I picked the train of logic AFTER the question of whether it makes sense to spend X billions of dollars on research for disease Y and save Z amount of people, where Z is under 1000 and the positive economic impact is near zero.
R&D is tricky to measure, a study costing a million dollars can yield 10 billion dollars, while another study costing 500 million dollars might yield 5 million. therefore one R&D could cover another.
Hell, a simpler solution would be to ever-so-slightly raise the price of common, cheaply available patented medication to support the insanely expensive, but rarely used ones. I'd happily pay 5 dollars on a 4.50 dollars med bottle if the 50 cents difference would cover a rare disease medication (paid for by me and 600,000 other people who bought that kind of med).
That was my uneducated guess too:) But seriously, any meat provider would have been welcome. I agree that early humans wouldn't go specifically hunting other humans, but if they ended up clashing and killing each other, then all bets were off, consumption-wise.
It does neither rise, nor set. It moves in a circle, either above or below the horizon. Not a perfect circle, obviously... might want to call it an oval.
It's why I only keep recruiters for two weeks into my LinkedIn contacts after they add me. If they don't communicate at all with me for two weeks, they're out. One of them has added me 12 times and counting! I've seen recruiters boasting on LinkedIn about them having tens of thousands of contacts... all used as leverage to seem more competent than they are.
No they are not. They, like everyone else, are paid through people above them. In certain countries (e.g. France, Germany) incompetent workers are very well protected by laws while Upper Management's dirty work isn't. That's where HR comes in, to minimize the former (protection) and maximize the latter (dirty work). HR almost always manages up. Sometimes they appear to be protecting the employee, but in fact they're protecting their own asses. For example, when many employees from my group provided bad feedback for a certain Director during a yearly review phase, HR contacted most of them (save for two) and "privately" told them that it would be best to adjust hat feedback because the "anonymous" data isn't that "anonymous" after all. One of the two employees who were not notified caught wind of this and promptly changed his feedback, the other wasn't so lucky and was laid off shortly afterwards, ostensibly for reasons different than "you provided bad feedback about that Director".
HR is like Nobel's dynamite: created for noble reasons, used for all the nefarious ones.
I am sorry, but I really don't understand this. Laws should be free for anyone to read. They're public.
With that being said, the attached cost might not be defined as "it'll cost you this much to read the set of laws" but as "it'll cost you this much tor read the laws in this particular format". Now the question becomes "are there free alternatives to this data set?"
Analogy: I could take Dante's "Inferno" and publish it as an illustrated interactive electronic format book, with 3D animations and comments and bells and whistles and sell it for a thousand dollars a piece - not because the standard content costs a thing, but because I put X amount of work into it, and the work itself is copyrighted, e.g. the extra content.
In this case, copying that product and distributing it for free is copyright infringement.
I had written all the above without clicking on any TFS URLs, but now I did. And it looks like LexisNexis, the publisher, is a private corporation. So this is not a matter of data (aka the set of laws) not being available otherwise. It's a matter of that particular set of data (annotated laws) having been copied without the publisher's consent, which is copyright infringement.
To add to that... I've created a child account on my Windows 10 OS, my kids are using it and they watch Youtube videos tailored to their age. However, the ads running there don't match the content type most times, even though I've created a Google account for them alone, hoping that whatever algorithms Google uses would realize all watched content is kid-oriented.
Granted, the recommendations for videos do match the ones they watch, but the ads don't, so I added AdBlock plus and most inappropriate ads went away.
This is yet another example of why AdBlock is mandatory and that the reason for its existence is the ad industry being bad at what it does.
All while I dared make and publish a review of Mafia III (not a professional review, just a bunch of game video captures with commentary) and I promptly got dinged by their algorithm for about 10 seconds of silence where "Somebody to Love" could be heard playing in the background, in-game.
A copyright owner using Content ID claimed some material in your video.
This is just a heads up Don’t worry. You’re not in trouble and your account standing is not affected by this.
There are either ads running on your video, with the revenue going to the copyright owner, or the copyright owner is receiving stats about your video’s views.
Video title: Mafia III - 5 months later (Review) Copyrighted content: Somebody To Love Claimed by: SME
So... I work for a few hours, put together a review, expect my 50 cents of revenue (I don't have many subscribers or views anyway, it's more like a side hobby of mine) but noooo... because there's an excerpt of music in the background for 10 seconds, I shit you not, I checked. It's 10 seconds of song.
Your decisions are still yours and you're free to make them. However, they have consequences. What you're saying is that you don't like the consequences of your decisions, not that you can't make them.
Slashdot Mirror
Question is... how FAST is the ROI expected?
There's a difference between ROI in 2 years and ROI in 10.
In my 3rd world country, asking for current pay is forbidden.
I don't give a fuck what it sounds like.
However, I care about how helpful it is.
I picked the train of logic AFTER the question of whether it makes sense to spend X billions of dollars on research for disease Y and save Z amount of people, where Z is under 1000 and the positive economic impact is near zero.
R&D is tricky to measure, a study costing a million dollars can yield 10 billion dollars, while another study costing 500 million dollars might yield 5 million. therefore one R&D could cover another.
