The uninsured would have gone the hospital and not paid a dime anyhow. The ACA doesn't change much for injuries except some accounting on the billing side.
For preventable diseases, this will cause previously uninsured to seek a doctor instead of waiting for it to be an emergency. An emergency room visit is about 100x more expensive than a doctor's office visit. Plus everything dangerous is more survivable the earlier it is detected.
Successful at wasting money that could be spent on much cheaper and less susceptible to damage ground radars? Successful and funneling money into military contracts? Successful in employing former military? Sure.
Do we see a lot of cruise missiles fired at us from Mexico?
There is a thing over the US that is for cruise missile defense?
Exactly how much of a threat are those in Washington? Considering exactly none of them have ever been fired in anger at the United States, it makes me wonder.
And what is this thing going to do about a cruise missile if it does see one? Maybe it is supposed to be connected to some kind of air defense, but the only way one of those is going to be shot down is if it is detected over the horizon.
Of course, Raytheon wasting tax dollars on pork? Say it ain't so. Why are the congresscritters that authorize this stuff never taken to task?
EULAs have been proven unenforceable time and time again. If you put a sign on the front of your business that says "if you hurt yourself while on our premises, it is not our fault", you can be sure the first idiot that stubs his toe is going to sue you. And even if they don't win its going to be expensive for the business.
Probably the downfall of our litigious society, but you can see why companies have to be in constant CYA mode. On the other hand, this does prevent us from having companies make faulty items or have willfully unsafe premises and not have to pay for damages.
Well I am in the software data analysis industry and not in devices. So that is probably why our regulations are so much more lax. Nobody will die if our program crashes.
Not that it they should not be regulations on what we do, of course. I have seen some 3rd party code that made my head spin. I recommended we did not take a maintenance contract on someone else's shitty code based on the nightmare it would be to rewrite their entire system. There would have been no way to do the job given the money involved.
Of course there are part of our own system that are terrible. I point out "hey, if we change this and this, we can improve performance and accuracy by x amount, here are the statistics to prove it." But as long as it appears to work people are happy to let the black box do it's thing.
Sometimes I feel like having some stricter requirements would make my job easier.
And this is why people feel software does not deserve the tag "engineering" after it. Useful source control, requirement, and ticketing systems should be required when the software is meeting or involved in a system that is controlled by regulations.
And useful ones, too. Not like the ones I saw being used at ISO9000 banking companies back in the day. They simply made sure that things were either really well documented, or not documented at all. The auditor can't audit documentation that doesn't exist. I am not sure if that shit would fly in the post 2008 world, I got the hell out of that industry long ago. Either way that company managed to go out of business pre-crash.
Even the healthcare software I work on today does not have nearly any requirements on how the software is developed, as long as it performs (or appears to perform) the task contracted to us. Fortunately for our own sanity and quality we do use quite good practices. Even agile development can have good ticket/requirement trails.
What use is that statement? Ronald Reagan came up with the idea of a space station, or specifically ISS? Yeah, the US wanted to make their own station that he announced in 1984, but to give him credit for coming up with the idea is downright foolish. It did not become an international project until the 90's at the end of the cold war. People have been dreaming of internationally operated space projects for as long as we have known we could put things in orbit.
Aside from etherkiller being old, you could just as easily set the building on fire if you wanted to kill infrastructure.
This requires you to be in the same building if not the same room as the device you are trying to kill. If you have physical access to a machine... etc...
Oh oh, right. It is reasonably flat, t though the sensor I have is pretty small and is only using the middle of the field. A much larger sensor like the kodak ones might not perform so well. Also, the focus and collimation is really really touchy.
As I mentioned in another post, I am sure that is how JMS would have had it play out. Babylon 5 was pretty consistent even in episodes he did not write. (though he did write most of the important plot ones)
Exactly, writing is usually inconsistent on a show with as big a scope as Star Trek, but they weren't even consistent between consecutive episodes.
If there was a guy controlling the end product like JMS did with B5, we might have seen the Prime Directive applied very consistently with some interesting ramifications explored.
Instead the PD only showed up when it was the "right" decision by the main characters.
No, vignetting is fairly major with Hyperstar and f/2.1. Hyperstar and Fastar are really the same thing, Celestron sold the technology to Starizona. However the later incarnations of Hyperstar (I have the latest version 3), add things like easy to use rotator and collimation bolts
However, taking flat field images cancels it out very nicely. You would want to do this to deal with blemishes since the corrector is a dust-magnet anyhow. I haven't found an easy way to use a flat field box, but doing twilight flats is pretty easy. I have been thinking of using a box that fits all the way over the hyperstar+camera attachment. Early on I have had success without flats, and with the Sony sensor I don't ever bother with dark frames. Even with a 10 minute dark exposure, usually not a single pixel is illuminated.
I also bought specifically designed f/2 Baader narrowband filters, since I hear that regular narrowband filters do poorly on hyperstar. So far the results on Ha have been fantastic. It did end up being such a pile of money that I wonder if I was better off with a different setup. Not being able to use a filter wheel is a serious pain in the rear. At least hyperstar lets you use the much cheaper 1.25" filters.
