At some Unis, there are no "intro" classes for non-generals subjects, like CS. They assume you already have a background and jump strait into hard stuff.
At my Uni, I just talked to the dept chair person and told them I already had a computer background. They signed off for my to skip some 101 classes that were otherwise required to even graduate. Maybe people need to just ask.
This is not the issue, the issue is doctors not prescribing generics. That is the whole current issue. There are already generics for this alzheimers drug, but if the name brand goes away, then the doctors will stop writing prescriptions for that drug meaning no more generics for a drug that no longer exists. Logically, the "drug" still exists, but not the name brand version of it, and that seems to be an issue with the way the current rules for prescribing medications.
Yes, it says pharmacists may substitute. I've never had a doctor prescribe a generic. Notice all of the wording is about substitution of the brand-name drug, but never does it talk about prescribing generics.
-by using taxpayer dollars to implicitly insure the uninsured who use an ER, while leaving the rest of the system alone?
It's cheaper to treat the issue before to go to the ER. The ER is about 10x more expensive than just letting them see the doctor in the first place. Since they can't afford a normal doctor, then tax payers still foot the bill, but now it's 10x higher.
as I can tell, manufacturers are free to manufacture the generic, doctors are free to prescribe it and patients are free to take it.
According to the lawsuit, in some areas, doctors are not free to prescribe generics, but a generic may be substituted at the pharmacy. If the name-brand version of the drug does not exist, then that drug may not be prescribed, meaning the generic versions may not be substituted.
While I've never thought of this before, now that I look at it, I've never had my doctor prescribe a generic drug for me before. Always a name brand, and then the doctor would tell me I could also ask for a generic at the pharmacy if I wanted. My prescriptions were always for Adderall, even though I told my doctor my insurance did not cover it. When I went to the pharmacy, I would ask for them to give me the generic version, which is just some brand of dextroamphetamine.
At no point did I ever think my doctor was not allowed to directly prescribe just "dextroamphetamine".
According to the article, the issue is that doctors in many areas are not allowed to prescribe generics directly. They must prescribe the name brand, and a generic may be substituted if it is identical to the name brand. In this case, the name brand would no longer be offered, meaning the generics may no longer be offered.
Sounds like big drug makers lobbied to have these stupid rules made, and because of the rules, we have technical issues that could harm patients if a name-brand suddenly pulled a drug from the market. It's much easier to force a company to keep producing drugs than it is to change decades of medical rules.
Are you saying healthcare should be handled by the government because healthcare is not always profitable?
Not to mention that the concept of private healthcare is logically flawed in a free market. The typical person creates much more value than the amount they are paid. A person dying will cost the economy a lot more than the loss of their wage.
is too difficult to decipher except for the most powerful computer systems.
What fantastic computers do you know about that are able to break AES 256? Has a current strength of about 2^254.4. I'll round to 2^254. That means if you have 100 trillion computers, each doing 100 trillion operations per second, it would take 90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to break one key.
If you had a theoretically perfectly efficient computer, it was described that attempting to break AES 256 would require converting our entire Sun's mass into pure energy, and then some. Since we do not live in a world with perfectly efficient computers, it's more along the lines that we'd have to convert the entire Milky Way into pure energy.
I think galaxy destroying energy consumption is still beyond the abilities of our government.
I forgot to add, if you were able to access 38 trillion terabytes of data that was all encrypted with the same key, you could possibly figure out the key for 128bit.
I think currently AES 128 is broken down to 2^126, with an average break time of 2^125. You're saying you can churn though 4.25*10^37 operations on your laptop? Assuming you have an 8 core 10ghz CPU, and assuming all operations take 1 cycle, it would take 16,859,817,298,134,397,170 years on average. Do you know something about AES that we don't know?
Optimally, there would be a notion of a few buffers. P2P works best when chunks are randomly uploaded as not to cause a bias to what data is available. Probably a primary buffer that fills and requests data sequentially, then a much larger secondary buffer that is ahead of the primary one's timeline, where it grabs random blocks.
I wonder how much data storage would be required for a base optimal viewing experience and what kind of eviction algorithm.
There are two primary types of data for web viewing. Latency sensitive small requests, like HTML/CSS/JS; And initial latency or burst sensitive, but overall low sensitivity to bandwidth and latency requirement bulk transfers like large images and video streaming.
