SCO lost because Novel owns Unix, the utilities, posix, and how it operates.
I am afraid of someone like Microsoft buying Unix only to cease and desist any Unix like product that looks similar. What better way to get back at Oracle and kill Linux then to own the unix standard?
Oracle owns Solaris.
If MS would be foolish enough to try a dirty trick against Oracle then they would just turn off Linux (assuming they would not want to flex their legal muscle).
They designed some of their "open storage" offerings specifically to speed file system meta data with SSDs and ther rest of the data with regular disks.
The interesting thing to note is that you could do all this yourself (the open storage moniker is not gratuitous) but they have done all the heavy lifting already, so if you have the money it is a good option.
England does not pay for drugs that don't demonstrate any obvious benefits.
Any drugs that are obviously working are not stopped in general terms, unless they are outrageously expensive (I have not heard about such a situation yet).
"If you look only at people with insurance in both nations I bet the US patients would do a LOT better. However, US stats are skewed by large numbers of people with very little care at all."
That amount of money is used to pay for people in old age.
When you become old there will be young people wondering why they should pay 300 euros a month for health care they don't use while you receive civilized health care that you may not have been able to afford otherwise.
Only cases in which it is terribly expensive to provide treatment, or the quality of life is barely increased, or life expectancy does not change.
The cases of this happening are so rare that it becomes national news when they are discussed.
And it is not like those choices are not done in the private sphere, health insurance companies deciding somebody is "uninsurable" are making exactly the same call, the difference is that the panel in the UK is taking in consideration what is in the best interests of patients (they are and independent body, not linked to the Health Service as such) while insurance companies are only looking at they actuarial tables and their balance sheets.
"Take your example of feeding a poor person in another nation. That sounds good. But the feedback you forget is that by giving that person free food you put the farmers in that country out of business."
Which business is that exactly?
In countries where people are starving there is not enough food being produced. THat is the problem (drought, wars, you name it).
Or do please provide examples.
In any case, if saving thousands of people from starvation means that a few farmers have to make a living doing something else, so be it.
You are paying for it after all (from your own pocket or your private insurance).
The NHS will prioritize treatment, so if you need it tomorrow you most likely will have it tomorrow, if it is not so urgent, yeah, it will take a while.
One has to grant that the waiting queues have been tackled up front by the current government (one of the reasons they have remained in power for so long) and the system is far from perfect, but is it really annoying this minute nit picking about a system that in general terms works reasonably well for far less money.
The previous Conservative government (Republicans Light, very Light, they don't remotely approach the right wing US political spectrum, but still, they are to the right of UK politics) of course forgot about the NHS and during their last tenure in power service got worst,
The current Conservative leader has made a cornerstone of his political manifesto to keep current levels of spending on the NHS in real terms.
In the UK the party of Margaret Thatcher has come to the conclusion that Socialized Medicine is the best solution for the provision of Health Care for the general population.
People opposing Health Care Reform in the US should really take some time to think about the above...
That is what it costs (more less) in the UK if you have elective private health insurance (normally a perk from some big companies, of course it would be free in the "Communist", by US derided political standards, National Health Service).
You are being conned in the US, but half of you chose to believe the nonsense that the the interested parties (insurance companies) chose to publish.
Look, let me let you into a secret, insurance is "N random people paying into a system to finance your family's problems ".
H-e-l-l-o-o-o-o ! Anybody there?
The difference with socialized medicine is that the aim of the system is to get best outcomes for the most patients.
With the sorry excuse of a system in the US the aim of the system is to make rich the insurance companies and ancillary businesses (hospitals, doctors) at the expense of the US people, who pay way above the odds for care that is often denied on the flimsiest of excuses.
Think: how it comes Cuba, one very poor country, which has been prosecuted mercilessly by old U.S. of A. , can boast several health indicators (life expectancy, child mortality) which are pretty similar to the US's in s shoestring of a budget?
But whatever, if you think it is a good idea to be at the entire mercy of for profit organizations when it comes to health care be our guest. The rest of the civilized word knows better (the brand of Ayatolic capitalism espoused by half of the US population is frankly illogical and stupid, but that is what happens when blind faith clouds sound judgement).
