You'd do that only if you want the bricks to be visible on the outside. If you don't care about that, just insulate the outside of the wall... that's it.
Also, remember that most bricks in the US aren't the somewhat hollow type that's used over here, which has quite good insulating properties, but solid bricks which conduct heat quite well.
Not just dust. If it gives of flammable vapors when heated (*WOOD*. Basically, _any_ organic molecule will break down into smaller, more flammable molecules when heated), it can cause flashover.
It can't be fun, so the solution is to build a brick exterior and set up a wooden insulated studwall on the interior.
That's a stupid solution. Who taught you that ?P The point of insulation is to move the dew point as far to the _outside_ of the wall as possible, since you don't want to have water condensating on the inside of your concrete wall and turn it into a mildew farm. The way to do this is by insulating the brick walls on the _outside_, not on the inside. Slap 15-20 cm of insulation on the outside (or more, as it seems to become more and more common), and you're good.
Besides, what is going to hold up your concrete second floor? Or is it that all houses in your country have no cellars or second floors?
All of the houses around here (Germany) have cellars, second floors, maybe third and fourth floors, and attics. And they're built out of bricks and concrete. What's so unbelievable about that ?
The cost of constructing a house made entirely of mortar, brick, and stone is immense.
Dunno. There seem to be enough people around here willing and able to afford these "immense costs". Maybe because they aren't "costs", but rather an investment - into something that doesn't get blown over in the next storm or burns down in five minutes.
Perhaps you should pick up a history book. Maybe some manners too.
I'll do that after you brush up your reading comprehension. Thank you.
Germany was not divided into "Allies" and "Soviets" (the very idea is silly since the Soviets were PART of the allies).
And that's why I clearly distinguished between "Soviets" and "western Allies". Anyone with the most basic knowledge about WWII knows that the latter means "France, Britain and the US". I didn't think this was worth mentioning.
It was divided into four occupation zones, French, British, American and Soviet.
Are you sure you're referring to my post and not some that only exists in your fantasy ? I clearly wrote "... out of the four occupation zones...".
I also wrote "There were plans for breaking up Germany, but they were all discarded.". I know about the plans, I just didn't feel it was relevant to mention all of them.
The Soviets were all for a "unified", "neutral" Germany which would have ended up as becoming a Soviet satellite state (through propaganda, subversion, or less subtle tactics). The western Allies (yep, that means France, Britain and the US) at least partially smelled a rat and declined, and later on merged their occupation zones into what became the FRG.
No, it's logical removal of a threat from society or from ever harming another again.
LWOP plus solitary confinement does that, and is not a permanent condition should circumstances no longer support it.
(coerced into saying you murdered someone? maybe if you did it but were tricked into saying that you did, but noone is going to admit to murdering someone they didn't,
Oh... you mention another good argument - being tricked.
How coerce someone into confessing about anything ? It's all just a matter of leverage. Ask any member of organized crime. And if threats of doing nasty things to the person in question aren't enough, how about threatening their extended family ? There's lots of offers many people could't refuse. Especially if they have a wife and kids.
and if they did, they know the consequences of their actions and therefore such a 'liability' is meaningless
That's not how justice is supposed to work. At least in any society that wants to have any claims to being civilized.
My belief is that if there are 2 eyewitnesses minimum,
Eyewitnesses can be horrendously unreliable. And that doesn't even include the possibility of someone intentionally trying to frame someone else by using a disguise.
or if the evidence is overwhelming,
Evidence in a quite a few cases of rape was really overwhelming in the 80s and 90s (including eyewitnesses and blood type matching, no less). Nonetheless, quite a number of convicts turned out innocent after DNA analysis was used. Their lives are pretty much fscked up because of what was considered rock-solid evidence back then.
or if the person confesses,
Confessions can be bogus, if the accused is an utter nutcase (but innocent), or bought, or coerced.
ie, there is little to no possibility of them being innocent,
Define "little". How many executed innocents per million murderers are you going to accept in your quest for what is essentially revenge ?
