"This is a good question but not a question to destroy our project,"
Of course its not meant to destroy the project, its to create another layer of control over it.
"This question must be answered by a good answer and so we need ways to ensure that our import of electricity is from renewables."
Translation: "The only correct answer is one which creates another layer of control.. I have some people in mind to run it."
It doesnt take a genius to figure out why this is true in the case of a solar generation plant. Its use it (sell it) or lose it (make less), so essentially self-regulating. There is no need to worry. 100% of the power generated will be pushed towards buyers.
That argument could be used against any investment anywhere. Even satellites - you just need to nuke the rocket shortly before launch and boom, your expensive satellite is gone.
He was talking about having all the eggs in one basket. Nuking the rocket shortly before launch does not destroy all the other satellites.
If you stick 100% of your power production in a single place then you WILL eventually suffer the consequences of being a fucking moron, be it a natural event or an enemy that is glad that you so stupidly put your entire way of life in a single easy to destroy location.
Stop confusing health care with health insurance. Health Insurance is only one method of payment for services rendered...
We can pay out of pocket.
We can have friends and family pay.
We can lobby others WILLING to pay.
We can force everyone to pay.
We can enslave doctors and steal from manufacturers of health care devices.
This list goes on.
If it involves my money/labor, shouldn't I have a say? Would you be comfortable with my opinion of the value of your life?
We live in an age where people spend hundreds of dollars a month on elective things, such as cell phones and entertainment. That is not to say that I shouldnt contribute in cases where you have fallen down and out, but I am absolutely not comfortable with you using my money to save your life when you have gone for years with an iPhone in your pocket, HBO in HD on your television set, hundreds of DVDs on your shelf, and season tickets for the Red Sox, all without taking any responsibility for yourself other than to pay the minimum required for your health care needs. Specifically, if you dont have a PERSONAL health savings account but you've got expensive shit in your house, then I say fuck you.
This thread doesnt have a thousand posts yet. It will. The apple boys have been saving their moderation points. They will use them here, and not on the carbon nano-tube article, the health-care article, or the google-wave article.
The more research and treatment we do, the more likely we will find a cure/treatment for many of these conditions.
..thats just one more thing not in the equation the poster wants us to swallow.
Spending X to save the hemophiliac means you can't spend those X's on finding a cure for something (maybe even hemophilia,) an investment that in the long run saves a boundless number of lives, rather than just his.
There is always a trade-off but the pro-socialized side never presents them fairly. Most of the time they wont even acknowledge that they even exist. You can argue that health care in America is too expensive, but can you honestly argue that if we were to work it so the same level of care was less expensive, that we should provide more care? Are you sure we shouldnt be providing more research with that savings? or more housing? more food for the hungry? better education? Are you so sure?
He is talking about investing resources. Spending them on X means you can't spend those sames ones on Y.
Its a pretty simple concept. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how reality works, which is probably why you believe that there exists free health care.
I guess that you are claiming that the U.S. doesnt have a functioning health care system. Its not perfect, and its quite inefficient for sure, but its functioning.
You have denied a fundamental fact and as such, discourse with you is worthless. Have a nice head-in-the-sand day.
Conversely, the guy who steps out in front of a vehicle going 30mph, when it is less than 30 feet away, only does so once. Statistic collected, but now worthless.
We are talking about $100 trillion dollars in projected unfunded liability for social security and medicare. Its 100% of the economic output of the entire nation for a decade, and its only that low assuming we dont let any more people onto these plans.
That extra 10% in military spending could come in handy once our entire system collapses under its own weight. We can't just be on par militarily when it happens.. we need to be way ahead.
To be quite frank, I agree with him. The post he was responding to has been living under a rock or something and now deserved dickish treatment until he is up to speed on reality.
You pay hundreds of times more for your healthcare which is only marginally better, at best, than that which is available to anyone in Cuba.
