My state, NC, is letting the Feds do it and doesn't have it's own. A recent newspaper article says that we are paying an additional 3.5% fee on our insurance policies paid to the fed that would not be there if we had a state exchange.
And to reply to my own post, on the whole wki page that I cite, there is a single Cat 3 storm mentioned hitting NY. Not much data to draw a pattern from. Since you mention Robert Moses State Park, which is not in NYC, you must be looking at all of Long Island. If you expand to include Cat 2 you will find storms from
According to this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes the storm of 1893 was cat 1 and Hurricane Hazel in 1954 created the strongest winds measured in NYC. It doesn't look like a clear trend of decreasing strength of hurricanes to me.
The main difference is that health care is *insurance*. Insurance only works when more people participate than actually need it (or take less money out than others). Can you imagine being in a skiing accident and needing $100k in medical bills and being the only participant in your medical policy. You'd have to pay $100k + overhead.
If only sick people were a part of the insurance then the costs for that care would be averaged out to only be paid by the sick people.
The question is, should healthy people be forced to subsidize the care of those that are chronically ill?
Nah, healthy people won't need coverage for skiing accidents or acute leukemia. And if they did then they'd be winners since they only participate in the healthy people's insurance pool which would have lower premiums than the sick people's pool.
Our newspaper, The News & Observer, had an expose last year on our elected state leaders (North Carolina) passing exemption after exemption over the last 12 years to certain specific industries to allow them to use overweight trucks on state roads. It was so bad that when the series of articles were published the author of one of the pending bills for a new industry to exempt defended the bill with something to the effect "it's available to all the other industries, it's unfair to not exempt this one".
This was a very good example of investigative reporting because it's also widely known that NC is only funding it's highway maintenance a fraction of what it needs to in order to maintain good roads. They published a substantial amount of analysis by road experts to show that the roads are heavily damaged by overweight vehicles.
These vehicles allowed on state roads were even overweight for federal roads and state roads are made substantially thinner than federal roads (thus saw more damage than an interstate would). I think this was the best example of investigative reporting but it's not the only one. Articles like these are well worth the price of a subscription even if they occur infrequently.
For the OCFS2 special file not to be a single point of failure, I assume it's mirrored between both storage arrays. If you lose all connectivity between data centers, assuming each DC has a storage array and a node then don't you still have both halves thinking they are it and still have split brain? That's 2 simultaneous outages and if your company is anything like those I've worked with 1 outage may suffice.
In my current company, our network group tends to keep things to themselves and we'd never have known we didn't have redundant fiber if someone didn't shoot out our cable that ran through a bad neigborhood and it became a topic of conversation (yes, with a gun).
I also worked at another company that had redundant fiber lines that were both taken out by a single backhoe, apparently they were bundled together.
I'm not a network engineer so I may be missing some subleties of your design but Oracle RAC does have a single point of failure. Even if you mirror the data between 2 disk arrays, you need a quorum disk to avoid the split brain problem. In our case, we wanted to cluster Oracle between 2 data centers with duplicate systems in each. The problem is if networking were completely lost between the 2 DC's (small chance but not non-existant) but each Oracle instance were running then they each would think the other went down and if some users were able to access on DC while others were still on the other then we'd have both Oracle instances with diverging production data. The traditional solution is a quorum disk which is not mirrored and whomever has access to that disk is the only production db. Thus the quorum disk is a single point of failure.
Actually I think the highways were considered National Defence because that's the only reliable way to send multi-ton tanks around the country once the rail terminals were bombed. The pre-existing roads and particularly their bridges were not consistantly built to the same standards that would support trucks carrying tanks. Also, I'm sure most congressmen voted for the bill once they realized how much money the construction would bring into their constituents economies.
The cost of IT employment in California is sky high (so is the cost of living). The Calif goverment needs to pass laws to ensure that the jobs stay there, it's their job afterall. -why doesn't that sound right? Why is nationalism better than globalism? How can people still be employeed in Calif 100+ years after the states protectionalistic laws were eliminated?
the first 4 digits is the bank code (for Visa and MC at least).
the next 4 digits (second group of 4) are usually used for some sort of account grouping within a bank. For example, all low rate intoductory cards might get 1500.
I think one of the last 8 digits is a checksum
Following this seriously reduces the number of available card numbers to about 7 usefull digits.
