See, they only answered one question wrong (the correct answer for Question Two in Section Two was the third option),
Not quite. The correct answer for question one, section two is, of course, #1. Only liberal socialist commie hippies would pass up a chance for profit.
Or, how about this: don't be a criminal and you'll never be in the position to have to lie about NOT committing a crime.
Sorry. Even if you didn't commit the crime, and told the court so under oath, you will still have lied under oath if you're found guilty for the crime (because if you're found guilty, then, legally, you _did_ commit the crime).
The total lack of any evidence for extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise, should be a strong indicator that we are very, very alone.
After having a couple of blind guys wearing boxing gloves comb through this haystack, we conclude that there are no needles in it.
Seriously, though - our tools for looking for extraterrestrial life (let alone outside our solar system) are still exceptionally crude. We can't even reliably find earth-sized planets outside the solar systems yet - we need pure luck for that (i.e. we can detect them if they transit).
And, heck, then there's the sheer size of interstellar distances. If there was an exact copy of Earth sitting in a solar system just a measly 200 ly away, we still wouldn't be able to pick up any of their transmissions, because they started transmitting less than 200 years ago.
So, yeah, we can say pretty much with certainty that Earth is the only place with macroscopic life on it in our solar system. But that's about it.
I doubt that. Just because there are nicotinic acetylcholine receptors doesn't mean that the body actually produces nicotine, it just means that these receptors will also respond to nicotine. (There's also muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, which react to muscarine (a toxin found in certain mushrooms)).
It seems to me that there must be some other chemical at work when it comes to the addictivness of cigarettes.
Yeah, the tobacco companies have been known to add all kinds of crap to cigarettes to increase the addictive effect of nicotine.
In your case, I'd just suspect that your brain has learned to connect the "act" of smoking with an incoming nicotine hit. Also, the "spike" in blood nicotine levels through smoking is much higher than through other forms of application (short of an i.v.), even if the same amount of nicotine is taken up.
If you consume a tablespoon of pure caffeine (actually I think it takes less) you'll be dead before you hit the floor.
Ok, I'll bite:
1 Tsp = 1.5 (cm^3)
Density of caffeine: 1.2g/(cm^3)
LD50 of caffeine: 150 mg/(kg body weight)
So for an average person of 70 kg, you'd need over five tablespoons to reach the LD50.
wiki: "One study found that tobacco grown in India averaged only 0.09 pCi per gram of polonium 210, whereas tobacco grown in the United States averaged 0.516 pCi per gram."
With government running it, there is only one provider, don't like there service levels oh well.
You can set up a system with different providers, see Germany. Want to have a local branch where you live ? Go to the more expensive provider. Don't care for that ? Pick a cheaper one.
Coverage outside of your country is next to zero
Travel health insurance is dirt cheap. Seriously, I couldn't care less if I'm covered abroad - I just take out a 20 Euro travel health insurance and that's it.
A government council or board will decide if you get that operation.
Dunno.. doesn't happen around here. Your doctor decides what you need. Don't like that ? See a different doctor to get a second and third opinion.
Use abuse, house wife is needs a diversion, kid has the snivels, see the doctor 4 times a month raising the systems costs.
A minimal copayment stops that just fine.
state of the art medicine is slow to come into the system.
Once something is established to be superior to the current gold standard, it will come into the system very quickly. There was a waiting line for MRIs and stringent criteria on who gets one in the early and mid 80s. Today, you'll get one if you have knee problems, and the machines have found their way into small towns.
So before you go leap down the socialistic path of government supplied health care, take a real look at what it will cost you.
Been living under such a system for 30+ years and wouldn't trade it for anything else. Especially now that my ~600 Euros a month (half paid by me, half by my employer) also covers my wife and kids.
If universal health care is in place, are we required to treat everyone with these machines since they would have the best chance to live?
No, since not every cancer patient would benefit from the treatment (contrary to what the manufacturer of the machine says).
Usually, once a certain treatment has been determined to be superior to the "conventional" methods, it will only take a few years for the price of the appropriate equipment to drop. See MRI - fairly exotic and reserved for patients with certain neurological diseases in the early 80s (and the machines were in the eight-figure range), whereas today, you can get an MRI if you have problems with your knee joint.
"enjoying", I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Would you recognize sarcasm if someone came and bonked your head repeatedly against it ? Because, apparently, using quotation marks to clearly denote sarcsam isn't enough.
He informed us that in the Ukraine where they have socialized healthcare, everyone receives healthcare, but only those who can afford to bribe doctors receive decent health care.
Right. Does the US really need to compare its system to that of a former Soviet Republic to find out that it's not so bad after all ?
Every time I hear someone say "I couldn't get insurance because of a preexisting condition" I mentally translate it to: "I couldn't find an insurance company dumb enough to pay for the ailment I already have."
In that case, you're translating it wrong. You don't need to be a 100% risk to be undesirable - being a 6% risk when 2.5% is the average is enough. Not every preexisting condition needs treatment.
Why do you think employer-funded health insurance works?
Because the insurer has a contract with the employer that includes not asking for pre-existing conditions of anyone covered.
You spread out the risks of coverage over a large population.
You're more profitable if you keep out the undesirables. You're not doing your shareholders a favor if you have this option and skip it.
this case, the population is the entire country-- what health insurer would forego the opportunity to cover hundreds of millions of people?
No one, of course. Just like no health insurer would forego an opportunity to weed out the undesirables firse if given half the chance.
Hundreds of millions of people ? -> Lots of profit
Hundreds of millions of people minus a few percent of undesirables ? -> Really big frigging huge profit.
Now, do the Germans sit there with a cross border state, without the bomb? I don't think so.
