Ephedra didn't kill that many people, and the ones it did kill went way beyond any reasonable dose for months. Had they exceeded the dose of acetaminophen by the same amount, they would have been dead in a couple weeks.
I have to wonder, if the labeling on the bottle hadn't had to be so circumspect in order to avoid the FDA, perhaps the users would have been more careful how much they took.
Personally, I would prefer a point between the extremes. The FDA should mandate limits on toxicity, accurate labeling of contents, and reasonably accurate warnings for risks. It should certify efficacy, and it should recommend consulting a doctor (for drugs that are currently prescription only).
I agree that NO regulation is a problem and also that over regulation is a problem. The current FDA seems to be the worst of both worlds. While they do everything in their power to expand the range of their regulation and demand metric assloads of paperwork, they somehow manage to fail at actually assuring safety or efficacy of anything.
but if done properly, records can be kept and reviewed at a later date and review the testers judgment.
Yes, but research has shown that when examining just a transcript and the polygraph output, different examiners will agree at a rate no better than chance and, in fact, after a couple weeks individuals re-examining the same data will often reach a substantially different conclusion. That is, they don't even agree with themselves.
That doesn't mean that interrogation can't point an investigation in the right direction, it just means that the polygraph doesn't really bring anything to the party. They could save a bundle by using knockoff e-meters instead.
Fortunately, polygraphs aren't admissible in court. Unfortunately, they are frequently used in other situations that very much affect the subject's life and because it's a bunch of scientific looking equipment and mysterious squiggly lines, it is given more credence than a simple interrogation would be even though it actually is just an interrogation with theater props.
Some people can beat the polygraph, even accidentally. Especially if they're on beta blockers. Many can't.
The greater concern is that it's much much easier to actually be telling the truth and be judged to be lying. And I do mean judged. At the end of the day, it is the polygraph examiner rather than the machine that decides truthful or not. Their results are not reproducible BTW. The machine is just there to intimidate the subject and lend and air of scientific infallibility to what is really nothing but a fallible human judgement call.
Helpful note, I've actually seen dashcam footage before. I mean real dashcams, not the imaginary ones they have in police procedurals with the infinite enhance capability.
If you think the dashcam of a car BEHIND me will show an angry glare, you have more serious issues than not understanding the law related to following too close.
Sorry, but the topic here is clearly the developed world at the moment. The first time I saw you re-defining terms and moving the goalposts when you were painted in a corner, it was mildly (very mildly) amusing, but now it is merely a waste of everyone's time, so shoo! Come back when you are ready to meaningfully contribute to the conversation.
Your assumptions are odd. For example, you presume I don't move to the right when that option is available. You would be wrong there. You assume I drive under the speed limit. Also untrue unless visibility is near zero or the road is iced over.
If you're in such a damned hurry, use the left lane. If there is no left lane, pass when oncoming traffic allows it. Do not try to make me go fast enough to get a big ticket by riding my bumper.
No, it shows that I can cut through all the BS arguments by demonstrating that the tailgating asshole must at all times be prepared to stop safely no matter how hard I brake. That's why the law presumes his fault if he rear-ends me.
My belief is that there will be such a labor shortage again. The real elephant in this room is the fact that we are still seeing increasing demand for labor along with that increasing automation and increasing wages. This is the same trend that has been going on for centuries. It's just happening on a global scale rather than a developed world scale of the past.
That must be why unemployment is a negative number and workforce participation is at an all time high while wages are rising faster than inflation across the board.
OH, wait!, none of those things are happening.
If you really believe in markets, then you believe that demand for labor is down since any reasonable market theory would predict that given the figures.
If you believe demand for labor is up and yet we have unemployment and a depressed workforce participation and stagnant wages, then you clearly don't actually believe market theory.
If so, why do we have unemployment? Why do we have people who have been unemployed long enough that they've given up on getting a job? It seems that reality disagrees with your convenient theory.
I didn't say make them actually hit you, I said a hard tap. Naturally, you should then accelerate again while they're busy panicing. I assure you, they will leave a bigger gap after that. I have done that, did not have an accident, did get the tailgater to back off.
Reforming fractional reserve banking would stop the slide downwards for people who remain employed, but wouldn't grant workers the benefits of improving productivity. You'd just see people laid off (because less are needed for the same output) and then only being able to find work for less pay than they had before (because of the surplus of workers).
Don't forget: The undesirables are cast out in place to live in poverty, but since they (understandably) don't enjoy that, they kill the rich sociopaths in a bloody revolution and force society to reboot.
If we go into this fixed on the negatives, with no idea where to find the positives, then of course it's not going to go well.
At the same time, if we don't proactively figure out how people will make a living or get this elusive new skills when they have no money (due to unemployment), we WON'T find the positives. Let them eat cake is not a solution, nor is just figuring (without evidence) that they'll find something else to make a living.
Also known as an illegal lane change followed by hard braking. The lane change is the part that transfers fault to the scammer if the victim can convince the police that it happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Ephedra didn't kill that many people, and the ones it did kill went way beyond any reasonable dose for months. Had they exceeded the dose of acetaminophen by the same amount, they would have been dead in a couple weeks.
I have to wonder, if the labeling on the bottle hadn't had to be so circumspect in order to avoid the FDA, perhaps the users would have been more careful how much they took.
