With modern antiretroviral drugs HIV positive patients can live for decades
Have you looked at federal expenditures on medical care lately? Let's face it, with skyrocketing costs of all of these medical treatments, we're going to need to rethink who lives and who dies, particularly when it comes to preventable diseases that are hideously expensive to treat.
HIV, lung cancer, some forms of heart disease, ultimately, people will just have to be made comfortable unless they plan on paying for their medical care themselves. It would be one thing if people got insurance for HIV and lung cancer through private insurers who accepted the risks, but, once all taxpayers have to accept that risk, well, its an entirely different contract.
In that sense, this new genetic treatment is the shape of things to come, where the government experiments on treating on some people with some new drug, because, they aren't going to get anything else.
We're talking about how Creative went and bought Emu, then, turned around and shut off the flow of chips to Turtle Beach. There was a nice little competition there and Creative just pissed all over it with a pretty sleazy play. I don't feel bad about Intel and Microsoft screwing Creative out of the equation at all.
I hate to say it because they do good work, but I think nVidia is ultimately doomed as it is today. Everyone rips Intel's integrated 3d graphics but they just keep getting better every year. Although AMD should have bought nVidia instead of ATI, they do own ATI, and so have a pretty good graphics system on their own. Eventually, both AMD and Intel are going to wind up with 3d calculations on the die in some fashion, and that's going to leave nVidia for what?
We're not trying to fend off another superpower. No one says that. What we're trying to do is keeping an occasional nuke launched our way by a bunch of crazy mullahs from turning into casus beli for a genocidal retaliation. It's about, trying to keep a bunch of crazy mullahs from killing a lot of civilians and on -both- sides.
If Iran launches a nuke at us, and we shoot it down, there's no harm, and therefor, no foul. I mean, yeah, we might bomb them or something but its not like it would demand the same reaction as if they took out New York City.
SDI gives a President a chance to avoid having to order the retaliatory murder of millions of people. That's all its for. I think President Obama would rather be able to say that he shot down an Iranian nuclear missile, than, say, he ordered the destruction of Tehran in retaliation for the destruction of New York City.
SDI is expensive, but, its not like its bailout the bank money. But I think that, if it gives us even a chance to save millions of lives, then, we should take it. No tool solves every problem, but SDI can be a valuable tool for a President to have.
Yes, that's so effective becau- no, wait, we aren't doing it. That's my point. Yes, we can monitor the ship, and can check it for stray neutrons, but we don't do any of that right now. It's a wide open vector for the first attack, just like we didn't bother checking for box cutters on commercial aircraft.
I don't think people would be advocating war with Iran if Iran was a responsible member of the international community. They could demonstrate this by ending their support of terrorist organizations and toning down the anti-Israeli rhetoric. I doubt they are inclined to do this so we'll see what the next move on the chessboard winds up being.....
That's just the thing. If Iran quit funding Hamas and Hizbollah and trying to destroy Israel, the USA would be buying authentic Persian rugs left and right. Iran has -something- of a democracy to work with, an educated people with a cultural heritage that is very much intertwined with that of the West, and its like, they have to be dicks. And Israel isn't even like a threat to Iran. It's just crazy.
but I am currently too busy digging some trenches to protect me from our neighbors...A French guy
Digging trenches? I thought that was, rolling out the surrender rail car out of retirement.
Besides, there's no need for Germany to fight now. There has been no country that lost two world wars as badly and fared as well in the aftermath as Germany. Germany nearly has gotten everything they fought the World Wars to obtain. They have access to world markets, without interference. They have access to raw materials, without interference, and, now, they have achieved the strongest economy and deepest technological base in Europe, and world confidence in the Euro is more based on world faith in the old Deutshmark than it is the old Franc.
Why mess with a launch and guidance system able to withstand launch and reentry stresses when you could just build a Fat Man and put it in the back of a van?
Because the missile is better.
