"Bio fuels, esp. cellulose, TDP, and algaculture are efficient, require low or lower upfront cost and can use existing infrastructure owned by the company."
Then why don't I see any significant production of biofuels?
"If GM gave you the service of having a car and had to pay for gas, parts and service you would have 100mpg cars in 10 years that would last a million miles without service."
No. We don't have such a car because we don't have the technology to produce such a car that a large group of people would want or afford. The million mile part is pretty easy (many cars could do it now with enough maintenance and repair).
"Furthermore there are more modern reactor designs in which they're design to be IMPOSSIBLE to have criticality excursions (aka melt downs)..."
But I have great faith that the builders/designers of actual plants will give it their best shot:)
I don't mind nuclear energy. I just don't think any company in the US is capable of building a well designed, safe, and cost-effective one. Reactors have not been built because the are expensive.
Finally, while uranium is not a "fossil" fuel, it is limited. Which might be helped by reprocessing (but see comments about US ability above)
"Then there is also research into fusion reactors - again something that cannot have criticality excursions."
Ah, yes, the energy of the future. And always will be:)
"People who get permits to carry weapons concealed go over the legal uses of lethal force in a class they have to take before they can have said permit..."
Depends on the state. In Washington all I have to do is answer ten or so questions (are you crazy, are you a felon, etc.), get fingerprinted and pay the fee. If I pass the background check, I get the permit.
"It is essentially standard practice here to run red lights. Drivers expect it. I've learned to expect it, which means waiting for one or two cars to clear the intersection after my light has turned green. Every time I walk outside in this city, I am nearly guaranteed to see at least one person run a red light (and no, usually there are not people behind them)."
Same in western Washington. Most people who run red lights in my experience do it on purpose (plenty of time to stop or anticipate). It's extremely rare when I drive to NOT see people run the lights.
I hate traffice cameras for enforcement. With the exception of red lights. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way to get them under the tent....
"This is a good use for traffic cameras, much better than for catching red light running...."
No it is not. Using them for catching red light running is a very good use. I mean, how difficult is it to stop for a red light. It is actually a useful traffic law (unlike speed limits).
A much cheaper way to reduce uninsured motorists is to require proof of insurance during registration and the like. You are already in the middle of a transaction anyway. You could even have the insurance company notify the state when you drop insurance.
More useful than telling lazy or overworked cops to do something that is very low on the priority list and won't be done.
In any case, if the person can't afford insurance, what makes you think they will pay the fine and stop driving....
In which case the semi is following too closely and should be ticketed. Rear end collisions are almost always avoidable (in theory, always avoidable) by maintaining a safe following distance.
"1. There is a shortage of science teachers. It is always hardest for the the schools to recruit science and math teachers."
Depends upon your definition of shortage. Lots of districts say they have a shortage but still manage to teach the courses....
In any case, they don't really TRY to recruit teachers. In order to teach (with an MS), I would need to take a 15 month "alternative route" program. And pay for it. And be unable to work during that time.
Why is it that I can teach college levels courses with a degree but need extensive training to teach HS? Considering the turnover rate, they would be better off lowering the standards and weeding them out on the job.
"The future of science education in America is bleak my friends (and foes.)"
Probably to reduce the chance of people using it as a base of operations to attack us. That might be a waste of time and effort considering the state of Pakistan.
In addition, we may have not created the mess but we certainly contributed to it....
"Medicine needs to address the individual needs of patients."
Only if it is relevant. EBM doesn't prevent this, rather it requires that a physician provide EVIDENCE that this is needed.
In you example it makes sense to try med X first as it resolves most problems for most people. If it doesn't work, THEN you try something different.
Most doctors do things because it is the way they always do things. Not because they have evidence or a medical justification for it. That is what EBM attempts to change.
"Real world patients do not step out of a cookie-cutter, and cookie-cutter medicine (which is what EBM zealots really are promoting) does not always equal best practices."
This is where you are wrong. Patients are rarely unique in any meaningful way, most get better on their own.
