So you think the business would do just fine if it's employees were all naked half-starved hobos? Or do you believe businesses have a netural right to make you pay half their payroll for them? Perhaps you'd like to pay their light bill too?
So you're new to/.? You should read back through the archived comments. You'll find some very good reasons there. Or just re-read the comments in this article.
Here's a few. It has no concept of imperative (Just do what I said), or best effort (everything must be perfect or it won't even try to continue). It hard codes things that should be configurable or external. For example, it has it's own idea of what makes a device ready for a filesystem to mount and it can't be told otherwise.
All of that is why soft RAID must be assembled in the initrd before systemd has a chance to screw it up. Otherwise, there is simply no way to tell systemd to complete the boot process even if one of the drives in a RAID has failed. The same problem exists mounting btrfs in degraded mode.
Moving on, it actually implements COMEFROM!!! And without even the decency of a label to warn you that you may be bushwhacked. The upshot of that is that any unit anywhere might arbitrarily decide that the unit you're interested in depends on it. It's OK for debugging, but no way to build a dependency tree.
As for design, there is nothing whatsoever about the core functionality that couldn't have been implemented as a service that can run standalone or under the old sysV init in any combination. There are two reasons that might not have happened, terrible and unimaginitive design, or as a power play to get systemd wedged too deep into the system to rip it back out. Neither inspires confidence.
OP is correct. if the business isn't able to pay enough to keep it's employees in food, clothing, shelter, etc, then it is not a viable business. If it CAN but won't then it is a leech on society.
Reducing cost is the first step to increasing care. If the care is unaffordable, it tends to not happen. Other countries with better life expectancy and quality of health care spend HALF what we spend in the U.S.
Other measures that reduce cost (but not provider earnings) include emphasis on generic and well proven drugs rather than the drug of the week, clinical diagnosis rather than a battery of tests, and same proces of medical supplies.
You don't think that might help?
You should also actually look up Romneycare. It's the very ACA like system implemented in Mass. under then governor Romney.
We aren't just losing ground to a couple of countries, we have lost it. According to the WHO, the U.S. is currently in 37th place.
Cyberbit said they were not responsible with what others do with their software, arguing that "governmental authorities and law enforcement agencies are responsible to ensure that they are legally authorized to use the products in their jurisdictions."
The system wasn't working though. It still isn't working all that well, because ACA didn't go nearly far enough. There are several examples around the world of systems that work better based on objective criteria. We should adopt one of them.
So now any sort of rationing is a death panel? We have always had rationing. We can do it on the basis of wealth (rich get manicures while they wait, poor die of treatable illnesses), need (people who might die go first, boo-boos get fixed at home with a band-aid), or?
You do know that nothing says socialized medicine forbids you from paying cash in a private transaction, right? Even then, you benefit since the private care will consider that you will eventually be treated at no additional cost and so will only pay so much for expedited care.
The U.S. is actually well down the list from the U.K. and Commonwealth countries as far as life expectancy and quality of care is concerned. That was true before Obamacare as well.
BTW, ACA is far from single payer, why do you lump them together?
There was nothing rare about rescission. It was common enough that they had software specifically to flag likely expensive patients for dpecial review. They specifically created their applications to make sure they would always have the proverbial 6 lines written by an honest man.
Record profits means only a fool would take their crying about ruinous regulations seriously. They can't be all that ruinous if they're prospering so well.
Now, keep in mind, I would have preferred to cut insurance out of the picture entirely since that approach results in no billing headaches, no confusion, true universal coverage, and it puts such absurdities as $8 aspirins and $130 canvas slings in the legislature's crosshairs.
Note, it wasn't the Democrats who opposed cutting the insurance companies out. Consider how closely Obamacare resembles Romneycare.
Time for code red. If you wait on him, be rude, get his order wrong, and be slow. If you pass him in the street, utter random expletives. Don't hold the elevator for him. Do mot assault or threaten him, just shut him out. Remind Trump that Obama appointed him, perhaps that strange urge to undo anything Obama ever did will take hold. Post it to Twitter. Make it a fun game.
