Oh Christ. Free Speech is fine. The government interfered with nothing. Just because he's allowed to say shit doesn't mean the world has to like it. He's an asshole if he thinks that a certain class of people deserve fewer rights than other people, and I wouldn't be any less condemning of his statements if he'd donated similar money to campaigns to remove rights from blacks, or asians, or any other minority group.
What you say might be true, but then he was with Mozilla, in a top ranking position long before now. Why wasn't their a public outcry back when Prop 8 passed?
And he didn't give money to a campaign to remove rights from anybody. He gave money to a campaign that basically defined marriage as between one mand and one woman. Over half the people in CA agreed with that. What's next, we are taking rights away from certain Morman groups, because gay or straight, they can't be married to more than one person?
For a group that states that they promote tolerance, they seem to be pretty intolerant. It's not tolerance if the requirement is you have to agree only with their position.
Why? I'm pretty sure MLK would think comparing the plight of LGBTs to slavery and racial prejudice was preposterous. How many LGBTs were strung up and hung for doing nothing more than looking at another person a certain way? There is no doubt that LGBT issues are civil rights issues, but not all civil rights issues are of equal weight.
He wanted to use political force to deny rights to people.
So it's more then just an opinion.
He contributed to a political campaign for a ballot issue. Over half the people in CA voted in favor of that issue. If the majority of the people in CA are bigots, then why does the LGBT community stay there? If the call was to boycott Mozilla because of one person's view, then why isn't there a public outcry about boycotting CA?
Public pressure managed to ruin a man's professional career due to his personal beliefs. McCarthy would be proud indeed.
And even better, he wouldn't have had to lift a finger today to get the same results.
Not only that, but over half the people voting in CA held the same beliefs. I wonder if that means that the LGBT community is going to boycott CA because of the views of the citizens there?
Obamacare allows everyone in the country to share ownership of the means of production? Sweet. I'm going to tour some of the factories that I'm now part owner of.
All Obamacare does is spreads the cost of the uninsured among the entire population instead of just those who previously had insurance. It is the same way we fund highways and airports. If only the people who used them were charged a fee, their use would be cost prohibitive. But, since the cost is spread among all or most all of the taxpayers, it is sustainable.
It is odd that people in the US think it is okay for all the taxpayers to pay for the health care of government workers, military personnel and retirees, but not the working poor.
They have a habit of making the footage tell the story they want it to. Remember how F-150s were supposed explode and catch fire if t-boned? After numerous attempts (and much cost), they were caught with having an incendiary device attached to the fuel tank. There explanation was that they had proof this happened (even though their own attempts couldn't do it), so it was for dramatization for the story. I can't remember if Dan Rather had to do any more than apologize, but the producer of the segment lost their job over it.
If you can't remember where your car is in relation to where your mirror is set, then you likely also can't remember any of the other dozens of things you will need to know in order to drive.
Of course, I do have an advantage in that my mirrors are always set correctly when I enter my car, as it remembers me. If you drive a car that doesn't have such a feature and is driven by somebody that adjusts the mirrors differently, you might need that visible cue.
I assume you never need to drive a rental car then or wear a winter coat while driving (which pushes you forward slightly) or any number of other "things" that would impact your view from the mirror. Don't get me wrong, cars that distinguish between drivers and set things accordingly are a nice luxury, but it only creates a false sense of security.
You're greatly exaggerating with "swinging your head wildly" in response to the OP's post. I learned to drive with and always have my mirrors splayed out to cover my blind spots rather than the end of my own car (as is recommended by many driving experts). However, given the size of the mirrors, I still have a tiny blind spot that's the perfect fit for a motorcycle who's riding too close to my lane and hugging my rear quarter panel. A slight tilt of my head and I can clear that spot. It's not necessary when regularly scanning the road to keep track of traffic, but I always do it before I change lanes just in case.
