Yeah, because that worked so well in WWII...the isolationist and "stay the heck out" approach is temptingly simple. Proving how little you know about history apart from the oversimplified government/military coverage presented in high school text books.
The US banking industry, the manufacturing industry, the trade industry, the chemical industry, the investment industry, and on... HARDLY stayed the heck out of the business of Europe at the time of WW-II. A significant majority of what happened in Germany to cause the rise of the Third Reich was an effect of systems which were, in part, controlled by US money moguls. A significant majority of the funding and popularity of the Third Reich was due, in significant part, to the support and contributions of US money and a significant part of it came from the same interest groups who were feeding US politicians.
Could you, and the rest of the crowd, please, just for a moment, spend half a moment to think about anything deeper than the face value bullshit that you picked up in <gasp=shock_and_awe>government funded and regulated<gasp=shock_and_awe> schooling?
The summary characterizes apoptosis as unwanted cell suicide which, in most cases, it most certainly is not. Apoptosis is one of the natural mechanisms by which the body eliminates cells which have become damaged, dysfunctional, or are simply no longer needed.
Especially with respect to cancer research apoptosis is a pathway which we seek to activate. Cells which become cancerous are supposed to enter apoptotic cycles and prevent themselves from creating tumors within the tissue. Cancerous cells manage to win the race condition between apoptotic and survival pathways but, in terms of the mechanisms at work within the cell, are tottering on the edge. Many new cancer treatments rely on this on the edge circumstance in the interest of introducing a pharmacologically active substance into the body which will cause cancerous cells, on the edge of apoptosis, to move fully into apoptotic function.
Since the cells in the body are constantly in a state of self-regulation and interregulation it is possible that cells which enter apoptosis too easily are similarly causes of diseases. It is this set of conditions that the researchers in the article wish to treat.
Don't be misled about what apoptosis actually is, though, or be swayed to view it as good or bad. Different conditions within the tissue call for different actions within the cells which make up that tissue.
Just because you have a utopian view of big government as a benevolent big brother or, at worst, a bumbling conglomerate of incompetent old men, doesn't make it so. The outcomes of the vast majority of actions taken by the federal government over the last 150 years indicate that you have a enormous pair of blinders attached to your head.
Yes. It is a threat to privacy. That's not the point. The point is that it's a corporate welfare handout at unchecked and non-negotiable expense to the taxpayers.
I'm sure that any firemen or military personnel you feel like bringing to the debate understand the concept of fraud. Nice of you to try a variation on the "think of the children!" scheme.
The answer to your question points directly to the fundamental importance of the 9th and 10th Amendments and, similarly, to the fundamental importance of a strict interpretation of those two amendments. As it is possible to abuse all manifestations of power over one's fellow men it is of significant interest to the freedom and liberty of all to limit the vesting of authority and power into the hands of politically affiliated figures to an extent that provides them with the ability to fulfill their duly appointed Constitutional without granting them the overt ability to exploit the citizens over whom they wield political power and influence.
Analysis of the importance of the 9th and 10th Amendments and their relation to the historical abuse of power by those who are empowered leads to a root level understanding of why our Federal Government is unconstitutional, has engaged in historical hand-washing to create an illusion of legitimacy, and why said Federal Government of the United States of America is no different from any other fascist government across history which has preached the empowerment of the citizens and their will while, at the same time, stripping them of all rights and powers and using them as unwitting servants to the greater profit of the ruling class.
You've made a very careful logical error in your assessment. The motive of the initial investment, contrary to the assertions of TFA, has little or nothing to do with janitors sleeping in closets or employees who might legitimately need such documentation of mobility.
The point of these expenditures is pork barrel corporate welfare. Everything after that is a product of the question,"How do we pitch this to the taxpayers such that there will be no significant backlash over the expenditure amount?"
