Puerto Rico is poor because its people are lousy workers. I read a story 40 or 50 years ago about a company operating in PR that tried to increase productivity in its factory there. They changed from weekly pay to piecework pay because they understood that people could work much faster than they were working, and that the workers would get a lot more money by working faster. The plan was put into action, and in 3 days the plant produced as much as it had previously been taking 5 days to produce, The owners and managers were delighted. On the 4th and 5th days no workers showed up: they'd already made as much money for the week as they used to, and they had no ambition to improve themselves. Thus PR remains poor, and richly deserves it.
It is not a coincidence that PR is dominantly Democrat Party, what I've just described is a common sort of behavior for Democrats.
Puerto Rico has had tremendous tax and other economic advantages for decades, Their lack of work ethic and their corrupt government has made them poor, and unless both basic problems are solved Puerto Rico is going to remain poor no matter how much money is poured into it.
You've been listening to protesters and other professional liars instead of looking at the facts. Puerto Rico has been getting a lot of help from the U.S. government, especially considering that they're the third disaster in a month.
Take a look at Life Extension magazine. Articles frequently have between 100 and 200 citations. The Life Extension Foundation also funds some original research.
The U.S. Kefauver Harris Amendment or "Drug Efficacy Amendment" is a 1962 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
It introduced a requirement for drug manufacturers to provide proof of the effectiveness and safety of their drugs before approval,[1][2] required drug advertising to disclose accurate information about side effects, and stopped cheap generic drugs being marketed as expensive drugs under new trade names as new "breakthrough" medications. -- wikipedia
Obama's laws made most existing policies illegal. Increasing expenses made still more policies illegal. The government is the aggressor in this cluster-f***, and insurance companies are complicit in that they allowed themselves to be bribed by the Democrat's Fascist plan.
Or do you think that it's insurance companies that vote laws into existence?
Testing to show that a drug is safe and effective is a tad expensive, Be a pal, and cough up a couple of billion so we can test one or two promising chemicals, won't you?
The claim for the "War on Drugs" was the prevention of the use of some drugs already demonstrated to degrade mental performance. Efficacy or toxicity are dealt with by other laws.
Photographic sharpening by deconvolution. Typical run night take 20 minutes, then look at the result to see if it's any better (it's usually not). Try a new set of parameters, rinse and repeat.
DEC got speed by pumping more electricity into a CPU chip than anyone else at the time dared to. Yes, their design was excellent, but that wasn't the breakthrough factor.
For most applications, without overclocking, an I7-7700K beats any Ryzen by a few percent. Intel's chip overclocks far better than AMD's. The I7-8700K is a few percent better than the i7-7700K. I like that AMD is back in the running, but they're not in the lead.
The wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_substitute does not mention that time period, but I do remember that the claims for artificial blood have been around for a long time. I'm guessing that the perfluorocarbon based stuff is expensive, difficult to use, and a bit toxic, but in truth I have no idea.
Things changed since this "assault weapon" nonsense started 30 or so years ago.
Yep, they're less used in violent crime. Win-win.
An assault weapon is defined in a kind of silly manner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon In many cases, an assault weapon can be turned into a non-assault weapon by simple actions such as removing a lug meant for attaching a bayonet, or grinding off threads that would be used for attaching a suppressor or muzzle brake. In both cases, the non-assault weapon would be more effective for violent crime. Generally, assault weapons are far less effective than a revolver for violent crime. In short, banning assault weapons makes violent crime more practical.
Those in government do not generally have as their primary goal murder. Their goal is to gain ever more power over people, and the use of various threats including the threat to kill is how that power is achieved. The threat to kill doesn't amount to much unless it's demonstrated occasionally: Waco.
Most of the people in the volunteer U.S. military are honorable in a way and to a degree incomprehensible to most people outside the military. People drafted are frequently resentful, and an unnecessary draft in a mostly free country generates a large number of people who hate their native country, such as occurred when the New Left rose in the 1960s and 1970s.
Democracy is mob rule.
Representative government, where the representatives serve fixed terms, often means the representatives run hog wild once they're in office.
The fact that legislators frequently call for reductions in the effectiveness of weapons available to the general public is proof that the ownership of effective weapons by the general populace restricts the power of government.
World War II was due to an armed populace, not to the governments that initiated the war?
Do you honestly think German citizenry would have gathered up its weapons and invaded Poland, and then France, without a government led by Hitler or someone like him?
