There's plenty of advertising for antibiotics in the U.S., of the normal 30-second-TV-ad variety. You've never seen an ad for things like Zithromax? Oversight does seem to be tightening to some extent, though.
Norway also has universal health care, you know. In fact, Norway's is actually much more strongly government-run than the UK's: it's a single-payer system, and many decisions are taken centrally rather than left to hospital/doctor discretion.
It's balancing risks of one kind versus risks of another kind. Yes, giving antibiotics to everyone who comes in the ER with any sort of wound would kill some infections that wouldn't otherwise be killed. But it will also result in other infections being much worse as those same antibiotics lose effectiveness. Just giving everyone antibiotics will result in fewer amputations due to dog bites, perhaps, but more amputations due to MRSA.
What exactly the proper level of antibiotic prescription---which antibiotics, in which cases, etc.---is a tricky question, but lots of people have spent a lot of effort trying to quantify both sides of the equation. An anecdote is not really a good counterargument, especially as there are plenty of balancing anecdotes (I have one) of people losing arms or dying due to MRSA as a direct result of antibiotic overprescription.
The American psyche (and that of some other countries) has learned that nothing can be done on its own, though: anything bad is medicalized, and anything medical needs either a pill or surgery to solve it.
Yes, I didn't think that Hinduism would be that violent either, but the quote in the summary from India's ministry of technology did make it seem that it was a typical occurrence.
We're talking about someone posting it on the internet, though, not anything so overtly confrontational as seeking out a group of people and shouting at them in person. Lots of Americans do post on the internet all sorts of absurd things about 9/11, from "America deserved it because of arrogance" to "America deserved it because of homosexuals" to "it was an inside job" or "a Jewish conspiracy". As far as I know, the existence of literally thousands of such websites has not incited riots.
I dunno, it seems to successfully automate the creation of Zynga-style games, at least, which is a less unpromising avenue, revenue-wise, than much other stuff in the current snake-oil frenzy of Facebook gaming.
A more reasonable take is here. Especially since The Volokh Conspiracy is a conservative-leaning libertarian blog, staffed mainly by law professors, that generally dislikes Obama, I'm going to suspect they have a better take on it. Also, a site mockingly named after a conspiracy is probably better than one like patriotroom.com that is deadly earnest about it.
If you're a small self-funded company, this isn't really at the level of specialized firms or agents specializing in acquisitions. It sounds like you fit in to standard venture-capitalist funding, which is usually aimed at eventually being acquired anyway. Often the VC firm will handle trying to sell the firm to someone bigger, when they think they can do so. However, your guess that you can be bought for a nice sum right now may or may not be something the VCs you can find will agree with. You might have better odds if you have multiple scenarios, like what you could do with another 6-12 months of funding.
This is partly because VCs are already in the business of evaluating "is this company worth anything (now or potentially), and who is it worth something to?" Most larger companies are wary of just buying unknown small firms, because they have no real way of evaluating that--- it's more often a multi-tier thing where the un-funded firm gets funded by a VC initially, then a larger firm buys from the VC.
Possibly true--- the real question though, which I don't think either data source has made a convincing effort to account for, is how representative each sample is of the total population of internet users. An unbiased sample doesn't even need to be particularly large; a few thousand users would suffice for a very low margin of error. But millions of users in a skewed sample is still a skewed sample...
Yeah, the current Chinese monopoly on current production for many of the elements is just because they've undercut all other producers, so rare earths are too cheap to be worth mining outside of China. There was quite a lot of rare-earth mining in the U.S. in the 1980s and 90s, and many of those mines are still waiting to be restarted when the price gets high enough to be worth it. Here's a timeline from the largest U.S. miner (currently not mining, but sitting around processing some existing stocks of ore).
Between The Shack and The Hut, it looks like 21st-century corporate America isn't willing to wait around for new Hoovervilles: they're going to build the shantytown themselves!
Now someone just has to think of a good product line for The Hovel...
It used to stand unambiguously for large-format filming (49 x 70 mm per frame), projected on large screens (around 53 x 72 ft). There were some variations, like the projection on a concave screen of OmniMAX (now IMAX Dome), but the general brand made sense. IMAX meant high-resolution film, projected on large screens.
But for presumably commercial reasons related to a deal with theatre chain AMC, a large portion of theatres currently advertising "IMAX" films are actually projecting "IMAX Digital", a not-very-closely-related digital projection format. Film v. digital in theory I don't care much about, but the entire brand of IMAX=big is dispensed with with IMAX Digital's much smaller 28x58-ft screens. The digital projectors (dual 2K resolution projectors) also don't seem to be of sufficient resolution to match the quality of a 49x70mm film projector. As a result, it's not clear IMAX means a lot as a brand anymore, since any given theatre might well have a mostly normal sized screen and a not particularly high-resolution projector.
