Uh, I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm suggesting that someone at the FDA is getting attention focused on antibiotic use before there is a food disaster (caused by antibiotics) by withdrawing their recommendation. It's already gotten people on Slashdot worked up.
I've wondered if theaters shouldn't go back to the old serials formula. With digital projectors, it can finally work again. It'd be a lot like TV, but more social.
Every afternoon would have a new episode, from a different series for each day of the week. Make it cheap. Parents could drop their kids off. Kids could socialize. Laser pointer jerk could get it out of his system. An entire system designed to attract the folks you hate. And away from you.
Evenings and weekends would revert to regular movie showings.
How much are you willing to lose? Traveling frequently, things get lost, stolen, or broken. Sometimes all 3.
Example: I had a Kindle 3 (with keyboard and ad supported). It kept me entertained, could browse the web, send and receive emails. I loved not having to recharge except every week or so (with heavy use). I traveled all over of China with it, leaving my work laptop at the home office.
Was it as good as anything you listed? Hell no! But when I lost it (got left on a plane, my own stupid fault), I was only out $114. Soon after, I bought a Kindle Touch for $79. Fills the same niche. And when I lose it (I'm assuming I'll do something stupid again), I'll move on.
As an aside, the Touch is better when browsing the web than the keyboard version, but sucks as a reader. With narrow borders, you end up accidentally turning pages or chapters all the time. Side mounted buttons end up being far superior to touching the display.
They shouldn't have withdrawn their recommendation against antibiotics in feed (saying the right thing is never wrong in science)
There's a tiny chance they are smart enough to know that. Someone may be counting on the backlash. Can you think of a better way to get publicity without an actual food disaster?
Bt is a toxin from bacteria. And specifically toxic to insects. It probably doesn't alter the flora of your gut any more than the thousands of other trace chemicals found naturally in all foods (including organic).
Yoghurt has a bigger effect. A dose of antibiotics is like a nuke compared to the 3-stooges slap fest effect other trace chemicals have on your gut. And we survive both just fine. The human digestive system is amazingly robust.
Yes, you've identified a risk. But put it in perspective.
From Mozilla's perspective, Chrome and Firefox are competitors. Mozilla's goal is to spread the Firefox browser, but Chrome hinders that.
From Google's perspective, Chrome and Firefox are cooperative... under the current agreement. Google's goal is to maximize traffic to Google. By having 2 significant competitors to IE, they can (assuming browser parity) capture 2/3 of traffic instead of 50% (Chrome, but Mozilla is neutral) or 1/3 (Chrome, but Mozilla goes with MS).
Of course they could have not bothered to create Chrome and let Mozilla drive 50% of traffic for free. But that extra traffic is worth far more than what they are paying for Chrome development and Mozilla loyalty. Revenue today and years to come.
I'd have to go digging for the studies I saw, but they were for chronic use. Adults and adolescent. Haven't seen anything on short term exposure.
The diseases you mention, it isn't used as a treatment, it's used as a palliative. Reduces the symptoms of those diseases, but doesn't reverse them. Still very useful. What's missing is what chemical (potentially one of the cannibinoids) is doing the work. Currently weed is bred primarily for intoxicating effects, not health effects. Too bad too. We're missing a chance to make them truly effective.
The FDA doesn't study any drugs. It studies the documentation sent to it. If the documentation demonstrates a drug is safe and efficacious, they will clear it for marketing. It'll still be illegal to buy, sell, own, just as if plutonium were shown to safely cure the common cold. FDA is only one gate. Prove a formulation is safe and effective and they won't throw you in jail for marketing it for the purposes you proved. Change the formulation or try to market it for some other use and they will still get you.
But in theory it is possible. It'll be pretty hard for an herbal based medicine. There are formulation requirements (purity, concentration, dosage, kinetics) that are hard to maintain for raw plant material. Start growing anything out of spec and to the FDA it'll be the same as a if your manufacturing plant started making weird batches of chemical based pharmaceuticals. Trying to get approval for wider specs means higher costs and risks.
I think it'd be great if folks contributed to a big fund to try and did an FDA study.
Sorry, just trying to explain that the FDA is a side issue. Personally I don't have a problem with weed. In and of itself... it's fairly benign. I am concerned about it as a gateway drug. Not from literature, but several family members ending up destroyed or dead. Chasing a bigger high. So forgive me if I seem a bit overly cautious. I can even support legalization... if people are willing to understand it won't be all roses.
Seen some of the new studies that show brain damage from long term usage of cannabis? Peer reviewed. Not very popular reading. Appears to be particularly distinct with adolescents.
As for treatment of illness and diseases, I'm not aware of any. Palliative properties, yes, very good at that. But haven't heard of any treatments. I'd love to learn of them.
Oh, and it's a fact: the FDA has not found a medical use. It's because no one has paid for the clinical trials. Collect the money, run the trials, and you can reverse that.
