Less infections requiring procedures would mean less money spent on treatments, and would reduce the amount of money they would have to pay out for treatment.
Oh wait, that's probably not what they want, since that means less money passing through their hands for them to skim off of.
I don't think you really understand how medical insurance works...
Insurance companies would deny coverage of the vaccines solely for short term profits at the expense of long term profits.
They absolutely do not make money by intentionally making their customers sick. To the contrary, most will give you some sort of incentive for preventative medicine or exercise programs.
And what did you Wikipedia link use as input into its calculations?
Oh wait, they didn't make any calculations.
Perhaps you haven't used Wikipedia before? The references are at the bottom of the page if you want to look them up, and they include references to the Pew Charitable trust and the Center for American Progress.
And regarding Wikipedia being conservative, there are plenty of credible stories, with citations, that show right wing groups spending lots of money to alter Wikipedia entries to support their agenda.
There's plenty of just-as-credible stories about chemtrails and bigfoot sightings, too.
>>Like Verizon would let a silly little thing like laws get in their way...
I'd donate money to anyone suing them to stop them from doing this sort of shit.
I don't want to look at "Need for Speed" or "Madden" or a dozen other trial apps that I can't fucking remove every time I pull up my applications list on my phone.
>>Some data to support my assertion from that well-known Socialist organization, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston .
From the paper: "The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or the Federal Reserve System"
The paper also focuses a great deal on income inequality, which is a nonsense measure. Worse, it actually uses GINI measures as input into some of its mobility calculations.
It's fundamentally flawed, in other words.
>>it's less likely to have been edit-bombed by a bunch of interns at the American Enterprise Institute trying to work off that grant from the Koch Foundation.
Ah yes, that well-known Conservative organization, Wikipedia, which draws its references from the well-known Conservative group The Center for American Progress./sarcasm
>>I guarantee, if everyone but the top 1% by wealth suddenly disappeared, the first thing that would happen is that the wealth of 99% of the people who are left would very quickly start to decline.
My robot farmers would continue to generate wealth just fine, thank you very much.
>>Here in the US for example, economic mobility has been steadily decreasing for 30 years.
>>According to TFA, 3.5 Million a year. So you are short by about half, especially when you consider just how much money you would lose through continuous use of BTC.
To be fair, 3 of the $3.5 million goes to Assange's travel budget, hookers, and blow, so the Bitcoin exchange ought to be sufficient for their actual hosting needs.
>>There was strong support for allowing the study of SRM. Support decreased and uncertainty rose as subjects were asked about their support for using SRM immediately, or to stop a climate emergency.
Which is pretty reasonable on the part of the general public, really.
It seems like it is climatologists that are opposed to geoengineering these days, which strikes me as being quite odd for people who presumably care a great deal about rising global temps. But then again, climatologists have never been especially good at issuing sane policy recommendations.
Creating global dimming via various means won't stop issues related to the ongoing acidification of the ocean, but it could certainly be used to reduce global temperatures. The only real issue is determining *who* gets to set the global thermostat.
But geoengineering is not the same as creating global dimming via various means - if we can implement widespread carbon scrubbing / capture systems and find a use for that carbon, that's a solution that ought to make everyone happy. And there *are* certain ways said carbon could be put to use productively, rather than trying to (expensively) store it indefinitely.
There is also an important reason why China wants to promote the solar industry - the sustainable energy industry is of strategic importance to the Chinese. By 2015, 70% of China's oil imports will come from the Middle East oil - a region where U.S. interests have historically been dominant and where China has had no long-standing strategic interests. Simply put, the Chinese want to avoid becoming overly reliant on oil supplies from governments that are allied with the U.S..
What on earth does solar have to do with their reliance on oil? Those are two very different segments of the energy industry (transportation and electricity distribution).
It'll help them reduce their overwhelming dependence on COAL (which they produce natively), but they're also building out nuclear and hydro across the country.
More likely, they're just trying to take a dominant position in the nascent "Green Energy" market.
Basically, when you have the same people in power on both sides of a negotiating table, then the people that lose aren't the people at the table, but the taxpayers. In other words, it's a conspiracy by the government, for the government, against the people.
Sigh. Conservapedia's entire science section should be hauled out behind the barn and shot. They're doing everything they can to reinforce the stereotype of the anti-science conservative (which the a lot aren't, though you'd never know it from the stereotyping that goes on here).
That said, they tend to be better than Wikipedia on certain topics, such as the history of the Cold War. On wikipedia, consensus dictates that the "Red Scare" had no basis in reality, was nothing but a witch hunt, etc., and even mentioning things like the Venona intercepts on certain people is enough to get your edits deleted. So you get all the history of a person, minus any communist leanings, communist party memberships, or communist espionage activities. Conservapedia, OTOH, will gleefully repeat any and all facts and rumours linking a person to communism.
