Now that I have developed autoimmune disease, which is hereditary, when no fucking one in my family out of 200 people has it. I cannot claim I was exposed to anything, well because it didn't happen. I know good fucking well almost everyone in Baghdad in 2003 was exposed to blood agents in the water. The water tested positive multiple times, but do you here about it anywhere?
If you'll excuse my curiosity - what autoimmune disease have you been diagnosed with, and which blood agents did the water test positive for?
Environmental causes of autoimmune diseases are currently poorly understood.
The implication is that this tool is written for use by whomever manages the network. Most networks would have a "no bittorrent" rule,
Most games these days use bittorrent, or some similar peer-to-peer system, to perform updates and patches. Any network that has a hard "no bittorrent" rule IMHO is not a usable consumer network.
It depends on the intended use of such a network. Most workplaces would have very limited use for bittorrent among their users, for example, as would a coffee shop that provides the service primarily to facilitate their clientele's most ubiquitous activities - web browsing and email.
Except the analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be that, instead of yelling "hey, leave some for the rest of us" (which is what SHOULD be done), this michaelcole has chosen to beat the guy to death with a crowbar. That lands you in prison.
No, you are resorting to extreme hyperbole (as are many other commenters here) by equating the submitters actions with violence. The offender is certainly unharmed in the submitter's case and in the analogy given. An improvement on the analogy would be to, instead of shouting "leave some for the others", place a barrier between the offender's and the food, preventing them from getting any more.
The submitter advocates coordination with the network owner on the github readme (though this might not be in good faith). In the analogy, the restauranteur would likely escort such an offender out of their restaurant. The only reason they do not do this in the submitter's situation is that the owners are technologically incapable of doing so.
However, it is on the business owner to stop the abuser, it is not for the other clientele to take aggressive action on their own. The best course of action as a consumer is to go elsewhere.
Look, in a functioning society, (or is a smaller sense a social setting), the people involved understand their roles and act accordingly. When society lack these norms, you have chaotic, random behavior, which in the end leads to more problems.
I agree that it is certainly not ideal. However, the situation is not so black-and-white as many here are trying to make it, and definitely shouldn't be equated with violent assault.
on github the submitter states "After talking with the frustrated non-technical people who owned/managed them, I wrote this program to help network users and owners."
While the program can be used with the network owner's permission, the fact that it can more easily be used without permission makes it rather dubious.
True, but it is just a tool that can be used irresponsibly, like any other. An interesting comparison would be bittorrent itself.
If this is really a widespread problem afflicting non-technical people trying to run a public wi-fi hotspot, what needs to happen is for router configs to limit the number of connections from a single MAC address by default.
Yes that would be an ideal solution, though it would require manufacturer intervention, which is unlikely at best.
If you've got access to the router via the owner, the most obvious thing to try first is QoS.
I certainly agree. The submitter mentions several technical solutions including QoS on his github page, and says they are better than using his "bithammer" tool. The advantage of his tool is that it does not require much involvement on the part of a non-technical proprietor.
Except the analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be that, instead of yelling "hey, leave some for the rest of us" (which is what SHOULD be done), this michaelcole has chosen to beat the guy to death with a crowbar. That lands you in prison.
No, you are resorting to extreme hyperbole (as are many other commenters here) by equating the submitters actions with violence. The offender is certainly unharmed in the submitter's case and in the analogy given. An improvement on the analogy would be to, instead of shouting "leave some for the others", place a barrier between the offender's and the food, preventing them from getting any more.
The submitter advocates coordination with the network owner on the github readme (though this might not be in good faith). In the analogy, the restauranteur would likely escort such an offender out of their restaurant. The only reason they do not do this in the submitter's situation is that the owners are technologically incapable of doing so.
As opposed to the bittorrent user(s) who are pushing everyone else out of the way and preventing their access?
Its one thing to do so with permission from the network owners.. its another thing to wade in and beat up on people just so you can get what you want.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
This is not in the summary, but in his readme on github the submitter states "After talking with the frustrated non-technical people who owned/managed them, I wrote this program to help network users and owners."
