One would think that the doctors would do so even if it
weren't directly billable. The more success the doctor has
with patients, the more patients he gets. If he's already
got enough patients, the better his reputation gets and he
can charge more for visits.
Of course, in perhaps all but the "cadillac" medical plans,
we've trashed that kind of dynamic in the US system. Your doctor
is typicly just confirming what the nurse suspects, and signing
off on forms...
The particulars of the case notwithstanding, abuse at the hand of unions holding
work-permit power (e.g., a union card) is no better than abuse at the hands of
an employer. That's the real point.
You cannot cram freedom down people's throats. They have to want it, and by and large, they DON'T. They're happier with authoritarian control, because then someone else does the thinking for them
This is the same illogic that drives radical Free Software people, ie, "Linux Zealots", the most
famous of which is RMS.
Non-technical people have no need to diddle with the technical innards of devices. The
fact that this doesn't enter into their purchasing decisions doesn't make them "sheeple".
To suggest so is patronizing, insulting.
A device that meets their needs and is closed actually provides them more freedom
than one that doesn't meet their needs and is open.
You can't cram Free Software Movement ideology down people's throats. You can't
even cram it down my throat, and plenty of people have tried. I chose the best
solution for the job. Sometimes it's closed. Sometimes it's open. This does not
make me a sheeple.
Would it make you feel better if a shop steward had raped her? Of course
she wouldn't fight back because she would lose her union card. Not being
familiar with the case, she more likely complied because, oh, I dunno... FEAR OF DEATH???
Beep! WARNING -- chlamydia detected; perimeter intact. BEEP! In the event of failure,
genetic analysis indicates there is a 85% chance the offspring
will have premature baldness and chronic halitosis. BEEP! 20% tension
reduction indicated. Would you like to hear a list of suggested fantasies?
BEEP 50% tension reduction indicated. BEEP flacidity indicator. Perimeter secure. Thank-you
for using the Mood-killer 8000.
Obviously a joke; but you reminded me of how I learned about various Unix commands.
I found out about the PATH in my init script, and realized the binaries for all the
commands lived in $PATH. You could ls that directory. Between $command --help and man $command,
I learned a lot of commands, which I later forgot since it was years out of school
before I got back into a *NIX environment.
For a newbie, man $command was information overload. You were lost in a sea
of formality that included *everything*. $command --help was sometimes better.
I still think it would be nice if man pages had a "10/90 section", which would describe
the 10% of features you need 90% of the time.
Amen. We had introductory computer science in my HS, and we had
a class called... wait for it... "typing". We learned on manual typewriters.
This was the 80s, mind you, and schools are usually behind the curve anyway.
IIRC, there was some rationale about the manuals helping you learn better;
but I bet it all boiled down to money. I wonder now if my loud keyboarding
stems from the fact that I learned on a manual.
I actually don't recall what language we used in our CS course. It
was probably BASIC. That's utterly unimportant as it should be in any
introductory CS class. You're learning ideas, not languages. We watched
a really cool video on sorting algorithms, and coded quicksort and several
other algorithms. It was interesting to note that for a newbie, quicksort
was a PiTA to code and debug, and actually seemed slower on these machines--I never
got a verified sort to work during the time allotted.
Anyway, the whole idea of the guy above thinking that you should be made
fun of for learning with Pascal is a bit silly. First, you were a newbie
and probably had no choice. Second, if you're any good at all, the first
language you learn won't cause brain dammage. I beg to differ with other
famous experts in the field who say otherwise. If BASIC damages you, it's your
own damn fault.
I recall a story several years ago when one of the biggest group of people suckered by these scams were accountants and people in similar financial professions
There's an old saying, "you can't con an honest man". Of course you can con an honest man; but it's harder. If somebody is greedy and prone to cheat, they're a lot easier to con. A lot of cons rely on the victim believing that they're part of something criminal. Once they step over that line, they feel like they have to keep going, and they won't go to the police because they're "in on it".
Ultimately, guys with better guns. Smugglers, etc.
That is, if we don't. If I were in charge, I'd kick the UN
out of NYC, turn it into a nice hotel. Diplomats could still
meet in the conference room if they wanted; but they'd have
to pay regular rates.
I wish there were a way to check a box that says "I want
to donate to the UN" on my tax form, like there is with
the campaign fund. I'd never check it.
