If they have already decided which contractor they wanted for the job, it's probably their way to make certain that contractor gets the job instead of having to compete for it.
What would be really interesting: a subscription model where you can choose ads or choose to pay, but set so that the price for a subscription varies continuously to ensure that 50% of new subscribers choose to pay and 50% choose to view ads. Now the site can track exactly how annoying its ads are.
So no privacy regulations about your data (health, purchase history, financial, browsing, etc) either? No regulations to prevent Apple and Alphabet from deciding to collude with the developers of the top messaging apps to block all other messaging apps from Android and iOS?
An actual pharmacist has to sign off on each bottle, but most of the rest of the job is increasingly going to be handed off to techs and automation. Meanwhile, the profitability of running a PharmD school was noted and the market responded by upping the number of schools faster than the need for pharmacists. When the number of accredited programs goes up by over 50% and the number of graduates doubles in less than 15 years (2000 to 2012)... you may be looking at another rat race soon.
I think it's almost the reverse. The shenanigans he has been pulling have been going on for years but never faced much scrutiny til now. They only affected small patient populations at any given time. Now he has given everyone a single, hatable face to hang the problem on - during election season no less. Plus these particular shenanigans aren't ones that are used by big pharma, but DO affect their reputations, so as long as the reforms are on target they won't be fighting them. On the other hand, the securities fraud charges have been in the works for a long time (and come from a completely different arm of the government.
Go fuck your own singular self. What do you think you (you as in: readers of slashdot. You can guess the predominant demographics) are more at risk of? And who is it that the bad guys target again?
You're not seriously suggesting that this was just some random office party shoot up are you?
Nice non sequitur.
No but proper training will. I don't think that anyone should possess a firearm without proper training. If the government is to play a role in this at all it should be in setting up mandatory training.
Good. Certification or they just have to show up for the training? Also, since this is the scenario we are talking about: what level of training covers taking out a shooter in a crowded room? Federal Air Marshall pistol qualification? Should we assume that people who can shoot a target at a range will hit the correct person while being shot at?
For noise like that it's better to just move. Replacing all the windows with ones that have a high STC rating isn't cheap, and then you you are still deafened if you want to open a window or do something outside.
I'm glad to see you are so worried about defending yourself from MASS MURDER that you put it in all caps. I can't imagine the decorations you use when discussing choking, drowning, or falling to death, each of which is tens of times likely even if you aren't elderly. What sort of gear to do you carry to prevent those fates, btw?
Other criminals, for the most part. After that: young black males. If you don't fall in those categories, you really have better things to worry about than being shot to death. Go get some exercise, quit smoking,
When it comes to the safety of my family I take matters into my own hands.
If the safety is in the form of a gun, put it in the wife's hands, not the husband's. Most female murder victims are killed by a family member, most often the husband/SO/Ex.
Nobody is suggesting that anyone should be packing at the office Christmas party.
The San Bernadino massacre was at an office holiday party, and TV and the internets have been full of people saying how it should have been full of armed citizens.
"Considering that in the US accidental shootings alone kill ~10 times more people than mass shootings, I think more people would die rather than fewer"
- Would you care to cite any reliable sources on this?
Meanwhile, I would suggest that many of the accidental shootings occur because of lack of training in the use of firearms and improper storage of firearms. The trigger doesn't pull itself.
Yes, absolutely. And upping the number of people carrying won't magically increase the percentage of them using holsters and gun safes correctly.
What he doesn't want to admit to is that is citizens are armed then these types of terror attacks would have minimal or no damage. Instead of everyone standing around watching people get shot someone will pull out a piece and shoot the shooter.
So how many armed civilians do you need to drop the mass killing rate by 50%? Quite a lot to have 1 or more on hand at every large gathering. Bear in mind, dropping the mass killing rate by half would drop the homicide rate by less than 0.3%. Meanwhile, now every office party where people are drinking now has at least someone armed in attendance. Does getting a CCW permit automatically cause abstinence from drinking and drug use while carrying? What could go wrong? Considering that in the US accidental shootings alone kill ~10 times more people than mass shootings, I think more people would die rather than fewer.
As pointed out upthread, mass killings are a rounding error in the national homicide rate. I think the effect of having more "gun-holding, trained people" drinking at holiday parties would be to push the homicide rate up a tick rather than down.
