|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
One cop reportedly dead, possibly one civilian as well.
Make that One cop and 2 Civilians :/
The authorities reported that three people were killed, a police officer and two civilians, and nine were wounded before the suspect finally surrendered more than five hours after the first shots were fired.
Source
|
While the shooting itself was pretty disgusting in Chicago, the especially appalling part is the the cover-up/inaction.
|
On November 28 2015 10:29 cLutZ wrote: Whoever wrote that report knows nothing of patent law, and nothing of environmental law. To the USPTO they claimed it had novel functionality as an herbacide, to the EPA they argued it posed no additional health risks to humans.
They aren't contradictory at all. Pretty much. NPR should issue a retraction / correction.
|
On November 28 2015 10:29 cLutZ wrote: Whoever wrote that report knows nothing of patent law, and nothing of environmental law. To the USPTO they claimed it had novel functionality as an herbacide, to the EPA they argued it posed no additional health risks to humans.
They aren't contradictory at all. True, but I also agree that if it has increased functionality as a herbicide, and that that is something significant enough to patent, then that same effect might cause increased toxicity to humans.
It's worth noting that simply mixing two chemicals 50/50 does not normally merit patenting, so there has to be some significant invention: the sum has to be greater than its parts. If that is true, then that effect, which they call "synergism" might not just be dangerous to herbs.
Therefore this sleight of hand should end in one of two ways: a) their patent is invalidated because synergism is exactly as much bullshit as it sounds, or b) synergism is a thing and the EPA should investigate whether that makes this new herbicide dangerous to humans, the environment, etc.
Also remember that the EPA is not just around to protect humans from toxins, but also other plants and animals. DDT was never banned because of its danger to humans, but because it was doing an excellent job at wiping out birds.
|
On November 28 2015 12:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2015 10:29 cLutZ wrote: Whoever wrote that report knows nothing of patent law, and nothing of environmental law. To the USPTO they claimed it had novel functionality as an herbacide, to the EPA they argued it posed no additional health risks to humans.
They aren't contradictory at all. True, but I also agree that if it has increased functionality as a herbicide, and that that is something significant enough to patent, then that same effect might cause increased toxicity to humans. It's worth noting that simply mixing two chemicals 50/50 does not normally merit patenting, so there has to be some significant invention: the sum has to be greater than its parts. If that is true, then that effect, which they call "synergism" might not just be dangerous to herbs. Therefore this sleight of hand should end in one of two ways: a) their patent is invalidated because synergism is exactly as much bullshit as it sounds, or b) synergism is a thing and the EPA should investigate whether that makes this new herbicide dangerous to humans, the environment, etc. Also remember that the EPA is not just around to protect humans from toxins, but also other plants and animals. DDT was never banned because of its danger to humans, but because it was doing an excellent job at wiping out birds.
To be clear, the company argued that it was the case that it didn't have increased environmental toxicity (except in the useful range for use as an herbicide). They probably had a preliminary study like a rat study or something similar that indicated biosimilarity. The EPA is fully capable of evaluating that, accepting it (or not), and letting it be sold. They also can, if after their initial determination more evidence comes up, reopen the investigation. A more honest writeup of this would read something along lines of "Environmental groups successfully pressure EPA into reevaluating Enlist Duo" with maybe "amid disputed health concerns" at the end.
(As an aside, this is not my specialty in patent law so their arguments of patentablity has strong legal footing, but there is also a factual component that is very important to that determination that I dont know much about)
|
No way a mixture of known herbicides should be patentable.
|
As details are emerging, it appears that the PP shooting indeed had nothing to do with the Chase bank.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol that npr story was very poorly written to the point of not fulfilling its reporting function
|
On November 28 2015 10:29 cLutZ wrote: Whoever wrote that report knows nothing of patent law, and nothing of environmental law. To the USPTO they claimed it had novel functionality as an herbacide, to the EPA they argued it posed no additional health risks to humans.
They aren't contradictory at all.
Not that I agree with the article but I dont think the article mentions any contradictions. It just says different stories to different people. Which seems like the case to me regardless of the impact of whether its an issue or not.
Please tell me you feel stupid, just a little stupid about this now.
Or is humility in the face of overwhelming evidence so hard to swallow ?
edit: Actually dont answer that. I know the answer, sorry for the rhetoric.
|
On November 29 2015 01:25 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2015 10:29 cLutZ wrote: Whoever wrote that report knows nothing of patent law, and nothing of environmental law. To the USPTO they claimed it had novel functionality as an herbacide, to the EPA they argued it posed no additional health risks to humans.
They aren't contradictory at all. Not that I agree with the article but I dont think the article mentions any contradictions. It just says different stories to different people. Which seems like the case to me regardless of the impact of whether its an issue or not. Please tell me you feel stupid, just a little stupid about this now. Or is humility in the face of overwhelming evidence so hard to swallow ? edit: Actually dont answer that. I know the answer, sorry for the rhetoric. What do you mean? The point was not that a there was no PP shooter, but that it was so quickly reported as one. If it had not been a preferred storyline we would be finding out that he was black panther or Muslim right about now, instead of during an ongoing situation that seems to me, the most poorly reported on in my lifetime.
|
On November 29 2015 02:20 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 01:25 Rebs wrote:On November 28 2015 10:29 cLutZ wrote: Whoever wrote that report knows nothing of patent law, and nothing of environmental law. To the USPTO they claimed it had novel functionality as an herbacide, to the EPA they argued it posed no additional health risks to humans.
