I don't live there so I don't care. I prefer to save my mental bandwidth for more interesting things. The vote there is a choice between two the lesser of two evils. I see no "win" here. It sounds like if Moore wins he might not be allowed to take his seat in the Senate. Apparently that's a thing.
I wonder if your opiod addled mind realized what you were saying.
Probably not. Like Elon Musk I have a tendency to post to the internet after taking my sleeping pills. That makes it hard to type sometimes because then the keyboard gets all bendy, and the lights off the screen... it shines like little angels... that lift you up....
Republicans are the ones who dump money onto their precious insiders, as shown with their Cash for Clunkers
You need to put down the crack pipe before you post.
I checked the Senate votes on that Cash for Clunkers bill. There were 4 Republicans that voted for it, and 2 independents, and... wait for it... 54 Democrats. Votes against the bill were 1 Democrat and 35 Republicans.
If the Cash for Clunkers bill was just a bailout for the auto industry, to buy votes in the next election, then we can put all of that on the Democrats. Especially since Obama signed it, and the House had a Democrat majority at the time.
If you can't get that easily verified bit of information correct then how can I trust anything else you said? Can you provide sources for anything you claimed?
Oh, and another thing. I'm pretty sure that ten billion dollars you are talking about for loans to nuclear power also happened under Obama. Watts Barr restarted construction under Bush but it was Obama that approved over fifty billion dollars in loans that allowed for more nuclear power construction. At the same time we had Democrats complaining about no place to put the nuclear waste while it was them that shut down the Yucca Mountain waste disposal site.
This, coming from the poster who stated that Doug Jones was a "known baby killer" is somehow less believable.
Right, I should have put that in quotes. I'm not calling this guy a baby killer, the people polled in Alabama were. I don't know this guy. All I have is a vague recollection of an interview of him where he said some things in support of "women's right to access abortion" or something. Does that mean he's a "baby killer"? I don't know and I don't care.
Why bring up the birds killed by cats? That's just a distraction. We're talking about birds killed by windmills, the things we use to get energy. We need energy and so if we care about birds then we should look at what kind of energy has the least bird kills per energy produced. The highest on the list of birds killed per energy produced is wind.
To be clear, I don't care about birds killed. Birds are stupid. If idiot cats can kill them then they deserve to run into some windmills and die.
If we do care about birds being killed then we should look at energy that doesn't kill them. A quick search tells me that nuclear power is safest for birds. I know that there is an often cited study that claims nuclear power kills more birds than windmills but I found that odd, how does nuclear power kill birds? Do they run into the cooling towers? Turns out the study had include in "nuclear power" bird deaths was a fuel oil spill in uranium mines. Just one spill. In one mine. Multiplied over all mines. And the mine was not even for uranium, it was a copper mine.
I grew up on a farm. Dad hated the cats. There was a scare of cats spreading disease to the cattle in the area so we got rid of the cats. After that the mice just about knocked the cattle over for the feed. Dad didn't mind the cats so much after that. We got more cats and they kept the mice out of the feed, the moles out of the yard and garden, and the birds from shitting on the equipment. If we get rid of the cats to save the birds then we'd have problems from the mice, moles, squirrels, rabbits, and also the birds.
You can ignore windmills. They are a rounding error (1/10,000).
Also a rounding error is the contribution wind has to the electrical grid. If we expand wind from it's current 3% of grid power to 30% then we'd have 10 times more birds killed, no? Coal kills far more birds, nuclear kills far less. If we care about the birds (and I don't) then we'd be using more nuclear right now, not messing with the natural order of things like cats eating birds. Cats need to eat. Birds are for the cats, or is it cats are for the birds?
I'm pretty sure PV collectors kill birds too. I'm having trouble citing a source with so many results from solar thermal muddying up my search. I recall something on Slashdot about this not too long ago.
So, if we go after the cats first does that mean going after windmills later? Wouldn't it be easier to just not build them in the first place? Also, it's not like we can't do more than one thing at once, we can manage the cats killing birds at the same time we not build more windmills.
Don't the natural gas drills have any beauty about them? How are windmills any different?
I'm also confused on why natural gas drills would be on hills. Doesn't that just mean more dirt to drill through?
I remember seeing an old windmill, had to be nearly a century old, in a valley along the road. I thought that was stupid, there would be more wind on the top of the hill next to it. Then I realized that if they put the windmill on the hill then the well they would have had to dig would have to be that much deeper. It's also quite possible the location in this small valley is why I could still see it standing decades later, the hills likely sheltered it from storms.
It's not child molestation if it was technically legal at the time? Seriously, that is your defense?
No, but it's A defense.
That is our standard for politicians?
If the standard is "broke the law" then we have photo evidence of Al Franken groping a woman as she slept vs. a "he said/she said" accusation of some creepy but likely legal behavior by Moore. If the standard is "abused women" or "abused employees" then we could probably clear out half of the Senate.
A senator is not going to change the supreme court decision regardless.
