You Fool! Companies will grow that provide services and bundle the drugs! They will pay for research!
But seriously, the profit motivation is there: They still have to make the drugs and sell them. I don't think it would lower the cost per se, but scientists or grad students could work on rare diseases in their spare time to find cures, which could then be manufactured.
Openness is excellent. The more people who know about cancer treatments, the closer we will come to a cure.
Most socialist countries as in... Sweden? Denmark? France? Germany? Canada? They all seem to be doing okay.
And it's not a level playing field. Take, for example, Mexican truckers driving in the US. They are not required to adhere to the same environmental or safety standards as US truckers, so their operating costs are lower. The courts have ruled they don't have to be held to the same levels. This puts US companies at a disadvantage.
It also puts the American people at risk of greater pollution and traffic fatalities. Isn't it logical that those doing business with us ON OUR OWN SOIL adhere to our laws?
Same thing with China. We claim to love freedom, but if we can get our little plastic dinosaurs or laptops cheaper from a place that is essentially a giant slave labor camp, we do it. So we don't really love freedom; we love that we have freedom and that we can get stuff cheap from other countries. It's hypocrisy.
We should withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA until they adhere to the same standards of human rights and environmental protection as the rest of the industrialized world. Or is the life of a Chinese person worth less than that of an American or European?
This is not an easy problem, but I think attention needs to be given to the requirements on our companies. I do not propose that we lower our standards. Rather, perhaps we should require companies working in foreign countries to either meet our standards or apply a financial penalty for failing to do so.
Perhaps we should renegotiate our trade agreements to include these things. Maybe withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA until these are worked out. (For example, require that Mexican trucks meet US emissions standards in order to operate within the border. Sounds reasonable to me!)
As for financial penalties, they should be greater than the profit achieved by doing things against the morals or ethics of the United States. If a company saves $50 million by using near-slave-labor and they get fined $25 million, they're still making $25 million of profit, and therefore have little incentive to stop.
I work for a pseudo-state agency. We're in the loan servicing and guarator business, so we actually make a profit! This means that we're not dependent on a budget for our jobs, we will always have work (lots of states use the systems I work on), and we even get special pay increases if we have a particularly successful quarter.
It also helps that I'm coming in to help with a major systems switchover, meaning I'll know how everything works and be able to debug it better than someone they just hired.
Why shouldn't a charge be made for closing a deceased person's account?
There is no sound business reason why charging for closing a deceased person's account should be wrong. But there is a sound social reason. The solution, however, is not to trust the company to provide socially responsible service. The solution is to require them by law to require such service, and to penalize them so as to make it unprofitable to not provide it. That is the motivation behind regulation.
Unfortunately, most fines/punishments are small enough to be considered costs-of-business, and are therefore ineffective.
I meant inside the station. It's better than the poor thing wearing out its batteries spinning its fans in an airless environment, and safer than having the humans go in there.
As for the airlock thing, I imagine the algorithm would go like this: 1)Wait for airlock door to open. 2) Enter airlock, 3) Move into position to exit airlock, 4)On depressurization, use CO2 jets to move out of airlock once egress door is open. Or you could have a human pilot it remotely, since it's already got a camera.
Monitoring tank PSI and location (which I imagine it already does), you could make it so that you need to sudo anything that will put it somewhere it can't get back from. And timed bursts + a little math (for decreasing pressure in the tanks) = good enough control for emergencies.
Why not put a small CO2 cartridge in it so that it could move through a space that has been depressurized? This would probably come in handy for, say, checking the status of a system after an accident.
DSL is through Verizon, who is another company who has shafted people I know in the past. And it's only 768K down/384K up w/ DHCP. For $29.99/month.
Comcast offers 3Mb down/1Mb? up for $60/month if you don't have cable. Both company's TOS prohibit running servers, though Comcast usually turns the other cheek if you don't hog too much bandwidth. Ideally I'd be looking for a FTTH system, but I'd have to work for a few years getting one going in my Township.
And I live in a city of 300,000 people about 150 miles of Philadelphia. Kinda makes me want to move to Nebraska!
Thanks for the reply. The dual tuner thing looks like it'll work for me. Two of those, plus a DVR on our main TV would work perfectly (two TVs on either side of the house, plus a home theatre in the basement). Unfortunately, I'll still have to deal with Comcast for Internet, which is more expensive if you drop the cable TV.
I bought about $10 worth of food and drink, whereas I didn't buy anything at Starbucks. The smells make you hungry and you make an impulse buy. I know that some Starbucks have T-mobile providing the access, but I'd still go to Panera instead of that place because it's free, and pretty fast for 802.11b.
We got our first Starbucks in March of this year. Digital cable is a long way off for us!
My big peeve is that there aren't small form-factor Digital satellite receivers. I wouldn't mind getting satellite TV (might save me money, and I loved it when I had it at my previous residence), but I have two 13" TVs, one in our bedroom and one in my fiance's little brother's room. I don't want to have to put a receiver that's the size of a DVD player when I bought these TVs for their small footprint. Will I have a choice between a digital TV receiver for two TVs or a digital satellite receiver for two TVs, since the other three don't have room around them for a big receiver dish.
