There is so much information out here that Monsanto and their ilk you'd rather not know.
Citations please? It there is so much information readily available, please provide some citations. Burden of proof is on you at this point, since you're the one making claims. And I want actual legitimate scientific papers published in reputable journals, not anecdotes from moms with Internet connections or stories related third-hand from some friend's cousin's barber who heard it from this one guy down the block.
Anti-GMO proponents are not anti-science (sounds like a fox news insult) they are on the side of labeling so we, the people can choose To be clear, I strongly support the labeling of GMO as such; people have a right to decide whether or not they want to eat GM-foodstuffs. I am, however, strongly against claims made based on emotion and questionable sources. Having read the article (and several more articles and books on the subject of GMO), many GMO opponents appear to be anti-science, changing the reason for the ban whenever someone presents them with a legitimate counter-arguement.
Yes, subsistence families in third-world or developing nations (the primary target for golden rice) take pride in being helpless wards of the state. It has absolutely nothing to do with poor soil conditions or less-than-hospitable growing climates (optimal growing temperature is 16- 21 C or 61-70 F, much cooler than many African nations). Those lazy fucks would rather depend on the state to save them!
I suggest a quick trip to wikipedia entry on carrots to increase your knowledge. A little can go a long way.
Alton Brown is another pretty geeky cooking reference. He focused on not only the "how" of something but the "why" of it. I highly recommend his show, Good Eats, which was pretty darn funny to boot, and either of his cookbooks. It'll give you a solid grasp of the basics and a little confidence to experiment with your food.
You're painting with a rather broad brush. There are quite a few high-profile churches/televangelists/pastors who seem more interested in the lining their own pockets than feeding and clothing those in need. There are also a lot of churches where the pastors and staff live just above the poverty line so they can operate food banks, homeless shelters, and other poverty-relief efforts. The latter just don't make news that often.
...and in fact they really don't have the legal authority to ban bulbs, regardless of what laws they pass.
I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but can you elaborate on that sentence? Wouldn't the ability to pass the ban as law give them legal authority? Or you were you refering to Constitutional law? Genuine curiosity here, not trolling.
I understand what you're saying but you're just drawing the line at a much higher income discrepancy. Who decideds what constitutes "a disgusting, obscene, amount of money and resources"? You? A farmer in India? A Russian oil tycoon? The poverty-line in Zimbabwe is $202-US/month, $2424.00-US anually. Does that give a Zimbabwe resident living in povery the right to help themselves to anyone's goods? Does that give them the right to help themselves to the resources of of a US citizen living in povery. After all a single-person household in the US pulls in around $11,000.00-US/year, nearly 4.5x the amount of the hypothetical Zimbabwe resident. At what point do you draw the line?
Your beggar's cup analogy isn't quite accurate either, since you, the original of the holder of the resource, is deciding to write the loss off. This is quite different than someone else deciding to make that decision on your behalf.
To my understanding, booking photos are technically public record except in cases where the records have been sealed by the courts. Private Citizen A posting a audio/visual recording of Private Citizen B without B's permission is a legally-distinct matter.
While we're all free to do so, not everyone has the capability to do so. Yes, there are tutorials freely available on the web, but, frankly, not everyone is computer-savy enough or intelligent enough to grasp them. Asking someone else to do it kind of defeats the point of examining it yourself. I imagine it would also be an enormous pain in the ass to examine the washing machine, dryer, microwave, light fixtures, jacuzzi, DVD player, window fixtures, refrigerator, stove, sprinklers, and thermostat each time you have to buy a new appliance or move into a new residence.
USAA also has a much smaller pool of potential clients so I doubt they can afford to alienate many of their customers. Around 1% of the US population is currently serving in the military (source: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/03/137536111/by-the-numbers-todays-military). Accounting for former military and for USAA's inclusion of spouses and children for eligibility I'd estimate their customer pool is maxes out around 10% of the total US population. Their competitors (I'm not including small local banks in this) can go after anyone.
Technically the US Department of Transportation requires external markings in the form of placards on the exterior of the vehicle transporting the material. However, unlike the actual container, the placard is not required to say anything other than "Class 7 Radioactive Material", no specific activity, no quantity, no nothing. DOE material can side-step some of those labeling requirements via DOD regulations.
Source: HAZMAT/HAZCOM training about three years ago.
All of society's problems that are attributed to marijuana are really problems that stem from the laws against it.
There, fixed that for you. I'm fairly certain legalizing things like meth and cocaine wouldn't do much to aid the addicted. Just because one drug is harmless doesn't mean they all are.
Criminals are generally a symptom of larger social issues.
