It was obvious that you were calculating the average. However, you were correcting someone who was pointing out that human beings are a 75 watt lightbulb, and in the comment clearly added the condition "at rest". And a 225 watt lightbulb during aerobic.
You can use those two numbers to come up with a guesstimate of activity level as a function of GI tract efficency (assuming a boolean activity level), which would be nifty.
This rationale only applies to cases where the patient is unable to communicate about whether they can cover the treatment. My impression (could easily be wrong) is that the law typically requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment even to people who they know can't pay.
Except, all circumstances are cases where the patient is unable to communicate if they can pay. There is a powerful incentive to lie, and the cost (in time) to verify would easily be prohibitive in an emergency. To prevent hospitals from requiring payment-up-front, the government had to step in. What other solution could there be?
And that's just from a "protecting the market from a market failure" conservative argument. I think most people want to live in a society with the humanitarian rational as well.
If you only go to the doctor when you know you have to, you put yourself at more risk of lasting harm, but less risk of wasting money.
Except there are people who know they should go to a doctor, but have to wait until it is an emergency. That doesn't help anyone. There's no risk being avoided, just an inability to pay.
This is where the "many eyes" comes into play for open source...
How? This is a failure of that very statement. The problem was only found by someone who debugged the binary without using the source he may or may not have had.
If I'm interested in a product, I don't need to be told about it.
Duh.
If I want to find it, I'll find it,
Assuming you are somewhat competent, sure.
But what about a product you would be interested in, should you know about it? Something that you would seek out, if you knew it existed? How do you find out about it? Word of mouth? But then you're just moving the burden of being advertised to onto your friends.
I've seen people, for instance, advertising their hobby groups. It never would have occurred to me to try out some of those things without them saying they did it.
You're dead on with your response about insurance rates. Most likely however, the competitively determined "fair" profit simply absorbed those cost savings.
I tend to think it would be impossible to force hospitals to assess someone's ability to pay before emergency treatment. After all, do I have insurance? Am I a millionaire? Of course I'll tell you I'll pay if I'm conscious, and of course they can foreclose on my double-wide when I don't afterwards. Sometimes, maybe, they can run a credit check, but see, I forgot my social, and I'm screaming in pain and about to pass out.
Therefore, we make hospitals provide emergency services, then try to get paid.
You may have misunderstood what I meant by "a stitch in time". While I certainly think vaccines should be forced down everyone's throat for free, I was actually talking about the "one stitch" that prevents "nine". That is, not pervasive education, although probably screening. If you have your finger mangled, but have to wait for it to get ganggreen, that doesn't help you and makes it more expensive to fix. If you have pneumonia, and wait for it to do serious damage to your lungs.
You wouldn't expect premiums to go down because everyone has insurance.
You wouldn't expect liability insurance to go down, but you would expect comprehensive, since it covers the cost of an uninsured driver colliding with you.
(Other types of mandatory automobile insurance are state nannying, yes, just like mandatory health insurance
Emergency medical treatment is provided (ambulances sent, ER admissions) absent any method of payment. Therefore the cost for the people who cannot pay their bills gets spread out to those who can. Therefore, some amount of insurance is just as justifiable for healthcare.
Higher levels of insurance required and subsidized are justified by some people who consider it a human right. Or people who feel that it is cheaper (the stitch in time method) that allowing poor people to wait until they need to go to the hospital.
If you own a car that you can't afford to repair or replace without assistance from an insurance company, you are not living within your means, get a cheaper car.
Why do you believe this? If someone can afford one expensive car, but cannot afford two expensive cars, they can still be be living within their means when purchasing the first. They just have to be able to afford a more comprehensive vehicle insurance.
Assuming that they can comfortably insure the car, how are they not living within their means?
