Slashdot Mirror

From the images on their web it looks like they have about 40-ish employees. If the average salary before was around 50k then this alone would be sufficient to cover that.

You don't need to infer from images. This article tells you there are 120 people on staff, and that aside from the CEO salary cut, 75-80 percent of the company's current projected profits are being transformed into salary: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

aka Flamer? http://www.newser.com/story/19... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08...

Well, the N.F.L., N.H.L., P.G.A. and L.G.P.A are tax exempt
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...

They are religions to a lot of people. I'll bet the NFL attracts more "parishioners" on a Sunday than all of the churches in the US combined.

Well, the N.F.L., N.H.L., P.G.A. and L.G.P.A are tax exempt
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...

They all do charitable work and can prove it. The churches get a pass because they are a church and don't have to prove anything other than that. And before someone says it, just because YOUR local church does charitable work doesn't mean they all do. There's a Baptist church right behind me that doesn't do shite for the community, just its parishioners/contributors. That, to me, is a sham.

Well, the N.F.L., N.H.L., P.G.A. and L.G.P.A are tax exempt http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...

That's because the leagues themselves are not-for-profit organizations. All of the profit in professional sports goes to the individual teams, who do (or at least should) pay taxes on those profits. Whether or not all of the "business expenses" of the leagues are appropriate is, as with any corporation, of course debatable.

Similarly, most religious organizations do not have any owners or shareholders that get dividend checks at the end of every year. I've witnessed first-hand how difficult it can be just to balance the budget; it's always a struggle between higher membership dues, cutting programs, or trying to organize a major fundraising campaign.

Well, the N.F.L., N.H.L., P.G.A. and L.G.P.A are tax exempt
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...

There are tenure-track positions in nursing? I was under the impression it was literally back-breaking work, where most employers have a use-em-and-throw-em-away attitude to employees. I didn't realize it was a cushy desk job with lifetime employment positions that men were dreaming of breaking into somehow.

The last 150 years or so in Cali have actually been abnormally wet, similar to the wet period between two century-plus drought period 2000 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07...

BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.

The study involved trees at four places: Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the West Walker River and Osgood Swamp. Dr. Stine's tree-ring analysis found that live trees had covered dry beds of lakes, streams and swamps for overlapping periods of 50, 100, 141 and 220 years and that these "lowstand" periods were clustered in two major dry spells separated by a century-long wet period. "Epic drought," he wrote in Nature, is "the only plausible explanation for the site-to-site contemporaneity of the stumps."

When you look at things like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01...

If Hillary did win the primary and it came down to a two person race, the November Surprise would be quite a fucking thing.

Hey how about we wait for the statute of limitations to expire and then stumble over a box full of files in the hallway?

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01...

Think of how difficult it is right now to make an agreement with Iran--it might well happen but there's A LOT of pushback because of domestic narratives.

The consequences of a failure to come to terms with Iran do not rise to the level of mutually assured destruction. Nor is the regime in Beijing a revolutionary one that's trying to export their ideology to their neighbors while identifying the United States as evil embodied. We were able find enough common ground with the Soviet Union to make agreements that both sides could live with, I'm optimistic enough to believe that the same will happen with China if push comes to shove.

Iran? Well, the jury is still out on that one. I tend to agree with David Brooks where Iran is concerned, I'm hoping for the best there but am prepared for and fully expect the worst. Thankfully the worst case scenario where Iran is concerned will not pose an existential threat to civilization as we know it.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/...

Why are we not investing in the education of Americans so they can be the 'replacement workers'?

Part of the perfect lie that is STEM is that only a few people need training to perform manufacturing tasks. And for those few that do need some additional skills on the job training works great. Apprenticeships are alive and well in China. It does not take much looking under the rug to see the dirt, and it's everywhere. When Apple was making the first version of their iphone over in China at Foxcon they were hiring workers on a daily basis straight off from the rural farms. They were not turning anyone away.

How much training did those workers have?? Apple seemed to make do with them.

But I do not remember any widespread training in the US for those same jobs. Instead everybody was jacking their stock price higher than ever while Apple et al said that they did not have enough trained workers. Everybody wants to look the other way because they want to think that it is a shiny miracle - not the disparagement of the tech workforce that it really turned out to be at every corner.

The workers that they did have stateside they found a way to collude with other tech giants in order to control salaries. Other degreed and experienced engineers like Eric Saragoza they merely sloughed off. Nobody was going to hire him at his age when there was a giant surplus of workers looking for work even before the great recession. Merely because of how companies like Apple were able to export tech work to both India and China and eveywhere in between.

I really do not know how any stateside tech worker can buy an Apple product especially under Tim Cook, because they are actually helping to fund the demise of there own career.

