Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 3 Nov 2006 10:30 <luca...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message > news:1162566100.790628.115370(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > > > Thing we assume like the mains voltage and frequency can't be > > assumed over there. I measured the output of one plug from about 160 > > to 250 volts and about 45 to 48Hz. > > Good lord, I'd guess that'll fry your laptop. > > Just out of curiosity, what was nominal--120V/50Hz? 220V 50Hz was the standard. I now permanently have one arm longer than the other from the weight of the transformer I carried. I didn't have a laptop. I had a scope and soldering iron and such like. The heaviest item was the transformer.
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Nov 2006 05:51 In article <ol2mk21801cc4qr8nlucsn4s7tf7sec426(a)4ax.com>, Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:09:30 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >wrote: > >>You're an idiot. Fox is as slanted to the right as >>CNN is the left. > >CNN leans to the left? Blimey. Are you American by any chance? Some even consider Fox liberal. I guess to some, as the saying goes, anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal.
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Nov 2006 05:55 In article <eifbnv$8ss_005(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <GXz2h.4038$B31.1135(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:4a119$454aac25$4fe762a$27898(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> MooseFET wrote: >>> >>>> unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>>>MooseFET wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>[....] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>And of course some of these new drugs are just replacements for old >>>>>>>>>>one ( where a >>>>>>>>>>patent has expired ) so a to get a new patent on the new ones and >>>>>>>>>>keep the prices >>>>>>>>>>high. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You obviously don't understand how patent applications work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I understand perfectly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If you actually uunderstand then you knew you were lying when you >>>>>>>called new drugs "just replacements for old one." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You can't get a patent for a new widget that's simply a replacement >>>>>>>for an old one. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Where did you get that silly idea? At least two of my patents are for >>>>>>a "widget" that replaces an older "widget". To get a patent, you don't >>>>>>need to prove that it is better. You only need to prove that it is >>>>>>different and works. >>>>> >>>>>You're right. It has to be different. So the new one doesn't >>>>>simply clone the action of an earlier medicine. That's the >>>>>point of this discussion. >>>> >>>> >>>> That is not correct either. The action can be identical and the >>>> chemical different and still get a patent. >>> >>> Can be does not mean it is. Chemicals are funny that way. >> >>Nice strawman...nobody ever said that *all* new drugs are just knock-offs of >>old ones. But a substantial number are. > >That is what generics are...knockoffs of an existing drug. > >/BAH Sure, but: 1. Drug companies file new patents based on some minor change, like color of the pill; this puts generics on hold until it's settled. 2. Drug companies challenge generic drugs as violations; again, this puts the generics on hold. 3. Drug companies PAY other companies to NOT market generic versions.
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Nov 2006 05:57 In article <eifcgg$8qk_001(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <1162305481.242566.314800(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>[....] >>> >Massachusetts sets the insurance rates for autos. This includes >>> >mandated increases for speeders etc. The change will be to remove this >>> >requirement not to remove the requirement to have insurance. You will >>> >still be required to be responsible. If you drive a car you have to be >>> >prepared to pay if you cause an accident. I >>> >>> The change proposed by voters is to take the rate setting out >>> of the hands of politicians. That way if you do not drive >>> well, you are the one who pays the higher premiums instead of >>> the ones who do drive well. >> >>The companies will set the rates according to what they see as their >>best interests. This does not ensure that the people who drive well >>get a lower rate. Gathering that information and managing the pricing >>is expensive. It is far less costly just to make up rules including >>zip code[1] and years driving etc and use those. Accidents are way too >>random of events to base insurance on. > >Accidents are not random in Mass. > >> >>Not that Mass. had increases for the things that increase risks. I >>doubt that there will be any better tracking of how well people drive >>than that. >> >>[1] Postal codes for non-US >> >>> > >>> >> The fact that the Democrats >>> >> have implemented a similar structure for medical insurance (this >>> >> is NOT medical care) bodes ill for all, especially those who >>> >> cannot pay. >>> > >>> >No, this is the funding of medical care. >>> >>> Look again. It is funding insurance. This does not guarantee >>> that you will be able to *find* a doctor nor a nurse to >>> fix what you broke. >> >>But not being able to come up with the money guarantees that you won't >>be able to find one unless you get taken as a charity case. Doctors >>like most people want to be payed for their work. Insurance is the >>current method we use to pay them. > >Insurance is why doctors are going out of business and getting forced >to work for a conglomerate. I no longer know how long it takes for >Mass. pay out the Medicare bills. During the Dukakis years, it >was 9 months to two years. So the insurance companies are the villains. Gee, most of us have known that ever since we had insurance. BTW, Georgia has a law requiring insurance companies to pay within 60 days. They get fined if they don't. > >>> > You can have the cost of >>> >those who choose not to get insured spread among the responsible who >>> >do or you can try to make people responsible for their own actions and >>> >have them cover the costs. >>> >>> Where is the monies for that medical tax going to end up? >>> It will not be spent on real things. >> >>You have concluded that but I would like to see a cite on it. Do you >>have any evidence that the government is less efficient at taking in >>money and paying for health care with than the private sector. > >Yes, Medicare and Medicaid in the US. If these two programs which >are single payer don't work, why would making them be the only >insurance payer in the country work? If the sky is green... Medicare does work, as any elderly person will tell you. And it has far smaller overhead (administrative expenses) than any private insurer. >For that matter, why should >we allow medical insurance payouts be a federal responsibility? That >is undermining our Constitution by transferring power to the federal >government rather than keeping it in each State. Provide for the general welfare... > > >>The >>standard is not no waste. The standard is compared to the alternative. >> Private health insurance companies spend about 20% on things that >>aren't health care. Medicare spends about 3% on overhead. > >How do you figure? First reimbursements are munched by paperwork >at the fed level. Then reimbursements are munched by paperwork >at the state level. There is no competition. So there is all >incentive to do things the most expensive way. It's a monopoly. > The gov't isn't trying to make a profit. Insurance companies are. Which of the two do you suppose will try to find a way to deny claims? Which will turn down people who are sick from coverage? >It will make it easy to tell the electorate to do a certain >something or they won't get their flu shots, or other kinds >of treatment. All choice of medical care is taken completely >out of the hands of the patient. > ><clean up> > >/BAH >
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Nov 2006 05:53
In article <eifbe7$8ss_003(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <4549E4E8.61E6C504(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>> >>> >They seem to be doing better than the US with a lot less money for >>> >health care. >>> >>> Could it be the drug costs that make this difference? >> >>Why do so may US medical practicioners prescibe expensive drugs > >They don't. > >> when cheaper >>generics are just as good for mnay things ? > >These days anybody with any kind of insurance have to use generic. > >> >>It artificially inflates costs. That's not allowed in the NHS. >> > >Who is supposed to pay for the drug research? > >/BAH Why should it be the Americans? |