Of these changes, the browser market having real more-than-2-way competition was one I wouldn't have predicted, although admittedly the competition for actual users is still mostly 2-way (Firefox/IE) at the moment. But I'll give that one.
Facebook/Twitter as 2009 stories is basically the same as Facebook/Twitter as 2008 stories, but with more users and more mainstream notice. In fact, these were in various pundits' 2008 lists, weren't they?
The Pre is alright I guess, but not sure whether it really changed the smartphone market.
Some rumored hardware that, in the end, didn't come out, happens basically every year.
Standalone GPS is indeed being displaced by smartphones.
How "hard" is it is mainly a matter of spending money and ramming through the environmental permits, eminent domain seizures, and other such hurdles. China spent $20 billion on this, probably more like $30 billion at purchasing-power parity, and they also have a much larger supply of cheap labor (even cheap semi-skilled labor), and when the central government wants something done, bureaucratic hassles magically disappear.
Although they did also put it mainly on flat land. Some of our most promising city pairs with high traffic and strong local support for such a project are unfortunately in or separated by mountainous areas: LA-SF, Seattle-Portland, Atlanta-DC, etc.
We do have flat areas, like Chicago-Detroit and Chicago-StLouis, but they don't have quite that volume of travel, and no strong push.
Texas is occasionally actually seen as the best bet, with Dallas-Houston-Austin-San Antonio all fairly close (distances where rail is competitive over air) and separated by fairly flat land. However, Southwest has spent a lot of lobbying effort killing any attempts to put something like that in, since they do a lot of short-hop business out of their original Dallas hub.
It's not my anecdotal experience either, which admittedly isn't proper evidence, but at least somewhat more evidence than the bare assertion in the summary. I do a lot of translation of German Wikipedia articles to the English Wikipedia, and usually the articles aren't directly usable as-is under English-Wikipedia policy, mainly because of comparatively fewer citations (many articles on German historical figures or current politicians have no references at all).
Is zero really the acceptable level of casualty? It's the ideal level, of course, but whether it's the one to go for depends on what you have to do to get there. As a civilian, I would consider a somewhat higher chance of being killed to be an acceptable tradeoff for maintaining the U.S. tradition of individual liberty.
Reasonable measures that could foil terrorists, sure. But we can't all be wusses willing to give up our freedom because we're scared of terrorists; some things are worth sacrificing for.
Soldiers v. civilians doesn't seem to be the distinction we're using, though, since the attack on the USS Cole, clearly a military target, was and is called a "terrorist attack".
I do find the relativism a bit odd, where thousands of deaths is seen as huge in one circumstance and minor in another. I was reading about a World War II battle recently, where the U.S. won a resounding victory with "minimal" casualties--- only 5000 dead.
I don't think their search boxes not being big enough is the main improvement they need to work on. How about improving search results by 30% instead?
And they've been doing this for a while too. In an interview last year, their exec mainly droned on about Ask3D, one of their many hare-brained attempts to make an "Ask X", where X is some stupid representation of results for gimmicky or audience-targeting purposes.
In some ways, it's not totally stupid from a business point of view. Google has pretty good results (though the web's increasing noisiness and the arms race with SEO is making them maybe worse than they once were), and it's hard to beat them at that game. So competitors are inevitably trying to find other angles on which to compete, like trying to come up with results presentation that's snazzier than Google's list of links (though Google's list of links is getting more complicated in graphically subtle but quite useful ways), or special versions like "Ask Kids" to try to convince niche audiences that they need something special for them rather than a general-purpose search engine. But I'm not really convinced there's anything to these attempts.
common-lisp-controller is an attempt to make Common Lisp package management play nicely with Debian package management, so, for example, trying to load a package within ASDF (Lisp) finds the appropriate Debian package if it's installed (like the linked article discusses doing for CPAN).
Strongly package-manager-based distributions like Debian usually don't put a lot of effort into making stuff outside the distribution work well, though. If you want some C library that isn't in Debian, you're going to have to build it yourself and stick it somewhere, and all the stuff in Debian isn't going to know about it. Similarly, if you want some CPAN module that isn't packaged in Debian (the Perl equivalent of a third-party shared library that isn't packaged in Debian), you're going to have to muck with it yourself, and it won't be in the usual dependency chain.
The usual Debian answer to these sorts of problems is: well, if it's maintained, useful, and under a DSFG license, let's just package it! Things get much less nice if the user is installing a bunch of custom stuff, and especially trying to get locally installed and package-managed stuff to play together nicely. CPAN having trouble with that is just one instance of nearly every other system that has its own custom package manager, from Python to GNU R to Scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
There's plenty of advertising for antibiotics in the U.S., of the normal 30-second-TV-ad variety. You've never seen an ad for things like Zithromax? Oversight does seem to be tightening to some extent, though.
