Spam is an economic problem. People will respond to this by praising their favorite spam filters, and ignoring the obvious fact that the filters don't solve the problem, and never will solve the problem. Spam is present not to piss you off but because spammers make money by sending it out. If you truly want to stop spam, no number or combination of technical fixes, legislative proposals, public executions, user education, or forum posts will do. The one and only way to stop spam is to prevent the spammers from getting paid. We have ways to do this, that have been demonstrated. We just need to actually follow through with it. If spammers don't get paid, they will get out of the business.
I'm pretty sure I've hit a nerve with you on this one, as I know you are quite fond of the Tea Party and all that (you think) it stands for. It clearly drives your judgment on a great many things. Furthermore it appears that it may have hindered your ability to read what I wrote before writing your reply.
When did they fool Americans the first time?
The Koch brothers have only so far managed to fool a subset of America, as I stated in my comment. They want to fool a majority of the voting part of America so they can force their ultra-hard-right agenda upon us.
There is an important distinction there. I said they cannot fool America twice, because if they managed to take power they would not be able to maintain the illusion long enough to retain it in a subsequent election - at least, not one that actually allows all qualified people to vote.
a no-talent rodeo clown?
Smitty, please don't degrade yourself that way. You are way above such petty insults. Just because the Tea Party embraces such pitiful name calling doesn't mean you need to as well.
When (and be specific) has the Tea Party ever been in power?
Again, please go back and read the comment you just replied to. It seems your undies are tied up in a bunch now and you missed some important bits. I did not say they are currently in (or have thus far held) power, rather I said they would need to gain and retain power in order to achieve their objectives.
#OccupyResoluteDesk
Can we lose the silly name calling already? As far as I can tell - by using google at least - you are the only person on the entire internet who is sold on the occupy movement == obama conspiracy enough to push that name for him. Why not just refer to him by his last name like we usually do for presidents whose last names haven't been in the white house before? Your hash tag is more than twice as many keystrokes so you can't make an argument for it being less work.
Wait, are you saying that Tea Partiers are going to engage in voter fraud to achieve their goals of protecting the integrity of our founding ideals? Any evidence or basis for that?
When your group is working to make it more difficult for others to vote, that is voter fraud. Of course, because your group has sold the media on that being a "good" kind of fraud, you don't have to acknowledge it as being an active effort to suppress voters.
I guess I'm supposed to accept the falsehood in silence, or something.
Well, you're willing to vote for liars who want to pass laws that will make your life more difficult and give you less of a chance of making anything but a more profound slip into economic despair. You're also willing to adopt conspiracy theories as irrefutable facts when they propose ideas against people who are not of your party. Naturally, accepting falsehoods would go well as a critical component of your party platform.
I'm not a veterinarian - nor do I play one on TV - but I understand that the bovine digestive system is really not optimal for digesting what we feed most cows these days (corn). I can't help but wonder if their methane production would go down if we went back to feeding them what they would ordinarily eat.
If anyone is trying to actively disenfranchise voters, it is the conservatives in the GOP and their ultra-hard-right faction called the Tea Party.
I'm genuinely curious how you possibly think that statement even sort of correlates to reality.
Because the Koch Brothers cannot fool the American voters twice. If they manage to get their political movement into real power (rather than just obstruction of government - actually taking power would be fooling America once) they will need to shut down the entire voting process because even in two years people will realize what is going on that and leaving the Tea Party in power is counter to the interests of >>99% of all people in this country and beyond. Now, of course, it is possible that their game plan is to take power and then secure their hold on it through some sort of extra-extra-extralegal maneuvering to shut down voting indefinitely - as of course if there is anything that someone in power does not want it is to lose power - but otherwise the damage would be so swift and severe that they could not possibly hold on to power in the face of any reasonably fair election process.
Hence the only way they can get and hold power is to push people away from voting (one way or another). But of course, they don't fear the parts of the constitution that they dislike.
If you give the people any chance to participate in government, besides paying taxes and voting for the carefully-groomed, reliable idiots, then they are likely to develop some misplaced sense of ownership
I know you're trying to make an argument for the Tea Party here, but that sounds distinctly like an argument against them to me... If anyone is trying to actively disenfranchise voters, it is the conservatives in the GOP and their ultra-hard-right faction called the Tea Party. The most disturbing part is just that some have taken in enough of the Kool-Aid to believe that their situation matters to the powers that are driving their "movement".
