You can get an Athlon II X3 455 for $80. Intel's cheapest competitor is probably the Pentium G850 for $100. But if you're spending $100 you could upgrade to the Phenom II X4 840. $120-$125? Phenom X4 955 Black vs. Core i3-2100 is close; the former has better parallelism and is $5 cheaper, while the latter is more energy efficient. If you want to get into overclocking then the AMD offerings soundly beat the Intel ones. If you want much more CPU you really have to make a big jump in price unless you want really poor marginal returns on your dollar. Once you get up into the $190 range or so Core i5-2400, Intel has superior performance/price. It certainly appears to me that it is reasonable to conclude that AMD offers superior value at the low to mid range while Intel does at the high end without being a "fanboy spreading FUD."
Heresy. Only the top turtle from the Infinite Turtle Stack has the world on its back. That means that 0% of all turtles have the world on their backs, and 100% of all turtles have a turtle on their backs. The world does not exists, a turtle only has a turtle on its back. Turtles are All.
While an individual does use a road, that road isn't built for the individual. There's just no practical way to provide the service that way. The closest we can come is use tolls, and I am definitely in favor of more roads charging tolls. You are right about the fire service, but who pays for that? It seems to me that if someone is at fault for the fire they should be billed by the fire department for the service of having put it out. If nobody's at fault then whomever owns the property would pay.
Two principles guide this stance. The first is that people should pay for what consume. Health care as a service consumes resources. Detaching costs from usage encourages inefficient use of the service. On the other hand if people are paying for the resources they consume, then people will tend in aggregate to make the optimal decisions with respect to when and how to spend those resources on health care. In addition, if health care funding is coming from the income tax pool, then it is coming from a source where people with higher income are unjustly paying a disproportionate share of the funding, in essence footing the bill for people with lower incomes. The second is that services that can be justly and practically supplied privately should predominantly be supplied privately. It is simply not the government's role or responsibility to satisfy all needs and wants. Government attempting to be a great service provider is similar to a monopoly, with its attendant inefficiencies and danger of being "too big to fail." Even if it weren't inefficient, it is too much power to aggregate in one place.
The health care services I think the government could provide are those where in a general sense society benefits collectively for each individual serviced. That is why I gave the immunization example earlier. Every time one person gets immunized everyone else's chances of succumbing to an epidemic decrease. However even in these cases I think it makes more sense for the government to calculate the incremental value to society of each immunization and subsidize private providers in that amount (if there's remaining cost the provider eats the cost or more likely charges a fee; if the subsidy exceeds the cost then the providers keeps the money or more likely offers incentives to individuals).
On a side note. Thanks for the intelligent, civil argumentation. That's rare on the internet, especially on issues that tend to get emotionally charged.
Or, far more likely, the pilot/controllers chose returning to base and letting the politicians handle it as the best response to North Korean saber rattling.
Roads and bridges aren't given to a single person, rather they are provided for all to use; despite that fact, if there were a practical way to do so it would absolutely make sense for road building and maintenance to be funded by fees for use rather than on tax revenue. And if private companies wanted to get into the business of building roads and charging for their use, that would be a good thing too. Again, police provide a public service that covers everyone rather than one that helps an individual. And in those cases where police are acting in a private interest, such as escorting a sports team's motorcade, I certainly hope they are charging for that service. EMT services already do charge you for use, and there already are private companies providing it. You have a point about fire. I'm not sure exactly how that operates. Do they charge a fee after putting out a fire or assisting at an accident? Water utilities are paid for by the people using them.
Health care is like the water utility or, not surprisingly, the EMT service in the above. In most cases, it is not a common, public service. If I go and get a heart transplant, that is a service provided to me not to everyone. Health care is provided to an individual. If you use something, you should pay for it. Providing for the common welfare doesn't mean going out and satisfying all needs and wants. That's simply impossible. Resources allocated to one thing, like health care, are not allocated elsewhere, now whatever you just took resources from is failing to satisfy whatever needs it was filling. There are aspects of health care that are public services rather than private ones. Immunizations, for example, prevent spread of disease to others, and so are a preventative service for the whole (somewhat akin to police service). Another example is fundamental medical research. These services I would agree it makes sense for the government to be providing at some level. I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind by "basic level of healthcare."
