Yes. I bought a new drive to replace my old PATA drive. The new SATA drive is to take its place. Now, the copy operation I tried failed because there were too many bad sectors on the old drive. So, it'll take some massaging and a different method, but I'll be able to salvage the data. The drive, at that point (migrated off and useless) is then free to "die" a peaceful and convenient death. Oh, and the old drive is SMART, but no errors were generated warning of the issues, until I tried moving off it.
And I'm sorry to burst your illusion, but efficacy, safety, and scientific rationale for FDA-approved drugs is usually not that great either,
They are tested against, and must beat placebos to be approved.
But I get it now, it isn't that homeopathy works, you agree it doesn't. It's that everything the government touches is worse than doing nothing. That's a different discussion. I hear, I understand, and I think you are a nutjob that should just join a militia.
all of those advances were developed in the free market, because manufacturers believed they would make more profits if they sold cars with more or better safety features.
Volvo is about the only maker who thought safety sells. Airbags were in no cars the year before they were mandated by the government, and many makers sued to keep them out of their cars. Double-latched doors are required by law, as are double-latched hoods. They were developed by the NHTSA in a regulated market because the makers know that safety doesn't sell. So they cut costs where possible, including cutting safety features.
Most if not all of the internet infrastructure is owned by private companies.
When I was first on the Internet, precisely none of the Internet was privately owned.
Your knowledge of history of cars and the Internet is highly inaccurate. Go read "unsafe at any speed" and let me know what Ralph Nader thinks of safety in the automotive market. Go read the history of the Internet, and how it got where it is today.
I think it is reasobable to assume that another technology could have also taken that place (although likely a bit later).
Yes, the free market could have come up with a solution, but they didn't. That they could have and didn't makes them superior to the government who did actually do it indicates a gross cognitive dissonance.
But the US-centric replacement would have been leased-lines between BBSs, developing into something similar. But more likely would have been the government-owned X.25 (and similar) networks evolving into the Internet. But even that Frame Relay network was mostly owned and funded by governments, as most of the telecoms outside the USA were government-owned monopolies.
Reality has already answered all your question, you must just open your eyes.
This is unfortunately a very widespread misunderstanding, but placebos are not harmless, even if they "work". They are positively harmful in cases where better-than-placebo interventions exist for life-threatening conditions.
So the placebo is harmless in all cases, and the only "harm" that may occur is someone not selecting the optimal treatment, but that's true of all treatments, not just placebos, and placebos cause no harm themselves, but delays in treatments may cause harm.
Yes, the idiopaths run 100 studies at 95% confidence, and publish the 5 that support them, and burn the other 95. That's how studies work. Independent studies show it doesn't work. Not a little, not at all.
I have no problems with idiots making dumb decision. I take issue with the fraud of the liars who try to sell others on their delusions so that they don't feel bad being the only ones who believe dumbly.
Actually works. Go read up on "secondary infection" and see if there's anything to be gained from a strong bacterial resistance while fighting off a virus. Probably not a good plan to prescribe wide-spread, but makes sense in some limited cases.
Acupuncture works, and fMRI studies have proven that it does something, though exactly what and by what mechanism isn't fully known, but that's true of many things.
What they want to do is close a government loophole. It's not currently "fraud" because medical fraud is governed by the FDA, and the FDA doesn't regulate homeopathy because it's not medical. The homeopathy people claim it's medical, so it should either be regulated like all medicines from the FDA, or it should be open to fraud lawsuits. Currently it is neither. It should be both.
That's why it should be regulated. People lying for profit. Fraud. No more need be said.
Yup. Your IMAX sounds like the one I used to go to growing up, where the movies were filmed in IMAX specific format, and weren't released anywhere else. I saw the 3D movies in 2D, as the theater I went do wasn't a 3D one.
In the last 40 years there have been tremendous improvements in safety,
Almost all of which mandated by the government.
If we turn [broadband] over to the government will we be happy if it is exactly the same 40 years from now (well perhaps a little less down time)?
The government built the Internet. I was on the Internet before you could buy access to it (well, you could buy access, but only with government permission, and you owned your own lines between you and the interconnect point, which at the time were all 100% government owned.
And you are considering commercial monopolies as "government" when it works for your argument. That inconsistency is inconsistent.
The oddball rotation is the same as everyone else, just so slow that when you account for it revolving around the sun, it's sunrise and sunset are the opposite of everyone else's.
