DDR ruined this mix for me forever. lol.

*promote

Turns out this guys was just that... some guy. Not the bomber.
They tracked down the person that Craigslisted the SUV and he described the buyer (hundred dollar bills) as either middle-eastern or hispanic or something like that.

^ You don't need to be religious to get married. You can be married by a justice.
(Likewise, if a couple doesn't care for the government to be involved, they can have a ceremony without the official paper-work.) Other than all the obvious advantages of public, official marriage, it avoids some serious contractual gymnastics needed to have the rights a married couple have automatically.

Anyway, the couple should just find a doctor that WILL do the treatment. It's not that hard. There are a bazillion of them without religious and ethical considerations. Also, it's not like the catholic doctor denied them life-saving treatment. He refused to offer them a paid service that would circumvent their natural--if unfortunate--inability to have children.

Shouldn't be terribly long now. The work is interesting... at least in my little world. I hope to get a teaching position at some small college somewhere in the end. Postdoc before that though... probably in the same or a similar field.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Ah, interesting work, no doubt?

Are you finishing up the phd? Gonna continue researching in the same field?

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Sorta. Working in the lab almost all day every day now... finishing things up, meetings, etc... ya know.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
You still around, science-man?

I don't understand why a couple would want a child and not a marriage. Do they assume that they'll break up? That would be seriously irresponsible parenting.

How about an MVP badge for outstanding batting average (an average votes/video of some number or higher... assuming a certain minimum number of videos)?

I generally have no problem with people saying... well, anything that isn't slander or libel. When words turn to illegal actions, that is where law should step in. Verbal provocation should not be equated to physical action. People have the right to listen or not listen and to judge what they hear for themselves. Trying to legislate what people are allowed to say and not allowed to say is not only a nightmare for law enforcement, but is far more authoritarian than people initially perceive it to be. You may emotionally agree with one enforcement now, but the situation may be turned around on you before you realize it.

I've never liked the term "slippery slope." I think it's cliche and hyperbolic. In a case like this, no one is slipping down any slope. However, the directions we choose to take influence the directions future generations will take. If we begin life with the right to say anything and end life with the right to say "most" things, than the next generation begins life at "most"...

The question really is:
Do you want to head toward authoritarianism or libertarianism?

I'm not surprised. Most people don't really get how science is done and almost no one wants other people making decisions for them--in regards to what is true or not true, real or not real. I'm all for people making up their own minds, but at some point you have to admit that you can't know everything about everything; at that point, you are forced to allow an expert to at least narrow down the field of options for you. The internet has both helped (in allowing open access to information) and hurt (in allowing open access to quackery) this process.

Anyway, the study was more proving that argumentum ad populum is alive and thriving.

Sorta. Working in the lab almost all day every day now... finishing things up, meetings, etc... ya know.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
You still around, science-man?

>> ^pho3n1x:

>> ^Doc_M:
...I admire this late man...

Huh? He's still alive.


I meant Hawking.

Five bucks says Anna didn't go to a public high school.
The fight was just your typical pissing contest.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100220/D9E04NVG0.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/school-that-spied-on-students-with-laptop-cameras-says-it-was-security-feature-2010-2

The case isn't about their use of the state-owned computers in the classroom. In the school, the administrators have every right to monitor the use of their computers. The students shouldn't HAVE to offer any personal information on sites that are to be used for classes, so the privacy issue is moot on school grounds. The case is about whether the school activated the webcams while the students were in their homes.

If the school was peeping on their students in their homes by ANY means, the school is some deep trouble. They could potentially be breaking some obvious and very serious laws whether on purpose or otherwise.

The administration claims the cams were only ever turned on remotely when laptops were lost or allegedly stolen to help locate them.

The only things in this case that I read anywhere said an "image on the student's hard drive" was the reason for the disciplinary action. It didn't say that the image was OF the student in his home, though of course everyone suspects that it was. It's possible, however, that the student WAS doing something inappropriate on the computer while at home and the school found out about it later, legally. It's possible the case against the school is to evade that issue by turning the focus to the obviously dubious potential actions of the school. If the agreement that the students and parents signed prohibited ANY inappropriate use whether in or out of school, and if the school found out about that use later (say while the student was IN the school using their laptop), and if the computer contained the evidence to prove it, than the webcam may never have been remote-accessed at any time off campus in the first place; if that is the case, the school may be within their rights as owners of the laptops. I say all this is "possible" because it IS a feasible explanation, even if it is boring. Honestly, what school administrator would openly come out with a picture of a student in their home taken remotely?! That's almost TOO stupid to believe likely.

The issue is creepy in the extreme, but the school may be innocent, even though they made the enormously monumental failure of judgment by allowing the possibility for abuse at the get go.