The poor young people get subsidies (up to 400% of the poverty line), or can stay on their parents insurance (until they're 26).
It's the middle-income and wealthy young people who are paying. And they're paying so that someone pays for them when they need it. That's how insurance works.
In terms of standard passwords, I'd like to introduce you to the ordinary person who can't handle a different password for every site. I can't for sites that I don't regularly visit, like healthcare.gov.
Okay, since you're saying that, I'm guessing that you're just unaware of how user-friendly password safes are these days. Go download KeePass. Create a single, very strong password. I use a full sentence with a few misspellings and inserted special characters, so it's easy to remember. Generate a password file, and stick it in Dropbox, or whatever service you like, to sync it between all your computers and (if applicable) your phone.
It will generate random passwords like "2YWD+aV8d#MWKq5j3_Gl" for you, based on whatever criteria you tell it to use, store them securely along with your username and the website's URL. Just click the stored link, and then hit CTRL-V to have it enter your credentials into the website. It even clears the clipboard afterwards for you. It really couldn't be easier.
I've got multiple family members, including my 98 year old WWII veteran grandpa, using password safes. I don't even want to argue that the Obamacare website isn't still buggy (the period in the username thing proves that it is). But if you care about online security, you'd really be doing yourself a favor by using a password safe.
That's very different from "must contain a %, *, or ^", which is what you said in your first post. Lots of sites have similar requirements.
Why do you have a "standard secure password"? That's an oxymoron. If you're really concerned about security, you shouldn't be using the same password on multiple sites. Just get a password safe.
Young, rich, healthy people pay more so that the old, the poor, and the sick can get affordable coverage. Maybe you don't like that right now, but you'll change your mind if you ever get seriously ill, or lose your job, or see your retirement savings vanish into Wall Street's coffers. And if none of those things happen, then count yourself blessed and move on.
it won't accept my e-mail address as my username, even though it would appear to fit the criteria.
"The username is case sensitive. Choose a username that is 6-74 characters long and must contain a lowercase or capital letter, a number, or one of these symbols _.@/-"
If they are having problems explaining the most basic things, I'm not hopeful.
It looks like the period is the invalid character. Interestingly, having a period in the username gives a different error message than the one used for any other invalid character. I'm guessing they're scanning the string in two separate places, and forgot to remove the one that doesn't like periods.
When sites come up with new, unusual standards for usernames and passwords (e.g. must contain a %, *, or ^), then they are making the site less secure because they are increasing the odds that people will have to write down their usernames and passwords.
What are you talking about? The site doesn't require you to use special characters in your password. It just says 8-20 characters, containing one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, and one number. That's pretty standard.
Well, college tuition is dangerously high, and rising. A disruptive technology like MOOCs could introduce some competition and deflate the tuition bubble before it bursts and torpedoes our economy. So a lot of people want to see MOOCs succeed. The "death" of colleges is hyperbole, but they could certainly do with less demand.
I looked through the links now and I'm getting this subtext that Thun is sick of dealing with the bullshit that comes from trying to work within the framework of established universities and their entrenched faculties
That's not what the article says at all. The schools did a pilot program, and of the students taking the course on Udacity, only 50% passed, compared to ~75% of the classroom students.
I'd love for Udacity to succeed too, but you've got to accept reality. As of right now, Udacity isn't as effective as a traditional classroom. Now, it's not useless -- 50% passing is still a lot of people getting an education.
Perhaps this just comes down to people learning in different ways: for some people, face-to-face interaction with teacher and classmates is essential to their progress. For others, they learn best from individual study. The second group can excel with MOOCs. But traditional classrooms will remain for the first group. Both groups end up winning -- the second because they have cheap and easy access to education, and the first because the reduced demand for classroom seats will drive down prices.
But with free speech, the government cannot punish you, only your fellow citizens (at least, that's how it's supposed to work). Surely you don't think it should be the same with murder?
If your idea of a "natural right" is anything a human being is physically capable of doing, then the term loses all meaning.
I'm saying it is very likely it will be that way in the future. The money will have to come from somewhere, and if it doesn't, which is likely, costs must be cut.. This will result in legislation. It is NOT an unreasonable assumption.
You're imagining that the future might be awful, and getting angry over the things you imagined. There is ZERO reason to think that the government is going to "tell you when and where you must exercise". Either we'll improve the cost efficiency of health care by eliminating middle men, or we'll just not have as much healthcare and leave the sick to die. No one is pushing for the future you've built up in your mind.
