I think of writing software like manufacturing. So of course, the manufacturing is going to happen wherever there is the best labor value. That doesn't necessarily mean the cheapest labor, but it might mean that.
I don't necessarily think that sexism is the thing keeping women out of IT, but if I did want to "look elsewhere" for gender-based discrimination, what better place to look than in a field highly dominated by one sex? To me, it seems like the perfect place to look, even if in the end you don't find it.
Oh, damn. I remember that monkey. You're right -- that monkey might have been the reason I first installed AdBlock.
But, on the occasion when I use a browser without AdBlock, I'm still HIGHLY annoyed, so I am still a staunch user. We'll see how things go in the future.
Indeed. An extremely tiny minority of ads are this way -- maybe, say, one in ten thousand. That tiny minority is an unfortunate victim of getting rid of all the rest. I can't think of a way to keep the good ads but get rid of the bad ones (can you?).
The only problem with this is in discovering new products and novel services. How will I know to look for it if I've never heard of it? That's one problem which advertising solves.
But, I'm with you: I'm rather have the problem of having to hear about novel products some other way, than the problem of being annoyed so much by every web page, that I have to avoid the web.
I already have to avoid television and radio because of the advertising problem: I use Netflix, bittorrent, and podcasts to get at (some of) the content without the advertisements. I'm really thankful for the internet in general, which puts MUCH more power in the hands of the consumers.
Obviously I wasn't there to witness, but I presume they did "place it in a blast container", and by "container" I mean "about a hundred feet of open space, and maybe a blast barrier".
I'm confused that you are confused. Have you never heard "to the victor go the spoils"? Every nation that ever existed started when it defeated the previous occupants of its territory.
I wasn't there personally, but I was taught in history class that Israel was attacked by all of its neighbors about ten minutes after it began its existence.
Tom, you have made a cogent and consistent argument with no logical flaws and no possible critique. It is absolutely perfect and you have convinced us all. Very well done indeed, sir!
The right to bear arms doesn't imply that everyone gets a free gun, it implies that everyone has the right to get a gun, however they can legally manage it. Is that unclear to you in some way?
I don't think you quite got it right. Both the right of speech and the right of arms are "birthrights" -- you get them simply for being a citizen of the country. But the government neither provides you with a gun, nor provides you with speech (whatever that would mean). So yes, they are similar in many ways.
Yes, of course. You can make your own arms (a knife would be an easy one; a more crafty person might actually construct a gun) or you can receive them as gifts. My only gun was a gift, and at that time I was in fact rather broke, so I had no money yet bore arms.
I don't know why we're sitting around comparing guns to electricity. Yes, I want people to have access to both, but I don't really see them as equivalent items.
I can see where you're going with that, but your "car" example is a poor one to pick, considering most jurisdictions do, in fact, provide transportation for the poor, in the form of buses and trains. Some places do also pay for cab rides or cars.
It's a sliding scale, not binary. We don't have to pick "what is strictly necessary for biological life to persist" and ignore all other needs. We can (and thankfully do!) provide a lot of the strict necessities, and a little of the lesser necessities.
As for broadband, I support any effort to expand coverage because it is SO CHEAP compared to the upside benefits. Also, because I hate telecom companies and will even accept a government monopoly over the bastards I suffer today.
Mods, I'm pretty sure you should mark that as "Funny", not "Insightful", since surely the poster realized that people would burn coal if they didn't have access to relatively efficiently electricity. Yeah, electricity has its problems, but it is a huge improvement to the previous alternative. Similarly, cars are vastly less harmful than the previous alternative: horses; which must be fed and cleaned up after, resulting in a far greater environmental impact. These conclusions are so obvious that the poster was certainly being facetiously humorous, not insightful.
One of your uncle's what? One of your uncle's daughters? One of your uncle's employees?
Anyway, I own a tiny piece of land with no electrical hookup. I looked into it, and I could have paid to have it put in, like your uncle's whatever, but in my jurisdiction I would get partial payback from any more neighbors that signed up. I guess it depends on local laws.
I understand your concerns, but I don't understand why you oppose reform.
Today, right now, anyone in the US with health insurance is subject to "unelected bureaucrats deciding whether or not your treatment is cost effective". If we have reform, we'll have a similar system, except the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats will be elected, accountable bureaucrats. That's a small step in the right direction.
If you want tobacco use to be part of the cost equation, then prepare for nonsmokers to pay more, since they cost more.
If you want number of children to be part of the cost equation, that's fine, but that is NOT part of the current system.
