Because people would probably be equally willing to throw out (or steal) the metal forks, or any similar style of pay-before-you-eat restaurant where there is no personal table service.
I can say with some confidence that it does not seem to be getting enforced in Vancouver at this time.
Also... plain paper straws don't work so well... unless you are finishing your drink fairly quickly, you can end up with pulp in your drink.
Wax on straws can mitigate this problem, but then you end up with something that is either not compostable because of the presence of oil products, making it essentially no different than plastic, or else you end up with a coating on the straw that will affect the taste of the liquids going through it.
is chemo an "acknowledged treatment option" if the doctor says you have 6 months and chemo wold normally take a year
Sure... as long as the doctor who gave the timeline is is not the same one who has recommended the unapproved option (ie, it cannot be part of any initial opinion), and such a recommendation only done so *after* all other methods have been exhuasted, and the person is always free to seek medical advice or opinions from alternative sources before making a decision, and is further free to reject the treatment without any penalty at any time beyond payment for services that may have already been rendered. Anything else would not be eligible.
p
You didn't read what I had said... I had suggested that this concern seems like it would not be likely to arise in practice if this "right to try" was *ONLY* available to patients who had *ALREADY* exhausted every other officially acknowledged treatment and discovered it to be a non-starter, whether by actually trying such a treatment without success or because the waiting list for the treatment is long enough that the person would not actually live long enough to receive it,
How can quacks exploit the public if much of the public is not even eligible to try out the so-called quack's product in the first place?
One Congressman opposing the bill argued that eliminating FDA oversight would "provide fly-by-night physicians and clinics the opportunity to peddle false hope and ineffective drugs to desperate patients"
If "right to try" is only available to patients who have *already* exhausted every other acknowledged treatment option that exists, I'm not sure how this concern would ever arise, in practice.
The reason has nothing to do with Edge. It's managed by the OS, whether Edge is installed or not. Applications developed specifically for Windows 10 will exhibit the same behavior with regards to file extension handling.
Only if you don't set your default application correctly.
Again, this may be more of a issue of shitty OS than the fault of the browser per se, because if I remember correctly, it is because Windows 10 changed how default application handling worked, so if the handlers are set "incorrectly", they can get reset back to what Windows thinks are the "proper" defaults at a later time, usually upon reboot. Edge uses what Windows 10 thinks is the "right way" to set file extension handling, so that's why after running Edge, the defaults will keep going back to Edge.
I have Acrobat DC and Edge on my Windows 10 PC and Acrobat is configured as the handler for all PDF files. It does not get reset back.
The problem is an OS configuration issue, not a browser one.
Ah.... so in other words, a baseless complaint driven more by prejudice against the company rather than actual first hand experience with the specific product. Got it.
Well, you can go and change the application to use for an extension any time by right clicking one file and selecting "Open With..." and specifying to always use that application.
And most windows applications assume control of the extensions that they expect to open. Edge isn't alone in this regard. You can reset it back to your default by right clicking a pdf file and specifying your preferred reader.
That the only thing you identified is more of a failing in installation customization than in the browser itself is not entirely unlike a person deciding not not buy a car after test driving it because the radio wasn't tuned to their favorite radio station.
They were effectively put in an impossible position by their employer: do an attention occupying task...
If Uber told the driver to do that, then they are entirely at fault here... I had thought that the person was not paying attention to the road of his own accord, not because he was instructed to do so.
That said, the driver should have also had the common sense not to listen to such an obviously impossible (not to mention illegal) request.
One of those being the operator of a vehicle is legally responsible to account if they kill a pedestrian that they had 6 seconds warning about
My point is only that while I agree that the operator is most definitely responsible,. they did *NOT* actually have 6 seconds of warning about the collision because the car did not actually provide any such warning. Whether the operator should have been paying attention to the roadway to have made such a warning superfluous is irrelevant.
It does come to mind, however, that head tracking software might be possible to enable in these cars, particularly during this testing and development stage, before the software can be trusted to be fully autonomous, and if the software can tell that a driver is looking away from the road for an extended period (say more than 3 or 4 seconds or so... plenty of time to quickly glance at things like speed or other gauges, or mirrors) while the vehicle is in autonomous mode, an audible alarm could sound, not overly obnoxious, but perhaps similar in style to a "door is open" alert, to gently remind the driver that they should not leave the operation of the vehicle so unattended. Uber could then track how often driving attendants in these so-called "self driving" cars are actually being inattentive and reprimand or dismiss drivers that are not paying attention too often.