Norway also has universal health care, you know. In fact, Norway's is actually much more strongly government-run than the UK's: it's a single-payer system, and many decisions are taken centrally rather than left to hospital/doctor discretion.
It's balancing risks of one kind versus risks of another kind. Yes, giving antibiotics to everyone who comes in the ER with any sort of wound would kill some infections that wouldn't otherwise be killed. But it will also result in other infections being much worse as those same antibiotics lose effectiveness. Just giving everyone antibiotics will result in fewer amputations due to dog bites, perhaps, but more amputations due to MRSA.
What exactly the proper level of antibiotic prescription---which antibiotics, in which cases, etc.---is a tricky question, but lots of people have spent a lot of effort trying to quantify both sides of the equation. An anecdote is not really a good counterargument, especially as there are plenty of balancing anecdotes (I have one) of people losing arms or dying due to MRSA as a direct result of antibiotic overprescription.
The American psyche (and that of some other countries) has learned that nothing can be done on its own, though: anything bad is medicalized, and anything medical needs either a pill or surgery to solve it.
It's unfortunately a reality of modern India that far-right "Hindu nationalism" is a common interpretation of Hinduism.
And not just because he doesn't exist. ;-)
We're talking about someone posting it on the internet, though, not anything so overtly confrontational as seeking out a group of people and shouting at them in person. Lots of Americans do post on the internet all sorts of absurd things about 9/11, from "America deserved it because of arrogance" to "America deserved it because of homosexuals" to "it was an inside job" or "a Jewish conspiracy". As far as I know, the existence of literally thousands of such websites has not incited riots.
I dunno, it seems to successfully automate the creation of Zynga-style games, at least, which is a less unpromising avenue, revenue-wise, than much other stuff in the current snake-oil frenzy of Facebook gaming.
A more reasonable take is here. Especially since The Volokh Conspiracy is a conservative-leaning libertarian blog, staffed mainly by law professors, that generally dislikes Obama, I'm going to suspect they have a better take on it. Also, a site mockingly named after a conspiracy is probably better than one like patriotroom.com that is deadly earnest about it.
I, too, am outraged at his failure to rein in New Zealand. Aren't they a subsidiary of Australia, which is in turn the Oceania subsidiary of the USA?
If you're a small self-funded company, this isn't really at the level of specialized firms or agents specializing in acquisitions. It sounds like you fit in to standard venture-capitalist funding, which is usually aimed at eventually being acquired anyway. Often the VC firm will handle trying to sell the firm to someone bigger, when they think they can do so. However, your guess that you can be bought for a nice sum right now may or may not be something the VCs you can find will agree with. You might have better odds if you have multiple scenarios, like what you could do with another 6-12 months of funding.
This is partly because VCs are already in the business of evaluating "is this company worth anything (now or potentially), and who is it worth something to?" Most larger companies are wary of just buying unknown small firms, because they have no real way of evaluating that--- it's more often a multi-tier thing where the un-funded firm gets funded by a VC initially, then a larger firm buys from the VC.
Possibly true--- the real question though, which I don't think either data source has made a convincing effort to account for, is how representative each sample is of the total population of internet users. An unbiased sample doesn't even need to be particularly large; a few thousand users would suffice for a very low margin of error. But millions of users in a skewed sample is still a skewed sample...
Yeah, the current Chinese monopoly on current production for many of the elements is just because they've undercut all other producers, so rare earths are too cheap to be worth mining outside of China. There was quite a lot of rare-earth mining in the U.S. in the 1980s and 90s, and many of those mines are still waiting to be restarted when the price gets high enough to be worth it. Here's a timeline from the largest U.S. miner (currently not mining, but sitting around processing some existing stocks of ore).
Between The Shack and The Hut, it looks like 21st-century corporate America isn't willing to wait around for new Hoovervilles: they're going to build the shantytown themselves!
Now someone just has to think of a good product line for The Hovel...
It used to stand unambiguously for large-format filming (49 x 70 mm per frame), projected on large screens (around 53 x 72 ft). There were some variations, like the projection on a concave screen of OmniMAX (now IMAX Dome), but the general brand made sense. IMAX meant high-resolution film, projected on large screens.
But for presumably commercial reasons related to a deal with theatre chain AMC, a large portion of theatres currently advertising "IMAX" films are actually projecting "IMAX Digital", a not-very-closely-related digital projection format. Film v. digital in theory I don't care much about, but the entire brand of IMAX=big is dispensed with with IMAX Digital's much smaller 28x58-ft screens. The digital projectors (dual 2K resolution projectors) also don't seem to be of sufficient resolution to match the quality of a 49x70mm film projector. As a result, it's not clear IMAX means a lot as a brand anymore, since any given theatre might well have a mostly normal sized screen and a not particularly high-resolution projector.
