I used to try and recover compromised machines until about 2 years ago. Thats when I realized that no matter what you do with a compromised disk...there could easily still be some nugget of stuff thats been encrypted where scanners wont find it. Then I heard a lot of the recovery experts saying the same thing...format it, better still toss the drive and start over...the 'nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure' method.
The mistake is to stick the drive in another running machine or an enclosure and try to read it with another machine. Good chance you might infect that one too. Best to burn media files to a dvd on the compromised machine, throw the rest away. Ideal, restore from a backup to a new drive.
Wow. My whole extended family uses Brother inkjets, and we buy the LC-61 ink carts for those for under $1 a cartridge, and even with 4 of them each being used by a lot of kids printing like crazy...we spend maybe $30 on ink for all four for a year. Its dirt cheap.
I mucked around with color lasers for a while, but while you could get them cheap with starter toner carts, the regular replacements cost more than I paid for four printers and a couple of years worth of ink!
Given that we're still paying a tax on our telephones that originated from the Spanish American War, I think we're taxed more than enough right now, thanks.
Plus it appears that fully 50% or more of my tax dollars goes to pork or horseshit that nobody cares about. Well, nobody that isn't a billionaire.
If it really does work, why not just put it on all call phones ant make it so that it can not be disabled.
Seriously, the number of people that I see looking at their crotch while driving is staggering.
It doesn't matter if it works. If you take that distraction away, people will turn to another. The accident rate per driver per mile has remained almost exactly the same since 1990, year on year. It did improve up until that point, probably due to better tires, suspension, brakes and seat belts, but its stayed within a few places to the right of the decimal point since.
A lot has changed in that time in terms of the introduction of cell phones, the crackdown on drunk driving, etc. Yet it appears that none of that made any difference in the accident rate. I remember driving and walking around in the 60's, 70's and 80's. The same sort of distracted driving issues existed then, without phones and without texting. We used to complain about someones age, their sex, nationality, etc as the reason why they were a crappy driver. I guess complaining about cell phones is more socially acceptable.
My take on that is that a) you won't change peoples nature by introducing law, b) cell phones must have replaced other distractions, since their introduction didn't even make the accident rate hiccup in the slightest, c) we always had some sort of distraction to take away from the boredom of careening down the street in a 2 ton killing machine.
To be fair, I don't believe that looking at a little piece of plastic in your lap is a good idea while driving, but it doesn't seem to matter much as far as accident rates.
Well shoot, I just learned why my marriage sucks.:)
I'm of the opinion that he was using something that didn't show up, and probably only marginally helped him. His throwing in the towel means they'll stop looking at him and he can take the high road. Well, perhaps a less high road.
Of course, we could also fix all of this by simply changing the way hospitals work. No shirt, no shoes, no insurance, no cash...eh...turn around and take a hike.
I can agree with that. The hospitals should not be forced to pay for people. They can if they choose to but they should not be forced to.
It is kind of ridiculous some of the regulation governments create. I was talking to a friend in Arizona who works in a hospital. He said that it was illegal for them to report illegal immigrants to immigration when they come to the hospital. Apparently, the government doesn't want illegals to be discourage from getting the care they need. Of course, the hospital does not get paid for the expense of treating them so the hospital has to push the cost on those that pay through increased prices.
Its probably worth pointing out that at no point during a hospital admission, treatment and through discharge does any hospital attempt to determine the legal status of any patient with regards to whether they're an american citizen or not.
Some border area hospitals are overwhelmed with what constitutes the local citizenry...illegal aliens. But most are not even mildly affected by the 'problem', and absolutely zero even marginally acceptable statistics are available...only guesses. Again, the wife has worked in a variety of hospitals in California and such determination is never made.
But I'll tell a funny story...her last job was at an area hospital in a rural area with primarily fruit and nut farms. Plenty of "migrant workers". Not too many of them ever showed up to the emergency room hung over, strung out and with the flu claiming they were about to die. Opinion of the woman who ran the department that processed the billing? The likely "immigrant" folks were more likely to pay their bills or at least try to pay them than the local, legal scumbags. By a wide margin.
Oh, and those folks also made your Sunsweet prunes and bags of walnuts a lot cheaper.
We local legals are used to passing the bill onto someone else for our choices. See the current mortgage fiasco for a big shining example of that. I'm a moron for buying a house I could afford, at a price that represented a decent value, and paid it off. I wish I'd bought a million dollar house with a 110% mortage and got a bailout for half of it. That would have made more sense.
So, for a sufficiently large value of "X", X liars can trump science?
I hope this standard never propagates into criminal law.
We have this standard in criminal law today, and its a mainstay. Witness testimony is among the worst source of information on earth. If 10 people see something, all ten will have a different story, the story will change on its own over time, and influences to the witness can also change testimony.
Yet with a couple of people saying they saw you do something, even if all other scientific evidence says otherwise...guess where you're going.
Lance won and kept winning even against younger, superior talent. Something isn't right there. At his age, response time, peripheral vision and quickness just arent what they were 15-20 years ago.
Plus when you throw in the towel, it means you don't care or the allegations are correct. I doubt that he doesn't care.
Anyone else ever been in a situation where you knew you were right, had the evidence mostly on your side, and give up? Yeah, me neither.