You can't just go by dollar costs here. Cubans pay in other ways as well, which is why they keep turning up on our shores in makeshift rafts trying to get out of Cuba.
Re:also: more doctors, less pay, more compassion.
on
What US Health Care Needs
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That's a great idea unless you're chronic ill
Ok, now justify the expense.
His lungs stopped working so we put him on a respirator. Then his heart stropped beating so we put him on a pace maker. Then his liver stopped working so we give him regular dialysis. Then his digestive system gave out so we now feed him intravenously.
When does it end, and who is to judge?
Re:also: more doctors, less pay, more compassion.
on
What US Health Care Needs
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I'm haemophilic - where am I supposed to get the cash for my treatment?
I'm a life form - where am I supposed to get the cash for food?
I'm a mammal - where am I supposed to get the cash to heat my home?
This can go on and on.
The upshot is that your needs cost a certain amount over a lifetime, X, and you are declaring that society should foot the bill for medical X's that are above average. What are the limits to this value? Can X be a hundred trillion dollars/pounds/euros? Really?
We are talking about tradeoffs here. Certainly we can save multiple people with the money it costs to keep some individuals alive. Are you sure that you arent one of those people that is actually costing lives because of your treatment needs?
Still further, we can simply improve the standard of living of some people with that money. Are you saying that no amount of standard of living increase for many people is worth your single life? What about liberty? Is liberty for all worth a dozen lives? ten dozen? thousands?
For pennies per day we can feed people in 3rd world countries. Your medical costs could literally save thousands of lives if they were diverted to those needy people, right?
I propose that we end hunger on the planet before we start worrying about giving health care to everyone. The money would be much better spent on that.
Unless you have an overclocked gaming rig, desktops can be made very very quiet.
Even over-clocked rigs can be quiet. I'm not saying that its common, because the type of person that overclocks normally takes it all the way to the limit.
In my case I can get this AMD Phenom II x6 1055T (2.8ghz) to over 4ghz on air cooling, but the CPU fan spins at ~6000 RPM to keep it cool under load. So I have settled on a 23% overclock to 3.46ghz which puts me on par with most high end non-overclocked rigs, and the CPU fan doesn't have to go over 33% even at full load. Not silent, but not noisy either. A gentle sound, certainly no louder than a laptop that is being pushed.
Anyone who has built their own machine knows that the RAM sockets are always fairly close to the CPU socket, and its by design.
If they could push the RAM further away without penalty, they would, because there is a market for motherboards with RAM sockets as far away from the CPU socket as possible (so that oversized heatsinks can be placed on both the CPU, and the RAM)
the one thing you don't really need, is a great big CPU box.
I need a big CPU box to hold the large fans.
The large fans are needed because I'm using a 6-core 125TDP processor that generates a lot of heat when pushed, and I don't enjoy the jet-turbine sound of any of the small fans that can move the same amount of air.
I'm also not sure how a suitable heat sink could be mounted on the processor if it was in a laptop. Oh thats right.. laptops arent even close to this powerful.
When you allow people with more money to have better healthcare you are putting their lives at a greater value than those less fortunate.
No, THEY are putting their lives into a greater value bucket.
By your logic, and with a car analogy, when you allow people with more money to drive nicer and safer cars you are putting their lives at a greater value than those less fortunate.
Even in the poorest case in America, the individual survives a very large portion of ailments that used to mean death. What we are essentially arguing about is only the portion of life saving that is also expensive. There is effectively no real limit to how much wealth can be thrown at saving a life. In practice, the socialized medicine countries place artificial upper limits on it. The question becomes, should the lower limit equal the upper limit? Justify that in an essay.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is a good question but not a question to destroy our project,"
Of course its not meant to destroy the project, its to create another layer of control over it.
"This question must be answered by a good answer and so we need ways to ensure that our import of electricity is from renewables."
Translation: "The only correct answer is one which creates another layer of control.. I have some people in mind to run it."
