Hep B is transmissable by any number of factors. Something like 30% of infections have no known vector, and it's known to tend to spread amongst families (i.e. people living in the same household). Sexual transmission is a very likely means of infection, but it's not the only one and long-term exposure to people with Hep B in close quarters is likely to result in an infection - we just don't worry about it, because most of the world is vaccinated against it.
Did you know if you take huge quantities of antibiotics, you'll also die?
Or that botulism toxin (botox) is the most deadly poison on the planet?
Also if you take huge quantities of that routine killer, H2O.
Are you aware that dosage level and mechanism of exposure are all important factors in determining toxicity and reactions? Did you read more then the first sentence of that paragraph on wikipedia?
It is mandated by many states due to the leading of the FDA. I mean, yes, you could live in your own little hole and not get it. But if you want your kid to go to pre-school. It's very mandatory.
It's also very important we mandate it there, because little kids do stupid things like gets cuts and scrapes and generally practice poor hygeine and would sterilization practices. If you wanted to pick an environment where they're going to exchange bodily fluids likely to spread Hep B, that's the one.
From wikipedia:
HBV can be transmitted between family members within households, possibly by contact of nonintact skin or mucous membrane with secretions or saliva containing HBV.[47][48] However, at least 30% of reported hepatitis B among adults cannot be associated with an identifiable risk factor
More importantly: it's effects are very long term. Get it when you're little, and you could become a chronic carrier. Lo and behold at age 40 you're suffering for liver cancer, and probably die of it. Or nothing happens - but you give it to your kids, who that then happens to.
It is a nasty, long-term illness with very severe consequences for a sizeable number of those who get it.
Democracies are good at certain things. They are very good at limiting wars because wars ultimately hurt population.
You have seen what America has been up to right? Currently in two wars, and were dropping bombs in Libya not so long ago. War without end.
America has very carefully shielded it's population from the realities of fighting too wars, and a big part of it's current budget woes can be blamed on that. Two wars, yet when American went into Iraq the attitude from the White House was "we're at war, let's party - have a tax break!"
For comparison, the subprime mortgage market in the US was worth about $1.3 trillion a year, with about $10.1 trillion USD in outstanding mortgage debt in 2012. Not all of those are actually bad, provided they don't get their interest rates jacked in a panic. That's a sizeable chunk of change - but it's still 1/7th the total problem, and the estimate of the size may be a severe underestimate.
Yeah the loans were not the cause of the the GFC. They were the underlying instrument used to kickstart it, but those loans were not ultimately worth the annual global GDP of the entire planet (one estimate is that there's $62 trillion of CDS's out there - the annual global GDP is about $70 trillion USD for 2012), which is what the credit default swap market was estimated at (note: estimated - nobody knows, it was all private and it's all this unrealized possible debt that's making those loans so toxic).
Those loans were a drop in the damn ocean of debt. Those loans we can deal with (hence bailing them out - because heaven knows who'll actually pay if they default).
(*) I think if they have a life threatening ailment, they should have to be treated. If they DON'T have a life threatening ailment, after being triaged to decide that, the hospital should be able to refuse to treat them (send them to an urgent care clinic, a free clinic, whatever).
This sounds good in theory, to people who don't deal with hospitals or medical practice. Every doctor will tell you it just doesn't work though. Triage itself in an ER is both time-consuming (practically on the same level as treatment) and risky. What do you triage? What do you say "this isn't serious enough" without effectively winding up providing treatment?
If someone comes in complaining of a severe headache, you have to actually check them out and make sure they're not in the middle of a severe brain swelling because oh, it turns out they got hit pretty hard in the head today. Suddenly you've got the doctors mulling over this guy thinking "we need to keep him under observation".
By the time someone gets to the emergency room you can't turn them away without effectively having to treat them first and determine what they have. The answer is to stop them winding up there in the first place, and the best way to deal with that is to make sure they can afford to go to their GP before something gets bad enough that they head to emergency.
You just don't understand do you? It's not up to you if it's worth trying or not. It's HER life. She gets to decide if she wants to try leeches to cure her cancer. In a private system, she can seek out and purchase insurance that covers what she wants. In a single payer system you HAVE NO CHOICE. A panel of doctors decides if your treatment is worthwhile or not. In a single payer system, the least cost solution wins. The cheapest way to cure some diseases is to simply make the patient wait long enough that the problem "goes away" in this case the patient paid for it out of pocket, in other cases they just die.
I'm not a republican by any means. But the government absolutely sucks at everything they do. Keep them out of my healthcare please. The roads on the way to the hospital are bad enough, I don't need the medical system to be full of holes as well.