So between the two, you can establish a balanced POV on a subject.
>>Can't he just file a counter-notice? I though in that case Youtube would be obligated to put it back up and instead force UMG to sue if they don't agree?
No. Youtube will take down the video. I've gone through this before, with music that I had permission to use, but still got Takedowned.
They do not care if it is "fair use", or if you have permission, etc., only if even a single frame of video or music is from a copyrighted source.
>>If you avoid the cutting edge super-high-performance SSDs, then you really ought to be fine
Which is basically what I said. I finally bit the bullet, imaged my drive, cloned it over to an SSD, but only after carefully going through all the 1-Egg reviews on Newegg for the models I was interested in, and avoided the ones that had the catastrophic failure bugs.
>>in an SSD, practically the only reason it dies prematurely are due to firmware bugs
Well, and when it runs out of writes, I guess. Though you'll be able to detect that well in advance of the limit.
>>Did people who were looking to buy a Tesla Roadster suddenly decide that because of what was said on Top Gear that they'd not buy one?
Undoubtedly.
Nobody wants their car to unexpectedly run out of charge and have to push it back home, or have it break down on them all over the place as TG implied.
>>What does it matter that they showed it in a humourous way. Its an entertainment show, give them artistic licence.
It's not artistic license what they did. It was fraud.
>>that's the only thing Clarkson tested-- track performance relative to a combustion sports car.
You didn't watch the show then.
They said the Tesla was the first electric car that compared favorably to ICE cars on a race track.
They faked the catastrophic shutdowns, range estimate, and staged having to push it back into the hangar, which I think can be shown on the face of it to deal damage to the Tesla brand.
>>There's plenty of "you lose everything" bugs in spinning rust drives as well.
I can't recall the last time there was a firmware bug in a HDD that caused catastrophic loss of data... I can think of a couple RAID controllers, but nothing baked into the drives themselves. There's a lot of such problems in SSDs.
I know it's a generalization, but HDDs tend to fail more gracefully (though SMART is by no means foolproof, don't get me wrong) whereas SSD failures are characterized by simply not working one day.
>>My SSD is only for the OS and most used Applications, everything else is stored on a network drive that is mirrored in 3 different machines. If my SSD buys the farm right now I will lose nothing of importance.
Me, too, actually, but going through the process of reinstalling Windows and my applications is something I'd rather avoid with a little bit of research.
One of the SSDs I almost bought had a firmware bug which could very occasionally cause you to lose everything. The problem, though, was that patching the firmware also wiped the drive. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
I watched the episode, and then read what actually happened. To be fair, Top Gear really did fake their results and report that the Tesla is shit as a result.
This lawsuit has let Tesla tell its side of the story, which is the most important thing. (Without it, people on/. would be claiming Teslas are shit cars and linking to the TG story...)
There's been a LOT of "you lose everything" bugs in the SSD market up till now.
Buying the latest and greatest is nice, but I like to wait until there's a couple hundred reviews of a product on Newegg before buying (filter at 1-egg level to see what can go wrong...)
>>Oh right, except that outside of nerd circles most people don't care and freely use their real name on facebook
And people in nerd circles realized that you could use a fake name on Google+, you just had to make it sound like a real name instead of "Cyber McCool" or something like that.
It does suck for people whose real life names fail their lameness filter though.
>>And all you think about is war. Isn't it quite possible that one day the US will realise they can charge for GPS access? Maybe Europe doesn't want to risk being charged a fortune for something they have learned to depend on.
You do realize that Galileo was built from the ground up to allow charging for accuracy, don't you?
Whereas the GPS sats launched since SA was turned off don't have that ability?
I think you put your tinfoil hat on backwards today.
>>.. more redundancy is always better. This is probably some of my tax money that has been spent the best
GPS is great, sure, but IIRC Galileo isn't compatible without devices being modified to also accept Galileo signals. So this project is going to cost quite a bit of money in re-engineering and replacement costs for devices to use the new system in addition to GPS.
I don't buy that the stated purpose for the system (independence from the US's military) is very credible, given that the US is, you know, part of NATO and whatnot. And if the EU does turn hostile to the US in some sort of bizarro-world, the US possesses capabilities to shoot them down. So it doesn't make a lot of sense along those lines.
The improved technical features of Galileo over GPS, though, are quite nice.
Slashdot Mirror
>>the dominance of the most mediocre operating system the world has ever seen as well.
Oh, there's been waaay more mediocre OSes than XP.
CP/M? Vista?
I don't think you really understand how medical insurance works...
Insurance companies would deny coverage of the vaccines solely for short term profits at the expense of long term profits.
