You may be interested in some mu-metal skull caps I have for sale at a very attractive price. Quick delivery too. Though, in your case, it may be too late.
My daughter and her family live in Georgia. They have a medical plan asociated with an HMO. A really good one, so when my grandaughter suffered a particularly serious broken arm, they shipped her off to the Mayo Clinic, so she could see "the best bone man available."
The people who sell this kind of medical insurance are in it for the profit, so they know exactly what medical care, in this case excellent medical care, costs. That cost for my daughter's family (the standard 2 adults, 2 kids) is $6,000 per year. So we can be fairly certain that the average real cost of delivery of excellent health care runs to less than $1,500 per man, woman and child.
You quote $4,867 per person estimated expenditures for Canada. I won't argue with you, since it's higher than my estimate. That means the difference between the expenditures and delivered services is over $3,000 per person or a total $100 Billion annual difference between taxes input and medical services output.
The most effective thing Canada could do would be to outsource its health care requirements to American HMOs and put the $100 Billion back into its citizens' pockets.
The province of Ontario alone is planning to spend over $40,000,000,000 in 2008/9. This is only one province. Most estimates of the total bill in Canada, looking at all the provincial and federal budgets, are in the $125 billion range, which is reasonable given the population ratios.
Estimates that extrapolate from health services requirements and the cost of delivery don't tell the whole tale. The difference between the resource input and the services output is the real cost of socialized medical care. In Canada, the waste runs to about $75 Billion per year.
In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care,
In Canada, health care is a provincial responsibility. The "Government of Canada" contribution is pure overhead and doesn't include the cost of actual health services. The total cost has to include the costs at the provincial level as well. This pretty much blows away your well-spun argument. You need better sources.
The Swedes have a mixed system that is drifting inexorably toward capitalism. Yet still, in the case of the socialist policy areas, the Swedes, like Canadians, have no choice. Health care is a government monopoly, there are no private hospitals, no choice.
They opened up manufacturing when it became clear that the nation would collapse from the weight of too many mouths and too few hands if they didn't. Even so, their economy is on a razor's edge. As in the case of the mythical 65-year-old Swede who was supposed to be healthier than an American teenager, you have to be careful what you believe about Swedish socialism.
There's a closer example in Canada where socialized medicine has followed its predictable course. The Canadian health care system costs every Canadian family an average of C$12,000 per year--that's US$13,000, more or less. That's triple the cost of a deluxe health plan in the US.
At the same time, the quality of health care has never been worse: waiting times on things like MRIs are out to half a year, as is the time to get an appointment with any specialist. People are dying in emergency rooms where it can take 10 to 15 hours to get some attention. A lot of people (myself and my wife included) can't find a family doctor and GPs aren't taking any new clients. More than one survey has found that Canadians get worse health care than Americans on Medicaid.
If I had a choice, which socialist medicine denies me, I'd take my share of the taxes that go to health care (allowing for medicare for those without the capacity to take care of themselves) and buy a deluxe plan with an HMO across the border in New York. Then, with the money left over, I'd lease a nice new car.
Capitalism has room for socialist enclaves. It all works well as long as there is a choice. Sometimes, as in this case, the competition is good for everyone.
It's the socialist society that can't survive without eliminating choice.
We should establish, as a standard, an enumerated list of the half-dozen or so stock Microsoft whinges that end up as eighty percent or so of the comments to any article that mentions Microsoft.
Instead of typing it fresh each time, or pasting it from a previous message, the poster could just invoke e.g. "#3", instead of "Microsoft will Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" and all its semantic equivalents.
Better yet, since the list will be pretty short, the Slashdot UI could be modified to include a drop-down list of the standard whinges with any article that includes the Microsoft name. Select a whinge, and Slashdot automatically posts a comment for you (correctly spelled). What could be simpler?
The aggregate time savings would be a major boon to the American economy.
I've got one of those Samsungs. The user interface is reasonably intuitive and it comes as close to being "just a phone" as any device of its quality. I'm one of those backward people who don't use all the features on the phone--not because I don't know how but because I just need it to be a phone.
The solution to the camera is to crazy glue the upper button on the right hand side. Menu 6 1 brings up the camera if you really need a fuzzy picture of something.
