Sorry, "cure" was sloppy. Maybe in 50 years it will be a standard childhood vaccine like polio and the distinction won't matter as much for now it does.
It is worth noting this is for type 1 diabetes, not type 2 which is the modern plague resulting largely from bad diet and inactivity. That said, if you know somebody for whom diabetes is a lifelong affliction since childhood, and kids who need shots for diabetes, that's type 1. A cure would be a huge deal.
Yeah, the hard part is making the infrastructure port extremely cheap and robust (if there is to be one retrofitted in every parking spot) and also not add too much cost to the car. Anything that requires lining things up to within a couple inches will require either a mechanical means (like driving into tracks) or precise maneuvering. If self-driving cars catch on, then precise maneuvering becomes an option.
The article says 85% efficiency, which may be raised to 90%. 15% is a lot to give away.
What is needed is a simple mechanical design standard to 'plug in' the car that doesn't require extra steps for the driver. Like, when you drive into a car wash, you feel the wheels come to rest in a track. Use the weight of the car to raise a positive contact under one side and a negative on the other. The contacts drop when you back off. Something simple like that.
Win7 may be only a moderate RAM hog, but it is a big-time disk hog. It annoys me because most of my use of Windows is in virtual machines, and they're just more time-consuming to work with when they're enormous. That, and SSD has put a bit of a premium back on drive space (particularly when using enough space to store multiple Windows VMs on them).
That sounds interesting. Although I would still need to leave run the VM running since my printer, though supposedly supported by linux, doesn't really work right.
it's the USB 2.0 passthrough support that is proprietary, for example plugging a USB gamepad or printer or modem or some other "weird" device into a physical host and having it be detected as being plugged into the virtual machine
Running USB devices that only have Windows drivers is one of the main reasons I use VMWare Workstation. Years ago this was somewhat flaky but more recently works well for me. (The main hiccup is high CPU usage when the wireless dongle for my Garmin watch is connected to the VM, even when not transferring data.)
Is use it for my all-in-one printer, garmin gps watch, TomTom GPS, and a pedometer we're supposed to wear for our health plan at work. At work I use a USB webcam on my Windows VM because Microsoft Lync is our corporate video conferencing solution and isn't available on the Mac. All of these except the pedometer would be really impaired by USB 1.1 speeds.
In VMWare you can also choose to present a Mouse / Keyboard to Windows as a USB device instead of a keyboard/mouse specifically. As you said, this way the keyboard/mouse is only connected to the VM, which is one way to create a multi-seat setup.
I am closer to you than most of the other responses (our computers are connected to desktop displays in the main room - no laptops in bedrooms). However, I have stopped short of using technical means for compliance. I think that fosters an adversarial situation, where circumvention is some sort of victory, instead of conveying standards and expectations. Granted we haven't had that "litmus test" moment yet of walking in on something, so it's all somewhat hypothetical until then.
"The first thing you need to do - is work out what you want to do."
Except you don't really know until you've tried it! Instead of diving in head first, I'd suggest seeking opportunities to wade in, being patient if necessary (up to a point). "I have a friend" (ahem) who took a temporary management position, and learned it was not for him. Granted, this leaves him with no clear career path, shaking up his expectations of the future. But at least he gained some perspective without burning any bridges.
What we need is a way to encourage the average middle class worker to invest more. The long term return to capital is much better than the long term return to labor, so it's in the average worker's best interest to accumulate capital wherever possible.
How would we know if there were simply enough investment, and real economic growth on a sustained basis wouldn't benefit much from additional investment? Admittedly I am again choosing an outlier here, but look at Apple. They have $150 BN of cash, how can they POSSIBLY use that productively just to develop the next smartphone or tablet? They can't and they aren't.
I realize that, historically, there was good return on capital. America was rich with untapped resources and a rapidly growing population. Those who owned homes often made lots of money on them long-term due to development nearby. The relatively few who owned equities fared even better. But when enough people are able to exploit a strategy, it inevitably changes the outcome. The idea that we could all retire at 55 if we all started saving at 20 and we all got postwar-era stock returns for 35 years seems to create vast wealth from thin air. Or would this glut of investment really cause such unimaginable productivity through new technology that we would all grow rich with little effort? I am skeptical. A kid can't grow without enough food, but more will make them taller only to some degree, after that they just grow in other dimensions...
