A couple of months isn't going to change things and if it does, it suggests that the patient may well not be stable enough to deal with multiple surgeries. There are appeal procedures if reviews don't happen fairly quickly as well.
There will always be "one day" where waiting "one more day" will put the patient into a state they cannot recover from (or be recovered from). Therefore, "a couple of months isn't going to change things" is not an accurate statement. And appeals mean nothing when you're dead.
The maximum donation to a politician should be $50 a month. Anyone can do that.
While I applaud your creativity, I would argue that setting any limit using a fiat currency is just asking for that limit to be inappropriate at some point in the future. The dollar has lost 98% of its value in the last 100 years, 70% of that since the 70s when we went off the gold standard. It will continue to decline because we choose to keep printing more of it, to bail out industries that have marketed themselves as being "too existing to not exist!"
This isn't about women or boys getting fired. This is about principles. Copyright originally had a limited term and it no longer effectively does, to society's detriment. I'm not spinning any sort of downloading of any specific show or piece of media. I'm saying there's a beast in Washington that is destroying our rights. And it won't stop until it has sucked all the gold off the table, like in Cowboys and Aliens. We've tried changing the laws, see Eldred v. Ashcroft.
Just like the laws against pot; you can choose to follow them and have your health suffer; or you can choose to break an unjust law, and help to cure the tumors that are constantly being created in your body. Knowing full well that the laws will likely not change during your lifetime; so what do the laws matter? Your health is far more important than some bureaucrat thousands of miles away defending Heart's forests, or Dupont's nylons, by unconstitutionally violating your rights.
MPAA may be full of shit, but at the same time it's annoying how anti-piracy comments always get robotically modded down in Slashdot. I just think it's good to look objectively at both sides of the coin.
Both sides of WHAT coin? "Anti-piracy" is "anti-sharing". A sane society shares ideas. Copyright was supposed to be a temporary monopoly on the act of copying so that creators (not corporations) could gain some financial benefit before the work entered the public domain, about a generation after it was created. Now, there's no such deal; no work has entered the public domain since 1923, and they are unlikely ever to as long as Disney keeps buying copyright extensions (20 years every 18 years that go by, for the past two such).
An AC compared obeying copyright law to rounding up Jews. That is a bit over the top, but look at the erosion of liberties in the pursuit of one small industry's profits! The other side of that coin is a return to Constitutionality, and there is no compromise when it comes to the supreme law of the land. So, I suppose look at both sides, but choosing the unconstitutional side would not be beneficial to society.
Well, I do have to admit that your graphics are much better than Sony's.
More seriously, I agree with your analysis and this is the way that Brazil has run their education system for quite some time: keep the populace stupid. What bothers me about this system? How the fuck do they get "intelligent politicians" out of it? No, I mean, if everybody is that dirt stupid how does one of them rise up? Oh, I get it; I've seen "Idiocracy"; I just don't really see the societal benefit. And, there's the "Aha!" moment: the behavior benefits those in power, not society.
You're welcome. I really like that I don't need to dig into the offender's mind: regardless of whether it's malice or incompetence, it can be demonstrated that the behavior is injurious (either to a boss, or another appropriate authority), which can help to stop the behavior. Once I'm no longer being injured, I really don't care what's in the offender's head.
It's not just the FBI. Most of our government is now unconstitutional. (Yes, I just made that up; perhaps it's not "most" but when every citizen commits three felonies per day simply by going about their business (see the book, "Three Felonies a Day"), then the legal system is corrupt. "The legal system" includes most areas of government, which is why I made the statement that way; I have not calculated all areas of government and determined that 51% or more is unconstitutional, so there is a gap in my argument.)
Microsoft has a history of marketing intelligence. They released the first version of Windows Update as the Critical Update Notification Tool (make the acronym...). They also had a campaign in System Center with the tagline "You're in control!" Spoken, it sounds like "hitting the bowl" (i.e., the same way that "gun control is hitting what you're aiming at", the joke just in case being "you're in" --> "urine").