""Under UCI rules, the determination of whether or not a cyclist violated any rules must be made by the cyclist's national federation, in this case USA Cycling, which transferred the case to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)." The evidence was good enough for the USADA but it's not good enough for the experts on slashdot?"
"BTW: US restrictions on guest workers were a complete toothless joke, and US companies got all the H1Bs they wanted anyway."
But there is no amount of evidence that would convince people ejaculating this view of the contrary.
Just where I used to work no visas were required: all jobs where relocated elsewhere (India, Romania, Ireland, Singapore).
But you want to have your cake and eat it against the obvious economic pressures to transfer jobs one way or another to countries where labour is cheaper.
Many USian Slashdotters are pervers protectionists, advocates for inefficiency and economic mismanagement, as long as all is neatly wrapped in the old bar and spangled one.
People with well paid, safe, comfortable jobs, are always happy assuming what people that don't threaten their jobs would like to do.
Actually workers in rich countries are speaking: here in the UK the difference in commitment and work ethics from East European people in menial jobs is now well cemented. The locals can't be bothered to takes those jobs and seem to be quite happy what several people here are mocking as no-jobs or "shitty" service jobs, like if the pseudo-manly sweaty nature of a jobs was directly proportional to its usefulness and satisfaction potential.
His son, who didn't like school much, was a plant worker doing stuff in the assembly line. He left after 3 gruelling months he described as the worst of his life.
Slashdot Mirror
Show me one US university that does not accept African Americans or other minorities.
What about women? Is there still any retarded institution of such a kind?
You know it. It is the worse language to teach good programming practices.
They have to *implement* something.
What are they going to do with their cards then?
Honestly chaps, some of you are snobbish and insufferable.
Please, use the right tool for the task, Pascal is compiled and has clean simple syntax which is easy to catch.
All the other languages are more complex, and whatever people say, interpreted languages still lag behind in general terms when it comes to speed.
SCO lost because Novel owns Unix, the utilities, posix, and how it operates.
I am afraid of someone like Microsoft buying Unix only to cease and desist any Unix like product that looks similar. What better way to get back at Oracle and kill Linux then to own the unix standard?
Oracle owns Solaris.
If MS would be foolish enough to try a dirty trick against Oracle then they would just turn off Linux (assuming they would not want to flex their legal muscle).
Look at Sun, er... Oracle's storage solutions.
They designed some of their "open storage" offerings specifically to speed file system meta data with SSDs and ther rest of the data with regular disks.
The interesting thing to note is that you could do all this yourself (the open storage moniker is not gratuitous) but they have done all the heavy lifting already, so if you have the money it is a good option.
Trolling since 1998?
You can't discuss economy in isolation, specially disconnected from human emotion and moral judgements.
That should be obvious to even the most derided, but educated, person.
You are incorrect.
England does not pay for drugs that don't demonstrate any obvious benefits.
Any drugs that are obviously working are not stopped in general terms, unless they are outrageously expensive (I have not heard about such a situation yet).
AI will not even comment more on that.
As for arrogant, well, gee, what a surprise, people believing that they may be better placed to judge personal situations.
Did you get a degree on stating the obvious or it is just a natural talent?
We put price on human life every day.
It is called insurance.
People that become "uninsurable" are considered too costly for society.
At a much basic level, more primitive societies just left the unable behind, or the old people would separate from the main group to die on their own.
We have always made those judgements of value, I resent you don't invite us to your planet where such decisions are not quantified and taken.
"If you look only at people with insurance in both nations I bet the US patients would do a LOT better. However, US stats are skewed by large numbers of people with very little care at all."
That is kind of the frigging point Batman...
That amount of money is used to pay for people in old age.
When you become old there will be young people wondering why they should pay 300 euros a month for health care they don't use while you receive civilized health care that you may not have been able to afford otherwise.
She should think that no reasonable person should gamble with the wellbeing of a loved person, specially if the odds are against you.
So when the time comes to take difficult decisions we are mentlly prepared to take the rational, logical one.
Unfortunately in today's society there are lot of people that allow themselves to be guided by magical thinking and sentimentalism.
Love has its place, a very important one, but it should never ever be the only determining factor of matters of practical consequence.
keep bringing them on...
Only cases in which it is terribly expensive to provide treatment, or the quality of life is barely increased, or life expectancy does not change.
The cases of this happening are so rare that it becomes national news when they are discussed.
