Sounds interesting. Also sounds like you're speaking from ignorance (the correct definition, meaning you just don't know or have incomplete knowledge. No offense intended). The bulk of excessive medications lies not with physicians, but rather, with adamant patients. First is the problem that most people can't accept that if they sit on their ass, eat improperly, don't excercise, etc, they aren't going to be 100% every minute of every day. They want every little inconvenience taken care of with a 'magic pill'. It was much easier to take FenPhen than to diet and excercise. Second, the changes to allow pharmaceutical advertising to the lay public was a bad thing. I'm not sure I need to explain that. The final problem is when the media print every BS study printed, be it in the New England Journal, or Bob and Frank's uber-elite medical college journal and poetry annual.
What this leads to is a group of patients who, far from just saying 'gimmie', practically demand the medication. If a doc counsels against it, or suggests something natural (diet, excercise, etc.) the patient gets pissed and goes somewhere else. (And files a complaint with the insurance company, state regulatory boards, malpractice atty. etc.)
Doctors, as a group, don't get much money or other largesse from pharmaceutical companies. It was possible, in the past, to do okay, but if your physician was getting anything in reimbursements or gifts from pharmaceutical companies that would make a significant change in his normal salary, he probably was/is a quack.
Seriously, I've been in and around medicine and physicians for 30 years. I've known hundreds of doctors. Been exposed to dozens of hospitals. When I hear comments like this, I think to myself 'show me the proof'.
You've got part of the problem figured out ('gimme') But that is only one sign of top to bottom problems with health care and health care delivery in the US. (As an aside, socialized medicine is not the answer, as many of the problems I see are not solved in European countries and Canada. If I haven't deleted it, I had a ~ten page writing on the broad topic of problems with the medical industry in the US that I never quite finished.)
Oh, and to be a little bit on point, I think the first comment I replied to was referring to an individual experience. Perhaps I read too quickly?
Cliff can't last long. He does his job as well as he can, with at least a modicum of professionalism. I don't think he's ever hijacked a website, nor told a user of/. to 'get a life'. He also has some non-editors on his friends list, and has been known to participate in various journals. I'm sure he's the pariah of the/. ruling junta.
Sounds like you need to find a better family doctor. Christ, what kind of quacks are you dealing with? No, they aren't psychiatric specialists. But they are probably more in tune with the local docs, and can suggest a good one for you to work with. Also, in the case of some other things that might be misdiagnosed as psychiatric in nature, the generalist can rule out and/or treat other diseases that will adversely affect treatment by a shrink.
I agree with your assessment that those who truly have ADD and/or PDD are not common.
That may be true. However, my opinion of tatted up folks is that they are just following the crowd, same as the guy who shows up in a three piece. Yes, they are following different crowds, but they are following the crowd nonetheless.
I used to think that. Then I saw some 'runners' (as opposed to trailer queens) and thought to myself "better that they get used than rot away in some museum". Kinda like Ferris talking about Cameron's dad's Ferrari.
Home brewing, restoring jukeboxes, restoring arcade games, restoring old motorcycles, teaching newbies how to ride motorcycles, model trains, static models, photography.
What 'we' do is as diverse as who 'we' are. But I'm certain the average hobbies will be skewed to those with a technical component.
Amen. Sometimes the kiddies forget that what other people think is important to a business. But what the customer thinks is far more important than what the potential employee thinks.
Further, in this time of economic difficulty, as an employer, with two equal candidates (on paper) why would I choose the person who is being 'individual' by being like everyone else? At least the non-tattooed, non-pierced person isn't pretending to be unique. I'll probably get a lot less shit out of them during their employment.
My take on the matter: if they can't notice what you've done to yourself during the interview, you're probably safe.
BTW, I'm luckily in a job/industry where most of the non-traditional piercings can be disallowed at work for safety reasons. So we only have to police shitty tattoos, not piercings.
More than a few of the links you presented showed tats that looked like shit. Further, while they may have demonstrated technique, pure technique alone doesn't qualify as art. The parent poster is correct: rarely are tattoos artistic.
I thought the Iraqi Information Minister was working for SCO, not MS. This interview was such a puff piece. Gimme a break. Let me bitch about a few things specifically.
