So bypass your doctor. Inhousepharmacy.biz will likely sell you your drug, probably an even cheaper version made in India, and shipped to your door. You have to sign for it, but that's it. Every once in a while, the package will get seized (although this has never happened to me) and when it does, the company ships you another batch free of charge.
Let's face it, fragmentation dooms whatever it touches. And Apple's model is always successful. I mean look at the following things that are fragmented devices:
Television Sets
Cars
Cameras
Game Consoles
Power Tools
Outdoor Power Equipment (like snowblowers and lawn mowers)
Motorcycles
Bicycles
HVAC equipment
Now compare those doomed industries to the closed model that Apple represents. You know, the one where the only one left is the provider:
Motor Vehicle Department
Electric Company
Cable Company
Telephone Company
Gas Company
Isn't it clear that the companies that offer the non-fragmented service are the most successful and provide the most benefit for the customer?
Actually, the Air Force got the F-15 Eagle, and the F-16 Falcon (known by pilots as the Viper)
The Navy got the F-14 Tomcat, and the F18 Hornet
The Marines got the AV8-B - the Harrier of British design with VSTOL but not supersonic.
Most of these can, or could, use similar engines... They can, or could use similar avionics and do use similar weapons systems including the Sidewinder Heat Seeking missile, and the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air To Air Missile). Only the Tomcat got the Phoenix, which was purpose built to be able to work with the Tomcat's radar that could track 18 targets and shoot at 6 of them.
Bottom line is that we should allow the services to use DISSIMILAR airframes, but have them use common components like missiles, radars, and engines.
Got the Samsung Stratosphere on Big Red. Love it. Single core, so phone people will immediately point to that and say that it doesn't compare to the 4s... They're right. My phone has 4g (Apple: 4g? What's that?) and gets 6mbps downstream and peaked out at a whopping 14mbps on one test. It's the network, not the phone people.
Yuo're not a lunatic, your ignorant or stupid, or most likely experience cognitive dissonance while competing ideas are bouncing around in your head. Of course, if you don't educate yourself, then they never will go anywhere.
Thank you for making my point in my original post. Ad hominem attacks are the problem here. I understand fully the notion of scientific "theory" "law" and "fact". The "theory" of gravity is well tested - millions of times over, and thus is sometimes referred to the "law" of gravity. Even though it's still a theory, it is so well accepted that only an idiot would argue against it. Evolution falls into the same camp, although there are more "cracks" in that theory than the theory of gravity. But I'll concede that the theory of evolution is a law. Then you put anthropogenic global warming theory into the same line, and use these other, completely unrelated theories to say that anthropogenic global warming is a law and a fact.
I'm struggling through my "cognitive dissonance" here and wish I had the clarity of thought you have on this, but I just can't keep from asking stupid questions... For instance, if it is a fact that human behavior is contributing to global climate change, how much of that change is being driven by humans? Is it the main driver? A secondary driver? A tertiary driver? What other drivers of climate change are there? Let's face facts here... global climate change has been taking place on Earth long before humans started driving Hummers. It is the norm. Isn't that a "fact"?? If it is, do we understand in any great measure the causes of those swings in global climate? Do we know, precisely, how ice ages are triggered? Do we know how the Earth climbs back out of an ice age?
I got exactly what I expected from you on this topic. A true believer reflexively attacking someone who asks what I believe is a valid question. Well done.
Most climate change skeptics are not of the ilk you describe (although there are very famous ones, many who are politicians)... What most climate skeptics dispute is anthropogenic global warming, and most of them ask the next question thoughtfully - what does global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) mean? The shrillness on both sides of this debate seem to resort to name calling and revel in the erection of straw man arguments such that they can make the other side look crazy.
For my own part, I don't believe the case for anthropogenic global warming is an open and shut case. I realize there are others who think I'm a lunatic for not being able to come to that conclusion. But the essence of science is thoroughly vetting theories... anthropogenic global warming is a theory whose final chapter is yet to be written.
As for the "what does global warming mean?" - well that is even less well thought out by both sides. Climate change believers think it's the apocalypse. Climate change deniers think it means nothing. Deniers point to harsh winters like last year and say "Global Warming is hooey"... Believers point to every hurricane and say, "See? I told you so"
Melting ice caps point to a warming planet. Opening up new shipping lanes is just one positive that is a result of global climate change. There are undoubtedly negatives. What all those positives and negatives are is unknown by all.