Except they didn't really have six seconds of warning... while it's true that the car saw the person 6 seconds before the collision, the car did not alert the driver in any way of this, so in fact the driver did not have any warning at all.
That said, the driver was not being attentive, and it is possible that the driver might have even not responded to a warning quickly enough if one had been given, but it's still entirely true that the driver did not have any warning about the collision.
Perhaps... but that is why it would be useful for people to know what actually happened to cause it so that they can decide for themselves just how rare it is.
I mean, I guess the wind farm will be visible from shore, but it's my understanding it'd still be pretty far out. People live closer to all kinds of city infrastructure that is *FAR* more visibility occluding than that.
You're pulling a Trump. Restarting something that is already subject to skepticism does not suddenly make it true.
The way to prove the statement, if it is true, would be to explain exactly what happened to cause it to occur so its infrequency can be evaluated for oneself.
Then each potential customer can determine for themselves if they believe the risk is worth the convenience offered by the device.
Like, actually say what really caused it to happen so that people can evaluate for themselves just how rare it is?
Because, you know... if your trustworthiness has already been called into question by evidence that a private conversation was eavesdropped on by your technology, then it makes no reasonable sense to simply take your word for it that whatever caused it to happen was genuinely "rare" at all.
I'm not saying that Amazon is necessarily lying here... but it makes no sense to actually trust what they are saying about this without being able to evaluate that claim's veracity for ourselves, and the longer they stay quiet, the sooner any honest skepticism can slide into outright disbelief.
.... but what, exactly, were Kim Jong Un's statements that Trump referred to as being hostile?
I feel like I'm missing context here... and all I can find out about it with a google search is news, news, and more news on this statement by Trump... but absolutely nothing on what led up to it.
I might be inclined to take the lack of information about what led to this as an indication that Trump is overreacting, but I would prefer to reserve judgement until I actually know what the heck is really going on. Last I heard, NK was claiming to get ready to dismantle its nuclear program and begin talks of reunification with SK.
Slashdot Mirror
Serious question.... what is stopping you from, like most disabled people who need special utensils or tools to dine, bringing your own with you?
Because people would probably be equally willing to throw out (or steal) the metal forks, or any similar style of pay-before-you-eat restaurant where there is no personal table service.
Okay.... I had heard about this from elsewhere already and did not see mention of a specific start date where I had first heard of it. Good to know.
I can say with some confidence that it does not seem to be getting enforced in Vancouver at this time.
Also... plain paper straws don't work so well... unless you are finishing your drink fairly quickly, you can end up with pulp in your drink.
Wax on straws can mitigate this problem, but then you end up with something that is either not compostable because of the presence of oil products, making it essentially no different than plastic, or else you end up with a coating on the straw that will affect the taste of the liquids going through it.
Actually, it listens to what you say and then just goes and does it.
What you can tell it to do may include, for example in this instance, recording a conversation and sending it to someone else.
The problem here was that it went and did something that it had thought someone had told it do when the person didn't intend for that to happen.
Sure... as long as the doctor who gave the timeline is is not the same one who has recommended the unapproved option (ie, it cannot be part of any initial opinion), and such a recommendation only done so *after* all other methods have been exhuasted, and the person is always free to seek medical advice or opinions from alternative sources before making a decision, and is further free to reject the treatment without any penalty at any time beyond payment for services that may have already been rendered. Anything else would not be eligible. p
How can quacks exploit the public if much of the public is not even eligible to try out the so-called quack's product in the first place?
If "right to try" is only available to patients who have *already* exhausted every other acknowledged treatment option that exists, I'm not sure how this concern would ever arise, in practice.
The reason has nothing to do with Edge. It's managed by the OS, whether Edge is installed or not. Applications developed specifically for Windows 10 will exhibit the same behavior with regards to file extension handling.
Only if you don't set your default application correctly.
Again, this may be more of a issue of shitty OS than the fault of the browser per se, because if I remember correctly, it is because Windows 10 changed how default application handling worked, so if the handlers are set "incorrectly", they can get reset back to what Windows thinks are the "proper" defaults at a later time, usually upon reboot. Edge uses what Windows 10 thinks is the "right way" to set file extension handling, so that's why after running Edge, the defaults will keep going back to Edge.
