If you want to know more about the risks involved in the production of illegal drugs, how to detect said production, and clean up the mess it makes, you have to make some yourself.
God I hope not. You're talking about the global collapse of modern civilization. Billions would die, and we'd have to start all over again. As much fun as post-apocalyptic games and movies can be, actually going through it would be, to put it mildly, nightmarishly horrific.
Not that we'd stay there. After a few hundred years we'd be back where we are now, but that's a lot of time and lives wasted for nothing.
Okay, halving carbon emissions, fossil fuel use, or nuclear power use is one thing (though silly in the latter case). But halving consumption of power? How in the hell is that supposed to work? "Welcome to France, there's no air conditioning."? Perhaps instead of electric vehicles, they're adopting Flintstones style cars? Does it mean all electricity use, or can you still wire up a stationary bike to a generator? Will batteries still be sold?
That's not what's happening. This isn't a case of someone arguing ignorance as a defence, the police are the ones who don't know if there was an applicable law. The ignorance != defence rule assumes the accused could and should have been aware of the law. In this case it could not have been possible for him to know, as demonstrated by the police's ignorance. If law enforcement doesn't know if he broke a law, there's no possible way a reasonable person could know either.
If they were to say, "we've decided law X applies to what he did", that should be considered ex post facto, as it clearly didn't apply at the time of the incident.
Baked into the statement is a presumption of guilt and it begs a legislative question, assuming that he must have done something wrong before the People and their representatives have made that determination. That's not how our system is designed to work.
historians whose great, great, great grandparents have yet to be born. And a really easy one to solve. Let's face it, you don't need carbon dating to tell the difference between shirts from the 12th and 21st century. William the Conqueror didn't cross the Channel in a poly-cotton blend.
Oh, I know, it's whats called a "Self-Regulatory Organization". Congress gave them sole authority for accreditation of medical professionals. University programs are accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which is run by the AMA and the Association of American Medical Colleges, and likewise recognized by Congress as the sole authority on the matter.
As far back as 1977 there were concerns that the AMA and LCME were intentionally restricting the supply of doctors ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/... ). Which went nowhere.
Ah, I take your point. Going back to the beginning of the thread, you hit a far more important nail on the head. The root of the cost problem in the US healthcare system! Simple supply and demand - there aren't enough doctors to satisfy demand, so costs are naturally high. And we consistently make the problem worse by focusing not on increasing supply, but rather subsidizing (aka increasing) demand.
There's also an improper focus on how we pay for healthcare. Because European nations with single payer or nationalized healthcare have lower costs, people assume adopting one of those systems will solve the cost problem here. What they don't take into account is that those nations have 50-100% more doctors and hospital beds per patient. I came across (and lost) a fascinating historical study of healthcare in the US illustrating how throughout the 20th century a number of measures were put in place to restrict the supply of doctors and hospital beds. At least up to the 60's, when the focus shifted to subsidizing demand.
I agree that subsidizing medical training would be a move that would actually help, graduating with a quarter-to-half million dollars in debt is not exactly an incentive, but there's another problem. There aren't enough medical schools to train all the doctors we need. Less than half of well qualified applicants to med school can actually get in to a program. Also a legislative cock-up. It's nigh impossible to start a new med school. Even if a university want's to start one, odds are that the AMA won't let them, Nor can we import doctors, as the AMA won't certify graduates of foreign training programs. If a doctor wants to immigrate, they aren't allowed to practice unless they go through an American medical program and redo their residency.
And if you're a doctor, taking a sick day could mean not saving lives. If you're the only doctor for miles, "I have pneumonia" ain't gonna override, "my wife is bleeding to death, please help!"
Slashdot Mirror
Hah!
If you want to know more about the risks involved in the production of illegal drugs, how to detect said production, and clean up the mess it makes, you have to make some yourself.
Not that we'd stay there. After a few hundred years we'd be back where we are now, but that's a lot of time and lives wasted for nothing.
Okay, halving carbon emissions, fossil fuel use, or nuclear power use is one thing (though silly in the latter case). But halving consumption of power? How in the hell is that supposed to work? "Welcome to France, there's no air conditioning."? Perhaps instead of electric vehicles, they're adopting Flintstones style cars? Does it mean all electricity use, or can you still wire up a stationary bike to a generator? Will batteries still be sold?
If they were to say, "we've decided law X applies to what he did", that should be considered ex post facto, as it clearly didn't apply at the time of the incident.
Baked into the statement is a presumption of guilt and it begs a legislative question, assuming that he must have done something wrong before the People and their representatives have made that determination. That's not how our system is designed to work.
to hold and fire a gun? It's not like such devices don't already exist.
Aw hell, I forgot about them. Offer an alternative verification process? For .002% of the population, it's not worth worrying about too much.
Well obviously, but you're not supposed to just come out and say it!
Plus, he was French. You know how fashion-forward they are.
Talk about "Killer T-Cells"!!
our corporate HQ was running on a phone system so old it had a green monochrome monitor. Which it came with.
a way to make sure users of a forum for pre-teen girls are at least female - not men looking to rape children.
historians whose great, great, great grandparents have yet to be born. And a really easy one to solve. Let's face it, you don't need carbon dating to tell the difference between shirts from the 12th and 21st century. William the Conqueror didn't cross the Channel in a poly-cotton blend.
Even pretending your offensive nonsense is true, moving on would mean not "raping" this planet anymore. So, a win-win.
As far back as 1977 there were concerns that the AMA and LCME were intentionally restricting the supply of doctors ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/... ). Which went nowhere.
No more abstract electricity!
What? No, that's utter nonsense. Being self-employed could not be more unlike what you describe.
How does one force themselves to work unpaid overtime? Even if violating labor laws is possible, who's going to turn you in?
There's also an improper focus on how we pay for healthcare. Because European nations with single payer or nationalized healthcare have lower costs, people assume adopting one of those systems will solve the cost problem here. What they don't take into account is that those nations have 50-100% more doctors and hospital beds per patient. I came across (and lost) a fascinating historical study of healthcare in the US illustrating how throughout the 20th century a number of measures were put in place to restrict the supply of doctors and hospital beds. At least up to the 60's, when the focus shifted to subsidizing demand.
I agree that subsidizing medical training would be a move that would actually help, graduating with a quarter-to-half million dollars in debt is not exactly an incentive, but there's another problem. There aren't enough medical schools to train all the doctors we need. Less than half of well qualified applicants to med school can actually get in to a program. Also a legislative cock-up. It's nigh impossible to start a new med school. Even if a university want's to start one, odds are that the AMA won't let them, Nor can we import doctors, as the AMA won't certify graduates of foreign training programs. If a doctor wants to immigrate, they aren't allowed to practice unless they go through an American medical program and redo their residency.
We don't need "tremendous social change". We need more doctors. That solves every problem in the healthcare system.
Given the choice between catching something and bleeding to death from a compound fracture, I'll happily catch whatever the doctor has.
And if you're a doctor, taking a sick day could mean not saving lives. If you're the only doctor for miles, "I have pneumonia" ain't gonna override, "my wife is bleeding to death, please help!"
There's also far more demand for their services then they can supply, and patient needs are often too urgent to delay.
Ozzy Osbourne snorted ants once. He didn't recommend it, but he didn't specifically warn against it either.