Thanks for the clarification on the vocabulary. There is a distinction between something the government has said it will provide and something a government must provide. The fact that Australia provides its citizens with health care doesn't make health care a right, even in Australia. It makes it a promised service. The poster was claiming, of course, that health care is a right, but that's precisely what I was disputing.
Since you're trying to argue from your own authority, I'll ask. What role do you have in the field of "stem cell research" that pays you a wage rather than a salary or a grant?
Okay, that out of the way, let's look at "Health Care is a right." Based on your argument I think you really did mean right in the sense outline above. I disagree with that stance. Health care is a liberty and not a right. The government can't get in the way of a person seeking it but is not obliged to provide it. Health care is a thing used by an individual. It is not right for the government to take resources from everyone in the form of taxes, and then use them to provide resources to individuals, even if it's to each individual. If groups of people want to band together voluntarily for that purpose, that's great. In fact, at the fundamental level that's what insurance is.
Since you bring up health care costs, let me posit one reason why such inefficiencies abound. And let me acknowledge right now that I don't have any data on this as it is a hypothesis. It seems strange that health care is so intimately tied to employment in the US. It's actually a weird relic from WWII when there were strong wage controls in the US. How do you compete for employees when you can't just pay them more? Give them the health care that congress forgot to include in the controls! These days the reason health care is tied to employment is that it's deductible for the company and never counts as income to be taxed for the recipient. That means that the recipient is essentially paying less for the insurance because he gets out of paying those taxes. That amounts to a massive government subsidy on health insurance. Worse, it pretty much guarantees a large demand since everybody's going to buy the insurance if the government's footing part of the bill. Inflated demand combined with subsidies is not a recipe for efficiency.
P.S. I split the posts because I suspect this is an unpopular opinion to hold here and anticipate being modded down, but I figured the definition part might see the light of day and be of some use.
Just to make sure we're using the language as we intend to. Two different things are often referred to as "rights" but are different in kind.
A right is a claim you have against a government, whether to safeguard or to provide. Voting is a right; the government is obligated to provide the means to do so and behave correctly in response to those votes (not cheat the counts, actually let the ones voted in take office, etc.). Legal representation is a right; the government must permit you to receive legal advice for a trial, and if you don't have the means for that it is further obligated to provide you with the means.
A liberty is a thing that the government is not allowed to infringe. Free speech is a liberty; the government must allow people to speak freely and may not interfere with that freedom, but it is not obligated to provide people with the means by which to engage in it (for example by handing out telephones or the intelligence to engage in civil discourse). Bearing arms is a liberty; the government must not disarms its citizens, but it's not responsible for actually proving them arms.
Noun
1. A quantity obtained by multiplication of two or more numbers.
2. A group of people who must be continually satisfied by your free service of else they will go be produced by someone else.
That's exactly what a judge I spoke to said about the issue. He also said that in the jurisdiction in which he worked, TIFF files had recently become accepted (this was early 2000s). Why TIFF? Because that's the de facto standard used by fax machines, of course!
Good catch, the page I saw referenced this: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1762614.
So reading that, the figures are estimates for end of 2011 not current values. It also has OSX at 4.5% and Linux at "below 2 percent." Desktops, laptops, and notebooks were included. Phones, tablets, and the like were excluded.
I'm confused. Which politicians are we supposed to accuse of not obeying the constitution this month? I know it's an even numbered month, and this isn't a leap year, but it is prime.
I suspect this is related to Google profiles not G+. YouTube used to have their own account/logon system. Google, over time, merged those YouTube accounts with Google profiles. This happened before G+ came about at all. You just happened not to use YouTube for a long time and logged in after opting in to G+ and so the merging called your google profile G+. I can't be sure that's what's going on, obviously, but I think that's probably what happened.