I'm not seeing the problem with murderers being executed.
Are you also seeing no problem with the inevitable collateral damage of capital punishment - i.e. executed people who are later proven to be innocent ?
There doesn't seem to be too much outcry about that. Putting someone in prison mistakenly is bad enough, but at least that someone can get an apology and some compensation. Executing an innocent is one of the worst mistakes authority can make, and there is no way to prevent all of these mistakes.
The solution after WWII was to break Germany into two countries.
Crap, man, pick up a history book, please.
Germany ended up divided because the western Allies didn't like the Soviet plan for making a unified Germany out of the four occupation zones (which would have been "neutral" at best, or more likely ended up a Commie satellite state, like the GDR), and the Soviets of course didn't like any of the plans the western Allies had (which all involved Germany not becoming a satellite state of the Soviet Union).
There were plans for breaking up Germany, but they were all discarded. The final result wasn't a solution someone came up with, it was the end result of the winners not being able to agree on one solution.
AFAIK, Germany has no codified freedom of speech clause.
Actually, this is codified in several parts of the Grundgesetz (Constitution), most notably in Article 5.
Certainly there's quite a bit of censorship -- bans on nazi propaganda, for instance.
There's a very narrow-spectrum ban on certain applications of certain symbols. I could come up with similar laws in the US. How quickly do you thinkg someone would end up in jail who voiced his opinion publicly that the prez oughta die ?
In Germany, if a bill like this passes, it's probably enforceable. Whereas here in the US, it would be challenged on first amendment grounds.
In Germany, luckily we have a Federal Constitutional Court with judges that are is all too happy to slap overly enthusiastic lawmakers and members of the executive left and right if they think that the Grundgesetz is just a godd4mn piece of paper. Whereas in the US, the Supreme Court seems to think that executive branch is right by default.
... in some of the microcontroller-related forums I frequent.
There's an annoying type of posting, usually labelled "Gimme code" or "Do my work for me". Judging from the name of the posters, most of these are from India, and usually demonstrate a lack of even the most elemental C and assembly programming skills, and the inability to find/read/understand technical documents and datasheets. They also look like the posters are already working on industrial-level projects without having any clue on how to tackle the problems they face, or what's possible or impossible with the hardware they intend to use.
Then, if I debate it long enough, we find out, "well, usually there is a waiting list for this-or-that surgery... and true, they only use MRI machines in extreme cases because there aren't that many of them, and..."
Oh, yeah, right, I've got a good story about that. My dad (MD, Ph.D.) had to fight my insurance provider once, tooth and claw, to cover MRI scans. They claimed there was no research showing that it would help with the diagnosis, and that there aren't that many of them and that they're only used in extreme cases, and that it would be 10+ years until the research was good enough.
He had statements from the three leading neurosurgeons in the country that the scans (which he paid for out of pocket) helped immensely with the diagnosis. The insurance provider eventually paid for the scans.
Less than year later, MRI scans were included in the catalog of covered procedures.
Oh... here's the good part: The story took part in early 1984, when there were only two MRI scanners in the country.
So how about cutting to the chase and tell us the disadvantages of your system,
It's kinda expensive. Right now, it's about 650 Euros per month (it scales with your income to some point and is then capped. I've hit that capping point), half of it is taken out of my pre-tax income, the other half is paid by my employer. Coverage includes the whole family (minus any members who are working and making enough money for their own insurance), which makes this a horrible deal for singles (who could get private insurance for less than 150 Euros a month if they're lucky), but a really great deal for families. Some things do have co-payments, especially if there's a basic version and a more sophisticated version (amalgam and simple plastic fillings are covered, gold/ceramic/multilayer plastic fillings require a copayment). I'd have to pay extra for a single-bed room in the hospital (that is a standard feature of private health insurance). Once you decide to leave the public system, it's hard to get back in (you'll have to be employed and make less than the threshold mentioned above).
