There will always be people who exploit the system, any system, but at some point the costs will be higher to keep the system 'pure' than it is catching every single last abuser.
Same applies to millionaires and taxes (but lordy lordy, we can't crack down on THEM abusing the system!)
Why not explain, in detail, how much is being wasted each year?
NHS hearing aids and new batteries are free. If you lose your hearing aid or damage it, you may be asked to pay towards the cost of repairing or replacing it.
Meh, Philip Roth just doesn't understand Wikipedia.
Imagine that you're writing a report on The Human Stain. You see Roth's direct edit to Wikipedia, but since that's the only place he made the change, that's the only source. How would you cite that in your bibliography, knowing that any cite of Wikipedia is immediately scored an F? How do you know Roth personally made the edit?
Wikipedia is, by design and definition, unreliable.
Personally, I think they need to leave Lance alone. Maybe he did it, maybe not -- I don't know. But all their "witnesses" have been given strong incentives to testify against Lance, even if they have to make stuff up, and the only real science in this witchhunt -- the actual blood tests -- have all show him to be clean.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence though, and barring said evidence, the simplest solution still tends to be more likely.
I mean, which is more likely to be possible?
A ten-plus year coverup effort assisted by who knows how many people, being able to fool labs in how many different places at how many different times, your life being put under the microscope for years on end OR Lance Armstrong is a very talented, able cyclist.
I read a story about the 1992 USA Olympic basketball Dream Team, and one bit I remember was none of them wanted to be the top scorer for a game, because that meant a mandatory drug test (they hated the inconvenience). The more you win, the tighter the scrutiny becomes, and to keep it up for so long in Armstrong's case, I cannot imagine it *not* being leaked earlier (considering it appears practically anyone who's ever been a part of USA cycling was in on it...they're *all* that altruistic?) and to bring it up now reeks of being a witch hunt and farming for publicity.
But everyone seems to accept the conspiracy, so why not?
Says the person taking everything coming out of the USADA at face value.
You just want to see someone legitimately successful fail, because the only story we like better than an underdog overcoming obstacles to triumph is to watch someone highly regarded fall from grace flat on their face.
So, for over a decade, the most tested athlete in the history of the world (at the very least, he's got to be in the top 10) in one of the dirtiest sports has managed to fool EVERYONE?
Do you know how hard it would be to keep a conspiracy like that going? And for what purpose? Does Occam's Razor really mean nothing these days?
Armstrong is quite likely the most tested athlete in the history of sports entire and he's in, in its recent history, one of the dirtiest sports of all time.
And all the USADA has is testimony from witnesses, witnesses who themselves have positive test results.
Ooooh, snarky. Actually, I've got 7 open with content right now (9 if you count my two blanks used as spacers). Wanna try guessing the rest of my system specs and browsing habits?
Here, I'll take a wild guess at yours: stop opening 200 tabs from YouPorn.
Slashdot Mirror
There will always be people who exploit the system, any system, but at some point the costs will be higher to keep the system 'pure' than it is catching every single last abuser.
Same applies to millionaires and taxes (but lordy lordy, we can't crack down on THEM abusing the system!)
Why not explain, in detail, how much is being wasted each year?
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/894.aspx?CategoryID=68&SubCategoryID=157
NHS hearing aids and new batteries are free. If you lose your hearing aid or damage it, you may be asked to pay towards the cost of repairing or replacing it.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the legal justification applied by the judge.
Let's try it this way, shall we?
A judge orders you to do X and your attorney doesn't object (assuming one is even present). This is legal.
Define conditions of X.
My suggestion would be getting in touch with the EFF...
Having a judge involved, and the defense attorney not objecting, is due process.
So, with that logic, if a judge orders you to pee on the floor and your attorney doesn't object, that's fine too?!
With due process.
There was no due process here, at least none I saw. Just a judge going, "Take it down."
*groan*
Touché, sir. Touché.
