Oh, so now it's malpractice suits. Gotta blame something other than privatization, lest your libertarian illusions be shattered.
And as an aside, I have no idea why you're bringing partisanship into the discussion. Private versus government-funded healthcare isn't about party affiliation. It's about reality. ie, the reality that the US system sucks and needs an overhaul. Tort reform is probably part of that equation. But it sure as hell isn't a silver bullet.
LOL, that is complete and utter bullshit. A vast portion of dollars spent by pharma companies is *advertising*, not R&D. Cap prices and, worst case, they'll have to cut back on advertising. OHNOES!
Besides which, the idea that the massive inefficiencies in the US healthcare system are solely due to inflated drug prices is simply ridiculous. You're better to look hard at insurance companies, HMOs, and the other myriad layers of overhead that exist in the US system, but aren't present in a simplified, socialized healthcare system.
I don't know. I just know this: The US spends more money, both in public and private dollars, to fund a system that works *worse* than the systems established in most of the western world. If that doesn't demonstrate that the system is fundamentally broken, I don't know what does.
Furthermore, given that these other systems forgo the highly privatized approach that the US has adopted, and end up providing greater coverage for less total dollars spent, I think it's clear that the privatization experiment has fundamentally failed, and that the 'socialism" boogeyman is just a figment of the imaginations of those still listening to the echos of the red scare.
Now, is the US capable of adopting such a system? I don't know. There are some awfully powerful special interests very much invested in the status quo. But given the alternative (stumbling further along with a system that's horribly, horribly broken), I really don't see the alternative but to at least *try*.
And what's most amazing of all is that the US spends *more government money per capita* on healthcare than most other nations, ahead of Canada, Germany, and many others. Citation.
and with -C as well, I speed up at low latency links. Further FreeNX/NX do the trick for even lower latency links, also under a ssh tunnel.
First, I assume you meant "high latency". Second, adding ssh-level compression will, generally speaking, *increase* latency, not decrease it.
But for mid-to-low latency, low-bandwidth links, -C is a good idea (like, say, connecting to my cable modem at home, which has very limited upstream). For anything else, you probably want NX or VNC.
Actually, no. Tarkin WAS the mistake and it was quickly dropped. Wavelet-based codecs have several problems. For info look into JEPG 2000 and why it failed so miserably.
And yet Dirac seems to be going strong. Go figure.
Does this basically mean that Microsoft pays for the different codecs that are included in Windows Media Player and that Adobe pays for the different formats that it can export to?
The answer is, yes, depending on the codec in question (for example, Microsoft would pay the MPEG-LA to distribute an MPEG2 video decoder). But keep in mind, a file format, in and of itself, isn't subject to patent. It's the methods used to create the file format that are the problem. So exporting to, say, DOC format is fine, since there's no magically algorithm necessary to do that. MPEG2, however, required implementation of patented algorithms, hence the licensing requirements.
It has nothing to do with the file format and everything to do with the codec used to encode/decode the contents of said file. Specifically, the various MPEG-based codecs are all subject to patents and thus require license fees be paid to the MPEG-LA in order to legally distribute encoders (and I believe decoders, though don't quote me on that, I don't recall the precise fee structure).
Theora, like Vorbis, has the advantage of being unencumbered by patents, and this free for implementation by anyone.
Uhh, it has nothing to do with "agreement". It's simple facts. The entire rest of the developed world has functioning government-delivered healthcare in one form or another. Therefore, your supposition that "the best way to really wreck something is to get the government involved" is, quite simply, incorrect, as it is not supported by the facts.
'course, you know what they say: reality has a liberal bias.
. Secondly, it's base on where you live in Canada. If you live in a major city center, or in one of the richer provinces, you WILL get better care than those of us who live in rural areas or provinces that have less resources.
And you believe that, somehow, a private system will magically fix that problem? As opposed to making it worse because there's no profit in running a private clinic in a rural community?
Ahh, another moron who doesn't understand the free market. Here, let me introduce you to a term: barrier of entry. Now can you understand why food and healthcare are fundamentally different markets?
And instead of a post saying "It *is* the NYT, but admittedly, the study was fair", you made a post to poison the well. Why? Regardless of the source, if the study is good, *who gives a shit where it came from*?
