I'm Thankful For..
- black321 - Feb 6, 2025 - 12:06pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- Isabeau - Feb 6, 2025 - 11:56am
Israel
- black321 - Feb 6, 2025 - 11:54am
Play counts for songs?
- basepi - Feb 6, 2025 - 11:53am
Trump
- Steely_D - Feb 6, 2025 - 11:53am
Trump Lies™
- Isabeau - Feb 6, 2025 - 11:52am
Climate Change
- R_P - Feb 6, 2025 - 11:28am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Feb 6, 2025 - 10:59am
Musky Mythology
- ScottFromWyoming - Feb 6, 2025 - 10:42am
The Obituary Page
- pilgrim - Feb 6, 2025 - 10:05am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- fractalv - Feb 6, 2025 - 9:27am
NY Times Strands
- geoff_morphini - Feb 6, 2025 - 9:22am
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - Feb 6, 2025 - 9:14am
Environment
- Proclivities - Feb 6, 2025 - 9:02am
February 2025 Photo Theme - Wet
- Isabeau - Feb 6, 2025 - 8:56am
Republican Party
- Isabeau - Feb 6, 2025 - 8:48am
New Music
- ScottFromWyoming - Feb 6, 2025 - 7:51am
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - Feb 6, 2025 - 7:24am
The Grateful Dead
- black321 - Feb 6, 2025 - 7:19am
NYTimes Connections
- ptooey - Feb 6, 2025 - 6:43am
Things You Thought Today
- Steely_D - Feb 5, 2025 - 8:56pm
Surfing!
- kurtster - Feb 5, 2025 - 8:01pm
Canada
- R_P - Feb 5, 2025 - 7:57pm
RADIO 2050
- GeneP59 - Feb 5, 2025 - 3:32pm
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- GeneP59 - Feb 5, 2025 - 3:30pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- Manbird - Feb 5, 2025 - 12:44pm
Democratic Party
- haresfur - Feb 5, 2025 - 11:35am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Feb 5, 2025 - 7:36am
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - Feb 4, 2025 - 10:36pm
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone
- buddy - Feb 4, 2025 - 8:34pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Feb 4, 2025 - 7:48pm
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- Red_Dragon - Feb 4, 2025 - 6:55pm
kurtster's quiet vinyl
- black321 - Feb 4, 2025 - 6:22pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- vtriebe - Feb 4, 2025 - 3:55pm
Immigration
- Red_Dragon - Feb 4, 2025 - 3:16pm
The Dragons' Roost
- triskele - Feb 4, 2025 - 2:17pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Feb 4, 2025 - 1:26pm
China
- R_P - Feb 4, 2025 - 11:31am
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- ColdMiser - Feb 4, 2025 - 8:09am
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy
- R_P - Feb 3, 2025 - 7:19pm
New music and ratings
- William - Feb 3, 2025 - 6:43pm
Race in America
- R_P - Feb 3, 2025 - 5:34pm
Anti-War
- R_P - Feb 3, 2025 - 4:46pm
The Secret
- ScottFromWyoming - Feb 3, 2025 - 4:41pm
How's the weather?
- Isabeau - Feb 3, 2025 - 2:09pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- miamizsun - Feb 3, 2025 - 1:54pm
Tweaking My Favorites Mix
- Zep - Feb 2, 2025 - 12:30pm
Breaking News
- Isabeau - Feb 2, 2025 - 11:39am
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Feb 2, 2025 - 8:59am
Advertising on RP
- mpforce - Feb 2, 2025 - 8:49am
Amazing animals!
- R_P - Feb 1, 2025 - 10:47am
BRING OUT YOUR DEAD
- buddy - Jan 31, 2025 - 4:59pm
Health Care
- R_P - Jan 31, 2025 - 3:39pm
My Favorites
- ScottFromWyoming - Jan 31, 2025 - 3:01pm
comedian/blogger is very, very bad
- miamizsun - Jan 31, 2025 - 2:57pm
Tech & Science
- R_P - Jan 31, 2025 - 2:51pm
Economix
- R_P - Jan 31, 2025 - 2:15pm
It's fine
- Red_Dragon - Jan 31, 2025 - 1:07pm
January 2025 Photo Theme - Beginnings
- Alchemist - Jan 31, 2025 - 12:35pm
how do you feel right now?
