I'm not sure how a light, rear-wheel drive car is going to have better traction and/or control on slippery roads. Your drive wheels provide traction and your front wheels provide control/handling (unless you have rear-wheel steering). When those are two different sets of wheels, as in a rear-drive car, the only way you have traction and control is by having snow tires, studs, or chains on all four wheels. When those two things are the same set of wheels, as in a front-drive car, you only need traction mechanisms on the front wheels to provide both traction and control. I've spent 100% of my adult driving life in snow country, and have not once ever heard someone recommend rear-wheel drive cars as providing more control and/or traction on slippery surfaces. I have, however, heard of a lot higher percentage of people wrecking or being unable (or unwilling) to drive them in such conditions.
The paradigm of how life is lived will change drastically once we find a way to extend life by a significant percentage in one fell swoop. Depending on how things shake out, the question of whether you want to die today, tomorrow, or any day may well become irrelevant.
Government found a route around the 4th a long time ago. It applies to forcibly obtaining information from someone. What the government does now is ask for the information from a 3rd party. Many companies make it their business to give the government whatever it wants, because it greases the wheels of government when they want something done that's in their interest.
I actually didn't intend my comment to be support of a centralized database, so I should've cut off that portion of the line I copied. It was more to disagree with the implication that it's alright to stop worrying about severe drug interactions going to multiple doctors and a convenience store drug dispensary has somehow eliminated them as a threat.
The post I replied to seemed to imply "automated process -> meaningful interactions disappear; severe interactions uncommon -> interaction detection by pharmacy irrelevant"
Like a semi (maybe lorry would be better, considering your spelling) driver who is following the laws and driving politely and non-aggressively is coercing the drivers around him to not do (as many) stupid things while in close proximity to a vehicle weighing many tons?
If that's your definition of coercion, then yes. I was simply making an observation about certain assumptions many people seem to jump directly to without considering any of a myriad other possibilities. (It should be obvious this is speaking of the first paragraph of the post, not the second, but this is slashdot after all)
You actually illustrated the behavior I was referring to quite clearly in your post, even if that wasn't actually what you meant. Your post can easily be read as if you view everyone who drives a full-size truck in a city as having absolutely no business doing so and does so only to intimidate others, whether or not that's a view you hold. In fact, given how you prefaced the statement (as it doesn't relate to anything the OP wrote), it could easily be read as if you specifically believe that about me without having even the slightest knowledge of the actual reasons I have a full-size pickup from which to draw conclusions.
I'm not sure if my comment was driving you to simply expand on what I had stated, or if it was somehow intended as disagreement. The below only applies in the case of the latter:
Hence why it usually doesn't make sense to own one for that purpose, which is what I said. The conditions where it does make sense as an investment are fairly slim. There are, however, other reasons to purchase a home which make a great deal of sense.
I think it's spot-on the point. Many of these drugs are based on prescriptions simply because that's how the system for drugs is set up by default. There are many where there is no market for "unauthorized" purchases (i.e. you can't get high on it, it won't kill you, and you can't make other drugs from it with which you can get high) where the current system does not make sense. If it works correctly (big if, as with anything the government does), there's no need to worry about it being "tricked."
It's also pretty uncommon to have a drug interaction so severe that it is even noticed, much less "life saving" or whatever Walgreen's system claims to do.
I take it you've never talked to anyone who's been on warfarin, the most commonly-prescribed blood thinner in existence. Also, the one with the most drug (and non-drug) interactions, and the one most likely to kill you as a result of said interactions.
For one thing (and this probably says more about the systematic failures than anything else), pharmacists are more likely than your doctor to catch drug interactions before you do something potentially harmful to yourself.
Doctors I've had don't have a great deal of training in the intricacies of drugs that don't directly relate to what they do on a daily basis. They sometimes don't know the intricacies of drugs which do relate to what they do on a daily basis if it's incredibly broad in scope (as oncology is). Pharmacists, on the other hand, are trained to know the ins and outs of every drug on the market (or at least every drug that passes through their hands).
Just because you don't have experience in areas where the knowledge differential is as clear as it is important does not mean it doesn't exist.
without a detailed knowledge of Australian politics I wanted to leave open the possibility that they weren't actually lying abhumans who leave a slime trail when they move...
That's a remote possibility anywhere. After all, we are talking about politicians (or wannabes, anyway) after all. The ones who aren't lying abhumans leaving a slime trail when they move are extreme outliers anywhere in the world.