Contrast that with 90% of folks who have their mirrors turned to watch their own gas caps, and have to fully turn their heads to check their much larger blind spots before changing lanes. That's the "swinging wildly" bit that's more dangerous.
I don't have any issues with your 180 degree mirror idea, other than that it would take time to adapt to it. Drivers that start with it would likely be fine.
Whether your mirror shows the side of the car or not, there is still a limited view and most likely a blind spot. Manufacturers can widen the view,like they do on the passenger side, but then it distorts the distances. Regardless, if one's head is swinging wildly, while checking the blind spot, you are doing something wrong. Most likely, a widely swinging head means that you waited too long, for the speed you were going to check.
I think they should replace the rear-view mirror with a 180 degree "mirror" that's a real-time composite of around the car
Ding ding ding! We have a winner.
Where? Because all I see is a shitty idea from someone who obviously doesn't put much thought or effort into driving. The rear view mirror is your best view out of the back of the car. You can see much further in it with little vibration than you ever will with a camera, at least given modern display technology. You also get depth perception when looking through it. The side mirrors shake at speed in most cars, and always shake more than the interior rear view mirror. Replacing them with cameras will be less harmful than replacing the primary rear view.
If I had the points I'd mod you up. Anybody who thinks cameras and displays are the solution should try driving a car with a backup camera around a parking lot in reverse, particularly at something faster than 2mph.
I think they should replace the rear-view mirror with a 180 degree "mirror" that's a real-time composite of around the car, like a convex rearview mirror, but without pillar reflections and such in the way. That's the closest to today's operation that makes sense to me. And with that, you'll *never* have something you need to move your head for.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. That's exactly what we should have. Also, a smart system could sense when any of those cameras stopped operating, and the others could fill in at least temporarily to cover the critical spots.
Unless one of those cameras are for the critical spots in the first place.
If I think there might be something just out of my field of view in a mirror, I can lean slightly to change the angle
And with the cameras, you could move them, rather than moving your head.
I absolutely do not want to hit any buttons to pan the camera while driving.
But swinging your head wildly because your mirrors are poorly set is a good thing? They could make the camera screens mimic mirrors, but that would add complexity and cost for a few people who can't be bothered to adjust a camera if they want to see where it isn't pointed.
I think they should replace the rear-view mirror with a 180 degree "mirror" that's a real-time composite of around the car, like a convex rearview mirror, but without pillar reflections and such in the way. That's the closest to today's operation that makes sense to me. And with that, you'll *never* have something you need to move your head for.
Assuming you have remote mirrors, try adjusting them the next time you are driving down the freeway and see how easy it is not. Why would you expect adjusting a camera view while driving would be any different?
You could also imagine a virtual-reality approach which at the limit could provide a virtual mirror in the location you expect,
An array of ultra-sound sensors around the car, compiled into a simple birds-eye-view display. Like a storm radar image. You'd see at a glance the car (or motorbike) in your blindspot. Dramatically improved situational awareness.
You'd then only need mirrors (or cameras) to see things beyond the range of the sensors, which may make side-mirrors redundant. A single wide-angle view from the back.
Of course, when you rear end the guy in front of you, because you are too busy trying to interpret the display, you might think differently.
Everything you say is true, but what will it be like when you go to switch lanes or merge? Even with a mirror, you are supposed to turn your head to make sure it is clear. So now, you will look down at the in dash display then turn your head? Doesn't seem very intuitive. And I can attest that the backup camera on my series 7 does not give nearly as nice a picture as the rear view mirror, particularly in inclement weather or at night. Why would we expect a side view mirror to do any better?
Use your gun analogy properly: make the astronaut push the launch button, and the manufacturer is immune from any harm...
But it is not. A gun can be used for good purposes. It would be hard to argue that the craft for a one way mission is anything but a specific use case and therefore it doesn't matter who pushes the button.