I tracked my MPG when I owned a Mitsubishi truck. When I switched from 87 to 93, the MPG improved from the 14-16 range to 16-18. Subjectively it felt as if I had more power, while accelerating to merge etc. Yes, this is anecdotal, but my experience did align with the story my friend told me, which made me try the more expensive gas -- it did end up being cheaper per mile for me. But of course, YMMV. Also I understand the sibling meant that the octane rating originally meant how stable it was; now, at least in MA, 87 also means "there's 10% ethanol in it." (And, I got the data about 89 being a mixture from my friend and have not independently confirmed that, if that was the sibling's objection.)
Almost everyone wants to think of themselves as a good person. I think you meant "incompetence or outright delusion throughout the institution." I would throw in group-think as well.
I believe OP was referring to Napolean Bonaparte's old quote: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence." Putting it in context it is plain to see, emphasis mine:
[...] and at worst, a frightening level of incompetence or outright malice throughout the institution.
And of course, also, it matters not which of those are driving the behavior of the actor, when it is adversely affecting one -- it is still annoying and potentially deadly. (Regardless of how the actors think of themselves and their mission, and "the end justifies the means"; if they deprive even one citizen of liberty in the pursuit of their means then I would say they failed in their mission, which is driven by the Constitution.)
Insurance was called Major Medical...and only used for emergency needs.
(Agreeing with you) Surprisingly, that is exactly how car insurance works today: it will give you money if you crash the car. That's it. Routine maintenance? That's your expense. Car insurance does not pay for oil changes, timing belt replacements, petrol fill-ups, new tires, etc.
Health insurance should also not pay for the equivalent.
The counter-argument: "A car is a thing, health is everything. If you make routine health cost money, then people will stop going to the routine visits." I suppose there is some truth to that argument; there will be some edges-of-the-Darwin-pool who value fiat currency over their health, and they will reproduce appropriately. Similarly, one could argue that if the insurance company does not bathe you and wipe your bottom, then you might stink, and smell. But nobody is making that argument, and in that light, doesn't the counter-argument seem a little bit more ridiculous?
Of course the other part of the argument is exactly as you stated: prices will go down when there's competition, so the foresighted people understand that the routine visits will cost much less. And eliminating middle-men from any transaction usually benefits everyone else involved in the transaction (except for some levels of volume, scale, and shipping, generally none of which apply to doctor's visits).
And the best part of your argument? People might spend some of their annual medical budget on reading up on things like Jin Shin Jyutsu and EFT which can be done in the privacy of one's home, by one's self, both of which help to heal the organism and prevent the need for modern medical treatments.
Not only that, either: there is economic loss to go along with it. When I took the chainsaw in for service, the guy told me he's seen a lot of chainsaws destroyed because people put either 87 or 89 octane gas in. 87 has 10% ethanol; 93 has none; and 89 is merely a mixture of the two, so it has about 5%. 93 is required for small engines. It also helps your car run with greater power, at lower cost (per mile).
Yep, I realized that -- but I still like the over-the-top "scoop the eyeball out with a spoon for the retinal reader" (I forget the name of film, it scarred me at a young age).
Same thing with wanting to avoid wars. Somehow, not wanting to gamble with the lives of other people over some economic question is cowardice.
I heard on NPR the other day that soldiers who fit the definition of PTSD will cost the government 1.5 million dollars, as they live out the rest of their lives, on average.
I also heard, in the same story, that there is an army base which has recently, upon re-review, disqualified 40% of their PTSD active and veterans, ostensibly to reduce expenses -- except that they were accusing many soldiers of fraud, soldiers who will likely become enraged and commit crimes that they otherwise would not have if we were to have treated our injured soldiers appropriately.
The story that I get out of it is this: does the economic benefit of our going to war (because every war is about resources) outweigh the cost to our economy, in terms of citizens and increased crime? Ignoring the latter, imagine if "the real cost of war" was 1.5 million times the number of soldiers a government put in the theater.
