The told Google that their app would not be approvable for inclusion in the App Store because it requires the ability to run in the background. They suggested that the best way to get the app on the iPhone would be to load it as a web app for this reason.
Google could have decided to modify the app so that it was approvable, but decided against that. Since Apple didn't write they app, they can't "intentionally cripple" it, they can only veto the apps inclusion in the app store if they decide it violates one of their rules.
but it looks like Apple is determined to ensure its users only get a seriously crippled implementation compared to the Android and WinMo versions.
I think a more accurate replacement for this line would be, "but it looks like Apple is unwilling to make exceptions to their developer agreement for Google. Unfortunately, this means a crippled implementation compared to the Android and WinMo versions."
This summary makes it seem as though Apple conciously went out of their way to cripple the app, instead simply being inflexible in it's design restrictions. Everyone and their cat has an opinion on Apples "1 app at a time" policy, and that's fine. Bash that if you want to, theres plent of anger and frustration over that to go around. However, intentionally misrepresenting the issue here is counter productive, and prone to start a flamewar at best.
You are making the completely unfounded assumption that there are any non-spike rabbits left.
If spikes were necessary enough to be ubiquitous, then where would this population of non-spike rabbits come from? First there could be increased survivability of shorter-spiked rabbits, which could gradually (over much longer than 500 years) result in spike-less rabbits.
The generation interval for most plants is much longer than for rabbits, and I would expect that the non-spiked plant would take much longer to evolve. Take roses for example. We've been subjecting roses to controlled breeding experiments for a lot more than 500 years and we still don't have a thornless rose (that I'm aware of), why do you think that natural selection would work any faster. You need to think on the appropriate time scales, and contrary to popular opinion, 500 years is nothing on the kind of scales that evolution works on.
Humans evolved to walk on 2 legs and to lack body fur because those mutations occurred and were beneficial to those individuals that had them (ostensibly). It's entirely possible that the lack of pelts was passed along with some, much more important mutation close by on the same chromosome for increased intelligence, or ability to draw the connection that animal tracks mean the animal was once there (something no other animal does to my knowledge). That ability to track prey, and avoid predators is so powerful that it could have made any number of undesirable mutations ubiquitous simply by dragging those genes along for the ride.
It's only now that we are looking back that a lack of a pelt is viewed as an evolutionary adaptation. But what about those early human populations that migrated into ice age europe? I'd posit that the development of a pelt would have been an evolutionary advantage! However, european humans did not develop a pelt, because the genotype for furry humans had already been lost, and no new mutations developed to give us back our fur coat. Instead their was the gradual change in hair type to be more insulating where it did grow, and to grow a lot thicker for some, but we never regained our fur despite being in Europe for much more than 500 years.
If, in the time that there have been no Moa to eat the plant, no genetic mutation has spontaniously developed that results in no thorns, then why would we expect these trees to have lost stopped growing thorns? Thorns are only expensive if some of your peers are not growing them and you are.
Since these thorns appear to be a defining characteristic of this plants phenotype, and there has only been a small amount of time in which to evolve away from this phenotype (evolutionary time scales are a lot larger than 500 years), it's stupid to assume that they would have dissapeared by now.
Evolution has no plan, it has no engineers deciding what the best design is now that the Moa are dead, it is the net effect of environmental selective pressures combined with the accumulation of small genetic point mutations over time that make one genetic line more likely to reproduce more prolifically, crossed with a whole lot of random chance.
No, but there is a time and a place for everything. They are basically wasting their time, money, and energy on a plan that will do nothing to address the issue, instead of finding or developing a plan that will do something. That their current plan will also have negative side effects for the US economy to accompany the complete lack of positive benefits for global CO2 emissions just makes it all the more ludicrous.
It's the difference between looking like you are making a difference and actually making a difference. I'm all for the later, but don't want them wasting their time and our money on the former. It's the functional equivalent to masturbation, makes you feel good at first, but no work is actually done, and you end up needing to wash your hands.
Farmers already do collect their wast into lagoons. The new part will be transfering the waste to a processing plant.