So H1Bs are really just one piece of the larger puzzle used to help control the prices they are willing to pay for skilled labor in the US. When they say youngsters need to study STEM, what there really are saying is;

"we want to keep wages completely stagnant and you can help us do that by paying for your own training so we can get rid of older workers. But if you do not show up that works for us too, because we'll just get cheap H1Bs as they're easy to train and won't ask for raises. If they do, we'll just have some under the table agreements and they'll have no place to go. They can train their own replacement if they become too much of a hassle. Oh, math and physics majors, don't bother applying because you're not in our salary range either. We'll just say you're stupid and can't handle tech."

I could go on, but that's the gist of it. The really smart Electrical Engineers went to wall street and became successful quants. So at least one industry culture needed and saw the value in skills that could be transferred.

It's just as easy to lie with a video as it is verbally. Remember that video of the police officer pepper spraying a protester in their car? It had purposely been cut so that it didn't show the preceding altercation that justified the officer's actions.

A couple years ago I sat in on a trial of an officer who was tried and convicted despite all evidence to the contrary, simply because of people blaming police for everything. That anger and frustration is completely misplaced - if people want change then they need to research politicians and make better voting choices.

It might behoove you to watch the video in question before you start to say something as arrogantly vapid as this comparing a situation you have no link to with this video.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

I'm sure the video showing a cop shooting a black guy in the back is all a fiction. He was actually charging the cop with a gun in his hand, but the video and witnesses were re-written in a horrible anti-white conspiracy.

Go on, spin that one. If there wasn't a camera, I bet the dead black guy would have ended up with his corpse in prison. The police report shows that the black guy was actively tasing the cop when he was shot, but the biased video shows him unarmed and running away, but shows the cop planting the taser on the dead body. The cop also claimed to have performed CPR, but the video clearly shows him standing over the dead guy, after cuffing the corpse, for good measure.

By your standards, the error was not shooting the guy taking video, and destroying the video, claiming it looked like a gun.

This is in correct, in many western nations the mail envelopes have been scanned and directed on their path using character recognition. This is effectively the meta data that is tracked in email, especially if people write the sender on the envelope too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07...

There's very little ideologically-driven violence in the United States, but notable incidents (Una-bomber, Eric Rudolf, Oklahoma City bombing, various anti-LGBT [wikipedia.org] murders/assaults) are exclusively committed by right-wing actors. (Feel free to enlighten me if I'm wrong.)

Well, I can correct you one point (although you may disagree with me anyway). The Una-bomber (a.k.a. Ted Kaczynski) is probably defined most accurately as a luddite more than anything else. If you read his Manifesto, it's clear that he had both extremist left-wing views as well as a right-wing views. If you read how he defines "leftism", I think you will note that very few leftists would agree with his definition. And he calls conservatives "fools". There is certainly nothing in his manifesto that is in sync with right-wing ideology.

Second,

therefore by-definition Moses is viewed by Christians as having seen believed-in and followed Jesus/God.

Yes, and by the same standards and logic, Anne Frank was a Mormon.

Give me a fucking break.

Jesus explicitly said on multiple occasions that the Old Testament laws (which included straight-marriage, and bans on homosexuality) were not only still valid, but should be taked more seriously.

I love it when Jesus didn't say something, it means he really did. Did jesus also want the prohibition on blending fabrics, and rules for treating your slaves, and ridiculous crimes which must be dealt with by stoning, and the definition of the Sabbath on Saturday, and a million insane things "taked more seriously" as well?

how do you feel about ethics in journalism

Considering the news today, he probably feels pretty good about how corruption in journalism is being minded.

Do you have evidence that they were pursuing The Bomb in violation of Clinton era agreements? [...] all the information I can find seems to show the entire thing went into a rapid "build a nuke quick" tailspin only after Bush called them part of the Axis of Evil

First of all, according to the timetable in the above highly "informative" post, NK started to demand compensation from the US on pain of having their nuclear program restarted in 2000 — before Bush even got elected. They increased the demands and threats by June 2001 — three month before 9/11 and the very coinage of the "axis of evil" term (January 2002). That takes care of any accusation, Bush's rhetoric was somehow responsible for aggravating the gentle hearts of the North Korea rulers.

Do I have evidence of them continuing their nuclear-weapons work after promising to suspend it in 1994? Of course — that they were confident in making the above-mentioned threats is the evidence, they kept on the work. And that they were able to test a nuke shortly afterwards is proof.

What *was* Clinton's damage?

His fault, if we must, once again, lies in supplying North Korea with foodstuffs and energy, which helped (if not allowed) the regime to continue nuclear-weapons work and hastened the work's completion. But whether or not Clinton was stupid is not so relevant now — for Obama certainly is.

