Because in a government run system the government decides who gets treatment and who doesn't!
In a government-run health insurance system the government only decides what they pay for and what they won't (just like a commercial insurance company would. Strange coincidence, don't you think?). You can still get any treatment you want if you're willing to pay for it out of pocket (or have supplemental insurance that covers these treatments.
Do you really want to give the government the power over life and death?
The government already has that power, at least the one in the US.
If auto insurance were like car insurance, you'd have to go through them every time you checked your oil.
And if the prices of an oil change out of pocket were as inflated and intelligible as those for medical services, sure as hell you'd have your insurance company "negotiate" a better price.
Just imagine if the bill for your oil change included things like workshop usage fee ($75), hydraulic lift usage fee ($20), 2 paper towels ($50), 6 gallons of motor oil ($500, never mind that your engine only needs two), etc.
You can force them to spend their money a certain way, by taxing them 100%, but they can still try to avoid it, or move out of the country. This is why socialism is impossible: it amounts to punishing those who make the right choices to reward those who make the wrong choices...
Actually you should read up on glucose metabolism. Your body does not make glucose EVER except from the carbohydrates you eat. There is no other magical way you get glucose.
Your body will break down your own fat or use fat from your diet and use that to fuel your brain. It's not the preferred energy source for your brain but it will work.
Your body _will_ make glucose from other substrates, because it's the energy source that the brain needs. Also, your red blood cells _cannot_ use anything but glucose for their energy needs. Blood glucose levels need to be kept in the right range, or you'll die - regardless of the availability of other energy sources.
An active nuclear reactor is very hot. Even after a crash, the remains would be very hot for some time.
A nuclear reactor in a plane has to be small. It may be hot, but there's not much mass that's actually hot - maybe a few kilograms. That's quite different from the reactor in a power plant, where you have a few tons of water and fuel that are hot.
If the random forces of nature can produce natural nuclear reactors in the ground, who can say that this cannot happen in a crash?
The chance is there, but you're more likely to win the lottery a few times in a row. Reactors are built to achieve criticality only when the conditions are exactly right. The state of the reactor after crashing into a building is pretty much the opposite of exactly right.
Either way, they've got some serious roadblocks to cut through before they can use this process without paying some heafty licensing fees, or some heafty legal settlements for patent infrincgement.
Have fun trying to prove patent infringement when you can't get the details of the process and machines the Navy is using because of national security.
If you turn up the energy of the gamma rays, you can split single neutrons or photons from a nucleus via the nuclear photo effect. And you can induce nuclear fission with particles other than neutrons, but it requires more energy (due to repulsion between to positively charged nuclei) and you're not going to get a sustained fission reaction this way. Still, particle accelerators are fun.;)
Wouldn't it be cool if there was a source as plentiful as the air we breathe...
Yep, would be really cool if we had such a source. Especially if "rich in CO2" means more than 0.038 percent by volume. Would also be nice if it didn't come with a huge load of highly reactive contaminant.
But removing carbon from the sea and blasting it into the air where it'll compound existing problems, including reabsorption back into the sea, and using large amounts of energy to do so, still doesn't strike me as environmentally-friendly in particular...
The alternative is to take carbon that's already sequestered out of sequestration, process it, ship it halfway around the globe, and then blast it into the air.
Something that's essentially an unshielded nuclear reactor with wings and two dozen megaton nukes, flying at low altitude with Mach 3, really isn't a laughing matter.
Carbon dioxide in seawater isn't "sequestered", because it's merely at an equilibrium with atmospheric CO2. And the increased concentration of CO2 in seawater is causing its own set of problems (ocean acidification).
When you come up with a way to make the jet fuel directly out of CO2, water, and the energy in the uranium, let us know.
That's not the problem (synthesize methanol from CO2 and water, then synthesize longer hydrocarbons from there, e.g. by partially burning the methanol and turning it into synthesis gas). The problems are 1) extracting pure CO2 from air/water (obviously, you don't want any oxygen in your CO2, and the concentration of CO2 in air is fairly low) and 2) making the process efficient enough to be actually useful.
Yes I've heard of whole grain, Oats and the like still need to be cooked before the body can access the carbs in them - if you eat raw oats its just counts as fiber.
