I mean, it's NO different than you saying 'My water bill is down to half!! Look how good I am at water conservation!!!
That's not at all what it's like. Renewable energy sourced from the neighboring state doesn't run up the carbon in the atmosphere.
a LOT of that is coming from OTHER states is horse shit. So those states are at negative what?
Well, one, that's not how economics work. CA buying renewable energy and making it known well in advance that they're going to be increasing renewable energy doesn't mean all the renewable energy gets used up, it means people start building up renewable energy.
As much as CA wishes it were not part of the US, the only relevant number is how much energy in the US is renewable. Despite what people in CA think, CA cannot survive on it's own.
It seems to boil down to "I DON'T LIKE CALIFORNIA AND WILL FIND A WAY TO MOCK IT!" Did California beat you up and take your lunch money in grade school?
I mean you acknowledge that Cali is part of the country. Then make fun of it for doing interstate commerce which is something that states do. Then point out it can't survive separate from the country (is there any part of the lower 48 that could?). All this from a statement that CA wants to be separate from the US based on... what exactly? I'm sure they dislike the government behavior right now as do most Americans, but I haven't seen any serious proposals to break away. Puerto Rico has a big independence movement and got shafted by the government during the hurricane. If anyone is going to break away, it's going to be PR, and they're not. So seriously, what are you on about?
Clueless patients fill the prescription and send it to their insurance.
Lets not blame the patients. You go to a licensed, extensively trained doctor because medicine and pharmaceuticals are too complex to understand unless you get paid to do it full time. Not knowing that this is a brand name of something you can get dirt cheap is not being "clueless" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Translation: FDA approved vitamins that other vitamin manufacturers either cant get approval for or have to spend a fortune to get.
Or maybe there's just no sane manufacturer who sees a point in spending ANY money going through FDA approval when there's absolutely no need FOR the FDA approval on it.
Give the FDA the power to investigate cases of rampant profiteering due to any medical-related patents.
Sure, but worth pointing out there's no patent here in this specific case. They bought the brand name and the exclusive rights to sell it as a prescription, not exclusive rights to sell it whatsoever.
I'm really flabbergasted at the trolls on this story. I mean for fucks sake, how do you imply capitalism was responsible for vitamins being "developed?"
Free market medical move #1 was ending the ACA (Obamacare) mandate which would financially lock most people into FDA monopoly medicines and often poorly performing maimstream medicine. Many problems can be better addressed by the closer-to-natural-biochemistry of supplements, but first you need a little money leftover to start.
So... your rant about Obamacare and natural supplements doesn't make any sense but the actual story doesn't make any sense either, so I guess you win?
I'm guessing it's like if AOL raised it's rates 800 percent. People like you would immediately blame government interference even though that has nothing to do with it and subscribing to AOL is totally pointless anyway.
Renewable energy is renewable energy whether it's in one state or another.
One op-ed from a guy who is a professional promoter of natural gas says "California should really buy more natural gas," and you're willing to conclude California is running a gigantic scam?
It's not like the source of the power is untraceable once it goes over the border, or CA is claiming the source of the power is a national security secret and just trust us it's much more expensive solar power, ignore that the power lines are running to coal fired power plants just over the border.
Ah, but deregulation creates jobs, and Sinclair managed the herculean task of convincing Ajit Pai to not do his job in regulating them to keep them from taking over a majority of television sets of old voters.
Naturally, Sinclair lying to the FCC about this matter won't cause the deregulation decision to continue. It was surely an honest mistake and Sinclair is going to be more forthright about who is paying for the right-wing propaganda they will run in the middle of your uncle's local news program.
Edit: Ah, reading fail, the author in NRO was being sarcastic there, paying lip service to "both sides have their faults including conservatives sometimes." Maybe they're right to declare us as enemies if I can't even skim well enough to catch a stupid joke.
It's simpler than that. No stance or justification needed.
A major fraction of the GOP base is only interested in fighting someone. That someone can be progressives, the secular left, undocumented workers, refugees from Islamic countries, homosexuals, millennials, journalists, "coastal elites", liberals, or colleges. The reason doesn't matter, the goal is to attack people they don't identify with because they perceive their own tribe as losing ground to the rest of us. They think their enemies are attacking them, that's the only possible reason they're not still on top of the world.
The majority of us in favor of preserving the internet represent, to the Trump base, a coalition of several of those enemy groups. That we are in favor of net neutrality is enough reason to oppose it.
Ted Cruz's sneering, stupid response to Mark Hamill (or whoever he accidentally tweeted at instead of Luke) only makes sense if it's about drawing blood rather than any actual logos.