The lack of magnetic field is what makes the atmosphere dense. O2 is lighter than the other compounds in the atmosphere, so it floats to the top, where the solar wind strips the upper layers of the atmosphere. So if we were able to terraform the planet, changing the atmosphere to breathable, it wouldn't be a stable transformation, and the atmosphere would return to something like it has now. All from the lack of a magentic field.
SS is about on order of magnitude more efficient than a private investment house looking after unmanaged securities. And the IRS is about two orders of magnitude more efficient than ADP for the same level of AR functions. Big government is more efficient.
What isn't efficient is when you have byzantine laws micro-managing operations. Schools and the military are managed by Congress, not the department itself. Congress sets rules on what schools can and can't do, and how they do the things they must do. This drives cost, and reduces efficiency. Same with the military, where a surplus base can't be closed because it's ordered open by law by the local congressman. Costs rise because Congress interferes in the day-to-day operations of them.
It's unrelated to big, complex, or government size, and related to politics.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but the broad studies on schools indicate that public schools get an overall better outcome per dollar of in-class spend, but the issues are that so much of the overall public school spend isn't on classes.
You didn't read. SS is more efficient. But it's more efficient at the wrong things, as required by law. You are arguing that SS is bad because the laws it's bound to are bad. I'm saying that, for a retirement management fund, it's vastly more efficient than the private sector, even if you don't like it, John Hancock is more expensive for the same service.
How complex is a retirement plan? Most of the problems with Social Security are coded in law. But for a retirement fund, investing in "cash equivalent" like government bonds, the SSA is an order of magnatude more efficient than the private sector (based on cost to manage a fund). And the IRS (similarly handicapped by law) is two orders of magnitude more efficient than the private sector (companies like ADP).
The government is almost always more efficient. The only times they are obviously not, is when the things being compared aren't equal (like schools, where a non-profit church school with free land and no administration is compared to the total cost of a public school, including facilities and administration), but for apples-to-apples, in-class spending, public schools are more efficient than private.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I bought a new drive to replace my old PATA drive. The new SATA drive is to take its place. Now, the copy operation I tried failed because there were too many bad sectors on the old drive. So, it'll take some massaging and a different method, but I'll be able to salvage the data. The drive, at that point (migrated off and useless) is then free to "die" a peaceful and convenient death. Oh, and the old drive is SMART, but no errors were generated warning of the issues, until I tried moving off it.
Which part of Yes, it does work did you not understand?
The part where "placebo" is given as proof it works. That means it doesn't work, and the person using "placebo" knows it doesn't work.
The anti-government loon is just re-defining "work" to mean "doesn't work, in a manner I find pleasing".
And I'm sorry to burst your illusion, but efficacy, safety, and scientific rationale for FDA-approved drugs is usually not that great either,
They are tested against, and must beat placebos to be approved.
But I get it now, it isn't that homeopathy works, you agree it doesn't. It's that everything the government touches is worse than doing nothing. That's a different discussion. I hear, I understand, and I think you are a nutjob that should just join a militia.
they are telling you what you are getting and why they believe that it works. Where is the lie?
Does it work?
A lie for personal gain is fraud. Thus, the issue I take with it is that it's fraud, and fraud is (and should be) illegal.
all of those advances were developed in the free market, because manufacturers believed they would make more profits if they sold cars with more or better safety features.
Volvo is about the only maker who thought safety sells. Airbags were in no cars the year before they were mandated by the government, and many makers sued to keep them out of their cars. Double-latched doors are required by law, as are double-latched hoods. They were developed by the NHTSA in a regulated market because the makers know that safety doesn't sell. So they cut costs where possible, including cutting safety features.
Most if not all of the internet infrastructure is owned by private companies.
When I was first on the Internet, precisely none of the Internet was privately owned.
Your knowledge of history of cars and the Internet is highly inaccurate. Go read "unsafe at any speed" and let me know what Ralph Nader thinks of safety in the automotive market. Go read the history of the Internet, and how it got where it is today.
I think it is reasobable to assume that another technology could have also taken that place (although likely a bit later).
Yes, the free market could have come up with a solution, but they didn't. That they could have and didn't makes them superior to the government who did actually do it indicates a gross cognitive dissonance.
But the US-centric replacement would have been leased-lines between BBSs, developing into something similar. But more likely would have been the government-owned X.25 (and similar) networks evolving into the Internet. But even that Frame Relay network was mostly owned and funded by governments, as most of the telecoms outside the USA were government-owned monopolies.
Reality has already answered all your question, you must just open your eyes.
Thousands of results.
This is unfortunately a very widespread misunderstanding, but placebos are not harmless, even if they "work". They are positively harmful in cases where better-than-placebo interventions exist for life-threatening conditions.
