Discussions

DCMonkey said:

Ion Todirel said:

*snip*

But IE6 doesn't have one

 

PS: I may be missing something but don't you actually have to insert a coin before it starts playing music? Or perhaps you (W3bbo) could do something drastic like refresh the page.

... or click the mute button in the bottom-left corner.

The ones with Brian Beckman on the history of old computers (with the Curta, I think) and the physics simulation in Forza were great.

Edit: Links ...

• Brian Beckman: The Physics in Games - Real-Time Simulation Explained
• Brian Beckman: A Brief History of Computing

Hotmail's two biggest flaws:

1. No IMAP
2. Text ads appended to every email

http://workspace.officelive.com/en-us/

magicalclick said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

I don't know how you can adjust the focal point from a flat display source. It is certainly tricky, but, possible. I mean, imagine your monitor as the surface of a mirror. The mirror is completely flat, but, it is able to reflect complete range of depths of light source. Imagine we make that the same as monitor. That's what 3D is all about.

 

The stuff in the mirror certainly don't pop-out, but, they are clearly in their own focal point based on z-depth. This is what I am trying to propose. Imagine a monitor like mirror, but, just not your own reflection.

 

Maybe I should call it Mirror TV.

 

You should look at NVIDIA's 3D Vision; it produces the "3D into the screen" effect that you describe. The focal point effect is a different matter.

In some shooters that I've tried with 3D Vision, depth of field and 3D can combine nicely to achieve the effect of the water droplet example (e.g. around gun scopes, iron sights, close walls), but it only works where depth of field has been used/supplied by the game. The system does not use plain depth information of objects to adjust their focus, as I think you're describing.

I use hosted Exchange as well and have also been unable to get through multiple times over the past week or so. I also agree that there is really no excuse for downtime, especially nowadays and especially with a paid-for service.

justth3fax said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

I thank you for the additional (more recent) info that I couldn't locate, the numbers which you present, I believe, make what i am saying even stronger...

 

A smaller percentage consuming an even higher amount...

 

When you say $350 billion cheaper...well, it has been my observation that you get what you pay for...remember the government buys from the low bidder...what is the value you place on your health?  Do you eat the cheapest food you can find?  Do you drive the cheapest car on the market?  Do you live in the lowest rent tenement possible?  I don't.  I work hard and try to get the best I can.  I'm sure we all do.

Does anyone remember the pictures of Walter Reed Army Hospital that were on the news?

 

Yes, some veterans have unique needs but so do alot of non veterans as well...I would say that it is actually lower than the general population as prior to service there is an extensive health screening...lots of people are rejected for minor things.  During service there is continual on-going health evaluation and if some one is found to be in need they are plugged into that treatment program before they even get to the VA.

 

All that is really not the point, put the numbers aside...My point is, the government projections are always wrong, the debt is unsustainable and government can't ever do anything well.  Look @ Medicare...Look @ Medicaid....Look @ Social Security...All are bankrupt, insolvent, unfunded.  Tax revenues cannot cover what the government is spending. DEBT DEBT DEBT it is not sustainable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you say $350 billion cheaper...well, it has been my observation that you get what you pay for...remember the government buys from the low bidder...what is the value you place on your health?

You can't have it both ways. You can't have the best of everything at an affordable price. Much of the debate has been about how the health care system in its current state is on course to bankrupt your whole country, but when I make the proposition for a different setup that would be substantially cheaper you still defend the current system. It's astonishing.

And, I am not proposing that you should have to put a lower value on your health. I would not suggest that you should forfeit you're private insurance or visit a public hospital. Ideally, as many people as possible should use private care rather than public care because it means less spending burden for the government. I am just saying that when you have a public hand in the market, prices are pushed down and that benefits the 99.9% of the population that doesn't have a financial interest in private health insurance.

Also, "you get what you pay for" is seemingly not always applicable; remember that amongst industrialised OECD nations, the U.S. spends about twice as much per capita on health but has the worst quantitative outcomes.

justth3fax said:

Lets do some math...we like math (don't we?)

 

As reported on US Census Bureau website, the 2000 census determined that 26.4 Million citizens are Veterans and that is 12.7% of the population.

 

link = http://www.fastfacts.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp12_veterans

 

The US Department of Veterans Affairs is exclusively government operated health care entity.  On 23 JUN, the House voted 409 to 1 to pass H.R.1016 which appropriates $53 Billion dollars for fiscal year 2010 (Oct 1, 2009 - Sept 30, 2010)

 

link = http://www.vmwusa.org/index.php/govtaffairs/2010-va-budget-updates   (scroll to bottom half of page)

 

I have a contact within the VA who has operational business knowledge.  The medical center that this person works at has approx. 79000 veterans in its' geographical/operational jurisdiction.  When I asked how many are actually use the VA from the area I was told that it was less than 25000.  There is currently a push to increase this to 30000.  Many Vets are actually not allowed to use the VA due to the Millenium Bill.  This places a cap on the amount of income or assets a vet can have before them are deemed ineligible.  I cannot use VA...I make too much...BTW, neither can my retired father...even though when we were both in the military a verbal contract was made with all veterans that the VA would take care of their medical needs.  That is a different story though...

