Two most common problems with Vicodin are constipation and an altered mental status, making this not a very fun drug if you have to go to a thinking intensive job the next morning. Habit forming risks aside (personally I've never had any issues with drugs known to have an addictive risk), the side effects just aren't worth it. I can understand why it's so commonly prescribed though. I know people who absolutely refuse to deal with pain even for a short period of time. These people would surely complain if they had to wait an hour or two for pain to go away because they missed a dose, and I think any doctor (any human even) would get sick of that pretty fast.
Don't get me wrong, I had it checked out later by my doctor. But I'm betting that the ER doctor would have been a lot more insistent that I get the tests if he actually thought something serious might be going down.
I love those. I went to the ER for chest pains, saw a doctor and he told me that based on the symptoms it was just an irritated GI. For that 10 minute consultation, the bill was ~$300. Thanks to just having insurance the bill was cut in half. THEN the insurance covered about $100, leaving me with $50 to pay. What I want to know is, why would I have to pay $300 if I didn't have insurance instead of $150?
IANAD - The effectiveness of Ibuprofen depends on the cause of the pain. In the case of most oral surgery, inflammation is a huge part of the cause of pain. A healthy dose of Ibuprofen (600mg - 800mg) does wonders in most people. The down side is that if you forget to take it and the pain hits, it can take a while for the inflammation to go back down and the pain to subside again. I once had a dentist recommend Ibuprofen after getting an implant (MUCH more invasive than a tooth extraction) and it worked better than any prescription pain killer I had been given before and without the side effects. I've never gone back. I take the prescription from the dentist just in case, but I've never had to get it filled. - IANAD. This is not medical advise.
The only "imperative" imposed by the courts is that "reasonable care" be applied? Why is that so terrible? Why is that so onerous? Most medical care is far, far above that relatively low standard.
The only problem here is that over treating a problem can do more harm than good. Here are a couple of examples of over treatment I have had doctors try to thrust upon me that doctors use as what I am assuming is CYA:
* constipation - perpetual prescription laxatives as opposed to diet change and temporary very effective over-the-counter laxatives
* ADD - over medicating (always trying to suggest I go to higher doses. Note that my refusal resulted in eventually weening off these stimulants in adulthood.)
* CT scans to diagnose minor GI problems
* Vicodin for getting a tooth extracted, Ibuprofen works fine if you don't miss a dose
US emergency medicine guidelines, for example, are extremely aggressive and notorious for over investigating.
Good God I know this part first hand. I went to the ER because I had chest pain in my left side. I'm young, so I thought heart problems were highly unlikely but better safe than sorry. The doctor that saw me surmised that it was probably an irritated GI tract, which I know that I have problems with, and was nothing serious. Then he proceeded to order blood tests, CT scans, and others. I said screw that and refused treatment. A nap did just fine to make the problem pass. Again, some evidence suggests that CT scans may do more harm than good, and really should only be used when necessary. Diagnosing constipation is hardly a proper use for a CT scan and racking me up a couple thousand dollars in medical expenses.
I know this puts me at risk of being seen as quibbling over a definition. But if someone can't have something because they can't afford it, how does making a copy of it instead equate to theft? Tort, illegal, copyright/trademark/patent infringement sure. But theft? If you couldn't afford it to begin with, then your making a copy does not result in the publisher having anything less in terms of money or physical goods. Only if you would have actually purchased the item in the absence of an illegal alternative can it be argued that the publisher actually lost something. And so I have serious problems with using the term theft, which has a very clear legal meaning, to describe copyright infringement. In criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. Since you cannot take copyright from someone, and since making a copy leaves the original undisturbed, it cannot possibly be theft. No one in their right mind would call it theft if you took a seed from a genetically engineered apple you found in the trash that was once bought in a store and planted them to make copies of that apple for your long term free enjoyment.
Relying on copyright to protect your business when that copyrighted item is something that is effortless to reproduce if just plain foolishness. I am sympathetic to copyright holders to some extent. If someone is taking your copyright without permission to make money or use for public promotion, then certainly the copyright holder has a real case to make. But when a market goes south because the product is no longer marketable, then the company in that market needs to either adapt or die. If they fail to adapt, then another business will emerge to fill the void by approaching the market from a different direction.
The 3 months I mentioned was the summer vacation. I didn't bother to mention the standard paid vacation. They also have the prospect of tenure.
