I wasn't ascribing the effect to medicaid; it was due to republican legislators that voted to reject the medicaid expansion money that was being offered to their states. Medicaid could have saved many of those people, or delayed their demise, but it was kept from them.
I blame the Democrats' support of the AMA's rules limiting the number of doctors produced each year. This has limited the supply if[sic] healthcare providers
Currently, the additional load on the medical system is barely noticeable from the standpoint of available professionals to provide treatment. For instance, without enrollment in the ACA in 2015, there were about 280 million people insured in the USA. The ACA added about 18 million. That's under a 7% increase in total patient load on average. That's less noticeable to a doctor's office than what happens when there is a flu outbreak, which is a constantly reoccurring event.
If you can't get proper medical care because there is no money available to pay for it, it doesn't matter how many doctors there are anyway.
Eventually, we are going to see a meaningful shortfall in the number of active physicians due to the age demographics of the group and how many will be retiring compared to the rate of replacement from med schools, and yes, that's going to cause problems - but it's not here yet, and it doesn't in any way excuse the republicans from their responsibility for the early and/or needless deaths they caused by rejecting medicaid expansion.
(the AMA's rules limiting the number of doctors produced each year)...kept prices far too high.
The price of medical care is not set by scarcity. I was married to a surgeon for many years, and I can tell you first hand that the major expenses were running the office, including paying staff, the charges made by the hospital where she worked for OR time and so forth, and paying insurance. Those numbers were huge. Her income after all that was comfortable, but -- frankly -- I wouldn't indulge in the required number of years of grueling schooling to get it, even for a run of the mill GP. Increasing the number of doctors "because looser rules" would just incur those costs for them as well, and they wouldn't start trying to beat the other doctors prices by a few dollars. If you want to point a finger at significant consumer cost issues, I suggest you find the nearest tort lawyer and stick that finger right up their ass.
You can download my SdrDx for either Windows or OS X, download a saved RF file, and start receiving from a recording of, for instance, a ham band during a contest, or a SW band with some interesting stations on it. No SDR required to fool around, and the software is free.
You can tune around, play with bandwidths, demodulation modes, noise blanking, peak tracking, notch and other filtering, the analysis scope, etc. WIth a recording, you get the span of the spectrum that was recorded (for instance, 200 khz of spectrum) but within that, you can do pretty much whatever you want.
If you want to use an actual SDR, SdrDx leans decidedly towards the middle and high end, but supports anything using the RFSPACE protocols, so (obviously) pretty much any RFSPACE SDR model, the Andrus MK 1.5, and the AFDRI. Also supports the Funcube. No one has written an RFSPACE compatible server for the RTL sticks, but perhaps someday they will.:)
Well, if that's a problem for you, write all your code with ":=" and then run it through a text processor prior to compiling. Easy enough.
Personally, I have not made that error in decades, so it's not something I think about much. But then again, I don't have to deal with other people's code; it's the other way around.
The Gale-Shapely algorithm results in many participants settling for less then they consider optimum. It considers all participants matched to other than their first choice to be a satisfactory result for the participants themselves. That assumption has no basis in fact.
I am 59. I've been writing software since the 1970's. I have written well over a million lines of Perl that I am still responsible for. I stopped using it for new work in favor of other languages quite some time ago, and when my existing Perl codebase needs significant new functionality, I call out to Python from within Perl. I am not the least interested in going back to writing anything of note in Perl, nor does your interest in Perl in any way translate into an interest in Perl for me.
You, of course, are entitled to your own opinion. No matter what it is.
Oy. That's like trying to fit your entire life into a room 17.3 feet on a side. Bathroom, kitchen, bedroom, everything. Not counting any walls that might subdivide that space. Even with terrific use of vertical space (unless far more abundant than horizontal space), that's pushing it unless your mode of "living" is similar to a monk's. Perhaps even then. Plus, in this case, you have common areas where you can't escape people you are very likely not to get along with. And very, very close neighbors. You'll end up living in noise-cancelling full-earcup headphones.
