For $8000 a pop, I expect that these blood donations are heavily screened for disease.
These are wealthy, well-informed people who can work out the risk/benefit tradeoffs for themselves. And for the rest of us, they are willing human subjects that hopefully will contribute to figuring out cheaper and better ways of making such treatments happen for everybody.
And the claims are so outrageous, the cost is $8,000 - well,, I see the only people doing this are very wealthy who can throw away $8,000 and not miss it and very gullible people.
Systems in a data center should have two different power systems.
Of course. But in addition to that, a global corporation like BA needs redundant data centers as well. There are many ways in which a single geographic location can be knocked off line even with redundant power systems.
No, limited government is better. Hillary ran on a program of tyranny of the majority. It's not surprising that with such a program, she can get large numbers of votes, but that doesn't legitimize her political program. The fact that the US system keeps people like Hillary out of power (and it's not the first time) is a big plus of our system compared to Europe. A loser like Trump is still better for the country than someone like Hillary.
Almost three million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
Popular vote totals are meaningless in a electoral system with 55% voter turnout. How hard can that be to understand?
When your business depends on your IT infrastructure like that, turning off the power to a single machine or data center shouldn't bring down your operation; that's just stupid and bad design. Good enterprise software provides resilience, automatic failover, and geographically distributed operations. Companies need to use that.
And they should actually have tests every few months where they do shut down parts of their infrastructure randomly.
Do you also need a citation that the earth is round? Here are a few of the environmentalist billionaire buddies that corrupted the federal government during the Obama administration:
You can look at the popular vote and see that a majority of Americans supported her irregardless of the lack of good functioning IT
Hillary got less than a quarter of the votes of eligible voters. No, the "majority of Americans" didn't support her.
On aspect that is really needed is a mandatory paper ballet to computer tally on all precincts. There is a lot more to the Russian hacking to be exposed.
If you think that US voter fraud went in favor of Trump, you're really out of it.
Personally I advocate for replacing the House of Representatives with a proportional representation system to encourage the viability and formation of real third party choices.
Yes, brilliant! That way we can join Europe in having actual socialists, fascists, and communists in parliament, representing the people who believe in that sort of thing (you?).
Just look at how wonderfully that worked out in Germany in 1930-1933: those 18% who voted for the NSDAP in 1930 really managed to get their message across, and then in 1933 came to power with only 33% of the vote through coalition building! Parliamentary democracy FTW!
Technically speaking, RT is based out of Moscow, and is a foreign corporation. The 1st Amendment rights of corporations is still a gray area, and Constitution protections for foreigners is still highly subjective and is still decided on a case-by-case basis.
Being a foreign corporation based out of Moscow, they can publish whatever they want. So, when you talk about the "free speech rights of foreign corporations", what you are actually talking about is the American government blocking Americans from accessing foreign web sites that the government deems too much in favor of one presidential candidate or another. How would you like to implement that? Are you going to create the Great Firewall of the US? Are you going to require ISPs to block these sites? Or are you going to have police visit the home of anybody who views RT.com in violation of US government policy? Come on, let us know what brilliant ideas you have in store!
And where were you arguing this when Obama or Hillary received numerous endorsements and support from foreign newspapers, foreign governments, and corporations? Would you like to block those too?
If you think that the ability of corporations to publish political views should be limited by government because you don't believe in "corporate personhood", why don't we start by giving that power to Donald Trump? Let's see how he uses it vis-a-vis the New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC. How about it?
Hillary should have won this election in a landslide, given her resources, name recognition, and support. She started off with a 20 point lead over Trump and pissed it all away.
I believe you are confusing Liberalism with Leftist Progressivism
The left borrows nice sounding names every few decades, runs them into the ground, and then discards them.
What could be better than having a "community", being "social", being "bound together" as a society, being "totally" taken care of, or being for "progress"? Hence "communism", "socialism", "fascism", "totalitarianism", and "progressivism". All of those started out with positive connotations.
These people spent the last half century running "liberal" into the ground, by redefining the meaning of "liberty" from negative rights to positive rights. Any word these people touch is permanently corrupted and destroyed. Don't bother trying to reclaim "liberalism"; at best, you might talk about "classical liberalism".
Apparently, you don't understand the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Modern cars don't produce significant amounts of carbon monoxide anymore either, so the "experiment" you propose is mostly an exercise in boredom.
A standard kerosene heater produces about as much carbon dioxide as a car in idle; I have spent 12h in the same room with a kerosene heater with no problems.
Do you care to explain how climate science is tainted by politics? Is there any rational argument against the basic idea that pumping unnatural amounts of carbon into the atmosphere will alter its ability to to trap heat?
