Look- if GMO producers simply labeled as GMO and charged 10% less, after less than a year most people would be eating GMA and have no problem with GMO. They are going about this the wrong way.
It should be "GMO and lound and proud" instead of "we are sneaky basters who spend millions to hide the fact something is GMO and that shouldn't make you suspicious at all!" -- She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter. "
In response to your question is that IF GMO would simply charge less, then most people would give up all their objects to GMO as long as it was labeled and cheaper.
Just like people will make insane efforts to protect their privacy and then provide intimate details to get a free electronic doodad on facebook.
People would voluntarily- eagerly give up their objections to GMO if it were simply labeled as GMO and on the shelves at 10% the price.
Do you want whole wheat bread at $3.50 a loaf or GMO whole wheat bread at $3.15 a loaf?
Do you want a gallon of milk at $5.00 a gallon or GMO milk at $4.50 per gallon?
Sure, some people would still pay $8 a gallon for organic milk from cows roaming on pastures free from pesticides for 5 years. But most people would get the $4.50 a gallon milk.
Look- if GMO producers simply labeled as GMO and charged 10% less, after less than a year most people would be eating GMA and have no problem with GMO. They are going about this the wrong way.
It should be "GMO and lound and proud" instead of "we are sneaky basters who spend millions to hide the fact something is GMO and that shouldn't make you suspicious at all!"
The apportionment act of 1929 broke the electoral system which had previously been in place.
We need to fix that or we will continue to see larger and larger popular votes denied representation (and not just in the electoral vote- also in congress).
Eventually- that will lead to violence because suppression of representation is tyranny.
I tested in my car (we have pure gasoline stations in Texas) and I got 12 more mileage from pure gasoline than I did from "up to 10%" ethanol. That would indicate that in some cars, the ethanol is worse than a neutral filler.
Government sites estimate it should have been a 6-7% loss of mileage.
Picking up a gun and pulling the trigger is fast and easy.
Tying a rope and hanging yourself takes more time.
Killing yourselves with blades takes more time and is much more painful and people often fail because it's hard to cut yourself well enough to kill yourself unless you know what you are doing.
If we had cliffs everwhere, then maybe that would compare but you kinda have to work hard to find a place to jump from these days (most rooftops are locked).
Fortunately decided to restore an older copy of a file to work with and found despite the IBM software saying the backup was occurring and was good- it wasn't.
None of the backups were any good. IBM had to come out and figure out what was going on and after that we also retired a file from backup every single day. We had previously used to disk to disk backup but went to tape when the data got too big.
If you do backups- you need to actually restore a file and confirm the file isn't empty.
"Speaking at a symposium at Iowa State University on May 2, the day the census came out, Vilsack said the U.S. faces an "eroding middle" when it comes to farming, and that a small number of large farm operations "produces the vast majority of the nation's food." "
"However, three quarters of all U.S. farms gross only $50,000 a year and currently account for only 4 percent of product sales. But one analyst doesn't see that as a problem."
Just 4% of farms account for almost all u.s. sales.
The definition of farmer includes many tiny and unprofitable "farms" that are really more hobby or retirement plots than real farms. It's $1000 gross sales (so you can lose money every year and still be classed as a "farmer".)
the next 25 countries provide better coverage at 1/3 of the cost with lower adult and infant morality.
And my medication that costs $180 per six months here costs $30 per six months in those countries (and is included in those lower costs).
You are probably missing the part where hospitals are required to provide health care for people at extremely high cost thru the emergency room. And when those people can't pay, the hospital has to cover those costs or go bankrupt. Which means higher bills for everyone who can pay.
Look- I'm right there with you if you are saying that you want to let pregnant ladies, seniors, and children bleed out on the street outside the hospital rather than provide them health care which they can't pay for. It's ugly- but it's kinda rational if you are extremely selfish and ignoring all the evidence from around the world that health care can be provided at a lower cost with better results.
But don't require hospitals to provide coverage and then let insurance companies dump people (as they were doing like crazy and in some pretty scummy ways back in 2005-2008). Because it's both cruel AND costly. And that's kinda dumb. -- She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
---
Addressing your point "So yeah, that might have lower costs for equal or even somewhat better outcomes on average, but that's small comfort to the cancer patients and their families."