Really, that the problem with AM/PM? 12 AM is unambiguously midnight just like 12 PM is unambiguously noon. If it's really that big an issue for you then just say noon or midnight.
There's nothing wrong with AM and PM. The mental effort required to switch between normal time and military time is tiny. Whatever you're used to is going to be the one that has immediate intuitive meaning and the other might involve adding or subtracting 12. Big deal.
It's also possible to take certain stories in the Bible as true in a more literal sense if you stop reading into it things that aren't actually stated. A good example relevant to this article is creation. The Bible never claims the days are consecutive it merely lists them.
1. light
2. sky
3. land, sea, and plant life
4. stars, the sun, the moon, and the day/night cycle
5. non-human animals
6. man
7. naps
The only thing definitely out of place chronologically there is plant life. The jury's still out on 1 and 2. And consider Adam and Eve. The Bible says God made them, and there is an implication that they were the first humans. But that's about it. It doesn't say, for example, that God never made other humans. Indeed, it has their sons going out into the world and meeting wives and having children of their own without any explicit declaration of whether this is incestuous or they just met up with other groups of people.
So what you end up with is a bunch of people fighting really hard about literally interpreting things their sacred book doesn't even say.
Yes other people feel that way, for example the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama. This is a pretty cut-and-dried example of the freedom of association. While not enumerated in the US Constitution, it is a human right, and seems pretty clearly to be the kind of think one would hope to cover with the 9th amendment. Further, I'd argue that this is a modern technological equivalent of assembly protected by the first amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get an Athlon II X3 455 for $80. Intel's cheapest competitor is probably the Pentium G850 for $100. But if you're spending $100 you could upgrade to the Phenom II X4 840. $120-$125? Phenom X4 955 Black vs. Core i3-2100 is close; the former has better parallelism and is $5 cheaper, while the latter is more energy efficient. If you want to get into overclocking then the AMD offerings soundly beat the Intel ones. If you want much more CPU you really have to make a big jump in price unless you want really poor marginal returns on your dollar. Once you get up into the $190 range or so Core i5-2400, Intel has superior performance/price. It certainly appears to me that it is reasonable to conclude that AMD offers superior value at the low to mid range while Intel does at the high end without being a "fanboy spreading FUD."
Oh, I see you are a Pratcheterian. I follow Hawkingsonian Audiencetology.
Perhaps not, but it very nearly implies a "desktop PC" which is what they were discussing.
Heresy. Only the top turtle from the Infinite Turtle Stack has the world on its back. That means that 0% of all turtles have the world on their backs, and 100% of all turtles have a turtle on their backs. The world does not exists, a turtle only has a turtle on its back. Turtles are All.
We were talking about you, not me.
While an individual does use a road, that road isn't built for the individual. There's just no practical way to provide the service that way. The closest we can come is use tolls, and I am definitely in favor of more roads charging tolls. You are right about the fire service, but who pays for that? It seems to me that if someone is at fault for the fire they should be billed by the fire department for the service of having put it out. If nobody's at fault then whomever owns the property would pay.
Two principles guide this stance. The first is that people should pay for what consume. Health care as a service consumes resources. Detaching costs from usage encourages inefficient use of the service. On the other hand if people are paying for the resources they consume, then people will tend in aggregate to make the optimal decisions with respect to when and how to spend those resources on health care. In addition, if health care funding is coming from the income tax pool, then it is coming from a source where people with higher income are unjustly paying a disproportionate share of the funding, in essence footing the bill for people with lower incomes. The second is that services that can be justly and practically supplied privately should predominantly be supplied privately. It is simply not the government's role or responsibility to satisfy all needs and wants. Government attempting to be a great service provider is similar to a monopoly, with its attendant inefficiencies and danger of being "too big to fail." Even if it weren't inefficient, it is too much power to aggregate in one place.
