Nice that amazon have shown their colours... I shall no longer trade with them. Vote with your wallet, it's the only way they'll learn.
This is exactly why Amazon should not be hosting them, it is not their place to make stances on a political stage; rather, they should be focusing on what they do best, delaying my shipments in a blatant attempt to get me to upgrade to Amazon Prime.
Wikileaks needs the hand of a non-profit or media organization, not a for-profit IT company which has no business risking its value and customer base for one lightning rod of a customer.
Why are other people's allergies my problem? Did I give them to them?
Teach school-age kids to be careful, and provide them with epi-pens. Problem solved.
Five year olds can walk a mile too and from school -- we did when I was young. (And we knew not to talk to strangers.) They can certainly be taught to not eat strange foods. Crap, when I was a kid, six and seven year old diabetic kids were giving themselves scheduled insulin injections.
Jesus Christ, dude. No one said other peoples' allergies are your problem, just that they can be serious. Some allergies spontaneously appear so unless every person walks around with an epi 'just in case', it's impossible to be prepared for every incidence of anaphylactic shock. Upset that someone threatened to take your peanuts away on a plane?
And we don't let five-year-olds walk a mile to school alone not because we don't think we can teach them to not talk to strangers, but because they are too small and weak to defend themselves against being forced into a car. Some people take the concept of 'personal responsibility' way too far.
This seems to be what happened: Five days after her lung transplant the recipient ate a candy bar with peanuts. She had a minor reaction but it was relatively benign due to the immune suppressing drugs she was taking for the transplant; her reaction was confused with normal complications of lung transplants. But that first taste of peanut was all that her body needed to prime her for the almost-deadly reaction seven months later. And the woman continues to be allergic to peanuts to this day.
Yes, clearly the old techie folks are just angry and bitter that technology isn't as hard as it used to be so young punks like Zuckerberg can succeed.
/rolls-eyes
The difference between Gates / Zuckerberg and Jobs lies not in how they came to power, but what they did with it once they got it. Microsoft ran into trouble with its IE "integration" with Windows, and Zuckerberg has gladly sold his user's private information to what I can only assume is the top bidder. Jobs is not abusing his power (as far as we know) by selling our private information or abusing his position as leader in the marketplace - you are not forced to buy Apple products because your business or home computer is a running a certain operating system. There are other MP3 players / phones / laptops / TV streaming products out there that offer the same basic services and content you'll find on an Apple product.
So let’s chill with the hating on Zuckerberg’s success. It’s all just a bit tacky and hypocritical.
Zuckerberg has been and likely always will be distasteful for his disdain for his userbase and how willing he is to sell them out if it fattens his bottom line. He has no honor, and "chill(ing) with the hating" on a person with no honor is, in my opinion, beyond a bit tacky but likely not hypocritical for those that do.
He said he has insurance - I am absolutely shocked the insurance company did not enforce the payment of this fee as a way to protect their interest in his house, either by revocation of the policy for nonpayment, or by making the payment themselves and charging the homeowner through the premium on their insurance policy.
Also - if you watch the video, he said his son had set fire to his house 3 years ago in a similar manner, hadn't paid, but the fire company responded anyway with the 'promise to pay' later (under a different fire chief). It's likely the entire community had the mindset of "they'll come even if I don't pay", and the new fire chief wasn't able to keep enough firefighters on to cover all areas due to lack of funds. The real problem is likely due to such responses in the past where the fee was not enforced and on an informal 'pay-as-you-go' policy. Personally, if a family member had already experienced a fire and there was even a whiff of a question of whether the fire department would respond or not, you'd better believe I'd have that bill paid in full, on-time, every year.
If your TV were fully capable of creating TV shows, but artificially restricted because your television's manufacturer was run by a control freak, then you would be perfectly within your right to be upset.
Companies get to place whatever limitations they want on their products, for whatever reasons. It's up to consumers to decide whether to buy them or not with those restrictions in place. There are better, more targeted tools out there for creating content than the iPad. If you want the features of an iPad with the ability to create content with whatever tools you want, make your own.