In case you don't know this yet, insurance is a scam. It sounds nice in theory, but it's legalized gambling with a twist--you're betting money on something bad happening instead of something good. Just like in a casino, in which the house always comes out ahead, the insurance companies will always come out ahead, too. There's actually a special word for people who make sure this stays true, they're called actuaries. Add up all of the money you--and your employer, on your behalf--have paid over the years for insurance, and imagine how far that money would have gone had you paid it into, I dunno, a mutual fund or something instead of paying for actuaries and marble-halled buildings. You might actually be able to pay off a large liability claim if you had.
There are a lot of differences between insurance and gambling. Yes, in both cases the expected value is less than what you pay. However, in gambling the standard deviation increases... in insurance the standard deviation decreases (a sure loss instead of an unlikely but huge loss). That is to say, insurance makes life predictable. And predictability is worth something.
Of course insurance companies have to make a profit (well, except for the non-profit ones).
But where you really get off the rails is when you think if you add up all the insurance premiums, you'd be able to cover the huge losses. The only reason insurance works is because 100 times the premiums can cover the losses (and expenses and profits), but it only happens one percent of the time.
Similarly, you misunderstand the requirement for automobile insurance. The first, moral, part is that some of your actions with an automobile can produce massive externalities. Insurance is the only way most people can cover those massive externalities in the case of an accident, hence it is required. More than one state has the ability to put up a bond, that is the limit that your insurance would cover, instead of purchasing insurance. However, that's cost prohibitive. But to drive you have to prove you can pay to repair the damage you can do.
Liability insurance wouldn't decrease because the other person had insurance as it only applies if you are at fault. Comprehensive insurance becomes cheaper to provide, however. Whether those savings get passed on to the customer is an interesting question.
"I don't believe in abortion even in cases of incest, rape, or protecting the life of the mother"
I get why protecting the life of the mother is different, that is how one can support abortion in only that case, I find it abhorrent that anyone would say that incest or rape would change the morality of abortion. What possible justification can there be for that?
The law doesn't seem to be too specific as to how destructive something is, or what it could destroy. I have a devices which destroy wood. You know, saws, gouges, routers, drills, sanders.
None of which are destructive devices according to the law. It's actually pretty specific. Oh wait, you didn't read the law... you read the summary words "destructive devices".
Re:Unethical is not the word
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
While strip clubs might well be unethical, from at least some points of view, the word for this is dishonest.
Strips clubs are worse than this guy. I met a nice girl there, and she said she liked me... I spent all my money on gifts for her and then it turns out she never really did like me. She broke my heart.
The people compelled to buy a lame t-shirt about some random Youtube video are arguably the stupid ones.
Hey, when your sister is married to an idiot who thinks he can support his family on T-shirt sales, so he quits his job, you buy T-shirts so she can eat.
Anyone want to buy 5,000 T-shirts, you know, for the gym or something. I'll give you a good price.
The probability depends on how you determined to decide to specify that one was a boy. In the case where you give your first-born's sex, it's 50-50 (well, 51-49). In the case where you decide that to correct gender-equality in these problems, you decide to mention if it's a girl if at all possible, then it's 100%. There are a couple of other possibilities, but all trickier.
Imperfect knowledge: If you want to go to a bar, but you only know about smokey bars (maybe because there are only smokey bars), then you will sigh and go to a smokey bar. You have no choice.
It's only an example of imperfect knowledge if there are non-smokey bars, but you are not aware of them. The example where there are only smokey bars is an example where you do have perfect knowledge.
Imperfect competition: Maybe there is a non-smokey bar, but other qualities of a bar make it preferable to you. So you sigh and go to the bar which you otherwise prefer, despite the smoke.
This has nothing to do with imperfect competition, except that the differences between the bars is of value to you. But then again, you're not talking about the cost of removing smoke from a bar, so product differentiation is already taking place.
Irrational decision: Maybe you never really thought about bars being smokey, like you just assume they all have smoke and that's the price of admission. The thought literally never occurred to you to choose a non-smokey bar.