I don't disagree that certain criminal acts are products of desperation, for instance a thief stealing to feed himself or a young woman using fake ID to escape an abusive boyfriend, but your proposition assumes that if given the option, people will always do the legal/right thing.** This doesn't account for criminals who commit their crimes in spite of other options. The perpetrators of the giant economic con-job that ended up causing an economic melt-down were, in all likelyhood, quite capable of feeding themselves and their families without financial shennanigans. I have met individuals who financed their lifetstyles with criminal activity because, frankly, it paid better than working a legal job. Now, you could counter that this is an example of a social issue that needs addressing (wage floors, etc) but in doing so you remove some of the agency of the perpetrator, since the criminal is now only capable of taking the path of least resistance.
Again, I don't disagree that some crimes are products of social issues but saying that criminals generally commit crimes because they have no other choice is problematic at best.
**Yes, "right" and "legal" are not always equivalent and in several instances can be in direct conflict with one another but that's outside the parameters of our discussion at the moment.
"But! But! But! I work just as hard as that other guy! Why should he have nicer stuff than me?" tends to be the basis of the arguements most people will use when discussing why it's unfair that some people have more money than others.
The difficulty with matching physical enlistment standards to an MOS (the ASVAB is the intellectual filter) is that in today's battlefield, one is never quite certain when one will have to stop being a cook and start being an infantryman. There are lots of examples of non-combat MOS soldiers being caught up in fire-fights or having to do things outside the scope of their duty. While it's completely unreasonable to expect everyone in the military to be an elite athlete, there are certain baseline physical standards the military enforces because you just don't know when the shit is gonna hit the fan.
Now, if the military had garaunteed garrison positions (you will never deploy in your entire career) it would be a different story, but right now no such program exists for an entire military career.
I am not a medical professional but from what I understand about anesthesia, doses have to be calibrated to the person getting them based on body weight, age, and such. While I'm not too worried if Mr Hijacker suffers ill-effects, I would be concerned that the amount needed to put him to sleep could potentially harm an infant or young child on the plane. Granted there are emergency oxygen masks which I assume have a separate air supply but I'm not certain everyone involved would be calm and rational enough to use them for the children in such a situation.
Any anesthesiologists on Slashdot care to comment?
I'm not certain if I'm feeding a troll or not but considering the outrage of sectors of US civilians* whenever US service personnel die, certainly the US military is all for protecting personnel in such a manner. I'm not certain what you think about military leadership but they aren't exactly raring to just run their into a combat meat-grinder like some kind of dark sacrifice (conspiracy theories not withstanding). It's also a good deal cheaper to train a drone operator than a fighter pilot. So yes, I would imagine that replacing a guy in a cockpit with a guy in a bunker is an attractive option for military brass.
Extending your line of thought, do you consider any US citizen who hasn't joined a police force, fire-fighting force, or military branch a coward? After all, said individuals aren't exposing themselves to danger when other people are. That must make all of those people cowards right? And please don't reply that you're against war because A) most military personnel would rather stay home with their families instead of being separated by an ocean for months at a time and B) that's moving the goalposts. This discussion specifically pertains to actions in a war theater.
*It's died down quite a bit in recent years, but I remember when the news organizations would run weekly death tolls of US service personnel.
I fail to understand why international espionage comes as a shock to anyone. Nations (or states or political entities or nation-states or what-have-you) have been spying on each other since someone figured out that knowing more about someone than they know about you can give you an advantage.
Armchair chemist (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...) armed with wikipedia. Ammonia has a related smell to cat urine so perhaps they don't entirely dry the components after rinsing them with an amide-based solvent. My other guess would be some kind of thiol-reaction somewhere in the casing triggered by the heat of the circuits. If you're really curious Wikipedia has an entry on the actual chemical responsible for cat-urine-odor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_pheromone#Cat_urine_odorants. Looks like something that could polymerize or be formed by excess sulfur or alcohol in the plastics mix.
My father started a light construction buisiness from scratch, around 2001 after being laid off after years as a liason to South and Central American companies for US firm in an entirely unrelated field. He did the appropriate legwork to research building codes and legal restrictions. Over a decade in buisiness and no black helicopters and federal spooks have dropped out of the sky to arrest him.
What exactly is the problem with 1000 candidates running? Isn't the point of our particular model of government to get the "ground-level" citizen involved in the running of their own government?
Slashdot Mirror
Citations please? It there is so much information readily available, please provide some citations. Burden of proof is on you at this point, since you're the one making claims. And I want actual legitimate scientific papers published in reputable journals, not anecdotes from moms with Internet connections or stories related third-hand from some friend's cousin's barber who heard it from this one guy down the block.