Now granted being as there is no left remaining in America - only right (democrats), further right (republicans), extreme right (libertarians), and ultra-hard right (Tea Party) - there really isn't a party left that actually gives a shit about working stiffs. But the further right one goes, the less that it matters how many of them you snuff out on the way.
The Nexus 4 can allegedly run both Android and Ubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone. I have not tried it, and I don't think there's a dual-booting bootloader yet, but it sounds interesting.
That is useful to a small extent, but if the purpose is to compare windows phones and apple IOS phones then it doesn't really get you there. From my understanding they are saying "apple phone gets X hours of battery life" and "windows phone gets Z hours of battery life" but the two phones are quite a bit different in terms of hardware, and neither can run the other's software, which makes the comparison dicey at best.
I am not aware of a phone yet that can run more than one operating system. Comparing a windows phone to an iPhone is a pretty useless thing to do as their hardware is quite a bit different.
You can come here to slashdot to read about it. Facebook is one of our favorite subjects to post on the front page; come here to read about your favorite facebook celebrities and what they are doing with their money. Come here to read about all the things that facebook is doing that slashdot couldn't figure out how to do themselves in time. Come here to reminisce about how much wealthier Taco and company would be if they could have gone public with a successful product (business plans be damned!) instead of being absorbed by dice.
I noticed that one of the office supply chains in my area was advertising windows 8.1 on the front page of their weekly ad this Sunday. Even windows 3.1 (or 3.11) didn't get this much hype as an incremental upgrade. Glad to see that slashdot is giving microsoft some free advertising on it, too.
This is just the government giving the health insurance industry even more plausible deniability for when they fuck up. This shouldn't surprise anyone, as the ACA itself was the largest corporate handout in the history of our country. To make matters worse, you can't correct for it at the polls, as the health insurance industry owns senators, congresspeople, presidents, and candidates for all of those on both sides of the aisle. You can't win this game, even if you don't play it.
I always thought the "hand outlines" discussed here were created by blowing powder through a straw or tube over the hand on the wall.
I was suspecting that as well, and if that is the case the same potential for inaccuracy applies. It would be much like trying to trace something with a can of spray paint. On top of that is also the fact that some of the hand stencils are above the likely average height of a person at that time - requiring them to be holding their hand above their head - which would change the angle of spraying and the angle at which the powder hits the wall.
It's pretty easy when tracing your hand to not get all teh way down to where the fingers diverge from the palm. That and other mistakes could change the appearance of the stencil and accidentally mask the identity of the hand.
Obama ran on the platform that something needed to be done about the millions of people that had no healthcare.
And millions of people are under-impressed by the fact that Obama signed us all up as customers for giant health insurance companies instead of actually doing something to ensure that people get something useful out of the venture.
I guess the only surprising thing is that only a million people tried to sign up. With all of the grass-roots programs encouraging people to sign up, with all of the hype, they should have been expecting traffic of DDOS proportions.
The massive health insurance company bailout act of 2010 (aka affordable care act) does not dictate that everyone has to buy insurance this week. While it does unfortunately have a mandate in it as a massive concession to the health insurance industry that contributes in huge numbers to nearly every politician in Washington, it does at least give a few months before that mandate kicks in. Hence they did not have a good reason to expect every uninsured person to log in in the first week, and indeed that did not happen.
Just because we're criticizing Obama doesn't mean we automatically like Bush, or think that McCain/Romney would be doing better.
I see you're new here - or at least, your account is newer than this one. So you might not have been reading stories and comments here for very long. The truth of the matter though is that slashdot pushes a conservative agenda. Watch the front page for a week, and count up how many articles are plainly anti-Obama, anti-democrat, or anti-non-conservative. Then try to find even one that is critical of the GOP, conservatism in general, or any policy that is associated with their platform.
There is a very plain editorial stance here at slashdot, and it is prevalent all the way through.