I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance
One of the key arguments against that section of the affordable care act is that as you say, the states do it. Only the states previously had the authority to make people do something like that under their power to police. The federal government had never done something like that.
I don't care who does it. It needs to happen. Since only a couple of states have made more than middling advances in this regard, then the feds need to step in and work it.
In the meanwhile, check into the states that allow medical marijuana, only to have the feds rappel in from helicopters to arrest and destroy property. So you see, the feds are already trumping the states. Its not something that has never been done. In fact, thats worse because the feds are overriding state authority, the will of the people and real legislation with their own. Many states could make a nice crop out of hemp and would like to, but the feds don't want anyone hiding their pot plants in the mix and making that helicopter work more complicated. The feds also made alcohol illegal a while back, against many serious state objections. So "never" as it turns out is a pretty short time.
The only people I can think of at the state level that are objecting to this are the republican states, and they're only doing it to fight the other guy thats in office. I don't give a crap about that. I want cheap available health care for everyone, and I'd like to stop paying five figures for it because I'm supporting 3-4 other peoples 'choices'.
You can make all the peripheral arguments you want, but what we have wasn't working 5, 10 or 15 years ago and its even more expensive and stupid now.
If the states all had workable plans in place or in motion, and the feds were going to slop over that with something worse or more expensive, I'd have your back.
Hope you didn't think you'd get much out of your car insurance company. Well, they might look for your missing leg for a few minutes.
Actually, chances are it will be the cement truck's insurance that pays up for that situation.
And then our insurance rates or cement prices still go up, and you're still looking for someone else to pay through some circuitous route where the costs will be magnified considerably, while providing worse care than pretty much every other 1st world country in the world.
I guess it'd really stick out more if our education system didn't stink to high heaven as well. We're made used to live with expensive mediocrity and a lot of middlemen holding out their hands.
How about some other examples. How about if you slip out of your own boat and are chewed up by the prop? How about you're walking across the street and a hit and run driver cleans you out, never to be seen again. How about you slip off a ladder and break your leg?
C'mon man, lets at least be creative with our objections. A hundred things can happen to anyone every day that'll send you to the emergency room.
Wrong. *NO* state requires you to buy auto insurance by itself. They require that *IF* you by a car AND drive it, you have insurance.
If you don't own a car, you don't need auto insurance.
Okay then, if you want to make that distinction, if you're not alive then you don't need health insurance. Okay?
There is a condition and people can (and do) weigh the cost of insurance when purchasing a vehicle.
With the "Require you to buy it" health care bill, there is no way to opt out. You can't say "I can't afford the insurance so I'll ride a bike, or take the bus instead".
This would be a simpler discussion if people would educate themselves in the area of discussion vs looking for the easy out. I've yet to see a plan where indigent or people in the lower income classes are required to pay much, if anything at all. So the rest of your argument is invalid. Sorry.
Agree that it'll be better once we get rid of the health insurance companies altogether.
Well, some of the thing you mentioned can be done privately. My point was that by not accepting the public services you are putting yourself at an even greater economic disadvantage than if the public services did not exist at all because you pay at least partially for them even if you don't use them. Even if you did not pay into them, if everyone else is taking advantage of them, the baseline changes. Rather being economically level with everyone else in the same situation, you would instead be economically lower than everyone else in the same situation.
The real problem with services becoming publicly run rather than privately run is that it implicitly gives the government the right to dictate all your actions that deal with the offered services. For example, if the government pays for everyone's healthcare, it gives the government the right to decided what you are allowed to eat, how much you are allowed to eat, how much you exercise, the kind of exercise you do, where you spend you time, and what medications and treatments you will take. If a company does something you are against, you go to a competing company. If the government does something you are against, what immediate options do you have? Sure you can vote but even if the vote is successful, you are being forced for the time being. I prefer to have more freedom over a bigger safety net. The problem is that the government seems to be getting steadily bigger.
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Bottom line is what we have doesn't work. Our backup quarterback might look Tebow-ish, but its time to put him in.
My idea of freedom is not paying for other peoples medical bills because they refuse to carry insurance when they should.
Of course, we could also fix all of this by simply changing the way hospitals work. No shirt, no shoes, no insurance, no cash...eh...turn around and take a hike.
For years, absolutely nobody has maintained that CPUs have little impact on gaming performance; all you need is a god-tier video card setup, and a game engine that magically handles everything via GPU.
There, I fixed it.
Seriously, this has to be the most nonsensical Slashdot summary I've read all day. CPU hasn't been a minor factor in gaming for several gaming aeons now, and there are no shortage of games that are critically dependent on it (Hi, Skyrim!).
Check out your favorite hot deals web site. The mantra is a celeron or any old amd chip made in the last 5 years plus a solid gpu = goodness. I coiuld point you to dozens of threads where this is the defacto standard.
But thats what you get when you combine cheap with minimal knowledge. Eventually everyone becomes convinced that its true.
Car and house insurance are there to cover your liabilities to OTHER people. The latter is the result of you entering into a contract with a bank. The former is a miserable stupid failure and is really no great argument in favor of the state forcing you to buy insurance.