1. The ad network was separate from Wikipedia,
so there would be less likelihood of advertisers
asserting editorial control. This is how most
online ad networks work anyway, so it's not hard.
2. The ads were non-tracking, non-obtrusive, non-interstitial, etc.
A simple Google-style text ad, or non-animated image.
This is probably the hard part. The wrong kinds of ads on
Wikipedia will turn it into another About.com. Whenever I get
an About.com result returned in a search, I ignore it because
I know that it will be full of obtrusive ads, with one page
chopped up into 10 to increase pageviews.
3. That reminds me. Don't chop up articles to increase
pageviews. That would be, as they say, not very encyclopedic...
Well, given that these were cables from the people
that could do something about it... the people that could DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
already knew.
The fact that our infrastructure is decaying is generally known.
The specifics of what's decaying, and choke-points of vulernability?
Not so well known.
One more voice urging us to secure this or that wouldn't make a positive
diff at this point, whereas specific information on vulnerabilities just
makes the jobs of those who undeniably are terrorists that much easier.
I suspect it was some promo, like those receipts that say "answer
our survey and get a chance for a free burger". I've always said
you'd win a lifetime supply of spam. This just proves it.
In a single moment, when the State is removed, the Software Patent regime will cease to exist, and all the benefits we can expect (as detailed in 'Against Intelectual Monopoly') will begin to emerge, starting with the new software that will start to flow freely, unencumbered by the monopolies granted by criminal and inherently violent governments. Medicine will be cheaper, engines more efficient; everything will improve and the pace of innovation will increase by orders of magnitude.
In a single moment, when the State is removed, the Software Patent regime will cease to exist, and all the benefits we can expect (as witnessed during the French Revolution)
will begin to emerge, starting with new leaders that will start the blood to flow freely, unencumbered by conscience. Medicine will be cheaper until the supplies are exhausted, engines will be available if you grease the right palms, everything will degrade and innovation will be the least of your concerns as your wealth will decrease by orders of magnitude.
But hey, at least we got rid of those lousy software patents.
rest of the world doesnt give a flying fsck about american cia operatives who participated in kidnapping
These aren't the targets to which I was referring. I should have been more specific.
I was referring to things like our sole source of snakebit antivenom, sensitive comm facilities,
and other targets (as in what a missile can hit, not a human target). You can't justify
disseminating that information. It is not a leak. It's just giving a headache and forcing
us taxpayers to move facilities, add security, or build redundant facilities.
If they want to release information regarding misconduct in war, violations of Geneva, etc., great; but when
they actually start aiding and abetting the enemy; fsck them!
Here we are. When they released the locations
of targets, they became terrorists.
When they realease information like this, they are
public servants.
There is no contradiction. Gangsters often serve
their communities in some capacity. That way, when
the cops come through, nobody wants to rat them out
because they bought some nice old lady a Cadillac,
or they cleaned the streets, or they did some swift
justice on a rapist. They're still gangsters.
Doing some good doesn't absolve you
of your evil. That's just not how it works.
It's a pity really, because responsible release
of information that really is a leak,
such as this EPA business, is a great thing. Releasing
information that is not a leak, and that might
cause headaches for the legitimate defense of the nation,
is terrorism.
To recap. You can be a terrorist, and still do some good.
You still have to pay for your terrorist acts.
Please read the entire thread. I changed the verbiage on that,
and another poster provided a bullet point that achieved the real
objective, which is an end to discrimination based on affiliation.
That's really what I was aiming for with (3). Your (5) accomplishes
equal treatment regardless of affiliation (which is good) without requiring
the same price from all providers (which is bad).
Before anybody else jumps on it--point 3 has an issue.
You'd need to allow insurers to disregard a portion of the claim
from "premium" practitioners. Doctors with spotless credentials
should be able to charge more, but insurers shouldn't necessarily
have to pay the full bill for that unless they were the only
practioner available.
I'm not in favor of trying to give everybody the same
standard of care. As much as that sounds like the moral
highground; it turns out to be the moral low ground due to
the evils that come about in the attempt to force equality.
Plainly the devil's in the details on point 3; but I don't
think
it's an insurmountable problem. A simple "exceeds the mean price
by 1 or more standard deviations", is a good starting point.
