His words have not been transmitted exactly, but the way New York Times described them strongly suggests that he, in fact, literally used the f-word:
"He raised both his middle fingers and explained, using colorful language, that anyone criticizing Mylan, including its employees, ought to go copulate with themselves."
With English language's limited number of words in this area, I can think of only way to say that "using colorful language".
Government should revoke the patent when it is being abused.
Except that patents were designed with abuse as their very purpose since the very start. Check out for example the backlash against them in 1624.
The reason patents are advertised for did not pass the laugh test in any period of history. Try for example Edison and light bulbs: all he did was a minor improvement over what a long list of other researchers did, yet by abusing patents he stopped innovation for about 50 years.
Should we treat players of GTA with suspicion because the game tells them to kill prostitutes after they give you a blow job?
GTA tells them to kill prostitutes in a game -- with no effect other than flipping a few bits, and satisfying violent urges that a (thankfully, tiny) minority of players would fulfill in RL instead.
If you and me get murdered in RL, though, we do stay dead.
They don't murder or maim unbelievers as they are less evil than their holy books tell them to. They do, however, cheer the murderers, and demand laws to put unbelievers to death. Likewise, most nazis (21M kills) -- or worse, communists (~180M) and christians (~100M) -- didn't personally murder anyone.
The thing is, while Christianity cost us ~1500 years of scientific progress, ~100M of directly killed and untold billions of deprived of important joys of life (because "sin"), the grip of Christianity is slipping and mostly already gone. The Islam, though, is on the rise.
You're condemning a lot of people based solely on the actions of less and 1% of their population.
Have you actually read their holy book? You're assuming the Koran to be like the Bible -- it's not. The latter is a big honking pile of contradictions, and you've been trained to cherry-pick only parts which your religious leaders like. On the other hand, Uthman edited the Koran into a remarkably consistent work. There's even a clause what to do in case of a contradiction -- originally used by Muhammad only as an excuse whenever he wanted to have yet another wife above the limit he himself imposed -- but which then came to play as he transitioned from a mere religious kook into a bloody warlord.
There's a bunch of people who call themselves muslims yet don't actually believe -- they do so mostly out of tradition and of fear of the believers (remember, apostasy is to be punished by death!). Yet those closet unbelievers don't make over 99% of the population as you say, I'd put them at at most 20-30%.
And finally, my hyperbole spewing Progressive, a wafer-thin mint.
Eh? I'm not a "progressive" at all -- heck, I believe Hillary was actually a slightly worse candidate, although not due to Trump not trying. But where the leftards are pushing proverbial attack helicopter as a gender, the rightards are about as insane when it comes to pollution.
And how exactly my argument is a hyperbole? That the facts sound scary doesn't make them any less true. The only error in my post was saying "murder" when non-targetted killing should be called "manslaughter".
And of course, how many people stay alive due to electric power?
You mean, electric power we could get instead preferably from fusion (in near future if actually funded), second best and available today being fission, then some of less harmful renewables?
As for the oft quoted cost of fission, please wrap every chimney of a coal power plant in a condom and store all of its waste -- not just pollutants but even CO2 -- in well-secured storage for hundreds of years, and then you can complain about fission's price.
Another way of calculating: according to a WHO report, air pollution results in 7M deaths per year worldwide. For the 6683 power plants to kill one people per two days, coal would need to produce just 17% of air pollution -- it produces way more than that.
By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!
And you wonder why there's an anti-environmental, anti-science backlash? How about we stop with the hyperbole and present the facts as is, without embellishment or absurd scare tactics? How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years? Did you not think this would undermine public opinion at some point? Well, congratulations. People no longer trust scientists!
And somehow you got modded up to +5, even thought you did nothing to counter the argument other than emotional claims about "hyperbole". Did you even bother to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations? The facts seem to be actually as scary. Coal is this bad.
150000 people die daily. There's 6683 operating coal plants above 30MW worldwide. It is strongly debatable how many deaths can be attributed to pollution -- in China big cities there are claims it's 1/3 total deaths! China makes a good part of world's population and is about 50% urbanized, same as world's average. I don't know the methodology of the source I took the data from (or even remember the place), but their figure of 1/20 sounds like an underestimation to me. But let's take it at face value. Coal power plants have a massive share of pollution compared to other sources, not sure what's the share: for electricity generation it's 44% but I'd guess it's more for heating, steel production, etc. Let's round it to 1/2. That results in 1/40 deaths being attributable to coal, which is more than 1/44 required for the figure of one per two days per power plant.