Besides, we already have methods for getting urea that's used in cattle feed. They can use the urea to synthesize amino acids in their rumen (well the bugs do the synthesizing, the cow just digests the bugs).
No, but power plants in the third world can be run cheaper than power plants in the US, and with much more permissible pollution. This will make that difference in $/MW even larger, thus contributing more incentive to take what few US manufacturing jobs away and move them overseas with no net change in global CO2 production.
I never said I'd be happy about eating that cost, just that I'd be willing to if everyone else was forced to do so as well, because that is the ONLY way that the Cap and trade system would be effective at its stated goal.
No, I don't believe so, but I also don't resort to calling people names unnecessarily either. I don't enjoy conversing with people that cannot control their verbal diarrhea as it tends to be the kind of thing that can start flame wars.
Before responding to the substance of your post, I'd like to ask how many CEO's do you know? I happen to know a couple from small startup companies. They haven't really started making money yet so there could be a major personality shift in their future, but I don't think your characterization fits everyone. Yes there are examples that fit the cloth you've cut, far too many IMO, but there are plenty of examples that no one talks about.
You and I don't even disagree on the profitability of moving manufacturing business out of this country. I'm simply saying that moving a business costs money. You need to build a plant, hire new labor, train that labor, work out the logistics for transporting your goods, deal with the closing of the old plant, selling the old and buying the new property, etc. These costs constitute a one time fixed cost in most cases, but they are not insubstantial costs. That is why some jobs that can just as easily be done overseas are still done here. They are not being philanthropic, they have simply done the cost benefit analysis and decided that for the time being, it's more efficient to operate here. I think that there are a lot of companies that could potentially reanalyze the situation and come down on the other side of the fence in the wake of this Cap and Trade legislation leading to increased energy costs.
I don't know where you go the idea that I think that companies care (or should care) about what country someone is born in. I mentioned the mexican immigrant labor because it is well known that blue collar whites (my grandfather for example) have a sense of entitlement to a middle class living, and immigrants are usually willing to work for less b/c it's still a step up from what they were making in their home country.
I don't even have a problem with companies doing the smart thing for themselves, I just don't think it's smart for the US Government to exacerbate the problem at a time when the US economy is already shedding jobs at an alarming rate and has unemployment fast approaching double digits for the first time in several decades. Especially since I don't believe their will be a net change in CO2 emissions, which is the ostensible justification for this legislation in the first place.
They don't, they get to do whatever they feel is right while staying within the law of the country they operate in. If they decide that the laws in a given country are too onerous, they can move to another country with more favorable conditions. That is what I'm seeing as the major problem with cap and trade. It will force more companies that serve a global market, to move to a different spot on the globe to remain profitable. As a result this legislation will
1. have no net effect on the global economy, 2. a net negative effect on the US economy (the one of primary interest to ME), 3. no net effect on global CO2 emissions 4. despite it being successful at reducing US CO2 emissions.
My wife is from a town (Frankfort, IN) that is dependent upon factory jobs. Factory towns have died in many places, but they are not all dead. Many of them managed to recruit factories from other towns with tax breaks and other concessions. Frankfort used to be dependent upon a couple of really large factories, now they are dependent on a much larger number of smaller factories. Ultimately they are still dependent upon manufacturing jobs.
You can ROFL all you want, it just show how ignorant you are of the manufacturing industry in the US and how many towns are still dependent upon those manufacturing jobs. One change that has happened in Frankfort in the wake of the move to smaller factories has been a concurrent decrease in the average wage paid at those factories. 30 years ago most factory workers were middle class whites, now most are mexican immigrants working for much less money to do the same job. Normally I'm fine with that, no one is entitled to a middle class living, that's why education is so important to the use. However, wages cannot legally get much lower at some of these factories. That means if the tax that the cap and trade system represents increases operating costs too high, these companies will end up leaving for cheaper pastures.
Indiana is already one of the 5 cheapest states to live in, so that means there are at most 4 other states they can move to inside the US. All other pastures will be located outside of the US.
I'm not justifying everything that way, what I'm saying is that this issue will simultaneously put us at a disadvantage economically, and do nothing to address global emissions. We'll simply be shifting the burden to other parts of the world.
