I can't speak to switch access, but the serial port is paramount in the medical instrumentation field. Virtually all interfaces are serial. Need to hook up a CBC machine? Cobas? Vitek? Serial!
Most machine shops -- their equipment is serial. Sending cut information to the lathe? Serial.
For those marking this flamebait -- I'm not surprised. The GP was wrong. I called him out. He admitted it -- yet you mark me flamebait? Says a lot about you and what you think about the truth.
So you are making an argument for reform? Such as allowing for the payments of insurance premiems with pretax dollars? I'm with you. It's a great idea.
I am, however, not for the monster that came out of the house -- or the vile monster that came out of the senate.
Most businesses (as in the vast majority) in the US are less than 100 employees. Most of those only cover the cost of the employees in part and nothing for dependents (but they get the group discount offered to the employeer).
The cost difference for many of these health care plans between what the employee pays and the full cost isn't that huge. I work for a large corporation. What I pay for my wife, myself and kids is about $3000/year less than the total cost (read $250/mo) less.
This is actually a slightly better deal then before my old employeer was bought out by my current employeer. Much smaller company (less than 100 employees). The difference was $1200/year -- and the total cost was more expensive). My old employeer contributed $100/mo to the employee only.
Then again... I actually pay attention during those "health care coverage" meetings employers are required to give and employees are required to attend.
Weird, I was pretty sure that dislike of the US health care system was pretty universal regardless of party affiliation or position on the political spectrum.
Weird, I was pretty sure that disinformation about dislike of the US health care system was pretty universal -- particuarly from the left.
Don't let little things like facts get in your way (most Americans satisfied with quality of their own medical care and health care costs)...
Granted, how to *fix* the system is a polarizing issue,
True! Do we rip apart a system completely that most americans are happy with? Or do we attempt to address the weaknesses in it? And do we do that at the federal level? Shouldn't that be done at the state level if the state's citizens what such a thing? These are good HONEST questions. Which should be debated in the open without name calling.
but whether or not the US system sucks balls doesn't seem to be up for debate these days
Only by those who either cant or wont read -- or are being selectivly blind.
The problem is it's tripping a sensor within the documented parameters... Which -- as anyone who wears glasses could probably tell you (providing they used those classes to RTFA), void the warranty.
It makes absolutely no difference how scientists appear to have acted because their results can be objectively checked. If Greenpeace paid me to say that e=mc^2, it wouldn't change the correctness of the theory one bit.
Ok. Great! Lets check their work! Oh yeah... all the original data is lost. After years of FOI requests and delays. So we CANT objectively be checked. It must not be science, correct?
If scientists falsified temperature data it would be trivially easy to check. The data is available from the national weather services to anyone willing to sign the agreements and pay the fees. Anyone can watch the watchers. Yet all we get are discussions of "appearances" and insinuations.
You're right! It's trivially easy to check! Lets check! Oh yeah... all the original data is lost. After years of FOI requests and delays. So we CAN'T check the data. Trivially or otherwise.
Oh... the FOI delays have been ruled as breaking the law...
So there we are. Is the experiment reproducible? No. So is it science?
I'd rather get facts from *HONEST* scientists than close minded lying "scientists" willing to break the law and threaten peer review publishers who opt to publish research that challenges theirs.
The only opinions that count are expressed in peer-reviewed journals of climate scientists
When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".
Now... this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding. Which means all new scientists entering the field will pick research were they can GET funding. It's a feedback loop of bad science, in my opinion (not necessarily the research).
Or better yet, treat people like they WANT to be treated.
"At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" -- Freedom from Religion Foundation
Do Atheists want their belief system mocked? Is that how they want to be treated?
The zeal appears ideological to me. In just this one example, it's being spread by "an actual group or movement" as I see it. Don't you agree?
I'm still fine with tossing a capital "A" for Atheists when appropriate.
Nope. Can't get a company car. And yes, I COULD park my car at work for a week -- and have done so. Only to have it broken in to once, gas stolen another time (I caught that guy -- he didn't know it was my car -- he was pretending it was his and he couldn't start it. Called the cops and they arrived in 2 mins and arrested the dork).
I used to bike to work before my employer was bought out by %HUGECORPAGENCY%. The new bosses require me be available to travel within a range of 200 miles on a moments notice -- so I'm stuck.
