Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
For example, if the Church says Jesus was tried that is a fact and it is an error on the part of this Jewish historian who forgot to include it in this historical record. Therefore the priest will do his best to correct the error while preserving the integrity of the work. He'll integrate it in his best approximation of where it goes with minimal adjustment to the original and to preserve the original tone. This way it can be the best and most accurate history.
Which is why Pharma companies are all bankrupt? No part of what I proposed involved taxpayer money or prevented working in teams. What I proposed are loans from the federal reserve on the same terms they are given to banks. The fed does not loan out tax payer money to banks, it loans out shiny newly created money at ridiculously low rates. We have an inflationary fiat currency and it actually depends on us putting new currency into circulation. Traditionally the finance industry gets all the benefits from this system. Advanced technology and especially medicine is certainly at least one obvious alternative place we could inject this money which benefits everyone in the nation.
"You absolutely shouldn't be allowed to make something that's going to go into people in a lab like you described"
I didn't actually describe a lab. Maybe you are mentally projecting your own assumption of some sort of inferior facility? Last I checked there is nothing magical about the pharma corps that makes them more capable than anyone else.
"I'm also not sure what you have against profits in general. For-profit companies aren't inherently bad, and non-profits aren't inherently good."
In general I agree. I just don't think healthcare and medicine is an appropriate for-profit industry. The costs are the same whether for-profit or non-profit. Profit has to come from somewhere and in the case of healthcare the result is higher costs which means less people benefit from the care. A for profit has an interest in maximizing profit and you maximize profit by providing as little as possible for as much as possible. This isn't in the interest of our nation. We all benefit if the health industries provide as much as possible at the lowest cost possible.
I don't propose blocking the for profit drug industry. I propose they shouldn't be allowed to use infrastructure that exists to provide an alternative to them and tie up those resources just to increase their own profits. Non-profits and partnerships still allow for teams to group together in a more established structure and work and allow for those people to profit from that work in the form of salaries in the case of a non-profit and in the system I proposed all the net profit derived from the fruits of their labor.
I need use cases. I need killer apps. I need the flavor of killer apps that let me build customized functionality without actually having to build apps. Most essentially, I need to know nothing I look at goes to Google.
People unreasonably worry about glass wearers recording them. I'm far far more concerned about Google recording via glass. I'm worried about data mining, I'm worried about facial recognition. Imagine this day. Your workplace issues glass devices for everyone. You step outside the office to have a private conversation in the parking lot. You've been a good drone on paper and face to face but criticize your direct report to some of your peers during the conversation and admit your frustration. You indicate you might start looking for something else. The next day your boss who has been monitoring your feed thinks you are buried and finally wants you to train up someone to assist you. You think, omg, finally, recognition and with that you aren't so eager to bail. Just as your help gets up to speed and there is light at the end of the tunnel they find some unrelated excuse and can you because you've just trained your replacement.
Frankly, I wouldn't be any happier about the data being used to assist "law enforcement", "catch terrorists", allow parents to monitor and "protect" their children, or "catch cheating spouses" either. I certainly wouldn't be happy if my wife was feeling frisky in a dark corner on the boardwalk and some bored night shift admin at google captured the clip and uploaded it to the web either.
You think is OK for some Glasshole to walk into a restaurant where you are enjoying a public yet private dinner with a friend, record it and put it up on the Intertubes?"
No, I'm not okay with it. But the restaurant is already recording me. The other patrons in the restaurant already have the capability to record me as well without it looking like they are doing anything more than playing with their phone. On top of that there are already glasses cams, lapel cams, hat cams, and pen cams to name a few.
Potentially, every person in the restaurant has that capability already and everyone at the table is likely carrying a device that can be used to record the conversation. Hell, there is a pretty good chance there is crap installed on your phone that gives your employer the ability to remotely activate the camera and microphone on YOUR phone to do the same and almost certainly apps you've voluntarily installed that carry those capabilities and probably even got you to click through an agreement giving them permission. The same with the camera and microphone on your company issued laptop as well.
