"Ball" lightning is essentially impossible. Electricity cannot behave that way, as far as we know. And yet, many people claim to have seen it. So either it exists, and we'd like to learn how, or it doesn't, in which case we'd like to learn what those people are actually seeing.
"State-sanctioned" your ass. Copyright is a natural monopoly. For example, there's only one "Lord of the Rings". There are many books like it, but if I want to read that exact book, there's only one place I can go.
I'll answer your other question too. Copyrights are held by corporations because individuals can't survive long enough to take advantage of the full term of the copyright. So we sell the copyright to the corporation for a wad of money up front. We can then get on with living and partying and writing more books, while the corporation takes care of the boring task of extracting money from the copyright over the long term.
Choosing a value for that wad is almost impossible, but it's undeniable that the longer a copyright term lasts, the bigger that wad can be. Thus authors can directly benefit from longer copyright term.
I bought a flat-bed plotter made by Wang at an auction a few millenia ago. The checkout clerk didn't know what it was, so simply wrote "Wang machine" on the receipt.
Textbook "Fundamentals of Management: Essential Concepts and Applications", 5th edition, by Stephen P. Robbins and David A. DeCenzo. ISBN 0-13-148736-1. From page 322:
"Maslow provided no empirical substantiation for his theory, and several studies that sought to validate it found no support.[6]"
[6] See, for instance, E. E. Lawler III and J. L. Suttle, "A Causal Correlational Test of the Need Hierarchy Concept," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (April 1972), pp. 265-87; and D. T. Hall and K. E. Nongaim, "An Examination of Maslow's Need Hierarchy in an Organizational Setting," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (February 1968), pp. 12-35.
Now would you kindly provides some support for your own claims? We're under the impression that part of the Canadian success is due to American drugs. This may or may not be true, but I can't find anyone on either side of the argument willing to provide references. All we have is a government with a proven record of poorly managed social systems trying to grab control of health care as well, replacing broken socialism with more broken socialism.
And I'm glad that they clarified that they're not talking about the Portland operating room. Although I still don't know what's so special about Portland rocks.
You're overcomplicating things, an "estate" isn't necessary at all. Pretend I'm an artist. I want to live fast and die young. But I can't do that if it takes 70 years for all my money to come in. So instead, I sell the copyright in its entirety to a corporation. Those are run by stuffy men is business suits, and they love thinking long term. They'll give me a wad of money up front so I can get on with partying, while they take care of the boring business of actually making the money for the next century.
These goofy laws make it very hard to do this, because now nobody know who owns the copyright. Maybe it lasts 50 years, maybe 100, maybe it reverts to someone else, maybe the government gives them all to China. It's unfair to me when I sell my copyright for 50 years worth of profit, and you extend it to 100. It's unfair to corporations when I sell my copyright for 50 years but yank it back after 35. You need to pick a term and stick with it.
Absolutely correct. But it's a problem with all treatments, not just routine ones.
This reform could have been a lot simpler.
Yes: Make people pay for their own treatment. You solve the cost problem, since expensive treatments stop selling, and you solve the fat problem because people change their behavior when have need clean up after themselves.
Make health insurance.. with a reasonable maximum coverage cap, say $750,000.
How is this reasonable? Did you even read my post? For that matter, where do insurance companies get that kind of money? That's roughly have of every dollar you'll make in your entire life.
.. provide funding for those who simply cannot afford it otherwise.
That's welfare. A laudable goal, but a whole nother argument.
The cost of health care over your entire life is so unpredictable
No, it's perfectly predictable. It's infinite. At some point, you will die. This is unavoidable. The question is how much you're willing to spend to defer death.
Especially interesting when you discover Maslow's theory is false. It's perfectly logical.. but it's not what drives people.
This is why nationalized healthcare works.
Again, perfectly logical, but.. well not false, but highly misleading. Nationalized health care provides service, but it's poor quality or to a limited percentage of the people, or both. Most, if not all, NHC plans impose both high taxes and long lines. American nationalized plans fail particularly badly.
... socialism is not all bad. Military, fire, police, community centres, libraries: all of these are iconic images of American life, and all of them are funded by the idea that collective payment benefits everyone eventually, if not immediately.
True, but again misleading. These services are all well defined. A fire is a fire, you dump water on it til it's out. There's a little research here (jaws of life, chemical foams) but not much has changed in the past 100 years.