The naivete was and remains astounding — who, but a pampered Westerner could believe, a belligerent hermit like North Korea or Iran would ever stop trying to arm itself over a piece of paper?

Iran has seen, what happened to North Korea, which fooled the West, and to Libya's Qaddafi, who came clean. Both lessons are clear and expecting Iranians to be dumb enough to not make the right conclusions is to exhibit racist anti-Persian bigotry.

... since I am just a nice guy and this is slashdot I found the news story here

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01...

The investigation conducted earlier (by a Democrat-run panel) also failed to turn up a single such email, just like multiple FOIA queries by multiple parties.

I'm talking about claims of general "gaps", not the hacker event. You appeared to have mixed them up.

it was just a bizarre stroke of bad luck that her forwards/CCs of messages were mysteriously lost in State's systems?

Those servers are KNOWN to be bad, and not designed for long-term archiving. Bad luck? No. Skimpy product selection, probably. (Tea party wants them to be thrifty, after all.)

the issue is that in producing that dump, she appointed herself to the role - years after she was no longer employed by State - of deciding what is, and is not, correspondence that meets the standards of needing to be archived.

That's after-the-fact, not the day-to-day email situation. Her providing copies from her own server is essentially bonus info. I've never read her claiming her server was the qualifying archiving system for regular work-days. (Although, perhaps it might even qualify, the laws as written were vague.)

She characterized THAT delivery of her selected messages as her providing what the requests required.

What requests? The judge's request? Again, the investigation digging is a different matter than day to day work & archive practices.

since she will be unable to back that up with a single bit of evidence that she complied...

"Will"? I don't want future prediction/speculation, I want here and now facts.

Let's try this: YOU provide a single example of her - other than her much-delayed and behind-closed-doors-picked-over recent paper transfer - saying that she had been, all along, providing CCs or forwards of ANY email between her and outside-of-state entities.

A spokesperson for her suggest she did, but didn't give a lot of details. See the opening paragraph:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03...

Anyhow, the burden is NOT on me to show that she is innocent, but rather on you to show that she is guilty. You claimed a crime, and the burden of evidence for a crime is "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's not guilty until proven innocent, but the other way around.

I have given you plenty of opportunity to present the DETAILS backing your "felonious" claim, and got none.

I challenge you once again to put together a court dialog representing known details.

Ha ha. If you can get your work done and still have time to "goof off" like this then obviously you could do more work.

That's the mindset of most managers. It doesn't matter if that's good or bad; it's just a fact.

It does matter whether it's good or bad, and it seriously is a reason why many of these managers should be fired.

There are numerous scientific studies showing the benefits of breaks, downtime, doing leisure activities, naps, etc. during the workday -- resulting in greater productivity than if workers don't have such things. Managers who insist that workers be productive continuously are actually decreasing their productivity.

Same thing with forcing people to work 7 days per week. Same thing with vacation time. There are a number of studies showing that if people take a few weeks or even a month off from work per year, they more than make up for it in increased productivity after the rest.

I realize that many managers are stupid, but this kind of stupidity is costing their company productivity and thus MONEY. It may be the norm, but it does matter that it's a stupid policy that not only harms workers but often harms the managers and their companies too.

Oh, and guess what -- added stress and fatigue causes injuries and health problems, often leading to more extended leaves due to sickness that end up costing a lot more. What's a big expense for most companies? Health coverage. Not only are you decreasing the effectiveness of your workers during work hours, but you're driving up one of your biggest costs in terms of additional healthcare.

It's inexcusable. Some high-powered companies in finance, law, as well as hospitals with doctors doing crazy shifts, etc. have started to recognize that it's really bad to have your workers coming in 7 days per week or working days at a time. It leads to inferior work and thus some corporations have started actively trying to get people to stay home on Sundays or whatever. (Think I'm kidding? Here's a story from the New York Times about financial firms adopting policies trying to get workers to stay home on the weekends.)

Managers who refuse to acknowledge good scientific studies showing how to make workers productive are bad managers.

(This is not to say that "Easter eggs" are always a good thing or a good use of time or resources. There are many reasons they can be problematic, as others have pointed out, like unintentionally creating problems in the code or whatever. But objections should be founded on reasons relevant to the project or security or whatever, not on bad managerial science.)

Ha ha. If you can get your work done and still have time to "goof off" like this then obviously you could do more work.

That's the mindset of most managers. It doesn't matter if that's good or bad; it's just a fact.

It does matter whether it's good or bad, and it seriously is a reason why many of these managers should be fired.

There are numerous scientific studies showing the benefits of breaks, downtime, doing leisure activities, naps, etc. during the workday -- resulting in greater productivity than if workers don't have such things. Managers who insist that workers be productive continuously are actually decreasing their productivity.