I blame the teachers unions for the majority of the problems with what teachers are paid at public schools. I personally witnessed the spirit breaking of a newly minted teacher over the course of a year. Lots of tenured teachers who just don't care because they can't be fired, and there's no greater reward for doing a better job (the reward of well educated students only goes so far for an individual). From the quality of teachers I experienced in school, and the quality of the people I witnessed going into teaching when I was in college, most of them don't deserve much more than what's being offered. It scares me how dumb (for lack of any better term) some of the people were that I saw going to school to become a teacher. And then there are the excellent examples of teachers I have seen who are sadly rewarded no better than the bad ones.
That was in 2006. I was working in academia, not industry. While it was a struggle at times, I got along just fine paying my bills and eating healthily. BTW, 41k as an intern is an abnormally competitive salary even for engineering. Even when I entered industry, I was starting at 40k. "Decent sized" metropolitan area mind you, NOT some huge metropolitan area like LA. In most of the US, $32,000 can be stretched pretty far when you're young.
Where did this $32,000 figure come from? According to the American Federation of Teachers, beginning teachers with a bachelor's degree earned an average of $31,753 in the 2004-05 school year. That's more than my starting salary was as an engineer in a decent sized metropolitan area. Had I been living back in the small town where I grew up, that would be a pretty decent chunk of money. Granted, the salary increase prospect for an engineer is much greater due to the more complex project structures that give engineers much greater advancement opportunity. Still not bad though for having all government holidays and 3 months of vacation.
Off topic, but I would love to know if these guys actually believe the crap they write about their products or if they laugh their asses off in marketing meetings while they come up with it.
Nope. It's just a better made master for CD pressing. This might be of significant interest to the record pressing industry if there is often significant fallout when trying to etch a master. Us consumers will see no difference though.
Expecting significant changes to the way the system works from a beta test is unreasonable. Expectations of what you expect the operating system to be and expectations of the outcome of a beta test are two entirely different things.
A government is not a business. Customers have the option to not buy into a product or service. Citizens do not have the option to ignore laws and not pay taxes. A business needs to be efficient on some level and turn a profit to survive. A government does not. A government has the power to kill it's citizens. A business does not.
SOLUTION! Don't buy Windows! Seriously, I don't have anywhere near the programming skill or knowledge to modify an operating system nor do I have the time or desire to acquire it. I rely on acquiring an operating system that already fits my needs. Whether an operating system is open source or not has very little direct impact on my decision to choose it. And the fact that a software development team can't possibly make every user happy about everything has nothing to do with it being open source or not.
For broad spectrum testing. You think it's easy for a team of Test Engineers in a company to test every single possibility on every conceivable platform? For something as far reaching as a consumer operating system, it's a great idea to get thousands of people to do the basic hardware/software compatibility testing and others for you for free.
Microsoft hasn't done a great job of explaining to the millions of people who've tested Windows 7 that the beta stage is more about catching problems than significantly changing the way the system works.
My impression has always been that alpha testing is for determining whether or not to continue with an approach, and beta testing is for exercising the system to weed out sufficient bugs to continue with a final release. The beta testers complaining sound like they just went in with unreasonable expectations.
This is just standard practice for any chain of command. When I solicit feedback on documents I write at work, I often get conflicting opinions coming back. It's then my job to decide which opinions to accept in the final work. It is not my job to make everyone happy. That does not mean that I don't listen to the feedback I solicit.
They have come out and said she was banned for stating her sexual orientation NOT for being offensive or using offensive language which is extremely clear in their TOS
Yet we have no evidence of this fact beyond hearsay. No direct quote from Microsoft.
And many people consider Muslims to be evil and Blacks to be stupid and Jews to be conspirators. Does that mean these rules should apply to all of those descriptors as well?
This has nothing to do with people getting into fights. According to TFA, she was banned for what she had in her profile. Now granted, there's probably a lot more to this story than what's in the article, but I keep seeing other people trying to say that MS is in the right because mentioning that you are gay will elicit an aggressive response from others. That's just plain flawed logic.
Now my best guess is that this chick either didn't quite use the term "lesbian" in her profile or she didn't use it as the sole descriptor. I am also under the impression that this was all over one single isolated incident.
