Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
Why people keep ignoring this, when Obama (and Reid and Pelosi) have stated repeatedly in the past that this is just a first step, is really beyond me.
Obama, over the past years, during the election:
"It is my belief that not just politically but economically it is better for us to start getting a system in place, a universal healthcare system, signed into law by the end of my first term as president and build off that system to make it more rational..."
"By the way, Canada did not start off immediately with a single-payer system, they had a similar transition step..."
"Transitioning a system is a very difficult and costly and lengthy enterprise. It's not like you can turn on a switch and go from one system to another..."
"But I don't think that we are going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately, there's going to be potentially some transition process..."
And miss Nancy, when "Obamacare" passes: "Kick open that door, and there will be other legislation to follow... We'll take the country in a new direction."
Maybe I'm missing something as I'm from Europe, but can't you use Social Security Numbers for this purpose? Here, every employer requires a SSN to officially hire you and pay you. Why would you need a card?
Let the conspiracy theories begin! Oh... they already have.
Yes, employers here are supposed to check your social security number. Unfortunately, you can randomly create a social security number in your head, and it doesn't matter whether it really exists or not (although, if it does, you've just completely screwed the person who it belongs to). Using a biometric card, you prove that the card belongs to you. Hopefully.
Not that I agree with it... there are some problems that exist in the world (copyright infringement, for example) for which the cure is worse than the problem. This is one of those cases, IMO.
If the FDA approves something, after all that bureaucratic bullcrap, they damn well better be sure it's safe.
But if they haven't approved something, then it ought to ONLY come with a disclaimer that it either hasn't been approved or it's still be evaluated by the FDA, they shouldn't be able to RESTRICT it's use.
If I'm a cancer patient, dying and in pain, then F%$# you if you want me to wait ten years for some drug or therapy to be approved.
People will still pay, because their desperate for any sliver of hope and the pharma industry would be automatically protected from lawsuits.
So, your answer is to create a decades long bureaucratic process that removes all hope whatsoever.
I don't think I like that alternative. Oh, I know I just presented a false dichotomy and that's probably not what you meant, ideally things can move along faster than that, but in practical terms they don't.
So we have the ongoing cases right now of people wanting to take experimental drugs for their cancer... the government won't let them. On the one hand, they may die if they take these experimental drugs; on the other, they most assuredly will if they don't. Shouldn't it be their choice?
Full disclaimers, of course... patients need to know the drugs or procedures are not vetted by the FDA, that's fine, it's the government telling me I CAN'T do something that bothers me... if they want to warn me before letting me make my own decision, that's fine with me.
The problem isn't with the treatment (as long as there is full disclosure to the patient), the problem is with federal regulators getting in the way of progress, as is increasingly common.
I'm wondering if people think progress like this will increase or decrease under "Obamacare." Yes, as a serious question.
If they changed the encryption, then new discs wouldn't play on older players... and by "older," we'd be talking about only a year or two old.
So... no, I don't think that's a problem.
Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke
on
Window Pain
·
· Score: 1
I don't know what you're talking about... I've NEVER seen such an add, although I have seen flash based ads that weren't easily handled by noscript/adblock. I haven't used flashblock.
Lately? I was just about to say it's been nearly every day for years.
Of course, that includes non-security updates, too, but it checks every damn time you log in. The option is to turn it off completely? That's no good, either.
Maybe if they'd listen to the viewers complaining Olympics after Olympics that we want less human interest stories and more events. Events are going on there ALL DAY. The downhill skiers aren't waiting for the Hockey game to be over; they have TONS of actual events they could be showing non-stop during their relatively few hours of Olympics broadcasts. If it means that we're not just watching Americans, fine! I know people living here from all over the world, we want to see everything, whether an American is involved or not.
That's really absurd, though, if you want to take it to extremes. There was a point in trying to reduce racism, there's little point in placating 24 year olds when they will be 25 some day anyway.
