Why is "letting go" always the compassionate, noble, or dignified choice? Everyone has his own preferences and I won't begrudge anybody theirs. But death is death. What I know for certain is that I do not welcome it. When I'm given the option of a prolonged five months of agony leading to the inevitable end or a quick relatively painless couple of weeks, I know for a certainty that I'm taking the pain and the time. Hey, if you or anyone else makes the opposite decision, that's your thing. But let's not pretend there's something more dignified about being accepting vs struggling to the end. They're preferences not absolutes. As for compassion, well, what's compassionate for a person is up to him to decide.
You have that backwards. You say that "Free speech is a human right" "only because you're from the Western world and think so." phantomfive's beliefs and location don't determine whether free speech is a human right. If they did, either phantomfive is some sort of god or similar moral compass, or he and you live in different universes where different things qualify as human rights. It's far more likely that because free speech is a human right phantomfive and the "Western world" hold the view that it is. You may disagree with that viewpoint, and if you do, go ahead and argue the point. But don't start from a position that begs there to be no conclusion.
First, I was thinking not about big food deliveries to a food bank, but rather driving individual meals from the food bank to shut-ins, which is more in line with something I could do personally. Second, in any case, I admit to not knowing how much this stuff costs, but I thought it would be easier to follow the reasoning with an example than just abstract figures. Third, thanks for the data about delivery costs.
That depends entirely on why you want the data in the first place. It you're interested in a browser dick wagging contest then the version doesn't matter. If you're looking at preference trends, the version probably doesn't matter as much, but you might care about the difference between "really old" and "new." If you're planning on what features to use in your website version being released in a year, then you really, really care about version.
I like to fund medical research, most frequently cancer. I do so for two reasons. First, I like to think that I'm making things better forever. Research doesn't get used up, so whatever I donate we're now that farther ahead in science than we would be otherwise. Second, selfishly, I think someday I just might need to benefit directly from what that research produces.
There is frequently a lot of hue and cry here about the evil drug companies overcharging for medicines they have patents on. Don't want them to have those patents? Fund medical research yourself with a charity who puts the results into the public domain. I know it's not perfect since someone is free to use those results commercially as well, but it's an improvement.
I think he's referring to efficiency and overstating it for effect. Consider, you make say, $30 an hour. A driver can be hired to drive food around for $8 an hour. You could volunteer your time and drop off the food. Or you could go to work and hire three drivers to do it. Yes, I know you can't just go to work more hours and get more income, and of course I pulled the numbers out of thin air. Your point about preferring to give different ways is a fine one. But GP does have a reasonable point about the most efficient way to support charities as well.
If the question is whether you are performing above or below what is considered optimal, the answer is easy. Below. Nobody performs above optimal, and pretty much nobody performs at an optimal level. If your IT department requires three full time employees to handle 300-350 clients you aren't that rare exception unless there're a lot of responsibilities beyond supporting those 350 clients (like say if you also manage 1000 web servers).
Similarly, a lot of effort that goes into "AIDS research" is really more widely applicable virus research. Finding something practical that cured a major class of virus would be world changing on the level of antibiotics.
Sorry, re-readng what I wrote I was unclear. I didn't mean that they can't provide branded Lipitor because the prescription prohibits it. I mean they can't provide it because Pfizer's Lipitor branded atorvastatin is more expensive than some generic is. But, Pfizer wants to sell Pfizer's atorvastatin as a generic at a lower price point. It's just that they want to also be able to slap the label on and increase the charge when a prescription or customer demands it.
They may very well have. Obviously we can't know what happens in that alternate reality. But there are a number of reasons why they might not:
1) They could wait for someone else to do the work, produce the drug, and make even bigger profits by saving the development costs. 2) They don't know ahead of time that the drug will be so successful, and not having the exclusive period increases the risk. 3) "Profit" at this point is a marginal concept. Producing more Lipitor and selling it cheap is profitable. That doesn't imply that selling it cheap this whole time would have been profitable when considering the development costs. 4) The article notes that Pfizer may be able to out-compete generic producers based on cost. I have no data to back this up, but it's possible that expertise or industrial scale gained during the exclusive period plays a role in their comparative efficiency.