The main disadvantage is for the doctors, actually. They get a lot less money (about 1/3) for public-insured patients than for private-insured ones. There's a lot less of the latter, though.
For example, I have a genetic predisposition for blood clots. I have never had a blood clot and am not on a blood thinner. But due to the fact I am 5 - 10% more likely to develop a blood clot, I was denied coverage. This genetic problem is noted on my medical records
I know why you think that, but it's not a "good thing", for a simple reason: What if you don't like you're health care? I can go to another insurer.
If you see everything as black and white...
I can go to another insurer too. A different public one, or a private one. I can go without insurance if I really wanted to.
I can go to another doctor.
Me too ! I can go to any doctor in the whole country. And some of the neighboring countries, too.
State-run medical care doesn't exclude any of the things you mentioned. It all depends on the details of the implementation.
You're at the mercy of what your government provides, including the infamous "waiting list".
You're just replacing one waiting list with another one (ordered by who'll pay the most).
I think the correct spelling is Europe, but then again, I'm not as smart as you....
You once again failed to follow your own signature (plus the part about understanding that I recommended to add). Or your sense of humor is nonexistent. Or you're just pathologically vindictive.
Don't you have better things to do than scanning my posts and then pointing out a funny (and common) misspelling that I put in there deliberately ? You might want to look at some of my other posts to verify that I am indeed able to spell "Europe" correctly.
Your only reasonable way to get health insurance is to be in some kind of group plan where your risks can be spread across a large pool of individuals.
Actually, isn't this the point of _any_ type of insurance ? The cherry-picking in individual plans leads the whole principle ad absurdum, but I guess it's the best for the people that an insurance company really cares for (its shareholders).
but she wouldn't be covered so they'd just let her die?
Oh no, that's not going to happen. Ending up neck-deep in debt is the likely outcome, with all its nasty side effects (sleeping under bridges and such).
... that your government bullies you into a health insurance that doesn't pay when it really matters.
Depends on what country you're actually in.
Here (Germany), your only "bullied" into health insurance if you are a) an employee and b) make less than X Euros a month. If you don't fulfill both conditions, you're free to go uninsured, pick up private health insurance, or stay in the public plan. And even if you're bullied into the public plan, there's different carriers to chose from.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you're far more likely to survive the couple of millenia between domesticating cattle and making your first gun if you can tolerate lactose.
You'd do that only if you want the bricks to be visible on the outside. If you don't care about that, just insulate the outside of the wall ... that's it.
Also, remember that most bricks in the US aren't the somewhat hollow type that's used over here, which has quite good insulating properties, but solid bricks which conduct heat quite well.
if reduced to dust in the air,
Not just dust. If it gives of flammable vapors when heated (*WOOD*. Basically, _any_ organic molecule will break down into smaller, more flammable molecules when heated), it can cause flashover.
-concrete+brick in the first paragraph. Ooops.
That's a stupid solution. Who taught you that ?P
The point of insulation is to move the dew point as far to the _outside_ of the wall as possible, since you don't want to have water condensating on the inside of your concrete wall and turn it into a mildew farm. The way to do this is by insulating the brick walls on the _outside_, not on the inside. Slap 15-20 cm of insulation on the outside (or more, as it seems to become more and more common), and you're good.
Besides, what is going to hold up your concrete second floor? Or is it that all houses in your country have no cellars or second floors?
All of the houses around here (Germany) have cellars, second floors, maybe third and fourth floors, and attics. And they're built out of bricks and concrete. What's so unbelievable about that ?
The cost of constructing a house made entirely of mortar, brick, and stone is immense.
Dunno. There seem to be enough people around here willing and able to afford these "immense costs". Maybe because they aren't "costs", but rather an investment - into something that doesn't get blown over in the next storm or burns down in five minutes.
I'll do that after you brush up your reading comprehension. Thank you.
Germany was not divided into "Allies" and "Soviets" (the very idea is silly since the Soviets were PART of the allies).
