That's the exact truth in too many markets. And that's what leads to uncompetitive companies being anticompetitive companies. They'd rather play the scared victim than return the threat by actually following the trends in the market.
Perhaps there's some cause and effect going on there. Companies that are more responsive to customer demands and concerns are, in my experience, more trusted by the customers. Perhaps the banks have already figured out how to compete and just don't realize it yet because being competitive cuts into profit margins.
They're not actually making whole blood, which is mostly water. They're making progenitor cells for blood which go on to produce red cells, white cells, and platelets. Most of the volume would come from somewhere else, but the cells they are making make the cells.
Bloodless surgery is great when it's an option. When the doctor is replacing blood already lost to trauma, there's nothing to take out, clean, and put back in to the patient. It's already gone.
You should probably be aware that not all Christians are Catholics. There are plenty of Christians who believe in birth control (including many Catholics who disagree with their church over it).
Most of them don't believe in abortion as a convenient form of birth control, though. Contraception is much easier, safer, and cheaper for the mother than abortion, even if you do think abortion is grand.
Personally, I'm against abortion in principle unless it's an unusually dangerous pregnancy for the mother or the result of rape or incest. However, I know that making it illegal wouldn't stop it. It'd just drive it underground and make everybody involved -- mothers, fathers, doctors and nurses performing -- worse off. I think it should be, as President Clinton said, "legal, safe, and rare".
Now, about the difference between IVF and abortion... IVF is not abortion. The embryos from IVF used for ECS research have not been implanted then scraped out by a surgeon. They are the spare embryos that were never implanted in the uterus. These are left over from women and couples trying to get pregnant and have kids, not preventing it. It's not about birth control in the common sense of the phrase, which is preventing births.
Your argument seems to confuse quite a few topics. You also generalize quite a few groups into one you clearly disagree with the most. In your quest to vilify people as simpletons who don't grasp the issues at hand, you have oversimplified the topics and (probably intentionally) failed to even acknowledge the issues at hand are much more complex than you mention.
One advantage of direct cell conversions is that unlike embryonic stem cells or IPS cells stuck itno a human body, they're pretty sure these cells wouldn't be likely to cause tumors.
If your current system only works for the rich, then you need to fix your current system. Court cases will always be available to override abuses or alleged abuses of a mediation system. If the courts only work for the rich, then it doesn't matter how well a system works that is going to be overruled by the courts whenever the rich want it to be.
BTW, over here in the US, informal online content is often considered by courts to be a form of speech, so it'd be slander. If it was news by an actual journalism source, that'd be libel. They don't hold "online" to mean "print" in our courts. They draw the distinction mainly on whether it compares to a traditional print medium or a traditional speech medium.
You need to stop looking for trolls and think about how these things really play out. Here in the US the DMCA set up one of these mandatory outside of court mediation systems. It just happens to be for copyrights rather than private data. What happens when someone is falsely accused of copyright infringement is the work is immediately taken down by the host. Then, the person publishing the work in question must respond if they have the right to publish a work that the notice to take down the work was filed in error or maliciously in order to request that it be allowed to be reinstated. Then, if the two sides still disagree, it still ends up in court. There are penalties for making either kind of notice under the DMCA maliciously, but that has to be proven in the courtroom. It makes legitimate notices easier, but it has quite a bit of room for abuses and people do abuse it with astonishing regularity. The ones with more and better lawyers of course have the advantage once things go to court. This is all for something as simple in theory as copyright, which people should easily know they control or don't.
Just imagine the complications once you factor in truth, lies, valid opinions, and just what data someone can keep private and what is legally allowed in a news report.
Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. It's no wonder Steve Jobs thinks so little of Flash then. It's not just the fact that it's a clunky third-party plugin, but also that Adobe has treated Mac users piss poorly with it.
What does replacing Flash with HTML 5 canvas animations or HTML video elements do to the battery life? Saying "We have moving ads with sound stealing battery life compared to still banner ads" and blaming Flash specifically for it seems a bit premature.