Hell, a simpler solution would be to ever-so-slightly raise the price of common, cheaply available patented medication to support the insanely expensive, but rarely used ones. I'd happily pay 5 dollars on a 4.50 dollars med bottle if the 50 cents difference would cover a rare disease medication (paid for by me and 600,000 other people who bought that kind of med).
I wonder what's the markup on those drugs.
Are they that costly to produce?
Is the Notre Dam bigger than the Hoover Dam?
Either way, I don't give a dam.
That was my uneducated guess too :)
But seriously, any meat provider would have been welcome. I agree that early humans wouldn't go specifically hunting other humans, but if they ended up clashing and killing each other, then all bets were off, consumption-wise.
It does neither rise, nor set.
It moves in a circle, either above or below the horizon. Not a perfect circle, obviously... might want to call it an oval.
Shit.
Let me guess... You fucked her in college and she didn't like it? :)
Yeah. IN THEORY.
Good luck applying that to real world.
It's why I only keep recruiters for two weeks into my LinkedIn contacts after they add me. If they don't communicate at all with me for two weeks, they're out.
One of them has added me 12 times and counting!
I've seen recruiters boasting on LinkedIn about them having tens of thousands of contacts... all used as leverage to seem more competent than they are.
No they are not. They, like everyone else, are paid through people above them.
In certain countries (e.g. France, Germany) incompetent workers are very well protected by laws while Upper Management's dirty work isn't. That's where HR comes in, to minimize the former (protection) and maximize the latter (dirty work).
HR almost always manages up. Sometimes they appear to be protecting the employee, but in fact they're protecting their own asses. For example, when many employees from my group provided bad feedback for a certain Director during a yearly review phase, HR contacted most of them (save for two) and "privately" told them that it would be best to adjust hat feedback because the "anonymous" data isn't that "anonymous" after all. One of the two employees who were not notified caught wind of this and promptly changed his feedback, the other wasn't so lucky and was laid off shortly afterwards, ostensibly for reasons different than "you provided bad feedback about that Director".
HR is like Nobel's dynamite: created for noble reasons, used for all the nefarious ones.
I suppose all your asshair bacteria died from a particularly nasty shart you let go that day.
Word. That's why I loved Rogue One and despised Star Wars VII.
I am sorry, but I really don't understand this.
Laws should be free for anyone to read. They're public.
With that being said, the attached cost might not be defined as "it'll cost you this much to read the set of laws" but as "it'll cost you this much tor read the laws in this particular format". Now the question becomes "are there free alternatives to this data set?"
Analogy: I could take Dante's "Inferno" and publish it as an illustrated interactive electronic format book, with 3D animations and comments and bells and whistles and sell it for a thousand dollars a piece - not because the standard content costs a thing, but because I put X amount of work into it, and the work itself is copyrighted, e.g. the extra content.
In this case, copying that product and distributing it for free is copyright infringement.
I had written all the above without clicking on any TFS URLs, but now I did. And it looks like LexisNexis, the publisher, is a private corporation. So this is not a matter of data (aka the set of laws) not being available otherwise. It's a matter of that particular set of data (annotated laws) having been copied without the publisher's consent, which is copyright infringement.
Not to worry, the trend to remove working from home as an option will soon make the decision step obsolete.
To add to that... I've created a child account on my Windows 10 OS, my kids are using it and they watch Youtube videos tailored to their age. However, the ads running there don't match the content type most times, even though I've created a Google account for them alone, hoping that whatever algorithms Google uses would realize all watched content is kid-oriented.
Granted, the recommendations for videos do match the ones they watch, but the ads don't, so I added AdBlock plus and most inappropriate ads went away.
This is yet another example of why AdBlock is mandatory and that the reason for its existence is the ad industry being bad at what it does.
All while I dared make and publish a review of Mafia III (not a professional review, just a bunch of game video captures with commentary) and I promptly got dinged by their algorithm for about 10 seconds of silence where "Somebody to Love" could be heard playing in the background, in-game.
A copyright owner using Content ID claimed some material in your video.
This is just a heads up
Don’t worry. You’re not in trouble and your account standing is not affected by this.
There are either ads running on your video, with the revenue going to the copyright owner, or the copyright owner is receiving stats about your video’s views.
Video title: Mafia III - 5 months later (Review)
Copyrighted content: Somebody To Love
Claimed by: SME
So... I work for a few hours, put together a review, expect my 50 cents of revenue (I don't have many subscribers or views anyway, it's more like a side hobby of mine) but noooo... because there's an excerpt of music in the background for 10 seconds, I shit you not, I checked. It's 10 seconds of song.
89% of all porn made is produced in the USA.
http://www.canadianbusiness.co...
Ahem...
Plus, Uber and Lyft will finance your car for you! Heck, your payment on your Lyft car depends on the hours you work.
I stand corrected. I never knew this.
I mean, wow, that's a new level of low.
5 hours A WEEK, not per day, you reading-impaired you :)
I'm sorry but I never was able to put someone who still owns a car into the "desperate" category.
There's money to be made by livestreaming that shit.
Your decisions are still yours and you're free to make them. However, they have consequences. What you're saying is that you don't like the consequences of your decisions, not that you can't make them.