I believe that you are referring to Ron Reagan, who later stated that he was not referring to dementia when he wrote that. It is worth noting that Ron Reagan spent much of the 90s, and early 2000s, trying to diminish his father's reputation.
Two points: First, there were LOTS of questions about Reagan's health when he ran for President in 1980 because of his age. However, he showed no signs of health issues on the campaign trail and was able to maintain a similar campaign schedule to that of his opponent with campaign appearances 7 days a week. Hillary has maintained a very sparse campaign schedule with 3 or 4 day weekends where she does not appear at any campaign events. In addition, Hillary has had multiple incidents which are suggestive of an underlying health problem (although these incidents are by no means conclusive). Over all there is greater reason to question Hillary's health than there was to question Reagan's (key word being "question")
Second, the idea that Reagan had Alzheimer's while in office was a conjecture that was made after he was out of office for several years and diagnosed with it. There was no real evidence to suggest that such was the case while he was in office. There is sufficient evidence IN HINDSIGHT to conjecture that he may have been experiencing symptoms in the last year or two he was in office, but nothing that is even vaguely conclusive
Skin colour doesn't correlate with crime, poverty does.
Your are correct that skin colour does not correlate with crime. However, it is not poverty that correlates with crime, it is being from a single parent household which correlates with crime. The incidence of single parent households are MUCH higher among blacks than among whites.
Actually, there is reason to think that Putin and the Russians believe that it has already been decided that Hillary will be the next President (and that the election is just for show). If that is the case, then their actions at this time are designed to weaken the person they perceive as the next President.
Really? If that is the case, then they must have gone through the FDA approval process for drugs before the companies were allowed to sell them. Except, of course, this article seems to say that they didn't.
I would say that he has a rather high opinion of Hillary, since he assumes that she will not continue the charade that this treaty is binding in the U.S. without Senate ratification. I tend to think that you are correct that, despite the clear statement of the Constitution, Hillary will act, and instruct those who answer to her to act, as if the Paris Treaty is legally binding.
Triclosan is NOT an antibiotic. The link you provided states as much. As far as I have been able to find, none of the other antibacterials are antibiotics. However, I was unaware that triclosan worked in a manner similar enough to some antibiotics that resistance developed to it would also work against those antibiotics.
I still do not believe that it is appropriate for the FDA to regulate antibacterials in soap.
NO!!! "antibacterial" is NOT essentially the same thing as "antibiotic". There is no connection between antibiotic resistant bacteria and the use of antibacterial soap (or anything else). Something which you acknowledge when you talk about hand sanitizers (which, by the way, I am pretty sure are covered in this FDA ruling).
There is a legitimate concern with antibacterial soap. The problem with antibacterial soap is that it kills off the beneficial bacteria to an even greater degree than it kills off harmful bacteria (primarily because there is so much more of the beneficial bacteria). One of the strongest defenses we have against harmful bacteria is the numerous benign bacteria living on our skin. The benign bacteria competes with the harmful bacteria for food and in other ways (some benign bacteria actively kill harmful bacteria). Our society has developed the idea that all bacteria are bad. This is not the case.
There is a further misunderstanding in your post (which misunderstanding is common on slashdot...and elsewhere). Antibiotic resistant bacteria are not stronger than non-antibiotic bacteria. As a matter of fact, the few studies I have seen on the subject suggest that antibiotic resistant bacteria are weaker than non-antobiotic resistant strains of the same bacteria. That is, in an environment without antibiotics, antibiotic resistant bacteria do not replicate as rapidly as non-antibiotic strains of the same bacteria. I will state that I have seen very few studies on this and a more in depth study may discover that it is not true. However, this would explain why there have been so few incidents of antibiotic resistant infection outside of hospitals.
I am sorry, but there is no evidence that such is the case. Alcohol has been used as a disinfectant for centuries and there is no evidence that bacteria are becoming resistant to it, not even in biological laboratories where it is used extensively.
A lot of people commenting are confusing "antibacterial" with "antibiotic". Most antibacterials do not result in breeding superbugs. For example, one of the best antibacterials is 70% (or greater) ethanol. Biologists have been using it for at least a century to eliminate undesired bacteria with no evidence that it is becoming any less effective.
I do not like antibacterial soap because it reduces beneficial bacteria to a greater degree than it eliminates harmful (mostly because there is a lot more beneficial bacteria than harmful). However, I do not approve of the FDA banning these ingredients. Soap is neither a food, nor a drug. If the FDA wants to ban the "antibacterial" claim because that is a "medical" claim, I see that as being legitimate. But, unless there is evidence that these chemicals are harmful when used in soap, they should be allowed to use them as ingredients.
I am going to assume that you are saying that improving an economy's efficiency lowers the unemployment rate rather than saying that lowering the unemployment rate improves an economy's efficiency because otherwise you are talking nonsense. Your argument is that the economy is a zero-sum game, for business A to be successful it must reduce the success of business B. This is false.
