Re:Tomcat is as rock solid as it gets
on
Tomcat 7 Finalized
·
· Score: 1
I agree with most of what you are saying, but I am having a problem I haven't been able to find a solution yet.
Here is the problem. I have just one straightforward web app on the server, and once in a while a request for data takes a bit too long and the user retries it, but the original request is still running in a tomcat thread, and it's not stopping.
Eventually what may happen is that the entire thing becomes useless until it's restarted.
Safe for implementing a proprietary thread management system and clustering a front end instance of Tomcat with back end instances executing working threads and then rotating between them and excluding the ones that are not responding and probably even killing/restarting them with scripts, has anybody found a simpler solution to this sort of a problem? Maybe I am just overlooking some simple way to use the Executor thread pool to time out and kill off Threads that do not have a live corresponding web request anymore somehow?
Basically how can execution of a thread be stopped if a user is no longer expecting this request to return (either by closing the browser, or losing the connection or using the app menu to go to another page, or even if the execution takes too long and should be timed out?) How do you even time out Executor threads after a fixed amount of time?
I used my own laptop whenever I could, of-course for a contractor it's not too hard, but they won't let you do it everywhere, there are 'security concerns', and 'network standards', as if there is anything I cannot do to the network once I am on the inside of the company already. It's silly.
"Competition, motherfucker, have you heard of it?"
So what is the problem? This clearly is an interesting experiment in competition, which will have more support? Google pushing WebM with Youtube and Google Video and Chrome and other browsers, or MS with H.264 and IE?
But FDIC, Freddie/Fannie, US bond buying, bailing out banks, setting caps on oil rig liability, SS, EI, it's all 'insurance'.
It's all insurance, and it's all bad that gov't is involved into this, because gov't: 1. can't assess risk. 2. it doesn't have money to insure you, so it ends up doing what? Getting that money from where?
If you are in a position, that legitimately requires insurance, there are ways to insure you that are real - insurance companies will insure you. They will assess the risk and you will be paying appropriate premiums.
Gov't shouldn't be in business of insuring anything, it can't assess risk and it has no wealth to pay your claim.
I hate to break it to you but if you think that deregulation of everything is going to be a good thing for the majority of American then you need to wake up and smell the roses...
- take a history lesson. 19 century USA, no regulations, the gov't was still in business together with robber barons, but there were much fewer regulations.
The US dollar went up in value by factor of 2.
20th century: Fed, all gov't spending (when I say spending, I literally mean spending money on everything, including Military, FDA, FAA, FCC, Welfare, SS, EI, etc.etc.) The value of dollar collapsed by at least a factor of 20.
19 century: largest increase in production capacity, creation of the middle class (which is not blue collar, middle class is small business and professionals)
20 century: the only increase in production happened after WWII, once the gov't stopped its spending and credit could be reapplied to the private sector, and simultaneously the USA was left as the only standing producer of consumer goods, all competition was wiped out, so the blue collar workers had no competition from other countries, thus they had very high salaries, this was a fluke, not anything remotely like a middle class.
In the 20th century the Fed was created, printed money to finance gov't spending, caused recession of 1920 and 1929. In 1920 the recession ended quickly, in a year, because Harding cut federal budget by 70%, in fact FIRED 70% of gov't. Not what they call 'reducing spending' now, when in fact what they mean is that they just don't increase spending for the next year.
The prices in 19 century were moving lower.
In the 20 century prices were going up.
By the end of 19 century the people saw much cheaper and more accessible and food and more variety of it. The health coverage was out of pocket, but due to lack of gov't spending and various moral hazards, doctor visits were cheap, anybody paid out of pocket.
20 century - with Nixon turning normal health insurance into basically health accounts, with 'insurance' guys becoming sort of money managers, who made money off interest, and gov't starting programs like Medicare and Medicaid, etc, all that ended up with skyrocketing health insurance prices. This pushed costs of production ever higher, because people expected the employer to provide insurance. This became a moral hazard: either gov't or employer were paying insurance and so the prices could go up and up, because the insurance companies weren't in business providing insurance to individuals anymore, so they didn't care what individuals could pay for it.
At the same time with Medicare and Medicaid, the same thing happened with hospitals, as what happened with Higher Education, where gov't started providing student loans - prices skyrocketed.