The implication is that this tool is written for use by whomever manages the network. Most networks would have a "no bittorrent" rule, if the network owner was savvy enough to know this. The tool is an interesting enforcement mechanism.
I'm shocked by some of the replies so far. Some of you are furious because this guy is trying to limit the people who abuse the system?
Imagine you are at a buffet. It's all-you-can-eat but with no instructions or limits on the way to do it. Now imagine there's a few people at the front of the line and they're putting all the food available into buckets, leaving nothing but scraps for everyone else. Would you be pissed at those people or at the one who would stand up and yell "Hey, leave some for the others"?
Excellent analogy. Almost made coffee shoot out my nose.
Vigilante beats up on people in order to get public wifi access that he believes is rightfully his
That's what it amounts to. He can't get the access he wants, so he just pushes his way in and takes it.
That's an interesting level of hyperbole you have jumped to. Torrent use can easily render a consumer-grade connection unusable. These torrent users on public wifi are at best irresponsible, and at worst malicious vandals.
The submitter's response to the problem is interesting, and while aggressive is certainly not violent as you've implied.
Although the work doesn't provide a definitive answer, it rules out one possible explanation
...that conditioning by itself likely cannot rid the body of the AIDS virus.
No but a significant percentage of Europeans are resistant to HIV. Not sure what the news are here, Germans in general should have 25% chance of fighting off an HIV infection.
You're a bit confused. Some Europeans (between 4% and 16%) carry a mutatation that reduces their likelihood of contracting specific HIV strains. The bone marrow donor mentioned in the summary had two copies of this mutated gene, which is a possible contributor to the "cure".
If it's not the ATM encapsulation overhead as many others have rightly suggested, have a look at the traffic... I had similar concerns with my ISP... I have a Cisco switch between my local firewall and my cable modem... I set one port to monitor mode (copy all packets to a write-only switch port) and captured all of my internet traffic for a number of months... I then analyzed the.cap file and discovered a ginormous amount of SMB advertisements and arp who-has from other cable customers... For those few months, it was on the order of about 10% of my traffic...
From what the submitter said, all that garbage would be included in his traffic calculations. I would put another vote in for encapsulation.
Your findings are a good illustration of the value of a local firewall between your LAN and the ISP's network. Who knows what kind of icky traffic is rolling around out there.
"String theory is untestable" is one of those easy to remember phrases that keeps you away from a great amount of interesting information:
1) "String theory" is actually a family of related theories that make different predictions, where they're advanced enough to do so
2) They're neither as a class, nor individually, a priori untestable
3) They're theories of high energy physics, so what predictions they do make will be difficult to test on currently existing hardware
4) The mathematical tools to make sense of the theories and make predictions are novel themselves
String theory is at a stage kind of like parachuting early-20th-century physics into the 15th century. It's not relevant at length scales where we can easily make observations, but we don't have the necessary cognative or physical tools to write it off either. Have we been handed relativity, or the aether? We can't say because we're not smart enough yet.
Now, as a matter of expediency I'd argue that any self-respective physicist should dedicate himself to advanced models that are a little closer to home and might act as stepping stones to string theory's energy scales, but since when has any self-respecting scientist been led away from a beautiful hypothesis by pragmatism? Much less a physicist?
If I could give out a "comment of the day" award, this one would win it.
Smaller organisations have not enough servers or users to justify separate staff, so it's not uncommon to see a sysadmin who also does support, or support staff who also admin the couple of servers the office needs.
I would say this situation is not just "not uncommon", but ubiquitous.
I would even say that most people whose job title is some derivative of "system administrator" do at least some end-user or desktop support as part of their day-to-day job duties.
I don't get it how they say that is not Thor as the character but at the same time say that it is Thor as if Thor was some title.
like, I could understand if the plot took Peter Parker down on some road and someone else started saying that he/she was Spiderman. but that marvel would take Peter Parker, say that the plot makes him do something and some woman just starts calling her Peter Parker and that she is now the Peter Parker of the marvel universe..
like, wtf. why not label it as it is apparently in the plot: some woman starts wielding the mjolnir and calling herself Thor.