If I thought that this system could help with one of those categories, while not hurting us in the other, such that there was a net gain I would be all for it. However, I see no net benefit from this system. It'll be like dumping all of our garbage in another country, we won't be changing the net production of garbage, we'll just be moving it around to make ourselves fee better, without actually making things better
Most of the country may have lost a lot of factory jobs, but there are still a lot of small towns that are dependent upon factory jobs. The difference is that the factories are smaller, and simply more of them in a given town.
Frankfort Indiana is a good example (my wife's home town). They used to be dependent upon a handful of large factories that have all closed down and moved overseas. Now they are dependent upon a larger number of smaller factories that have moved into town after the big boys left. The town is still dependent upon manufacturing jobs and that is why they could be very strongly affected by cap and trade. The factories have remained because of the low cost of living (Indiana is one of the 5 cheapest states to live in), large trainable work force, and concessions they were able to wring out of a desperate city. The average wage for a factory worker has decreased relative to the cost of living and inflation over the years in Frankfort. 30 years ago most of the factory workers were middle class whites, they are now mostly mexican immigrants who are willing to accept much less for the same work. Normally I have no problem with this, no one is entitled to a middle class salary, but the problem is that by law the wages can't get much lower. If these factories that are paying as little as possible to their employees, in a state known for having some of the lowest operating costs are forced to face increases in energy, they may well decide that the benefits no longer out weigh the costs.
Trusting China to do anything we want them to without getting it is writing is just silly. I could make the same argument about working conditions, human rights violations, or any other major geopolitical issue that the west has with them, and with equal accuracy. This is obviously outside the scope of this discussion, but you can feel free to trust China to do the "Right Thing" if you want, but since I've never seen them do it, I'm going to remain skeptical.
I'd prefer to assume that they are unaware that their actions will probably prolong the recession. The only other alternative is that they know and don't care that this will do little to alter global CO2 production and prolong the recession as more jobs are moved to non cap-n-trade countries
That argument is predicated on the assumption that I'm wasting power now. I already do everything I can to reduce electricity usage at my apartment. The original motivation being my pregnant unemployed wife and my making crap money as a grad-student trying to support both of us and the baby on the way. Since my consumption really can't go any lower, this legislation will amount to a new tax on me that I cannot avoid.
Also, I have no control over the energy use practices at the local Subaru plant (Lafayette, IN). Since they are in the business of making money, they are probably already conserving electricity wherever possible, so the net effect of the cap and trade system will be to make cars manufactured there more expensive than they were in comparison to Subaru's made in a country that is not part of the cap and trade system. that will make the local plant less competitive, and could potentially be the proverbial straw that results in the plant being shut down and those jobs outsourced (the plant was almost shut down earlier this year once already).
You can never shift the burden away from the Taxpayers for a utility. By definition a Utility is needed by all (or so close to all as to be insignificantly different). Any increase in overhead (Fuel, Taxes, Regulations, Environmental Stewardship, Waste handling, etc) will be passed on to the consumer to pay as part of their utility bill.
Cap and Trade will make my electric bill go up, not decrease the profits or pay of executives at the power company. Now, I'd be willing to eat that cost if everyone else were going to have to as well, but that won't be the case. Manufacturers that can, will move their power intensive operations over seas to countries that don't participate in the cap and trade system. It'll save them money, lose the US jobs, and drive down the business of companies that cannot/willnot relocate somewhere else.
This is the fundamental aspect of business that many in washington do not understand. Any move you make to increase operating costs in the US will simply result in the gradual movement of those industries affect to other countries that are less expensive to operate in.
Unless you can get the UN to jam this system down the throats of every industrialized manufacturing country, it's just going to make the US economy worse while helping the economy somewhere else. Not a big problem while the US was booming, but definitely counter productive under the current situation.
I hate to reply to my own post (again), but as an FYI to those with mod points. Overrated mod is not supposed to be use to mod down those you disagree with. Argue your point if you wish, but censorship based on ideology is assinine.