I agree with you, but I read the article a bit differently (and now I don't know which is correct). I read it that Pfizer's problem is that they are a name brand. If a doctor prescribes "generic lipitor equivalent" since he doesn't care about the brand and generics are generally cheaper, then the pharmacy provides a "generic" designated version and can't give brand name Lipitor even if the branded version is actually cheaper. It looks to me like Pfizer wants it both ways. They want to sell brand name Lipitor at brand name prices, but when some generic prescription comes in they want to sell their product unbranded and at the generic price point. a) That shows you just how silly caring about a drug's brand is, and b) I really don't care if Pfizer wants to do this since everyone gets what they want at the price they want just as long as the contracts say "sell our stuff cheaper as generic" and not "never sell anyone else's stuff".
No, the losers in this scenario are all the people who had to fork over their hard earned cash to support the fat cat drug companies just so they could profit off their research. Y'know, instead of not having a drug invented at all. That's pretty despicable.
The discussion isn't around broadcasting primarily the all 22 footage, or at least most people are not looking for that. The discussion is around releasing that footage at all. I would for example like to revisit the occasional play to see everything that happened from the all 22 view. Using it to elucidate the action via instant replay during a game would also be welcome. Even better, I would really enjoy seeing a broadcast set up such that I could arrange multiple views to my liking. I might set a large window to show the current directed-style video while a picture-in-picture type window shows the all-22 and another may follow a specific player I want to see on a given play.
That was a short-lived, failed experiment. Yeah I found the glowing puck thing annoying, but I won't fault the effort. As much as I like hockey, it really is at times hard to follow that puck around the rink at speed. That was even more true back when the glowing puck was implemented and broadcast resolutions.
I agree with the idea. It seems a really simple start would be making them like offline websites. It's not a perfect translation, but doing richer data flow and formatting than static books is a problem web development has been working on for some time now and has a toolkit around.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
I'd help out, but I'm too preoccupied with my own problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is "letting go" always the compassionate, noble, or dignified choice? Everyone has his own preferences and I won't begrudge anybody theirs. But death is death. What I know for certain is that I do not welcome it. When I'm given the option of a prolonged five months of agony leading to the inevitable end or a quick relatively painless couple of weeks, I know for a certainty that I'm taking the pain and the time. Hey, if you or anyone else makes the opposite decision, that's your thing. But let's not pretend there's something more dignified about being accepting vs struggling to the end. They're preferences not absolutes. As for compassion, well, what's compassionate for a person is up to him to decide.
Remember me!
The bag was portraying a Louis Vuitton bag. That doesn't mean it really is one. It's fiction. They didn't really lose someone in Thailand either.
"There's a good chance I may have committed some light treason."
Iranians are mostly Persian who are Aryan rather than Semitic.
Genetically modified food, specifically milk produced by cows given hormones in order to grow faster and produce more milk, is known to cause cancer.
Was this in California? Everything in Calfornia is known to cause cancer. It's the first sign you see getting off the plane.
You have that backwards. You say that "Free speech is a human right" "only because you're from the Western world and think so." phantomfive's beliefs and location don't determine whether free speech is a human right. If they did, either phantomfive is some sort of god or similar moral compass, or he and you live in different universes where different things qualify as human rights. It's far more likely that because free speech is a human right phantomfive and the "Western world" hold the view that it is. You may disagree with that viewpoint, and if you do, go ahead and argue the point. But don't start from a position that begs there to be no conclusion.
First, I was thinking not about big food deliveries to a food bank, but rather driving individual meals from the food bank to shut-ins, which is more in line with something I could do personally. Second, in any case, I admit to not knowing how much this stuff costs, but I thought it would be easier to follow the reasoning with an example than just abstract figures. Third, thanks for the data about delivery costs.
That depends entirely on why you want the data in the first place. It you're interested in a browser dick wagging contest then the version doesn't matter. If you're looking at preference trends, the version probably doesn't matter as much, but you might care about the difference between "really old" and "new." If you're planning on what features to use in your website version being released in a year, then you really, really care about version.
I like to fund medical research, most frequently cancer. I do so for two reasons. First, I like to think that I'm making things better forever. Research doesn't get used up, so whatever I donate we're now that farther ahead in science than we would be otherwise. Second, selfishly, I think someday I just might need to benefit directly from what that research produces.