Same thing with forcing people to work 7 days per week. Same thing with vacation time. There are a number of studies showing that if people take a few weeks or even a month off from work per year, they more than make up for it in increased productivity after the rest.

I realize that many managers are stupid, but this kind of stupidity is costing their company productivity and thus MONEY. It may be the norm, but it does matter that it's a stupid policy that not only harms workers but often harms the managers and their companies too.

Oh, and guess what -- added stress and fatigue causes injuries and health problems, often leading to more extended leaves due to sickness that end up costing a lot more. What's a big expense for most companies? Health coverage. Not only are you decreasing the effectiveness of your workers during work hours, but you're driving up one of your biggest costs in terms of additional healthcare.

It's inexcusable. Some high-powered companies in finance, law, as well as hospitals with doctors doing crazy shifts, etc. have started to recognize that it's really bad to have your workers coming in 7 days per week or working days at a time. It leads to inferior work and thus some corporations have started actively trying to get people to stay home on Sundays or whatever. (Think I'm kidding? Here's a story from the New York Times about financial firms adopting policies trying to get workers to stay home on the weekends.)

Managers who refuse to acknowledge good scientific studies showing how to make workers productive are bad managers.

(This is not to say that "Easter eggs" are always a good thing or a good use of time or resources. There are many reasons they can be problematic, as others have pointed out, like unintentionally creating problems in the code or whatever. But objections should be founded on reasons relevant to the project or security or whatever, not on bad managerial science.)

I'm genuinely embarrassed to be part of a community where people use 'socialism' like a scare word to try to argue against state-provided healthcare. What you had before Obamacare was way closer to a free market, and it's directly responsible for why more dollars are spent per capita on health care in the US than anywhere else in the world. Still there are many people not actually being properly covered, people driven to bankruptcy because of insane medical bills, not even health economists understand health care plans... the list goes on.

I, like most other people who live in countries with state-provided healthcare, find the resistance to providing healthcare to its citizens utterly confusing. Using 'socialism' as a scare word to try to convince your fellow citizens that it's some weird Soviet-era affliction that everyone will suffer under is a cheap trick.

I know everyone wants "freedom", but you'll live with much more genuine freedom if you have a healthcare system is /just there/, rather than it being something that you're constantly fighting against.

(FWIW, I moved from Australia to the US a couple years ago; my father, sister and grandfather are doctors in Australia and my uncle is a doctor and works in IT healthcare in the US - so I have accessed a fairly wide set of viewpoints before forming my own.)

No, it is ok to negotiate Iran onto a path that delays them from getting a nuke for the next 15 years, as opposed to the current path where, according to Netanyahu, they will have a nuke in the next year or two

It really is too bad, this discussion will be "archived" in 12 months and so it will be impossible to reply to you then ask you to eat a crow. If Iran does not have a nuke in 12-24 months, it would not be for lack of trying.

Do you honestly believe, Iranians haven't learned the lesson taught collectively by Bill Clinton and North Koreans? In 1994 the previous Democrat President went through the same motions Obama is doing now. NY Times wrote in 1994:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18— President Clinton approved a plan today to arrange more than $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea during the next decade in return for a commitment from the country's hard-line Communist leadership to freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program.

Had you and I met back then, you would've called me a war-mongering hater over my doubts, North Koreans can be trusted. But I woud've been right for they have been caught lying a number of times since. Its most recent test of a nuclear weapon was in February 2013.

The lesson of dealing with the West is perfectly clear: you agree to whatever and still work on your nukes as hard as you can. Once you have them, nobody can do anything other than keep asking critics to stop hating.

Clinton herself signed a memo to her staff reminding them that they had to use state.gov mailboxes for their official correspondence.

Hypocrisy is not a crime. You claimed a crime. Internal memos are not laws. (Peronsally, I suspect she rubber-stamped it without thinking about it much.)

Do you really think that when someone at, say, the FAA gets a FOIA request, that it's the intention or the practice for their own records people to then contact hundreds of other agencies and departments to scour THEIR records for FAA-related correspondence?

Sorry, you lost me here. What does "THEIR" refer to, FAA or FOIA.

You're essentially saying that absolutely no career archivists and investigators can be trusted to know if they've looked through stored email records, but we can trust Hillary Clinton to be 100% upright when she...

False dichotomy. I'm only applying "innocent until proven guilty". Criminal behavior of archive diggers is not the topic here. And you forgot that the investigators suggested there were problems with State Dept. archives. It could be a hardware problem; I never implied it was sabotage; I'm only saying there could be gaps in what's is available here and now based on such statements. Don't read more into what I said and invent intent and conspiracies. If they go searching for something and don't find it, it could be (at least) one of two things: 1) It never existed, or 2) the server or archive machine has a defect, bug-based, or servicer error-based gap, as earlier suspected. (They didn't say the cause of the problem.)

