Slashdot Mirror


The Placebo Effect Not Just On Drugs

dvdme writes "It seems the placebo effect isn't just valid on drugs. It's also a fact on elevators, offices and traffic lights. An article by Greg Ross says: 'In most elevators installed since the early 1990s, the 'close door' button has no effect. Otis Elevator engineers confirmed the fact to the Wall Street Journal in 2003. Similarly, many office thermostats are dummies, designed to give workers the illusion of control. "You just get tired of dealing with them and you screw in a cheap thermostat," said Illinois HVAC specialist Richard Dawson. "Guess what? They quit calling you." In 2004 the New York Times reported that more than 2,500 of the 3,250 "walk" buttons in New York intersections do nothing. "The city deactivated most of the pedestrian buttons long ago with the emergence of computer-controlled traffic signals, even as an unwitting public continued to push on."'"

824 comments

  1. This explains the political process by Cornwallis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I keep voting and nothing new happens.

    1. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep voting and nothing new happens.

      Or as I was about to post "just like democracy!"

    2. Re:This explains the political process by alen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what do you expect to happen? i've lived in the US almost 30 years and everyone wants a government check and free health care but they don't want to pay for it.

      after 30 years i like the US, A LOT

    3. Re:This explains the political process by ChefInnocent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh for a mod point. I've come to look at the election process as voting for Coke or Pepsi when all I want is a glass of water. Transparent and no artificial additives.

    4. Re:This explains the political process by wisty · · Score: 1

      Make that Diet Coke, and Coke Zero.

    5. Re:This explains the political process by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      I didn't think they put close door buttons on there. Never used any of that stuff. Don't you need some kind of control study to know for sure?

    6. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I keep voting and nothing new happens.

      Funny coincidence... my father calls the "walk" buttons at traffic lights, "politician buttons". I never understood the answer, and thus the joke, as a child... went something like this:

      Dad: "why do you always press the politician button?"
      Me: "why do you always call it a politician button?"
      Dad: "because it does nothing."

    7. Re:This explains the political process by miggyb · · Score: 1

      Get informed and vote third party?

      --
      This signature serves no purpose other than to help you see which posts were made by me.
    8. Re:This explains the political process by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vote for a glass of water then.

      If enough people do that, instead of voting for Coke or Pepsi when they really wanted water, they'd get their glass of water eventually.

      Right now seems like >98% vote for Coke/Pepsi.

      --
    9. Re:This explains the political process by Itesh · · Score: 1

      Makes you wish there was a way to restart a non-working process like there is in computers...

    10. Re:This explains the political process by stewbacca · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'm wondering where all these people are who you claim want free health care. Judging the current political waters, seems like most people are against it.

    11. Re:This explains the political process by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Make that Diet Coke, and Coke Zero.

      Those are not transparent and heve more artificial additives.

    12. Re:This explains the political process by H0p313ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I keep voting and nothing new happens.

      You joke, but during the Suharto regime in Indonesia (1967 - 1998) they held elections and a large part of the population thought they lived in a democracy as a result. They had a very large, and politically diverse, number of parties and they allowed them all to have rallies etc.

      Come election day, nothing ever changed and the people were more content than they would have been without the illusion of political contention, it was very educational to watch.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    13. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, they are for it, they just don't want to pay for it so they say no.

    14. Re:This explains the political process by aardwolf64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you still get either Coke or Pepsi...

    15. Re:This explains the political process by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      I read that as instead of a choice of Coke or Pepsi it is a choice of Diet Coke or Coke Zero.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    16. Re:This explains the political process by toastar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh for a mod point. I've come to look at the election process as voting for Coke or Pepsi when all I want is a glass of water. Transparent and no artificial additives.

      Screw that, I want a Dr. Pepper. And go ahead and Bomb Iran while getting it for me.

    17. Re:This explains the political process by PPH · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I'd mod you up, but ...

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    18. Re:This explains the political process by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More specifically, people want free health care but don't want "them" to have it, because "they" are moochers or lazy and are just taking advantage of the system. "If I get free handouts from the government, that's okay because I'm just getting my tax money back. God forbid someone else gets assistance, because that's my money, dammit!"

      I know several people who have stated this point of view explicitly. The cognitive dissonance is tear-my-hair-out infuriating.
      =Smidge=

    19. Re:This explains the political process by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      If that were only true, you'd find the political landscape much more placid.

      It isn't that 'they' don't want to pay for it, but they don't want 'the government' to pay for it. Doesn't much matter if the money comes from taxes or the deficit. They're against it either way.

    20. Re:This explains the political process by Tuidjy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *woosh*

      That's the point. The drinks in the original post have some nutrition value. Diet Coke and Coke Zero are made to trick your senses, make you feel better about your choice, and not solve the existing problem. That is, they are an chemical concoction that is designed to deceive your taste buds, is passed as the healthy choice, and actually increases your thirst.

      Oh PowersThatBe, I just killed a good joke by over-explaining it ;-)

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    21. Re:This explains the political process by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I've never met a political party I didn't despise.

    22. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gary Johnson 2012!

    23. Re:This explains the political process by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Water isn't even on the ballot. There is, however, Mellow Yellow...yeah, no thanks.

    24. Re:This explains the political process by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Well, thanks, maybe, due to your valiant effort and self-sacrifice, on the next politics thread (attached to a nonpolitical story), we might get it right on the first try. :-)

    25. Re:This explains the political process by NetServices · · Score: 1

      Try Dr. Pepper.

    26. Re:This explains the political process by gringer · · Score: 1

      Come election day, nothing ever changed and the people were more content than they would have been without the illusion of political contention, it was very educational to watch.

      I was actually wondering last night why governments in places like myanmar bother with voter intimidation when they only need to do a bit of number magic for vote counting (which happens away from the eye of [most] members of the public).

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    27. Re:This explains the political process by AhabTheArab · · Score: 1

      I've never met a political party.

    28. Re:This explains the political process by RandomFactor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if you are afraid of the worse of the Coke/Pepsi candidates getting in, and therefore vote for the lesser or greater Hamiltonian parties we have today, you should still vote third party some of the time.

      Specifically, if the race is polling such that the outcome is not in doubt (either for or against your candidate) then your vote becomes meaningless in deciding the outcome. At that point VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE, (e.g. if you want Libertarian ideals, vote L)

      It is a small thing, but every little scratch we can put in the prison walls of the two party system helps.

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    29. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Apart from the fact that the US spends TWICE as much on healthcare (as a percentage of GDP) as all the other First World countries and gets the worst outcomes.

      Your healthcare system lets the average citizen down while making a handful super rich.

      THAT'S what happens when you approach it as a "for profit" business and not as a social service.

    30. Re:This explains the political process by mark72005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's not true. Most people want to live off a government check AND smoke weed all day.

    31. Re:This explains the political process by Schadrach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've known someone who was ranting about those "damn liberals and their socialist programs, trying to push socialist health care on us now" *while* filling out forms to apply for Medicare.

    32. Re:This explains the political process by openfrog · · Score: 1

      Vote for a glass of water then.

      If enough people do that, instead of voting for Coke or Pepsi when they really wanted water, they'd get their glass of water eventually.

      Right now seems like >98% vote for Coke/Pepsi.

      Yeah... "eventually"... So if I follow you, if you can get a further 2% of voters wishing for this "eventuality", who are necessarily politically educated voting Democrat, you will succeed in getting Republicans elected for the intervening decades. I wish I could get a glass of water, but if I have to see Palin as President for getting it, I will think twice.

      You know, if I were a Republican PR person, I would try to push this meme into every forum I could, Oh, wait....

    33. Re:This explains the political process by whitehaint · · Score: 1

      As someone against the "reform", I am against it because it is federal govt taking control where it has no basis, as well it is forcing states to take it when they are not constitutionally bound to. The idea is nice, implementation, not so much.

    34. Re:This explains the political process by publiclurker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And it's especially infuriating when even they know that the money they are getting back is far more than they ever put in in the first place.

    35. Re:This explains the political process by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      You do realize that "the deficit" and "taxes" only differ in time frame, right? The deficit is paid off by future taxes, meaning that the higher the deficit goes, the higher taxes will have to rise at some point in the future to pay for it all.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    36. Re:This explains the political process by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't want a government check; and the "free" health care I do want will be paid for out of the taxes I pay gladly that now go to put Blackwater mercenaries ($1k/day) on the ground in diplomatically touchy situations instead of trained, accountable soldiers ($50-200/day) who are fighting for something more than the money and a chance to "empty an HK into a raghead".

      Posting that here on /. made me feel better. But intellectually I know I'm still not going to like what happens in the next Congress.

    37. Re:This explains the political process by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It is our money Damnit.

      It really easy to spend money that isn't yours. Too danm easy actually, and that is a problem. And we're in debt up to our eyeballs on programs that don't do what they were supposed to do.

      And instead of fixing the programs that are going bust, we just add onto the problem with another underfunded mandated fiasco waiting to happen. But as long as we get people hooked on government its all good, right??

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    38. Re:This explains the political process by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Informative

      We want free healthcare.

      It's the insurance companies that pays for astroturfing that gives the appearance that we really don't want universal healthcare. What was really amazing was the number of medicare recipients protesting against universal healthcare.

      The other amazing thing is how people believe that if we give tax cuts to the wealthy then jobs will magically appear. Never mind that we are talking about making Bush-era tax cuts permanent and not introducing new tax cuts. If the tax cuts were a panacea then why haven't they created new jobs in the past 3 years?

      Mainstream media creates perceptions. Perceptions don't always reflect reality.

      Also the US government always seem to do what is good for corporations and hardly anything good for consumers. They try to make it appear it was good for consumers. Take the current "Health Care Reforms" that the Democrats passed last year. It doesn't come close to making health care free, in fact it forces us to purchase health insurance. So on the surface it looks like the consumers are finally getting affordable healthcare, in reality the insurance corporations are getting customers who are forced to purchase insurance.

      Next thing you'll see is the government promising more jobs from exports by initiating free trade with a country whose growing economy is based on jobs being outsourced from the US. Oh wait it looks like Obama wants to announce something....

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    39. Re:This explains the political process by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      More specifically, people want free health care but don't want "them" to have it, because "they" are moochers or lazy and are just taking advantage of the system. "If I get free handouts from the government, that's okay because I'm just getting my tax money back. God forbid someone else gets assistance, because that's my money, dammit!"

      I know several people who have stated this point of view explicitly. The cognitive dissonance is tear-my-hair-out infuriating. =Smidge=

      Funny, I even read all sorts of political blogs when I'm bored and I've never heard anyone support the position you mentioned. I always hear one of two views:

      For government-run health care view: "But, I shouldn't have to pay that! That person has more money than me, they can afford to pay for my bills as well as theirs!"

      Against government-run health care view: "It's your bill - you have to pay it. It doesn't matter how much you make or if you did something to cause it or not, no one else is responsible for paying for your bills!"

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    40. Re:This explains the political process by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they are referring to people who get out more than they put in? I'm glad to get a little bit back, just like I'm glad to get my car fixed when I pay insurance. It's called risk management.

      However, I know people who pay NO TAX at all, and get back many thousands of dollars in refundable credits.

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    41. Re:This explains the political process by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Water isn't even on the ballot. There is, however, Mellow Yellow...yeah, no thanks.

      Quite right, slick.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    42. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably also bought gold from glenn beck as well.

    43. Re:This explains the political process by gnasher719 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the point. The drinks in the original post have some nutrition value. Diet Coke and Coke Zero are made to trick your senses, make you feel better about your choice, and not solve the existing problem. That is, they are an chemical concoction that is designed to deceive your taste buds, is passed as the healthy choice, and actually increases your thirst.

      Can I just repeat that, except it is not just your taste buds that are deceived, but also bits of your body chemistry that prepare to handle incoming sugar, then find that there was no sugar, and then they seriously _want_ sugar. There is also the danger of developing diabetes which happens when you feed the body too much sugar - fake sugar has exactly the same effect. And twice the effects if you drink diet coke and then eat sweets because your body wants the sugar.

    44. Re:This explains the political process by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Yes - IF enough people do that. However, the media has the overwhelming majority of Americans convinced that voting for a third party candidate is a sign of a mental disorder and that all third party candidates are in league with Lucifer.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    45. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Soviet Union had elections regularly. Their was only one party in the country at the time so their was never more than one choice but a small percentage of the populace would go and "vote" for the only candidate on the ballot.

    46. Re:This explains the political process by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I keep voting and nothing new happens.

      Oh but it does, just not for you; it is a reflection of society though, integral part of its dynamics.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    47. Re:This explains the political process by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      That is, they are an chemical concoction that is designed to deceive your taste buds, is passed as the healthy choice, and actually increases your thirst.

      [citation needed]

      I drink at least several sodas a day. The cup full of diet soda quenches my thirst just as long as the same cupfull of water quenches my thirst.

      It seems to me like you might be confusing diet soda with alcohol, which supposedly does make you thirstier.

    48. Re:This explains the political process by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Assuming enough people actually & honestly want that...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    49. Re:This explains the political process by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Minus the widespread violence, it's really not that much different here. Between the "highest single percentage" winner system and numerous laws restricting ballot access, the US political system is not a representative democracy. Incumbent parties have spent nearly 250 years making the barrier to entry higher and harder to cross. We might have two parties that swing like a pendulum, but we don't actually have anything more than the illusion of choice. Even when there's a backlash, the only way for non-[D|R]NC establishment politicians to get elected is to use one of those groups as a platform; they are the gatekeepers, the only ones with access. If you aren't one of them, you have to steal a uniform and sneak through, like the Tea Party candidates did.

      Given the extremely partisan nature of US politics, it would not surprise me in the slightest that particularly contested areas are routinely the targets of vote-counting fraud. If they weren't, why is there such concerted opposition to a paper trail? I'm not saying one party or the other does it, more that if it happens it's likely both parties are engaging in it.

    50. Re:This explains the political process by Pretzalzz · · Score: 1

      Do you vote in the primaries as well? So because your chosen candidate didn't win the primary you are going to take your ball and go home? Or maybe your candidate chose to forego the primary. Why might he choose to do this? There are no ideological/issue restrictions on candidates running for a party's nomination; anyone can run and if elected you can do pretty much anything and not get thrown out of the party between elections. We don't have a system of rigid parties like the UK. So maybe your candidate didn't think he could win a primary. So in other words the candidate is trying to get 50% of the people to vote for him despite not thinking he could get 25% of the people to vote for him/her. In short it is a vanity campaign.

    51. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why does the second point of view seem more fair; while the first point of view seems like the rantings of someone who has mistaken justice as "equality for all" instead of "equality for equals"? All men are created equal -- naked, ugly, screaming moochers. Then you get a job. Or you don't, so fuck you.

    52. Re:This explains the political process by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      You do realize that "the deficit" and "taxes" only differ in time frame, right? The deficit is paid off by future taxes, meaning that the higher the deficit goes, the higher taxes will have to rise at some point in the future to pay for it all.

      Logically, you'd be correct, but this is government.

      My fullest understanding of their use of that word 'deficit' is - the money we use and will never, ever pay back, even if we have to engineer a revolution and overthrow this government to get out from under it.

    53. Re:This explains the political process by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Damn that's insightful. I know of no better metaphor. In fact it may be more than a metaphor, the literal truth.

      From wiktionary:

      2. Anything of no real benefit which nevertheless makes people feel better

      The force that holds the ultimate power is not the elected government, but those that control the economy.

    54. Re:This explains the political process by ultramk · · Score: 1

      That was probably the thought behind some of the people in Florida who voted for Nader... didn't turn out too well, IMO.

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    55. Re:This explains the political process by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Not merely "governments" intimidate voters, those are also / largely...other voters, essentially.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    56. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Not exactly true. There are more immediate effects of deficit spending. The higher the deficit goes, the lower the value of the dollar goes. It's not a linear effect and there are plenty of other factors involved but it is causative rather than just correlative.

      Also, debts can be paid just as easily by cutting spending as by raising taxes and the spending cuts have a less punitive effect on the economy overall..

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    57. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You joke, but during the Suharto regime in Indonesia (1967 - 1998) they held elections and a large part of the population thought they lived in a democracy as a result.

      Thats very interesting. I wonder what else the Suharto regime has in common with the recent UK elections.

    58. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'll add another to your list. I'm a very small government conservative (against Department of Education, against even a large standing army, etc.). But I support socialized healthcare. Why? Because it's the only feasible pathway away from employer controlled healthcare. We've already killed the biggest noose employers put around their employees (pensions), the last big thing is health care. Once you strip that away from the employer you will see TONS of people starting up that small business they've always wanted to. Nothing will be better for capitalism in America than socializing healthcare. Mark my words. It's coming, and it'll be great when it happens.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    59. Re:This explains the political process by the+biologist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny thing... my dad spent his career designing intersections and the systems which run them...

      Those buttons do function. How they function depends on the local traffic control system. Generally the computer controlling the system notes that someone is waiting to cross and alters the timing of upcoming signal events to allow for pedestrians to safely cross.
      Your dad was right though, nothing happens immediately when you push the button.

      If some municipalities, like New York mentioned in the topic, want to skimp out on public services... then they don't hire competent systems designers and you may indeed end up with placebo buttons.

    60. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you get modded Insightful by posting this? How can you vote for something that isn't on the ballot?

      Your stupidity makes my head spin =/

    61. Re:This explains the political process by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      However, I know people who pay NO TAX at all

      Really? They're exempt from sales taxes, state taxes and gas taxes?! Incredible!

    62. Re:This explains the political process by tompaulco · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wait, I am part of everyone, and yet I don't want a government check OR free Health Care. I want to be paid commensurate with my performance, and I want to pay most of my medical expenses out of pocket and have an emergency backup plan that I pay into monthly along with a large pool of other people (what we used to call "Insurance") which covers only after a certain high deductible is paid out of my own pocket.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    63. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're referring primarily to the mandate... You're no more forced to purchase health insurance than you are forced to purchase an energy efficient air conditioner every year. If you don't purchase an energy efficient air conditioner you will have to pay taxes on the income you would have otherwise gotten a credit for. Now the same will be said for health care. I'm opposed to it too, but the language people use to describe it is outlandish.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    64. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      programs that don't do what they were supposed to do

      Like which ones? I can't think of any agencies that don't do what they are supposed to.

    65. Re:This explains the political process by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      I miss Crystal Pepsi...

    66. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Really? Where do you read this view that people shouldn't pay taxes into the health care system? I've never heard anyone say that. Or do you mean, people who support progressive taxes, which is actually nothing at all what you describe? No, seriously, I can't tell what you mean.

    67. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points you'd get them. I disagree that most people want universal healthcare but everything past that is pretty much what I try to explain to people constantly, but to no avail.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    68. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting take on the matter but I don't tend to have the faith you do that the enormous money sink that socialized medicine would create would be made up by newly created startups. It's a hell of a lot better argument than "we deserve free shit" though.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    69. Re:This explains the political process by sznupi · · Score: 1

      It works bot ways - "the media" simply give people what they expect, what they want, what they are most comfortable with.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    70. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My guess is that it's because you haven't thought about it very hard, but it's difficult to say based only on your brief misstatement of tired myths.

    71. Re:This explains the political process by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We want free healthcare.

      There's no such thing as free healthcare. Someone has to pay somewhere along the line...

      It's the insurance companies that pays for astroturfing that gives the appearance that we really don't want universal healthcare. What was really amazing was the number of medicare recipients protesting against universal healthcare.

      Medicare... you mean the insurance that people were force to pay into for maybe 50 years prior to receiving it? I can't possibly see why people would want what they had already paid for, especially since, after paying those premiums, they couldn't have invested that money for their future needs, like health insurance, themselves. I'm young enough to know that I'll never get my Social Security or Medicare premiums back, so I'll gladly forgo my future entitlements if the government will let me opt out now.

      Social Security is $14.7 trillion in debt (and already in the red despite the projections we wouldn't be for another 7 years), Medicare is $77.1 trillion in arrears and likewise Medicare D is $19.4 trillion in the hole. We don't have the money for the entitlements we already have (and the "lock box" is a box full of promissory notes that, one day, Congress will pay back the money from the general fund that they've been stealing since 1967 to hide the deficits created by the Great Society and Vietnam). The CBO scoring of Obamacare was deliberately skewed by the assumptions they had to abide by written into the law and it ignores that the Doctor Fix alone was enough to obliterate the fake "savings."

      The other amazing thing is how people believe that if we give tax cuts to the wealthy then jobs will magically appear. Never mind that we are talking about making Bush-era tax cuts permanent and not introducing new tax cuts. If the tax cuts were a panacea then why haven't they created new jobs in the past 3 years?

      They weren't tax cuts, they were pre-bates. You save a couple bucks every paycheck, but you're still liable for the same tax amounts come April. Further, the pre-bates were so miniscule, they never created any emotional sense of tax savings. Stability is what produces jobs more than anything, and the Democrats decided to make healthcare their "one true issue" over the last two years, all while wavering on direct economic issues. They still have yet to pass a budget for the fiscal year that started a month+ ago, much less decide what the tax rate is going to be in 50ish days. Further, people STILL don't know everything that is in the healthcare law and that is STILL creating future uncertainty. It's pointless to hire and train new people today if you don't know if you'll be able to afford them in 6 months or a year.

      Mainstream media creates perceptions. Perceptions don't always reflect reality.

      Yes, like the notion that free health care can exist. Nothing the government does is for free, someone always is forced to pay one way or another.

      Also the US government always seem to do what is good for corporations and hardly anything good for consumers. They try to make it appear it was good for consumers. Take the current "Health Care Reforms" that the Democrats passed last year. It doesn't come close to making health care free, in fact it forces us to purchase health insurance. So on the surface it looks like the consumers are finally getting affordable healthcare, in reality the insurance corporations are getting customers who are forced to purchase insurance.

      Next thing you'll see is the government promising more jobs from exports by initiating free trade with a country whose growing economy is based on jobs being outsourced from the US. Oh wait it looks like Obama wants to announce something....

      Wait, is this the same government that you expect to be your sugar daddy savior? They'll sell you out left and right, but you're going to trust them THIS time, right? Further

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    72. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      Define worst outcomes. For example my brother needed some minor surgery on his knee. Technically it was elective surgery. His biggest scheduling conflict was waiting for a day when his surgeon wasn't out golfing or whatever. Compare that to Canada or some of the other Universal Healthcare countries and he would have had to wait months to get the same surgery on average. The truth is that people with at least some means (upper-middle class and higher) have a higher standard of living than people who are on the universal healthcare plans in these countries based solely on the availability of "elective" health care services. Yes, it would be a lot better and cheaper for our poor, and I'm not opposed to that at all. It's just that the idea that the people who are spending that "twice as much on healthcare" have "worse outcomes" is a myth.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    73. Re:This explains the political process by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're referring primarily to the mandate... You're no more forced to purchase health insurance than you are forced to purchase an energy efficient air conditioner every year. If you don't purchase an energy efficient air conditioner you will have to pay taxes on the income you would have otherwise gotten a credit for. Now the same will be said for health care. I'm opposed to it too, but the language people use to describe it is outlandish.

      That's not the best analogy. I don't have to buy an air conditioner AT ALL. My understanding is that at some point, there will be fines for not carrying health insurance.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    74. Re:This explains the political process by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Bloggers get an audience by vehemently choosing one side or the other and pouring on the vitriol to make for an entertaining read. Most people, including those same bombastic bloggers, feel that there is something of value in both sides. In the best case scenario, this leads to a healthy discussion of what level of healthcare should be funded and/or regulated by the government. In the rather-more-common case it leads to people violently supporting both at the same time. Hence, the railing against socialist programs while applying for medicare. Or cheating on taxes, and at the same time complaining that the government isn't spending enough money on policing. Or, for a concrete example, Craig T. Nelson of "Coach" complaining that he never received any help when he was out of a job:

      "What happened to society? I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No. No. They gave me hope, they gave me encouragement, and they gave me a vision."

    75. Re:This explains the political process by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      The cognitive dissonance is tear-my-hair-out infuriating.

      It's not dissonance. The lowest 40% of income earners pay NEGATIVE federal income tax, and pay the vast majority of their effective federal taxes on Social Security and Medicare, both of which contribute to a benefit that they themselves will (hopefully!) receive.

      State taxes, of course, are an entirely different animal, but people's state taxes aren't going to pay for new health care programs.

      http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml#1011537

    76. Re:This explains the political process by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Exhibit A: tea baggers at rallies screaming for Obama to keep his hands off their Medicare.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    77. Re:This explains the political process by chudnall · · Score: 1

      I keep voting and nothing new happens.

      This is a perception problem. I have developed a pill that doubles the placebo effect. Take two and you should feel much better in the morning.

      --
      Disclaimer: Evolution comes with NO WARRANTY, except for the IMPLIED WARRANTY of FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    78. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lowest 40% of wage earners do not pay federal income tax. The argument is "why are they getting benefits if they aren't contributing anything?" It's not cognitive dissonance - it's a philosophical point of view that has no more or less validity than your own.

      Personally, I'm in favor of universal health care. But I want it done right - not this half-assed mess we have now.

    79. Re:This explains the political process by sznupi · · Score: 1

      It's not like most of the people going for Coke/Pepsi don't vote their conscience...

      Plus it's not water; Crystal Pepsi or Tab Clear, at best.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    80. Re:This explains the political process by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? EPA: Still can't get 40 year old coal power plants offline or cleaned up. FCC: Still no network neutrality. FTC: Do we even pretend to enforce antitrust laws anymore?

      But he said "programs" rather than "agencies" anyway. And there are plenty of failed programs too: No Child Left Behind, Social Security and Medicare (you like it, but can you pay for it?), and let's not even get started on the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer-funded security theater industry.

    81. Re:This explains the political process by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      You think higher taxes on both employers and employees will be better for business? Companies will have less money to pay people with and people will have less money to spend, meaning that they buy less, meaning that companies higher fewer people...

      As for your "it'll be great when it happens" comment, given how things work in other countries and the governments track record with everything else they run (Medicare, Social Security, BMV, etc) I definitely have to disagree with you there.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    82. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly? What you think "being drunk" is? It's dehydration. And if you drink several sodas a day, you have bigger problems.

    83. Re:This explains the political process by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like which ones? I can't think of any agencies that don't do what they are supposed to.

      TSA for one. Unless you think their stated purpose to "protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce" is not its real purpose.

      And, if you think the TSA really is performing its stated purpose - note that not one single person "caught" by the TSA has been convicted, or even prosecuted, for being a terrorist threat to the flight they were prevented from boarding.

      So no direct successes. Nor is the evidence for deterrence very strong either - if they were turning terrorists away from air planes they would just attack other targets, but the number of terrorist attacks on other targets has been something less than 1 per year and even those were smaller scale than thousands of drug-related violent crimes during the same period.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    84. Re:This explains the political process by ricosalomar · · Score: 1

      Since we're O.T. anyway, I'll point out that there is no '.' (period) in Dr Pepper.

    85. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      What is the functional difference to you as an individual between a fine and a tax? You would normally pay a tax for generating income. Unless of course you buy an AC, in which case you'd get a credit against some or all of those taxes. If you've earned enough money to purchase health care but don't you'll have a tax/fine if you don't purchase health care. People who can't afford it will be (and already are) given it for free. The mandate is just an awkwardly worded flat income tax.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    86. Re:This explains the political process by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I've heard plenty of people say that they shouldn't have to pay taxes. Also, currently 50% of the US working population pays a total of 3% of the taxes and the proportion that pay no taxes is constantly increasing. We're almost to the point of half the country NOT paying taxes, yet receiving the benefits of taxes.

      Also, I'd like to know why you think a progressive tax system is fair? Why is it OK for one person to get to keep 90% of what they earned but another should be punished and only get to keep 50% of what they earn? I'm assuming that you understand percentages and realize that even if everyone pays the same percent, the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. The common reason given for supporting progressive taxes is "they have more money than I do" - again, even at the same percent tax rate, they'd be paying more, so why have a punitive tax system other than jealousy?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    87. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      We want free healthcare.

      We want a free lunch too but as we all know, there's no such thing. What you're really saying is that you want someone else to pay for your lunch. Why exactly? What have you done that warrants your lunch being paid for by people you've never even met? I know your mother thinks you're special but I doubt anyone else does.

      The other amazing thing is how people believe that if we give tax cuts to the wealthy then jobs will magically appear.

      It's not a difficult concept. An employer with higher taxes has less money. An employer with less money is less able to keep employing current employees or hire new ones. It's not a 1:1 effect but it is still causative.

      Mainstream media creates perceptions. Perceptions don't always reflect reality.

      Also the US government always seem to do what is good for corporations and hardly anything good for consumers. They try to make it appear it was good for consumers. Take the current "Health Care Reforms" that the Democrats passed last year. It doesn't come close to making health care free, in fact it forces us to purchase health insurance. So on the surface it looks like the consumers are finally getting affordable healthcare, in reality the insurance corporations are getting customers who are forced to purchase insurance.

      I agree with that premise completely if you're willing to include organized political movements or anyone with enough money to shovel money by the ton through lobbyists. It's just standard government corruption. They don't really care about corporations any more than anyone else, they just care about the money.

      Free trade is another story entirely. It needs to happen across the globe, regardless of its effects on any one nation. With caveats. It needs to happen slowly so as not to destabilize anyone too badly. And it needs to only happen with capitalist nations where the government doesn't give unfair advantage to their own industries with public funds, preferential laws, or tax breaks/credits. Huh, I guess that second one would leave us out.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    88. Re:This explains the political process by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      You're confusing "blogs" with "Bloggers" who are "professionals". I'm talking reading the sites of normal people just writing about their views, regardless of if anyone reads it or not.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    89. Re:This explains the political process by SargentDU · · Score: 1

      The department of Energy was created to get us off our dependency on foreign sourced oil. We were using 20 % foreign oil at the time, now we are using 80% or so!

    90. Re:This explains the political process by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Not really. In some cases, yes, in others, the media shapes opinions. Why do you think companies invest in advertising? To shape people's views.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    91. Re:This explains the political process by kiwimn · · Score: 1

      Exactly! It's similar to the mentality of "If it makes my taxes go up, I don't want it.". Most of us can't live without health insurance, so health insurance IS effectively a tax. Assuming universal health care is cheaper*, your effective "tax" rate would decrease! * The magical free market fairy so beloved by Republicans tells us that the cost of a product decreases as the consumer population/demand increases. Therefore, if all 300 million of us are buying the same product, shouldn't the cost of providing the product decrease? Of course, we all know the response to this would be "But government is less efficient at spending our money. Imagine the bureaucracy it would create!". Which of course ignores the fact that the private sector loves to spend money on things like private jets and excessive salaries for CEO's etc, and that the current healthcare system in the US is a far larger bureaucracy that universal health care would be (One doctors visit results in multiple bills, people have to claim money back from their insurance company, health care savings accounts etc).

    92. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Anyone who likes what happens in Congress has been elected to it.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    93. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      You act as if the higher taxes will come from peoples current disposable income. It won't, it should be pretty close to parity with what they're spending now on health care between insurance and copays. The average person/corporation should see very little change in their costs. Sure, as with any change, some people will do better than others in the transition, but it shouldn't be more than a few percentage points off one way or the other.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    94. Re:This explains the political process by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

      While I disagree with a lot of what the TSA does on a privacy and civil rights level, I have to admit that they are in the best position to prevent the next 9/11 style attack. I think the fact that terrorists have tried attacking incoming flights (shoe bomber, underwear bomber, cargo bomber) shows that the will to attack us is still there and that the terrorists no longer believe that an attack originating from US soil is logistically possible.

    95. Re:This explains the political process by Chapter80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'll add another to your list. I'm a very small government conservative (against Department of Education, against even a large standing army, etc.). But I support socialized healthcare. Why? Because it's the only feasible pathway away from employer controlled healthcare. We've already killed the biggest noose employers put around their employees (pensions), the last big thing is health care. Once you strip that away from the employer you will see TONS of people starting up that small business they've always wanted to. Nothing will be better for capitalism in America than socializing healthcare. Mark my words. It's coming, and it'll be great when it happens.

      You state a problem ("employer controlled healthcare is a noose around employees") and jump to a solution ("make it free for everyone").

      Why not come up with a solution that is better aimed at the problem? Like: Pass a law that says, "you want to be in the Health Insurance Game (i.e. Wellpoint, Cigna, Humana, Aetna, United Health, etc), you are REQUIRED to accept pre-existing conditions, and offer insurance to individuals."

      In fact, the government could require standardization of plan offerings across the industry (much like the government dictates what "grade A Extra Large Eggs" are). The industry group - representatives from Wellpoint, Cigna, etc. (not the government "death panels") could define what a Plan A "The Insurance Company takes all the risk" through Plan Z "Insured is willing to take more risk". If we were all looking at the same "industry norms" menu, we could make logical decisions for ourselves.

      Since I'm really only concerned about catastrophic, I would like to buy a plan Z, and I'll deal with my own minor issues.

      Imagine this: right now I have a prescription for a daily medication that the insurance company is only willing to pay for one every four days. So somehow, when faced with the "buy it for $117 or pass on it", I get by without it. I am making economic decisions. We all should be making economic decisions. Now, this isn't a life-or-death decision for me, it's addressing a minor inconvenience. But I'm good with that.

      I fail to see how paying for any idiot to walk into an emergency room because they have a headache is going to spur entrepreneurship!

    96. Re:This explains the political process by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If some municipalities, like New York mentioned in the topic, want to skimp out on public services... then they don't hire competent systems designers and you may indeed end up with placebo buttons.

      It's not that. In parts of New York (the city), you can safely assume that there will always be someone crossing every intersection every time the light changes (except at night). Thus, hooking up the buttons is not all that beneficial.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    97. Re:This explains the political process by jayveekay · · Score: 1

      Also, currently 50% of the US working population pays a total of 3% of the taxes and the proportion that pay no taxes is constantly increasing.

      If you work in the US, you pay the social security tax and medicare tax (15.5% flat tax rate, IIRC). Even (many) illegal immigrants pay this.

      If you buy stuff in the US, you pay taxes (e.g. sales taxes, gas tax). Illegals pay these taxes too.

      Where is this 50% of the US working population that pay no taxes?

    98. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      It's a safe bet that anyone running for office has sacrificed at least five thousand babies to Cthulhu.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    99. Re:This explains the political process by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      What was really amazing was the number of medicare recipients protesting against universal healthcare.

      Why is that even slightly unexpected? Providing government healthcare to more people will raise everyone's taxes but not provide a benefit for anyone who already has it. They're hypocrites, not idiots.

    100. Re:This explains the political process by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't want a government check and I don't want free health care. I don't want to be beholden to someone else (free check) and I want affordable health care (not the same as free). And you're right, I don't want the government, a notoriously ineffecient beaurocracy, to take my money and give it to someone else. Charities are much better suited because they are generally more efficient at providing the poor, needy, etc with the services they need. The charities are also more likely to teach the man to fish rather than giving them the fish. The government is not a charity

      Sorry, this article put me in a ranting mood... See below for that response (I've got to find the right thread to put it in.)

    101. Re:This explains the political process by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      And what makes you think that the taxes will equal what's currently paid by people? I pay $120 a month for my insurance - do you really think that I'll only pay $120 a month in taxes? I can guarantee you that I won't. I'd be surprised if I got away with only paying $300 a month in taxes for government run health care. Do you have any basis to make this claim or is it just your opinion and a bit of wishful thinking?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    102. Re:This explains the political process by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was actually wondering last night why governments in places like myanmar bother with voter intimidation when they only need to do a bit of number magic for vote counting (which happens away from the eye of [most] members of the public).

      Iran tried that recently and it ended up being the closest they've come to losing control in the last 30 years. You might argue they just weren't slick enough, but that's a risk in and of itself too.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    103. Re:This explains the political process by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

      Simple solution is to eliminate all entitlement and welfare programs. Lazy moochers aren't a problem, and anyone who wants such things as health care, a place to live, or food will work for it if they want it bad enough, or seek help from some entity other than government who may be sympathetic toward them.

    104. Re:This explains the political process by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      I admire you for being a conservative with the courage to support universal health care, but I must say I'm perplexed by the anti-DoE stance.

      An employer wants intelligent employees, who have skills like the ability to add and subtract, etc. The DoE helps with that. Consider that the government may spend a thousand dollars educating a young child. Thanks to the education, that young child will grow up to be a more productive worker, perhaps generating an extra fifty thousand dollars worth of economic activity over the course of their life.

      Education benefits everyone, even the people who aren't in school.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    105. Re:This explains the political process by operagost · · Score: 1

      The problem is, the only mandates I can think of that would actually reduce the cost of health care would be tort reform and forcing insurance companies to offer services in all 50 states. Unfortunately, neither of those is in the horror that the progressive Congress and progressive President passed.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    106. Re:This explains the political process by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Generally, to a degree, but this time it's going to get fugly and it's going to create the least good for the greatest number.

    107. Re:This explains the political process by Totenglocke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly - they act as if it's a "there's only solution" type of problem.

      Here's a possible solution that I came up with (is it perfect, probably not, but no solution is).

      1) Get the government out of healthcare. Currently, there are many laws preventing insurance companies from operating in all 50 states. This reduces competition and drives prices up. There should be made a federal law that explicitly bans the limitation of states or any other government institution on preventing insurance companies from operating on all 50 states (or any potential future states). There should also be a law that prevents you from being dropped from your insurance as well as requiring you to pay up to a certain percent of your income (as a maximum limit) for any prexisting conditions. Then, one more law that prevents employers from purchasing health care for employees and instead restricts them to reimbursing employees for insurance costs instead (thus ending the "if you lose your job, you lose your insurance" problem). Other than those laws and federal standards for medical training for doctors and nurses / acceptable procedures and sanitation requirements for medical facilities, the government should get out and lets people and businesses decide what they want best.

      2) End businesses paying for health insurance. Yes, I know I mentioned the law regarding this in the previous post, but I want to elaborate on it. With businesses only being allowed to reimburse you for insurance costs, then when you negotiate pay at a job, you can negotiate how much they'll pay. Also, since everyone will be purchasing insurance on their own now and can shop around, you can choose the type of plan you want - if you want, you can take a low cost plan that is entirely covered by how much the company will reimburse you or you can choose a higher cost plan and pay for part of it out of your own pocket (which you currently do anyways with employer provided health insurance). The point is that it's up to you. Once you combine this with the law removing restrictions on insurance company competition, you will have a massive number of options to choose from and if an insurance company doesn't please you, you can easily change companies, so insurance companies will be pressured to lower costs and provide better customer service, just like any other competitive business. Then insurance companies won't just compete on price, but also on what extras they offer - how long you can keep your children on insurance while they're in college / grad school / medical school would be one factor that they would compete over as well as insurance companies pressuring medical institutions to lower costs so that they can lower their insurance costs and pass those savings on to consumers.

      3) Tort reform. One of the biggest problems in the US today is the massive number of bogus lawsuits. Everyone wants to sue everyone because it's easy money if you win. Malpractice insurance (paid for out of doctors own pockets) is incredibly expensive and with the increase in lawsuits, costs have gone up because you're more likely to be sued and need to take money out from the malpractice insurance company. As long as a doctor did not do anything criminal or negligent, you should not be able to sue. If a doctor tells you that there's a risk of something bad happening during an operation and you consent to the operation and that bad thing happens, you do not have the right to sue - he did nothing wrong and you were made aware that this was a possibility. With this gone, doctors won't need to do all of the unnecessary tests they're forced to do for fear of being sued and malpractice insurance will go down, which means that doctors salaries can go down to compensate for the lower cost of malpractice insurance (their after-tax and after-malpractice insurance income will be the same).

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    108. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is but people tend to get all panicky and arresty if you point out that that's why we have the second amendment.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    109. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually a self-consistent position: that there should be some sort of cost-efficient medical-care-pooling, but it should be a privilege for people who work and contribute to it, rather than a right for the general public. I'm not sure if I agree with it - but to describe the position as 'cognitive dissonance' smacks of political bigotry.

    110. Re:This explains the political process by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      What you think "being drunk" is? It's dehydration.

      I really, really hope you meant to say “being hung over”. Because, of course, “being drunk” is not at all about dehydration.

      If you want to get really specific:

      ethanol acts in the central nervous system by binding to the GABA-A receptor, increasing the effects of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA (i.e. it is a positive allosteric modulator).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    111. Re:This explains the political process by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      The Post Office: Any commercial outfit that ran their organization the way the Post Office does would have been out of business a LONG time ago.

      The public education system. Or do you like the fact that the US is not the top educational system in the world, yet we spend as much or more than anyone else.

      Food Stamps: Are they for food or cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets? Are the recipients actually deserving of them. (pulling numbers out of my butt, 80% of them are deserving, but that leaves a good number who are not deserving.)

    112. Re:This explains the political process by operagost · · Score: 1

      For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. - Benjamin Franklin

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    113. Re:This explains the political process by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Well first off, I was referring to INCOME taxes, which outweigh all other taxes combined and are what most people are talking about when they say "taxes". Secondly, not all states have sales tax. Thirdly, you are aware of things called "government transfers" where the government gives you money (such as the EITC) and equates to a NEGATIVE income tax, right?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    114. Re:This explains the political process by laron · · Score: 1

      I think "worse outcome" is supposed to be an average. Someone without health insurance would probably do nothing and wait until the pain in his knee gets so bad that a few thousand dollars of debt more seem like a minor problem.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    115. Re:This explains the political process by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      there is no '.' (period) in Dr Pepper

      ...but there used to be.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    116. Re:This explains the political process by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      The "problem" with that is that in some cases, enough people think the race is a foregone conclusion and thus they vote for that 3rd party candidate, winding up with their guy losing.

      I'm thinking of Nader voters specifically - I can't believe they'd rather have had Bush win than Gore, you know?

      Because of polarization of the electorate, races are getting tighter, and you wind up with groups with a vested interest in disenfranchising people by convincing them to "throw away" their vote on a 3rd party.

      I live in Chicago, where the choices are Dem, Dem and Dem, but during this recent election I got scads of mailers suggesting that because one candidate or another was SO FAR AHEAD in the polls, I should vote for a Green candidate or an independent, etc. The groups sending me those turn out to be linked back to... the second place candidate.

      We need to reform the way elections are funded and the rules that people running for office need to play by before we can get any real options; alas, we can't get there when the people we do have in office find the idea of real campaign reform anathema.

      Here's what I wish would happen: All the third party candidates in a given race, who absolutely know they individually don't have a hope in hell of getting a sufficient percentage of the vote, should work together to form one party solely for the purpose of getting a third party a sufficient chunk of the vote to win "major party" status in their area. They should pick one candidate who runs on the platform of needing more options - because god knows they won't be able to have a coherent platform with many dissenting views, but I think they can ALL agree that we need more options. Maybe their 1 candidate can get a chunk of the vote, maybe not - but something like that is needed to break this cycle.

      What sickened me about this election was that, in Colorado, the republican candidate for an office out there was likely going to get less than 10% of the vote, thus turning the republican party into a minor party (meaning it would be on the same level as "Chuck's American Happy Fun-Time Party!") but both Dem and GOP leadership basically got together and said that even if that happened they wouldn't change things to avoid humiliating their republican colleagues. So basically, even if one of those two parties gets completely fucked by their own rules, they'll just ignore the rules to basically keep the status quo. Sickening, and it needs to change.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    117. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll add another to your list. I'm a very small government conservative (against Department of Education, against even a large standing army, etc.). But I support socialized healthcare. Why? Because it's the only feasible pathway away from employer controlled healthcare. We've already killed the biggest noose employers put around their employees (pensions), the last big thing is health care. Once you strip that away from the employer you will see TONS of people starting up that small business they've always wanted to. Nothing will be better for capitalism in America than socializing healthcare. Mark my words. It's coming, and it'll be great when it happens.

      But there is no such thing as a free.....

      So the businesses don't pay for it and it comes out of your taxes now. Despite the funky accounting designed to make it look like it doesn't lose money over the first 10 years, it will most certainly cost money and require higher taxation. That will hamper small businesses since it will be harder to save enough money to start a business. Kind of like how moving everything to a consumption tax really hurts the poor the most.

      It's already hard enough to start a new business. Just wait until the taxes go up to cover universal healthcare, and businesses have to purchase carbon credits for employees, and everyone up the governmental chain starts assessing more and more fees to hide the fact that they can't spend within their means...

      /rant

    118. Re:This explains the political process by bartok · · Score: 1

      Too bad the numbers you put in your post don't have any ground in reality. Like you 14 trillion deficit for social Security:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?_r=1

    119. Re:This explains the political process by operagost · · Score: 1

      One problem we have is that the Democratic party keeps telling the public that the 50% that only pays 3% of the taxes is the upper half. It's hard to fight such a firmly entrenched lie.
      The other problem is that, no, the public doesn't understand percentages because they were educated in the federally-controlled public school system.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    120. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last country I lived in was like you mention and it worked out very well. However, costs must also be regulated, but not controlled. As part of their licensing system they have a standard Dr. minimum/maximum charge for various services with both public and private practices and hospitals. It worked well and made most surgeries and medicine affordable with or without insurance. Heck, I was able to pay for my own MRI on credit card and then get reimbursed from the insurer. You can pay for your or your insurances choice of a shared room or a hotel suite when you need to stay.