At most google glass is giving someone a device that lets them flip on and point the camera a little more quickly when something interesting comes up to take a picture of. Otherwise, I don't see anything new here with glass vs cell phones and security cams. I also don't see glass users as somehow being more or less innately trustworthy than random staff and patrons at your restaurant or work place.
P.S. If you don't think your employer can/does do this, think again. They almost certainly do especially if a technology company. You can't actually trust any blocker that you install to prevent it but some of those blocker apps will monitor and detect when other apps grab your phone mic/cam and differentiate between the app simply securing the resource and actually activating it. You might be surprised.
View the source with the skepticism it deserves but do not assume the message is automatically false because of the messenger.
No. And my comment shouldn't be taken as advocating anything from those sources.
"The fact that some conspiracies are real does not imply that all posited conspiracy theories are."
The fact that some conspiracies are not real does not imply that all posited conspiracy theories are not.
I'm not defending the particular flavor of nut job you are referencing. It is the phrase "paranoid conspiracy theorist" that triggers me. Pre-CIA disclosures, snowden, and wikileaks barrage educated individuals generally came from a number of assumptions about government conspiracies that resulted in immediately labeling anyone who speculated overt deception and/or conspiracy on the part of government/state/police sources as a paranoid conspiracy theorist. As a consequence, the only people who could safely advocate such opinions publicly WERE nut jobs. I've argued against this providing sane and rational skepticism prior to the aforementioned disclosures and leaks and advocate the same now.
When it comes to government and the global banking system an incredibly healthy portion of what was posited by nut jobs turned out to be true. Frankly, most of what has come out was actually probable if you were viewing those sources with appropriate skepticism in the first place.
Here is a conspiracy for you. I find it highly suspect that nut jobs are the only ones who posit overt deception on the part of government that are given significant media and television coverage. A great way to divert suspicion is to throw out a few foaming at the mouth lunatics and bury obvious suspicious elements within their drivel. Then associate anyone who repeats those suspicious elements with those lunatics. See any history channel show that eventually devolves into the ancient aliens guy. See opera episodes that put militia extremists on stage along side KKK members and neo-nazi's after waco.
I didn't realize we still tied conspiracy theorist with paranoid anymore. For the most part, it's people who do so as a knee jerk reaction who have proven to be wrong.
While true, consider the forum. FB is a place for keeping in touch with friends and family not a news outlet.
All of them. If you don't like false toss in a political/religious flag. Nothing political or religious belongs on facebook.
Among the videos I saw were a few gems I independently researched and determined to be blatantly bunk and/or with real information deliberately misrepresented on critical points:
- Anti-evolution with the feature point being the claim of the Lucy skeleton being a pig. That feature point, completely false and never believed by anyone credible. Also the nice "missing link" fallacy.
- Intelligent design
- Finding of Noah's ark
- The mark of the beast chip
- That the plagues have been proven in Egypt
- That Jesus having been an actual living person is undisputed fact. The only actual evidence is an entry by a jewish historian documenting the trial. The document that contains it was copied by priests and is full of proven transliterations. Most scholars do think it's authentic but it's really far too short to make that evaluation on such an extraordinary claim. Unfortunately, the scholars in this area are almost entirely theists and highly biased and authentication of a passage like this is highly subjective.
- "Proof" of the parting of the red sea
- Information about the Y2K bug
- The evils of the catholic church and their idol worship
Of all of these, the idea Jesus lived as a human is the only one in any form of dispute. The rest are outright fabrications.
Those are all stage 1 with the backdoor points being the most critical to achieving sustained high intensity orgasm. For some women, on the right day, you can get there in just a few moments pushing the right button, others will require stages of varied stimulation over a good hour or even two, most will flit somewhere between most of time and hit these extremes sometimes. But in every woman exists the potential for a level of sustained high intensity orgasm that doesn't stop as long as stimulation continues. Get her there and you can do whatever you want for your own pleasure and she won't mind a bit, she'll be too busy contorting and spasming with whole body wracking waves of pleasure.
In that state you can still build orgasmic peaks that for lack of distinctive word she will still call orgasms and you can change it up and do those at various points. No matter how long it took to get there in the first place, triggering an orgasm peak from the clit, vagina, or anally will take only a few seconds. Which is very satisfying for a man. Even hopping in at this point for what would normally be the duration of a lackluster quickie will trigger a multiple highly intense orgasm.
