And reducing CO2 output isn't going to cripple the US econmy. You'd be amazed at how quickly large corporations can adapt and improvise when they have to.
According to a Clinton administration report, the net economic result of adopting the Kyoto protocol would be something like -3% of GDP. It was a significant reason why there was a 95-0 Senate vote to not ratify Kyoto.
Granted, that would be a transient effect... but people like to pretend that "going green" will result in, say, 5 million new jobs. The fact is, such a substantive change to the fundamental basis of how industry works will have a high cost.
Milton Friedman is pretty smart. I am guessing smarter than you!
Why does anyone need to go to school for 8 years to learn to operate and suture.
Holy, holy shit. I'm a medical student hoping to go into a competitive surgical subspecialty. The amount of knowledge that a surgeon needs to go to is, IMHO, an order of magnitude higher than an internist. Why? Let me list the ways:
knowing the indications for when surgery is necessary and when it's not
knowing when a patient is healthy enough for surgery
knowing the general anatomy so that you not only know where to cut, but know what's causing pathology and what's a normal anatomic variant
knowing the complications of surgery and how to deal with it
Methinks you take ER/Gray's Anatomy much too seriously.
And, BTW, the training for a surgeon is 4 years of medical school + 5-7 years of residency, at a minimum. (OK, I don't count optho as a surgical subspecialty. Sorry).
Why so serious?
I don't buy the logic that the tragic death of one of the actors led to the current box office success of The Dark Knight. By that logic, The Twilight Zone movie, in which one of the lead actors was killed on-screen, would have been a box office monster... which it was not.
MacOS Classic -> MacOS X (basically the same as DOS-based Windows -> Windows NT, only a bit over half a decade later).
What's the second one ?
I think he's talking about the transition from Motorola 68k -> PPC. Which was a bit over a half decade before the Win 95/98/ME -> Win2k "transition" you're referencing.
The mini is a great value compared to other small windows PCs like the shuttles (for size it can't be beat at the price) or the ITX boards (mini is much more powerful for the price).
Mac mini + 2gig of ram + Superdrive + 160GB HD = $949.00
Shuttle SG31G2 + 2GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800 + Western Dig 320GB HD + Pioneer DVD/RW + Asus GeForce 8400GS passive vid card + a Wolfdale 3.0 Ghz Core 2 Duo CPU = 608.94
So.. now you can either add OEM windows for around a hundred or linux/*bsd for zero. Either way it makes the mini look like a real piece of shit and you like an idiot. Mac mini: 6.5" x 6.5" x 2"
Shuttle SG31G2: 11.8" x 7.9" x 7.3"
However, the key is whether you can afford it. They have sophisticated metrics for figuring out what your family can afford to pay without undue hardship
It's not a sophisticated metric. At MIT, if you're family has an annual income less than $75k, tuition is free.
I think that's pretty affordable. I only wish this was the case 10 years ago when I was a student.
The thing is, Negroponte's $100 laptop suffers from the same flaw as Ford's Model T ultimately did.
What flaw are you talking about? The one that made their technology finally affordable for the masses, revolutionizing their respective industries and dictating the pace of innovation for years to come? Yeah, that sounds like a dumb idea....
But the people that 'actually' used Vista for a significant amount of time (i.e. the testers) don't see Vista as the horrible OS that others looking in that haven't used it extensively do.
Ah. So you have to "work" for Microsoft to be able to appreciate it's wonder?
This is all laid out in "The Two Percent Solution." Honestly, you can read the section on health care in one sitting. The tax breaks/tax credits which are mandated for health care will only go to health insurers that promise to take anyone that applies, and also guarantees a minimum level of coverage. If you want more coverage, you can pay more, but everyone will have a minimum level. If the health insurer wants to keep out "undesirables," then they won't be eligible to use the tax breaks/credits.
Not true. Why do you think employer-funded health insurance works? You spread out the risks of coverage over a large population. In this case, the population is the entire country-- what health insurer would forego the opportunity to cover hundreds of millions of people?
Why is the assumption that providing everyone in the US with health care means a socialized health care system? I'm *ALL* for universal health care, but a single-payer system will be, in the longterm, a detriment to health care to not only the US, but the entire world.