For instance, if you come in with back pain after twisting and lifting an object, the doctor should rule out any obvious problems then send you home (maybe with a scrip for a painkiller). They shouldn't send you for an Xray because there might be something.
If your pain does not resolve after a period of time, THEN you order an Xray.
If that doesn't show anything, THEN they refer to a specialist.
And even if it does show a significant finding, it might be irrelevant (most people over 40 have abnormal backs).
"The knowledge of physicians is pretty much under attack from the day they toss that cap in the air, if not sooner."
You mean their lack of knowledge. Drug reps often know more about meds than the doctors. Unfortunately without the reps, doctors would know even LESS.
The real influence of Pharma is via direct advertising. And the desire of everyone to believe that a med is a magic bullet. Sometimes it is but often it is an excuse not to change a lifestyle.
"...so it'd at least be an improvement if those rules had some basis in scientific evidence indicating what treatments really are better."
They already do. There are plenty of good guidelines out there.
Doctors just hate being told what to do or having to justify why they NEED to do something. Patients hate being told no or that they need to change their lifestyle.
Let's face it, most doctors are mechanics. Really overtrained and hence overpaid mechanics. Many chronic conditions are (or certainly aggravated) because people are lazy (myself included).
The best thing that could happen to health care is requiring patients and doctors to justify their actions. Everyone likes to think their condition or situation is unique. It rarely is.
"Hell, it isn't so much the Dr's making the decisions now...for the past decades, we've had the beancounters in HMO's and like dictating what tx the physicians, clinics and hospitals can give."
Which if done based on evidence based results is a good thing. Doctors in general fail to keep up on advances and routinely prescribe tests that aren't needed. Hell, the drug reps often know more about drugs than the doctors. Doctors don't consider costs-if they had to, they would do better (and cheaper) medicine.
Some anecdotes: My GP ordered two MRI's for my back after an injury rather than an X-ray first (the correct standard of care), then an MRI if warranted.
My GP would happily prescribe blood pressure and cholesterol meds without suggesting that, maybe, I should eat better and lose some weight.
A orthopedic specialist wanted me to get an MRI to confirm a knee diagnosis. When I mentioned the expense, he suggested an injection of cortisone in the knee the next time it swelled.
Most doctors prescribe treatment because they can, rather than if it is needed.
"When you've got literally millions of reporters all out there reporting, and almost that many with decently high-end cameras taking decent photos...it sortof becomes unnecessary to throw Dan Rather on a jet."
And how many of those stories were accurate and useful? And how can you tell? And what is the recourse if they weren't? (Large media outlets have a real stake in the reputation category).
How many reports do those bloggers do on government? Or local news?
I would say about 0.
For all the complaints about paper news, it is far better than a bunch of bloggers. I have local newspapers that do a very good job. And are quite solvent.
Sure, the papers that are mostly aggregators of AP news stories aren't very useful (also have one of those locally). I would be happy to see them go.
But good large papers are important. Bloggers and ireporters aren't going to replace them....
Slashdot Mirror
"The nearly 600 questions are carefully designed to make it very difficult to lie and be consistent about it,..."
Only in theory. If you know enough about the test, it becomes rather easy to lie. I have been tempted to do so for fun....
"Bio fuels, esp. cellulose, TDP, and algaculture are efficient, require low or lower upfront cost and can use existing infrastructure owned by the company."
Then why don't I see any significant production of biofuels?
Probably because you are incorrect.
"If GM gave you the service of having a car and had to pay for gas, parts and service you would have 100mpg cars in 10 years that would last a million miles without service."
No. We don't have such a car because we don't have the technology to produce such a car that a large group of people would want or afford. The million mile part is pretty easy (many cars could do it now with enough maintenance and repair).
The 100 mpg part is very hard.
"2. Ride a motorcycle to work."
Aside from being a motorized bicylce (with all the positives and negatives), many don't get very good mileage compared to fuel efficient vehicles.
