The Amish don't believe in buying private health insurance.
That is what about them... But in your rush to counter me, you missed that point.
I don't mind taking my kids to the doctor and paying the doctor. What you're suggesting is that I should prepay for services I may not need, to make sure my money covers everyone else.
The only system where that is acceptable is national single payer healthcare. Similar to roads, schools, military, etc.
The existing private health insurance system is not a part of that.
The OP above me said "everyone uses healthcare", I provided an example that proved his statement incorrect.
You reply with more nuance, and your points are reasonable to discuss, but the main key remains, not "everyone" wants to be part of modern medicine, for better or worse.
The whole idea of freedom is that people should be able to make that choice.
That is true, but as the saying goes, you can only perform that trick once. What do you do for an encore?
Intel did it awhile later and negated the benefit, from a competitive point of view.
AMD has been very helpful in pushing Intel along, I would not want to see the x86 CPU business without them. But that day may be coming soon, AMD is in a lot of trouble.
That FX has its place, for some people it makes sense.
However, don't let benchmarks fool you, the i5 is better than you think, at least the new ones are.
AMD's big problem is that Intel keeps cranking out new chips that are a bit faster and consume less power every year, while AMD's chips have largely not changed in three years.
While the share price is bad, a bigger issue is the total market cap.
AMD is only worth $1.86 billion. Intel could buy them with th spare change in their couch cushions.
The market sees what is going on, and has priced AMD properly. The company is worth maybe it's patents and nothing else. Everything it sells just burns cash and has no net enterprise value.
It is a real question if AMD can remain a going concern in three years when it's bonds become due, it likely won't be able to replace them.
I suspect AMD knows that all too well, but they don't have the money to do it.
A 15 min review of Intel and AMD's financials will tell you all you need to know about why AMD is in a massive pile of trouble.
I remember thunderbird with great fondness, but the world moved on and AMD could not afford to keep up. Between buying ATI and the cost of shrinking nodes going up and up, they just couldn't keep up with Intel.
It remains a real question if AMD can remain a going concern beyond the next few years, their revenue keeps dropping, they don't make any money, and they have massive bonds coming due.
Yes, but I find his comments rather... full of hubris....
I quote from his post:
"But I stand behind everything we built and everything we accomplished. No one has the data collection capability that we built. No one has the correlative, actuarial, data analysis capability that we built. And no one is able to do so, not just in real-time, but live, not even the 3 letter agencies."
First, how can he possibly know what the 3 letter agencies can and cannot do?
Second, if they couldn't before, I'd be shocked if they can't now, after taking Norse's code.
There's no evidence (released) that it was classified AT THE TIME of her receiving it. Most if not all were retroactively classified.
That really isn't how it works...
If a document contains obvious state secrets, such as designs for modern nuclear weapons, yet it lacks any "classified markings", it isn't suddenly declassified.
The content makes it classified, not the markings.
Someone in Clinton's position should be able to know what sorts of things are classified and what are not. You might draw some gray areas when it comes to things that would fall under "Secret".
You'd have a harder time with Top Secret.
It is beyond absurd to suggest that Clinton, someone who has been in Government for 30 years, who spent 8 years in the White House, wouldn't know Special Access Program material when she saw it.
Such material doesn't have to be "marked", it is classified due to its nature and content.
This is not run-of-the-mill stuff, It is "need to know" type info of the most sensitive nature.
If somehow Clinton DIDN'T know what it was, then she's simply not qualified to be Commander in Chief due to incompetence. If she DID know, then she has committed a very serious felony and broken her non-disclosure agreement with the US government.
Either way, she isn't eligible to be US President.
The e-mail from Clinton telling a subordinate to strip off classified headers and "send it insecure".
That malice.
Who got killed as a direct result of these emails being sent?
No one has to die for it to be an offense that sends you to prison.
Hilary clinton and most of the politicians in the USA, democrat or Republican they are all crooked.
I don't get the sense that either Bernie Sanders nor Donald Trump are crooked politicians. Trump isn't one (even if he is a walking ego trip) and Sanders strikes me as different.