Slashdot Mirror
Two most common problems with Vicodin are constipation and an altered mental status, making this not a very fun drug if you have to go to a thinking intensive job the next morning. Habit forming risks aside (personally I've never had any issues with drugs known to have an addictive risk), the side effects just aren't worth it. I can understand why it's so commonly prescribed though. I know people who absolutely refuse to deal with pain even for a short period of time. These people would surely complain if they had to wait an hour or two for pain to go away because they missed a dose, and I think any doctor (any human even) would get sick of that pretty fast.
Don't get me wrong, I had it checked out later by my doctor. But I'm betting that the ER doctor would have been a lot more insistent that I get the tests if he actually thought something serious might be going down.
Ever read a hospital bill?
I love those. I went to the ER for chest pains, saw a doctor and he told me that based on the symptoms it was just an irritated GI. For that 10 minute consultation, the bill was ~$300. Thanks to just having insurance the bill was cut in half. THEN the insurance covered about $100, leaving me with $50 to pay. What I want to know is, why would I have to pay $300 if I didn't have insurance instead of $150?
IANAD - The effectiveness of Ibuprofen depends on the cause of the pain. In the case of most oral surgery, inflammation is a huge part of the cause of pain. A healthy dose of Ibuprofen (600mg - 800mg) does wonders in most people. The down side is that if you forget to take it and the pain hits, it can take a while for the inflammation to go back down and the pain to subside again. I once had a dentist recommend Ibuprofen after getting an implant (MUCH more invasive than a tooth extraction) and it worked better than any prescription pain killer I had been given before and without the side effects. I've never gone back. I take the prescription from the dentist just in case, but I've never had to get it filled. - IANAD. This is not medical advise.
The only "imperative" imposed by the courts is that "reasonable care" be applied? Why is that so terrible? Why is that so onerous? Most medical care is far, far above that relatively low standard.
The only problem here is that over treating a problem can do more harm than good. Here are a couple of examples of over treatment I have had doctors try to thrust upon me that doctors use as what I am assuming is CYA:
* constipation - perpetual prescription laxatives as opposed to diet change and temporary very effective over-the-counter laxatives
* ADD - over medicating (always trying to suggest I go to higher doses. Note that my refusal resulted in eventually weening off these stimulants in adulthood.)
* CT scans to diagnose minor GI problems
* Vicodin for getting a tooth extracted, Ibuprofen works fine if you don't miss a dose
US emergency medicine guidelines, for example, are extremely aggressive and notorious for over investigating.
Good God I know this part first hand. I went to the ER because I had chest pain in my left side. I'm young, so I thought heart problems were highly unlikely but better safe than sorry. The doctor that saw me surmised that it was probably an irritated GI tract, which I know that I have problems with, and was nothing serious. Then he proceeded to order blood tests, CT scans, and others. I said screw that and refused treatment. A nap did just fine to make the problem pass. Again, some evidence suggests that CT scans may do more harm than good, and really should only be used when necessary. Diagnosing constipation is hardly a proper use for a CT scan and racking me up a couple thousand dollars in medical expenses.
The real question is, what kind of filter will be used?
I know this puts me at risk of being seen as quibbling over a definition. But if someone can't have something because they can't afford it, how does making a copy of it instead equate to theft? Tort, illegal, copyright/trademark/patent infringement sure. But theft? If you couldn't afford it to begin with, then your making a copy does not result in the publisher having anything less in terms of money or physical goods. Only if you would have actually purchased the item in the absence of an illegal alternative can it be argued that the publisher actually lost something. And so I have serious problems with using the term theft, which has a very clear legal meaning, to describe copyright infringement. In criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. Since you cannot take copyright from someone, and since making a copy leaves the original undisturbed, it cannot possibly be theft. No one in their right mind would call it theft if you took a seed from a genetically engineered apple you found in the trash that was once bought in a store and planted them to make copies of that apple for your long term free enjoyment.
Relying on copyright to protect your business when that copyrighted item is something that is effortless to reproduce if just plain foolishness. I am sympathetic to copyright holders to some extent. If someone is taking your copyright without permission to make money or use for public promotion, then certainly the copyright holder has a real case to make. But when a market goes south because the product is no longer marketable, then the company in that market needs to either adapt or die. If they fail to adapt, then another business will emerge to fill the void by approaching the market from a different direction.
The 3 months I mentioned was the summer vacation. I didn't bother to mention the standard paid vacation. They also have the prospect of tenure.
