I wouldn't expect that in this case. FedEx knows who delivers what. They could be liable for providing alcohol to minors, if that particular package gets in the wrong hands. Not to mention the possibility of lawsuits, etc.
And how does that prevent the toad from interfering with other species?
If that's the concern, they shouldn't introduce the toad back. What about the other species that were doing just fine when the toads were removed and/or better off without the toads?
It's simply not possible for us to "help" one species without impacting another. Attempts like this, unless they're done in the spirit of "just because we can" (which would at least have scientific value, to see if it can be done) are silly, at best, and possibly reckless.
Humans impact our environment, just like any other species. We should stop trying to undo what impact we have, because our attempts are probably only going to make things worse. Unlike natural selection, which works reliably, we have no idea WTF we're doing.
Not really. Someone who is on a life support machine isn't necessarily really alive. (You can have no appreciable brain activity and still be made to breathe, a la Terri Schiavo.) The frogs, on the other hand, are every bit as "not extinct" as they would be if they were placed anywhere else. Extinct means there are no examples of the species left. I assume the frogs would be extinct at some point if you put them back without the artificial misting in place, but they're not extinct now.
I understand the desire to re-establish the species in the wild, but why put them back there? There must be other environments where they would get the misting naturally. Right?
Lobbyists work all sides of any big issue. There might be one industry in favor of a piece of legislation, and another opposed. Just because a piece of legislation is "pro-business" in one sense, doesn't mean it benefits all businesses, let alone all businesses equally.
IOW, while it's true that companies hire lobbyists offensively to craft legislation, other lobbyists are hired to protect against the initial lobbyists.
But his argument isn't that you don't need calculus. It's that you don't need algebra. And that's a very short-sighted view of what education is for.
Education isn't just for those skills you need at your job. It's also for those skills you need as a functional person in society. The problem with his "logic" is that learning to solve for x is applicable in real life, not just specific occupations.
First, there are spinal cord injuries. Sure, you can make a bionic part that can do the physical labor of the part you're swapping out, but what about sensations? Are you going to be able to feel hot, cold, wet, dry, slimy, soft, etc.?
Second, there are a whole raft of disabilities you can't just swap a part out for. What about the mentally disabled? What about mental illnesses like schizophrenia? What about traumatic brain injuryy? (Surely we won't be able to swap out an entire brain in 50 years, and even if we could, would that be the same person?
I really think that this person is seeing "disability" through the lens of his own personal disability, rather than seeing the big picture.
Women have a special doctor for such issues because they have more complicated reproductive systems (since they actually carry births to term). A male's reproductive system is basically point-and-shoot. That's why it makes sense to see the urologist. It doesn't have to be a completely separate discipline.
It's not unreasonable to decide that the vaccine risk (yes, there is risk) isn't worthwhile. It's not unreasonable to notice the political aspects of vaccines, with all the industry lobbying, and decide that the pro-vaccine messages are inherently untrustworthy.
Yes. Yes, it is.
It's unreasonable because the vaccine risk, while not zero, is negligible -- especially when weighed against the damage caused by illness. And the lobbying money spent by drug companies doesn't make a disease suddenly vanish off the face of the earth. Whether the pharmaceutical industry spent $10 or $10,000,000,000 on lobbying last year, there were still infectious disease which were vulnerable to vaccines. Using your child to make a political statement is not only moronic, but also self-centered.
I don't really see "it is unreasonable to believe that she forgot" as different from "she obviously does remember". The reason it's obvious she remembers is that it's unreasonable to believe she forgot.
I'm sure her lawyer will bring up all the arguments brought up in this thread to try and make it seem reasonable she forgot. And to be honest, if there's a jury involved in the determination, she might get away with it. But if she gets away with it, I think it'll be because juries are sometimes fuzzy on the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "all doubt".
And to be honest, if she was facing the death penalty for withholding the access to her computer, I wouldn't think it was clear enough that she lied. Putting someone to death requires a lot more certainty. But I think this case is clear enough that I wouldn't lose a night's sleep for any time she cooled her heels in the slammer until she "remembered".
The legal standard is reasonable doubt. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that she doesn't remember. He/she just has to prove that it's unreasonable to believe she doesn't remember.
And just how could they prove that? I don't think you can prove any such thing when it comes to information in your mind. The human mind is very strange and erratic, so I do not believe that it is impossible (even in your example) or even highly unlikely that someone could forget a password (especially under any amount of stress, and especially if she was away from the computer for any amount of time).