Ron Paul is probably the same, but he has no chance so it doesn't matter.
Sorry, everyone wishes that companies would hire Americans and pay them a fair wage but if Trump were to hire US Citizens most likely he will have to charge more for people to stay at his Casino's compared to the competition and people will choose to save money by staying at a Casino with lower rates.
And that is why you have to change the labor force... You can't just do it with one company, ALL companies have to feel the effects of a reduced illegal workforce.
Trump will have to hire Americans, JUST LIKE THE COMPETITION WILL. That is the whole point. Everyone will pay a bit more, but millions of Americans will have more money to spend, and we're all better off for it.
The moral of this story is, yes, Windows 10 might be pretty. Windows 10 might support all of your favourite games. But in 2016, there is nothing this OS does that Linux can not..
That is not true... Linux won't run Fallout 4...
So there IS something that Windows 10 does that Linux doesn't do. Shocker:)
Again, in a perfect world yes. Are you an economist?
You don't have the right to drive, it is a privilege. If you're not able to be responsible for it, and that includes any accidents you might cause, then perhaps you shouldn't be driving.
Hmm. Given the context of your post, it sounded like you were saying he was incorrect in saying that people had to pay for public defenders. Rereading your actual post... I agree that you would only have to show some errors.
Thank you for rereading it. Yes, that is what I meant, I was simply saying that somewhere in all his shows, I'd find errors. But that is true of anyone and anything, I don't fault him for that.
In this case however, 43 states do charge for public defenders (which is even more than I thought) and it is a horrific path for poor defenders to start on. It seems fundamentally unjust to offer a public defender and then charge them for the public defender. In the interest of justice, public defenders should be well funded and any charges should be based on the defendent's income.
I agree completely, what is being done in those 43 states is unconstitutional, as far as I'm concerned. But then 50% of what our government does is unconstitutional (percentage pulled from my behind, but it is a lot more than nothing)
One solution that I've posted before... decriminalize drugs... You don't have to endorse them to stop throwing people into jail over them. Druggies need treatment, not jail. If I were President tomorrow, I'd pardon every single non-violent drug offender in the country. At least that would be a start. Take the money spent putting a million druggies in jail and instead open treatment centers, free of charge.
For some reason, some people in this nation are ok to spend billions of dollars on prison, but revolt when you want to offer free drug treatment services.
---
BTW, I agree with John Oliver on most things. Not all, but most.
A hand up is fine. You might be surprised that I'm in favor of a social safety net, I don't think we should tell people to go die in a ditch.
I'm open to the idea of the government being the employer of last resort, promising to give all comers a job.
I think people on unemployment/welfare/etc. should have to work for it, not sit at home and collect a check. Even if it is just digging ditches or working a phone bank or anything.
---
Let me put this another way... If we can afford the most powerful military in the world with 11 aircraft carriers, we can afford to feed our population without exception.
But it shouldn't be free. If you have no money, if you're starving, we will feed you, but you'll work for it. Perhaps it is just working in a soup kitchen a few days a week. Perhaps it is sorting books in the local library a few days a week.
Something, anything... if you give it away for "free", then people do not value it and come to expect it and see themselves as entitled.
---
There is an exception... children... I think it is a crime that we charge for food in school. Children should get breakfast and lunch provided at no charge in school.
That should NEVER HAVE HAPPENED... A child was hungry, the cafeteria worker did what any bloody decent human would do, she fed the child. Refusing to feed a child is a crime against humanity, in my opinion.
If a child is hungry, you give him/her food, period. There should not be a discussion about it. It makes me mad just thinking about it.
That's not surprising when welfare is more or less dependent on the recipient not having a job.
That is the point, get a job, lose a lot of your benefits. It is a trap, and one that I'd fix if I could.
Benefits should scale, to encourage you to get a job and to earn money, but as it stands, it punishes doing that.
Except, as explained above, when you're worried about where your next meal is coming from.
