It is interesting to note that, contrary to what one would expect, cannabis smoking has not been shown to be correlated with lung cancer. Some have hypothesized that the carcinogenic effects of the smoke are countered by various chemicals contained in the plant. Perhaps cannobidiol is one of them. If nothing else, I would appreciate it if my descendants can be spared the "smoking a joint is like smoking a whole pack of cigarettes" BS that I was forced to listen to in "health" class.
How is your solution not perfectly acceptable under provisions of the bill? I don't believe it requires that the research be published in a journal that give open access to all of the articles it publishes, but rather just to the NIH research itself.
The source of the money does not matter in the least. If drug companies have to pay out money in settlements that they otherwise could have kept, that absolutely decreases their profits, and to state otherwise is ridiculous.
I didn't realize Malthus was still with us. More seriously though, it's not that there shouldn't be investment in alternative energy, but rather that I see no reason to expect to government to be more effective than the market allocating capital to the best prospects. I am in favor of a carbon tax or Cap and Trade system (if the credits are auctioned), because global warming really is a market failure in the classic sense, the result of an externality. The costs of CO2 emissions should be paid by those doing the emitting. However, whatever revenue the government collects in such a system should be used to cut other, less efficient taxes.
One must be careful here. Strictly speaking, "correlation => causation" is always false, even when the correlation is explained by a causal relationship. Correlation is a necessary condition for causation, but not a sufficient one.
One has to wonder, though, whether the elimination of lead is really just a marker for some other characteristic or group of characteristics shared by societies that are likely to see a decline in crime in the future. In democracies especially, the decision to eliminate lead does not occur in a vacuum, but is rather the result of a society's political dynamics.
I'm reminded of something Eugene McCarthy said. "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty."
Until recently, I have believed as you do. I always took tons of notes, usually everything written on the blackboard (or PowerPoint, although often so much information is crammed in I don't have time). I almost never read my notes after writing them down, but I justified my note taking as a way to keep myself engaged in the lecture. However, recently I have been experimenting with drastically decreasing my note taking. I find that when I take notes, I often fall slightly behind the lecturer, and end up just reading the blackboard or PowerPoint instead of listening. When I listen, I am able to actually think about what is being said and understand it better.
Stephen Colbert gave the best answer to this ridiculous argument. Did you go around stabbing yourself with rusty nails after you got your tetanus shot?
I am sick and tired of hearing about Web 2.0, blogs, podcasts, and YouTube. The incredible irony is, the only reason there is so much hype around these things is that CNN, Time, and many other traditional media outlets have given them far more coverage than they deserve, in an attempt not to become irrelevant. Of course, CNN provides actual news most of the time, while blogs, though they produce some original reporting once in a great while, are mostly just a source of bad punditry. However, if CNN gives any more time to their "internet reporter," they really will become just as useless as most blogs.
I am especially sick of hearing about how YouTube "changes politics," because any comment a candidate makes can be disseminated widely. The favorite example is George Allen's Makaka incident. What people fail to point out is, the event was taped by a Webb campaign worker, and although he or someone else might have happened to post it on YouTube, 99% of the people who saw it, saw it on TV. And if there had been no YouTube, the tape would still have been given to the news media, or put in an ad, and the result would have been exactly the same. YouTube is entertaining, nothing more, nothing less.
Web 2.0 is a myth created by the traditional media, plain and simple.
The problem with YouTube has more to do with the fact that it is actually losing money, and is unlikely to become profitable without video advertising, which would drive away users, as the founders of YouTube have acknowledged. This was an overpay by Google, but they did it with their own overvalued stock so perhaps it evens out.
Slashdot Mirror
It is interesting to note that, contrary to what one would expect, cannabis smoking has not been shown to be correlated with lung cancer. Some have hypothesized that the carcinogenic effects of the smoke are countered by various chemicals contained in the plant. Perhaps cannobidiol is one of them. If nothing else, I would appreciate it if my descendants can be spared the "smoking a joint is like smoking a whole pack of cigarettes" BS that I was forced to listen to in "health" class.
The point is not really Wikipedia's academic standing in particular, but rather that one should not cite any encyclopedia in academic writing.