You gotta lay off the anger. It may be fun to imagine yourself as a heroic fighter against the evil, oppressive government. Maybe it makes an otherwise dull life more exciting. But it's bad for you. Being constantly angry at imagined threats isn't healthy.
You're just screaming at the voices in your head. No one in the real world is saying that the US government should tell you "what I may eat, how much, when and where I must exercise" etc.
Of course, this brings up another big flaw in American healthcare: the disgraceful state of mental healthcare.
That's not true at all. The study was conducted by education policy researchers from the University of Arkansas. They posted their methods here. Did you read them?
It seems like you, any many others, just made a snap judgement based on a misinterpretation of the summary.
The study doesn't claim a big difference. The results were only 5% to 10% of a standard deviation. But they were statistically significant. And since the students were picked at random and had the tests administered after the fact, you can't argue correlation-but-not-causation. (What, do you think that performing well on a test improves your ability to have your name picked out of a hat six months ago?)
A random sample of tens of thousands of students, controlling for education level, income level, gender, and other factors, showed a small but statistically significant increase in critical thinking, social tolerance, and historical empathy. What part sounds like BS to you? Is it the part where the conclusion doesn't fit your preconceived notions, and therefore must be false?
Honest answer? Because it's not really important, so your local news and pols won't bother to report on it. But with the proper headline, it WILL make you very angry, and angry people give lots of page views, so Slashdot will report it.
Be honest: is it really newsworthy that the US doesn't want the UN to condemn international spying? If the UN did condemn international spying, would that change anything? Of course not. This article is completely trivial. It only serves as a launch pad for angry ranting. It's your Two Minutes Hate for the day, except it lasts more than two minutes, and occurs multiple times a day.
Everyone has a vested interest in their opinion. So what? It doesn't make them wrong. Seems like you just don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy he's pointing out.
The rule is this: we generally side against evil, in all its predatory, corrupt, and dishonourable ways.
Hahahahaha.... you side against "evil", eh? You torrent movies as some noble war against Hollywood accounting? Wherever would we be without our Honorable Okian Warrior to lead the charge against everything he determines is evil?
Quit masturbating to how wonderful you are, and just admit that you torrent movies because you want to and no one can stop you. It's okay, you won't get in trouble for it. And you'd certainly have a lot more credibility.
The chart's hosted on the National Republican Congressional Committee's website. I would take it with a heaping tablespoon of salt, if I were you. It's say to say that chart was designed to look as scary and confusing as possible.
People make drones for peace. If you have to qualify it with "military" drones, then you're just being tautological. And why does it even matter if they're made for peace? The question is "can a small nuke do more damage than a thousand drones?"
You also don't seem to understand what nuclear weapons do, if you think a few drones could accomplish the same thing. Take a look at this, for instance. Play around with the smallest nukes in their database. It still annihilates multiple city blocks.
For a real world example, consider that the US drones in Pakistan have killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000 people. That's many drones operating over several years. Little Boy killed over a hundred thousand people in Hiroshima, not including radiation deaths over the following years. And Little Boy was tiny compared to the nukes in operation today.
If they could, they would do it anyway. Surely you don't think otherwise?
Do you really believe that a group would say "Hey, we want to kill these Americans, and we've got drones to do it with, but the Americans haven't used drones lately, so we'll just stick with pistols"?
Yeah, and cars could theoretically be modified to carry nukes as well. Does that mean that cars are as dangerous as nuclear weapons? Of course not. Your logic is beyond flawed, bordering on non-sensical.
This is a cash grab. They will charge big bucks, and the business commuters will pay, because their company will want them in meetings. You think the airlines give two shits about degrading service? If it scares off a few passengers, what do they care? They don't want volume, they want margin. And most people who fly have no choice anyway.
I've taken quite a few international flights, and never seen a phone call. Perhaps there are some locales that allow them, and maybe they don't get complaints. Just like restaurants don't get many complaints about diners on phones. People just sigh and accept a bit of misery, because they don't want to make a scene by complaining.
So life will get a bit more hellish for everyone, while a select few benefit. And you'll cheer from the sidelines because the man who profits most from this told you that it's a good thing.
I think it goes without saying that when someone sells a $150k bank account for $400, it's because they know they can't withdraw more than $400 without getting caught.
Slashdot Mirror
The poor young people get subsidies (up to 400% of the poverty line), or can stay on their parents insurance (until they're 26).
It's the middle-income and wealthy young people who are paying. And they're paying so that someone pays for them when they need it. That's how insurance works.
