Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The guy in question paid $450 for 3 months health insurance, or $150 a month (less than the $197.15 you suggested).
WRT the $70/mo, the supplies listed are inadequate for a months supply for a type 1 diabetic.
- 3 glucose test strips a day is insufficient. Maintaining decent control usually requires testing at least 5 times a day - on waking, before each meal and before bed
- Each glucose test should be done with a sterile lancet - so 150 of those a month
- Most type 1 diabetics are on between 3 and 5 injections a day, which requires between 3 and 5 new needles or syringes a day, or 120 a month
Buying diabetes supplies is expensive. They may not cost much to produce, but 50 test strips costs about £25 in the UK over-the-counter (or $1 per strip). At 5 tests a day, thats $150/month just for test strips. I've not had to buy any other diabetes supplies myself, so I am unsure of just how much they cost.
A better system may be allowing the cruise control at any speed, and if you are within 3 mph of one of the "target" speeds it automatically adjusts to that speed (along with a "no, don't autocorrect" switch).
You seem very sure in the appropriateness of speed limits everywhere. It is also rather naive and judgmental to refer to anyone driving over the limit as an idiot.
The limit may not be appropriate, but I would be very surprised if more than about 10% of drivers could accurately assess the appropriate maximum and minimum speeds for any stretch of road, and the vast majority of drivers would reckon that they would be within those 10%.
I wouldn't trust most people to set their own limits, as they don't have a clue what their (or their vehicles) capabilities are.
There should also be a display as to what the cruise control is set to.
Surely thats the same speedo you use to tell what speed you are doing when cruise control isn't enabled?
I believe that the people who make up the membership boards are appointed by the Ubuntu Community Council.
The members of the Ubuntu CC are appointed by Mark Shuttleworth, and "confirmed" by a vote by people that currently hold "Ubuntu Member" status.
Taken directly from http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-compilers/.
The difference is MS would be saying "We don't support OS X", and actively enforcing it. Intel are saying that their compiler does work for AMD processors, without any mention of the fact that they put time and money into actively making it worse for AMD processors (instead of just not doing anything to improve performance specifically for them)