We can work from there...
If he had simply put a tax increase in the bill to
pay for it, it would be totally constitutional. That
was not possible from a political PoV, so they came
up with the individual mandate.
IMHO, the fatal flaw with the bill is that it doesn't
(as a first step) try the low-cost solutions to fixing
our system:
1. Abolish the anti-trust exemptions for health
insurers. Yes. You heard me. I bet you didn't even
know that so-called "progressives" are so ready, willing
and able to ignore one of the key ideas of the original
Progressive Era, circa 1900.
2. Price transparency. In most states you can't
even check to see if you're being ripped off because
price lists are secret!
3. Eliminate provider networks. All insurers must
pay the same rates from all providers, and must accept
claims from any licensed practitioner.
4. Uniform, standard billing codes.
2, 3 and 4 would combine to reveal the regime in ways
heretofore unseen, a veritable Wikileak of our current
healthcare insanity. It would also help to eliminate
over-billing of our current government programs.
None of these very low cost alternatives got on the
table. Instead, not only were the inneficient inscos not
punished, they were actually rewarded with the individual
mandate! It's just another example of how powerful
interests have bought government.
Ariane 5 Flight 501 was a pretty
big disaster. It was caused by integer overflow due to re-using software from an earlier
rocket that was physicly incapable of causing the overflow. The wiki article says $370 million
lost, which sounds about right.
That's your perception. If you only watch the "MSM" then it looks
like they pick the winners. If you pick your own media sources, the world
looks different. In fact, it looks different enough that we now have expressions
like "MSM", and we have the MSM being forced to at least acknowledge some
unconventional sources.
Yes. As long as you watch the MSM, it looks like they control things
because within their world they do. The thing is, their world is getting
smaller. The demographic for something like NBC Nightly News increasingly
skews towards the geriatric set.
So how does the college student make millions of people aware of his blog?
The answer? You're soaking in it. Slashdot was started in college. Read the
history of Slashdot. Not all blogs can reach millions. It's just not possible.
Every person in America would have to read millions of blogs everyday. There
are winners and losers, and although you have to have a certain level of proficiency,
luck probably plays a part too.
Slashdot Mirror
One would think that the doctors would do so even if it weren't directly billable. The more success the doctor has with patients, the more patients he gets. If he's already got enough patients, the better his reputation gets and he can charge more for visits.
Of course, in perhaps all but the "cadillac" medical plans, we've trashed that kind of dynamic in the US system. Your doctor is typicly just confirming what the nurse suspects, and signing off on forms...
Here a new subject for you: tomatoes vs rainbows. Go
Double Rainbow, what does it mean?
Surprised nobody has posted this yet.
The particulars of the case notwithstanding, abuse at the hand of unions holding work-permit power (e.g., a union card) is no better than abuse at the hands of an employer. That's the real point.
You cannot cram freedom down people's throats. They have to want it, and by and large, they DON'T. They're happier with authoritarian control, because then someone else does the thinking for them
This is the same illogic that drives radical Free Software people, ie, "Linux Zealots", the most famous of which is RMS.
Non-technical people have no need to diddle with the technical innards of devices. The fact that this doesn't enter into their purchasing decisions doesn't make them "sheeple". To suggest so is patronizing, insulting.
A device that meets their needs and is closed actually provides them more freedom than one that doesn't meet their needs and is open.
You can't cram Free Software Movement ideology down people's throats. You can't even cram it down my throat, and plenty of people have tried. I chose the best solution for the job. Sometimes it's closed. Sometimes it's open. This does not make me a sheeple.
Would it make you feel better if a shop steward had raped her? Of course she wouldn't fight back because she would lose her union card. Not being familiar with the case, she more likely complied because, oh, I dunno... FEAR OF DEATH???
Beep! WARNING -- chlamydia detected; perimeter intact. BEEP! In the event of failure, genetic analysis indicates there is a 85% chance the offspring will have premature baldness and chronic halitosis. BEEP! 20% tension reduction indicated. Would you like to hear a list of suggested fantasies? BEEP 50% tension reduction indicated. BEEP flacidity indicator. Perimeter secure. Thank-you for using the Mood-killer 8000.