Still if it is a more convenient way for diabetics to get results, kudos. But if it is Google trying to compete with Theranos in the "we're going to measure 100+ different analytes from a teensy drop of blood drawn from a skin prick" market, they should probably confirm which analytes can be measured reproducibly in skin prick samples BEFORE announcing that they are measuring them. Theranos seems to be getting quite a comeuppance for not realizing that blood from a skin prick != venous blood.
I know it is probably an unpopular idea, but I've long been of the notion that if you choose to work for the government, you should be at the ready to lose your personal privacy during work hours, because you work for the citizens. Especially those in elected positions in which power can be abused, there should not be a single conversation that cannot-
People have to learn to recognize different degrees of risk before they can choose a level of tolerance. There's probably a fair amount of the Dunning-Kruger effect involved in that process, though motorcyclists unable to recognize different degrees of risk probably get weeded out fairly quickly.
Not as bad a trope as space vampires. Why is it they need to suck lifeforce out of humans anyway? Why not just suck it out of cows? We would be happy to sell them cows.
Doesn't matter how many styles of ale a planet has if one type is considered prototypical or is the only one that gets marketed on other planets. Columbian coffee. Canadian bacon. Irish whiskey. And Fosters: Australian for Beer.
Improbable assumptions don't really bother me too much in science fiction, especially if they are only serving as background to whatever the story is focusing on. Tropes are running shoes: use them to go someplace interesting. What gets me is internal inconsistency (if you're going to dream up a puzzle, make sure the pieces actually fit together) and bland assumptions. If the author's answer to "what if...?" is "the same old tired shit as the last 30 people who wrote a space opera" the result might have some merit, but it won't be from being fascinating, thought provoking, or amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
If they have already decided which contractor they wanted for the job, it's probably their way to make certain that contractor gets the job instead of having to compete for it.
What would be really interesting: a subscription model where you can choose ads or choose to pay, but set so that the price for a subscription varies continuously to ensure that 50% of new subscribers choose to pay and 50% choose to view ads. Now the site can track exactly how annoying its ads are.
So no privacy regulations about your data (health, purchase history, financial, browsing, etc) either? No regulations to prevent Apple and Alphabet from deciding to collude with the developers of the top messaging apps to block all other messaging apps from Android and iOS?
the entry into the field and licensure is limited to keep supply low, and demand is high;
The entry into the field (PharmD graduates) has almost doubled this century, so it's not very limited anymore.
An actual pharmacist has to sign off on each bottle, but most of the rest of the job is increasingly going to be handed off to techs and automation. Meanwhile, the profitability of running a PharmD school was noted and the market responded by upping the number of schools faster than the need for pharmacists. When the number of accredited programs goes up by over 50% and the number of graduates doubles in less than 15 years (2000 to 2012) ... you may be looking at another rat race soon.
I think it's almost the reverse. The shenanigans he has been pulling have been going on for years but never faced much scrutiny til now. They only affected small patient populations at any given time. Now he has given everyone a single, hatable face to hang the problem on - during election season no less. Plus these particular shenanigans aren't ones that are used by big pharma, but DO affect their reputations, so as long as the reforms are on target they won't be fighting them. On the other hand, the securities fraud charges have been in the works for a long time (and come from a completely different arm of the government.
You're not seriously suggesting that this was just some random office party shoot up are you?
Nice non sequitur.
No but proper training will. I don't think that anyone should possess a firearm without proper training. If the government is to play a role in this at all it should be in setting up mandatory training.
Good. Certification or they just have to show up for the training? Also, since this is the scenario we are talking about: what level of training covers taking out a shooter in a crowded room? Federal Air Marshall pistol qualification? Should we assume that people who can shoot a target at a range will hit the correct person while being shot at?
For noise like that it's better to just move. Replacing all the windows with ones that have a high STC rating isn't cheap, and then you you are still deafened if you want to open a window or do something outside.
I'm glad to see you are so worried about defending yourself from MASS MURDER that you put it in all caps. I can't imagine the decorations you use when discussing choking, drowning, or falling to death, each of which is tens of times likely even if you aren't elderly. What sort of gear to do you carry to prevent those fates, btw?
According to the FBI: yes.
Who you do you thing the bad guys target?
Other criminals, for the most part. After that: young black males. If you don't fall in those categories, you really have better things to worry about than being shot to death. Go get some exercise, quit smoking,
When it comes to the safety of my family I take matters into my own hands.