I have this little rule that I find useful in these sorts of discussions. Anyone who takes any opportunity presented to slip in how the ipad is "revolutionary", without reason or providing justification, is revealed to just be mindlessly parroting Apple's marketing materials, and thus one should not expect serious analysis from them.
Enjoy your birdfeed parrot.
I have this little rule, too, about continuing to engage with people who can not make constructive arguments but instead merely insult those they disagree with, so you won't be responded to again.
If I have a beef with the iPad, it's that while it's a lovely device for consuming content, it doesn't do much to facilitate its creation.
Yes, Grossman does get it right. That is my disappointment too. The iPad is all about consuming content, being a consumer. It is unlike a PC which can be used to create content. The iPad is a passive device.
On a related note, I am disappointed that my purchase of a TV does not allow me to create TV shows!
There is an egregious mismatch between what the iPad IS and what people WANT it to be going on in this thread. There are more than enough tools to create right now, the iPad is a revolutionary way to deliver what's created to the consumer. The Time article missed the point while making the point.
This is just a ridiculous attempt to criminalize scuzzy, crappy, opportunistic behavior on the part of one party (scalpers) at the expense of another scuzzy, crappy, opportunistic party (TicketMaster). This strikes me as another case of people trying to misuse the law to remedy the unexpected (only by idiots) defeat of a faulty system.
This is just your bias preventing you from seeing the argument. If you RTFI (Indictment), you'll see that TicketMaster had clear ToS on their site which specifically prohibited the purchase of tickets on their websites for commercial re-sale. Wiseguys wasn't even selling their tickets to the consumer, but to scalpers to sell for even MORE markup to the consumer.
Their software also jockeyed Wiseguys to the front of the queue, when Ticketmasters was legally obligated to sell on a first-come, first serve basis and spent millions on technology assuring users were queued in that manner. They put forth good faith and effort in creating that technology and yes, efforts to work around it, with or without success, is illegal.
IANAL, and I am no fan of Ticketmaster, but it's pretty striking that you would dismiss a company's right to protect itself in its contracts and reputation just because you do not like with the company. Ticketmaster made the same amount of money it would have regardless of if it sold to private buyers or if Wiseguys bought all of their tickets; however, their contractual agreements with the venues, artists, etc., hold that they sell the tickets with specific conditions, of which they would be violating by turning a blind eye to whom is buying their tickets.
It is also the expectation that all consumers have equal opportunity to buy tickets using their website which is harmed when, despite their best efforts, companies with technological advantages deliberately overcome the considerable amount of defenses Ticketmaster put into place to prevent that sort of behavior.
Disliking the prosecuting company does not make their actions a misuse of law.
that it's without just cause being ignored? I see dozens of comments about whether or not your data should be protected or not, but nothing about the "whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner" is being discussed.
It's ridiculous to think a laptop is innocuous or incapable of causing as much destruction as a bomb. But just as officials have no rights to search my car, my home or my person without cause, they should not be able to randomly search a laptop without just cause.
So far other than two new races I have seen nothing of the expansion
What more did you expect to see of the expansion since you have clearly not completed most of the original content? And interesting the way you diminish the addition of two new races to the game.
All I hear is the 60+ hard core players in my guild having fun in it.
"All I hear is the level 60+ players in my guild having fun in it."
You may not be the only one who thinks that but it's an incorrect assumption. The people buying the playing time of others are not the true target market of the game, they are merely people who have found a way to get "X" out of the game without experiencing "A-W" or having to bother with "Y" and "Z".
It's like the kid at the arcade who sidles up to the best player and pays them money to get the high score on a machine and put the paying kid's initials at the top - there will always be someone willing to pay for being thought the best without being the best. WoW has nothing to do with it, it's just a recent example.
My approx net worth: $500,000 Cost of my home: $380,000
My home is 75% of my net worth! That's right! I spend it all on the house! I've got a gold front door with a 4-story foyer and I breed real gnomes, none of that statue crap, who do nothing but stand out in the garden!
I can't furnish it.. and my refrigerator is bare.. but I got DA BLING! I spend more of my income on housing than even Bill Gates, that's how FAT my life is!
Despite the way we behave around here computers are still, in fact, not a necessity of life.