The site had how many people try to sign up in the first day? If you want to compare it to facebook (a popular metric here no doubt) the number of people who attempted to access and sign up on healthcare.gov in the first day dwarfs the first several years of enrollment at facebook. If they had attempted to build a website to handle the load they faced (which will of course taper off quickly once the first wave of enrollees are signed up and done shopping) we would be bitching that they overbuilt the site because they would have tons of servers sitting mostly idle after the initial surge is done.
We need to wait until it has been up for a while before we go around calling it a failure.
I've been in 2-4 passenger planes before, but it has been quite some time. If someone knows this plane, I'd be interested to hear what the front visibility is from the pilot's seat. Could he see the runway in front of him while coming in, or did he have a wall of instruments blocking his sight? Some people might think that wouldn't make a big difference, but if you're not sure what you're doing, and you can't see straight ahead (aircraft lights on or not) the situation is a little more terrifying.
I apologize for not getting back to this sooner, I had other things going on and wanted to address your statements with some more precision than what a lot of slashdot comments warrant as you raised better points than most on this topic.
One example is that in America you get an undergrad degree before going to medical school. In many countries, you don't -- there's a single extra year of medical school (at most) that replaces 4 years of undergrad
There are a few important things to consider on this.
For one, there are schools in the US that do combined BS-MD programs that tend to shorten the total length of time to go from high school graduate to med school graduate; some do it in 6 years instead of the traditional 8. That does save a student on average about $60k in loans at $30k/year.
More so, there is a reason why many other countries (particularly in western Europe) can do the course you describe, and it is because their secondary education is more comprehensive than what we have in the US. Students who graduate from a high school in many European countries are as well educated as a lot of students who just finished their BS in the US. Hence they don't need as much new scientific and philosophical background for medicine, they already covered it in high school.
I would also like to point out that education in most of Western Europe is heavily subsidized by the state, in some cases free all the way through. So while the physicians graduate with less debt, someone is shouldering it. Physicians in many of those countries are also willing to work for lower salaries than what they are paid for the same position in the states.
Making med school cheaper and faster does not require single-payer.
You're correct on that. However if you want the same quality of physicians you need to look to the high school systems in this country. Our students graduate without enough solid background to shorten the amount of time they need to cover what they need to know to be physicians.
Now, on the other hand, if you just want health care practitioners, and you don't need the same depth of knowledge - which in many cases is fine - you can encourage more to go to PA or NP programs. They can get into practice sooner that way for less investment, and we can pay them less.
Yes because the American way is antithetical to the nanny state -- you're going to have more debt and death because you have more freedom
I don't recall the American way being so in favor of social Darwinism though. Why do we no longer believe in all people created equal?
You know that when you "go bankrupt" that means you're not responsible for your debts anymore right? So that's actually a good thing that came as a reaction to crazy stuff like debtor's prison that was going on back in England.
You need to reconsider what it actually means in this country to go bankrupt. Sure, in theory it means your debts are forgiven and you start over. However it also means your credit is destroyed (you'll likely never own a house or a car that is less than 15 years old again) and you have likely lost your health care coverage and under our current system you wouldn't be able to afford coverage for whatever caused you to go broke to begin with.
In other words, in the US if you go broke over health costs, you go broke and you die. I'm not sure that debtors prison was much worse, they probably gave you better (relative to the standards of the day) health care.
They couldn't even move to a new area to get a job, they had to keep their old house and keep paying on it.
Actually leaving the US for work, unless you have a standing job offer, is immensely difficult. Even moving from one state to another for work without a written offer is not trivial.
you meant that people go bankrupt over health care costs as
Well if it happened in 2003, then we know it cannot possibly be the NSA. After all, we have been told repeatedly by the mainstream media and by reputable unbiased sites such as our beloved slashdot that the government was 1000% righteous and benevolent from 2001-2008 and only became evil after we elected a socialist anarchist fascist liberal hippie far left islamist atheist democratic dictator to the white house. So clearly, the NSA in 2003 could not have been behind an attempt to insert malicious code into the Linux kernel; and if they somehow were then real Americans had nothing to fear about it anyways!
But of course, they weren't behind it! They couldn't have done it!