But everyone knows these progressives are completely, totally wrong. Conservatives aren’t destroying this nation. Progressives are.
This isn't about facts, this isn't about justifying shit, this isn't about beliefs in limited government run amok, it's not even primarily driven by bribery from comcast at this point. It's now about "THEY'RE THE BAD GUYS AND THEY LIKE THIS THING SO WE MUST BLOW IT UP TO SAVE AMERICA WHICH IS US."
I'm assuming it's more cheerleading for law enforcement at taxpayer expense, similar to trading cards except not as useful (since you could use those as a bookmark.
"ALERT: Police are in danger... Never mind, other police on the SWAT force saved the day! Thanks to the armored vehicle and infrared technology, they caught the fugitive drug dealer who was armed with a knife!"
The source of the recommendation (not a ban) was from senior career administrators at CDC itself (not the Trump Administration)...
And the senior career administrators were basing this recommendation on a nightmare they had? These officials, you know TALK to the politicians and act accordingly. The government sent a message, quibbling over exactly how it was delivered is disingenuous or naive. This is typical republican behavior undercutting science they don't like but being too cowardly to do it outright.
A Health and Human Services official who asked not to be named told STAT it was not accurate to say that CDC had been ordered not to use the seven words. Instead, he said, agency budget analysts were told that some words and phrasing might be more likely to win support for the CDC’s budget in the current Congress.
It goes on
Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said discussion of words that are banned or to be avoided sends a dangerous message to the agency. “There’s as much of a risk of self-censorship that comes out of this than actual direct censorship,” he told STAT. “This is the part that’s much more pernicious than any direct pronouncement.”
“So of course the administration and its defenders are going to argue that this is only about what goes into the budget,” Jha noted. “But we know that the signal to the agency is much stronger than that. And it’s going to change behavior of people who work there. And that’s much more damaging than any direct censorship.”
Keep in mind the republicans are slashing money for research right and left in an orgy of giving public money back to the robber barons. Scientists and doctors interested in serving public health aren't stupid, they know a "guideline" from their funding agency isn't an order, but they do know it's how they win funding and keep their jobs.
To suggest this is fake news is to ignore the obvious reality: republicans are intentionally subordinating science to the wishes of their evangelical base.
Yeah, just like how they "upgrade" to baldness, obesity, impotence, higher blood pressure, Alzheimers, cancer, liver spots, incontinence, sagging skin, old man stink, nearsightedness, forgetfulness...
could be even bigger than the email investigation the FBI covered up for Hillary (which we also know for certain now thanks to the FBI agents' leaked texts).
The text of the text you're talking about:
“So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can’t be traced, you were just venting you feel bad that you’re gone so much but it can’t be helped right now.”
If you know anything "for certain" from the texts you're referring to, then you had already crawled so far up the right-wing's ass that you knew for certain Hillary was evil incarnate 30 years ago. For the rest of us, this would be funny were there no so many of you fucking lunatics running around, trying to destroy America.
And, as always, no matter how certain you are that Hillary was so conniving she was controlling the FBI (yet somehow was too incompetent to win an election she got more votes in)... she's not the president. She's not in any power. Hillary being literally hitler and the mother of satan wouldn't have any relevance to discussions of whether Trump is going to be indicted.
Serious journalism does not need to be associated with muckraking excrement, in fact the opposite is true.
Name a SERIOUS JOURNALISM enterprise that hasn't done something stupid. All of them are made up of people who make mistakes. Sometimes really big ones.
The main differences between gawker and (insert SERIOUS JOURNALISM here) are primarily two things. One is SERIOUS JOURNALISM tends to have a longer pedigree (read: they've been around longer) and two: they had deeper pockets that allowed them to recover from their mistakes.
How many times over the past few years have we seen that some blogger can break open a story while SERIOUS JOURNALISTS were twiddling their thumbs on the latest white house press release?
It's odd that I never heard a conservative conspiracy theory that liberals planted Donald in order to destroy the republicans from within. He's a billionaire from NYC who was a democrat most of his life and clearly laughs at the family values conservatives claim to hold.
That it would have been a huge backfire on democrats simply makes it more believable.
While it would be idiotic beyond even american conservative capability to suggest that this is because of Obama, he should have done a lot more to protect the internet.
JFC. Generations of Americans who are still breathing helped fight off Nazis AND the Japanese empire simultaneously, won voting rights, landed on the moon, held off nuclear Armageddon, and invented the internet, all of which is harder than establishing reasonable regulations on the internet.
Two days ago, ALABAMA voted in a pro-choice democrat.