What this really says is you poor kids just don't realize how truly disadvantaged you are and how badly your preconceptions have set you up to tolerate suffering. I live in a home with one other person where we have about 5,000 (or 6,500 if you want to count some of the non-environmentally controlled spaces like the deck) square feet. That is what you can have. I really cannot understand why anyone other than a monk would think that trying to live within 300 square feet is anything but a punishment regimen. Not to mention the cost of $8000+ per year, which is like paying a premium to be abused.
It strikes me that creating a community without your "fatal flaw", that is, with the ability for the group to throw person(s) X out of their living space, is a lifestyle end game that will magnify political correctness, mommyism, retribution, and groupthink to their maximum level of imposition.
ban the lone "=" operator so it's "==" for comparison, ":=" for assignment with all the other two char operators like != and += intact
It seems pointless to make "=" meaningless, and to replace it only with something more difficult to write, while no more visually distinct.
= and == seem to me to be perfectly reasonable, no more visually or conceptually obscure than ":=" and "==", and with the bonus of being easier to write.
C does it right, in my view: comparison is explicit; assignment can be overloaded as truth comparison. The reason I consider that a good thing is because computers can do both at one time; since they can do it, it is valuable being able to provide a way to tell them to do it. It makes for higher quality code generation, and code generation that is more aligned with precise intent.
For a higher level language, it's less critical. But for high performance situations, this is one of those things that get us "closer to the metal" in a very good way.
A computer language, at least so far, is a means for a human to write something in a structured manner that can be turned, eventually, into sequences of instruction execution that do what the human intended.
Clarity -- particularly for the newcomer to a language, but also for creation, debugging and maintainance purposes by those who are relatively expert -- trumps conciseness up to a point. This, I think, is why languages with syntax of similar densities to APL are not popular.
We could say ">", "GT" or "gt", or perhaps even "greater than." I'd be quite pleased with a language that understood all three to be the same thing, with similar broad expression capabilities for everything else as well. It would be useful, I think, to be able to run source code through a translator that made it concise for expert use, and explicit and English-like for the newcomer.
My outlook on this matter has always led me to write in a less visually compact, airy form, and to avoid (or reformat) coding style based on K&R bracing, which I consider obfuscatory. Writing code in a manner that uses the formatting of the code to cue the action of the code is my intent; that fits in very well with the idea of having the ability to expand or collapse code at various levels of terseness. Thinking about it now, it strikes me to on a par with the ability to collapse and expand a function to and from its declaration in a source code editing tool.
I write in a number of languages, so the syntax I'm working with changes a lot. When a language uses "&" differently than "and", for instance, I often become disoriented. It think it would be useful to me to have the code expandable to "binary and", "logical and" or whatever the particular distinction is.
My argument isn't so much for conciseness over wordiness, but more for clarity. For some experts, clarity may be a concise representation. For others, it may not. Perhaps in designing computer languages, we should consider accommodating more types of expertise than that which is found in the APL programmer.
However, people do not drive in regular ways, obstacles, errors, equipment failure and right of way damage occur in and around roadways in an almost infinitely variable number of ways, and markings are not always timely, legible (or even correct.) That's all true even of the "regular roads" you mention. As you indicate, away from those it becomes even more challenging.
Things do not need to have human level intelligence to be able to work in the real world.
No, they don't. That's why your text editor works. But your text editor isn't intelligent. Nor is your spreadsheet, the speech-to-text in your phone, a Tesla vehicle, or Google's search engine.
And being able to read road signs is very doable today.
Even if the ability to read all appropriate signage, no matter what kind, how positioned, or how occluded were a current capability -- and it most certainly is not -- it is still a decidedly one-dimensional application. It is not intelligence. Would such a thing be useful? Of course. But useful is not a synonym for "intelligence" or "intelligent actor."
but being able to drive down most roads is not a particularly difficult task
Again, you are incorrect. For any automated driving solution today, there exist larger sets of situations within which they cannot drive, than the sets of situations within which they can drive. Many depend on maps, and all depend upon road markings. These types of solutions do not provide competence even close to the level of a human driver. If the task was not "particularly difficult", these challenges would not be an issue. But they are, which fact falsifies your assertion.
Stripped of all the marketing hype and the glittering generalities, the technologies that have come out of AI research to date remain minimal, which is to say they incorporate competence in extremely limited domains of both types of information and relevant decision-making.