Err... no. Grains need to be crushed somehow, but not cooked. Ever crushed a wheat/oats/barley grain? The white stuff inside is basically pure carbohydrates, which the amylase in your saliva can break down into a water-soluble sugar (maltose) that can be resorbed in your intestine.
Cooking just makes the process more efficient since it allows for more efficient mixing of the carbohydrates and the enzyme.
Yes... they know going to the school with the intention to shoot it up when they also know the other students and teachers are armed would get them killed.
For someone who doesn't plan on surviving anyway, that just makes dying easier and a lot more spectacular. Plus, they might get to witness the whole campus shooting up each other as people start misidentifying each other as the original shooter.
Likewise, if they know the whole society is similarly armed, what would be the point of them trying to mass murder anyway?
To make the news? To get revenge on society/those jocks/whomever they think needs killing? Just to show that they can actually do it? Does a psycho nutcase really need a reason?
They'd get a few at most, before they were shot themselves.
And how's that different from them getting a few and then shooting themselves?
You're not talking about 2nd amendment rights... you're trying to say gun control needs to be stricter because of these "heat of moments" that might be dangeours.
WTH? Quote me please. All I was saying is that gun safety and marksmanship training does _nothing_ to help with those "heat of the moment" incidents. Psychological training and anger management training might. Maybe.
Besides your point was that the training is not relevent,
And you're misquoting me again. I was specifically referring to fscking gun safety and marksmanship training.
You're barking up the entirely wrong tree.
Nope, just calling it like I see it.
Whatever you have between your eyes and your monitor... remove it, and read my posts again.
And that is relevant to a discussion about the second amendment how?
If training is irrelevent,
Hold on for a minute - I was talking about gun safety and marksmanship training specifically. Cops (hopefully) receive training in more areas than these two, and are subject to a little more scrutiny than the average gun owner, especially with regards to staying calm under stress and pressure.
why aren't they always shooting people in "heat of moment" type situtations?
Slashdot Mirror
In a government-run health insurance system the government only decides what they pay for and what they won't (just like a commercial insurance company would. Strange coincidence, don't you think?). You can still get any treatment you want if you're willing to pay for it out of pocket (or have supplemental insurance that covers these treatments.
Do you really want to give the government the power over life and death?
The government already has that power, at least the one in the US.
What, you didn't know that?
Should be: unintelligible
And if the prices of an oil change out of pocket were as inflated and intelligible as those for medical services, sure as hell you'd have your insurance company "negotiate" a better price.
Just imagine if the bill for your oil change included things like workshop usage fee ($75), hydraulic lift usage fee ($20), 2 paper towels ($50), 6 gallons of motor oil ($500, never mind that your engine only needs two), etc.
How would you feel if you were drowning in a lake and the flotation device came with a credit card slot?
Non sequitur.
Actually you should read up on glucose metabolism. Your body does not make glucose EVER except from the carbohydrates you eat. There is no other magical way you get glucose.
It's not magic, just chemistry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Your body will break down your own fat or use fat from your diet and use that to fuel your brain. It's not the preferred energy source for your brain but it will work.
Your body _will_ make glucose from other substrates, because it's the energy source that the brain needs. Also, your red blood cells _cannot_ use anything but glucose for their energy needs. Blood glucose levels need to be kept in the right range, or you'll die - regardless of the availability of other energy sources.
A nuclear reactor in a plane has to be small. It may be hot, but there's not much mass that's actually hot - maybe a few kilograms. That's quite different from the reactor in a power plant, where you have a few tons of water and fuel that are hot. If the random forces of nature can produce natural nuclear reactors in the ground, who can say that this cannot happen in a crash?
The chance is there, but you're more likely to win the lottery a few times in a row. Reactors are built to achieve criticality only when the conditions are exactly right. The state of the reactor after crashing into a building is pretty much the opposite of exactly right.
Either way, they've got some serious roadblocks to cut through before they can use this process without paying some heafty licensing fees, or some heafty legal settlements for patent infrincgement.
Have fun trying to prove patent infringement when you can't get the details of the process and machines the Navy is using because of national security.
It kills me that the moon has better bandwidth than my house.
