There are significant differences in the use of speed limits in the US versus Europe. US speed limits are slower with a larger amount of enforcement judgement granted the police. The purpose of that approach is to create a large body of willing speeders to generate revenue off of. Drivers tend to disregard posted limits when they are unreasonable. My experience in Europe is that speed limits are more reasonable with less tolerance of speeding. Their attitude seems to be maintaining safe speeds rather than profits, at least as compared to the US.
With that pervasive government corruption in mind, I'm not sure that european approaches will be that interesting for the US. Portable shame machines are, in fact, used in the US but frequently they are to trick radar detector drivers into ignoring warnings so that police get a clear shot. They get paid for by insurance companies who profit from rate hikes when drivers get tickets. The US speed limit policy is all about revenue generation, not safety. That is true of all US traffic enforcement.
One last thing, US drivers tend not to care what other drivers think.
But throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't a solution. We could always just tear up all the roads to fix that problem as well. The only interesting solutions preserve the function of roads rather than destroy them.
I agree. The goal should be to increase maximum safe speeds. That's what roads are for. This is an example of government doing something directly against the interests of the people.
So roads should only support high speeds for emergency vehicles?
The holy grail should be for roads to be improved to support higher speeds safely, not lower speeds. Roads are for transportation, not waiting. If you want emergency vehicles to work well you need the roads to be usable. Making them parking lots doesn't help.
"Usual table sugar - sucrose - is a disaccharide made from one molecule of fructose and one of glucose. The glucose part triggers the insulin production, which signals that you have taken in calories. So, if you use normal sugar instead of HFCS, your body knows that you got energy way faster. That seems to be the main obesity mechanism associated with HFCS."
HFCS contains glucose in nearly the same proportion as table sugar. The "main obesity mechanism" of HFCS is the same as table sugar.
"The thing that really amuses me about the whole Windows vs. Mac thing, is how often the Mac people end up knowing so much more about both platforms than the people who only really know Windows. And so the trend continues it would seem."
That is not my experience, and I say that as a Mac user. The most ignorant users I've come across are generally Mac people. Apple panders to that customer.
"...but once you have paid you can put anything on the phone."
Paying also means agreeing to Apple's draconian terms.
Yeah, Apple offered it a year after the iPhone shipped. Before that, the official line from Apple was that you didn't want it because there was too much risk of destroying the cell carrier's infrastructure. I see no why Microsoft can't defend the decision the same way Apple did, i.e. with lies.
Lame fanboy excuse. No one said that consumers preferred fewer choices until Apple said it. Curious that Apple brags on the size of their app store.
Apple does make money on their built-in apps. It's included in the sales price. In the case of a competitor's web browser, Apple fears losing control over downloadable apps that run through the browser. That's the real reason for the exclusion of flash.
All code in the public domain or under a BSD license is equally free and cannot be "locked up". The GPL differentiates itself with regards to derivative works and it is less free as a result.
Properly functioning insurance is welfare and in a good way. We all pay a cost and none of us assumes the risk.
You missed the mark on the "Christian society" comment as well. The party of the "christians" has opposed these reforms. Western countries with better health systems are consistently less christian than the US. Christians are caring in name only.
"Expecting insurance companies to insure people who are 100% certain to incur consistent and high medical expenses is insane."
No, it is not. We are all 100% certain to incur medical expenses sooner or later. What constitutes high and consistent is subjective. If you ask an insurance company, high and subjective occurs at the first claim. They drop you and you become uninsurable.
"Lumping them in with everyone else is even more insane."
It's not insane, it's exactly what you do. It wouldn't be insurance if you didn't.
Insurance companies only want to sell policies to people who will make no claims and they've been extremely good at doing just that. What they do isn't insurance, it's stealing money from people while sticking the individual with the ultimate bill anyway.
You got that completely wrong. Allowing people to choose things that may not be in their best health interest is called freedom.
The original poster, and you, can't think straight. Complaining about smoking and beer is far closer to your "socialistic/marxist ideals" than universal healthcare is. We end up paying for emergency healthcare for the uninsured anyway. A program to address the insurance problem is better and cheaper in the long run.
Why should they have to pay for your medical expenses either? Insurance works by spreading out risk. Everyone has medical risks, even fools like you who believe those risks are only other people's problems. Anything that reduces the size of the insurance pool works against the concept.
If you think that smoking, lack of exercise, and soft drinks are real health problems then get involved. Those things have nothing to do with insurance. Curious, though, that taking your thoughts to their logical conclusion that you would oppose being forced to do something yourself (buy insurance) but support forcing others to make your choices. You sound like a classic republican hypocrite.
The article is an example of starting out with an opinion and deriving all your arguments from it. The author has clearly bought into Apple's argument for tablet UI usability. All his arguments flow from that propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo.
There are significant differences in the use of speed limits in the US versus Europe. US speed limits are slower with a larger amount of enforcement judgement granted the police. The purpose of that approach is to create a large body of willing speeders to generate revenue off of. Drivers tend to disregard posted limits when they are unreasonable. My experience in Europe is that speed limits are more reasonable with less tolerance of speeding. Their attitude seems to be maintaining safe speeds rather than profits, at least as compared to the US.