This is not uncommon among comic book super heroes. There are numerous different persons who assume the identity of particular heroes (and villains). Significant examples include DC's Green Lantern, Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, and Marvel's Captain America, Bucky, and Iron Patriot. Continuity is famously not a concern among comics outside of individual story arcs, so some of these divergent identities operate in the same fictional universes and some do not.
Sounds to me like the best thing to do, then, might be to just hang up as soon as you discover they are calling in regards to a job reference. Or is that against the law too?
No. It is generally considered rude, however, and it unnecessary.
And this is not a "reference". This is your prospective employer calling to verify employment. If you provide an individual (even a former boss or owner of a company that you used to work for) as a reference, they can generally say whatever they want. Normally this is only done for those you trust to provide a positive reference.
Many employers will contact previous employers to "verify employment". As AK Marc mentioned, the information they are legally allowed to request and the previous employer is legally allowed to provide is limited. They can verify dates of employment, job title, supervisory status, and whether the individual is eligible for rehire. The last bit can be very significant, and is often the reason that employees give notice and otherwise attempt to leave a company smoothly. Of course, some commit misconduct by providing either positive or negative opinions on the employees job performance or other matters, especially because the people involved (HR personnel or business owners operating in the same locality) often know each other.
Seriously, we have never found any corpses from this beast and with the amount that man has spread out, I am 100% certain we would have found the beast by now.
At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic, just a few years ago I remember seeing several scientists stating on camera that they believed that every large mammal on earth was already documented and known to science. Not long after that I read a news piece reporting the discovery of several previously unknown species of mammals including a species of deer that reportedly weighs in at 150lb. Another example is a species of whale native to the Southern Arctic that is only known from a few DNA samples obtained from whalers. The point being that even though it is fun to ridicule crypto zoologists, there are numerous examples even in this day and age of unknown species hiding right under our noses.
Not very many on the second list that I would consider "large" (scientific definition of "large" in the context of megafauna is somewhat ambiguous, though often bounded on the lower end at 100 pounds). Most of the creatures on these lists are very similar to already known and described species (the giant peccary, for example), and aren't very impressive discoveries from a lay viewpoint. Notice on the "list of cryptids" there is only one creature with "confirmed" status - the Okapi, discovered over a century ago.
I disagree. They are providing a performance and many people like it. if you don't like it, you don't have to pay. Only Obama makes you pay for things you don't want or need.
It's a universal anti-lymphocite agent which basically induces a state similar to AIDS, by killing off lymphocytes and leaving the door open for serious infections or diseases, so not exactly safe either.
These drugs definitely are are immunosuppressive. They are generally considered safe for most patients, though they certainly increase the risk of opportunistic infections (example: tuberculosis).
Or "Yet again scientist stare another bucket of evidence that inflammation underlays many human ailments from cancer to heart disease to hair loss and treating the underlying inflammation for one thing is effective in more ways than they expected"
Interesting observation. JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors (including monoclonal antibodies), are commonly used to treat various forms of autoimmune diseases such as arthritis (in it's varying manifestations), psoriasis, IBS, ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's. These autoimmune diseases have a high rate of comorbidity and often respond to the same or similar treatments.
Alopecia was already thought to be an autoimmune disorder, so the observed results should not be very surprising. It seems to be only newsworthy since the treatment happened to be a total cure for a very rare disease.
You are correct in aggregate - of course companies cannot hire people who don't exist - but I really struggle to believe that *Google* has 17% female application rates after controlling for education.
Why do you struggle to believe this?
The 17% figure reported is for tech workers only - their overall and non-tech numbers are much better, with 30% and 48% women respectively. You can see their released numbers here.