I can't believe anyone would use it to read email; that's what the Nokia 800 is for.
Reading this thread, it seems that everyone assumes that the people who manage the most successful media industry in time and space suddenly become drooling idiots on the subject of online music.
The more reasonable assumption would be that the effects of DRM are exactly what they intended: make online music a pain in the ass and push a public perception that getting music from the internet is at least immoral and likely illegal, so that people will buy music CDs and DVDs instead. Keep that up for as long as possible, until there's a viable online music business model that can't be ignored.
If you want to be rid of DRM, find and promote a profitable way to sell music online.
Surely, the/. collective brain can come up with something.
You definitely want to experiment with the brightness and contrast on your monitor. That may be all you need.
As to color manipulation, that work was done a long time ago, but I can't remember by who. The "easy eye" color combination was navy blue on powder green, text=0,0,64, screen=255,208,255.
I have the same problem and find that mix much more soothing on the eyes.
IBM handed Microsoft a monopoly on the OS for their new PC "toy".
Microsoft already had a monopoly on DOS—they owned it. Gates was clever enough to (a) to not give the monopoly away to IBM, (b) to publish the APIs, so anyone could code for it, and (c) to license it at a reasonable price to anyone who wanted it (a Microsoft operating system still costs a little less than a decent bicycle—just as it did in 1981).
Gates wasn't alone; Borland had the same strategy, but then they got greedy and lost their focus.
Slashdot Mirror
They aren't autonomous. They're on bang-bang programs that can't adapt to unforseen events.
This is more likely good news for QNX.
You may be interested in some mu-metal skull caps I have for sale at a very attractive price. Quick delivery too. Though, in your case, it may be too late.
How simple life is when you are really young and unaware of history.
Repeating an argument doesn't improve it.
My daughter and her family live in Georgia. They have a medical plan asociated with an HMO. A really good one, so when my grandaughter suffered a particularly serious broken arm, they shipped her off to the Mayo Clinic, so she could see "the best bone man available."
The people who sell this kind of medical insurance are in it for the profit, so they know exactly what medical care, in this case excellent medical care, costs. That cost for my daughter's family (the standard 2 adults, 2 kids) is $6,000 per year. So we can be fairly certain that the average real cost of delivery of excellent health care runs to less than $1,500 per man, woman and child.
You quote $4,867 per person estimated expenditures for Canada. I won't argue with you, since it's higher than my estimate. That means the difference between the expenditures and delivered services is over $3,000 per person or a total $100 Billion annual difference between taxes input and medical services output.
The most effective thing Canada could do would be to outsource its health care requirements to American HMOs and put the $100 Billion back into its citizens' pockets.
Just to show you how badly you are being misled, see Ontario Health Budget
The province of Ontario alone is planning to spend over $40,000,000,000 in 2008/9. This is only one province. Most estimates of the total bill in Canada, looking at all the provincial and federal budgets, are in the $125 billion range, which is reasonable given the population ratios.
Estimates that extrapolate from health services requirements and the cost of delivery don't tell the whole tale. The difference between the resource input and the services output is the real cost of socialized medical care. In Canada, the waste runs to about $75 Billion per year.
In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care,
In Canada, health care is a provincial responsibility. The "Government of Canada" contribution is pure overhead and doesn't include the cost of actual health services. The total cost has to include the costs at the provincial level as well. This pretty much blows away your well-spun argument. You need better sources.
The Swedes have a mixed system that is drifting inexorably toward capitalism. Yet still, in the case of the socialist policy areas, the Swedes, like Canadians, have no choice. Health care is a government monopoly, there are no private hospitals, no choice.
They opened up manufacturing when it became clear that the nation would collapse from the weight of too many mouths and too few hands if they didn't. Even so, their economy is on a razor's edge. As in the case of the mythical 65-year-old Swede who was supposed to be healthier than an American teenager, you have to be careful what you believe about Swedish socialism.
There's a closer example in Canada where socialized medicine has followed its predictable course. The Canadian health care system costs every Canadian family an average of C$12,000 per year--that's US$13,000, more or less. That's triple the cost of a deluxe health plan in the US.