They absolutely do not make money by intentionally making their customers sick. To the contrary, most will give you some sort of incentive for preventative medicine or exercise programs.
Perhaps you haven't used Wikipedia before? The references are at the bottom of the page if you want to look them up, and they include references to the Pew Charitable trust and the Center for American Progress.
There's plenty of just-as-credible stories about chemtrails and bigfoot sightings, too.
>>Like Verizon would let a silly little thing like laws get in their way...
I'd donate money to anyone suing them to stop them from doing this sort of shit.
I don't want to look at "Need for Speed" or "Madden" or a dozen other trial apps that I can't fucking remove every time I pull up my applications list on my phone.
>>Some data to support my assertion from that well-known Socialist organization, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston .
From the paper: "The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or the Federal Reserve System"
The paper also focuses a great deal on income inequality, which is a nonsense measure. Worse, it actually uses GINI measures as input into some of its mobility calculations.
It's fundamentally flawed, in other words.
>>it's less likely to have been edit-bombed by a bunch of interns at the American Enterprise Institute trying to work off that grant from the Koch Foundation.
Ah yes, that well-known Conservative organization, Wikipedia, which draws its references from the well-known Conservative group The Center for American Progress. /sarcasm
>>I guarantee, if everyone but the top 1% by wealth suddenly disappeared, the first thing that would happen is that the wealth of 99% of the people who are left would very quickly start to decline.
My robot farmers would continue to generate wealth just fine, thank you very much.
>>Here in the US for example, economic mobility has been steadily decreasing for 30 years.
Lies. (Or Socialist talking point, same thing.)
Educate yourself, Pope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility
>>According to TFA, 3.5 Million a year. So you are short by about half, especially when you consider just how much money you would lose through continuous use of BTC.
To be fair, 3 of the $3.5 million goes to Assange's travel budget, hookers, and blow, so the Bitcoin exchange ought to be sufficient for their actual hosting needs.
>>There was strong support for allowing the study of SRM. Support decreased and uncertainty rose as subjects were asked about their support for using SRM immediately, or to stop a climate emergency.
Which is pretty reasonable on the part of the general public, really.
It seems like it is climatologists that are opposed to geoengineering these days, which strikes me as being quite odd for people who presumably care a great deal about rising global temps. But then again, climatologists have never been especially good at issuing sane policy recommendations.
Creating global dimming via various means won't stop issues related to the ongoing acidification of the ocean, but it could certainly be used to reduce global temperatures. The only real issue is determining *who* gets to set the global thermostat.
But geoengineering is not the same as creating global dimming via various means - if we can implement widespread carbon scrubbing / capture systems and find a use for that carbon, that's a solution that ought to make everyone happy. And there *are* certain ways said carbon could be put to use productively, rather than trying to (expensively) store it indefinitely.
>>but the rate of acceleration itself is picking up in a scary way.
The UN population estimates show the earth peaking in about 40-50 years and then declining after that.
Of course, standard disclaimers about trying to predict the future always apply.
What on earth does solar have to do with their reliance on oil? Those are two very different segments of the energy industry (transportation and electricity distribution).
It'll help them reduce their overwhelming dependence on COAL (which they produce natively), but they're also building out nuclear and hydro across the country.
More likely, they're just trying to take a dominant position in the nascent "Green Energy" market.
>>In 2011, in multiple states in the US, the Republican Party... abolished unions.
No. They attempted to curtail the power of government unions, not unions in private industries.
You can read FDR's excellent treatise over why government unions are immoral here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15445#axzz1bjLjmwma
FDR. Not Herman Cain.
Basically, when you have the same people in power on both sides of a negotiating table, then the people that lose aren't the people at the table, but the taxpayers. In other words, it's a conspiracy by the government, for the government, against the people.
>>Source: Conservapedia
Sigh. Conservapedia's entire science section should be hauled out behind the barn and shot. They're doing everything they can to reinforce the stereotype of the anti-science conservative (which the a lot aren't, though you'd never know it from the stereotyping that goes on here).
That said, they tend to be better than Wikipedia on certain topics, such as the history of the Cold War. On wikipedia, consensus dictates that the "Red Scare" had no basis in reality, was nothing but a witch hunt, etc., and even mentioning things like the Venona intercepts on certain people is enough to get your edits deleted. So you get all the history of a person, minus any communist leanings, communist party memberships, or communist espionage activities. Conservapedia, OTOH, will gleefully repeat any and all facts and rumours linking a person to communism.
So between the two, you can establish a balanced POV on a subject.
>>Can't he just file a counter-notice? I though in that case Youtube would be obligated to put it back up and instead force UMG to sue if they don't agree?