Look at the circumstances of the case:
1) When first told to decrypt her laptop (repeat: her laptop), she "refused". She didn't say she couldn't. She didn't say she couldn't remember the password. She simply refused.
2) This wasn't one file. It was the whole laptop that was password-protected. You'd have to believe that someone, after refusing to give a password, subsequently accidentally forgot a password that would make an entire laptop useless. You'd also have to believe that such a person wouldn't have taken reasonable precautions to remember that password.
Is there evidence beyond all doubt that her forgetting the password is bogus? No. You can never prove beyond all doubt that she doesn't remember the password. Fortunately, our justice system doesn't require absolute proof in cases like this.
The bottom line is her story isn't even remotely plausible for anyone who considers it for more than two seconds, after looking at the circumstances. She thought she was being clever by saying she couldn't remember, but she actually put herself in danger of perjury charges.
I'd say it's a blatant attempt to get lazy and just imprison everyone (innocents included) because you can't prove a thing.
The thing is, she obviously does remember her password.
Mind sharing with the rest of us how you were able to prove that?
The legal standard is reasonable doubt. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that she doesn't remember. He/she just has to prove that it's unreasonable to believe she doesn't remember.
Example: If the court comes to you and demands the password for your work computer that you've been using for the past 10 years (to log into the OS), it would be unreasonable to believe you don't know the password for a machine you log into every weekday, or that you didn't at least have access to the password, if you didn't have it in your head.
The same principle applies here. If she has been fighting tooth and nail to not have to reveal the password, she obviously remembers what the password is. This is a blatant attempt to thwart the legal system.
The thing is, she obviously does remember her password. Claiming she can't remember it, at this late date and all the legal proceedings, is an obvious ploy.
Justice has to be blind, but it doesn't have to play stupid.
This was the equivalent of a lot more than a faulty transmission. This was "no transmission, no brakes, and no tire treads". Palm botched the promotion of the Pre badly. They managed to take a smartphone people were excited about when they saw it, and through ridiculous marketing ("creepy Pre Girl") turn it into a joke. They alienated longtime Palm customers by not providing a free way for them to run all their old Palm OS apps (and instead asking them to pay for Classic). And they alienated developers by waiting so long to release the SDK.
To top off this deluge of nonsense, the hardware they released after the Pre was incremental and unimpressive. The Veer was only the last chapter in a very sad story of WebOS releases. The only reasonably good piece of hardware that came out after the original Pixi was the TouchPad. Everything else amounted to, "slap more memory into it and call it a day".
That was never really an argument for going with WebOS, though. WebOS has almost nothing in the way of apps if you don't count the homebrew community, and only slightly more than that if you do. (No offense to homebrew developers. They make good stuff. It's just, there's not nearly enough developers doing it.)
WebOS had a lot of potential, and if HP had made the Pre 3 the priority and released it in March of 2011, it would probably have done quite well(with marketing support).
By March 2011 it was all over already. WebOS itself was great, but the hardware already had a tainted reputation, and the commercials Palm had put out had already alienated customers.
In my opinion, if Palm had released the Pre 3 hardware as the Pre 2, that may have stopped the slide, but only if they had much better commercials and had kept some faith with developers. (Did developers even ever get all the APIs for the hardware?) Palm was a PDA company, for Christ's sake. They should've been able to put out a jumbo-sized Pre (by which I mean 4"+) in their sleep, Instead, they went for the low end -- first with the Pixi, and then with the Veer.
I really think that the Pre 2 was the death knell for Palm. It all but proved they had no follow-up ideas for WebOS on phones. (Well, no good ones, at least. They had the Veer, which was a terrible Idea.)
As a tablet platform, I think WebOS has a lot of potential, but they've got to do something to bring developers back, and they need the equivalent of at least the Amazon Appstore for WebOS. People want apps, movies, books, and music on tablets. 300 apps (even including the Kindle app) isn't going to cut it. But I don't know if HP will be able to meet that expectation.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't expect that in this case. FedEx knows who delivers what. They could be liable for providing alcohol to minors, if that particular package gets in the wrong hands. Not to mention the possibility of lawsuits, etc.
You have to be 21 to buy alcohol. Why wouldn't you get carded?
And how does that prevent the toad from interfering with other species?
If that's the concern, they shouldn't introduce the toad back. What about the other species that were doing just fine when the toads were removed and/or better off without the toads?
