I mentioned that at 119 it did make a difference. FWIW, this was several years ago, and it was a Sony 10HT, 1366x768 LCD panel display with a retroreflective screen. Brightness was not a problem. It mattered there. HD is good on my 51" RP, but having seen both HD and DVD on it, I really don't feel like I'm missing anything at DVD on 90+% of my material.
I'm curious...what would the reaction be for material like The Sting, or The Dark Crystal, or Amadeus? Sure, there are films out there that certainly will benefit from HD, but many - especially those in back catalogs - just don't until you get a really big image.
I can tell that most of those words in your post must mean something because they seem to make sense, in a sentence construction sort of way. But I'll be honest that my eyes just glazed over when I hit by changing your repositories in the Synaptic upgrade tool from Dapper to Edgy. It didn't get much better after that.
This is a big problem for those that may not have oodles of free time; maybe the OP does. I have tried (and, I admit) given up on several packages, including RedHat (before the break), Ubuntu and Knoppix (both LiveCDs, admittedly), and Slackware.
What I've learned in the process is that
1. I don't run much server stuff.
2. I can't afford te time to "mess" at the office - real work still has to get done
3. Everything at home is multimedia, and practically no server stuff exists
4. Server stuff at home is so simple that peer shares are more than adequate
5. There's nothing _I_ do that requires the "cool" stuff in linux, unless you count TiVo hacking, and I don't do enough to justify a whole box
6. There is just too much technical software in my field (structural engineering) for Win only
I will happily admit that when I have to mess with my TiVo I get my nipples get hard when I work from the command line in a telnet session. There's just something "right" and "pure" about it that takes me back to my roots. But I've learned the dirty little secret of MS, which is not really a secret to anyone. Using MS day in and day out, you pick up the OS operations and gather your personal favorite apps - and how to use them - in the course of business. At nearly 40, I've got well over 25 years of tweaks and standards and process and training built up. Even worse, it's been 10-15 years since I've really had the free time to play with OS components and know the ins and outs. I came of age before the internet "existed" - and there has been so much that has gone by since that gaining a comfort level in a new OS is truly a daunting task. Gaining that knowledge without a manual is even worse. In defense of Linux, I would be loathe to switch to MS if it weren't my current platform of comfort, and OSX, I'm certain, would be little better.
Anyway, for good or ill, it's posts like your that remind me just how much I'd have to learn to switch. Maybe most people aren't as bubsy as I am, but I'm not sure where I'd find the time to learn everything I would need to to be comfortable, much less "productive".
Actually, felony destruction of property, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony are both potentially serious crimes in many states. No idea what they are in TX - only been there a combined month in my entire life. You might even be able to cobble together 10 years with multiple overlapping penalties for varios firearm related infractions in some states.
Hardly. You're looking at outliers, I'm taking in generalizations. There are smart, poor people (by poor, I'm saying bottom 25% of the population). They usually have other shortcomings - instability, poor communication skills, lack of drive - which keep them poor. Sucessful people are not necssarily "smarter" or "better educated" in the traditional senses, but have the additional "skills" (social, luck, family) which have made them sucessful. Success doesn't have to include monetary wealth, but it often does.
Human vs non-human more has to do with your monkeyspace or disenfranchisement and retribution. You don't see most murders accomplished by the "successful" in society - at least not via direct violence. You can debate environmental poisoning, poor wages, lack of societal support which the successful have the theoretical power to affect. But you don't see as many top 10% pulling a gun and killing someone as in the bottom 10%. (Yes, I'm guessing. I'm an engineer - I have to guess all the time. I'm confident enough that if I had to look up the statisitics I'd be right. )
Poor people are fully human. Genetically. However, most poor people who do not get educated, or do not have exceptional social skills, will remain poor. This is, in my sole opinion, a learned condition, though I'm certain there is some portion which is inherited. I've known people from poor families who were challenged by their parents and have become, if not wealthy, comfortable and very successful. But most will stay in the cycle, and if there are more births into the ranks of the poor, and fewer in the successful, the population will start getting "stupid" heavy. I think it has already happened to a significant extent. Politicians know this and use it to their advantage.
