Encoderer, I will concede that the current system is broken, but I disagree that socializing the system will fix the problem.
In the socialized system in order for the government to authorize the dispensation of funds necessary to pay for the latest and greatest treatment, there will need to be a lengthy review. Additionally, the Government will most likely enact regulations that care providers will need to follow in order to receive said funds. This will probably end up limiting the market forces and inhibiting the care providers' ability to offer competitive services which in turn leads to a decline in the quality of care provided as well as increasing the wait time for many treatments. Where as in the current system, if someone can afford the latest and greatest treatment they can purchase it without waiting, without regulation, and without a decline in quality.
The socialized system you're arguing for would allow the Government to be the sole entity paying for the health coverage of all Americans including those individuals who have employers that contribute and those individuals currently without coverage. The funds the Government would use to provide payment to the providers would be drawn from a pool of funds collected from employers and raised taxes. Well what happens if the amount of money owed by the Government to providers exceeds what is in the gathered funds pools? The Government will have to accrue a deficit, raise the contribution level for employers or raise taxes. Why should I have my taxes raised to pay for other people's health care if I only had 3 or 4 inexpensive Doctor's visits throughout the year? Additionally, if I'm already being taxed for healthcare, why would I want the "benefit" of my employer contributing money for me? Why would they want to provide it? It would make more sense to not provide health care coverage and to instead provide a less expensive benefit. If employer contributions to the system don't make sense, then to make ends meet people will need to be taxed more.
What about the millions of illegal immigrants? In the current system the corporate entities (hospitals, clinics, etc) that you dislike so much are the ones who are forced to eat the cost of providing care to these individuals. In the socialized system you discuss, it seems like those entities would be reimbursed with funds from the Government which were raised from taxing American citizens. Gee, while we're at it why don't we use those funds to buy health care for the rest of the world.
I'm all for affordable health care, but your proposed method would reduce the quality of my care while raising taxes. Rather than trying to socialize the system, why not look at what's wrong with the current system? What can we do to lower the cost of insurance so that a greater number of individuals can gain coverage? More individuals with coverage will lower the cost incurred by hospitals and clinics for the treatment of uncovered individuals, which further lowers insurance costs, which in turn allows more individuals to purchase coverage.
Some ideas: 1.) Place caps on wrongful death and malpractice lawsuits. If the hospital kills a family member of mine, I don't deserve to be paid millions and millions of dollars. This will in turn reduce the amount of money that doctors and providers must spend on malpractice insurance, the rising cost of which is a huge factor in the rising cost of consumer insurance.
2.) Do not provide health care services to a non citizen unless they have health care. Either stay in your own country if you want health care or come here legally.
2a.) Alternatively, we could bill provide health care services to non citizens, but bill their national government. Example: A Bolivian w/out coverage receives emergency care at a hospital, that hospital would bill the Bolivian government for care of their national.
3.) Big Pharmaceutical, how can we make drugs cheaper?
3a.) Review the drug approval process; is there anything that can
Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us. Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches? Peasant 1: Burn them. Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches? Peasant 1: More witches. Peasant 2: Wood. Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn? Peasant 3:...because they're made of... wood? Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood? Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her. Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone? Peasant 1: Oh yeah. Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water? Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond! Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water? Peasant 1: Bread. Peasant 2: Apples. Peasant 3: Very small rocks. Peasant 1: Cider. Peasant 2: Gravy. Peasant 3: Cherries. Peasant 1: Mud. Peasant 2: Churches. Peasant 3: Lead! Lead! King Arthur: A Duck. Sir Bedevere:...Exactly. So, logically... Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood. Sir Bedevere: And therefore... Peasant 2:...A witch!
I agree that we need a more educated user base, particularly when it comes to security concerns but at the same time computer software vendors need to work on writing better code, and they need to keep security in mind when writing the code.
Luckily for me SUS checks and forces out the patches for MS every night (those that are turned off get the patches forced when the log on to the domain) so Sasser wasn't a problem.
My understanding was that by switching to VoIP, providers would be able to decrease operating costs by avoiding the access costs that must be paid on a traditional telco network (or paying a decreased amount).
So if providers are required to offer a 911 locator service, unless that locator service costs more than the access fees, wouldn't prices still decline or at the very least stay the same?
MCI has their own views on VoIP and regulation. http://global.mci.com/il/about/public policy/voip/
I completely agree that Nintendo hasn't messed up the formula.