The same system of reasoning can be appropriately applied to the military endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were not conceived initially as military endeavors. First was conceived the need to ensure that the American taxpaying population would remain in perpetual debt--giving the Federal Reserve guaranteed profit for as many years as they feel like regulating the interest rates on that debt--for the financial advancement of the ranking politicians and private interests. The concept of using military action to justify said extra-large expenditures, and the excuse of both 9/11 and some vaporous ailing cleric (who may or may not still be alive and who may or may not have actually been at the core of the 9/11 tragedy) is a product of that insidious motive to sell the American nation into perpetual indentured servitude.
We're sorry. You seem to be under the misconception that employer workplaces are sovereign nations unto themselves and the humans inside of those sovereign nation compounds are no longer afforded the rights and protections of the Constitution. You're wrong.
"You're supposed to be..." is no excuse for maintaining a fascist ideology.
They can spy on you without you knowing, and suddenly hit you with reams of evidence of your "slacking" if ever they need to manipulate or fire you, without having to listen to an excuse or even a legitimate justification. At both Battelle Memorial Institute and Abbott Laboratories there are departments (groups/teams of about 30 or 40 people) where this is not only the norm but, indeed, the management in those departments will specifically direct certain employees into dead-end tasks for the express purpose of creating legitimate justification of slacking or nonproductivity for the purpose of discrediting or outright eliminating those employees who could display a threat to the passive-aggressive nature and authority of that management.
Upper management, of course, either doesn't have a clue (doesn't care to, either) or actively encourages such passive-aggressive behavior when it suits their own ulterior motives. The upper management is similarly playing this game, when properly applicable, with the middle managers beneath them.
HR just plays lap dog to whatever grievances the management concocts using the method.
Making a deliberate statement of objection to the obvious disingenuity of these systems has resulted in homelessness.
As if, in a system as corrupt, overgrown, and unchecked such as the Federal Government of the United States, there is ever a viable candidate who doesn't.
Is anyone at all skeptical of the profitable return, to the taxpayers, for the amount of money which will be spent on this type of micromanaging technology at the absurd level? The strain of micromonitoring employees will cause more harm and discord from people succumbing to the extra pressures without their usual outlets. Whether or not those outlets are on or off the clock, technically speaking, is irrelevent when considering that humans are not machines. Every human in every system, whether it be monks in a monastery, coders in a huge borg-like cube fortress, or workers on an assembly line, learns how and where they are able to sneak a few extra moments for themselves, by themselves, without the glaring eye of big brother breathing down their neck. Technologies like this tout performance gains and efficiency ratings which can only be expected of machines--not of humans--because humans inherently steal time for themselves.
Given that the advertised technical merits of these expenditures in no way properly align with ten thousand years of knowledge of basic human and social psychology the only explanation for these programs is: pork barrel boondoggle.
Stop wasting taxpayer money on high tech corporate welfare!!!
I mean, do you honestly believe that there has ever been some mythical time in US history in which businesses happily kept to themselves and acted like gentlemen There was a time when they weren't subsidized with tax dollars. Duh.
You've got to be on some serious crack to have missed my point in order to favor your rant.
"We've finally come to realize that self-regulation by industry hasn't worked." This is some serious disinformation here. Self-regulation by the tech industry worked just fine until the government began allowing business and corporate interests to affect its subsidies, grants, and funding. It was in the transferral of the power to self regulate from the researchers who created the technology to the Wall Street entities which began government appointed overseers and distributors of the technology that the ability to self-regulate was lost.
There is no problem with self-regulation in the industry. The problem is that the industry is not allowed to self-regulate due to special interest groups and politicians' own greed and egos affecting the funding and legislative favoritism.
By all means, terrorize, threaten, steal, and engage in represehsible and illegal conduct with anonymity and impunity One of the ACs who plagued my journal for months was actually around town, asking the other homeless folks about me, and asking them to tell me that he was going to put me in the hospital for two months.
Open source, as a concept, cannot be too big. I really feel that it's the best way to go when keep considerations such as IP, privacy, security, and flexibility in mind over the long term. One particular operating system, eg. GNU/Linux, could become too popular for itself in that exploits and political strife will outpace the benefits of greater adoption. I think it already has. Every problem which can come of a large interconnected operating system has already been encountered by Microsoft and the GNU/Linux community is rushing headlong to meet them again except, this time, they'll have an open source flavor. Time to move on to GNU/Hurd, or AROS, or something like DynatOS.