 

So, if I were to round the percentage of utilization up to a full 1/3 would that be fair...i say yes.  1/3 of 26.4 million = 8.7666666 million or in significant figures 8.77 million or 4.23% of the population.  That is if we extrapilate the ratio out to its logical conclusion.

Lets take a moment to summarize...

 

$53 Billion Dollars to provide 1 year of health care for approx. 8.77 Million veterans.  This covers all VA operational and upkeep expendatures for 1 year.

 

Ok, lets now say that the VA (100% government controlled, fixed price, below market average salary MDs, Nurses, Physician Assistants, Nurse Practicianers, etc...) were to serve 100% of the public...

 

Lets get the multiplier to figure out the cost....

 

100/4.23 = 23.64066 = 23.6 (significant figures again)

 

Ok, in order for the VA to fully provide health care for 100% of the "known" reported population: $53 Billion * 23.6 = $1,250.8 Billion = $1.2508 Trillion

 

That is what 1 year of health care would cost, that is assuming that the VA already had in place and operational enough adequately staffed and equipped facilities.

 

Also, the it is more difficult for fraudulant billing in the VA as...well who gets billed?  Yeah the Vets have a co-pay if there is no service connected injury being treated...$50 bucks for as many appointments and procedures you can squeeze into a full day (of sitting in waiting rooms).

 

Sure, the VA bills the Vets insurance company...that is if they disclose it...but in a single payer world, there is no insurance provider.

What is the current US debt...I can't keep track but there is a website that shows it...

 

link = http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

Right now, every dollar that I earn from Jan 1 thru some time in May goes to the government in taxes...how much will that increase?

How much more debt can the US stack up from wasteful spending and give aways before the AAA credit rating goes away and China dumps their stock of Dollars...or worse?  China has already announce a couple of years ago that they were going to start divesting themselves of the Dollar...

 

I doubt that the 'non-partisan' congressional accounting office really thinks that this new health care law is going to reduce the debt...

 

A crash is coming...hold on, prepare and be ready...its not going to just affect America...

 

Please, my friends...don't applaude the coming reckoning...politicians have sold us all into chains...

 

Your numbers are way off ...

26.4 million veterans was/is not 12.7% of the population, its less than that since there was/are tens of millions of minors which you haven't counted. In 2000, 26.4 million was more like 9.4%, so the rest of your figures are also wrong.

Using proper and recent numbers, in 2010 there are about 8.1 million (from 2009; source) veterans utilising $53 billion of VA health care. So to give said care to the entire U.S. population (including minors) based on 2010 population estimates would cost $2.02 trillion (or $1.99 trillion for 2008's population), not the $1.25 trillion you estimated. However, compare with real 2008 spending at 16.2% (source) of $14.44 trillion GDP (source), which comes to $2.34 trillion.

Ceteris paribus, if the VA system was used for the whole population in 2008 at 2010 spending levels it would have been $350 billion cheaper, reducing debt rather than increasing it.

Of course, the whole idea of using VA figures to make these estimates is inherently flawed; I am sure there are lots of things that make caring for veterans more expensive than for the general population (disabilities, PTSD etc.), in which case these estimated savings might actually be understating potential real savings.

spivonious said:

I consider myself Libertarian, but if there's one thing in the bill that I agree with, it's mandating coverage. The uninsured using the emergency room instead of a primary care physician is a big reason that medical costs have gotten so high. Hospitals have no choice but to raise prices to cover their losses.

 

I think the current bill (as far as I understand it) has missed the point of health care reform. We need to lower health care costs, not punish the insurance companies for wanting to make a little money. 50 years ago health insurance was only for big things; nowadays we use it to pay for everything from prescriptions to regular checkups. Payouts go up, premiums must go up too. It's just how the world works.

 

Anyway, I'm going to stay out of this until I get a chance to actually read what was passed.

We need to lower health care costs, not punish the insurance companies for wanting to make a little money.

Paradox ...

Google is shooting themselves in the foot if they leave. Eventually the censorship will be toned down (ask any Chinese adolescent for their opinion), and when this happens and Google decides to return they will be in a situation even worse than what Microsoft is facing now in the West. At least Microsoft has had some position in the marketplace, even if it has mostly been a failure. Google will have to start from scratch (again) though, and history suggests that the underdog search engines don't do very well.

Also, the overall trend appears to be towards more censorship and regulation on the Internet, not less. So Google will probably find in the future that the size of the market that it deems morally acceptable is increasingly limited.