There's always some discrimination not just allowed, but encouraged. Some drunk guy walks into a bar and asks for a drink and the bartender says "no," you're going to complain the bartender is discriminating against drunks? No, he's trying to avoid a problem, which is the same thing the landlord is trying to do.
It seems people have a great deal of problems documenting object oriented languages, IMO.
The C book is simple and straightforward because C is simple and straightforward by comparison; you don't get lists and dictionaries and so forth in C.
Just make a "no party" clause with huge monetary penalty for breaking. Make it bloody obvious from the beginning that this clause is there, and that it will be enforced if necessary.
And what happens when they have a party anyway, trash the place, and have no money to pay for it?
Take them to court? How much does that cost? And you can't get blood from a stone.
It's easier to avoid the whole problem to begin with.
It doesn't matter if you think it's discrimination or right or wrong, it's reality.... if someone's going to trash your rental property, it's much more likely to be younger people.
I agree with one of the above posters... I think landlords should be able to discriminate any way they want to. It's private property. Even the rights enumerated in the bill of rights are negative ones; you have the right to free speech, but no one is forced to provide you with a venue; you have the right to bear arms, but no one is forced to supply you with a gun. If, by the 10th amendment you extend that to include rental rights, you have the right to rent property, but no one should be forced to rent it to you.
A minority of a group can still cause enough problems to make it not worthwhile to deal with.
If only 10% of people under 25 tear up their rooms, making you unable to rent them while the damage is being repaired, it becomes absolutely not worth it.
The hotels ARE prejudging people under 25. So what? People under 25 gave them a reason, even if it was only a fraction of those under 25. Get over it. If you ran a similar business, you would likely quickly realize how costly your lenient attitude is.
Age has a LOT to do with maturity (we're speaking about the mental kind). It's true there are outliers of very young people who are more mature than older people, and older people who seem to never become mature at all, but they are just that - outliers, they are not proof against the general rule.
The part of the brain that assesses risk is not fully developed until an average age of around 25.
In this case I agree with the court, but the right to freedom of speech doesn't come with the right to impunity for your actions, either.
Well... I never gave it much thought, but if you have a bachelors degree in computer science then why aren't you a scientist? You're a computer scientist.
That is, I don't accurately estimate programming time. The people here get pissed, but too bad... they give me a project, I say it'll take me x number of days, then they keep changing what they want and get mad at me when x comes and goes and I'm not done.
I work in television production in the south east; I write tools and utilities for our animators as well as now doing some mundane things like project archival. I've been able to do a lot of fun and interesting things, and as our tools keep changing and technology keeps advancing (hey, now we're doing stereoscopic 3d content), my job has remained interesting.
I started, with an MS, 15 years ago at $45k. At the time, my dad was telling me about DB jobs on Wall St. that were paying $100+k. I said "no thanks," and I don't regret it.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying... just because you work for a company does not mean you lose your right to free speech (or give it to someone else).
The corporation is an entity that you work for, it's not you, and it doesn't represent you. You could have been, for example, a programmer hired to do some website programming for McCain, even if you had a liberal ideology. At the end of the day, you could still go on your blog and rail against McCain or financially support Obama...
The executives who are deciding to use the corporation's resources for campaigning are usually doing so in the interest of the corporation as a whole, not the employees... you shouldn't feel, as an employee, that you have the right to anything except what the company is contractually bound to give you. If you are a shareholder, THEN you can make your case, and if the executives act counter to the majority of shareholders, they will get the boot, or if the majority of shareholders acts counter to your wishes, you are free to sell your stock.
Personally, while I can see some issues I don't like about this (far too long businesses have used the power of government against competitors, but this has continued to happen anyway), I agree with the ruling. Despite the bribery and corruption, I agree with this ruling (again, it happens anyway).
And people should stop blaming companies for supporting legislation and start blaming their legislators. It's the company's fault they can take advantage of people who are not willing to invest the time into researching issues themselves. I never voted for someone because of what was said on a commercial, have you?
Slashdot Mirror
Why people keep ignoring this, when Obama (and Reid and Pelosi) have stated repeatedly in the past that this is just a first step, is really beyond me.