Don't worry. A good transfer on DVD on such a "small" screen as 50" will be nearly indistinguishable from HD unless you have a controlled environment, good eyes, and an A-B setup to test. I have a good CRT set which is calibrated (professional alignment, enthusiast calibrated) and the difference between HD broadcasts and DVD is minimal to the point that the recently aired ROTK did not look noticably better in 1080i than in 480p off my DVD. I will admit that the HDMI input has not been calibrated with an HD source, but if you're really expecting a wow with the resolution, you'll need a TV at least half again as big, or be sitting abnormally close to your TV.
FWIW, I have had a 119" HD front projector, and it does make a difference at that level, but well transferred DVDs still look spectacular to 80-90% of the population.
The problem, and the cad companies know this, is that training costs for a "new" system can easily exceed the cost of the seats. This is true for "inexpensive" packages like AutoCAD (~5-6k retail for the basic verticals), as well as the more expensive solid modelers. I don't know if PTC has gotten cheaper - it's been 8 years since I used it - but it was 8-12k for the basics, and almost 50k for the whole shootin' match (assembly, thermal, stress).
I agree that stuff five years old that you have on paper (or pdf/generally readable epaper) is probably just archivable, and cheaper to recreate than keep compatibility. I never had to transfer Pro/E models out of the program, though I used Ideas, Pro/E, and SolidEdge, sometimes two in one job. But that was a long time ago - back when I flew spacecraft instead of designing buildings.
...the truely successful members of society can't be bothered...
And those who don't have the means have nothing to do but have children. Seems like a recipe for disaster - a bunch of uneducated, ill-informed, substandard humans running around.
We see the outcome of this circus when we find out who "the people" have elected to run the world.
I'm not sure why anyone would send a plot file (or a dwg/dxf) file to plot. With all the different plot settings and line weights and such, that sort of thing can only end in tears. I always plot to PDF then have the file printed when I have to send digital prints. With dwg and plotting, what you see is rarely what you get (WYSIRWYG?).
Personlly, I'd happily kick AutoCAD to the curb, but I consult to architects, and the predominant form of file is dwg. I may be getting closer, though, as I use the straight AutoCAD, and more of my clients are going to ADT. With the 2D-3D disconnect, I find I can use less and less of their work (though it's always borked anyway). Half the time we'll take the written dimensions and redraw the structure from scratch so that it actually lines up.
Of course, if I switch, I'll probably lose out on the 95% installed base of drafters, too, so that's an issue to deal with.
And that simply isn't allowed. No competition is allowed, period. In fact, I think part of their motto is "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me." That's why they change their drawing format every three years - it ensures that to keep up with your competition, you need to upgrade regularly. Even better, they offer an annual subscription (at about $600/seat/yr) to keep you up to date, but if you want to upgrade as you see fit, they'll happily charge you $600/year (i.e. - upgradeing a 3 year old copy will cost you $1800) when you do upgrade.
There are two problems with your story and the logic for hunting. First, you are naturally "tuned" to the scent of a female of your species. Other animals are not. Second, you were specifically deprived of any trace of that scent for an extended period of time. I would not be suprised that the nose works like the eyes in that a reduction of stimulus increases the sensitivity to future stimulus, at least on a temporary basis. The reason has to do with a buildup (and depletion) of the neurotransmitters, any detailed knowledge of which I have forgotten since walking out of my pshych classes nearly 20 years ago.
I would not be suprised to find the women having a similar respose/awareness to men - and therefore men should not go on hunting trips either.
As a similar effect, the ban on smoking in most places has made me far more sensitive to cigarette smoke, and I can smell a smoker several cars away (provided the vent/ac/heat is on) in standing traffic. There's really no magic to it.
Man, I would drop $200 on this just for the browsing and ebook mode. Heck, I'd probably buy two at $200 a piece so my daughter could have one too. I'm a little suprised its taken this long, and that there isn't a drive to make them commerically as well. Make the ones "for sale" to us commoners in black or white, to distinguish from the governmentally purchased ones if you're concerned about resales.
That's actually the scheme I'm planning on in the play room I'm working on right now. CFLs are getting better, so I'm going to use a bunch in ceiling cans (probably 12-16 for a 20x20 room) on a standard switch. Then sconses with incandescents around the perimeter of the room on a dimmer. Right now my kitchen - only 11x17 in size, is lit by 13 - 50W cans and about 150w of undercabinet and in-cabinet xenon, all on a single dimmer (lutron makes an electronic 1000W dimmer that can be n-way switched with slaves, Maestro is the name, I think). I've got three pendants on a separate circuit if I really need them, but they're mostly for decoration.