This is not true of health care: almost everything has changed in the past 100 years. And yet there are many diseases that cannot be cured. Nationalized systems are not very good at dealing with things that need to change rapidly.
A) Life is a responsibility, not a right. "Right to life" simply means no one can take your life away. But actually staying alive is your responsibility.
B) Actually a decent point, too bad science is forbidden in politics.
.. in effect, every dollar that goes to American businesses came out of the pockets of the general public. Thus, it's entirely correct to divide dollars of debt by the number of American households to give a debt per household figure.
The economy isn't zero-sum. Wealth comes from the velocity of money, not the quantity. Thus it's entirely conceivable for organization-level business (between business, governments, countries) to pay down the debt.
Another way to look at a trade deficit is that the US economy is so powerful, it's able to raise the standard of living in the entire rest of the world. A deficit probably isn't the best way to do this, but it's hardly all bad.
The problem is that software is very expensive to write. This is the core problem of today: How can the creators get paid when distribution costs nothing?
What is absolutely disgusting, is that software has not seen the same competition that has driven hardware development so much
You should try using commercial software. Competition is fierce, and capabilities are incredible. Don't just use freeware, that stuff is mostly crap.
FLOPS aren't directly comparable, as the ATI chips are arranged more like the Itanium, while nVidia looks more like a Core Duo. ATI has more raw power, but uses a smaller percentage of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I asked the Google Prediction API what the next Google API would be, and it said "Google Prediction API".
Well bluh, it's not like you have a choice.
"Ball" lightning is essentially impossible. Electricity cannot behave that way, as far as we know. And yet, many people claim to have seen it. So either it exists, and we'd like to learn how, or it doesn't, in which case we'd like to learn what those people are actually seeing.
Obviously, it's the next version of MPEG. And the one after will be MPEG 11. Sheesh, can't you handle simple arithmetic progressions?
"State-sanctioned" your ass. Copyright is a natural monopoly. For example, there's only one "Lord of the Rings". There are many books like it, but if I want to read that exact book, there's only one place I can go.
I'll answer your other question too. Copyrights are held by corporations because individuals can't survive long enough to take advantage of the full term of the copyright. So we sell the copyright to the corporation for a wad of money up front. We can then get on with living and partying and writing more books, while the corporation takes care of the boring task of extracting money from the copyright over the long term.
Choosing a value for that wad is almost impossible, but it's undeniable that the longer a copyright term lasts, the bigger that wad can be. Thus authors can directly benefit from longer copyright term.
I bought a flat-bed plotter made by Wang at an auction a few millenia ago. The checkout clerk didn't know what it was, so simply wrote "Wang machine" on the receipt.
Same as with the Highlander. But I digress.
Textbook "Fundamentals of Management: Essential Concepts and Applications", 5th edition, by Stephen P. Robbins and David A. DeCenzo. ISBN 0-13-148736-1. From page 322:
[6] See, for instance, E. E. Lawler III and J. L. Suttle, "A Causal Correlational Test of the Need Hierarchy Concept," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (April 1972), pp. 265-87; and D. T. Hall and K. E. Nongaim, "An Examination of Maslow's Need Hierarchy in an Organizational Setting," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (February 1968), pp. 12-35.
Now would you kindly provides some support for your own claims? We're under the impression that part of the Canadian success is due to American drugs. This may or may not be true, but I can't find anyone on either side of the argument willing to provide references. All we have is a government with a proven record of poorly managed social systems trying to grab control of health care as well, replacing broken socialism with more broken socialism.
Don't forget "Open Office", NOBODY knows what that does. On the other hand, "Visual Studio", "Opera", and "Bibble" make perfect sense.
And I'm glad that they clarified that they're not talking about the Portland operating room. Although I still don't know what's so special about Portland rocks.
You're overcomplicating things, an "estate" isn't necessary at all. Pretend I'm an artist. I want to live fast and die young. But I can't do that if it takes 70 years for all my money to come in. So instead, I sell the copyright in its entirety to a corporation. Those are run by stuffy men is business suits, and they love thinking long term. They'll give me a wad of money up front so I can get on with partying, while they take care of the boring business of actually making the money for the next century.
These goofy laws make it very hard to do this, because now nobody know who owns the copyright. Maybe it lasts 50 years, maybe 100, maybe it reverts to someone else, maybe the government gives them all to China. It's unfair to me when I sell my copyright for 50 years worth of profit, and you extend it to 100. It's unfair to corporations when I sell my copyright for 50 years but yank it back after 35. You need to pick a term and stick with it.