Unfortunately there probably won't be a good single solution. Which will bother many, if not most.
And the fact that we are still cleaning up the mess from the last time we reprocessed material has nothing to do with it?
Reprocessing is a great idea. Just like nuclear. Except that it is/was done badly. Hence the restrictive laws...
I don't trust any company to build reactors/reprocess fuel that isn't regulated/overseen to the hilt. But then it isn't very economic...
"Furthermore there are more modern reactor designs in which they're design to be IMPOSSIBLE to have criticality excursions (aka melt downs)..."
But I have great faith that the builders/designers of actual plants will give it their best shot :)
I don't mind nuclear energy. I just don't think any company in the US is capable of building a well designed, safe, and cost-effective one. Reactors have not been built because the are expensive.
Finally, while uranium is not a "fossil" fuel, it is limited. Which might be helped by reprocessing (but see comments about US ability above)
"Then there is also research into fusion reactors - again something that cannot have criticality excursions."
Ah, yes, the energy of the future. And always will be :)
"I thought that the idea of having 500 channels was that you could watch the kind of programming you liked."
Only if there was the content. Seems like we've spread spread about ten channels of content over 500...
"People who get permits to carry weapons concealed go over the legal uses of lethal force in a class they have to take before they can have said permit..."
Depends on the state. In Washington all I have to do is answer ten or so questions (are you crazy, are you a felon, etc.), get fingerprinted and pay the fee. If I pass the background check, I get the permit.
"It is essentially standard practice here to run red lights. Drivers expect it. I've learned to expect it, which means waiting for one or two cars to clear the intersection after my light has turned green. Every time I walk outside in this city, I am nearly guaranteed to see at least one person run a red light (and no, usually there are not people behind them)."
Same in western Washington. Most people who run red lights in my experience do it on purpose (plenty of time to stop or anticipate). It's extremely rare when I drive to NOT see people run the lights.
I hate traffice cameras for enforcement. With the exception of red lights. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way to get them under the tent....
"This is a good use for traffic cameras, much better than for catching red light running...."
No it is not. Using them for catching red light running is a very good use. I mean, how difficult is it to stop for a red light. It is actually a useful traffic law (unlike speed limits).
A much cheaper way to reduce uninsured motorists is to require proof of insurance during registration and the like. You are already in the middle of a transaction anyway. You could even have the insurance company notify the state when you drop insurance.
More useful than telling lazy or overworked cops to do something that is very low on the priority list and won't be done.
In any case, if the person can't afford insurance, what makes you think they will pay the fine and stop driving....
In which case the semi is following too closely and should be ticketed. Rear end collisions are almost always avoidable (in theory, always avoidable) by maintaining a safe following distance.
"1. There is a shortage of science teachers. It is always hardest for the the schools to recruit science and math teachers."
Depends upon your definition of shortage. Lots of districts say they have a shortage but still manage to teach the courses....
In any case, they don't really TRY to recruit teachers. In order to teach (with an MS), I would need to take a 15 month "alternative route" program. And pay for it. And be unable to work during that time.
Why is it that I can teach college levels courses with a degree but need extensive training to teach HS? Considering the turnover rate, they would be better off lowering the standards and weeding them out on the job.
"The future of science education in America is bleak my friends (and foes.)"
True.
"Why should we fix it? it's not our mess."
Probably to reduce the chance of people using it as a base of operations to attack us. That might be a waste of time and effort considering the state of Pakistan.
In addition, we may have not created the mess but we certainly contributed to it....
" think that if all the FNs left our petroleum engineering, for example, department the place would be a ghost town."
Which means that we are producing too many graduates for the jobs. Which means we could probably do without many faculty members.
Of course reducing faculty isn't going to happen....
"Medicine needs to address the individual needs of patients."
Only if it is relevant. EBM doesn't prevent this, rather it requires that a physician provide EVIDENCE that this is needed.
In you example it makes sense to try med X first as it resolves most problems for most people. If it doesn't work, THEN you try something different.