Well, actually, if we put every citizen in that would be 300 million, and the cost would be 4.5 x 10^14. Which is 450,000,000,000,000, or 450 trillion. The cost of the war is at least 3.7 trillion and counting, according to a quick search, and there are 200,000 soldiers deployed (this of course does not include the costs of the civilian companies/mercenaries like Blackwater/Xe); 200k times 1.5m is 300,000,000,000; which is 300 billion, or a thousandth of the cost of the war. That's "the cost of the war so far" but it's been 11 years, make the math easy and call it 10, and we're still a factor of 100 away from the actual cost. So I suppose adding another 1.5 million per soldier isn't much compared to the cost of all that steel and fuel.
My point, however, was going to be this: the government should take into account all of the damage to the economy that going into war will bring: soldiers coming home to cheating spouses; soldiers coming home with PTSD and breaking up their marriages; increased crime; and increased contempt for a government which acts like a bully, by citizens and foreigners alike. And since the comparative cost of veteran care is so negligible (1%), why should we attempt to deny 40% of the people who had already had doctors testify that they needed treatment? It's sad.
And it would need to work reliably [...] with a near zero false reject rate or it would be unacceptable to users...
My current Android phone fails the fingerprint recognition about three times in five (possibly more like six times in seven; it's definitely more than one in two, though, because almost always it fails the first swipe, and often the second as well). It's still much better than typing a (ridiculously easy to crack) 4-digit PIN, though. Of course, the fallback is a 4-digit PIN, but thanks to this discussion I'm looking into the available settings (I've already added the encryption setting, so thanks, seriously). Then I read the rest of your post, and I'm not so sure I want to have detachable fingers...
Slashdot Mirror
A couple of months isn't going to change things and if it does, it suggests that the patient may well not be stable enough to deal with multiple surgeries. There are appeal procedures if reviews don't happen fairly quickly as well.
There will always be "one day" where waiting "one more day" will put the patient into a state they cannot recover from (or be recovered from). Therefore, "a couple of months isn't going to change things" is not an accurate statement. And appeals mean nothing when you're dead.
If you have a corn allergy, you are royally fucked.
Thank you, government subsidies, for unintended consequences. (I gave up HFCS years ago, and lost over 50 pounds.)
I respectfully disagree. People who live longer cost the state a lot more.
DEATH AT BIRTH! It's the only way to be maximally efficient! (Thanks Jonathan Swift.)
Loved sibling response (non-govt person talking to govt person is looking to influence). Came here to say, emphasis mine:
I have a feeling the whole point with this is to use the results for "protect the children" - politics in an effort to score brownie-points.
Damn, now you've got me thinking about the childern...
The maximum donation to a politician should be $50 a month. Anyone can do that.
While I applaud your creativity, I would argue that setting any limit using a fiat currency is just asking for that limit to be inappropriate at some point in the future. The dollar has lost 98% of its value in the last 100 years, 70% of that since the 70s when we went off the gold standard. It will continue to decline because we choose to keep printing more of it, to bail out industries that have marketed themselves as being "too existing to not exist!"
This isn't about women or boys getting fired. This is about principles. Copyright originally had a limited term and it no longer effectively does, to society's detriment. I'm not spinning any sort of downloading of any specific show or piece of media. I'm saying there's a beast in Washington that is destroying our rights. And it won't stop until it has sucked all the gold off the table, like in Cowboys and Aliens. We've tried changing the laws, see Eldred v. Ashcroft.
Just like the laws against pot; you can choose to follow them and have your health suffer; or you can choose to break an unjust law, and help to cure the tumors that are constantly being created in your body. Knowing full well that the laws will likely not change during your lifetime; so what do the laws matter? Your health is far more important than some bureaucrat thousands of miles away defending Heart's forests, or Dupont's nylons, by unconstitutionally violating your rights.
MPAA may be full of shit, but at the same time it's annoying how anti-piracy comments always get robotically modded down in Slashdot. I just think it's good to look objectively at both sides of the coin.
Both sides of WHAT coin? "Anti-piracy" is "anti-sharing". A sane society shares ideas. Copyright was supposed to be a temporary monopoly on the act of copying so that creators (not corporations) could gain some financial benefit before the work entered the public domain, about a generation after it was created. Now, there's no such deal; no work has entered the public domain since 1923, and they are unlikely ever to as long as Disney keeps buying copyright extensions (20 years every 18 years that go by, for the past two such).