I also have an electric bike. It's a hybrid. You can't just push a button and go. It requires you peddle -- and it will assist you. I like this because it makes the hills and inclines much easier to manage and I didn't show up to work smelly and sweaty. On the ride home, I'd generally ride with the motor off to get a workout.
Right now, except for the occasional weekend, this bike sits in my garage collecting dust.
Popular media might not portray it very reliably or well, but it's there.
I would disagree. Were it not portrayed as well it wouldn't be followed like a religion by so many.
Academia is the most reliable institution for determining truth that we have.
Yup. True.
What it says might not be aimed at countering a spirited opposition by industry, the faithful, or the politically inspired, but that does not change things.
No there, I disagree. There needs to be SOME check to make sure that "academia", as you call it, isn't obsorbed in it's own infallibility to the point of zealotry. There is a history in academia in which it has acted in a not-so honorable fashion. For reference, review the "longitude prize" or more recently M theory.
With the recent email scandal and now proven illegal coverup, there are STRONG indications that "academia" is once again wrongfully going down the path of blind certainty and not just activly preventing theories/papers from making in to peer review journals, but more insidiously, young scientists attempting to enter the field will avoid it. In M theory, the reason would was "who'll fund my research?".
You might "make up your own mind", but if you don't study the field, you might as well be making stuff up - without relevant background, we can't understand the fields.
You don't need to be a climate scientist or meteorologist to recognize malfeasance.
a) She didn't have to be Mirandized. She wasn't arrested at that point. b) Doesn't matter. She wasn't in a court of law. c) Doesn't matter. It's against the law to obstruct justice and lie to the FBI.
This goes back quite some time -- and has nothing to do with how or what method news was available.
Most people today (just as in the 1970's -- or almost ANY decade) couldn't tell you the name of their Congressman or Senator. Their state Assemblyman or Senator. Their city council member. Scary numbers cant name the CURRENT President and Vice President.
As far as news goes, I get the feeling most people didn't read past the headlines and MAYBE first paragraph anyway. I think the few who actually READ the news still do -- and of those who READ the news electronically, are about as "well informed" as they were before.
If anything, filtered news feeds just give the ILLUSION feeling informed for a sub-class of the population that was never were informed.
I'm extremely familiar with the full speech. I think this part is more relevant that what you quoted:
"Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.?"
Is space the future? Is that where we need to direct or economy? I think it is.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak to switch access, but the serial port is paramount in the medical instrumentation field. Virtually all interfaces are serial. Need to hook up a CBC machine? Cobas? Vitek? Serial!
Most machine shops -- their equipment is serial. Sending cut information to the lathe? Serial.
It took you 30 minutes to walk down 4 flights of stairs?
You obviously don't remember "Hamster dance". Charm, indeed!
For those marking this flamebait -- I'm not surprised. The GP was wrong. I called him out. He admitted it -- yet you mark me flamebait? Says a lot about you and what you think about the truth.
So you are making an argument for reform? Such as allowing for the payments of insurance premiems with pretax dollars? I'm with you. It's a great idea.
I am, however, not for the monster that came out of the house -- or the vile monster that came out of the senate.
Most businesses (as in the vast majority) in the US are less than 100 employees. Most of those only cover the cost of the employees in part and nothing for dependents (but they get the group discount offered to the employeer).
The cost difference for many of these health care plans between what the employee pays and the full cost isn't that huge. I work for a large corporation. What I pay for my wife, myself and kids is about $3000/year less than the total cost (read $250/mo) less.
This is actually a slightly better deal then before my old employeer was bought out by my current employeer. Much smaller company (less than 100 employees). The difference was $1200/year -- and the total cost was more expensive). My old employeer contributed $100/mo to the employee only.
Then again... I actually pay attention during those "health care coverage" meetings employers are required to give and employees are required to attend.
38% is hardly "*most* people" (re my other post). You might want to issue a correction in this thread, too.
Weird, I was pretty sure that disinformation about dislike of the US health care system was pretty universal -- particuarly from the left.
Don't let little things like facts get in your way (most Americans satisfied with quality of their own medical care and health care costs)...
True! Do we rip apart a system completely that most americans are happy with? Or do we attempt to address the weaknesses in it? And do we do that at the federal level? Shouldn't that be done at the state level if the state's citizens what such a thing? These are good HONEST questions. Which should be debated in the open without name calling.
Only by those who either cant or wont read -- or are being selectivly blind.
The problem is it's tripping a sensor within the documented parameters... Which -- as anyone who wears glasses could probably tell you (providing they used those classes to RTFA), void the warranty.