    121. Re:This explains the political process by T+Murphy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you have the short-sighted strategy of trying to get the best viable candidate into office this term for whatever small change he will do, yes you can waste your vote on third party candidates. If your strategy (like mine) is to break the two-party system in the long run, any vote that isn't third party is a waste of a vote.

    122. Re:This explains the political process by pem · · Score: 1
      What progressive tax system?

      Or weren't you paying attention when Warren Buffett explained how he pays a smaller percentage tax than anybody who works for him?

      Or maybe you don't know that social security is regressive? The working poor not only get taxed more, but they die early and don't collect.

      Or maybe you don't realize that deduction phaseouts mean that people at the very top are paying a smaller percentage than some people in the middle?

      In other words, what makes you think the regressive system we have right now is fair?

    123. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      I thought that was the primary goal of democracy; make sure everyone is as equally pissed off at the government as possible. I mean you can't even have more than three people deciding on pizza toppings without ending up with something everyone will hate.

      That's why I like dictatorships. At least with a proper dictatorship you can get things your way for a little while after you've drug the previous administration's dead bodies through the street.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    124. Re:This explains the political process by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Using != Dependent on.

      Just because I partake in teh vendor supplied free lunch doesn't mean I depend on it for sustenance. With our strategic reserve as well as maximum production capacity we could run the country for quite some time with no foreign oil. It would be more expensive of course, so why wouldn't we purchase cheaper foreign oil while it's available?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    125. Re:This explains the political process by Machtyn · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's funny, too. My wife was working a job over the weekend verifying passes for "rich" people who had access to better seats at an event. The couple of guys she was working with were complaining that it wasn't fair that these rich people were rich and that they should be taxed more. They didn't realize that these rich people were currently allowing them to be employed... because the government didn't take so much money from them.

    126. Re:This explains the political process by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I think the fact that terrorists have tried attacking incoming flights (shoe bomber, underwear bomber, cargo bomber) shows that the will to attack us is still there and that the terrorists no longer believe that an attack originating from US soil is logistically possible.

      That's classic post hoc ergo propter hoc. 9/11 was a singular event. The 20+ years before 9/11 showed no terrorist attacks on domestic flights either.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    127. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      I don't support federal education programs. I'm a huge supporter of public education provided by the state.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    128. Re:This explains the political process by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      The hangover is dehydration, the drunk not so much. Drunk is an imbalance of neurotransmitters and hormones.

    129. Re:This explains the political process by operagost · · Score: 1

      The magical free market fairy so beloved by Republicans tells us that the cost of a product decreases as the consumer population/demand increases. Therefore, if all 300 million of us are buying the same product, shouldn't the cost of providing the product decrease?

      No, not if all of us are forced, by law, to buy it. Want proof? See the car insurance rates in states that began to require it.
      So... do you believe in the "free market fairy"-- in which case your argument is based on its existence-- or not, in which case your argument is invalid?

      Which of course ignores the fact that the private sector loves to spend money on things like private jets and excessive salaries for CEO's etc,

      Because we didn't all just pay for the President to take multiple jets, military equipment, and hundreds of personnel at the tune of millions of dollars per day over to India so he could... give a speech?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    130. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      I posted it to another person but I'll repeat it for you. I have a hard time believing that the increase in taxes wouldn't be close to parity with most peoples' insurance premiums + copays.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    131. Re:This explains the political process by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The phenomenon at play is that the client and health care providers are being disassociated with each other from market forces. This is what happens when the system becomes so complex with laws (some necessary, while others are for political gain) that the natural system of supply and demand become disassociated from each other.

      If we paid for our health care like we did for our automotive maintenance, I seriously doubt we would be in the situation we are now in.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    132. Re:This explains the political process by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Exhibit B: Liberals perpetrating this rumor as true. I mean it almost sounds like it could be right?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    133. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just begin a year process of decoupling with employers forced to redirect their portion of contributions to employee paychecks and have insurers required to accept their current policyholders in individual plans? Maybe subsidize the phase in the transition from common insurance pools to actuarially appropriate pools if necessary.

    134. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I don't know, it makes sense to me.

      The second viewpoint says: "I work, I have acquired skills that are useful, because of market conditions I am in demand, I get money, I buy my own stuff. You don't work, you have skills that apply well in an over-saturated market, thus you get paid less and you have trouble finding a job, as you are too lazy to acquire a new skill-- unless you're just too lazy to work in general. Don't touch my money, it's mine."

      The first viewpoint says, "Hey, you can afford a shiny Ferrari. You don't NEED a Ferrari. Ferrari cars are shitty anyway! Buy a used Toyota instead! Give me your money, because I NEED it! My needs are more important than your wants!"

      Assuming that you need something and thus this is important enough to forcefully (as in against their will and desire) deprive someone of something they rightfully own is called "entitlement." You need to eat, you have a right to live; but does that mean that people around you NEED to give you food if you can't afford it yourself? Such an assumption also implies that you can be thankless and, indeed, that anyone who gives you food when you are starving deserves zero credit because they're obligated to anyway, so why does this make them a better person?

      A rich lawyer or CEO is NOT the equal of a McDonalds burger flipper that studied liberal arts in college. The rich lawyer has a job, the CEO has a job, and they are both rich; the burger flipper cannot argue a court case reliably or run a company (or gracefully drop it if it's destined to fail-- some CEOs are repeatedly hired by companies that are winding down to make this process graceful; others just suck at their jobs). Likewise the lawyer probably would need some training to flip burgers; though this is a lot less training and a LOT less upkeep than entering and staying in the legal profession.

      Men are born equal. Naked, ugly, screaming, and completely dependent on someone else's charity. Even kings. They don't stay that way, one way or another; even a shitty king will occasionally get his head cut off.

    135. Re:This explains the political process by jayveekay · · Score: 1

      You wrote "pay no taxes", not "pay no income tax" in your message that I replied to. If you are referring to a particular kind of tax then in the future be specific about that.

      I'm not certain what the difference is between the government taking some of your earned money and calling it "income tax" and taking some other portion of your earned money and calling it "social security and medicare tax". In either case the government is taking your money. You don't have that money to spend, the government has it to spend. To the end user, the effect is identical regardless of which category the government calls it. Thus, I don't understand your rationale for picking and choosing one of these taxes and ignoring the other, other than hyperbole to support your argument.

      I'm quite certain that every US adult is paying some sales/gas/telecom taxes at either the municipal/state/federal level. There are so many of these taxes (check your phone bill) they are unavoidable.

    136. Re:This explains the political process by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Theres other, better, ways to do it.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    137. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      Those things are a drop in the bucket. If you wanted to really go to the end of the spectrum of minimizing government intervention you'd have to do other things. The real costs are tied up in the medical associations that control (read: limit) certification and college programs. They openly admit to controlling supply of doctors, dietitians, physical therapists, etc. in order to maintain salary of those positions. You could even go so far as to remove the whole concept of prescriptions. Why pay $150 (copay + premiums) to go to a doctor when I have the sniffles when all I want is the $15 antibiotic?

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    138. Re:This explains the political process by Feynman · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be interesting if everyone did this? Then, without warning, someone who didn't even show up in the polls would win.

      Like Jesse Ventura.

    139. Re:This explains the political process by operagost · · Score: 1

      This is a fun joke for progressives to throw around, but I haven't been able to find a photo of a sign saying this that was placed in context at a "tea party" rally. In other words, it could have just been a meatspace troll from an outsider. Link?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    140. Re:This explains the political process by joost · · Score: 1

      Can I just repeat that, except it is not just your taste buds that are deceived, but also bits of your body chemistry that prepare to handle incoming sugar, then find that there was no sugar, and then they seriously _want_ sugar.

      What bits?

      There is also the danger of developing diabetes which happens when you feed the body too much sugar - fake sugar has exactly the same effect.

      No.

      And twice the effects if you drink diet coke and then eat sweets because your body wants the sugar.

      No, just once the effects from the sweets.

      Thanks for playing though.

    141. Re:This explains the political process by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      There's a flaw in that logic when the discrepancy between the average CEO pay and the average worker pay has changed 100 fold, since CEOs used to do just fine making only 40x what the workers made while their marginal tax rate (at the top bracket) was 91% instead of the current 36%.

    142. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People can already start up small businesses without offering any healthcare benefits as part of the employment package. Why would anyone want a overbearing intrusive govermental agency controlling their healthcare? So it can be efficient, like the post office? The VA hospitals we have now? The IRS? The voting system?

      Oh please! You must have been chanting "O-Bam-A" a few years back...

    143. Re:This explains the political process by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I don't, I'd be quite happy paying out of pocket for health care, and would be exceedingly happy to have the option to pocket my health insurance benefit except to buy a very high deductable plan (say coverage for stuff $20,000 and up or higher). I don't carry collision or comprehensive on my cars, and only have fire insurance because the mortgage requires it (once it's paid off, I'd drop fire insurance).

      I agree though that the current reforms are pretty terrible (though after 2014, they seem to be designed to bankrupt insurers which was probably a feature not a bug).

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    144. Re:This explains the political process by operagost · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? If you don't buy health care, you pay a penalty of up to 2% of your income. There isn't some sort of tax credit here.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    145. Re:This explains the political process by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      If you make all your purchases using money given to you, you are effectively not paying any taxes.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    146. Re:This explains the political process by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      My numbers came from usdebtclock.org

      The Times article you cite mentions the mythical "fund" that won't be exhausted until 2037. The 1967 amendment to the Social Security Act made it so that, any time Social Security ran a surplus, the money would go to the general fund in exchange for an IOU to be paid back later by Congress when Social Security was in deficit.

      Those IOUs are what they're counting on as a "fund" and that money is flat out non-existent. The general fund is already running trillion+ dollar deficits without having to pay back the Social Security Trust Fund, meaning the money will either have to come from borrowing (sell more debt to China or to ourselves through the Fed), inflation (print more money to cover the deficit), taxation (which is likely to cause a revolt amongst working age people, especially younger ones, and will give them less money to prepare for their own future or current needs) or a reduction in payments (either through age increases, directly decreased payments, etc, which will likely cause a revolt amongst retirees and near retirees).

      The "Greatest Generation" and the 1910s/30s/60s progressives sold today and tomorrow's generations down the river. We can only continue to ignore the reality of it for so long because it's going to come crashing down soon.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    147. Re:This explains the political process by operagost · · Score: 1

      If the tax cuts were a panacea then why haven't they created new jobs in the past 3 years?

      Well, they did in the preceding five years. I'm sure if we used the same mysterious accountants the White House does, we could somehow calculate how many jobs the W tax cuts "saved or created" for you in the last 3 years as well-- but they're pretty well obscured by the economic collapse brought on by the housing bubble, bailouts, and devaluation of the dollar.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    148. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how paying for any idiot to walk into an emergency room because they have a headache is going to spur entrepreneurship!

      What you actually fail to see is that you're already paying for that idiot. The (realistic in modern society) alternative is to acknowledge that you're doing this and offer to pay for that person to go to a regular doctor where the cost is an order of magnitude cheaper.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    149. Re:This explains the political process by operagost · · Score: 1

      I don't want a government check; and the "free" health care I do want will be paid for out of the taxes I pay gladly that now go to put Blackwater mercenaries ($1k/day) on the ground in diplomatically touchy situations instead of trained, accountable soldiers ($50-200/day) who are fighting for something more than the money and a chance to "empty an HK into a raghead".

      This is called a "false dilemma". Nothing stops the government from spending billions shooting "ragheads" AND taxing the hell out of your to pay for compulsory health care.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    150. Re:This explains the political process by sznupi · · Score: 1

      How does that contradict what I said? ...and, in many others, "the media" are a reflection of what people expect, what they crave, etc. Yes, really. Don't participate in collective responsibility dodging by blaming it on "them"...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    151. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your point of view. I suspect the government regulators prefer fewer larger businesses, because from a control point of view, a few corporations are easier to manipulate than many.

    152. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      It's not about small business owners offering health benefits (or not). It's about not wanting to give up the health benefits you have at your current employer because when you're starting up your small business you will either not have coverage or you'll be dishing out huge amounts of money to pay for individual plans. Why would anyone want an overbearing intrusive for-profit corporation controlling their healthcare? I know, sometimes it's hard to think of people who exist outside of the two simplified political buckets described to you by your friends in the mass media, but if you try real hard one day you might get it.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    153. Re:This explains the political process by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Also important to mention is that serious advocates of socialized health care don't say they want "free" health care. Claiming they do say that is a straw man argument. The 3 serious arguments that usually come up:

      1. The empirical argument: Countries that have socialized health care generally get better care overall for lower cost than the US system, so the closest thing we have to real-world experiments suggest that it would be an improvement. Studies by the World Health Organization and similar groups bear this out - if you're going to be sick, far better to do it in Britain or France than the US. In addition, the more socialistic health organizations within the US also bear this out - the VA with its government-run hospitals gets more bang for the health care buck than private insurers with private hospitals.

      2. The theoretical argument: There are several features of health care which guarantee failures in free market economics to produce optimum results. The major ones:
          a. Nobody can tell you the price of a treatment ahead of time. Under the private insurance system, you receive treatment, the provider then decides how much that cost, then the insurance company decides how much they're going to pay, then you get a bill for the rest. No pricing means no informed decisions for the buyer to make.
          b. Buyers (patients) aren't really in a position to refuse treatment. If your choice is "pay $X or die", most everyone picks paying $X, regardless of what $X is and whether they are remotely capable of paying it. That means completely price-inelastic demand.
          c. Buyers (patients) can't even effectively shop around. If a hospital across town could do the same treatment for less, that doesn't mean it's possible or cost-effective to transport a patient to that other hospital. That means massive barriers to switching sellers.

      3. The moral argument: It's immoral to allow people to die because they couldn't afford a reasonably priced treatment, and socialized medicine generally guarantees that. That's the one that bleeding-heart liberals will like, and hard-nosed conservatives generally won't.

      You added an interesting (and accurate) fourth argument, namely that the free market in health care distorts the free market in labor to the mix.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    154. Re:This explains the political process by chris+mazuc · · Score: 1

      Food Stamps: Are they for food or cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets?

      You don't know how food stamps work, eh? Food eligibility list.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    155. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      I agree 100% with your statement. There's one glaring thing missing in your list though, and that's politically viable. There aren't, IMHO, other, better, politically viable, ways to do it.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    156. Re:This explains the political process by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I was explaining the Fair Tax to people, and how it would handle things such as welfare, social security and unemployment, and they complained that it was completely socialist. I then explained that we already have these same programs to which the response was stunned silence...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    157. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Social Security is $14.7 trillion in debt (and already in the red despite the projections

      Tain't so: http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths/index.html?rc=fb.1

      "Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves. "

    158. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      Other than the fact that every single western nation with socialized health care pays about half what we currently pay for premiums + copays... no, I don't have anything to base that claim on. It's entirely possible that someone could dream up a socialized health plan that is more than twice the cost of every other modern socialized plan. I'll grant you that.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    159. Re:This explains the political process by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      So you contend that me paying for an idiot to go to a regular doctor will somehow deter that idiot from going to an emergency room with a headache? Citation needed.

      I say that raising the price of the emergency room visit will deter the idiot from going to the emergency room. And you already provided the evidence: They aren't going to regular doctors, why? Because regular doctors cost money, emergency rooms don't.

    160. Re:This explains the political process by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. Then I'd just say that your experience with normal people's blogs varies significantly from mine.

    161. Re:This explains the political process by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      That view is so American it's almost cute. :)

      "All men are created equal -- naked, ugly, screaming moochers. Then you get a job. Or you don't, so fuck you."

      You think people come off a production line like a blank CD ready to be pressed and packaged and sold to the consumer... but everyone is quite different.

      I can certainly see how you could be tricked into this way of thinking, given the culture you are immersed in.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    162. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      So you contend that me paying for an idiot to go to a regular doctor will somehow deter that idiot from going to an emergency room with a headache? Citation needed.

      I say that raising the price of the emergency room visit will deter the idiot from going to the emergency room. And you already provided the evidence: They aren't going to regular doctors, why? Because regular doctors cost money, emergency rooms don't.

      How exactly will raising the cost of the emergency room (which is paid for by non-idiots like you and me) going to deter the guy who walks in and gets free coverage because he doesn't have any money? You think if he could go to a regular doctor visit for free he wouldn't choose that over sitting in line behind a bunch of people with open wounds for hours on end at an emergency room? His coverage is better, our costs go down. Sounds like a win-win to me. If you think getting him to actually pay for it is possible I've got some beach from property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    163. Re:This explains the political process by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      And we're in debt up to our eyeballs on programs that don't do what they were supposed to do.

      Like defense, right? Huge entitlement program for the corporate welfare moms, just so we can create new enemies abroad, or build giant, hilariously expensive floating targets.

    164. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      Also.. if the health care costs are built into the tax system there's a CHANCE said idiot will have paid at least for a portion of the cost of him going to the emergency room for his headache. In the current system there's zero chance of said idiot with no coverage having paid for it.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    165. Re:This explains the political process by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      Like it or not there are 2 kinds of bills. Ours and Mine/Yours.

      Ours. Roads, Defence, Infrastructure, Emergency Relief, and stuff like that.
      Mine/Yours. Credit Cards, Mortgages, Rent, Food, Xbox, LCD TV, Charities you choose to give to, car payments, and so on.
      Do not spend my money on your charities. You spend your money on your charities and I will spend my money on the charities that I do the things I think need to be done.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    166. Re:This explains the political process by ricosalomar · · Score: 1

      Yes, back when there was a hyphen in Auto-gyro.

    167. Re:This explains the political process by bberens · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're probably right. But it doesn't make sense when joined with the comment about us paying twice what they pay in universal coverage countries. Because the people that are actually paying that "twice the cost" do not, generally, have the "worse outcome" being mentioned.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    168. Re:This explains the political process by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Because we didn't all just pay for the President to take multiple jets, military equipment, and hundreds of personnel at the tune of millions of dollars per day over to India so he could... give a speech?

      First, the people in America (including Glenn Beck), who started publicising how much was spent on this trip got numbers from the Indian press, from papers which had no actual knowledge and published figures pulled out of their hats. There's every reason to believe those papers did no fact checking before they just came up with a number - One of them included the cost of loading an aircraft carrier on a plane to fly it to the Indian ocean, for crying out loud! Until you know whether the cost is really in the millions per day range or not, and what it actually is, whether the person spinning it included operating costs that would be incurred anyway (like paying the airplane mechanics who would still draw the same salary stateside, or counting all the secret service personnel that would be guarding him wherever he went or stayed), and such, your question is just another unfounded accusation like the Birther BS.

      Second, There's already been a lot more than a speech. The President has toured several industrial areas where US investors are involved, and in one of his speeches he has indicated he saw a number of projects that were not what people in the US expect (i.e. Call Centers outsourcing American service industry jobs), but businesses that he expects already are bringing or soon will bring quite a bit of return on US investment. (I personally oppose giving US corporations tax breaks for such investment anyway, but that's not exactly a right wing position - the right ought to be publicly patting President Obama's back for him testifying he has conducted due oversight of how a tax break is working out and supports retaining it. (Instead, they're calling it more socialism.). There's also been a commitment to a new peace process between India and Pakistan, and to getting India made a permanent member of the UN security council. (Again, those are not necessarily good things as far as US treaties and promises of funding go, but they are certainly not just "a speech" either).

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    169. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this... ALL OF THIS

    170. Re:This explains the political process by jubei · · Score: 1

      Do you want to pay ten times as much for a routine medical procedure as someone that has insurance?

      Whenever I an invoice from a medical provider, they list the normal price and the insurance-negotiated price. It is usually about 10x more if you don't have insurance.

      The system is broken. People cannot shop around for medical care like they do with other goods and services, because the prices aren't known ahead of time and often the consumer doesn't have time or a state of mind to do a comparison anyway.

      There needs to be some regulation to keep costs reasonable. With that in place, your desire to pay for your own expenses might work.

    171. Re:This explains the political process by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oddly, I come from the more ultra-liberal ideas (I consider myself an anarchist) but, I agree with GP. I think what you are missing is... yes... "socialized medicine" would be a huge money sink. However, its not the creation of a money sink...its the replacement of one with another.

      Medicine can only be a money sink. It is a cost, it is overhead. Right now, it is already a huge, and growing, money sink that is already a huge drag on the economy. Just because it would be a larger money sink than any of the ones that exist now, by consolidating those many sinks into one, there could be a lot of savings.

      Insurance companies, really, are a sort of casino. They are just playing massive odds over large populations and offering bets. In this case, there is a purpose of course as they spread the risk of major illness and its costs amongst a large group of people. Its really just a hedge bet... A person without insurance is betting everything on not getting bankruptingly sick. A person with insurance is still betting on that, but hedging that bet against the possibility of getting sick to cut losses.

      In a pure value in/value out sense, insurance is a bad buy, however, it mitigates risk, and makes itself a very good buy in that way.

      That said, its become nearly a necessity. I wouldn't think of putting myself in a position where my wife and I had to go buy insurance on our own. Even in MA where a miniature version of these healthcare reforms were put in place a few years back, it is still too much of a risk.

      Giving people a bit more mobility would be a good thing. Especially if it saves money overall while doing it. In the end, its not like we are going from a well working, unregulated system and nationalizing it, if we did implement it. What we have is already a huge mess.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    172. Re:This explains the political process by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Guess who already pays for half of all US healthcare expenditures?

      Government. And that only covers about 10% of the population.

      So what you're saying is that our problem is that we don't let government cover 100% of the population?

      I'm not seeing the logic.

    173. Re:This explains the political process by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That’s why you use the food stamps on “eligible” food stuffs so you can spend every last penny of what you do make (or, better yet, panhandle, since that’s unreported income) on cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    174. Re:This explains the political process by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Um.. interesting quote, but I'm not sure why you're replying to my comment with it. Are you trying to say that Benjamin Franklin suffered from wanting to cancel all programs, except those that specifically benefited him? Or that he wanted to not pay taxes and yet have all the social programs he could imagine? Or are you saying that he falls into the "bombastic blogger" category and has chosen a side to represent, disregarding any sympathies he may have with the opposite side?

      In any case, Benjamin Franklin, as smart as he was, died 220 years ago. We no longer think it's acceptable to leave those unable to care for themselves to die. There is a distinction between those unable to care for themselves, and those unwilling to care for themselves that is often ignored. Capitalists often talk as if all the poor are just lazy mooches, and socialists often talk as if all the poor are mentally-deficient cripples. Neither is true, and finding ways to take care of those who need it, while discouraging abuse is where the discussion needs to be. Not in all-or-nothing absolutes.

    175. Re:This explains the political process by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      And if you drink several sodas a day, you have bigger problems.

      I'll repeat it again: [citation needed]

      Are you one of the people who have fears about artificial sweeteners that have no scientific basis?

    176. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Equal != identical. If you are born to a rich black family, you are as poor and worthless as a poor white infant. You come out of your mother's vagina covered in goop, screaming, and unable to do any damn work. People are not "quite different" when they're born; they all come out "quite the same." They're different later, at which point we should stop calling them "equals."

    177. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      There is absolutely never money saved by introducing more bureaucrats into the mix. The money sink I was talking about wasn't the extra people being covered but the Washington Overhead.

      Regarding the rest, I really don't disagree except to add this. Requiring that they take the safe bet is the antithesis of what made America great.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    178. Re:This explains the political process by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      Nobody is created equal. You are a product of your genetics and your environment. Back to school with you buddy. Come join the 21st century, it's quite nice.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    179. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think higher taxes on both employers and employees will be better for business? Companies will have less money to pay people with

      Over the 10 years my company has been running, our insurance plan has gone from $200/mo per employee for $20 copay and a $500 yearly deductible to $400/mo for a plan with a $50 copay ($75 for specialists) with $7000 deductible (and a promise from the company that if anyone goes over $5000, we'll pay half of the excess, because the $5000 deductible would have been over $600/mo) (we pay 50% of the premiums, so the 7000 plan saved us $1200/person, even if everyone hits the $7000 mark we still save $200/person).

      Company pays 50%. Our broker assures me that if we can hire another 21 people (up from 4), we can get something approaching a good deal.

      Until this insurance shit is fixed, my advice to anyone wanting to start a small company is to tell their employees to marry someone working at a job with spouse benefits. Will the shit Obama pushed fix it? No, now I'm REQUIRED to hunt down insurance for my employees, and the insurance companies know I can't say no.

    180. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as free healthcare. Someone has to pay somewhere along the line...

      I appreciate the distinction but every time I hear this it feels insulting. I'm sure most people who say the phrase "free healthcare" are aware it's not free.

      Medicare... you mean the insurance that people were force to pay into for maybe 50 years prior to receiving it? I can't possibly see why people would want what they had already paid for

      I think the real point of the issue was that these people were claiming that universal healthcare is inherently bad because of socialism, all the while telling others not to touch their medicare or social security. That's where the ignorance and hypocrisy lies.

      As to your points about our shitty government and it's politicians, I won't argue. But that's an argument against this system and it's participants, not universal healthcare or social safety nets. There are nations in this world who have figured these things out to a degree that makes those systems functional.

      Wait, is this the same government that you expect to be your sugar daddy savior?

      I think his point is that instead of doing those terrible things, it could be doing these good things. How do we fix it? How do we move forward and make government do what we feel it should.

    181. Re:This explains the political process by netsavior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Medicare is SOOO different, see evil social medicine is for non-voters and medicare is for the voters with the best turn-out: the elderly. Totally different.

    182. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare that bastard be able to take advantage of the program that he or she has been paying 3% of their annual salary into their whole life?

      The entitlement programs currently on the books have been around up to 70+ years. You cannot just turn off the spigot. Any plan to eliminate SS or Medicare must have at least a 20-30 year sunset.

      Personally, I would rather control the 15% of my annual salary that currently goes to Medicare/SS. Compound that savings over 40+ years and it will be multiples of the maximum entitle I'd be eligible for when I hit "retirement" age.

    183. Re:This explains the political process by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that it would be close to similar. Theoretically, since everyone “has” to buy insurance, forcing insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions is okay. However, in practice, it’ll be much cheaper to not have insurance, pay the fine for not having the “mandatory” coverage, and then after you find out that you have diabetes or cancer or you burned out your liver, the insurance company will be forced to sell you a plan and shell out big bucks for your health care costs after the house has already burned down, so to speak.

      As soon as enough people figure this out it’ll bankrupt all of the private insurance companies, which of course is exactly what the socialised health-care advocates are counting on. Then once everyone is on the government-run plan they can start to drastically cut corners to reduce costs, claim it’s “unavoidable” (which will be true, at that point), and with no alternatives people will just have to accept it.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    184. Re:This explains the political process by froggymana · · Score: 1

      Well, you really aren't missing much... They aren't very exciting and tend to filled all sorts of liars. They keep trying to change them to be better, and more exciting but they aren't really making any progress...

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    185. Re:This explains the political process by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily see the cognitive dissonance.

      If a store's policy is to give out $50 to every customer, I might say "that's a bad way to run a business." But I'm still going to line up for my $50.

    186. Re:This explains the political process by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      You joke, but during the Suharto regime in Indonesia (1967 - 1998) they held elections and a large part of the population thought they lived in a democracy as a result.

      Thats very interesting. I wonder what else the Suharto regime has in common with the recent UK elections.

      I'm going to hazard a guess: Absolutely nothing

      If you can't tell the difference between an effective and dynamic democracy and a true dictatorship where the leadership doesn't change for 30 years then you should get your meds adjusted.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    187. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That odd. I would have called them "goggles buttons".

    188. Re:This explains the political process by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You need to eat, you have a right to live; but does that mean that people around you NEED to give you food if you can't afford it yourself?

      Does the person needing the charity get to demand it? No. Should the people around the person who needs it give it? Yes. Everyone seems to agree on that (at least all political parties and public organizations of any note). The question always comes down to how to provide the service and how to pay for it. But you are arguing that there's no moral imperative to help people that need help. That's not a position argued by any major organization.

    189. Re:This explains the political process by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The government can give $10 to educational charities or $100 to prisons. I want the smallest government possible, so I'm for Head Start. That program causes a reduction in other services that, overall, saves me money.

      But then, there are those that would rather spend $1000 on prisons than give one "needy" person $1 because they are anti-charity, not for an effective expenditure of money.

    190. Re:This explains the political process by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      You answered your own question.

      He will NOT pay, so he will not go to the emergency room with a headache.

      "Free clinic is next door, bud."

    191. Re:This explains the political process by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The problem I see with (1) being at all a part of a solution is that it isnt really the health insurance company that is the problem. A simple check of profit margins reveals that health insurance companies are not out of line.

      To be clear, their profit margins are single-digit percentages. So you pay $270+/month instead of $300/month for a family plan if you completely eliminate the insurance companies profit.

      I agree that there should be more competition, that a Californian should be able to get on a plan that people in Vermont enjoy, and so forth. But I do not think that this in any way addresses the problem of high costs.

      (2) is closer to the point. Right now there is a disconnect between those who pay for insurance and those that use the insurance.

      (3) I havent actually seen data that shows that lawsuits are the cost culprit. I am more of the mind that people not shopping around for cheap care rates, getting extra work done, etc.. are the big culprit.

      If someone else was paying for my car, I'd want a Tesla Roadster. Since I actually have no pay for my car, I own a 17 year old Buick.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    192. Re:This explains the political process by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Yes, when a rich person buys a $10,000 Rolex, or a $300,000 Bentley, it benefits me directly. No, wait, it doesn't. The lion's share of that money leaves the US economy, with a small fraction of it going to sales- and maintenance workers.

      You know what makes more sense than your argument? That a rich business person should love entitlements, because they enable poor people to have more discretionary spending, which gives the merchant and corporate classes more opportunity to reap profits.

      Reagan used to say that a rising tide lifted all boats. I agree: if we raise the level of education for everyone in this country, it will lead to a more innovative, more productive workforce, and even more wealth for the wealthy. Every millionaire should be begging to give money to public school districts for this reason alone, say nothing of the benefits they'll reap through lower crime rates.

      There are definitely some of the ultra-wealthy who put their money right back into the economy and create further wealth through the jobs they create. More power to them. For every one of them, there are probably hundreds of others (I know, citation needed) who simply hoard their wealth (buying more houses than they can count), waste it away in manners that provide no sum benefit to the world (MC Who-mer?) or investing it in ways that only target increasing their wealth exponentially (Murdoc, Koch et al).

      Thanking these banqueteers for your job is like being a firefighter and thanking an arsonist for keeping you employed. Once you've amassed wealth equal to an average American's lifetime earning potential, if you're not working extra hard to give it all away or invest it in a way that will provide for more than your own heirs, you are hurting the economy and hurting the world.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    193. Re:This explains the political process by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      How long would it take to bring up production? New refinaries, new rigs... ten years sounds feasable. That's dependence to me.

    194. Re:This explains the political process by Smauler · · Score: 1

      There's no infrastructure to supply the demand in the US now. Yes, there are reserves, but the US would be oil short (which might cripple the economy) for a couple of years if imports stopped. That's _very_ unlikely to happen though.

    195. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, I'd like to know why you think a progressive tax system is fair? Why is it OK for one person to get to keep 90% of what they earned but another should be punished and only get to keep 50% of what they earn? I'm assuming that you understand percentages and realize that even if everyone pays the same percent, the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. The common reason given for supporting progressive taxes is "they have more money than I do" - again, even at the same percent tax rate, they'd be paying more, so why have a punitive tax system other than jealousy?

      Do you dispute that the more wealth you have and the more money you make, the more you benefit from a stable society? One in which people actually have property rights? If so, you probably concede that it's only fair that the more you benefit, the more you should pay.

      If you agree so far, the next question is why you assume that the relationship between how much you benefit and how much you should pay is perfectly linear?

      In your interaction with fellow human beings you might eventually conclude that people never agree 100 % about anything so no such thing as a tax system which everyone perceives as perfectly fair can exist. Now, if you want to change the existing one to something different you should actually address the arguments those in favor of it make instead of arguments that you take out of your ass and try to put in their mouths.

    196. Re:This explains the political process by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Its hard to prosecute people who've got a bullet between their eyes or who've been shipped to holding cells in US-allied countries where there's no such thing as habeas corpus. Just saying - many issues of national security don't get dealt with in the 'traditional way.' I feel the TSA is run as stupidly as could be, but to some extent I hope its a clever rouse to seem idiotic when they're anything but. It wouldn't be hard for people to be questioned, and then picked up and tossed onto a torture taxi via JANET (Just-Another-Non-Existant-Terminal).

    197. Re:This explains the political process by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Because every other rich country in the world has government run healthcare, and every other rich country in the world pays A LOT less for it than the United States does. About 7% of GDP less. If the United States spent, in terms of % of GDP, what France does on healthcare we could save roughly a trillion dollars a year, over $3000 for every man, woman, and child PER YEAR in the country. Now I know it comes at great sacrifice, the son of some rich dude who never worked a day in his life will be denied yet another yacht, but we all have to make sacrifices.

    198. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soylent green? :)

    199. Re:This explains the political process by afidel · · Score: 1

      That's hilarious since the Ohio Dem's were using one of the republicans support of the Fair Tax (or flat tax, not sure which he supported) as an evil plot to decrease taxes for the rich while taxing poor peoples food and medicine. I'm fairly sure neither major party wants the Fair Tax to pass as it makes it too hard for them to trade campaign contributions for tax loopholes.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    200. Re:This explains the political process by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, for the US, usually, when you abbreviate as DoE, you mean Dept. of Energy
      http://www.energy.gov/
      The Federal Department of Education prefers to call themselves the education dept. (ED)
      http://www.ed.gov/
      as you can see used many places on their website.

      Both your thousand spent and your fifty thousand over the course of their life are very different from the real numbers, but your argument is actually made more valid by using reasonably current figures

      Federal spending, per capita, for public primary and secondary education (2007 - most recent year data have been aggregated for public release):
      $ 9,683
      Average contribution (per year) for a US worker to the US GDP (In 2007 standardized dollars, as used to apply a cost of living locally factor to all other countries figures - note that the cost of living in the US is always the base for reporting and so not adjusted).
      $46,436
      Average contibution without even a high school diploma or GED:
      $6,283
      Average contribution with a publicly derived High School diploma:
      $28,608
      And just for a little more of the overall picture, average contribution with graduation from a four year college or better:
      58,447

      Average number of years working for a high school graduate: 42 years
      (Note this is less than the number from age 18.5 (typical graduation age) to normal retirement at age 67 (now the typical age to receive full social security benefits), mostly because of people who retire at less than full social security age or become disabled, plus the occasional death or criminal conviction or other such factor.)
      Total Time for primary and secondary education in US (K-12): 13 years.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    201. Re:This explains the political process by colinnwn · · Score: 1

      Various studies have indicated that Medicare has either an extremely advantageous administrative expense ratio compared to private insurance, or possibly a slight but negligible advantage, depending on what you agree should be included or not.

      It seems a gaggle of Washington Bureaucrats can't do much worse damage to the admin expense ratio compared to the Free Market Insurance Industry moochers.

    202. Re:This explains the political process by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      A fine usually comes with a criminal conviction, which can be a serious impediment in life.

    203. Re:This explains the political process by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      If you can not understand the difference between Government and charity and why they NEED to be separate then there is no point in this conversation. If you can tell the difference but think that Government should be in the business of charity then we can talk about that. If you think government should not be in the charity business but can not tell the difference then you are an idiot.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    204. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with socialized health care that was proposed was that it didn't address the problem. It just masked it for a while. What you need is a nation of medical field workers that are not in it for the money. Growing up I was always told be a doctor or a lawyer you will always be rich... Doctors are in it to get rich until you address that health care won't be cheap no matter how much money you steal from the next guy.

    205. Re:This explains the political process by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Thats because executives take the lions share of what an insurance company earns. Many states in a bid to reduce health care costs put caps on how much an insurance company can earn. The executives there basically took that as an invitation to help themselves to as much money as they want. Ever been to Hartford Connecticut? There are airports solely devoted to serving the private planes of insurance executives, hundreds of airplanes. These people add nothing useful to society but consume massive amounts of resources and their gravy train needs to come to a screeching halt NOW.

    206. Re:This explains the political process by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I'm a small business guy (3 people, total), and we have - or, as it's turning out, had - affordable healthcare. I'm 42, family history of cancer, overweight, overworked, and paid $110 per month. It was a catastrophic plan with a $3500 annual deductible, but $20 co-pays for my biannual physicals. Great, eh? Except the new rules are making my plan "not Government approved" and thus it's being dropped. My option now is a variety of $400+ per month plans, for about the same coverage. Oh sure, I don't have that big nasty deductible, but I have to come up with $3600+ more per year for my insurance. More than my deductible. And a guaranteed (rather than potential) expense every year. Thanks, Obamacare!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    207. Re:This explains the political process by judoguy · · Score: 1

      No it's not. De-link insurance from jobs by getting rid of the tax benefit for companies and people. If you want insurance, go buy it, but no government distortion of the market. Healthcare is too important to have the government involved. By the way, for all you folks that want free (fill in the blank), there are only three ways to get anything: 1. You earn it 2. Someone gives it to you of their own free will 3. Theft (Hint - Hiring the gvmt to rob someone for you is still theft)

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    208. Re:This explains the political process by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily see the cognitive dissonance.

      If a store's policy is to give out $50 to every customer, I might say "that's a bad way to run a business." But I'm still going to line up for my $50.

      It's not your responsibility to keep the store running. But, as a democracy of, by, and for the people, you do share some of the blame if the country goes down in flames. You share in responsibility for the government in the US. "We the People," you know. That's who's running the place, really.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    209. Re:This explains the political process by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Come election day, nothing ever changed and the people were more content than they would have been without the illusion of political contention, it was very educational to watch.

      I realized I was working on personal memory from over 20 years ago, so for the [citation needed] crowd I provide the following:

      Indonesia's New Order: Politics and dissent

      To maintain a veneer of democracy, Suharto made a number of electoral reforms. He stood for election before electoral college votes every five years, beginning in 1973. According to his electoral rules, however, only three parties were allowed to participate in the election: his own Golkar party, the Islamist United Development Party (PPP), and the Democratic Party of Indonesia (PDI). All the previously existing political parties were forced to be part of either the PPP or PDI, with public servants under pressure to join the membership of Golkar. In a political compromise with the powerful military, he banned its members from voting in elections, but set aside 100 seats in the electoral college for their representatives. As a result, he won every election in which he stood, in 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, and 1998.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    210. Re:This explains the political process by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Medicare administrative costs are higher - not lower - than for private insurers. It's all how you factor the "ratio of cost" - per dollar spent, or per patient served.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    211. Re:This explains the political process by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the illusion that alternatives to universal healthcare don't exist in those countries. In the UK, your brother would have had three choices: 1. private surgery within a couple of weeks, funded either from his pocket or from his private health insurance; 2. NHS surgery which would involve a waiting list of 3-6 months with after-care provided on a private ward again funded either from his pocket or insurance; 3. total NHS 'free at the point of delivery' option, same waiting time but after-care on a public hospital ward. Bear in mind that the the %age of GDP figures that are published _include_ the tens of thousands of people in the UK who top-up their healthcare with private insurance to get quicker elective surgery or a nicer recovery room.

    212. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Health reform will result in increased costs for employers...

    213. Re:This explains the political process by colinnwn · · Score: 1

      "Conservative Policy Research and Analysis | The Heritage Foundation"

      Straight from the Conservative's mouth to the ears of babes.

    214. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      But you are arguing that there's no moral imperative to help people that need help. That's not a position argued by any major organization.

      No, I'm arguing that there's no moral imperative to rob Peter to buy food for Paul. Put your own money up or shut up; don't decide that I'm not nice for hoarding my riches and you need to take them away from me and give them to other people. Robin Hood was a bandit and a crook.

    215. Re:This explains the political process by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      That's hilarious since the Ohio Dem's were using one of the republicans support of the Fair Tax (or flat tax, not sure which he supported) as an evil plot to decrease taxes for the rich while taxing poor peoples food and medicine. I'm fairly sure neither major party wants the Fair Tax to pass as it makes it too hard for them to trade campaign contributions for tax loopholes.

      We had the same commercials in my state; the removal of income and SS taxes weren't mentioned, just that evil Mr. Tea Party wanted to tax senior's cat food 26% more.

    216. Re:This explains the political process by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      In California we collectively voted property taxes way down via what's called a "proposition"[1]; and then b1tch to our elected state officials that our services, such as community colleges and libraries, have been cut. Too bad we can't fire ourselves.

      [1] A fitting name, if you know what I mean

    217. Re:This explains the political process by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Wow, thanks for the info. Did you compile it yourself, or did you get it from a source?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    218. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      So you are telling me that some people stride proudly from their mothers' vagina to join the workforce and supply useful labor to society?

      You are not making a logical argument. What person has ever been born that wasn't completely defenseless; completely useless; and completely incapable of caring for themselves?

    219. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All of those agencies do what they are supposed to. Are you complaining because they aren't 100% absolutely perfect in every way? If that's your standard, then I concede the point.

      But it's not my standard. The EPA has successfully helped the environment by a huge margin since it started. Social Security in fact helps millions of people every day. As a child I received medical care through Medicare (or was it Medicaid? whichever, the point stands).

      That's what I'm saying. Hey, if you (the general "you", not necessarily you specifically, Mr Mouse) oppose health care for the needy, then it's fine to oppose Medicare, but it's plainly WRONG to say that it doesn't do what it is supposed to. Same with the other things you have mentioned.

      NCLB isn't a program or an agency, and I also don't support it, but it has had the intended effect of putting pressure on schools, rearranging funding, and blah blah whatever other details. I oppose it, but not because it hasn't been effective.

    220. Re:This explains the political process by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Do you not see how your point 1 is completely contradicted by point 2 and 3? In point 2 and 3 you advocate _more_ government intervention. Or how else would they come about?

    221. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 1

      The TSA is supposed to provide security at airports (and wherever else). When I fly, the TSA scans my bags and pats me down. Thus, they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Shown. Anything else?

    222. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 1

      If your premise is true, then that's a good example. Is reducing oil dependence really it's primary mission? Here, I'll check... here's what Wiki has to say

      Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production.

      I'm pretty sure they actually do those things. I haven't heard about anybody stealing our nukes, and I see lots of info from the gov about energy conservation.

      So, I guess without a better source to your claim that the DOE is only supposed to be reducing oil use, I reject your conclusion that they have failed to do what they are supposed to be doing.

      But, to be clear, it's still fine to oppose the DOE if you don't want the government involved in nuclear safety or energy conservation.

    223. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 1

      The post office delivers letters. Public schools teach children. Food stamps are used to buy foods. Thus, all those programs are doing what they are supposed to do. Any other examples?

      I just want to be clear about this: it's fine if you think the government shouldn't be delivering mail, educating children, or helping feed the hungry; but it's not fine to claim that those programs don't do what they are supposed to, because that is wrong.

    224. Re:This explains the political process by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      It's not just healthcare that keeps people from starting up their own businesses.

      There's also the 1980-ish inversion of the "Safe Harbor" provision of the tax code.

      In many occupations - from programming to maid service - it is essentially impossible to work directly for a client. You must work through a middleman you don't own.

      No matter how much documentation, contractual paperwork, and external stuff you've got in place (office, health insurance, DBA or incorporation, etc.), if you don't keep up your tax payments the IRS will go to your client, say you were really an employee, and demand the withholdings, half the social-security payments, plus penalties and interest. Even if you work through a middleman corporation, if you and/or your family members own half or more of it the IRS will treat it as a scam and non-existent.

      So clients mostly won't deal with you unless you're a serf of a company you don't control.

      This got flipped about 30 years ago. Before that the "safe harbor" provision of the tax code said essentially that if your client contracted with you in good faith only you were on the hook for your taxes. The flip was due to lobbying by Ross Perot, owner of EDS, a big computer consulting firm.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    225. Re:This explains the political process by Goody · · Score: 1

      So how do you prevent that beyond income eligibility limits (without denying benefits to those who really need food stamps) or civil rights-violating laws prohibiting the purchase of such items?

      --
      Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
    226. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 1

      How much wealth does that 50% control? Did you leave out that number as an oversight?

    227. Re:This explains the political process by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Except income taxes simply don't outweigh all the other taxes combined. They don't, even if you don't count inflation as a hidden tax, and if you do, which is actually fair, income tax isn't even close to second place. Except every single state has sales taxes - if they don't have a tax at the individual end, they still have companies passing on their sales taxes on everything they sell in the form of increased prices.
      You may be right that most people mean the income tax when they say 'taxes', but that's because those same most people don't seem to understand social security is funded from its own tax,and most of them have the mistaken idea Social Security is in trouble because it is 'socialist' and 'socialist' things 'always' fail, instead of being so successful that the government has repeatedly borrowed surpluses to prop up the general fund and now some people want to not pay them back and watch the program sink instead. So it doesn't matter if most people 'mean' that, any more than it matters if most people think a rocket can't fly in space because there's no air to push against.

