Epipen has a patent on their injector but its not the only injector design, many of which are out of patent.
Unfortunately it is our FDA that is perpetuating this problem because they increased the certification standards on injectors which, unless someone coughs up and throws away millions of dollars for new testing, rules out using many older out-of-patent designs that are all-the-rage in other parts of the world (like western europe.)
Sure, this is price gouging. Plain and simple. But its the FDA's fault that a bunch of competing injector-based products disappeared from the market overnight.
Just because it is archived doesn't mean it won't be forgotten. And just because it is not archived doesn't mean it will never hold any significance in the entire future of the planet.
Clearly we must lose some stuff or it will eventually become impossible to find anything.
The first VHS was based on regular broadcast standards so color information isn't given much of the signal bandwidth at all
Remember that broadcast color data was super-imposed onto the old standard black and white signal in a way that remained compatible for both color and black and white devices, both ways. Clever solution but at a cost: color not so good.
The market simply didnt buy in. You've probably never heard of digital VHS but not only was it a thing, it was better than DVD (at least in quality, but tape is tape) and basically came out at the same time that DVD was really taking off. The market went a different direction for its own reasons. Tape was dead as a market-leading solution not because of a race to the bottom but instead because it continued to be tape.
Cassette tapes come in different qualities, so do VHS tapes, and so did floppies.
You were simply a cheapskate.
Even records aka "albums" came out in different qualities. Often the first run of an album was put on cheaper material and if it was selling well only then would they put it on quality vinyl for subsequent runs.
In bandwidth terms, 3 mbps is easily enough for a single video stream at a "full" 1080p. Of course homes often have more than 1 person living in them, so lets say 12 mbps is enough for 4 "HD" video streams. It wasnt so long ago that the only video you could get inexpensively on or off the internet was more like 480p. Surely DVD quality is good enough for the low end consumer, right? A couple "DVD quality" streams can easily be done in under 4 mbit with todays codecs.
Low end connections are supposed to be... wait for it.... low end. DVD quality is a pretty good low fucking end. I grew up on first generation VHS and rabbit ears. I still watch the DVD's that I own from time to time.
Of course people want faster connections. Duh. Want isnt need tho.
Routers can also simply limit the bandwidth of particular devices, at particular times, etc..
Limit the allowed bandwidth to 1KB/s in the daytime. This allows devices and software to continue to "function"/download all day long, but each at a significantly reduced speed (dialup-like.) Keep the exceptions exceptional and its all easy. If the exceptions turn into tedium then you are making too many exceptions.
For instance, only give one smart-tv/media device significant bandwidth in the day time and everybody in the house just has to deal with no roku in their bedrooms until after dark.
Which major PC and mobile operating systems' network connection settings provide a way to express this metering policy
My current router, which is low end, offers settings like this out of the box (no replacing the firmware.) You can throttle by time period, day of week, mac address, even by the underlying ip protocal (tcp or udp.)
300M Wireless N Router Model No. TL-WR940N / TL-WR941ND
In any event, the choice to not use bandwidth during certain times is a lifestyle choice and should be easy to maintain if you really want to do it. If in actuality you think that the extra $x per month is worth less than the "costs" of living that lifestyle, then thats ultimately where you are going to end up and no router rule is going to save you.
The only justification for "moving slowly" before getting a date that I can see is in the belief that the act of asking someone out is a profoundly important event in the lives of these two people. This belief is unfounded and probably based on a fallacy.
Sometimes it is a profoundly important event for one person to ask another out on a date, but most of the time it isn't.
Again, if you want to increase the probability that asking a girl out turns out to be a profoundly important event in your life, then sooner is better than later, more is better than less. Lots and lots of girls.
This "move slowly" idea almost seems like a fallacious rationalization that is actually rooted in the fear of rejection.
When you, as an IT guy, "move slowly", you become this creeper thats always hanging around but never asking her out.
This then causes an animosity that she feels towards you.
The slower you move the stronger that feeling of animus will be, and if that animus becomes too strong then your next move, asking her out, is sexual harassment under the current accepted definition.
As a young man you hopefully learned that the best way to get a date is to ask girls out. Lots and lots of girls. It doesnt matter how good looking, awesome, pathetic or ugly you are as you will always increase the probability of getting a date by asking another girl you.
Thats the nature of it. "Moving slowly" isnt natural and creates all these problems. If Bob had asked Yan out on the first day, he would have gotten either a yes or a no. If the answer was "yes" then it would have been a mistake for both of them to "move slowly" and if the answer is "no" then it was also have been a mistake for things to "move slowly." Moving slowly affords no advantage, only disadvantage, to both parties. These disadvantages accumulate into the observed "problems" that are exactly the result of what you are asking for.