--- 1) I think you would agree that we can't pay $1 billion dollar per patient to save them (we could only treat about 3500 patients a year). 2) So all care is a question of what is the amount we can afford. And so we should start with what we can afford first. 3) So this means we can't pay a million dollars per patient either. We'd run out of money. So you start with an amount and work your way up from the bottom. If it costs $16 per year (as many generic pills) then certainly provide it (especially if it puts off expensive problems like blood pressure pills). 4) On the cancer- it literally has to consider the age of the patient. We might be able to spend $100,000 on people who are younger and will have many extra years of life but spending $100,000 to buy 5 extra days of life isn't practical (and really isn't possible). And that's what ICU costs- $20,000 per day. 5) so *AS* a boomer, I think we have GOT to reign in costs for the elderly. We spend huge amounts of money to buy people an extra 90 days. We shouldn't do that. If we don't do that, we can afford a lot more health care for everyone below.
----
Anyway, the point of my original post was unless you are willing to let hospitals ignore patients, then you have socialized medicine. So why not do it in the most cost effective way. The wealthy will still get better health care.
the next 25 countries provide better coverage at 1/3 of the cost with lower adult and infant morality.
And my medication that costs $180 per six months here costs $30 per six months in those countries (and is included in those lower costs).
You are probably missing the part where hospitals are required to provide health care for people at extremely high cost thru the emergency room. And when those people can't pay, the hospital has to cover those costs or go bankrupt. Which means higher bills for everyone who can pay.
Look- I'm right there with you if you are saying that you want to let pregnant ladies, seniors, and children bleed out on the street outside the hospital rather than provide them health care which they can't pay for. It's ugly- but it's kinda rational if you are extremely selfish and ignoring all the evidence from around the world that health care can be provided at a lower cost with better results.
But don't require hospitals to provide coverage and then let insurance companies dump people (as they were doing like crazy and in some pretty scummy ways back in 2005-2008). Because it's both cruel AND costly. And that's kinda dumb.
The tesla is built a bit more tanklike (including steel rails) than many other sports cars. If you look on Youtube you can find many accidents where the tesla is drivable to even only mildly damaged and the other car is spectacularly totaled. And the driver in the tesla is in much better shape too.
I don't own a tesla but I was surprised to see how durable they are.
It removes some of the impetus towards offshoring and automation.
And for a side benefit, it lowers gasoline usage which puts downward pressure on gasoline prices. And on car usage too extending the life of automobiles. And on mass transit usage, reducing overcrowding and pushing off the need for expensive upgrades.
big bend is too far away for my taste unless you are going to stay a long time. and there are way too many suicidal rabbits and *deer* on the highway at night.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why you would need more than 10 wheels.
Why couldn't you just use 10 wheels instead?
I'm getting called constantly by fake caller id's lately. And so are my friends.
3 to 5 calls a day. They leave voice mail and eat up my voice mail box.
It's a problem.
I tried answering, saying hello and then ignoring it to max their downtime.
lately I just answer then immediately hang up (to prevent the voice mail).
Well, I said
"
My problem is the lack of labeling.
Look- if GMO producers simply labeled as GMO and charged 10% less, after less than a year most people would be eating GMA and have no problem with GMO. They are going about this the wrong way.
It should be "GMO and lound and proud" instead of "we are sneaky basters who spend millions to hide the fact something is GMO and that shouldn't make you suspicious at all!"
--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"
In response to your question is that IF GMO would simply charge less, then most people would give up all their objects to GMO as long as it was labeled and cheaper.
Just like people will make insane efforts to protect their privacy and then provide intimate details to get a free electronic doodad on facebook.
People would voluntarily- eagerly give up their objections to GMO if it were simply labeled as GMO and on the shelves at 10% the price.
Do you want whole wheat bread at $3.50 a loaf or GMO whole wheat bread at $3.15 a loaf?
Do you want a gallon of milk at $5.00 a gallon or GMO milk at $4.50 per gallon?
Sure, some people would still pay $8 a gallon for organic milk from cows roaming on pastures free from pesticides for 5 years. But most people would get the $4.50 a gallon milk.
My problem is the lack of labeling.
Look- if GMO producers simply labeled as GMO and charged 10% less, after less than a year most people would be eating GMA and have no problem with GMO. They are going about this the wrong way.
