Cancer cells are so deranged there's no realistic way to convert them back to normal cells. So removing or killing them are the only methods. Although prostate cancer can be an exception, if its sufficiently in an old man it can just be ignored, he'll likely die of something else before that cancer gets him.

For cancer there's no "bullshit 'cures' where they make you an addict of their expensive pills for the rest of your life", chemotherapy is brutal because cancer cells are too much like normal cells, a primary way they're targeted is because they're fast in growing and dividing. So healthy tissue that also does that, like cells in hair follicles and your gut also suffer, and the treatment periods have to be limited.

using beam radiation, which has all the disadvantages of pellet treatment coupled with the risk of burning holes in your colon that require colostomy.

My father was treated with beam radiation, and I think you're exaggerating the risks, at least for the more advanced methods where multiple treatments are made along different axes so the maximum cumulative dose is only delivered to the specific part of the prostate that's being targeted.

The "tends to turn the entire prostate to jelly so it can't be removed surgically if they didn't get it all" is not a risk I've heard about before, thanks for mentioning it. Although I wonder how often discovering "they didn't get it all" happens outside the context of it metastasizing, in which case it's game over.

Or anticipating it? Separately I've read they're exiting the rifle scope business.

The fact that you're resorting to puerile insults shows everyone except perhaps yourself who's having the better of this debate. That you can't see that your supplied statistics about small Delaware and populous Pennsylvania prove my initial major point....

That's ... really bad. TSMC's 5nm started "risk production" last March, and they are targeting 2020 for volume production, ramping up in the first half of the year. They started risk production of their 7nm+ enhancement in August of last year, which I mention because it adds EUV lithography to the mix, AMD's Zen 3 is scheduled to use it. Intel's "10nm" node is purely 193nm UV lithography, it would appear they don't have "real world" EUV experience yet.

I also read from their website that they have a 7nm improvement they're calling 6nm ("N6"), for which risk production is scheduled for the first quarter of next year.

Now, how this all works out, including long term cost and throughput of EUV lithography remains to be seen, but it sure looks ugly for Intel, TSMC's first 7nm node is fully 193nm lithography like Intel's "10nm", but it's less aggressive and it works, it's in volume production. We have no reason to believe either way that Intel will even be able to make their "7nm" node work, after their total failure with their "10nm" node. And if EUV proves to be even more problematic than known in volume production, they're all buying the same machines from ASML, but TSMC (and Samsung, I think) have many more machines and much more experience with them.

That Madison quote, the opinion of only one man, does nothing to invalidate my claims about the small Northeast states; if you accept that premise, at most it can be construed as saying this problem was worse with the Southern states, and institution of the Electoral College solved both, while also providing a Kevin Bacon N degrees of separation republican style answer to many problems.

That is, you would be unlikely to know much about a Presidential candidate, his real character and so on. But you could know and trust someone who vouched for the judgement of your district's elector, who in turn did the same for the candidate.

Obviously didn't scale, in fact, the current size of House districts due to the low, set number of House members is ludicrous to the point of making the institution almost as much of a joke as the popularly elected Senate, but it was a good try.

Nope. The EC was created as an extension of the 3/5ths Compromise to the Presidential election, on account of the fact that a direct election of the Executive would never be agreed upon in the South since only land owners were allowed to vote there, and thus they had very small absolute voting numbers.

You think the small and tiny northeastern states would have agreed to having New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston decide the nation's elections? Note that the next two cities were south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Also note suffrage based on owning property was the rule rather than the exception for all the states at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified.

By long standing public policy, non-competes are unenforceable in the state, creating the most liquid talent pools in the US, if not the world. A company will put up with a lot if it is able to hire the talent it requires to succeed.

Wait, you think companies like this so much that they find it attractive, or think it is good for business?

You didn't know that businesses hate it and fight against it?

Lots of people "hate" what's good for them. If they hated it that much, they wouldn't do business in California.

You didn't understand that California was already the center of the tech world before these sorts of contracts were popular?

You didn't understand that California was already the center of the tech world before the court decisions that made those contracts unenforceable in California?

You don't understand that California statuatory law forbidding non-competes goes back to at least 1941, per this posting on the current related Apple lawsuit of a former employee topic and what I thought was common knowledge? Before then, Silicon Valley was filled with orchards, what I know of the state's high tech were things like HP, the LA film industry, and also down there aeronautics. Plenty of civil engineering as well, back then the state was able to build things.

You have a *duty* to work for your employer when you are on their payroll and you may NOT take advantage of proprietary information such as employee names and phone numbers.

You have some case law to back that up? Because California laws are so employee friendly they allow salesmen to continue calling on customers from their previous employee!!! Seriously, here's an article citing 2-3 cases.

"Proprietary information" is not useful legal language; it would fall under trade secret law, yes? Usefully, the above linked article ends by citing several cases on employee poaching, the results are mixed, but perhaps the law has become more settled in the following eight years.

Isn't that a or the non-compete thing? Although as far as I can remember, the prohibition on non-competes goes back a lot further than 1941.

Because what I'm referring to was added in 1979, and amended in 1991, from my search the proper citation might be "LAB [section sign] 2870":

ARTICLE 3.5. Inventions Made by an Employee [2870 - 2872]

2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:

(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or

(2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

For those who want specifics, here's the starting point, the "traitorous eight" as labeled by their brilliant, but impossible ex-boss.

They're sitting on billions of dollars because Tim Apple doesn't have the vision to spend it growing into other markets and/or industries.

Which underlines how ludicrous this lawsuit is. Sure, Apple has great ARM technology. Sure, they could start a sideline of server chips, or even servers. But we know as long as Tim Apple is running things, there's absolutely no chance of Apple doing either.

Which come to think of it is wise. I mean, this is a company that doesn't even care if their keyboards are reliable, or if their products can be economically repaired by anyone, including itself. And then there's the minor detail of system software quality. That shit won't fly in server land.

That has a long history, I seem to remember something about Apple manufacturing a separate set of Mac motherboards incorporating parity, back when some segments of the business and government demanded that, like as supplied with the original IBM PC.

I prefer the statistics on my side rather than the false sense of security I used to have with a loaded shotgun in the bedroom.

And which statistics would these be? Kellerman's, which only scored self-defense killings, which are a specifically illegal not to mention immoral goal for civilians?

California law specifically about work you do in your own time has changed since then. Here we have an edge case, are server chips or things based on them in Apple's anticipated future lines of business? In Woz's case, he'd still have wanted to clear it with HP, since they had long been making all sorts of small computational widgets for engineers.

The only regulatory change that would accomplish your goals would be ending civil lawsuits, requiring people who seeks remedies to use "self help", which the history of feuds and vendettas show is a very bad thing.

Any asshole like Apple can file a lawsuit, the question is, how far will it get?