In terms of standard passwords, I'd like to introduce you to the ordinary person who can't handle a different password for every site. I can't for sites that I don't regularly visit, like healthcare.gov.
Okay, since you're saying that, I'm guessing that you're just unaware of how user-friendly password safes are these days. Go download KeePass. Create a single, very strong password. I use a full sentence with a few misspellings and inserted special characters, so it's easy to remember. Generate a password file, and stick it in Dropbox, or whatever service you like, to sync it between all your computers and (if applicable) your phone.
It will generate random passwords like "2YWD+aV8d#MWKq5j3_Gl" for you, based on whatever criteria you tell it to use, store them securely along with your username and the website's URL. Just click the stored link, and then hit CTRL-V to have it enter your credentials into the website. It even clears the clipboard afterwards for you. It really couldn't be easier.
I've got multiple family members, including my 98 year old WWII veteran grandpa, using password safes. I don't even want to argue that the Obamacare website isn't still buggy (the period in the username thing proves that it is). But if you care about online security, you'd really be doing yourself a favor by using a password safe.
That's very different from "must contain a %, *, or ^", which is what you said in your first post. Lots of sites have similar requirements.
Why do you have a "standard secure password"? That's an oxymoron. If you're really concerned about security, you shouldn't be using the same password on multiple sites. Just get a password safe.
Young, rich, healthy people pay more so that the old, the poor, and the sick can get affordable coverage. Maybe you don't like that right now, but you'll change your mind if you ever get seriously ill, or lose your job, or see your retirement savings vanish into Wall Street's coffers. And if none of those things happen, then count yourself blessed and move on.
it won't accept my e-mail address as my username, even though it would appear to fit the criteria.
"The username is case sensitive. Choose a username that is 6-74 characters long and must contain a lowercase or capital letter, a number, or one of these symbols _.@/-"
If they are having problems explaining the most basic things, I'm not hopeful.
It looks like the period is the invalid character. Interestingly, having a period in the username gives a different error message than the one used for any other invalid character. I'm guessing they're scanning the string in two separate places, and forgot to remove the one that doesn't like periods.
When sites come up with new, unusual standards for usernames and passwords (e.g. must contain a %, *, or ^), then they are making the site less secure because they are increasing the odds that people will have to write down their usernames and passwords.
What are you talking about? The site doesn't require you to use special characters in your password. It just says 8-20 characters, containing one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, and one number. That's pretty standard.
Well, college tuition is dangerously high, and rising. A disruptive technology like MOOCs could introduce some competition and deflate the tuition bubble before it bursts and torpedoes our economy. So a lot of people want to see MOOCs succeed. The "death" of colleges is hyperbole, but they could certainly do with less demand.
I looked through the links now and I'm getting this subtext that Thun is sick of dealing with the bullshit that comes from trying to work within the framework of established universities and their entrenched faculties
That's not what the article says at all. The schools did a pilot program, and of the students taking the course on Udacity, only 50% passed, compared to ~75% of the classroom students.
I'd love for Udacity to succeed too, but you've got to accept reality. As of right now, Udacity isn't as effective as a traditional classroom. Now, it's not useless -- 50% passing is still a lot of people getting an education.
Perhaps this just comes down to people learning in different ways: for some people, face-to-face interaction with teacher and classmates is essential to their progress. For others, they learn best from individual study. The second group can excel with MOOCs. But traditional classrooms will remain for the first group. Both groups end up winning -- the second because they have cheap and easy access to education, and the first because the reduced demand for classroom seats will drive down prices.
But with free speech, the government cannot punish you, only your fellow citizens (at least, that's how it's supposed to work). Surely you don't think it should be the same with murder?
If your idea of a "natural right" is anything a human being is physically capable of doing, then the term loses all meaning.
I'm saying it is very likely it will be that way in the future. The money will have to come from somewhere, and if it doesn't, which is likely, costs must be cut.. This will result in legislation. It is NOT an unreasonable assumption.
You're imagining that the future might be awful, and getting angry over the things you imagined. There is ZERO reason to think that the government is going to "tell you when and where you must exercise". Either we'll improve the cost efficiency of health care by eliminating middle men, or we'll just not have as much healthcare and leave the sick to die. No one is pushing for the future you've built up in your mind.
You gotta lay off the anger. It may be fun to imagine yourself as a heroic fighter against the evil, oppressive government. Maybe it makes an otherwise dull life more exciting. But it's bad for you. Being constantly angry at imagined threats isn't healthy.