So the placebo is harmless in all cases, and the only "harm" that may occur is someone not selecting the optimal treatment, but that's true of all treatments, not just placebos, and placebos cause no harm themselves, but delays in treatments may cause harm.
Your linguistic inaccuracy makes you 100% wrong.
But the placebo effect has been shown to work on things like cancer as well.
Yes, the idiopaths run 100 studies at 95% confidence, and publish the 5 that support them, and burn the other 95. That's how studies work. Independent studies show it doesn't work. Not a little, not at all.
I have no problems with idiots making dumb decision. I take issue with the fraud of the liars who try to sell others on their delusions so that they don't feel bad being the only ones who believe dumbly.
Odds are, you are wrong.
Just sayin'
Actually works. Go read up on "secondary infection" and see if there's anything to be gained from a strong bacterial resistance while fighting off a virus. Probably not a good plan to prescribe wide-spread, but makes sense in some limited cases.
Acupuncture works, and fMRI studies have proven that it does something, though exactly what and by what mechanism isn't fully known, but that's true of many things.
+1 Insane Luddite anti-establishment rant. I mean, +1 funny.
It's bunk. But why should it be regulated?
It's fraud. Fraud should be regulated.
What they want to do is close a government loophole. It's not currently "fraud" because medical fraud is governed by the FDA, and the FDA doesn't regulate homeopathy because it's not medical. The homeopathy people claim it's medical, so it should either be regulated like all medicines from the FDA, or it should be open to fraud lawsuits. Currently it is neither. It should be both.
That's why it should be regulated. People lying for profit. Fraud. No more need be said.
Yup. Your IMAX sounds like the one I used to go to growing up, where the movies were filmed in IMAX specific format, and weren't released anywhere else. I saw the 3D movies in 2D, as the theater I went do wasn't a 3D one.
Yes, they are consuming more and demanding lower prices. Why?
The Internet, when I first connected to it in the early '80s, was 100% government, and without a military presence.
In the last 40 years there have been tremendous improvements in safety,
Almost all of which mandated by the government.
If we turn [broadband] over to the government will we be happy if it is exactly the same 40 years from now (well perhaps a little less down time)?
The government built the Internet. I was on the Internet before you could buy access to it (well, you could buy access, but only with government permission, and you owned your own lines between you and the interconnect point, which at the time were all 100% government owned.
And you are considering commercial monopolies as "government" when it works for your argument. That inconsistency is inconsistent.
The oddball rotation is the same as everyone else, just so slow that when you account for it revolving around the sun, it's sunrise and sunset are the opposite of everyone else's.
The lack of magnetic field is what makes the atmosphere dense. O2 is lighter than the other compounds in the atmosphere, so it floats to the top, where the solar wind strips the upper layers of the atmosphere. So if we were able to terraform the planet, changing the atmosphere to breathable, it wouldn't be a stable transformation, and the atmosphere would return to something like it has now. All from the lack of a magentic field.
SS is about on order of magnitude more efficient than a private investment house looking after unmanaged securities. And the IRS is about two orders of magnitude more efficient than ADP for the same level of AR functions. Big government is more efficient.
What isn't efficient is when you have byzantine laws micro-managing operations. Schools and the military are managed by Congress, not the department itself. Congress sets rules on what schools can and can't do, and how they do the things they must do. This drives cost, and reduces efficiency. Same with the military, where a surplus base can't be closed because it's ordered open by law by the local congressman. Costs rise because Congress interferes in the day-to-day operations of them.
It's unrelated to big, complex, or government size, and related to politics.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but the broad studies on schools indicate that public schools get an overall better outcome per dollar of in-class spend, but the issues are that so much of the overall public school spend isn't on classes.
You didn't read. SS is more efficient. But it's more efficient at the wrong things, as required by law. You are arguing that SS is bad because the laws it's bound to are bad. I'm saying that, for a retirement management fund, it's vastly more efficient than the private sector, even if you don't like it, John Hancock is more expensive for the same service.
often = often.
How complex is a retirement plan? Most of the problems with Social Security are coded in law. But for a retirement fund, investing in "cash equivalent" like government bonds, the SSA is an order of magnatude more efficient than the private sector (based on cost to manage a fund). And the IRS (similarly handicapped by law) is two orders of magnitude more efficient than the private sector (companies like ADP).
The government is almost always more efficient. The only times they are obviously not, is when the things being compared aren't equal (like schools, where a non-profit church school with free land and no administration is compared to the total cost of a public school, including facilities and administration), but for apples-to-apples, in-class spending, public schools are more efficient than private.