Not really. They need only prove to be slightly better than placebo in a flawed study.
For example, in the SSRI studies, the side effects of the drugs effectively unblinded all of them.
That's why we see expensive new drugs get to the market when less expensive drugs with equal or better effectiveness and a better history of safety already exist.
When I saw Brave New World, I thought I might never again hear someone speak so chreerfully about death as the teacher conditioning the children. Then I heard the voiceover disclaimer lady in drug ads...
Or, much worse for us (but probably to the delight of the pharmaceutical industry), the terrible side effects will be masked by the symptoms of exposure, malnutrition and chronic alcohol abuse.
And if they try to charge your credit card again, report it as fraudulent.
nobody uses physical media anymore
"Nobody" is a strong word. People who pay $10 per GB for home Internet (sat, cell, or Iowa DSL) still use physical media.
there's zero reason not to stick the PC somewhere else and run an extra CAT-6 drop
Unless you're renting and the landlord won't let you modify the walls.
I don't like seeking after misery, so I avoided opening a Comcast account to begin with. They may own almost all the market, but there are still less obnoxious alternatives.
For you, did such avoidance involve finding a different city in which to work? Or did it involve dealing with sat or cell ISPs that charge $10 per GB?
"Fair use" does not actually make copying legal. Rather, it's a defense to the accusation of copyright infringement.
How so? I was under the impression that a defense to infringement makes certain forms of copying legal because it's a defense.
You still infringed the copyright
Then I must have misread the phrase "...is not an infringement of copyright" in 17 USC 107. What was it intended to mean?
Who the hell buys/uses CD's anymore?
People who are fans of recording artists who choose not to sell their music on Amazon MP3. For example, AC/DC and Garth Brooks are noted for their opposition to sales of downloadable singles. Other artists like the Beatles are exclusive to iTunes, which is fine if you use OS X or iOS but leaves, say, Android users behind.
[Online games and offline apps] are mutually exclusive.
True. Should I have instead split the two scenarios into separate comments?
An offline application can't know that validation has changed or there is an app update because it's offline. At that point, what do you do, toss out any data the user entered while they were offline?
In the case of an application with a substantial offline component, the server would handle the current version of the client and at least one previous version.
Even if I follow your approach, when the client and server versions mismatch because the user was offline they'll get the same pages of errors.
Granted, the user may see a few errors when server version n communicates with client n - 1, mostly related to the (hopefully small) schema changes between n - 1 and n. But ideally, this should introduce far fewer errors than if there had been no client-side pre-validation at all.
Boy, I hope your QA team has a large alcohol budget and the world's largest whiteboard for their validation testing matrix.
It's a bit easier when the testing matrix is a band matrix. If X is the client version and Y the server, the server only needs to gracefully handle a small number of client versions.
The tax on cigarettes already makes up the majority of the retail price. Meanwhile, since smokers tend to die before needing long term medical care, they are actually less expensive than non-smokers. Especially when you consider that they also spend less time eligible for social security.
Of course, those taxes are spent on just about anything but medical care for smokers but you can't blame the smokers for that.
Imitation is the sincerest form of plagarism.