I have never really understood why it is called insurance. After all, insurance rates should only go up if the population as a whole is more at risk of cancer, not if someone in your office has cancer.
This isn't insurance - it's a pay-for-your-healthcare-plus-profit-for-me lay-away plan.
I'm sure that you care for your staff's well-being, but less caring business owners might be inclined to fire anyone with Cancer to keep their costs low.
Frankly I think the only reason health care is the way it is is to keep employees beholden to their companies.
Whatever your feelings about socialized medicine, you should realize that where it does exist, it is wildly popular. Sure people may complain about it, but they'll defend their right to complain and keep the program to the bitter end.
Woe betide any politician than fucks with the NHS in the UK. No sane politician would seriously suggest that it be dismantled or even scaled back.
If Obama manages to institute a working approximation to socialized medicine in the USA, it will make it very hard to dismantle later because of the weight of public support. It will become the new "third rail" and the sooner the Republicans learn to re-package their message into "how it can be improved" instead of "how it can be stopped" the sooner they will become re-electable.
If Obama does health well, this could be the beginning of a long period of power for the Dems. I can't think of any other issue with that amount of endurance.
I consider myself an idealist. I want a prison system that...
1) Renders capital punishment un-necessary. We're not a small island nation, we truly can afford to lock up the heinous forever and we can achieve it.
2) Treats rehabilitation as second only in priority to containment for prisoners who are physically dangerous. They should not be released at all unless we can be reasonably certain that they are no longer a threat.
3) Does not double as a housing project for lots of non-physically-dangerous offenders. Let them go, employ them in something productive, do whatever, but don't feed them three squares a day while they're sat on their ass doing nothing but learning how to be better criminals from the other cons.
decades of "get tough" cheap politics have done little to make people safer, have run up huge bills, and fucked-up a lot of people.
you know when you type 1,2 into adjacent cells in excel, you can expand the series using the little box on the last cell, drag it out and excel will fill in 3, 4,...
Well if you type in 2000, 2003, and do the same trick, excel will expand it to 2007, 7...
Now if you change the cell format to "roman numeral" it will show...
So I guess the question is, given that all of this has happened, what should a hitherto-responsible homeowner do ?
It's one thing being having "negative equity" of a few thousand dollars for a year or so, it's quite another having negative equity of $100k+ for decades.
If the housing marked goes down by 50% it makes a lot of sense for a lot of people to mail their house keys to their mortgage broker and then buy their old house back for half the money.
Restil's assertion about everyone living fiscally responsibly is of course true, but for one reason or another people don't always (I know I don't always) some less so than others. I hear many of my more conservative friends rail against these great unwashed irresponsible NINA people who ruined the market for all of us.
But people buying their first home had a huge carrot dangled in front of them. Everything from "flip this house" TV programs to realtors to mortgage companies to family members advised that you were simply missing out on free money if you did not buy a home regardless of your financial situation. So people did, figuring that they had less to lose than to potentially win and fearing that if they did not do so now, it would never be possible. I feel that many of these applicants were acting rationally and given their position, should not be expected to have the same grasp of the situation as a specialist at a wall street company.
A damn good witch hunt is always fun, but there is plenty of blame to go around here and I think it should concentrate at the top, or be limited in how far it spreads down to the many highly leveraged "house flippers" that were out there.
The blame does not all have to fall on the guy at the bottom, trying to get onto the housing ladder before it was pulled up too far.
Maybe the slowdown in house un-affordability will turn out to be a good thing for our children.
Surely reading a disk can be done by multiple lasers, each offset a little radially.
I know it's not quite as good as having a laser-toting shark in your living room, but I would have thought that the lower power lasers might be cheaper.
You'll need to do a few things to give the kids a proper flavor for the job.
First, for no good reason whatsoever, insist that the meeting be held at 3AM, give no warning of this - just page them all at night.
Second, ensure the classroom is a cold as possible.
Third, in the background play some extremely loud fan noise.
Begin the session with recriminations, belittle the children for their lack of psychic abilities.
Repeat the same information to the children over and over a few times to see if the same phrase magically has a different effect. Berate the children for not doing what you think they should be doing.
The booze manufacturers must be experimenting with something though. After all, it's not like their failures are unsellable. I would not be surprised to see at least some casks surrounded by magnets, copper, plutonium, ultrasound baby imagers, etc.
I'm surprised that they have not filled the LHC with wine.
The ideals are great, and I do like to contribute. But I could get a kick out of making up a program even if I had paid for the platform.
Just because money is a tawdry subject it does not mean that it should not be part of the selection process...
1) For my organization, the costs of specifying a system are huge and the time involved is egregious. With open source, we can usually quickly establish a prototype and then modify it as we go until it is just what we wanted. Learning what we really want as we go.
