I think tying CEO pay to minimum wage is a far worse idea than tying it to the lowest paid employee.
If the CEO wage is tied to the lowest paid employee, they can always double their pay by paying the employees more. They can't individually raise the minimum wage.
Just to get the facts straight, the live attenuated polio vaccine is not used any more because the risk/payoff ratio changed so drastically (largely because of its success). We have the inactivated vaccine, which is not as effective, but does not carry a risk of disease. When the pool of the infected is low enough due to suppression by the live vaccine, there is no reason to use the live vaccine anymore.
Actually if you shoot someone with rock salt, you are likely to be arrested and prosecuted for assault... even in Texas... because you are telling the police in no uncertain terms, that you did not feel that you were in any danger. And they'd be right. Don't ever point a weapon at someone unless you want to kill them, intend to kill them, and are going to kill them (hopefully all of the above are solely for the reason of defending yourself or someone else).
I really hate to be the one to pose this question, but how many casualties are we willing to accept as a society for X in order to avoid Y? In the last decades, the answer in the US and much of the western world has been ZERO.
How many airplanes downed by terrorists can we tolerate before we strip any ounce of privacy and dignity from the travelers. Never mind that it's the safest way to travel even including 9/11 and all of its victims in the air and on the ground. The answer is NONE, bring on the department of fatherland security.
How many pedophiles peddling online child pornography are we going to accept, for the freedom not to be monitored 24/7 by an anonymous system that is designed to ultimately be a tool to instantly arrest or at least discredit ANYONE and ANY TIME. NONE, bring on the NSA.
How many school shootings are we going to tolerate for private persons having access to firearms that was granted by the constitution (please let's not demean the Founders by debating what the 2nd amendment intended in this thread), to engage in sport and have the means to defend themselves when law enforcement cannot (or will not). The answer is NONE.
So yes, if we are going to continue on our present course, the inevitable consequence will be self-driven cars with no option for manual control, made by 3-4 companies that are approved by the government to go a maximum of 25mph. The future is bright, ladies and gentlemen. Once we don't have any rights, have shut down all scientific research, and eliminated any ability to EARN wealth by work, rather than steal it, we will surely all be 100% safe.
If I operate on a patient, and then give them instructions on how to properly care for their wound, which they fail to follow, I still have to treat their infection.
I think it's a well-accepted practice that commercial software that is within its useful life gets security patches. Given that CS6 is barely off the press, I would think it reasonable that CS5 still gets at least some support.
This is akin to buying a 2010 Chevy (under warranty), then finding out that the brakes catch on fire under certain circumstances, and the company's suggestion: buy a 2012.
Despite what the "tough on crime" short-sighted idiots would say, this is not only a necessary decision, but a really long-time-coming one. Considering how many links people click on over the course of the day, with hardly any idea (implicitly or explicitly) of what's going to be found on the other side, there have been many unintentional violations of the current law. Furthermore, I wonder how many people who surfed the internet for legal (consentual, adult) pornography, have seen what looked like child porn at one time or another. But under current law, no matter how disgusted you may have been, or how quickly you closed the page, you were guilty by definition. Furthermore, if you reported what you saw, you not only were guilty, but you had confessed as well. This was akin to the UK case where a man found a shotgun that was thrown into his garden from a passing vehicle, and turned it into the police, only to be jailed for weapons possession, since he was "in possession" of it during the course of bringing it to the police station.
This is an important decision for internet safety, and should be applauded, and will hopefully serve as precedent for cases outside of New York as well, since the practice of trawling the browser cache for suspect images is fairly prevalent. And I have to say - I doubt that anyone who intentionally views child pornography would be that obvious, unless they were stupid. And if they were that stupid, there'd be plenty of other "downloaded" evidence all over the place. In short, the draconian law as it stands right now is simply not necessary for prosecution of real purveyors of child porn, and likely served only to trawl for victims.
The only way I can envision this actually happening the way the story is written, is if this particular method was well-known to the law enforcement and they had already worked out all the necessary tools for detecting AND breaking the hidden container.
Otherwise, it sounds like a false flag operation to me.
That's what I think, and I'm one of those people who wants to hit conspiracy nuts most of the time. That's how obvious this sounds.
The vast majority of type 2 diabetes patients in the US are obese. Perhaps you should've stopped eating when you were only 100lbs overweight.
Your stab at the "pharma" is as ignorant of your own condition as I would expect, both relating to the nature of your condition, as well as the Herculean (and somewhat Sisyphean) research efforts surrounding it.