With that pervasive government corruption in mind, I'm not sure that european approaches will be that interesting for the US. Portable shame machines are, in fact, used in the US but frequently they are to trick radar detector drivers into ignoring warnings so that police get a clear shot. They get paid for by insurance companies who profit from rate hikes when drivers get tickets. The US speed limit policy is all about revenue generation, not safety. That is true of all US traffic enforcement.
One last thing, US drivers tend not to care what other drivers think.
But throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't a solution. We could always just tear up all the roads to fix that problem as well. The only interesting solutions preserve the function of roads rather than destroy them.
I agree. The goal should be to increase maximum safe speeds. That's what roads are for. This is an example of government doing something directly against the interests of the people.
So roads should only support high speeds for emergency vehicles?
The holy grail should be for roads to be improved to support higher speeds safely, not lower speeds. Roads are for transportation, not waiting. If you want emergency vehicles to work well you need the roads to be usable. Making them parking lots doesn't help.
What about the hardware loses out to the competition now?
"...and we just saw a major study done ..."
Surely you could provide a link for a major study that was just done.
HFCS is the same as sugar. That's what's being talked about it the thread you have decided to post in.
Is that wrong? What defines a "child's chat"?
only that is bullshit.
"Usual table sugar - sucrose - is a disaccharide made from one molecule of fructose and one of glucose. The glucose part triggers the insulin production, which signals that you have taken in calories. So, if you use normal sugar instead of HFCS, your body knows that you got energy way faster. That seems to be the main obesity mechanism associated with HFCS."
HFCS contains glucose in nearly the same proportion as table sugar. The "main obesity mechanism" of HFCS is the same as table sugar.
That's quite a well thought out opinion you have there.
"The thing that really amuses me about the whole Windows vs. Mac thing, is how often the Mac people end up knowing so much more about both platforms than the people who only really know Windows. And so the trend continues it would seem."
That is not my experience, and I say that as a Mac user. The most ignorant users I've come across are generally Mac people. Apple panders to that customer.
"...but once you have paid you can put anything on the phone."
Paying also means agreeing to Apple's draconian terms.
Yeah, Apple offered it a year after the iPhone shipped. Before that, the official line from Apple was that you didn't want it because there was too much risk of destroying the cell carrier's infrastructure. I see no why Microsoft can't defend the decision the same way Apple did, i.e. with lies.
Lame fanboy excuse. No one said that consumers preferred fewer choices until Apple said it. Curious that Apple brags on the size of their app store.
Apple does make money on their built-in apps. It's included in the sales price. In the case of a competitor's web browser, Apple fears losing control over downloadable apps that run through the browser. That's the real reason for the exclusion of flash.
Macbooks do not have longer lifespans than other notebooks.
Apache/BSD gives you more freedoms than GPL does and mandates fewer restrictions. Those are simple facts that all but fanboys can easily understand.
All code in the public domain or under a BSD license is equally free and cannot be "locked up". The GPL differentiates itself with regards to derivative works and it is less free as a result.
Properly functioning insurance is welfare and in a good way. We all pay a cost and none of us assumes the risk.
You missed the mark on the "Christian society" comment as well. The party of the "christians" has opposed these reforms. Western countries with better health systems are consistently less christian than the US. Christians are caring in name only.
"Expecting insurance companies to insure people who are 100% certain to incur consistent and high medical expenses is insane."
No, it is not. We are all 100% certain to incur medical expenses sooner or later. What constitutes high and consistent is subjective. If you ask an insurance company, high and subjective occurs at the first claim. They drop you and you become uninsurable.
"Lumping them in with everyone else is even more insane."
It's not insane, it's exactly what you do. It wouldn't be insurance if you didn't.
Insurance companies only want to sell policies to people who will make no claims and they've been extremely good at doing just that. What they do isn't insurance, it's stealing money from people while sticking the individual with the ultimate bill anyway.
This is a classic example of why we need to have single payer.
You got that completely wrong. Allowing people to choose things that may not be in their best health interest is called freedom.
The original poster, and you, can't think straight. Complaining about smoking and beer is far closer to your "socialistic/marxist ideals" than universal healthcare is. We end up paying for emergency healthcare for the uninsured anyway. A program to address the insurance problem is better and cheaper in the long run.
Why should they have to pay for your medical expenses either? Insurance works by spreading out risk. Everyone has medical risks, even fools like you who believe those risks are only other people's problems. Anything that reduces the size of the insurance pool works against the concept.
If you think that smoking, lack of exercise, and soft drinks are real health problems then get involved. Those things have nothing to do with insurance. Curious, though, that taking your thoughts to their logical conclusion that you would oppose being forced to do something yourself (buy insurance) but support forcing others to make your choices. You sound like a classic republican hypocrite.
You are a right wing tool because you spew right ring tool talking points. Being uninsured at one time and saying those things means you are a fool.
Microsoft did not extinguish BeOS, and BeOS's capabilities were also stone-age.
The article is an example of starting out with an opinion and deriving all your arguments from it. The author has clearly bought into Apple's argument for tablet UI usability. All his arguments flow from that propaganda.