The problem with it is a that a spear isn't a pointy stick, it was a specific kind of pointy stick. More than that, spears were upgraded and refined and before too long they were more than just a pointy stick. They would be a stick with a piece of rock, or a bronze head; at which point they were no longer pointy sticks at all.
Part of the deal there is that there hasn't been much understanding or respect given to language variety historically. To some extent it's just a continuation of previous forms of bigotry wherein people are judged for things of lesser significance.
Which is unfortunate given that such prescriptivist rules just lead to a dull language which isn't capable of keeping up with the demands of communication. Language is for use and the use that people have for it is communication. Despite what some people around here might think language works so long as the message is received accurately and efficiently, that's it. Spelling loose as in "I need to loose a few pounds" is ultimately insignificant in the grand scheme of things and not a valid reason for grammar based bullying.
I do have to disagree there, the pharmaceutical companies would love to get out of the antibiotic market, there's very little profit there and the more doses they sell the less future doses are worth. Antibiotics are something they make mainly for the benefit of humanity.
The main reason why they mostly dropped it is that there's very little money to pay for the research and it's extremely expensive under the current regulatory environment to work with it. They would be shelling out literally billions per dose to provide the medicine.
I'm not generally in favor of the free market and deregulation, but this is a case where regulation is literally killing the market for something that's going to be extremely important in the future.
Doing my undergrad I would daily walk past some fairly macabre before and after photos of the treatments. A blackened foot which normally would have been removed and an after photo of the same foot that had been treated. The process was rather simple, cut the foot wide open and slather the correct strain of phage allowing for the drainage after the fact. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095089/ http://blogs.evergreen.edu/phage/
Correct, the problem presently is that if you're going to use it as medicine in the US, you would have to go through trials for each and every strain that the doctors wanted to use. Now that's normally a reasonable way to approach things, however these are rapidly evolving and you're not going to find a strain that kills the desired bacteria, but hurts the patient.
Either way as pertains to privacy, it's most parsimonious to say US constitution does neither "recognize" nor "respect" a simple, holistic right to privacy. That the fourth amendment manages to spell out what it means without using the word "privacy" should be instructive, they probably left it out for a reason.
Right, or it could have been an oversight sort of like the 2nd amendment passed for ratification differing from the version that was ultimately ratified. In this case the reason for privacy not being specifically used rather than the word they used "secure" is that it's somewhat broader. An item in plain sight can be used as probable cause to search a residence, it cannot however be seized without a warrant unless certain conditions apply.
So if a bust is suspected as being used to bludgeon somebody to death is seen in a window, there wouldn't necessarily be a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the police couldn't go searching for it without a warrant.
Except this is really pointless, such a cure already exists and has been in development for years. If you eat beef in the US there's a good chance you've already consumed bacteriophages. One of the happy consequences of the break up of the USSR was that the Georgian government had massive biological weapons labs with nothing to do with them, they ultimately were used for research.
Citation, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights and yet when I was a kid I didn't have the right to a pony that would allow me to pursue happiness.
When a corporate interest uses and benefits from public funding and resources it waives the right to exercise full ownership over the product. If they don't want the government to step in like that, then perhaps they shouldn't use the public right of way or make use of tax payer dollars and protection from competition to do it.
The problem is that as long as it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution you'll find people like Thomas and Scalia that pretend that it doesn't exist. Despite quite a few references to privacy in the bill of rights, there's plenty of folks that like to claim that there is no right to privacy. Well, if that's the case then why did they amend the constitution so that people would be secure in their persons, paper, houses and effects against unreasonable search and seizure?
Indeed, seems the only thing that the parties around here can agree upon is that the voters don't know how to pick candidates for the final election. They sued to get the previous system tossed and have been trying to get the new system tossed as well.
Except that in the case of the supercomittee they can just do nothing and deal with the consequences of the default plan. In terms of districting there is no default, and as a result the people selected to make the decision reflect that.
In terms of the supercomittee on the budget, that's more or less what I'd expect, nobody told the GOP that they lost the 2008 elections and they've been behaving like self entitled brats ever since. The Democrats can't cave as doing so is just going to encourage that sort of bad behavior and since there's a default plan what you end up with is gridlock.