I hate to reply to my own post, but as an FYI to those with mod points. Overrated mod is not supposed to be use to mod down those you disagree with. Argue your point if you wish, but censorship based on ideology is assinine.
However, IMO it all still comes back to people not using the drug as directed. If you only take Acetaminophen as directed, you won't cause liver damage. If they wanted to change the dosing instructions for the medication, I can buy that as a valid approach, but denying us the use of a proven medication because others cannot be bothered to read the Directions on the Bottle is stupid.
I can kill myself using all sorts of over the counter drugs, chemicals in my garage, or out in the shed and I fail to see why the fact that one medication has become a favorite of suicides should mean those of us with out a death wish, but the ability to read and follow dosing instructions, should be denied the use of a previously approved product.
Besides, no one has answered my original question. What are pregnant women supposed to use for pain? They are prohibited from using all the other over the counter pain medications on the market, leaving them to just suffer or to resort to Prescription Pain meds.
Color me completely surprised. I've never heard of this.
Not calling anyone a liar, but it sounds to me like an urban legend or a story created by a reporter based on an urban legend in order to sell more papers. How is acetaminophen any different from any other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory like Advil or Naproxen-sodium?
I know of lots of drug overdoses, but an epidemic of tylenol overdoses is news to me.
Most of the rest are prescription drugs, so you shouldn't have them unless a doctor has prescribed them for a specific reason. I'd assume that when prescribing any medication a doctor would think of the dangers as well as the benefits, make a cost/benefit assessment and then decide what is in the best interest of the patient.
This sounds like someone at the FDA has an axe to grind and it putting the cart in front of the horse. Acetaminophen can be dangerous if misused, but so can drinking too much water. I don't want to have to get a script for H2O because someone in Cali got water poisoning, or some people drowned in their swimming pool this summer. Is it the FDA's job to assume that all Americans are fucking retarded?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually they didn't.
The told Google that their app would not be approvable for inclusion in the App Store because it requires the ability to run in the background. They suggested that the best way to get the app on the iPhone would be to load it as a web app for this reason.
Google could have decided to modify the app so that it was approvable, but decided against that. Since Apple didn't write they app, they can't "intentionally cripple" it, they can only veto the apps inclusion in the app store if they decide it violates one of their rules.
but it looks like Apple is determined to ensure its users only get a seriously crippled implementation compared to the Android and WinMo versions.
I think a more accurate replacement for this line would be, "but it looks like Apple is unwilling to make exceptions to their developer agreement for Google. Unfortunately, this means a crippled implementation compared to the Android and WinMo versions."
This summary makes it seem as though Apple conciously went out of their way to cripple the app, instead simply being inflexible in it's design restrictions. Everyone and their cat has an opinion on Apples "1 app at a time" policy, and that's fine. Bash that if you want to, theres plent of anger and frustration over that to go around. However, intentionally misrepresenting the issue here is counter productive, and prone to start a flamewar at best.
You are making the completely unfounded assumption that there are any non-spike rabbits left.
If spikes were necessary enough to be ubiquitous, then where would this population of non-spike rabbits come from? First there could be increased survivability of shorter-spiked rabbits, which could gradually (over much longer than 500 years) result in spike-less rabbits.
The generation interval for most plants is much longer than for rabbits, and I would expect that the non-spiked plant would take much longer to evolve. Take roses for example. We've been subjecting roses to controlled breeding experiments for a lot more than 500 years and we still don't have a thornless rose (that I'm aware of), why do you think that natural selection would work any faster. You need to think on the appropriate time scales, and contrary to popular opinion, 500 years is nothing on the kind of scales that evolution works on.
Humans evolved to walk on 2 legs and to lack body fur because those mutations occurred and were beneficial to those individuals that had them (ostensibly). It's entirely possible that the lack of pelts was passed along with some, much more important mutation close by on the same chromosome for increased intelligence, or ability to draw the connection that animal tracks mean the animal was once there (something no other animal does to my knowledge). That ability to track prey, and avoid predators is so powerful that it could have made any number of undesirable mutations ubiquitous simply by dragging those genes along for the ride.
