The ideal solution would certainly be that everyone would chip in, since it's in everyone's interests. If the US is determined to go it alone anyway and build this thing, though, a far sighted strategist should realise that *even if* no one else offers to pay, it serves long term US interests to actually share this data with as many countries at possible. And maybe such a move would create goodwill and help dispel suspicion, and encourage global support (and funding) for future maintenance of the project.
Because Kessler Syndrome. Space debris collisions create more space debris, which in the long term will cause problems for the use of space with everyone. Ideally these things should be dealt with internationally - it doesn't really make sense to have every nation look after their own satellites, and it'd lead to much wasteful duplication of effort.
I'm a little bit suspicious. What else can this site track? Will the US be sharing its data with everyone, or will there be many convenient holes in coverage?
It's mostly that there's been a lot of bad press for Romney lately as his campaign goes down the shitter, so, well, quick guys, have something to distract from his failings!
You don't get it. They aren't spending the money. You are spending the money. For them, it's just a cost they pass along, which is completely rational. If your cost of operating goes up, you raise your prices in order to not go bankrupt. Simple as that. Which means it's the patients that pay. Except many don't, which means it's a small minority of the patients that pay.
If patients are willing to spend that much money on medical treatment, then they could just charge that much money... and take it as pure profit, and not actually put in place supposedly anti-malpractice measures. If malpractice suits are costing them 3% operating cost, but anti-malpractice measures are costing them far far more, then by definition, then anti-malpractice measures are unprofitable. It's inescapable that if we accept the figures, that suits are only 3%, that (you claim) anti-malpractice measures are way more, then taking anti-malpractice measures is way overpriced and hurting providers' bottom line.
You are (deliberately, it seems) missing the big picture. It isn't malpractice, per se. It's the enormous use of people, supplies, fantasitcally expensive equipment, time, space, and a mile-long wake of paperwork that comes from practicing over-the-top procedures, tests, and drug use designed to fend off spurious malpractice suits. So something like a $10 urine dip-stick test that could be done a couple of times over a couple of 5-minute office visits becomes a $2500 speciality lab visit to the hospital so that the doctor's favorite specialist can do a bladder exam... so that one in a hundred thousand people who might have more than a the normal drop of blood in their urine and also happen to have something else you might catch through the multi-thousand-dollar exame might be caught sooner, though not likely.
That doesn't make sense. If the hospitals are behaving rationally, the amount of money they would spend on avoiding malpractice suits would be in proportion to their expected cost of loss from the suits themselves. If malpractice actually accounts for a very small amount of money, then either these people have no idea and are going way over the top, or there's other reasons to over-treat.
The real reason, I reckon, is that the medical system in the US is internally antagonistic. *Everyone is screwing each other over.* News like what we've seen above is an example - people are out for themselves, and care not about end results, but about making money. Contrast the unified systems under European socialised healthcare - those systems work, because up and down the tier, people are incentivised to *cooperate* and deliver good care at low cost, instead of sabotaging each other in pursuit of short term gain.
I sure love the use of the phrasing 'proven wrong' to denote 'dude from a libertarian thinktank wrote a comment piece saying the Great Society failed'.
But is this legged robot going to handle that rough terrain, either?
There's the thing, really, Usain Bolt isn't this robot's rival. What this robot has to beat is not a human athlete, but an equivalent robot with wheels or a rotor. Even Usain Bolt can't run at 30 mph on rough ground, and I think it has still not been demonstrated that a legged robot would be intrinsically better at handling such terrain.
You're picked up on average on these cameras once every 5 days. That's really not enough to capture any sort of specific movement. The entire program seems generally kinda pointless.
Juries, however, are supposed to make decisions according to the jury instructions they were given. If it's clear that they did not even read the instructions, and failed to apply a reasonable process in evaluating each case fairly and individually, then the judge is justified in filing for a mistrial.