Senators must provide consent for any SCOTUS appointment. It can sometime take just one vote, such as that from Al Franken, to get appointments and laws. If the makeup of the Senate changes because Franken gets tossed then we might see things change in the courts. SCOTUS has changed its mind on rulings before, it can do so again. Likewise for John McCain and his health issues, his leaving can shift the balance of appointment to federal court seats and therefore future decisions from those courts.
Even if we limit this to the debate on abortion there's many aspects on this that the Senate can decide. Things like federal funds for Planned Parenthood, rules on medical insurance coverage for abortions, rules on when an abortion can be performed in federal and military hospitals, and more.
Bringing this back to the debate on wind energy we have Republicans that are lukewarm on wind and Democrats that think that they can't spend enough on wind power. A quick Google search tells me that Republicans have an "all the above" energy plan, which means coal and nuclear as much as wind. Republicans will subsidize wind power but the focus is on production and not capacity, meaning that if you want government money then those windmills need to be spinning. Democrats will claim to have an "all the above" energy plan but will do everything they can to stop natural gas and nuclear, even though those are shown to be just as effective in reducing CO2 as wind and solar. Democrats will subsidize wind power but they subsidize capacity rather than production, so people build windmills in places they know are far from optimal to cash in. The focus is then on short term building at the lowest cost rather than long term viability of wind mill energy production.
We also have Democrats that claim nuclear power is too expensive and so want to refuse licenses to build while subsidizing the building of far more expensive offshore windmills. Well, no shit nuclear is expensive. If licenses are impossible to obtain then the price is effectively infinite. If the Democrats toss money at wind projects that may not even prove profitable in the long term then wind looks real cheap on the short term, since much of the expense in both wind and nuclear is the capital in building the capacity, not in the operational costs in producing energy.
One more thing...
unlike Mr. Moore who continues to deny everything
You mean, almost as if he's innocent? If the guy didn't do what he's accused of doing then what do you expect him to say? It's hard to prove that someone didn't do something. I haven't followed this much so I only know the bits and pieces I get when listening to the news on the radio. It sounds like the cases are on very shaky ground, based on possibly forged signatures at best to place him where people claim he was.
Hell, right now that child molester in Alabama is probably going to win, because the majority of voters in that state believe for a child molester to lead than a Democrat.
That would be a Democrat that is in favor of the right to an abortion among a population that sees abortion as murder. This in a state where at the time and place these accused acts of child molestation occurred the age of consent was 14 years of age. It's not "child molestation" if the person is considered old enough to consent.
This is insane.
Yes, it is. It's also politics. You go to war with the army you have. If what you have is the choice between the accused child molester and the known baby killer then people seem to rather go with the accused child molester. One of these two will (barring some unforeseen event) win this election.
This is not right. It's far from perfect. It's also what we got.
We also see Democrats running to defend the acts of sexual abuse by their own. This is documented by pictures, the accused does not deny the charges, because he can't, we have all seen the pictures. If the Democrats had any consistency in their demands for the concerns of women being sexually abused then Al Franken would not be in office right now. That's just one of many Democrats that should be run out of town over sexual abuse charges.
Do you realize that a portion of those power lines that kill birds is due to the need to transmit power from the windmills to where it is used? You may ask, what is that portion? Best estimate is about 5% from what I found on the interwebs, based on that we get 5% of our electricity (approximately for both the world and the USA) from wind now.
If we expand wind power from the current 5% to 50%, which seems to be what many demand, then it's not a trivial 1% of birds killed by windmills any more. Now it's a crisis of 10% of birds killed by windmills.
If there is a desire is to go beyond 50%, perhaps not to produce all of our electricity by wind but to have overcapacity to diminish the need for expensive electrical storage, account for future growth, and/or allow for outages from storms bringing down power lines and windmills, then we will see even greater numbers of birds killed.
We know that windmills will kill birds. We know that this is not a trivial problem to solve. We know that if windmills become more common that this will not be a triviality of bird kill numbers.
Dismiss the problem now if you like. At some point this cannot be dismissed so easily.
I seem to recall this dual sourcing of chips causing a significant difference in battery life in previous iPhone versions. Did anyone test if the batteries last as long on both variants?
I don't care much of the data rates on the phone's modem. WiFi is easy enough to find for when I want to avoid data charges and need speed. All I need the modem for is maps, e-mail, and some web browsing so I'm not concerned if the data is 50Mbit or 150Mbit. What does concern me is if the phone eats up its charge.
This speed testing is still interesting, but not what concerns me much. I'd just think that if they went through this effort of testing that the battery life testing would not have added much to their efforts. Given battery problems in the past I'd think that would be something many others would be curious about as well.
It sucks to be poor. Getting old tends to lead to getting sick. Hard labor is hard on the body. Health care can be expensive, especially when people delay their care. None of this is news.
Of course they had a form for it. It's probably the same form they use for a DNR order, a release of liability form for refusing services from the hospital.
Yep, health outcomes of African-Americans are poor because of their genetics.
Let's see if I have this straight. I'm not a racist if I point out that... White men can't jump (It's a movie, look it up) Whites get more bone cancer than Blacks Whites get more skin cancer than Blacks Whites get more breast cancer than Blacks Blacks have lower rates for lactose tolerance Blacks have higher rates for sickle cell disease, in fact it's nearly unheard of for anyone not of African descent
I'm not racist because we can trace these traits to genetics.