First, the guy claims to have almost no knowledge of what Sony is up to, and seems nearly proud of that fact! For shit's sake, that's your number one competitor. You think the head of GM doesn't know EXACTLY what Ford is up to? He's either lying (Iraqi Information Minister) or incompetent.
He claims that MS has 'knocked Sony on its feet'. Uhh... How? You're number two in the US, number three in the world. From what I've read/heard, the only reason so many people bought the Live! thing from MS is that it's just about the only reason (other than Halo) to have the damned thing. One peripheral doesn't make up for a lack of decent games (relatively speaking). Then he speaks of vendor lockin (go through MS's service or piss off) like it's a good thing.
We're just fine without EA sucking our dick. Yeah. Right.
We're in a five year or longer development cycle. Hoo, boy, I hope for your sake that you won't be taking much longer than five years for your next console. It's clear from pricing and talking, especially by Sony, that the next consoles are clearly in the works.
Karaoke is going to be a huge thing. Even thought I just heard on NPR last Friday (on morning edition if you are curious) that that business is hurting. Hard.
He says the company never backs down. Yeah, why can't I get MS Bob XP?
"I have bigger fish to fry [than Sony's PSP]" Yeah. Sure you do.
I'm not saying things are 100% in the shitter for the Xbox. Far from it. But things are not as rosy as this guy presents. The interviewer was about as tough as Barbara Walters.
I've been using one for about six months. $50/month with unlimited long distance (and about $5 for the line charge to the CLEC). NOTE: I also shill for the service. Click link for details. Yes, it will hit you with some MLM info. But just click on the 'local phone service' button.
Why are so many people defending the 'auteur' image of directors? It ignores the input of the scriptwriter, actors, editors, cinematographers, etc, etc, etc. Show me a mainstream movie where the director did all of that. Yes, the director has a very heavy hand, but he is not the end all, be all.
Perhaps most of all, it ignores the audience. Trust me, as funny as 'Friday' was, nothing beat seeing it in a theatre where my brother and I were the only white guys in attendance. Would scary movies be as scary without a bunch of other people jumping at the scary bits?
I remember when the format was first released. One of the things touted was the ability to show different versions on the same disc. All you were supposed to have to do was tell it to play 'clean', and the violent and sex bits would automatically be skipped.
The question isn't why are the MPAA and the DGA fighting this. The question is: why are they leaving this market untapped? How far could Cameron get without $100 million + in studio backing? Screw him. And after Godfather III, I could care less what Coppola (or his daughter:) have to say on the subject.
Don't give me that 'auteur' bullshit about the director. That totally ignores the input of the scriptwriter, actors, cinematographers, and editors. Unless the director is doing all of that on his own, it's a collaborative effort.
But, you are right: there is no reason I shouldn't be able to skip over bits I don't care for. Have I harmed Kubrick for skipping over that 'travelling through the monolith' bit in 2001? Well, fuck him if I am. It's boring as shit, and it's my DVD and my DVD player.
These people aren't distributing edited DVD's exactly. If memory serves (too lazy to double check) you send your copy, purchased from WalMart or wherever. They send you an edited copy. If the person who paid the store (and through a circuitous path, the studio and director) doesn't want to watch it, so what?
The amount of effort required is up to the whims of some future judge. IANAL, but I don't think there's any well codified ruling or statute that constitutes what is 'enough'. This is just a case that Marvel's attorney's are being a bit more cautious against the nebulous unknown than DC, Image, etc.
I don't think the original author intended this to be a rigorous tool. Rather, it was meant to quickly locate where the chunks of potentially stolen code lie. If lines 55-60 of foo.c are 'fishy', you can go in, look at those lines, and work outward to say "okay, if these lines are bad, probably the three before and the two after are also bad".
If the stolen code is as bad as SCO claims, it's likely that there will be plenty of these sorts of matches.
The auto manufacturers tried to do something similar by voiding warranties on non-dealer serviced vehicles. The Moss Magnuson Act took care of that BS in a hurry.
Choose your career and jobs carefully. Some are better suited than others. I suggest you avoid office work at all costs (this goes for people without ADHD as well:) and anything that doesn't provide some manner of freedom. I don't think I have ADHD (perhaps mildly?) but my brother does. If there's something he's truly interested in, maintaining attention, focusin, etc. is nearly trivial. If it's something he doesn't care for, you may as well not even try. I'm not sure what his current pharmocological regimen is, but you'd be best served by a doc who is aware of studies on various new drugs. Also, like almost any other psychological problem, lots of people have lots of varied reactions to different drugs. What works for one person will, inexplicably, not work for you.