You might argue that competitive forces have no place in medicine. I find that nonsense. Competition breeds innovation, whether in software, hardware, or anything else. Why is medicine any different? This is most evident in the pharmaceutical industry. I know that the drug companies are everyone's favorite whipping boys... but do you realize that drug development has slowly and steadily moved over to the US? European companies are merging, or, like Novartis and Glaxo, have actually moved their entire R&D operation to the US. Why? Because European countries have enacted price controls which make it less desirable to do research in their home countries. Now, the price of drugs in the US is artificially high, but part of that reason is because the US has to subsidize research for the rest of the world. (Isn't that part of the goal of socialism? The rich paying for the poor?)
I think the same exists, with more subtlety, in medicine. The impetus for developing medical technology decreases if competition becomes non-existent. Who is going to fund development of a new therapy for a disease if you know you're not going to make money on it, because there is only one entity (the gov't) that will price treatments, and since they set the prices and control access, you can't find anyone willing to fund your research. R&D is a risky entity and if there is no chance for profit, you won't find any venture capital.
And finally, do you really want the entity that created the DMV (or RMV for you Massholes) to run your health care?
There are ways to do health care, do it fairly, do it universally, and do it right-- allowing competition while covering everyone. Matt Miller, a liberal commentator, wrote in "Two Percent Solution" about his plan that will please both the left and the right. It's similar to the MA plan, actually, in that you will get a tax break (or credit, if you are poor) but you must use it to buy health insurance. Let the insurers actually compete, and you can cover everyone while letting innovation flourish.
Health Care is expensive, in part, because it's chronically understaffed due to professional-school elitism by the AMA and the Nurse's unions.
[disclaimer: I am a med student and a member of the medical student section of the AMA.]
I hear this reasoning time and time again, and I'm convinced this is an urban legend. The AMA has no jurisdiction over the number of slots available in US med schools; at best, the AMA has influence over the number of residency slots available (since they do act to certify certain specialty and subspecialty boards). In fact, the counter to the fallacy promoted by the parent post is that there are more residency slots available per year than US med school graduates.
If you want to find fault, blame the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), which certifies med schools and would be the body most responsible for the number of med student positions in the US. It is not affiliated with the AMA.
It is not that remarkable, and certainly isnt unprecedented. A 777 rolls off of the assembly line every three days in everett right now. Its called scheduled structured assembly line.
While that may be the case, Boeing's aim is for final assembly for the 787 to be 3 days from start to finish (ie the difference between throughput and latency.
This means the paint for the 787 has been bumped back as much as several weeks.
The first 787 will not roll out of the paint hangar completed until late july.
OK, then why was the 787 rolled out of the assembly hall into the paint hangar LAST NIGHT?
Since this seems like such a new concept (please correct me if I'm wrong; I don't follow plane technology too much), it would just seem prudent to try bending the wings until they break... how can they make accurate judgments and calculations without knowing exactly how much stress the wings can take before snapping?
Both the FAA and the EASA require that the wings can handle 150% of the maximum wing loading of an airplane. This standard applies regardless of the material. In the past, planes were designed such that this requirement was met but not exceeded by too much (ie the 777 wing snapped at 153.5%). The Airbus A380 engineers got too greedy and the wing snapped at 147%, which meant they had to go back and strengthen the wing before they received their airworthiness certificate.
The composite material of the 787 wings differ from traditional aluminum wings in that they will most likely bend but not break. That doesn't mean that the plane will be in flyable condition afterwards; they will likely be permanently deformed. But they will not explosively break like it would in a traditional airplane.
I find it odd that you focus on such a trivial matter. I would figure that 99% of the/. crowd wouldn't give a rat's ass about "using" their karma bonus. But OK.
Sources: Bowling for Columbine, and Michael Moore's response (it used to be on michaelmoore.com, although he changed his website since then and I don't know if he deleted it or not.)
...and you're using your Karma bonus (+1) for every post in this thread. Go figure?
