Now ask yourself how many of your fellow Americans can afford such treatment? You are lucky you could spend $100'000, but what would you be saying if you couldn't?
You could have gotten if you weren't brought up like you are. Just look at Sweden! If you're a doctor that cares only for the money, you shouldn't be a doctor. The only commitment for a doc is to save a persons life, and the community has to make sure that docs dont care about money so that they can concentrate on saving people.
To be precise: drugs are not common technology. Aspirin was known several thousand years ago, and guess what? Still is used today. So basically, drugs are more stable than anything else in usage. So when you develop a drug you can plan on sales up-to 10 years stable. I guess Intel with its chips would like to have that luxury. And you can predict how many patients for that particular disease there will be and what percentage will use your drug. I guess fashion industry would like that luxury.
So it adds up to:
- market predictability(really high percentage)
- long product life
- sales predictability The best industry there is! There is always a possibility of developing a BAD drug. But all the chances are in development stage.
>> Property rights are essential for survival. Private property rights are essential for freedom. Hmm...... How did we survive to this point? Private property has been around only for several thousand years. Do you believe that all our ancestors had no freedom? Imagine if there was NO public property: You could not get our of your own "private property", since you needed to get permission from the owner of another property. Would you call it freedom?
And BTW public property does not limit your rights. You can go to a park, without getting permission from municipality.
I would say that single people bring more value for their salary. That is why people that agree to sacrifice some(for/. its probably ALL) social life get MORE money, because they do more good stuff for the company.
I am currently looking at a table with only 17 million records. I know that there are inconsistencies, I am just afraid to search how many are there. And that including the FACT that there were NO crashes EVER. Fortunately NO ONE ever needed 100% consistency on that database, and people will probably "pay" for that.
Really sorry, but I find PostgreSQL documentation easier to read through than MySQL's.
If you want really archaic documentation try FirebirdSQL/Interbase.
> Not a single significant incident reported.
Well I sure wouldn't want to be in the plane that will be the first one reported. And I bet you wouldn't also.
Sure I agree with the article, BUT look at the possible waste of taxpayers money.
I consider myself a frequent traveler, last year only I had each week 2 flights. My job is in another country. That is 1.5 hours of flight time each direction.
But look at reality:
- with all the time I had 1.78% of flight time per year
- the cost of certifying everything
I will repeat - I AM a frequent traveler. Now count the percentage of flight time an average person in your country spends? I suspect that it is less than 1%. And are you willing to spend substantially more for technology that will only let you do something(make calls probably) in less than 1% of your total time?
PS: Between 1992 and 2005 I had 0% flight time average annually. Count your own, before complaining not able to call during a flight.
Slashdot Mirror
Now ask yourself how many of your fellow Americans can afford such treatment?
You are lucky you could spend $100'000, but what would you be saying if you couldn't?
You could have gotten if you weren't brought up like you are. Just look at Sweden!
If you're a doctor that cares only for the money, you shouldn't be a doctor.
The only commitment for a doc is to save a persons life, and the community has to make sure that docs dont care about money so that they can concentrate on saving people.
To be precise: drugs are not common technology.
Aspirin was known several thousand years ago, and guess what? Still is used today.
So basically, drugs are more stable than anything else in usage. So when you develop a drug you can plan on sales up-to 10 years stable.
I guess Intel with its chips would like to have that luxury.
And you can predict how many patients for that particular disease there will be and what percentage will use your drug.
I guess fashion industry would like that luxury.
So it adds up to:
- market predictability(really high percentage)
- long product life
- sales predictability
The best industry there is!
There is always a possibility of developing a BAD drug. But all the chances are in development stage.
>> Property rights are essential for survival. Private property rights are essential for freedom.
Hmm...... How did we survive to this point?
Private property has been around only for several thousand years. Do you believe that all our ancestors had no freedom?
Imagine if there was NO public property: You could not get our of your own "private property", since you needed to get permission from the owner of another property. Would you call it freedom?
And BTW public property does not limit your rights. You can go to a park, without getting permission from municipality.
I would say that single people bring more value for their salary. /. its probably ALL) social life get MORE money, because they do more good stuff for the company.
That is why people that agree to sacrifice some(for
I am currently looking at a table with only 17 million records.
I know that there are inconsistencies, I am just afraid to search how many are there.
And that including the FACT that there were NO crashes EVER.
Fortunately NO ONE ever needed 100% consistency on that database, and people will probably "pay" for that.
Really sorry, but I find PostgreSQL documentation easier to read through than MySQL's.
If you want really archaic documentation try FirebirdSQL/Interbase.
> Not a single significant incident reported. Well I sure wouldn't want to be in the plane that will be the first one reported. And I bet you wouldn't also.
Sure I agree with the article, BUT look at the possible waste of taxpayers money. I consider myself a frequent traveler, last year only I had each week 2 flights. My job is in another country. That is 1.5 hours of flight time each direction. But look at reality: - with all the time I had 1.78% of flight time per year - the cost of certifying everything I will repeat - I AM a frequent traveler. Now count the percentage of flight time an average person in your country spends? I suspect that it is less than 1%. And are you willing to spend substantially more for technology that will only let you do something(make calls probably) in less than 1% of your total time? PS: Between 1992 and 2005 I had 0% flight time average annually. Count your own, before complaining not able to call during a flight.