Not sure about the homeopathic or other 'natural' remedies you refer to. In looking at some others for various ailments of myself and wife, when studied in a traditional, peer-reviewed, closely controlled study, they frequently are shown to be ineffective, with results indistinguishable from sugar pills. Luckily, most are damaging only to your wallet, so you might feel free to experiment (I'm not a doctor, I only work with them. I don't offer medical advice that shouldn't be checked 10 ways from Sunday, and they don't touch the computers. You have been warned.)
Pretty straightforward: hardware price going down, software price going up. Give away the razor, sell the blades. Especially when the development cost of the razor has been paid for by early adopters.
On the broader subject, I'll concede that the issue is a little bit (not a great amount, but a little bit) more complex. I'll also concede that without marketing and sales data, it's hardly worth discussing a great deal more. But, I thought of another problem with free dl's: leaches. All of the sudden, EVERYONE dl's a copy of the new game, but only a small percent pay to play monthly, skewing the bandwidth costs, accounting, etc. At which point, I'd say sell, but cut the amount of profit the publisher takes. Not sure what this is, but it 'seems' like it's about $10 or so.
Every time I thought of picking up EQ, they would release an expansion pack. Getting into the game looked like it would cost $100 or so for the first month of play. Or stick with the original stuff that a few friends say sucked (or lacked what I consider core features).
Says towards the bottom of the article that only about 10% of the games are big hits. IOW, you pay more for the top tier games because of all of the shovelware that comes out.
The price will go up until the soccer moms stop buying titles for their little brats.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds interesting. Also sounds like you're speaking from ignorance (the correct definition, meaning you just don't know or have incomplete knowledge. No offense intended). The bulk of excessive medications lies not with physicians, but rather, with adamant patients. First is the problem that most people can't accept that if they sit on their ass, eat improperly, don't excercise, etc, they aren't going to be 100% every minute of every day. They want every little inconvenience taken care of with a 'magic pill'. It was much easier to take FenPhen than to diet and excercise. Second, the changes to allow pharmaceutical advertising to the lay public was a bad thing. I'm not sure I need to explain that. The final problem is when the media print every BS study printed, be it in the New England Journal, or Bob and Frank's uber-elite medical college journal and poetry annual.
What this leads to is a group of patients who, far from just saying 'gimmie', practically demand the medication. If a doc counsels against it, or suggests something natural (diet, excercise, etc.) the patient gets pissed and goes somewhere else. (And files a complaint with the insurance company, state regulatory boards, malpractice atty. etc.)
Doctors, as a group, don't get much money or other largesse from pharmaceutical companies. It was possible, in the past, to do okay, but if your physician was getting anything in reimbursements or gifts from pharmaceutical companies that would make a significant change in his normal salary, he probably was/is a quack.
Seriously, I've been in and around medicine and physicians for 30 years. I've known hundreds of doctors. Been exposed to dozens of hospitals. When I hear comments like this, I think to myself 'show me the proof'.
You've got part of the problem figured out ('gimme') But that is only one sign of top to bottom problems with health care and health care delivery in the US. (As an aside, socialized medicine is not the answer, as many of the problems I see are not solved in European countries and Canada. If I haven't deleted it, I had a ~ten page writing on the broad topic of problems with the medical industry in the US that I never quite finished.)
Oh, and to be a little bit on point, I think the first comment I replied to was referring to an individual experience. Perhaps I read too quickly?
I caught that (All Things Considered?) IIRC, the average CD price was also only $10.
Cliff can't last long. He does his job as well as he can, with at least a modicum of professionalism. I don't think he's ever hijacked a website, nor told a user of /. to 'get a life'. He also has some non-editors on his friends list, and has been known to participate in various journals. I'm sure he's the pariah of the /. ruling junta.
Sounds like you need to find a better family doctor. Christ, what kind of quacks are you dealing with? No, they aren't psychiatric specialists. But they are probably more in tune with the local docs, and can suggest a good one for you to work with. Also, in the case of some other things that might be misdiagnosed as psychiatric in nature, the generalist can rule out and/or treat other diseases that will adversely affect treatment by a shrink.
