False. It shows that it scales IN THOSE COUNTRIES. It is clearly false to say that a system that scales in some places necessarily will scale here, if that is what you are implying.
True, I am implying that a system that scales in numerous western democracies who share a large number of similarities to each other would likely work here. You argue that a universal coverage system that failed in oregon could not scale. That is false as it has scaled in other western countries.
False. First, the "another system" fails in MANY ways, some of which I have already enumerated. And second, the "third way" solves problems that neither "#1" or "#2" do ANYTHING for: particularly: minimized federal control as per the Tenth Amendment, increased competition, decreased costs, and more choice. Neither #1 or #2 does anything to those ends.
First, you've not enumerated them to me anywhere. Secondly, the third way does not solve many problems, and invents other ones, *and* unlike the two former, is purely speculative.
One word: CONTROL. It is, in fact, all about control, and nothing more.
Nope, your conspiracy theories aside, it's about uniformity.
False. I know exactly what I am talking about. You are buying into the lies the liberals tell you.
Funny, if you look two states down you'll find that school budgets (& programs for the poor) are decreasing rapidly.
It is very simple: make those things the top priority, and cut everything else. It has NEVER been necessary to cut those programs, for any state, ever.
Would be great if we lived in that world, where education and support for poor were even close to top priorities.
Nope. Cutting those things is a CHOICE made by the states because they decide to have other priorities.
No shit sherlock. That's the point. State/local gov't is not positioned to manage through recessions/depressions with deficit spending, the federal gov't is. Thus, programs like these will be supported with more continuity by federal dollars.
If government refuses to deregulate the insurance business, yes, exactly. Which is why we should do that right away.
I agree that the insurance industry needs fixing (actually, I prefer abolishment for single-payer, but wishes don't make it so). I don't agree that de-regulation is the way to do it. Profit motive is *not* a cure-all.
Are you a believer in total free market solutions? Are any regulations ever justified?
Some people would be taken advantage of, of course, at first. Until the companies that are offering better services get the word out and people switch to them (which they now can do more easily because of decreased regulation, including decoupling from employers).
How would the information get out? Who do i ask about how BlueCross's coverage for my leukocytoclastic vasculitis versus Kaiser's?
Nope, that's backward. There are very few cases where free markets do NOT work, and health care exemplifies NONE of those characteristics.
What cases do you think free markets fail at?
You are right to identify knowledge as a key component, but you are entirely wrong to say that we won't be knowledgable in an actual free market system, especially in an information age.
So you are suggesting that WebMD is equivalent to a doctor? Really? No concern for the particulars of your situation? Again, what do i do with my leukocytoclastic vasculitis? Shit, how would I actually know that it is in fact leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Untrained people simply don't have the filters and understanding to parse out what these little bumps are based on the internet. Hell, I'd convinced myself I had hep C from internet research, and I have a doctorate in a biomedical field.
Exactly! THAT is precisely the problem. We SHOULD be doing that. This is the ONLY way costs will come down.
Which is why such a system needs to be a national system.
No. It shows how such a thing doesn't scale.
Except that other countries show quite conclusively that it does. Clearly you are opposed to such a program, but you can't deny that it can be done on a large scale.
Then isn't it odd that we spend more per capita than any other industrialized country, cover a far smaller proportion of the population, and get no better results in terms of health care delivered?
Yes, which is why we need to REDUCE regulation and cost controls so we can spend less to provide more.
Again you are drawing a strange conclusion. You have our system, which fails in a number of ways & you have another system that doesn't, yet you are advocating for a third way to solve the problems with #1 that #2 has already fixed.
And the answer is because people WANT the federal government involved, for the sake of CONTROL.
Actually, its for the sake of uniformity. And if you think school budgets & programs for the poor are immune to local/state budget crises, you are very, very out of touch.
The goal should be fixing the health care system
Agreed. And until single-payer becomes a politically viable option, health insurance will define the how the fixing happens.