This happens every time gov't gets involved - prices go up, because it's not an individual who dictates the price anymore. It's not the individual who pays, you see?
Health provider and student prices went up significantly faster than even 'normal' gov't created inflation.
FDA etc., should not be gov't run. Understand that an organization like this, when only provided by a single monopolist - the gov't (gov't IS a monopolist), it's going to become inefficient and corrupt. How often do you think in USA the FDA visits a food production facility? Once a year MAYBE? Less than that!
No. What should happen is this: if there is a market (choice of people) to have food inspected by somebody, there would be an organization, which would be doing that privately. If there was a market, there would be competition in the field of certification.
However even more importantly: you could have a choice to buy food without any certification, which would mean that you'd be buying food that's cheaper. But it doesn't mean that food would be any worse at all than what people are buying today.
Realize that the biggest improvement in food quality came from the free market providing a solution: refri
Obviously gov't made a point of instilling this into the heads of the crowd, that gov't is the lender of last resort.
Clearly, from point of view of sane economics there is no such thing, and gov't is the last entity in the world that can legitimately claim this title, because gov't does not have any wealth. Gov't can print money, but the act of printing money to lend it is the worst way to deal with any crisis, this is shown by the historic events over and over, as gov't creates crisis by printing money and giving it out, like it did in the 1929 recession, and turned it into what is known as the 'Great Depression'.
Look at all hyper-inflationary situations in the world - all of them were created by governments' actions. From Weimar Republic of Germany, to Argentina and Zimbabwe, to the former USSR, and some others las century that lead to economic collapses, even Japan of 1990s, they were printing money on the advice from Bernanke (which is an insane thing to do, to listen to that person.)
People must understand that there is no such thing as lender of last resort. Gov't taking on such a role ends up destroying the economy, because gov't can only print and borrow, it can't create anything to back up all that phony wealth.
The bail outs of the financial industry 'too big to fail' in the words of gov't - this was such a step. Do not buy the rhetoric they are pushing forward right now that US economy is recovering - it is not, it is in fact dying right now. Every single new gov't job, every single new service sector job, every check paid to SS or welfare or EI, every time a bank ends up taking new reserves issued by the Fed and then buying US bonds.
Now the Fed is the 'lender of last resort' to the federal gov't of US of A. THAT is what QE2 is!
They are printing and buying US bonds in near exact amount by June 2011, as the US federal gov't needs to spend by that time. That's because nobody else is buying and people are thinking about not rolling the short term debt that US federal gov't is financed with over.
--
They are talking in the office, saying that if Senate blocks raising the 'debt ceiling', that would be the end of economy, because US would default. Well, that is a lie. US is not going to default on that, it only must stop spending!
But understand that the debt ceiling is only one part of this equation - that's the easy part. That's deciding that you are going to get another credit card to roll your debt from the old one, to the new one (well, similar, not exactly, but similar.)
But there IS another part of it - that's when the lenders, those who give the US its credit card, when they stop giving more of those cards to USA. You see? Then what? That would be the same thing as not raising the debt ceiling.
So in that case USA OBVIOUSLY will monetize all of its debt. The US will print as many US dollars as it takes to buy back every last US bond.
Is it clear WHAT will happen then? I hope it's clear to everybody, but it's definitely NOT clear to Bernanke, to Krugman, to anybody in the gov't (safe for Ron Paul).
There is nobody that should be lender of last resort. The banks should have been allowed to fail, but you see, the gov't doesn't want that to happen because it can't stand the fact that it is the gov't that caused this problem - all this borrowing, spending, printing, setting low interest, creating monopolies in finance and in everything else, all the regulations that pushed the capital and productive jobs out.
--
The last time USA had a sane president who did the right thing was in 1920, when Hardin cut the US federal gov't by 70% during the 1920 recession. There was no lender of last resort.
Many people lost the money they lent to US gov't. But you know what? USA rebound in 1 year. From 1921 to 1929 USA had this period of time known as the 'roaring twenties'. Obviously part of it was fueled by the Fed printing even more money and causing the next asset bubble in equities, which imploded in 1929. The Fed should
Crazy folks, who think that gov't should not be ever involved with any private companies in any way shape or form, helping them, working for them OR regulating them?
Sure, you can call them crazy. Or you can call them the only sane people.
