This sounds highly promising for traditionally traumatic and fatal wounds, particularly burns. It will be interesting to see if this product increases the rate of survival in burn victims and other similar traumas. You have to love modern medicine.
Welcome to the future. Almost everything that was once 'science fiction' is becoming plausable and even probable in science.
Even 20 years ago we could never have dreamed what we are doing now and will be doing in the next 20-30 years!
Here in Humboldt Bay, we've got plenty of great whites as well.
My family likes to fish shark once in a while. When I was a kid my dad and his friend pulled up a great white that was longer than his 14 foot aluminum boat!
You also hear about shark attacks from great whites at Moonstone Beach (about 20 miles north). -------
I've never thought that the sharks are wandering out in the wide open. Put it this way, the sea lions and seals they eat are at the mouths of rivers (and in the bay) because of the fish spawn. The sharks should be found where their food is.
Akin to what Paco103 said, though, these phones aren't a necessity to human life, and the backdoors they're looking at are also inherently a security issue.
Personally, I don't agree with the money, but you've reasoned me enough to not disagree with the notion of others thinking it is being appropriated well enough. They can think that and I can agree that they are being reasonable enough.
Spending money to facilitate better service for these private businesses who have not only made billions from customers, but took billions of tax dollars and screwed us as citizens.
NSF should not be paying a cent for this. The issues need to become prominent enough for the customers to demand better products from the oligopoly of telcos.
I agree. There should be an airgap between the internet and these kinds of things. Or maybe it is time to move them over to one of the other networks that exist that are airgapped (physically disconnected) from the internet.
I didn't have time to go into detail, but, for example, she sued a place because the soap dispenser was high (when she is in her wheelchair) enough that soap would run down her wrist. She complained that this made her feel embarrassed and mistreated. Note that in an interview she has discussed her injuries, which do not require a wheelchair, and she claims she only uses a wheelchair when she feels she needs to.
Note also that in most cases the businesses settle out of court. In this case they paid her something like $25k and went out of business.
To me, you just need to figure out a way to cup the soap... But that's just me.
The specific person I'm talking about is ridiculous. This is how she gets paid, and so finding things like 'soap running down wrist' is what must be done to keep the income flowing.
So just like almost everything else government does then?
You seem to be arguing for reforms so we can have more efficient, more targeted extortion.
No, rather arguing so that the true intent of the law is what is upheld and that these extortions are not viable.
It isn't extortion for the disabled to, for example, require that sidewalks are traversible without being able to step up. Or that legal documents are available in forms that are comprehensible to people that are lacking senses like vision or hearing. That isn't extortion, it is equality.
So, if YOU were Sony, you think that YOU should do so.
But do you think that the law should tell Sony what they SHOULD do?
The point of what I'm talking about is the vague wording of the ADA and how it has led to tons of litigious shakedowns for cash. Because of the vague wording, people whos think that a company should be obliged to do something are enabled to legally FORCE these things (and get paid), despite the topic at hand having almost nothing to do with the true intent of the ADA which is to facilitate fair public access.
If you want Sony to spend the extra money, why don't you and others raise the money and fund the work? In this specific topic, it is unreasonable to FORCE sony to spend even one cent on this conceptual product. They don't owe you a game for the blind, and just because someone else isn't doing it, doesn't make it ok to try and force them to. THEY DON'T OWE YOU A GAME FOR THE BLIND.
If I have an anxiety disorder, but I want to play violent video games and not get anxiety, do they owe me some specially developed FPS that won't trigger anxiety? No. The if the game doesn't do what I want, I don't buy it. And if I really want a certain kind of game that people aren't making yet, then maybe I should start it with my own work and ingenuity.
There is a difference between when the 'vast majority of abortions happen' and my own opinion/perspective on abortions. And this information has served to inform me further on a related topic to reproduction/abortion. That is why.
I'm being vague because this topic is very controversial and I don't have the time or interest to get into it again. I just wanted to point out that this information is related and informative.
Next he can sue auto manufacturers for not making cars accessible to the blind.
That lawsuit is entirely possible and winnable under the current ADA. Reform is necessary NOW! Predatory lawyers and litigious garbage (yes, they can be disabled too) are ruining this country and the ADA facilitates it for being written too loosely!