What a waste of technology. Back in the 70s, in many locales, signs were posted that told you for what speed the lights were timed for. If you drove those speeds, you made the lights, plain and simple. To use inter-vehicle communication just so one can make the lights is lame. There are a number of valid reasons for this technology that should be what is promoted, but if the main focus is on making the lights, well, what a waste. They were doing it decades ago before there was even the IBM PC.
Why autism? There are any number of conditions that would then apply
The conditions that apply means there needs to be a solution AND it needs to be profitable.
You want a different example: cholesterol
That may have always been a medical problem but it was never a popular one until _after_ we developed profitable cholesterol-lowering drugs.
For ADD, Ritalin was used as a DIAGNOSTIC drug. If it solved your issues, then you had ADD. If not, then ADD was not your problem.
That's two examples.
It wasn't quite that simple with Ritalin. The protocol was to put the child on it and see if the teachers noticed a change in behavior (kind of like a blind study of one). If the answer was yes, then you had ADD, if not, you didn't. Of course, even students who didn't have ADD performed better than without it. That wasn't a surprise either as most people given a stimulant such as Ritalin, amphetamines, cocaine, etc. will have increased focus and attention, at least to a point. There is even an active hypothesis that many adults suffer from ADD and they self treat with cocaine.
Just because LG puts a Best Buy-only code on items sold there and Wal-Mart-only code on items sold there doesn't mean they aren't the same. But yes, I've run into that at Best Buy before. The issue with Wal-Mart is that you can find Levi's there, or in the Gap, and one might assume they are equivelent. But often they aren't. Wal-Mart pressures suppliers into actual differences (cheaper fabric) so they can sell it cheaper than anyone can sell the original. Often the item at Wal-Mart is *actually* inferior.
What you say is correct, but even if the Best Buy and Walmart product is identical in all respects, the different product numbers will be enough to be denied the lower price guarantee. And yes, often with Walmart or Bestbuy, they have enough buying power to pressure manufacturers that the different product number is more than just a different sticker being on the product.
It wasn't market forces that did this, it was monopolistic forces.
It was the Model T Ford.
"You can afford a Ford."
Portal to portal service for a family of four plus dog and cargo. Cost about a penny a mile to operate including fuel, oil, maintenance and incidental expenses. Affordable, adaptable, customized endlessly.
You don't need a conspiracy drive the trolley line out of business, The electric starter and low pressure, puncture resistant, tires will do the job for you,
Most trolley companies were on the rocks before World War One.
There were 22 million cars on the roads as early as 1922.
If that were true, then why did GM waste $150B in today's money to purchase up all of those trolley lines?
Here is the problem, backup cameras only work if you aren't distracted or preoccupied and actually look at the screen. Now, if people are currently distracted and preoccupied so they fail to look at the rear view mirror, why would anybody expect the backup camera to be any better? This is just an example of passing regulations that appear to do something but really don't. And it is expensive!
In the US about 15M new cars are sold each year. Assuming the manufactures add a backup camera at cost, which would be $100, that will cost consumers $1.5B. Of course the manufactures won't add it at cost and most likely will be between $500 - $1000 per vehicle, which now raises the annual consumer cost to $7.5B - $15B per year or about $1B for every person killed each year.
The assumption with all of this, for it to work, is that the driver will first check the video screen before backing up. If they aren't checking their side and rear view mirrors, why would anybody expect them to check the screen? Even if they do, it only shows them what is behind them at the moment they are looking, unless the expectation is they are going to keep their eyes focused on the screen during the entire backing up, which of course means, they can't be watching for traffic, it still won't protect against the child/person who steps behind the vehicle once it is moving.
I guess the only good news about all of this is that they didn't mandate an interlock system where the car would not back up if it thought something or someone was in the way. That would have been even more costly, but at least it would have a chance of saving the.01% of the people that might be killed by a new car backing up. But, as long as the safety system relies on the driver to make sure things are clear, it really doesn't make much difference if there is a camera or a mirror and expecting it to, is wishful thinking.
