In fact, the monopoly may be related to high prices and other problems - to quote the Mises article:
AMA's initial drive to increase physician incomes was motivated by increasing competition from homeopaths.... This competition did serious damage to the incomes of AMA allopaths. In the year before AMA's founding, the New York Journal of Medicine stated that competition with homeopathy caused "a large pecuniary loss" to allopaths. In the same issue, the dean of the school of medicine at the University of Michigan railed against competition because it made treating sickness "arduous and un-remunerative."
Apart from reversing rapidly declining incomes, allopaths also wanted to rescue their public reputations, which quite reasonably suffered given their proficiency in killing patients through such crude practices as bloodletting ("exsanguination") or mercury injections (poisoning). A few allopaths desired adulation normally reserved for star athletes and actors. The Massachusetts Medical Society opined in 1848 that physicians should be "looked upon by the mass of mankind with a veneration almost superstitious."
"To accomplish the twin goals of artificially elevated incomes and worship by patients, AMA formulated a two-pronged strategy for the labor market for physicians. First, use the coercive power of the state to limit the practices of physician competitors such as homeopaths, pharmacists, midwives, nurses, and later, chiropractors. Second, significantly restrict entrance to the profession by restricting the number of approved medical schools in operation and thus the number of students admitted to those approved schools yearly."
I don't think that's justifiable from the context. The parallelism between "dinos" and "reptiles" later in the sentence militates for a sense of simple plural in both nouns, (dinos and reptiles) rather than a possessive singular for dino's...doesn't it?
But, like kudos, dinos looks weird, and Dave Barry has informed us that the true meaning of the apostrophe is that an "s" is coming up.
Off even the OT topic:
Bush man-date, that'd be that Gannon/Guckert dude, eh? (heh-heh)
up one level of off-topic:
2000 was well documented - I like Greg Palast's account the best (and the noive of that woman to now run for elective office in Florida - of course, if you know the table's rigged, it's hard to resist placing your own bet)
I think you're saying, oh well, he cheated in 2000 but darn it, he actually won in 2004.
But, 2004 had numerous discrepancies. Here's a link with a few details. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.ht ml Lots more out there.
...and this is just what's known. The administration famous for executive orders to keep presidential papers secret would be likely to have secrets that nobody's found out yet, n'est ce pas?
So, no, I would not agree that Bush has won the presidency at any time. He and his team have demonstrated an impressive capacity to work together to advance their interests and defeat their foes, but they have not colored within the lines. Some express outrage at breaches of electoral process, warmongering and profiteering, and if this is "hating Bush" then it certainly isn't gratuitous.
Outrage isn't my style, though. Please tell me what you find to admire about this person, and we can think happy thoughts together.
Back on-topic - why would using "linux" in a company name be something that would matter? I think patents, copyrights and trademarks are silly, but what do I know? I'm benighted enough to think that it would be more fun to advance the cause of human knowledge than to sit on a buttload of money and sue anybody who doesn't give me my props. Although either one might be fun, if you did it with the right people.
cometman -
"acceptance, forgiveness, and love - now that's a philosophy of life" - Woody Allen in Broadway Danny Rose
didn't everybody actually really not so much visualize him as saying it, as to relate his attitude to DOS's memory limits (you couldn't get beyond 640k without gyrated-mem, or mem-contort, or some such)
this is probably something that's already been dealt with & may be like a Soviet Russia joke, if so I'm a Wanker
http://www.bundyology.com/bpeg.html
"From what I've read about LaRouche, the idea of him as president is almost as scary as Manson as president. The guy is completely apeshit. I've seen a lot of his cultists around the Bay area"
Au contraire, Larouche as President would be like having your smartest, coolest old poli sci professor as president. Why do you think his followers like him so much?
Larouche and his staff write interesting stuff. They use classical and mathematical references, are excited about the life of the mind, not the Barton Fink life of the mind, either, but the contesting of schools of thought down through the ages. Leibniz vs Newton, Walter Scott vs Poe, etc.
Their political analysis is fact-based, rather than financial-contributor-based (no wonder it seems odd)
For instance, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3048iraq_58_ const.html won't fit in a soundbite, but has more interesting facts on the subject than I can remember from a lifetime of TV news, or newspaper articles.
He crossed George Bush senior & claims to have been framed on the fraud charges. Ok, before we dismiss that out of hand, think about what resources you could call on if you used to run the CIA.
I'm not in Larouche's organization in any capacity, it's just, the guy can write, has formidable ideas and I love to read good writing. He's interesting. I had been leaning Libertarian-ward (obviously being part of the mainstream isn't real important to me) but not completely happy with them; looking around. Not ruling anybody out.
He has a powerful vision - it may not be exactly the same as my vision, but I think he's an elder worthy of respect and a hearing.
He has been marginalized by the "mainstream" the same way that Microsoft (or SCO) would like to marginalize Linux. There is worth in his train of thought but it takes time and effort to appreciate it. (Like the command line)
So if you hear the name Larouche, at least in addition to "loony" you might now think "one person on slashdot actually thinks he's worth reading -although what does HE know?"
mike bailey
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm bush 41 bio
Slashdot Mirror
come now, the Florida election in 2000 was badly flawed by the use of voter purges. The NAACP won a civil suit about this issue. http://archive.democrats.com/view2.cfm?id=10360 The system that exists was systematically abused by the Republican party in 2000. Even worse abuses were alleged in 2004, especially in Ohio. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Republican_IT_consultant_subpoenaed_in_case_0929.html however, the subpoena in question could not be carried out due to the death of the IT consultant in a plane crash.