Worse is the fact that a lot of the GOP candidates ran on a platform of creating gridlock and have been extremely blunt about their goals.
I don't have a source but I'm pretty sure it was. The reason that IBM chose the components that it did for their computers was largely because they could be put into a workable computer quickly. It's also why the competition was able to create clones so quickly pretty much all the parts were off the shelf.
The solution is to make the process either non-partisan or bipartisan. Doing that has done wonders for our local politics.
Even better if you institute a top two primary system. We often times end up choosing between Democrats and in some other parts of the state they choose between Republicans, but it has the effect of pushing the legislature towards the middle as in all cases the less extreme candidate won. Normally in cases like this the more extreme candidate would win as that would be what it would take to win the primary and which ever Democrat won the primary would win the final election.
That's one of the rare situations where Initiatives are a reasonable response. Politicians aren't going to do it because the voters don't really want them to, and the ones that do aren't large enough in numbers to make it happen.
The problem is that the majority party has to deliberately cede power to the minority party and the voters tend to want their candidates to run the show. It's just like taxes and spending cuts, most people are surprisingly fine with both as long as they hit other people. As soon as it's their taxes and their programs they're suddenly significantly less willing to allow it.
Oh, please, the political situation in Europe isn't any better than it is in the US, you just have more illusion of variety due to the larger number of parties. When push comes to shove, you don't have any more variety than we do, it's just we have less party unity than you do.
People keep repeating that logic and it's no more true now than it was decades back. The party affiliation means little to nothing when politicians aren't required to vote with their party. Some of the Democrats in our legislature are as conservative or more than the GOP pols are.
Bullshit, that's a false dichotomy here in WA and in IA there's districting that's not done on a partisan basis. The net result is that any decisions that benefit one party tend to benefit the other.
If you think that at large elections help minority views, then you haven't been following politics around here. The GOP has for years been trying to split the state for the purposes of electing senators so that they don't have to convince urban voters from the western portion of the state to vote for them.
Right and Linux still doesn't do that correctly. At this point it's rather a moot point, but for years it was a real challenge to triple boot Linux, Windows and *BSD because Linux would insist upon using a large number of partitions. You could sort of work around that by giving it one primary partition and several extended ones, but it was never really a very good solution.
You're going to great lengths to dig up reasons for BSD operating systems to be bad. Of course the pace of development is slower with *BSD they're actually developing entire OSes rather than just using the work of hundreds of independent projects to cobble together an OS. That takes time, but it's also why you can install the base OS and not have to worry about breaking your install by updating your software. The software is by and large separate from the core OS, protecting it from the common interference you see in Linux.
As for also rans, you act like that isn't a problem for Linux, OSX, Android and Windows as well.
As for metitocratic, you ought to provide some sort of evidence to support your claim. Unlike Linux, there's a much larger group of people that are authorized to make those decisions and by and large they do so well. There are occasionally regressions, but because the OS is both stable and mature, I can't recall the last time I ran into one that I actually noticed.
Why would I write a network card for FreeBSD? The vast majority of manufacturers of such cards write their own drivers. Chances are that if there isn't a driver that it's a crap card and certainly not by a manufacturer that takes networking seriously. In practice I don't recall ever having had a computer for which the network card wasn't supported out of the box.
I'm glad that Linux exists, but apart from commercial apps and manufacturer support it's really hard to find anything that Linux does better than *BSD does. At least not for home use. In fact I've had far more problems with Linux over the years due to the absolutely insane model they're using. *BSD, OSX, BeOS, Windows etc., etc., are all OSes that have all the components necessary in one install, Linux is goofy like that. Linux has no basesystem it's just a kernel and as a result you get all sorts of head aches as you can't just update the base without touching the entire userland, rather than just the software you installed.
Also, I've found that in the past the driver support was questionable. The quality has gone up greatly since I installed my first copy, but *BSD never had that kind of problem. Sure there would be fewer devices supported, but you knew that if it was supported it would work. And typically work properly, I don't recall ever having gotten a nasty surprise from FreeBSD when a device half worked.
