In other words, somebody who will work at a fraction of the price. I'm not an economist, but I suspect that kind of mindset won't attract new talent into that industry. But maybe I'm wrong.
Though I read somewhere that 90% of these (and other) drugs are made in the US, and then sold elsewhere as an afterthought to drive additional revenue. So in other words, European health care systems get a (mostly) free ride.
That said, it would be interesting to watch what happens internationally if the FDA was allowed to negotiate drug prices, and/or if there were price controls on drugs that have any form of market exclusivity in the US.
Huh...I had no idea that adult human males had only 125 Calories. Talk about very low calorie density with good micronutrient content. That is the ultimate weight loss food. This should be on Dr. Oz, since he likes promoting that kind of stuff regardless of any empirical evidence. Maybe one of his sponsors could sell assault rifles and charcoal barbecues. Just be mindful that not all are created equal. Barbara Hudson is bigger than the typical adult male and likely carries more calories, for example.
Either way, it doesn't seem likely that it would apply to the "entire" internet; that seems like hyperbole to me. It really depends on how the regional governing entity wants to handle requests from other governing entities outside of its jurisdiction.
In the example of the Spanish sports streaming site, the site owner registered it under a.com and a.org, both of which are in the US's jurisdiction, thus the US government can force its seizure. It doesn't matter if the servers were located elsewhere; they could always have registered it under a.es domain and kept the site up, and the US wouldn't touch it (think ThePirateBay and KickAssTorrents, which the US government surely hates.) To say that a governing entity has jurisdiction over the "entire" internet isn't logical, because after all, the name was domestically registered to the country that took it down.
Anyways, TFA doesn't state which domains the London police were taking down, but I could see the following happening: Suppose a website registers under a US TLD. Then suppose it hosts content which is illegal in the US, but nobody in the US notices, so it doesn't get taken down. But suppose it does get noticed in the UK by a UK rights holder. UK rights holder asks its government to use diplomatic leverage (treaties, trade agreements, etc) to ask the US to take it down. US might comply in accordance to its own laws (that is, it is against US law, so the US can justify taking it down.)
And really, this is no different than one country extraditing criminals to another country. And in fact, the US doesn't extradite people for breaking laws in another country if what they are wanted for is an activity that is protected by the US Constitution. So for example, in Germany, spouting racist propaganda is illegal, meanwhile it is protected by the first amendment in the US. Thus, the US won't extradite somebody to Germany simply because they are wanted in Germany for hate speech crimes. Likewise, I'm sure Germany would love to have the website stormfront.org (a neo-nazi website) taken down, but because this site doesn't break any laws in the US, the US isn't going to remove it if Germany asks it to.
Bogus clickbait article that is plain wrong. Its counting *Windows PC's* that are connected via mobile data as mobile phones, given the dominance of them in the desktop market and that most virus are targeted at desktop of course they dominate stats.
No shit, dumbass. Read what I wrote: "80% of malware on mobile networks"
Given the tiny % of Windows Mobile phones it is obviously quite ridiculous to claim they account for 80% of malware. I'm not aware of any real windows mobile malware.
The vast majority of mobile malware is Android, because of its market dominance, pathetic security model and total lack of security updates.
Honestly, you're buying propaganda from the antivirus industry, which is panicking right now because the desktop market is shrinking along with its consume revenue, and nobody is buying their crap where all of the consumer money is going: Android. So what do they do? Sell you a non-existent problem.
The fact is, 80% of malware on mobile networks is from Windows, of any variety. Let that sink in: Few Windows devices are on Mobile networks, and they still manage to make up the vast majority of malware. Android's security model is pretty damn good considering just anybody can sideload just any app to it, (like Windows USED to be) and if they do so it can have the same permissions as any other app on the Play Store. The Android malware rate in Western markets is less than 0.02% of active devices. In Asian markets, it's upwards of 2%. Why? Two reasons:
1) Asia tends to have a different definition of what is malware and what isn't, so they're more accepting of trojanized applications and don't mind installing them. 2) In many Asian countries, legitimate app stores like Google Play and Amazon are all banned, so everybody relies on pirate app stores.