I blame the teachers unions for the majority of the problems with what teachers are paid at public schools. I personally witnessed the spirit breaking of a newly minted teacher over the course of a year. Lots of tenured teachers who just don't care because they can't be fired, and there's no greater reward for doing a better job (the reward of well educated students only goes so far for an individual). From the quality of teachers I experienced in school, and the quality of the people I witnessed going into teaching when I was in college, most of them don't deserve much more than what's being offered. It scares me how dumb (for lack of any better term) some of the people were that I saw going to school to become a teacher. And then there are the excellent examples of teachers I have seen who are sadly rewarded no better than the bad ones.
That was in 2006. I was working in academia, not industry. While it was a struggle at times, I got along just fine paying my bills and eating healthily. BTW, 41k as an intern is an abnormally competitive salary even for engineering. Even when I entered industry, I was starting at 40k. "Decent sized" metropolitan area mind you, NOT some huge metropolitan area like LA. In most of the US, $32,000 can be stretched pretty far when you're young.
Where did this $32,000 figure come from? According to the American Federation of Teachers, beginning teachers with a bachelor's degree earned an average of $31,753 in the 2004-05 school year. That's more than my starting salary was as an engineer in a decent sized metropolitan area. Had I been living back in the small town where I grew up, that would be a pretty decent chunk of money. Granted, the salary increase prospect for an engineer is much greater due to the more complex project structures that give engineers much greater advancement opportunity. Still not bad though for having all government holidays and 3 months of vacation.
Who ever suggested that the US public school system was design to instruct leaders?
Blackwater only operates under the authorization of a government. I can't hire Blackwater to go attack France.
I usually just use rubber standoffs to dampen the vibrations caused by all the 1's going through.
Off topic, but I would love to know if these guys actually believe the crap they write about their products or if they laugh their asses off in marketing meetings while they come up with it.
Nope. It's just a better made master for CD pressing. This might be of significant interest to the record pressing industry if there is often significant fallout when trying to etch a master. Us consumers will see no difference though.
Expecting significant changes to the way the system works from a beta test is unreasonable. Expectations of what you expect the operating system to be and expectations of the outcome of a beta test are two entirely different things.
A government is not a business. Customers have the option to not buy into a product or service. Citizens do not have the option to ignore laws and not pay taxes. A business needs to be efficient on some level and turn a profit to survive. A government does not. A government has the power to kill it's citizens. A business does not.
SOLUTION! Don't buy Windows! Seriously, I don't have anywhere near the programming skill or knowledge to modify an operating system nor do I have the time or desire to acquire it. I rely on acquiring an operating system that already fits my needs. Whether an operating system is open source or not has very little direct impact on my decision to choose it. And the fact that a software development team can't possibly make every user happy about everything has nothing to do with it being open source or not.
So what the hell do they need beta testers for?
For broad spectrum testing. You think it's easy for a team of Test Engineers in a company to test every single possibility on every conceivable platform? For something as far reaching as a consumer operating system, it's a great idea to get thousands of people to do the basic hardware/software compatibility testing and others for you for free.
Microsoft hasn't done a great job of explaining to the millions of people who've tested Windows 7 that the beta stage is more about catching problems than significantly changing the way the system works.
My impression has always been that alpha testing is for determining whether or not to continue with an approach, and beta testing is for exercising the system to weed out sufficient bugs to continue with a final release. The beta testers complaining sound like they just went in with unreasonable expectations.
This is just standard practice for any chain of command. When I solicit feedback on documents I write at work, I often get conflicting opinions coming back. It's then my job to decide which opinions to accept in the final work. It is not my job to make everyone happy. That does not mean that I don't listen to the feedback I solicit.
They have come out and said she was banned for stating her sexual orientation NOT for being offensive or using offensive language which is extremely clear in their TOS
Yet we have no evidence of this fact beyond hearsay. No direct quote from Microsoft.
And many people consider Muslims to be evil and Blacks to be stupid and Jews to be conspirators. Does that mean these rules should apply to all of those descriptors as well?
This has nothing to do with people getting into fights. According to TFA, she was banned for what she had in her profile. Now granted, there's probably a lot more to this story than what's in the article, but I keep seeing other people trying to say that MS is in the right because mentioning that you are gay will elicit an aggressive response from others. That's just plain flawed logic.
Now my best guess is that this chick either didn't quite use the term "lesbian" in her profile or she didn't use it as the sole descriptor. I am also under the impression that this was all over one single isolated incident.