Also, I think reasonable explanations exist for the periods of fast warming they found in ~200 AD, and 1600AD - looking at the chart, they were generally preceeded by large downward spikes, and represented the temperature restoring to its previous level. My speculation is that these events correspond to the gigantic volcanic eruptions in Taupo at around 200AD, and maybe Huaynaputina at 1600AD. Large eruptions project large amounts of sulphates into the atmosphere, which has a strong, but temporary cooling effect. When these sulphates disappear from the atmosphere in a matter of decades, this would lead to dramatic warming, as the climate 'catches up'.
1. This is a single study, of a single location. 2. The study *did* find that the temperature rise is in the upper 0.3% of the time period investigated. 3. There's significant error bars on the temperatures reconstructed, so I think the authors are overegging their data a little to claim that it's definitely not unprecedented.
The story summary claiming that current warming is more the norm than the except is plainly inaccurate.
RuggedOS was a recent acquisition by Seimens from a Canadian firm, who had various security worries before its sale, but took care to suppress such news to preserve its valuation. It's doubtful there's any German government involvement. What actually seems to have happened is that the RuggedOS was just a huge turd of a product, which its new owners are slowly coming to discover.
We're talking about a Canadian company who, when confronted with the backdoor earlier this year, refused to fix it. So it's safe to say that the company just doesn't care about security. Check you sinophobia at the door, please.
There is no involvement of the Chinese in this story at all. The original company that created RuggedOS is Canadian. Who the heck modded the parent +5 Insightful?
It's pretty clear which side this sentiment is targetted at. The Republicans are playing a two sided game - to their base, they promise the world. To the others, they work actively on discouraging them to vote, by proliferating the attitude that the Democrats are failures, when it's they who have been responsible with endless obstructionist tactics.
I have seen no evidence that any of them do. Republican or demonrat, it makes no difference.
This sentiment really irritates me. Don't you realise that is 'there's no difference' idea is a strategy that is specifically formulated and sold to you? That vast efforts are expended to tell you that it doesn't matter, that you shouldn't vote? If it actually didn't matter, they wouldn't be spending such an effort.
Your cynicism is a comfort blanket as the republicans fuck you in the arse.
'Voting with dollars' just means those with more dollars, have more votes. And when corporations *also* determine employment, and so the amount of dollars you have, you have an inevitable spiral into feudalism. There's an undeniable influence of money in elections, but this is something to be fought, not encouraged. You should ask yourself - 'why *can't* a corporation force you at gunpoint (or more practically, through deceitful advertising, unfair contracts, local monopolies and anti-competitive actions, and price fixing) to give them money? Because the government is there to stop them.
And the mere fact that a company might go bust does not mean that the replacement will not itself go bad, and then go bust itself. The proponents of creative destruction often forget that such collapses do not always lead to new flawless institutions, but often a new set of problems, and that the threat of such collapse does very little to deter mistakes brought on by short term thinking. It's better to preserve the lessons learnt, and try to improve existing institutions, than suffer through a series of collapses and rebuild from scratch each time.
"The nice thing about a corporation is, you don't have to give them money. No corporation has ever threatened to kidnap me and throw me in a cage if I didn't buy their latest product. No corporation has ever held a gun to my head and made me pay them. On the other hand, try not paying your taxes... "
Except that in a ton of cases, people don't have this choice.
Don't get health insurance, and you could literally die. Stop buying food, and you'll starve. Cease your mortgage payments, and you'll lose your house. Don't buy broadband from your sole available provider, and you wouldn't be able to post that comment. Not buy those train tickets, and you wouldn't be able to hold on to your job. And that's ignoring the externalities, the pollution and general environmental damage corporations can cause to your locality, even if you aren't at all their customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondary debris from collisions are smaller and more difficult to track.
Your attitude is incredibly ignorant and short sighted. Look at this graph.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/multimedia/0212-spacejunk/img/chart-historical-debris-growth.jpg
Then tell me space debris will not become a problem.
And yes, collisions have happened.
http://www.space.com/5542-satellite-destroyed-space-collision.html
More will happen, if people don't come together and deal with it.
The ideal solution would certainly be that everyone would chip in, since it's in everyone's interests. If the US is determined to go it alone anyway and build this thing, though, a far sighted strategist should realise that *even if* no one else offers to pay, it serves long term US interests to actually share this data with as many countries at possible. And maybe such a move would create goodwill and help dispel suspicion, and encourage global support (and funding) for future maintenance of the project.