- oldviolin - Jan 31, 2025 - 10:01am
Art Show
- oldviolin - Jan 31, 2025 - 9:38am
Neko Case
- Bill_J - Jan 31, 2025 - 8:05am
Poetry Forum
- ScottN - Jan 31, 2025 - 7:22am
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- ptooey - Jan 30, 2025 - 12:09pm
Billionaires
- R_P - Jan 30, 2025 - 10:57am
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group
- ColdMiser - Jan 30, 2025 - 8:21am
Counting with Pictures
- yuel - Jan 30, 2025 - 8:13am
Radio Paradise saved my life.
- sunybuny - Jan 29, 2025 - 5:18pm
TMI
- R_P - Jan 29, 2025 - 4:25pm
Questions.
- Red_Dragon - Jan 29, 2025 - 3:34pm
Little known information... maybe even facts
- miamizsun - Jan 29, 2025 - 2:11pm
Buddy's Haven
- buddy - Jan 29, 2025 - 2:05pm
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - Jan 29, 2025 - 1:53pm
Infinite cat
- Proclivities - Jan 29, 2025 - 1:38pm
RightWingNutZ
- miamizsun - Jan 29, 2025 - 12:03pm
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Business as Usual
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2014 - 8:27am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: fyt: Fixed Your Typo. I got that you were attacking the messenger by making the type green, but fyt (to me) means you've creatively edited the post to add some wry humor. I couldn't find any edits. That is all.
My bad. Shouda used fyf ... fixed your font ... but I made my point. Carry on.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2014 - 7:27am |
|
RichardPrins wrote:There are other meanings of fyt.   ...as well. Also.
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2014 - 7:25am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote:fyt: Fixed Your Typo. I got that you were attacking the messenger by making the type green, but fyt (to me) means you've creatively edited the post to add some wry humor. I couldn't find any edits. That is all. There are other meanings of fyt.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2014 - 7:21am |
|
kurtster wrote: Just my opinion. Was it offensive to you ?
fyt: Fixed Your Typo. I got that you were attacking the messenger by making the type green, but fyt (to me) means you've creatively edited the post to add some wry humor. I couldn't find any edits. That is all.
|
|
aflanigan

Location: At Sea Gender:  
|
Posted:
Feb 19, 2014 - 7:00am |
|
Somebody  apparently doesn't understand the concept of Content Curation.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Feb 18, 2014 - 6:22pm |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: wtf
Just my opinion. Was it offensive to you ? seems to be endless / relentless cutting and pasting with little or no comment, not unlike another who did much the same. Maybe more diverse in subject matter and with respectful font, but endless. and this thread seemed to present the opportunity to point out an irony. Business as usual indeed. Much of it pointless. Maybe I should have responded with this, but it would be shot down as a rightwing political reaction, and then it could be interpreted as if I was defending the program in his post that he was illustrating. Which would not be the case. When all one does is cut and paste, it has to be assumed at some point the poster believes in and agrees with what they are pasting. And that is because there is no accompanying comments, almost exclusively. So I will put up my c / p response to his c / p. But remember, I am not defending the program, I have to assume he is attacking, because he says nothing.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Feb 18, 2014 - 9:29am |
|
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Feb 18, 2014 - 9:24am |
|
RichardPrins wrote:(...)The F-35, given the amount of money thrown at it, doubtless has some improvements over planes such as the F-15 and F-18. But at a price tag of at least $400 billion to purchase the F-35, and $1.45 trillion over the life of the program to operate and maintain them, it has simply become far too prohibitive for the United State to afford, especially in a climate of fiscal austerity. fyt
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Feb 18, 2014 - 9:07am |
|
(...)The F-35, given the amount of money thrown at it, doubtless has some improvements over planes such as the F-15 and F-18. But at a price tag of at least $400 billion to purchase the F-35, and $1.45 trillion over the life of the program to operate and maintain them, it has simply become far too prohibitive for the United State to afford, especially in a climate of fiscal austerity. Based on its track record, it’s probably safe to say that the F-35 will soon be a decade behind schedule and $200 billion over budget, even as it’s increasingly rendered irrelevant by improvements in drone technologies. So why are we buying it? Simply because the program is too big to fail. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines are all counting on it. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin has distributed its subcontractors across the USA, making it exceedingly difficult for Congress to cut the program without hurting jobs in virtually every Congressional district. Indeed, in an awesome display of chutzpah, you can go to the Lockheed Martin website to see how much your state is involved in building the F-35. Clicking on the “economic impact map,” I see that for the State of Pennsylvania, for example, the F-35 creates 759 jobs and an economic impact of nearly $51 million. For the DoD, the F-35 may have ridden off the rails, but for Lockheed Martin the F-35 will continue to soar into the stratosphere as a major money-maker for decades to come. In the battle between DoD program managers and Lockheed Martin, the winner and “top gun” is as obvious as it is depressing. Score another victory for Lockheed Martin! But please avert your eyes as America itself goes down in flames.