It doesnt take a genius to figure out why this is true in the case of a solar generation plant. Its use it (sell it) or lose it (make less), so essentially self-regulating. There is no need to worry. 100% of the power generated will be pushed towards buyers.
That argument could be used against any investment anywhere. Even satellites - you just need to nuke the rocket shortly before launch and boom, your expensive satellite is gone.
He was talking about having all the eggs in one basket. Nuking the rocket shortly before launch does not destroy all the other satellites.
If you stick 100% of your power production in a single place then you WILL eventually suffer the consequences of being a fucking moron, be it a natural event or an enemy that is glad that you so stupidly put your entire way of life in a single easy to destroy location.
Your reaction tells a different story, mate!
You felt humiliated, for whatever reason. That much is a fact.
My favorite shoutcast station is Groove Salad: A nicely chilled plate of ambient beats and grooves.
Stop confusing health care with health insurance. Health Insurance is only one method of payment for services rendered...
We can pay out of pocket.
We can have friends and family pay.
We can lobby others WILLING to pay.
We can force everyone to pay.
We can enslave doctors and steal from manufacturers of health care devices.
This list goes on.
If it involves my money/labor, shouldn't I have a say? Would you be comfortable with my opinion of the value of your life?
We live in an age where people spend hundreds of dollars a month on elective things, such as cell phones and entertainment. That is not to say that I shouldnt contribute in cases where you have fallen down and out, but I am absolutely not comfortable with you using my money to save your life when you have gone for years with an iPhone in your pocket, HBO in HD on your television set, hundreds of DVDs on your shelf, and season tickets for the Red Sox, all without taking any responsibility for yourself other than to pay the minimum required for your health care needs. Specifically, if you dont have a PERSONAL health savings account but you've got expensive shit in your house, then I say fuck you.
This thread doesnt have a thousand posts yet. It will. The apple boys have been saving their moderation points. They will use them here, and not on the carbon nano-tube article, the health-care article, or the google-wave article.
The more research and treatment we do, the more likely we will find a cure/treatment for many of these conditions.
Spending X to save the hemophiliac means you can't spend those X's on finding a cure for something (maybe even hemophilia,) an investment that in the long run saves a boundless number of lives, rather than just his.
There is always a trade-off but the pro-socialized side never presents them fairly. Most of the time they wont even acknowledge that they even exist. You can argue that health care in America is too expensive, but can you honestly argue that if we were to work it so the same level of care was less expensive, that we should provide more care? Are you sure we shouldnt be providing more research with that savings? or more housing? more food for the hungry? better education? Are you so sure?
He's talking about health care, you dick.
He is talking about investing resources. Spending them on X means you can't spend those sames ones on Y.
Its a pretty simple concept. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how reality works, which is probably why you believe that there exists free health care.
I think if you set your minimum Score level to 4, you will see the slashdot that he is reading.
I guess that you are claiming that the U.S. doesnt have a functioning health care system. Its not perfect, and its quite inefficient for sure, but its functioning.
You have denied a fundamental fact and as such, discourse with you is worthless. Have a nice head-in-the-sand day.
Conversely, the guy who steps out in front of a vehicle going 30mph, when it is less than 30 feet away, only does so once. Statistic collected, but now worthless.
..and what will 10% solve, exactly?
We are talking about $100 trillion dollars in projected unfunded liability for social security and medicare. Its 100% of the economic output of the entire nation for a decade, and its only that low assuming we dont let any more people onto these plans.
That extra 10% in military spending could come in handy once our entire system collapses under its own weight. We can't just be on par militarily when it happens.. we need to be way ahead.
I'm sure that it was no effort at all.
To be quite frank, I agree with him. The post he was responding to has been living under a rock or something and now deserved dickish treatment until he is up to speed on reality.
You pay hundreds of times more for your healthcare which is only marginally better, at best, than that which is available to anyone in Cuba.
