URK!

Jean Shepard: my heero.

YAY!

Fear mongering rubbish.

The report describes a scarring process in the lungs, which when caused by asbestos is called "asbestosis". It is not cancer, it is scarring. It is well known that fiberglass, silica, and other materials having long, thin, microscopic structures produce similar syndromes with prolonged exposure.

As to inflammation caused by injection - I just don't think the results are a surprise. Prickly pear spines would do the same thing.

The thing that scares hygienists is that asbestos exposure may lead to mesothelioma (an always fatal cancer) and no dose-response relationship can be established. One breath or a million breaths - statistically indistinguishable.

There is NOTHING in this paper supporting ANY conclusion that nanotubes are an asbestos analog.

I like cheesy crackers.

Those analog machines are so retro. I’ll bet they don’t even have a card reader (forget about RF). And, you have to deal with the attendant. So I suppose you could muddle through by just pricing everything $1 dollar less ($4.05=$3.05) and then tacking on an extra dollar for every gallon and an extra dime for every tenth. Cheaper than new pumps no matter how you look at it.

Unfortunately, this type of incident is all too common. CPS routinely seizes children based on third party reports of abuse and neglect (see Texas).

Moreover, the threshold at which abuse and neglect is claimed has fallen dramatically over the years. In some sense this derives from community norms; in upscale neighborhoods giving a swat to a misbehaving child will invariably lead to a complaint being filed. We are quickly approaching the point where talking harshly to your child can lead to trouble with CPS.

The most alarming thing is that this is done without due process as the child is taken before the case is fully ajudicated. I understand the conundrum of leaving a child with a potentially abusive guardian, but civil rights must come before "what-ifs".

The irony here is that the cure is usually worse than the disease: foster care is a derelict institution in and of itself.

WT*

Never had trouble posting before, and lost my comments.

But no need. The responses include everything I would have said.

Wow.

Lost my comments to that your "

Worthless

@#25

Oops. Referenced myself. @#25 should point @#19, not @#13, to @#25.

@#13

Please see @#21

Two examples

I once had a professor that gave the same lecture word for word every year. These lectures were essentially a regurgitaion of the class text, which was written by said professor. This professor was a Nobel Laureate teaching an upper level course, but the classes were so dull and tedious as to be painful. There was nothing in the class that could not be gleaned from the book; there was no difference between reading the book and attending class. Things got so bad during the semester I was taking the course that attendance essentially dropped to zero and the professor was forced to start introducing new material just to bring the students back.

I once sat in on a course, not even auditing, because the professor's lectures were so vibrant and stimulating. This class was usually standing room only. The coursework was well outside my course of study and I never intended to get a grade. But the intensity of the lectures drew me in nonetheless.

Pure nonsense. From both sides.

A lecture attempts to explain a theory, concept or approach that the students must learn. The notes taken during a class are merely an outline of the material to be learned in the course and may point to subtleties in concept not readily gleaned from the text. More importantly, the notes cover the material most likely to be seen on an exam (which may change from time to time).

Any professor dull enough to present the same material year after year is either a hack or totally unconcerned with the concept of teaching. Universities and colleges are supposed to present the most up to date information available. How can you copyright knowledge?

Any student unconcerned enough to attend lectures or unconnected enough to get notes from their classmates deserves to get a lesser grade than they might otherwise feel entitled to receiving. If you don't intend to attend, you might as well enroll in a correspondance course or have a mastery of every element in the text.

It also seems the professor's actions are counterproductive. I've had professors who would distribute lecture notes at the beginning of each week so each student could annotate the notes as they saw fit during the week's lectures. These professors always felt is was better to spend your time transcribing subtleties of concept during the lecture rather than trying to be a stenographer.

That said. There shouldn't be any need to pay for class notes. Many student societies maintain their members notes and even past exam questions, which (at least during my time at university) are available for the asking. The only cost is that of operating the copy machine.