When technology produces an intelligent result, we'll know it -- it'll be outright obvious. It'll be able to learn to drive, play chess, make your toast correctly, and explain why you just tripped over your shoelace. Not because the information was programmed into it, but because it will be able to reason.
Without the general ability to reason, without induction, without the ability to learn from any evidence, what you have is not intelligence. All you have is a glorified if-then construct of some type.
I expect technology to (eventually) produce two types of intelligence: non-conscious intelligence, and conscious intelligence. I strongly suspect the former is going to be much harder than the latter, and will come much later. Time will tell.
Ethical violations -- and coercion -- already are subject to significant preventive measures. Making consent illegal is going way too far. The underlying premise is not only that there might be people who would do you wrong, but that you cannot make informed adult decisions for yourself. If you're that bad off, you need to be institutionalized.
Governance that makes informed consent illegal is ethically, coercively wrong.
The thing is, if he wants to do this, or you want to do it, what I think about anyone wanting to do this, or whether I would or would not want to do it myself, should be entirely irrelevant to your legitimate choice of "do it" or "don't do it."
The whole idea of me telling you you can't do something of an informed, personal or consensual nature because I don't like it or wouldn't do it is coercive. If it does not do me direct financial, physical or reputation harm, and you do not involve me as a matter of your own choice, it's flat-out none of my business to interfere in any manner. Period.
It's helicopter governance. I do not mean that even slightly kindly, either.
[looks vaguely guilty] My favorite wine is $3.98 a bottle, and I'm not even sure grapes are involved. I'm under the general impression you could grow whatever is in it in your basement. Sure goes nice with dinner, though.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't ascribing the effect to medicaid; it was due to republican legislators that voted to reject the medicaid expansion money that was being offered to their states. Medicaid could have saved many of those people, or delayed their demise, but it was kept from them.
Currently, the additional load on the medical system is barely noticeable from the standpoint of available professionals to provide treatment. For instance, without enrollment in the ACA in 2015, there were about 280 million people insured in the USA. The ACA added about 18 million. That's under a 7% increase in total patient load on average. That's less noticeable to a doctor's office than what happens when there is a flu outbreak, which is a constantly reoccurring event.
If you can't get proper medical care because there is no money available to pay for it, it doesn't matter how many doctors there are anyway.
Eventually, we are going to see a meaningful shortfall in the number of active physicians due to the age demographics of the group and how many will be retiring compared to the rate of replacement from med schools, and yes, that's going to cause problems - but it's not here yet, and it doesn't in any way excuse the republicans from their responsibility for the early and/or needless deaths they caused by rejecting medicaid expansion.
The price of medical care is not set by scarcity. I was married to a surgeon for many years, and I can tell you first hand that the major expenses were running the office, including paying staff, the charges made by the hospital where she worked for OR time and so forth, and paying insurance. Those numbers were huge. Her income after all that was comfortable, but -- frankly -- I wouldn't indulge in the required number of years of grueling schooling to get it, even for a run of the mill GP. Increasing the number of doctors "because looser rules" would just incur those costs for them as well, and they wouldn't start trying to beat the other doctors prices by a few dollars. If you want to point a finger at significant consumer cost issues, I suggest you find the nearest tort lawyer and stick that finger right up their ass.
More people have died due to the Republican's failure to expand Medicaid than have died in terrorist attacks. So, who should we really nuke?
Now, as to who France might see fit to nuke, Mecca seems like it would make a fine object lesson about religion-based acts of terrorism.
You can download my SdrDx for either Windows or OS X, download a saved RF file, and start receiving from a recording of, for instance, a ham band during a contest, or a SW band with some interesting stations on it. No SDR required to fool around, and the software is free.
You can tune around, play with bandwidths, demodulation modes, noise blanking, peak tracking, notch and other filtering, the analysis scope, etc. WIth a recording, you get the span of the spectrum that was recorded (for instance, 200 khz of spectrum) but within that, you can do pretty much whatever you want.
screenshot
Works with OS X 10.6.8 and up, XP and up.