It's only now that we are looking back that a lack of a pelt is viewed as an evolutionary adaptation. But what about those early human populations that migrated into ice age europe? I'd posit that the development of a pelt would have been an evolutionary advantage! However, european humans did not develop a pelt, because the genotype for furry humans had already been lost, and no new mutations developed to give us back our fur coat. Instead their was the gradual change in hair type to be more insulating where it did grow, and to grow a lot thicker for some, but we never regained our fur despite being in Europe for much more than 500 years.
In evolutioary term, all costs are relative.
If, in the time that there have been no Moa to eat the plant, no genetic mutation has spontaniously developed that results in no thorns, then why would we expect these trees to have lost stopped growing thorns? Thorns are only expensive if some of your peers are not growing them and you are.
Since these thorns appear to be a defining characteristic of this plants phenotype, and there has only been a small amount of time in which to evolve away from this phenotype (evolutionary time scales are a lot larger than 500 years), it's stupid to assume that they would have dissapeared by now.
Evolution has no plan, it has no engineers deciding what the best design is now that the Moa are dead, it is the net effect of environmental selective pressures combined with the accumulation of small genetic point mutations over time that make one genetic line more likely to reproduce more prolifically, crossed with a whole lot of random chance.
It's called the Voting Booth. Unfortunatley you are required by law to subscribe to Someone.
No, but there is a time and a place for everything. They are basically wasting their time, money, and energy on a plan that will do nothing to address the issue, instead of finding or developing a plan that will do something. That their current plan will also have negative side effects for the US economy to accompany the complete lack of positive benefits for global CO2 emissions just makes it all the more ludicrous.
It's the difference between looking like you are making a difference and actually making a difference. I'm all for the later, but don't want them wasting their time and our money on the former. It's the functional equivalent to masturbation, makes you feel good at first, but no work is actually done, and you end up needing to wash your hands.
Thank you. It turns out that you and I were on the same page after all.
Farmers already do collect their wast into lagoons. The new part will be transfering the waste to a processing plant.
Besides, we already have methods for getting urea that's used in cattle feed. They can use the urea to synthesize amino acids in their rumen (well the bugs do the synthesizing, the cow just digests the bugs).
No, but power plants in the third world can be run cheaper than power plants in the US, and with much more permissible pollution. This will make that difference in $/MW even larger, thus contributing more incentive to take what few US manufacturing jobs away and move them overseas with no net change in global CO2 production.
I never said I'd be happy about eating that cost, just that I'd be willing to if everyone else was forced to do so as well, because that is the ONLY way that the Cap and trade system would be effective at its stated goal.
They'll use Chinese power, which is much less green than US power.
Hence, a decrease in US CO2 output will be countered by an increase in CO2 production in China.
No, I don't believe so, but I also don't resort to calling people names unnecessarily either. I don't enjoy conversing with people that cannot control their verbal diarrhea as it tends to be the kind of thing that can start flame wars.
Before responding to the substance of your post, I'd like to ask how many CEO's do you know? I happen to know a couple from small startup companies. They haven't really started making money yet so there could be a major personality shift in their future, but I don't think your characterization fits everyone. Yes there are examples that fit the cloth you've cut, far too many IMO, but there are plenty of examples that no one talks about.
You and I don't even disagree on the profitability of moving manufacturing business out of this country. I'm simply saying that moving a business costs money. You need to build a plant, hire new labor, train that labor, work out the logistics for transporting your goods, deal with the closing of the old plant, selling the old and buying the new property, etc. These costs constitute a one time fixed cost in most cases, but they are not insubstantial costs. That is why some jobs that can just as easily be done overseas are still done here. They are not being philanthropic, they have simply done the cost benefit analysis and decided that for the time being, it's more efficient to operate here. I think that there are a lot of companies that could potentially reanalyze the situation and come down on the other side of the fence in the wake of this Cap and Trade legislation leading to increased energy costs.
I don't know where you go the idea that I think that companies care (or should care) about what country someone is born in. I mentioned the mexican immigrant labor because it is well known that blue collar whites (my grandfather for example) have a sense of entitlement to a middle class living, and immigrants are usually willing to work for less b/c it's still a step up from what they were making in their home country.