In this case, though, it'd be reasonable to actually make it cost them. Pollution does cause significant monetary expenses, so what about imposing an import duty on every country that doesn't at least try to fix the problem? It also causes a massive number of deaths worldwide -- estimates wary wildly as it's hard to define how directly a death must be related to be blamed on pollution, but by a rough calculation I get around one death per coal plant per two days. It's a gross oversimplification (no account for the power plant's size, merely count of them), but if you want a sort-of plausible sound bite:
By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!
Thus, if the US refuses to sign at least an agreement of good will, it is reasonable to put them to account for all these deaths. A war to topple a bloody dictator might be arguable, using coal is not.
On the other hand, people are insanely unreasonable when comparing sources of energy. For example, all the "Greens" call nuclear (even fission) the devil, when it's the very least harmful energy source, even compared to those holiest of holy "renewables".
Except that women's longer life doesn't start at death -- they stay healthy way longer than men, and thus are more likely to be fit for work at near-retirement age than men. Just in my family: dad, not retired yet, is unable to work since quite a time for health reasons (even as a programmer), mom keeps working despite being nominally retired (and just returned from a three week long walking vacation at Camino de Compostella), grandma keeps doing her thing in the garden at age of 90. And that's pretty much a rule.
So if ability to work was the reason, the retirement ages would be reversed (men at 60, women at 65).
The concept of retirement is less clear cut in the US, as you have a multitude of concepts, so let's take a look at Poland: you pay a special tax ("ZUS") then, once you reach the retirement age, you receive money according to a formula somewhat based on the amount you paid. You don't have the option to take the money as a lump sum, once your monthly payout is set it can't "run out", your family doesn't inherit the rest if you kick the bucket early (or even before retirement).
This system has lots of unfairness: for example, some groups (miners, policemen, etc) get to retire at a very early age yet receive far bigger pay, farmers are special-cased as they pay a ridiculously low tax ("KRUS") yet receive as much money as the rest, women get to retire 5 years earlier (despite living 8 years longer on the average) yet get the same monthly payment despite having paid less and receiving it 13 years longer, the retirement pay depends on politicians' good will (they always promise massive increases before an election, then universally don't deliver), and so on. But the general concept is simple.
It is obviously not a form of public assistance -- you get back some money you paid for. And in fact, it's a tiny share of what you'd get had you put that tax's worth into a proverbial sock.
But, alas, it goes contrary to the Constitution, and that is very unlikely to be changed.
Well, there's world outside the US. I for one live on the right side of the puddle.
But as for the US, you raise an interesting issue. The body of your Constitution doesn't give any trouble, but a couple of amendments require careful reading:
Amendment XIV, section 2:But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
This doesn't forbid such reduction, merely says dolists don't count. People ineligible to vote don't affect the vote in any way.
Amendment XXIV, section 1:The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
This indeed forbids any positive tax, but not the government giving money to you. All it takes is for the dole to be taxed. A quite pointless exercise as it puts back a portion of the money into the very coffer you just got it from, but matches the wording just fine. And probably also the spirit: it's not about you failing to pay the government.
So here's a solution that should be stable: unless you pay taxes or do something that will bring extra taxes in the future (education, maternity leave), you don't get to vote.
If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin (quote disputed). But if giving those handouts is the only way those who actually work can keep the political power, they need to keep the basic income high enough (or they'd be voted out again).
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 10 on ARM would hurt them as much as it would Intel.
Because AMD has ARM chips in its portfolio. A lateral move is ok for them.
All the top 500 super computers exclusively run Linux.
Not yet, there are two AIX machines, the better one at 386th position.
Literally
His words have not been transmitted exactly, but the way New York Times described them strongly suggests that he, in fact, literally used the f-word:
"He raised both his middle fingers and explained, using colorful language, that anyone criticizing Mylan, including its employees, ought to go copulate with themselves."
With English language's limited number of words in this area, I can think of only way to say that "using colorful language".
Government should revoke the patent when it is being abused.