I live amongst them, along with millions of other people. Here in New England, the history is this: Prior to European settlement, 75% of the land was covered in trees. The Europeans showed up, cut down the forests and made farms of the land. At this point, roughly 25% of New England was forested, the other 75% was largely farms. Later, the farmers moved to the mid west and west, abandoning the farms in New England, which were a bitch to farm because of the rocky soil. The farms were abandoned and trees grew up in their place. That's why you can hike through forests in New England and find old foundations and very long lines of stone walls in the middle of nowhere. Back in the day, those forests were "somewhere." Even with our "sprawl" in New England, roughly 75% of the land is forested. I can attest to this as I live in a forested burb. Deer, turkeys, foxes, etc. routinely walk through my yard. Don't believe me? Then just pull up http://maps.google.com/ and search on New England. Then look for deforested land... if you do the visual math, you'll see that it is mostly still forested here.
Star Trek was Unitarian/Universalist when it comes to religion... Sort of "yeah, it kinda sort of exists, but we'll not speak of it here." This does a disservice to humans, as religion is an integral part of our make up - has been and likely always will be.
Star Wars was extremely religious - The Force - is basically a cipher for good and evil - the Jedi way being "light" and the Sith as the "dark side" - and these priests can practice mind control and telekinesis. It was dogmatic and simplistic. Almost a comic book approach to the topic.
BSG examined religion through the lens of monotheism vs. polytheism, but examined both of these in great detail, including the various levels of commitment to one or the other, from fundamentalism (abortion, suicide bombing) to atheism (Starbuck is essentially an atheist who turns out to be an angel, huh...) It wasn't a look back at all... much more a look at our own contemporary issues. Neither ST nor SW got close enough to the essential human enigma when it comes to all manner of human endeavors - politics, societal conventions, right and wrong, and yes, religion. BSG made you BATHE in these.
I am a hard core ST fan. Have been my whole life. But BSG beats it because ST dealt with a Utopian future, where as BSG acknowledges - revels in - human dysfunction. Star Wars skims the surface of that, and makes for great action-adventure SciFi... But in the battle between the franchises - BSG wins hands down - best Sci Fi ever done on television. Bar none.
In very small communities where people can police each other it could work
Was Plimouth Plantation a "small community"? If so, then it was demonstrated by the pilgrims that communism doesn't work. In their first season, they tended a community farm. They damn near starved. (and as a Mayflower descendant, a big THANK YOU to the native peoples who helped keep them alive) After that, they divided up the community land and gave everyone their own plot. The rest is history.
Ever driven on a freeway? If so, this should shatter your faith in humanity regarding people acting honorably.
As for Marxism, it was summed up best in East Germany as the Soviet Union began to crumble. We had heard anecdotes before like "we pretend to work, and the government pretends to pay us." But I knew that Soviet style communism was doomed when the main beam in an East German factory had the words "Workers of the world, forgive me" spray painted on it, and the management left it there for all to see.
Assholes exist. They always will. Relying on the "honor" of every other human being is folly.
Yes. They should call it Microsoft Bob. And they should put an assistant in there that knocks on your monitor glass, and looks like a paper clip with eyes.
Really this isn't bizarre at all... The Pakistan and Israeli nuclear threats are more recent, using more recent designs, and using newer components. Oh yeah, and they use fresh nuclear charges... So now run a scenario forward. 3rd world arab nation gets a nuke and decides to use it against NY or Washington. One or both cities are now flat and radioactive. We launch a "proportional" strike at the 3rd world country... let's say we do a thermonuclear airburst over their largest city to minimize radioactive fallout. Warhead goes thud. 3rd world arab nation now has a warhead from us that doesn't work. Oops. Suppose we send another one over and it too goes thud? Now they have two, and the world realizes that we can't nuke a city at will anymore. This is a likely result if we allowed our nuclear stockpile to get down to a ratio of 4 or 5 duds per working warhead. Imagine our position in the world then. The word impotent comes to mind. What does NK think of us now. Is their last deterrent from crashing through the DMZ gone and thus they take over South Korea? Where will you get spare parts for your Hyundai and your KIA???