Here is a link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03...

(Begin Quote)

But the State Department disclosed on Friday that until last month it had no way of routinely preserving senior officialsâ(TM) emails. Instead, the department relied on individual employees to decide if certain emails should be considered public records, and if so, to move them onto a special record-keeping server, or print them out and manually file them for preservation.

This patchwork system, reflecting a broader confusion and slowness throughout the government as federal agencies struggle to catch up with the digital age, raises the possibility that some emails from Mrs. Clinton to other State Department officials may have been lost altogether.

(End Quote)

Thus, mere using of the State Department emails BY ITSELF would not guarentee longer-term archiving. Had she merely used the State Dept. email system (and/or Fwd/CC'd S.D. staff), such emails would have STILL been at risk of being lost. As far as what is supposed to be placed on the mentioned "special record-keeping server", I don't have any details on that. If you do, please present them.

(Side note: Ideally an assistant would assist H in doing that rather than her spending her own time deciding what needs "official" archiving. It's not something a Sr. official should spend their time diddling with. Further, it may be cheaper and more reliable to archive everything rather than pay sifters.)

She's the one who deliberately transformed convenient, searchable electronic records with context-providing header info into clumsy, labor-requiring hardcopies

So printing is a crime? Lovely. Maybe the judge wanted printed copies. Why invent PrintGate out of nowhere? Why are focusing on that? You are meandering again. Bad habit.

Her own description of her actions shows that she didn't provide State with any magical CCs of her communications with external third parties or other agencies...

Link? I don't trust your reading comprehension after you fouled up the Al Jez. quote.

The only way your lame, blithe dismissal of that can be anything other than shameless spin is if you are asserting that she never exchanged a single piece of official email with anyone in another agency, branch of government, or third party/nation.

How do you conclude that, exactly?

For me, the line is drawn where some group uses the state to force their lifestyle/belief on others

So, people in Texas who try to use the board of education to promote textbooks that have a negative stance on evolution? These people are from the left? I wasn't aware.

Imagine:

1. US/Russia/China

2. France/UK/Japan

3. Canada/Norway/Austria

4. Ecuador/Israel/Palestine/

5. Somalia/Bolivia/Vatican

Transparency?! Probably no. None of these would dare that at full speed ahead. Not even Norway.

Besides, many more countries have too many politically influential people which have "secret" money hidden, where an open source transparency may ultimately remove too many hidden money sources.

Here is an example researched by the New York Times, "Billions in Hidden Riches for Family of Chinese Leader".

Chinese leaders, however, deny (two years later) to be that rich, acording to an article, "China's former PM denies role in family's 'hidden riches'", in The Telegraph.

The Jeb B tribal/clan politicos? US is getting more inbred than Europe ever was at the political top :D



Tough fighting for open source at all levels? Yes. Just a guess.

For a games-theory argument, consider that the regulatory agencies are free to require any safety requirements at no cost to themselves, but if something goes wrong they are held responsible. As a result we have a system where it costs 2.5 billion dollars to bring a drug to market, so that it's economically infeasable to implement existing cures for rare diseases. It's also impossible for individuals to manage their own risk with informed consent.

(1) If you read a little further down that Google search, you find out that maybe it doesn't cost $2.5 billion after all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11...
$2.6 Billion to Develop a Drug? New Estimate Makes Questionable Assumptions
Aaron E. Carroll
NOV. 18, 2014
The bottom line is that the report contains a lot of assumptions that tend to favor the pharmaceutical industry. While the Tufts Center reports that $2.6 billion is the cost to develop “a new prescription medicine that gains marketing approval,” it might be more accurate to say that it’s the cost to develop certain new molecular entities for which pharmaceutical companies did all of the research. That’s very few drugs, in the scheme of things.

(2) Another game theory argument is that drug companies and doctors will sell drugs to make as much money as they can, even if they give people drugs that they don't need and it harms them. The Nobel-prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow wrote that a free market in health care is impossible, because the consumers (patients) don't have enough information to evaluate what the doctor is telling them.

(3) Most scientists agree that theory should be confirmed with empirical fact. In fact, there are countries that until recently had almost no government regulation, and they bring new drugs to market all the time. Unfortunately, most of those new don't live up to their claims when western doctors try to use them. So their drugs aren't any good. Those facts disconfirm your theory.

(4) In fact, without regulation, drug companies and doctors sell drugs with unfounded claims, and give patients drugs that are inappropriate and harmful, following their financial motivation rather than the interests of their patients. This confirms Arrow's theory.

For example, China has relatively few government regulations.

JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Dec;174(12):1914-20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5214.
Use and prescription of antibiotics in primary health care settings in China.
Wang J, Wang P, Wang X, Zheng Y, Xiao Y.