I'd imagine the networks will see a drop in late-night viewership once all-digital takes over. People don't want to have a 42" plasma screen with a digital tuner in their bedroom to watch TV, they want a ~$50, 13" TV so they can watch Leno or Letterman (or [as]) before they go to sleep. If they need a seperate box for it, they won't keep the TV.
Most people know what the space shuttle looks like, but I didn't have a problem with its animation in games like X-Plane. I think flexible round things (heh) are harder to animate than rigid structures with lots of straight lines.
It's got a 180hp naturally aspirated engine and goes to 60 in about 8 seconds with an 8000 rpm redline. It does go fast. And I don't need a car that makes my dick bigger, it already hurts my fiance.
Until that time, Cable has the advantage. If they think I'm going to be paying them to use a box to use their product, they're crazy.
Don't get me wrong, I would *love* to get satellite TV again (I had it at my previous residence). But there are five TVs in the house. How much would that be to hook up? And what about the two 13" TVs whose small footprints will be ruined by having to have a box the size of a stereo component attached to them?
It's the first big-name manufacturer to do this. It is a big step forward in that sense. By having Apple's amazing R&D department behind its development, it will mature very quickly. They are planning for a time when they will have G5s in the iMacs and Powerbooks, which would require a high-efficiency liquid cooling, which is a real development.
Crays have had liquid cooling for quite some time, so don't delude yourself into thinking that overclockers were the first ones to come up with this.
A better example would be air conditioning. When most people couldn't afford it for their homes, they would go to places that had A/C, like movie theatres. They used to advertise it. Broadband+WiFi will be similar, except that in addition to expense, you have expertise that people lack to implement a home WiFi solution.
Personal Story: I have a laptop with WiFi and I went to the only Starbucks in town for some coffee. They didn't have WiFi there, so I went to Panera Bread Company to get a drink. The coffee was worse, but they had WiFi, so I stayed for three hours!
Maybe they get a better connected populous. Or businesses move into the area, or people who use WiFi are generally wealthier, so tax revenues go up without raising rates. If the entire city of Portland had free WiFi, I'd overlook the whole earthquake thing and move out there.
Many rural communities (including one near me) have solved the problem by creating their own broadband ISP, run by the government. Using Fiber-optics, they let everyone in town who can afford $15 per month get a 10Mb symmetrical data service with static IP. More info here.
I'm planning on doing this for my suburban township and giggling as Comcast craps themselves watching everyone switch to a cheaper, better service. Internet access should be like public transportation; easily available at a reasonable price for everyone.
Unfortunately, there is no competition. In my area, there's 512K DSL or 3Mb cable or 56k dialup.
The cost of entry into the broadband market is extremely high, meaning that the big markets are going to have the options first, because the ROI is there. Unless I take action to create a township-wide FTTH system, I'll be using Comcast until I move somewhere else, even though their service sucks and their Macintosh support is non-existant.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, it's funny on Fark.
But seriously, the profit motivation is there: They still have to make the drugs and sell them. I don't think it would lower the cost per se, but scientists or grad students could work on rare diseases in their spare time to find cures, which could then be manufactured.
Openness is excellent. The more people who know about cancer treatments, the closer we will come to a cure.
Corporations are corporations.
Anyone who can't see the difference is an idiot.
And it's not a level playing field. Take, for example, Mexican truckers driving in the US. They are not required to adhere to the same environmental or safety standards as US truckers, so their operating costs are lower. The courts have ruled they don't have to be held to the same levels. This puts US companies at a disadvantage.
It also puts the American people at risk of greater pollution and traffic fatalities. Isn't it logical that those doing business with us ON OUR OWN SOIL adhere to our laws?
Same thing with China. We claim to love freedom, but if we can get our little plastic dinosaurs or laptops cheaper from a place that is essentially a giant slave labor camp, we do it. So we don't really love freedom; we love that we have freedom and that we can get stuff cheap from other countries. It's hypocrisy.
We should withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA until they adhere to the same standards of human rights and environmental protection as the rest of the industrialized world. Or is the life of a Chinese person worth less than that of an American or European?
Perhaps we should renegotiate our trade agreements to include these things. Maybe withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA until these are worked out. (For example, require that Mexican trucks meet US emissions standards in order to operate within the border. Sounds reasonable to me!)
As for financial penalties, they should be greater than the profit achieved by doing things against the morals or ethics of the United States. If a company saves $50 million by using near-slave-labor and they get fined $25 million, they're still making $25 million of profit, and therefore have little incentive to stop.
Similarly, if you pay 2% of your $40K income ($200) in taxes and the next year you pay 1% of your $90K income ($900), you've just had a tax cut!
I work for a pseudo-state agency. We're in the loan servicing and guarator business, so we actually make a profit! This means that we're not dependent on a budget for our jobs, we will always have work (lots of states use the systems I work on), and we even get special pay increases if we have a particularly successful quarter.