They don't entirely clash. HTTPS makes it so both a passive and active viewer cannot see what you're requesting. In theory, something like P2P could still make it so a active viewer could not see what you're downloading, but an active participant could. As long as the protocol had a way to quickly black-ball participants who falsely claimed to have data, then anyone who wanted to watch would also have to help.
Parallelizing requests could help hide latency. Small requests would hurt, unless you could make many at the same time and or batch them up. If you're working with relatively static data, you could optimize the data such that many small pieces could be placed together in a single block. The same way file systems like to batch together small files to reduce the overhead of minimum block sizes.
I wondering how BT will work for CDN style static data.
Re:dropped that fool and the systemd it rode in on
on
Fedora 21 Released
·
· Score: 1
SystemD has a "journal" that is sensitive to unexpected shutdowns. The purpose of a journal is to protect from corruption. You'd think they would use a data structure that is safe from unexpected interruptions.
Re: Fedora Infrastructure: Major service disruptio
on
Fedora 21 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm seeding, go crazy! My connection is mostly idle seeding most of those torrents.
The only reason our phones can't talk to each other directly is because of a bad network design
And here I thought battery lifetime was an issue. I guess recharging your phone every hour is acceptable because someone is using your phone to repeat signals.
Well, if you're going to argue corner cases, then sure, you're 100% correct a whole 20% of the time. I assume the 80/20 rule is a play when comparing the transfer of wealth "creating value" vs labor creating value.
But if you were to compare two hypothetical worlds
1) where no one labored, so nothing was created, but could sell all of that nothing
or
2) where no one could sell anything, but everyone could labor to create stuff. I did say, not sell stuff, so they could just take stuff and start using it.
Which world would have more "value"? The world full of nothing or the world full of stuff but no market with which to sell? An extreme example to show the fundamental difference.
To labor to create something where there is no demand or the supply outpaces the demand is purely wasted effort, but that doesn't happen as often as people creating stuff that is in demand. Artificial demand is dangerous. Behold, the power of market bubbles!
Slashdot Mirror
At some Unis, there are no "intro" classes for non-generals subjects, like CS. They assume you already have a background and jump strait into hard stuff.
I went to college to learn, not to teach other people or get a piece of paper that said I knew something. If I'm not learning, I want my money back.
At my Uni, I just talked to the dept chair person and told them I already had a computer background. They signed off for my to skip some 101 classes that were otherwise required to even graduate. Maybe people need to just ask.
pharmacy is permitted to substitute a generic
This is not the issue, the issue is doctors not prescribing generics. That is the whole current issue. There are already generics for this alzheimers drug, but if the name brand goes away, then the doctors will stop writing prescriptions for that drug meaning no more generics for a drug that no longer exists. Logically, the "drug" still exists, but not the name brand version of it, and that seems to be an issue with the way the current rules for prescribing medications.
Yes, it says pharmacists may substitute. I've never had a doctor prescribe a generic. Notice all of the wording is about substitution of the brand-name drug, but never does it talk about prescribing generics.
-by using taxpayer dollars to implicitly insure the uninsured who use an ER, while leaving the rest of the system alone?
It's cheaper to treat the issue before to go to the ER. The ER is about 10x more expensive than just letting them see the doctor in the first place. Since they can't afford a normal doctor, then tax payers still foot the bill, but now it's 10x higher.
as I can tell, manufacturers are free to manufacture the generic, doctors are free to prescribe it and patients are free to take it.
According to the lawsuit, in some areas, doctors are not free to prescribe generics, but a generic may be substituted at the pharmacy. If the name-brand version of the drug does not exist, then that drug may not be prescribed, meaning the generic versions may not be substituted.
While I've never thought of this before, now that I look at it, I've never had my doctor prescribe a generic drug for me before. Always a name brand, and then the doctor would tell me I could also ask for a generic at the pharmacy if I wanted. My prescriptions were always for Adderall, even though I told my doctor my insurance did not cover it. When I went to the pharmacy, I would ask for them to give me the generic version, which is just some brand of dextroamphetamine.
At no point did I ever think my doctor was not allowed to directly prescribe just "dextroamphetamine".
According to the article, the issue is that doctors in many areas are not allowed to prescribe generics directly. They must prescribe the name brand, and a generic may be substituted if it is identical to the name brand. In this case, the name brand would no longer be offered, meaning the generics may no longer be offered.