"In theory, low capital gains rates encourage investment over consumption, which is good for long run growth."
If anything, it seems like there is a surplus of capital, with no good place to invest it. Interest rates are nil, and so are market returns. Since the height of the bubble in March of 2000, "Total return, including reinvested dividends, certainly looks better, but the real (inflation-adjusted) purchasing power of that $1,000 is currently, over 13 years later (4 OCT 2013), is only 10 bucks above break-even." (cite.)
I think there is not enough consumption to grow the economy because too much of the wealth is tied up in the accounts of extremely wealthy people who already own everything money can buy. When a poor or lower middle class person gets their paycheck, they spend it immediately (if not sooner, through increased borrowing), thus creating jobs and higher overall productivity.
I could go for that so long as "income tax" is progressive, and defined broadly enough. For one thing I question whether capital gains should be separate from other income. But all the other perks and benefits of corporate royalty status would need to be included also.
There's also no such thing as a corporation. It's just a legal contrivance, just like corporate taxes, and I hate being disingenuous like that. If "corporations are people, my friend!" then why this why this fictitious entity, with its tax liability one one hand, and incredible powers of scapegoating on the other? Just hold the shareholders and executives (i.e. the people who actually receive corporate profits) personally liable for the debts and criminal actions of corporations. I'm sure they'll jump right on board with that plan.
That's funny, I have and still use the MDR-7506, and the #1 thing I notice with them is I always hear something new in a recording the first time I listen to it with them.
Suppose in 1990 that the government froze spending, locked it to inflation. Well, 1990 wasn't so bad, right? Has there been great strides in the quality of life since then that we can attribute to government spending? Not at all,
You are completely ignoring the main reason for the budget problem! It's demographics. In 1990 there were almost 20% more workers per retiree than now. The effect on social security / medicare is very predictable. Meanwhile healthcare costs have been increasing much faster than inflation. This is true both inside and outside government programs, but the government picks up the tab for the elderly, who incur the most expenses. So, have we got anything for our money since 1990? Yes! average remaining life expectancy at 65 has increased by 2 years since 1990.
So, the idea that government expenditures went up mysteriously, or due to largesse, is incorrect.
Full disclosure, I just remembered that it was a USB WiFi adapter on the client, which doesn't help latency any. Still, I have yet to use WiFi on any other computer that had near-wired ping times either...
On a semi-related note, why is the latency of WiFi so sucky? I recently tried to mount an NFS home partition on a WiFi with 50 Mb tested throughput, and it was noticeably bad, to the point I broke down and ran a cable. Granted, it's a pretty sad network filesystem that performs so badly with 1-4 ms of latency. But even that is much more than wired... why? It's obviously not the flight time of radio waves over 30 feet. There shouldn't be too much re-transmission at the wireless protocol layers, for such a good connection. More importantly, is there some combination of OS, drivers, and wireless router that provide near-wired latency for WiFi?
By focusing on government, your response ignores most of the problem, which is private industry. That's who is building most of the centralized databases. Once constructed their exploitation (by many parties) is inevitable.
A majority of poll respondents think the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a non-profit created by Congress that helps fund NPR and PBS as well as other public media, receives a share of 1 percent or more of the federal governmentâ(TM)s budget.
In the financial year for 2010, the CPB reported receiving $506 million in federal appropriations. According to the White Houseâ(TM)s Office of Management and Budget, the federal budget for 2010 was $3.456 trillion. Using those numbers, the CPB receives about.00014 percent of the federal budget. Of course, poll respondents are way off in other areas, assigning a median of 137 percent of the federal governmentâ(TM)s budget to various government programs, suggesting Americans think the government simply spends more than it actually does as a general rule.
Poll respondents always favor nonspecific measures like "cutting government spending." Then it reverses when you ask about specific programs, especially the ones that actually cost a lot, like DoD and Social Security.
Well, yes. This is the basic problem solved by mandatory health insurance (Obamacare) - you generally don't need expensive healthcare until you've lost your health, and thus can no longer pay for it. As you said, a very similar situation to SS, where the problem is that many don't save for retirement unless forced to. If you want you can think of it as a subsidy of the old by the young, but it's no less correct to think of either as a form of forced savings. (Not that "your" gold coins are sitting somewhere in a vault, because they aren't, but that doesn't really change anything).