Neither is your car.
Or electricity. Man existed without it before, we just didn't live in such large numbers in less-than-temperate climates.
Or money.. because I'm sure your bank carefully places the money (cash, right?) that you deposit into your own little safety deposit box with a key, and you can only withdraw from that same box. Must be a very big bank.
You see, if I commit a traffic violation and if I save a man's life, does it really matter?
If the traffic violation was a DUI which resulted in vehicular manslaughter then yes, it does matter.
It's refreshing to see such earnest defense of Gates, but your line of reasoning is baffling.
You seem to want to say that yes, he did break the law but no one was really hurt by it and now look at all the good he's doing. You think there were no damages to others? People who borrowed, begged, mortgaged their homes for start-up costs for some technology they had developed or business they were beginning, only to have MS squash them with almost limitless resources or buy them out at a fraction of what their technology was worth... you think their lives went on as usual? You think there is no cost to this? Using just one example, you think MS bundling IE with their OS didn't put someone, many people, out of a job? Since we can't put a an actual price in damages for what MS has cost the nation, I wouldn't dare try to dismiss it as unsubstantial.
If you want to say hey, he's redeeming himself and acting like a stand-up citizen so let's give him credit for that, go right ahead, I'll even throw in an "Amen!". But don't belittle everything that has come before with a pat "the end justifies the means". It's insulting to those whose lives were never the same after being affected by MS when it was being run by Gates.
Also, note that he got 6 months for having 33 child pornography images on his computer. I would personally count that as a more serious crime than racism, but he got much less time for it?
Why is child pornography a greater crime than racism? Racism is a crime against the innocent as well. That young man's family did nothing wrong or against that person except display the wrong skin color. They can't control that any more than a 5-year-old can control being five years old. And you may think the racism victim always has a choice in how they react to a racist, but look here, the young man who was killed was walking away when an ice pick got stuck into his head.
As for why he got such a light sentence for possession of the pornography, the local laws would determine that. If the people living in the area feel it was too light, they should lobby their local government for stronger sentences for possession of child pornography.
What this guy did was no different than showing up at the boy's funeral and shouting from the street 'that white people should celebrate the murder, that Anthony's family should be burned, and made references to slavery and a "banana boat"'. How many of you would defend that as free speech? Since when are threats protected?
The only reason breast cancer awareness is so high is because women, WOMEN, organized themselves and brought both the public and government's attention to it. This was more a grass-roots effort that became a force to be reckoned with than a "oh, never mind the men, we women are more important!" action. Breast cancer was thought to be treatable and curable through early detection and women set out to prove it through these campaigns, rather than continue the barbaric treatment of lopping off their breasts and blasting them with chemotherapy to treat any and all signs of cancer.
Yes, prostate cancer is high among men, it's the second leading cancer for men. For every 3 men who die of prostate cancer, 4 women die of breast cancer, so it's almost, but not quite, equal. What makes it more unequal is 70% of all prostate cancer cases occur in men 65 years or older in age. Compare that to 50% of all cases of breast cancer cases occur in women 61 years or older in age. In addition, prostate cancer can be so slow-growing as to be a non-issue in men - they frequently die of causes OTHER than prostate cancer due to age.
I think it's misguided to be "bitter" that one group garners more attention than the other, when one group isn't doing as much as the other to bring attention, publicity and resources to their cause. You're right, this isn't about a competition, this about who is doing what for their "own". And don't think men do not benefit from the publicity and research generated from these campaigns, as men can get breast cancer, too.
However, I can't even believe you went there with your "overwhelming lack of effort out there on the part of men's health". Please. Do you know how differently signs of a heart attack present themselves in women than men? Yet the rhetoric (tingling in left arm, shortness of breath, etc) is always about signs of impending heart problem in a man, not a woman, yet heart disease is the #1 killer of women, too.
Don't be upset because a group of people got organized. Organize yourself and get out there.
Interesting, Bill Clinton said last Sunday night or whenever it was that He "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy." I guess that turned out to be a lie if Rice was being pressured to set one herself.
