So they should only vote on things when it is guaranteed to pass? It honestly doesn't take that much time for a vote, and it is important to know where your representative and senators stand on issues that are important to you, even if the bill ultimately fails.
Furthermore, how many bills of actual substance are likely to make it through Congress this term? Maybe 5-10? I hate to think that my representative and senators are going to spend the next 1.7 years doing nothing but raising money and pontificating after saying "aye" or "nay" 5-10 times.
Exactly! Nike stores only sell Nike stuff, North Face stores only sell North Face stuff, car dealers only sell cars from their particular brand...If Amazon wants to sell their stuff, how is that illegal?
I can't walk into an Apple store and demand that they give equal space and promotion to a Dell.
You have to teach it because students need to be able to read articles and interpret what they are reading. The p-value will be reported in scientific studies for a long time to come, so this is an essential skill.
Of course 0.05 is arbitrary. But researchers have to run studies using budgets that limit the amount of subjects in the study and they also are up against the level of accuracy of the test / instrument / survey. Obtaining extremely low p-values requires one or more of these:
1. Very large sample sizes.
2. Extremely effective intervention that produces huge differences between your groups.
3. Extremely accurate instruments / measures.
4. Lying.
These things all come at a cost, which has to be balanced between doing fewer studies at higher cost or more studies at less cost.
None of the mainstream candidates in the US really want to turn the US into a socialist country. That's just thrown about by those on the right to inflame their base and raise money.
However, there is a push from some candidates for more government regulation of the free market to reign in some of the excesses, abuses, and corruption and to produce revenue to support infrastructure and social programs for those for whom the free market has failed.
There is also a push from some candidates to move some major industries (such as healthcare) away from free market toward more socialized systems.
This is called a "mixed economy," and is where the US already is and is where the US would remain even if healthcare is eventually socialized.
The public disinvestment in higher education is a tragedy; the US will soon no longer be the leader in quality higher education (in fact, the US may already be behind China in this regard).
Health insurance for the faculty and staff is also a major driver of cost in higher education.
Why can't the computer make a determination that a sensor is faulty? That is to say, if the computer thinks the nose is pointed down because one sensor says this, but altitude is decreasing rapidly and airspeed is high and the pilot is pulling back on the stick frantically, can't the computer recognize that the nose might actually not be pointed down and ignore that sensor? Allowing a single senors to take complete control over the plane from the pilot seems like really bad programming.
The authors of these books / movies are still free to publish them and sell them through other means. The concerning thing for Amazon / Facebook / Google is their reputation. They want to be known as a reliable source for quality books, news, information....pushing content that goes against this image, whether it be pseudo-science, fake news, or Russian trolling, deeply damages their brands and should be of concern to them.
I agree that we don't want corporations deciding what content is available - but in this instance they are not as these materials, however offensive, can be made available through many other means.
How about eradicating diseases? Isn't that also a laudable goal? That requires much higher than 80% compliance. Further, another goal of vaccination is to reduce the overall burden of disease, not just prevent epidemics. To that end, they have failed, because over 50 people experienced a vaccine-preventable disease0.
It's only a choice if people have the means and access to purchase healthier foods. If all you have in your neighborhood is fast food, and if all you can afford is fast food, then, guess what? You're eating fast food.
It becomes unfair when this burden rests heavily on the poor (and then makes them more poor by encouraging unhealthy behaviors, too).
Microsoft has done pretty well in Fargo. Plenty of highly-skilled workers, low cost of living, safe, no pollution...and there are other tech companies in town, too. https://www.denverpost.com/200...
Another example? Epic software is just outside Madison, WI. There are tons of other tech companies in the Madison / Milwaukee area.
The beauty of tech is that it can be done anywhere.
If the family wants to protect their daughter from communicable diseases, then yes, they will have their other children vaccinated.
I can understand how they would have the viewpoint. But it is a fallacy. Why not blame the restaurants where they ate the day before she had the issue? Or the weather? Or the drinking water? Or a communicable disease? Or air pollution? The vaccine is an easy target because it is memorable, not because there is any evidence it caused this in the child. Saying vaccines COULD have caused this will cause others to skip vaccination, which leads to more injury and death. How is that beneficial for society?
I would add there are ways to enforce vaccination without becoming authoritarian - how about removing the child tax credit for un-vaccinated children? Enforcement is challenging, but it shouldn't be the determining factor about how exemptions are allowed.
Vaccines are not very profitable in comparison to many other pharmaceuticals. I'm not saying pharmaceutical companies are not corrupt, just that they would tend to target other areas (such as diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure) where the profits are enormous.