You apparently don't remember pre-ACA insurance. It included such gems as rescission a process where they decide after an expensive medical event that your coverage was terminated the day before. Or somehow an expensive medication was declared to be "experimental" for (non)-coverage purposes.
You may also have missed the way the industry as a whole colluded to insist that uninsured patients get charged far more than insured patients.That continues today.
Finally, health insurers are making record profits this year.
If you look at the price of the surgery centers, they are certainly better, but they are still in the stratosphere. A lot of people simply can't afford them. Urgent care really can't do more than a family doctor. If it's anything really URGENT, they tell you to go to the ER, even though the ER will happily keep you waiting another 6 hours.
The ACA curbed some of the worst insurance company practices and mad it possible for former medical pariahs to get coverage, but the deductibles are killing some people still and the complexity of the billing should be a criminal offense.
Really, our choice is socialized medicine like most of the free world or let people die like the 3rd world.
Non-emergency medicine could work in an anarcho-capitalist system, but half measures wouldn't do it. We'd have to scrap prescription and scheduling laws, drug exclusivity, and a big pile of licensing to have any hope of market forces actually making healthcare affordable to all. That seems even less achievable than fully socialized medicine from a political viewpoint in the U.S.
Most of the exclusive franchise agreements are long gone now. The only reason they ever existed is to assure a company of a fast enough ROI to make building out the network in the first place practical. Minus that, NOBODY was going to build anything unless the government did it.
Those same market forces apply even moreso for a second build-out. It's just not going to happen in most places unless government gets involved.
What we need is to once and for all state that any level of government absolutely has the right to build such a network. That will keep the telcos from suing everyone at the drop of a hat
Next up, punish providers that collude to divide up territory rather than compete.
Slashdot Mirror
And if we assume that what you are implying is 100% true and then a whole bunch more stuff as well, that excuses Trump how?
Surry, i dun''t gi've a fly-''.!ing FICK.
So you think the business would do just fine if it's employees were all naked half-starved hobos? Or do you believe businesses have a netural right to make you pay half their payroll for them? Perhaps you'd like to pay their light bill too?
My sweet little tot. There's a light on this tree that won't light on one side. So I'm taking it home to my workshop...
Ooops, wrong villain. Carry on.
So you're new to /.? You should read back through the archived comments. You'll find some very good reasons there. Or just re-read the comments in this article.
Here's a few. It has no concept of imperative (Just do what I said), or best effort (everything must be perfect or it won't even try to continue). It hard codes things that should be configurable or external. For example, it has it's own idea of what makes a device ready for a filesystem to mount and it can't be told otherwise.
All of that is why soft RAID must be assembled in the initrd before systemd has a chance to screw it up. Otherwise, there is simply no way to tell systemd to complete the boot process even if one of the drives in a RAID has failed. The same problem exists mounting btrfs in degraded mode.
Moving on, it actually implements COMEFROM!!! And without even the decency of a label to warn you that you may be bushwhacked. The upshot of that is that any unit anywhere might arbitrarily decide that the unit you're interested in depends on it. It's OK for debugging, but no way to build a dependency tree.
As for design, there is nothing whatsoever about the core functionality that couldn't have been implemented as a service that can run standalone or under the old sysV init in any combination. There are two reasons that might not have happened, terrible and unimaginitive design, or as a power play to get systemd wedged too deep into the system to rip it back out. Neither inspires confidence.
That has to be the weakest come back ever. It only makes you look stupid and petty in addition to simply wrong.
Upon looking, I see that Amazon requires it's drivers to be 21 or older. What was that about being for teens to make extra money again?
OP is correct. if the business isn't able to pay enough to keep it's employees in food, clothing, shelter, etc, then it is not a viable business. If it CAN but won't then it is a leech on society.
So delivering parcels was always intended to be in violation of the law? Because minors aren't allowed to be delivery drivers.
Actually, that is known to happen.
It doesn't matter here. What matters is that the NY AG is investigating a criminal impersonation and the FCC is obstructing justice.
Reducing cost is the first step to increasing care. If the care is unaffordable, it tends to not happen. Other countries with better life expectancy and quality of health care spend HALF what we spend in the U.S.