You do realize, don't you, that this is something that is a DISPLAY OPTION that *YOU* set for yourself? The default gives an extra point to people with excellent karma. Is it my fault that I have excellent karma and you chose to not change the default setting that gives posters with extra karma a bonus?
Save my karma bonus? What the hell does that mean?
You've done nothing to prove me wrong. My sources are easily verifiable-- they are the primary sources, for crying out loud. Do you deny that the incident took place in Bowling for Columbine? Are you denying that Moore said what he said? I don't know what your issue is here, and I certainly don't know what makes you think that it's appropriate to put words in my mouth.
You have either to get off your ass and do some research (and yes, this is your job) or drop the thread. Your debating skills leave much to be desired, as all they seem to generate is ire. The goal of the same, perhaps?
Oh please. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. My research-- look it up, it's called "original research," involved watching Bowling for Columbine and reading Michael Moore's website. I'm sorry there's not a simple page for you to look up, but that doesn't make my point any less valid.
And, now you are avoiding the question. I asked you where I ever claimed or thought that those who don't accept my point are blind and stupid. I'm still waiting for that evidence. Can you give as good as you can get?
Oh, vey. So those who question your weak reasoning must be both blind AND stupid - or you must think we are. Remain content with your own self-delusion then.
When did I ever say anything what would deserve the above response? never. You made it up.
I gave proof. I responded to your question. You didn't like the response. You, at that point, had several options. You could have dismissed and ignored me, you could have responded by stating exactly what was wrong with my response, or you could have resorted to the lowest common denominator-- attack the messenger. You chose the latter.
Um, when the hell did I ever say that? You're putting words in my mouth. Or, you're assuming thoughts in my brain. Either way, none of this is called for.
Slashdot Mirror
And reducing CO2 output isn't going to cripple the US econmy. You'd be amazed at how quickly large corporations can adapt and improvise when they have to.
According to a Clinton administration report, the net economic result of adopting the Kyoto protocol would be something like -3% of GDP. It was a significant reason why there was a 95-0 Senate vote to not ratify Kyoto. Granted, that would be a transient effect... but people like to pretend that "going green" will result in, say, 5 million new jobs. The fact is, such a substantive change to the fundamental basis of how industry works will have a high cost.
Milton Friedman is pretty smart. I am guessing smarter than you!
Why does anyone need to go to school for 8 years to learn to operate and suture.
Holy, holy shit. I'm a medical student hoping to go into a competitive surgical subspecialty. The amount of knowledge that a surgeon needs to go to is, IMHO, an order of magnitude higher than an internist. Why? Let me list the ways:
Methinks you take ER/Gray's Anatomy much too seriously. And, BTW, the training for a surgeon is 4 years of medical school + 5-7 years of residency, at a minimum. (OK, I don't count optho as a surgical subspecialty. Sorry).
We also need to remove the requirements for surgeons to have to go through extensive training to be doctors.
This, quite possibly, is the stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot. And that's saying quite a lot.
Why so serious? I don't buy the logic that the tragic death of one of the actors led to the current box office success of The Dark Knight. By that logic, The Twilight Zone movie, in which one of the lead actors was killed on-screen, would have been a box office monster... which it was not.
Apple has done it twice.
MacOS Classic -> MacOS X (basically the same as DOS-based Windows -> Windows NT, only a bit over half a decade later). What's the second one ?
I think he's talking about the transition from Motorola 68k -> PPC. Which was a bit over a half decade before the Win 95/98/ME -> Win2k "transition" you're referencing.Shuttle SG31G2: 11.8" x 7.9" x 7.3"
Geez louise. You don't know how to read, do you?
Well, I'd have to say that substantially less than 4 years would make sense.
Simple, no?
Not true. Why do you think employer-funded health insurance works? You spread out the risks of coverage over a large population. In this case, the population is the entire country-- what health insurer would forego the opportunity to cover hundreds of millions of people?