Plus IT IS THE STATE. That little detail really does matter. There are some things that states get to do that the feds don't. That's how the rules were set up.
Ignoring the rules is just stupid and the Congress should no more be above the law than you should be.
Ah, another one. Your health care is also to cover your liabilities to other people, since you'll just go to the emergency room when you're sick or hurt, get treated, stiff them on the bill because you cant afford it, and then everyone who does have insurance ends up paying for your treatment.
The company that loaned you money on the car feels you're likely to be too dumb to buy car insurance, so they'll get stuck with the bill. Same with your mortgage company.
Now, if you smash up your car and don't pay for it, you'll get a mechanics lien on you. He won't charge other people extra to make up for it. Oh, and try canceling your homeowners policy sometime while on a mortgage. Go ahead...I'll wait...
If people hate the 'socialism' of medicine, then I hope they're not driving on the interstates, sending their kids to public school, and won't be accepting social security and medicare, neither of which you 'paid for', but which are paid to you by others as your tax dollars paid for your elders as you worked.
If they are going to be forced to pay taxes anyway, why not? The government isn't going to give you back what you did pay in (through taxes) if you don't use it. Also, I doubt any private business is going to build a fee-based, nation-wide interstate when everyone is just going to use the interstate their taxes are already paying for.
Thanks much for proving my point. Some things are too stupid to do privately or all by ourselves. We have to do it together, for all of us. Even the dummies that are willing to take a chance without it, but will not hesitate to show up at the emergency room, get treated, and not pay the huge bill because they can't. Then I have to pay it for them when I pay my insurance payments, because its a zero sum game.
The thing is...years ago if you got sick or hurt and didn't have insurance, you stayed home with your family. The emergency rooms weren't lined with people with no insurance and no ability to pay. But people figured out that a hospital will treat you even if you cant afford to pay, so now they want the choice to stick me with their bill.
You fail at logic. You think that it is OK for people to have a "choice" to not buy insurance and must live with the consequences, but note that you would not be able to buy insurance if you lost your current coverage.
Yes, perfectly healthy people below age 50 may have a choice. Many others, who don't have a perfect history of health don't actually have a choice if they lost their current insurance. You admit that you are in this position.
So, yes, many people have a choice to not buy insurance. Unfortunately, many others do not have a choice to buy insurance.
Lots of people get cancer, have heart attacks and suffer serious accidental injuries under 50 years old, so I'm afraid you're the one that fails at logic.
As long as you're going to stay home when that happens, I'm good with you having a choice.
Since as I mentioned, most people are idiots who wouldn't buy car or home insurance if they weren't compelled to do so, sounds like I'll have to lump you in with that group.
I don't know why that would be the case, since every other country with universal health care managed to reduce costs. Of course, you cant have your second liver transplant when you're an alcoholic, and 102 year old aunt sally probably isn't going to get a new hip either.
Of course, we may become the first to spend more on universal health care, considering we'll probably let the insurance companies write the rules.
My wife works in an end of life care facility, where people who have no idea who or where they are (if they're even conscious) are kept alive for years so the family can visit. The vast majority of health care costs are spent in the last year of the patients life...which means whatever was done didn't work. Hundreds of thousands a year per patient.
My wife has a very soft heart, but even she says that people have to get used to the idea that there is an end to every life, and pretty much none of the crap you see on television doctor shows is actually feasible. Think of the last time you watched some show where some kid says "Oh, hold on for 2 seconds while I hack into an NSA satellite and make it zoom in on the bad guys escape attempt!" and you slapped yourself in the head, because even the NSA can't do that in 5 seconds? Yeah, its like that.
Shoot...CPR doesn't work about 80% of the time, yet most people think you can fish someone out of a pond after they've been underwater for 5 minutes and you'll have a serious chance of reviving them. So your chances of someone coming out of a coma or recovering from massive injuries or degenerative conditions is almost nil.
So I think if people all got a minimum level of help that was reasonable considering their age and physical condition, and were able to spend whatever they wanted out of their own pocket to follow their heart...great...but I'm pretty sure my wife would be working in a nearly empty facility if that were to happen.
I wouldn't do that long-term, though. I'm only temporarily contracting and start a full time job with insurance benefits in two weeks.
That'll work pretty well until a guy in a cement truck falls asleep behind the wheel and rear ends you. Hope you didn't think you'd get much out of your car insurance company. Well, they might look for your missing leg for a few minutes.
If your young, fit and trying make it the US might be the place for you. When you insurance is telling you that you are (actuarially speaking) no longer young or fit and your bank is telling you you haven't made it, it's time to get the hell out of Dodge. Emigrate while you still can to a more civilized part of the world.
When Rome fell it wasn't a particularly swell place to be. Unless you had a look at anywhere else. You ought to have a look at Greece right now. Everything is covered with grafiti. Everything.
Wrong. You'll pay several times more out of pocket than an insurance company would pay, because of their quantity discounts. It is NOT a competitive free market or anything of the sort. It's monopolies all the way down, and they have the literal power of life and death over you, and they use it.
Yup. You'll be buying $800 band aids to pay for the 50 people who got sick without health care, because they wanted a choice. That's socialism. It's just 'feel good' socialism where you feel like a free wheeling loner that doesn't want to be told what to do.