And the answer is essentially: reduce government regulation, increase competition and choice, reduce costs. When costs lower, people DO NOT NEED to care much about insurance except for expensive or catastrophic care, and if an uninsured person cannot pay for expensive or catastrophic treatment, then we have charities to handle this. If states want to try to cover expensive care for the needy, maybe we can discuss that, but there's no need for a whole universal/comprehensive system just to solve the one problem of relatively rare high-end procedures for poor people, if we reduce other costs across the board.
And here is the heart of the matter. You firmly believe that without regulation, insurance companies/health care providers will offer better coverage for less. I firmly believe that without regulation, ic/hcp will increase profits by offering worse coverage for more to a medically-ignorant public.
I agree that free markets can work well, within certain boundaries, in certain circumstances. But there are many requirements for that to happen, and health care exemplifies very few of those. When you buy a car or a cell phone plan, you know what you are getting pretty clearly. When you break your arm, you don't comparison shop for doctors. When you go to the doctor, you don't know what is wrong, what the best treatment is, nor how much is reasonable to pay for such a thing. Additionally, if I make a bad choice and pick the red pill instead of the blue pill, I am not going to know that I made a bad decision, so I won't know not to do it next time, supposing there even is a next time (which is another important aspect needed for a useful market system).
When people have to bear the expense directly of health care, they simply consume less health care. Perhaps you view that as a positive...I do not. Preventative health care is very important, but will be greatly reduced. Getting treatments for sicknesses will also go down, allowing greater disease transmission (people already go to work sick as it is, spreading colds & flus far more than they should). On top of the inherent problems with reducing health care, the system will be inherently regressive.
And the problem with health care is *not* "the one problem of relatively rare high-end procedures for poor people." A minor doctor's visit is a high-end procedure when you are somewhat poor. A minor surgery is a high-end procedure for the majority of the country. Health care is inherently expensive because it requires lots of highly-educated people spending lots of effort to make sure things don't go wron
Yes, because of the obvious problems in PAYING for it. That the legislature blocked it is a good thing: universal health care does no one any good if everyone is broke. The proposed system was literally incapable of sustaining itself Which is why such a system needs to be a national system.
All of them only discussed more regulation, and direct cost controls, to control costs, which either wouldn't work, or would only work in the short term, increasing costs and decreasing care in the long term (which always happens when you remove competition). Then isn't it odd that we spend more per capita than any other industrialized country, cover a far smaller proportion of the population, and get no better results in terms of health care delivered?
I also absolutely disagree with federal school lunch standards. The federal government has no business of any kind in the local public schools. Period, end of story. Making sure that all kids are able to get lunch, regardless of the current state of affairs/budgets in the local town/state does seem to be pretty awful meddling.
But all this put together will only begin to address the cost problems. The real big problem (other than tort reform, which is not a big issue for some, but a huge issue for others) is the lack of competition and choice that allows all kinds of health care providers -- from drugs to machines to hospitals -- to jack up the cost of health care. It's very similar to the patent issue. That is what government should be working on: finding ways to introduce more competition. Here I have a different philosophy. I have a hard time figuring out how you can make free market solutions work in the health insurance system. An insurance company is profitable when they select for the healthiest people, and refuse the sickest. Beyond that, the more health care they can refuse to cover, the better for them. As a purchaser, you generally have very few options since health care is tied to your employer, so if you have any choice, it is generally between two or three options. Beyond that, as a layperson, you are not in a very good position to know what different kinds of health care are worth, and therefore important to have as covered options. There is a huge information discrepancy between you and the insurer, and that *greatly* benefits them. Additionally, for an insurance company whose involvement with you is of uncertain length, preventative care does not make economic sense. Why pay for something cheap now when you can kick it down the road and let some other insurance company cover it at 10x the cost a decade later?
A lot of the discussion depends on what you think the point of health insurance is. Is is to cover catastrophic illnesses/injuries for people? Is it to reduce the cost of routine preventative health care? Is it to use size to leverage down costs of drugs/treatments/devices? Is it to help people with expensive, chronic health issues that would be overly burdensome?
To me, we should be aiming to make health care a universally available thing, unrelated to your employer, current financial standing, or health. That means that insurance needs to be 1. community rated (insurance companies forced to cover everyone at a similar rate), 2. not provided by employers, 3. universally mandated (otherwise healthy people will opt-out until they get sick). While it might be possible to work these aspects into a private insurance system, that would be a awful tough shoehorn.
Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer. How do you propose we reduce health care cost?
And are you really arguing that providing universal coverage is something we should avoid? If so, why is that, and who should we not provide coverage to?
No offense, but your option of government-provided universal health care is already unacceptable to me. Why? I'm honestly curious what it is about the concept that you find unacceptable.
Otherwise applications like AIM won't be able to run. That is actually not true. The AIM demo shown at the announcement does *not* run in the background:
As a postscript on the "no background apps" policy, a source confirmed to me that the iPhone AIM client AOL demoed during the iPhone Roadmap event does not cheat by continuing to run in the background -- it quits when you switch to another app, but doesn't log you out of AIM automatically. Such a client can't notify you of IM messages from the background (a la the way the iPhone notifies of you SMS messages), but when you switch back to the AIM app, messages you missed should appear. Be wary of claims that "An app that does X is impossible without background processing."
I spent too many years in corporate IT amongst those who graduated with honors from good schools with degrees in CS and still were coming to me multiple times a day for help because they didn't know how to do their jobs. CS != IT. Not by a long shot.
but for the most part I think college is a circle jerk
It costs far less in terms of wasted time and money.
I believe, in most cases, college is a sucker play.
Most college students are there because they're willing to sell 40 years of their life and take orders for a reliable paycheck.
I try really hard to not hold a college degree against anyone. It's a challenge. You really don't sound bitter at all.
It is also interesting that you are able to so totally dismiss college having not experienced it. A large portion of what most people get out of college is not the specific degree, but the experience. You seem to be only taking the former into account, and completely ignoring the latter.
It is clear that for some people, college is not really the best choice, and having gone to college does not make someone smart. However, to jump to the complete opposite conclusion that college is somehow detrimental is just ignorant.
iPhone developers are not allowed ask each other for help on the SDK Actually, they are not allowed to talk about a beta version of the SDK they agreed to an NDA to use, on a public list. That is quite different from what you imply. I'd be willing to wager a pretty decent sum that come an actual release of the SDK, the NDA will not be in effect (or perhaps there will be lists that require you to log in to the dev center to see).
The only thing that this NDA is protecting is Google's ability to get more functional apps to market sooner. Really? You think that come June there will be more Android apps available than iPhone apps? Care to make 3 month bet on that one?
Whether or not you already have a monopoly is NOT relevant. Only if you're doing actions that could eventually help to create one. Baloney. The reason MS got in trouble was the use of their monopoly position in OS's to obtain a monopoly position in browsers. Had they not been a monopoly in the first area, that bundling would have been fine (see Safari).
I do not disagree with your treatment of the situation. However, my point in the previous post was that the general claims of astrology (at least as far as I am aware, ie Leo's are more aggressive, Gemini's are more two-faced, etc) fail miserably. I do not think astrology is used to make predictions outside of human action & interaction, so the weather example, while illustrative, is not terribly applicable (I brought it up because the original commenter semi-equated meteorology & astrology). I think we agree that astrology is bunk, that any rigorous test of astrology will demonstrate that, and the jump from universal gravitational interactions to astrology is poorly conceived (though sufficient to give some people a scientific cudgel to swing about in discussion).
So since there exists a gravitational interaction between every physical thing in the universe, astrology is reasonable? Really?
If you want to say that everything in the universe has an effect on everything else in the universe, you would be on safe scientific ground. Jumping from there to astrology might be meaningful, you are into the realm of the fantastic. To compare astrology to meteorology is just silly, with or without doppler/satellites. Find me a *single* astrological prediction or trend that stands up to scrutiny...even something and basic as it's generally colder in winter than summer.
Have anything to back up your speculation? The issue is that if you significantly upgrade the capabilities of a product, that can be viewed as providing an incomplete product first and realizing all of the earnings from it before the product has been completely delivered. No one can say where the line between 'significant upgrade' and 'bugfix/minor firmware refresh' lies until a court adjudicates it with the specific details of the situation. That being said, the 2.0 firmware is clearly a pretty significant upgrade.