A couple words of warning though. Go about figuring her out wrong and she'll feel like you are treating her like a machine. Also there is a point of sustained orgasm where you've started with the clit head to get things moving and completing an orgasm with that point will bring a finale to things. So when she starts repeating from stimulating her somewhere else don't go back to directly stimulating that place for awhile. Also, she'll need a recovery period afterward. She's going to be a little sore the next day from all those muscle spasms and contractions. And if you do it too much she'll desensitize. If she goes for direct clitoral stimulation with any frequency she probably won't desensitize at all especially using something like a wand massager. There is also a good chance the experience will be so intense she is a little afraid of it.
Stage 2 is most effectively reached through Stage 1. In this state it's much easier, though with repetition, to build lasting associations in the nervous system with other points on the body (especially sensitive ones). It's possible to build these associations to the point where she can orgasm through stroking her hair, kissing her, or light touches. The nipples/breasts are particularly easy since some level of association has usually been formed by contact with them during sex already. Anywhere that is ticklish is an especially good target. It's easy to build associations that are strong enough to trigger/escalate arousal through these things. These associations are both psychological and physical because optimized communication pathways will be formed by the two centers being activated at the same time. Eventually, it's best to work toward caresses all over the surface of the skin.
Stage 3 is when you can stimulate this without actually even touching. Strokes so close she can feel them but not actually making contact. Trust me, if you get to this point. That woman will be yours forever. The sight of you, your smell, the stink of your sweat, and the very idea of your touch will send tremors through her body. Especially the smell of your sweat which makes perfect sense if you've taken the time to pay attention to a woman. There is no limit to how much of a man or how strong the man who shows that much consideration and makes her feel that way is entitled to be.
Either way, there SHOULD be federal support for this, but only in the sense of loans from the federal reserve at the same rates and terms given to banks. This kind of development is of clear targeted benefit to our society in a far more obvious way than lining the pockets of wealthy bankers.
Let's say I'm someone who is capable of producing a drug or thinks I am. I should be able to use the local biology lab (akin to a library, either private non-profit or city sponsored) to develop it and perform the research I need. I should of course have to pay for access and when I submit a request for new equipment, whether or not to acquire that equipment should be a question posed to the existing membership along with how much it will increase dues and how long it's expected to increase them. Of course, I should always have the option of donating equipment myself. All members must be human persons (including partnerships) or non-profits (with no management salaries in top 10% income brackets). The requirement is that if developed further you must use "in system" facilities for manufacture and distribution and the lab will own the ip and all profits after costs will go to the inventor or non-profit that developed the drug but other members would be able to utilize the IP royalty free. Everyone is assigned a development log for every project and everything they do, every piece of equipment they use goes in and results are logged there. Including anything they do on their own without using lab equipment.
Trials and testing and advertising for the same. The same kind of thing. Centralize the costs but require those using the system to pay the costs. Streamline the process to parallel FDA approval and go through FDA approval using template requests and submissions. Members pay dues while using the process. The previous log is required and access is only to individuals and non-profits. Members vote on whether to proceed on studies and any study that hasn't met the minimum requirements for their study (animal trials on X subjects for Y time for instance) can't have it put to a vote unless they submit for an exemption and provide justification.
Manufacture, Advertising, sales, and distribution. This would need to be a national non-profit. Drugs would be sold with a fixed markup over a fair estimate of costs (30% is typical markup in a retailer). When patents expire drugs would continue to be made available at cost only without the markup as long as they are viable. If a capacity increase is needed or better equipment of some type, it goes to a vote of members with patents in the system. Want to pull a drug? It goes to a vote among the members of the system.
In the end, it costs what it costs and those costs are spread out among everyone developing drugs and those people get all the profits. Since all costs come from federal loans it's very easy to determine them. Divide up the total loan payment among the total number of mg/ml of drug produced and let the more expensive vs less expensive to produce drugs live with the average. It's better than all the min/maxing and duplicate charging games that result from any other way.