That would be easy to solve with a new law. You aren't allowed to practice regular medicine without a license, after all, and then claim no guarantees and refuse all regulation. If you perform an operation on someone and they die, you can easily be sued for malpractice, and if you're not licensed you go to jail for practicing medicine without a license. The government specifically regulates normal medicine fields, but has looked the other way with things like chiropractic for a century now.
Sounds incredibly dangerous. How exactly would you word the law to ensure that, for instance, receiving a foot rub from your spouse to alleviate sore feet isn't made illegal?
Any distribution is fine, preferably MULTIPLE distributions. If you settle on, for example, Ubuntu, then you're teaching somebody how to use Ubuntu, not how to use Linux. Install several inside VMs and have the student switch between them each session. And to really drive home the point, maybe a few hours with FreeBSD to give a taste of how UNIX systems are all similar, but not exactly alike.
Let's restrict freedom of speech in order to solve social problems. Sure buddy, whatever. If we're going to do that, let's start with a few other things first, such as Fred Phelps and the KKK. Any American who thinks this is a good idea, please step out back and shoot yourself, thanks.
It seems like giving a placebo would ruin the double-blind nature of the study, as it would be very obvious who was getting Ambien and who was getting placebo. They aren't testing the efficacy of Ambien (that's already known), we already know what the effects are and both the doctor and study participant could easily tell if they had the fake stuff.
How often is healthcare data used for these sorts of studies? Not that I have a problem with it, quite the opposite, so long as the data is sanitized. To me it makes more sense to data mine existing records than set up and conduct expensive studies, am I missing something or is this actually commonly done?
If you have a breath analyser handy, you can check if you're under the limit then off you go. If not, you stay at home.
That's totally irresponsible thinking. You assume that how your blood alcohol levels correlates to some legal minimum is a valid criterion for safe driving. It is not. But go ahead and assuage your guilt when you kill somebody after blowing a 0.078% -- hey, it was under the limit.
The alcohol limit serves a single purpose: to provide a clearly defined threshold beyond which ALL persons are considered impaired. But you can be impaired (and be arrested, and go to jail) for driving with a BAC less than this limit.
Using the breathalyzer as a "can I drive" magic 8 ball is absolutely not what you should be doing.
Ridiculous analogy. If a cop reasonably believed he saw a dead body in your garage, he can enter the garage immediately, he doesn't need to run off and get a warrant.
Have you even _heard_ what the (viable) Republican contenders are saying? Gingrich/Romney/Santorum must be walking close to (if not past) the mark of being declared clinically insane.
They're just doing Obama a favor. By acting borderline insane, they will push some of the undecideds into the Democrat camp, just in order to avoid having a nut-job elected president. Obama will reciprocate, making some crazy statements of his own during the general campaign, to help push the rest of the undecideds into the Republican camp. They two parties work together in this way to polarize the electorate and ensure that no third party can gain a toe-hold. In the end, it doesn't really matter much which one of them wins (whether Democrat or Republican, the people really in charge are the lobbyists). What matters more is preventing the third party from gaining traction.
Whoever does win, I guarantee they won't implement any of the nut-job crap they talk about in the campaigns. They never do. This is how the game is played.
Actually, if you are having sex anywhere you can be seen by the public, it is illegal anyway....
Funny how PETA psychotics can stand outside an elementary school with huge posters of blood and guts giving the kiddie a case of PTSD but if the Kiddie sees two people enjoying each other's presence, that'll get you on the sex offenders list.
It's fucking retarded. Try walking outside high noon in August in this city. Your face will melt off and your sneakers will turn into a puddle of gummy ooze.
If you actually went out in that weather regularly maybe you'd acclimatize to it. Why live in perpetual war with your environment?
Flashing RED is a four way stop. Flashing yellow just means "pay attention to this intersection as you move through it." Please don't tell me you stop at flashing yellow lights...
I work for a university and we've used this to find out who was printing politically "charged flyers".
Students getting involved in politics, we can't have that! What University is this so I can avoid ever coming within 100 miles of it or accidentally sending my kids there?
I'm perfectly okay with technology in printers designed to prevent the devices from printing banknotes. That's not tracking anybody, it's just enforcing a law that hopefully we can all agree with ("don't print money"). Printing identifiable tracking numbers on every page is a different story.
I would think that because of diffusion the rate of uptake of caffeine into the bloodstream is a function of concentration, so the "one hour to go into your system" rule seems pretty crude, you would need to account for what the actual value 'x' is, and whether it's in the form of two liters of Coke vs. a quad shot espresso.
You don't want to get fucked because the situation changed? But you want to sell the shares to someone else and fuck them? "Exiting your position" is a euphemism for "selling my bad investment to a bigger sucker"!
Who are you to say they're suckers? Perhaps they have a different risk tolerance than I do. And when did I become my brother's keeper?
Given that so many companies don't pay dividends, I can't help but wonder what "investors" are actually investing in?
That's like asking, why have money? Money doesn't pay interest on itself, it just sits there, what good is it? The reason you accumulate it is the same reason you would accumulate stock -- you are betting on the proposition that the money (or stock) will provide sufficient value to be exchanged for things you want.