I'll admit that in the summer (when I don't actually need much extra lighting) it adds a noticable heat load, but in the winter I'd be paying for the electric heat pump, and when it goes below about 30-35F the heatpump switches to resistance anyway. Of course, if I wanted extra heat, I'd crank up all 90,000BTU of burners on the rangetop, and if I needed to get rid of the heat I'd flip on the 1500CFM exhaust fan (and open a window so the house doesn't collapse from depressurization). Moral: never let an engineer design his own kitchen if you want to save the planet;-)
Which means, effectively, that the local government is in on it too, as they not only provide the services to the building but "profit" off the operation through taxes (you do have taxes in Australia, right?).
In the words of Mel Brooks, "..all the way up to the Emperor"
Hey, the two water heaters under my sink that give me instant hot-tea draw 19,000W. I can just smell the death of humanity when I turn it on.
I've given up some of my economizing. I can't stand the spectrum of CFL. Call me when they get dimmable CFLs with appropriate color temperatures (2000-3500K) and a 98-99CRI. It's a cost I pay to satisfy the millions of years of retina-brain evolution under blackbody radiation sources. Call me a traditionalist.
Actually, I'm not a rabid electro-hog, but I've come to an understanding that suits me. $80/mo for all my non-HVAC electric needs is okay. My rooms are brightly lit and pleasing at night. My electronic gear is on as much as I like. My clothes get washed and dried. I suspect I could be careful and economize by $15 a month by turning stuff off. I could drop another $10-15 if I changed all my lights to CFL and gave up the dimmers. And I would dislike nighttime in my house for the "wrong" colors and casts, and lack of proper dimming, and waiting for 2-3 minutes for the computer to boot, and for having to look at my stereo gear instead of having a single remote and all the gear hidden in a closet, perpetually on. It might cost me 5 minutes a day and degrade a couple of hours in the evening. But you know what? At the $120/hr I bill, that 5 minutes a day costs something to me. And the couple hours I get in the evening are some of the few hours which "belong" to me. And fuck all if it's worth degrading my personal time for $25 a month.
I'm catching a lot of flak for my comment, but I still stand by their potentially poor reasoning. I am not a diabetic, but I have several cousins who are, and my wife and daughter suffer from a very mild form of hypoglycemia which we have learned to control with diet.
It's not about worrying whether the patent system is good or bad, or whether the cost is justifiable for economic reasons. I'm just being proactively disappointed that what could be a miracle cure will turn out to be affordable only to the very wealthy. When I say very wealthy, I'm thinking of the top 10% of the population, which is probably significantly over-represented here on/., and of which I am a member.
You did bring up a very salient point, though, in that in about 30 years (it is 27 for pharm, isn't it - I'm adding 3 years 'til official patent filing) this treatment will be available generically. Of course, there will be better/safer treatements for the rich folks, but this will go into the public domain. That is a Good Thing (TM) in my opinion, though you can bet if Pharma has its way they'll continue fighting to extend their patent rights.
I was wrong about the cost, though. I suspect, given the $5k+ existing annual costs, and the potential for a complete cure, we could see six figure costs for the first round of treatments. 5kx20 years = $100k in direct benefit (excusing my lack of TVM), plus an equal amount for the freedom from the regimins associated, I'd say $175,000 for a "permanent fix" wouldn't be unexpected. I'm crossing my fingers that it's less, but not holding my breath.
I'll tell you what. I'm not really going to be interested in any electronic device which advertises "squirting" or "helmet camera" in the list of features. But, hey, I'm a traditionalist. You just go strap on that helmet camera and squirt all you want, just don't do it near me.
It's not a "private corporation" when almost all of the cost to do it was funded by taxpayers. If google or microsoft had bought the land, launch site, hired all the people, and built the rocket, then we'd be okay with that. Well, maybe not microsoft, but you get the idea.
Oh, I think you do need to be able to. I don't code a line (I'm not even a CS), but I learned to do 6502 machine language when I was a kid. So how many "programmers" out there can even do "hello world" on the architecture of their choice in machine code? Take your average CS degree student from an average college. I'd bet less than 30% could do it in an hour. Pretty sad, really.