And I posted that I was in that position, I missed rent a few times, had an eviction notice posted on my door once. Not a fun feeling. Being poor sucks, no doubt about it. I vowed when I was 18 that I'd never be poor again.
Yes, yes, there ARE exceptions, I get that. But I submit that the majority of people who are poor are there due to their own choices, not due to external events that honestly prevent them from doing any better.
On the other hand, lots of people pick themselves up and make it work. Stop making excuses for people and tell them to get to work.
The poor have more things to worry about than the rich, so asking them to make wise decisions when they don't know where their next meal is coming from is like that old saying, "the beatings will continue until morale improves!"
I've been there, not knowing how I was going to make rent when I was 18 years old.
Now imagine that I had gotten free food, free rent, etc. from the government? Would I have ever learned to be a responsible citizen? Or would I have remained a bum?
I get it, plenty of people are in a hard way. But handouts only serve to keep them there. People get stuck in welfare and can't get out of it.
Frankly the first problem is education, way too many don't know how money really works, how interest works, and how to save and invest over time. Our schools do a horrible job of that. But part of it is people themselves, lots of people are not just ignorant, but willfully ignorant.
"Math is hard" is not a rare saying, and millions of people simply don't want to know stuff. Those people will always be poor, and that is their choice. Learn how money works, get good at math, learn how to step up, anyone can do it, that is the beauty of America.
The poor are less able to defend themselves, so they make better targets for selective enforcement of minor (sometimes utterly insignificant) infractions.
That is one way to look at it. Another is that they lack education and don't understand the law or how to work with it.
I see lots of comments from people who indicate that they don't agree with the law, and thus it shouldn't apply. That isn't how it works. I disagree with many parts of the law, but I don't openly fight it, I'll lose.
The police don't bother me because I don't do anything to attract their attention. Oh sure, from time to time I'll be pulled over for speeding. I once got pulled over for going straight in a turn only lane. I was like, "really? you're going to pull me over for THAT?!?" Of course, I said that to myself before the cop walked up. When he got there, I simply said, "good afternoon officer, how can I help you?"
Yes, I got a ticket, but so what? I didn't give him any reason to bother me beyond that, 20 min later I was home and it really was no big deal. Compare that to the fools who run from the cops, are drinking, have an expired license, smoking pot, or even just talk back to the cops.
I don't have to like the police officer, but I should respect his position of power if I don't want my day ruined.
Every god damn post you make drips with self-congratulatory narcissism.
Donald Trump loves to say, "I'm really, really rich".
I'll say, "I'm pretty well off".
I worked hard to get here, I'm not ashamed to admit it to to be proud of that accomplishment.
If you're broke and $200 away from being homeless, that doesn't make me a better human being than you, or worth more than you... but it DOES mean I make a whole lot better financial decisions than you do, and it means that my advice on money is worth a lot more than whatever you think about money.
Wise advice from someone smarter than I, "If you want to get rich, listen to people who have lots of money, what they have to say, and more important, what they do. Ignore those who are poor and complain, they are usually poor for a reason."
YOU are the one guy that the phrase "check your privilege" was invented for.
I've been poor, poor sucks. Really sucks. At 18 years old I was working in a local computer shop for $4.60/hr and living month to month, never sure if I'd make rent or not. I remember all too well how that feels. I vowed to never be poor again.
Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes life less stressful and it is nice to have heat and AC.:)
Slashdot Mirror
The Amish don't believe in buying private health insurance.
That is what about them... But in your rush to counter me, you missed that point.
I don't mind taking my kids to the doctor and paying the doctor. What you're suggesting is that I should prepay for services I may not need, to make sure my money covers everyone else.
The only system where that is acceptable is national single payer healthcare. Similar to roads, schools, military, etc.
The existing private health insurance system is not a part of that.
The OP above me said "everyone uses healthcare", I provided an example that proved his statement incorrect.
You reply with more nuance, and your points are reasonable to discuss, but the main key remains, not "everyone" wants to be part of modern medicine, for better or worse.