I'm getting too old to die young.
First man on the friggin' MOON, if that sort of thing is important.
The problem with using "insurance" to pay ..
Absolutely correct. But it's a problem with all treatments, not just routine ones.
This reform could have been a lot simpler.
Yes: Make people pay for their own treatment. You solve the cost problem, since expensive treatments stop selling, and you solve the fat problem because people change their behavior when have need clean up after themselves.
Make health insurance .. with a reasonable maximum coverage cap, say $750,000.
How is this reasonable? Did you even read my post? For that matter, where do insurance companies get that kind of money? That's roughly have of every dollar you'll make in your entire life.
.. provide funding for those who simply cannot afford it otherwise.
That's welfare. A laudable goal, but a whole nother argument.
60 MHz PowerPC, actually. The video processor must be pretty swank to toss images around on screen like that, but yeah, the CPU is useless.
The cost of health care over your entire life is so unpredictable
No, it's perfectly predictable. It's infinite. At some point, you will die. This is unavoidable. The question is how much you're willing to spend to defer death.
It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Especially interesting when you discover Maslow's theory is false. It's perfectly logical .. but it's not what drives people.
This is why nationalized healthcare works.
Again, perfectly logical, but .. well not false, but highly misleading. Nationalized health care provides service, but it's poor quality or to a limited percentage of the people, or both. Most, if not all, NHC plans impose both high taxes and long lines. American nationalized plans fail particularly badly.
... socialism is not all bad. Military, fire, police, community centres, libraries: all of these are iconic images of American life, and all of them are funded by the idea that collective payment benefits everyone eventually, if not immediately.
True, but again misleading. These services are all well defined. A fire is a fire, you dump water on it til it's out. There's a little research here (jaws of life, chemical foams) but not much has changed in the past 100 years.
This is not true of health care: almost everything has changed in the past 100 years. And yet there are many diseases that cannot be cured. Nationalized systems are not very good at dealing with things that need to change rapidly.
A) Life is a responsibility, not a right. "Right to life" simply means no one can take your life away. But actually staying alive is your responsibility.
B) Actually a decent point, too bad science is forbidden in politics.
That's stupid. vi is a much better interface for a mouse.
.. in effect, every dollar that goes to American businesses came out of the pockets of the general public. Thus, it's entirely correct to divide dollars of debt by the number of American households to give a debt per household figure.
The economy isn't zero-sum. Wealth comes from the velocity of money, not the quantity. Thus it's entirely conceivable for organization-level business (between business, governments, countries) to pay down the debt.
Another way to look at a trade deficit is that the US economy is so powerful, it's able to raise the standard of living in the entire rest of the world. A deficit probably isn't the best way to do this, but it's hardly all bad.
Bridges aren't that expensive, it's the assembly and installation that kills you.
Software *can* be given away free quite easily
The problem is that software is very expensive to write. This is the core problem of today: How can the creators get paid when distribution costs nothing?
What is absolutely disgusting, is that software has not seen the same competition that has driven hardware development so much
You should try using commercial software. Competition is fierce, and capabilities are incredible. Don't just use freeware, that stuff is mostly crap.
Well, the trick is, in his country, all diabetics have health insurance.
.. while in our country, all diabetics have health care. It's a subtle difference that few people understand yet.
FLOPS aren't directly comparable, as the ATI chips are arranged more like the Itanium, while nVidia looks more like a Core Duo. ATI has more raw power, but uses a smaller percentage of it.
Corporations have sucked plenty of money from people's wallets
There's probably a point hiding in there, however ..
thanks to mandatory-binding-arbitration clauses in non-negotiable contracts
.. enforced by the government.
They cannot directly jail you ... but they have pet governments to do that job for them.
You just broke your own point there.
the overwhelming involvement of private industry in the American way of war these days
.. due to being hired by the federal government.
Corporations do all of those things, thanks to the undue power money grants over the government.
You're getting close to a point again ..
only the government stands in the way of private armies and police forces.
Wups, just broke your point again.
Read up on the East India Company's rule of India if you wonder what corporations are capable of without government restraint.
And again.
For the rest, when was the last time you got to vote for a corporation's leadership?
Right now, in fact. I have a request to vote on some corporate stuff due to the shares I hold. I've had several this year alone.
Thanks for playing, feel free to try again.
They don't list any prizes, so later they're going to need a NASA Prize Challenge Challenge Prize Challenge.