RESULTS: Most staff in the primary health care facilities had less than a college degree, and the medical staff consisted primarily of physician assistants, assistant pharmacists, nurses, and nursing assistants. The median (range) governmental contribution to each facility was 34.0% (3.6%-92.5%) of total revenue. The facilities prescribed a median (range) of 28 (8-111) types of antibiotics, including 34 (10-115) individual agents. Antibiotics were included in 52.9% of the outpatient visit prescription records: of these, only 39.4% were prescribed properly. Of the inpatients, 77.5% received antibiotic therapy: of these, only 24.6% were prescribed properly. Antibiotics were prescribed for 78.0% of colds and 93.5% of cases of acute bronchitis. Of the antibiotic prescriptions, 28.0% contained cephalosporins and 15.7% fluoroquinolones. A total of 55.0% of the antibiotic prescriptions were for antibiotic combination therapy with 2 or more agents. In nonsurgical inpatients in cities, the mean (SD) duration of antibiotic therapy was 10.1 (7.8) days. Of the surgical patients, 98.0% received antibiotics, with 63.8% of these prescriptions for prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Antibiotics are frequently prescribed in Chinese primary health care facil

...how will this reflect on her husband's Ponzi scheme lawsuits.

Those $16 million would have probably come in handy.

unfortunately, republican state houses across the country are cutting down on funding state universities

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

etc., etc.

so tuition will increase and quality will decrease, and those who are bright but come from limited backgrounds will wind up working in retail or fast food instead of becoming good STEM candidates

of course, this makes sense, as poor and stupid is the republican base

The Amazon tycoon owns the Washington Post.

The 50% of all American marriages end in divorce statistic gets referenced all the time. The problem is that it isn't true. Although there are different ways of measuring the divorce rate, a good average seems to be somewhere around 30% and it's getting lower.

The first google hit.
The NY Times has a more credible article.

No, but the reality was before you went into Iraq in 2003, against any sensible facts,

Really? I thought it was reported that U.S. soldiers actually /did/ find WMDs in Iraq. So maybe those facts weren't quite so unsensible after all, assuming you're saying the primary argument that the Bush administration used for going there was invalid.

Among my problems with the "we went there for oil" argument include the fact that invading Iraq didn't really seem to help our economy at all since oil prices never really went down for any significant period of time. I don't recall hearing about us taking over the oil fields and doing something sensible like giving ourselves a nice fat discount. If we went there for oil, why aren't we benefiting massively from it? Because I think we should be.

We also have Iran that's got plenty of oil and is run by a bunch of crazy religious fanatics. Seriously, their leaders have come out with a 9 point plan to destroy Israel, and they're constantly talking about "Death to America!" and referring to us as the Great Satan, as well as having formally declared war on us in 1979 and never having rescinded that. Iran actively sponsors terrorism as well and is a terrible place when it comes to basic human rights, and especially women's rights. Why don't we go invade there? It has oil and an excuse, so why aren't we there? Don't give me that "Obama" excuse, Bush had 8 years to try it and plenty of good reasons.

Actually, I think your assertions that America only acts for the purpose of acquiring oil are based on conjecture rather than the sensible facts you seem worried about not having. Instead, I think it is simply convenient for the anti-American attitude you portray, so you just keep talking about it. We could sure as hell be doing a much better job at going and taking oil from other nations than we'd supposedly done in Iraq. If that's our aim, I think we're being pretty ineffective.

P.S. There are plenty of people in the "rest of the world" that don't think exactly like you do.

There is also this (much a intro sentence here is just a copy/paste job from this article anyhow).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03...
"PHILADELPHIA — For all its horrific power, the atom bomb — leveler of Hiroshima and instant killer of some 80,000 people — is but a pale cousin compared to another product of American ingenuity: the hydrogen bomb."

Guess all the stories about the British, Canadian and German scientists contributing must be false, the USA did it single handedly?
Way to attempt to rewrite history NY Times.

Yep, for example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...

> If that strike is destroying monuments thousands of years old and causing irreparable damage to a very fragile desert ecosystem - yes,

So, the fact that the Nature Conservancy sold the drilling rights on their "conservation land" to big oil would be a problem for you, right? And if they promised to stop doing that but were still doing it 10 years later, you would be strongly against that right?

And when it came to light that the Nature Conservancy took millions of dollars from BP, but kept mum about it during the disaster in the Gulf, you would be strongly against them for not considering that to be a problem, right?

Or is your support of the NC more about opposing Greenpeace than it is about any sort of meaningful and consistent principles?

> If that strike is destroying monuments thousands of years old and causing irreparable damage to a very fragile desert ecosystem - yes,

So, the fact that the Nature Conservancy sold the drilling rights on their "conservation land" to big oil would be a problem for you, right? And if they promised to stop doing that but were still doing it 10 years later, you would be strongly against that right?