The health care services I think the government could provide are those where in a general sense society benefits collectively for each individual serviced. That is why I gave the immunization example earlier. Every time one person gets immunized everyone else's chances of succumbing to an epidemic decrease. However even in these cases I think it makes more sense for the government to calculate the incremental value to society of each immunization and subsidize private providers in that amount (if there's remaining cost the provider eats the cost or more likely charges a fee; if the subsidy exceeds the cost then the providers keeps the money or more likely offers incentives to individuals).
On a side note. Thanks for the intelligent, civil argumentation. That's rare on the internet, especially on issues that tend to get emotionally charged.
Or, far more likely, the pilot/controllers chose returning to base and letting the politicians handle it as the best response to North Korean saber rattling.
Roads and bridges aren't given to a single person, rather they are provided for all to use; despite that fact, if there were a practical way to do so it would absolutely make sense for road building and maintenance to be funded by fees for use rather than on tax revenue. And if private companies wanted to get into the business of building roads and charging for their use, that would be a good thing too. Again, police provide a public service that covers everyone rather than one that helps an individual. And in those cases where police are acting in a private interest, such as escorting a sports team's motorcade, I certainly hope they are charging for that service. EMT services already do charge you for use, and there already are private companies providing it. You have a point about fire. I'm not sure exactly how that operates. Do they charge a fee after putting out a fire or assisting at an accident? Water utilities are paid for by the people using them.
Health care is like the water utility or, not surprisingly, the EMT service in the above. In most cases, it is not a common, public service. If I go and get a heart transplant, that is a service provided to me not to everyone. Health care is provided to an individual. If you use something, you should pay for it. Providing for the common welfare doesn't mean going out and satisfying all needs and wants. That's simply impossible. Resources allocated to one thing, like health care, are not allocated elsewhere, now whatever you just took resources from is failing to satisfy whatever needs it was filling. There are aspects of health care that are public services rather than private ones. Immunizations, for example, prevent spread of disease to others, and so are a preventative service for the whole (somewhat akin to police service). Another example is fundamental medical research. These services I would agree it makes sense for the government to be providing at some level. I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind by "basic level of healthcare."
Thanks for the clarification on the vocabulary. There is a distinction between something the government has said it will provide and something a government must provide. The fact that Australia provides its citizens with health care doesn't make health care a right, even in Australia. It makes it a promised service. The poster was claiming, of course, that health care is a right, but that's precisely what I was disputing.
Since you're trying to argue from your own authority, I'll ask. What role do you have in the field of "stem cell research" that pays you a wage rather than a salary or a grant?
Okay, that out of the way, let's look at "Health Care is a right." Based on your argument I think you really did mean right in the sense outline above. I disagree with that stance. Health care is a liberty and not a right. The government can't get in the way of a person seeking it but is not obliged to provide it. Health care is a thing used by an individual. It is not right for the government to take resources from everyone in the form of taxes, and then use them to provide resources to individuals, even if it's to each individual. If groups of people want to band together voluntarily for that purpose, that's great. In fact, at the fundamental level that's what insurance is.
Since you bring up health care costs, let me posit one reason why such inefficiencies abound. And let me acknowledge right now that I don't have any data on this as it is a hypothesis. It seems strange that health care is so intimately tied to employment in the US. It's actually a weird relic from WWII when there were strong wage controls in the US. How do you compete for employees when you can't just pay them more? Give them the health care that congress forgot to include in the controls! These days the reason health care is tied to employment is that it's deductible for the company and never counts as income to be taxed for the recipient. That means that the recipient is essentially paying less for the insurance because he gets out of paying those taxes. That amounts to a massive government subsidy on health insurance. Worse, it pretty much guarantees a large demand since everybody's going to buy the insurance if the government's footing part of the bill. Inflated demand combined with subsidies is not a recipe for efficiency.
P.S. I split the posts because I suspect this is an unpopular opinion to hold here and anticipate being modded down, but I figured the definition part might see the light of day and be of some use.