Your conspiracy theory aside, this behavior is described in Revenue Recognition GAAP. I'm not an accountant, but I can google (look up SEC SAB 104)... It seems likely that Apple recognizes the iPod Touch revenue on a sales basis (alternatives being: percentage of completion, cost recovery (no $ til everything is done & finished), and installment). This isn't a new SarOx thing, but SarOx clarifies auditing standards & makes businesses more (easily?)liable for financial irregularities.
So I'd love to hear if you have any evidence for your theory, other than pure speculation.
Full DVD quality movies aren't commonly available for download through licensed stores. It still takes a relatively long time to download the movies that are available. And services like netflix aren't doing a lot of streaming compared to the number of customers that are eligible for service. I used my appletv to rent a movie for the first time just this past saturday. Was slick, very quick to start (5 mins), and looked very good at 720p. Netflix's streaming sucks due to difficulty in watching on a TV (or a non-windows computer). It will be interesting to see how apple does in this market. For my $, their setup seems as good as exists currently, rent from the TV, watch on the TV, HD available, selection is limited (subject to the studio's whims), though that is the easiest to fix.
Three days is enough for a phone. It doesn't matter what the max is, if they could get 3 days without charge with 3G, they should've done it. But since an N70 != iPhone then N70 power usage != iphone power usage, and therefore a N70 3 day battery != an iphone 3 day battery. You have no idea if the theoretical 3g iphone could've lasted 3 days.
You either intentionally cut my quote short, your you did not get the point. Evolution is _true_ in the same way that gravity is _true_. Pick your value of _true_. No scientist can claim that we understand every detail about gravity (or evolution or tectonic movement or amyloid formation, or pretty much anything), and there exists the possibility that our current understanding is analogous to Newtonian physics to some trueR quantum physics of gravity. Sure, fine, no argument.
However, if you insist that gravity is only a theory (in the religious nutjob usage, not in the accurate scientific usage) and that there are other valid theories that should be also taught (Intelligent Falling, to quote the Onion), you will be kicked out of pretty much and school board meeting anywhere (well maybe not kansas). This should hold just as true for evolution, as the theory of evolution & theory of gravity are of equal scientific _truth_.
Beyond that point, evolution does happen, that I (as a scientist) am comfortable asserting as fact. We can show it in a laboratory setting. We can show natural selection in a laboratory setting. (Evolution being defined as mutations that have a beneficial phenotypic difference. Natural selection being defined as a greater ability for some phenotypes to be able to reproduce due to external "natural" conditions.) We can also show in a laboratory setting that gravity exists, and no one disputes that.
Evolution is _true_" != Evolution is "a rational method for understanding things" You will note in my comment, I asserted that science is a rational method for understanding things. Evolution is an idea that came out of scientific endeavors. Your were inaccurate in your quoting, and are arguing a point I did not make.
Don't marry your theories; divorce hurts. If you are going to make snide one-liners, at least make ones that actually address the argument.
If your goal is to convince parents that their children need to understand evolutionary theory, is it better to say, "Your most deeply held beliefs are wrong, wrong, wrong, and we're going to teach them a different view because we're smarter than you and know it's right, right, right!", or is it better to say, "Regardless of whether history played out as you believe or as we believe, the evolutionary model is the best tool that we have for understanding the biological world as it exists today, and if your children don't understand or actually misunderstand it, they will be at a serious disadvantage in the competitive marketplace of ideas and jobs!"? What if your goal is to teach kids that evolution is _true_, in exactly the same way that gravity is _true_. To explain and teach science as science, that is, a rational method for understanding things. I'm unsure that undermining a concept to make it more acceptable is really a smart way to go about things. You are basically arguing that we adopt a comparative religion method of teaching science. Winning the battle, and losing the way. I'm not sure I really want to go to a pre-Enlightenment mindset to assuage some relatively small population of extremists.
Both sides of this debate drive me crazy as they're both hanging on to their beliefs with religious fervor. See, that drives me crazy. Painting the two sides equally with the pejorative term 'religious fervor.'