You know why? Because it is the only sane position to take, that gov't should not be involved in any private enterprise at all ever.
It is the only sane position to take that gov't should not be insuring, stimulating, bailing out, giving out free money, giving out contracts, lobbying on behalf of, taxing for, subsidizing in any way, regulating for monopolies and against competition.
It is the only sane position to take, that gov't should NEVER EVER be in any insurance business.
Do you know what happened with BP (beyond the fact, that this is the company, which enjoys such intimate contact with US and UK gov'ts that in the past it even got those gov'ts to remove democratically elected gov't of Iran)? The $10,000,000 liability cap - gov't insurance, that's what happened.
10 MILLION dollars CAP on liability for BP, that's what happened. Gov't contracts, gov't stimulus, gov't subsidy, gov't not carrying about proper royalties, gov't not carrying about one thing: not to create a moral hazard.
That's right, you call people who believe that gov't shouldn't be in business doling out moral hazard insane all you want, but here is what gov't moral hazard has brought you (and this is very very very incomplete, short list in no order of any kind): *BP *Catrina *9/11 *Iraq *Vietnam *Korea *1920 recession *1929 recession / depression *1980 recession *Internet bubble, with the subsequent bail out through 1% short term interest which was part of housing bubble *FDIC and moral hazard of banks gambling with deposits *Freddie/Fannie moral hazard, coupled with 1% short term interest and FDIC, resulting in the housing bubble and mortgage derivative speculations *2008 market crash with subsequent bailouts and stimulus, etc. *The impending US bond crash, which will wipe out US economy (not world, just US) and hyper-inflationary stagnation, since USD will be printed out of existence to monetize all gov't debt, including federal, state and municipal *Insane prices for health insurance due to gov't involvement into insurance business starting with Nixon *High unemployment through minimum wage, SS, EI *The destruction of US jobs market through destruction of US production capacity due to all the high costs of doing business in US, thanks to all the regulation and taxation
etc.etc.
AFAIC, your worst enemy is sitting in your gov't, passing laws, passing regulations, taxing your income and preventing you from saving and starting your own business, printing your currency out of existence.
--
Surely, you will call this insane, but I call the people who look at all of the above and completely missing the point, that gov't has been usurped by politicians working with their preferred monopolies, to steal the money of everybody through printing and low short term interest and debt and trade deficit due to destruction of free market capitalism (which is in very short supply in the West) insane.
I think you are a troll or a moron or both but what the heck. - nice.
You have come up with a solution for how to build an efficient road system? - absolutely.
How to keep a financial system functioning in the face of a credit crisis? - absolutely.
How to establish a widely accepted private currency? - absolutely.
How to build a private fire fighting system? - absolutely.
Zoning rules? - definitely.
Education system? - absolutely.
How to keep natural monopolies of power, water, and communications from taking every penny you own? - absolutely.
You have a solution for the problem of market failure? - no such thing. There is only failure of gov't.
If so, your Nobel prize awaits. - I lost all respect for the Nobel prize since it was given to Krugman (well, and some others, but firstly Krugman.)
Apparently you are somehow more brilliant than the rest of us. - no.
But let's be serious, you haven't really thought any of this through have you? - I have and you may check my journal, even on/. I have left some thoughts in the past years.
Sadly, life is a tad more complicated outside of your lonely little ivory tower. - you don't know anything about me, but keep going.
So you are ok with no one ensuring that medicines and medical devices actually work and provide real benefits? - it's up to the consumer whether he wants to pay premium for extra service of this sort.
If so I don't EVER want you involved in health care in any way. - no comment.
There is WAY too much money to be made selling snake oil cures to not have someone neutral forcing drug companies to prove that their cures actually provide the benefit they say that do. - your choice then is to go to a hospital where such specific things are included into the price structure.
If you want to do it a different way than the FDA, fine, but you had better have a very detailed idea of how to accomplish this vital service. - your money, your choice.
It's a proven fact that in many cases regulation does exactly the opposite - particularly in the case of monopolies.
- all gov't endeavors create monopolies.
What you really want is the Goldilocks amount of regulation - not to much, and not too little. - don't put words into my mouth. If you are generalizing, then say so.
There need to be rules but it's also possible to have too many rules. - no. The only rule is - your money - your choice.
