The speculative frenzy over BTC is based strictly on artificial scarcity, and scarcity over a bunch of digital bits, at that. (I find it amusing how some of the same people who condemn the enforced artificial scarcity of digital media via DRM have embraced BTC while remaining completely oblivious of their cognitive dissonance.) But BitCoin's success will be its downfall.
Absolute tripe, and no, the two can't be compared. I don't need to read the rest of this comment.
Not the case with an SLA between a cloud provider and an organization.
I really don't know where you get that idea from. Cloud SLA's are not worth the paper they aren't written on.
There is research out there claiming green tea, spices like tumeric, and just eating better can have dramatic results. I would like to see some serious research by respected oncologists into the efficacy of simple life changes like that, instead of study after study pushing big pharma's insanely expensive drugs (thankfully covered by the trial in our case) that cause side effects potentially more dangerous than the disease they are intended to treat.
Sadly, after seeing the countless billions thrown at cancer research over the years I can't be anything but extremely sceptical and downhearted on that one. A simple, cheap remedy or even something that would help in a small way is just not on the cards. So much money has been chucked at cancer that if those things haven't been properly researched by now they never will be. Cancer research is a sinkhole for lots and lots of money and that will never change as things stand.
The simple fact is that if you have just about any cancer that is moderately advanced in any way then your prognosis is not good, and it's a hack of a lot less if you aren't at least moderately wealthy.
Drugs that treat the patient for a few months and then they die, or a working treatment that the patient has to receive over their entire (longer now) life?
A cure for cancer would be a gold mine for a pharmaceutical company.
That is not a cure.
The publishing frequency is not really the determining factor.
I very much think you will find it is these days. The research that is being done today is mostly junk, cheap industrial research and that's based on keeping the grants and the patent applications flowing. If you aren't part of the team who buys into that and wants to do something that takes time and effort you're not going to fit in.
No. There is a distinct difference between poor quality science and bad science.
That statement ironically confirms everything I'm pointing out and the reality distortion field much of the scientific community lives in.
There's also the public tendency to reduce everything to a simple answer, when it's rarely simple.
When you see a heck of a lot of anti-depressant drugs handed out for ailments that aren't even psychological, it becomes obvious to even the public what is going on.
When the same things start cropping up time and again Occam's Razor becomes even more applicable, and yes, it is that simple regardless of the scientific community's refrain that you don't understand what is going and things are too complicated for you to understand.
I remember the BBC did a programme a few years ago asking why people are so sceptical about science these days. This is exactly why.
Officially this is to crack down on crime and money laundering, but unofficially this is so that it is less likely there will be runs on banks and because electronic transactions are much easier to track.
let natural selection take care of you.
I hope you realise the irony in that statement.