Because you probably aren't actually helping. And for every person tryingh to help the person in need, there are going to be 100 companies pushing a sugar pill as a cure, only to close their doors after the first 10 million is made. Of course, without any regulation, there will not have to close their doors.
How about People online lie about the quality? How about the fact that people buy drugs for other people? Please, tell me how you to a thorough check online without an agency the verifies the data and safety? There are a hell of a lot of medical issue that get taken into account when someone gets drugs. What about drug impacts to your drinking water? what about increase in antibiotic use?
Picture the wal-mart effect put onto prescription drugs.
You don't live on an island, and it's time you grew up and realized that.
there is no pharmaceutical monopoly, however your idea would make it easier for there to be just one drug providing company..and it will provide low quality risky drugs.
We have seen this market without regulation, and a hell of a lot of people died from snake oil salesmen.
If the US made a deal where they will buy x amount of drugs per year, the US drug prices would be lower. IT's ahs to do with guaranteeing volume; which is a standard and sane business practice. There is nothing shady about it.
". There is evidence that top level Google executives were actually aware of the kinds of drugs that were sold. "
The original story says NOTHING about Larry Page knowing anything.
All evidence points to a con man lying.
Look at the article, it is eaither ineptly written, or worded to get Google headlines.
it's for mat is : Implication. "Out of context quote" Implications.
The source is crap. When they get a good source that talks about it outside the article, let me know.
Follow the alleged quote from Mr. Neronha. I can't fin any information about this prior to the Huffington Post link. And the Huffington post isn't exactly rigors with fact checking.
" all this regulation of some things and straight up prohibition of other things is changing anything? " of course it doesn't. It has been shown over and over again.
The effect and impact varies depending on implementation
Sorry, I have worked with to many public business at the C*O level. frankly, you are wrong. is that some peoples point of view? yes. But it's not common, and it is not the 'American Business school ethic'
Did you read the article? it's form a Con-Man with no collaboration, and it reads like a classic tale that would be woven by a pathological liar. So, long term Con-Man and liar, no confirmation, any of the alleged specifics are common knowledge, and then the feds do nothing with this information. His interaction with Google certainly doesn't sound like the typical advertiser interactions
Too Many Red Flags. Let me know when a reputable source confirms it. Until then, I'll choose to ignore the pathological liar.
the Wall Street Journal has fallen far under murdochs ownership.
Everything in the story comes from either a Con Artists claiming it's true, or known events that do not contridict the original story.
I was ready to rail against this, but after reading the article, it's all shit.
And then end? " allegedly from Jason Corriente's brother, saying the online entrepreneur died in a car crash." So, they got all the evidences and did nothing?
Sorry, not buying it. Lets have the feds come forward to confirm this story.
Of course, people on slashdot won't bother to consider the source, they'll just pounce on the headline to 'prove' their ideological belief about Google or business.
1) This alone shows how fucking ignorant you are. Congress can override a veto
2) He could do that, be the results would be really, really, fucking bad. If the pull out isn't done in a way that leaves an established power, even more people will die under the following religious extremist the fill the power vacuum.
3) Yes, letting corporations run with even less regulation, that would be fucking genius. Everythign else about the party is just smoke and mirrors. Look at their record.
Ron Paul is NOT willing to balance the budget. He uses that as an excuse to cut there programs is big backers want hos to cut. Specifically the EPA.
Of course, your whole statement is fallacies in assume that cutting the budget would actual fix the dept. You have completely fallen for this false austerity that republicans keep pushing through the media.
Why is NBC listed there? they where one of the few to actually report Ron Paul's poll position without it being an aside followed by a jab at him. Ron Paul assumes industry will protect the people. You don't see a problem there?
Socialists and capitalists are not opposites. Stop it, stop being stupid.
Socialist works BEST in a reasonable capitalistic environment.
Just because Lawful evil alignment exists mean you can't have a Lawful good alignments. Lawful still applies. DO you see who you can have two separate things the come together to create a unique thing.
It baffles you because you are ignorant so you fall beck into a preconceived notion. I have reviewed the books of large corporations, you have heard of them, and large government organizations.
I WISH corporation had the same quality of accounting. I have sat down with CEO's and CFOs while they try to figure out where million of dollars are going. Literally a line item for 10 million dollar the no one knew anything about. Which if it was 1 company, I would just blow it off, but it's almost every company.
Meanwhile, government agencies can account for almost every nickle. Not perfect, and there were issues, but as a consultant, I had to work a lot harder to find issues with government books then the private sector. This is in line with pretty much every study on the subject.