From this publication by the ASEE:
"...females accounted for 18.4 percent of [engineering] bachelor’s degrees, up slightly from 18.1 percent in 2010. The percentage of master’s degrees awarded to women remained unchanged at 22.6 percent; while that of doctoral degrees decreased about 1 percent from 22.9 percent in 2010 to 21.8 percent in 2011. The proportion of engineering degrees awarded to females should remain stable over the next few years, since women represent 18.2 percent of all bachelor enrollees, 22.7 percent of master’s enrollees, and 21.6 percent of doctoral enrollees."
"The percentage of black students also decreased slightly at all levels, bringing the percent of [engineering] degrees awarded from around 4.5 percent to closer to 4 percent."
And regarding computer science, according to this infographic, 18% of computer science undergraduate degree recipients were female (14% at major research universities), and 19% of the highschool AP computer science test-takers were female. Also according to the infographic, percentage of female computer science undergraduates has dropped dramatically (by 79%!!) since 2000.
I definitely agree that the under-representation of women in the tech sector is a serious problem. However, this under-representation seems to be caused by a number of poorly understood socioeconomic and cultural factors, and the data doesn't indicate particular misogyny on Google's part.
Every arcade that I have been inside in the last 10 years or so has been filled with terrible ticket-churning games. The commoditization of gaming hardware seems to have permanently killed off the classic arcade. Do you think this is an accurate observation, and do you see any way that the arcade-game scene could be rejuvenated?
I would be interested in what the voter/incumbent ratio is in those other democracies. I would be interested in their taxation model, and their services model. I would be interested if their leaders are directly elected or elector-elected. Obviously your two Senators cannot do everything that needs to get done, so are they going to appoint people to handle the local details?
Obviously it would be ideal to adjust details such as number of senators and etc. if there were no state governments. There are a lot of things that would need to be adjusted, but without the gigantic bureaucracy of 50 state governments a lot could be done.
We would end up with massive cronyism with 6 years to wait to get rid of them...if we could.
We already have massive cronyism in federal government, and this problem is significantly worse in many current state governments.
I think the local governments are incompetent and poor because the lions share of the tax money is going to the Federal government.
Interesting thought. The federal government will always get more tax money than the state governments. We have gone dramatically too far down that road to turn back. We are currently spending over 700 billion dollars each on military and social security. These two gigantic budget items are each a bit larger than the total tax revenue from all 50 states combined. These two items not going away anytime soon (admittedly, neither are state governments, so this entire discussion is basically moot).
We could afford and feel entitled to the best people in our local governments if they were the ones controlling the dispersment of tax revenues. Last I heard, the pentagon could not account for a trillion dollars. Thats a lot of schools, hospitals, roads, and jobs that were lost.
"Not able to account for" is not the same as "missing". But yes, I do not see any reason to argue whether the federal government is inefficient and/or spends too much money. This behavior seems to be a foundational requirement for all governments. My position is that state governments are more wasteful, and less functional than the federal government.
I do not feel inclined to give control of any more tax revenue to the state governments who have already proven to be inept and/or malicious in their handling of funds at a truly ludicrous level. I think the most logical conclusion, based on my observations of state governments, that if we transferred a significant portion of federal funds to state control, the currently pervasive financial misconduct would only increase by a factor of how much more money was available.
state governments are because we're not all one people or one regions. for example, contiguous US vs alaska and hawaii. smaller entities can be more nimble and responsive than larger entities.
Yes because state governments, in reality, are so much more nimble and responsive...
But thank you for the informative bit about US geography.
I cannot vote for the guys that run the House Committee on this or the Senate Leader on that unless they came from my State.
So if we centralize all the power in the Federal government, we are basically ceding all of our ability to vote for our interests.
What you suggest is insane.
Are you saying that democracy cannot work in a federalized government...? Many existing, successful countries with this system indicate that it is not the case.
I believe that propping up ineffective, incompetent, corrupt, valueless state governments just for the sake of having them is insane.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that I have developed autoimmune disease, which is hereditary, when no fucking one in my family out of 200 people has it. I cannot claim I was exposed to anything, well because it didn't happen. I know good fucking well almost everyone in Baghdad in 2003 was exposed to blood agents in the water. The water tested positive multiple times, but do you here about it anywhere?