Just to make sure we're using the language as we intend to. Two different things are often referred to as "rights" but are different in kind.
A right is a claim you have against a government, whether to safeguard or to provide. Voting is a right; the government is obligated to provide the means to do so and behave correctly in response to those votes (not cheat the counts, actually let the ones voted in take office, etc.). Legal representation is a right; the government must permit you to receive legal advice for a trial, and if you don't have the means for that it is further obligated to provide you with the means.
A liberty is a thing that the government is not allowed to infringe. Free speech is a liberty; the government must allow people to speak freely and may not interfere with that freedom, but it is not obligated to provide people with the means by which to engage in it (for example by handing out telephones or the intelligence to engage in civil discourse). Bearing arms is a liberty; the government must not disarms its citizens, but it's not responsible for actually proving them arms.
product
/prdkt/
Pronunciation
enPR: prd-kt, IPA:
Noun
1. A quantity obtained by multiplication of two or more numbers.
2. A group of people who must be continually satisfied by your free service of else they will go be produced by someone else.
It's okay fellas; his story checks out.
That's exactly what a judge I spoke to said about the issue. He also said that in the jurisdiction in which he worked, TIFF files had recently become accepted (this was early 2000s). Why TIFF? Because that's the de facto standard used by fax machines, of course!
Good catch, the page I saw referenced this: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1762614. So reading that, the figures are estimates for end of 2011 not current values. It also has OSX at 4.5% and Linux at "below 2 percent." Desktops, laptops, and notebooks were included. Phones, tablets, and the like were excluded.
The latest numbers I saw at Gartner had Linux at about a 2% market share. Compare that with OSX's 4%.
I'm confused. Which politicians are we supposed to accuse of not obeying the constitution this month? I know it's an even numbered month, and this isn't a leap year, but it is prime.
I suspect this is related to Google profiles not G+. YouTube used to have their own account/logon system. Google, over time, merged those YouTube accounts with Google profiles. This happened before G+ came about at all. You just happened not to use YouTube for a long time and logged in after opting in to G+ and so the merging called your google profile G+. I can't be sure that's what's going on, obviously, but I think that's probably what happened.
Yeah, but have you seen how clear his thetan is?
Really, that the problem with AM/PM? 12 AM is unambiguously midnight just like 12 PM is unambiguously noon. If it's really that big an issue for you then just say noon or midnight. There's nothing wrong with AM and PM. The mental effort required to switch between normal time and military time is tiny. Whatever you're used to is going to be the one that has immediate intuitive meaning and the other might involve adding or subtracting 12. Big deal.
I don't see why we're concerned at all. Petroleum is an all natural product containing no artificial chemicals, and it's 100% organic, too!
I thought those were for when the court is down and troubled and needs a helping hand.
It's also possible to take certain stories in the Bible as true in a more literal sense if you stop reading into it things that aren't actually stated. A good example relevant to this article is creation. The Bible never claims the days are consecutive it merely lists them.
1. light
2. sky
3. land, sea, and plant life
4. stars, the sun, the moon, and the day/night cycle
5. non-human animals
6. man
7. naps
The only thing definitely out of place chronologically there is plant life. The jury's still out on 1 and 2. And consider Adam and Eve. The Bible says God made them, and there is an implication that they were the first humans. But that's about it. It doesn't say, for example, that God never made other humans. Indeed, it has their sons going out into the world and meeting wives and having children of their own without any explicit declaration of whether this is incestuous or they just met up with other groups of people.
So what you end up with is a bunch of people fighting really hard about literally interpreting things their sacred book doesn't even say.
gopher over SPX/IPX forever!
Yes other people feel that way, for example the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama. This is a pretty cut-and-dried example of the freedom of association. While not enumerated in the US Constitution, it is a human right, and seems pretty clearly to be the kind of think one would hope to cover with the 9th amendment. Further, I'd argue that this is a modern technological equivalent of assembly protected by the first amendment.