Obviously a joke; but you reminded me of how I learned about various Unix commands. I found out about the PATH in my init script, and realized the binaries for all the commands lived in $PATH. You could ls that directory. Between $command --help and man $command, I learned a lot of commands, which I later forgot since it was years out of school before I got back into a *NIX environment.
For a newbie, man $command was information overload. You were lost in a sea of formality that included *everything*. $command --help was sometimes better. I still think it would be nice if man pages had a "10/90 section", which would describe the 10% of features you need 90% of the time.
Amen. We had introductory computer science in my HS, and we had a class called... wait for it... "typing". We learned on manual typewriters. This was the 80s, mind you, and schools are usually behind the curve anyway. IIRC, there was some rationale about the manuals helping you learn better; but I bet it all boiled down to money. I wonder now if my loud keyboarding stems from the fact that I learned on a manual.
I actually don't recall what language we used in our CS course. It was probably BASIC. That's utterly unimportant as it should be in any introductory CS class. You're learning ideas, not languages. We watched a really cool video on sorting algorithms, and coded quicksort and several other algorithms. It was interesting to note that for a newbie, quicksort was a PiTA to code and debug, and actually seemed slower on these machines--I never got a verified sort to work during the time allotted.
Anyway, the whole idea of the guy above thinking that you should be made fun of for learning with Pascal is a bit silly. First, you were a newbie and probably had no choice. Second, if you're any good at all, the first language you learn won't cause brain dammage. I beg to differ with other famous experts in the field who say otherwise. If BASIC damages you, it's your own damn fault.
I recall a story several years ago when one of the biggest group of people suckered by these scams were accountants and people in similar financial professions
There's an old saying, "you can't con an honest man". Of course you can con an honest man; but it's harder. If somebody is greedy and prone to cheat, they're a lot easier to con. A lot of cons rely on the victim believing that they're part of something criminal. Once they step over that line, they feel like they have to keep going, and they won't go to the police because they're "in on it".
Ultimately, guys with better guns. Smugglers, etc. That is, if we don't. If I were in charge, I'd kick the UN out of NYC, turn it into a nice hotel. Diplomats could still meet in the conference room if they wanted; but they'd have to pay regular rates.
I wish there were a way to check a box that says "I want to donate to the UN" on my tax form, like there is with the campaign fund. I'd never check it.
I'm glad that's settled. Now we can all get on with our lives.
Ads on Wikipedia wouldn't concern me if:
1. The ad network was separate from Wikipedia, so there would be less likelihood of advertisers asserting editorial control. This is how most online ad networks work anyway, so it's not hard.
2. The ads were non-tracking, non-obtrusive, non-interstitial, etc. A simple Google-style text ad, or non-animated image. This is probably the hard part. The wrong kinds of ads on Wikipedia will turn it into another About.com. Whenever I get an About.com result returned in a search, I ignore it because I know that it will be full of obtrusive ads, with one page chopped up into 10 to increase pageviews.
3. That reminds me. Don't chop up articles to increase pageviews. That would be, as they say, not very encyclopedic...
Close enough for government work.
Well, given that these were cables from the people that could do something about it... the people that could DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT already knew.
The fact that our infrastructure is decaying is generally known. The specifics of what's decaying, and choke-points of vulernability? Not so well known.
One more voice urging us to secure this or that wouldn't make a positive diff at this point, whereas specific information on vulnerabilities just makes the jobs of those who undeniably are terrorists that much easier.
I suspect it was some promo, like those receipts that say "answer our survey and get a chance for a free burger". I've always said you'd win a lifetime supply of spam. This just proves it.
In a single moment, when the State is removed, the Software Patent regime will cease to exist, and all the benefits we can expect (as detailed in 'Against Intelectual Monopoly') will begin to emerge, starting with the new software that will start to flow freely, unencumbered by the monopolies granted by criminal and inherently violent governments. Medicine will be cheaper, engines more efficient; everything will improve and the pace of innovation will increase by orders of magnitude.
In a single moment, when the State is removed, the Software Patent regime will cease to exist, and all the benefits we can expect (as witnessed during the French Revolution) will begin to emerge, starting with new leaders that will start the blood to flow freely, unencumbered by conscience. Medicine will be cheaper until the supplies are exhausted, engines will be available if you grease the right palms, everything will degrade and innovation will be the least of your concerns as your wealth will decrease by orders of magnitude.