Define it with something other than "true." Using that word in that manner is only objectively correct if you mean completely unfettered direct democracy, with no restrictions on vote topic, wherein a simple majority may command anything including servitude or death to the minority on a whim. Since you go on to talk about banning PACs, lobbying, etc, all of which would be completely allowable in a direct democracy, I'm going to assume that is not, in fact, what you actually meant. If that's not what you meant, then calling it "true" is using the word in the same way certain people use "true American" to denigrate those who do not agree with their positions.
The question, of course, is whether we really want a true democracy.
Absolutely, unequivocally, no.
Direct democracies can be beneficial to a point, but it's harder to create a tyranny of the majority if there is a systematic framework in place which makes changing certain aspects of governmental operation incredibly difficult. All one need do is look at any number of societies in existence now and in the past, where support for incredibly horrible practices was near-universal, to understand why completely unfettering the vote is a terrible idea.
It doesn't make sense to own your own home. Period.
It (usually) doesn't make sense to own your own home as an investment. Otherwise, the above sentence is completely moronic, as most absolute blanket statements tend to be.
I'm surprised there isn't yet a reply to this along the lines of "You drive a truck, ergo you're an asshole and a bully as a driver." I see that all the time, especially in the context of a conversation about driving etiquette.
I drive a full-size truck myself, and am a very polite driver. The nice thing about my truck is it forces people around me to be polite as well.
All private enterprise is 100% about screwing people over. I mean, haven't you heard of the roving packs of fast food employees whose job it is to drag someone eating a competitor's product into an alley and beat the crap out of them? And don't get me started on beauticians. Those ******* will CUT you if you so much as look at another stylist. And they'll cut you if you don't.
Slashdot Mirror
and it has front-wheel drive
I'm not sure how a light, rear-wheel drive car is going to have better traction and/or control on slippery roads. Your drive wheels provide traction and your front wheels provide control/handling (unless you have rear-wheel steering). When those are two different sets of wheels, as in a rear-drive car, the only way you have traction and control is by having snow tires, studs, or chains on all four wheels. When those two things are the same set of wheels, as in a front-drive car, you only need traction mechanisms on the front wheels to provide both traction and control. I've spent 100% of my adult driving life in snow country, and have not once ever heard someone recommend rear-wheel drive cars as providing more control and/or traction on slippery surfaces. I have, however, heard of a lot higher percentage of people wrecking or being unable (or unwilling) to drive them in such conditions.
A hipster.
The paradigm of how life is lived will change drastically once we find a way to extend life by a significant percentage in one fell swoop. Depending on how things shake out, the question of whether you want to die today, tomorrow, or any day may well become irrelevant.
Unfortunately, at least in the US, it would be more like think of Thurmond, Byrd, and Stevens. We'd have to start actively killing off politicians.
You, sir, just won this thread.
You can't fire stupid in most first-world countries, either.
Government found a route around the 4th a long time ago. It applies to forcibly obtaining information from someone. What the government does now is ask for the information from a 3rd party. Many companies make it their business to give the government whatever it wants, because it greases the wheels of government when they want something done that's in their interest.
One of many reasons I believe we should have far more Representatives. The total sum paid to all Reps should not increase, however.
Trial by observing the ritual combat of lawyers beats the hell out of the alternative.
I dunno, I think trial by actual combat would be more fair in some cases. Class action lawsuits, maybe? :)
I actually didn't intend my comment to be support of a centralized database, so I should've cut off that portion of the line I copied. It was more to disagree with the implication that it's alright to stop worrying about severe drug interactions going to multiple doctors and a convenience store drug dispensary has somehow eliminated them as a threat.
The post I replied to seemed to imply "automated process -> meaningful interactions disappear; severe interactions uncommon -> interaction detection by pharmacy irrelevant"
coercing behaviour out of people
Like a semi (maybe lorry would be better, considering your spelling) driver who is following the laws and driving politely and non-aggressively is coercing the drivers around him to not do (as many) stupid things while in close proximity to a vehicle weighing many tons?
If that's your definition of coercion, then yes. I was simply making an observation about certain assumptions many people seem to jump directly to without considering any of a myriad other possibilities. (It should be obvious this is speaking of the first paragraph of the post, not the second, but this is slashdot after all)
You actually illustrated the behavior I was referring to quite clearly in your post, even if that wasn't actually what you meant. Your post can easily be read as if you view everyone who drives a full-size truck in a city as having absolutely no business doing so and does so only to intimidate others, whether or not that's a view you hold. In fact, given how you prefaced the statement (as it doesn't relate to anything the OP wrote), it could easily be read as if you specifically believe that about me without having even the slightest knowledge of the actual reasons I have a full-size pickup from which to draw conclusions.