|
|
helenofjoy

Location: Lincoln, Nebraska Gender:  
|
Posted:
Feb 7, 2014 - 5:28am |
|
RichardPrins wrote:Rachel Aviv: The Scientist Who Took on a Leading Herbicide Manufacturer : The New Yorker(...) Syngenta denied repeated requests for interviews, but Ann Bryan, its senior manager for external communications, told me in an e-mail that some of the studies I was citing were unreliable or unsound. When I mentioned a recent paper in the American Journal of Medical Genetics, which showed associations between a mother’s exposure to atrazine and the likelihood that her son will have an abnormally small penis, undescended testes, or a deformity of the urethra—defects that have increased in the past several decades—she said that the study had been “reviewed by independent scientists, who found numerous flaws.” She recommended that I speak with the author of the review, David Schwartz, a neuroscientist, who works for Innovative Science Solutions, a consulting firm that specializes in “product defense” and strategies that “give you the power to put your best data forward.” Schwartz told me that epidemiological studies can’t eliminate confounding variables or make claims about causation. “We’ve been incredibly misled by this type of study,” he said. In 2012, in its settlement of the class-action suits, Syngenta agreed to pay a hundred and five million dollars to reimburse more than a thousand water systems for the cost of filtering atrazine from drinking water, but the company denies all wrongdoing. Bryan told me that “atrazine does not and, in fact, cannot cause adverse health effects at any level that people would ever be exposed to in the real-world environment.” She wrote that she was “troubled by a suggestion that we have ever tried to discredit anyone. Our focus has always been on communicating the science and setting the record straight.” She noted that “virtually every well-known brand, or even well-known issue, has a communications program behind it. Atrazine’s no different.” Last August, Hayes put his experiments on hold. He said that his fees for animal care had risen eightfold in a decade, and that he couldn’t afford to maintain his research program. He accused the university of charging him more than other researchers in his department; in response, the director of the office of laboratory-animal care sent detailed charts illustrating that he is charged according to standard campus-wide rates, which have increased for most researchers in recent years. In an online Forbes op-ed, Jon Entine, a journalist who is listed in Syngenta’s records as a supportive “third party,” accused Hayes of being attached to conspiracy theories, and of leading the “international regulatory community on a wild goose chase,” which “borders on criminal.” By late November, Hayes’s lab had resumed work. He was using private grants to support his students rather than to pay outstanding fees, and the lab was accumulating debt. Two days before Thanksgiving, Hayes and his students discussed their holiday plans. He was wearing an oversized orange sweatshirt, gym shorts, and running shoes, and a former student, Diana Salazar Guerrero, was eating fries that another student had left on the table. Hayes encouraged her to come to his Thanksgiving dinner and to move into the bedroom of his son, who is now a student at Oberlin. Guerrero had just put down half the deposit on a new apartment, but Hayes was disturbed by her description of her new roommate. “Are you sure you can trust him?” he asked. Hayes had just returned from Mar del Plata, Argentina. He had flown fifteen hours and driven two hundred and fifty miles to give a thirty-minute lecture on atrazine. Guerrero said, “Sometimes I’m just, like, ‘Why don’t you let it go, Tyrone? It’s been fifteen years! How do you have the energy for this?’ ” With more scientists documenting the risks of atrazine, she assumed he’d be inclined to move on. “Originally, it was just this crazy guy at Berkeley, and you can throw the Berserkley thing at anyone,” she said. “But now the tide is turning.” In a recent paper in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Hayes and twenty-one other scientists applied the criteria of Sir Austin Bradford Hill, who, in 1965, outlined the conditions necessary for a causal relationship, to atrazine studies across different vertebrate classes. They argued that independent lines of evidence consistently showed that atrazine disrupts male reproductive development. Hayes’s lab was working on two more studies that explore how atrazine affects the sexual