I have found Wikipedia to be endlessly entertaining and informative. I think the real need is for more education in schools that gives students the rhetorical tools to analyze texts, to think about sources, and bias, and place all information (not just that from Wikipedia) in an analytical context. I don't take the New York Times as gospel, either.
As groovy as it is for anything to compete successfully with Microsoft, have to say I've been most disappointed with how Firefox performs on my Mac. Just eats the hell out my CPU. I'm finding Omniweb to be the next great thing. Safari continues to be pretty decent, too.
I wonder when Google will release a browser?
[Remember Mosaic? Remember Netscape? Remember 2400 baud modems and local dialup BBSes?. ..]
BusinessWeek Online reports that
Polk County District Judge Scott Rosenberg dismissed the portion of the class-action lawsuit alleging Microsoft's actions in the 1990s stifled innovation, thereby preventing rival software from reaching consumers and causing them to pay more for Microsoft's products. I dread finding out that this was the best part. . .
"it takes, on average, 10 years and 1 billion dollars to get a new drug approved in the U.S...."
This is simply incorrect. It is likely that this statistic is referring to the time it takes for a drug company to develop and gain approval for a new drug. According to Washington Monthly in May 2000, at that time the FDA approval process was taking about a year, and had decreased from about 2.5 years after so-called "fast track" procedures were implemented in the 90s: (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/00 05.pomper.html)
"If you are arguing that the FDA plays down risks in order to allow buisnesses to sell dangerous products, that is just not true."
I am, and I am by no means alone. For evidence and opinions on this side of the question, you might want to check out:
Correct me if I'm wrong but:
The original poster claimed that the FDA's statement on the cell-phone study is likely motivated by a pro business (pro-capitalist)agenda.
You argued against this statement in the following ways:
a) You are a Socialist.
b) Socialists refer to everything they don't like as "Capitalist."
c) They do so because it is fashionable.
(Therefore the FDA is not pro-business.)
-This is all unsupported, but beside the point.
d) The FDA is a government bureaucracy. (Therefore not pro-business).
-Where is it written that vast bureaucracy and business are mutually exclusive? Microsoft, anyone? Other government bureaucracies--e.g. the EPA and the NLRB--have also been criticized for betraying their mandates under the influence of big business.
e) The FDA costs industry billions of dollars a year (hence cannot be pro-business.)
-How many billions? And what percentage of total annual business revenue does this amount to? The FDA, as a regulatory agency, will inevitably "cost industry" money (if you choose to look at it that way). The real question is--does the FDA's record show that it has consistently fulfilled its mandate, or has its mandate been weakened by other interests?
f)The FDA is considered overzealous. This is the "usual" criticism.
This is a strange argument. Considered by whom? Usual for whom? A quick google search will review loads of discussion about the FDA's questionable ties to the pharmaceutical industry, among other things.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps some of the missing mass is "extra dark"?
It was good, though "Gouged by Geeks 2" was better.
I have found Wikipedia to be endlessly entertaining and informative. I think the real need is for more education in schools that gives students the rhetorical tools to analyze texts, to think about sources, and bias, and place all information (not just that from Wikipedia) in an analytical context. I don't take the New York Times as gospel, either.
Bleh. Java chews up my G5 processor like nobody's business. Not exactly thrilled that this is now even easier.
As groovy as it is for anything to compete successfully with Microsoft, have to say I've been most disappointed with how Firefox performs on my Mac. Just eats the hell out my CPU. I'm finding Omniweb to be the next great thing. Safari continues to be pretty decent, too. I wonder when Google will release a browser? [Remember Mosaic? Remember Netscape? Remember 2400 baud modems and local dialup BBSes?. . .]
"it takes, on average, 10 years and 1 billion dollars to get a new drug approved in the U.S. ..."
This is simply incorrect. It is likely that this statistic is referring to the time it takes for a drug company to develop and gain approval for a new drug. According to Washington Monthly in May 2000, at that time the FDA approval process was taking about a year, and had decreased from about 2.5 years after so-called "fast track" procedures were implemented in the 90s: (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/00 05.pomper.html)
"If you are arguing that the FDA plays down risks in order to allow buisnesses to sell dangerous products, that is just not true."
I am, and I am by no means alone. For evidence and opinions on this side of the question, you might want to check out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6520630/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pres cription/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A313 5-2004Dec15.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1126/p02s01-uspo.htm l
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ a/2004/11/23/MNGSPA04NI1.DTL
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050205/bob10 .asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/15/60II/mai n674293.shtml
And what is it, exactly, that makes my reply a "rant"?
This word would imply that my words were angry and/or violent.
Your sarcasm, on the other hand, is a form of aggression.
Which seems to be what internet forums are most often used for.
Correct me if I'm wrong but: The original poster claimed that the FDA's statement on the cell-phone study is likely motivated by a pro business (pro-capitalist)agenda. You argued against this statement in the following ways: a) You are a Socialist. b) Socialists refer to everything they don't like as "Capitalist." c) They do so because it is fashionable. (Therefore the FDA is not pro-business.) -This is all unsupported, but beside the point. d) The FDA is a government bureaucracy. (Therefore not pro-business). -Where is it written that vast bureaucracy and business are mutually exclusive? Microsoft, anyone? Other government bureaucracies--e.g. the EPA and the NLRB--have also been criticized for betraying their mandates under the influence of big business. e) The FDA costs industry billions of dollars a year (hence cannot be pro-business.) -How many billions? And what percentage of total annual business revenue does this amount to? The FDA, as a regulatory agency, will inevitably "cost industry" money (if you choose to look at it that way). The real question is--does the FDA's record show that it has consistently fulfilled its mandate, or has its mandate been weakened by other interests? f)The FDA is considered overzealous. This is the "usual" criticism. This is a strange argument. Considered by whom? Usual for whom? A quick google search will review loads of discussion about the FDA's questionable ties to the pharmaceutical industry, among other things.