It doesn't take more than a half an hour to hit the USA. It doesn't have any risks in transportation. You can't practically recall a ballistic missile after it has been launched. You can launch a missile ad-hoc, and finally, a missile launched high above the USA fries all of our electrical shit. Fatman in the truck can't do any of that.
The smuggled weapon in the back of the truck, on the other hand, requires every single person on the way to not notice, or actively participate in the delivery of the weapon. And, it's less effective militarily.
The thing about container ships, is that there are not that many of them, as they are so big these days, that stopping them and tracking them is actually pretty practical. You can monitor a ship as its sailing all the way from Iran or an Arabian port all the way to the USA. You can fly geiger counters over it and around it to look for neutrons coming out of it. There's just way more risk for the delivery and its not a good deterrent.
Defense is not the solution, and security theater is just a waste
If defense is not the solution, then why preach birth control? Defense doesn't solve everything, but it does increase the probability of failure to an attacker, so that he or she won't attack, and also reduces the likelihood of the attacker of spreading that attack to other parties. To put it another way, if Hitler had been stopped in France, do you think he still invades Russia?
There is. In reality, this is more akin to Sputnik than an ICBM.
Well, Sputnik was launched from an ICBM, that was the point the Russians made. At the time, the US nuclear deterrent was based on massive bomber fleets. The Soviet Union could not compete in building bombers so they turned to space and made it work. Before Sputnik, one could envision USA air superiority holding off any attack on the USA. , but the Soviet Union was eminently destroyable. After Sputnik, the USA was as much a nuclear target as the Soviet Union was.
I'd take Iran at face value for everything they say. They are going to get a nuclear capability. They are going to get a delivery system. They are going to act to expand their values world wide. Israel is only the beginning.
We should not be surprised with this. The Western nations have been at odds with Islamic nations for 1500 years, and with Persia for nearly 3000. That Persia now Iran is acting up again is hardly a surprise. One might surmise that in the grand scheme of things, this is just a conflict between ideologies and peoples and no one side is right, but the thing is, since most of us are westerners, we would prefer that our side prevail.
To that end, I suppose that those who would argue that strategic missile defense cannot be built, or that militarization of space should be avoided, or that Iran is not a threat, need to rethink that. And similarly, those that would advocate war with Iran, might need to rethink that as well. This now a game where tens of millions of people might get killed, not just thousands.
Really, what I'm talking about it, is, free trade among NATO allies, a movement towards a common currency between Canada, the UK, and the EU, largely because those states have a tradition of similar expectations of trade, have similar standards of living and law, and above all, tend to reject mercantilism. Asian countries do not.
In the short haul, I would say that if anyone in the USA who wants to lump Canada into the same category of trade as China, needs to be reminded of this:
How about Canada? Have we had enough deaths in Afghanistan to qualify?
Yep. But Canada also gets a special pass, along with the UK, for wading ashore on D-Day, (and especially for going ashore first at Dieppe) and because, for all intents and purposes, Oshawa and Detroit are practically the same city.
Is "sending soldiers to die for US-initiated wars" the new criteria for trading partners?
It's not bogus at all. My point is that the statement "creates 120,000 jobs" is completely dishonest.
Unless that money is sitting in a room in the form of gold bars, then, a movement of investment from one place to another will have a net change in jobs. You might have more jobs for less money in one situation, versus, less jobs for more money in another, but, the overall size of the stimulus to the economy will remain the same from that act, although the shape of that stimulus will change.
The only thing that actually matters, for the purposes of genuine economic growth, is the size of the ecosystem that is created by the investment. Can someone create an institution that, creates a profit for themselves sufficient so that it allows for other profitable institutions to be created? It's a recursive thing.