By that logic, we have the right to rape and murder.
You're just screaming at the voices in your head. No one in the real world is saying that the US government should tell you "what I may eat, how much, when and where I must exercise" etc.
Of course, this brings up another big flaw in American healthcare: the disgraceful state of mental healthcare.
They finally found a way to bolster the Google+ user base. They'll just use it for us!
That's not true at all. The study was conducted by education policy researchers from the University of Arkansas. They posted their methods here. Did you read them?
It seems like you, any many others, just made a snap judgement based on a misinterpretation of the summary.
The study doesn't claim a big difference. The results were only 5% to 10% of a standard deviation. But they were statistically significant. And since the students were picked at random and had the tests administered after the fact, you can't argue correlation-but-not-causation. (What, do you think that performing well on a test improves your ability to have your name picked out of a hat six months ago?)
A random sample of tens of thousands of students, controlling for education level, income level, gender, and other factors, showed a small but statistically significant increase in critical thinking, social tolerance, and historical empathy. What part sounds like BS to you? Is it the part where the conclusion doesn't fit your preconceived notions, and therefore must be false?
Honest answer? Because it's not really important, so your local news and pols won't bother to report on it. But with the proper headline, it WILL make you very angry, and angry people give lots of page views, so Slashdot will report it.
Be honest: is it really newsworthy that the US doesn't want the UN to condemn international spying? If the UN did condemn international spying, would that change anything? Of course not. This article is completely trivial. It only serves as a launch pad for angry ranting. It's your Two Minutes Hate for the day, except it lasts more than two minutes, and occurs multiple times a day.
Everyone has a vested interest in their opinion. So what? It doesn't make them wrong. Seems like you just don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy he's pointing out.
The rule is this: we generally side against evil, in all its predatory, corrupt, and dishonourable ways.
Hahahahaha.... you side against "evil", eh? You torrent movies as some noble war against Hollywood accounting? Wherever would we be without our Honorable Okian Warrior to lead the charge against everything he determines is evil?
Quit masturbating to how wonderful you are, and just admit that you torrent movies because you want to and no one can stop you. It's okay, you won't get in trouble for it. And you'd certainly have a lot more credibility.
The chart's hosted on the National Republican Congressional Committee's website. I would take it with a heaping tablespoon of salt, if I were you. It's say to say that chart was designed to look as scary and confusing as possible.
People make drones for peace. If you have to qualify it with "military" drones, then you're just being tautological. And why does it even matter if they're made for peace? The question is "can a small nuke do more damage than a thousand drones?"
You also don't seem to understand what nuclear weapons do, if you think a few drones could accomplish the same thing. Take a look at this, for instance. Play around with the smallest nukes in their database. It still annihilates multiple city blocks.
For a real world example, consider that the US drones in Pakistan have killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000 people. That's many drones operating over several years. Little Boy killed over a hundred thousand people in Hiroshima, not including radiation deaths over the following years. And Little Boy was tiny compared to the nukes in operation today.
If they could, they would do it anyway. Surely you don't think otherwise?
Do you really believe that a group would say "Hey, we want to kill these Americans, and we've got drones to do it with, but the Americans haven't used drones lately, so we'll just stick with pistols"?
Yeah, and cars could theoretically be modified to carry nukes as well. Does that mean that cars are as dangerous as nuclear weapons? Of course not. Your logic is beyond flawed, bordering on non-sensical.
You're a sucker.
This is a cash grab. They will charge big bucks, and the business commuters will pay, because their company will want them in meetings. You think the airlines give two shits about degrading service? If it scares off a few passengers, what do they care? They don't want volume, they want margin. And most people who fly have no choice anyway.
I've taken quite a few international flights, and never seen a phone call. Perhaps there are some locales that allow them, and maybe they don't get complaints. Just like restaurants don't get many complaints about diners on phones. People just sigh and accept a bit of misery, because they don't want to make a scene by complaining.
So life will get a bit more hellish for everyone, while a select few benefit. And you'll cheer from the sidelines because the man who profits most from this told you that it's a good thing.
The CEO who stands to make tens of millions of dollars from this says its a good thing? Well, gee, guess I better just take his word for it.
Anyone who talks on the phone next to me on a plane will have my elbow in their side for the duration of the phone call. It's only fair.
I think it goes without saying that when someone sells a $150k bank account for $400, it's because they know they can't withdraw more than $400 without getting caught.