You're suggesting we can't stand against a bunch of douche-bag MBAs, corrupt politicians, and lobbyists? Go fuck a rusty railroad spike, you dumb coward. This is fucking easy. You don't need to elect perfect saints in order to make progress on net neutrality or legal bribery, just vote for people who talk about those issues specifically rather than bleat about the bible or terrorism and this solves itself.
If you can't bring yourself to do that, move to another shit-hole country or commit suicide so you're not dead weight in the next census and aren't wasting resources.
Somehow, even with recent national events, I'm still surprised at conservative's ability to blame everything bad on Obama and democrats.
I probably shouldn't be angry that net neutrality is going away, I should really just be surprised it managed to last this long if nerds on slashdot are unable to work out how we got here.
Me too. But convenience is not the issue. The issue is journals are being fed tax dollars through subscription fees through universities, are also being fed tax dollars through publicly funded science submitted to them, are also being fed tax dollars in the form of publicly-funded researchers who volunteer to write and review the papers and serve as editors, and also are being fed tax dollars in fees paid to publish your article in those journals.
It's one of the most bizarre economic arrangements. The consumers and suppliers are the same people, in both roles they compete for the journals rather than vice versa, in both roles they pay.
To top it off, with the internet, there's not even the necessary costs of printing.
The major costs of science publishers seems to be:
- Advertising
- Staff to handle taking the papers and giving it to volunteer reviewers, and entry-level copy-editors
- Lobbyists to keep the gravy train rolling
Without advertising, journal prestige wouldn't change, but that's utterly unimportant to anyone besides editors at D-list journals. Staffing is required, but not the millions being given to journals now.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, it's NO different than you saying 'My water bill is down to half!! Look how good I am at water conservation!!!
That's not at all what it's like. Renewable energy sourced from the neighboring state doesn't run up the carbon in the atmosphere.
a LOT of that is coming from OTHER states is horse shit. So those states are at negative what?
Well, one, that's not how economics work. CA buying renewable energy and making it known well in advance that they're going to be increasing renewable energy doesn't mean all the renewable energy gets used up, it means people start building up renewable energy.
For another they're rapidly increasing their in-state renewable energy
As much as CA wishes it were not part of the US, the only relevant number is how much energy in the US is renewable. Despite what people in CA think, CA cannot survive on it's own.
It seems to boil down to "I DON'T LIKE CALIFORNIA AND WILL FIND A WAY TO MOCK IT!" Did California beat you up and take your lunch money in grade school?
I mean you acknowledge that Cali is part of the country. Then make fun of it for doing interstate commerce which is something that states do. Then point out it can't survive separate from the country (is there any part of the lower 48 that could?). All this from a statement that CA wants to be separate from the US based on... what exactly? I'm sure they dislike the government behavior right now as do most Americans, but I haven't seen any serious proposals to break away. Puerto Rico has a big independence movement and got shafted by the government during the hurricane. If anyone is going to break away, it's going to be PR, and they're not. So seriously, what are you on about?
What reality? What's the conspiracy theory here?
Clueless patients fill the prescription and send it to their insurance.
Lets not blame the patients. You go to a licensed, extensively trained doctor because medicine and pharmaceuticals are too complex to understand unless you get paid to do it full time. Not knowing that this is a brand name of something you can get dirt cheap is not being "clueless" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Translation: FDA approved vitamins that other vitamin manufacturers either cant get approval for or have to spend a fortune to get.
Or maybe there's just no sane manufacturer who sees a point in spending ANY money going through FDA approval when there's absolutely no need FOR the FDA approval on it.
Give the FDA the power to investigate cases of rampant profiteering due to any medical-related patents.
Sure, but worth pointing out there's no patent here in this specific case. They bought the brand name and the exclusive rights to sell it as a prescription, not exclusive rights to sell it whatsoever.
It was discovered in 1873 at a public university.
I'm really flabbergasted at the trolls on this story. I mean for fucks sake, how do you imply capitalism was responsible for vitamins being "developed?"
Free market medical move #1 was ending the ACA (Obamacare) mandate which would financially lock most people into FDA monopoly medicines and often poorly performing maimstream medicine. Many problems can be better addressed by the closer-to-natural-biochemistry of supplements, but first you need a little money leftover to start.
Niacor is just niacin. There's no patent on Niacin since it's a natural vitamin. You can still buy Niacin without any prescription for cheaper than it was on prescription before the change.
So... your rant about Obamacare and natural supplements doesn't make any sense but the actual story doesn't make any sense either, so I guess you win?