Even in spite of this, the overall rate of malware infections on Android is under 1%. Even so, you still don't need antivirus software on Android: If you happen to download a trojanized application from the Play store, Google will nix it from your device once it's discovered (you give them permission to do so in the EULA.)
Meanwhile, guess what? In spite of Microsoft using a whitelist security model for Windows Store apps, it STILL has malware, pirated apps, fake apps, etc, in a MUCH higher (relative) number than Google Play does.
Keep in mind, Windows had a super tiny mobile market share even at the time, and still manages to be responsible for 80% of malware on mobile networks. And yes, windows phone isn't immune, nor are Microsoft's lofty promises about how awesomely secure Edge is:
It certainly is how they work. That's why we have a thing called "case law". If the courts work as you imagined, there would be no such thing as case law.
No. Case law establishes an interpretation of a law as applied in a given circumstance.
No. The useful purpose is called "Selective Enforcement" and it's one of the ways that TPTB remain TPTB and not TPTWereOnceButNowAren't.
No. The judicial doesn't enforce any laws, let alone selectively so. Enforcement is strictly within the domain of the executive.
I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
That's not how courts work, and it's certainly not how they should work. Anything else is altering the laws with complete disregard for the process that they were created to begin with, and you may as well not even have judges and just let legislators both write laws and interpret them. Furthermore, you'd end up with highly inconsistent rulings and your legal system more or less would fail to serve any useful purpose.
Though to be honest, this should be common sense if you understand even high school level economics: Increased availability of money towards X in-demand thing puts upward pressure on its demand, and increased demand puts upward pressure on its price. That's like asking for a citation that 2 + 2 = 4.
I don't think the quality of education has deteriorated at all, rather many students are choosing to get totally worthless degrees because they feel entitled to pursue their passion.
That said, I'm sure that schools are pumping out better and better art historians, music therapists, and western philosophy majors than ever, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these majors have any actual economic demand.
I mean think about it: Last time you were pondering your own existence, when did you consider hiring a philosopher to help?
And the reason tuition rates are going up is because of the increase in the money supply in the higher education system, which itself is entirely caused by the increased availability and ease of acquiring of student loans. And, I know an easy fix: Make it possible to go bankrupt on these loans just like any other unsecured loan. If you do that, watch how basically overnight, lenders will start scrutinizing borrowers more, and borrowers will be thinking harder about borrowing to begin with in light of higher interest and/or collateral.
Forget the swamp, for it has already been drained. It's just been filled with a sewer instead, and the FCC is now a baby that is being watched by a dingo. Expect more of this for at least the next 3.75 years.
Everybody is created equal under common law, but really not everybody is born equal, even if you somehow managed to completely establish socioeconomic equality for all (which would extend to the complete removal of all leadership positions, titles, and occupations.)
Also when I hear the term "created" when it comes to people, I can't help but ask: Created by whom?
Seriously, you think I'm "grasping at straws?" The Supreme Court has reversed previous Supreme Court decisions 130 times [wikipedia.org]. They also modified the original Roe v Wade decision on a subsequent hearing, and Trump wants them to reverse it.
You know what, in spite of how unlikely it will ever be that our first amendment rights will be lost, whether that is through new amendments or SCOTUS interpretations, I'm going to concede your point here. The reason why is because you've personally demonstrated a desire that may actually be part of a larger problem beginning to stir within our university system, and has at least some chance at going mainstream.
Mainly, and because I have the freedom to say this still so I'll say it anyways: Dickless nazi son-of-a-bitch assholes like you are the reason democracies around the world have fallen, and with the recent resurgence of fascism in Europe, and the "speech codes" at major universities, it is quite possible that dickless nazi son-of-a-bitches like you could very well amass big enough numbers to have your wish come true and kill our democracy. After all, as John McCain recently stated: Abolishment of free speech is the first step in establishing a dictatorship.
