The problem with your statement is that prions survive autoclaving and generally require incineration at temps exceeding the melting point of most surgical metals.
In a statement, Vizio said, "When we're secretly collecting information, we will project a glowing eye on the wall above and behind the TV. When we're sending that collected information to our servers the TV will make a mysterious whispering sound. The real innovation here is that the whispering will always be almost imperceptible regardless of the volume of the current sound playing on the TV. It senses it. It's really VERY clever. We got the patent last week!"
When we said "We aren't planning to not make commercial routers in competition with Cisco" what we meant to say was "We are planning to not make routers i competition with Cisco. Our bad. So sorry!":D
The pharmacos made it this way. Only national scale adverse events cause changes to the legislation that do not favor the pharmacos.
The situation is highly predictable. People aren't watching.
The IRBs have to follow the rules too. They do their best to make sure the Informed Consent ethically and honestly describes the study, the process and the possible/probable negative outcomes.
The Pharma companies created the system, as they're the only ones interested in the legislation. The public who are interested are simply a couple of determined individuals with no money and the huge emotional burden of a personal loss. They are ineffective.
Here's a secret: Every IRB is required to have a board of medical professionals, and a lay person. The lay person must come from outside the medical profession.
As a former Serious Adverse Event Co-ordinator for an ethical review board for medical studies (IRB) let me explain what is going on here.
Firstly, the study population will have advanced Parkinson's with psychosis. This is a cohort that is very ill and has a high probability of adverse outcomes.
Secondly, the risk a drug can present is set against the benefit it might provide. So for example if a pain killer offers very mild pain relief, but you're just as likely to have blood clots if you take it, the risks outweigh the benefits. Similarly, if you have a medication that is a breakthrough medication with a high degree of success at attenuating psychosis in people with Parkinsons, a higher level of risk would be considered acceptable.
The clearest example of this is the various chemotherapy drugs. They're absolutely toxic - poisons. They're just not as bad as dying.
So here's where it gets complicated. And it's why I am no longer working in the medical ethics field.
As a Serious Adverse Event co-ordinator, if something bad (the "adverse event") happens to a patient taking a study medication or using a study device, the Principal Investigator has to submit an SAE form to their IRB (Independent Review Board.) So I come in at 9am and find a pile of letters reporting various negative outcomes. I then have to sort them into two piles based on some criteria.
The first pile is ignored. Here's what goes in that pile: Any outcome that was described as a possibility in the Informed Consent document. If the Informed Consent the patient or their representative signed when they joined the study said, "risks include bone necrosis, blindness and death" then if any of those things happen, they don't get reported to the FDA. Instead, I send the PI a form letter saying the Adverse Event was not notifiable.
The next level of filtering is that I then examine the adverse event itself, to make a judgment call of whether the event was "Unlikely" "Possibly" or "Definitely" related to the study medication or device. If it was unlikely or possibly related, the form letter is sent to the PI and the FDA isn't notified.
Only if the outcome ISN'T described in the Informed Consent, AND I determine the event was "definitely" related to the study medication does the FDA ever get to know of the event.
The disheartening thing about this is, and I'll give a real but anonymized example: one study I was SAE for, I would get many, many reports of bone necrosis of the jaw for a cancer medication. People's jaw bones were dying, and they would lose all their teeth in their lower jaw. They often would get infections, and in a few cases they would die. This was all described in the Informed Consent. For this one particular drug, the adverse event happened a lot - at least 30-40% of the cohort was experiencing this. The drug was lifesaving, so a high level of SAEs could be tolerated, BUT there was an existing medication on the market that had this adverse event occur at a much lower level - around 10-15%.
And there was no mechanism for me to give this information to the FDA. There was no way for them to know what the real stats were. Their information collection system was designed to ignore vast swathes of negative outcomes.
The pharma companies know how the system works, so they obviously will try to list any inhibiting adverse events in the documentation. If you read the documentation for approved and released drugs, the same things happen. Everyday drugs have listed side effects that include death all the time. Now you know why.