If Rice had supported or enforced the policy left by Clinton, she would have presented it to the CIA and FBI to follow. The only reason I can think that the Director of the CIA would ask for policy would be in its absence.
Sound to me something like, "we don't _really_ have any proof, but I have a hunch."
Yes, sounded like that to me, too. Guess those grade schoolers who report to their teachers that a classmate has been mumbling about bombs and guns and how they hate certain people at the school shouldn't report it to the appropriate authorities until they have proof, then?
This is non-news. Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?
The current administration is so far to the right that all propaganada is left-wing propaganda, everything else is "Truth". The better cry-baby response would have been "Why are the only political stories on Slashdot US-based?".
I agree the initial copy of the paper is an interesting point, but I think the majority of the comments are misdirected at the commercial aspect of the service. I think it falls very squarely in the "fair use" venue. You say it's unpublished but it's an academic response to an educational service so it is "published" to the teacher and the school. The student is never surrendering their rights to publish their work for profit, and Turnitin is not claiming they can or will publish the students' work for profit, either. And actually, Turnitin can preserve the very copyright protection the students are claiming is being violated. Their service actually provides "prior art" to all students' submissions.
I remember when I was a kid in school the teachers had the encyclopedias and most common literary reference books memorized for cases of plagiarism. It wasn't the copyright owners who were protecting their works from plagiarism by school kids, it was the teachers showing kids the difference between doing their own work and passing off someone else's original work as their own. Turnitin's service is just one tool of many which school systems pay for to educate our kids.
Turnitin is not profiting from the student's ideas or work, they are profiting from their own algorithms and databases which are built to provide information to help teachers prevent or deter plagiarism.
I think the real question becomes, do you think plagiarism (NOT copyright infringement!) should be allowed or not, because without a method of proving prior art, plagiarism doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
facebook.com still points to http://www.facebook.com/ by default, I'll wait for the headline when THAT changes.
I stopped patronizing Craigslist after they removed the erotic services section after intense political pressure.
The exact same reason, stop looking at me like that...
Nice that amazon have shown their colours... I shall no longer trade with them. Vote with your wallet, it's the only way they'll learn.
This is exactly why Amazon should not be hosting them, it is not their place to make stances on a political stage; rather, they should be focusing on what they do best, delaying my shipments in a blatant attempt to get me to upgrade to Amazon Prime.
Wikileaks needs the hand of a non-profit or media organization, not a for-profit IT company which has no business risking its value and customer base for one lightning rod of a customer.
So?
Why are other people's allergies my problem? Did I give them to them?
Teach school-age kids to be careful, and provide them with epi-pens. Problem solved.
Five year olds can walk a mile too and from school -- we did when I was young. (And we knew not to talk to strangers.) They can certainly be taught to not eat strange foods. Crap, when I was a kid, six and seven year old diabetic kids were giving themselves scheduled insulin injections.
Jesus Christ, dude. No one said other peoples' allergies are your problem, just that they can be serious. Some allergies spontaneously appear so unless every person walks around with an epi 'just in case', it's impossible to be prepared for every incidence of anaphylactic shock. Upset that someone threatened to take your peanuts away on a plane?
And we don't let five-year-olds walk a mile to school alone not because we don't think we can teach them to not talk to strangers, but because they are too small and weak to defend themselves against being forced into a car. Some people take the concept of 'personal responsibility' way too far.
This seems to be what happened: Five days after her lung transplant the recipient ate a candy bar with peanuts. She had a minor reaction but it was relatively benign due to the immune suppressing drugs she was taking for the transplant; her reaction was confused with normal complications of lung transplants. But that first taste of peanut was all that her body needed to prime her for the almost-deadly reaction seven months later. And the woman continues to be allergic to peanuts to this day.
Fucking Snickers, always getting the last laugh.
Yes, clearly the old techie folks are just angry and bitter that technology isn't as hard as it used to be so young punks like Zuckerberg can succeed.