So congratulations, dickless nazi son-of-a-bitch, you and your kind are well on your way to bringing about another dark age.
The Fourth Amendment alone shows that isn't true, and really, the Second and Third, and the Fifth, and really, the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth.
This is incorrect. There's a very long, drawn out history behind this, basically starting from the ratification of the constitution until at least 2010. In fact, in direct contrast to your assertion, the third amendment still pretty much only applies to the federal government, with exception of the states in the second circuit. You can read all about it here:
And for further reading, here is a case law example that clearly states that the bill of rights only applies at the national level, and are not guaranteed for individuals for intra-state affairs:
The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."
And here's a very direct example relating to the second amendment:
The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
Google the Incorporation Doctrine; if you're interested in history, it's pretty enlightening how few civil rights citizens of this country actually had in the early days of the US. Most people just assume they've always been there since the constitution was fully ratified in 1790, but it just aint so.
it will not be too many years before the EU is bigger too
That is highly doubtful. The UK is outright leaving with Netherlands and Denmark populace showing strong interest in doing the same, while Switzerland and Iceland both withdrew their applications. And as for the remaining states, Greece, Italy, and Portugal are all bordering on insolvent.
While SCOTUS has struck down laws limiting anonymous speech, what SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS can take away. Or have you missed the whole current debate over supreme court nominees? Grow up, read the news.
Now you're just plain grasping at straws because your little narcissistic nazi brain can't stand being wrong, and I can't say I'm surprised. I'll bet you wish you could change your country's monarchy for a dictator too.
That aside, when SCOTUS makes these rulings, very few, if any, justices ever dissent on this issue, so that's very unlikely. You're just as likely to see a constitutional amendment. This is because unlike you, we're not nazi assholes here, and unless and until any of that changes, it remains de-facto constitutional. In fact, there are even several laws that explicitly enforce the ability to have anonymity. For example, the only reason people can block their caller ID (showing up as "Anonymous Caller" in most cases) is because there's a federal law that says carriers must give callers the ability to make anonymous calls; otherwise, carriers wouldn't bother because they'd have to maintain such a system. I'm sure this law pisses you off too, but you're an asshole so nobody cares.
Also, because you're so unfamiliar with what impact SCOTUS has, the original bill of rights only applied to the federal government in the beginning. At first, things like freedom of speech, the ability to vote on federal politicians (i.e. POTUS, congress) weren't guaranteed for individuals, and the representatives and senators sent to Washington, and presidential electors, were unilaterally decided by the state government in most of the original 13 states. SCOTUS changed that through a series of decisions in the 1920's, starting with Gitlow v. New York, in what is now called the Incorporation Doctrine, in which now very few constitutional rules and doctrines aren't applied at a state level.
And yet the RIGHT to be anonymous is nowhere in the constitution. Try to keep up. If it's not explicitly in the constitution, it's something that can be legislated either way, including at lower levels of government. That's how the law works.
No, it can't. Read the article, dummy, it specifically mentions how SCOTUS struck down laws that restricted anonymous speech. It makes a reference to no less than three separate decisions, all of which involved some government entity trying to place some restriction on anonymous speech.
Seriously, are you just flat out incapable of reading it? Like you're actually that dumb to try to tell me how the law works even when I just showed you proof that you're wrong. I think the truth is that you are only capable of thinking with your dick, which you've since cut off so now you just can't even think at all anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, somebody who will work at a fraction of the price. I'm not an economist, but I suspect that kind of mindset won't attract new talent into that industry. But maybe I'm wrong.
Though I read somewhere that 90% of these (and other) drugs are made in the US, and then sold elsewhere as an afterthought to drive additional revenue. So in other words, European health care systems get a (mostly) free ride.
That said, it would be interesting to watch what happens internationally if the FDA was allowed to negotiate drug prices, and/or if there were price controls on drugs that have any form of market exclusivity in the US.
You can use many truths to draw a false conclusion. Conspiracy theorists do it all the time.
