Slovenliness in the code is verboten. Slovenliness in the person is not. Actuall, verboten is the wrong word, not sure why the article used it. Good code is not slovenly, but there is tons of code that is messy and ugly so clearly it shows up despite being forbidden.
Agreed. But the fun part is 5% of the job. And there are times when what you are programming doesn't even show up, because you need the job and couldn't afford to be picky. I had to work on business oriented software for awhile, and it was dreadfully dull and boring and I didn't care about it one bit, but it was the only job offer I had and I was low-balled and stayed there nearly three years. There was fun stuff at the job, and interesting stuff, but not with the programming parts of it at all.
I am allowed to mock and ridicule the leader of my country in the US, it's practicaly my civic duty to do so. I don't know of any totalitarian governments that allow that sort of freedom.
Do not mistake a few totalitarian like facets to be the same as being in a totalitarian state.
Except that in this case, sodium bicarbonate is not a big profit center for Pfizer. I don't think they're sending out lobbyists to keep others from getting into this market.
I'm referring to the case where drug A and B are the SAME drug. Drug patents don't last forever, and when they expire the original drug maker reformulates the product in slightly different ways, then repatent the new forumation. The original formulation can be manufactured by others though. So on the one hand you've got a newer formulation that may be improved and is great for some people but there's still the cheaper form of the drug.
There is a value add to the new formula. Ie, an easy to use pill form versus the original injection. Other formulations include mixing in other drugs (anti nausea agent). But not every patient needs the new formulation. If the patient does not need the new value add then the cheaper alternative should be considered. Ie, take the chemo plus a second anti nausea pill, rather than the more expensive combined medicine, unles of course the patient is sick and tired of taking 100 pills a day. The choice can always be discussed with the patient, and the patient should be asking if there are generic alternatives.
Legendary for Gosling Emacs, preceding GNU Emacs which copied liberally from it. The fact that he sold it to UniPress which later requested Stallman remove Gosling's code from GNU Emacs was the impetus for Stallman to create the GPL.
There were many posters implying that because surgeries were delayed that we should use off the shelf cooking or industrial sodium bicarbonate. After seeing several of those I assumed yours was falling into that category.
Scale is very important here. Pfizer has a big leg up because it has already purchased the necessary equipment to make acceptable drugs that pass inspections and testing, even in the case of something simple like sodium bicarbonate. If you want to compete with sodium bicarbonate here as a small provider then the cost outlay to even get started in the market is very high. The profit and margins for such a product is very low at the same time. You basically already have to be a large drug maker just to get started.
The free market is why fewer and fewer phamaceuticals are making vaccines. Despite the large yearly demand for flu vaccines the profit is low and the companies don't want the hassle. For other vaccines that you use maybe only three times in a lifetime the the market is very tiny and the incentive to make vaccines is very small. Left solely to the free market it is likely to see some forms of vaccines dwindling (we already buy a lot from other countries). There are some vaccines with only a single maker. The free market means that companies are focusing on the most profitable drugs: profits from Lipitor exceed the worldwide profits for all vaccines combined in 2004.
A lot of the problem is that even doctors don't always know what the medicines cost. Thus they prescribe something that is more expensive than an alternative because of marketing. Drug A does the job, but drug B does the job with an easier to swallow pill because it's coated, but drug B is double the cost. The doctor not knowing the cost prescribes drug B in all cases.
Patients also need to learn to question the doctor and ask if there are alternative drugs available, such as generic brands. Even if insurance covers the bill, the doctors and patients still need to push back and try to use cheaper alternatives otherwise the costs will continue to rise.
They're not out of sodium bicarbonate, they just have shortgages. So they will use the supplies on the most important cases, if your surgery can be delayed then they'll delay it as needed.
It's not FDA approval of the initial product so much as FDA approval of the ongoing use of the product. A drug maker's FDA interaction does not end when the drug gets approved for use. Pfizer cannot just take industrial grade sodium bicarbonate and sell that instead because it will fail to pass the inspections and audits. Even if the owners are evil there are going to be some employees saying "boss, there's something wrong with this batch, it's clumping up and has impurities, we should toss it out before someone gets hurt".
