Look at the bars on your phone. Those bars translate into tiny fractions of a mW. Comparing favorably against the amount of electricity your own muscles give off when flexing. The inverse square law pretty much guarantees that people will be safe from the towers. Now, cellphones TRANSMIT as high as 3W, but as I understand it, the proposal isn't to end existing cell phone use, so if they cause cancer, they will probably do it on 4g as easily as 5g. There is 0 reason to ban the equipment from being put in place.
Atheism is a faith the same way that not having a bike is a type of bike. Atheists don't try to prove a negative, we just refuse to entertain proposed supernatural entities for whom there is absolutely no evidence.
So, in your world view, the russians were running a million dollar a year troll farm completely for the benefit of a cabal of western businesses and clandestine organizations?
It's important to remember that Russia only had to come up with the memes, and fake news. Those articles were snapped right up by the public at large and disseminated across platforms. Our people were more than happy to be part of the problem. And it is important to note that those ads show that they weren't just shilling for a candidate, but pushing any divisive issue they can find, on both sides of the political spectrum. What Russia wants from this is to be able to point at the west and laugh. They are after a propaganda point, something to show western democracies as "not all they are cracked up to be." A country that small knows they can't take over America from within, but pointing at a democracy in turmoil when trying to convince a country on your border to vote itself back in to a Russian empire can be very helpful.
Also a key point, at that same Constitutional Convention, it was decided that nothing laid down in that document should not be subject to change by the will of the people, because the founding fathers were wise enough to know they couldn't predict the future, nor lay down a perfect plan to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the people it would protect.
This is the least in contact with reality post I have ever seen in my life. You think the black vote is flocking to the REPUBLICANS in droves? You think the democratic party is RAMPANT with anti-semitism? Dude, for your own sanity, I am begging you, turn off Fox News!
"A monopoly" isn't the standard by which we judge anti-trust legislation. For the last few decades, the standard has been "harm to the consumer" rather than "harm to the market." The idea being that monopolies are fine as long as they aren't preventing other players from entering the market and driving down costs for the consumer. However, recently, there has been a lot of talk about "harm to the creators." Amazon provides a really good example here.
Lets say that you as a small company, decide to try you luck at selling hand crafted dog sweaters. They aren't a patentable good, but you know from various online dog lover communities they would sell well. So you take the time and effort to line up manufacturing and sink your savings into some inventory and sell them on amazon. For some reason they are go viral and and the sales go through the roof. Amazon, as the seller, knows this, and decides to put out an amazon basics version of your product. Not only that, but whenever someone searches on their platform, they put theirs as the first result and slap the label on it as "amazon's choice." Instantly, they start to reap the rewards of those sales without having ever facing the risks of the product not catching on like you did.
This is one of the reasons people have been batting around the idea of breaking up amazon the marketplace, from amazon the brand of cheap goods. Like it or not, the amazon marketplace is pretty much the default portal for online shopping these days, and there is a conflict of interest for them in listing other people's goods vs the ones they produce.
It's interesting to note that this problem has been covered by the courts in cases surrounding store brands and supermarkets. In fact, that was one of the earliest tests of the "harm to the consumer" standards vs harm to the market.
Planet money just did an excellent high level series on anti-trust, I highly recommend it if you are looking to educate yourself on the subject more.
and it's not my business to judge the validity of their religion and certainly NOT government's business
Well, that's not true. You wouldn't proudly stand up and endorse someones right to commit human sacrifice in the name of their religion, or rape their 10 year old girl as a right of passage in their religion. You not only have right to judge those actions, but a moral imperative. The only reason you think this is different because you assume vaccination isn't as serious as those examples. Let me ask you this, assuming we had a superflu raging around the world, one with a 50% mortality rate, would religious objections to vaccinating their child still be in the "not my business" category? How about at a 100% mortality rate? Under conditions like those, the choice to not vaccinate your child is morally equivalent to the choice to not feed your child. Just because someone invokes their religion doesn't mean it is ok for us to put our moral judgement to the side and watch them do as they please.