/rolls-eyes
The difference between Gates / Zuckerberg and Jobs lies not in how they came to power, but what they did with it once they got it. Microsoft ran into trouble with its IE "integration" with Windows, and Zuckerberg has gladly sold his user's private information to what I can only assume is the top bidder. Jobs is not abusing his power (as far as we know) by selling our private information or abusing his position as leader in the marketplace - you are not forced to buy Apple products because your business or home computer is a running a certain operating system. There are other MP3 players / phones / laptops / TV streaming products out there that offer the same basic services and content you'll find on an Apple product.
So let’s chill with the hating on Zuckerberg’s success. It’s all just a bit tacky and hypocritical.
Zuckerberg has been and likely always will be distasteful for his disdain for his userbase and how willing he is to sell them out if it fattens his bottom line. He has no honor, and "chill(ing) with the hating" on a person with no honor is, in my opinion, beyond a bit tacky but likely not hypocritical for those that do.
He said he has insurance - I am absolutely shocked the insurance company did not enforce the payment of this fee as a way to protect their interest in his house, either by revocation of the policy for nonpayment, or by making the payment themselves and charging the homeowner through the premium on their insurance policy.
Also - if you watch the video, he said his son had set fire to his house 3 years ago in a similar manner, hadn't paid, but the fire company responded anyway with the 'promise to pay' later (under a different fire chief). It's likely the entire community had the mindset of "they'll come even if I don't pay", and the new fire chief wasn't able to keep enough firefighters on to cover all areas due to lack of funds. The real problem is likely due to such responses in the past where the fee was not enforced and on an informal 'pay-as-you-go' policy. Personally, if a family member had already experienced a fire and there was even a whiff of a question of whether the fire department would respond or not, you'd better believe I'd have that bill paid in full, on-time, every year.
If your TV were fully capable of creating TV shows, but artificially restricted because your television's manufacturer was run by a control freak, then you would be perfectly within your right to be upset.
Companies get to place whatever limitations they want on their products, for whatever reasons. It's up to consumers to decide whether to buy them or not with those restrictions in place. There are better, more targeted tools out there for creating content than the iPad. If you want the features of an iPad with the ability to create content with whatever tools you want, make your own.
I have this little rule that I find useful in these sorts of discussions. Anyone who takes any opportunity presented to slip in how the ipad is "revolutionary", without reason or providing justification, is revealed to just be mindlessly parroting Apple's marketing materials, and thus one should not expect serious analysis from them.
Enjoy your birdfeed parrot.
I have this little rule, too, about continuing to engage with people who can not make constructive arguments but instead merely insult those they disagree with, so you won't be responded to again.
Yes, Grossman does get it right. That is my disappointment too. The iPad is all about consuming content, being a consumer. It is unlike a PC which can be used to create content. The iPad is a passive device.
On a related note, I am disappointed that my purchase of a TV does not allow me to create TV shows!
There is an egregious mismatch between what the iPad IS and what people WANT it to be going on in this thread. There are more than enough tools to create right now, the iPad is a revolutionary way to deliver what's created to the consumer. The Time article missed the point while making the point.
This is just a ridiculous attempt to criminalize scuzzy, crappy, opportunistic behavior on the part of one party (scalpers) at the expense of another scuzzy, crappy, opportunistic party (TicketMaster). This strikes me as another case of people trying to misuse the law to remedy the unexpected (only by idiots) defeat of a faulty system.
This is just your bias preventing you from seeing the argument. If you RTFI (Indictment), you'll see that TicketMaster had clear ToS on their site which specifically prohibited the purchase of tickets on their websites for commercial re-sale. Wiseguys wasn't even selling their tickets to the consumer, but to scalpers to sell for even MORE markup to the consumer.
Their software also jockeyed Wiseguys to the front of the queue, when Ticketmasters was legally obligated to sell on a first-come, first serve basis and spent millions on technology assuring users were queued in that manner. They put forth good faith and effort in creating that technology and yes, efforts to work around it, with or without success, is illegal.
IANAL, and I am no fan of Ticketmaster, but it's pretty striking that you would dismiss a company's right to protect itself in its contracts and reputation just because you do not like with the company. Ticketmaster made the same amount of money it would have regardless of if it sold to private buyers or if Wiseguys bought all of their tickets; however, their contractual agreements with the venues, artists, etc., hold that they sell the tickets with specific conditions, of which they would be violating by turning a blind eye to whom is buying their tickets.