Not really, *BSD was taking off and the Linux devs made liberal use of the FUD that resulted from the lawsuit to scare people off of *BSD. Linux itself, by Linus' own admission, probably wouldn't exist if he had had a copy before he started Linux.
The GPL itself has its utility but in all honesty, let's be honest about the effect that had on developers early on that weren't just hobbyists. The BSD license is one of the main reasons that the internet was able to grow so quickly despite MS not having a viable TCP/IP stack for its OS until late. That never would or could have happened with the GPL just because of the way it's written.
Honestly, that requires some real evidence. I take it you haven't ever had to navigate blind, but what you're saying is completely non-sensical. Cars that are idling don't make much noise typically, unless they're improperly maintained.
Anybody that's able to echolocate is going to be able to tell the difference between a car that's idled and one that's moving. And hearing the idled cars is actually significant in its importance as it gives you a relatively safe zone where one can dive if a car is coming. It's not perfect, but you have a temporary wall that absorbs some of the impact.
I know I personally have both my eyes and ears open for moving cars and I have never had any trouble hearing a fast moving car because of the cars idling at the intersection. Due to the Doppler effect and increased noise they aren't generally hard to hear. That doesn't apply to hybrids typically. I do however sometimes have issues hearing moving cars crossing my path because of other fast moving cars that aren't. If you can solve that, good luck, but I don't see how making all cars quieter solves that problem.
That's a pretty twisted line of reasoning to justify not putting in a common sense safety system. The effect this has on the blind is pretty easy to understand, there's really no need for lots of studies as the blind need to have a cue to know that they are about to be run over by a car.
And no, cars being quieter is definitely not going to be positive in this respect. The first ever car related fatality came from a car that was only going 4 mph when the pedestrian stepped in front of it. Sure that's less likely to happen now, but it's an ever present possibility.
Bullshit, you probably can hear them on a side street, but you're not going to hear them coming if you're crossing a busy street. Or at least not with any kind of reliability.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with it is a that a spear isn't a pointy stick, it was a specific kind of pointy stick. More than that, spears were upgraded and refined and before too long they were more than just a pointy stick. They would be a stick with a piece of rock, or a bronze head; at which point they were no longer pointy sticks at all.
Part of the deal there is that there hasn't been much understanding or respect given to language variety historically. To some extent it's just a continuation of previous forms of bigotry wherein people are judged for things of lesser significance.
Which is unfortunate given that such prescriptivist rules just lead to a dull language which isn't capable of keeping up with the demands of communication. Language is for use and the use that people have for it is communication. Despite what some people around here might think language works so long as the message is received accurately and efficiently, that's it. Spelling loose as in "I need to loose a few pounds" is ultimately insignificant in the grand scheme of things and not a valid reason for grammar based bullying.
I do have to disagree there, the pharmaceutical companies would love to get out of the antibiotic market, there's very little profit there and the more doses they sell the less future doses are worth. Antibiotics are something they make mainly for the benefit of humanity.
The main reason why they mostly dropped it is that there's very little money to pay for the research and it's extremely expensive under the current regulatory environment to work with it. They would be shelling out literally billions per dose to provide the medicine.
I'm not generally in favor of the free market and deregulation, but this is a case where regulation is literally killing the market for something that's going to be extremely important in the future.
Doing my undergrad I would daily walk past some fairly macabre before and after photos of the treatments. A blackened foot which normally would have been removed and an after photo of the same foot that had been treated. The process was rather simple, cut the foot wide open and slather the correct strain of phage allowing for the drainage after the fact.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095089/
http://blogs.evergreen.edu/phage/
Correct, the problem presently is that if you're going to use it as medicine in the US, you would have to go through trials for each and every strain that the doctors wanted to use. Now that's normally a reasonable way to approach things, however these are rapidly evolving and you're not going to find a strain that kills the desired bacteria, but hurts the patient.
Either way as pertains to privacy, it's most parsimonious to say US constitution does neither "recognize" nor "respect" a simple, holistic right to privacy. That the fourth amendment manages to spell out what it means without using the word "privacy" should be instructive, they probably left it out for a reason.
