"That is a bizarre idea, that tort reform would lead to more malpractice."
Moral hazard. If you have little or no skin in the game, you will be more likely to do something risky. This is why I would expect tort reform ( esp in Texas ) to increase incidences of malpractice. How are you measuring this lack of rise in incidences? If it is in lawsuits filed, then you are using the wrong metric, by definition.
Not sure how the issues with socialized medicine intrude.
For some, sure, it is laziness. Not all. Small issue of jobs ( not steve ). And the same people who don't want you to have free health care seem to be in control of most of the jobs ( they being the "job creators" ), and the wages being paid ( with the increase profits due to worker productivity gains going mostly to the "job creators" ).
Cheaper is so much more expensive, in the long run.
China does more because it is cheaper, more jobs there, fewer here. Fewer jobs, less buying here Less buying here, less profit here ( more profit there ) ( fewer to collect taxes from here ) Less profit here, fewer jobs It will settle out, when the wage arbitrage evens out. leaving wages somewhat above China's, way below US/Europe. Lots of people working for wages will ( have been ) lose houses, cars, other consumer goods ( and not be able to buy things ), leaving a glut on the market to be disposed of at fire sale prices. Basically, prices will also have to come down and stabilize in line with wages. The market *does* work, it will even out. But how many will have to pay ( and have been paying ) what kind of cost for it?
Humans are very resourceful, they will find a way. There will still be resources to fight over ( the whole issue, I believe, in China claiming the sea floor and the islands it has claimed ).
There are several sets of Island, the articles I read state that China's claims are not super recent. Some are right next to the Philippines. And there is Taiwan. They also claim large sections of the sea bed.
We have already seen warfare ( Korea, Vietnam, Hungary ) between Nuclear armed opponents. So, "unattackable" doesnt quite fit the bill, in my opinion. Yes, the participation was officially veiled, but was known.
I would argue that to the extent that carriers can survive ( I.E., the missiles posited in the article and elsewhere ) their value actually increases, as they give more options without going nuclear.
I would disagree. After the start of the war in the Pacific, battleships were used as shore bombardment and ( in the case of the Iowa/North Carolina/SouthDakota class battleships ) anti air protection for the carriers ( the others were not fast enough to do this ). Not at all the primary task they were designed and built for ( fighting other battleships )
Prior to Dec 7, 41
Mitchell sinks Ostfriesland in demonstration
The sinking of one Italian battleship and the damaging of two others at Taranto.
Aircraft damaged the Bismarck so that she could be caught and sunk by other battleships. This would not have happened without
A) being sighted by a Catalina flying boat
B) aircraft from Victorious and Ark Royal sending torpedos into Bismarck
On or after Dec 7, 41 Pearl Harbor, I expect that is enough right there.
The Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sent into the Pacific to defend Singapore without air cover, sunk.
The battle of the Coral Sea
The battle of Midway Notablly present was a large Japanese force of battleships ( including the pride of the Japanese navy, the Yamato ), kept behind the carriers as they were vulnerable, sent home after the 4 Japanese aircraft carriers were sunk, even though the Japanese probably thought there was one American carrier left ( and Midway itself )
Early Guadalcanal Few American carriers ( Hornet, Enterprise, I think were it ) No American battleships, really Many Japanese battleships, none hazarded ( partly fuel issues, but I think if they believed they would gain enough, they would have pushed them forward ).
Late Guadalcanal One of the few sets of battles involving battleships, only ventured because neither side had carriers to spare.
Leyte gulf ( Phillipines campaign ) Japanese use their battleship as they have no better alternatives Musashi ( sistership to Yamato ) sunk by torpedoes. Another battleship on battleship action ( Surigao Strait ), Off Samar, escort carriers and destroyers face 4 Japanese battleship, turning them away ( barely ).
Yamato, sunk by torpedoes ( they learned to only torpedo one side of the ship, so she went down quicker ) Haruna, sunk by carrier aircraft
Personally, I don't think that the day of the Carrier is at an end, but you do realize that your attitude is the same one used to defend building and relying on Battleships back in the day? If there is a new something out there, we need to start down that road and figure it out.
"Besides, the kind of enemies that the Navy is fighting today are the ones that have ramshackle fishing boats and maybe an RPG to scare freighter captains with, not highly technological nation states. The nations they fight are the kind that don't even have a Navy and the only missile danger is losing fighter planes to SAMs."
Maybe true today ( I would argue Taiwan would already be in Chinese hands, and probably many of the other islands in the Pacific China has been laying claim to ). Not necessarily true tomorrow. China has been acting more aggressively ( we can leave the right/wrong-ness of that out for the moment ) in the Pacific of late. It is my considered opinion that the reason they have not just grabbed them is that the United States does have the ability to act in this arena.
I expect they will acquire more naval assets, and be even more aggressive in the future.