But hey, at least we got rid of those lousy software patents.
Ever heard of the baby and the bathwater?
No? How about the frying pan and the fire?
rest of the world doesnt give a flying fsck about american cia operatives who participated in kidnapping
These aren't the targets to which I was referring. I should have been more specific. I was referring to things like our sole source of snakebit antivenom, sensitive comm facilities, and other targets (as in what a missile can hit, not a human target). You can't justify disseminating that information. It is not a leak. It's just giving a headache and forcing us taxpayers to move facilities, add security, or build redundant facilities.
If they want to release information regarding misconduct in war, violations of Geneva, etc., great; but when they actually start aiding and abetting the enemy; fsck them!
Here we are. When they released the locations of targets, they became terrorists.
When they realease information like this, they are public servants.
There is no contradiction. Gangsters often serve their communities in some capacity. That way, when the cops come through, nobody wants to rat them out because they bought some nice old lady a Cadillac, or they cleaned the streets, or they did some swift justice on a rapist. They're still gangsters.
Doing some good doesn't absolve you of your evil. That's just not how it works.
It's a pity really, because responsible release of information that really is a leak, such as this EPA business, is a great thing. Releasing information that is not a leak, and that might cause headaches for the legitimate defense of the nation, is terrorism.
To recap. You can be a terrorist, and still do some good. You still have to pay for your terrorist acts.
Please read the entire thread. I changed the verbiage on that, and another poster provided a bullet point that achieved the real objective, which is an end to discrimination based on affiliation.
That's really what I was aiming for with (3). Your (5) accomplishes equal treatment regardless of affiliation (which is good) without requiring the same price from all providers (which is bad).
Before anybody else jumps on it--point 3 has an issue. You'd need to allow insurers to disregard a portion of the claim from "premium" practitioners. Doctors with spotless credentials should be able to charge more, but insurers shouldn't necessarily have to pay the full bill for that unless they were the only practioner available.
I'm not in favor of trying to give everybody the same standard of care. As much as that sounds like the moral highground; it turns out to be the moral low ground due to the evils that come about in the attempt to force equality.
Plainly the devil's in the details on point 3; but I don't think it's an insurmountable problem. A simple "exceeds the mean price by 1 or more standard deviations", is a good starting point. We can work from there...
If he had simply put a tax increase in the bill to pay for it, it would be totally constitutional. That was not possible from a political PoV, so they came up with the individual mandate.
IMHO, the fatal flaw with the bill is that it doesn't (as a first step) try the low-cost solutions to fixing our system:
1. Abolish the anti-trust exemptions for health insurers. Yes. You heard me. I bet you didn't even know that so-called "progressives" are so ready, willing and able to ignore one of the key ideas of the original Progressive Era, circa 1900.
2. Price transparency. In most states you can't even check to see if you're being ripped off because price lists are secret!
3. Eliminate provider networks. All insurers must pay the same rates from all providers, and must accept claims from any licensed practitioner.
4. Uniform, standard billing codes.
2, 3 and 4 would combine to reveal the regime in ways heretofore unseen, a veritable Wikileak of our current healthcare insanity. It would also help to eliminate over-billing of our current government programs.
None of these very low cost alternatives got on the table. Instead, not only were the inneficient inscos not punished, they were actually rewarded with the individual mandate! It's just another example of how powerful interests have bought government.
Ariane 5 Flight 501 was a pretty big disaster. It was caused by integer overflow due to re-using software from an earlier rocket that was physicly incapable of causing the overflow. The wiki article says $370 million lost, which sounds about right.
That's your perception. If you only watch the "MSM" then it looks like they pick the winners. If you pick your own media sources, the world looks different. In fact, it looks different enough that we now have expressions like "MSM", and we have the MSM being forced to at least acknowledge some unconventional sources.
Yes. As long as you watch the MSM, it looks like they control things because within their world they do. The thing is, their world is getting smaller. The demographic for something like NBC Nightly News increasingly skews towards the geriatric set.
So how does the college student make millions of people aware of his blog?
The answer? You're soaking in it. Slashdot was started in college. Read the history of Slashdot. Not all blogs can reach millions. It's just not possible. Every person in America would have to read millions of blogs everyday. There are winners and losers, and although you have to have a certain level of proficiency, luck probably plays a part too.