And it is not like those choices are not done in the private sphere, health insurance companies deciding somebody is "uninsurable" are making exactly the same call, the difference is that the panel in the UK is taking in consideration what is in the best interests of patients (they are and independent body, not linked to the Health Service as such) while insurance companies are only looking at they actuarial tables and their balance sheets.
"Take your example of feeding a poor person in another nation. That sounds good. But the feedback you forget is that by giving that person free food you put the farmers in that country out of business."
Which business is that exactly?
In countries where people are starving there is not enough food being produced. THat is the problem (drought, wars, you name it).
Or do please provide examples.
In any case, if saving thousands of people from starvation means that a few farmers have to make a living doing something else, so be it.
You are paying for it after all (from your own pocket or your private insurance).
The NHS will prioritize treatment, so if you need it tomorrow you most likely will have it tomorrow, if it is not so urgent, yeah, it will take a while.
One has to grant that the waiting queues have been tackled up front by the current government (one of the reasons they have remained in power for so long) and the system is far from perfect, but is it really annoying this minute nit picking about a system that in general terms works reasonably well for far less money.
The previous Conservative government (Republicans Light, very Light, they don't remotely approach the right wing US political spectrum, but still, they are to the right of UK politics) of course forgot about the NHS and during their last tenure in power service got worst,
The current Conservative leader has made a cornerstone of his political manifesto to keep current levels of spending on the NHS in real terms.
In the UK the party of Margaret Thatcher has come to the conclusion that Socialized Medicine is the best solution for the provision of Health Care for the general population.
People opposing Health Care Reform in the US should really take some time to think about the above...
That is what it costs (more less) in the UK if you have elective private health insurance (normally a perk from some big companies, of course it would be free in the "Communist", by US derided political standards, National Health Service).
You are being conned in the US, but half of you chose to believe the nonsense that the the interested parties (insurance companies) chose to publish.
Look, let me let you into a secret, insurance is "N random people paying into a system to finance your family's problems ".
H-e-l-l-o-o-o-o ! Anybody there?
The difference with socialized medicine is that the aim of the system is to get best outcomes for the most patients.
With the sorry excuse of a system in the US the aim of the system is to make rich the insurance companies and ancillary businesses (hospitals, doctors) at the expense of the US people, who pay way above the odds for care that is often denied on the flimsiest of excuses.
Think: how it comes Cuba, one very poor country, which has been prosecuted mercilessly by old U.S. of A. , can boast several health indicators (life expectancy, child mortality) which are pretty similar to the US's in s shoestring of a budget?
But whatever, if you think it is a good idea to be at the entire mercy of for profit organizations when it comes to health care be our guest. The rest of the civilized word knows better (the brand of Ayatolic capitalism espoused by half of the US population is frankly illogical and stupid, but that is what happens when blind faith clouds sound judgement).
""Under UCI rules, the determination of whether or not a cyclist violated any rules must be made by the cyclist's national federation, in this case USA Cycling, which transferred the case to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)." The evidence was good enough for the USADA but it's not good enough for the experts on slashdot?"
You just don't want to be enlightened.
"BTW: US restrictions on guest workers were a complete toothless joke, and US companies got all the H1Bs they wanted anyway."
But there is no amount of evidence that would convince people ejaculating this view of the contrary.
Just where I used to work no visas were required: all jobs where relocated elsewhere (India, Romania, Ireland, Singapore).
But you want to have your cake and eat it against the obvious economic pressures to transfer jobs one way or another to countries where labour is cheaper.
Many USian Slashdotters are pervers protectionists, advocates for inefficiency and economic mismanagement, as long as all is neatly wrapped in the old bar and spangled one.
People with well paid, safe, comfortable jobs, are always happy assuming what people that don't threaten their jobs would like to do.
Actually workers in rich countries are speaking: here in the UK the difference in commitment and work ethics from East European people in menial jobs is now well cemented. The locals can't be bothered to takes those jobs and seem to be quite happy what several people here are mocking as no-jobs or "shitty" service jobs, like if the pseudo-manly sweaty nature of a jobs was directly proportional to its usefulness and satisfaction potential.
He enjoyed it for many years.
His son, who didn't like school much, was a plant worker doing stuff in the assembly line. He left after 3 gruelling months he described as the worst of his life.