I read an article regarding the demise of the Trolley in Saginaw, Michigan, back in the early 20th century. Seems strangely relevant to this, though it was market forces, not the hand of government that tipped the scales.
It wasn't market forces that did this, it was monopolistic forces. It is well documented that beginning the 1940s, GM started purchasing all of the trolley lines across America and shutting them down. They did this to push the purchase of buses and automobiles that they manufactured and the trolleys that were well established were seen as a major obstacle. It wasn't market force that did the trolley in, at least not market force driven by consumers.
no...i am simply making the economic point that once a diagnosis of Autism had embedded into it a financial windfall in the form of generous SSI benefits, that it makes rational sense that parents would work much harder at finding doctors willing to make that diagnosis.
it would hardly require that the "entire medical profession" be in on the "scam".
Why autism? There are any number of conditions that would then apply? If what you are suggesting were true, then we would see a rise in all of these. More likely, the rise is not from doctors or SSI benefits, but because the DSM has been updated which broadly expanded those things that are now considered autism.
I still have and occasionally use my HP-25 (although I've had to replace the battery pack a long time ago). RPN confuses people as much today as it did back then.
I'm not doing that:) I dislike KDE much, so I'm not even using it, sorry... I was just trying to say that KDE, as an infrastructure project, seems to take on Debian's system as a distribution of always having a fixed number of well-defined releases "in the air". For Debian ofcourse these are stable, testing, unstable and experimental. B.t.w. testing is indeed fine to use for desktop systems; it has about the stability of other distributions' stable releases.
But then your original comment doesn't make sense as KDE isn't doing anything different than they were prior to the announcement. Opensuse.org is making a change, but not KDE.
well, considering that the rise of these diagnosis seems to be highly correlated with the ability to get SSI benefits in the US, how could anyone really be surprise that, with an economic perk this big, there wouldn't be a shift in behavior among parents?
So, you are saying that the entire medical profession is in on an SSI scam? What's in it for the doctor and nurses involved?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh Christ. Free Speech is fine. The government interfered with nothing. Just because he's allowed to say shit doesn't mean the world has to like it. He's an asshole if he thinks that a certain class of people deserve fewer rights than other people, and I wouldn't be any less condemning of his statements if he'd donated similar money to campaigns to remove rights from blacks, or asians, or any other minority group.
What you say might be true, but then he was with Mozilla, in a top ranking position long before now. Why wasn't their a public outcry back when Prop 8 passed?
And he didn't give money to a campaign to remove rights from anybody. He gave money to a campaign that basically defined marriage as between one mand and one woman. Over half the people in CA agreed with that. What's next, we are taking rights away from certain Morman groups, because gay or straight, they can't be married to more than one person?
For a group that states that they promote tolerance, they seem to be pretty intolerant. It's not tolerance if the requirement is you have to agree only with their position.
Joe McCarthy would be proud.
So would Martin Luther King.
Why? I'm pretty sure MLK would think comparing the plight of LGBTs to slavery and racial prejudice was preposterous. How many LGBTs were strung up and hung for doing nothing more than looking at another person a certain way? There is no doubt that LGBT issues are civil rights issues, but not all civil rights issues are of equal weight.
He wanted to use political force to deny rights to people.
So it's more then just an opinion.
He contributed to a political campaign for a ballot issue. Over half the people in CA voted in favor of that issue. If the majority of the people in CA are bigots, then why does the LGBT community stay there? If the call was to boycott Mozilla because of one person's view, then why isn't there a public outcry about boycotting CA?
Public pressure managed to ruin a man's professional career due to his personal beliefs. McCarthy would be proud indeed.
And even better, he wouldn't have had to lift a finger today to get the same results.
Not only that, but over half the people voting in CA held the same beliefs. I wonder if that means that the LGBT community is going to boycott CA because of the views of the citizens there?
Obamacare allows everyone in the country to share ownership of the means of production? Sweet. I'm going to tour some of the factories that I'm now part owner of.