There's literal truth and allegorical truth. Young Earth Creationalists take a literal interpretation of Genesis. Old Earth Creationalists think it's allegorical (I hope I'm using the right phrase). Each 'day' in Genesis really is an epoch/eon/undefined time (after all, how dow you define a day before the Earth was created?), thus the age of the Earth matches the scientific evidence.
I'm also confused of the recreation comment, this is the first I've heard of that concept.
Regardless of the tone, the article raises valid points. "Setterfield introduces 'the cutoff date beyond which there is a zero rate of change,'" (again inner quotes are Setterfield's). Why? Seems it's to 'make the curve fit', since in the last 40 years we have more accurate measure of c and it shows no decay.
"What Setterfield has done here is to decide that the value of c does not follow his "virtually asymptotic" curve all the way back to infinity at the time of creation, but that it levels off at T-plus-one-day or so,...". Again, why?
"Setterfield is capable of producing almost any area under the curve he wishes, by choosing a time during the first "creation" week to produce his constant value for the week". This is not science!
Here's another link, you'll need to search for setterfield.
Pretty coy of you...posing a few innocent questions that came up in "a conversation with my brother".
After reading your various comments, I think you're intentionally misrepresenting yourself (or at least being intentionally vague to hide your motives). Correct me where I'm wrong:
1. You (and probably your brother) are Young Earth Creationalists. You believe that the Earth was created 6000-7000 years ago as a literal reading of Genisis seems to say.
2. You think scientists who say the Earth is older are probably mistaken.
2. You have heard all of these questions you've posed before this "conversation with my brother", if not then that conversation was a long time ago.
3. You've heard most of the answers posted here before as well.
4. Your purpose in posting the original comment was to both spread the Y.E.C. "science" that most scientists have dismissed as wrong and to get people to question conventional science.
Perhaps I am mistaken and it's your brother who'se the Y.E.C., please correct me where I'm wrong.
A refutal of the "pretty good explanation" is here.
I particularly like the analysis of Setterfields "scientific" work that states "one of his goals is to reconcile 'the observational problems of astronomy and Genesis creation...'" (the embedded quote is his).
Not all causes of our potential destruction come from aggression. Specifically, over population, depleted resources, or even genetic engineered oranisms seriously harming ourselves or the environment. Every decade that passes increases the list of events that can destroy us. Fermi's paradox may be answered by whether that event occurs before or after an intelligent race can spread it's seed off-planet.
And as the other poster pointed out, intelligence hard-wired to flee might not want to be found.
1. Note the borrow in "Don't borrow or beg for their money". You've got a very pessimistic view of US foreign aid. I don't have facts on hand so I won't argue you on it (even though I doubt you do either).
2. So if I develop something new (antibiotic, electronics, pet rocks), I'm obligated to sell/give it to developing nations regardless of their position on IP? On what basis (besides whatever moral concepts you hold)?
"...capitalism held a truly open market as a good thing" -sure, as long as it is regulated to prevent abuses such as monopolies, corruption, and IP theft.
"...there are millions of perfectly intelligent people out there who would kill to work hundred hour weeks for half what you make..." -they'e welcome to it. When everyone has a higher standard of living it will help create bigger markets and bigger economies and more jobs. It's not a zero sum game.
>That means that any developing nation that wants loans or trade agreements from the big boys will get strong-armed into adopting "the party line"
There's a simple solution. Don't borrow or beg for their money (grants/charity). Set up trade agreements with other developing nations. What's that? You can't maintain the same standard of living as the big boys without access to their money and markets? Too friggin bad! If I'm giving you money/access to my market then I want my IP respected.
Last I heard France was not fully integrated into NATO (didn't participate in the military C&C structure), periodically contemplated withdrawing from NATO and generally disagreed with U.S. involvement in Europe.
Basically, they're in it for their own purposes.
>As if a big noise isn't made about spanish words leaking into American English!
While we do periodically get our panties in a bunch over whether or not the gov't should publish documents multi-lingually, we don't have a gov't group making up English names for foreign words that are commonly used and then out-lawing those foreign words from publication. Nor do we have laws requiring businesses to only use English words.
The price dropped for computer games because the market grew significantly and that the game makers found that $60 was too expensive for most gameplayers. Selling 200k games at $40 each returns more money than 100k games at $60. You could argue that the drop in price caused the increase in sales but I think the larger impact has been the increase in computers sold and the increase in number of PC gameplayers.
