That's not his water; the video shows the water peter out, followed by a gout of flame as methane ignites. The obvious solution here is to capture the methane coming out of his water supply and use it in his home.
It's only efficient in the use of limited space. He spent a huge amount of money to do this. It only makes sense to spend this much on an apartment if you're an architect who is trying to show off, or if you can't get appreciably more space for your money.
Didn't read TFA, as I've seen this apartment before, but it looks a lot nicer than your place because it cost a fortune - IIRC over US$200k at the time. For roughly $600/sq ft in amenities, you expect world-class.
Actually, if you lived in New York at the time, you probably called it the War The Damned New Englanders Had To Fight That Dried Up My Cotton Supply. New York was a hotbed of pro-Southern sentiment, for commercial reasons.
Actually, you did, in the post just before. But putting that aside, what would your goal be for, say, hypertension? The doctor prescribes, and is paid based on blood pressure control? When it's the patient who actually takes it? And when an awful lot of drugs that are really good for your heart also tend to kill your sex life?
Tumor removal, open heart surgery, and treatment for head injuries (usually) are all surgery - which does have the benefit of a clearly defined endpoint. Oncology is about chemotherapy and radiation. Neurology is about Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's. In both cases, there are treatments that are not cures, and the best possible goal is to prolong life and health - but making pay dependent on outcome just reduces the incentive to see sicker people.
As for your vet bill, I'd be happy to live in a world in which insurance was, well, insurance, and patients and doctors just had a straightforward business relationship (like people have with their vets and their dentists).
I'm actually quite aware of the legal standard. And I'm also aware that juries don't always follow that standard. Still, I should have said something like "if a plaintiff's attorney and his expert can convince the jury that your failure to order test X to investigate for disease Y breached the standard of care". The standard of care is, however, a very slippery thing. My (anesthesiology) group is currently wrestling with it in regard to obstructive sleep apnea - a relatively new diagnosis that lacks clear definitions. Do you hospitalize every fat person for 24 hours after a minor procedure? We're definitely being extra-defensive about the medicine here - inpatients with even suspected OSA are being put on continuous pulse oximetry for 12 to 24 hours after the procedure. It's expensive to do that, and it's not clear that it's going to do any good for the patient, but it will keep us from being sued.
Specialized meaning of the word "positive". Means things that are there that shouldn't be there (like desire to kill yourself), as opposed to negative symptoms, which are the absence of normal things (like wanting to have fun, however you define that).
Like antidepressants that can make you MORE suicidal.
Not exactly right; I'd not bother explaining except that this is a really cool story. There are two aspects to depression - the positive symptoms (like feeling suicidal), and the negative symptoms (like not having energy). The negative symptoms clear up first when treated with antidepressants, so in a brief period of time, they have energy and will but don't feel better yet. Those are the ones who finally get up the courage to kill themselves, which is why that warning is there.
He just told my wife that both our sons need teen circumcision, under anethesia
They're obviously having some sort of problem - else why would you have gone to see him? Mechanical problems with urine flow require mechanical solutions.
I've seen lots of patients who've been subjected to defensive medicine, and some that were definitely subjected to a wallet biopsy. But what you're describing is actually pretty good medicine - first minor break, attempt a conservative, nonoperative solution; second break, seek definitive treatment.
the unfounded fear of litigation that almost certainly won't actually happen
Almost is a pretty important word there. Statistics apply to populations; for an individual doctor, either you are sued or you aren't - and if you are, all that the plaintiff's attorney and his expert have to do is convince the jury that the patient would have been better off without you. The fact that you have prevented minor (but not fatal!) harm to dozens of other people by avoiding carrying out tests that turned up normal, prescribing medications that probably weren't necessary, etc., doesn't matter.
Funny. My dad was a petroleum landman - the guy who buys leases for oil wells, negotiates for rights-of-way for pipelines, that sort of thing - and he didn't work for free. He paid for most of the leases and all of the rights of way he negotiated. (Some leases are given by the landowner for no up-front cost, especially if their interest is very small - a 1/64 interest of a small parcel's mineral rights might only be worth a few dollars, while the royalties are pretty significant - 1/8 of the value of all crude oil extracted will be paid to the lessor in the standard contracts.) Once those were obtained, the companies still had to drill to get it, and maintain the pumps. Then there's the cost of getting seismic studies... and when it's all over with, a lease on a productive field is worth quite a lot more than a lease that's been almost fully extracted. Are you sure that oil is free?
If you really had usage that was that heavily distributed toward private road usage, you would be better off to use a clunker or a rental on public roads and simply not registering your private-road vehicle.
