In the Benghazi incident only three Americans died
The 9/11 event, over 3,000 perished
The war in Iraq, 650,000 Iraqis perished.
Oops. You only care about dead Americans. Well, 4,000 Americans died in GWB's war. Tell me again why we invaded?
That day, the FDA banned the drug. It cited a study that found that the drug was linked with something bad, I think maybe suicidal thoughts.
But then she found that the study was produced by the company that made the brand name version of the drug, which had competition by generics by that point.
Sounds like or the same as neurontin, used for pain, accused of suicidal thoughts and available still as generic. If not, the same play book was being used to push it off the market. Double check your sources, you may have been lied to (the horror).
It does sound like a garbled version of the Neurontin (gabapentin) story. Gabapentin is still available. It has a lot of problems.
If anecdotal evidence is in order, a friend of mine was taking Neurontin. He got into a fight on the job (the other guy started it, and he fought back) and was fired. I called the FDA and one of their doctors told me that one of the reported side effects of Neurontin was aggression. It's not the kind of drug you'd want people to be buying on the free market.
I'd like to know what the name of the drug is.
The FDA doesn't usually "ban" drugs. They usually "request" that the drug manufacturer cease production. If the manufacturer thinks that the drug is still useful, and wants to continue to produce the drug, he can negotiate with the FDA to continue selling it with restrictions.
If it's an effective drug, you might be able to get a supply from Europe or Asia.
Any law made like that could almost certainly be used to ensure that any Patent YOU might ever have could be voided if you weren't making the product the day the patent was issued, and every day thereafter.
"Certainly?"
That law could only be used if I had a patent on a drug that people needed to treat a horrible disease, and I wanted to stop producing the drug so I could force them to buy a more expensive drug, and deliberately protect myself from competition from cheaper drugs.
In other words, that law could only be used against me if I tried to prevent the free market from working.
That's law is not likely to be used against me, because I'm not a multi-millionaire greedhead who wants to make even more millions by exploiting sick people.
(And by the way most of that money -- $3-400 a month -- is paid for by the federal government, through Medicare and Medicaid, after the patients are driven bankrupt by the cost of their disease.)
Anatomy, anthropometry, physiology and cognitive psychology aren't science?
Ergonomics was around when HR was still referred to as "the personnel department".
And experimental mockups with tables and chairs of different dimensions, and visual displays at different heights, are also science.
Yes, Henry Dreyfuss figured that out. A lot of aircraft cockpits and control panels look like his templates.
http://www.learneasy.info/MDME...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5Hl9...
His recommendation was that the optimum viewing range went from the horizon to 30 degrees below the horizon. Your eyes can move comfortably from about 25 degrees above the horizon to 35 degrees below the horizon.
I used to use them back in the days of India ink and T squares.
If car A makes 1 trip to work and 1 trip back every day, and car B makes 100 trips every day ride sharing, do you think a city or state could reasonably charge car B more to pay for those roads than car A?
Adam Smith's invisible hand didn't build those streets and highways that these cars drive on. They were built by the government with taxes.
If you're driving on a private road, you can ignore the regulations.
If you want to drive on the public roads, you have to follow the government regulations. License and registration fees for private cars are based on typical use. License and registration fees for taxis and limousines are based on heavy, 24 hours a day use, and cost a lot more. They set up regulations because with generations of experience they've seen all the problems that come up and don't want those problems any more. Passengers don't want to get robbed and raped by their drivers. They don't want drivers who are drunk. They don't want to be injured by uninsured drivers. The Uber free market isn't very good at eliminating those risks.
Not just India. Do a Google search for "uber driver criminal"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12...
Uber’s System for Screening Drivers Draws Scrutiny
By MIKE ISAAC
DEC. 9, 2014
Uber uses Hirease, a private company that says it has an average turnaround time of “less than 36 hours.”
Both services do drug and alcohol testing, but neither does fingerprint testing. And they rely primarily on publicly available information.
Although state background checks for taxi drivers vary by jurisdiction, lawmakers say they are generally more rigorous than either of these services. They usually include searches of private databases like F.B.I. records, gaining consent from prospective drivers for those searches,
In California, those drivers must undergo checks by the state’s Justice Department, including fingerprint scanning, drug and alcohol testing, and searches of private databases. A check can take as little as three days, but as long as eight weeks.
(Uber defeated bills to require the same checks, including fingerprints, required for taxi and limousine drivers, in California, Colorado, and Illinois.)
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n...
Risky Ride: Who's Behind the Wheel of Uber Cars?
How safe is Uber? The NBC4 ITeam investigates.
By Joel Grover and Keith Esparros
Friday, May 2, 2014
UberX, where anyone with a car and the inclination can apply to be a driver.
Maps: Uber Regulations in the U.S. | Uber Timeline
That's exactly what Beverly Locke did. Working with the NBC4 I-Team, Locke filled out all the necessary documentation needed to become an Uber driver. She proved she was a licensed driver with a safe car, and agreed to submit to a background check.
Four weeks later, she received an e-mail indicating her background check had cleared.
On her first day "on the job," she received a request from Paolo, a frequent UberX user, who was looking for a ride from his Hollywood apartment. He is an Uber fan.
"I use cabs a lot," said Paolo. "And, it's almost half the fare in Uber than for a taxi driver."
Who's Watching Uber?
His phone lit up with a picture of Locke, and a message that said Beverly will pick him up in three minutes.