The Americans With Disabilities Act was written so loosely that there are so many of these litigious bullshitteries going on nation wide. It is basically a form of extortion facilitated by poorly written 'laws'.
We need reform on the ADA as soon as possible! Locally, a predatory woman has sued over 80 local businesses (this is her JOB now), represented by a lawyer who has sued over 250.
I hope sony lobbies to get reform.
I say all of this with the great respect for the disabled and the true intent of the ADA. It is the exploit of the act that bothers me so much.
In this case, Sony makes visual video games and a guy who can't see thinks Sony OWES him a game. That's like being allergic to peanut butter and suing Reeses for not making you a hazelnut cup. THEY DONT OWE YOU A HAZELNUT CUP!
So you're saying that because he won't take extraneous measures to circumvent these problems, that HE is the problem.
I don't believe you.
His opinions are exactly as mine. I'm sick of the same crap and I don't think I *need* to go to all that extra effort (let alone have a computer for ripping/editing all that media) to be a satisfied customer.
You missed the part where the consumer has the money and the provider *wants* it.
As a consumer we get to make demands because we have the money. As a provider/seller you need to adhere to these demands because its the only logical way to get us to give up the money.
This is very simple market logic here. If you tell me I can't buy Nike's unless I learn to like pink shoes... well then I'm gonna get Zoo York or Adidas or something... That's stupid to think that the seller gets to make demands and also ask for money. It doesn't work that way.
Money comes from work. My money is equivalent to some work I did to get it. There is no way I'm gonna give that work away to people who don't deserve it; and when I decide who deserves it, it is those who cater to my interests.
According to the newly declassified transcript, Mrs. Kennedy was becoming desperate to leave. "Mrs. Kennedy was getting very warm, she had blood all over her hat, her coat...his brains were sticking on her hat. It was dreadful," McHugh said. She pleaded with him to get the plane off the ground. "Please, let's leave," she said. McHugh jumped up and used the phone near the rear compartment to call Captain James Swindal. "Let's leave," he said. Swindal responded: "I can't do it. I have orders to wait."
Your sig link is truly eye opening. Thank you so much!
>>>The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings --
Except when you don't pay that TV license fee (tax), then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail, or extract the funds from your paycheck. So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its *beholden* to the government to enforce its collection of funds..
>>>In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting
Not in the States. NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime (more/bigger government). If the reporters at this organizations had their way private ownership would be dead and our homes/car/et cetera would all be government owned. Okay I maybe be exaggerating a little but that is how their reporting leans.
The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $10 a year in taxation, so it doesn't really "hurt" me that much.
... than the news in print and the news on TV. Most of what is in print and TV is usually negative and shocking because it has become pretty clear that people care about bad things.
But I'm sick of it. I'm old enough to know the world has bad things, and I respect those, but will not focus my interests around it.
It is sites like slashdot where I can find out information that is usually actually interesting or positive without the horrors and scares of mainstream media shock tactics.
And no, they don't deserve a frikkin handout. You think the guys who do journalism on the net didn't innovate, adapt, and change with the market? (Rhetorical question). If we don't buy print media, why would we want to subsidize it? That just a handout --- the people won't buy it willingly, so lobbyists convince our government to spend our money on it despite our lack of interest as people.
Dude.... if someone had warned me on COD4:MW about the nuclear explosion, it would totally have killed the shock factor. That scene was so jawdropping!
I see what you mean. -----------
In a game based on warfare, I find it hard to think that anything specific should be considered 'disturbing'. The whole thing is! That's war. I mean, nevermind the fact that you spend the whole time shooting people....people with families.... people that feel their cause is just... people.
Slashdot Mirror
but unlike meat, if you were to slice it down the center today, tomorrow the wound would heal.
Yeah, because there never even was a animal who cut itself, and where then the wound healed...
FAIL
That would be called a fleshwound. A wound to its flesh or tissues. Meat is the same tissue, but terminally locked into 'deadness'.
There is a difference.
This sounds highly promising for traditionally traumatic and fatal wounds, particularly burns. It will be interesting to see if this product increases the rate of survival in burn victims and other similar traumas. You have to love modern medicine.
Welcome to the future. Almost everything that was once 'science fiction' is becoming plausable and even probable in science.