If you'll excuse my curiosity - what autoimmune disease have you been diagnosed with, and which blood agents did the water test positive for?
Environmental causes of autoimmune diseases are currently poorly understood.
The implication is that this tool is written for use by whomever manages the network. Most networks would have a "no bittorrent" rule,
Most games these days use bittorrent, or some similar peer-to-peer system, to perform updates and patches. Any network that has a hard "no bittorrent" rule IMHO is not a usable consumer network.
It depends on the intended use of such a network. Most workplaces would have very limited use for bittorrent among their users, for example, as would a coffee shop that provides the service primarily to facilitate their clientele's most ubiquitous activities - web browsing and email.
Except the analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be that, instead of yelling "hey, leave some for the rest of us" (which is what SHOULD be done), this michaelcole has chosen to beat the guy to death with a crowbar. That lands you in prison.
No, you are resorting to extreme hyperbole (as are many other commenters here) by equating the submitters actions with violence. The offender is certainly unharmed in the submitter's case and in the analogy given. An improvement on the analogy would be to, instead of shouting "leave some for the others", place a barrier between the offender's and the food, preventing them from getting any more. The submitter advocates coordination with the network owner on the github readme (though this might not be in good faith). In the analogy, the restauranteur would likely escort such an offender out of their restaurant. The only reason they do not do this in the submitter's situation is that the owners are technologically incapable of doing so.
However, it is on the business owner to stop the abuser, it is not for the other clientele to take aggressive action on their own. The best course of action as a consumer is to go elsewhere. Look, in a functioning society, (or is a smaller sense a social setting), the people involved understand their roles and act accordingly. When society lack these norms, you have chaotic, random behavior, which in the end leads to more problems.
I agree that it is certainly not ideal. However, the situation is not so black-and-white as many here are trying to make it, and definitely shouldn't be equated with violent assault.
While the program can be used with the network owner's permission, the fact that it can more easily be used without permission makes it rather dubious.
True, but it is just a tool that can be used irresponsibly, like any other. An interesting comparison would be bittorrent itself.
If this is really a widespread problem afflicting non-technical people trying to run a public wi-fi hotspot, what needs to happen is for router configs to limit the number of connections from a single MAC address by default.
Yes that would be an ideal solution, though it would require manufacturer intervention, which is unlikely at best.
If you've got access to the router via the owner, the most obvious thing to try first is QoS.
I certainly agree. The submitter mentions several technical solutions including QoS on his github page, and says they are better than using his "bithammer" tool. The advantage of his tool is that it does not require much involvement on the part of a non-technical proprietor.
Except the analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be that, instead of yelling "hey, leave some for the rest of us" (which is what SHOULD be done), this michaelcole has chosen to beat the guy to death with a crowbar. That lands you in prison.
No, you are resorting to extreme hyperbole (as are many other commenters here) by equating the submitters actions with violence. The offender is certainly unharmed in the submitter's case and in the analogy given. An improvement on the analogy would be to, instead of shouting "leave some for the others", place a barrier between the offender's and the food, preventing them from getting any more.
The submitter advocates coordination with the network owner on the github readme (though this might not be in good faith). In the analogy, the restauranteur would likely escort such an offender out of their restaurant. The only reason they do not do this in the submitter's situation is that the owners are technologically incapable of doing so.
As opposed to the bittorrent user(s) who are pushing everyone else out of the way and preventing their access?
Its one thing to do so with permission from the network owners .. its another thing to wade in and beat up on people just so you can get what you want.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
This is not in the summary, but in his readme on github the submitter states "After talking with the frustrated non-technical people who owned/managed them, I wrote this program to help network users and owners."
The implication is that this tool is written for use by whomever manages the network. Most networks would have a "no bittorrent" rule, if the network owner was savvy enough to know this. The tool is an interesting enforcement mechanism.