If you want to use an actual SDR, SdrDx leans decidedly towards the middle and high end, but supports anything using the RFSPACE protocols, so (obviously) pretty much any RFSPACE SDR model, the Andrus MK 1.5, and the AFDRI. Also supports the Funcube. No one has written an RFSPACE compatible server for the RTL sticks, but perhaps someday they will. :)
You are wrong. You're just not considering code where performance is important.
Yep. And that's why F10 types '==' for me. One keystroke, no typo.
Doesn't matter if you believe it or not. Doesn't change a thing. :)
I use F10 to enter '=='; it always types '==', so there you have it. Comparison and assignment have never meant the same thing to me.
And I didn't say I didn't make typos. I just don't make that particular mistake.
Well, if that's a problem for you, write all your code with ":=" and then run it through a text processor prior to compiling. Easy enough.
Personally, I have not made that error in decades, so it's not something I think about much. But then again, I don't have to deal with other people's code; it's the other way around.
The Gale-Shapely algorithm results in many participants settling for less then they consider optimum. It considers all participants matched to other than their first choice to be a satisfactory result for the participants themselves. That assumption has no basis in fact.
I am 59. I've been writing software since the 1970's. I have written well over a million lines of Perl that I am still responsible for. I stopped using it for new work in favor of other languages quite some time ago, and when my existing Perl codebase needs significant new functionality, I call out to Python from within Perl. I am not the least interested in going back to writing anything of note in Perl, nor does your interest in Perl in any way translate into an interest in Perl for me.
You, of course, are entitled to your own opinion. No matter what it is.
Now we see the violence inherent in the system...
Oy. That's like trying to fit your entire life into a room 17.3 feet on a side. Bathroom, kitchen, bedroom, everything. Not counting any walls that might subdivide that space. Even with terrific use of vertical space (unless far more abundant than horizontal space), that's pushing it unless your mode of "living" is similar to a monk's. Perhaps even then. Plus, in this case, you have common areas where you can't escape people you are very likely not to get along with. And very, very close neighbors. You'll end up living in noise-cancelling full-earcup headphones.
What this really says is you poor kids just don't realize how truly disadvantaged you are and how badly your preconceptions have set you up to tolerate suffering. I live in a home with one other person where we have about 5,000 (or 6,500 if you want to count some of the non-environmentally controlled spaces like the deck) square feet. That is what you can have. I really cannot understand why anyone other than a monk would think that trying to live within 300 square feet is anything but a punishment regimen. Not to mention the cost of $8000+ per year, which is like paying a premium to be abused.
I suspect taxes may alter that figure somewhat...
Orwell was an optimist
It strikes me that creating a community without your "fatal flaw", that is, with the ability for the group to throw person(s) X out of their living space, is a lifestyle end game that will magnify political correctness, mommyism, retribution, and groupthink to their maximum level of imposition.
It seems pointless to make "=" meaningless, and to replace it only with something more difficult to write, while no more visually distinct.
= and == seem to me to be perfectly reasonable, no more visually or conceptually obscure than ":=" and "==", and with the bonus of being easier to write.
C does it right, in my view: comparison is explicit; assignment can be overloaded as truth comparison. The reason I consider that a good thing is because computers can do both at one time; since they can do it, it is valuable being able to provide a way to tell them to do it. It makes for higher quality code generation, and code generation that is more aligned with precise intent.
For a higher level language, it's less critical. But for high performance situations, this is one of those things that get us "closer to the metal" in a very good way.
That's one of the reasons I find Perl to be an undesirable language to use.
A computer language, at least so far, is a means for a human to write something in a structured manner that can be turned, eventually, into sequences of instruction execution that do what the human intended.
Clarity -- particularly for the newcomer to a language, but also for creation, debugging and maintainance purposes by those who are relatively expert -- trumps conciseness up to a point. This, I think, is why languages with syntax of similar densities to APL are not popular.
We could say ">", "GT" or "gt", or perhaps even "greater than." I'd be quite pleased with a language that understood all three to be the same thing, with similar broad expression capabilities for everything else as well. It would be useful, I think, to be able to run source code through a translator that made it concise for expert use, and explicit and English-like for the newcomer.