This posting confuses me. Why is it mod'ed up to 3? If it's for the links it should be Informative not Insightful. If it's for the commentary, well, that's what the article was saying.
And what's up with the post itself? My sarcasm tags must not be working because it seems like he's saying "look at the gradual curve on the charts, it's not very steep". Of course not, it's a logrithmic chart. Try:
has the ecomomy grown 10x in 5 or so years and is the growth accellerating like the stocks were? Remember, the book was published 3/2000, before the last correction! -maybe it really did have a big impact on Wall Street, kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
So if I vandalize your car or damaged the road in front of your house preventing you from driving to work, you wouldn't pursue criminal charges against me (or any other punishment)? Since you made your choice, you'd just live with it?
Few people would agree with you in this example...
>By limiting the information someone can view, we are, in fact, limiting their first ammendment rights. Applying number 2 from above, we find that we need 33 out of the 50 states to ratify a consitutional ammendment changing the 1st ammendment. When that happens this will be legal. Until then, you need to study up on constitutional law.
Looks like my copy of the US Constitution must be abridged. It doesn't differentiate between selling porn to adult vs. child nor publication of classified data. Somehow publication and/or viewing of these are illegal yet not mentioned in the Constitution.
Oh yeah, it's that secret group called the Juduciary that interprets the Constitution. I don't think they've ruled porn filters in Libraries are not legal. Until they do, you'd best read up on US Law.
hmmm...according to http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=dem ocracy
democracy (d-mkr-s) n., pl. democracies.
1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2.A political or social unit that has such a government. 3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4.Majority rule. 5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
I know we're a Constitutional Republic but we do fit #1 and my original reply also fits #4. I know the "majority rules" concept is simplistic but it is the concept behind the democratic ideal particularly when used in conjunction with everyone having a voice in government.
>So for the 150th time, if the majority of people want it that way, what's the big deal?
Seems a whole lot of replies have taken issue with this line. Bottom line though is that in a Democracy the will of the people rules; therefore, he's right.
It doesn't matter if the majority is actually or morally right. In fact, it's the responsibility of Those Who Know Better to educate the majority and thus get the laws changed.
Slashdot Mirror
My state, NC, is letting the Feds do it and doesn't have it's own. A recent newspaper article says that we are paying an additional 3.5% fee on our insurance policies paid to the fed that would not be there if we had a state exchange.
And to reply to my own post, on the whole wki page that I cite, there is a single Cat 3 storm mentioned hitting NY. Not much data to draw a pattern from. Since you mention Robert Moses State Park, which is not in NYC, you must be looking at all of Long Island. If you expand to include Cat 2 you will find storms from
1904 (unnamed)
1960 (Donna)
1985 (Gloria)
1991 (Bob)
Sounds like strong hurricanes hitting the NY coast are getting more frequent.
Cite your sources
According to this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes the storm of 1893 was cat 1 and Hurricane Hazel in 1954 created the strongest winds measured in NYC. It doesn't look like a clear trend of decreasing strength of hurricanes to me.
The main difference is that health care is *insurance*. Insurance only works when more people participate than actually need it (or take less money out than others). Can you imagine being in a skiing accident and needing $100k in medical bills and being the only participant in your medical policy. You'd have to pay $100k + overhead.
If only sick people were a part of the insurance then the costs for that care would be averaged out to only be paid by the sick people.
The question is, should healthy people be forced to subsidize the care of those that are chronically ill?
Nah, healthy people won't need coverage for skiing accidents or acute leukemia. And if they did then they'd be winners since they only participate in the healthy people's insurance pool which would have lower premiums than the sick people's pool.
Our newspaper, The News & Observer, had an expose last year on our elected state leaders (North Carolina) passing exemption after exemption over the last 12 years to certain specific industries to allow them to use overweight trucks on state roads. It was so bad that when the series of articles were published the author of one of the pending bills for a new industry to exempt defended the bill with something to the effect "it's available to all the other industries, it's unfair to not exempt this one".
This was a very good example of investigative reporting because it's also widely known that NC is only funding it's highway maintenance a fraction of what it needs to in order to maintain good roads. They published a substantial amount of analysis by road experts to show that the roads are heavily damaged by overweight vehicles.
These vehicles allowed on state roads were even overweight for federal roads and state roads are made substantially thinner than federal roads (thus saw more damage than an interstate would).