I cannot even tell you how much of a bad idea this is. I am graduating medical school in two months, and am barely starting to feel "a little" comfortable making a judgment on my own, only a fraction of the time. I will need to accumulate ALL of the experience that 3 years of 80+hour work weeks of residency can give me. And I am a cocky bastard at that. I just realize that the difference between a doctor (especially one trained at a high-volume top-tier teaching hospital) and a civilian is. The gap is so large, as to be close to insurmountable. Actually, probably the most important thing I have learned in my training, is that I know VERY LITTLE from the overall ocean of medical knowledge, and my pond is much larger than average.
Anyway, I'm ranting. Let me give you a shorter explanation. I have PhD. I am 2 months away from having an MD. If I have a rash that concerns me, I go to a dermatologist. I don't research it online, and won't use an app to do it. I know precisely enough between my two degrees to know where the limits of my knowledge are. Most people don't. The number of soccer-moms (and dads) who think they know medicine is enormous... and their tinkering puts them and their families in danger. Nothing can ever give you the knowledge and especially the experience of going through medical training... other than medical training.
At the beginning of my career, I will have spent 4 years in college, 5 years in graduate school, 4 years in medical school, 3 years in residency, and 3 years in fellowship (19 years total, with my guess an average of >80hrs/wk, even including college, but let's say 80, so over 70'000 hours, with 40'000 hours of medicine alone).
I really hope that when my patients come to me, I'll be more useful to them than an iPhone app.
You're not correct. And THAT is where the big difference between Google and Facebook lies. Google sells eyes, but the fact of the matter is that they are anonymous eyes, but sold as eyes belonging to people most likely to purchase the product being marketed. However, until you click on that link, all the company knows is that they've been matched to you by the black box of Google magic.
Facebook, on the other hand, shares information with "partners". They are BY DEFINITION a personal info vendor.
Google sells ads, and tailors them to the vendor. Facebook sells your data to the vendor directly. BIG difference in privacy implications.
In a way, Apple has been wise to wait on 4G to catch up to the point where... well, where it actually means something because it doesn't mean anything right now.
I have been enjoying LTE on my Verizon HTC Thunderbolt for almost a year now, and I categorically disagree with that statement. It certainly means something because it's about 10x faster than the competitors, and is significantly (read - 2-3X) faster in real world use.
But considering the fact of global warming/climate change and the topic of greenhouse gases, isn't our core problem that we are simply burning too much stuff? With that in mind, is this really going to help?
Shouldn't our focus be on creating forms of energy that produce energy without burning things?
Your argument is fundamentally flawed, because ultimately, any energy generation will result in rising global temperature. After all, heat is the ultimate byproduct of reducing local entropy in any system.
If they can keep this GMO sequestered in a watertight tank and remember that it could possibly destroy the ocean it would help the population of the world. It's sort of silly, however, that they spent all those resources creating this GMO when hemp is a very common and old source for ethanol. But nooo, we don't want to upset the fine folks at Dow, Goodyear, or Monsanto do we. Let's forget hemp and create a new organism.
The above illustrates the problem of informing the uninformed about scientific developments.
What reproductive and survival advantage does E Coli get from having these modifications done? Right... none. So while it'll happily digest the seaweed in a lab, or even in a manufacturing tank, if you dump it into the ocean it will a) die from incorrect environmental osmolality and pH b) be eaten by a variety of sea creatures.
Introducing rabbits to Australia was FAR worse than dumping TONS of this stuff into the ocean. This bacterium is so far from being able to "destroy the ocean" that it would take a colossal act of ignorance to claim it as such. Oh wait...
You mean they're promoting a law that would make Victoria's Secret disclose the endless belly-fold-tucking and (B to D) breast enlargements they love so much? As a doc, looking at those anatomically-impossible bodies it makes me sad, because they change our perception of what should be seen as attractive to a standard that is literally impossible to meet. And at times even I have caught my own perceptions as being skewed, despite knowing full well how it happened.
Slashdot Mirror
I think tying CEO pay to minimum wage is a far worse idea than tying it to the lowest paid employee.
If the CEO wage is tied to the lowest paid employee, they can always double their pay by paying the employees more. They can't individually raise the minimum wage.
Here comes the flood of people complaining about having to listen to other people talking...
Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them
Except people tend to talk louder on the phone than in person... and you're trapped next them for the next n hours.
Put the phone down. It won't hurt. I promise.
I think this would lead to in-flight homicide.