Except that's not irrational. It's not irrational if it's more convenient, or closer, or 100 other things.
There are good examples of all three assumptions failing in one fell swoop, but this is not one of them. I prefer, as this is slashdot, cars. Most consumers are ignorant of total cost of ownership of each car. (Imperfect Knowledge) Cars are primarily sold on non-economic factors (Product Differentiation which reduces competition), and also high fixed costs limit entry, also limiting competition. And cars are primarily sold through emotionally manipulative advertising.
The founders signed their own death warrants with the words "[...] we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Err... they were starting a revolutionary war. They were afraid that their words would get them in trouble because they were going to PICK UP GUNS AND SHOOT BRITISH SOLDIERS WITH THEM.
Further, John Hancock signed the Declaration, and took a several day head start to get out of town before it was published. Most other founders didn't sign until later.
The Federalist Papers were published under pseudonyms, and "Common Sense" was originally anonymous.
Oh, so Net Nuetrality isn't just "an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination"?
That's the basic idea.
Then there's capping based on level of service subscribed to (which fits in with net neturality). That is, you (the customer) has to pay for 22 mbps to get 22 mbps. This works because its based on your relationship with your ISP. Net Neutrality requires that Google not have to pay to send you files at your full speed (except to their ISP)... unless of course you opt to split your full speed by doing something else at the same time. Basically, you lease a pipe of size X. the way you stated it cannot be enacted into law without making the difference clearer.
Any law has to allow the government to snap priority for military/civilian emergencies. That just seems obvious. I mean, they can already do that to all other telecom.
Enforcement and penalties of course need to be spelled out in the law.
Is your problem that in forums people don't draft legal language that explicitly spells out caveats that human beings can easily deduce but must be made explicit in the law? I mean, most contracts include clauses rendering them moot in the case of divine intervention or natural disaster. Somehow, I doubt most people get confused when you say "the contract requires them to deliver 200 reams of paper to X by July 10th" to have clauses that guarantee that its conditional on payment, X not being destroyed by an earthquake, the Rapture not occuring, etc. etc. etc.
There have been several Net Nuetrality bills proposed, have any of them been less than 10 pages?
Why is length a disqualification?
I mean, your one sentence phrase doesn't work... ISPs cap (a type of filtering) packets based on the subscribers plan. What about ISPs that prioritize/filter by protocol or port. Where are the rules against ISP based MITM attacks (see the proposed Zip+4 header). What about the Emergency Broadcast Service getting complete priority over everything else? Can two offices pay more to have a guaranteed throughput between the east and west coast office? What are the penalties? Who enforces it?
It takes a sentence to rough out a reasonable rule, and 10+ pages to actually address the variety of issues.
It's a snowball effect. I'd be surprised if it happened at the beginning. The question is what happens if Google et al pave the way for granting extensive permissions. Why does the Google Maps app need access to most of that?
Slashdot Mirror
It was obvious that you were calculating the average. However, you were correcting someone who was pointing out that human beings are a 75 watt lightbulb, and in the comment clearly added the condition "at rest". And a 225 watt lightbulb during aerobic.
You can use those two numbers to come up with a guesstimate of activity level as a function of GI tract efficency (assuming a boolean activity level), which would be nifty.
75 watts resting, triple that while exercising. Your mistake was assuming a constant wattage.
Because the problem isn't generation, it's storage. And, as it turns out, everytime I want to use a battery powered device, there I am!
Also, as poor a power source as a human is, I'm already wasting enough power to power some things.
Except, all circumstances are cases where the patient is unable to communicate if they can pay. There is a powerful incentive to lie, and the cost (in time) to verify would easily be prohibitive in an emergency. To prevent hospitals from requiring payment-up-front, the government had to step in. What other solution could there be?
And that's just from a "protecting the market from a market failure" conservative argument. I think most people want to live in a society with the humanitarian rational as well.
