Thing is it costs a lot of money to develop these treatments, and if they know their competitors are producing a treatment for a particular condition they won't even want to risk throwing money at their own competing product. It's even worse when there is an established treatment already in the market.
Basically the same reason that you don't have a choice of two different cable companies. High costs just to get to offer you the service, in a market that is already saturated.
The only way to fix it is for politicians to take a vow of poverty.
In the UK there are limits on donations and on election spending, but even so there are plenty of other non-monetary bribes available. Ex-chancellor (in charge of public finances) George Osborne has at least 8 jobs now, most of them requiring almost zero actual work, for example.
A lifetime of poverty is the only solution. Might also focus minds on improving conditions for those on low incomes.
Who are you doubting here? The foreigners who observe China, who live and work there, the western charities that operate there? Because they are the ones saying that China has dealt quite effectively with malnutrition, not the Chinese government.
Does it matter what they really believe in their heart-of-hearts?
Someone might not believe that there are literal angels or that when they die they are literally tortured for eternity, but that doesn't really matter if the result is the same, e.g. they support religion based policies and morality stemming for those ideas.
Believing in a flat earth may seem somewhat benign, but if it results in more impressionable people being mislead (e.g. children) or people using it to enrich themselves by organizing profitable conferences, then it's not just a joke any more.
As Sique pointed out above, it's not a gateway to critical thinking either, it's a gateway to post-truth distrust of everything except what you can personally observe with your limited faculties.
They violated privacy and anti-competition laws. The new laws being proposed are related to fake news and political campaigning online, e.g. having to declare who is funding and supporting political ads. A minister was on the radio this morning talking about having some way to get fake news removed too.
"Here's a tool that lets you review all the data we have, which you explicitly opted in to allowing us to collect and which is used to provide the services you enjoy. Here is a button to disable collecting it, and here is a button to delete it."
You will note that after this fix none of the methods outlined in either of your links work any more. The CSS visited link hack was fixed years ago, for example. The paper suggests testing things like SMB links, which are only supported in Internet Explorer anyway.
This story makes no sense. Slashdot assures me that Google is evil and hates privacy, yet here they are doing something to improve privacy.
It makes about as much sense as that time they tried to ban ad-blocking by introducing a new high performance ad-blocking API built right into the browser, and then listened to feedback and decided to keep the old one around for good measure, even though they hate ad-blockers and live for ads.
Can someone explain this latest move, preferably with an outlandish conspiracy theory about how Google is secretly taking over the entire internet and all this privacy/ad-blocking stuff is just to drive all rivals out of business so they can get to the anti-trust break-up stage as quickly as possible.
First they get to charge the customer extra because of "local legal requirements", and then they get to pre-install unremovable spyware that oh yeah blocks about 50% of porn. Naturally it has to report your actual porn viewing habits to "improve the filtering" and also build up a detailed profile of your sexual preferences for marketing purposes.
If they wanted turn stop ad blocking they would have, instead they built a brand new ad blocking API. It sucked but it clearly was the intent to support blocking going forward.
Unskippable ads are at the discretion of the person who uploaded the video (or the company that stole it with a bogus copyright claim). Google offers it because some uploaders want it, but no-one is forced to use it.
Sorry to ruin your little conspiracy theory, but try comparing Windows 10 with baked in ads on the start menu and default file associations continually reset to point to the Microsoft Store, to Chrome OS which has none of that crap.
If Google really wanted to get rid of ad-blocking in Chrome they would. They wouldn't replace it with a pretty effective native API.
Presumably by "ad supporting crypto" you are referring to DRM for video streams... Which Google doesn't use with YouTube, and for which there is a native preference to disable (settings->content->protected content, or use the search box).
The other issue was that the Chrome native method was simpler than many ad-blockers allow for. It was a simple rule matching engine, where as something like uBlock is much more complex and has many other anti-ad and anti-tracking features. Even relatively simple stuff like "only block if matching a 3rd party object" is very useful for avoiding breakage.
How about if we just let everyone speak, and let the listeners decide for themselves who to believe?
Because some of them end up abusing their children by denying vaccinations, and we have a duty of care towards those children (even a legal one in some places).
Another example would be children who were groomed by IS online and travelled to Syria.
Censorship isn't the only tool of course, making accurate information available and revealing the source/funding of these messages helps.
Timely video essay on the subject, worth watching as it covers many of the arguments and issues, even if you don't agree with the conclusions: https://youtu.be/FX8Iw37srmY
How about if we just let everyone speak, and let the listeners decide for themselves who to believe?
Because some of them end up abusing their children by denying vaccinations, and we have a duty of care towards those children (even a legal one in some places).
Another example would be children who were groomed by IS online and travelled to Syria.