Think about it. Even if you consider the extent of the problem, a "cure" of this magnitude, the potential is to be a once or twice a year (or less) application. Also, given the cost of maintenance, I would have to say a single injection will be in th $4000-5000 range. Wouldn't you pay it to be free of diabetes for a year?
All hail capitalism.
(BTW, for all you losers who think I'm happy about the prospect of a cure that costs as much as half a year's wages at FMW, I'm significantly less than thrilled. I'm happy they're on the way to to a "cure" though.)
Parents used to be able to give their 10 year old child a.22 calibre rifle and ammunition without fear of being seen as some kind of nutcase.
One of my good friends gave his boy a rifle when he was four or five, I think. He was riding a four-wheeler at (double digit ccs, I think) six. By seven he'd taken a 6 point buck. He's a good kid, but his father also supervises him very closely, and is adamant about safety (gear and methods). I once saw the kid get on the four wheeler without his shoulder pads. He was in his room in five minutes, and the next time he got to ride was two weeks later.
At t-giving this year, my 4 year old daughter was reaching for a candle to blow it out. My wife, right next to her, told here to be careful and not tip it. Well, she grabbed it and moved it towards her. And tipped it. And got hot wax on her hand. She stiffened, blew out the candle, looked at my wife with that "uh oh" look, and my wife cleaned the wax off. My wife know the wax would be hot, but not seriously injure her. My daughter didn't cry because she knew she'd been warned (and there were eight other adults around - she's a prideful thing). She was much more careful with the second candle. A good lesson, imho.
As a kid I burned and cut myself too many times to remember. Personally, I'm not sure anybody kid respects something until they've been hurt by it. *shrug* We have "real" toys in my house. They can hurt, but it would take an awful lot of effort to seriously injure yourself with the toys she gets to play with "by herself".
Slashdot Mirror
hummer is not capitalized.
Unless you meant he was driving an SUV.
I mentioned that at 119 it did make a difference. FWIW, this was several years ago, and it was a Sony 10HT, 1366x768 LCD panel display with a retroreflective screen. Brightness was not a problem. It mattered there. HD is good on my 51" RP, but having seen both HD and DVD on it, I really don't feel like I'm missing anything at DVD on 90+% of my material.
I'm curious...what would the reaction be for material like The Sting, or The Dark Crystal, or Amadeus? Sure, there are films out there that certainly will benefit from HD, but many - especially those in back catalogs - just don't until you get a really big image.
I can tell that most of those words in your post must mean something because they seem to make sense, in a sentence construction sort of way. But I'll be honest that my eyes just glazed over when I hit by changing your repositories in the Synaptic upgrade tool from Dapper to Edgy. It didn't get much better after that.
This is a big problem for those that may not have oodles of free time; maybe the OP does. I have tried (and, I admit) given up on several packages, including RedHat (before the break), Ubuntu and Knoppix (both LiveCDs, admittedly), and Slackware.
What I've learned in the process is that
1. I don't run much server stuff.
2. I can't afford te time to "mess" at the office - real work still has to get done
3. Everything at home is multimedia, and practically no server stuff exists
4. Server stuff at home is so simple that peer shares are more than adequate
5. There's nothing _I_ do that requires the "cool" stuff in linux, unless you count TiVo hacking, and I don't do enough to justify a whole box
6. There is just too much technical software in my field (structural engineering) for Win only
I will happily admit that when I have to mess with my TiVo I get my nipples get hard when I work from the command line in a telnet session. There's just something "right" and "pure" about it that takes me back to my roots. But I've learned the dirty little secret of MS, which is not really a secret to anyone. Using MS day in and day out, you pick up the OS operations and gather your personal favorite apps - and how to use them - in the course of business. At nearly 40, I've got well over 25 years of tweaks and standards and process and training built up. Even worse, it's been 10-15 years since I've really had the free time to play with OS components and know the ins and outs. I came of age before the internet "existed" - and there has been so much that has gone by since that gaining a comfort level in a new OS is truly a daunting task. Gaining that knowledge without a manual is even worse. In defense of Linux, I would be loathe to switch to MS if it weren't my current platform of comfort, and OSX, I'm certain, would be little better.