Even if the code had been accepted and committed, it would have been some time before it would have started rolling out into systems. How many people do you know who consistently run the latest Linux kernel? The most popular distros are generally (at least) a few months behind on adopting the latest kernel, so even if this was committed next week it would have likely not shown up in widespread use until the middle of next year at the earliest.
And beyond that, the users that use Linux are likely far less interesting to the NSA than they like to tell themselves to be. Enemies of the state don't generally have an interest in running anything other than windows (which they often steal, so the cost is irrelevant).
Sure, it seems perfectly reasonable that most electronic devices would be pretty well entirely harmless to the plane. However, there are some real world considerations that need to be looked into before the FAA changes the rules:
First, the rules need to be dumbed down to make sense to the least technologically literate person on the aircraft. If grandma can't understand whether these apply to her phone, her reading device, her watch, and/or her hearing aid, then we have failed. If we divide this up too finely we will end up with very terrible compliance.
Second, the rules must be easy for the flight staff to enforce. You can't expect every attendant to know which devices are harmful and which are not; even more so you can't expect them to check every seat on the aircraft against such a list in the short time they have to prepare for takeoff and landing. There are also a lot of devices that look a lot like others - take for example how many times the iPod touch has looked like a dead ringer for the iPhone available at the same time.
Third, flying is miserable enough without people talking on their phones during the flight. If we let people use their phones on the aircraft in flight we will end up being drowned out by discussions that 99% of the flying public don't want to hear, and of course, the volume only goes up from there as others make calls and have to yell to hear themselves over all the other loud people in the same flying tube.
Seems kinda odd that the space camp spends so much time doing exercises that are designed around a vehicle that will never fly again... I thought our next generation vehicles were going to be more like traditional rockets than the space shuttle fleet.
I've seen these on my own home system going back at least as far as 2008. That said, i don't think he has their entire plan correct. The writer's statement
Pick a host from our pool, assign a user name and password (picked from a list, dictionary or pool)
Implies that each host will, from a predefined directive, try certain user names. I have seen ones better coordinated than that, where they are going through the list alphabetically across a large number of systems. To me this implies a tighter degree of central control on the attack.
That said, the list of users that they try are almost always first names only, aside from the usual collection of system names (root, toor, admin, oracle, games...). Any sane admin has root disabled for ssh access, in particular, so the number of attempts they make on that is irrelevant; and the rest shouldn't be allowed much of anything, ever.
At any rate, my point remains: this is an old game they've been doing. Interesting that we now have assigned a name to the botnet but otherwise not really news. It would be interesting to know more about the systems that are part of it, but they mostly come from the usual collection of countries and hence your likelihood of getting useful information on them is pretty well zero.
We're talking about someone who was near a notable event who happened to think to pull out their smart phone and hit record. They could have just as well sat and watched without recording anything. Sure, they gave us a lot of pixels of nothing-in-particular, but at least they recorded the event.
On top of that I'll also say that some phones are simply more comfortable to hold in portrait mode - they are, after all, often deisgned to be used as phones that way. My android phone is quite awkward in landscape mode (particularly if I need to use it one-handed), which causes me to take a lot of pictures in portrait just because it is easier to control in portrait.
Except that nothing else is effective at it - at least nothing that has yet been tried or proposed - in comparison to what a single payer system can do.
Single-payer is one way to do so
The rest of the world can tell us that there is no more effective way to do it.
Not to mention it's against the American way.
Does the American way have to be in favor of debt and death? We are the only industrialized country where people can go bankrupt over health care costs. We are the only country where people can be denied health care because they don't have adequate funds.
I mean why not have a single bank, a single phone company, a single car maker, etc.