The jobs you provided came from your revenues, and those revenues took away from other businesses, so you stole jobs rather than creating them (not destroyed; instead of 1,000 new employees at Verizon, there were 1,000 employees at NewMobile)
And there is where your whole argument falls apart, if NewMobile employed 1,000 people off of that revenue, Verizon would have employed a significantly smaller number. All of the statistics show that small businesses employ more people per dollar of revenue than big businesses.
My question for you is, do you think that vandalism and graffiti shouldn't be crimes? Or do you think they should be treated like robbery and murder?
Under the broken windows theory of policing, vandalism and graffiti are the two primary "small crimes" which they advocate cracking down on.
Umm, when I went to the article there was a little box that showed the screen where you can disable it without going into the registry. Seriously, if you don't know how to disable it, I really hope you don't do ANYTHING to the registry.
I am confused. First, you seem to say it was a bad idea (someone got snookered), then you say it was a good idea (sounds like AOL+TW all over again).
Or maybe you forgot that AOL bought Time Warner not the other way around.
There were no "Watergate Papers". You are combining the "Pentagon Papers", which were about U.S. involvement in Vietnam under LBJ, with the Watergate scandal, which involved an illegal attempt by members of the Nixon Administration to obtain information about the Democratic strategy in the 1972 Presidential campaign.
Woodward and Bernstein had nothing to do with revealing the "Pentagon Papers". Woodward and Bernstein got their information on the Watergate scandal from a disgruntled high level member of the FBI who wanted to get revenge on Nixon for not making him the head of the FBI.
I really don't know what the value of LinkedIn is to SalesForce, but it is something they cannot get any other way. That makes its value higher than it would otherwise be. Of course, you may be correct that $26 billion is too high. I suspect that Microsoft's thinking was that no price was too high to obtain LinkedIn since, by acquiring LinkedIn they gained something they could not get in any other way. The problem with that from my perspective is that LinkedIn is less useful with MS owning it.
I suspect that MS thinks they can combine LinkedIn with Yammer to create something that will compete with Facebook (although not directly). It won't work.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that you are referring to Ron Reagan, who later stated that he was not referring to dementia when he wrote that. It is worth noting that Ron Reagan spent much of the 90s, and early 2000s, trying to diminish his father's reputation.
Well, Hillary did say that if you are under investigation by the FBI you should have your Constitutional Rights suspended.
Two points: First, there were LOTS of questions about Reagan's health when he ran for President in 1980 because of his age. However, he showed no signs of health issues on the campaign trail and was able to maintain a similar campaign schedule to that of his opponent with campaign appearances 7 days a week. Hillary has maintained a very sparse campaign schedule with 3 or 4 day weekends where she does not appear at any campaign events. In addition, Hillary has had multiple incidents which are suggestive of an underlying health problem (although these incidents are by no means conclusive). Over all there is greater reason to question Hillary's health than there was to question Reagan's (key word being "question")
Second, the idea that Reagan had Alzheimer's while in office was a conjecture that was made after he was out of office for several years and diagnosed with it. There was no real evidence to suggest that such was the case while he was in office. There is sufficient evidence IN HINDSIGHT to conjecture that he may have been experiencing symptoms in the last year or two he was in office, but nothing that is even vaguely conclusive
Skin colour doesn't correlate with crime, poverty does.
Your are correct that skin colour does not correlate with crime. However, it is not poverty that correlates with crime, it is being from a single parent household which correlates with crime. The incidence of single parent households are MUCH higher among blacks than among whites.
Actually, there is reason to think that Putin and the Russians believe that it has already been decided that Hillary will be the next President (and that the election is just for show). If that is the case, then their actions at this time are designed to weaken the person they perceive as the next President.
Really? If that is the case, then they must have gone through the FDA approval process for drugs before the companies were allowed to sell them. Except, of course, this article seems to say that they didn't.
I would say that he has a rather high opinion of Hillary, since he assumes that she will not continue the charade that this treaty is binding in the U.S. without Senate ratification. I tend to think that you are correct that, despite the clear statement of the Constitution, Hillary will act, and instruct those who answer to her to act, as if the Paris Treaty is legally binding.
Triclosan is NOT an antibiotic. The link you provided states as much. As far as I have been able to find, none of the other antibacterials are antibiotics. However, I was unaware that triclosan worked in a manner similar enough to some antibiotics that resistance developed to it would also work against those antibiotics.
I still do not believe that it is appropriate for the FDA to regulate antibacterials in soap.
In which case it is even worse than I thought it was.
NO!!! "antibacterial" is NOT essentially the same thing as "antibiotic". There is no connection between antibiotic resistant bacteria and the use of antibacterial soap (or anything else). Something which you acknowledge when you talk about hand sanitizers (which, by the way, I am pretty sure are covered in this FDA ruling).