The whole idea of freedom is that people should be able to make that choice.
That is true, but as the saying goes, you can only perform that trick once. What do you do for an encore?
Intel did it awhile later and negated the benefit, from a competitive point of view.
AMD has been very helpful in pushing Intel along, I would not want to see the x86 CPU business without them. But that day may be coming soon, AMD is in a lot of trouble.
That FX has its place, for some people it makes sense.
However, don't let benchmarks fool you, the i5 is better than you think, at least the new ones are.
AMD's big problem is that Intel keeps cranking out new chips that are a bit faster and consume less power every year, while AMD's chips have largely not changed in three years.
While the share price is bad, a bigger issue is the total market cap.
AMD is only worth $1.86 billion. Intel could buy them with th spare change in their couch cushions.
The market sees what is going on, and has priced AMD properly. The company is worth maybe it's patents and nothing else. Everything it sells just burns cash and has no net enterprise value.
It is a real question if AMD can remain a going concern in three years when it's bonds become due, it likely won't be able to replace them.
I suspect AMD knows that all too well, but they don't have the money to do it.
A 15 min review of Intel and AMD's financials will tell you all you need to know about why AMD is in a massive pile of trouble.
I remember thunderbird with great fondness, but the world moved on and AMD could not afford to keep up. Between buying ATI and the cost of shrinking nodes going up and up, they just couldn't keep up with Intel.
It remains a real question if AMD can remain a going concern beyond the next few years, their revenue keeps dropping, they don't make any money, and they have massive bonds coming due.
The Amish
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...
Not everyone believes in private insurance.
Yes, but I find his comments rather... full of hubris....
I quote from his post:
"But I stand behind everything we built and everything we accomplished. No one has the data collection capability that we built. No one has the correlative, actuarial, data analysis capability that we built. And no one is able to do so, not just in real-time, but live, not even the 3 letter agencies."
First, how can he possibly know what the 3 letter agencies can and cannot do?
Second, if they couldn't before, I'd be shocked if they can't now, after taking Norse's code.
If you're going to reference it, get it right! :)
Global Thermonuclear War :)
How about a nice game of Chess?
Yea, you know what I meant... I'm old, now get off my lawn! :)
The son doesn't have a chance either. :)
There's no evidence (released) that it was classified AT THE TIME of her receiving it. Most if not all were retroactively classified.
That really isn't how it works...
If a document contains obvious state secrets, such as designs for modern nuclear weapons, yet it lacks any "classified markings", it isn't suddenly declassified.
The content makes it classified, not the markings.
Someone in Clinton's position should be able to know what sorts of things are classified and what are not. You might draw some gray areas when it comes to things that would fall under "Secret".
You'd have a harder time with Top Secret.
It is beyond absurd to suggest that Clinton, someone who has been in Government for 30 years, who spent 8 years in the White House, wouldn't know Special Access Program material when she saw it.
Such material doesn't have to be "marked", it is classified due to its nature and content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is not run-of-the-mill stuff, It is "need to know" type info of the most sensitive nature.
If somehow Clinton DIDN'T know what it was, then she's simply not qualified to be Commander in Chief due to incompetence. If she DID know, then she has committed a very serious felony and broken her non-disclosure agreement with the US government.
Either way, she isn't eligible to be US President.
... what evidence of malice?
The e-mail from Clinton telling a subordinate to strip off classified headers and "send it insecure".
That malice.
Who got killed as a direct result of these emails being sent?
No one has to die for it to be an offense that sends you to prison.
Hilary clinton and most of the politicians in the USA, democrat or Republican they are all crooked.
I don't get the sense that either Bernie Sanders nor Donald Trump are crooked politicians. Trump isn't one (even if he is a walking ego trip) and Sanders strikes me as different.
Ron Paul is probably the same, but he has no chance so it doesn't matter.
If you actually bothered to look into the DETAILS, usually it's right-wing spin.
I have heard her say, with her own voice, "There was no classified information on my e-mail server".
So, now we know for sure there was...