It's not always clear where the dividing line between the two is - it's very clear.
but I'm pretty sure no regulation at all is a disaster in the making. - no, a system with no regulations at all is the fastest growing market.
-- I am sure you'd like a bunch of details from me, but you have to be polite first.
I am one of the REALLY HATED libertarians. I am against gov't regulations of everything.
Gov't has 2 jobs: 1. Minimum military. 2. Justice system.
That's it, no exceptions.
There should not be gov't involvement into any of this at all. FDA should be abolished, like all other agencies (except for what I specifically listed already.)
This is RIDICULOUS to have any special regulations for any of this stuff. That's what makes it so difficult to enter the field of opening your own hospital and there is no reason to have any of this certification.
If you DO CARE about certification, then you should go to hospitals that use some certification company to certify their instruments, etc.
This regulation is like all other gov't regulations, will bring costs up and will decrease competition. That's it.
I have a solution to this. We should do what we did with the Moon landing:
have people pretend that they are sending somebody to Mars. Have the Marsonauts train and then put them into a ship and send them on some orbit to fly around, they'll be in space but put false information on the screens, so they won't know it's not a real Mars mission.
Tell everybody there are people on Mars now. Show them a bunch of reality TV shows about that.
Everybody is happy and if the whiners start whining bring them home secretly.
All for a fraction of the cost you have estimated, and we can split the difference.
Just because you can eat something, doesn't mean it's good to eat it. We are omnivores, definitely, doesn't mean that all those foods we could eat are equally good for us, only means we can survive in nature better than more specialized animals.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with most of what you are saying, but I am having a problem I haven't been able to find a solution yet.
Here is the problem. I have just one straightforward web app on the server, and once in a while a request for data takes a bit too long and the user retries it, but the original request is still running in a tomcat thread, and it's not stopping.
Eventually what may happen is that the entire thing becomes useless until it's restarted.
Safe for implementing a proprietary thread management system and clustering a front end instance of Tomcat with back end instances executing working threads and then rotating between them and excluding the ones that are not responding and probably even killing/restarting them with scripts, has anybody found a simpler solution to this sort of a problem? Maybe I am just overlooking some simple way to use the Executor thread pool to time out and kill off Threads that do not have a live corresponding web request anymore somehow?
Basically how can execution of a thread be stopped if a user is no longer expecting this request to return (either by closing the browser, or losing the connection or using the app menu to go to another page, or even if the execution takes too long and should be timed out?) How do you even time out Executor threads after a fixed amount of time?
Just like FB.
93%.
In the world there has ever only been 100Billion people.
Out of those, 7Billion are still alive today. So how can you form your thesis like that?
I used my own laptop whenever I could, of-course for a contractor it's not too hard, but they won't let you do it everywhere, there are 'security concerns', and 'network standards', as if there is anything I cannot do to the network once I am on the inside of the company already. It's silly.
Can you explain what 'left' and 'right' means to you anyway?
Who is the leftist of the leftist of the left?
How far left can one go?
What IS the most left position, and I have another question: since the earth is round, if you go left far enough, won't you come back from the right?
They looked inside and what they unleashed has haunted the US politics for a while now.
It was John McCain
The real risk is Trend Micro Chairman, to the security of your wallet.
Just don't give it to him.
"Competition, motherfucker, have you heard of it?"
So what is the problem? This clearly is an interesting experiment in competition, which will have more support? Google pushing WebM with Youtube and Google Video and Chrome and other browsers, or MS with H.264 and IE?
Yes, of-course, your penis is a DNA frequency emitter.
But FDIC, Freddie/Fannie, US bond buying, bailing out banks, setting caps on oil rig liability, SS, EI, it's all 'insurance'.
It's all insurance, and it's all bad that gov't is involved into this, because gov't: 1. can't assess risk. 2. it doesn't have money to insure you, so it ends up doing what? Getting that money from where?
If you are in a position, that legitimately requires insurance, there are ways to insure you that are real - insurance companies will insure you. They will assess the risk and you will be paying appropriate premiums.
Gov't shouldn't be in business of insuring anything, it can't assess risk and it has no wealth to pay your claim.
I hate to break it to you but if you think that deregulation of everything is going to be a good thing for the majority of American then you need to wake up and smell the roses...
- take a history lesson. 19 century USA, no regulations, the gov't was still in business together with robber barons, but there were much fewer regulations.
