News
May 2, 2014 at 9:02 am
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
"Kshama Sawant, a Socialist Alternative Party member who was elected to the Seattle City Council last year on a single-minded drive to raise wages"-And rent control, a community bank, shoring up civil liberties, but if you consider her focus on raising the wage "single-minded" it seems cartoonish, but i would understand that characterization.
In addition, the NYT didn't mention the biggest issue for Sawant, the phase-in for large companies. There isn't a solid reason McDonalds or Starbucks couldn't pay $15 today. I think she's shown a tolerance for phasing in small businesses, with an understanding that what constitutes a "small business" is up for debate, and I've heard that she would a accept a 3-5 year phase in for them.
And as the flames climbed high into the night,
To light the sacrificial rite,
I saw Satan laughing with delight.
nothing about the economy GROWING!
at .1%?
come on, give Your Shitty President the credit he deserves......
As circumstances change, populations evolve new traits to adapt to the changing conditions. The new trait evolves because those who posess it are able to reproduce more. However, that new trait may be a disadvantage under the old conditions. The only reason it becomes prevalent is because of the selective pressure imposed by the new circumstances.
Clinically significant bacterial populations are developing new traits - antibiotic resistance - in response to the selective pressure imposed by our sloppy overuse of antibiotics. However, the evolved strains may not be as competitive as the old strains when this selective pressure is removed and it's replaced by different ones. So the hypothesis: The bacteria will lose their resistance after a while (a few years?) once antibiotics become useless and we stop using them. Furthermore, the original source of antibiotics, other bacteria and fungi, will develop new antibiotics as they themselves continually evolve as a response to the microbes around them. Because they reproduce so prolifically, their generation time is so short, and some are able to swap whole chunks of DNA back and forth, bacteria evolve at a much faster pace than humans.
So we may reach the "end of antibiotics," but this end doesn't have to be permanent.
Somehow it's easy for me to picture a slob of droolspit dangling from your mouth. It's a good look for you.
I'm serious. Within an hour I but I could locate enough dope to execute a convicted murderer.
But, for some reason that escapes me, they have to use some bullshit pharma.
@9: Correct in principle. It's anyone's guess as to how quickly resistance-providing alleles will dwindle from the population once they're no longer selected for, though. Of course, due to drift and other effects, it's likely that many of them will persist at very low frequency indefinitely, in which case resistance could make a reappearance relatively quickly should similar antibiotics be overused. It's a lot easier for a resistance allele carried by a few bacterial cells to spread, than for a weak-resistance allele to evolve into a strong-resistance allele.
nicely indeed.
288,000 jobs added last month
and 806,000 people dropped out of the labor force
pushing the labor force participation rate to 62.8 percent, a 36-year low
very nice
and what was the growth in GDP last quarter?
(using the term 'growth' loosely...)