All Obamacare does is spreads the cost of the uninsured among the entire population instead of just those who previously had insurance. It is the same way we fund highways and airports. If only the people who used them were charged a fee, their use would be cost prohibitive. But, since the cost is spread among all or most all of the taxpayers, it is sustainable.
It is odd that people in the US think it is okay for all the taxpayers to pay for the health care of government workers, military personnel and retirees, but not the working poor.
They have a habit of making the footage tell the story they want it to. Remember how F-150s were supposed explode and catch fire if t-boned? After numerous attempts (and much cost), they were caught with having an incendiary device attached to the fuel tank. There explanation was that they had proof this happened (even though their own attempts couldn't do it), so it was for dramatization for the story. I can't remember if Dan Rather had to do any more than apologize, but the producer of the segment lost their job over it.
If you can't remember where your car is in relation to where your mirror is set, then you likely also can't remember any of the other dozens of things you will need to know in order to drive.
Of course, I do have an advantage in that my mirrors are always set correctly when I enter my car, as it remembers me. If you drive a car that doesn't have such a feature and is driven by somebody that adjusts the mirrors differently, you might need that visible cue.
I assume you never need to drive a rental car then or wear a winter coat while driving (which pushes you forward slightly) or any number of other "things" that would impact your view from the mirror. Don't get me wrong, cars that distinguish between drivers and set things accordingly are a nice luxury, but it only creates a false sense of security.
You're greatly exaggerating with "swinging your head wildly" in response to the OP's post. I learned to drive with and always have my mirrors splayed out to cover my blind spots rather than the end of my own car (as is recommended by many driving experts). However, given the size of the mirrors, I still have a tiny blind spot that's the perfect fit for a motorcycle who's riding too close to my lane and hugging my rear quarter panel. A slight tilt of my head and I can clear that spot. It's not necessary when regularly scanning the road to keep track of traffic, but I always do it before I change lanes just in case.
Contrast that with 90% of folks who have their mirrors turned to watch their own gas caps, and have to fully turn their heads to check their much larger blind spots before changing lanes. That's the "swinging wildly" bit that's more dangerous.
I don't have any issues with your 180 degree mirror idea, other than that it would take time to adapt to it. Drivers that start with it would likely be fine.
Whether your mirror shows the side of the car or not, there is still a limited view and most likely a blind spot. Manufacturers can widen the view,like they do on the passenger side, but then it distorts the distances. Regardless, if one's head is swinging wildly, while checking the blind spot, you are doing something wrong. Most likely, a widely swinging head means that you waited too long, for the speed you were going to check.
I think they should replace the rear-view mirror with a 180 degree "mirror" that's a real-time composite of around the car
Ding ding ding! We have a winner.
Where? Because all I see is a shitty idea from someone who obviously doesn't put much thought or effort into driving. The rear view mirror is your best view out of the back of the car. You can see much further in it with little vibration than you ever will with a camera, at least given modern display technology. You also get depth perception when looking through it. The side mirrors shake at speed in most cars, and always shake more than the interior rear view mirror. Replacing them with cameras will be less harmful than replacing the primary rear view.
If I had the points I'd mod you up. Anybody who thinks cameras and displays are the solution should try driving a car with a backup camera around a parking lot in reverse, particularly at something faster than 2mph.
I think they should replace the rear-view mirror with a 180 degree "mirror" that's a real-time composite of around the car, like a convex rearview mirror, but without pillar reflections and such in the way. That's the closest to today's operation that makes sense to me. And with that, you'll *never* have something you need to move your head for.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. That's exactly what we should have. Also, a smart system could sense when any of those cameras stopped operating, and the others could fill in at least temporarily to cover the critical spots.
Unless one of those cameras are for the critical spots in the first place.
If I think there might be something just out of my field of view in a mirror, I can lean slightly to change the angle
And with the cameras, you could move them, rather than moving your head.
I absolutely do not want to hit any buttons to pan the camera while driving.
