Here's the deal, if you're going to blame the FDA for this, you're gonna stir some serious shit up.
1) FDA is that way, because it is Government. (queue the "I'd rather have old busted FDA than Somalia" counter arguments) 2) This is the same FDA that said Walnuts growers couldn't use Factual Information on their products, because only Drugs can make those claims 3) FDA won't even STUDY cannabis for medicinal use because... well big Pharma can't handle the competition
FDA has indemnified the makers from lawsuits due to failures with such protections. Which is huge deal, and why you CANNOT mess with them at all, even to install antivirus.. The problem is the FDA. It takes years to bring new devices to market, and the FDA doesn't care if they work or not, just that they go through the process. There are PLENTY of examples of FDA approved devices that just plain suck.
Yeah, Reagan sucked, that's why we followed up the crappy years of Carter with unprecedented growth, which suddenly failed right after Clinton. And after eight years of Obama, things suck about as bad as ever.
You're under a delusion. I would postulate that taking from the rich, skimming off the top to government's cut, and giving what's left over to the poor doesn't make anyone richer, including the poor. At best, it is a Zero sum. For the Poor do not create wealth with their cut, the government destroys wealth with their schemes and the rich just get better at hiding their wealth from people who like to take things simply because "We voted on it, that makes it legal".
In the end, while your simplistic rational seems reasonable, it doesn't actually ever work out that way in practice.
The reality is, the ONLY way people gain wealth is by enterprise, something that is demonized as "unfair" by the left, as it is a function of ability, and life isn't fair that way
I'll let you know what creates wealth, it is $15 shoes and not $200 Nike Sneakers. But when you don't work for your money, you don't know which is which.
Just because there are differences between men and women doesn't mean systemic sexism. THEY have to prove systemic sexism first, not use differences to prove sexism. Women and Men are different, but we keep trying to "equalize" these differences, emasculating men, butching up women. and pandering to the loudest people crying "Sexism".
Women are fantastic beings, same as Men. But we are inherently different (as a whole). But wanting "equality for equality sakes is foolish
But that requires.... effort! Why can't Hillary raiser her, and Bernie give her everything and make it turn out right in the end. That way, I can go back to my man cave and work on my Basketball Brackets and watch porn... hey isn't that my daughter doing those four guys?
We recently bought a set of servers from ___, Enterprise VMWare destined servers, and the SSDs? LiteOn. Which failed to deliver the performance needed for the job. Flat out didn't work. Granted, the company _____ replaced the drives, eventually, after we proved they were not capable. The problem I have, is I would NEVER have spec'ed LiteOn Drives for anything even close to "Enterprise".
And in the end, we wasted nearly 4 Man Months of time trying to fix the problem.
And my boss, buys Enterprise, even when I can PROVE that they are exactly the same, off the shelf consumer products, for twice the price. Me, I would buy two for the price of "Enterprise" and keep one on the shelf as a Spare. Knowing where you can get the perfomance you need, at a price that isn't "Enterprise" often allows you to stretch your IT budget AND provide the support your organization needs.
I'll pay for support, I'll even pay a lot for support. But I won't pay for "Enterprise" that is only "consumer" with a new label.
Most Products and Services in the IT world are that way. Dell Computers are more expensive not because they are better, but rather because you get "Enterprise" support. Do not underestimate the power of "Enterprise Support" in the world of CIOs and Directors of IT. They have a distinct aversion to taking the blame for bad decisions, and that "Enterprise" label allows them to shift blame to the vendors.
When you build the solution yourself, and it doesn't work, you get the blame. When you have Dell or someone else "Enterprise" build it, and it doesn't work, you can blame the vendor. That difference is worth the price for the people that care.
You have a number of assumptions, the worst of which is symmetric false reports (1% and 1%). The more likely scenario, which is also tunable (gets better with more data) is that it is asymmetric in nature, and thus the conclusion is not only inaccurate but terribly so.
It would have been MUCH better for you to not assume anything, and give general impressions of how the numbers might work. And 1% is way to high. You're more likely to see numbers in the "per 100,000" range (.000001 vs.01000), which is 1000 times different.