As for the test ban treaty, I stand by my statement. We are unwilling. The US has never signed a treaty that stops us from conducting underground testing. We've simply said unilaterally that we won't do it anymore. I think we should test a couple. Just to be sure. And just so the world knows we CAN flatten your cities at will. A credible nuclear deterrent demands it.
One of the big expenses is the reliability of the nuclear arsenal. Nuclear material is hot - radioactive - and that means it's also "disappearing" as it decays. Triggers, main charges, and other elements of a nuclear warhead do age and this needs to be addressed. We've done a lot of work with computer models since we're no longer willing to test fire any of these weapons, even underground. But this only goes so far, and if you ARE going to rely on those computer models, then you HAVE to make sure that what was modeled is actually what is IN those warheads. If we don't do this, it won't matter how many missiles and warheads we have. They won't be viewed as a credible threat if we can't show that they'll actually work. And all of this is in support of the strategy of deterrence, which seems to be our only strategy so far, since we're not willing to forcibly stop proliferation. Whether deterrence is even a viable strategy going forward is certainly up for debate. But I can tell you this. If North Korea or Iran end up nuking us somehow, we damn sure better be able to flatten those countries, or else we should get used to the idea of getting periodically nuked.
Neither you or the other reply to my comment addressed my central point - namely that tuition at colleges has risen dramatically. You can google the facts if you want, but the facts are plain - tuitions grew at a rate far above the inflation rate and the only industry that you can look at that has those kind of growth rates are perhaps healthcare and pharmaceuticals. The difference is that healthcare and pharmaceuticals have gotten demonstrably better during that time (increased life spans, quality of life, etc.) whereas it would be debatable if college educations have improved at all in the intervening years. When the price of something rises, you price people out of that good or service. This is basic economics, and if you don't agree with it, then both of you should go get your college tuitions back.
With all of the copious grants and scholarships available from public and private sources both, there are few who validly are prevented from that education for want of money.
You're kidding, right? There are LOTS of people who cannot afford college, or cannot take on the debt required to get a college degree today. When I went to school (respected public university), tuition, room, and board was between $2000 and $2500 a semester. Less than $5k per year. Today that rate is $25k. That is a 5 fold increase, and NOTHING short of healthcare has had that kind of growth rate. Even gasoline is only 4 times higher! Housing prices doubled in that timeframe. I can guarantee you that my family income will make it so no "grants and scholarships" are available to my children, and I will get to take on the $100k per kid cost of a college education. I'm not complaining, just stating the facts. BTW - this system is no different from the one that existed when I went to school, and my wife went to school. She didn't qualify for any grants or scholarships either, because of her parent's income, and since they didn't contribute to her education at all, she ended up emptying bed pans for $9 an hour to pay for school. She didn't live there, and drove an old Pinto back and forth. Yes, a seriously committed student can make it work, but that is not the norm today.
So Apple is claiming that they are stealing the rounded corners and rectangular shape? Should Hasbro sue Apple for "slavishly" stealing the Etch-A-Sketch? But the REAL point here is that NOBODY is going to mistake a Samsung Galaxy Tab for an iPad - they are completely different sizes (and personally, I find the 7 inch size FAR more useful than the 10 inch one)
I use it all the time... I put it on french fries. I spread a lot of it on my driveway and sidewalk this year. The only real drawback is the high blood pressure that can result if you consume too much of it.
According to TFA, the sponsor of the bill admits this is a "Cry for help"... Texas obviously spends a good deal of money, compared to other non-border states, on illegal immigration issues, and this is simply a way to point the problem out to the federal government, who should be handling border security.
Although not covered in the article, the implication is that ICE doesn't accept every illegal immigrant and that leaves local law enforcement with the dilemma - do you release the person knowing they are here illegally, or do you pay to continue to incarcerate locally... Obviously, allowing law enforcement to bring them to a US Senator or Representative's office places the burden of deciding to release on them...
Largely symbolic at best, a publicity stunt at worst, the bill is clever in that it is definitely a CYA for local law enforcement - a clever way of having to release not on your own record.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the parent... but for completely different reasons. He went into some detail, but I'll be succinct.
You keep saying you need to be a physicist to answer your interstellar engine question, when clearly you need to ask an ENGINEER.