I think this was the best example of investigative reporting but it's not the only one. Articles like these are well worth the price of a subscription even if they occur infrequently.
For the OCFS2 special file not to be a single point of failure, I assume it's mirrored between both storage arrays. If you lose all connectivity between data centers, assuming each DC has a storage array and a node then don't you still have both halves thinking they are it and still have split brain? That's 2 simultaneous outages and if your company is anything like those I've worked with 1 outage may suffice.
In my current company, our network group tends to keep things to themselves and we'd never have known we didn't have redundant fiber if someone didn't shoot out our cable that ran through a bad neigborhood and it became a topic of conversation (yes, with a gun).
I also worked at another company that had redundant fiber lines that were both taken out by a single backhoe, apparently they were bundled together.
I'm not a network engineer so I may be missing some subleties of your design but Oracle RAC does have a single point of failure. Even if you mirror the data between 2 disk arrays, you need a quorum disk to avoid the split brain problem. In our case, we wanted to cluster Oracle between 2 data centers with duplicate systems in each. The problem is if networking were completely lost between the 2 DC's (small chance but not non-existant) but each Oracle instance were running then they each would think the other went down and if some users were able to access on DC while others were still on the other then we'd have both Oracle instances with diverging production data. The traditional solution is a quorum disk which is not mirrored and whomever has access to that disk is the only production db. Thus the quorum disk is a single point of failure.
Actually I think the highways were considered National Defence because that's the only reliable way to send multi-ton tanks around the country once the rail terminals were bombed. The pre-existing roads and particularly their bridges were not consistantly built to the same standards that would support trucks carrying tanks.
Also, I'm sure most congressmen voted for the bill once they realized how much money the construction would bring into their constituents economies.
The cost of IT employment in California is sky high (so is the cost of living). The Calif goverment needs to pass laws to ensure that the jobs stay there, it's their job afterall.
-why doesn't that sound right? Why is nationalism better than globalism? How can people still be employeed in Calif 100+ years after the states protectionalistic laws were eliminated?
This info may be out of date but....
the first digit describes the type of card.
the first 4 digits is the bank code (for Visa and MC at least).
the next 4 digits (second group of 4) are usually used for some sort of account grouping within a bank. For example, all low rate intoductory cards might get 1500.
I think one of the last 8 digits is a checksum
Following this seriously reduces the number of available card numbers to about 7 usefull digits.
I'm also confused of the recreation comment, this is the first I've heard of that concept.
"What Setterfield has done here is to decide that the value of c does not follow his "virtually asymptotic" curve all the way back to infinity at the time of creation, but that it levels off at T-plus-one-day or so,...". Again, why?
"Setterfield is capable of producing almost any area under the curve he wishes, by choosing a time during the first "creation" week to produce his constant value for the week". This is not science!
Here's another link, you'll need to search for setterfield.
After reading your various comments, I think you're intentionally misrepresenting yourself (or at least being intentionally vague to hide your motives). Correct me where I'm wrong:
1. You (and probably your brother) are Young Earth Creationalists. You believe that the Earth was created 6000-7000 years ago as a literal reading of Genisis seems to say.
2. You think scientists who say the Earth is older are probably mistaken.
2. You have heard all of these questions you've posed before this "conversation with my brother", if not then that conversation was a long time ago.
3. You've heard most of the answers posted here before as well.
4. Your purpose in posting the original comment was to both spread the Y.E.C. "science" that most scientists have dismissed as wrong and to get people to question conventional science.
Perhaps I am mistaken and it's your brother who'se the Y.E.C., please correct me where I'm wrong.
A refutal of the "pretty good explanation" is here.
...'" (the embedded quote is his).
I particularly like the analysis of Setterfields "scientific" work that states "one of his goals is to reconcile 'the observational problems of astronomy and Genesis creation
Not all causes of our potential destruction come from aggression. Specifically, over population, depleted resources, or even genetic engineered oranisms seriously harming ourselves or the environment. Every decade that passes increases the list of events that can destroy us. Fermi's paradox may be answered by whether that event occurs before or after an intelligent race can spread it's seed off-planet.
And as the other poster pointed out, intelligence hard-wired to flee might not want to be found.
1. Note the borrow in "Don't borrow or beg for their money". You've got a very pessimistic view of US foreign aid. I don't have facts on hand so I won't argue you on it (even though I doubt you do either).