I'd like add one other reason to the other replies: jurisdiction. Civilian courts cover specific territory (a county or state for example). The early US was designed with states as sovereign, not the federal government. But that created a small problem of "under what law do we prosecute those in the military, especially if they aren't even in a particular state?" (for example, a ship far at sea, built in Massachusetts, launched out of New York, captained by a Virginian and crewed by Pennsylvanians. Oh, and a non-citizen defendent) The answer was to create a specific system for the military that spanned states and any other location they might operate. One that ran in parallel, but did not usurp, state civilian courts.
As for a show trial, all trials are show trials to the extent they are intended to serve as a deterrent to others. From traffic court to murder trials. It's the fairness of the trial you're really wondering about.
It'll be as fair as any other high-profile case you've ever seen. Which is to say most of those involved know they are being watched and will either be fair (because that's their nature) or at least try to appear fair, but humans screw up. The appeals system helps.
I just avoid the "here" and "there". Use gmail to email people with gmail accounts, yahoo for yahoo, and so on. Nothing ever traverses an external network.
Some of the.gov and.mil addresses are harder to come by. But the security is worth it.
Because both the iodine added to table salt (KCl for Mortons) and silver iodide (AgCl) are ionic compounds. When ingested, the body sees both sources of iodine as identical.
So in the context of iodine effects on the body, they've been the same for about 100 years now.
You mean the guy running the 7-11? He'd get robbed blind if he didn't have some sort of weapon behind the counter. We've had thousands or Iranian drones end up in the US (joining all us drones already here). Worst that has happened has been heated debates on posted price of a Big Gulp.
Seriously, the reason Iran, China, and everyone else doesn't bother with drones and spy planes is they can just buy a ticket to the US, rent a car, and visit most of the country. That is if they can't just Google the information from home. Still want aerial photos? Rent a plane and snap a few pictures.
The first state to do this at the k-12 level won't just save money, they will earn cash. The trick is to license to other states. And do it cheap enough that it's cheaper to license than to create an independent program.
Nah, Jesus was the first to point out the advantages of cloud storage. Of course it's a proprietary system owned and run by his dad. But it's been in operation for a few millennium with billions of subscribers. I haven't heard a complaint from any of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm suggesting that someone at the FDA is getting attention focused on antibiotic use before there is a food disaster (caused by antibiotics) by withdrawing their recommendation. It's already gotten people on Slashdot worked up.
I've wondered if theaters shouldn't go back to the old serials formula. With digital projectors, it can finally work again. It'd be a lot like TV, but more social.
Every afternoon would have a new episode, from a different series for each day of the week. Make it cheap. Parents could drop their kids off. Kids could socialize. Laser pointer jerk could get it out of his system. An entire system designed to attract the folks you hate. And away from you.
Evenings and weekends would revert to regular movie showings.
How much are you willing to lose? Traveling frequently, things get lost, stolen, or broken. Sometimes all 3.
Example: I had a Kindle 3 (with keyboard and ad supported). It kept me entertained, could browse the web, send and receive emails. I loved not having to recharge except every week or so (with heavy use). I traveled all over of China with it, leaving my work laptop at the home office.
Was it as good as anything you listed? Hell no! But when I lost it (got left on a plane, my own stupid fault), I was only out $114. Soon after, I bought a Kindle Touch for $79. Fills the same niche. And when I lose it (I'm assuming I'll do something stupid again), I'll move on.
As an aside, the Touch is better when browsing the web than the keyboard version, but sucks as a reader. With narrow borders, you end up accidentally turning pages or chapters all the time. Side mounted buttons end up being far superior to touching the display.
There's a tiny chance they are smart enough to know that. Someone may be counting on the backlash. Can you think of a better way to get publicity without an actual food disaster?
Bt is a toxin from bacteria. And specifically toxic to insects. It probably doesn't alter the flora of your gut any more than the thousands of other trace chemicals found naturally in all foods (including organic).
Yoghurt has a bigger effect. A dose of antibiotics is like a nuke compared to the 3-stooges slap fest effect other trace chemicals have on your gut. And we survive both just fine. The human digestive system is amazingly robust.
Yes, you've identified a risk. But put it in perspective.
For now.
From Mozilla's perspective, Chrome and Firefox are competitors. Mozilla's goal is to spread the Firefox browser, but Chrome hinders that.
From Google's perspective, Chrome and Firefox are cooperative ... under the current agreement. Google's goal is to maximize traffic to Google. By having 2 significant competitors to IE, they can (assuming browser parity) capture 2/3 of traffic instead of 50% (Chrome, but Mozilla is neutral) or 1/3 (Chrome, but Mozilla goes with MS).
Of course they could have not bothered to create Chrome and let Mozilla drive 50% of traffic for free. But that extra traffic is worth far more than what they are paying for Chrome development and Mozilla loyalty. Revenue today and years to come.
Google is using game theory to protect revenue.
Thanks for the response.
I'd have to go digging for the studies I saw, but they were for chronic use. Adults and adolescent. Haven't seen anything on short term exposure.