Anti-GMO proponents are not anti-science (sounds like a fox news insult) they are on the side of labeling so we, the people can choose
To be clear, I strongly support the labeling of GMO as such; people have a right to decide whether or not they want to eat GM-foodstuffs. I am, however, strongly against claims made based on emotion and questionable sources. Having read the article (and several more articles and books on the subject of GMO), many GMO opponents appear to be anti-science, changing the reason for the ban whenever someone presents them with a legitimate counter-arguement.
Yes, subsistence families in third-world or developing nations (the primary target for golden rice) take pride in being helpless wards of the state. It has absolutely nothing to do with poor soil conditions or less-than-hospitable growing climates (optimal growing temperature is 16- 21 C or 61-70 F, much cooler than many African nations). Those lazy fucks would rather depend on the state to save them! I suggest a quick trip to wikipedia entry on carrots to increase your knowledge. A little can go a long way.
Alton Brown is another pretty geeky cooking reference. He focused on not only the "how" of something but the "why" of it. I highly recommend his show, Good Eats, which was pretty darn funny to boot, and either of his cookbooks. It'll give you a solid grasp of the basics and a little confidence to experiment with your food.
Ssssh! Do you want to make the hippies cry?
You're painting with a rather broad brush. There are quite a few high-profile churches/televangelists/pastors who seem more interested in the lining their own pockets than feeding and clothing those in need. There are also a lot of churches where the pastors and staff live just above the poverty line so they can operate food banks, homeless shelters, and other poverty-relief efforts. The latter just don't make news that often.
...and in fact they really don't have the legal authority to ban bulbs, regardless of what laws they pass.
I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but can you elaborate on that sentence? Wouldn't the ability to pass the ban as law give them legal authority? Or you were you refering to Constitutional law? Genuine curiosity here, not trolling.
Hell, NK shelled South Korea a few years back and the world collectively wagged its finger at them.
I understand what you're saying but you're just drawing the line at a much higher income discrepancy. Who decideds what constitutes "a disgusting, obscene, amount of money and resources"? You? A farmer in India? A Russian oil tycoon? The poverty-line in Zimbabwe is $202-US/month, $2424.00-US anually. Does that give a Zimbabwe resident living in povery the right to help themselves to anyone's goods? Does that give them the right to help themselves to the resources of of a US citizen living in povery. After all a single-person household in the US pulls in around $11,000.00-US/year, nearly 4.5x the amount of the hypothetical Zimbabwe resident. At what point do you draw the line?
Your beggar's cup analogy isn't quite accurate either, since you, the original of the holder of the resource, is deciding to write the loss off. This is quite different than someone else deciding to make that decision on your behalf.
Be that as it may, I'm talking strictly about the legal terms, not about moral or ethical concerns.
To my understanding, booking photos are technically public record except in cases where the records have been sealed by the courts. Private Citizen A posting a audio/visual recording of Private Citizen B without B's permission is a legally-distinct matter.
While we're all free to do so, not everyone has the capability to do so. Yes, there are tutorials freely available on the web, but, frankly, not everyone is computer-savy enough or intelligent enough to grasp them. Asking someone else to do it kind of defeats the point of examining it yourself. I imagine it would also be an enormous pain in the ass to examine the washing machine, dryer, microwave, light fixtures, jacuzzi, DVD player, window fixtures, refrigerator, stove, sprinklers, and thermostat each time you have to buy a new appliance or move into a new residence.
USAA also has a much smaller pool of potential clients so I doubt they can afford to alienate many of their customers. Around 1% of the US population is currently serving in the military (source: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/03/137536111/by-the-numbers-todays-military). Accounting for former military and for USAA's inclusion of spouses and children for eligibility I'd estimate their customer pool is maxes out around 10% of the total US population. Their competitors (I'm not including small local banks in this) can go after anyone.
Technically the US Department of Transportation requires external markings in the form of placards on the exterior of the vehicle transporting the material. However, unlike the actual container, the placard is not required to say anything other than "Class 7 Radioactive Material", no specific activity, no quantity, no nothing. DOE material can side-step some of those labeling requirements via DOD regulations. Source: HAZMAT/HAZCOM training about three years ago.
All of society's problems that are attributed to marijuana are really problems that stem from the laws against it.
There, fixed that for you. I'm fairly certain legalizing things like meth and cocaine wouldn't do much to aid the addicted. Just because one drug is harmless doesn't mean they all are.
Criminals are generally a symptom of larger social issues.
