Leaderboard

Be careful where you take this argument. There have been several studies (listen to this: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1320 or read this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113571111 and this: http://patriciashannon.blogspot.com/2009/10/telltale-wombs-of-lewiston-maine.html) that have shown increasing the number of doctors does not increase the level of care or access to care, but just the cost of care. The reason is, if you put too many doctors into one population area, the doctors will lower their thresholds on what procedures they will do in order to keep busy. You see, the rate of medical needs in a fixed population is constant. But a doctor need to pay their staff, their rent, their student loans, etc... So, if they don't have enough to bill for, they will (whether they are aware or not) start ordering tests or doing procedures for people that might not really need them. There are some European countries (Germany, I think, does this) that licence doctors to practice in certain areas in order to avoid over supply of medical services. Also, another study by Johns Hopkins university (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-health-costs-highest-malpractice-no-factor-study) found that one of the primary drivers of high medical costs was the income level doctors required in the US. Medical malpractice insurance/claims only accounted for 0.5% of the rise in costs. They also stated that while doctors in the US routinely make ~$200k, they could not find a doctor in other countries who make over $100k (USD). The underlying reason for this was the high cost of eduction and the huge loans that someone graduating with a medical degree in the US is saddled with. This can often exceed the cost of a mortgage on a nice home. In the European countries they studied, higher education was free. So, one way to bring down the cost medical care in the US would be to fund education for people wanting to pursue a medical degree while also controlling the number of medical licences to practice in a given geographical area based on population. Also, changing from a fee for service to a salary based reimbursement system for doctors would remove the financial incentive to over prescribe treatments. Doctors might end up less wealthy and the golf industry might suffer, but the rest of us would likely have better and more affordable health care. Unfortunately, the current bills in congress do not address any of this. Why? Because there is no profit in it for anyone (especially the lobbyists)

Any time a cabal of scientists (using dubious science at best) can manipulate public opinion and political decisions that affect billions of people that cost trillions of dollars it does indeed damage science and technology and the health and welfare of mankind. Regarding the environment: have you ever seen a wind farm? Would you want to see wind farms in Rocky Mountain National Park? Would you want one in your back yard? Do you know how costly they are? Do you drive a "green" car? Do you know how much more pollution is generated in manufacturing the batteries alone for a "green" car? What about bio-diesel. Last I heard it costs more energy to manufacture bio fuels than we get. How can that be good for the environment? Nobody in Washington is talking about nuclear energy. France gets better than 90% of their energy from nuclear. Modern nuclear plants are the most environmentally friendly (and certainly the most efficient) power facilities in world. But no. Current administrations here and abroad are going to force us into a new Stone Age. We'll be "green" all right. (scoff)

No, but there are 30,000 pounds of bananas. I'm sorry, I have a very childish sense of humor sometimes.

If LV architects have to be familiar with the OO paterns then I don't qualify. That would suit me just fine because then I would be able to charge off my time at half the rate and have twice as long to do the work. Besides, is would save me the trouble of breaking out my buisness card everytime I have to spell the word "architect". Back to the topic of AE vs LVOOP One difference we did not touch on is that LVOOP places a requirement on the code that uses it that it must carry the LVOOP wires around. Yes the wire is flexible, but it still has to be there. AE encapsulate the wire so ripping an AE out of an app just requires deleting the AE or its wqrapper. To toss a LVOOP wire you have to run the track ball farther. Ben

If human is created with the mind and desire of owning everything, but not the reality of possibilities, then is this a feature or a bug?

How much time do you spend time in arranging the controls in the cluster ? We develop lot of Express VI and we use these kind on clusters in those express VIs. We spend much time on arranging the controls in the cluster in the front panel as shown below. Initially I had written a VI to arrange controls in cluster but I had to place it in project for it to be easily accessible under tools menu. Now I had created a RCF plugin to do this Thanks to JKI team . You can consider this as fifth menu option in Auto sizing Cluster. The image below will show two Clusters Cluster in the Left show the input cluster and the cluster in the right is the cluster that is cleaned up using the plugin. We need to select the cluster and Right Click to invoke the Arrange Controls RCF plugin. I thought this will be useful for people who develop clusters like me. Rajkumar B Arrange Cluster Controls.zip