Although their target market seems to be kids, they create games with such amazing gameplay, design, and detail that they appeal to people of all ages (in addition, they seem to be expanding their target market with games such as nightmare and the resident evil games). They've cultivated brand identity and brand loyalty, and they've even created a sense of community with their website and their magazine, Nintendo Power.
Innovation? I'd say the original Gameboy was quite amazing (I spent HOURS playing my mom and my friends in head to head tetris), and now with the gameboy integration into gamecube games (a la windwaker and FF:CC). I believe that the windwaker was also one of the first if not the first console game to use cell shading (quite a risk to mess with a game with such a fanbase).
As a business entity, Nintendo remains strong and is still turning a profit (although recent profits have been negatively impacted by a declining $). While they make take a loss on their gamecube, they're able to make up for it with software sales. Think of it like a mach3. You buy the razor cheap, but they get you with the blades. In addition, the gameboy and its' software still sells quite well.
I think Nintendo will be around for quite some time.
While I certainly don't believe that class should revolve entirely around a computer approach, I do believe that hands on experience with computers and software is valuable to today's student. Attending elementary school during the heyday of the Apple IIgs I remember looking foward to the days we were allowed into the computer labs. Programs such as "The Oregon Trail" were fun to play but also taught valuable lessons in managing resources and decision making. In high school the computer labs and IT courses were excellent in preparing us for a future of working with data and expressing our thoughts. There is no doubt that computers are a valuable learning tool to students, and that cost can sometimes prevent updates and new software.
Open source products may help reduce cost for development programs, but what about programs such as Lotus Notes, the MS Office Suite, and programs made to help prepare students for exams such as Kaplan's SAT software. Are school systems going to start teach students to use *nix and different GUI's such as KDE, Enlightenmen and Gnome? This hardly helps students adjust to a windows oriented world.
Most software companies produce software with the goal of making a profit, and creating open source software can make this difficult to do. Instead of focusing on trying to outfit with open source, they should take what open source they can use and try to make educational deals with distributors, much like microsoft has an educational discount. In such a case it benefits the distributor to give such discounts as it gets students to grow up using their software, so that when they move on to the adult world, its what they'll want to use.
So a computer malfunction caused the rocket to tip over? To bad they didn't have a robot helper to fix the malfunction and send the rocket into space like in the 80's movie classic "Space Camp"
If they were still referring to win9x then even if you set it up right you're still going to get a BSOD at LEAST once every other day. NT admitedly is more stable. I can't say I'm a big fan of 4.0, but 2000 server and 2000 pro were great, they were definately a step in the right direction.
I just upgraded to winXP pro and I like a lot of things about it, i DON'T like how they tried to make it all pretty and bubbly...i had to revert the appearance back to win2k standards. I also had to change most of the settings so that I could choose what I wanted instead of windows doing it automatically for me. Good OS, once you go through all the settings, but otherwise its just really dumbed down. And damn that MSN Messenger!! Luckily my roommate found a way to get rid of that Here
Has the slashdot effect taken this page down? I can't seem to reach it. I do have to say though that 250 hours of working on a case is amazing. I'd love to see it.
Yeah, I'm going to have to say this show looks pretty bad. They had star trek episodes based on this plot that never seemed to interesting. Any other show remotely close to this has sucked to, the only production i can think of that did this genre justice was the stand. The book was great, and i have to say the movie itself was pretty good.
Rambus could have been a great technology if they had ironed all the kinks out sooner. As it is, at the rate DDR is improving in speed Rambus is going to be left as yet another promising technology that died out (poor betamax).
What interested me was some of the newer innovations/ideas in memory. I remember reading an article a few months ago about how IBM was working on new Magnetic RAM (MRAM). To quote from This Article (down at the bottom)
"Two thin layers of magnetic material are separated by a middle layer -- metallic in the case of GMR, insulating in an
MRAM. The magnetic orientation (the direction of the spin of the individual atoms) in the MRAM's two magnetic layers can be independently controlled by applying a magnetic field. The field is created by passing pulses of electric current through thin wires next to, or incorporated in, the MRAM cells. When the magnetic layers have the same orientation, a current can tunnel between them through the insulator more easily than when the orientations are different. The cell can therefore be switched between two states, representing a binary 1 and 0."