Anyway, for good or ill, it's posts like your that remind me just how much I'd have to learn to switch. Maybe most people aren't as bubsy as I am, but I'm not sure where I'd find the time to learn everything I would need to to be comfortable, much less "productive".
No wonder Texas has so many people in prison...
Actually, felony destruction of property, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony are both potentially serious crimes in many states. No idea what they are in TX - only been there a combined month in my entire life. You might even be able to cobble together 10 years with multiple overlapping penalties for varios firearm related infractions in some states.
Hardly. You're looking at outliers, I'm taking in generalizations. There are smart, poor people (by poor, I'm saying bottom 25% of the population). They usually have other shortcomings - instability, poor communication skills, lack of drive - which keep them poor. Sucessful people are not necssarily "smarter" or "better educated" in the traditional senses, but have the additional "skills" (social, luck, family) which have made them sucessful. Success doesn't have to include monetary wealth, but it often does.
Human vs non-human more has to do with your monkeyspace or disenfranchisement and retribution. You don't see most murders accomplished by the "successful" in society - at least not via direct violence. You can debate environmental poisoning, poor wages, lack of societal support which the successful have the theoretical power to affect. But you don't see as many top 10% pulling a gun and killing someone as in the bottom 10%. (Yes, I'm guessing. I'm an engineer - I have to guess all the time. I'm confident enough that if I had to look up the statisitics I'd be right. )
Poor people are fully human. Genetically. However, most poor people who do not get educated, or do not have exceptional social skills, will remain poor. This is, in my sole opinion, a learned condition, though I'm certain there is some portion which is inherited. I've known people from poor families who were challenged by their parents and have become, if not wealthy, comfortable and very successful. But most will stay in the cycle, and if there are more births into the ranks of the poor, and fewer in the successful, the population will start getting "stupid" heavy. I think it has already happened to a significant extent. Politicians know this and use it to their advantage.
Don't worry. A good transfer on DVD on such a "small" screen as 50" will be nearly indistinguishable from HD unless you have a controlled environment, good eyes, and an A-B setup to test. I have a good CRT set which is calibrated (professional alignment, enthusiast calibrated) and the difference between HD broadcasts and DVD is minimal to the point that the recently aired ROTK did not look noticably better in 1080i than in 480p off my DVD. I will admit that the HDMI input has not been calibrated with an HD source, but if you're really expecting a wow with the resolution, you'll need a TV at least half again as big, or be sitting abnormally close to your TV.
FWIW, I have had a 119" HD front projector, and it does make a difference at that level, but well transferred DVDs still look spectacular to 80-90% of the population.
The problem, and the cad companies know this, is that training costs for a "new" system can easily exceed the cost of the seats. This is true for "inexpensive" packages like AutoCAD (~5-6k retail for the basic verticals), as well as the more expensive solid modelers. I don't know if PTC has gotten cheaper - it's been 8 years since I used it - but it was 8-12k for the basics, and almost 50k for the whole shootin' match (assembly, thermal, stress).
I agree that stuff five years old that you have on paper (or pdf/generally readable epaper) is probably just archivable, and cheaper to recreate than keep compatibility. I never had to transfer Pro/E models out of the program, though I used Ideas, Pro/E, and SolidEdge, sometimes two in one job. But that was a long time ago - back when I flew spacecraft instead of designing buildings.
...the truely successful members of society can't be bothered...
And those who don't have the means have nothing to do but have children. Seems like a recipe for disaster - a bunch of uneducated, ill-informed, substandard humans running around.
We see the outcome of this circus when we find out who "the people" have elected to run the world.
If they want to get paid, they should perform.
I'm not sure why anyone would send a plot file (or a dwg/dxf) file to plot. With all the different plot settings and line weights and such, that sort of thing can only end in tears. I always plot to PDF then have the file printed when I have to send digital prints. With dwg and plotting, what you see is rarely what you get (WYSIRWYG?).
Personlly, I'd happily kick AutoCAD to the curb, but I consult to architects, and the predominant form of file is dwg. I may be getting closer, though, as I use the straight AutoCAD, and more of my clients are going to ADT. With the 2D-3D disconnect, I find I can use less and less of their work (though it's always borked anyway). Half the time we'll take the written dimensions and redraw the structure from scratch so that it actually lines up.