From the parent post:
It's amusing how people root for the underdog but start to turn against it once it gets too big Hyping the underdog, milking it for profit, and then kicking it back into the dust is a game that's at least ten thousand years old. It's also a great source of entertainment.
it isn't some conspiracy that people make it out to be. Well, yes, actually it is. Didn't you get the memo directly from the FBI office? Oh? You didn't? Maybe you're not on the proper mailing list. Maybe they didn't see fit to tell you about it personally.
People who think that the idea of being able to delete your profile is in any way simple or trivial are deluding themselves. Deleting accounts created on systems has always been a default consideration. That this is not the popular perception points directly to conspiratorial motives.
Google themselves have said What percentage of convicted felons plead ?
that because of the way GFS works they can *NEVER* know when a piece of data flagged for deletion is actually no longer recoverable. Because nobody ever thought about that when writing the filesystem code?
That fault tolerance and redundancy is built into the design. As proper deletion should have been as well.
It would take days worth of man hours to delete a persons profile. Not if the filesystem support and account management code had been properly written.
Hard thing to demand from a free service. How many 401(k) funds tanked when the.com bubble burst? That was real money that the investment industry heads ran off with. Web services are _not_ free--we've already paid for them and we continue to pay for them when we buy products from companies who invest in whatever way, eg. advertising, in the world wide web. That this is not the common perception points, again, directly to conspiratorial motives in line with fraud, embezzlement, and pyramid schemes.
Slashdot Mirror
The US banking industry, the manufacturing industry, the trade industry, the chemical industry, the investment industry, and on... HARDLY stayed the heck out of the business of Europe at the time of WW-II. A significant majority of what happened in Germany to cause the rise of the Third Reich was an effect of systems which were, in part, controlled by US money moguls. A significant majority of the funding and popularity of the Third Reich was due, in significant part, to the support and contributions of US money and a significant part of it came from the same interest groups who were feeding US politicians.
Could you, and the rest of the crowd, please, just for a moment, spend half a moment to think about anything deeper than the face value bullshit that you picked up in <gasp=shock_and_awe>government funded and regulated<gasp=shock_and_awe> schooling?
The summary characterizes apoptosis as unwanted cell suicide which, in most cases, it most certainly is not. Apoptosis is one of the natural mechanisms by which the body eliminates cells which have become damaged, dysfunctional, or are simply no longer needed.
Especially with respect to cancer research apoptosis is a pathway which we seek to activate. Cells which become cancerous are supposed to enter apoptotic cycles and prevent themselves from creating tumors within the tissue. Cancerous cells manage to win the race condition between apoptotic and survival pathways but, in terms of the mechanisms at work within the cell, are tottering on the edge. Many new cancer treatments rely on this on the edge circumstance in the interest of introducing a pharmacologically active substance into the body which will cause cancerous cells, on the edge of apoptosis, to move fully into apoptotic function.
Since the cells in the body are constantly in a state of self-regulation and interregulation it is possible that cells which enter apoptosis too easily are similarly causes of diseases. It is this set of conditions that the researchers in the article wish to treat.
Don't be misled about what apoptosis actually is, though, or be swayed to view it as good or bad. Different conditions within the tissue call for different actions within the cells which make up that tissue.
Just because you have a utopian view of big government as a benevolent big brother or, at worst, a bumbling conglomerate of incompetent old men, doesn't make it so. The outcomes of the vast majority of actions taken by the federal government over the last 150 years indicate that you have a enormous pair of blinders attached to your head.
Yes. It is a threat to privacy. That's not the point. The point is that it's a corporate welfare handout at unchecked and non-negotiable expense to the taxpayers.
I'm sure that any firemen or military personnel you feel like bringing to the debate understand the concept of fraud. Nice of you to try a variation on the "think of the children!" scheme.
