'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it': Drug-susceptibility testing for bedaquiline and delamanid.

Despite being fundamental to all treatment decisions, the breakpoints that define susceptibility and resistance to conventional anti-tuberculosis (TB) drugs were traditionally defined based on expert opinion as opposed to modern microbiological principles. As a result, the breakpoints for several key drugs (i.e. amikacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin) were too high, resulting in the systematic misclassification of a proportion of resistant strains as susceptible. Moreover, a recent systematic review of clinical outcome data prompted the World Health Organization (WHO) to make significant changes to its treatment guidelines. For example, capreomycin and kanamycin are no longer recommended for TB treatment because their use correlates with worse clinical outcomes. This history notwithstanding, robust breakpoints still do not exist for bedaquiline and delamanid six years after their approval. This was compounded by the fact that access to both agents for drug-susceptibility testing had initially been restricted. It is incumbent upon the European Medicines Agency, the United States Food and Drug Administration, and WHO to ensure that drug developers generate the necessary data to set breakpoints as a prerequisite for the approval of new agents

Broader Horizons?

For very good reasons, obvious every time we hear the news, it is difficult to separate the future of environmental history from the future of the environment. The long record of our species’ engagement with the global environment offers strong suggestions about the likely consequences of present actions and inactions. We are eager to share our insights with politicians and with the general public. Historians are naturally aware—probably more aware than anyone else—of the force of George Santayana’s well-known comment that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." But we may be less aware of the frequent force of an alternative comment: that those who can remember the past are nevertheless condemned to repeat it, for one reason or another. Some of the attributes of good historical scholarship may actually undermine its potential as grist for the political mill. These are the same attributes that often produce problems when we try to distill complicated arguments or interpretations into an interview sound bite. (Of course, this predicament is not the exclusive preserve of environmental historians; we share it with academics in many other fields.

Milestones in Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering History: A Comparative Review

We present a review of the historical evolution of software engineering, intertwining it with the history of knowledge engineering because “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This retrospective represents a further step forward to understanding the current state of both types of engineerings; history has also positive experiences; some of them we would like to remember and to repeat. Two types of engineerings had parallel and divergent evolutions but following a similar pattern. We also define a set of milestones that represent a convergence or divergence of the software development methodologies. These milestones do not appear at the same time in software engineering and knowledge engineering, so lessons learned in one discipline can help in the evolution of the other one

Review of \u3ci\u3eDammed Indians Revisited: The Continuing History of the Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux\u3c/i\u3e by Michael L. Lawson

George Santayana cautioned that Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In Michael L. Lawson\u27s Dammed Indians Revisited: The Continuing History of the Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, we are given a telling of one of our nation\u27s greatest engineering blunders. Lawson enlightens us with a historical account of governmental mismanagement of almost unbelievable proportion. This revised volume is based on Lawson\u27s 1982 book Dammed Indians: The Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, 1944- 1980; Dammed Indians Revisited picks up where he left off

The Making of Modern Ukraine: Human Society in Historiographic Discourse. Resolving “Bessarabia issue” following the outcomes of the First World War: historiographic review

Modern period of the national state-building process probably more than in all the previous years of modern Ukrainian independence, require the society to be more attentive to the learning and understanding the events from the past. Moreover, people need this knowledge not only as background information but also for understanding their essence, taking into consideration their forerunner’s experience and generating of the model of the modern development of Ukrainian state. Since even now the catchphrase, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” is more than neverrelevant and and timely for modern Ukrainian nation”

Lost Classics of Intellectual Property Law

Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” American legal scholarship often suffers from a related sin of omission: failing to acknowledge its intellectual debts. This short piece attempts to cure one possible source of the problem, in one discipline: inadequate information about what’s worth reading among older writing. I list “lost classics” of American scholarship in intellectual property law. These are not truly “lost,” and what counts as “classic” is often in the eye of the beholder (or reader). But these works may usefully be found again, and intellectual property law scholarship would be strengthened by better and more consistent acknowledgement of earlier work