I'm shocked by some of the replies so far. Some of you are furious because this guy is trying to limit the people who abuse the system?
Imagine you are at a buffet. It's all-you-can-eat but with no instructions or limits on the way to do it. Now imagine there's a few people at the front of the line and they're putting all the food available into buckets, leaving nothing but scraps for everyone else. Would you be pissed at those people or at the one who would stand up and yell "Hey, leave some for the others"?
Excellent analogy. Almost made coffee shoot out my nose.
Vigilante beats up on people in order to get public wifi access that he believes is rightfully his
That's what it amounts to. He can't get the access he wants, so he just pushes his way in and takes it.
That's an interesting level of hyperbole you have jumped to. Torrent use can easily render a consumer-grade connection unusable. These torrent users on public wifi are at best irresponsible, and at worst malicious vandals.
The submitter's response to the problem is interesting, and while aggressive is certainly not violent as you've implied.
It's up right now for me.
Although the work doesn't provide a definitive answer, it rules out one possible explanation
...that conditioning by itself likely cannot rid the body of the AIDS virus.
No but a significant percentage of Europeans are resistant to HIV. Not sure what the news are here, Germans in general should have 25% chance of fighting off an HIV infection.
You're a bit confused. Some Europeans (between 4% and 16%) carry a mutatation that reduces their likelihood of contracting specific HIV strains. The bone marrow donor mentioned in the summary had two copies of this mutated gene, which is a possible contributor to the "cure".
If it's not the ATM encapsulation overhead as many others have rightly suggested, have a look at the traffic... I had similar concerns with my ISP... I have a Cisco switch between my local firewall and my cable modem... I set one port to monitor mode (copy all packets to a write-only switch port) and captured all of my internet traffic for a number of months... I then analyzed the .cap file and discovered a ginormous amount of SMB advertisements and arp who-has from other cable customers... For those few months, it was on the order of about 10% of my traffic...
From what the submitter said, all that garbage would be included in his traffic calculations. I would put another vote in for encapsulation.
Your findings are a good illustration of the value of a local firewall between your LAN and the ISP's network. Who knows what kind of icky traffic is rolling around out there.
"String theory is untestable" is one of those easy to remember phrases that keeps you away from a great amount of interesting information:
1) "String theory" is actually a family of related theories that make different predictions, where they're advanced enough to do so 2) They're neither as a class, nor individually, a priori untestable 3) They're theories of high energy physics, so what predictions they do make will be difficult to test on currently existing hardware 4) The mathematical tools to make sense of the theories and make predictions are novel themselves
String theory is at a stage kind of like parachuting early-20th-century physics into the 15th century. It's not relevant at length scales where we can easily make observations, but we don't have the necessary cognative or physical tools to write it off either. Have we been handed relativity, or the aether? We can't say because we're not smart enough yet.
Now, as a matter of expediency I'd argue that any self-respective physicist should dedicate himself to advanced models that are a little closer to home and might act as stepping stones to string theory's energy scales, but since when has any self-respecting scientist been led away from a beautiful hypothesis by pragmatism? Much less a physicist?
If I could give out a "comment of the day" award, this one would win it.
Smaller organisations have not enough servers or users to justify separate staff, so it's not uncommon to see a sysadmin who also does support, or support staff who also admin the couple of servers the office needs.
I would say this situation is not just "not uncommon", but ubiquitous.
I would even say that most people whose job title is some derivative of "system administrator" do at least some end-user or desktop support as part of their day-to-day job duties.
I don't get it how they say that is not Thor as the character but at the same time say that it is Thor as if Thor was some title.
like, I could understand if the plot took Peter Parker down on some road and someone else started saying that he/she was Spiderman. but that marvel would take Peter Parker, say that the plot makes him do something and some woman just starts calling her Peter Parker and that she is now the Peter Parker of the marvel universe..
like, wtf. why not label it as it is apparently in the plot: some woman starts wielding the mjolnir and calling herself Thor.