That women, and everyone, in countries with socialized healthcare systems always have the option to pay for private coverage, surgery and procedures.
Yet why are they in the news about it? Because they can't afford it, and want the taxpayer to pick it up for them.
See, the difference is, public healthcare systems aim to provide as much treatment as is demonstrably efficacious and affordable. The patients of public healthcare systems are similarly free to seek whatever private treatment they want - but hey, private treatment is pretty expensive, and hence they don't all get to choose whatever quack solution they think will definitely save them.
While it is technically possible to do most of these things, for low-grade espionage it's way too expensive to do and requires a well-defined target (i.e. building up a stock of compromised ROMs, of every laptop you're likely to hit, would be expensive as hell and even then you might end up tripping something or damaging the hardware doing it).
The BIOS swap for example would be particularly troublesome - you'd need to pull apart the laptop, desolder the BIOS chips and solder new ones. No matter how good you are, that's not going to be done in anything less then a few hours, presuming you had all the tools, the chips, and it went flawlessly. And it would require knowing the exact make and model of the target machine.
On the other hand, while typing I've noticed it's often faster to quickly jab buttons or perform gestures on the screen than to reach down and use a trackpad.
I agree that most screens will be touch screens...eventually. In the same way that most televisions will be 3D...eventually. It's still primarily a gimmick at this point, but it has some use. As the price goes down and the practical downsides are slowly engineered away, it will become a standard feature and applications will evolve to better use it.
(p.s. I don't own a touch screen laptop, but I do have an iPad with keyboard which works the same way...and, ironically, predates modern touch screen laptops.)
I think my aversion to the idea is the fact that currently most software makers are demonstrating that they have no sense of moderation when it comes to touchscreens. Almost simultaneously the Ubuntu and Gnome people, Microsoft - hell, everybody - decided that touch must be everywhere! and started running roughshed over their interfaces to force it into every nook and cranny, no matter inappropriate.
So I'm not really expecting the user experience to improve when this happens - instead I'm expecting to find my interface options to lose customizability and basic features.
No it's all over. I think part of the drive for super-conducting powerlines is that they'd be impossible to steal for any value since you can't just melt down superconductor (or not freeze yourself to death with refrigerant).
Linus hates this concept, (covers why he hates it in some detail in his techtalk) and frankly he's right.
What you describe is the trivial case: concurrent versions when the changes don't interact at all, and their are no significant changes to the surrounding modules.
How common is this, really on any complicated project, where even minor changes might depend on the external status of any number of subsystems which might be under active development? Git makes the sensible observation that the only thing you're really sure of is that the version you are working on, right now, you understand, and is designed to work together - and that plucking out any one file and changing it, could break things in any number of ways.
This all may be but imagine this. I work in a project where delivery time is fixed. We have a fixed time line of 6 months (now 8 due to delays). I imagine we wasted at least 3 weeks because people did not know how to deal with git and with commit,merge,pull,push i.e. basic functionalities. They knew other tools still prevalent in the rest of the company so there was no real need to switch except one engineer having a say and deciding for himself and the rest too. Now he is hardly using it and the rest never works from home so we wasted time to learn it only because one person liked the tool. In other words - git is possibly the biggest of all version control systems but because its concepts are so different from the others it means that switching to it should be carefully considered - are benefits evaluated against the incumbent ones.
What version control system were you using beforehand?
It seems odd that you'd all decide to switch to a tool without a plan for it, especially since you can easily use Git with other VCS systems quite easily (just maintain a branch that you use when you commit back to the other tool).
Half the power of Git is that you have a fairly gentle migration path.
Virtual machines have a performance hit, require permissions, and don't reflect native hardware. Fine for Apache, but what about something like a file manager, or anything which requires OpenGL currently?
Admittedly there's progress on this front - LXC in the Linux kernel goes some of the way to fixing this problem, though what we really need is a distribution that's LXC aware so it's easy to use.
You make up 50c a week and use it as an arguing point for raising everyones taxes, and then you dont want to be insulted?
You dont deserve kid gloves because you dont want a fair argument. The tax revenue shortfall from the Bush cuts is $2.6 trillion dollars over 10 years (2011 to 2020), or $260 billion per year... 5 billion per week. Are you imagining that there are 10 billion people in the United States, therefore its only 50 cents per person per week? Its $43.86 per week per taxpayer on top of what they already pay.
There is this amazing thing called math. You can use it so that you don't have to make numbers up. An added bonus is that you can be right instead of completely wrong. Now stop being a partisan cunt.