It is also the expectation that all consumers have equal opportunity to buy tickets using their website which is harmed when, despite their best efforts, companies with technological advantages deliberately overcome the considerable amount of defenses Ticketmaster put into place to prevent that sort of behavior.
Disliking the prosecuting company does not make their actions a misuse of law.
I'm suddenly sad men everywhere have intelligent conversations with me...
That man makes a very strong case for an elementary education being a minimum requirement for a Director position in any publicly-traded company.
He had me at vi.
That doesn't make children....
"Error Code: 0"
that it's without just cause being ignored? I see dozens of comments about whether or not your data should be protected or not, but nothing about the "whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner" is being discussed.
It's ridiculous to think a laptop is innocuous or incapable of causing as much destruction as a bomb. But just as officials have no rights to search my car, my home or my person without cause, they should not be able to randomly search a laptop without just cause.
See the forest, not the trees.
T.
So far other than two new races I have seen nothing of the expansion
What more did you expect to see of the expansion since you have clearly not completed most of the original content? And interesting the way you diminish the addition of two new races to the game.
All I hear is the 60+ hard core players in my guild having fun in it.
"All I hear is the level 60+ players in my guild having fun in it."
There, I fixed that for you.
You may not be the only one who thinks that but it's an incorrect assumption. The people buying the playing time of others are not the true target market of the game, they are merely people who have found a way to get "X" out of the game without experiencing "A-W" or having to bother with "Y" and "Z".
It's like the kid at the arcade who sidles up to the best player and pays them money to get the high score on a machine and put the paying kid's initials at the top - there will always be someone willing to pay for being thought the best without being the best. WoW has nothing to do with it, it's just a recent example.
My approx net worth: $500,000
Cost of my home: $380,000
My home is 75% of my net worth! That's right! I spend it all on the house! I've got a gold front door with a 4-story foyer and I breed real gnomes, none of that statue crap, who do nothing but stand out in the garden!
I can't furnish it.. and my refrigerator is bare.. but I got DA BLING! I spend more of my income on housing than even Bill Gates, that's how FAT my life is!
Can't get any more ridiculous than me!
T.
Despite the way we behave around here computers are still, in fact, not a necessity of life.
Neither is your car.
Or electricity. Man existed without it before, we just didn't live in such large numbers in less-than-temperate climates.
Or money.. because I'm sure your bank carefully places the money (cash, right?) that you deposit into your own little safety deposit box with a key, and you can only withdraw from that same box. Must be a very big bank.
T.
You see, if I commit a traffic violation and if I save a man's life, does it really matter?
If the traffic violation was a DUI which resulted in vehicular manslaughter then yes, it does matter.
It's refreshing to see such earnest defense of Gates, but your line of reasoning is baffling.
You seem to want to say that yes, he did break the law but no one was really hurt by it and now look at all the good he's doing. You think there were no damages to others? People who borrowed, begged, mortgaged their homes for start-up costs for some technology they had developed or business they were beginning, only to have MS squash them with almost limitless resources or buy them out at a fraction of what their technology was worth... you think their lives went on as usual? You think there is no cost to this? Using just one example, you think MS bundling IE with their OS didn't put someone, many people, out of a job? Since we can't put a an actual price in damages for what MS has cost the nation, I wouldn't dare try to dismiss it as unsubstantial.
If you want to say hey, he's redeeming himself and acting like a stand-up citizen so let's give him credit for that, go right ahead, I'll even throw in an "Amen!". But don't belittle everything that has come before with a pat "the end justifies the means". It's insulting to those whose lives were never the same after being affected by MS when it was being run by Gates.
Also, note that he got 6 months for having 33 child pornography images on his computer. I would personally count that as a more serious crime than racism, but he got much less time for it?
Why is child pornography a greater crime than racism? Racism is a crime against the innocent as well. That young man's family did nothing wrong or against that person except display the wrong skin color. They can't control that any more than a 5-year-old can control being five years old. And you may think the racism victim always has a choice in how they react to a racist, but look here, the young man who was killed was walking away when an ice pick got stuck into his head.