This is not uncommon among comic book super heroes. There are numerous different persons who assume the identity of particular heroes (and villains). Significant examples include DC's Green Lantern, Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, and Marvel's Captain America, Bucky, and Iron Patriot. Continuity is famously not a concern among comics outside of individual story arcs, so some of these divergent identities operate in the same fictional universes and some do not.
Sounds to me like the best thing to do, then, might be to just hang up as soon as you discover they are calling in regards to a job reference. Or is that against the law too?
No. It is generally considered rude, however, and it unnecessary.
And this is not a "reference". This is your prospective employer calling to verify employment. If you provide an individual (even a former boss or owner of a company that you used to work for) as a reference, they can generally say whatever they want. Normally this is only done for those you trust to provide a positive reference.
Many employers will contact previous employers to "verify employment". As AK Marc mentioned, the information they are legally allowed to request and the previous employer is legally allowed to provide is limited. They can verify dates of employment, job title, supervisory status, and whether the individual is eligible for rehire. The last bit can be very significant, and is often the reason that employees give notice and otherwise attempt to leave a company smoothly. Of course, some commit misconduct by providing either positive or negative opinions on the employees job performance or other matters, especially because the people involved (HR personnel or business owners operating in the same locality) often know each other.
Seriously, we have never found any corpses from this beast and with the amount that man has spread out, I am 100% certain we would have found the beast by now.
At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic, just a few years ago I remember seeing several scientists stating on camera that they believed that every large mammal on earth was already documented and known to science. Not long after that I read a news piece reporting the discovery of several previously unknown species of mammals including a species of deer that reportedly weighs in at 150lb. Another example is a species of whale native to the Southern Arctic that is only known from a few DNA samples obtained from whalers. The point being that even though it is fun to ridicule crypto zoologists, there are numerous examples even in this day and age of unknown species hiding right under our noses.
Here are some relevant lists for your perusal:
List of megafauna discovered in modern times
List of recently discovered mammals
List of cryptids
Not very many on the second list that I would consider "large" (scientific definition of "large" in the context of megafauna is somewhat ambiguous, though often bounded on the lower end at 100 pounds). Most of the creatures on these lists are very similar to already known and described species (the giant peccary, for example), and aren't very impressive discoveries from a lay viewpoint. Notice on the "list of cryptids" there is only one creature with "confirmed" status - the Okapi, discovered over a century ago.
I disagree. They are providing a performance and many people like it. if you don't like it, you don't have to pay. Only Obama makes you pay for things you don't want or need.
Yes, only Obama.
Thanks Obama! >:(
It's a universal anti-lymphocite agent which basically induces a state similar to AIDS, by killing off lymphocytes and leaving the door open for serious infections or diseases, so not exactly safe either.
Tofacitinib is a JAK inhibitor, which is not exactly an anti-lymphocite agent. These drugs function by interfering with the JAK-STAT_signaling_pathway, not by killing off lymphocytes.
These drugs definitely are are immunosuppressive. They are generally considered safe for most patients, though they certainly increase the risk of opportunistic infections (example: tuberculosis).
Or "Yet again scientist stare another bucket of evidence that inflammation underlays many human ailments from cancer to heart disease to hair loss and treating the underlying inflammation for one thing is effective in more ways than they expected"
Interesting observation. JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors (including monoclonal antibodies), are commonly used to treat various forms of autoimmune diseases such as arthritis (in it's varying manifestations), psoriasis, IBS, ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's. These autoimmune diseases have a high rate of comorbidity and often respond to the same or similar treatments.
Alopecia was already thought to be an autoimmune disorder, so the observed results should not be very surprising. It seems to be only newsworthy since the treatment happened to be a total cure for a very rare disease.
Spoken like a true Win^H^H^H Loser
I think the word you are looking for is "pragmatist".
You are correct in aggregate - of course companies cannot hire people who don't exist - but I really struggle to believe that *Google* has 17% female application rates after controlling for education.
Why do you struggle to believe this?
The 17% figure reported is for tech workers only - their overall and non-tech numbers are much better, with 30% and 48% women respectively. You can see their released numbers here.
