So the "bulk" cost about be a bout $300/kilogram which is about 30 cents a gram. A 10,000% markup is a bit extreme, but lets go with it. So above someone mentions that you should be able to get some 75,000 miles on that one gram.
An extra 1-2k just doesn't seem like that huge of a deal if I NEVER need to buy gas again.
Re:Not Solaris - SunOS
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
Super modern touch screen? IIRC there was a similar system in the original TRON in Dillinger's desk. Also if you check up on it the touch screen technology we use today was developed in the 70's!
well if you look at all of human history strict monogamy is the exception, not the rule.
Personally I trust that when my significant other is with someone else she'll come back to me soon enough.
I prefer that trust to believing that everyone around me is keeping to some archaic rule set. Trust in one person is far better than trust in hundreds of thousands.
But can we not overcome the need for these long-standing safety rules with modern materials and a slight bit of fore thought? Rather than teaching children and immature adults only the these rules delivered from on high solely by fiat, one could say "this is optimal for safety, however there are many other options as well, so long as you practice these safety procedures consistently you will be safe"?
Is there really a good reason why we should stick solely with rules that are a thousand years old?
If so then should we not follow all of them? Do I get to start stoning people?
If only the constitution could force people to read and understand it, more people wouldn't make the same mistake the GP makes.
But then again, given the power many corporations have over our lives maybe most people don't see much of a difference between the US Government and Corporations?
So rather than put all the adults into one place and make it easier for adults to find adult stuff you want to put all the kids stuff in one place for adults^H^H^H^H^H^Hkids to find kids stuff?
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the US Constitution to prevent the government from buying information from a person or a non-person.
Is this any different than Mathematicians doing research on complex mathematical proofs? Or Physicists researching elementary particles?
Is it really in the interest of the public if Fermilab was able to patent the Top Quark?
How about if Pi or e or c were patentable?
The genes existed before and would continue to exist and do its thing long before and after these researchers discovered it.
A Sewing machine however didn't exist before Thomas Saint made one.
It has always been a possibility that secret research is profitable. The recipe of Coke and Pepsi are secrets and both products of possibly thousands of hours of research and both Coca Cola and Pepsi make money hand over fist for their "Secret" research. It's called a Trade Secret. It has special protections and rules under patent law.
If some company wants to leaves a small sequence of genes as their "Secret Sauce" to discovering Breast Cancer then all the power to them.
But nothing stops me from trying to imitate Coke or Pepsi and nothing would then stop me from trying to imitate their discovery of the Breast Cancer Gene.
~Zehaeva
Re:News for nerds. Stuff that matters
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
The free care that Americans get is billed to the patient, If they can not pay they go into bankruptcy. Then the costs are absorbed by the corporations. Except the corporation will see a drag on their bottom line, and increase the prices to their products (Insurance, cost of medicines and care). And as an end user I have to perform a cost/benefit analysis when said megarich corporation raises my rates, and if I am the breaking point I will drop my coverage or decline service and I doubt that I would be alone.
Now the corporations will see that less people are purchasing their services and will have to raise their prices a bit more to cover their costs.
And now that there are just a few more people who are out of the system they will get sick and go to the ER, and be billed for the services incurred. Being unable to pay they will, eventually, file for bankruptcy and leave the corporation with the vast majority of the bill.
If this were a flow chart I would say go back to the point where the corporation has to raise rates.
Now really, as a good capitalist, should we really be providing free care to so many people? They should be required to pay, or demonstrate the ability to pay, ER's before they, the ER, treats them. Should we really let people shrug off their financial obligations upon the rest of us unwillingly?
Shouldn't you only receive services that you are able to pay for? If I have not saved for those chemo treatments, should I receive them? If I do not have to ability to pay for, either through insurance or my private finances, should I receive the services of an ER after a car accident? Remember if I can't pay for it, then eventually you will pay for it through higher insurance premiums and higher hospital costs.
If I buy insurance I am volunteering to share the cost burden with those who I am pooling my money together with. But to be forced to cover people who do not contribute anything is a horrible idea. It leads only to the products that my insurance should cover increasing in price. It essentially gives insurance to those who have not paid for it.
This is unfair for the 250 Million (it's more depending on who you ask) Americans who pay for their insurance.
