Yes, well nutrition is a very good example of perfect confusion actually. The media, or the tabloids in any case are wont to blow up the significance of every "new discovery" immensely. New super diets and what not, this and that will kill you etc. It's usually a product of narrow-minded studies but the media doesn't care about the methods. On the other hand, the public health departments come off as more or less inert, which doesn't help either.
I think the big problem for the general public is knowing when there is a scientific consensus, especially since there will almost always be at least one differing opinion.
Absolutely, that's a fair point. I see I was a bit frivolous with my usage of 'obviously', but I've the notion that a settlement is to save time and money instead of just going through the motions in court. This is generally a good thing. This whole NDA changes everything though, it's a low blow. While I now realise the economical reasons for accepting such an offer, the moral implications are dubious. Paying him off communicates to me that Gulliver was in the wrong and that they're (sort of) sorry. Putting a gag on the man mucks it up completely, saying rather that they realised that they did wrong but that they're NOT sorry. In the end he lost his money since the agreement was voided, all fair, but the agreement should never have included a non-disclosure clause. Gulliver, if they were honest, should never have put it on the table and the man should never have agreed to it. The lawsuit shouldn't have been about the money, but about fair compensation. IMHO, being told to take the money and shut up is not fair compensation. So in accepting, he acknowledged it was about the money and Gulliver, by proposing, acknowledged they didn't care about fair compensation. Now both sides look like shit and so, nothing was accomplished. Just my $.02.
Gulliver obviously settled because they weren't sure about their chances to win the lawsuit, so why should he accept their terms of non-disclosure and not just see it through? It feels like he gave away a winning hand. If someone's done you wrong you'd want to tell people about it. IANAL so maybe I'm missing something.
I use WhatsApp and have unlimited free SMS. WhatsApping is useless for me in a 1v1 conversation, but group chats are where the attraction lies. Also my sister isn't officially allowed to send private messages from her work phone, but WhatsApp circumvents that.
Norway is, I think, mostly hydroelectric and probably at peak coverage already. I wonder, how much power can they supply Germany with? Cool map by the way.
I'm not sure I agree but I'm not wading into the quagmire that is morality right now. I just wanted to add that all pharm ads are not illegal in Europe, just the prescription drugs. Which is as it should be. Patients with little or no understanding of their treatment cannot be expected to be able to choose correctly their own medication. Especially if their knowledge stems from whether the TV said this or that drug is pretty good or not. Rx drugs require a prescription for a good reason, these are serious forces we are messing with. A single-payer healthcare system would do you good from an economical point of view though, since a larger purchasing entity can demand better prices from the private sector.
I am unsure how the process works in the US, but in Europe no new drug will be approved unless it's verifiably better than already existing drugs. So simply exchanging a functional group for a bioequivalent won't get you anywhere. Meaning that the money is spent on better cures. Basic research is already mostly done by universities (funded with tax money) but I doubt actual product development would be done more efficiently by them since (IMHO) a lot of university research projects tend to go nowhere or reach already acknowledged conclusions.
However, purchase of drugs should be done by as large entities as possible for maximum efficiency and lowest cost for the individual. As it is today, the US is where most pharmaceutical companies earn money, because they can charge higher prices per pill since buying entities are smaller. This means pharmaceutical companies will largely ignore markets where they will have to deal with societal scale buying entities, and we're all worse off for it. You pay more, we get fewer drugs.
On the other hand, too much vaccination and too much hygiene seem to be responsible for more sickness by keeping immune systems weak. Not only is there solid research on this, but it's quite instructive to watch the farm kids out running barefoot in pig shit... and never get sick. And let's face it: there are worse ways to die, like cancer.
What solid research? Farm kids don't get allergies as much, but they get sick just like the rest of us. Also, you don't seem to know how vaccines work. They strengthen the immune system by showing it an inert form of the pathogen so that it can react instantly on the next encounter.
You'd also be trying to succeed where ~10^40 viruses and virons failed over 10^12 years.