Personally, I would prefer a point between the extremes. The FDA should mandate limits on toxicity, accurate labeling of contents, and reasonably accurate warnings for risks. It should certify efficacy, and it should recommend consulting a doctor (for drugs that are currently prescription only).
I agree that NO regulation is a problem and also that over regulation is a problem. The current FDA seems to be the worst of both worlds. While they do everything in their power to expand the range of their regulation and demand metric assloads of paperwork, they somehow manage to fail at actually assuring safety or efficacy of anything.
Just think of all of those stinging and biting insects that are not going to die now that the weather is milder.
but if done properly, records can be kept and reviewed at a later date and review the testers judgment.
Yes, but research has shown that when examining just a transcript and the polygraph output, different examiners will agree at a rate no better than chance and, in fact, after a couple weeks individuals re-examining the same data will often reach a substantially different conclusion. That is, they don't even agree with themselves.
That doesn't mean that interrogation can't point an investigation in the right direction, it just means that the polygraph doesn't really bring anything to the party. They could save a bundle by using knockoff e-meters instead.
Fortunately, polygraphs aren't admissible in court. Unfortunately, they are frequently used in other situations that very much affect the subject's life and because it's a bunch of scientific looking equipment and mysterious squiggly lines, it is given more credence than a simple interrogation would be even though it actually is just an interrogation with theater props.
Some people can beat the polygraph, even accidentally. Especially if they're on beta blockers. Many can't.
The greater concern is that it's much much easier to actually be telling the truth and be judged to be lying. And I do mean judged. At the end of the day, it is the polygraph examiner rather than the machine that decides truthful or not. Their results are not reproducible BTW. The machine is just there to intimidate the subject and lend and air of scientific infallibility to what is really nothing but a fallible human judgement call.
I can only guess they're closet Scientologists.
So in other words, continue using BT legitimately for everyone else?
Helpful note, I've actually seen dashcam footage before. I mean real dashcams, not the imaginary ones they have in police procedurals with the infinite enhance capability.
Except I only do that on 2 lane roads or when the idiot behind me doesn't use the passing lane I left open for him.
Perhaps on your side of the community gate people can voluntarily quit their jobs to be with the kids, but most cannot really afford that.
The progressive vision would have incomes rising so that families could afford to go back to single income or 2 part time incomes.
If you think the dashcam of a car BEHIND me will show an angry glare, you have more serious issues than not understanding the law related to following too close.
But you really should look it up.
Sorry, but the topic here is clearly the developed world at the moment. The first time I saw you re-defining terms and moving the goalposts when you were painted in a corner, it was mildly (very mildly) amusing, but now it is merely a waste of everyone's time, so shoo! Come back when you are ready to meaningfully contribute to the conversation.
Your assumptions are odd. For example, you presume I don't move to the right when that option is available. You would be wrong there. You assume I drive under the speed limit. Also untrue unless visibility is near zero or the road is iced over.
If you're in such a damned hurry, use the left lane. If there is no left lane, pass when oncoming traffic allows it. Do not try to make me go fast enough to get a big ticket by riding my bumper.
No, it shows that I can cut through all the BS arguments by demonstrating that the tailgating asshole must at all times be prepared to stop safely no matter how hard I brake. That's why the law presumes his fault if he rear-ends me.
So your position is that we must surely die out as a race, either by abject poverty or poisoning ourselves to death?
My belief is that there will be such a labor shortage again. The real elephant in this room is the fact that we are still seeing increasing demand for labor along with that increasing automation and increasing wages. This is the same trend that has been going on for centuries. It's just happening on a global scale rather than a developed world scale of the past.
That must be why unemployment is a negative number and workforce participation is at an all time high while wages are rising faster than inflation across the board.
OH, wait!, none of those things are happening.
If you really believe in markets, then you believe that demand for labor is down since any reasonable market theory would predict that given the figures.
If you believe demand for labor is up and yet we have unemployment and a depressed workforce participation and stagnant wages, then you clearly don't actually believe market theory.
If so, why do we have unemployment? Why do we have people who have been unemployed long enough that they've given up on getting a job? It seems that reality disagrees with your convenient theory.
Exactly why we need the Basic Income unless/until we come up with a better plan.
I didn't say make them actually hit you, I said a hard tap. Naturally, you should then accelerate again while they're busy panicing. I assure you, they will leave a bigger gap after that. I have done that, did not have an accident, did get the tailgater to back off.
Reforming fractional reserve banking would stop the slide downwards for people who remain employed, but wouldn't grant workers the benefits of improving productivity. You'd just see people laid off (because less are needed for the same output) and then only being able to find work for less pay than they had before (because of the surplus of workers).
Don't forget: The undesirables are cast out in place to live in poverty, but since they (understandably) don't enjoy that, they kill the rich sociopaths in a bloody revolution and force society to reboot.
If we go into this fixed on the negatives, with no idea where to find the positives, then of course it's not going to go well.
At the same time, if we don't proactively figure out how people will make a living or get this elusive new skills when they have no money (due to unemployment), we WON'T find the positives. Let them eat cake is not a solution, nor is just figuring (without evidence) that they'll find something else to make a living.
Also known as an illegal lane change followed by hard braking. The lane change is the part that transfers fault to the scammer if the victim can convince the police that it happened.
I saw a deer! It looked like it was about to run in front of me. That was close!
This, exactly.