Other measures that reduce cost (but not provider earnings) include emphasis on generic and well proven drugs rather than the drug of the week, clinical diagnosis rather than a battery of tests, and same proces of medical supplies.
You don't think that might help?
You should also actually look up Romneycare. It's the very ACA like system implemented in Mass. under then governor Romney.
We aren't just losing ground to a couple of countries, we have lost it. According to the WHO, the U.S. is currently in 37th place.
Said the crack dealer behind the middle school.
The system wasn't working though. It still isn't working all that well, because ACA didn't go nearly far enough. There are several examples around the world of systems that work better based on objective criteria. We should adopt one of them.
So now any sort of rationing is a death panel? We have always had rationing. We can do it on the basis of wealth (rich get manicures while they wait, poor die of treatable illnesses), need (people who might die go first, boo-boos get fixed at home with a band-aid), or?
You do know that nothing says socialized medicine forbids you from paying cash in a private transaction, right? Even then, you benefit since the private care will consider that you will eventually be treated at no additional cost and so will only pay so much for expedited care.
The U.S. is actually well down the list from the U.K. and Commonwealth countries as far as life expectancy and quality of care is concerned. That was true before Obamacare as well.
BTW, ACA is far from single payer, why do you lump them together?
There was nothing rare about rescission. It was common enough that they had software specifically to flag likely expensive patients for dpecial review. They specifically created their applications to make sure they would always have the proverbial 6 lines written by an honest man.
Record profits means only a fool would take their crying about ruinous regulations seriously. They can't be all that ruinous if they're prospering so well.
Now, keep in mind, I would have preferred to cut insurance out of the picture entirely since that approach results in no billing headaches, no confusion, true universal coverage, and it puts such absurdities as $8 aspirins and $130 canvas slings in the legislature's crosshairs.
Note, it wasn't the Democrats who opposed cutting the insurance companies out. Consider how closely Obamacare resembles Romneycare.
Time for code red. If you wait on him, be rude, get his order wrong, and be slow. If you pass him in the street, utter random expletives. Don't hold the elevator for him. Do mot assault or threaten him, just shut him out. Remind Trump that Obama appointed him, perhaps that strange urge to undo anything Obama ever did will take hold. Post it to Twitter. Make it a fun game.
You apparently don't remember pre-ACA insurance. It included such gems as rescission a process where they decide after an expensive medical event that your coverage was terminated the day before. Or somehow an expensive medication was declared to be "experimental" for (non)-coverage purposes.
You may also have missed the way the industry as a whole colluded to insist that uninsured patients get charged far more than insured patients.That continues today.
Finally, health insurers are making record profits this year.
Until your car's display gets the pukalotta virus ;-)
That's a different proposition. The question is how do the people actually that good rate themselves.
If you look at the price of the surgery centers, they are certainly better, but they are still in the stratosphere. A lot of people simply can't afford them. Urgent care really can't do more than a family doctor. If it's anything really URGENT, they tell you to go to the ER, even though the ER will happily keep you waiting another 6 hours.
The ACA curbed some of the worst insurance company practices and mad it possible for former medical pariahs to get coverage, but the deductibles are killing some people still and the complexity of the billing should be a criminal offense.
Really, our choice is socialized medicine like most of the free world or let people die like the 3rd world.
Non-emergency medicine could work in an anarcho-capitalist system, but half measures wouldn't do it. We'd have to scrap prescription and scheduling laws, drug exclusivity, and a big pile of licensing to have any hope of market forces actually making healthcare affordable to all. That seems even less achievable than fully socialized medicine from a political viewpoint in the U.S.
Most of the exclusive franchise agreements are long gone now. The only reason they ever existed is to assure a company of a fast enough ROI to make building out the network in the first place practical. Minus that, NOBODY was going to build anything unless the government did it.
Those same market forces apply even moreso for a second build-out. It's just not going to happen in most places unless government gets involved.
What we need is to once and for all state that any level of government absolutely has the right to build such a network. That will keep the telcos from suing everyone at the drop of a hat
Next up, punish providers that collude to divide up territory rather than compete.
Did you go ask them or is it just a convenient assumption on your part?
And you know that how?
How many did you poll? Are you stalking them to see if they go to the poll?