There is a legitimate concern with antibacterial soap. The problem with antibacterial soap is that it kills off the beneficial bacteria to an even greater degree than it kills off harmful bacteria (primarily because there is so much more of the beneficial bacteria). One of the strongest defenses we have against harmful bacteria is the numerous benign bacteria living on our skin. The benign bacteria competes with the harmful bacteria for food and in other ways (some benign bacteria actively kill harmful bacteria). Our society has developed the idea that all bacteria are bad. This is not the case.
There is a further misunderstanding in your post (which misunderstanding is common on slashdot...and elsewhere). Antibiotic resistant bacteria are not stronger than non-antibiotic bacteria. As a matter of fact, the few studies I have seen on the subject suggest that antibiotic resistant bacteria are weaker than non-antobiotic resistant strains of the same bacteria. That is, in an environment without antibiotics, antibiotic resistant bacteria do not replicate as rapidly as non-antibiotic strains of the same bacteria. I will state that I have seen very few studies on this and a more in depth study may discover that it is not true. However, this would explain why there have been so few incidents of antibiotic resistant infection outside of hospitals.
I am sorry, but there is no evidence that such is the case. Alcohol has been used as a disinfectant for centuries and there is no evidence that bacteria are becoming resistant to it, not even in biological laboratories where it is used extensively.
A lot of people commenting are confusing "antibacterial" with "antibiotic". Most antibacterials do not result in breeding superbugs. For example, one of the best antibacterials is 70% (or greater) ethanol. Biologists have been using it for at least a century to eliminate undesired bacteria with no evidence that it is becoming any less effective.
I do not like antibacterial soap because it reduces beneficial bacteria to a greater degree than it eliminates harmful (mostly because there is a lot more beneficial bacteria than harmful). However, I do not approve of the FDA banning these ingredients. Soap is neither a food, nor a drug. If the FDA wants to ban the "antibacterial" claim because that is a "medical" claim, I see that as being legitimate. But, unless there is evidence that these chemicals are harmful when used in soap, they should be allowed to use them as ingredients.
Different organizations. St Jude Children's Research Hospital is a non-profit (and a very good one from everything I have heard).
The article is about St Jude Medical, a completely unrelated organization.
I am going to assume that you are saying that improving an economy's efficiency lowers the unemployment rate rather than saying that lowering the unemployment rate improves an economy's efficiency because otherwise you are talking nonsense. Your argument is that the economy is a zero-sum game, for business A to be successful it must reduce the success of business B. This is false.
The jobs you provided came from your revenues, and those revenues took away from other businesses, so you stole jobs rather than creating them (not destroyed; instead of 1,000 new employees at Verizon, there were 1,000 employees at NewMobile)
And there is where your whole argument falls apart, if NewMobile employed 1,000 people off of that revenue, Verizon would have employed a significantly smaller number. All of the statistics show that small businesses employ more people per dollar of revenue than big businesses.
My question for you is, do you think that vandalism and graffiti shouldn't be crimes? Or do you think they should be treated like robbery and murder?
Under the broken windows theory of policing, vandalism and graffiti are the two primary "small crimes" which they advocate cracking down on.
What you said is actually a better summary of the findings as they are stated in the article than the headline.
OK, now what happens when you have to park down the street?
UMM, most people who are poor do not qualify for low interest car loans.
For the rich, if it is cheaper in the long run, they will spend the money. The poor don't have that lump sum to spend.
Umm, when I went to the article there was a little box that showed the screen where you can disable it without going into the registry. Seriously, if you don't know how to disable it, I really hope you don't do ANYTHING to the registry.
I am confused. First, you seem to say it was a bad idea (someone got snookered), then you say it was a good idea (sounds like AOL+TW all over again). Or maybe you forgot that AOL bought Time Warner not the other way around.
There were no "Watergate Papers". You are combining the "Pentagon Papers", which were about U.S. involvement in Vietnam under LBJ, with the Watergate scandal, which involved an illegal attempt by members of the Nixon Administration to obtain information about the Democratic strategy in the 1972 Presidential campaign. Woodward and Bernstein had nothing to do with revealing the "Pentagon Papers". Woodward and Bernstein got their information on the Watergate scandal from a disgruntled high level member of the FBI who wanted to get revenge on Nixon for not making him the head of the FBI.
Then why were they supporting Bernie, who is part of the conspiracy?
I really don't know what the value of LinkedIn is to SalesForce, but it is something they cannot get any other way. That makes its value higher than it would otherwise be. Of course, you may be correct that $26 billion is too high. I suspect that Microsoft's thinking was that no price was too high to obtain LinkedIn since, by acquiring LinkedIn they gained something they could not get in any other way. The problem with that from my perspective is that LinkedIn is less useful with MS owning it.
I suspect that MS thinks they can combine LinkedIn with Yammer to create something that will compete with Facebook (although not directly). It won't work.