Well, at some point the citations actually do matter. Takes a while and it's a ways up the educational ladder, but eventually they do matter.
At least, I think so. I've never made it that far myself.
"...if you're writing a report on The Human Stain, you should be reading The Human Stain, not Wikipedia."
Writing a report on David Copperfield and NOT reading a biography on Charles Dickens in addition to that is practically only doing half the work.
Meh, Philip Roth just doesn't understand Wikipedia.
Imagine that you're writing a report on The Human Stain. You see Roth's direct edit to Wikipedia, but since that's the only place he made the change, that's the only source. How would you cite that in your bibliography, knowing that any cite of Wikipedia is immediately scored an F? How do you know Roth personally made the edit?
Wikipedia is, by design and definition, unreliable.
How would one cite Roth's direct edit on Wikipedia...without citing Wikipedia?
"Personal knowledge of Author, 07 September, 2012"?
This is where the argument of "why can't he just change Wikipedia?" falls apart.
You're still you though. You still have to give statements, make yourself available for depositions, be put on the stand.
There's more than just 'Release the Nazgul!' and then you go about your life.
Personally, I think they need to leave Lance alone. Maybe he did it, maybe not -- I don't know. But all their "witnesses" have been given strong incentives to testify against Lance, even if they have to make stuff up, and the only real science in this witchhunt -- the actual blood tests -- have all show him to be clean.
I'll drink to that.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence though, and barring said evidence, the simplest solution still tends to be more likely.
I mean, which is more likely to be possible?
A ten-plus year coverup effort assisted by who knows how many people, being able to fool labs in how many different places at how many different times, your life being put under the microscope for years on end
OR
Lance Armstrong is a very talented, able cyclist.
I read a story about the 1992 USA Olympic basketball Dream Team, and one bit I remember was none of them wanted to be the top scorer for a game, because that meant a mandatory drug test (they hated the inconvenience). The more you win, the tighter the scrutiny becomes, and to keep it up for so long in Armstrong's case, I cannot imagine it *not* being leaked earlier (considering it appears practically anyone who's ever been a part of USA cycling was in on it...they're *all* that altruistic?) and to bring it up now reeks of being a witch hunt and farming for publicity.
But everyone seems to accept the conspiracy, so why not?
You. Stupid. Naive. Moron.
Says the person taking everything coming out of the USADA at face value.
You just want to see someone legitimately successful fail, because the only story we like better than an underdog overcoming obstacles to triumph is to watch someone highly regarded fall from grace flat on their face.
Occam's Razor is so dull these days, using it makes hair grow back...
He's been fighting this for over ten years.
What sort of life do you have if you have to spend all your time defending it?
So, for over a decade, the most tested athlete in the history of the world (at the very least, he's got to be in the top 10) in one of the dirtiest sports has managed to fool EVERYONE?
Do you know how hard it would be to keep a conspiracy like that going? And for what purpose?
Does Occam's Razor really mean nothing these days?
Armstrong is quite likely the most tested athlete in the history of sports entire and he's in, in its recent history, one of the dirtiest sports of all time.
And all the USADA has is testimony from witnesses, witnesses who themselves have positive test results.
So, frankly, fuck the USADA.
I've got it set so it only checks every 30 minutes, and could even be set longer.
I have an rss reader that runs a ticker in my status bar. I can pop out or close from there. Keeps the news article tabs to a minimum.
Can't really help with the reference tabs though.
Yeah, I gotta wonder, 300 tabs?
I don't think I've ever broken 20.
Ooooh, snarky. Actually, I've got 7 open with content right now (9 if you count my two blanks used as spacers). Wanna try guessing the rest of my system specs and browsing habits?
Here, I'll take a wild guess at yours: stop opening 200 tabs from YouPorn.
Gee, wonder what I'm doing wrong...my Firefox is taking up only 250mb...
Kill 'plugin-container.exe' if you're using Firefox. You have to reload the page to get flash working, but the rest of Firefox is unaffected.