Obama, over the past years, during the election:
And miss Nancy, when "Obamacare" passes: "Kick open that door, and there will be other legislation to follow ... We'll take the country in a new direction."
Can't wait! We'll be out of debt in no time!
What??? Why is it OK for government theft and not insurance company theft? Because the government has bigger guns?
I'm sorry, but your illness, as bad as it is, and as much as I hope you can take care of it, does NOT grant you a lien on my property.
This makes no more sense than asking a car insurance company for insurance AFTER you've been in an accident.
Of course it's hard to make an objective choice when you're given a "death sentence" by your doctor, but at that point does it really matter?
Let the conspiracy theories begin! Oh... they already have.
Yes, employers here are supposed to check your social security number. Unfortunately, you can randomly create a social security number in your head, and it doesn't matter whether it really exists or not (although, if it does, you've just completely screwed the person who it belongs to). Using a biometric card, you prove that the card belongs to you. Hopefully.
Not that I agree with it... there are some problems that exist in the world (copyright infringement, for example) for which the cure is worse than the problem. This is one of those cases, IMO.
AC misses the point.
If the FDA approves something, after all that bureaucratic bullcrap, they damn well better be sure it's safe.
But if they haven't approved something, then it ought to ONLY come with a disclaimer that it either hasn't been approved or it's still be evaluated by the FDA, they shouldn't be able to RESTRICT it's use.
If I'm a cancer patient, dying and in pain, then F%$# you if you want me to wait ten years for some drug or therapy to be approved.
People will still pay, because their desperate for any sliver of hope and the pharma industry would be automatically protected from lawsuits.
So, your answer is to create a decades long bureaucratic process that removes all hope whatsoever.
I don't think I like that alternative. Oh, I know I just presented a false dichotomy and that's probably not what you meant, ideally things can move along faster than that, but in practical terms they don't.
So we have the ongoing cases right now of people wanting to take experimental drugs for their cancer... the government won't let them. On the one hand, they may die if they take these experimental drugs; on the other, they most assuredly will if they don't. Shouldn't it be their choice?
Full disclaimers, of course... patients need to know the drugs or procedures are not vetted by the FDA, that's fine, it's the government telling me I CAN'T do something that bothers me... if they want to warn me before letting me make my own decision, that's fine with me.
The problem isn't with the treatment (as long as there is full disclosure to the patient), the problem is with federal regulators getting in the way of progress, as is increasingly common.
I'm wondering if people think progress like this will increase or decrease under "Obamacare." Yes, as a serious question.
If they changed the encryption, then new discs wouldn't play on older players... and by "older," we'd be talking about only a year or two old.
So... no, I don't think that's a problem.
I don't know what you're talking about... I've NEVER seen such an add, although I have seen flash based ads that weren't easily handled by noscript/adblock. I haven't used flashblock.
Lately? I was just about to say it's been nearly every day for years.
Of course, that includes non-security updates, too, but it checks every damn time you log in. The option is to turn it off completely? That's no good, either.
I didn't say "no" human interest stories, I said "less."
Maybe if they'd listen to the viewers complaining Olympics after Olympics that we want less human interest stories and more events. Events are going on there ALL DAY. The downhill skiers aren't waiting for the Hockey game to be over; they have TONS of actual events they could be showing non-stop during their relatively few hours of Olympics broadcasts. If it means that we're not just watching Americans, fine! I know people living here from all over the world, we want to see everything, whether an American is involved or not.
That's really absurd, though, if you want to take it to extremes. There was a point in trying to reduce racism, there's little point in placating 24 year olds when they will be 25 some day anyway.
There's always some discrimination not just allowed, but encouraged. Some drunk guy walks into a bar and asks for a drink and the bartender says "no," you're going to complain the bartender is discriminating against drunks? No, he's trying to avoid a problem, which is the same thing the landlord is trying to do.
Disputes and low credit limits.