But swinging your head wildly because your mirrors are poorly set is a good thing? They could make the camera screens mimic mirrors, but that would add complexity and cost for a few people who can't be bothered to adjust a camera if they want to see where it isn't pointed.
I think they should replace the rear-view mirror with a 180 degree "mirror" that's a real-time composite of around the car, like a convex rearview mirror, but without pillar reflections and such in the way. That's the closest to today's operation that makes sense to me. And with that, you'll *never* have something you need to move your head for.
Assuming you have remote mirrors, try adjusting them the next time you are driving down the freeway and see how easy it is not. Why would you expect adjusting a camera view while driving would be any different?
You could also imagine a virtual-reality approach which at the limit could provide a virtual mirror in the location you expect,
An array of ultra-sound sensors around the car, compiled into a simple birds-eye-view display. Like a storm radar image. You'd see at a glance the car (or motorbike) in your blindspot. Dramatically improved situational awareness.
You'd then only need mirrors (or cameras) to see things beyond the range of the sensors, which may make side-mirrors redundant. A single wide-angle view from the back.
Of course, when you rear end the guy in front of you, because you are too busy trying to interpret the display, you might think differently.
Everything you say is true, but what will it be like when you go to switch lanes or merge? Even with a mirror, you are supposed to turn your head to make sure it is clear. So now, you will look down at the in dash display then turn your head? Doesn't seem very intuitive. And I can attest that the backup camera on my series 7 does not give nearly as nice a picture as the rear view mirror, particularly in inclement weather or at night. Why would we expect a side view mirror to do any better?
Use your gun analogy properly: make the astronaut push the launch button, and the manufacturer is immune from any harm...
But it is not. A gun can be used for good purposes. It would be hard to argue that the craft for a one way mission is anything but a specific use case and therefore it doesn't matter who pushes the button.
What a waste of technology. Back in the 70s, in many locales, signs were posted that told you for what speed the lights were timed for. If you drove those speeds, you made the lights, plain and simple. To use inter-vehicle communication just so one can make the lights is lame. There are a number of valid reasons for this technology that should be what is promoted, but if the main focus is on making the lights, well, what a waste. They were doing it decades ago before there was even the IBM PC.
Doesn't Nikon already own this patent?
Why autism? There are any number of conditions that would then apply
The conditions that apply means there needs to be a solution AND it needs to be profitable.
You want a different example: cholesterol
That may have always been a medical problem but it was never a popular one until _after_ we developed profitable cholesterol-lowering drugs.
For ADD, Ritalin was used as a DIAGNOSTIC drug. If it solved your issues, then you had ADD. If not, then ADD was not your problem.
That's two examples.
It wasn't quite that simple with Ritalin. The protocol was to put the child on it and see if the teachers noticed a change in behavior (kind of like a blind study of one). If the answer was yes, then you had ADD, if not, you didn't. Of course, even students who didn't have ADD performed better than without it. That wasn't a surprise either as most people given a stimulant such as Ritalin, amphetamines, cocaine, etc. will have increased focus and attention, at least to a point. There is even an active hypothesis that many adults suffer from ADD and they self treat with cocaine.
Just because LG puts a Best Buy-only code on items sold there and Wal-Mart-only code on items sold there doesn't mean they aren't the same. But yes, I've run into that at Best Buy before. The issue with Wal-Mart is that you can find Levi's there, or in the Gap, and one might assume they are equivelent. But often they aren't. Wal-Mart pressures suppliers into actual differences (cheaper fabric) so they can sell it cheaper than anyone can sell the original. Often the item at Wal-Mart is *actually* inferior.
What you say is correct, but even if the Best Buy and Walmart product is identical in all respects, the different product numbers will be enough to be denied the lower price guarantee. And yes, often with Walmart or Bestbuy, they have enough buying power to pressure manufacturers that the different product number is more than just a different sticker being on the product.
It wasn't market forces that did this, it was monopolistic forces.