From this publication by the ASEE: "...females accounted for 18.4 percent of [engineering] bachelor’s degrees, up slightly from 18.1 percent in 2010. The percentage of master’s degrees awarded to women remained unchanged at 22.6 percent; while that of doctoral degrees decreased about 1 percent from 22.9 percent in 2010 to 21.8 percent in 2011. The proportion of engineering degrees awarded to females should remain stable over the next few years, since women represent 18.2 percent of all bachelor enrollees, 22.7 percent of master’s enrollees, and 21.6 percent of doctoral enrollees."
"The percentage of black students also decreased slightly at all levels, bringing the percent of [engineering] degrees awarded from around 4.5 percent to closer to 4 percent."
And regarding computer science, according to this infographic, 18% of computer science undergraduate degree recipients were female (14% at major research universities), and 19% of the highschool AP computer science test-takers were female. Also according to the infographic, percentage of female computer science undergraduates has dropped dramatically (by 79%!!) since 2000.
I definitely agree that the under-representation of women in the tech sector is a serious problem. However, this under-representation seems to be caused by a number of poorly understood socioeconomic and cultural factors, and the data doesn't indicate particular misogyny on Google's part.
Every arcade that I have been inside in the last 10 years or so has been filled with terrible ticket-churning games. The commoditization of gaming hardware seems to have permanently killed off the classic arcade. Do you think this is an accurate observation, and do you see any way that the arcade-game scene could be rejuvenated?
I would be interested in what the voter/incumbent ratio is in those other democracies. I would be interested in their taxation model, and their services model. I would be interested if their leaders are directly elected or elector-elected. Obviously your two Senators cannot do everything that needs to get done, so are they going to appoint people to handle the local details?
Obviously it would be ideal to adjust details such as number of senators and etc. if there were no state governments. There are a lot of things that would need to be adjusted, but without the gigantic bureaucracy of 50 state governments a lot could be done.
We would end up with massive cronyism with 6 years to wait to get rid of them...if we could.
We already have massive cronyism in federal government, and this problem is significantly worse in many current state governments.
I think the local governments are incompetent and poor because the lions share of the tax money is going to the Federal government.
Interesting thought. The federal government will always get more tax money than the state governments. We have gone dramatically too far down that road to turn back. We are currently spending over 700 billion dollars each on military and social security. These two gigantic budget items are each a bit larger than the total tax revenue from all 50 states combined. These two items not going away anytime soon (admittedly, neither are state governments, so this entire discussion is basically moot).
We could afford and feel entitled to the best people in our local governments if they were the ones controlling the dispersment of tax revenues. Last I heard, the pentagon could not account for a trillion dollars. Thats a lot of schools, hospitals, roads, and jobs that were lost.
"Not able to account for" is not the same as "missing". But yes, I do not see any reason to argue whether the federal government is inefficient and/or spends too much money. This behavior seems to be a foundational requirement for all governments. My position is that state governments are more wasteful, and less functional than the federal government.
I do not feel inclined to give control of any more tax revenue to the state governments who have already proven to be inept and/or malicious in their handling of funds at a truly ludicrous level. I think the most logical conclusion, based on my observations of state governments, that if we transferred a significant portion of federal funds to state control, the currently pervasive financial misconduct would only increase by a factor of how much more money was available.
state governments are because we're not all one people or one regions. for example, contiguous US vs alaska and hawaii. smaller entities can be more nimble and responsive than larger entities.
Yes because state governments, in reality, are so much more nimble and responsive...
But thank you for the informative bit about US geography.
I cannot vote for the guys that run the House Committee on this or the Senate Leader on that unless they came from my State.
So if we centralize all the power in the Federal government, we are basically ceding all of our ability to vote for our interests.
What you suggest is insane.
Are you saying that democracy cannot work in a federalized government...? Many existing, successful countries with this system indicate that it is not the case.
I believe that propping up ineffective, incompetent, corrupt, valueless state governments just for the sake of having them is insane.