Sounds like big drug makers lobbied to have these stupid rules made, and because of the rules, we have technical issues that could harm patients if a name-brand suddenly pulled a drug from the market. It's much easier to force a company to keep producing drugs than it is to change decades of medical rules.
Are you saying healthcare should be handled by the government because healthcare is not always profitable?
Not to mention that the concept of private healthcare is logically flawed in a free market. The typical person creates much more value than the amount they are paid. A person dying will cost the economy a lot more than the loss of their wage.
is too difficult to decipher except for the most powerful computer systems.
What fantastic computers do you know about that are able to break AES 256? Has a current strength of about 2^254.4. I'll round to 2^254. That means if you have 100 trillion computers, each doing 100 trillion operations per second, it would take 90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to break one key.
If you had a theoretically perfectly efficient computer, it was described that attempting to break AES 256 would require converting our entire Sun's mass into pure energy, and then some. Since we do not live in a world with perfectly efficient computers, it's more along the lines that we'd have to convert the entire Milky Way into pure energy.
I think galaxy destroying energy consumption is still beyond the abilities of our government.
I forgot to add, if you were able to access 38 trillion terabytes of data that was all encrypted with the same key, you could possibly figure out the key for 128bit.
I think currently AES 128 is broken down to 2^126, with an average break time of 2^125. You're saying you can churn though 4.25*10^37 operations on your laptop? Assuming you have an 8 core 10ghz CPU, and assuming all operations take 1 cycle, it would take 16,859,817,298,134,397,170 years on average. Do you know something about AES that we don't know?
This shouldn't be used to replace normal web browsing, but to help augment it. The web server can always been around to seed the data.
Optimally, there would be a notion of a few buffers. P2P works best when chunks are randomly uploaded as not to cause a bias to what data is available. Probably a primary buffer that fills and requests data sequentially, then a much larger secondary buffer that is ahead of the primary one's timeline, where it grabs random blocks.
I wonder how much data storage would be required for a base optimal viewing experience and what kind of eviction algorithm.
There are two primary types of data for web viewing. Latency sensitive small requests, like HTML/CSS/JS; And initial latency or burst sensitive, but overall low sensitivity to bandwidth and latency requirement bulk transfers like large images and video streaming.
They don't entirely clash. HTTPS makes it so both a passive and active viewer cannot see what you're requesting. In theory, something like P2P could still make it so a active viewer could not see what you're downloading, but an active participant could. As long as the protocol had a way to quickly black-ball participants who falsely claimed to have data, then anyone who wanted to watch would also have to help.
Parallelizing requests could help hide latency. Small requests would hurt, unless you could make many at the same time and or batch them up. If you're working with relatively static data, you could optimize the data such that many small pieces could be placed together in a single block. The same way file systems like to batch together small files to reduce the overhead of minimum block sizes.
I wondering how BT will work for CDN style static data.
SystemD has a "journal" that is sensitive to unexpected shutdowns. The purpose of a journal is to protect from corruption. You'd think they would use a data structure that is safe from unexpected interruptions.
I'm seeding, go crazy! My connection is mostly idle seeding most of those torrents.
FreeBSD 9.0+ supports GPT and FreeBSD 10.1 supports UEFI now.
When did storage start using chucks of flesh as units of storage?
I hear Windows is written in C, that means C is a bad language, right? Don't blame .Net for bad programmers writing in it.
The only reason our phones can't talk to each other directly is because of a bad network design
And here I thought battery lifetime was an issue. I guess recharging your phone every hour is acceptable because someone is using your phone to repeat signals.
There is only one "Best" spectrum for a given problem.
Well, if you're going to argue corner cases, then sure, you're 100% correct a whole 20% of the time. I assume the 80/20 rule is a play when comparing the transfer of wealth "creating value" vs labor creating value.
But if you were to compare two hypothetical worlds
1) where no one labored, so nothing was created, but could sell all of that nothing
or
2) where no one could sell anything, but everyone could labor to create stuff. I did say, not sell stuff, so they could just take stuff and start using it.
Which world would have more "value"? The world full of nothing or the world full of stuff but no market with which to sell? An extreme example to show the fundamental difference.
To labor to create something where there is no demand or the supply outpaces the demand is purely wasted effort, but that doesn't happen as often as people creating stuff that is in demand. Artificial demand is dangerous. Behold, the power of market bubbles!