Except there are people who know they should go to a doctor, but have to wait until it is an emergency. That doesn't help anyone. There's no risk being avoided, just an inability to pay.
How? This is a failure of that very statement. The problem was only found by someone who debugged the binary without using the source he may or may not have had.
Who will be up to shoot them?
Duh.
Assuming you are somewhat competent, sure.
But what about a product you would be interested in, should you know about it? Something that you would seek out, if you knew it existed? How do you find out about it? Word of mouth? But then you're just moving the burden of being advertised to onto your friends.
I've seen people, for instance, advertising their hobby groups. It never would have occurred to me to try out some of those things without them saying they did it.
You're dead on with your response about insurance rates. Most likely however, the competitively determined "fair" profit simply absorbed those cost savings.
I tend to think it would be impossible to force hospitals to assess someone's ability to pay before emergency treatment. After all, do I have insurance? Am I a millionaire? Of course I'll tell you I'll pay if I'm conscious, and of course they can foreclose on my double-wide when I don't afterwards. Sometimes, maybe, they can run a credit check, but see, I forgot my social, and I'm screaming in pain and about to pass out.
Therefore, we make hospitals provide emergency services, then try to get paid.
You may have misunderstood what I meant by "a stitch in time". While I certainly think vaccines should be forced down everyone's throat for free, I was actually talking about the "one stitch" that prevents "nine". That is, not pervasive education, although probably screening. If you have your finger mangled, but have to wait for it to get ganggreen, that doesn't help you and makes it more expensive to fix. If you have pneumonia, and wait for it to do serious damage to your lungs.
You wouldn't expect liability insurance to go down, but you would expect comprehensive, since it covers the cost of an uninsured driver colliding with you.
Emergency medical treatment is provided (ambulances sent, ER admissions) absent any method of payment. Therefore the cost for the people who cannot pay their bills gets spread out to those who can. Therefore, some amount of insurance is just as justifiable for healthcare.
Higher levels of insurance required and subsidized are justified by some people who consider it a human right. Or people who feel that it is cheaper (the stitch in time method) that allowing poor people to wait until they need to go to the hospital.
Why do you believe this? If someone can afford one expensive car, but cannot afford two expensive cars, they can still be be living within their means when purchasing the first. They just have to be able to afford a more comprehensive vehicle insurance.
Assuming that they can comfortably insure the car, how are they not living within their means?
There are a lot of differences between insurance and gambling. Yes, in both cases the expected value is less than what you pay. However, in gambling the standard deviation increases... in insurance the standard deviation decreases (a sure loss instead of an unlikely but huge loss). That is to say, insurance makes life predictable. And predictability is worth something.
Of course insurance companies have to make a profit (well, except for the non-profit ones).
But where you really get off the rails is when you think if you add up all the insurance premiums, you'd be able to cover the huge losses. The only reason insurance works is because 100 times the premiums can cover the losses (and expenses and profits), but it only happens one percent of the time.
Similarly, you misunderstand the requirement for automobile insurance. The first, moral, part is that some of your actions with an automobile can produce massive externalities. Insurance is the only way most people can cover those massive externalities in the case of an accident, hence it is required. More than one state has the ability to put up a bond, that is the limit that your insurance would cover, instead of purchasing insurance. However, that's cost prohibitive. But to drive you have to prove you can pay to repair the damage you can do.
Liability insurance wouldn't decrease because the other person had insurance as it only applies if you are at fault. Comprehensive insurance becomes cheaper to provide, however. Whether those savings get passed on to the customer is an interesting question.
I get why protecting the life of the mother is different, that is how one can support abortion in only that case, I find it abhorrent that anyone would say that incest or rape would change the morality of abortion. What possible justification can there be for that?
I'm sure this guy did, as all the money would have been reported via 1099s.
But regardless of if you commit a felony to steal money from the government, it's taxable income.
None of which are destructive devices according to the law. It's actually pretty specific. Oh wait, you didn't read the law... you read the summary words "destructive devices".