A) The investments weren't pis in the sky, or investments kickbacks. The current R. are a bunch rabid dogs that will do anything to make Obama a 1 turn president. And they could find any wrong doing. So, you are wrong.
B) Yes, we need to go to the Moon and establish a base. The RnD of doing so would be pretty big.
Odd, that the R. won't fund NASA even though the private sector gets money for developing tech, and job creation is very large. Not just for the immediate needs to fulfill the goal, but secondary consumer market.
"Plus, you could probably pay for it with the rounding error from the pork barrel programs" sigh. No. It's very expensive, but worth it as a long term investment.
That said if it was a choice, I would choose sending probes to places in the Solar system that have water and look for life.
" viable republican candidates d" who? Any real viable candidate would be running right now. Your implication the Ron Paul is a serious candidate just shows how weak the republican playing field is.
oh, well, a blog post! gosh that changes everything!
This statement alone shows what a load of crap it is: “Can humans live and work in space for the long term?” and “Can an economically viable activity be found in space?”
Answer 1) Yes. We are doing it right this very moments. It's so obvious it may qualify for the pejorative of 'stupid'.
Answer 2) same as one.
The real question is: Can we create an environment that allows for long term survivability of human being that aren't on the Earth?
We can build a moon base. Right now. In fact, we could do it in 10 years if funded correctly. There are many advantages to betting a moon base. That is a different question.
should explain how they are going to get the rest of the party to agree to pay for it.
Because the current state of affairs is to butchers everything, give a free ride to corporations, and have the rich pay as close to nothing as they can.
Going to Space is not in the 'Neo cons' religious agenda.
" After reading The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications, one gets the feeling the writing secure web code is akin to Dante's experience."
Slashdot Mirror
Which business school did you go to?You haven't been to business school? STFU about what occurs in Business school.
Because you probably aren't actually helping. And for every person tryingh to help the person in need, there are going to be 100 companies pushing a sugar pill as a cure, only to close their doors after the first 10 million is made. Of course, without any regulation, there will not have to close their doors.
Becomes a knowledgeable about rope takes about a week, same with brake pads. Drugs takes years of dedication, and an expensive lab to verify.
That's the best you can come up with?
How about People online lie about the quality?
How about the fact that people buy drugs for other people?
Please, tell me how you to a thorough check online without an agency the verifies the data and safety?
There are a hell of a lot of medical issue that get taken into account when someone gets drugs.
What about drug impacts to your drinking water? what about increase in antibiotic use?
Picture the wal-mart effect put onto prescription drugs.
You don't live on an island, and it's time you grew up and realized that.
there is no pharmaceutical monopoly, however your idea would make it easier for there to be just one drug providing company..and it will provide low quality risky drugs.
We have seen this market without regulation, and a hell of a lot of people died from snake oil salesmen.
If the US made a deal where they will buy x amount of drugs per year, the US drug prices would be lower. IT's ahs to do with guaranteeing volume; which is a standard and sane business practice. There is nothing shady about it.
". There is evidence that top level Google executives were actually aware of the kinds of drugs that were sold. "
NO there ISN"T. EVERY part of that story is simple implication.
I can't found a damn think here http://www.justice.gov/usao/ri/meetattorney.html about it.
The original story says NOTHING about Larry Page knowing anything.
All evidence points to a con man lying.
Look at the article, it is eaither ineptly written, or worded to get Google headlines.
it's for mat is :
Implication.
"Out of context quote"
Implications.
The source is crap. When they get a good source that talks about it outside the article, let me know.
Follow the alleged quote from Mr. Neronha.
I can't fin any information about this prior to the Huffington Post link. And the Huffington post isn't exactly rigors with fact checking.
Yeah, that's a great way to get people to die.
You don't think people only buy drugs for themselves, do you?
from near as I can tell, The Con artist claims he said that. No one talked to Mr. Neronha,
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-dag-1078.html
Here is an older article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/david-whitaker-google-pharmacy-probe_n_1027362.html
And this is the same level of skepticism I apply to all articles and all companies.
I do.
" all this regulation of some things and straight up prohibition of other things is changing anything? "
of course it doesn't. It has been shown over and over again.
The effect and impact varies depending on implementation
when many of the worlds transactions are handled by a business? They will bow, and the people will have no recourse.
Sorry, I have worked with to many public business at the C*O level. frankly, you are wrong.
is that some peoples point of view? yes. But it's not common, and it is not the 'American Business school ethic'
Did you read the article? it's form a Con-Man with no collaboration, and it reads like a classic tale that would be woven by a pathological liar.