Unless you think a person can get by on 2 Calories per day, in which case it doesn't even rise to pendantry.
For up to two months, or maybe longer if you happen to be the size and shape of a walrus.
Huh...I had no idea that adult human males had only 125 Calories. Talk about very low calorie density with good micronutrient content. That is the ultimate weight loss food. This should be on Dr. Oz, since he likes promoting that kind of stuff regardless of any empirical evidence. Maybe one of his sponsors could sell assault rifles and charcoal barbecues. Just be mindful that not all are created equal. Barbara Hudson is bigger than the typical adult male and likely carries more calories, for example.
Either way, it doesn't seem likely that it would apply to the "entire" internet; that seems like hyperbole to me. It really depends on how the regional governing entity wants to handle requests from other governing entities outside of its jurisdiction.
In the example of the Spanish sports streaming site, the site owner registered it under a .com and a .org, both of which are in the US's jurisdiction, thus the US government can force its seizure. It doesn't matter if the servers were located elsewhere; they could always have registered it under a .es domain and kept the site up, and the US wouldn't touch it (think ThePirateBay and KickAssTorrents, which the US government surely hates.) To say that a governing entity has jurisdiction over the "entire" internet isn't logical, because after all, the name was domestically registered to the country that took it down.
Anyways, TFA doesn't state which domains the London police were taking down, but I could see the following happening: Suppose a website registers under a US TLD. Then suppose it hosts content which is illegal in the US, but nobody in the US notices, so it doesn't get taken down. But suppose it does get noticed in the UK by a UK rights holder. UK rights holder asks its government to use diplomatic leverage (treaties, trade agreements, etc) to ask the US to take it down. US might comply in accordance to its own laws (that is, it is against US law, so the US can justify taking it down.)
And really, this is no different than one country extraditing criminals to another country. And in fact, the US doesn't extradite people for breaking laws in another country if what they are wanted for is an activity that is protected by the US Constitution. So for example, in Germany, spouting racist propaganda is illegal, meanwhile it is protected by the first amendment in the US. Thus, the US won't extradite somebody to Germany simply because they are wanted in Germany for hate speech crimes. Likewise, I'm sure Germany would love to have the website stormfront.org (a neo-nazi website) taken down, but because this site doesn't break any laws in the US, the US isn't going to remove it if Germany asks it to.
Bogus clickbait article that is plain wrong. Its counting *Windows PC's* that are connected via mobile data as mobile phones, given the dominance of them in the desktop market and that most virus are targeted at desktop of course they dominate stats.
No shit, dumbass. Read what I wrote: "80% of malware on mobile networks"
Given the tiny % of Windows Mobile phones it is obviously quite ridiculous to claim they account for 80% of malware. I'm not aware of any real windows mobile malware.
The vast majority of mobile malware is Android, because of its market dominance, pathetic security model and total lack of security updates.
Honestly, you're buying propaganda from the antivirus industry, which is panicking right now because the desktop market is shrinking along with its consume revenue, and nobody is buying their crap where all of the consumer money is going: Android. So what do they do? Sell you a non-existent problem.
The fact is, 80% of malware on mobile networks is from Windows, of any variety. Let that sink in: Few Windows devices are on Mobile networks, and they still manage to make up the vast majority of malware. Android's security model is pretty damn good considering just anybody can sideload just any app to it, (like Windows USED to be) and if they do so it can have the same permissions as any other app on the Play Store. The Android malware rate in Western markets is less than 0.02% of active devices. In Asian markets, it's upwards of 2%. Why? Two reasons:
1) Asia tends to have a different definition of what is malware and what isn't, so they're more accepting of trojanized applications and don't mind installing them.
2) In many Asian countries, legitimate app stores like Google Play and Amazon are all banned, so everybody relies on pirate app stores.
Even in spite of this, the overall rate of malware infections on Android is under 1%. Even so, you still don't need antivirus software on Android: If you happen to download a trojanized application from the Play store, Google will nix it from your device once it's discovered (you give them permission to do so in the EULA.)