Most doctors do things because it is the way they always do things. Not because they have evidence or a medical justification for it. That is what EBM attempts to change.
"Real world patients do not step out of a cookie-cutter, and cookie-cutter medicine (which is what EBM zealots really are promoting) does not always equal best practices."
This is where you are wrong. Patients are rarely unique in any meaningful way, most get better on their own.
For instance, if you come in with back pain after twisting and lifting an object, the doctor should rule out any obvious problems then send you home (maybe with a scrip for a painkiller). They shouldn't send you for an Xray because there might be something.
If your pain does not resolve after a period of time, THEN you order an Xray.
If that doesn't show anything, THEN they refer to a specialist.
And even if it does show a significant finding, it might be irrelevant (most people over 40 have abnormal backs).
Damn! Where do you practice? I would LOVE to have a doctor like you.
"The knowledge of physicians is pretty much under attack from the day they toss that cap in the air, if not sooner."
You mean their lack of knowledge. Drug reps often know more about meds than the doctors. Unfortunately without the reps, doctors would know even LESS.
The real influence of Pharma is via direct advertising. And the desire of everyone to believe that a med is a magic bullet. Sometimes it is but often it is an excuse not to change a lifestyle.
"...so it'd at least be an improvement if those rules had some basis in scientific evidence indicating what treatments really are better."
They already do. There are plenty of good guidelines out there.
Doctors just hate being told what to do or having to justify why they NEED to do something. Patients hate being told no or that they need to change their lifestyle.
Let's face it, most doctors are mechanics. Really overtrained and hence overpaid mechanics. Many chronic conditions are (or certainly aggravated) because people are lazy (myself included).
The best thing that could happen to health care is requiring patients and doctors to justify their actions. Everyone likes to think their condition or situation is unique. It rarely is.
"Hell, it isn't so much the Dr's making the decisions now...for the past decades, we've had the beancounters in HMO's and like dictating what tx the physicians, clinics and hospitals can give."
Which if done based on evidence based results is a good thing. Doctors in general fail to keep up on advances and routinely prescribe tests that aren't needed. Hell, the drug reps often know more about drugs than the doctors. Doctors don't consider costs-if they had to, they would do better (and cheaper) medicine.
Some anecdotes:
My GP ordered two MRI's for my back after an injury rather than an X-ray first (the correct standard of care), then an MRI if warranted.
My GP would happily prescribe blood pressure and cholesterol meds without suggesting that, maybe, I should eat better and lose some weight.
A orthopedic specialist wanted me to get an MRI to confirm a knee diagnosis. When I mentioned the expense, he suggested an injection of cortisone in the knee the next time it swelled.
Most doctors prescribe treatment because they can, rather than if it is needed.
You could just throw 30 resumes away. That way you won't hire unlucky people.... :)
"Well, in the case of the jaywalking ticket, the misdating was obviously a minor clerical error."
It's a minor clerical issue if the police do it.
If you do it they call it perjury.
Simply put, the ticket was falsified.
"Leaving with grace is always better then leaving with attitude."
Generally. But if you are going to burn bridges, why not nuke them? :)
"When you've got literally millions of reporters all out there reporting, and almost that many with decently high-end cameras taking decent photos...it sortof becomes unnecessary to throw Dan Rather on a jet."
And how many of those stories were accurate and useful? And how can you tell? And what is the recourse if they weren't? (Large media outlets have a real stake in the reputation category).
How many reports do those bloggers do on government? Or local news?
I would say about 0.
For all the complaints about paper news, it is far better than a bunch of bloggers. I have local newspapers that do a very good job. And are quite solvent.
Sure, the papers that are mostly aggregators of AP news stories aren't very useful (also have one of those locally). I would be happy to see them go.
But good large papers are important. Bloggers and ireporters aren't going to replace them....
"What if Replicants weren't time-limited, but made perpetual instead?"
Gee, I seem to remember a TV show with something similar. It's on the SciFi channel. I think it has a race called the Cylons....