Because Kessler Syndrome. Space debris collisions create more space debris, which in the long term will cause problems for the use of space with everyone. Ideally these things should be dealt with internationally - it doesn't really make sense to have every nation look after their own satellites, and it'd lead to much wasteful duplication of effort.
Space Fence, eh....
I'm a little bit suspicious. What else can this site track? Will the US be sharing its data with everyone, or will there be many convenient holes in coverage?
It's mostly that there's been a lot of bad press for Romney lately as his campaign goes down the shitter, so, well, quick guys, have something to distract from his failings!
You don't get it. They aren't spending the money. You are spending the money. For them, it's just a cost they pass along, which is completely rational. If your cost of operating goes up, you raise your prices in order to not go bankrupt. Simple as that. Which means it's the patients that pay. Except many don't, which means it's a small minority of the patients that pay.
If patients are willing to spend that much money on medical treatment, then they could just charge that much money... and take it as pure profit, and not actually put in place supposedly anti-malpractice measures. If malpractice suits are costing them 3% operating cost, but anti-malpractice measures are costing them far far more, then by definition, then anti-malpractice measures are unprofitable. It's inescapable that if we accept the figures, that suits are only 3%, that (you claim) anti-malpractice measures are way more, then taking anti-malpractice measures is way overpriced and hurting providers' bottom line.
You are (deliberately, it seems) missing the big picture. It isn't malpractice, per se. It's the enormous use of people, supplies, fantasitcally expensive equipment, time, space, and a mile-long wake of paperwork that comes from practicing over-the-top procedures, tests, and drug use designed to fend off spurious malpractice suits. So something like a $10 urine dip-stick test that could be done a couple of times over a couple of 5-minute office visits becomes a $2500 speciality lab visit to the hospital so that the doctor's favorite specialist can do a bladder exam ... so that one in a hundred thousand people who might have more than a the normal drop of blood in their urine and also happen to have something else you might catch through the multi-thousand-dollar exame might be caught sooner, though not likely.
That doesn't make sense. If the hospitals are behaving rationally, the amount of money they would spend on avoiding malpractice suits would be in proportion to their expected cost of loss from the suits themselves. If malpractice actually accounts for a very small amount of money, then either these people have no idea and are going way over the top, or there's other reasons to over-treat.
The real reason, I reckon, is that the medical system in the US is internally antagonistic. *Everyone is screwing each other over.* News like what we've seen above is an example - people are out for themselves, and care not about end results, but about making money. Contrast the unified systems under European socialised healthcare - those systems work, because up and down the tier, people are incentivised to *cooperate* and deliver good care at low cost, instead of sabotaging each other in pursuit of short term gain.
I sure love the use of the phrasing 'proven wrong' to denote 'dude from a libertarian thinktank wrote a comment piece saying the Great Society failed'.
But is this legged robot going to handle that rough terrain, either?
There's the thing, really, Usain Bolt isn't this robot's rival. What this robot has to beat is not a human athlete, but an equivalent robot with wheels or a rotor. Even Usain Bolt can't run at 30 mph on rough ground, and I think it has still not been demonstrated that a legged robot would be intrinsically better at handling such terrain.
Crunch the maths here:
7 billion records in 6 years sounds like a lot, but...
7 billion / 16 million cars / (6* 365 days) = 0.2.
You're picked up on average on these cameras once every 5 days. That's really not enough to capture any sort of specific movement. The entire program seems generally kinda pointless.
You realise that for a significant number of people, being unable to borrow money means that they literally would die, right?
Juries, however, are supposed to make decisions according to the jury instructions they were given. If it's clear that they did not even read the instructions, and failed to apply a reasonable process in evaluating each case fairly and individually, then the judge is justified in filing for a mistrial.