At the same time, the quality of health care has never been worse: waiting times on things like MRIs are out to half a year, as is the time to get an appointment with any specialist. People are dying in emergency rooms where it can take 10 to 15 hours to get some attention. A lot of people (myself and my wife included) can't find a family doctor and GPs aren't taking any new clients. More than one survey has found that Canadians get worse health care than Americans on Medicaid.
If I had a choice, which socialist medicine denies me, I'd take my share of the taxes that go to health care (allowing for medicare for those without the capacity to take care of themselves) and buy a deluxe plan with an HMO across the border in New York. Then, with the money left over, I'd lease a nice new car.
Be careful what you wish for.
You've just learned an important lesson:
Capitalism has room for socialist enclaves. It all works well as long as there is a choice. Sometimes, as in this case, the competition is good for everyone.
It's the socialist society that can't survive without eliminating choice.
Speaking of standards...
We should establish, as a standard, an enumerated list of the half-dozen or so stock Microsoft whinges that end up as eighty percent or so of the comments to any article that mentions Microsoft.
Instead of typing it fresh each time, or pasting it from a previous message, the poster could just invoke e.g. "#3", instead of "Microsoft will Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" and all its semantic equivalents.
Better yet, since the list will be pretty short, the Slashdot UI could be modified to include a drop-down list of the standard whinges with any article that includes the Microsoft name. Select a whinge, and Slashdot automatically posts a comment for you (correctly spelled). What could be simpler?
The aggregate time savings would be a major boon to the American economy.
They left out more modern scientific hoaxes, including AGW and "a high-carb, low-fat diet prevents heart disease".
Jack Rickard and his army of sysops gave us the free internet.
What the hell did Albright and Clinton have to do with it?
I've got one of those Samsungs. The user interface is reasonably intuitive and it comes as close to being "just a phone" as any device of its quality. I'm one of those backward people who don't use all the features on the phone--not because I don't know how but because I just need it to be a phone.
The solution to the camera is to crazy glue the upper button on the right hand side. Menu 6 1 brings up the camera if you really need a fuzzy picture of something.
I can't believe anyone would use it to read email; that's what the Nokia 800 is for.
There will be a solution. We want music and artists want to make music. We'll find a way to pay them to do it.
Hello in there. Is anybody home?
Reading this thread, it seems that everyone assumes that the people who manage the most successful media industry in time and space suddenly become drooling idiots on the subject of online music.
The more reasonable assumption would be that the effects of DRM are exactly what they intended: make online music a pain in the ass and push a public perception that getting music from the internet is at least immoral and likely illegal, so that people will buy music CDs and DVDs instead. Keep that up for as long as possible, until there's a viable online music business model that can't be ignored.
If you want to be rid of DRM, find and promote a profitable way to sell music online.
Surely, the /. collective brain can come up with something.
Actually, he's repeating standard left-wing bullshit.
Sorry: it's screen=208,255,208
You definitely want to experiment with the brightness and contrast on your monitor. That may be all you need.
As to color manipulation, that work was done a long time ago, but I can't remember by who. The "easy eye" color combination was navy blue on powder green, text=0,0,64, screen=255,208,255.
I have the same problem and find that mix much more soothing on the eyes.
So what we've always thought was the wisdom of crowds turns out to be the wisdom of averages. That does make more sense.
More like it takes a thousand Harvard graduates in conference to show the common sense of one redneck. But who's counting?
It seems reasonable to ask: What spreadsheet do you prefer to Excel? Surely not OO Calc.
IBM handed Microsoft a monopoly on the OS for their new PC "toy".
Microsoft already had a monopoly on DOS—they owned it. Gates was clever enough to (a) to not give the monopoly away to IBM, (b) to publish the APIs, so anyone could code for it, and (c) to license it at a reasonable price to anyone who wanted it (a Microsoft operating system still costs a little less than a decent bicycle—just as it did in 1981).
Gates wasn't alone; Borland had the same strategy, but then they got greedy and lost their focus.
And once you've done that, the circuits are burned so that it can never be reversed.
Statue of Limitations? Is that some kind of wall or something?
No--it's what will replace the Statue of Liberty if the Democrats win another House majority.