Actually, it depends. You can buy bandwidth-metered DS3, OC3, and OC12 lines. You can also buy them unmetered. I used to work with lines all the time like DS3s with 6 megabits per second usage 95% of the time, with up to the full 45 mbps 5% of the time, and a per-megabit fee for usage above 6 mbps more than 5% of the month. We could have bought all lines unmetered, but it was often cheaper to buy burstable.
This is why I tried to convince everyone I worked with in the ISP-only industry that the hands-off regulation-free Internet was a bad thing. We didn't want too much regulation, of course, but a little might have helped. Like saying that the established infrastructure companies couldn't price the ISPs out of the market by offering themselves lower line rates.
The civil liberties are already being violated, or do you think your private information being sprayed around the web is not a violation of your rights? This supposed solution will still allow that, because it will not work. If the mediation becomes overzealous, then the civil liberties of the poster and the host are both hurt when false claims are made.
It's a no-win proposition for everyone. The only real way to protect the rights of the people whose private data is leaked or whose reputation is being slandered is for them to have options of actions with actual teeth. The only way to protect the hosts and the alleged slanderers is to put a barrier to entry to the actions of the supposedly wronged and to make false reports have serious consequences, too.
The lower cost less adversarial option is to call them or write them a letter. If they ignore that, they'll ignore any government-brokered ombudsman, too.
I think it will compete with Microsoft in the market of people ready to move off of XP but not ready to shell out for a Windows-7 capable laptop to replace it. That's sure to be a small market, but with the right price point it's a big enough one to be interesting.
I didn't see anything about actual mediation, so I thought the definition of the mentioned word was moot. Forcing someone to do something is not mediation. Having binding arbitration is mediation, but that doesn't involve questions of law so much as questions of equity.
The best mediation anyway is between the complainant and the poster, not the complainant and the host. If you make one host take it down, you'll just end up playing whack-a-mole with the hosting companies, wiki editors, etc. If you get the poster to stop posting, you actually get the source of the problem solved. You can't do that automatically. You need to be able to have the weight of law on your side. That means courts as the eventual end game anyway.
A real general would have several officers responsible for certain parts of the theater of war or for certain types of tasks. I'd love a game where I could tell an AI colonel or major what his share of the troops should be doing, and then he tells the captains and lieutenants, and they have the sergeants oversee the men doing it.
Colonization was far more strategic than most RTSes are. Not all your colonies are going to be able to sustain themselves. Some of them should be placed in specific places to control the land around them even if there is a dearth of certain resources. Your supply lines exist and can be attacked, so you must defend those as well as the colonies themselves. Supplies take wagon trains or ships to move, and those take time to arrive.
The main weakness is when you score prematurely as "fit" or "unfit". A line derived from adequate but lower-scoring stock in a certain generation may actually prove to be very high scoring after a few more generations.
Always choosing just the "most fit" or "highest scoring" from a particular generation isn't really optimal and isn't really how genetics work, either. Taking all of the top half of each generation and intermingling their offspring later would be more realistic genetically. It may also produce better final offspring after some number of generations.
The major drawback to using many more inputs per generation is you end up with vastly more runtime and memory involved to compare them at every generation. You may or may not see better final candidates for it.
GPL is not necessarily available for no charge. It is necessarily available to you as source if it is available to you as a binary. The freedom they talk about is the freedom of the recipient of a copy of a program. GPL is very good at assuring that freedom.
BSD's major freedom is the freedom of a developer to either keep his changes free or to close them off. That's a different freedom from what GPL enforces, and BSD is very good at assuring that particular freedom.
Nobody forces you to enhance GPL-licensed software. You can make your improvements to BSD software, public domain software, your own from-scratch software, or software under some other license (possibly commercial and proprietary that you pay to use) that allows you to close up the resulting code. The only time the GPL forces you to do anything is when you start from code that someone put under the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the exact truth in too many markets. And that's what leads to uncompetitive companies being anticompetitive companies. They'd rather play the scared victim than return the threat by actually following the trends in the market.
Perhaps there's some cause and effect going on there. Companies that are more responsive to customer demands and concerns are, in my experience, more trusted by the customers. Perhaps the banks have already figured out how to compete and just don't realize it yet because being competitive cuts into profit margins.