WE have seen some massive federal outlays create very small eco-systems, but conversely, some small investments create very large and vibrant eco-systems. The new deal basically failed in this regard, but a few million bucks to make a smaller computer for a missile ultimately gave birth to fairchild, intel, and the pc revolution. So, I could say that if the government is going to invest in something, it should invest in building something that is a) new, b) capital intensive to research, but accessible to build, and c) useful to everyone. So, I would think that broadband is probably not the right thing there, because its something the private sector can already do. Still, there could be weird network effects of everyone having broadband as a right. It's almsot like, it you really wanted to jumpstart the economy, you should waive all the patents held by universities on research sponsored by the federal government.
And let us sell Pontiacs to each other. Oh, wait, is that a new "Chinese Curse"?
It depends on the Pontiac. My 2004 GTO was a great car. Yeah, I know it is a rebadged Holden Commodore but the V8 and tranny are made in Michigan. Besides, I have an alliance exception. Aussies fought with the USA in pretty much every war we've been in since WWI, and fairly with the US. There's absolutely no need for Australia to a have sent anyone to Iraq but there's enough dead Australians from the adventure that I think they've earned the right to sell stuff in the USA.
Bzzt, wrong. Actually, all USDA graded beef, is in fact, inspected by the USDA. Every carcass gets a stamp, from someone inspecting it. If you buy a piece of USDA anything, that means, someone at least eyeballed the dead cow and put a stamp on it.
The controversy comes from, how much inspection there is. Some would say not enough.
It doesn't "create 120,000 jobs". All it does is shift jobs from one place to another. If there is any creation of jobs, it will be in the follow on services.
Still, I'm all in favor of adopting more asian-like policies in America. Korea has a long list of goods that it tarriffs or protects against foreign imports of, and I think it is long overdue for America to do the same. Let them sell their Hyundais to each other, that's what I say.
Let's face it, at some point, Cmdr Taco is going to find that magic combination of additional powers and price that gets us all to subscribe, and all that free will evaporate. I mean, if Slashdot had Karma coupons that we could all trade, we'd all be suckered in.
That's one of the points, to show people how little we know of the ocean
Oh, I agree that it could be that, and I also agree that we should be exploring the bottom of the ocean more, in fact, we ought ought to be monitoring it with a permanent deep sea measuring network.
The ocean is so large and so vast, that, if Google codes the images honestly, that, people will readily see that for the most part, the bottom of the ocean is generally unexplored, that measurements of deep waters are infrequent and not in very many areas. They will see a few tiny areas where things have been photographed extensively, but, those will be but small points on a very, very large map. All of this unknown will open up ocean climate claims to ridicule, as if, measuring a drop of water in the shallow end of the swimming pool can somehow categorize the whole thing.
I am hardly a fan of teacher's unions but I do have to question the efficacy of educational testing. We seem to have this notion that we can create an institution that can make children want to learn. Learning requires individual initiative and exploration and that is something that I think children are either born with, or not. All too often, success in our present testing regime really means, how well do children follow orders or behave in a group-like fashion. The present practice of various power groups trying to indoctrinate children into their own constituencies is sickening. It's their world that they will be running, and the hangups and prejudices that we have decided in our own political alignments are best left at the classroom door. I would say that if any curricula does not prepare a child to learn how to invent or compose or craft or create, then, that instruction should best be dispensed with. Our country will be far better off if we had useful citizens, more than politically correct ones.
There's nothing wrong with another species going extinct, except for your own misplaced sentimentality. Extinction is a natural part of the course of events in an ecosystem. The inferior species are destroyed so that new ones may emerge. The new ones then fan out, specialize, speciate, and diversity is renewed, until they too are made extinct.
Slashdot Mirror
With modern antiretroviral drugs HIV positive patients can live for decades
Have you looked at federal expenditures on medical care lately? Let's face it, with skyrocketing costs of all of these medical treatments, we're going to need to rethink who lives and who dies, particularly when it comes to preventable diseases that are hideously expensive to treat.
