Nine billion people really is not too many, the Earth can support considerably more than that. We have the resources to easily do so; what we do NOT have is the political ability to properly distribute those resources. Having a "global tyrant" would most likely cement the current inequalities in distribution, I fear...
...and solved it with Panasonic Toughbooks. I did SONAR research systems for a half a decade, and we always had problems with not just sand and dirt from the remote locations we were in, but often saltwater spray as well. Panasonic Toughbooks were the only laptops that stood up to everything we did, and never failed. Yes, they're expensive, but they're worth it, especially when you're paying $2500 per day for a research vessel and your laptop dies when you're 4 days out into the ocean. That's a $20,000 (there and back) failure.
I'm an inventor in the IntVen network. It means that a few times a month I get a list of dozens - or hundreds - of problems to address. They're well worked out, not the "we need a better energy system" type question but real-world, grounded, well-defined problems with existing art, marketing, and business cases needed. And when I come up with an idea, the IntVen team hashes it over quite thoroughly, expecting detailed drawings, concepts, descriptions, and - in one case - modeling simulations to prove the idea would work.
.
They pay for ideas accepted (that they will then patent), and they share in the royalties of patents licensed. They don't just patent anything; I've had about 20% of my ideas actually accepted usually because others were seen as outside a large-enough need base (meaning not enough licensing opportunities - reduce to practice here) or not an area of interest for them. It's actually a great way to be compensated for tinkering outside your main area of expertise and income, and earn a little bit of cash for it.
And yes, they have a full lab/workshop that can be available to inventors for R&D.
Hmmm... Too bad about the link! Here's a summary paragraph:
When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare's administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453. In the years from 2000 to 2005, Medicare's administrative costs per beneficiary were consistently higher than that for private insurance, ranging from 5 to 48 percent higher, depending on the year (see Table 1). This is despite the fact that private-sector "administrative" costs include state health insurance premium taxes of up to 4 percent (averaging around 2 percent, depending on the state)--an expense from which Medicare is exempt--as well as the cost of non-claim health care expenses, such as disease management and on-call nurse consultation services.
It's a comparison across all Medicare and all private insurance. Some individual cases may be different, but the average Medicare patient has a higher overhead as compared to the average private insurance person.
Basically, you cannot make an apples-to-apples comparison of administrative costs versus total dollars spent:
Imagine, for a moment, that Fred and Jane each have a credit card from a different bank. Fred charges $5,000 a month, and Jane charges $1,000 a month. Suppose it costs each bank $5 to produce and send a plastic credit card when the account is opened. That $5 "administrative cost" is a much lower percentage of Fred's monthly charges than it is of Jane's, but that does not mean Fred's bank is more efficient. It is purely a mathematical artifact of Fred's charging pattern, and it would be silly to compare the efficiency of bank operations on that basis. Yet that is how many analysts compare Medicare with private insurance.
Medicare is actually more expensive to administer than private insurance. And that includes the fact that private insurance administrative costs include things like State premium taxes (which, of course, Medicare is exempted from).
I am SO swinging that phone from the rooftop... Let them figure that one out! Or tossing it across the road to a friend on the other side. Yes boss, as a matter of fact I can fly!
Actually, I don't think you did read them otherwise you would have seen that Menne used unchecked, unvalidated, partial data from Watts that Watts said not to use as the quality was suspect. And Watts wasn't even notified that his raw, unscrubbed data was being used for a paper by Menne. Yet you'll take Menne's conclusions and ignore the concerns of the man who actually collected the data and disclosed up front the issues and errors contained therein.
Did you read the links? The NOAA paper you linked used data from Watts that Watts specifically SAID was dubious because it had not been through a quality control pass and scrubbed of errors. Yet they took his data and used it anyway. That's not a concern to you?
Here you go. In fact, you can see pretty much all of them and that 80%+ have serious problems. The fact such "corrections" happen at all should be troubling.
Please re-read the link. It's about poor siting of the thermometers. Moving them from open fields to the ends of runways causes a sudden, non-climate shift in temperature upwards. Buildings constructed around the instruments affects them.
.
It's not so much the absolute accuracy of the thermometer per se, but the method and location of its use. And unfortunately, more often than not, when a true rural and urban sets if instruments disagree, the rural is "corrected" to mimic the urban, even though it is much more susceptible to urban heat island and other urban-based issues.
Yes, older thermometers are less reliable and hence temperature data has to be corrected for just like things like urban island effect has to be corrected for today.
Unfortunately, it appears the modus operandi is to correct the real rural stations UP to match the urban stations, exactly opposite what any rational person would do.
And apparently my joke went over your head. Yes, of course the ice core data is used by AGW proponents (and climatologists in general). The seeming discrepancies in the ice core data, at least in recent time, is well accounted for in models, actually; I don't mean fudged, btw--things like the Medieval Warm Period occurring in Greenland and/or Europe doesn't mean that it was a global event (Souther Hemisphere data indicates it wasn't). It very well might have had to do with the North Atlantic Current.