      I find your sig ironic (and not in an Alanis Morrisetteian sense). Personal responsibility means when you are wrong, you admit you are wrong, instead of claiming you are really right because the majority agrees with you and the majority is always right. I have mod points, and If I had modded you down, it would have been because you were hypocritical and ignorant. Instead I've answered you, which is probably better than you deserved. I figure it's worth it, because you probably hate being shown up a lot more than you hate being modded down. Have a nice day.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    228. Re:This explains the political process by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right, which is why it has continually baffled me that nominally "pro business" republicans have fought HCR. When you think of them as "pro BIG business" it makes sense, though. :)

    229. Re:This explains the political process by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Are you asserting that the costs will increase under government control? They are lower under Medicare than walk-ins who pay cash. Social Security costs about 1/10 what the free market charges for a mostly brainless low-risk mutual fund. The cost of government programs is almost always less than when done by the "free market" (like private prisons being more expensive than public ones and private schools being more expensive than public ones).

      Done right, they should have had a single payer and that would have eliminated about 20% off the cost of medical care (completely eliminating insurance companies and everything related). Not to mention that a single payer would negotiate for better rates, as they do now with Medicare. Government health care should cost 70% or less of the current fees. So if you pay $120 now, you should be paying about $85 under government run health care.

      However, what we got was the Republican's wet dream. The "other party" voted on some compromise legislation that instead of ending insurance, mandated it. And because there is mandated payment to private parties, the ability to determine the actual costs to people will be forever hidden, with both sides making up whatever numbers fit their case best.

    230. Re:This explains the political process by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Thats because executives take the lions share of what an insurance company earns.
      ...
      Ever been to Hartford Connecticut? ...

      I live in Connecticut. You have no idea whats going on here.

      You could pay the CEO's $0 and it wouldnt make a bit of difference. You don't seem to have a grasp of exactly how much money insurance companies are handling, or are just jealous that CEO's make big bucks.

      The point being that its easy to cry "big bucks!" without rationalizing an argument.

      Would returning all the CEO's money to the insurance company change its profit margins significantly? Research the answer so that you have those precious "facts" you talk about in your signature.

      You would need to show that the CEO's in total are paying themselves TRILLIONS of dollars (not millions, not billions, but TRILLIONS!) in order to cut health insurance rates by 50%. If you can only show BILLIONS, then you are in the sub-1% catagory of crybaby jealousy.

      Note: if the facts don't match your ideology it does NOT mean that the facts are wrong.

      Really?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    231. Re:This explains the political process by Lord+of+Hyphens · · Score: 1

      s/free/fully subsidized/g

      --
      "I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
    232. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Can I ask a question and get an honest reply? I'm genuinely curious whether your false dichotomy is a prerequisite for your political rationale, or whether your rationale also stands up when you don't slander the needy as stupid and lazy? Seriously, I'm curious.

      Like, when I grew up my single mother raised me. We ate from food stamps and my health care came from the government. I was not an unemployed boor; I was a hungry child. My mom tried to sub teach, and couldn't find a job despite her two college degrees, so she went back to school to get a third degree, then (immediately, with this third degree) got a job and got us off government assistance.

      Does the analogy you gave also apply to me (fuck me, I'm just a lazy burger flipper thanklessly demanding money from productive citizens)?

      Does a similar analogy apply to me (well, it's ain't his fault, but fuck him anyway, if he starves to death at least I can still afford my fancy car)?

      Or does the analogy not apply to me (don't fuck him, he's just a kid who, with government education, government food, and government health care will grow up to have an above-average paying job whose taxes will support other hungry children)?

      Seriously. It's hard on the internet to separate the truly hateful ideologues from the slightly-more-thoughtful people, whose rhetoric often sound very similar. I'm pretty certain that most of the people I meet online are the second type, in which case I encourage you to moderate your tone a little bit; and if you are the first type (which, again, I'm almost ceratin you yourself are not) then fuck you, you are a douchebag.

      One final thought: we aren't born equal, except in constitutional theory; but because we believe in the common dignity of each human, we provide some common services for each human, to the extent we can afford.

    233. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct, though there's a mixed up a bit.

      There's only three political parties allowed at that time, and one (Golkar - not sure how it'd translate into english) was 'favored' by the government.

      The large number of parties was after suharto was toppled down and everyone wants a piece of the pie, I think there was 48 parties in the last election. There's only less than 10 big parties though, not sure what the smaller parties are doing.

      Oh, we also voted for our president directly. As in each person go to a voting booth and pick the president - vice president pair. There was 5 pairs to choose last time. Booyah!

      Disclaimer: I lived in Indonesia until 2006 but I haven't lived long term there since then.

    234. Re:This explains the political process by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      You have some reasonable and well thought-out points.

      As soon as you demonstrate that you apply reason to your own party's actions as well, someone might take you seriously. Until then, you're just as much into Koolaid politics as anyone else. All I see from your posting history is someone drinking the Republican koolaid.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    235. Re:This explains the political process by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Here, I did the trivial research for you.

      Aetna
      2009 Revenue $34 Billion
      CEO total compensation $18 Million

      Percent of revenue: 0.05

      You can save $1 out of each $2000 you spend with Aetna if only they would pay their CEO $0.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    236. Re:This explains the political process by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Currently, there are many laws preventing insurance companies from operating in all 50 states.

      Name a state without a Blue Cross Blue Shield office. If you can't, then your premise is wrong. Given incorrect statements in the start of the first premise, then I'll assume all your other premises, logic, and obviously conclusions are all wrong and based on your flawed and grossly biased opinion.

      Tort reform.

      The fear of tort drives doctors to move (the lack of pre-natal doctors in rural areas), but doesn't have a large impact on the cost of the services themselves. Tort reform should be done to eliminate a large number of unneeded expenses, but it wouldn't have more than a token effect on health care costs.

    237. Re:This explains the political process by arb+phd+slp · · Score: 1

      This got flipped about 30 years ago. Before that the "safe harbor" provision of the tax code said essentially that if your client contracted with you in good faith only you were on the hook for your taxes. The flip was due to lobbying by Ross Perot, owner of EDS, a big computer consulting firm.

      Interesting that EDS also processes the insurance claims for Medicare.

      --
      There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
    238. Re:This explains the political process by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, I'm arguing that there's no moral imperative to rob Peter to buy food for Paul.

      If no one pays for Paul's food, he dies. If there is a moral imperative to help Paul, what do you do when Peter doesn't volunteer his money?

    239. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We want free healthcare.

      It's the insurance companies that pays for astroturfing that gives the appearance that we really don't want universal healthcare. What was really amazing was the number of medicare recipients protesting against universal healthcare.

      The other amazing thing is how people believe that if we give tax cuts to the wealthy then jobs will magically appear. Never mind that we are talking about making Bush-era tax cuts permanent and not introducing new tax cuts. If the tax cuts were a panacea then why haven't they created new jobs in the past 3 years?

      Mainstream media creates perceptions. Perceptions don't always reflect reality.

      Also the US government always seem to do what is good for corporations and hardly anything good for consumers. They try to make it appear it was good for consumers. Take the current "Health Care Reforms" that the Democrats passed last year. It doesn't come close to making health care free, in fact it forces us to purchase health insurance. So on the surface it looks like the consumers are finally getting affordable healthcare, in reality the insurance corporations are getting customers who are forced to purchase insurance.

      Next thing you'll see is the government promising more jobs from exports by initiating free trade with a country whose growing economy is based on jobs being outsourced from the US. Oh wait it looks like Obama wants to announce something....

      There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want government services you will pay for it and you will have less choice. In the case of ObamaCare you have no choice.

      The federal government should stick to national defense and maintaining the interstate highway system. The rest of the powers should be delegated to the states where more accountability can be in place. If the federal government is shrunk there will be less need for tax revenue so individuals and corporations could both be taxed less.

      I don't want a bureaucrat deciding my health care plan, retirement plan, which house they will subsidize, the car I drive, or anything else. We should be taxed less and be able to decide these things for ourselves.

    240. Re:This explains the political process by jc42 · · Score: 1

      A person without insurance is betting everything on not getting bankruptingly sick

      And here in the US, a person with insurance is betting everything on the chance that the insurance company won't find a way to say "Sorry; that's not covered by your policy", and wash their hands of you and your medical problem.

      This has always been a problem, of course, but it has become epidemic (;-) in recent years, as the price of medical help has slowly risen to eat up more and more of our income.

      This is in large part based on a legal problem: When you get sick, the medical folks can just make up a price for their treatment, and whatever they settle on, that's what you have to pay. Imagine if your car had a problem, you took it to a dealer's repair shop (because no others are legal), and they'd decide how to fix it and how much you have to pay. If they decide you need a new transmission for $15,000, that's what they'd do, and that's what you or your insurance company would be legally obligated to pay.

      That's not the situation with auto repairs, but it is essentially the way human-body repair works. It should be no surprise that the purveyors of medical help would slowly push the boundaries of "whatever the market will bear", until we're all bankrupt.

      One of the things a "single payer" system would work against is this process. It would create a powerful price-negotiation bureaucracy that the medical establishment would have no choice but to deal with. That bureaucracy would have a much better negotiating position than you or I do at present. So, with all its idiocies and inefficiencies, it should work better than a "market" in which the buyers' alternative is sickness and death and in which they negotiate from a position of mostly ignorance.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    241. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of this Onion classic:

      http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra,1434/ :-)

    242. Re:This explains the political process by Tamerlan · · Score: 1

      Sounds like present day Russia to me

    243. Re:This explains the political process by enderjsv · · Score: 1

      Libertarian much? Honestly, I always found the critical hypocrisy in libertarianism to fall into the fact that they denounce all types of social contract using force to implement at the expense of one's individual rights, except one. The concept of property. Seriously, except that we all agree to pay taxes and abide by the social contract that is property, what else gives you the right to declare a piece of land or an automobile yours? Perhaps I could make a living mining and selling coal, but you "own" all the coal mines. What gives you that right? In nature, if a squirrel drops an acorn out of his tree and another squirrel picks it up, there's no court of law in place that will assure the acorn is returned to it's "rightful owner." So where does this right come from?

      The answers obvious. Property exists as a man-made social contract. It exists because it's efficient and overwhelmingly beneficial to society. But that's the criteria for which social contracts should be measured. While the concept of property might keep me out of your coal mines, a fact one could easily claim violates my individual freedoms, it's a freedom I give because I understand how the concept of property benefits me and society in general.

      The difference between you and me is that I also see how this same concept of social contract could be applied elsewhere. Public schools. Public libraries. Public roads. And yes, even unemployment insurance, medicare and social security. They are all social contracts, like the concept of property, meant to better society and make life more enjoyable for everyone. I don't understand how libertarians think there is some huge difference between the concept of property and the concept of public schools. If you really believe in individual freedom, then why make the exemption for property rights? Why not do away with all social contracts and be an anarchist?

      Of course, my observation is that libertarianism is really just a euphemism for "I'm rich and I want to do whatever I want." It's an attempt to mask contempt by mixing it into some ideological non-sense that warps words like "freedom" and "liberty" into self-serving hypocritical talking points, the likes of which collapse under any attempt to implement them.

    244. Re:This explains the political process by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The primary goal of plural democracy in the 18th century was to get the autocrats off our asses by offering something that sounded more like not having autocrats on our asses.

      But, in the 18th century, there'd been precious little democracy from which to infer the likely outcome. And because we made it hard to change the democracy itself, it's the slowest government in the jungle.

      So now we have an oligarchy of autocrats who know how to use plural democracy to get what they want by leaving us little.

      We were smart to kick the church out of politics. Why we didn't kick the rich out of it is a mystery.

    245. Re:This explains the political process by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Difficult. Though, making them pass a piss test occasionally to qualify for continuation of benefits wouldn’t hurt.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    246. Re:This explains the political process by diamondmagic · · Score: 2, Informative

      The key word is "CEOs used to do just fine." Prices carry information about scarcity and availability, they are in fact semantically meaningful. They mean something. If prices for the very top wage earners have gone up it's because they are actually worth more, it tells us their time is more valuable, and the additional wages allows them to use their time more efficiently... Even if Bill Gates were the best lawn mower in the world, the grass cutting world champion, would you have expected him to do the work himself? Of course not, it would be far more efficient to hire a worker do the work for him.

    247. Re:This explains the political process by diamondmagic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Problem with that analysis is that workers in India have no use for dollars. People don't have a direct use for money period, that's why it's called money! If money leaves the country, then it becomes more valuable here, and it will have to come back in. It's not a one-way street you know. Even if we do have a perpetual trade imbalance, that's not a bad thing either. If more dollars are leaving then entering due to China's monetary policy, we're basically getting free goods from their work force. What you are espousing is mercantilism and it's been obsoleted in almost all the schools of economics since 1776.

    248. Re:This explains the political process by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      1) Get the government out of healthcare. Currently, there are many laws preventing insurance companies from operating in all 50 states.

      Indeed, the "interstate commerce" clause was intended to allow the Federal government the ability to use its coercive power to force states to implement free trade - not to stop trade from happening between states!

    249. Re:This explains the political process by tepples · · Score: 1

      Water isn't even on the ballot. There is, however, Mellow Yellow...yeah, no thanks.

      Which race? I've been able to vote a Libertarian ticket in the last few elections in my home town in northeast Indiana, USA.

    250. Re:This explains the political process by tepples · · Score: 1

      In your analogy, Dr Pepper's platform is too close to that of Coca-Cola Cherry for my liking.

    251. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly, here in the US we pay twice as much per person compared to countries like Canada, France and Germany with almost no difference in life expectancy.

      So apparently those countries with their socialism and massive bureaucracies are so terrible at saving money they manage to provide somewhat better quality of care for half the cost. Go figure.

      So I'd like to suggest a more likely culprit for the high costs of health care:

      1) Practical monopolies in the insurance industries combined with an amoral profit-driven business model with little or no third-party oversight. No incentive to improve quality of care of control costs when they know it's unlikely you'll get insurance elsewhere because there are so few other comparable choices.

      2) Per-treatment instead of per-result payments. The system is designed to pay doctors for quantity rather than quality of treatment.

      I'd rather have a government bureaucrat who isn't answering to shareholders "between me and my doctor" than a corporate bureaucrat who's trying to maximize profit.

    252. Re:This explains the political process by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      That would be the Mellow Yellow.

    253. Re:This explains the political process by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      My laptop, both my servers, and both my smartphones for a mod point right now. Manual Mod +999,999,999,999,999,999 I agree (aka "insightful).

    254. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Why we didn't kick the rich out of it is a mystery.

      Absolutely. How dare those bastards have more than us.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    255. Re:This explains the political process by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the US government didnt spend a large chunk of the $500 billion military budget sending Americans overseas to fight in wars the American people dont think America should be fighting anymore, there would be enough money to save America from the greatest economic crisis since the second world war.

    256. Re:This explains the political process by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The TSA is supposed to provide security at airports (and wherever else). When I fly, the TSA scans my bags and pats me down. Thus, they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Shown. Anything else?

      Do you really think that making up your own definition of their purpose trumps their own mission statement? I'd say you are tied with "Bad Analogy Guy" for the most apt username prize.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    257. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    258. Re:This explains the political process by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Social Security is $14.7 trillion in debt (and already in the red despite the projections we wouldn't be for another 7 years), Medicare is $77.1 trillion in arrears and likewise Medicare D is $19.4 trillion in the hole. We don't have the money for the entitlements we already have (and the "lock box" is a box full of promissory notes that, one day, Congress will pay back the money from the general fund that they've been stealing since 1967 to hide the deficits created by the Great Society and Vietnam). The CBO scoring of Obamacare was deliberately skewed by the assumptions they had to abide by written into the law and it ignores that the Doctor Fix alone was enough to obliterate the fake "savings."

      Not that I have any doubts that the government is mismanaging health care along with the rest of our assets, but those numbers are a couple orders of magnitude off from what I thought was the worst case scenario at present. Where are you getting your information?

    259. Re:This explains the political process by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I appreciate the distinction but every time I hear this it feels insulting. I'm sure most people who say the phrase "free healthcare" are aware it's not free.

      As I've said elsewhere, I used to manage restaurants for a long time and we hire a lot of kids (teenagers through college). I find kids tend to belong to one of two groups: A) "I can't believe they take taxes out of my pay! I worked hard for that money!" and B) "It's just beer/party/gas money anyway... my rent, tuition, etc are already taken care of (parents, loan, scholarships, whatever)" The latter group really doesn't care how much gets taken as long as they've got some spending cash because, at this point in their lives, everything IS pretty much free to them. Along with the permanent welfare class (and yes, there is a large permanent welfare class), they do see such things as free because they aren't thinking about where the money comes from since it has little to no immediate effect on themselves.

      I think the real point of the issue was that these people were claiming that universal healthcare is inherently bad because of socialism, all the while telling others not to touch their medicare or social security. That's where the ignorance and hypocrisy lies.

      I'm not sure you were really listening... everyday people were complaining because it puts the government in charge of their healthcare, removing choices from themselves (yes, there are regulatory boards which will tell you whether or not you can have a procedure ala NICE in Britain), because it meant government controlling their most sensitive personal information, because it meant higher taxes, because it meant lower quality care for the majority of Americans that DO have decent insurance already, because it meant losing plans people already had (and despite the promises, people are already being told their plans will end because of it), because the problems could be solved in far less invasive ways, etc. You equate all of those things together, and yes, the problem is essentially socialism, but it wasn't the kneejerk "omg socialism" that lefties want to proclaim it was. People were informed and they didn't like what they saw and what we ended up with was probably the worst of all outcomes, with government interference benefiting crony capitalism.

      As to your points about our shitty government and it's politicians, I won't argue. But that's an argument against this system and it's participants, not universal healthcare or social safety nets. There are nations in this world who have figured these things out to a degree that makes those systems functional.

      And those nations that have figured it out have small, relatively homogenous populations with relatively high local population densities. The proper place for such activity, from a Constitutional perspective, from a quality perspective and from a responsible government perspective is to let the states implement their own policies if they want to. However, that isn't good enough for the statists since they want to bludgeon everyone with the same one size fits all club because it concentrates power into one place and allows them to abuse it. That's not to say your every day lefty who dreams of warm fuzzies expects the government to be abusive, it just means that they're naive about the ultimate outcome of what they advocate for.

      I think his point is that instead of doing those terrible things, it could be doing these good things. How do we fix it? How do we move forward and make government do what we feel it should.

      Let the people govern themselves... that's not to say let anarchy reign supreme, but construct a government where, at the highest levels, it protects your most fundamental rights while staying out of your life as much as possible, and at the lower levels allow more involvement in day to day life because the smaller the government, the more responsive it is to its citizens. You know, kinda like what the Constitution says America is. Imagine that, a government actually of, by and for the people since it is kept close to those it is actually of, by and for.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    260. Re:This explains the political process by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Forget both lines. How about: "Let's stop throwing money away."

      We are already paying into a giant money sink. Most European nations offer very comparable quality health care to all their citizens (and even all non-citizens in some cases) for roughly *half* what we are collectively paying in the USA.

      If we could some how emulate their successes, we would save 5% or 6% or 7% of our GNP. No, I am not kidding.

      *You* are showing a lot of faith that what we have right now is surely cheaper than reasonable "socialized" alternatives, in spite of extremely strong circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Is the status quo such an amazing success that we really need to keep our eyes closed?

    261. Re:This explains the political process by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      As soon as you demonstrate that you apply reason to your own party's actions as well, someone might take you seriously. Until then, you're just as much into Koolaid politics as anyone else. All I see from your posting history is someone drinking the Republican koolaid.

      Care to actually debate anything I said or are you just going to attack the messenger? I have LOTS of problems with the Republicans... only, if you haven't noticed, they weren't the ones in power for the last two years and, in fact, I didn't even vote for their candidate in 2008 (I also wasn't stupid enough to vote for Obama).

      I don't consider myself a full blown libertarian (taken to its extreme conclusion, you end up in a very bad place), but I am a conservative (and an atheist lest someone want to accuse me of being a bible thumper telling you who you can have sex with) with a libertarian streak running through me.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    262. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ehm, they had exactly three parties. When all three had the same candidates, it was obvious what's happening. Life was good enough for the majority of the population, so most people didn't bother. Corruption was rampant, but there was economic growth and stability, which gave less reason to raise a fuss. I reckon at the time, most people see election day as either a nuisance, or a holiday.

      Then, come 1997 with the financial failures, double digit inflation, currency destabilisation and raising interest rates (to counter the inflation), the old government was out within a year. The lesson here is the recipe to kill any oppresive regime, economic discontent. Recent examples: ROC (when they had mainland China), PRC under Mao, Soviet Union, most ex-Soviet republics, Indonesia, and so on. Zimbabwe came close (managed to do "power sharing" instead).

    263. Re:This explains the political process by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1
      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    264. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you mark MY words: You are in for such a rude awakening when within the next 5 years, the US dollar collapses and the US goes bankrupt. Put all your savings out of US stocks, bonds and dollars, and into gold, silver and commodities and tell your friends and family to do the same. Mark these words carefully. Remember them. Because if you don't follow them, I want you to remember that you were warned.

    265. Re:This explains the political process by dryeo · · Score: 1

      In this case it just means that all the CEOs are in inclusion with each other to artificially drive up the price. When you get failures not only getting multi-million golden parachutes but also rehired at insane wages it looks like collusion.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    266. Re:This explains the political process by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Americans favor a very punitive religious hence social outlook. The preference for Hell as incentive to submission is expressed in our application of law.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    267. Re:This explains the political process by Dibdidit · · Score: 1

      The other amazing thing is how people believe that if we give tax cuts to the wealthy then jobs will magically appear.

      It's not a difficult concept. An employer with higher taxes has less money. An employer with less money is less able to keep employing current employees or hire new ones. It's not a 1:1 effect but it is still causative. Rich people want bigger houses, bigger boats, bigger HDTV, while not paying too much income tax so they can always get that bigger house...Let say you own a McDonald, you want to make the most with it, so you give really low salary, no health or retirement benefits, ask your employee to always be more productive and if there was a way for you to send some of these job to india to augment your profit margin, you would! The richer you get the less you want to give back. That is the American way. Tax cuts for the rich can only help the deficit to get bigger.

    268. Re:This explains the political process by Tenant129 · · Score: 1

      I stopped reading this after the "Social Security is $14.7 trillion in debt" which I proceeded to look up. Please post your sources, as according to the social security administration... You're wrong. https://www.socialsecurity.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee10-pr-alt.pdf

    269. Re:This explains the political process by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I love this fallacy... America spent more on just bailouts than they did on all of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the "stimulus" package, QE2 or the fact that ObamaCare "breaks even" by paying 6 years worth of bills with 10 years worth of revenue and ignores the costs of the Doc Fix, which was deliberately excluded to try to hide the costs.

      Here are the cumulative numbers for 2001-2010 (2010 estimated) from the OMB:

      Military + Veterans benefits: $5,508,591
      Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Income Security, Social Security: $16,041,184
      Interest on Debt: $1,965,513

      Now, I agree, there is a lot of room for cuts in the military and the wars hurt us financially... but it's laughable to pretend that the military is the primary source of our economic downfall. By the end of the decade, the amount of interest on the debt we pay annually will exceed the military budget (current White House estimate for 2015, farthest they list, shows a military budget of $685 billion compared to interest payments of $571 billion). Further, that is only federal spending - states spend almost nothing on their military (minor National Guard costs) and spend the vast majority of their budgets on social spending.

      there would be enough money to save America from the greatest economic crisis since the second world war.

      Where does the military budget go exactly? A good chunk goes to soldiers - many of whom spend their money in the US and the biggest chunk goes to defense contractors - many of whom employ primarily US workforces. Hey, isn't military spending just another form of stimulus? To quote Obama himself, "This is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously. That’s the point."

      So were you for or against stimulus, I can't remember... I do know that with the current deficits making GWB look sane and a projection of interest payments growing out of control, we're in for some pretty deep problems down the road if we don't STOP recklessly spending across the board.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    270. Re:This explains the political process by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1
      Hey, my used car salesman told me he was getting me a good deal too...

      Here's what the Federal Reserve had to say in 2008:

      Now, fast forward 70 or so years and ask this question: What is the mathematical predicament of Social Security today? Answer: The amount of money the Social Security system would need today to cover all unfunded liabilities from now on—what fiscal economists call the “infinite horizon discounted value” of what has already been promised recipients but has no funding mechanism currently in place—is $13.6 trillion, an amount slightly less than the annual gross domestic product of the United States.

      Demographics explain why this is so. Birthrates have fallen dramatically, reducing the worker–retiree ratio and leaving today’s workers pulling a bigger load than the system designers ever envisioned. Life spans have lengthened without a corresponding increase in the retirement age, leaving retirees in a position to receive benefits far longer than the system designers envisioned. Formulae for benefits and cost-of-living adjustments have also contributed to the growth in unfunded liabilities.

      The good news is this Social Security shortfall might be manageable. While the issues regarding Social Security reform are complex, it is at least possible to imagine how Congress might find, within a $14 trillion economy, ways to wrestle with a $13 trillion unfunded liability. The bad news is that Social Security is the lesser of our entitlement worries. It is but the tip of the unfunded liability iceberg. The much bigger concern is Medicare, a program established in 1965, the same prosperous year that Bill Martin cautioned his Columbia University audience to be wary of complacency and storms on the horizon.

      Medicare was a pay-as-you-go program from the very beginning, despite warnings from some congressional leaders—Wilbur Mills was the most credible of them before he succumbed to the pay-as-you-go wiles of Fanne Foxe, the Argentine Firecracker—who foresaw some of the long-term fiscal issues such a financing system could pose. Unfortunately, they were right.

      Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.

      Why is the Medicare figure so large? There is a mix of reasons, really. In part, it is due to the same birthrate and life-expectancy issues that affect Social Security. In part, it is due to ever-costlier advances in medical technology and the willingness of Medicare to pay for them. And in part, it is due to expanded benefits—the new drug benefit program’s unfunded liability is by itself one-third greater than all of Social Security’s.

      Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.

      I want to remind you that I am only talking about the unfunded portions of Social Security and Medicare. It is what the current payment scheme of Social Security payroll taxes, Medicare payroll taxes, membership fees for Medicare B, copays, deductibles and al

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    271. Re:This explains the political process by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Do you want to pay ten times as much for a routine medical procedure as someone that has insurance?
      Certainly not! And I don't. I have a $5,000 deductible. When I go to the doctor, I present my insurance, they bill the insurance company 1 bazillion dollars, and the insurance company marks it down to the contracted rate. I then am responsible for the contracted rate up to the point where I have paid $5,000 and then the insurance company pays after that. I should point out that the insurance company has therefore never paid dime one, because I have never hit the deductible yet. One might think I was getting ripped off, except that paying everything myself I pay $250 a month plus maybe $500 a year in doctor's bills, whereas for "normal" insurance, I would be paying $800 a month plus about $500 a year in deductibles and copays. Even if I hit the $5,000 deductible, I would have paid less under this policy then if I had my old policy and didn't ever go to the doctor.
      The reason I have a $5,000 deductible is because they didn't offer a higher one.
      There are a lot of problems with healthcare, but Obama has not proposed an answer to any of them. he has proposed a problem to people not have INSURANCE, which is not the same as people not having HEALTHCARE. Under my old policy, I had INSURANCE, but I could not afford to also have HEALTHCARE (because of the additional deductibles and copays). Under my new policy, I have HEALTHCARE AND I have INSURANCE if something really terrible happens. Under Obama's plan, everyone will have INSURANCE, but most people making under $100,000 a year will not be able to afford both the INSURANCE and the cost of HEALTHCARE.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    272. Re:This explains the political process by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Having more than us is fine.

      Using it to make sure we have less and less while we are required to ensure they are safe and profitable? That's not fine.

      They've taken the fine line between capitalism and fraud and wrapped it around our faces so we can't even complain about it without incurring the sort of shallow political demonization you just tried.

    273. Re:This explains the political process by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1, Troll

      There's no such thing as free healthcare. Someone has to pay somewhere along the line...

      So? Let's call it government provided healthcare insurance with no deductible and no copay for hospitalization. Does that make you feel any better? I much rather have MY tax go toward universal health care than to defense contractors, farm subsidies, or corporate subsidies.

      Medicare... you mean the insurance that people were force to pay into for maybe 50 years prior to receiving it?...

      FICA was created to justify the existence of Social Security. The thinking was that if the average American thought that it was insurance instead of a handout then they would continue to support the program and be willing to be a recipient of it. The thinking goes in line with "I paid into it then I want it around so I can get the benefits too." Unfortunately FICA was designed to be seen on your payroll stub (it's one of the few itemized taxes on your check) therefore income from interest from savings, stock dividends, or capital gains is not subjected to FICA taxation. This is probably one reason it's currently underfunded.

      I completely agree with your sentiment about social security, but I do question the accuracy of your numbers. If social security was operated like a real insurance program, the payouts wouldn't be so big and there would be lifetime limits on benefits. Social security is an entitlement program run amok and is the carrot for the elderly vote. It needs to placed under more control with means testing for the wealthy. Unfortunately you will not see this, since the elderly is a huge voting block. At least with universal health care, I would actually receive benefits for the taxes I pay unlike social security which you admitted may not be around when I need it.

      What does irritate me is that people assume that I want socialized medicine.Do I agree with the current health care legislation? Not all of it. Do I want health care reform? Hell yes. Why? Because despite all the rhetoric coming from conservatives, our health care system is collapsing. We have unfunded mandates that jeopardize the operations of most hospitals. It's against the law for a hospital emergency room to refuse treatment of a life threatening injury, however there are no mechanisms in place to recoup the costs incurred. Don't even get me started on the reimbursement rate of doctors from Medicare.

      Not to mention, every year employer subsidized insurance is not only getting more expensive (more pay deducted from your paycheck) but the benefits are actually decreasing (in higher deductibles and copays and limits on treatments). The current health care bill fixed some of what was wrong, but I'm genuinely worried about other stuff that may have been passed. Why? Because it was a combination of the Republicans refusing any sort of dialog on the subject, the Tea Party disrupting town hall meetings, and the Democrats having to make back room deals with other Democrats to ensure they had a filibuster proof majority to pass. However, the conservative base have nothing to complain about. The uncertainty that may exist in the current health care legislation is mostly their fault. What did you expect to happen when they become blatant obstructionists and disrupt town meetings with insults and just plain yelling without any concern about facts?

      What did I want? Well I wanted a baseline health benefit package from the government that would provide emergency health care and hospitalization (this is currently the cheapest and least amount of benefits offered by current private insurance). This would keep someone from losing their house if they or someone in their household had to stay in a hospital overnight and have expensive procedures performed.

      I wanted the option to purchase supplementary insurance to provide for regular doctor visits and preventive maintenance. I wanted no denial of health insurance due to preexisting conditions, however I think

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    274. Re:This explains the political process by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Ehm, they had exactly three parties. When all three had the same candidates, it was obvious what's happening. Life was good enough for the majority of the population, so most people didn't bother. Corruption was rampant, but there was economic growth and stability, which gave less reason to raise a fuss. I reckon at the time, most people see election day as either a nuisance, or a holiday.

      i'm sure there were quite a number of politically aware people in the itelligensia who were aware of the corruption, however I traveled around Java quite a lot in 86 & 87 and had more than one person tell me IN ENGLISH that they lived in a democracy because they could vote. I was as incredulous as you.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    275. Re:This explains the political process by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      only three parties

      Note that three is one more than is effective in the US and two more than was allowed in most Communist states. However now that you mention the explosion of parties in the past decade, three does sound rather small.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    276. Re:This explains the political process by kiwimn · · Score: 1

      I actually agree with you. I don't think that buying health "insurance" is going to solve health care in the US. I was taking the piss out of the naive attitude I see from politicians and Republicans all the time about how the "free market can solve all of our problems".

      I don't believe that the government can solve everything either. But I do know that I grew up in and until recently lived in a country with "free" (as in "paid for by taxes") universal health care*. The quality of care was comparable to what I've seen in the US, I was taxed at a similar rate, and I NEVER saw anyone worry about whether they could take their kids to the doctor if they lost their job.

      The US spends 140% more per capita than the OECD average (http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,2340,en_2649_201185_31938380_1_1_1_1,00.html) for health care?

      Why? If you don't buy into the bullshit about having the best health care system in the world (keeping in mind that best is not whether one individual can get the absolute best care money can buy, but instead whether people have access to reasonably priced health care) then it's pretty bloody obvious that we are being ripped off.

      As far as I can tell, Republican opposition is mostly based upon two things:

      1. A "keep government out of health care" mentality. I could respect this more if these same people were willing to acknowledge the failings of the "free market" to adequately provide health care for everyone and come up with reasonable alternatives (while looking into the public/private solutions that other OECD countries have come up with).

      2. A childish "I don't want to pay for others or pay reasonable taxes" mentality. That's a whole other issue though....

      As for India come on. It’s one of the world’s most populous countries and an emerging super power. If we want to stop playing global Sherriff and squandering trillions on wars it might be in our best interests for the President to pop over and “give a speech” once in a while. Oh, and he did closed $10 Billion in trade while he was there (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131155480)...

      * Full disclaimer. We also had supplemental private medical insurance (about $60/month) that covered the few non-essential medical issues not covered by the public health care system.

    277. Re:This explains the political process by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      And what do the army of other executives make? Why was it necessary to make a law forcing insurance cos to spend at least 80% of their revenue on actually providing health care?(for comparison consider that the public health care systems in the rich world spend over 95% of the money they take in on health care). Somebodys getting rich off of price fixing, and it isn't the stockholders. Face it private health care is the biggest price fixing scam in history. If it truly were "competitive" like the republicans claim why is it so expensive? Why is it that every company charges pretty much the same? Why is it the insurance companiesgo out of their way to deny consumers the product they paid for? If the game wasn't fixed why aren't insurance companies open to competition? Because they know that if someone doesn't participate in their little price fixing game then the executives will lose the resources they have done nothing to earn.

    278. Re:This explains the political process by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another flaw in your logic: CEOs haven't gotten more productive relative to the workers. If anything, workers have gotten more productive relative to CEOs. What has happened, however, is that CEOs and their upper management friends have worked to take a larger share of the money coming in to the organization - at the expense of the average worker.

      CEOs would still do just fine with 40x an average worker wage. If you estimate an average worker at 25k [high for WalMart, low for average company], the CEO is making a million a year - damn substantial income. They just won't take that as a legitimate answer, since they want more money, no matter what the cost to other people in the organization.

    279. Re:This explains the political process by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The government gives "charity" to inmates. They get a place to stay for free. I prefer to have the smallest number possible taking advantage of that "charity" and that requires expenses in other areas that are more traditional charities.

      Whether they "should" is irrelevant to whether it reduces total cost. If society agrees that no one should starve in such a great country, then someone must, by law, provide food. If that mandate exists, then one explicit purpose of the government is charity (whether directly providing it or forcing others to do so).

      You speak that there is necessarily a need to separate out charity from the government. However providing for parks is "charity" (and in fact, there are a number of charitable organizations that aren't government related that do just that), yet seen as something that the government should do as well. So you are taking your personal bias, ignoring reality, and assaulting me with some fictitious view of the world unrelated to what actually happens. I appreciate your irrational, illogical, and unrealistic idealism. However, I do not subscribe to your kool-aid. "Charity" in one form or another has been a staple of government since before this country existed and continues to this day intertwined in nearly every government of every level.

    280. Re:This explains the political process by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      That's a very good idea. I'm sure that there might be privacy issues involved, but the fact is that the tax payer gives up privacy information to get his pay cheque.

    281. Re:This explains the political process by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Interesting that EDS also processes the insurance claims for Medicare.

      By the way: Perot sold EDS a while back. To GM.

      I used to think that he shafted GM three times with EDS:
        - Once when he convinced them to outsource all their programming and IT to EDS and fire all their non-EDS software consultants. (This in the month before cutting over payroll to a new system at a major plant. LOTS of extra cost - including buying a mainframe for the consultants who had done the work on the payroll, and who refused to walk back into an EDS shop to finish the job for 'em. B-) Lots of other costs with other consultants, too.)
        - Once where he sold it to 'em in return for a bunch of stock and a seat on the board.
        - Once when he made him pay him more to go away. B-)

      But the extra costs to 'em for various consultants who now have to work through middlemen thanks to this mined-harbor business counts as a fourth one. And it wouldn't surprise me if these taken together and/or something else he did contributed to their bankruptcy, which would make it five.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    282. Re:This explains the political process by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      Why not come up with a solution that is better aimed at the problem? Like: Pass a law that says, "you want to be in the Health Insurance Game (i.e. Wellpoint, Cigna, Humana, Aetna, United Health, etc), you are REQUIRED to accept pre-existing conditions, and offer insurance to individuals."

      I don't know whether you know or not, but that's what they did. The best part of the health insurance law was the creation of "exchanges" where individuals can buy plans at group rates.

    283. Re:This explains the political process by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Here's one I used to vote for while they were still around, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_party.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    284. Re:This explains the political process by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      State taxes don't pay for health care, and federal excise taxes make up a tiny fraction of an individual's overall tax burden.

    285. Re:This explains the political process by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Here is the problem though. IF the rich share in that, and they have to pay more because of that, then shouldn't they get more of a say in that? I mean hell, even if taxes were at a flat 10% for everyone, the guy making $100 a year would still be paying less then the guy making $1 million a year.

      Like the GP said, if it's the stores policy to give $50 to each customer, he might say "that's a bad way to run a business." Being for or taking part in existing entitlement programs and trying to stop adding more isn't dis-associative at all.

    286. Re:This explains the political process by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      In our democratic system, you participate through speech and voting. Paying more in taxes doesn't mean you get more political power. That's now how our government is set up. You might think it's a good idea, but that's not how things work.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    287. Re:This explains the political process by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not even sure why the emphasis is completely on foreign oil. Our largest oil imports come from Canada- a somewhat friendly country to out north that we share common defense goals with.

      Importing oil isn't really the problem. Importing it from places that aren't stable seems to be.

    288. Re:This explains the political process by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So? Let's call it government provided healthcare insurance with no deductible and no copay for hospitalization. Does that make you feel any better? I much rather have MY tax go toward universal health care than to defense contractors, farm subsidies, or corporate subsidies.

      You may want your tax money to go there, but what about those who don't? The federal government forcing it on everyone forces them to do it against their will exactly the same way that you're forced to pay for defense contractors, farm subsidies and corporate subsidies. Want to guess why we're so polarized as a nation? It's because we're using government to divide us. Everyone wants to use the government to impose their will on everyone else else... how about letting everyone have freedom and liberty instead?

      At least with universal health care, I would actually receive benefits for the taxes I pay unlike social security which you admitted may not be around when I need it.

      That universal health care may or may not be around when you need it as well. Maybe you're outright denied - good luck appealing. Maybe you're put on a waiting list where things get worse and you become terminal or the proper fix becomes too expensive so they go for the quick and easy fix instead. Look at how the US government has managed the VA hospitals (Walter Reed anyone?) or the hospitals run through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

      What does irritate me is that people assume that I want socialized medicine.Do I agree with the current health care legislation? Not all of it. Do I want health care reform? Hell yes. Why? Because despite all the rhetoric coming from conservatives, our health care system is collapsing.

      Conservatives agree that our health care system needs fixing... what we don't agree with, is that the government is the solution to those problems. Allow people to buy across state lines, drop all the mandates that force people to buy cadillac plans or nothing, bring patients closer to the cost of their care (people will go to the doctor for a sniffle since it only costs them a $5 or 15 copay or they'll demand every test in the book since they don't even have to pay a copay to the lab), etc.

      * The current situation we're in is BECAUSE of the constant interference of government. 100 years ago, if you got sick, the local doctor would make a house call and, for a small amount of money, maybe even a simple barter exchange, he would diagnose and treat you.
      * As part of FDR's economic reforms, the NRA fixed wages. In an effort to retain good workers, businesses started offering health insurance as a means of skirting the wage freezes
      * In 1963, as part of the Great Society, LBJ and the gang decided it wasn't fair that the working people got health insurance but the poor and elderly didn't, so Medicare and Medicaid were created
      * In 1973, a freshman Teddy Kennedy realized that costs were growing out of control (in fact, Medicare and Medicaid far exceeded their cost projections) and that regular workers were getting left behind, so he wrote the Health Maintenance Organization Act, creating HMOs that were deeply regulated by the government, to encourage people to seek routine care to try to prevent future expenses
      * In 2003, Bush and company created Medicare D because prescription drugs were getting too expensive for elderly without insurance after being driven up by HMOs used their clout to lower prices for themselves
      * In 2010, Obama and friends gave us the clusterfuck that forces us to buy insurance, that we don't necessarily want, likely from a giant conglomerate that doesn't care about us, or be forced to pay a monetary penalty (hey, if I don't have insurance, maybe it's because I can't afford it in the first place, hence, where does the money for the penalty come from?). It's going to bring down costs by allowing people to not pay premiums until they need coverage, will give us universal healthcare by encouraging employers to dro

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    289. Re:This explains the political process by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And for every 10 people like you, there are a few that simply abuse the system or was the product of a parent who did the same. When you have 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients, the need starts becoming self inflicted and we need to take a deep look at policy.

      We also need to change the welfare system so people can take the lower paying jobs and work up instead of being thrown off and expected to live at 2/3rd the equivalent income levels or less. And yes, I know people who had to go on various welfare programs that basically took a life pay cut if they got a job making less then $12 per hour. This was back when minimum wage was still as $4.95 or $5.25 an hour. This made it damn near impossible for them to get a hand up instead of a hand out.

      It should be the exact opposite, if your not working, you should be making less then a working person. The help should continue and graduate off gracefully over time after the person has established themselves somewhat instead of making it near impossible to support their illegitimate children on the only jobs hiring in the area.

    290. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insurance companies are not the problem! There is already a huge competition and free market will ensure that what you pay is almost equal to the true cost of the health care.

      1. The problem is that healthcare in US costs a freakingly insane amount of money! Period! Two reasons
                                                    A. Education costs a shit load of money!
                                                    B. New drugs cost even bigger shit load of money.

      Solution:
                                  A. Instead of socializing medicine, the same money is better spent socializing education. It will definitely bring down the cost of medicines in the long term.
                                  B. Allow govt buyback of new drug patents. Release the patent to the public.
           

    291. Re:This explains the political process by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Uh. THEIR guy losing? If he's really "their" guy they should vote for him! So maybe the voters have actually been voting for "their guy" all along. You just don't like "their guy".

      If he's not "their guy" then they shouldn't vote for him. People think they're smart and try to game the system by voting for "second-most evil" to avoid "most evil" and when they keep getting "second-most evil" they grumble about the system.

      It does mean the "most evil" often wins initially, but in this day and age of the Internet, mobile phones etc if the other voters can't figure out how to get together and get something better than "second-most evil" then they really deserve what they get.

      Of course, maybe the parties that are winning ARE really the best of the choices, and are as good a representation of the People's Will.

      Just look at some of the posts above- one guy thinks the alternatives are "Mellow Yellow" compared to Coke or Pepsi.

      Lastly, if election reform is so important to the voters, then a party should be set up with its main promise as "We'll change the way elections are done, and then resign soon after to test the system". And if "election reform" is really so important that party should win right? But I doubt it's really that important to the voters.

      --
    292. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't tax cuts, they were pre-bates. You save a couple bucks every paycheck, but you're still liable for the same tax amounts come April. Further, the pre-bates were so miniscule, they never created any emotional sense of tax savings.

      WTF. This isn't even a little bit true. It's just flat-out wrong. The Bush tax cuts parent is talking about were very real, and the richest 2% have added billions to their wallets thanks to them.

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're confused. You're probably thinking of Bush Sr's "pre-bate" experiment, which, as you have noted, was a miserable failure.

    293. Re:This explains the political process by TheLink · · Score: 1

      So maybe the Libertarians have been doing abysmally not because of the "first past the post system" but because they're just not as good as the Two Parties at figuring out what most voters would vote for.

      They have been the "Mellow Yellows" when most actually want something else.

      FWIW, lots of people drink Coke/Pepsi regularly even though they know its bad for them (and it has been visibly damaging their health). Go figure.

      --
    294. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your propaganda elsewhere. Unfortunately on slashdot you get modded up for the style of your comment and not on its accuracy. If you really think the Bush-era tax cuts were "pre-bates", you must be so high that the astronauts in the ISS have to look up to see you.

      For the benefit of others capable of rational thought, see here and here.

    295. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      And yet, you're still saying that with less money they will employ the same number of people rather than lay a couple off and force those who are left to take up the slack. Do you have any experience at all with the private sector? That almost never happens.

      That very desire to not lose money that you condemn them for will tell them to lay off or fire people rather than take a hit in their profits. Seriously, what the hell do you think is going to happen?

      The less they want to give back? Ask a rich guy if he'd like to give back the same percentage of what he makes that you do some time. He'd do the fucking snoopy dance naked in the streets for that.

      No, the rich give back more than your proletariat-loving ass by a long shot. They pay more taxes, they give more to charity, and they contribute more to the economy than you. What in the jumped up hell makes you think you're in any way possessing of moral high ground here? Hating someone for having more than you is not a virtue, it's a character flaw.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    296. Re:This explains the political process by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      If there is a moral imperative to help Paul, then what should Paul do to prepare his long term needs? You can't force the problem on to people. Some people can't afford to help at all. Others have other moral obligations. Quit acting as if only rich people and the middle class have enough money to help.