Of these changes, the browser market having real more-than-2-way competition was one I wouldn't have predicted, although admittedly the competition for actual users is still mostly 2-way (Firefox/IE) at the moment. But I'll give that one.
Facebook/Twitter as 2009 stories is basically the same as Facebook/Twitter as 2008 stories, but with more users and more mainstream notice. In fact, these were in various pundits' 2008 lists, weren't they?
The Pre is alright I guess, but not sure whether it really changed the smartphone market.
Some rumored hardware that, in the end, didn't come out, happens basically every year.
Standalone GPS is indeed being displaced by smartphones.
How "hard" is it is mainly a matter of spending money and ramming through the environmental permits, eminent domain seizures, and other such hurdles. China spent $20 billion on this, probably more like $30 billion at purchasing-power parity, and they also have a much larger supply of cheap labor (even cheap semi-skilled labor), and when the central government wants something done, bureaucratic hassles magically disappear.
Although they did also put it mainly on flat land. Some of our most promising city pairs with high traffic and strong local support for such a project are unfortunately in or separated by mountainous areas: LA-SF, Seattle-Portland, Atlanta-DC, etc.
We do have flat areas, like Chicago-Detroit and Chicago-StLouis, but they don't have quite that volume of travel, and no strong push.
Texas is occasionally actually seen as the best bet, with Dallas-Houston-Austin-San Antonio all fairly close (distances where rail is competitive over air) and separated by fairly flat land. However, Southwest has spent a lot of lobbying effort killing any attempts to put something like that in, since they do a lot of short-hop business out of their original Dallas hub.
Why Mercurial?
Why Switch to Bazaar?
It's not my anecdotal experience either, which admittedly isn't proper evidence, but at least somewhat more evidence than the bare assertion in the summary. I do a lot of translation of German Wikipedia articles to the English Wikipedia, and usually the articles aren't directly usable as-is under English-Wikipedia policy, mainly because of comparatively fewer citations (many articles on German historical figures or current politicians have no references at all).
Is zero really the acceptable level of casualty? It's the ideal level, of course, but whether it's the one to go for depends on what you have to do to get there. As a civilian, I would consider a somewhat higher chance of being killed to be an acceptable tradeoff for maintaining the U.S. tradition of individual liberty.
Reasonable measures that could foil terrorists, sure. But we can't all be wusses willing to give up our freedom because we're scared of terrorists; some things are worth sacrificing for.
Soldiers v. civilians doesn't seem to be the distinction we're using, though, since the attack on the USS Cole, clearly a military target, was and is called a "terrorist attack".
I do find the relativism a bit odd, where thousands of deaths is seen as huge in one circumstance and minor in another. I was reading about a World War II battle recently, where the U.S. won a resounding victory with "minimal" casualties--- only 5000 dead.
I don't think their search boxes not being big enough is the main improvement they need to work on. How about improving search results by 30% instead?
And they've been doing this for a while too. In an interview last year, their exec mainly droned on about Ask3D, one of their many hare-brained attempts to make an "Ask X", where X is some stupid representation of results for gimmicky or audience-targeting purposes.
In some ways, it's not totally stupid from a business point of view. Google has pretty good results (though the web's increasing noisiness and the arms race with SEO is making them maybe worse than they once were), and it's hard to beat them at that game. So competitors are inevitably trying to find other angles on which to compete, like trying to come up with results presentation that's snazzier than Google's list of links (though Google's list of links is getting more complicated in graphically subtle but quite useful ways), or special versions like "Ask Kids" to try to convince niche audiences that they need something special for them rather than a general-purpose search engine. But I'm not really convinced there's anything to these attempts.
Doesn't UMG already post a bunch of videos on YouTube?
common-lisp-controller is an attempt to make Common Lisp package management play nicely with Debian package management, so, for example, trying to load a package within ASDF (Lisp) finds the appropriate Debian package if it's installed (like the linked article discusses doing for CPAN).
Strongly package-manager-based distributions like Debian usually don't put a lot of effort into making stuff outside the distribution work well, though. If you want some C library that isn't in Debian, you're going to have to build it yourself and stick it somewhere, and all the stuff in Debian isn't going to know about it. Similarly, if you want some CPAN module that isn't packaged in Debian (the Perl equivalent of a third-party shared library that isn't packaged in Debian), you're going to have to muck with it yourself, and it won't be in the usual dependency chain.
The usual Debian answer to these sorts of problems is: well, if it's maintained, useful, and under a DSFG license, let's just package it! Things get much less nice if the user is installing a bunch of custom stuff, and especially trying to get locally installed and package-managed stuff to play together nicely. CPAN having trouble with that is just one instance of nearly every other system that has its own custom package manager, from Python to GNU R to Scheme.