Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
30 years ago (1998)
Are these dog years?
The full quote is Voltaire's, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
This quote belongs to Evelyn Beatrice Hall from a work published over a century after his death.
In her biography on Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. Hall's quotation is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.
You're honestly equating helping slaves escape with tax-dodging?
They were property after all, I think he'd be more concerned about the use tax tbh. No sympathy for the law breaker after all.
His position is absolute. Would you prefer a godwin? This isn't Social Justice it's the argument that law breaking is immoral no matter what the law. Do you seriously not see the fallacy with equating laws with morality? It implies following laws makes one "good", no matter what the law. The law is the law after all! It became a moral argument when the word wrong was used, instead of against policy, or illegal. It's the same rhetorical trickery used by Politicians and other slithery characters.
The teller was wrong
It's a good thing Slavery isn't still practiced. Law breaking isn't immoral.
Its not the regulations killing materials costs.
I didn't claim that, my comment about regulations was specific to software. My argument was they charge the prices they do because they can. Costs are passed on. Look at how much insurance charges.
Materials is a self inflicted wound. multiple hospitals tried to get better pricing by forming GPO companies. A good idea, but somewhere down the line the majority of them wound up in just a few dozen GPOs. Many of those merged and talked them in to long term contracts. Like 99 year contracts.
Interesting. Since I'm a cowboy today, why can't these organizations reorg and shirk their contracts? Probably not worth it because the vast majority of overhead typically incurred by an organization is the personnel.
Making devices withstand pressure and heat would increase costs quite a bit.
US Healthcare costs are already grossly inflated and the companies charge what they charge because they can get it, not because it's based in reality. I'm trying to find where I read about a medical tool that failed to market because it was priced too cheaply, and was successfully marketed and reintroduced at a higher price point. 2010 cost breakdown structures and equipment is a fraction of the total expenditure. This is like the drought in California asking residents who use up 14% of the water to conserve by 20% (I understand everyone needs to do their part). There is so much waste in medical, for example, you take a tablet out of the container and the patient refuses to take it, pitch it.
I'm involved with software related to caregivers, the regulations are stunning.
I'm a single programmer on a single laptop and I don't want systemd
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family~ SystemD Rhapsody
Page 99. Carson vividly describes the death of a bird that she thought may have been poisoned by a pesticide, but nowhere in the book does she describes the deaths of any of the people who were dying of malaria, yellow fever, plague, sleeping sickness, or other diseases that are transmitted by insects. Her propaganda in Silent Spring contributed greatly to the banning of insecticides that were capable of preventing human deaths. Carson shares the responsibility for literally millions of deaths among the poor people in underdeveloped nations. Dr. William Bowers, head of the Entomology Department at the University of Arizona, said in 1986 that DDT is the most significant discovery of all time, and “in malaria control alone it saved almost 3 billion lives.”
Rachel Carson’s lack of concern for human lives endangered by diseases transmitted by insects is revealed on page 187, where she writes: “Only yesterday mankind lived in fear of the scourges of smallpox, cholera and plague that once swept nations before them. Now our major concern is no longer with the disease organisms that once were omnipresent; sanitation, better living conditions, and new drugs have given us a high degree of control over infectious disease. Today we are concerned with a different kind of hazard that lurks in our environment—a hazard we ourselves have introduced into our world as our modern way of life has evolved.”
Surely Carson was aware that the greatest threats to humans are diseases such as malaria, typhus, yellow fever, Chagas’s disease, African sleeping sickness, and a number of types of Leishmaniasis and tick-borne bacterial and rickettsial diseases. She deliberately avoids mentioning any of these, because they could be controlled only by the appropriate use of insecticides, especially DDT. Carson evidently preferred to sacrifice those millions of lives rather than advocate any usage of such chemicals.
The dead birds Wallace sent out for subsequent study were analyzed by a method that detected only “total chlorine content” and could not determine what kind of chlorine was present; none was analyzed for mercury contamination). It was obviously highly irresponsible for Wallace and Carson to jump to the conclusion that the Michigan State University robins were being killed by DDT, and especially for Carson to highlight the false theory in her book long after the truth was evident.
In many feeding experiments birds, including robins, were forced to ingest great quantities of DDT (and its breakdown product, DDE). Wallace did not provide any evidence that indicated the Michigan State University robins may have been killed by those chemicals. Researcher Joseph Hickey at the University of Wisconsin had testified before the Environmental Protection Agency hearings on DDT specifically that he could not kill any robins by overdosing them with DDT because the birds simply passed it through their digestive tract and eliminated it in their feces. Many other feeding experiments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and various university researchers repeatedly showed that DDT and DDE in the diet could not have killed wild birds under field conditions. If Carson had mentioned these pertinent details it would have devastated her major theme, which continued to be the awful threats posed by DDT to all nonhuman creatures on the face of the Earth. Instead of providing the facts that would clarify such conditions, she spent several more pages on unfounded allegations about DDT and various kinds of birds.
Page 109. Carson alleges that because of the spray programs, “Heavy mortality has occurred among about 90 species of birds, including those most familiar to suburbanites and amateur naturalists.
Carson provides no references to confirm that allegation. The Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, in fact, continued to reveal that more birds were counted, per observer, during the greatest “DDT years,” including those types that Carson had declared to be declining in numbers. When marshes were sprayed with DDT to control the mosquitoes, a common result was a population explosion of birds inhabiting the marshes. The increases evidently occurred because of a reduction in bird diseases that were formerly transmitted by local blood-sucking insects, greater abundance of available food (less plant destruction by insects), and increased quantities of hepatic enzymes produced by the birds as a result of ingesting DDT (these enzymes destroy cancer-causing aflatoxins in birds and other vertebrates).
The flocks of birds—such as red-winged blackbirds—that were produced by the millions in marshes that had been sprayed with DDT caused tremendous damage to grain crops in Ohio and elsewhere. Such destruction was not desirable, and if Carson had complained about that nobody could have criticized her for it. Instead, she attempted to convince the readers that spraying the marshes caused the death of the birds nesting there, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
That means that he sought intimate communications with her under false pretenses.
Does this include fatties on dating websites using creative angles? What about attractive clothing, or being seen in a friends car, oh and makeup! All of these are now fraud!?