HIV, lung cancer, some forms of heart disease, ultimately, people will just have to be made comfortable unless they plan on paying for their medical care themselves. It would be one thing if people got insurance for HIV and lung cancer through private insurers who accepted the risks, but, once all taxpayers have to accept that risk, well, its an entirely different contract.
In that sense, this new genetic treatment is the shape of things to come, where the government experiments on treating on some people with some new drug, because, they aren't going to get anything else.
Creative's 'win by any means necessary' plan.
We're talking about how Creative went and bought Emu, then, turned around and shut off the flow of chips to Turtle Beach. There was a nice little competition there and Creative just pissed all over it with a pretty sleazy play. I don't feel bad about Intel and Microsoft screwing Creative out of the equation at all.
I hate to say it because they do good work, but I think nVidia is ultimately doomed as it is today. Everyone rips Intel's integrated 3d graphics but they just keep getting better every year. Although AMD should have bought nVidia instead of ATI, they do own ATI, and so have a pretty good graphics system on their own. Eventually, both AMD and Intel are going to wind up with 3d calculations on the die in some fashion, and that's going to leave nVidia for what?
We're not trying to fend off another superpower. No one says that. What we're trying to do is keeping an occasional nuke launched our way by a bunch of crazy mullahs from turning into casus beli for a genocidal retaliation. It's about, trying to keep a bunch of crazy mullahs from killing a lot of civilians and on -both- sides.
If Iran launches a nuke at us, and we shoot it down, there's no harm, and therefor, no foul. I mean, yeah, we might bomb them or something but its not like it would demand the same reaction as if they took out New York City.
SDI gives a President a chance to avoid having to order the retaliatory murder of millions of people. That's all its for. I think President Obama would rather be able to say that he shot down an Iranian nuclear missile, than, say, he ordered the destruction of Tehran in retaliation for the destruction of New York City.
SDI is expensive, but, its not like its bailout the bank money. But I think that, if it gives us even a chance to save millions of lives, then, we should take it. No tool solves every problem, but SDI can be a valuable tool for a President to have.
Sorry, the Iranian kids called first. We have to put you on hold.
Yes, that's so effective becau- no, wait, we aren't doing it. That's my point. Yes, we can monitor the ship, and can check it for stray neutrons, but we don't do any of that right now. It's a wide open vector for the first attack, just like we didn't bother checking for box cutters on commercial aircraft.
And, um, you really think we don't do that?
Man, Islam is not even 1500 year old yet... Way to lose credibility fast
It's getting pretty close. It's like 1400 and some change. Time flies when you are waging holy wars...
I don't think people would be advocating war with Iran if Iran was a responsible member of the international community. They could demonstrate this by ending their support of terrorist organizations and toning down the anti-Israeli rhetoric. I doubt they are inclined to do this so we'll see what the next move on the chessboard winds up being.....
That's just the thing. If Iran quit funding Hamas and Hizbollah and trying to destroy Israel, the USA would be buying authentic Persian rugs left and right. Iran has -something- of a democracy to work with, an educated people with a cultural heritage that is very much intertwined with that of the West, and its like, they have to be dicks. And Israel isn't even like a threat to Iran. It's just crazy.
but I am currently too busy digging some trenches to protect me from our neighbors...A French guy
Digging trenches? I thought that was, rolling out the surrender rail car out of retirement.
Besides, there's no need for Germany to fight now. There has been no country that lost two world wars as badly and fared as well in the aftermath as Germany. Germany nearly has gotten everything they fought the World Wars to obtain. They have access to world markets, without interference. They have access to raw materials, without interference, and, now, they have achieved the strongest economy and deepest technological base in Europe, and world confidence in the Euro is more based on world faith in the old Deutshmark than it is the old Franc.
Why mess with a launch and guidance system able to withstand launch and reentry stresses when you could just build a Fat Man and put it in the back of a van?
Because the missile is better.
