Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Mandatory OO code from here on in. (Score 1) 610

<quote>There is a point where a real-time OS is a requirement.</quote>
You don't need an RTOS. You can have an ASIC do the low level control, and it may be even more precise than a program running on an RTOS could be.

Then the app running on a conventional OS tells the ASIC what to do on a higher level (based on driver etc inputs) - which doesn't have to be done every 1 microsecond. Every millisecond could be good enough. The human driver won't be alternating the throttle from full to off and back every millisecond. Do it right and it doesn't have to be dangerous or a mess, might even work better.

"Computer Tech Analogy": A CRT's electron beam puts dots on the screen at very precise sub microsecond moments, but the display can be controlled just fine by a program in a conventional OS, no need for an RTOS. All you need to do is split the work properly.

Having a program on an RTOS in a CRT control the electron beam might be doable but is probably a bad idea.

Comment Re:Prices went up, as opposed to going up (Score 1) 27

The restriction was ...

Never stated, nor implied by context. Move along.

it is the topic of discussion

False. The context was simply "Obamacare" and alternatives to it. If you think that the proposal from the guy running against Obama for President, while Obama was running on the idea that (mostly) became "Obamacare" less than a year before it was introduced in the Senate, is implied to be out of scope of the discussion, you're dishonest or a moron.

Since you imply that including such a proposal in the discussion would "open it up to any proposition that was made, by any person, at any time," I vote for dishonest.

The best case you can make here is, "well, yes, it wasn't clear, but that is what I meant." But it isn't what you said and it isn't what the context implied, so it isn't what I responded to. You can't win this point, because you simply have zero evidence to back you up.

Furthermore, any suggestion that it would reduce prices is pure speculation.

As I already demonstrated, no, it's not. The free market is actually very predictable about stuff like this.

did Obama know this would happen when he was secretly negotiating with the insurers

Wow, holy wild-assed speculation batman! Do you have any reason why anyone should believe this to have actually happened?

Because I tend to think Obama isn't a moron, and it would take a moron to not understand that if the insurers cannot offer new low-cost plans -- only keep grandfathered ones for grandfathered customers -- then by cutting a grandfathered plan, they guarantee that most of those customers will buy new, more expensive, plans, since it's all that will be available to them.

After all, it was written by people in congress - why would the "secret negotiating" have been done by Obama himself?

First, we know these secret negotiations happened. Second, whether or not Obama was there, his administration was represented, either directly or through separate negotiations with the Democratic leadership.

Comment Re:Prices went up, as opposed to going up (Score 1) 27

So in 2008 McCain came up with a proposal and President Obama responded by ... oh, wait.

No. There is nothing to wait for. You didn't have that restriction in the claim you made, so it does not apply.

Furthermore, McCain remained a senator after the 2008 election (and is still one to this day). He could have elected to present the bill to the senate, yet he did not.

Wow, are we really going to be THAT dishonest, here? The Republicans (not McCain, but as a whole) came out with a different proposal, and the Democrats attacked the Republicans for bothering to come out with a proposal at all, since it had no chance of passing and was therefore a waste of time. Spare us the bullshit.

The fact is, this proposal was well-known and out there. No, it was not in bill form, but, again, you didn't say anything about that.

The best example I can find of his proposal is this one ...

... which disproves the claim you made, that "There was no alternative plan proposed that would not have increased prices."

The effect would increase over time as people would take on more responsibility for themselves (high deductible plans and HSAs etc.) in order to get lower rates, which increases competition not just insurance, but in the provision of health care itself, which would then drive down insurance prices more.

That is 100% speculation.

Well, insofar as basic economics is 100% speculation, sure. In other words, no, it's not.

You cannot prove that the prices would have been driven down

I can prove that the broadly accepted laws of economics -- by both liberal and conservative economists -- show that they would have been driven down. Shrug. It's very simple, and everyone agrees with this: the biggest driver of high prices is that consumers are dissociated with the prices they are paying, so there is almost no competitive pressure to keep prices down. This is entirely clear.

Simple: because "Obamacare" drastically limits competition with all sorts of minimum and maximum mandates, and by forcing us to cover more, there's even less competition pressure on health care provision.

The bill also gave the option for people to keep existing plans. Yet the insurance industry has realized they make more money by canceling existing plans under the bill. This is to be expected in any scenario, the insurance industry will always find a way to maximize profit.

As a side note: did Obama know this would happen when he was secretly negotiating with the insurers (despite saying it would be public, during his campaign)? If not, he's incompetent. If so, he's a malicious liar.

Anyway, that option is only temporary. The grandfathering runs out after a few years, so you're not actually making a point here, because it still holds that "Obamacare" drastically limits competition beyond what it is today (which is scant), and has only half-assed price controls, and is therefore destined to see huge price increases.

I am not, of course, in favor of price controls, but they are the other option for keeping prices down. But with no real competition and no real price controls, prices rise. Duh. This plan was designed to further increase prices, while they were lying and saying it would decrease them, most likely because they were secretly giving handouts to the health insurance companies. This might also explain why the Democrats did everything they could to not work with Republicans on the bill, because even though it is clear that Republican input could have helped increase choice and decrease costs, it would have come at a cost of the insurance company handouts like minimum coverage and individual mandates.

McCain never made his proposal on the floor. It was never offered as an alternative to the Health Insurance Bailout Act of 2010. He offered it up on the campaign trail and then, as best I can tell, he never spoke of it again after the 2008 election was over. Quite simply it was not proposed during the health care debates during the administration of the current president.

All of that is irrelevant to the claim you made. Shrug.

Comment Re:Prices went up, as opposed to going up (Score 1) 27

There was no alternative plan proposed that would not have increased prices.