Spoken like someone who has a bank account, a credit card, and a stable address that doesn't carry a significant risk of package theft. Imagine trying to use eBay or craigslist without home Internet access or a car. If you live in New York, not a big problem. If you live in Monroe, LA, pretty hard.
I was really replying to the "buy one now, save another $200, sell this one and buy a better one, etc." suggestion.
Would you buy a $200 laptop from a zero-star seller with no pictures, an unconfirmed address, and bad grammar throughout the description? I sure wouldn't. They might be able to do it on Craigslist, but the average Craigslist buyer isn't going to wander down into one of Those Neighborhoods to buy something for hundreds of dollars, either.
You would, but you probably have savings accounts, home access to the Internet, a credit card, a stable address, nobody trying to steal your pocket money for drugs/booze/etc, and a lot more intelligence than these people. If you ban check cashing places, people go to pawn shops; if you ban pawn shops, they go to loan sharks. Rent-to-own is part of the same continuum, in which people who are bad credit risks are able to obtain things they want (but can't afford in lump sum, and won't save up enough to purchase) quickly and easily in return for paying a high cost (that covers the enormous risk of default).
Even when I made the equivalent of $22k/yr in today's money, I didn't do these things. That's one of the many reasons that I'm not still making $22k/year. These people can't delay gratification enough to save up, nor are they smart enough to earn a lot more. The best path is a tough call, because the renters-to-own aren't going to get any smarter - all we can change is whether or not it is possible to lend to them profitably.
The people who take this deal don't qualify for better credit. If you ban rent-to-own or limit the interest rates, though, their choices actually get worse, not better. After all, the moment that it leaves the front door of the store, this laptop is a used piece of equipment owned by someone who can't swing several hundred dollars in spare cash (i.e., probably not the most fastidious owner). Shitty credit deals are all they're going to get, because nobody is going to loan them $1000 at 5% interest - the default risk is too high.
Fiction it is. That's definitely my source for that technique. (I kept thinking the most likely fictional source was Cryptonomicon, which is why I couldn't find it.)
Slashdot Mirror
That's not his water; the video shows the water peter out, followed by a gout of flame as methane ignites. The obvious solution here is to capture the methane coming out of his water supply and use it in his home.
You have 3 adults and a teenager in 500 square feet? Is that in the former Soviet Union?
It's only efficient in the use of limited space. He spent a huge amount of money to do this. It only makes sense to spend this much on an apartment if you're an architect who is trying to show off, or if you can't get appreciably more space for your money.
Didn't read TFA, as I've seen this apartment before, but it looks a lot nicer than your place because it cost a fortune - IIRC over US$200k at the time. For roughly $600/sq ft in amenities, you expect world-class.
Hey, you're the one who said that's what you called it in NY...
Actually, if you lived in New York at the time, you probably called it the War The Damned New Englanders Had To Fight That Dried Up My Cotton Supply. New York was a hotbed of pro-Southern sentiment, for commercial reasons.
Incidentally, I hope your cat comes through OK.
I am not suggesting 100% fix.
Actually, you did, in the post just before. But putting that aside, what would your goal be for, say, hypertension? The doctor prescribes, and is paid based on blood pressure control? When it's the patient who actually takes it? And when an awful lot of drugs that are really good for your heart also tend to kill your sex life?
Tumor removal, open heart surgery, and treatment for head injuries (usually) are all surgery - which does have the benefit of a clearly defined endpoint. Oncology is about chemotherapy and radiation. Neurology is about Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's. In both cases, there are treatments that are not cures, and the best possible goal is to prolong life and health - but making pay dependent on outcome just reduces the incentive to see sicker people.
As for your vet bill, I'd be happy to live in a world in which insurance was, well, insurance, and patients and doctors just had a straightforward business relationship (like people have with their vets and their dentists).
Goodbye, oncology. Goodbye, cardiology. Goodbye, neurology.
In fact, goodbye just about everything but infectious disease and surgery, because those are really the only fields that "fix".
I'm actually quite aware of the legal standard. And I'm also aware that juries don't always follow that standard. Still, I should have said something like "if a plaintiff's attorney and his expert can convince the jury that your failure to order test X to investigate for disease Y breached the standard of care". The standard of care is, however, a very slippery thing. My (anesthesiology) group is currently wrestling with it in regard to obstructive sleep apnea - a relatively new diagnosis that lacks clear definitions. Do you hospitalize every fat person for 24 hours after a minor procedure? We're definitely being extra-defensive about the medicine here - inpatients with even suspected OSA are being put on continuous pulse oximetry for 12 to 24 hours after the procedure. It's expensive to do that, and it's not clear that it's going to do any good for the patient, but it will keep us from being sued.