She is lying... That isn't spin, that is a fact.
Sorry, everyone wishes that companies would hire Americans and pay them a fair wage but if Trump were to hire US Citizens most likely he will have to charge more for people to stay at his Casino's compared to the competition and people will choose to save money by staying at a Casino with lower rates.
And that is why you have to change the labor force... You can't just do it with one company, ALL companies have to feel the effects of a reduced illegal workforce.
Trump will have to hire Americans, JUST LIKE THE COMPETITION WILL. That is the whole point. Everyone will pay a bit more, but millions of Americans will have more money to spend, and we're all better off for it.
The moral of this story is, yes, Windows 10 might be pretty. Windows 10 might support all of your favourite games. But in 2016, there is nothing this OS does that Linux can not ..
That is not true... Linux won't run Fallout 4...
So there IS something that Windows 10 does that Linux doesn't do. Shocker :)
One step at a time...
The hurdle to decriminalize is shorter than to legalize...
I've never done drugs, I've never smoked a cigarette, and I don't want to. But I really don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes.
If we're going to legalize gay marriage, with the logic of not caring what people do in their own homes, why do we care if they smoke pot?
Again, in a perfect world yes. Are you an economist?
You don't have the right to drive, it is a privilege. If you're not able to be responsible for it, and that includes any accidents you might cause, then perhaps you shouldn't be driving.
Hmm. Given the context of your post, it sounded like you were saying he was incorrect in saying that people had to pay for public defenders. Rereading your actual post... I agree that you would only have to show some errors.
Thank you for rereading it. Yes, that is what I meant, I was simply saying that somewhere in all his shows, I'd find errors. But that is true of anyone and anything, I don't fault him for that.
In this case however, 43 states do charge for public defenders (which is even more than I thought) and it is a horrific path for poor defenders to start on. It seems fundamentally unjust to offer a public defender and then charge them for the public defender. In the interest of justice, public defenders should be well funded and any charges should be based on the defendent's income.
I agree completely, what is being done in those 43 states is unconstitutional, as far as I'm concerned. But then 50% of what our government does is unconstitutional (percentage pulled from my behind, but it is a lot more than nothing)
One solution that I've posted before... decriminalize drugs... You don't have to endorse them to stop throwing people into jail over them. Druggies need treatment, not jail. If I were President tomorrow, I'd pardon every single non-violent drug offender in the country. At least that would be a start. Take the money spent putting a million druggies in jail and instead open treatment centers, free of charge.
For some reason, some people in this nation are ok to spend billions of dollars on prison, but revolt when you want to offer free drug treatment services.
---
BTW, I agree with John Oliver on most things. Not all, but most.
A hand up is fine. You might be surprised that I'm in favor of a social safety net, I don't think we should tell people to go die in a ditch.
I'm open to the idea of the government being the employer of last resort, promising to give all comers a job.
I think people on unemployment/welfare/etc. should have to work for it, not sit at home and collect a check. Even if it is just digging ditches or working a phone bank or anything.
---
Let me put this another way... If we can afford the most powerful military in the world with 11 aircraft carriers, we can afford to feed our population without exception.
But it shouldn't be free. If you have no money, if you're starving, we will feed you, but you'll work for it. Perhaps it is just working in a soup kitchen a few days a week. Perhaps it is sorting books in the local library a few days a week.
Something, anything... if you give it away for "free", then people do not value it and come to expect it and see themselves as entitled.
---
There is an exception... children... I think it is a crime that we charge for food in school. Children should get breakfast and lunch provided at no charge in school.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
That should NEVER HAVE HAPPENED... A child was hungry, the cafeteria worker did what any bloody decent human would do, she fed the child. Refusing to feed a child is a crime against humanity, in my opinion.
If a child is hungry, you give him/her food, period. There should not be a discussion about it. It makes me mad just thinking about it.
That's not surprising when welfare is more or less dependent on the recipient not having a job.
That is the point, get a job, lose a lot of your benefits. It is a trap, and one that I'd fix if I could.