It should be "GMO and lound and proud" instead of "we are sneaky basters who spend millions to hide the fact something is GMO and that shouldn't make you suspicious at all!"
Nope. Only in place since 1929.
The apportionment act of 1929 broke the electoral system which had previously been in place.
We need to fix that or we will continue to see larger and larger popular votes denied representation (and not just in the electoral vote- also in congress).
Eventually- that will lead to violence because suppression of representation is tyranny.
That should have said 12% more mileage.
I average 265 miles long term with a max of 268. I tested twice and got 300 and 305 miles.
Nope
http://www.tvhistory.tv/1950-5...
20 million TV sets for a population of 150 million- almost 50 million of whom were children. So about 1/5 households had TV's by 1953.
By 1959 it was over 67 million TV sets. It was explosive.
I tested in my car (we have pure gasoline stations in Texas) and I got 12 more mileage from pure gasoline than I did from "up to 10%" ethanol. That would indicate that in some cars, the ethanol is worse than a neutral filler.
Government sites estimate it should have been a 6-7% loss of mileage.
They also use it to melt salt and then extract the heat as electricity when needed.
Anytime you consider subsidies for oil, you must consider the 2 trillion dollars and 4,000 lives spent in the gulf war.
The same will apply to Solar and Wind power when we go to war to protect the mines where their raw materials come from as well.
And I'm ignoring the ongoing cost of stationing troops and ships to protect oil fields.
Going to make an amazing difference to the marginal price of other fuels used for power generation.
The brain is really a series of linked "weak" A.I.'s.
Read "the man who mistook his wife for a hat".
Fascinating stuff.
No they don't have to exclude fire arms.
Picking up a gun and pulling the trigger is fast and easy.
Tying a rope and hanging yourself takes more time.
Killing yourselves with blades takes more time and is much more painful and people often fail because it's hard to cut yourself well enough to kill yourself unless you know what you are doing.
If we had cliffs everwhere, then maybe that would compare but you kinda have to work hard to find a place to jump from these days (most rooftops are locked).
Will they support gun restrictions
or will they
Stop backing russia?
Stop passing laws that will result in the death's of people, their children, their parents, and their spouses?
The shooter was violent but not crazy.
There are a LOT of violent but not crazy gun owners in the U.S.
Laws are not passed in a vacuum.
Ignoring russian efforts to destroy the u.s. isn't happening in a vacuum.
Actively obstructing efforts to investigate russian efforts to destroy the u.s. isn't happening in a vacuum.
I'm betting now that republican congressional representatives are being shot that they will fold on their support for the 2nd amendment.
A new guy may not be capable of distinguishing between details yet.
I've been hired before because a developer deleted a production library. My onboarding test consisted of asking me how I would perform the task. lol.
We backed up daily, weekly, and then monthly.
Fortunately decided to restore an older copy of a file to work with and found despite the IBM software saying the backup was occurring and was good- it wasn't.
None of the backups were any good. IBM had to come out and figure out what was going on and after that we also retired a file from backup every single day. We had previously used to disk to disk backup but went to tape when the data got too big.
If you do backups- you need to actually restore a file and confirm the file isn't empty.
My doctor got a 170/90 off me from their machine. When tested with a trained nurse and a spigometer, I was 124/80.
I've never had them *underreport* but I've had them over report many times in my life.
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/06...
"Speaking at a symposium at Iowa State University on May 2, the day the census came out, Vilsack said the U.S. faces an "eroding middle" when it comes to farming, and that a small number of large farm operations "produces the vast majority of the nation's food." "
"However, three quarters of all U.S. farms gross only $50,000 a year and currently account for only 4 percent of product sales. But one analyst doesn't see that as a problem."
Just 4% of farms account for almost all u.s. sales.
The definition of farmer includes many tiny and unprofitable "farms" that are really more hobby or retirement plots than real farms. It's $1000 gross sales (so you can lose money every year and still be classed as a "farmer".)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06, 2017 @01:55AM (#54557459)
Dunno, I prefer a komatsu mining truck. I think I will be walking out of pretty much any accident unharmed
Aye.. but the gas mileage is terrible!
No idea why you were modded down to -1.