He's also the guy who hits your car without auto insurance, even though the state mandates it. Ha ha, not his problem. The free wheeling individual decision making loner strikes again.
Funny you mention that because I did marry someone with health benefits, and I didn't really like her that much at the time. But to avoid paying $12,000 a year for health insurance...eh...I'm puckering up.
"Require you to buy some" is hardly an insurance plan.
I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance. This is to prevent dumbasses from not doing something they really have to do.
But I'm perfectly okay with people who want to make their own choices, as long as they accept the consequences of their choices. Which means if you waaah about not buying health insurance, then when you're sick or injured...you stay home and help yourself unless you can bring cash or a valid credit card with $50,000 available on it to the emergency room. After all, you're the one in charge making the decisions, and the one you made is basically to die or fall on the charity of others WHEN something happens to you. And by the way, I ain't in the mood to be your freaking charity.
The problem we have with the world today is everyone wants choices, but when the consequences show up its someone elses fault and they need a bailout.
If people hate the 'socialism' of medicine, then I hope they're not driving on the interstates, sending their kids to public school, and won't be accepting social security and medicare, neither of which you 'paid for', but which are paid to you by others as your tax dollars paid for your elders as you worked.
I'm 51 and have a couple of minor pre-existing conditions that I've resolved by losing a lot of weight gained after suffering a back injury. Even though I'm pretty healthy now, if I lost my current group health absolutely nobody would insure me at any price. Even a high deductible plan and HSA combined with a serious injury or illness would destroy my family finances pretty much for good.
So shall we all stop weinering about coming to the same damn conclusion that just about everyone else on the planet has? People are too stupid and shortsighted to buy health insurance, but you have to have it, since almost nobody can pay out of pocket for a major car accident, cancer or a heart attack.
You can still have your choice. Pack up and go live in the new mexico desert or the deep plains of wyoming, far from a hospital. I'm quite sure nobody will come to your camp and make you pay.
If you cant afford it, you get it for free or cheap. Same general idea as what Romney did in MA. So lets stop the stupid bickering and random shenanigans and get on with what we grown ups need to do, shall we?
Ehhh...and so we stay on the right side of the fence, voted republican until GW's second term, have voted for Mickey Mouse since.
I didn't care much about it until the ads started being animated, with sound, and in some cases you cant turn off either the video or the sound without muting your speakers. Then there came the ones that after you paused them would restart themselves in a few seconds, to give you time to scroll away from it. Because surely you turned it off in error?
Never bought anything because of an ad, never felt better about someone that I know sucks because of an ad, I just buy what looks good, at a good price, when I need it. Do most of my shopping at Costco where a giant team of experts has winnowed down my choices to the best, they take everything back for any reason, and I have very few customer service issues. If Costco doesn't have it, I buy 5 star items that are heavily reviewed at Amazon. Not perfect, but its a pretty good indicator, and they'll also take anything back.
I do wish many companies would take their advertising budget and plow it into customer service. I'm pretty sure outfits like directv, comcast, at&t and verizon who spend a gazillion dollars advertising and giving new customer discounts wouldn't need to bring in new customers as much if their customer service didn't suck dead donkey balls. Really dead, really big donkey balls.
And for what its worth after my long windy screed, I saw this morning that over 50 countries including the EU, Japan and China require GMO labeling on foods.
Perhaps its world wide hysteria, but when the freaking Chinese and Yugoslavian governments want this on a label, I think maybe we oughta consider it. Do note that few, if any, of those countries house the billion dollar companies behind genetically modified foods.
Really? There are 100s of laptops that have a 2840x 2160 resolution?
Yes, you're right. Different screen resolutions must be a major impediment to installing an operating system, since there are already only 50,000 of them.
Fanboys never cease to amaze me with what they think is critical.
I'm wringing my brain trying to remember anything that happened to me in the last 30 years where the resolution of the screen had much of anything to do with being able to get an operating system loaded.
I have an acer laptop from a few years ago. Runs current OSX just fine, as it has 100% of the exact same components that were in the macbook pro at the time, although curiously it also had a higher screen resolution than the macbook. The only difference was the manufacturer of screen and the case it was in. Price difference? About $1500.
When I've disassembled macs and macbooks, I'm usually surprised at how pedestrian the components are. I remember my first imac teardown...5400 rpm western digital drive, software modem instead of a hardware one (when that really mattered and many PC modems were hardware versions), kingston value ram...I thought I'd find a fancy disk drive, expensive ram and a nice hardware modem. Left me wondering why I paid $999 for it when a $500 windows machine had better parts in it.
I've also been able to hackintosh 100% of the machines I've attempted it on, without much difficulty. Occasionally a missing driver for network or video card, resolved with an inexpensive swap for another inexpensive component. All of them cheap home builts or super el cheapo laptops.
I figure people will be less willing to pay two grand for a commodity hardware platform now that the neophytes that buy them are aware that they really aren't 'virus proof' like Apple suggested for many years...or until someone puts that retina display laptop next to a 1200p one and realizes that they can't really tell the difference...at least not until the display hits about 40". That'll be some big laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to try and recover compromised machines until about 2 years ago. Thats when I realized that no matter what you do with a compromised disk...there could easily still be some nugget of stuff thats been encrypted where scanners wont find it. Then I heard a lot of the recovery experts saying the same thing...format it, better still toss the drive and start over...the 'nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure' method.