Benefits should scale, to encourage you to get a job and to earn money, but as it stands, it punishes doing that.
Except, as explained above, when you're worried about where your next meal is coming from.
And I posted that I was in that position, I missed rent a few times, had an eviction notice posted on my door once. Not a fun feeling. Being poor sucks, no doubt about it. I vowed when I was 18 that I'd never be poor again.
Yes, yes, there ARE exceptions, I get that. But I submit that the majority of people who are poor are there due to their own choices, not due to external events that honestly prevent them from doing any better.
On the other hand, lots of people pick themselves up and make it work. Stop making excuses for people and tell them to get to work.
You've mistaken your good luck for good citizenship.
Don't confuse good luck with hard work.
You need some real life experience of walking in the shoes of those you judge.
You don't know me, I have that experience, I've been poor, it sucks.
I decided to never be poor again and worked my butt off to make sure that would happen.
The poor have more things to worry about than the rich, so asking them to make wise decisions when they don't know where their next meal is coming from is like that old saying, "the beatings will continue until morale improves!"
I've been there, not knowing how I was going to make rent when I was 18 years old.
Now imagine that I had gotten free food, free rent, etc. from the government? Would I have ever learned to be a responsible citizen? Or would I have remained a bum?
I get it, plenty of people are in a hard way. But handouts only serve to keep them there. People get stuck in welfare and can't get out of it.
Frankly the first problem is education, way too many don't know how money really works, how interest works, and how to save and invest over time. Our schools do a horrible job of that. But part of it is people themselves, lots of people are not just ignorant, but willfully ignorant.
"Math is hard" is not a rare saying, and millions of people simply don't want to know stuff. Those people will always be poor, and that is their choice. Learn how money works, get good at math, learn how to step up, anyone can do it, that is the beauty of America.
The poor are less able to defend themselves, so they make better targets for selective enforcement of minor (sometimes utterly insignificant) infractions.
That is one way to look at it. Another is that they lack education and don't understand the law or how to work with it.
I see lots of comments from people who indicate that they don't agree with the law, and thus it shouldn't apply. That isn't how it works. I disagree with many parts of the law, but I don't openly fight it, I'll lose.
The police don't bother me because I don't do anything to attract their attention. Oh sure, from time to time I'll be pulled over for speeding. I once got pulled over for going straight in a turn only lane. I was like, "really? you're going to pull me over for THAT?!?" Of course, I said that to myself before the cop walked up. When he got there, I simply said, "good afternoon officer, how can I help you?"
Yes, I got a ticket, but so what? I didn't give him any reason to bother me beyond that, 20 min later I was home and it really was no big deal. Compare that to the fools who run from the cops, are drinking, have an expired license, smoking pot, or even just talk back to the cops.
I don't have to like the police officer, but I should respect his position of power if I don't want my day ruined.
Laws cannot be written to the individual, it'll be a nightmare.
Sure they can, and no it won't...
Simply write the law to allow Judges to reduce fines and bail to the extent required to meet the spirit of the law and the Constitution.
Every god damn post you make drips with self-congratulatory narcissism.
Donald Trump loves to say, "I'm really, really rich".
I'll say, "I'm pretty well off".
I worked hard to get here, I'm not ashamed to admit it to to be proud of that accomplishment.
If you're broke and $200 away from being homeless, that doesn't make me a better human being than you, or worth more than you... but it DOES mean I make a whole lot better financial decisions than you do, and it means that my advice on money is worth a lot more than whatever you think about money.
Wise advice from someone smarter than I, "If you want to get rich, listen to people who have lots of money, what they have to say, and more important, what they do. Ignore those who are poor and complain, they are usually poor for a reason."
YOU are the one guy that the phrase "check your privilege" was invented for.
I've been poor, poor sucks. Really sucks. At 18 years old I was working in a local computer shop for $4.60/hr and living month to month, never sure if I'd make rent or not. I remember all too well how that feels. I vowed to never be poor again.
Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes life less stressful and it is nice to have heat and AC. :)