I don't even have a problem with companies doing the smart thing for themselves, I just don't think it's smart for the US Government to exacerbate the problem at a time when the US economy is already shedding jobs at an alarming rate and has unemployment fast approaching double digits for the first time in several decades. Especially since I don't believe their will be a net change in CO2 emissions, which is the ostensible justification for this legislation in the first place.
Flamebait much?
They don't, they get to do whatever they feel is right while staying within the law of the country they operate in. If they decide that the laws in a given country are too onerous, they can move to another country with more favorable conditions. That is what I'm seeing as the major problem with cap and trade. It will force more companies that serve a global market, to move to a different spot on the globe to remain profitable. As a result this legislation will
1. have no net effect on the global economy,
2. a net negative effect on the US economy (the one of primary interest to ME),
3. no net effect on global CO2 emissions
4. despite it being successful at reducing US CO2 emissions.
My wife is from a town (Frankfort, IN) that is dependent upon factory jobs. Factory towns have died in many places, but they are not all dead. Many of them managed to recruit factories from other towns with tax breaks and other concessions. Frankfort used to be dependent upon a couple of really large factories, now they are dependent on a much larger number of smaller factories. Ultimately they are still dependent upon manufacturing jobs.
You can ROFL all you want, it just show how ignorant you are of the manufacturing industry in the US and how many towns are still dependent upon those manufacturing jobs. One change that has happened in Frankfort in the wake of the move to smaller factories has been a concurrent decrease in the average wage paid at those factories. 30 years ago most factory workers were middle class whites, now most are mexican immigrants working for much less money to do the same job. Normally I'm fine with that, no one is entitled to a middle class living, that's why education is so important to the use. However, wages cannot legally get much lower at some of these factories. That means if the tax that the cap and trade system represents increases operating costs too high, these companies will end up leaving for cheaper pastures.
Indiana is already one of the 5 cheapest states to live in, so that means there are at most 4 other states they can move to inside the US. All other pastures will be located outside of the US.
I'm not justifying everything that way, what I'm saying is that this issue will simultaneously put us at a disadvantage economically, and do nothing to address global emissions. We'll simply be shifting the burden to other parts of the world.
If I thought that this system could help with one of those categories, while not hurting us in the other, such that there was a net gain I would be all for it. However, I see no net benefit from this system. It'll be like dumping all of our garbage in another country, we won't be changing the net production of garbage, we'll just be moving it around to make ourselves fee better, without actually making things better
Most of the country may have lost a lot of factory jobs, but there are still a lot of small towns that are dependent upon factory jobs. The difference is that the factories are smaller, and simply more of them in a given town.
Frankfort Indiana is a good example (my wife's home town). They used to be dependent upon a handful of large factories that have all closed down and moved overseas. Now they are dependent upon a larger number of smaller factories that have moved into town after the big boys left. The town is still dependent upon manufacturing jobs and that is why they could be very strongly affected by cap and trade. The factories have remained because of the low cost of living (Indiana is one of the 5 cheapest states to live in), large trainable work force, and concessions they were able to wring out of a desperate city. The average wage for a factory worker has decreased relative to the cost of living and inflation over the years in Frankfort. 30 years ago most of the factory workers were middle class whites, they are now mostly mexican immigrants who are willing to accept much less for the same work. Normally I have no problem with this, no one is entitled to a middle class salary, but the problem is that by law the wages can't get much lower. If these factories that are paying as little as possible to their employees, in a state known for having some of the lowest operating costs are forced to face increases in energy, they may well decide that the benefits no longer out weigh the costs.
Trusting China to do anything we want them to without getting it is writing is just silly. I could make the same argument about working conditions, human rights violations, or any other major geopolitical issue that the west has with them, and with equal accuracy. This is obviously outside the scope of this discussion, but you can feel free to trust China to do the "Right Thing" if you want, but since I've never seen them do it, I'm going to remain skeptical.