Sorry, I missed the joke. Currently the Southern hemisphere really isn't seeing warming anywhere near the trends of the Northern hemisphere; perhaps the relative lack of land down South stabilizes the temperatures (being so totally dominated by oceans)? Nevertheless, data is data, and many of the most vocal proponents of AGW appear to have no issues with tossing data that doesn't fit the model, which is pretty much the opposite of what the scientific method calls for.
The real question to ask is, why is it that current models only map well to current temperatures when man-released CO2 is a significant component in the noted global warming; that is why don't things like methane, natural CO2, solar variance, etc account for nearly all the warming?
Perhaps because CO2 is something that can be taxed and controlled, as opposed to solar output or ocean currents. There's at least one scientist with a model that appears to tie climate change to the Sun and currents, and does so quite accurately.
But then, if it's not something we can control then there's no justification for taxation by Governments meaning why finance that type of research?
Unfortunately, those thermometers we're relying on aren't all that accurate, especially when looking at fractions of a degree.
.
If the ice core data, or bristlecone data is good enough for AGW proponents to use for justifying their conclusions, then the same data - which shows counter - should at least give pause to the conclusions drawn, no?
Yes, let's look at some historical data. As with any modeling problem, the selection of the data is much more critical than the actual model used. Wonder why models only concern themselves with the last 100 or so years? See graphs 2-7 of that link.
.
Scenario 1: Microsoft leaves, we're left with an infrastructure and State system designed for 150,000 more people and billions more in revenue. The remaining people are crushed since the State - under Governor Gregoire's leadership - has shown an intense resistance to even slowing down its growth, let alone shrinking (as it should if those jobs and people leave).
2. This is a NEW TAX, the "break" is already there (for Microsoft and a host of other software companies here). There's nothing new that will come, there's no crushing subsidies because they already exist, and have existed for decades.
So your two scenarios are completely unrealistic, and don't apply at all. What would happen if Microsoft leaves is that the number of jobs - and that includes H1-Bs who all rent apartments - will dramatically shrink. Government will not shrink accordingly, meaning an ever-increasing tax burden on fewer people.
Washington is screwed not because of a decades-old tax break to software companies (and yes Google, Amazon, Nintendo, Adobe, and others all benefit from it as well); we're screwed because our current Governor was all-too-happy to pass exploding budgets over the last 5 years.
You might want to educate yourself about taxation attracting or driving businesses away, and how Government spending massively outstripping tax revenues, demand, inflation, and population growth (funding the spending by raiding your savings accounts) is a disasterous policy.
Microsoft isn't the problem - Olympia's insanity of spending is the problem. But then, you're probably not even from this State, are you? You don't understand what we had under the previous Governors, and what we now have under Gregoire, and the massive change in the size and scope of the State...
and I'm from the future. I've been running Skype for Windows Mobile on my Verizon HTC Touch Pro 2 for several months, now... Call my cell phone, or call my Skype number and the HTC rings.
Slashdot Mirror
Nine billion people really is not too many, the Earth can support considerably more than that. We have the resources to easily do so; what we do NOT have is the political ability to properly distribute those resources. Having a "global tyrant" would most likely cement the current inequalities in distribution, I fear...
...and solved it with Panasonic Toughbooks. I did SONAR research systems for a half a decade, and we always had problems with not just sand and dirt from the remote locations we were in, but often saltwater spray as well. Panasonic Toughbooks were the only laptops that stood up to everything we did, and never failed. Yes, they're expensive, but they're worth it, especially when you're paying $2500 per day for a research vessel and your laptop dies when you're 4 days out into the ocean. That's a $20,000 (there and back) failure.
They pay for ideas accepted (that they will then patent), and they share in the royalties of patents licensed. They don't just patent anything; I've had about 20% of my ideas actually accepted usually because others were seen as outside a large-enough need base (meaning not enough licensing opportunities - reduce to practice here) or not an area of interest for them. It's actually a great way to be compensated for tinkering outside your main area of expertise and income, and earn a little bit of cash for it.
And yes, they have a full lab/workshop that can be available to inventors for R&D.
The run from Shanghai to Suzhou and on to Nanjing often reaches 240 km/h...
It's a comparison across all Medicare and all private insurance. Some individual cases may be different, but the average Medicare patient has a higher overhead as compared to the average private insurance person.
Basically, you cannot make an apples-to-apples comparison of administrative costs versus total dollars spent:
Medicare is actually more expensive to administer than private insurance. And that includes the fact that private insurance administrative costs include things like State premium taxes (which, of course, Medicare is exempted from).
On a per-patient basis, not a per-dollar basis, Medicare's administrative costs are higher than private insurance.
It's easy to observe, too! Mass tends to flow from my mouth to my ass, where some continues on outside the body and the rest seems to accumulate...
Just like you did our albums.
Sincerely,
Roger, Nick, Syd (in spirit), Roger, and David, the fantastic band (you guess which one is Pink).
The gas analyzer doesn't scare me; I turn my cell phone off when I'm at any restaurant, including Mexican restaurants...