My outlook on this matter has always led me to write in a less visually compact, airy form, and to avoid (or reformat) coding style based on K&R bracing, which I consider obfuscatory. Writing code in a manner that uses the formatting of the code to cue the action of the code is my intent; that fits in very well with the idea of having the ability to expand or collapse code at various levels of terseness. Thinking about it now, it strikes me to on a par with the ability to collapse and expand a function to and from its declaration in a source code editing tool.
I write in a number of languages, so the syntax I'm working with changes a lot. When a language uses "&" differently than "and", for instance, I often become disoriented. It think it would be useful to me to have the code expandable to "binary and", "logical and" or whatever the particular distinction is.
My argument isn't so much for conciseness over wordiness, but more for clarity. For some experts, clarity may be a concise representation. For others, it may not. Perhaps in designing computer languages, we should consider accommodating more types of expertise than that which is found in the APL programmer.
However, people do not drive in regular ways, obstacles, errors, equipment failure and right of way damage occur in and around roadways in an almost infinitely variable number of ways, and markings are not always timely, legible (or even correct.) That's all true even of the "regular roads" you mention. As you indicate, away from those it becomes even more challenging.
btw, your sig is fabulous. :)
No, they don't. That's why your text editor works. But your text editor isn't intelligent. Nor is your spreadsheet, the speech-to-text in your phone, a Tesla vehicle, or Google's search engine.
Even if the ability to read all appropriate signage, no matter what kind, how positioned, or how occluded were a current capability -- and it most certainly is not -- it is still a decidedly one-dimensional application. It is not intelligence. Would such a thing be useful? Of course. But useful is not a synonym for "intelligence" or "intelligent actor."
Again, you are incorrect. For any automated driving solution today, there exist larger sets of situations within which they cannot drive, than the sets of situations within which they can drive. Many depend on maps, and all depend upon road markings. These types of solutions do not provide competence even close to the level of a human driver. If the task was not "particularly difficult", these challenges would not be an issue. But they are, which fact falsifies your assertion.
Stripped of all the marketing hype and the glittering generalities, the technologies that have come out of AI research to date remain minimal, which is to say they incorporate competence in extremely limited domains of both types of information and relevant decision-making.
When technology produces an intelligent result, we'll know it -- it'll be outright obvious. It'll be able to learn to drive, play chess, make your toast correctly, and explain why you just tripped over your shoelace. Not because the information was programmed into it, but because it will be able to reason.
Without the general ability to reason, without induction, without the ability to learn from any evidence, what you have is not intelligence. All you have is a glorified if-then construct of some type.
I expect technology to (eventually) produce two types of intelligence: non-conscious intelligence, and conscious intelligence. I strongly suspect the former is going to be much harder than the latter, and will come much later. Time will tell.
Ethical violations -- and coercion -- already are subject to significant preventive measures. Making consent illegal is going way too far. The underlying premise is not only that there might be people who would do you wrong, but that you cannot make informed adult decisions for yourself. If you're that bad off, you need to be institutionalized.
Governance that makes informed consent illegal is ethically, coercively wrong.
HEY! Did you go through the fact detector? How did you get those facts in here? This is a SAFE SPACE. You should be ASHAMED of yourself.
The thing is, if he wants to do this, or you want to do it, what I think about anyone wanting to do this, or whether I would or would not want to do it myself, should be entirely irrelevant to your legitimate choice of "do it" or "don't do it."
The whole idea of me telling you you can't do something of an informed, personal or consensual nature because I don't like it or wouldn't do it is coercive. If it does not do me direct financial, physical or reputation harm, and you do not involve me as a matter of your own choice, it's flat-out none of my business to interfere in any manner. Period.
It's helicopter governance. I do not mean that even slightly kindly, either.
It is so thin it is utterly transparent. It is an argument only attempted by those who have no respect for others.
Coercion is illegal, as it should be. There's no need to make consent illegal. The entire premise is absurd. Also very harmful.
[looks vaguely guilty] My favorite wine is $3.98 a bottle, and I'm not even sure grapes are involved. I'm under the general impression you could grow whatever is in it in your basement. Sure goes nice with dinner, though. :)
All you need to do is go listen to the English Parliament. Plenty of English Whine there.