...ought not to be defined by the government against which it is wielded.

No, that would be a perilepidopterist!

I am an epileptologist, and I would certainly love to see more effective anti-seizure drugs on the market. But although the newer anticonvulsants aren't necessarily better at stopping seizures than older ones (like the classic four: phenytoin, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and valproic acid), they are better tolerated, have fewer severe adverse effects, have much more predictable serum concentrations, fewer drug-drug interactions, and require little to no routine bloodwork monitoring. For the 1% of the population suffering from epilepsy who have to take these drugs on a regular basis, this has been a significant change.

Yeah, sure, okay.

It was brave. It took guts. I wish he had just a little more bravery and a little more guts and as much oomph as it took when he held his only-a-little-powerful position. Because now he holds a no-powerful position, vis-a-vis the question at hand. People seeing the light only after they've led horrible organizations do not interest me all that much. Unless it's a prelude to leading a bigger, badder organization to undo the damage.

Add Hawley to the list of people for whom wisdom (or the audacity to voice it) came too late in their careers to make any difference.

I am a neurologist. During training, an MMSE was basically a required component of a history and physical exam of any patient with cognitive complaints. It has its limits, but within them it is very useful.

It's pretty hard to believe that a collection of cognitive tests, almost all of which can be and are used separately in a more customized examination of the patient's sensorium, can be so creative as to be copyrighted.

The idea that the Sweet 16 could infringe because it contains "orienation" and "memory recall" items similar to the MMSE is absurd; questions about orientation and immediate/delayed recall are standard with or without the MMSE.

This is absolutely infuriating from a clinical perspective.

*Nods*. Right. My comment ought not to be construed as a statement along the lines of, "Screw the authors! Gimme!" It's just a goddamn shame that this hasn't been pulled off.

All I want--far, far more than Netflix or Rhapsody--is to be able to give somebody money on a monthly basis to have access to nearly every book in every library in the world. Just somebody make this easy. I don't want to have to think, "Is reading a chapter of this obscure work on Russian formalism worth $0.50?" I just want to fucking click on a link, and read it.

Been an Ubuntu fan for an awfully long time, and evangelized it onto the hard drive of several relatives and work colleagues. I fucking hate Unity. I'm running Natty right now on "Ubuntu Classic" mode to avoid it; and despite all the wonderful things Canonical has brought to desktop Linux, the silliness of this decision has me thinking of moving my main PC to another distro; I've got Fedora 15, Arch, Gentoo, and a few others waiting in the pipeline.

So really they're going to allow the possibility of publishers to allow lending.

Because *I* want to have a say in how the next technological regime for literature will be structured, I download and copy books.