What's "unnatural" about it? All that carbon used to be in the biosphere, mostly all at once.
Counting industrial emissions by itself is not the correct way of accounting for carbon. Europe contributed massively to carbon levels in the atmosphere through deforestation prior to 1850, both in terms of emissions and in terms of failure to capture carbon. (Furthermore, it also matters is what those emissions have been used for.)
Hillary lost the 2008 election because Obama played a better numbers game than she did.
Translation: Obama's message and personality appealed to more voters.
She should have won the 2016 election but didn't do enough to keep Trump from winning the three states he needed to get into the electoral college.
Translation: Voters hated Hillary even more than Trump. The only reason she won the popular vote was her cynical appeal to Latinos in California.
If she runs for 2020, then there is no cure for stupidity.
Whether she can get the Democratic nomination in 2020 depends on the same factors as before: can she get enough support from Wall Street, billionaires, and foreign dictators to install herself as the nominee; does she still have enough money, power, and influence? Given that the Clinton foundation has been dismantled, that is less likely. But she's still very wealthy and very well connected, and so is her husband. The fact that she is even more hated now than before the election needs to be weighed against the fact that her arrogance, vanity, and selfishness seem undiminished.
Then look up more than one country. Global emissions levelled off in 2013 and started a steady decline lead by efforts in China and Europe
Your delusional. Go look up emissions for China before you make a fool of yourself again. And Europe "leading"? Don't make me laugh.
(most of the euroblock actually happily on track to meeting the Paris targets based on current trends)
Given Europe's pathetic economy and unemployment, that's hardly surprising. The closer a nation gets to being a poverty stricken socialist shithole, the more indicators of equality, social mobility, and carbon emissions improve. Carry on, you're on the right track!
In the real world, I hold stock in these companies for reasons other than political expression, and I don't know of comparable investments that aren't going to contribute my money for causes I disagree with.
I see: so other people are successful but you don't like their political views so, voila, you demand a law that they behave like you want them to. What an enlightened, liberal attitude!
Media are a more complicated legal problem, since they typically come with editorial sections and we don't want to hurt that, and we don't want to hinder them from actual reporting.
Indeed! After all, what could be better for democracy and liberty than to give a virtual monopoly on large-scale speech to the hand-picked minions of billionaire newspaper owners, owners that in addition to their personal biases are highly dependent on the good will of politicians and government officials! Let democracy flourish, David Thornley style!
Slashdot Mirror
For $8000 a pop, I expect that these blood donations are heavily screened for disease.
These are wealthy, well-informed people who can work out the risk/benefit tradeoffs for themselves. And for the rest of us, they are willing human subjects that hopefully will contribute to figuring out cheaper and better ways of making such treatments happen for everybody.
"My objection is that __________ is risky and should only be done when necessary."
Fill in the blank with "blood transfusion", "sex", "SCUBA diving", "motorcycle riding", "parachuting", "surfing", "skiing", etc.
Why don't you keep your nose out of other people's business and stop "objecting" to their activities or tell them what they should or should not do?
So... no need for the FDA to intervene then.
Why should they? It's all voluntary interactions.
Of course. But in addition to that, a global corporation like BA needs redundant data centers as well. There are many ways in which a single geographic location can be knocked off line even with redundant power systems.
No, limited government is better. Hillary ran on a program of tyranny of the majority. It's not surprising that with such a program, she can get large numbers of votes, but that doesn't legitimize her political program. The fact that the US system keeps people like Hillary out of power (and it's not the first time) is a big plus of our system compared to Europe. A loser like Trump is still better for the country than someone like Hillary.
Popular vote totals are meaningless in a electoral system with 55% voter turnout. How hard can that be to understand?
Furthermore, if the election were held today, Trump would probably lead in both electoral votes and popular votes, so even according to your math, Hillary doesn't represent "the majority" anymore.
And 108 million voters chose to vote for neither of those two jerks. If we went by actual majority, we'd have no president at all.
When your business depends on your IT infrastructure like that, turning off the power to a single machine or data center shouldn't bring down your operation; that's just stupid and bad design. Good enterprise software provides resilience, automatic failover, and geographically distributed operations. Companies need to use that.
And they should actually have tests every few months where they do shut down parts of their infrastructure randomly.
Do you also need a citation that the earth is round? Here are a few of the environmentalist billionaire buddies that corrupted the federal government during the Obama administration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And here is a list of "environmental organizations".
It's all about money and endorsements.
And tyranny of the majority is a good thing... because?