The mistake is to stick the drive in another running machine or an enclosure and try to read it with another machine. Good chance you might infect that one too. Best to burn media files to a dvd on the compromised machine, throw the rest away. Ideal, restore from a backup to a new drive.
Wow. My whole extended family uses Brother inkjets, and we buy the LC-61 ink carts for those for under $1 a cartridge, and even with 4 of them each being used by a lot of kids printing like crazy...we spend maybe $30 on ink for all four for a year. Its dirt cheap.
I mucked around with color lasers for a while, but while you could get them cheap with starter toner carts, the regular replacements cost more than I paid for four printers and a couple of years worth of ink!
Given that we're still paying a tax on our telephones that originated from the Spanish American War, I think we're taxed more than enough right now, thanks.
Plus it appears that fully 50% or more of my tax dollars goes to pork or horseshit that nobody cares about. Well, nobody that isn't a billionaire.
If it really does work, why not just put it on all call phones ant make it so that it can not be disabled.
Seriously, the number of people that I see looking at their crotch while driving is staggering.
It doesn't matter if it works. If you take that distraction away, people will turn to another. The accident rate per driver per mile has remained almost exactly the same since 1990, year on year. It did improve up until that point, probably due to better tires, suspension, brakes and seat belts, but its stayed within a few places to the right of the decimal point since.
A lot has changed in that time in terms of the introduction of cell phones, the crackdown on drunk driving, etc. Yet it appears that none of that made any difference in the accident rate. I remember driving and walking around in the 60's, 70's and 80's. The same sort of distracted driving issues existed then, without phones and without texting. We used to complain about someones age, their sex, nationality, etc as the reason why they were a crappy driver. I guess complaining about cell phones is more socially acceptable.
My take on that is that a) you won't change peoples nature by introducing law, b) cell phones must have replaced other distractions, since their introduction didn't even make the accident rate hiccup in the slightest, c) we always had some sort of distraction to take away from the boredom of careening down the street in a 2 ton killing machine.
To be fair, I don't believe that looking at a little piece of plastic in your lap is a good idea while driving, but it doesn't seem to matter much as far as accident rates.
Well shoot, I just learned why my marriage sucks. :)
I'm of the opinion that he was using something that didn't show up, and probably only marginally helped him. His throwing in the towel means they'll stop looking at him and he can take the high road. Well, perhaps a less high road.
Of course, we could also fix all of this by simply changing the way hospitals work. No shirt, no shoes, no insurance, no cash...eh...turn around and take a hike.
I can agree with that. The hospitals should not be forced to pay for people. They can if they choose to but they should not be forced to.
It is kind of ridiculous some of the regulation governments create. I was talking to a friend in Arizona who works in a hospital. He said that it was illegal for them to report illegal immigrants to immigration when they come to the hospital. Apparently, the government doesn't want illegals to be discourage from getting the care they need. Of course, the hospital does not get paid for the expense of treating them so the hospital has to push the cost on those that pay through increased prices.
Its probably worth pointing out that at no point during a hospital admission, treatment and through discharge does any hospital attempt to determine the legal status of any patient with regards to whether they're an american citizen or not.
Some border area hospitals are overwhelmed with what constitutes the local citizenry...illegal aliens. But most are not even mildly affected by the 'problem', and absolutely zero even marginally acceptable statistics are available...only guesses. Again, the wife has worked in a variety of hospitals in California and such determination is never made.
But I'll tell a funny story...her last job was at an area hospital in a rural area with primarily fruit and nut farms. Plenty of "migrant workers". Not too many of them ever showed up to the emergency room hung over, strung out and with the flu claiming they were about to die. Opinion of the woman who ran the department that processed the billing? The likely "immigrant" folks were more likely to pay their bills or at least try to pay them than the local, legal scumbags. By a wide margin.
Oh, and those folks also made your Sunsweet prunes and bags of walnuts a lot cheaper.
We local legals are used to passing the bill onto someone else for our choices. See the current mortgage fiasco for a big shining example of that. I'm a moron for buying a house I could afford, at a price that represented a decent value, and paid it off. I wish I'd bought a million dollar house with a 110% mortage and got a bailout for half of it. That would have made more sense.
So, for a sufficiently large value of "X", X liars can trump science?
I hope this standard never propagates into criminal law.
We have this standard in criminal law today, and its a mainstay. Witness testimony is among the worst source of information on earth. If 10 people see something, all ten will have a different story, the story will change on its own over time, and influences to the witness can also change testimony.
Yet with a couple of people saying they saw you do something, even if all other scientific evidence says otherwise...guess where you're going.
Lance won and kept winning even against younger, superior talent. Something isn't right there. At his age, response time, peripheral vision and quickness just arent what they were 15-20 years ago.
Plus when you throw in the towel, it means you don't care or the allegations are correct. I doubt that he doesn't care.
Anyone else ever been in a situation where you knew you were right, had the evidence mostly on your side, and give up? Yeah, me neither.