    297. Re:This explains the political process by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Only way i see that happen is by getting rid of basic scarcity.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    298. Re:This explains the political process by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      All of those agencies do what they are supposed to. Are you complaining because they aren't 100% absolutely perfect in every way? If that's your standard, then I concede the point.

      Obviously they are neither 100% effective nor 100% useless. The real question is, are we getting our money's worth?

      And the answer is obviously complicated. Take social security: The basic premise is sound, and it undoubtedly helps millions of people. But at the same time, the program as implemented is just too expensive, and the structure of social security tax is preposterous. Raise the retirement age, impose means testing, eliminate social security tax by raising the income tax by an equivalent amount. Then it would be a sensible program. Right now the government is mailing social security checks to millionaires who paid a lower social security tax rate while they were working than the poor people who receive smaller checks. That's not a smart use of tax dollars.

    299. Re:This explains the political process by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are a liar. I've not "acted" like only certain classes can help. Quit lying about what others have said and address the points. Or do you know your argument is wrong so you are making up things to make you feel better about being a loser?

      And Paul's preparation is irrelevant to the question of if he is starving today whether there is a moral imperative to help him.

    300. Re:This explains the political process by diamondmagic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Productivity has nothing to do with it, wages and prices in general are about a related but distinct concept called cost. The time of a CEOs literally costs more, their time is valuable, the job is incredibly demanding and very hard to get right. It doesn't mean they are literally out on the floor assembling goods, it means that (1) the time of a CEO is valuable (by definition, as previously stated); and (2) the cost of not having one (as assessed by the company, like the board of directors, owner/co-owners, shareholders, etc), in terms of the next best alternative (the opportunity cost) is far more costly than the wages being paid, therefore it's a mutually beneficial (profitable) exchange to pay the wages, regardless of what you think about them.

    301. Re:This explains the political process by TheLink · · Score: 1

      He actually seems to have done a reasonable OK job as a governor.

      Anyway, that's why I suspect that when push comes to shove, most of the US voters aren't actually that upset with the Two Parties.

      Otherwise you'd see another "ventura" incident.

      --
    302. Re:This explains the political process by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      So the problem is the messenger, not the message? Do you find any problems with their analysis or facts, or just don't like who's laying it all out for you? .

      This attitude (it's from Fox/Heritage/ConservativeSource so it's bad!) is what's wrong with politics and Government today. Focus on the style and source rather than the substance of the message. Thanks for taking things down yet another notch!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    303. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Obviously they are neither 100% effective nor 100% useless. The real question is, are we getting our money's worth?

      Yes! See, now this is how I think, and it's the reason I objected to Arch Michael's claim of "programs that don't do what they were supposed to do". Government programs, with rare exceptions, do what they are supposed to do, more or less. The question is, as you said, whether it's more enough or less enough. And that is a question I am very happy to discuss on a program-by-program basis. Many programs are good, well intentioned, and yet still not worth the cost. What you said about social security is exactly the kind of thing I would say; and similar things about many other programs.

      Ideologues say things like "transfer payments are unconstutional!" (which is nonsense) whereas moderates like me and apparently you say "government programs can sometimes adequately address big problems to a degree which is worth the cost, and sometimes not, and we should carefully determine which is which". I like moderates.

    304. Re:This explains the political process by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1
      Way to focus on one point and ignore everything else I said... Here's the original quote:

      The other amazing thing is how people believe that if we give tax cuts to the wealthy then jobs will magically appear. Never mind that we are talking about making Bush-era tax cuts permanent and not introducing new tax cuts. If the tax cuts were a panacea then why haven't they created new jobs in the past 3 years?

      Now, admittedly, my mind had a disconnect there.. See, as you so obviously pointed out, the Bush tax cuts were in 2001 and 2003, so why would they be relevant to growth over the last 3 years? My mind went to the 2008 Bush stimulus check and the pay period pre-bate from Obama's stimulus plan since, you know, they were actually relevant to the last 3 years, while the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts were as relevant to stimulating 2008-2009 growth as the JFK tax cuts from 1963/64 are. They are relevant to 2010/2011 growth due to their expiration.

      This just in, I drank a lot of milk in 1978 so I'm not sure why I haven't grown taller in the last 3 years. Hey look, I can be snarky too.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    305. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      You're not required to do anything for them. Work somewhere else or start your own business. If you have no marketable skills to speak of and can't get a better job, that would be entirely your fault, not theirs.

      And that wasn't shallow demonization. It was quite deeply heartfelt. I genuinely believe those of a socialist fiscal bent are extremely evil and greedy.

      Most of the ills those of a socialist fiscal bent assign to capitalism should rightly be attributed to governmental corruption and the straying from capitalism into protectionism and the creation of artificial monopolies. Properly attributed, I'll agree with you on quite a number of your complaints.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    306. Re:This explains the political process by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      you depend on the evil multinational corporation because, at best, you're one out of about 650,000 other voices that your Representative might decide to listen to and one of maybe 33 million your Senator will bother to hear from.

      I suppose I could talk to the CEO who denied my coverage for life-saving treatment instead of my congressman. While I share your cynicism, at least the government, in theory if not fact, has to listen to its people. A company is only responsible to its shareholders...which is a great thing when you're making cars but not when trying to provide treatment. Insurance is also a weird market because it's something you buy when you don't need it. If my cell phone company sucks, I get a new one. If my insurance doesn't cover life-threatening ailment that I'm now diagnosed with, I'm SOL. For the same reason "private fire departments" don't work, "private medical care" is doomed by the mismatch of incentives.

      Medicare may not have money -- but they provide care for a fraction of the cost that private insurance does -- and if we weren't busy fighting needless wars and having a massive "defense" budget (how can I call it defense when we're not fighting on our own soil?), we could easily afford it. I'm all for efficiency and paying less money from my paycheck at the end of the day, so I'm in favor of paying slightly higher taxes vs having to pay that same money on the private market for less coverage and less accountability (while we're at it, we can set up "death panels". If treatment is denied from an individual, let's let a jury of one's peers decide if that decision was correct before letting the person die...versus the system of faceless bean-counters trying to control costs.)

      Show me any actual non-"10 year survival rate on this really rare cancer" study on how private insurance gets me more per dollar spent, and maybe I'll buy the argument. Until then, isn't it just a better buy?

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    307. Re:This explains the political process by ender89 · · Score: 1

      funnily enough, the political structure of the us was designed to prevent change - The constitution was supposed to be the final word on laws and freedoms. It was thought that only when the super majority of both houses, the executive and judicial branches could all agree (something that rarely happens), could a change be worthy of admission. today, we do seem to be rather quick to give power to rather smaller groups, which allows for some of the hijinks of the past few years.

    308. Re:This explains the political process by IICV · · Score: 1

      Because every once in a while, an idiot who walks in to an emergency room with a headache actually has a treatable condition that would have otherwise been fatal. Right there, you've just saved someone's life - and gained a lifetime's worth of tax revenues, that now help pay for you.

    309. Re:This explains the political process by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      No, there are more productivity enhancement tools/devices these days than the 40x days. E.g. technology / management techniques etc.

      Among technology, computers are an example. Correct usage of such technology can heavily boost the productivity per dollar paid to workers. Incorrect usage could hurt this productivity. The ultimate decision is with CEO or the people controlled by CEO. So 40x has become 1000x. Not surprising.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    310. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In former Eastern Germany, voting was called 'to go folding', because the result was every time the same smashing success of the establishment.

    311. Re:This explains the political process by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      Kind of, I'm telling you they come out of their mothers vagina with a unique physical and mental phenotype and are then nurtured through infancy by their parents, and then childhood and adolescence largely by the state before being drafted by employers.

      I'm also telling you that there is such a thing as natural talent. Peoples physical traits and idiosyncracies make them more suitable for some roles than others, and many people deny their nature.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    312. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those that doesn't belive it..

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png/800px-International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png

      Now, it might be hard to believe for you Americans but you spend soooo much of your GDP on health care, yet its far from the best.

      Best whishes for a more healthy and stronger USA..
      Love from Socalist Sweden..

    313. Re:This explains the political process by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Food Stamps: Are they for food or cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets? Are the recipients actually deserving of them.

      Farm Subsidies: Are they for keeping wealthy mega-farms profitable?

      Corporate welfare: Is it to keep the lobbyists appeased?

      Serioiusly... The USPS, public education system, and food stamps are a drop in the bucket compared to the corporate pork barrel that goes to companies like Haliburton etc.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    314. Re:This explains the political process by vertinox · · Score: 1

      A rich lawyer or CEO is NOT the equal of a McDonalds burger flipper that studied liberal arts in college. The rich lawyer has a job, the CEO has a job, and they are both rich; the burger flipper cannot argue a court case reliably or run a company (or gracefully drop it if it's destined to fail-- some CEOs are repeatedly hired by companies that are winding down to make this process graceful; others just suck at their jobs). Likewise the lawyer probably would need some training to flip burgers; though this is a lot less training and a LOT less upkeep than entering and staying in the legal profession.

      The key point people should remember is that the CEOs and lawyers are able to make their income off the collective wellbeing of society.

      As in... If the CEO and laywer lived in Somalia, then they would not really have much to do in the way of income. So arguably, they should pay their fair share of their income to support such a way of life to the rest of society so that they themselves don't have to worry about the collapse of said society (yes I'm being over dramatic, but if there were no laws or a functioning government and society than CEO's and laywers would just be as bad off)

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    315. Re:This explains the political process by Chapter80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Currently, there are many laws preventing insurance companies from operating in all 50 states.

      Name a state without a Blue Cross Blue Shield office. If you can't, then your premise is wrong. Given incorrect statements in the start of the first premise, then I'll assume all your other premises, logic, and obviously conclusions are all wrong and based on your flawed and grossly biased opinion.

      That's like saying "name a state that doesn't have a 'Christ Hospital'" in it.

      There are 155 different companies with the name Blue Cross Blue Shield, and they are just that - different companies.

      Given the obvious flawed logic in your first premise, then I'll assume all your other premises, logic, and obvious conclusions are all wrong and based on your flawed and grossly biased opinion.

    316. Re:This explains the political process by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Can you tell me, in the alternate reality you live in, what kind of system do they use to determine the vote? Because in the reality I'm posting from, voting is a zero-sum game in the US, where whoever gets a plurality of the vote wins - that makes it ridiculously difficult for a 3rd party to emerge because they will almost always simply be splitting the vote of one of the two major parties, ensuring that the opponent furthest from their supporter's political beliefs wins. Also, how does campaign funding and finance work over there? Because over here, major parties get ridiculously huge advantages over minor parties.

      The way the entire funding process is handled, the way the two currently dominant parties work to keep each other in existence (as witnessed by the Colorado thing this time around) virtually guarantees that no real serious alternative parties can come into existence; when you have 2 dominant players in the marketplace of ideas, both of whom have coffers that absolutely dwarf any 3rd party player who isn't able to finance their candidates to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars (they'd have to spend in excess of the existing parties simply to get the party and name recognition needed to be effective), it's kind of hard to get your message out, and, more to the point, how many billionaires are there out there who'd be willing to (very likely) throw away a substantial chunk of their fortune on the off chance that they might manage to influence a few elections (though likely not win them)? Meg Whitman and Steve Forbes are two that come to mind, and both of them were horrific candidates who weren't third party anyway. Further, the "winner takes all" nature of the way we count votes ensures that even if a 3rd party does emerge, it will eventually be taken back out of the picture or replace one of the 2 dominant parties - leaving us back with 2 parties.

      Then you have the problem with a 3rd party popping up around a single issue like election reform: It *is* an important issue to many people across the political spectrum. It is not, however *the most important* issue to many of those people, especially when we have a down economy and a couple of wars going on overseas. Or anything big happening, which is almost always. When things are good it's hard to convince people that things need to change in order to keep things good. Your facile "if people think it's that important they'll vote for it" ignores these realities completely.

      Another problem with creating a 3rd party is: where would it draw from? The Democrats are by and large a center (between left and right) organization that occasionally does manage to lean left. The Republicans are by and large a center-right organization that (often, now, thanks to the Tea "Party" stuff) lean (sometimes much) further right. So, individuals who are not being served are people who are further left than the Dems and then the extreme right. If anything, this election has proven that the GOP is willing to include a fair number of extremists under their tent, and anything more extreme - well, there simply aren't enough to make a difference. So lets focus on a more left leaning party because those are the people not being represented.

      Where will they come from? Certainly not from the GOP - Republicans who want a party more to their left will vote Democrat. So the new party people will have to come from the Democrats, which, with our current system means a three way race, with about 50% of the vote going to the Republicans, and the other half being split between two left parties. So, if people really DID vote for their guy, they'd be ensuring that the absolute least favorable choice for them - the Republican - wins.

      Looking at things from another perspective - Libertarian vs. Authoritarian rather than right vs. left - this would be the only area I could see it even remotely become possible for a 3rd party to emerge that would take votes away from both the Democrats AND the Republicans, making it so that a vote for a candidate in this theoretical 3rd party

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    317. Re:This explains the political process by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      That is interesting and entertaining logic.

      In order for it to have any merit though, the probability of that "every once in a while" would have to be significant enough to offset all those other idiots (which I doubt).

      And the "lifetime's worth of tax revenue" would have to be greater than the "lifetime's worth of handouts" (which I seriously doubt).

      And you are implying that the life wouldn't be saved by an ordinary doctor, only an emergency room.

      Sounds a little far fetched to me.

      ---

      Funny thing is, we probably agree that the poor and indigent deserve some level of basic healthcare. The disagreement is typically one of the economics. A typical argument is that "you can't put a price on a life" (and therefore, it's not an economic decision).

      If that were true, why don't we assign each poor person a personal doctor, nurse, or pharmacist, and provide them free medicine? That would solve our unemployment problem immediately, as demand for these positions would skyrocket! This shows that it is ABSOLUTELY an economic decision, as it's clearly economically infeasible to assign each person a personal healthcare professional.

      We are trying to determine the BEST healthcare scenario for a limited dollar. We may disagree about what that dollar amount is, but it's absolutely an economic decision.

      And having idiots mis-use the emergency rooms isn't helping the price tag. If you can argue that somehow mis-use of the emergency room helps the lower price tag, I'd like to hear that argument. Otherwise, let's stick to common sense logic.

    318. Re:This explains the political process by Spakman · · Score: 1

      Heh, I like that. BTW, those buttons actually do stuff in the UK.

    319. Re:This explains the political process by dwinks616 · · Score: 1

      How in the fucking hell do you honestly think that FOR-PROFIT health care is somehow cheaper than a not-for-profit government run one? Seriously?

    320. Re:This explains the political process by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The alternate reality where Jesse Ventura actually managed to win and become Governor?

      To me if the 3rd parties blame the "voting system" they are just making lame excuses for their failure. Nobody really wants the other parties that much, or hates the Two Parties that much.

      1) So many here claim the "Two Parties" are so alike (Coke/Pepsi)
      2) So many here claim they want something else instead (Water)

      If the voters really agreed with those "many here", then using YOUR LOGIC, a 3rd party providing "Water" would easily win, since the people who wanted Coke/Pepsi would have the "Cola" votes split.

      The unpleasant truth might be the voters don't actually want "Water" or the alternative parties are NOT providing a better option. And thus the Two Parties are the best option and the voters are voting correctly despite the below-par voting system.

      Seems to me the voters don't actually want that much change either - just look at the screams and roadblocks when Obama went for US Healthcare (which is clearly broken by most sane measurements and thus an obvious thing to fix).

      --
    321. Re:This explains the political process by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      While I share your cynicism, at least the government, in theory if not fact, has to listen to its people.

      Like when Pelosi told her members not to have any more town halls after the reaction to ObamaCare in the summer of 2009? Or like how they passed it even though roughly three quarters of the people opposed it? Ok, so the government "listened" and 64 Democrats lost their seats in the House and 6 more in the Senate did, with exit polling showing that about half the country wants ObamaCare immediately repealed. Will it be? Nope, because Senate Democrats will block repeal and if it gets to Obama's desk, he'll veto it. Man that government is just so much better at listening to the people...

      Medicare may not have money -- but they provide care for a fraction of the cost that private insurance does

      My dad is on Medicare and you'd be surprised just how little plain old Medicare* (A+B) covers. There's a reason why a lot of people seek Medicare Advantage plans, to get HMO-like coverage through a company rather than the standard service through CMS.

      Part A gives and costs you (taken from 2011 Medicare and You booklet):
      Blood: free from a blood bank. You pay for the first 3 units if the hospital has to buy blood
      Home health care: $0 for services + 20% of equipment. However, the services you receive are limited and after 3 months, my dad was kicked off since it's not meant to be long term care
      Hospital inpatient: $1132 deductible for the first 60 days, $283 for days 61-90, $566 for days 91+ (up to a total of 60 days in your lifetime which exceed 90 in a calendar year), + full costs after 90+lifetime reserve is exceeded. 190 days lifetime mental health.
      Nursing home: $0 for first 20 days, $141.50 for days 21-100, full cost after 100.

      Part B:
      Blood: in addition to Part A, you now pay processing fees
      Labs: free
      Medical and other services: 20% of the Medicare approved fee for doctor services and outpatient therapy
      Outpatient hospital services: copayment

      To top all of that off, Medicare reimburses doctors for less than the actual costs incurred of many of their services, forcing private insurers and self-paying customers to make up the deficits created by serving Medicare patients.

      and if we weren't busy fighting needless wars and having a massive "defense" budget (how can I call it defense when we're not fighting on our own soil?), we could easily afford it.

      Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. See the numbers I posted here. Yes, the defense budget can be cut, but it pales in comparison to social spending at the federal level (1:3) and we spend even more on social programs on top of that at the state level. There's also that minor annoyance that national defense is a valid Constitutional function of the federal government while not one welfare program is (and yes, I know the "general welfare" argument quite well and it was absolutely destroyed in both the federalist and antifederalist papers).

      Show me any actual non-"10 year survival rate on this really rare cancer" study on how private insurance gets me more per dollar spent, and maybe I'll buy the argument. Until then, isn't it just a better buy?

      Want the best in benefits/cost? Pay for your routine care out of pocket. I've spent a grand total of $115 in the last 5 years after I dropped by HMO (saving me roughly $30,000 in premiums). Buy catastrophic coverage to cover anything major (it's pretty cheap compared to full HMO/PPO care). You only pay for what you actually want and need, you get to shop around to any provider you want based on what you're looking for (want quality, look for quality, want low cost, look around, etc), you tend to get discounts compared to what others pay (my doctor visit was $60 total, compared to $15 copay + $120 or so that my dad's plan pays), etc.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    322. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The post office delivers letters. Public schools teach children. Food stamps are used to buy foods.

      The complaint is that those agencies don't do those things successfully or well most of the time.

      Is "not doing something well" the same as "not doing something"? Not quite, but perhaps it's close enough for government work!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    323. Re:This explains the political process by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Parks are interesting. National parks created to preserve natural wonder of the nation is a part of the responsibility of government. Local parks as it pertains to attracting more residents is a local government issue. A park built solely for the purpose of giving the children a place to go is charity. This is where private organizations should come in. Not Government. If you want to keep people from starving then give them water, wheat, beans and a place to cook. Not a fucking credit card to go buy ding-dongs at Vons. If you want ding-dongs I am cool with that. First though you have to get your hand out of my pocket.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    324. Re:This explains the political process by colinnwn · · Score: 1

      If I posted an article from HuffPo, and didn't bother to (if I were using that article for my frame of reference) instead link down to its primary sources from reputable academic researchers, that were not specifically known for bias, then I doubt many commenters would take me seriously.

      I've looked for information on this topic in the past from non-biased sources that don't pick and choose resarcher's findings based on the news source's or researcher's ideology. I'm not going to spend my limited time breaking the Heritage piece down point for you, offering rebuttals, and finding alternative sources again.

      Given the level of discourse in politics and the news (that I'd strongly argue is primarily the responsibility of Republicans and other quasi-conservatives that seem to be in the majority of that party), I have no problem totally discounting the message when the messenger is a certain group known for severe bias and cognitive dissidence. That doesn't mean I won't believe the message given alternative sources, only that I will not consider information from that messenger worthy of consideration. I actually do this on certain liberal news and political sites as well.

    325. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you make the distinction I was trying to make: perhaps these agencies perform adequately for their costs, or perhaps not; but it is wrong and disingenuous to claim they "don't do anything". The former is a conversation had by adults living in a democracy; the latter is a stupid platitude thrown around by intellectual children who aren't willing or capable of acting like grown-ups. The former is how we decide whether to continue funding an agency, or how to change its structure; the latter is how we get lost in angry shouting which wastes time, money, and energy, distracting us from the actual problem at hand.

      So, you and I seem to agree on this, which is wonderful. That other idiot can suck eggs.

    326. Re:This explains the political process by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Oh, so anyone who does not want what you say "everyone" wants gets modded as troll. What a haven of free dialogue slashdot has become.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    327. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, I always found the critical hypocrisy in libertarianism to fall into the fact that they denounce all types of social contract using force to implement at the expense of one's individual rights, except one. The concept of property. Seriously, except that we all agree to pay taxes and abide by the social contract that is property, what else gives you the right to declare a piece of land or an automobile yours? Perhaps I could make a living mining and selling coal, but you "own" all the coal mines. What gives you that right? In nature, if a squirrel drops an acorn out of his tree and another squirrel picks it up, there's no court of law in place that will assure the acorn is returned to it's "rightful owner." So where does this right come from?

      Force.

      Property is not a "social contract;" property is a way of codifying "might makes right" to make it somewhat civilized (i.e., efficient). Instead of each property owner having to defend his property himself (or hire a private army), they cooperate with each other to construct a court system and police force to do it for them. (This system also acts as a check against certain types of mistakes, such as accidentally dropping one's acorns. Is it that surprising that, being under the control of property owners, the system would expand the concept of "property" over time?)

      Why else did you think libertarians are so enthusiastic about the 2nd Amendment? They recognize the need to defend their property!

      The difference between you and me is that I also see how this same concept of social contract could be applied elsewhere. Public schools. Public libraries. Public roads. And yes, even unemployment insurance, medicare and social security. They are all social contracts, like the concept of property, meant to better society and make life more enjoyable for everyone.

      On the contrary, the difference between you and libertarians is not that you recognize those other things as social contracts, but instead that you don't recognize that property is not one.

      Why not do away with all social contracts and be an anarchist?

      Of course, my observation is that libertarianism is really just a euphemism for "I'm rich and I want to do whatever I want."

      Some libertarians are anarchist; others realize they aren't rich/powerful enough to survive anarchy, and still others recognize the value of social contracts and call themselves "libertarian" mostly because the other obvious choices (Democrat and Republican) have both gone off the deep end of authoritarianism.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    328. Re:This explains the political process by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 1

      Your numbers for Social Security, Medicare and Medicare D are way off. Do you really expect anyone to take your post seriously when you suggest that social security is currently $14.7 trillion in debt, nearly the same as the entire GDP of the US? And moreover, that Medicare is currently $77 trillion in debt, which is $16 trillion more than the world GDP!.

      Perhaps your numbers are over long periods of time, and if they are, then say that! Instead you just come off as someone who has absolutely no clue. Yes, SS/Medicare are doomed if we don't fix them, but keep the FUD numbers out of the discussion.

      I'm not going to bother starting some whole thread on the merits of SS/Medicare, they are simultaneously incredibly successful, but broken programs. However, I do want to respond to one point of yours, which is the idea that you'll never get your SS/Medicare back. There is one extremely important component of Social Security that even young people sometimes benefit from: Disability benefits. If you suffer an injury that will keep you out of work for 12+ months, you can get compensation. This is, of course, assuming you've been paying into SS for long enough (which varies based on your age and a whole host of seemingly random factors)

    329. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You could abolish employer-provided health care without socializing it, though. If everyone had to pay directly themselves it would drive down costs (by both increasing competition and decreasing unnecessary services) as well as shift insurance back towards covering only unforeseeable and/or catastrophic situations instead of being abused to cover known, budget-able expenses (e.g. checkups, prescriptions etc.).

      Of course, you'd have to either force everyone to participate in the system (e.g. by compulsory insurance a la Obamacare) or resolve to allow people to bear the consequences of their decisions (by refusing treatment to those unable/unwilling to pay) in order to prevent abuse.

      By the way, I'd like to point out something that nobody seems to be thinking about: there's no reason all this has to be decided at the Federal level! Why not let California choose one thing, and Texas another? The only thing stopping it is the asinine funding system we have where we send most of our taxes to the Federal government, who then doles it back out to states with tons of strings attached, instead of just paying most of our taxes to the states directly. In other words, the real problem is not that California and Texas can't agree, but rather a failure in the separation of powers. Fix that, and they'll no longer have to agree!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    330. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      There are two problems with insurance. One is that it's tied to employment, and unaffordable otherwise. The second is that it's increasingly being abused to cover foreseeable expenses (e.g. well checkups) instead of being merely a hedge against catastrophic injuries or illnesses.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    331. Re:This explains the political process by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

      I use to think the same thing, until one day I actually witnessed one work. I tried it and sure enough, with in 5 seconds I had an opportunity to cross. Granted, this light was at a non-intersection and specifically designed for pedestrians to cross, but I was still shocked that it was wired.

    332. Re:This explains the political process by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      You sure do like to move the goalpost.

      How many executives do you think Aetna has? Apparently its enough for 20% of revenue, and if they all make as much as the CEO (doubtful) that would be Three Hundred And Seventy Eight (378) executives at a minimum. In plain english, your assertions are preposterous goal-post-moving attempts to rationalize a conclusions that you have no evidence for, a conclusion formed out of pure greedy jealousy prior to you doing any research. That currently there is no evidence that ytou ever did any research even after this conclusion was formed.

      What was it? Did someone sound like they knew what they were talking about, so you have been repeating it ever since?

      Why dont you provide some of those FACTS that your signature talks about? It seems to me that someone who goes out of their way to say shit about facts ahead of ideology, but never seems to ever provide any facts at all (I checked your other postings,) is just covering up for a severe lack of research and critical thinking.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    333. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There are no perfect models for the world. Attempts often lead to more damage. Arguments in this vein often draw counter-arguments that, while valid, are special cases; there are a lot of unfortunate single moms where I live, in a city full of drug dealers and criminals and people that are just plain old fuck-ups. So for every 1 single mom here there's 10,000 4th-generation welfare con artists that never even tried to dig their way out of their shit situation. I would rather sacrifice the 1 single mom than subsidize the 10,000 fuckups.

    334. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Volunteer YOUR money.

    335. Re:This explains the political process by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      As I said, prices would go up and bring demand down. There is no other way to do this. We can do that when(/if) it happens, or we can just have higher prices now and remove dependence on foreign oil now.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    336. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Currently, there are many laws preventing insurance companies from operating in all 50 states. This reduces competition and drives prices up. There should be made a federal law that explicitly bans the limitation of states or any other government institution on preventing insurance companies from operating on all 50 states (or any potential future states)

      There already is a law a law doing that: the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In fact, this is one of the few things that the ICC legitimately should be used for!*

      By the way, you should add "4) Prohibition on advertising prescription drugs to the public" to your list. Normal people have absolutely no business choosing them for themselves (because if they did, the drugs could be over-the-counter instead of prescription!). Therefore, advertising to the public only pressures doctors to prescribe unnecessarily and irresponsibly. Advertising to doctors themselves is a bad idea too (they can and should learn about new drugs via medical journals and whatnot instead), but probably prohibitively difficult to get rid of.

      (* In contrast to bullshit like justifying drug laws by claiming that a person growing pot for their own consumption at home is "interstate commerce" merely because it affects supply and demand.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    337. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I have a natural talent for math, for learning languages, and apparently for singing and playing instruments. I never practice, really. I'm 25 and just discovering that all this shit comes insanely easy for me if I devote an hour a week to it... I might devote 10 minutes every 2-3 weeks.

      You know, maybe I should set some time aside to not only improve my game of Go; but also set my foundation for Algebra and Geometry, for the guitar and piano, and for 6 or 7 languages. I have a good German foundation I've built up pretty much lazily over a couple months; if I read a book in German (with dictionary) I should be set. I started a Japanese course and in 6 days I had a better basic grasp than some teenage girl that's been studying for a month and a half... half hour a day of study.

      If I did that, maybe I'd be a fantastic person poised to gain much more social popularity and perhaps even a better job (or a wide selection of different kinds of jobs) rather than a loser with a boring desk job any moron can do. Oh, I approach my desk job skillfully and artistically, not just brute forcing my way through simple problems but elegantly, quickly, and efficiently toppling them in ways that give me tools for future use (knowledge, shell scripts, better educated coworkers because I turn a semi-simple task into a team effort with a skillful approach...). But it's still a simple job.

      It seems obvious to me that I was born better than most people I meet since most tasks they find difficult are simple to me. It's also obvious that I never bother to try, though, so I fail at just about everything. So who IS better? Why am I envying people that obviously can't compete with me?

      So much for not being born equal.

    338. Re:This explains the political process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This from the Space Hijackers in London:
      http://osocio.org/images/uploads/hijacker-scanner.jpg

    339. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You could even go so far as to remove the whole concept of prescriptions. Why pay $150 (copay + premiums) to go to a doctor when I have the sniffles when all I want is the $15 antibiotic?

      The idea of prescriptions is that they're for medicines to dangerous to be used without professional supervision. If you're really finding yourself in the situation you describe, then the real problem is either:

      • your sniffles are severe enough to warrant treatment with (dangerous) prescription medication,
      • the treatment you seek is safe enough that it ought to be made available over-the-counter, or
      • the cost to provide the doctor's supervision is too high.

      Note, by the way, that "dangerous" encompasses more than just danger to the patient. For example, the $15 antibiotics you mentioned are prescription-only because improper use causes drug-resistant bacteria, which is dangerous to the public at large.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    340. Re:This explains the political process by enderjsv · · Score: 1

      "Instead of each property owner having to defend his property himself (or hire a private army), they cooperate with each other"

      So how is this any different than "cooperating" with each other to build roads, fund schools, etc. And if it's not a forced social contract, how can I opt out of it? I mean, if I don't want to participate in your system of property and consider land to be un-ownable, are you going to let me mine your coal mine, or are you going to use force to make me comply? See, this is what libertarianism does. They pretend that somehow the force they want to use to enforce their social contracts is somehow different than the force other people would use. It's no different. Property is a product of society. It's a social contract. Exclaim all you want that it's somehow different, but its not.

    341. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      However, in practice, it'll be much cheaper to not have insurance, pay the fine for not having the "mandatory" coverage

      Rather than prove some wacky conspiracy theory, all that shows to me is that the fine is too low. Raise it until getting insurance is cheaper and you've solved the problem!

      Considering that said solution is so bleedingly obvious I'm forced to conclude that you're either an idiot or a nutjob. For future reference, which is it?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    342. Re:This explains the political process by anUnhandledException · · Score: 1

      No you don't. You don't know a single person who pays no taxes. The false meme is x% don't pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. At least get the false meme right.

      Total taxation = federal income tax + state income tax + sales tax + payroll taxes (FICA) + real estate (and other property taxes) + service taxes (notice the $5.48 on cellphone bill) + excise taxes (gasoline, guns, alchohol, etc) + import duties (paid indirectly via higher prices) + govt fees which are simply another form of taxation (DMV fee, licence plate fees, pet license, etc).

      While not all those taxes apply to every individual and in every locality it is virtually impossible for someone to pay no taxes.

      Federal income tax is roughly 20% of all taxation in the US. While you may know some people who pay no federal income tax you don't know ANYONE (not a single person) who pays no tax. Hell a homeless man buying a cheeseburger from McDonalds will pay taxes in most states, and if he buys alcohol instead he will be paying taxes everywhere in the US.

    343. Re:This explains the political process by koreaman · · Score: 1

      I agree that many drugs that are available only by prescription should be OTC, but definitely not antibiotics. If too many people take antibiotics, antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria develop, which hurts everybody. A situation in which individuals making stupid decisions can cause harm to society as a whole is somewhere that I think liberals and conservatives can agree the government has the right to interfere.

    344. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So how is this any different than "cooperating" with each other to build roads, fund schools, etc.

      If the property owners choose not to cooperate, the property still gets defended (they just do it themselves... or they shortly get displaced by others who will defend the property). If people choose not to cooperate with each other on roads and schools, then they just won't exist, and there's nothing wrong (in the sense of "impossible", not "undesirable") about that. Or they'd be privately owned, which is what what would actually happen.

      And if it's not a forced social contract, how can I opt out of it?

      See, that's where you misunderstand: the fact that it's forced is precisely why it's not a social contract! Social contracts can be opted out of (by opting out of society or picking a society with different social contracts). You can't opt out of property because it's (essentially) the Law of the Jungle.

      I mean, if I don't want to participate in your system of property and consider land to be un-ownable, are you going to let me mine your coal mine, or are you going to use force to make me comply?

      Yes, force will be used to make you comply... unless you can exert greater force and thereby win, in which case the mine is still property and you merely become the owner. That kind of competition is inherent to nature; you can't escape it.

      They pretend that somehow the force they want to use to enforce their social contracts is somehow different than the force other people would use.

      The force libertarians use is inherent (it exists whether anybody wants it to or not). The other sort of force you're talking about (i.e., morality) is a construct of man. It may be more morally acceptable than physical force (in fact, that's kind of a tautology...), but ultimately, you don't really have a choice (because if you try to choose to not believe in property, eventually someone else will come along and take all your stuff).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    345. Re:This explains the political process by Myopic · · Score: 1

      One to ten thousand? Really, or not really? Are you sure it's not actually 15:1 in the other direction? That's what I would guess if I, like you, were pulling numbers out of thin air.

      But, I guess you chose Option 2: fuck that kid, it ain't his fault, but fuck him anyway.

      I guess, in this democracy, I can't join you in telling that kind that he should fuck off and fail in life. Still, I'm glad that we have distilled our political differences to this clear difference: you say fuck that child, I say don't fuck that child. Okay. Happy voting, I hope people like me outnumber people like you.

    346. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The fact that one particular implementation of healthcare reform (i.e., Obamacare) sucks does not mean that all possible different healthcare reforms would also necessarily suck.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    347. Re:This explains the political process by blair1q · · Score: 1

      You're not required to do anything for them. Work somewhere else or start your own business.

      There's always somewhere else to work, but it's always like the place you were, or will be bought by them. There's not much that's truly "off the grid" that is still viable territory for human beings in large numbers.

      Start your own business, then play by rules made by the people who have been out-competing small businesses for decades, and own all of the intellectual property you think you're allowed to implement.

      Maybe you don't get it, but the purpose of government is to keep the inexorable economies of scale, and the outright cheating and taking by force, from turning you into a slave, again. If you use the government instead to protect and assist the people who already have the economies of scale, then you want to be a slave, or you're oblivious to the fact that it has happened and can happen again, or their contributions to your education have benefitted them exactly as they planned them to (indeed, the fact that you believe that people who believe in social security and healthcare are "extremely evil and greedy" shows that their propaganda has scored a bullseye and turned up to down, black to white, and freedom to slavery). Capitalism, like driving, is a good thing only when controlled; the danger is balanced by the benefit when it's properly regulated, but it's catastrophic when deregulated. I'm not a socialist, far from it. I just don't want the length of my life to depend on the need for an insurance company to make its quarterly numbers.

      Your noticing that the government is corrupted is merely a glimpse of the tip of the iceberg. Most congressmen are owned and run. Most of the recent elections were bought outright (modulo Meg Whitman, who imploded herself and then poured casholine on the bonfire). Laws are written by lobbyists. Investment banks (not savings banks but hedge funds) get welfare. The courts are topped by a corporatist plurality. And they gutted the laws that made people admit they were doing it.

      I can only imagine what they have planned for 2012. The Mayans may wish they'd been right.

    348. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      One to ten thousand? Really, or not really? Are you sure it's not actually 15:1 in the other direction? That's what I would guess if I, like you, were pulling numbers out of thin air.

      You haven't seen the place I live. When I moved, I went to the liquor store the first saturday after I had my apartment. Got out of my car around 1pm, some guy walks up to me and yells from about 20 feet away asking if I wanna buy some crack. A week in, somebody got shot to death. Hell, I have a dent in my car from someone who hit it and ran a red light I was waiting at... people were firing bullets across the back of my car at the time. They weren't shooting at me, so I don't see why I have to care, so I just waited for the light to change.

      People don't raise their kids here. The kids hit 5th grade and can't read. You know, those things, books? They can't do anything with them. Maybe wipe their asses.

      Yes, I'm pretty sure I'm living in a failed welfare state.

      But, I guess you chose Option 2: fuck that kid, it ain't his fault, but fuck him anyway.

      Can't save everybody. The term "reasonable attempt" doesn't mean "spend 30 seconds getting the room clean, and 6 hours on your knees trying to scrub that last speck of dust out from the corner." Our society has the reverse problem though: we start on the little speck in the corner and obsess over it while the rest of the room rots.

      I guess, in this democracy, I can't join you in telling that kind that he should fuck off and fail in life. Still, I'm glad that we have distilled our political differences to this clear difference: you say fuck that child, I say don't fuck that child. Okay. Happy voting, I hope people like me outnumber people like you.

      That's reasonable. Of course, I'm equally entitled to tell you you're wrong, for above cited reasons and with above analogy.

    349. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      In many occupations - from programming to maid service - it is essentially impossible to work directly for a client. You must work through a middleman you don't own.

      No matter how much documentation, contractual paperwork, and external stuff you've got in place (office, health insurance, DBA or incorporation, etc.), if you don't keep up your tax payments the IRS will go to your client, say you were really an employee, and demand the withholdings, half the social-security payments, plus penalties and interest. Even if you work through a middleman corporation, if you and/or your family members own half or more of it the IRS will treat it as a scam and non-existent.

      I think you're a bit confused (or disingenuous). Sure, if you only have one client that you work for the entire time (or nearly so), then the IRS could come after them... but that's because then you really are an employee in all but name. On the other hand, if you have a bunch of clients such that your livelihood doesn't depend on any particular one (which is what the "independent" in "independent contractor" means), then there's no problem.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    350. Re:This explains the political process by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      The time of a CEOs literally costs more, their time is valuable, the job is incredibly demanding and very hard to get right.

      Right, because we know the market *never* horrendously overvalues commodities.

    351. Re:This explains the political process by the+biologist · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. I've never been to NYC, but I should have assumed from the various media representations.

    352. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      What was really amazing was the number of medicare recipients protesting against universal healthcare.

      What's amazing about that? They just don't want to pay for anybody else to get on their gravy train. That attitude is disgustingly selfish and hypocritical, but it's not surprising.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    353. Re:This explains the political process by AhabTheArab · · Score: 1

      They sound terrible. I certainly hope I never meet one.

    354. Re:This explains the political process by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Yeah, where Ventura won governor and then.... what, exactly? Where is the sustainability? Where is the *party* that he ran with today? Thank you for proving my point exactly: The party Jesse Ventura won with no longer exists, Jesse is no longer the governor, and independent elected governors, representatives and senators are rather thin on the ground in Washington.

      I won't say what the "many here" think - they can do a fine job of it for themselves. The problem is what constitutes "water" - and guess what, it's different for many.

      For some, "Water" was Bob Barr. For others, "Water" was RON PAUL. For others, it was Ralph Nader. I wonder, if you took the average Bob Barr supporter and asked them if they thought Nader was water or urine, what they would say. Reverse that and ask the Nader voters about Barr.

      You're also completely ignoring the concept of games theory. Let's say there are 3 candidates: 1 of them I agree with and want to win, but they are a 3rd party candidate. 1 of them I kind of agree with, so I'd be OK if they won, but not really happy. 1 of them I disagree with vehemently, so I absolutely don't want them to win. Who do I vote for?

      Well, if I believe that enough people would break out of the "safe" mold and vote for the 3rd candidate, maybe I could vote for them. But if I believe that the 3rd party candidate does not have a shot of winning despite being the one I would most support, then by splitting the vote I'd wind up with my least favored outcome; I hold my nose and pick the "safe" vote. You keep on ignoring the fact that individual voters are part of the electorate, and in many cases will vote based on what they think other people may do.

      In fact, most people who advocate for a third party will explicitly add the caveat to their points to ONLY do this in races where the eventual outcome isn't really in doubt. For example, I live in Chicago. During the Mayoral election, it is a foregone conclusion that the Democrat will win. Therefore, I do not have to worry that my vote will actually have any impact on the outcome of the election, and so I can vote for a candidate I believe in rather than the one I simply think might win and find less objectionable in a close race. But for Senate, given that much of Illinois outside of Chicago is VERY "red" and that race would be very close, I'd be a fool if I voted 3rd party/split vote because it would ONLY result in my least favorite option winning.

      You keep on arguing from a completely naive viewpoint that requires people to behave in ways that are unrealistic. Counter my actual arguments rather than say that people are whining - explain to me exactly how my casting my vote for a candidate I *know* cannot win, and thus taking support away from a candidate that *can* win and who is less objectionable than the other candidate that can win is not a smart move. Explain to me how having the worst possible likely outcome (from my perspective) is better for me. In the real world, not some theoretical paradise where EVERYONE decides spontaneously to vote their conscience rather than for the least objectionable reasonable outcome.

      While you're at it, explain to me how it's somehow more reasonable or feasible to change the established behavior of the electorate (voting safe rather than taking risks in a very polarized political landscape) than it is to change the way the system is implemented. For bonus points, explain to me how that change would be sustainable without changes to the underlying system, when the homeostasis of our system as it is now is to vote safe.

      You seem wedded to this system, I am not sure why - what's so great about our current way of handling elections? Give me some arguments in favor of it.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    355. Re:This explains the political process by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Then you are stating there isn't any moral imperative to save someone who wants and needs help. Where the money comes from is unrelated to whether there is a moral imperative, and since you refuse to discuss the point at hand, I'll just take that as a concession that you realize your point is 100% wrong.

    356. Re:This explains the political process by aquila.solo · · Score: 1

      That's classic post hoc ergo propter hoc.

      Is that a fancy way of sayin' "I like your tiger-repelling rock?" ;-)

    357. Re:This explains the political process by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So you are stating that there isn't a state without a BCBS. Thanks for proving me right and you wrong. In case you are curious, "licensee" is the equivalent of "franchise" in this context (you pay a fee and you have to meet certain standards and requirements of that brand). Next you'll be arguing that the Subway I ate at isn't related to the one you ate at because they were both independently owned.

    358. Re:This explains the political process by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      We also know that CEOs are infallible, always getting it right. The few that don't get it right don't ever get multimillion dollar severance bonuses, and they never get rehired as a CEO.

    359. Re:This explains the political process by TheLink · · Score: 1

      You seem wedded to this system, I am not sure why - what's so great about our current way of handling elections? Give me some arguments in favor of it.

      Who said I was? Assuming that voters actually want to change the system, you do realize that to change the system you have to change the leaders right? So what's your plan? Keep voting for Twiddledee and Twiddledum because "Game Theory" says so? They'll NEVER change the system because it is working well for them. What I'm talking about are very long shots, but they've a higher chance of changing stuff than "vote for The Two Parties".

      As for game theory, I am well aware of that game theory. That method is optimal if you assume there is going to be only one election ever (e.g. one iteration/cycle). Look up "Signalling".

      If you can't wait for multiple elections, what you could do is create a way to have lots of voters do "pseudo-elections" before the actual election, so that they can work things out. Those pseudo elections do not have to be "First Past The Post". That way voters might be able to find out whether some 3rd party actually has a chance at all. Once they've done that, they can proceed to try to game the system however they see fit.

      FWIW it's not even my country. I'm only bothered because the USA is the most powerful nation in the world, and has a habit "influencing" other countries (whether forcibly or not). So whoever rules the USA often affects us a fair bit (in contrast whoever rules Iraq or North Korea won't really affect us that much).

      That and Bush got reelected...

      --
    360. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      I think we're just arguing semantics at this point. What you're calling regulating capitalism, I'm calling keeping it from being perverted.

      Buying laws and lawmakers, creating artificial monopolies, allowing natural monopolies to stand, engaging in protectionism, government bailouts, those aren't capitalism. Basically, anything that hinders the ability of competition to drive down prices and drive up quality goes directly against the primary tenets of capitalism.

      Healthcare services (not drugs), for instance, are currently a natural monopoly and steps do need to be taken to fix that. The President's law, however, does nothing to dissolve that natural monopoly. Instead it forces the entire nation to buy insurance whether they want it or not. It's effectively a tax being paid to private corporations rather than to the government and that is deeply fucked up.

      Drugs are another matter. They're an artificial monopoly created by the government; very anti-capitalism but easy to remedy. Simply disallow drug and drug related patents.

      There's always somewhere else to work, but it's always like the place you were, or will be bought by them. There's not much that's truly "off the grid" that is still viable territory for human beings in large numbers.