On one side you have a group of scientists arguing that evolution (the basis of essentially all modern biological science) is pretty much as well established as the _theory_ of gravity (which according to TFA, the FL standards don't refer to as a theory, rather as undisputed fact). On the other side you have a bunch of evolution-denying religious nuts who intend to undermine the teaching of evolution by tagging it with a modifier intended to lessen the value of the scientific concept. That they are accidentally being more scientifically accurate is ironic, but somewhat beside the point. Whatever label you give to the theory of gravity, you should give to the theory of evolution, doing otherwise is deceptive and intentionally incorrect.
Natural selection IS a theory, and most likely there is still a mechanism for change we don't know about Gravity IS a theory too. And what is the mechanism of gravity? We still don't really know.
Likewise we still only see macro exolution in the fosil record and haven't observed it in living animals. Bullshit. You can see evolution in bacteria in a lab setting easily. You can see evolution in various pests developing resistance to various pesticides/antibiotics/etc. You can see natural selection in peppered moths. You can evolve enzymes & ribozymes in vitro (as my girlfriend does in her thesis research) easily.
Either the scientific method stands on it's own merrits or it's time to look for something else. It does, and arguing that it does is exactly what these fights are about. The fact that it took til 2008 to get Florida (america's wang) to include evolution in the state science standards argues pretty strongly that science needs more forceful support.
But it gets more interesting. Several other BSD operating systems copied the OpenBSD code for their own IP ID PRNG, so they're vulnerable too. This is particularly so with Apple's Mac OS X, Mac OS X Server and Darwin, but also with NetBSD, FreeBSD and DragonFlyBSD (the 3 latter O/S however only use this PRNG when the kernel flag net.inet.ip.random_id is set to 1; it is 0 by default, resulting in a sequential counter to be used instead...). This is really a ways out of my depth, but my naive understanding is that the PRNG is a problem because it is not actually random, and can therefore be predicted. Yet, the above states that the other BSDs in particular don't even use the randomization by default, and instead use the most predictable sequence possible. Am I missing something, or doesn't that mean the other BSDs are significantly more at risk (for whatever value of 'at risk' this threat actually corresponds to)?
1: Who cares about all those other countries. 2: I'm the only one who tells the truth. 3: Bongs for everyone. 4: I'm a typical politician. 5: I'm a typical politician.
Have you actually watched the woman talk for more than 2 minutes? That's all the example that you need. I have, and I don't get it. Please explain with actual examples of her being a total lunatic, a slight bit psycho, and/or just plain frightening.
I don't want my leader to do their best to appeal to the masses...I want them to focus on running the fucking country. How exactly, then, is a candidate going to get to the point of running the country without appealing to at least a plurality of the country?
Did she or did she not agree with Obama to not sling crap at each other any more? Um, the crap slinging goes both ways (in this case, as nearly always). Obama's been slinging plenty of bull, lately about their health care differences (mandate or not). I don't necessarily support hillary more than obama, honestly they are nearly identical in terms of policy positions, but this irrational hatred of her is still bewildering.
Slashdot Mirror
False. It shows that it scales IN THOSE COUNTRIES. It is clearly false to say that a system that scales in some places necessarily will scale here, if that is what you are implying.
True, I am implying that a system that scales in numerous western democracies who share a large number of similarities to each other would likely work here. You argue that a universal coverage system that failed in oregon could not scale. That is false as it has scaled in other western countries.
False. First, the "another system" fails in MANY ways, some of which I have already enumerated. And second, the "third way" solves problems that neither "#1" or "#2" do ANYTHING for: particularly: minimized federal control as per the Tenth Amendment, increased competition, decreased costs, and more choice. Neither #1 or #2 does anything to those ends.
First, you've not enumerated them to me anywhere. Secondly, the third way does not solve many problems, and invents other ones, *and* unlike the two former, is purely speculative.
One word: CONTROL. It is, in fact, all about control, and nothing more.
Nope, your conspiracy theories aside, it's about uniformity.
False. I know exactly what I am talking about. You are buying into the lies the liberals tell you.
