I never expected to get the "up to" speed 24x7 (that's why they said up to), but there's no reason they shouldn't be able to provide unlimited (other than the natural limits imposed by the connection speed) data transfer, especially if I do the bulk transfers in the wee hours. Data transfer costs them exactly nothing, it's bandwidth that costs.
In the commercial world, connectivity is billed by the 95th percentile of the data rate plus a loop charge (if applicable). Generally, you can have the upstream set a rate limit for you or you can use your own hardware to do it for you.
Volunteers and projects you haven't paid will prioritize bugs as they see fit. Yours may be at the bottom of the list. If you want your bug to have priority somewhere, you have the option to pay someone to at least act like they care about it most.
The main reason I assigned it a factor compared to automobile deaths is as a start to an argument about just how much we should be spending on the problem. We spend well over zero mitigating automobile deaths. I agree that our spending on terrorism is vastly disproportional to the nearly non-existent risk.
Of course, things like MRSA are responsible for a great deal of morbidity as well as mortality, including multiple limb amputations. It can be acquired outside of the hospital; as well. The 99,000 is a minimum figure.
To be fair, new antibiotics may not be the most effective approach to the problem. Apparently, part of it is that doctors refuse to quit wearing ties and wash their hands. I'll bet if a new law required hospitals to treat hospital acquired infections free of charge, they'd find a way to get doctors to wash their hands.
My sister was part of a team that got a patent. The university where she worked shopped around for people that might be able to profit from the patent. Nobody bought it. It sat in the patent office until the patent expired. Now all people that could profit from the patent are free to do so without having to pay the university for the privilege. How do you prevent that from happening again?
Why do you think I am at all inclined to prevent it? They had 17 years to convince someone it was worth having and nobody agreed. Either it just wasn't as useful as they thought or the school wanted too much for it. So, how many are now using the patent without paying?
As for the rest, profit is one thing, but charging over a hundred dollars for a single pill that costs a dime to make is over the top. Gioving people the choice of everything you own or die is over the top. Evergreening and paying people to not compete are plain unethical and should be illegal.
Of course, the companies aren't FORCED to sell the drugs elsewhere, they are offered a deal and they accept. Perhaps the U.S. government should do the same for Americans.
According to the CDC, 99,000 people a year die from hospital acquired infections, many of which are antibiotic resistant (which is why they're fatal). So I suppose those might run out of the hospital dissolving in protoplasmic goo if they weren't already dead.
That's not how it works. If we as a society limit the usefulness of the trait by selecting against it, there will be less of it. I don't suggest exile, but removal from management roles serves a legitimate social purpose (nobody should EVER be forced to endure a sociopathic manager).
Where is the incentive? If they can still profit selling a branded antibiotic with a generic formula, they will do so. Tylenol is still sold even though you can buy cheaper generic acetaminophen.
Sure, but in the mean while, they are all trying to develop the next generation blockbuster NSAID,
The profits from patent protection should be just enough to spur more innovation and no more. When you buy a car, do you pay the salesman the least amount he will accept for the car or do you toss in a $20,000 tip?
Apparently, some articles now "clearly" show the story link in light green font on the dark green of the article header now (in parenthesis no less so we know it is a detail rather than the main point).
Consider though, through a combination of nagative actions and inactions, these youth have had it made perfectly clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members. Is it surprising that they formed their own society that doesn't really give a rats ass about the society that marginalized them?
Actually, if you keep consciously correcting it, the subconscious will learn. It also involves re-evaluating the status symbol itself. Actually consider why you might think it is objectively better (most status symbols are not) including cost/benefit.
It's not unlike the way you can never learn to ride a bike consciously, but you can consciously convince your cerebellum to learn how to ride a bike.
Keep at it and you'll find your subconscious mind laughing at the silly bugger who spent a few thousand dollars on squished carbon and still has no better idea what time it is than you do.
I assure you, our ancestors living in caves did not somehow evolve an innate sense that Rolex is better than Casio.
I guess you've never dealt with these people. They are shooting down anything resembling free WiFi because otherwise, nobody would willingly pay $700 dollars for a couple days worth of WiFi access.
The point is that if the fine is less than the profit they made by committing the offense, they'll likely continue offending and treat it as a business expense. If the fine exceeds the profits, they'll actually stop offending since it's not profitable.
Slashdot Mirror
I never expected to get the "up to" speed 24x7 (that's why they said up to), but there's no reason they shouldn't be able to provide unlimited (other than the natural limits imposed by the connection speed) data transfer, especially if I do the bulk transfers in the wee hours. Data transfer costs them exactly nothing, it's bandwidth that costs.
In the commercial world, connectivity is billed by the 95th percentile of the data rate plus a loop charge (if applicable). Generally, you can have the upstream set a rate limit for you or you can use your own hardware to do it for you.
