If you are excluding the rest of the universe, then can't we propose that the rest of the universe will provide energy to defuse things once fused, so that we can fuse them again?
I think they are also drawing unseen conclusions in the article. They say that "the discovery of a bulge or protrusion on an MRI scan in a patient with low back pain may frequently be coincidental" because many people without back pain have bulging discs.
Yes, sure, that's science, but only because of the word may. The article is using this as anecdotal proof that science has failed, when it's just as easy to say that the original hypothesis has been disproven. Rather than the bulging disc itself causing back pain, let my hypothesize that a bulging disc which stretches or compresses a nerve causes back pain. There, new hypothesis, simple enough. The test of people without back pain as described is useless to disprove my theory, because (per the article) they only used MRIs to look at discs, not at nerves.
Meanwhile, my anecdotal evidence of my wife's pain associated with a bulging disc, which became insane pain and numbness when the disc burst, then slowly went away in the months after the disc was removed and her back fused, very strongly implies that the disc was a component of the cause. I didn't realize that there were scientists out there at all that thought bulging discs themselves caused pain; my wife's spinal doctor was pretty clear in his explanation/belief that it was nerves distended by the bulge that caused the radiating pain down her legs.
Can't we judge the experiment on its merits (good or bad)? What does the educational background of the person proposing it have to do with anything? The scientific method doesn't break just because someone without a PHD proposes the experiment.
I just posted basically the same thing in reply a few posts up. My brain works in a very similar way to yours.
Once I accepted that I never needed to refer to my notes again, but it was the act of writing them that let me remember, the stress of keeping the pages of notes clean and organized disappeared.
I took pages and pages and pages of notes - not everything said but what I felt was a distillation of the important things.
Then... I never looked at my notes again. I didn't need to. If I had trouble with something, I could picture writing it down and usually work out which part of what page it was one, and then picture what I'd written with enough clarity to recall the gist.
Eventually I figured out that the act of processing lecture into key points to document was the way I learned, and now I take notes at meetings that I never read again, so that I can recall things quickly when needed. (I do okay on an iPad even lacking the "part of a page" bit, though I do remember a little better with paper.)
But it only takes a few in business to do the wrong thing to make the whole business look wrong, as in the case here. Certainly most Google employees knew nothing of this, right?
Of course, since Google is in fact an Actual Person, and Actual People who aren't schizophrenic can't both know and not know something, then we should legally assume that if any one Google employee knew about this, then they all knew about this, and therefore every Google executive should go to prison. Sounds fair to me, them being the same Actual Person and all...
Around the time the cables were released, Assange said Wikileaks were about to release a tranche of documents implicating a certain US bank in shenanigans. What happened to those?
They were destroyed by a former WikiLeaks employee who left with them, then destroyed the key. Yes, somehow there wasn't a backup of the documents or key (or at least one of the two).
A) It's (relatively) not that big of a gravity well, and B) It's pretty close to here for easy construction and resupply, C) It's easier to protect it and its occupants from radiation and asteroids, and D) There might be water available nearby, precluding the need to ship at least one thing up there constantly.
Four of the nine justices agreed with you, in that that Court should have used this case to decide a larger matter of personal privacy. Unfortunately a slight majority decided instead to more narrowly decide it in the terms of an unlawful search. Still, that's just one justice-who-believes-in-strong-privacy-rights away from a majority!
And 4 out of 9 - almost a majority - believed that this tracking was wrong because of our right to privacy even in a public place, not solely because tracking of this sort constitutes a "search" by the government.
If just one more justice would agree, then we could finally start our privacy rights growing again instead of eroding.
3. If insider trading were legal, long-term outcome would be that every trader would seek (and receive) insider knowledge.
I sense a gaping hole in your logic. What incentive would there be for those with insider information to provide it to those who lack it, other than monetary incentive. Making insider trading non-profitable by making the selling of insider secrets more profitable seems like a hollow victory.
Hopefully by providing an easy-to-use, readily-available, reasonably-priced alternative, together with reasonable education (not the usual hyperbole). And then recognize that some will happen anyway, and find ways to monetize that portion as well (such as with T-shirts or other accessory items, or events with admission, where all fans *paying and non* will have a chance to spend some money).
Taking something without paying just because you can is selfish and wrong.
You know they'll go after libraries next, right? Taking one of their books for a while without paying anything to the rights holder is "selfish and wrong" according to plenty of rights holders.
I wonder if there would be benefit to making antibiotics that are combined with an opiate painkiller. The drugs would only be available to be taken at a hospital or clinic. The patient would need the painkiller, but returning for their antibiotic would reward them with the opiate. The final few days of antibiotic would have progressively smaller opiate doses to wind them down.
It's probably a bad idea, but protecting antibiotics is important enough to consider radical changes in prescription methods.
I very much doubt that there are "literally Millions" who fall into the extreme camps you describe.
Regardless, those who totally reject the use of antibiotics don't bother me that much, because infections they acquire will merely kill them. Those who overuse antibiotics are far, far worse, because the infections that manage to kill them will likely kill many others as well.