      Extremely false. Half of all employees in the nation are employed by small businesses. Small businesses create ~65% of all new jobs. Only two percent of small businesses are even franchise operations. citation

      I won't disagree much on intellectual property except to say that small businesses get a whopping 13 times more patents than corporations and patent tanks put together. Personally, I think the IP laws of nearly every sort need a complete reboot. Throw them all out and start over with an eye for encouraging competition rather than inhibiting it. Software, business method, and drug patents in particular need to DIAF.

      I think what a lot of people who're all "boo capitalism" don't get is what we currently have is only vaguely capitalistic anymore. For lack of an actual word, I'd call it corruptionism.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    361. Re:This explains the political process by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      That's pride fucking with you. You are a perfectionist, you don't want to fail on your first attempt, so you never bother to try things that you don't know you can do right on the first try.

      You're right, those people probably can't compete with you in the environment you have been pruning your brain for over the last 25 years. You should take LSD, you might still be able to stop yourself from being such a cunt.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    362. Re:This explains the political process by enderjsv · · Score: 1

      "See, that's where you misunderstand: the fact that it's forced is precisely why it's not a social contract!" What? That's really what you believe? My friend, force is what MAKES a social contract. If there was nothing to force you to pay your taxes, there would be no problem from a libertarian stand point. You could just choose not to pay your taxes.

      The same is true for property. Yes, without government, "jungle law" would take over and every individual would be in charge of their own property. But that would essentially mean that if I'm stronger than you are, for whatever reason, then I could take your property and there would be no retaliation. If you struck oil, so what, I'm stronger so now its mine.

      But it doesn't work like that, because we band together as a society and say that an individual has the right to "own" the land that contains the oil. If I then try to take it from you, I not only have to contend with you, but I have to contend with the rest of society. In other words, it's a social contract.

      You keep trying to make the argument more difficult than it really is, I guess is some attempt to muddle the points in confusion. But it's actually a really simple argument. If it's okay for society to band together to enforce the social contract that is property, then why is it wrong for society to band together to enforce roads. As you say, without the social contract to enforce roads, there would either be no roads, or road building and maintenance would be left up to an individual. The same could be said for property. Without the social contract meant to enforce property rights, there would either be no concept of property, or property enforcement would be left up to the individual. I don't know a single libertarian I've ever met who claims there shouldn't be courts and police to enforce property rights. If that's your opinion, then you obviously think that a social contract to enforce property rights SHOULD exist. If that's the case, then I don't see why other social contracts cant also exist.

      It's really an easy thing to consider. Don't make it so hard.

    363. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There is a logical fallacy between people being obligated to do something and people having a moral imperative to do something. An obligation is contractual (laws are an obligation as contractual to your continued citizenship in this country; if you don't like it, move somewhere with different laws). A moral imperative is something you should do, but can't be accused of not doing in any way other than academically: sure, you don't give every hobo you see food, but that's not going to get you arrested.

      My taxes pay for food stamps. If I don't pay my taxes, I am refusing to buy hobos food; thus I am now being arrested for refusing to buy hobos food.

      Social services are valuable, at least it can be argued they are. Raising taxes and taking more money because "There's Still Hungry People" to continue to try to solve everyone's problems by making them everyone else's is walking fail.

    364. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Eh, I give up on everything I start out of boredom. Including talking to my friends. I'm not really interested in a social life; I require solitude or I'll go insane.

    365. Re:This explains the political process by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      We have pseudo-elections prior to the big elections. They're called primaries, and there is an absurd amount of gaming that goes on with them, plus the fact that the people who can be arsed to vote in them are not a representative sample of the larger population; it leads to strange situations like RON PAUL seeming viable when he was not even close to being so, or opposition members voting in those primaries to try to get the least viable candidate given the nod to make the general election a walk for their team.

      As for changing things - I actually think it's easier to get changes to the system in place because you can generate support for systemic changes when people are not afraid that if they fail the outcome will be worse than what it is now. In an election, as it stands, if they push for change and fail they will often wind up putting the person they least want to see in office. But with a non-election push for changes to the underlying system the worst that happens if they fail is... things stay the same as they are now. There is less downside, and thus people are more supportive. Even better, this kind of thing will have more cross-spectrum support than any individual candidate would. Think about it - Green party voters and Libertarian party voters don't agree on policy and platforms very often, but both groups agree that there needs to be a change to the underlying system to give them a voice. While they'd almost never vote for the same candidate, I bet you could drum up support for ballot propositions that would change the way voting is done from every point on the political spectrum.

      You are advocating that the electorate change first - I'd love to see it, too, because voter apathy in the US is ridiculous; but that requires too much trust, something we are short of here. I am arguing that it is easier for the underlying system to change because that requires less trust that other people will back your play, and more trust that people who have been without a voice, all across the spectrum, will want one and make an effort to get it.

      I do agree that the fact that the US is a 9000 LB behemoth on the world stage and yet we have such a ridiculous approach is annoying. It blows my mind that a nation of 300+ million people and is among one of the most demographically diverse nations on the planet, is somehow "adequately" represented by two not terribly different parties, yet a nation like Finland, which is one of the least diverse populations, has just over 5 million people, and yet has 8 parties in parliament, with an additional 8 outside of it. Hell, they have 2 different communist parties, which is boggling in and of itself, but there you have it.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    366. Re:This explains the political process by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      all that shows to me is that the fine is too low. Raise it until getting insurance is cheaper and you've solved the problem!

      Whoopdefuckingdo. You apparently are smarter than all the democrats in congress, and the president too. Why don’t you tell them instead of posting your theories on slashdot?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    367. Re:This explains the political process by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      That's a shame, you'd probably be really good at socialising and getting what you want out of people and making them want it. If you practised...

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    368. Re:This explains the political process by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Wow, you refuted exactly nothing in your post, provided 0 evidence, and then went off on me for not providing facts, pure idiocy.

      here, that took like 3 seconds.

      PNHP has published a series of peer-reviewed studies over the past 20 years showing a steady increase in health administrative costs. While some aspects of administrative cost estimation (e.g. physicians' billing costs) require special studies, others, such as insurance overhead, can be easily tracked from publicly available data. These figures show no evidence of a fall in administrative costs since our most recent (2003) comprehensive estimate that administration consumes at least 31% of U.S. health care spending.

      So if it isn't greed, why do private insurance companies spend so much in administrative overhead? Why is it that private health insurance costs so much more than public health insurance? Answer me, or are you just going to go off without any facts again while claiming the facts are on your side. The private health insurance execs love idiots like you that blindly believe whatever they are fed so the execs can continue fucking you over for fun and profit.

    369. Re:This explains the political process by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>don't want "them" to have it, because "they" are moochers or lazy

      Actually I don't want to have it for *myself* because I've seen how poorly the US Congress runs other programs like Amtrak, the post office, the SSI program, and so on. If they tried to run a Healthcare program I'd probably go in to have an appendix removed, and instead lose my tonsils. And of course the program would be verging on bankruptcy, just like Amtrak, USPS, SS, and so on.

      I'd prefer to pay my healthcare directly (cash), so I can have maximum control over the doctors w/o any kind of middleman to interfere with negotiations. Plus a backup insurance plan in case I developed some terminal illness costing ~$100,000 a year.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    370. Re:This explains the political process by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      all I want out of people is a game of Go. And a hug. And serve me a hamburger and don't charge me $3.95 for it; it's a damn hamburger, why is it so expensive?

    371. Re:This explains the political process by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Why don’t you tell them instead of posting your theories on slashdot?

      Because, for one thing, I never accepted your premise that it would be "much cheaper to not have insurance" (i.e, to pay the fine instead) in the first place. First, I don't know (and I don't think anybody knows) what the prices of each option will actually be yet. Second, even if paying the fine has a smaller price tag than the insurance premium, you're getting no value for that money. People who realize that might choose to go ahead and pay the difference for the insurance, and thereby get the benefits (since the insurance would probably cover non-catastrophic medical expenses too).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    372. Re:This explains the political process by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      What were the two rallying cries of the Teabaggers when health care reform was being written? "No Socialized Medicine!" and Don't touch my Medicare!!

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    373. Re:This explains the political process by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Wow, you refuted exactly nothing in your post, provided 0 evidence, and then went off on me for not providing facts, pure idiocy.

      I refuted it before you even said it, in the post you replied to.
      FACT: Health Insurance providers pay out over $2 trillion in claims each year. Thats TTTTTrillion. Not BBBBillion, or MMMMillion.

      Until you provide numbers that suggest that Health Insurance executives as a whgole get paid 1 trillion dollars each year, all you have is that link... which doesnt even claim that the administrative costs are primarily due to insurance companies.

      In fact, the only thing it claims about insurance companies is that THE NUMBERS ARE EASY TO TRACK (which is obvious, since insurance companies are highly regulated, publicly traded, etc.. you can check their financial statements online), but specifically declares that ALL forms of administrative costs are factored in.

      PNHP has published a series of peer-reviewed studies over the past 20 years showing a steady increase in health administrative costs.

      They do not attribute this to only insurance companies, as I have already said. But lets examine their 31% figure.

      Health Insurance Companies pay out over 2 trillion dollars per year. If there is 31% administrative waste, that means that there should be 1 trillion dollars of what should be easily trackable money being blown on their executives. 1 trillion!!!! Are you fucking serious? Are you suggesting that they are able to hide 1 trillion dollars a year in salaries and compensations? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

      Yet amazingly there are only a handful of billionaires worldwide! Seriously!! Are you fucking stupid?

      No, you arent stupid. You are dishonest. You just tried to misrepresent the 31% figure in the link you provides as primarily being due to insurance companies, when the link actually states that it ISNT primarily due to insurance companies. All it claims is that the numbers for insurance companies are easy to track! If they are easy to track, then why don't you find some of those numbers and get back to me with.. you know.. FACTS.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    374. Re:This explains the political process by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      LOL! Paying more taxes doesn't give you more political power. But those in the highest tax brackets certainly have the money to buy out a congressman or five. Not only that, but if you're the CEO of, say, a pharmaceutical company. You can buy legislation that pads your bottom line on the shareholders' dollar.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    375. Re:This explains the political process by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      More facts for ya, Mr Dishonest.

      In 2010 ( thats this year) there are only 1011 billionaires in the world. The very richest person in the world has $53 Billion.

      You are claiming that health insurance companies are paying their executives 1 trillions dollars (your 31% figure of the over 2 trillion in health insurance payouts each year) .. so over the past decade, they have paid out 10 trillion dollars to their executives.

      Lets suppose that there have been 10,000 health insurance executives over the past 10 years. That would have created 10,000 billionaires (with exactly $1 billion) during this period.. but wait.. there are only 1011 billionaires worldwide... fuck.. I guess you are full of shit.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    376. Re:This explains the political process by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Liberitarian? Green? Constitutional? Seems there is plenty of water on the ballot to me.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    377. Re:This explains the political process by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      My taxes pay for food stamps. If I don't pay my taxes, I am refusing to buy hobos food; thus I am now being arrested for refusing to buy hobos food.

      No, you are arrested for not paying your taxes (something that almost never happens, but we'll fulfill your flawed premise for your exercise). You don't get to choose what portion of which dollar goes where. So in not paying for food stamps, you are also not paying for the military, Congress, or anything else. So even if there is no imperative for paying for food stamps, you are refusing to pay for any other services either.

      You are drawing a distinction between a moral imperative for a person and for a people. I agree there is one, and I wasn't talking about a person. That's a personal choice that's irrelevant to society. If society has a moral imperative, then, as society has no actual structure outside the law, such imperatives must be coded in law. If there's a problem with that, then the law should be changed.

    378. Re:This explains the political process by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Sad but true.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    379. Re:This explains the political process by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      Your numbers for Social Security, Medicare and Medicare D are way off. Do you really expect anyone to take your post seriously when you suggest that social security is currently $14.7 trillion in debt, nearly the same as the entire GDP of the US? And moreover, that Medicare is currently $77 trillion in debt, which is $16 trillion more than the world GDP!.

      Perhaps your numbers are over long periods of time, and if they are, then say that! Instead you just come off as someone who has absolutely no clue. Yes, SS/Medicare are doomed if we don't fix them, but keep the FUD numbers out of the discussion.

      My source is the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank as I pointed out in another post, with updated projections provided by usdebtclock.org. The numbers are the total unfunded liability. That is, not debt that is immediately owed today, but just how far in debt the programs are long term. Social Security owes $14.7 trillion more than it will take in by 2078 and is already running a deficit now despite projections that it wouldn't start until 2017. Likewise, Medicare is projected to go into the red in 2016. We're basically at the point of unsustainability already and things will only get worse.

      Just because you don't like the numbers doesn't mean they are FUD. They're a stark reality that most people WANT to ignore because it points out just how much Enron style accounting goes on in Washington, DC - just like there was never an actual budget surplus in the late 90s, aggregate debt increased every year and has every year since 1957. It was all just "advanced" accounting techniques to hide the real deficits, just like the 40+ year long raid of the Social Security Trust Fund.

      Every time someone says that my numbers are bogus (and I think you're about #5 in this thread), I can't help but think back to Liar, Liar:
      Fletcher: Your Honor, I object!
      Judge: Why?
      Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!

      However, I do want to respond to one point of yours, which is the idea that you'll never get your SS/Medicare back. There is one extremely important component of Social Security that even young people sometimes benefit from: Disability benefits. If you suffer an injury that will keep you out of work for 12+ months, you can get compensation. This is, of course, assuming you've been paying into SS for long enough (which varies based on your age and a whole host of seemingly random factors)

      There are a non-trivial number of people that collect SSDI (my dad among them after a series of brain injuries initially caused by an aneurysm. We'll also ignore those born disabled that still collect SSDI even though they'll never work in their lifetime. Further, though there are a lot of people that illegitmately collect benefits as well, but we'll ignore them for purposes of this discussion). That said, you can't really even consider them as much more than statistical noise in a discussion of whether or not you're going to collect benefits because if even a large minority of every 30, 40 or 50 something started collecting early, we would have bankrupted ages ago. Yes, there is a 1 in whatever chance that it'll be you that ends up disabled and you'll actually get back what you pay in, but there's also a 1 in whatever chance that you're going to die early and not receive a single dollar in benefits, save the $250 death benefit, and neither will your kids unless they're under 18. On the other hand, if you die at age 58 of a heart attack, your 19, 25 and 30 year old children could have received the money you would have invested had the government not taken it from you. Of course, that gets us back into the debate about whether or not SSI should exist in the first place - it's something you either believe in or don't and there is plenty of m

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    380. Re:This explains the political process by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      But those facts don't match with my ideology so I will dismiss them as republican propaganda.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    381. Re:This explains the political process by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      No, wait, it doesn't. The lion's share of that money leaves the US economy, with a small fraction of it going to sales- and maintenance workers.

      So it's a bad thing that money flows from rich nations to poor nations? I see.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    382. Re:This explains the political process by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And likewise, the converse is also true; just because you can point to one instance where it may not suck does not mean that all of it does not suck. But hey - I was promised I could keep my plan, and that I would save $2500 per year, on average. Both of which are complete lies. Lie to me twice, I'm not going to believe much of what else is being pushed...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    383. Re:This explains the political process by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You mean in our republic right?

      OF course you didn't pay attention to what was said. That or simple math escapes you. Paying 10% is paying more if you earn more. If you all the sudden have to pay 15%, then you should get 1.5 votes as you are paying your share plus half of someone else.

    384. Re:This explains the political process by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Our politicians are no more bought and paid for then you are. Stop assuming that someone who has money wanting to do something that other with money benefit from means they are on the take.

      And your completely full of it on the pharmaceutical company thing. I'm assuming that you are talking about the seniors and drugs. The public was clamoring for drugs for seniors to be paid for by Medicare, when it happened, now all the sudden you think it's because drug companies paid for politicians. This is little more then attempting to keep a bitter face. So what if it wasn't the absolutely best deal possible. It's not like the feds could just take the drugs (constitutionally they are required to pay a fair prices for it if they did), and seeing how it's the first time it's happened, I don't expect the idiots would have gotten it perfect.

    385. Re:This explains the political process by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Value is subjective. that's been the central theory of economics since Adam Smith -- marginal utility, or the subjective theory of value. If you think something is overvalued, don't buy it, it's as simple as that. If you mean Fed-fueled price/currency bubbles... I don't know if you realized but the Federal Reserve isn't a free market institution.

    386. Re:This explains the political process by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      My god! You're right. The fact that lobbyists spent more money on the 2010 election than any other election in history had absolutely no influence on elections. Just like the financial services industry didn't write the Bankruptcy reform legislation in 2005, and the private corrections industry doesn't push the States for longer sentences just to lift their bottom line. No, Mr. sumdumass, you're right. You hold just as much political power as the CEO of Phillip Morris.

      And if I may offer you some friendly advice: smoking crack can still get you a decade in prison, so I suggest you get some help for that.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    387. Re:This explains the political process by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      My god! You're right. The fact that lobbyists spent more money on the 2010 election than any other election in history had absolutely no influence on elections. Just like the financial services industry didn't write the Bankruptcy reform legislation in 2005, and the private corrections industry doesn't push the States for longer sentences just to lift their bottom line. No, Mr. sumdumass, you're right. You hold just as much political power as the CEO of Phillip Morris.

      And what with all this is evidence that the politicians are bought and paid for? I mean seriously, if you spend money promoting a politicians does that mean you paid for him? If you supported stronger sentencing, does that mean you paid for them? Crap, you are doing nothing but taking A,B, and C and adding them up to justify your own made up scenario.

      And if I may offer you some friendly advice: smoking crack can still get you a decade in prison, so I suggest you get some help for that.

      No it can't. At least not in most jurisdictions. This is because court challenges found the disproportional penalties to be racially motivated. Anyways, I'm not smoking crack. So perhaps you should stop too and we can have an intelligent conversation.

    388. Re:This explains the political process by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I never accepted your premise that it would be "much cheaper to not have insurance" (i.e, to pay the fine instead) in the first place.

      That’s not a premise, it’s a fact. According to the health care package that Obama et. al. rammed through Congress, it will be cheaper to pay the fine.

      even if paying the fine has a smaller price tag than the insurance premium, you're getting no value for that money

      You get no value from insurance either, unless you need it. And they can’t refuse you because of a “pre-existing” condition when you need it.

      go ahead and pay the difference for the insurance, and thereby get the benefits (since the insurance would probably cover non-catastrophic medical expenses too)

      And even smarter people will realise how incredibly stupid it is to get insurance for a predictable, planned expense!!

      It’s a shell game. You’re just paying someone to hold onto your money for you temporarily, and they’ll take their cut of course.

      Not to mention you’re helping pay the medical bills for everyone who waited until they had some catastrophic illness before they bought insurance!

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    389. Re:This explains the political process by Artifice_Eternity · · Score: 1

      Like: Pass a law that says, "you want to be in the Health Insurance Game (i.e. Wellpoint, Cigna, Humana, Aetna, United Health, etc), you are REQUIRED to accept pre-existing conditions, and offer insurance to individuals."

      That's exactly what the Democrats did, earlier this year.

      Of course, they don't get much credit or thank for it (and being the cowards they are, they didn't really campaign on it).

      Also, for some perverse reason, they set it up so that this provision doesn't kick in for a few years... which gives their enemies plenty of time to 1) keep telling lies about what's in the law, and 2) attempt to repeal it before it takes effect.

    390. Re:This explains the political process by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      what a strange question...are you pissed of he didn't cite his source or what?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    391. Re:This explains the political process by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      You talk like the "free market" means "no regulation or other interference", rather than "customers' ability to choose which products to buy and where to buy them thereby fostering competition and creativity". Adam Smith knew (and he specifically wrote about this that the "free market" would be totally overrun by a monolithic monopoly given sufficient time, and that's the direction we're headed in given the current attitudes in this country about the definition of "free market" (ineptly called such rather than the "competitive market" in the era of soundbites). He argued for action against both large corporations and their supportive governments in order to keep the system working correctly. In the case of the US, I see the need to continue in some areas (the Fed and monetary policy), while changing some other areas heavily (the present state of near non-regulation of large companies).

    392. Re:This explains the political process by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I don't really get to choose which CEOs to buy, except indirectly by not buying their stocks (which I don't) or not buying products produced by their company (which is not always feasible, though obviously it's technically possible).

      My point is a larger one anyway -- boards are free to overvalue their CEOs the same way speculators overvalued real estate, or dot coms, or (I would argue heavily) gold right now, or whatever else. Bubbles aren't something I can control inherently, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend they don't exist either. Indeed, living in a society means I have to live with the consequences of other people's choices (which meant, for example, that I couldn't find a house at a reasonable price prior to the recent crash, though I'm quite glad I held out).

      Frankly, I think we need a cap on officer compensation (including bonuses, retirements, and severances) for all publicly traded companies, and I can't think of any reason that shouldn't be limited to 2.5x the average employee salary. If your employees can live off of $50k (on average), then you can certainly live off of $125k or you can reevaluate the true worth of your employees. I think the dogfood principle should be in full effect, and yes, I think it should be law (for publicly traded companies), because no company would voluntarily impose such self-restraint absent external forces. Is that anti-free market? Not at all. It's anti-plutocracy. It would directly reward competence, and prevent officers from excluding themselves from the circumstances and consequences of their actions that directly affect their employees. If times are tight, then fine, but that should necessarily affect the CEO too. These things used to be common sense principles, but they've inched slowly toward the absurd disconnect that we have today. We can either correct it the easy way by imposing regulation, or the painful way when people can't afford to eat, but one way or the other, it must be corrected.

    393. Re:This explains the political process by Hokester · · Score: 1

      Well played.

    394. Re:This explains the political process by Hokester · · Score: 1

      But I support socialized healthcare. Why? Because it's the only feasible pathway away from employer controlled healthcare. Your reasoning is flawed because it is based on fleeing certain circumstances, and actually that point of view is creepy because you no longer value your freedom to decide on your own healthcare! Okay, so you 'get away' from employer based healthcare, then what? You'll get the government deciding if you, your mother your children get that live saving operation or treatment.

    395. Re:This explains the political process by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Again, prices carry information about scarcity and availability. Prices are actually meaningful, they aren't just some arbitrary number that tells you how many times more you are getting paid than someone else for no reason. What happens when you modify the market prices? You get shortages or surpluses, and other really bad, inefficient effects. If you can't pay people what they are worth, then you can't make efficient allocative decisions. Really, this is standard Econ 101 stuff.

      What you are proposing is anti-free market by definition! If I'm not free to make contracts with other people without 3rd party interference, that's not free! If your time is worth $20/hr, and a gardening service is $40/hr, then clearly it is more efficient for you to do the work yourself (assuming you get the work done in equal time). Artificial caps on prices make this price mechanism stop functioning, and all of a sudden you have a CEO doing work that could be just as easily preformed by someone else, instead of doing work that is far more valuable to the company. The position of CEO is also not an easy job... you appear to have the concept of supply and demand backwards, it is a high-risk, high-demand, low-supply job, and higher risk always gets more money.

    396. Re:This explains the political process by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 1

      Actually, less than zero. He paid zero federal and state income taxes, and got something $20,000 back from state/federal due to carrying over paper losses via various paperwork tricks. Yes, he pays other forms of taxes like gasoline and property tax, but that the amount of cash he gets back outweighed all the tax he pays in since he lives in a cheap state with low expenses. Of course he could be lying to me, but I'm not sure why he'd want to. I think his words were "we don't have to pay tax, we get paid to run the business".

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    397. Re:This explains the political process by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I like I got modded troll for posting something I strongly disagree with and slashdot took that as something I agree with....sigh.

    398. Re:This explains the political process by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Get your government hands off my medicaid!

      Entitlements for OTHER people are what have to go, not MY entitlements!

      (and before I get modded troll again, this post is SARCASM)

    399. Re:This explains the political process by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Oops, my bad, Medicare. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good ignorant argument!

    400. Re:This explains the political process by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Wait now, how are you going to give more money to schools when these people want to actually eliminate the Department of Education!

    401. Re:This explains the political process by anonymous+cowerd · · Score: 1

      It's odd then, that all those European countries who have replaced the ruthless insurance company sharks with beige bureaucrats have also managed to reduce their per-capita expenditure on health "care" to half or less than half of ours here in the U.S., and on top of saving vast seas of cash they also get measurably superior outcomes (lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy).

      Seroiusly. Stop focusing on airy theoretical analysis and look at the real-world bottom line. We Americans are getting royally screwed by the medicine industry. Every year they screw us deeper and harder. Are you in favor of leaving the dismal status quo as-is, or can you consider the vastly cheaper and more effective systems that every other "first-world" country in the world employ?

    402. Re:This explains the political process by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Mine was obvious hyperbole, yours is unsubstantiated claims. anonymous cowerd needs citation, badly.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
  2. Intentional? by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it really intentional?

    I thought the walk-buttons was just there because no-one bothered to remove them, and later because they shared house with the beeper that helped blind people. So a lot of crossing had walk-buttons simply because they had beepers, even if the walk button wasn't connected.

    1. Re:Intentional? by mlts · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sometimes walk buttons do something. I do know some traffic lights around Austin which will have reds all four ways if the buttons are pressed.

      Other lights don't do much, if anything.

    2. Re:Intentional? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If no one ever tells the masses that the elevator or crosswalk buttons don't do anything then of course they're going to keep pressing them. They may not help but the person doesn't know that it doesn't make a difference. At least when you hit something with a hammer you know something happened.

    3. Re:Intentional? by alen · · Score: 1

      bingo

      NYC traffic lights have been computerized for a long time. once in a while i drive to work into manhattan and you can tell this because during rush hour the lights are green most of the way. other times they have a lot of red lights to slow traffic down. i live on the boulevard of death and they have been playing with the light programming for a while

    4. Re:Intentional? by daid303 · · Score: 2, Informative

      What else do you think controls them? Little gnomes?

      Computerized traffic lights are almost as old as traffic lights. There has been a phase of electro-mechanical lights, but that did not last long. While I cannot speak for the US, in most European locations you want the pedestrian push buttons to function. If there is no pedestrian then you can skip the pedestrian phase, which saves a lot of time. As pedestrians are slow.

      (I work at a traffic light company)

    5. Re:Intentional? by bonkeydcow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly, no placebo affect here, just poor documentation.

    6. Re:Intentional? by Albanach · · Score: 3, Informative

      If there is no pedestrian then you can skip the pedestrian phase, which saves a lot of time. As pedestrians are slow.

      Ah, you see it is different in the United States - there is no pedestrian phase. They just 'allow' pedestrians to cross when traffic is moving in their direction. So, if North South traffic has a green light, North South pedestrians have a green light. Similarly for East West.

      The vast majority of traffic lights in the United States don't apparently have a separate period for pedestrians to cross unencumbered by motor vehicles - which outside the big cities are also allowed to turn left of a red light, even when pedestrians have a Walk signal.

      Then they wonder why no-one wants to walk anywhere!

    7. Re:Intentional? by robot256 · · Score: 2

      But in America, there is usually never a pedestrian phase. The "don't walk" and "walk" lights mean "walk now to get run over by speeding oncoming vehicles" and "walk now to get run over by slower turning vehicles", respectively. So when you pressed the walk button, all it would do is accelerate the normal cycle and let the other cars go. Sometimes people would jump out of their cars and press the pedestrian button so they could go sooner. It's part of the reason why half the population fled the cities in the 50's through 90's, and why the other half ignore the lights altogether.

    8. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need a "pedestrian phase." Pedestrians walk at the same time as traffic moving in their direction.

    9. Re:Intentional? by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      I think the location matters here. I have noticed that if you are downtown, then the buttons do nothing. As you get into less densely populated areas, the liklihood of the button working increases. New York is pretty dense, so many of the buttons do nothing.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    10. Re:Intentional? by Dogers · · Score: 1

      Really??

      This explains why this occurs in China, too..

      It confused the hell out of me when I was there - it's insanely dangerous!

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    11. Re:Intentional? by PPH · · Score: 1

      In s me cases, walk buttons extend the parallel green light duration to ensure adequate time for pedestrian crossing. Where I live, hobos jam them so they have more time to collect change at off-ramps.

      They also get installed by defaut so that traffic engineers have the option of enabling them if traffic patterns warrant their use.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    12. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedestrians still have the right of way. If they have the walk signal, they can walk. Anyone trying to turn right or left will have to wait for them to finish crossing.

    13. Re:Intentional? by imadork · · Score: 1

      The effect was actually the opposite for me. I grew up in NYC, and knew that the walk buttons did nothing. So when I went away for college I never used them. It took me about a month of observing other folks use them to realize that they actually worked there!

    14. Re:Intentional? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      This is only true for most lights -- some intersections have pedestrian phases.

    15. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walk buttons have no immediate affect in a lot of places, they simply adjust duration of the next walk interval. The walk interval isn't inserted into the cycle, or deleted, simply has its length adjusted slightly longer when the button is pushed.

      Someone standing there would never notice this unless they took out their stop watch and timed several cycles. Simply observing the occurrence of the Walk light is bound to mislead you.

      Talk to a traffic engineer who programs this stuff some day. The science of intersection timing is quite precise, especially on modern installations. People in NYC, dealing with decades old infrastructure may never notice this.

    16. Re:Intentional? by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That being said, you are taught that pedestrians have the right of way in such cases, and even on a geen light you are supposed to look before turning. It's hardly the traffic control devices' problem that people persist in ignoring those rules.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    17. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're over-generalizing. Some crosswalks are like that, but it's not common throughout the entire United States.

    18. Re:Intentional? by bws111 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That must depend on where you are. Where I live (NYS), they have been installing more and more pedestrian signals, and they most definitely work. When someone presses the 'cross' button traffic is stopped in all directions (including a red arrow to block right-on-red) for somewhere between 25 and 45 seconds, depending on how wide the street is. During this time a countdown is displayed to the pedestrians to let them know how long they have to complete crossing. If no-one pushes the cross button that phase is skipped entirely.

    19. Re:Intentional? by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's usually right that you turn off of a red light, being the US and us driving on the right and all. And it's only certain big cities... it's perfectly legal to turn right on red in Minneapolis and Denver, as well as many other places. That said, the pedestrian always has right of way during those times. I actually don't mind walking around most big cities in the US... it's not that hard to pay attention to your surroundings and make sure the big metal boxes don't hit you.

    20. Re:Intentional? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Don't forget statistical analysis of pedestrian traffic. In my town (Bellevue, WA) the traffic department uses the number of crosswalk button operations as an indication of foot traffic volume.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    21. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The walk button at the light at the intersection right next to my old apartment in Seattle worked. There wasn't a car sensor at the light going that direction so sometimes late at night I'd have to get out of my car, walk over and press the walk button, and finally the light would change.

    22. Re:Intentional? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      At least when you hit something with a hammer you know something happened.

      Are you sure? Haven't you ever hit a nail and not been able to tell if the nail sank any deeper?

      Placebo nails. I've struck many.

    23. Re:Intentional? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Wait wait wait, I'm confused since this isn't a car analogy. Are you saying that in order to get a politician to do something, we have to hit them with a hammer? If so, what type of hammer are we talking here? Carpentry? Ball-peen? Mallet? Sledge?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    24. Re:Intentional? by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      At my school, the buttons at the intersection I usually walk through don't work. The recently changed the pattern from pedestrians getting a walk sign that stopped all traffic to north-south traffic and pedestrians going at the same time. Unfortunately, they also completely disabled the walk sign in the evenings, despite the school offering a large number of evening classes.

    25. Re:Intentional? by Totenglocke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're forgetting that, if there's a crosswalk, pedestrians have the right of way and you're not allowed to run them over. Besides, other than the occasional moron jumping out in front of your car (I go to grad school at a university in a big city and you'd be amazed how many idiots just walk right into oncoming traffic), cyclists are much more of a problem than pedestrians.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    26. Re:Intentional? by dreamt · · Score: 1

      There are a bunch of places (here in Boston) where bike paths cross fairly busy roads. The buttons there give oncoming traffic an almost instant red light (and the light never changes without the button press).

    27. Re:Intentional? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Even when you're well aware that most of them do nothing, you still have to press because in other cases you will never get a walk signal if you don't press.

    28. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is somewhat dangerous that some walk buttons do nothing, while others do something.

      I noticed a long time ago that the buttons seemed to do nothing, so I stopped using them. Years later, I encountered a walk light which stayed stuck on do-no-walk forever while the cars had a green light. I eventually went anyway, and a left-turning car nearly hit me. I later realized that if you press the button, the walk light goes on and the left-turn traffic light stays red for the cars until the walk light goes off.

      In short, this is a sort of "never cry wolf" story.. except of course that these pretend to be useful buttons, rather than pretend that there are wolves attacking.

    29. Re:Intentional? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      BTW, the non-functionality of the "Close Door" button was mentioned on the most recent episode of Nova: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/trapped-elevator.html

    30. Re:Intentional? by mattack2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They just 'allow' pedestrians to cross when traffic is moving in their direction.

      There might ALSO be a longer duration of green/walk light combination, to allow the pedestrian to get across. (At least in some places, apparently not NYC, if you don't hit the walk button, it will stay Don't Walk even when that direction's traffic light is green.)

    31. Re:Intentional? by fudoniten · · Score: 1

      In Vancouver (BC), we have walk buttons all over. If you don't press them, you don't get a walk light. But the lights are the same length, anyway.

      So lots of people forget to press the button, and when the light goes green...they hesitate, then run back and push the button, and wait through this green light for the next one.

    32. Re:Intentional? by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      So for those of us who don't live in NYC but occasionally visit, what is the "boulevard of death" ? In most cities it is named after Martin Luther King Jr., but I just want to be sure.

    33. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are cities where some of the lights are automatic and some are not, even though they are at busy intersections with lots of pedestrians. At times, I've seen literally 50 people waiting at an intersection with lights that have not been pushed. Perhaps the group pressure to not push the buttons builds up as the number of inactive people increases.

    34. Re:Intentional? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And it's not true that it isn't functional. It merely isn't function in normal operation mode. As soon as you put it into firefighter operation mode, the doors are opened and closed with the open and close door buttons, and the doors do not open when the car reaches the specified floor.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    35. Re:Intentional? by jandrese · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Vehicles aren't allowed to make a right turn on red if there are pedestrians in the crosswalk.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    36. Re:Intentional? by Darinbob · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'd say some of these aren't really "placebos". A placebo works because you do get an effect, more of an effect than if you did not use the placebo. There is a cause and effect with a placebo.

      But a button that says "push to cross" is pushed because it says to push it, and eventually the walk light does change. If you don't push the button, the walk light may still change. That's not placebo, as there's no cause and effect here. Also notice that in many towns you do need to push the button or the walk light will never come on; ie, traffic lights change, but never the walk sign, and when the walk sign is on there is more time to cross. I used to have a small motorcycle in college that would not trip the traffic detectors, so I'd have to dismount and walk over to push the walk button, just so that I would get a green light.

      A better example of a mechanical placebo was with a story I heard about a dummy button on an early network system. Point of sale consoles added a button, and they were told to push the button if it seemed like the network wasn't responding. The result was that the workers pushed the button and waited, instead of resending the data over and over like they used to, and the workers saw noticeably better performance. Thus, cause and effect.

    37. Re:Intentional? by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 1

      Seriously - pretty much everyone I know has noticed that those buttons for crosswalks and the doors on elevators usually don't work, though there are exceptions.

      And generally, it irritates us every time it happens.

      But we know that the people who maintain these things think we're too stupid to know when we want to cross the street or to close the damn doors on the elevator, so we know there's no point in complaining as they've already given us a big "Screw you!" by their actions.

      So, we go on pressing the buttons hoping that this might be one of the occasions where they still work, and curse the bastards that have done this to us.

      I did like the post about politicians, though. Yeah, that's becoming obvious, too.

    38. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I ever meet someone who is responsible for putting useless buttons on traffic lights, I hope they can run fast. You see, I'm well aware that most "walk" buttons don't do anything, so I tend not to push them. Every once in a while I come across one which does need to be pressed to get a green light, and I don't press it because all the dummy buttons have conditioned me to ignore "walk" buttons. And then I have to wait until the sequence repeats, then I realize this button must be pressed and then I have to wait for the green light, YOU FUCKERS. Run, traffic planner. Run as fast as you can.

    39. Re:Intentional? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      If I had to guess the lights are supposed to work but when they break down they don't get off their ass to fix them until maybe there are enough broken to ge a guy to come out and do all of them. Unless it's an important one. I would say there are definitely some cross-walks that seem to do nothing at all but likewise some are instant. I'm sure some streets are deemed more important so maybe they do turn some off.

      What annoys me is the one bI need to get to the train station is the one that always takes ages to turn.

    40. Re:Intentional? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      In other words, you are taught that green doesn't really mean GO.

      I much prefer the UK system where there are three phases: N/S traffic, E/W traffic, pedestrian. In each green phase, the other two have red lights. Thus when pedestrians are on the road they are safe from any traffic as it's all stopped. If no pedestrian presses a button, the pedestrian phase is very short and both traffic phases are very long. There's a good chance at remote/rural junction that pressing the button will cause the pedestrian phase to start almost immediately.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    41. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those all-way red light/all-way walk signal intersections are called Barnes' Dance, and yeah, the buttons for them are anything but vestigial. No one wants to hold up all traffic at an intersection when there aren't any pedestrians.

      New York City doesn't employ them, though. (Or, at least, I've never personally encountered one. There might be some in the outer boroughs.)

      Your basic Manhattan intersection simply grants a walk signal to anyone traveling parallel to vehicular traffic, and relies on the density of vehicular and pedestrian traffic to keep anyone from getting hit by a car making a turn.

      There's really no reason those buttons should do anything, and I don't know anyone who has ever bothered with pushing them, even before the intersections were computerized. Enthusiastic toddlers, maybe.

    42. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traffic planners have to be some of the most sadistic individuals on the planet. For example in Austin, they decided to repaint a chunk of one of the major highways (Loop 1) so a heavily-trafficked road which had its own lane now ends in an abrupt merge... creating a mile-long backup during rush hour and driving a good chunk of downtown traffic through neighborhoods.

      Or the "genius" who decides to have these pedestrian crossings that have two lights, yellow and red. Of course, they will change to red for no reason whatsoever with no warning, then flashing red, even when there is no pedestrian in a block radius.

      Or the guy who added random pieces of cement jutting into the roadway every couple hundred yards forcing bicyclists into traffic.

      Of course, there is the guy who dropped in roundabouts. These are not the well made ones in Europe that can get people onto multiple streets with ease. People go the wrong way on them, or just keep circling them in hopes they can gun it and deliberately smash into someone attempting to get on.

    43. Re:Intentional? by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      In my former building, the elevator "close door" button causes the doors to try to close immediately. In my current building, it does nothing. Same company, same site.

    44. Re:Intentional? by BoberFett · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The bigger the better. Hitting politicians with hammers is one area where I'm as liberal as they come.

    45. Re:Intentional? by drcheap · · Score: 1

      At least when you hit something with a hammer you know something happened.

      Are you sure? Haven't you ever hit a nail and not been able to tell if the nail sank any deeper?

      Placebo nails. I've struck many.

      I'm sure. Because those jokers that thought it would be funny to not sink eventually gave up after a few more good whacks and then went in.

      The nuttin-buttons however, are very strong willed. You can keep pressing them 100s of times and they will continue to resist your pathetic desires to cross streets and/or close doors.

    46. Re:Intentional? by drcheap · · Score: 1

      THANK YOU!!! I would have posted the exact same thing.

    47. Re:Intentional? by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Or it could be the fact that if you want to go between stores you have to walk across 2 miles of parking lots.

    48. Re:Intentional? by mlts · · Score: 1

      One city I lived in, they had buttons that had insta-red lights, so pedestrians could walk across a busy highway to a church.

      Problem was, it became a perfect spot for carjackers to set up shop. Stop traffic, show off your heat, zoom off with new wheels.

      The solution by the city was to put a wrap-around lock over the button so it would not be usable to anyone, except on Sundays.

    49. Re:Intentional? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Sometimes walk buttons do something. I do know some traffic lights around Austin which will have reds all four ways if the buttons are pressed.

      And sometimes they turn on the walk signal and hold the cross-traffic stopped for a long enough time for a pedestrian to cross. Sometimes they also are necessary to even get the light to give the main drag a red with no car traffic on the cross street.

      A few elevator "close door" buttons remove or shorten the delay before the door closes. (I've been assuming the rest only did anything useful in the elevator test or fire department modes, or were part of a standard panel design that was used even with controllers that {currently} didn't pay any attention to them.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    50. Re:Intentional? by cavePrisoner · · Score: 1

      Since 1980, all US states and DC have permitted right on red. New York City is one of the few exceptions. There it is only legal if a sign specifically says it is allowed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_turn_on_red

      And it is actually legal to turn left on red if you are turning onto a one-way road. It doesn't come up as often but is plenty annoying when the guy in front of you doesn't know this rule.

    51. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And please don't forget that you have to STOP FIRST before turning on a red light. I watched my sister blow her driving test on this one; the inspector even said "Doesn't that seem dangerous to you?"

    52. Re:Intentional? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      The "close" button in the lifts at my new condo (built 2007) do something all right--they delay the doors closing. Usually I stand there almost 10 seconds waiting for the lift to close, pressing any button actually adds another second or two. I've taken to jabbing at the close button anyway (when alone) because if I'm going to wait that long anyway, I'm going to vent the day's frustrations on something (yes, I'm passive aggressive, sue me).

      On the other hand, pressing any floor buttons in the lifts at work really does start closing the doors immediately, instead of counting off 5 seconds since something last passed the sensors.

    53. Re:Intentional? by Rancidlunchmeat · · Score: 1

      The traffic lights out here in California work. If you don't push the button you don't get the white walk symbol, you only get the flashing red hand and you miss an entire phase. (White walk, red flashing hand, solid red hand).

    54. Re:Intentional? by thogard · · Score: 1

      If there is any change at all, the "pedestrian phase" will simply extend the green time by a few seconds or ensure that it is at least so many seconds long.

    55. Re:Intentional? by Bluskale · · Score: 1

      So the two intersections near where I live in San Francisco had completely automated cross walk signals and lights and whatnot. Several months ago, cross-walk buttons were installed. Now these intersections have completely automated cross walk signals, but most people now reach & press the buttons when they want to cross. The only rational reason I can figure for installing the buttons was the inclusion of audible cues for the visually impaired.

    56. Re:Intentional? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Surrey, BC, is like that, but worse. Often times, only 1 side of the street is allowed to walk, even though both sides are parallel. I hate the fact that the light will change anyways, but we aren't allowed to walk. I tried bringing that up, but he must have thought that I was an idiot.

    57. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its funny how as time goes on, the buttons in elevators have either turned to key switches, or been removed.

      Older elevators would allow for open door, close door, the ability to stop the elevator with a stop/run switch, and an alarm button.

      Then the close door functionality was removed unless you jammed a key into the fireman's switch and shifted it to "bypass".

      Now, the stop/run switch is gone. So the only things that work are the floor buttons (hopefully), the open door button, and the "alarm" button which may make a futile attempt to ring some operator number that is lost in the building's PBX system. In fact, one is better off smoking or pissing in the elevator to trip the fire or water sensors than hitting the alarm button, because environmental alarms generally are a FAR higher priority than someone pressing a button.

    58. Re:Intentional? by Fishon · · Score: 1

      It's usually right that you turn off of a red light, being the US and us driving on the right and all. And it's only certain big cities... it's perfectly legal to turn right on red in Minneapolis and Denver, as well as many other places. That said, the pedestrian always has right of way during those times. I actually don't mind walking around most big cities in the US... it's not that hard to pay attention to your surroundings and make sure the big metal boxes don't hit you.

      It is not only certain big cities. Actually most if not the entire US allows right on red. Also, left on red is allowed in most states when you are turning left from a one way street onto another one way street.

    59. Re:Intentional? by Confusador · · Score: 1

      I've always assumed it's like the braile on the drive-though ATM. Sure, it's useless there, but it's easier to only have one model. And I can say that they do sometimes work, there's one on my ride in to work where it's necessary that I push it. I think the key is that they only matter at an intersection of a busy street and a rarely used street. Otherwise, the light prioritizes the busy street I'm trying to cross and my bike doesn't trip the automatic sensor telling it there's a car waiting.

    60. Re:Intentional? by daid303 · · Score: 1

      Like I said, I cannot speak for the US. But in most European countries there are rules about safety times between the end of green and the start of green of a conflicting direction. You need to ensure that there is enough time between this to clear the road for the conflicting direction.

      Now, if you don't give pedestrians green, then you don't need to wait for them to clear. This saves quite some time, especially when you have 4 lanes that the pedestrians need to cross. And at busy intersections, getting as much traffic trough as possible is very important.

    61. Re:Intentional? by daid303 · · Score: 1

      Well, there is not always a phase so to say. I explain it here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1858882&cid=34172586

      Where I live almost all intersections have different lights for turns, so they offer 100% protection if everybody would follow the rules. (You could just drive by the lights, not by watching the other traffic, if nobody would drive trough red lights)

      It's starting to get so rare that you see turns without separate lights that they are marking those with extra signs to warn the cars that pedestrians might cross. Or they give the pedestrians early green, so that the pedestrians are on the road already when you get green in your car.