2. So if I develop something new (antibiotic, electronics, pet rocks), I'm obligated to sell/give it to developing nations regardless of their position on IP? On what basis (besides whatever moral concepts you hold)?
"...capitalism held a truly open market as a good thing" -sure, as long as it is regulated to prevent abuses such as monopolies, corruption, and IP theft.
"...there are millions of perfectly intelligent people out there who would kill to work hundred hour weeks for half what you make..." -they'e welcome to it. When everyone has a higher standard of living it will help create bigger markets and bigger economies and more jobs. It's not a zero sum game.
>That means that any developing nation that wants loans or trade agreements from the big boys will get strong-armed into adopting "the party line"
There's a simple solution. Don't borrow or beg for their money (grants/charity). Set up trade agreements with other developing nations. What's that? You can't maintain the same standard of living as the big boys without access to their money and markets? Too friggin bad! If I'm giving you money/access to my market then I want my IP respected.
>nice to see NATO members sharing info
Last I heard France was not fully integrated into NATO (didn't participate in the military C&C structure), periodically contemplated withdrawing from NATO and generally disagreed with U.S. involvement in Europe.
Basically, they're in it for their own purposes.
>As if a big noise isn't made about spanish words leaking into American English!
While we do periodically get our panties in a bunch over whether or not the gov't should publish documents multi-lingually, we don't have a gov't group making up English names for foreign words that are commonly used and then out-lawing those foreign words from publication. Nor do we have laws requiring businesses to only use English words.
The price dropped for computer games because the market grew significantly and that the game makers found that $60 was too expensive for most gameplayers. Selling 200k games at $40 each returns more money than 100k games at $60. You could argue that the drop in price caused the increase in sales but I think the larger impact has been the increase in computers sold and the increase in number of PC gameplayers.
sorry, Here's the link. asp?symbol=IXNDX&desc=Nasdaq-100&site=na sdaq&sec=nasdaq&months=84
http://dynamic.nasdaq-amex.com/dynamic/IndexChart
This posting confuses me. Why is it mod'ed up to 3? If it's for the links it should be Informative not Insightful. If it's for the commentary, well, that's what the article was saying.
r t.asp?symbol=IXNDX&desc=Nasdaq-100&site=na sdaq&sec=nasdaq&months=84
And what's up with the post itself? My sarcasm tags must not be working because it seems like he's saying "look at the gradual curve on the charts, it's not very steep". Of course not, it's a logrithmic chart. Try:
http://dynamic.nasdaq-amex.com/dynamic/IndexCha
has the ecomomy grown 10x in 5 or so years and is the growth accellerating like the stocks were? Remember, the book was published 3/2000, before the last correction! -maybe it really did have a big impact on Wall Street, kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
So if I vandalize your car or damaged the road in front of your house preventing you from driving to work, you wouldn't pursue criminal charges against me (or any other punishment)? Since you made your choice, you'd just live with it?
Few people would agree with you in this example...
>By limiting the information someone can view, we are, in fact, limiting their first ammendment rights. Applying number 2 from above, we find that we need 33 out of the 50 states to ratify a consitutional ammendment changing the 1st ammendment. When that happens this will be legal. Until then, you need to study up on constitutional law.
Looks like my copy of the US Constitution must be abridged. It doesn't differentiate between selling porn to adult vs. child nor publication of classified data. Somehow publication and/or viewing of these are illegal yet not mentioned in the Constitution.
Oh yeah, it's that secret group called the Juduciary that interprets the Constitution. I don't think they've ruled porn filters in Libraries are not legal. Until they do, you'd best read up on US Law.
hmmm...according to http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=dem ocracy
democracy (d-mkr-s)
n., pl. democracies.
1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.
5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
I know we're a Constitutional Republic but we do fit #1 and my original reply also fits #4. I know the "majority rules" concept is simplistic but it is the concept behind the democratic ideal particularly when used in conjunction with everyone having a voice in government.
>So for the 150th time, if the majority of people want it that way, what's the big deal?
Seems a whole lot of replies have taken issue with this line. Bottom line though is that in a Democracy the will of the people rules; therefore, he's right.
It doesn't matter if the majority is actually or morally right. In fact, it's the responsibility of Those Who Know Better to educate the majority and thus get the laws changed.