It also helps that I'm coming in to help with a major systems switchover, meaning I'll know how everything works and be able to debug it better than someone they just hired.
Folks, we have a new acronym: RFTP - Read the fscking parent!
There is no sound business reason why charging for closing a deceased person's account should be wrong. But there is a sound social reason. The solution, however, is not to trust the company to provide socially responsible service. The solution is to require them by law to require such service, and to penalize them so as to make it unprofitable to not provide it. That is the motivation behind regulation.
Unfortunately, most fines/punishments are small enough to be considered costs-of-business, and are therefore ineffective.
As for the airlock thing, I imagine the algorithm would go like this: 1)Wait for airlock door to open. 2) Enter airlock, 3) Move into position to exit airlock, 4)On depressurization, use CO2 jets to move out of airlock once egress door is open. Or you could have a human pilot it remotely, since it's already got a camera.
Monitoring tank PSI and location (which I imagine it already does), you could make it so that you need to sudo anything that will put it somewhere it can't get back from. And timed bursts + a little math (for decreasing pressure in the tanks) = good enough control for emergencies.
Why not put a small CO2 cartridge in it so that it could move through a space that has been depressurized? This would probably come in handy for, say, checking the status of a system after an accident.
It doesn't help I'm 17390 feet from the exchange, according to BroadbandReports.
Comcast offers 3Mb down/1Mb? up for $60/month if you don't have cable. Both company's TOS prohibit running servers, though Comcast usually turns the other cheek if you don't hog too much bandwidth. Ideally I'd be looking for a FTTH system, but I'd have to work for a few years getting one going in my Township.
And I live in a city of 300,000 people about 150 miles of Philadelphia. Kinda makes me want to move to Nebraska!
Thanks for the reply. The dual tuner thing looks like it'll work for me. Two of those, plus a DVR on our main TV would work perfectly (two TVs on either side of the house, plus a home theatre in the basement). Unfortunately, I'll still have to deal with Comcast for Internet, which is more expensive if you drop the cable TV.
I bought about $10 worth of food and drink, whereas I didn't buy anything at Starbucks. The smells make you hungry and you make an impulse buy. I know that some Starbucks have T-mobile providing the access, but I'd still go to Panera instead of that place because it's free, and pretty fast for 802.11b.
We got our first Starbucks in March of this year. Digital cable is a long way off for us!
My big peeve is that there aren't small form-factor Digital satellite receivers. I wouldn't mind getting satellite TV (might save me money, and I loved it when I had it at my previous residence), but I have two 13" TVs, one in our bedroom and one in my fiance's little brother's room. I don't want to have to put a receiver that's the size of a DVD player when I bought these TVs for their small footprint. Will I have a choice between a digital TV receiver for two TVs or a digital satellite receiver for two TVs, since the other three don't have room around them for a big receiver dish.
I'd imagine the networks will see a drop in late-night viewership once all-digital takes over. People don't want to have a 42" plasma screen with a digital tuner in their bedroom to watch TV, they want a ~$50, 13" TV so they can watch Leno or Letterman (or [as]) before they go to sleep. If they need a seperate box for it, they won't keep the TV.
Most people know what the space shuttle looks like, but I didn't have a problem with its animation in games like X-Plane. I think flexible round things (heh) are harder to animate than rigid structures with lots of straight lines.
It's got a 180hp naturally aspirated engine and goes to 60 in about 8 seconds with an 8000 rpm redline. It does go fast. And I don't need a car that makes my dick bigger, it already hurts my fiance.
Don't get me wrong, I would *love* to get satellite TV again (I had it at my previous residence). But there are five TVs in the house. How much would that be to hook up? And what about the two 13" TVs whose small footprints will be ruined by having to have a box the size of a stereo component attached to them?
Crays have had liquid cooling for quite some time, so don't delude yourself into thinking that overclockers were the first ones to come up with this.
Personal Story: I have a laptop with WiFi and I went to the only Starbucks in town for some coffee. They didn't have WiFi there, so I went to Panera Bread Company to get a drink. The coffee was worse, but they had WiFi, so I stayed for three hours!
Maybe they get a better connected populous. Or businesses move into the area, or people who use WiFi are generally wealthier, so tax revenues go up without raising rates. If the entire city of Portland had free WiFi, I'd overlook the whole earthquake thing and move out there.
My Pontiac Vibe GT has a 115 volt outlet. Screw my battery, how long can I sit at idle with my A/C on?!?
I'm planning on doing this for my suburban township and giggling as Comcast craps themselves watching everyone switch to a cheaper, better service. Internet access should be like public transportation; easily available at a reasonable price for everyone.
The cost of entry into the broadband market is extremely high, meaning that the big markets are going to have the options first, because the ROI is there. Unless I take action to create a township-wide FTTH system, I'll be using Comcast until I move somewhere else, even though their service sucks and their Macintosh support is non-existant.