The US dollar went up in value by factor of 2.
20th century: Fed, all gov't spending (when I say spending, I literally mean spending money on everything, including Military, FDA, FAA, FCC, Welfare, SS, EI, etc.etc.) The value of dollar collapsed by at least a factor of 20.
19 century: largest increase in production capacity, creation of the middle class (which is not blue collar, middle class is small business and professionals)
20 century: the only increase in production happened after WWII, once the gov't stopped its spending and credit could be reapplied to the private sector, and simultaneously the USA was left as the only standing producer of consumer goods, all competition was wiped out, so the blue collar workers had no competition from other countries, thus they had very high salaries, this was a fluke, not anything remotely like a middle class.
In the 20th century the Fed was created, printed money to finance gov't spending, caused recession of 1920 and 1929. In 1920 the recession ended quickly, in a year, because Harding cut federal budget by 70%, in fact FIRED 70% of gov't. Not what they call 'reducing spending' now, when in fact what they mean is that they just don't increase spending for the next year.
The prices in 19 century were moving lower.
In the 20 century prices were going up.
By the end of 19 century the people saw much cheaper and more accessible and food and more variety of it. The health coverage was out of pocket, but due to lack of gov't spending and various moral hazards, doctor visits were cheap, anybody paid out of pocket.
20 century - with Nixon turning normal health insurance into basically health accounts, with 'insurance' guys becoming sort of money managers, who made money off interest, and gov't starting programs like Medicare and Medicaid, etc, all that ended up with skyrocketing health insurance prices. This pushed costs of production ever higher, because people expected the employer to provide insurance. This became a moral hazard: either gov't or employer were paying insurance and so the prices could go up and up, because the insurance companies weren't in business providing insurance to individuals anymore, so they didn't care what individuals could pay for it.
At the same time with Medicare and Medicaid, the same thing happened with hospitals, as what happened with Higher Education, where gov't started providing student loans - prices skyrocketed.
This happens every time gov't gets involved - prices go up, because it's not an individual who dictates the price anymore. It's not the individual who pays, you see?
Health provider and student prices went up significantly faster than even 'normal' gov't created inflation.
FDA etc., should not be gov't run. Understand that an organization like this, when only provided by a single monopolist - the gov't (gov't IS a monopolist), it's going to become inefficient and corrupt. How often do you think in USA the FDA visits a food production facility? Once a year MAYBE? Less than that!
No. What should happen is this: if there is a market (choice of people) to have food inspected by somebody, there would be an organization, which would be doing that privately. If there was a market, there would be competition in the field of certification.
However even more importantly: you could have a choice to buy food without any certification, which would mean that you'd be buying food that's cheaper. But it doesn't mean that food would be any worse at all than what people are buying today.
Realize that the biggest improvement in food quality came from the free market providing a solution: refri
Obviously gov't made a point of instilling this into the heads of the crowd, that gov't is the lender of last resort.
Clearly, from point of view of sane economics there is no such thing, and gov't is the last entity in the world that can legitimately claim this title, because gov't does not have any wealth. Gov't can print money, but the act of printing money to lend it is the worst way to deal with any crisis, this is shown by the historic events over and over, as gov't creates crisis by printing money and giving it out, like it did in the 1929 recession, and turned it into what is known as the 'Great Depression'.
Look at all hyper-inflationary situations in the world - all of them were created by governments' actions. From Weimar Republic of Germany, to Argentina and Zimbabwe, to the former USSR, and some others las century that lead to economic collapses, even Japan of 1990s, they were printing money on the advice from Bernanke (which is an insane thing to do, to listen to that person.)
People must understand that there is no such thing as lender of last resort. Gov't taking on such a role ends up destroying the economy, because gov't can only print and borrow, it can't create anything to back up all that phony wealth.
The bail outs of the financial industry 'too big to fail' in the words of gov't - this was such a step. Do not buy the rhetoric they are pushing forward right now that US economy is recovering - it is not, it is in fact dying right now. Every single new gov't job, every single new service sector job, every check paid to SS or welfare or EI, every time a bank ends up taking new reserves issued by the Fed and then buying US bonds.
Now the Fed is the 'lender of last resort' to the federal gov't of US of A. THAT is what QE2 is!