It's $43.86 per week per taxpayer but the US has a progressive taxation system. It is not uniformly distributed over taxpayers, and taxpayers are not uniformly effected. A great many people in the tax system (as I said - almost half of Americans don't pay a net bill to the federal tax office) are unlikely to be effected at all. Many more will pay small nominal increases (i.e. those on the cusp of taxable income brackets), and those at the top will pay more - and will, it should be noticed - be effected in terms of lifestyle and disposable income very differently to all those other groups.
Not really unearning the tag "ignorant" by failing to understand your own country's tax system.
Which is also a solution but not one that's going to be implemented quickly and easily, and you're still left with the long-tail of policy gone by. It's also not the only concern: when you're a big power, you'd like to have airspace access and bases around the world, or maybe some checks against foreign expansion. US bases in Korea aren't really about stopping the North Koreans - they're about making sure you have to go through a US base to get to South Korea.
You could argue all that stuff isn't needed if you don't need oil, but it's not the only resource in the world, and of course, it's not like pure expansionism isn't an unidentifiable threat - watching a bunch of your trading partners get knocked over by an alliance of dictators who you know will then just waste everything fighting each other - or even due to the sheer morality of genuinely wanting to promote democracy - is a good reason to remain engaged.
Demolishing the buildings is a sensible middle ground though. You avoid giving the perception to the settlers being removed that "their" hard work is being given away to others. It's materially wasteful, but I suspect, socially useful.
~50% of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate, so they're the ones who'll see a tax increase. Maybe. Seeing as how it depends on the specific minutiae of their deductions, entitlement benefits, the detail very much depends on individual circumstance and the size of a tax increase depends on the specific tax bracket and how far into the tax bracket they are. Being 50c a week worse off while your country avoids bankruptcy is hardly a bad trade.
You might want to check your insults before you start calling people ignorant, because "98% of taxpayers" at minimum is not "98% of Americans".
Slashdot Mirror
Mean time to liberatarian on Slashdot: 3 posts.
Hep B is transmissable by any number of factors. Something like 30% of infections have no known vector, and it's known to tend to spread amongst families (i.e. people living in the same household). Sexual transmission is a very likely means of infection, but it's not the only one and long-term exposure to people with Hep B in close quarters is likely to result in an infection - we just don't worry about it, because most of the world is vaccinated against it.
Did you know if you take huge quantities of antibiotics, you'll also die?
Or that botulism toxin (botox) is the most deadly poison on the planet?
Also if you take huge quantities of that routine killer, H2O.
Are you aware that dosage level and mechanism of exposure are all important factors in determining toxicity and reactions? Did you read more then the first sentence of that paragraph on wikipedia?
But which more likely yours does.
It is mandated by many states due to the leading of the FDA. I mean, yes, you could live in your own little hole and not get it. But if you want your kid to go to pre-school. It's very mandatory.
Interesting, I just looked this up to verify and you are correct. It seems that I happen to live in one of the 3 backward states that does not mandate it.
It's also very important we mandate it there, because little kids do stupid things like gets cuts and scrapes and generally practice poor hygeine and would sterilization practices. If you wanted to pick an environment where they're going to exchange bodily fluids likely to spread Hep B, that's the one.
From wikipedia:
HBV can be transmitted between family members within households, possibly by contact of nonintact skin or mucous membrane with secretions or saliva containing HBV.[47][48] However, at least 30% of reported hepatitis B among adults cannot be associated with an identifiable risk factor
More importantly: it's effects are very long term. Get it when you're little, and you could become a chronic carrier. Lo and behold at age 40 you're suffering for liver cancer, and probably die of it. Or nothing happens - but you give it to your kids, who that then happens to.
It is a nasty, long-term illness with very severe consequences for a sizeable number of those who get it.
It's also not used at all in some European jurisdictions, yet the autism claim keeps coming up there too. Same with Australia.
Democracies are good at certain things. They are very good at limiting wars because wars ultimately hurt population.
You have seen what America has been up to right? Currently in two wars, and were dropping bombs in Libya not so long ago. War without end.
America has very carefully shielded it's population from the realities of fighting too wars, and a big part of it's current budget woes can be blamed on that. Two wars, yet when American went into Iraq the attitude from the White House was "we're at war, let's party - have a tax break!"
For comparison, the subprime mortgage market in the US was worth about $1.3 trillion a year, with about $10.1 trillion USD in outstanding mortgage debt in 2012. Not all of those are actually bad, provided they don't get their interest rates jacked in a panic. That's a sizeable chunk of change - but it's still 1/7th the total problem, and the estimate of the size may be a severe underestimate.