Worse, by poisoning the well, you actually limit the debate and discourage people from reading the study, even if it's valid. So you're actually actively impeding the flow of information. Good job!
So, why bother? Aside from just going for cheap modpoints?
If that were true we wouldn't have courses on spelling and grammar. We wouldn't teach people correct professional writing for essays, resumes, and so forth. Thus, clearly, writing is about more than just transmitting simple ideas.
Once enough people "misspeak" the expression, it reaches critical mass and becomes proper usage.
I can accept that for, say, mispronounciations, such as irregardless (well, "accept" isn't quite right, but...). But, come on, this is *clearly* a case of an incorrect grammatical construction.
So while this may be common usage, it most certainly is not *proper*.
no an Ad Hominem fallacy is saying that so and so is an adulterer and therefore his arguments are false.
As opposed to saying, the NYT is left leaning, therefore their study is flawed?
It doesn't invalidate the argument but it draws attention to the possible conflict of interest and world view of the people doing the analyzing.
Yes, but into you actually demonstrate a flaw in the study, all you're doing is attempting to poison the well. At best it's simply low, not to mention closed minded.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so now it's malpractice suits. Gotta blame something other than privatization, lest your libertarian illusions be shattered.
And as an aside, I have no idea why you're bringing partisanship into the discussion. Private versus government-funded healthcare isn't about party affiliation. It's about reality. ie, the reality that the US system sucks and needs an overhaul. Tort reform is probably part of that equation. But it sure as hell isn't a silver bullet.
LOL, that is complete and utter bullshit. A vast portion of dollars spent by pharma companies is *advertising*, not R&D. Cap prices and, worst case, they'll have to cut back on advertising. OHNOES!
Besides which, the idea that the massive inefficiencies in the US healthcare system are solely due to inflated drug prices is simply ridiculous. You're better to look hard at insurance companies, HMOs, and the other myriad layers of overhead that exist in the US system, but aren't present in a simplified, socialized healthcare system.
I don't know. I just know this: The US spends more money, both in public and private dollars, to fund a system that works *worse* than the systems established in most of the western world. If that doesn't demonstrate that the system is fundamentally broken, I don't know what does.
Furthermore, given that these other systems forgo the highly privatized approach that the US has adopted, and end up providing greater coverage for less total dollars spent, I think it's clear that the privatization experiment has fundamentally failed, and that the 'socialism" boogeyman is just a figment of the imaginations of those still listening to the echos of the red scare.
Now, is the US capable of adopting such a system? I don't know. There are some awfully powerful special interests very much invested in the status quo. But given the alternative (stumbling further along with a system that's horribly, horribly broken), I really don't see the alternative but to at least *try*.
And what's most amazing of all is that the US spends *more government money per capita* on healthcare than most other nations, ahead of Canada, Germany, and many others. Citation.
All I can say is you are delusional
aka, "libertarian".
and with -C as well, I speed up at low latency links. Further FreeNX/NX do the trick for even lower latency links, also under a ssh tunnel.
First, I assume you meant "high latency". Second, adding ssh-level compression will, generally speaking, *increase* latency, not decrease it.
But for mid-to-low latency, low-bandwidth links, -C is a good idea (like, say, connecting to my cable modem at home, which has very limited upstream). For anything else, you probably want NX or VNC.
Actually, no. Tarkin WAS the mistake and it was quickly dropped. Wavelet-based codecs have several problems. For info look into JEPG 2000 and why it failed so miserably.
And yet Dirac seems to be going strong. Go figure.
Oh, and to answer this question:
The answer is, yes, depending on the codec in question (for example, Microsoft would pay the MPEG-LA to distribute an MPEG2 video decoder). But keep in mind, a file format, in and of itself, isn't subject to patent. It's the methods used to create the file format that are the problem. So exporting to, say, DOC format is fine, since there's no magically algorithm necessary to do that. MPEG2, however, required implementation of patented algorithms, hence the licensing requirements.
What royalties are their for file formats?
It has nothing to do with the file format and everything to do with the codec used to encode/decode the contents of said file. Specifically, the various MPEG-based codecs are all subject to patents and thus require license fees be paid to the MPEG-LA in order to legally distribute encoders (and I believe decoders, though don't quote me on that, I don't recall the precise fee structure).