I was attacked in mid-December by a cat, which bit my left hand harder than I knew cats could - twice. (It was an indoor feral cat we care for, and we were moving, and I had to get him in a cage. And yes, eventually we both calmed down and got him moved.)
Initially my hand swelled to twice its normal size, and then the wounds started to fester. This was within a day. Fortunately I went to the doctor the morning after it occurred, and by the time the wounds were filling with pus I was already ramping up 10 days of antibiotics. The infection was gone within three days (but of course I dutifully took the entire 10 day regimen). My hand still hurt a little but it's usable.
In retrospect, I've been thinking that just 100 years ago I very well could have either lost my hand or died. Now my biggest concern was a few weeks of pain and inability to use my hand, and maybe one or two small scars.
I am very grateful for the discovery and medical application of antibiotics, and I very much support restrictions with antibiotics to cases where they are mandatory. Doctors and patients abuse painkillers, so we restrict access to them and control their use closely so as to prevent the patients from hurting themselves. Doctors and patients abuse antibiotics, so why don't we restrict access to them and control their use closely so as to prevent patients from hurting all of humanity?
Maybe it was Eric Schmidt himself who told them to do this. But we really have no way of knowing
Corporations are people according to SCOTUS. People who engage in fraud with their mouth and left arm can't claim their brain and right arm didn't know about it. The judge in any such case should assume (and order the jury to assume) that if any Google employee knew about the fraud, then Eric Schmidt also knew about the fraud.
But law says that, if a human is told about something, we can assume that (barring mental incompetence) the rest of the human knows about that thing when performing later actions. It's the basic reasoning that leads to the "willful" part of willful endangerment, as well as an amplifier on a variety of laws that can change "accident" into "criminal".
Were I a judge, and I was trying to comply with the Supreme Court with regard to corporate person-hood, I would assume and order any jury to assume that if a single member of a corporation knew something, it should be assumed that the entire corporation knew about it, and any later actions were done with that knowledge at hand. It's the only way to properly treat a corporation as a person.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone is having to adapt to this. Even at this point financial institutions and brokerages.
If you are excluding the rest of the universe, then can't we propose that the rest of the universe will provide energy to defuse things once fused, so that we can fuse them again?
I think they are also drawing unseen conclusions in the article. They say that "the discovery of a bulge or protrusion on an MRI scan in a patient with low back pain may frequently be coincidental" because many people without back pain have bulging discs.
Yes, sure, that's science, but only because of the word may. The article is using this as anecdotal proof that science has failed, when it's just as easy to say that the original hypothesis has been disproven. Rather than the bulging disc itself causing back pain, let my hypothesize that a bulging disc which stretches or compresses a nerve causes back pain. There, new hypothesis, simple enough. The test of people without back pain as described is useless to disprove my theory, because (per the article) they only used MRIs to look at discs, not at nerves.
Meanwhile, my anecdotal evidence of my wife's pain associated with a bulging disc, which became insane pain and numbness when the disc burst, then slowly went away in the months after the disc was removed and her back fused, very strongly implies that the disc was a component of the cause. I didn't realize that there were scientists out there at all that thought bulging discs themselves caused pain; my wife's spinal doctor was pretty clear in his explanation/belief that it was nerves distended by the bulge that caused the radiating pain down her legs.
Yeah, I'm disappointed. I started reading the comments hoping to learn that we could now prosecute ninjalooters...
Can't we judge the experiment on its merits (good or bad)? What does the educational background of the person proposing it have to do with anything? The scientific method doesn't break just because someone without a PHD proposes the experiment.
I just posted basically the same thing in reply a few posts up. My brain works in a very similar way to yours.
Once I accepted that I never needed to refer to my notes again, but it was the act of writing them that let me remember, the stress of keeping the pages of notes clean and organized disappeared.
I took pages and pages and pages of notes - not everything said but what I felt was a distillation of the important things.
Then... I never looked at my notes again. I didn't need to. If I had trouble with something, I could picture writing it down and usually work out which part of what page it was one, and then picture what I'd written with enough clarity to recall the gist.
Eventually I figured out that the act of processing lecture into key points to document was the way I learned, and now I take notes at meetings that I never read again, so that I can recall things quickly when needed. (I do okay on an iPad even lacking the "part of a page" bit, though I do remember a little better with paper.)
Networks are not allowed to censor the content of any political ad.
For reference: upcoming abortion video to play during Super Bowl.
Yeah, agreed, that is a better idea.
But with centuries of selective breeding that I thought had weakened their jaws...
But it only takes a few in business to do the wrong thing to make the whole business look wrong, as in the case here. Certainly most Google employees knew nothing of this, right?
Of course, since Google is in fact an Actual Person, and Actual People who aren't schizophrenic can't both know and not know something, then we should legally assume that if any one Google employee knew about this, then they all knew about this, and therefore every Google executive should go to prison. Sounds fair to me, them being the same Actual Person and all...