Early on I did not know how to take or process flats, and had good results anyhow. Pixinsight has some very good tools for dealing with background gradients, either vignetting or light pollution. But the flats do a better job easier on vignetting.
If I was not going to ever use the scope for visual, I probably would have saved myself a hundred or two dollars and gotten a regular C8. However the thing is a dream for visual as well. I think C8 scopes are the best bang for your buck on aperture for a mixed imaging/visual scope. Eventually I plan on getting the.7x reducer, and if I ever get a really nice mount, maybe image at f/10. Having looked through both Edge and regular C8s before purchasing, I think the Edge falttener makes a big difference for visual. Especially if you like those fancy 82 degree fov eyepeices. Eventually I will be getting a 2" diagonal. (sadly it only ships with a 1.25", which wastes some of the scope's potential.)
Though if you really want a Hyperstar-only scope, there is the Rowe-Ackermann. It was out of my budget anyhow, since it requires a beefier mount. Its about the same price as the Edge11, but you don't have to buy the $800 or so Hyperstar lens.
The only complaint I would have is that dew control is a serious pain in the rear if you live someplace cold. But that is the case for every SCT. At least a C8 is small enough that the dew heaters are pretty effective.
I actually just got home from a trip to a dark site and have a pile of data from hyperstar to process. Was my first time with a focus motor, which makes a pretty big difference, since as you know the focus with fastar/hyperstar is really really touchy.
Star Trek practically invented Planet of Hats. Each race encountered is distilled down to a base stereotype. Even the later series were largely falling in to this.
Also your post would have been possible to read if you had used line breaks.
The Prime Directive is one of the worst things in Trek. All of the main characters were inconsistent on how they applied it, to the point of simply ignoring it whenever they felt like it.
I think you are right. This is why they use the magic of CARBON NANOTUBES!
Until we can produce those more than a few centimeters in length are are not quite so flamable... this tether will be just as feasible as carbon nanotube space elevators.
Slashdot Mirror
This is by design in the DCMA. Keep people from looking at your code means preventing independent oversight.
But everyone that knows anything about the software industry already knows this.
The uninsured would have gone the hospital and not paid a dime anyhow. The ACA doesn't change much for injuries except some accounting on the billing side.
For preventable diseases, this will cause previously uninsured to seek a doctor instead of waiting for it to be an emergency. An emergency room visit is about 100x more expensive than a doctor's office visit. Plus everything dangerous is more survivable the earlier it is detected.
Define "successful"?
Successful at wasting money that could be spent on much cheaper and less susceptible to damage ground radars? Successful and funneling money into military contracts? Successful in employing former military? Sure.
Do we see a lot of cruise missiles fired at us from Mexico?
There is a thing over the US that is for cruise missile defense?
Exactly how much of a threat are those in Washington? Considering exactly none of them have ever been fired in anger at the United States, it makes me wonder.
And what is this thing going to do about a cruise missile if it does see one? Maybe it is supposed to be connected to some kind of air defense, but the only way one of those is going to be shot down is if it is detected over the horizon.
Of course, Raytheon wasting tax dollars on pork? Say it ain't so. Why are the congresscritters that authorize this stuff never taken to task?
EULAs have been proven unenforceable time and time again. If you put a sign on the front of your business that says "if you hurt yourself while on our premises, it is not our fault", you can be sure the first idiot that stubs his toe is going to sue you. And even if they don't win its going to be expensive for the business.
Probably the downfall of our litigious society, but you can see why companies have to be in constant CYA mode. On the other hand, this does prevent us from having companies make faulty items or have willfully unsafe premises and not have to pay for damages.
Well I am in the software data analysis industry and not in devices. So that is probably why our regulations are so much more lax. Nobody will die if our program crashes.
Not that it they should not be regulations on what we do, of course. I have seen some 3rd party code that made my head spin. I recommended we did not take a maintenance contract on someone else's shitty code based on the nightmare it would be to rewrite their entire system. There would have been no way to do the job given the money involved.
Of course there are part of our own system that are terrible. I point out "hey, if we change this and this, we can improve performance and accuracy by x amount, here are the statistics to prove it." But as long as it appears to work people are happy to let the black box do it's thing.
Sometimes I feel like having some stricter requirements would make my job easier.
And this is why people feel software does not deserve the tag "engineering" after it. Useful source control, requirement, and ticketing systems should be required when the software is meeting or involved in a system that is controlled by regulations.
And useful ones, too. Not like the ones I saw being used at ISO9000 banking companies back in the day. They simply made sure that things were either really well documented, or not documented at all. The auditor can't audit documentation that doesn't exist. I am not sure if that shit would fly in the post 2008 world, I got the hell out of that industry long ago. Either way that company managed to go out of business pre-crash.
Even the healthcare software I work on today does not have nearly any requirements on how the software is developed, as long as it performs (or appears to perform) the task contracted to us. Fortunately for our own sanity and quality we do use quite good practices. Even agile development can have good ticket/requirement trails.