Well, not to nitpick, but this is exactly the sort of thing that CPS is charged with doing. Protecting the health and welfare of children for whom the parents won't. Vaccination is the very definition of protecting a child's health, so one need not extend their powers so much as enforce their current mandate in these circumstances. And rather than take the kids, CPS could just come in and administer the vaccines. There are lots of options between doing nothing and dragging kids off to concentration camps.
Secondly, we have been punting on religious connection to healthcare for a long time. An adult choosing to refuse healthcare, for any reason, is one thing, but refusing a blood transfusion for a child because Best Buddy in The Sky says so is another thing all together. Freedom of religion should never be interpreted as exemption from morality. I find it useful to replace "because god says so" with "I want to" when I need to ground myself in the morality of a decision based on religion. "I'm going to let my child bleed to death because I want to." is not the sort of thing any sane person would let happen. Why do we accept it when it is done in the name of religion?
Willfully ignorant in as much as that took me 10 seconds on Google to find, a task of which I assume you are capable. There is lots more citations I could lay out, perhaps dozens, maybe even a hundred. But let's not kid ourselves, you aren't going to read quote number 43 and say to yourself, wow, this guy is on to something! In your head, no reasonable person could assume Trump was race baiting, and that a significant portion of his voters took the bait. There is no amount of evidence that could be presented that would convince you, no article that could be cited that you wouldn't instantly dismiss as nitpicking. You are a true believer, and that can't be reasoned with. I'm not going to speculate on your motivations, i doubt it would help much if i did, but i believe the last few posts have illustrated my point for me. Rather than continue this, I think I'll just let you scream the last word into the void.
âoeDonald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our countryâ(TM)s representatives can figure out what is going on.â from a press release of the Trump campaign, December 7, 2015.
You are being willfully ignorant, and it is fooling precisely no one. Acting as if it's not unusual that the least qualified candidate, on criteria of both experience and morality, got the nomination of a major political party. Or that the only things he ever said about race and muslims were his desire to build a wall and his mention of a islamic terrorism and not, say, his highly publicised proposal to outright ban all muslims from coming into the country. Your cherry-picking is reaching the point of mental gymnastics. You might want to spend some time reflecting on why you are trying so hard to defend this man.
I think the rationale there is that Donald Trump is uniquely unqualified to hold public office. Historically, presidents have had at least some thin veneer of record of public service, or patriotic service in the military, or other qualifying history of politics. Trump has none of these things, in fact, he publically sneers at these things. Coupled with him choosing issues of race and religion (mexicans and muslims) as the primary focus of his campaign, and his publicity stunt birtherism prior to his campaign, I'm sure you can see how people might assume he was connecting with, if not outright courting, a racist backlash.
Lets not forget that we had to endure eight years of the right decrying Obama as a "secret Kenyan muslim." You can't indulge that kind of thinly veiled racism on conservative media and be offended when people question race as a motivation.
That's a very long article. It's a wonder Mr. Clyde Spencer, a "graduate geologist", isn't taken more seriously by the oceanographers he is criticizing.
Maybe I lack key understanding of the process, but doesn't phytoplankton NEED that extra light? I mean, don't get me wrong, I am actually all for geoengineering, but this would seem like a pretty big downside, purposely stressing marine ecosystems.
Also, a guy named SALTER wants to shoot seawater into the sky? Are we sure he isn't a Bond villain?
I take your point, but shouldn't that same standard apply to Trump, given how frequent and well documented his lying is? How do you dismiss liars while believing whole heartedly their king?
(I'm using the impersonal you of course, it doesn't seem like you are defending him.)
I listened to the whole testimony yesterday and I have got to say, I keep seeing some QUALITY cherry picking going on today.
Comey testifies that a convicted russian mobster had a rent free office basically across the hall from Trump's, nothing.
He says he has no evidence that Trump colluded, but basically everything Trump ever said or did points in that direction, and all of the MAGA crowd start shouting "See, no collusion!"