If I say that those of African descent are more likely to die of breast cancer, even though the rates of getting it in the first place is lower, then now I'm a racist. I point out that BRCA mutations, a known risk for breast cancer, is higher in Blacks than Whites, I'm still a racist. If I point out that the genes for "triple negative" breast cancer (not treatable with the three known medications for breast cancer) are more common in Blacks than Whites then I'm a racist.
I can point out that allergies are more common among Whites than Blacks, because that's not racist. If I point out that more Blacks die from allergies than Whites, then now I'm a racist. I'm sure this has nothing to do with allergies among Whites being more commonly things like animal dander and pollen (annoying but not often deadly) but Blacks tend to be allergic to peanuts, wheat, corn, shellfish, and soy (you know, things that can kill a person). Nope, not genetics, racism.
We'll point out that people of African descent in Africa have an average lifespan of 71. Then we point out that those of African descent in America have an average lifespan of 74. This can't be genetic, that's not possible, because racism. Instead of being grateful of extending their lives by 3 years we have to be upset that they still fall short of European Americans by 3 years. Must be racism. (If my actual ages are wrong then just bite me, I checked the numbers quick and lost where I found them in the shuffle of windows on my screen, assume I pulled them out of nowhere in particular.)
If something good happens to Blacks in America, like being good in sports, then that's genetics. If something bad happens, like treatments for breast cancer failing, then that's racism.
I got it. Whites bad, Blacks good. Because racism.
This is indeed, as you say, "bullshit" because a light year is a measure of distance.
Which is why I put "light year" in quotes. I used the term from the parent post. I realize that it is a measure of distance, I assumed it was used figuratively as meaning a vast difference. I'm sure you knew that.
However, it is very accurate to say that European and Canadian healthcare is about 3 years ahead of healthcare in the US because the average life expectancy in Europe and Canada is about 82 years while it is only about 79 in the US (averaged over both genders).
I noticed that African nations ranked lower than average on that chart compared to the rest of the world, and European nations ranked average to above average. I see that the USA has a population of people from African descent of about 13%. Getting a good number for the percent of people in Europe of African descent is difficult, but my best guess is that it's about 2%. Similarly the percentage of those of European descent in Africa is quite small, also likely about 2%. Is it possible that this very small difference in lifespan between USA and Europe is due to genetics rather than the quality of the medical care?
Here's something interesting, a study showing that people of African descent in America live on the average 4 years less than those of European descent. http://www.businessinsider.com...
The authors of the article linked above seem to think that this is not genetic but merely a reflection of poverty and education. But it seems Americans are highly educated. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/...
Perhaps it's genetic, perhaps poverty, perhaps education, or maybe it is in fact the healthcare in the different countries. There's other factors too, like climate, crime, diet, accidents, and more. Placing this rather small difference in expected lifespan on the different health care systems alone seems like a pretty big leap in logic. Perhaps a leap in logic the distance of a "light year"?
The tattoo could have likely been deemed a legal document if it had not been on his chest. It's pretty hard to sign your chest with a tattoo needle.
The guy had the foresight to file a DNR statement but lacked the foresight on how his tattoo might appear to anyone that came to treat him. There are services that will make bracelets and such that contain medical information. Presumably this includes a DNR request that's seen as legally binding. He could have signed up for one of these services. If he felt this important enough to need a tattoo then he could have had the tattoo be of some kind of reference to the document, like a phone number to call and a reference number for the document.
I had to do something like this before. One government agency doesn't always talk to another very well but there are ways to connect one file to another in these systems. All I had to do was take a federal document to a county office and they copied the document and gave me a reference number for it. Now, if I need to reference this document again for the county or state government, I can just give them this reference number. I assume this is pretty common practice. Go ahead and tattoo a DNR request to your chest, but make sure the legally binding document is on file and the reference number is tattooed as well.
Perhaps I would have believed you before the UK government refused to allow Baby Charlie to go to the USA for lifesaving treatment.
The UK did not have the ability to treat this child's condition, but people in the USA could. Or at least they claimed they could have. The parents were forced to sue the government to allow them to take the child to the USA for treatment, treatment that would have cost them nothing. They held this up in the courts until the child was too ill to be treated. The UK government could not allow this child to go to the USA because that would have exposed their government funded health care system to be second rate.
The UK government allowed this child to die so that they could save face.
European health care "light years" ahead of the USA? I call bullshit. But we won't know if Baby Charlie could have been saved in the USA, right? If Charlie had lived then he'd have been a walking and talking example of the superior medical care in the USA for decades. Now that he's dead most people have forgotten all about how the UK government all but murdered this infant.
If someone expresses their desire to not be treated, either directly or through documentation or representation, you don't treat them.
Even for children? A person suffering from fevered psychosis? A person known to have bouts of treatable depression?
This man showed up unconscious, and with an elevated blood alcohol level. He was in no condition to verify the veracity of the tattoo. DNR statements can be revoked at any time but death is permanent. So, they treat him until they can verify that he was of sound mind when that tattoo was inked, and that he still wished the request be upheld.