Volunteers and projects you haven't paid will prioritize bugs as they see fit. Yours may be at the bottom of the list. If you want your bug to have priority somewhere, you have the option to pay someone to at least act like they care about it most.
The horse is dead.
The main reason I assigned it a factor compared to automobile deaths is as a start to an argument about just how much we should be spending on the problem. We spend well over zero mitigating automobile deaths. I agree that our spending on terrorism is vastly disproportional to the nearly non-existent risk.
Of course, things like MRSA are responsible for a great deal of morbidity as well as mortality, including multiple limb amputations. It can be acquired outside of the hospital; as well. The 99,000 is a minimum figure.
To be fair, new antibiotics may not be the most effective approach to the problem. Apparently, part of it is that doctors refuse to quit wearing ties and wash their hands. I'll bet if a new law required hospitals to treat hospital acquired infections free of charge, they'd find a way to get doctors to wash their hands.
It's triple the deaths from automobile accidents to put it in perspective.
My sister was part of a team that got a patent. The university where she worked shopped around for people that might be able to profit from the patent. Nobody bought it. It sat in the patent office until the patent expired. Now all people that could profit from the patent are free to do so without having to pay the university for the privilege. How do you prevent that from happening again?
Why do you think I am at all inclined to prevent it? They had 17 years to convince someone it was worth having and nobody agreed. Either it just wasn't as useful as they thought or the school wanted too much for it. So, how many are now using the patent without paying?
As for the rest, profit is one thing, but charging over a hundred dollars for a single pill that costs a dime to make is over the top. Gioving people the choice of everything you own or die is over the top. Evergreening and paying people to not compete are plain unethical and should be illegal.
Of course, the companies aren't FORCED to sell the drugs elsewhere, they are offered a deal and they accept. Perhaps the U.S. government should do the same for Americans.
No, in general healthcare in the U.S. costs 4 times as much per person as in Europe.
According to the CDC, 99,000 people a year die from hospital acquired infections, many of which are antibiotic resistant (which is why they're fatal). So I suppose those might run out of the hospital dissolving in protoplasmic goo if they weren't already dead.
That's not how it works. If we as a society limit the usefulness of the trait by selecting against it, there will be less of it. I don't suggest exile, but removal from management roles serves a legitimate social purpose (nobody should EVER be forced to endure a sociopathic manager).
Where is the incentive? If they can still profit selling a branded antibiotic with a generic formula, they will do so. Tylenol is still sold even though you can buy cheaper generic acetaminophen.
Sure, but in the mean while, they are all trying to develop the next generation blockbuster NSAID,
The profits from patent protection should be just enough to spur more innovation and no more. When you buy a car, do you pay the salesman the least amount he will accept for the car or do you toss in a $20,000 tip?
Not to mention that the kernel supports separated privileges and can actually be used in a rootless system but in practice, it never is.
Because nobody ever has suggested it's the couch maker's fault if someone breaks in to their house and takes the couch.
User error, you mistook the tenths marks for the ones, so you (accidentally) calculated 1.2*1.3 and got 1.56.
Name brands don't mean nearly as much as they used to.
You don't seem to like it either. Have you instructed your government to have no part in it? How'd that go?
The money/time/job thing is huge. The basic income would help that one a lot.
We seem to be roughly in agreement, perhaps you didn't parse my writing quite correctly?!?
Apparently, some articles now "clearly" show the story link in light green font on the dark green of the article header now (in parenthesis no less so we know it is a detail rather than the main point).
If they're wearing 3 cameras, speaking Japanese and pointing at everything, they're clearly tourists. Others may be less obvious.
Consider though, through a combination of nagative actions and inactions, these youth have had it made perfectly clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members. Is it surprising that they formed their own society that doesn't really give a rats ass about the society that marginalized them?
It seems like a fairly rational response.
Actually, if you keep consciously correcting it, the subconscious will learn. It also involves re-evaluating the status symbol itself. Actually consider why you might think it is objectively better (most status symbols are not) including cost/benefit.
It's not unlike the way you can never learn to ride a bike consciously, but you can consciously convince your cerebellum to learn how to ride a bike.
Keep at it and you'll find your subconscious mind laughing at the silly bugger who spent a few thousand dollars on squished carbon and still has no better idea what time it is than you do.
I assure you, our ancestors living in caves did not somehow evolve an innate sense that Rolex is better than Casio.
Even relativity based explanations would be less outlandish than a claim to violate conservation.
If it is virtual particles, it would be the second time they have had a measurable real world effect.
I guess you've never dealt with these people. They are shooting down anything resembling free WiFi because otherwise, nobody would willingly pay $700 dollars for a couple days worth of WiFi access.
The point is that if the fine is less than the profit they made by committing the offense, they'll likely continue offending and treat it as a business expense. If the fine exceeds the profits, they'll actually stop offending since it's not profitable.