A good natural virus doesn't kill the host as it is parasitic in nature and needs it to survive and replicate. I wouldn't say that they've failed just because we aren't dead yet. If the hypothetical alien space invaders could get their hands/paws/tentacles on some Ebola they'd just need a good dispersion system.
The first thing I did when I read the summary was Ctrl+F "multivac":) In order for the last question you'd have to make sure it doesn't commit suicide by proxy first though.
Because they can. I'll bet they've thought about it and concluded that the most profitable option is to keep their cable bundling for as long as possible. I live in Sweden where HBO opened up shop about a year ago as a purely digital service for ~12 USD/month (at current rates).
Coming soon to the silver screen: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2335888/. Pretty good timing if you ask me. This is off-topic, but I'm looking forward too se how much blatant product placement they can manage in this instalment. Hamilton 2 was almost ridiculous when they had a Microsoft roll-up randomly placed in a Lebanese airport.
As the executive you'd still be allowed a wage one hundred times that of the lowest paid worker which seems very fair to me. Besides, your business is unlikely to ever reach the kind of turn-over where you could afford to pay yourself that much. If it does you'll be the owner of the company so your net worth would still be very large. An argument based on personal risk in this context is flawed. I'd rather see a raised progressive tax rather than a flat out ban on high wages though, because I have a feeling that won't pan out. Anyway, best of luck to you in the future.
It's about time we had some more nuclear monst^H^H^H^H^H boy scouts! They used to call me mad, you know. And why? Because I dared to dream of my own race of atomic monsters, atomic supermen with octagonal shaped bodies that suck blood...
I'm still on the iPhone 3GS, correct me if I'm wrong but the charging cable is basically 30-pin USB. Having to pay ~10 times the standard price of a USB cable for a new one is pretty shitty. You can get cheaper off-brand cables, but they keep trying to lock down on those. It's not a lot of money but it's the principle of the matter that bothers me. So in that sense, having a standard for the device as well is a good thing. Although, maybe the standard should be Lightning and not USB, provided that they disallow the manufacturer to deny cables from other providers.
I agree on all points and this is really all that is necessary to fix copyright. The original intent was to protect the creators of artistic works and at the same time give them incentive to keep creating. It was never this monstrosity that we call copyright today. Instead, the ridiculous time periods granted is hardly an incentive to continue creating but rather to create one or two smash-hits and then retire. I won't even go into the corporate mess that has arisen.
A comparison I've been thinking about is comparing with pharmaceutical patents. The pharmaceutical industry is super-high risk as the average pharmaceutical costs around $1b to bring to the market and yet 9/10 candidate drugs fails to get there. Even getting a drug out on the market is no guarantee for success. The patent right is only twenty years because pharmaceuticals are seen as essential to the general well-being of society, but it works. So why the hell should an artist (and then a corporation after the death of the artist) should have 70 years to collect profit when the risk is nowhere near as high? Not to mention that the artist is unlikely to be alive for that entire period of time, or as in the States be dead for 70 years.
Being from the "wrong" country/culture is hardly a viable reason. I'm sure there are millions of people who enjoy Dr Who in the US. I used to like it, I watched the 3 first (new) seasons and I enjoyed the first season. The second had its moments but the third was quite frankly hard to watch. I'm not sure if the show declined in quality or if I simply wearied of it. Maybe Tennant was simply a too implausible and contradictory character for my tastes. Anyway, I too have difficulty understanding how people can be almost fanatical about the show (calling themselves 'Whovians' and what not). Some arcs have been really good, but the overall quality of the series is simply too bad for me to be able to follow it any longer than I did. I am neither British nor American by the way.
I usually hike through Swedish Lapland once a year in summer. Even though night is like 2-3 hours, it does feel like it's easier to rise earlier in the morning when I get back. Although it only lasts for like a week or maybe two.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, well nutrition is a very good example of perfect confusion actually. The media, or the tabloids in any case are wont to blow up the significance of every "new discovery" immensely. New super diets and what not, this and that will kill you etc. It's usually a product of narrow-minded studies but the media doesn't care about the methods. On the other hand, the public health departments come off as more or less inert, which doesn't help either.
