wmgries

I've never heard of anyone being forced to wait for weeks for this kind of stuff in a normal hospital in the US. Government run health systems overseas have well documented wait lists.

Furthermore, privately run systems should be more efficient because consumers have a choice. Don't like your current doctor? Go get a new one. To be clear, I don't object to government funding these things, just running them. Monopolies are bad.

Why don't we just pay for veterans to go to normal hospitals? Why on earth would we think these government run hospitals would work?

Nice! Thanks for the link.

I'm sure he means the Commission. And arguably, sovereignty is decreasing for member-states. For instance, possibly as much as two-thirds of the laws and regulations that affect people living in the EU come from the EU itself - not the member-states. For Eurozone members, monetary policy is controlled by the EU, and increasingly fiscal policy. What does sovereignty look like in this picture?

Although, I'm not sure if the Commission itself would have the revenue to support key open source projects. They could certainly enact regulation to encourage funding, however.

This article is about OneDrive for Business, not OneDrive. OneDrive for Business is for business, as the name suggests. SharePoint maybe slow, but it does have features that users in business like, so having OneDrive for Business behave like SharePoint is fine.

I don't have numbers, but I'd be willing to guess that a fair number of IE6, 7, and 8 users were on corporate PCs which prohibited installations of newer versions of IE or other browsers. Microsoft can't do anything about those people! They have been try to end support for Windows XP and IE 6 for years, and newer versions of IE auto-update unless the user specifically tells the OS not to.

That's a good point, I'm not sure. The friends I've seen use the drug as a study aid certainly respond to it quickly but the scientific rigor of the experiment didn't much matter: I think my parents were skeptical that I really had a problem anyway, and lo and behold, I'm an adult now and I never did actually have a problem. When you tell the parents of every boy in the class their kid has ADHD, the claim becomes pretty weak.

My third grade teacher apparently had every boy in her class tested. As a boy, and frankly as a boy who was independent, mouthy and unlikely to do work in school unless I wanted to, I'm glad I had great parents and a great pediatrician. My pediatrician had my parents and teacher run an experiment: my mom would choose a pill with active ingredient or a pill with nothing in it, and my teacher, without knowing which I took that day, would record notes on my behavior. Turns out, no correlation between the two.

I don't doubt there are people in this world for who ADHD is a real thing. But I think we are too quick in the modern age to drug without thinking. Parents demand antibiotics for illnesses which are just small bugs... guess what, now we are having problems with drug resistant bacteria. Lawmakers, administrators, and teachers (in that order) want to turn classrooms in to machines which churn out educated people like clockwork. Turns out, humans are animals, not machines, so we load everybody with some stimulants to make children just sit still.

I'm not anti-medicine in any way. I have personally seen Ritalin work on a friend who actually had ADHD growing up. And I have also seen another friend buy Vyvanse illegally so he could study for 15 hours a day. I believe in prescription drugs. I just don't always believe in the prescription.

There are good arguments to be had about why college is so expensive and exactly how much federal and local money should go to education. It's simply untrue that it's impossible to pay your own way through college - I just did it for the last two and a half of my education. Of course I was making more than minimum wage, but for all but a semester I wasn't making radically above minimum wage (my last summer I worked at a top tech company). I chose to major in an in demand field that I was good at, worked a lot instead of drinking or playing video games, and went to an affordable in state school. Not everybody can make it through college without loans, but if everybody put the same effort into their job and education I did, it should be a worthwhile investment to carry a bit of debt.

This is an interesting issue. At what point will our descendants feel that they are different enough from us through natural or guided (by science) evolution?

Also, you almost never need to use goto.

Isn't git built into Visual Studio?

When a bad guy uses torture, we get the message that he's a bad guy. It doesn't really matter if the information the bad guy gets is good or not because the viewer is not sympathetic to the bad guy. Others have made this point upstream, but essentially, you have a great case for torture being legitimized IF the good guys are using it and are portrayed as heroes for doing so.

I'm interested now. Not enough to rewatch the entire show front to back, but how about you give some examples of the protagonists using torture (like episode numbers)? When the bad guys use torture in a tv show or movie, that shouldn't count towards what you are claiming - only when the good guys uses it.

The main problem I have with this article is that it doesn't give specific examples of when torture is used, especially by the show's protagonists. I love both Fringe and the X-Files, but I've actually more recently seen the X-Files (I'm on Season 7) so Fringe isn't exactly fresh in my mind.

The main scene I remember where one of the protagonists resorts to torture is in the final season where Peter tortures a captured Observer to figure out how to put together a time portal stabilizer the Observers are using for transport. But if I remember the scene correctly, Peter doesn't even want information - he's just really pissed off at the Observers for killing his daughter. Even though this scene shows one of the protagonists doing something wrong, I question whether it was really trying to get the watcher's approval for the his actions. If anything, it was trying to show disapproval for his actions by depicting him as mentally unstable. I'm not saying that there aren't more scenes where the protagonists resort to torture, just that I can't remember them.

A further question that I have is what exactly torture is in a sci-fi show. There are at least two episodes where the Fringe gang uses a device that reanimates a recently deceased enemy so they can get the necessary information to stop an impending attack. Is a scenario like this torture? And what about when one of the Observers attempts to read Walter's mind causing him a great deal of pain? This seems to be torture, but would the shows viewers think that governments should torture because Fringe depicted a character reading another character's mind?

Finally, Ntrails makes a fantastic point. Typically, torture is not depicted as a critical story piece in Fringe. Torture occasionally makes appearances, but many of the shows fans can't even remember when and how often they were used. What does that say about the "legitimizing" force of depiction of torture in Fringe?

Why can't you just disable Secure Boot from the UEFI? http://www.microsoft.com/surface/en-us/support/warranty-serv...

Regulation and Keynesian policies are not socialism.