2) Documentation for many OSS applications is available from a high-street bookstore. That means that anyone that wants to get ahead can read a few books and play with a system, they don't need vendor training.
3) A separate training and development environment is easy to cost justify. Again - if I want to learn about something in my own time, I don't need to go cap in hand to the management to get started.
4) the costs associated with making platforms multi-user and administering them thereafter is moot - everyone can have their own separate copy of the environment
5) Screw your paid-for support. There have only been a few occasions where I've been impressed with support I've paid for and many more occasions when I've found quick and accurate resolutions to problems with an OSS project.
6) Just the effort involved in managing licences is costly.
7) OSS systems I have used have been far more admin friendly than commercial systems - log files one can actually read and understand and, of course, access to the ultimate reference of what it is doing - the source itself.
I'm sure I could think of more. The cost of commercial systems is not just the sticker cost of the software licence - that's just the beginning. OSS is simply more cost effective from factory to landfill.
In our new exciting discovery channel special; Bear is dropped into the wilderness with nothing but a bunch of boards, a magnesium fire-starter and his wits.
He has to eat a gecko, build a shelter, connect to the internet using hollow reeds, and set up a server farm powered by his own urine and, of course, windows server 2008.
Sadly, although Bear was initially successful, a virus wiped out the server farm long before the alligators ate it.
Having just recently attended a curriculum review meeting for my child I don't think I fully agree. I don't know about the ball sports during the school day, but I know my boy gets pretty good leadership from the AYSO socket league coach in winning/losing/playing the game etc. I consider these kind of activities part of a total package even if they are not strictly part of the school curriculum. I think the children get plenty of grounding in winning and losing from their peers, but perhaps not enough grounding in how to do either gracefully.
I also know that the school is trying (and seemingly being effective) in teaching the kids how to get along together.
The shock for me is how the curriculum seems to have been "aged up". I guess it's in response to parents concerns that children learn what is popularly regarded as history and to learn what people think of as "proper math" and so on, but it seemed a little too tilted toward a checklist of "party tricks for schoolchildren" than being a vehicle for promoting learning.
I don't think I'm expressing this well, but the first grade curriculum read like a high school curriculum in miniature rather than being directly targeted at the things that I thought a 6 year old should pick up (a love of learning, a critical eye, collaboration skills etc.)
What lessons exactly is a 6 year old supposed to take away from the study of the slave trade ? I can see why it is important history, but at this juncture ? What could you possibly pass on to a 6 year old but a few sound bites on such an important topic.
Maybe they can't spell at 18 because they ceased to care about learning at 7.
So did the kid take down the post during school hours and put it back up afterwards ?
I think not. I imagine that the alleged defamy was on the web for all to see and may well have even been accessible during school hours from a web enabled cell phone or a school PC.
(did I spell defamy correctly ? I thought it was a real word and a Slashdot favorite no less)
I look around at my colleagues and I see the hours I work and I have to say that I know of no freeloaders in the technology business. We're all working harder than ever before.
frankly I believe I'm taking on at least 150% the workload that I had four years ago, even adjusting for improvements in ability, that means I just have to pull more hours. And most of the people work with would likely say the same.
I have not seen an equivalent increase in pay that comes close to the increase in productivity.
I'd be interested to see some pay:productivity ratio - if one could be achieved, I bet that even with pay increases, such a ratio would be the lowest ever.
It seems that you could use your infrastructure to provide value-added voice and audio services to your community. I'm thinking that anyone with a PC or an 802.11 handheld gizmo could use your service to access applications that the official campus networks probably would not support - like audio conferencing, cheap mobile voice services around campus etc.
Surely there's some way to licence a sort of collaborative radio channel where students could play their own music or discuss lectures etc.
How about making a very specific search engine to index everything you can about your campus. Or have a way for students to respond to polls - there must be a million things students want to ask other students.
so let's say a popular web site gets a high truth rating and then publishes something like an old story about UAL going bankrupt. Doesn't the high truth rating just make this situation worst.
I think people already know that you should not trust everything you read, whatever the medium. We should remain wary.
Slashdot Mirror
I have never really understood why it is called insurance. After all, insurance rates should only go up if the population as a whole is more at risk of cancer, not if someone in your office has cancer.
This isn't insurance - it's a pay-for-your-healthcare-plus-profit-for-me lay-away plan.
I'm sure that you care for your staff's well-being, but less caring business owners might be inclined to fire anyone with Cancer to keep their costs low.
Frankly I think the only reason health care is the way it is is to keep employees beholden to their companies.
Whatever your feelings about socialized medicine, you should realize that where it does exist, it is wildly popular. Sure people may complain about it, but they'll defend their right to complain and keep the program to the bitter end.
