There's a difference between an earache and something not simple to diagnose and cure. That's kind of like trying to get (in the spirit of /. car analogies) the guy at the local oil change place to figure out why the air conditioner isn't working all the time. Sure, maybe he'll get it right, but most likely you'll need someone more specialized. In the UK, the answer would be "well, the A/C still works half the time, so you don't really have a problem."

As for my friend, I'm sure he had bad symptoms, but I don't know how he told the doctor of them. There's a difference between cancer and respiratory issues due to smoke. Quite frankly, I become nauseous around people who smoke as well, and specifically avoid them. It's not that uncommon of a problem. The doctor acknowledged he had problems, couldn't figure out what was going on, but couldn't do anything either. As to why he didn't move immediately, this was a flat issued to him by the university he's a student at as part of his pay for being a hall tutor. They couldn't really understand the concept that someone might not be very happy in a flat that smells of smoke.

As for private health services, I really don't know the UK system. My friend is a grad student there and doesn't exactly have money to throw around. And as a comparison, I'm a grad student (in the US) and if I need to see a specialist, my school's health insurance will cover it without any problems. I don't even need a referral from anyone - just pay the $20 copay. The same policy here applies to international students.

I was never for universal health care, and the experiences of a friend of mine who has been in England for a year have only made me more against it. Sure, England has a universal health care system. But when my friend started having health problems (most likely due to his flat having been inhabited by a smoker before him), the doctors there were absolutely no use. He had difficulty breathing and other symptoms, which the general practitioners he saw couldn't figure out. When he asked to be sent to a specialist, the request was denied because he hadn't experienced anaphylactic shock yet. In other words, if you're not near death, you can't see someone who can actually help you. And since it's the national government's rules and plan, you can't exactly ignore it.

Universal health care is a great idea in theory, and a horrible one in practice. Do I think our system is great? No. But neither is any other system I've seen. I, personally, don't believe health care is a right - it's something you need to earn. And if you don't earn it, then you shouldn't have it. Granted, I think we need a better system than we have right now (maybe start with affordable health care for children and those recently unemployed), but universal health care managed by the government is not what we need.

So when Intel and AMD couldn't increase the speed of their processors any more, they decided to introduce dual core chips. Does this mean that Microsoft has decided they couldn't slow down computers any more with Windows 7 and is now planning on shipping a dual OS system to ensure slow performance?

I can't speak for the manned program, but I am loosely affiliated with a NASA unmanned mission (I'm a grad student). The major problem is lack of funding. Sure, NASA gets some money, but the competition for it is so intense that everyone suffers. Missions take decades from conception to launch and are doomed to failure as lack of money forces cost cutting that delays the mission.

The horrible thing is that the amount of money it takes to design, develop, build, launch, and operate a flagship mission over a 10-20 year period is a few billion dollars - almost nothing for the government. But that money is not available because no one outside of the scientific community cares (since reality TV or celebrity gossip is so much more interesting). And if the population doesn't care, the government won't fund it besides token support. The only reason the US is still better than any other country at exploring space is because the politics of other countries are even worse.

But no, I'm definitely not bitter that the mission I'm working on, which was conceived in the 90's and had most of its technology developed in the 2000's, may, if the government budget gods look favorably on us, launch in the 2020's. Then it'll collect the data it needs to for a few years, eventually shut down, and the whole cycle will repeat. It might even happen that the successor will launch before I die. And no, this is not the only mission that has worked like this.

Actually, yes they did. Not that I really expect anyone to read the article. But if you do, you'll find the following:

Thus, as you can see, the idea was that phytoplankton that is protected from such grazers was supposed to have grown. But it didn't, and that's why the experiment didn't produce the expected results.

From this press release this appears to have only 60 electrodes (and I assume only grayscale). This is definitely remarkable progress, but still nowhere close to achieving a bionic eye that can come even close to rivaling the real human eye.

The question they're also answering (besides how well does this work) is how well can the brain interpret simple images into more complex images that would allow someone to get by in life. That may be as interesting, if not more interesting, than the actual experiment with the device.

Not exactly. Estimates are based on worst case scenarios. What would have been the public's reaction if NASA had said that the rovers would last 1 year but they only lasted 6 months? NASA guidelines require that when something is supposed to last x months/years, then it's engineered such that it will last that long, no matter what. Specifying mission requirements is actually a tricky problem for the scientists on a mission because you want the most possible science that fits within a budget and that will last for as long as you say it will last. And usually the only way to convince NASA that something will last is if you add in backup systems. With new, expensive technology this becomes even harder.

So yes, the rovers were conservatively estimated to last 3 months. I'm sure the scientists on the mission expected that they would last longer, but 3 months was a good benchmark that provided a good amount of science for a reasonable cost. Everything else has just been icing on the cake (and in this case, a lot of icing). Personally, I think they did a great job and cannot fault them at all.

(I am a grad student working on a NASA mission and have seen a bit of how this process works)

I wish that more software would default to 587 instead of 25. For example, Thunderbird doesn't even mention the possibility of 587 as a "default" port, which really needs to be changed.

In any case, it's good to see the change to 587 become more widespread and hopefully it will eventually become the default port for sending messages (along with encryption + authentication), while 25 will be reserved exclusively for server-to-server communication.

Should it matter? In my opinion, if you're married, then it doesn't matter who makes the money, you're in it together. By that reasoning, should a parent who stays home with the children not be able to buy anything at all since they don't earn anything? Granted, I think that any major purchase or decision should be made together, and a $1k purchase is usually considered major, but one person shouldn't be begging the other for anything. That kind of relationship is not sustainable and not healthy for anyone.

Sure, digital has replaced 35mm. And yes, it's wonderful to use. But there is no way that a Canon 5D Mark II can compete with even medium format film, let alone 4x5 sheet film. Nor will a camera with the 5D's size ever be able to. Now, if they had shot the portrait on a professional medium format digital camera with 50 MP resolution (these camera's aren't that expensive anymore), that might have been nice. But there is no way that a 5D MkII will ever rival the quality of medium/large format film. And the fact that they're shooting the presidential portrait on a 35mm equivalent camera is sad, considering that it's not uncommon for portraits to be done on at least medium format.