Actually the system would still be useful for public health data even where there is no insurance system as such (e.g., under a nationalized health scheme or in military hospitals where all medical services are covered by the state and no third party is billed).
That would be one possible way to drill down to appropriate codes, but this system is designed to be used anywhere in the world, including places where hospitals don't have computers, and was devised in 1990. So that's a bit much to expect.
Don't forget that there used to be other illnesses such as female hysteria and neurasthenia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_and_obsolete_mental_and_behavioural_disorders) that are no longer diagnosed. Conversely, behavior that was once within a normal spectrum might now be considered pathological (e.g., ADHD). So some change in apparent rates of disease have to do with shifting medical practices. That doesn't mean, for example, that some allergies have become more common.
The more interesting story here is that the US is doing exercises near North Korean airspace.
The story never says that. It says that they were near the border, and that the signal came from the North, but nothing in the article says that they were flying north of the line. The reason they returned to base was precisely that they did not want to accidentally cross into the North.
The transaction costs for credit cards, pay pal, etc are too large to do micro payments. Even Flattr takes 10% of every transaction
That's a separate problem. If there were real demand for an efficient, cheap micropayment system based on real-world currency, somebody would make one. The fact that no one has come up with a viable business model suggests that the conditions are not right for it.
So you can't write contracts in other things and have it held up in court. You can always be forced to accept payment in FRN.
Wherever did you get that idea? Of course you can write a contract that trades one thing for another or, for example, trades one piece of land for another, with no money changing hands. You might still owe taxes on the transaction, based on its dollar value, but why would you not be able to have a non-monetary contract?
That's an effect, but it's not value. Value is how much people are willing to give up (in money or equivalent) to acquire the fertilizer. If the fertilizer in question would have that effect, but no one knows that, or there is a cultural taboo against its use (because, for example, it is made from human waste), then in economic terms that property of the substance does not give it value.
Capitalism certainly has lots of problems. But I think Marx looked at the wrong things. He should have asked, what has made capitalism work as well as it has so far?
But he did. Marx had a powerful historical argument that capitalism was a necessary stage society had to go through after breaking free from feudalism. It was capitalism that made possible the economic development that made a move toward socialism even imaginable. You can disagree with his analysis, but it's simply false to say that he did not look closely at how capitalism had worked; on the contrary, his model for future revolutions came from the lessons learned from past bourgeois revolutions (like the French Revolution).
No. Many traditional herbal remedies worked because people discovered, through trial and error, that this plant treated this disease. They need not have understood the underlying biological cause of the disease at all.
I'm unaware of any company that feels responsible to their product.
That's rather unimaginative. Lots of companies (or rather the people who run them) do show some responsibility toward their product. The first example that comes to mind is animal breeders: the good ones care about the animals they raise and have ethical standards in how they treat them, even when they are going to be sold as food (all the more so when they are going to become pets). Many artists certainly feel responsible toward their product, even when they sell it.
To what extent is this true of Google? Time will tell, but it's unproductive to say that because they are in this to make money it's impossible for them to be responsible. The real question is what combination of public visibility/pressure, economic incentives, and regulation will lead to optimal outcomes.
It seems a little different. TFA is quite vague about how they are actually putting the energy into the flywheel. It says the wheel would be "housed in the station," but what that means is unclear. Does the train somehow mechanically transfer its kinetic energy to the flywheel? Or use hybrid/EV-style regenerative braking to generate electricity which spins the flywheel which releases energy to start the train again when it leaves? The former is hard to imagine, the latter seems like it involves many inefficiencies but it might still be worth it.
So, the CEO who has generated the most shareholder value would be the most successful.
But how do you measure whether the CEO is responsible for that? The company could just get lucky (e.g., a mining company that happened to have a rich find), and prosper despite mediocre management.
It's the difference between epidemiology and medicine, or between actuarial predictions and fortune-telling. I might be able to predict that 10% of a population will get a disease, or that 0.054% of 43 year old females in North Dakota will break their left femur this year, without being able to tell you which individuals it will be. There's no reason to assume that large-scale predictions entail small-scale ones.
I don't have a position on whether these scanners are better or worse than the alternatives, but a 70% false positive rate is not necessarily a bad thing. What people forget is that false positive/false negative rates are dependent on the underlying rate of occurrence of the phenomenon you're looking for. Say you create a test for a disease that has a false positive rate of 0.1% for people who don't have the disease (which is excellent!). If the disease is extremely rare, say 0.1% occurrence rate in the population tested, about half the people who test positive will in fact not have disease. Whereas if 10% of the population has the disease, only about 1% of the positive tests will be false positive. Not because the test is any different, but because the underlying rate is so much higher. So without knowing what the underlying rate of people bringing inappropriate items through security is, the 70% number is hard to interpret.
Slashdot Mirror
A similar effect can be achieved by analysis of photon leakage through amorphous silica, aka looking through your living room window.
What groupware server software does Lightning have the ability to sync with?
Last time I checked, ics, CalDAV, WCAP.
Actually the system would still be useful for public health data even where there is no insurance system as such (e.g., under a nationalized health scheme or in military hospitals where all medical services are covered by the state and no third party is billed).
The system was devised by the World Health Organization for use worldwide. So yeah, it should.
I can think of a dozen other categories under which to put this article; DRM would never have occurred to me.