I'd prefer to assume that they are unaware that their actions will probably prolong the recession. The only other alternative is that they know and don't care that this will do little to alter global CO2 production and prolong the recession as more jobs are moved to non cap-n-trade countries
That argument is predicated on the assumption that I'm wasting power now. I already do everything I can to reduce electricity usage at my apartment. The original motivation being my pregnant unemployed wife and my making crap money as a grad-student trying to support both of us and the baby on the way. Since my consumption really can't go any lower, this legislation will amount to a new tax on me that I cannot avoid.
Also, I have no control over the energy use practices at the local Subaru plant (Lafayette, IN). Since they are in the business of making money, they are probably already conserving electricity wherever possible, so the net effect of the cap and trade system will be to make cars manufactured there more expensive than they were in comparison to Subaru's made in a country that is not part of the cap and trade system. that will make the local plant less competitive, and could potentially be the proverbial straw that results in the plant being shut down and those jobs outsourced (the plant was almost shut down earlier this year once already).
You can never shift the burden away from the Taxpayers for a utility. By definition a Utility is needed by all (or so close to all as to be insignificantly different). Any increase in overhead (Fuel, Taxes, Regulations, Environmental Stewardship, Waste handling, etc) will be passed on to the consumer to pay as part of their utility bill.
Cap and Trade will make my electric bill go up, not decrease the profits or pay of executives at the power company. Now, I'd be willing to eat that cost if everyone else were going to have to as well, but that won't be the case. Manufacturers that can, will move their power intensive operations over seas to countries that don't participate in the cap and trade system. It'll save them money, lose the US jobs, and drive down the business of companies that cannot/willnot relocate somewhere else.
This is the fundamental aspect of business that many in washington do not understand. Any move you make to increase operating costs in the US will simply result in the gradual movement of those industries affect to other countries that are less expensive to operate in.
Unless you can get the UN to jam this system down the throats of every industrialized manufacturing country, it's just going to make the US economy worse while helping the economy somewhere else. Not a big problem while the US was booming, but definitely counter productive under the current situation.
I hate to reply to my own post (again), but as an FYI to those with mod points.
Overrated mod is not supposed to be use to mod down those you disagree with. Argue your point if you wish, but censorship based on ideology is assinine.
I hate to reply to my own post, but as an FYI to those with mod points.
Overrated mod is not supposed to be use to mod down those you disagree with. Argue your point if you wish, but censorship based on ideology is assinine.
Well, I guess my skepticism was misplaced.
However, IMO it all still comes back to people not using the drug as directed. If you only take Acetaminophen as directed, you won't cause liver damage. If they wanted to change the dosing instructions for the medication, I can buy that as a valid approach, but denying us the use of a proven medication because others cannot be bothered to read the Directions on the Bottle is stupid.
I can kill myself using all sorts of over the counter drugs, chemicals in my garage, or out in the shed and I fail to see why the fact that one medication has become a favorite of suicides should mean those of us with out a death wish, but the ability to read and follow dosing instructions, should be denied the use of a previously approved product.
Besides, no one has answered my original question. What are pregnant women supposed to use for pain? They are prohibited from using all the other over the counter pain medications on the market, leaving them to just suffer or to resort to Prescription Pain meds.
Color me completely surprised. I've never heard of this.
Not calling anyone a liar, but it sounds to me like an urban legend or a story created by a reporter based on an urban legend in order to sell more papers. How is acetaminophen any different from any other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory like Advil or Naproxen-sodium?
I know of lots of drug overdoses, but an epidemic of tylenol overdoses is news to me.
Most of the rest are prescription drugs, so you shouldn't have them unless a doctor has prescribed them for a specific reason. I'd assume that when prescribing any medication a doctor would think of the dangers as well as the benefits, make a cost/benefit assessment and then decide what is in the best interest of the patient.
This sounds like someone at the FDA has an axe to grind and it putting the cart in front of the horse. Acetaminophen can be dangerous if misused, but so can drinking too much water. I don't want to have to get a script for H2O because someone in Cali got water poisoning, or some people drowned in their swimming pool this summer. Is it the FDA's job to assume that all Americans are fucking retarded?