I'm not sure if my comment was driving you to simply expand on what I had stated, or if it was somehow intended as disagreement. The below only applies in the case of the latter:
Hence why it usually doesn't make sense to own one for that purpose, which is what I said. The conditions where it does make sense as an investment are fairly slim. There are, however, other reasons to purchase a home which make a great deal of sense.
I think it's spot-on the point. Many of these drugs are based on prescriptions simply because that's how the system for drugs is set up by default. There are many where there is no market for "unauthorized" purchases (i.e. you can't get high on it, it won't kill you, and you can't make other drugs from it with which you can get high) where the current system does not make sense. If it works correctly (big if, as with anything the government does), there's no need to worry about it being "tricked."
It's also pretty uncommon to have a drug interaction so severe that it is even noticed, much less "life saving" or whatever Walgreen's system claims to do.
I take it you've never talked to anyone who's been on warfarin, the most commonly-prescribed blood thinner in existence. Also, the one with the most drug (and non-drug) interactions, and the one most likely to kill you as a result of said interactions.
For one thing (and this probably says more about the systematic failures than anything else), pharmacists are more likely than your doctor to catch drug interactions before you do something potentially harmful to yourself.
Doctors I've had don't have a great deal of training in the intricacies of drugs that don't directly relate to what they do on a daily basis. They sometimes don't know the intricacies of drugs which do relate to what they do on a daily basis if it's incredibly broad in scope (as oncology is). Pharmacists, on the other hand, are trained to know the ins and outs of every drug on the market (or at least every drug that passes through their hands).
Just because you don't have experience in areas where the knowledge differential is as clear as it is important does not mean it doesn't exist.
nobody wants to practice in high-voume, low-margin areas like being a GP.
This isn't completely true, but the added cost of malpractice insurance has pretty much guaranteed that you have to really want to do it.
So what I'm reading here is they're imbuing mice with super intelligence.
I, for one, welcome our new hyper-intelligent rodent overlords.
That's assuming he's not one already? :)
*headdesk*
And I apparently repeat myself, apparently. This is why I shouldn't post when I'm not awake.
without a detailed knowledge of Australian politics I wanted to leave open the possibility that they weren't actually lying abhumans who leave a slime trail when they move...
That's a remote possibility anywhere. After all, we are talking about politicians (or wannabes, anyway) after all. The ones who aren't lying abhumans leaving a slime trail when they move are extreme outliers anywhere in the world.
true democracy
Define it with something other than "true." Using that word in that manner is only objectively correct if you mean completely unfettered direct democracy, with no restrictions on vote topic, wherein a simple majority may command anything including servitude or death to the minority on a whim. Since you go on to talk about banning PACs, lobbying, etc, all of which would be completely allowable in a direct democracy, I'm going to assume that is not, in fact, what you actually meant. If that's not what you meant, then calling it "true" is using the word in the same way certain people use "true American" to denigrate those who do not agree with their positions.
The question, of course, is whether we really want a true democracy.
Absolutely, unequivocally, no.
Direct democracies can be beneficial to a point, but it's harder to create a tyranny of the majority if there is a systematic framework in place which makes changing certain aspects of governmental operation incredibly difficult. All one need do is look at any number of societies in existence now and in the past, where support for incredibly horrible practices was near-universal, to understand why completely unfettering the vote is a terrible idea.
It doesn't make sense to own your own home. Period.
It (usually) doesn't make sense to own your own home as an investment. Otherwise, the above sentence is completely moronic, as most absolute blanket statements tend to be.
I'm surprised there isn't yet a reply to this along the lines of "You drive a truck, ergo you're an asshole and a bully as a driver." I see that all the time, especially in the context of a conversation about driving etiquette.
I drive a full-size truck myself, and am a very polite driver. The nice thing about my truck is it forces people around me to be polite as well.
All private enterprise is 100% about screwing people over. I mean, haven't you heard of the roving packs of fast food employees whose job it is to drag someone eating a competitor's product into an alley and beat the crap out of them? And don't get me started on beauticians. Those ******* will CUT you if you so much as look at another stylist. And they'll cut you if you don't.