I am SO swinging that phone from the rooftop... Let them figure that one out! Or tossing it across the road to a friend on the other side. Yes boss, as a matter of fact I can fly!
15,000 Flooz notes? Going cheap! I'll trade for a pets.com sock-puppet...
Maybe not good, but good enough to warrant spending the money...
This is Apple we're talking about. It just works. Unless of course it doesn't, in which case you didn't need to do it anyway. Think different!
What do you mean "had"? My VIC 20 still runs strong!
Breaking a screen into two smaller ones and sticking a giant hinge/bezel in the middle isn't an advantage.
Even reading a regular text ebook. Two screens aren't an advantage, they are a hindrance.
Yes, because that thing called a "printed book" which has that exact same user interface is such a failure...
Actually, I don't think you did read them otherwise you would have seen that Menne used unchecked, unvalidated, partial data from Watts that Watts said not to use as the quality was suspect. And Watts wasn't even notified that his raw, unscrubbed data was being used for a paper by Menne. Yet you'll take Menne's conclusions and ignore the concerns of the man who actually collected the data and disclosed up front the issues and errors contained therein.
Whatever, indeed...
As far as the NOAA paper, this should be enlightening.
It's not so much the absolute accuracy of the thermometer per se, but the method and location of its use. And unfortunately, more often than not, when a true rural and urban sets if instruments disagree, the rural is "corrected" to mimic the urban, even though it is much more susceptible to urban heat island and other urban-based issues.
Yes, older thermometers are less reliable and hence temperature data has to be corrected for just like things like urban island effect has to be corrected for today.
Unfortunately, it appears the modus operandi is to correct the real rural stations UP to match the urban stations, exactly opposite what any rational person would do.
And apparently my joke went over your head. Yes, of course the ice core data is used by AGW proponents (and climatologists in general). The seeming discrepancies in the ice core data, at least in recent time, is well accounted for in models, actually; I don't mean fudged, btw--things like the Medieval Warm Period occurring in Greenland and/or Europe doesn't mean that it was a global event (Souther Hemisphere data indicates it wasn't). It very well might have had to do with the North Atlantic Current.
Sorry, I missed the joke. Currently the Southern hemisphere really isn't seeing warming anywhere near the trends of the Northern hemisphere; perhaps the relative lack of land down South stabilizes the temperatures (being so totally dominated by oceans)? Nevertheless, data is data, and many of the most vocal proponents of AGW appear to have no issues with tossing data that doesn't fit the model, which is pretty much the opposite of what the scientific method calls for.
The real question to ask is, why is it that current models only map well to current temperatures when man-released CO2 is a significant component in the noted global warming; that is why don't things like methane, natural CO2, solar variance, etc account for nearly all the warming?
Perhaps because CO2 is something that can be taxed and controlled, as opposed to solar output or ocean currents. There's at least one scientist with a model that appears to tie climate change to the Sun and currents, and does so quite accurately.
But then, if it's not something we can control then there's no justification for taxation by Governments meaning why finance that type of research?
If the ice core data, or bristlecone data is good enough for AGW proponents to use for justifying their conclusions, then the same data - which shows counter - should at least give pause to the conclusions drawn, no?
Yes, let's look at some historical data. As with any modeling problem, the selection of the data is much more critical than the actual model used. Wonder why models only concern themselves with the last 100 or so years? See graphs 2-7 of that link.
My Samsung i760 survived countless Shanghai taxi rides. Me, not as well...
Scenario 1: Microsoft leaves, we're left with an infrastructure and State system designed for 150,000 more people and billions more in revenue. The remaining people are crushed since the State - under Governor Gregoire's leadership - has shown an intense resistance to even slowing down its growth, let alone shrinking (as it should if those jobs and people leave).
2. This is a NEW TAX, the "break" is already there (for Microsoft and a host of other software companies here). There's nothing new that will come, there's no crushing subsidies because they already exist, and have existed for decades.
So your two scenarios are completely unrealistic, and don't apply at all. What would happen if Microsoft leaves is that the number of jobs - and that includes H1-Bs who all rent apartments - will dramatically shrink. Government will not shrink accordingly, meaning an ever-increasing tax burden on fewer people.
Washington is screwed not because of a decades-old tax break to software companies (and yes Google, Amazon, Nintendo, Adobe, and others all benefit from it as well); we're screwed because our current Governor was all-too-happy to pass exploding budgets over the last 5 years.
You might want to educate yourself about taxation attracting or driving businesses away, and how Government spending massively outstripping tax revenues, demand, inflation, and population growth (funding the spending by raiding your savings accounts) is a disasterous policy.
Microsoft isn't the problem - Olympia's insanity of spending is the problem. But then, you're probably not even from this State, are you? You don't understand what we had under the previous Governors, and what we now have under Gregoire, and the massive change in the size and scope of the State...
and I'm from the future. I've been running Skype for Windows Mobile on my Verizon HTC Touch Pro 2 for several months, now... Call my cell phone, or call my Skype number and the HTC rings.