Right, or it could have been an oversight sort of like the 2nd amendment passed for ratification differing from the version that was ultimately ratified. In this case the reason for privacy not being specifically used rather than the word they used "secure" is that it's somewhat broader. An item in plain sight can be used as probable cause to search a residence, it cannot however be seized without a warrant unless certain conditions apply.
So if a bust is suspected as being used to bludgeon somebody to death is seen in a window, there wouldn't necessarily be a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the police couldn't go searching for it without a warrant.
Except this is really pointless, such a cure already exists and has been in development for years. If you eat beef in the US there's a good chance you've already consumed bacteriophages. One of the happy consequences of the break up of the USSR was that the Georgian government had massive biological weapons labs with nothing to do with them, they ultimately were used for research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage
The results so far have been quite impressive.
Citation, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights and yet when I was a kid I didn't have the right to a pony that would allow me to pursue happiness.
When a corporate interest uses and benefits from public funding and resources it waives the right to exercise full ownership over the product. If they don't want the government to step in like that, then perhaps they shouldn't use the public right of way or make use of tax payer dollars and protection from competition to do it.
The problem is that as long as it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution you'll find people like Thomas and Scalia that pretend that it doesn't exist. Despite quite a few references to privacy in the bill of rights, there's plenty of folks that like to claim that there is no right to privacy. Well, if that's the case then why did they amend the constitution so that people would be secure in their persons, paper, houses and effects against unreasonable search and seizure?
Indeed, seems the only thing that the parties around here can agree upon is that the voters don't know how to pick candidates for the final election. They sued to get the previous system tossed and have been trying to get the new system tossed as well.
Except that in the case of the supercomittee they can just do nothing and deal with the consequences of the default plan. In terms of districting there is no default, and as a result the people selected to make the decision reflect that.
In terms of the supercomittee on the budget, that's more or less what I'd expect, nobody told the GOP that they lost the 2008 elections and they've been behaving like self entitled brats ever since. The Democrats can't cave as doing so is just going to encourage that sort of bad behavior and since there's a default plan what you end up with is gridlock.
Worse is the fact that a lot of the GOP candidates ran on a platform of creating gridlock and have been extremely blunt about their goals.
I don't have a source but I'm pretty sure it was. The reason that IBM chose the components that it did for their computers was largely because they could be put into a workable computer quickly. It's also why the competition was able to create clones so quickly pretty much all the parts were off the shelf.
The solution is to make the process either non-partisan or bipartisan. Doing that has done wonders for our local politics.
Even better if you institute a top two primary system. We often times end up choosing between Democrats and in some other parts of the state they choose between Republicans, but it has the effect of pushing the legislature towards the middle as in all cases the less extreme candidate won. Normally in cases like this the more extreme candidate would win as that would be what it would take to win the primary and which ever Democrat won the primary would win the final election.
That's one of the rare situations where Initiatives are a reasonable response. Politicians aren't going to do it because the voters don't really want them to, and the ones that do aren't large enough in numbers to make it happen.
The problem is that the majority party has to deliberately cede power to the minority party and the voters tend to want their candidates to run the show. It's just like taxes and spending cuts, most people are surprisingly fine with both as long as they hit other people. As soon as it's their taxes and their programs they're suddenly significantly less willing to allow it.
Oh, please, the political situation in Europe isn't any better than it is in the US, you just have more illusion of variety due to the larger number of parties. When push comes to shove, you don't have any more variety than we do, it's just we have less party unity than you do.
People keep repeating that logic and it's no more true now than it was decades back. The party affiliation means little to nothing when politicians aren't required to vote with their party. Some of the Democrats in our legislature are as conservative or more than the GOP pols are.
Bullshit, that's a false dichotomy here in WA and in IA there's districting that's not done on a partisan basis. The net result is that any decisions that benefit one party tend to benefit the other.
If you think that at large elections help minority views, then you haven't been following politics around here. The GOP has for years been trying to split the state for the purposes of electing senators so that they don't have to convince urban voters from the western portion of the state to vote for them.