It doesn't take more than a half an hour to hit the USA. It doesn't have any risks in transportation. You can't practically recall a ballistic missile after it has been launched. You can launch a missile ad-hoc, and finally, a missile launched high above the USA fries all of our electrical shit. Fatman in the truck can't do any of that.
The smuggled weapon in the back of the truck, on the other hand, requires every single person on the way to not notice, or actively participate in the delivery of the weapon. And, it's less effective militarily.
The thing about container ships, is that there are not that many of them, as they are so big these days, that stopping them and tracking them is actually pretty practical. You can monitor a ship as its sailing all the way from Iran or an Arabian port all the way to the USA. You can fly geiger counters over it and around it to look for neutrons coming out of it. There's just way more risk for the delivery and its not a good deterrent.
Defense is not the solution, and security theater is just a waste
If defense is not the solution, then why preach birth control? Defense doesn't solve everything, but it does increase the probability of failure to an attacker, so that he or she won't attack, and also reduces the likelihood of the attacker of spreading that attack to other parties. To put it another way, if Hitler had been stopped in France, do you think he still invades Russia?
There is. In reality, this is more akin to Sputnik than an ICBM.
Well, Sputnik was launched from an ICBM, that was the point the Russians made. At the time, the US nuclear deterrent was based on massive bomber fleets. The Soviet Union could not compete in building bombers so they turned to space and made it work. Before Sputnik, one could envision USA air superiority holding off any attack on the USA. , but the Soviet Union was eminently destroyable. After Sputnik, the USA was as much a nuclear target as the Soviet Union was.
I'd take Iran at face value for everything they say. They are going to get a nuclear capability. They are going to get a delivery system. They are going to act to expand their values world wide. Israel is only the beginning.
We should not be surprised with this. The Western nations have been at odds with Islamic nations for 1500 years, and with Persia for nearly 3000. That Persia now Iran is acting up again is hardly a surprise. One might surmise that in the grand scheme of things, this is just a conflict between ideologies and peoples and no one side is right, but the thing is, since most of us are westerners, we would prefer that our side prevail.
To that end, I suppose that those who would argue that strategic missile defense cannot be built, or that militarization of space should be avoided, or that Iran is not a threat, need to rethink that. And similarly, those that would advocate war with Iran, might need to rethink that as well. This now a game where tens of millions of people might get killed, not just thousands.
Really, what I'm talking about it, is, free trade among NATO allies, a movement towards a common currency between Canada, the UK, and the EU, largely because those states have a tradition of similar expectations of trade, have similar standards of living and law, and above all, tend to reject mercantilism. Asian countries do not.
In the short haul, I would say that if anyone in the USA who wants to lump Canada into the same category of trade as China, needs to be reminded of this:
http://web.france.com/files/legacy_images/dday5.jpg
How about Canada? Have we had enough deaths in Afghanistan to qualify?
Yep. But Canada also gets a special pass, along with the UK, for wading ashore on D-Day, (and especially for going ashore first at Dieppe) and because, for all intents and purposes, Oshawa and Detroit are practically the same city.
Is "sending soldiers to die for US-initiated wars" the new criteria for trading partners?
Yes.
but move jobs around is completely bogus
It's not bogus at all. My point is that the statement "creates 120,000 jobs" is completely dishonest.
Unless that money is sitting in a room in the form of gold bars, then, a movement of investment from one place to another will have a net change in jobs. You might have more jobs for less money in one situation, versus, less jobs for more money in another, but, the overall size of the stimulus to the economy will remain the same from that act, although the shape of that stimulus will change.
The only thing that actually matters, for the purposes of genuine economic growth, is the size of the ecosystem that is created by the investment. Can someone create an institution that, creates a profit for themselves sufficient so that it allows for other profitable institutions to be created? It's a recursive thing.