No, discriminating against white males is never OK. Some people want it ignored. Some people want it ensrhined. But the discrimination is never OK.
Discrimination doesnt get any more "systemic" then when it is actually illegal not to do it.
A century ago discrimination against both sexes was still the law of the land.
Two landmarks in American history cases came up in 1919-1920.
The first was a landmark supreme court ruling in 1919 on the constitutionality of the gender-specific draft. The supreme court ruled that the gender-specific draft was constitutional on the grounds that it was a reciprocal responsibility of that gender because that gender was afforded the right to vote. If you were allowed to vote,
they said, then you are also subject to the draft.
The second was a landmark because there have been so few of them: amendments to our constitution. In 1920 we gave women the right to vote, but we still have not subjected even a single solitary woman to the draft.
All this worry over speculative-sexism while there is still literally systemic-sexism on the books as the law of the land... I have just one thing to say to feminists... go fuck yourselves. I will never give one rats ass about any of your speculative-sexism while you continue to defend existing systemic-sexism with your solution being more systemic-sexism. Seriously, go fuck yourselves feminists, and the next time I hear of a talk about male suicide being shut down by feminists I'm going to punch one. Go. Fuck. Yourselves.
but I do give a good god-fucking-damnit about whether some Russian military assholes
Why dont you want to investigate the Mexican military involvement in our elections?
..and before you say that nobody has ever claimed Mexican interference in our elections, the claim was made before our current President took office, when he suggested that literally millions of Mexican nationals illegally voted for Hillary.
This was before the "russia russia russia!" stance... this was during the "fake news! fake news! fake news!" stance. The DNC told the public about the NSA's findings months before the NSA did. Let that sink in.
Either the DNC released State Secrets to the public, or the NSA didn't tell the American public about this otherwise very important thing that wasn't a State Secret.
No matter what angle you look at this shit from, Hillary and the DNC are colluding with the NSA. Maybe there is a Russian story in here somewhere, but fuck... the big news is that if you take what the NSA and DNC have been saying at face value, then the NSA and DNC colluded together to fuck you over.
Let it sink it. Either they are honest and tried (past tense) to fuck you over, or they are dishonest and are trying (future tense) to fucking you over.
I'm as worried about Russian nationals as I am Mexican nationals. You, however, clearly have a bias. A bit of racism I detect? Why do you hate the Slavic race so much?
the only people still hung up on this election seem to be Trump supporters.
You are clearly hung up on it, since you are one of the ones always talking about it, so I guess you support Trump.
Or maybe, just maybe, you are hung up on it because you dont like Trump, and projecting your own attributes onto the people you are complaining about is a very popular Democrat pastime that was somewhat common before President Bill but became the default and only strategy of Democrats since then.
I havent looked... are you saying they used an unsafe format like an adobe format... pdf or something?
There will be people who defend such a move on odd rationality.. like they will say chrome or firefox is a safe pdf viewer or something.. as if either of those wasn't an even bigger attack surface
Please explain why you think this is a fishing expedition?
I don't know why he thinks its a fishing expedition, but I think its a combined fishing and slander expedition because all throughout my life these women-paid-less claims were made very vocally, and each time investigations were performed, and then just crickets about that pay-gap stuff. Every. Single. Time.
Women arent paid less. Ergo, the government wants the data for some other reason.
To be honest this whole Russia story is going to fall apart and be shown to be another load of crap.
What do you mean "is going to fall apart" ?
It already fell apart a long time ago now The media and Democrats know it too. What they cant do is stop talking about it, because if they did someone might really start talking about why the Democrats really just got wiped out.
Trump had access to our list of spies before becoming president?
According to the Democrats like the one I am replying to, yes.
They think this because the Democrats have such a list, and would have used such a list if it benefited them. Unfortunately for them, Trump was a person that didnt have such a list, so we are left with the only fact: The Democrats have such a list and are scumbag enough to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Epipen has a patent on their injector but its not the only injector design, many of which are out of patent.
Unfortunately it is our FDA that is perpetuating this problem because they increased the certification standards on injectors which, unless someone coughs up and throws away millions of dollars for new testing, rules out using many older out-of-patent designs that are all-the-rage in other parts of the world (like western europe.)
Sure, this is price gouging. Plain and simple. But its the FDA's fault that a bunch of competing injector-based products disappeared from the market overnight.
Where can I subscribe to your newsletter?