It's simply not possible for us to "help" one species without impacting another. Attempts like this, unless they're done in the spirit of "just because we can" (which would at least have scientific value, to see if it can be done) are silly, at best, and possibly reckless.
Humans impact our environment, just like any other species. We should stop trying to undo what impact we have, because our attempts are probably only going to make things worse. Unlike natural selection, which works reliably, we have no idea WTF we're doing.
Not really. Someone who is on a life support machine isn't necessarily really alive. (You can have no appreciable brain activity and still be made to breathe, a la Terri Schiavo.) The frogs, on the other hand, are every bit as "not extinct" as they would be if they were placed anywhere else. Extinct means there are no examples of the species left. I assume the frogs would be extinct at some point if you put them back without the artificial misting in place, but they're not extinct now.
I didn't see this post before I posted mine. I'd seriously love an answer to this question, though.
I understand the desire to re-establish the species in the wild, but why put them back there? There must be other environments where they would get the misting naturally. Right?
Well, okay. All sides with money. Point taken. But that does usually represent the significant sides of big issues.
She didn't exactly get it backwards.
Lobbyists work all sides of any big issue. There might be one industry in favor of a piece of legislation, and another opposed. Just because a piece of legislation is "pro-business" in one sense, doesn't mean it benefits all businesses, let alone all businesses equally.
IOW, while it's true that companies hire lobbyists offensively to craft legislation, other lobbyists are hired to protect against the initial lobbyists.
But his argument isn't that you don't need calculus. It's that you don't need algebra. And that's a very short-sighted view of what education is for.
Education isn't just for those skills you need at your job. It's also for those skills you need as a functional person in society. The problem with his "logic" is that learning to solve for x is applicable in real life, not just specific occupations.
I thought that the earliest DNA recovered from early man was much older than this. Haven't we compared Neanderthal DNA to modern human DNA?
First, there are spinal cord injuries. Sure, you can make a bionic part that can do the physical labor of the part you're swapping out, but what about sensations? Are you going to be able to feel hot, cold, wet, dry, slimy, soft, etc.?
Second, there are a whole raft of disabilities you can't just swap a part out for. What about the mentally disabled? What about mental illnesses like schizophrenia? What about traumatic brain injuryy? (Surely we won't be able to swap out an entire brain in 50 years, and even if we could, would that be the same person?
I really think that this person is seeing "disability" through the lens of his own personal disability, rather than seeing the big picture.
This caught my eye, too. My question is, why are they counting the spies in with the "non-human" traffic??
Women have a special doctor for such issues because they have more complicated reproductive systems (since they actually carry births to term). A male's reproductive system is basically point-and-shoot. That's why it makes sense to see the urologist. It doesn't have to be a completely separate discipline.
With the (incomprehensible) lack of andrologists in the US, yes, men sometimes see gynecologists, especially for fertility related problems.
Why? Isn't the urologist the go-to doctor for males with those kinds of issues?
It's not unreasonable to decide that the vaccine risk (yes, there is risk) isn't worthwhile. It's not unreasonable to notice the political aspects of vaccines, with all the industry lobbying, and decide that the pro-vaccine messages are inherently untrustworthy.
Yes. Yes, it is.
It's unreasonable because the vaccine risk, while not zero, is negligible -- especially when weighed against the damage caused by illness. And the lobbying money spent by drug companies doesn't make a disease suddenly vanish off the face of the earth. Whether the pharmaceutical industry spent $10 or $10,000,000,000 on lobbying last year, there were still infectious disease which were vulnerable to vaccines. Using your child to make a political statement is not only moronic, but also self-centered.
Well, a gynecologist wouldn't see male patients, but a male patient wouldn't (presumably) try to see a gynecologist. :)
I don't really see "it is unreasonable to believe that she forgot" as different from "she obviously does remember". The reason it's obvious she remembers is that it's unreasonable to believe she forgot.
I'm sure her lawyer will bring up all the arguments brought up in this thread to try and make it seem reasonable she forgot. And to be honest, if there's a jury involved in the determination, she might get away with it. But if she gets away with it, I think it'll be because juries are sometimes fuzzy on the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "all doubt".
And to be honest, if she was facing the death penalty for withholding the access to her computer, I wouldn't think it was clear enough that she lied. Putting someone to death requires a lot more certainty. But I think this case is clear enough that I wouldn't lose a night's sleep for any time she cooled her heels in the slammer until she "remembered".
The legal standard is reasonable doubt. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that she doesn't remember. He/she just has to prove that it's unreasonable to believe she doesn't remember.