I agree with your assessment that those who truly have ADD and/or PDD are not common.
Why do you want to know? It's not like your hickass has an iPod.
Perhaps the answer to my question will lead me to buy one? Dumbass.
What kind of USB 2.0 is it? Real, high speed, what the customer expects USB, or the fake, bitch ass 'we-call-it-usb-2.0-but-it-is-really-1.1' type?
That may be true. However, my opinion of tatted up folks is that they are just following the crowd, same as the guy who shows up in a three piece. Yes, they are following different crowds, but they are following the crowd nonetheless.
I used to think that. Then I saw some 'runners' (as opposed to trailer queens) and thought to myself "better that they get used than rot away in some museum". Kinda like Ferris talking about Cameron's dad's Ferrari.
Home brewing, restoring jukeboxes, restoring arcade games, restoring old motorcycles, teaching newbies how to ride motorcycles, model trains, static models, photography.
What 'we' do is as diverse as who 'we' are. But I'm certain the average hobbies will be skewed to those with a technical component.
Amen. Sometimes the kiddies forget that what other people think is important to a business. But what the customer thinks is far more important than what the potential employee thinks.
Further, in this time of economic difficulty, as an employer, with two equal candidates (on paper) why would I choose the person who is being 'individual' by being like everyone else? At least the non-tattooed, non-pierced person isn't pretending to be unique. I'll probably get a lot less shit out of them during their employment.
My take on the matter: if they can't notice what you've done to yourself during the interview, you're probably safe.
BTW, I'm luckily in a job/industry where most of the non-traditional piercings can be disallowed at work for safety reasons. So we only have to police shitty tattoos, not piercings.
More than a few of the links you presented showed tats that looked like shit. Further, while they may have demonstrated technique, pure technique alone doesn't qualify as art. The parent poster is correct: rarely are tattoos artistic.
I thought the Iraqi Information Minister was working for SCO, not MS. This interview was such a puff piece. Gimme a break. Let me bitch about a few things specifically.
First, the guy claims to have almost no knowledge of what Sony is up to, and seems nearly proud of that fact! For shit's sake, that's your number one competitor. You think the head of GM doesn't know EXACTLY what Ford is up to? He's either lying (Iraqi Information Minister) or incompetent.
He claims that MS has 'knocked Sony on its feet'. Uhh... How? You're number two in the US, number three in the world. From what I've read/heard, the only reason so many people bought the Live! thing from MS is that it's just about the only reason (other than Halo) to have the damned thing. One peripheral doesn't make up for a lack of decent games (relatively speaking). Then he speaks of vendor lockin (go through MS's service or piss off) like it's a good thing.
We're just fine without EA sucking our dick. Yeah. Right.
We're in a five year or longer development cycle. Hoo, boy, I hope for your sake that you won't be taking much longer than five years for your next console. It's clear from pricing and talking, especially by Sony, that the next consoles are clearly in the works.
Karaoke is going to be a huge thing. Even thought I just heard on NPR last Friday (on morning edition if you are curious) that that business is hurting. Hard.
He says the company never backs down. Yeah, why can't I get MS Bob XP?
"I have bigger fish to fry [than Sony's PSP]" Yeah. Sure you do.
I'm not saying things are 100% in the shitter for the Xbox. Far from it. But things are not as rosy as this guy presents. The interviewer was about as tough as Barbara Walters.
I've been using one for about six months. $50/month with unlimited long distance (and about $5 for the line charge to the CLEC). NOTE: I also shill for the service. Click link for details. Yes, it will hit you with some MLM info. But just click on the 'local phone service' button.
Why are so many people defending the 'auteur' image of directors? It ignores the input of the scriptwriter, actors, editors, cinematographers, etc, etc, etc. Show me a mainstream movie where the director did all of that. Yes, the director has a very heavy hand, but he is not the end all, be all.
Perhaps most of all, it ignores the audience. Trust me, as funny as 'Friday' was, nothing beat seeing it in a theatre where my brother and I were the only white guys in attendance. Would scary movies be as scary without a bunch of other people jumping at the scary bits?
I remember when the format was first released. One of the things touted was the ability to show different versions on the same disc. All you were supposed to have to do was tell it to play 'clean', and the violent and sex bits would automatically be skipped.