Woe betide any politician than fucks with the NHS in the UK. No sane politician would seriously suggest that it be dismantled or even scaled back.
If Obama manages to institute a working approximation to socialized medicine in the USA, it will make it very hard to dismantle later because of the weight of public support. It will become the new "third rail" and the sooner the Republicans learn to re-package their message into "how it can be improved" instead of "how it can be stopped" the sooner they will become re-electable.
If Obama does health well, this could be the beginning of a long period of power for the Dems. I can't think of any other issue with that amount of endurance.
ice-9
We can't even get governors of states to abide by that.
I consider myself an idealist. I want a prison system that...
1) Renders capital punishment un-necessary. We're not a small island nation, we truly can afford to lock up the heinous forever and we can achieve it.
2) Treats rehabilitation as second only in priority to containment for prisoners who are physically dangerous. They should not be released at all unless we can be reasonably certain that they are no longer a threat.
3) Does not double as a housing project for lots of non-physically-dangerous offenders. Let them go, employ them in something productive, do whatever, but don't feed them three squares a day while they're sat on their ass doing nothing but learning how to be better criminals from the other cons.
decades of "get tough" cheap politics have done little to make people safer, have run up huge bills, and fucked-up a lot of people.
version numbers usually mean new features. Minor ones bug fixes. That may not be universally true, but it's my perception.
I think I'd feel happier buying a version X.15 than version X.0 regardless of whether X was 1,2 3 or 6..
Isn't Google close enough to the ocean to pump cold water out of the depths to help pre- or post- cool air ?
you know when you type 1,2 into adjacent cells in excel, you can expand the series using the little box on the last cell, drag it out and excel will fill in 3, 4, ...
Well if you type in 2000, 2003, and do the same trick, excel will expand it to 2007, 7...
Now if you change the cell format to "roman numeral" it will show...
ME, XP, MM, MMIII, MMVII etc.
Logical really.
So I guess the question is, given that all of this has happened, what should a hitherto-responsible homeowner do ?
It's one thing being having "negative equity" of a few thousand dollars for a year or so, it's quite another having negative equity of $100k+ for decades.
If the housing marked goes down by 50% it makes a lot of sense for a lot of people to mail their house keys to their mortgage broker and then buy their old house back for half the money.
Restil's assertion about everyone living fiscally responsibly is of course true, but for one reason or another people don't always (I know I don't always) some less so than others. I hear many of my more conservative friends rail against these great unwashed irresponsible NINA people who ruined the market for all of us.
But people buying their first home had a huge carrot dangled in front of them. Everything from "flip this house" TV programs to realtors to mortgage companies to family members advised that you were simply missing out on free money if you did not buy a home regardless of your financial situation. So people did, figuring that they had less to lose than to potentially win and fearing that if they did not do so now, it would never be possible. I feel that many of these applicants were acting rationally and given their position, should not be expected to have the same grasp of the situation as a specialist at a wall street company.
A damn good witch hunt is always fun, but there is plenty of blame to go around here and I think it should concentrate at the top, or be limited in how far it spreads down to the many highly leveraged "house flippers" that were out there.
The blame does not all have to fall on the guy at the bottom, trying to get onto the housing ladder before it was pulled up too far.
Maybe the slowdown in house un-affordability will turn out to be a good thing for our children.
Surely reading a disk can be done by multiple lasers, each offset a little radially.
I know it's not quite as good as having a laser-toting shark in your living room, but I would have thought that the lower power lasers might be cheaper.
don't pass around anything that's full of lead, or beryllium or mercury. It will freak someone out and it's not worth the minimal risk.
just imagine you're explaining what you do to your boss.
You'll need to do a few things to give the kids a proper flavor for the job.
First, for no good reason whatsoever, insist that the meeting be held at 3AM, give no warning of this - just page them all at night.
Second, ensure the classroom is a cold as possible.
Third, in the background play some extremely loud fan noise.
Begin the session with recriminations, belittle the children for their lack of psychic abilities.
Repeat the same information to the children over and over a few times to see if the same phrase magically has a different effect. Berate the children for not doing what you think they should be doing.
End with demands that this never happen again.
The booze manufacturers must be experimenting with something though. After all, it's not like their failures are unsellable. I would not be surprised to see at least some casks surrounded by magnets, copper, plutonium, ultrasound baby imagers, etc.
I'm surprised that they have not filled the LHC with wine.
The ideals are great, and I do like to contribute. But I could get a kick out of making up a program even if I had paid for the platform.
Just because money is a tawdry subject it does not mean that it should not be part of the selection process...