They're not actually making whole blood, which is mostly water. They're making progenitor cells for blood which go on to produce red cells, white cells, and platelets. Most of the volume would come from somewhere else, but the cells they are making make the cells.
Bloodless surgery is great when it's an option. When the doctor is replacing blood already lost to trauma, there's nothing to take out, clean, and put back in to the patient. It's already gone.
You should probably be aware that not all Christians are Catholics. There are plenty of Christians who believe in birth control (including many Catholics who disagree with their church over it).
Most of them don't believe in abortion as a convenient form of birth control, though. Contraception is much easier, safer, and cheaper for the mother than abortion, even if you do think abortion is grand.
Personally, I'm against abortion in principle unless it's an unusually dangerous pregnancy for the mother or the result of rape or incest. However, I know that making it illegal wouldn't stop it. It'd just drive it underground and make everybody involved -- mothers, fathers, doctors and nurses performing -- worse off. I think it should be, as President Clinton said, "legal, safe, and rare".
Now, about the difference between IVF and abortion... IVF is not abortion. The embryos from IVF used for ECS research have not been implanted then scraped out by a surgeon. They are the spare embryos that were never implanted in the uterus. These are left over from women and couples trying to get pregnant and have kids, not preventing it. It's not about birth control in the common sense of the phrase, which is preventing births.
Your argument seems to confuse quite a few topics. You also generalize quite a few groups into one you clearly disagree with the most. In your quest to vilify people as simpletons who don't grasp the issues at hand, you have oversimplified the topics and (probably intentionally) failed to even acknowledge the issues at hand are much more complex than you mention.
Obviously your PhD program didn't care much about spelling and grammar.
Actually, this doesn't reprogram the cells to be IPS cells. It's a direct conversion, per the actual article from the actual source.
One advantage of direct cell conversions is that unlike embryonic stem cells or IPS cells stuck itno a human body, they're pretty sure these cells wouldn't be likely to cause tumors.
If your current system only works for the rich, then you need to fix your current system. Court cases will always be available to override abuses or alleged abuses of a mediation system. If the courts only work for the rich, then it doesn't matter how well a system works that is going to be overruled by the courts whenever the rich want it to be.
BTW, over here in the US, informal online content is often considered by courts to be a form of speech, so it'd be slander. If it was news by an actual journalism source, that'd be libel. They don't hold "online" to mean "print" in our courts. They draw the distinction mainly on whether it compares to a traditional print medium or a traditional speech medium.
You need to stop looking for trolls and think about how these things really play out. Here in the US the DMCA set up one of these mandatory outside of court mediation systems. It just happens to be for copyrights rather than private data. What happens when someone is falsely accused of copyright infringement is the work is immediately taken down by the host. Then, the person publishing the work in question must respond if they have the right to publish a work that the notice to take down the work was filed in error or maliciously in order to request that it be allowed to be reinstated. Then, if the two sides still disagree, it still ends up in court. There are penalties for making either kind of notice under the DMCA maliciously, but that has to be proven in the courtroom. It makes legitimate notices easier, but it has quite a bit of room for abuses and people do abuse it with astonishing regularity. The ones with more and better lawyers of course have the advantage once things go to court. This is all for something as simple in theory as copyright, which people should easily know they control or don't.
Just imagine the complications once you factor in truth, lies, valid opinions, and just what data someone can keep private and what is legally allowed in a news report.
Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. It's no wonder Steve Jobs thinks so little of Flash then. It's not just the fact that it's a clunky third-party plugin, but also that Adobe has treated Mac users piss poorly with it.
What does replacing Flash with HTML 5 canvas animations or HTML video elements do to the battery life? Saying "We have moving ads with sound stealing battery life compared to still banner ads" and blaming Flash specifically for it seems a bit premature.
I doubt your limit is in gigabits. Surely you mean "GB" where you say "Gb". There is a difference, you know.