One quibble, Class II & IIIa lasers,which is the highest power laser that can legally be marketed as a "Laser Pointer" in the US and UK are under 5 milliWatts, not 1-1,000 MegaWatts,
You make quite a few good points, I disagree that SCOTUS is completely in coo-hoots with Congress, there is nothing congress can threaten SCOTUS with to enforce compliance with Congress's will. This point I don't think we could resolve with discussion.
For the red herring you have misunderstood what I have said. I agree that the most populous states would want to legalize marijuana. However you over look that that 50% of the US population is in 11 states, that leaves us with 39 states (the less population a state has seems to correlate to how conservative the state is) that I would bet WANT marijuana to be illegal and thus would not end allow the repeal of such laws.
While this Obamabill, as you put it, is being pushed on all of us by Congress, Mass. has already pushed it upon its citizens, nothing stops your state from doing the same.
I am quite upset myself with being forced to purchase a product from a private company. Being taxed and having the proceeds go to line the pockets of shareholders leaves a horrible taste in my mouth. But the States just may do the same thing. I'd be much happier with a socialized health care than handing my money over to wall street. I like a little bit of honesty in taxation. At least the system seems to work reasonably well in other counties.
No matter what you, and I, will have limits placed upon us by the government. Pushing all the power into the hands of State Legislatures will not change this.
Not all States had direct representatives, a few pushed for it, and to be honest I think thats okay, if the people in the state are okay with that then I'm okay with that.
I think you maybe a bit blind with the thought of "Only my way can save the Union!"
If you wanted all legislation to abide by the US Constitution then you could force ALL legislation passed by Congress to be reviewed by SCOTUS allowing only legislation that passes Constitutional muster to be signed into law by the president.
There, yet another alternative.
Pushing the US into a Heinlien (I love heinlien and his ideas but I don't think "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" style government is good here) sort of government probably wont work out the way you think.
There is a reason why the Articles of Confederation were abandoned. If you give the Federal Government too little power the Union will fall apart, Too much and the States themselves become nothing more than puppets. We need a real balance. Giving the 25 least populous states (which accounts for less than 25% of the population) the ability to remove any and all legislation that the 25 most populous states want is not what a democracy is about.
What we have now is not terribly better, those same Senators can hold up most legislation as it is now, but they are not repealing every law they can.
I think you may want to think about your solution a bit more.
Why not then just repeal the 17th amendment? Give the State Legislators the ability to choose the Senators to honestly represent the State's rights and then there is no need for some silly NEW amendment to the constitution.
Why is this really necessary for the UK? Don't you folks have like 1 camera for every 10(or is it 15?) people? Is that not enough? Do you really need more surveillance? Why not better utilize the surveillance you currently have? Why add under utilized surveillance on top of under utilized surveillance? I don't understand. ~Z
As an avid blackberry user and enthusiast on Verizon, in an office full of blackberry addicts, I will tell you you are dead wrong sir.
I can not change the default search provider on my Storm 2, I have tried.
I did not install it either. When I purchased the Storm 2 Google was the default search engine, literally over night it was changed, with out my permission and against my wishes. The same happened to every single blackberry in my office.
The only option I have is to type google into my blackberry's browser to use it. That is hardly an option at all.
Also I did not want the Bing application installed to my blackberry and yet it was done for me over the air. I have not been able to uninstall it either. It does not show up in the applications in the options at all.
Founded by deeply religious people? Like Thomas Jefferson who rewrote the bible and removed all mention of the divinity of Jesus? Why would these deeply religious people write explicitly in their founding documents the requirement that religion play no part in their government?
You may want to go back to that school of yours and learn a bit more about American history. I know it may not be the most exciting thing on planet earth but at least you will stop making false assertions about some of the greatest free thinkers that any land has known.
I am interested in your equation of a progressive to socialists and the assertion that neither allow multiple view points.
Are you saying that the Chinese Socialist Party is progressive? Or just that all progressive parties are socialists(and then that not all socialists are progressive)?
Does this preclude conservative parties from being socialists?
Are you implying that conservative parties always allow multiple view points?
Slashdot Mirror
I am unsure where you heard that there are only 15,222 words in the English language but I just checked the OED website and they say it's closer to 170,000 words. http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/how-many-words-are-there-in-the-english-language
So the "bulk" cost about be a bout $300/kilogram which is about 30 cents a gram. A 10,000% markup is a bit extreme, but lets go with it. So above someone mentions that you should be able to get some 75,000 miles on that one gram. An extra 1-2k just doesn't seem like that huge of a deal if I NEVER need to buy gas again.