I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance
One of the key arguments against that section of the affordable care act is that as you say, the states do it. Only the states previously had the authority to make people do something like that under their power to police. The federal government had never done something like that.
I don't care who does it. It needs to happen. Since only a couple of states have made more than middling advances in this regard, then the feds need to step in and work it.
In the meanwhile, check into the states that allow medical marijuana, only to have the feds rappel in from helicopters to arrest and destroy property. So you see, the feds are already trumping the states. Its not something that has never been done. In fact, thats worse because the feds are overriding state authority, the will of the people and real legislation with their own. Many states could make a nice crop out of hemp and would like to, but the feds don't want anyone hiding their pot plants in the mix and making that helicopter work more complicated. The feds also made alcohol illegal a while back, against many serious state objections. So "never" as it turns out is a pretty short time.
The only people I can think of at the state level that are objecting to this are the republican states, and they're only doing it to fight the other guy thats in office. I don't give a crap about that. I want cheap available health care for everyone, and I'd like to stop paying five figures for it because I'm supporting 3-4 other peoples 'choices'.
You can make all the peripheral arguments you want, but what we have wasn't working 5, 10 or 15 years ago and its even more expensive and stupid now.
If the states all had workable plans in place or in motion, and the feds were going to slop over that with something worse or more expensive, I'd have your back.
Hope you didn't think you'd get much out of your car insurance company. Well, they might look for your missing leg for a few minutes.
Actually, chances are it will be the cement truck's insurance that pays up for that situation.
And then our insurance rates or cement prices still go up, and you're still looking for someone else to pay through some circuitous route where the costs will be magnified considerably, while providing worse care than pretty much every other 1st world country in the world.
I guess it'd really stick out more if our education system didn't stink to high heaven as well. We're made used to live with expensive mediocrity and a lot of middlemen holding out their hands.
How about some other examples. How about if you slip out of your own boat and are chewed up by the prop? How about you're walking across the street and a hit and run driver cleans you out, never to be seen again. How about you slip off a ladder and break your leg?
C'mon man, lets at least be creative with our objections. A hundred things can happen to anyone every day that'll send you to the emergency room.
Wrong. *NO* state requires you to buy auto insurance by itself. They require that *IF* you by a car AND drive it, you have insurance.
If you don't own a car, you don't need auto insurance.
Okay then, if you want to make that distinction, if you're not alive then you don't need health insurance. Okay?
There is a condition and people can (and do) weigh the cost of insurance when purchasing a vehicle.
With the "Require you to buy it" health care bill, there is no way to opt out. You can't say "I can't afford the insurance so I'll ride a bike, or take the bus instead".
This would be a simpler discussion if people would educate themselves in the area of discussion vs looking for the easy out. I've yet to see a plan where indigent or people in the lower income classes are required to pay much, if anything at all. So the rest of your argument is invalid. Sorry.
Agree that it'll be better once we get rid of the health insurance companies altogether.
Well, some of the thing you mentioned can be done privately. My point was that by not accepting the public services you are putting yourself at an even greater economic disadvantage than if the public services did not exist at all because you pay at least partially for them even if you don't use them. Even if you did not pay into them, if everyone else is taking advantage of them, the baseline changes. Rather being economically level with everyone else in the same situation, you would instead be economically lower than everyone else in the same situation.
The real problem with services becoming publicly run rather than privately run is that it implicitly gives the government the right to dictate all your actions that deal with the offered services. For example, if the government pays for everyone's healthcare, it gives the government the right to decided what you are allowed to eat, how much you are allowed to eat, how much you exercise, the kind of exercise you do, where you spend you time, and what medications and treatments you will take. If a company does something you are against, you go to a competing company. If the government does something you are against, what immediate options do you have? Sure you can vote but even if the vote is successful, you are being forced for the time being. I prefer to have more freedom over a bigger safety net. The problem is that the government seems to be getting steadily bigger.
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Bottom line is what we have doesn't work. Our backup quarterback might look Tebow-ish, but its time to put him in.
My idea of freedom is not paying for other peoples medical bills because they refuse to carry insurance when they should.
Of course, we could also fix all of this by simply changing the way hospitals work. No shirt, no shoes, no insurance, no cash...eh...turn around and take a hike.
For years, absolutely nobody has maintained that CPUs have little impact on gaming performance; all you need is a god-tier video card setup, and a game engine that magically handles everything via GPU.
There, I fixed it.
Seriously, this has to be the most nonsensical Slashdot summary I've read all day. CPU hasn't been a minor factor in gaming for several gaming aeons now, and there are no shortage of games that are critically dependent on it (Hi, Skyrim!).
Check out your favorite hot deals web site. The mantra is a celeron or any old amd chip made in the last 5 years plus a solid gpu = goodness. I coiuld point you to dozens of threads where this is the defacto standard.
But thats what you get when you combine cheap with minimal knowledge. Eventually everyone becomes convinced that its true.
Car and house insurance are there to cover your liabilities to OTHER people. The latter is the result of you entering into a contract with a bank. The former is a miserable stupid failure and is really no great argument in favor of the state forcing you to buy insurance.
Plus IT IS THE STATE. That little detail really does matter. There are some things that states get to do that the feds don't. That's how the rules were set up.
Ignoring the rules is just stupid and the Congress should no more be above the law than you should be.