And when it came to light that the Nature Conservancy took millions of dollars from BP, but kept mum about it during the disaster in the Gulf, you would be strongly against them for not considering that to be a problem, right?

Or is your support of the NC more about opposing Greenpeace than it is about any sort of meaningful and consistent principles?

because the corps won't allow it. It's bad for business, and the guys at the top are global anyway. They're all buddy buddy except for a few small fry too tiny to start anything real.

Francis Fukayama, is that you?

"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."

That's from 1992.

"[U]niversalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."??!?!

BWAAA HAAA HAA HAAA

Think ISIS agrees?

How about North Korea? China?

When are India and Pakistan finally going to come to nuclear blows?

No more wars?

That must be why the putative leader of "Western liberal [democracies]" is trying so damn hard to appease a bunch of medieval theocrats bent on obtaining nuclear weapons so they can literally "wipe Israel off the map".

Nah, that can't lead to war.

Hell, the French - the same country that helped Chamberlain try to appease Hitler then 50+ years later sold its Security Council vote to Saddam Hussein - are strongly opposed to it.

France - full of cheese eating surrender monkeys - thinks Obama is weak. And that weakness is going to lead to war.

Ouch.

No more wars?

BWAAA HAAA HAA HAA

That must be why Obama sent US troops BACK to Iraq.

Oh, you missed that?

No more war?!?!

What color is the sky on your planet?

Maybe they weren't quite the lies that the left would like you to believe... http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

Do a little searching of the news. You should find references that there are at least 850 registered voters over 150 in New York City.

You mean like this?

s vote fraud common in American politics? Not according to United States District Judge Lynn Adelman, who examined the evidence from Wisconsin and ruled in late April that “virtually no voter impersonation occurs” in the state and that “no evidence suggests that voter-impersonation fraud will become a problem at any time in the foreseeable future.”

Or this?

The Brennan Center’s ongoing examination of voter fraud claims reveal that voter fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is nearly non-existent, and much of the problems associated with alleged fraud in elections relates to unintentional mistakes by voters or election administrators.

Or this?

Investigators tell the paper they don't consider the discrepancy fraudulent; the number of votes attributed to deceased voters is too small and their votes are spread out over more than two dozen elections.

County elections commissioner Bill Biamonte said simple clerical errors make it seem as if the dead are voting. For example, a person voting could accidentally sign their name next to a dead person's name rather than their own in a poll registry book.

In several pages' worth of "ny voter fraud" results on Google, the only ones describing anything like what you describe were shamelessly partisan articles on sites regularly described as "right wing echo chambers" (e.g. Fox News, NY Post, Breitbart, National Review, redstate.com, etc.).

While most of TFA mentions "unfair competition" if you click through and read about the original German injunction they mention this:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blog...
The court in Frankfurt found that Uber posed unfair competition to the local taxi industry. It said Uber did not have the necessary licenses and insurance for its drivers and noted that the company could be selective in providing rides, while taxi drivers are required to accept anyone needing a ride.

To me, at least from these articles, it's a little hard to tell what's in the German rules for taxis. Do you have some info on this?

In fact, a taxi in germany is required to provide a ride to everyone. The rate per km is fixed, if you feel betrayed there's a good chance to get justice by talking to the regulation body. Every taxi driver has to do an exam to show knowledge about the city and the regulations. The service for example here in Berlin is quite reliable, a taxi picks you up at your house in typically 10-15 minutes even in the outskirts, scam is very rare and makes big headlines.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blog... The court in Frankfurt found that Uber posed unfair competition to the local taxi industry. It said Uber did not have the necessary licenses and insurance for its drivers and noted that the company could be selective in providing rides, while taxi drivers are required to accept anyone needing a ride.

To me, at least from these articles, it's a little hard to tell what's in the German rules for taxis. Do you have some info on this? To me it looks like one shady unethical business is bitching about another shady and unethical business, and one has an app.

The argument that gets made is that it would be unacceptable to have different classes of companies competing for the same market and not be subject to the exact same regulation, ie that Uber either get to try and prove that the rules are illegal or get out. Ubers main argument seams to be the rather silly but were not a taxi company so we dont need to follow any regulations and that just wont fly anywhere civilized.

The real problem for uber is not the volume regulation but the two main set of regulations that all taxi and bus companies have to follow, even in rural hinterlands with no volume regulation.

The first is the driver licensing, you need a special license to be allowed to drive paying customers, this involves additional tests of driving skills a full background check(criminal record) and completion of course in business regulations. Uber sometimes claim to vet their drivers for this but rarely follows the existing standard for due diligence. (more incompetent then the law is a thing on the continent).