I went to a secondary school where they had a computer science curriculum. One of the first things we learned was how a computer worked. It was a cardboard thing with writing on it that showed the program counter, accumulator, memory, etc. You "computed" by advancing the PC, then doing ( in your head, then writing it down ) what the instruction said. I think it was called CARDIAC. Yep, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARDboard_Illustrative_Aid_to_Computation
"... losing her interest in IP in favour of a sudden and strong interest in laws that favour sausage makers."... losing her interest in IP in favour of a sudden and strong interest in laws that flavour sausage makers.
I have some sympathy for this concept, but I do think that if you cant drive at the speed limit because of your personal issues, you should consider how you can mitigate *your* issues and not make them issues for others. Wanting to go the speed limit, or with the above speed limit flow of traffic does not make one a speed demon. Take this to it's limit, should the person who is really old, cant see well except driving very slow, cant react be allowed to stay on the road, and everyone just suffers with that? Or should they just not be driving.
My mom was in this situation to a degree. She gave up her license and car.
The problem I have with closed source is that how can you know for sure whether or not it is actually what is on the voting machine unless you personally loaded it yourself?
Which might be anything to a hypothetical alien. They might never die. Long transit times might not mean as much to them. So, maybe they havent figured out "the air friction problem".
I wish I had mod points, you hit the nail right on the head.
I think we take some of the saner of the "I hate everything nuclear" crowd and have *them* do the safety inspections. Maybe find some "I am concerned about nuclear" types.
We may have to disagree, I think that $99 is $99 too much.
I have looked a bit into compliance issues with this and it doesn't look trivial from where I sit ( thinking in terms of me wanting to re-purpose a machine I bought to run something other than Windows ).
And yes, they have proven adept at circumventing restrictions. The question is should they have to? Personally, the answer is "NO". Microsoft should compete, and if they win it should be because they provide the better product.
There is nothing wrong with deciding to pay competitors and receiving real value in return.
That is not really what is happening here. Microsoft is gating off a hardware eco system by encouraging a system that is deliberately difficult for Linux on desktops to support.
Slashdot Mirror
"That is a bizarre idea, that tort reform would lead to more malpractice."
Moral hazard. If you have little or no skin in the game, you will be more likely to do something risky.
This is why I would expect tort reform ( esp in Texas ) to increase incidences of malpractice.
How are you measuring this lack of rise in incidences? If it is in lawsuits filed, then you are using the wrong metric, by definition.
Not sure how the issues with socialized medicine intrude.
If you cant afford insurance, *why* cant you?
For some, sure, it is laziness. Not all. Small issue of jobs ( not steve ).
And the same people who don't want you to have free health care seem to be in control of most of the jobs ( they being the "job creators" ), and the wages being paid ( with the increase profits due to worker productivity gains going mostly to the "job creators" ).
Cheaper is so much more expensive, in the long run.
China does more because it is cheaper, more jobs there, fewer here.
Fewer jobs, less buying here
Less buying here, less profit here ( more profit there ) ( fewer to collect taxes from here )
Less profit here, fewer jobs
It will settle out, when the wage arbitrage evens out. leaving wages somewhat above China's, way below US/Europe.
Lots of people working for wages will ( have been ) lose houses, cars, other consumer goods ( and not be able to buy things ), leaving a glut on the market to be disposed of at fire sale prices. Basically, prices will also have to come down and stabilize in line with wages.
The market *does* work, it will even out. But how many will have to pay ( and have been paying ) what kind of cost for it?
Humans are very resourceful, they will find a way. There will still be resources to fight over ( the whole issue, I believe, in China claiming the sea floor and the islands it has claimed ).
My argument is that since the proxy wars went without going nuclear, the next batch will not have to involve proxies.
There are several sets of Island, the articles I read state that China's claims are not super recent. Some are right next to the Philippines. And there is Taiwan. They also claim large sections of the sea bed.
We have already seen warfare ( Korea, Vietnam, Hungary ) between Nuclear armed opponents.
So, "unattackable" doesnt quite fit the bill, in my opinion. Yes, the participation was officially veiled, but was known.
I would argue that to the extent that carriers can survive ( I.E., the missiles posited in the article and elsewhere ) their value actually increases, as they give more options without going nuclear.
I would disagree. After the start of the war in the Pacific, battleships were used as shore bombardment and ( in the case of the Iowa/North Carolina/SouthDakota class battleships ) anti air protection for the carriers ( the others were not fast enough to do this ). Not at all the primary task they were designed and built for ( fighting other battleships )
Prior to Dec 7, 41
Mitchell sinks Ostfriesland in demonstration
The sinking of one Italian battleship and the damaging of two others at Taranto.
Aircraft damaged the Bismarck so that she could be caught and sunk by other battleships.
This would not have happened without
A) being sighted by a Catalina flying boat
B) aircraft from Victorious and Ark Royal sending torpedos into Bismarck
On or after Dec 7, 41
Pearl Harbor, I expect that is enough right there.
The Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sent into the Pacific to defend Singapore without air cover, sunk.
The battle of the Coral Sea
The battle of Midway
Notablly present was a large Japanese force of battleships ( including the pride of the Japanese navy, the Yamato ), kept behind the carriers as they were vulnerable, sent home after the 4 Japanese aircraft carriers were sunk, even though the Japanese probably thought there was one American carrier left ( and Midway itself )
Early Guadalcanal
Few American carriers ( Hornet, Enterprise, I think were it )
No American battleships, really
Many Japanese battleships, none hazarded ( partly fuel issues, but I think if they believed they would gain enough, they would have pushed them forward ).
Late Guadalcanal
One of the few sets of battles involving battleships, only ventured because neither side had carriers to spare.
Leyte gulf ( Phillipines campaign )
Japanese use their battleship as they have no better alternatives
Musashi ( sistership to Yamato ) sunk by torpedoes.
Another battleship on battleship action ( Surigao Strait ),
Off Samar, escort carriers and destroyers face 4 Japanese battleship, turning them away ( barely ).
Yamato, sunk by torpedoes ( they learned to only torpedo one side of the ship, so she went down quicker )
Haruna, sunk by carrier aircraft
There may be others, I think this says enough.
Personally, I don't think that the day of the Carrier is at an end, but you do realize that your attitude is the same one used to defend building and relying on Battleships back in the day? If there is a new something out there, we need to start down that road and figure it out.
"Besides, the kind of enemies that the Navy is fighting today are the ones that have ramshackle fishing boats and maybe an RPG to scare freighter captains with, not highly technological nation states. The nations they fight are the kind that don't even have a Navy and the only missile danger is losing fighter planes to SAMs."
Maybe true today ( I would argue Taiwan would already be in Chinese hands, and probably many of the other islands in the Pacific China has been laying claim to ).
Not necessarily true tomorrow. China has been acting more aggressively ( we can leave the right/wrong-ness of that out for the moment ) in the Pacific of late.
It is my considered opinion that the reason they have not just grabbed them is that the United States does have the ability to act in this arena.
I expect they will acquire more naval assets, and be even more aggressive in the future.
And thus was created the first battle star.
I went to a secondary school where they had a computer science curriculum.
One of the first things we learned was how a computer worked.
It was a cardboard thing with writing on it that showed the program counter, accumulator, memory, etc.
You "computed" by advancing the PC, then doing ( in your head, then writing it down ) what the instruction said.
I think it was called CARDIAC.
Yep, like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARDboard_Illustrative_Aid_to_Computation
"... losing her interest in IP in favour of a sudden and strong interest in laws that favour sausage makers." ... losing her interest in IP in favour of a sudden and strong interest in laws that flavour sausage makers.
FTFY
I have some sympathy for this concept, but I do think that if you cant drive at the speed limit because of your personal issues, you should consider how you can mitigate *your* issues and not make them issues for others. Wanting to go the speed limit, or with the above speed limit flow of traffic does not make one a speed demon. Take this to it's limit, should the person who is really old, cant see well except driving very slow, cant react be allowed to stay on the road, and everyone just suffers with that? Or should they just not be driving.
My mom was in this situation to a degree. She gave up her license and car.
Can I have 7 of 9?
The problem I have with closed source is that how can you know for sure whether or not it is actually what is on the voting machine unless you personally loaded it yourself?
That would only shift the payments to the lawmaker and the reviewer.
Get corporate money out of politics, then you have a real fix.
Brings a whole new meaning to "vacuously true".
"Sometimes the most valuable skill a developer can have is a good instinct for which business requirements are most likely to change over time"
Amen!
"liveable period of time"
Which might be anything to a hypothetical alien. They might never die.
Long transit times might not mean as much to them.
So, maybe they havent figured out "the air friction problem".
No, he was busy filling out sweepstakes entry forms.
Yet another reason why corporations should have nothing to do with elections, most definitely including financing them.
I wish I had mod points, you hit the nail right on the head.
I think we take some of the saner of the "I hate everything nuclear" crowd and have *them* do the safety inspections.
Maybe find some "I am concerned about nuclear" types.
And start reprocessing.
We may have to disagree, I think that $99 is $99 too much.
I have looked a bit into compliance issues with this and it doesn't look trivial from where I sit ( thinking in terms of me wanting to re-purpose a machine I bought to run something other than Windows ).
And yes, they have proven adept at circumventing restrictions. The question is should they have to? Personally, the answer is "NO". Microsoft should compete, and if they win it should be because they provide the better product.
There is nothing wrong with deciding to pay competitors and receiving real value in return.
That is not really what is happening here.
Microsoft is gating off a hardware eco system by encouraging a system that is deliberately difficult for Linux on desktops to support.