Perhaps in the future we will see tattoos gain the status of a legal document. Until then they are no more a legal document than a child's scribbles in crayon, the ravings of a fevered mind, or the rants of a drunkard.
Nope, it's pretty simple. It's about the money.
I have to wonder. There's a risk in treating any single patient. They might not get paid, that puts them in a hole. Getting sued for malpractice would put them in an even deeper hole. I'd think the wisest thing to do, if it's just about the money, would be to refuse any treatment until they see some means to pay.
If that's the world we live in then we'll see people tattoo insurance policy numbers to their chests. Or, like in the days before such kinds of insurance, people would wear expensive jewelry that they could pawn for their care. Now that I think about it there are modern equivalents to those old traditions. People will get bracelets and necklaces that will contain information on their desires for medical care. I was issued something like that in the Army, it had my name, blood type, and religious preference on it. My mom made my sister wear a bracelet with contact and medical information on it because of her diabetes.
People in the USA don't typically use these medical identifier items because we have reasonable assurance that no matter where we go someone will see to our medical needs. No doubt they'd seek reimbursement for their services but those services will not be refused because we weren't wearing enough gold around our necks, or didn't have an insurance policy number on a bracelet.
If this guy had thought this through then he could have gotten one of those bracelets like my mom bought my sister. It seems that he did in fact have the proper paperwork on file somewhere. Instead of a tattoo which has no precedent as a legally enforceable document this guy could have gotten a bracelet with the means to reference this document.
I'm pretty sure that if someone comes in without identification, no family present, unconscious, likely drunk, and a DNR tattoo then I'd think that the lowest cost and lowest risk thing to do would be to not treat the man. They don't know if they'd get paid. There's more to this than just profit.
It sounds like you've either never been to a hospital, or never watched someone you know die before.
I have been to a hospital before and I have had to watch someone die. That's why I don't believe that this is something that can be summed up into any one motive. There are many people involved, each with their own motives, and their motives having many aspects to them. Claiming that the people that work at hospitals are only there for the money is something I find rather insulting.
I have no doubt that there are people in medicine only for the money, but saying ALL of them are there only for the money is painting with a too broad of a brush. We'll see surgeons waive their fees all the time in cases of patients being unable to pay. They know they'll make their money in speaking fees, teaching, elective surgery, or whatever. If everyone was in medicine only for the money then this would never happen.
That simple. In the seven 'extra' days he 'lived' he was billed for doctors, specialist, anesthesiologist, nurses, tubes, IV bags, catheters, meds, rubber gloves, and many other things.
Or, maybe it's because people don't like seeing other people die if they can help it. We can break this down to a profit motive but that's not likely on the minds of the people working on that shift or that patient. If you are going to put a profit motive on it then it's more like to them they get paid to not let people die.
Perhaps put that in your profit motive perspective. These are people getting paid to keep other people alive and healthy. If they are shown to be "compassionate" and letting the sick die in peace then they could find themselves no longer employed. This can be seen as being incompetent, uncaring, or even malicious. This gets to my next possible answer.
Maybe hospitals don't want to be seen as allowing people to die. This can affect their profits. Even if it's a charitable hospital that lives on donations a history of not attending to people can diminish donations. Taken too far and a hospital can be sued by a grieving family for malpractice, or even murder, for not attending to people's needs, or what they perceive as a need. The costs of the rubber gloves and meds used in any given case have to be tiny compared to the costs of defending a lawsuit and the investigation of the care provided.
This is a complex issue and calling this just a tactic to gain more money in billable services is simplifying the issue into the absurd.
I can get 4k over HDMI, but I always use DP because HDMI can only manage 30Hz, not 60Hz, and the mouse movement is very obviously not smooth to me at 30Hz.
I have to wonder if it's the refresh rate or something else going on. 30Hz should be fast enough to keep mouse movement smooth. That must be HDMI 1.4 then, HDMI 2.0 would support 4K/60. That just shows I'm not the only one seeing a lack of support for HDMI 2.0.
I don't think I'm asking too much of HDMI here. DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 both came out in 2009, and both support at least 4K/60. Why is it that HDMI 1.4, or later, on real and actual devices is so hard to find? Why has DisplayPort succeeded where HDMI failed?
As I stated before I don't care too much about what kind of port is carrying my video and sound, so long as it works. However, if all else was equal then I might lean towards HDMI because it has some unique features that DP and MHL do not. I've been using VGA for far too long so I'm looking for something new. I have some HDMI devices already so it's not like I don't have an investment in it now. I'll be looking to upgrade some hardware here soon and if I can't find HDMI devices that fit my needs then I'll be leaving it behind. Once I make that switch then I'm not likely to switch back.
I suspect I'm not unique in my dilemma. HDMI fell behind and stayed behind for too long. It may be too late for them to catch up now.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't even care to learn the truth?
Go vote for Moore, you deserve him.
I don't live there so I don't care. I prefer to save my mental bandwidth for more interesting things. The vote there is a choice between two the lesser of two evils. I see no "win" here. It sounds like if Moore wins he might not be allowed to take his seat in the Senate. Apparently that's a thing.