They are printing and buying US bonds in near exact amount by June 2011, as the US federal gov't needs to spend by that time. That's because nobody else is buying and people are thinking about not rolling the short term debt that US federal gov't is financed with over.
--
They are talking in the office, saying that if Senate blocks raising the 'debt ceiling', that would be the end of economy, because US would default. Well, that is a lie. US is not going to default on that, it only must stop spending!
But understand that the debt ceiling is only one part of this equation - that's the easy part. That's deciding that you are going to get another credit card to roll your debt from the old one, to the new one (well, similar, not exactly, but similar.)
But there IS another part of it - that's when the lenders, those who give the US its credit card, when they stop giving more of those cards to USA. You see? Then what? That would be the same thing as not raising the debt ceiling.
So in that case USA OBVIOUSLY will monetize all of its debt. The US will print as many US dollars as it takes to buy back every last US bond.
Is it clear WHAT will happen then? I hope it's clear to everybody, but it's definitely NOT clear to Bernanke, to Krugman, to anybody in the gov't (safe for Ron Paul).
There is nobody that should be lender of last resort. The banks should have been allowed to fail, but you see, the gov't doesn't want that to happen because it can't stand the fact that it is the gov't that caused this problem - all this borrowing, spending, printing, setting low interest, creating monopolies in finance and in everything else, all the regulations that pushed the capital and productive jobs out.
--
The last time USA had a sane president who did the right thing was in 1920, when Hardin cut the US federal gov't by 70% during the 1920 recession. There was no lender of last resort.
Many people lost the money they lent to US gov't. But you know what? USA rebound in 1 year. From 1921 to 1929 USA had this period of time known as the 'roaring twenties'. Obviously part of it was fueled by the Fed printing even more money and causing the next asset bubble in equities, which imploded in 1929. The Fed should
Crazy folks, ha?
Crazy folks, who think that gov't should not be ever involved with any private companies in any way shape or form, helping them, working for them OR regulating them?
Sure, you can call them crazy. Or you can call them the only sane people.
You know why? Because it is the only sane position to take, that gov't should not be involved in any private enterprise at all ever.
It is the only sane position to take that gov't should not be insuring, stimulating, bailing out, giving out free money, giving out contracts, lobbying on behalf of, taxing for, subsidizing in any way, regulating for monopolies and against competition.
It is the only sane position to take, that gov't should NEVER EVER be in any insurance business.
Do you know what happened with BP (beyond the fact, that this is the company, which enjoys such intimate contact with US and UK gov'ts that in the past it even got those gov'ts to remove democratically elected gov't of Iran)? The $10,000,000 liability cap - gov't insurance, that's what happened.
10 MILLION dollars CAP on liability for BP, that's what happened. Gov't contracts, gov't stimulus, gov't subsidy, gov't not carrying about proper royalties, gov't not carrying about one thing: not to create a moral hazard.
That's right, you call people who believe that gov't shouldn't be in business doling out moral hazard insane all you want, but here is what gov't moral hazard has brought you (and this is very very very incomplete, short list in no order of any kind):
*BP
*Catrina
*9/11
*Iraq
*Vietnam
*Korea
*1920 recession
*1929 recession / depression
*1980 recession
*Internet bubble, with the subsequent bail out through 1% short term interest which was part of housing bubble
*FDIC and moral hazard of banks gambling with deposits
*Freddie/Fannie moral hazard, coupled with 1% short term interest and FDIC, resulting in the housing bubble and mortgage derivative speculations
*2008 market crash with subsequent bailouts and stimulus, etc.
*The impending US bond crash, which will wipe out US economy (not world, just US) and hyper-inflationary stagnation, since USD will be printed out of existence to monetize all gov't debt, including federal, state and municipal
*Insane prices for health insurance due to gov't involvement into insurance business starting with Nixon
*High unemployment through minimum wage, SS, EI
*The destruction of US jobs market through destruction of US production capacity due to all the high costs of doing business in US, thanks to all the regulation and taxation
etc.etc.
AFAIC, your worst enemy is sitting in your gov't, passing laws, passing regulations, taxing your income and preventing you from saving and starting your own business, printing your currency out of existence.
--
Surely, you will call this insane, but I call the people who look at all of the above and completely missing the point, that gov't has been usurped by politicians working with their preferred monopolies, to steal the money of everybody through printing and low short term interest and debt and trade deficit due to destruction of free market capitalism (which is in very short supply in the West) insane.