And even better, the spin is, "He's a liar, you can't trust anything he said, except that no collusion thing."
I 100% agree with this argument when it comes to piracy in general. If I copy your fire, you still have fire. But, in netflix's case, they have a more legitimate claim than others in that they have to pay for bandwidth. I think this is a special case where "piracy" could be shown to cause actual damages. Of course, the figure they released is unlikely to reflect bandwidth costs alone.
That's a very simple argument. One anybody should be able to understand. Until they start to think about the limitations we've already put on free speech. You cannot for instance claim that your drug cure something that it has not been able to prove it cures. You are not allowed to pretend you are a doctor and offer up medical advice for someone under those auspices. I acknowledge the loopholes for herbal medicine which frankly should not exist, but I think it is evident that the issue is not quite so cut-and-dry as you would have me believe.
Does that freedom include being able to genitally mutilate your daughter, because you believe it will prevent her from adultery later in life? No, of course not. You are free to think what you want, but when your delusion causes you to harm your child, a line has been crossed. Anti-vax conspiracy is not simply idle. The health of children is at stake.
I was curious as to the points brought up and the rationale presented for the findings in the image, so I tried listening to the podcast episode. Five minutes in he was still ranting about "That piece of shit racist Spike Lee" and the "Charlottesville Hoax" and I had to turn it off. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he might not be the impartial judge you assume him to be. You might want to look into better sources of information.
And yet some of them that resisted that melting for hundreds of thousands of years completely disappeared in my lifetime. It's almost as if the process accelerated....
I take back everything I have ever said about anti-vaxxers. This message has completely changed my position on the matter. Your genes need to die with you. Please do not vaccinate your children or seek medical care of any kind for yourself. Those doctors are only parroting what they have been told, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the bars on your phone. Those bars translate into tiny fractions of a mW. Comparing favorably against the amount of electricity your own muscles give off when flexing. The inverse square law pretty much guarantees that people will be safe from the towers. Now, cellphones TRANSMIT as high as 3W, but as I understand it, the proposal isn't to end existing cell phone use, so if they cause cancer, they will probably do it on 4g as easily as 5g. There is 0 reason to ban the equipment from being put in place.
There is science illiteracy in action.
Atheism is a faith the same way that not having a bike is a type of bike. Atheists don't try to prove a negative, we just refuse to entertain proposed supernatural entities for whom there is absolutely no evidence.
Or are you saying that you are agnostic in regards to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
So, in your world view, the russians were running a million dollar a year troll farm completely for the benefit of a cabal of western businesses and clandestine organizations?
You see how that sounds crazy, right?
It's important to remember that Russia only had to come up with the memes, and fake news. Those articles were snapped right up by the public at large and disseminated across platforms. Our people were more than happy to be part of the problem. And it is important to note that those ads show that they weren't just shilling for a candidate, but pushing any divisive issue they can find, on both sides of the political spectrum. What Russia wants from this is to be able to point at the west and laugh. They are after a propaganda point, something to show western democracies as "not all they are cracked up to be." A country that small knows they can't take over America from within, but pointing at a democracy in turmoil when trying to convince a country on your border to vote itself back in to a Russian empire can be very helpful.
Also a key point, at that same Constitutional Convention, it was decided that nothing laid down in that document should not be subject to change by the will of the people, because the founding fathers were wise enough to know they couldn't predict the future, nor lay down a perfect plan to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the people it would protect.
Are you contending that the information in the article isn't factual?
This is the least in contact with reality post I have ever seen in my life. You think the black vote is flocking to the REPUBLICANS in droves? You think the democratic party is RAMPANT with anti-semitism? Dude, for your own sanity, I am begging you, turn off Fox News!
"A monopoly" isn't the standard by which we judge anti-trust legislation. For the last few decades, the standard has been "harm to the consumer" rather than "harm to the market." The idea being that monopolies are fine as long as they aren't preventing other players from entering the market and driving down costs for the consumer. However, recently, there has been a lot of talk about "harm to the creators." Amazon provides a really good example here.