I wonder if your opiod addled mind realized what you were saying.
Probably not. Like Elon Musk I have a tendency to post to the internet after taking my sleeping pills. That makes it hard to type sometimes because then the keyboard gets all bendy, and the lights off the screen... it shines like little angels... that lift you up....
Republicans are the ones who dump money onto their precious insiders, as shown with their Cash for Clunkers
You need to put down the crack pipe before you post.
I checked the Senate votes on that Cash for Clunkers bill. There were 4 Republicans that voted for it, and 2 independents, and... wait for it... 54 Democrats. Votes against the bill were 1 Democrat and 35 Republicans.
If the Cash for Clunkers bill was just a bailout for the auto industry, to buy votes in the next election, then we can put all of that on the Democrats. Especially since Obama signed it, and the House had a Democrat majority at the time.
If you can't get that easily verified bit of information correct then how can I trust anything else you said? Can you provide sources for anything you claimed?
Oh, and another thing. I'm pretty sure that ten billion dollars you are talking about for loans to nuclear power also happened under Obama. Watts Barr restarted construction under Bush but it was Obama that approved over fifty billion dollars in loans that allowed for more nuclear power construction. At the same time we had Democrats complaining about no place to put the nuclear waste while it was them that shut down the Yucca Mountain waste disposal site.
This, coming from the poster who stated that Doug Jones was a "known baby killer" is somehow less believable.
Right, I should have put that in quotes. I'm not calling this guy a baby killer, the people polled in Alabama were. I don't know this guy. All I have is a vague recollection of an interview of him where he said some things in support of "women's right to access abortion" or something. Does that mean he's a "baby killer"? I don't know and I don't care.
Why bring up the birds killed by cats? That's just a distraction. We're talking about birds killed by windmills, the things we use to get energy. We need energy and so if we care about birds then we should look at what kind of energy has the least bird kills per energy produced. The highest on the list of birds killed per energy produced is wind.
To be clear, I don't care about birds killed. Birds are stupid. If idiot cats can kill them then they deserve to run into some windmills and die.
If we do care about birds being killed then we should look at energy that doesn't kill them. A quick search tells me that nuclear power is safest for birds. I know that there is an often cited study that claims nuclear power kills more birds than windmills but I found that odd, how does nuclear power kill birds? Do they run into the cooling towers? Turns out the study had include in "nuclear power" bird deaths was a fuel oil spill in uranium mines. Just one spill. In one mine. Multiplied over all mines. And the mine was not even for uranium, it was a copper mine.
I grew up on a farm. Dad hated the cats. There was a scare of cats spreading disease to the cattle in the area so we got rid of the cats. After that the mice just about knocked the cattle over for the feed. Dad didn't mind the cats so much after that. We got more cats and they kept the mice out of the feed, the moles out of the yard and garden, and the birds from shitting on the equipment. If we get rid of the cats to save the birds then we'd have problems from the mice, moles, squirrels, rabbits, and also the birds.
You can ignore windmills. They are a rounding error (1/10,000).
Also a rounding error is the contribution wind has to the electrical grid. If we expand wind from it's current 3% of grid power to 30% then we'd have 10 times more birds killed, no? Coal kills far more birds, nuclear kills far less. If we care about the birds (and I don't) then we'd be using more nuclear right now, not messing with the natural order of things like cats eating birds. Cats need to eat. Birds are for the cats, or is it cats are for the birds?
I'm pretty sure PV collectors kill birds too. I'm having trouble citing a source with so many results from solar thermal muddying up my search. I recall something on Slashdot about this not too long ago.
So, if we go after the cats first does that mean going after windmills later? Wouldn't it be easier to just not build them in the first place? Also, it's not like we can't do more than one thing at once, we can manage the cats killing birds at the same time we not build more windmills.
Don't the natural gas drills have any beauty about them? How are windmills any different?
I'm also confused on why natural gas drills would be on hills. Doesn't that just mean more dirt to drill through?
I remember seeing an old windmill, had to be nearly a century old, in a valley along the road. I thought that was stupid, there would be more wind on the top of the hill next to it. Then I realized that if they put the windmill on the hill then the well they would have had to dig would have to be that much deeper. It's also quite possible the location in this small valley is why I could still see it standing decades later, the hills likely sheltered it from storms.
Do you have a source? I'm very interested in seeing current pricing.
It's not child molestation if it was technically legal at the time? Seriously, that is your defense?
No, but it's A defense.
That is our standard for politicians?
If the standard is "broke the law" then we have photo evidence of Al Franken groping a woman as she slept vs. a "he said/she said" accusation of some creepy but likely legal behavior by Moore. If the standard is "abused women" or "abused employees" then we could probably clear out half of the Senate.
A senator is not going to change the supreme court decision regardless.
Senators must provide consent for any SCOTUS appointment. It can sometime take just one vote, such as that from Al Franken, to get appointments and laws. If the makeup of the Senate changes because Franken gets tossed then we might see things change in the courts. SCOTUS has changed its mind on rulings before, it can do so again. Likewise for John McCain and his health issues, his leaving can shift the balance of appointment to federal court seats and therefore future decisions from those courts.