The fact that the value jumped by $3 billion doesn't mean it's worth that much more, it just means that the bubble expanded. A bubble that big is a disincentive to buy, it could burst between the time you buy and sell. This stuff is as meaningless as the newspapers reporting which startup with no achievable means of creating a product is worth the most.
In other words, just another way to separate a fool from his money. These crypto currencies are highly volatile and if you're an early adopter then the way to get rich is to fool people into thinking it's the next big thing.
Bitcoin miners generally have lots of computer hardware, meaning they probably have good internet too. Other bitcoin users of note are drug dealers who have ways of smuggling large usb drives between buyers and sellers. The bitcoin losers are ransomware victims who keep saying "wait, don't delete my files yet, the upload says it needs another 29 hours!"
Sitting and listening is not "support". Whereas walking out just says "I refuse to listen to you". In the past disagreement was shown with boos, I don't know why that has changed to become walk outs. A boo at least means they've probably listened and then disagree, rather than not listening at all.
Given the way it is set up in the constitution, gerrymandering is a natural byproduct. The founder fathers appear to have been naive in assuming political parties would not form and that elected representatives would be fair and high minded. It's impossible to have proportionate representation with a winner-takes-all election system. Thus we have gerrymandering attempts by all parties and in all states since the founding.
And yes, sometimes the gerrymandering is for a high minded principal, such as granting long denied voting rights to minorities. Which means that attempts to remove gerrymandering can also be done for self-serving low minded reasons.
IT department tends to be the low tech department in many companies. Seriously, there was tech outside of IT before anyone coined the acronym. IT departments formed in order to centralize management of computers (in corporation's hands instead of department's). Remember, R&D and IT are not the same thing. Even a company that uses skills and products very similar to IT still puts the R&D in a separate department.
Some people are their own worst enemies too. I dislike VP Pence, but I see a group of students marching out of their own graduation to avoid listening to him and it says to me that Pence just won another battle. The far right is complaining that the left are intolerant, and this is another piece of evidence for that case. If an extraterrestrial landed on earth it would be hard pressed to figure out which extremist camp was the most intolerant.
That's why real scientists try to keep out of politics. It's an ugly pig sty that you don't want to play with if you have half a brain. We're only in the case where scientists feel compelled to speak out because of the anti science attitude that has been growing in governments (even before Trump).
This is what bothers me about modern demonstrations and protests, they try to be an umbrella for multiple ideas at once and as such it alienates others. If they stuck to just one or two important ideas they could get their message across, but as they are now they end up being muddled. The Occupy movement was a good example, no one really knew what it was about or how to articulate it. The women's march on Washington may as well have been called the liberal women's march on Washington because it was not at all inclusive of women across political lines. Too many litmus tests applied all at the same time.
I think this is all coming from the political bubbles that people live in. We're becoming isolated from different viewpoints (not just opposing ones). And in the US with it's two party oddity, we have so many people conditioned to believe that if you know one political stance from a person that you know all political stances. I'm a decline-to-state voter, I am not a member of a political party, and I try to stay in the middle and listed to all sides. However I have heard a lot of people from quite different political stances say to me, prefacing with "I know we're not supposed to talk about politics but I'm sure you agree with me..."
So in this case, if you want a solid backing of keeping science active and relevant and letting politicians know this, you need to be broad based. It's the difference beween a march that gets attention and a march that gets ignored. If you want more minority representation in the science, and that is a very good goal, then it should be a separate issue. Having potential allies bickering with each other is a good way to keep the adversaries in power.
Slashdot Mirror
But programming is often just a very tiny part of a programmer's job.
It's not even the right word. Messy code is not forbidden or disallowed otherwise you wouldn't be able to see it everywhere you look.
Slovenliness in the code is verboten. Slovenliness in the person is not.