And that's why I clearly distinguished between "Soviets" and "western Allies". Anyone with the most basic knowledge about WWII knows that the latter means "France, Britain and the US". I didn't think this was worth mentioning.
It was divided into four occupation zones, French, British, American and Soviet.
Are you sure you're referring to my post and not some that only exists in your fantasy ? I clearly wrote "... out of the four occupation zones
I also wrote "There were plans for breaking up Germany, but they were all discarded.". I know about the plans, I just didn't feel it was relevant to mention all of them.
The Soviets were all for a "unified", "neutral" Germany which would have ended up as becoming a Soviet satellite state (through propaganda, subversion, or less subtle tactics). The western Allies (yep, that means France, Britain and the US) at least partially smelled a rat and declined, and later on merged their occupation zones into what became the FRG.
Yes. But (saturated) animal fats usually taste better than (unsaturated) trans fats.
So, for great taste, go for the natural unhealthy fat, not for the chemically altered, really unhealth fat.
LWOP plus solitary confinement does that, and is not a permanent condition should circumstances no longer support it.
(coerced into saying you murdered someone? maybe if you did it but were tricked into saying that you did, but noone is going to admit to murdering someone they didn't,
Oh ... you mention another good argument - being tricked.
How coerce someone into confessing about anything ? It's all just a matter of leverage. Ask any member of organized crime. And if threats of doing nasty things to the person in question aren't enough, how about threatening their extended family ? There's lots of offers many people could't refuse. Especially if they have a wife and kids.
and if they did, they know the consequences of their actions and therefore such a 'liability' is meaningless
That's not how justice is supposed to work. At least in any society that wants to have any claims to being civilized.
Eyewitnesses can be horrendously unreliable. And that doesn't even include the possibility of someone intentionally trying to frame someone else by using a disguise.
or if the evidence is overwhelming,
Evidence in a quite a few cases of rape was really overwhelming in the 80s and 90s (including eyewitnesses and blood type matching, no less). Nonetheless, quite a number of convicts turned out innocent after DNA analysis was used. Their lives are pretty much fscked up because of what was considered rock-solid evidence back then.
or if the person confesses,
Confessions can be bogus, if the accused is an utter nutcase (but innocent), or bought, or coerced.
ie, there is little to no possibility of them being innocent,
Define "little". How many executed innocents per million murderers are you going to accept in your quest for what is essentially revenge ?
Are you also seeing no problem with the inevitable collateral damage of capital punishment - i.e. executed people who are later proven to be innocent ?
There doesn't seem to be too much outcry about that. Putting someone in prison mistakenly is bad enough, but at least that someone can get an apology and some compensation. Executing an innocent is one of the worst mistakes authority can make, and there is no way to prevent all of these mistakes.
You may display as many swastikas as you like, as long as the context is educational or artistic (get advice from a lawyer if you plan the latter).
Crap, man, pick up a history book, please.
Germany ended up divided because the western Allies didn't like the Soviet plan for making a unified Germany out of the four occupation zones (which would have been "neutral" at best, or more likely ended up a Commie satellite state, like the GDR), and the Soviets of course didn't like any of the plans the western Allies had (which all involved Germany not becoming a satellite state of the Soviet Union).
There were plans for breaking up Germany, but they were all discarded. The final result wasn't a solution someone came up with, it was the end result of the winners not being able to agree on one solution.
To you Americans: Think Texas. That's about how Bavaria is compared to Germany.
Actually, this is codified in several parts of the Grundgesetz (Constitution), most notably in Article 5.
Certainly there's quite a bit of censorship -- bans on nazi propaganda, for instance.
There's a very narrow-spectrum ban on certain applications of certain symbols. I could come up with similar laws in the US. How quickly do you thinkg someone would end up in jail who voiced his opinion publicly that the prez oughta die ?
In Germany, if a bill like this passes, it's probably enforceable. Whereas here in the US, it would be challenged on first amendment grounds.