Meanwhile, guess what? In spite of Microsoft using a whitelist security model for Windows Store apps, it STILL has malware, pirated apps, fake apps, etc, in a MUCH higher (relative) number than Google Play does.
Then vote that your local government makes its own?
Though to be honest, whenever people come up with this ideological shit, you typically end up with crap like Quaero.
Considering this is a broadcom problem, I don't see what difference it makes in this regard.
However in overall security, I somewhat doubt it:
http://www.computerworld.com/a...
Keep in mind, Windows had a super tiny mobile market share even at the time, and still manages to be responsible for 80% of malware on mobile networks. And yes, windows phone isn't immune, nor are Microsoft's lofty promises about how awesomely secure Edge is:
http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...
Not sure why they didn't just call it what it is: ASIC.
Actually, it was because the mother was a crazy, controllingâ, manipulator, and the advice was well-intentioned to get out of an abusive situation.
Nope, it's very much the other way around, actually.
It certainly is how they work. That's why we have a thing called "case law". If the courts work as you imagined, there would be no such thing as case law.
No. Case law establishes an interpretation of a law as applied in a given circumstance.
No. The useful purpose is called "Selective Enforcement" and it's one of the ways that TPTB remain TPTB and not TPTWereOnceButNowAren't.
No. The judicial doesn't enforce any laws, let alone selectively so. Enforcement is strictly within the domain of the executive.
I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
That's not how courts work, and it's certainly not how they should work. Anything else is altering the laws with complete disregard for the process that they were created to begin with, and you may as well not even have judges and just let legislators both write laws and interpret them. Furthermore, you'd end up with highly inconsistent rulings and your legal system more or less would fail to serve any useful purpose.
Not that I agree with this particular law.
Here you go:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/08...
Though to be honest, this should be common sense if you understand even high school level economics: Increased availability of money towards X in-demand thing puts upward pressure on its demand, and increased demand puts upward pressure on its price. That's like asking for a citation that 2 + 2 = 4.
I don't think the quality of education has deteriorated at all, rather many students are choosing to get totally worthless degrees because they feel entitled to pursue their passion.
That said, I'm sure that schools are pumping out better and better art historians, music therapists, and western philosophy majors than ever, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these majors have any actual economic demand.
I mean think about it: Last time you were pondering your own existence, when did you consider hiring a philosopher to help?
And the reason tuition rates are going up is because of the increase in the money supply in the higher education system, which itself is entirely caused by the increased availability and ease of acquiring of student loans. And, I know an easy fix: Make it possible to go bankrupt on these loans just like any other unsecured loan. If you do that, watch how basically overnight, lenders will start scrutinizing borrowers more, and borrowers will be thinking harder about borrowing to begin with in light of higher interest and/or collateral.
Forget the swamp, for it has already been drained. It's just been filled with a sewer instead, and the FCC is now a baby that is being watched by a dingo. Expect more of this for at least the next 3.75 years.
Everyone is created equal.
Everybody is created equal under common law, but really not everybody is born equal, even if you somehow managed to completely establish socioeconomic equality for all (which would extend to the complete removal of all leadership positions, titles, and occupations.)
Also when I hear the term "created" when it comes to people, I can't help but ask: Created by whom?
Seriously, you think I'm "grasping at straws?" The Supreme Court has reversed previous Supreme Court decisions 130 times [wikipedia.org]. They also modified the original Roe v Wade decision on a subsequent hearing, and Trump wants them to reverse it.
You know what, in spite of how unlikely it will ever be that our first amendment rights will be lost, whether that is through new amendments or SCOTUS interpretations, I'm going to concede your point here. The reason why is because you've personally demonstrated a desire that may actually be part of a larger problem beginning to stir within our university system, and has at least some chance at going mainstream.
Mainly, and because I have the freedom to say this still so I'll say it anyways: Dickless nazi son-of-a-bitch assholes like you are the reason democracies around the world have fallen, and with the recent resurgence of fascism in Europe, and the "speech codes" at major universities, it is quite possible that dickless nazi son-of-a-bitches like you could very well amass big enough numbers to have your wish come true and kill our democracy. After all, as John McCain recently stated: Abolishment of free speech is the first step in establishing a dictatorship.