Even if we limit this to the debate on abortion there's many aspects on this that the Senate can decide. Things like federal funds for Planned Parenthood, rules on medical insurance coverage for abortions, rules on when an abortion can be performed in federal and military hospitals, and more.
Bringing this back to the debate on wind energy we have Republicans that are lukewarm on wind and Democrats that think that they can't spend enough on wind power. A quick Google search tells me that Republicans have an "all the above" energy plan, which means coal and nuclear as much as wind. Republicans will subsidize wind power but the focus is on production and not capacity, meaning that if you want government money then those windmills need to be spinning. Democrats will claim to have an "all the above" energy plan but will do everything they can to stop natural gas and nuclear, even though those are shown to be just as effective in reducing CO2 as wind and solar. Democrats will subsidize wind power but they subsidize capacity rather than production, so people build windmills in places they know are far from optimal to cash in. The focus is then on short term building at the lowest cost rather than long term viability of wind mill energy production.
We also have Democrats that claim nuclear power is too expensive and so want to refuse licenses to build while subsidizing the building of far more expensive offshore windmills. Well, no shit nuclear is expensive. If licenses are impossible to obtain then the price is effectively infinite. If the Democrats toss money at wind projects that may not even prove profitable in the long term then wind looks real cheap on the short term, since much of the expense in both wind and nuclear is the capital in building the capacity, not in the operational costs in producing energy.
One more thing...
unlike Mr. Moore who continues to deny everything
You mean, almost as if he's innocent? If the guy didn't do what he's accused of doing then what do you expect him to say? It's hard to prove that someone didn't do something. I haven't followed this much so I only know the bits and pieces I get when listening to the news on the radio. It sounds like the cases are on very shaky ground, based on possibly forged signatures at best to place him where people claim he was.
Hell, right now that child molester in Alabama is probably going to win, because the majority of voters in that state believe for a child molester to lead than a Democrat.
That would be a Democrat that is in favor of the right to an abortion among a population that sees abortion as murder. This in a state where at the time and place these accused acts of child molestation occurred the age of consent was 14 years of age. It's not "child molestation" if the person is considered old enough to consent.
This is insane.
Yes, it is. It's also politics. You go to war with the army you have. If what you have is the choice between the accused child molester and the known baby killer then people seem to rather go with the accused child molester. One of these two will (barring some unforeseen event) win this election.
This is not right. It's far from perfect. It's also what we got.
We also see Democrats running to defend the acts of sexual abuse by their own. This is documented by pictures, the accused does not deny the charges, because he can't, we have all seen the pictures. If the Democrats had any consistency in their demands for the concerns of women being sexually abused then Al Franken would not be in office right now. That's just one of many Democrats that should be run out of town over sexual abuse charges.
...that Jim Gordon was a wind power pioneer in addition to being the commissioner of the Gotham PD
I'm sure the increased risks of bat killings from windmills played into the failure of these wind power projects.
How do you propose to replace medical insurance, Einstein?
Fixed that for you.
And some Kennedys will make people drink their medicine until they drown of it.
Do you realize that a portion of those power lines that kill birds is due to the need to transmit power from the windmills to where it is used? You may ask, what is that portion? Best estimate is about 5% from what I found on the interwebs, based on that we get 5% of our electricity (approximately for both the world and the USA) from wind now.
If we expand wind power from the current 5% to 50%, which seems to be what many demand, then it's not a trivial 1% of birds killed by windmills any more. Now it's a crisis of 10% of birds killed by windmills.
If there is a desire is to go beyond 50%, perhaps not to produce all of our electricity by wind but to have overcapacity to diminish the need for expensive electrical storage, account for future growth, and/or allow for outages from storms bringing down power lines and windmills, then we will see even greater numbers of birds killed.
We know that windmills will kill birds. We know that this is not a trivial problem to solve. We know that if windmills become more common that this will not be a triviality of bird kill numbers.
Dismiss the problem now if you like. At some point this cannot be dismissed so easily.
At this point it's like the US is being run by the (D)rips and c(R)uds.
And I thought it was the c(R)ips and bloo(D)s.
I seem to recall this dual sourcing of chips causing a significant difference in battery life in previous iPhone versions. Did anyone test if the batteries last as long on both variants?
I don't care much of the data rates on the phone's modem. WiFi is easy enough to find for when I want to avoid data charges and need speed. All I need the modem for is maps, e-mail, and some web browsing so I'm not concerned if the data is 50Mbit or 150Mbit. What does concern me is if the phone eats up its charge.
This speed testing is still interesting, but not what concerns me much. I'd just think that if they went through this effort of testing that the battery life testing would not have added much to their efforts. Given battery problems in the past I'd think that would be something many others would be curious about as well.
It sucks to be poor. Getting old tends to lead to getting sick. Hard labor is hard on the body. Health care can be expensive, especially when people delay their care. None of this is news.
THEY HAD A FORM FOR IT!
Of course they had a form for it. It's probably the same form they use for a DNR order, a release of liability form for refusing services from the hospital.
Yep, health outcomes of African-Americans are poor because of their genetics.