Of course, if I switch, I'll probably lose out on the 95% installed base of drafters, too, so that's an issue to deal with.
compete with themselves
And that simply isn't allowed. No competition is allowed, period. In fact, I think part of their motto is "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me." That's why they change their drawing format every three years - it ensures that to keep up with your competition, you need to upgrade regularly. Even better, they offer an annual subscription (at about $600/seat/yr) to keep you up to date, but if you want to upgrade as you see fit, they'll happily charge you $600/year (i.e. - upgradeing a 3 year old copy will cost you $1800) when you do upgrade.
There are two problems with your story and the logic for hunting. First, you are naturally "tuned" to the scent of a female of your species. Other animals are not. Second, you were specifically deprived of any trace of that scent for an extended period of time. I would not be suprised that the nose works like the eyes in that a reduction of stimulus increases the sensitivity to future stimulus, at least on a temporary basis. The reason has to do with a buildup (and depletion) of the neurotransmitters, any detailed knowledge of which I have forgotten since walking out of my pshych classes nearly 20 years ago.
I would not be suprised to find the women having a similar respose/awareness to men - and therefore men should not go on hunting trips either.
As a similar effect, the ban on smoking in most places has made me far more sensitive to cigarette smoke, and I can smell a smoker several cars away (provided the vent/ac/heat is on) in standing traffic. There's really no magic to it.
Man, I would drop $200 on this just for the browsing and ebook mode. Heck, I'd probably buy two at $200 a piece so my daughter could have one too. I'm a little suprised its taken this long, and that there isn't a drive to make them commerically as well. Make the ones "for sale" to us commoners in black or white, to distinguish from the governmentally purchased ones if you're concerned about resales.
That's actually the scheme I'm planning on in the play room I'm working on right now. CFLs are getting better, so I'm going to use a bunch in ceiling cans (probably 12-16 for a 20x20 room) on a standard switch. Then sconses with incandescents around the perimeter of the room on a dimmer. Right now my kitchen - only 11x17 in size, is lit by 13 - 50W cans and about 150w of undercabinet and in-cabinet xenon, all on a single dimmer (lutron makes an electronic 1000W dimmer that can be n-way switched with slaves, Maestro is the name, I think). I've got three pendants on a separate circuit if I really need them, but they're mostly for decoration.
;-)
I'll admit that in the summer (when I don't actually need much extra lighting) it adds a noticable heat load, but in the winter I'd be paying for the electric heat pump, and when it goes below about 30-35F the heatpump switches to resistance anyway. Of course, if I wanted extra heat, I'd crank up all 90,000BTU of burners on the rangetop, and if I needed to get rid of the heat I'd flip on the 1500CFM exhaust fan (and open a window so the house doesn't collapse from depressurization). Moral: never let an engineer design his own kitchen if you want to save the planet
Which means, effectively, that the local government is in on it too, as they not only provide the services to the building but "profit" off the operation through taxes (you do have taxes in Australia, right?).
In the words of Mel Brooks, "..all the way up to the Emperor"
Hey, the two water heaters under my sink that give me instant hot-tea draw 19,000W. I can just smell the death of humanity when I turn it on.
I've given up some of my economizing. I can't stand the spectrum of CFL. Call me when they get dimmable CFLs with appropriate color temperatures (2000-3500K) and a 98-99CRI. It's a cost I pay to satisfy the millions of years of retina-brain evolution under blackbody radiation sources. Call me a traditionalist.
Actually, I'm not a rabid electro-hog, but I've come to an understanding that suits me. $80/mo for all my non-HVAC electric needs is okay. My rooms are brightly lit and pleasing at night. My electronic gear is on as much as I like. My clothes get washed and dried. I suspect I could be careful and economize by $15 a month by turning stuff off. I could drop another $10-15 if I changed all my lights to CFL and gave up the dimmers. And I would dislike nighttime in my house for the "wrong" colors and casts, and lack of proper dimming, and waiting for 2-3 minutes for the computer to boot, and for having to look at my stereo gear instead of having a single remote and all the gear hidden in a closet, perpetually on. It might cost me 5 minutes a day and degrade a couple of hours in the evening. But you know what? At the $120/hr I bill, that 5 minutes a day costs something to me. And the couple hours I get in the evening are some of the few hours which "belong" to me. And fuck all if it's worth degrading my personal time for $25 a month.