Ah, another one. Your health care is also to cover your liabilities to other people, since you'll just go to the emergency room when you're sick or hurt, get treated, stiff them on the bill because you cant afford it, and then everyone who does have insurance ends up paying for your treatment.
The company that loaned you money on the car feels you're likely to be too dumb to buy car insurance, so they'll get stuck with the bill. Same with your mortgage company.
Now, if you smash up your car and don't pay for it, you'll get a mechanics lien on you. He won't charge other people extra to make up for it. Oh, and try canceling your homeowners policy sometime while on a mortgage. Go ahead...I'll wait...
If people hate the 'socialism' of medicine, then I hope they're not driving on the interstates, sending their kids to public school, and won't be accepting social security and medicare, neither of which you 'paid for', but which are paid to you by others as your tax dollars paid for your elders as you worked.
If they are going to be forced to pay taxes anyway, why not? The government isn't going to give you back what you did pay in (through taxes) if you don't use it. Also, I doubt any private business is going to build a fee-based, nation-wide interstate when everyone is just going to use the interstate their taxes are already paying for.
Thanks much for proving my point. Some things are too stupid to do privately or all by ourselves. We have to do it together, for all of us. Even the dummies that are willing to take a chance without it, but will not hesitate to show up at the emergency room, get treated, and not pay the huge bill because they can't. Then I have to pay it for them when I pay my insurance payments, because its a zero sum game.
The thing is...years ago if you got sick or hurt and didn't have insurance, you stayed home with your family. The emergency rooms weren't lined with people with no insurance and no ability to pay. But people figured out that a hospital will treat you even if you cant afford to pay, so now they want the choice to stick me with their bill.
Eh...my choice is to say no.
You fail at logic. You think that it is OK for people to have a "choice" to not buy insurance and must live with the consequences, but note that you would not be able to buy insurance if you lost your current coverage.
Yes, perfectly healthy people below age 50 may have a choice. Many others, who don't have a perfect history of health don't actually have a choice if they lost their current insurance. You admit that you are in this position.
So, yes, many people have a choice to not buy insurance. Unfortunately, many others do not have a choice to buy insurance.
Lots of people get cancer, have heart attacks and suffer serious accidental injuries under 50 years old, so I'm afraid you're the one that fails at logic.
As long as you're going to stay home when that happens, I'm good with you having a choice.
Since as I mentioned, most people are idiots who wouldn't buy car or home insurance if they weren't compelled to do so, sounds like I'll have to lump you in with that group.
Expect more large increases due to Obamacare.
I don't know why that would be the case, since every other country with universal health care managed to reduce costs. Of course, you cant have your second liver transplant when you're an alcoholic, and 102 year old aunt sally probably isn't going to get a new hip either.
Of course, we may become the first to spend more on universal health care, considering we'll probably let the insurance companies write the rules.
My wife works in an end of life care facility, where people who have no idea who or where they are (if they're even conscious) are kept alive for years so the family can visit. The vast majority of health care costs are spent in the last year of the patients life...which means whatever was done didn't work. Hundreds of thousands a year per patient.
My wife has a very soft heart, but even she says that people have to get used to the idea that there is an end to every life, and pretty much none of the crap you see on television doctor shows is actually feasible. Think of the last time you watched some show where some kid says "Oh, hold on for 2 seconds while I hack into an NSA satellite and make it zoom in on the bad guys escape attempt!" and you slapped yourself in the head, because even the NSA can't do that in 5 seconds? Yeah, its like that.
Shoot...CPR doesn't work about 80% of the time, yet most people think you can fish someone out of a pond after they've been underwater for 5 minutes and you'll have a serious chance of reviving them. So your chances of someone coming out of a coma or recovering from massive injuries or degenerative conditions is almost nil.
So I think if people all got a minimum level of help that was reasonable considering their age and physical condition, and were able to spend whatever they wanted out of their own pocket to follow their heart...great...but I'm pretty sure my wife would be working in a nearly empty facility if that were to happen.
My health plan is to avoid getting sick.
I wouldn't do that long-term, though. I'm only temporarily contracting and start a full time job with insurance benefits in two weeks.
That'll work pretty well until a guy in a cement truck falls asleep behind the wheel and rear ends you. Hope you didn't think you'd get much out of your car insurance company. Well, they might look for your missing leg for a few minutes.
I wish I had mod points. I had a chat a little while ago with some folks very excited about their natural soda pop. They really don't get it, do they?
If your young, fit and trying make it the US might be the place for you. When you insurance is telling you that you are (actuarially speaking) no longer young or fit and your bank is telling you you haven't made it, it's time to get the hell out of Dodge. Emigrate while you still can to a more civilized part of the world.
When Rome fell it wasn't a particularly swell place to be. Unless you had a look at anywhere else. You ought to have a look at Greece right now. Everything is covered with grafiti. Everything.
Wrong. You'll pay several times more out of pocket than an insurance company would pay, because of their quantity discounts. It is NOT a competitive free market or anything of the sort. It's monopolies all the way down, and they have the literal power of life and death over you, and they use it.