So congratulations, dickless nazi son-of-a-bitch, you and your kind are well on your way to bringing about another dark age.
Wrongo!
The Fourth Amendment alone shows that isn't true, and really, the Second and Third, and the Fifth, and really, the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth.
This is incorrect. There's a very long, drawn out history behind this, basically starting from the ratification of the constitution until at least 2010. In fact, in direct contrast to your assertion, the third amendment still pretty much only applies to the federal government, with exception of the states in the second circuit. You can read all about it here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
And for further reading, here is a case law example that clearly states that the bill of rights only applies at the national level, and are not guaranteed for individuals for intra-state affairs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."
And here's a very direct example relating to the second amendment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
Google the Incorporation Doctrine; if you're interested in history, it's pretty enlightening how few civil rights citizens of this country actually had in the early days of the US. Most people just assume they've always been there since the constitution was fully ratified in 1790, but it just aint so.
it will not be too many years before the EU is bigger too
That is highly doubtful. The UK is outright leaving with Netherlands and Denmark populace showing strong interest in doing the same, while Switzerland and Iceland both withdrew their applications. And as for the remaining states, Greece, Italy, and Portugal are all bordering on insolvent.
UK fucks up India
UK spawns another nation
You realize you have this chronologically backwards, right?
They're harmless.
I wouldn't say that -- just how many more family guy episodes do we need?
You're forgetting the #1 rule of politics for anybody is off of the deep end:
If the guy you didn't vote for is in office, then suddenly the country sucks now and everything is his fault.
Meanwhile nobody else really gives a fuck.
While SCOTUS has struck down laws limiting anonymous speech, what SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS can take away. Or have you missed the whole current debate over supreme court nominees? Grow up, read the news.
Now you're just plain grasping at straws because your little narcissistic nazi brain can't stand being wrong, and I can't say I'm surprised. I'll bet you wish you could change your country's monarchy for a dictator too.
That aside, when SCOTUS makes these rulings, very few, if any, justices ever dissent on this issue, so that's very unlikely. You're just as likely to see a constitutional amendment. This is because unlike you, we're not nazi assholes here, and unless and until any of that changes, it remains de-facto constitutional. In fact, there are even several laws that explicitly enforce the ability to have anonymity. For example, the only reason people can block their caller ID (showing up as "Anonymous Caller" in most cases) is because there's a federal law that says carriers must give callers the ability to make anonymous calls; otherwise, carriers wouldn't bother because they'd have to maintain such a system. I'm sure this law pisses you off too, but you're an asshole so nobody cares.
Also, because you're so unfamiliar with what impact SCOTUS has, the original bill of rights only applied to the federal government in the beginning. At first, things like freedom of speech, the ability to vote on federal politicians (i.e. POTUS, congress) weren't guaranteed for individuals, and the representatives and senators sent to Washington, and presidential electors, were unilaterally decided by the state government in most of the original 13 states. SCOTUS changed that through a series of decisions in the 1920's, starting with Gitlow v. New York, in what is now called the Incorporation Doctrine, in which now very few constitutional rules and doctrines aren't applied at a state level.
IMO we should start building cylons.
And yet the RIGHT to be anonymous is nowhere in the constitution. Try to keep up. If it's not explicitly in the constitution, it's something that can be legislated either way, including at lower levels of government. That's how the law works.
No, it can't. Read the article, dummy, it specifically mentions how SCOTUS struck down laws that restricted anonymous speech. It makes a reference to no less than three separate decisions, all of which involved some government entity trying to place some restriction on anonymous speech.
Seriously, are you just flat out incapable of reading it? Like you're actually that dumb to try to tell me how the law works even when I just showed you proof that you're wrong. I think the truth is that you are only capable of thinking with your dick, which you've since cut off so now you just can't even think at all anymore.