In Germany, luckily we have a Federal Constitutional Court with judges that are is all too happy to slap overly enthusiastic lawmakers and members of the executive left and right if they think that the Grundgesetz is just a godd4mn piece of paper. Whereas in the US, the Supreme Court seems to think that executive branch is right by default.
There's an annoying type of posting, usually labelled "Gimme code" or "Do my work for me". Judging from the name of the posters, most of these are from India, and usually demonstrate a lack of even the most elemental C and assembly programming skills, and the inability to find/read/understand technical documents and datasheets. They also look like the posters are already working on industrial-level projects without having any clue on how to tackle the problems they face, or what's possible or impossible with the hardware they intend to use.
Absolutely not.
1. It's un-American (anything those Europeans do is by default).
2. It could hurt the economy.
3. It most definitely helps the terrorists.
4. Since when did the US ever take advice from backwater countries in the middle of nowhere ?
... a piece of software that can predict from a 5-minute test game of Quake who's most likely to frag ?
That he was killed
Oh, yeah, right, I've got a good story about that. My dad (MD, Ph.D.) had to fight my insurance provider once, tooth and claw, to cover MRI scans. They claimed there was no research showing that it would help with the diagnosis, and that there aren't that many of them and that they're only used in extreme cases, and that it would be 10+ years until the research was good enough.
He had statements from the three leading neurosurgeons in the country that the scans (which he paid for out of pocket) helped immensely with the diagnosis. The insurance provider eventually paid for the scans.
Less than year later, MRI scans were included in the catalog of covered procedures.
Oh ... here's the good part: The story took part in early 1984, when there were only two MRI scanners in the country.
So how about cutting to the chase and tell us the disadvantages of your system,
It's kinda expensive. Right now, it's about 650 Euros per month (it scales with your income to some point and is then capped. I've hit that capping point), half of it is taken out of my pre-tax income, the other half is paid by my employer. Coverage includes the whole family (minus any members who are working and making enough money for their own insurance), which makes this a horrible deal for singles (who could get private insurance for less than 150 Euros a month if they're lucky), but a really great deal for families. Some things do have co-payments, especially if there's a basic version and a more sophisticated version (amalgam and simple plastic fillings are covered, gold/ceramic/multilayer plastic fillings require a copayment). I'd have to pay extra for a single-bed room in the hospital (that is a standard feature of private health insurance). Once you decide to leave the public system, it's hard to get back in (you'll have to be employed and make less than the threshold mentioned above).
The main disadvantage is for the doctors, actually. They get a lot less money (about 1/3) for public-insured patients than for private-insured ones. There's a lot less of the latter, though.
If you see everything as black and white ...
I can go to another insurer too. A different public one, or a private one. I can go without insurance if I really wanted to.
I can go to another doctor.
Me too ! I can go to any doctor in the whole country. And some of the neighboring countries, too.
State-run medical care doesn't exclude any of the things you mentioned. It all depends on the details of the implementation. You're at the mercy of what your government provides, including the infamous "waiting list".
You're just replacing one waiting list with another one (ordered by who'll pay the most).
You once again failed to follow your own signature (plus the part about understanding that I recommended to add). Or your sense of humor is nonexistent. Or you're just pathologically vindictive.
Don't you have better things to do than scanning my posts and then pointing out a funny (and common) misspelling that I put in there deliberately ? You might want to look at some of my other posts to verify that I am indeed able to spell "Europe" correctly.
Actually, isn't this the point of _any_ type of insurance ? The cherry-picking in individual plans leads the whole principle ad absurdum, but I guess it's the best for the people that an insurance company really cares for (its shareholders).
Oh no, that's not going to happen. Ending up neck-deep in debt is the likely outcome, with all its nasty side effects (sleeping under bridges and such).
Depends on what country you're actually in.
Here (Germany), your only "bullied" into health insurance if you are a) an employee and b) make less than X Euros a month. If you don't fulfill both conditions, you're free to go uninsured, pick up private health insurance, or stay in the public plan. And even if you're bullied into the public plan, there's different carriers to chose from.