Just to get the facts straight, the live attenuated polio vaccine is not used any more because the risk/payoff ratio changed so drastically (largely because of its success). We have the inactivated vaccine, which is not as effective, but does not carry a risk of disease. When the pool of the infected is low enough due to suppression by the live vaccine, there is no reason to use the live vaccine anymore.
Actually if you shoot someone with rock salt, you are likely to be arrested and prosecuted for assault... even in Texas... because you are telling the police in no uncertain terms, that you did not feel that you were in any danger. And they'd be right. Don't ever point a weapon at someone unless you want to kill them, intend to kill them, and are going to kill them (hopefully all of the above are solely for the reason of defending yourself or someone else).
I really hate to be the one to pose this question, but how many casualties are we willing to accept as a society for X in order to avoid Y? In the last decades, the answer in the US and much of the western world has been ZERO.
How many airplanes downed by terrorists can we tolerate before we strip any ounce of privacy and dignity from the travelers. Never mind that it's the safest way to travel even including 9/11 and all of its victims in the air and on the ground. The answer is NONE, bring on the department of fatherland security.
How many pedophiles peddling online child pornography are we going to accept, for the freedom not to be monitored 24/7 by an anonymous system that is designed to ultimately be a tool to instantly arrest or at least discredit ANYONE and ANY TIME. NONE, bring on the NSA.
How many school shootings are we going to tolerate for private persons having access to firearms that was granted by the constitution (please let's not demean the Founders by debating what the 2nd amendment intended in this thread), to engage in sport and have the means to defend themselves when law enforcement cannot (or will not). The answer is NONE.
So yes, if we are going to continue on our present course, the inevitable consequence will be self-driven cars with no option for manual control, made by 3-4 companies that are approved by the government to go a maximum of 25mph. The future is bright, ladies and gentlemen. Once we don't have any rights, have shut down all scientific research, and eliminated any ability to EARN wealth by work, rather than steal it, we will surely all be 100% safe.
Yes but Star Wars is also a movie in which time was measured in units of distance (your mother in how many parsecs?
So I've been watching the debate here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_Ioj-TKj4
And I am not exactly sure whom I should vote for? Any ideas?
If I operate on a patient, and then give them instructions on how to properly care for their wound, which they fail to follow, I still have to treat their infection.
I think it's a well-accepted practice that commercial software that is within its useful life gets security patches. Given that CS6 is barely off the press, I would think it reasonable that CS5 still gets at least some support.
This is akin to buying a 2010 Chevy (under warranty), then finding out that the brakes catch on fire under certain circumstances, and the company's suggestion: buy a 2012.
Despite what the "tough on crime" short-sighted idiots would say, this is not only a necessary decision, but a really long-time-coming one. Considering how many links people click on over the course of the day, with hardly any idea (implicitly or explicitly) of what's going to be found on the other side, there have been many unintentional violations of the current law. Furthermore, I wonder how many people who surfed the internet for legal (consentual, adult) pornography, have seen what looked like child porn at one time or another. But under current law, no matter how disgusted you may have been, or how quickly you closed the page, you were guilty by definition. Furthermore, if you reported what you saw, you not only were guilty, but you had confessed as well. This was akin to the UK case where a man found a shotgun that was thrown into his garden from a passing vehicle, and turned it into the police, only to be jailed for weapons possession, since he was "in possession" of it during the course of bringing it to the police station.
This is an important decision for internet safety, and should be applauded, and will hopefully serve as precedent for cases outside of New York as well, since the practice of trawling the browser cache for suspect images is fairly prevalent. And I have to say - I doubt that anyone who intentionally views child pornography would be that obvious, unless they were stupid. And if they were that stupid, there'd be plenty of other "downloaded" evidence all over the place. In short, the draconian law as it stands right now is simply not necessary for prosecution of real purveyors of child porn, and likely served only to trawl for victims.
Why wait for facts? Ban!
Is there an option to mod down for stream-of-stupidity?
I just have one thing to say:
We will all go together when we go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
The only way I can envision this actually happening the way the story is written, is if this particular method was well-known to the law enforcement and they had already worked out all the necessary tools for detecting AND breaking the hidden container.
Otherwise, it sounds like a false flag operation to me.
That's what I think, and I'm one of those people who wants to hit conspiracy nuts most of the time. That's how obvious this sounds.
I'm convinced there are people out there somewhere saying "We're not broke enough - how can we blow another $10 billion without starting a riot?"
"I know, lets try lasers on 747's again - spectacular success last time"
"Good - but when we're asked why we need them..."
"Those new fake missiles in NK could be a threat"
"Brilliant!"
At least it'd (probably) be made in the US. I figure if we're wasting money, let's at least pay some Americans to play with high technology.