Secondly the company must be operating under a rule set that makes it mandatory for them to accept liability(and to be insured against it) for almost everything involving a car driving under their banner, and bans them from discriminating against "costly" customer types(handicapped people) or poor neighbourhoods, specific terms and condition like fixed maximum tariffs might be in place and there is a lot of technical details hiding here but it's still mostly public "health and safety" and not meant to limit the number of operators. Uber really don't want to follow those rules, as half their business model is discriminatory pricing, and liability avoidance.

The third and the only one Uber wants to talk about is the volume limitations in place in congested cities, aka medallions here the rules span from Westministers(London) absurd rules mandating specific car designs etc, with a "full time drivers with detailed local knowledge only" restriction being the norm. It's rare that those volume restrictions are absolute ie an cap company based outside of the city can make some trips inside the city limits etc. And unlike the first two those rules are subject to fierce political debates as it's sort of an exemption to basic EU principles, getting into that market is an investment but not an impossible barrier.

That "basic licensing requirement" has nothing at all to do with safety.

Which license? I think if you can show a license that does just amount to graft, then any reasonable person would get on board with the idea that license is bad regulation. Except, the person you are replying to, specifically mentioned safety.

Neither argument can really be assessed unless concrete specifics are used. While most of TFA mentions "unfair competition" if you click through and read about the original German injunction they mention this:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blog...
The court in Frankfurt found that Uber posed unfair competition to the local taxi industry. It said Uber did not have the necessary licenses and insurance for its drivers and noted that the company could be selective in providing rides, while taxi drivers are required to accept anyone needing a ride.

To me, at least from these articles, it's a little hard to tell what's in the German rules for taxis. Do you have some info on this? To me it looks like one shady unethical business is bitching about another shady and unethical business, and one has an app. There is a lot of talk about 'complying with the regulations' in the articles, then a lot of slashdotters calling that regulation bullshit, but no mention of what the regulations actually are. So how do you know they are bullshit? Or are you just arguing on a political / emotional level?

But some people want to government to control all the things, and any excuse will do.

Beat up that straw man, yo.

I know that established taxi companies are fighting this, and I'm sure that's a big part of why Uber is getting harassed, but Uber is a really sleazy company. If Uber were more sympathetic I imagine there'd be more of a push to defend them.

Look at AirBNB. Same crowd-sourcing business plan, competing with heavily regulated established players, but a wholly more endearing image. They do get some guff, but no where near what Uber has been facing.

I think the real concern with cab companies is the threat Uber is to the value of a medallion.

100% agree, and it looks like this is already happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...

It'll be interesting to see how that shakes out. I used to be medallion was a way to make a lot of money. What other asset worth hundreds of thousands could you sell to someone with virtually no credit, let alone the assets to cover a note like that? The beauty of it was the medallion was easily repossessed by prying it off the hood and was growing in value as well; and easy to resell. The borrower, OTOH, was likely to pay for the medallion first since they stood to lose everything if it was repossessed. You could get a better return than simply sticking the money in a government bond yet is was almost as risk free. If you did repossess it you were likely to get a better monthly payment than before as well since it was now worth more. As for the borrower, they medallion was a form of retirement savings. Even if yo never paid off the loan and made interest only payments, by the time you retire and resold it you had a nice profit that was your retirement fund; depending on how long you owned it you probably made more on the sale than you did in years of driving a cab. For cab company owners. it's the same deal except multiplied by numerous medallions. That's a lot of money at risk from Uber et. al.Balck Sedans were never that much of a threat because of their pricing and service model, but Uber strikes right at their customer base and is going after the next generation of customers as more and more younger people start working in cities and use cabs or Uber for rides.

I think the real concern with cab companies is the threat Uber is to the value of a medallion. If you've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a medallion, and are counting on it going up in value over time, anything that threatens that value must be crushed. If Uber were able to significantly dent cab demand in NYC and cab drivers decided to buy their own car to drive for Uber and not lease a cab, medallions would decline in value and people who have invested in them would lose serious money.

100% agree, and it looks like this is already happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...

The old ICBMs are being replaced with new nuclear missles.. an example of a report by a decend source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...

I don't know abut a top priority or taking funds from other programs but I think it is reasonable to have some level of protection should this turn out to be cheap and easily administered. We already have chemical sensors in subways after the Tokyo incident, we also already have fire suppression systems. The chemical sensors were in the works ever since the subway in Tokyo in 1995 and rushed into service after 9/11. It's been expanding ever since.

It's not like it would be a major retrofit or some sort of extensive project to have something like this neutralizing agent around so it could be deployed should a sensor go off. It's likely to be brought in or something similar to it after an evacuation if a sensor goes off anyways. If it's cheap and easily deplorable, what is the harm?