Oh, but the latency sucks. Try playing WoW with over a second of lag.
If you turn up the energy of the gamma rays, you can split single neutrons or photons from a nucleus via the nuclear photo effect. And you can induce nuclear fission with particles other than neutrons, but it requires more energy (due to repulsion between to positively charged nuclei) and you're not going to get a sustained fission reaction this way. Still, particle accelerators are fun. ;)
Wouldn't it be cool if there was a source as plentiful as the air we breathe...
Yep, would be really cool if we had such a source. Especially if "rich in CO2" means more than 0.038 percent by volume. Would also be nice if it didn't come with a huge load of highly reactive contaminant.
That may sound like a lot, but it's less volume than an average aircraft carrier displaces. Now you just need to make that processing fast enough ...
But removing carbon from the sea and blasting it into the air where it'll compound existing problems, including reabsorption back into the sea, and using large amounts of energy to do so, still doesn't strike me as environmentally-friendly in particular...
The alternative is to take carbon that's already sequestered out of sequestration, process it, ship it halfway around the globe, and then blast it into the air.
Something that's essentially an unshielded nuclear reactor with wings and two dozen megaton nukes, flying at low altitude with Mach 3, really isn't a laughing matter.
Carbon dioxide in seawater isn't "sequestered", because it's merely at an equilibrium with atmospheric CO2. And the increased concentration of CO2 in seawater is causing its own set of problems (ocean acidification).
That's not the problem (synthesize methanol from CO2 and water, then synthesize longer hydrocarbons from there, e.g. by partially burning the methanol and turning it into synthesis gas). The problems are 1) extracting pure CO2 from air/water (obviously, you don't want any oxygen in your CO2, and the concentration of CO2 in air is fairly low) and 2) making the process efficient enough to be actually useful.
3) Large amounts of radioactive material fly out the back of the jet, contaminating everything in sight.
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
And why? Because they have such laws in Europe, and everyone knows Europe is a bunch of socialist commies. *SCNR*
Does it make sense?
No, since most crimes require intent. Unless _negligently_ entering someone elses mailbox is also a crime, no crime was committed here.
Not really. Omitting it would help with natural selection, but incur some costs for cleaning and/or replacing train engines.
Err ... no. Grains need to be crushed somehow, but not cooked. Ever crushed a wheat/oats/barley grain? The white stuff inside is basically pure carbohydrates, which the amylase in your saliva can break down into a water-soluble sugar (maltose) that can be resorbed in your intestine.
Cooking just makes the process more efficient since it allows for more efficient mixing of the carbohydrates and the enzyme.
Eat tomatoes with oily food.
Tomatoes, mozarella (45% fat) and basil, with olive oil and balsamic vinegar.
Dang. You just made me hungry.
For someone who doesn't plan on surviving anyway, that just makes dying easier and a lot more spectacular. Plus, they might get to witness the whole campus shooting up each other as people start misidentifying each other as the original shooter.
Likewise, if they know the whole society is similarly armed, what would be the point of them trying to mass murder anyway?
To make the news? To get revenge on society/those jocks/whomever they think needs killing? Just to show that they can actually do it? Does a psycho nutcase really need a reason?
They'd get a few at most, before they were shot themselves.
And how's that different from them getting a few and then shooting themselves?
WTH? Quote me please. All I was saying is that gun safety and marksmanship training does _nothing_ to help with those "heat of the moment" incidents. Psychological training and anger management training might. Maybe.
Besides your point was that the training is not relevent,
And you're misquoting me again. I was specifically referring to fscking gun safety and marksmanship training. You're barking up the entirely wrong tree.
Nope, just calling it like I see it.
Whatever you have between your eyes and your monitor ... remove it, and read my posts again.
And that is relevant to a discussion about the second amendment how?
If training is irrelevent,
Hold on for a minute - I was talking about gun safety and marksmanship training specifically. Cops (hopefully) receive training in more areas than these two, and are subject to a little more scrutiny than the average gun owner, especially with regards to staying calm under stress and pressure.
why aren't they always shooting people in "heat of moment" type situtations?
Hyperbole.
Its because you're a nut,
Wow, going straight to the ad hominem, aren't we?