Lets say that you as a small company, decide to try you luck at selling hand crafted dog sweaters. They aren't a patentable good, but you know from various online dog lover communities they would sell well. So you take the time and effort to line up manufacturing and sink your savings into some inventory and sell them on amazon. For some reason they are go viral and and the sales go through the roof. Amazon, as the seller, knows this, and decides to put out an amazon basics version of your product. Not only that, but whenever someone searches on their platform, they put theirs as the first result and slap the label on it as "amazon's choice." Instantly, they start to reap the rewards of those sales without having ever facing the risks of the product not catching on like you did.
This is one of the reasons people have been batting around the idea of breaking up amazon the marketplace, from amazon the brand of cheap goods. Like it or not, the amazon marketplace is pretty much the default portal for online shopping these days, and there is a conflict of interest for them in listing other people's goods vs the ones they produce.
It's interesting to note that this problem has been covered by the courts in cases surrounding store brands and supermarkets. In fact, that was one of the earliest tests of the "harm to the consumer" standards vs harm to the market.
Planet money just did an excellent high level series on anti-trust, I highly recommend it if you are looking to educate yourself on the subject more.
and it's not my business to judge the validity of their religion and certainly NOT government's business
Well, that's not true. You wouldn't proudly stand up and endorse someones right to commit human sacrifice in the name of their religion, or rape their 10 year old girl as a right of passage in their religion. You not only have right to judge those actions, but a moral imperative. The only reason you think this is different because you assume vaccination isn't as serious as those examples. Let me ask you this, assuming we had a superflu raging around the world, one with a 50% mortality rate, would religious objections to vaccinating their child still be in the "not my business" category? How about at a 100% mortality rate? Under conditions like those, the choice to not vaccinate your child is morally equivalent to the choice to not feed your child. Just because someone invokes their religion doesn't mean it is ok for us to put our moral judgement to the side and watch them do as they please.
Well, not to nitpick, but this is exactly the sort of thing that CPS is charged with doing. Protecting the health and welfare of children for whom the parents won't. Vaccination is the very definition of protecting a child's health, so one need not extend their powers so much as enforce their current mandate in these circumstances. And rather than take the kids, CPS could just come in and administer the vaccines. There are lots of options between doing nothing and dragging kids off to concentration camps.
Secondly, we have been punting on religious connection to healthcare for a long time. An adult choosing to refuse healthcare, for any reason, is one thing, but refusing a blood transfusion for a child because Best Buddy in The Sky says so is another thing all together. Freedom of religion should never be interpreted as exemption from morality. I find it useful to replace "because god says so" with "I want to" when I need to ground myself in the morality of a decision based on religion. "I'm going to let my child bleed to death because I want to." is not the sort of thing any sane person would let happen. Why do we accept it when it is done in the name of religion?
Willfully ignorant in as much as that took me 10 seconds on Google to find, a task of which I assume you are capable. There is lots more citations I could lay out, perhaps dozens, maybe even a hundred. But let's not kid ourselves, you aren't going to read quote number 43 and say to yourself, wow, this guy is on to something! In your head, no reasonable person could assume Trump was race baiting, and that a significant portion of his voters took the bait. There is no amount of evidence that could be presented that would convince you, no article that could be cited that you wouldn't instantly dismiss as nitpicking. You are a true believer, and that can't be reasoned with. I'm not going to speculate on your motivations, i doubt it would help much if i did, but i believe the last few posts have illustrated my point for me. Rather than continue this, I think I'll just let you scream the last word into the void.
âoeDonald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our countryâ(TM)s representatives can figure out what is going on.â from a press release of the Trump campaign, December 7, 2015.
Once again, willfully ignorant.