The New Victims of the Old Anti-Catholicism

Santayana once said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, the implication being that we can avoid future mistakes by paying better attention to past ones. Perhaps this is so. Or perhaps it is as George Bernard Shaw once said-that we learn from history only that we learn nothing from history. Yet one thing is surely clear. To the extent that modern injustices have identifiable historical antecedents, we rightly stand doubly condemned for them. This Essay looks at four modern church-state cases which span the First Amendment spectrum. The plaintiffs are religiously diverse-one is a Wiccan, one is a Muslim, one is an evangelical Protestant, and one is an atheist. Unsurprisingly, their claims find support in very different political communities. But the plaintiffs in these cases all have certain things in common. They are all, in their own ways, religious minorities. All of their legal cases were ultimately lost. And, most importantly for the purposes of this Essay, each of their cases connects deeply with the nineteenth-century history of Catholicism in this country. In various ways, Catholics of the nineteenth century were mistreated by the Protestant majority. The injustices they faced were sanctioned by courts as well as legislatures, and legal rules were created to render their injuries both judicially non-cognizable and socially invisible. These four modern plaintiffs are, in some ways, latter-day Catholics. They suffer some of the same injuries; indeed, they are sometimes inhibited by the very same legal doctrines created to repress the Catholic minority over a century ago. One can think of these four plaintiffs as the new Catholics-or, perhaps more accurately, as the new victims of the old anti-Catholicism. As we struggle with our twenty-first century challenges of religious pluralism, it helps to realize how much our struggles have in common with earlier ones. Perhaps, armed with this knowledge, we can do a bit better now than our forefathers did then

The First Great Common

There are two, and perhaps three great common areas – outer space, the deep seabed, the Area; and (at least philosophically) cyberspace – available to humankind today. The first great commonwas, and remains in large part, the high seas. Part I traces the early history of the law of the sea, the customary law of the high seas, and the freedom of the seas principle from the Renaissance to the mid-twentieth century. Part II analyzes the freedoms of the high seas as negotiated in the 1958 and 1982 law of the sea conventions, with reference to similar concepts in space law and for certain land areas, notably Antarctica. Part III relates the law of the sea to the law of maritime warfare and neutrality, a lex specialis alongside general oceans law, discusses special treaty rules under the conventions, the impact of customary law and jus cogens on treaty and customary norms, and the place of the law of international organizations, in particular U.N. Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, contrasting lawmaking for space activities. Part IV notes other factors in law of the sea issues for this century: small wars, often noninternational in nature, e.g., insurgencies and civil wars; non-state actors like pirates or terrorists, the growing influence of nongovernmental organizations, and “lawfare,” often waged in instant media like the Internet Part of my inquiry is to ask whether problems and issues that have come with high seas uses in past centuries might be revisited for space and seabed issues. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote that “a page of history is worth a volume of logic” and that “the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” George Santayana warned that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, perhaps including past mistakes. Might these thoughts, among others that follow, be useful in analysis

The First Great Common

There are two, and perhaps three great common areas – outer space, the deep seabed, the Area; and (at least philosophically) cyberspace – available to humankind today. The first great commonwas, and remains in large part, the high seas. Part I traces the early history of the law of the sea, the customary law of the high seas, and the freedom of the seas principle from the Renaissance to the mid-twentieth century. Part II analyzes the freedoms of the high seas as negotiated in the 1958 and 1982 law of the sea conventions, with reference to similar concepts in space law and for certain land areas, notably Antarctica. Part III relates the law of the sea to the law of maritime warfare and neutrality, a lex specialis alongside general oceans law, discusses special treaty rules under the conventions, the impact of customary law and jus cogens on treaty and customary norms, and the place of the law of international organizations, in particular U.N. Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, contrasting lawmaking for space activities. Part IV notes other factors in law of the sea issues for this century: small wars, often noninternational in nature, e.g., insurgencies and civil wars; non-state actors like pirates or terrorists, the growing influence of nongovernmental organizations, and “lawfare,” often waged in instant media like the Internet Part of my inquiry is to ask whether problems and issues that have come with high seas uses in past centuries might be revisited for space and seabed issues. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote that “a page of history is worth a volume of logic” and that “the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” George Santayana warned that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, perhaps including past mistakes. Might these thoughts, among others that follow, be useful in analysis