Just because it is archived doesn't mean it won't be forgotten. And just because it is not archived doesn't mean it will never hold any significance in the entire future of the planet.
Clearly we must lose some stuff or it will eventually become impossible to find anything.
It's generally accepted that the best way to experience a concert is by observing both the photons and the sound waves.
The good stuff perpetuates. The bad stuff doesn't. Thats how culture works.
It easily hops across technology advances. I can easily find Aesop's Fables online, for instance, and that was created about 2500 years ago.
The first VHS was based on regular broadcast standards so color information isn't given much of the signal bandwidth at all
Remember that broadcast color data was super-imposed onto the old standard black and white signal in a way that remained compatible for both color and black and white devices, both ways. Clever solution but at a cost: color not so good.
VHS progressed.
The market simply didnt buy in. You've probably never heard of digital VHS but not only was it a thing, it was better than DVD (at least in quality, but tape is tape) and basically came out at the same time that DVD was really taking off. The market went a different direction for its own reasons. Tape was dead as a market-leading solution not because of a race to the bottom but instead because it continued to be tape.
Cassette tapes come in different qualities, so do VHS tapes, and so did floppies.
You were simply a cheapskate.
Even records aka "albums" came out in different qualities. Often the first run of an album was put on cheaper material and if it was selling well only then would they put it on quality vinyl for subsequent runs.
Exactly.
In bandwidth terms, 3 mbps is easily enough for a single video stream at a "full" 1080p. Of course homes often have more than 1 person living in them, so lets say 12 mbps is enough for 4 "HD" video streams. It wasnt so long ago that the only video you could get inexpensively on or off the internet was more like 480p. Surely DVD quality is good enough for the low end consumer, right? A couple "DVD quality" streams can easily be done in under 4 mbit with todays codecs.
Low end connections are supposed to be... wait for it.... low end. DVD quality is a pretty good low fucking end. I grew up on first generation VHS and rabbit ears. I still watch the DVD's that I own from time to time.
Of course people want faster connections. Duh. Want isnt need tho.
Routers can also simply limit the bandwidth of particular devices, at particular times, etc..
Limit the allowed bandwidth to 1KB/s in the daytime. This allows devices and software to continue to "function"/download all day long, but each at a significantly reduced speed (dialup-like.) Keep the exceptions exceptional and its all easy. If the exceptions turn into tedium then you are making too many exceptions.
For instance, only give one smart-tv/media device significant bandwidth in the day time and everybody in the house just has to deal with no roku in their bedrooms until after dark.
Which major PC and mobile operating systems' network connection settings provide a way to express this metering policy
My current router, which is low end, offers settings like this out of the box (no replacing the firmware.) You can throttle by time period, day of week, mac address, even by the underlying ip protocal (tcp or udp.)
300M Wireless N Router Model No. TL-WR940N / TL-WR941ND
In any event, the choice to not use bandwidth during certain times is a lifestyle choice and should be easy to maintain if you really want to do it. If in actuality you think that the extra $x per month is worth less than the "costs" of living that lifestyle, then thats ultimately where you are going to end up and no router rule is going to save you.
The only justification for "moving slowly" before getting a date that I can see is in the belief that the act of asking someone out is a profoundly important event in the lives of these two people. This belief is unfounded and probably based on a fallacy.
Sometimes it is a profoundly important event for one person to ask another out on a date, but most of the time it isn't.
Again, if you want to increase the probability that asking a girl out turns out to be a profoundly important event in your life, then sooner is better than later, more is better than less. Lots and lots of girls.
This "move slowly" idea almost seems like a fallacious rationalization that is actually rooted in the fear of rejection.
The GP on the other hand is definitely a liar.
You be respectful, move slowly
Are you sure that that isnt the problem?
When you, as an IT guy, "move slowly", you become this creeper thats always hanging around but never asking her out.
This then causes an animosity that she feels towards you.
The slower you move the stronger that feeling of animus will be, and if that animus becomes too strong then your next move, asking her out, is sexual harassment under the current accepted definition.
As a young man you hopefully learned that the best way to get a date is to ask girls out. Lots and lots of girls. It doesnt matter how good looking, awesome, pathetic or ugly you are as you will always increase the probability of getting a date by asking another girl you.
Thats the nature of it. "Moving slowly" isnt natural and creates all these problems. If Bob had asked Yan out on the first day, he would have gotten either a yes or a no. If the answer was "yes" then it would have been a mistake for both of them to "move slowly" and if the answer is "no" then it was also have been a mistake for things to "move slowly." Moving slowly affords no advantage, only disadvantage, to both parties. These disadvantages accumulate into the observed "problems" that are exactly the result of what you are asking for.