Or to peer review, for that matter.
The dirty little secret is that the "goal-driven real world" is just another game that a lot of adults happen to play.
While I agree with you, I think the link between network neutrality and this article is tenuous at best.
How is your solution not perfectly acceptable under provisions of the bill? I don't believe it requires that the research be published in a journal that give open access to all of the articles it publishes, but rather just to the NIH research itself.
The source of the money does not matter in the least. If drug companies have to pay out money in settlements that they otherwise could have kept, that absolutely decreases their profits, and to state otherwise is ridiculous.
In fairness, opioids, of which Oxycontin is one among many, have been around for thousands of years.
I didn't realize Malthus was still with us. More seriously though, it's not that there shouldn't be investment in alternative energy, but rather that I see no reason to expect to government to be more effective than the market allocating capital to the best prospects. I am in favor of a carbon tax or Cap and Trade system (if the credits are auctioned), because global warming really is a market failure in the classic sense, the result of an externality. The costs of CO2 emissions should be paid by those doing the emitting. However, whatever revenue the government collects in such a system should be used to cut other, less efficient taxes.
One must be careful here. Strictly speaking, "correlation => causation" is always false, even when the correlation is explained by a causal relationship. Correlation is a necessary condition for causation, but not a sufficient one.
One has to wonder, though, whether the elimination of lead is really just a marker for some other characteristic or group of characteristics shared by societies that are likely to see a decline in crime in the future. In democracies especially, the decision to eliminate lead does not occur in a vacuum, but is rather the result of a society's political dynamics.
Nah, I'm pretty sure it's the increase in ice cream sales during the summer that causes the increase in crime.
You just might be on to something there. Maybe global warming is caused by the end of the cold war.
I'm reminded of something Eugene McCarthy said. "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty."
Not if they want to win.
Until recently, I have believed as you do. I always took tons of notes, usually everything written on the blackboard (or PowerPoint, although often so much information is crammed in I don't have time). I almost never read my notes after writing them down, but I justified my note taking as a way to keep myself engaged in the lecture. However, recently I have been experimenting with drastically decreasing my note taking. I find that when I take notes, I often fall slightly behind the lecturer, and end up just reading the blackboard or PowerPoint instead of listening. When I listen, I am able to actually think about what is being said and understand it better.
I actually know it's not the rust, but it makes for a more vivid description than "dirty fence nail." In any event, that's not the point.
I bet you went and stabbed yourself with a rusty nail right after you got your tetanus shot, didn't you?
Stephen Colbert gave the best answer to this ridiculous argument. Did you go around stabbing yourself with rusty nails after you got your tetanus shot?
But that is simply unrealistic. Many will have sex, whether you like it or not.
AT&T has owned cingular for a while, but they have recently decided to rebrand with the AT&T name.
I am sick and tired of hearing about Web 2.0, blogs, podcasts, and YouTube. The incredible irony is, the only reason there is so much hype around these things is that CNN, Time, and many other traditional media outlets have given them far more coverage than they deserve, in an attempt not to become irrelevant. Of course, CNN provides actual news most of the time, while blogs, though they produce some original reporting once in a great while, are mostly just a source of bad punditry. However, if CNN gives any more time to their "internet reporter," they really will become just as useless as most blogs.
I am especially sick of hearing about how YouTube "changes politics," because any comment a candidate makes can be disseminated widely. The favorite example is George Allen's Makaka incident. What people fail to point out is, the event was taped by a Webb campaign worker, and although he or someone else might have happened to post it on YouTube, 99% of the people who saw it, saw it on TV. And if there had been no YouTube, the tape would still have been given to the news media, or put in an ad, and the result would have been exactly the same. YouTube is entertaining, nothing more, nothing less.
Web 2.0 is a myth created by the traditional media, plain and simple.
The problem with YouTube has more to do with the fact that it is actually losing money, and is unlikely to become profitable without video advertising, which would drive away users, as the founders of YouTube have acknowledged. This was an overpay by Google, but they did it with their own overvalued stock so perhaps it evens out.
Don't let the board of education find out about this.
What, you mean he couldn't get into medical school?