I'm sure Holder appreciates the good chuckle he got from this letter.
Glitter now a possible herald of terrorism. Arrest all kindergarteners.
Because when you only have one archival copy, it's vulnerable to things like fires and degradable media?
"We're going to archive all of this for the future."
"Excellent. Where will we keep it?"
"In a box, in the basement."
"But then how will anyone ever access it?"
"Why would they want to do that?"
Every time I read about these "investor state dispute" clauses, I can't help but think of Shadowrun.
You can only watch one TV channel (per person) at a time!
Pffth, Amateur.
Well, he's actually totally right, when you consider the fact that they would price any a la carte options to ensure they get the same obscene payments out of customers. If people are paying $100 a month for the bundle, and the average person is only expected to get 5 channels, you can bet they're each gonna be $25+. A la carte or not, as long as there's no real competition, they're going to have a hand deep in your wallet.
I would hesitate to discharge a firearm in Times Square if the guy were bull rushing me, much less over an unconfirmed threat. That place is *way* too crowded for gunfire.
Yes, there are risks from doctors as well, which is why doctors are required to go through a fairly extensive certification process. I think home genomic testing is a great idea provided the tests can demonstrate a reasonable level of accuracy. But from the FDA's letter, it seems that 23andMe has repeatedly failed to offer any credible studies to support its assertions.
Yes, but the concern (at least from my reading of the letter) is primarily over people reacting to inaccurate results. Like the example they give immediately after that statement:
For example, false genotype results for your warfarin drug response test could have significant unreasonable risk of illness, injury, or death to the patient due to thrombosis or bleeding events that occur from treatment with a drug at a dose that does not provide the appropriately calibrated anticoagulant effect.
The FDA is also concerned that 23andMe has not submitted anything validating that it's test is effective or accurate, which is a larger part of the issue. Not to mention the fact that the list of things they purport to test for has grown significantly since initially filing for FDA approval.
From the FDA's letter:
However, even after these many interactions with 23andMe, we still do not have any assurance that the firm has analytically or clinically validated the PGS for its intended uses, which have expanded from the uses that the firm identified in its submissions. In your letter dated January 9, 2013, you stated that the firm is ?completing the additional analytical and clinical validations for the tests that have been submitted? and is ?planning extensive labeling studies that will take several months to complete.? Thus, months after you submitted your 510(k)s and more than 5 years after you began marketing, you still had not completed some of the studies and had not even started other studies necessary to support a marketing submission for the PGS. It is now eleven months later, and you have yet to provide FDA with any new information about these tests. You have not worked with us toward de novo classification, did not provide the additional information we requested necessary to complete review of your 510(k)s, and FDA has not received any communication from 23andMe since May. Instead, we have become aware that you have initiated new marketing campaigns, including television commercials that, together with an increasing list of indications, show that you plan to expand the PGS?s uses and consumer base without obtaining marketing authorization from FDA.
The very fact that he's got two black eyes is a dead giveaway that he was beaten.
Actually, a broken nose will usually result in two black eyes, as any impact strong enough to break the cartilage will produce shock damage to the small blood vessels in the area.
So, maybe this is a silly question, but if he was running away, as they claim, how did he get shot in the face. Now, my knowledge of anatomy is a little rusty, but the face is usually oriented in the direction of movement, ie. away from the cops.
I'm picturing the discussion going something like this:
Judge: Tech industry, the government has said some terrible things about you. How do you respond?
Tech Lawyers: Well, what did they say?
Judge: Terrrrrrible things. Things I can't even bring myself to repeat.
Tech Lawyers: Well, how are we supposed to respond if we don't know what we're responding to?
Judge: Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible things.
Captain Justice, Guardian of the Realm and Leader of the Resistance!
I may have to start signing things with that.
Does David Barrett or the UK government refuse to use SSL on webpages, since encryption can be used to cover the tracks of pedophiles?
They'd probably like to ban it, yes.
So, going back to Rep. Rogers and the whole "Your privacy isn't invaded if you don't know it's invaded", does that mean the colonoscopy portion is fine because he was sedated when it happened?
Porn is a standard feature of my ISP in the same way that milk is a standard feature of my car. I can use it to go get some.
Yep, weeding your garden is absolutely genocide of a toxic, productivity destroying infestation.
Only our elected representatives can properly balance existing privacy rights (if any)...
The part I've bolded pretty much says everything that needs to be said about his opinions.