OMG! It's Amy Winehouse.

Wow. I guess they WERE great science fiction writers!

I wonder what they think of some of the things Greg Bear has thrown out there.

ZOMG!

Jack booted thugs: 1, civil liberties: 0

Just another example of the overreaching long arm of the law. This man may have prevailed in court, but he opted to "go easy", and I can't say I blame him. Faced with court fees, lawyers fee, and lost time, he was officially harrassed and forced to prostrate himself.

As to his demeanor, well we all act out from time to time in our frustration, often to regret things after the moment. Thankfully, being an ass, bufoon, or idiot is not yet an actual criminal act, though this article shows that the government is inclined to such a view.

I thought branding was banned years ago.

Crash (#42): Your point is well taken. But it seems you put your finger on the heart of a great problem: Yahweh enjoins the faithful against killing, but exhorts the faithful to smite the "unbelievers". The inference is that the "unbelierver" is not "human", and killing such is not tatamount to murder. And, there lies the root of much evil in the world.

Theresa: The idea of a "just" war does have a long history, and derives (at its best) from the tension between being a pacifist and a victim. However, the idea of a "just war" is an idea of people, most notably politicians and clerics. Nietzsche had much to say about this, although maybe not directly. Despite its history, the Papacy has backed away (somewhat) from the idea of the "just" war. Accoring to King James, the God of the Old Testament was unequivacable in his (?) instruction to Moses: DO NOT KILL. Jesus, in his turn, was the ultimate pacifist (turn the other cheek). Mohammed (need I say), praise be his name, attempts to reconcile pacifism with the inherent greed in the world (you don't need to turn the other cheek). Myself, I lean towards Teddy Roosevelt: "Walk softly and carry a big stick". Nonetheless, the self evident hypocrisy of the aggressor warrior jew, christian, or muslim sickens me.

#17: I don't speak greek, so I'll take your word on the transliteration. But frankly, the difference between murder and kill seems to be one of intent (and certainly semantics). If you intend to end a life you murder, if its an "accident" you kill. So I guess I can buy that: Thou shall not act with an intent that may end a life. Certainly, some, should I say, "pacifist" martial arts are centered on this concept: do not let your enemy touch you, but do not "touch" your enemy.

JCD: Merecenaries are soldiers for hire and fulfill diverse roles. Can you say "Swiss Guard"?

Generally speaking, though it may be my ignorance, I've never heard of Jesus killing anyone, intentionally or otherwise. I did hear that he brought a few back from the grave, though.

I never could understand (judeo-christian-muslim-bahai) soldiers who claimed to be devout. The only 10 things that that GOD ever prohibited seem pretty clear. What don't these people get about "Thou shall not kill"?

How sad.

@TCONKLING(#7) Your reading of my post is in error. The artist is using the iconic image of Ms. Page herself for gain (profit, notoriety, status, ...?). Ms. Page doesn't know me from Eve, but I can assure you that, while SHE does not attempt to restrict the use of her image, she does not refuse monetary acknowlegment for such use; she may have fame, but she does not have fortune. The mentioned artist and gallery do compenstate Ms. Page, and are mentioned, merely, as conduits to Ms. Page (who keeps her whereabouts unknown).

The Boing-Boing posts in this regard are schizophrenic: raging against corporate copyright strategies, but ragging on people who obliquely or directly appropriate other's work. I hate DCMA and rip offs, but think that you should pay for what you eat and should be able to eat (in whatever fashion) what you buy. DTRT.

Great work, but I can't help noting that the style draws heavily on the Betty Page iconography. I know the Boing-Boing crowd likes to acknowledge the source, so it seems you should donate some of the proceeds of this fine work to Ms. Page, who, still alive, is not adverse to receiving such compensation. Ms. Page may be reached via the Robert Bane Gallery or Ms. Olivia de Berardinis, an artist that has worked extensively with Ms. Page. A google search will put you in touch with either one.