1) For my organization, the costs of specifying a system are huge and the time involved is egregious. With open source, we can usually quickly establish a prototype and then modify it as we go until it is just what we wanted. Learning what we really want as we go.
2) Documentation for many OSS applications is available from a high-street bookstore. That means that anyone that wants to get ahead can read a few books and play with a system, they don't need vendor training.
3) A separate training and development environment is easy to cost justify. Again - if I want to learn about something in my own time, I don't need to go cap in hand to the management to get started.
4) the costs associated with making platforms multi-user and administering them thereafter is moot - everyone can have their own separate copy of the environment
5) Screw your paid-for support. There have only been a few occasions where I've been impressed with support I've paid for and many more occasions when I've found quick and accurate resolutions to problems with an OSS project.
6) Just the effort involved in managing licences is costly.
7) OSS systems I have used have been far more admin friendly than commercial systems - log files one can actually read and understand and, of course, access to the ultimate reference of what it is doing - the source itself.
I'm sure I could think of more. The cost of commercial systems is not just the sticker cost of the software licence - that's just the beginning. OSS is simply more cost effective from factory to landfill.
In our new exciting discovery channel special; Bear is dropped into the wilderness with nothing but a bunch of boards, a magnesium fire-starter and his wits.
He has to eat a gecko, build a shelter, connect to the internet using hollow reeds, and set up a server farm powered by his own urine and, of course, windows server 2008.
Sadly, although Bear was initially successful, a virus wiped out the server farm long before the alligators ate it.
Having just recently attended a curriculum review meeting for my child I don't think I fully agree. I don't know about the ball sports during the school day, but I know my boy gets pretty good leadership from the AYSO socket league coach in winning/losing/playing the game etc. I consider these kind of activities part of a total package even if they are not strictly part of the school curriculum. I think the children get plenty of grounding in winning and losing from their peers, but perhaps not enough grounding in how to do either gracefully.
I also know that the school is trying (and seemingly being effective) in teaching the kids how to get along together.
The shock for me is how the curriculum seems to have been "aged up". I guess it's in response to parents concerns that children learn what is popularly regarded as history and to learn what people think of as "proper math" and so on, but it seemed a little too tilted toward a checklist of "party tricks for schoolchildren" than being a vehicle for promoting learning.
I don't think I'm expressing this well, but the first grade curriculum read like a high school curriculum in miniature rather than being directly targeted at the things that I thought a 6 year old should pick up (a love of learning, a critical eye, collaboration skills etc.)
What lessons exactly is a 6 year old supposed to take away from the study of the slave trade ? I can see why it is important history, but at this juncture ? What could you possibly pass on to a 6 year old but a few sound bites on such an important topic.
Maybe they can't spell at 18 because they ceased to care about learning at 7.
So did the kid take down the post during school hours and put it back up afterwards ?
I think not. I imagine that the alleged defamy was on the web for all to see and may well have even been accessible during school hours from a web enabled cell phone or a school PC.
(did I spell defamy correctly ? I thought it was a real word and a Slashdot favorite no less)
I look around at my colleagues and I see the hours I work and I have to say that I know of no freeloaders in the technology business. We're all working harder than ever before.
frankly I believe I'm taking on at least 150% the workload that I had four years ago, even adjusting for improvements in ability, that means I just have to pull more hours. And most of the people work with would likely say the same.
I have not seen an equivalent increase in pay that comes close to the increase in productivity.
I'd be interested to see some pay:productivity ratio - if one could be achieved, I bet that even with pay increases, such a ratio would be the lowest ever.
It seems that you could use your infrastructure to provide value-added voice and audio services to your community. I'm thinking that anyone with a PC or an 802.11 handheld gizmo could use your service to access applications that the official campus networks probably would not support - like audio conferencing, cheap mobile voice services around campus etc.
Surely there's some way to licence a sort of collaborative radio channel where students could play their own music or discuss lectures etc.
How about making a very specific search engine to index everything you can about your campus. Or have a way for students to respond to polls - there must be a million things students want to ask other students.
so let's say a popular web site gets a high truth rating and then publishes something like an old story about UAL going bankrupt. Doesn't the high truth rating just make this situation worst.
I think people already know that you should not trust everything you read, whatever the medium. We should remain wary.
from your budget, you clearly only have one server in play, so put it in a refrigerator.
Cut a hole in the door to let the cables in and seal around them with that expanding foam stuff in a spray can.
Sounds like that would max out your budget.
It probably wasn't really their website you were entering your details into anyway...
It had to help the students that Rivest was their professor. At least his reputation in the security world goes before him.
It it were a lesser name in the field would their claim to have been studying the security of the system been taken so seriously ?
If it had been just some guy in charge of Mississippi state university's computer science curriculum they would likely all be in jail by now.