Are you kidding? Under a popular vote system, candidates would go to a handful of big cities in California and on the East Coast and call it a day.
Hillary got less than a quarter of the votes of eligible voters. No, the "majority of Americans" didn't support her.
If you think that US voter fraud went in favor of Trump, you're really out of it.
Those tickets are even worse than Hillary. And you're out of touch with reality if you think they have a chance.
Yes, brilliant! That way we can join Europe in having actual socialists, fascists, and communists in parliament, representing the people who believe in that sort of thing (you?).
Just look at how wonderfully that worked out in Germany in 1930-1933: those 18% who voted for the NSDAP in 1930 really managed to get their message across, and then in 1933 came to power with only 33% of the vote through coalition building! Parliamentary democracy FTW!
Being a foreign corporation based out of Moscow, they can publish whatever they want. So, when you talk about the "free speech rights of foreign corporations", what you are actually talking about is the American government blocking Americans from accessing foreign web sites that the government deems too much in favor of one presidential candidate or another. How would you like to implement that? Are you going to create the Great Firewall of the US? Are you going to require ISPs to block these sites? Or are you going to have police visit the home of anybody who views RT.com in violation of US government policy? Come on, let us know what brilliant ideas you have in store!
And where were you arguing this when Obama or Hillary received numerous endorsements and support from foreign newspapers, foreign governments, and corporations? Would you like to block those too?
If you think that the ability of corporations to publish political views should be limited by government because you don't believe in "corporate personhood", why don't we start by giving that power to Donald Trump? Let's see how he uses it vis-a-vis the New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC. How about it?
Hillary should have won this election in a landslide, given her resources, name recognition, and support. She started off with a 20 point lead over Trump and pissed it all away.
The actual rule is much simpler: if the left doesn't like you, they'll call you a "Nazi". They don't need any drops for that.
The left borrows nice sounding names every few decades, runs them into the ground, and then discards them.
What could be better than having a "community", being "social", being "bound together" as a society, being "totally" taken care of, or being for "progress"? Hence "communism", "socialism", "fascism", "totalitarianism", and "progressivism". All of those started out with positive connotations.
These people spent the last half century running "liberal" into the ground, by redefining the meaning of "liberty" from negative rights to positive rights. Any word these people touch is permanently corrupted and destroyed. Don't bother trying to reclaim "liberalism"; at best, you might talk about "classical liberalism".
Apparently, you don't understand the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Modern cars don't produce significant amounts of carbon monoxide anymore either, so the "experiment" you propose is mostly an exercise in boredom.
A standard kerosene heater produces about as much carbon dioxide as a car in idle; I have spent 12h in the same room with a kerosene heater with no problems.
What's "unnatural" about it? All that carbon used to be in the biosphere, mostly all at once.
Hence all that political posturing and anti-Americanism coming out of Europe: it plays well with the European masses.
hence the need for political solutions to the problem.
Warmer temperatures are not a problem, and even if they were, Paris isn't a solution.
Counting industrial emissions by itself is not the correct way of accounting for carbon. Europe contributed massively to carbon levels in the atmosphere through deforestation prior to 1850, both in terms of emissions and in terms of failure to capture carbon. (Furthermore, it also matters is what those emissions have been used for.)
Apparently the story of her life.
Translation: Obama's message and personality appealed to more voters.
Translation: Voters hated Hillary even more than Trump. The only reason she won the popular vote was her cynical appeal to Latinos in California.
Whether she can get the Democratic nomination in 2020 depends on the same factors as before: can she get enough support from Wall Street, billionaires, and foreign dictators to install herself as the nominee; does she still have enough money, power, and influence? Given that the Clinton foundation has been dismantled, that is less likely. But she's still very wealthy and very well connected, and so is her husband. The fact that she is even more hated now than before the election needs to be weighed against the fact that her arrogance, vanity, and selfishness seem undiminished.
Your delusional. Go look up emissions for China before you make a fool of yourself again. And Europe "leading"? Don't make me laugh.
Given Europe's pathetic economy and unemployment, that's hardly surprising. The closer a nation gets to being a poverty stricken socialist shithole, the more indicators of equality, social mobility, and carbon emissions improve. Carry on, you're on the right track!
I see: so other people are successful but you don't like their political views so, voila, you demand a law that they behave like you want them to. What an enlightened, liberal attitude!
Indeed! After all, what could be better for democracy and liberty than to give a virtual monopoly on large-scale speech to the hand-picked minions of billionaire newspaper owners, owners that in addition to their personal biases are highly dependent on the good will of politicians and government officials! Let democracy flourish, David Thornley style!