The answer to your question points directly to the fundamental importance of the 9th and 10th Amendments and, similarly, to the fundamental importance of a strict interpretation of those two amendments. As it is possible to abuse all manifestations of power over one's fellow men it is of significant interest to the freedom and liberty of all to limit the vesting of authority and power into the hands of politically affiliated figures to an extent that provides them with the ability to fulfill their duly appointed Constitutional without granting them the overt ability to exploit the citizens over whom they wield political power and influence.
Analysis of the importance of the 9th and 10th Amendments and their relation to the historical abuse of power by those who are empowered leads to a root level understanding of why our Federal Government is unconstitutional, has engaged in historical hand-washing to create an illusion of legitimacy, and why said Federal Government of the United States of America is no different from any other fascist government across history which has preached the empowerment of the citizens and their will while, at the same time, stripping them of all rights and powers and using them as unwitting servants to the greater profit of the ruling class.
You've made a very careful logical error in your assessment. The motive of the initial investment, contrary to the assertions of TFA, has little or nothing to do with janitors sleeping in closets or employees who might legitimately need such documentation of mobility.
The point of these expenditures is pork barrel corporate welfare. Everything after that is a product of the question,"How do we pitch this to the taxpayers such that there will be no significant backlash over the expenditure amount?"
The same system of reasoning can be appropriately applied to the military endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were not conceived initially as military endeavors. First was conceived the need to ensure that the American taxpaying population would remain in perpetual debt--giving the Federal Reserve guaranteed profit for as many years as they feel like regulating the interest rates on that debt--for the financial advancement of the ranking politicians and private interests. The concept of using military action to justify said extra-large expenditures, and the excuse of both 9/11 and some vaporous ailing cleric (who may or may not still be alive and who may or may not have actually been at the core of the 9/11 tragedy) is a product of that insidious motive to sell the American nation into perpetual indentured servitude.
We're sorry. You seem to be under the misconception that employer workplaces are sovereign nations unto themselves and the humans inside of those sovereign nation compounds are no longer afforded the rights and protections of the Constitution. You're wrong.
"You're supposed to be..." is no excuse for maintaining a fascist ideology.
Upper management, of course, either doesn't have a clue (doesn't care to, either) or actively encourages such passive-aggressive behavior when it suits their own ulterior motives. The upper management is similarly playing this game, when properly applicable, with the middle managers beneath them.
HR just plays lap dog to whatever grievances the management concocts using the method.
Making a deliberate statement of objection to the obvious disingenuity of these systems has resulted in homelessness.
As if, in a system as corrupt, overgrown, and unchecked such as the Federal Government of the United States, there is ever a viable candidate who doesn't.
After a fashion, and to an extent which increases daily, it already is.
Is anyone at all skeptical of the profitable return, to the taxpayers, for the amount of money which will be spent on this type of micromanaging technology at the absurd level? The strain of micromonitoring employees will cause more harm and discord from people succumbing to the extra pressures without their usual outlets. Whether or not those outlets are on or off the clock, technically speaking, is irrelevent when considering that humans are not machines. Every human in every system, whether it be monks in a monastery, coders in a huge borg-like cube fortress, or workers on an assembly line, learns how and where they are able to sneak a few extra moments for themselves, by themselves, without the glaring eye of big brother breathing down their neck. Technologies like this tout performance gains and efficiency ratings which can only be expected of machines--not of humans--because humans inherently steal time for themselves.
Given that the advertised technical merits of these expenditures in no way properly align with ten thousand years of knowledge of basic human and social psychology the only explanation for these programs is: pork barrel boondoggle.
Stop wasting taxpayer money on high tech corporate welfare!!!
You've got to be on some serious crack to have missed my point in order to favor your rant.
The smallest Linux computer in the world: Picotux!
There is no problem with self-regulation in the industry. The problem is that the industry is not allowed to self-regulate due to special interest groups and politicians' own greed and egos affecting the funding and legislative favoritism.
The police laughed about it.
From the parent post: It's amusing how people root for the underdog but start to turn against it once it gets too big Hyping the underdog, milking it for profit, and then kicking it back into the dust is a game that's at least ten thousand years old. It's also a great source of entertainment.
An AC with a legitimate question.
Have you seen a doctor about your ego problem? How did you ever find coworkers who would put up with your crap?