Around the time the cables were released, Assange said Wikileaks were about to release a tranche of documents implicating a certain US bank in shenanigans. What happened to those?
They were destroyed by a former WikiLeaks employee who left with them, then destroyed the key. Yes, somehow there wasn't a backup of the documents or key (or at least one of the two).
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/22/some-of-wikileaks-bank-of-america-files-destroyed-by-former-spokesman/
Whatever Bank of America did, they got away with it.
A) It's (relatively) not that big of a gravity well, and
B) It's pretty close to here for easy construction and resupply,
C) It's easier to protect it and its occupants from radiation and asteroids, and
D) There might be water available nearby, precluding the need to ship at least one thing up there constantly.
Four of the nine justices agreed with you, in that that Court should have used this case to decide a larger matter of personal privacy. Unfortunately a slight majority decided instead to more narrowly decide it in the terms of an unlawful search. Still, that's just one justice-who-believes-in-strong-privacy-rights away from a majority!
And 4 out of 9 - almost a majority - believed that this tracking was wrong because of our right to privacy even in a public place, not solely because tracking of this sort constitutes a "search" by the government.
If just one more justice would agree, then we could finally start our privacy rights growing again instead of eroding.
3. If insider trading were legal, long-term outcome would be that every trader would seek (and receive) insider knowledge.
I sense a gaping hole in your logic. What incentive would there be for those with insider information to provide it to those who lack it, other than monetary incentive. Making insider trading non-profitable by making the selling of insider secrets more profitable seems like a hollow victory.
When the product in question isn't what it is advertised to be, that's ignorance on the part of the buyer and fraud on the part of the seller.
Hopefully by providing an easy-to-use, readily-available, reasonably-priced alternative, together with reasonable education (not the usual hyperbole). And then recognize that some will happen anyway, and find ways to monetize that portion as well (such as with T-shirts or other accessory items, or events with admission, where all fans *paying and non* will have a chance to spend some money).
I can dream.
You can read a book from the library.
Taking something without paying just because you can is selfish and wrong.
You know they'll go after libraries next, right? Taking one of their books for a while without paying anything to the rights holder is "selfish and wrong" according to plenty of rights holders.
I wonder if there would be benefit to making antibiotics that are combined with an opiate painkiller. The drugs would only be available to be taken at a hospital or clinic. The patient would need the painkiller, but returning for their antibiotic would reward them with the opiate. The final few days of antibiotic would have progressively smaller opiate doses to wind them down.
It's probably a bad idea, but protecting antibiotics is important enough to consider radical changes in prescription methods.
I very much doubt that there are "literally Millions" who fall into the extreme camps you describe.
Regardless, those who totally reject the use of antibiotics don't bother me that much, because infections they acquire will merely kill them. Those who overuse antibiotics are far, far worse, because the infections that manage to kill them will likely kill many others as well.
I was attacked in mid-December by a cat, which bit my left hand harder than I knew cats could - twice. (It was an indoor feral cat we care for, and we were moving, and I had to get him in a cage. And yes, eventually we both calmed down and got him moved.)
Initially my hand swelled to twice its normal size, and then the wounds started to fester. This was within a day. Fortunately I went to the doctor the morning after it occurred, and by the time the wounds were filling with pus I was already ramping up 10 days of antibiotics. The infection was gone within three days (but of course I dutifully took the entire 10 day regimen). My hand still hurt a little but it's usable.
In retrospect, I've been thinking that just 100 years ago I very well could have either lost my hand or died. Now my biggest concern was a few weeks of pain and inability to use my hand, and maybe one or two small scars.
I am very grateful for the discovery and medical application of antibiotics, and I very much support restrictions with antibiotics to cases where they are mandatory. Doctors and patients abuse painkillers, so we restrict access to them and control their use closely so as to prevent the patients from hurting themselves. Doctors and patients abuse antibiotics, so why don't we restrict access to them and control their use closely so as to prevent patients from hurting all of humanity?
Maybe it was Eric Schmidt himself who told them to do this. But we really have no way of knowing
Corporations are people according to SCOTUS. People who engage in fraud with their mouth and left arm can't claim their brain and right arm didn't know about it. The judge in any such case should assume (and order the jury to assume) that if any Google employee knew about the fraud, then Eric Schmidt also knew about the fraud.
But law says that, if a human is told about something, we can assume that (barring mental incompetence) the rest of the human knows about that thing when performing later actions. It's the basic reasoning that leads to the "willful" part of willful endangerment, as well as an amplifier on a variety of laws that can change "accident" into "criminal".
Were I a judge, and I was trying to comply with the Supreme Court with regard to corporate person-hood, I would assume and order any jury to assume that if a single member of a corporation knew something, it should be assumed that the entire corporation knew about it, and any later actions were done with that knowledge at hand. It's the only way to properly treat a corporation as a person.
You have to be a very confident, out going individual to buy a house when you guaranteed basic wage would not cover your mortgage.
You misspelled idiot.
If you are correct, then basically anyone who starts his or her own company is an idiot by your definition.