What he didn't know is that Beverly was an ex-con with a violent past. Her 20-year rap sheet includes burglary, cocaine possession, and making criminal threats with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.
"I pulled a girl out of a car and almost beat her to death," said Locke, who described herself as a reformed criminal with a good job and a desire to make up for her past. "I do not do criminal things anymore."
NBC4 asked Locke to cancel the ride, so the former convict never actually carried a passenger. But the NBC4 I-Team found several examples in which drivers with a criminal past have picked up Uber passengers.
Tadeusz Szczechowicz drove the streets of Chicago for a year, despite five prior arrests and two convictions for burglary and disorderly conduct.
Syed Muzzafar had a prior conviction for reckless driving, but he cleared the Uber background check and was behind the wheel New Year's Eve when he was arrested for hitting and killing a 6-year-old girl in San Francisco.
And, Jigneshkumar Patel was arrested for battery of an UberX passenger, a charge he said is "rubbish." Still, the UberX driver had a 2012 conviction for DUI.
Uber declined to talk to NBC4 directly, but did send emails describing corporate policy on background checks. A message said Uber "leads the industry" with its "best-in-class background checks for drivers."
Uber also said it has a "zero tolerance" policy for drug and alcohol offenses, and said it carefully screens applicants and immediately disqualifies anyone convicted of a crime in the past seven years.
Tanya and Daniel Sackler didn't know anything about the past of their UberX driver. He identified himself only by his first name.
The Sacklers said he stole $2,500 in cash and personal items from them after he picked them up from LAX and dropped them off at their West Hollywood condo. The Sacklers filed a police report, saying the driver arrived at their home and quickly began unloading their baggage.
"He took them all and he put them in a pile," Daniel said.
While the Sacklers were dealing with their luggage, Tanya Sackler said their driver jumped back behind the wheel and quickly drove off with her purse, her husband's briefcase, a wallet with hundreds of dollars in it, and an iPad.
They had the driver's cell number, so they texted him right away, only to be told he was too busy to talk to them at the moment. The Sacklers said when they finally spoke to him, the driver told them he was not responsible for items left in his car.
In an email to the Sacklers, Uber told them, "We do not control the drivers, as they are not our employees." On its website, Uber said drivers are considered independent contractors.
"Hey Ez, where are you going"?
"Up to the store".
"Mind if I go with you, I need a few things".
"Not at all".
"Thanks, here's a couple of bucks for gas".
That is ride sharing. Uber, Lyft, and the others are arranging drivers for hire. Just pointing out the obvious here.
You missed some more obvious:
(1) Ez and his ride-sharer knew each other. The ride-sharer doesn't have to worry about Ez robbing him and vice versa.
(2) Ez was going to the store anyway. The purpose of his trip was to go to the store. His purpose wasn't to make money out of the trip.
That's the difference between Uber and Ez.
If that's not obvious to you, it's obvious to Ez' insurance company if he gets into an accident.
Your choice. You can stay and fight, or leave.
I don't know where you go if you leave.
One of the ways the tobacco industry censored the truth was through advertising in magazines and newspapers. If you go to the library and look through consumer magazines from the 1970s, you can find magazines where 75% of the ads are for cigarettes.
People have studied the content of the magazines, and for the most part, publications with cigarette advertising never published anything about the harms of smoking. Generally speaking, when a publication runs a story that's unfavorable to a product, they let the advertisers know beforehand, so they don't have their ads appearing in an issue that knocks them.
For example, if they had an article on the dangers of air travel, they wouldn't run airline ads.
Same thing with cigarettes. They'd have to lose a whole issue's cigarette ads. I've looked up articles on smoking and health, and I've almost never found them in magazines that run cigarette ads. They were always in magazines like Readers Digest and Consumer Reports.
But they managed to kill 400,000 Americans every year
I'm fairly certain that they didn't actually light the cig for me, nor did they put it in my mouth or anything else.
I started smoking of my own free will, and likewise, I stopped.
They've done plenty of scummy things along the way, but pretending they are the sole responsible party just makes you look stupid and unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions. Man up.
Not only did they manipulate you with the most expensive, sophisticated marketing programs the world has seen outside of government, and not only did they get you hooked to the most addicting drug known, they even convinced you that it was your free will, your fault and your personal responsibility.
The first part of the post that you're replying to is a quote from its parent. Maybe he just screwed up his tags or something, but he was trying to make the same point that you are.
I think I keep having a problem with Beta. I write a response, the quote looks OK in the preview, and then when I submit it the quote indentation disappears.
If you are a US citizen, I don't think you could get out of producing a document the court ordered you to supply by airmailing it to a confederate in another country. Similarly, if the data in question are related to Microsoft's US operations, then MS, being a corporation incorporated in the US, should be required to produce them.
That's what the tobacco companies did in the 1960s.
They did a lot of research to find out if cigarettes really caused lung cancer and all those other things.
If their research came out favorable to cigarettes, they could have waved it around to "rebut" the Surgeon
General and get the regulators off their backs.
Their researchers found that cigarettes were harmful too.
So the tobacco executives told the researchers to kill all their animals, and destroy all their written results, and their lawyers wrote a few memos summarizing the whole thing. Lawyer-client privilege is the strongest secrecy you can have. Then they sent the memos to their law firm in London.
It finally got out. After a lot of lawsuits, the tobacco companies finally agreed to come clean with everything. But they managed to kill 400,000 Americans every year, and none of them went to jail. Eat your heart out, Osama bin Laden.
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!
