Birth control and education are some of the major problems he's addressing, and that doesn't lead to more starving, suffering kids.
But that'd be less souls for Jesus. What will all those fat white missionaries do?
I've never seen any empirical evidence that there is any truth to the claim whatsoever. And in fact, I think it's false.
Never seen as distinct from not found? Think as the result of reductive reasoning or just as a poor synonym for imagine?
I imagine that a government that is radically smaller than the largest organization it is supposed to regulate is incapable of regulating that organization because it can't keep up.
FTFY
Unless... government "regulation" effectively licenses monopolies that stops the market from self-regulating business.
I'm not sure if you're just a amateur sophist or a moron - but arguing that government regulation of business requires it to duplicate every single aspect of the business, therefore requiring the regulation process to match the size of business being regulated, is just, um, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
For evidence, I point to the current state of affairs. I say, our bank regulators are understaffed. There should be more people with more government jobs specifically to regulate the banks, and because the part of the government that is supposed to do that job is so small, it's helpless to rein in behemoth multinational banks that can generate paper faster than a regulator can read it.
A selective interpretation that doesn't even allow for history is not evidence (it's just piss poor rationalisation). Government regulation of banks mostly amounts to stopping banks being competive. Historically government intervention was to remove the usury limitation that stopped banks charging more than 10% interest. Prior to that the loan sharks were the mob, now credit cards charge up to 30%. Those trillions "generated" are just transfers from Main St to Wall St, smoke and mirrors.
You want your small government? Forbid megacorporations. Forbid too-big-to-fail.
How do megacorporations exist without government - you know? Like American Fruit or West Indies Trading existing with the respective governments taking their money and supplying them with armies (probably some modern parallel but I can't any evidence with this box on my head). And excuse me for extrapolating but.. wouldn't the increased regulation to do that, um, increase government size. Not that I'm accusing you of sophism but... if it smells like a stawman sometimes you need to test if it's really straw (and my only tools are matches).
As for "forbid to fail/bail out my contributors" - just don't. It's that simple. If the government needs to intervene in business with funding it should own (nationalise) the business - not give/loan it money.
the total take from bank robbery in the US is around $30 million a year.
You mean when banks are robbed right? With a gun? Interesting.
I feel like they should pay me, or at least subsidise the price of the item, for it having their advertising on it.
You're showing your age. Time was they did.
Because young people are still only top volume.
Got pasted by one the other day. I was leaning on the horn, but he didn't hear it, because his music was cranked. Backed right into me assuming I wasn't there, never even looked.
Next time try while you're in a car.
For every driverless car honk a tree falls silently in a forest...
TV.
There's another thing I don't "get". Of course I fully understand dressing in the team products, painting my head, going to the game, and screaming abuse at the opposition supporters. 'Cause they are a bunch of superstitious losers, while we are winners, yeah!
Go Aggies!
In terms of the actual mechanism: as far as I recall, immune cells develop with a random specificity: It's pure chance what they'll recognise.
If they're exposed to something that they will react to in their development time, they die: This is how we prevent them from reacting to ourselves.
So although it won't do anything to existing immune cells, the persistent presence of peanuts will at least prevent any new immune cells popping up that will react to them.
Thanks. So it's the same therapy that Freeman and Noon developed over a century ago, with no apparent change in the understanding of the mechanisms behind it?
I was hoping it'd be some new understanding of how to control or suppress those white blood cell mediators that cause the problem.
Sad, because if that's the case the treatment, for peanut allergies, is not new or novel either (been in use in Australia for over a decade). Damn you Slashdot, fooled again. (With Lancet I should know better too).
Are you wanting to compare voluntary spending or involuntary spending?
Government spending.
Go Aggies?
Not why do it, but why does the treatment work? The cited Lancet article doesn't seem to offer any answers (or hint at any efforts to find them).... development of enzyme reserves??
And what of the annecdotal relationship between peanut allergies and *not* breast feeding?
Why people will pay for stuff like this is completely beyond me
Ask a Texan politician, either party, given the ratio of spending on football compared to say - health or education, the answer should be interesting.
Whatever they're passing around on blotter these days is no match for real LSD.
Grinding teeth, stomach gas, lack of open eye hallucinations? (hallucinogenic) Amphetamines. See your spice rack
No matter what "Uncle Fester" might have you believe - LSD is not simple to make (though it is very cheap), and very hard to ticket (the damn stuff fumes like hell and just dissolving it into workable amounts from eye-dropping onto a blotter is tricky). Additionally it isn't a party drug.
I have it on good authority that MXE, discussed in the article, is more enjoyable than Ketamine.
Ketamine doesn't fit my definition of safe (too low a margin of safety). I don't know about MXE - nor am I ever likely to try it. Every native culture on the planet used a number of psychoative substances - world travel changed that, and while many of the indigenously used substances are still legal their use was generally discontinued because the currently illegal ones were safer to use, more predictable in effect, and have less undesirable side-effects.
There is NO clear definition of "substantial similarity" that all chemists will agree on.
Yes. But don't confuse that legal interpretation with "an inability of pharmacological chemists to agree upon what analog means". It's just an example of the inadequacies of the people who interpret legislation. "analog" != "substantial similarity". (simple is a synonym for ?) I stand by what I said
We know exactly what an analog is, and how to design them to give fairly predictable effects[*1]. Replace the benzene ring with Sulphur etc.
- we can predict the effects of an analog, but while the analog may have "substantial similarity" it's "specific similarities" that determine the "similarities of effect".
e.g. predicting the potency of methylthio-phenylethylamine using the principles of activity. [*2]
Perhaps you haven't actually read Sasha and Anne's work (PIHKAL, TIHKAL, etc), or simply lack a background in organic and pharmacological chemistry. Certainly you conflate legislative language with that of the science.
"substantial similarity" is an interpretation of
"A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I." ??
(emphasis mine). IANAL
And I certainly wouldn't want to have my freedom depend on a typical US jury being able to sort it out either (It must be an analog drug--it's made of the same types of atoms as heroin, cocaine, and meth!)
Agreed (absolutely), three-dimensional structure is unlikely to be properly considered by lay persons (let alone evaluate the coefficients of octanol-water partitions) - but then, the laws and not intended to protect citizens (votes and commerce). Particularly given my comments earlier in the main thread about non-amine precursors on your spice rack.
[*1] Much of that knowledge comes from the work of the Shulgins, Nichols, and Alles
[*2]A. Leo, C. Hansch, and D. Elkins, Chem. Rev., 71, 525 (1971)
And Bochs is not a emulator but a reimplementation of the x86 ISA.
Bochs is and emulator (first sentence, hope your lips don't get sore). Wine Is Not an Emulator is not.
There's a reason why you post as Anonymous Coward, because there's no option for Anonymous Dickhead.
Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.