When I hold on to cash, what I'm doing is betting that prices will go down. If I believe prices will go up I convert that money to something else. So I have a hard time understanding why buying and selling stock simply to profit from movement in price, is any different from the decision to hold money or spend it based on current trends of inflation.
So if a company has a good long-term outlook and I buy in, and the stock does well for a period of time, then six months later the CEO dies in a car accident and is replaced by somebody who immediately starts running the company into the ground, I shouldn't be able to exit my position and take what little gains I can before they become losses? You want me to just hold on and get fucked because the situation changed dramatically? Am I supposed to read the future? It's one thing to speculate, it's another thing to be in for a long haul and decide (rationally!) to abort when things take a turn for the worse.
I gave up caffeine purely on a whim about a month ago, and I cannot express how much BETTER my life is. I'm less nervous, I fidget less, I fall asleep earlier and wake up earlier. My appetite is more regular.
Do you have any idea how awesome it feels to fall asleep because you're sleepy (not because you know you have to), and to wake up because you've slept enough and not have to immediately start pouring more caffeine into the bloodstream just in order to function? It was a fucking miracle.
The fruit juice and the potato chips are a bunch of garbage carbohydrate -- if you're going to eat an apple do it in the form of eating an apple, not drinking the concentrated juice. Having said that, while I agree with the PRINCIPLE of the school's decision, I absolutely disagree with their perceived duty to ENFORCE this kind of thinking. If people want to feed their kids toxic garbage, they should have the freedom. I'd throw a hell of a stink if this happened to my kid (though it probably wouldn't (ever happen), seeing as I apparently take the same view of nutrition as the school in this case and would never send him with a lunch containing such an absurd item as potato chips)
But I also don't like the concept of getting to a system where people can't get ANY treatment, based on one poor decision.
You don't understand -- this isn't a punitive measure, it's a protective one. Unvaccinated people are a health threat. This strategy attempts to provide incentive for those people to behave with social responsibility. What would you prefer, that we force the vaccine into them against their will? Having a large fraction of people walking around who have refused vaccination is quite simply unacceptable.
What if you're allergic to the vaccine? What are you supposed to do then, when they refuse to treat you any more because you refuse to take something you're allergic to?
That makes absolutely no sense. What would be the point for a doctor to refuse to treat in such a case? The person legitimately cannot tolerate the vaccine.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be easy to solve with a new law. You aren't allowed to practice regular medicine without a license, after all, and then claim no guarantees and refuse all regulation. If you perform an operation on someone and they die, you can easily be sued for malpractice, and if you're not licensed you go to jail for practicing medicine without a license. The government specifically regulates normal medicine fields, but has looked the other way with things like chiropractic for a century now.
Sounds incredibly dangerous. How exactly would you word the law to ensure that, for instance, receiving a foot rub from your spouse to alleviate sore feet isn't made illegal?
Any distribution is fine, preferably MULTIPLE distributions. If you settle on, for example, Ubuntu, then you're teaching somebody how to use Ubuntu, not how to use Linux. Install several inside VMs and have the student switch between them each session. And to really drive home the point, maybe a few hours with FreeBSD to give a taste of how UNIX systems are all similar, but not exactly alike.
Let's restrict freedom of speech in order to solve social problems. Sure buddy, whatever. If we're going to do that, let's start with a few other things first, such as Fred Phelps and the KKK. Any American who thinks this is a good idea, please step out back and shoot yourself, thanks.
It seems like giving a placebo would ruin the double-blind nature of the study, as it would be very obvious who was getting Ambien and who was getting placebo. They aren't testing the efficacy of Ambien (that's already known), we already know what the effects are and both the doctor and study participant could easily tell if they had the fake stuff.
They said "matched set of controls," not "general populace." How do you know they did it wrong?
How often is healthcare data used for these sorts of studies? Not that I have a problem with it, quite the opposite, so long as the data is sanitized. To me it makes more sense to data mine existing records than set up and conduct expensive studies, am I missing something or is this actually commonly done?
If you have a breath analyser handy, you can check if you're under the limit then off you go. If not, you stay at home.
That's totally irresponsible thinking. You assume that how your blood alcohol levels correlates to some legal minimum is a valid criterion for safe driving. It is not. But go ahead and assuage your guilt when you kill somebody after blowing a 0.078% -- hey, it was under the limit.
The alcohol limit serves a single purpose: to provide a clearly defined threshold beyond which ALL persons are considered impaired. But you can be impaired (and be arrested, and go to jail) for driving with a BAC less than this limit.
Using the breathalyzer as a "can I drive" magic 8 ball is absolutely not what you should be doing.
Ridiculous analogy. If a cop reasonably believed he saw a dead body in your garage, he can enter the garage immediately, he doesn't need to run off and get a warrant.
Have you even _heard_ what the (viable) Republican contenders are saying? Gingrich/Romney/Santorum must be walking close to (if not past) the mark of being declared clinically insane.