I have Acrobat DC and Edge on my Windows 10 PC and Acrobat is configured as the handler for all PDF files. It does not get reset back. The problem is an OS configuration issue, not a browser one.
Ah.... so in other words, a baseless complaint driven more by prejudice against the company rather than actual first hand experience with the specific product. Got it.
Well, you can go and change the application to use for an extension any time by right clicking one file and selecting "Open With..." and specifying to always use that application.
And most windows applications assume control of the extensions that they expect to open. Edge isn't alone in this regard. You can reset it back to your default by right clicking a pdf file and specifying your preferred reader.
That the only thing you identified is more of a failing in installation customization than in the browser itself is not entirely unlike a person deciding not not buy a car after test driving it because the radio wasn't tuned to their favorite radio station.
Could you be more specific? What, exactly, about using Edge did you find to be problematic compared with other browsers?
Shitty OS, I won't argue with, but what about Edge makes it any more shitty than other brands of web browsers?
Or Death Race on the NES, or Carmageddon on PC's?
If Uber told the driver to do that, then they are entirely at fault here... I had thought that the person was not paying attention to the road of his own accord, not because he was instructed to do so.
That said, the driver should have also had the common sense not to listen to such an obviously impossible (not to mention illegal) request.
My point is only that while I agree that the operator is most definitely responsible,. they did *NOT* actually have 6 seconds of warning about the collision because the car did not actually provide any such warning. Whether the operator should have been paying attention to the roadway to have made such a warning superfluous is irrelevant.
It does come to mind, however, that head tracking software might be possible to enable in these cars, particularly during this testing and development stage, before the software can be trusted to be fully autonomous, and if the software can tell that a driver is looking away from the road for an extended period (say more than 3 or 4 seconds or so... plenty of time to quickly glance at things like speed or other gauges, or mirrors) while the vehicle is in autonomous mode, an audible alarm could sound, not overly obnoxious, but perhaps similar in style to a "door is open" alert, to gently remind the driver that they should not leave the operation of the vehicle so unattended. Uber could then track how often driving attendants in these so-called "self driving" cars are actually being inattentive and reprimand or dismiss drivers that are not paying attention too often.
Okay... thanks... it's not remotely surprising, but it's good to have the context.
Except they didn't really have six seconds of warning... while it's true that the car saw the person 6 seconds before the collision, the car did not alert the driver in any way of this, so in fact the driver did not have any warning at all.
That said, the driver was not being attentive, and it is possible that the driver might have even not responded to a warning quickly enough if one had been given, but it's still entirely true that the driver did not have any warning about the collision.
Perhaps... but that is why it would be useful for people to know what actually happened to cause it so that they can decide for themselves just how rare it is.
Yes.... someONE, not someTHING.
Also, "secretly" seems to be pretty key.
One should not think that Alexa should be secretly listening to anything
It's offshore.
How is it in or near anyone's backyard?
I mean, I guess the wind farm will be visible from shore, but it's my understanding it'd still be pretty far out. People live closer to all kinds of city infrastructure that is *FAR* more visibility occluding than that.
The way to prove the statement, if it is true, would be to explain exactly what happened to cause it to occur so its infrequency can be evaluated for oneself.
Then each potential customer can determine for themselves if they believe the risk is worth the convenience offered by the device.
Wanna be more specific, Amazon?
Like, actually say what really caused it to happen so that people can evaluate for themselves just how rare it is?
Because, you know... if your trustworthiness has already been called into question by evidence that a private conversation was eavesdropped on by your technology, then it makes no reasonable sense to simply take your word for it that whatever caused it to happen was genuinely "rare" at all.
I'm not saying that Amazon is necessarily lying here... but it makes no sense to actually trust what they are saying about this without being able to evaluate that claim's veracity for ourselves, and the longer they stay quiet, the sooner any honest skepticism can slide into outright disbelief.
I feel like I'm missing context here... and all I can find out about it with a google search is news, news, and more news on this statement by Trump... but absolutely nothing on what led up to it.
I might be inclined to take the lack of information about what led to this as an indication that Trump is overreacting, but I would prefer to reserve judgement until I actually know what the heck is really going on. Last I heard, NK was claiming to get ready to dismantle its nuclear program and begin talks of reunification with SK.