Super modern touch screen? IIRC there was a similar system in the original TRON in Dillinger's desk. Also if you check up on it the touch screen technology we use today was developed in the 70's!
Different strokes for different folks!
well if you look at all of human history strict monogamy is the exception, not the rule.
Personally I trust that when my significant other is with someone else she'll come back to me soon enough.
I prefer that trust to believing that everyone around me is keeping to some archaic rule set. Trust in one person is far better than trust in hundreds of thousands.
But can we not overcome the need for these long-standing safety rules with modern materials and a slight bit of fore thought? Rather than teaching children and immature adults only the these rules delivered from on high solely by fiat, one could say "this is optimal for safety, however there are many other options as well, so long as you practice these safety procedures consistently you will be safe"?
Is there really a good reason why we should stick solely with rules that are a thousand years old?
If so then should we not follow all of them? Do I get to start stoning people?
~z
Sure but how will Congress Define GDP? and will they keep the same definition into the future?
If only the constitution could force people to read and understand it, more people wouldn't make the same mistake the GP makes.
But then again, given the power many corporations have over our lives maybe most people don't see much of a difference between the US Government and Corporations?
~z
Whoa! Wait a second, Ice Pirates was a hilarious and campy film and very worth every inch of celluloid.
I mean where else would you ever see a ship get space herpes?
~z
Well you know half a Billion in DVD sales and he still owes 80 Million, such is the hazards trying to tell a great story.
It really makes you wonder why anyone really tries anymore.
~Z
Off topic but I love the B5 quote. ~Z
They're getting around to it now in Texas. Give it a generation or two before Jefferson is but a small footnote.
So rather than put all the adults into one place and make it easier for adults to find adult stuff you want to put all the kids stuff in one place for adults^H^H^H^H^H^Hkids to find kids stuff?
*ahem* I can see this going badly ..
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the US Constitution to prevent the government from buying information from a person or a non-person.
~Zehaeva
Is this any different than Mathematicians doing research on complex mathematical proofs? Or Physicists researching elementary particles?
Is it really in the interest of the public if Fermilab was able to patent the Top Quark?
How about if Pi or e or c were patentable?
The genes existed before and would continue to exist and do its thing long before and after these researchers discovered it.
A Sewing machine however didn't exist before Thomas Saint made one.
It has always been a possibility that secret research is profitable. The recipe of Coke and Pepsi are secrets and both products of possibly thousands of hours of research and both Coca Cola and Pepsi make money hand over fist for their "Secret" research. It's called a Trade Secret. It has special protections and rules under patent law.
If some company wants to leaves a small sequence of genes as their "Secret Sauce" to discovering Breast Cancer then all the power to them.
But nothing stops me from trying to imitate Coke or Pepsi and nothing would then stop me from trying to imitate their discovery of the Breast Cancer Gene.
~Zehaeva
The free care that Americans get is billed to the patient, If they can not pay they go into bankruptcy. Then the costs are absorbed by the corporations. Except the corporation will see a drag on their bottom line, and increase the prices to their products (Insurance, cost of medicines and care). And as an end user I have to perform a cost/benefit analysis when said megarich corporation raises my rates, and if I am the breaking point I will drop my coverage or decline service and I doubt that I would be alone.
Now the corporations will see that less people are purchasing their services and will have to raise their prices a bit more to cover their costs.
And now that there are just a few more people who are out of the system they will get sick and go to the ER, and be billed for the services incurred. Being unable to pay they will, eventually, file for bankruptcy and leave the corporation with the vast majority of the bill.
If this were a flow chart I would say go back to the point where the corporation has to raise rates.
This is a feed back loop with the main cause being the law that was signed in the 1986 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act ).
Now really, as a good capitalist, should we really be providing free care to so many people? They should be required to pay, or demonstrate the ability to pay, ER's before they, the ER, treats them. Should we really let people shrug off their financial obligations upon the rest of us unwillingly?
Shouldn't you only receive services that you are able to pay for? If I have not saved for those chemo treatments, should I receive them? If I do not have to ability to pay for, either through insurance or my private finances, should I receive the services of an ER after a car accident? Remember if I can't pay for it, then eventually you will pay for it through higher insurance premiums and higher hospital costs.
If I buy insurance I am volunteering to share the cost burden with those who I am pooling my money together with. But to be forced to cover people who do not contribute anything is a horrible idea. It leads only to the products that my insurance should cover increasing in price. It essentially gives insurance to those who have not paid for it.