I think the big problem for the general public is knowing when there is a scientific consensus, especially since there will almost always be at least one differing opinion.
Absolutely, that's a fair point. I see I was a bit frivolous with my usage of 'obviously', but I've the notion that a settlement is to save time and money instead of just going through the motions in court. This is generally a good thing. This whole NDA changes everything though, it's a low blow. While I now realise the economical reasons for accepting such an offer, the moral implications are dubious. Paying him off communicates to me that Gulliver was in the wrong and that they're (sort of) sorry. Putting a gag on the man mucks it up completely, saying rather that they realised that they did wrong but that they're NOT sorry. In the end he lost his money since the agreement was voided, all fair, but the agreement should never have included a non-disclosure clause. Gulliver, if they were honest, should never have put it on the table and the man should never have agreed to it. The lawsuit shouldn't have been about the money, but about fair compensation. IMHO, being told to take the money and shut up is not fair compensation. So in accepting, he acknowledged it was about the money and Gulliver, by proposing, acknowledged they didn't care about fair compensation. Now both sides look like shit and so, nothing was accomplished. Just my $.02.
This statement is false.
Gulliver obviously settled because they weren't sure about their chances to win the lawsuit, so why should he accept their terms of non-disclosure and not just see it through? It feels like he gave away a winning hand. If someone's done you wrong you'd want to tell people about it. IANAL so maybe I'm missing something.
To be fair, "close to zero" isn't zero.
I use WhatsApp and have unlimited free SMS. WhatsApping is useless for me in a 1v1 conversation, but group chats are where the attraction lies. Also my sister isn't officially allowed to send private messages from her work phone, but WhatsApp circumvents that.
Or just:
Norway is, I think, mostly hydroelectric and probably at peak coverage already. I wonder, how much power can they supply Germany with? Cool map by the way.
I'm not sure I agree but I'm not wading into the quagmire that is morality right now. I just wanted to add that all pharm ads are not illegal in Europe, just the prescription drugs. Which is as it should be. Patients with little or no understanding of their treatment cannot be expected to be able to choose correctly their own medication. Especially if their knowledge stems from whether the TV said this or that drug is pretty good or not. Rx drugs require a prescription for a good reason, these are serious forces we are messing with. A single-payer healthcare system would do you good from an economical point of view though, since a larger purchasing entity can demand better prices from the private sector.
I am unsure how the process works in the US, but in Europe no new drug will be approved unless it's verifiably better than already existing drugs. So simply exchanging a functional group for a bioequivalent won't get you anywhere. Meaning that the money is spent on better cures. Basic research is already mostly done by universities (funded with tax money) but I doubt actual product development would be done more efficiently by them since (IMHO) a lot of university research projects tend to go nowhere or reach already acknowledged conclusions.
However, purchase of drugs should be done by as large entities as possible for maximum efficiency and lowest cost for the individual. As it is today, the US is where most pharmaceutical companies earn money, because they can charge higher prices per pill since buying entities are smaller. This means pharmaceutical companies will largely ignore markets where they will have to deal with societal scale buying entities, and we're all worse off for it. You pay more, we get fewer drugs.
On the other hand, too much vaccination and too much hygiene seem to be responsible for more sickness by keeping immune systems weak. Not only is there solid research on this, but it's quite instructive to watch the farm kids out running barefoot in pig shit... and never get sick. And let's face it: there are worse ways to die, like cancer.
What solid research? Farm kids don't get allergies as much, but they get sick just like the rest of us. Also, you don't seem to know how vaccines work. They strengthen the immune system by showing it an inert form of the pathogen so that it can react instantly on the next encounter.
You'd also be trying to succeed where ~10^40 viruses and virons failed over 10^12 years.