So, obviously, I don't work in that field any more. It was soul destroying.
If you're comfortable not making a profit and you'd like to improve the image of your business, why not just give your drivers a little more pay? Passengers would gladly pay more. It's like you're not really competing with taxis at all. You're competing with public transport on price for most shorter journeys. Right now, most people just think you're asshats.
Former member here. They had the table saws that fired an aluminum block into the blade if you touched the blade - to protect you. That would require the charge cartridge and block, and the blade, being replaced. Over $120 a pop. Nice for safety, except it would fire off for things like damp wood.
What killed them was the required classes to use anything. You'd join ($100) then the random selection of stuff you'd want to use would cost $300-400 all in to get certified for. If the certification classes were a nominal fee, I would a) still be a member and b) have used a lot more gear.
Simple. Call and cancel service. They'll put you through to the retention department. That department offers the best discounts. I cut my $120 cable bill to $70 that way.
The warrant is specifically for Google, specifically about people who searched within a specific timeframe for the specific details used in a specific crime that happened later. They have shown their work to show that Google was the only likely source for that info used in the crime. There are not likely to be any matching results that are not related to the crime, and those that are can be easily eliminated.
On iOS, Slashdot doesn't let me resize/. to a comfortable size. They made a decision that actually being able to read the ant-sized writing was less important than having rabid control of the layout.
As the user base ages (We're not all in our teens and 20s any more, and I suspect the majority of/.ers are in our 40s) being able to resize the font matters.
A cap can be on the amount of data or on the content of that data. If they treat the content differently because of what it is, then that's not neutral, is it?
Charter provides television to the city neighborhoods. It is incumbent on them to provide public access because of those television services. All of those concessions except internet service are still for unique services Charter is exclusively providing. Google doesn't do broadcast television.
This study used a dataset of 1968-1973. At that time, processing techniques created a lot of trans fats in making the replacement products. Those trans fats have their own effect. Processes have now been changed, so that data set doesn't relate to what would happen with today's use of those same foods.
That said, you can pry my Kerrygold butter from my pudgy, pasty hands!
I won't bother to read the rest of your posting, since you did not read mine.
I said "nearly $10/hour over minimum wage". Federal minimum wage is currently $7.25/hour. That places her at *nearly* $10 + $7.25/hour total, or *nearly * $17.25/hour. The actual amount if she took the job listed on Indeed.com would be $17/hour. Which is *nearly* $17.25/hour.
You will notice that $17/hour * 40 hours/week * 52 week/year is precisely the figure I quoted.
Ironic, since you apparently didn't read the original letter. The writer's take home pay is $8.15/hr. Your assumption of her getting what they are currently offering is flawed - she has outright stated she's not getting that. She's actually getting the city's minimum wage of $12.25/hr gross.
...and while you're at it close all the museums, and those public spaces. They're kind of wasteful too. Education is just an intellectual pissing contest, so maybe we should close all the schools and colleges! Imagine all the money we'd save! Within a generation or two we wouldn't even be aware of the history and culture we've sacrificed.
Or, we could just put that sucker in a traveling museum and let lots of people get interested and excited about space again.
It occurred to me that if we replaced airbags with shotgun cartridges people might start driving carefully and stop running into other cars and things.
Maybe I'm confused, but isn't the sun's energy already beamed down to Earth? Why launch an expensive and inefficient system into space at great cost when we can just install the system right here? What you save in launch costs would pay for a lot of capacity.
If the barrier for what constitutes "transformative" is set very low, it's only reasonable for the courts to set the bar on what is considered "derivative" very high. If he has protection for transforming her own work then she should have similar protection for deriving from her own work. As soon as he does something transformative, it becomes obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no profit margin on decency, apparently...
...and they'll get it all back in state income taxes.
The problem with your statement is that prions survive autoclaving and generally require incineration at temps exceeding the melting point of most surgical metals.