Let's see if I have this straight. I'm not a racist if I point out that...
White men can't jump (It's a movie, look it up)
Whites get more bone cancer than Blacks
Whites get more skin cancer than Blacks
Whites get more breast cancer than Blacks
Blacks have lower rates for lactose tolerance
Blacks have higher rates for sickle cell disease, in fact it's nearly unheard of for anyone not of African descent
I'm not racist because we can trace these traits to genetics.
If I say that those of African descent are more likely to die of breast cancer, even though the rates of getting it in the first place is lower, then now I'm a racist. I point out that BRCA mutations, a known risk for breast cancer, is higher in Blacks than Whites, I'm still a racist. If I point out that the genes for "triple negative" breast cancer (not treatable with the three known medications for breast cancer) are more common in Blacks than Whites then I'm a racist.
I can point out that allergies are more common among Whites than Blacks, because that's not racist. If I point out that more Blacks die from allergies than Whites, then now I'm a racist. I'm sure this has nothing to do with allergies among Whites being more commonly things like animal dander and pollen (annoying but not often deadly) but Blacks tend to be allergic to peanuts, wheat, corn, shellfish, and soy (you know, things that can kill a person). Nope, not genetics, racism.
We'll point out that people of African descent in Africa have an average lifespan of 71. Then we point out that those of African descent in America have an average lifespan of 74. This can't be genetic, that's not possible, because racism. Instead of being grateful of extending their lives by 3 years we have to be upset that they still fall short of European Americans by 3 years. Must be racism. (If my actual ages are wrong then just bite me, I checked the numbers quick and lost where I found them in the shuffle of windows on my screen, assume I pulled them out of nowhere in particular.)
If something good happens to Blacks in America, like being good in sports, then that's genetics. If something bad happens, like treatments for breast cancer failing, then that's racism.
I got it. Whites bad, Blacks good. Because racism.
This is indeed, as you say, "bullshit" because a light year is a measure of distance.
Which is why I put "light year" in quotes. I used the term from the parent post. I realize that it is a measure of distance, I assumed it was used figuratively as meaning a vast difference. I'm sure you knew that.
However, it is very accurate to say that European and Canadian healthcare is about 3 years ahead of healthcare in the US because the average life expectancy in Europe and Canada is about 82 years while it is only about 79 in the US (averaged over both genders).
I noticed that African nations ranked lower than average on that chart compared to the rest of the world, and European nations ranked average to above average. I see that the USA has a population of people from African descent of about 13%. Getting a good number for the percent of people in Europe of African descent is difficult, but my best guess is that it's about 2%. Similarly the percentage of those of European descent in Africa is quite small, also likely about 2%. Is it possible that this very small difference in lifespan between USA and Europe is due to genetics rather than the quality of the medical care?
Here's something interesting, a study showing that people of African descent in America live on the average 4 years less than those of European descent.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
The authors of the article linked above seem to think that this is not genetic but merely a reflection of poverty and education. But it seems Americans are highly educated.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/...
It also seems Americans make good wages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Perhaps it's genetic, perhaps poverty, perhaps education, or maybe it is in fact the healthcare in the different countries. There's other factors too, like climate, crime, diet, accidents, and more. Placing this rather small difference in expected lifespan on the different health care systems alone seems like a pretty big leap in logic. Perhaps a leap in logic the distance of a "light year"?
The tattoo could have likely been deemed a legal document if it had not been on his chest. It's pretty hard to sign your chest with a tattoo needle.
The guy had the foresight to file a DNR statement but lacked the foresight on how his tattoo might appear to anyone that came to treat him. There are services that will make bracelets and such that contain medical information. Presumably this includes a DNR request that's seen as legally binding. He could have signed up for one of these services. If he felt this important enough to need a tattoo then he could have had the tattoo be of some kind of reference to the document, like a phone number to call and a reference number for the document.
I had to do something like this before. One government agency doesn't always talk to another very well but there are ways to connect one file to another in these systems. All I had to do was take a federal document to a county office and they copied the document and gave me a reference number for it. Now, if I need to reference this document again for the county or state government, I can just give them this reference number. I assume this is pretty common practice. Go ahead and tattoo a DNR request to your chest, but make sure the legally binding document is on file and the reference number is tattooed as well.
Perhaps I would have believed you before the UK government refused to allow Baby Charlie to go to the USA for lifesaving treatment.
The UK did not have the ability to treat this child's condition, but people in the USA could. Or at least they claimed they could have. The parents were forced to sue the government to allow them to take the child to the USA for treatment, treatment that would have cost them nothing. They held this up in the courts until the child was too ill to be treated. The UK government could not allow this child to go to the USA because that would have exposed their government funded health care system to be second rate.
The UK government allowed this child to die so that they could save face.
European health care "light years" ahead of the USA? I call bullshit. But we won't know if Baby Charlie could have been saved in the USA, right? If Charlie had lived then he'd have been a walking and talking example of the superior medical care in the USA for decades. Now that he's dead most people have forgotten all about how the UK government all but murdered this infant.
If someone expresses their desire to not be treated, either directly or through documentation or representation, you don't treat them.