There is frequently a lot of hue and cry here about the evil drug companies overcharging for medicines they have patents on. Don't want them to have those patents? Fund medical research yourself with a charity who puts the results into the public domain. I know it's not perfect since someone is free to use those results commercially as well, but it's an improvement.
I think he's referring to efficiency and overstating it for effect. Consider, you make say, $30 an hour. A driver can be hired to drive food around for $8 an hour. You could volunteer your time and drop off the food. Or you could go to work and hire three drivers to do it. Yes, I know you can't just go to work more hours and get more income, and of course I pulled the numbers out of thin air. Your point about preferring to give different ways is a fine one. But GP does have a reasonable point about the most efficient way to support charities as well.
If the question is whether you are performing above or below what is considered optimal, the answer is easy. Below. Nobody performs above optimal, and pretty much nobody performs at an optimal level. If your IT department requires three full time employees to handle 300-350 clients you aren't that rare exception unless there're a lot of responsibilities beyond supporting those 350 clients (like say if you also manage 1000 web servers).
It's a pretty big "regular" carrier. It's just not a supercarrier which are about twice its size.
Meta-auto-moderation, that's a paddlin'.
Similarly, a lot of effort that goes into "AIDS research" is really more widely applicable virus research. Finding something practical that cured a major class of virus would be world changing on the level of antibiotics.
Sorry, re-readng what I wrote I was unclear. I didn't mean that they can't provide branded Lipitor because the prescription prohibits it. I mean they can't provide it because Pfizer's Lipitor branded atorvastatin is more expensive than some generic is. But, Pfizer wants to sell Pfizer's atorvastatin as a generic at a lower price point. It's just that they want to also be able to slap the label on and increase the charge when a prescription or customer demands it.
They may very well have. Obviously we can't know what happens in that alternate reality. But there are a number of reasons why they might not:
1) They could wait for someone else to do the work, produce the drug, and make even bigger profits by saving the development costs.
2) They don't know ahead of time that the drug will be so successful, and not having the exclusive period increases the risk.
3) "Profit" at this point is a marginal concept. Producing more Lipitor and selling it cheap is profitable. That doesn't imply that selling it cheap this whole time would have been profitable when considering the development costs.
4) The article notes that Pfizer may be able to out-compete generic producers based on cost. I have no data to back this up, but it's possible that expertise or industrial scale gained during the exclusive period plays a role in their comparative efficiency.
I agree with you, but I read the article a bit differently (and now I don't know which is correct). I read it that Pfizer's problem is that they are a name brand. If a doctor prescribes "generic lipitor equivalent" since he doesn't care about the brand and generics are generally cheaper, then the pharmacy provides a "generic" designated version and can't give brand name Lipitor even if the branded version is actually cheaper. It looks to me like Pfizer wants it both ways. They want to sell brand name Lipitor at brand name prices, but when some generic prescription comes in they want to sell their product unbranded and at the generic price point. a) That shows you just how silly caring about a drug's brand is, and b) I really don't care if Pfizer wants to do this since everyone gets what they want at the price they want just as long as the contracts say "sell our stuff cheaper as generic" and not "never sell anyone else's stuff".
Why should I invent something when I can just wait for you to invent it then rip it off?
No, the losers in this scenario are all the people who had to fork over their hard earned cash to support the fat cat drug companies just so they could profit off their research. Y'know, instead of not having a drug invented at all. That's pretty despicable.
The discussion isn't around broadcasting primarily the all 22 footage, or at least most people are not looking for that. The discussion is around releasing that footage at all. I would for example like to revisit the occasional play to see everything that happened from the all 22 view. Using it to elucidate the action via instant replay during a game would also be welcome. Even better, I would really enjoy seeing a broadcast set up such that I could arrange multiple views to my liking. I might set a large window to show the current directed-style video while a picture-in-picture type window shows the all-22 and another may follow a specific player I want to see on a given play.
That was a short-lived, failed experiment. Yeah I found the glowing puck thing annoying, but I won't fault the effort. As much as I like hockey, it really is at times hard to follow that puck around the rink at speed. That was even more true back when the glowing puck was implemented and broadcast resolutions.
No, the CFL instead protects its "all 24" video.
I agree with the idea. It seems a really simple start would be making them like offline websites. It's not a perfect translation, but doing richer data flow and formatting than static books is a problem web development has been working on for some time now and has a toolkit around.
I'd help out, but I'm too preoccupied with my own problems.