An AC compared obeying copyright law to rounding up Jews. That is a bit over the top, but look at the erosion of liberties in the pursuit of one small industry's profits! The other side of that coin is a return to Constitutionality, and there is no compromise when it comes to the supreme law of the land. So, I suppose look at both sides, but choosing the unconstitutional side would not be beneficial to society.
I vote we blame the paracetamol.
I paracetamol we blame the vote! (Yes, that's something like how my dreams were...)
Realistically, if you ever want a cure for cancer
Realistically, we have a cure for cancer.
three coiled shit
Well, I do have to admit that your graphics are much better than Sony's.
More seriously, I agree with your analysis and this is the way that Brazil has run their education system for quite some time: keep the populace stupid. What bothers me about this system? How the fuck do they get "intelligent politicians" out of it? No, I mean, if everybody is that dirt stupid how does one of them rise up? Oh, I get it; I've seen "Idiocracy"; I just don't really see the societal benefit. And, there's the "Aha!" moment: the behavior benefits those in power, not society.
You're welcome. I really like that I don't need to dig into the offender's mind: regardless of whether it's malice or incompetence, it can be demonstrated that the behavior is injurious (either to a boss, or another appropriate authority), which can help to stop the behavior. Once I'm no longer being injured, I really don't care what's in the offender's head.
It's not just the FBI. Most of our government is now unconstitutional. (Yes, I just made that up; perhaps it's not "most" but when every citizen commits three felonies per day simply by going about their business (see the book, "Three Felonies a Day"), then the legal system is corrupt. "The legal system" includes most areas of government, which is why I made the statement that way; I have not calculated all areas of government and determined that 51% or more is unconstitutional, so there is a gap in my argument.)
and a couple of crowbars.
Just one crowbar, please, and a tom servo to go with it? ("You should really just relax!")
Microsoft has a history of marketing intelligence. They released the first version of Windows Update as the Critical Update Notification Tool (make the acronym...). They also had a campaign in System Center with the tagline "You're in control!" Spoken, it sounds like "hitting the bowl" (i.e., the same way that "gun control is hitting what you're aiming at", the joke just in case being "you're in" --> "urine").
I tracked my MPG when I owned a Mitsubishi truck. When I switched from 87 to 93, the MPG improved from the 14-16 range to 16-18. Subjectively it felt as if I had more power, while accelerating to merge etc. Yes, this is anecdotal, but my experience did align with the story my friend told me, which made me try the more expensive gas -- it did end up being cheaper per mile for me. But of course, YMMV. Also I understand the sibling meant that the octane rating originally meant how stable it was; now, at least in MA, 87 also means "there's 10% ethanol in it." (And, I got the data about 89 being a mixture from my friend and have not independently confirmed that, if that was the sibling's objection.)
Welcome to Democracy. We get the government we deserve.
We're a Rebublic. We should be getting better. It's weird that we're not. Any time anything is weird -- follow the money.
When in Rome, roam? (if you want to)
malice
Almost everyone wants to think of themselves as a good person. I think you meant "incompetence or outright delusion throughout the institution." I would throw in group-think as well.
I believe OP was referring to Napolean Bonaparte's old quote: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence." Putting it in context it is plain to see, emphasis mine:
[...] and at worst, a frightening level of incompetence or outright malice throughout the institution.
And of course, also, it matters not which of those are driving the behavior of the actor, when it is adversely affecting one -- it is still annoying and potentially deadly. (Regardless of how the actors think of themselves and their mission, and "the end justifies the means"; if they deprive even one citizen of liberty in the pursuit of their means then I would say they failed in their mission, which is driven by the Constitution.)
Insurance was called Major Medical...and only used for emergency needs.
(Agreeing with you) Surprisingly, that is exactly how car insurance works today: it will give you money if you crash the car. That's it. Routine maintenance? That's your expense. Car insurance does not pay for oil changes, timing belt replacements, petrol fill-ups, new tires, etc.
Health insurance should also not pay for the equivalent.