I'm guessing it's like if AOL raised it's rates 800 percent. People like you would immediately blame government interference even though that has nothing to do with it and subscribing to AOL is totally pointless anyway.
Renewable energy is renewable energy whether it's in one state or another.
One op-ed from a guy who is a professional promoter of natural gas says "California should really buy more natural gas," and you're willing to conclude California is running a gigantic scam?
It's not like the source of the power is untraceable once it goes over the border, or CA is claiming the source of the power is a national security secret and just trust us it's much more expensive solar power, ignore that the power lines are running to coal fired power plants just over the border.
Because it's not REAL fake news. Duh.
Everyone knows it's not bona fide fake news unless it is news that is unfavorable to the GOP's political agenda.
Ah, but deregulation creates jobs, and Sinclair managed the herculean task of convincing Ajit Pai to not do his job in regulating them to keep them from taking over a majority of television sets of old voters.
Naturally, Sinclair lying to the FCC about this matter won't cause the deregulation decision to continue. It was surely an honest mistake and Sinclair is going to be more forthright about who is paying for the right-wing propaganda they will run in the middle of your uncle's local news program.
Edit: Ah, reading fail, the author in NRO was being sarcastic there, paying lip service to "both sides have their faults including conservatives sometimes." Maybe they're right to declare us as enemies if I can't even skim well enough to catch a stupid joke.
A major fraction of the GOP base is only interested in fighting someone. That someone can be progressives, the secular left, undocumented workers, refugees from Islamic countries, homosexuals, millennials, journalists, "coastal elites", liberals, or colleges. The reason doesn't matter, the goal is to attack people they don't identify with because they perceive their own tribe as losing ground to the rest of us. They think their enemies are attacking them, that's the only possible reason they're not still on top of the world.
The majority of us in favor of preserving the internet represent, to the Trump base, a coalition of several of those enemy groups. That we are in favor of net neutrality is enough reason to oppose it.
Ted Cruz's sneering, stupid response to Mark Hamill (or whoever he accidentally tweeted at instead of Luke) only makes sense if it's about drawing blood rather than any actual logos.
Right wing articles like this for another example, outright say
But everyone knows these progressives are completely, totally wrong. Conservatives aren’t destroying this nation. Progressives are.
This isn't about facts, this isn't about justifying shit, this isn't about beliefs in limited government run amok, it's not even primarily driven by bribery from comcast at this point. It's now about "THEY'RE THE BAD GUYS AND THEY LIKE THIS THING SO WE MUST BLOW IT UP TO SAVE AMERICA WHICH IS US."
I'm assuming it's more cheerleading for law enforcement at taxpayer expense, similar to trading cards except not as useful (since you could use those as a bookmark.
"ALERT: Police are in danger... Never mind, other police on the SWAT force saved the day! Thanks to the armored vehicle and infrared technology, they caught the fugitive drug dealer who was armed with a knife!"
(For anyone upset that I'm not virtue signaling about police safety, I'll remind you it's never been safer to be a cop than now and there are many other worse-paid, more dangerous jobs we don't pretend are heroes.)
I won't miss people making false dichotomies about it, so I guess that's a plus...
The source of the recommendation (not a ban) was from senior career administrators at CDC itself (not the Trump Administration)...
And the senior career administrators were basing this recommendation on a nightmare they had? These officials, you know TALK to the politicians and act accordingly. The government sent a message, quibbling over exactly how it was delivered is disingenuous or naive. This is typical republican behavior undercutting science they don't like but being too cowardly to do it outright.
A Health and Human Services official who asked not to be named told STAT it was not accurate to say that CDC had been ordered not to use the seven words. Instead, he said, agency budget analysts were told that some words and phrasing might be more likely to win support for the CDC’s budget in the current Congress.
It goes on
Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said discussion of words that are banned or to be avoided sends a dangerous message to the agency. “There’s as much of a risk of self-censorship that comes out of this than actual direct censorship,” he told STAT. “This is the part that’s much more pernicious than any direct pronouncement.” “So of course the administration and its defenders are going to argue that this is only about what goes into the budget,” Jha noted. “But we know that the signal to the agency is much stronger than that. And it’s going to change behavior of people who work there. And that’s much more damaging than any direct censorship.”
Keep in mind the republicans are slashing money for research right and left in an orgy of giving public money back to the robber barons. Scientists and doctors interested in serving public health aren't stupid, they know a "guideline" from their funding agency isn't an order, but they do know it's how they win funding and keep their jobs.
To suggest this is fake news is to ignore the obvious reality: republicans are intentionally subordinating science to the wishes of their evangelical base.