Actuall, verboten is the wrong word, not sure why the article used it. Good code is not slovenly, but there is tons of code that is messy and ugly so clearly it shows up despite being forbidden.
Although if you want the software to actually work and be done on time, it's suddenly very hard to get those companies to do it.
Agreed. But the fun part is 5% of the job. And there are times when what you are programming doesn't even show up, because you need the job and couldn't afford to be picky. I had to work on business oriented software for awhile, and it was dreadfully dull and boring and I didn't care about it one bit, but it was the only job offer I had and I was low-balled and stayed there nearly three years. There was fun stuff at the job, and interesting stuff, but not with the programming parts of it at all.
I am allowed to mock and ridicule the leader of my country in the US, it's practicaly my civic duty to do so. I don't know of any totalitarian governments that allow that sort of freedom.
Do not mistake a few totalitarian like facets to be the same as being in a totalitarian state.
Except that in this case, sodium bicarbonate is not a big profit center for Pfizer. I don't think they're sending out lobbyists to keep others from getting into this market.
I'm referring to the case where drug A and B are the SAME drug. Drug patents don't last forever, and when they expire the original drug maker reformulates the product in slightly different ways, then repatent the new forumation. The original formulation can be manufactured by others though. So on the one hand you've got a newer formulation that may be improved and is great for some people but there's still the cheaper form of the drug.
There is a value add to the new formula. Ie, an easy to use pill form versus the original injection. Other formulations include mixing in other drugs (anti nausea agent). But not every patient needs the new formulation. If the patient does not need the new value add then the cheaper alternative should be considered. Ie, take the chemo plus a second anti nausea pill, rather than the more expensive combined medicine, unles of course the patient is sick and tired of taking 100 pills a day. The choice can always be discussed with the patient, and the patient should be asking if there are generic alternatives.
Hold up a sign maybe? Walking out is the equivalent of sticking fingers in your ears and saying la la la.
Legendary for Gosling Emacs, preceding GNU Emacs which copied liberally from it. The fact that he sold it to UniPress which later requested Stallman remove Gosling's code from GNU Emacs was the impetus for Stallman to create the GPL.
There were many posters implying that because surgeries were delayed that we should use off the shelf cooking or industrial sodium bicarbonate. After seeing several of those I assumed yours was falling into that category.
Scale is very important here. Pfizer has a big leg up because it has already purchased the necessary equipment to make acceptable drugs that pass inspections and testing, even in the case of something simple like sodium bicarbonate. If you want to compete with sodium bicarbonate here as a small provider then the cost outlay to even get started in the market is very high. The profit and margins for such a product is very low at the same time. You basically already have to be a large drug maker just to get started.
The free market is why fewer and fewer phamaceuticals are making vaccines. Despite the large yearly demand for flu vaccines the profit is low and the companies don't want the hassle. For other vaccines that you use maybe only three times in a lifetime the the market is very tiny and the incentive to make vaccines is very small. Left solely to the free market it is likely to see some forms of vaccines dwindling (we already buy a lot from other countries). There are some vaccines with only a single maker. The free market means that companies are focusing on the most profitable drugs: profits from Lipitor exceed the worldwide profits for all vaccines combined in 2004.
A lot of the problem is that even doctors don't always know what the medicines cost. Thus they prescribe something that is more expensive than an alternative because of marketing. Drug A does the job, but drug B does the job with an easier to swallow pill because it's coated, but drug B is double the cost. The doctor not knowing the cost prescribes drug B in all cases.
Patients also need to learn to question the doctor and ask if there are alternative drugs available, such as generic brands. Even if insurance covers the bill, the doctors and patients still need to push back and try to use cheaper alternatives otherwise the costs will continue to rise.
They're not out of sodium bicarbonate, they just have shortgages. So they will use the supplies on the most important cases, if your surgery can be delayed then they'll delay it as needed.