Yeah the loans were not the cause of the the GFC. They were the underlying instrument used to kickstart it, but those loans were not ultimately worth the annual global GDP of the entire planet (one estimate is that there's $62 trillion of CDS's out there - the annual global GDP is about $70 trillion USD for 2012), which is what the credit default swap market was estimated at (note: estimated - nobody knows, it was all private and it's all this unrealized possible debt that's making those loans so toxic).
Those loans were a drop in the damn ocean of debt. Those loans we can deal with (hence bailing them out - because heaven knows who'll actually pay if they default).
I find it curious you didn't say which country was more centrally controlled then Canada.
Could it be fictionland, made-up ville? Or perhaps say, a corrupt former soviet satellite state? Hitler's Germany?
(*) I think if they have a life threatening ailment, they should have to be treated. If they DON'T have a life threatening ailment, after being triaged to decide that, the hospital should be able to refuse to treat them (send them to an urgent care clinic, a free clinic, whatever).
This sounds good in theory, to people who don't deal with hospitals or medical practice. Every doctor will tell you it just doesn't work though. Triage itself in an ER is both time-consuming (practically on the same level as treatment) and risky. What do you triage? What do you say "this isn't serious enough" without effectively winding up providing treatment?
If someone comes in complaining of a severe headache, you have to actually check them out and make sure they're not in the middle of a severe brain swelling because oh, it turns out they got hit pretty hard in the head today. Suddenly you've got the doctors mulling over this guy thinking "we need to keep him under observation".
By the time someone gets to the emergency room you can't turn them away without effectively having to treat them first and determine what they have. The answer is to stop them winding up there in the first place, and the best way to deal with that is to make sure they can afford to go to their GP before something gets bad enough that they head to emergency.
Also - to put this in another context - what's the long run effect of that on the labor market?
Having healthcare tied to your specific job is a ridiculous reducer of workplace mobility.
You just don't understand do you? It's not up to you if it's worth trying or not. It's HER life. She gets to decide if she wants to try leeches to cure her cancer. In a private system, she can seek out and purchase insurance that covers what she wants. In a single payer system you HAVE NO CHOICE. A panel of doctors decides if your treatment is worthwhile or not. In a single payer system, the least cost solution wins. The cheapest way to cure some diseases is to simply make the patient wait long enough that the problem "goes away" in this case the patient paid for it out of pocket, in other cases they just die.
I'm not a republican by any means. But the government absolutely sucks at everything they do. Keep them out of my healthcare please. The roads on the way to the hospital are bad enough, I don't need the medical system to be full of holes as well.
That women, and everyone, in countries with socialized healthcare systems always have the option to pay for private coverage, surgery and procedures.
Yet why are they in the news about it? Because they can't afford it, and want the taxpayer to pick it up for them.
See, the difference is, public healthcare systems aim to provide as much treatment as is demonstrably efficacious and affordable. The patients of public healthcare systems are similarly free to seek whatever private treatment they want - but hey, private treatment is pretty expensive, and hence they don't all get to choose whatever quack solution they think will definitely save them.
This is also unreasonable.
While it is technically possible to do most of these things, for low-grade espionage it's way too expensive to do and requires a well-defined target (i.e. building up a stock of compromised ROMs, of every laptop you're likely to hit, would be expensive as hell and even then you might end up tripping something or damaging the hardware doing it).
The BIOS swap for example would be particularly troublesome - you'd need to pull apart the laptop, desolder the BIOS chips and solder new ones. No matter how good you are, that's not going to be done in anything less then a few hours, presuming you had all the tools, the chips, and it went flawlessly. And it would require knowing the exact make and model of the target machine.
How does this protect you against anything?
You're still vulnerable if they replace the bootloader with say, a Truecrypt lookalike (the evil maid attack, which is what this refers to).
Well given how you've managed to reach your own conclusions based on no evidence, the reasoning for the imposition should be self-evident.
Not exactly a compelling use case, indeed.
On the other hand, while typing I've noticed it's often faster to quickly jab buttons or perform gestures on the screen than to reach down and use a trackpad.
I agree that most screens will be touch screens...eventually. In the same way that most televisions will be 3D...eventually. It's still primarily a gimmick at this point, but it has some use. As the price goes down and the practical downsides are slowly engineered away, it will become a standard feature and applications will evolve to better use it.
(p.s. I don't own a touch screen laptop, but I do have an iPad with keyboard which works the same way...and, ironically, predates modern touch screen laptops.)
I think my aversion to the idea is the fact that currently most software makers are demonstrating that they have no sense of moderation when it comes to touchscreens. Almost simultaneously the Ubuntu and Gnome people, Microsoft - hell, everybody - decided that touch must be everywhere! and started running roughshed over their interfaces to force it into every nook and cranny, no matter inappropriate.