So, long term Con-Man and liar, no confirmation, any of the alleged specifics are common knowledge, and then the feds do nothing with this information. His interaction with Google certainly doesn't sound like the typical advertiser interactions
Too Many Red Flags. Let me know when a reputable source confirms it. Until then, I'll choose to ignore the pathological liar.
the Wall Street Journal has fallen far under murdochs ownership.
Everything in the story comes from either a Con Artists claiming it's true, or known events that do not contridict the original story.
I was ready to rail against this, but after reading the article, it's all shit.
And then end?
" allegedly from Jason Corriente's brother, saying the online entrepreneur died in a car crash."
So, they got all the evidences and did nothing?
Sorry, not buying it. Lets have the feds come forward to confirm this story.
Of course, people on slashdot won't bother to consider the source, they'll just pounce on the headline to 'prove' their ideological belief about Google or business.
1) This alone shows how fucking ignorant you are. Congress can override a veto
2) He could do that, be the results would be really, really, fucking bad. If the pull out isn't done in a way that leaves an established power, even more people will die under the following religious extremist the fill the power vacuum.
3) Yes, letting corporations run with even less regulation, that would be fucking genius. Everythign else about the party is just smoke and mirrors. Look at their record.
If you understood economics, you would know why that makes sense. But you don't, so you assume everyone else doesn't make sense.
Maybe you shoud try educating you're self before forming an opinion? oh, right your a dumb shit.
Ron Paul is NOT willing to balance the budget. He uses that as an excuse to cut there programs is big backers want hos to cut. Specifically the EPA.
Of course, your whole statement is fallacies in assume that cutting the budget would actual fix the dept. You have completely fallen for this false austerity that republicans keep pushing through the media.
Why is NBC listed there? they where one of the few to actually report Ron Paul's poll position without it being an aside followed by a jab at him. Ron Paul assumes industry will protect the people. You don't see a problem there?
because Tiny Tower is so original.
Socialists and capitalists are not opposites. Stop it, stop being stupid.
Socialist works BEST in a reasonable capitalistic environment.
Just because Lawful evil alignment exists mean you can't have a Lawful good alignments. Lawful still applies.
DO you see who you can have two separate things the come together to create a unique thing.
A DnD analogy? DAMN STRAIGHT.
It baffles you because you are ignorant so you fall beck into a preconceived notion.
I have reviewed the books of large corporations, you have heard of them, and large government organizations.
I WISH corporation had the same quality of accounting. I have sat down with CEO's and CFOs while they try to figure out where million of dollars are going. Literally a line item for 10 million dollar the no one knew anything about.
Which if it was 1 company, I would just blow it off, but it's almost every company.
Meanwhile, government agencies can account for almost every nickle. Not perfect, and there were issues, but as a consultant, I had to work a lot harder to find issues with government books then the private sector.
This is in line with pretty much every study on the subject.
A) The investments weren't pis in the sky, or investments kickbacks. The current R. are a bunch rabid dogs that will do anything to make Obama a 1 turn president. And they could find any wrong doing. So, you are wrong.
B) Yes, we need to go to the Moon and establish a base. The RnD of doing so would be pretty big.
Odd, that the R. won't fund NASA even though the private sector gets money for developing tech, and job creation is very large. Not just for the immediate needs to fulfill the goal, but secondary consumer market.
"Plus, you could probably pay for it with the rounding error from the pork barrel programs"
sigh. No. It's very expensive, but worth it as a long term investment.
That said if it was a choice, I would choose sending probes to places in the Solar system that have water and look for life.
haha, the number don't agree with your ideology, so you call them fake?
Of course, the rest of your post in nonsense to anyone who actually understands the economy.
" viable republican candidates d"
who?
Any real viable candidate would be running right now.
Your implication the Ron Paul is a serious candidate just shows how weak the republican playing field is.
Since this has always been something is supports, probably not.
oh, well, a blog post! gosh that changes everything!
This statement alone shows what a load of crap it is:
“Can humans live and work in space for the long term?” and “Can an economically viable activity be found in space?”
Answer 1) Yes. We are doing it right this very moments. It's so obvious it may qualify for the pejorative of 'stupid'.
Answer 2) same as one.
The real question is: Can we create an environment that allows for long term survivability of human being that aren't on the Earth?
We can build a moon base. Right now. In fact, we could do it in 10 years if funded correctly.
There are many advantages to betting a moon base. That is a different question.
should explain how they are going to get the rest of the party to agree to pay for it.
Because the current state of affairs is to butchers everything, give a free ride to corporations, and have the rich pay as close to nothing as they can.
Going to Space is not in the 'Neo cons' religious agenda.
" After reading The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications, one gets the feeling the writing secure web code is akin to Dante's experience."
Then it's a poorly written book