You are being willfully ignorant, and it is fooling precisely no one. Acting as if it's not unusual that the least qualified candidate, on criteria of both experience and morality, got the nomination of a major political party. Or that the only things he ever said about race and muslims were his desire to build a wall and his mention of a islamic terrorism and not, say, his highly publicised proposal to outright ban all muslims from coming into the country. Your cherry-picking is reaching the point of mental gymnastics. You might want to spend some time reflecting on why you are trying so hard to defend this man.
I think the rationale there is that Donald Trump is uniquely unqualified to hold public office. Historically, presidents have had at least some thin veneer of record of public service, or patriotic service in the military, or other qualifying history of politics. Trump has none of these things, in fact, he publically sneers at these things. Coupled with him choosing issues of race and religion (mexicans and muslims) as the primary focus of his campaign, and his publicity stunt birtherism prior to his campaign, I'm sure you can see how people might assume he was connecting with, if not outright courting, a racist backlash.
Lets not forget that we had to endure eight years of the right decrying Obama as a "secret Kenyan muslim." You can't indulge that kind of thinly veiled racism on conservative media and be offended when people question race as a motivation.
That's a very long article. It's a wonder Mr. Clyde Spencer, a "graduate geologist", isn't taken more seriously by the oceanographers he is criticizing.
Maybe I lack key understanding of the process, but doesn't phytoplankton NEED that extra light? I mean, don't get me wrong, I am actually all for geoengineering, but this would seem like a pretty big downside, purposely stressing marine ecosystems.
Also, a guy named SALTER wants to shoot seawater into the sky? Are we sure he isn't a Bond villain?
I take your point, but shouldn't that same standard apply to Trump, given how frequent and well documented his lying is? How do you dismiss liars while believing whole heartedly their king?
(I'm using the impersonal you of course, it doesn't seem like you are defending him.)
I listened to the whole testimony yesterday and I have got to say, I keep seeing some QUALITY cherry picking going on today.
Comey testifies that a convicted russian mobster had a rent free office basically across the hall from Trump's, nothing.
He says he has no evidence that Trump colluded, but basically everything Trump ever said or did points in that direction, and all of the MAGA crowd start shouting "See, no collusion!"
And even better, the spin is, "He's a liar, you can't trust anything he said, except that no collusion thing."
Ya gotta laugh at it to keep from crying.
I 100% agree with this argument when it comes to piracy in general. If I copy your fire, you still have fire. But, in netflix's case, they have a more legitimate claim than others in that they have to pay for bandwidth. I think this is a special case where "piracy" could be shown to cause actual damages. Of course, the figure they released is unlikely to reflect bandwidth costs alone.
That's a very simple argument. One anybody should be able to understand. Until they start to think about the limitations we've already put on free speech. You cannot for instance claim that your drug cure something that it has not been able to prove it cures. You are not allowed to pretend you are a doctor and offer up medical advice for someone under those auspices. I acknowledge the loopholes for herbal medicine which frankly should not exist, but I think it is evident that the issue is not quite so cut-and-dry as you would have me believe.
Does that freedom include being able to genitally mutilate your daughter, because you believe it will prevent her from adultery later in life? No, of course not. You are free to think what you want, but when your delusion causes you to harm your child, a line has been crossed. Anti-vax conspiracy is not simply idle. The health of children is at stake.
Dude, I heard about pocket computing for the first 3 decades of my life, and then, as if overnight, it was here.
I was curious as to the points brought up and the rationale presented for the findings in the image, so I tried listening to the podcast episode. Five minutes in he was still ranting about "That piece of shit racist Spike Lee" and the "Charlottesville Hoax" and I had to turn it off. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he might not be the impartial judge you assume him to be. You might want to look into better sources of information.
And yet some of them that resisted that melting for hundreds of thousands of years completely disappeared in my lifetime. It's almost as if the process accelerated....
I take back everything I have ever said about anti-vaxxers. This message has completely changed my position on the matter. Your genes need to die with you. Please do not vaccinate your children or seek medical care of any kind for yourself. Those doctors are only parroting what they have been told, anyway.