If they have already decided which contractor they wanted for the job, it's probably their way to make certain that contractor gets the job instead of having to compete for it.

What would be really interesting: a subscription model where you can choose ads or choose to pay, but set so that the price for a subscription varies continuously to ensure that 50% of new subscribers choose to pay and 50% choose to view ads. Now the site can track exactly how annoying its ads are.

So no privacy regulations about your data (health, purchase history, financial, browsing, etc) either? No regulations to prevent Apple and Alphabet from deciding to collude with the developers of the top messaging apps to block all other messaging apps from Android and iOS?

The entry into the field (PharmD graduates) has almost doubled this century, so it's not very limited anymore.

An actual pharmacist has to sign off on each bottle, but most of the rest of the job is increasingly going to be handed off to techs and automation. Meanwhile, the profitability of running a PharmD school was noted and the market responded by upping the number of schools faster than the need for pharmacists. When the number of accredited programs goes up by over 50% and the number of graduates doubles in less than 15 years (2000 to 2012) ... you may be looking at another rat race soon.

I think it's almost the reverse. The shenanigans he has been pulling have been going on for years but never faced much scrutiny til now. They only affected small patient populations at any given time. Now he has given everyone a single, hatable face to hang the problem on - during election season no less. Plus these particular shenanigans aren't ones that are used by big pharma, but DO affect their reputations, so as long as the reforms are on target they won't be fighting them. On the other hand, the securities fraud charges have been in the works for a long time (and come from a completely different arm of the government.

Go fuck your own singular self. What do you think you (you as in: readers of slashdot. You can guess the predominant demographics) are more at risk of? And who is it that the bad guys target again?

Nice non sequitur.

Good. Certification or they just have to show up for the training? Also, since this is the scenario we are talking about: what level of training covers taking out a shooter in a crowded room? Federal Air Marshall pistol qualification? Should we assume that people who can shoot a target at a range will hit the correct person while being shot at?

For noise like that it's better to just move. Replacing all the windows with ones that have a high STC rating isn't cheap, and then you you are still deafened if you want to open a window or do something outside.

I'm glad to see you are so worried about defending yourself from MASS MURDER that you put it in all caps. I can't imagine the decorations you use when discussing choking, drowning, or falling to death, each of which is tens of times likely even if you aren't elderly. What sort of gear to do you carry to prevent those fates, btw?

According to the FBI: yes.

Other criminals, for the most part. After that: young black males. If you don't fall in those categories, you really have better things to worry about than being shot to death. Go get some exercise, quit smoking,

If the safety is in the form of a gun, put it in the wife's hands, not the husband's. Most female murder victims are killed by a family member, most often the husband/SO/Ex.

The San Bernadino massacre was at an office holiday party, and TV and the internets have been full of people saying how it should have been full of armed citizens.

- Would you care to cite any reliable sources on this?

Absolutely:

Mass shooting deaths (FBI):

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stori...

Accidental shooting deaths (CDC):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Yes, absolutely. And upping the number of people carrying won't magically increase the percentage of them using holsters and gun safes correctly.

Google is analyzing ... everything. 23andMe (funded by Google Ventures) is just the one you hear about most.

So how many armed civilians do you need to drop the mass killing rate by 50%? Quite a lot to have 1 or more on hand at every large gathering. Bear in mind, dropping the mass killing rate by half would drop the homicide rate by less than 0.3%. Meanwhile, now every office party where people are drinking now has at least someone armed in attendance. Does getting a CCW permit automatically cause abstinence from drinking and drug use while carrying? What could go wrong? Considering that in the US accidental shootings alone kill ~10 times more people than mass shootings, I think more people would die rather than fewer.

As pointed out upthread, mass killings are a rounding error in the national homicide rate. I think the effect of having more "gun-holding, trained people" drinking at holiday parties would be to push the homicide rate up a tick rather than down.

Can't we just announce a war on paper?