We've got ourselves a thinker.....
That was my angle when I first read this piece. They know it is going to take buckets of time and more importantly, just a sick amount of money.
Like mentioned before "driving under the influence" and "driving while intoxicated" are two separate issues. If you want to have a hard limit for driving under the influence, which doesn't represent your physical ability to drive well or not, that is fine and it is an arbitrary number. It should be a fine, and it should trigger road-side testing. If you are "impaired" through a series of road-side test you are driving while intoxicated. Conversely, if you are under the limit, but seem intoxicated, it doesn't matter what your BAC is, the same road-side tests should be involved.
I work in the ER, I have seen people with surprisingly high BAC who are quite functional. Those people are chronically intoxicated, and have adjusted appropriately. Same goes true with the current narcotic epidemic. I have seen people on chronic narcotics who are quite functional and seem surprised when I tell them they shouldn't be driving on their 80 mg twice daily of long acting narcotic and 15 mg every 4 hours of a short acting narcotic.
Decision-making skills play a significant role, but there are plenty of other factors that help to reduce recidivism rates, such as anti-social belief systems, mental health, criminal companions, etc
which according to the article were controlled for.......Doesn't mean it is perfect, but it is less of a confounding variable then you may think.
Saying that Safari on MacOS "was not hacked" is slightly misleading. Nobody attempted to hack it, so contrary to some reports (and posts) it didn't survive anything.
As it was slightly misleading in the previous few years when it was "the first browser" hacked (or some variation thereof). Someone found an exploit and they were first up.
5 minutes on google will tell me that.....
Will tell you what? Not as much as you think, apparently.Thank you for illustrating this. ~2 grams/day (some say more, but 2 is solid) of acetaminophen/paracetamol/tylenol/etc have been studied and accepted as safe in chronic liver disease. 500 mg PO QID if you are so inclined.
The Doctors have been colluding with government to fuck over patients well and good for a long time. There'd be some justice in seeing them take the shaft in their turn, but I'd rather just end the power of their guild to control may access to health care services and treatments.
How are "we" (yes I am a doctor" colluding with the government? The government programs - medicare/medicaid pay pennies on the dollar.
"a significant portion of those in line are somehow affiliated with Microsoft, either as employees, vendors, or contractors."
The same article describes a "press only" Surface tablet event at which the "clapping and hollering" came from a group of people who had badges that were different to the press badges."
Link to Original Source
Is there a hospital in the United States that turns away a patient. No, it is against the law.
They are required under EMTALA to provide "emergency" care. Outside a few oncological emergencies there are very few cancer related things that will get you treated in the emergency room. You will not get chemotherapy, likely, if you don't have insurance unless you can convince the hospital to give you some charity care.
Corporate Personhood has a very long and sorted history in the U.S.
Promise I am not being a jerk, but it is sordid. I completely agree with the rest of the story.