The question isn't why are the MPAA and the DGA fighting this. The question is: why are they leaving this market untapped? How far could Cameron get without $100 million + in studio backing? Screw him. And after Godfather III, I could care less what Coppola (or his daughter:) have to say on the subject.
Don't give me that 'auteur' bullshit about the director. That totally ignores the input of the scriptwriter, actors, cinematographers, and editors. Unless the director is doing all of that on his own, it's a collaborative effort.
But, you are right: there is no reason I shouldn't be able to skip over bits I don't care for. Have I harmed Kubrick for skipping over that 'travelling through the monolith' bit in 2001? Well, fuck him if I am. It's boring as shit, and it's my DVD and my DVD player.
These people aren't distributing edited DVD's exactly. If memory serves (too lazy to double check) you send your copy, purchased from WalMart or wherever. They send you an edited copy. If the person who paid the store (and through a circuitous path, the studio and director) doesn't want to watch it, so what?
Who was lead counsel for much of that IBM-DOJ fight? David Boies. The same David Boies who is leading the charge for SCO.
Interesting.
One of about three shareware products I have ever paid for.
The amount of effort required is up to the whims of some future judge. IANAL, but I don't think there's any well codified ruling or statute that constitutes what is 'enough'. This is just a case that Marvel's attorney's are being a bit more cautious against the nebulous unknown than DC, Image, etc.
I don't think the original author intended this to be a rigorous tool. Rather, it was meant to quickly locate where the chunks of potentially stolen code lie. If lines 55-60 of foo.c are 'fishy', you can go in, look at those lines, and work outward to say "okay, if these lines are bad, probably the three before and the two after are also bad".
If the stolen code is as bad as SCO claims, it's likely that there will be plenty of these sorts of matches.
The auto manufacturers tried to do something similar by voiding warranties on non-dealer serviced vehicles. The Moss Magnuson Act took care of that BS in a hurry.
Choose your career and jobs carefully. Some are better suited than others. I suggest you avoid office work at all costs (this goes for people without ADHD as well:) and anything that doesn't provide some manner of freedom. I don't think I have ADHD (perhaps mildly?) but my brother does. If there's something he's truly interested in, maintaining attention, focusin, etc. is nearly trivial. If it's something he doesn't care for, you may as well not even try. I'm not sure what his current pharmocological regimen is, but you'd be best served by a doc who is aware of studies on various new drugs. Also, like almost any other psychological problem, lots of people have lots of varied reactions to different drugs. What works for one person will, inexplicably, not work for you.
Not sure about the homeopathic or other 'natural' remedies you refer to. In looking at some others for various ailments of myself and wife, when studied in a traditional, peer-reviewed, closely controlled study, they frequently are shown to be ineffective, with results indistinguishable from sugar pills. Luckily, most are damaging only to your wallet, so you might feel free to experiment (I'm not a doctor, I only work with them. I don't offer medical advice that shouldn't be checked 10 ways from Sunday, and they don't touch the computers. You have been warned.)
I mean you're all set...
1. Force people to buy higher priced products (because they will anyway) under protection of obnoxious law
2. Profit!
There is no missing middle step, that's all it takes.
Why do I hear Jeff Goldblum saying "There is no step three!"
Pretty straightforward: hardware price going down, software price going up. Give away the razor, sell the blades. Especially when the development cost of the razor has been paid for by early adopters.
On the broader subject, I'll concede that the issue is a little bit (not a great amount, but a little bit) more complex. I'll also concede that without marketing and sales data, it's hardly worth discussing a great deal more. But, I thought of another problem with free dl's: leaches. All of the sudden, EVERYONE dl's a copy of the new game, but only a small percent pay to play monthly, skewing the bandwidth costs, accounting, etc. At which point, I'd say sell, but cut the amount of profit the publisher takes. Not sure what this is, but it 'seems' like it's about $10 or so.
Every time I thought of picking up EQ, they would release an expansion pack. Getting into the game looked like it would cost $100 or so for the first month of play. Or stick with the original stuff that a few friends say sucked (or lacked what I consider core features).
Says towards the bottom of the article that only about 10% of the games are big hits. IOW, you pay more for the top tier games because of all of the shovelware that comes out.
The price will go up until the soccer moms stop buying titles for their little brats.