Actually, it depends. You can buy bandwidth-metered DS3, OC3, and OC12 lines. You can also buy them unmetered. I used to work with lines all the time like DS3s with 6 megabits per second usage 95% of the time, with up to the full 45 mbps 5% of the time, and a per-megabit fee for usage above 6 mbps more than 5% of the month. We could have bought all lines unmetered, but it was often cheaper to buy burstable.
This is why I tried to convince everyone I worked with in the ISP-only industry that the hands-off regulation-free Internet was a bad thing. We didn't want too much regulation, of course, but a little might have helped. Like saying that the established infrastructure companies couldn't price the ISPs out of the market by offering themselves lower line rates.
Did you hear that Amazon acknowledged that kill-switching the sold copies was wrong? (as per the same fucking article?)
Did you know that Microsoft is not Amazon, and has been convicted of illegal business practices before?
The civil liberties are already being violated, or do you think your private information being sprayed around the web is not a violation of your rights? This supposed solution will still allow that, because it will not work. If the mediation becomes overzealous, then the civil liberties of the poster and the host are both hurt when false claims are made.
It's a no-win proposition for everyone. The only real way to protect the rights of the people whose private data is leaked or whose reputation is being slandered is for them to have options of actions with actual teeth. The only way to protect the hosts and the alleged slanderers is to put a barrier to entry to the actions of the supposedly wronged and to make false reports have serious consequences, too.
I always thought selling me something then taking it back was theft.
The problem is that it would erode civil liberties and cost your government and businesses loads of money to still not work.
The lower cost less adversarial option is to call them or write them a letter. If they ignore that, they'll ignore any government-brokered ombudsman, too.
So few houses make use of those these days. Will an informal family room or media room suffice?
I think it will compete with Microsoft in the market of people ready to move off of XP but not ready to shell out for a Windows-7 capable laptop to replace it. That's sure to be a small market, but with the right price point it's a big enough one to be interesting.
I didn't see anything about actual mediation, so I thought the definition of the mentioned word was moot. Forcing someone to do something is not mediation. Having binding arbitration is mediation, but that doesn't involve questions of law so much as questions of equity.
The best mediation anyway is between the complainant and the poster, not the complainant and the host. If you make one host take it down, you'll just end up playing whack-a-mole with the hosting companies, wiki editors, etc. If you get the poster to stop posting, you actually get the source of the problem solved. You can't do that automatically. You need to be able to have the weight of law on your side. That means courts as the eventual end game anyway.
A real general would have several officers responsible for certain parts of the theater of war or for certain types of tasks. I'd love a game where I could tell an AI colonel or major what his share of the troops should be doing, and then he tells the captains and lieutenants, and they have the sergeants oversee the men doing it.
Colonization was far more strategic than most RTSes are. Not all your colonies are going to be able to sustain themselves. Some of them should be placed in specific places to control the land around them even if there is a dearth of certain resources. Your supply lines exist and can be attacked, so you must defend those as well as the colonies themselves. Supplies take wagon trains or ships to move, and those take time to arrive.
The main weakness is when you score prematurely as "fit" or "unfit". A line derived from adequate but lower-scoring stock in a certain generation may actually prove to be very high scoring after a few more generations.
Always choosing just the "most fit" or "highest scoring" from a particular generation isn't really optimal and isn't really how genetics work, either. Taking all of the top half of each generation and intermingling their offspring later would be more realistic genetically. It may also produce better final offspring after some number of generations.
The major drawback to using many more inputs per generation is you end up with vastly more runtime and memory involved to compare them at every generation. You may or may not see better final candidates for it.
BSD is copyrighted software, too.
GPL is not necessarily available for no charge. It is necessarily available to you as source if it is available to you as a binary. The freedom they talk about is the freedom of the recipient of a copy of a program. GPL is very good at assuring that freedom.
BSD's major freedom is the freedom of a developer to either keep his changes free or to close them off. That's a different freedom from what GPL enforces, and BSD is very good at assuring that particular freedom.
Nobody forces you to enhance GPL-licensed software. You can make your improvements to BSD software, public domain software, your own from-scratch software, or software under some other license (possibly commercial and proprietary that you pay to use) that allows you to close up the resulting code. The only time the GPL forces you to do anything is when you start from code that someone put under the GPL.