Strips clubs are worse than this guy. I met a nice girl there, and she said she liked me... I spent all my money on gifts for her and then it turns out she never really did like me. She broke my heart.
Hey, when your sister is married to an idiot who thinks he can support his family on T-shirt sales, so he quits his job, you buy T-shirts so she can eat.
Anyone want to buy 5,000 T-shirts, you know, for the gym or something. I'll give you a good price.
Why on earth would it be tax-free?
But I turn JavaScript off. As annoying as Flash is, it's confined. JavaScript is almost always worse.
The probability depends on how you determined to decide to specify that one was a boy. In the case where you give your first-born's sex, it's 50-50 (well, 51-49). In the case where you decide that to correct gender-equality in these problems, you decide to mention if it's a girl if at all possible, then it's 100%. There are a couple of other possibilities, but all trickier.
And I buy four lottery tickets a week. Woo-hoo, I won twice!
It's only an example of imperfect knowledge if there are non-smokey bars, but you are not aware of them. The example where there are only smokey bars is an example where you do have perfect knowledge.
This has nothing to do with imperfect competition, except that the differences between the bars is of value to you. But then again, you're not talking about the cost of removing smoke from a bar, so product differentiation is already taking place.
Except that's not irrational. It's not irrational if it's more convenient, or closer, or 100 other things.
There are good examples of all three assumptions failing in one fell swoop, but this is not one of them. I prefer, as this is slashdot, cars. Most consumers are ignorant of total cost of ownership of each car. (Imperfect Knowledge) Cars are primarily sold on non-economic factors (Product Differentiation which reduces competition), and also high fixed costs limit entry, also limiting competition. And cars are primarily sold through emotionally manipulative advertising.
Err... they were starting a revolutionary war. They were afraid that their words would get them in trouble because they were going to PICK UP GUNS AND SHOOT BRITISH SOLDIERS WITH THEM.
Further, John Hancock signed the Declaration, and took a several day head start to get out of town before it was published. Most other founders didn't sign until later.
The Federalist Papers were published under pseudonyms, and "Common Sense" was originally anonymous.
That's the basic idea.
Then there's capping based on level of service subscribed to (which fits in with net neturality). That is, you (the customer) has to pay for 22 mbps to get 22 mbps. This works because its based on your relationship with your ISP. Net Neutrality requires that Google not have to pay to send you files at your full speed (except to their ISP)... unless of course you opt to split your full speed by doing something else at the same time. Basically, you lease a pipe of size X. the way you stated it cannot be enacted into law without making the difference clearer.
Any law has to allow the government to snap priority for military/civilian emergencies. That just seems obvious. I mean, they can already do that to all other telecom.
Enforcement and penalties of course need to be spelled out in the law.
Is your problem that in forums people don't draft legal language that explicitly spells out caveats that human beings can easily deduce but must be made explicit in the law? I mean, most contracts include clauses rendering them moot in the case of divine intervention or natural disaster. Somehow, I doubt most people get confused when you say "the contract requires them to deliver 200 reams of paper to X by July 10th" to have clauses that guarantee that its conditional on payment, X not being destroyed by an earthquake, the Rapture not occuring, etc. etc. etc.
Why is length a disqualification?
I mean, your one sentence phrase doesn't work... ISPs cap (a type of filtering) packets based on the subscribers plan. What about ISPs that prioritize/filter by protocol or port. Where are the rules against ISP based MITM attacks (see the proposed Zip+4 header). What about the Emergency Broadcast Service getting complete priority over everything else? Can two offices pay more to have a guaranteed throughput between the east and west coast office? What are the penalties? Who enforces it?
It takes a sentence to rough out a reasonable rule, and 10+ pages to actually address the variety of issues.
It's a snowball effect. I'd be surprised if it happened at the beginning. The question is what happens if Google et al pave the way for granting extensive permissions. Why does the Google Maps app need access to most of that?