This is unfair for the 250 Million (it's more depending on who you ask) Americans who pay for their insurance.
~Zehaeva
One quibble, Class II & IIIa lasers,which is the highest power laser that can legally be marketed as a "Laser Pointer" in the US and UK are under 5 milliWatts, not 1-1,000 MegaWatts,
You make quite a few good points, I disagree that SCOTUS is completely in coo-hoots with Congress, there is nothing congress can threaten SCOTUS with to enforce compliance with Congress's will. This point I don't think we could resolve with discussion.
For the red herring you have misunderstood what I have said. I agree that the most populous states would want to legalize marijuana. However you over look that that 50% of the US population is in 11 states, that leaves us with 39 states (the less population a state has seems to correlate to how conservative the state is) that I would bet WANT marijuana to be illegal and thus would not end allow the repeal of such laws.
While this Obamabill, as you put it, is being pushed on all of us by Congress, Mass. has already pushed it upon its citizens, nothing stops your state from doing the same.
I am quite upset myself with being forced to purchase a product from a private company. Being taxed and having the proceeds go to line the pockets of shareholders leaves a horrible taste in my mouth. But the States just may do the same thing. I'd be much happier with a socialized health care than handing my money over to wall street. I like a little bit of honesty in taxation. At least the system seems to work reasonably well in other counties.
No matter what you, and I, will have limits placed upon us by the government. Pushing all the power into the hands of State Legislatures will not change this.
~Zehaeva
Not all States had direct representatives, a few pushed for it, and to be honest I think thats okay, if the people in the state are okay with that then I'm okay with that.
I think you maybe a bit blind with the thought of "Only my way can save the Union!"
If you wanted all legislation to abide by the US Constitution then you could force ALL legislation passed by Congress to be reviewed by SCOTUS allowing only legislation that passes Constitutional muster to be signed into law by the president.
There, yet another alternative.
Pushing the US into a Heinlien (I love heinlien and his ideas but I don't think "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" style government is good here) sort of government probably wont work out the way you think.
There is a reason why the Articles of Confederation were abandoned. If you give the Federal Government too little power the Union will fall apart, Too much and the States themselves become nothing more than puppets. We need a real balance. Giving the 25 least populous states (which accounts for less than 25% of the population) the ability to remove any and all legislation that the 25 most populous states want is not what a democracy is about.
What we have now is not terribly better, those same Senators can hold up most legislation as it is now, but they are not repealing every law they can.
I think you may want to think about your solution a bit more.
~Zehaeva
Why not then just repeal the 17th amendment? Give the State Legislators the ability to choose the Senators to honestly represent the State's rights and then there is no need for some silly NEW amendment to the constitution.
At least I am not the only one who thought 'cousin' as another meaning for the abbreviation 'cuz'. I wish I had mod points for you sir.
~Zehaeva
Why is this really necessary for the UK? Don't you folks have like 1 camera for every 10(or is it 15?) people? Is that not enough? Do you really need more surveillance? Why not better utilize the surveillance you currently have? Why add under utilized surveillance on top of under utilized surveillance? I don't understand. ~Z
As an avid blackberry user and enthusiast on Verizon, in an office full of blackberry addicts, I will tell you you are dead wrong sir.
I can not change the default search provider on my Storm 2, I have tried.
I did not install it either. When I purchased the Storm 2 Google was the default search engine, literally over night it was changed, with out my permission and against my wishes. The same happened to every single blackberry in my office.
The only option I have is to type google into my blackberry's browser to use it. That is hardly an option at all.
Also I did not want the Bing application installed to my blackberry and yet it was done for me over the air. I have not been able to uninstall it either. It does not show up in the applications in the options at all.
What option is this?
~Zehaeva
Founded by deeply religious people? Like Thomas Jefferson who rewrote the bible and removed all mention of the divinity of Jesus? Why would these deeply religious people write explicitly in their founding documents the requirement that religion play no part in their government?
You may want to go back to that school of yours and learn a bit more about American history. I know it may not be the most exciting thing on planet earth but at least you will stop making false assertions about some of the greatest free thinkers that any land has known.
I am interested in your equation of a progressive to socialists and the assertion that neither allow multiple view points.
Are you saying that the Chinese Socialist Party is progressive? Or just that all progressive parties are socialists(and then that not all socialists are progressive)?
Does this preclude conservative parties from being socialists?
Are you implying that conservative parties always allow multiple view points?
I'm curious.