Ok. Great! Lets check their work! Oh yeah... all the original data is lost. After years of FOI requests and delays. So we CANT objectively be checked. It must not be science, correct?
You're right! It's trivially easy to check! Lets check! Oh yeah... all the original data is lost. After years of FOI requests and delays. So we CAN'T check the data. Trivially or otherwise.
Oh... the FOI delays have been ruled as breaking the law...
So there we are. Is the experiment reproducible? No. So is it science?
You tell me.
I'd rather get facts from *HONEST* scientists than close minded lying "scientists" willing to break the law and threaten peer review publishers who opt to publish research that challenges theirs.
But that's just me.
And read those findings more carefully.
When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".
Now... this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding. Which means all new scientists entering the field will pick research were they can GET funding. It's a feedback loop of bad science, in my opinion (not necessarily the research).
You should actually learn what a tu quoque is -- the difference between formal and informal fallacies, and not just create a straw man.
Really?
"At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" -- Freedom from Religion Foundation
Do Atheists want their belief system mocked? Is that how they want to be treated?
The zeal appears ideological to me. In just this one example, it's being spread by "an actual group or movement" as I see it. Don't you agree?
I'm still fine with tossing a capital "A" for Atheists when appropriate.
(Offtopic yes, but I feel I must respond)
The great zeal with which many Atheists practice their believes (or lack thereof), I think capitalizing it is often appropriate.
Nope. Can't get a company car. And yes, I COULD park my car at work for a week -- and have done so. Only to have it broken in to once, gas stolen another time (I caught that guy -- he didn't know it was my car -- he was pretending it was his and he couldn't start it. Called the cops and they arrived in 2 mins and arrested the dork).
I used to bike to work before my employer was bought out by %HUGECORPAGENCY%. The new bosses require me be available to travel within a range of 200 miles on a moments notice -- so I'm stuck.
I also have an electric bike. It's a hybrid. You can't just push a button and go. It requires you peddle -- and it will assist you. I like this because it makes the hills and inclines much easier to manage and I didn't show up to work smelly and sweaty. On the ride home, I'd generally ride with the motor off to get a workout.
Right now, except for the occasional weekend, this bike sits in my garage collecting dust.
Because we all know that no private sector profit ever came from manned space exploration...
True.
I would disagree. Were it not portrayed as well it wouldn't be followed like a religion by so many.
Yup. True.
No there, I disagree. There needs to be SOME check to make sure that "academia", as you call it, isn't obsorbed in it's own infallibility to the point of zealotry. There is a history in academia in which it has acted in a not-so honorable fashion. For reference, review the "longitude prize" or more recently M theory.
With the recent email scandal and now proven illegal coverup, there are STRONG indications that "academia" is once again wrongfully going down the path of blind certainty and not just activly preventing theories/papers from making in to peer review journals, but more insidiously, young scientists attempting to enter the field will avoid it. In M theory, the reason would was "who'll fund my research?".
You don't need to be a climate scientist or meteorologist to recognize malfeasance.
a) She didn't have to be Mirandized. She wasn't arrested at that point.
b) Doesn't matter. She wasn't in a court of law.
c) Doesn't matter. It's against the law to obstruct justice and lie to the FBI.
Read item 23 and item 26-27
You can. Providing you immediately jump in water.
Warning: This will reverse the effects and kill anyone else who tries to use your blood.
This goes back quite some time -- and has nothing to do with how or what method news was available.
Most people today (just as in the 1970's -- or almost ANY decade) couldn't tell you the name of their Congressman or Senator. Their state Assemblyman or Senator. Their city council member. Scary numbers cant name the CURRENT President and Vice President.
As far as news goes, I get the feeling most people didn't read past the headlines and MAYBE first paragraph anyway. I think the few who actually READ the news still do -- and of those who READ the news electronically, are about as "well informed" as they were before.
If anything, filtered news feeds just give the ILLUSION feeling informed for a sub-class of the population that was never were informed.
Click Me
Well over 2 trillion a year.
I'm extremely familiar with the full speech. I think this part is more relevant that what you quoted:
Is space the future? Is that where we need to direct or economy? I think it is.
Of course we have money. The problem is we spend more than we take in -- and our spending priorities are all over the board.
That, and the NASA budget is a drop in the bucket of annual spending.
Why not cut NHE by 1% or 2%? Across the board?
'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is easy'
Or something like that.