It doesn't matter if the addicts chose to take drugs, if they were tricked into it by someone else, or deceived by the medical system...everyone deserves a chance to be redeemed and turn their lives around. And for that opportunity, they have to be alive.
The only way to truly eradicate some of these infectious diseases is through extremely high vaccination rates. For example, right now there is a global effort to eradicate polio (see http://polioeradication.org/).
Polio has disabled or killed millions and millions of people throughout time. Its eradication would be an amazing, tremendous gift to the future generations of humans who would no longer ever have to suffer death and disability from polio (regardless of vaccination status). The only way eradication occurs is through extremely high vaccination rates - right now, a small number of people in a small number of countries are preventing polio eradication, but there is hope with a huge investment and substantial human effort that polio can be the next disease eradicated.
In this way, vaccination is about so much more than whether your child gets a disease. It's about whether your neighbor gets a disease, and it's about reducing the burden of infectious disease on people around the world for the rest of time. Holding back on vaccination because of an extremely low risk of vaccine injury is very selfish and shortsighted.
There is no scientific evidence that spacing out vaccines is any safer than any other vaccination schedule. But, as long as you get them done, that's the most important thing.
Totally agree. Based on the interface alone, I suspected Netflix had far more movies and shows than Amazon Prime. Prime, where are all these 17,000 movies you supposedly have? In my browsing on Amazon, I generally only see 35-40 titles tops, whereas on Netflix it seems there is an endless list of shows and movies (too many, really).
Kennedy provided leadership to propel the achievement of a dream that was years in the making.
For all we know, Trump came up with the "person on Mars by 2020" idea on the spot - has he ever mentioned it before, or since? Did it show up in any funding priorities? Maybe he was just making small talk with the head of an agency that he knows very little about and has no idea how to run.
Trump is no leader. He's simply seeking to find a legacy that he can leave behind as a monument to himself.
If a person to Mars is really an important goal, one of our future leaders can make it happen. But it won't be Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
So they should only vote on things when it is guaranteed to pass? It honestly doesn't take that much time for a vote, and it is important to know where your representative and senators stand on issues that are important to you, even if the bill ultimately fails.
Furthermore, how many bills of actual substance are likely to make it through Congress this term? Maybe 5-10? I hate to think that my representative and senators are going to spend the next 1.7 years doing nothing but raising money and pontificating after saying "aye" or "nay" 5-10 times.
Exactly! Nike stores only sell Nike stuff, North Face stores only sell North Face stuff, car dealers only sell cars from their particular brand...If Amazon wants to sell their stuff, how is that illegal?
I can't walk into an Apple store and demand that they give equal space and promotion to a Dell.
It is just a tax. Just like you pay taxes to pay for Medicaid and Medicare.
You have to teach it because students need to be able to read articles and interpret what they are reading. The p-value will be reported in scientific studies for a long time to come, so this is an essential skill.
Of course 0.05 is arbitrary. But researchers have to run studies using budgets that limit the amount of subjects in the study and they also are up against the level of accuracy of the test / instrument / survey. Obtaining extremely low p-values requires one or more of these:
1. Very large sample sizes.
2. Extremely effective intervention that produces huge differences between your groups.
3. Extremely accurate instruments / measures.
4. Lying.
These things all come at a cost, which has to be balanced between doing fewer studies at higher cost or more studies at less cost.
Why is "Pow Wow Chow" offensive? There are still Pow Wows held around the country and, presumably, attendees would need to eat.
Recipes are generally not copyrightable, although passing it off as your own if you knowingly took it from someone else is a crappy thing to do.
None of the mainstream candidates in the US really want to turn the US into a socialist country. That's just thrown about by those on the right to inflame their base and raise money.
However, there is a push from some candidates for more government regulation of the free market to reign in some of the excesses, abuses, and corruption and to produce revenue to support infrastructure and social programs for those for whom the free market has failed.
There is also a push from some candidates to move some major industries (such as healthcare) away from free market toward more socialized systems.
This is called a "mixed economy," and is where the US already is and is where the US would remain even if healthcare is eventually socialized.
The public disinvestment in higher education is a tragedy; the US will soon no longer be the leader in quality higher education (in fact, the US may already be behind China in this regard).
Health insurance for the faculty and staff is also a major driver of cost in higher education.
Squinting.
Why can't the computer make a determination that a sensor is faulty? That is to say, if the computer thinks the nose is pointed down because one sensor says this, but altitude is decreasing rapidly and airspeed is high and the pilot is pulling back on the stick frantically, can't the computer recognize that the nose might actually not be pointed down and ignore that sensor? Allowing a single senors to take complete control over the plane from the pilot seems like really bad programming.