Right and Linux still doesn't do that correctly. At this point it's rather a moot point, but for years it was a real challenge to triple boot Linux, Windows and *BSD because Linux would insist upon using a large number of partitions. You could sort of work around that by giving it one primary partition and several extended ones, but it was never really a very good solution.
I call bullshit on your bullshit.
You're going to great lengths to dig up reasons for BSD operating systems to be bad. Of course the pace of development is slower with *BSD they're actually developing entire OSes rather than just using the work of hundreds of independent projects to cobble together an OS. That takes time, but it's also why you can install the base OS and not have to worry about breaking your install by updating your software. The software is by and large separate from the core OS, protecting it from the common interference you see in Linux.
As for also rans, you act like that isn't a problem for Linux, OSX, Android and Windows as well.
As for metitocratic, you ought to provide some sort of evidence to support your claim. Unlike Linux, there's a much larger group of people that are authorized to make those decisions and by and large they do so well. There are occasionally regressions, but because the OS is both stable and mature, I can't recall the last time I ran into one that I actually noticed.
Why would I write a network card for FreeBSD? The vast majority of manufacturers of such cards write their own drivers. Chances are that if there isn't a driver that it's a crap card and certainly not by a manufacturer that takes networking seriously. In practice I don't recall ever having had a computer for which the network card wasn't supported out of the box.
I'm glad that Linux exists, but apart from commercial apps and manufacturer support it's really hard to find anything that Linux does better than *BSD does. At least not for home use. In fact I've had far more problems with Linux over the years due to the absolutely insane model they're using. *BSD, OSX, BeOS, Windows etc., etc., are all OSes that have all the components necessary in one install, Linux is goofy like that. Linux has no basesystem it's just a kernel and as a result you get all sorts of head aches as you can't just update the base without touching the entire userland, rather than just the software you installed.
Also, I've found that in the past the driver support was questionable. The quality has gone up greatly since I installed my first copy, but *BSD never had that kind of problem. Sure there would be fewer devices supported, but you knew that if it was supported it would work. And typically work properly, I don't recall ever having gotten a nasty surprise from FreeBSD when a device half worked.
Not really, *BSD was taking off and the Linux devs made liberal use of the FUD that resulted from the lawsuit to scare people off of *BSD. Linux itself, by Linus' own admission, probably wouldn't exist if he had had a copy before he started Linux.
The GPL itself has its utility but in all honesty, let's be honest about the effect that had on developers early on that weren't just hobbyists. The BSD license is one of the main reasons that the internet was able to grow so quickly despite MS not having a viable TCP/IP stack for its OS until late. That never would or could have happened with the GPL just because of the way it's written.
Honestly, that requires some real evidence. I take it you haven't ever had to navigate blind, but what you're saying is completely non-sensical. Cars that are idling don't make much noise typically, unless they're improperly maintained.
Anybody that's able to echolocate is going to be able to tell the difference between a car that's idled and one that's moving. And hearing the idled cars is actually significant in its importance as it gives you a relatively safe zone where one can dive if a car is coming. It's not perfect, but you have a temporary wall that absorbs some of the impact.
I know I personally have both my eyes and ears open for moving cars and I have never had any trouble hearing a fast moving car because of the cars idling at the intersection. Due to the Doppler effect and increased noise they aren't generally hard to hear. That doesn't apply to hybrids typically. I do however sometimes have issues hearing moving cars crossing my path because of other fast moving cars that aren't. If you can solve that, good luck, but I don't see how making all cars quieter solves that problem.
That's a pretty twisted line of reasoning to justify not putting in a common sense safety system. The effect this has on the blind is pretty easy to understand, there's really no need for lots of studies as the blind need to have a cue to know that they are about to be run over by a car.
And no, cars being quieter is definitely not going to be positive in this respect. The first ever car related fatality came from a car that was only going 4 mph when the pedestrian stepped in front of it. Sure that's less likely to happen now, but it's an ever present possibility.
Bullshit, you probably can hear them on a side street, but you're not going to hear them coming if you're crossing a busy street. Or at least not with any kind of reliability.