Sweet, Instant on computers!!!
This page is also interesting
Slashdot Mirror
I've worked in that building; Redhat is on the 3rd floor.
Encoderer, I will concede that the current system is broken, but I disagree that socializing the system will fix the problem.
In the socialized system in order for the government to authorize the dispensation of funds necessary to pay for the latest and greatest treatment, there will need to be a lengthy review. Additionally, the Government will most likely enact regulations that care providers will need to follow in order to receive said funds. This will probably end up limiting the market forces and inhibiting the care providers' ability to offer competitive services which in turn leads to a decline in the quality of care provided as well as increasing the wait time for many treatments. Where as in the current system, if someone can afford the latest and greatest treatment they can purchase it without waiting, without regulation, and without a decline in quality.
The socialized system you're arguing for would allow the Government to be the sole entity paying for the health coverage of all Americans including those individuals who have employers that contribute and those individuals currently without coverage. The funds the Government would use to provide payment to the providers would be drawn from a pool of funds collected from employers and raised taxes. Well what happens if the amount of money owed by the Government to providers exceeds what is in the gathered funds pools? The Government will have to accrue a deficit, raise the contribution level for employers or raise taxes. Why should I have my taxes raised to pay for other people's health care if I only had 3 or 4 inexpensive Doctor's visits throughout the year? Additionally, if I'm already being taxed for healthcare, why would I want the "benefit" of my employer contributing money for me? Why would they want to provide it? It would make more sense to not provide health care coverage and to instead provide a less expensive benefit. If employer contributions to the system don't make sense, then to make ends meet people will need to be taxed more.
What about the millions of illegal immigrants? In the current system the corporate entities (hospitals, clinics, etc) that you dislike so much are the ones who are forced to eat the cost of providing care to these individuals. In the socialized system you discuss, it seems like those entities would be reimbursed with funds from the Government which were raised from taxing American citizens. Gee, while we're at it why don't we use those funds to buy health care for the rest of the world.
I'm all for affordable health care, but your proposed method would reduce the quality of my care while raising taxes. Rather than trying to socialize the system, why not look at what's wrong with the current system? What can we do to lower the cost of insurance so that a greater number of individuals can gain coverage? More individuals with coverage will lower the cost incurred by hospitals and clinics for the treatment of uncovered individuals, which further lowers insurance costs, which in turn allows more individuals to purchase coverage.
Some ideas:
1.) Place caps on wrongful death and malpractice lawsuits. If the hospital kills a family member of mine, I don't deserve to be paid millions and millions of dollars. This will in turn reduce the amount of money that doctors and providers must spend on malpractice insurance, the rising cost of which is a huge factor in the rising cost of consumer insurance.
2.) Do not provide health care services to a non citizen unless they have health care. Either stay in your own country if you want health care or come here legally.
2a.) Alternatively, we could bill provide health care services to non citizens, but bill their national government. Example: A Bolivian w/out coverage receives emergency care at a hospital, that hospital would bill the Bolivian government for care of their national.
3.) Big Pharmaceutical, how can we make drugs cheaper?
3a.) Review the drug approval process; is there anything that can
Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. ...because they're made of... wood? ...Exactly. So, logically... ...A witch!
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3:
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere:
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2:
I agree that we need a more educated user base, particularly when it comes to security concerns but at the same time computer software vendors need to work on writing better code, and they need to keep security in mind when writing the code.
Luckily for me SUS checks and forces out the patches for MS every night (those that are turned off get the patches forced when the log on to the domain) so Sasser wasn't a problem.
My understanding was that by switching to VoIP, providers would be able to decrease operating costs by avoiding the access costs that must be paid on a traditional telco network (or paying a decreased amount).
c policy/voip/
So if providers are required to offer a 911 locator service, unless that locator service costs more than the access fees, wouldn't prices still decline or at the very least stay the same?
MCI has their own views on VoIP and regulation.
http://global.mci.com/il/about/publi
if anyone would care to take a look at Nintendo from a financial standpoint....
p df
E _R elease.pdf
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/report/fiscal2003.
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/report/Nintendo3Q_
I completely agree that Nintendo hasn't messed up the formula.
Although their target market seems to be kids, they create games with such amazing gameplay, design, and detail that they appeal to people of all ages (in addition, they seem to be expanding their target market with games such as nightmare and the resident evil games). They've cultivated brand identity and brand loyalty, and they've even created a sense of community with their website and their magazine, Nintendo Power.