Even for children? A person suffering from fevered psychosis? A person known to have bouts of treatable depression?
This man showed up unconscious, and with an elevated blood alcohol level. He was in no condition to verify the veracity of the tattoo. DNR statements can be revoked at any time but death is permanent. So, they treat him until they can verify that he was of sound mind when that tattoo was inked, and that he still wished the request be upheld.
Perhaps in the future we will see tattoos gain the status of a legal document. Until then they are no more a legal document than a child's scribbles in crayon, the ravings of a fevered mind, or the rants of a drunkard.
Nope, it's pretty simple. It's about the money.
I have to wonder. There's a risk in treating any single patient. They might not get paid, that puts them in a hole. Getting sued for malpractice would put them in an even deeper hole. I'd think the wisest thing to do, if it's just about the money, would be to refuse any treatment until they see some means to pay.
If that's the world we live in then we'll see people tattoo insurance policy numbers to their chests. Or, like in the days before such kinds of insurance, people would wear expensive jewelry that they could pawn for their care. Now that I think about it there are modern equivalents to those old traditions. People will get bracelets and necklaces that will contain information on their desires for medical care. I was issued something like that in the Army, it had my name, blood type, and religious preference on it. My mom made my sister wear a bracelet with contact and medical information on it because of her diabetes.
People in the USA don't typically use these medical identifier items because we have reasonable assurance that no matter where we go someone will see to our medical needs. No doubt they'd seek reimbursement for their services but those services will not be refused because we weren't wearing enough gold around our necks, or didn't have an insurance policy number on a bracelet.
If this guy had thought this through then he could have gotten one of those bracelets like my mom bought my sister. It seems that he did in fact have the proper paperwork on file somewhere. Instead of a tattoo which has no precedent as a legally enforceable document this guy could have gotten a bracelet with the means to reference this document.
I'm pretty sure that if someone comes in without identification, no family present, unconscious, likely drunk, and a DNR tattoo then I'd think that the lowest cost and lowest risk thing to do would be to not treat the man. They don't know if they'd get paid. There's more to this than just profit.
It sounds like you've either never been to a hospital, or never watched someone you know die before.
I have been to a hospital before and I have had to watch someone die. That's why I don't believe that this is something that can be summed up into any one motive. There are many people involved, each with their own motives, and their motives having many aspects to them. Claiming that the people that work at hospitals are only there for the money is something I find rather insulting.
I have no doubt that there are people in medicine only for the money, but saying ALL of them are there only for the money is painting with a too broad of a brush. We'll see surgeons waive their fees all the time in cases of patients being unable to pay. They know they'll make their money in speaking fees, teaching, elective surgery, or whatever. If everyone was in medicine only for the money then this would never happen.
That simple. In the seven 'extra' days he 'lived' he was billed for doctors, specialist, anesthesiologist, nurses, tubes, IV bags, catheters, meds, rubber gloves, and many other things.
Or, maybe it's because people don't like seeing other people die if they can help it. We can break this down to a profit motive but that's not likely on the minds of the people working on that shift or that patient. If you are going to put a profit motive on it then it's more like to them they get paid to not let people die.
Perhaps put that in your profit motive perspective. These are people getting paid to keep other people alive and healthy. If they are shown to be "compassionate" and letting the sick die in peace then they could find themselves no longer employed. This can be seen as being incompetent, uncaring, or even malicious. This gets to my next possible answer.
Maybe hospitals don't want to be seen as allowing people to die. This can affect their profits. Even if it's a charitable hospital that lives on donations a history of not attending to people can diminish donations. Taken too far and a hospital can be sued by a grieving family for malpractice, or even murder, for not attending to people's needs, or what they perceive as a need. The costs of the rubber gloves and meds used in any given case have to be tiny compared to the costs of defending a lawsuit and the investigation of the care provided.
This is a complex issue and calling this just a tactic to gain more money in billable services is simplifying the issue into the absurd.
I can get 4k over HDMI, but I always use DP because HDMI can only manage 30Hz, not 60Hz, and the mouse movement is very obviously not smooth to me at 30Hz.
I have to wonder if it's the refresh rate or something else going on. 30Hz should be fast enough to keep mouse movement smooth. That must be HDMI 1.4 then, HDMI 2.0 would support 4K/60. That just shows I'm not the only one seeing a lack of support for HDMI 2.0.
I don't think I'm asking too much of HDMI here. DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 both came out in 2009, and both support at least 4K/60. Why is it that HDMI 1.4, or later, on real and actual devices is so hard to find? Why has DisplayPort succeeded where HDMI failed?
As I stated before I don't care too much about what kind of port is carrying my video and sound, so long as it works. However, if all else was equal then I might lean towards HDMI because it has some unique features that DP and MHL do not. I've been using VGA for far too long so I'm looking for something new. I have some HDMI devices already so it's not like I don't have an investment in it now. I'll be looking to upgrade some hardware here soon and if I can't find HDMI devices that fit my needs then I'll be leaving it behind. Once I make that switch then I'm not likely to switch back.
I suspect I'm not unique in my dilemma. HDMI fell behind and stayed behind for too long. It may be too late for them to catch up now.