Because none of those are comparable to health care. The rest of the world realizes the vaporous nature of that argument and sees right through it. Health care is fundamentally different from cars, phones, and banks. You can live your life without interacting with cars, phones, or banks and get by just fine; you will need to interact with the health care system at some point in your life if you want to have a reasonable life expectancy. Furthermore in the other cases you try to compare to, competition between companies results in a better product at a lower cost to the consumer (generally). However as we have seen in the American market having multiple insurance companies only results in degradation of service, denial of claims, and enormous profits for doing those deeds; all while the companies are effectively colluding together to make it increasingly more difficult for people to get by without them (see the Health Insurance Company Bailout Act of 2010 - sometimes erroneously called "ObamaCare" - for an example).
because we don't want to live in that kind of country.. most of us anyway
What gives you the right to say what "most" of us want? There are millions of people in the US who have been asking for single payer for years, even decades. There is no accurate assesment available right now that shows what "most of us" want. Being as we can't get even the slightest bit of momentum going towrads single payer in congress, and hence never end up having a serious discussion of it on the national level, it is impossible to say whether people want it or not. The closest we have to a consensus right now is that the current system is broken, the big question though is how many people actually want to do anything about it for real.
Slashdot Mirror
Spam is an economic problem. People will respond to this by praising their favorite spam filters, and ignoring the obvious fact that the filters don't solve the problem, and never will solve the problem. Spam is present not to piss you off but because spammers make money by sending it out. If you truly want to stop spam, no number or combination of technical fixes, legislative proposals, public executions, user education, or forum posts will do. The one and only way to stop spam is to prevent the spammers from getting paid. We have ways to do this, that have been demonstrated. We just need to actually follow through with it. If spammers don't get paid, they will get out of the business.
When did they fool Americans the first time?
The Koch brothers have only so far managed to fool a subset of America, as I stated in my comment. They want to fool a majority of the voting part of America so they can force their ultra-hard-right agenda upon us.
There is an important distinction there. I said they cannot fool America twice, because if they managed to take power they would not be able to maintain the illusion long enough to retain it in a subsequent election - at least, not one that actually allows all qualified people to vote.
a no-talent rodeo clown?
Smitty, please don't degrade yourself that way. You are way above such petty insults. Just because the Tea Party embraces such pitiful name calling doesn't mean you need to as well.
When (and be specific) has the Tea Party ever been in power?
Again, please go back and read the comment you just replied to. It seems your undies are tied up in a bunch now and you missed some important bits. I did not say they are currently in (or have thus far held) power, rather I said they would need to gain and retain power in order to achieve their objectives.
#OccupyResoluteDesk
Can we lose the silly name calling already? As far as I can tell - by using google at least - you are the only person on the entire internet who is sold on the occupy movement == obama conspiracy enough to push that name for him. Why not just refer to him by his last name like we usually do for presidents whose last names haven't been in the white house before? Your hash tag is more than twice as many keystrokes so you can't make an argument for it being less work.
Wait, are you saying that Tea Partiers are going to engage in voter fraud to achieve their goals of protecting the integrity of our founding ideals? Any evidence or basis for that?
When your group is working to make it more difficult for others to vote, that is voter fraud. Of course, because your group has sold the media on that being a "good" kind of fraud, you don't have to acknowledge it as being an active effort to suppress voters.
I guess I'm supposed to accept the falsehood in silence, or something.
Well, you're willing to vote for liars who want to pass laws that will make your life more difficult and give you less of a chance of making anything but a more profound slip into economic despair. You're also willing to adopt conspiracy theories as irrefutable facts when they propose ideas against people who are not of your party. Naturally, accepting falsehoods would go well as a critical component of your party platform.
I'm not a veterinarian - nor do I play one on TV - but I understand that the bovine digestive system is really not optimal for digesting what we feed most cows these days (corn). I can't help but wonder if their methane production would go down if we went back to feeding them what they would ordinarily eat.
If anyone is trying to actively disenfranchise voters, it is the conservatives in the GOP and their ultra-hard-right faction called the Tea Party.
I'm genuinely curious how you possibly think that statement even sort of correlates to reality.
Because the Koch Brothers cannot fool the American voters twice. If they manage to get their political movement into real power (rather than just obstruction of government - actually taking power would be fooling America once) they will need to shut down the entire voting process because even in two years people will realize what is going on that and leaving the Tea Party in power is counter to the interests of >>99% of all people in this country and beyond. Now, of course, it is possible that their game plan is to take power and then secure their hold on it through some sort of extra-extra-extralegal maneuvering to shut down voting indefinitely - as of course if there is anything that someone in power does not want it is to lose power - but otherwise the damage would be so swift and severe that they could not possibly hold on to power in the face of any reasonably fair election process.