You can't just go by dollar costs here. Cubans pay in other ways as well, which is why they keep turning up on our shores in makeshift rafts trying to get out of Cuba.
That's a great idea unless you're chronic ill
Ok, now justify the expense.
His lungs stopped working so we put him on a respirator. Then his heart stropped beating so we put him on a pace maker. Then his liver stopped working so we give him regular dialysis. Then his digestive system gave out so we now feed him intravenously.
When does it end, and who is to judge?
I'm haemophilic - where am I supposed to get the cash for my treatment?
I'm a life form - where am I supposed to get the cash for food?
I'm a mammal - where am I supposed to get the cash to heat my home?
This can go on and on.
The upshot is that your needs cost a certain amount over a lifetime, X, and you are declaring that society should foot the bill for medical X's that are above average. What are the limits to this value? Can X be a hundred trillion dollars/pounds/euros? Really?
We are talking about tradeoffs here. Certainly we can save multiple people with the money it costs to keep some individuals alive. Are you sure that you arent one of those people that is actually costing lives because of your treatment needs?
Still further, we can simply improve the standard of living of some people with that money. Are you saying that no amount of standard of living increase for many people is worth your single life? What about liberty? Is liberty for all worth a dozen lives? ten dozen? thousands?
For pennies per day we can feed people in 3rd world countries. Your medical costs could literally save thousands of lives if they were diverted to those needy people, right?
I propose that we end hunger on the planet before we start worrying about giving health care to everyone. The money would be much better spent on that.
Read it as "SpaceX Falcon 9 Relatively Cheap Compared To NASA's New iPad"
Unless you have an overclocked gaming rig, desktops can be made very very quiet.
Even over-clocked rigs can be quiet. I'm not saying that its common, because the type of person that overclocks normally takes it all the way to the limit.
In my case I can get this AMD Phenom II x6 1055T (2.8ghz) to over 4ghz on air cooling, but the CPU fan spins at ~6000 RPM to keep it cool under load. So I have settled on a 23% overclock to 3.46ghz which puts me on par with most high end non-overclocked rigs, and the CPU fan doesn't have to go over 33% even at full load. Not silent, but not noisy either. A gentle sound, certainly no louder than a laptop that is being pushed.
Anyone who has built their own machine knows that the RAM sockets are always fairly close to the CPU socket, and its by design.
If they could push the RAM further away without penalty, they would, because there is a market for motherboards with RAM sockets as far away from the CPU socket as possible (so that oversized heatsinks can be placed on both the CPU, and the RAM)
the one thing you don't really need, is a great big CPU box.
I need a big CPU box to hold the large fans.
The large fans are needed because I'm using a 6-core 125TDP processor that generates a lot of heat when pushed, and I don't enjoy the jet-turbine sound of any of the small fans that can move the same amount of air.
I'm also not sure how a suitable heat sink could be mounted on the processor if it was in a laptop. Oh thats right.. laptops arent even close to this powerful.
Mod parent Funny Because Its True
Huge success.
When you allow people with more money to have better healthcare you are putting their lives at a greater value than those less fortunate.
No, THEY are putting their lives into a greater value bucket.
By your logic, and with a car analogy, when you allow people with more money to drive nicer and safer cars you are putting their lives at a greater value than those less fortunate.
Even in the poorest case in America, the individual survives a very large portion of ailments that used to mean death. What we are essentially arguing about is only the portion of life saving that is also expensive. There is effectively no real limit to how much wealth can be thrown at saving a life. In practice, the socialized medicine countries place artificial upper limits on it. The question becomes, should the lower limit equal the upper limit? Justify that in an essay.
So profit margin is the criterion by which we should choose to do something about excessive costs?
How are the costs excessive if the profit margin is low?
You can't legislate big cost reductions in areas with low profit margins. Really. Are you stupid?
It takes a few hundred thousand iterations between each of the early primes.