I think you are a troll or a moron or both but what the heck. - nice.
You have come up with a solution for how to build an efficient road system? - absolutely.
How to keep a financial system functioning in the face of a credit crisis? - absolutely.
How to establish a widely accepted private currency? - absolutely.
How to build a private fire fighting system? - absolutely.
Zoning rules? - definitely.
Education system? - absolutely.
How to keep natural monopolies of power, water, and communications from taking every penny you own? - absolutely.
You have a solution for the problem of market failure? - no such thing. There is only failure of gov't.
If so, your Nobel prize awaits. - I lost all respect for the Nobel prize since it was given to Krugman (well, and some others, but firstly Krugman.)
Apparently you are somehow more brilliant than the rest of us. - no.
But let's be serious, you haven't really thought any of this through have you? - I have and you may check my journal, even on /. I have left some thoughts in the past years.
Sadly, life is a tad more complicated outside of your lonely little ivory tower. - you don't know anything about me, but keep going.
So you are ok with no one ensuring that medicines and medical devices actually work and provide real benefits? - it's up to the consumer whether he wants to pay premium for extra service of this sort.
If so I don't EVER want you involved in health care in any way. - no comment.
There is WAY too much money to be made selling snake oil cures to not have someone neutral forcing drug companies to prove that their cures actually provide the benefit they say that do. - your choice then is to go to a hospital where such specific things are included into the price structure.
If you want to do it a different way than the FDA, fine, but you had better have a very detailed idea of how to accomplish this vital service. - your money, your choice.
It's a proven fact that in many cases regulation does exactly the opposite - particularly in the case of monopolies.
- all gov't endeavors create monopolies.
What you really want is the Goldilocks amount of regulation - not to much, and not too little. - don't put words into my mouth. If you are generalizing, then say so.
There need to be rules but it's also possible to have too many rules. - no. The only rule is - your money - your choice.
It's not always clear where the dividing line between the two is - it's very clear.
but I'm pretty sure no regulation at all is a disaster in the making. - no, a system with no regulations at all is the fastest growing market.
--
I am sure you'd like a bunch of details from me, but you have to be polite first.
I am one of the REALLY HATED libertarians. I am against gov't regulations of everything.
Gov't has 2 jobs:
1. Minimum military.
2. Justice system.
That's it, no exceptions.
There should not be gov't involvement into any of this at all. FDA should be abolished, like all other agencies (except for what I specifically listed already.)
This is RIDICULOUS to have any special regulations for any of this stuff. That's what makes it so difficult to enter the field of opening your own hospital and there is no reason to have any of this certification.
If you DO CARE about certification, then you should go to hospitals that use some certification company to certify their instruments, etc.
This regulation is like all other gov't regulations, will bring costs up and will decrease competition. That's it.
I have a solution to this. We should do what we did with the Moon landing:
have people pretend that they are sending somebody to Mars. Have the Marsonauts train and then put them into a ship and send them on some orbit to fly around, they'll be in space but put false information on the screens, so they won't know it's not a real Mars mission.
Tell everybody there are people on Mars now. Show them a bunch of reality TV shows about that.
Everybody is happy and if the whiners start whining bring them home secretly.
All for a fraction of the cost you have estimated, and we can split the difference.
Problem solved once and for all.
How dare you. Military does a lot. It kills some people. It makes money for other people. It gives others yet issues to be reelected upon. It's great.
What did SPACE ever do for us?
It is an opinion, and I have 18 years with first and 16 years with second.
Well yes, the last time I had to hunt that carrot and tomato and spinach it was a killer, I barely had time to reload.
Well, sure I can compare to health of myself in the first 18 years of my life, and clearly I had somewhat better health then, I was younger.
Well, and before the 16 years, I have another 18 years before that, when I ate anything, which I can compare to. So I stand by my assertion.
Just because you can eat something, doesn't mean it's good to eat it. We are omnivores, definitely, doesn't mean that all those foods we could eat are equally good for us, only means we can survive in nature better than more specialized animals.
What are you trying to convert me or something? :) I said 16 years, not 16 days.
I don't eat tofu.
Well, that's your opinion. I have 16 years of experience saying you are wrong.