If so, you're completely detached from reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Puerto Rico is poor because its people are lousy workers. I read a story 40 or 50 years ago about a company operating in PR that tried to increase productivity in its factory there. They changed from weekly pay to piecework pay because they understood that people could work much faster than they were working, and that the workers would get a lot more money by working faster. The plan was put into action, and in 3 days the plant produced as much as it had previously been taking 5 days to produce, The owners and managers were delighted. On the 4th and 5th days no workers showed up: they'd already made as much money for the week as they used to, and they had no ambition to improve themselves. Thus PR remains poor, and richly deserves it.
It is not a coincidence that PR is dominantly Democrat Party, what I've just described is a common sort of behavior for Democrats.
Puerto Rico has had tremendous tax and other economic advantages for decades, Their lack of work ethic and their corrupt government has made them poor, and unless both basic problems are solved Puerto Rico is going to remain poor no matter how much money is poured into it.
You've been listening to protesters and other professional liars instead of looking at the facts. Puerto Rico has been getting a lot of help from the U.S. government, especially considering that they're the third disaster in a month.
You appear to be referring to CimaVax. Trials are underway.
Take a look at Life Extension magazine. Articles frequently have between 100 and 200 citations. The Life Extension Foundation also funds some original research.
The U.S. Kefauver Harris Amendment or "Drug Efficacy Amendment" is a 1962 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
It introduced a requirement for drug manufacturers to provide proof of the effectiveness and safety of their drugs before approval,[1][2] required drug advertising to disclose accurate information about side effects, and stopped cheap generic drugs being marketed as expensive drugs under new trade names as new "breakthrough" medications. -- wikipedia
Obama's laws made most existing policies illegal. Increasing expenses made still more policies illegal. The government is the aggressor in this cluster-f***, and insurance companies are complicit in that they allowed themselves to be bribed by the Democrat's Fascist plan.
Or do you think that it's insurance companies that vote laws into existence?
So no more using universities for education?
Testing to show that a drug is safe and effective is a tad expensive, Be a pal, and cough up a couple of billion so we can test one or two promising chemicals, won't you?
The claim for the "War on Drugs" was the prevention of the use of some drugs already demonstrated to degrade mental performance. Efficacy or toxicity are dealt with by other laws.
That's what prunes are for.
Photographic sharpening by deconvolution. Typical run night take 20 minutes, then look at the result to see if it's any better (it's usually not). Try a new set of parameters, rinse and repeat.
Intel has had 18 core Xeons since 2014.
DEC got speed by pumping more electricity into a CPU chip than anyone else at the time dared to. Yes, their design was excellent, but that wasn't the breakthrough factor.
For most applications, without overclocking, an I7-7700K beats any Ryzen by a few percent. Intel's chip overclocks far better than AMD's. The I7-8700K is a few percent better than the i7-7700K. I like that AMD is back in the running, but they're not in the lead.
Typing should be irrelevant, artificial blood should be equivalent to 0 negative.
The wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_substitute does not mention that time period, but I do remember that the claims for artificial blood have been around for a long time. I'm guessing that the perfluorocarbon based stuff is expensive, difficult to use, and a bit toxic, but in truth I have no idea.
Why is there not a mod for "-1 Not Funny"
An assault weapon is defined in a kind of silly manner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon In many cases, an assault weapon can be turned into a non-assault weapon by simple actions such as removing a lug meant for attaching a bayonet, or grinding off threads that would be used for attaching a suppressor or muzzle brake. In both cases, the non-assault weapon would be more effective for violent crime. Generally, assault weapons are far less effective than a revolver for violent crime. In short, banning assault weapons makes violent crime more practical.
You haven't been paying attention. That's precisely what Hillary has been yowling for in the aftermath of Las Vegas.
Those in government do not generally have as their primary goal murder. Their goal is to gain ever more power over people, and the use of various threats including the threat to kill is how that power is achieved. The threat to kill doesn't amount to much unless it's demonstrated occasionally: Waco.
Most of the people in the volunteer U.S. military are honorable in a way and to a degree incomprehensible to most people outside the military. People drafted are frequently resentful, and an unnecessary draft in a mostly free country generates a large number of people who hate their native country, such as occurred when the New Left rose in the 1960s and 1970s.
Democracy is mob rule.
Representative government, where the representatives serve fixed terms, often means the representatives run hog wild once they're in office.
The fact that legislators frequently call for reductions in the effectiveness of weapons available to the general public is proof that the ownership of effective weapons by the general populace restricts the power of government.
World War II was due to an armed populace, not to the governments that initiated the war?
Do you honestly think German citizenry would have gathered up its weapons and invaded Poland, and then France, without a government led by Hitler or someone like him?
If so, you're completely detached from reality.
Guns are also used for target shooting and hunting, but the most honorable use is killing tyrants.
Machinists also have access.
I prefer breasts in K cups.