Even 20 years ago we could never have dreamed what we are doing now and will be doing in the next 20-30 years!
Here in Humboldt Bay, we've got plenty of great whites as well.
My family likes to fish shark once in a while. When I was a kid my dad and his friend pulled up a great white that was longer than his 14 foot aluminum boat!
You also hear about shark attacks from great whites at Moonstone Beach (about 20 miles north).
-------
I've never thought that the sharks are wandering out in the wide open. Put it this way, the sea lions and seals they eat are at the mouths of rivers (and in the bay) because of the fish spawn. The sharks should be found where their food is.
I can agree with that.
Akin to what Paco103 said, though, these phones aren't a necessity to human life, and the backdoors they're looking at are also inherently a security issue.
Personally, I don't agree with the money, but you've reasoned me enough to not disagree with the notion of others thinking it is being appropriated well enough. They can think that and I can agree that they are being reasonable enough.
Spending money to facilitate better service for these private businesses who have not only made billions from customers, but took billions of tax dollars and screwed us as citizens.
NSF should not be paying a cent for this. The issues need to become prominent enough for the customers to demand better products from the oligopoly of telcos.
I agree. There should be an airgap between the internet and these kinds of things. Or maybe it is time to move them over to one of the other networks that exist that are airgapped (physically disconnected) from the internet.
I didn't have time to go into detail, but, for example, she sued a place because the soap dispenser was high (when she is in her wheelchair) enough that soap would run down her wrist. She complained that this made her feel embarrassed and mistreated. Note that in an interview she has discussed her injuries, which do not require a wheelchair, and she claims she only uses a wheelchair when she feels she needs to.
Note also that in most cases the businesses settle out of court. In this case they paid her something like $25k and went out of business.
To me, you just need to figure out a way to cup the soap... But that's just me.
The specific person I'm talking about is ridiculous. This is how she gets paid, and so finding things like 'soap running down wrist' is what must be done to keep the income flowing.
It is basically a form of extortion...
So just like almost everything else government does then?
You seem to be arguing for reforms so we can have more efficient, more targeted extortion.
No, rather arguing so that the true intent of the law is what is upheld and that these extortions are not viable.
It isn't extortion for the disabled to, for example, require that sidewalks are traversible without being able to step up. Or that legal documents are available in forms that are comprehensible to people that are lacking senses like vision or hearing. That isn't extortion, it is equality.
So, if YOU were Sony, you think that YOU should do so.
But do you think that the law should tell Sony what they SHOULD do?
The point of what I'm talking about is the vague wording of the ADA and how it has led to tons of litigious shakedowns for cash. Because of the vague wording, people whos think that a company should be obliged to do something are enabled to legally FORCE these things (and get paid), despite the topic at hand having almost nothing to do with the true intent of the ADA which is to facilitate fair public access.
If you want Sony to spend the extra money, why don't you and others raise the money and fund the work? In this specific topic, it is unreasonable to FORCE sony to spend even one cent on this conceptual product. They don't owe you a game for the blind, and just because someone else isn't doing it, doesn't make it ok to try and force them to. THEY DON'T OWE YOU A GAME FOR THE BLIND.
If I have an anxiety disorder, but I want to play violent video games and not get anxiety, do they owe me some specially developed FPS that won't trigger anxiety? No. The if the game doesn't do what I want, I don't buy it. And if I really want a certain kind of game that people aren't making yet, then maybe I should start it with my own work and ingenuity.
There is a difference between when the 'vast majority of abortions happen' and my own opinion/perspective on abortions. And this information has served to inform me further on a related topic to reproduction/abortion. That is why.
I'm being vague because this topic is very controversial and I don't have the time or interest to get into it again. I just wanted to point out that this information is related and informative.
John Kerry actually looks kinda french.
Freedom Haters!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDq8bEjhs7Q
I am. I didn't know, and what I know now is very cool compared to what I would have assumed. I am surprised.
I will admit that this information has influenced me in my perspective of this topic.
Next he can sue auto manufacturers for not making cars accessible to the blind.
That lawsuit is entirely possible and winnable under the current ADA. Reform is necessary NOW! Predatory lawyers and litigious garbage (yes, they can be disabled too) are ruining this country and the ADA facilitates it for being written too loosely!