The vast majority of type 2 diabetes patients in the US are obese. Perhaps you should've stopped eating when you were only 100lbs overweight.
Your stab at the "pharma" is as ignorant of your own condition as I would expect, both relating to the nature of your condition, as well as the Herculean (and somewhat Sisyphean) research efforts surrounding it.
I cannot even tell you how much of a bad idea this is. I am graduating medical school in two months, and am barely starting to feel "a little" comfortable making a judgment on my own, only a fraction of the time. I will need to accumulate ALL of the experience that 3 years of 80+hour work weeks of residency can give me. And I am a cocky bastard at that. I just realize that the difference between a doctor (especially one trained at a high-volume top-tier teaching hospital) and a civilian is. The gap is so large, as to be close to insurmountable. Actually, probably the most important thing I have learned in my training, is that I know VERY LITTLE from the overall ocean of medical knowledge, and my pond is much larger than average.
Anyway, I'm ranting. Let me give you a shorter explanation. I have PhD. I am 2 months away from having an MD. If I have a rash that concerns me, I go to a dermatologist. I don't research it online, and won't use an app to do it. I know precisely enough between my two degrees to know where the limits of my knowledge are. Most people don't. The number of soccer-moms (and dads) who think they know medicine is enormous... and their tinkering puts them and their families in danger. Nothing can ever give you the knowledge and especially the experience of going through medical training... other than medical training.
At the beginning of my career, I will have spent 4 years in college, 5 years in graduate school, 4 years in medical school, 3 years in residency, and 3 years in fellowship (19 years total, with my guess an average of >80hrs/wk, even including college, but let's say 80, so over 70'000 hours, with 40'000 hours of medicine alone).
I really hope that when my patients come to me, I'll be more useful to them than an iPhone app.
You're not correct. And THAT is where the big difference between Google and Facebook lies. Google sells eyes, but the fact of the matter is that they are anonymous eyes, but sold as eyes belonging to people most likely to purchase the product being marketed. However, until you click on that link, all the company knows is that they've been matched to you by the black box of Google magic.
Facebook, on the other hand, shares information with "partners". They are BY DEFINITION a personal info vendor.
Google sells ads, and tailors them to the vendor. Facebook sells your data to the vendor directly. BIG difference in privacy implications.
In a way, Apple has been wise to wait on 4G to catch up to the point where... well, where it actually means something because it doesn't mean anything right now.
I have been enjoying LTE on my Verizon HTC Thunderbolt for almost a year now, and I categorically disagree with that statement. It certainly means something because it's about 10x faster than the competitors, and is significantly (read - 2-3X) faster in real world use.
But considering the fact of global warming/climate change and the topic of greenhouse gases, isn't our core problem that we are simply burning too much stuff? With that in mind, is this really going to help?
Shouldn't our focus be on creating forms of energy that produce energy without burning things?
Your argument is fundamentally flawed, because ultimately, any energy generation will result in rising global temperature. After all, heat is the ultimate byproduct of reducing local entropy in any system.
If they can keep this GMO sequestered in a watertight tank and remember that it could possibly destroy the ocean it would help the population of the world. It's sort of silly, however, that they spent all those resources creating this GMO when hemp is a very common and old source for ethanol. But nooo, we don't want to upset the fine folks at Dow, Goodyear, or Monsanto do we. Let's forget hemp and create a new organism.
The above illustrates the problem of informing the uninformed about scientific developments.
What reproductive and survival advantage does E Coli get from having these modifications done? Right... none. So while it'll happily digest the seaweed in a lab, or even in a manufacturing tank, if you dump it into the ocean it will a) die from incorrect environmental osmolality and pH b) be eaten by a variety of sea creatures.
Introducing rabbits to Australia was FAR worse than dumping TONS of this stuff into the ocean. This bacterium is so far from being able to "destroy the ocean" that it would take a colossal act of ignorance to claim it as such. Oh wait...
You mean they're promoting a law that would make Victoria's Secret disclose the endless belly-fold-tucking and (B to D) breast enlargements they love so much? As a doc, looking at those anatomically-impossible bodies it makes me sad, because they change our perception of what should be seen as attractive to a standard that is literally impossible to meet. And at times even I have caught my own perceptions as being skewed, despite knowing full well how it happened.
How about Google release a functional Tasks app for the Android which tens of millions will use, as opposed to this long-unneeded functionality.
Seriously... no dedicated Tasks app that works offline on Android? What in the world are they thinking?
100% accuracy on 50% of the tracks, not 50% accuracy per track.