Censorship isn't the only tool of course, making accurate information available and revealing the source/funding of these messages helps.
Timely video essay on the subject, worth watching as it covers many of the arguments and issues, even if you don't agree with the conclusions: https://youtu.be/FX8Iw37srmY
Except that if more police are dispatched one some areas than others then naturally they will detect more crime in those areas. Most crime is unreported.
That's a vast under-estimate for the cost of the Fukushima clean up. Are you including all the compensation and knock-on costs like delayed tsunami damage repair and having to build new communities because the old ones have dissipated over the years?
Also, calculating the per kWh cost based on global production is ridiculous. Only Japanese people are paying that cost, and for them it's vastly higher.
Of course, this is a pretty horrific example of externalizing your costs. Even if you accept the monetary cost, you are not the one being forced out of your home, your community and your job, or getting cancer.
A hint is that the article uses "underrepresented minorities" as a euphemism for lower-intelligence minorities
Ah, the old supremacist myth that some arbitrary races are just inherently dumber. Rather undermined by the fact that the mere fact that the professor thought they might be able to improve resulted in a significant narrowing of the gap.
It is true that intelligence, at least the measurable part, is fairly fixed for individuals, so the professors teaching the hardest subjects (advanced maths and physics) are more likely to express the "fixed mindset", while those teaching the more wishy-washy liberal arts subjects like biology and chemistry, where attitude and hard work achieve more, are more likely to lean in the "growth mindset" direction.
Except that, again, here we have results in non-wishy-washy STEM subjects, including hard ones like maths and physics. As the study notes, the actual course doesn't seem to have any effect, the only variable that caused a significant change was the belief by the teacher that the students could improve.
But why speculate when comparing standardised test scores, and aptitude scores (SAT, IQ) would help answer these questions?
Because that wouldn't account for other factors like economic and social background, which are know to have large effects too. This study accounted for those things, and your desire to ignore them is a common supremacist tactic to try to imply that some races are just naturally less intelligent.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is it costs a lot of money to develop these treatments, and if they know their competitors are producing a treatment for a particular condition they won't even want to risk throwing money at their own competing product. It's even worse when there is an established treatment already in the market.
Basically the same reason that you don't have a choice of two different cable companies. High costs just to get to offer you the service, in a market that is already saturated.
Given that he average is now over $1,100/month then clearly $600-1000 isn't considered "good" any more.
In fact it's only about half the average wage in the UK now, assuming you mean gross pay. If you mean take-home then it's about 2/3rds.
The only way to fix it is for politicians to take a vow of poverty.
In the UK there are limits on donations and on election spending, but even so there are plenty of other non-monetary bribes available. Ex-chancellor (in charge of public finances) George Osborne has at least 8 jobs now, most of them requiring almost zero actual work, for example.
A lifetime of poverty is the only solution. Might also focus minds on improving conditions for those on low incomes.
Who are you doubting here? The foreigners who observe China, who live and work there, the western charities that operate there? Because they are the ones saying that China has dealt quite effectively with malnutrition, not the Chinese government.
Does it matter what they really believe in their heart-of-hearts?
Someone might not believe that there are literal angels or that when they die they are literally tortured for eternity, but that doesn't really matter if the result is the same, e.g. they support religion based policies and morality stemming for those ideas.
Believing in a flat earth may seem somewhat benign, but if it results in more impressionable people being mislead (e.g. children) or people using it to enrich themselves by organizing profitable conferences, then it's not just a joke any more.
As Sique pointed out above, it's not a gateway to critical thinking either, it's a gateway to post-truth distrust of everything except what you can personally observe with your limited faculties.
Maybe why Google is also starting to block the worst ads by default anyway. Chrome has a built-in ad blocker now.
They violated privacy and anti-competition laws. The new laws being proposed are related to fake news and political campaigning online, e.g. having to declare who is funding and supporting political ads. A minister was on the radio this morning talking about having some way to get fake news removed too.
"Here's a tool that lets you review all the data we have, which you explicitly opted in to allowing us to collect and which is used to provide the services you enjoy. Here is a button to disable collecting it, and here is a button to delete it."
"OMG mah privacy!!1"
You will note that after this fix none of the methods outlined in either of your links work any more. The CSS visited link hack was fixed years ago, for example. The paper suggests testing things like SMB links, which are only supported in Internet Explorer anyway.
This story makes no sense. Slashdot assures me that Google is evil and hates privacy, yet here they are doing something to improve privacy.
It makes about as much sense as that time they tried to ban ad-blocking by introducing a new high performance ad-blocking API built right into the browser, and then listened to feedback and decided to keep the old one around for good measure, even though they hate ad-blockers and live for ads.
Can someone explain this latest move, preferably with an outlandish conspiracy theory about how Google is secretly taking over the entire internet and all this privacy/ad-blocking stuff is just to drive all rivals out of business so they can get to the anti-trust break-up stage as quickly as possible.