Just about every person who complains about Global warming, has done VERY little to change their habits to use less carbon. They still drive cars, heat their houses instead of moving to warmer climates, use Petro Chemically grown food....
The fact is, Modern Life is impossible without the energy we consume. Most of that is via Petroleum products, coal and OTHER environmentally bad choices (including Solar which requires strip mining rare earth metals, using Heavy equipment run on... fossil fuels!)
The ultimate solution will be Nuclear in nature, but that is "Scary!"
Oh, it's always a "parable" when you don't like what it says or when the content is blatantly hateful or doesn't jibe with your personal interpretation of what you think is right.
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable
.
Yeah, because that is MY interpretation of what "tell them a parable" means. Golly gee, forgive me for saying it is a parable, when it says it right there. How silly of me. I should have known better!
That is the equivalent of a "death penalty", not a command to kill everyone.
There are two parts to that command that make it a civil crime, "in the land", meaning people in other places weren't expected to behave that way, and "all the congregation", meaning it was a jointly responsible. People who didn't want to be part of the community were free to leave.
Of course, I don't expect you to understand. After all, we "lock people up" in jails, something that is not found in the bible. They might consider that cruel but you're okay with it.;-)
1) Never Cleartext Passwords (there should be no exceptions, but we all know of some) 2) Networks should be isolated from each other ("Should") 3) IT budgets are often woefully inadequate for proper securty (Cheap Labor/outsourced, low priority upgrade schedules etc,, lowest cost equipment bids).
Good IT is expensive. Bad IT is costly. Dodged a bullet on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if Ransomware could infect Google Docs on a Google Drive.
They could start using Virtual Desktops, which when properly implemented would reduce exposure to such things in the first place.
Here's the deal, if you're going to blame the FDA for this, you're gonna stir some serious shit up.
1) FDA is that way, because it is Government. (queue the "I'd rather have old busted FDA than Somalia" counter arguments) ... well big Pharma can't handle the competition
2) This is the same FDA that said Walnuts growers couldn't use Factual Information on their products, because only Drugs can make those claims
3) FDA won't even STUDY cannabis for medicinal use because
FDA has indemnified the makers from lawsuits due to failures with such protections. Which is huge deal, and why you CANNOT mess with them at all, even to install antivirus.. The problem is the FDA. It takes years to bring new devices to market, and the FDA doesn't care if they work or not, just that they go through the process. There are PLENTY of examples of FDA approved devices that just plain suck.
Yeah, Reagan sucked, that's why we followed up the crappy years of Carter with unprecedented growth, which suddenly failed right after Clinton. And after eight years of Obama, things suck about as bad as ever.
You're under a delusion. I would postulate that taking from the rich, skimming off the top to government's cut, and giving what's left over to the poor doesn't make anyone richer, including the poor. At best, it is a Zero sum. For the Poor do not create wealth with their cut, the government destroys wealth with their schemes and the rich just get better at hiding their wealth from people who like to take things simply because "We voted on it, that makes it legal".
In the end, while your simplistic rational seems reasonable, it doesn't actually ever work out that way in practice.
The reality is, the ONLY way people gain wealth is by enterprise, something that is demonized as "unfair" by the left, as it is a function of ability, and life isn't fair that way
I'll let you know what creates wealth, it is $15 shoes and not $200 Nike Sneakers. But when you don't work for your money, you don't know which is which.
I want to know when Google Fiber is going to roll out everywhere. I want it here, but no joy yet.
Living wage? You mean perhaps 50/hr or maybe 100/hr! But why stop there. Lets get everyone $250/hr wages, then we can all work only two hours a day!
"Living Wage" is such a pliable term, it means nothing.
Abby Normal?
Just because there are differences between men and women doesn't mean systemic sexism. THEY have to prove systemic sexism first, not use differences to prove sexism. Women and Men are different, but we keep trying to "equalize" these differences, emasculating men, butching up women. and pandering to the loudest people crying "Sexism".
Women are fantastic beings, same as Men. But we are inherently different (as a whole). But wanting "equality for equality sakes is foolish
Bill Clinton, is that you? Jealous of Trump's hot wife are ya?
Better than the Trickle up Poverty we're seeing now, don't you think?
You cannot make more people successful by attacking success.
You cannot make more people richer, by taking from the rich.