Funny, if you look two states down you'll find that school budgets (& programs for the poor) are decreasing rapidly.
It is very simple: make those things the top priority, and cut everything else. It has NEVER been necessary to cut those programs, for any state, ever.
Would be great if we lived in that world, where education and support for poor were even close to top priorities.
Nope. Cutting those things is a CHOICE made by the states because they decide to have other priorities.
No shit sherlock. That's the point. State/local gov't is not positioned to manage through recessions/depressions with deficit spending, the federal gov't is. Thus, programs like these will be supported with more continuity by federal dollars.
If government refuses to deregulate the insurance business, yes, exactly. Which is why we should do that right away.
I agree that the insurance industry needs fixing (actually, I prefer abolishment for single-payer, but wishes don't make it so). I don't agree that de-regulation is the way to do it. Profit motive is *not* a cure-all.
Are you a believer in total free market solutions? Are any regulations ever justified?
Some people would be taken advantage of, of course, at first. Until the companies that are offering better services get the word out and people switch to them (which they now can do more easily because of decreased regulation, including decoupling from employers).
How would the information get out? Who do i ask about how BlueCross's coverage for my leukocytoclastic vasculitis versus Kaiser's?
Nope, that's backward. There are very few cases where free markets do NOT work, and health care exemplifies NONE of those characteristics.
What cases do you think free markets fail at?
You are right to identify knowledge as a key component, but you are entirely wrong to say that we won't be knowledgable in an actual free market system, especially in an information age.
So you are suggesting that WebMD is equivalent to a doctor? Really? No concern for the particulars of your situation? Again, what do i do with my leukocytoclastic vasculitis? Shit, how would I actually know that it is in fact leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Untrained people simply don't have the filters and understanding to parse out what these little bumps are based on the internet. Hell, I'd convinced myself I had hep C from internet research, and I have a doctorate in a biomedical field.
Exactly! THAT is precisely the problem. We SHOULD be doing that. This is the ONLY way costs will come down.
That
Which is why such a system needs to be a national system.
No. It shows how such a thing doesn't scale.
Except that other countries show quite conclusively that it does. Clearly you are opposed to such a program, but you can't deny that it can be done on a large scale.
Then isn't it odd that we spend more per capita than any other industrialized country, cover a far smaller proportion of the population, and get no better results in terms of health care delivered?
Yes, which is why we need to REDUCE regulation and cost controls so we can spend less to provide more.
Again you are drawing a strange conclusion. You have our system, which fails in a number of ways & you have another system that doesn't, yet you are advocating for a third way to solve the problems with #1 that #2 has already fixed.
And the answer is because people WANT the federal government involved, for the sake of CONTROL.
Actually, its for the sake of uniformity. And if you think school budgets & programs for the poor are immune to local/state budget crises, you are very, very out of touch.
The goal should be fixing the health care system
Agreed. And until single-payer becomes a politically viable option, health insurance will define the how the fixing happens.
And the answer is essentially: reduce government regulation, increase competition and choice, reduce costs. When costs lower, people DO NOT NEED to care much about insurance except for expensive or catastrophic care, and if an uninsured person cannot pay for expensive or catastrophic treatment, then we have charities to handle this. If states want to try to cover expensive care for the needy, maybe we can discuss that, but there's no need for a whole universal/comprehensive system just to solve the one problem of relatively rare high-end procedures for poor people, if we reduce other costs across the board.
And here is the heart of the matter. You firmly believe that without regulation, insurance companies/health care providers will offer better coverage for less. I firmly believe that without regulation, ic/hcp will increase profits by offering worse coverage for more to a medically-ignorant public.
I agree that free markets can work well, within certain boundaries, in certain circumstances. But there are many requirements for that to happen, and health care exemplifies very few of those. When you buy a car or a cell phone plan, you know what you are getting pretty clearly. When you break your arm, you don't comparison shop for doctors. When you go to the doctor, you don't know what is wrong, what the best treatment is, nor how much is reasonable to pay for such a thing. Additionally, if I make a bad choice and pick the red pill instead of the blue pill, I am not going to know that I made a bad decision, so I won't know not to do it next time, supposing there even is a next time (which is another important aspect needed for a useful market system).
