Similar results occurred in a similar "experiment" on lie detector operators (polygraph operators) performed years ago by 60 Minutes:
60 Minutes - Truth and Consequences
Even though no camera was actually stolen and each "suspect" knew this (were privy to the experiment), each examiner fingered whichever "suspect" that they were told beforehand might have stolen it.
Similar results occurred in a similar "experiment" on lie detector operators (polygraph operators) performed years ago by 60 Minutes:
Even though no camera was actually stolen and each "suspect" knew this (were privy to the experiment), each examiner fingered whichever "suspect" that they were told beforehand might have stolen it.
In a democracy the majority should get their way - by definition.
Freedom of speech allows everyone the right to voice their opionion in the form of criticism towards another or their beliefs.
A right is something that is enjoyed equally by the minority as it is by the majority. Otherwise it is not a right but a wrong.
And don't forget, they've got twice as much money for advertising those drugs as they have for researching those drugs and running those clinical trials.
With good reason I would suspect.
Developing a new drug is a very risky and very expensive thing. R&D costs money and lots of it, while generating exactly zero dollars in income.
The sales of said drugs (i.e. the fruit of R&D's labor) however, is what generates income, and is what ultimately covers the incredible cost involved in developing it in the first place (as well as the cost of failed research efforts on drugs which "never panned out" and thus never made it to market).
If the percentages spent on promotion verses R&D were reversed (e.g. only 13.4% on marketing verses 24.4% for research and development), they might not be able to generate enough income to cover the cost of all the dollars they were sinking into developing their new wonder drug, and then where would we be? After all, "He who has a thing to sell and goes to whisper in a well, is not as apt to get the dollars as he who climbs a tree and hollers!"
Now I'm no fan of seeing so many advertisements for drugs in so many magazines, etc (since such advertisements are mostly lots of hype sprinkled with heavy doses of fine printed medical gobbledy-gook which I can neither read what with my poor eyesight nor understand what with my non-existent medical training), but bashing drug companies for spending more on advertising than your average non-drug company is hardly a convincing argument that they are therefore all greedy sons of bitches. (There are much easier ways to make money than developing new life-saving drugs after all, so greed (i.e. wont for profit) can't be the sole motivating factor).
Bottom line: given a choice between fewer life-saving drugs but a couple extra dollars in my pocket verses a realible supply of some life-saving drug that I might some day need in order to survive (at the marginal cost of more dollars going into their pockets instead of mine), I vote for the latter thank-you-very-much.
NOW THEN, getting back on topic...
If they have indeed had more than plenty enough time to recoup the costs incurred in developing said drug and are now simply wishing to prolong their ride on the profit train their investment generated because they inadequately failed to plan ahead for said train eventually reaching the end of the line which they knew was coming, then fuck 'em. They should have planned ahead better.
NASA may understand things related to aeronautics and space, but, sadly, they sure as heck don't understand HTML very well:
(a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
(img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg" width="120" height="90"
(a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a)
and:
(a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
(img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg" width="120" height="90"
(a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a)
and:
(a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
(img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg" width="120" height="90"
(a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a)
Ummm... Houston? We have a problem here!
The "width" and "height" attributes of the HTML "img" tag *DOES NOT CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE IMAGE FILE*. It only changes the how that (image) FILE is
The entire 2.31 MB (9.4 x 6.3 inches (23.8 x 15.9 cm) 2250 x 1500 Pixel), 1.57 MB (5.8 x 8.1 inches (14.8 x 20.6 cm) 1400 x 1942 Pixel), and 2.01 MB (8.8 x 5.8 inches (22.3 x 14.8 cm) 2104 x 1400 Pixel) files will
They'll just get squeezed into a tiny 120 x 90 pixel area on the page, which sort of renders moot the whole point of providing thumbnails, doesn't it?
What
I've seen this mistake made far too many times by amateur web authors. You'd think the folks at NASA would be smart enough to get it right.
I mean this isn't exactly rocket science we're talking about here!
But then maybe that's the problem? They only understand rocket science, so anything that
Makes you wonder sometimes....
"MythBusters beat fingerprint security system"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA4Xx5Noxyo
They beat it using: latex, gelatin, and perhaps most amazing of all, a PHOTOCOPY of a fingerprint!
"Raw Video: Dash Cam Catches Meteor's Fall"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m4ZIO8t0dI)
Well, almost.
I didn't so much have my ATM Debit Card card stolen as I did my identity.
What they (the criminals) actually did was electronically "skim" my card, thereby obtaining not only all of my bank account information (account number, etc -- all the stuff recorded on the magnetic strip of the card) but also my pin number. (Their keypad where you enter you pin number into was connected to another box that saved the two pieces of information together so they has everything they needed to clone and use the card).
We noticed it on the next bank statement. There were transactions for places in California and we live in Seattle, WA and we don't travel.
The next day I went to the bank to deposit a check and asked the teller what I should do. She immediately asked me whether I happened to make any purchases recently at the store across the street. Surprised that she would know I answered yes. She then told me the cops has just arrested the owner for fraud/identity theft. Apparently there were many dozens of victims, all in this area and many of them also customers of the same bank as mine (Bank of America).
Long story short, the bank refunded the entire amount (over $900) while the investigation was underway since it was likely the investigation would complete in my favor (and since they obviously had the resources to recover their losses better than I did to cover mine).
I'm surprised your bank isn't handling the situation similarly, unless your card was indeed stolen and not simply used as part of a much larger across-state-lines wide-spread identity theft ring (which the feds (FBI) took over investigating/prosecuting).
Half the people I heard from said that if they scroll all the way to the bottom they can read the answers for free, and the other half say this doesn't work. This confused me for the longest time until I finally figured out the answer.
Expertsexchange allows you to scroll down to the bottom to get a free answer the first time you visit their page, then gives your browser a cookie saying that you have gotten your free answer, and won't show you any more. So if you want to ensure that you can always scroll to the bottom, you simply have to block cookies from them and you are good to go.
A much easier (and faster too!) way to see the answer for free every time is to simply click the Google's "Cached" link and then scroll to the bottom.
No need to mess with blocking of cookies or any other crap.
Works every time.
You're not tied into Google in any way and can easily block them for good by pointing their domain to 127.0.0.1 in your hosts file.
Which one?
They and other large name-brand high-tech companies have so freaking many it's impossible to truly block them all.
This is a serious problem for the complete opposite reason however: identifying which domains you wish to allow rather than block. I have my browser security set rather high (and use a custom filtering proxy as well) that prevents e.g. javascript from running anywhere except for those sites I choose trust. All other sites are blocked.
Simply allowing "primary-domain-name.com" doesn't cut it, since primary-domain-name.com uses javascript served by secondary-domain-name.com as well as other-owned-domain-names-you-never-knew-about-and-have-no-way-of-learning-about.com too.
As I said it' a problem, and to the best of my knowledge not one that's easily solvable.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