Remember, Scientists dream of doing things. Engineers do them.
So bypass your doctor. Inhousepharmacy.biz will likely sell you your drug, probably an even cheaper version made in India, and shipped to your door. You have to sign for it, but that's it. Every once in a while, the package will get seized (although this has never happened to me) and when it does, the company ships you another batch free of charge.
Let's face it, fragmentation dooms whatever it touches. And Apple's model is always successful. I mean look at the following things that are fragmented devices:
Television Sets
Cars
Cameras
Game Consoles
Power Tools
Outdoor Power Equipment (like snowblowers and lawn mowers)
Motorcycles
Bicycles
HVAC equipment
Now compare those doomed industries to the closed model that Apple represents. You know, the one where the only one left is the provider:
Motor Vehicle Department
Electric Company
Cable Company
Telephone Company
Gas Company
Isn't it clear that the companies that offer the non-fragmented service are the most successful and provide the most benefit for the customer?
Actually, the Air Force got the F-15 Eagle, and the F-16 Falcon (known by pilots as the Viper)
The Navy got the F-14 Tomcat, and the F18 Hornet
The Marines got the AV8-B - the Harrier of British design with VSTOL but not supersonic.
Most of these can, or could, use similar engines... They can, or could use similar avionics and do use similar weapons systems including the Sidewinder Heat Seeking missile, and the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air To Air Missile). Only the Tomcat got the Phoenix, which was purpose built to be able to work with the Tomcat's radar that could track 18 targets and shoot at 6 of them.
Bottom line is that we should allow the services to use DISSIMILAR airframes, but have them use common components like missiles, radars, and engines.
Got the Samsung Stratosphere on Big Red. Love it. Single core, so phone people will immediately point to that and say that it doesn't compare to the 4s... They're right. My phone has 4g (Apple: 4g? What's that?) and gets 6mbps downstream and peaked out at a whopping 14mbps on one test. It's the network, not the phone people.
Thank you for making my point in my original post. Ad hominem attacks are the problem here. I understand fully the notion of scientific "theory" "law" and "fact". The "theory" of gravity is well tested - millions of times over, and thus is sometimes referred to the "law" of gravity. Even though it's still a theory, it is so well accepted that only an idiot would argue against it. Evolution falls into the same camp, although there are more "cracks" in that theory than the theory of gravity. But I'll concede that the theory of evolution is a law. Then you put anthropogenic global warming theory into the same line, and use these other, completely unrelated theories to say that anthropogenic global warming is a law and a fact.
I'm struggling through my "cognitive dissonance" here and wish I had the clarity of thought you have on this, but I just can't keep from asking stupid questions... For instance, if it is a fact that human behavior is contributing to global climate change, how much of that change is being driven by humans? Is it the main driver? A secondary driver? A tertiary driver? What other drivers of climate change are there? Let's face facts here... global climate change has been taking place on Earth long before humans started driving Hummers. It is the norm. Isn't that a "fact"?? If it is, do we understand in any great measure the causes of those swings in global climate? Do we know, precisely, how ice ages are triggered? Do we know how the Earth climbs back out of an ice age?
I got exactly what I expected from you on this topic. A true believer reflexively attacking someone who asks what I believe is a valid question. Well done.
Most climate change skeptics are not of the ilk you describe (although there are very famous ones, many who are politicians)... What most climate skeptics dispute is anthropogenic global warming, and most of them ask the next question thoughtfully - what does global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) mean? The shrillness on both sides of this debate seem to resort to name calling and revel in the erection of straw man arguments such that they can make the other side look crazy.
For my own part, I don't believe the case for anthropogenic global warming is an open and shut case. I realize there are others who think I'm a lunatic for not being able to come to that conclusion. But the essence of science is thoroughly vetting theories... anthropogenic global warming is a theory whose final chapter is yet to be written.
As for the "what does global warming mean?" - well that is even less well thought out by both sides. Climate change believers think it's the apocalypse. Climate change deniers think it means nothing. Deniers point to harsh winters like last year and say "Global Warming is hooey"... Believers point to every hurricane and say, "See? I told you so"
Melting ice caps point to a warming planet. Opening up new shipping lanes is just one positive that is a result of global climate change. There are undoubtedly negatives. What all those positives and negatives are is unknown by all.