Hence the only way they can get and hold power is to push people away from voting (one way or another). But of course, they don't fear the parts of the constitution that they dislike.
If you give the people any chance to participate in government, besides paying taxes and voting for the carefully-groomed, reliable idiots, then they are likely to develop some misplaced sense of ownership
I know you're trying to make an argument for the Tea Party here, but that sounds distinctly like an argument against them to me... If anyone is trying to actively disenfranchise voters, it is the conservatives in the GOP and their ultra-hard-right faction called the Tea Party. The most disturbing part is just that some have taken in enough of the Kool-Aid to believe that their situation matters to the powers that are driving their "movement".
Now granted being as there is no left remaining in America - only right (democrats), further right (republicans), extreme right (libertarians), and ultra-hard right (Tea Party) - there really isn't a party left that actually gives a shit about working stiffs. But the further right one goes, the less that it matters how many of them you snuff out on the way.
The Nexus 4 can allegedly run both Android and Ubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone. I have not tried it, and I don't think there's a dual-booting bootloader yet, but it sounds interesting.
That is useful to a small extent, but if the purpose is to compare windows phones and apple IOS phones then it doesn't really get you there. From my understanding they are saying "apple phone gets X hours of battery life" and "windows phone gets Z hours of battery life" but the two phones are quite a bit different in terms of hardware, and neither can run the other's software, which makes the comparison dicey at best.
I am not aware of a phone yet that can run more than one operating system. Comparing a windows phone to an iPhone is a pretty useless thing to do as their hardware is quite a bit different.
You can come here to slashdot to read about it. Facebook is one of our favorite subjects to post on the front page; come here to read about your favorite facebook celebrities and what they are doing with their money. Come here to read about all the things that facebook is doing that slashdot couldn't figure out how to do themselves in time. Come here to reminisce about how much wealthier Taco and company would be if they could have gone public with a successful product (business plans be damned!) instead of being absorbed by dice.
I noticed that one of the office supply chains in my area was advertising windows 8.1 on the front page of their weekly ad this Sunday. Even windows 3.1 (or 3.11) didn't get this much hype as an incremental upgrade. Glad to see that slashdot is giving microsoft some free advertising on it, too.
This is just the government giving the health insurance industry even more plausible deniability for when they fuck up. This shouldn't surprise anyone, as the ACA itself was the largest corporate handout in the history of our country. To make matters worse, you can't correct for it at the polls, as the health insurance industry owns senators, congresspeople, presidents, and candidates for all of those on both sides of the aisle. You can't win this game, even if you don't play it.
I always thought the "hand outlines" discussed here were created by blowing powder through a straw or tube over the hand on the wall.
I was suspecting that as well, and if that is the case the same potential for inaccuracy applies. It would be much like trying to trace something with a can of spray paint. On top of that is also the fact that some of the hand stencils are above the likely average height of a person at that time - requiring them to be holding their hand above their head - which would change the angle of spraying and the angle at which the powder hits the wall.
It's pretty easy when tracing your hand to not get all teh way down to where the fingers diverge from the palm. That and other mistakes could change the appearance of the stencil and accidentally mask the identity of the hand.
Obama ran on the platform that something needed to be done about the millions of people that had no healthcare.
And millions of people are under-impressed by the fact that Obama signed us all up as customers for giant health insurance companies instead of actually doing something to ensure that people get something useful out of the venture.
I guess the only surprising thing is that only a million people tried to sign up. With all of the grass-roots programs encouraging people to sign up, with all of the hype, they should have been expecting traffic of DDOS proportions.
The massive health insurance company bailout act of 2010 (aka affordable care act) does not dictate that everyone has to buy insurance this week. While it does unfortunately have a mandate in it as a massive concession to the health insurance industry that contributes in huge numbers to nearly every politician in Washington, it does at least give a few months before that mandate kicks in. Hence they did not have a good reason to expect every uninsured person to log in in the first week, and indeed that did not happen.
Just because we're criticizing Obama doesn't mean we automatically like Bush, or think that McCain/Romney would be doing better.