The Americans With Disabilities Act was written so loosely that there are so many of these litigious bullshitteries going on nation wide. It is basically a form of extortion facilitated by poorly written 'laws'.
We need reform on the ADA as soon as possible! Locally, a predatory woman has sued over 80 local businesses (this is her JOB now), represented by a lawyer who has sued over 250.
I hope sony lobbies to get reform.
I say all of this with the great respect for the disabled and the true intent of the ADA. It is the exploit of the act that bothers me so much.
In this case, Sony makes visual video games and a guy who can't see thinks Sony OWES him a game. That's like being allergic to peanut butter and suing Reeses for not making you a hazelnut cup. THEY DONT OWE YOU A HAZELNUT CUP!
So you're saying that because he won't take extraneous measures to circumvent these problems, that HE is the problem.
I don't believe you.
His opinions are exactly as mine. I'm sick of the same crap and I don't think I *need* to go to all that extra effort (let alone have a computer for ripping/editing all that media) to be a satisfied customer.
You missed the part where the consumer has the money and the provider *wants* it.
As a consumer we get to make demands because we have the money. As a provider/seller you need to adhere to these demands because its the only logical way to get us to give up the money.
This is very simple market logic here. If you tell me I can't buy Nike's unless I learn to like pink shoes... well then I'm gonna get Zoo York or Adidas or something... That's stupid to think that the seller gets to make demands and also ask for money. It doesn't work that way.
Money comes from work. My money is equivalent to some work I did to get it. There is no way I'm gonna give that work away to people who don't deserve it; and when I decide who deserves it, it is those who cater to my interests.
> For your next trick, can I get an article about how movie vampires represent world-wide fear of religion?
How about a scary story about the American, Kennedy - it includes a body, the real "un-dead" and even... brains.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-m-gillon/a-new-wrinkle-in-the-jfk_b_339026.html
According to the newly declassified transcript, Mrs. Kennedy was becoming desperate to leave. "Mrs. Kennedy was getting very warm, she had blood all over her hat, her coat...his brains were sticking on her hat. It was dreadful," McHugh said. She pleaded with him to get the plane off the ground. "Please, let's leave," she said. McHugh jumped up and used the phone near the rear compartment to call Captain James Swindal. "Let's leave," he said. Swindal responded: "I can't do it. I have orders to wait."
Your sig link is truly eye opening. Thank you so much!
>>>The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings --
Except when you don't pay that TV license fee (tax), then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail, or extract the funds from your paycheck. So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its *beholden* to the government to enforce its collection of funds. .
>>>In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting
Not in the States. NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime (more/bigger government). If the reporters at this organizations had their way private ownership would be dead and our homes/car/et cetera would all be government owned. Okay I maybe be exaggerating a little but that is how their reporting leans.
The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $10 a year in taxation, so it doesn't really "hurt" me that much.
ITS A COMMUNIST PLOT!
... than the news in print and the news on TV. Most of what is in print and TV is usually negative and shocking because it has become pretty clear that people care about bad things.
But I'm sick of it. I'm old enough to know the world has bad things, and I respect those, but will not focus my interests around it.
It is sites like slashdot where I can find out information that is usually actually interesting or positive without the horrors and scares of mainstream media shock tactics.
And no, they don't deserve a frikkin handout. You think the guys who do journalism on the net didn't innovate, adapt, and change with the market? (Rhetorical question). If we don't buy print media, why would we want to subsidize it? That just a handout --- the people won't buy it willingly, so lobbyists convince our government to spend our money on it despite our lack of interest as people.
The word "liberal" and the word "liberty" do not mean the same thing.
I like your sig.
Does "Ciao." mean you give up?
Did you want me to? I did give up on the thought that you would ever understand what I'm saying.
+1 Interesting
Dude.... if someone had warned me on COD4:MW about the nuclear explosion, it would totally have killed the shock factor. That scene was so jawdropping!
I see what you mean.
-----------
In a game based on warfare, I find it hard to think that anything specific should be considered 'disturbing'. The whole thing is! That's war. I mean, nevermind the fact that you spend the whole time shooting people... .people with families.... people that feel their cause is just... people.
I agree. Rate it M and leave it at that.