Except that patents were designed with abuse as their very purpose since the very start. Check out for example the backlash against them in 1624.
The reason patents are advertised for did not pass the laugh test in any period of history. Try for example Edison and light bulbs: all he did was a minor improvement over what a long list of other researchers did, yet by abusing patents he stopped innovation for about 50 years.
But why are you ok with coal without such safeguards?
And please, do quote the number of deaths from Fukushima you want to warn us about.
Nope, features that would actually benefit the user get auto-WONTFIXed. And it's not a new thing.
How is that different from any other 302/303?
Should we treat players of GTA with suspicion because the game tells them to kill prostitutes after they give you a blow job?
GTA tells them to kill prostitutes in a game -- with no effect other than flipping a few bits, and satisfying violent urges that a (thankfully, tiny) minority of players would fulfill in RL instead.
If you and me get murdered in RL, though, we do stay dead.
They don't murder or maim unbelievers as they are less evil than their holy books tell them to. They do, however, cheer the murderers, and demand laws to put unbelievers to death. Likewise, most nazis (21M kills) -- or worse, communists (~180M) and christians (~100M) -- didn't personally murder anyone.
The thing is, while Christianity cost us ~1500 years of scientific progress, ~100M of directly killed and untold billions of deprived of important joys of life (because "sin"), the grip of Christianity is slipping and mostly already gone. The Islam, though, is on the rise.
You're condemning a lot of people based solely on the actions of less and 1% of their population.
Have you actually read their holy book? You're assuming the Koran to be like the Bible -- it's not. The latter is a big honking pile of contradictions, and you've been trained to cherry-pick only parts which your religious leaders like. On the other hand, Uthman edited the Koran into a remarkably consistent work. There's even a clause what to do in case of a contradiction -- originally used by Muhammad only as an excuse whenever he wanted to have yet another wife above the limit he himself imposed -- but which then came to play as he transitioned from a mere religious kook into a bloody warlord.
There's a bunch of people who call themselves muslims yet don't actually believe -- they do so mostly out of tradition and of fear of the believers (remember, apostasy is to be punished by death!). Yet those closet unbelievers don't make over 99% of the population as you say, I'd put them at at most 20-30%.
And finally, my hyperbole spewing Progressive, a wafer-thin mint.
Eh? I'm not a "progressive" at all -- heck, I believe Hillary was actually a slightly worse candidate, although not due to Trump not trying. But where the leftards are pushing proverbial attack helicopter as a gender, the rightards are about as insane when it comes to pollution.
And how exactly my argument is a hyperbole? That the facts sound scary doesn't make them any less true. The only error in my post was saying "murder" when non-targetted killing should be called "manslaughter".
And of course, how many people stay alive due to electric power?
You mean, electric power we could get instead preferably from fusion (in near future if actually funded), second best and available today being fission, then some of less harmful renewables?
As for the oft quoted cost of fission, please wrap every chimney of a coal power plant in a condom and store all of its waste -- not just pollutants but even CO2 -- in well-secured storage for hundreds of years, and then you can complain about fission's price.
Another way of calculating: according to a WHO report, air pollution results in 7M deaths per year worldwide. For the 6683 power plants to kill one people per two days, coal would need to produce just 17% of air pollution -- it produces way more than that.
it'd be reasonable to actually make it cost them
And who enforces them to pay?
The same way your Dear Leader proposed having Mexico pay for the wall.
By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!
And you wonder why there's an anti-environmental, anti-science backlash? How about we stop with the hyperbole and present the facts as is, without embellishment or absurd scare tactics? How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years? Did you not think this would undermine public opinion at some point? Well, congratulations. People no longer trust scientists!
And somehow you got modded up to +5, even thought you did nothing to counter the argument other than emotional claims about "hyperbole". Did you even bother to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations? The facts seem to be actually as scary. Coal is this bad.
150000 people die daily. There's 6683 operating coal plants above 30MW worldwide. It is strongly debatable how many deaths can be attributed to pollution -- in China big cities there are claims it's 1/3 total deaths! China makes a good part of world's population and is about 50% urbanized, same as world's average. I don't know the methodology of the source I took the data from (or even remember the place), but their figure of 1/20 sounds like an underestimation to me. But let's take it at face value. Coal power plants have a massive share of pollution compared to other sources, not sure what's the share: for electricity generation it's 44% but I'd guess it's more for heating, steel production, etc. Let's round it to 1/2. That results in 1/40 deaths being attributable to coal, which is more than 1/44 required for the figure of one per two days per power plant.