Man, I'm in a bad mood this Monday.
I'm catching a lot of flak for my comment, but I still stand by their potentially poor reasoning. I am not a diabetic, but I have several cousins who are, and my wife and daughter suffer from a very mild form of hypoglycemia which we have learned to control with diet.
/., and of which I am a member.
It's not about worrying whether the patent system is good or bad, or whether the cost is justifiable for economic reasons. I'm just being proactively disappointed that what could be a miracle cure will turn out to be affordable only to the very wealthy. When I say very wealthy, I'm thinking of the top 10% of the population, which is probably significantly over-represented here on
You did bring up a very salient point, though, in that in about 30 years (it is 27 for pharm, isn't it - I'm adding 3 years 'til official patent filing) this treatment will be available generically. Of course, there will be better/safer treatements for the rich folks, but this will go into the public domain. That is a Good Thing (TM) in my opinion, though you can bet if Pharma has its way they'll continue fighting to extend their patent rights.
I was wrong about the cost, though. I suspect, given the $5k+ existing annual costs, and the potential for a complete cure, we could see six figure costs for the first round of treatments. 5kx20 years = $100k in direct benefit (excusing my lack of TVM), plus an equal amount for the freedom from the regimins associated, I'd say $175,000 for a "permanent fix" wouldn't be unexpected. I'm crossing my fingers that it's less, but not holding my breath.
I'll tell you what. I'm not really going to be interested in any electronic device which advertises "squirting" or "helmet camera" in the list of features. But, hey, I'm a traditionalist. You just go strap on that helmet camera and squirt all you want, just don't do it near me.
Two, actually, if you plan on counting dupes.
Of course they love Apple. Without Apple, they would have a desktop monopoly.
It's not a "private corporation" when almost all of the cost to do it was funded by taxpayers. If google or microsoft had bought the land, launch site, hired all the people, and built the rocket, then we'd be okay with that. Well, maybe not microsoft, but you get the idea.
Oh, I think you do need to be able to. I don't code a line (I'm not even a CS), but I learned to do 6502 machine language when I was a kid. So how many "programmers" out there can even do "hello world" on the architecture of their choice in machine code? Take your average CS degree student from an average college. I'd bet less than 30% could do it in an hour. Pretty sad, really.
Think about it. Even if you consider the extent of the problem, a "cure" of this magnitude, the potential is to be a once or twice a year (or less) application. Also, given the cost of maintenance, I would have to say a single injection will be in th $4000-5000 range. Wouldn't you pay it to be free of diabetes for a year?
All hail capitalism.
(BTW, for all you losers who think I'm happy about the prospect of a cure that costs as much as half a year's wages at FMW, I'm significantly less than thrilled. I'm happy they're on the way to to a "cure" though.)
...that I was unimpressed when "fussy logic" was a buzzword a decade ago. I do not look forward to it's resurgence in the marketing lexicon.
Parents used to be able to give their 10 year old child a .22 calibre rifle and ammunition without fear of being seen as some kind of nutcase.
One of my good friends gave his boy a rifle when he was four or five, I think. He was riding a four-wheeler at (double digit ccs, I think) six. By seven he'd taken a 6 point buck. He's a good kid, but his father also supervises him very closely, and is adamant about safety (gear and methods). I once saw the kid get on the four wheeler without his shoulder pads. He was in his room in five minutes, and the next time he got to ride was two weeks later.
At t-giving this year, my 4 year old daughter was reaching for a candle to blow it out. My wife, right next to her, told here to be careful and not tip it. Well, she grabbed it and moved it towards her. And tipped it. And got hot wax on her hand. She stiffened, blew out the candle, looked at my wife with that "uh oh" look, and my wife cleaned the wax off. My wife know the wax would be hot, but not seriously injure her. My daughter didn't cry because she knew she'd been warned (and there were eight other adults around - she's a prideful thing). She was much more careful with the second candle. A good lesson, imho.
As a kid I burned and cut myself too many times to remember. Personally, I'm not sure anybody kid respects something until they've been hurt by it. *shrug* We have "real" toys in my house. They can hurt, but it would take an awful lot of effort to seriously injure yourself with the toys she gets to play with "by herself".