Why, when they can make $$$ out of this?
First they get to charge the customer extra because of "local legal requirements", and then they get to pre-install unremovable spyware that oh yeah blocks about 50% of porn. Naturally it has to report your actual porn viewing habits to "improve the filtering" and also build up a detailed profile of your sexual preferences for marketing purposes.
Why does anything less than "google is teh evil" trigger people around here?
It's like they have turned hating google into some kind of religion, far stronger than the Microsoft hate from back in the day.
If they wanted turn stop ad blocking they would have, instead they built a brand new ad blocking API. It sucked but it clearly was the intent to support blocking going forward.
Oops, triggered a Google-hater.
Unskippable ads are at the discretion of the person who uploaded the video (or the company that stole it with a bogus copyright claim). Google offers it because some uploaders want it, but no-one is forced to use it.
Sorry to ruin your little conspiracy theory, but try comparing Windows 10 with baked in ads on the start menu and default file associations continually reset to point to the Microsoft Store, to Chrome OS which has none of that crap.
If Google really wanted to get rid of ad-blocking in Chrome they would. They wouldn't replace it with a pretty effective native API.
Presumably by "ad supporting crypto" you are referring to DRM for video streams... Which Google doesn't use with YouTube, and for which there is a native preference to disable (settings->content->protected content, or use the search box).
The other issue was that the Chrome native method was simpler than many ad-blockers allow for. It was a simple rule matching engine, where as something like uBlock is much more complex and has many other anti-ad and anti-tracking features. Even relatively simple stuff like "only block if matching a 3rd party object" is very useful for avoiding breakage.
How about if we just let everyone speak, and let the listeners decide for themselves who to believe?
Because some of them end up abusing their children by denying vaccinations, and we have a duty of care towards those children (even a legal one in some places).
Another example would be children who were groomed by IS online and travelled to Syria.
Censorship isn't the only tool of course, making accurate information available and revealing the source/funding of these messages helps.
Timely video essay on the subject, worth watching as it covers many of the arguments and issues, even if you don't agree with the conclusions: https://youtu.be/FX8Iw37srmY
How about if we just let everyone speak, and let the listeners decide for themselves who to believe?
Because some of them end up abusing their children by denying vaccinations, and we have a duty of care towards those children (even a legal one in some places).
Another example would be children who were groomed by IS online and travelled to Syria.
Censorship isn't the only tool of course, making accurate information available and revealing the source/funding of these messages helps.
Timely video essay on the subject, worth watching as it covers many of the arguments and issues, even if you don't agree with the conclusions: https://youtu.be/FX8Iw37srmY
All other cars on all roads. AP is only for use on highways, that are safer anyway.
Also when they introduced AP they introduced automatic emergency braking. So it's impossible to say which is responsible for any effects.
Except that if more police are dispatched one some areas than others then naturally they will detect more crime in those areas. Most crime is unreported.
Could just be compensation for a prior lifetime of lack of encouragement and negative stereotypes.
That's a vast under-estimate for the cost of the Fukushima clean up. Are you including all the compensation and knock-on costs like delayed tsunami damage repair and having to build new communities because the old ones have dissipated over the years?
Also, calculating the per kWh cost based on global production is ridiculous. Only Japanese people are paying that cost, and for them it's vastly higher.
Of course, this is a pretty horrific example of externalizing your costs. Even if you accept the monetary cost, you are not the one being forced out of your home, your community and your job, or getting cancer.
Presumably American universities have systems in place to make sure that grading is fair and consistent between courses.
A hint is that the article uses "underrepresented minorities" as a euphemism for lower-intelligence minorities
Ah, the old supremacist myth that some arbitrary races are just inherently dumber. Rather undermined by the fact that the mere fact that the professor thought they might be able to improve resulted in a significant narrowing of the gap.
It is true that intelligence, at least the measurable part, is fairly fixed for individuals, so the professors teaching the hardest subjects (advanced maths and physics) are more likely to express the "fixed mindset", while those teaching the more wishy-washy liberal arts subjects like biology and chemistry, where attitude and hard work achieve more, are more likely to lean in the "growth mindset" direction.
Except that, again, here we have results in non-wishy-washy STEM subjects, including hard ones like maths and physics. As the study notes, the actual course doesn't seem to have any effect, the only variable that caused a significant change was the belief by the teacher that the students could improve.
But why speculate when comparing standardised test scores, and aptitude scores (SAT, IQ) would help answer these questions?
Because that wouldn't account for other factors like economic and social background, which are know to have large effects too. This study accounted for those things, and your desire to ignore them is a common supremacist tactic to try to imply that some races are just naturally less intelligent.