In this case, though, it'd be reasonable to actually make it cost them. Pollution does cause significant monetary expenses, so what about imposing an import duty on every country that doesn't at least try to fix the problem? It also causes a massive number of deaths worldwide -- estimates wary wildly as it's hard to define how directly a death must be related to be blamed on pollution, but by a rough calculation I get around one death per coal plant per two days. It's a gross oversimplification (no account for the power plant's size, merely count of them), but if you want a sort-of plausible sound bite:
By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!
Thus, if the US refuses to sign at least an agreement of good will, it is reasonable to put them to account for all these deaths. A war to topple a bloody dictator might be arguable, using coal is not.
On the other hand, people are insanely unreasonable when comparing sources of energy. For example, all the "Greens" call nuclear (even fission) the devil, when it's the very least harmful energy source, even compared to those holiest of holy "renewables".
Except that women's longer life doesn't start at death -- they stay healthy way longer than men, and thus are more likely to be fit for work at near-retirement age than men. Just in my family: dad, not retired yet, is unable to work since quite a time for health reasons (even as a programmer), mom keeps working despite being nominally retired (and just returned from a three week long walking vacation at Camino de Compostella), grandma keeps doing her thing in the garden at age of 90. And that's pretty much a rule.
So if ability to work was the reason, the retirement ages would be reversed (men at 60, women at 65).
This country was founded on "no taxation without representation". The corollary should be true, "no representation without taxation".
This! You got my idea into one concise phrase, thanks! My kingdom for a sock puppet with mod points :)
Any type of clothing you wear.
I'm ok with that as long as you discriminate about gender, and restrict this to ages 18-36 and BMI below 26.
Separation of data is essential, especially in third world countries.
Yeah, especially in third world countries that have "United" in their name. I heard about ones with "States" or "Kingdom", go figure.
The concept of retirement is less clear cut in the US, as you have a multitude of concepts, so let's take a look at Poland: you pay a special tax ("ZUS") then, once you reach the retirement age, you receive money according to a formula somewhat based on the amount you paid. You don't have the option to take the money as a lump sum, once your monthly payout is set it can't "run out", your family doesn't inherit the rest if you kick the bucket early (or even before retirement).
This system has lots of unfairness: for example, some groups (miners, policemen, etc) get to retire at a very early age yet receive far bigger pay, farmers are special-cased as they pay a ridiculously low tax ("KRUS") yet receive as much money as the rest, women get to retire 5 years earlier (despite living 8 years longer on the average) yet get the same monthly payment despite having paid less and receiving it 13 years longer, the retirement pay depends on politicians' good will (they always promise massive increases before an election, then universally don't deliver), and so on. But the general concept is simple.
It is obviously not a form of public assistance -- you get back some money you paid for. And in fact, it's a tiny share of what you'd get had you put that tax's worth into a proverbial sock.
In this case, they'd have to leave at least some portion unrobbed.
But, alas, it goes contrary to the Constitution, and that is very unlikely to be changed.
Well, there's world outside the US. I for one live on the right side of the puddle.
But as for the US, you raise an interesting issue. The body of your Constitution doesn't give any trouble, but a couple of amendments require careful reading:
Amendment XIV, section 2: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
This doesn't forbid such reduction, merely says dolists don't count. People ineligible to vote don't affect the vote in any way.
Amendment XXIV, section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
This indeed forbids any positive tax, but not the government giving money to you. All it takes is for the dole to be taxed. A quite pointless exercise as it puts back a portion of the money into the very coffer you just got it from, but matches the wording just fine. And probably also the spirit: it's not about you failing to pay the government.
So here's a solution that should be stable: unless you pay taxes or do something that will bring extra taxes in the future (education, maternity leave), you don't get to vote.
If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin (quote disputed). But if giving those handouts is the only way those who actually work can keep the political power, they need to keep the basic income high enough (or they'd be voted out again).
More specifically, Google aims to turn Chrome into an equivalent of Windows 10, with all the joys of telemetry.