A good natural virus doesn't kill the host as it is parasitic in nature and needs it to survive and replicate. I wouldn't say that they've failed just because we aren't dead yet. If the hypothetical alien space invaders could get their hands/paws/tentacles on some Ebola they'd just need a good dispersion system.
Actually, thanks to the tag #XB1M13, you can easily separate the shills from the fanboys. The trouble is avoiding the fanboy stamp.
The first thing I did when I read the summary was Ctrl+F "multivac" :) In order for the last question you'd have to make sure it doesn't commit suicide by proxy first though.
Hah, the joke's on them, I didn't even read the summary!
Because they can. I'll bet they've thought about it and concluded that the most profitable option is to keep their cable bundling for as long as possible. I live in Sweden where HBO opened up shop about a year ago as a purely digital service for ~12 USD/month (at current rates).
Coming soon to the silver screen: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2335888/. Pretty good timing if you ask me. This is off-topic, but I'm looking forward too se how much blatant product placement they can manage in this instalment. Hamilton 2 was almost ridiculous when they had a Microsoft roll-up randomly placed in a Lebanese airport.
As the executive you'd still be allowed a wage one hundred times that of the lowest paid worker which seems very fair to me. Besides, your business is unlikely to ever reach the kind of turn-over where you could afford to pay yourself that much. If it does you'll be the owner of the company so your net worth would still be very large. An argument based on personal risk in this context is flawed. I'd rather see a raised progressive tax rather than a flat out ban on high wages though, because I have a feeling that won't pan out. Anyway, best of luck to you in the future.
...For nine hours.
It's about time we had some more nuclear monst^H^H^H^H^H boy scouts! They used to call me mad, you know. And why? Because I dared to dream of my own race of atomic monsters, atomic supermen with octagonal shaped bodies that suck blood...
I'm still on the iPhone 3GS, correct me if I'm wrong but the charging cable is basically 30-pin USB. Having to pay ~10 times the standard price of a USB cable for a new one is pretty shitty. You can get cheaper off-brand cables, but they keep trying to lock down on those. It's not a lot of money but it's the principle of the matter that bothers me. So in that sense, having a standard for the device as well is a good thing. Although, maybe the standard should be Lightning and not USB, provided that they disallow the manufacturer to deny cables from other providers.
I agree on all points and this is really all that is necessary to fix copyright. The original intent was to protect the creators of artistic works and at the same time give them incentive to keep creating. It was never this monstrosity that we call copyright today. Instead, the ridiculous time periods granted is hardly an incentive to continue creating but rather to create one or two smash-hits and then retire. I won't even go into the corporate mess that has arisen.
A comparison I've been thinking about is comparing with pharmaceutical patents. The pharmaceutical industry is super-high risk as the average pharmaceutical costs around $1b to bring to the market and yet 9/10 candidate drugs fails to get there. Even getting a drug out on the market is no guarantee for success. The patent right is only twenty years because pharmaceuticals are seen as essential to the general well-being of society, but it works. So why the hell should an artist (and then a corporation after the death of the artist) should have 70 years to collect profit when the risk is nowhere near as high? Not to mention that the artist is unlikely to be alive for that entire period of time, or as in the States be dead for 70 years.
Being from the "wrong" country/culture is hardly a viable reason. I'm sure there are millions of people who enjoy Dr Who in the US. I used to like it, I watched the 3 first (new) seasons and I enjoyed the first season. The second had its moments but the third was quite frankly hard to watch. I'm not sure if the show declined in quality or if I simply wearied of it. Maybe Tennant was simply a too implausible and contradictory character for my tastes. Anyway, I too have difficulty understanding how people can be almost fanatical about the show (calling themselves 'Whovians' and what not). Some arcs have been really good, but the overall quality of the series is simply too bad for me to be able to follow it any longer than I did. I am neither British nor American by the way.
I usually hike through Swedish Lapland once a year in summer. Even though night is like 2-3 hours, it does feel like it's easier to rise earlier in the morning when I get back. Although it only lasts for like a week or maybe two.