We need finer "screen" than the stuff we typically use on windows here, though. I've seen motivated mosquitoes squeeze through the stuff.

I believe the gp mentioned Australia. I guess the mosquitoes there are much bigger... ;)

Here, I think we would call the appropriate solution a "mosquito net".

I'm sorry, whom exactly have I slapped with a label? I've provided what I believe to be a description of people that subscribe to a certain political philosophy. Others here who claim that label for themselves have disagreed with me. I have not labeled anyone in this discussion.

I suppose you could consider "private sector" and "public sector" to be labels, but those are defined, not opinion. I have not accused any participant in this discussion of belonging to any group or holding any particular belief.

And no, I don't see the world as "black and white", but discussing examples that are opposite in nature makes for a clearer discussion than debating the nuances of the middle ground.

Re: your sig -- did you have a job when Bill Clinton was president?

If you ever read the Foundation novels, you would know that the best way to fix most every "crisis" that comes up is to do nothing - trust the system to be self-balancing until proven wrong over the long run.

Balance might not always be the objective. and the path to it might not always be tolerable.

Since we are on slashdot, how about a Star Wars example? Young Skywalker was prophesied to bring "balance" to the force. Yes, he did. After all, there were only a few Sith, and thanks to him we got rid of all those excess Jedi out ensuring peace and prosperity in the world.

I suppose Rwanda was "self-balancing", as is AIDS in Africa and as the decline of Christian world dominance will be.

One problem is when you use the phrase "over the long run"... What are you willing to tolerate between here and there? The other problem is the assumption that "balance" is even the end being sought -- generally I prefer good over evil, not a "balance" of the two.

Profiteer: one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency

It's my opinion, but yes, I'd use this to describe much of the pharma industry. I've had personal experience with executives of those companies who had no interest in greater efficiency because they were "already making so much money anyway"...

While your tone and language hardly merit any response... Maybe you could read my follow-on response to a more eloquent person?

No, I had no intention of discussing stem cells nor did I mention it. Why did you? Are you trying to trivialize the discussion to some extreme issue?

It is well established that recent conservative governments have reduced funding for scientific basic and medical research.

Private Sector research has one "aim" -- profit. Not public welfare. That is why the government usually has to fund "basic research". Once publicly funded, the results end up in the public domain and private sector entities are then free to profiteer off it by expanding on its application.

I'm a conservative, yet despite your perception I know that plenty of excellent research comes from state universities like the one my wife is employed by. This is putting the research in the hands of the gov't, and I'm fine with that. However, I would not trust congress with spending that money on research. Ideally I'd like to see it go directly to a good medical research school somewhere.

And how would you decide which "good medical research school somewhere" or, more specifically, which researcher/project? You need some entity to evaluate what research is being done and to decide where the money can have the most impact. Hello HHS/NIH!

From an article on the difference in administrations:

President Bill Clinton pledged to double the NIH budget in 1998 from 13.6 billion. Then Texas Gov. George W. Bush, on the campaign trail, pledged to complete Clinton’s pledge.

It was a promise he kept when Bush first came to the White House. But after that, the NIH budget precipitously dropped, Propst said. “The increases have either been below inflation or been flat-out cuts.”

I'm not saying that you're wrong, per se (the award might well be inflated), but depending on the child's actual condition, the cost of care could vary substantially.

Absolutely. Without going into the specifics of his case, he is certainly better off than other children his mother (my sister) has worked with in the autism community. The point was, rather, that $1.5M plus over $500k per year is excessive.

Yes, but they have a much more "effective" solution to individual choices to abstain from vaccination affecting the hive.

My nephew is autistic and I can assure you the award here is FAR more than care will/would cost. Providing the family with 20% or less of that award and forcing $16M into additional research would be much more beneficial to the public good, would it not?

But then the conservatives aren't in favor of government research and would prefer less government and to let the "private sector" solve this problem.

The biggest threat high bandwidth internet has politically, is an end to campaign contributions to pay for commercial broadcasting purposes. Every politician and every political party will be able to upload their message, speeches, supporting performance (on permanent record) to government hosted web sites (local, state and federal) which every citizen can freely access. No more for profit political commercials now that cripples the influence of the rich via mass media and promotes independent politicians as well as enabling smaller political parties to gain access to the electorate upon an equal basis. Additional every single sitting of any legislative body can be recorded, uploaded and accessed by anybody at any time.

Wow, that is optimistic. Maybe it is vastly different in Australia... Are all the people there struggling to find messages from politicians? Frustrated at their inability to access political speeches due to their lack of broadband? Just because every politician can upload their media and every citizen can access it DOES NOT mean that political paid ads will go away. The paid ads are there to INTERRUPT the viewer of a mainstream show and CATCH them with the message that they would never seek out on their own.

But if you a shopkeeper, want to sell megaphones to everyone but mormons, for example, that's something different.

There are certain protected classes for certain activities sometimes subject to what kind of an organization you are. For example, the Boy Scouts of America (private) routinely and officially discriminates based on beliefs. They have defended (and won) on this issue in courts all across the USA. As long as people believe what they do is "ok" and choose to continue participating, they'll keep doing it. I was kicked out as a Cub Scout at the age of 8 for refusing to testify to my belief in God and because my family was not religious.

Also, the policy in question here, on "hate speech" is not religious discrimination. The policy should be equally enforceable against hate speech from any group.

How can she already be there if she is just arriving?

I hope someone can come up with a better example... she isn't "just arriving", the light is "just arriving". If you cannot separate one's "self" from the light representation thereof, have fun in front of the mirror!

Kinda reminds me of the Joo Janta 200 Super Chromatic Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses...

The bit where you enter their password might make it a little bit tricky.

I submit Exhibit A, showing that Foursquare and Gowalla (at least... who knows how many other apps) send usernames and passwords in plaintext.

Holy cow... I wonder how many mobile apps in general are this inept at security? I'm betting - a lot. Thanks for the link, I've shared it already...

"Not like there's going to be lots of fancy safeguards to try to prevent you from faking the GPS coordinates - which can come from a device in your control."

Or, for that matter, to prevent others from faking your GPS coordinates? If you opt out of providing your real location, where is your data to prove you WEREN'T at the scene of the crime when someone presents "data" that says you WERE there? Interesting conundrum...