    62. Re:Intentional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe where you live, but here in the San Francisco Bay Area there are plenty of intersections that will have a VERY long "pedestrian phase" of around 30 seconds. This is when the traffic lights would normally otherwise be triggered by sensors... no cars coming, no green light. Therefore, when the ped presses the button, they get 30 seconds to cross, even if there was no vehicle traffic needing the light.

    63. Re:Intentional? by Dogers · · Score: 1

      Eh? If a pedestrian doesn't press a button, there is NO pedestrian phase (generally).

      I'll admit, some lights do have a sensor to see if there's a pedestrian waiting, but those tend to be for checking if the button has been pressed and there really is a pedestrian waiting, rather than crossing anyway or running off somewhere else..

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  3. How is this news? by Eudial · · Score: 5, Funny

    My computer isn't responding when I click an icon. I click again. Nothing. So I click it really hard 30 times in a row. Now the computer decides to respond. Clearly, the computer can read my frustration, and therefore hurries to open the 32 firefox windows I requested.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    1. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Implying firefox loads slowly, which is ungood-think.

    2. Re:How is this news? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      I'm having the same issue....Windows XP, btw? I've been seeing if there's a virus or something that's intercepting messages on the queue, but nothing. It's really weird....

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    3. Re:How is this news? by 6031769 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Certainly not. If it were Windows XP he would only have 16 Firefox windows.

      --
      Burns: We're building a casino!
      McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
    4. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My computer isn't responding when I click an icon. I click again. Nothing. So I click it really hard 30 times in a row. Now the computer decides to respond. Clearly, the computer can read my frustration, and therefore hurries to open the 32 firefox windows I requested.

      Install an extension called Firefox Preloader. It will help start Firefox quickly :)

  4. Placebos & Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Now you'll tell me that posting on Slashdot has no effect...

    1. Re:Placebos & Slashdot by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      Sure it does. Gives people a chance to try out their new .sigs

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
  5. comments never appear by k6mfw · · Score: 0

    Is this why my comments rarely appear on forums? Seriously, I leave a comment and many times it never appears, is it simply a placebo, or worse a place to harvest email addresses?

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  6. Wow. by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

    This just shows how little respect people have for each-other.

    1. Re:Wow. by MichaelKristopeit128 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it actually only shows how little pride they have in their work...

    2. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or how little respect people actually deserve.

    3. Re:Wow. by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Informative

      I dunno about NY, but it varies here in Ohio.

      1) Some lights change at the same rate, regardless of pressing the button.
      2) Lights with chirpers/beepers/buzzers will only make noises if the button is pushed. I think all of these change at the same interval regardless of pressing the button, the button merely tells the light to activate the speaker when it switches.
      3) In the suburb where I live, the walk lights won't show unless you hit the button. The timing of the traffic lights doesn't change, you just get a nice walk light. This is rather obnoxious because you get yelled at if you cross when a walk light would have been active if you had hit the button...
      4) Some lights won't change unless you hit the button - about the same as described by the poster from Austin.
      5) The one light I know for absolute sure doesn't do anything if you hit the button, is near where I work. Hit the button, don't hit the button, do either all day, it doesn't matter, the sign will never switch to "walk"...

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    4. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. FC created a summary story of two old articles, but didn't even link them: "Employees Only Think They Control Thermostat" (2003) and "For Exercise in New York Futility, Push Button" (2004).

  7. It is slashdot too. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The button that you press after you get, "slowdown cowboy" that asks you to wait 1 minute before posting again, does nothing. No matter how many minutes elapse, that button never gets reactivated. Slashdotters have typically installed greasemonkey, flashblock, adblock, noscript and thousand other add ons, they just blame their javascript interceptor is misbehaving and continue on.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:It is slashdot too. by wisty · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or their ADD forbids them from waiting for a whole damn minu

    2. Re:It is slashdot too. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Too true, I've noticed that plenty of times and I don't run any extensions that would cause an error. Now what I want to know is has anyone else noticed this damn bug they've recently developed with trying to paste into Slashdot while using Chrome? I've seen it on half a dozen computers where everything works perfectly, until you're commenting on Slashdot and try to paste, then you have to hit paste like 30 times for it to paste.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    3. Re:It is slashdot too. by Stregano · · Score: 1

      Wait, what were we talking about again?

      --
      The world is how you make it
    4. Re:It is slashdot too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your attempt at imitating ADD is nowhere near as funny as watching most Minecraft Let's Plays on youtube.

    5. Re:It is slashdot too. by inerlogic · · Score: 1

      te.

      sorry, my OCD overcame my ADD and wouldn't let me go without finishing your post.

    6. Re:It is slashdot too. by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Want to go for a bike ride?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    7. Re:It is slashdot too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ADD, the other, more busy personality. You wouldn't take a pill to prevent the fullexpressionofyourpersonalitiesnowwouldyou?

  8. close button in elevators... by codegen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well yes and no. It is true that most of them have no effect in normal operation, but when the elevator is in service mode (i.e. apartment move mode), then doors stay open until you press the close button.

    In my sister's apartment, the close button has a effect. The normal door open time is about 40 seconds, and it will close the instant you press the close button (i.e. after 5 seconds). In the office building that I'm in (mid 60s construction), the close button has no effect unless the elevator is in service mode).

    --
    Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    1. Re:close button in elevators... by Algorithmnast · · Score: 1
      This is hilarious. I've found elevators where the buttons seems to work and the door seems to shut quickly after I press the button. In other elevators, I've concluded that the button was broken - because I'm not cynical enough to expect that the button would be a placebo.

      Or, the "don't smash the elevator panel, just press the button" psychology.

    2. Re:close button in elevators... by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      when the elevator is in service mode (i.e. apartment move mode), then doors stay open until you press the close button.

      I love it when there is more to the story than a snarky slashdot editor thinks.

      Nice post!

    3. Re:close button in elevators... by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Along those same lines, the disconnected crosswalk buttons aren't there for the placebo effect, they're there because disconnecting them was cheaper than pulling them all out. On the other hand, I swear my office thermostat doesn't do shit. It's always hot in here in the winter and I've even tried turning it down to 10 c. and the heater doesn't seem to care one bit what I have to say ;)

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    4. Re:close button in elevators... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I've also seen thermostats that, while they don't directly control the system, do alter the way the system cycles. I believe it's some kind of 'intelligent' system that realizes if Department A wants 70F and Department B (next door, open air) wants 90F, it's a waste of energy doing them separately and just pushes out 80F.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:close button in elevators... by thasmudyan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've also seen thermostats that, while they don't directly control the system, do alter the way the system cycles.

      This might be a rational illusion your brain constructs because on one hand the thermostat control doesn't produce directly observable results, on the other hand it looks like a pretty legit button, so we just assume that the input actually goes somewhere into a complex and intelligent system where it will be observed and acted upon in some convoluted and unprovable way. Because it feels like the pedestrian signal is changing "just a bit" faster, like the elevator door is closing "just a bit" sooner, like the temperature is balancing out "just a bit" more favorably, like the ruling parties were "just a bit" impressed by your intent on election day. We construct these illusions because we want our desires and wished to matter, or when that's not possible, we at least want borderline-plausible deniability about the insignificance of our actions.

    6. Re:close button in elevators... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Here our close buttons work. The elevators normally open for about 10 seconds. However when you press the button, the doors close almost immediately after the press. Also when a floor is selected, the doors close after about 3 seconds, but again pressing the close button causes it to happen right away. Yes, I've tested it.

      Likewise at the three intersections I pass when biking home, the pedestrian buttons all function. You are required to either press them, or have an object in the road where the camera covers, or the light will never change. It remains red in one direction, green in the other, unless triggered by a car, bike, or pedestrian.

    7. Re:close button in elevators... by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've also seen thermostats that, while they don't directly control the system, do alter the way the system cycles. I believe it's some kind of 'intelligent' system that realizes if Department A wants 70F and Department B (next door, open air) wants 90F, it's a waste of energy doing them separately and just pushes out 80F.

      I worked at a facility where a thermostat set above seventy-something is in air conditioning mode and set below that is heating mode. And I worked with morons whom alternated it at extremes and then couldn't figure out why the HVAC didn't work. I get to work and its about 50 in the cubes ... cow orker says "I'm freezing so I set it to 85" ... "Well, don't you think 85 is kind of high for the airconditioner?" I turn it down to 70 and we warm right up. Same deal in the summer. Its 90 in the cubes because some clown set it to 60 placing us in heating mode, and god knows its well above 60 so nothing happens. I crank it up to 75 and we're soon chilling. And the amazing part is these people NEVER LEARNED. Ever. I would imagine they're still all screwed up.

      I'm amazed how many people think HVAC is strictly proportional and the thermostat tells the machinery how hard to work. That technology exists but is rare and expensive and you almost certainly don't have it.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:close button in elevators... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Article mentioning door buttons on new trains - these ones don't normally have any effect, but become useful when the train is stopped for a significant amount of time (e.g. at end-of-line)

    9. Re:close button in elevators... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have found that pressing a floor button on almost all elevators will make the doors close and start the journey immediatly

    10. Re:close button in elevators... by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I worked at a facility where a thermostat set above seventy-something is in air conditioning mode and set below that is heating mode. And I worked with morons whom alternated it at extremes and then couldn't figure out why the HVAC didn't work. I get to work and its about 50 in the cubes ... cow orker says "I'm freezing so I set it to 85" ... "Well, don't you think 85 is kind of high for the airconditioner?" I turn it down to 70 and we warm right up. Same deal in the summer. Its 90 in the cubes because some clown set it to 60 placing us in heating mode, and god knows its well above 60 so nothing happens. I crank it up to 75 and we're soon chilling. And the amazing part is these people NEVER LEARNED. Ever. I would imagine they're still all screwed up.

      One can easily imagine why given the ridiculously baroque and counter-intuitive system you've just described.

      I'm amazed how many people think HVAC is strictly proportional and the thermostat tells the machinery how hard to work. That technology exists but is rare and expensive and you almost certainly don't have it.

      A quite reasonable expectation with any thermostat is that when you set the temperature on it, that is the temperature the system will reach and maintain. A perfectly reasonable conclusion from that assumption is that the system will attempt to attain the initial temperature relatively quickly without "overshooting", and thus a larger delta will bring the temperature down quicker.

      I remember when we first moved to Phoenix, and I saw air conditioners with thermostats that had to be put into either "heat" or "cool" mode (and then had separate sets of thresholds for each). All I could do it just shake my head and wonder what idiot ever came up with that interface, and why.

    11. Re:close button in elevators... by IICV · · Score: 1

      What, pray tell, is baroque about "set it at the temperature you want"?

      It's not like these things are stupid - they're controlling AC for the entire building, for goodness' sakes - so lying to them and saying "I want it to be 60 degrees in the middle of summer when it's 90 degrees outside" isn't going to get you anything.

      I mean, what do you think is more reasonable in the following situation: it's 90 degrees outside, and someone sets the thermostat in a large office to 60 degrees.

      Do you think:

      1) Oh someone really wants 60 degrees in the middle of summer! I'd better waste a shitload of energy making that happen!
      Or -
      2) Someone accidentally bumped the thermostat and turned the temperature way down, or someone's kids got at it, or something - they don't really want 60 degrees, I'll just leave it where it is.

    12. Re:close button in elevators... by vlm · · Score: 1

      One can easily imagine why given the ridiculously baroque and counter-intuitive system you've just described.

      Its perfectly reasonable from a green perspective. The fear is "angry employee" goes home in August on Friday and sets the thermo to 50 on the way out to F the company thats Fing him/her. Another way to think about it, is the victims are forced by programming to raise the thermo in the summer and lower it in the winter. For a certain mixture of greenie and control freak its pretty much a dream come true.

      A quite reasonable expectation with any thermostat is that when you set the temperature on it, that is the temperature the system will reach and maintain. A perfectly reasonable conclusion from that assumption is that the system will attempt to attain the initial temperature relatively quickly without "overshooting", and thus a larger delta will bring the temperature down quicker.

      99% of HVAC simply does not work that way. You don't need a PID controller with overshoot control because the systems are typically designed to be profoundly overdamped, generally by having huge thermal mass. There are numerous industrial process controls that require some control system theory... HVAC is not one of them. If your HVAC system is underdamped and requires advanced PLCs and PID controllers to prevent oscillation, you've paid your HVAC guy for waaaaaay too much capacity.

      If the interface to the air conditioner is "short circuit means on" and "open circuit means off", the delta inside the thermo can not possibly even theoretically matter as regards "bring the temperature down quicker"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    13. Re:close button in elevators... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      How many of these dummy thermostats are actually connected? The ones I speak of, you can see the arc when the mercury closes the circuit. I've never seen that on properly dead ones.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    14. Re:close button in elevators... by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 0

      I've stayed in a hospital for a few weeks as a very mobile patient (who had to go out for a smoke). The timing of the elevators was such that doors stayed open for a long time and the close button really worked. You could wait for a minute or so before the doors acted on their own or have the doors close immediately when the button was pressed. It makes sense for a hospital, when you think of it.

      Now 99.9% of all the other elevators may have a placebo close button, the one time when the close button was really used (and you learn quickly) it had such a powerful effect that i'll believe in close buttons for the rest of my life.

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    15. Re:close button in elevators... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      What, pray tell, is baroque about "set it at the temperature you want"?

      Absolutely nothing, but that's not the system you described.

      I mean, what do you think is more reasonable in the following situation: it's 90 degrees outside, and someone sets the thermostat in a large office to 60 degrees.

      3) Someone wants to get the temperature down as quickly as possible.

    16. Re:close button in elevators... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've also seen thermostats that, while they don't directly control the system, do alter the way the system cycles. I believe it's some kind of 'intelligent' system that realizes if Department A wants 70F and Department B (next door, open air) wants 90F, it's a waste of energy doing them separately and just pushes out 80F.

      I worked at a facility where a thermostat set above seventy-something is in air conditioning mode and set below that is heating mode. And I worked with morons whom alternated it at extremes and then couldn't figure out why the HVAC didn't work.

      Morons who misuse the word "whom" piss me off. ;)

  9. Does this surprise anyone? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would the effect only be limited to pharmaceuticals?

    1. Re:Does this surprise anyone? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Why would the effect only be limited to pharmaceuticals?

      I'm a little surprised, because the two situations are completely different. In one you're taking a fake pill and somehow that alters the physical functioning of your immune system, helping you to recover. In the other, you're making an action that you expect to have an effect, and being satisfied when the effect you expected happens, without noticing that it wasn't causally related to your action. It seems to me like the two processes are so different they shouldn't be called the same thing, because there really is no similarity at all save that in both there's a person expecting something to happen that does, in fact, happen. We see that all the time under other circumstances that we don't call the placebo effect: winning the lottery, turning a switch and having the room light come on, and multitudes of other causal, pseudo-causal, and entirely random processes.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  10. not placebo by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ok, so I arrive in a town at an intersection with a button.
    I am going to press it because how the heck do I know whether its connected or not?

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:not placebo by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      If you're at a busy intersection pressing the button, you may or may not be wasting your time, but the ones at pedestrian crossings in odd places mid-traffic light tend to do as advertised as evidenced by the annoyance they cause me as a driver when a jogger hits the button and I have to wait 1.5 minutes after the 10 seconds it takes him to cross before I can continue.

    2. Re:not placebo by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      You pushing the button isn't the placebo effect by itself, the fact that it makes you feel better about the situation is. Without the button, people complain about how long they have to wait for 'walk' to light up or for how long it takes the doors on the elevator to close. With the button, people don't. Nothing has changed, the button doesn't do anything except give people the illusion of control.

    3. Re:not placebo by bonch · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I was thinking. Is it a placebo effect if you're pressing a button just in case it works? You don't know if it doesn't, so you just press it since it's there. That doesn't mean you believe it's working, but you'd rather be trying it in case it does instead of doing nothing at all.

    4. Re:not placebo by Tsiangkun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm the jogger. If you would have looked, made eye contact, and given me the right away to cross, I would not have to hit that button. I KNOW it causes you a longer wait. As soon as you learn that it is faster to yield to the pedestrian than to wait for a whole light cycle, the situation will change. As it is, you show no sign of yielding, so I hit the button.

    5. Re:not placebo by dzfoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have arrived at an intersection in town. There is a button.


      > Press button

      You press the button and... Nothing happens.


      > Press button

      You press the button again and still nothing happens.


      > Smash button a few more times!

      I do not understand "Smash".


      > Press button

      You press the button and this time something happens.

      You have been eaten by a grue.

      [r]etry / [q]uit?

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    6. Re:not placebo by locnar42 · · Score: 1

      Except that it kind of has the opposite effect. I get more annoyed that I have to wait *after* pressing the button. Without the button I just think to myself, "of course I have to wait, there's no button"

    7. Re:not placebo by moxsam · · Score: 1

      I am going to press it because how the heck do I know whether its connected or not?

      By not pressing the button.

    8. Re:not placebo by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      You're not every jogger. I know you think you bowled over tons of drivers who never thought about this, but the reason drivers don't make eye contact and give you the ok to cross is because everyone before you runs up and pushes the button, during the moment the driver takes to try to make contact. So we say screw it.

      I don't know if you're going to even try to communicate, so until the majority of people do I'm going to assume you are part of the majority that does not.

    9. Re:not placebo by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      So if all of Slashdot promises to give you eye contact and slow down whenever you have the appearance of darting in front of us and are looking in the right direction, you'll stop hitting that damn button? Or one of us could just run over you and problem is solved. Really, those lights are there for a reason, why not use them when you have to. If it's a low traffic area, then just cross whenever you want.

    10. Re:not placebo by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      DROP AXE

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    11. Re:not placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only have the right to yield, not to say screw it and try to barrel through the crosswalk.

    12. Re:not placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right -of- way
      ftfy

    13. Re:not placebo by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      If you WERE PAYING ATTENTION, you WOULD SEE ME. The reason drivers don't make eye contact is because they are not paying attention. Any driver paying attention would notice people near the street waiting to cross.

    14. Re:not placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet as the jogger you don't consider which is better for the group in total time waited. How much time does it take the car to pass versus how much time the you would take to cross.

    15. Re:not placebo by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      I *am* paying attention, enough to not run over you. I am *not* paying attention to whether you care if I make eye contact, because you don't care. You claim you do, but most don't, so regardless of whether you do, to me you don't. That's why drivers don't look. It's wasted time.

      Most don't bother, so I don't give you the opportunity, that's what I'm trying to tell you. I look to make sure you're not in the road, and otherwise I make sure I'm in the intersection before you get to the button.

      It's a race because most joggers are dipshits, and most drivers are dipshits.

    16. Re:not placebo by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      If you brought the button to the intersection yourself, its a pretty good bet it isn't connected to the light.

    17. Re:not placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are supposed to be prepared to yield the right of way to the pedestrian, not race through the cross walk before they attempt to cross.

    18. Re:not placebo by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      Well, the lights are there so I get to cross the street right ? I am going to cross the street. Waiting until the commute is over and the street is empty is not an option. Okay, you still with me. The cars have the choice, slow down, or stop and wait for a full light cycle. I'm crossing the street either way. The total time for everyone involved is less if we keep the lights out of this.

    19. Re:not placebo by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      I feel you, but not really applicable in a fairly busy 45mph street at rush hour...

    20. Re:not placebo by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      > most don't, so regardless of whether you do, to me you don't

      All Americans are fat and stupid. You may not be, but most are, so all Americans are fat and stupid.

      Yay for stereotyping.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    21. Re:not placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But here's the thing... if it's true that most are, and we're going to have a bet on a random sample, you're better off betting on the larger percentage. The problem with stereotyping is not having a prejudice... prejudices are useful, they give us something to go on when we have NOTHING else to use... the problem is MAINTAINING your prejudice in the face of confounding data.

      As an example:

      If I'm walking through a city at night, and I see a group of strange (as in strangers, not as in odd) young men walking towards me (regardless of race), I'm more worried than if I was faced with a group of young women, old men, or old women. This is because, statistically speaking, young men are more likely to attempt to commit a crime against me than the other groups. This is not "bigotry", this is common sense. Now, if I were to maintain that all young men, even the ones where I have evidence that they are NOT delinquents, are likely to attempt to harm me, that would be bigotry.

      Basically, it's alright to have "ideas" about things that you have no personal experience with... just as long as you're perfectly willing to replace them with reality once you do get real information.

  11. The summary is the entire article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Seriously! The summary quotes the ENTIRE "article". Come on, Slashdot.

    1. Re:The summary is the entire article! by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      Sounds like perfection to me.

  12. Other non-placebo treatments by jomegat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read an article in the Washington Post ~20 years ago about people waiting in lines. A hotel was constantly receiving complaints about the speed of their elevators. They kept tweaking the elevators, but the complaints continued to roll in (despite the quantifiable improvements). Rather than continuing to pursue the problem with technology, they turned to psychology and installed mirrors in the elevator lobby. Seems that if people have something interesting to look at (to them at least), the time passes more quickly and they do not notice that the elevators are slow. After they made this final change, the complaints stopped. I think about this every time I see a mirror in an elevator lobby.

    --

    In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.

    1. Re:Other non-placebo treatments by bonch · · Score: 1

      I can't help thinking elevator mirrors have more to do with making the small space not seem so claustrophobic, as well as giving people a mirror in which to groom themselves on their way to work in the morning.

    2. Re:Other non-placebo treatments by Leto-II · · Score: 1

      I can't help thinking elevator mirrors have more to do with making the small space not seem so claustrophobic, as well as giving people a mirror in which to groom themselves on their way to work in the morning.

      He's talking about the mirrors outside the elevator, for people waiting for the elevator to arrive. Not mirrors inside the elevator.

      --
      Do not anger the worm.
    3. Re:Other non-placebo treatments by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      True, but when I heard the same story, it was about the mirrors in the elevator itself - the mirrors supposedly take away some of the awkwardness of standing in the elevator with strangers for the same reason the OP mentioned - you can occupy yourself by checking yourself out (in reality of course, you use them to check out everyone else). I'm sure the internet has the "real" story, but it's the same idea either way. There isn't a separate reason for mirrors in the elevator itself, and mirrors in the lobby.

      In fact I bet people were putting mirrors in places like lobbies long before elevators were even invented for the same reasons. A natural extension then to put them in elevators, and the hotel story is clearly repeated constantly in various versions - I don't doubt that it did take a while before someone realized putting mirrors in the elevator was a good idea, even if mirrors were in the lobby already.

    4. Re:Other non-placebo treatments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read an article in the Washington Post ~20 years ago

      I'm sure readers picture, in their minds' eyes, the poster going to washingtonpost.com from his desk and reading the article. Think again.

  13. That's just sick by nickybio · · Score: 1

    If even one of them works, doesn't that mean I have to push them just to be sure?

    1. Re:That's just sick by mccalli · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If even one of them works, doesn't that mean I have to push them just to be sure?

      Exactly. If you press a control that doesn't work you lose nothing. If you fail to press a control that does work you lose functionality. Whilst I agree with the effect they're suggesting, presenting it using examples of deliberately wiring-in dummies is ridiculous. If they then go back and ask people if they believed the button in question actually worked, well then there's the begins of the data we actually need for this.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    2. Re:That's just sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the scenario would be a different if there was no button at all, as opposed to a button that may or may not do anything.

      If you're waiting at an intersection crosswalk and the light hasn't changed for a while, would you feel less anxious if there was a button to press? Or more anxious because pressing it isn't helping.

      For me, it's always a little odd going to San Francisco because there's no buttons to push at many crossworks. It's not a big deal, but feels a little unusual because you skip a step of the routine.

      Now the one that really gets me is the diagonal crosswalks in Chinatown where all traffic stops and pedestrians walk through the middle of the intersection.

  14. Ah yes, I see this all the time at work... by krovisser · · Score: 1

    An IT variant: "You were the last one to touch my computer, so it must be your fault".

    1. Re:Ah yes, I see this all the time at work... by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      It's worse. Nobody thinks the elevator doors closed because they hit the Close Door button seven months ago.

    2. Re:Ah yes, I see this all the time at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An IT variant: "You were the last one to touch my computer, so it must be your fault".

      Similar logic: Years ago I had a support job. I had to install new software on a bunch of computers. One day I installed software on one computer, and the next day, the user who sits next to that computer started having problems with one application. I got yelled at. I hadn't touched that computer, and, in fact, the application that was suddenly not working was actually a mainframe application that the user was accessing through Citrix MetaFrame. But the user could not think of any other logical explanation than that I must have screwed something up when I was installing new software on the computer one desk over.

  15. Have you ever by arcsimm · · Score: 1

    Have you ever pressed a "Close Doors" button before? It's pretty obvious that they don't actually do anything. I'd just figured they only worked when the fire service key was used.

    1. Re:Have you ever by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      My close door button works as expected. There is a sensor in the doors, wave hand to trigger sensor . . . hit close door button, doors close immediately. Without triggering the sensor that tells the elevator passengers have entered or exited the car, the button does nothing. So, if I get on the elevator and hit the button, the doors close immediately. If someone exits and I Hit the button, the doors close immediately. If the elevator stops at an empty floor, I can wave my hand to trigger the sensor and hit the button to shut the doors immediately. Its pretty obvious that we use different elevators, or we use elevators differently.

    2. Re:Have you ever by jomegat · · Score: 1

      I usually touch it in a frantic bid to find the "open door" button. My feeble mind can never disentangle the subtleties between <|> and >|< in the few milliseconds available when I wish to hold the door for someone. I take comfort in knowing that my mistakes do not hasten the door's closing, but I take umbrage at the thought that if the elevator didn't have the placebo button, I could find <|> more quickly and to better effect.

      --

      In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.

    3. Re:Have you ever by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      I almost never go for the open door button for the same reason, because I thought I had a 50% chance of seeming like a total dick.

      Now that my odds are 50% helpful and 50% no effect, I might decide to button mash more often.

    4. Re:Have you ever by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You could always just stick your hand in the door and trip the sensor that opens it back up.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  16. Elevator without buttons by MartijnL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was recently in an office building where the elevators had no buttons at all. In front of the elevator was a keypad where you typed which floor you needed to go to, the system assigned you an elevator and you could only get on and be delivered to your earlier chosen floor.

    1. Re:Elevator without buttons by zero0ne · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they migrated the Elevators to a cloud based system.

      No need to ever deal with the bare metal elevator anymore!

    2. Re:Elevator without buttons by Kalidor · · Score: 1

      I remember them starting this years ago in Japan. I seen to recall a article on it where they went in and crunched the numbers, finding that with a system like this elevator users saved an average of 35 seconds per trip in a typical 30 story building.

      --

      Code softly but carry a big magnet.

    3. Re:Elevator without buttons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The building in New York that houses, among other businesses, Fox News, has this feature. Not surprised, really. One part convenience, one part paranoia.

    4. Re:Elevator without buttons by robot256 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's a link: http://facilitiesnet.com/bom/bomproducts/0107/

      And the manufacture themselves: http://www.us.schindler.com/

    5. Re:Elevator without buttons by trb · · Score: 1
      Yes, this is covered in recent PBS Nova story (which you can watch online):

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/trapped-elevator.html

      Covered:

      • The elevators where you choose your floor before you get in, that can use a much more effective routing algorithm
      • The no-effect close-door buttons
      • elevator phobias, the wtc bombings, super-high-rise buildings, and various other elevator arcana
    6. Re:Elevator without buttons by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Some hotels have that too. Its part of a computer system that decides how to load the elevators for maximum efficiency. It also works great apparently, cutting wait times to just seconds instead of the minutes people used to wait.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    7. Re:Elevator without buttons by drcheap · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if it uses the Elevator sorting algorithm?

    8. Re:Elevator without buttons by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Many buildings with security passes (or say hotels with electronic room keys) will ahve this keypad type system combined with a card reader. Insert your room key and it automatically calls an elevator for your floor and wont let you go to any other floors.

    9. Re:Elevator without buttons by duguk · · Score: 1

      Here's a link: http://facilitiesnet.com/bom/bomproducts/0107/

      And the manufacture themselves: http://www.us.schindler.com/

      "Schindlers' Lifts"?

    10. Re:Elevator without buttons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was recently in an office building where the elevators had no buttons at all. In front of the elevator was a keypad where you typed which floor you needed to go to, the system assigned you an elevator and you could only get on and be delivered to your earlier chosen floor.

      First time I entered such an elevator I didn't notice the keypad. Felt line entering The Cube when I realized there were no buttons in the elevator.

    11. Re:Elevator without buttons by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

      We have these in New Zealand.

      We also have a 13th floor in every building in Australia and New Zealand.... (or at least, in buildings that are high enough to warrant a 13th and above floor.)

      --
      You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
  17. Not sure "placebo effect" is accurate by gosand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Placebo effect" implies a perceived improvement. I think it's obvious by the number of times people push elevator close door or street "walk" buttons, or fiddle with office thermostats, there is no perceived improvement.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:Not sure "placebo effect" is accurate by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 1

      yeah, I'd like to see a followup to the article where "Guess what? They quit calling you." is followed with "Guess what? You're fired!".

    2. Re:Not sure "placebo effect" is accurate by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      "Placebo effect" implies a perceived improvement. I think it's obvious by the number of times people push elevator close door or street "walk" buttons, or fiddle with office thermostats, there is no perceived improvement.

      If pushing it makes me happier, there is an improvement.
      From the other end, if fake thermostats & push buttons mean less complaints, then that is also an improvement, regardless of the button pusher's happiness level.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Not sure "placebo effect" is accurate by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      True, but that's not 'placebo' so much as 'therapy'.

    4. Re:Not sure "placebo effect" is accurate by sjames · · Score: 1

      SOME people actually seem to believe pressing the button accomplishes something. They must, they keep doing it. Since we know it does nothing, any perceived benefit is placebo.

      Others just recognize it as a harmless outlet for a frustrating day and call it good.

    5. Re:Not sure "placebo effect" is accurate by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That’s the very definition of placebo.

      Somebody complains that their neck hurts. You give them a bottle of sugar pills. They take one twice a day and stop complaining.

      Somebody complains that the room is too hot. You install a thermostat that does nothing. They happily fiddle with it once or twice a day and stop complaining.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:Not sure "placebo effect" is accurate by drcheap · · Score: 1

      And when I press the buttons, nothing happens, ever. I still have to wait, thus I do not feel better. In fact the lack of a decreased waiting time is the opposite of an improvement. After enough of these annoyances I begin to get frustrated, complain about it, and distrust the systems.

      How is that a placebo effect?

    7. Re:Not sure "placebo effect" is accurate by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      And when I press the buttons, nothing happens, ever. I still have to wait, thus I do not feel better. In fact the lack of a decreased waiting time is the opposite of an improvement. After enough of these annoyances I begin to get frustrated, complain about it, and distrust the systems.

      How is that a placebo effect?

      Exactly, I've broken a lot of "close door" buttons pressing them too hard, repeatedly while the doors take forever to close after a kid hits _every_button_. I've also broken fake thermostats, taking them apart trying to get them to work. I've only bothered hitting the buttons on crosswalks where it's obvious they aren't automated.

  18. Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo" by ugen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Placebo" refers to situation where a patient does not know that the medication is inactive.

    I am not sure about everyone, but I happen to know that most "close" buttons on elevators and most street crossing buttons to activate a pedestrian traffic lights do not work (the former by design, they are there for fire control mode, the latter mainly because they are broken :) ).
    However, I still continue to use them and the reason is very simple:
    1. They still work occasionally (as was the case just last week in a hotel elevator, where doors would close immediately by using close button, and stay open for extended periods of time without it, tested many times). It's a "nice surprise" when it works - and nothing is lost when it does not work.

    2. They may be required occasionally. I know of a quite a few intersections where pedestrian traffic light won't turn green without the use of a button. It's not worth wasting a few traffic light cycles to find out whether the button is or is not needed. It's easier to just press it - if it works, great, if not - again nothing lost.

    So, to conclude, this situation is nothing like placebo.

    Well, perhaps except for thermostats, but I haven't worked in the office in years - and when I did, never bothered with these things.

  19. This explains our political system. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Our votes have been unhooked for some years now, yet we keep going to the booths.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  20. Worked on CD-ROMS for me by Combatso · · Score: 1

    Back in the late 90's I worked for a company doing general IT repairs, upgrades and whatnots.. One of our engineers came in complaining about his 4x CD-ROM being slow, and that since he was an engineer he needs a faster one. One of the guys I worked with took another 4X CD-ROM and carefully put a 3 on it with a sharpie.. So it looked as if to be a "34X" drive.. He installed it, the engineer was happy, and we never heard a word about it.

    1. Re:Worked on CD-ROMS for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or he realized you sharpied it and was making fun of him and decided you were tools and never bothered with you again? Instead going around you and reaffirming his 'I am an engineer and better than IT' attitude?

      Here is how it would go down if I would have found something like that. Boss wanders in 'here is what our IT department thinks is a "34x" drive'. Boss: "here is a PO go get a faster drive and put it in". 2-3 years later IT is redundant each group has taken on the responsibilities itself. Your looking for a job and the company is spending more per year because you wanted to be funny. Instead of saying 'we do not buy those talk to our head IT guy if you want something better'. If he kept bring it up take it up with his boss.

    2. Re:Worked on CD-ROMS for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not the placebo effect, that is more properly known as the asshole effect. As in 'I really could use a faster drive, but when I asked for one the asshole just tried to humor me instead of showing the slightest bit of integrity'.

    3. Re:Worked on CD-ROMS for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww, did someone once fool you with a Sharpie as well?

    4. Re:Worked on CD-ROMS for me by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      A lot of engineers are some of the silliest people about the weirdest shit. My theory is it comes from many of them having a lot of theoretical knowledge with very little practical knowledge. The engineer with practical knowledge doesn't bug you because he's already solved the damn problem ;)

    5. Re:Worked on CD-ROMS for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's exactly this kind of response from humorless assholes like you that make it so fun being a humorous asshole.

    6. Re:Worked on CD-ROMS for me by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

      Was he actually happy or did he continue to feel unhappy with the speed but didn't bother you because he knew that there were no other faster drives available?

      I know I am like that. I buy fast components, but things rarely are fast enough. The only exception I have felt in years is graphics cards. New cards can easily bee 20 times faster and as a result there is a real appreciable speed improvement.

    7. Re:Worked on CD-ROMS for me by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Either that or the engineer got the message and didn't call you again. Either way, problem solved I guess.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    8. Re:Worked on CD-ROMS for me by Combatso · · Score: 1

      well I think since he was reading crappy trade show CD-Roms most of the time, he was likely reading a 1X anyways.. he was just upset others int he office had "fast black comptuers" while he had a "slow white one".. even tho, as a CAD machine, his was the actual high-end computer

  21. Close door buttons do work.. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    They are a good aid in me repeatedly hitting it both before and after someone boards the elevator, and a visual aid to my sighing in exasperation when they make it on the elevator. They convey exactly the message I intended.

    1. Re:Close door buttons do work.. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      They are a good aid in me repeatedly hitting it both before and after someone boards the elevator, and a visual aid to my sighing in exasperation when they make it on the elevator. They convey exactly the message I intended.

      Bonus: you can now pass gas with impunity. It was their fault for rushing into the elevator while you hit the "close door" button.

  22. bullshit by eyenot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "most elevators installed since the early 1990's, the close door button has no effect"

    and yet i frequently use the close door button to real effect in nearly every elevator i have been in in the last fifteen years including ones installed since 2000.

    meanwhile, some news claims aren't factual but people believe they are because they are made by news agencies.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    1. Re:bullshit by windcask · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This comment is just proof how well the placebo effect works.

    2. Re:bullshit by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      and yet i frequently use the close door button to real effect in nearly every elevator i have been in in the last fifteen years including ones installed since 2000.

      Unless you try it both with and without, you don’t know for sure it was doing anything. The doors might have been closing anyway.

      I’ve been in elevators where I’m pretty sure the close door button actually made them close, but I wouldn’t hazard to say it worked in all of them, despite the fact that I usually push it.

      Of course, unless I’m going more than a couple of floors, I’ll take the stairs anyway, and I have the regular old doorknob figured out pretty well I guess.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:bullshit by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Unless the doors respond immediately every time to his pressing the "close" button regardless of the timing of his press.

    4. Re:bullshit by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Timing can still be important. They might stay open for a certain length of time regardless of whether you press the button.

      E.g. if the doors just opened and you press the button and nothing happens for 2 seconds, that doesn’t imply that the button didn’t do anything. They still might have stayed open much longer if you hadn’t pressed the button, but wouldn’t close so soon after they’d just opened.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. The close button _definitely_ has an effect in the lifts where I work, which I've tested many times. And if I don't press the button at the pedestrian crossing then the pedestrians get skipped out of the cycle.

      People press these buttons because they work. Nothing to see here.

    6. Re:bullshit by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Except for the whole "Otis Elevators confirmed" it bit, I'd agree with you. But being as one of the largest companies that installs and services elevators says so, and you, a random slashdot commenter disagrees, I'm inclined to go with Otis.

      Perhaps the placebo effect actually is working...

    7. Re:bullshit by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it depends on the building. Some friends and I were talking last week about how irritating it is that the "close door" buttons on the elevators in our building do nothing.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    8. Re:bullshit by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I've also found that holding a floor button will close the doors. So say I'm going to the 4th floor. If I see nobody else outside, I step in and press and hold the 4 button, and the doors close immediately.

    9. Re:bullshit by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      Incidentally on some elevators if you continue to hold the floor button the elevator goes into "express" mode and skips stops to reach the floor you're pressing on the panel.

      I used this to great effect while attending crowded conventions. I stopped of course when it became clear to me how much of an asshole I was being to people in general and handicapped people in particular.

      That said its often disabled with a key now due to abuse.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    10. Re:bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you're just experiencing the placebo effect...

      DUN DUN DUNNN

    11. Re:bullshit by WizarDru · · Score: 1

      Except that there's no actual article confirming that. A quick search only shows Slashdot making the claim and references to Slashdot making the claim. The WSJ doesn't have any such article. The New Yorker has an article making the claim, but with no factual explanation of how they know, other than urban myth. We do have The Straight Dope saying they asked Otis directly and got a response that it wasn't the case. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/595/do-close-door-buttons-on-elevators-ever-actually-work A quick search of the WSJ archives shows no articles about Otis Elevators admitting any such thing. It does turn up a lot of articles and forum discussions with people summing up the reasons listed on the Straight Dope article....i.e. that many of them are pre-timed, unhooked by the building operators or in need of repair.

    12. Re:bullshit by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I was just saying that if the doors reacted immediately to the press, regardless if you pressed it at 1 second or 1.5 seconds, and it closes on its own after 10 seconds, logic states that the button press caused the door to close the times it was pressed at 1 or 1.5 seconds. (or 3 , or 5, or 4.75, as long as it was always in immediate response, and always before 10 seconds).

    13. Re:bullshit by iamthelaw · · Score: 1

      Looks like the placebo effect is really working!

    14. Re:bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, that's the placebo effect!

  23. So.... by nizo · · Score: 1

    Maybe they could harness all that useless button pushing to generate electricity?

    1. Re:So.... by iammani · · Score: 1

      Even better, advertise them as the more times you push, the faster the signal changes. And to be even cleverer about it, advertise it as it counts the number of people (by counting the number of button presses) and acts intelligently.

    2. Re:So.... by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > Maybe they could harness all that useless button pushing to generate electricity?

      Or get lazy buggers to take the stairs and *save* electricity :-)

  24. Door close buttons by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ah, one of the first positive things that I noticed when I moved overseas was that the "door close" buttons on elevators actually worked. You push them, the door closes. It's that sort of literal-mindedness when a culture apes another culture without knowing why it's doing so. The "how" but not the "why". They didn't know that door close buttons were placebos put in place to lie about giving control. Instead, they connected them up to the control circuits, and when you press the button, by God, the elevator doors close. You can even close the doors directly after they open, ignoring the pleas of people running to get in. Heh, that was another education as well, seeing as I had previously thought that holding elevator doors open for random strangers was something that 'everybody did' - turns out, it's just our culture that does it.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Door close buttons by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 1

      The article simply confirms what I have suspected for quite some time since moving to the US and I failed to be surprised.

      As a result, I can't be bothered to press the "door close" button, despite my wife urging me to press it.

      I miss buttons which actually work:

      One of the best thing about the "door close" button in countries where they actually work is that many of them can be used to ignore floors which wasn't requested by the passengers of the lift... Especially useful when it is filled to capacity with everyone wanting to go down to the lobby where it would be pointless for the lift to stop on every floor on the way when no additional passengers can get on. Simply hold the door close button and it would continue without stopping until it gets to the requested floor.

      --
      No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
  25. Ding Dong effect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hmmm, placebo effect? How about when she says she likes it, and moans appropriately, but really you're not doing a thing for her?

    1. Re:Ding Dong effect. by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      Totally different. You're talking about the door open button!

  26. Not really true by demonbug · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The elevator close button not doing anything is certainly true most places in the U.S. It isn't worth pushing the button. Go somewhere like Hong Kong, though, and when you hit the door close button the doors close right now. If someone is halfway through the door when you hit it, too bad - they get chopped in half. I love it.

    Walk buttons are different. I can see not having them hooked up at busy intersections, especially at intersections where there are always (or nearly always) pedestrians waiting to cross. Where I live, the buttons absolutely work - the walk signal doesn't illuminate and the signal timings are different if you don't push the button. It is all about maximizing the flow of vehicular traffic while protecting pedestrians. Interesting that they leave the buttons there even when they don't do anything, but I seriously doubt there are many (if any) places where walk buttons were installed purely for the placebo effect.

    Also - you call that an article? Worst. Submission. Ever.
    Here is a rule of thumb for article submitters: if you can repeat the entire 'article' in the summary, you chose a bad article. Try at least digging up some of the original sources to link to (like the Wall Street Journal article mentioned).

    1. Re:Not really true by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, even when the crossing signal buttons don't do anything most of the time they will have an effect at night. In my neighborhood most of the lights, including walk signals, switch automatically. However, there are a few that, after about 9 PM, will not show a Walk light unless the button is pressed; they will switch briefly if a car comes in the same direction (there are sensors, though they are also only used at night it seems) but the crosswalk indicator will stay red.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    2. Re:Not really true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst. Trend. Ever. The overuse of punctuation is even more stupid than saying "hello?!" to make a point.

  27. purely anecdotal but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the close door buttons DO work in our building (FWIW we have Otis) but there's a trick which I've experimentally confirmed: something has to trip the sensor between the inner & outer doors to make it think someone has gotten on or off. I can consistently (100x out of 100 tries) replicate the following behavior: if elevator stops on floor w/nobody waiting I simply waive my hand in the gap, press the close button & the doors immediately close/elevator continues - press the button w/o something having tripped the sensor & it just sits there till its normal timeout period.

    individual results may vary but I've successfully been doing this for 10+ yrs at my current employer...

    1. Re:purely anecdotal but... by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's a way to make your experiment slightly more scientific (and probably educational):

      Repeat your process you just outlined, but instead of pressing the button, pretend to press the button. Just go through the motion without actually pressing it.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    2. Re:purely anecdotal but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you say "This is not the elevator you are looking for" as you wave your hand if someone is hurrying to get to the doors before they close!

    3. Re:purely anecdotal but... by Eil · · Score: 2, Funny

      individual results may vary but I've successfully been doing this for 10+ yrs at my current employer...

      Instead of working, it would seem...

    4. Re:purely anecdotal but... by CarboRobo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've read elevator company execs say the button does nothing, but it certainly does in the building where I work: doors close less than a second after pressing the button, but take 6 seconds to close otherwise (I timed it).

    5. Re:purely anecdotal but... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Heh, that's good to know.

      I'm imagining you now, though, standing in the lift for a whole day, waving your hand at the doors and people looking funny at you.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  28. Walk button doesn't suprise me by nebular · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm primarily a pedestrian, so I've had time to test out the walk button. Most of the time, the walk button only makes the walk sign change, otherwise it just says at the stop hand icon.

    The times it does change things is usually near parks or by little used streets where if it was disconnected you'd be waiting a very long time.

    1. Re:Walk button doesn't suprise me by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

      I guess I am confused with the article and the posts here. Isn't that what the Walk button is suppose to do? Make the Walk light, light up? If no one pushed the button the all the Walk signs stay red, always. If you push the button, then the next time the Green light in your direction changes, the walk like will also light up informing you that you can cross. I believe the light is so cars are alerted to the fact that there is a pedestrian in the roadway. I've personally have never been anywhere where this didn't work.

      Where I live, if you pressed the button and the Walk light stays red I'm sure there would be 100+ people calling the city complaining about how the light doesn't work and writing to the newspaper about how are tax dollars are not being used to fix safety issues and children could die!

    2. Re:Walk button doesn't suprise me by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any single explanation would be a gross over-simplification, so here goes.

      When you press the “walk” button, one or more of the following may occur:

      (a) nothing different, lights are timed and the green and walk signals turn on when they would normally have
      (b) signal turns green sooner that it would otherwise have (it may not have turned green at all without pressing the button)
      (c) signal stays green longer to give pedestrians extra time to cross
      (d) oncoming traffic’s green signal and/or left-turn arrow is delayed / disabled
      (d) walk signal turns on during the next green signal (instead of the don’t walk signal)
      (e) signal turns red in all directions and walk signal turns on, giving pedestrians a chance to cross

      In all cases except (a), it is to the pedestrians’ advantage to press the walk button, so unless they know for certain that it doesn’t do anything, they should press it.

