Every antibiotic that we've commercially produced has eventually triggered resistance mechanisms in the targeted bacteria. There are no exceptions to this. It's not likely to happen under lab conditions mentioned in the article, but it's certain to happen from widespread utilization in hospitals and clinics because "super bacteria" are naturally selected over many generations of exposure. This reminds me of when daptomycin was approved and first marketed in the US. It also relied on a different mechanism of action from other cell-wall antibiotics and there were similar claims of no known resistance...which was true at the time but that wasn't the case for long. It's still one of our big guns for MRSA and VRE, but treatment failure is possible.
Europe spent 4 years investigating Google's practices. What did they come up with? Not a damn thing. There was no evidence of abuse of market position, so a new law is now being created for the sole purpose of enforcing against Google. It would be very different if Google was actually disrupting other markets using their dominance in search, but that's not what's happening here.
The world-wide web is most definitely not under their jurisdiction either. Europe has no authority to censor the internet on behalf of the rest of the world.
Here's an old podcast from last year, that sums up the problem pretty well in Connecticut...sorry for the length but it's pretty interesting and still relevant: http://ctmirror.org/truth-behi...
My first 3D accelerator was a Voodoo, and shortly after that a Riva TNT, which wasn't anything special at the time. Back then, I remember there were many more consumer GPU manufacturers, and almost all of them were bringing new features to GPU's. The naming of OGL extensions reflected that. Years before everyone else, 3DFX was doing SLI, ATI had primitive hardware tessellation and the first unified shader arch, and Savage created gpu texture compression. The modern GPU wasn't invented by NVidia, but by contributions by many GPU designs.
Isn't that why a law this this should address the source, rather than the index? In your example, the original article should be updated with an addendum in the title or header, just as print news often publishes a clarifying piece. Hyperlinks to the article would immediately make it clear what the truth is. Because the Right to be Forgotten targets search engines instead, it's being used (and abused) by people who actually did something wrong and want it erased. People should be left to determine for themselves what information is relevant, not what you or I demand them to believe. It's like the old adage that respect is earned. I can't force you to respect me, but I have a lot of control about what you think about me. Maybe that's still not enough for some people, but I'll say this: nothing good has ever emerged from censorship of the truth.
Question: Does this law prevent someone from declaring a "spent conviction" on an application and an employer from asking about it or using it against the applicant? Or does it require the conviction records to be expunged from public records? Even in the US, there are laws addressing equal opportunity and employee discrimination. Even if an employer discovers a past arrest or conviction through a background, that cannot be used against the applicant to deny them a job. There are exceptions, for example a repeat child sex offender probably wouldn't get a job in a day care center, but even in that circumstance, the employer could still get dragged into court in a challenge.
You're wrong. This law isn't about slanderous claims, defamation, or copyright infringement. There have been laws that address that already. This law involves the removal of factual information--censorship of the truth. That's the key difference.
Microsoft and Yahoo are affected too, they were at the meeting. It's not an attack on Google, it's an attack on the freedom of the truth.
"6. Do you notify website publishers of delisting? In that case, which legal basis do you have to notify website publishers?" Laws are restrictive not permissive. The response from the search engines should be "by what legal basis do you have to prevent us from notifying website publishers?"
The best argument I've read is that the complex characters in the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese languages really benefit from higher density screens, even over what the G2 was providing last year.
I just don't follow this reasoning. We're talking about truthful, factual, and legitimate content. If you were a reporter reporting facts, why should I have the "God-given right" to determine what you write about me? Why should I be able to take down a link to an article that I don't hold the copyright to? I shouldn't, because I (or anyone else) don't own "facts" about you. This is a really slippery slope, my friend.
You're not far off the mark. For short OR procedures, fentanyl is preferred because the onset is faster and the duration is shorter, but hydromorphone can be used. Midazolam is used in conjunction for it's sedative and amnetic properties. This is also still a common combination when patients are mechanically vented. Patients lose complete orientation to what's happening to them before they lose consciousness. The observers' perception that he "suffered" is very unlikely to be the case.
All Androids by now have native Vorbis decoding libraries. It's software-based, but if I recall correctly, the battery life is about the same for mp3 and vorbis. Neither codec is ideal though, because podcasts are mainly speech. Speex or Opus (ideally) would be better and VLC will play those just fine.
If bandwidth caps become reality, can we also get usage-based billing for cable and satellite too?