In a statement, Vizio said, "When we're secretly collecting information, we will project a glowing eye on the wall above and behind the TV. When we're sending that collected information to our servers the TV will make a mysterious whispering sound. The real innovation here is that the whispering will always be almost imperceptible regardless of the volume of the current sound playing on the TV. It senses it. It's really VERY clever. We got the patent last week!"
When we said "We aren't planning to not make commercial routers in competition with Cisco" what we meant to say was "We are planning to not make routers i competition with Cisco. Our bad. So sorry!" :D
It looks like razzle dazzle camouflage is set to become the next cosmetics fashion trend.
The pharmacos made it this way. Only national scale adverse events cause changes to the legislation that do not favor the pharmacos.
The situation is highly predictable. People aren't watching.
The IRBs have to follow the rules too. They do their best to make sure the Informed Consent ethically and honestly describes the study, the process and the possible/probable negative outcomes.
The Pharma companies created the system, as they're the only ones interested in the legislation. The public who are interested are simply a couple of determined individuals with no money and the huge emotional burden of a personal loss. They are ineffective.
Here's a secret: Every IRB is required to have a board of medical professionals, and a lay person. The lay person must come from outside the medical profession.
YOU can be on an ethical review board.
Also, it pays quite well.
As a former Serious Adverse Event Co-ordinator for an ethical review board for medical studies (IRB) let me explain what is going on here.
Firstly, the study population will have advanced Parkinson's with psychosis. This is a cohort that is very ill and has a high probability of adverse outcomes.
Secondly, the risk a drug can present is set against the benefit it might provide. So for example if a pain killer offers very mild pain relief, but you're just as likely to have blood clots if you take it, the risks outweigh the benefits. Similarly, if you have a medication that is a breakthrough medication with a high degree of success at attenuating psychosis in people with Parkinsons, a higher level of risk would be considered acceptable.
The clearest example of this is the various chemotherapy drugs. They're absolutely toxic - poisons. They're just not as bad as dying.
So here's where it gets complicated. And it's why I am no longer working in the medical ethics field.
As a Serious Adverse Event co-ordinator, if something bad (the "adverse event") happens to a patient taking a study medication or using a study device, the Principal Investigator has to submit an SAE form to their IRB (Independent Review Board.) So I come in at 9am and find a pile of letters reporting various negative outcomes. I then have to sort them into two piles based on some criteria.
The first pile is ignored. Here's what goes in that pile: Any outcome that was described as a possibility in the Informed Consent document. If the Informed Consent the patient or their representative signed when they joined the study said, "risks include bone necrosis, blindness and death" then if any of those things happen, they don't get reported to the FDA. Instead, I send the PI a form letter saying the Adverse Event was not notifiable.
The next level of filtering is that I then examine the adverse event itself, to make a judgment call of whether the event was "Unlikely" "Possibly" or "Definitely" related to the study medication or device. If it was unlikely or possibly related, the form letter is sent to the PI and the FDA isn't notified.
Only if the outcome ISN'T described in the Informed Consent, AND I determine the event was "definitely" related to the study medication does the FDA ever get to know of the event.
The disheartening thing about this is, and I'll give a real but anonymized example: one study I was SAE for, I would get many, many reports of bone necrosis of the jaw for a cancer medication. People's jaw bones were dying, and they would lose all their teeth in their lower jaw. They often would get infections, and in a few cases they would die. This was all described in the Informed Consent. For this one particular drug, the adverse event happened a lot - at least 30-40% of the cohort was experiencing this. The drug was lifesaving, so a high level of SAEs could be tolerated, BUT there was an existing medication on the market that had this adverse event occur at a much lower level - around 10-15%.
And there was no mechanism for me to give this information to the FDA. There was no way for them to know what the real stats were. Their information collection system was designed to ignore vast swathes of negative outcomes.
The pharma companies know how the system works, so they obviously will try to list any inhibiting adverse events in the documentation. If you read the documentation for approved and released drugs, the same things happen. Everyday drugs have listed side effects that include death all the time. Now you know why.
So, obviously, I don't work in that field any more. It was soul destroying.