      To complicate the matter further, the signals may act completely differently at different times of the day.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  29. so depressing :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > In most elevators installed since the early 1990s, the 'close door' button has no effect.

    Do these things surprise *anybody*? I've ridden in many elevators and it was clear after a number of tries that these buttons do nothing. I never knew *why*, but I remember consciously thinking that there was no difference between my pushing and not pushing it, so I stopped trying. Similar for local walk buttons.

    It really makes me depressed that so many people are so disconnected from the reality they live in that they are fooled by these things. I think this kind of "mindless" state of being is correlated with making really bad decisions in other ways which make society worse for everyone.

  30. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by bws111 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree. This seems more like behaviorism - if I push this button, I may get a reward.

    As for the thermostats, they are kidding themselves if they think people actually believe they work. People stop calling because at that point the realize it is pointless to continue complaining, because nothing is going to be done about the situation.

  31. Just like arcade machines by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    How many times have we seen people think they're playing an arcade game when they're just jiggling the controllers pointlessly during the demonstration mode?

    1. Re:Just like arcade machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sooo embarrassed right now...

  32. Definitely works for traffic signals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know a few people who rock their cars back and forth at stoplights in order to "trigger the pressure plates." No matter how many times I try to explain to them the lights are on a timer they remain convinced that they are tricking the system into giving them an advantage.

    1. Re:Definitely works for traffic signals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of them detect metal now, not pressure.

    2. Re:Definitely works for traffic signals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're at a light where one street has far less traffic than the other, sometimes the smaller street will only get a green light if it detects a car sitting on a sensor. There's no tricking involved - you can sit at a red light forever if you're not on the sensor.

  33. i'm sick of this kind of whining by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

    the vote in 2000 was so close, that it was well within the margin of the number of people who think helplessly like you and therefore don't vote, when they actually could have made a difference and gave us al gore instead of gw bush... if they actually voted

    you tell me with a straight face that al gore would have invaded iraq, or given us an asshole chief justice who was the deciding vote earlier this year that corporations get to spend unimpeded in elections. in other words, yeah, your vote matters less than it should: because assholes who think like you made sure that is the way things are. self-fulfilling prophecy

    they don't mess around with a silly vote in other countries. they just treat like a slave straight up. you prefer that? your vote is so precious in this world, and you are so ignorant as to its real value. your vote is cheapened by your ignorance

    corporations, evil scehming senator palpatine types, dumb rednecks... all pretty much constants in life in any time period and any society. but people who are ignorant like you about the value of their vote: you are the real enemy, and the real source of the problems in our world. if we are slaves, and not free men, it is because of you, more than anything else

    you aren't part of the problem. you ARE the problem. you cheapen our democracy with your self-fulfilling prophecy of the worthlessness of a vote, by not voting. you don't deserve to vote. and with enough assholes like you in society, none of us will have a vote that matters. congratulations, asshole, you made the world in your image

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With a straight face, yes Al Gore would have gone to war with Iraq in his first term.

      The Clinton/Gore administration were hawkish on Iraq from 1993 on. The escalation of bombing radar, C2 and C3 nodes in the Northern and Southern No-fly zones were all Clinton policies. Desert Fox was a Clinton administration operation, and the Democrats were fired up in 1999 to start a war with Serbia and invaded Haiti in 1995.

      Al Gore ran in 2000 as being more interventionist abroad than George W. Bush did

      http://www.ontheissues.org/al_gore.htm
      http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Foreign_Policy.htm#Internationalism

      Following the loss in 2000, Gore went to an oppose Bush policy mode from the spring of 2002 which continues.

    2. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by wikdwarlock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, the disproof of your position is simple and actually happened.

      An individual vote is worthless. No election with more than probably 10,000 voters (WAG here) would ever proceed to conclusion if the tally was 50% +1. The uncertainty would make recounts essentially unending, interested parties would split hairs until their donors' budgets ran out and the larger team of lawyers "won" and were vindicated by an "authority". People would be angry and call for a different outcome, but their voices would fade away eventually. Of course, this is all academic, because individuals' votes really can make a difference! If we voted for unicorns, and REALLY, TRULY believed, Tinkerbell would deliver them, right? I mean, nothing like the ever happened, did it?

      An individual can greatly affect an election, but not by voting. Individuals affect elections by convincing other individuals to follow their lead, be it through charisma, money, intimidation, trickery, etc. If every single large scale political donor, PAC organizer, get-out-the-vote volunteer and party official didn't vote at all, their effect on the election would be almost precisely identical. It's not the vote that decides things, it's how they convince many, many other people to vote. Not as individuals, but as a herd.

      --

      "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
    3. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by toastar · · Score: 1

      the vote in 2000 was so close, that it was well within the margin of the number of people who think helplessly like you and therefore don't vote, when they actually could have made a difference and gave us al gore instead of gw bush... if they actually voted

      I live in Texas, If everyone I've ever met hadn't voted, and I drove each one to the polls to vote for gore, It wouldn't of mattered. The problem is the system, Why are we still using the electoral collage?

    4. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the vote in 2000 was so close , that it was well within the margin of the number of people who think helplessly like you and therefore don't vote, when they actually could have made a difference and gave us al gore instead of gw bush... if they actually voted

      Still whining about 2000... in 2010? Does the connection between Jack Ruby, the Illuminati and reverse vampires still keep you up at night? Of course, Bush could have gotten more votes as well. You seem to anger at apathy only when it works against your views.

      For that matter, you got your radical change in 2008. The US is still in two wars, gays are still persona non grata to the military, Guantanamo is still open for business, the gap between rich vs. poor widens, and the the Gulf coast is an environmental nightmare. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    5. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by bored · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With a straight face, yes Al Gore would have gone to war with Iraq in his first term.

      I don't buy that, you fail to account for two things. First, the Cheney factor. Secondly the fact that Gore would have probably been busy in Afghanistan as retaliation for 9-11. Its possible he might have just sent in some special forces and concentrated on getting Bin-Laden. Given the f**kup in Tora bora, which probably can be blamed partially on the Iraq "strategy" its possible we might actually have been out of the intervention before the 04 election because Bin Laden would have been caught. Instead we spent 700B busting a 3rd rate dictator that was effectively hemmed in. If Sadam had acted up, Gore probably would have just bombed him same as Clinton.

    6. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by navygeek · · Score: 1

      you cheapen our democracy

      The United States of America is not, never has been, and likely never will be a Democracy. If you're going to throw stones, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

    7. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Why do I never have any mod points when I really need them?

    8. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      what exactly is that statement supposed to mean? other than that you are a moron?

      if you cease to believe in the only redeeming qualities we have, you are worse than the avowed enemies of democracy. because they at least have something resembling beliefs and principles. you're just an empty sack of shit

      our democracy is compromised by a number of factors. always was. always will be. democracy requires constant maintenance. but if you are going to just throw up your hands and abandon the notion of democracy, then you apparently prefer the chains of slavery. in which case, go be a slave in some other country, because i certainly won't be one, and i resent the fact i have to carry your dead weight as well as my own

      believe, or fuck off

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      That's not very democratic of you. Isn't everyone in a democracy entitled to their own views and opinions?

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    10. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Case in point: The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy. You called the parent poster a moron. Odd, that.

      For as messed up as our system is, I thank god we're not a Democracy. People like you would have a direct vote on issues.

    11. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      how can i deny someone their opinion of something they don't even believe in?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    12. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      yes, a republic not a democracy. right up there with "correlation is not causation" among the all time useless comments on slashdot some asshole always seems to have to make

      we live in a democracy moron. and a republic. try to understand someday that the concepts are not mutually exclusive, then open your ignorant mouth

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    13. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      Do you want California and New York and other high-population states determining the outcomes of elections? I'm pretty sure Iowa doesn't. The Electoral College gives less populous states a say that they wouldn't have if people voted directly for the candidates rather than for electors.

    14. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Desert Badger, the operation was written up late in '99 and early '00, Clinton and Blair had already agreed if a Northern or Southern Watch plane went down in Iraq they'd use it as the trigger for an invasion of Basra and Kurdistan. Those planes weren't going to keep doing CAPs forever without an accident.

      I still firmly believe that with Gore in the White House the US would have gone into Iraq. Lieberman was just as hawkish about Iraq as Cheney was.

      The Tora Bora "fuck up" happened before the war drums started beating for Iraq, really it was a hold over of the post-Vietnam and Desert One idea that the US public wouldn't stomach any military casualties.

      We didn't bomb the crap out of fires in the Hindu Kush or go into Tora Bora cause we didn't want American casualties nor did the lawyers think we could just bomb camp fires.

    15. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      It's a bit pedantic, but the GP is correct: United States isn't a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic.

    16. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The electoral college exists as a check to Tyranny of the Majority. Contrary to what is over-emphasized in schools, we are not and will never be a direct democracy, nor is that a good form of governance at all. We are a REPUBLIC above all else.

      --
      Good-bye
    17. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by timster · · Score: 1

      How dare we determine our government by population, rather than by imaginary lines drawn on a map! Why, one imaginary region might have less influence than another!

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    18. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by timster · · Score: 1

      Since the Electoral College amplifies majorities, how does it "check" the "tyranny of the majority"?

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    19. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by bberens · · Score: 1

      Because we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. The Electoral College doesn't exist to give you personally a voice, it exists to give smaller states (and the people in them) a voice at all.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    20. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Maybe a bit pedantic, but the US is a Representative Democracy.

    21. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by bberens · · Score: 1

      It always makes me laugh when people who are clearly conservatives complain about Obama not delivering on his promises of (as you so aptly put it) "radical change." Shouldn't that mean you're ecstatic with his performance? I personally didn't support him or McCain so I don't have any skin in the game wrt "my guy" winning or losing. Just think the broken record rhetoric is silly.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    22. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "our democracy"

      You mean the one that is ruled by the rich because of the people who let it be ruled by the rich (and the people that vote for the same two parties over and over again)? Yeah, what a nice democracy! I just love it when the government is able to pass bills and laws which clearly violate our freedom and privacy without the consent of the people, and what's worse is that people seem to support these bills and laws because they 'stop' those dirty 'terrorists'. I'd say these idiots are in need of some actual education, and no, the public school system isn't cutting it.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    23. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by dwinks616 · · Score: 1

      And if you lived in New York, would you want someone in Iowa to cast a ballot that has the same voting power as 3 or 4 votes in NY? The electoral college is a horrible idea and needs scrapped. Each person's vote should all count equally, and it currently doesn't.

    24. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "The electoral college exists as a check to Tyranny of the Majority."

      No, no. Now we're just ruled by the rich and those in power (those who try to take away our freedom with laws and bills), right? Much better! While we still remain in this capitalistic society, what we need is balance. The government should not be able to pass bills and laws that violate our freedoms (for any reason) without at least a majority vote, nor should the people be able to pass laws or bills that violate the freedoms of the minority without government interference. It doesn't have to be black and white. Currently, the government has far too much power for their own good and uses deception to fool the weak-minded into thinking that they are doing the 'right' thing. The way things are now, this corruption will continue.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    25. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "For as messed up as our system is"

      Yes, it is. Why does everything need to be black and white with you people? Do you honestly think the way things are going now that the system is working well? Hint: it's not.

      Again, what we need is balance. The government should not be able to pass bills/laws as it sees fit without the consent of the people, nor should the people be able to pass bills/laws that violate the constitution without needing checks and balances. As it stands, the government has far too much power and the people have far too little.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    26. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by bored · · Score: 1

      The Tora Bora "fuck up" happened before the war drums started beating for Iraq

      But this doesn't mean it didn't have a large impact, our special forces are documented to have been in Iraq as early as July of 02. Numerous white house insiders have also made statements indicating that from day 1 Iraq was the focus, even after 9-11. Bush was trying to pin it on Saddam. So, rather than shifting focus and giving Afghanistan 100%, it appears to have been done mostly to placate public opinion until Iraq got underway. Numerous sources have stated dates, saying that hard planning for Iraq happened before Tora Bora, for example http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html. So, you really have to wonder how much planning was going on for Afghanistan, at the same time. Especially given the views of Berntsen, Schroen or McNab.

    27. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      it is both a democracy and a republic. people who point out the "difference" are about as annoying as "correlation is not causation" knuckeleheads: yes, we know. do you have anything useful to add to the discussion, or you only think you do?

      pointing out that the usa is a republic, not a democracy, is like saying a chicken is a bird, not a two legged animal. pffffft

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    28. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's not the vote that decides things, it's how they convince many, many other people to vote. Not as individuals, but as a herd.

      Sheepvoters.

    29. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by navygeek · · Score: 1

      Okay sunshine, believe whatever you'd like to believe - wrong though you are. Let me ask you this: what way did you vote for the postage stamp for Wilt Chamberlain? What's that you say? You didn't vote on that one, someone in Washington D.C. with the title "Representative" voted in your place? Huh... That *might* have something to do with the fact that the United States of America IS NOT A TRUE DEMOCRACY. The United States is a Federal Constitutional Republic - period, done, end of story. In a true democracy everyone has an opportunity to vote for everything. Hell, strictly speaking we didn't even vote for the President, we voted for which way we want our state to vote for President via the Electoral College.

    30. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      We live in a representative democratic republic. The united states is a republic of state representatives: it's individual states (meaning "countries") under one larger governing body, just like the European Union. The de-facto meaning of "democracy" is "direct democracy," where individuals represent their opinions; instead, we elect representatives to govern our states and to present our political stance to the federal governing body.

      It's like saying I have a Mac and you saying I have a PC. Yes, a Mac is a PC. And yes, you are an idiot for making the argument.

    31. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US foreign policy in the Mideast is remarkably bipartisan.

      Remember how the Republicans stopped Clinton's bombings in Serbia, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan? (Scratches head)
      Remember all the principled opposition from the Democrat leadership to the Iraq war? Ummmm no.
      Remember how quickly the Iraq war stopped after the 2006 elections? Oh wait.
      Remember that Bush-Obama joint press conference condemning the Israeli bombardament of Gaza?

      Gore strikes the same pose for AIPAC as does GWB (as does BHO, WJC, HRC, GHWB ... ).

    32. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You idiots that call the US a republic are just showing how ignorance you are. The US is representative democracy, regardless of any semantic tap dancing you want to try.

    33. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the U.S. is not just 1 nation. It is 50 independently governed States, which share sovereignty with the Federal Government. Individual States have individual laws that aren't necessarily shared between the states. The Electoral College makes sure that each independent member state is represented.

    34. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      But at the end of it, all this shows is that the Moderate Republicans (W, McCain) and Moderate Democrats (Clinton, Obama) are pretty much cut from the same cloth.

      Interventionist, high domestic spending folks who only waver on domestic issues like health care, both sides are grey the shade is just a little different.

    35. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Corruption will always continue, regardless of what form of government is in. The idea behind the libertarian, capitalist society we were originally designed to be is that if you give the government less power over both individuals directly and via their money, you have less government. And if you have less government, you have less government to be corrupt. And that's pretty well worked out overall. Capitalist governments are overall the least corrupt on the planet. Yes, I'm aware that's like saying the least dirty pig in the mudhole.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    36. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. I'm extremely fiscally conservative and small government conservative and I voted for Obama. Of course I voted for him because I really hoped he would do everything he said and fuck the nation up so bad that we wouldn't be stupid enough to elect another liberal for another thirty years. Just like with Carter. And it seems to be working out pretty well.

      Sort of my way of fiddling while Rome burned.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    37. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll counter your "Bush stole the elections" with "Al Franken stole the elections". In both cases, the Democrats got what they wanted... in the case of Bush, they just didn't realize it.

      I'll reserve the "Harry Reid stole the elections" until we learn more. But he didn't "steal" it in the same way Dems claim Bush did and Franken actually did. Reid (potentially) stole it in other ways.

    38. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      do you know what a venn diagram is? you do? oh goody goody. draw one. then grow a fucking brain. seriously

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    39. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      False, the electoral college existed as a check to the tyranny of ignorant voters. The idea is that if voters wanted to elect someone who was unqualified the educated electors could overrule them. This no longer works anymore since most electors are required to comply with the outcome of their states election, therefore all the electors do now is unjustly make it so that voters in small states are worth more than voters in large states.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    40. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If you drew a venn diagram of Mac vs PC, you'd find that Mac is completely inside the PC circle. You'd still be an idiot for responding to "I have a Mac, not a PC" with "U R DUM, U HAS A PC LOL."

    41. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      "Because the U.S. is not just 1 nation. It is 50 independently governed States, which share sovereignty with the Federal Government."

      That's the theory anyway.

    42. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      darling friend

      We live in a representative democratic republic. The united states is a republic of state representatives: it's individual states (meaning "countries") under one larger governing body, just like the European Union. The de-facto meaning of "democracy" is "direct democracy," where individuals represent their opinions; instead, we elect representatives to govern our states and to present our political stance to the federal governing body.

      please point out to me exactly where in there there exists a point that nullifies anything i have said about democracy or is of any value whatsoever to the larger point at hand. since you are so fond of focusing on the bigger picture

      gee thanks!

      xoxoxoxoxox

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    43. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      Is atheism not an opinion on religion?

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    44. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Connect the one argument to the other. Saying "I don't have a PC, I have a Mac" is technically incorrect but contemporarily understood; saying "I have a PC" is understood to mean "I don't have a mac."

      Also.

      In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[77] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[78]

      The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.

      What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[79] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[80]

    45. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Instead we have a system where Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida determine the outcomes of elections, because they are the biggest of the swing states. New York and California, despite being very populous states, actually have almost no say because both sides assume all their votes will go to the Democratic Party's candidate so they get ignored.

    46. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by protektor · · Score: 1

      That's funny. Even the link you quote says that the United States isn't a Representative Democracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic.

      "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered."[2]

      America (USA) is and always has been about protecting the minority, and God willing always will be about protecting the minority of people, rather than mob rule.

    47. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by protektor · · Score: 1

      I think one thing people forget is that the United States isn't necessarily about safety, but rather freedom. Out founding fore-fathers thought that freedom was much more important than safety which is part of why they set up the government the way that they did.

      Now should we be lawless, no of course not. We absolutely should not be trading away freedoms in order to feel or be more secure though. Give me Constitutional freedoms, rather than security any day.

    48. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a straight face, yes Al Gore would have gone to war with Iraq in his first term

      The most pathetic post I've read this year. Yeah you keep thinking that mate. You are the classic case of cognitive dissonance.

      The difference between Gore and Bush is that Gore had the brains, not enough balls. Bush had the balls, not the brain. Iraq is a classic case of dumb, inane and just brain dead decision making.

    49. Re:i'm sick of this kind of whining by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      I couldn't find anything in those ontheissues.org pages that validate your statement that "Al Gore would have gone to war with Iraq in his first term".

  34. Posting the entire article as the summary... by drachenfyre · · Score: 1

    What happened on Slashdot? It used to be that you'd actually write a summary with several relevant links to different sources. Then it became just quoting the first paragraph of the article. Now its just posting the entire article? At least I guess we can't claim someone didn't RTFA.

    1. Re:Posting the entire article as the summary... by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows no one reads the articles, but knowing that, it shouldn't be much of a stretch to realize that not everyone reads the whole summary either! I usually read the whole summary, but not always - it's like reading newspaper articles, you can get the important part of the story by reading the first bit and you can safely skip the rest. Which is not to say that Slashdot summaries are well-written - not that newspaper articles are either, but they are organized deliberately at least.

  35. Did you go try it? by Fynnsky · · Score: 0

    How many of you just headed to the elevator (fiddling with the thermostat on the way) and pressed the close door button, then got off in the lobby and ran outside to press the walk button?

    really? just me? /sigh

  36. The inverse is also true... by metrometro · · Score: 1

    People ain't dumb, and they catch on. Which creates pressure in the other direction as well. One the most common barriers to getting people to recycle correctly is the widely held belief -- frequently completely unfounded -- that all the stuff goes to the same dump anyway. Recycling centers are making online videos of the pickup and sorting process to battle back, but it's an uphill struggle -- people assume they're getting lied to.

    1. Re:The inverse is also true... by chaodyn · · Score: 1

      In my case I WAS being lied to. We watched the local garbage collection truck pick up our garbage, dump it in the truck, then pick up our recycle container and dump it in the same truck. We stopped bothering after that.

    2. Re:The inverse is also true... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Where do you live?
      That is, odd. Maybe the other truck was broke? maybe they are transitioning? While don't doubt what you saw, I do doubt they are ending up in the same pile at the end of the day. Maybe they are doing some sort of centralize* sorting.

      *which is how it SHOULD be done.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  37. I created a WOW priest named "Placebo" by aapold · · Score: 5, Funny

    After reaching the level cap, I'd join pug groups and in the role of "healer". I had gear with special effects that did nothing and created all manner of macros to create these effects while at the same time emoting that I was healing my target.

    After the wipe, when they'd call me on it (I have yet to find an addon that will monkey with other people's trackers) I'd try to explain that I was doing this strictly for research and they were in the placebo group.

    Somehow, this did not seem to appease them.

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    1. Re:I created a WOW priest named "Placebo" by tangent3 · · Score: 1

      My god there are plenty of priests named placebo, I'm sure you're not the only one who has been doing that!

    2. Re:I created a WOW priest named "Placebo" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time try it with DPS.

    3. Re:I created a WOW priest named "Placebo" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they were mad at you. You aren't supposed to tell the placebo group that's it's a placebo! It should be a blind experiment. You were sciencing double plus wrongly.

  38. Here in Sweden by mikael_j · · Score: 3, Informative

    All these examples seem a bit specific or they assume the people affected are all too dumb to realize someone's trying to fool them...

    'In most elevators installed since the early 1990s, the 'close door' button has no effect. Otis Elevator engineers confirmed the fact to the Wall Street Journal in 2003.

    Around here most elevators don't even seem to have a "close" button, they do have an "open" button though. And if you press one of the "go to floor #n" buttons the doors tend to close immediately. As an example, in the building I live in the best way to get the doors to close quickly is to pass through the elevator door and make sure you're clear of the "don't squish the humans" sensor and then hit a floor button, door closes immediately and elevator gets going.

    Similarly, many office thermostats are dummies, designed to give workers the illusion of control. "You just get tired of dealing with them and you screw in a cheap thermostat," said Illinois HVAC specialist Richard Dawson. "Guess what? They quit calling you."

    Duh. Of course people stop calling you, they're sweating their asses off and you show up and say "nothing wrong here" half a dozen times and then you install a thermostat that doesn't work. Most likely they just end up figuring out how to disable the alarm connected to the windows so they can get some relief that way (seriously, I've seen this problem in several workplaces, the building maintenance guys swear up and down that the ventilation system is fine yet one office which isn't even facing the sun most of the day has stuffy air and a constant temperature above 25 C, in the latest case they finally installed a thermostat that did nothing, we just stopped calling them about the issue (the thermostat was clearly not connected to anything)).

    In 2004 the New York Times reported that more than 2,500 of the 3,250 "walk" buttons in New York intersections do nothing. "The city deactivated most of the pedestrian buttons long ago with the emergence of computer-controlled traffic signals, even as an unwitting public continued to push on."'"

    Here in .se the buttons do work. In fact, if you don't press the button the light never turns green. You still have to wait until the lights for the cars are right though (which kind of sucks, it just switches the light for pedestrians from a default "you're not allowed to cross" to "please wait your turn".

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    1. Re:Here in Sweden by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you REALLY want to get some cooling, find the thermostat that's behind plexiglass. That's the one that actually does something. Now, boil a cup of water in the nuker and hold it under the thermostat.

    2. Re:Here in Sweden by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Oh, and an addendum about intersections and the lights. When I was in school I took some courses that involved coding 68HC11 asm and apparently one of the teachers had worked on systems for controlling the lights at intersections and according to him the main reason almost all of them worked as I described in my previous post was because the fear of people getting confused if they worked better.

      Now, on top of this he also told us of some interesting quirks that would normally not be used but very occasionally were, one neat one that I've tested and actually found to be in use in a few intersections is that if you press the "walk" buttons on both sides of the road the lights will switch immediately under certain conditions (either no cars detected approaching or cars only detected from one direction).

      I also carried out some experiments on the timing of the sensors under the street at night with an old moped when I was younger. On one stretch of street in my hometown that had a speed limit of 50 km/h with a 30 km/h right after it the timing was such that if you came at the lights at exactly 50 km/h they would actually turn back to red before you reached the light, didn't really make sense to me (those lights were all-red at night until a vehicle approached or someone pressed a button).

      What bugs me is that a lot of these behaviors are undocumented and the reasons for the choice in how the lights operate aren't always clear, sometimes it just seems like someone decided on "standard" timings without thinking things through, other times you'll have intersections with a lot of traffic where the time for pedestrians to cross is way too short (I walk fairly fast and I'm also quite tall and I can have trouble making it across some intersections before the light turns red again) and then there are those intersections where the lights are painfully slow all the time (especially fun for the motorists at night who have to stop at red lights on abandoned streets, am I the only one who thinks this might cause people to become less reluctant to run red lights?).

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    3. Re:Here in Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in .se the buttons do work. In fact, if you don't press the button the light never turns green. You still have to wait until the lights for the cars are right though (which kind of sucks, it just switches the light for pedestrians from a default "you're not allowed to cross" to "please wait your turn".

      Liar. Some work, and some don't. Same as in every country on Earth, I suspect.

  39. Old news here by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    My first tech job was working for a fortune 50 company as a technician for their centralized HVAC and lighting systems. This was in the early 90's and we used primitive controllers with early modems to centrally control everything from headquarters. Local control was never allowed in any facility under any circumstances. Attempts to intervene such as additional heat or cooling sources could readily be picked up on our end.

    I remember once catching a loading dock where that had occurred and calling it in. The wall sensor had been broken by local personnel. We sent out a service technician to fix it and talked with local management (which seemed completely surprised that we found out so quickly). We ended up having the now fixed stat busted the following day, only that time people at the local facility were fired. In the event of noisy office workers, many technicians would put in a dummy thermostat for an illusion of control - and it did make a difference.

    The benefit of these zealous control systems were huge. Long before being green was in vogue we did these things to save energy. In the time I was with the company they expanded from 600 facilities to 720 and kept their energy bill at 100 million US dollars. That's a 20% expansion of their facilities with a 0% expansion of their energy consumption. It may not be sexy or hip, might even feel totalitarian, but that is the kind of real world change that is needed for a greener future.

    1. Re:Old news here by bored · · Score: 1

      You must have had one of the nice ones. The thermostats in the building I work in are more like slave devices. They get their marching orders from a central computer, but they are individually responsible for AC control. There isn't a back channel to tell the central computer if they are working. Turns out the ones on our floor are in the middle of the buildings control loop. Which apparently is differential (and in our case someone T'ed off the Loop and ran 200' to our section). So either end of the loop works fine, but the devices in the middle don't always get their marching orders. On a regular basis they would loose their minds and flip the heat on in the middle of the summer, or something equally evil. In the end after the AC guys basically quoted the building mgmt a new system and wiring job, they just came up and installed a $30 programmable thermostat from home depot. Now our AC works fine, and it cycles at 7PM/7AM to conserve energy.

      Now if they would just do something about the single pane windows...

  40. Seems to work by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    The close door and open door buttons seem to work as they should in the small office building where I work. However, they probably predate the 1990s and are constantantly breaking down! I have very rarely seen a walk button in NYC. I find it hard to believe there were ever 3,250 of them.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  41. Otis elevators. by nblender · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was a young-hacker, I worked as a bellman.. It was slack work except when tour busses came in and then it was a scramble to get luggage up to the rooms. It meant multiple trips with a full cart and no passengers... What I couldn't handle was the long rides down to the lobby stopping at 10+ floors to pickup additional passengers... I soon discovered that if I held the 'door close' button while the elevator was descending, it would stop at the floors where people had pushed the 'down' button but the door wouldn't open. The elevator would stop. Hesitate for about 1.5 seconds, and then start moving again. The unfortunate drawback was that outside of the car, the 'down' light would go out and the waiting passengers would have to press it again to call for another elevator. I then learned that I didn't have to hold the door-close button. If I felt the car slow down and managed to press the button before the car came to a full stop, I could trigger the override.

    Eventually, I got a copy of a master key (which I still have) that allowed me to just put the elevator in service mode and didn't have to override anything.

    1. Re:Otis elevators. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Or when the doors open, you can just put your hand up in the doorway and push the lever that resets all the calls d;.

    2. Re:Otis elevators. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      a lot of elevators, when you press the door close button along with the floor you want to go to, it will go right to that floor, even if other floors have been pressed.

    3. Re:Otis elevators. by janwedekind · · Score: 1

      I worked in a building where they had a glas elevator with an emergency power off switch in the cabin. The elevator would halt immediately and as a side effect would forget all requests. I would switch on the power again, choose my destination, and then wave and smile at the people while zipping past in the elevator.

    4. Re:Otis elevators. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Wow, now thats customer service. Why would you want the pesky customers to be able to sue the elevator when you have a cart of luggage?

      Sheesh

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  42. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by sammy+baby · · Score: 3, Funny

    Agreed.

    Also - I don't know about you, but when I press a "close doors" or a "use crosswalk" button and press it, and nothing happens, I tend to press it again. If there was a placebo effect in play, why would I bother pressing it again? The placebo effect suggests that I would be happy with the outcome, rather than stabbing relentlessly away at a soulless machine, like a rat trying to get a food pellet, muttering and cursing the infernal, non functional button and the soul sucking society it seems to embody, when all I want to do is get downstairs and across the street to a bar so I can drown my sorrows in a few glasses of gin and try to muster the courage to talk to that girl who is always there even though I know she's probably damaged goods and wouldn't give me the time of day besides...

    I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?

  43. Home placebostat by stevegee58 · · Score: 2

    Years ago my dad replaced the furnace and thermostat in my parents' house. What he didn't tell my mom was the new thermostat was installed in a different location in the house and he left the old one in its original location. Prior to this my mom was constantly pushing the thermostat up and down and making the house too hot or cold for everyone else. She continued this adjustment on the old disconnected thermostat for years after, apparently satisfied, even though it had no effect.

  44. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    If the thermostats are anything like what we have where I work, they are connected, but as far as I can tell they are either incorrectly installed, or misconfigured. I blame contractors who are paid by the job, quickly disappear, and either don't know or don't care about how it's supposed to be done.

  45. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by SashaMan · · Score: 1

    Don't agree it's nothing like a placebo. Granted, I need to RTFA, but you could design some interesting experiments that test whether people's PERCEPTION (e.g. it seemed like the elevator door did close faster even though it really didn't) was altered with these non-functional elements. That is like a placebo.

  46. Walk buttons work... by Anomalyx · · Score: 1

    Where I live, the walk buttons have an effect, but won't alter the flow of traffic. If you don't push the button, the sign will never switch to "walk". However, pushing the button doesn't turn on the "walk" sign any sooner; it just makes sure to turn it on the next time the right light turns green. Only if there are no cars at (or coming up on) the intersection will it actually alter the order of traffic lights to let you walk sooner.
    Then of course there are a couple of older intersections that always turn the "walk" light on no matter if someone has pushed the button or not.

    And the close button on elevators is for impatient people. Seriously, you can't wait another whole second for the door to close? I've never needed to push a close door button because the doors were perfectly capable of closing on their own. I've only ever used the open button, to hold the elevator for people. If I were to make an elevator, I'd omit the close button entirely. Or put one in and have the elevator spew an insult every time it was pushed. Oooh, even better... shock the button pusher! Too bad I'd probably get sued for that one.

    --
    No, there is no "-1 I'LL NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG!!!" mod.
    1. Re:Walk buttons work... by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      Where I live, the walk buttons have an effect, but won't alter the flow of traffic. If you don't push the button, the sign will never switch to "walk". However, pushing the button doesn't turn on the "walk" sign any sooner; it just makes sure to turn it on the next time the right light turns green.

      Does anyone know what the purpose of this is? Why would anyone implement walk lights/buttons like this? So they can laugh at the people who didn't notice the walk button, or arrived at the corner just after the light turned in their favour?

      Why not have the walk light change on every cycle, regardless of button pushes? It evens out wear and tear on the crossing lights, and reduces system complexity...I just don't get it.

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    2. Re:Walk buttons work... by drgregoryhouse · · Score: 1

      Some traffic lights are handicapped friendly, ie they beep so the blind knows its ok to cross.

      I live near one in an apartment block, if the button doesn't work my neighbors and I will get to hear the traffic light beep all day long.

    3. Re:Walk buttons work... by David_W · · Score: 1

      Why not have the walk light change on every cycle, regardless of button pushes? It evens out wear and tear on the crossing lights, and reduces system complexity...I just don't get it.

      Consider this: It's after midnight and the majority of pedestrians have went home to bed. A single car pulls up to the light, it changes, they go through. Why would you then want to have to wait the 30 seconds or so for the pedestrian signal to finish its cycle before letting the other direction go again?

      This is a rather simplified example, but it can easily be extended from this point to figure out why in some situations the buttons are useful.

  47. Hawthorne Effect by TXISDude · · Score: 1

    This is just another example of the "Hawthorne Effect" - a phenomena observed that when workers had working conditions modified, their productivity increased. We have known since the 1930's that people behave differently when they believe they are being observed or that their environment is under their control, or that there is a mechanism to improve thier work environment. And this effect results whether or not these changes are true or effective.

    --
    Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of man. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
  48. Elevator Anger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I HATE elevators with non-functioning close-buttons.

  49. Not sure how true this is. by jonnythan · · Score: 1

    Eh. The Close Door button in the elevators in my building definitely work. They make the doors close immediately after fully opening - they stay open for about 3-4 seconds otherwise. And they are Otis elevators.

    The pedestrian crossing buttons do something to. If you don't press them, the cross street/left turn light turns green immediately after the main street turns red and the Cross signal never comes on. I've gotten burned a couple of times by not pressing it.

  50. That's not typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most of them have no effect in normal operation, but when the elevator is in service mode (i.e. apartment move mode), then doors stay open until you press the close button.

    There is usually a 'protected' way of keeping the door open, either in the form of an emergency knob/button (or otherwise red and do-not-press seeming) or as a key. Often there is a panel (which many elevators leave unlocked for convenience) which has this switch.

    In my experience, the 'close' button is usually delayed so it isn't abused (try holding it for a few seconds and it will work). Smarter elevators will allow its use in certain limited circumstances.

    1. Re:That's not typical by codegen · · Score: 1

      Actually it is typical. What I'm talking about is when the key is used. You will see that the key has several positions, and usually two of them are marked 'normal' and 'service'. In most elevators, especially those in apartment buildings, the key can be removed when turned to service or normal mode. When moving, you ask the super to put one of the elevators in service mode (he then takes the key with him). Then the elevator keeps the doors open so you can move furniture in and out of the elevator. You then have to hold the close button until the doors close the entire way. If you let go before the doors completely close, they open again. Once the doors are closed you can pick a destination floor. I've helped many friends move in and out of quite a few different apartment buildings in three different cities. They all work the same way.

      --
      Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    2. Re:That's not typical by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Actually it is typical. What I'm talking about is when the key is used. You will see that the key has several positions, and usually two of them are marked 'normal' and 'service'. In most elevators, especially those in apartment buildings, the key can be removed when turned to service or normal mode. When moving, you ask the super to put one of the elevators in service mode (he then takes the key with him). Then the elevator keeps the doors open so you can move furniture in and out of the elevator. You then have to hold the close button until the doors close the entire way. If you let go before the doors completely close, they open again. Once the doors are closed you can pick a destination floor. I've helped many friends move in and out of quite a few different apartment buildings in three different cities. They all work the same way.

      Not exactly. In a couple of apartments I've lived in, when the elevator is in service mode, you have to press and hold the destination floor button for five seconds, then the door closes and goes to the destination floor. (Also, when in service mode, the elevators won't stop at other floors where people are waiting for an elevator.)

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  51. Not all crosswalk buttons by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    I grew up in Seattle where, once upon a time you actually waited until you had a "walk" signal before crossing the street (though not so much anymore judging by what i've seen on recent visits home, insert "get off my lawn" comment here.) Thus it males me really frustrated when i get to the intersection near work in SoCal and find someone else standing next to the post with the button for the crosswalk signal and i assume they must have already pushed it. But then the light changes, the "walk" signal doesn't come on, and they just cross the intersection anyways while i am forced by habit to wait until the next cycle. I'm trying to train myself to elbow my way to the button and press it just to be sure, but as a generally non-confrontational person it's not something that comes naturally.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Not all crosswalk buttons by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      I grew up in Seattle where, once upon a time you actually waited until you had a "walk" signal before crossing the street...But then the light changes, the "walk" signal doesn't come on, and they just cross the intersection anyways while i am forced by habit to wait until the next cycle.

      I wonder...could you actually get a jaywalking ticket for crossing without a "walk" signal at one of these intersections, even if the light is in your favour? That seems challenge-able in court, to me...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  52. Damn elevators. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've known for years now that close door buttons in elevators have no effect. I've been in dozens of elevators and have tried the button for the hell of it to no avail. I don't bother anymore. I always assumed there was some kind of associated safety law. What I don't get is why they keep the damn button there; I assume it's cheaper to do so than to remove the button for the US market. I do know for a fact that the button does work overseas. It's why I would try the button when I got back to the States.

    Honestly, I don't know if in this particular case it's a placebo effect so much as Americans being conditioned to believe that anything in a public space is likely busted or not working properly. There seems to be a general state of disrepair in the US that I haven't really encountered in other countries. On the one hand, you've got ham-fisted oafs and outright vandals who are compelled to break everything in sight. And on the other hand, you've got service people who can't be bothered to do their jobs, or management which apparently doesn't take enough pride to pay to get things fixed. But then, if something keeps getting broken, eventually you just give up and leave it be.

    1. Re:Damn elevators. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are there for a specific use - firefighters. When the key is used to put an elevator into fire mode it behaves very different to normal. You specifically have to open and close the door, it is not automatic. The only automatic door action is that the door closes if you only partially open it.

      So, in fire mode the firefighters take the elevator to say the 10th floor the elevator will go to 10 and stop, but the door remains shut. They can then open the door, and if it is unsafe simply let go of the door open button and the door automatically recloses. If it is safe and they open the door fully, then the door stays open until someone specifically closes the door using the door close button.

    2. Re:Damn elevators. by swillden · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is why they keep the damn button there; I assume it's cheaper to do so than to remove the button for the US market.

      The button works fine in fire and sometimes service modes. It's still needed, just not for the common situation.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Damn elevators. by mewsenews · · Score: 1

      There seems to be a general state of disrepair in the US that I haven't really encountered in other countries.

      Fucking Americans always have to be #1 in everything

  53. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

    Also, a person who sees a thermostat upon entering a room for a meeting will feel like a jerk calling to fix the temperature if he hasn't at least tried the thermostat first. When he attempts to adjust the thermostat there's a delay before even considering to call. Perhaps it just takes a bit to warm up (I've even seen some that make a hiss when you adjust it past the current temperature but still do not impact the temperature) so people end up waiting to see. By the time they realize the thermostat is definitely not working the meeting is 2/3 done and they don't want to bother calling to get it fixed for the next guy. That might be laziness or selfishness but it's not placebo effect.

  54. London's tube by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    You can always spot the visitors to London because they'll actually press the open door button on the underground trains.

  55. ButtonClosuril by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Ask your Doctor"

  56. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by CCarrot · · Score: 1

    I know of a quite a few intersections where pedestrian traffic light won't turn green without the use of a button.

    This reminds me of something I have always wondered about...why is it that some walk buttons are set up just to enable the 'walk' light?

    The light will change on schedule, regardless of whether I press the button or not, but the little walking-guy symbol won't appear when the light changes unless I have pressed the walk button. The crossing light just stays on the hand / don't walk symbol.

    WTF?

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  57. the internet is not real by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Funny

    it is just a placebo that comes with every operating system

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  58. go stick your head in a pig by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    eh, sometimes you might almost get a beverage almost, but not entirely, completely unlike tea...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  59. A much better link, with correct references by dhammond · · Score: 1
  60. glass of water by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    Oh for a mod point. I've come to look at the election process as voting for Coke or Pepsi when all I want is a glass of water. Transparent and no artificial additives.

    People who like treated water and politics should not see them being made.

  61. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by blair1q · · Score: 2, Informative

    The green is extended a bit when the walk-light is used.

  62. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1
    Indeed, it's not accurate to call this "placebo effect". That would be what happens if - even though the Close Door button wasn't wired up - the doors closed when you pressed it anyway, so firmly do they believe in the power of the Close Door button.

    Plus everybody knows that if you press the button for your floor three times in a row, the doors close right away. Or nearly so. Sometimes you have to do it six times in a row, though.

  63. Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you press it and its non-functional, you're a fool for using a button that doesn't do anything.

    If you don't press it and its functional, you're a fool for not using a button that would save you time.

  64. The walk buttons work at odd hours by yeremein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I often get up early to jog or bike. At 6:00 AM, when I'm on a side street coming to an intersection with an arterial, and the light is red for me and green for the arterial, pressing the walk button will _immediately_ change the light for the arterial to yellow.

    At 8:00 AM, however, with rush-hour traffic clogging up the arterial, the walk button appears to do nothing.

    1. Re:The walk buttons work at odd hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I often get up early to jog or bike. At 6:00 AM, when I'm on a side street coming to an intersection with an arterial, and the light is red for me and green for the arterial, pressing the walk button will _immediately_ change the light for the arterial to yellow.

      At 8:00 AM, however, with rush-hour traffic clogging up the arterial, the walk button appears to do nothing.

      In the UK, they have sensors to prevent the pedestrian crossing from working if any traffic has been seen recently (to show pedestrians who's in charge, natch) - could it be something like that?

  65. Thermostats by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    In one office that I used, the thermostat was not _designed_ to do nothing, but there were about three serious bugs in the implementation that kept it from working. Number one was that it wasn't hooked up in one place, number two was that its sense was reported the wrong way round in a different place, number three was that it controlled the wrong heating. So when after long complaints bug #1 was fixed, the temperature in the left half of a large office went down when the guys in the right half turned the temperature up. Just good that the room was too big to create a feedback loop.

  66. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I worked for a commercial HVAC controls company, and the thermostats that people think don't work actually do work.

    We had a policy of setting them to allow a +/- 2 degree (F) adjustment. That's all most people want or need anyway, and anything more than +/- 5 degF will screw up the system's efficiency.

    There were always serial whiners that wanted more than 2 degF swing on their stats, so we gave them 3 degF. If they kept it up, we'd lock their stat to 80 degF in the summer and 65 degF in the winter and disable the 2 degree adjustment entirely. Building management always allowed it, and we had remote management control over EVERYTHING. Chillers, boilers, fans, pumps, dampers, valves, air/water/steam, it was all controllable from a remote terminal.

    Suggestion: don't piss these guys off. They can make you very uncomfortable. The BOFH stories are not an exaggeration.

  67. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by CCarrot · · Score: 1

    The green is extended a bit when the walk-light is used.

    Okay, now that makes some sense!

    Now I'll have to get out my trusty stopwatch and test some of the lights around here to see if they actually do that, or if the city planners are just f%$*ing with us...

    Thanks!

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  68. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...65 degF in the winter and disable the 2 degree adjustment entirely.

    So you end up with women bringing in 1.5kW heaters to place under their desks? <sarcasm>That's efficient and safe. </sarcasm>

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  69. Wow... by aardwolf64 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, I went to the link to read TFA, and realized that the TFS isn't a summary at all. It's just a copy/paste of the entire blog post with the line breaks taken out. It's amazing what constitutes "New for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" these days...

    1. Re:Wow... by neonsignal · · Score: 1

      It's all a plot to try and make you read the article...

  70. Sometimes the close door button works by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    I used to work in an 36 floor office complex with elevators that had to be at least 30 years old at the time. I forgot the brand name (I'm leaning towards OTIS) but all the floor buttons were touch sensitive while the "open door" and "close door" were traditional buttons. Normally the "close door" button was ignored by the elevator controller, but every once in a while they would put one in "manually operated mode" for what I believe to be fire training. In fact in normal operation, we were more worried about keeping the doors open than trying to hurry up the elevator. It wasn't uncommon to occasionally get pinched by the door. The safety devices which were manual bumpers always kicked in, but it was never pleasant and always got something on your clothes.

    Anyway, occasionally they would leave instructions taped on the control panel, and it read something like:

    1. Place elevator in manual mode with key switch.

    2. Press close door button.

    3. Press number of floor.

    4. After reaching floor and determining it's safe press open door button.

    I assume the more modern elevators will automatically close the door when the number of floor button in pressed even in "manual mode". I always figured that it was cheaper to have the "close door" on a standard control panel and only connect it when a elevator controller actually used it. I didn't think the elevator companies intended it to be a placebo.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  71. My experience... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    In my experience, pressing the pedestrian button at a traffic light will increase the amount of time that the light will stay green for the corresponding direction of traffic by about an additional 15 to 20 seconds, giving people walking across additional time to clear the road. Also, if you don't press it, the pedestrian "Walk" sign doesn't even come on. They do *NOT* make the lights at a controlled intersection change any sooner. They never have, except at crosswalk intersections that are wholly pedestrian controlled in the first place, and I have openly mocked people in the past for believing otherwise.