I see you're new here - or at least, your account is newer than this one. So you might not have been reading stories and comments here for very long. The truth of the matter though is that slashdot pushes a conservative agenda. Watch the front page for a week, and count up how many articles are plainly anti-Obama, anti-democrat, or anti-non-conservative. Then try to find even one that is critical of the GOP, conservatism in general, or any policy that is associated with their platform.
There is a very plain editorial stance here at slashdot, and it is prevalent all the way through.
The site had how many people try to sign up in the first day? If you want to compare it to facebook (a popular metric here no doubt) the number of people who attempted to access and sign up on healthcare.gov in the first day dwarfs the first several years of enrollment at facebook. If they had attempted to build a website to handle the load they faced (which will of course taper off quickly once the first wave of enrollees are signed up and done shopping) we would be bitching that they overbuilt the site because they would have tons of servers sitting mostly idle after the initial surge is done.
We need to wait until it has been up for a while before we go around calling it a failure.
I've been in 2-4 passenger planes before, but it has been quite some time. If someone knows this plane, I'd be interested to hear what the front visibility is from the pilot's seat. Could he see the runway in front of him while coming in, or did he have a wall of instruments blocking his sight? Some people might think that wouldn't make a big difference, but if you're not sure what you're doing, and you can't see straight ahead (aircraft lights on or not) the situation is a little more terrifying.
One example is that in America you get an undergrad degree before going to medical school. In many countries, you don't -- there's a single extra year of medical school (at most) that replaces 4 years of undergrad
There are a few important things to consider on this.
For one, there are schools in the US that do combined BS-MD programs that tend to shorten the total length of time to go from high school graduate to med school graduate; some do it in 6 years instead of the traditional 8. That does save a student on average about $60k in loans at $30k/year.
More so, there is a reason why many other countries (particularly in western Europe) can do the course you describe, and it is because their secondary education is more comprehensive than what we have in the US. Students who graduate from a high school in many European countries are as well educated as a lot of students who just finished their BS in the US. Hence they don't need as much new scientific and philosophical background for medicine, they already covered it in high school.
I would also like to point out that education in most of Western Europe is heavily subsidized by the state, in some cases free all the way through. So while the physicians graduate with less debt, someone is shouldering it. Physicians in many of those countries are also willing to work for lower salaries than what they are paid for the same position in the states.
Making med school cheaper and faster does not require single-payer.
You're correct on that. However if you want the same quality of physicians you need to look to the high school systems in this country. Our students graduate without enough solid background to shorten the amount of time they need to cover what they need to know to be physicians.
Now, on the other hand, if you just want health care practitioners, and you don't need the same depth of knowledge - which in many cases is fine - you can encourage more to go to PA or NP programs. They can get into practice sooner that way for less investment, and we can pay them less.
Yes because the American way is antithetical to the nanny state -- you're going to have more debt and death because you have more freedom
I don't recall the American way being so in favor of social Darwinism though. Why do we no longer believe in all people created equal?
You know that when you "go bankrupt" that means you're not responsible for your debts anymore right? So that's actually a good thing that came as a reaction to crazy stuff like debtor's prison that was going on back in England.
You need to reconsider what it actually means in this country to go bankrupt. Sure, in theory it means your debts are forgiven and you start over. However it also means your credit is destroyed (you'll likely never own a house or a car that is less than 15 years old again) and you have likely lost your health care coverage and under our current system you wouldn't be able to afford coverage for whatever caused you to go broke to begin with.
In other words, in the US if you go broke over health costs, you go broke and you die. I'm not sure that debtors prison was much worse, they probably gave you better (relative to the standards of the day) health care.
They couldn't even move to a new area to get a job, they had to keep their old house and keep paying on it.
Actually leaving the US for work, unless you have a standing job offer, is immensely difficult. Even moving from one state to another for work without a written offer is not trivial.
you meant that people go bankrupt over health care costs as
Well if it happened in 2003, then we know it cannot possibly be the NSA. After all, we have been told repeatedly by the mainstream media and by reputable unbiased sites such as our beloved slashdot that the government was 1000% righteous and benevolent from 2001-2008 and only became evil after we elected a socialist anarchist fascist liberal hippie far left islamist atheist democratic dictator to the white house. So clearly, the NSA in 2003 could not have been behind an attempt to insert malicious code into the Linux kernel; and if they somehow were then real Americans had nothing to fear about it anyways!