They're already sharing a border with France, and then there's that island across the channel.
Also, Russia doesn't need to threaten anyone in Europe with "the bomb". They merely need to mention that they're planning long, extensive maintenance on their oil and gas pipelines. Much more civil, much less destructive, very, very effective.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not deciding anything, they're just following the good old nuclear fusion approach:
It's just twenty years away
Not quite. The correct answer for question one, section two is, of course, #1. Only liberal socialist commie hippies would pass up a chance for profit.
Sorry. Even if you didn't commit the crime, and told the court so under oath, you will still have lied under oath if you're found guilty for the crime (because if you're found guilty, then, legally, you _did_ commit the crime).
After having a couple of blind guys wearing boxing gloves comb through this haystack, we conclude that there are no needles in it.
Seriously, though - our tools for looking for extraterrestrial life (let alone outside our solar system) are still exceptionally crude. We can't even reliably find earth-sized planets outside the solar systems yet - we need pure luck for that (i.e. we can detect them if they transit).
And, heck, then there's the sheer size of interstellar distances. If there was an exact copy of Earth sitting in a solar system just a measly 200 ly away, we still wouldn't be able to pick up any of their transmissions, because they started transmitting less than 200 years ago.
So, yeah, we can say pretty much with certainty that Earth is the only place with macroscopic life on it in our solar system. But that's about it.
I doubt that. Just because there are nicotinic acetylcholine receptors doesn't mean that the body actually produces nicotine, it just means that these receptors will also respond to nicotine. (There's also muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, which react to muscarine (a toxin found in certain mushrooms)).
You're right. I hang my head in shame.
I assume the figure for density applies to just that - pure caffeine. So unless you heap the tablespoon, you'll only get 1.8 grams of it per Tsp.
Yeah, the tobacco companies have been known to add all kinds of crap to cigarettes to increase the addictive effect of nicotine.
In your case, I'd just suspect that your brain has learned to connect the "act" of smoking with an incoming nicotine hit. Also, the "spike" in blood nicotine levels through smoking is much higher than through other forms of application (short of an i.v.), even if the same amount of nicotine is taken up.
Ok, I'll bite:
1 Tsp = 1.5 (cm^3)
Density of caffeine: 1.2g/(cm^3)
LD50 of caffeine: 150 mg/(kg body weight)
So for an average person of 70 kg, you'd need over five tablespoons to reach the LD50.
Not exclusively nicotine. They sell an image. Nicotine is just a nice side effect that keeps people physically addicted to their stuff.
Yeah, by injecting the stuff into some cow/horse/pig/whatever and then extracting the resulting antibodies ...
He's really quick to realize that. Paracelsus said that some time in the 16th century
Hm. Any data on Russian cigarettes ?
Seriously. Can any field of science do "without math" ? Even in fields like psychology, you still need math for statistics.
You can set up a system with different providers, see Germany. Want to have a local branch where you live ? Go to the more expensive provider. Don't care for that ? Pick a cheaper one.
Coverage outside of your country is next to zero
Travel health insurance is dirt cheap. Seriously, I couldn't care less if I'm covered abroad - I just take out a 20 Euro travel health insurance and that's it.
A government council or board will decide if you get that operation.
Dunno
Use abuse, house wife is needs a diversion, kid has the snivels, see the doctor 4 times a month raising the systems costs.
A minimal copayment stops that just fine.
state of the art medicine is slow to come into the system.
Once something is established to be superior to the current gold standard, it will come into the system very quickly. There was a waiting line for MRIs and stringent criteria on who gets one in the early and mid 80s. Today, you'll get one if you have knee problems, and the machines have found their way into small towns.
So before you go leap down the socialistic path of government supplied health care, take a real look at what it will cost you.
Been living under such a system for 30+ years and wouldn't trade it for anything else. Especially now that my ~600 Euros a month (half paid by me, half by my employer) also covers my wife and kids.
No, since not every cancer patient would benefit from the treatment (contrary to what the manufacturer of the machine says).
Usually, once a certain treatment has been determined to be superior to the "conventional" methods, it will only take a few years for the price of the appropriate equipment to drop. See MRI - fairly exotic and reserved for patients with certain neurological diseases in the early 80s (and the machines were in the eight-figure range), whereas today, you can get an MRI if you have problems with your knee joint.
Would you recognize sarcasm if someone came and bonked your head repeatedly against it ? Because, apparently, using quotation marks to clearly denote sarcsam isn't enough.
Right. Does the US really need to compare its system to that of a former Soviet Republic to find out that it's not so bad after all ?
In that case, you're translating it wrong. You don't need to be a 100% risk to be undesirable - being a 6% risk when 2.5% is the average is enough. Not every preexisting condition needs treatment.
Unless you already have eight-figure savings, there's plenty of cases where you'll end up neck-deep in debt if you try.
Because the insurer has a contract with the employer that includes not asking for pre-existing conditions of anyone covered.
You spread out the risks of coverage over a large population.
You're more profitable if you keep out the undesirables. You're not doing your shareholders a favor if you have this option and skip it.
this case, the population is the entire country-- what health insurer would forego the opportunity to cover hundreds of millions of people?
No one, of course. Just like no health insurer would forego an opportunity to weed out the undesirables firse if given half the chance.
Hundreds of millions of people ? -> Lots of profit
Hundreds of millions of people minus a few percent of undesirables ? -> Really big frigging huge profit.
Also, Russia doesn't need to threaten anyone in Europe with "the bomb". They merely need to mention that they're planning long, extensive maintenance on their oil and gas pipelines. Much more civil, much less destructive, very, very effective.