The counter-argument: "A car is a thing, health is everything. If you make routine health cost money, then people will stop going to the routine visits." I suppose there is some truth to that argument; there will be some edges-of-the-Darwin-pool who value fiat currency over their health, and they will reproduce appropriately. Similarly, one could argue that if the insurance company does not bathe you and wipe your bottom, then you might stink, and smell. But nobody is making that argument, and in that light, doesn't the counter-argument seem a little bit more ridiculous?
Of course the other part of the argument is exactly as you stated: prices will go down when there's competition, so the foresighted people understand that the routine visits will cost much less. And eliminating middle-men from any transaction usually benefits everyone else involved in the transaction (except for some levels of volume, scale, and shipping, generally none of which apply to doctor's visits).
And the best part of your argument? People might spend some of their annual medical budget on reading up on things like Jin Shin Jyutsu and EFT which can be done in the privacy of one's home, by one's self, both of which help to heal the organism and prevent the need for modern medical treatments.
Not only that, either: there is economic loss to go along with it. When I took the chainsaw in for service, the guy told me he's seen a lot of chainsaws destroyed because people put either 87 or 89 octane gas in. 87 has 10% ethanol; 93 has none; and 89 is merely a mixture of the two, so it has about 5%. 93 is required for small engines. It also helps your car run with greater power, at lower cost (per mile).
just trying to keep the competition in the dark..
With the retinal scanner... I see what you did there... :)
Yep, I realized that -- but I still like the over-the-top "scoop the eyeball out with a spoon for the retinal reader" (I forget the name of film, it scarred me at a young age).
Same thing with wanting to avoid wars. Somehow, not wanting to gamble with the lives of other people over some economic question is cowardice.
I heard on NPR the other day that soldiers who fit the definition of PTSD will cost the government 1.5 million dollars, as they live out the rest of their lives, on average.
I also heard, in the same story, that there is an army base which has recently, upon re-review, disqualified 40% of their PTSD active and veterans, ostensibly to reduce expenses -- except that they were accusing many soldiers of fraud, soldiers who will likely become enraged and commit crimes that they otherwise would not have if we were to have treated our injured soldiers appropriately.
The story that I get out of it is this: does the economic benefit of our going to war (because every war is about resources) outweigh the cost to our economy, in terms of citizens and increased crime? Ignoring the latter, imagine if "the real cost of war" was 1.5 million times the number of soldiers a government put in the theater.
Well, actually, if we put every citizen in that would be 300 million, and the cost would be 4.5 x 10^14. Which is 450,000,000,000,000, or 450 trillion. The cost of the war is at least 3.7 trillion and counting, according to a quick search, and there are 200,000 soldiers deployed (this of course does not include the costs of the civilian companies/mercenaries like Blackwater/Xe); 200k times 1.5m is 300,000,000,000; which is 300 billion, or a thousandth of the cost of the war. That's "the cost of the war so far" but it's been 11 years, make the math easy and call it 10, and we're still a factor of 100 away from the actual cost. So I suppose adding another 1.5 million per soldier isn't much compared to the cost of all that steel and fuel.
My point, however, was going to be this: the government should take into account all of the damage to the economy that going into war will bring: soldiers coming home to cheating spouses; soldiers coming home with PTSD and breaking up their marriages; increased crime; and increased contempt for a government which acts like a bully, by citizens and foreigners alike. And since the comparative cost of veteran care is so negligible (1%), why should we attempt to deny 40% of the people who had already had doctors testify that they needed treatment? It's sad.
And it would need to work reliably [...] with a near zero false reject rate or it would be unacceptable to users...
My current Android phone fails the fingerprint recognition about three times in five (possibly more like six times in seven; it's definitely more than one in two, though, because almost always it fails the first swipe, and often the second as well). It's still much better than typing a (ridiculously easy to crack) 4-digit PIN, though. Of course, the fallback is a 4-digit PIN, but thanks to this discussion I'm looking into the available settings (I've already added the encryption setting, so thanks, seriously). Then I read the rest of your post, and I'm not so sure I want to have detachable fingers...
Fucking trolls, demanding tolls every place we step. Thugs -- that's how I now view government employees. Come get me.
Allowing Bruce to testify will not win hearts and minds.
It will fucking win this one. (This pair? This organism's.)