That would be one possible way to drill down to appropriate codes, but this system is designed to be used anywhere in the world, including places where hospitals don't have computers, and was devised in 1990. So that's a bit much to expect.
Awww snap!
Don't forget that there used to be other illnesses such as female hysteria and neurasthenia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_and_obsolete_mental_and_behavioural_disorders) that are no longer diagnosed. Conversely, behavior that was once within a normal spectrum might now be considered pathological (e.g., ADHD). So some change in apparent rates of disease have to do with shifting medical practices. That doesn't mean, for example, that some allergies have become more common.
They now know that in the even of war, before the drop any GPS guided munitions, they now have the exact location of a target to take out.
Maybe....unless it's a mobile unit.
The more interesting story here is that the US is doing exercises near North Korean airspace.
The story never says that. It says that they were near the border, and that the signal came from the North, but nothing in the article says that they were flying north of the line. The reason they returned to base was precisely that they did not want to accidentally cross into the North.
What if you buy the app for an iPod touch or wifi-only iPad? Or you buy it for an iPhone over wifi and are out of cellular range?
After all why buy random apps if you can't use them? The will be tied to the owners phone.
No idea if it applies in this case, but crooked developers could make money this way, by receiving the proceeds of fake sales of their apps.
The transaction costs for credit cards, pay pal, etc are too large to do micro payments. Even Flattr takes 10% of every transaction
That's a separate problem. If there were real demand for an efficient, cheap micropayment system based on real-world currency, somebody would make one. The fact that no one has come up with a viable business model suggests that the conditions are not right for it.
So you can't write contracts in other things and have it held up in court. You can always be forced to accept payment in FRN.
Wherever did you get that idea? Of course you can write a contract that trades one thing for another or, for example, trades one piece of land for another, with no money changing hands. You might still owe taxes on the transaction, based on its dollar value, but why would you not be able to have a non-monetary contract?
That's an effect, but it's not value. Value is how much people are willing to give up (in money or equivalent) to acquire the fertilizer. If the fertilizer in question would have that effect, but no one knows that, or there is a cultural taboo against its use (because, for example, it is made from human waste), then in economic terms that property of the substance does not give it value.
Capitalism certainly has lots of problems. But I think Marx looked at the wrong things. He should have asked, what has made capitalism work as well as it has so far?
But he did. Marx had a powerful historical argument that capitalism was a necessary stage society had to go through after breaking free from feudalism. It was capitalism that made possible the economic development that made a move toward socialism even imaginable. You can disagree with his analysis, but it's simply false to say that he did not look closely at how capitalism had worked; on the contrary, his model for future revolutions came from the lessons learned from past bourgeois revolutions (like the French Revolution).
No. Many traditional herbal remedies worked because people discovered, through trial and error, that this plant treated this disease. They need not have understood the underlying biological cause of the disease at all.
I'm unaware of any company that feels responsible to their product.
That's rather unimaginative. Lots of companies (or rather the people who run them) do show some responsibility toward their product. The first example that comes to mind is animal breeders: the good ones care about the animals they raise and have ethical standards in how they treat them, even when they are going to be sold as food (all the more so when they are going to become pets). Many artists certainly feel responsible toward their product, even when they sell it.
To what extent is this true of Google? Time will tell, but it's unproductive to say that because they are in this to make money it's impossible for them to be responsible. The real question is what combination of public visibility/pressure, economic incentives, and regulation will lead to optimal outcomes.
It seems a little different. TFA is quite vague about how they are actually putting the energy into the flywheel. It says the wheel would be "housed in the station," but what that means is unclear. Does the train somehow mechanically transfer its kinetic energy to the flywheel? Or use hybrid/EV-style regenerative braking to generate electricity which spins the flywheel which releases energy to start the train again when it leaves? The former is hard to imagine, the latter seems like it involves many inefficiencies but it might still be worth it.
So, the CEO who has generated the most shareholder value would be the most successful.
But how do you measure whether the CEO is responsible for that? The company could just get lucky (e.g., a mining company that happened to have a rich find), and prosper despite mediocre management.
Who do you think ends up with the money when you burn cash?
Lawyers. Burning money is a crime in the US.
It's the difference between epidemiology and medicine, or between actuarial predictions and fortune-telling. I might be able to predict that 10% of a population will get a disease, or that 0.054% of 43 year old females in North Dakota will break their left femur this year, without being able to tell you which individuals it will be. There's no reason to assume that large-scale predictions entail small-scale ones.
Amen to that. I just stayed in a hotel where I could only get a signal in the bathroom.
I don't have a position on whether these scanners are better or worse than the alternatives, but a 70% false positive rate is not necessarily a bad thing. What people forget is that false positive/false negative rates are dependent on the underlying rate of occurrence of the phenomenon you're looking for. Say you create a test for a disease that has a false positive rate of 0.1% for people who don't have the disease (which is excellent!). If the disease is extremely rare, say 0.1% occurrence rate in the population tested, about half the people who test positive will in fact not have disease. Whereas if 10% of the population has the disease, only about 1% of the positive tests will be false positive. Not because the test is any different, but because the underlying rate is so much higher. So without knowing what the underlying rate of people bringing inappropriate items through security is, the 70% number is hard to interpret.
Autonomous Arial Vehicle (UAV).
Psssht. It's just a knockoff of the UHV (Autonomous Helvetica Vehicle).