    1. Re:My experience... by ctsupafly · · Score: 1

      I've generally believed (and all my limited testing has suggested) pressing the crosswalk buttons does the same thing as pulling up to the intersection in a car. All it does is trip the sensor, telling the lights that someone is waiting to go. This is especially evident in smaller cities where you can come across a button that will immediately turn the cross traffic light yellow when pressed if no one is coming, but lets cars clear if they're there.

  72. Elevators and Walk both erratic around here. by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

    In my building, the "Close door" elevator button works on the elevator that goes to the parking garage levels, but it's debatable if it does anything on the main elevators. Those seem to close so quickly, they are often closing before you have even pressed your floor button! It takes some insane impatience (and impressively fast floor-button-pushing,) to want them to close any faster than they already do.

    Crosswalk buttons in Portland are a mixed bag. There are some that are ancient, and likely don't do anything, and there are some that are required to trigger the signal. Then there are a couple newly installed ones downtown that I don't know if they do anything or not. Most of downtown has no buttons, they just turn when the light turns; but there are a couple intersections where they added them. I'm so impatient I rarely wait for the signal, I just wait for traffic to die down (as is pretty much standard in Portland,) but I suppose some day I'll have to wait and see if it changes WITHOUT pushing the button.

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  73. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    In some intersections it prevents the oncoming traffic from getting a left turn signal.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  74. Not the same as the placaebo effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a perception and satisfaction trick. This is not the same as the brain actually tricking the body into getting healthy.

  75. Better than that by ceswiedler · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think the "door close" buttons cause the crosswalk lights to change, and the "walk" buttons cause the elevator doors to close.

  76. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

    Beyond all that, the placebo effect is "inactive agent is applied and there is a result because the patient believes the agent is actually active". The buttons, etc. mentioned in the article are not placebos because the effect happens even if the button is not pressed. The button does not effect the actual outcome, as a placebo does, but rather give the person pressing the button something to do, thereby making them feel less helpless and thus more patient in the matter.

    What is described is more "Here, stupid monkey, play with this to make yourself feel useful while waiting for the inevitable to happen.", rather than "He had a physiological reaction to a sugar pill that we told him was actual medicine for his condition."

  77. With great power comes great responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of my recent trip to Denmark. Spent most nights walking a mile or so back to my hotel for the night. My buddy and I discovered much to our delight that the "walk" buttons actually worked!. Not only did they work, but the response was dependable and immediate!

    One night we got intoxicated and tried to time the light so we could force another car to run the red. The results were not nearly as disasterous as you may think. The results were, however, very funny.

    I suppose this is one reason the buttons do nothing in most places now. Not everyone will use this power for good.

  78. Why oh why by tempest69 · · Score: 1

    Did Microsoft designers have to take this to heart. I wonder if this is in their cubicles as a little pick me up. "Add dummy controls to make it seem like they have some control". I'm pretty sure the refresh button for wireless is a dummy button.

  79. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by IgnitusBoyone · · Score: 1

    I agree, any time I read these articles they never mention that close door buttons are for key turn control mode. They just act like they are put in the panel to please people.

    I have my doubts about all therm controls, but In most of the buildings I have worked in I'm told that they only work when the computer is down or during off hours. Even during these times it isn't adjusting the temp that changes anything they clam you have to hold a button down on the panel for x number of seconds and then you get an arbitrary length of air (e.g. an hour).

    Either way, normally the nobs and switches which have no function are either outdated redundant controls that used to work. Or only work under certain conditions like the closed door button.

    --
    Momento Mori
  80. Wouldn't a "auto walk lights" sign be cheaper? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    If the issue is that people walking up to a light expect to hit a button, I'd assume they'd be just as satisfied seeing a sign telling them that the lights will change for them.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  81. I was suspect of "close elevator" button by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    I was in a hotel 2 months ago, and I remember thinking how stupid it was to have a "close elevator" button. I even remarked to my girlfriend how pointless it was, unless you wanted to knock out a quick one on the ground floor.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  82. Perhaps Otis is the only one doing this by northerner · · Score: 1

    I think it would be beneficial for elevators to close doors and move on if the passengers are ready. I suspect most elevators do make use of this input to increase throughput. Perhaps only Otis elevators don't use this input. A good slogan for their competitors would be "Our Close buttons work." Take a look at this week's Nova episode "Trapped in an Elevator". http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/trapped-elevator.html They talk about how one hotel had a 30% increase in elevator throughput by getting users to input the floor they wanted rather than just use up/down buttons. They could then pick up all people going to the same floor and optimize which elevator to send.

  83. Here's the deal on the Door Close buttons.. by the_rajah · · Score: 1

    Obviously, different elevators made by different companies, installed in different eras may well work differently. I am an elevator design Engineer for someone other than Otis. Our door close buttons work during normal operation on the majority of the thousands of elevators we've built and installed over the past quarter century that I've been designing them. There are some qualifications, though. The door close button won't work unless the elevator door is all the way open (door open limit switch is operated).

    In "Independent Service" mode, the doors will stay open indefinitely until they are closed by constant pressure on either a car call button or the door close button. Releasing the button before you get the door all the way closed and are leaving the floor will allow the door to reopen.

    In "Fire Service" mode where emergency personnel have taken control of the elevator, the Door Close button is operational, but only in constant pressure mode. The same is true of the Door Open button. So, if the door is closed, you can press the open button and the door will open as long as you keep pressure on it or until it gets all the way open. Once it's all the way open, it will stay open. Similarly the Door Close button will close the door as long as it's pressed, but will re-open if you release it before it gets all the way closed.

    Note that elevators designed using 1987 and prior years ASME codes will probably work differently. Many from that era don't have a Door Close button at all.

    Note, too, that some municipalities have used alternate codes and the operation will be different than what I've described.... Chicago, I'm looking at you.

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
  84. Priorities. by tempest69 · · Score: 1

    People complain about the things they want fixed first, so the cross-walk button takes a back seat to the monster potholes. The elevator button takes a back seat to the building doors not locking. The thermostat takes a back seat to firing the incompetent guys who cant get the furnace to work right.

    How many placebo buttons did you code into your last application?

  85. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by Stregano · · Score: 1

    Well not now since you and the article ruined it for me.

    --
    The world is how you make it
  86. It's true... by sycomonkey · · Score: 1

    During my stint in pizza delivery, I became painfully aware of the uselessness of probably 75% of Close Door buttons on elevators during normal operation. It's funny that it almost never works at hospitals, which you would expect would share my sense of urgency. It was highly frustrating.

    Walk buttons are another one I thought had to be true. It's a bigger problem in Bellevue that Seattle, though. Often in Seattle, the light on the main thoroughfare will stay green until it detects a car stopped on the cross street. At certain intervals the Don't Walk sign crossing the cross street will flash, but it will go back to walk unless there's a car (in which case it's Don't Walk in both directions) or someone actually hits the button to cross the thoroughfare. This is a good system, I think.

    --
    --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
  87. I figured this out years ago by egburr · · Score: 1

    At least for the crosswalk buttons and elevator close door buttons.

    For crosswalks, it doesn't take long to notice the lack of effect when the only time the light changes is when a car eventually comes up on the low-traffic cross street. I have had to cross against a red light so often, I don't even bother pushing the button anymore. Of course, I just figured they were consistently broken just about everywhere and that nobody ever bothered repairing them. I had not considered that they were intentionally disabled.

    For elevators, I can't remember a time when the close door button ever did anything. I always figured it was there for the firemen when they used their keys to take control of the elevator.

    As for office thermostats, I've never messed with them, so I've never had the opportunity to notice that they don't work either; now I'll have to check that out at my office. With my luck, it probably will work, and we'll all fry.

    --

    Edward Burr
    Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
  88. The goggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The goggles.

    They do nothing.

  89. Coke, Pepsi and Water are not the choices by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Coke Pepsi and Water are not the choices here.

    It's more like Coke, Pepsi or a bag of salty nuts.

    As soon as you try the salty nuts, you're right back to Coke or Pepsi.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  90. close door after open door button by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

    I've seen elevators where if you press the "open door" button to abort the natural door closing to help a straggler, then the "close door" button does immediately start the door closing. This is easy to test, by using "open door", and timing how long it waits until it tries to close on its own. Do that a few times to verify that it is consistent, and then you can test "close door" and show it had an effect.

  91. LIES LIES LIES by masmullin · · Score: 1

    Our world is nothing but lies.

  92. Just in an elevator on Saturday by swb · · Score: 1

    And the "close door" button appeared to work. The door closed immediately after pressing it. This building normally holds the doors open for a long time, too; the door would not have normally closed as quickly.

    FWIW, this building is pretty old (1920s?) and just had all its elevators modernized with new cars (and I'm presuming new controls, etc). Can't remember if it was an Otis or not.

    Speaking of Otis, I wonder if what they mean was that the "default" configuration has no close-door button at all, not just a dummy close door button. A ton of elevators have neither a close nor open door button.

  93. Why? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    Okay, so you can fool people into thinking those buttons do something. Is there a point to it though? Elevators in this building, the doors stay open for 30 seconds, that's 5 seconds of the door being open when I need it to be open and 25 seconds of "why isn't it closing?" Some engineer things that's an ideal amount of time in any situation despite what the passengers might think?

  94. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by drgregoryhouse · · Score: 1

    That will depend on how you look at it. If taking the placebo means you will still die of the disease you take the pill for, the author interpretation is valid.

  95. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Just ask the commuters waiting at the red in the cross-street. They know in their guts that it takes longer when someone does that.

  96. An urban legend in the making by MarsCtrl · · Score: 1

    There's one part of this "the 'Close Door' button is disconnected" legend that really bothers me: the purported behavior is so trivially easy to test, but we keep falling back on "Otis Elevator engineers confirmed the fact", even though this is precisely the type of appeal to authority that we are all so quick to condemn when we observe it elsewhere. Several commenters have pointed out that they don't see this behavior in the elevators they encounter - so isn't it about time that we all did some rigorous scientific analysis?

    Here, I'll start.

    My own experience suggests that the close button often works, so that's the hypothesis I'm going to test. The elevator in my building is a Kone (unfortunately, I have no other information about it - no serial number was listed, and the State of Georgia doesn't seem to post elevator inspection details online).

    After the doors first opened and I walked in, I observed a roughly 5 second delay on my stopwatch before the doors attempted to close. The same delay-before-closing was present when I called an elevator but did not step on, and when I took the elevator to a different floor, whether or not I stepped off. The delay before closing was reduced to three seconds for subsequent closing attempts if I interrupted the first closing of the doors with my arm. These measurements served as my baseline for subsequent testing.

    I began a fresh test by stepping out of the elevator, letting the door close, and then calling it again. Upon entering the elevator, I immediately pressing the "Door Close" button without first selecting a floor, and observed the door closing immediately after. The same behavior occurred when I selected a floor before pressing "door close", but no change from the baseline was observed when selecting a floor without pressing "door close".

    Conclusion: For this particular elevator model, the "door close" button does indeed cause the doors to close sooner.

    I don't have a way of quickly determining whether there are, in fact, elevators out there that have intentionally disabled close buttons, but I've got a working theory about where this legend is coming from.

    First, every time I've heard the claim that the "Door Close" button doesn't work, it has come from an Otis Elevator representative. It's quite possible that this is a claim that is only true for Otis elevators, but is only reported because there's very little news in putting on a ThyssenKrupp representative saying, "Our 'Door Close' buttons actually work!"

    Second, I have been in elevators where selecting a floor would automatically trigger a door close event. It's plain to see that with this design, a door close button is redundant - but it's also easy to imagine a customer refusing to buy an elevator without a "Door Close" button. Adding a nonfunctional button allows the sales team to get that extra checkmark on the feature list, and also makes for a great story about "dumb management decisions" for the engineers to pass around.

    I'd encourage you all to experiment with this on your own to see if this also applies for other manufactures. If you e-mail me your observations (peter@stormlash.net), I'll tabulate the data and provide it to anyone who is interested. I recommend the following test rubric:
    1) How long does the door take to close when no buttons are pressed?
    2) Does the time for the door to close decrease when a previous close attempt has been interrupted?
    3) Does "door close" cause this time to decrease when no floor is selected?
    4) Does selecting a floor cause this time to decrease?
    5) Does pressing "door close" with a floor selected change anything?

    --

    I was going to put a sig here, but I had already submitted the message.
  97. Ha ha! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm generally amazed when a button actually DOES work. (I lived in a building where the elevator doors instantly responded. That was great.)

    When buttons do nothing, I just fume at the city or whatever agency I happen to live under the management of.

    But Placebo?

    Far too much is attributed to that effect. I think there must be a sliding scale of environmental awareness where some people are a lot more easily fooled than others. Heck, I know this to be true. I wonder if perhaps those who cry, "Placebo Effect!" are among those who are more easily fooled and thus have a hard time working out what reality is actually doing most of the time. Perhaps this is why science is so important to them? Their instincts are poor and thus they need a reliable system of reality reading, not to fall back on or use in conjunction with, but as their primary guide to existence.

    Hm. Interesting.

    -FL

    1. Re:Ha ha! by stolhs · · Score: 1

      Hello my friend FL. I am off topic, but i have a question... is there a way in slashdot to communicate directly with a user? I am interested to have an email of yours, if it is OK with you, but i cant find a way to send you a direct message. Is there a way for us to exchange EMAILS?

    2. Re:Ha ha! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Hello my friend FL. I am off topic, but i have a question... is there a way in slashdot to communicate directly with a user? I am interested to have an email of yours, if it is OK with you, but i cant find a way to send you a direct message. Is there a way for us to exchange EMAILS?

      I'm sorry, but that's not going to happen. Hell, I seed to mislead. Too many creepy crawlies around here to not take appropriate precautions.

      -FL

    3. Re:Ha ha! by stolhs · · Score: 1

      ---Of topic again-- Lets say that someone, in a foreign country (maybe in Canada ) writes articles, or better comments, in sites (forums?) like http://www.kuro5hin.org/ or http://everything2.com/ and slashdot.... - He is using the same alias in all these comments of his - A significant percentage of his comments are strange for 99% of people who read them. Many times he takes advantage of general topics to unfold his ideas about .hmmm lets say fringe concepts. This ideas usually are not understood, people think that they are crap, that he has overreacting imagination, or he is very good at science fiction stories. Many (maybe) are laughing and they just go ahead shaking their heads “O my God he is lunatic”. After all, concepts he is talking about are not of this earth. When this ‘someone’ writes a long comment, often he ends with something like ” As usual, absorb at your own risk” Lets say now, that someone else, in another foreign country (maybe in Greece), after he has read many of this comments, he try (by taking advantage of the communication possibilities internet has to offer), to say hallo and even exchange thoughts.. Things maybe just as simple.and of course there is not always success. Just a thought..

  98. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by johnmig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The point about office thermostats is true where I work. I have a nice new office complete with thermostat. The temperature regularly climbs to beyond 82 Degrees F (that's ~28C), when I complained about it, they told me to use the thermostat to adjust the temp. That was the point where I told them that I watched the process of construction as they built the office, and that I know that the thermostat is a dummy (looks good, but isn't connected to anything, wires just dangling in the wall). At this point they realized they were busted, but still wouldn't do anything for me. The claim is that fixing this for me would require the re-balancing of the the entire building, and they weren't going to do it for just one person. So I keep a fan going for when it's too warm, and a sweater for wen it's too cold. For them the ruse still worked, I don't complain any longer, 'cause I know that nothing will change.

  99. Holy Inaccurate Percentages (Blind as a) Batman! by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1

    Right now seems like >98% vote for Coke/Pepsi.

    Really? Because last I checked over half the country had decided to vote with their feet and walk away from the whole debacle. Whether you like it or not that counts as a vote too. A vote of no confidence.

    Every election that percentage seems to get smaller as people wise up and consider the lack of real change an indication of a rigged game. If the game is rigged or useless like those crosswalk buttons, then why play? As the trend continues to accelerate and less and less people buy into the joke our political process has become the percentages of people refusing to vote will continue to grow.

    How low of a voter turn out does there have to be before the game ends for lack of players?

    --
    Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
  100. No Wonder! by funky49 · · Score: 1

    There is no placebo effect. I just get mad at a button not doing as its marked.

    --
    --- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
  101. Hogwash by DogDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Further, people STILL don't know everything that is in the healthcare law and that is STILL creating future uncertainty. It's pointless to hire and train new people today if you don't know if you'll be able to afford them in 6 months or a year." Nice Fox News talking points. As an employer, I can tell you that this particular Fox News talking point is absolute hogwash. It's so wrong, it's laughable. Employers don't decide to hire or not hire people based on taxes. Maybe huge, tax-dodging employers do (ie: Haliburton, Wal-Mart), but small and mid size employers hire people when they need them, regardless of what the tax rate is now or in the future. Do you honestly think that Joe Blow sandwich shop owner thinks, "I really need to hire another person to cover the morning shift, but I'd better hold off because my tax bill may go up by 3% next year"? C'mon. You don't have to be a business owner to understand this. You just have to be able to think. The whole "uncertainty" story that Fox News/Republicans have drummed up is just plain stupid. Nobody knows what the future holds.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Hogwash by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      Nice Fox News talking points. As an employer, I can tell you that this particular Fox News talking point is absolute hogwash. It's so wrong, it's laughable. Employers don't decide to hire or not hire people based on taxes. Maybe huge, tax-dodging employers do (ie: Haliburton, Wal-Mart), but small and mid size employers hire people when they need them, regardless of what the tax rate is now or in the future. Do you honestly think that Joe Blow sandwich shop owner thinks, "I really need to hire another person to cover the morning shift, but I'd better hold off because my tax bill may go up by 3% next year"? C'mon. You don't have to be a business owner to understand this. You just have to be able to think. The whole "uncertainty" story that Fox News/Republicans have drummed up is just plain stupid. Nobody knows what the future holds.

      Funny, as a former employer (I quit in part to take care of a disabled parent), I did have to consider the costs of hiring and retaining new employees. I managed restaurants for about 15 years and sales tax increases, minimum wage increases, changes in fuel and utility taxes, property tax rate increases, et al played into our hiring and expansion decisions. Expecting me to pay thousands of dollars extra to hire employee low skill/low wage workers causes at least one of two things to happen - an increase in prices (likely with a decrease in business) and/or less hiring (you make your existing staff work a little harder as you decide to let a little attrition occur to balance things out).

      Now, it doesn't take a lot to understand this, you just have to be able to think. Is it worth hiring more staff to marginally expand your business (most businesses don't experience exponential growth) if the increased costs are going to cause unecessary risk? And how you do estimate that risk if you don't even know how much those new employees will ultimately cost you. So instead of building that ice cream take out window and hiring four people to man it, you forgo it, figuring those four people, with staff turnover rates and the potential increased expenses from having to pay for insurance for them, won't produce enough of a margin for you to bother investing in the first place. At best, you delay until you get more certainty, at worst, the plans are scrapped all together.

      If you think uncertainty doesn't matter, go to your local bank and tell them you want to borrow money to start a business. You have no business plan, you don't have any clue of how much demand there is for your business, how much it'll cost to make your product to meet demand, what kind of profit margins you'll run or how long it'll take to pay back the loan, but hey, you're sure you'll be able to pay them back eventually so why wouldn't they invest in you?

      Would you take out a loan if you didn't know what the interest rate was going to be?

      To a business owner, someone who invests in their own business, uncertainty DOES matter. Only an idiot jumps in head first without checking to see just how deep the water is.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    2. Re:Hogwash by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I think you may be exaggerating the effect that uncertainty due to health care legislation or the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts has on hiring. I do not believe your fears are completely unjustified. I just think the level of uncertainty is low enough to that provisions can be made to make up for it.

      Job growth will continue despite these "uncertainties" from the simple fact that when capacity for production is unable to meet demand, the employer would have no choice but to hire more workers.

      The restaurant business is a little different since capacity is also defined by the seating capacity. If all the seats are full then if you managed your restaurant well you should have made a profit or enough to cover the expenses accrued during off-peak demand.

      Manufacturers laid off workers because of excess inventory. When the excess is finally liquidated the manufactures will once again need labor to produce more goods.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    3. Re:Hogwash by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      Manufacturers laid off workers because of excess inventory. When the excess is finally liquidated the manufactures will once again need labor to produce more goods.

      Labor is a commodity just like any other resource... I can hire 4 people for my assembly line or I can hire a machine to replace them. A lot of those jobs that existed will never come back, just like they didn't come back in the buggy whip industry.

      One of the good things about recessions, is it forces everyone to trim the dead weight - shedding people, processes, etc that they couldn't justify getting rid of before. After cutting back, they realize that those positions weren't necessary before or that there are more productive ways of replacing them, freeing up capital for new ideas. If you have no idea what your labor may ultimately cost you, it may very well make more sense to spend more up front on another means of production (robotic assembly, automated bakeries or foundries, even outsourcing to another country, etc) where your costs will be known.

      Simple fact is, there are a lot of unknowns out there and, combined with an economy that, at a minimum, doesn't feel like it is recovering, few small business people (institutional investors are an entirely different gig, making money by jiggling existing assets, while new jobs are mostly created at the small business level) are going to want to risk an investment unless they absolutely have to.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
  102. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously- I worked in a freezing office, and no matter how many times we called the building and they claimed they raised the temperature on the thermostats, it would still be freezing in the office. We are talking my hands are so cold that it is affecting my typing accuracy cold. We suspected it had something to do with the thermostat being near our network closet which could get quite hot, thus raising the temperature near the thermostat.

    But anyway, I decided to solve the problem by going on Amazon and buying the cheapest space heater I could find- it was about $10 before shipping. It had a plastic circular grill on the front of it. I had it for about a week, and I noticed some "holes" in the concentric circle rings, which I found unusual because I thought they were unbroken when it was new. I went in for a closer look, and saw that the plastic grill was melting, and had I left for the night without shutting it off, I could have quite easily burned the office down.

    I called up the building after that and showed them my melted mess of a space heater. All of a sudden the problem finally fixed itself.

  103. Re:Holy Inaccurate Percentages (Blind as a) Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How low of a voter turn out does there have to be before the game ends for lack of players?

    That's an interesting thought experiment. I don't know what, if any provisions there are for zero votes, except for a few basic things. For example, a tie in the electoral college means the Speaker of the House, or VP makes the decision, I forget which.

    Now let's say there is ONE registered voter. Then it gets more interesting, especially if the candidates could be assured of that voter's identity. "If elected, I promise to plant money trees on your block".

    Before these idealized cases, you have voter rolls shrinking to tiny percentages. That in and of itself isn't terribly interesting unless demographics shrink at different rates.

    For example, a low turnout of Blacks vs. Whites. What happens then? Actually, that kind of thing is really just an extension of regular politics without low turnout; but it seems like a group that's already a minority would be doing itself an even greater disservice by voting less.

    IMHO, some groups already do themselves harm by being a "reliable bloc". When the party already has your vote, they don't have to please you.

  104. I knew it ! by PlaceboFX · · Score: 1

    I suspected the effects of placebo's were all in the mind, but until the research is conclusive, I'm going to keep taking my placebos. Not taking any chances.

  105. DOE by edawstwin · · Score: 1

    Department of Education. No rise in student's test scores in any category since the department's inception and billions of dollars wasted.

    --
    I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    1. Re:DOE by dwinks616 · · Score: 1

      "Test scores" are exactly WHY the department of education needs abolished. This crap of "teaching the test" needs to stop. Every teacher I know spends all year teaching the proficiency test and doesn't have time to actually teach anything, so the only thing kids learn now is how to pass a test.

  106. LOL by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

    Oh, how funny it is to read the complaints you citizens of the United States have... Because, you know, most of you seem very comfortable at getting the sensation of freedom, democracy and security when the price is payed by the decomposing bodies of your soldiers in a remote corner of the world. Thus, gathering money to pay for the healthcare of the poor seems pretty cheap to me.

    In fact, that very same thing is done in a lot of countries, both richer and poorer than the U.S. If you had a little more empathy - starting with your fellow citizens and then towards the rest of the world - there'd be no stopping you. You'd have to fight no wars, because you'd have no enemies. Of course, you could argue there's no stopping you right now, the very way you are... but that'd just be you being yourselves.

    (end of rant)

    --
    Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
    1. Re:LOL by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      My bad, my comment was meant to be a reply to this one: http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1858882&cid=34164336

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
  107. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the coworkers in my office brought in a space heater and placed it under her desk not too long ago.

  108. They don't think we notice?! by Machtyn · · Score: 2

    You're darn tootin' we notice!!!! They HVAC people stopped getting calls because people got tired of adjusting the thermostat that never worked and calling the HVAC people. While we may sometimes push that "Close Door" button on the elevator, those of us who use an elevator long enough have realized the timing hasn't been effected since "the late '90s". Isn't New York in enough debt without having to install extra push buttons on every corner of the city if the buttons aren't going to do anything?

    And psychologists wonder why Americans are so up tight, their blood pressure skyrocketing, etc... because the darn "conveniences" don't flippin' work! And apparently, they don't work on purpose. And then we get felt up and/or violated when we use the convenience of quickly traveling from one place to another.

    1. Re:They don't think we notice?! by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      You sound agitated? I am currently working on an amazing non-adictive anxiety drug, that gives confidence and energy, along with a full head of hair (or breasts .. it's looks at the X/Y chromo.. well, it's all very technical). Would you like to join? Hmm... it looks like you will be in the plaa. .uh. aning group. /Big Smile

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
  109. ..in your town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there's no master scheduling algorithm - it's up to the dept. of works to configure a variety of sensors, a delicately-timed routine, and/or general traffic patterns to work together.

    In a small town, you may get a simple 9-5 pattern with no dynamism, or as in Boulder, you have pressure sensors in the bike lanes.

    "Wow, in *my* town, the lights work!", meanwhile in Town X, "Wow, in *my* town the lights don't work!"

    (as an aside, I'd like to move to 'Town X' or at least visit for the t-shirt..)

  110. Yeah, we know. by russotto · · Score: 1

    I work in a building in NYC. Close door button? It wouldn't matter if it worked or not, because the doors close as soon as the sensors are clear (and not all the sensors work that well).

    Walk button? Nobody pushes them. People in NYC cross streets whenever the light is green or traffic is clear, or they think they can make it without getting run over.

    Office thermostats are another matter. IME, it doesn't take long for people to figure out which thermostats work and which don't. But I've always worked with engineers.

  111. Just Like Slashdot by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    The "Reply to This" button is decorative.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:Just Like Slashdot by azgard · · Score: 1

      Really? Who would have guessed..

  112. Placebo: it's not just for elevators anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once worked as a maintenance engineer in a broadcast facility. The first complaint I was assigned was the news audio console. The report was that the microphone channel was weak and the announcer had to stand too close to the mic.

    The news director demonstrated the problem (by showing me where he was standing to get normal audio level and where he used to stand) and then told me he knew which chip needed to be replaced, because it had been replaced before to cure the same problem

    The chip he identified was a logic gate, which seemed unlikely to be the problem. But it was a 25-cent part and in a socket, so I replaced it. The client declared everything back to normal and thanked me.

    Later, studying the circuit confirmed that there was nothing about the circuit that would lose audio gain if this chip failed - it would fail on, off or noisy.

    On a hunch, I kept the removed chip in a bin by itself.

    In a couple of weeks, the same complaint was back from the same guy. This time I "repaired" it by putting the chip in that I removed last time. Again, the client was happy at regaining his usual distance from the mic.

    About 3 times a month, he would write up the same complaint, and from then on, I replaced the chip with the same one I had removed on the previous service call.

    I never told him what I was doing, but the rest of the maintenance department knew and many lulz were vocalized.

  113. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elevator buttons sometimes work. Pedestrian buttons sometimes work. It isn't a placebo. At my work, we have lots of expensive equipment that is temperature sensitive. There are thermostats around and they appear to be hooked up to something. Because after 2.5 years of malfunctioning equipment, hundreds of calls to facilities, and countless thermostat adjustments, I ripped one off the fucking wall just to see.

  114. vending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy coke.
    SOLED OUT.
    push coin return.
    nothing
    push it again
    nothing
    buy diet code.
    pissed I was forced to buy diet

  115. Windows Mental Security by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Next we'll find out that the "Update Windows" button does nothing.

  116. Maybe they do get it by Pmpnjomama · · Score: 1

    Perhaps people do realize that the thermostat is not hooked up? Obviously management has told them to go fuck themselves in a passive aggressive manner so they just stop complaining. That's not a placebo it is excepting the reality of your situation.

  117. Walk buttons by dbirnbau · · Score: 1

    If you read the signs attached to the walk buttons at crosswalks it usually says something like: "Press Button Wait for Walk Signal" Note that nowhere in that statement is anything tying the button press to the appearance of the walk signal. Waiting for the walk signal is merely good advice in most places that aren't California.

  118. I love placebos! by SlideRuleGuy · · Score: 1

    I take around 23 placebos a day, and I feel great!!!!!!!!!

  119. Elevators by crossmr · · Score: 1

    Here in Korea the close door buttons actually do work, which is great. You push it and it immediately closes.

    Really speeds up the ride when you have a lot of people pushing both directions so they can just "get on" leaving the elevator being called to empty floors.

    The elevators here also allow you to "unpush" a floor. If you accidentally hit one just push it again and it'll unselect. Maybe they do have them back home, but I'd never seen one that did that back in Canada.

  120. Placebo effect is everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course the placebo effect covers more than drugs. Take the bicycle helmet for example - these foam plastic hats are capable of providing a limited amount of energy dissipation when a person falls of a stationery bicycle aided by nothing more than gravity (i.e. ISO 5Kg headform with a 1.5m drop). More than that requires suspension of the laws of physics.

    Now how many people claim to believe their life was saved by one of these hats when they think 1000Kg+ of car whacked their skull at 50Km/h? (I'm not saying they were hit with that force, just that they think they were.) I know one person who insisted the same helmet had saved them at least half a dozen times. Most of these people aren't stupid, many are very intelligent, they've just been bombarded with nonsense (otherwise known as marketing or politics) and then handed a placebo to strap on their noggins. And it works - in that they believe that is, its a health & safety disaster but thats irrelevant.

    Why would anybody even think the placebo effect is restricted to drugs when large sections of public society are based on its use?

  121. The article was right! by williamhb · · Score: 1

    I clicked expecting a discussion of the article, and instead I got a placebo discussion about US healthcare reform and taxes!

  122. Turns and metal detectors by tepples · · Score: 1

    You don't need a "pedestrian phase." Pedestrians walk at the same time as traffic moving in their direction.

    For one thing, motorists turn left or right on green, which may cross the path of pedestrians. For another, numerous signals aren't on a timer but instead on a metal detector, such that one direction stays red unless a vehicle with sufficient metal is stopped behind the stop line. These have a hard time picking up bicycles, let alone pedestrians; a cyclist often has to wait ten minutes for an SUV to pull up behind and trigger the metal detector.

    1. Re:Turns and metal detectors by daid303 · · Score: 1

      a cyclist often has to wait ten minutes for an SUV to pull up behind and trigger the metal detector.

      This comes down to configuration. Detection of cyclists is possible, but many locations are wrongly configured. Just complain loudly at the local authorities they have the power to fix this. This isn't a difficult change (for our controllers it just adjusting a single number)

      Also, if you can see the loops in the road (those black squares) put your bike on the edges, not in the center. Loops are more sensitive there.

      Pedestrians are impossible to detect this way, sometimes they use pressure plates. But buttons are cheaper.

  123. irritating tag by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    I disagree with the "idiocracy" tag on this article. It is perfectly rational behavior for me to push the "walk" button at a crosswalk even if there's a decently high chance it will have no effect. Why? Because the cost to me is very small vs. a potentially large payoff if it actually does work.

  124. Then how do you cross the road? by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 1

    Assuming the button doesn't work, how do you actually get to cross the road?

    If the button doesn't work then it means that the streetlights cannot turn red (for car traffic) and that means that there will be vehicle traffic indefinitely. Is there some kind of automated system that stops traffic at regular intervals to allow for pedestrians to cross?

  125. Re:Holy Inaccurate Percentages (Blind as a) Batman by Binestar · · Score: 1

    As more and more people refuse to vote each individual vote is worth more. So keep staying home, that way my vote means more.

    --
    Do you Gentoo!?
  126. Clone the CLOWN is a wannabe "ne're-do-well"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  127. Our non-system healthcare is breaking us NOW by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    We have a money sink causing most bankruptcies today that we NEED to deal with and it is called "medical expenses."

    The medical industry as a whole are breaking the USA more than the military complex. To argue that a change will make it worse as a reason for doing nothing is more than conservative or selfish; it is foolish. Something else NEEDS to be tried. We will end up in a mess anyhow so we may as well try to dig ourselves out. If we do poorly, we end up in a bigger hole and go broke faster but to sit and just wait for the inevitable -- why just give up? We should put up a fight.

    Its not like socialized medicine hasn't been heavily studied and attempted in many ways - there are examples to learn from. Its also not somewhere where we have the time and money to sit around waiting for the PERFECT solution. We need to act -- the sooner the better. If we had addressed this issue 50+ years ago we'd have something to redo, repair, or build upon... oh wait! we do-- Medicare! Most wouldn't give it up, its popular-- it needs to be built upon and some of the past "fixes" need to be removed but those are details.

    1. Re:Our non-system healthcare is breaking us NOW by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Do nothing? Oh, you'd like constructive ideas on /.? Ok, have some.

      The reason our healthcare system is fucked up price-wise is it does not fit the standard capitalism mode. It is effectively a monopoly because of patents on drugs and lack of any competing alternatives on services.

      It seems to me that we already have ways on the books of dealing with monopolies though, so how about we do away with the artificial monopolies that are drug patents. Or even better, only allow drug patents on cure drugs rather than treatment drugs. There's your competition and capitalism working for drugs.

      The costs of preforming the services are the main impediment to lower costs of services. Most of those can be broken down into insurance, lawsuits, equipment, and personnel.

      Equipment and personnel are difficult but the first two can be solved by eliminating multi-million dollar awards (especially in the case of death. dead people do not have to pay for care because of the fuck-up) and raising the bar on what is considered negligence and malpractice. And if we're not going to take Shakespeare's advice on lawyers, we can at least make out-of-court settlements illegal in these kinds of suits and make the cases far less attractive to lawyers. They're currently far too willing to take weak and frivolous cases because they know they'll be settled without ever seeing a jury.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    2. Re:Our non-system healthcare is breaking us NOW by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Well at least somebody wants to talk about it...

      I do not agree that capitalism is the solution to all problems. There are other tools than just that hammer. But I do agree that it does not fit a normal marketplace which is part of the problem. I go further, in saying this market is not a normal market to begin with. It is health not just selling widgets; CAPTIVE customers.

      The big problem today with government is that the corporations have taken it over; the capitalists are running government to create more monopolies etc. Patent system is broken etc. Most people see some aspect of this underlying problem. You can't get your fair competition or much of anything else to work if its against the oligarchy.

      Yes, Drugs are a HUGE HUGE problem.

      I object to your implication drug companies help society. For drug research, the drug companies do almost nothing in the way of finding new cures they put money into adding sugar to the "new" drug, bribery, doing testing, adapting university discoveries, cheaply paying a university for patent rights, and they spend more on marketing than their so called R&D budget. Just because something has been around 30 or even 60 years doesn't mean that is the way it has been or should be. The corps didn't get us the bulk of the way forward even if they are today (and they are not.) We used to provide more gov funding to institutional research - either way we pay for that research; its better without the middlemen skimming off our money. Intrinsic motivation is key to most people actually doing good in this subject, not extrinsic. Making a stupid widget, not much intrinsic value there...

      Insurance.
      Insurance WASTES about 1/3 of the money in the USA. This is a HUGE waste of money; if not theft if you've had to fight with them to do their job. Even if they functioned properly, they are required to increase profits at your expense and you HAVE to buy the stuff. It is a captive market; not a normal market. Like fire/police privatized was horrible and done away with long long ago. Decent local gov includes such emergency services insurance in your taxes. I don't care if my idiot neighbor burns down for not paying but I do when his fire grows and spreads over to me even though I'd pay, it would still greatly increase the risk/damage to me-- so he should be forced to pay; hence the local tax.

      Lawsuits
      This one is a nightmare. The corps want to limit our only ability to fight back. Bad cases do cost the system; however, even with the mess we have it is a negligible overhead cost. It gets too much attention because the corps want to eliminate your right to fight and the corps bribe the system. We'd be screwed already if there weren't groups like trial lawyers bribing in the other direction (1 slime fighting another)

      Personnel. regulation. we need checklists!! accountability is an over used word; but lawsuit madness etc- causes more incorporation which then provides too little accountability... You can keep the lawyers (most powerful lobby group) but limit their pay. I had my father die from human error; I had to threaten legal action or pay the bill for their fuckup! Insurance decided it wouldn't pay any of it by trying pull 1 over on me and sent the bill collectors after me. I payed nothing, its like insurance was just testing to see how much they could screw me... No settlement, they gave in once a "human" looked over the case. Shakespeare would have had worse for insurance people if they had them.

      Equipment. Yes that is tough. Although, we have multiple clinics and hospitals here wasting that gear - all duplicates. If we had what the area required and no competing ones it would be a little cheaper.

      The one you forget is:
      PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
      In the USA, selfishness is equated with freedom. Most our costs come from the last few years of life; we must not die at any price. Its taboo to address this or discuss enforcing any policies and mere counseling services are mislabeled "death panels." Well, I for one can talk rationally ab

  128. Doubtful truth by scurvyj · · Score: 0

    I read this a while back and went hmmm.
    So it seems its done the rounds enough to appear on /.

    Whilst its a great party story (one of the best!), I'm calling BULLSHIT on this one.

    The close door buttons on all the lifts I use around the city most certainly work (eg. you can override the open-door button mid-move with the close-door button).
    Ditto the traffic light triggers.
    .
    Sorry but....

    Bnerrrrrk.
    Rewind.
    Try again.

  129. APK = psychotic asshole stalker & virus author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  130. Re:Holy Inaccurate Percentages (Blind as a) Batman by TheLink · · Score: 1

    That counts as "can safely be ignored". In contrast the Two Parties would start getting nervous if those people actually went to the ballot box and voted.

    As long as the winners of the game make the laws. And the police, military, banks etc enforce the laws, what makes you think the game would end just because most voters don't vote?

    It's even easier for the winners if most of the voters took themselves out of the game.

    --
  131. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's not like taking placebo. It's like taking vitamins.

  132. but you never know by ender89 · · Score: 1

    I have come to suspect that most elevator close buttons don't actually work as we want them too and that walk buttons are unlikely to be in use simply for the hell it would place on traffic shaping, but I still hammer on them if I am in a hurry. Why? You never know when you might get some results. We don't need them to work, we need them to keep hope alive.

  133. Lab rats by Issity · · Score: 1

    So we are like lab rats.

    Most of the walk buttons doesn't work, but you can never be sure if this particular button works or not, so you press it anyway. Otherwise you risk standing there for ages like stupid who doesn't know how to press a button.

  134. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by IICV · · Score: 1

    Actually, this is very well established - random rewards build habits far more efficiently than consistent rewards. It's how people get addicted to gambling.

    Basically, this emergent situation that's been created where sometimes pushing a button has a positive, rewarding effect and sometimes it doesn't is perfect for ensuring that all buttons get pushed.

  135. The Close button does work. Sheesh by greggman · · Score: 1

    Stop repeating this FALSE story. The close button may not work in a few elevators but they work in plenty of others. The close buttons work just fine in all in the elevators at my company in Mountain View.

    Try getting out of your building once in a while. EVERY ELEVATOR IN JAPAN the doors close IMMEDIATELY when pressing the button. Also, Japanese elevators generally don't have light based censors to detect if the door is blocked. They only have the pressure switches.

    and to the people that think the walk buttons don't work. They PROVABLY DO WORK at MOST intersections. They may or may not work at downtown intersections but they most certainly work in most suburbs where often the lights always stay green in one direction unless there is some reason for them not to (like a car in the other direction or someone pressing the walk button).

  136. From a Dew drinker by tepples · · Score: 1

    So maybe if they figure out how to market themselves like Pepsi markets Mountain Dew to young people, the Libs can gain a few seats.

    1. Re:From a Dew drinker by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe indeed.

      But who should really vote for the Libs?

      Quote wiki: "The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects its brand of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries."

      The Libertarians seem more obsessed about quantity than quality - whether for Government or regulation.

      That sort of thinking seems rather stupid to me. Less does NOT automatically mean good. I don't see how "minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets" is going to serve the US people well. Trust me, you want _well_ regulated markets, not minimally regulated markets.

      It's quality that matters more, not quantity.

      Just look around the world and you'd see countries in deep shit because of small corrupt governments and minimally regulated "everything".

      The markets need good regulation, and sometimes that means _heavy_ regulation, sometimes minimal regulation[1]. You have to put the right people in charge of stuff, but when the people at the top are obsessed with quantity and not quality, they're getting the fundamentals wrong already, so what can you expect?

      [1] Remember the people voting at the ballot boxes would be doing just about as good a job (if not worse) voting with their wallets.

      --
  137. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Elevators:
    - Some have the button de-activated during normal operation. Some do not.
    - All of them work during Fire Operation or Service modes
    - One the ones that the button does work during normal operation, you usually have to actually hold it down as opposed to just pressing it.
    - If anybody presses a button outside the elevator, it will over-ride the door close button (most of the time).
    I work in a building which was built 5 years ago, has an Otis elevator, and the close door buttons work just fine. My wife works in one across town built in the 50's and the close door buttons do not work.

    2. Crosswalks:
    Buttons DO work, depending on where you are and how the light is setup.
    - Timer-only modes the button is 'disabled' or ignored, just like the sensor in the street (or the camera on the pole) won't do anything for cars.
    - Trigger-modes the button is the only way for a pedestrian to get the cycle to change.
    - Some lights will only turn green when triggered by a car for long enough to get 2 cars through before going back to the 'primary' direction. If you press the crosswalk it will remain green for the full normal cycle length.

    But the main reason why they leave the buttons on the disabled signals (aside from removal costs) is in case they need to change the lights, the timing, etc.

    3. Thermostats:
    - That trick only works if the people in the office are a bunch of idiots. It can also backfire without warning, because if the boss finds out it's not hooked up then the HVAC guy appears incompetent and isn't going to get a contract renewal.

  138. Re: Mine was ThyssenKrupp by MartijnL · · Score: 1
  139. This is well know. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    It's not 'The Placebo effect' it's A placebo effect. There are different types.
    When someone buys something expensive, they will overlook any flaws for a period of time.

    But, the articel seems to confuse placebo effect with the psychological effect of control. They are NOT the same thing.

    And just for the record, Placebo effects never fix anything. EVER.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:This is well know. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      When someone buys something expensive, they will overlook any flaws for a period of time.

      Or pretend they are features.

      *cough* Apple fanboys *cough*

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  140. I report them to my city's traffic ops dept by tepples · · Score: 1

    Just complain loudly at the local authorities they have the power to fix [a misconfigured loop detector].

    I already call my city's traffic operations department whenever a signal takes more than four minutes to change. They fix some of the detectors, but some still go unfixed, possibly for the reason I'll explain next.

    Also, if you can see the loops in the road (those black squares) put your bike on the edges

    I already do this. The trouble is that a few of these loops are much longer than the typical 6 foot square and appear to have been sized for tractor-trailers, and adjusting them to pick up even a bicycle and a motorcycle parked on the same detector at the same time (yes, this has happened, and the light still failed, with the motorcyclist next to me running the red light once cross traffic and oncoming left turn traffic were clear) would cause them to pick up cars and trucks in adjacent lanes.

  141. mouner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we the public are dumb ...there are a lot of stuff the government are hiding out there

  142. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel the need to point something out: the placebo effect in *no way* suggests that you would be happy with the outcome. It suggests that you would believe that an action that had no effect on the outcome, did in fact have an effect.

    The placebo effect can result in people feeling healthy when getting fake medicine. It can also result in people feeling miserable when given fake poison. Just because placebos are most used in medicine, that doesn't mean placebos *are* medicine.

  143. Re:Not sure author understands meaning of "placebo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congrats to you for knowing a little better than the populace, but for many people, these buttons do act as a placebo.

    People press the crosswalk button to cross the street sooner, and I would say if you did a controlled experiment, one group with a placebo button, one group without any button, and one group with an operating button, the two groups with a button would perceive a faster light change time than the group without a button.

    Same with thermostats, and same with elevator close buttons.

    I'm getting a feeling that the people in this post who are saying "the author is not describing the placebo effect!" are just finding a passive way to smugly say that they are smarter than the average bear, and that they are above such ignorance. But the author is most definitely describing the placebo effect.

  144. I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the walk buttons were for the blind? Some of them have speakers with audio for red/yellow/green.