You might argue that competitive forces have no place in medicine. I find that nonsense. Competition breeds innovation, whether in software, hardware, or anything else. Why is medicine any different? This is most evident in the pharmaceutical industry. I know that the drug companies are everyone's favorite whipping boys... but do you realize that drug development has slowly and steadily moved over to the US? European companies are merging, or, like Novartis and Glaxo, have actually moved their entire R&D operation to the US. Why? Because European countries have enacted price controls which make it less desirable to do research in their home countries. Now, the price of drugs in the US is artificially high, but part of that reason is because the US has to subsidize research for the rest of the world. (Isn't that part of the goal of socialism? The rich paying for the poor?)
I think the same exists, with more subtlety, in medicine. The impetus for developing medical technology decreases if competition becomes non-existent. Who is going to fund development of a new therapy for a disease if you know you're not going to make money on it, because there is only one entity (the gov't) that will price treatments, and since they set the prices and control access, you can't find anyone willing to fund your research. R&D is a risky entity and if there is no chance for profit, you won't find any venture capital.
And finally, do you really want the entity that created the DMV (or RMV for you Massholes) to run your health care?
There are ways to do health care, do it fairly, do it universally, and do it right-- allowing competition while covering everyone. Matt Miller, a liberal commentator, wrote in "Two Percent Solution" about his plan that will please both the left and the right. It's similar to the MA plan, actually, in that you will get a tax break (or credit, if you are poor) but you must use it to buy health insurance. Let the insurers actually compete, and you can cover everyone while letting innovation flourish.
[disclaimer: I am a med student and a member of the medical student section of the AMA.]
I hear this reasoning time and time again, and I'm convinced this is an urban legend. The AMA has no jurisdiction over the number of slots available in US med schools; at best, the AMA has influence over the number of residency slots available (since they do act to certify certain specialty and subspecialty boards). In fact, the counter to the fallacy promoted by the parent post is that there are more residency slots available per year than US med school graduates.
If you want to find fault, blame the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), which certifies med schools and would be the body most responsible for the number of med student positions in the US. It is not affiliated with the AMA.
Bullshit. Why would Boeing have their prototype airplane sitting in a paint hangar rather than working on the unfinished interior structures?
Both the FAA and the EASA require that the wings can handle 150% of the maximum wing loading of an airplane. This standard applies regardless of the material. In the past, planes were designed such that this requirement was met but not exceeded by too much (ie the 777 wing snapped at 153.5%). The Airbus A380 engineers got too greedy and the wing snapped at 147%, which meant they had to go back and strengthen the wing before they received their airworthiness certificate.
The composite material of the 787 wings differ from traditional aluminum wings in that they will most likely bend but not break. That doesn't mean that the plane will be in flyable condition afterwards; they will likely be permanently deformed. But they will not explosively break like it would in a traditional airplane.
I find it odd that you focus on such a trivial matter. I would figure that 99% of the /. crowd wouldn't give a rat's ass about "using" their karma bonus. But OK.
Happy?
You do realize, don't you, that this is something that is a DISPLAY OPTION that *YOU* set for yourself? The default gives an extra point to people with excellent karma. Is it my fault that I have excellent karma and you chose to not change the default setting that gives posters with extra karma a bonus?
You've done nothing to prove me wrong. My sources are easily verifiable-- they are the primary sources, for crying out loud. Do you deny that the incident took place in Bowling for Columbine? Are you denying that Moore said what he said? I don't know what your issue is here, and I certainly don't know what makes you think that it's appropriate to put words in my mouth.
Oh please. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. My research-- look it up, it's called "original research," involved watching Bowling for Columbine and reading Michael Moore's website. I'm sorry there's not a simple page for you to look up, but that doesn't make my point any less valid.
And, now you are avoiding the question. I asked you where I ever claimed or thought that those who don't accept my point are blind and stupid. I'm still waiting for that evidence. Can you give as good as you can get?
When did I ever say anything what would deserve the above response? never. You made it up.
I gave proof. I responded to your question. You didn't like the response. You, at that point, had several options. You could have dismissed and ignored me, you could have responded by stating exactly what was wrong with my response, or you could have resorted to the lowest common denominator-- attack the messenger. You chose the latter.
Not very mature.
Um, when the hell did I ever say that? You're putting words in my mouth. Or, you're assuming thoughts in my brain. Either way, none of this is called for.
*sigh* It's clearly delineated in my prior posts.