If you want alcohol to be part of the cost equation, then what are you proposing? A daily test of every person's urine? And of course zero alcohol would cost more than one glass of wine (which has apparent health benefits and cost savings), which would cost less than a whole bunch of wine or beer. I don't know how we'd conclude those rates. Is that a vision you want to see made real? Maybe you, but not me, and besides, that STILL isn't any different than today's alcohol-blind system.
Basically, you are attempting to justify an ideology using logic, but fail miserably. Look, it's fine to be an ideologue -- really, it is -- but you need to realize that an ideology can not be subjected to logic and reality, or else the ideology will always fall apart, the way yours does. Just love the ideology, don't try to rationalize it, don't apologize for it, but also don't fool yourself into thinking that an ideology has anything to do with reason or reality.
That's one way to look at it, but another is that the company would otherwise need to pay you 1.5% more, to account for you having to buy your own insurance (which you could opt not to do).
Anyway, does Australia really pay for universal health care using only a 1.5% tax on only a portion of the population? That sounds difficult to believe.
Exactly. The only organization that I trust LESS than the government is a healthcare conglomerate. If I'm going to be subject to death panels and capricious claim denials, then at the very least I want the people on the death panel to be accountable through open democratic process. That's better than today's system of unaccountable, anonymous bureaucrats who are literally paid to make me die sooner.
the bills currently pending before Congress... do nothing to address the underlying structure of our health care system.
Yes they do.
In fact they take everything that's wrong with it and codify it into law.
No they don't.
They do nothing to address costs.
Yes they do. (See how fun and easy it is to make unsubstantiated claims!? Yay!)
Will I lose the choice I currently have to purchase a high-deductible policy or go without health insurance? Yes, I will.
Thank goodness, yes!
Will my insurance company be forced to charge me the same rate as they charge a chain smoker? Yes, they will.
Thank goodness, yes! As a non-smoker, I know my lifelong health care costs are HIGHER than a smoker, but I don't want to be charged MORE just because I choose not to smoke. As a matter of policy, I want health insurance to be smoking blind.
Pointing out that the current system sucks != justification for why I should support the current legislative proposals. When will you people understand that?
We all understand that. The nexus is in the details, and we support this legislation because it is a politically possible partial solution to a dire problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I think of writing software like manufacturing. So of course, the manufacturing is going to happen wherever there is the best labor value. That doesn't necessarily mean the cheapest labor, but it might mean that.
I don't necessarily think that sexism is the thing keeping women out of IT, but if I did want to "look elsewhere" for gender-based discrimination, what better place to look than in a field highly dominated by one sex? To me, it seems like the perfect place to look, even if in the end you don't find it.
As you rightly point out, this type of communication is critical to *yesterday's* battlefield.
Oh, damn. I remember that monkey. You're right -- that monkey might have been the reason I first installed AdBlock.
But, on the occasion when I use a browser without AdBlock, I'm still HIGHLY annoyed, so I am still a staunch user. We'll see how things go in the future.
Indeed. An extremely tiny minority of ads are this way -- maybe, say, one in ten thousand. That tiny minority is an unfortunate victim of getting rid of all the rest. I can't think of a way to keep the good ads but get rid of the bad ones (can you?).
Correct!
The only problem with this is in discovering new products and novel services. How will I know to look for it if I've never heard of it? That's one problem which advertising solves.
But, I'm with you: I'm rather have the problem of having to hear about novel products some other way, than the problem of being annoyed so much by every web page, that I have to avoid the web.
I already have to avoid television and radio because of the advertising problem: I use Netflix, bittorrent, and podcasts to get at (some of) the content without the advertisements. I'm really thankful for the internet in general, which puts MUCH more power in the hands of the consumers.
Strange. He didn't look like I thought he would.
The hypocricy bothers me, but even worse is that the sexual moralizing, the demonizing of permissive sexual culture, is bad for humanity.
Obviously I wasn't there to witness, but I presume they did "place it in a blast container", and by "container" I mean "about a hundred feet of open space, and maybe a blast barrier".
Did you just claim that being wealthy gives you the power to stop people from hating you?
I'm confused that you are confused. Have you never heard "to the victor go the spoils"? Every nation that ever existed started when it defeated the previous occupants of its territory.
I wasn't there personally, but I was taught in history class that Israel was attacked by all of its neighbors about ten minutes after it began its existence.
I can't buy access to internet service, I can only buy actual internet service once it is available.
Tom, you have made a cogent and consistent argument with no logical flaws and no possible critique. It is absolutely perfect and you have convinced us all. Very well done indeed, sir!
Advocates for public education still have to deal with basically the same asinine arguments.
The right to bear arms doesn't imply that everyone gets a free gun, it implies that everyone has the right to get a gun, however they can legally manage it. Is that unclear to you in some way?