Yeah, just like how they "upgrade" to baldness, obesity, impotence, higher blood pressure, Alzheimers, cancer, liver spots, incontinence, sagging skin, old man stink, nearsightedness, forgetfulness...
Slashdot is mainly white guys entering fox news age: it's getting noticeably more conservative over the years as new blood fails to come in.
Anyway, these near-copy-pastas are never serious. See Dr. Bob chiropractic for example.
You must be new here, it's called trolling.
Anyway, let's focus on one thing to be outraged at, I'm saving my venom for the chiropractic industry, which is a scam.
could be even bigger than the email investigation the FBI covered up for Hillary (which we also know for certain now thanks to the FBI agents' leaked texts).
The text of the text you're talking about:
“So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can’t be traced, you were just venting you feel bad that you’re gone so much but it can’t be helped right now.”
This is between two FBI agents who were having an affair with each other.
The white house staff meanwhile is using untraceable communications.
If you know anything "for certain" from the texts you're referring to, then you had already crawled so far up the right-wing's ass that you knew for certain Hillary was evil incarnate 30 years ago. For the rest of us, this would be funny were there no so many of you fucking lunatics running around, trying to destroy America.
And, as always, no matter how certain you are that Hillary was so conniving she was controlling the FBI (yet somehow was too incompetent to win an election she got more votes in)... she's not the president. She's not in any power. Hillary being literally hitler and the mother of satan wouldn't have any relevance to discussions of whether Trump is going to be indicted.
Which, in fairness, I don't believe he will.
Serious journalism does not need to be associated with muckraking excrement, in fact the opposite is true.
Name a SERIOUS JOURNALISM enterprise that hasn't done something stupid. All of them are made up of people who make mistakes. Sometimes really big ones.
The main differences between gawker and (insert SERIOUS JOURNALISM here) are primarily two things. One is SERIOUS JOURNALISM tends to have a longer pedigree (read: they've been around longer) and two: they had deeper pockets that allowed them to recover from their mistakes.
How many times over the past few years have we seen that some blogger can break open a story while SERIOUS JOURNALISTS were twiddling their thumbs on the latest white house press release?
It's odd that I never heard a conservative conspiracy theory that liberals planted Donald in order to destroy the republicans from within. He's a billionaire from NYC who was a democrat most of his life and clearly laughs at the family values conservatives claim to hold.
That it would have been a huge backfire on democrats simply makes it more believable.
Also worth noting that Obama nominated Wheeler as chairman, who really looked like he was going to overturn net neutrality until he didn't after a backlash.
While it would be idiotic beyond even american conservative capability to suggest that this is because of Obama, he should have done a lot more to protect the internet.
JFC. Generations of Americans who are still breathing helped fight off Nazis AND the Japanese empire simultaneously, won voting rights, landed on the moon, held off nuclear Armageddon, and invented the internet, all of which is harder than establishing reasonable regulations on the internet.
Two days ago, ALABAMA voted in a pro-choice democrat.
You're suggesting we can't stand against a bunch of douche-bag MBAs, corrupt politicians, and lobbyists? Go fuck a rusty railroad spike, you dumb coward. This is fucking easy. You don't need to elect perfect saints in order to make progress on net neutrality or legal bribery, just vote for people who talk about those issues specifically rather than bleat about the bible or terrorism and this solves itself.
If you can't bring yourself to do that, move to another shit-hole country or commit suicide so you're not dead weight in the next census and aren't wasting resources.
Somehow, even with recent national events, I'm still surprised at conservative's ability to blame everything bad on Obama and democrats.
I probably shouldn't be angry that net neutrality is going away, I should really just be surprised it managed to last this long if nerds on slashdot are unable to work out how we got here.
Me too. But convenience is not the issue. The issue is journals are being fed tax dollars through subscription fees through universities, are also being fed tax dollars through publicly funded science submitted to them, are also being fed tax dollars in the form of publicly-funded researchers who volunteer to write and review the papers and serve as editors, and also are being fed tax dollars in fees paid to publish your article in those journals.
It's one of the most bizarre economic arrangements. The consumers and suppliers are the same people, in both roles they compete for the journals rather than vice versa, in both roles they pay.
To top it off, with the internet, there's not even the necessary costs of printing.
The major costs of science publishers seems to be:
- Advertising
- Staff to handle taking the papers and giving it to volunteer reviewers, and entry-level copy-editors
- Lobbyists to keep the gravy train rolling
Without advertising, journal prestige wouldn't change, but that's utterly unimportant to anyone besides editors at D-list journals. Staffing is required, but not the millions being given to journals now.