It seems people have a great deal of problems documenting object oriented languages, IMO.
The C book is simple and straightforward because C is simple and straightforward by comparison; you don't get lists and dictionaries and so forth in C.
They can't legally discriminate against people based on race because it's written into law, so be it.
While I wouldn't advocate it, I think private business owners ought to be able to discriminate any way they choose.
Just make a "no party" clause with huge monetary penalty for breaking. Make it bloody obvious from the beginning that this clause is there, and that it will be enforced if necessary.
And what happens when they have a party anyway, trash the place, and have no money to pay for it?
Take them to court? How much does that cost? And you can't get blood from a stone.
It's easier to avoid the whole problem to begin with.
It doesn't matter if you think it's discrimination or right or wrong, it's reality.... if someone's going to trash your rental property, it's much more likely to be younger people.
I agree with one of the above posters... I think landlords should be able to discriminate any way they want to. It's private property. Even the rights enumerated in the bill of rights are negative ones; you have the right to free speech, but no one is forced to provide you with a venue; you have the right to bear arms, but no one is forced to supply you with a gun. If, by the 10th amendment you extend that to include rental rights, you have the right to rent property, but no one should be forced to rent it to you.
A minority of a group can still cause enough problems to make it not worthwhile to deal with.
If only 10% of people under 25 tear up their rooms, making you unable to rent them while the damage is being repaired, it becomes absolutely not worth it.
The hotels ARE prejudging people under 25. So what? People under 25 gave them a reason, even if it was only a fraction of those under 25. Get over it. If you ran a similar business, you would likely quickly realize how costly your lenient attitude is.
Age has a LOT to do with maturity (we're speaking about the mental kind). It's true there are outliers of very young people who are more mature than older people, and older people who seem to never become mature at all, but they are just that - outliers, they are not proof against the general rule.
The part of the brain that assesses risk is not fully developed until an average age of around 25.
In this case I agree with the court, but the right to freedom of speech doesn't come with the right to impunity for your actions, either.
Well... I never gave it much thought, but if you have a bachelors degree in computer science then why aren't you a scientist? You're a computer scientist.
That is, I don't accurately estimate programming time. The people here get pissed, but too bad... they give me a project, I say it'll take me x number of days, then they keep changing what they want and get mad at me when x comes and goes and I'm not done.
Oh well.
External output? That would be incredible.
A lot of home schoolers are actually pretty organized as groups and get together for field trips and such.
I work in television production in the south east; I write tools and utilities for our animators as well as now doing some mundane things like project archival. I've been able to do a lot of fun and interesting things, and as our tools keep changing and technology keeps advancing (hey, now we're doing stereoscopic 3d content), my job has remained interesting.
I started, with an MS, 15 years ago at $45k. At the time, my dad was telling me about DB jobs on Wall St. that were paying $100+k. I said "no thanks," and I don't regret it.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying... just because you work for a company does not mean you lose your right to free speech (or give it to someone else).
The corporation is an entity that you work for, it's not you, and it doesn't represent you. You could have been, for example, a programmer hired to do some website programming for McCain, even if you had a liberal ideology. At the end of the day, you could still go on your blog and rail against McCain or financially support Obama...
The executives who are deciding to use the corporation's resources for campaigning are usually doing so in the interest of the corporation as a whole, not the employees... you shouldn't feel, as an employee, that you have the right to anything except what the company is contractually bound to give you. If you are a shareholder, THEN you can make your case, and if the executives act counter to the majority of shareholders, they will get the boot, or if the majority of shareholders acts counter to your wishes, you are free to sell your stock.
Personally, while I can see some issues I don't like about this (far too long businesses have used the power of government against competitors, but this has continued to happen anyway), I agree with the ruling. Despite the bribery and corruption, I agree with this ruling (again, it happens anyway).
And people should stop blaming companies for supporting legislation and start blaming their legislators. It's the company's fault they can take advantage of people who are not willing to invest the time into researching issues themselves. I never voted for someone because of what was said on a commercial, have you?