They aren't contradictory at all. Not that I agree with the article but I dont think the article mentions any contradictions. It just says different stories to different people. Which seems like the case to me regardless of the impact of whether its an issue or not. Please tell me you feel stupid, just a little stupid about this now. Or is humility in the face of overwhelming evidence so hard to swallow ? edit: Actually dont answer that. I know the answer, sorry for the rhetoric. What do you mean? The point was not that a there was no PP shooter, but that it was so quickly reported as one. If it had not been a preferred storyline we would be finding out that he was black panther or Muslim right about now, instead of during an ongoing situation that seems to me, the most poorly reported on in my lifetime.
Bullshit dude, nowhere is that the point. Thats why I said not to answer. You were being dismissive and using a shitty source to make a very different point.
Besides what does the location have to do with the identity of the shooter ?
|
I'm finding it hard to believe it was a bank robbery as the police now say they are not certain if it started inside or outside PP building, he also apparently had propane tanks stacked again the door etc. Not much use in a robbery.
The same rowdy band of green activists who toppled the Keystone XL pipeline are aiming their sights at ExxonMobil.
Environmental groups are waging an escalating public relations campaign against the giant oil and gas company, diving deep into Exxon’s history to accuse it of knowingly — perhaps illegally — misleading the public about its decades of research on the dangers of climate change. Their allegations, backed by recent news reports from Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times, led New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to launch an open-ended investigation this month into Exxon's actions. All three Democratic presidential candidates followed up by urging the Justice Department to open a racketeering probe.
Green groups and their allies are also appealing to foreign governments to put Exxon under the microscope. And they’ve taken their message to social media, branding it with the hashtag “#ExxonKnew.”
Their aim is to make Exxon face the same kinds of consequences for allegedly obscuring the risks of climate change as Big Tobacco did for lying about cancer. It is the next phase in a multifront campaign against fossil fuels in which greens have defeated the Keystone pipeline, successfully pushed to shut down hundreds of coal plants and helped persuade President Barack Obama to cancel plans for Arctic offshore drilling.
But Exxon will be a tougher opponent for the greens than Keystone developer TransCanada, which was essentially a nonentity in Washington influence circles until two years into the seven-year-long pipeline fight. Exxon, in contrast, is one of the world's largest and most politically active companies, and it has already mounted a vocal, well-organized defense that seeks to discredit its critics — while maintaining that it has always been upfront about its climate research.
Still, the greens say they’ve won underdog battles before.
Source
|
On November 29 2015 02:20 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 01:25 Rebs wrote:On November 28 2015 10:29 cLutZ wrote: Whoever wrote that report knows nothing of patent law, and nothing of environmental law. To the USPTO they claimed it had novel functionality as an herbacide, to the EPA they argued it posed no additional health risks to humans.
They aren't contradictory at all. Not that I agree with the article but I dont think the article mentions any contradictions. It just says different stories to different people. Which seems like the case to me regardless of the impact of whether its an issue or not. Please tell me you feel stupid, just a little stupid about this now. Or is humility in the face of overwhelming evidence so hard to swallow ? edit: Actually dont answer that. I know the answer, sorry for the rhetoric. What do you mean? The point was not that a there was no PP shooter, but that it was so quickly reported as one. If it had not been a preferred storyline we would be finding out that he was black panther or Muslim right about now, instead of during an ongoing situation that seems to me, the most poorly reported on in my lifetime.
Planned parenthood calls the police for help, police respond to planned parenthood, the police are shot upon approaching PP. Yeah, terrible reporting saying the shooter was at planned parenthood instead of spreading a false narrative about a failed bank robbery... shame...
|
The gunman suspected of storming a Planned Parenthood clinic and killing a police officer and two others told the officers who arrested him “no more baby parts,’’ after being taken into custody, according to a law enforcement official.
The attack on the clinic was “definitely politically motivated,’’ the official — who has been briefed on the investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity because it is still unfolding — told The Washington Post. NBC News, which first reported the comment attributed to suspect Robert Lewis Dear, said Dear also mentioned President Obama in a range of statements to investigators that left unclear his precise motivation in targeting the clinic.
Source: Colorado shooter politically motivated, said ‘no more baby parts’ after attacking Planned Parenthood
|
United States42773 Posts
I bet his face will be red when he finds out that video was a pack of lies.
|
Norway28674 Posts
carly fiorina has bloody hands?
|
On November 29 2015 09:51 KwarK wrote: I bet his face will be red when he finds out that video was a pack of lies.
Terrorists aren't very big on caring about the truth.
On November 29 2015 09:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:carly fiorina has bloody hands? 
The "Fiorina Effect"?
|
So if this turns out to be true then Carly Fiorina and elements of the GOP have blood on their hands. Shows how far the Republican party has gone in order to establish any political capital they have to appeal to the most divisive regardless of the consequences.
|
I'm not a fan of the whole "blood on their hands" thing. If not for this then some other stupid thing would have made him kill people.
Mentally unstable people just need a push, that push can come from a 101 things.
|
On November 29 2015 10:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So if this turns out to be true then Carly Fiorina and elements of the GOP have blood on their hands. Shows how far the Republican party has gone in order to establish any political capital they have to appeal to the most divisive regardless of the consequences.
It's not a coincidence none of the Republicans responded to the planned parenthood shooting or the Laquan Mcdonald shooting until Saturday when Cruz tweeted:
Still nothing on Laquan though.
On November 29 2015 10:15 Gorsameth wrote: I'm not a fan of the whole "blood on their hands" thing. If not for this then some other stupid thing would have made him kill people.
Mentally unstable people just need a push, that push can come from a 101 things.
So long as that goes for non-white terrorists too I think it's a fair assumption. Though that's not an excuse for Republicans feeding delusional people propaganda.
|
|
|
|