When people have to bear the expense directly of health care, they simply consume less health care. Perhaps you view that as a positive...I do not. Preventative health care is very important, but will be greatly reduced. Getting treatments for sicknesses will also go down, allowing greater disease transmission (people already go to work sick as it is, spreading colds & flus far more than they should). On top of the inherent problems with reducing health care, the system will be inherently regressive.
And the problem with health care is *not* "the one problem of relatively rare high-end procedures for poor people." A minor doctor's visit is a high-end procedure when you are somewhat poor. A minor surgery is a high-end procedure for the majority of the country. Health care is inherently expensive because it requires lots of highly-educated people spending lots of effort to make sure things don't go wron
A lot of the discussion depends on what you think the point of health insurance is. Is is to cover catastrophic illnesses/injuries for people? Is it to reduce the cost of routine preventative health care? Is it to use size to leverage down costs of drugs/treatments/devices? Is it to help people with expensive, chronic health issues that would be overly burdensome?
To me, we should be aiming to make health care a universally available thing, unrelated to your employer, current financial standing, or health. That means that insurance needs to be 1. community rated (insurance companies forced to cover everyone at a similar rate), 2. not provided by employers, 3. universally mandated (otherwise healthy people will opt-out until they get sick). While it might be possible to work these aspects into a private insurance system, that would be a awful tough shoehorn. Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer. How do you propose we reduce health care cost?
And are you really arguing that providing universal coverage is something we should avoid? If so, why is that, and who should we not provide coverage to? No offense, but your option of government-provided universal health care is already unacceptable to me. Why? I'm honestly curious what it is about the concept that you find unacceptable.
-Ted
Via daring fireball.
-Ted
Funny you use heinz ketchup as your example.
-Ted
It is also interesting that you are able to so totally dismiss college having not experienced it. A large portion of what most people get out of college is not the specific degree, but the experience. You seem to be only taking the former into account, and completely ignoring the latter.
It is clear that for some people, college is not really the best choice, and having gone to college does not make someone smart. However, to jump to the complete opposite conclusion that college is somehow detrimental is just ignorant.
-Ted
"And now a message from the national apple council. Fuck Pears."
-Ted
While I can't speak to the reasons for Apple's use of a NDA, I really don't think there is any lack of enthusiasm for the SDK.
-Ted
-Ted
-Ted
I do not disagree with your treatment of the situation. However, my point in the previous post was that the general claims of astrology (at least as far as I am aware, ie Leo's are more aggressive, Gemini's are more two-faced, etc) fail miserably. I do not think astrology is used to make predictions outside of human action & interaction, so the weather example, while illustrative, is not terribly applicable (I brought it up because the original commenter semi-equated meteorology & astrology). I think we agree that astrology is bunk, that any rigorous test of astrology will demonstrate that, and the jump from universal gravitational interactions to astrology is poorly conceived (though sufficient to give some people a scientific cudgel to swing about in discussion).
-Ted
So since there exists a gravitational interaction between every physical thing in the universe, astrology is reasonable? Really?
If you want to say that everything in the universe has an effect on everything else in the universe, you would be on safe scientific ground. Jumping from there to astrology might be meaningful, you are into the realm of the fantastic. To compare astrology to meteorology is just silly, with or without doppler/satellites. Find me a *single* astrological prediction or trend that stands up to scrutiny...even something and basic as it's generally colder in winter than summer.
Astrology is bunk.
-Ted
Well, since astrology far predates western schooling conventions, I don't think your point is terribly useful. Stopped clocks and all.
-Ted
Have anything to back up your speculation? The issue is that if you significantly upgrade the capabilities of a product, that can be viewed as providing an incomplete product first and realizing all of the earnings from it before the product has been completely delivered. No one can say where the line between 'significant upgrade' and 'bugfix/minor firmware refresh' lies until a court adjudicates it with the specific details of the situation. That being said, the 2.0 firmware is clearly a pretty significant upgrade.