Here's what you were responding to:
It's a nice writeup... except.
the next 25 countries provide better coverage at 1/3 of the cost with lower adult and infant morality.
And my medication that costs $180 per six months here costs $30 per six months in those countries (and is included in those lower costs).
You are probably missing the part where hospitals are required to provide health care for people at extremely high cost thru the emergency room. And when those people can't pay, the hospital has to cover those costs or go bankrupt. Which means higher bills for everyone who can pay.
Look- I'm right there with you if you are saying that you want to let pregnant ladies, seniors, and children bleed out on the street outside the hospital rather than provide them health care which they can't pay for. It's ugly- but it's kinda rational if you are extremely selfish and ignoring all the evidence from around the world that health care can be provided at a lower cost with better results.
But don't require hospitals to provide coverage and then let insurance companies dump people (as they were doing like crazy and in some pretty scummy ways back in 2005-2008). Because it's both cruel AND costly. And that's kinda dumb.
--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
---
Addressing your point "So yeah, that might have lower costs for equal or even somewhat better outcomes on average, but that's small comfort to the cancer patients and their families."
---
1) I think you would agree that we can't pay $1 billion dollar per patient to save them (we could only treat about 3500 patients a year).
2) So all care is a question of what is the amount we can afford. And so we should start with what we can afford first.
3) So this means we can't pay a million dollars per patient either. We'd run out of money. So you start with an amount and work your way up from the bottom. If it costs $16 per year (as many generic pills) then certainly provide it (especially if it puts off expensive problems like blood pressure pills).
4) On the cancer- it literally has to consider the age of the patient. We might be able to spend $100,000 on people who are younger and will have many extra years of life but spending $100,000 to buy 5 extra days of life isn't practical (and really isn't possible). And that's what ICU costs- $20,000 per day.
5) so *AS* a boomer, I think we have GOT to reign in costs for the elderly. We spend huge amounts of money to buy people an extra 90 days. We shouldn't do that. If we don't do that, we can afford a lot more health care for everyone below.
----
Anyway, the point of my original post was unless you are willing to let hospitals ignore patients, then you have socialized medicine. So why not do it in the most cost effective way. The wealthy will still get better health care.
It's a nice writeup... except.
the next 25 countries provide better coverage at 1/3 of the cost with lower adult and infant morality.
And my medication that costs $180 per six months here costs $30 per six months in those countries (and is included in those lower costs).
You are probably missing the part where hospitals are required to provide health care for people at extremely high cost thru the emergency room. And when those people can't pay, the hospital has to cover those costs or go bankrupt. Which means higher bills for everyone who can pay.
Look- I'm right there with you if you are saying that you want to let pregnant ladies, seniors, and children bleed out on the street outside the hospital rather than provide them health care which they can't pay for. It's ugly- but it's kinda rational if you are extremely selfish and ignoring all the evidence from around the world that health care can be provided at a lower cost with better results.
But don't require hospitals to provide coverage and then let insurance companies dump people (as they were doing like crazy and in some pretty scummy ways back in 2005-2008). Because it's both cruel AND costly. And that's kinda dumb.
It depends on which tesla and what it hits.
The tesla is built a bit more tanklike (including steel rails) than many other sports cars. If you look on Youtube you can find many accidents where the tesla is drivable to even only mildly damaged and the other car is spectacularly totaled. And the driver in the tesla is in much better shape too.
I don't own a tesla but I was surprised to see how durable they are.
It removes some of the impetus towards offshoring and automation.
And for a side benefit, it lowers gasoline usage which puts downward pressure on gasoline prices.
And on car usage too extending the life of automobiles.
And on mass transit usage, reducing overcrowding and pushing off the need for expensive upgrades.
http://www.wideopencountry.com...
I've heard good things about colorado bend.
big bend is too far away for my taste unless you are going to stay a long time. and there are way too many suicidal rabbits and *deer* on the highway at night.
The personality of drivers also varies by freeway.
45 north has very aggressive, almost hostile drivers.
I10 west is fairly pleasant.
290 despite being a mess under construction has fairly nice people except outbound on the weekends.
I've only driven 45 to galveston 4 times lately but it is wider and the drivers seem friendly.
I don't know about 288, 59 south to sugarland, and i10 east.
People will wave and let you in on the friendly freeways and race ahead to cut you off on the ugly freeways.