It's pointless comparing those costs without a more detailed comparison of benefits. The claim that the insurers somehow found a way to provide the same benefits for triple the price under the new regulations is quite silly.
Apollo 13 was FAR less ambitious in what it depicted though. Those shots in the opening scene of Gravity of the astronauts working on the Hubble outside the Shuttle were awesome. I loved that. Especially with 3d. I have never felt so close to floating in space.
One thing that did stick out at me, but I haven't seen pointed out, was the control authority of the space chair that Clooney was zooming around in. There's no way it can accelerate nearly that quickly, is there?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, "cure" was sloppy. Maybe in 50 years it will be a standard childhood vaccine like polio and the distinction won't matter as much for now it does.
It is worth noting this is for type 1 diabetes, not type 2 which is the modern plague resulting largely from bad diet and inactivity. That said, if you know somebody for whom diabetes is a lifelong affliction since childhood, and kids who need shots for diabetes, that's type 1. A cure would be a huge deal.
Yeah, the hard part is making the infrastructure port extremely cheap and robust (if there is to be one retrofitted in every parking spot) and also not add too much cost to the car. Anything that requires lining things up to within a couple inches will require either a mechanical means (like driving into tracks) or precise maneuvering. If self-driving cars catch on, then precise maneuvering becomes an option.
Correct, as people we are mostly lazy. Might as well re-start your thought process from there.
Whoever said progeria has the same underlying mechanism as actual aging?
What is needed is a simple mechanical design standard to 'plug in' the car that doesn't require extra steps for the driver. Like, when you drive into a car wash, you feel the wheels come to rest in a track. Use the weight of the car to raise a positive contact under one side and a negative on the other. The contacts drop when you back off. Something simple like that.
Win7 may be only a moderate RAM hog, but it is a big-time disk hog. It annoys me because most of my use of Windows is in virtual machines, and they're just more time-consuming to work with when they're enormous. That, and SSD has put a bit of a premium back on drive space (particularly when using enough space to store multiple Windows VMs on them).
That sounds interesting. Although I would still need to leave run the VM running since my printer, though supposedly supported by linux, doesn't really work right.
Running USB devices that only have Windows drivers is one of the main reasons I use VMWare Workstation. Years ago this was somewhat flaky but more recently works well for me. (The main hiccup is high CPU usage when the wireless dongle for my Garmin watch is connected to the VM, even when not transferring data.)
Is use it for my all-in-one printer, garmin gps watch, TomTom GPS, and a pedometer we're supposed to wear for our health plan at work. At work I use a USB webcam on my Windows VM because Microsoft Lync is our corporate video conferencing solution and isn't available on the Mac. All of these except the pedometer would be really impaired by USB 1.1 speeds.
In VMWare you can also choose to present a Mouse / Keyboard to Windows as a USB device instead of a keyboard/mouse specifically. As you said, this way the keyboard/mouse is only connected to the VM, which is one way to create a multi-seat setup.
I am closer to you than most of the other responses (our computers are connected to desktop displays in the main room - no laptops in bedrooms). However, I have stopped short of using technical means for compliance. I think that fosters an adversarial situation, where circumvention is some sort of victory, instead of conveying standards and expectations. Granted we haven't had that "litmus test" moment yet of walking in on something, so it's all somewhat hypothetical until then.
Except you don't really know until you've tried it! Instead of diving in head first, I'd suggest seeking opportunities to wade in, being patient if necessary (up to a point). "I have a friend" (ahem) who took a temporary management position, and learned it was not for him. Granted, this leaves him with no clear career path, shaking up his expectations of the future. But at least he gained some perspective without burning any bridges.
How would we know if there were simply enough investment, and real economic growth on a sustained basis wouldn't benefit much from additional investment? Admittedly I am again choosing an outlier here, but look at Apple. They have $150 BN of cash, how can they POSSIBLY use that productively just to develop the next smartphone or tablet? They can't and they aren't.
