Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The dead past (Score 1) 137

by vmaldia (#40490433) Attached to: France Ending Minitel Service
I can think of 2 historical examples of laissez faire unfettered capitalism. of course they were not PURE. the gilded age (pre ww1 and 19th century USA) and china at the beginning of the free market there, maybe 1990's and beyond why china? because extreme laissez faire is by definition no government intervention in business. During that time in china, even though it was a socialist state, by some metrics, in practice a business had less laws regulating it than in say the USA. Both due to lack of laws (the chinese were new at capitalism and hadn't thought of everything yet) and because of corruption they could get around whatever laws there were. Only after a few decades of complaints from activists and governments in the west were laws such as anti pollution and minimum wage laws and worker safety laws enacted by china. So, ironincally, at that time socialist china has a business climate with lesser regulations than in the west

Comment: the solution - research? (Score 1) 253

by vmaldia (#37904308) Attached to: Re-evaluating the Benefits of Cancer Screening
So what's the solution? I think its to research more so you can come up with a reliable, cheap way to differentiate between all the 4 below. preferably with minimal side effects "1. You find a cancer that will eventually kill you AND that particular cancer has a treatment that works better when started earlier. (True Positive result) 2. You don't find a cancer that you don't have. (True Negative result) 3. You find a cancer or something that looks like a cancer however it will grow so slowly or regress so it won't cause any harm, but then you don't really know which is which so you elect to be treated for same with some morbidity or mortality. (False Positive result) 4. You don't find the cancer that existed and goes off to knock you off just before you design the next iPad killer. (False negative result)." properly Identifying which tumors are slow growing and which patients are too late would solve a lot of problems. of course this is easier said than done

Comment: justification for spaceflight (Score 1) 172

by vmaldia (#37674908) Attached to: Astronauts As Alien Life Hunters?
A more practical justification for spaceflight is orbital solar power plants. due to the deep gravity well of the earth, its much easier and cheaper to send a rocket filled with construction materials from an asteroid or from the moon to an orbital solar construction site. And there's the possibility of using mass drivers to send material from moon to LEO with no expense except the cost of making the mass driver and solar panel. a lunar mining operation implies a lunar colony unless you can go full AI or telepresence its not easy and there are many details, but in principle it works

Comment: Re:Good for insurance (Score 1) 380

by vmaldia (#37399432) Attached to: Medical Billing Codes For Injury Via Turtle Among Thousands Created by New Law

This is designed to make it easier for insurance companies to deny payment in more situations. The overhead created will increase costs for everyone and that's good for the people at the top.

Hopefully the system implodes on itself.

i used to work with ICD-10 and from my experience I believe that it was indeed made by and for insurance companies. A system made for and by doctors and patients would make things EASIER instead of more time consuming and complicated

Comment: efficency (Score 1) 113

by vmaldia (#37271798) Attached to: Panda Poo Yields Key To Cheaper Biofuels
pandas have a carnivore's short digestive system so they spend the majority of the day eating. The gut bacteria make this just efficient enough for them to survive but its less efficient than a real herbivore's guts. But hey, it might be efficient enough for fuel production "However, the giant panda still has the digestive system of a carnivore, as well as carnivore-specific genes,[30] and thus derives little energy and little protein from consumption of bamboo. Its ability to digest cellulose is ascribed to the microbes in its gut.[31] The giant panda is a "highly specialized" animal with "unique adaptations", and has lived in bamboo forests for millions of years.[25] The average giant panda eats as much as 9 to 14 kg (20 to 30 pounds) of bamboo shoots a day. Because the giant panda consumes a diet low in nutrition, it is important for it to keep its digestive tract full.[22] The limited energy input imposed on it by its diet has affected the panda's behavior." - wikiepdia panda page

Comment: base load? peak load? (Score 1) 308

by vmaldia (#36609720) Attached to: France To Invest One Billion Euros In Nuclear Power

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why can nuclear power only supply base-load, instead of peak as well? I've certainly heard that solar and wind are unsuitable to supply base load, as they're not terrifically reliable, but never anything about nuclear being unable to scale to peak load.

It isn't practical to rapidly change the load on nuke reactors, because it takes a significant amount of time to ramp up and down power output. Also, it basically costs the same to run whether you are at 10% capacity or 100% capacity, so it makes sense to run them as near to full capacity as possible. Contrast that with something like a gas-fired powerplant, where you can ramp generation quickly and you are pretty much only paying for the gas you are burning.

Of course, France announced at the same time as this announcement that they will be going ahead with something like 1.5 billion euros funding renewable resources over the same period, so it isn't like they are putting all their eggs in the nuclear basket - just not abandoning it entirely as others are doing.

I'm no expert but AFAIK there are reactor designs that can ramp power output up and down fast, like the designs used in US nuclear submarines.

Imitation is the sincerest form of plagarism.

Working...