Yup. You'll be buying $800 band aids to pay for the 50 people who got sick without health care, because they wanted a choice. That's socialism. It's just 'feel good' socialism where you feel like a free wheeling loner that doesn't want to be told what to do.
He's also the guy who hits your car without auto insurance, even though the state mandates it. Ha ha, not his problem. The free wheeling individual decision making loner strikes again.
Funny you mention that because I did marry someone with health benefits, and I didn't really like her that much at the time. But to avoid paying $12,000 a year for health insurance...eh...I'm puckering up.
"Require you to buy some" is hardly an insurance plan.
I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance. This is to prevent dumbasses from not doing something they really have to do.
But I'm perfectly okay with people who want to make their own choices, as long as they accept the consequences of their choices. Which means if you waaah about not buying health insurance, then when you're sick or injured...you stay home and help yourself unless you can bring cash or a valid credit card with $50,000 available on it to the emergency room. After all, you're the one in charge making the decisions, and the one you made is basically to die or fall on the charity of others WHEN something happens to you. And by the way, I ain't in the mood to be your freaking charity.
The problem we have with the world today is everyone wants choices, but when the consequences show up its someone elses fault and they need a bailout.
If people hate the 'socialism' of medicine, then I hope they're not driving on the interstates, sending their kids to public school, and won't be accepting social security and medicare, neither of which you 'paid for', but which are paid to you by others as your tax dollars paid for your elders as you worked.
I'm 51 and have a couple of minor pre-existing conditions that I've resolved by losing a lot of weight gained after suffering a back injury. Even though I'm pretty healthy now, if I lost my current group health absolutely nobody would insure me at any price. Even a high deductible plan and HSA combined with a serious injury or illness would destroy my family finances pretty much for good.
So shall we all stop weinering about coming to the same damn conclusion that just about everyone else on the planet has? People are too stupid and shortsighted to buy health insurance, but you have to have it, since almost nobody can pay out of pocket for a major car accident, cancer or a heart attack.
You can still have your choice. Pack up and go live in the new mexico desert or the deep plains of wyoming, far from a hospital. I'm quite sure nobody will come to your camp and make you pay.
If you cant afford it, you get it for free or cheap. Same general idea as what Romney did in MA. So lets stop the stupid bickering and random shenanigans and get on with what we grown ups need to do, shall we?
Ehhh...and so we stay on the right side of the fence, voted republican until GW's second term, have voted for Mickey Mouse since.
I didn't care much about it until the ads started being animated, with sound, and in some cases you cant turn off either the video or the sound without muting your speakers. Then there came the ones that after you paused them would restart themselves in a few seconds, to give you time to scroll away from it. Because surely you turned it off in error?
Never bought anything because of an ad, never felt better about someone that I know sucks because of an ad, I just buy what looks good, at a good price, when I need it. Do most of my shopping at Costco where a giant team of experts has winnowed down my choices to the best, they take everything back for any reason, and I have very few customer service issues. If Costco doesn't have it, I buy 5 star items that are heavily reviewed at Amazon. Not perfect, but its a pretty good indicator, and they'll also take anything back.
I do wish many companies would take their advertising budget and plow it into customer service. I'm pretty sure outfits like directv, comcast, at&t and verizon who spend a gazillion dollars advertising and giving new customer discounts wouldn't need to bring in new customers as much if their customer service didn't suck dead donkey balls. Really dead, really big donkey balls.
And for what its worth after my long windy screed, I saw this morning that over 50 countries including the EU, Japan and China require GMO labeling on foods.
Perhaps its world wide hysteria, but when the freaking Chinese and Yugoslavian governments want this on a label, I think maybe we oughta consider it. Do note that few, if any, of those countries house the billion dollar companies behind genetically modified foods.
Really? There are 100s of laptops that have a 2840x 2160 resolution?
Yes, you're right. Different screen resolutions must be a major impediment to installing an operating system, since there are already only 50,000 of them.
Fanboys never cease to amaze me with what they think is critical.
I'm wringing my brain trying to remember anything that happened to me in the last 30 years where the resolution of the screen had much of anything to do with being able to get an operating system loaded.
I have an acer laptop from a few years ago. Runs current OSX just fine, as it has 100% of the exact same components that were in the macbook pro at the time, although curiously it also had a higher screen resolution than the macbook. The only difference was the manufacturer of screen and the case it was in. Price difference? About $1500.
When I've disassembled macs and macbooks, I'm usually surprised at how pedestrian the components are. I remember my first imac teardown...5400 rpm western digital drive, software modem instead of a hardware one (when that really mattered and many PC modems were hardware versions), kingston value ram...I thought I'd find a fancy disk drive, expensive ram and a nice hardware modem. Left me wondering why I paid $999 for it when a $500 windows machine had better parts in it.
I've also been able to hackintosh 100% of the machines I've attempted it on, without much difficulty. Occasionally a missing driver for network or video card, resolved with an inexpensive swap for another inexpensive component. All of them cheap home builts or super el cheapo laptops.
I figure people will be less willing to pay two grand for a commodity hardware platform now that the neophytes that buy them are aware that they really aren't 'virus proof' like Apple suggested for many years...or until someone puts that retina display laptop next to a 1200p one and realizes that they can't really tell the difference...at least not until the display hits about 40". That'll be some big laptop.