This is an argument against monopolies in media. Too much power consolidated in too few places (public or private) is extremely dangerous.
The authors of these books / movies are still free to publish them and sell them through other means. The concerning thing for Amazon / Facebook / Google is their reputation. They want to be known as a reliable source for quality books, news, information....pushing content that goes against this image, whether it be pseudo-science, fake news, or Russian trolling, deeply damages their brands and should be of concern to them.
I agree that we don't want corporations deciding what content is available - but in this instance they are not as these materials, however offensive, can be made available through many other means.
How about eradicating diseases? Isn't that also a laudable goal? That requires much higher than 80% compliance. Further, another goal of vaccination is to reduce the overall burden of disease, not just prevent epidemics. To that end, they have failed, because over 50 people experienced a vaccine-preventable disease0.
It's only a choice if people have the means and access to purchase healthier foods. If all you have in your neighborhood is fast food, and if all you can afford is fast food, then, guess what? You're eating fast food.
It becomes unfair when this burden rests heavily on the poor (and then makes them more poor by encouraging unhealthy behaviors, too).
Microsoft has done pretty well in Fargo. Plenty of highly-skilled workers, low cost of living, safe, no pollution...and there are other tech companies in town, too. https://www.denverpost.com/200...
Another example? Epic software is just outside Madison, WI. There are tons of other tech companies in the Madison / Milwaukee area.
The beauty of tech is that it can be done anywhere.
If the commute were easy, housing prices would skyrocket.
If the family wants to protect their daughter from communicable diseases, then yes, they will have their other children vaccinated. I can understand how they would have the viewpoint. But it is a fallacy. Why not blame the restaurants where they ate the day before she had the issue? Or the weather? Or the drinking water? Or a communicable disease? Or air pollution? The vaccine is an easy target because it is memorable, not because there is any evidence it caused this in the child. Saying vaccines COULD have caused this will cause others to skip vaccination, which leads to more injury and death. How is that beneficial for society?
I would add there are ways to enforce vaccination without becoming authoritarian - how about removing the child tax credit for un-vaccinated children? Enforcement is challenging, but it shouldn't be the determining factor about how exemptions are allowed.
Vaccines are not very profitable in comparison to many other pharmaceuticals. I'm not saying pharmaceutical companies are not corrupt, just that they would tend to target other areas (such as diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure) where the profits are enormous.
It doesn't matter if the addicts chose to take drugs, if they were tricked into it by someone else, or deceived by the medical system...everyone deserves a chance to be redeemed and turn their lives around. And for that opportunity, they have to be alive.
It's not complicated. Just ask the person what pronoun would be preferred. Done.
The only way to truly eradicate some of these infectious diseases is through extremely high vaccination rates. For example, right now there is a global effort to eradicate polio (see http://polioeradication.org/).
Polio has disabled or killed millions and millions of people throughout time. Its eradication would be an amazing, tremendous gift to the future generations of humans who would no longer ever have to suffer death and disability from polio (regardless of vaccination status). The only way eradication occurs is through extremely high vaccination rates - right now, a small number of people in a small number of countries are preventing polio eradication, but there is hope with a huge investment and substantial human effort that polio can be the next disease eradicated.
In this way, vaccination is about so much more than whether your child gets a disease. It's about whether your neighbor gets a disease, and it's about reducing the burden of infectious disease on people around the world for the rest of time. Holding back on vaccination because of an extremely low risk of vaccine injury is very selfish and shortsighted.
Lots of US colleges (perhaps most) require this vaccine as a condition for living in the on-campus residence halls.
There is no scientific evidence that spacing out vaccines is any safer than any other vaccination schedule. But, as long as you get them done, that's the most important thing.
Totally agree. Based on the interface alone, I suspected Netflix had far more movies and shows than Amazon Prime. Prime, where are all these 17,000 movies you supposedly have? In my browsing on Amazon, I generally only see 35-40 titles tops, whereas on Netflix it seems there is an endless list of shows and movies (too many, really).
Kennedy provided leadership to propel the achievement of a dream that was years in the making.
For all we know, Trump came up with the "person on Mars by 2020" idea on the spot - has he ever mentioned it before, or since? Did it show up in any funding priorities? Maybe he was just making small talk with the head of an agency that he knows very little about and has no idea how to run.
Trump is no leader. He's simply seeking to find a legacy that he can leave behind as a monument to himself.
If a person to Mars is really an important goal, one of our future leaders can make it happen. But it won't be Trump.