Not every viewpoint agrees that the current implementation of licensure is optimal http://www.mises.org/story/1547
.... This competition did serious damage to the incomes of AMA allopaths. In the year before AMA's founding, the New York Journal of Medicine stated that competition with homeopathy caused "a large pecuniary loss" to allopaths. In the same issue, the dean of the school of medicine at the University of Michigan railed against competition because it made treating sickness "arduous and un-remunerative."
In fact, the monopoly may be related to high prices and other problems - to quote the Mises article:
AMA's initial drive to increase physician incomes was motivated by increasing competition from homeopaths
Apart from reversing rapidly declining incomes, allopaths also wanted to rescue their public reputations, which quite reasonably suffered given their proficiency in killing patients through such crude practices as bloodletting ("exsanguination") or mercury injections (poisoning). A few allopaths desired adulation normally reserved for star athletes and actors. The Massachusetts Medical Society opined in 1848 that physicians should be "looked upon by the mass of mankind with a veneration almost superstitious."
"To accomplish the twin goals of artificially elevated incomes and worship by patients, AMA formulated a two-pronged strategy for the labor market for physicians.
First, use the coercive power of the state to limit the practices of physician competitors such as homeopaths, pharmacists, midwives, nurses, and later, chiropractors.
Second, significantly restrict entrance to the profession by restricting the number of approved medical schools in operation and thus the number of students admitted to those approved schools yearly."
The Moller FAQ page says they expect it within 4 years.
I don't think that's justifiable from the context. The parallelism between "dinos" and "reptiles" later in the sentence militates for a sense of simple plural in both nouns, (dinos and reptiles) rather than a possessive singular for dino's...doesn't it?
But, like kudos, dinos looks weird, and Dave Barry has informed us that the true meaning of the apostrophe is that an "s" is coming up.
up one level of off-topic:t ml
...and this is just what's known. The administration famous for executive orders to keep presidential papers secret would be likely to have secrets that nobody's found out yet, n'est ce pas?
2000 was well documented - I like Greg Palast's account the best (and the noive of that woman to now run for elective office in Florida - of course, if you know the table's rigged, it's hard to resist placing your own bet)
I think you're saying, oh well, he cheated in 2000 but darn it, he actually won in 2004. But, 2004 had numerous discrepancies. Here's a link with a few details. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.h
Lots more out there.
So, no, I would not agree that Bush has won the presidency at any time. He and his team have demonstrated an impressive capacity to work together to advance their interests and defeat their foes, but they have not colored within the lines. Some express outrage at breaches of electoral process, warmongering and profiteering, and if this is "hating Bush" then it certainly isn't gratuitous.
Outrage isn't my style, though. Please tell me what you find to admire about this person, and we can think happy thoughts together.
Back on-topic - why would using "linux" in a company name be something that would matter? I think patents, copyrights and trademarks are silly, but what do I know? I'm benighted enough to think that it would be more fun to advance the cause of human knowledge than to sit on a buttload of money and sue anybody who doesn't give me my props. Although either one might be fun, if you did it with the right people.
cometman - "acceptance, forgiveness, and love - now that's a philosophy of life" - Woody Allen in Broadway Danny Rose
didn't everybody actually really not so much visualize him as saying it, as to relate his attitude to DOS's memory limits (you couldn't get beyond 640k without gyrated-mem, or mem-contort, or some such) this is probably something that's already been dealt with & may be like a Soviet Russia joke, if so I'm a Wanker http://www.bundyology.com/bpeg.html
didn't they send you something? I got something in the mail (newsletter maybe)
"From what I've read about LaRouche, the idea of him as president is almost as scary as Manson as president. The guy is completely apeshit. I've seen a lot of his cultists around the Bay area" Au contraire, Larouche as President would be like having your smartest, coolest old poli sci professor as president. Why do you think his followers like him so much? Larouche and his staff write interesting stuff. They use classical and mathematical references, are excited about the life of the mind, not the Barton Fink life of the mind, either, but the contesting of schools of thought down through the ages. Leibniz vs Newton, Walter Scott vs Poe, etc. Their political analysis is fact-based, rather than financial-contributor-based (no wonder it seems odd) For instance, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3048iraq_58_ const.html won't fit in a soundbite, but has more interesting facts on the subject than I can remember from a lifetime of TV news, or newspaper articles.
He crossed George Bush senior & claims to have been framed on the fraud charges. Ok, before we dismiss that out of hand, think about what resources you could call on if you used to run the CIA.
I'm not in Larouche's organization in any capacity, it's just, the guy can write, has formidable ideas and I love to read good writing. He's interesting. I had been leaning Libertarian-ward (obviously being part of the mainstream isn't real important to me) but not completely happy with them; looking around. Not ruling anybody out.
He has a powerful vision - it may not be exactly the same as my vision, but I think he's an elder worthy of respect and a hearing.
He has been marginalized by the "mainstream" the same way that Microsoft (or SCO) would like to marginalize Linux. There is worth in his train of thought but it takes time and effort to appreciate it. (Like the command line)
So if you hear the name Larouche, at least in addition to "loony" you might now think "one person on slashdot actually thinks he's worth reading -although what does HE know?"
mike bailey
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm bush 41 bio