect in this regard, but it's considerably better than fox.
Kieth's bio blurb may portray him as a newscaster (he occasionally plays the straight anchor for political events) but no one who has ever watched countdown would mistake that show for a newscast.
I also get uncomfortable when a news organization uses it's platform to materially support events, and then reports on them as if they're organic - as we saw with the teabagger nonsense.
about medial matters
(emphasis mine)
No one is pretending media matters is neutral - anyone is free to start up their own service fact checking liberal media outlets - which is far from perfect. But you can't defelct criticism by your work by complaining that they're only looking at you - that may be true, but if the work were any good there wouldn't be any criticism.
As for Olbermann - he's a commentator, not a newscaster - you'll note that none of those links I gave singled out Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity - who are also not news men. (the first link about Jennings starts with Hannity, but then details the falsehood in "straight" newscasts.)
First, I disagree that either CNN or MSNBCs inserts opinion into their news shows, and second, Fox is much worse about just plain making shit up
Because your dreams were derived from the latest adaptation of A Christmas Carol Disney holds the rights to them.
government or private interests... what else is there?
I know you're trying to make a dig at the the corporate media hegemony (which incidentally isn't a private interest but rather a public one), but your statement is almost as meaningless as the study. Not all info that makes it to our retinas is equal, just because some poor sap actually made it to page 7F of Today's Washington Times, doesn't mean the data was consumed in any meaningful way.
Also, consuming information isn't really what the content industry want from you. They either want you to buy information, or sell your retina time to an advertiser. Remember, every time you go to news.google.com, you're stealing from Rupert Murdoch - you're consuming data, but no one's getting paid - and according to the conservipedia bible project, this makes baby jesus cry.
I don't think so.
In 1998 this may have been true, but today no one burns a copy of their CD for a friend. Music piracy is happening on the very same sites that movie piracy is happening on - and if you can figure out how to download and play a song, you can download and play a movie.
The reason the movie industry isn't going the way of the music industry are more complex than DRM and goes from technical (larger file sizes and crappy compression) to social (the way we enjoy the formats is different) to business (people don't want to pay for current pop music)
There's less than one movie a year that I want to see more than once. You went all the way back to 1978 to find a particularly good example. If the movie industry had to rely on the rare gems to support itself the quantity would drop precipitously. Which might sound like it has it's upsides - but consider that they'd only make "safe" blockbusters - like Titanic.
There may be problems on the horizon for the movie industry, but you can't rely on their accounting to come to that conclusion.
We'll know when movie studios start suffering because they'll stop dumping $200 million into projects like king kong just because Peter Jackson is directing.