But socialists somehow think this works.
But that requires .... effort! Why can't Hillary raiser her, and Bernie give her everything and make it turn out right in the end. That way, I can go back to my man cave and work on my Basketball Brackets and watch porn ... hey isn't that my daughter doing those four guys?
We recently bought a set of servers from ___, Enterprise VMWare destined servers, and the SSDs? LiteOn. Which failed to deliver the performance needed for the job. Flat out didn't work. Granted, the company _____ replaced the drives, eventually, after we proved they were not capable. The problem I have, is I would NEVER have spec'ed LiteOn Drives for anything even close to "Enterprise".
And in the end, we wasted nearly 4 Man Months of time trying to fix the problem.
And my boss, buys Enterprise, even when I can PROVE that they are exactly the same, off the shelf consumer products, for twice the price. Me, I would buy two for the price of "Enterprise" and keep one on the shelf as a Spare. Knowing where you can get the perfomance you need, at a price that isn't "Enterprise" often allows you to stretch your IT budget AND provide the support your organization needs.
I'll pay for support, I'll even pay a lot for support. But I won't pay for "Enterprise" that is only "consumer" with a new label.
Here is BACKBLAZE's article on Drives t hat kind of supports my view ... https://www.backblaze.com/blog...
Most Products and Services in the IT world are that way. Dell Computers are more expensive not because they are better, but rather because you get "Enterprise" support. Do not underestimate the power of "Enterprise Support" in the world of CIOs and Directors of IT. They have a distinct aversion to taking the blame for bad decisions, and that "Enterprise" label allows them to shift blame to the vendors.
When you build the solution yourself, and it doesn't work, you get the blame. When you have Dell or someone else "Enterprise" build it, and it doesn't work, you can blame the vendor. That difference is worth the price for the people that care.
You have a number of assumptions, the worst of which is symmetric false reports (1% and 1%). The more likely scenario, which is also tunable (gets better with more data) is that it is asymmetric in nature, and thus the conclusion is not only inaccurate but terribly so.
It would have been MUCH better for you to not assume anything, and give general impressions of how the numbers might work. And 1% is way to high. You're more likely to see numbers in the "per 100,000" range (.000001 vs .01000), which is 1000 times different.
either that or Chicago
Here in the U.S., citizens must play the role of Parents
Too many children turns everything into the Lord of the Flies. Which Is where I fear we are heading.
Just about every person who complains about Global warming, has done VERY little to change their habits to use less carbon. They still drive cars, heat their houses instead of moving to warmer climates, use Petro Chemically grown food ....
The fact is, Modern Life is impossible without the energy we consume. Most of that is via Petroleum products, coal and OTHER environmentally bad choices (including Solar which requires strip mining rare earth metals, using Heavy equipment run on ... fossil fuels!)
The ultimate solution will be Nuclear in nature, but that is "Scary!"
By that definition, the WBC think they are not activists. Narrow self definitions don't make themselves correct.
Oh, it's always a "parable" when you don't like what it says or when the content is blatantly hateful or doesn't jibe with your personal interpretation of what you think is right.
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable
.
Yeah, because that is MY interpretation of what "tell them a parable" means. Golly gee, forgive me for saying it is a parable, when it says it right there. How silly of me. I should have known better!
So, you're equating property crime to murder? Good one!
Toe May Toe
Toe Mah Toe
That is the equivalent of a "death penalty", not a command to kill everyone.
There are two parts to that command that make it a civil crime, "in the land", meaning people in other places weren't expected to behave that way, and "all the congregation", meaning it was a jointly responsible. People who didn't want to be part of the community were free to leave.
Of course, I don't expect you to understand. After all, we "lock people up" in jails, something that is not found in the bible. They might consider that cruel but you're okay with it. ;-)
1) Never Cleartext Passwords (there should be no exceptions, but we all know of some)
2) Networks should be isolated from each other ("Should")
3) IT budgets are often woefully inadequate for proper securty (Cheap Labor/outsourced, low priority upgrade schedules etc,, lowest cost equipment bids).
Good IT is expensive. Bad IT is costly. Dodged a bullet on this one.
impact of global warming will be quicker and more catastrophic than generally envisioned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...