If the safety is in the form of a gun, put it in the wife's hands, not the husband's. Most female murder victims are killed by a family member, most often the husband/SO/Ex.
Nobody is suggesting that anyone should be packing at the office Christmas party.
The San Bernadino massacre was at an office holiday party, and TV and the internets have been full of people saying how it should have been full of armed citizens.
"Considering that in the US accidental shootings alone kill ~10 times more people than mass shootings, I think more people would die rather than fewer"
- Would you care to cite any reliable sources on this?
Absolutely:
Mass shooting deaths (FBI):
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stori...
Accidental shooting deaths (CDC):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Meanwhile, I would suggest that many of the accidental shootings occur because of lack of training in the use of firearms and improper storage of firearms. The trigger doesn't pull itself.
Yes, absolutely. And upping the number of people carrying won't magically increase the percentage of them using holsters and gun safes correctly.
Google is analyzing ... everything. 23andMe (funded by Google Ventures) is just the one you hear about most.
What he doesn't want to admit to is that is citizens are armed then these types of terror attacks would have minimal or no damage. Instead of everyone standing around watching people get shot someone will pull out a piece and shoot the shooter.
So how many armed civilians do you need to drop the mass killing rate by 50%? Quite a lot to have 1 or more on hand at every large gathering. Bear in mind, dropping the mass killing rate by half would drop the homicide rate by less than 0.3%. Meanwhile, now every office party where people are drinking now has at least someone armed in attendance. Does getting a CCW permit automatically cause abstinence from drinking and drug use while carrying? What could go wrong? Considering that in the US accidental shootings alone kill ~10 times more people than mass shootings, I think more people would die rather than fewer.
As pointed out upthread, mass killings are a rounding error in the national homicide rate. I think the effect of having more "gun-holding, trained people" drinking at holiday parties would be to push the homicide rate up a tick rather than down.
Can't we just announce a war on paper?
Because the light is better under the "encryption" and "Syrian refugee" streetlamps.
Still if it is a more convenient way for diabetics to get results, kudos. But if it is Google trying to compete with Theranos in the "we're going to measure 100+ different analytes from a teensy drop of blood drawn from a skin prick" market, they should probably confirm which analytes can be measured reproducibly in skin prick samples BEFORE announcing that they are measuring them. Theranos seems to be getting quite a comeuppance for not realizing that blood from a skin prick != venous blood.
I know it is probably an unpopular idea, but I've long been of the notion that if you choose to work for the government, you should be at the ready to lose your personal privacy during work hours, because you work for the citizens. Especially those in elected positions in which power can be abused, there should not be a single conversation that cannot-
Sorry, national-security-speech-and-debate robble robble.
Both, I think. But the Budvar/Czechvar I've bought in Trader Joes was kind of skunky, so I can't say if that would be a win.
Your definition of linguistics seems to be as narrow minded as your definition of sugar. Not a good sign for an author.
Sorry, high fructose corn syrup != sugar.
You need to learn simple chemistry to understand that fact.
CAP === 'subparts'
Hello,
PhD in chem here. HFCS is ~75% sugar, the rest is pretty much water. It's not cane or beet sugar (almost pure sucrose) though.
I also choose my own level of risk tolerance.
People have to learn to recognize different degrees of risk before they can choose a level of tolerance. There's probably a fair amount of the Dunning-Kruger effect involved in that process, though motorcyclists unable to recognize different degrees of risk probably get weeded out fairly quickly.
Not as bad a trope as space vampires. Why is it they need to suck lifeforce out of humans anyway? Why not just suck it out of cows? We would be happy to sell them cows.
Mostly harmless.
Doesn't matter how many styles of ale a planet has if one type is considered prototypical or is the only one that gets marketed on other planets. Columbian coffee. Canadian bacon. Irish whiskey. And Fosters: Australian for Beer.
Improbable assumptions don't really bother me too much in science fiction, especially if they are only serving as background to whatever the story is focusing on. Tropes are running shoes: use them to go someplace interesting. What gets me is internal inconsistency (if you're going to dream up a puzzle, make sure the pieces actually fit together) and bland assumptions. If the author's answer to "what if ...?" is "the same old tired shit as the last 30 people who wrote a space opera" the result might have some merit, but it won't be from being fascinating, thought provoking, or amazing.