It's not FDA approval of the initial product so much as FDA approval of the ongoing use of the product. A drug maker's FDA interaction does not end when the drug gets approved for use. Pfizer cannot just take industrial grade sodium bicarbonate and sell that instead because it will fail to pass the inspections and audits. Even if the owners are evil there are going to be some employees saying "boss, there's something wrong with this batch, it's clumping up and has impurities, we should toss it out before someone gets hurt".
The fact that the value jumped by $3 billion doesn't mean it's worth that much more, it just means that the bubble expanded. A bubble that big is a disincentive to buy, it could burst between the time you buy and sell. This stuff is as meaningless as the newspapers reporting which startup with no achievable means of creating a product is worth the most.
In other words, just another way to separate a fool from his money. These crypto currencies are highly volatile and if you're an early adopter then the way to get rich is to fool people into thinking it's the next big thing.
Bitcoin miners generally have lots of computer hardware, meaning they probably have good internet too. Other bitcoin users of note are drug dealers who have ways of smuggling large usb drives between buyers and sellers. The bitcoin losers are ransomware victims who keep saying "wait, don't delete my files yet, the upload says it needs another 29 hours!"
Sitting and listening is not "support". Whereas walking out just says "I refuse to listen to you". In the past disagreement was shown with boos, I don't know why that has changed to become walk outs. A boo at least means they've probably listened and then disagree, rather than not listening at all.
Given the way it is set up in the constitution, gerrymandering is a natural byproduct. The founder fathers appear to have been naive in assuming political parties would not form and that elected representatives would be fair and high minded. It's impossible to have proportionate representation with a winner-takes-all election system. Thus we have gerrymandering attempts by all parties and in all states since the founding.
And yes, sometimes the gerrymandering is for a high minded principal, such as granting long denied voting rights to minorities. Which means that attempts to remove gerrymandering can also be done for self-serving low minded reasons.
IT department tends to be the low tech department in many companies. Seriously, there was tech outside of IT before anyone coined the acronym. IT departments formed in order to centralize management of computers (in corporation's hands instead of department's). Remember, R&D and IT are not the same thing. Even a company that uses skills and products very similar to IT still puts the R&D in a separate department.
Some people are their own worst enemies too. I dislike VP Pence, but I see a group of students marching out of their own graduation to avoid listening to him and it says to me that Pence just won another battle. The far right is complaining that the left are intolerant, and this is another piece of evidence for that case. If an extraterrestrial landed on earth it would be hard pressed to figure out which extremist camp was the most intolerant.
That's why real scientists try to keep out of politics. It's an ugly pig sty that you don't want to play with if you have half a brain. We're only in the case where scientists feel compelled to speak out because of the anti science attitude that has been growing in governments (even before Trump).
The left is a meaningless word in politics now as well. The dictionaries are being rewritten daily to keep up.
Well sure, but how many decades or centuries for the winners to emerge?
This is what bothers me about modern demonstrations and protests, they try to be an umbrella for multiple ideas at once and as such it alienates others. If they stuck to just one or two important ideas they could get their message across, but as they are now they end up being muddled. The Occupy movement was a good example, no one really knew what it was about or how to articulate it. The women's march on Washington may as well have been called the liberal women's march on Washington because it was not at all inclusive of women across political lines. Too many litmus tests applied all at the same time.
I think this is all coming from the political bubbles that people live in. We're becoming isolated from different viewpoints (not just opposing ones). And in the US with it's two party oddity, we have so many people conditioned to believe that if you know one political stance from a person that you know all political stances. I'm a decline-to-state voter, I am not a member of a political party, and I try to stay in the middle and listed to all sides. However I have heard a lot of people from quite different political stances say to me, prefacing with "I know we're not supposed to talk about politics but I'm sure you agree with me..."
So in this case, if you want a solid backing of keeping science active and relevant and letting politicians know this, you need to be broad based. It's the difference beween a march that gets attention and a march that gets ignored. If you want more minority representation in the science, and that is a very good goal, then it should be a separate issue. Having potential allies bickering with each other is a good way to keep the adversaries in power.
Except that you'll charge the phone faster while jogging!