No, discriminating against white males is never OK. Some people want it ignored. Some people want it ensrhined. But the discrimination is never OK.
Discrimination doesnt get any more "systemic" then when it is actually illegal not to do it.
A century ago discrimination against both sexes was still the law of the land.
Two landmarks in American history cases came up in 1919-1920.
The first was a landmark supreme court ruling in 1919 on the constitutionality of the gender-specific draft. The supreme court ruled that the gender-specific draft was constitutional on the grounds that it was a reciprocal responsibility of that gender because that gender was afforded the right to vote. If you were allowed to vote, they said, then you are also subject to the draft.
The second was a landmark because there have been so few of them: amendments to our constitution. In 1920 we gave women the right to vote, but we still have not subjected even a single solitary woman to the draft.
All this worry over speculative-sexism while there is still literally systemic-sexism on the books as the law of the land... I have just one thing to say to feminists... go fuck yourselves. I will never give one rats ass about any of your speculative-sexism while you continue to defend existing systemic-sexism with your solution being more systemic-sexism. Seriously, go fuck yourselves feminists, and the next time I hear of a talk about male suicide being shut down by feminists I'm going to punch one. Go. Fuck. Yourselves.
but I do give a good god-fucking-damnit about whether some Russian military assholes
Why dont you want to investigate the Mexican military involvement in our elections?
..and before you say that nobody has ever claimed Mexican interference in our elections, the claim was made before our current President took office, when he suggested that literally millions of Mexican nationals illegally voted for Hillary.
This was before the "russia russia russia!" stance... this was during the "fake news! fake news! fake news!" stance. The DNC told the public about the NSA's findings months before the NSA did. Let that sink in.
Either the DNC released State Secrets to the public, or the NSA didn't tell the American public about this otherwise very important thing that wasn't a State Secret.
No matter what angle you look at this shit from, Hillary and the DNC are colluding with the NSA. Maybe there is a Russian story in here somewhere, but fuck... the big news is that if you take what the NSA and DNC have been saying at face value, then the NSA and DNC colluded together to fuck you over.
Let it sink it. Either they are honest and tried (past tense) to fuck you over, or they are dishonest and are trying (future tense) to fucking you over.
I'm as worried about Russian nationals as I am Mexican nationals. You, however, clearly have a bias. A bit of racism I detect? Why do you hate the Slavic race so much?
the only people still hung up on this election seem to be Trump supporters.
You are clearly hung up on it, since you are one of the ones always talking about it, so I guess you support Trump.
Or maybe, just maybe, you are hung up on it because you dont like Trump, and projecting your own attributes onto the people you are complaining about is a very popular Democrat pastime that was somewhat common before President Bill but became the default and only strategy of Democrats since then.
Was this NSA document written by Clapper? If so, then clearly option #2 is most likely.
Most games still only seem to support one thread
2007 called and wants it argument back.
I havent looked... are you saying they used an unsafe format like an adobe format ... pdf or something?
There will be people who defend such a move on odd rationality.. like they will say chrome or firefox is a safe pdf viewer or something.. as if either of those wasn't an even bigger attack surface
He's describing the other Republicans.
I dont know who he thinks that he is describing, and now I know who you think that he is describing.
The fact remains that he is describing the DNC, not the RNC.
By that logic, you as a person continue to live at my pleasure.
Please explain why you think this is a fishing expedition?
I don't know why he thinks its a fishing expedition, but I think its a combined fishing and slander expedition because all throughout my life these women-paid-less claims were made very vocally, and each time investigations were performed, and then just crickets about that pay-gap stuff. Every. Single. Time.
Women arent paid less. Ergo, the government wants the data for some other reason.
Its not Googles job to do the governments bidding.
Furthermore, Google has no incentive to comply because even if the data shows that they are entirely innocent, such facts wont matter to the SJW's.
To be honest this whole Russia story is going to fall apart and be shown to be another load of crap.
What do you mean "is going to fall apart" ?
It already fell apart a long time ago now The media and Democrats know it too. What they cant do is stop talking about it, because if they did someone might really start talking about why the Democrats really just got wiped out.
Trump had access to our list of spies before becoming president?
According to the Democrats like the one I am replying to, yes.
They think this because the Democrats have such a list, and would have used such a list if it benefited them. Unfortunately for them, Trump was a person that didnt have such a list, so we are left with the only fact: The Democrats have such a list and are scumbag enough to use it.