Basically they wanted to avoid the cost of installing a urea injection system so they cheated instead.
Well that is just a bunch of piss.
What use is that statement? Ronald Reagan came up with the idea of a space station, or specifically ISS? Yeah, the US wanted to make their own station that he announced in 1984, but to give him credit for coming up with the idea is downright foolish. It did not become an international project until the 90's at the end of the cold war. People have been dreaming of internationally operated space projects for as long as we have known we could put things in orbit.
I did not see that in the video at all. What I see is the same giant icons for tablet desktop with a few new windowing features.
But, I will probably get over it. As The Doctor said... "Ohh, you changed the desktop theme... I don't like it."
Aside from etherkiller being old, you could just as easily set the building on fire if you wanted to kill infrastructure.
This requires you to be in the same building if not the same room as the device you are trying to kill. If you have physical access to a machine... etc...
I have the same password on my planet's air shield.
I agree with you, but most of the climate deniers are doing it for commercial gain.
It might be cheaper to build an entirely new plane.
Yeah, from what I could tell the old versions of it were not very good.
It is more lucrative to sit back and play the victim rather than actually fight things in court.
Oh oh, right. It is reasonably flat, t though the sensor I have is pretty small and is only using the middle of the field. A much larger sensor like the kodak ones might not perform so well. Also, the focus and collimation is really really touchy.
As I mentioned in another post, I am sure that is how JMS would have had it play out. Babylon 5 was pretty consistent even in episodes he did not write. (though he did write most of the important plot ones)
Exactly, writing is usually inconsistent on a show with as big a scope as Star Trek, but they weren't even consistent between consecutive episodes.
If there was a guy controlling the end product like JMS did with B5, we might have seen the Prime Directive applied very consistently with some interesting ramifications explored.
Instead the PD only showed up when it was the "right" decision by the main characters.
No, vignetting is fairly major with Hyperstar and f/2.1. Hyperstar and Fastar are really the same thing, Celestron sold the technology to Starizona. However the later incarnations of Hyperstar (I have the latest version 3), add things like easy to use rotator and collimation bolts
However, taking flat field images cancels it out very nicely. You would want to do this to deal with blemishes since the corrector is a dust-magnet anyhow. I haven't found an easy way to use a flat field box, but doing twilight flats is pretty easy. I have been thinking of using a box that fits all the way over the hyperstar+camera attachment. Early on I have had success without flats, and with the Sony sensor I don't ever bother with dark frames. Even with a 10 minute dark exposure, usually not a single pixel is illuminated.
I also bought specifically designed f/2 Baader narrowband filters, since I hear that regular narrowband filters do poorly on hyperstar. So far the results on Ha have been fantastic. It did end up being such a pile of money that I wonder if I was better off with a different setup. Not being able to use a filter wheel is a serious pain in the rear. At least hyperstar lets you use the much cheaper 1.25" filters.
Early on I did not know how to take or process flats, and had good results anyhow. Pixinsight has some very good tools for dealing with background gradients, either vignetting or light pollution. But the flats do a better job easier on vignetting.
If I was not going to ever use the scope for visual, I probably would have saved myself a hundred or two dollars and gotten a regular C8. However the thing is a dream for visual as well. I think C8 scopes are the best bang for your buck on aperture for a mixed imaging/visual scope. Eventually I plan on getting the .7x reducer, and if I ever get a really nice mount, maybe image at f/10. Having looked through both Edge and regular C8s before purchasing, I think the Edge falttener makes a big difference for visual. Especially if you like those fancy 82 degree fov eyepeices. Eventually I will be getting a 2" diagonal. (sadly it only ships with a 1.25", which wastes some of the scope's potential.)
Though if you really want a Hyperstar-only scope, there is the Rowe-Ackermann. It was out of my budget anyhow, since it requires a beefier mount. Its about the same price as the Edge11, but you don't have to buy the $800 or so Hyperstar lens.
The only complaint I would have is that dew control is a serious pain in the rear if you live someplace cold. But that is the case for every SCT. At least a C8 is small enough that the dew heaters are pretty effective.
I actually just got home from a trip to a dark site and have a pile of data from hyperstar to process. Was my first time with a focus motor, which makes a pretty big difference, since as you know the focus with fastar/hyperstar is really really touchy.
Star Trek practically invented Planet of Hats. Each race encountered is distilled down to a base stereotype. Even the later series were largely falling in to this.
Also your post would have been possible to read if you had used line breaks.
The Prime Directive is one of the worst things in Trek. All of the main characters were inconsistent on how they applied it, to the point of simply ignoring it whenever they felt like it.
1. We are in a universe of scarcity
Except when it wasn't and the replicators and holodecks could create anything anyone would ever want.
Mostly it was inconsistent.
I assumed that was the joke.
I think you are right. This is why they use the magic of CARBON NANOTUBES!
Until we can produce those more than a few centimeters in length are are not quite so flamable... this tether will be just as feasible as carbon nanotube space elevators.