I live amongst them, along with millions of other people. Here in New England, the history is this: Prior to European settlement, 75% of the land was covered in trees. The Europeans showed up, cut down the forests and made farms of the land. At this point, roughly 25% of New England was forested, the other 75% was largely farms. Later, the farmers moved to the mid west and west, abandoning the farms in New England, which were a bitch to farm because of the rocky soil. The farms were abandoned and trees grew up in their place. That's why you can hike through forests in New England and find old foundations and very long lines of stone walls in the middle of nowhere. Back in the day, those forests were "somewhere." Even with our "sprawl" in New England, roughly 75% of the land is forested. I can attest to this as I live in a forested burb. Deer, turkeys, foxes, etc. routinely walk through my yard. Don't believe me? Then just pull up http://maps.google.com/ and search on New England. Then look for deforested land... if you do the visual math, you'll see that it is mostly still forested here.
Star Trek was Unitarian/Universalist when it comes to religion... Sort of "yeah, it kinda sort of exists, but we'll not speak of it here." This does a disservice to humans, as religion is an integral part of our make up - has been and likely always will be.
Star Wars was extremely religious - The Force - is basically a cipher for good and evil - the Jedi way being "light" and the Sith as the "dark side" - and these priests can practice mind control and telekinesis. It was dogmatic and simplistic. Almost a comic book approach to the topic.
BSG examined religion through the lens of monotheism vs. polytheism, but examined both of these in great detail, including the various levels of commitment to one or the other, from fundamentalism (abortion, suicide bombing) to atheism (Starbuck is essentially an atheist who turns out to be an angel, huh...) It wasn't a look back at all... much more a look at our own contemporary issues. Neither ST nor SW got close enough to the essential human enigma when it comes to all manner of human endeavors - politics, societal conventions, right and wrong, and yes, religion. BSG made you BATHE in these.
I am a hard core ST fan. Have been my whole life. But BSG beats it because ST dealt with a Utopian future, where as BSG acknowledges - revels in - human dysfunction. Star Wars skims the surface of that, and makes for great action-adventure SciFi... But in the battle between the franchises - BSG wins hands down - best Sci Fi ever done on television. Bar none.
Was Plimouth Plantation a "small community"? If so, then it was demonstrated by the pilgrims that communism doesn't work. In their first season, they tended a community farm. They damn near starved. (and as a Mayflower descendant, a big THANK YOU to the native peoples who helped keep them alive) After that, they divided up the community land and gave everyone their own plot. The rest is history.
Ever driven on a freeway? If so, this should shatter your faith in humanity regarding people acting honorably.
As for Marxism, it was summed up best in East Germany as the Soviet Union began to crumble. We had heard anecdotes before like "we pretend to work, and the government pretends to pay us." But I knew that Soviet style communism was doomed when the main beam in an East German factory had the words "Workers of the world, forgive me" spray painted on it, and the management left it there for all to see.
Assholes exist. They always will. Relying on the "honor" of every other human being is folly.
Yes. They should call it Microsoft Bob. And they should put an assistant in there that knocks on your monitor glass, and looks like a paper clip with eyes.
Wish I had mod points man... Even numbered Star Treks, odd numbered DOS versions. True. True.
The whole point of cash currencies is that they CAN'T be tracked. If you start tracking my currency, I'll find another that can't be tracked!
Replying to the two comments above...
Really this isn't bizarre at all... The Pakistan and Israeli nuclear threats are more recent, using more recent designs, and using newer components. Oh yeah, and they use fresh nuclear charges... So now run a scenario forward. 3rd world arab nation gets a nuke and decides to use it against NY or Washington. One or both cities are now flat and radioactive. We launch a "proportional" strike at the 3rd world country... let's say we do a thermonuclear airburst over their largest city to minimize radioactive fallout. Warhead goes thud. 3rd world arab nation now has a warhead from us that doesn't work. Oops. Suppose we send another one over and it too goes thud? Now they have two, and the world realizes that we can't nuke a city at will anymore. This is a likely result if we allowed our nuclear stockpile to get down to a ratio of 4 or 5 duds per working warhead. Imagine our position in the world then. The word impotent comes to mind. What does NK think of us now. Is their last deterrent from crashing through the DMZ gone and thus they take over South Korea? Where will you get spare parts for your Hyundai and your KIA???