WE have seen some massive federal outlays create very small eco-systems, but conversely, some small investments create very large and vibrant eco-systems. The new deal basically failed in this regard, but a few million bucks to make a smaller computer for a missile ultimately gave birth to fairchild, intel, and the pc revolution. So, I could say that if the government is going to invest in something, it should invest in building something that is a) new, b) capital intensive to research, but accessible to build, and c) useful to everyone. So, I would think that broadband is probably not the right thing there, because its something the private sector can already do. Still, there could be weird network effects of everyone having broadband as a right. It's almsot like, it you really wanted to jumpstart the economy, you should waive all the patents held by universities on research sponsored by the federal government.
And let us sell Pontiacs to each other. Oh, wait, is that a new "Chinese Curse"?
It depends on the Pontiac. My 2004 GTO was a great car. Yeah, I know it is a rebadged Holden Commodore but the V8 and tranny are made in Michigan. Besides, I have an alliance exception. Aussies fought with the USA in pretty much every war we've been in since WWI, and fairly with the US. There's absolutely no need for Australia to a have sent anyone to Iraq but there's enough dead Australians from the adventure that I think they've earned the right to sell stuff in the USA.
You don't test every cow in the us.
Bzzt, wrong. Actually, all USDA graded beef, is in fact, inspected by the USDA. Every carcass gets a stamp, from someone inspecting it. If you buy a piece of USDA anything, that means, someone at least eyeballed the dead cow and put a stamp on it.
The controversy comes from, how much inspection there is. Some would say not enough.
It doesn't "create 120,000 jobs". All it does is shift jobs from one place to another. If there is any creation of jobs, it will be in the follow on services.
Still, I'm all in favor of adopting more asian-like policies in America. Korea has a long list of goods that it tarriffs or protects against foreign imports of, and I think it is long overdue for America to do the same. Let them sell their Hyundais to each other, that's what I say.
Let's face it, at some point, Cmdr Taco is going to find that magic combination of additional powers and price that gets us all to subscribe, and all that free will evaporate. I mean, if Slashdot had Karma coupons that we could all trade, we'd all be suckered in.
Everyday, I check my self every single water molecule comming from my home taps. A drop testing from the water company is clearly not safe
If that's the case, then, why do we even bother with the FDA? Certainly, we could just check one cow per year.
That's one of the points, to show people how little we know of the ocean
Oh, I agree that it could be that, and I also agree that we should be exploring the bottom of the ocean more, in fact, we ought ought to be monitoring it with a permanent deep sea measuring network.
The ocean is so large and so vast, that, if Google codes the images honestly, that, people will readily see that for the most part, the bottom of the ocean is generally unexplored, that measurements of deep waters are infrequent and not in very many areas. They will see a few tiny areas where things have been photographed extensively, but, those will be but small points on a very, very large map. All of this unknown will open up ocean climate claims to ridicule, as if, measuring a drop of water in the shallow end of the swimming pool can somehow categorize the whole thing.
I am hardly a fan of teacher's unions but I do have to question the efficacy of educational testing. We seem to have this notion that we can create an institution that can make children want to learn. Learning requires individual initiative and exploration and that is something that I think children are either born with, or not. All too often, success in our present testing regime really means, how well do children follow orders or behave in a group-like fashion. The present practice of various power groups trying to indoctrinate children into their own constituencies is sickening. It's their world that they will be running, and the hangups and prejudices that we have decided in our own political alignments are best left at the classroom door. I would say that if any curricula does not prepare a child to learn how to invent or compose or craft or create, then, that instruction should best be dispensed with. Our country will be far better off if we had useful citizens, more than politically correct ones.
Perhaps part of the reason these companies are looking
F---- the companies. I don't see too many bankers over in Afghanistan or Iraq.
There's nothing wrong with another species going extinct, except for your own misplaced sentimentality. Extinction is a natural part of the course of events in an ecosystem. The inferior species are destroyed so that new ones may emerge. The new ones then fan out, specialize, speciate, and diversity is renewed, until they too are made extinct.