Also, I think reasonable explanations exist for the periods of fast warming they found in ~200 AD, and 1600AD - looking at the chart, they were generally preceeded by large downward spikes, and represented the temperature restoring to its previous level. My speculation is that these events correspond to the gigantic volcanic eruptions in Taupo at around 200AD, and maybe Huaynaputina at 1600AD. Large eruptions project large amounts of sulphates into the atmosphere, which has a strong, but temporary cooling effect. When these sulphates disappear from the atmosphere in a matter of decades, this would lead to dramatic warming, as the climate 'catches up'.
Yeah.
1. This is a single study, of a single location.
2. The study *did* find that the temperature rise is in the upper 0.3% of the time period investigated.
3. There's significant error bars on the temperatures reconstructed, so I think the authors are overegging their data a little to claim that it's definitely not unprecedented.
The story summary claiming that current warming is more the norm than the except is plainly inaccurate.
RuggedOS was a recent acquisition by Seimens from a Canadian firm, who had various security worries before its sale, but took care to suppress such news to preserve its valuation. It's doubtful there's any German government involvement. What actually seems to have happened is that the RuggedOS was just a huge turd of a product, which its new owners are slowly coming to discover.
We're talking about a Canadian company who, when confronted with the backdoor earlier this year, refused to fix it. So it's safe to say that the company just doesn't care about security. Check you sinophobia at the door, please.
There is no involvement of the Chinese in this story at all. The original company that created RuggedOS is Canadian. Who the heck modded the parent +5 Insightful?
Where does the ATM fee in dollars get charged to, anyway? Do you have to link a dollar bank account to this card, as well?
Just look at the results:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/aug-18-obama-leads-big-among-those-least-likely-to-vote/
It's pretty clear which side this sentiment is targetted at. The Republicans are playing a two sided game - to their base, they promise the world. To the others, they work actively on discouraging them to vote, by proliferating the attitude that the Democrats are failures, when it's they who have been responsible with endless obstructionist tactics.
You are still free to not use their services... until the government requires you to have internet access.
A requirement, regulation or law which I would also oppose.
So you'd be willing to pay additional taxes to provide alternative provisions to people not online?
I have seen no evidence that any of them do. Republican or demonrat, it makes no difference.
This sentiment really irritates me. Don't you realise that is 'there's no difference' idea is a strategy that is specifically formulated and sold to you? That vast efforts are expended to tell you that it doesn't matter, that you shouldn't vote? If it actually didn't matter, they wouldn't be spending such an effort.
Your cynicism is a comfort blanket as the republicans fuck you in the arse.
'Voting with dollars' just means those with more dollars, have more votes. And when corporations *also* determine employment, and so the amount of dollars you have, you have an inevitable spiral into feudalism. There's an undeniable influence of money in elections, but this is something to be fought, not encouraged. You should ask yourself - 'why *can't* a corporation force you at gunpoint (or more practically, through deceitful advertising, unfair contracts, local monopolies and anti-competitive actions, and price fixing) to give them money? Because the government is there to stop them.
And the mere fact that a company might go bust does not mean that the replacement will not itself go bad, and then go bust itself. The proponents of creative destruction often forget that such collapses do not always lead to new flawless institutions, but often a new set of problems, and that the threat of such collapse does very little to deter mistakes brought on by short term thinking. It's better to preserve the lessons learnt, and try to improve existing institutions, than suffer through a series of collapses and rebuild from scratch each time.
"The nice thing about a corporation is, you don't have to give them money. No corporation has ever threatened to kidnap me and throw me in a cage if I didn't buy their latest product. No corporation has ever held a gun to my head and made me pay them. On the other hand, try not paying your taxes... "
Except that in a ton of cases, people don't have this choice.
Don't get health insurance, and you could literally die. Stop buying food, and you'll starve. Cease your mortgage payments, and you'll lose your house. Don't buy broadband from your sole available provider, and you wouldn't be able to post that comment. Not buy those train tickets, and you wouldn't be able to hold on to your job. And that's ignoring the externalities, the pollution and general environmental damage corporations can cause to your locality, even if you aren't at all their customers.
Well, imagine what this Slashdot article and discussion thread would be like, if Tridium was China based, instead of operating out of Richmond, VA...