As for the test ban treaty, I stand by my statement. We are unwilling. The US has never signed a treaty that stops us from conducting underground testing. We've simply said unilaterally that we won't do it anymore. I think we should test a couple. Just to be sure. And just so the world knows we CAN flatten your cities at will. A credible nuclear deterrent demands it.
One of the big expenses is the reliability of the nuclear arsenal. Nuclear material is hot - radioactive - and that means it's also "disappearing" as it decays. Triggers, main charges, and other elements of a nuclear warhead do age and this needs to be addressed. We've done a lot of work with computer models since we're no longer willing to test fire any of these weapons, even underground. But this only goes so far, and if you ARE going to rely on those computer models, then you HAVE to make sure that what was modeled is actually what is IN those warheads. If we don't do this, it won't matter how many missiles and warheads we have. They won't be viewed as a credible threat if we can't show that they'll actually work. And all of this is in support of the strategy of deterrence, which seems to be our only strategy so far, since we're not willing to forcibly stop proliferation. Whether deterrence is even a viable strategy going forward is certainly up for debate. But I can tell you this. If North Korea or Iran end up nuking us somehow, we damn sure better be able to flatten those countries, or else we should get used to the idea of getting periodically nuked.
I just tried this, but now all I can see is the side of my monitor. Not Recommended.
Shame on all of you for staying on topic! Don't you know this is Slashdot?
Neither you or the other reply to my comment addressed my central point - namely that tuition at colleges has risen dramatically. You can google the facts if you want, but the facts are plain - tuitions grew at a rate far above the inflation rate and the only industry that you can look at that has those kind of growth rates are perhaps healthcare and pharmaceuticals. The difference is that healthcare and pharmaceuticals have gotten demonstrably better during that time (increased life spans, quality of life, etc.) whereas it would be debatable if college educations have improved at all in the intervening years. When the price of something rises, you price people out of that good or service. This is basic economics, and if you don't agree with it, then both of you should go get your college tuitions back.
You're kidding, right? There are LOTS of people who cannot afford college, or cannot take on the debt required to get a college degree today. When I went to school (respected public university), tuition, room, and board was between $2000 and $2500 a semester. Less than $5k per year. Today that rate is $25k. That is a 5 fold increase, and NOTHING short of healthcare has had that kind of growth rate. Even gasoline is only 4 times higher! Housing prices doubled in that timeframe. I can guarantee you that my family income will make it so no "grants and scholarships" are available to my children, and I will get to take on the $100k per kid cost of a college education. I'm not complaining, just stating the facts. BTW - this system is no different from the one that existed when I went to school, and my wife went to school. She didn't qualify for any grants or scholarships either, because of her parent's income, and since they didn't contribute to her education at all, she ended up emptying bed pans for $9 an hour to pay for school. She didn't live there, and drove an old Pinto back and forth. Yes, a seriously committed student can make it work, but that is not the norm today.
So Apple is claiming that they are stealing the rounded corners and rectangular shape? Should Hasbro sue Apple for "slavishly" stealing the Etch-A-Sketch? But the REAL point here is that NOBODY is going to mistake a Samsung Galaxy Tab for an iPad - they are completely different sizes (and personally, I find the 7 inch size FAR more useful than the 10 inch one)
Yeah, I know, that's what she said... grow up!
1kw, 1MW... meh... get back to me when the power rises to 1.21 gigawatts!!!
I use it all the time... I put it on french fries. I spread a lot of it on my driveway and sidewalk this year. The only real drawback is the high blood pressure that can result if you consume too much of it.
According to TFA, the sponsor of the bill admits this is a "Cry for help"... Texas obviously spends a good deal of money, compared to other non-border states, on illegal immigration issues, and this is simply a way to point the problem out to the federal government, who should be handling border security.
Although not covered in the article, the implication is that ICE doesn't accept every illegal immigrant and that leaves local law enforcement with the dilemma - do you release the person knowing they are here illegally, or do you pay to continue to incarcerate locally... Obviously, allowing law enforcement to bring them to a US Senator or Representative's office places the burden of deciding to release on them...
Largely symbolic at best, a publicity stunt at worst, the bill is clever in that it is definitely a CYA for local law enforcement - a clever way of having to release not on your own record.