No. Youtube will take down the video. I've gone through this before, with music that I had permission to use, but still got Takedowned.
They do not care if it is "fair use", or if you have permission, etc., only if even a single frame of video or music is from a copyrighted source.
>>If you avoid the cutting edge super-high-performance SSDs, then you really ought to be fine
Which is basically what I said. I finally bit the bullet, imaged my drive, cloned it over to an SSD, but only after carefully going through all the 1-Egg reviews on Newegg for the models I was interested in, and avoided the ones that had the catastrophic failure bugs.
>>in an SSD, practically the only reason it dies prematurely are due to firmware bugs
Well, and when it runs out of writes, I guess. Though you'll be able to detect that well in advance of the limit.
>>Did people who were looking to buy a Tesla Roadster suddenly decide that because of what was said on Top Gear that they'd not buy one?
Undoubtedly.
Nobody wants their car to unexpectedly run out of charge and have to push it back home, or have it break down on them all over the place as TG implied.
>>What does it matter that they showed it in a humourous way. Its an entertainment show, give them artistic licence.
It's not artistic license what they did. It was fraud.
>>that's the only thing Clarkson tested-- track performance relative to a combustion sports car.
You didn't watch the show then.
They said the Tesla was the first electric car that compared favorably to ICE cars on a race track.
They faked the catastrophic shutdowns, range estimate, and staged having to push it back into the hangar, which I think can be shown on the face of it to deal damage to the Tesla brand.
>>Regardless of it being faked or not once a Tesla runs out of battery you're stuck for hours charging, it's a shit car.
Hours. Not days or weeks as TG said in their program, with their wind turbine.
Everyone who's going to buy an electric car will know about the recharging issue - it's the major reason to buy a gas car over an electric.
>>There's plenty of "you lose everything" bugs in spinning rust drives as well.
I can't recall the last time there was a firmware bug in a HDD that caused catastrophic loss of data... I can think of a couple RAID controllers, but nothing baked into the drives themselves. There's a lot of such problems in SSDs.
I know it's a generalization, but HDDs tend to fail more gracefully (though SMART is by no means foolproof, don't get me wrong) whereas SSD failures are characterized by simply not working one day.
>>My SSD is only for the OS and most used Applications, everything else is stored on a network drive that is mirrored in 3 different machines. If my SSD buys the farm right now I will lose nothing of importance.
Me, too, actually, but going through the process of reinstalling Windows and my applications is something I'd rather avoid with a little bit of research.
One of the SSDs I almost bought had a firmware bug which could very occasionally cause you to lose everything. The problem, though, was that patching the firmware also wiped the drive. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
I didn't buy that one.
>>Tesla, well... We breed them litigious here.
I watched the episode, and then read what actually happened. To be fair, Top Gear really did fake their results and report that the Tesla is shit as a result.
This lawsuit has let Tesla tell its side of the story, which is the most important thing. (Without it, people on /. would be claiming Teslas are shit cars and linking to the TG story...)
>>wow, that's not something anyone wants to see,
There's been a LOT of "you lose everything" bugs in the SSD market up till now.
Buying the latest and greatest is nice, but I like to wait until there's a couple hundred reviews of a product on Newegg before buying (filter at 1-egg level to see what can go wrong...)
>>Oh right, except that outside of nerd circles most people don't care and freely use their real name on facebook
And people in nerd circles realized that you could use a fake name on Google+, you just had to make it sound like a real name instead of "Cyber McCool" or something like that.
It does suck for people whose real life names fail their lameness filter though.
Heh, Apple would probably photoshop a rotary phone to look like an iPhone...
http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Caught+Using+Photoshop+to+Fake+More+Pics+in+Lawsuits/article22500.htm
>>And all you think about is war. Isn't it quite possible that one day the US will realise they can charge for GPS access? Maybe Europe doesn't want to risk being charged a fortune for something they have learned to depend on.
You do realize that Galileo was built from the ground up to allow charging for accuracy, don't you?
Whereas the GPS sats launched since SA was turned off don't have that ability?
I think you put your tinfoil hat on backwards today.
>>.. more redundancy is always better. This is probably some of my tax money that has been spent the best
GPS is great, sure, but IIRC Galileo isn't compatible without devices being modified to also accept Galileo signals. So this project is going to cost quite a bit of money in re-engineering and replacement costs for devices to use the new system in addition to GPS.
I don't buy that the stated purpose for the system (independence from the US's military) is very credible, given that the US is, you know, part of NATO and whatnot. And if the EU does turn hostile to the US in some sort of bizarro-world, the US possesses capabilities to shoot them down. So it doesn't make a lot of sense along those lines.
The improved technical features of Galileo over GPS, though, are quite nice.