False, obviously. McCain's proposal in the 2008 election would have decreased the cost of insurance, and everyone knows it. By simply taking away the the business deduction for health insurance premiums for employees (as well as any mandates for businesses supplying such insurance to its employees), and giving individuals a tax credit for purchasing insurance, the immediate increase in competition in insurance would have pushed prices down. The effect would increase over time as people would take on more responsibility for themselves (high deductible plans and HSAs etc.) in order to get lower rates, which increases competition not just insurance, but in the provision of health care itself, which would then drive down insurance prices more.

Why don't we see that now, in the individual market? Simple: because "Obamacare" drastically limits competition with all sorts of minimum and maximum mandates, and by forcing us to cover more, there's even less competition pressure on health care provision.

We had this shitty hand-out for the insurance companies, which kept the lousy system going.

Yep.

Everything that anyone else proposed had the same end result of keeping the lousy system going, and generally giving more power to the health insurance companies in other ways.

Nope.

In other words, we were destined to higher insurance prices regardless of which lousy bill went into law.

Only those bills that would have given more power to the insurance companies, or not taken away any subsidies/powers granted to them.

Even if no bill had been signed at all, we would have still seen higher insurance costs because the insurance companies would have found a way to "justify" the higher prices.

Yes, because that system had massive handouts and protections for them, such that they could do that without significant repercussions. The answer is to take away the handouts and protections.

There was no alternate choice presented.

False.

The only way to prevent prices from going up is to make the insurance companies less powerful but nobody dared propose a bill that had the ability to do that

Again, this was McCain's proposal in 2008. And yes, the insurance industry didn't like it. Obama was in bed with the insurance lobby, McCain wasn't. And McCain got hammered by the media over his proposal, even though it makes a ton of sense, because it was reducing government control, even though it was the very government control that led to our current problems.

User Journal

Journal Journal: OSCON Talk Webcast 1

I get emails from O'Reilly about different webcasts. Sometimes they are pretty interesting. Today I registered for one about mobile app development. Apparently it is in some way connected to OSCON. Which is cool. Anyway, here is the funny part, after I registered it gave me a link to test my system. I did - and as you can see I failed the operating system test beca

Comment Re:the second dose is free (Score 1) 314

I'm not full of crap. The 50% was exceptional, I admit... but then, when was the last time you saw an Apple Computer on sale, like anywhere? On Dells 20% is routine. A few things: you have to actively follow their offers, and be willing to take what you get. You eyed that Latitude, but a Vostro is on sale? Too bad, take what you can get.

Got myself a nice little rackmount for 1000€ (incl VAT, since it's business stuff you never get the prices with VAT). Trick was, again, a coupon, base machine was already reduced, another free shipping code and finally the fact that the 2TB HDDs were at the price of 1TB disks (another "action"). I had trouble making the order, so I contacted them by phone. None of the sales would give me those reductions. Second time online, it worked.

I do not know why they do this. It doesn't make sense, but damn, they do it and if you just happen to need anything, you get your stuff with such reductions. If you fancy new gear, you just wait until reductions come around the corner.

I'm pretty brand-agnostic. Typing this on a an Acer Ultrabook (also on sale, obviously!). I've got a mix of Apple, Dell, Acer, Zotac (barebones), Foxconn (barebones) and diverse self-builds around the house. I've had Toshiba, HP, Fujitsu-Siemens and Asus laptops, as wel as IBM, HP, Fujitsu-Siemense desktops and I'm surely missing some.

A final word on Dell. I've found their XPS line have a very nice build quality. (When I got the 50% sale, I bought three identical machines, for me, my sister and my brother) The other consumer lines are fine, but it's mostly plastic. At work, we use Latitudes, and those really are damn well built machines. They're definitely not sexy like whatever Apple has, but they're well built, reliable and the support is excellent.

I really don't mind Apple. They have nice gear. I even recommend Apple to all my acquaintances that refuse to learn about computers. That way I have them out of the shooting line, and they usually don't ever need me again. The problem are those who would need an Apple, but can't afford it. Take the Acer Aspire S3 I'm typing this on. It is made from metal. The type says it's a MS2346. I got it on sale for 649€ at a local supermarket. You can get it cheaper elsewhere, but due to keyboard layout reasons, I prefer to buy locally unless the sale really is too good to be true. I will not say it is as good as a MacBook Air, it most likely is not. It is however, a fancy little machine, that runs Ubuntu just fine and is 380euro; cheaper than the cheapset MacBook Air I can get. That's the kind of machines, many people need because of the price constraints.

Basically, yes, I'm a computer bargain hunter. Sadly, there never are bargains with Apple. We have a 27" iMac for my wife, and we didn't spare any expenses for that one. No sales, no coupons. Why? Because it's for my wife and now she doesn't need me to hold her hands while she uses her computer. It works, but damn, it better works until until at least 2021.

Comment Re:Yup, and it doesn't matter. (Score 1) 722

But he IS talking about those extremely wealthy bunch. Most of them have someone drive/fly them around.

However he forgets that the sons/grandsons of these very rich often do drive their own cars (but they're certainly not regular cars ;) ) and prefer not to be driven. These sons/grandsons are as similarly unconstrained.

Comment Re:At what speed? (Score 3, Informative) 722

If you lane change rapidly so that you can go fast it may cause other drivers to brake suddenly. That can create a "traffic wave jam" that persists till the rush hour is over or till the "traffic wave" moves to a light/empty traffic are before then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_wave

That said you don't have to speed to cause other drivers to brake suddenly.

Slashdot Top Deals

The time spent on any item of the agenda [of a finance committee] will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved. -- C.N. Parkinson

Working...