behavior of frogs. When I asked him what he would do if the E.P.A., which is conducting another review of the safety of atrazine this year, were to ban the herbicide, he joked, “I’d probably get depressed again.” Not long ago, Hayes saw a description of himself on Wikipedia that he found disrespectful, and he wasn’t sure whether it was an attack by Syngenta or whether there were simply members of the public who thought poorly of him. He felt deflated when he remembered the arguments he’d had with Syngenta-funded pundits. “It’s one thing if you go after me because you have a philosophical disagreement with my science or if you think I’m raising alarm where there shouldn’t be any,” he said. “But they didn’t even have their own opinions. Someone was paying them to take a position.” He wondered if there was something inherently insane about the act of whistle-blowing; maybe only crazy people persisted. He was ready for a fight, but he seemed to be searching for his opponent. One of his first graduate students, Nigel Noriega, who runs an organization devoted to conserving tropical forests, told me that he was still recovering from the experience of his atrazine research, a decade before. He had come to see science as a rigid culture, “its own club, an élite society,” Noriega said. “And Tyrone didn’t conform to the social aspects of being a scientist.” Noriega worried that the public had little understanding of the context that gives rise to scientific findings. “It is not helpful to anyone to assume that scientists are authoritative,” he said. “A good scientist spends his whole career questioning his own facts. One of the most dangerous things you can do is believe.”
I listened to this piece too and was appalled but not surprised. Do we honestly thing anyone out to make the big bucks - the really big bucks - gives a damn about truth?
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Feb 7, 2014 - 12:09am |
|
Rachel Aviv: The Scientist Who Took on a Leading Herbicide Manufacturer : The New Yorker(...) Syngenta denied repeated requests for interviews, but Ann Bryan, its senior manager for external communications, told me in an e-mail that some of the studies I was citing were unreliable or unsound. When I mentioned a recent paper in the American Journal of Medical Genetics, which showed associations between a mother’s exposure to atrazine and the likelihood that her son will have an abnormally small penis, undescended testes, or a deformity of the urethra—defects that have increased in the past several decades—she said that the study had been “reviewed by independent scientists, who found numerous flaws.” She recommended that I speak with the author of the review, David Schwartz, a neuroscientist, who works for Innovative Science Solutions, a consulting firm that specializes in “product defense” and strategies that “give you the power to put your best data forward.” Schwartz told me that epidemiological studies can’t eliminate confounding variables or make claims about causation. “We’ve been incredibly misled by this type of study,” he said. In 2012, in its settlement of the class-action suits, Syngenta agreed to pay a hundred and five million dollars to reimburse more than a thousand water systems for the cost of filtering atrazine from drinking water, but the company denies all wrongdoing. Bryan told me that “atrazine does not and, in fact, cannot cause adverse health effects at any level that people would ever be exposed to in the real-world environment.” She wrote that she was “troubled by a suggestion that we have ever tried to discredit anyone. Our focus has always been on communicating the science and setting the record straight.” She noted that “virtually every well-known brand, or even well-known issue, has a communications program behind it. Atrazine’s no different.” Last August, Hayes put his experiments on hold. He said that his fees for animal care had risen eightfold in a decade, and that he couldn’t afford to maintain his research program. He accused the university of charging him more than other researchers in his department; in response, the director of the office of laboratory-animal care sent detailed charts illustrating that he is charged according to standard campus-wide rates, which have increased for most researchers in recent years. In an online Forbes op-ed, Jon Entine, a journalist who is listed in Syngenta’s records as a supportive “third party,” accused Hayes of being attached to conspiracy theories, and of leading the “international regulatory community on a wild goose