And just how could they prove that? I don't think you can prove any such thing when it comes to information in your mind. The human mind is very strange and erratic, so I do not believe that it is impossible (even in your example) or even highly unlikely that someone could forget a password (especially under any amount of stress, and especially if she was away from the computer for any amount of time).
Look at the circumstances of the case:
1) When first told to decrypt her laptop (repeat: her laptop), she "refused". She didn't say she couldn't. She didn't say she couldn't remember the password. She simply refused.
2) This wasn't one file. It was the whole laptop that was password-protected. You'd have to believe that someone, after refusing to give a password, subsequently accidentally forgot a password that would make an entire laptop useless. You'd also have to believe that such a person wouldn't have taken reasonable precautions to remember that password.
Is there evidence beyond all doubt that her forgetting the password is bogus? No. You can never prove beyond all doubt that she doesn't remember the password. Fortunately, our justice system doesn't require absolute proof in cases like this.
The bottom line is her story isn't even remotely plausible for anyone who considers it for more than two seconds, after looking at the circumstances. She thought she was being clever by saying she couldn't remember, but she actually put herself in danger of perjury charges.
I'd say it's a blatant attempt to get lazy and just imprison everyone (innocents included) because you can't prove a thing.
The circumstances of this case say otherwise.
The thing is, she obviously does remember her password.
Mind sharing with the rest of us how you were able to prove that?
The legal standard is reasonable doubt. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that she doesn't remember. He/she just has to prove that it's unreasonable to believe she doesn't remember.
Example: If the court comes to you and demands the password for your work computer that you've been using for the past 10 years (to log into the OS), it would be unreasonable to believe you don't know the password for a machine you log into every weekday, or that you didn't at least have access to the password, if you didn't have it in your head.
The same principle applies here. If she has been fighting tooth and nail to not have to reveal the password, she obviously remembers what the password is. This is a blatant attempt to thwart the legal system.
The thing is, she obviously does remember her password. Claiming she can't remember it, at this late date and all the legal proceedings, is an obvious ploy.
Justice has to be blind, but it doesn't have to play stupid.
How is associating themselves with Facebook supposed to give anyone a good name?
This was the equivalent of a lot more than a faulty transmission. This was "no transmission, no brakes, and no tire treads". Palm botched the promotion of the Pre badly. They managed to take a smartphone people were excited about when they saw it, and through ridiculous marketing ("creepy Pre Girl") turn it into a joke. They alienated longtime Palm customers by not providing a free way for them to run all their old Palm OS apps (and instead asking them to pay for Classic). And they alienated developers by waiting so long to release the SDK.
To top off this deluge of nonsense, the hardware they released after the Pre was incremental and unimpressive. The Veer was only the last chapter in a very sad story of WebOS releases. The only reasonably good piece of hardware that came out after the original Pixi was the TouchPad. Everything else amounted to, "slap more memory into it and call it a day".
That was never really an argument for going with WebOS, though. WebOS has almost nothing in the way of apps if you don't count the homebrew community, and only slightly more than that if you do. (No offense to homebrew developers. They make good stuff. It's just, there's not nearly enough developers doing it.)
They never managed to release Flash for the Pre. (And by "they", I mean Palm or HP.)
WebOS had a lot of potential, and if HP had made the Pre 3 the priority and released it in March of 2011, it would probably have done quite well(with marketing support).
By March 2011 it was all over already. WebOS itself was great, but the hardware already had a tainted reputation, and the commercials Palm had put out had already alienated customers.
In my opinion, if Palm had released the Pre 3 hardware as the Pre 2, that may have stopped the slide, but only if they had much better commercials and had kept some faith with developers. (Did developers even ever get all the APIs for the hardware?) Palm was a PDA company, for Christ's sake. They should've been able to put out a jumbo-sized Pre (by which I mean 4"+) in their sleep, Instead, they went for the low end -- first with the Pixi, and then with the Veer.
I really think that the Pre 2 was the death knell for Palm. It all but proved they had no follow-up ideas for WebOS on phones. (Well, no good ones, at least. They had the Veer, which was a terrible Idea.)
As a tablet platform, I think WebOS has a lot of potential, but they've got to do something to bring developers back, and they need the equivalent of at least the Amazon Appstore for WebOS. People want apps, movies, books, and music on tablets. 300 apps (even including the Kindle app) isn't going to cut it. But I don't know if HP will be able to meet that expectation.