06 Feb 2006
Home paper shredders pose serious injury risk to toddlers

May I present the latest "Study in the Stupidity" in the "Completely Obvious" division - if a toddler's parents can't figure out that a kid could get himself shredded in one of these contraptions, they probably shouldn't be reproducing in the first place...

As our environments change over time with technology, pediatric emergency specialists are continuously challenged to observe possible trends and prevent more injuries by educating the public. In a new case report published in the February issue of the journal Pediatrics, researchers at New York University School of Medicine discuss the serious injury risks posed by paper shredders, which have become increasingly common household items.

(link) [EurekAlert!]

00:00 /Humor | 1 comment | permanent link

Plan to charge for e-mail triggers outcry

I don't necessarily like this, either, but I certainly understand the motivation behind it. And no, I don't think these companies are trying to scam commercial customers: I honestly believe that they're trying cut down on spam. If you think that SPAM is annoying when it shows up in your inbox, consider the network costs of the shitstorm: these guys are paying through the nose for con artists to bombard and annoy their customers.

The problem is pricing. While I sincerely wish that the Postal Service would consdier the same approach, I fear that they already have, and have found themselves dependent on junk (snail) mail to subsidize the rest of the operations. And if the price is set too low, that's exactly what will happen here.

America Online's plan to start charging businesses to send commercial e-mail messages is creating an uproar among some marketers, according to a published report.

(link) [CNN.com]

00:00 /Technology | 0 comments | permanent link

The Vatican Weighs In

on the Danish cartoon controversy.

In an unsigned statement released by the Vatican press office Saturday, the Holy See stated: "The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion." [link]

Excuse me? Huh? Someone needs to insure that the Vatican staff (I would suggest the Pope himself here, but the statement was unsigned) has actually read the book they refer to as "Holy Scripture". My readings in there have shown a near continuous stream of invective against "false" gods, mine included. Should I show my deep offense by suggesting Bible banning? How do you suppose the Vatican would react to such a suggestion?

Apparently, there's not as much difference between Christianity and Islam as some would have us believe. They're both obviously terrified of freedom. Perhaps they're fearful that the slumbering masses currently in their thrall might actually awaken and throw off the yoke under which they've labored these past thousand years.

Myself? I can deal with freedom just fine, thank you! I would oppose a ban on Bibles as vigorously as I would one imposed on the Eddas or the Koran. I may lack "faith" in the sense the monotheistic religions use the term, but I have the utmost confidence that my beliefs and practices as as valid as any, and I feel no need to impose my vision of a spiritual life by force or fraud upon my fellows.

And that's a principle that should obviously apply to any religion.

00:00 /Asatru | 2 comments | permanent link

Row over risks of farm chemicals

In the US, we have laws regulating "chemical trespass" - I would think that the proposed 5 meter "buffer zone" in the UK would go a long way towards alleviating the problem. But it wouldn't solve it.

The issue here isn't necessarily health risks (although, in my opinion, those are very real in the case of fertilizers and pesticides), it's pollution in it's most literal sense. If I'm allowed to spray your yard with Roundup, why am I not allowed to dump my household trash there as well? Is it merely because Roundup is invisible, and trash is unsightly? That strikes me as a rather arbitrary and unscientific approach in and of itself.

Scientists criticise a report on crop spraying and its risks to human health in the UK.

(link) [BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition]

00:00 /Agriculture | 0 comments | permanent link