It was the Model T Ford.
"You can afford a Ford."
Portal to portal service for a family of four plus dog and cargo. Cost about a penny a mile to operate including fuel, oil, maintenance and incidental expenses. Affordable, adaptable, customized endlessly.
You don't need a conspiracy drive the trolley line out of business, The electric starter and low pressure, puncture resistant, tires will do the job for you,
Most trolley companies were on the rocks before World War One.
There were 22 million cars on the roads as early as 1922.
If that were true, then why did GM waste $150B in today's money to purchase up all of those trolley lines?
Here is the problem, backup cameras only work if you aren't distracted or preoccupied and actually look at the screen. Now, if people are currently distracted and preoccupied so they fail to look at the rear view mirror, why would anybody expect the backup camera to be any better? This is just an example of passing regulations that appear to do something but really don't. And it is expensive!
In the US about 15M new cars are sold each year. Assuming the manufactures add a backup camera at cost, which would be $100, that will cost consumers $1.5B. Of course the manufactures won't add it at cost and most likely will be between $500 - $1000 per vehicle, which now raises the annual consumer cost to $7.5B - $15B per year or about $1B for every person killed each year.
The assumption with all of this, for it to work, is that the driver will first check the video screen before backing up. If they aren't checking their side and rear view mirrors, why would anybody expect them to check the screen? Even if they do, it only shows them what is behind them at the moment they are looking, unless the expectation is they are going to keep their eyes focused on the screen during the entire backing up, which of course means, they can't be watching for traffic, it still won't protect against the child/person who steps behind the vehicle once it is moving.
I guess the only good news about all of this is that they didn't mandate an interlock system where the car would not back up if it thought something or someone was in the way. That would have been even more costly, but at least it would have a chance of saving the .01% of the people that might be killed by a new car backing up. But, as long as the safety system relies on the driver to make sure things are clear, it really doesn't make much difference if there is a camera or a mirror and expecting it to, is wishful thinking.
I read an article regarding the demise of the Trolley in Saginaw, Michigan, back in the early 20th century. Seems strangely relevant to this, though it was market forces, not the hand of government that tipped the scales.
It wasn't market forces that did this, it was monopolistic forces. It is well documented that beginning the 1940s, GM started purchasing all of the trolley lines across America and shutting them down. They did this to push the purchase of buses and automobiles that they manufactured and the trolleys that were well established were seen as a major obstacle. It wasn't market force that did the trolley in, at least not market force driven by consumers.
no...i am simply making the economic point that once a diagnosis of Autism had embedded into it a financial windfall in the form of generous SSI benefits, that it makes rational sense that parents would work much harder at finding doctors willing to make that diagnosis.
it would hardly require that the "entire medical profession" be in on the "scam".
Why autism? There are any number of conditions that would then apply? If what you are suggesting were true, then we would see a rise in all of these. More likely, the rise is not from doctors or SSI benefits, but because the DSM has been updated which broadly expanded those things that are now considered autism.
I still have and occasionally use my HP-25 (although I've had to replace the battery pack a long time ago). RPN confuses people as much today as it did back then.
I'm not doing that :) I dislike KDE much, so I'm not even using it, sorry...
I was just trying to say that KDE, as an infrastructure project, seems to take on Debian's system as a distribution of always having a fixed number of well-defined releases "in the air". For Debian ofcourse these are stable, testing, unstable and experimental.
B.t.w. testing is indeed fine to use for desktop systems; it has about the stability of other distributions' stable releases.
But then your original comment doesn't make sense as KDE isn't doing anything different than they were prior to the announcement. Opensuse.org is making a change, but not KDE.
well, considering that the rise of these diagnosis seems to be highly correlated with the ability to get SSI benefits in the US, how could anyone really be surprise that, with an economic perk this big, there wouldn't be a shift in behavior among parents?
So, you are saying that the entire medical profession is in on an SSI scam? What's in it for the doctor and nurses involved?