chase,” which “borders on criminal.” By late November, Hayes’s lab had resumed work. He was using private grants to support his students rather than to pay outstanding fees, and the lab was accumulating debt. Two days before Thanksgiving, Hayes and his students discussed their holiday plans. He was wearing an oversized orange sweatshirt, gym shorts, and running shoes, and a former student, Diana Salazar Guerrero, was eating fries that another student had left on the table. Hayes encouraged her to come to his Thanksgiving dinner and to move into the bedroom of his son, who is now a student at Oberlin. Guerrero had just put down half the deposit on a new apartment, but Hayes was disturbed by her description of her new roommate. “Are you sure you can trust him?” he asked. Hayes had just returned from Mar del Plata, Argentina. He had flown fifteen hours and driven two hundred and fifty miles to give a thirty-minute lecture on atrazine. Guerrero said, “Sometimes I’m just, like, ‘Why don’t you let it go, Tyrone? It’s been fifteen years! How do you have the energy for this?’ ” With more scientists documenting the risks of atrazine, she assumed he’d be inclined to move on. “Originally, it was just this crazy guy at Berkeley, and you can throw the Berserkley thing at anyone,” she said. “But now the tide is turning.” In a recent paper in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Hayes and twenty-one other scientists applied the criteria of Sir Austin Bradford Hill, who, in 1965, outlined the conditions necessary for a causal relationship, to atrazine studies across different vertebrate classes. They argued that independent lines of evidence consistently showed that atrazine disrupts male reproductive development. Hayes’s lab was working on two more studies that explore how atrazine affects the sexual behavior of frogs. When I asked him what he would do if the E.P.A., which is conducting another review of the safety of atrazine this year, were to ban the herbicide, he joked, “I’d probably get depressed again.” Not long ago, Hayes saw a description of himself on Wikipedia that he found disrespectful, and he wasn’t sure whether it was an attack by Syngenta or whether there were simply members of the public who thought poorly of him. He felt deflated when he remembered the arguments he’d had with Syngenta-funded pundits. “It’s one thing if you go after me because you have a philosophical disagreement with my science or if you think I’m raising alarm where there shouldn’t be any,” he said. “But they didn’t even have their own opinions. Someone was paying them to take a position.” He wondered if there was something inherently insane about the act of whistle-blowing; maybe only crazy people persisted. He was ready for a fight, but he seemed to be searching for his opponent. One of his first graduate students, Nigel Noriega, who runs an organization devoted to conserving tropical forests, told me that he was still recovering from the experience of his atrazine research, a decade before. He had come to see science as a rigid culture, “its own club, an élite society,” Noriega said. “And Tyrone didn’t conform to the social aspects of being a scientist.” Noriega worried that the public had little understanding of the context that gives rise to scientific findings. “It is not helpful to anyone to assume that scientists are authoritative,” he said. “A good scientist spends his whole career questioning his own facts. One of the most dangerous things you can do is believe.”
|
|
Umberdog

Location: In my body. Gender:  
|
Posted:
Aug 6, 2012 - 3:09pm |
|
It's not just America... Standard Chartered bank 'in $250bn scheme with Iran'
Standard Chartered bank illegally "schemed" with Iran to launder as much as $250bn (£161bn) for nearly a decade, a US regulator says. The New York State Department of Financial Services said that the bank hid 60,000 secret transactions for "Iranian financial institutions" that were subject to US economic sanctions. It labelled UK-based Standard Chartered a "rogue institution". The bank has been threatened with having its US banking licence revoked. The allegations are far larger than those involving HSBC, which was recently accused by the US Senate of failing to prevent money laundering from countries around the world including Mexico and Iran. It has set aside $700m to deal with any fines and penalties arising from those allegations. The bank is ordered to appear before the regulator soon to "explain these apparent violations of law" from 2001 to 2010.
—The rest of the story—
|
|
|