Well, apart from the fact that people's food, accommodation & travel costs are largely decided by themselves and considerably less variable - at least when comparing people of similar status (or whatever the PC term for class is). Not many minimum-wage earners drive new BMWs and sit in their mansions eating foie gras. Hence these type of expenses are somewhat predictable, and people can at least attempt to live within their means.
On the other hand medical costs can vary widely - several orders of magnitude - and often due to reasons entirely beyond the indivudual's control.
That's the risk part. That's why there's the concept of spreading it.
Water is the one essential (and even then I'm sure there are some crazies who fuck themselves up by only drinking orange juice, or beer).
It's only recently that clean drinking water has been widely available. Historically beer was the preferred drink, even for children, because it was safer than the water.
All I can tell you is that I work for a pharma company, as we spend millions directly on drug research, so don't think the the govt is picking up the tab for drug research.
There's no faulting that logic. Since the (unpecified) number of millions is the total being spent and (unspecified) millions is the biggest number that exists, it's logically impossible that anyone else is spending anything and preposterous to consider that someone is spending more.
At some point the majority of Americans believed Bush was the best candidate to lead their nation.
Did they?
Even if we leave aside the questions of shenanigans and people who didn't vote, as I understand it you don't necessarily have to win the popular vote to get a majority in the electoral college.
I suppose that for intraspecies competition, big is better, i.e if two lions are fighting for territory (and lionesses) the big guy wins out more often than not. For interspecies competition it's not always the case - for one thing bigger often means slower, greater food requirements etc.
> 3.5 = almost instant interview > 3.0 = we'll consider and probably interview you.
Just out of interest, what do those roughly equate to in percentile terms? Because if employers are looking for the top tenth of a percent, there aren't going to be so many to go round.
he's saying "broadband for all" but it's merely "broadband for major cities, sub standard broadband for rural areas".
Strewth mate, what would a load of abbo's and shearers want with broadband anyway? Most of them think it means an all-female musical ensemble. Chuck another roo on the barbie will you, I'm off to bring us some tinnies from the eski.
The difference is that if you put on a wig and a false nose and started ranting like a loony in the town square, most people would ignore your loony rantings because you're that loony with a wig and a false nose. There's a built in credibility check.
It isn't like that on the web. Things on the web seem to get automatic credibility, or at least more credibility than they should. I have no idea why, but it probably dates back to when we lived up trees.
The net is different to in-person communication (just as the telephone is), the law hasn't caught up with it, yet. Heck, it's only just got to grips with movable type printing.
Slashdot Mirror
They're exactly the same.
Well, apart from the fact that people's food, accommodation & travel costs are largely decided by themselves and considerably less variable - at least when comparing people of similar status (or whatever the PC term for class is). Not many minimum-wage earners drive new BMWs and sit in their mansions eating foie gras. Hence these type of expenses are somewhat predictable, and people can at least attempt to live within their means.
On the other hand medical costs can vary widely - several orders of magnitude - and often due to reasons entirely beyond the indivudual's control.
That's the risk part. That's why there's the concept of spreading it.
So they've finally invented transparent aluminum?
More important, who's protecting all the pies from him?
US Population (2007 estimate) ~ 301 million.
UK population (2005 figures) ~ 60 million.
So UK alone is pretty close to 20%. Perhaps we should discuss socialised mathematics education too?
Even if we leave aside the questions of shenanigans and people who didn't vote, as I understand it you don't necessarily have to win the popular vote to get a majority in the electoral college.
Ah, but who who designed Linus?
I suppose that for intraspecies competition, big is better, i.e if two lions are fighting for territory (and lionesses) the big guy wins out more often than not. For interspecies competition it's not always the case - for one thing bigger often means slower, greater food requirements etc.
Just out of interest, what do those roughly equate to in percentile terms? Because if employers are looking for the top tenth of a percent, there aren't going to be so many to go round.
Or so that it can't do it to the Soviets.
True, but when M$ recycle a product at least they try to stick a different looking interface on it. *Cough* ME *cough*.
One isn't a valid sample. He should get a load of them and compare them. Maybe on a chart or something.
The difference is that if you put on a wig and a false nose and started ranting like a loony in the town square, most people would ignore your loony rantings because you're that loony with a wig and a false nose. There's a built in credibility check.
It isn't like that on the web. Things on the web seem to get automatic credibility, or at least more credibility than they should. I have no idea why, but it probably dates back to when we lived up trees.
The net is different to in-person communication (just as the telephone is), the law hasn't caught up with it, yet. Heck, it's only just got to grips with movable type printing.
Right on. Let's all eat some lentils and sing a few verses of Kumbaya.
Wings - the band the bbeatles could have been.