Theora, like Vorbis, has the advantage of being unencumbered by patents, and this free for implementation by anyone.
What API? Tags do not have APIs
Someone hasn't heard of the DOM...
The USA is already starting to ban smoking and regulate the content of fast foods.
Therefore regardless of the type of healthcare system, your terrifying Orwellian nightmare is, according to you, coming to pass.
So... what does that have to do with government run healthcare, again, other than you're trying to scare people away from it for no good reason?
Uhh, it has nothing to do with "agreement". It's simple facts. The entire rest of the developed world has functioning government-delivered healthcare in one form or another. Therefore, your supposition that "the best way to really wreck something is to get the government involved" is, quite simply, incorrect, as it is not supported by the facts.
'course, you know what they say: reality has a liberal bias.
. Secondly, it's base on where you live in Canada. If you live in a major city center, or in one of the richer provinces, you WILL get better care than those of us who live in rural areas or provinces that have less resources.
And you believe that, somehow, a private system will magically fix that problem? As opposed to making it worse because there's no profit in running a private clinic in a rural community?
Ahh, another moron who doesn't understand the free market. Here, let me introduce you to a term: barrier of entry. Now can you understand why food and healthcare are fundamentally different markets?
Personally, I tend to feel the best way to really wreck something is to get the government involved.
Fortunately, you're wrong, as the rest of the world has amply demonstrated. But don't let facts stop you from holding unfounded opinions.
And I'm sure you're completely objective. I'm sure you have *no* right-leaning biases that cause you to see liberal conspiracies around every corner.
Meanwhile, you attempt to poison the well simply out of spite and partisan hackery. How very constructive.
OOC, did it occur to you that people like you are, in fact, the reason American politics has gone so far down the shithole?
It's a possibility, not a guarantee.
Yes, a wild, crazy, unfounded "possibility".
But, hey, how better than to bring up the socialism boogieman than to make a bunch of shit up?
I read the analysis and it was mostly fair.
And instead of a post saying "It *is* the NYT, but admittedly, the study was fair", you made a post to poison the well. Why? Regardless of the source, if the study is good, *who gives a shit where it came from*?
Worse, by poisoning the well, you actually limit the debate and discourage people from reading the study, even if it's valid. So you're actually actively impeding the flow of information. Good job!
So, why bother? Aside from just going for cheap modpoints?
Doesn't it just need to be understood?
Yeah, you're right. Forget poetry, formal written language, grammar, spelling... as long as the ideas are communicated, that's all that matters.
By the way, *that* was sarcasm.
Isn't that the point of language?
If that were true we wouldn't have courses on spelling and grammar. We wouldn't teach people correct professional writing for essays, resumes, and so forth. Thus, clearly, writing is about more than just transmitting simple ideas.
What exactly is the point of your pedantic posts
Oh, make no mistake, there isn't any.
Once enough people "misspeak" the expression, it reaches critical mass and becomes proper usage.
I can accept that for, say, mispronounciations, such as irregardless (well, "accept" isn't quite right, but...). But, come on, this is *clearly* a case of an incorrect grammatical construction.
So while this may be common usage, it most certainly is not *proper*.
Because in practice, "could care less" is short for "could barely care less" or "could care less, but it would be a chore".
No... it really isn't. :) It's just a misstatement of the phrase by people who don't think about the words they're speaking or typing.
Most youth could care less about the Beatles
Umm, the phrase is "*couldn't* care less". Why would we care if the youth *could* care less?
There is a guy standing in the street corner who thinks he is Jesus - according to your logic, he must be Jesus.
Ladies, gentlemen, I introduce you to the No True Scotsman fallacy...
no an Ad Hominem fallacy is saying that so and so is an adulterer and therefore his arguments are false.
As opposed to saying, the NYT is left leaning, therefore their study is flawed?
It doesn't invalidate the argument but it draws attention to the possible conflict of interest and world view of the people doing the analyzing.
Yes, but into you actually demonstrate a flaw in the study, all you're doing is attempting to poison the well. At best it's simply low, not to mention closed minded.