Dear Uber CEO,
If you're comfortable not making a profit and you'd like to improve the image of your business, why not just give your drivers a little more pay? Passengers would gladly pay more. It's like you're not really competing with taxis at all. You're competing with public transport on price for most shorter journeys. Right now, most people just think you're asshats.
Yours Sincerely,
John and Joan Q. Public.
Former member here. They had the table saws that fired an aluminum block into the blade if you touched the blade - to protect you. That would require the charge cartridge and block, and the blade, being replaced. Over $120 a pop. Nice for safety, except it would fire off for things like damp wood.
What killed them was the required classes to use anything. You'd join ($100) then the random selection of stuff you'd want to use would cost $300-400 all in to get certified for. If the certification classes were a nominal fee, I would a) still be a member and b) have used a lot more gear.
They were also crap at supporting electronics.
Simple. Call and cancel service. They'll put you through to the retention department. That department offers the best discounts. I cut my $120 cable bill to $70 that way.
The warrant is specifically for Google, specifically about people who searched within a specific timeframe for the specific details used in a specific crime that happened later. They have shown their work to show that Google was the only likely source for that info used in the crime. There are not likely to be any matching results that are not related to the crime, and those that are can be easily eliminated.
Just how specific do you want them to be?
On iOS, Slashdot doesn't let me resize /. to a comfortable size. They made a decision that actually being able to read the ant-sized writing was less important than having rabid control of the layout.
As the user base ages (We're not all in our teens and 20s any more, and I suspect the majority of /.ers are in our 40s) being able to resize the font matters.
Like linking to a site that, in their story, links to their source. Wouldn't the source by definition be a better site to link? :D
A cap can be on the amount of data or on the content of that data. If they treat the content differently because of what it is, then that's not neutral, is it?
Charter provides television to the city neighborhoods. It is incumbent on them to provide public access because of those television services. All of those concessions except internet service are still for unique services Charter is exclusively providing. Google doesn't do broadcast television.
This study used a dataset of 1968-1973. At that time, processing techniques created a lot of trans fats in making the replacement products. Those trans fats have their own effect. Processes have now been changed, so that data set doesn't relate to what would happen with today's use of those same foods.
That said, you can pry my Kerrygold butter from my pudgy, pasty hands!
I won't bother to read the rest of your posting, since you did not read mine.
I said "nearly $10/hour over minimum wage". Federal minimum wage is currently $7.25/hour. That places her at *nearly* $10 + $7.25 /hour total, or *nearly * $17.25/hour. The actual amount if she took the job listed on Indeed.com would be $17/hour. Which is *nearly* $17.25/hour.
You will notice that $17/hour * 40 hours/week * 52 week/year is precisely the figure I quoted.
Ironic, since you apparently didn't read the original letter. The writer's take home pay is $8.15/hr. Your assumption of her getting what they are currently offering is flawed - she has outright stated she's not getting that. She's actually getting the city's minimum wage of $12.25/hr gross.
...and while you're at it close all the museums, and those public spaces. They're kind of wasteful too. Education is just an intellectual pissing contest, so maybe we should close all the schools and colleges! Imagine all the money we'd save! Within a generation or two we wouldn't even be aware of the history and culture we've sacrificed.
Or, we could just put that sucker in a traveling museum and let lots of people get interested and excited about space again.
It occurred to me that if we replaced airbags with shotgun cartridges people might start driving carefully and stop running into other cars and things.
Insurance is 10%, paid by the payload owner. Fuel is 0.3%. 70% is the 1st stage.
This is huge.
Governments lie about needing encryption back doors precisely because they don't need them.
Maybe I'm confused, but isn't the sun's energy already beamed down to Earth? Why launch an expensive and inefficient system into space at great cost when we can just install the system right here? What you save in launch costs would pay for a lot of capacity.
If the barrier for what constitutes "transformative" is set very low, it's only reasonable for the courts to set the bar on what is considered "derivative" very high. If he has protection for transforming her own work then she should have similar protection for deriving from her own work. As soon as he does something transformative, it becomes obvious.