Your conspiracy theory aside, this behavior is described in Revenue Recognition GAAP. I'm not an accountant, but I can google (look up SEC SAB 104)... It seems likely that Apple recognizes the iPod Touch revenue on a sales basis (alternatives being: percentage of completion, cost recovery (no $ til everything is done & finished), and installment). This isn't a new SarOx thing, but SarOx clarifies auditing standards & makes businesses more (easily?)liable for financial irregularities.
So I'd love to hear if you have any evidence for your theory, other than pure speculation.
-Ted
-Ted
-Ted
Your analogy is useless unless you compare a N70 +/- 3G. 3 days might've been a week w/o 3G.
-Ted
However, if you insist that gravity is only a theory (in the religious nutjob usage, not in the accurate scientific usage) and that there are other valid theories that should be also taught (Intelligent Falling, to quote the Onion), you will be kicked out of pretty much and school board meeting anywhere (well maybe not kansas). This should hold just as true for evolution, as the theory of evolution & theory of gravity are of equal scientific _truth_.
Beyond that point, evolution does happen, that I (as a scientist) am comfortable asserting as fact. We can show it in a laboratory setting. We can show natural selection in a laboratory setting. (Evolution being defined as mutations that have a beneficial phenotypic difference. Natural selection being defined as a greater ability for some phenotypes to be able to reproduce due to external "natural" conditions.) We can also show in a laboratory setting that gravity exists, and no one disputes that. Evolution is _true_" != Evolution is "a rational method for understanding things" You will note in my comment, I asserted that science is a rational method for understanding things. Evolution is an idea that came out of scientific endeavors. Your were inaccurate in your quoting, and are arguing a point I did not make. Don't marry your theories; divorce hurts. If you are going to make snide one-liners, at least make ones that actually address the argument.
-Ted
-Ted
On one side you have a group of scientists arguing that evolution (the basis of essentially all modern biological science) is pretty much as well established as the _theory_ of gravity (which according to TFA, the FL standards don't refer to as a theory, rather as undisputed fact). On the other side you have a bunch of evolution-denying religious nuts who intend to undermine the teaching of evolution by tagging it with a modifier intended to lessen the value of the scientific concept. That they are accidentally being more scientifically accurate is ironic, but somewhat beside the point. Whatever label you give to the theory of gravity, you should give to the theory of evolution, doing otherwise is deceptive and intentionally incorrect. Natural selection IS a theory, and most likely there is still a mechanism for change we don't know about Gravity IS a theory too. And what is the mechanism of gravity? We still don't really know. Likewise we still only see macro exolution in the fosil record and haven't observed it in living animals. Bullshit. You can see evolution in bacteria in a lab setting easily. You can see evolution in various pests developing resistance to various pesticides/antibiotics/etc. You can see natural selection in peppered moths. You can evolve enzymes & ribozymes in vitro (as my girlfriend does in her thesis research) easily. Either the scientific method stands on it's own merrits or it's time to look for something else. It does, and arguing that it does is exactly what these fights are about. The fact that it took til 2008 to get Florida (america's wang) to include evolution in the state science standards argues pretty strongly that science needs more forceful support.
-Ted
copied the OpenBSD code for their own IP ID PRNG, so they're
vulnerable too. This is particularly so with Apple's Mac OS X,
Mac OS X Server and Darwin, but also with NetBSD, FreeBSD and
DragonFlyBSD (the 3 latter O/S however only use this PRNG when
the kernel flag net.inet.ip.random_id is set to 1; it is 0 by
default, resulting in a sequential counter to be used instead...). This is really a ways out of my depth, but my naive understanding is that the PRNG is a problem because it is not actually random, and can therefore be predicted. Yet, the above states that the other BSDs in particular don't even use the randomization by default, and instead use the most predictable sequence possible. Am I missing something, or doesn't that mean the other BSDs are significantly more at risk (for whatever value of 'at risk' this threat actually corresponds to)?
-Ted
Not really.
-Ted
1: Who cares about all those other countries.
2: I'm the only one who tells the truth.
3: Bongs for everyone.
4: I'm a typical politician.
5: I'm a typical politician.
-Ted
Jenna 2016!
-Ted
-Ted
-Ted