Innovation? I'd say the original Gameboy was quite amazing (I spent HOURS playing my mom and my friends in head to head tetris), and now with the gameboy integration into gamecube games (a la windwaker and FF:CC). I believe that the windwaker was also one of the first if not the first console game to use cell shading (quite a risk to mess with a game with such a fanbase).
As a business entity, Nintendo remains strong and is still turning a profit (although recent profits have been negatively impacted by a declining $). While they make take a loss on their gamecube, they're able to make up for it with software sales. Think of it like a mach3. You buy the razor cheap, but they get you with the blades. In addition, the gameboy and its' software still sells quite well.
I think Nintendo will be around for quite some time.
While I certainly don't believe that class should revolve entirely around a computer approach, I do believe that hands on experience with computers and software is valuable to today's student. Attending elementary school during the heyday of the Apple IIgs I remember looking foward to the days we were allowed into the computer labs. Programs such as "The Oregon Trail" were fun to play but also taught valuable lessons in managing resources and decision making. In high school the computer labs and IT courses were excellent in preparing us for a future of working with data and expressing our thoughts. There is no doubt that computers are a valuable learning tool to students, and that cost can sometimes prevent updates and new software.
Open source products may help reduce cost for development programs, but what about programs such as Lotus Notes, the MS Office Suite, and programs made to help prepare students for exams such as Kaplan's SAT software. Are school systems going to start teach students to use *nix and different GUI's such as KDE, Enlightenmen and Gnome? This hardly helps students adjust to a windows oriented world.
Most software companies produce software with the goal of making a profit, and creating open source software can make this difficult to do. Instead of focusing on trying to outfit with open source, they should take what open source they can use and try to make educational deals with distributors, much like microsoft has an educational discount. In such a case it benefits the distributor to give such discounts as it gets students to grow up using their software, so that when they move on to the adult world, its what they'll want to use.
So a computer malfunction caused the rocket to tip over? To bad they didn't have a robot helper to fix the malfunction and send the rocket into space like in the 80's movie classic "Space Camp"
If they were still referring to win9x then even if you set it up right you're still going to get a BSOD at LEAST once every other day. NT admitedly is more stable. I can't say I'm a big fan of 4.0, but 2000 server and 2000 pro were great, they were definately a step in the right direction.
.NET
I just upgraded to winXP pro and I like a lot of things about it, i DON'T like how they tried to make it all pretty and bubbly...i had to revert the appearance back to win2k standards. I also had to change most of the settings so that I could choose what I wanted instead of windows doing it automatically for me. Good OS, once you go through all the settings, but otherwise its just really dumbed down. And damn that MSN Messenger!! Luckily my roommate found a way to get rid of that Here
and for anyone who is faculty/staff or student at a university check this out, get a free copy of XP, and a free copy of Visual Studio
Has the slashdot effect taken this page down? I can't seem to reach it. I do have to say though that 250 hours of working on a case is amazing. I'd love to see it.
"something witty"
Yeah, I'm going to have to say this show looks pretty bad. They had star trek episodes based on this plot that never seemed to interesting. Any other show remotely close to this has sucked to, the only production i can think of that did this genre justice was the stand. The book was great, and i have to say the movie itself was pretty good.
Rambus could have been a great technology if they had ironed all the kinks out sooner. As it is, at the rate DDR is improving in speed Rambus is going to be left as yet another promising technology that died out (poor betamax). What interested me was some of the newer innovations/ideas in memory. I remember reading an article a few months ago about how IBM was working on new Magnetic RAM (MRAM). To quote from This Article (down at the bottom) "Two thin layers of magnetic material are separated by a middle layer -- metallic in the case of GMR, insulating in an MRAM. The magnetic orientation (the direction of the spin of the individual atoms) in the MRAM's two magnetic layers can be independently controlled by applying a magnetic field. The field is created by passing pulses of electric current through thin wires next to, or incorporated in, the MRAM cells. When the magnetic layers have the same orientation, a current can tunnel between them through the insulator more easily than when the orientations are different. The cell can therefore be switched between two states, representing a binary 1 and 0." Sweet, Instant on computers!!! This page is also interesting
Megatokyo RULES.
Q SUCKS, he is my FOE