So I'm not really expecting the user experience to improve when this happens - instead I'm expecting to find my interface options to lose customizability and basic features.
No it's all over. I think part of the drive for super-conducting powerlines is that they'd be impossible to steal for any value since you can't just melt down superconductor (or not freeze yourself to death with refrigerant).
Linus hates this concept, (covers why he hates it in some detail in his techtalk) and frankly he's right.
What you describe is the trivial case: concurrent versions when the changes don't interact at all, and their are no significant changes to the surrounding modules.
How common is this, really on any complicated project, where even minor changes might depend on the external status of any number of subsystems which might be under active development? Git makes the sensible observation that the only thing you're really sure of is that the version you are working on, right now, you understand, and is designed to work together - and that plucking out any one file and changing it, could break things in any number of ways.
This all may be but imagine this. I work in a project where delivery time is fixed. We have a fixed time line of 6 months (now 8 due to delays). I imagine we wasted at least 3 weeks because people did not know how to deal with git and with commit,merge,pull,push i.e. basic functionalities. They knew other tools still prevalent in the rest of the company so there was no real need to switch except one engineer having a say and deciding for himself and the rest too. Now he is hardly using it and the rest never works from home so we wasted time to learn it only because one person liked the tool. In other words - git is possibly the biggest of all version control systems but because its concepts are so different from the others it means that switching to it should be carefully considered - are benefits evaluated against the incumbent ones.
What version control system were you using beforehand?
It seems odd that you'd all decide to switch to a tool without a plan for it, especially since you can easily use Git with other VCS systems quite easily (just maintain a branch that you use when you commit back to the other tool).
Half the power of Git is that you have a fairly gentle migration path.
Virtual machines have a performance hit, require permissions, and don't reflect native hardware. Fine for Apache, but what about something like a file manager, or anything which requires OpenGL currently?
Admittedly there's progress on this front - LXC in the Linux kernel goes some of the way to fixing this problem, though what we really need is a distribution that's LXC aware so it's easy to use.
You make up 50c a week and use it as an arguing point for raising everyones taxes, and then you dont want to be insulted?
You dont deserve kid gloves because you dont want a fair argument. The tax revenue shortfall from the Bush cuts is $2.6 trillion dollars over 10 years (2011 to 2020), or $260 billion per year... 5 billion per week. Are you imagining that there are 10 billion people in the United States, therefore its only 50 cents per person per week? Its $43.86 per week per taxpayer on top of what they already pay.
There is this amazing thing called math. You can use it so that you don't have to make numbers up. An added bonus is that you can be right instead of completely wrong. Now stop being a partisan cunt.
It's $43.86 per week per taxpayer but the US has a progressive taxation system. It is not uniformly distributed over taxpayers, and taxpayers are not uniformly effected. A great many people in the tax system (as I said - almost half of Americans don't pay a net bill to the federal tax office) are unlikely to be effected at all. Many more will pay small nominal increases (i.e. those on the cusp of taxable income brackets), and those at the top will pay more - and will, it should be noticed - be effected in terms of lifestyle and disposable income very differently to all those other groups.
Not really unearning the tag "ignorant" by failing to understand your own country's tax system.
Which is also a solution but not one that's going to be implemented quickly and easily, and you're still left with the long-tail of policy gone by. It's also not the only concern: when you're a big power, you'd like to have airspace access and bases around the world, or maybe some checks against foreign expansion. US bases in Korea aren't really about stopping the North Koreans - they're about making sure you have to go through a US base to get to South Korea.
You could argue all that stuff isn't needed if you don't need oil, but it's not the only resource in the world, and of course, it's not like pure expansionism isn't an unidentifiable threat - watching a bunch of your trading partners get knocked over by an alliance of dictators who you know will then just waste everything fighting each other - or even due to the sheer morality of genuinely wanting to promote democracy - is a good reason to remain engaged.
Demolishing the buildings is a sensible middle ground though. You avoid giving the perception to the settlers being removed that "their" hard work is being given away to others. It's materially wasteful, but I suspect, socially useful.
~50% of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate, so they're the ones who'll see a tax increase. Maybe. Seeing as how it depends on the specific minutiae of their deductions, entitlement benefits, the detail very much depends on individual circumstance and the size of a tax increase depends on the specific tax bracket and how far into the tax bracket they are. Being 50c a week worse off while your country avoids bankruptcy is hardly a bad trade.
You might want to check your insults before you start calling people ignorant, because "98% of taxpayers" at minimum is not "98% of Americans".