They're just doing Obama a favor. By acting borderline insane, they will push some of the undecideds into the Democrat camp, just in order to avoid having a nut-job elected president. Obama will reciprocate, making some crazy statements of his own during the general campaign, to help push the rest of the undecideds into the Republican camp. They two parties work together in this way to polarize the electorate and ensure that no third party can gain a toe-hold. In the end, it doesn't really matter much which one of them wins (whether Democrat or Republican, the people really in charge are the lobbyists). What matters more is preventing the third party from gaining traction.
Whoever does win, I guarantee they won't implement any of the nut-job crap they talk about in the campaigns. They never do. This is how the game is played.
Actually, if you are having sex anywhere you can be seen by the public, it is illegal anyway....
Funny how PETA psychotics can stand outside an elementary school with huge posters of blood and guts giving the kiddie a case of PTSD but if the Kiddie sees two people enjoying each other's presence, that'll get you on the sex offenders list.
It's fucking retarded. Try walking outside high noon in August in this city. Your face will melt off and your sneakers will turn into a puddle of gummy ooze.
If you actually went out in that weather regularly maybe you'd acclimatize to it. Why live in perpetual war with your environment?
Flashing RED is a four way stop. Flashing yellow just means "pay attention to this intersection as you move through it." Please don't tell me you stop at flashing yellow lights...
I work for a university and we've used this to find out who was printing politically "charged flyers".
Students getting involved in politics, we can't have that! What University is this so I can avoid ever coming within 100 miles of it or accidentally sending my kids there?
I'm perfectly okay with technology in printers designed to prevent the devices from printing banknotes. That's not tracking anybody, it's just enforcing a law that hopefully we can all agree with ("don't print money"). Printing identifiable tracking numbers on every page is a different story.
Ever consider that your anger might be taking years off your life? Dude, I don't play the stock market, I just talk on Slashdot. Chill out bro.
Fair, but chocolate is toxic to dogs.
Because it contains theobromine, which is very closely related to caffeine...
I would think that because of diffusion the rate of uptake of caffeine into the bloodstream is a function of concentration, so the "one hour to go into your system" rule seems pretty crude, you would need to account for what the actual value 'x' is, and whether it's in the form of two liters of Coke vs. a quad shot espresso.
You've apparently never seen the "hold phone to ear in right hand, while steering with knee, and reaching across with left hand to shift" trick.
You don't want to get fucked because the situation changed? But you want to sell the shares to someone else and fuck them? "Exiting your position" is a euphemism for "selling my bad investment to a bigger sucker"!
Who are you to say they're suckers? Perhaps they have a different risk tolerance than I do. And when did I become my brother's keeper?
Given that so many companies don't pay dividends, I can't help but wonder what "investors" are actually investing in?
That's like asking, why have money? Money doesn't pay interest on itself, it just sits there, what good is it? The reason you accumulate it is the same reason you would accumulate stock -- you are betting on the proposition that the money (or stock) will provide sufficient value to be exchanged for things you want.
When I hold on to cash, what I'm doing is betting that prices will go down. If I believe prices will go up I convert that money to something else. So I have a hard time understanding why buying and selling stock simply to profit from movement in price, is any different from the decision to hold money or spend it based on current trends of inflation.
So if a company has a good long-term outlook and I buy in, and the stock does well for a period of time, then six months later the CEO dies in a car accident and is replaced by somebody who immediately starts running the company into the ground, I shouldn't be able to exit my position and take what little gains I can before they become losses? You want me to just hold on and get fucked because the situation changed dramatically? Am I supposed to read the future? It's one thing to speculate, it's another thing to be in for a long haul and decide (rationally!) to abort when things take a turn for the worse.
I gave up caffeine purely on a whim about a month ago, and I cannot express how much BETTER my life is. I'm less nervous, I fidget less, I fall asleep earlier and wake up earlier. My appetite is more regular.
Do you have any idea how awesome it feels to fall asleep because you're sleepy (not because you know you have to), and to wake up because you've slept enough and not have to immediately start pouring more caffeine into the bloodstream just in order to function? It was a fucking miracle.
The fruit juice and the potato chips are a bunch of garbage carbohydrate -- if you're going to eat an apple do it in the form of eating an apple, not drinking the concentrated juice. Having said that, while I agree with the PRINCIPLE of the school's decision, I absolutely disagree with their perceived duty to ENFORCE this kind of thinking. If people want to feed their kids toxic garbage, they should have the freedom. I'd throw a hell of a stink if this happened to my kid (though it probably wouldn't (ever happen), seeing as I apparently take the same view of nutrition as the school in this case and would never send him with a lunch containing such an absurd item as potato chips)
But I also don't like the concept of getting to a system where people can't get ANY treatment, based on one poor decision.
You don't understand -- this isn't a punitive measure, it's a protective one. Unvaccinated people are a health threat. This strategy attempts to provide incentive for those people to behave with social responsibility. What would you prefer, that we force the vaccine into them against their will? Having a large fraction of people walking around who have refused vaccination is quite simply unacceptable.
What if you're allergic to the vaccine? What are you supposed to do then, when they refuse to treat you any more because you refuse to take something you're allergic to?
That makes absolutely no sense. What would be the point for a doctor to refuse to treat in such a case? The person legitimately cannot tolerate the vaccine.