I realize that, historically, there was good return on capital. America was rich with untapped resources and a rapidly growing population. Those who owned homes often made lots of money on them long-term due to development nearby. The relatively few who owned equities fared even better. But when enough people are able to exploit a strategy, it inevitably changes the outcome. The idea that we could all retire at 55 if we all started saving at 20 and we all got postwar-era stock returns for 35 years seems to create vast wealth from thin air. Or would this glut of investment really cause such unimaginable productivity through new technology that we would all grow rich with little effort? I am skeptical. A kid can't grow without enough food, but more will make them taller only to some degree, after that they just grow in other dimensions...
If anything, it seems like there is a surplus of capital, with no good place to invest it. Interest rates are nil, and so are market returns. Since the height of the bubble in March of 2000, "Total return, including reinvested dividends, certainly looks better, but the real (inflation-adjusted) purchasing power of that $1,000 is currently, over 13 years later (4 OCT 2013), is only 10 bucks above break-even." (cite.)
I think there is not enough consumption to grow the economy because too much of the wealth is tied up in the accounts of extremely wealthy people who already own everything money can buy. When a poor or lower middle class person gets their paycheck, they spend it immediately (if not sooner, through increased borrowing), thus creating jobs and higher overall productivity.
I could go for that so long as "income tax" is progressive, and defined broadly enough. For one thing I question whether capital gains should be separate from other income. But all the other perks and benefits of corporate royalty status would need to be included also.
There's also no such thing as a corporation. It's just a legal contrivance, just like corporate taxes, and I hate being disingenuous like that. If "corporations are people, my friend!" then why this why this fictitious entity, with its tax liability one one hand, and incredible powers of scapegoating on the other? Just hold the shareholders and executives (i.e. the people who actually receive corporate profits) personally liable for the debts and criminal actions of corporations. I'm sure they'll jump right on board with that plan.
That's funny, I have and still use the MDR-7506, and the #1 thing I notice with them is I always hear something new in a recording the first time I listen to it with them.
You are completely ignoring the main reason for the budget problem! It's demographics. In 1990 there were almost 20% more workers per retiree than now. The effect on social security / medicare is very predictable. Meanwhile healthcare costs have been increasing much faster than inflation. This is true both inside and outside government programs, but the government picks up the tab for the elderly, who incur the most expenses. So, have we got anything for our money since 1990? Yes! average remaining life expectancy at 65 has increased by 2 years since 1990.
So, the idea that government expenditures went up mysteriously, or due to largesse, is incorrect.
Full disclosure, I just remembered that it was a USB WiFi adapter on the client, which doesn't help latency any. Still, I have yet to use WiFi on any other computer that had near-wired ping times either...
On a semi-related note, why is the latency of WiFi so sucky? I recently tried to mount an NFS home partition on a WiFi with 50 Mb tested throughput, and it was noticeably bad, to the point I broke down and ran a cable. Granted, it's a pretty sad network filesystem that performs so badly with 1-4 ms of latency. But even that is much more than wired... why? It's obviously not the flight time of radio waves over 30 feet. There shouldn't be too much re-transmission at the wireless protocol layers, for such a good connection. More importantly, is there some combination of OS, drivers, and wireless router that provide near-wired latency for WiFi?
By focusing on government, your response ignores most of the problem, which is private industry. That's who is building most of the centralized databases. Once constructed their exploitation (by many parties) is inevitable.
Poll respondents always favor nonspecific measures like "cutting government spending." Then it reverses when you ask about specific programs, especially the ones that actually cost a lot, like DoD and Social Security.
Well, yes. This is the basic problem solved by mandatory health insurance (Obamacare) - you generally don't need expensive healthcare until you've lost your health, and thus can no longer pay for it. As you said, a very similar situation to SS, where the problem is that many don't save for retirement unless forced to. If you want you can think of it as a subsidy of the old by the young, but it's no less correct to think of either as a form of forced savings. (Not that "your" gold coins are sitting somewhere in a vault, because they aren't, but that doesn't really change anything).
It's pointless comparing those costs without a more detailed comparison of benefits. The claim that the insurers somehow found a way to provide the same benefits for triple the price under the new regulations is quite silly.
One thing that did stick out at me, but I haven't seen pointed out, was the control authority of the space chair that Clooney was zooming around in. There's no way it can accelerate nearly that quickly, is there?