Specialized meaning of the word "positive". Means things that are there that shouldn't be there (like desire to kill yourself), as opposed to negative symptoms, which are the absence of normal things (like wanting to have fun, however you define that).
Sorry for using layman's terms.
Like antidepressants that can make you MORE suicidal.
Not exactly right; I'd not bother explaining except that this is a really cool story. There are two aspects to depression - the positive symptoms (like feeling suicidal), and the negative symptoms (like not having energy). The negative symptoms clear up first when treated with antidepressants, so in a brief period of time, they have energy and will but don't feel better yet. Those are the ones who finally get up the courage to kill themselves, which is why that warning is there.
He just told my wife that both our sons need teen circumcision, under anethesia
They're obviously having some sort of problem - else why would you have gone to see him? Mechanical problems with urine flow require mechanical solutions.
I've seen lots of patients who've been subjected to defensive medicine, and some that were definitely subjected to a wallet biopsy. But what you're describing is actually pretty good medicine - first minor break, attempt a conservative, nonoperative solution; second break, seek definitive treatment.
the unfounded fear of litigation that almost certainly won't actually happen
Almost is a pretty important word there. Statistics apply to populations; for an individual doctor, either you are sued or you aren't - and if you are, all that the plaintiff's attorney and his expert have to do is convince the jury that the patient would have been better off without you. The fact that you have prevented minor (but not fatal!) harm to dozens of other people by avoiding carrying out tests that turned up normal, prescribing medications that probably weren't necessary, etc., doesn't matter.
They never had an expense with acquiring the oil!
Funny. My dad was a petroleum landman - the guy who buys leases for oil wells, negotiates for rights-of-way for pipelines, that sort of thing - and he didn't work for free. He paid for most of the leases and all of the rights of way he negotiated. (Some leases are given by the landowner for no up-front cost, especially if their interest is very small - a 1/64 interest of a small parcel's mineral rights might only be worth a few dollars, while the royalties are pretty significant - 1/8 of the value of all crude oil extracted will be paid to the lessor in the standard contracts.) Once those were obtained, the companies still had to drill to get it, and maintain the pumps. Then there's the cost of getting seismic studies... and when it's all over with, a lease on a productive field is worth quite a lot more than a lease that's been almost fully extracted. Are you sure that oil is free?
I think he meant real truck tires.
If you really had usage that was that heavily distributed toward private road usage, you would be better off to use a clunker or a rental on public roads and simply not registering your private-road vehicle.
Spoken like someone who has a bank account, a credit card, and a stable address that doesn't carry a significant risk of package theft. Imagine trying to use eBay or craigslist without home Internet access or a car. If you live in New York, not a big problem. If you live in Monroe, LA, pretty hard.
I was really replying to the "buy one now, save another $200, sell this one and buy a better one, etc." suggestion.
Would you buy a $200 laptop from a zero-star seller with no pictures, an unconfirmed address, and bad grammar throughout the description? I sure wouldn't. They might be able to do it on Craigslist, but the average Craigslist buyer isn't going to wander down into one of Those Neighborhoods to buy something for hundreds of dollars, either.
You would, but you probably have savings accounts, home access to the Internet, a credit card, a stable address, nobody trying to steal your pocket money for drugs/booze/etc, and a lot more intelligence than these people. If you ban check cashing places, people go to pawn shops; if you ban pawn shops, they go to loan sharks. Rent-to-own is part of the same continuum, in which people who are bad credit risks are able to obtain things they want (but can't afford in lump sum, and won't save up enough to purchase) quickly and easily in return for paying a high cost (that covers the enormous risk of default).
Even when I made the equivalent of $22k/yr in today's money, I didn't do these things. That's one of the many reasons that I'm not still making $22k/year. These people can't delay gratification enough to save up, nor are they smart enough to earn a lot more. The best path is a tough call, because the renters-to-own aren't going to get any smarter - all we can change is whether or not it is possible to lend to them profitably.
OT: love that sig. Been a long time. Never heard it referenced before.
The people who take this deal don't qualify for better credit. If you ban rent-to-own or limit the interest rates, though, their choices actually get worse, not better. After all, the moment that it leaves the front door of the store, this laptop is a used piece of equipment owned by someone who can't swing several hundred dollars in spare cash (i.e., probably not the most fastidious owner). Shitty credit deals are all they're going to get, because nobody is going to loan them $1000 at 5% interest - the default risk is too high.
Fiction it is. That's definitely my source for that technique. (I kept thinking the most likely fictional source was Cryptonomicon, which is why I couldn't find it.)
Ah, AC shows his youth. First WTC bombing, 1993 I believe.