The diseases you mention, it isn't used as a treatment, it's used as a palliative. Reduces the symptoms of those diseases, but doesn't reverse them. Still very useful. What's missing is what chemical (potentially one of the cannibinoids) is doing the work. Currently weed is bred primarily for intoxicating effects, not health effects. Too bad too. We're missing a chance to make them truly effective.
The FDA doesn't study any drugs. It studies the documentation sent to it. If the documentation demonstrates a drug is safe and efficacious, they will clear it for marketing. It'll still be illegal to buy, sell, own, just as if plutonium were shown to safely cure the common cold. FDA is only one gate. Prove a formulation is safe and effective and they won't throw you in jail for marketing it for the purposes you proved. Change the formulation or try to market it for some other use and they will still get you.
But in theory it is possible. It'll be pretty hard for an herbal based medicine. There are formulation requirements (purity, concentration, dosage, kinetics) that are hard to maintain for raw plant material. Start growing anything out of spec and to the FDA it'll be the same as a if your manufacturing plant started making weird batches of chemical based pharmaceuticals. Trying to get approval for wider specs means higher costs and risks.
I think it'd be great if folks contributed to a big fund to try and did an FDA study.
Sorry, just trying to explain that the FDA is a side issue. Personally I don't have a problem with weed. In and of itself ... it's fairly benign. I am concerned about it as a gateway drug. Not from literature, but several family members ending up destroyed or dead. Chasing a bigger high. So forgive me if I seem a bit overly cautious. I can even support legalization ... if people are willing to understand it won't be all roses.
We can't trust any American corporations? Not even FSF?
Ah, the title doesn't match the article.
Seen some of the new studies that show brain damage from long term usage of cannabis? Peer reviewed. Not very popular reading. Appears to be particularly distinct with adolescents.
As for treatment of illness and diseases, I'm not aware of any. Palliative properties, yes, very good at that. But haven't heard of any treatments. I'd love to learn of them.
Oh, and it's a fact: the FDA has not found a medical use. It's because no one has paid for the clinical trials. Collect the money, run the trials, and you can reverse that.
When did Canada get Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico?!? I really should pay closer attention.
Don't forget to cite the Apple patents. Sounds like they are interested in screwing customers too.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/
From back when Hollywood bad guys weren't all from the Middle East.
I'd like add one other reason to the other replies: jurisdiction. Civilian courts cover specific territory (a county or state for example). The early US was designed with states as sovereign, not the federal government. But that created a small problem of "under what law do we prosecute those in the military, especially if they aren't even in a particular state?" (for example, a ship far at sea, built in Massachusetts, launched out of New York, captained by a Virginian and crewed by Pennsylvanians. Oh, and a non-citizen defendent) The answer was to create a specific system for the military that spanned states and any other location they might operate. One that ran in parallel, but did not usurp, state civilian courts.
A pragmatic solution to jurisdiction.
You do realize I was making a joke, right?
I'm not in the military, but found this interesting article that gives details on what you are asking: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/aacmartial2.htm
As for a show trial, all trials are show trials to the extent they are intended to serve as a deterrent to others. From traffic court to murder trials. It's the fairness of the trial you're really wondering about.
It'll be as fair as any other high-profile case you've ever seen. Which is to say most of those involved know they are being watched and will either be fair (because that's their nature) or at least try to appear fair, but humans screw up. The appeals system helps.
I just avoid the "here" and "there". Use gmail to email people with gmail accounts, yahoo for yahoo, and so on. Nothing ever traverses an external network.
Some of the .gov and .mil addresses are harder to come by. But the security is worth it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding "120" and "millions"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_from_starvation_each_year_in_America
Doh! I meant KI and AgI. Oh well. Must be all that fluoride in the water.
Because both the iodine added to table salt (KCl for Mortons) and silver iodide (AgCl) are ionic compounds. When ingested, the body sees both sources of iodine as identical.
So in the context of iodine effects on the body, they've been the same for about 100 years now.
And yet iodine is added to table salt.
I think you may want look up the words "concentration" and "dosage."
You mean the guy running the 7-11? He'd get robbed blind if he didn't have some sort of weapon behind the counter. We've had thousands or Iranian drones end up in the US (joining all us drones already here). Worst that has happened has been heated debates on posted price of a Big Gulp.
Seriously, the reason Iran, China, and everyone else doesn't bother with drones and spy planes is they can just buy a ticket to the US, rent a car, and visit most of the country. That is if they can't just Google the information from home. Still want aerial photos? Rent a plane and snap a few pictures.
The first state to do this at the k-12 level won't just save money, they will earn cash. The trick is to license to other states. And do it cheap enough that it's cheaper to license than to create an independent program.
How about a giant statue of him .... holding a giant menorah and standing next to a Christmas tree?
Nah, Jesus was the first to point out the advantages of cloud storage. Of course it's a proprietary system owned and run by his dad. But it's been in operation for a few millennium with billions of subscribers. I haven't heard a complaint from any of them.