As for why he got such a light sentence for possession of the pornography, the local laws would determine that. If the people living in the area feel it was too light, they should lobby their local government for stronger sentences for possession of child pornography.
What this guy did was no different than showing up at the boy's funeral and shouting from the street 'that white people should celebrate the murder, that Anthony's family should be burned, and made references to slavery and a "banana boat"'. How many of you would defend that as free speech? Since when are threats protected?
I'd mod you up if I could because that is an incredibly good point.
I have mod points but I can't let this pass:
The only reason breast cancer awareness is so high is because women, WOMEN, organized themselves and brought both the public and government's attention to it. This was more a grass-roots effort that became a force to be reckoned with than a "oh, never mind the men, we women are more important!" action. Breast cancer was thought to be treatable and curable through early detection and women set out to prove it through these campaigns, rather than continue the barbaric treatment of lopping off their breasts and blasting them with chemotherapy to treat any and all signs of cancer.
Yes, prostate cancer is high among men, it's the second leading cancer for men. For every 3 men who die of prostate cancer, 4 women die of breast cancer, so it's almost, but not quite, equal. What makes it more unequal is 70% of all prostate cancer cases occur in men 65 years or older in age. Compare that to 50% of all cases of breast cancer cases occur in women 61 years or older in age. In addition, prostate cancer can be so slow-growing as to be a non-issue in men - they frequently die of causes OTHER than prostate cancer due to age.
I think it's misguided to be "bitter" that one group garners more attention than the other, when one group isn't doing as much as the other to bring attention, publicity and resources to their cause. You're right, this isn't about a competition, this about who is doing what for their "own". And don't think men do not benefit from the publicity and research generated from these campaigns, as men can get breast cancer, too.
However, I can't even believe you went there with your "overwhelming lack of effort out there on the part of men's health". Please. Do you know how differently signs of a heart attack present themselves in women than men? Yet the rhetoric (tingling in left arm, shortness of breath, etc) is always about signs of impending heart problem in a man, not a woman, yet heart disease is the #1 killer of women, too.
Don't be upset because a group of people got organized. Organize yourself and get out there.
T.
Interesting, Bill Clinton said last Sunday night or whenever it was that He "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy." I guess that turned out to be a lie if Rice was being pressured to set one herself.
If Rice had supported or enforced the policy left by Clinton, she would have presented it to the CIA and FBI to follow. The only reason I can think that the Director of the CIA would ask for policy would be in its absence.
Sound to me something like, "we don't _really_ have any proof, but I have a hunch."
Yes, sounded like that to me, too. Guess those grade schoolers who report to their teachers that a classmate has been mumbling about bombs and guns and how they hate certain people at the school shouldn't report it to the appropriate authorities until they have proof, then?
This is non-news. Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?
The current administration is so far to the right that all propaganada is left-wing propaganda, everything else is "Truth". The better cry-baby response would have been "Why are the only political stories on Slashdot US-based?".
I agree the initial copy of the paper is an interesting point, but I think the majority of the comments are misdirected at the commercial aspect of the service. I think it falls very squarely in the "fair use" venue. You say it's unpublished but it's an academic response to an educational service so it is "published" to the teacher and the school. The student is never surrendering their rights to publish their work for profit, and Turnitin is not claiming they can or will publish the students' work for profit, either. And actually, Turnitin can preserve the very copyright protection the students are claiming is being violated. Their service actually provides "prior art" to all students' submissions.
I remember when I was a kid in school the teachers had the encyclopedias and most common literary reference books memorized for cases of plagiarism. It wasn't the copyright owners who were protecting their works from plagiarism by school kids, it was the teachers showing kids the difference between doing their own work and passing off someone else's original work as their own. Turnitin's service is just one tool of many which school systems pay for to educate our kids.
Turnitin is not profiting from the student's ideas or work, they are profiting from their own algorithms and databases which are built to provide information to help teachers prevent or deter plagiarism.
I think the real question becomes, do you think plagiarism (NOT copyright infringement!) should be allowed or not, because without a method of proving prior art, plagiarism doesn't exist.