I don't think you quite got it right. Both the right of speech and the right of arms are "birthrights" -- you get them simply for being a citizen of the country. But the government neither provides you with a gun, nor provides you with speech (whatever that would mean). So yes, they are similar in many ways.
Yes, of course. You can make your own arms (a knife would be an easy one; a more crafty person might actually construct a gun) or you can receive them as gifts. My only gun was a gift, and at that time I was in fact rather broke, so I had no money yet bore arms.
I don't know why we're sitting around comparing guns to electricity. Yes, I want people to have access to both, but I don't really see them as equivalent items.
I can see where you're going with that, but your "car" example is a poor one to pick, considering most jurisdictions do, in fact, provide transportation for the poor, in the form of buses and trains. Some places do also pay for cab rides or cars.
It's a sliding scale, not binary. We don't have to pick "what is strictly necessary for biological life to persist" and ignore all other needs. We can (and thankfully do!) provide a lot of the strict necessities, and a little of the lesser necessities.
As for broadband, I support any effort to expand coverage because it is SO CHEAP compared to the upside benefits. Also, because I hate telecom companies and will even accept a government monopoly over the bastards I suffer today.
Mods, I'm pretty sure you should mark that as "Funny", not "Insightful", since surely the poster realized that people would burn coal if they didn't have access to relatively efficiently electricity. Yeah, electricity has its problems, but it is a huge improvement to the previous alternative. Similarly, cars are vastly less harmful than the previous alternative: horses; which must be fed and cleaned up after, resulting in a far greater environmental impact. These conclusions are so obvious that the poster was certainly being facetiously humorous, not insightful.
One of your uncle's what? One of your uncle's daughters? One of your uncle's employees?
Anyway, I own a tiny piece of land with no electrical hookup. I looked into it, and I could have paid to have it put in, like your uncle's whatever, but in my jurisdiction I would get partial payback from any more neighbors that signed up. I guess it depends on local laws.
I understand your concerns, but I don't understand why you oppose reform.
Today, right now, anyone in the US with health insurance is subject to "unelected bureaucrats deciding whether or not your treatment is cost effective". If we have reform, we'll have a similar system, except the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats will be elected, accountable bureaucrats. That's a small step in the right direction.
If you want tobacco use to be part of the cost equation, then prepare for nonsmokers to pay more, since they cost more.
If you want number of children to be part of the cost equation, that's fine, but that is NOT part of the current system.
If you want alcohol to be part of the cost equation, then what are you proposing? A daily test of every person's urine? And of course zero alcohol would cost more than one glass of wine (which has apparent health benefits and cost savings), which would cost less than a whole bunch of wine or beer. I don't know how we'd conclude those rates. Is that a vision you want to see made real? Maybe you, but not me, and besides, that STILL isn't any different than today's alcohol-blind system.
Basically, you are attempting to justify an ideology using logic, but fail miserably. Look, it's fine to be an ideologue -- really, it is -- but you need to realize that an ideology can not be subjected to logic and reality, or else the ideology will always fall apart, the way yours does. Just love the ideology, don't try to rationalize it, don't apologize for it, but also don't fool yourself into thinking that an ideology has anything to do with reason or reality.
That's one way to look at it, but another is that the company would otherwise need to pay you 1.5% more, to account for you having to buy your own insurance (which you could opt not to do).
Anyway, does Australia really pay for universal health care using only a 1.5% tax on only a portion of the population? That sounds difficult to believe.
Exactly. The only organization that I trust LESS than the government is a healthcare conglomerate. If I'm going to be subject to death panels and capricious claim denials, then at the very least I want the people on the death panel to be accountable through open democratic process. That's better than today's system of unaccountable, anonymous bureaucrats who are literally paid to make me die sooner.
the bills currently pending before Congress... do nothing to address the underlying structure of our health care system.
Yes they do.
In fact they take everything that's wrong with it and codify it into law.
No they don't.
They do nothing to address costs.
Yes they do. (See how fun and easy it is to make unsubstantiated claims!? Yay!)
Will I lose the choice I currently have to purchase a high-deductible policy or go without health insurance? Yes, I will.
Thank goodness, yes!
Will my insurance company be forced to charge me the same rate as they charge a chain smoker? Yes, they will.
Thank goodness, yes! As a non-smoker, I know my lifelong health care costs are HIGHER than a smoker, but I don't want to be charged MORE just because I choose not to smoke. As a matter of policy, I want health insurance to be smoking blind.
Pointing out that the current system sucks != justification for why I should support the current legislative proposals. When will you people understand that?
We all understand that. The nexus is in the details, and we support this legislation because it is a politically possible partial solution to a dire problem.