But of course, they weren't behind it! They couldn't have done it!
Even if the code had been accepted and committed, it would have been some time before it would have started rolling out into systems. How many people do you know who consistently run the latest Linux kernel? The most popular distros are generally (at least) a few months behind on adopting the latest kernel, so even if this was committed next week it would have likely not shown up in widespread use until the middle of next year at the earliest.
And beyond that, the users that use Linux are likely far less interesting to the NSA than they like to tell themselves to be. Enemies of the state don't generally have an interest in running anything other than windows (which they often steal, so the cost is irrelevant).
Seems kinda odd that the space camp spends so much time doing exercises that are designed around a vehicle that will never fly again... I thought our next generation vehicles were going to be more like traditional rockets than the space shuttle fleet.
Pick a host from our pool, assign a user name and password (picked from a list, dictionary or pool)
Implies that each host will, from a predefined directive, try certain user names. I have seen ones better coordinated than that, where they are going through the list alphabetically across a large number of systems. To me this implies a tighter degree of central control on the attack.
...). Any sane admin has root disabled for ssh access, in particular, so the number of attempts they make on that is irrelevant; and the rest shouldn't be allowed much of anything, ever.
That said, the list of users that they try are almost always first names only, aside from the usual collection of system names (root, toor, admin, oracle, games
At any rate, my point remains: this is an old game they've been doing. Interesting that we now have assigned a name to the botnet but otherwise not really news. It would be interesting to know more about the systems that are part of it, but they mostly come from the usual collection of countries and hence your likelihood of getting useful information on them is pretty well zero.
We're talking about someone who was near a notable event who happened to think to pull out their smart phone and hit record. They could have just as well sat and watched without recording anything. Sure, they gave us a lot of pixels of nothing-in-particular, but at least they recorded the event.
On top of that I'll also say that some phones are simply more comfortable to hold in portrait mode - they are, after all, often deisgned to be used as phones that way. My android phone is quite awkward in landscape mode (particularly if I need to use it one-handed), which causes me to take a lot of pictures in portrait just because it is easier to control in portrait.
The real solution is bringing down costs.
Except that nothing else is effective at it - at least nothing that has yet been tried or proposed - in comparison to what a single payer system can do.
Single-payer is one way to do so
The rest of the world can tell us that there is no more effective way to do it.
Not to mention it's against the American way.
Does the American way have to be in favor of debt and death? We are the only industrialized country where people can go bankrupt over health care costs. We are the only country where people can be denied health care because they don't have adequate funds.
I mean why not have a single bank, a single phone company, a single car maker, etc.
Because none of those are comparable to health care. The rest of the world realizes the vaporous nature of that argument and sees right through it. Health care is fundamentally different from cars, phones, and banks. You can live your life without interacting with cars, phones, or banks and get by just fine; you will need to interact with the health care system at some point in your life if you want to have a reasonable life expectancy. Furthermore in the other cases you try to compare to, competition between companies results in a better product at a lower cost to the consumer (generally). However as we have seen in the American market having multiple insurance companies only results in degradation of service, denial of claims, and enormous profits for doing those deeds; all while the companies are effectively colluding together to make it increasingly more difficult for people to get by without them (see the Health Insurance Company Bailout Act of 2010 - sometimes erroneously called "ObamaCare" - for an example).
because we don't want to live in that kind of country.. most of us anyway
What gives you the right to say what "most" of us want? There are millions of people in the US who have been asking for single payer for years, even decades. There is no accurate assesment available right now that shows what "most of us" want. Being as we can't get even the slightest bit of momentum going towrads single payer in congress, and hence never end up having a serious discussion of it on the national level, it is impossible to say whether people want it or not. The closest we have to a consensus right now is that the current system is broken, the big question though is how many people actually want to do anything about it for real.
And if you don't pay the fine, you do go to jail. The IRS is funny about that. Ask Wesley Snipes.
Wesley Snipes went to jail for not paying his taxes. This is not the same as not paying taxes.