I don't disagree that certain criminal acts are products of desperation, for instance a thief stealing to feed himself or a young woman using fake ID to escape an abusive boyfriend, but your proposition assumes that if given the option, people will always do the legal/right thing.** This doesn't account for criminals who commit their crimes in spite of other options. The perpetrators of the giant economic con-job that ended up causing an economic melt-down were, in all likelyhood, quite capable of feeding themselves and their families without financial shennanigans. I have met individuals who financed their lifetstyles with criminal activity because, frankly, it paid better than working a legal job. Now, you could counter that this is an example of a social issue that needs addressing (wage floors, etc) but in doing so you remove some of the agency of the perpetrator, since the criminal is now only capable of taking the path of least resistance.
Again, I don't disagree that some crimes are products of social issues but saying that criminals generally commit crimes because they have no other choice is problematic at best.
**Yes, "right" and "legal" are not always equivalent and in several instances can be in direct conflict with one another but that's outside the parameters of our discussion at the moment.
"But! But! But! I work just as hard as that other guy! Why should he have nicer stuff than me?" tends to be the basis of the arguements most people will use when discussing why it's unfair that some people have more money than others.
The difficulty with matching physical enlistment standards to an MOS (the ASVAB is the intellectual filter) is that in today's battlefield, one is never quite certain when one will have to stop being a cook and start being an infantryman. There are lots of examples of non-combat MOS soldiers being caught up in fire-fights or having to do things outside the scope of their duty. While it's completely unreasonable to expect everyone in the military to be an elite athlete, there are certain baseline physical standards the military enforces because you just don't know when the shit is gonna hit the fan. Now, if the military had garaunteed garrison positions (you will never deploy in your entire career) it would be a different story, but right now no such program exists for an entire military career.
I am not a medical professional but from what I understand about anesthesia, doses have to be calibrated to the person getting them based on body weight, age, and such. While I'm not too worried if Mr Hijacker suffers ill-effects, I would be concerned that the amount needed to put him to sleep could potentially harm an infant or young child on the plane. Granted there are emergency oxygen masks which I assume have a separate air supply but I'm not certain everyone involved would be calm and rational enough to use them for the children in such a situation. Any anesthesiologists on Slashdot care to comment?
I'm not certain if I'm feeding a troll or not but considering the outrage of sectors of US civilians* whenever US service personnel die, certainly the US military is all for protecting personnel in such a manner. I'm not certain what you think about military leadership but they aren't exactly raring to just run their into a combat meat-grinder like some kind of dark sacrifice (conspiracy theories not withstanding). It's also a good deal cheaper to train a drone operator than a fighter pilot. So yes, I would imagine that replacing a guy in a cockpit with a guy in a bunker is an attractive option for military brass.
Extending your line of thought, do you consider any US citizen who hasn't joined a police force, fire-fighting force, or military branch a coward? After all, said individuals aren't exposing themselves to danger when other people are. That must make all of those people cowards right? And please don't reply that you're against war because A) most military personnel would rather stay home with their families instead of being separated by an ocean for months at a time and B) that's moving the goalposts. This discussion specifically pertains to actions in a war theater.
*It's died down quite a bit in recent years, but I remember when the news organizations would run weekly death tolls of US service personnel.
Brazil wasn't upset with the US spying on its own citizens. Brazil got upset that the US spied on the Brazilian president and administration, with the Brazilian president postponing a trip to the US as a way of expressing anger. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/world/americas/brazils-leader-postpones-state-visit-to-us.html?_r=0).
I fail to understand why international espionage comes as a shock to anyone. Nations (or states or political entities or nation-states or what-have-you) have been spying on each other since someone figured out that knowing more about someone than they know about you can give you an advantage.
Armchair chemist (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...) armed with wikipedia. Ammonia has a related smell to cat urine so perhaps they don't entirely dry the components after rinsing them with an amide-based solvent. My other guess would be some kind of thiol-reaction somewhere in the casing triggered by the heat of the circuits. If you're really curious Wikipedia has an entry on the actual chemical responsible for cat-urine-odor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_pheromone#Cat_urine_odorants. Looks like something that could polymerize or be formed by excess sulfur or alcohol in the plastics mix.
My father started a light construction buisiness from scratch, around 2001 after being laid off after years as a liason to South and Central American companies for US firm in an entirely unrelated field. He did the appropriate legwork to research building codes and legal restrictions. Over a decade in buisiness and no black helicopters and federal spooks have dropped out of the sky to arrest him.
What exactly is the problem with 1000 candidates running? Isn't the point of our particular model of government to get the "ground-level" citizen involved in the running of their own government?
Ah, the old moving goal-posts arguement. You've merely proved the GPs point.